Are You Digital Enough?

A recent global survey by McKinsey & Co. shows that CEO’s and other C-suite business leaders worldwide are more engaged in digital projects.  While that may not be surprising, what is noteworthy is that employee engagement is among the top five digital goals executives have on their radar.

Management also cited “difficulty finding functional talent” as one of the major impediments to achieving business objectives when it comes to digital programs.

The survey found that 65% of CEOs plan to pursue more digital projects in the coming year, suggesting that Human Resources needs to step up its game when it comes to recruiting, employing and retaining technical talent from developers and IT specialists to digital marketing and recruiting professionals. Yet only one-third believe they are spending enough on digital, and worry that they are under-investing.

The message for HR is very clear. In order to help your organization achieve its objectives, you need to get out in front of the need for digital talent and invest in the tools it will take to engage and measure the performance of your workforce. In a strange way, those two goals play off one another.

By investing in the systems that will help you engage your employees, you will also be more effective in attracting the kind of digital talent you seek. The digerati are, by definition, very discerning when it comes to technology. If your corporate careers Web site isn’t up to snuff, or you have no mobile site (or the one you have is less than optimal), or your application process makes the DMV look like fun in comparison, you won’t be very appealing to the very people you need.

Don’t know where to start? Begin by making it a priority, and then go to events such as the HR Tech conference coming up in two weeks in Las Vegas. Digital is no longer an option, or a way of doing business – it is how business gets done in today’s world.

What Those Wal*Mart TV Spots Say About Employer Brands

You may have seen some of these "person on the street" spots for Wal*Mart, where a spokesperson asks passersby questions about an employer (which turns out, of course, to be Wal*Mart).

They ask questions such as, "Which employer gives quarterly bonuses, even to part-time workers?" The public, of course, is surprised to learn that the benevolent employer is Wal*Mart. The biggest-box retailer has received a lot of negative press about its employment policies in recent years, and was featured in the best-selling "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich, a book about how difficult it is to live on minimum wage in the U.S.

The lesson these spots teach us about employer brands is that employer brands matter. Wal*Mart is a multi-billion dollar global corporation, but they are known for watching their pennies. The fact that they would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars producing these spots (and, trust me, given the production values, the spots are in that range) says that management in Bentonville is concerned about how they are perceived on Main Street. Surveys done by Edelmann Worldwide corroborate those fears - how an organization treats its employees is one of the top criteria investors use to evaluate equities and one of the top three consumers use when selecting a vendor.

We have seen similar campaigns from McDonald's in the past, for much the same reason. That company even sued to have the slang term "McJob" removed from the Oxford English Dictionary because it was a pejorative that played on the burger chain's name.

So the next time someone in your organization questions whether or not the employer brand is important, share this blog with them. Ask them why large corporations would spend lots of money trying to improve their images as employers if it wasn't important to the bottom line.

Put Yourself in the Candidate's Position

When I went through my brand training, we were taught an exercise called, “The Customer’s Soliloquy.” In it, brand managers and agency types were asked to imagine the mindset of the customer. What does she dream of? What are her fears? Is she hopeful? Scared?

   The point of the exercise was to try to see the brand category and the brand from the customer’s point of view. I have adapted it to become “The Candidate’s Soliloquy” so that employers can begin to understand what motivates or demoralizes their workers and candidates.

   The first place to start is with how you describe your opportunities. To describe them well, you need to think about the people who will be reading them— the candidates. So here are the questions to the Candidate’s Soliloquy to help you do just that.

• What are my dreams?
  What do I want to do in life? Where do I see myself in a couple of years? This portion of the soliloquy is not all self-centered, especially among younger workers. It is also appropriate to ask, “What are my dreams for society? How will this job impact those?”
• What are my fears?
  What keeps me up at night? What am I afraid of (particularly when it comes to looking for a new job)? What keeps me from leaving the job I have (and hate)?
• What do I want to do?
  I know my profession— how will I be applying it on this job? What unique challenges are there? How will I grow or gain new skills or have new experiences that will make me more valuable in the marketplace?
• What’s in it for me?
  What will I get if I apply for this job? Why should I take the time to do that? What will I get if I GET this job? Why is that better than what I have now?

As you work through these questions, try to go beyond the obvious answers. For the second question, for example, today many people are afraid of being unemployed. That’s an obvious answer to this question. But there are other, even more powerful fears candidates wrestle with: What if I don’t like my new boss? What if this new job isn’t right for me? What if this employer isn’t what it claims to be?

   Answer the obvious— and not so obvious— questions to put yourself in the candidate’s place. Then read your job descriptions on your careers Web site or in your job postings. What could be improved?

You Can Take the Girl Out of Google...

Marissa Mayer's ban on working from home fits right in with the culture where she used to work.

A client of mine once described the Google culture as the "re-creation of the campus experience." It was a very apt observation. If you have ever been to Google, the first impression is that you're back in your old student union. Young people rushing every which way, notices for roommates and cars for sale posted on the walls, the occasional pet dog walking through, and so on.

And then there are the perq's - free food, on-site dry cleaners, auto mechanics and detailers, gyms, etc. Who wouldn't want to work there?

Well, as it turns out, people who want to have a life. Several recruiters have told me that they can pull people out of Google with relative ease once those people are tired of being "on" 24/7 and want some time for their families, significant others, or even just themselves. Typically, those people are older (mid-thirties plus) than the typical Googler.

Now Marissa Mayer - formerly of Google, now CEO of YAHOO - has announced an end to "work at home" schedules, effective in June. She cites the need for collaboration that only a physical presence can provide. The Twittersphere is in an uproar.

Some claim the ban is a setback for women's rights. Others point out that Mayer herself took only two weeks for maternity leave, supposedly a sign of her anti-family bias. Some say she doesn't get the idea of connected world. The cynics say it is an easy way to reduce headcount, by having all those who want to work from home leave YAHOO voluntarily (saving the company a boatload in severance costs).

I will withhold judgment. I think Mayer's argument about collaboration has some merit, but I also agree that an outright ban on remote working is draconian. There has to be a "happy medium" that allows employees to work from home and still have a presence at work that helps the employer achieve its goals. A year from now - long after working from home at YAHOO has been banned - we will begin to see if the company is more innovative. Or less.

I do believe, however, that Mayer is mistaken in trying to replicate the Google culture at YAHOO. It's like transplanting human organs - the host will almost always reject the transplant because the DNA is different. While YAHOO doesn't have the cachet that Google does as an employer, trying to force the employees to copy their more successful competitor up the highway is doomed.

Ironically, Mayer's announcement shows a lack of original thinking on her part. OK, let's stipulate that YAHOO is not as innovative as Google. And let's also say that Mayer is frustrated by the slow pace of change in the organization since she took over last July. Given that a significant percentage of employees work from home, does it make sense that eliminating what many - if not most - people consider a perq will inspire your employees to higher levels of innovation? Does weeding out the work-at-home staff necessarily improve the caliber of the cube dwellers? Was there absolutely no other way within the parameters of the YAHOO culture to get people to be more creative?

It is surprising that such a brilliant executive as Mayer made such an unoriginal move. Hopefully, she and YAHOO will recover.

What Do Great Employers Have in Common?

What Do Great Employers Have in Common?

Whether it's high tech or high fashion, healthcare or software, the best places to work share a common trait.

If you read any of the articles about the most desirable places to work, you will find a wide variety of employers. Google is there along with Wegman's grocery stores. Apple shares a roster with Baptist Health.

They all hire different types of people, with completely different skills, using different processes and myriad tools. So the common element of greatness is not dependent on the talent or the tools these employers use to find and keep the best and brightest.

Social media is gaining popularity with many employers and job seekers, but even that is not found in every example. Apple, for one, is notoriously secretive and discourages social media use among its employees.

Give up?

The common trait all great employers share is that each of them has a great story.

Facebook has a story so compelling they already made a movie about it ("The Social Network"). Apple has the story of the two "Steves" - Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak - who sold a VW bus and took on IBM in the early 80s. And, yes, they're in production on that movie, too.

Google? Sergei Brin and Larry Page, two Stanford grad students, develop a better algorithm for searching the Web and become billionaires overnight, then create an corporate environment that resembles a student union more than publicly-traded company.

The Nike story about Phil Knight making his first pair running shoes using a household waffle iron is mythic in athletic circles.

I could go on, but you get the idea. And the importance of stories is that they give people something in which to believe. Without them, people lack inspiration. They begin to work for the money, which makes them mercenary and frustrated because they lack greater meaning in their lives.

Bookmark this blog if you want to learn more about the importance of stories to attracting, hiring, and retaining the best talent. The proliferation of channels has made it paramount for employers to understand their stories and how those stories play out on the various platforms, e.g., Facebook, career Web sites, Twitter, Google+. and even antediluvian print (which Google is a master at using).