An “employer brand” denotes an organization’s reputation as an employer – the image of an organization as “a great place to work.”  Employer branding is the process of creating this image.

In an article titled “Mission: Brand Alignment,” HRO Today explores how employer branding aligned with a company’s corporate or product brand can produce great business results.

Linking salient corporate/product brand elements with your employer branding strategy gives an organization the ability to communicate the employer brand to various talent segments – candidate prospects, and current and former employees – across the business.

Many HR groups within organizations are realizing that an effective brand strategy can enhance their talent acquisition efforts.  Signaling your company message on several levels can resonate with job candidates.

Consequently, just as marketing executives leverage a wide variety of tactics and initiatives to drive awareness for product portfolios, many successful HR leaders are taking advantage of various branding elements traditionally found in a marketer’s toolbox.

Where to Start? Compare & Understand

One of the first steps toward aligning your employer brand with your product or corporate brand is to have an open and honest assessment of what your brand really stands for and means. One method that marketers use — in order to achieve a deeper understanding of essence — is to perform a brand alignment analysis.

Source and Attract

As you source and attract candidates in the early stages, one of the goals is to make sure that the different vehicles you utilize, such as job postings, employment advertisements, career portals, recruitment videos, social media, word-of-mouth and other tactics, reinforce your employer brand positioning and messaging.

Employer Branding Alignment Tips

• Collaboration between HR and Marketing is critical.  Learn what aspects of your corporate or product brand will translate well to your employer brand strategy. Many organizations are tasking marketing professionals to head their employer branding efforts and bridge the gap between the two functional areas.
• Focus more on brand engagement over brand communications. This is especially true when designing an employer branding program during your onboarding and employment stages. Think about the influencing and net promoter type brand attributes you can harness from an engaged group of employees. Dialogue and engagement are more powerful and relevant during this stage compared to monologue messaging.
• Assess all candidate touch points. Your employer brand reaches prospective candidates at many intersections. Make sure you’ve identified all of them and that your employer brand messaging is clear and relevant at each juncture.

And a word of caution: don’t assume that just because candidates easily identify with a great product brand that they will assume it’s also a great organization to be employed with.  The burden of proof is on the employer.

“Female leadership systematically underestimated” is from Human Capital Magazine, Australia’s first magazine targeted at senior human resource professionals and top corporate decision-makers.

According to the article, contrary to popular belief and even previous studies, researchers have discovered women may actually outperform in areas traditionally considered to be the domain of men.

The findings were arrived at by Utah-based leadership consultancy firm Zenger Folkman after surveying more than 7,000 business leaders. It was found that across 16 core competencies, the leaders who were consistently found to come out on top were all women. Their skills included:

• Inspirational leadership
• Motivating and developing others
• Building relationships
• Collaboration and teamwork

The researchers found that while stereotypes have assumed that men are stronger in driving for results, championing change, taking initiative, and problem solving, women actually received higher scores on all those points than did their male counterparts.

Women vs. Men

“Study Finds Few Differences Between Men and Women Business Leaders” is from Roxanne Joffe, president of CAP Brand Marketing of Sarasota, Fla.

According to Joffe, despite a long-held myth to the contrary, women business leaders are as successful as men in starting new high tech companies.  Here’s why:

The stereotypical entrepreneur – particularly the Silicon Valley version – is a 20-something, single white male who dropped out of college to work 24/7 and take enormous risks for a shot at becoming the next Mark Zuckerberg.

Women entrepreneurs, on the other hand, are thought to be overrepresented in “lifestyle” industries and more focused on raising families than founding the next Facebook.

A study of more than 600 start-up founders and 500+ fast-growth companies published in TechCrunch deflates these myths. Entrepreneur-turned-academic Vivek Wadhwa and his team studied both men and women business leaders and their companies and found the following:

• Men and women start-up founders are motivated by the same goals – both men and women business leaders are driven by a desire to build wealth, chart their own destinies and capitalize on their business ideas.
• Men and women business leaders largely share life circumstances.  Wadhwa found that most entrepreneurs are closer to 40 than 20 when founding their companies and that most are married with children. Men were slightly more likely than women to be married.

However, Wadhwa’s team did discover some interesting differences about the business climate in which male and female entrepreneurs operate:

• Women business leaders receive more encouragement from co-founders.  According to the research, women entrepreneurs were significantly more likely than men to report that their co-founders urged them to enter into a partnership to launch a new business.
• Women start-up founders are more likely to cite a role model.  Women entrepreneurs more often reported being inspired by an entrepreneurial friend or family member than their male counterparts.

Let us know what you think by commenting below.

The Global Human Resources Outsourcing (GHRO) team would like to know the answers to these and related questions, so we’re sharing a discussion of the issue, which is on the agenda at The HRO Today Forum, currently taking place in Washington, D.C. at the Gaylord National.

“A Workforce Congress: Insourcing, Outsourcing, & Job Creation” is the title of a panel headed up by Richard Crespin, Global Executive Director of the HR Outsourcing Association (HROA).

Free markets contrast with controlled markets in which prices, supply or demand is directly controlled.

In a recession, existing businesses shed jobs in an effort to cut costs and hoard cash for the lean months ahead, Crespin argues.  As the economy recovers, they start to add these jobs back.  It’s “economic churn,” not new economic growth.

To move the conversation beyond economic churn, the HROA convened HR Officers from large and small companies to discuss how to can create a more competitive workforce for companies, for America, and for the world.

The HROA also hosted a debate on “Is outsourcing good for America?”  This debate directly takes on the question of whether the free market’s creative destruction creates more than it destroys.

Oligopoly is at the heart of the counter-argument about the free markets concept.  The term “free market” itself reflects an idealized mathematical notion of how people behave, in that the emergent prices are a natural “push and pull” of supply and demand. In economic theory this is called “perfect competition,” because it occurs only when there are a large number of customers and a large number of suppliers in a market for goods which are optional purchases. In a perfectly competitive market, the ideals of a free market essentially exist. This was the economic theory of the 1960s to 1980s.

What’s happening now? The current trend in economics observes that big markets rarely operate in this perfect competition – because human beings are conscious of markets, they seek profits, they shut out competitors, and they corner markets as monopolies and oligopolies.  The result: fewer jobs all around.

Let us know what you think by commenting below.

Skinner’s recommendations get the “Good Job Hunting Seal of Approval” from the Global Human Resources Outsourcing (GHRO) team.

Organizations seeking to hire top talent now have the responsibility for owning their online career advertising presence through syndication and one-to-one engagement via social media, notably Facebook and LinkedIn. A savvy organization, employing social media intelligently, can quickly get in front of highly targeted passive talent. For instance, setting up an employment page on Facebook means that every time a new opening posts to the page, it will display in all fans’ home feeds.

Old job boards are boring. They’re one-way, mass communication devices largely bereft of personalization and interactivity, attractive only to the most desperate of job seekers.

“Old-think” job boards are on the wrong side of history. But job boards are anything but becoming extinct. “New-think” boards just look a lot different from their predecessors.

Simply Hired and other job boards fall under the category of aggregators. These, along with Monster, are large boards that display job ads pertaining to as many industries as possible. Their scope is national, even international, and they have countless regional counterparts.

Then there are the niche job boards—narrowly focused on single industries, professions, or needs. For example, this category includes FlexJobs, which posts to its board only jobs that are work-from-home friendly—a larger and more dynamic constellation of jobs than conventional wisdom might suggest.

The future of job boards requires that they integrate social media, help hiring companies leverage search engine marketing to optimize postings for a longer shelf life, and build a talent community wherein they help candidates grow and evolve in their jobs.

Managers of the job boards that will flourish must understand that they reside at a confluence of variables, all exerting an influence on the changing nature of the job hunt. These factors include employer brand, job seeker engagement, search engine-driven sourcing and more.

In the end, they’re all seeking the Good Job Hunting Seal of Approval.

In a 2011 Reppler survey about how recruiters use social networks to screen candidates, 91 percent of the respondents claimed they have visited a potential candidate’s profile on a social network as part of the screening process.  But why?  With all the tweets, status updates and comments, it’s unavoidable for any social job seeker not to be searchable in some way.

With social media, it’s possible to learn more about a job seeker than what is on his or her resume, giving recruiters and hiring managers more insight into the behaviors and personal lives of their candidates.
According to Eric Meyer, partner in the labor and employment group at Dilworth Paxson LLP, “Businesses and recruiters want to know as much as they can about a person who they may give a job offer.  But the real purpose behind screening is to make sure the person you’re hiring doesn’t have any red flags that would make them a bad fit or a potential liability for the business.”

When it comes to commenting, posting photos or sharing status updates, we don’t typically update our social media profiles with recruiters in mind.  Instead, we post things that are relevant to our lives, interests and personalities, giving recruiters a clearer picture of the person behind the resume.

Tips for Job Seekers

For recruiters and hiring managers who choose to look up candidates online, it’s likely that what they find will also shape their first impression of that person.

“Perception is reality in the business world,” says Amy Henderson, account executive with Technisource, part of Randstad Technologies. “The way people perceive you online, through social media—that’s what they use to make first impressions.  And those first impressions are lasting impressions.”

And even with privacy restrictions set up on social networking sites like Facebook, it doesn’t mean an employer won’t take extra steps to get a look at what’s behind those privacy restrictions, even if that means bluntly asking a job candidate for his or her login information.

But by requiring login credentials for candidates’ social media profiles, employers run the risk of losing top talent due to a perceived lack of trust.

Connect with Jennifer on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenniferking1. And check out her post on Employee Performance Evaluation Software.

The answer may lie in the health care reform law.  One revision to the Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to provide unpaid, “reasonable break time” and a place, other than a restroom, that is “shielded from view and free from intrusion” to allow new moms to pump breast milk.  This provision covers all workers subject to overtime-pay requirements and lasts up to one year after the baby is born.  It also provides reasonable workplace policies beyond maternity leave to help new mothers balance career and family.

Remember, except for the 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave mandated by federal law, many new mothers either can’t afford to take more time off or aren’t permitted to by their employers. Reasonably accommodating nursing mothers meets them in the middle by allowing them to work without giving up breastfeeding.  Not to mention, mom-friendly HR policies are sure to increase employee morale and retention after maternity leave!

According to an article in Federal Computer Week, outside contractors have proved a long-indispensible government resource.  Outsourcing allows the government to perform work beyond its typical staffing, equipment, or monetary resources. It also creates a more efficient government through reduced costs and increased productivity.  In a time of budgetary concerns, outsourcing may be the only way the public sector, and even small private-sector businesses, can maintain necessary service levels.

Cost-savings occurs, in part, because contractors cost less than permanent employees.  Last year, USA Today reported that government employees received roughly $28,000 in annual benefits—over $12,000 more than their private-sector counterparts.  Data has also shown that pay rates in state and local government increase faster than private-sector rates.  Total compensation at all levels of government tends to be higher.

But lower pricing isn’t the only benefit of outsourcing services.  Outsourcing to private companies often results in new, fresh ideas beyond the government status quo.  Outsourcing is a great resource for small, private businesses, too!  It allows businesses to receive services they may not otherwise have been able to maintain or afford.  For instance, outsourcing human resources tasks to GHRO allows businesses to meet their HR needs, from hiring, payroll, employee benefits, to the latest in HR regulations and trends, at a fraction of the cost of maintaining an in-house HR department.  It is low-cost efficiency at its best.

How can HR outsourcing benefit you?  Contact GHRO today for a free quote!

Tiffany Marshall, a Savannah probationary firefighter, lost her job over her Myspace photos.  These images featured Marshall and her coworkers in uniform, as well as several semi-clothed photos of Marshall, including one showing her bare backside.  An anonymous caller alerted Marshall’s supervisors to the photos.  Investigation found that Marshall had violated multiple Savannah Fire Department rules and regulations, particularly the section on displaying “unbecoming conduct” in her private life that discredited the department.  In response to the photos, the department gave Marshall a verbal reprimand and issued a general order reminding employees that department photos could not be used on personal websites without the fire chief’s express permission.

Marshall’s response to the reprimand led to her termination.  After she allegedly became defensive and combative, contending she’d been singled out as a female because male firefighters had not been disciplined for similar photos on their websites, she was fired for insubordination.  Marshall then sued for gender discrimination.  The court, which found no evidence of discrimination or violation of First Amendment free speech rights, dismissed her case.

What does this decision mean for employers?  A solid social media policy may be enforceable in court.  To be effective, the policy should clearly address work-related images and social postings, and disclose the employer’s right to review such media for compliance with employer regulations.  While drafting a policy, employers should remember that the National Labor Relations Act protects employees’ rights to discuss workplace activities.  Bottom line: employees’ social networking posts can’t be silenced, but can be guided by a carefully worded social media policy.

In 2008, Jordan To brought suit against his former employer, U.S. Bank, for violating his rights by terminating him during FMLA leave.  After months of military leave, To failed to return to his clerk job as scheduled on August 4, 2008.  He spoke to his U.S. Bank supervisors via conference call and explained he wasn’t feeling well and needed time to recuperate.  To’s supervisors asked for a doctor’s note to return to work, which To provided.  One week later, when To failed to report for work as expected, he spoke to his supervisor and sent another doctor’s note.  A week after that, To not only failed to report for work, but did not notify anyone at U.S. Bank for four days.  On the third day, U.S. Bank sent a termination letter to To, citing job abandonment.  Upon receiving the letter, To claimed a third doctor’s note had been faxed to excuse the current absence—a note U.S. Bank did not receive and a note To could not produce.  Given the status of the missing note, U.S. Bank upheld To’s termination.  To sued.

Is this a case of wrongful termination under FMLA law?

The answer lies in U.S. Bank’s employment policies at the time of To’s absence.  As explained in the “Reporting Absences” provision of its employee handbook, U.S. Bank’s call-in policy stated that absence requests must be reported as soon as the employee becomes aware of such a need—that is, the employee provides reasonable notice.  The policy also stated that all absences must be reported by speaking directly to the employee’s supervisor, not through voicemail or e-mail.  The handbook also contained a “Job Abandonment” provision, which stated that after two consecutive days, an unreported absence would be considered voluntary job abandonment.  Both provisions specifically included FMLA absences under their umbrellas.

Giving To the benefit of the doubt, assume U.S. Bank legitimately failed to receive his faxed doctor’s note.  In that case, the note should have satisfied the “reasonable notice” requirement of U.S. Bank’s absence-reporting policy.  But note or no note, To violated the “call-in” requirement when he failed to directly notify his supervisor.  The FMLA angle of his case had no bearing, because FMLA absence requests are legally expected to follow employer policy on standard absence requests.  Clearly, To did not comply with his employer’s call-in policy.  The court thought so, too—it ruled against To and upheld his termination.

So what now?  Do you tell the employer what you really think about HPE?  Do you gloss over HPE’s 2-hour lunches?  Do you fake static and hang up?  Not only is this situation uncomfortable, but it presents potential legal troubles if improperly handled.

Some businesses solve this problem by routing all reference checks through the HR Department.  There, only basic information is verified, such as dates of employment and job title.  This option will definitely keep your business out of legal hot water, but it may displease managers who want to shout HPE’s negative qualities from the rooftops.  In these cases, advise miffed managers how important it is that the business distributes consistent, carefully worded statements.  Even the most truthful statements, if poorly worded, can be twisted into legal ammunition.

Another way to shield personnel from these uncomfortable inquiries is to deal with HPE proactively.  There are two ways to do this.  First, ask HPE for a signed release allowing the business to give out reference information.  If HPE refuses to sign, explain to reference-seekers that HPE did not consent to release information.  Second, tell HPE at the exit interview that the business won’t be able to provide a positive reference.  That should be enough for HPE to look for support elsewhere.