3
ATTRACTING TALENT

The increased importance of talent makes it crucial that organizations have the right talent. The staffing process begins with the recruiting process; it needs to be structured and operated in a way that attracts talent that is aligned with the organization’s strategy and to do so in a way that prepares recruits to be effective employees. Accomplishing this requires integrated recruitment, selection, and onboarding processes that are targeted to attract, retain, and motivate individuals who can execute the business strategy.

The most important step in the process of building a talent management system that is able to attract and retain the right talent is the organizational branding. Based on their reputation, visibility, and the condition of the labor market, organizations need to create a brand and a recruiting process that attracts and retains the talent that will enable them to be effective.

THE STRATEGY-DRIVEN BRAND

The branding and recruiting process of an organization should be driven by and supportive of its business strategy. Therefore, developing an employer brand that attracts the right individuals should be an important consideration in an organization’s business strategy. The business strategy will be a failure if it does not lead to the attraction of talent that can execute it. A key test of any business strategy should be whether it leads to and is supportive of an employer brand that will attract and retain the talent that is needed.

Instead of talent attraction being considered after the fact, it must be part of the strategy development discussion. Strategy creators should ask, can we recruit and retain the right talent given this business strategy? Obviously if it calls for bad working conditions, low wages, or performance and skill levels that cannot be achieved, it should not become the business strategy. If it calls for the organization to operate in ways that negatively impact the environment or society, it may not be able to attract the “right” talent, particularly if the right talent is young and well educated.

Organizations need to consider what the best employment relationship is in which the work can be done. It may be a full-time job, or it may be an independent contractor or gig relationship. Whatever it is, the employer brand needs to reflect that relationship to attract the right talent and give potential employees an accurate picture of what is expected of them and what working for the organization will be like.

All too often organizations make the mistake of assuming that to attract the right applicants they should do everything that they can to present to the labor market and job applicants a positive image of what it is like to work for them. This is an understandable but foolish strategy. There is a great deal of research that shows that organizations that recruit talent with an inaccurate employer brand tend to have dissatisfied employees and extremely high turnover rates; as a result, they end up incurring extra costs due to their high turnover rates, and they do not attract individuals who will perform successfully in the environment that exists in the organization because they block the self-selection process of individuals from operating effectively. As a result, individuals take jobs that do not fit their preferences and skills and organizations fail to attract those individuals that do fit. This leads to a strong recommendation: develop a realistic employer brand.

What does “realistic” mean? It means clearly pointing out what the pluses and minuses are of working for the organization and being sure that individuals are aware of what their work life will be like if they join. It is better to have people sign up for the “real deal” than to have them sign up for a false one. Having them sign up for a false deal will be much more costly in the long term and will create a situation that is more dysfunctional than losing potential job candidates because they do not like the deal that is offered. If there are not enough satisfactory applicants when the real deal is used, then an organization needs to look at why it cannot offer an attractive real deal, and that may mean it needs to rethink its strategy and how it operates.

KEY BRANDING POINTS

What should an organization’s employer brand cover? Clearly it needs to say much more than “This is a great place to work.” It needs to be clear that the organization’s business needs are an important determinant of what work will be like. If the organization needs to be a technology leader, that needs to be made clear; if it needs to focus on customer service, that should be clear. It also needs to say how and how much it intends to take into account the trends that have been mentioned in chapters 1 and 2. It needs to address the type of leadership and management that individuals can expect, and it needs to focus on the goals of the organization and how that organization will relate to the society in which it operates. And yes, it also needs to deal with the rewards that employees can expect and what they will be responsible for. As will be discussed in chapter 6, it is critical that the rewards offered attract and motivate the talent that an organization needs.

Given the rate of change that exists, it is very important that the brand address the agility issue and what change means in terms of changes in the work to be done, employment stability, training and development, and long-term employment opportunities. To make things even more complicated, it may need to get into the issue of segmentation and differentiation and how this relates to fairness and equity. At the very least, it needs to make a commitment to individuals with respect to what they can count on in terms of continued employment and fair treatment. Overall, the key purpose of an employer brand should be to give individuals a realistic and comprehensive preview of what it is like to work for the organization.

Historically, many organizations have done a good job of developing an employer brand. Old favorites include AT&T, ExxonMobil, General Electric, IBM, 3M, and Sears, among many others. From the 1950s through the 1990s, via their ads, behavior, and presentations by their executives, these corporations gave people a good idea of what it was like to work for them. In many respects they had it easy in the sense that they had what was essentially a relatively simple and straightforward proposition with respect to what employees could expect in terms of job security, the work to be performed, long-term employment, fair treatment, leadership style, and corporate purpose.

It is much more difficult today for organizations to develop an accurate and easy-to-communicate employer brand. The complexities of the business environment they face and their value propositions require more complex messages. They need to send messages that suggest that working for them is not all positive, and they may have to send multiple messages because the need for segmentation and agility has led to them having multiple deals. They may have to say that how talent is treated in areas including job security and working conditions depends on what kind of work that talent does in the organization and include the message that they cannot make promises with respect to long-term employment and the future.

Currently there are a number of organizations that offer realistic strategy-driven employment deals that are very different from the traditional ones. Perhaps the best example is Netflix, which makes an extraordinary effort to present a realistic employment deal; its website extensively explains the advantages and disadvantages of working for the company. Some of the positives are above-market pay and an organization that has enormous opportunities for individuals to make money, use their skills, and do interesting work. The negatives are that employment stability is low to nonexistent and that unless talent performs at a high level, it will no longer be employed by the company but will get a “generous severance package.”

Amazon is another company that has developed an effective—though for some, off-putting—employer brand. It promises a job with a growing organization, good pay, and opportunities for growth. It also stresses that it is a high-pressure environment and that individuals are expected to work hard and will have their performance closely monitored.

Many technology firms work extremely hard to develop unique employer brands. Google (now part of Alphabet) has done this very well. It receives constant attention in the press for the extras it offers its employees, including transportation, meals, gyms, and a 24/7 work environment. In return, Google expects individuals to be very committed and at times obsessed with working for the company. Not surprisingly, the Google brand tends to attract younger talent and individuals who want their world to revolve around their work and information technology. This fits Google’s business model and has produced a committed workforce.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to overstate the importance of organizations effectively communicating to potential talent their management approaches. Working in a traditional hierarchical bureaucratic organization is very different from working in an agile, high-involvement organization. Thus, it is important that organizations develop employer brands that reflect how they are managed and not just what they sell or how well they pay.

Other employer brands that are effective include those of the publishing company Berrett-Koehler, Patagonia, and Starbucks. They have recruited staff on the basis of being socially responsible organizations that treat their employees well and offer them extensive growth opportunities. For example, Starbucks has a program that supports its baristas getting a college education and pays salaries that are well above the minimum wage in most of the states in which it operates. It also focuses on recycling and the company’s environmental impact. This represents a good fit with respect to the generation of individuals that Starbucks wants to attract, and it has produced a turnover rate lower than that of many of the company’s competitors.

Patagonia and Berrett-Koehler have built their employer brands on the basis of their being benefit corporations. This form of incorporation allows organizations to behave in ways that are socially responsible and not focused only on financial performance. It is an enticing brand, one that gives the potential employer a competitive advantage in attracting individuals who are concerned about a company’s social and environmental performance.

Once the “right” brand has been developed it is critical that organizations communicate that brand effectively to potential hires and monitor how effectively they are communicating it. They also need to have processes that deal with cases in which individuals make a bad job choice because either they do not understand what it will be like working for the organization or do not know how they will react to working for it even though they understand the brand. The online clothing merchant Zappos has dealt with this by offering new employees a bonus if after a few months of employment they do not feel they are a good fit and want to leave.

THE RIGHT BRAND

There is no employer brand that is the right one for every organization. Choosing the right brand needs to be driven by an organization’s business strategy and the type of employees it needs to implement that strategy. It may be a business strategy that calls for a relatively homogeneous group of employees; in that case the right brand could be a relatively simple one used to attract everyone. Or it may be more complex because it requires a broad range of employees with respect to age, demographics, national location, type of employment relationship, and so on. An effective employer brand is realistic and supports the business strategy of the organization; it should be driven by the strategy and, once developed, it should change when the strategy changes.

The key skills that an organization needs should be a clear driver of the organization’s employer brand and recruiting process. The brand needs to be developed so that it describes a work environment that will attract and retain individuals with the key skills that are needed to differentiate the organization’s performance from that of its competitors. It may be based on social, managerial, or technical skills or a combination of them.

The skills that are needed may, for example, be more present among younger employees. When this is true, the brand needs to reflect the existence of the kind of work situations that attract younger employees. Many technology firms are good examples of building brands and recruiting processes that attract the type of talent that is key to making a performance difference in their industry. They have carefully built employer brands that are attractive to young information technology engineers.

The technology firms in Silicon Valley emphasize during the recruiting process the type of physical and social environments that are present in the organizations. They also talk about the flexibility, learning opportunities, and freedom that individuals have as well as the “life maintenance” support that employees get so they can live a lifestyle that involves high levels of commitment to their technical work. For example, these firms provide services that reduce employees’ need to go to the dry cleaners, to cook, to wash their cars, or to perform a plethora of other standard duties that are part of being husbands, wives, homeowners, and parents but may distract them from their work. As an extra benefit, some organizations help pay off student loans.

Employer brands have always been segmented and should continue to be. The employer brand for executives has always been different from that of hourly employees. Yet this type of hierarchically driven differentiation of brands is not necessarily the best solution for the future. Yes, there should be segmentation, but it should be based on many of the factors that have already been discussed as key determinants of how talent management should be determined. The nature of the work, the culture and management style of the organization, and how talent management should operate in the future should determine the segmentation.

Segmentation should be partly based on the kind of skills and talent that an organization needs. Organizations need a brand that attracts the kind of technical and management skills that it needs. In the case of some organizations (e.g., those marketing consumer products and services), it may mean developing a brand that reflects a commitment to inclusion and supports diversity of many kinds. There may also need to be significant differences in an organization’s brand that are based on geography and type of business. This is particularly likely for multinational firms and for organizations that are in more than one business.

The most challenging thing about building an effective employer brand is getting the right balance between a general brand and a brand that is specific to the employment relationship that exists for a particular job. The brand needs to reflect what the business strategy of the organization is, taking into account the geography in which it operates, what is expected of individual talent, and key local conditions.

To the extent possible, an organization’s employer brand should be based on data that show what an organization’s good performers see as the key positive and negative factors about working for it. This is a good place to start, because it is likely to lead to a realistic preview and attract high-performance talent that is similar to that already in the organization. The analysis of what good performers value and see as positive needs to be constantly updated to reflect the changing nature of the work and the organization. It also needs to reflect the specific situation an organization is recruiting talent for.

The result of a strategic segmentation analysis is often a corporate brand that is made up of a few key general points that are used on a corporation-wide basis. It is complemented by a number of segment targeted items that are used in recruiting particular types of talent to the organization.

It is worth once again stressing that whatever the brand is, it should be a realistic one. As noted earlier, bringing individuals to an organization based on an unrealistic picture of what their work life will be like is a sure path to failure: it can lead to high turnover rates, poor performance, and a negative corporate culture.

Finally, companies can and should monitor the attitudes and reactions of their new employees, job applicants, and potential job applicants through the systematic use of surveys. This will help to ensure that the interview and recruiting approaches used realistically portray what work will be like and that it is attractive to the right individuals. Such surveys do not need to use advanced information technology and big data, but those factors can make the process easier. There are firms that do surveys and publish the results (e.g., best places to work). Clearly such firms should be monitored, and organizations should also do their own surveys of the applicant pools that they are interested in to be sure that they have the type of attraction and recruiting process that they need to appeal to the right talent.

SOCIAL MEDIA

The growth of social media has created a new way for organizations to take their brand to the labor market and to determine how it is seen. Historically, employer brands have largely become visible to the world through print and broadcast media, advertising, business news stories, and interpersonal interaction with employees, customers, and others who have dealt with the organization. The growth of social media and the Internet has provided another source of information for individuals who want to find out about firms. It also can help organizations attract the right kind of applicants from articles on a company’s website to postings by employees, customers, former employees, and job applicants on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites.

Organizations cannot control what is said about them on all of the platforms that exist. They can, however, control their websites and some, such as Netflix, do a great job of presenting what they offer and expect from employees on their websites. Increasingly, organizations are creating social media recruiting teams in their human resources departments that, among other things, have targeted interactions with potential job candidates and job applicants.

What organizations cannot manage directly is what goes on in the many chat rooms and social media outlets that allow employees to post reactions to the organization’s actions, policies, and performance. What they can do in the case of these outlets, however, is monitor what is being said about them as a place to work. They can take this into account in determining how they recruit and hire, how they treat their employees, the kind of workplace they provide in the future, their internal and external communications, and how they deal with their employees and job candidates. They also can respond to what is being said on social media by posting corrections, information, and opinions that provide a realistic view of the organization. For comparison purposes, organizations should note what social media says about their competitors and analyze the posts to see how they differ from what is said about them.

A move organizations can make in the interest of positive attraction is to offer their existing employees financial incentives to identify and recruit strong job candidates. This can help influence employees to portray the organization in a positive light to their friends and on social media platforms. This, in turn, should increase the applicant pool and improve its quality. It is particularly likely to be successful if rewards are based on hiring success.

Just as organizations can control what is on their websites, they can also control what they post on many other sites, such as Glassdoor, LinkedIn, and Monster, which provide job searches and can help with recruiting. Organizations can also develop their own apps that provide job information about openings and answer questions. Given how much use is made of smartphones, this is a potentially powerful way to provide a realistic work preview.

ATTRACTING NONEMPLOYEE TALENT

One of the major changes in the business environment is the increasing use by organizations of nonemployee talent. As mentioned earlier, a multitude of employee relationships exist today between people doing the work of an organization and the organization itself. What has always been common in entertainment, construction, and seasonal employment situations has spread to many other types of work. Ongoing “not full-time” work arrangements vary from part-time and temporary employees to individuals who do work for an organization through arrangements managed by vendors, temporary agencies, and freelance talent websites such as TaskRabbit, Tongal, and Upwork.

Particularly worth noting are websites where individuals are listed and can be contracted on a short-term, project-by-project basis. Talent can be contracted for multiple short-term projects or one-off activities. Some “talent supplier” organizations run contests, and let the customer organization select winners to do project work in areas including advertising and software development.

A significant amount of the work of some organizations is increasingly being done by nonemployees who sign up for gigs in today’s information technology–based economy. The work they do is not trivial; much of it is major work in advertising, software production, and financial analysis, and it is often work for which organizations want to attract the best talent available. For example, when an organization posts a position or project on Topcoder or Upwork, it wants to get the best talent available. To recruit the best applicants, it needs to develop a realistic and attractive employer brand and a deal for individuals who are competing to do the work the organization is offering.

Organizations need to develop a brand when it comes to how they treat contractors, freelancers, and crowdsourced talent because these groups often have multiple employment opportunities to choose from. Organizations that want to hire them should have a formal statement as to how such workers will be treated, and they should monitor social media networks to find out how they are talked about by individuals who have applied to work for them and those who have worked for them in the past. These organizations also need to work closely with vendor organizations and websites to be sure that they are getting good access to the best talent that is available.

Finally, it is important to do a careful and continuous analysis of the quality of talent that is available through different employment arrangements ranging from contractors to full-time talent. It may well be that the right kind of employees for certain kinds of work are not full-time ones; they may instead be available through Manpower, Upwork, or other staffing organizations, so attraction efforts should also be directed there. Whether this is the best approach is likely to vary tremendously from one type of work to another and from one organization to another; it can best be determined by an analysis of the quality of the work done by individuals from the various approaches and sources for accessing talent. The key is to determine where the best talent is and how it can be attracted. The answer may vary over time and is likely to depend on the skills sought.

CONCLUSION

The relevance of talent attraction to the changing nature of work, workers, and organizations is presented in Table 3.1, which shows the talent management attraction practices that fit the six talent management principles outlined in chapter 2.

With respect to a strategy-driven approach, it is particularly important that the talent attraction process identify the key talent groups needed for the organization to be effective and that it be targeted at those groups. Potential employees need to receive a clear message about the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, with a particular focus on how and why its talent plays a critical role in its success and how employees will be treated if they join.

A strategy-driven approach relates closely to the second key principle, which is that talent management should focus on skills and competencies. The process needs to be based on attracting individuals with critical skills. Not all skills are necessarily recruited with equal rigor and focus; the recruiting message needs to be fine-tuned or segmented to target talent whose skills and knowledge are particularly important given the strategy.

With respect to talent management being performance based, the key issue is to make it clear that performance is rewarded and that it is particularly advantageous to be a high performer doing work that makes a difference. Perhaps the best way to do this in recruiting is to emphasize that many rewards are tied to performance and to emphasize how much the best performers are recognized and valued by the organization. It may be desirable to make the case that the organization is already populated with high performers since that can also be an important part of the attraction message.

Table 3.1 Attracting the right talent

Copyright © Edward E. Lawler III and Center for Effective Organizations at USC.

Agility needs to be directly built into the attraction process; it is very important that the process emphasize the rate of change that will take place in the organization, and the amount and kind of job security and stability that will exist as a result. An organization that anticipates changing and adapting should make this clear in its talent recruiting and should explain what it will do to help if in fact it cannot continue to employ certain individuals. In short, this is a clear case where a strong realistic statement about job stability and long-term employment should be a critical part of the attraction process.

It is very important that the attraction and recruiting process be segmented. This is the only way that it can attract a diverse, skills-based workforce. Individuals with different skills typically need different attraction messages and processes. These differences should be carefully built into the messages that are used, and the organization should be sensitive to the importance of skill and workforce diversity. It should also determine where messages appear and how they are distributed.

Finally, it is critical that an evidence-based approach be used to establish, monitor, and change the attraction messages and processes that are used. This should include careful analysis of who is attracted as well as the turnover rates for different types of employees. It is also important to study the reaction of employees once they join the organization as regards to whether they feel they received a realistic preview of the work situation and to analyze how effective different media are in attracting the right talent.

It is clear that the attraction process can and should be guided by the talent management principles that were emphasized in chapter 2. This represents a significant change in how most organizations think about attraction. It is very important that it be done to attract and retain the kind of talent that is needed for organizations to be effective in the future.

Developing the right employer brand and attracting the right talent should not be left to chance; it should be undertaken carefully, and its effectiveness needs to be monitored. Developing a brand should be a very important focus because of its impact on the quality of the talent an organization attracts and the relationships that an organization develops with its talent. A combination of increasing workforce diversity, the need for organizational agility, and the increasing importance of human capital make it ever more important that the right talent be recruited. The availability of social media, big data, and analytic approaches makes it possible for organizations to understand what type of talent brand they have and need, and what they must do to attract the right talent.