Helen Rosethorn, CEO of Bernard Hodes UK and international employer brand specialist visited Café PR in Hungary to host a seminar on employer brand methodology for their clients.

Café PR, Hungarian partner of Fleishman-Hillard is a full-service PR agency specialising in corporate communication, internal communication, change-management, personal coaching, communication training and integrated campaigns.

Following the seminar, Helen was interviewed about the co-operation with Café PR and about the differences in internal communications in Hungary compared with other international markets. Helen explained that in her experience there are many similarities in what people ultimately want from their career choices: “People want to move forward, people want support, people want to believe that they are with a growing and successful, organisation that has a positive reputation, that they are contributing to a bigger purpose.” She went on to say that there are always differences that we need to learn and appreciate, which she’s looking forward to exploring.

Helen talks employer brand methodology with Café PR’s Hungarian clients.

If you would like to speak to us about your employer brand needs, please contact Lindsey Coombs, Lindsey.coombs@hodes.co.uk, +44 (0) 20 7551 4665.

I also need to explain why I feel this debate needs to be aired. At Hodes, we have a specialised division, called Future Talent. Its role, alongside delivering effective and creative campaigns, is to help employers in the process of finding and engaging with promising young talent – Graduates, Interns, MBA students and the like. And recently, the attraction process has starting looking earlier and earlier in the candidates’ lives. So as we delve earlier, we are likely to come across content that we may deem inappropriate. Content that could fundamentally affect the way we hire and the people who are being hired. And I would prefer that we [the collective] actively managed this, as opposed to being forced into a situation where no outcome is positive. So please leave your thoughts and comments. It’s an issue that needs discussing!

Paris Brown is a 17 year old girl who recently managed to procure a job as the Youth Crime Tsar for Kent Police. Her role was to bridge the gap between ‘young people’ and the police by using social media to inform and educate.

Now, whether you believe that this is the best way of driving the ‘youth’ agenda or not is a matter for a different post. Simply accept that in a world of high unemployment, a 17 year old had enough gumption and presence to apply for a job, convince a panel of recruiters to hire her and for that should be congratulated.

Within days of her appointment however, a News Corp reporter (or perhaps, given the findings behind the Leveson Inquiry it was a commissioned 3rd party, we will never know) had managed to dig up historic social media activity by Paris Brown that was racist, homophobic, xenophobic and seemed to advocate drug taking. I’ll save you the examples, as you can do the digging yourself. But there is no doubt that the findings are accurate. She did, indeed post these things.

Naturally, a furore erupted. Although why News Corp should be so interested in the goings on of a regional police force is beyond me. Perhaps it was a slow news day? Or perhaps, given the huge criticisms that have been heaped on them following the grisly findings of the Press Commission Investigations (still ongoing) they have simply decided to report on things that they know, without doubt, are factually accurate. Or perhaps, they simply wanted an easy target, I don’t know.

The net result was inevitable. Paris Brown lasted six days in the job. Six days in which her personal life became a target for every hack out there. Six days in which her face was plastered all over the press in a way that will make it very difficult for her to walk into a future job unnoticed. Six days in which she was lambasted for social media activity that, it turns out, she posted between the ages of 14 and 16. And this is where I have an issue with the whole sordid affair.

You see, part of being young is making mistakes. Saying and doing dumb things and learning from them. YouTube and Facebook are hives for completely inappropriate activity. Happy Slapping. Bungee jumping off disused buildings. Sex. Numa Numa. Drunkenness. Nakedness. The Star Wars kid. Sometimes it works out OK. But most cases, what we see (and typically wince at, before sharing with our friends and laughing at the crass stupidity of those involved) is just people being idiots.

As adults, we are supposed to understand this. We are supposed to provide the right environment to ensure that young people can grow into socially responsible adults. A positive learning environment. Teach them right from wrong. Ensure that children have access to facilities so they can maintain their physical, as well as intellectual wellbeing.

As adults, we are also supposed to recognise that sometimes, children can be childish: selfish, thoughtless, horrible and stupid. And more importantly, we are supposed to understand that this behaviour is only ‘acceptable’ (and again, I use the word loosely) until someone is deemed an adult. And this definition varies between the ages of 16 and 21 depending on where you are in the world.

So here was have someone who as a child (by definition), posted some pretty stupid things. Referred to Jewish People as “yids”. Called Travellers “pikeys”. Talked about eating hash brownies. And referred to “fags” on Made in Chelsea. Not right. Not justifiable. But the sort of things that are often reported in the Mirror. Or the Sun. Just in a more carefully articulated manner. Because the ‘adults’ behind these papers have learned that (in most cases) they have to be careful.

Did posting these things actually make Paris Brown a violent, homophobic racist? Did she actually believe any of this? From what I can understand, no. It was simply someone being stupid. Saying something contentious to draw attention to themselves. By her own account, she simply fell into the trap of “behaving with bravado on social networking sites.” The sort of behaviour you might accept from a teenager…

The press can be vicious at the best of times, but usually, their vitriol is saved for those who have had media training and are therefore considered fair game. People like politicians, businessmen and women, sports personalities and ‘celebrities’. Given she was only six days into the role, I doubt that Paris Brown’s training, if at all, would have covered this.

The net result was that the press kept going until they secured the result that they wanted: the resignation of Paris Brown. And by all accounts, her apology was more humble and heartfelt than most media-manufactured ‘apologies’ we read. And the general consensus appears to be that this is the right result.

Ann Barnes, the Crime Commissioner for Kent Police did, to her credit, try to support Paris Brown. And in doing so, raised questions of the police’s role in conducting due diligence in the hiring process. For example, given that social media was a key part of her role, did anyone from the force think to actually check her social media profile beforehand??) But again, this is the subject for a different post (and further Mirror articles…)

But I don’t have an issue with Ann Barnes. Nor do I have an issue with investigative reporting. Nor do I disagree with a mandate to stamp out socially unacceptable behaviour. What I do have an issue with is the fact that we appear to be accepting that information you create as a child can be used against you in a job seeking process. And that’s a very dangerous precedent to set.

Legally, we accept that children cannot be held responsible for their actions. Yet because it is relatively easy to get hold of information that is posted in digital domains, we appear to be stating that the law is excluded in such cases. And if we accept this, where do we draw the line? The legal ramifications of using information that is written in social domains as part of recruitment or HR processes is still pretty much untested; a Wild West of assumptions and generalisations where nobody is willing to pay for a clear directive.

And where does it stop? If a friend, unbeknown to an individual, posts a picture of them being drunk at a party (something that teens often do) can THAT be used? What about if an account is ‘fraped’ (fraping is the act of changing all the details on someone’s Facebook page when they leave it open and vulnerable – e.g. Personal details, relationship status, gender, sexuality, political views etc.) and the victim has simply never bothered to delete the offending post?

The premise seems to be that anything posted online is fair game. But would you really deem it acceptable to use information from a child’s diary as part of the recruitment process? Or would you interview their friends about the behaviour of the child in question, sift through their photos and make a judgement about their ability to perform a particular task? And if you are arguing that children should know better and keep their profiles clean on a regular basis, it’s hard enough to get a teenager to clear them room without a tirade of abuse. Just think about what you are saying. How often do you tidy up your own social media profile? Or do simply opt for the easier option and lock your friends down to a trusted lot…

At the House of Lords, debates around the Identity Cards Bill, The RIPA act and Data Protection Laws discussed this and aspects of this, such as whether we should force children to change their identity once they reached adulthood in order to avoid the sort of situation that has been outlined above. But the problem with that idea is that algorithms behind tools like TheSocialCV are far too intelligent to be sucker-punched like that. You can change your name, but not your looks or writing style. And these can be traced…, as the Earl of Errol stated, “they’re talking bollocks”.

So my preference is to opt for common sense. Which I don’t think has been applied in this case. After all, Paris Brown would have been a much better Media officer for the experience that she had just undergone. And as Ann Barnes said, “I was not recruiting an angel. I was not recruiting a police officer. I was recruiting a young person, warts and all.”

TARGETJobs National Graduate Employer of the Year Award

We‘ve been willing sponsors of the TARGETJobs National Graduate Recruitment Employer of the Year Award ever since it began. That’s because we believe that employers should be recognised for delivering on their promises to graduates, not just for having the biggest marketing budget or a high profile consumer brand.

Most surveys and league tables in the market place rely on students’ perceptions, not on their experience or reality. With the Employer of the Year, we wanted to do something different – ask employers to really prove they deserve to be a winner.

The award looks at a number of key indicators across Attraction, Selection, Onboarding & Induction, Training & Development, Retention and Innovation. We discovered that top employers are doing extremely well in these areas. Even more importantly, the new graduates themselves have had the opportunity to share their experiences across each one.

In fact, this year’s study highlighted that being consistent across all areas of the recruitment process is essential if you’re to attract and retain the best graduates. We’ve seen innovative attraction ideas such as real-life business challenges, novel ways of conducting video interviews, and the fast-tracking of high flying graduates with enhanced training and development. All of which have meant employers were able to recruit and retain the best graduates around.

Our research launch breakfast event

We’re holding a breakfast event on 10th May at The Club at The Ivy where we’ll present the results of our findings on what makes an outstanding employer. It’ll start from 8.15 am, with the research presentation at 8.45 am, and it will finish no later than 10am. Places are limited so don’t delay in booking yours. Please click here if you’d like to join us.

It was a successful night for Enterprise Rent-A-Car as they also won Best Use of Blogger Relations.
Further Hodes clients, Barclays UKRBB and Gazprom M&T were shortlisted in the Best Use of Mobile in a Graduate Recruitment Campaign and Best Use of a SoMe Platform in a Graduate Recruitment Campaign categories respectively.

We believe the Grand Prix win reflects a strong reputation in digital and how the business is continuing to harness digital to bring brands and people together. Our Future Talent team has developed strong, long-lasting client relationships over the years, most recently adding law firms CMS and Weil to a growing portfolio. The breadth of our offering has increased substantially, as we now target talent earlier at apprenticeship or school leaver level.

The 9-year relationship between Hodes and Enterprise Rent-A-Car is one of success as well as longevity. For Donna Miller, Enterprise Rent-A-Car’s European HR Director and Ashley Hever, European Talent Acquisition Manager, these awards reflect how well Enterprise operates as a socially-enabled organisation.

“It is fabulous to have won this prestigious award for the second year running,” says Helen Rosethorn, CEO of Bernard Hodes. “It is also a wonderful testimony to our long standing partnership with Enterprise Rent-A-Car in Europe that they should gain this recognition for their progressive stance on bringing to life what they stand for as an employer.”

New research has revealed a worrying gap between intent and impact when it comes to diversity and inclusion practice in the UK.

More than 350 HR practitioners took part in the study – carried out by Bernard Hodes in partnership with the CIPD in the summer of 2012 – and the vast majority reported the growing importance of D&I as a strategic business issue. However the report clearly shows that for many organisations there is a struggle to put policy into practice.

The study showed that 83% of organisations have D&I strategies and policies in place, with more than half of respondents agreeing it is integral to overall business strategy, and 57% expecting it to become more important in the next five years.

However, many organisations are still not looking beyond legal compliance and taking a truly embedded approach. While 74% say D&I is central to their people strategy, only 64% have active involvement from senior leaders. Less than half of respondents include D&I in their line manager training, and only 40% use specific key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor the impact of D&I activity.

“There is good news and not such good news in these findings” says Helen Rosethorn, CEO of Bernard Hodes. “Clearly D&I is being considered at a more strategic level than ever before – but it is not translating effectively enough into building more inclusive workplaces and people practice”.

At the research launch a distinguished panel of experts debated the implications highlighted by the study. Liz Bingham, Managing Partner for People at Ernst & Young, said: “The research demonstrates that whilst many organisations have embarked on a journey of change, they are at different stages on that journey. It appears that companies have frameworks and policies in place but don’t know how to bring them to life.”

The challenge, she feels, is now less around the “D” for diversity and more around the “I” for inclusion – making D&I an essential aspect of the way we all do business. Key to that is recognising that D&I is not just about creating an inclusive culture, it can improve business performance.

Donna Miller, European HR Director for Enterprise Rent-A-Car stressed that when diversity in a workforce reflects the customer base, there is a positive impact on sales. She said: “The business case must be led from the top and needs to be integrated throughout every area of the business including IT people, sales people, accountants and suppliers – it is not only an HR issue. We have found that attracting people from different cultures helps generate new business and open up new markets.”

Panellists Dianah Worman, Diversity Adviser at the CIPD and consultant Charlotte Sweeney both emphasised the need for long-term commitment to D&I, and the importance of the executive team taking visible lead on the issue.

Dianah comments: “The overall message is simple – a more diverse workforce is one that delivers superior business performance. While understanding about the business case for D&I has grown, UK businesses cannot afford to rest on their laurels.

“Top teams and front-line managers need to embrace it because it helps them achieve critical business objectives, far better than subconsciously recruiting teams dominated by ‘people like us’.”

Charlotte pointed out that the challenges in making the business case for D&I is often because it is not specific to the organisation and its customer base.

Liz added: “If you get them by their wallets, their hearts and minds will follow.”

The survey of 371 organisations confirmed that D&I is a business priority, but there are limitations in the extent to which it’s embedded:

• Less than half the organisations address D&I in their reward or internal communications strategies
• There is often no link between diversity and talent management strategies
• Certain areas of compliance are still not addressed by some organisations
• There are weaknesses in demonstrating impact: of the 40% who use specific KPIs, the majority focus on demographic data and employee survey results

To get your copy of the report, please contact lcoombs@hodes.co.uk

The partnership will see our UK business operating as a Fleishman-Hillard company. At the same time, we will both keep our separate identities, and will continue to offer our individual specialisms – as well as an extended dual offering that will benefit both of us.

Over the years, we’ve established ourselves as a UK market leader in employer branding, employee engagement and talent acquisition. Our depth of expertise is set to complement Fleishman-Hillard’s strengths in integrated communications and reputation.

It’s a partnership that will strengthen and add to our established skills, as it bridges a narrow gap between the corporate and consumer brand experience. Working together, we’ll be able to deliver fully integrated brand storytelling, talent engagement and reputation management across the full spectrum of audiences and channels.

Fleishman-Hillard Inc., one of the world’s leading strategic communications firms, has built its reputation on creating integrated solutions that deliver what its clients value most: meaningful, positive and measurable impact on the performance of their organizations. The firm is widely recognized for excellent client service and a strong company culture founded on teamwork, integrity and personal commitment. Based in St. Louis, the firm operates throughout North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East, Africa and Latin America through its 80 owned offices. For more information, visit the Fleishman-Hillard website at www.fleishmanhillard.com. Fleishman-Hillard is a part of Diversified Agency Services, a division of Omnicom Group Inc.

John Saunders, Fleishman-Hillard president for the EMEA region, said: ‘The increased role of employees in the building and management of reputation – and the growing synergy between the human resources and corporate communications agenda – has fuelled the move. With reputation increasingly a boardroom issue, the combined capability means we can truly integrate and activate reputational campaigns across all stakeholder audiences.’

Our CEO, Helen Rosethorn added: ‘Employees, both current and future, are pivotal to the building and communication of a company’s narrative, brand and reputation – and yet are often addressed as a siloed audience. Our partnership with Fleishman-Hillard provides us with an exciting opportunity to build deeper conversations with our respective clients, and to diversify into innovative new areas.’

The speakers came primarily from the impressive line-up of sponsors and supporters – RBS, BP, Ernst & Young, P&G, M&C Saatchi, DLA Piper and My Family Care to name but a few – plus Allan Leighton, the former Chairman of Royal Mail and now Chair of a portfolio of businesses including Pandora and Pace, Emily Lawson a partner at McKinsey who have produced a steady stream of valuable research pieces on gender and Sylvia Ann Hewlett from the Centre for Talent Innovation based in New York, another source of global research and insight in this area.

Statistics that point to the business case for gender balance in the workplace abound – but Allan Leighton reminisced that at the outset of his career working at Mars, the Mars brothers had said to him “50% of brains in the world are female and brains have no colour” – something he has carried as a mantra throughout his career. He told attendees that all the Boards of the portfolio of companies of which he is now Chairman are inclusive and demonstrate gender balance and that if you run your business on “brain count” not “head count” this simple guiding principle should be enough to sort diversity out at a stroke!

McKinsey have proven that companies who rank most strongly on their nine dimensions of organisational health – their indicator of the organisations ability to build and sustain high performance – have more women in top leadership positions than those who do not. The Centre for Talent Innovation has shown a connection between innovation, diversity and the bottom line – “the power of difference” driving organisational value. So why then is it that women are still significantly underrepresented at top levels in so many organisations and what is and is not working to address it?

The themes that emerged from the Forum fell under three headings: well intentioned strategies are not necessarily working; there is a lack of appreciation (and effort to research) within organisations what the issues really are; and thirdly that the real “sustainable” answer lies in the need to manage culture, taking a holistic approach to diversity and shifting mind-sets.

There was reference to sponsorship as one of the current accepted strategies – something I have heard on many occasions organisations feel triumphs over mentoring in accelerating the progress of women in the workplace. The Centre for Talent Innovation research has shown that if women have a sponsor they are 52% more likely to get to the top (interestingly for a person of “colour” the figure is even higher at 65%). However the sting in the tail of sponsorship appears to be that people prefer to sponsor “someone who looks and behaves like me – like I was at his/her stage in my career”. Sponsorship needs to happen of individuals who are not the automatic choice to actually improve diversity. Like any initiative it has also not to be “women only” – initiatives that are “regardless of gender” are more likely to shift the environment to one where “regardless of gender” is the end result.

Building an inclusive approach which actually tackles all dimensions of diversity is hard to argue against with the point made again by The Centre for Talent Innovation that you need both inherent (gender and demographic) and acquired (skills and experience) diversity within teams to do this.

The real test of culture for any employee – male or female – lies in the behaviour of their immediate boss. This is the “mind set” you come up against and with it the question of unconscious bias. Interestingly at the same time as the Business Forum was taking place Marjorie Scardino was stepping down as one of the four (now only two) FTSE 100 women leaders and calling for more effective policies to nurture female talent at mid management level (a point reinforced strongly by recent work published by McKinsey in the US) – and a continuing need for more flexibility. The impact of time out for child bearing and the pressure of child caring continue to be a focus of debate. It is therefore interesting that many of the countries that have better representation of women at the top of business have more of a sharing approach to parenting – and with it more balanced maternity and paternity rights.

Quotas of course came up at the Forum – with real time voting revealing that over 70% of those present were against them primarily because they did not believe this was the way to build talent pipelines. (Interestingly a survey of almost 100 senior executives – male and women –done by a group of international lawyers led by Withers Worldwide LLP, published the same week as the Forum, reported that only 37.6% felt quotas were the right approach).

So was there a clear message of where you start? Yes – if you don’t have visible senior management commitment no response is likely to take root for the long term. RBS are to be applauded for the way they are supporting the Women’s Business Forum and the significant number of top executives present including Sir Philip Hampton, Chairman, at the pre event dinner and Chris Sullivan, Chief Executive of their Corporate Banking Division, as a keynote speaker. Both were quite clear – this is not altruism – this is about smart business practice.

Last week, Hodes was privileged to host an inspiring breakfast event with Linda Moir who shared her experiences and insight as LOCOG’s Head of Event Services (Staffing).

Linda spoke to an invited audience at The Club at The Ivy about her challenge of recruiting, training and engaging 15,000 of the 70,000 Games Makers – the volunteers whose enthusiasm and customer service helped make the Games such a success.

What struck us, aside from Linda’s humility and enthusiasm, was the beautiful simplicity of LOCOG’s approach to engaging such a massive workforce. From refreshing honesty to attract the right people, to the small gestures of recognition that kept everyone motivated, the programme focused on bringing the spectator vision to life: “Being part of the Greatest Show on Earth”.

It certainly got us thinking about how this approach of breaking down tasks into simple behaviours could help organisations achieve better engagement, more autonomy for the workforce and a more effective style of management. Here are just some of the amazing stats and insights Linda shared, and our take on what we can learn from it:

The Olympic and Paralympic Games were supported by 70,000 Games Makers across technical, transport, protocol, workforce and event services – the largest peacetime deployment of people in UK history.

Attracting and engaging the right people

At the first stage of hand raising 1.2 million people registered an interest in volunteering – some 4 or 5 times the amount the system could cope with. The recruitment campaign featured refreshingly honest messaging – making applicants aware they would need to commit to a minimum of 10 days in a row during the games; 4 days training beforehand; taking part in test events; travelling to East London to pick up their uniform… This acted as an effective filter and actual applications were reduced to a more manageable 250,000.

What struck a chord for us is the openness and authenticity of the messaging. Of course, we all want a great response to our campaigns, but high volume of responses can create additional challenges. Being honest about the challenge and expectations from word go makes sure you engage the right people.

Breaking down the managerial task

Despite the sheer size of the workforce, and variety of operational tasks across 30 venues, there were just five different roles assigned within the 15,000-strong Spectator Services team: Team Leader, Team Member, Workforce Team Member, Information Team Member and Mobility Team Member.

They had three golden rules for managing and motivating the volunteers:

#1 Keep people busy – it helps people feel that it’s good use of the time they are giving up

#2 Keep people moving – vary the role. Some duties involved being on your own or in a quiet area, so they made sure people moved between tasks.

# 3 Recognition (& reward) – get to know your people, their names, their personal circumstances – things like travel difficulties getting to venues, so shifts can be allocated around this. Small rewards kept people motivated (Bronze, Silver, Gold badges for consecutive days served) while surprising moments of delight (like free brownies) kept spirits high.

The operation’s success was based on effective planning, but also detailed consideration of what the experience would be like for the athletes, spectators and Games Makers.

Keeping it simple and personal

Recognising that the Games Makers came from many different walks of life, LOCOG created a simple set of customer service behaviours which everyone could deliver in their own personal way.

Their simple mantra I DO ACT:

Be INSPIRATIONAL
Be DISTINCTIVE
Be OPEN
Be ALERT
Be CONSISTENT
Be part of the TEAM

Making the difference

As London 2012 was hailed around the world as the best Olympics ever, praise for the Games Makers’ contribution was never far behind.

Customer satisfaction scores showed that 94% of visitors rated overall service “excellent” for the Olympic Games and 96% for the Paralympics.

But beneath this success story, Linda is still touched by the difference being a Games Maker made to so many people’s lives with new friendships, some romances and an experience they will never forget.

As a final reminder of the 2012 journey, Linda played the video in which London set out its bid to win the Games. As Lord Coe said at the closing ceremony: “London, when our time came, we did it right.” That was thanks in no small part to the effort in engaging the Games Makers.

Google seas a world of opportunity

Google recently announced the launch of their latest product, Google Ocean. An extension of Google Earth, ocean allows users to explore a plethora of marine ecosystems that were previously the excluse of scuba divers, scientific researchers or rich playboys (and playgirls, obviously). It’s a fantastic achievement (and fun to explore), one that will continue to improve as users are encouraged to submit new content and Google continues to develop more footage. It is early days, but you can still swim with turtles and manta rays at the Barrier Reef, join snorkelers drifting over reefs in Hawaii or examine ancient boulder coral in the Philippines. How will this apply to HR? Well, Google is already allowing users to explore inside shops via Streetview. I’m wondering how long before office buildings will be opened up for candidates to explore as part of a recruitment or onboarding process (rather like how Barclays used Radbrooke Hall as part of their differentiation strategy in tech recruitment). I’m also wondering what will happen when Google owns all the information there is, but that is something for a different mail…

Rotten Apples get in the way of new upgrade

The big news amongst techie geeks this week was the launch of the iPhone 5 in conjunction with the upgrade to Apple’s operating systems (iOS6 for those who are curious). It’s been a bit of a faux pas for Apple, as the press has focused on the retrograde impact that the upgrade has had on Google Maps as opposed to the rich functionality that has been added (effectively, the upgrade rendered Google Maps all but useless). Whilst this has given our web developer Mr Burton and the anti-Appitalists (see what I did there???) plenty of ammunition, it has also reinforced just how prevalent both Apple and smartphones have become in our lives. With sites like Barclays already receiving over 40% of traffic from mobile devices, simply mobile enabling sites in no longer enough. This is the reason that we now look to optimise, as a matter of course, for mainstream Apple and Android devices (and also the reason that clients should invest in this.)

Everything everywhere

With device convergence being an ever-present theme (convergence is the ability for a device to contain more than one piece of functionality – your phone becoming a camera being one example) and interoperability (the capability for a device being able to interact with multiple devices) being a key component of all new devices, discussions have focused on the next stage in digital evolution. Stage 1, for the uninitiated being human-to-object; stage 2, human-to-human (think social media). This next stage is object-to-human. The easiest way to understand this is to think about the Bill Gates mansion, where everything is controlled by IP-enabled technology (from setting the ambience in a room, to controlling devices like the washing machine ). Add some touchscreen functionality to surfaces like windows, doors, tabletops and walls. And now add a drop of Artificial Intelligence and your devices start communicating with each other and with your utility providers etc. to negotiate the optimum service (and by natural extension, price) based on your needs at a particular point in time.

It all feels a bit futuristic for many, which was why I was interested to spot the appearance of a device that has been launched in the US which allows a user to control devices via the internet. The key thing for me, was not the functionality, but the price – with a launch price of $149, the availability of Gatesian-like functionality has become mainstream. Which means that IT Departments and Facility Teams can seriously start considering rolling this out within the buildings where they work. I doubt we are going to see any major changes in the next couple of years, but given that clients are already going long term with their recruitment plans (with, as an example, Future Talent strategies looking to engage earlier and earlier in the education system), this is something that any HR team should pay serious consideration to.

When an organisation embarks on the task of better understanding and managing their employer brand, the collaboration between HR and corporate comms and/or marketing is often seen as the pre-requisite for success.  This collaboration is nothing new but as the question of reputation is increasingly owned and managed by corporate comms, they are undoubtedly starting to exercise more clout at the top level and are beginning to lay claim to employer brand development.  What ought to be a key partnership is turning into a power struggle with corporate comms seeing the contribution of HR as “delivering on the deal” through HR processes and leadership development but not having the final call on its “definition” in the first place.

Is this a problem though?  I want to say no because holistic brand management is the future.  And there’s no doubt the brand expertise of corporate comms is to be welcomed – particularly if they have the ear of the CEO; however if an employer brand is shoehorned into a corporate or customer brand positioning which struggles to be matched by reality, that organisation is heading into trouble.

All of this rekindles the debate over who owns the employer brand?

When we published our seminal book on employer brands in 2009 we included a chapter on ownership and invited key stakeholders to express their view – we received contributions from corporate comms, internal comms, HR and marketing.  Of course as an employer brand is all about culture, leadership shapes and therefore has to own the employer brand in action – but sadly 2009 came in the midst of global economic melt-down and we were unable to persuade a CEO to go into print to share their view.  The ownership question has to ultimately rest with the CEO in my view – he or she sets the framework for people practices and leadership behaviours. In fact, owning the employer brand is the 21^st century response to that hackneyed phrase “people are our greatest asset”!

The good news is that we are now starting work on the next edition of our book so it’s my personal objective to get that CEO contribution this time round.

For more information on managing your employer brand please contact Helen Rosethorn, CEO and Practice Lead: Employer Brand, 0207 551 4468.