Tomorrow starts today.
It’s a messaging construct I come across regularly. It touches on the idea that what we do right now shapes the future. It’s been used by any number of organisations delivering corporate and consumer messaging of late. Prominent among these have been NatWest, PwC, IKEA and Mars. It’s a particularly strong message for financial services organisations and those with sustainability high on the agenda – it’s never too early to prepare for tomorrow.
Question is, if it’s an institutional message whose time has come, to what extent does it have resonance across employer branding? This feels logical and there’s certainly an argument for the idea lending itself to early careers messaging – by which graduates and apprentices are able to construct optimum career paths through their choice of post school, college and university employer.
Or should we take a broader view of this idea?
According to the US Bureau of Labor, Gen Z will have 18 different employers by the time they hang up their lanyards, suggesting an average tenure of around 30 months. Which rather emphasises that the job for life ceased to exist some time ago.
So, however much organisations might wish to see themselves (and position themselves) as a career destination, they are really just stopping-off points on an employment journey. In property terms, your organisation is unlikely to represent a forever home, more another step on the ladder.
“The concept of a “job for life” vanished years ago, and for good reason. People often remained in the same role for decades, lured by benefits such as final salary pensions, now increasingly rare or, indeed, non-existent. Others stayed simply because it was all they knew or lacked the confidence to explore new opportunities.
But do organisations today even want employees to stay for life? While no company desires excessive turnover, a certain level of healthy churn is essential. It brings fresh perspectives, updates skills, and fosters diversity that strengthens the organisation”. Adele Swift, Talent Attraction and Recruitment Manager, Toolstation.
So, are employers brave enough to encapsulate this within their messaging?
Brave enough to suggest that a candidate is highly unlikely to spend the rest of their working days with them, but that time spent at such an organisation will enhance and progress the rest of their career? Should the EVP of those employers suggest, or certainly imply, that the training, skills, experience, contacts, projects and exposure they deliver, mean that employees will be able to open subsequent corporate doors, as a result of their time with that organisation?
An interesting role, within a positive culture, at a progressive organisation might indeed encourage a new joiner to stay longer. But not necessarily.
In fact, it might well result in less time spent with such an employer. Tenure with an exceptional employer clearly enhances someone’s CV, making them more attractive to other impressive organisations.
At the same time, the opposite feels true.
Time spent with a less attractive employer, doing work of less perceived value, is unlikely to enhance someone’s CV. As a result, people face the prospect of staying longer at such an employer because their tenure there is potentially damaging their CV, making them less attractive to other employers.
Choosing your next employer assumes huge importance, then. Will moving jobs create ever-greater career liquidity or will it paint employees into an employment corner?
This is down to employers and how they choose to articulate their EVP.
“When it comes to colleagues moving on, employers often hate to show weakness, despite a certain level of attrition being considered healthy. Interestingly, some of the best marketing propositions have come from a point of potential weakness – think about Avis as the number 2 car rental company, or Stella Artois as Reassuringly Expensive, or Guinness’s legendary ‘Good things come to those who wait’.
I remember the Mars grad campaign which positioned them as the ultimate business school, celebrating famous alumni such as Justin King, Sara Weller and Adam Crozier. It was very honest that this was a brilliant business school for people who stayed and for those who left too. In a more intentional way, McKinsey have made a virtue of encouraging their people to leave and go out into industry and then come back – or at the very least become clients!” Henry Davies, Founder,106 Communications.
And it has to be done with some sensitivity. An organisation’s clientbase may not entirely warm to the idea that their contacts will be moving on regularly. And, clearly, recruitment is a cost to the business.
“I often met management resistance when asking employees to tell their stories on social media, for fear they would be targeted by competitors.
Employers need to have pride, trust and confidence in their people. Are they being supported in meeting their personal ambitions, do they have a strong affiliation with the company (think EX & EVP) and is the culture right for them? If they are unhappy they will look elsewhere anyway”. Andy Hendon, Global EB Consultant (Formerly of Syneos Health & KPMG).
However, if we divide up people’s careers into 30-month stages, then what can an organisation provide during that period? Will it grow, stretch and develop? Will it add on training, certifications and qualifications? Will the organisation’s success mean that people are able to make a credible case about how they have grown sales, margins and market share?
“Looking at employment in 30-month chunks is going to be incredibly tough for some organisations and the individuals in them. Organisations are going to have to re-evaluate their employee relationship. With Gen Z projected to work for 18 different employers by retirement, companies need to rethink their EVP. It’s less about locking talent in for the long haul and more about what your organisation can deliver in the short term to enable, empower, and enrich. The question isn’t ‘How long will they stay?’ but ‘What impact will they make while they’re here?” Martin Dangerfield, CEO, immersive
Organisations should be making the case that two to five years within their employ will add heft, credibility and polish to someone’s CV. Because that’s exactly what candidates will be trying to work out. Does three years at this organisation enhance my CV, my experience, my credibility? Does it make me more employable? Does it open career doors? Or slam them shut?
“When we talk to potential apprentices, whether internally or externally, we emphasise building skills for life – capabilities that will serve them in their future careers. Delivering on this promise helps build your reputation as a “foundation employer”—a springboard for talent, which is not a negative thing. While it would be ideal to nurture future leaders from entry-level roles, the reality is that great talent will inevitably move on to other opportunities. However, this doesn’t mean you’ve lost them forever. Sometimes, employees return after gaining valuable experience elsewhere, and they come back even more capable”. Adele Swift.
Whether we want to admit it or not, many of the people you hire today are unlikely to be with you in five years’ time. Better then to focus on what time with your organisation can deliver in terms of enablement, empowerment and enrichment?
You’re not selling them a forever home, you’re providing the means to move further up the ladder.
Getting to the heart of your employee mindset 