Blog

As ever at this time of year, there has been no obvious shortage in the circulation of April’s Fool stories, themes and memes. My favourite? One doing the rounds on Facebook which suggested, not without an element of truth, that this was the only day of the year (and half a day, at that) during which we actually take the effort to seek out the real stories from the fake. Just as we have to make our minds up quickly about what’s real and what’s not on April 1^st – Polo Mints sans hole, an announcement that all EU passports would now be blue and the launch of a Brexit emoji – then, brands and reputations face a similar challenge in terms of the speed at which they are being judged, analysed and processed.

Cricket rarely makes the front pages – and barely these days the back ones – but it succeeded spectacularly last week in achieving any amount of notoriety. One moment, the Australian skipper, Steve Smith, could do little wrong. Captaining a largely very successful side, his own batting has been peerless over the last two years and he engages with the press with no little dexterity and charm. All of that positive personal brand reputation collapsed rather dramatically when one of his team mates was picked up cheating rather publically on the big screen in South Africa. Since then, Smith, his vice-captain, the player in question and the coach have all resigned (and subsequently been banned) in tears.

Obviously, it’s not clever or attractive to mock fallen Australian sporting icons, ever. No, really.

So, let’s move quickly on to Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. His own sudden fall from grace happened late last month when a story broke on March 17^th that Cambridge Analytica had stolen the data of 50m Facebook users in an attempt to influence the 2016 US Presidential election. Faced with this story and the damning evidence of an undercover film from Channel 4, Zuckerberg fell silent. It was a full five days before he issued a long and apologetic statement appropriately enough on his own Facebook page. In the interim however, Facebook lost a tidy £35bn in market value. Its reputational damage is, arguably, even greater. There has been an outpouring of people deleting their account as a result of security concerns with the social network – a hashtag #deletefacebook has trended.

In contrast to Zuckerberg’s procrastination, Elon Musk reacted swiftly with his usually accurate ear for public sentiment. He took down Tesla and SpaceX’s own Facebook pages – each boasting c2.5m users – immediately as a form of protest. (Ironically, there was a subsequent April Fool’s story suggesting that Musk was going to buy Facebook in order to close it down).

If sentiment and reputations can shift so quickly, how responsive is employer branding to evolving candidate and employee sentiment? The industry talks at length about being disruptive and agile, but does that really stack up at an employer brand’s moment of truth?

Some fascinating research from Robert Half in late March suggests that 24% of candidates make up their minds about a potential job in the first five minutes of an interview.

Increasingly, attraction isn’t so much today about what sort of first impression a candidate can make but what sort of first impression such candidates take away from a prospective employer and a potential job.

And if employers are aware of skill shortages and a market tilted vertiginously in favour of the applicant, does this knowledge always translate into the sort of candidate experience and process they provide? Or are they still delivering the sort of application processes which see 60% of candidates quitting the pipeline as a result of its length or complexity, according to CareerBuilder?

Candidates are taking less and less time to make their minds up about career moves. And they are able to do that because information and insight is far more readily available. It is more available due to the transparency and accessibility offered by the likes of Indeed and Glassdoor.

The importance and opportunities provided by such sites was underlined by research from the University of East Anglia’s business school late last month. According to the research, the employee satisfaction related to pushing up an employer’s rating by one star on Glassdoor equates to a 1% higher return on corporate assets. Those employers in the top 25% of rated companies produced a 10-16% higher stock market return than expected.

It is hugely pleasing to see such a clear upside to achieving a high rating on such sites. At the same time, what is the recruitment cost to those organisations whose Indeed and Glassdoor ratings and reviews put off, rather than inspire, both hires and great internal performance?

If we naturally warm to the responsiveness of a figure such as Elon Musk, the same applies to employers. According to Glassdoor, 65% of its users agree that their perception of an organisation improves after seeing an employer respond to a review. Similarly, 74% were more likely to apply to a job if they felt that an organisation actively manages its employer brand.

(Ironically, if Musk has a sensitive feeling for public sentiment, then Tesla as an employer appears loath to respond to some often very challenging reviews posted on its own Glassdoor page).

Reputations are made, changed and damaged at speed. And just as it happens at speed, it also doesn’t happen quietly.

In the void created by Zuckerberg’s silence, Facebook lost control of the narrative, allowing individuals such as Musk and the deleters to make their case. All in a matter of days. In contrast, however, Steve Smith has been highly vocal about expressing his regret, apologies and sadness about the ball tampering affair – and equally quick to confirm he will not be appealing his hefty year’s ban from cricket’s top levels. This is not the last we will see of him.

Equally voluble – if presumably less tearful – will be candidate audiences. If they come across what they consider to be poor candidate experiences, they are less and less minded to keep it to themselves. According to LinkedIn, 27% of candidates will actively discourage their contact base from applying to the same employer in the face of a sub-standard interview experience.

If Zuckerberg had at least the opportunity to own the narrative, this is not a possibility that has traditionally always been extended to organisations and the potential ownership of their employer brand.

But what an opportunity this represents for employer brand owners.

If a successful employer brand can make a demonstrable difference, according to UEA’s Glassdoor research, to the bottom line, then what better time for those managing the employer brand to seek greater empowerment and autonomy? The sort of empowerment that will see their organisation responding more quickly and more intuitively to candidate audiences and applicant sentiment. To understand the direction of travel of the labour market and to ensure that the talent pipeline works for the candidate as much as for the hiring organisation. To be active on the likes of Indeed and Glassdoor and to ensure their organisation is seen as responsive and engaged with the process, rather than aloof, slow moving and inwardly-facing.

Brands, employer or otherwise, have never been so transparent, never been so open to change and influence. For ambitious, fast-moving, externally-facing employer brand owners, this should be seen as opportunity rather than threat.