Viewing All Posts Tagged ‘brand’

Self Branding

Other than a painful, drunken practice of Frat Brothers and frontier cowboys or the latest topic on Oprah, I’m not sure this term should actually be used as a verb. 

I prefer the noun: “Personal Brand”

As with a corporate brand, your Personal Brand may be something you “manage”  but it is created by the way you work and may not be as you intend.

In corporate America, those of us who do the work of the company (separating from the C-level executives to whom NONE of this applies) are annually evaluated on not only what we’ve done in the last year but how we’ve done it.  Typically a bi-modal evaluation program like this results in great “what” score and a confusing “how” score that is less than anticipated.

Why?

For one simple reason; measuring your Personal Brand (i.e., reality checking it internally at the company) is virtually impossible.

Now HR practitioners will argue that a 360 degree review (where your Mgt, co-workers and subordinates are all anonymously polled and the feedback provided to the individual) account for this internal Personal Brand check but anyone who has been through a 360 knows that’s not true.  So not true that I once completed one for a manager of mine and in our next 1:1 she said to me “I heard your voice in my review”!!  I had been honest and made some grueling recommendations for improvement in her “how”, was assured it was confidential and low and behold – she parsed the comments out and knew what I had said.

Needless to say, any 360 degree review I was involved in from that point forward was a highly edited, cliff notes of what the true feedback could be.  This is true for a large majority of people being polled in these “feedback” sessions.  Your true Personal Brand is what is said about you around the water cooler.

So what does this look like (inability to accurately access your true Personal Brand) in real life?  Let me ask you if you know this person at work:

1. Considers himself a “SME” (subject matter expert).  Note; I said “considers himself” not “is considered by the team/group/company!
2. He’s always adding his 2 cents to a conversation, even when he’s not really part of it.
3. Acts like he’s always too busy so that any time he gives you is perceived to be at a premium.
4. Asks for ideas and input but does what he originally intended to do in spite of it.
5. Lets everyone know every time he has a conversation with an executive and it always seems to be that this Exec asked for his advice.
6. Eats lunch alone.
7. Is never invited to the after work impromptu beer gatherings
8. Has been in his same job for 10 years + (consistently passed over for promotion)
9. Bugs you.

Now when someone asks this guy how he’s seen at work, he’ll rave about how he’s respected, consulted and admired.  But, is that the way you really feel about him?

Before we can go about “managing” our internal Personal Brand, we have to find a handful of honest co-workers, supervisors and subordinates who will tell us the hard-to-hear truth.  And then we have to accept it with grace and go about changing the things that caused us to shudder when we heard them.

Fact is, YOU have some things you can change today to make your self-brand better – are you willing to hear them and do the hard work to change them?

Problem or Opportunity?

In an article from Monday by Dr. Sullivan titled;

Managing Recruiting During an Economic Downturn: The Top 10 Action Steps to Take

he also mentions “10 Recruiting Problems You Might Face During Tough Economic Times”.  Problem #4 is of high interest to me.

An increased volume of traffic. Normally, all great recruiters focus on the employed candidate (the so-called passive candidates). However, layoffs and high unemployment may mean that some high-quality people are now available among the ranks of the unemployed. Unfortunately, if you actively recruit during tough times, the volume of mediocre but enthusiastic unemployed people who will apply for your jobs will also increase dramatically.

So I’m a glass half full guy and see this as an opportunity and not a problem.  Increased flow of applicants during times of higher unemployment is one of the greatest opportunities a company has to cement its employment brand as positive.  How you treat the “mediocre but enthusiastic” (really judgemental and subjective and NOT my words) applicant today dictates your success when the unemployment rate dives and we are back fighting for talent.

Here’s the logic.  When you have 5 openings in marketing (as opposed to 55 during high growth boom days) it is very easy to classify really good candidates as “mediocre and enthusiastic” because it’s a sellers market and you and your hiring manager can be as picky as possible for these few hires.  But when the market comes back and it is once again a buyer’s market (we all know it will happen) how you treated these candidates will come back to bite you.  Remember, we are still in the age of Facebook, myspace, the vault etc. so if you fail to make a positive impression on the hoardes of people who need you today, you will find yourself wanting when you need them.  And you will.

Here’s the action plan (so simple it’s crazy that it isn’t being done by most companies):

1. Disposition everyone.  No, not only in the ATS to cover your EEO butt but actually communicate with everyone who has applied to your company through the automated email process available in everyone’s ATS.  Most companies don’t understand that not communicating with someone who has applied is NEVER an acceptable business rule.
2. Talk to anyone who meets minimum qualifications.  Really, you don’t have time?  5 openings in Marketing?  What are you doing if you aren’t talking to candidates?  Find the candidates who meet your needs today or who MAY meet your needs in future growth times and treat them like diamonds, not dirt.
3. Give people reasons.  Again, most ATS vendors allow you to add a reason; doesn’t meet minimum qualifications, wrong location, salary too high etc.. but recruiting departments turn off this functionality because they don’t want to “upset” a candidate (meaning they don’t want to have to defend their decision in the event a rejected candidate calls)
4. Don’t trust me, trust your candidates.  Again, you have time (I know you do) so hold an impromptu candidate focus group and find out what your candidates (selected and not selected) want from you.  You’ll find they simply want communication and not to fall into the black hole that corporate recruiting departments create to protect themselves.

The true measure of your employment brand is how you treat the people you CAN’T hire, not how you treat the people you desperately need.

Are Recruiters solely responsible for the ‘Black Hole’?

Here is an interesting article by Dana Knight that references two issues near and dear to my heart; a candidate’s right to know where they stand with regards to an application and the ‘black hole’ that exists in the job search process. Have a quick read:

I’m in search of a humongous black hole filled with millions of job applications and resumes. It has to be somewhere, because every other day I hear from someone who sent out a resume to a company and it “disappeared into some black hole.” Never heard of again.

It seems employers are forgetting their manners, being provocatively rude and outright snubbing potential candidates. Now I have no hard stats to prove this. But lots of you have been writing in to say, “What’s up with this?”

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news4502.html
Hartford Business, 7 February 2008

I believe all candidates deserve timely communication when they apply for a job. After all, didn’t the Company advertise the job? Would we purposely drive traffic to our company and then treat people so poorly they write to journalists to complain?

I realize this IS an issue and many companies are actively working on it. However, before you start blaming 100% of the ‘black hole’ issue on Corporate Recruiting departments, did you know that up to 40% of emails never get delivered to their recipients? So maybe, just maybe, some of these “you didn’t get the job” emails end up in spam boxes or junk mail boxes and then the company is blamed for it? If you want to guarantee that your messages are being delivered and your candidates are actually being communicated with check out this company; http://www.mailprimer.com/home/