Encourage Your Employees to Talk About Other Job Offers – by Reid Hoffman, Ben Casnocha and Chris Yeh

Why can’t employees speak honestly about their career goals with their managers? It’s because of the reasonable belief that doing so is risky and career-limiting if the employee’s aspirations do not perfectly match up with the manager’s existing views and time horizons. It seems safer to wait until another job offer is in hand, so that if one’s manager reacts badly to one’s ideas, there’s no danger of being passed over for on-going professional development, or worse, left unemployed. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: once an employee has gone far down the road with another potential employer, it’s hard for her to maintain a positive relationship with her current company.

Neither manager nor employee necessarily wants the current employment relationship to end, but because of the lack of trust and honesty, that’s precisely what becomes likely to happen with talented employees.

If you want to forge a high-trust alliance with your workforce, take a page from a popular clause in founder employment agreements — the “Right Of First Refusal” (ROFR). When a founder wants to sell stock in the company and has an offer to purchase some or all of the shares, the company has the right to exercise its ROFR and buy the stock at the offered price. This compromise reassures the founder (or employee) that the company can’t block the sale of stock while allowing the company to make sure it isn’t saddled with investors it doesn’t want.

We believe that an equivalent compromise can help improve the employer-employee relationship: the “Right of First Conversation” (ROFC). If an employee decides she wants to explore other career options, she commits to talking with her current manager first, so that the company, if it so desires, has the opportunity to define a more appealing job or role. This doesn’t mean that the employee informs her manager every time she receives a call from a headhunter—this kind of disclosure would be onerous for both employee and manager. Rather, the employee should initiate a conversation when she is seriously considering alternate job offers or career paths. Similarly, the employee should also approach the manager if she felt strongly that her current tour of duty no longer fits, and that without a change, she would feel obligated to start looking for another employer.

As with other aspects of the employer-employee alliance, the ROFC isn’t a binding legal contract. It’s an understanding between manager and employee that carries moral weight if violated.

Because the employer typically holds the power in the relationship, it’s up to the company to take the first step towards building the necessary trust. Managers need to say, “We don’t fire people for talking honestly about their career goals,” and truly mean it. Once employees believe that the company will live up to those words, managers can point out the benefits to the employee of granting them the Right of First Conversation.

First, an employee can benefit from frank career advice from a manager on specific industry opportunities. In a high trust relationship, a manager will not reactively denigrate competitors or “say anything” to keep an employee.

Second, perhaps the current company can upgrade the quality of the employee’s existing tour of duty. An employee who provides advance notice allows the company the time necessary to explore and develop more possible options and offers. If the company has weeks to match or exceed an offer from a rival, it has a much better chance of pulling together a counter than if it only had twenty-four hours to respond.

Finally, even if the company can’t present a compelling counter or the employee chooses to switch firms, the ROFC helps preserve the long-term relationship. The split can be made amicably, and on a timetable that works for both parties, honoring the mutual obligations and investment they have made in each other.

As a manager, would you rather manage a planned separation from an employee who has completed her final tour of duty? Or would you rather scramble to perform damage control on a sudden departure?

As an employee, would you rather depart amicably and become a valued member of the company’s alumni network? Or would you prefer to depart under a cloud of acrimony?

The Right of First Conversation represents a major departure from business as usual, but that’s precisely the point. The lack of trust between employer and employee is costing both parties. Adopting the ROFC helps both parties build trust and a longer, more fruitful relationship.

80-Reid_Hoffman

Reid Hoffman is cofounder and Executive Chairman of LinkedIn, the world’s largest professional network, and partner at the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Greylock. He is a co-author of The Alliance: Managing Talent in the Networked Age.

 

80-Casnocha_Ben

Ben Casnocha is an award-winning entrepreneur and bestselling co-author, with Reid Hoffman, of The Start-up of You. He is a frequent speaker on talent management, and is a co-author of The Alliance: Managing Talent in the Networked Age.

 

80-Yeh_Chris

Chris Yeh is an entrepreneur, writer, and mentor. He helps interesting people do interesting things as VP of Marketing at PBworks and general partner at Wasabi Ventures. He is a co-author of The Alliance: Managing Talent in the Networked Age.

Advertisements

Why Recruiting Isn’t Over When an Employee Accepts Your Offer – by Mark Suster

Recruiting. It is the bane of every startups existence because it takes up so much time, it is so competitive to sign people and it feels like unproductive time because it’s not moving the ball forward on product, engineering, sales, marketing, biz dev, fund raising. It consumes time and energy and the payoff doesn’t come for a long time.

But of course great teams build great companies and great startup leaders know that they must always be recruiting.

Yet most startup companies I’ve ever worked with or observed make one crucial mistake: They assume that their recruitment process for a candidate is over when that person accepts his or her offer. The truth is the process isn’t over until after the employee starts with the company, updates her LinkedIn profile and emails all her friends.

In fact, it’s worse than that. The moment your future head of sales, marketing, product or even junior developer says “yes” is the moment you’re most vulnerable of losing them. I’ve written about this before relating to any sales process – You’re Most Vulnerable After You’ve Won a Deal – and the same is true in recruiting.

Recruitment is war and the enemy (people competing for talent) won’t accept defeat easily. Don’t fight 90% of the war. You must win.

Here’s specifically what happens:

  • The employee gives you a verbal commitment, an email accept or in some cases even a signed offer letter
  • You high-five your team for all the hard work, the hard fought persuasion and the new superstar that will soon come help solve your problems
  • If they are as good as you think it is highly likely her existing employer will work hard to keep her. So the moment she notifies her boss is the moment that the other side is pursuing a full-court press while you are celebrating and getting back to work.
  • If the person knew she was going to leave her employer and was talking to multiple companies to be sure the next company was the right fit, the moment she notifies the other companies that she’s not accepting their offer they, too, will begin an assault of persuasion
  • So ironically at the moment it seems everything is all sunshine for you is the moment you’re completely vulnerable

So what to do?

1. Acknowledge that recruiting doesn’t stop until the employee has joined your company

2. The moment you get an “accept” you should have all of your key employees email, call or even grab lunch/drinks/coffee with the new recruit to welcome her to the team. Your goal is to create emotional bonds with the company and also to think twice about the perception that will be formed of her for accepting and then backing out (which in case you didn’t know is more common than it should be)

3. I like to create an even stronger emotional tie by making public announcements where possible. I’d want to secure permission from the employee to issue a press release. It’s a combination of the pride you take in this new recruit and it’s a way to lower the odds that they bail on you. Yes, you could get egg on your face if she still backs out afterwards but you’ve now massively lowered the risk she backs out. The candidate will look worse for backing out than you will. Obviously press releases only work if the employee isn’t junior. But it doesn’t really matter if the press wasn’t big enough for TechCrunch – it just matters that it’s in the public sphere and gets amplified through social channels.

4. I also like to give some evening homework to the new employees. To the extent she starts problem solving on your behalf and working as part of your team she will feel more commitment to you, more excitement about the new role and, again, a stronger emotional bond to not backing out.

5. Finally, if possible get your investors involved if it’s a reasonably senior position. Set up calls for VCs to welcome her to the team. The more people she has spoken with about joining the more emotional bond and the less likely of her backing out.

Summary

Recruiting is brutal. If you put in a Herculean effort to get employees and then lose them after you’ve crossed the finish line you will waste enormous energy. It’s a shame that you have to launch a welcoming committee to bear hug your incoming hire and to run an external communication plan because an acceptance should be final but reality is reality. Trust me – I’ve seen it happen time again.

You’re never done til you’re done.

And follow on reading. You’re really not even done then. If you don’t look out for your top people they, too, stay in jeopardy. It’s why I remind people – never roll out the red carpet when your best employees are on their way out the door.

What tactics do you use to make sure employees don’t bail after the offer?

Why Salaries Shouldn’t Be Secret – by Felix Salmon

No one knows exactly why Jill Abramson was fired as editor of the NYT. But one thing is clear: she was fired not long after she started asking questions about the amount that she had been paid, over the course of her career in NYT senior management, compared to the amount that her male predecessor was paid.

Very few people like to talk about how much money they make — especially not people who earn a lot of money. Since companies tend to be run by people who earn a lot of money, the result is a culture of silence and secrecy when it comes to pay. Such a culture clearly served the NYT ill in this case. If the salaries of senior NYT management had not been a closely-guarded secret, then Abramson would not have been shocked when she found out how much Bill Keller made before her, and Arthur Sulzberger would not have reacted badly to Abramson’s questions about pay.

Indeed, secrecy surrounding pay is generally a bad idea for any organization. Ben Horowitzhas the best explanation of why that is: it can’t help but foment poisonous internal politics. But there are other reasons, too.

For one thing, secrecy about pay is bad for women, who are worse at asking for raises than men are. If men secretly ask for raises and secretly get them, while women don’t, then that helps to explain, at least in part, why men end up earning more than women.

Secrecy around pay is also a great way to allow managers to — consciously or unconsciously — play favorites with their staff. When you’re deciding how much to pay your employees, you want to be as transparent as possible. A not-great way of being transparent is the civil service method: set narrow pay bands for every level of seniority, and then declare that the only way to get a substantial raise is to get a promotion. The problem with this kind of system is that it begets the Peter Principle: everybody gets promoted to a position of incompetence.

Still, there’s quite a lot to be said for a system, like the civil service, in which everybody knows what everybody else is making. It makes conversations around pay much easier, and reduces craziness like this:

He sat down opposite me and then he told me the job was mine. “Do you want it?” Yes, I said, a little startled. The job, he explained, came with a guaranteed salary for three years. After that, I would be on my own: I’d make what I brought in from my patients and would pay my own expenses. So, he went on, how much should we pay you?

After all those years of being told how much I would either pay (about forty thousand dollars a year for medical school) or get paid (about forty thousand dollars a year in residency), I was stumped. “How much do the surgeons usually make?” I asked.

He shook his head. “Look,” he said, “you tell me what you think is an appropriate income to start with until you’re on your own, and if it’s reasonable that’s what we’ll pay you.” He gave me a few days to think about it.

More generally, a system whereby salaries are set internally, according to the value of the person and the position, is a system which doesn’t find itself constantly buffeted by unpredictable exogenous factors.

We’ve all worked in companies, I’m sure, where the only way to get a substantial raise is to confront management with a job offer from somewhere else. That’s clearly a dreadful way to run a company, since it gives all employees a huge incentive to spend a lot of time looking for work elsewhere, even if they’re very happy where they are.

One of the problems is that virtually everybody in corporate America — from senior management all the way down to entry-level employees — has internalized the primacy of capital over labor. There’s an unspoken assumption that any given person should be paid the minimum amount necessary to prevent that person from leaving. The simplest way to calculate that amount is to simply see what the employee could earn elsewhere, and pay ever so slightly more than that. If a company pays a lot more than the employee could earn elsewhere, then the excess is considered to be wasted, on the grounds that you could get the same employee, performing the same work, for less money.

How is it that most Americans still believe in this way of looking at pay, even as we reach the 100th anniversary of Henry Ford’s efficiency wages? Ford was the first — but by no means the last — businessman to notice that if you pay well above market rates, you get loyal, hard-working employees who rarely leave. Many contemporary companies have followed suit, from Goldman Sachs to Google to Bloomberg: a well-paid workforce is a happy workforce, which can build a truly world-beating company.

Such companies are, sadly, still rare, however. That’s bad for employees — and it’s bad for the economy as a whole. We need wages to go up: they’ve been stagnant, for the bottom 90% of the population, for some 35 years now. We also need employee turnover to go down: employees become more valuable, in general, the longer they stay with a company — and it takes a long time, and a lot of human resources, to train a new employee up to the point at which they really understand how their new employer works.

There are two things I look for, then, in any company. The first is high entry-level wages. They’re a sign that a company values all of its employees highly; that it likes to be able to pick anybody it wants to join its team; and that it considers new employees to be a long-term investment, rather than a short-term source of cheap labor.

The second thing I look for is a system whereby managers regularly earn less money than the people who report to them. You shouldn’t need to get promoted to a position of incompetence just in order to earn more: you should get paid well for doing the job you do best, even if that doesn’t involve managing anybody. The whole “I work for you” rhetoric of touchy-feely CEOs is actually true, or should be true: value is created by talented workers on the front lines, not by middle management, and it’s management’s job to support those workers any way they can, including by paying them as much as possible.

If you have a company with high entry-level wages and where the front-line talent often gets paid better than the managers, then you’re probably in a pretty efficient industry with relatively low turnover. (One good example: professional sports teams.) On the other hand, if you have a company with low entry-level wages and where pay invariably rises the higher you go up the org chart, then you probably have a company where managers spend altogether too much time hiring and training people to do jobs they could probably do better themselves.

If you work for a company where everybody knows what everybody else is earning, then it’s going to be very easy to see what’s going on. You’ll see who the stars are, you’ll see what kind of skills and talent the company rewards, and you’ll see whether this is the kind of place where you fit in. You’ll also see whether men get paid more than women, whether managers are generally overpaid, and whether behavior like threatening to quit is rewarded with big raises. What’s more, because management knows that everybody else will see such things, they’ll be much less likely to do the kind of secret deals which are all too common in most companies today.

So let’s bring pay rates out into the open, where they belong. Doing so will create better companies, staffed with better-paid and more productive employees. Which is surely exactly what America needs, in a world where it can never compete by racing to the bottom.

Posted by:

Why Work Is Lonely – by Gianpiero Petriglieri 

I have a name for this cocktail of deference, conformity and passive aggression that chokes people and teams. I call it violent politeness.

I have witnessed it countless times. After some discussion, often labeled “brainstorming,” a group will go along with the most innocuous suggestion and follow it halfheartedly, keeping itself busy to avoid admitting what everyone knows: it is not going to work.

When I probe junior managers about this dynamic, they usually explain that their caution reflects their uncertain status. It feels too risky to raise misgivings, especially if one cannot offer an alternative course of action. It might make them look clueless or disruptive to their boss or colleagues.

Early in my career, I was sympathetic to that analysis. I knew it all too well, the fear of being myself at work—or more precisely, the uncertainty about which self to be.

I thought, and advised reassuringly, that things would improve with time. As young managers became established, they would have more latitude to put their mark on the roles they took—and so would I. It would be easier to find and speak with our own voice.

It took me a few years to realize that I was offering a wishful lie. Time does not summon courage. It only morphs the fear of speaking truth to power into the fear of speaking truth in power. Once I began working with senior executives, I found those hesitations all still there, only stronger in the face of increased visibility and pressure.

Owning one’s defiance feels risky at every (st)age. Speaking up feels even more exposing and consequential, spontaneity more unfamiliar, when we’ve spent much of our careers learning to modulate our silence—and being rewarded for it.

This is why violent politeness often gets stronger the closer one gets to the C-suite. In too many organizations, in too many of our minds, it is still what gets you there.

It is different from “groupthink.” It is not always borne of convenience, cowardice and backside-covering—or evidence of a lack of commitment or malicious intent.

As a personal habit, we often justify it with the wish not to embarrass others or to appear supportive. As a group norm, we reinforce it by endorsing “constructive” cultures that denigrate dissent as a lesser form of participation than enthusiasm.

Violent politeness is such an ingrained custom that we keep making excuses.

We keep forgetting that our closest relationships are not those where tension is glossed over but those where it can be aired and worked through safely enough.

We keep telling ourselves that speaking up is costly and ignoring the price of silence.Perhaps because the price of speaking up—being ignored, judged, labeled a poor team player or worse—is paid immediately and by those who speak first. The price of silence, on the other hand, is exacted later and paid by the group—when the bubble of false harmony bursts, relationships crumble or projects fail.

We keep ignoring that by censoring ourselves in order not to appear vulnerable, we are often complicit in being misunderstood. Silence is easy to fill with suspicions and assumptions about what others do not know about us.

We keep fooling ourselves that we need to wait and time will make us more open, as if time alone did anything more than harden tentativeness into superficiality. And in the meantime, violent politeness corrodes collaboration, problem solving and decision-making. It kills enthusiasm and drags learning to a halt.

We cast it carelessly, this stone that kills two birds we claim to cherish—our voice and our relationships. And when we have done it long enough that we have lost hope to speak or hear the truth, to truly care and be cared for, we tell ourselves…

It’s lonely at the top.

Of course it is, and not just there. It’s lonely everywhere you feel that you must give up your voice to stay in the room. It’s lonely everywhere relationships are brittle.

Violent politeness is tied to loneliness in a vicious cycle. Once you tolerate the former you worsen the latter, and vice versa. Neither is a property of “the top,” a necessary evil, or, worse, a badge of honor.

They are choices.

They are choices to keep commitments often made unconsciously, early on and far from any top. Commitments to look strong, caring, and in control. Commitments to keep our groups looking harmonious. Commitments we care so much about keeping that we are prepared to sacrifice learning, effectiveness, freedom, and intimacy.

It is to honor these commitments that we betray ourselves as much as others.

When I show that cartoon, most managers readily recognize themselves in the self-censoring team members pretending to agree. Few identify first with the meeting’s chairperson. No wonder. When I ask them to do so and guess how they would feel, the laughter usually stops.

Lonely, is the most common answer. Burdened, blinded, mistrusted, clueless, are frequent answers too.

Violent politeness keeps leaders stuck in the very place we say we least want leaders to be—carrying the glory if things go well and the blame if they don’t. Stressed out, alone, and handsomely rewarded for it.

Some argue that we unconsciously like it that way. Because applauding or rejecting leaders feels easier than sharing the burden of leading. Because isolation feels safer than admitting doubt or asking for help. Because at one time or other we have all been hurt by leaders who ignored us or took our dissent as an attack and retaliated.

All that may be true. But most of all we do it to keep bolstering airbrushed images of leadership and teamwork—at the expense of the messier work both take.

We can’t break violent politeness or end loneliness at the top, or anywhere else, until we are ready to sacrifice those idealized images and stop hiding in plain view. It is a tiny step that takes a lot of courage. The courage to take our work seriously and ourselves less so. The courage to be both vulnerable and generous—and to stop outsourcing shame to those who can’t afford to hide.

‘The top,’ in that way, is no different than anywhere else. We need good friends to thrive and be ourselves. Real friends, that is. The kind who would rather be ruthlessly honest than violently polite.

80-gianpiero-petriglieri-2

Gianpiero Petriglieri is Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour at INSEAD, where he directs the Management Acceleration Programme, the school’s flagship executive programme for emerging leaders. He also has a Medical Doctorate and a specialization in psychiatry. You can find him on Twitter @gpetriglieri.

Duke University Study Shows Why People Prefer Dead End Jobs – by Alexandra Levit

When I was a child growing up in Maryland, we visited relatives in New York and Philadelphia often.  Back in the eighties, the toll booth operator job on the New Jersey turnpike was the national symbol of boredom. I remember sitting at the booth longer than we had to just so that the poor operator could have some human conversation.

Albert Camus might have been thinking of the toll booth operator when he wrote The Myth of Sisyphus. The famous essay refers to the ancient Greek story about a man who’s condemned by the gods to roll a boulder up a hill, watch it roll down, and then repeat the cycle for all eternity. In Camus’ view, the more modern worker is much like Sisyphus, working every day of his life at the exact same tasks.

In the enlightened twenty-first century, we often talk about work being meaningful, and about engaging in careers about which we feel passionate. But it turns out that at the end of the day, most people will still pick a Sisyphus-like job over an engaging one if they aren’t getting paid for the extra effort required by the latter. And in a recovering economy where salaries still have not come up to post-recession levels, this means that millions of disillusioned job seekers are selecting dead end jobs.

Duke University Fuqua School of Business marketing professor Peter Ubel and David Comerford, an assistant professor at Stirling University, explored the idea of “effort aversion,” or why people choose to put forth less effort even if it means less personal satisfaction. The results of their studies, “Effort Aversion: Job Choice and Compensation Decisions Overweigh Effort,” were recently published in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization.

The researchers found that even when an effort-filled job would be more interesting and enjoyable than a boring one, people tend to price themselves out of the job market because they feel their efforts need to be rewarded.

Three Studies on Effort Aversion

The researchers conducted several studies that showed how pay impacts a job seeker’s willingness to take on more challenges. In the first experiment, 144 people answered a questionnaire offering the choice of two short-term jobs at a cultural festival. Participants could either choose to be an usher (which would require publicizing the event, cleaning up after and escorting performers) or a monitor (which would only require alerting a security guard if needed.) Results showed that while most people (82 percent) preferred the job of usher, 36 percent would only take the job if it paid more than the monitor.

Commented Comerford:  “Ask someone which of two jobs they like better, and they will often pick the more interesting job, even if it requires more mental or physical effort. But ask them how much the two jobs should pay, and now that their mind is focused on wages, they often conclude that all that extra effort ought to be rewarded. Otherwise, they will take the boring job.”

In the second study, 74 graduate students agreed to take part in a short film. They could choose the role of worker (which would require doing a word puzzle for almost five minutes) or on-looker (sit and watch others.) Again, results showed that most people found the role of worker more enjoyable (66 percent), but of that group, only 18 percent agreed to solve the word puzzles without regard to whether they would receive more money than the onlookers.

In a third study, the researchers explored whether effort aversion could be overcome. Eighty people surveyed at airports were asked about the roles in a hypothetical film similar to the one above. Some were asked to rate the roles of workers versus onlookers based on enjoyment before considering wages. A second group was asked to set wages for the jobs before thinking about the enjoyment.

The people who considered enjoyment first were more likely to pick the job they said they would enjoy most. However, the results were not statistically significant enough to conclude that effort aversion could be overcome by simply thinking about enjoyment before wages.

What Have We Learned?

When I was writing the book How’d You Score That Gig? about dream careers, I realized that there’s actually an inverse relationship between pay and level of interest. That is, the more intriguing a job is considered to be, the less you are often paid at the entry level.

Camus would say that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take the job. You have the consider the big picture, and if the money is enough to live on, isn’t it worth it to love what you do?  Financial compensation isn’t everything – just ask investment bankers who work 80 hours a week and have no time to spend their money.

Finally, because effort aversion is an unconscious process, you have to be especially careful that you aren’t falling prey without recognizing it. Be deliberate and thoughtful about any job offers you receive, weighing the pros and cons and envisioning your daily routine in each position. Every time you think about the plight of Sisyphus, you’ll be glad you did.

Alexandra Levit’s goal is to help people find meaningful jobs – quickly and simply – and to succeed beyond measure once they get there. Follow her @alevit.

3 Ways Employment Branding is Better than Job Postings

power of attractionJob postings have been around since the early ages. If an employer needed to hire, they simply wrote out what they were looking for and put it someplace for all to see.

Then, newspapers came along and radically changed job postings by making them all rest in one place for easy access.

Finally, the Internet came. I still remember the first time I visited Monster.com and realized anyone could look for job postings anywhere. It seemed too good to be true… and it was.

As we all know, somewhere along the way in our efforts to improve the job posting process, we created a system that now overwhelms recruiters with unqualified candidates. All of whom expect to be contacted – and then are offended when they don’t hear back about their application status. Add to that a bad economy where some job seekers have developed “angry mob” mentalities, and it has forced many recruiters to rethink their job posting strategies as a way to limit the applications submitted. For example, posting on industry-specific sites as opposed to larger sites. But the problem with limiting where we post a job also increases the odds that some of the best possible candidates (i.e. passive job seekers) will never see it.

Employment Branding = A Better Way to Attract & Filter Talent

The most exciting new development in the effort to attract top talent is Employment Branding. Now, companies of all shapes and sizes can strategically develop online content designed to catch the attention of and develop a relationship with the very talent they most desire. Using social media to push out blog posts and videos authored by their employer, recruiters are finding new, better ways to connect with the right applicants. However, effectively using Employment Branding techniques comes with a learning curve, leaving many time-crunched recruiters to still rely on job postings for the majority of the sourcing. To inspire you to commit some time and energy into building an Employment Branding strategy for your organization, here are 3 ways Employment Branding is better than traditional job postings for finding the top talent:

1.) It’s cheaper. Creating and circulating content that showcases your Co.Co.Fa. (Company Cool Factor) can be done for a fraction of the cost of a job posting today. Especially, if your company has in-house staff who can write and promote the content. For example, getting your company showcased on a high-ranking Google site will drive lots of organic traffic to your Careers page. Top talent is always on the lookout for the best companies to work for. When they see them written up, they go looking to learn more about them.

2.) It weeds out lazy people. Good Employment Branding not only grabs the attention of top talent, but it also invites them to make the effort to engage in conversation with your organization. Lazy job seekers just want to send you a generic cover letter and resume. Top talent wants to contribute to the conversation. An Employment Branding strategy that creates an opportunity to dialog with your company opens the door for the best and brightest to feel connected to you.

3.) It’s more valuable over time. Employment Branding is like a good wine, it gets better with age. That’s because the digital assets you create online increase in visibility over time. As your Employment Branding content gets circulated and re-circulated, it increases in Internet search engine rankings, ultimately driving even more talent to your company. News travels fast – and when it’s about a hot company like yours, it travels even faster!

Employment Branding is not a passing fad. As top talent becomes more savvy online, their expectations for content that helps them make an informed decisions about their next employers will increase dramatically.Those companies that have lots to offer in the way of Employment Branding will prove to job seekers they understand their needs.Those that ignore Employment Branding will find it harder and harder to attract the best talent and will be left dealing with the disengaged, entitled workers who stuff your online application system. Invest in Employment Branding now and you’ll reap the rewards later!

[Read more in Employer Branding]

  

J.T.J.T. O’Donnell is CEO of the career media services company, CAREEREALISM and founder of the virtual career coaching resource, CareerHMO. A nationally syndicated job and workplace expert, her company specializes in the development of digital assets for both individuals and companies in the areas of executive branding, employment branding, expert platform development, and authority marketing. On Twitter she tweets as @jtodonnell and @CAREEREALISM.