Canadian HR Reporter

By Cissy Pau A ir Canada's discount carrier, Rouge, launched with a splash in 2013. Staff were promised the "Harvard of customer service training" through the Disney Institute. ey were outfi tted with trendy uniforms and as- sured they would fl y highly coveted in- ternational routes. But days after the launch, the Internet was abuzz about lower wages being off ered to Rouge employees and employees being ex- pected to pay for a portion of the incidentals (such as travel, meals and accommodation) related to the training. e employer brand of Rouge took an immediate hit almost be- fore it started. Also in 2013, online retailer Zappos piloted "holacracy" with its HR team. A management system that eliminates tradi- tional job titles and hierarchy in favour of self-management and self-organization, holacracy was fully adopted throughout Zappos in 2015. e company also off ered three months of severance or one month for every year worked, whichever was greater, to encourage any employee who didn't be- lieve holacracy was a good fi t to leave. In the end, 260 employees — 18 per cent of its workforce — took advantage of the severance off er, according to Zappos. Some left because of holacracy. Others left because the off er was too good to pass up, they wanted to pursue other opportunities or because the timing was right. e aver- age severance payout was 5.5 months of pay. Compared to an average annual turnover of 20 per cent in the two years prior, turnover in 2015 was 30 per cent. So, were Rouge and Zappos ahead of their time or were they trying too hard to stay "on-trend" or ahead of the curve? It is diffi cult to know what it is really like to work inside Rouge, Zappos or the dozens of other companies that are starting new workplace trends and very publicly touting "unique" workplaces. e employee experi- ence is dependent on so many factors, in- cluding their role, their manager and their relationship with co-workers. But when employer brand and company culture are not aligned, the following pitfalls may occur: Dissatisfi ed employees: When the pub- lic image and the internal experience diff er, employees can feel uncertain and confused, which could lead to lower productivity and effi ciency, decreased employee satisfaction and higher turnover. Zappos fi rst appeared on Fortune magazine's annual list of the 100 Best Companies to Work For in 2009, rank- ing #23. It went from ranking as high as #6 in 2011 to #86 in 2015 to not making the list at all in 2016. Does this mean employees are less satisfi ed? Not necessarily. But from the outside looking in, the public perception of the company is declining. It is easy, though perhaps not accurate, to put some of the blame on holacracy. Increased public scrutiny: For compa- nies with strong brands, the hope is that the conversation is positive. However, when a brand takes a tumble, it is diffi cult to escape the public scrutiny and its negative impact on the employer brand. For example, a New York Times' exposé on the diffi cult work environment at Amazon in 2015 created a traditional and social media fi restorm, with current and past employees discussing their experiences. Decreased company credibility: Doubt is created about the work environment. is doubt tarnishes a company's reputation and diminishes confi dence in the company's employer brand which, in turn, can impact a company's overall reputation. WestJet, for example, has created an incredible employ- er brand with its "owners care" philosophy and all employees being owners. Unfortunately, over the past few years, there have been growing cracks in this reputation. WestJet has faced unionization drives by both pilots and fl ight attendants in 2015. More recently, allegations of sexual assault have emerged. WestJet may be a great place to work, but potential candidates may now think twice before submitting an application. e abil- ity to attract and retain staff may become more diffi cult as the divide grows between public brand and internal culture. Aligning the external employer brand and internal company culture is essential. e employee experience requires consis- tency for employees to be able to support and appreciate the company in which they work. If a new business approach sounds like the "fl avour of the month" and doesn't fi t with an organization's values, it won't work. If a company is trying too hard to be hip and on-trend, but is really traditional and conservative, employees will see through it. Employees don't want to feel like they are part of a social experiment or a guinea pig for a new idea — they want to know the company and its leaders are consistent, ef- fective and demonstrate staying power. To develop, communicate and popular- ize an employer brand that complements the company culture, consider the follow- ing strategies: Be authentic: Don't make up a story of the ideal employer brand and convey this is what your company is like. e brand must be real and genuine and, more importantly, it has to be supported by employees' ex- perience there. Create an employer brand and initiatives that will support this brand by looking internally at what makes your company unique and an exceptional place to work, and build from there. Originate, don't imitate: Just because Google off ers a never-ending supply of gourmet food and snacks and employees can dedicate 20 per cent of their time to a passion project doesn't mean this will work at every company. Employer brands cannot be copied and applied from one company to the next. Build an employer brand by being original and creative and fi nding out what works at your company. Don't be a copycat. Don't try to make the company something it's not. Be realistic: Every company has an iden- tity, like it or not. If the company culture is unattractive, change must come from strong leadership who lead by example. Creating an exceptional employer brand and developing trendy initiatives to try to attract people who will change the culture to the ideal won't change it. Instead, those employees will become disillusioned when the reality of working in the company doesn't match the story. Employers should know where their com- pany stands today and change the internal culture before spreading the word in the market about what they want to be. A strong match between a public em- ployer brand and the internal company cul- ture enables an employer to attract and re- tain employees whose personal values and interests align with those of the company. When this alignment is off , skepticism abounds and current and potential em- ployees start doubting the authenticity of, or lose trust in, the company. Disgruntled and disillusioned employees have immediate outlets available to share their experiences through social media channels and on employer rating sites. Negative ratings, unfl attering anecdotes, cynicism about the company and jokes about unsuccessful company initiatives will tarnish a company's reputation, both for employees and consumers alike. Whether these stories are true or not doesn't matter. Perception becomes reality. Implementing a trendy initiative doesn't make a company trendy. An attractive place to work is created when there is consisten- cy, when the culture is authentic and when the story is real. Cissy Pau is the principal consultant of Clear HR Consulting, a Vancouver-based fi rm that off ers human resources consulting and downloadable HR solutions for small business. For more infor- mation, visit www.clearhrconsulting.com. Build an employer brand by being original and fi nding out what works. Don't be a copycat. Potential pitfalls when an employer's brand and culture don't align FEATURES EMPLOYER BRANDING

• Cover