For those of you who remember elementary physics, you may recall that Isaac Newton’s famous laws all have to do with motion. One states that a body at rest stays at rest (I have a relative who is proof of that one), and that a body in motion stays in motion. (Newton had devised some more obscure laws too, like whoever arrives at the pub last picks up the tab, and, if you call me “Fig” more than once, I get to punch you, but neither of those really caught on in the scientific community.)

Anyway, the point is that not only does the economy obey Newton’s first law, so do our models of employment – yes, both are always in motion.

Allow me to illustrate (with actual illustrations, no less).

Model 1: One company for life
Characteristics
-    Lifetime security in return for lifetime commitment.
-    No interest in, or perceptions of, what it’s like to work somewhere else.
-    Little pressure on company to provide an exceptional employment experience.
-    Generation: expected by Matures, remembered by Boomers
-    Employer brand only impacts entry-level opportunities.

Model 2: Free agents
Characteristics
-    Expectation to work somewhere else.
-    No promise of security.
-    Company needs to provide a signature employment experience to retain top talent, maximize engagement, and minimize attrition.
-    Generation: embraced by X, adapted to by Boomers
-    Employer brand differentiates employers.

Model 3: Distributed employment
Characteristics
-    Work for multiple organizations simultaneously on discreet tasks/projects.
-    Relationships are “as needed.”
-    Guilds and other affiliations fill voids (social, benefits) left by loss of traditional engagement
-    More virtual interaction increases difficulty of employers to provide a signature employment experience.
-    Employer brand shifts from constructed to organic platform as distributed network conversations become primary focal point for development of perceptions.

Right now, we are at the beginning stages of the third model. The degree to which this model takes hold is in question. The degree to which we have to be ready for it is not.

r

Read an entertaining piece on Yahoo! the other day about how out-of-date certain terms are in relation to describing the Internet. Most were what you would expect, like Weblog (for blog), World Wide Web for Internet, and “surf” (which was ridiculous the minute it was first said out loud. “Hey, look everyone – I’m surfing the Internet!” No. No you’re not. You’re sitting in a chair. You’re barely even moving. And take off the wet suit.)

I’d make the argument that the same thing has happened with the employer brand. There’s an entire lexicon that has developed around the concept, which is fine as far as giving people a common framework. But I think it also tends to complicate efforts.

Rather than seeking a basic, concise understanding of what’s going on in the workplace, how to communicate it, and how to improve it, we put our efforts into crafting the “employee value proposition.” (Just saying it makes it seem important enough to talk with anyone about it. You know, like the CEO. “Oh, I thought you just wanted to hire and keep employees, but now that I know you want to create an employee value proposition, that’s different. Come on over to my house for a barbecue. How about some stock options?”)

Let me offer up something a little more direct. Something, that in it’s simplicity gives us the focus and objective we really need.

Here’s the scenario.

Two friends are talking.

Sooner or later, one of them is going to ask the question “How’s work?”

Whatever the answer, it’s going to leave an impression. And someone is going to walk away with an idea about an employer, maybe even your company.

These conversations are happening everywhere, every day – through professional networks and on social networks, in back yards and in front offices. And they’re conversations we all need to affect.

And we need to affect them not with academic jargon that raises eyebrows, but with conversation that creates interest, the kind of conversations that people really respond to.

So, how’s work?

r

Haven’t written anything in a while because the world has been clamoring for employer brand engagements. One organization after another is asking for help in developing its employer brand. Is it because of my wildly successful blog, my rugged good looks (see accompanying photo illustration), my ability to hold witty conversation on such disparate subjects such as politics and stuff that is not politics? If only that were the case.

Employer brand development is so mainstreamed that it’s right up there with lattes, American Idol, and political scandals. In fact, I fully expect a major deal with a Hollywood studio any day now.

So now that everyone is following the true path to employment marketing enlightenment, here’s my question. Why are you all focusing your engagements on the delivery of just advertising? The employer brand is so much more that that – just ask my friends at People In Business (www.pib.co.uk). They have long been onto the idea that the employer brand can be the engine that not only drives employee engagement, but successful product, service, and brand delivery to customers.

Maybe it’s because Simon Barrow, the founder of People in Business, has had more time to think about this concept than anyone else. After all, he came up with the entire idea (and the current terminology as well) over fifteen years ago. I like to think that we were the drivers of the concept here in North America, but that pre-dates anything we were doing (oh, the humbling nature of the employer brand practice).

Anyway, visit their site, pick up their book (serendipitously entitled, The Employer Brand), hop a plane and pay them a visit. Then, help us make the employer brand even more influential than it is.

r