All over the country, all over the world, thousands of employees are filling out myriad surveys, diligently record their responses to scores of questions being put forward by their employers. The purpose? To understand the degree to which employees are satisfied.

Talk about setting the bar low. (“Hey everyone, most of our employees are mostly satisfied with most of us – let the rejoicing begin.”) For companies not faring too well in this regard, perhaps they could lower the standard from satisfaction to tolerance. Or if that’s still too high, perhaps they could shoot for reluctant acceptance.

Yes, I know that there are different levels of satisfaction, and that some of those may even come close to contentment. But the point is, if we’re really going to try and get employees engaged, don’t we need a higher standard? And while we’re at it, it’s time to admit that work and life (as in work/life balance) no longer have any real degree of separation. If work is good, then life is more likely to be good. If work sucks, then everything else suffers from a degree of suckitude (the technical term) as well.

So what if instead of satisfaction, happiness was our standard? Psychologists are now (yes, this very minute, even as you read these words) seeking to understand the effect of happiness, how it manifests, and its variations. There are a number of scales, tests, and theories all geared toward understanding happiness and its relation to the human condition. Of course, by its very nature, this also helps us understand those things that make us miserable (like a 3-hour commute, or worse, finding out that Eminem was in on Sasha Cohen’s joke all along).

Imagine an employment experience with happiness as the standard. Who knows, it could even result in shorter surveys.

r

You would think that with the thousands of companies that exist in this country alone, there would be infinite variety in the attributes, perceptions, and strength of the corresponding employer brands. But alas, that is not the case. As a veteran of hundreds of focus groups, scores of surveys, and dozens of brand strategies, I can tell you that the universe is finite indeed, and that unlike the physical universe we live in, this one exists in a steady state. In fact we've actually developed twelve employer brand models and eight candidate archetypes that, in one combination or another, could serve as the umbrella for 100% of what currently exists in the world of employer brands (that's 56/100ths better than Ivory Soap, which is a mere 99 44/100ths pure).

(I have now successfully set up the second paragraph of today's discourse. As you wait for this paragraph to begin, the questions arise: What the hell is he yammering about? And what's with the soap reference?) When presenting research findings to organizations, it is not unusual to hear someone comment that there was nothing new uncovered, followed in short order with a question regarding the purpose of the entire exercise. There are two responses to that. The first is that if you are in a role that requires you to position your organization in the employment marketplace, you should not be surprised. For my second response, go back to the preceding paragraph.

But the real response (yes, I know that makes three responses) comes down to one thing, our viewpoints are guided by a shared culture, a culture that has ceased being regional, that in many ways is still national, but that has become increasingly global with every passing day. This cultural melding results in attributes and perceptions that tend to be intuitively understood by those who play in the employer brand sandbox, regardless if they are client-side or consultancy-side.

So does that eliminate the need for research? Of course not. (I'll bet you're stunned by that response.) Research may provide us with an affirmation of what we thought we knew, but in doing so, it moves us from supposition to certainty, from generality to specificity. And certainty combined with specificity is where the action is, because what we're really talking about now is the ability to differentiate. For a market in which most candidates believe they have more than enough choice, differentiation is what moves you from the consideration set to the decision set. But then, you probably already knew that.

r

I don't know about where you work, but in our company we receive a yearly employee satisfaction survey. It asks a lot of questions about what I think of my career prospects, management, coworkers, and the direction of the company. Based on my responses, it appears that I'm a pretty happy guy, albeit with serious underlying issues regarding desk clutter and the tendency of our office plant vendor to rely too heavily on dracaena.

In other companies, employees are subjected to engagement surveys and culture surveys. Each of these provides valuable information to management. Some organizations even supplement these surveys with focus groups and other studies.

What does this have to do with developing an employer brand? Very little. And that is precisely the point I'm coming to (about two paragraphs ahead of schedule I might add). When developing an employer brand, we rely heavily on research, both qualitative and quantitative. Invariably and understandably, companies want to reduce the scope of their employer brand projects in order to reduce both time and cost. In their efforts to do so, some organizations insist on force-fitting data into places it just doesn't belong. ("I really don't understand why we can't use our 'Bring Your Pet to Work' survey results as a basis for our brand position!")

The problem with this is that the aforementioned research doesn't address the primary points that need to be understood when creating an employer brand strategy. Some of these are:
- Company attribute performance and importance
- Job attribute performance and importance
- Candidate propensity to change jobs
- Candidate motivation
- Consideration criteria
- Decision criteria

There are lots of ways to get to this information - as long as your research methodology is actually designed for it. It's also important to understand the role of qualitative research, quantitative research, and how these support each other.

Quantitative research is about breadth and prevalence. It is the outline for the picture you are trying to create. Qualitative research provides depth and context. It is the color that goes within the lines. Try creating an employer brand position without quantitative research and you end up with a sprawling mess of poorly defined tones and voices. Try it without qualitative research and all you have is an outline absent of any vitality.

But research isn't the entire solution. There is also analysis and strategy development - at least that's what 78% of respondents in our latest survey stated.

r

Random Rant:
What's with elevating mobile phones to romantic gift status?!? The introduction of Motorola's new pink Razr phone was positioned as "just in time for Valentine's Day!" I'm incredulous. I can just imagine presenting a phone to my wife as a sign of my unending devotion. ("You got me a phone for Valentine's Day - what, were they out of toasters?") No wonder the divorce rate is high.