There’s been a bit of a hot topic bubbling away in internal communications circles for several months now.
It’s one that’s been on my mind a lot lately, and especially since our Comms Reboot event in October where it was the subject of much discussion…
What exactly is employer branding? How does it relate to employee experience and engagement? And how involved with it should we be as internal communicators?
I’m still not sure I have a fully-formed view on any of these questions yet, so I thought it would be interesting to find out more about the experiences and views of other communications professionals in the Redefining Communications community. In a recent LinkedIn post, I asked my followers for their thoughts on the topic and received a really interesting array of responses.
In the post I outlined some of the questions I’ve been hearing in the last month from internal communicators, many of whom are frustrated with the blending of disciplines and the sense that this is yet another responsibility that will fall on their shoulders.
But should we be worried? Or is this actually a great opportunity to raise the profile of internal communications and ensure that everyone within our organisations is clear on their aims and messaging?
In this blog I’ll attempt to summarise the feedback I received and look for any common consensus.
What is the difference between employer branding and internal communication?
This is the first question I asked and the overall theme of the responses seemed to be that, while the two are undoubtedly connected, employer branding is seen as more of an external conversation, designed to attract people from outside the organisation into it, whereas internal communications is obviously what it says on the tin, and is aimed at the people already working within an organisation.
As Jackie Chirchir Krhoda,Head of Engagement and Brand at Surrey Police, put it:“Employer branding is the external promise of what it’s like to work at your organisation, attracting talent by showcasing values, culture, and opportunities, whilst internal communication brings the brand promise to life internally by fostering connection, alignment, and trust among employees.
“A strong employer brand sets expectations, while internal communication ensures the day-to-day experience aligns with those promises.”
Communications consultant Laura Hardin agreed with this sentiment. She wrote: “Employer branding is external facing – but internally fuelled. It’s a “why do you want to work here” approach.
“Internal comms should be about openly and honestly sharing information with employees who already work for you. It should inform, excite and empower employees so they can deliver what’s needed to succeed in their role.”
Sam Monteath, a specialist in creating Employer Value Propositions, agreed that the messaging for both internal comms and branding needs to be aligned. He said: “The same messages that can be used to attract should be the ones that help retain and motivate.”
Communications lead Jenny Jones,summed it up nicely: “Branding is ‘this is who we say we are’ and internal comms is ‘this is how we prove it’.”
How does employer branding fit with employee engagement and the employee experience?
If we’re clear there’s a direct link between internal communications and employer branding, the question then arises of where it sits within the organisation, and who should be responsible for it, and I think this is where things are still very unsure for a lot of people at the moment.
It was for this reason that the second question I asked my LinkedIn audience was the one in the headline above. How do they feel employer branding fits with employee engagement and employee experience?
Rebecca Bainbridge,Head of Internal Communications and Employer Branding at YouGov, had some interesting insight on it, as branding is now part of her role alongside internal comms. She said: “There are a lot of synergies between the two, but ideally you would have dedicated resource for both. If teams are lean in your organisation, I can understand why the two are combined. However, internal comms pros tend to be the connective tissue of an organisation wearing multiple hats at once which isn’t always easy!”
Stacey Dean, a communications and engagement executive, was involved in the conversations around this topic at our Comms Reboot event. She said: “A good majority of the room felt that employee engagement was not in the internal comms team remit (despite the abundance of ‘comms and engagement’ job titles). Myself and a few others saw the two elements working hand-in-hand.
“Whilst the comms team shouldn’t be penalised for a low engagement score on the annual employee surveys, they should be creating the tools for engagement. If a comms team looks after two-way comms, listening strategies and feedback loops, then they already have a hand in developing employee engagement.
“It was suggested in that session at Comms Reboot that actually the future is more focus on employee experience, bringing the two disciplines together.”
Others in the comments felt that employer branding should remain distinct from communications.
Laura Hardin, who works in employee engagement and activation, said: “I think employer branding belongs with recruiting and talent acquisition. They should own the channel and lean on internal comms to help gather employee testimonials and experiences to share.”
Communications strategist Andrew Hesseldensaid: “Employer branding belongs with HR and marketing I think. To attract talent. I think of internal comms as being business performance and operational efficiency.”
Should internal communicators be worried?
The concepts of both employer branding and employer experience have ballooned in the last two years but, as the comments show, there are a lot of grey areas around what each term actually means – especially to those who don’t work in communications. New roles and new titles are being created, but if you’re a communications person with little experience in engagement, it can be daunting to suddenly find yourself in a department that deals with this too.
However, there was a strong feeling within the LinkedIn discussions, that it’s not necessarily something to fear – and that there could be some real opportunities that arise for internal comms professionals as a result of the changes.
Sharon Kennedy,an employee experience research and insight consultant, said: “The blending of disciplines? That’s life, that’s progress, that’s good! There is vertical depth of knowledge in every discipline and area of expertise. How far you take and integrate all these elements is time, money, capability and will.”
Jeremy Petty,CCO at employee engagement consultancy scarlettabbott agreed that we should view it as a positive.
He wrote: “I feel IC professionals should embrace the opportunity here, rather than be frustrated at the blurring of boundaries or worrying about whose responsibility it is.
“Making sure that the ‘promise’ of the employer brand is true and authentic across the entire employee experience is where the real value and opportunity lies. And although this isn’t the sole responsibility of IC, of course, it is an opportunity to help turn the dial on tangible business metrics. And for the last 20 years I’ve spent in this industry, that’s exactly what IC professionals have wanted to be able evidence – how we make an impact…
“Working with HR may feel new/uncomfortable for some, but are we really working towards different goals/business outcomes? If so, that’s probably a bigger problem…”
Marie-Eve Morin, an independent communications consultant, agreed that closer working between all departments from the outset could be beneficial.
She said: “I believe the frustrations come when IC are involved only at the end of an employer branding project. It should be co-lead by HR, IC and marketing since each has their specific strategic perspective.”
So, what needs to happen next?
It’s clear that engagement and branding, and what exactly those terms mean, is a subject of fierce discussion, and one that internal comms professionals are unlikely to escape over the course of the next 12 months.
There’s a definite desire for some clarity and definition around the different terms we use in our work, who is responsible for each, and what the outcomes of each of those different facets should be.
We use many different phrases in our industry and they get jumbled up a lot, particularly by those outside it, which leads to a lot of confusion, and that seems to be what we’re seeing here.
There are lots of new roles and departments being created, but how it all fits together is still a bit of an unknown, and the overlap of tasks is an issue. Different organisations will have their own views on what branding and engagement should encompass and who is ultimately responsible for their success.
I like the idea that there’s a kind of evolution of language, that the way we talk about communication, branding and experience evolves over time, and I think it’s likely we will all eventually be brought further into employee experience. However, during that transition there have to be clear outcomes from the organisations about what they are actually looking for the so the right people and the right skills are in place to have the business impact.
You can read the original LinkedIn post and comments, and join the debate, here.
