Engaging with the Brand Part II

Neonliz — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:43:19 +0000

In the first instalment of this feature, we talked about the mechanics of branding – what the elements of the brand are that facilitate engagement. Some of these are visual – about identity, some of these are more psychological – associations and image that are evoked by recognition and impressions. In this post, we look at the brand from an internal perspective.

Origins of Brands

Ownership and Identification

In many respects the original intent of a permanent mark to prove ownership and facilitate identification are no different today than they were in the wild west. Consistent use of the logo and brand identity are essential ways of retaining intellectual property, goodwill, positioning in the marketplace and hence the overall value of investing in developing a recognisable brand.

More recently, these notions have been applied to what happens inside the organisation and “internal branding” has emerged as a topic of interest to those who are seeking to engage employees in their organisation.

Branding has become big business, evolving on the back of spending on agencies, advertising, merchandising and promotion. This has been ably assisted by the rise of consumerism in our culture and increasing competition amongst suppliers keen to differentiate their product and offering from others. Interestingly, thinking of such commodities as energy, water, salt and others, the idea of branding is to differentiate what is otherwise something indistinguishable. For example, is there any discernible difference to consumers between the wholesalers or even retail suppliers of the electricity that boils their kettle? Sure there are differences in price. Yet the power companies have invested a lot in branding to suggest that there are differences in the customer experience – easy billing, “added value” services – all in an attempt to create an overall distinguishable “value proposition” for what is essentially a commodity that allows them to charge a premium price. Virgin, Orange, O2 have all attempted to create a differentiated position, an identity, through stretching of their brand to provide something that is perceived as more, that creates preference in the market place for what is essentially the same core telecommunications product. What is different? Some of the add-ons it’s true, but arguably, it is through the distinct “personalities” of each of their brands and hence the type of customers that each appeals to that we see differentiation. At the level of the consumer these brands have worked hard to support customer engagement, build “relationships” and maintain satisfaction amongst customers with a view to supporting retention in an otherwise churning market. When it comes to internal branding however, the audience is the employee. So is it too simplistic to apply the same concepts inwardly, by assuming the same cause and effect, or is there something else at work when it comes to employees?

What Is Internal Branding About?

It is designed to promote particular ways of behaving and a culture within the organisation that produces a consistent “personality” or experience whenever you encounter it

It is designed to increase engagement with the organisation, its mission or purpose and its values. What that organisation is all about should be apparent each time you come into contact with it (which relates back to the first point and how staff behave)

It is designed to encourage and support performance by making it clear what is expected of employees, what values they are expected to uphold and ensuring the integrity of the organisation

And when there are changes made to the brand this can also be a clear sign and indicator of a desired shift or change of emphasis in the organisation, or an aspect of its operations

Brand Psychology And Engagement?

The brand meets certain psychological needs of employees in the same way as it does for consumers by providing reassurance and security. They know what it stands for, what status the organisation has, or the issues associated with it and this can be a source of pride. They may feel that the brand reflects their own personality and often staff identify very closely with the mission and purpose of their employing organisation – charities, social enterprises, public service and owner managed businesses in particular, often fall into this category but also hi tech, household names and heritage businesses could be cited. Many staff feel strongly about the organisation and the cause it represents in particular when they join it – it can be a means of attracting attention and pulling them towards it and the mission provides meaning to the work.

As social beings, we also identify with those we work alongside. Unions, emergency services and health care professionals have a strong affinity to each other as social groupings and this creates a bond and a sense of common purpose and an implied, if not explicit code of conduct. There is a sense of being on the same side, in the same team, working for the same outcome and this creates a bond.

Internal branding, when done well can therefore help to reinforce these psychological aspects of working for the organisation. With an internal audience, the brand can be a device to reinforce recognition and reassurance – for example for staff who work on multi-sites, the consistent use of corporate logos, colour schemes and other physical manifestations of the brand can help people to feel at home, accelerate their settling in by providing familiar surroundings and therefore facilitate getting up to speed and performing more quickly.

When the organisation wants to signal a change – perhaps through a business transformation project, embedding a merger or acquisition, or to focus on a particular strategic initiative such as health and safety, then branding can be used. Whether a slight change, or the introduction of a new treatment of the brand, this can be enough to penetrate the lack of conscious awareness brought about by habit, re-focus attention or introduce something new into the behaviour and repertoire of employees. The novelty can have impact.

You Want To Change Your Brand – Just Do It? The Condundrum

The problem with familiarity is that eventually, it ceases to attract our attention – we switch off from it. Witness the staffroom noticeboard – people stop noticing it! To stand out takes something exceptional and this is the conundrum for internal branding. How do we reconcile the consistency effect of branding we seek – that desire for familiarity, preference, loyalty and effectively integrity of the brand brought about by necessary repetition and ubiquitous, conspicuous use of it on the one hand with the need to keep it fresh and current to enable it to develop along with our business?

And this brings us right back to the mechanisms for branding which are all about attracting attention, being able to distinguish between the specific, intended message and the bombardment of “white noise” that is so prevalent in our daily working noises. This is where the brand “refreshes” or creation of “sub-brands” come in. Clever use of colour-ways, minor adaptations to logos that cleverly provide continuity while subtly inching away from a previous position. And that is the artistry and the trick in branding and what some classics with acknowledged longevity do so well (Coca Cola, Nike and others). The science is understanding why it might be necessary, what you are trying to achieve, where you are coming from and what you are trying to do. Like all strategy this is best planned, with an intent, and understanding of the outcomes you are looking for and a plan for achieving them. In that way you can observe the outcomes and measure the change. And that folks, is a whole other blog right there!

The Meaning of Work and Engagement

Neonliz — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:47:53 +0000

Fast on the heels of Stud Terkel’s writings on the Meaning of Work, I stumbled across some more references via the venerable FT magazine and BBC Radio 4′s Crossing Continents, just today! What do these august institutions have to do with the meaning of work and employee engagement and alignment, I hear you ask?

The Shrink and The Sage

Let’s start with the FT magazine article by Antonia Macaro and Julian Baggini (aka the Shrink and the Sage) who are a psychotherapist and philosopher respectively. Their article asks the question about what we can do when life loses its meaning.

The “answers”, for some lie in religion, spirituality or existentialism. The upshot is, I guess, that rather than look for meaning outside of one’s own life, we should look at the meaning in our lives – i.e. what we can put into our lives that is meaningful. Phew – that’s a bit deep and definitely stretches my knowledge of philosophy etc.

Crossing Continents

Anyway, on to Radio 4. “Not a lot of people know this” to paraphrase Michael Caine, if you exclude the thousands that listened to the “Crossing Continents” programme aired to describe what happens in Senegal. The population there is 90% Muslim. Amongst them there is a significant, and growing group (40%) that belong to “Mourides” , a movement that stresses the importance of a strong work ethic.

The fact that this movement is gaining stature and influence by virtue of its prevalence among the higher echelons of the country’s political positions, poses an interesting question for me. Where does engagement come from and what does this very strong and pervasive value mean for Senegal’s economy? Can you imagine it being said that in our society everyone wants to work hard, irrespective of their occupation, in the name of some higher force or belief? It certainly isn’t the usual sentiment of the Daily Mail and I would say that if asked many people would say they only work for “the money”. But is that really true?

In my reading of Studs Terkel’s book, “Working – People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do” it struck me that there is something in this concept of “meaning in work” that is linked to how we, as human beings, see our performance at work vary over time. Where there is something meaningful to achieve it makes it that much easier to get up in the morning and give one’s best. We can all point to people who hate their jobs, even when well paid. We also probably know people that love their jobs, event when not well paid. They could do something else, they maybe have done something else but when it comes down to it when the work loses meaning, something else in us is lost too.

Are Managers and Consultants To Blame?

When the lean consultants come in, and the six sigma managers are finished with their cost-cutting exercises, when the teams have been dismantled by outsourcing parts elsewhere, and the human service elements have been replaced by automation or self service, and managers warned to guard against “job creep” to keep the wage bill down; and tasks are centralised in the centres of excellence…. and so on….. isn’t it possible that we have also dismantled some of what it means for the employees? Isn’t part of what engages them these same things that provide interest, fulfilment and satisfaction for many employees? The interaction, the relationships, the ability to respond and create and take ownership and responsibility etc.? Once you go through the above, the next wave of consultants coming in are the ones telling you about how you need to engage staff! So you need more “job enrichment”, create more social interaction, more recognition etc. The implication and underlying assumption is that managers can manage and control this. I disagree.

Perhaps the Shrink or the Sage will debate this further at some point – it sounds like their kind of thing after all. I was introduced to Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and many other writers on motivation, many years ago and they have stuck with me. I often see organisations trying to manage people as though money is the main consideration. If like the Mourides there really is a “higher purpose” available from work, then shouldn’t we understand it as it must impact on employee engagement. Think about it!

Neontics» engagement