it's a match - how to win the war for talent (english version)

Borracchia, CarolinaIt’s a Match!: How to Win the War for Talent / Carolina Borracchia;prologue by Pablo Maison. 1st ed. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires:Borracchia, Carolina, 2015. E-Book. ISBN 9789873368370 1. Economía y Empresa. I. Maison, Pablo, prol. II. Título. CDD 158.1

Cover and content design, Paloma Pollan.Cover photo, Xavier Martín.Writing advisor, Nicolás Di Candia. www.nicolasdicandia.com.arEnglish translation, Agustina Caballero

© Carolina Borracchia, 2015 + [email protected]

No part of this book may be reproduced without express permission from the author.All rights reserved.

To Sol Piana, from Unileverfor giving me my firstEmployer Branding job opportunityand being my client andabove all, my mentor.

Carolina Borracchia

It’s aMatch!HOW TO WINTHE WARFOR TALENT

7

Because I was born in the 80s, I think that writing in monologue

form is a thing of the past. So I would like to open the door to

you and make this a dialogue. I would like to challenge you, my

equal, to contradict me. Not with your pencil or on the margins,

nor shielded in printed paper, but in some virtual space where

the scales are less favorable to me and we can engage on a

passionate debate.

Therefore, from now on and as long as you’re on that side,

I’ll be here: @caroboraquia.

O P E N B O O K

“It’s a Match! is Carolina, body and soul. I can still see her,

sitting as a student in our HR program at UTDT, in the first row,

getting engaged in the all topics proposed, with an almost

uncontrollable, overwhelming passion, contributing knowledge

from different fields and experiences. That very essence shines

through in It’s a Match!: a solid approach to employment

and employer branding in this day and age, valuable and

provocative for individuals as well as for companies. I celebrate

this young, fresh and passionate voice joining us in the choir of

voices trying to change the world.”

— PAULA MOLINARICEO AT WHALECOM, HEAD OF HR PROGRAM AT TORCUATO DI TELLA UNIVERSITY

“Defiant, breaking paradigms, with its eye on the future –which

equals the present–, focusing on people, this book owes its

novelty to simplicity and its innovation to humanity. Carolina

invites us to revisit our mental models and face an ever-evolving

reality. We can forget about the words, but we’ll never forget the

experiences: I welcome this provocative vision and hope that

many can find it enriching and apply its ideas.”

— ALEJANDRO MELAMEDAUTHOR OF HISTORIAS Y MITOS DE LA OFICINA, EMPRESAS (+) HUMANAS, ¿POR QUÉ NO? AND EMPRESAS DEPREDADORAS.

“In this book, Carolina warns employers and challenges them

to rethink their corporate branding strategy. New generations

demand more sincere and human relationships, in which

there is no room for arrogance or detachment. She applies

marketing concepts without resorting to dogmatisms or

clichés, and brings clarity to this fundamental need companies

have: talent attraction. Her deep yet concrete reasoning leads

to action and change.”

— FERNANDO ZERBONIMARKETING PROFESSOR AND CONSULTANT – IAE BUSINESS SCHOOL

“The perfect mix between Marketing and Human Resources.

With an entertaining approach and focusing on people,

Carolina shows us how to strengthen and challenge our

employer brand.”

— RAFAEL BERGÉSINDUSTRIAL ENGINEER, ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT AND HR MANAGER AT BANCO GALICIA

9

11

C O N T E N T S

O P E N B O O K

A K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

P R O L O G U E

1 T H E P O W E R O F A N T S

KISS TYRANNIES GOOD BYE

I WILL NOT DISGUISE MY IGNORANCE

IN BETWEEN LOVE AND REJECTION

IT’S A MATCH! WHY TINDER?

2 W H AT C H A N G E D ?

WOULD YOU GO TO FAR WITH WEAPONS FROM 1482?

FEAR DOESN’T EMPOWER YOU: IT FREEZES YOU!

THE SPERM’S ROAD TO THE EGG

WORDS FALLING ON DEAF EARS

HUMILTY? WHAT FOR?

SELECTION 2.0: THE TINDER PARADIGM

RELATIONSHIP BUILDING

EMPLOYEES ARE PEOPLE,

CANDIDATES ARE RÉSUMÉS

DIFFERENCES: A SUMMARY

3 W E ’ R E A L L C A N D I D AT E S

GETTING TO KNOW PEOPLE

CERTAINTY VS UNCERTAINTY

IT’S SEDUCTION!

CAREER VS IDENTITY

KEEPING DESIRE ALIVE

WE ARE COMPETING WITH HAPPINESS

EMPLOYER VALUE PROPOSITION.

EMPLOYER BRANDING: THE FOUR C’S

4 F R O M L O S E - L O S E T O W I N - W I N

A LESSON FROM FERRARI

EQUALS

GOOD AND BAD SOCIAL MEDIA USE

5 S U C C E S S S T O R I E S

BANCO GALICIA: THE EXPERIENCE

UNILEVER: THE DIALOGUE

6 L I F E I S N O W

0 6

1 2

1 6

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

3 0

3 2

3 3

3 4

3 5

3 8

4 0

4 1

4 3

4 4

4 5

4 6

4 7

4 8

5 0

5 2

5 3

5 4

5 5

5 6

5 8

5 9

6 0

6 2

6 4

6 5

6 6

7 0


In the first place, I have to acknowledge (as I always do) life

itself, for having given me so much. Starting by my parents,

ISABEL and MIGUEL BORRACCHIA who were the first to believe

in me and have encouraged and supported me in all my

endeavors since I was a little girl. And SANTIAGO PONFERRADA,

for being my unconditional partner and supporting me through

so many tough moments, such as my panic attacks and my

Generalized Anxiety Disorder, which is virtually unknown in

Argentina.

I am indebted to MARTÍN, SEBA, SOL, ELINA and DANIEL PIANA,

for their generosity towards me, because without their support

I’m not sure I would have finished college and because COMBO

EMPLOYER BRANDING was born in their playroom.

Thanks to sisters MAGDALENA and JOSEFA and all my teachers

and educators at INSTITUTO MADRE DEL DIVINO PASTOR. For

showing me how to pray and teaching me a realistic catechism,

that tells us that being a Christian is not about being good, but

about not being indifferent, which is much harder work and

much more demanding.

Thanks to: my partners at COMBO EMPLOYER BRANDING: JUAN

PABLO GONZÁLEZ, LUCIO SANTILLI and CECILIA ASTORE for being

more like siblings than business partners and for trusting in

me always; and my team at COMBO EMPLOYER BRANDING, who

paid attention to this book’s every detail as if it were their own.

Especially PALOMA POLLAN, ALEXANDER WITTMAN and VIRGINIA

MUÑOZ.

Thanks to my former partners at AHA! LORENA GHIGLIONE

and FLORENCIA BO, for jumping into the adventure of starting

something new and generously sharing their knowledge with

me – always.

Thanks to the company that taught me everything and that

I’m so fond of: UNILEVER. To each and every one who stood

by COMBO EMPLOYER BRANDING as we grew in each new

challenge, but mainly to VERÓNICA CARABAJAL, who always

coaches us with patience and shares with us her enormous

knowledge on EMPLOYER BRANDING. Our discussions triggered

many of the ideas that inspired this book.

13


I am grateful to those who put their trust in COMBO EMPLOYER

BRANDING when we were just 23 years old: FABRICIO KAPLAN,

NICOLÁS BAREA VILAS, PABLO MAISON, FLORENCIA IGLESIAS, SOL

PIANA and MELINA CAO. And to those who keep challenging us

to think outside the box day after day: RAQUEL SUÁREZ, ERIKA

GIORGANA, INÉS OLANO, GLORIA VALDELAMAR, GEMMA GODOY,

BÁRBARA ROBLES, JOANA RUDIGER, LAURA ARCUSIN, EMILIANO

BLANCO, JOHANNA LOPEZ, LORENA MOREL, EUGENIA VIOLA,

LAURA MASSOLO, MARTHA PAOLA PENA, and many more.

I am indebted to NICOLÁS DI CANDIA, writer and author of

LÉAME and DOS BOCAS. Without him, this book would have

been something else entirely. The truth is we wrote it together, I

talked my head off and he wrote to exhaustion.

Finally, from the bottom of my heart, thanks to the teachers

who have educated me: PAULA MOLINARI (Universidad Torcuato

Di Tella) for her huge generosity and her patience when I

interrupt her; FER ZERBONI, JAVIER SILVA and PABLO ALEGRE

from IAE BUSINESS SCHOOL for believing in me; NORA MENZEL,

from LA PALMERA workshop, who always taught me and

respected my freedom; DANIEL WOLKOWICZ for correcting me

so many times as a grad student.

Thanks to entrepreneurs PABLO LORENZO from TEA

CONNECTION and ALEJANDRO NAVARRO from BUMERAN.COM

for sharing their ample, admirable experience and enduring my

many catharses.

Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto.

15

P R O L O G U E , PA B L O M A I S O N

Felipe sits in front of a big TV playing GTA V on his PlayStation.

Two other friends play with him. But they’re not here, they’re online. One is five minutes away from our home and the other one is in Spain. The three are also on Skype, on the tablet, where they discuss what to do “together” to win the game.

They’re a team. A virtual one, but a team nonetheless.

They laugh and get excited and argue as they virtually steal cars. They have fun. Lots of fun.

Felipe is ten years old and he’s my middle child. It creeps me out. Not just because I cannot

fathom how he can have so much fun with friends who are not physically here, but because they do have fun... stealing cars! It’s too much for my 70’s mindset – ‘71 mindset, more precisely.

Many aspects of this trouble me: methodology, because the way he interacts with his friends dramatically opposes the way I used to interact with mine; and values – because I didn’t steal cars when I was their age. I would ride the bus for an hour, get together and watch a movie or play a boardgame. Probably TEG, our Argentinian version of Risk.

Felipe wanted a PlayStation console since he was eight. I got it for him when he turned ten, just because I didn’t want to give in. For the next six months, he begged for the GTA game and I said no because I didn’t want him to start stealing cars.

17

1918

But then he was the only one among his six closest friends who did not have the game. So I gave in. I gave him permission to steal cars virtually with his friends. And in fact, I had to do so on his birthday, so his friends wouldn’t get bored at the slumber party.

I’m no longer creeped out by him playing GTA, in fact, I’m almost sure neither him nor his friends will grow up to steal cars for a living.

But I am certain that the feeling I get every day watching Felipe or my two other children is very similar to what I felt almost ten years ago, watching the young people who wanted to start working at Unilever, who came to question almost everything I thought I knew about organizations in terms of the employer-employee relationship.

Fortunately, It’s a Match! goes beyond characterizing or describing today’s young or today’s employees. And that’s what’s interesting about its proposition.

It does not explain “what Felipe (current or future employees) is like”: it provides clever ideas to help me (the organization) play a better role as a father (employer) and avoid making unnecessary efforts to try to change the unchangeable – these generations’ needs. Which are very different from mine.

Carolina focuses on the same thing I love to focus on, hence why I love this work. It is something as simple and abstract as the pursuit of happiness. Young people pursue happiness from the very

P R O L O G U E

beginning of their professional lives. And this happiness is not affected by the same factors that we used to take into account.

I don’t need to describe them here. It is important to mention, however, that It’s a Match! puts the individuals in a position of equality with the company. How? Because it is not just companies that choose people anymore, but that the choice is mutual. And although this approach could mean hard work, higher costs (in traditional terms) and more difficulties, it is a beautiful challenge for those of us who work to construct organizations’ human capital.

They don’t trust companies anymore. It’s a fact. Nowadays, young people don’t believe in

companies just like they don’t believe in most institutions – governments, labor unions, political parties, etc. This is why, now more than ever, we need to build the bond that appears when companies and individuals get to know each other. That bond is trust.

It’s in Carolina’s book: companies and candidates do not really communicate. On this subject, I usually say that one of the main problems we have, in this attempt to build mutual trust, stems from us overselling our companies as the ideal place to work. In order to attract talent, we use discourse to portray our organizations as immaculate, wonderful places, which are far from being so – and we know it, it is just because all companies are run and

2120

managed by humans, flawed through and through. And the consequences of this overselling problem do not come about in the medium term: people fall out of love with companies much sooner now, questioning, to the extreme, why they lied when they introduced themselves.

The author is sensible enough to see beyond this and state that overselling is probably not just dishonest but also pointless, because young people are not even willing to pay attention to what companies are trying to sell as an ideal workplace.

Hence the importance of devising a strategic employer brand: understanding the company’s strengths and weaknesses and translating them into an honest, consistent employer brand. At this point, as stated by Carolina in this book, our task is to reach beyond the newly arrived employees to those who have failed to enter the company. They will probably have more power to build our employer brand than our employees.

A number of companies have started designing recruitment strategies aimed not only at new employees, but also at providing some orientation (or a skill, or a learning experience) for all participants. This is one of the cornerstones to build the aforementioned long-term bond.

There are two more concepts from the book I would like to expound on before closing this

P R O L O G U E

prologue. The first is the importance of social media in today’s world of work. The reason is too obvious to explain here. Fundamentally, we need to consider how soon we can adapt our companies to successfully integrate social media to our day-to-day formal and informal communication processes, and how we can use them to bridge the gap between us and the people in the labor market. This is not optional. If we fail to understand the potential of social in the transformation of an organization outside formal structures, we’ll definitely overlook the principal driving force for cultural change existing today. If social networks were able to shake social foundations during the Arab Spring, with the indignados in Spain and with the questioning of public spending for Brazil World Cup, think of the power they can have on smaller groups of people.

How should we add social media to our formal communication processes? That is the big question, especially if you take into account that they are young people’s real communication channel – not just a form of entertainment.

And finally, I would like to comment on what’s possibly the most important concept in the book: the extensively treated and perhaps outmoded concept of the Employee Value Proposition (EVP). The EVP is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what companies mean to their employees.

22

Creating the EVP gains importance not only during the talent attraction process, but also – and fundamentally – when we plan our response to the needs of our employees. The proposition of value as an employer materializes when companies profoundly and genuinely embark upon understanding their employees’ needs (through climate surveys, focus groups, open dialogues, etc.) and the needs of future employees (for which all the information that comes out of recruitment processes is crucial).

Is that our challenge, then? Detecting and understanding these needs? Not at all. Our real challenge is to be able to question, as leaders from another generation, with different values and requirements, the status quo of our organizations. As Carolina shows us through this book, the main goal is to take off our own shoes, and put ourselves in the shoes of those who think and feel very differently from us.

That is, without a doubt, the only way to transform organizations quicker and more effectively than our competitors.

— PABLO MAISON HR VICE PRESIDENT, UNILEVER LATIN AMERICA

2524

1 T H E P O W E R O F A N T S KISS TYRANNIES GOOD BYE

I adore being an 80’s kid, These years are great for us optimists, for those of us who believe in the

triumph of minorities. I was thirteen when I read about the Internet for the first time, and I immediately became obsessed with it. I asked my mother to buy me as many books as she could, and wrote my first paper about the future.

The future has always intrigued me. Later I bumped into a quote by Gilles Lipovetzsky in a magazine, which I put up on my bedroom wall: “a society made of more comfortable people does not necessarily make up a society of happier people”. Happiness and the future still intrigue me. Twenty years after that summer I still imagine the future, but it’s the future of work I think of, which is what I ended up dedicating a part of my life to. I am certain that the world is inevitably becoming a fairer place. Power is being increasingly threatened by a new kind of justice, one that is above courts and judges. It is overwhelming and unstoppable, like a boiling anthill.

Billions of voices speak up through social media; we speak up about what’s unexpressed, exposing injustice, making the invisible visible. The world we live in is gradually becoming a world of equals. For those who understand this, opportunities arise everywhere. Those who still believe in the old paradigm can neither adapt nor enjoy the ride. For

2726

them, the world is made up of the bad news the media gratuitously terrorizes us with. But there is a different future, a much more optimistic future that transforms everything - even the world of work.

I WILL NOT DISGUISE MY IGNORANCE

I get bored easily, and I am haunted by the idea of wasting my readers’ time with ideas they have already read about. So I will not discuss the new generations: there is nothing I could write that you haven’t already read, and I won’t act like I do. For reference on this topic, I recommend you read Turbulencia Generacional (Generational Turbulence) by Paula Molinari or El trabajo en la posmodernidad (Work in the Postmodern Era) by Pablo Maison. I won’t discuss the war for talent in depth; I think this book is a waste of time for anyone who doesn’t know what it is.

T H E P O W E R O F A N T S

IN BETWEEN LOVE AND REJECTION

“We are sorry to tell you that you are not the one we are looking for, but we will hold on to your résumé for future searches!” This classic phrase means only one thing to candidates: rejection. The end of the road. Walking away empty-handed.

NOWADAYS REJECTION IS THE EXPERIENCE PROVIDED BY EMPLOYER BRANDS.

We have all been rejected by an employer brand. This is why the more interest a company shows in its candidates, the more it risks losing its ability to attract talent. Because, today, we go all in: you either get the job or you get rejected. Employer brands only think about attracting talent, about “the war for talent”, about how to fill vacancies. All they ask themselves is: Is this our guy? Yes or no? But, actually, there is much more potential in relating with candidates differently. We need to create win-win experiences in order to resignify rejection.

However, there are infinite things in between acceptance and rejection. The world is not always black or white. Manners, experiences and situations change. If a man on a date makes me feel beautiful and intelligent, but for whatever reason we don’t see each other anymore, I’ll still have something nice to remember. The experience is not blunt rejection.

With how many people to we experience attraction? Definitely, many more than we ever get to

2928

fall in love with. And in most cases, you feel like it wouldn’t work out, for whichever reason. Think about all those people: in spite of the apparent attraction, you most probably would not choose each other, for an obvious reason, or a shared reason, anything from “he/she is gay” to “he/she is too uptight”. I am painfully aware of how complex falling in love is, and how unlikely it is for two people to fall in love with each other. But you’ll only know if you give it a try, if you get to know someone and allow them to get to know you. And if it won’t work, you might as well find out sooner rather than later. If you invest time on someone who is not right for you, you are losing the chance to spend time with the one who is right for you.

I believe that the love of our lives is a match: a mutual choice. The problem with employer brands is that they do not reveal that rejection works both ways, that rejected candidates would not be able to survive the company’s culture or workload (just to name some examples), because the people who work in candidate selection are always in the search for compatibility.

In the old paradigm, rejection is not mutual, because candidates are not given the chance to realize why the company es not right for them. They don’t usually give honest feedback to the candidates they don’t hire – “We chose someone else” is as close as they get to it. And not only do


companies keep that feedback from the candidates they reject: they don’t explain to chosen candidates why they got the job either.

Hired employees suffer the same lack of communication. They don’t necessarily know how the company regards them, and in many firms, the most valued employees are not aware of their worth.

Above all things, we need to end this kind of unilateral communication. Companies are missing out on some valuable feedback, which would allow them to improve their recruitment processes, the relationships between bosses and subordinates, their value proposition towards employees and their benefit programs.

In the old paradigm’s recruitment processes, companies act unilaterally. They make decisions on their own. The starting point is that every résumé received equals a right swipe on Tinder, and if the other person swipes right too, a “match” is created. And then what? Then the candidate is invited to get to know the company – once they’re already a part of it! Just think about it. It’s insane! It’s a waste of too much time and money. It’s a lose-lose situation, because companies shouldn’t want candidates who don’t choose them. We need to get to know each other beforehand. We need to choose each other.

IT’S ABOUTCHOOSING EACH OTHER

3130

IT’ S A MATCH! WHY TINDER?

It’ s to Match! is Tinder’s (the dating app) catchphrase. You probably knew that already. As I write this, Tinder has ten million active users daily1 and over a billion profiles (almost one out of six people in the world). Every day, 15 million of matches are made2. But what is Tinder doing in this book? Why is it so important? Because Tinder is a perfect example of the new paradigm. It makes the connection between people easier in as little time as possible. It allows to you to quickly discard the people you are not interested in (at first sight) and clears the picture so you can dedicate more energy to the ones you are interested in, and are also interested in you.

Tinder does not replace human contact: it increases the possibilities for it. It allows you to filter people within different types. It gives you opportunities. You can maintain several conversations at the same time. It allows you to contact people you wouldn’t meet otherwise. And it avoids rejection: the app only establishes contact between two people who “liked” each other.

The way we meet either one-night stands or the love of our lives has changed paradigmatically thanks to Tinder. In the old paradigm, online dating services epitomize the promise of introducing you to “the love of your life”, making you invest lots of time

1 Wired: wired.com/2014/04/tinder-valuation

2 Forbes: goo.gl/r6AukI


to submit all kinds of information, “guaranteeing” a kind of compatibility that can crumble to pieces as soon as you make eye contact for the first time.

The Tinder paradigm is starting to revolutionize human relationships. But beyond any app, the mindset it embodies has not yet had an impact on the way companies and candidates choose each other. It’s time to open up to this opportunity.

Only make contact to hire them.

Establish a contract based on power.

They invest time on you.

Just a potential employee.

Takes up space on your database.

Make contact to get to know them.

Offer them a learn-learn relationship.

You both invest win-win time.

An influencer for your employer brand.

Provides insights for innovation.

CANDIDATECO-

CREATORVS

33

2 W H AT C H A N G E D ? WOULD YOU GO TO WAR WITH WEAPONS FROM 1482?

I am the one writing this book, I am the one who paints pictures, I am Ringo’s mother, I am an activist for Generalized Anxiety Disorder awareness, I am a lover of flowers, and many more things. I am many and I am one. And no one in my generation identifies as “an engineer” or wants to be treated like a person cut away from the rest of their life. That is in the past. There are no more consumers, clients, candidates or graduates anymore. There are people: Juans, Cecilias, Lucios, Marías...

This is why we cannot fathom dividing ourselves in a résumé. We are not that chronological compendium of set work experiences in a formula invented in 1482. (Yes, I don’t want to bore you, but I guess you know that the résumé or curriculum vitae was invented in another era. No wonder it’s in Latin...)

A résumé can never summarize everything I am. No one in my generation is capable of summarizing themselves in one page. The résumé is a technical description of yourself. It is a hard, dry, rigid document. It lacks all the soft aspects. Nobody puts emoticons in them, no one shows feelings, no one mentions anything about the rest of their life.

A résumé is just a tool tailored for organizations that -logically- still need to fit people into a single matrix in order to compare and select. Don’t get me wrong: I am not questioning the résumé in itself. I

3534

applaud it. Few things have been able to survive from 1482 to this day. It has worked wonders until now. It fits perfectly in the paradigm in which companies omnipotently chose talent and rejected everyone else. But it just so happens that those days are gone now, and the highly publicized “war for talent” needs new solutions for new problems. Will we continue to select people using just a résumé, then?

FEAR DOESN’T EMPOWER YOU: IT FREEZES YOU!

In the war of the talent, companies are frozen by fear. They think they lack the budget, but what I think is that they lack the courage. The formulas they use belong in the old paradigm, and they are not good enough. They don’t combine hard and soft elements.

We need to identify fear in order to get rid of it. When someone has a panic attack, if they don’t identify it, they are unable to fight it. This is the same idea. Companies have fears larger than their budgets, and they are used to seeing things a certain way. Thinking outside the box is crucial to win the war for talent.

The problem is not understanding the new generations, it’s using the information about them as a starting point to take action. It’s like when you go to therapy for the first time and discover your own story from a different perspective. It can be so revealing.

W H AT C H A N G E D ?

Like in therapy, having our motivations clear, knowing what makes us who we are, our fears and our history, allows us to understand, but changing and growing take much more than learning and knowing: they take courage.

In broad terms, this is where all companies stand. They feel they are at war, because they haven’t been able to connect with new generations yet, with people with different dynamics and thought structures.

But when we stop playing the victim and start taking control of our lives, that’s when opportunities arise. And in this case, for those who are not afraid to try something new, the opportunity is huge.

There will be no surefire recipes in this book. I don’t believe in them. Those who understand the change and learn to manage in the new world can get the best people and the admiration of others. They are the ones who win the war for talent.

THE SPERM’S ROAD TO THE EGG

In the classic vision, companies seeking new employees resort to one-to-many communication. They put up an ad in the newspaper or on a job website, and I have to take the time to find the ad in the right medium and get in touch with them.

And so my résumé begins its road to unlikely success. It must compete with tens, hundreds or maybe thousands of other résumés, from which one

3736

or two people will probably get the job. The résumé takes the road of the sperm, in a blind race to the egg.

The odds that my résumé will stand out are so scarce that I’m tempted to do whatever it takes to boost its chance to succeed. I can, for example, improve it, increase its impact, or adapt it to what I think the company wants. This takes time and energy, an investment that is almost never fruitful. Some sites even charge for this service (!!!).

Another possibility is to make infinite copies and send them to anyone who will receive them. Someone has to hire me. The reasoning behind this is that, sooner or later, if I’m persistent enough, my résumé will land on the hands of someone with enough power to take my merits into account and call me.

In order to prepare my résumé so it can catch whoever’s job it is to read them all, there are all sorts of stratagems I can resort to. Some recruiters expect to be engaged in a kind of deception game, in which I dress it up so it can stand out among the others... which are also dressed up. Even if it makes it through all that, if I get chosen, then I have to enter the selection process. A series of obstacles set by the company have to be overcome, which can include interviews with different people, psychological tests or aptitude assessments. A lot of these steps are standardized across companies,


so it is not uncommon for candidates to know what to say and what not to say. I know that if this is common knowledge, it is highly probable that my rivals will know also it. And there is a good chance that the winner will end up being the better candidate, instead of the one who is better for the job (!!!).

This is still in force. Although the market is very fragmented, selection processes still pretend like every vacancy is highly enviable and coveted by the whole world. Everyone just assumes you are extremely interested in their company, that you should feel lucky they’re even giving you a chance.

Go to the Human Resources section in any bookstore and you’ll find many books that look like they belong in the self-help section. Their aim is to give candidates inside advice on how to overcome selection processes: how to answer typical interview questions, what body language should be adopted to seem authentic, and even why not to use Comic Sans font on you résumé. Is this really getting to know the candidates, or is it encouraging them to be manipulative? What’s the point? It’s like that saying, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”. Wouldn’t it be better to simulate some real work situations, instead of pretending to be something you’re not just so they’ll let you play?

Lots of companies make candidates feel small and in no way different from the one next in line.

3938

They put on a steel face, an indifferent face. And many lose their will to try along the way. Those who get in might be satisfied, But those who don’t - the overwhelming majority - get the rejection experience.

WORDS FALLING ON DEAF EARS

Companies and candidates have not reached real communication yet.

On both sides, the expectations from the other are very different.

Many companies present themselves as the best at what they do. They’re Messi. They’re Clooney. Companies trying to sell themselves often publicize their multinational presence or their global turnover level. They emphasize how well the company works, what a privilege it would be to be a part of it, but that information is usually more relevant for a stockholder than for a candidate. Many companies try to sell something that candidates are not interested in buying.

Rather than seducing candidates, this generates a conflict of scale. Because, to be honest, when something is so huge and so successful, it also becomes distant and suspicious. And we need to build close bonds, through which we can admire and discover each other. “It’ s a Match!” is about mutual


choices. When the base relationship is so uneven, it’s hard to see the mutual element. Companies have to quit their navel-gazing, take off their make-up and go out to show themselves as naturally as possible, just the way they are, and discover the people behind the profiles.

For this reason, I believe all this is reflected on Tinder. If you browse through Tinder profiles, you’ll realize that the ones who have dated the most are the ones who have developed an ability to know what to look for in a profile so that they are not disappointed at the date. It is very frustrating, arriving at a date and finding that the actual person is quite unfavorably different from the sexy photos they’ve uploaded. And that is why many users add the line “my photos are up-to-date” on their profiles: they convey transparency, because without transparency there is no chance of getting a match in real life.

HUMILTY? WHAT FOR?

In the old paradigm, companies are constantly navel-gazing and communicating their hard data. There is no soft communication; no information about what candidates are interested in; what makes

IT’S ABOUT RETHINKING THE CANDIDATE

4140

the company attractive for people to want to work there. The starting point for companies is that it’s everyone’s dream to work there.

One of the trends men follow on Tinder is showing off their chiseled bodies or their extreme sports abilites. But women are most likely to be looking for something else: someone to comfort them, to hold them at the movies, to share an ice cream with. A person.

Many companies are like body builders, expecting everyone to be in awe of them. But a man who holds your hand is much more seductive than the body builder. However, companies don’t see this.

What does “holding your hand” mean in this case, though? It could be something as simple as, for example, being able to wear sneakers to work. That is “going soft”. Soft is related to what’s close, palpable, human. Sharing codes. Understanding the other. Not focusing on large-scale.

Hard is irrelevant. But it’s not altogether insignificant; just like physical attraction, it continues to play a role. But the conquest takes place on the soft side. That’s where there’s a connection, where there is a match.

Candidates are less likely to focus on their thirty-year-long career in the company than on their coming years and their day-to-day experience. They think about enjoying life and what is happening around us all the time. Soft seduces.


The war for talent has torn all surefire recipes to pieces, and it’s that empty space that brings about a new opportunity. The first step to win the war for talent is understanding hard and soft elements: understanding that looks and money do not necessarily mean success.

SELECTION 2.0: THE TINDER PARADIGM

Something awesome happens when a company realizes that it damages itself with the rejection experience, not just because those who enter the company are affected, but also because you can lose many valuable people by not making them feel welcome. Companies select people, but people also select companies.

We want to be valued as people. Given the choice, we will choose the company that does. Companies who get it can build a relationship with those who might be interested in working with them. They want to be make themselves known, show off their work environment and emphasize their employees’ achievements.

Social media is ideal for this kind of promotion. They can be used to gain presence and start building the employer brand. We can offer different opportunities, not necesasarily work-related, but aimed at a mutual-benefit experience.

Consumer brands got it a while ago. “Keep trying”

4342

(or, in HR language, “You’ll stay on our database for future searches”) is a harmful message. It carries with it the frustration of not winning the prize, and besides, it strikes as generic, form-letterish. The “keep trying” message receiver is anonymous.

In the new paradigm, everyone wins something. Not everyone can take home the big prize (getting hired), but there are all sorts of benefits. Candidates who don’t get hired, but instead receive coaching, an internship opportunity, a college program or career advice, go home not just happy, but enhanced. They are better than when they arrived.

RELATIONSHIP BUILDING

One of the benefits of Tinder is time saving. It allows, in addition to its wide sampling, to connect with others before meeting them in person. Relationships have their own timing, but with a little practice, it gets much easier to discard the people we’re not interested in. Similarly, we can measure to what extent our own characteristics are liked or not.

THE NEW PARADIGM KNOWS NO LOSERS


Therefore, even though we may not reach our highest goal, no time is wasted. There is no rejection experience in Tinder. When there is no match, it’s painless. We are building relationships, or at least getting some practise at it. We are growing as candidates.

In the old paradigm, the best candidates selected. In the new paradigm, the best candidates are created (or co-created).

That is the key, I believe: creating learn-learn experiences. Rejected candidates will value those who made an effort to get to know them. They will get a positive experience out of it, which results in favorable word of mouth. They will acknowledge those who treated them as people and provided tools for them to improve their lives.

This kind of experience brings about enthusiasm and commotion. Not only does the company gain a better reputation - it also gets better candidates for future searches. And it soon achieves one of the major goals: creating desire. With desire, better candidates can be caught.

4544

EMPLOYEES ARE PEOPLE,

CANDIDATES ARE RÉSUMÉS

“It’s a Match!” happens much more strongly inside companies than outside.

It is amazing how they have improved the way they treat their employees. Benefit programs are a great example. Most companies already understand that it is crucial to balance work with the rest of your life, and they offer you various ways to do it. One example is encouraging the home office experience, not as a favor to the employer but as mutual benefit, as win-win. There is a lot of matching going on inside companies, from choosing a more flexible dress code to all sorts of interesting and diverse practise.

The point is to make employees feel like people. That is mutual benefit.

However, although on the inside companies show that their employees are more than just their résumé, on the outside, blind hard data still rules.

DIFFERENCES: A SUMMARY

— IT’S NOT ABOUT SELECTION, IT’S ABOUT CHOOSING EACH OTHER

In the old paradigm, talents competed for the post.

In the new paradigm, companies also compete for candidates.


— SELF-CENTERED COMPANIES HAVE TO STOP NAVEL GAZING

In the old paradigm, companies adopt a hard position.

In the new paradigm, companies are also soft.

— WE DON’T LOOK FOR PROFILES, WE DISCOVER PEOPLE

In the old paradigm, candidates are willing to be separated

from themselves in their résumés.

In the new paradigm, candidates want to be valued as more

than their résumé, as whole people, whose job is just one part

of their lives.

— WE’RE ALL WINNERS

In the old paradigm, everyone competes for the grand prize

(the new car, the trip abroad) and “keep on trying” is the key

message. In the new paradigm, everybody wins a positive

experience.

— TRANSPARENCY DISTRIBUTES POWER

In the old paradigm, candidates didn’t know who they were up

against, how the process was organized, or even the name of

the company.

In the new paradigm, suitable information helps the decision-

making process for both parties.

— PROFITING FROM COMMUNICATION

In the old paradigm, developing communication challenges

normal processes.

In the new paradigm, developing communication is a huge

opportunity.

47

GETTING TO KNOW PEOPLE

Employer Branding is more than a mere child of branding. Those who understand branding logic don’t necessarily understand employer branding logic. It’s a different species, because the variables are different.

One of the keys is not to see money as the reward. Talent is what we are after, and our currency is merit. Two features make talent unique:

— IT IS NOT QUANTIFIABLE

There are no machines nor units that can measure talent. It is

discovered, developed, and often there’s only the potential for

it. It takes talent to find talent.

— IT IS DEFINED BY EACH COMPANY

We all see talent differently. The claim on objectivity is thrown out

the window, which has to be seen as an opportunity too. Both

companies and talent have to find each other.

Two courses of action should coexist: going out to scout talent and getting talent to come to you. For that you need to create desire, and that’s where employer branding enters the court. The employer brand positions itself so that the talents it needs will want to be hired.For that, you need to go to them and speak to them in their own language. If you want talent, you have to build bonds and start looking for people.Employer brand presence on social networks such

3 W E ’ R E A L L C A N D I D AT E S

4948

as Facebook, Twitter or Instagram is a must. This doesn’t mean job search websites or LinkedIn are less important, but if we don’t strive to get to know the people behind the candidates, we will stay stuck in the old paradigm.

CERTAINTY VS. UNCERTAINTY

Candidates see employer brands as potential sources for work. Yet their attitude is not submissive like their predecessors’. They put employer brands to the test. “Do I want to work there?” They need a good reason to stop and think whether they want to make the effort of trying to get hired by our companies.

We have to take into account that careers are a personal path now. Building a career in one company is not so meaningful anymore. The tendency is towards living a more modular life. In addition to “Do I want to work there?” people are asking “Is it good for me at this point in my life?”.

This tendency happens outside the world of work too. Lots of aspects of society work modularly now. In the past, everything was for life: consumer products were durable; marriages were irrevocable.

THE TOUGHEST RIVAL AN EMPLOYER BRAND FACES IS NOT ANOTHER EMPLOYER BRAND, IT’S LIFE ITSELF.

Nowadays, it is perfectly normal for someone to skip a job interview at the chance of going away on

W E ’ R E A L L C A N D I D AT E S

holidays with friends. They choose a guaranteed good experience over an uncertain job offer. In the old paradigm, this was unthinkable.

This shows that opportunities should be seen precisely as what they are: opportunities. Not mere vacancies. The goal is to find the best talent out there who is looking for these opportunities, and to establish good communication, with no false promises and with no illusory rewards.

You probably agree with me in that selection processes have a lot to improve. But this book is not against selection processes: it is against how disparately they can be approached. We have to be prudent and realistic about what we have to offer, because on the other side there is, above all, a person with a cerebellar tonsil, i.e. feelings.

Hence the importance of creating win-win experiences, of making all candidates take something from the experience, allowing them to go home having improved something about themselves... because we all know that winning the big prize - getting hired - is highly unlikely. We must always bear in mind that there’s a person on the other side, with thoughts and feelings, and candidates have to feel valued, because they are valued. Each case is different, and so is the way we manifest that appreciation.

The whole idea is to get companies and candidates to come to an agreement: a match.

5150

“It’s good for you and it’s good for me.” When this happens, the search becomes easier and harder at the same time. It is easier because more candidates fit the desired profile, and there is less screening to do. It is harder because now we are left with a larger number of suitable candidates, and we will need to figure out how to choose correctly from such abundance. And that’s the best of challenges.

IT’S SEDUCTION!

Many selection processes are like that Friends episode in which Ross has to make up his mind between two women, so, in his scientific mind, he tries to quantify them, making a list of pros and cons about each one. All goes well until Rachel, the chosen one, finds out about the list and realizes she has been treated as a series of features. Ross forgot the most important thing: Rachel is a person.Yes, it’s a seduction game. You have to go out and meet people, and find the right candidate. Then you have to arrange a meeting in which the two of you win and establish a relationship in which you both feel it’s a privilege to have the other.Appearance plays a big role in the game of seduction. If I try to attract someone, I’ll want to look my best. I won’t be giving away the fact that I snore. I think everyone gets that, and we’re all trying to figure out what everyone else is hiding under their made-up looks.


Therefore, not showing a deceitful appearance is of utmost importance. If someone will take the time to get to know our employer brand, and they are interested, we don’t want them to find out we were different later. If we are not what they look for, or they are not what we look for, we should find out now and not later.Similarly, the paternalistic attitude adopted by many companies puts a damper on any attempt at seduction. Though it may be well-intentioned and it may have worked in the past, now it is perceived as patronizing: treating others as inferiors instead of equals.We have to understand that the search is always mutual. The correct attitude is “They are interviewing me and I am interviewing them”.

NO MORE SUBMISSIVE CANDIDATESCOMPANIES THAT DON’T ACCEPT THIS LOSE THE BEST TALENTS THE NEW GENERATIONS HAVE TO OFFER.

CAREER VS IDENTITY

For people, developing a career is part of how they build their identity. However, identity is constructed all the time, and in all the environments. Nobody identifies as “a lawyer” anymore. Degrees are not so important, it’s what they mean to us in our lives that matters.

As employer brands, we need to be aware that

5352

we will become, at most, a part of the lives of our employers. Work is not everything – and that’s a good thing. What we do outside the office makes us more valuable at work. In addition to making us relax and clear our heads, it makes us see the world differently.

Workplaces have adapted to this view by making their hours and dress codes more flexible. Our generations think of wearing a suit as playing dress-up. We never understood what the tie es for. We’ll wear it, but we’ll take it off as soon as we have the chance.

It isn’t a whim. This kind outfits try to make us into something we are not: standard, of the same kind, all nice and neat. It looks military; it smells of mothballs. On the other hand, when we are comfortable we have no problem with integrating our jobs to our lives, working online from home or doing crazy hours.

Bearing in mind that not all employees work the same way grants employer brands unparalleled value. We don’t expect to be given less responsibilities. We want to be proud of our work. And for that to happen, we need to be given the chance for our work to be different from what someone else would do in our position. Depending


on the job, this is not always possible, but when it is, rewarding it is very important.

This all shows that people must be encouraged to develop their identity, in a way that is independent from work or co-dependent with it. That’s something an employer brand should be proud of.

KEEPING DESIRE ALIVE

Because an opportunity, or a vacancy, will trigger a competition with only one winner, we must keep desire alive in everyone. The goal is to keep the best candidates close to us and willing to work in our company.

However, work must not be thought of in isolation. What this generation or what everybody really wants is to be happy.

AS EMPLOYER BRANDS, WE SHOULD WANT TO ATTRACT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE HAPPY.

WE ARE COMPETING WITH HAPPINESS.

In the old paradigm, each worker was compensated with money. Yet money is only one of the elements that help us reach happiness. If the way you make money makes you less happy, that damages the employer brand’s value. Those who can will quit, and the company will be left with the ones who cannot quit, which never does anyone any good.

5554

We have to show ourselves as the place where happiness is possible, an environment that is compatible with life, where workers are happy. And however hard we may try, if we show ourselves as something we are not, we will soon be unmasked.

Keeping desire alive implies much more than depicting the company as an enviable place to work. It also has to be an accessible place, somewhere the candidate can reach, where people can be seen working and being happy... Which leads us to the EVP.

EMPLOYER VALUE PROPOSITION.

Many companies offer benefits for their employees: free coffee, parking space, massages, medical insurance, recreation areas...

That’s all very nice, but the Employer Value Proposition involves much more. It should be

SE TRATADE SOSTENER EL DESEO


approached as a strategy to show people their value. It should prevent benefits from being perceived as patronizing, heavenly gifts given to those with the privilege of working there, at the mercy of someone much more powerful.

No. The point is we should allow people to be themselves, to thrive as best they can at work, and to have the opportunity to be happy. Happy people are more productive. If workers are happy, the feeling is transmitted to people aspiring to work there.

A company’s value is its ability to be favorable for people’s lives. If people see that in a company, they will want to be a part of it.

EMPLOYER BRANDING: THE FOUR C’S

These are the four main concepts in an easy-to-remember rule.

–Co-creation. New generations don’t bow down to authorities just because they are authorities. Respect is earned, based on knowledge

5756

and talent. Vertical, patronizing messages are not well received, and they single you out as the company that doesn’t get it yet. No one wants to work with someone who doesn’t get it.

–Collaboration. People need to see where they stand. The hierarchies that helped past generations can still exist, as long as they are not arbitrary structures. People from this generation rebel against such imposed relationships if they have nothing to do with the company’s needs. This includes anything from the unnecessary information required from applicants to a company’s internal protocols.

–Comprehension. The main issue is treating people as people. The individuals who want to start working in a given company are no different from consumers. Most of the time, they are


consumers. In order to find them, you have to know their tastes, their expectations and their habits. And you have to be willing and able to give them what they want. This way, you avoid wasting time and filling them with false hope.

–Consideration. Work is not everything. Life interferes with work; work interferes with life. We must know and accept this. There’s no place like Facebook to understand it, where job offers compete with our cousins’ babies, Einstein quotes and sports comments. We need to trust that people know how to give each aspect of life its own space.

59

4 F R O M L O S E - L O S E T O W I N - W I N

The old paradigm teaches us to see employer brands as win-lose. There is one winner and a whole lot of losers. I think it is crucial that we change this view for one that allows everyone to be a winner. Let’s dig deeper into this.

A LESSON FROM FERRARI

I like to think of Ferrari as an example of a good employer brand. This company’s product is virtually inaccessible. They don’t hide the fact that very few people can own one. If someone with an average income, who can’t afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a car, decides to see how much it costs, they’ll find that there’s no way they can pay for it. They’ll probably never think about it again.

Yet Ferrari has managed to make its brand experience 100% aspirational. It offers various ways to participate in the brand experience without having to buy one of the cars: many of its accessories can be bought by massive markets. We can literally wear Ferrari. We can also cheer for Ferrari at the F1 races.

What I’m trying to say is that being part of Ferrari is very easy. The brand stays exclusive, but it’s also popular. Lots of people would like, at least in their dreams, to own a Ferrari. The brand has achieved the win-win experience.

In a candidate search, only one person will keep the vacancy. If we’re not careful, we risk causing frustration and resentment.

6160

Furthermore, the closer you get to winning, the more frustrated you become. If we take the trouble to save up to $99,000 and are not allowed to buy a Ferrari because it costs $100,000, it will be a huge letdown.

In selection processes, the aspiring buyers with $99,000 are those candidates who are very close to being chosen, the ones who felt hopeful through the whole process because they knew they could make it, but only make it as far as the door. And if, in addition, the experience was not stimulating enough, companies are losing someone’s trust; someone who they took the trouble of getting to know, and who could most probably get hired in some future search.

If we find a way to make those candidates feel better, providing them something they can use in their lives, something better than a vague promise, then the process will not have been in vain. What can be offered varies for each company, but what we must keep in mind is that we must treat candidates as equals and not patronize them in any way.

EQUALS.

Candidate experiences don’t just include the time they spend in contact with the company, as in selection processes. They include everything from

F R O M L O S E - L O S E T O W I N - W I N

the relationship with the consumer brand (if any), possible social interactions with employees, and social media exposure.

It’s always better to be upfront, not to hide any motives or facts. Of course everyone will look their best, but that doesn’t mean anyone will lie. When opening a candidate search, only the necessary data has to be requested, and those interested in our company will not be made to work extra.

When the database system is hard to adapt to and candidates waste their time trying to upload or update their résumé, the message they receive is “we don’t value your time”. This influences the value proposition for the employee, and it’s a hard problem to forget, which, if overcome, continues to handicap the next steps in the process.

A similar principle guides new generations in their esteem for transparency in such processes. In the new paradigm we don’t play treasure hunt. When the map clearly tells us the steps that need to be followed, we can know where we stand and judge whether the road and the prize are worth it. If it’s not worth it, then we can call the whole thing off, and that’s that. On the other hand, if we always feel we’re close to the goal and we never get there, we’ll start to feel that companies are playing us.

That is the difference between company-centric and candidate-centric approaches: the shift from navel-gazing, waiting to see who takes the trouble to

6362

fit in, to actively seeking out people and generating mutual attraction.

Candidates also find it useful to know who they are competing with. It’s always preferable to be over-informed rather than under. We know how to deal with the excess information. We are used to receiving multiple stimuli. It’s the lack of information that results confusing.

Blind recruitment ads are another type of treasure hunt. Many ads still use phrases like “Prominent business requires...” and proceed to describe the job. Readers are puzzled, though not by the company’s identity (you can often deduce it), but by the reason why they would hide it. Candidates are supposed to give information about themselves, but

HR centrado en la compañía.

Las vacantes como garantía.

Selecciono candidatos.

KPI es superar cantidad de CVs.

Busco un perfil.

One shot.

HR centrado en el candidato.

Marca Empleadora como garantía.

Elijo y soy elegido.

Mi KPI es CVs dentro de perfil.

Construir relaciones emocionales.

24/7.

COMPANYCENTRIC

CANDIDATECENTRICVS

F R O M L O S E - L O S E T O W I N - W I N

they were given nothing in exchange for it, not even a name. It’s not like they can send a résumé that defines them as “Interesting student from acclaimed university with an orientation towards exact sciences and a promising future”. It’s only reasonable: just like they wouldn’t hire an enigma, I wouln’t choose to work in one. It is a lose-lose situation: nobody gets anything from it and everyone’s time is wasted.

GOOD AND BAD SOCIAL MEDIA USE

Going on Facebook or Twitter is getting involved in people’s lives. Knowing how to approach these networks is important. Facebook and Linkedin do not use the same language, and although the same people may be on both, their expectations are different in each network. You don’t wear a suit to Facebook. People go on it wearing slippers.Good social media use emerges from mutual benefit. Social networks are fertile soil that is not yet being exploited to its fullest capacity. Measurement tools help us do what was almost imposible in the past: quantify. Talent is non-quantifiable, but social media activity is; we can measure each post’s engagement, and adjust our strategy accordingly.Knowing how to profit from the capabilities offered by social media and using them efficiently according to our strategy will give us a huge leg up in the war for talent.

6564

5 S U C E S S S T O R I E S

BANCO GALICIA: THE EXPERIENCE

We knew what our client wanted when at Combo Employer Branding we designed the “Galicia Experience 2015” internship program: young people studying business, economics or finance, well presented and willing to be of service. That was clear, it’s what any bank looks for in this kind of programs. But how could we make this one different?

We decided to put ourselves in the shoes of a young person who wants to get into an internship. They are in school and want to live their first work experience. We observed that their searches were always conditioned by the length of the data entry step, which always requested an irrelevant résumé, which would not have any relevant information other than the career they were following.

We came to this insight: applicants are tired of wasting time loading their résumés when they will most probably be rejected.

We thought it might be a good idea to attract the appropriate profile to avoid requesting their résumé. What’s the point of asking for it in an internship program that’s targeted for people with no experience?

We put up a social media integrated platform, knowing that was where we would find the people we were looking for, in addition to using audience segmentation to reach our target. It was

6766

100% mobile integrated. And there, in their own environment, no weird stuff, they could enter their data to apply. It was designed so that it would not take more than two minutes to finish.

In other words, we based our campaign on the Candidate Centric approach: we focused on what candidates would obtain instead on what the company had to offer Thus, we were able to overcome the number of applicants with the right profile from previous years. And, more importantly, the internship participants went home with new training, work experience, and a longer, more career-specific résumé.

We were able to achieve this because we co-created together with the candidates. We focused on what the two parties needed, instead of being tied to external structures that did not necessarily meet our requirements.

So everybody won: it was a win-win experience3.

UNILEVER: THE DIALOGUE.

Unilever is among the companies where the value of employer brand co-creation is most clearly understood. Working with them for so many years, we were able to develop various initiatives based on communication between the brand and the candidates, with intensive social media use.This comes as no surprise, because few companies invest as much time and commitment in

S U C C E S S S T O R I E S

understanding insights that are barely just appearing in candidates. It has allowed them to be the first to detect tendencies in their early stages, and to act based on those changes.“New generations understand the concept of success very differently, in a way that is much more related to self-fulfilment than to vertical growth”, argues Verónica Carabajal, head of the Talent department for Unilever Southern Cone. “It’s complex, because self-fulfilment is unique and individual for every candidate. The challenge is to be able to communicate the employer brand both in the massive format we are aiming at and in a personal, customized way at the same time, in order to engage in an intimate, individual dialogue (never a monologue) with every candidate, fan or consumer.“The brand also enables conversations about the benefits of working at Unilever. On different instances, we avoid telling candidates what Unilever gives to them. We want to know what they have in mind instead. Questions such as ‘If you had to propose a benefit for this company’s employees, what would it be?’ generate illuminating answers.“The dialogues are designed to fit the company’s message regarding innovation and sustainability, thus contributing to brand awareness; always stimulating participation and never preaching. People are not told what to think: interaction is encouraged. Everyone has something to learn from

3 Pueden encontrar más información sobre este caso en www.comboagency.com

6968

everyone else.”Verónica Carabajal insists that “being consistent throughout the whole process is key. There’s no point in using a given format in campaigns which if it is not upheld in interview or assessment processes, not to mention if it is not reflected in day to day life at the office. That is why we add a very strong ‘brutal honesty’ element to our processes. Young people tend to idealize organizations, or to neglect the information that doesn’t fit their need to find an ideal place to work. We are good at destroying these precocious idylls. Our aim is to be clear and upfront, even if it means ending the candidate’s infatuation phase with the company, which always turns out to be an illusion.”“I have no doub that Unilever is one of the best companies to work in”, she continues. “And if it were not so, I would not keep on renewing my energy and my passion for this place after 17 years. But that doesn’t mean that it can’t improve, or that it isn’t full of contradictions and difficulties just like any other company. It is precisely to keep on improving ourselves as an organization every day that we recruit passionate people through our campaigns.” An example is the #MyResumeInOneTweet contest4.- idea development by Santiago Ponferrada - launched in 2014, in which we challenged

S U C C E S S S T O R I E S

candidates to cleverly summarize their résumés, reducing them to a powerful tweet. The best tweets won an interview with an area of their choosing.Again, this initiative required only a few minutes on behalf of the candidates, and it allowed us to get to know them better. We could take note of how they saw themselves and what thought think would be attractive for the company.Focusing on interaction helps employer brands and candidates to get to know each other. We don’t assume we know them, and don’t expect them to know us either. Through permanent dialogue, we build a relationship, a brand, a bond. In other words, we co-create.

4 Pueden encontrar más información sobre este caso en www.comboagency.com4 Pueden encontrar más información sobre este caso en www.comboagency.com

Unilever Careers SC @UnileverTalent

[#Contest: #MyResumeInOneTweet] Summarize your #resume

in one tweet and win an interview at #Unilever!

4

# M Y R E S U M E I N O N E T W E E T + 3 0 0 y r se x p e r i e n c e i n t o y m a n u f a c t u r i n g ,l o g i s t i c s & d i s t r i b u t i o n i n t h e w o r l d .P e r s o n a l a t t e n t i o n 4 k i d s . N o r t h P o l e .

# M Y R E S U M E I N O N E T W E E T N e r d . I l o v er e a d i n g , w r i t i n g & p l a y i n g s a xo p h o n e .I h a t e i n j u s t i c e . Ve g e t a r i a n . I d r e a m o fh a v i n g a p o n y.

71

6 L I F E I S N O W New generations want to be happy today. We don’t necesarily know how, but we are certain that happiness can’t start at retirement. Life is now. We’ve seen too many people wait their whole lives for a future that never came. For us, work is a part of life; we want to work, have a career, have money, a family and properties. But we want it our own way. And yes, we are very stubborn. And there are a lot of us.

As we grow and new generations come around, we shape the world we live in. Past structures have to change to adapt to our expectations. We do not use violence. We do not start armed revolutions. We use the same market rules in our favor, to get what we want.

We are certain that our way is much better, and that those who don’t see it are missing out on something very valuable. Those who do see it, and get to comprehend, co-create, collaborate and consider with us, are taking advantage of a gigantic opportunity.

it's a match - how to win the war for talent (english version)

Documents