Social networks in the service of the employer
Do you want sharp and fresh sensations? Type your brand in the search box by groups in any of the social networks. You will learn a lot about the company. The resulting list of groups is created by clients or employees, and, as a rule, without your participation and permission. With all the ensuing consequences. Even a cursory glance at the names of groups will suffice to understand how the brand is perceived on the Internet.
For example, on the request of "Home Credit", the VK network issues a list of several dozen communities. One of them is called "Former employees of the Home Credit, and now just happy people", one more - "Survived Home Credit". I do not know why some people called groups that were dedicated to their former employer. But I'm absolutely sure that the employer needs to do something about this.
It does not matter that every association has a dozen or two participants. According to statistics, the vast majority of views provide guests coming to social networks and blogs from outside. These can be future applicants who are looking for information about a potential job.
The employer brand is not a PR chimera. This is a utilitarian question about how much you can attract from the market and keep the best people in the company. Good brands do this with a good discount, which consists of prestige, career potential and overall comfort of work. The rest are forced to pay at a market price, and some - to give a surcharge "for harmfulness."
To find out which employer is good and which is not very, people, of course, could have done it before. Word of mouth, from the press, websites with blacklists, from partners of the employer, recruiting companies. Now, there are many more such opportunities.
And believe me, the example of "Home Credit" is not unique. If you dig a little deeper and read the topic of messages in such groups, the trend becomes obvious. Here is the group "Sberbank: Such a Native One" in "Odnoklassniki". One of the most popular topics is the massive reduction of employees in territorial offices. From the thread of the discussion one can learn a lot about the actual state of affairs and the emotional state of people. Employees of the discounter network "Magnet" debating on the topic "And what good has our company given us?". And this good is not so much. Foreign companies are not much better. For example, a group of employees (mainly regional) Coca-Cola in the social network "VK", along with positive topics, discusses low salaries, uncomfortable vacation schedules and other disruptions in corporate life.
Why do social networks become a collector of negativity on the part of former and current employees? First, because, no matter how trivial, there are no ideal employers. Secondly, people often do not have enough outlet - the channel of communication with their leadership, that is, simply the opportunity to speak out. And third, interest. It's not enough just to answer employees. Large companies often turn this process into a parade of hypocrisy. It is important when the company's management hears and wants to listen to people working on all floors of the corporate building.
I must say that corporations often do not notice the drift of people into social networks to the last. I had an example of communicating with the director for customer service of one large operator company. I suggested that he allocate an employee to work with clients in social networks. My reasoning was very simple: specialists working with clients already and so have accounts in popular social networks, and many are members of the communities of employees of this company. It should be noted that only two of VK's largest groups numbered more than 500 people - specialists in working with customers of this operator. It remained only to tie everything together, inviting a loyal specialist to help the company. That is, in fact - do your work on another site. "My people work, but do not sit on the Internet," the manager replied to me.
How to properly build communication, so as not to aggravate the situation? Act in this case should be active, but carefully. I must say that the members of the group often do not allow uninvited readers in them, and without this topic the discussions may not be readable. Attempts of forceful pressure on social groups and their leaders can not solve the problem radically - as they say, you will not put pressure on everyone. You can fire a couple of enthusiasts, but this is likely to only encourage them to a holy war against the company.
In fact, moderators and administrators, as well as active authors of such communities - are the true leaders of public opinion. So, according to the canons of communications, they need to be attracted to their banners - to show what their opinion is, to get deeper into the life of the company and offer to take on a part of responsibility for this life. If people do not work in the company, they can be informed about the real state of affairs. At least, hold a meeting to find out what the person thinks about the organization. Particular attention should be paid to "negative leaders" - characters who readily tell others about the hardships and adversities of life in the company. Usually their righteous anger has not too deep roots: dismissal, career restrictions, a small salary, a fool-boss.
It is possible to correct injustice or at least try to convince a person that no one wishes him harm. In any case, you need to communicate. With the support of moderators, any community can be made an additional channel of internal communication. But do not flood it with unnecessary corporate spam. And without this there are a lot of questions that people will probably want to get answers to.
Specialists of personnel services can tell about salaries and holidays, and heads of divisions - about tasks and plans. The head of the company can simply communicate with people, listen to what they care about, and share their vision. Finally, you can give a call to the employees themselves, asking them questions and initiating discussions on important topics for the company. Elementary? But for some reason no one does it.
Another possibility is the involvement of enthusiastic employees in the community. Negative, which publish dissatisfied workers, you can not completely hide - it's the Internet. But it can be significantly reduced by inviting the most loyal colleagues who can give their feedback and stand up for the company. After all, the word of any worker will always have more faith than stories of officials. But these reviews must be sincere, otherwise the falseness will quickly become noticeable.
It is important not to make a mistake, wasting the enthusiasm of people. They need to clearly explain the goals and objectives: how and how they can help the organization. To teach to communicate, because without this the effect can be reversed. Motivate, explaining how their contribution will affect the common cause.
As a summary, we can say that the theme of creating an attractive employer brand is not new. But social networks opened a new page in it and provided a new tool for work. Now companies no longer have closed doors, thanks to social networks anyone can easily learn about the order, corporate culture and moods in the organization. The next conclusion is that one loyal, and especially disloyal, employee can now influence the attractiveness of the brand more than any official propaganda. And the last thing: your reputation as an employer on the Internet is already actively controlled - whether you want it or not. And the whole choice is whether to get involved in this process or to let things go by themselves.
