In a world that grows ever more demanding of transparency and information, the stakes for compensation communication are going up. Big time. Accordingly, the importance of pay communication and branding was noted by a number of speakers and in many of the sessions at WorldatWork's recent total rewards conference.
Marketing and branding are not typically part of our professional curriculum (maybe they should be) and organizational leaders are often reluctant to make the investment necessary to get the communication job done right. Consequently, our compensation communication efforts often suffer from lack of expertise as well as lack of resources. In our better attempts, we follow a program of setting communications objectives, defining key messages, identifying our audiences and their information needs, and then formulating a plan around the activities necessary to meet those needs. Branding? For many, at best, it involves crafting an identity, perhaps even a logo, for our key message and then blasting it out repeatedly.
This - often as not - is Compensation Communication and Branding 1.0, for those even taking a run at something resembling a dedicated communication effort.
Compensation Communication and Branding 2.0? I think I caught a glimpse of it in a fascinating piece at Fast Company's Co.Design site written by Marc Shillum, principal at design and innovation consultancy Method.
Branding in today's dynamic and multiple media workplace, according to Shillum, is about creating patterns - not repeating messages. As someone who is guilty of propagating the "repeat, repeat, repeat" philosophy of pay communication, I was struck by the logic of his advice and I thought his message was worth sharing here. A few of Shillum's points about pattern-based branding that have particular application to pay communication and messages are highlighted below.
Branding is not static, but dynamic. Not one-way, but co-created. Shillum describes a brand in today's world as an ongoing negotiation between the company and its constituents (in our case, the workforce). For us, it means we can have no illusion that our pay program brand is something we create, completely control and disseminate at (our) will. Rather, it is defined through successive interactions that employees have with the company around their pay - regardless of the lovely three color brochure we send out in January.
Consistency is at the heart of a brand's value - but consistency is derived from coherence, not just repetition. Instead of a single, centralized big idea, a brand creates coherence by embracing multiple, smaller ideas. As an example of a coherent brand experience formed by a pattern of smaller ideas - one that creates belief and trust - Shillum gives us Amazon:
Consider Amazon: The brand is built on the trust that a virtual interaction creates a physical outcome. This pattern of fulfillment builds successively across selection, aggressive pricing, delivery flexibility, embedded payment options, flawless data security, real-time tracking, responsive customer service, and final receipt of purchase. No matter the product, brand, or retailer, the application of each successful outcome builds belief that becomes transferred to the next purchase. The Amazon brand lives in the supply-chain pattern, and its identity literally becomes the interface to fulfillment.
And so if we buy Shillum's premise and we wish to establish a coherent compensation brand, one that truly inspires trust from our workforce, our efforts must go much deeper than brand statements and consistent messaging. We must create a pattern of experiences across compensation interactions that build belief with every pay outcome.
How's THAT for a tall order?
Your reaction, please. Is this a valid take on where compensation communication and branding efforts must go to create trust and belief across today's demanding workforce? Can we get there? What will it take?
Image courtesy of diymarketers.com
Great article. The compensation "brand" is really the foundation for communication by managers. It is this brand (sometimes referred to as the company's "pay philosophy") that managers fall back on when setting expectations with employees.
Posted by: Stephen Bruce | June 29, 2011 at 10:33 AM
Hi Ann. There is a lot to be learned from Marc Shillum's article, because his points are all valid. They are not that wildly different that people like me, who focus on compensation communications, would have recommended over the years, though. But I do have to say, his terminology and context make the points a bit more clearly.
Let me map the overlap a bit. Communicators focus on the idea of messages in order to have employees notice the consistency that Marc is describing. If handled correctly (and not just as a mantra), messages create some meta patterns that establish the "big idea." They are supported by the "small ideas" that come via managers and should repeated throughout the performance cycle by managers and especially, execs.
In short, that is why it has been so unfulfilling to compensation practitioners to stick with the traditional program highlights, Qs and As approach to communications. But making it a once and done effort, you stop the patterns from multiplying out, like the waves from a stone thrown into a pond.
So a more complex communications strategy does build trust and belief, because not only does it allow the time for the patterns to grow and demonstrate themselves, but the "brand" is also confirmed through not only leadership and management's behavior in interactions, but also employees' behavior in interactions.
Sorry for the soap box, but this is so important, as you point out. So many practitioners have been frustrated by their communications efforts by the very fact that they didn't understand how important patterns are. The patterns influence people as they are demonstrated via behaviors and social interaction, not words alone. It takes a complex plan to influence behaviors and social interactions, as you can imagine, but it can be done by HR. Many companies have great stories to tell.
Posted by: Margaret O'Hanlon | June 29, 2011 at 08:19 PM
Stephen:
Thanks for the comment and the thought - yes, the compensation philosophy (assuming it is an authentic one) does sit at the core of the compensation brand. In that sense, it's important to start with a strong core if we're to have any hope for a strong brand!
Margaret:
Thanks so much for weighing in and adding some additional context and clarity. I react to Shillum's article and points as a compensation professional who is not a communications expert - but who works at building strong communication efforts to the best of her ability. I could be wrong - but I think many in the profession come from a similar place. People with expertise like yours - which truly straddles both compensation and communications - are the exception, unfortunately.
It's very helpful to have the overlap mapped and talked through from the point of view of someone with your background - and it's very heartening to know that we (collectively) are making strides in putting this level of branding and communication to work in some forward-thinking companies.
Posted by: Ann Bares | June 30, 2011 at 07:42 AM