Conventional thinking says that a good interview is a pressure-cooker situation, where candidates are put to the test. But at Atlassian we’ve realized that the traditional way of doing things is not the best way of doing things and we’ve begun to ask ourselves some questions. How well have we set candidate expectations? How prepared […]

If there is "low-hanging fruit" in getting staff to engage with your employer brand, it is likely new hires. Get them before they become jaded or cynical, and show them how their engagement supports the brand and the company, and you can build an army of advocates. That said, Meghan Biro suggests the best way to engage with those new hires is to start by intentionally creating a sense of psychological safety.

I've got an open call for podcast and article ideas (feel free to chime in), and one of the big asks is more discussion on how to work with recruiters and other teams. While I try and put together my own thoughts, here's an article from HBR on how culture differences should be considered when building trust with other business units.

Let's talk about trust. In a podcast last year, I predicted that salary information was crucial to candidates not just because candidates seek to optimize total compensation above all else, but because it is the only data point they can trust. Recruiters, employer branders and hiring managers are incentivized to paint rosy pictures of the opportunity, pictures candidates are not always able to validate until inside the company. Thus, they hold the salary number to be the best data point because it isn't subject to perspective or spin. Why bring up trust? Well, Edelman's 2020 Trust Barometer came out two weeks ago and it is stunning. Across the board and almost universally, trust of government agencies, companies, technology and media has fallen. People are worried about losing their job as the gig economy, automation and a lack of skills creates more and more chance of being left behind. A majority of Americans don't trust the news they get and worry about being manipulated. No major institutions are seen as being both ethical and competent. Businesses are seen as having little to no commitment for their people in the face of creating profits. Like I said, it's a stunner. And into this world goes your little recruitment marketing ad or a career site that simple suggests that yours is a company for open-minded folks looking to make an impact. How believable is that message when people don't trust the company producing it? Or when they don't feel like they have reputable third-party sources with which to validate the claim?

And once you have “trust,” can you lead? Are brands morally obligated to change the world for the better?

Case study: Cisco reinvents its employer brand around the concept of trust.

“Brand that I can trust” has been an attribute that brands have measured for a long time. Looking back, a decade ago, it was hardly a differentiator. Since trust is built over time and can be broken overnight, it is a very fragile attribute for a brand. For the brands born in the last decade, it is the single most powerful long-term competitive advantage they can build and are building by putting social purpose in their core DNA.