Yesterday I blogged about how I think people need to get over the personal brand debate because personal brands are inevitable. Smart employees know that ultimately, the most important brand they'll ever manage is their own. But I'm not inventing that idea.. no, that honor goes to Mr. Tom Peters and his seminal article on that topic in FastCompany's Aug/Sept 1997 issue entitled, The Brand Called You.
His point makes sense when you consider the according to a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Baby Boomers held an average of 10.8 jobs between the ages of 18-42. Personally I think that is a wee high and is probably affected by multiple jobs held by younger folks when working their way through college, etc. But even if I look at myself and my peers, on average we've held 4-5 jobs and by peers, I mean folks that are turning 40 this year. The simple fact is, people don't work for one company for eternity. And even if you do work for one company, that doesn't lessen the need to develop a personal brand. I've done the corporate America thing. I've seen office politics at its best. When you get into a big corporation, you damn sure better spend some time investing in your personal brand or you'll likely get overlooked for all the really good posts and opportunities. See @jmacofearth's comment on yesterday's post.
Add to this that uber-talented employees gravitate to the creation of a personal brand by nature (it's in their DNA I think) and what you have is not an optional activity but a natural one. In fact it is so natural that many of the best personal branders don't actively think about it, it just happens.
After yesterday's post, I was emailing with Sonya Beckley and at some point I asked her what she thought my brand was. This is what she sent back:
Now I had to laugh at this because if I were to define my brand, this isn't exactly what I'd say but heck, as I told Sonya, I'll take it. Which prompted this reply:
Which takes me back to the whole idea of natural activity. Some people are just natural branders. It's who they are not what they say. And you simply can't ask them to stop doing what they do. So why do so many feel the need to argue that companies should try and limit this naturally occuring activity?
Here are the reasons I often see folks reference in the argument against letting employees develop a strong personal brand, especially a public one:
- They'll leave to form their own company
- They'll get hired away by a competitor
- They'll become too important to lose
- They'll want more money
Hmmm, so we have fear of competition and fear of the employee/employer relationship power tilting in favor of the employee. Basically - we have fear.
But here is what I think most companies need to figure out.
Smart employees, the ones that are most likely to create those strong brands you fear, they can leave anytime they want regardless of you letting them build a brand or not. Sure, if they have built that strong brand they probably have an easier time of leaving, hanging out their own shingle, etc., but the bottom line is that smart people are known quantities in every industry. As I noted yesterday, every industry has it's rock stars.
So instead of fearing something you can't really stop anyhow, try this.
First, invest in your brand. That's right. It's your company so take responsibility for making your company brand stronger than any one employee brand could ever be. If you've built a company of smart people and you're a smart person, that really shouldn't be that hard.
Second, help that employee build his/her brand. That's right, give them every friggin opportunity in the world to write, create, speak, whatever. Got PR resources, give it to them. Got creative resources, use it to make their content shine. Got someone who can help them book speaking engagements and handle the details of travel, etc., give it to them. In short, build them a world-class support network.
Why? Because by doing all of this, you essentially make the idea of leaving seem so remote, so foreign and so painful -- after all, all change contains pain -- that they'd be a friggin idiot to leave you. The cost to create that infastructure is huge both in terms of personal sacrifice (now they have to do all of that on their own) or the cash to hire someone to do that for them. Oh yes, and remember, people who want to hire that uber-smart person that works for you, well they have to hire your company to hire that person. See the reward there?
Also, by doing this do you make it less likely that uber-smart folks will ever leave. Will they work for you forever, not likely, but then, as noted above, the idea that you can somehow stop that from happening is an illusion regardless. Employees will do what is in their best interest because frankly, that is what they are supposed to do. They don't owe you, their employer anything other than their best efforts to helping you make more money. But them leaving you isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Don't believe me? Go ask the big wigs over at McKinsey who have made an entire new business strategy out of alumni.
All of this to say, here is my HR advice: smart people stay in good situations. Let me repeat that. Smart people stay in good situations.
Except for the most materialistic of them, uber-smart folks aren't motivated by money (well outside of needing to make enough to support themselves) they're motivated by opportunity. So if you're paying them well and giving them every chance to leverage their remarkable skills against unlimited opportunity, why the heck would they ever leave, open their own company or do anything else for that matter?
Ok, signing off now before I fall off this soapbox. But before I go... please, I know this is a hot topic in the SocMe community -- let me know what you think. Use the comments section to make us all smarter.
Thanks.
Link to original post