The Production and Consumption of Meaning at Work
Edited by Matthew J. Brannan, Elizabeth Parsons and Vincenza Priola
Chapter 5: The Trouble with Employer Branding: Resistance and Disillusionment at Avatar
5. The trouble with employer branding: resistance and disillusionment at Avatar Jean Cushen Introduction Employer branding appears to be emerging as the human resource management (HRM) practice ‘de jour’ promoted by respected HRM professional bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in the UK, numerous management consultants, and leading business schools. An employer brand can be understood as ‘The identity of the firm as an employer. It encompasses the firm’s value system, policies and behaviours toward the objectives of attracting, motivating, and retaining the firm’s current and potential employees’ (Ainspan and Dell, 2001: 3). Employer branding entered the HRM toolbox amidst a discourse of universal ‘best practice’ and ‘institutional isomorphism’ (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). In other words, it is argued that implementing employer branding should yield positive results in all instances as it has been claimed to be successful in other locations. For human resource practitioners, the cited potential of employer branding is enticing as it appears to encapsulate the hallmarks of ‘good’ human resource management (Boxall, 1992; Guest, 1987). For example, employer branding seeks to create a unitary cultural framework of commitment by making explicit the binding, positive, social characteristics that are supposedly common to the organization. It is, as one commentator states, ‘marketing for your corporate culture’ (Ferdinandi, 2010). The message of unitarism is promulgated through claims of mutual interests, that is, that living the brand is the route to achievement of both organization goals and individual fulfilment. In addition to creating a unitarist frame...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.