Call for more research on usage of employer rating sites

A few days ago I started a LinkedIn Poll on usage of review and ratings site, which basically looks like this:

In order to find out more about a prospective employer, when do you visit an employer review and ratings site?

*  Before sending off my application

*  After I've got invited for an interview

* After I've attended the job interview

* As soon as I receive the job offer

* Never

As long as the poll is active, you can see it in the right column of this blog. I look forward to the results. Thanks.

Out of interest I recently also checked German employer review site kununu.de to compare two companies, two established Internet Start-Ups, one in B2B, one in B2C field.

Results? The B2B company received nearly 60 ratings, while the B2C company only some 15. While the profile of the B2B company was viewed nearly 20,000 times, the profile von the B2C company has been opened nearly 5,000 times. The average rating of the B2B company was worst by around 0.3 percent point.

Is it possible, that

* the brand image of B2C company influences the perception of their employer brand and blocks job seekers to seek out more information about them .

* employer rating of B2B company are viewed more often because job seekers may not have any associations with the company

* The better brand image of the company, the less likely the employer brand will be explored via employer review site.

Or is the varying activity level of ex-/employees and job seekers on these two employer profile sites just a result of the time lag in their profile existence, information that cannot be obtained on the kununu-site. Nota bene, both companies have been heavily recruiting based on the number of job advertisements on their career sites and job boards in May 2012.

What do Ba Ling Hou have in common with the Millennials

Reading the “Managing the Millennials” by Espinoza, Ukljea, and Rusch (2010, published by John Wiley & Sons) is like finally verbalize everything what presented a challenge when striving to understand, interpret, and manage behaviors of Chinese employees. In particular, those called the Generation 1980’s (Ba Ling Hou), born and raised after Deng Zhao Ping reforms, whose third socialization has been taking place in Multinationals or KMUs in China of European or American origin. I don’t know any book on intercultural communication explaining behaviors of young employees in China more accurately then “Managing the Millenials”. Though, this book refers to Americans only without aspiring to have any cross-border relevance.

Cultural Fit, What Rubbish!

All companies probably believe that they must ensure "cultural fit" when hiring new people. However, too many players do not have strong cultures to speak off and are confused about the “best” talents that they require to successfully and meaningfully go through this exercise. Specifically, more often than not, companies:
1. Describe their cultures in similar ways; collaborative, entrepreneurial, and family-like. They also like to refer to themselves as complex, ambiguous, and challenging environments. Ad agencies in particular tend to identify their cultures with “chaos” which they embrace rather than try to tame by enforcing specific rules and structures.
2. Articulate the same values. A recent study by Ki and Kim (2009) showed that “respect to clients”, “service”, “strategic”, and “results” were the most frequently emphasized values among ethical statements provided by 605 public relations agencies in the United States. On the other hand, “balance”, “fairness”, “honor”, “social responsibility”, and “independence” were the least frequently mentioned values in their ethical codes. Surprisingly as well, none of the sampled agencies included any sanctions regarding enforcement of their particular code of ethics.
3. Remain misaligned when it comes to talent practices. It is not uncommon to find that employee policies and operational practices do not actually support their cultural statement (e.g. we are open-minded). At the extreme, employees that are in fact closest to the desired culture may not experience and receive sufficient recognition, advancement opportunities, and high job satisfaction levels.
4. Demonstrate "me-too" thinking when preparing talent policies, rewards, and benefits just like they go on the same mission relevant to their industry. Almost uniformly, ad agencies aspire to “generate big ideas” (award-winning ideas or outstanding advertising campaigns) and provide a full range of communications services for their clients.
5. Look for similar skill sets, knowledge, experience, and just about everything else when looking for talent; self-starter with a `can-do` attitude, ability to contribute to and lead diverse teams, ability to present logical and persuasive arguments, passionate, and driven, etc.
6. Settle down for generic and inclusive corporate cultures. Many employees cannot explicitly discuss and distinguish between the cultures of the companies that they have worked for. Worst, many successful careers can span a number of companies over several years which suggests that either employees are simply good chameleons and flexible and adaptive enough to blend in or that there is nothing unique and extraordinary about their different workplaces.

Hence, checking for cultural fit is of substance and should only take place if the company understands what their actual and desired organizational culture is, has low staff turnover, and is growing at a steady pace so as to ensure successful acculturation processes by new hires.

Name Game

A recent American study of first names* showed that the name an individual carries has a significant impact on how he or she is viewed, and conceivably, whether or not the individual is hired for a job.

More specifically, researchers found that common names were seen as least unique, best liked, and most likely to be hired. Unusual names were seen as most unique, least liked, and least likely to be hired.

The findings may not necessarily relate to the real world since the study was conducted in a laboratory situation. But, it is also worthwhile to keep in mind that research exists showing a strong correlation between an individual's attitudes and subsequent behavior.

Importantly, there are several practical implications of the study’s findings. These may also be considered in countries like China.

Because of bias in how people perceive names and for easier communication, Chinese employees routinely choose Western names when dealing with foreigners. Thus, when selecting a name, they may want to reconsider choosing distinctive or unique names as Purple, Sugar, Jelly, Fish, Candy, or Shellboy to name a few, so as to avoid any possible dislike of the name during their professional career.

For HR professionals, they need to be aware that there seems to be a clear bias in how people perceive names. When CVs are screened for hiring purposes names (just like pictures) should be left off to avoid potential discrimination. Alternatively, applications and CVs could be routed to hiring managers with initials only or applicant numbers.


*Cotton, John L.; O'Neill, Bonnie S.; and Griffin, Andrea (2008). The “name game”: affective and hiring reactions to first names. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Vol. 23. No. 1. pp. 18-39.