people@work. Who is a dream employer?

I am sure many of you love your organisation. If that’s an exaggeration then let’s say some of us do, at least on the days of salary, bonus, promotions and other self-gain days. But certainly there must be days when you and your colleagues feel great about working for your organisation, and yet wonder why it is not talked about as one of the best employers.

On the one hand it is believed that disengagement is the highest amongst employees at the global level right now. And yet at the same time, we have multiple publications throwing up a long list of best places to work where everything is hunky dory.

One aspect which is common when you read the parameters while rating best employers is that of frills. Employers seem to be getting rated on tangibles, which can be measured, all directed towards employee benefits. I just looked at what was being touted as great things at a workplace in one of the published list of top employers. Sample some of them:

· Additional paid vacation, extended paternity and maternity benefits

· Fitness centers at work

· Work from anywhere

· Free food at office

· Concierge services

· Financial support for university education

Yes, these things will definitely make employees happy, but if you compare these frills with other workplace experientials of feeling valued, job satisfaction, equal opportunities to grow and a great manager, do you think employees will trade these for the frills and benefits?

I am inclined to believe they will go for the great experiences. But then one can argue that great organisations are capable of combining the benefits and valued experiences together. How about organisations that have all the extended financial and holiday benefits but have a toxic organisational culture, limited career growth opportunities, high attrition, and hence, lower employer productivity?

Rating employers is a tricky affair; each publication has its own methodology and own logic to enroll participating companies.

Sometimes it skews results as some brilliant start-ups never get featured –– they may not tick the minimum survival period criteria the publication would have laid down in its stipulations. But one thing is common across all the surveys – it’s the battle of benefits. The discussions around dream employers who have authentic leadership, transparent culture, going beyond shareholder needs, allowing employees to express themselves, not having silly rules and having meaningful work are still relevant. But it’s becoming difficult to measure these and compare them meaningfully. Think about it – isn’t it easier to compare the number of extended paternity days, gym-fitted offices against authentic leadership and transparent work culture?

I am also told these surveys are primarily showcased towards talent attraction where tangible benefits are required to be demonstrated. An HR head once asked me if showcasing the highest productivity in the industry would mean the place was a grind? So he prefers to talk about tangible benefits, which allow the brain to make ready comparisons than use imagination about culture and leadership.

In many organisations these surveys are anchored by the marketing departments, so it becomes an exercise to market than demonstrate the core of the organisation.

I was once part of a team where we moved attrition from 67 per cent to 30 per cent, business transitioned from loss to profit, got higher Net Promoter Scores from customers and attained higher employee productivity progressively. But when we asked our colleagues they only remembered things such as moving to a 5-day work week from 6, Friday dressing, 4-day work week for top performers, the exotic locations where annual awards were held, holidays extended to self/spouse birthdays and wedding anniversaries.

But I can’t paint everybody with the same brush. Recently my friend’s daughter, who is 23, wanted to quit a large benevolent organisation which had a laundry list of benefits. She said she wanted the grind to ensure that she learnt more when she was young and so joined what one could describe as a sweat shop – I guess not all of us are the same.

The day-to-day experience at work, culture, growth prospects, value-adding supervision and authentic leadership are a must, but we haven’t found our way to describe it while attracting talent.

Is it easier to list out the financial benefits? And hence the parameters to discover the dream employer mostly revolve around tangible benefits?

Dive down into the lists and it appears that many organisations that make the dream employers grade are commercially successful providing superior customer experience with some cutting-edge products. Maybe it’s the narrative that needs to change and not how the surveys are done?

(The author is a prolific commentator on workplace dynamics)

COMMENT NOW