This is part II of our series on helping recruitment teams get the microscopic fill of the mechanics behind building an Employee Value Proposition. If you missed part I, have your fill here. In the “Vocation of Man,” Fichte said that “you could not remove a single grain of sand from its place without thereby …changing something throughout all parts of the immeasurable whole”.
A parallel to Fichte’s thoughts resides in the metaphor of the “Butterfly Effect” that took birth from a study about chaotic systems (like weather). The study discovered that, over time, the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil was capable of setting off a series of atmospheric events that, weeks later, induced the formation of a tornado in Texas.
Closer to home, we found this metaphor realise itself when talent acquisition teams converge to craft an Employee Value Proposition for their respective organisations. Where the process itself is a delicate and powerful step, a deeper look into the various ingredients that form the EVP mix is crucial for success — consider the various ingredients flapping their wings together for their employer brand taking shape of the proverbial tornado.
Butterflies In Motion: Employee Value Proposition
An organisation’s EVP, and the factors (our butterflies, in this perspective) that contribute to its development, oftentimes assume an intentional and sometimes unintentional structure. Dynamically transforming factors such as:
- Competitive talent landscape.
- Economic contributions for and of an organisation.
- Operating performance.
- Growth objectives and the overall industry dynamics.
They help an organisation find ground and articulate their companies’ values as the business transformations consistently take place.
Like Lego blocks assembling together to create a sum greater than the parts, an EVP has 5 generic pillars that converge to create an employer voice. Think of this voice as the communication guideline that speaks of any of these distinct pillars in the same breath as the other. The mix of these pillars remains largely similar across organisations; what differs is the gravity that any of these constituents might lend to themselves depending upon growth objectives, talent landscape, macro or micro industry forces and strategic imperatives.