¿Corporation Meets Culture ¿ Beyond Employer-Branding¿

“Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.” This quote, which is accredited to the Chinese philosopher Confucius, is imputed to be the motto of a new generation of employees that is subsumed under the moniker generation Y (Martin and Tulgan 2001). By definition, this term includes those born from 1978 to 1989 who are entering the labour market during a time of demographic change, as companies simultaneously face an aging workforce and an erosion of the most desirable labour pool, young and highly qualified professionals. In essence, Gen Yers are characterized as being ambitious, team-oriented and technology-fluent as no generation before, with high expectations of themselves and increasingly high expectations of employers.

Therefore companies are engaging in an intensive war for talents and outgun one another to attract the brightest and most productive employees (Michaels et. al. 2001). These should be allured by the reinforcement of positive employer branding and bespoke recruiting events, fancy enough to appeal to the emotions of the wooed candidates. But at the same time employers complainingly picture members of generation Y as incessantly demanding, discerning, and with the attitude to question everything. Thus high potentials in particular are not only believed to be high-performance but also blamed to be high-maintenance, focused on their own interests and not hesitant at all to change their employer if offered more favourable development prospects elsewhere.

The mergence of these thoughts finally evoked the concept of Darwiportunism (Scholz 2003) that combines social Darwinism with mere opportunism, more precisely the notion of the survival of the fittest in the competition for jobs with the mindset that only the own market value counts. Nevertheless this concept is not only a rail against a dog-eat-dog society. Above all it is the expression of a shift in values. The employees of the future grew up with catchwords like downsizing, mass layoffs, burnout, and harassment at work. They witnessed the burst of the dot-com bubble as well as numerous scandals about fraudulent enterprises. In school they were told that mercenary companies are responsible for the exploitation and pollution of the environment and that it had been children who sewed their stylish sneakers for dazzling multinationals. Moreover to changes in economy this generation is confronted with a new social situation: It already has to provide for their own pension plan today, it should be prepared to care for retired parents tomorrow and, along the way, it is expected to start and keep a family. Jointly these factors influence the attitude towards work of this generation and this new orientation is not only due to a change in values but also a bare necessity.

Whereas a few decades ago a traditional contract that promised lifelong employment in return for loyalty was implicitly in place between employer and employee, the new generation has realized that under today’s reality it cannot cling on the idea of lifelong employment (Sattelberger 2006). Instead this idea was overtaken by the postulation of lifelong employability that is linked to the advent of the brainchild Me Inc (Peters 1997). Adhering to this philosophy, each individual is urged to invest in the development of its professional skills and competencies and is responsible for its personal development and its potential of achievement. Any and every person has to manage the own talents. Consequently the requirements of this generation of jobholders reflect this paradigm shift. Now top jobs are essentially those where one learns but not necessarily where one earns the most. The employees of the future go for positions where they can employ their strength and gain general competences but in particular for those that offer room for ideas and personal growth. Keeping in mind that the traditional contract no longer holds, they are only willing to spend efforts and time to an employer who guarantees a reasonable work-life balance. For this reason a new contract of employment is needed that morally commits both parties to share the risks and chances of the concept of lifelong employability. The willingness of companies to engage in such a moral contract depends on the way employees are perceived. Are they exchangeable units of work whose activities need to be closely monitored or are they valuable individuals who materially contribute to the success of a company and therefore are worth commitment? Which of these views is taken on is reflected by an enterprise’s corporate culture. If companies want to win the war for talent, they must succeed in creating a corporate culture that supports the second proposition.

Through the means of employer branding companies try to get across the image of a worthwhile culture and present themselves as modern employers, respecting the individual and its work-life balance, valuing diversity and offering opportunities for development and growth. However, like the surface of the water mirrors the sky above but conceals the world underneath, the deliberately created employer brand allows only access to the evinced values and symbols of a company but the dynamic corporate culture with its vital and actually lived values is disguised to the eye of the outside beholder. Only static fragments of corporate culture are visible. But corporate culture has a dynamic structure, incorporates grown shared values, is woven with experiences from the past and therefore subjected to perception and interpretation (e.g., Schein (1985), Hatch (1993)). This level of information cannot be conveyed to future employees solely via presentations or job interviews but must be based on experience. To allow for the experience of corporate culture an increasing number of companies hosts “experience-days” where candidates get to know prospective colleagues, gain insight into typical tasks and get a first glimpse of the corporate culture. Like individuals are characterised by their nature, companies actively try to distinguish themselves from other employers through their corporate culture. And future employees consider both whether they seem to fit to the culture of a company as well as whether a certain company meets their needs and expectations. For the purpose of this evaluation information on and, in the best case, also the experience of corporate culture is one of the most crucial factors that is taken into consideration.

But neither is there only one common culture in an enterprise, nor is it always lived the way it is pretended to be. After the signing of the labour contract the narration about the unique and marvellous corporate culture often turns out to be not more than a half-hearted declaration of intent. While companies loudly purport that attracting and retaining talented employees is one of their most important priorities, reality shows that they are not prepared to commit to respect their employees’ needs (Lawler 2008).

A fair fulfillment of the moral contract, however, not only benefits the employee but also the employer. The implementation of work-life balance programmes has the potential to reduce staff turnover and to lead to increased productivity (Izzo 2001). Empirical studies suggest that satisfied employees and good relationships between employees enhance the performance of a company (Baetge et. al. 2007). Especially the relationship with the immediate manager seems to influence satisfaction and productivity (Coffman 2000).

So if the future success of a company depends on its ability to recruit capable employees it must be ready to offer them development prospects and the possibility to determine their own work schedule so that the job also has the aspect of being intrinsically meaningful. Employers who intend to retain talents should not only take interest in their professional lives, but also be considerate of their personal lives. As the philosophy of employment changed from lifelong employment to continuous employability, work-life balance is of utmost importance. The employees of the future have been rising to the challenge of today’s labour market. Now it is the companies’ turn to set a change in motion to promote and nurture a corporate culture that truly commits to employees. In the contest for talents corporate culture means a competitive advantage for companies that live it rather than write about it. Hence corporate culture must not only be drawn up on corporate websites but must be authentic and provide for the potential to be filled with life.





Baetge, J./Schewe, G./Schulz, R./Solmecke H. (2007): Unternehmenskultur und Unternehmenserfolg: Stand der empirischen Forschung und Konsequenzen für die Entwicklung eines Messkonzeptes, in: JfB, Nr. 57, S. 183 – 219.

Coffman, C. (2000): Gallup’s Discoveries About Great Managers and Great Workplaces, in “The Workplace Column”, October 9th, 2000.

Hatch, M.J. (1993): The Dynamics of organizational culture, in: Academy of Management Review, 18/4, S. 657 - 693.

Izzo, J./Withers, P. (2001): Value Shift – The New Work Ethic and What It Means for Business, Gloucester, MA, Fairwinds Press.

Lawler, E.E. III (2008): The Talent Lie – “Putting people first” can be more than a slogan, in: Strategy & Business, 51, S. 38 – 42.

Martin, C.A./Tulgan, B. (2001): Managing Generation Y – Global Citizens Born in the Late Seventies and Early Eighties, HRD Press, Amherst.

Michaels, E./Handfield-Jones, H./Axelrod B. (2001): The War for Talent, Boston, Harvard Business School Press.

Peters, T. (1997): The Brand Called You, Fast Company, Issue 10.

Sattelberger, T. (2006): Die Irrungen und Wirrungen der Ich-AG, in: Rump, J./Sattelberger, T./Fischer H. (Hrsg.): Employability Management: Grundlagen, Konzepte, Perspektiven, Gabler, Wiesbaden.

Schein, E.H. (1985): Organizational culture and leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Scholz, C. (2003): Spieler ohne Stammplatzgarantie – Darwiportunismus in der neuen Arbeitswelt, Weinheim, Wilev-VCH.