[To the serious HR-types who will read this blog post and immediately become incensed at my lack of knowledge about anti-oppression legislation in the US: Before you comment, please remember that I am a recruitment marketing consultant whose job is about ensuring that the employment brand delivers positive experiences. So my perspective is about how this situation contributes to a positive work environment, not how it might get us into legal trouble.]
Every Friday, staffers at Head2Head take turns to do 'Friday Treat Day'. The tradition - started by President Paul Dodd back when H2H wasn't much more than "2 guys in a basement" and now in its 9th year - is that on Friday mornings, two H2H staffers bring breakfast for everyone in the office. This tends to get kind of competitive and fun.
Last week, my Friday breakfast partner and I decided to do a 'good breakfast/bad breakfast' gimmick: On the left side of the table were muesli, fruit and juice; on the right side were a variety of sugar cereals, danishes, and cookies.
The left side of the table had a photo of an angel, with the words 'Good Breakfast'; on the right was a photo of a 'sexy' angel, winking and flipping the bird, with the words 'Bad Breakfast'.
Everyone had a good laugh, and when the breakfast was over, the two angel pictures were tacked to the kitchen bulletin board, where we often put up newspaper articles, office notices, or thank you cards from candidates.
However.
This week, one of the members of the super-senior management team told me that there'd been a complaint (by a H2H staffer, whose name was not revealed to me) about the picture and that it was to be removed immediately.
It got me thinking.
On the one hand, I'm totally in agreement about removing it after a complaint. Our Employee Handbook and orientation guides clearly - and repeatedly - state that if an office behaviour is making you uncomfortable, you should tell your manager and that H2H is committed to being responsive to such concerns/complaints. So if the sign was offending someone, then by all means, let's take it down.
On the other hand, however, at what point do you say, "You know what? Our brand identity has always been a little irreverent; in fact our clients and consultants tend to be extra-loyal because we have a reputation for being fun, irreverent and not too corporate. It's deeply entrenched in our brand equity, and it would be detrimental to change it. And we go out of our way to let potential employees know this about us before they take a job with us, so it's not like you didn't know that we were like this before you decided to work here."
In other words: At what point do you draw the line? Heck, is there a point when you can ever say that? And at what point does catering to a single voice of complaint start to have a negative impact on brand equity?
In terms of marketing and brand loyalty, it's often better to have 3 people who are really passionate about your brand than 10 people who are apathetic about it. So in many ways I naturally prefer the 'bad angel' graphic - that kind of controversy is what generates passionate brand loyalists in the long-term, even if it alienates a few people in the short-term.
The other thing I'd like to know is by what, exactly, the complainant in this case was offended.
Was it the implied swear word? Because there's an awful lot of swearing that goes on around here every day. Do we need to address that?
Was it the implied blasphemy (i.e. angels shouldn't swear)? Well, first of all, flipping the bird isn't really blasphemy (it's not taking the Lord's name in vain) and second of all, not all of our employees are Christian.
Or was it something else about the picture entirely?
I dunno. I'm left in two minds about this. From an employee experience perspective, I guess I'm all in favour of taking something down if it's making someone uncomfortable. From a branding perspective, I know that if you try to please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no one - which doesn't sell widgets.
| 6 comments
|
flag
