The concept of employer brand has been cascaded from the branding concept in the field of marketing. This thematic paper aims to find out how the PTTEP employer brand is perceived in the perception of HR managers. It can be said that this is the point that the branding concept started to move to employer brand.
This study was conducted to determine how executives in Thailand's national oil and gas industry view their employer brand. It is envisaged that each individual organizational unit will be responsible for the PTTEP employer brand, so that they will collectively benefit PTTEP and themselves in the long term. In the field of human resources, it is an "employer brand" that combines the concepts of marketing and human resources management.
In the HR sector, "branding" refers to attracting candidates and making an impression on the organization on target job seekers. This growth has occurred because employer branding is now often seen as an effective tool to help an organization build its own competitive advantage. Various studies have been done on this employer brand from the employer's perspective.
Mosley (2007) studied how the employer brand can guide culture change as well as customer experience management.
LITERATURE REVIEW
- From Consumer Goods to Employer Brand
- Definition of Employer Brand
- Benefits of Employer Brand
- How to Build Employer Brand
- Measurement of Employer Brand
- What is Strong Employer Brand?
- Roles of HR Managers
Employer brand' has been defined as 'the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with the employing company'. The Conference Board (2001) also pointed out that "The employer brand establishes the identity of the firm as an employer. According to the study of Moroko and Uncles (2008), the employer brand helps to secure and retain employees, as well as serving as a company's competitive advantage.
This can become negative for the employer's brand if the psychological contract is not fulfilled. It is possible to permanently influence the employer brand in the view of potential employees (Moroko and Uncles, 2008). Barrow and Mosley (2005) also mentioned that employer branding will help an organization to achieve its business objectives.
Interestingly, although the concept of “employer brand” has been discussed since the 1990s (Kunerth and Mosley, 2011), and many practitioners argued that to be successful, the employer brand must be more attractive (Moroko and Uncles, 2008), successful and the failure has not been formally implemented yet (Kunerth and Mosley, 2011). Based on Figure 2.1, Brett Minchington developed a model for employer brand equity, which can be divided into 4 groups (2011): Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004) Employer brand loyalty consists of the commitments that employees show about their employer.
According to the study of Ambler and Barrow in 1996, the HR function was identified as the best group to handle the employer brand. There are several things that HR manager should do to make the employer brand stronger. Consistent with the employer brand mix of Barrow and Mosley (2006), it helps HR managers to manage the employer brand.
The leadership team plays a critical role in building the creditworthiness and interpreting the spirit of employer branding. A sense of value and involvement received from Management is evidently related to the employer's brand. These factors influence how employer branding is valued from the perspective of employees.
It is the responsibility of the organizations to determine their own version to leverage their own employer brand (Barrow and Mosley, 2006). And the HR function will certainly play the lead role in driving a strong employer brand.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
However, Yin (1984) discussed that there are some concerns we should keep in mind about the case study strategy. With a learning objective, the case can be adapted to effectively highlight a specific point. On the other hand, all findings from a case study for research should be reported as it was researched.
Although the case study allows you to dig deeper into the details of a specific case, it lacks external validation. In this particular study, the target population is the HR executives at PTT Exploration and Production Public Company Limited, Thailand's national oil and gas company. The company is considered to be the exploration and production flagship for PTT Group and Thailand.
PTTEP aims to ensure a reliable supply of crude oil and natural gas for Thailand and the countries in which they go to invest. The company also aims to increase reserves and production domestically and abroad to protect the risk of national energy supply with fair returns for all stakeholders. According to findings in Ambler and Barrow's (1996) study, the human resources function is seen as the most appropriate leader to handle employer branding.
The interviewees are at the level of Section Head, equivalent or higher in the Human Resources and Business Services Group of PTT Exploration and Production Public Company Limited. To ensure the highest possible accuracy and candid factual answers from the interviewees, in addition to making them feel as comfortable as possible in providing information, they are referred to only as HR managers without identifying a specific job title in this document. Also, their biographical details such as name and years of service are not made public to maintain their privacy.
The interviews aimed to identify, elicit and expand on interviewees' descriptions of their perceptions of the PTTEP employer brand.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
- PTTEP Employer Brand Knowledge
- Employees’ Employer Brand Experience
- Company External Reputation
- Employees Brand Relationships
It's so amazing that we would say we have it, but no one is responsible for dealing with the PTEP employer brand. It would be good to have an organizational unit that deals with an overview of the PTEP employer brand . Interestingly, all interviewees tended to provide the same information when we discussed what the PTTEP employer brand is.
One interviewee stated that PTTEP's employer brand should be in the same vein as PTTEP's corporate brand. Another interviewee stated that if a company was serious about building its PTTEP employer brand, it should be clear about what the PTTEP employer brand is. The interviewers further explained that a good employer brand should reflect the reality of what the employer brand really is.
They said that, at present, it may appear that only recruitment would benefit from the PTTEP Employer Brand. However, this does not mean that the only recruitment department should be responsible for the field of work of the PTTEP employer brand, because they get advantages and benefits. It was the consensus of interviewees that the company had not maximized much benefit from the PTTEP employer brand.
Probably because there was currently no organizational unit responsible for the PTTEP employer brand. One interviewee noted that PTTEP's employer brand work area should be merged into an organizational unit that is now responsible for PTTEP's corporate culture and core values. If there was an organizational unit responsible for the PTTEP employer brand work area, I would recommend the Corporate Culture and Core Values group to manage the PTTEP employer brand.
The interviewees revealed that the employer's brand has different strengths in the opinion of outsiders and current employees. It was obvious that no one took any serious action in the field of employer branding. In addition, no one realized that the employer brand could be strengthened and influence the behavior of current employees.
This essentially follows the same idea, or way of thinking, that the employer brand should be built from each individual employee. And if there were an organizational unit responsible for overseeing the PTTEP Employer Brand, it would help the company create a focal point that primarily directs the implementation of the Employer Brand.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Limitations
It would be impossible to interview all HR departments because PTTEP currently employs nearly 200 HR staff. Because of these time constraints, I preferred to only go for senior HR positions with titles such as senior officer, manager, or vice president. The findings would have been more accurate and deeper if there had been more time for interviews with other HR professionals.
Most of the interviewees have worked with PTTEP for more than 10 years, working together every day. In fact, most findings led to data and opinions pointing in the same or similar directions.
