What happens when someone asks you “how is your culture?” and you’re not quite sure what they’re asking?
That deceptively simple question sits at the heart of a deeper challenge many organisations face. Employer branding has become less about the marketing message and more about alignment, authenticity, and the unglamorous work of governance.
Over the past decade, employer branding has shifted from a HR responsibility to something messier and more important: a business strategy question. It’s no longer just about getting people in the door. It’s about whether the people inside, the systems supporting them, and the external narrative you’re telling are telling the same story.
The Culture Question
When someone asks “how is your culture,” they’re rarely asking for a polished description. They’re testing whether you understand how work actually happens in your organisation. Can you articulate what it’s like to work here without retreating to values statements? Can you describe the friction points as easily as the wins?
The organisations that answer this well don’t have perfect cultures. They have honest ones. They can talk about what makes them distinctive, what they struggle with, and why someone might thrive there or find it miserable. That clarity is what builds credibility.
This matters for Gen Z talent especially. They’re not just evaluating your mission or your salary. They’re pattern-matching against everything they can find online about what it’s like to work for you. If your glassdoor reviews contradict your LinkedIn posts, they notice. If your employee advocacy content feels forced, they spot it immediately.
The Transparency Question
Here’s what most organisations avoid saying: there is no perfect balance between too little and too much transparency. Organisations struggling with this question are struggling because they haven’t decided what they believe about candidate transparency.
Some organisations use heavy transparency as a filter. You get the unvarnished truth about the role, the team, the expectations. This works if you’re genuinely comfortable with candidates self-selecting out. Others use moderate transparency to maintain some control over narrative. Both can work. What doesn’t work is inconsistency.
The real challenge isn’t finding the right amount of information to share. It’s deciding whether you trust candidates to make informed decisions and then building processes that reflect that trust.
The Employee Advocacy Problem
This is where employer branding becomes a governance problem.
Some organisations have employees with established audiences on YouTube, LinkedIn, TikTok, or other platforms. Should they be encouraged to create content about working for you? Should you provide guidelines? Should you curate or approve?
The answer depends on a question rarely asked directly: do you trust your people to represent the organisation authentically, or do you only trust them to represent it correctly?
These aren’t the same thing. Authentic representation means employees can share real experience, nuance, and even mild critique. Correct representation means everything flows through an approval process and risks sounding corporate.
You can have controls without requiring curation. Clear guidelines about what’s off-limits (confidential projects, specific financial data, identifiable client information) can coexist with genuine freedom around everything else. Employees with their own channels often have credibility precisely because they’re not obviously scripted.
The harder conversation is generational. Different age groups have fundamentally different expectations about what employee advocacy looks like. Gen Z may expect transparency about company problems. Older employees may expect stronger brand protection. An influencer brought in to build employer brand may have a very different aesthetic from your actual workforce.
Where Does Employer Branding Live?
The question of whether employer branding sits in HR or marketing or communications reveals something important: organisations are still thinking about it as someone else’s problem.
Employer branding is most effective when it lives at the intersection of multiple functions. HR because they own the candidate experience and employee lifecycle. Communications because they understand narrative and audience segmentation. Leadership because they model the culture and set strategic direction. Even finance, because compensation and benefits are part of the brand promise.
If it’s only in HR, it often becomes a recruitment tool. If it’s only in marketing, it becomes disconnected from operations. The integration matters more than the location.
Measuring What You Can’t Easily See
Most organisations measure employer branding backwards. They count applications, they track time-to-hire, they survey candidate experience. These are important, but they’re measuring inputs and immediate outputs, not brand strength.
Stronger indicators:
– Employee retention rates by cohort (are people who joined because of the employer brand staying?)
– Internal mobility (do people believe there’s a future here?)
– Employee referral quality and conversion (are employees recommending this place to people they respect?)
– Candidate quality scores (are you attracting people who could work elsewhere but choose you?)
– Separation feedback (what do people say about culture when they’re leaving?)
The messiest but most honest measure is what employees voluntarily say when they’re not being asked. What stories do they tell about working here at dinner parties? Would they recommend their own role to a friend?
The Generational Complexity
Different generations of prospective candidates do have different expectations. Gen Z is often portrayed as wanting purpose-driven work and radical transparency. Millennial candidates often want growth opportunity and work-life integration. Older workers often prioritise stability and respect for expertise.
The mistake is treating these as audience segments you need to message differently. The smarter move is building an employer brand that’s genuinely multidimensional. Can you talk about purpose without dismissing stability? Can you highlight growth without overpromising? Can you be transparent about challenges without sounding like you’re complaining?
The organisations doing this well aren’t running separate campaigns for Gen Z versus other demographics. They’re building a brand narrative that has depth and complexity, which different generations will relate to differently depending on what matters to them.
Sponsorship, Sporting Events, and Authentic Association
The World Cup question is interesting because it reveals an assumption many organisations carry: that sponsoring major sporting events automatically boosts employer brand.
The risks are real. Association with major events often requires significant investment. If your organisation isn’t genuinely embedded in that space (you’re not a sports-focused employer, your employees don’t engage deeply with the sport), the sponsorship can feel disconnected or out of touch, particularly if employees question why that money didn’t go toward salary or development.
The opportunities are also real, but they’re specific. If your employer brand has something authentic to do with team, competition, excellence under pressure, global reach, or community engagement, and the event genuinely reflects that, then association makes sense. If you’re just chasing visibility because competitors are visible, you’re making an expensive bet on a shallow connection.
The same logic applies to any external association. Does it reinforce something true about working here? If not, it’s marketing noise.
What Matters
Employer branding doesn’t fail because organisations don’t have a strategy. It fails because organisations have a strategy that doesn’t reflect how the organisation works.
You can have the slickest LinkedIn content and the most impressive values statement. If your internal processes contradict them, if your systems make work harder rather than easier, if your leadership doesn’t model what they claim to value, the brand breaks down quickly.
The organisations with strong employer brands usually share something in common: they’re ruthlessly honest about what they’re good at and what they’re not. They know why people stay and why they leave. They understand the gap between the story they tell and the story employees live, and they’re actively working to close it.
That work isn’t glamorous. It’s governance, process design, difficult conversations about what you believe and whether you’re willing to fund it. It’s asking your employees hard questions about their experience and listening when the answers don’t sound like marketing copy.
But that’s where the credibility lives. That’s where employer branding becomes something candidates can trust.
What’s the biggest disconnect you’re seeing between the employer brand you’re trying to build and the reality of working inside your organisation right now?
Â
