Atlassian - if I could critique for a moment

Yesterday, I went to the fantastic Open House at Atlassian (feature pictures are owner-entrepreneurs Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar, both 29).

Atlassian are an amazing growth story. And recently, they have been making waves in the recruitment industry, by taking a firm approach with recruiters, and a word-of-mouth campaign to influence software developers to head their way.

There's no denying this is a very very smart company. Product-wise, culture-wise and peer-wise, it's up there with Google. But it's a very interesting time for Atlassian, since it's starting to reach that size where it stands the risk of losing its close-knit feel. It's gone from one garage to a series of 'international garages'. It's owners are young, innovative and driven, and they're refreshingly informal in communicating what they value.

But, even though this potentially-stellar business is recruiting an extremely sought-after group of people with a $4.5million investment, the one thing they don't seem to have is an advertising strategy.

A glimpse of the future? I for one, hope not.

You see, Google doesn't really appear to have a particularly strong or noticeable recruitment advertising strategy either. But then, they're the seventh biggest brand in the world right now and everyone knows that the hurdles are high to get there - because it's seemingly the best place to work, learn and develop.

(That's not to say that all views about Google are accurate - I'm sure there are many misconceptions out there. But right now those perceptions are not enough to stop Google attracting the best of the best.)

Atlassian are not necessarily wrong in their strategy: it's clearly a choice they've made, a channel they've chosen to avoid, and it may pay-off. I hear they've already attracted a high level of talent, somewhere in the region of 600 shortlisted candidates*, simply by this approach informing people of their benefits, values and culture. Good on 'em I say - much better than the 'post and pray' approach of so many others.

*Please correct me if wrong.

But by not having a clear advertising strategy, they are still only promoting words on a page, as surely as if they tried to sell me a Mars bar by saying it's smooth, chocolatey and sweet. Sure, those are benefits. But that's not enough to give me the impetus to buy it, even less to buy it when a Snickers has nuts in it, and, well I prefer smooth, chocolatey, sweet and nuts.

I digress, but only slightly. What Atlassian appear to be missing is an central 'idea' which leads to a certain ideal set of attitudes, beliefs, and ultimately, behaviours. One thing Google has going for it is a powerful brand identity which is a powerful tool for their recruitment. Ultimately, Atlassian should be aiming to create something similar - when I think of their name, I shouldn't simply be able to list some facts like 'one week's paid holiday before starting'.

Atlassian needs to be assoicated with positive experiences. When I think of Atlassian, I want to feel something about them.

Let's say someone already works at Google (potentially the 'ideal candidate'). What is it about Atlassian that makes them want to leave Google and join them (since surely that must be the aim)? What conscious or sub-conscious drivers tie them so strongly to Atlassian that they'll throw their hat in the ring?

Sure, there are perks at Atlassian. But will the ideal candidate buy the Mars bar, or will they stick with the Snickers because it's got nuts in it?

Once the newspaper has been binned and the last beers from the Open House are drunk, where's the one cruicial touchpoint that acts as a consistent reinforcement of the main messages - a strong employer brand and advertising strategy?

Google - HR prediction algorithm

After losing some top execs to competitors like Twitter and Facebook, Google has reportedly developed an algorithm that helps them predicts which employees are likely to leave, and when.

In times of economic turmoil, everyone thinks business goals are all about 'trimming the fat' and cutting costs. And that's partly true - as a first step, any business worth their salt needs to be remain profitable and able to compete. Clearly, that means getting rid of any factor that is costing more than it reaps. So tough decisions get made, these impact on individuals, and can - in turn - affect morale and productivity.

After a frenetic period where we've seen many previously untouchable organisations go bust and others bailed-out, there's a more proactive approach emerging - and this is taking the form of workforce planning.

If you're unfamiliar with this term, workforce planning in its simplest form is a matter of anticipating the how many people and what skills are needed in what areas of an organisation - and setting out a plan to meet needs. It's the opposite of the reactive HR approach that puts an ad in the paper when an employee leaves.

So right now, many businesses are not recruiting. So why is workforce planning relevant?

The answer is that workforce planning also happens within an organisation. Employers look at where they need people, and where they don't need people. They look at what skills they have, and what skills they need. They look at unprofitable areas of the business, and work out strategies to minimise pain for affected employees.

And this explains part of Google's move. Google will not want to lose key talent. High performers are an intangible business benefit that will be lost from them, with their competitors only standing to gain. So it makes sense to work out who at Google might leave, and when. But how do you work out strategies to keep them?

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that businesses that manage, engage and inspire their top talent, are much more likely to engage them in tough times, retain them once the upturn comes. There's a huge competitive advantage to be claimed via this method, but this algorithm is a bit like knowing your mum's birthday date, but not neglecting to ask what she'd like as a gift.

If I was looking at this sort of problem for Google, I would ensure extensive qualitative research (workshops, interviews, and the like) was conducted. That way, you can get beneath the skin of a problem and assess they 'why' as well as the 'who' and 'when'.

Statistics and data will only ever give you a wide but shallow pool of information. It's only through using a talented interviewer who can cut through the surface to uncover unconscious beliefs, drivers and ideas of individual employees that you can formulate strategies to affect real engagement. An algorithm, no matter how advanced, could never do this.

As a sidenote, this Google announcement reminds me a little of a PR exercise perfected by Ryanair (low cost airline). They released a story in February this year announcing considerations of a one pound charge for customers to use the toilet.

Customer outtake: Ryanair are obsessed with keeping costs low.

Customer outtake here: Google is obsessed with the perfect predictive search tool.

Using PR to attract

Today, I've been having a number of conversations about the use of PR in promoting an employer, or a particular role. It's an approach with huge potential, yet one I've never seen offered by agencies other than on a 'by-the-job' approach.

However. Isn't it one of the most important aspects of promoting your employer brand? Ensuring that, in the long-term, newsworthy outlets accurately communicate aspects of the organisational culture, and not rely on hearsay or assumption, or someone they've grabbed off the street who will say something controversial?

And won't using PR effectively ultimately mean that employers get more of the right people - people who are more engaged and more productive because they've joined for the right reasons?

I say this on the back of then noticing this on the BBC news website. It's a rather sombre assessment of the state of Social Worker recruitment in the UK. Those of us who have worked in this area know that attraction and retention doesn't get much more challenging.

So why has this story broken without there being one iota of positive news about it? If I was interested in in social issues - which I must be since I was reading the story - what are the positive things that get me thinking "Jeez, that sounds like tough work - but on the other hand...".

Put simply, this article paints a grey and dismal picture - there's no speak of reward, support, kudos, or even any stories of the amazing people who have made such a big difference to peoples' lives.

You need to be newsworthy to succeed in PR. But you need to use it to your advantage too.