Stretchy time and the hazards of employer branding

Leslie Savan's book Slam Dunks and No Brainers argued that language is littered with expressions that are merely convenient escape hatches for the brain. Instead of having to think, we just throw an arbitrary expression at the problem, like "don't go there" or "that's a no-brainer". One of these lazy expressions is that "the day only has 24 hours". What do you mean "only"? 24 hours is an eternity. You can watch the entire Des Ring der Nibelungen in that time with some hours left to watch Godfather 1 and 2 depending on what production of the opera you'll see. You can fly back and forth to the US from Sweden and squeeze in a meeting or two whilst in Manhattan. You can listen through 1 or 2 non-abridged audiobooks, again depending on length. No, 24 hours is an eternity but what people really mean (but carefully avoid talking about) is how much time we usually waste through superfluous sleeping and bad planning. My newly-found parenthood has deprived me of sleep but has rewarded me with all these hours when I can do stuff. Althought I'm sometimes forced to multi-task - feeding a baby and blogging at the same time, for instance - I have all this time to read, blog and think. Tonight, I've been following the live blogging from TED in Monterey. Following it online actually beats going to it in some ways.  Every year when I've been there, I've always felt that a good portion of the participants are somewhat smug and arrogant (not all, fortunately, I've met some great friends there too). Sure enough, there are detrimental effects to long-term sleep deprivation but stretching the day for a year or two will drastically improve your productivity - I promise.

Something struck me tonight. Ever since McKinsey published their much-quoted and little-read War for Talent in 1997, "Employer branding" has been all the rage in marketing circles. How to attract, nurture and retain talent has become in the 21st century what "How to improve conveyor belt efficiency" was in the early 20th century. I've held a number of talks on the subject in the past year and I did a big global project for Skanska  a year ago. Another topic I'm passionate about is interdisciplinary studies. I teach at Stockholm School of Entrepreneurship, a collaboration between the four best universities in Sweden (Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm School of Economics, Karolinska Institute and University College of Arts, Crafts and Design). On March 13th, I'm hosting a session at Identity Works with Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies Ronald Jones.  However, what I realized tonight is that these two forces, interdisciplinarity and employer branding, may actually be  opposing each other.  The former is about working across boundaries and seeking out solutions far outside your usual realm. It's about curiosity, open-mindedness,  fluency,  and relentless learning. The latter is about building walls, creating a cohesive "corporate culture",  thinking in terms of us ("at this really great company") and them ("at our really crummy competitors"). As such, I belive that employer branding is a destructive force.  It puts blinders and shackles on people who should really be more liberated than ever to move outside the boundaries of the firm. You may argue that only poorly executed employer branding falls into this category but when I scan the 114 books written on the subject at Amazon.com, their messages are eerily similar; focus on one message - one culture,  make your employees ambassadors,  don't be afraid of hard-selling the company as a workplace and so on. From now on, I'll be an opponent of conventional employer branding. The quest begins now. Game...on.