The company and the HR function: authenticity and transparency

Authenticity and transparency: Two words brandished as a banner by candidates and employees as well as by the companies themselves, which only reflect the demand for truth specific to our connected society. Do companies and the HR function really have anything to gain by making these two concepts their core values? Even if recent political events would push us to respond positively, nothing is less certain…

 

Digitization of exchanges, the era of recommendation, the development of the employee experience, the implementation of an HR marketing approach, the construction of an employer identity: today’s HR challenges all seem to be linked, in one way or another, to strong expectations in terms of authenticity and transparency. It is natural that companies, and more particularly the players in the HR function, take part in this movement. However, the excessive valuation of these two values does not seem to me to be desirable for Human Resources professionals. Here’s why.

 

Authenticity, the value of companies loyal to theirs

Authenticity is the quality of that which is authentic, true, pure, that is, whose truth or accuracy is indisputable and which testifies to its integrity.
As Maurice Thévenet puts it very well in RH info, authenticity consists in the company showing itself as it is, in not giving a false image of its deep nature; It is synonymous with sincerity on the part of the organization. The search for global coherence in its different areas of expression makes it possible to set an example and provide predictability for the company’s different audiences, whether they are candidates, employees, managers, social partners, etc. This consistency reflects the company’s loyalty to its values, vision and objectives: it makes it perceived as authentic.
However, authenticity is not a miracle cure for the various problems that arise for the company in general and the HR department in particular.

 

The Authentic Limits of Authenticity

Let’s play with words a little: to be authentic is – among other things – to speak the truth. The purpose of this article can only encourage me to do so, so here is what the 4 limits of authenticity are for me.

 

Authenticity is not necessarily understood by everyone

Have you ever come across one of those characters who, making an inappropriate remark about his physique to another person, immediately adds, as if it were a blank cheque: “Excuse me, but I’m a sincere person”. Sincerity, everyone will agree, is here misused to arrogate to itself the right to be rude or hurtful. In the same way, does being authentic mean that you always have to be yourself, and that this will be systematically understood and appreciated in the context of the company? That would be to deny the reality of it. There are many taboo themes and subjects in business, which should not be mentioned. Being authentic means telling the truth, but it doesn’t have to say everything. The art of communication makes it possible to discern precisely what it is appropriate to express oneself on.

 

Authenticity cannot be confused with communication

Today’s businesses are no more or less authentic than those of the previous century. In the first sense, there are no companies more authentic than others. On the other hand, in a context of increased competition and strong tensions in the talent market, the effective expression of their authenticity is becoming a strategic imperative. In this respect, not all companies are equal.
In order to concretely frame our subject, the company must communicate authentically. In other words, to highlight the attractive and differentiating characteristics that will allow it to attract and retain the talent it needs.
With a minimum of common sense, it is easy to understand that some very real characteristics of the company are not good communication levers. For example, does a very pyramidal company, attached to certain customs such as the use of “tu” and the wearing of a tie in all circumstances, have to communicate on this specific point in order to remain authentic? Another example, does a company that offers a very advantageous leave system because of a special status or a strong union history have to communicate on this point at all times? Waving this “carrot” on social networks risks making the company look like “a good hideout” and attracting candidates it does not want to bother with. It seems to me that it is wiser to address this question during a face-to-face interview with candidates who are already advanced in their recruitment process, and whose motivations have been proven. Authenticity, properly understood, is also the choice of the moment.

 

To express one’s authenticity is already to be less authentic

Can we “market” authenticity? Some companies have characteristics that need to be better promoted. They must express them with authenticity, but to ask themselves the question of the most appropriate form, is this not already to be less authentic?
This brings us to the case of those companies that communicate about their characteristics in a sincere and frank way, but in very corporate, very elaborate media, which in the end sound false: the statement is authentic, but does not “sound” like such.
Communicating truthfully about the right elements is ultimately nothing more than doing HR marketing. Without manipulation, without glitter, but with discernment and common sense, in compliance with a target vision. Communication and marketing, it should be remembered, are disciplines used to meet specific objectives. To practice them effectively is not, except in very special cases and in a limited setting, to be as authentic as possible; it is to put oneself pragmatically at the service of a strategy.