You cannot brand your way out of being a bad place to work. It's the fact most employer branding budgets are built to avoid.
At chlorophyll, we've sat in enough of these conversations to know how they start. A leadership team wants better talent in the door, the careers page gets a refresh, a tagline gets written, and sometimes a video gets made. None of it touches the actual problem, because the actual problem was never on the careers page. It was three floors down, in how a manager treats the people who report to them, on a random Tuesday, when nobody senior is in the room.
The gap that decides everything
Every company has a stated culture. It's in the on boarding deck, the values on the wall, and the line in the careers page about "people-first" or "ownership" or whatever the words happen to be that year. Almost no company has checked whether that stated culture is the same as the one its employees actually experience.
That gap, between what the organisation says it values and what it actually rewards day to day, is where the employer brand is decided. Not in the brand guidelines. Not in the campaign. In the gap.
Here's what that gap usually looks like in practice. Leadership says it values collaboration, but the only people who get promoted are the ones who deliver fastest regardless of who they burn through to do it. Leadership says feedback is welcome, but the one person who raised a hard question in a town hall stopped being invited to certain meetings. None of this is written down anywhere. It doesn't need to be. Employees read it within months, and they read it more accurately than any survey could capture, because they are living the evidence every day rather than answering a questionnaire about it once a year.
Why values on a wall don't survive contact with the org chart
The reason most stated cultures don't become loved ones is not insincerity. Most leadership teams genuinely believe the values they've written down. The reason is that values, stated as words, are abstract enough that everyone can agree to them and specific enough to mean nothing. "Integrity." "Excellence." "People-first." Nobody disagrees with these words, which is exactly the problem. A value nobody can disagree with is a value nobody has actually had to choose.
The work that closes the gap is unglamorous and almost entirely structural. It's the process we run at chlorophyll with leadership teams, and it starts with getting them to commit to three or four values they will actually be held to, not the ones that sound well on a poster. Each of those gets converted into a specific action statement, what this value actually requires someone to do differently in their role. From there, the behaviours that demonstrate the value have to be named explicitly enough that two different managers would recognise the same behaviour the same way. And then, the part most organisations skip entirely: those behaviours need measurement, reward, and consequence built into how the company actually runs. If "collaboration" is a stated value but nobody's bonus, promotion, or performance review has ever once been affected by whether they collaborated, the value isn't lived. It's decorative.
This is slower and less visible than a campaign, and it should be. A campaign can launch in a quarter. A value becoming real inside an organisation takes the time it takes for people to stop testing whether leadership means it, and start believing they do.
The strongest employer brands were built as operating decisions
When Vineet Nayar ran HCL Technologies, he didn't write "Employees First, Customers Second" as a value statement. He restructured how the company actually worked: management became accountable to the frontline rather than the other way round, and that accountability was built into how the organisation functioned, not just how it described itself. The phrase became famous because the structure behind it was real. Most companies could write the same four words tomorrow and nothing about how they operate would change. That's the entire difference between a stated value and a lived one.
Where this goes wrong fastest
Overselling during recruitment is the most visible failure, promising a culture, delivering something ordinary, and new hires work it out within weeks. But the quieter failure is more damaging: running an engagement survey, hearing the same feedback for the third year running, and changing nothing. That doesn't just fail to fix the gap. It teaches every employee who answered honestly that their honesty was decorative. The next survey gets less honest answers, not because people stopped noticing the gap, but because they stopped believing anyone was going to close it.
In India, your employees are the campaign
This is the part the Indian market makes impossible to avoid. Candidates here lean heavily on referrals and review sites, and word about a culture that doesn't match its own pitch moves fast, usually well before the next role is even posted. The reverse is just as true. A workplace where the lived experience actually matches what leadership says it values becomes its own hiring engine, because the people already inside are doing the convincing, unprompted, in conversations a company will never see.
So the real question was never what goes on the careers page. It's harder than that: when an employee tests whether the stated values are real, by raising a hard question, by watching who gets rewarded, by noticing who gets away with what, what do they find? Close that gap and the right people come looking. Leave it open and the best ones leave first, and they'll tell you exactly why, even if you never ask.
Sign in to leave a comment.