An employer brand has a fundamental influence on how many candidates a company can attract — and which candidates choose to apply. But effective employer branding is not only about what a company communicates. It is also about understanding who the message is intended to reach and which aspects of the employee experience matter most to different groups of professionals.

The expectations of blue-collar and white-collar employees have become more similar in several respects, although differences remain between roles, industries and individual circumstances.

Salary and benefits continue to play an important role for most candidates. Among many white-collar professionals, work-life balance, career development and opportunities for progression are also significant considerations, while job security may be particularly important in other occupational groups.

For professional and specialist candidates, employer reputation can have a strong influence on the decision between competing vacancies and job offers.

A well-developed employer brand therefore creates a relationship with potential employees long before they speak directly with an HR professional or recruiter.

Employer branding can strengthen recruitment

“Companies need to invest considerable time and energy in finding colleagues who can contribute to a strong team and develop a long-term commitment to the organisation,” explains Henrietta Elek, HR Consultant at Vision Recruitment.

“Recruitment and selection have become increasingly challenging, which makes it particularly important for companies to remain attractive and differentiate themselves from competitors.”

According to Elek, several elements are particularly important when building a credible employer brand:

• authentic communication;
• transparency;
• clear professional expectations;
• a realistic presentation of the working environment;
• a clear explanation of what the organisation offers employees;
• meaningful differentiation from competing employers.

The objective is not simply to present the company in the most attractive possible way.

It is to communicate a credible reason why a candidate should choose that organisation over another.

Candidates look beyond the job itself

For many white-collar professionals, an interesting role and opportunities for professional development are no longer enough on their own.

Candidates may also consider:

• the workplace atmosphere;
• training and development opportunities;
• team-building activities;
• flexibility;
• work-life balance;
• home-office arrangements;
• benefits;
• the organisation’s financial stability.

The relative importance of these factors varies considerably from person to person.

This is why successful employer branding in recruitment needs to reflect real candidate priorities rather than rely on one universal message.

Different candidates respond to different messages

The original interview also discussed generational differences in workplace preferences.

These categories should not be treated as rigid descriptions of every individual, but they can help employers think about the different expectations that may exist within their workforce.

For example, some more experienced professionals may place greater emphasis on stability, predictability and a supportive environment.

Younger professionals may be more likely to ask about areas such as:

• career progression;
• learning opportunities;
• flexible working;
• environmental responsibility;
• company values;
• opportunities for international experience.

The important point is not to assume what candidates want based on their age.

Instead, organisations should understand the different motivations within their target talent groups and communicate accordingly.

Employer branding begins before the application

A candidate may form a strong opinion about an organisation before ever applying for a vacancy.

That opinion can be influenced by:

• social-media content;
• employee recommendations;
• online employer reviews;
• news about the company;
• recruitment campaigns;
• the company website;
• conversations within professional communities.

This means employer branding is already shaping recruitment before a recruiter contacts the candidate.

For passive professionals in particular, a positive reputation may determine whether they are even willing to discuss a new opportunity.

Reputation matters when candidates have to compromise

Very few job opportunities meet every candidate expectation perfectly.

A role may offer strong professional development but less flexibility. Another may provide excellent benefits but involve a longer commute.

When candidates need to weigh these trade-offs, employer reputation can become an important deciding factor.

A company known for supportive leadership, career development and fair treatment may be able to attract candidates even when another employer offers similar financial conditions.

Conversely, a weak employer reputation can make recruitment significantly more difficult.

Employer branding requires investment

At the time of the original 2024 interview, Elek argued that organisations unwilling to dedicate financial and professional resources to employer branding risked falling behind competitors in the competition for talent.

A strong employer brand requires ongoing investment rather than a one-off campaign.

Companies need to monitor how candidate expectations and labour-market conditions change and regularly evaluate whether their strategy remains effective.

What attracted candidates several years ago may no longer be enough today.

Social media has become an important employer-branding channel

Many organisations place social media at the centre of their employer-branding strategy.

These channels allow companies to provide regular insight into:

• company achievements;
• employees;
• workplace culture;
• professional development;
• events;
• everyday working life.

Short-form video has become particularly useful because employees can describe their own experience directly.

Candidates can see real colleagues explaining what they do, what the workplace is like and why they enjoy working for the organisation.

This type of first-hand communication can often appear more credible than traditional corporate advertising.

Employees are among the most credible employer-brand ambassadors

Kitti Szmolnik, HR Manager at Mondi Szada, emphasised that attracting and retaining employees are closely connected.

Existing employees are often the organisation’s most influential opinion leaders because they experience the leadership culture and employer brand every day.

If employees speak positively about the organisation, their recommendations can strengthen recruitment considerably.

If their experience contradicts the company’s external communication, however, the employer brand may quickly lose credibility.

This is why the strongest employer-branding strategy begins inside the organisation.

The employee experience must match the employer promise

Open and honest communication becomes particularly important after a candidate joins.

If an organisation promises flexibility, development and a supportive environment during recruitment, employees should encounter those same qualities in practice.

A gap between the recruitment message and everyday reality can lead to disappointment, disengagement and ultimately turnover.

The principle is straightforward:

what a company promises during attraction should be reflected in the actual employee experience.

Different audiences require different communication channels

Another challenge is deciding how to reach different groups of candidates.

The same platform and communication style may not work equally well for every target audience.

Employers need to understand:

• where their target candidates consume information;
• which formats attract their attention;
• what questions they want answered;
• how much information they need before considering an opportunity.

Changes in general media consumption illustrate this clearly.

People increasingly expect information to be accessible quickly and on demand, and employer communication has had to adapt accordingly.

HR has moved from purchasing talent to marketing opportunities

Szmolnik also described a broader transformation in recruitment.

When labour supply was significantly stronger, HR could often operate in something closer to a purchasing mindset: employers selected from a large pool of applicants.

In a more candidate-driven labour market, the relationship changes.

Recruiters increasingly need to think like sales and marketing professionals.

They need to:

• understand their audience;
• communicate the value of the opportunity;
• choose appropriate channels;
• differentiate the employer;
• build relationships before candidates actively apply.

This does not mean “selling” a job at any cost.

Effective recruitment marketing needs to remain accurate and credible.

A recruitment agency can influence the employer brand too

External recruitment partners also play an important role in how candidates perceive an employer.

A headhunter may be the candidate’s first direct contact with the company.

The quality of that interaction can therefore affect the employer brand.

According to Elek, companies that carefully select their recruitment partner can gain two benefits simultaneously: greater recruitment effectiveness and additional support in presenting the organisation positively and accurately to the labour market.

A specialist recruitment agency can help communicate:

• why the role is attractive;
• what differentiates the company;
• how the corporate culture works;
• what candidates can expect from the recruitment process;
• which aspects of the opportunity are most relevant to particular candidate groups.

The recruiter acts as an employer-brand ambassador

This is particularly important in headhunting.

Passive candidates may know very little about the organisation before the recruiter contacts them.

The recruiter therefore needs to provide enough credible information to create interest while avoiding exaggerated claims.

If the recruiter understands both the client company and the talent market, they can translate the organisation’s employer proposition into language that is relevant to the individual candidate.

Employer branding and retention are closely connected

A strong brand may help attract talent, but sustainable success depends on retention as well.

Employees themselves are often the most credible source of information about what it is actually like to work for a company.

This makes internal employee experience one of the most important components of external reputation.

A workplace that provides meaningful solutions for different employees can generate stronger recommendations and positive word of mouth than almost any advertising campaign.

Authenticity matters more than polished messaging

The most effective employer branding in recruitment is based on genuine organisational strengths.

Companies should communicate what they actually offer rather than construct an idealised image that employees will not recognise after joining.

Authenticity is especially important because candidates today have access to many independent information sources.

They can compare corporate messaging with:

• employee reviews;
• personal recommendations;
• social media;
• professional networks;
• recruiter feedback.

Inconsistencies become increasingly difficult to hide.

How can companies strengthen their employer brand?

A sustainable strategy may include:

• understanding what current employees value;
• collecting regular employee feedback;
• identifying the needs of target candidate groups;
• communicating transparently;
• using authentic employee stories;
• maintaining a professional candidate experience;
• adapting communication channels to different audiences;
• regularly reviewing the employer value proposition;
• ensuring that internal reality matches external promises.

A strong employer brand can make recruitment easier

Employer branding cannot replace competitive salaries, meaningful work or professional leadership.

What it can do is help candidates understand why one company may be a better fit for them than another.

In competitive recruitment markets, this distinction can be decisive.

A credible employer brand supports recruitment before the first interview begins, strengthens candidate confidence throughout the selection process and can continue influencing engagement after the employee joins.

The value of a brand in recruitment therefore lies not simply in visibility.

Its real value comes from creating a credible connection between what candidates are promised and what employees actually experience.

Source: Behaviour HR Magazine

Artificial intelligence has transformed data analysis and forecasting, and companies are increasingly experimenting with AI-supported tools across a wide range of business processes. HR is no exception. But when it comes to highly sensitive decisions such as employee dismissal, how far should organisations rely on technology — and where does human judgement remain essential?

Data-driven decisions versus empathy

AI systems can already support HR professionals by analysing large amounts of information, identifying patterns and presenting decision-makers with structured data.

The original 2023 article also referenced generative AI tools capable of drafting employment-related documents and emerging AI-assisted analytical features that could help organisations interpret financial and workforce information.

However, supporting a decision is fundamentally different from making the decision itself.

“Dismissal is one of the most sensitive areas of HR management,” explains Henrietta Elek, HR Consultant at Vision Recruitment.

AI can provide managers and HR professionals with useful data, but relying exclusively on algorithmic analysis when deciding whether to terminate someone’s employment carries considerable risk.

The final decision also requires human context and professional judgement.

Performance data does not always explain performance

A decline in employee performance can have many causes that are difficult to identify from quantitative data alone.

These may include:

• changes in personal circumstances;
• workplace conflict;
• temporary loss of motivation;
• poor management;
• unclear expectations;
• insufficient resources;
• health or family-related pressures;
• problems within the team.

An AI system may be able to detect that an employee’s measurable performance has declined.

What it may not understand is why.

This distinction is critical because the underlying problem may sometimes be temporary or solvable.

Dismissal based purely on output metrics could therefore result in the organisation losing an otherwise valuable employee when coaching, support or organisational change might have addressed the issue.

Objective metrics can still provide a useful starting point

This does not mean that data should be ignored.

Objective indicators can help managers identify patterns that deserve closer attention.

Depending on the role, these may include:

• productivity;
• quality;
• deadlines;
• error rates;
• customer feedback;
• sales results;
• project delivery;
• attendance or availability.

The important point is to treat these metrics as evidence for further investigation rather than an automatic trigger for dismissal.

Where AI can help HR

According to Elek, AI technology may offer significant value in a number of HR processes where automation and data analysis can improve efficiency.

These areas can include:

• initial candidate screening;
• training and development;
• onboarding;
• administrative processes;
• performance analysis;
• workforce reporting.

AI can reduce the amount of time HR professionals spend processing repetitive information and help them identify trends that might otherwise be missed.

The more structured and measurable the process, the easier it generally is to use automated analysis effectively.

But automation can damage candidate experience

The article also highlights the importance of considering how employees and candidates actually experience automated HR processes.

Some companies have experimented with automated video interviews and other forms of technology-driven candidate screening.

According to Vision Recruitment’s experience at the time of the original interview, Hungarian candidates often reacted negatively to highly impersonal automated interview formats.

This demonstrates an important principle: a technology may make a process more efficient for the employer while simultaneously making it less attractive for the candidate.

Efficiency alone should therefore not determine whether a technology is appropriate.

Headhunting remains fundamentally human

In executive search and specialist recruitment, identifying potential candidates is only one part of the process.

Many of the professionals approached by headhunters are not actively looking for a new job.

The challenge is therefore not simply to find them, but to communicate an opportunity convincingly enough that they are willing to consider a change.

“We need to motivate people and make convincing arguments in situations where emotions often play a significant role,” Elek explains.

Human communication, persuasion and trust are therefore central to headhunting.

Technology may support the research process, but the relationship between recruiter and candidate remains difficult to automate completely.

Empathy is the critical factor

Psychologist Zita Gábris also emphasises that subjective and human factors cannot be excluded when evaluating someone’s work.

Performance can be measured in terms of time, quantity and quality, but those results may be influenced by circumstances that are invisible in the data.

An employee going through a difficult personal period may temporarily perform below their usual level.

A purely analytical system may record the decline.

An empathetic manager, however, may understand the context and recognise that the employee needs temporary support rather than punishment.

Team dynamics are difficult to reduce to numbers

Individual performance metrics can also fail to capture how someone contributes to the wider team.

An employee may:

• support colleagues;
• share specialist knowledge;
• resolve conflicts;
• mentor junior employees;
• improve team morale;
• help others perform better.

These contributions may be extremely valuable while remaining difficult to quantify accurately.

For this reason, evaluating employees solely through numerical performance indicators can provide an incomplete picture.

The strongest approach combines data and human judgement

Rather than choosing between technology and human decision-making, the more useful approach is to combine them.

AI can analyse what is measurable.

Managers and HR professionals can then add context, experience and understanding.

For example, an AI-supported performance analysis might identify a sustained decline in output.

The appropriate next step is not necessarily dismissal.

It may instead prompt questions such as:

• Has the employee’s role changed?
• Are expectations clear?
• Has workload increased?
• Is the employee receiving sufficient support?
• Are there conflicts within the team?
• Does the employee need additional training?
• Is the performance problem temporary or persistent?

This creates a more complete decision-making process.

Employees need to feel they are being treated as people

Gábris warns that decisions based purely on data can also affect how employees perceive the organisation.

If someone feels that an algorithm effectively decided their future without meaningful human consideration, they may leave the company believing they were treated as a replaceable unit rather than a person.

This matters even when the employment relationship is ending.

Former employees can influence:

• employer reputation;
• future recruitment;
• online reviews;
• word-of-mouth recommendations;
• the perception of remaining employees.

The way an organisation handles difficult decisions can therefore affect its employer brand long after the individual case has been closed.

AI can also support employee motivation

AI-supported analysis does not have to be used only to identify problems.

It can also provide positive feedback.

Objective performance data may reassure employees that their work is genuinely strong and help managers recognise achievement more consistently.

Some employees may find data-supported feedback particularly credible because it appears less dependent on a manager’s personal opinion.

Similarly, when performance needs improvement, objective data can make difficult feedback easier to understand.

The value of the information, however, depends on what happens next.

Analysis should ideally be accompanied by practical development recommendations rather than simply identifying weaknesses.

AI can identify a problem — but development still needs leadership

If technology identifies a performance gap, effective management requires more than showing the employee a chart.

Managers may need to provide:

• clearer goals;
• coaching;
• training;
• more frequent feedback;
• additional resources;
• changes to responsibilities;
• support from colleagues.

Data becomes valuable when it leads to better conversations and better decisions.

AI works differently depending on the type of role

Some jobs lend themselves more naturally to quantitative performance analysis than others.

In technology, operations or other highly measurable environments, productivity may be reflected in structured data.

In roles involving consulting, leadership, relationship management or creative work, performance is often more difficult to capture through a limited set of numerical indicators.

This means organisations should avoid applying the same measurement model to every type of employee.

The appropriate use of AI in HR decision-making depends heavily on the nature of the work being evaluated.

Not every employee trusts AI-based HR decisions

The original article referenced a Capterra survey of more than 1,000 employees at Canadian small and medium-sized businesses.

The historical survey indicated considerable concern about using AI in dismissal decisions.

According to the figures cited in the article:

• 69% said they would be uncomfortable with AI being used in this context;
• 54% considered decisions based on such data unethical;
• 48% believed humans should ultimately make the decision.

At the same time, the results were not entirely negative.

Some respondents believed AI could reduce managerial bias, place greater emphasis on actual performance or improve decision accuracy.

The findings therefore illustrate the central tension: employees may see value in objective data while still wanting humans to retain responsibility for consequential employment decisions.

AI may reduce some forms of bias — but it does not eliminate risk

One argument in favour of AI-supported HR decisions is that structured data may help challenge subjective managerial assumptions.

A manager’s personal impression can sometimes be distorted by bias, selective memory or individual relationships.

Data can provide a useful counterpoint.

However, organisations should not assume that automated systems are automatically neutral.

The quality of any analysis depends on the data being used, the metrics being selected and how the results are interpreted.

This reinforces the need for human oversight rather than replacing one form of judgement with another unquestioned system.

Dismissal should remain a human decision

AI can contribute useful evidence to performance management and workforce analysis.

It may help organisations identify patterns, compare measurable results and provide decision-makers with information they might otherwise overlook.

But dismissal is not simply a mathematical conclusion.

It affects an individual’s career, income and personal circumstances, as well as colleagues, managers and the wider organisation.

The decision therefore requires accountability, context and empathy.

Use AI as a tool, not as the decision-maker

The most responsible approach to AI in HR decision-making is to use technology where it genuinely adds value while preserving meaningful human oversight.

AI can help identify potential performance problems.

It can support analysis.

It can make patterns easier to see.

It can provide objective information alongside managerial judgement.

What it should not do is allow organisations to avoid responsibility for difficult people decisions.

The strongest HR processes combine reliable data with professional experience, transparent communication and an understanding of the individual employee’s circumstances.

Technology can make HR more informed and efficient, but in the most sensitive decisions, the human element remains essential.

Source: Behaviour HR Magazine

Counteroffers have become an increasingly debated topic in recruitment and HR. Salary pressure, declining loyalty, internal tension and short-term retention are just some of the risks highlighted by labour-market experts and corporate HR leaders. Dorottya Pákozdi, Head of SSC Recruitment at Vision Recruitment, also shared her experience with Behaviour HR Magazine.

As competition for skilled professionals intensified, more employers began using counteroffers to persuade employees to stay after they had already decided to explore another opportunity.

At first glance, the logic appears understandable. Losing an experienced employee can result in recruitment costs, lost productivity and disruption to the team.

However, HR professionals interviewed in the original article argue that widespread use of employee counteroffers can create additional problems rather than solving the underlying causes of turnover.

Counteroffers can intensify the salary bidding war

One of the main concerns is the impact on salary structures.

When companies repeatedly respond to resignations with substantial salary increases, competitors may feel pressure to raise their own offers in order to attract candidates.

This can contribute to a cycle in which:

• candidates receive an external offer;
• their existing employer makes a counteroffer;
• the prospective employer considers increasing its offer;
• salary expectations continue to rise;
• internal pay structures become increasingly difficult to maintain.

The result can be significant salary pressure across the labour market.

For employers, the problem is not simply the additional cost of retaining one employee. Salary differences created through individual counteroffers can also become a source of dissatisfaction among existing colleagues.

The technology sector experienced particularly strong competition

Veronika Varga, HR Manager at Webtown, described a substantial increase in counteroffers following the pandemic, particularly in IT and software development.

In a labour market characterised by strong competition for experienced specialists, employers became increasingly reluctant to lose established employees.

The result was that many software developers receiving external job offers were also receiving retention offers from their existing employers.

While this could delay an employee’s departure, Varga argued that the underlying intention to change jobs often remained.

The reasons behind resignation are rarely financial alone

One of the recurring arguments against counteroffers is that employees usually consider changing jobs for several reasons at once.

Compensation may be one factor, but others can include:

• limited career development;
• management style;
• lack of recognition;
• company culture;
• workload;
• insufficient flexibility;
• professional stagnation;
• loss of motivation.

If an employer responds only with a higher salary, the remaining issues may continue unchanged.

Kornél Lázár, HR Director at Ceva-Phylaxia, similarly argued that resignation is usually driven by several factors and that compensation alone may address only one part of the problem.

A salary increase may only postpone the decision

According to the professional experience shared in the article, employees retained through counteroffers may subsequently reconsider leaving again.

The precise timeframe can vary considerably, but the central point is that a counteroffer does not automatically restore long-term motivation or commitment.

If dissatisfaction existed before the resignation, it is important to understand whether anything substantial has actually changed.

A higher salary may provide short-term motivation, but it cannot automatically repair poor leadership, limited development opportunities or a working environment that no longer suits the employee.

Counteroffers can create internal salary tension

The effects of a counteroffer may also extend to employees who had no intention of leaving.

If colleagues discover that someone received a significant increase after announcing plans to resign, they may begin questioning the fairness of the organisation’s compensation system.

This can be particularly damaging when:

• long-serving employees have received smaller salary increases;
• employees performing similar work are paid significantly differently;
• the counteroffer pushes someone above the established salary range;
• compensation decisions appear reactive rather than performance-based.

Trying to retain one person can therefore unintentionally create dissatisfaction among several others.

The wrong message can spread through the organisation

Another concern raised in the original discussion is behavioural.

If employees observe that announcing an intention to resign consistently results in better compensation or a promotion, other colleagues may begin to use the same strategy.

An organisation can gradually create an environment in which external job offers become part of internal salary negotiations.

This makes compensation management significantly more difficult and can weaken trust between employees and management.

Proactive retention is more sustainable than reactive retention

Rather than waiting until an employee announces their departure, several HR leaders interviewed for the article argue that organisations should continuously monitor:

• employee satisfaction;
• market salaries;
• internal pay equity;
• career expectations;
• engagement;
• management quality;
• retention risks.

This makes it possible to identify problems while there is still time to address them naturally.

If an employee’s compensation has fallen behind the market, for example, the adjustment should ideally happen because the company recognises the discrepancy — not because the employee has arrived with another job offer.

HR needs to provide leaders with an accurate picture of the market

HR plays an important role in helping management understand both the external labour market and the internal condition of the organisation.

This includes providing reliable information about:

• market compensation;
• candidate expectations;
• talent shortages;
• employee satisfaction;
• turnover patterns;
• recruitment difficulties.

Better information allows leaders to make retention decisions before a resignation creates an urgent problem.

Veronika Varga emphasised the importance of creating employment packages that reflect professional experience, internal salary structures, candidate expectations and current labour-market conditions.

A healthy company culture can be stronger than a counteroffer

Kornél Lázár argued that employers should place greater emphasis on creating a working environment employees genuinely want to remain part of.

This includes a predictable and transparent compensation structure, but compensation is only one element.

An attractive company culture can also include:

• credible leadership;
• clear communication;
• professional development;
• recognition;
• fairness;
• predictability;
• respectful workplace relationships.

A strong employer reputation can also help companies attract candidates even when competitors are offering similarly competitive salaries.

Why employers should think carefully before making a counteroffer

The original article summarises several reasons why employers may want to reconsider the practice.

1. By the time a counteroffer is needed, the employee may already have mentally moved on.

   Completing interviews and obtaining another offer usually requires considerable time and effort, suggesting that the idea of changing jobs is already serious.

2. The solution may be temporary.

   If the reasons behind dissatisfaction remain unchanged, the employee may begin searching again later.

3. Trust may be affected.

   Management may begin questioning the employee’s long-term commitment, while the employee may question why improvements were unavailable before resignation.

4. Internal morale can suffer.

   Colleagues may feel that employees who threaten to leave receive greater recognition than those who remain loyal.

5. It can encourage similar behaviour.

   Others may conclude that obtaining an external offer is the easiest way to negotiate better conditions.

6. It can undermine compensation structures.

   Paying above established salary bands to solve an immediate retention problem can generate additional internal inconsistencies.

Why candidates should also evaluate counteroffers carefully

The decision is equally complex from the employee’s perspective.

A counteroffer can be financially attractive, but candidates should consider the complete situation rather than the immediate salary increase.

Important questions include:

• Have the original reasons for wanting to leave actually changed?
• Is the new salary or promotion formally confirmed?
• Why was the change only offered after resignation?
• Will the relationship with management be different afterwards?
• What opportunity will be lost by rejecting the new employer?
• Does staying genuinely support long-term career objectives?

The new employer has already invested in the candidate

Another factor is the company that has made the external offer.

The organisation may already have invested significant time and resources in interviews, assessments and negotiations.

Withdrawing after accepting an offer can therefore affect the candidate’s professional relationship with that employer and potentially with the recruiter involved in the process.

This does not mean candidates should accept a role that is no longer right for them, but it does reinforce the importance of making deliberate career decisions rather than responding only to short-term financial incentives.

Retention should begin long before resignation

Dorottya Pákozdi, Head of SSC Recruitment at Vision Recruitment, has highlighted the importance of broader professional discussion around counteroffers and their labour-market consequences.

The core issue is prevention.

Organisations should understand employees’ expectations before dissatisfaction develops into an active job search.

Regular conversations about compensation, professional development, responsibilities and motivation can help identify risks early.

Competitive compensation should be planned, not improvised

Salary remains an important part of employee retention.

However, the most sustainable approach is to maintain compensation structures that reflect:

• market conditions;
• professional expertise;
• responsibility;
• performance;
• internal fairness.

When salaries are reviewed proactively, employers reduce the likelihood that compensation becomes an emergency negotiation after resignation.

Some departures are unavoidable

Even organisations with strong retention practices cannot — and arguably should not — prevent every employee from leaving.

People change employers for many legitimate reasons.

They may want:

• a different professional direction;
• greater responsibility;
• a new industry;
• international experience;
• a different company culture;
• new challenges.

When an organisation cannot realistically provide what the employee is seeking, allowing the person to move on professionally may be more sustainable than attempting to delay the departure.

Counteroffers are ultimately a symptom

The debate surrounding employee counteroffers points to a broader question about employee retention.

If an organisation regularly needs counteroffers to prevent valued employees from leaving, the issue may not be the resignation itself.

It may indicate problems with compensation, communication, leadership, development opportunities or the wider employee experience.

Addressing those issues earlier is likely to create greater long-term value than repeatedly entering salary bidding wars.

Prevention is the stronger retention strategy

Counteroffers may occasionally provide an immediate solution when an important employee decides to leave, but the original article reflects growing concern among HR professionals about relying on them as a systematic retention tool.

A more sustainable strategy focuses on competitive compensation, transparent communication, a healthy company culture and regular understanding of employee expectations.

For recruiters and employers, this also helps create a healthier recruitment market in which offers are based on the genuine value of an opportunity rather than repeated bidding between current and prospective employers.

Ultimately, the most effective retention strategy is not persuading employees to stay after they resign. It is creating an organisation in which valuable employees have fewer reasons to begin looking elsewhere in the first place.

Source: Behaviour HR Magazine

Hungary’s business service centres were not spared the disruption caused by the pandemic. As remote work became widespread, companies faced new challenges around motivation, employee engagement and bringing colleagues back into the office. At the same time, greater attention to mental wellbeing emerged as an important part of employee support. Dorottya Pákozdi, Vision Recruitment’s Team Leader responsible for SSC recruitment, shared her experience with Behaviour HR Magazine.

By 2021, shared service centres had already been present in Hungary for around fifteen years.

Multinational companies had increasingly centralised activities serving several countries, with Central and Eastern Europe becoming an attractive location thanks to its skilled workforce and competitive operating environment.

According to figures from the Hungarian Service and Outsourcing Association cited in the original article, Hungary had 205 such centres employing approximately 78,500 people at the time.

The pandemic, however, fundamentally changed how these organisations operated.

Remote work became the new reality

A study conducted with the involvement of Corvinus University examined the main challenges faced by business service centres during the first waves of the pandemic.

During the first wave, the most frequently mentioned challenge was the lack of social interaction, identified by 75% of respondents.

This was followed by:

• managing people effectively – 45%;
• creating the conditions required for remote working – 25%.

By the second wave, the nature of the challenges had begun to change.

The lack of social interaction remained the leading concern, although its reported importance had fallen. Managing people continued to rank highly, while maintaining employee engagement emerged as another major challenge.

This demonstrated that once the technical transition to remote work had been achieved, organisations increasingly needed to focus on its human consequences.

From 22% remote work to 92%

The transformation was remarkably rapid.

According to the research referenced in the original article, only 22% of employees in business service centres worked remotely before the pandemic.

By the second wave, this figure had increased to 92%.

The challenge was therefore no longer simply whether employees could work remotely, but how organisations could maintain performance, collaboration, motivation and organisational culture when most colleagues were physically separated.

Employee retention became a new priority

Employee turnover initially declined considerably during the pandemic.

In an uncertain environment, employees often prioritised job security, while companies placed greater emphasis on demonstrating that they cared about their workforce.

Many organisations conducted employee surveys and introduced changes based on the feedback they received.

However, turnover began to increase again between pandemic waves.

This sent an important message to employers: stability alone would not be enough to retain employees indefinitely.

Motivation, engagement and the overall employee experience were becoming increasingly important.

Technology alone was not enough

BP Hungary was among the organisations that moved rapidly to remote work.

Because the company had already introduced regular home office before the pandemic, the technological transition was relatively straightforward.

However, the experience demonstrated that providing employees with a laptop was not sufficient to create an effective long-term home-working environment.

Companies also needed to consider employees’ practical circumstances.

Support described in the original article included:

• larger monitors;
• ergonomic office chairs;
• desks and other home-office equipment;
• support for families adapting to remote education.

This represented a broader shift in employer thinking: remote work required organisations to consider the complete working environment, even when that environment was located in the employee’s home.

Mental wellbeing became an employer responsibility

The pandemic also highlighted the psychological challenges associated with long-term isolation.

Employees could have all the necessary technology and still struggle with:

• loneliness;
• reduced social interaction;
• uncertainty;
• blurred boundaries between work and private life;
• reduced informal feedback from colleagues and managers.

Some employers responded by providing access to mental health professionals, coaches and counselling services.

These initiatives represented an important expansion of the traditional concept of employee benefits.

Wellbeing was becoming increasingly connected to retention, engagement and sustainable performance.

Hybrid work should not feel like an obligation

By 2021, another major question had emerged: if employees could work successfully from home, how could companies persuade them to return to the office?

The answer was unlikely to be simply requiring attendance.

Instead, organisations began reconsidering why employees should come into the workplace in the first place.

Face-to-face interaction can offer advantages in areas such as:

• creative collaboration;
• team building;
• informal knowledge sharing;
• relationship development;
• organisational culture.

The emerging hybrid model therefore aimed to combine the flexibility of home working with the social and collaborative benefits of physical interaction.

Candidate expectations around home office became stronger

According to Dorottya Pákozdi, Team Leader responsible for SSC recruitment at Vision Recruitment, recruitment activity slowed considerably during the first wave of the pandemic.

This affected not only SSCs but also employers operating in areas such as IT, telecommunications and energy.

By early 2021, however, the market had changed again and shared service centres began opening a wide range of positions.

Candidate expectations had changed as well.

Companies that had previously rejected remote work increasingly recognised that refusing flexibility could make it difficult to attract strong candidates.

Many professionals who had become accustomed to working from home were reluctant to return to spending significant time commuting every day.

Hybrid working therefore became an important part of the employment proposition within the SSC sector in Hungary.

There is no single ideal hybrid model

Hybrid working does not necessarily mean the same arrangement for every employee or every organisation.

The appropriate balance may depend on:

• the responsibilities of the role;
• the employee’s personality;
• the need for teamwork;
• customer requirements;
• management practices;
• individual preferences.

Some employees may prefer spending most of their time at home, while others benefit from more regular interaction with colleagues.

The challenge for employers is to create enough flexibility while still protecting team cohesion and organisational culture.

Retention requires more than flexible working

Pákozdi also observed that candidates were becoming increasingly willing to consider changing employers again as the immediate uncertainty of the pandemic decreased.

For companies, this meant that long-term retention could not depend exclusively on home office.

Many employers wanted colleagues to experience organisational culture in person because personal relationships can strengthen team spirit and emotional connection with the organisation.

This creates a difficult balance.

Employees value flexibility, while organisations also need opportunities to build relationships and maintain a common identity.

Mental health support as a retention tool

Attention to mental wellbeing also became an increasingly important element of employee retention.

Some shared service centres provided access to psychologists, coaches or other professional advisers to help employees manage the negative effects of prolonged remote working.

According to Pákozdi, this support could also help compensate for something often missing in digital communication: informal and non-verbal feedback.

Employees working in isolation may receive fewer everyday signals telling them that they are progressing successfully and performing well.

Regular feedback and professional support can therefore become particularly important in virtual teams.

Leadership had to change as well

The rapid transition to remote and hybrid work was not only an employee challenge.

Managers also needed to adapt.

SSC market expert Richárd Ránki-Kovács highlighted that shared service centres generally managed the transition to remote work quickly because many already had some experience with home office.

However, managing distributed teams created new costs, processes and leadership requirements.

Managers increasingly needed capabilities related to:

• leading virtual teams;
• maintaining team cohesion;
• managing performance remotely;
• communicating clearly;
• supporting employee wellbeing;
• managing organisational change;
• building adaptable organisations.

The pandemic therefore accelerated not only technological change, but leadership development as well.

Automation became more important

The disruption also encouraged business service centres to examine their processes more critically.

Automation received greater attention as organisations looked for ways to increase capacity, improve flexibility and reduce dependence on manual processes.

Nearshore and onshore locations also gained greater strategic importance.

The broader objective was to create organisations capable of adapting more quickly when operating conditions changed.

Virtual teams require deliberate cohesion

Team cohesion happens differently when colleagues no longer meet naturally every day.

In an office, employees develop relationships through informal conversations, spontaneous meetings and shared experiences.

Many of these interactions disappear in a remote environment.

Managers therefore need to create opportunities for connection more deliberately.

This can include:

• regular team meetings;
• one-to-one discussions;
• structured knowledge sharing;
• mentoring;
• team development activities;
• clear feedback routines.

Competency matrices and personalised development programmes can also help organisations identify knowledge gaps and ensure that teams remain resilient when responsibilities need to be redistributed.

The role of the office was changing

One of the most important long-term consequences of widespread remote work was a change in the purpose of the office.

The workplace was increasingly becoming more than simply the physical location where employees completed their daily tasks.

Instead, it was beginning to function as a hub connecting employees and supporting:

• corporate culture;
• employee experience;
• collaboration;
• team relationships;
• creative work;
• coordination between physical and virtual teams.

This change also affected how companies needed to think about office design.

If employees could complete focused individual work effectively from home, office spaces increasingly needed to offer something that home working could not.

A new challenge for SSC recruitment

For recruitment professionals, the transformation of the SSC sector in Hungary significantly changed the conversations taking place with candidates.

Questions about salary and career progression remained important, but candidates increasingly wanted detailed information about:

• home-office opportunities;
• required office attendance;
• working-time flexibility;
• management style;
• employee wellbeing;
• company culture;
• how virtual teams operate.

This meant that recruiters needed to understand not only the role itself but also the organisation’s complete working model.

The pandemic accelerated changes that were already beginning

The developments described in this 2021 article should be understood in their historical context.

Remote work, digitalisation and flexible employment practices had already been developing before Covid-19.

The pandemic dramatically accelerated their adoption and forced organisations to test new operating models almost overnight.

For shared service centres, the experience demonstrated that large-scale remote working was technically possible.

The more difficult questions involved people: how to maintain motivation, engagement, culture, collaboration and wellbeing when employees are no longer together every day.

Flexibility and connection both matter

The experience of 2020 and 2021 suggested that the future of the SSC workplace would not simply be about choosing between office work and home office.

The challenge was to combine both effectively.

Employees had discovered the benefits of flexibility and were unlikely to give them up easily. Employers, meanwhile, recognised the importance of personal relationships, organisational culture and team cohesion.

The result was the emergence of hybrid work as a central element of both recruitment and retention.

For companies competing for talent, the lesson was clear: flexibility could help attract candidates, but long-term retention required much more — meaningful work, supportive leadership, genuine connection and an employee experience capable of working both online and offline.

Source: Behaviour HR Magazine