A more prosperous economy, changing social norms, longer lives and technological revolution have each helped change the idea of an American “career” in the past thirty years. Though plenty of individuals still struggle through the workday, our aspirations for and general perspective on why we work no longer mirrors the often-downtrodden subjects of Studs Turkel’s 1974 expose “Working.” We live in an economy with an implicit understanding that if we’re talented, we’re entitled to love our work – to find in work an awe-inspiring purpose than exclusively providing for ourselves and families. Employers, accordingly, are beginning to realize that they’ll need to oblige this sentiment if they want to attract the best and brightest.

Of course, the more valuable a candidate’s skill set and the more competitive the industry in which she operates, the more she is able to demand this be the case. Take the tech sector, for example. In an extremely quickly moving, and often volatile industry, talent is particularly valuable. Sure, salaries are super high in tech, reflecting the demand for quality developers, designers and strategists. But, at a certain tier, marginal salary differences between competing companies become less important than the myriad of those companies’ other qualities. Indeed, companies have to do a lot more than pay to attract the best talent. Creating a more viscerally joyful work experience is a start (hence the profusion of tech startups with ping-pong tables, free booze, and other fun additions to the workplace that have now become almost cliche). But to distinguish themselves, good companies must foster fulfilling work experiences – they must develop an excellent culture and community, provide opportunities for personal growth, and communicate an awe-inspiring purpose to contextualize day to day work functions.

A number of companies serve as good examples here. Take Asana, a software company that basically builds a sophisticated to-do list. Given that description, Asana wouldn’t strike the reader as a company whose purpose motivates its employees. But there are no discrete standards for what makes a company more purposeful than another, or whether one company culture is better than another. How well a company creates a satisfying work environment depends on the lens through which it views its work, the way in which it executes that work, and how that resonates with employees. Back to Asana:

“Asana’s mission is to empower humanity to do great things. Our approach is to build software that makes group communication and coordination effortless, giving teams of like-minded people the tools they need to accomplish dramatically more ambitious goals.”

Asana’s employees don’t believe they’re creating a pretty task list; they believe they’re changing the world. Buildasign.com, Etsy, Airbnb and Zappos are just a few others on a growing list of organizations whose products might not immediately suggest or require a deep connection to social impact or company culture, but whose employees, and often times customers, are acutely aware of and invested in the connection. The data show it’s good business, too. A 2003 University of Michigan study showed that organizations that were perceived by employees to be more virtuous also had significantly higher productivity, quality outputs, and lower employee turnover.

However, you can have an outstanding culture and mission and still fail to attract top talent. Good recruiting depends on successfully communicating those core company elements. Employers need to leverage media to succeed here. Your values, your culture, and the special sauce that makes your company the right place to be for the right candidate are all elements that candidates need to feel. The more relatable you can be, the better fits you’ll identify. Rich media provides the opportunity for candidates to get to know your company and, if they’re the right fit, become attracted to your company (yes, it’s sort of like the dynamics of online dating but for employment).

Try testing this theory. You’ve now spent a couple minutes reading my thoughts on work and recruiting. As passionate as I am about what I’m writing, you only have a cursory sense of who I am. Now go to our site: www.zoomforth.com/about (this is an elegant plug, isn’t it?!) and click on me. Check out a few photos and watch a few seconds of video. Pretty quickly, you get a much better sense of who I am. At Zoomforth, we’re helping companies do the same thing.

Growing organizations use multimedia to describe their people, positions and culture so that they attract the right fits. If companies can both implement measures that generate well-being and also communicate them, the returns are enormous. Beyond the intrinsic good of putting people in the right work environment and making them happy, the happier employees are at your company, the more effective they’ll be and the longer they’ll stay.

Photo Credit Smartup Zoomforth

A sub-category of the marginally attached is what the BLS calls “discouraged workers.” For September ‘12 this category totaled about 802,000 individuals (489,000 are men, 313,000 are women). The remaining 1.7 million individuals marginally attached to the workforce have not looked for work in the previous four weeks; for family responsibilities and/or attendance in school had impinged on their ability to look for work. Other reasons, according to Castillo (1998), include health issues, disability challenges, or issues connected to transportation. Regionally, South Carolina, Nevada, Michigan, Florida have the highest rates of discouraged workers. Colorado, Iowa, Main, Montana Oregon, and Wisconsin have the lowest rates.

So what are the reasons that fuel the discouragement of the discouraged workers? According to Castillo (1998), these men and women believe that no jobs are available for them because they are essentially unqualified. More specifically, Castillo notes, this group believes that they do not qualify because they lack the required schooling, experience, or skill-set needed to fill a particular position. Finally, this group perceives that some type of discrimination is at work in the job market that would prevent them from a fair shot at a job opening.

The BLS discouraged workers report only points to overall percentages and the primary reasons that make discouraged workers discouraged. What is not included in the report is an understanding of the word “discouraged.” I think unless we first capture a sense of the meaning of the word “encourage,” the impact of the experience of discouragement may be lost on those of us who read the monthly unemployment reports as only broadly applied percentages.

The word “courage” emerged during 12th century in French and conveyed a place of “innermost strength,” or “the heart.” The heart was that place of strength or confidence from which actions materialized. The etymology of the word “encourage” emerged in the 15^th century in French and meant to “put courage in.” The word “discourage” meant to “withdraw or remove” courage. Fast forward now to what the BLS unemployment report about discouraged workers does not tell us. Discouraged workers are those who have experienced a loss of confidence and esteem. They may feel worthless, forgotten, abandoned, disillusioned, inadequate and otherwise discarded by the labor market. This loss of courage is made more insidious because it is felt in the depths of their being. They may believe that they have absolutely nothing to offer to potential employers because of what they lack (education) or who they are (racial ethnic barriers or other visible or invisible barriers that create a perception of discrimination).  This feeling which emerges from a perception strikes are the heart of their identity.

How might employers respond? Let me suggest three actions that can be taken to make positive in-roads to the discouraged worker population. First, be aware of the fact that these discouraged workers exist. Get these people on your employment radar. Understand the tremendous inner challenges facing this population. As I wrote earlier in “The Psychological Impact of Unemployment,” employers have both an opportunity and share a responsibility to connect with the unemployed and, in particular, those who have been traumatized by the experience of joblessness. This would certainly include discouraged workers.

Second, because the discouraged worker is most likely disengaged, they may be hard to locate. Discouragement tends to fuel social detachment and isolationism. Employers who are looking for new hires would be wise to ask for referrals from current employees who know of someone who would qualify as a discouraged worker. Targeting this population is a great way to draw them out of isolation and to begin a process of encouragement. Give these men and women a fair shot at open positions.

Finally, take a hard look at any visible or invisible barriers that can fuel the perception that your organization hires only certain types of individuals while leaving others out of the employment conversation. Examine your human resource hiring processes, structures, and most importantly, the actual metrics of who gets hired to determine if there is any evidence of discrimination.  Inviting the discouraged worker to the employment conversation fundamentally means first taking a hard look at the way we run our businesses and taking action to remove barriers that keep some people fenced-away from a potential life-giving and hope-restoring conversation.

Jeffrey D. Yergler, Ph.D., is professor of Management and Chair of the Undergraduate Management Department at Golden Gate University, San Francisco. He is also Principal at Integer Leadership Consulting, a firm specializing in Leadership Training and Management Consulting (www.integerleadership.com). Email Jeff at jdy@integerleadership.com.