Master Thesis
Media Use: How Tweets can make
Organizations Attractive
Employers
Leveraging Employees’ Social Media
Use: How Tweets can make Organizations
Attractive Employers
Name: Berna Cansu Yilmaz Student Number: 10069364
Study: Master Communication Science Track: Corporate Communication Supervisor: J.W.M. Verhoeven
Word count: 8127
Abstract
Social media have dramatically changed the dynamics of corporate communication, including recruitment communication. Organizations aim to attract the best talent available by implementing existing employees’ experiences in their employer branding strategies. The goal is to become attractive employers. While practitioners are increasingly implementing such tactics, there is a lack of empirical research on the content-effects of employee-generated social media messages. This study aims to gain some insights into the effects employee-generated social media messages have on employer attractiveness. This is measured via a 1x3, between-subject experimental design (N=121). The results suggest that two routes of processing exist in practice: processing of in-role behavior messages through instrumental perceptions and processing of extra-role behavior messages through symbolic perceptions. Specifically, findings suggest that social media content with extra-role behavior, e.g. social interactions outside the office, affect symbolic perceptions stronger than in-role behavior messages, e.g. information about pay or location, affect the instrumental perceptions about the job. Furthermore, findings suggest that if prospective employees do not have a sense of fit between the functional job attributes and their sense or self, they will not find the employer attractive, regardless of the function attributes of the job. When it comes to the symbolic attributes, findings show that the symbolic perceptions are necessary to establish a sense of fit with the employer. If there is a fit, the employer will seem more attractive. Finally, results suggest that an attractive employer brand increases the intention to apply for a job. Along with current limitations, insights for practical implementation and future research are discussed and are provided.
Keywords: employer branding, employer attractiveness, content effects, in-role behavior,
extra-role behavior, recruitment communication, experiment.
Acknowledgement: hereby the author would like to gratefully thank Joost Verhoeven for the
involved supervision and additional inspiring insights he offered during the process of writing this thesis.
INTRODUCTION
Social media have dramatically changed the dynamics of corporate communication with stakeholders, as well as with prospective employees (Qualman, 2010). Increasingly, existing employee-generated content is leveraged to attract new employees (Moroko & Uncles, 2005). While the usage of social media during work time seemed taboo before, employers are now incorporating employees in their effort to create an attractive employer brand, which is used as a tool to attract human capital and create a sustainable competitive advantage in their markets (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy & Silvestre, 2011; Love & Singh, 2011). High-quality employees are essential to the competitive strength of an organization, especially since the last global financial crisis (Gill, 2011). While downsizing and bankruptcies were one of the most notable effects of the crisis, the economy is now showing signs of improvement and growth in the recent years (Puri, Rocholl & Steffen, 2011; Arachchige & Robertson, 2011). The demand for employees is now the highest in the last 3.5 years, which leaves organizations with a lot of competition for human capital (“CBS: Werkgelegenheid Trekt…”, 2015). Organizations should thrive not only as consumer brands or corporate brands, but also as employer brands. The challenge for organizations is to become attractive employers for high-potential job seekers, and thus, to stand out from their competitors with their employer branding strategies.
User-generated content adds to the popularity and success of social media and now organizations can leverage this success for their own purposes (Macnamara, 2010; Fournier & Avery, 2011). People use social media to share their daily experiences and their work environment is inevitably a part of this (Zhao & Rosson, 2009). Employees share information about their functional knowledge and capabilities, but also about their symbolic attachment and associations with the organization on social media. By doing so, they create user-generated content about their compatibility and personal experiences with the organization (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). To create realistic perceptions and impressions about the organization as an employer, organizations can leverage this content by incorporating it in their employer branding strategies (Collins, 2008). A possible application is to present the
employee-generated content on their owned-channels that target prospective employees, for example their recruitment website. However, sharing of employee-generated content can be risky, too. In the worst case scenario, bad or unrepresentative behavior relating to the organization can lead to a wide-spread scandal, which can damage the reputation and image of the organization (Sivertzen, Ragnhild-Nilsen & Olafsen, 2013).
Regardless of the risks, nowadays organizations already leverage employees’ experiences in practice in different ways, like having employees share experiences on a corporate blog (Waasdorp, Hemminga & Roest, 2012). However, there is a substantial lack of research on the effects of employees’ communication in employer branding (Milles & Mangold, 2005; Berthon, Erwing & Hah, 2005; Arachchige & Robertson, 2011; Brecht et al., 2011). The current research aims to clear up part of this ambiguity by providing insights in to the effects of employees’ content on social media on the employer brand. The research question of this thesis will then be:
RQ: To what extend and how do employee-generated social media messages on
recruitment websites influence the attractiveness of the employer?
This empirical research helps with understanding employer branding through social media, with a focus on employees as assets of the organization. The gap between the frequent practical application of employee-generated content on social media and the lack of academic knowledge of the effects on employer attractiveness is targeted. Employer-branding professionals will gain more insights in the effects of strategies and optimize these to gain maximal results, while employees can further understand the influence that their communication on social media has on the organization.
In the following sections, the theoretical background of the research question will be further analyzed. The proposed relationship will be examined by means of an experiment, of which the results and conclusion will be presented in the upcoming sections of this thesis. Finally the research will be discussed intensively in the final section.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In the following section the theoretical foundations behind the research question are discussed. First, the concepts of employer attractiveness and employer branding will be discussed, along with the importance of employees relating to this concept. Next, the implementation of social media with employer branding and its effects on perceptions, employer attractiveness and intentions are looked into and hypotheses are developed.
Employer Brand Attractiveness and Employer Branding
Employer attractiveness is defined as the envisioned benefits that a potential employee sees in working for a specific organization. It includes the attitude or expressed general positive affect towards an organization and viewing it as a desirable entity with which to initiate some relationship (Aiman-Smith, Bauer & Cable, 2001; Rynes, 1991; Ehrhart & Ziegert, 2005). Attractive employers profit from the positive external reputations and attract and better retain employees who want to share in and be associated with the organizations’ success (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001). To reach, increase and maintain employer attractiveness, employer branding strategies are used by organizations (Moroko & Uncles, 2008).
The process that is employer branding is defined as ‘the process of building an identifiable and unique employer identity’ (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004, p. 502). Specifically, the employer brand is defined as the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment and identified with the employing organization (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Moroko & Uncles, 2005; Moroko & Uncles, 2008).
A basic assumption that is well grounded in branding literature is that people associate both instrumental attributes of a brand and symbolic attributes with brands (Katz, 1964; Keller, 1993). Laick and Dean (2011) propose this distinction instrumental and symbolic attributes in relation to employer branding. Instrumental attributes describe a product, service, or in this case a job, in terms of its objective, physical, and tangible attributes. Applied to a recruitment context, instrumental attributes describe the job or organization in terms of the objective, concrete, and factual attributes inherent in a job or
organization, examples are the office-location and the salary (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). These attributes primarily trigger interest and perceptions among applicants because of their utility and functionality relation to the decision making process (Cable & Graham, 2000).
Conversely, symbolic attributes correspond to non-product-related attributes, especially user imagery (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). Symbolic attributes correspondent with people’s need to maintain and enhance their self-identity and self-image. Also, it is a way for people to express their beliefs, traits and personality (Shavitt, 1990; Aaker, 1997). Again, applied to a recruitment context, symbolic attributes describe the job or organization in terms of subjective, abstract, and intangible attributes; examples are relationships with colleagues and an image of the organizational culture and values. Lievens and Highhouse (2003) suggest that when organizations fail to incorporate either one of these attributes, they fail to make their employer brand as attractive as it could be, proposing that both factors are equally important.
Social Media and Employees
In recruitment, organizations use different types of channels to attract new employees; examples are campus recruiting, events, newspapers, word of mouth, radio and television (Furu, 2011). A development within this process has been the increase of the use of the Internet and social media, especially the application of employee-generated content. The web now largely facilitates the hiring process (Walker, Feild, Giles, Bernerth & Short, 2011). Job applicants or prospective employees use blogs, forums and rating portals to learn about the experiences of current, or former, employees of the organization in question (Collins & Stevens, 2002). Applicants use these tools to find information to compile an informed picture of an organization’s operations and corporate culture (Moroko & Uncles, 2005). Simultaneously, organizations increasingly understand the importance of employees and the employer brand and identify and combine employees that have the ability to generate content that attracts new talent and creates engagement among existing talent (Walker et al., 2011). Previous research has shown that the evaluation of an organization can be positively
influenced by readily and easily available information on recruitments sites and that this has proven to be useful in attracting prospective employees (Collins & Stevens, 2002).
Employees can be a highly beneficial and determining element in the process of employer branding. Employees are seen as playing an important role in sharing a brand’s values. This is very important in the corporate branding process, because it links the external with the internal environment of the organization (Kennedy, 1977; Schneider & Bowen, 1995). Research shows that when employees are properly aligned with the core brand message of the organization, they will carry on this brand message and the corporate values within, and outside, of the organization (Balmer & Wilkinson, 1991). This eventually leads to more identification and bonding with the organization and employer (Macrae, 1996; Moroko & Uncles, 2005).
The social identity theory shows that a person’s identity is influenced by their experiences and relationships at their workplace (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Lievens, Hoye & Anseel, 2007). This suggests that the subjects of the online placed content of employees not only relates to their private lives at home, but also to their experiences at work. The main advantage of incorporating employee-generated content in employer branding efforts is that the insights shed light onto the daily operations and events of an organization, which increases transparency and openness. In turn, this openness and transparency may be associated with authenticity and a general more positive liking for organizations, for consumers, stakeholders and also (prospective) employees (Collins, 2008).
Social Media Messages about In-role and Extra-role Behavior
Employees already share content on social media relating to their daily task within the organization but also in relation to their experiences with the organization and their co-workers (Zhao & Rosson, 2009). These shared experiences are generally categorized as in-role behavior and extra-in-role behavior. While the terms in-in-role behavior and extra-in-role behavior are generally used in a business management or organizational performance perspective (Kim & Mauborgne, 1996; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Ahearne, 1998), the
concept can be to the work-related content of messages employees post on social media. Basically, in-role performance entails the observance of corporate allocation decisions in accordance with formally prescribed roles (Kim & Mauborgne, 1996). Communication on social media about in-role behavior entails employees’ communication on the tasks that they perform related to their immediate function and daily operations, examples are the time they start and meetings they have. These messages inform outsiders about the functional, practical and operational behavior of the employees within the organization and, thus, relate to the instrumental attributes of the job (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).
Conversely, extra-role performance refers to innovative actions, spontaneous cooperation, and creative behavior that go beyond role prescriptions for the benefit of the overall organization (Katz, 1964 Williamson, 1975). Social media messages relating to extra-role behavior inform people about non-job related activities, unexpected qualities and behavior and shows insights in the personalities of employees (Kim & Mauborgne, 1996). This content provides information in a way that shows the symbolic attributes of the employer brand (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).
The Importance of Perceptions
Perceptions that are formed of the organization as an employer through its communications are important, especially relating to their accuracy (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Prospective employees prefer a realistic portrayal of an organization, so that their expectations will not be violated, which is in line with the expectancy violation theory (Burgoon & Hale, 1988; Lemmink et al., 2003). The violation of expectations that are based on perceptions formed as a result of too ‘perfect’ information, can lead to higher employee turnover, dissatisfaction and a decreased sense of trust (Arachchige & Robertson, 2011). A good way to create fair, authentic and transparent perceptions of the organization is to post social media content that is generated by existing employees (Collins, 2008). Within recruitment communication, it is important that the content of the messages create accurate perceptions about the job and the organization.
In-role behavior messages create a solid understanding of the functions and operations that are expected of an employee, and thus lead to functional perceptions of the job. Extra-role behavior messages create a clear understanding of the organizational culture and other intangible aspects of the organization, and thus lead to symbolic associations about the organization. Based on the aforementioned literature and reasoning, the following hypotheses are formulated:
H1: Exposure to in-role behavior content on social media will lead to instrumental perceptions of the job
H2: Exposure to extra-role behavior content on social media will lead to symbolic perceptions of the organization
The Importance of Fit
It is highly important that the communicated content actually is perceived as clear and solid by the (prospective) employees, before one can be perceived as an attractive employer. Furthermore, since an individual’s job plays such a large role in their daily lives, the fit between the person and the job is important (Lievens et al., 2007). If there is no fit between the job characteristics and the person, that applicant will not find the employer attractive to work for, regardless of their perceptions (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). This person-job fit is defined as the match between the abilities of a person and the demands of a job or the needs and desires of a person (Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001). However, employees no longer solely look for functional benefits in jobs; compatibility between the employee and the organization is highly important as well (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000; Gotsl & Wilson, 2001). People expect jobs to create meaning, fit their personality and add to the quality of their lives and these qualities can be perceived more important then functional benefits (Albert, Ashforth & Dutton, 2000). When a potential employee’s needs, personality, and values do not match the organization’s image, the organization may become less attractive for this person, regardless of their symbolic perceptions (Schneider, 1987; Cable & Judge, 1996; Judge & Cable, 1997). This person-organization fit is defined as the compatibility between
people and organizations, and their shared similar fundamental characteristics (Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001) Thus, where person-job fit relates to an individual’s compatibility with a specific function, person-organization fit relates to the match with an organization’s values, goals, and mission.
When the fit between either the organization or the job is high, the instrumental or symbolic perception of the organization will affect the attractiveness as an employer (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). This sense of fit between the person and the organization is based on the aforementioned perceptions that are formed as a result of the organizational communication (Lemmink, Schuijf & Streukens, 2003). Based on this reasoning, the following hypotheses are formulated:
H3:
(a) Instrumental perceptions of the job will lead to a higher level of employer attractiveness, (b) especially when the person – job fit is high
H4: (a) Symbolic perceptions of the organization will lead to a higher level of employer attractiveness, (b) especially when the person – organization fit is high
Intentions
The best predictor of behavior is one’s intentions. Intentions are cognitive representations of a person's readiness to perform certain behavior, which in turn is determined by three aspects: one’s attitude toward the specific behavior, one’s subjective norms and one’s perceived behavioral control (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975; Ajzen, 1985). While the main goal of employer branding is to create an attractive employer brand, organizations are also interested the effect that the level of employer attractiveness has on the intention to apply for a job. Research shows that college student’s favorable attitudes toward organizations were found to be a factor that was highly significant in predicting intentions to apply for a job at these organizations (Collins & Stevens, 2002). Additional research also found that the attractiveness of an employer is significantly related to the intention of a person applying for
a job at that organization (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003; Arachchige & Robertson, 2011). Based on this reasoning the following hypothesis is formulated:
H5: The higher the level of organizational attractiveness is, the higher the intention to apply for a job at the organization is.
To conclude, the aforementioned hypotheses can all be found in figure 1, which is a conceptual representation of the concepts and relations that are discussed in this section. As becomes apparent, employee-generated social media content may affect employer attractiveness and intention to apply to a job through two routes. These are the processing through instrumental attributes of in-role behavior content and the processing through symbolic attributes of extra-role behavior content. Eventually, both may lead to employer attractiveness through either instrumental perfections of the job or through symbolic perceptions of the organization. However, the fit between the person and either the job or the organization may moderate the strength of that expectation. Finally, the model shows that employer attractiveness leads to intention to apply for the job. The goal of this study is to explore the hypotheses in an empirical manner and establish if these two routes indeed exist and function the way it is predicted.
METHOD
The research question will be tested by means of a scenario experiment. This section will show how the proposed constructs are operationalized and how the proposed relationships are tested.
Design
The design of the current experiment is a 3x1 factorial, between-subjects design. The experiment consisted of three experimental conditions and these experimental stimuli also represent the independent variable. The first two experimental conditions differentiated in the in-role and extra-role of content of the tweets and the third condition was a control condition with no exposure to Tweets.
Sample
In order to obtain the information required to meet the objectives of the study, a convenience sample of 141 participants was taken. Of this sample, 129 participants finished the experiment. After checking the results of the manipulation check (“Did you think of this recruitment website as realistic?” and “Were you previously familiar with the organization Arrow & Co?”), 8 participants were excluded from the experiment. The final sample consisted of 121 participants (40 male; 81 female), of whom the mean age was 24,2 years old (SD = 4,76). Of the participants, 50,61% was university or higher educated. The sample mainly consisted of final year university students and recently graduated starters from the Netherlands. This sample represents people that either will be looking for a job very soon, already have started looking a job or recently found their first job, based on their age and education. Furthermore, this sample represents the group of people that are using the Internet, and social media, very intensively (Hrastinski & Aghaee, 2012). Data was gathered through a self-completion questionnaire.
Procedure
The experiment was presented to the participants in Dutch. The used constructs were used translated into Dutch using a back translation approach (McGorry, 2000). The questions were translated to Dutch and then back to English by two different people. If the questions were translated back in an understandable manner, the translation was viewed as successful. If not, it was adjusted to both views and then translated again.
Participants were approached online, through e-mail, social media and personal contact. Participants entered the experiment via a link to the online survey. Through randomization tools, the participants were randomly assigned to any of the three conditions. The experimental stimuli were presented to each participant in a random order to minimize order-effects in the responses. After being exposed to either one of the experimental conditions, the participants were asked to fill in several questions, relating to the variables that were mentioned in the previous section. After filling out the survey the participants were thanked formally and their response was recorded. The experiment was conducted in the personal environment of the participant without presence of the experimenter. The mean time the participants spent on the experiment was 4 minutes and 32 seconds.
Pre-test
In a pre-test, the stimulus materials were tested and selected. In total, the researcher wrote 30 Tweets with either in-role or extra-role behavior content. In this pre-test, this stimulus material was presented to a sample of 26 participants. The participants were confronted with Tweets, which they rated on two dimensions, namely in-role or extra-role behavior content. Based on this, the tweets scored the highest on the indented dimension (either in-role or extra-role) and had an Eigenvalue of 1 or higher (in a factor analysis) were selected for use in the main experiment. The results of the pre-test can be viewed in appendix A.
Independent Variable
Exposure to Twitter-content is the only independent variable in this research and also serves
fictional tweets. The stimuli were presented on the recruitment website of a fictional organization, which can be found in appendix C. The design of the experimental stimuli was inspired by the WerkenBijPWC website of Price Waterhouse Coopers. The fictional organization is called Arrow & Co and gives the impression of a large, multinational corporation that specializes in consumer and business services in software. This sector was chosen because such large organizations generally have several large departments, opportunities for career development and a wide range of choice in functions, and thus, is interesting for a wide range of university students or graduated people. Furthermore, the choice for a fictional organization is based on the fact that the previous experiences and previously formed associations and perception cannot be controlled for with an experiment of this size.
Dependent Variables
In total, there are six dependent variables in this study, which can be viewed in a conceptual model (figure 1) and are discussed below.
Instrumental Perceptions of the Job. This variable is measured with a set of questions
based on Lievens and Highhouse (2003) and Cable and Graham (2000). Participants were asked to rate seven characteristics of in-role behavior with the question ‘to what extent does the information that was just presented by the employees give a clear impression of…’. The characteristics are the following; job attributes, daily operations, organizational structure, pay, location, career opportunities, concrete expectation and instrumental interaction between employees. The items were rated on a scale from 1 (completely unclear) to 7 (completely clear). The Instrumental Perceptions of the Job scale was internally consistent and proved to be a reliable scale (α = 0,821). The items together have an Eigenvalue of 3,4 and explain 48,59% of the variance.
Symbolic Perceptions of the Organization. This variable is measured with a set of
question based on existing literature on characteristics of symbolic attributes and extra-role behavior (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Kim & Mauborgne, 1996). These are the
organizational values, the organizational culture, innovation by employees, creative behavior of employees, personality of employees, social interaction between employees and non job-related activities. The following question was presented; ‘to what extent does the information that was just presented by the employees give a clear impression of…’. The items were rated on a scale from 1 (completely unclear) to 7 (completely clear). The Symbolic Perceptions of the Organization scale was also internally consistent and proved to be a reliable scale (α = 0,813). The items together have an Eigenvalue of 3,91 and explain 65,88% of the variance.
Employer Attractiveness. This dependent variable is based on an existing
questionnaire used by Highhouse, Lievens and Sinar (2003). Employer attractiveness is measured with five items designed to encompass content used in previous studies of organization choice (e.g. Fisher, Ilgen & Hoyer, 1979; Turban & Keon, 1993). The five items were presented in the form of statements and are assessed on Likert-scales ranging from one (completely do not agree) through seven (completely do agree). The Employer Attractiveness scale was internally consistent and proved to be a reliable scale (α = 0,887). The items together have an Eigenvalue of 3,5 and explain 70,18% of the variance in the construct.
Person – Job Fit. The concept is measured by a single item, which is rated on a
Likert-scale ranging from one (completely does not fit) through seven (completely does fit).
Person – Organization Fit. The moderator is measured by a single item, which is
rated on a Likert-scale ranging from one (completely does not fit) through seven (completely does fit).
Intention to Apply for Job at Organization. This dependent variable was measured by
using an existing five-item questionnaire by Highhouse, Lievens and Sinar (2003). Comparable to the employer attractiveness scale, the items were selected and adjusted from existing research (e.g. Ployhart & Ryan, 1998; Rynes & Miller, 1983; Schwoerer & Rosen, 1989), with in mind that the items should encompass a forward-looking perspective in relation to dealing with the organization the future. The five items were presented in the form of statements and were assessed on Likert-scales ranging from one (completely do not agree) through seven (completely do agree). The Employer Attractiveness scale was internally
consistent and proved to be a reliable scale (α = 0,824). The items together have an Eigenvalue of 2,97 and explain 59,46% of the variance in the construct.
Control Variables. The control variables measured in this experiment are gender, age,
educational level, frequency of using social media, utilization of social media in the process of seeking a job, previous behavior relating to visiting recruitment websites and if participants already followed organizations on social media. Further, the participants were asked if they thought the website was realistic and if they had ever heard of the fictional organization Arrow & Co before.
The experimental survey can be viewed in appendix D.
RESULTS
In this section the results of the statistical analyses of the proposed hypotheses are presented.
Randomization check
Whether the randomization to the conditions was successful was examined by investigating the distribution of the control variables age, gender, educational level, frequency of using social media, utilization of social media in the process of seeking a job, previous behavior relating to visiting recruitment websites and if participants already followed organizations on social media. For these control variables Chi-square tests were performed to check the distribution of the control variables over the experimental conditions. The results show that all control variables do not have a significant difference in distribution within the three conditions. This indicates that the randomization was successful.
Furthermore, randomization was checked by conducting tests on the correlations between the dependent variables and the control variables. This analysis again shows that randomization has been successful. The results of all randomization checks can be found in appendix B.
Hypotheses Testing
Instrumental Perceptions of the Job. To analyze whether exposure to in-role behavior Tweets
leads to instrumental perceptions of the job an ANOVA was conducted. Levene’s test for equal variances proved to be not significant (F (2, 118) = 0,574; p = 0,565), which indicated that the ANOVA could be performed. In line with predictions a main effect of exposure to Tweets was found on the Instrumental Perceptions of the Job (F (2, 118 = 5,32; p = 0,006). Participants who were exposed to in-role behavior Tweets scored higher on Instrumental Perceptions of the Job (M = 4,36; SD = 1,09) than those who were exposed to the extra-role behavior Tweets (M = 3,73; SD = 0,91) and to the control condition with no exposure to Tweets (M = 3,68; SD = 1,07). A Bonferonni post-hoc test shows that the differences between the in-role exposure with both extra-role (Mdifference = 0,623, p = 0,023) exposure and the
control condition (Mdifference = 0,676, p = 0,012) were indeed significant. These results indicate
that hypothesis 1 is accepted.
Symbolic Perceptions of the Organization. To analyze whether exposure to extra-role
behavior Tweets leads to symbolic perceptions of the organization an ANOVA was conducted. Levene’s test for equal variances proved to be not significant (F (2, 118) = 0,317;
p = 0,729), which indicated that the ANOVA could be performed. In line with predictions, a
main effect of exposure to Tweets was found on the symbolic perceptions of the organization (F (2, 118) = 10,365; p = 0,000). Participants who were exposed to extra-role behavior Tweets scored higher on Symbolic Perceptions of the Organization (M = 4,91; SD = 0,92) than those who were exposed to the in-role behavior Tweets (M = 4,14; SD = 0,85) and to the control condition with no exposure to Tweets (M = 3,64; SD = 0,94). A Bonferonni post-hoc test shows that the differences between the extra-role exposure with both in-role (Mdifference =
0,763; p = 0,001) exposure and the control condition (Mdifference = 1,265; p = 0,000) were
significant. These results indicate that hypothesis 2 is accepted.
Employer Attractiveness. In order to analyze the associations of both Instrumental
Perceptions of the Job and Symbolic Perceptions of the Organization on Employer Attractiveness a regression analysis was performed with both variables. The regression
analysis (F (1, 119) = 8,39; p = 0,004) showed that relationship between Instrumental Perceptions of the Job and Employer Attractiveness is not significant (B = 0,874; p = 0,544; 95% CI [0,027-0,261]), meaning that Instrumental Perceptions of the Job do not significantly lead to an increase in Employer Attractiveness. These results indicate that hypothesis 3a is not supported. The analysis of the relationship between the Symbolic Perceptions of the Organization and Employer Attractiveness shows that the more participants had symbolic perceptions of the organization, the more attractive they found the organization (B = 0,274; p = 0,004; 95% CI [0,087-0,461]). The Symbolic Perceptions of the Organization predict 6,89% of the variance in Employer Attractiveness. These results indicate that hypothesis 4a is indeed supported.
Person-Job Fit. To analyze the relationship that Instrumental Perceptions of the Job
and Person-Job Fit combined have on Employer Attractiveness, a multiple regression analysis was performed. Results show that model 1 is significant as well as model 2 (table 1). The regression model shows that 62,4% of the variance in Employer Attractiveness can be predicted by Instrumental Perceptions of the Job and Person-Job Fit (R2 = 0,624).
Instrumental Perceptions of the Job directly do not have significant associations with Employer attractiveness, as also became evident in the previous analysis of hypothesis 3a (B = -0,05; t = -0,07; p = 0,948; 95% CI [-0,149-0,140]). The results show that Person-Job Fit does indeed have significant associations with Employer Attractiveness (B = -0,672; t = -9,61;
p = 0,000; 95% CI [-0,352-0,536]), indicating that the higher the Person-Job fit is, Employer
Attractiveness also increases, when controlled for Instrumental Perception of the Organization. Furthermore, the interaction effect of Instrumental Perceptions and Person/Job Fit was found, which confirms hypothesis 3b (B = 0,138; t = 2,333; p = 0,021; 95% CI [0,021-0,256]). This implies that the higher the Person-Job Fit is, the stronger the relationship between Instrumental Perceptions of the Job and Employer Attractiveness is. In order to gain more insights into these results, a median split analysis was conducted (Mdn = 5). The analysis showed that only when participants had a high sense of fit, the moderating effect was marginally significant (Fchange (1, 74) = 3,452; p = 0,067). For the participants who had a
low sense of fit, the moderation was not significant (Fchange (1, 43) = 0,432; p = 0,514). These results carefully imply that only when there is a high Person-Job Fit, strengthens the relationship between Instrumental Perceptions and Employer Attractiveness.
Table 1
Results regression analysis with Instrumental Perceptions of the Job, Person/Job Fit and Employer Attractiveness (N = 121). Independent Variable B SE B STEP 1 (R2, R2adj) (0,45**; 0,44) Constant -0,002 -0,068 Instrumental Perceptions Person/Job Fit
STEP 2 (R2, R2adj, R2change)
Constant Instrumental Perceptions Person/Job Fit Instrumental Perceptions * Person/Job Fit -0,005 0,627** (0,48*; 0,46; 0,03) -0,031 -0,028 0,700** 0,138* 0,070 0,070 0,068 0,069 0,070 0,059 Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Person-Organization Fit. To analyze the relationship that Symbolic Perceptions of
the Organization and Person-Organization Fit combined have on Employer Attractiveness, again a multiple regression analysis was performed. Results show that the regression model 1 is significant and model 2 is not (table 2). The regression model shows that 62,0% of the variance in Employer Attractiveness can be predicted by Symbolic Perceptions of the Organization and Person-Organization Fit (R2 = 0,62). Symbolic Perceptions of the Job do not
have significant associations with Employer attractiveness when Person-Organization Fit is kept constant (B = -0,07; t = 0,12; p = 0,904; 95% CI [-0,111-0,136]), this in contrast of the
previous analysis and the acceptation of hypothesis H4a. Furthermore, Person-Organization Fit did have significant associations on Employer Attractiveness (B = 0,785; t = 13,12; p = 0,000; 95% CI [0,532-0,709]). However, the interaction effect of Symbolic Perceptions of the Job and Person-Organization Fit was not found (B = 0,075; t = 1,37; p = 0,171; 95% CI [-0,033-0,182]), indicating that H4b is rejected.
Table 2
Results regression analysis with Symbolic Perceptions of the Job, Person/Organization Fit and Employer Attractiveness (N = 121).
Independent Variable B SE B
STEP 1 (R2, R2adj) (0,62**; 0,61)
Constant -0,025 0,057 Symbolic Perceptions
Person-Organization Fit
STEP 2 (R2, R2adj, R2change)
Constant Symbolic Perceptions Person/Organization Fit Symbolic Perceptions* Person-Organization Fit 0,007 0,785** (0,62; 0,62; 0,006) -0,023 -0,011 0,806** 0,075 0,060 0,060 0,059 0,062 0,061 0,054 Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Since H4b was rejected against expectations, the researcher explored an alternative explanation for the results. Instead of considering the Person-Organization Fit as a moderator, the variable was explored as a mediator between Symbolic Perceptions of the Job and Employer Attractiveness. To test this assumption several PROCESS models, as developed by Preacher and Hayes (2004) were ran.
The model was tested with Employer Attractiveness the dependent variable, Symbolic Perception as the predictor, and Person-Organization Fit as a mediator. The first step in the mediation analysis, ignoring the mediator (Person-Organization Fit), showed a significant association between Symbolic Perceptions and Employer Attractiveness (b = 0,273; p = 0,005; CI 95% [0,087-0,461]). The second step revealed that Symbolic Perceptions was a significant predictor of Person-Organization Fit (b = 0,432; p = 0,001; CI 95% [0,197-0,666]). Next, the third step in the process analysis showed that the mediator Person-Organization Fit, controlling for Symbolic Perceptions was a significant predictor of Employer Attractiveness (b = 0,616; p = 0,000; CI 95% [1,712-3,754]). The fourth and final step in the analysis showed that, controlling for the mediator, Symbolic Perceptions did not have significant associations with Employer Attractiveness (b = 0,007; p = 0,904; CI 95% [-0,118-0,134]), indicating that the direct association between Symbolic Perceptions and Employer Attractiveness disappeared when the mediation (Person-Organization Fit) was considered. Finally, Sobel’s test was conducted and the results show that there is a significant full mediation in the model (z = 3,51; p = 0,001).
Intention to Apply to Job. In order to analyze whether Employer Attractiveness leads
to Intention to Apply to Job, another regression analysis was conducted. Results show that the regression model is indeed significant (F (1, 119) = 182,79; p = 0,000). This indicates that the more participants had symbolic perceptions of the organization, the more attractive they found the organization (B = 0,704), p = 0,000; 95% CI [0,601-0,807]. Employer Attractiveness predicts 60,6% of the variance in Intention to Apply to Job. These results indicate that hypothesis 5 is supported.
Overview Hypotheses
The results according to the different performed analyses indicate that hypothesis 3a and 4b are rejected while hypothesis 1, 2, 3b, 4a and 5 are accepted. An alternative explanation was provided for rejected hypothesis 4b, which proved to be significant as a mediation instead of a moderation (figure 2). The implications of these results are discussed in the next sections.
Figure 2 The adjusted conceptual model with results. Green indicates that the hypothesis is accepted; red indicates that the hypothesis is rejected; blue shows an alternative significant explanation for the results.
CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION
The goal of the current thesis was to gain more understanding and insights in the content-effects of social media messages of employees on the attractiveness of an employer, when the employee-generated content was used for employer branding purposes. With the results of the experiment, the research question “to what extend and how do employee-generated social
media messages on recruitment websites influence the attractiveness of the employer” can
now be answered.
The findings suggest that employee-generated social media messages influence employer attractiveness, as expected, via two routes: via instrumental perceptions that prospective employees have of the job and via symbolic perceptions that prospective employees have of the organization. Social media messages with in-role behavior content influence the strength of the perceptions about the instrumental attributes of the job, while social media messages with extra role behavior content influence the strength of the perceptions about the symbolic attributes of the organization. Further, the findings suggest that the path through extra-role messages has a stronger effect on symbolic perceptions of the organization than the path through in-role messages on the instrumental perceptions of the job. The results suggest that Tweets about the daily behavior and experiences of employees
provide clear information on the functional attributes, e.g. location and pay, and the symbolic attributes of an organization, e.g. non-work related social interactions and corporate culture, The results show that employee generated content indeed affects job seekers’ perceptions in different ways. Lievens and Highhouse (2003) suggested that symbolic attributes are more important for increasing perceptions about employer attractiveness, which is supported by the findings. Thus, the messages can be used as a tool for impression management in employer branding, for employee-generated social media messages seem like a good way to create authentic and transparent perceptions of the organization, as was proposed by Collins (2008).
In both cases the relationship between the perceptions and employer attractiveness is associated with fit, however, the results show that this association works differently for instrumental perceptions and symbolic perceptions. Both the fit between a person and a job and person and the organization was expected to strengthen the relation between instrumental and symbolic perceptions and employer attractiveness (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000; Gotsl & Wilson, 2001; Lievens, Hoye & Anseel, 2007). Results show that perceptions of the instrumental job attributes do not directly affect the attractiveness the employer, however, when the fit between the person and the job is considered the instrumental perceptions indeed seem to affect employer attractiveness. This implies that the associations between the perceptions and the attractiveness of the employer are strengthened when a person’s fit with the job is considered. For the associations between the prospective employees’ perceptions of symbolic attributes and employer attractiveness, fit also plays a role. The symbolic perceptions solely are associated with the attractiveness of the employer. However, when fit is considered, this association disappears. Results suggest that fit is not a moderator, but instead provides an explanation of the association between symbolic perceptions and the attractiveness of the employer, thus a mediator. This implies that the perceptions about the symbolic attributes of the organization lead to a sense of fit between the person and the organization, because it informs applicants about the organization (e.g. culture and values). If the symbolic attributes match with the person’s values, the established sense of fit with the organization makes the employer more attractive.
These findings suggest that the fit between the person and the job is a condition for instrumental perceptions to affect employer attractiveness, while the fit between the person and the organization functions as more of a step in the process between the association of symbolic perceptions of the organization and employer attractiveness. The functional attributes of a job relate closely to the skills and ability of prospective employees’ to perform the tasks (Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001). Thus, if prospective employees do not have a sense of fit between the functional job attributes and their sense or self, they will not find the employer attractive, regardless of the functional attributes of the job. This association can be further understood by applying the cognitive dissonance theory. The theory implies that individuals seek information that confirms their beliefs and avoid information that rejects their beliefs, and thus creates dissonance, to maintain a balance in their personal beliefs (Feininger, 1957).
The symbolic attributes of the organization are less specific and are not necessarily linked with certain tasks and capabilities prospective employees have, but also with their own values and disposition in life (Lievens, Van Hoye & Anseel, 2007). Perceptions about the organization lead to a sense of attractiveness, since no specific task or skill is directly associated with the symbolic attributes. However, when fit is considered this association disappears. Ashforth and Dutton (2000) state that a meaningful job that increases the quality of one’s life and supports one’s personality can be perceived as more important than solely functional benefits. This explains why the association between perceptions and attractiveness disappears when the fit with the organization is considered; the symbolic attributes help prospective employees form a sense of fit between the organization and the person, which is necessary to find the employer attractive. Furthermore, there are no previously formed associations, perceptions or knowledge about the organization. This implies that the symbolic perceptions are necessary for applicants to assess the organization, and also their fit with the organization, since it is the only source of information.
Finally, it was expected that a high level of employer attractiveness might lead to an increase in the intention to apply to a job, an expectation that is in line with the theory of
planned behavior (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975; Ajzen, 1985). Findings showed that the expectation was correct and that en increase in employer attractiveness does indeed lead to a higher intention to apply to a job at that particular organization. Applying for a job is a form of intentional behavior, which increases the likelihood of the actual behavior to take place. This shows the importance of an attractive employer brand; it can indeed be applied as tool to attract and hire the best talent available (Arachchige & Robertson, 2011; Love & Singh, 2011).
Limitations
As all empirical studies, the current study also has limitations. First, it is important to realize that the results of the current experiment are not optimally generalizable because of the composition of the sample. While the target audience (students and starters) was reached, one should be careful in generalizing the results to, for example, an older or lower-educated population. Also, the sampling method was not randomized, which potentially can affect the results and their reliability.
Furthermore, the organization presented in the experiment was fictional. The reasoning behind this was that the pre-existing associations one has with an employer could affect the content-effects that were targeted in this study. However, it is not possible to ignore the pre-existing associations in reality, since people always have associations based on some form of (non)-exposure or experiences with an organization (Keller, 1993). Examples are that people may use their products, may hear about the organization in some form in the media, or may have heard stories from friends or family about the organization and formed associations based on such information. In reality, these associations might moderate the senses of fit applicants have with either the job or organization.
Future research
The current study targeted the gap between the frequent practical application of employee-generated content on social media and the lack of academic knowledge of the effects on employer attractiveness and added some useful insights. However, the results of this study do
not fully close this gap and leave room and suggestions for future research. First, it is recommended to use existing brand in a similar experiment, to control for the pre-existing associations prospective employees have. Also, the current experiment was focused around a large multinational, which was successful and specialized in nearly everything related to business-to-business services. While this may a branch that appeals to a large group of people, there must be a substantial amount of job seekers who might not find this branch appealing. There might be a chance that for other branches, for example IT, banking, government or law, this finding may differ. This also applies for further research with a larger variance in age. The current research focused on final year students and newly graduated starters as the population, because this group uses social media a lot in their daily lives. However, the mean age of the most interactive people on Twitter, for example, is 35 to 54 years old (Van den Bighelaar & Akkermans, 2013). It might lead to interesting, and perhaps different, results when a more senior and expert population is considered.
Managerial Implications
One of the main reasons behind the current study was the wide application of employees in employer branding in comparison to the limited empirical research on the topic. First, findings of this study show that symbolic perceptions have a stronger association with employer attractiveness than instrumental perceptions. While the instrumental attributes of the job can be communicated via various traditional and emerging channels (e.g. job advertisements), the symbolic attributes of the organization are more complicated to communicate in a simple manner (Cable & Graham, 2000; Laik & Dean, 2011). The use of social media, especially combined with the self-stated experiences of employees, is a unique way of communicating the daily practice of the organizational values and non-tangible aspects of the job and organization (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Collins, 2008). As the findings show, extra-role social media messages affect the perceptions stronger than in-role behavior social media messages, and professionals should take notes and implement such strategies in their employer branding strategies. Such strategies can help differentiate from
competitors who use either traditional communication channels or mostly in-role behavior communication content, and, may help to attract the best talent available just by implementing pre-existing content.
Furthermore, this study offers insights in the effects that employee-generated Tweets and shows that these indeed indirectly affect employer attractiveness. Where organizations can choose to either incorporate or exclude the Tweets into their strategies, the content is created either way. Prospective employees, who are known to use the Internet and social media in the process of searching for information on a employer, might be exposed to the social media messages on a different platform than a recruitment website (Collins & Stevens, 2002). This shows that organization cannot control all available content on the organization, even though the content is created their employees, whom represent the organization. Practitioners should consider this weakness when deciding to incorporate the employee-generated content in their own strategy. Incorporating the Tweets might be a way to moderately control this type of information and simultaneously increase the existing employee’s involvement with the organization (Moroko & Uncles, 2005)
Finally, while employer branding mostly touches upon both the marketing and communications discipline, its execution in organizations is mostly conducted in the field of human resource management (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). Professionals should therefore take this multidiciplinarity into consideration and work together to create an efficient employer-branding strategy that could result in a distinctive position as an employer brand.
References
Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, pp. 347–356.
Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T.N. & Cable, D.M. (2001). Are you attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A recruiting policy capturing study. Journal of Business and Psychology,
Albert, S., Ashforth, B.E.& Dutton, J.E. (2000). Organizational identity and
identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. The Academy of
Management Review, 25(1), pp. 13–17.
Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management, 4, pp. 185–206.
Arachchige, B.J.H. & Robertson, A. (2011). Business student perceptions of a preferred employer: a study identifying determinants of employer branding, The IUP Journal of
Brand Management, 8(3), pp. 25-46.
Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14, pp. 20-39.
Ajzen, I, (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Heidelberg, Germany.
Backhaus, K.B., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and Researching Employer Branding. Career Development International, 9(5), pp. 501-517.
Balmer, J.M.T. & Wilkinson, A. (1991). Building societies: change, strategy, and corporate identity. Journal of General Management, 17(2), pp. 20-33.
Berthon, P., Ewing M. & Hah, L.L. (2005). Captivating Company: Dimensions of
Attractiveness in Employer Branding, International Journal of Advertising, 24(2), pp. 151-172.
Burgoon, J.K. & Hale, J.L. (1988). Nonverbal Expectancy Violations: Model Elaboration and Application to Immediacy Behavior. Communication Monographs, 55, pp. 58-79. Cable, D.M. & Graham, M. (2000). The determinants of organizational reputation: a job
search perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, pp. 929-947. Cable, D.M. & Judge, T.A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions and
organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, pp. 294-311.
“CBS: Werkgelegenheid Trekt Aan” (2015). Retrieved March 8th 2015, from
http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/arbeid-sociale
zekerheid/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2015/werkgelegenheid-trekt-aan.htm Collins, L. (2008). Pixel perfect. The New Yorker. Retrieved on May 13th 2015, from
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/ 2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_collins Collins, C.J. & Stevens, C.K. (2002). The relationship between early recruitment-related
activities and the application decisions of new labor-market entrants: a brand equity approach to recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), pp. 1121- 1133. de Chernatony, L. & Harris, F. (2000). Developing corporate brands through considering
internal and external stakeholders. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(3), pp. 268-74.
Denning, S. (2006). Effective storytelling: strategic business narrative techniques.
Strategy & Leadership, 34(1), pp. 42–48.
Dowling, G.R. (2006). Communicating corporate reputation through stories. California Management Review, 49(1), pp. 82–100.
Ehrhart, K.H. & Ziegert, J.C. (2005). Why are individuals attracted to organizations?
Journal of Management, 31, pp. 901–919.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fisher, C.D., Ilgen, D.R. & Hoyer, W.D. (1979). Source credibility, information favorability, and job offer acceptance. Academy of Management Journal, 22, pp. 94-103.
Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, 54(3), 193-207. FrankWatching (2011). Hoe leeftijdsgroepen online communiceren. Retrieved June 21, 2015,
from http:// frankwatching.com/2011/08/hoe-leeftijdsgroepen-online-communiceren Furu, N. (2011). The best heads are online. Personal Ogledelse, 4, pp. 32-35.
Gill, R. (2011). A review of storytelling : Using corporate stories to strengthen engagement and internal and external reputation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 8, pp. 1–16. Gotsl, M. & Wilson, A. (2001). Corporate reputation management: Living the brand.
Management Decision, 39(2), pp. 99–104.
Highhouse, S., Lievens, F. & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring Attraction to Organizations.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(6), pp. 986–1001.
Hrastinski, S. & Aghaee, N. M. (2012). How are campus students using social media to support their studies? An explorative interview study. Education and Information
Technologies, 17(4), pp. 451–464.
Katz, D. (1964). The Motivational Basis of Organizational Behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, pp. 131-146.
Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), pp. 1–22.
Kennedy, S.H. (1977). Nurturing corporate images. European Management Journal, 11(3), pp. 120–164.
Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P. & Silvestre, B.S. (2011). Social Media? Get Serious! Understanding The Function Building Blocks Of Social Media. Business
Horizons, 54, pp. 241-251.
Kim, W.C. & Mauborgne, R.A. (1996). Procedural Justice and Managers’ In-Role and Extra-Role Behavior: The Case of the Multinational. Management Science, 42(4), pp. 499–515.
Lauver, K. J. & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between Employees’ Perceptions of Person–Job and Person–Organization Fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), pp. 454–470.
Laick, S. & Dean, A.A. (2011). Using web 2 .0 technology in personnel marketing to
transmit corporate culture. The International Journal of Management Cases, 297-304. Lemmink, J., Schuijf, A. & Streukens, S. (2003). The role of corporate image in explaining
Lievens, F. & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company’s attractiveness as en employer. Personnel Psychology, 56, pp. 75-102. Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G., & Anseel, F. (2007). Organizational identity and employer image:
Towards a unifying framework. British Journal of Management, 18, pp. 45- 59. Love, L.F. & Singh, P. (2011). Workplace Branding: Leveraging Human Resources
Management Practices for Competitive Advantage Through "Best Employer" Surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), pp. 175-81.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some Possible Antecedents and Consequences of In-Role and Extra-Role Salesperson Performance. The Journal of
Marketing, 62(3), pp. 87–98.
Macnamara, J. (2010). ‘Emergent’ media and public communication: understanding the changing mediascape. Public Communication Review, 1(2), pp. 3-17.
Macrae, C. (1996). The Brand Chartering Handbook, Addison-Wesley, London. Martin, G., Beaumont, P.B., Doig, R.M. & Pate, J.M. (2005). Branding: a new
performance discourse for HR? European Management Journal, 23, pp. 76-88. Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H. & Axelrod, B. (2001). The War for Talent. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Miles, S.J. & Mangold, G. (2004). A Conceptualization of the Employee Branding Process.
Journal of Relationship Marketing, 3(2), pp. 65-87.
Moroko, L. & Uncles, M. (2005). Employer Branding – The Case For A Multidisciplinary Process Related Empirical Investigation. University of New South Wales, pp. 52– 57. Moroko, L. & Uncles, M.D. (2008). Characteristics of successful employer brands. Journal
of Brand Management, 16(3), pp. 160-175.
McGorry , S.Y. (2000). Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: survey translation issues. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(2), pp. 74–81. Ployhart, R.E. & Ryan, A.M. (1998). Applicants’ reactions to the fairness of selection
procedures: The effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement. Journal
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and
Computers, 36, pp. 717-731.
Puri, M., Rocholl, J. & Steffen, S. (2011). Global retail lending in the aftermath of the US financial crisis: Distinguishing between supply and demand effects. Journal of
Financial Economics, 100(3), pp. 556–578.
Rynes, S.L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post- hire consequences: A call for new re-search directions. Handbook of Organizational Psychology, 2(2), pp. 399–444. Rynes, S.L. & Miller, H.E. (1983). Recruiter and job influences on candidates for
employment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, pp. 146-154.
Schneider , B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), pp. 437– 453.
Schneider, B. & Bowen, D. (1995). Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks: replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, pp. 423-33. Schwoerer, C.E. & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of employment-at-will policies and
compensation policies on corporate image and job pursuit intentions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74, pp. 653-656.
Shavitt, S. (1990). The role of attitude objects in attitude functions. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 26, pp. 124–148.
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2009). Employee of Business. Engagement and HRD: a seminal review of the foundations. Human Resources Development Review Online First. Retrieved May 13, 2015, from:
http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/153 4484309353560v1 Simmons, A. (2006). The story factor. New York: Basic Books.
Sivertzen, A.M., Ragnhild-Nilsen, E. & H. Olafsen, A. (2013). Employer branding: employer attractiveness and the use of social media. Journal of Product & Brand
Thompson, J.A. & Bunderson, J.S. (2003). Violations of principle: ideological currency in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review, 28, pp. 571-86. Turban, D.B. & Keon, T.L. (1993). Organizational Attractiveness: An interactionist
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, pp. 184-193.
Qualman, E. (2010). Socialnomics: How Social Media Transforms the Way We Live and Do Business (paperback edition), Wiley, ISBN-13: 9780470638842.
Van den Bighelaar, S. & Akkermans, M. (2013). Gebruik en Gebruikers van Social Media. Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek Bevolkingstrends. Retrieved June 15th 2015, from
http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/06A12225-495E-4620-80F6-F2A53E819957/0/20131001b15art.pdf
Waasdorp, G.J., Hemminga, M. & Roest, S. (2012). Bouwen aan het nieuwe Employer Brand. Werf & Media. Amsterdam.
Walker, H.J., Feild, H.S., Giles, W.F., Bernerth, J.B. & Short, J.C. (2011). So what do you think of the organization? A contextual priming explanation for recruitment web site characteristics as antecedents of job seekers’ organizational image perceptions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), pp. 165-178.
“Whitepaper Employer Branding”. (2014). Retrieved March 27th 2015, from
http://www.wervingsvisie.nl/Whitepaper%20employer%20branding.pdf
Williamson, O.E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. Free Press, New York.
Zhao, D. & Rosson, M.B. (2009). How and why people Twitter. Proceedings of the ACM
Appendix A: Results pre-test
Table 1.
Presentation of the results of the pre-test with the values of the evaluation of in-role behavior Tweets on the scale of Instrumental Perceptions of the Job.
Tweets N Eigenvalue
1: “Vroege vogel op kantoor #eerstkoffie #halloarrow” 26 0,872 2: “Zo! Klaar voor morgen! Bespreken van de Analyse Resultaten ter
ondersteuning van de Jaarrekening bij een grote klant.”
26 1,112* 3: “Projectgroepen zijn leuker dan ze klinken #arrowtoday”
4: “Goeie brainstormsessie gehad met de #arrow werkgroep #pensioenscommunicatie. Inspirerend en verassend veel goede ideeën!!”
5: “Erg vroege start op kantoor #goedemorgen [foto]”
6: “Miv vandaag mijn nieuwe functie Client Associatie vervullen. Mooie uitdaging! #Trots
7: “Zes uur vertrokken richting een klantafspraak in Limburg. Erg vroeg vandaag!”
8: “Morgen maar eens een dag uitslapen #flexwerkenkangewoon” 9: “Jaarcijfers komen eraan, drukke periode nu! #arrow”
10: “Thuiswerken vandaag, mijn to do lijstje op orde brengen na ’n paar dagen met veel afspraken & offertes #academy”
11: “Limburg, Utrecht en Amsterdam op 1 dag #alleenbijarrow #zoziejenederlandweer”
12: “Different view from the office, visiting London [foto]” 13: “Persuit training met het nieuwe team CMD vandaag” 14: “Vandaag parttime dag ipv vrijdag. Gewoon even wisselen #flexibleworking”
15: “Vandaag een drukke dag, dus thuisbezorgd.nl op kantoor!”
26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 0,776 1,889* 2,321* 1,235* 1,654* 0,678 0,874 1,437* 0,874 1,239* 1,341* 1,892* 1,110 * Selected for the main experiment as stimulus material
