Work… where?
The influence of employer familiarity on job seekers’ reactions to employer branding in job advertisements
Investigating effects of employer branding on job seekers’ reactions to job advertisements from familiar and unfamiliar employers
University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication Research Master of Communication Science
Thesis supervisor: Dr. Wim J.L. Elving Student: Victor K. de Vries, BSc.
Student number: 5883865 Date of completion: June 27th, 2014
Abstract
In this thesis, I empirically test job seekers’ reactions to job advertisements. I do this by investigating if and to what extent familiarity, perceived reputation, and elements of employer branding in job advertisements affect job seekers’ associations with potential employers and their employment opportunity decisions towards those potential employers. Using Structural equation modeling, students’ reactions to different job advertisements in terms of familiarity and elements of employer branding were analysed. Results show that job seekers’ familiarity with potential employers influences their reactions to employer branding in job advertisements. Including elements of employer branding results in more positive reactions from job seekers towards unfamiliar employers. Moreover, this positive effect becomes weaker when job seekers perceive potential unfamiliar employers as having a more positive reputation. Including elements of employer branding has no effect in job seekers reactions on job advertisements for familiar employers. Concluding, this thesis shows that job seekers’ familiarity with employers positively influences their reactions to job advertisements. Consequently, managers of employer branding and recruitment communication may take this into account when designing job advertisements. Keywords: Employer brand equity, employer branding, job advertisements, familiarity, reputation, structural equations modeling
Introduction
A commonly heard phrase in human resource management is that an organization’s greatest assets are its employees. Indeed, research shows that human capital strongly relates to firm performance, especially when employees are hard to find in a labour market (Crook, Todd, Combs, Woehr, & Ketchen, Jr., 2011). Over the last two decades, the international labour market is increasingly characterized by a situation in which organizations have difficulty filling their vacancies with the right employees (Barber, 1998; Rynes, 1991; Hays, 2013). For instance, in The Netherlands, organizations struggle finding the right people for highly specialized job categories (Randstad, 2014a; 2014b). Furthermore, referred to as the ‘war for talent’, a relatively small pool of highly talented job seekers is subject to a considerate amount of organizations’ recruitment efforts (Beechler & Woodward, 2009). In order to attract these talented job seekers, it is suggested for employers to differentiate through employer branding in their recruitment efforts (Martin, Beaumont, Doig & Pate, 2005; Edwards, 2010).
Although employer branding research and practice are gaining momentum in the recruitment area, it is still considered in its infancy as steady conceptualizations and
measurements as well as effective strategies remain in development (Edwards, 2010; Collins & Kanar, 2013). For instance, an increasing number of scholars are turning their attention to researching antecedents and determinants of employer branding, largely focusing on the links between employer brands, perceived employer attractiveness and employment opportunity decisions (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Knox & Freeman, 2006; Berthon, Ewing & Hah, 2009). Further, scholars have started to investigate how job seekers’ associations with employers can be accurately measured and linked to their employment opportunity decisions. (Lievens, Van Hoye & Anseel, 2007; Lievens, 2012). To do this, these scholars have adapted a brand equity
perspective to employer branding. According to employer brand equity, job seekers rely on their knowledge about an organization as an employer to make informed decisions when confronted with an employment opportunity at that organization. Employer brand knowledge consists of three stages. Firstly, job seekers are to some extent familiar or unfamiliar with an organization as an employer. When they are to a lesser extent familiar, job seekers will only be able to rely on general evaluations of the potential employer that are at the surface of their minds (Brooks, Highhouse, Russell & Mohr, 2003). When they are more familiar with an organization, job seekers will have more complex associations regarding the potential employer (Keller, 1993; Cable & Turban, 2003; Collins & Kanar, 2013). This relationship has been tested thoroughly in consumer brand equity literature (Christodoulides & De Chernatony, 2010). However, as Collins and Kanar (2013) state, “(…) although there is some initial evidence that familiarity, surface associations and complex associations are related to job search decision, much more research and theory are needed to help us understand how (…) these associations may interact with one
another and under what conditions job seekers may be more or less likely to draw on specific associations when evaluating an employment opportunity” (Collins & Kanar, 2013: p. 289). Therefore, the first research question of this thesis is:
RQ1: What are the effects of job seekers’ surface and complex employer brand
associations on their employment opportunity decisions towards a potential employer, and what is the influence of familiarity with a potential employer on these effects?
Furthermore, in this thesis I aim to answer a call for more marketing-inspired recruitment and employer branding studies focusing on job advertisements (Walker and Hinosjosa, 2013). As Walker and Hinojosa (2013) observe: “(…) existing findings in the marketing literature and recent findings from the recruitment literature indicate the importance of job advertisements in
the development of job seekers’ organizational image perceptions” (Walker & Hinojosa, 2013; p. 279). Adapting a brand equity perspective in research on job advertisement may lead to a more detailed picture of job seekers’ reactions to job advertisements. For instance, employer branding in job advertisements has been found to influence job seekers’ perceptions of employer
attractiveness and their employment opportunity decisions (Elving, Westhoff, Meeusen & Schoonderbeek, 2013; Walker & Hinojosa, 2013). But how these come about is not yet
thoroughly measured. Therefore, in this thesis I investigate how including elements of employer branding in job advertisements influences job seekers’ associations with potential employers.
Besides employer branding, another key indicator of job seekers’ reactions to job advertisements can be found in their perceptions of an organization’s reputation. It is suggested that the more favourable job seekers perceive an organization’s reputation, the more attractive they perceive that organization as a potential employer (Cable & Turban, 2003). To my
knowledge, little research has been conducted on potential effects of job seekers’ perceptions of organizations’ reputations on their perceptions of employer attractiveness and their reactions to job advertisements from these organizations. This somewhat surprising and therefore in this thesis I investigate possible effects of job seekers’ perceived reputation on their perceptions of employer attractiveness and employment opportunities following the research question:
RQ2: How does employer branding in job advertisements affect job seekers’ surface and complex associations with and employment opportunities towards potential employers and how are effects influenced by familiarity and perceived reputation?
This thesis is structured as follows. First, a theoretical framework is presented, including an elaboration of employer branding, employer brand equity. Next, the theoretical framework elaborates on how employer branding in job advertisements and job seekers’ perceived
reputation may affect job seekers’ surface and complex employer brand associations with and employment opportunity decisions towards potential employers. Throughout the theoretical framework the expected differences for unfamiliar and familiar employers are discussed. The theoretical framework is guided by hypotheses resulting in two theoretical models. The methods section provides insights on the sample, procedures, materials, measures and analyses used to test the hypotheses. Next the analyses of the hypotheses are presented. I will conclude by
providing a summary of the findings as well as its contributions, followed by a discussion of this thesis’ implications, limitations and directions for future research.
Theoretical framework
During the last decade, employer branding is gaining more interest from scholars in the field of recruitment and human resource management (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Collins & Kanar, 2013; Edwards, 2010). For instance, where a Google search using the term “employer branding” returned 3000 hits in 2004, the same keywords returned 470.000 hits in 2010 (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Elving et al., 2013). In May of 2014, a Google search using
“employer branding” returned approximately 4.750.000 hits, which is an impressive growth rate since 2003. In their review, Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) define employer branding as a “process of building an identifiable and unique employer identity”. Consequently, the employer brand refers to the “concept of the firm that differentiates it from its competitors” (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004: p. 502). In employer branding, the main goal is to increase job seekers’ familiarity with the organization and positively influence their associations with the organization as an employer so that they will decide more positively when confronted with an employment
opportunity at the organization (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Employer branding in recruitment activities should be aimed towards increasing job seekers’ perceptions
and associations with organizations as employers in order to positively influence their decisions when an employment opportunity at the organization would occur.
A brand equity perspective to employer branding
Recently, scholars build on brand equity theory in their conceptualizations of employer branding (Cable & Turban, 2001; Collins & Stevens, 2002; Cable & Turban, 2003; Collins & Kanar, 2013). Brand equity can be seen as marketing effects uniquely attributable to the brand (Aaker, 1991; 1996). In this way, employer brand equity can be seen as the collection of outcomes of potential employees’ decision opportunities that are solely attributable to the employer brand (Aaker, 1991, Cable and Turban, 2001; Collins and Stevens, 2002; Collins and Kanar, 2013). Most notably, Collins and Kanar (2013) conceptualize employer brand equity as a collection of positive and negative effects that perceptions of the employer brand has on job seekers’ decisions towards the employer. Consequently, employment-related associations with an organization may have impact on individuals’ employment opportunity decisions.
According to employer brand equity theory, job seekers rely on their brand knowledge about a potential employer to construe their perceptions and make informed employment opportunity decisions. Building upon associative memory, employer brand equity suggests that job seekers’ knowledge about an employer is stored in their minds in a network of nodes and links of varying strength. The employer brand of the potential employer is one node in this knowledge network, and is linked to other nodes that represent job seekers’ associations with that organization as an employer, or employer brand associations. According to Collins and Kanar (2013), job seekers’ associations with an employer brand can take on two forms: surface employer brand associations and complex employer brand associations. These will be discussed below.
Surface employer brand associations. In the employer brand knowledge network, surface employer brand associations are closer to the employer brand and therefore easy to retrieve. Surface employer brand associations are defined as job seekers’ general perceptions of an organization’s attractiveness as an employer and feelings of what it’s like to work there (Collins & Kanar, 2013). Surface employer brand associations can be seen as job seekers’ general perceptions of an organization’s attractiveness as an employer. A vast amount of research has pointed out the importance of being an attractive employer for attracting job seekers. Here, the general conclusion is that when job seekers perceive a potential employer as being more/less attractive, they are expected to decide more positively/negatively when
confronted with an employment opportunity (Highhouse, Lievens & Sinar, 2003; Carless, 2005; Collins & Stevens, 2002). For instance, positive perceptions of a potential employer’s
attractiveness were found to strongly predict undergraduates’ job pursuit intentions, and those intentions also actually led to job pursuit behaviour (Highhouse et al., 2003).
Complex employer brand associations. Complex brand associations are “(…) perceived characteristics regarding specific elements of what it is like to work at a particular organization and are used to make employer decisions” (Collins & Kanar, 2013: p. 287). Complex employer brand associations have been extensively conceptualized in the Symbolic-Instrumental
Framework (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Lievens et al., 2007; Van Hoye, Bas, Cromheecke & Lievens, 2013; Van Hoye, Lievens, De Soete, Libbrecht, Schollaert & Baligant, 2014). In the Instrumental-Symbolic Framework, potential employees’ complex employer brand associations are described in terms of instrumental attributes and symbolic meanings. In this respect,
instrumental associations with an employer brand concern functional, objective attributes that an employer either has or does not have, whereas symbolic meanings hold symbolic employer brand
knowledge in the form of imagery and trait inferences that applicants assign to potential employers.
Although Lievens and colleagues provide persuading evidence for the Symbolic-Instrumental framework, their work does not include a potentially important third factor to the spectrum of complex employer brand associations: experiential employer brand associations. In their articles, Lievens et al. (2007) mention that they did not include “(…) the experiential category because it was more difficult to translate from a product context to an employment and organizational context” (Lievens et al, 2007: p. 48). Other scholars supporting the brand equity perspective of employer branding argue that the employer brand equity of an organization is the additional value attributed to that organization as an employer in the minds of job seekers solely due to the functional attributes, experiences and symbolic traits they expect the organization can offer as an employer (Amber and Barrow, 1996; Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Collins and Kanar, 2013). However, the absence of an experience factor in past employer brand equity research may be troublesome, since the Instrumental-Symbolic Framework is build upon the traditional
consumer brand equity model that includes symbolic, functional, and experiential brand associations (Aaker, 1991; Keller; 1993). The experience association can be crucial, and therefore needs to be included in measurements of employer brand equity.
In consumer brand equity theory, experiential brand associations relate to feelings associated with using a product or service (Keller, 1993). Furthermore, they satisfy experiential needs such as sensory pleasure, variety and cognitive stimulation, whereas functional
associations mainly concern problem avoidance and motivations related to physiological or safety needs (Keller, 1993). Taking this into account, experiential brand associations can, and should be viewed as theoretically different compared to symbolic and functional brand
associations and therefore should be treated as such. Consequently, in employer brand equity, experiential employer brand associations could then address job seekers associations with everyday work experiences at a particular employer. Possible factors of experiential employer brand associations could then be about cognitive variety and challenge of the work tasks (Slaughter, Richard, & Martin, 2006) and the social working environment (Elving et al., 2013).
As described above, job seekers draw on their employer brand knowledge to make informed employment opportunity decisions. In this process, it is shown that job seekers are more likely to decide positively towards organizations they perceive as being attractive as an employer. Furthermore, job seekers substantiate their perceptions of the employer’s
attractiveness using their complex associations with the employer brand (Berthon, Ewing & Hah, 2005; Collins & Kanar, 2013; Highhouse et al., 2007). Indeed, research indicates that perceived employer attractiveness mediates the relationship between complex employer brand associations and employment opportunity decisions (Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin & Jones, 2005; Gomes & Neves, 2011). For instance, a study with undergraduate students found that after viewing a job advertisement job seekers’ perceptions of the advertised organization’s
attractiveness fully mediated the effects of organizations’ employment-related attributes on their job pursuit intentions (Gomes & Neves, 2011). Moreover, a meta-analytic review reveals that complex associations with an employer brand are related to both organizational attractiveness and job acceptance decisions, but employer attractiveness is related to employment opportunity decisions above and beyond the influence of complex employer brand associations (Chapman et al., 2005). Based on these results, I propose that more positive symbolic, functional and
experiential employer brand associations indirectly induce more positive employment decisions through employer attractiveness.
The role of familiarity. In order to “(…) help understand how surface and complex employer brand associations may interact with one another and under what conditions job seekers may be more or less likely to draw on specific associations when evaluating an employment opportunity”, Collins and Kanar (2013: p. 289) argue that familiarity with an employer has a moderating influence on the effects of employer brand associations on job seekers’ employment decisions. Job seekers’ knowledge about an employer brand is mapped in their minds in the form of a network. Here, surface associations are close to the employer brand, whereas complex associations are further away and thus harder to access. When facing
employment decision opportunities, such as whether to accept a job offer or to quit from a job, job seekers draw on their perceptions of the potential employer’s attractiveness and their complex associations with the employer brand (Cable & Turban, 2001; Collins and Kanar, 2013). However, job seekers may not be familiar enough with an employer brand to be able to access complex associations (Brooks et al., 2004; Cable & Turban, 2003; Gatewood, Gowan & Lautenschlager, 1993). For instance, Cable and Turban (2003) show that job seekers’ familiarity with a potential employer affects the amount of information about a job advertisement for that particular employer they could recall after a week. Brooks et al. (2004) found that, compared to job seekers who were less familiar with an employer, those who could come up with more associations with the potential employer could draw on these associations to provide more reasons to work at these firms and as a result showed more positive employment opportunity decisions. These results indicate that job seekers are less able to retrieve complex employer brand associations when they are unfamiliar with the potential employer.
Concluding, the extent to which job seekers are able to draw on their complex employer brand associations in their decision-making depends on how familiar they are with a potential
employer. Therefore, I hypothesize that when confronted with an employment opportunity from an unfamiliar employer, job seekers will not have any complex employer brand associations to substantiate their general attractiveness perceptions with. In result, job seekers will rely only on their general perceptions of the employer to make informed employment decisions towards the employer. In cases where job seekers are confronted with an employment opportunity regarding a familiar employer, they will be able to substantiate their general perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness with their complex associations. In sum, this leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Familiarity moderates the relationship between complex employer brand associations, employer attractiveness and employment opportunity decisions, such that:
a) when familiarity is low, employer attractiveness will have a positive effect on employment opportunity decisions, whereas;
b) when familiarity is high, employer attractiveness will positively and fully mediate the positive effect on complex employer brand associations on employment opportunity decisions. Employer branding and job advertisements
Research shows job advertisements that differ in their message content and message source to have different effects on job seekers’ perceptions of employer attractiveness and, as a result, employment opportunity decisions (Walker and Hinojosa, 2013). The application of employer branding in job advertisements is expected to have a positive influence of job seekers’ complex associations regarding the potential employer and perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness, and in effect, on their employment opportunity decisions (Cable and Turban, 2003; Elving et al., 2013). For instance, Elving et al. (2013) found that a job advertisement including elements of employer branding induced more positive perceptions of the potential employer’s attractiveness compared to a non-branded standard job advertisement.
However, as hypothesized above, in some cases job seekers are not sufficiently familiar with an employer brand to have complex employer brand associations and therefore base their judgments solely on their perception of the employer’s general attractiveness (Brooks et al., 2004; Cable & Turban, 2003). Consequently, when job seekers are unfamiliar with an employer, employer branding in job advertisements is expected only to positively influence their
employment opportunity decisions through perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness. On the other end, when job seekers are familiar with an organization as an employer, employer branding in job advertisements is expected to influence their perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness more positively through their complex associations with the employer and perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness, and in effect, their employment opportunity decisions. In sum, this leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: Familiarity moderates the relationship between employer branding in job advertisements and employment opportunity decisions, such that:
a) when familiarity is low, there will be a positive indirect effect of employer branding on employment opportunity decisions through employer attractiveness, whereas;
b) when familiarity is high, there will be a positive indirect effect of employer branding on employment opportunity decisions through complex employer brand associations and employer attractiveness.
Effects of perceived reputation on reactions to job advertisements. Surprisingly, little evidence has been found of reputational effects on job seekers’ reactions to job advertisements (Turban & Cable, 2003). An explanation of the effects of job seekers’ perceptions of an
organization’s reputation on their reactions to job advertisements can be found in attribution theory, and specifically the covariation model (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1973). According to the
covariation model, individuals look in their environment for factors that help them make sense of causal relationships. In this process, "effects are attributed to the one of its possible causes with which it covaries" (Kelley, 1973: p. 108). For instance, an individual may look for reasons why his new bike has a flat tire. As a cause, he may blame it on poor manufacturing. In this way, the individual makes attributions to the manufacturer in order to make sense of his flat tire without taking into account alternative explanations such as his own bad handling of his bike.
This process of making sense of causal relations may be similar when job seekers make sense of their positive reactions to job advertisements. In this way, when job seekers react positively to a job advertisement, they may attribute these positive reactions to their perceptions of the organization’s reputation in order to make sense of them. Thereby, job seekers make attributions to the organization not directly related to the process of reacting to the job advertisement.
Evidence for attribution theory in reactions to job advertisements can be found in research by Cable and Turban (2003), who found that after viewing a job advertisement, job seekers’ perceptions of the advertised organization’s reputation positively influenced their intentions to pursuit a job at that organization. They also found that job seekers use their reputation perceptions as a signal about job attributes. Moreover, job seekers were ready to accept lower wages to work at an organization they perceived as having a favourable reputation. In another study, the researchers found that organizations with more favourable reputations are able to attract both more applicants in terms of quantity, as well as quality (Turban & Cable, 2003).
These results indicate that organizations with higher reputations are likely to induce more positive reactions in job seekers. Therefore, this thesis applies attribution theory to job
advertisements effects by hypothesizing that when job seekers view a job advertisement of an organization that they perceive as having a more favourable reputation, they are expected to have more positive complex associations about that organization as an employer, evaluate it as being more attractive as an employer, and in effect, will decide more positively towards employment opportunities at that organization. Taking into account the different ways in which job seekers structure their employer brand knowledge for unfamiliar and familiar potential employers, it is expected that when job seekers view a job advertisement for a potential employer they are unfamiliar with, their perception of that organization’s reputation will only positively influence their perception of the employer’s attractiveness, and, in effect, their employment opportunity decisions. On the other end, when job seekers view a job advertisement for a potential employer they are familiar with, then their perception of that organization’s reputation is expected to influence their perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness through their complex associations with the employer and, in effect, their employment opportunity decisions. In sum, this leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3: Familiarity moderates the relationship between perceived reputation and employment opportunity decisions, such that:
a) when familiarity is low, there will be a positive indirect effect of perceived reputation on employment opportunity decisions through employer attractiveness, whereas;
b) when familiarity is high, there will be a positive indirect effect of perceived reputation on employment opportunity decisions through complex employer brand associations and
employer attractiveness.
Above, I hypothesized that job seekers’ reactions to job advertisements are positively influenced by both employer branding in the job advertisements as well as their perceptions of
the organizations reputation. It may be possible that perceived reputation strengthens the effect of employer branding. This moderating influence of perceived reputation on the employer branding – employment opportunity decisions relationship may again be explained by the covariation model (Kelley, 1973). For example, when job seekers view a job advertisement and react positively to it, they may find explanations for this causal relationship in other factors than the effect itself, i.e. job seekers would attribute their positive reactions to the job advertisement to their already positive perception of the organization’s reputation. Then, when confronted with an employer branded job advertisement, the job seekers’ reactions will even be stronger, due to both the application of employer branding in the job advertisement and the job seeker’s positive perceived reputation. In contrast, job seekers may attribute negative reactions to a job
advertisement to their already negative perceptions of the organization’s reputation, and the application of employer branding in the job advertisement will only slightly improve job seekers’ reactions.
As such, the positive effects of employer branding on job seekers’ employment
opportunity decision are expected to be stronger when job seekers perceive the organization as being more reputable. Taking into account the moderating influence of familiarity on the effects of employer brand associations on employment opportunity decisions, employer branding of a job advertisement for an unfamiliar employer should have a stronger effect on job seekers’ attractiveness perceptions of that employer, and, in effect, their employment opportunity decisions when they perceive the organization as having a more favourable reputation. On the other end, when job seekers are familiar with an organization as an employer, employer branding will have stronger effects on their perceptions of the organization as an employer through their complex associations about the employer brand, and, in effect, their employment opportunity
decisions when they perceive the organization as having a more favourable reputation. In sum, this leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4: Familiarity moderates the relationship between employer branding, perceived reputation and employment opportunity decisions such that:
a) when familiarity is low, there will be a positive indirect effect of the interaction between employer branding and perceived reputation on employment opportunity decisions through employer attractiveness, whereas;
b) when familiarity is high, there will be a positive indirect effect of the interaction between employer branding and perceived reputation on employment opportunity decisions through complex employer brand associations and employer attractiveness.
Figures 1 and 2 provide an overview of this thesis’ hypotheses for when job seekers are confronted with an employment opportunity from an unfamiliar versus a familiar employer.
Figure 1. Hypothesized model for the unfamiliar employer. Grey arrows represent non-existing effects; black arrows represent positive effects. EB = employer brand.
Figure 2. Hypothesized model for the familiar employer. Grey arrows represent non-existing effects; black arrows represent positive effects. EB = employer brand.
Method Materials
In order to test the hypotheses, a 2×2 between-subjects experimental design was
employed, with Employer Branding (non-branded vs. branded) and Familiarity (unfamiliar vs. familiar) as between-subjects factors. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of four manipulated job advertisements. All four job advertisements regarded a vacancy for a retail banking traineeship, and consisted of six paragraphs including 1) general information about the company, 2) a description of the organization, 3) information about the job, 4) the preferred applicant profile, 5) conditions of employment, and 6) a description of the application process. The job advertisements were as equal as possible except for employer branding elements and familiarity of the employer (see Appendix D for the job advertisements).
Employer branding. Employer branding in job advertisements concerned triggering job seekers’ positive perceptions of the employer brand in order to positively influence their
decisions towards the employer, and served as an independent variable. Employer Branding could take on the value of non-branded or branded. The variable was manipulated through the application of employer branding of the job advertisements. This was done by following the three dimensions of complex employer brand associations that job seekers may have with potential employers: functional, symbolic, and experiential. As such, the contents of the branded job advertisement contained a detailed description of several functional and experiential and symbolic attributes of the organization as an employer. The variable was dichotomized for analysis.
Employer familiarity. Employer familiarity served as a between-subjects variable. The variable could take on the value of unfamiliar or familiar and was manipulated in the job advertisements through use of an unfamiliar financial organization or a familiar financial organization. Besides the corporate visual identity of the organizations and their names, the contents in the job advertisements were exactly equal for the unfamiliar and familiar organizations. The variable was dichotomized for analysis.
Measures
Perceived reputation. Perceived reputation concerned job seekers’ perception of the advertised organization and served as an independent variable. The variable was measured using the short-form reputation quotient, which measures the degree to which participants perceive the organization as being reputable, trustworthy, inducing good feelings, and being admirable and respectable (Ponzi, Fombrun, & Gardberg, 2011). The items of the Reputation Quotient were translated to Dutch. Doing this, the fourth item, (“admire and respect”) was split because to admire and to respect may have different meanings in Dutch. The reliability of the scale was high (5 items; Cronbach’s α = .89). The items were combined by computing the mean of the items
into a new variable named ‘perceived reputation’. A higher score on this variable means indicates a more positive perception of the organization’s reputation.
Surface employer brand associations. Job seekers’ surface employer brand associations concerned general perceptions of an organization’s attractiveness as an employer and feelings of what it’s like to work at an organization (Collins & Kanar, 2013). Surface employer brand associations were operationalized as perceived employer attractiveness and measured through a seven-point Likert scale adapted from Highhouse et al. (2003). The scale was designed to address job seekers’ primary attitudes about the organization as a potential place for
employment. Participants were asked to what extent they agreed with employer attractiveness-related statements such as “For me, [name organization] would be a good place to work for” and “I would not be interested in [name organization] except as a last resort (1 = completely disagree and 7 = completely agree). The scale was translated to Dutch and had a high reliability (4 items; Cronbach’s α = .91). The items were combined by computing the mean of the items into a new variable named ‘employer attractiveness’. A higher score on this variable indicates more a positive perception of the organization’s attractiveness as an employer.
Complex employer brand associations. Complex employer brand associations
concerned job seekers’ perceptions of specific elements of what it is like to work at a particular organization, and were operationalized as job seekers’ expectations of an organization’s symbolic traits, and functional and experiential attributes (Collins & Kanar, 2013). The factor analyses for complex employer brand associations are presented in appendix A.
Symbolic employer brand associations. The extent to which job seekers perceived the
employer in terms of symbolic traits was measured through a seven-point semantic differential scale using items from the corporate character scale from Davies et al. (2004). The scale was
translated to Dutch and measured the extent to which job seekers associated the employer with negative versus positive symbolic traits. The reliability of the scale was high (15 items;
Cronbach’s α = .92). The items were combined by computing the mean of the items into a new variable named ‘symbolic employer brand associations’. A higher score on this variable indicates more positive symbolic employer brand associations.
Functional employer brand associations. The extent to which job seekers perceived the
organization in terms of functional attributes was measured through a seven-point Likert scale constructed for this thesis measuring to what extend participants expected functional attributes-related statements to be applicable to the organization (1 = not applicable at all and 7 = very applicable). The items concerned salary and fringe benefits, learning and development opportunities, and job security. The reliability of the scale was high (11 items; Cronbach’s α = .89). The items were combined by computing the mean of the items into a new variable named ‘functional employer brand associations’. A higher score on this variable indicates more positive functional employer brand associations.
Experiential employer brand associations. The extent to which job seekers perceived the
organization in terms of experiential attributes was measured through a seven-point Likert scale constructed for this thesis asking to what extend participants expected experiential attributes-related statements to be applicable to the organization (1 = not applicable at all and 7 = very applicable). The items were constructed based on the original dimensions of brand associations: sensory pleasure, variety, and cognitive stimulation (Keller, 1993). Following these three
dimensions, I constructed a scale including two factors of experiential employer brand associations: work variety and challenge, and social environment of the workplace. The reliability of the scale was high (7 items; Cronbach’s α = .82). The items were combined by
computing the mean of the items into a new variable named ‘experiential employer brand
associations’. A higher score on this variable indicates more positive experiential employer brand associations.
Employment opportunity decisions. Employment opportunity decisions concerned intentions to pursuit the organization as an employer and were measured through a seven-point Likert scale designed for this thesis. The scale was designed to measure the degree to which participants intended to decide positively towards employment opportunities at a the potential employer and included statements such as “I would like to work at [name organization]” and I would send an open solicitation letter to [name organization] (1 = completely disagree and 7 = completely agree). The reliability of the scale was high (5 items; Cronbach’s α = .91) and the items were combined by computing the mean of the items into a new variable named
‘employment opportunity decisions’. A higher score on this variable indicates more positive pursuit intentions towards the employer.
Manipulation checks. In order to check whether participants were (un-)familiar with the (un-)familiar organization, a manipulation check was conducted. The level of familiarity with the organization as an employer concerned the ease with which a brand comes to mind (Keller, 1993). Familiarity was measured through two items constructed for this thesis and concerned the extent to which participants were familiar with the organization as an employer (1 = not familiar at all and 7 = very familiar) and the extent to which participants could imagine how it is to work at the organization (1 = cannot imagine at all and 7 = can very well imagine). The items
correlated significantly, but weakly (r = .28, p < .01). Therefore, the items could not be combined into a single variable measuring familiarity.
Participants
Participants were recruited in two ways. First, Bachelor students of Communication Science at the University of Amsterdam were recruited through the University of Amsterdam student Subject Pool. The pool consisted of Bachelor students of Communication Science who would obtain a reward of 0.5 research credits for participating in the research for this thesis. Second, Master students of Communication Science at the University of Amsterdam were recruited through the Facebook group pages for Master students of Communication Science. There, students were asked to participate in research project by filling in the survey. No reward was given to students for participating.
Because it was important that participants would read the stimulus carefully, the time students took to read was recorded. Those respondents who took less than 20 seconds to read the job advertisement were excluded for further analysis. Moreover, manipulation checks were conducted to check whether participants read the job advertisements sufficiently. To do this, participants were asked to indicate for which organization, and for which vacancy they had just read a job advertisement. Those participants who failed to answer correctly to one of these questions were excluded from further analysis. The final participant group consisted of 119 students of Communication Science: 94 Bachelor and 25 Master students. Of the participants, 82.40 per cent was female, with an average age of 21.40 years (SD = 2.16) and averagely 2.44 years of university level education (SD = 1.23).
Procedure
Responses were recorded using the Qualtrics survey tool. Each survey started with an introduction text, including a statement of participants’ rights. After approving with the
the job advertisement, participants were instructed to imagine being in a situation in which they were looking for a traineeship. A family member suggested a vacancy and it seemed to be
matching their interests. After this, the participants were randomly assigned to one of the four job advertisements, which they were instructed to read carefully. After reading the job advertisement, participants were kindly asked to answer the questions regarding this thesis’ variables. At the end of the survey, participants were debriefed by means of a reminder of their rights as well as a message they had seen a fake job advertisement constructed for this thesis (see appendix C for the questionnaire).
Analyses
In order to test this thesis’ hypotheses, structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using IBM SPSS 21.0 and IBM SPSS Amos 20.0. The use of SEM is especially relevant for testing the hypotheses of this thesis because it analyses complex relationships amongst multiple variables simultaneously, in this case the relationship between employer branding, perceived reputation, complex and surface employer brand associations, and employment opportunity decisions.
Amos provides an accessible means to apply SEM to test causal models. SEM is a second generation regression method, which tests multiple regression equations simultaneously, thereby both providing estimated statistics for each parameter in the model, as well as indicating the extent to which the complete proposed model fits to the original data. Models can then be adjusted by adding or deleting effects, and compared in terms of model fit.
Three fit indices were used in order to evaluate the fit of the hypothesized models (Kline, 2011). First, the Chi-square value is the most commonly used fit index and assesses the
lower and non-significant Chi-square value. Second, the comparative fit index (CFI) is to lesser extent subject to small sample size and is therefore appropriate to use in this thesis. A CFI value of over .95 indicates good model fit. Third, the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) measures model fit per degree of freedom and favours parsimony such that it prefers models with fewer parameters. A good model fit provides a RMSEA value of lower than .05.
Results Descriptive
Tables 1 and 2 present the means, standard deviations and correlations for this thesis’ variables. What catches the eye is that reactions to the job advertisements for the familiar employer are more positive than for the unfamiliar employer. To test this observation, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted with familiarity of the employer as independent variable and complex employer brand associations, employer attractiveness, and employment opportunity decisions as dependent variables. Indeed, compared to participants who viewed the job advertisement for the unfamiliar employer, those who viewed the job advertisement for the familiar employer perceived the employer as more attractive (F (1,117) = 4.49, p < .05) and showed more positive symbolic employer brand associations (F (1,117) = 4.86, p < .01). Participants in the familiar employer group also decided more positively towards the employment opportunity (F (1,117) = 7.257, p < .01).
Manipulation checks
The manipulation check for employer familiarity was measured with an ANOVA with familiarity of the advertised employer (unfamiliar vs. familiar) as independent variable, and familiarity with the organization as an employer and ability to imagine working at the organization as dependent variables. Participants who viewed the job advertisement for the
unfamiliar employer (M = 2.38, SD = 1.64) were significantly less familiar with the employer than the participants who viewed the advertisement for the familiar employer (M = 4.58, SD = 1.59; F (1,117) = 54.95, p < .001). Participants who viewed the job advertisement for the unfamiliar employer (M = 3.28, SD = 1.51) were significantly less able to imagine how it is to work at the organization than the participants who viewed the advertisement for the familiar employer (M = 4.20, SD = 1.37; F (1,117) =12.09, p < .001). Therefore, the manipulation for familiarity showed to be successful.
Model specification
In order to test the hypotheses, two models were specified based on participants’ familiarity with the organization. In order to attain satisfactory model fit, the error terms of the complex employer brand associations were allowed to correlate in both models. This is in accordance with theory, as I hypothesized symbolic, experiential and functional employer brand associations to measure a similar construct: complex employer brand associations.
To attain models with good fit, non-significant effects were removed in four steps by constraining them to be zero (see appendix B for Chi-squaredifference tests). In the first step, non-significant direct effects of the exogenous variables on employment opportunity decisions were removed. In the second step, non-significant effects of the exogenous variables on complex associations and employer attractiveness were removed. In the third step, non-significant effects of complex employer brand associations on employer attractiveness were removed. Finally, non-significant effects of complex employer brand associations on employment opportunity decisions were removed. This four-step process resulted in two models with good fit.
Table 1
Correlation matrix for the unfamiliar employer model
M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Employer branding .35 (.48) 2. Perceived reputation 4.2 (1.07) .33* 3. EB*perceived reputation 1.64 (2.29) -.19 -.55** 4. Symbolic EB associations 4.38 (.86) .12 .68** -.34** 5. Functional EB associations 4.90 (.77) .20 .50** -.36** .60** 6. Experiential EB associations 4.23 (.81) .14 .57** -.35** .74** .43** 7. Employer attractiveness 4.05 (1.50) .38** .63** -.51** .62** .29* .67** 8. Employment opportunity decisions 3.10 (1.35) .20 .50** -.39** .50** .21 .57** .77**
Note. N = 60. For employer branding, 0 = non-branded, 1 = branded. EB = employer branding. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Table 2
Correlation matrix for the familiar employer model
M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Employer branding .47 (.50) 2. Perceived reputation 4.92 (1.36) .01 3. EB*perceived reputation 2,34 (2.58) .37** .36** 4. Symbolic EB associations 4.77 (.70) -.01 .65** .16 5. Functional EB associations 4.94 (.62) -.04 .60** .14 .51** 6. Experiential EB associations 4.49 (.81) .04 .56** .28* .73** .55** 7. Employer attractiveness 4.61 (1.36) .03 .48** .14 .57** .33* .63** 8. Employment opportunity decisions 3.79 (.89) -.11 .29* .01 .43** .24 .58** .81**
Note. N = 59. For employer branding, 0 = non-branded, 1 = branded. EB = employer brand. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Hypotheses
Figures 3 and 4 present the results for the unfamiliar and the familiar employer
respectively. Hypothesis 1 stated that familiarity moderates the relationship between complex employer brand associations, employer attractiveness and employment opportunity decisions. For the unfamiliar employer (H1a) only employer attractiveness positively influences
employment opportunity decisions, whereas for the familiar employer (H1b) employer attractiveness fully mediates the positive relationship between complex employer brand associations.
Figure 3. Results for the unfamiliar employer model. EB = employer branding. Covariances are excluded for presentation purposes. Results are controlled for participants’ age and year of study. Both age (b = -.004, ns) as well as year of study (b = -.003, ns) did not affect the model’s effects on employment opportunity decisions. χ2 (37) = 26.550, p = .490; CFI = 1.000; RMSEA = .000, 90% CI [.000, .045]. Parameters indicate regression weights with squared multiple correlations in italics. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Figure 4. Results for the unfamiliar employer model. EB = employer branding. Covariances are excluded for presentation purposes. Results are controlled for participants’ age and year of study. Both age (b = -.014, ns) as well as year of study (b = -.015, ns) did not affect the model’s effect on employment opportunity decisions. χ2 (41) = 50.267, p = .152; CFI = .992; RMSEA = .031, 90% CI [.000, .057]. Parameters indicate regression weights with squared multiple correlations in italics. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
In line with hypothesis 1a, employer attractiveness positively and significantly influences employment opportunity decisions (b = .70, p < .01). However, contrary to hypothesis 1a,
employer attractiveness fully mediates the positive and significant effects of symbolic (b = .24, p < .05) and experiential (b = .27, p < .01) employer brand associations on employment
opportunity decisions, and the negative and significant effect of functional employer brand associations on employment opportunity decisions (b = -.16, p < .05). Therefore, hypothesis 1a is not supported. More positive symbolic and experiential employer brand associations lead to more positive perceptions of the unfamiliar employer and, in result, to more positive
employment opportunity decisions towards the employer. More positive functional employer brand associations lead to more negative perceptions of the unfamiliar employer and, in result, to more negative employment opportunity decisions towards the employer.
Hypothesis 1b is partly supported. Only experiential employer brand associations positively influences employment opportunity indirectly through employer attractiveness (b = 53, p < .01). The more participants associated the familiar employer with experiential attributes, the more attractive they perceived the organization, and, in result, the more positively they decided toward employment opportunities at the employer.
Hypothesis 2 stated that familiarity moderates the relationship between employer branding in job advertisements and employment opportunities. For the unfamiliar employer (H2a) employer branding positively influences employment opportunities through employer attractiveness. For the familiar employer (H2b), employer branding positively influences employment opportunities through complex employer brand associations and employer attractiveness.
Employer attractiveness fully mediates the positive and significant effect of employer branding in the job advertisement on employment opportunity decisions (b = .21, p < .05), thereby supporting hypothesis 2a. Employer branding in the job advertisement induces more positive perceptions of the unfamiliar employer’s attractiveness, and, in result, more positive decisions towards employment opportunities at the unfamiliar employer.
Contrary to hypothesis 2b, employer branding in the job advertisement for the familiar employer does not yield a significant effect on complex employer brand associations or employer attractiveness. Therefore, employer branding in job advertisements of a familiar employer
Hypothesis 3 stated that familiarity moderates the relationship between perceived
reputation and employment opportunity decisions. For the unfamiliar employer (H3a) perceived reputation positively influences employment opportunity decisions through employer
attractiveness. For the familiar employer (H3b), perceived reputation positively influences employment opportunity decisions through complex employer brand associations and employer attractiveness.
Contrary to hypothesis 3a, perceived reputation does not significantly influence employer attractiveness directly. However, perceived reputation significantly and positively influences employment opportunity decisions through experiential and symbolic employer brand associations, and employer attractiveness. More favourable perceptions of the unfamiliar employer’s reputation lead to more positive decisions towards employment opportunities at the employer due to more positive experiential and symbolic employer brand associations, and more positive perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness. There also is a negative and significant effect of perceived reputation on employment opportunity decisions through functional employer brand associations and employer attractiveness. More favourable perceptions of the employer’s reputation lead to more positive functional employer brand associations. However, these positive employer brand associations induce more negative perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness and, in result, more negative decisions towards employment opportunities at the employer.
Although functional employer brand associations negatively influence employment opportunity decisions, the effects of symbolic and experiential employer brand associations combined are much stronger. Therefore there is a net positive indirect effect of perceived reputation of the unfamiliar employer on employment opportunity decisions (b = 21, p < .01). Hypothesis 3a is partly supported.
Hypothesis 3b is partly supported. Perceived reputation of the familiar employer significantly and positively influences employment opportunity decisions through experiential employer brand associations and employer attractiveness (b = .34, p < .01). More favourable perceptions of the familiar employer’s reputation yield more positive experiential employer brand associations, more positive perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness, and more positive decisions towards employment opportunities at the familiar employer.
Hypothesis 4 stated that familiarity moderates the relationship between employer branding, perceived reputation, and employment opportunity decisions. For the unfamiliar employer (H4a) the interaction between employer branding and reputation positively influences employment opportunity decisions through employer attractiveness. For the familiar employer (H4b) the interaction between employer branding and reputation positively influences
employment opportunity decisions through complex employer brand associations and employer attractiveness.
Hypothesis 4a is partly accepted. Although employer attractiveness fully mediates the significant effect of the interaction between employer branding in the job advertisement on employment opportunity decisions, this effect is negative (b = -.24, p < .01). When the
unfamiliar employer is perceived as being more reputable, the positive and significant effect of employer branding on perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness and employment opportunity decisions weakens (see figure 5).
Hypothesis 4b is not supported. The interaction between employer branding and
perceived reputation does not influence complex employer brand associations with, or employer attractiveness of the familiar employer.
Figure 5. Interaction effect of employer branding and perceived reputation on employment opportunity decisions through employer attractiveness. EB = employer branding in the job advertisement.
Discussion
In this thesis I aim to reach two purposes. The first purpose is to add to the employer brand equity literature as suggested by Collins and Kanar (2013). In order to do this, I
investigated the interplay between familiarity, perceived employer attractiveness and complex employer brand associations that guide job seekers in their decision-making when confronted with an employment opportunity. More specifically, the first research question stated: What are the effects of job seekers’ surface and complex employer brand associations on their employment opportunity decisions towards a potential employer, and what is the influence of familiarity with a potential employer on these effects? The results show that job seekers substantiate their
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Low EB High EB Low Rep. High Rep. Without With employer branding employer branding
Em pl oy m ent oppor tuni ty dec isi ons
High perceived reputation Low perceived reputation
attractiveness perceptions of the unfamiliar employer on their symbolic, functional and
experiential employer brand associations. Moreover, perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness positively influences employment opportunity decisions. As for familiar employers, only job seekers’ experiential employer brand associations determine job seekers’ perceptions of employer attractiveness and, in effect their employment opportunity decisions. Possible explanations for these unexpected findings are discussed below.
The second purpose of this thesis is to improve knowledge on employer branding and characteristics of job advertisements. To do this, I investigated how job seekers react to job advertisements that differ in terms of the source of the job advertisement and the content of the job advertisement. More specifically, the second research question stated: How does employer branding in job advertisements affect job seekers’ surface and complex associations with and employment opportunities towards potential employers and how are effects influenced by familiarity and perceived reputation? The results show that including elements of employer branding in a job advertisement for an unfamiliar employer positively influences job seekers’ attractiveness perceptions and, in effect, their employment opportunity decisions. Unexpectedly, including elements of employer branding in a job advertisement for an unfamiliar employer will have a weaker effect on job seekers’ employer attractiveness perceptions when they perceive the organization as having a more favourable reputation.
Including elements of employer branding in a job advertisement for a familiar employer does not yield any effect on job seekers’ complex associations, perceptions of familiar
employer’s attractiveness or employment opportunities towards the familiar employer.
Job seekers’ perceived reputation of the unfamiliar employer positively influences their employment opportunity decisions through complex employer brand associations and
perceptions of employer attractiveness. As for the familiar employer, perceived reputation influences job seekers’ complex employer brand associations. However, only their experiential employer brand associations determine job seekers’ perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness, and in turn, their employment opportunity decisions.
In general, the results of this thesis show employer familiarity to positively and directly influence job seekers’ reactions to job advertisements. This result is in compliance with findings in previous research (Gatewood et al., 1993; Cable & Turban, 2003; Turban, 2001). However, the influence of familiarity is more complex (Collins & Kanar, 2013). For instance, Brooks et al. (2004) concluded that when job seekers are unfamiliar with an employer, they are not able to come up with reasons why they find an employer attractive or not. Contrary to Brooks et al. (2004), the results show that job seekers’ symbolic, functional and experiential employer brand associations positively influence their employer attractiveness perceptions of unfamiliar
employers.
The results reveal a possible third dimension of employer brand associations not previously measured; experiential employer brand associations. By doing this, I extend the findings Symbolic-Instrumental Framework from Lievens et al. (2007) by showing that
instrumental employer brand associations can, and should be split up into a functional factor and an experiential factor. Moreover, I revealed that the interplay between perceived employer attractiveness and complex employer brand associations is different for unfamiliar employers than for familiar employers. There are some conceptual limitations to these conclusions, which I will discuss below.
An unexpected finding in this thesis is the negative effect of functional employer brand associations on job seeker’s perceptions of the unfamiliar employer’s attractiveness. Although
participants showed more positive attractiveness perceptions due to more positive symbolic and experiential associations, more positive functional associations leads to more negative
attractiveness perceptions. This can be explained by the nature of the sample. While students of Communications Science positively attribute their attractiveness perceptions to more positive symbolic traits and experiential attributes, thinking about the employer in terms of functional attributes leads them to think negatively about the bank as an employer. In other words: students of Communication Science associate the unfamiliar organization with more positive functional attributes due to their positive perceptions of the organization’s reputation, only for them this leads to less positive perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness, and employment opportunity decisions. To be able to better understand how this influence works, future researchers pre-test participants’ perceptions of the organization’s reputation and compare those perceptions to those after being exposed to the job advertisement.
Employer branding in job advertisements for familiar employers does not induce more positive reactions in job seekers. This does make sense as job seekers who are familiar with an organization already have a wide spectrum of images of the organization that signal its employer brand. Including elements of employer branding in the job advertisement then does not
contribute to job seekers’ employment opportunity decisions. Indeed, previous research indicates job seekers’ perceptions of the employer’s reputation to be highly influenced by factors unrelated to employment, such as the industry the employer operates in, the product that the employer produces and the organization’s profitability (Cable & Graham, 2000; Collins, 2007).
Perceived reputation of the unfamiliar employer shows a positive influence on job
seekers’ complex employer brand associations. This seems illogical, as one would expect that job seekers who are unfamiliar with an organization do not have any perceptions of that
organization’s reputation, let alone have complex employer brand associations. One explanation can be found in the question ordering of the questionnaire. In the questionnaire, participants answered questions regarding their perceptions of the organization’s reputation directly after the questions regarding their complex employer brand associations. It may be possible that
participants based their answers on the reputation-related questions on their answers to questions regarding their complex employer brand associations. In this way the effect could be reversed: perceived reputation does not influence, but is influenced by complex employer brand
associations.
In the theoretical framework, I hypothesized that, following the covariation model, job seekers who do not attribute their positive reactions to branded job advertisements, will search for alternative reasons to explain this relationship. One of the likely explanations they will come up with is their perception of the organization’s reputation. Related to the correlation matrix this makes sense, as perceived reputation correlates substantially with complex employer brand associations with correlations of ≥ .50. Therefore, the relationship between perceived reputation and complex employer brand associations should not be seen as causal, but rather as mutual. Organizations that are perceived as having a positive reputation are more likely to be associated with positive employer brand attributes and traits. Organizations that are associated with positive employer brand attributes and traits are more likely to be perceived as having a positive
reputation in this model should not be seen as a strong influencing variable, but one that theoretically covaries with job seekers’ perceptions of the organization as an employer
Related, the positive effect of including elements of employer branding in a job advertisement for an unfamiliar organization unexpectedly becomes weaker when job seekers perceive the organization as having a favourable reputation. Results show that when job seekers
do not have employer brand associations with a potential employer and just a slight idea of its attractiveness, including elements of employer branding would positively influence their perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness. However, following attribution theory, it can be argued that when a job seeker already perceives the employer as being attractive due to an increased perceived reputation, employer branding does not have extra effect on their already positive perceptions of the employer’s attractiveness. Although this thesis already sheds some light on the possible application of attribution theory with respect to employer branding effects in job advertisements, more focused research is needed to test whether attribution theory applies to the recruitment context.
This thesis has several limitations that possibly influence the results and their
interpretations. First, the operationalization of complex employer brand associations does not match with its definition in relation to surface employer brand associations and familiarity. In this thesis, complex employer branding is conceptualized following Collins and Kanar (2013), who state that complex employer brand associations are deeper in job seekers’ minds and therefore harder to access. In the questionnaire, I directly asked participants to what extent they expected the employer to have several symbolic traits and functional and experiential attributes. Herein, the questionnaire already triggered participants’ complex associations with the employer by directly giving them the answers. This is contradictory with my hypothesis that familiarity influences the extent job seekers can come up with complex employer branding to substantiate their employer attractiveness perceptions.
This flaw in operationalization may have severely influenced the results of this thesis and could very well explain the effects of complex employer brand associations on employer
employer. Indeed, it can be argued that when job seekers are unfamiliar with an organization, and they are exposed with several statements regarding the employer’s symbolic traits and functional and experiential attributes, they will associate the organization with some of those traits and attributes. In effect these statements in the questionnaire will then determine their perceptions of that organization’s attractiveness and employment opportunity decisions.
Future researchers interested in employer brand equity may want to pay more attention to the operationalization of job seekers’ complex employer brand associations. For instance, they may adapt the method used by Brooks et al. (2004), who linked the amount of reasons to work or not to work at a particular organization participants could come up with to employer
attractiveness. By including both negative and positive reasons, Brooks et al. (2004) obtained a more insightful image of job seekers’ employer brand associations, and therefore of their employer attractiveness perceptions.
Another key limitation of this thesis regards the nature of the sample and the sample size. Firstly, the sample did not match the manipulations. The sample used in this thesis consists of Communication Science students. Taking this into account, it would be suitable to confront the participants with a job advertisement for a communication-related job. In reality, the participants were confronted with a job advertisement for a traineeship retail banking. Although the
participants were asked to imagine being in search of a traineeship, it is very possible that participants just weren’t interested in the job. Future research definitely should take into account the nature of the sample when designing the study materials.
The sample size has implications on the results of this thesis. With 119 participants this thesis had a far too little sample size for the conducted SEM analyses. As a rule of thumb, 200 participants per group is recommended for a SEM analysis to have sufficient power (Kline,
