Employer branding for volunteer recruitment:
The struggle for free talent
27-6-2014
Ilona Rijkeboer, 10597662 Supervisor: Dr James Slevin
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Abstract
Due to a decreasing number of volunteers who are competent to fulfil volunteer job vacancies which require a certain level of professionalism, it is difficult for volunteer organizations to attract the desired candidates. Volunteer organizations need competent
volunteers to fulfil their missions. For the reason that the use of employer branding is found to have positive outcomes on the attractiveness of an organization as an employer, it was
examined in this study if the implementation of employer branding in volunteer job vacancies could help volunteer organizations to attract competent potential volunteers. Therefore, the following research question was developed: Does the implementation of employer branding in
volunteer job vacancies increases the attractiveness of the volunteer organization as an employer for competent potential volunteers? To gain understanding of how the employer
branding process works for volunteer organizations, the part of the model of Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) which describes the effect of employer branding on employer attractiveness was used. The level of congruence between associations with the volunteer organization and a person’s personality, also named P-O fit, was added to this model as moderating the effect of employer brand associations on the employer image. Survey data were used of 299 students and gathered through social media, e-mail and science forums. Main results indicate that employer branding has a positive effect on the employer attractiveness of the volunteer organization, both for students with and without experience or interest in volunteer work, but that this differs for study discipline or job type. With this knowledge, a guideline is developed for volunteer organizations on how to implement employer branding in a volunteer job
vacancy to attract competent potential volunteers. This guideline entails two steps, which include the examination of motives of the desired candidates and the description of the organizational identity and reputation based on those motives. Furthermore, it is discussed how the outcomes of this study could be useful for future studies on volunteer organizations from a communication science perspective and for future studies on employer branding.
Keywords: volunteer organizations, volunteer job vacancies, employer branding,
Introduction
“Need for volunteers!” is an often repeated headline when one takes a glance at websites and forums with the subject ‘volunteer work’. Many times, the urge of it is emphasized: “Fall fair desperate for volunteers” (2003); “We desperately need more
volunteers” (“Become a volunteer”, 2013); “Volunteer doctors, dentists 'desperately needed' to help working poor” (2013) are some examples. The reason for all these volunteer job vacancies becomes clear when reading reports on the number of volunteers: The Center for Studying Health System Change published a report on the continuing trend in the decrease of the percentage of doctors in the United States who provide charity care. The percentage declined from 1996-97 to 2004-05 with 8.1% (Cunningham & May, 2006), while the
percentage of uninsured nonelderly adults (dependent on charity care) increased from 1999 to 2002 with 1.5% (Gilmer & Kronick, 2013). This shows that while the need for volunteer doctors increased, the number of volunteer doctors decreased. Not only the number of volunteer doctors decreased; although the overall percentage of volunteers in the U.S. with a bachelor degree or higher had been stable over time, its decline in 2013, compared to 2012, showed the highest percentage of all education levels (2.4%; in comparison, the decline in volunteers with only a high school degree was 0.6%; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). Together with the number of volunteer job vacancies that require a certain degree of professionalism, this decreasing amount of volunteers who have the knowledge required to fulfil such vacancies indicates that volunteer organizations face the greatest difficulty to attract competent volunteers. Volunteer organizations need competent volunteers to fulfil their missions; without volunteer doctors for example, a volunteer organization which has the mission to provide free medical care to those in need would not be able to do so. How could these organizations become more attractive to work for to competent potential volunteers? One strategy could be the use of employer branding.
Although earlier studies have examined comparable topics (e.g., Jurgensen, 1948), employer branding is argued to be a relatively new topic of research in marketing and
communication literature and human resource literature (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Farndale, Scullion, & Sparrow, 2010). Organizations have always strived to attract competent
employees to become more successful, but employer branding is now claimed to be high on the corporate agenda (Farndale et al., 2010). This popularity is due to the fact that
organizations feel they are competing with each other in a war for talent and employer branding is seen as the weapon (Foster, Punjaisri, & Cheng, 2010). Because of the possibility
to use this weapon free of costs, it is expected to bring great benefits for volunteer organizations.
The idea behind employer branding is that it presents the organization as an attractive place to work (Branham, 2001; Lloyd, 2002). Using employer branding as a strategy, the organization could become more attractive to potential employees. In addition, employer branding is stated to offer “a way of ensuring that an organisation recruits the right people” (Foster et al., 2010, p.401). Although it is argued that the amount of research on the effects of employer branding is little (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Lievens, Van Hoye, & Anseel, 2007), the results of some studies support this view: Turban and Cable (2003) analysed the relation of an organization’s reputation and the quality of the applicants (measured with academic performance, work experience and extracurricular activities) and found that organizations with higher reputations attracted students which were identified as being higher in quality; Collins & Han (2004) found a positive direct effect of corporate advertising and firm
reputation on the quality of applicants; the results of the study of Elving, Westhoff, Meeusen and Schoonderbeek (2012) show that university students have more favourable attitudes towards organizations which use employer branding in job advertisements than to those which do not.
Thus, it is argued that the use of employer branding could increase the amount of competent applicants for a job vacancy by making the organization more attractive to competent applicants. Relating this statement to the problem of volunteer organizations, the use of employer branding could help these organizations to attract competent potential volunteers. This study investigates if this is the case. Therefore, the research question is formulated as follows: Does the implementation of employer branding in volunteer job
vacancies increases the attractiveness of the volunteer organization as an employer for competent potential volunteers?
The purpose of this study is twofold. First, the study is designed to provide a guidance for volunteer organizations on how to create volunteer job vacancies that attract competent volunteers to the organization. An increase in the number of competent volunteers is of high value to the functioning of volunteer organizations and to society in general. Second, because employer branding has so far only been examined in a commercial context, this study forms a primary bridge between volunteering studies and marketing and communication literature. The outcomes could therefore give rise to future studies on employer branding for volunteer organizations. The outcomes could also provide new insights in the employer branding
process as described in literature on employer branding and in particular the employer branding process as predicted by the model of Backhaus and Tikoo (2004).
Theoretical framework
To examine if the use of employer branding in volunteer job vacancies could make the volunteer organization more attractive as an employer to competent potential volunteers, an important starting point is a clarification of the concept ‘employer branding’. Furthermore, concepts that are found or argued to interact with employer attractiveness and which could be influenced by employer branding are discussed.
Employer branding: its origin and meaning
Employer branding is claimed to be first described in marketing and communication literature and later adopted in human resource literature (Martin, Beaumont, Doig, & Pate, 2005). Originally, the concept descends from the concept of branding. Branding has been used to create an identity (Ewing, Pitt, de Bussy, & Berthon, 2002; Xie & Boggs, 2006) and enhance market value (Kapferer, 2012) for products and corporations, named product
branding and corporate branding respectively. In a similar vein, employer branding is used to create an identity of an organization as an employer and to enhance its value on the
‘employment market’ (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004).
Ambler and Barrow (1996) were the first to describe the employer brand as “the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with the employing company” (p. 187). Following this definition, employer
branding would be the use of strategies that lead to a beneficial identity (based on functional, economic and psychological aspects) of the company as an employer. Volunteer
organizations, however, do not provide direct economic benefits. An indirect economic benefit of working for a volunteer organization could be the gain of career-related experience (Clary & Snyder, 1999). At the same time, this could be thought of as a functional benefit. Volunteer organizations mainly provide psychological benefits, such as the fulfilment of ideological concerns (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). For the reason that the focus of the definition of Ambler and Barrow (1996) is on functional, economic and psychological benefits, while these benefits are not of equal relevance to volunteer organization, this definition is considered not to be suitable to volunteer organizations.
Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) define employer branding as: “The process of building an identifiable and unique employer identity, and the employer brand as a concept of the firm
that differentiates it from its competitors” (p. 502). This definition is similar to that of Ambler and Barrow (1996) in that they both name employer identity, but Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) also take competitors into account. Differentiation from competitors is of great importance for volunteer organizations; because of the relatively small amount of volunteers (compared to employees working for salary), volunteer organizations do not only have to compete with other volunteer organizations which operate in the same field, but also with other volunteer organizations in general.
Other definitions of employer branding are less specific, mentioning that employer branding is the application of branding principles on human resource literature and practices and a way to promote the organization as a desirable place to work (Branham, 2001; Edwards, 2010; Ehrhart & Ziegert, 2005; Ewing et al., 2002; Lievens et al., 2007; Lloyd, 2002).
Based on the discussed definitions, employer branding is defined in this study as the strategy to create an attractive employer brand, that is unique and distinct from competitors and related to branding principles.
From employer branding to employer attractiveness
To be an attractive employer is highly beneficial because it helps an organization to attract more (talented) potential employees (Elving et al., 2012), which reduces the cost and effort of the recruitment process (Rynes, 1991) and gives the organization the opportunity to enhance its reputation as an employer and differentiate itself from its competitors (Chhabra & Sharma, 2014; Harari, 1998; Hiltrop, 1999). This in turn could help improve the employer brand, which could increase the employer attractiveness even more. The process to become an attractive employer by using employer branding is argued to include multiple factors. Some factors that dominate literature on employer branding and attractiveness are reputation, identity, employer brand associations and employer image.
A factor that would influence employer brand attributes and employer attractiveness is the organization’s reputation to stakeholders (Cable & Graham, 2000; Collins & Han, 2004; Rynes & Cable, 2003; Turban & Cable, 2003; Turban, Forret, & Hendrickson, 1998). For example, findings of studies of Turban and Cable (2003) and Collins and Han (2004) reveal that the higher an organization’s reputation is, the higher the quantity and quality of job applicants the organization attracts. The perception of an organization’s reputation is, however, dependent upon aspects such as power, credibility and previous experiences (Cornelissen, 2011). These are interesting points, but lie beyond the scope of this study. Although the organization’s reputation should be formulated in job vacancies as part of the
employer branding strategy (Edwards, 2010; Pastor, 2012), the effect of reputation on employer attractiveness is therefore not part of this study.
Like the organization’s reputation, the implementation of employer branding in a job vacancy incorporates the addition of information about the corporate identity (as an employer; Edwards, 2010; Foster et al., 2010; S. Sullivan, 1999; Wilden, Gudergan, & Lings, 2010). If potential volunteers consume this information, it is likely that attributes are ascribed to the organization as an employer based on the information about the identity. Then the employer image would be developed from the subjective employer attributes and the fit of these with one’s own characteristics (Slaughter, Zickar, Highhouse, & Mohr, 2004). In support of this idea, employer brand associations are stated to create the employer image, which in turn affects employer attractiveness (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Lievens et al., 2007; Rynes, 1991; Turban, 2001; Turban et al., 1998).
The influence of employer branding on the development of employer brand attributes, the relationship of employer brand attributes withthe employer image, and the effect of the employer image on employer attractiveness are further described in the following paragraphs.
Employer branding and employer brand associations
According to the part of the model of Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) which describes the effect of employer branding on employer attractiveness, the use of employer branding would influence the employer brand associations one has. This model is used in many studies on employer branding, but other visions on the working of employer branding exist; The model of Knox and Freeman (2006), for example, shows that employer branding is a circular process in building the employer image. Similarly, Edwards (2010) created a circular model including expectations of obligations, which lead to a branded employment experience. However, these models are rather abstract and do not suggest how the use of employer branding could lead to desired outcomes, such as employer attractiveness. The model of Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) is therefore more useful for predicting how employer branding could affect employer
attractiveness.
As previously discussed, the use of employer branding in a job vacancy means that a description of the corporate identity (as an employer) and the corporate reputation is part of the vacancy. Although employer branding is used and studied in job vacancies, it remains unclear from literature what other aspects it comprises. To describe the organization’s identity and reputation, organizational attributes are formulated. As a result, the potential volunteer
reads the organizational attributes and based on this information, he or she would develop the organizational attributes as an employer according to his or her own view.
Positive attributes related to volunteer organizations could be derived from the directions of Hobson, Rominger, Malec, Hobson and Evans (1997) to recruit volunteers: flexibility; generosity; appreciation; recognition of knowledge, talent and interests; support; other intrinsic rewards. Other attributes that are found to increase the willingness of non-volunteers to participate in the volunteer organization are emotional support from the
volunteer organization (rather than from co-workers) and task clarity (Boezeman & Ellemers, 2008).
Another positive attribute is social responsibility. Turban and Greening (1997) found that the ratings of social responsibility of an organization are related to the level of
attractiveness of the organization as an employer and its reputation to stakeholders; the higher an organization scored on the ratings of social responsible features (community and employee relations, environmental policies, product quality and treatment of minority groups), the more attractive this organization was perceived to be as an employer and the better its reputation to stakeholders. Their study was based on for-profit organizations. It could be that the use of employer branding in volunteer job vacancies does not lead to more positive attributes of the volunteer organization as an employer, because the volunteer organization is already expected to perform in a social responsible way. Nonetheless, the formulation of the social
responsibility of the organization when describing the corporate identity could function as a reminder of the high level of social responsibility of the organization. Besides, the use of employer branding could positively influence the assigning of other positive attributes to the volunteer organization, such as ‘challenging’ (Trank, Rynes, & Bretz, 2002; Turban, 2001), ‘interesting’ (Boss, Blauw, Alblas, & Gort, 2011; Trank et al., 2002) and ‘support’ (Hiltrop, 1999). To test this, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1: Volunteer job vacancies including employer branding (EB) lead to more positive
employer brand associations with the volunteer organization, compared to the employer brand associations with the same volunteer organization in volunteer vacancies without EB.
Employer brand associations, employer image and P-O fit
If the use of employer branding in volunteer job vacancies could enhance the amount of positive employer brand attributes of the volunteer organization, what effect could these positive employer brand attributes have? Gatewood, Gowan and Lautenschlager (1993) found
that the employer image of an organization has a strong relation with the amount of
information presented in the recruitment advertisement. This finding can be explained with the idea that potential applicants compensate for a lack of information to form a complete picture of the employer image by using the information they do have (employer brand attributes) to imagine how it would be to work for that particular organization (Ehrhart & Ziegert, 2005; Rynes, 1991; Turban, 2001). This idea is in line with signalling theory (Rynes, 1991; Spence, 1973). According to signalling theory, asymmetry of the information a job applicant receives of an organization will be solved by the use of signals (attributes) from information provided by the organization. The job applicant interprets these signals in a way that the asymmetry of the information is reduced and inferences can be made on
organizational characteristics of which the organization has not provided information on (Celani & Singh, 2011; Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011; Spence, 1973; Spence, 2002). Signalling theory could thus explain how the use of employer branding in a job vacancy could positively influence the employer image for a volunteer organization.
However, this theory does not take into account that some attributes could have more impact on the evaluation of the employer image than others.
Relative weighting of attributes is a process described in literature on resistance to
persuasion (e.g., Ahluwalia, 2000; Adaval, 2001; Klein & Ahluwalia, 2005; Sen & Lerman, 2007): during this process, someone who encounters a persuasive message would give more weight to arguments or characteristics of a person or product which are in favour of his or her original attitude and would give less weight to the arguments or characteristics that are contrasting with his or her original attitude. In the situation of a potential volunteer reading a volunteer job vacancy, the job vacancy would not be seen as a persuasive attempt; a
mechanism for resistance would therefore not be activated, but this process of putting more emphasis on attributes which are important for a person could be similar for the development of the employer image from the employer brand attributes. A theory from psychology
literature that supports this is image theory (Beach & Mitchell, 1987).
Image theory describes the way people make decisions to reach their goals. Following this theory, one compares different images (of the self, of one’s goals, of the tactics or plans to achieve his or her goals and of the expected outcomes of these plans) for a candidate. If this candidate fits the plans to achieve this person’s goals and is perceived to deliver the expected outcomes, this candidate would be pictured as the best option (Beach & Mitchell, 1987). Put in other words, an organization would be perceived to be more attractive as an employer if attributes of the employer fit the attributes of one’s own personality. Especially volunteer
workers place high emphasis on organizational values (Bidee et al., 2013), so it is important to take this into account. The outcome of the match of employer attributes with one’s own characteristics is named person-organization fit (P-O fit; Chatman, 1989; Kristof, 1996). Studies based on self-concept theories, such as Super’s (1953) vocational voice theory, Stryker’s (1968) salient identity theory and Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) social identity theory substantiate P-O fit theory by providing information about the relations between
organizational characteristics and descriptions (e.g., a higher level of congruency for self-descriptions and self-descriptions of the most preferred occupation than for self-descriptions of the least preferred occupation: Tom, 1971; Ziegler, 1970; attractiveness of organizational traits depends on one’s personal traits: Judge & Bretz, 1991; Judge & Cable, 1997; Slaughter et al., 2004) and between self-concept and corporate or brand image (e.g., self-concept generally affects the creation and evaluation of a brand or product image: see Sirgy, 1982, for an overview).
Employer images are thus assumed to be constructed by the interpretation of attributes that are available in a job vacancy. In addition, a match or mismatch between the employer attributes and personal attributes or values could influence the effect of the evaluation of employer brand associations on the evaluation of the employer image of the organization. The second and third hypotheses therefore state:
H2: Increased positivity of employer brand associations leads to a more positive
employer image of the volunteer organization.
H3: The effect of employer brand associations on employer image is moderated by
P-O fit; if P-P-O fit is high (low), the effect of employer brand associations on employer image is more positive (less positive).
Employer image and employer attractiveness
Apart from the assumption that employer branding has a positive effect on the
evaluation of employer brand associations and that positive employer brand associations have a positive effect on the employer image, especially when P-O fit is high, the employer image is found in several studies to be related to organizational attractiveness (e.g., Gatewood et al., 1993; Turban et al., 1998; Turban & Cable, 2003) and employer attractiveness (e.g., Collins & Stevens, 2002; Elving et al., 2012; Gatewood et al., 1993; Rynes, 1991; Turban, 2001). For instance, Collins and Stevens (2002) found that the employer image was related to job
applicant intentions and actual decisions to work for the particular organization. Findings of the study of Gatewood et al. (1993) show that job applicant’s perceptions of overall corporate
image and, even more strongly, recruitment image are highly related to intentions to seek further contact with a firm. Similar results were found by Lemmink, Schuijf, and Streukens (2003). Related to volunteer organizations, findings of a study of Boezeman and Ellemers (2008) suggest that if a volunteer organization is perceived as a desired employer (that is, reflecting attributes that are perceived positive for volunteer organizations, such as support), this organization is more attractive to work for to both students with a volunteer background and students without a volunteer background .
Social identity theory could help explain these findings. The theory is based on the perception that people derive their self-concept and social belongingness from their memberships in groups, through the comparison of these in-groups to other groups,
out-groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The organization someone works for is one of the in-out-groups
that this person belongs to and thus a source to derive his or her self-concept from (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). Therefore, a positive employer image could lead to higher employer
attractiveness through the option to raise one’s self-esteem (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Scott & Lane, 2000) and by an enhanced willingness to identify with the organization (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Celani & Singh, 2011; Dutton et al., 1994; Lievens et al., 2007). Besides, the process of identification with an organization is likely to be higher for a positive employer image, assuming that the employer image is more positive for a high P-O fit.
Several studies thus provide support for a relationship between the employer image of a volunteer organization and its attractiveness as an employer. Specifically, this relationship is suggested to be positive and directed from employer image to employer attractiveness. This leads to the formulation of the fourth hypothesis:
H4: A more positive employer image leads to higher employer attractiveness of the
volunteer organization.
To summarize, the use of employer branding (providing positive information about the employer identity, reputation and attributes that are important to volunteers) in a volunteer job vacancy is expected to lead to positive employer brand associations with the volunteer
organization presented in the vacancy. Positive employer brand associations are expected to positively influence the creation of an employer image, especially when P-O fit of the
potential volunteer with the volunteer organization is high. Finally, a positive employer image is expected to increase the attractiveness of the volunteer organization as an employer. This way, the use of employer branding could function as a strategy to attract competent potential
volunteers to the volunteer organization. An overview of the hypotheses is provided in model 1. Model 1. Overview hypotheses. Method Participants
To test the model for volunteer organizations, a student sample was used. Participants were contacted in weeks 20 and 21 (2014) through Facebook, e-mail and science forums, using snowball sampling. This method is useful to gather data from a specific category, in this case university medical, social science, law and business/economics students, in a short amount of time. A disadvantage of snowball sampling is that it is a nonprobability-sampling technique, which enhances the chance on biased samples compared to the use of random sampling (Baxter & Babbie, 2003). To reduce this chance, the survey was set out on multiple platforms, which all had at least 1000 members studying in the field of social sciences, business/economics, law or medicine. Besides, the use of Facebook and science forums facilitated the possibility to include participants from 49 countries, from Afghanistan till the United States, which prevents the results of this study from being restricted to one specific culture.
Participation occurred voluntary and anonymous. A total of 531 people participated, of which 232 participants were left out of analysis. Reasons to leave participants out of analysis are described in Appendix I.
The total sample size which provided valid data is composed of 299 participants, of which 29,4% is male (n=88) and 70,6% is female (n=211). These percentages correspond to the percentages of male and female students at universities worldwide (Straus, 2004, table 1). The average age of the participants was 23, with a range from 18 to 35 years (SD=2.46). A total of 154 participants indicated they had worked as a volunteer in the past, of which 85
were still interested to work as a volunteer in the future (32 participants did not respond to the second question). Of the participants who had never participated in volunteer work, 77
participants were interested to work as a volunteer in the future (7 participants did not respond to the second question). A total of 39 participants were currently working as a volunteer.
Design
The main objective of this study was to measure whether the implementation of employer branding in volunteer job vacancies influences the attractiveness of the volunteer organization as an employer to competent potential volunteers. To test this, a 2 (job type: manager or doctor) x2 (EB condition: EB or control) between-subjects design was used. Participants were assigned to one of the job type conditions based on their answer on the question: What is your field of study? Participants who indicated to study social sciences, law or business/economics were assigned to the manager vacancy. Participants who indicated to study medicine were assigned to the doctor vacancy. This way, it was assured that the
vacancies were read by students who have the required knowledge to fulfil the vacancies and that the vacancies were relevant to the students who read them. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to an employer branding condition (doctor, EB: n=60; doctor, control: n=63; manager, EB: n=79; manager, control: n=97). Based on the criterion that the number of subjects per condition in experimental research should be at least 30 (Hill, 1998), it could be stated that the number of participants per condition in this study is large enough to provide reliable results. All participants answered the same questions; they only differed in which job vacancy they had read.
The organizations named in the volunteer vacancies were invented by the researcher, to overcome bias caused by brand familiarity (decision based on studies of Elving et al., 2012 and Turban, 2001). The vacancies were created using adjusted versions of existing volunteer vacancies, to increase the level of realism of the vacancies. It was chosen to compose the vacancies for each job type based on multiple volunteer vacancies, rather than to use an existing vacancy and replacing the name of the organization, to reduce the chance that participants recognized the vacancy and automatically linked it to the organization originally presented in it.
A cross-sectional online survey was used to gather data. An online survey design was selected for this study because it is an effective way to gather many respondents, worldwide, in a short time. The survey was developed in Qualtrics, a software for private research, and took participants approximately 5 minutes. To reduce the amount of participants who would
be excluded from the survey, for example because they were not students, the survey was prevented to appear in the results of search engines.
Procedure
Pre-tests were executed to check if the created volunteer job vacancies were perceived as realistic and to compose a list of positive and negative characteristics which could be ascribed to the volunteer organizations in this study, based on the created vacancies. An overall pre-test was executed to check if all questions were understandable and if the survey was functioning well. The pre-tests are described in detail in Appendix II.
Participants were approached via Facebook, science forums and e-mail and
subsequently through friends, family or relatives. The survey started with a factsheet, which informed the participant about the objective of the research and the ethical rules of the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) under which the research is designed. The factsheet was followed by an informed consent, which contained a reminder of the conditions to participate in the survey, information about the functioning of the survey and a last statement of agreement to participate in the survey. When participants agreed to
participate, they were linked to the first question page of the survey.
Firstly, demographic information was asked, together with the inclusion questions (Are you a student? What is your field of study?). Afterwards, participants were exposed to a volunteer job vacancy. The questions that followed concerned measures of employer brand associations, P-O fit, employer image and employer attractiveness of the volunteer
organization presented in the vacancy. Subsequently, several control questions were asked to control for general interest in the job presented in the vacancy, volunteer background of the participant and understanding of the exact research purpose. Participants were also given the option to leave their e-mail addresses, to obtain the results of the research. Finally,
participants were thanked once again for participating and asked to forward the survey to fellow students. As a last note, they were informed that the volunteer organization presented in the vacancy was invented by the researcher and so it was not possible to apply for the job described in the vacancy.
For the complete survey, see Appendix III.
Measures
Employer brand associations. The measure of employer brand associations was based on the outcomes of the second pre-test and an adjusted version of Aaker’s (1997)
dimensions of brand personality, according to the methodology used in other employer branding studies (e.g., Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Lievens et al., 2007; Rampl & Kenning, 2014). The dimensions were not changed, but some were removed. Dimensions of the original scale for brand personality were removed if they were not perceived to make sense for
(volunteer) organizations, such as the dimensions ‘good looking’ and ‘smooth’, or if the dimension was not possible to generally categorize as a positive or negative association, in order to shorten the survey. The added associations which derived from the pre-test were comparable to the important attributes of volunteer organizations to attract volunteers, as suggested by Boezeman and Ellemers (2008), Boss et al. (2011), Hiltrop (1999), Hobson et al. (1997), Trank et al. (2002) and Turban (2001). If associations from the pre-test had much overlap with one of Aaker’s (1997) dimensions, this association was not added to the list. These attempts to shorten the list of associations were to prevent participants from getting bored during the survey, which could increase the amount of drop-outs. A list of the associations is available in Appendix III.
The original measure of the scale on a five-point Likert scale, as used by Aaker (1997), Lievens and Highhouse (2003) and Lievens et al. (2007), was kept (1= Not at all
describing this organization, 5= Describing this organization very well). Reliability analysis
revealed a Chronbach’s α of .94.
P-O fit. To measure the match of personality traits with employer brand associations, participants were exposed to a list of personality traits and statements about personal values and asked to indicate the extent to which each characteristic or statement fitted the own personality. The list of personality traits and statements corresponded to the list of employer brand associations. To reduce the chance that participants would recognize the items and automatically fill in the same answers as they had filled in for the employer brand associations question, the items for the P-O fit question were put in a different order. The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1= Not at all, 5= Very much). Afterwards, answers on the corresponding items were compared and coded as a ‘match’ or ‘mismatch’. Items were decided to match when they had the exact same score or one point above or below (e.g., a score of 5 on the five-point Likert scale for an item of the employer brand associations measure was decided to match with the corresponding item of the P-O fit measure when the item of the P-O fit measure had a score of 4 or 5). The measure had a Chronbach’s α of .91.
Employer brand image. The measure of the employer brand image was based on the methodology of Turban (2001). The original measure on a five-point Likert scale was kept (1= Very poor, 5= Very good). For the reason that this is a single-item measure, it is not possible to test this measure’s internal consistency.
Employer attractiveness. The measure of employer attractiveness is based on the general attractiveness questions of Highhouse, Lievens and Sinar (2003). One item was added to these questions: ‘If I would consider to work as a volunteer, this organization would be one of my first choices’. This item was based on the items of the attraction to the firm scale used by Turban (2001) and could function as a useful control question to one of the questions based on Highhouse et al. (2003), namely: ‘I would not be interested in this company, except as a last resort’.
Other scales, such as the EmpAt scale of Berthon, Ewing and Hah (2005), were considered. However, the questions of the EmpAt scale had much overlap with the questions to measure employer brand associations in this study. Implementing both measures in the survey could have increased the amount of drop-outs and therefore it was decided not to use this scale.
The items of the employer attractiveness scale that were based on questions developed by Highhouse et al. (2003) were part of an organizational attraction scale, which also included items measuring intentions to pursue and prestige of the organization. However, these
questions were not useful for this study. The internal validity of this scale could be weak because of the missing parts, but reliability analysis revealed a Chronbach’s α of .90. The original measure on a five-point Likert scale, used by both Highhouse et al. (2003) and Turban (2001), was kept (1= Strongly disagree, 5= Strongly agree).
Results Preliminary analyses
Preceding the analyses of the hypotheses, the data were checked on assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity, linearity and independent errors. Pearson’s product-moment correlations were executed with the control variables general interest in the job and volunteer
background on the main variables employer brand associations, employer image and
employer attractiveness. Both control variables were found to have positive, significant correlations with the main variables (see table 1). They were therefore included in further
analyses. For each test reported in the next sections, it is indicated whether the control variables had a significant effect on the results.
Table 1.
Pearson’s correlations for the main variables and control variables.
Associations Image Attractiveness General interest Volunteer background Associations --- Image .655** --- Attractiveness .571** .617** --- General interest .252** .291** .597** --- Volunteer background .147* .134* .381** .389** --- **p < .01. *p < .05.
Employer brand associations per condition
H1 stated that the implementation of employer branding in a volunteer job vacancy would lead to more positive employer brand associations with the volunteer organization, compared to the employer brand associations with the same volunteer organization in volunteer job vacancies without the implementation of employer branding. To test this hypothesis, an one-way ANOVA was conducted.
The conditions differ in their scores on employer brand associations, F(3, 295) = 6.84,
p < .001, η2 = .07. According to Cohen (1988), this indicates a medium effect. Given the significance of the overall test, planned contrasts were conducted to examine the expected differences between the four conditions and revealed that the mean score on employer brand associations is significantly higher for the experimental conditions (Mdoctor,EB = 3.74, SDdoctor, EB = .57; Mmanager, EB = 3.59, SDmanager, EB = .41) than for the control conditions (Mdoctor,control =
3.60, SDdoctor, control = .64; Mmanager, control = 3.37, SDmanager, control = .46), t(204.22) = 2.79, p =
.003 (one-tailed). These outcomes provide support to accept H1.
However, it was found that the mean scores of the two experimental conditions differ significantly as well, t(102.48) = 1.69, p = .047 (one-tailed). Planned contrasts for each job type (comparing the doctor, EB condition with the doctor, control condition and the manager, EB condition with the manager, control condition) showed that the mean score of the
condition for the volunteer doctor vacancies, t(120.55) = 1.27, p = .103 (one-tailed), but the mean score of the experimental condition differs significantly from the mean score of the control condition for the volunteer manager vacancies, t(172.14) = 3.31, p < .001 (one-tailed).
The results did not change when controlled for general interest in the job and volunteer background. Therefore, H1 is partially confirmed: volunteer job vacancies including EB lead to more positive employer brand associations with the volunteer organization compared to the employer brand associations with the same volunteer organization in volunteer vacancies without EB, but only for the manager vacancies.
It should be noted that the assumption of equal variances in the population has been violated, Levene's F(3, 295) = 4.84, p = .003.
Employer brand associations and employer image
It was predicted in H2 that the more positive the employer brand associations are evaluated, the more positive the employer image of the volunteer organization is evaluated. To test H2, a linear regression analysis was executed.
The regression model with employer brand associations as an independent variable and employer image as a dependent variable is significant, F(1, 297) = 223.57, p < .001. The strength of the prediction is moderate to large; it explains 43% of the total variation in employer image (R2= .43; interpretation of the strength of the model based on Cohen, 1988). The score of employer brand associations has a positive effect on the score of employer image, b* = .66, t = 14.95, p < .001, 95% CI [0.90, 1.18]. For every point increase in the score of employer brand associations, the score of the employer image increases with 1.04 point. This means that the higher a student rated positive employer brand associations for the
volunteer organization described in the volunteer job vacancy, the higher this student rated the employer image of this volunteer organization. The results did not change when controlled for general interest and volunteer background. H2 is therefore accepted.
P-O fit as a moderator
H3 stated that P-O fit has a moderating effect on the relationship between employer brand associations and the employer image. A high P-O fit would positively influence this relationship, while a low P-O fit would negatively influence the relationship.
First, a linear regression analysis was conducted to examine if the measure of P-O fit had a significant effect on employer image. The regression model is significant, R2= .13, F(1, 297) = 45.87, p < .001. P-O fit has a positive effect on employer image, b* = .37, t = 6.77, p <
.001, 95% CI [0.44, 0.80]. Higher scores for P-O fit are thus related to higher scores on the employer image scale.
Based on the significant relationship of P-O fit with employer image, it was decided to conduct a moderation analysis with P-O fit as a moderating variable on the relationship of employer brand associations with employer image. Employer image was selected as the dependent variable; employer brand associations, P-O fit and the interaction term of employer brand associations with P-O fit were selected as the independent variables in linear regression analysis. The regression model is significant, F(3, 295) = 77.48, p < .001. The strength of the model has increased slightly (R2= .44), compared to the model without P-O fit as a
moderating variable (R2= .43).
The effect of employer brand associations on employer image remained significant when P-O fit was added to the model as a moderator, b* = .69, t = 10.36, p < .001, 95% CI [0.47, 0.69]. The effect of P-O fit on employer image remained significant as well, but only at a p < .10 level, b* = .09, t = 1.75, p = .082, 90% CI [0.01, 0.28]. The interaction effect of employer brand associations with P-O fit on employer image is significant at a p < .10 level,
b* = -.11, t = -1.67, p = .097, 90% CI [-0.27, -0.01]. Results did not change when controlled
for general interest in the job and volunteer background.
Although the interaction effect is not significant at a p < .05 level or below, thus less reliable than the direct effect of employer brand associations on employer image, it is interesting that this is a negative effect. This means that for higher values of P-O fit, a negative effect occurs on the relationship between employer brand associations and the employer image. A graph is used to investigate the direction of the moderation effect (see graph 1).
Graph 1.
Direction of the moderation effect of P-O fit on the effect of employer brand associations on employer image.
As shown in this graph, a low P-O fit negatively influences the relationship of
employer brand associations with the employer image when the values for the employer brand associations are low (negative associations). However, if someone assigned very positive associations to the organization, it does not matter whether these associations fit with his or her own personality or not; the employer image is valued higher.
It was predicted that P-O fit has a moderating effect on the relationship between employer brand associations and the employer image. Besides, the effect of employer brand associations on employer image would be more positive for a high P-O fit and less positive for a low P-O fit. Although, based on the results, it can be confirmed that P-O fit has a moderating effect on the relationship between employer brand associations and the employer image, the direction of this moderating effect is different than expected for high ratings of employer brand associations. H3 is therefore partially accepted: The effect of employer brand associations on employer image is moderated by P-O fit; if P-O fit is high (low), the effect of employer brand associations on employer image is more positive (less positive), but this does not apply when employer brand associations are evaluated very positively. Nonetheless, the partial acceptance of H3 should be interpreted carefully, because of the significance of the moderating effect at a p < .10 level.
Employer image and employer attractiveness
According to H4, a more positive employer image would lead to higher employer attractiveness of the volunteer organization. A linear regression analysis with employer image as the independent variable and employer attractiveness at the dependent variable was
conducted to test this hypothesis.
The regression model is significant, F(1, 297) = 182.77, p < .001 and has a medium strength (R2= .38). Employer image has a positive effect on employer attractiveness, b* = .62,
t = 13.52, p < .001, 95% CI [0.55, 0.73]. For every point increase in the score of employer
image, the score of employer attractiveness increases with 0.64 point. Results did not change when controlled for general interest in the job and volunteer background. H4 is accepted.
To control if the found effect of employer image on employer attractiveness would apply to all conditions and not be an overall significant effect, linear regression analyses were executed for each condition separately. The results of the analyses are shown in table 2.
Table 2.
Linear regression analyses for the effect of employer image (EI) on employer attractiveness (EA) for each condition separately.
a N = 60, R2 =.52, F(1, 58) = 62.22***, ***p < .001. b N = 63, R2 =.53, F(1, 61) = 68.47***, ***p < .001. c N = 79, R2 =.34, F(1, 77) = 39.03***, ***p < .001. d N = 97, R2 =.28, F(1, 95) = 37.13***, ***p < .001. b SE(b) b* p
Effect on EA for doctor, EB a Constant EI 1.29 .65 .31 .08 .72*** .000 Effect on EA for doctor, control b
Constant EI .89 .72 .32 .09 .73*** .000 Effect on EA for manager, EB c
Constant EI .59 .69 .40 .11 .58*** .000 Effect on EA for manager, control d
Constant 1.38 .27
Although employer image has a significant, positive effect on employer attractiveness for all conditions, the beta coefficients for the doctor vacancy conditions show a different trend than the beta coefficients for the manager vacancy conditions: The beta coefficient for the doctor, control condition shows a higher increase in SD of employer attractiveness per increase in one SD of employer image than the beta coefficient of the doctor, EB condition, while the beta coefficient for the manager, control condition shows a lower increase in SD of employer attractiveness per increase in one SD of employer image than the beta coefficient for the manager, EB condition. This is comparable to the finding of H1, that the
implementation of employer branding in a volunteer job vacancy does not work the same way for both job types. Results did not change when controlled for general interest in the job and volunteer background.
Discussion
This study examined if the implementation of employer branding in volunteer job vacancies could make volunteer organizations more attractive as an employer to competent potential volunteers. Based on the literature, it was expected that the use of employer
branding in job vacancies would have an indirect, positive effect on employer attractiveness; The use of employer branding in a volunteer job vacancy would enhance the positivity of employer brand associations with the volunteer organization presented in the vacancy, which in turn would lead to a more positive evaluated employer image. It was expected that this effect would be moderated by P-O fit, in a way that a high P-O fit would make the
relationship between employer brand associations and the employer image more positive, while a low P-O fit would make this relationship less positive. Finally, a positive employer image would positively influence the employer attractiveness of the volunteer organization. This way, the implementation of employer branding in a volunteer job vacancy could make a volunteer organization more attractive as an employer to competent potential volunteers.
Interesting findings regarding the direct relationships are first discussed. After that, limitations of the research are discussed, together with recommendations for further research. To conclude, the general research question is answered, which provides practical and
theoretical implications.
Differences in job type
It was found that the use of employer branding in volunteer job vacancies positively influences the evaluation of employer brand associations, but a difference between the
employer branding condition and the control condition was only found for the manager vacancy. A comparable result was found when testing the relationship between employer image and employer attractiveness; the employer image positively influenced employer attractiveness, but not for both job type conditions in the expected direction. Although it was a very small difference, the evaluation of the employer image had a stronger positive effect on the evaluation of the employer attractiveness of the volunteer organization for the doctor vacancy which did not have the employer branding design, than for the doctor vacancy with the employer branding design. The expected direction was found for the manager vacancies; the manager vacancy with the employer branding design showed a stronger positive effect of the evaluation of the employer image on the evaluation of the employer attractiveness of the volunteer organization, than the manager vacancy without the employer branding design.
This difference of job type in the effect of employer branding on the evaluation of employer brand associations and employer attractiveness has not been discovered in previous studies, possibly due to the fact that most samples of previous studies consisted of business students, law students, social science students or related studies (e.g., Judge & Cable, 1997; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Turban et al., 1998). Some studies examined the effect of employer branding on employer attractiveness in a more general way, which gave them the opportunity to include all kinds of majors in their study (e.g., Elving et al., 2012; Knox & Freeman, 2006). Unfortunately, detailed information about the majors of the participants is not available and therefore it is possible that the results of these studies do not apply to medicine students. Other studies examining the effects of employer branding were based on non-student samples (e.g., Lievens et al., 2007: gathered data from the army; Turban, 2001: used a combination of students and faculty and placement member staff). The results of these studies do not contradict with the results of the manager vacancies.
Moreover, previous studies on the process of employer branding were not focused on volunteer work. An explanation for the differences in results between the doctor vacancies and the manager vacancies would be that the participants for those groups differed in their preference for volunteer work. However, none of the results changed when controlled for volunteer background, which did not only include past and present experience with volunteer work, but also included interest in volunteer work in the future. Another explanation would be that the past or present experience and interest in volunteer work of participants who study medicine was not related to the type of volunteer job presented in the vacancy. Nonetheless, results did not change when controlled for general interest in the job presented in the vacancy, which leaves a small possibility for this last explanation. It could therefore be useful to
conduct a qualitative study to investigate motives for medicine students to become a volunteer doctor, to understand if employer brand associations differ in importance or in how they are perceived to be categorized as positive or negative associations between job types.
Regarding the fact that most studies on the effect of employer branding on employer attractiveness are conducted using social science or business students and that the outcomes of these studies are in line with the outcomes for the manager vacancies, it would be interesting to examine if employer branding works different for different discipline-related jobs, both for volunteer job vacancies and vacancies for paid jobs.
P-O fit as a moderator
If employer brand associations were rated higher, the employer image was rated higher. Further, it could be concluded that P-O fit operates as a moderator on the relation between the employer image and employer attractiveness, although this finding has weak support. P-O fit was measured in this study as the match of the evaluation of an organization’s characteristics with one’s own characteristics. In some studies, a distinction is made between objective and subjective P-O fit (Ehrhart & Ziegert, 2005; Judge & Cable, 1997; Kristof, 1996). According to these studies, the way P-O fit is measured in this study would be typified as objective. Subjective fit is described as the perceived similarity of the organizational characteristics and personal characteristics. Judge and Cable (1997) analysed the relationship of both objective and subjective P-O fit with organizational attractiveness and found that objective fit had a direct effect on organizational attractiveness, but this effect was largely mediated by subjective fit. Since the results of this study indicate that P-O fit is related to the employer image and that the employer image has a positive effect on employer attractiveness, it is possible that objective P-O fit influences subjective P-O fit, which in turn has a
moderating effect on the relationship between the evaluation of employer brand associations and the employer image. This could be examined in future research.
It is also possible that P-O fit does not play an important role when evaluating the employer image of a volunteer organization. The results of a study of Kausel and Slaughter (2011) suggested that besides similarity of values, complementary values or characteristics can be important for the evaluation of the attractiveness of an organization as an employer. Someone who scored low on imagination rated the attractiveness of an employer who he or she rated high on innovation higher than the attractiveness of an employer who he or she rated low on innovation. However, their results did not show a reverse effect for participants who scored high on imagination. The use of employer branding in a volunteer job vacancy could
therefore still be beneficial when potential applicants would search for characteristics of an organization which complements their own personality, instead of similar characteristics.
Regarding the direction of the moderating effect of P-O fit on the relationship of employer brand associations with the employer image, it was found that there was a difference between a high and a low P-O fit on the effect of evaluations of employer brand associations on the evaluation of the employer image, as long as the employer brand associations were not rated very positively. This is logical: if someone has negative
associations with an organization and these associations do not fit his or her personality, the negative associations have a stronger impact than when the negative associations fit this person’s personality. Interestingly, P-O fit did not have an effect on the evaluation of the employer image anymore when the employer brand associations of the volunteer organization were rated very positively. It should, however, again be noted that the moderation effect had weak support from the analysis. As mentioned previously, future studies could measure P-O fit both in an objective (as in this study) and subjective way (by asking questions such as: “To what degree do you feel your values ‘match’ or fit this organization and the current employees in this organization?’’, Cable & Judge, 1996), to provide more information about the
existence of a moderating or mediating effect of P-O fit on the effect of employer brand associations on the employer image of volunteer organizations.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
Although this research has interesting outcomes, there are several limitations that could be improved in future research. Some of them are already discussed in the previous paragraphs. In the following paragraphs, limitations regarding the method used in this study are discussed.
One limitation regarding the method is that the organizations used in this study were invented by the researcher to overcome bias caused by brand familiarity. Related to branding studies in the field of marketing and communication, which discuss the influence of brand knowledge on brand evaluation (e.g., Berger & Fitzsimons, 2008; Hoyer & Brown, 1990; Keller, 1993; Sjödin & Törn, 2006), this method may have influenced the results. Future research which examines the effects of employer branding on employer brand attractiveness should include both treatments with an invented or unknown volunteer organization and an existing or well-known volunteer organization. However, since an organization’s reputation to its stakeholders was related to employer attractiveness in studies of Turban and Cable (2003) and Collins and Han (2004), the volunteer organization’s reputation to its stakeholder and
related concepts such as power and credibility (Cornelissen, 2011) should be included in such a research design.
Another limitation is that participants did not have the option to name personal
associations with the volunteer organization presented in the vacancy. Although it was tried to provide a complete list of possible employer brand associations which could be positively or negatively evaluated, participants may have had associations which were not included in the list. A survey which contains open space to list one’s personal employer brand associations with the volunteer organization presented in the vacancy would make it difficult to measure objective P-O fit, but it could help examine the previously discussed idea that the medicine students in this study may have had different employer brand associations than the students socials sciences, law and business/economics.
Finally, the results of this study are only generalizable on students in social sciences, law, business/economics and medicine. The inclusion of students of all kinds of disciplines would have required the development of many different vacancies, which was impossible due to the short time limit. Another option would have been to use the presentation of a general description of a volunteer organization and its available job functions (with or without an employer branding design) as a treatment. This is done by some researchers (e.g., Elving et al., 2012; Knox & Freeman, 2006), but involves a higher chance that the organization does not meet the student’s interest.
Is employer branding the solution for the struggle for free talent?
The results support the existence of an indirect, positive effect of the implementation of employer branding in volunteer job vacancies on employer attractiveness. However, this effect is dependent upon one’s field of study or the type of job the vacancy is created for. The use of employer branding in volunteer job vacancies could thus help volunteer organizations to attract competent potential volunteers, but previous investigation of the motives to engage in a particular volunteer job and the characteristics of the desired applicants is useful to design the volunteer job vacancy in an effective way to make the volunteer organization a more attractive place to work for competent potential volunteers. This leads to the fulfilment of the first purpose of this study, a two-step guideline for volunteer organizations to effectively design their vacancies: Step 1. Examine motives to engage in your volunteer organization and in the type of volunteer work the vacancy should be developed for. Step 2. Describe the reputation and the identity of your organization and pay extra attention to provide (positive) information about the values and characteristics which you have found to be of importance to
the desired target group of the vacancy. Hopefully, the use of this guideline would help volunteer organizations to attract competent potential volunteers and therefore make it less difficult for volunteer organizations to recruit the desired candidates.
Except for practical purposes, this study has interesting theoretical implications. This study has been the first to relate a concept from marketing and communication research to a volunteer context, which was the second purpose of this study, and has found that the outcomes are comparable to outcomes of studies focused on for-profit organizations. This study could therefore serve as a base for future studies on volunteer organizations from a communication science perspective. Moreover, the outcomes of this study give reason to question the completeness of the model of Backhaus and Tikoo (2004); although the effect of P-O fit on the relationship between employer brand associations and the employer image is supported weakly, P-O fit was found to have an effect on the evaluation of the employer image. In addition, literature on the relationship of P-O fit with the employer image and organizational or employer attractiveness (e.g., Hu, Su, & Chen, 2007; Kausel & Slaughter, 2011; Ng & Burke, 2005; Yu, 2014) provide support for an adjusted model of the effect of employer branding on employer attractiveness. Furthermore, this study has been the first to compare the results of employer branding of students of very different disciplines. The found difference indicate that researchers may not be able to generalize the results of employer branding studies for all disciplines or job types.
An implication which is interesting for both theory and practice, is the finding that experience with and interest in volunteer work did not affect the results. This could mean that the implementation of employer branding in volunteer job vacancies does not only attract students who are highly interested in volunteer work, or who have working experience as a volunteer, but it also attracts students who indicate to not have working experience as a volunteer and who are generally have little interest in volunteer work. This complements the findings of Boezeman and Ellemers (2008), who found that when the description of a volunteer organization contains information about the support they provide to their
volunteers, this increases the attractiveness for non-volunteers to work for this organization. A critical note should be made to the success of employer branding. Employer branding is often seen as a magic bullet, the weapon to win the war for talent with (Foster et al., 2010). Although this study supports the idea that the use of employer branding could make an organization more attractive as an employer, other effects of employer branding which are not studied yet and which may have negative outcomes could exist. In the case of a volunteer organization trying to attract competent potential volunteers through the
implementation of employer branding in a volunteer job vacancy, for example, it is possible that a positive description about the reputation of the organization would make competent potential volunteers think that the organization is not in high need of volunteers like them because the organization is already successful.
Besides, volunteer organizations have not been waiting for the problem of having a hard time to find desired candidates for certain vacancies to solve itself. Some volunteer organizations recruit competent volunteers at for-profit organizations. This is made possible by some for-profit organizations, mainly because of the idea that the incorporation of philanthropic programs in their work policies could bring advantages for the organization (such as a more positive corporate reputation in the eyes of the stakeholders because the involvement in voluntary work shows commitment of the organization to society, which could also increase the organization’s attractiveness to employees, according to Peloza, Hudson, & Hassay, 2008). However, it is stated that few employees are willing to participate in voluntary programs (Peloza et al., 2008). Besides, the volunteers provided by for-profit organizations are often only available for a few hours a week, so it would still be helpful for those volunteer organizations to use employer branding in the volunteer job vacancies they design to recruit volunteers outside of the for-profit organizations. Other organizations have changed their organizational structure so that, for example, the organization has a paid department which manages the organization and its external communication, or started a strategic alliance with for-profit organizations. These types of volunteer organizations should be careful when presenting the identity and reputation of the organization; after such changes, the
organizational identity might change too and potential volunteers could be sceptical about the reputation when they know about the organizational change or collaboration.
Taken possible negative outcomes of employer branding into consideration, we should be careful to conclude that employer branding is the solution for the struggle for free talent of volunteer organizations. However, employer branding can be stated to be an useful tool for volunteer organizations in the struggle for free talent, if thoughtfully formulated, in an attempt to become a more attractive employer to competent potential volunteers.
References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
Adaval, R. (2001). Sometimes it just feels right: The differential weighting of affect
consistent and affect‐inconsistent product information. Journal of Consumer Research,
28(1), 1-17.
Ahluwalia, R. (2000). Examination of psychological processes underlying resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 217-232.
Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management, 4(3), 185–206.
Baxter, L., & Babbie, E. (2003). The basics of communication research. Andover, UK: Cengage Learning.
Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding.
Career Development International, 9(5), 501-517.
Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1987). Image theory: Principles, goals, and plans in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 66(3), 201-220.
Become a volunteer. (2013). Retrieved March, 26, from
http://www.samrec.org.za/index.php/get-involved/about-volunteering.
Berger, J., & Fitzsimons, G. (2008). Dogs on the street, pumas on your feet: How cues in the environment influence product evaluation and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 1–14.
Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Hah, L. L. (2005). Captivating company: Dimensions of
attractiveness in employer branding. International Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 151-172.
Bidee, J., Vantilborgh, T., Pepermans, R., Huybrechts, G., Willems, J., Jegers, M., & Hofmans, J. (2013). Autonomous motivation stimulates volunteers’ work effort: A self-determination theory approach to volunteerism. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(1), 32–47.
Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. (2008). Volunteer recruitment: The role of organizational support and anticipated respect in non-volunteers’ attraction to charitable volunteer organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1013–1026.
Boss, E. M., Blauw, W., Alblas, M. J., & Gort, A. (2011). Vrijwillige inzet 2.0: Trendrapport
vrijwillige inzet 2011. Utrecht, UT: Movisie.
Branham, L. (2001). Keeping the people who keep you in business: 24 Ways to hang on to
