Employer Identity-Washing on Glassdoor:
A content analysis of employer branding and employee satisfaction Chelsea E. Takacs
Student #: 10700978 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Program Communication Science
Supervisor: Linda Bos Completed: 25 June 2015
Abstract
This paper examines whether companies are engaging in identity-washing on their online profiles in order to recruit potential employees in today’s so-called war for talent (Elving, Westhoff, Meeusen, & Schoonderbeek, 2013). This paper explores whether the alignment, or misalignment, of employer branding and reality influences employee satisfaction among most and least attractive companies. A content analysis of company profiles (N= 20) and anonymous employee reviews (N = 555) from the website Glassdoor was used, comparing most and least attractive companies. Results indicate that some companies are engaging in identity-washing and those companies with more alignment have higher employee satisfaction. Furthermore, a new model is proposed indicating a direct effect of alignment on employee satisfaction, as well as a mediated effect of organizational attractiveness on employee satisfaction. Alignment between employer promises and employee reality was important for several types of employee
satisfaction. There were hardly any differences between companies, except when looking at employees’ satisfaction with their career opportunities. In those cases, employee satisfaction with career opportunities depends on the company’s attractiveness. There is a negative relationship, indicating that when less attractive companies have more alignment, there is an increase in satisfaction with career opportunities.. This research concludes that organizations should be careful when engaging in identity-washing, as it can negatively effect their employees’ satisfaction. This study extends previous research into employer branding, by measuring actual employer branding usage rather than perceived usage. Furthermore, this study examined companies across several different industries.
Employer Identity-Washing on GlassDoor: A content analysis of employer branding and employee satisfaction
According to employment projections from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, overall labor force participation in the United States is expected to decline from 63.7% of the total population to 61.6% by 2022 (“Employment Projections,” 2013). Less people are entering the labor force due to retirement, taking care of family members, or because they feel pessimistic about finding employment (Stilwell, 2014). These factors, in effect, are creating a so-called “war for talent,” where talented employees are scarce (Elving, Westhoff, Meeusen, & Schoonderbeek, 2013, p. 356). Some researchers propose that, in the future, the “competition for the best employees will be as fierce as the competition for customers” (Berthon, Ewing, & Hah, 2005, p. 167). The lack of talent to choose from makes recruitment an important yet challenging process for employers.
However, there is still hope for employers. The use of employer branding has been shown to enhance an organization’s attractiveness to potential employees (Elving et al., 2013, p. 368). Organizational attractiveness is key, as it positively influences individuals’ intention to apply for a job vacancy (Gomes & Neves, 2011). Employer branding provides both current and
prospective employees with insight into what makes that employer different and desirable amongst all other potential employers (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004, p. 501). In addition to traditional recruitment strategies, the Internet has allowed web-based recruitment to become more popular and reach a larger audience of potential employees (Anderson, 2003; Lievens & Harris, 2003; Cappelli, 2001), for instance on sites like Glassdoor, Indeed, and LinkedIn.
In a recent study, Cable, Aiman-Smith, Mulvey & Edwards (2000) found that
organizations use product and company information to encourage applicants to hold favorable, rather than accurate, beliefs about an organization’s culture. This practice, referred to in this
paper as identity-washing, can be damaging to an organization and may lead to higher turnover rates and lower work performance (Cable et al., 2000). Indeed, it’s not only important to attract the “best” talent, but also to retain them. Retention is crucial to organizational success and productivity because where employees stay longer, so do their customers (Ind, 1998, p. 324; Herman & Gioia, 2001). Therefore, it is crucial for companies, as employers, to keep their employees satisfied (Bergstrom & Anderson, 2001).
This research will look to understand whether today’s companies are engaging in identity-washing in order to attract potential employees. Identity-washing is similar to green-washing, a communication strategy that allows corporations to manipulate their image, hide unpleasant facts, and make themselves look like they adhere to certain business practices when in fact they do not (Munshi & Kurian, 2005). Similar to the effects of green-washing, it is proposed that the consequences of identity-washing are skepticism by stakeholders, specifically employees (Elving, 2013) and, in turn, reduced employee satisfaction. This is because employees may have been misled to believe the organization has a certain identity, but in reality, it does not.
Previous research has either focused on a single organization (Cable et al., 2000) or argued that employers want to attract “top” talent (Elving et al., 2013). The issue with attracting top talent, or those who look qualified on paper, is that “many organizations are seeking the same skills in their employees” (Elving et al., 2013, p. 356). The current paper will examine
organizations across several industries and argues that employers should aim to attract people who are the best fit for their company, rather than those with the thickest resume. Figure 1 (see Appendix A) explains the model for this research.
Thus, the main research question for this master thesis is: How does the alignment, or misalignment, of employer branding and reality influence employee satisfaction among most and least attractive companies?
By extending previous employer branding theory, this research looks to understand whether identity-washing is occurring and what happens when there is misalignment between employer branding promises and employees’ experiences by analyzing employee reviews and employee-rated satisfaction. This research is unique in that it will examine how the concepts of employer branding and internal branding (how the organization delivers its branding to current employees) align in real life. It will be useful for employers to understand how misalignment impacts their employees. Additionally, it will be interesting to identify which employers are engaging in identity-washing and whether they are rated as most or least attractive.
To answer the research question and understand how misalignment influences employee satisfaction, a content analysis will be performed. This research will use content from the website Glassdoor.com to gain insight on both employer branding practices and employee reviews.
Theoretical Background
In order to properly explain the proposed model for this research, and its subsequent theory, a more in-depth model was created. The extended model (see Figure 2 below) clarifies the cyclical nature of the model and includes both variables examined in this study and other variables stemming from existing literature which will not be directly measured.
Employees are described as an important stakeholder group, with the potential to make or break an organization (Ind, 1998). Thus, it is important to understand just how employers are attracting these valuable employees.
Figure 2.
Extended Model of Literature
Note. **Variables that will not be measured in this study; they are based on existing literature. Employer branding was first defined by Ambler and Barrow (1996) as, “the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment and identified with the employing company” (p. 187). Employer branding allows organizations to attract a large group of potential employees, in hopes that the right employees are within that group, while also building brand awareness (Parment & Dyhre, 2009). A resource-based view (RBV) argues the idea that human capital via a firm’s employees or “top talent” brings value to a firm, and firm performance can be increased through investment in that human capital (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). The human capital value, then, operates as a competitive advantage (Barney, 1991, as cited in Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Priem & Butler, 2001; Schlager, Bodderas, Maas, & Cachelin,
2011). This notion is supported by employer branding theory, where the main goal is to establish the firm as an employer of choice, attracting the best possible employees for the firm (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Furthermore, employer branding exists within an organization’s overall
corporate brand, which is the management of the organization’s behavior, communication and symbolism in order to gain a positive reputation in the eyes of key stakeholder groups (Foster, Punjaisri, & Cheng, 2010).
To build a strong corporate brand, employees must be totally committed to the brand promise (King, 1991; Ind 1998). Barney (1991) argues that the competitive advantage afforded by employer branding is only sustainable if there is alignment between the employer branding and the firm’s internal branding. Internal branding “helps create a workforce that is hard for other firms to imitate” (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004, p. 503). This means using the brand to
reinforce the concept of quality employment within that specific firm, making it more difficult to be replicated at other firms, thus, leading to higher employee retention (Ambler & Barrow, 1996, as cited by Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) note that while a universal definition of internal branding has not been established, most authors agree that internal branding is about ensuring employees are actually delivering the brand promise which reflects the brand values.
Organizational Attractiveness
To further understand how employer branding functions, Backhaus and Tikoo created a conceptual framework which argues that employer brand associations form brand images, which affect attraction to the firm (2004, p. 507). The framework proposes that the employee’s original brand associations mediate the relationship between the employer brand image and the
therefore a consequence of employer branding efforts, rather than an antecedent, and is based on things the potential employee has heard or read (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Jiang & Iles, 2011, p. 102).
From a psychological perspective, attraction to a firm fulfills job seekers’ psychological needs of “executing plans and realizing goals” (Snyder & DeBono, 1989, as cited by Yu, 2014, p. 79). As expectations are met, or exceeded, the employee’s attraction to the firm should continue to increase (Yu, 2014). From this perspective, employers who meet or exceed potential employees’ expectations through their employer branding can expect higher attraction and an increase in the amount of applicants.
In the current model, the role of attractiveness provides variation amongst the companies being studied and is not directly measured from the employees’ perspective. Future research should measure attractiveness and formally test its influence on employee satisfaction.
Recruitment and The Psychological Contract
In order to understand the underlying mechanism of why employer brand promises are important to employees, this study looks to literature on the so-called “psychological contract”. The psychological contract is suggested to begin during the recruitment phase of employment, when an exchange is made between the employer and the potential employee (Rousseau, 2001, as cited by Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). The psychological contract provides the recruit with pragmatic information about the organization, including possible career advancement, challenges, and opportunities (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). In simple terms, the psychological contract is the employees’ perception of what they owe to the company, and what the company owes them (Robinson, 1996).
Backhaus and Tikoo have suggested it is crucial for employers to understand what happens when their promises stated in the psychological contract are breached or violated (2004). A breach has been defined to occur when “an employee perceives that the employer has not fulfilled a perceived promise” (Morrison & Robinson, 1997, as cited by Rodwell et al. 2013). As such, an employee’s perception of a breach of contract may increase the employee’s distrust in their employer, ruin the emotional bond between them, and is associated with a decline in job attitudes (Robinson, 1996; Ng, Feldman, & Lam, 2009), or, more specifically job satisfaction, decreased organizational commitment, and increased psychological distress (Rodwell et al., 2013).
Employee Satisfaction
It is crucial for organizations to hold on to the talent that they already have. Companies should aim to create the total employment experience by capitalizing on what is unique about their organization (Bergstrom & Anderson, 2001). If they are able to increase their employees’ appreciation and satisfaction with their work life, they are better positioned to attract and retain their talent (Bergstrom & Anderson, 2001).
Employee satisfaction is not only important for employee retention, but it also indirectly influences customer satisfaction and the company’s financial results. For instance, research in the service industry found that “employee attitudes toward their job and the company had a greater effect on both employee loyalty and behavior towards customers than any other factors” (Bergstrom & Anderson, 2001). A case study on Sears examined how the company translated their external brand into an understandable message for their employees by investing in and creating a strong employer brand (Bergstrom & Anderson, 2001). In this sense, employer branding, employee satisfaction, and customer satisfaction are all interrelated. However, these
findings are rather unconvincing as they focused solely on service brands that deal with
customers face-to-face. It is important to question whether these findings are replicable to other companies outside of the service industry as well.
Moreover, research by Schlager et al. (2011) concluded that perceived employer branding influenced employees’ satisfaction through several paths, or “values.” Employee satisfaction was influenced through the organization’s economic, development, social, and diversity values. The “development value”, or whether there are training opportunities, an empowering environment, and recognition for individual work, most influenced current employees’ satisfaction. Overall, these findings theorize that employer branding, when done correctly, can influence the outcomes of employee satisfaction. It should be noted that this research was focused in the service
industry, whereas the present study will look across different industries. Furthermore, this research examined perceived employer branding. The present study will assess real employer branding profiles and measure companies’ actual use of employer branding concepts.
Organizational Identification
Organizational identification, as defined by the social identity theory (SIT), is the perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), allowing stakeholders to define themselves by the same attributes they believe define the
organization (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). Studies show that stakeholders with stronger organizational identification can experience the organization's success and failures personally, and in turn, prompt them to adopt beneficial attitudes and behaviors that support the
organization's interests (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; as cited by De Roeck, Maon, & Lejeune, 2013).
In the view of SIT, organizational identification explains why and how an attractive and consistent corporate brand influences employees’ or stakeholders’ perceptions of belonging to an organization. Accordingly, alignment between corporate and internal branding enhances
employees’ identification with the corporate brand (Punjaisri & Wilson, 2011). Furthermore, in this view, when a construed image (what organizational members believe outsiders think about the organization) seems attractive, members tend to strengthen their identification with the organization to “bask in the reflected glory” (Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Dutton et al., 1994;
Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001). Thus, when employees feel proud working for an organization which is regarded as prestigious, it encourages them to identify more intensively with it, thereby satisfying their “psychological needs for self-esteem” (Smidts et al., 2001; Riketta, 2005; Jones, 2010).
Scholars note, however, that construed images in the minds of members or employees must align with reality through the organization’s practiced beliefs, values and norms (Hatch and Schultz, 2002; Mitchell, 2002). If there are significant contradictions or misalignments between the organization’s images and reality, its members might develop disbelief about the corporate brand and dis-identify with the organization (Dutton et al., 1994; Mitchell, 2002). Therefore, while prestigious images regarding the organization can increase members’ organizational identification, misalignment with reality can hurt its employees’ view of the corporate brand. Similarly, research by Schlager et al. (2011) concluded that an organization’s “reputation value”, or whether the organization has high-quality, well-known products, most influenced current employees’ identification with that organization.
In this sense, organizational identification explains the impact of an organization’s alignment of promises and reality on its employees’ satisfaction. For the purposes of this
research, organizational identification is an unmeasured, but assumed, mediator between employer branding and employee satisfaction.
Online Reviews: Customer and Employer Reviews
This study will look at employees’ reviews of their employer found on the website Glassdoor.com. There is a lack of literature examining employee or employer reviews. However, several studies exist (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsch & Gremler, 2004;Willemsen et al., 2013; Sundaram, Mitra & Webster, 1998) which explain why customers or consumers write online reviews of products, services, or companies.
Online reviews are a form of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) which is defined as, “any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company, which is made available to a multitude of people and institutions via the Internet” (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Research by Hennig-Thurau and colleagues (2004) identified eight motives as reasons consumers engage in eWOM, including: consumer
empowerment, venting, concern for others, self-enhancement, social benefits, economic benefits, helping the company, and advice seeking. Similarly, research by Willemsen and colleagues (2013) looked to understand why customers express their complaints with companies by engaging in negative eWOM. They found three motives associated with negative eWOM,
including: altruism, venting and empowerment. This research supports prior claims by Sundaram and colleagues (as cited by Willemsen et al. 2013) that the motives for engaging in negative eWOM differ from motives for positive eWOM.
For the purposes of this research, positive eWOM by employees is assumed to be an important asset for employers, where positive reviews can enhance their employer branding profile, and ultimately the company’s attractiveness. Therefore, it can be helpful for companies
to understand what motivates employees to write positively or negatively. Existing research on customer and consumer reviews lends insight into individuals’ possible motivations; however, future research is needed on employee reviews specifically.
Identity-Washing: Green-washing and Skepticism
In this paper, I extend existing theory on green-washing to the new context of employer branding, creating the term “identity-washing”.
Literature on green-washing organizations’ corporate social responsibility (CSR)
initiatives lends insight into how the idea of identity-washing is presumed to work for employers who engage in employer branding. Green-washing occurs when organizations use marketing or public relations materials to mislead the public about their environmental performance, while exaggerating positive features and down-playing, or ignoring, anything harmful that the
organization may be engaging in (Elving & van Vuuren, 2011). This effectively creates a falsely positive image in the eyes of the organization’s stakeholders. Research has shown that green-washing involves the risk of creating skepticism amongst stakeholders. This arises when the stakeholder feels that the organization is acting in self-interest rather than for the benefit of society, which should be the main reason or motive for the organization to engage in CSR initiatives (Elving, 2013).
For this research, it is assumed that the same mechanism is at work for identity-washing. If employers create a certain image of their company as an employer through employer branding, and do not live up to that image in reality, their employees may feel skeptical. This research argues that the presence of online reviews which may be negative or contradictory to the
company’s employer branding information may cause greater skepticism in the eyes of potential employees. This skepticism could lead to potential employees questioning the motives of the
company for engaging in identity-washing, may cause them to hold negative views, and in turn cause the potential employee to not apply to work for that employer, or leave the company.
Overall, it seems the potential effects of identity-washing, like green-washing, can be damaging for an organization. This is supported by literature examining the consequences of violations of the psychological contract. When an employee believes the employer has in fact violated the contract or lied to them, there is an increase in turnover and intentions to quit, reduced job satisfaction, reduced organizational trust, and decreased job performance (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Furthermore, engaging in identity-washing conflicts with the purpose of having a strong employer brand, which is to allow for prospective employees to match their values with an organization’s and decide whether they are a good fit for employment (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004).
Based on the above literature review, I present the following hypotheses in order to answer the main research question: How does the alignment, or misalignment, of employer branding and reality influence employee satisfaction among most and least attractive companies?
H1A: The most attractive companies will have higher employee satisfaction.
H1B: Conversely, the least attractive companies will have lower employee satisfaction.
RQ2: Are there differences in employee satisfaction across different industries?
H2: (Mis)Alignment between employer branding promises and reality influences
employee satisfaction.
Method
This study will employ a quantitative research design to examine employee satisfaction, employer branding, and alignment between company promises and reality. A content analysis will be performed analyzing content from the website Glassdoor. Glassdoor calls itself “the world’s most transparent career community that is changing the way people find jobs, and companies recruit top talent” (www.glassdoor.com). Glassdoor was chosen specifically because it functions as a social medium, a recruitment site and an employer branding site. Glassdoor is a social medium in that it is a user-created service (Heinonen, 2011, p. 357); specifically, an online review and rating site, where employees have the opportunity to anonymously rate and review their current or past employers. The reviews go through a two-step internal review that is verified by Glassdoor, allowing for the site to identify and remove any potential (positive or
negative) fake reviews, in order to have authentic, truthful and balanced reviews.
Glassdoor also offers companies the opportunity to become engaged on the website by either “claiming” their profile or becoming an “Open Company”. Otherwise, the company profile will be listed as “unclaimed” and remains user-created. “Open Companies” are companies that have followed five steps to give an accurate depiction of their culture and workplace, which includes responding to employee reviews. This gives the company the opportunity to reply to negative or positive reviews. For this research, unclaimed profiles will be excluded because it shows that the organization is not familiar with the site and is not using Glassdoor’s employer branding features, which are important to this study.
Content analysis has several advantages. First, it is a very transparent research method, where replication or follow-up studies are possible (Bryman, p. 304). This is due to the clearly defined coding scheme and sampling procedure that is set before beginning any study. A second
advantage is that content analysis can be applied to a variety of unstructured, textual information (Bryman, p. 304).
Sample
Companies have been selected using Universum Global’s list titled, “United States of America’s Most Attractive Employers.” Universum Global is an international corporation that surveys millions of students and professionals across the world and creates lists based on their rankings. This study will use data collected from more than 81,000 undergraduate business students from September 2014 to January 2015. Students surveyed by Universum Global were given 100 companies to rank based on attractiveness, resulting in 100 companies ranked from most to least attractive. Ten companies listed as most attractive and ten companies listed as least attractive will be chosen, allowing for the study to identify any differences between the most and least attractive companies.
The method of selection for this research included systematically identifying companies that are: (a) present on the most attractive employers list; (b) have a Glassdoor company profile page; (c) have offices in the United States; (d) have offices in the New York City area; and (e) have “claimed” or “Open Company” profiles on Glassdoor. The sample will be vetted in this manner to ensure consistency within the sample. The United States, and more specifically, the New York City area was chosen as a factor because if differences exist between the companies, we can assume it is not because of the location or the country’s culture. Furthermore, in cases where companies link to their corporate webpage, only content found within three clicks will be included. The three click rule is implemented because when people are searching for specific information online, it should be available quickly and easily to them (Feather, 2000). This
method ensures that information is still included from companies who do not write much on their profile itself, but link the reader to their corporate webpage.
Lastly, if companies make it through the selection process, then, up to 30 employee reviews from that company page will be selected for coding. Reviews will be chosen
chronologically, starting from the most recent reviews. See Table 1 (Appendix A) for the list of companies chosen.
< Table 1 about here >
Codebook and Variables
The codebook used for the present content analysis is based on prior research which examined dimensions of employer attractiveness and employer branding (Elving et al., 2013). The dimensions were formed from ten categories of employer branding concepts originally theorized by Backhaus (2004). The full codebook can be found in Appendix B.
Employer branding and Employee Reality. Employer branding was measured through
34 variables which make up the dimensions of organizational climate, development, innovation, compensation, and other. The final dimension “other” includes questions regarding the
organization’s position, corporate history, CSR initiatives, and work/life balance. Employee reality was measured by examining whether these same variables were mentioned in the employee reviews. The employee reviews on Glassdoor are split into three sections, where employees can describe the company’s pros, cons, and any advice they have for management. All three sections were included in the assessment to determine whether the employee described any of the codebook items positively, negatively, or neutrally.
After coding, it became clear that only a limited amount of the variables were in fact referred to in company profiles and employee reviews. In the analyses I proceeded with only
those characteristics that were present in 50% of the company profiles or 20% of the employee reviews; however, the variable was required to be present at least 1% of the time in both the company profiles and employee reviews to be included in further analyses. This process resulted in ten variables to be included in the analyses. Table 2 (see Appendix A for all tables and
figures) identifies all the variables and their relevant percentages for each factor. < Table 2 about here >
Alignment. Alignment was measured by transforming the 10 variables representing
employer branding and employee reality to represent both alignment and misalignment. A new variable was created where positive inclusion of the variable by the company and positive inclusion by the employee resulted in alignment (= 1); positive inclusion by the company and negative inclusion by the employee resulted in misalignment (= -1); and positive inclusion by the company and neutral inclusion by the employee (mentioned both negatively and positively in the review) resulted in a neutral alignment (= 0). If the variable was not mentioned by either the company or the employee, the result was also a neutral alignment (= 0).
Organizational attractiveness. Organizational attractiveness is based on the company’s
attractiveness ranking on the Universum Global’s list of 100 American companies ranked from most to least attractive. Companies at the top of the list are ranked as most attractive and
companies at the bottom of the list are ranked least attractive. This resulted in two distinct groups of companies (most attractive and least attractive).
Employee satisfaction. Employee satisfaction served as the dependent variable and was
measured on several scales provided by Glassdoor which employees must respond to. These scales included: employees’ overall satisfaction, satisfaction with compensation and benefits,
work/life balance, senior management, culture and values, and career opportunities. Employees indicated the level of their satisfaction on a 5-point scale.
Data
In total, forty-five pages of data were collected from the twenty companies’ employer branding profiles and includes information obtained from linked corporate career webpages. Additionally, a total of 555 employee reviews were analyzed (see Appendix D for descriptives of all variables). Data was collected from April 29, 2015 until May 13, 2015. The majority of employees who wrote reviews were working full-time (49.5%), followed by part-time (12.4%), interns (4.9%) and contractors (3.6%). Additionally, 29.5% of respondents did not specify. Of all the respondents, more than half (56.9%) were currently employed by the company at the time of their review, while 43.1% were past employees. Furthermore, Figure 3 (see Appendix A) shows how long the employees worked for their respective companies at the time of their review.
< Figure 3 about here >
Inter-coder Reliability and Coding
Reliability of the codebook was tested through conducting an inter-coder reliability check. Inter-coder reliability was conducted by a fellow graduate student. The second coder was trained on understanding and using the codebook. They re-coded all twenty of the company profiles and more than 10% of the employee reviews, for a total of 60 employee reviews. The employee reviews were chosen systematically, with every first, fifth and tenth review included. The results were analyzed using Krippendorff’s alpha and a score of .86 was achieved overall for all variables (see Appendix C for Krippendorff’s alpha scores per variable).
Results
To test H1A and H1B, or whether employees from the most attractive companies have
higher levels of overall employee satisfaction than the least attractive companies, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The Levene’s test was insignificant (p = 0.995) allowing for equal variances to be assumed. There was a significant difference in the scores for most attractive (M = 3.69, SD = 1.13) and least attractive (M = 3.23, SD = 1.13) company conditions; t(553)= -4.83, p < .001. The results suggest that employees from companies in the most attractive condition reported higher levels of overall satisfaction than employees from companies in the least attractive condition. These results confirm both H1A and H1B.
To identify whether there were differences between the most attractive and least attractive companies on these measurements of employee satisfaction, several independent samples t-tests were conducted.
There was a marginally significant difference in the scores for most attractive (M = 3.00, SD = 1.22) and least attractive (M = 3.19, SD = 1.27) company conditions for satisfaction with compensation and benefits; t(525)= 1.76, p = 0.080. The differences observed between the two conditions are therefore likely due to chance and not the condition itself. There was a significant difference in the scores for most attractive (M = 3.72, SD = 1.19) and least attractive (M = 3.21, SD = 1.27) company conditions for satisfaction with work/life balance; t(498) = -4.664, p <.001. This result suggests that employees from the most attractive companies report higher levels of satisfaction with their work/life balance than employees from the least attractive companies. There was a significant difference in the scores for most attractive (M = 3.56, SD = 1.15) and least attractive (M = 3.17, SD = 1.17) company conditions for satisfaction with senior
companies report higher levels of satisfaction with their senior management than employees from the least attractive companies. There was a significant difference in the scores for most attractive (M = 3.63, SD = 1.07) and least attractive (M = 3.28, SD = 1.14) company conditions for satisfaction with culture and values; t(525) = -4.104, p < .001, suggesting that employees from the most attractive companies reported higher levels of satisfaction with their company’s culture and values than employees from the least attractive companies. Lastly, there was a significant difference in the scores for most attractive (M = 3.24, SD = 1.162) and least attractive (M = 2.86, SD = 1.24) company conditions for satisfaction with career opportunities, t(522) = -3.698, p < .001, suggesting that employees in the most attractive companies reported higher levels of satisfaction with their career opportunities than employees from the least attractive companies. These findings further support H1A and H1B, suggesting that employees from most
attractive companies report higher levels of satisfaction than employees from least attractive companies, with the exception of satisfaction with compensation and benefits.
Furthermore, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to answer RQ2 and determine if there
were any significant differences of overall employee satisfaction between industries. Nine different industries were identified, including: media, retail, IT, telecommunications, finance, accounting and legal, business services, manufacturing, and government. The results show that the Levene’s test is not significant, suggesting there is homogeneity of variances (p = .490); therefore, the ANOVA table can be interpreted. There was a statistically significant difference of employee satisfaction between the industries, F(8,546) = 5.92, p < .001. A post-hoc Bonferroni test indicated that IT companies had significantly higher employee satisfaction than finance companies (Mdifference = .65, p = .004) and telecommunications companies (Mdifference = .88, p =
following industries: IT companies (Mdifference = -1.13, p < .001); finance companies (Mdifference =
-.48, p = .015); business services companies (Mdifference = .78, p = .028); and manufacturing
companies (Mdifference = .78, p = .028).
In order to answer H2, whether alignment and misalignment influences employee
satisfaction, a regression analysis was conducted. Dummy variables were created for all 10 independent variables as these variables were originally coded on an ordinal scale.
A regression analysis was conducted for overall employee satisfaction (DV) and the alignment or misalignment of 10 independent variables, including: norms and values; a good relationship with colleagues; being part of a team; promotion opportunities within the
organization; the development of employees as individuals; an above average basic salary; an attractive overall compensation package; specific advantages for working for the organization; the organization’s position; and whether the organization values a work/life balance. The
regression model is significant and can therefore be used to predict employee satisfaction, (F(20, 534) = 5.948, p < .001, R2 = .18, R2Adjusted = .15). However, the strength of the prediction is weak
with 15% of the variation in employee satisfaction being predicted on the basis of alignment or misalignment between the previously mentioned independent variables. As Table 3 indicates (see Appendix A), four of the twenty dummy variables in the analysis were statistically significant to the prediction (p < .05).
< Table 3 about here >
The results indicate there is a direct effect; for each increase in alignment of norms and values (from neutral to alignment), there is an increase in employee satisfaction by .505. For each increase in misalignment of norms and values (from neutral to misalignment) there is a decrease in employee satisfaction by 1.47. For each increase in alignment of employee
development (from neutral to alignment) there is an increase in employee satisfaction by .40. For each increase in misalignment of an above average salary (from neutral to misalignment), there is a decrease in employee satisfaction by 1.16. Of all the variables examined, the misalignment of norms and values had the largest influence on employee satisfaction (b* = -.32).
To answer RQ3, whether companies with more alignment between their employer
branding will have higher levels of employee satisfaction, several regression analyses were performed. First, a regression analysis was conducted to test the influence of attractiveness and alignment (IVs) on overall employee satisfaction (DV), with the variable “past or current employee” as a control. The overall alignment variable was computed by averaging the original alignment and misalignment scale and giving each review an alignment score which lies between -1 and 1.
The results indicate that the regression model is significant (F(3, 551) = 22.979, p < .001, R2 = .111, R2Adjusted = .106). The strength of this model is weak, with 10.6% of the variation in
overall employee satisfaction predicted by the independent variables. Furthermore, a company’s alignment has the strongest influence on employee satisfaction (b* = .25); for each increase in alignment, there is an increase in employee satisfaction by 2.89, while holding the
“attractiveness” and “past or current employee” variables constant. For each increase in attractiveness, there is an increase in overall employee satisfaction by .42.
A second regression model was constructed to test whether there is an interaction effect. The interaction variable was computed as the product of attractiveness and alignment. The model is significant (F(4, 550) = 17.567, p < .001, R2 = .113, R2Adjusted = .107). The variance predicted
by this model, compared to the first regression model, increased slightly from 10.6% to 10.7%. However, the results show that the interaction term is not significant (p = .256). Company
alignment is the strongest contributor to the model and has the most influence on overall employee satisfaction (b* = .304). Table 4 (see Appendix A) explains both regression models.
< Table 4 about here >
Five more regression analyses were run to test the interaction variable on employee satisfaction as it was rated by the employees on the scales “compensation & benefits”, “culture & values”, “senior management”, “work/life balance” and “career opportunities”. The results of the regression analyses (Tables 5 - 9) can be found in Appendix A. Of note, the interaction variable (attractiveness and alignment) is significant only in the model predicting satisfaction with career opportunities, (F(4, 519) = 13.039, p < .001, R2 = .091, R2Adjusted = .084).
< Tables 5 - 9 about here >
The results of the regression analyses partially support H3A and H3B. Analyses without
the interaction term all support the notion that company alignment has the strongest influence on employee satisfaction. When looking at overall employee satisfaction, the interaction term (alignment and attractiveness) is not significant. However, when analyzing employees’
satisfaction with career opportunities, the interaction term becomes significant. This means that there is a moderation effect occurring, where employee satisfaction with career opportunities depends on the company’s attractiveness. There is a negative relationship, indicating that when less attractive companies have more alignment, there is an increase in satisfaction with career opportunities.
< Table 10 about here >
Lastly, Table 10 (see Appendix A) summarizes both the alignment score and mean employee satisfaction score for each company. Google and PwC had the highest alignment scores. Both companies had an alignment score of .10 or greater, on a scale of -1 to 1, and were
listed as most attractive companies. Three companies had negative alignment scores, indicating overall misalignment. These companies were Amazon, Dicks Sporting Goods, and Walmart. Only one of those companies, Amazon, was listed as most attractive, while the other two were listed as least attractive companies. Average employee satisfaction was higher for most attractive companies (M = 3.69) than least attractive companies (M = 3.23). Average alignment was higher for most attractive companies (M = .048) than least attractive companies (M = .037).
Discussion
The present study aimed to investigate whether companies are engaging in identity-washing to recruit potential employees. This research examined twenty companies that are listed as either most attractive or least attractive and analyzed each company’s use of employer
branding on their Glassdoor company profile and corporate webpages. Then, to test whether the companies were engaging in identity-washing, up to thirty anonymous employee reviews were collected per company from Glassdoor. The alignment and misalignment between employer branding promises written in companies’ profiles and reality as described by the employees allowed for the identification and examination of identity-washing.
Is identity-washing occurring?
The results seem to indicate that some companies are engaging in identity-washing on their online profiles. However, the degree to which each company engages in identity-washing differs. Among the twenty companies studied, Amazon, Dicks Sporting Goods, and WalMart have the lowest alignment scores and are therefore most involved in identity-washing.
Amazon, the worst of the companies when it comes to alignment between reality and brand promises, boasts a fun work place that values risk-taking and frugality. Their website mentions that they hire and develop “the best” talent and that their leaders “recognize
exceptional talent, and willingly move them throughout the organization.” However, many employees complained about Amazon’s values and promotional process. For example, one reviewer advised management to fix the inconsistencies within the promotion process, noting that managers who are truly interested in developing others should be promoted. Reviewers noted that employees can move laterally, but moving “upwards is near impossible,” while another reviewer said management needs to elevate more women. Several reviewers noted that personal politics play a large role in who gets promoted. Moreover, Amazon’s value of frugality appears to be damaging to its employees, where employees mentioned feeling “used and abused” and not provided the tools needed to succeed.
Conversely, Google, PwC, and Ernst and Young had the highest alignment scores, showing that they are engaging in the least amount of identity-washing. These companies were most likely to provide their potential employees with accurate information regarding their organizations, and actually live up to their promises. Google, with the highest alignment score, was also rated as the number one most attractive employer. Google successfully promoted their above average salary, attractive compensation benefits, and specific advantages of working for their organization within their employer branding profile. Employee reviewers agreed and rated those factors positively in their reviews.
Do attractive companies have higher employee satisfaction?
This study found that attractive companies fare better in various measures of employee satisfaction. One measure, employees’ satisfaction with compensation and benefits, did not have any significant differences between attractive and least attractive companies. This finding is in line with a meta-analysis of 92 quantitative studies by Judge, Piccolo, Podsakoff, Shaw, and Rich (2010) which found that salary is only marginally related to employee satisfaction. The research
by Judge et al. explained that “a sample of lawyers earning an average of $148,000 per year were less job satisfied than a sample of child care workers earning $23,500 per year” (2010, p. 162). They noted that counter examples existed as well, showing the lack of a relationship between pay and satisfaction. Judge et al. contributed their findings to the adaptation level theory (Helson, 1947, as cited by Judge et al., 2010) which, “posits that judgments of experience are relative to a reference point that shifts with past experience and current background stimuli” (2010, p. 162). Adaptation level theory explains how pay increases are initially exciting but eventually lose their satisfying value. This could be the case for the companies examined in this research. It is
possible that vice presidents earning a high salary may be as dissatisfied with their salary as retail workers earning minimum wage. However, on all other satisfaction measures, the most attractive companies did have higher satisfaction scores, which supports hypotheses 1A and 1B.
Does alignment influence employee satisfaction?
In line with our expectations, there was a positive, direct effect of alignment on satisfaction. The alignment of employer branding promises was related to an increase in
employee satisfaction. Out of all the variables analyzed, the alignment of norms and values had the largest effect on employee satisfaction outcomes. This suggests that if an employee
experiences the company’s norms and values differently in real life than what they initially expected, they will feel a violation has occurred and become dissatisfied. This is also true for employee salaries and employee development; however, to a lesser extent. Therefore,
organizations must realize that their values are important to employees and cannot be misrepresented. Values, unlike salaries or development programs, are what initially attract a person to an organization and may be the main reason for applying.
It is possible that violating expectations of norms and values is worse than violating expectations of salary, because although salary is negotiable, norms and values are not. Values have been defined as “fundamental and enduring” (Chatman, 1991, p. 459) to both an individual and to an organization’s culture. In order for an organization to have a strong culture, their values must be both “intensely held and widely shared” amongst employees (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984, as cited by Chatman, 1991). In this sense, if an employee is misled to believe their values match with the organizations, they could possibly not fit in with the organization’s real culture.
Overall, it was clear that alignment makes employees more satisfied with their job. The theoretical implications of this finding strengthen prior studies’ conclusions that violations of the psychological contract have negative consequences for employers (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Robinson, 1996; Ng, Feldman, & Lam, 2009). The current theory supports the idea that
employees do not like being misled, or lied to, during the recruitment and employment process. However, due to the large amount of missing values, further analysis is needed. Most companies did not include as many employer branding concepts as originally assumed. While the Glassdoor platform provides companies with the opportunity to brand themselves as employers, it seems that many companies are still not taking full advantage of it, as was found in previous research (Elving et al., 2013). Furthermore, it appears that companies might be focusing on the wrong concepts. For example, approximately 85% of companies in this study discussed their organization’s position relative to other organizations; more than 55% of companies discussed their corporate history and CSR initiatives; and more than 63% discussed how their company gives back to society in some way. However, these factors did not appear to be important for current employees. Only 15% of employees mentioned the organization’s position; and less than 1% of reviews included any mentions regarding the organization’s history, CSR initiatives, or
whether they give back to society. While it is still important for companies to mention these facts, managers should also understand the importance of other concepts which may have a bigger impact on employees’ satisfaction or overall attractiveness as an employer.
Does organizational attractiveness change the effect of alignment and satisfaction?
RQ3 asks whether the attractiveness of an organization influences the effect of alignment on employee satisfaction. The results indicated that alignment, above all, has the strongest influence on employee satisfaction. However, in one instance, involving satisfaction with career opportunities, a moderation effect occurs. This result is interesting in that all other models of employee satisfaction show that alignment has the stronger influence.
However, it must be taken into account that organizational attractiveness was used in the current model to provide variation amongst the companies, and was not directly measured from the employees’ perspective. Future research should test whether this effect occurs when asking employees to rate their own company’s attractiveness. Then, it will be possible to directly measure the company’s alignment influence on attractiveness, and attractiveness’ influence on satisfaction.
Managerial Implications
As such, there are several implications for managers looking to improve their employer branding profiles, employee satisfaction, or attractiveness as an employer.
In general, companies should aim to be more like Google and Apple. Not only did both companies have high employee satisfaction, but they also had the highest approval ratings by employees, with 90% and 87% of employees approving of Google and Apple, respectively (see Appendix A for ratings of all companies). Apple scored highest on employee outlook, with 77% of employees saying the company has a positive outlook. Also, Apple had the highest CEO
approval rating, with 67% of employees agreeing they approve of the current CEO. These high scores are assumed to be the result of great alignment done by both companies. However, a closer look shows that Apple had a neutral alignment score, rather than a positive score. It is possible Apple’s high satisfaction and approval ratings are due to other factors that make the company a good employer, which may not have been measured in this study, or a result of its attractiveness. Because attractiveness mediates the relationship between alignment and
satisfaction, it is possible that Apple’s high attractiveness compensates for its neutral alignment score, thus allowing for the company to receive overall high employee satisfaction ratings.
Google, on the other hand, knows which concepts to sell, or promise, on its profile and corporate webpages, as shown by its high alignment score. Google is living up to those brand promises, and avoiding any violations of the psychological contract. Rather than selling “favorable” information, Google chooses to sell “accurate” information. Their high alignment and high satisfaction scores reinforce the notion that alignment is above all most important to companies.
Interestingly, Cable et al. (2000) found, rather unconvincingly, that companies tend to focus on favorable rather than accurate information. However, their research was limited in examining only one industry (service brands) where employees are interacting with customers face-to-face. The present study establishes that there are companies who present accurate information and they are thriving in regards to satisfaction scores. By extending the findings of Cable et al. (2000) to include other industries, this research shows that differences exist across industries. As such, it is also interesting to note that Google and Apple are both IT (information technology) companies, and the only IT companies examined during this research. Future
research could examine IT companies more in-depth and try to understand why exactly these types of companies have greater alignment and satisfaction.
This research extends current employer branding theory by trying to understand how the use of these concepts in real life influences employees’ satisfaction. This research does not just look at the initial recruitment process but rather gives insight into how these promises are being delivered during actual employment. Since the ultimate goal is to become an employer of choice and increase employee retention, managers and human resources departments should identify the positives and negatives within their organization. They should work towards understanding and improving issues while promoting the areas employees are happy about. This process allows the company to align their employer branding and internal branding identities, and ultimately create a high-quality employment experience that is unique and difficult to replicate (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). As Ambler and Barrow suggest, these factors will lead to higher employee retention (1996).
Conclusion and Future Research
The present study provides insights into a new concept called identity-washing. Based on my findings, I propose a new theoretical model which includes a direct and a mediated effect (see Figure 4 in Appendix A for the proposed model).
< Figure 4 about here >
By understanding how identity-washing impacts employee satisfaction, companies can make smart decisions regarding their employer branding and internal branding practices. However, our measurement of alignment within companies was limited to the information that was available online through Glassdoor. Future research should explore identity-washing further by conducting interviews within companies. An interview would allow the researcher to ask
specific questions about certain areas of the company’s internal branding. In the present study, it seemed employees focused on a limited number of highlights or concerns, whereas an interview would allow for the employee to discuss their feelings on a wide variety of topics, including the company’s culture, attractiveness, environment, values, and relationships. More importantly, this could provide the opportunity for researchers to ask employees if they feel the company has engaged in identity-washing during the recruitment process, providing a new measure of the concept.
Additionally, future research could examine the effects of positive and negative electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) for companies on websites like Glassdoor. Are potential candidates taking the anonymous reviews at face value? Or do they understand that some reviews could be fake? Do harsh, negative reviews on sites like Glassdoor and Indeed persuade potential employees to not apply for a position? Research has shown that customer-employee relationships are important because customers will spread positive word-of-mouth and act as advocates for the organization when their relationship is strong (Claycomb & Martin, 2001, as cited by Bowers & Martin, 2007). It is possible that the same relationship holds true for employees. If the employee-organization relationship is strong, the employees may act as advocates for the organization and spread positive eWOM, ultimately allowing for more candidates, or betting fitting candidates, to apply at that organization. Again, this concept touches on the idea that employers are looking for top talent in an over-increasingly scarce pool of potential employees.
Overall, employers should be aware, and be cautious, of engaging in identity-washing. With the advent of anonymous review sites like Glassdoor, the power of transparency has been put in the hands of employees. It is important for organizations to understand that they are not
gaining much by lying to their prospective employees on their corporate webpages and employer branding profiles. Instead, these companies are gaining dissatisfied employees who are eager to publically criticize the company.
References
Anderson, N. (2003). Applicant and Recruiter Reactions to New Technology in Selection: A Critical Review and Agenda for Future Research. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(2/3), 121-136.
Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career Development International, 9(5), 501-517.
Balmer, J. M. T., Stuart, H., & Greyser, S. A. (2009). Aligning Identity and Strategy: Corporate Branding at British Airways in the Late 20th Century. California Management Review, 51(3), 6-23.
Bersin, J. (2013). Predictions for 2014: Building a Strong Talent Pipeline for the Global Economic Recovery. San Francisco, CA: Deloitte Development LLC.
Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Hah, L. L. (2005). Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding. International Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 151-172.
Bowen, D.E., Gilliland, S.W., & Folger, R. (1999). HRM and service fairness: how being fair with employees spills over to customers. Organizational Dynamics, 27, 7-23.
Bowers, M. R., & Martin, C. L. (2007). Trading places redux: employees as customers, customers as employees. Journal of Services Marketing, 21(2), 88-98.
Cable, D. M., Aiman-Smith, L., Mulvey, P. W., & Edwards, J. R. (2000). The Sources And Accuracy Of Job Applicants' Beliefs About Organizational Culture. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1076-1085.
Cappelli, P. (2001). Making the Most of On-Line Recruiting. Harvard Business Review, 139-146.
Cascio, W. F. (2014). Leveraging employer branding, performance management and human resource development to enhance employee retention. Human Resource Development International, 17(2), 121-128.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 459-484.
Claycomb, C., & Martin, C.L. (2001). Building customer relationships: an inventory of service providers' objectives and practices. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 19(6), 385-99. Cornelissen, J. (2008). Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice, 2nd edn.
London: Sage Publications.
De Roeck, K., Maon, F., & Lejeune, C. (2013). Taking Up the Challenge of Corporate Branding: An Integrative Framework. European Management Review, 10(3), 137-151.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517–554.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and members identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.
Elving, W. J.L. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: the influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(4), 277-292. Elving, W. J., Westhoff, J. J., Meeusen, K., & Schoonderbeek, J. W. (2013). The war for talent?
The relevance of employer branding in job advertisements for becoming an employer of choice. Journal of Brand Management, 20(5), 355–373.
Elving, W., & van Vuuren, M. (2011). Beyond identity washing: corporate social responsibility in an age of skepticism. Akademija MM (Slovenian Journal of Marketing), 17, 49-55.
Foster, C., Punjaisri, K., & Cheng, R. (2010). Exploring the relationship between corporate, internal and employer branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(6), 401-409.
Gomes, D. & Neves, J. (2011). Organizational attractiveness and prospective applicants' intentions to apply. Personnel Review, 40(6), 684-699.
Heding, T., Knudtzen, C. F., & Bjerre, M. (2008). Brand Management: Research, Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Heinonen, K. (2011). Consumer activity in social media: Managerial approaches to consumers’ social media behavior. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10, 356–364.
Helson, H. (1947). Adaptation-level as frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. American Journal of Psychology, 60, 1−29.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic Word-of-Mouth via Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38-52.
Herman, R. E., & Gioia, J. L. (2001). Helping your organization become an employer of choice. Employment Relations Today, 63-78.
Ind, N. (1998). An integrated approach to corporate branding. The Journal of Brand Management, 5(5), 323-329.
Jiang, T.T., & Iles, P. (2011). Employer-brand equity, organizational attractiveness and talent management in the Zhejiang private sector, China. Journal of Technology Management in China, 6(1), 97-110.
Jones, D. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a
volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 857–878.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., Podsakoff, N. P., Shaw, J. C., & Rich, B. L. (2010). The relationship between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 157-167.
Lievens, F., & Harris, M.M. (2003). Research on Internet Recruiting and Testing: Current Status and Future Directions. International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 16, 131-165.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.
Munshi, D., & Kurian, P. (2005). Imperializing spin cycles: A postcolonial look at public relations, greenwashing, and the separation of publics. Public Relations Review, 31, 513– 520.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–384.
Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S. & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Changing obligations and the
psychological contract: a longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 137-53.
Robinson, S.L. & Morrison, E. (1995). Psychological contracts and organizational citizenship behavior: the effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 289-98.
Robinson, S.L. & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245-59.
Russell, F. (2004). Inspirational Leadership, Department of Trade and Industry, London, UK. Schlager, T., Bodderas, M., Maas, P., & Cachelin, J. L. (2011). The influence of the employer
brand on employee attitudes relevant for service branding: an empirical investigation. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(7), 497-508.
Smidts A., Pruyn A. D., & van Riel, C. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1051–1062.
Snyder M., & DeBono, K. G. (1989). Understanding the functions of attitudes: Lessons from personality and social behavior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 339–359). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stilwell, V. (2014 May 2). Workforce Participation at 36-Year Low as Jobs Climb. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-02/workforce-participation-at-36-year-low-even-as-more-jobs-beckon
Sundaram, D. S., Mitra, K., & Webster, C. (1998). Word-of-Mouth Communications: A Motivational Analysis. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 527–531.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (eds.). Psychology of intergroup relations, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
United States Department of Labor. (2013). Employment Projections: 2012-2022 Summary (Data file). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm
Van Maanen, J, & Barley, S. R. (1984). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In Barry M. Staw and Larry L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 6: 287-365. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Willemsen, L. M., Neijens, P. C., & Bronner, F. E. (2013). Webcare as Customer Relationship and Reputation Management? Motives for negative electronic word of mouth and their effect on webcare receptiveness. In S. Rosengren, M. Dahlén & S. Okazaki (Eds.), Advances in advertising research (Vol. IV): The changing roles of advertising (pp. 55-69). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.
Yu, K.Y.T. (2014). Person–organization fit effects on organizational attraction: A test of an expectations-based model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 75-94.
Appendix A Tables and Figures Figure A1.
Theoretical Model
Table A1.
Companies Chosen for Coding
Rank Most Attractive Companies Reviews # of Rank Least Attractive Companies Reviews # of
1 Google 30 100 Walmart 30
2 Walt Disney Company 19 99 AT&T 30
3 Apple 30 97 PetSmart 30
4 Nike 30 96 US Dept. of Veterans Affairs 19
5 JP Morgan 30 94 Credit Suisse 30
6 Ernst and Young 30 93 US Navy 14
7 Goldman Sachs 30 90 BlackRock 30
8 Deloitte 30 89 Citi 30
9 PwC 30 87 Dicks Sporting Goods 24
11 Amazon 29 85 Fidelity Investments 30
Figure A3.
Employees’ length of time working for company at time of review
Note. N = 555, Missing N = 32.3% 19.4% 29.3% 22.3% 12.0% 7.4% 9.6% Less than 1 year More than 1 year More than 3
Table A2.
Percentage of Variables Included in Company Profiles and Employee Reviews
Variables % included in
Company Profiles
% included in Employee Reviews
Norms and Values 74.4* 19.5
Recognition/Appreciation 32.3 11.9
Fun Working Environment 10.6 5.8
Happy Working Environment 8.8 2.9
Feeling Good About Yourself 19.6 3.6
Feeling More Self Confident 10.8 1.3
Good Relationship with Superiors 5.4 19.6
Good Relationship with Colleagues 10.8* 23.4
Supportive/Encouraging Colleagues 35.9 8.6
Part of a Team 62.7* 8.6
Participating in Decision Making 10.8 0.9
Teach Others What You’ve Learned 37.7 2.2
Job Security Within Organization 0 4.9
Acceptance and Belonging 16.2 0.4
Gaining Hands-on Experience 13.2 8.3
Promotion Opportunities Within Organization 21.4* 20.2
Springboard for Future Employment 5.4 2.5
Career-Enhancing Experience 49.2 10.1
Exciting Environment 24.1 6.1
Development of Employees as Individuals 78.9* 23.2
Innovative Employer 43.1 5.6
Organization Values Creativity 16.2 0.5
High Quality Products and Services 45.4 1.4
Innovative Products and Services 27.6 0.7
An Above Average Basic Salary 16.8* 35.7
An Attractive Overall Compensation Package 60.0* 26.5
Number of Working Hours 0** 25.6
Specific Advantages of Working 27.4* 24.3
Organization’s Position 84.9 16.6
Corporate History 58.2** 0.2
Organization Gives Back to Society 63.6** 0.7
CSR Initiatives (People, Planet, Profit) 55.5** 0.2
Organization Values Work/Life Balance 25.0* 22.5
Organization is Attractive/Desirable Employer 5.4 1.1 Note. * = included in regression analysis; ** = variable excluded, included < 1%
