The relative importance of employer branding and consumer-brand identification on application intentions

(1)

consumer-brand identification on application intentions

Master Thesis Business Administration - Marketing

Stephanie Thijssen 10889620

MSc. in Business Administration – Marketing Track Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Karin Venetis

Date: 29 April 2016 Wordcount: 18.457

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Stephanie Thijssen, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. 

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Karin Venetis for her enthusiasm about the subject matter and her refreshing down-to-earth outlook on the thesis process. This boosted my confidence in times of need. Moreover, I would like to thank Claudia Buengeler for sitting down with me to discuss the HR side of my thesis.

Last but not least I would like to thank my parents for stressing the importance of

education in my upbringing, and supporting me in satisfying my academic curiosity in a Master’s degree in Marketing.

(4)

(5)

Abstract

The aim of the article is to study the relative importance of consumer-brand identification and employer branding on application intentions of job seekers. To do so, the study also needed to demonstrate a relationship between consumer-brand identification and application intentions. A pretest pointed to chocolate brand Tony’s Chocolonely as possessing the highest level of polarization of 13 brands and was thus chosen for the main study. Job descriptions were

pretested to reflect bad and good employer reputation (based on Cable & Graham, 2000) and job characteristics (based on Hackman & Oldham’s 1976 JCM).

The main study presented respondents with a short description of fictional mother brand Hepburns, ending with their recent acquirement of Tony’s Chocolonely. This controlled for any pre-existing conglomerate associations that could influence respondents’ associations with the employer. Respondents were randomly shown one of four job descriptions working for Tony’s, varying on good or bad job characteristics and employer reputation, and asked to rate their application intentions on a 5-item scale. A manipulation check of the employer branding variables and consumer-brand identification followed, ending on demographics.

A simple linear regression confirmed the positive relationship between consumer-brand identification and application intentions, validating the first hypothesis. A two-way ANOVA confirmed the positive relationship between the employer branding variables and application intentions, in support of hypothesis 2a and 2b. Lastly, a regression analysis found no support for the additional explanatory power of consumer-brand identification over and above the effects of employer branding. Hypothesis 3 thus had to be rejected.

The study contributes to the existing research on antecedents of application intentions by adding consumer-brand identification as a significant contributor. Moreover, the branding literature is provided with a widening of the outcomes of consumer-brand identification, and recruitment benefits from the added knowledge of the relative effects of branding and employer branding: both are significantly related to application intentions, but a product brand that job seekers identify with does not diminish the importance of providing them with a sound employer brand and favorable job characteristics.

Keywords: consumer-brand identification, employer branding, recruitment, application intentions

(6)

(7)

1.5 Application intentions ... - 30 - 1.6 Conceptual model ... - 31 - 1.6.1 Research questions ... - 32 - 1.6.2 Hypotheses ... - 32 - 1.6.3 Research objectives ... - 33 - 2. Methodology ... - 34 - 2.1 Research design ... - 34 - 2.2 Stimuli development ... - 35 - 2.2.1 Consumer-brand identification ... - 36 - 2.2.2 Job descriptions ... - 37 - 2.3 Variables ... - 38 -

(8)

2.3.1 Consumer-brand identification ... - 38 - 2.3.2 Job characteristics ... - 38 - 2.3.3 Employer reputation ... - 39 - 2.3.4 Application intentions ... - 39 - 2.3.5 Demographics ... - 40 - 2.4 Sample ... - 40 - 2.5 Statistical procedure ... - 41 -

2.6 Preparation of the data ... - 42 -

2.7 Response analysis ... - 43 -

2.7.1 Respondents ... - 43 -

2.7.2 Distribution across conditions ... - 44 -

3. Results ... - 45 - 3.1 Reliability check ... - 45 - 3.2 Descriptive data ... - 45 - 3.3 Manipulation check ... - 48 - 3.3.1 Employer reputation ... - 48 - 3.3.2 Job characteristics ... - 48 - 3.4 Hypothesis testing ... - 48 - 3.4.1 Hypothesis 1 ... - 48 - 3.4.2 Hypotheses 2a and 2b ... - 50 - 3.4.3 Hypothesis 3 ... - 51 - 3.5 Additional Analyses ... - 53 -

3.5.1 Further investigation of hypothesis 3 ... - 53 -

3.5.2 Gender differences in CBI ... - 57 -

(9)

4. Discussion ... - 60 -

4.1 Findings ... - 60 -

4.1.1 Consumer-brand identification effects ... - 61 -

4.1.2 Brand choice ... - 62 -

4.1.3 Target sample choice ... - 62 -

4.1.4 Employer branding effects ... - 63 -

4.1.5 Long-term versus short-term benefits ... - 63 -

4.1.6 Tradeoffs ... - 64 -

5. Conclusion ... - 66 -

5.1 Theoretical implications ... - 66 -

5.2 Managerial implications ... - 67 -

5.3 Limitations and future research ... - 68 -

5.4 Summary ... - 70 -

6. References ... - 72 -

7. Appendices ... - 82 -

Appendix 1: Backhaus & Tikoo’s (2004) Employer Branding Framework ... - 82 -

Appendix 2: Original JCM (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) ... - 82 -

Appendix 3: Original Employer Reputation variables in Cable & Graham (2000) ... - 83 -

Appendix 4: Fictional Mother Brand: Hepburns ... - 84 -

Appendix 5: Sample job offer (DelVecchio et al., 2007) ... - 84 -

Appendix 6: Pretest statistics consumer-brand identification polarization ... - 85 -

Appendix 7: Pretest statistics ER and JC conceptualizations ... - 85 -

Appendix 8: Condition 1 (good ER*bad JC) ... - 86 -

Appendix 12: Frequencies of consumer-brand identification for the whole sample ... - 90 -

(10)

8. Tables ... - 92 -

Table 1: Sample size per condition ... - 92 -

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for the entire sample ... - 92 -

Table 3: Correlation coefficients of the independent variables ... - 93 -

Table 4: Correlation coefficients for hypothesis 1 ... - 93 -

Table 5: Results of the regression for hypothesis 1 ... - 93 -

Table 6: Between-subjects effects of Employer reputation and Job characteristics ... - 94 -

Table 7: Correlation coefficients and collinearity statistics for hypothesis 3 ... - 94 -

Table 8: Summary of the regression for hypothesis 3 ... - 95 -

Table 9: CBI categories per score ... - 95 -

Table 10: Application intentions for CBI categories in the ER conditions ... - 95 -

Table 11: Application intentions for CBI categories in the JC conditions ... - 96 -

9. Figures... - 98 -

Figure 1: Conceptual model ... - 98 -

Figure 2: Correlation Consumer-brand identification and Application intentions ... - 98 -

Figure 3: Application intentions for Employer Reputation ... - 99 -

Figure 4: Application intentions for Employer Reputation per CBI category ... - 99 -

Figure 5: Application intentions for Job Characteristics ... - 100 -

Figure 6: Application intentions for Job Characteristics per CBI category ... - 100 -

(11)

Introduction

Companies are increasingly seeking to deepen the connection between customers and the company and its brand(s). Whereas satisfaction was long the status quo of consumer-company relationships, businesses and academics have increasingly shifted interest towards more

meaningful types of connections that give more depth to the relationship, such as customer-brand identification (CBI). Brand identification is an outcome stimulated by satisfaction, which in turn is influenced by perceived quality (Lam, Ahearne, Mullins, Hayati & Schillewaert, 2013). It is therefore a valuable brand-consumer bond, that stimulates an enduring relationship with the brand that is meaningful for both the company and the consumer.

Besides sales objectives the influence of branding, and CBI more specifically, stretches further. Not only does branding, by definition, influence buying behavior (Burmann, Schaefer & Maloney, 2008), brand connections have been shown to influence recruitment outcomes, with brand equity (DelVecchio, Jarvis, Klink & Dineen, 2007) among others having been proven to influence application intentions (AI). This study posits that a similar relationship exists for CBI.

The War for Talent (Taylor & Collins, 2000) adds to the salience of looking into ways to influence application intentions: today’s near-graduates and graduates are being overloaded with activities organized by large firms to attract top students. Attracting desirable candidates for jobs has become an indispensable activity for companies, and a positive image influences not only the number, but also the quality of applicants to a company (Lemmink, Schuijf & Streukens, 2003). In light of this, studying the effect of CBI on recruitment outcomes is a worthwhile undertaking.

Branding the employment value proposition proves valuable as its attractiveness is shown to positively influence the interest of top candidates in the employer (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). In influencing application behavior applying branding knowledge to the recruitment context means communicating the company’s package of functional, economic, and psychological

benefits (Ambler & Barrow, 1996). In short, companies must engage in employer branding (EB). Although still an underdeveloped part of corporate branding, the influence on employment outcomes such as application intentions and work expectations is beginning to receive attention from human resources (HR) and marketing literature. Studies are performed aimed at

discovering dimensions of employer attractiveness, as well as the reasons for which applicants would rather work for one firm than another, which are myriad. Not only are powerful brands

(12)

popular employers because they signal quality, but also because they allow workers to build resume power (DelVecchio et al., 2007), among others.

This study accepts that many determinants have proven their salience in influencing

application intentions, such as employer branding variables job characteristics (JC) and employer reputation (ER). Moreover, brand awareness and brand equity have been shown to influence AI, leading this study to hypothesize that CBI should have a similar effect. However, this premise is taken one step further: if JC and ER influence AI, and various branding variables have been found to have an effect on AI as well, could there be a superseding effect of CBI on the positive relationship between JC and ER and AI, such that a job offer for a brand that one identifies strongly with, will act inhibitory to the rational processes of examining the job offer on content?

This study will investigate the relative relationships of two employer branding pillars JC and ER and consumer-brand identification on application intentions. By investigating this effect, this study contributes to the branding literature by extending the knowledge of proven

recruitment effects of branding. Moreover, this study contributes to the recruitment literature by investigating the relative relationships of employer branding variables and the product brand on application intentions. In doing so, the present study will investigate what aspects of the job are applicants willing to trade off for working for a brand they feel connected with?

The research questions answered in the study will thus be: What are the relative effects of the employer branding variables and customer-brand identification on application intentions? Does consumer-brand identification moderate the relationship between employer branding and application intentions? If so, when a job opportunity presents itself working for a brand the job seeker strongly identifies with, this identification should diminish the importance of employer branding variables in the intention development to apply.

This paper will commence with a review of the branding literature, and more specifically what is known about consumer-brand identification, followed by an examination of the employer branding literature and the status quo on its two main pillars – employer reputation and job characteristics. It will then examine the concept of application intentions, before the

methodology of the study is described. Finally, the results of the study are discussed, followed by the discussion and conclusion about the findings.

(13)

1. Literature review

1.1 Branding

Branding is an inherent component of the marketing of products and services. By attaching a “distinguishing name and/or symbol (such as a logo, trademark, or package design)” (Aaker, 2009, p.7) to products or services, the seller is able to differentiate its offer from its competitors. It does so by communicating compelling points of difference, without losing sight of the frame of reference, or category, in which the brand is competing (Keller, Sternthal & Tybout, 2002). If it can successfully communicate both, consumers have a strong reason to buy Brand A over Brand B, and might even develop brand loyalty (Keller, 2001).

A large body of research exists on branding, creating an abundance of proof that brands create value for firms (Keller & Lehmann, 2003). Their utility is myriad, from differentiators to being quality signals (Rao & Monroe, 1989), signaling value (Chang & Wildt, 1994) and prestige (Baek, Kim & Yu, 2010), thus influencing purchase intention. They even contribute to risk reduction on the part of the consumer in times of uncertainty (Roselius, 1973). Dawar and Parker (1994) demonstrate the salience of brand names as quality signals over and above other signals such as price, physical appearance and retailer reputation, across cultures.

Moreover, brands are good means to create customer satisfaction and brand loyalty. In their study investigating mediating effects of brand identification and moderating effects of service quality and corporate social responsibility (CSR), He & Li (2011) find that brand identification leads to customer satisfaction and service brand loyalty, with direct effects of service quality and CSR on brand identification. However, the concept of brand loyalty has endured scrutiny in various articles, that point to ambiguity in the measurement of the construct. As Amine (1998) points out, studies vary by measuring different constructs, from repeat

purchasing over time to investigating the reasons for repeat purchases. Much existing research conceptualizes brand loyalty as the repeat purchasing of the brand, which was already marked a drawback of the literature in 1995 by Bloemer & Kasper, who specify a difference should be made between repeat purchase and true brand loyalty. Many factors contribute to the amount of purchasing one does of a brand, that inhibit the accurate measurement of loyalty. Fournier & Yao (1997) add that brand loyalty should not be seen as an eternal connection, nor should it be

(14)

considered the only valuable consumer relationship, as consumer heterogeneity leads to a far more complex landscape of consumer-brand relationships. The concept of ‘consumer identity’ (Arnould & Thompson, 2005) supports the notion of building more meaningful relationships with consumers, as markets are increasingly becoming the place where individuals find symbols and social cues to self-identify (Lam et al., 2013). A good means of binding consumers to brands in such a way is consumer-brand identification. Brands aim to achieve this type of relationship with their consumers as it has been shown to positively influence loyalty indicators such as repeat buying behavior, word-of-mouth and symbol passing (Lam et al., 2013; Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008).

The utility of brands can be extended to the recruitment context, where their effect on risk reduction and quality signaling can make an important addition to the discussion of the effect of employer branding on application intention.

The versatile usage effectiveness of brands in attaching meaning to products and services has caused it to transcend its application to products and services to other entities such as persons, places and even firms (Peters, 1999). Making use of the marketing-based principles of branding to positively influence the image of firms has received increasing attention from business and academics, leading to much knowledge about corporate branding, and more specifically internal and employer branding.

1.2 Consumer-brand identification

For a brand to compel consumers to buy its products or services, it must do more than present its attributes and functional added value. It must present an identity that consumers either congrue with, or aspire to. In fact, brands already possess the potential: they have “the ability to embody, inform, and communicate desirable consumer identities” (Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar & Sen, 2012, p. 3).

1.2.1 Antecedents of consumer-brand identification

Consumer-brand identification is explained by two streams of theory: interpretative or sociological, and psychological (Tuškej, Golob & Podnar, 2013). The first explains that consumers’ identification with brands originates from their need to construct an identity, and

(15)

brands aid in constructing such an identity (Rodhain, 2006; Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008; Tuškej et al., 2013). We do so by anthropomorphizing a brand so that our relationship with it simulates almost an interpersonal relationship (Fournier, 1998), where we can identify with human traits and values that a brand exudes. Moreover, brands offer good ways for individuals to broadcast this identity and their personal uniqueness (Belk, 1988) because brands exude desirable traits that can be ‘made ours’ by using, purchasing or identifying with the brand.

Secondly, a more commonly described explanation of why consumers identify with brands, is social identity theory (SIT) from social psychology. Although very close to the first

explanation, this theory, broadly used to explain the effectiveness of branding, posits that individuals incessantly try to classify themselves and others into categories such as age, gender, religion, etc. (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Humans do so because it gives them a means of

understanding and classifying their social surroundings, but also to be able to classify

themselves. This social identity is part of the twofold explanation of what makes a person who he or she is. Besides the personal identity, which is made up attributes such as skills, personality traits and interests, but also things like physical appearance, the social identity is who a person is in relation to its social environment, the ‘boxes’ that someone can be categorized into. Social identification, according to the groundwork on social identity by Ashforth & Mael (1989), is thus “the perception of oneness with or belongingness to some human aggregate” (p.21). When relating this to branding, a brand’s utility in terms of SIT can thus be seen as its ability to express and enhance a consumer’s identity (Tuškej et al., 2013).

For a brand to be a likely candidate for CBI, a valuable addition to the present discussion is value-congruity. When we recognize our own values in someone else, or in something else, like a brand, we are more likely to identify with it, because it strengthens our impression of who we are (Johar & Sirgy, 1991). This reinforcement of image through a brand allows us to express our ‘self’ more confidently. Formulated as self-brand congruity, Lam, et al. (2013) contend this is an antecedent of CBI as the identity similarity between a person and a brand is pivotal for the person to identify with a marketing entity. This person-organization fit is thus an essential antecedent of CBI. Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) add several antecedents of CBI besides self-congruity: (1) brand distinctiveness; (2) brand prestige; (3) brand social enhancement; (4) brand warmth and (5) memorable brand experiences.

(16)

Lastly, Lam et al. (2013) add that perceived quality greatly influences CBI. Strong brand names reduce uncertainty about brand attributes, especially in the introductory phase, where perceived quality provides consumers with a sense of certainty that a brand will meet consumers’ instrumental goals, thereby allowing the consumer to identify with it. Supporting this notion is the positive influence of satisfaction on identification (Bhattacharya, Rao & Glynn, 1995; Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008). Perceived quality and satisfaction are thus both considered to be antecedents of CBI (Lam et al., 2013).

1.2.2 Defining consumer-brand identification

The above-mentioned antecedents form what Stokburger-Sauer et al (2012) define as

“consumer’s perceived state of oneness with a brand”. Much like Tuškej et al (2013), who define CBI as “the perception of sameness between the brand (signifying an object with symbolic meanings) and the consumer” (p. 54), this generalist definition of CBI marks the status quo of the CBI literature, with many articles adhering to a definition referring to a cognitive process (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Whan Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich & Iacobucci, 2010; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). Unlike the above, some authors, such as Lam, Ahearne, Hu & Schillewaert (2010) contend that emotion is to be included in the identification process of consumers with brands. They define CBI as “a customer’s psychological state of perceiving, feeling, and valuing his or her belongingness with a brand” (p. 129). Noteworthy is that the conclusions of Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) point to more salience for the emotion-based antecedents of CBI, that do have their place in CBI. Because of the abundance of support for a cognition-based definition of CBI, this study will adhere to the Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) definition.

However, a discussion of the concept of CBI would not be complete without the conceptualization of the cornerstone of consumer-company (C-C) identification literature - Bhattacharya & Sen’s 2003 article. They contend that C-C identification is “an active, selective, and volitional act motivated by the satisfaction of one or more self-definitional (i.e., “Who am I?”) needs” (p. 77). The widely spread use of their article in CBI literature leads to contend that this conceptualization is valuable in the discussion of CBI as well.

(17)

1.2.3 Outcomes of consumer-brand identification

When a company (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003) or brand’s values are congruent to our own, we identify with that brand more, ultimately influencing our buying decisions and even our loyalty to some brands over others. This loyalty is traditionally deemed to stem from trust, perceived value and satisfaction (He & Li, 2011), otherwise called ‘service dynamics’ (Harris & Goode, 2004). However, causes of brand loyalty have become increasingly salient as marketing is becoming more and more focused on consumer relationships, for which loyalty is a pivotal concept. However, the traditional antecedents of loyalty still hold most of the focus in the field, leaving ample opportunity to explore the emerging identification explanation of loyalty, which posits social identity theory to be at the base of how concepts such as CBI impact loyalty. As He & Li (2011) demonstrate, brand identification has both direct and indirect effects on loyalty, perceived value, trust and satisfaction.

Additionally, CBI has a strong and positive influence on consumers’ commitment to the brand and the propensity of consumers to speak positively about the brand to others, resulting in positive word-of-mouth (Tuškej et al., 2013). Moreover, it is a means to achieve customer intimacy and customer equity (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).

1.2.4 Consumer-brand identification effects in recruitment

As has been demonstrated above, brands have an important role in today’s society that stretches far beyond the commercial value they add to products and services. The identity and values they stand for are subject to close evaluation by consumers whenever they are in contact with the brand, as to determine a value match and whether the brand aids in building our identity.

By leveraging the brand, corporations even have a chance of developing a hiring advantage (Kim, York & Lim, 2011). These insights prove very valuable for the recruitment industry for two reasons. The first is the knowledge that recruitment literature takes from marketing to research the application of branding principles to the employer brand, built to market employment at firms to job seekers. This study will elaborate on employer branding in the section following the present.

The second reason for branding insights to have entered the recruitment literature, is that researchers have begun to examine the influence of brands on recruitment outcomes such as application intentions. Because job seekers are often aware of products and services offered by a

(18)

firm they are looking to apply to, their knowledge and impression of the firm as an employer has begun to develop prior to exposure to recruitment efforts (Barber, 1998). These other sources of information may influence the impression job seekers have of the employer, as well as the favorability of these impressions (Cable & Turban, 2001; Collins & Han, 2004).

Collins (2007) united marketing and recruitment knowledge to test the moderating effect of product awareness (that is developed prior to exposure to recruitment activities) on the

relationships between employer branding intensity (through recruitment practices and employer knowledge variables) and application intentions and decisions. He found that when recruitment messages contain little information, the familiarity of the applicant with the employer, as well as the latter’s reputation, matter significantly in application behavior, when the job seeker has low product awareness. However, “high-information recruitment practices are related to job seekers’ application behaviors through employer reputation and job information when product awareness is high rather than low” (Collins, 2007, p. 2). High product awareness makes low-information recruitment messages redundant, because of the impressions of employment that the job seeker has already developed through product awareness.

Although product awareness as a proxy for brand awareness leaves room for further

inspection of the product/brand influence on recruitment practices, Collins’ (2007) findings mark an important addition to the literature on brands in recruitment, demonstrating the influence the product or brand has beyond purchase decisions, and that application decisions have antecedents that stretch further than recruitment-incentivized motives.

In doing so, he finds that early recruitment practices (at universities, targeting soon-to-be graduates) positively influence the employer knowledge of the subjects, and therefore have a mediated effect on application intentions and decisions. These early recruitment practices seem to encompass employer branding efforts by the firms, as they attempt to better employer knowledge, that Collins posits consists of employer familiarity, employer reputation and job information. The last two are the employer branding variables used in the present study, making the findings of Collins a good stepping stone. Although this study contributes to our

understanding that high (low) effort employer branding efforts have more effect when product awareness is high (low), it does not answer the question that the present study addresses: is a job seeker willing to sacrifice employer brand elements for a chance to work for a beloved product brand? And if so, what would said job seeker give up?

(19)

A second pillar of the existing literature on employer branding and the product brand is the study by DelVecchio et al. (2007), who demonstrate that the strength of product-level brand equity significantly influences potential job applicant’s decisions. They do so by using brand equity to examine the effect of brands on job seekers’ perceptions of the work environment, finding that job seekers view employment by strong brands as a means of building a strong résumé. By taking Keller’s (1993) definition of brand equity, “the differential impact of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (DelVecchio et al., 2007, p. 149), the article sheds light on the effects thereof on perceptions of a job opportunity, and more specifically job characteristics. Working for a strong brand would increase perceptions of work environment, leading applicants to believe the job offers great internal opportunities, skill development and a positive corporate work ethic (DelVecchio et al., 2007). These elements are shown to influence the job seeker’s ability to build a strong résumé, hence making employment at the firm more attractive than employment at a weaker brand. Moreover, they find that brand equity has a significant effect on perceived job attractiveness and on job acceptance (though mediated by résumé power).

Job seekers thus prefer working for a strong-brand firm, and firms can utilize this in attracting top candidates. However, their proxy for a brand is brand equity, Keller’s (1993) definition of which is based on brand knowledge, which is a very rational brand relationship, and says little about how connected people feel with the brand: they focus on a rational choice. However, person-organization fit and person-job fit are trending topics in the field of HR, hinting to the necessity and importance of a more personal connection between job seekers and/or

employees with their employer brand. The present study will examine a closer and more intense relationship with the brand: brand identification.

Building on DelVecchio et al. (2007), Kim et al. (2011) find that both the corporate brand and the product brand are at play in influencing job pursuit, although the corporate brand has no direct effect, whereas the product brand has both an indirect (through inferences about the corporate reputation) and a direct effect on job pursuit.

Although surprisingly little research has been done on the effect of product brands on recruitment outcomes (Kim et al., 2011), the body of research on the subject has been able to establish that different measures of the brand such as brand equity, evaluations of the product-level brand and product awareness affect recruitment outcomes such as application intentions.

(20)

By extension, it can be assumed that consumer-brand identification will have a similar effect on application intentions.

H1: A higher (lower) level of CBI will have a direct positive (negative) relationship with application intentions.

1.3 Employer branding

In the twofold applicability of branding principles to the field of recruitment, not only the effect of product brands must be accounted for. Branding knowledge has benefited recruitment in creating a favorable employer brand as well.

In an effort to optimize the corporation’s image as a good employer, within and outside the firm, relying on one’s product brand is not sufficient, as the management and discipline of corporate brands differs fundamentally from this (Balmer & Gray, 2003). Corporate branding is thus essential to human resources undertakings. More specifically, firms benefit from presenting an attractive employer brand to job seekers, in hopes of swaying them to apply. Whereas product branding is among a marketer’s responsibilities, the literature on EB (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Balmer & Gray, 2003; Moroko & Uncles, 2008; Edwards, 2009; Biswas & Suar, 2014) agrees that a strategic cooperation between the human resources and marketing departments of firms is to be formed to create what is essential to the employer brand: brand associations and brand loyalty (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). They posit that “employer brand associations shape the employer image that in turn affects the attractiveness of the organization to potential employees. Employer branding impacts organization culture and organization identity that in turn contribute to employer brand loyalty” (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004, p. 504-505).

The positioning and meaning given to products and services by branding therefore prove useful in the recruitment context as well: given the uncertainty and risk attached to job selection (DelVecchio et al., 2007), using branding in a recruitment context is a useful tool to attract applicants to a company. The CIPD (2007) gives four reasons for the increased importance of employer branding to firms: “(1) the power of branding, (2) the increasing focus on employee engagement, (3) the war for talent, and (4) the impact of HR practices on business” (as cited in Biswas & Suar, 2014, p. 2). Additionally, it helps form a company’s competitive advantage by

(21)

facilitating the internalization of a company’s values by applicants and employees. Employer branding can thus be seen as recruitment aspect of the corporate brand, the communication of employment benefits unique to a firm: functional, economic and psychological.

Moreover, firms with strong employer brands are more likely to attract candidates (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004), and even qualitatively superior applicants (Collins and Stevens, 2002). Favorable employer brand associations have benefits beyond the recruitment process as well: they may lead to satisfaction and loyalty from employees (Davies, 2008) and employee productivity (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004). Although not the first to define and conceptualize EB, their Employer Branding Framework is considered to be the groundwork for much work done on EB thereafter (see Appendix 1 for the framework). This study will focus on the influence of EB on application intentions, as once researched by the authors.

However, a more thorough examination of the determinants of successful employer brands is necessary to establish the right ‘wheels to turn’ to examine the effects of employer branding on application intentions.

1.3.1 Employer branding determinants of employer attractiveness

The definition of EB as put forth by Ambler & Barrow (1996) points to determinants of the employer brand, which should result in application attraction to some firms over others: “the package of functional, economic, and psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with the employing company.” (p.187). More broadly speaking, why do certain firms have successful employer brands, and others do not? Many conceptualizations show different factors that influence EB outcomes, and do so in different wording. Although some do examine the employer brand as such, others remain more generalist, referring to image of an organization, and ultimately referring to employment, or corporate reputation, again, leading to inferences about employment as a consequence.

The ‘functional, economic and psychological benefits’ as named by Ambler & Barrow (1996) find their place in each of the conceptualizations of researchers looking to identify the drivers of EB. According to Uggerslev, Fassina and Kraichy (2012) job characteristics,

organization, recruitment process, recruiter behaviors, perceived fit, and hiring expectancies are the determinants of applicant attraction. Secondly, Lievens and Highhouse (2003) base

(22)

image attribution to organizations: sincerity, innovativeness, competence, prestige and

robustness. The experts interviewed by Moroko and Uncles (2008) believed differentiation was a key element in providing a meaningful employer brand, but they were, surprisingly, unable to explain what aspects of the brand made its differentiation successful. They conclude that successful employer branding is determined along two axes: accuracy of the employment message and attractiveness: not only does a promise need to be accurate, attractiveness is also key. It is thus essential that a prospective employee is able to recognize and present the

employment product for what it is, yet its image is influenced by not only the employer brand, but from the entire brand portfolio of the company (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). Lastly, attributes and attitudes as pillars of the employer brand are found to positively influence application

intention in Agrawal and Swaroop (2009). Additionally, corporate reputations can be strong cues about the desirability of employment at a firm (Viktoria Rampl & Kenning, 2014). These

attitudes and the reputation taken together are often summarized as being the employer brand image (Knox & Freeman, 2006), which they posit is the same as Ind’s corporate image:

“corporate image is in the eye of the receiver … [it] is simply the picture that an audience has of an organization through the accumulation of all received messages” (Ind, 1990, p.21).

Although the preceding theories are conceptualized slightly differently, a thorough study of the existing literature on employer branding determinants of employer attractiveness points to the conclusion that two categories influence the favorability of the employer reputation of a firm: functional and psychological attributes. They thereby determine the desirability of employment at the firm. It is therefore proposed that factors influencing application intentions are job

characteristics, relating to functional attributes such as job content, salary, work hours, vacation days, etc. (Agrawal & Swaroop, 2009; Uggerslev et al., 2012; Gomes & Neves, 2011), and employer reputation, being the image of the corporate brand: what does the interested party believe the organization is like to work for, is it a prominent employer, are the possibilities for personal development favorable (Uggerslev et al., 2012; Lievens and Highhouse, 2003; Knox & Freeman, 2006).

This study will build on the preceding findings, accepting that JC and ER do indeed influence AI and adding customer-brand identification as a third antecedent of application intentions. It will be the aim of this study to examine the relative importance of each of the three antecedents, and investigating whether the identification with a brand can be powerful enough to

(23)

impede on the rational decision-making process of applicants, and if so, what applicants are willing to give up for a chance to work for a brand they identify strongly with.

Knox & Freeman find support for their hypothesis that the attractiveness of the employer brand positively correlates with application intentions, but the strength is only moderate. They suggest that future research should further specify their model to ascertain which factors of the recruitment message contribute to employer branding leading to application intentions.

1.3.2 Job characteristics

As defined by Ambler & Barrow (1996), job characteristics refer to the ‘functional and economic benefits’ included in their definition of the employer brand. However, the precise

conceptualization of what the term ‘job characteristics’ should include varies greatly across studies. Whereas some studies make use of a delimitation that is more task and content-oriented (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1976), others include more peripheral factors as well (e.g. DelVecchio et al., 2007). Job characteristics were proven to influence employee attitudes and work behavior as early as 1971 by Hackman & Lawler, who stated that four core dimensions make up job characteristics: variety, task identity, autonomy and feedback. Hackman & Oldham (1976) extend this premise in their renowned Job Characteristics Model (JCM), demonstrating that five job characteristics positively relate to employees satisfaction, motivation, performance and attendance: (1) skill variety (job holds a variety of activities requiring employee to utilize various skills); (2) task identity (the job requires the employee to complete a palpable task from start to finish); (3) task significance (the impact of the job on others’ work or lives); (4) autonomy (where the employee is independent and free to arrange work as he/she sees fit) and (5) feedback (the job leads to clear information about the individual’s performance and

effectiveness). This effect is mediated by psychological states evoked by the job characteristics. The JCM of Hackman & Oldham is considered to be the main building block of research on job characteristics. Their model proves to affect human resource outcomes, and job characteristics are being increasingly included in the recruitment literature to predict outcomes of job seekers. Their original model is found in Appendix 2.

Job characteristics and organizational characteristics influence application intentions directly and through mediation of organizational attractiveness (Gomes & Neves, 2011). Their notion of job characteristics influencing the desirability of employment at a firm is supported by

(24)

many authors (Knox & Freeman, 2006; DelVecchio et al., 2007; Agrawal & Swaroop, 2009; Gomes & Neves, 2011; Uggerslev et al., 2012), yet the precise conceptualization of the term job characteristics differs across articles. Knox & Freeman (2006) posit their ‘employer brand image’ is made up of attributes and values unique to firm, and the employer brand image thus exclusively refers to the image of the firm as an employer (Knox & Freeman, 2006). They identify many factors such as salary, variety of work and usage of degree skills that are considered to be job characteristics in other articles, but do not make the seemingly obvious categorization in their list of 20 attributes, that they do make in their definition of the employer brand image. Uggerslev et al. (2012) agree on the salary aspect, but also focus on aspects such as autonomy, challenge and travel. Agrawal & Swaroop (2009) also feature salary, autonomy, responsibility and learning and advancement. Gomes & Neves (2011) make use of Hackman & Oldham’s (1976) JCM to conceptualize job characteristics. They show that job characteristics and organizational characteristics influence application intentions, both directly and through mediation of organizational attractiveness. Their findings are invaluable to the present study, as they confirm the relevance of the JCM not only in the employee context, but in the recruitment context influencing application intentions.

Knox & Freeman (2006) make use of an extensive enumeration of the key items that are considered to be essential for the positive evaluation of a job to measure two aspects of the employer brand image: the congruence of the image between potential employees and recruiters, as well as the impact the employer brand image has on “job application intentions among

potential recruits” (Knox & Freeman, 2006, p. 696). However, no categorization of the items has been made. These twenty items point to a large amount of job characteristics and employer reputation attributes, but the list has, unfortunately, not been further specified as such. For the definition of the employer brand image, they refer to Stern, Zinkhan & Jaju (2001), who see image as “generally conceived of as the outcome of a transaction whereby signals emitted by a marketing unit are received by a receptor and organized into a mental perception of the sending unit” (p. 203), and illustrate this with Ind’s (1990) notion that corporate image is a perceived picture of the organization. In short, their conceptualization of the employer brand is the recruitment-initiated espousal of attributes and values unique to firm, and the employer brand image thus exclusively refers to the image of the firm as an employer (Knox & Freeman, 2006).

(25)

In order to measure this, they conducted a study to establish the main attributes that potential recruits (in this case undergraduates) evaluate the attractiveness of a job offer on.

In their study investigating the influence of brand equity on perceived resume power by job applicants, DelVecchio et al. (2007) use pretested job descriptions proven to hold equal amounts of information and the same degree of job difficulty and job attractiveness to test reactions to brands with high and low levels of brand equity within the same product category. Respondents’ attractiveness perceptions were measured by an indication of the minimum salary they needed to accept the offer over the presented competing offer, as well as a measure of job appeal on a 7-point Likert scale including an evaluation of what DelVecchio et al. (2007) deem the job characteristics, namely Internal Opportunity, Skill Development and Expected Work Ethic. However, an examination of the employer branding literature points to the conclusion that these items correspond more with the reputation of a firm as an employer, than the characteristics of the job on offer. The items listed in the manipulation of the experiment (number of employees, benefits (retirement plan and health coverage), is well known by consumers, makes a high quality product, geographical location, financial performance, job security and salary) that the respondent supposedly gathered in evaluating job offers, points to more traditional job

characteristics, with salary and benefits among others.

Agrawal & Swaroop (2009) posited that job attributes in four categories influence

undergraduates’ application intentions: (1) responsibility & empowerment; (2) compensation and location; (3) learning and advancement and (4) social and cultural factors. However, their results show that only the first and second were significantly related to application intentions.

Powell (1991) asked respondents to rate perceived job attributes in a post-interview survey in an attempt to evaluate whether, besides the job attribute effect demonstrated in his 1984 article, there would be a recruitment practice effect at play in students’ reactions to interviews. To do so, he used the post-interview data from his 1984 article, as well as the proven to be significant factors of job attributes: (1) the job itself (opportunity to learn, freedom to do the job my own way, opportunity to use my abilities, variety of activities, opportunity for rapid

advancement, challenging and interesting work and opportunity to show supervisor that I can effectively perform); (2) compensation/security (salary, fringe benefits and job security) and (3) company/work environment (competent and sociable coworkers, type of work or service

(26)

1991). These items significantly accounted for most of the variance in his model in both his articles and remain more salient in explaining recruitment outcomes than the recruitment effect such as recruitment characteristics, demonstrating their salience in the recruitment literature.

In response to much research conducted on applicant attraction to job opportunities with little practical practical relevance, Uggerslev et al. (2012) seek to deepen the existing knowledge by examining which recruitment predictor categories are most salient in predicting applicant attraction, and where in the process. They examine seven common applicant attraction predictors from the recruitment literature, the first being job characteristics, in two categories : total

compensation (compensation/pay/salary and benefits) and the job itself (autonomy,

advancement/promotions, challenge, development and travel). Their meta-analysis examines interrelationships among predictors of recruitment to come to the strength and incremental variance of the predictors, as well as the stages of recruitment where the various predictors are more salient. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of Petty & Cacioppo (1986a) then becomes a relevant addition to the discussion, as the further the applicant is in the recruitment process, the more able and motivated the applicant is to process the information presented, thus the more likely he/she is to elaborate. Uggerslev et al. (2012) suggest that this may increase the importance of job and organizational information and characteristics of the recruitment process at this stage. Moreover, they predict that job and organizational characteristics, as well as perceptions of fit, will more strongly predict applicant attraction and job choice behaviors than the other recruitment predictors.

The critical examination above of the literature shows that the articles disagree on the fine line between they consider to be job characteristics (or attributes) and employer reputation (or attitudes). This article will therefore follow Gomes & Neves (2011), who make use of Hackman & Oldham’s (1976) JCM to conceptualize job characteristics.

As application intentions are recruitment outcomes, the present study posits that the favorability of job characteristics is positively related to application intentions. Collins (2007) finds a significant direct relationship between job information and application intentions, lending support for the hypothesis in the present study, that JC have an independent and direct

relationship with AI, and adding that this relationship might be relative to other existing antecedents of AI.

(27)

H2a: Employer branding efforts operationalized through favorable (unfavorable) job characteristics have a direct positive (negative) relationship with application intention outcomes.

1.3.3 Employer reputation

The employer reputation concept is a widely discussed part of HR literature, and more

specifically employer branding literature. Although universally recognized as a determinant of various recruitment outcomes such as application intentions and job acceptance, as well as of internal outcomes such as employee satisfaction and loyalty, its conceptualization varies greatly throughout the field.

There is a seeming interchangeability and variability in use of concepts between

organizational, corporate and employer image or image (Barber, 1998; Collins & Stevens, 2002), that has not led to a unanimous conceptualization to date. Cable & Turban (2001) see a clear difference between employer reputation – “a job seeker’s beliefs about the public’s affective evaluation of the organization” – and employer image, which “consists of a job seeker’s own beliefs about the organization (in terms of information about the employer, job, and people in the organization)” (p. 126-127). Contrarily, as previously mentioned, Knox & Freeman (2006) see employer brand image as the reputation of the employer from the applicant’s perspective (external), from the recruiter’s perspective (internal), and the construed employer brand image (in the mind of the applicant), which is the result of recruitment messages received and processed by the applicant. Another definition, by Srivastava & Bhatnagar (2010) stated that the employer image is that of the organization by current employees (in Rampl, 2014). Because of the variety of definitions in the literature, this study will adopt a definition spanning those of the above-mentioned literature, defining employer reputation being ‘the attitudes and perceptions a job

seeker has of the image of an organization as an employer’.

The employer reputation of a firm is an important driver of applicant attraction because most of their knowledge about firms is related to its marketplace reputation, rather than factual knowledge about employment details (Caligiuri, Colakoglu, Cerdin & Kim, 2010). An obvious conclusion by Turban & Cable (2003) is that stronger positive reputations attract more job seekers. Moreover, in the early stages of recruitment, employer image may be taken as a proxy for more in-depth employment knowledge due to the scarcity of information included in

(28)

employer branding efforts such as recruitment activities and advertising (Barber, 1998, in Lievens, 2007). Moreover, a favorable employer image is shown to attract applicants (Dowling, 1986, Lemmink et al., 2003 & Kim, Jeon, Jung, Lu & Jones, 2012).

The attraction to firms with a favorable employer reputation may be explained by SIT, as the relationship between employer and employee can often influence one’s self-concept, causing them to value attributes that are relevant to construing one’s image or identity (Cable & Graham, 2000). More authors believe in the value of SIT in explaining employer reputation relevance to job seekers; the closeness of employees with organizations will lead job seekers to search for companies that are in line with their identity and their personal needs (Cable & Graham, 2000), all the more given that individuals often relate their self-concepts to their professional life, and more specifically, their employer (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail, 1994).

Lemmink et al. (2003) study the influence of two types of image on application intentions: corporate image (CI) and the company employment image (CEI). Although different, both types are shown to have significant effects on application intentions among graduate business students. They argue that the CI is the image that the graduate students formed of a company over the years, not related to the image that they are now construing as they are orienting themselves on the job market (the CEI). The influence of the CEI is of importance here, as it refers to the attractiveness of a firm as an employer (Lemmink et al., 2003), and is defined as “the impression of the organization as a place to work” (p. 4). However, to measure the CEI of a company, Lemmink et al. (2003) make use of items concerning job characteristics and organizational extra benefits, which overlaps with this study’s conceptualization of job characteristics as an

antecedent of the employer brand. Although the conceptualization of Lemmink et al. (2003) refers to the employer reputation, it seems to correspond to the employer brand in general.

Employer reputation, or corporate reputation, has been studied for decades, but most of the research based reputation on Fortune ratings. However, this says little about what makes a company reputation perceived to be attractive by job seekers. Considering this to be a large gap in the literature, groundwork on antecedents of ER was performed by Cable & Graham (2000), who triangulate research designs to determine what job seekers base their reputation judgments on. This thorough approach is at odds with previous research on the matter, and demonstrates that different factors influence the perceived reputation of an employer. Although they find varying levels of variance explained by the factors they identify as influencing reputation

(29)

perceptions in their three studies industry type, opportunities for personal development and organizational culture affect reputation perceptions. From their first study, a verbal protocol analysis, they conclude that the industry in which the firm operates, the perceived opportunity for personal development, the culture of the organization and the familiarity of the job seeker with the firm, or their previous exposure to it, account for most of the variance in explaining

perceptions of employer reputations (Cable & Graham, 2000). In their second study, policy capturing, of most influence was identification with the industry (β = 0.43), followed by organizational profitability (β = 0.26), opportunities for personal development (β = 0.20) and organizational culture (β = 0.20). The last study, a field study, demonstrated that profitability matters (β = 0.49), and that industry influences job seekers’ reputation perceptions (β = 0.16), as well as familiarity with the company (β = 0.11). Surprisingly, opportunities for growth and organizational culture were not significantly related to job seekers’ perceptions of employer reputation (respectively β = 0.08 and β = 0.04), which they were in the two first studies. An overview of their factors is given in Appendix 3.

Cable & Graham (2000) thus conclude that the determining power of industry on

reputation perceptions of job seekers about employers is significant (as previously examined by Gatewood et al., 1993). They highlight that this factor is a difficult one, as it leaves little room for companies to improve their employer reputation on, as changing industries is impossible for most firms. Moreover, the brand identification perspective the present study adopts leads it to make use of existing brands for its manipulation. This precludes the study from manipulating the attractiveness of industry in its ER variable. It will therefore not be included here. Familiarity was also shown to influence perceptions, albeit accounting for significantly less variance than the other factors. It will therefore not be included in the present study. Moreover, the employer brands used in this study’s manipulation makes familiarity with the employer impossible.

Profitability was also shown to significantly influence job seekers’ perceptions of employer reputation, which suggests an overlap with the formation of ER perceptions of Turban &

Greening (1997). A surprising finding is the significance of opportunities for growth and

organizational culture in the first two studies, but not in the last. Cable & Graham (2000) suggest that the lack of significant results may be due to the substantial correlation of the factors (r = 0.56), that do seem to occur in thought processes of job seekers assessing firms’ reputations.

(30)

However, their robustness in the first two studies leads Cable & Graham to believe that they significantly influence perceptions of ER.

Because of the completeness and robustness of the results found by Cable & Graham, as well as the fact that their findings on the antecedents of ER are still a cornerstone in the field, the following factors as used by the authors will be adopted in the present study to test the ER in the study: (1) profitability, (2) opportunities for growth and (3) organizational culture.

Lastly, not only Collins (2007) confirms to have found a significant direct relationship between employer reputation and application intentions, so did others, such as Alniacik, Alniacik & Erdogmus (2012), leading this study to hypothesize that it will have a significant relationship in this study as well. Additionally, this study will use the results of Collins (2007) as a stepping stone, accepting that ER has an independent and direct relationship with AI, and adding that this relationship might be relative to other existing antecedents of AI.

H2b: Employer branding efforts operationalized through a favorable (unfavorable) employer reputation have a direct positive (negative) relationship with application intention outcomes. 1.4 Relative effects of employer branding and CBI on application intentions

It is posited that, like previous research has established, the present study will find positive relationships between the employer branding variables and application intentions. However, to date no study has examined the relative effects of employer branding and CBI. Studies on choice making between brands and job-related factors is scarce, and therefore a relevant addition to the study performed here. Support for this preposition is found in the theory of rational choice, according to which rational human beings who evaluate alternatives will opt for the alternative that provides them with the most satisfaction (Heath, 1976). It is therefore not unlikely that a brand that they identify with strongly, will provide them with satisfaction of employment.

A similar study was performed by Collins (2007), who found that companies that make use of high-information recruitment practices (such as detailed recruitment ads and testimonials from employees) and have high product awareness in their target market are more likely to attract candidates for applications than companies with low product awareness. Based on this, it is plausible that the product brand plays a role in amplifying or diminishing the effect of

(31)

recruitment or employer branding practices on application intentions. This study will extend this by investigating whether CBI will have a similar effect on the relationship between the employer branding variables examined here, job characteristics and employer reputation, and application intentions.

H3: High consumer-brand identification should diminish the effects of JC and ER on application intentions versus when the consumer-brand identification is low.

1.5 Application intentions

Application intentions are just one of the many recruitment outcomes generally studied. However, even within this concept, Cable & Judge (1994) and Gomes & Neves (2011) distinguish variations. Whereas the most common understanding of application intentions is straightforward – intentions to apply to a job vacancy – it is worth adding that two other concepts are often closely related or intertwined with the above: intentions to pursue a job and intentions to accept a job. Because all influence the selection process of job seekers with jobs, when one studies application intentions, it is at times difficult to disentangle this concept from others, as application intentions are mostly present in the recruitment stage, but also predict job choice, as do pursuit intentions and job acceptance intentions. The present study will focus on application intentions purely, but does accept that the manipulations may also affect the other concepts.

The relevance of application intentions as an outcome variable in recruitment studies is twofold: firstly, it is supported by the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977), of which the boundaries are clearly delineated by the ability of the applicant to influence the outcome. In intending to apply, the applicant is independent to submit his or her application, whereas intentions to pursue (often defined as intentions to pursue or remain in the candidate pool for a job) and intentions to accept the job, greatly depend on external factors such as the number and quality of competitors for the position and the company actually selecting the candidate, among others. Secondly, intentions are realistic predictors of actions (Michaels, Handfield-Jones & Axelrod, 2001). It is therefore a worthwhile investment for companies, as stimulating application intentions will generate conversion to actual applications. Moreover,

(32)

intentions are a suitable proxy for actual applications in academic research, as the latter proves extremely difficult to measure (Cable & Turban, 1996).

Studying factors that affect application intentions contributes to the body of research on job choice (Cable & Judge, 1996), as well as organizational attraction. Both are of great relevance today, as McKinsey’s War for Talent (Michaels et al., 2001) requires firms to understand what drives job seekers choice for a job, as well as their attraction to the firm in general to be able to compete in this war and achieve recruitment efficiency.

1.6 Conceptual model

A critical examination of the existing EB literature, as elaborated upon above, suggests that employer branding is part of the recruitment efforts a firm undertakes, and consequentially belongs to the field of human resource management within firms. This marks an important difference between branding and employer branding, suggesting that other than branding aspect, there is limited overlap between the knowledge applied to both. Although the recruitment-originated concept of employer branding is increasingly embraced in the literature and by businesses in designing their recruitment practices, “companies must bear in mind that the marketing of their products and services and the reactions from consumers influence recruitment outcomes as well” (Kim et al. 2011, p.177). The influence of product brands in the employer branding literature (which is mostly HR originated) is emerging in the literature, and makes the present study an effort worth undertaking. This study aims to be a valuable extension to the existing knowledge on the effects of consumer-brand identification, contending that the influence thereof stretches further than marketing outcomes, as well as to the literature on recruitment,

contributing to the emerging field of employer branding. By deepening the knowledge on the relative importance of employer branding and the product brand in influencing recruitment outcomes, this study will also investigate whether high consumer-brand identification is able to diminish the importance of the other variables. Consequently, the outcomes of the present study will be able to determine if a tradeoff is made between the variables, where job seekers are willing to give something up in order to fulfill their need of one (or more) of the other variables.

(33)

1.6.1 Research questions

This thesis will investigate the following: What is the relative importance of the employer branding variables and customer-brand identification on application intentions?

To help answer this main research question, the study will also examine the following. Does consumer-brand identification moderate the relationship between employer branding and application intentions, so that when a job opportunity presents itself working for a brand the job seeker strongly identifies with, this identification diminishes the importance of employer

branding variables in the intention development to apply? This implies a tradeoff that is made between the three independent variables, so that job seekers pass up on something in order to obtain a job that holds the other variable(s). Figure 1 presents the conceptual model.

Figure 1: Conceptual model 1.6.2 Hypotheses

As the model explains, the following hypotheses will be tested:

• H1: A higher (lower) level of CBI will have a direct positive (negative) relationship with application intentions.

• H2a: Employer branding efforts operationalized through favorable (unfavorable) job characteristics have a direct positive (negative) relationship with application intentions.

(34)

• H2b: Employer branding efforts operationalized through a favorable (unfavorable) employer reputation have a direct positive (negative) relationship with application intentions.

• H3: High consumer-brand identification should diminish the effects of JC and ER on application intentions versus when the consumer-brand identification low.

1.6.3 Research objectives

The formulated hypotheses will allow the study to achieve a number of research objectives. The first is to establish whether the independent relationships exist between CBI, JC and ER and AI in this study. Additionally, the study aims to determine the relative importance of employer branding and the product brand in the development of application intentions by job seekers. Moreover, the study aims to contribute to the existing literature on consumer-brand

identification, suggesting the addition of recruitment to the list of business processes it contributes to. Lastly, it aims to add to the knowledge about the influence of branding in

(35)

2. Methodology

A quantitative research design will be carried out by means of a survey, conducted in a 2x2x1 research design, where the favorability of the employer brand elements job characteristics and employer reputation will be manipulated to either be positive and or negative and a product brand that was tested to show high polarization will be used to display a high and low brand identification. A pre-study will be conducted to identify a brand that arouses both high and low identification, as well as to test the job descriptions made to display the different levels of JC and ER favorability. In order to place the employer branding variables into context and to avoid additional associations that come with the employer aspect of the product brand and of its existing conglomerate, respondents will be exposed to a fictional conglomerate ‘Hepburns’ (Appendix 4) in the job description consisting of a JC and an ER part.

As the study aims to evaluate the relative importance of the variables and thus the decision-making of individuals amongst these options, between-subjects designs are deemed to be the best technique (Olian, 1986 in Collins, 2007).

A questionnaire is most appropriate because the research intends to measure the opinions and attitudes of respondents about the brand. The survey method allows for a greater

generalizability of the results due to the ability of the researcher to gain insights from a large number of respondents (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).

2.1 Research design

This study adopts a deductive approach to studying the effects of employer branding and branding on recruitment. It accepts that the influence of EB variables and branding effects on recruitment exists, and attempts to extend the knowledge thereof by studying the relative influence of EB and product branding on recruitment. The deeper examination of these influences leads to a study that attempts to provide readers with deepened knowledge on what the importance of the various application intentions antecedents is in the process.

A survey will allow the researcher to collect a large number of data from the population in a structured fashion as to come to generalizations about the application motivations of job applicants in the early stages of their career. The survey will thus consist of a job description,

(36)

randomized over 4 conditions that were manipulated to represent good and bad job

characteristics and good and bad employer reputation, keeping the brand for which the job is constant, as Tony’s Chocolonely was pretested to show polarization in the pretest sample. After the manipulation, a manipulation check is done to verify that the manipulations of ER and JC were positively/negatively evaluated as intended, and the respondent’s level of CBI with Tony’s Chocolonely is administered.

The validity of the research is guaranteed by randomizing respondents over the

experimental and control groups of the study (Hart, H., Boeije, H. & Hox, J., 2009). The control groups were exposed to either an all positive job description or an all negative job description.

To establish that the respondents do indeed meet the requirements to be included in the analysis, the questionnaire will feature a demographics section that will include gender, age, educational background and professional status.

Likert scales will be used for the remaining questions, in which a 7-point scale will indicate respondents’ liking of the employer brand elements, the product brand, and their likeliness to intend to apply to the position.

2.2 Stimuli development

To test the relative effects of employer branding variables and CBI on application intentions, respondents were exposed to fictitious job descriptions to test their relative valuation of job characteristics, employer reputation and consumer-brand identification in developing application intentions. In order to do so, stimuli needed to be developed for JC and ER that appropriately represented favorable and unfavorable representations thereof. The manipulation used by

DelVecchio et al. (2007) served a guideline for the design of the descriptions used in the present study (Appendix 5). Moreover, a product brand with the ability to create polarization in terms of CBI among the sample needed to be determined. A pretest was thus conducted.

The pretest sample (N = 28) consisted of 28 respondents, 75% female, 25% male, 67,9% of which indicated their highest completed education was university level. Moreover, 75% of the sample was between 25 and 30 years old, the other 25% being between 18 and 24 years old. Finally, 57,1% indicated their professional status was that of ‘young professional’ (less than 5 years experience), and 17,9% were students less than a year away from graduating.