Employee reviews in the labor market: is time to change employer
branding strategy?
Assessing the role of Realistic Job Previews in the management of the employer
brand on e-recruiting platforms
Alexia Marcazzan Student number: 11719249
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Thesis
Master’s program Communication Science Supervisor: James Slevin
2 Abstract
In the last decade, companies have adopted a customer-centric view of their employer brand which led to the multiplication of the employee benefits advertised and the use of “puffery” in job advertisements, despite its risks for the fulfillment of a psychological contract. Yet, the proliferation of employee reviews and their impact on talent attraction urge companies to monitor employees’ words of mouths as part of their employer branding strategy. If Realistic Job Previews (RJP) have recently gained support by employer branding researchers, practitioners lack a solid business case and rationale as no evidence exists on the extent the employer brand constitutes a psychological contract. This research aims at informing HR practitioners on use of RJP (RQ1) and its most effective application (RQ2) to manage the employer brand on e-recruiting platforms. A content analysis of job advertisements (N=60) published by American fashion retailers’ on the leading e-recruiting platform Glassdoor was carried out. Our findings revealed that employers have effectively introduced RJP in the form of enhancement and reduction previews, although top-rated firms outpace their lower-rated competitors in this practice. More importantly, firms addressing their working culture and management with RJP experience a jump of 1.7 stars in their employer brand ratings. The main implications are that recruiters need to adopt a psychological contract perspective of their employer brand by delivering accurate and balanced information on key employee value propositions, although companies with a fragile reputation should limit the scope of RJP to management and culture. Future research should investigate companies’ best practices in coordinating external and internal branding actions to design effective RJP and thrive in the emerging online labor market.
3 Introduction
In an increasingly competitive labor market, companies have to design compelling recruitment communication strategies to attract and retain high quality employees. Indeed, human capital enhances the performance of the firm and ensures a long-term competitive advantage (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). To become an employer of choice, companies have invested in employer branding strategies that “promote, both within and outside the firm, a clear view of what makes [them] different and desirable as employer[s]” (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004, p.501). As a result, companies have diversified their “package of functional, economic and psychological benefits” (Ambler & Barrow, 1996, p.187) to put forth an image as a good place to work (Sullivan, 2004). The maximization of organizational attractiveness became a top priority for researchers and was encouraged in job advertisements (Elving, Westhoff, Meeusen & Schoonderbeek, 2013). While the use of “puffery” became the norm to attract and persuade applicants (Young & Foot, 2005), employer branding research failed to address the limits of these recruitment practices (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Yet, the emergence of e-recruiting platforms has revolutionized the recruitment landscape (Rosoiu & Popescu, 2016) and calls for new framework to manage the employer brand (Miles & Mccamey, 2018).
The proliferation of user-generated content in the labor market has considerably altered companies’ control over their employer brands (Fertik, 2018). Yet, companies have increased their investments in online employer branding (LinkedIn Solutions Report, 2016) as the Generation Y demands more than mere compensations such as meaningful and rewarding jobs (Djewanowska, Pearce & Zupan, 2016). However, e-recruiting platforms challenge branding practices as they disclose information that was once hidden behind closed doors. Indeed, Glassdoor displays employees’ reviews on the working culture, economic benefits, work-life balance, management and career opportunities (Dabirian, Kietzman & Diba, 2017). Employee reviews significantly boost or hamper a firms’ reputation in the labor market (Eunmi & Huyn, 2018), such as negative reviews decrease application intentions (Glassdoor study, 2017). In concrete terms, today “employees make or break the company’s brand and ultimately, the company’s results” (Sartain, 2005, p.89). As employee satisfaction challenges the company’s effort to build the employer brand (Miles & Mccamey, 2018), there is an urgent need to monitor employees’ words of mouths as part of the employer branding strategy (Sartain, 2005; Eunmi & Hyun, 2018). Employers who will manage their employer brand ratings successfully will experience a jump in their financial performance (Huang, Meshke, & Guthrie, 2015).
4
Our research investigates the use and role of Realistic Job Previews (RJP) as an employer branding strategy on e-recruiting platforms. Based on a psychological contract view, RJP are recruitment messages designed to monitor employees’ satisfaction by reducing, beforehand, applicants’ expectations. Although recent employer branding research
acknowledges the need to build the brand from “inside out” with accurate recruitment messages (Pietersis, Leewen, & Crawford, 2005, p.19), no empirical evidence exists on the extent the employer brand constitutes a psychological contract (Backhaus & Tikoo,
2004).Consequently, our research has two aims. Firstly, we aim at documenting employer branding practices on e-recruiting platforms to test whether “puffery” is still widely used (Young & Foot 2005) or whether they provide on the contrary, new arenas for RJP use (Breaughe & Starke, 2000). Secondly, our research follows Backhaus and Tikoo’s (2004) research agenda by giving empirical evidence on the “psychological contract” view of the employer brand. Indeed, there is a need to assess the extent the external brand promise conditions employees’ satisfaction (Carley, Kanyapuss & Ranis, 2010). A quantitative analysis of job advertisements (N=60) published by American fashion retailers is conducted on Glassdoor. Glassdoor pressures companies to address all aspects of their employer brand (Dabrian, Kietzmann & Diba, 2017) while remaining accurate to generate positive employee experiences and reviews (Fertik, 2018). Finally, RJP may be used by retailers who need to manage Generation Y’s growing expectations (Broadbridge, Maxwell, & Odgen, 2007).
RQ: To what extent are Realistic Job Previews integrated into the management of the employer brand on e-recruiting platforms?
- RQ1: To what extent do companies differ in the application of RJP as an employer branding strategy?
- RQ2: To what extent does the application of RJP to different employee value propositions affect the employer brand ratings?
We aim at informing HR practitioners on the way e-recruiting platforms have affected employer branding practices and whether RJP constitute a solid business case for managing the employer brand. First, a comparative analysis on RJP practices by highly and lower rated employer brands (RQ1) will give insights on “practices that drive and perpetuate success (Moroko & Uncles, 2008, p.175) while unveiling the constraints related to RJP use for less attractive employers (Collin & Han, 2004). Secondly, we will discuss how the use of realistic information to different employee value propositions (EVP) contributes to the
5
employer brand performance (RQ2). In a word, this research aims at informing HR
practitioners on the most effective application of RJP regarding their current reputation and benefits, to successfully attract and retain employees in an increasingly interconnected and transparent labor market.
Theoretical background
The employer brand
Brands are firm’s most valuable assets and although firms commonly focus their branding efforts towards developing a product, the application of branding principles to human resources management is essential to build a competitive advantage (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Indeed, a strong employer brand increases both financial and non-financial aspects of a company: it lowers recruitment costs, attracts more qualified applicants and lowers employee turnover as well as increases productivity (Biswas & Suar, 2014). The concept of employer brand gained importance with the “war of talents” in which employers have to address less tangible issues than financial rewards (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). However, few companies have fully grasped employer branding potential use and benefits in job advertisements (Elving et al., 2013). We will see that employers’ struggle may stem from the controversy surrounding the meanings of what has to be achieved: the employer brand.
Conceptualized by Ambler and Barrow (1996), the employer brand is defined as “the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with the employing company” (p.187). In other terms, employment is seen as a product that needs to be strategically differentiated from competitors to appeal to a target group of job applicants (Ambler & Barrow, 1996). This customer-centric view is based on the idea that a distinct human capital is a resource for competitive advantage (Priem & Butler, 2001). Indeed, according to resource-based view (RBV), human capital is rare, valuable, non-substitutable and difficult to imitate: “everything can be copied except the company’s unique talent capital” (Biswas & Suar, 2014, p.59). Employers adopting this perspective should stress three different elements: the functional value of work as it engages employees in a useful activity, the economic value that provides compensations, and lastly the psychological value which gives a sense of accomplishment, support and belonging (Ambler & Barrow, 1996). This customer-centric view of the brand is shared by most researchers in the field (Berthon et al., 2005; Dabirian et al., 2017). For instance, Berthon and al. (2005) established a new range of employee value propositions (EVP) based on applicants’ interest for a challenging work
6
with achievable aims—the “interest value” — and the need for career advancements referred as the “development value”. This new scale sets the path for an employer brand template (Berthon et al., 2005) as it helps with the construction of an identifiable and unique employer identity to attract, engage and retain current and potential employees (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004).
However, Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) suggest that the employer brand is fundamentally different from customer-centric brands. By stating numerous rational and emotional employee benefits, the employer brand constitutes a psychological contract that needs to be fulfilled during the employment experience (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Mosley, 2007). A psychological contract refers to the relationship between the employer and employee and the implied expectations and obligations they have to one another (Tanwar & Prasad, 2016). In other terms, unlike customer-centric brands, there is a necessity for consistency between the internal and external communication of the employer brand attributes (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). Consequently, employee value propositions (EVP) such as the work-life balance, training, career opportunities and the work environment cannot be reduced to pull-factors for applicants but are also retention tools (Tanwar & Prasad, 2016). Employer brands who deliver the promised EVP trigger employees’ satisfaction, commitment, retention and positive words of mouths (Tanwar & Prasad, 2016). On the contrary, companies who fail in this process experience psychological contract breach (PCB) that considerably decreases employees’ satisfaction and commitment at work (Rayton & Yalabik, 2014). This vision of the brand as a “promise” prompts companies to design both “attractive” and “accurate” EVP in job advertisements (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). Although the maximization of attractiveness was operationalized by a multiplication of EVP by the customer-centric view, the ways of achieving accuracy to fulfill a psychological contract remain unclear.
Acknowledging the lack of evidence on the brand as a “promise”, researchers have called for a re-evaluation of the role of employees in the management of the employer brand. Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) urged to assess the “extent workers use the employer branding message as a foundation of their psychological contract” and the consequences of breaches in “the promises made in the employer brand message” (p.513). They suggest that EVP need to reflect the actual employment experience to increase employee retention (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). In other terms, internal branding as the “selling of the value propositions inside the organizations” is a pre-condition to the success of the external brand promise (Sartain 2005, p.96). However, empirical evidence of the relationship between internal and external
7
employer branding is missing (Carley, Kanyapuss & Ranis, 2010). We will see that
e-recruiting platforms, by combining job advertisements and employee reviews, provide a rich ground to assess this relationship.
Implications of e-recruiting platforms for the management of the employer brand
Online job sites revolutionized the recruitment landscape for both job seekers and employers (Rosoiu & Popescu, 2016). E-recruiting platforms provide job seekers with the opportunity to compare various benefits provided by employers while they enable employers to get access to a large data-base on applicants’ preferences (Rosoiu & Popescu, 2016). However, e-recruiting platforms new features impose a re-assessment of employer branding strategies (Dabirian et al., 2017). In particular, employee reviews affect applicants’ intentions to apply and the employer brand success (Miles & Mccamey, 2018). Despite the proliferation of user-generated content in the labor market, few researchers have examined its implications for employer branding practices.
First, recent research is anchored in the customer-centric view of the brand and fails to address the superiority of employee reviews on branding practices. Referred to as
resources, employee reviews are described as strategic tools which help differentiate the employer brand from competitors (Dabirian et al., 2017). Indeed, “crowdsourced employer branding” consists in analyzing competitors’ reviews to advertise the benefits they fail to deliver (Dabirian et al., 2017). However, this perspective is limited in two ways. First, the employer cannot advertise benefits he does not provide as “signaling” strategies backlash the employer brand through employees’ unmet expectations (Eunmy & Huyn, 2018). Secondly, it does not address the need to, beforehand, monitor employee reviews (Miles & Mccamey, 2018). Indeed, online reviews mean that even though the firm invests financial resources to release positive information about the brand in job advertisements, employees’ ratings may nullify these actions (Eunmi, & Hyun, 2018). According to Rampl and Kenning (2014), employee reviews have recently gained more trust from applicants because they act as “sincerity trait” indicators of the employer brand (Rampl & Kenning, 2014).
It is urgent to guide companies in their monitoring of employee reviews to
strengthen their employer brand and recruitment efforts (Miles & Mccamey, 2018). Miles and Mccamey (2018) suggest that the formation of a positive employment experience starts with an accurate recruitment message or so-called Realistic Job Previews that describe both the culture and job related aspects in details (cf. RJP section). We will now discuss how RJP are
8
designed to monitor employees’ satisfaction and whether these can be effective employer branding strategies on e-recruiting platforms.
Realistic Job Previews
The Realistic Job Preview (RJP) was conceived as an alternative to the “seduction” method of recruiting job applicants with purely positive information (Baur et al., 2014). Indeed, the use of “puffery” (Young & Foot, 2005) stems from the customer-centric view failure to measure the existence of a psychological contract (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). As a result, RJP are designed to prevent the formation of unrealistically high expectations which are subsequently unmet upon employment (Wanous, 1889) and lead to lower job satisfaction and an increased turnover rate (Beaugh & Starke, 2000). As todays’ employees frequently switch jobs and careers, it is urgent to comprehend employer branding in relation to RJP (Baur et al., 2014). However, we will see that companies need to comprehend the contexts in which it is the most efficient to benefit from it (Susanto & Hartika, 2016).
RJP presents job applicants with a realistic view of what they should expect from the organization (Baur et al., 2014). It means that applicants are presented with “all pertinent information without distortion” (Wanous, 1980, p. 37) and given both the positive and negative aspects of related to the position (O’Nell et al. 2001). These characteristics are said to increase satisfaction and reduce turnovers in two ways. Firstly, according to the self-selection hypothesis, only applicants that have a high person-organization fit will pursue in the recruitment process and this will promote long term employee-employer relationships (Bretz & Judge, 1998). As self-selection implies “a matching, or fit, between the applicant's characteristics and the environmental conditions of the job”, RJP detailed content enables applicants’ to make optimal career decisions (Bretz & Judge, 1998, p.330). Secondly, according to the psychological contract view, candidates’ interactions with the organization create certain expectations that are seen as obligations or promises that need to be fulfilled (Baur et al., 2014). By communicating the less desirable aspects, RJP lower initial job expectations to a level that is more congruent with what the employer can deliver to trigger employee satisfaction (Baur et al., 2014).
Despite the logical relationship between realistic job previews, job satisfaction and turnover, the RJP business case is not solid (Baur et al., 2014). Breaugh (2008) has found weak or no relationships and Miceli (1985) even questions the existence of a “reality shock model”. Indeed, he calls for a “fadeout” mechanism as candidates who receive negative cues
9
during pre-hire evaluate their employers in a negative direction afterwards (Miceli, 1985). Furthermore, negative content harms talent attraction as negative aspects dissuade highly qualified applicants to apply (Baur et al., 2014), although, it seems to enhance organizational attractiveness for other applicants (Thorsteinsein et al., 2004). In a word, RJP can be seen as risky to for the employer brand.
Researchers have recently narrowed the operationalization of RJP to consolidate its business case (Wanous, 1989; Susanto & Hartika, 2016), which is fundamental to encourage employer branding practitioners to use this recruitment technique. Regarding the context, RJP should be implemented when job applicants lack information on tasks and responsibilities and are likely to form unrealistic expectations such as in human services (O’Nell et al., 2001), entry-level positions (Breaugh, 1983) and at the early stages of the recruitment process (Susanto & Hartika, 2016). In terms of content, RJP should provide realistic but not “overwhelmingly negative information” (Susanto & Hartika, 2016) on aspects that are particularly valued by applicants (Breaugh & Billings, 1988). This involves the use of a “reduction preview” that presents a number of problems that newcomers would have not anticipated as well as an “enhancement preview” that contradicts commonly held negative impressions about the role (Meglino, DeNisi, Youngblood & Williams, 1988). In other words, negative information is replaced by “challenges” (Thorsteinson, Palmer, Wulff & Anderson, 2004). To sum up, RJP effects on employees’ satisfaction is maximized when it presents both descriptive and judgmental content (Wanous, 1989).
We have seen that RJP is effective to increase satisfaction when presented pre-hire (Susanto & Hartika, 2016) and to applicants that have high expectations (O’Nell et al., 2001) such as the Generation Y in the retail industry (Broadbridge et al., 2007). We will now discuss which retailers may implement RJP as part of their employer branding strategy on e-recruiting platforms (RQ1) and what elements can boost their employer brand ratings (RQ2).
Integrating RPJ to employer branding practices on e-recruiting platforms
Mukesh and Damodar (2016) study shows that companies using RJP can fulfill a psychological contract that enhances their brand among talents. Companies are advised to provide realistic information on pertinent employee value propositions (EVP) such as
training, career opportunities, personal growth and development (Mukesh & Damodar, 2016). Our literature review gives support for the use of RPJ for all aspects that drive employees’ satisfaction (Wanous, 1989). Therefore retailers can address every causes of turnover in their
10
industry through RJP: career growth, working hours, work-life balance, relations with coworkers, welfare, working conditions, and salaries (Batty, 2014). Indeed, it is urgent for retailers to manage the Generation’s Y growing expectations (Broadbridge, Maxwell, & Odgen, 2007) and we have seen that RJP can be effective tools in this domain. In particular, we can expect retailers to provide accurate information on Glassdoor on all elements of their brand: the “organizational culture and values”, “economic benefits”, “career opportunities”, “management” and “work-life balance” (Dabirian et al., 2017).
Identifying RJP Practices (RQ1)
The use of RJP on e-recruiting platforms is limited in regards to two characteristics related to employers’ resources. Firstly, employer branding or “signaling” practices differ according to the firms’ commitment to HRM (Eunmy & Huyn, 2018). In concrete terms, companies delivering numerous employee benefits signal more information on their employer brand than competitors (Eunmy & Huyn, 2018). Regarding RJP, it means that top-rated employers have fulfilled a psychological contract by delivering numerous employee benefits and consequently, they are more likely to provide positive information in the form of
enhancement previews than low-rated competitors. Secondly, RJP also entails the formulation of more negative information in reduction previews. Therefore, RJP are defined as “high recruitment” recruitment practices which are risky for talent attraction, in particular for employers with a fragile reputation in the labor market (Collin & Han, 2004). In other terms, low-rated employer brands are dissuaded to use RJP in the form of reduction previews to limit harm on talent attraction (Baur et al., 2014) and weeping out applicants with a “poor” fit (Bretz & Judge, 1998). Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H1: Top-rated employers give more realistic information on their employer brand than low-rated employers
-H1a: Top-rated employer brands give more “enhancement previews” than low-rated competitors
-H1b: Top-rated employer brands give more “reduction previews” than low-rated competitors
Measuring RJP Outcomes (RQ2)
As employers can enhance their employer brands among talents by providing RJP to different EVP (Mukesh & Damodar, 2016), it is urgent to assess which of the five EVP rated
11
on Glassdoor is the most important to address in job advertisements (Dabirian et al., 2017). We will discuss the importance of RJP for each EVP from the perspective of retailers targeting the Generation Y.
First, employers need to give accurate information about the culture (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Defined as the “social value” of the employer brand, it entails the description of the organizational mission, culture and team climate (Berthon et al., 2005). Information on the work climate enables a self-selection process and a weeping out of applicants who are a poor fit (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). This matching process conditions employee satisfaction (Riley, 2002). Consequently, companies need to implement “well-crafted, on-brands” advertisements (Tavassoli, 2008) to meet the Generation Y demands to “enjoy their work and not let it rule their lives” (Broadbridge et al., 2007, P.508). Yet, the retail industry is blamed for poor working conditions and relation with co-workers (Batty, 2014). Consequently, a retailer who mentions both favorable and unfavorable aspects of its working culture can reduce applicants’ expectations in this domain and attract applicants with a better fit, increasing the chances to fulfill a psychological contract and foster employees satisfaction. On e-recruiting platforms, we suggest that:
H2: An increase in the amount of realistic information on “culture and values” leads to an increase in the employer brand ratings
Secondly, employers need to mention their “economic value” to meet individuals’ desire for acceptable salary and fringe benefits (Berthon et al., 2005). Furthermore, the accuracy of compensations and benefits is crucial to secure a high person-organization fit (Verwaeren, Van Hoye & Baeten, 2017). Yet, this fit generates positive employment experiences (Bretz & Judge, 1998). As the retail industry struggles to meet employees’
expectations for satisfying salaries (Batty, 2014), we suggest that employers who give RJP are more likely to experience, through a similar process as described previously, employee
satisfaction.
H3: An increase in the amount of realistic information on “economic benefits” leads to an increase in the employer brand ratings
Third, employers need to mention the “development value” to meet applicants’ desires for learning and career opportunities in a particular field (Berthon et al., 2005). The Generation Y demands support and opportunities for promotion (De Hauw & De Vos, 2010).
12
Meeting Generation Y career expectations is a critical factor in enhancing job satisfaction (Kong, Wang & Fu, 2015). Blatty’s (2014) research in the retail industry supports these findings and show that the lack of career growth is a cause of turnover, especially among young employees. Therefore, we assume that companies who effectively monitor these expectations will experience an increased level of employee satisfaction:
H4: An increase in the amount of realistic information on “career opportunities” leads to an increase in the employer brand ratings
Fourth, the management value has been recently added regarding employees’ needs for a strong and influential leader that enables a healthy organizational climate (Dabirian et al., 2017). It is argued that it is the second factor that constitutes employees negative words of mouths for the least performing employers on Glassdoor (Dabirian et al., 2017). In particular, the Generation Y has high expectations in this domain and demands clear directions and managerial support as well as freedom and flexibility to get the task done their own way (Martin, 2005). Consequently, we argue that companies who will successfully lower these expectations with RJP will fulfill a psychological contract and foster employee satisfaction:
H5: An increase in the amount of realistic information on “management” leads to an increase in the employer brand ratings
Finally, employers need to mention the “work-life balance” to meet applicants’ needs for flexibility in terms of location and schedule (Dabirian et al., 2017). The Generation Y demands flexibility as a must-have to maintain their lifestyle (Broadbridge, Maxwell & Odgen, 2007). However, it is argued that the retail industry is under performing in this
domain, and long working hours are to blame for employee turnover (Blatty, 2014). Similarly, employers who are transparent on the pros and cons related to this aspect will experience higher employee satisfaction:
H6: An increase in the amount of realistic information on “work-life balance” leads to an increase in the employer brand ratings
In Figure 1, we provide a visual framework to comprehend the relationship that exists on e-recruiting platforms between Realistic Job Previews and the employer brand
performance. The circularity of the diagram reveals that two mechanisms are at play: the first shows that existing employers’ ratings constrain the application of RJP based on existing reputation (Collin & Han, 2004) and HRM commitment (Eunmy & Huyn, 2018); while the
13
second shows that RJP drive the employer brand performance through the fulfillment of a psychological contract (Mukesh & Damodar, 2016).
Figure 1. Visual framework showing the application of Realistic Job Previews as an employer branding strategy on e-recruiting platforms
Note: Dashed lines indicate belonging and continuous arrows indicate relationships
Methods
Sampling procedure
To measure the use of Realistic Job Previews on e-recruiting platforms, a quantitative content analysis of job advertisements (N=60) published on Glassdoor is conducted. Three criteria are retained for the sample: being a fashion retailer, headquartered and recruiting in the United States on Glassdoor with a minimum of 1300 reviews. A single industry and labor market are investigated to minimize the variance in job applicants’ expectations (Alnıaçık et al., 2014; Dabirian et al., 2017). Indeed, employers adapt the EVP to applicants’ preferences and it can impact their use of RJP respectively, weakening our ability to determine the role of realistic information for each EVP for the employer brand success. Secondly, the fashion retail industry is selected because it suffers from an above average turnover caused by unmet expectations (Lee & Ha-Brookshire, 2017). Blamed for poor management and low
14
compensations on e-recruiting platforms (Suneson & Stebbins 2018), retailers are pressured to address the factors causing turnovers (Batty, 2014). In particular, employee reviews on
Glassdoor have increased “accountability for bad managers, for bad recruiters” (McGregor, 2018) and push companies to design accurate employer branding messages (Eunmi & Hyun, 2018). As Glassdoor is the second most used e-recruiting platform by American job seekers, American employers are the first impacted by the need to monitor employee reviews
(McGregor, 2018). In a word, American fashion retailers provide a rich case study to measure the use of RJP.
A stratified sampling strategy is conducted following Dabirian and al. (2017) “spectrum of organizational attractiveness” that enables a comparative analysis on what the best employer brands do in relation to others (RQ1). This sampling procedure also provides a large spectrum in employer brands ratings necessary to measure the effect of RJP for each EVP on the employer brand success (RQ2). As a result, employer brands were selected based on their average ratings score – on a 5-points numerical scale – given by current and former employees on Glassdoor on “management”, “work-life balance’, the “organizational culture and values”, “economic benefits” and “career opportunities”. Three companies starting from the top of the “best employer” ranking (Glassdoor, 2018) were selected– Nike (3.9), Adidas (3.8), and REI COOP (3.6) – and three companies starting from the bottom of the “worst employer” ranking (Suneson & Stebbins, 2018): Family Dollar Stores (2.5), The Children’s Place (2.6), Belk (2.8). The reliability of this ranking lies in the minimum of 1300 reviews (Suneson & Stebbins, 2018).
Operationalization and data collection
The codebook is elaborated to measure the use of realistic information for each EVP in job advertisements. As “realistic” is a subjective term, realistic information is formulated the following way: “accurate, favourable, and unfavourable job-related information”
(Templer, Tay & Chandrasekar, 2006, p.158).
Firstly, accuracy is measured according to Verwaeren, Van Hoye and Baeten (2017) who argue that job advertisements need to contain “specific” information. Specific information reduces applicants’ interpretation by giving tangible and concrete elements on what, for instance, an “attractive salary” entails (Verwaeren et al., 2017). As specific information is operationalized solely for compensations, we have conducted an exploratory research on job advertisements to produce concrete examples for other EVP items. For
15
instance, a “supportive team climate” is indicated in job advertisements by: “you’ve got a group of dedicated people behind you every step of the way” (see Codebook in Appendix).
Secondly, unfavorable and favorable information is measured following Meglino et al. (1988) operationalization of an “enhancement” and “reduction preview”. An enhancement preview gives positive elements that alleviate candidates’ fears while the reduction preview gives negative elements that reduce candidates’ enthusiasm (Meglino et al., 1988). In this research, previews are aligned to the Generation Y preferences. Employer branding research has identified the elements in job advertisements that meet the Generation Y’s expectations for “organizational climate”, “compensations” and “development” (Elving et al., 2013). However, due to a lack of evidence, we have used scales measuring IT employees’ expectations regarding “management” and “work-life balance” (Tanwar & Prasad, 2016). These expectations or preferences are defined as “enhancement” previews while the reduction previews are designed to add “challenges” (Thorsteinson et al., 2004). For instance, positive claims— “you will enjoy frequent interactions with friendly and courteous people”— are balanced with “you will occasionally encounter difficult customers” (Thorsteinson et al., 2004). Similarly, an exploratory research unveils concrete examples of reduction previews for other EVP such as, for instance, a “consuming job” is indicated by “must be able to travel every week with some overnight stays” (See Codebook in Appendix).
In a word, our measurement of realistic information relies on RJP research and excludes the employer branding perspective of a “promise” (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). Indeed, our research design is not appropriate to tests whether the benefits mentioned are accurately delivered during the employment experience (see Limitations, p.22).
An inter-coder reliability test (N=10) shows a high reliability of our measures:
realistic information on organizational culture and values (Krippendorf Alpha=.58), economic benefits and compensations (α=1), management (α= .79), career opportunities (α=.76.), work-life balance (α=.81), reduction previews (α=.56) and enhancement previews (α=.60). These independent variables have an interval level of measurement because they were
operationalized by computing the sum of corresponding dummy items (see Codebook in Appendix). However, the internal validity of these measures cannot be easily tested as each item is an indicator but not a precise measure of the wider concept (see Limitations, p22).
T-tests are first conducted to determine whether highly rated employer brands, within the American fashion industry, significantly provide more RJP to job applicants than their lower rated counterparts, while a multiple regression analysis unveils which EVP elements effectively enhance the employer brand performance on Glassdoor.
16 Results
Descriptive statistics
Before assessing the effect of using RJP in job advertisements, we have explored a number of descriptive statistics that reveal current fashion retailers’ employer branding
practices. These elements – the length of their ads, the aspects of the employer brand adressed and the elements of RJP commonly used –fuel the discussion on the convergences or
divergences of employer branding practices between top-rated and low-rated employer brands on e-recruiting platforms.
On average, American fashion retailers’ job advertisements are 488 words (SD=191) although the length varies according to the employer popularity on e-recruiting platforms. A Pearson correlation test indicate there is a significant, positive and strong correlation between the employer’s ratings and the length of job advertisement (r(58)=.52, p<.001). In other terms, top-rated employer brands on Glassdoor design significantly and substantially longer
advertisements (M=593, SD=171) than low-rated competitors (M=383, SD=149), t(58)=.65, p<.001, 95% CI [-292,-127], d=1.32. As our sample (N=60) is composed of a majority of executing roles (71.7%) against managing positions (28.3%), we have controlled for the effect of job type on the length of the job description. Results of an Eta correlation test indicate there is no significant association between the job position and the length of advertisements (Eta (55) =.042, p = .299). In sum, top-rated employers design longer advertisements regardless of the job seekers targeted.
Yet, the length of the job description determines the number of Realistic Job
Previews given for different aspects of the employer brand (see Appendix, Section B). Indeed, multiple Pearson correlation tests show significant, positive and strong correlations between the presence of realistic information on the organization culture and values (r(58)=.53, p<.001), on economic benefits (r(58)=.46, p<.001), on management (r(58)=.51, p<.001), on work-life balance (r(58)=.52, p<.001) and the length of the ad. Only information on “career opportunities” is not affected (r(58)=.29, p=.29). We suggest that it may be due to the lack of information given by fashion retailers on this aspect as 63% of job advertisements (N=60) do not mention more than two aspects related to career opportunities out of eight. Although employers actively use the space available on e-reruiting platforms to give positive and negative aspects on their employer brand, adressing career opportunities is not a priority.
17
Despite minor differences, employers from the fashion industry stress similar aspects of their employer brand. The vast majority of fashion retailers’ advertisements (N=60) warn against a challenging working environment (83%), 57% present a market-oriented organization and specify the annual or hourly salary range. However, most job descriptions omit to mention restrictions on salaries (3%) and positive aspects of work-life balance such as the flexibility of the working location (1.7%), working hours and leisure facilities (6.7%). In other terms, fashion retailers are transparent on their challenging working environment although this openness may reduce talent attraction regarding the Generation Y. In particular, low-rated employer brands’ advertisements are a greater proportion to challenge the
Generation Y’s expectations on specific aspects such as 60% mention a restricted working experience, 63% a consuming job and 47% a reduction of employees’ value (See Appendix Section A).
Lastly, the effective implementation of Realistic Job Previews – as a balancing of reduction and enhancement previews – is largely understood despite its minimal use. On average, fashion retailers mention more than five elements that challenge the Generation Y’s expectations (M=5.65, SD=2.44) and they equally balance these negative aspects with
enhancement previews (M=4.68, SD=3.28). However, advertisements that mention more than ten enhancement previews are a minority (6.7%) similarly to the number of advertisements who use more than ten reduction previews (3.3%). It has to be noted that the maximum of previews that can be cited is 16 (see Codebook).
Statistical tests
To test whether top-rated employers provide more Realistic Job Previews than low-rated employers (H1), two independent sample t-tests were conducted with “employers” as independent variable and “reduction previews” and “enhancement previews” as dependent variables. The dependent variables are computed with an interval level of measurement and are normally distributed.
Results of the t-tests show that large differences exist in RJP use as top-rated
employers (M=7.1, SD=2.8) mention signficantly more “enhancement previews” that comfort Generation Y’s expectations than lower rated competitors (M=2.3, SD=1.5), t(44)=-8.4, p<.001, 95% CI [-5.99;-3.68], d=2.14. Similarly, top-rated employers provide significantly more “reduction previews” that challenge Generation Y’s expectations (M=6.7, SD=2.2) than lower rated employers (M=4.6, SD=2.2), t(58)=-3.5, p<.001, 95% CI [-3.19;-0.87], d=.95. We
18
conclude that H1 is supported because top-rated employers’s advertisements give
significantly more “accurate, favourable and unfavorable information” (Templer et. al, 2006) than their lower-rated competitors.
Secondly, to test whether Realistic Job Previews on different aspects of the employer brand positively affect the employer brand ratings (H2,H3,H4,H5,H6), we have conducted a multiple regression analysis. Each independent variable was computed with a mean rather than a sum of its indicators to compare predictors and meet the assumptions of linearity in regression. The assumptions of homocedasticity, absence of muticollinearity between predictors (Tolerance >.2; VIF<10) and normal distribution of residuals are met.
Results of the multiple linear regression indicate that there is a collective significant effect of the presence of RJP on the culture and values, economic benefits, career
opportunities, management and work-life balance on the employer brand ratings, F(5,54) = 20,13, p < .001, R² = .62. In concrete terms, the presence of realistic information on five aspects of the employer brand explains 62% of the variance in the global employer brand ratings, comprised on a scale from 0 to 5. Individual predictors were examined further and indicated that realistic information on culture and values (b=1.22 , p<.001) and management (b=.54 , p=.027) significantly predict the employer brand ratings while economic benefits, career opportunities and work-life balance do not predict this score (see Table 1). In concrete terms, employer who provide an additional element of RJP on their working culture can expect an increase of 1.2 stars on a scale of 5 of their employer brand rating on Glassdoor. Similarly, the addition of one RJP element on the role of leaders and employees in the
organization increases the employers’ ratings by 0.5 stars on Glassdoor. It means that H1 and H5 which state that providing realistic information on the organization culture and values as well as the management in job advertisements increase the employer brand ratings are
supported. Conversely, H3, H4 and H6 which predict that the presence of realistic information on the economic benefits, career opportunities and work-life balance increase the employer brand ratings are not supported.
Table 1
Multiple Regression model showing the influence of the amount of realistic information provided per EVP on the global employer brand ratings on Glassdoor
19 Employee Value Proposition b SEb β t p Culture and values 1.22 .19 .64 6.38 .000 Economic benefits -.07 .23 -.03 -.30 .764 Career opportunities -.08 .38 -.01 -.21 .833 Management .54 .23 .23 2.28 .027 Work-life balance .60 .45 .13 1.33 .189
Note. N=60. p=probability at 95% confidence interval, b=unstandardized regression coefficient; SEb = Standard error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient. The employer brand rating on Glassdoor is comprised between 0 and 5 (one decimal).
Conclusion and Discussion
As employee reviews boost or hamper the firm’s reputation in the labor market (Eunmy & Huyn, 2018) and affect the employer’s financial success (Huang, Meshke, & Guthrie, 2015), it is urgent to monitor employees’ satisfaction as part of the employer
branding strategy (Miles & Mccamey, 2018; Sartain, 2005; Eunmi & Hyun, 2018). Although Realistic Job Previews are recommended by employer branding researchers (Miles &
Mccamey, 2018), they lack a solid business case (Baur et. al, 2014) and rationale as no evidence is given on the extent the employer brand constitutes a psychological contract (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Therefore, it is unclear whether companies continue to use
“puffery” on e-recruiting platforms (Young & Foot, 2005) or have introduced RJP to enhance the brand among talents (Mukesh & Damodar, 2016; Miles & Mccamey, 2018). This study assessed the application of RJP to employer branding practices with the aim to stress the constraints related to RJP implementation (RQ1) and its benefits for managing the employer brand on e-recruiting platforms (RQ2). Our findings revealed that employers actively use RJP in the form of enhancement and reduction previews, although this practice is less frequent among low-rated employers. Yet, RJP condition the employers’ success such as giving accurate information on the organizational culture and management increases the employers’ ratings. It suggests that the employer brand forms a psychological contract (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004) which success depends on the “accuracy” of the recruitment message (Miles &
20
Mccamey, 2018) although some employers face limitations in their use of RJP (Collin & Hay, 2004).
Firstly, our study shows that employer branding practices have significantly adapted to e-recruiting platforms, as witnessed with the introduction of RJP. We noted the presence of “accurate, favourable, and unfavourable job-related information” (Templer, Tay &
Chandrasekar, 2006, p.158) which contrasts with the “puffery” observed on corporate
websites (Young & Foot, 2005). Employers use the most effective form of RJP with an equal number of enhancement and reduction previews (Meglino et al., 1988) which follows Moroko and Uncles’ (2008) suggestions to design “attractive” but yet “accurate” descriptions of the different EVP. These practices signal the adoption of a psychological contract view at the expense of the customer-centric view which promoted “crowdsourced employer branding” to multiply the employee benefits advertised in relation to competitors (Dabirian et al., 2017). We explain this adoption of RJP by retailers’ needs to give realistic information on the factors that cause turnover (Batty, 2014), in particular to tackle negative reviews on management and compensations (Suneson & Stebbins 2018). Thus, e-recruiting platforms present a new context for RJP use (Breaugh & Starke, 2000), in particular for firms suffering from high turnover.
Secondly, top-rated employer brands use significantly more enhancement and reduction previews than lower-rated competitors. This differential use unveils two constraints related to the implementation of RJP. The first constraint relates to Eunmy and Huyn (2018) “signaling” theory in which firms implementing commitment Human Resources Management signal more detailed information on their benefits. Indeed, low-rated employers are
constrained in their use of enhancement previews in comparison to their highly-rated competitors who may have more numerous and popular benefits. The second constraint relates to Collin and Hay (2004) description of RJP as a “high recruitment practice” avoided by employers with a fragile reputation in the labor market. Indeed, low-rated employers experience a greater risk to harm talent attraction with reduction previews in comparison to top-rated firms. However, our research reveals that top employers also design longer
advertisements, which explains the presence of RJP on the culture and values, compensations, management and work-life balance. Therefore, firms which are limited by their HRM
commitment and reputation can design longer recruitment messages to deliver more detailed information on unrelated factors, such as their culture or management.
21
More importantly, we demonstrate that applying RJP to the different EVP rated on Glassdoor— culture and values, compensations, career opportunities, management and work-life balance – determines 62% of the variance in the employer’s ratings. In concrete terms, providing balanced and accurate information in job advertisements is the answer for monitoring employees’ satisfaction and ensuring the brand success (Miles & Mccamey, 2018). It challenges Eunmy and Huyn (2018) who found no significant effect of “signaling”, which is, addressing different EVP in job advertisements, on the employers’ ratings. We believe that it originates from the failure to analyze the interdependency of the application and reviewing process by analyzing advertisements posted on corporate websites (Eunmy & Huyn, 2018). Consequently, we give evidence to employer branding researchers on the relation between external employer branding—referring to the promises made to applicants— and internal branding that translates employees’ commitment and satisfaction (Carley
Kanyapuss & Ranis, 2010). The strong impact of RJP on ratings gives evidence on the extent the employer brand constitutes a “psychological contract” (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004) and challenges RJP research who found no effect of RJP on satisfaction (Breaugh, 2008). In sum, this finding challenges Fertik’s (2018) recommendations that firms need to improve the quality of their employee benefits to control employee reviews, on the contrary, we give evidence on the prominence of the content of advertisements in determining the brand ratings.
Finally, our research shows that employers willing to enhance their reputation need to address their culture and management with RJP. Giving accurate descriptions on the exciting and challenging aspects of the organization’s culture, mission and team climate increases the employer’s ratings of 1.2 stars out of five. It confirms that accurate information on culture should be a top priority for employer branding (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004) and in particular on e-recruiting platforms, as culture fit conditions employees’ satisfaction (Riley, 2002). Similarly, giving realistic information on the role of leaders and employees in the organization increases the brand ratings of 0.5 stars. It confirms that e-recruiting platforms invite the “management value” to be addressed among other EVP as well as accurately discussed because false expectations in this domain constitutes the second cause of negative reviews (Dabirian et al., 2017). However, our inability to demonstrate the effect of RJP when applied to economic benefits, career opportunities and work-life balance challenge Batty’s (2014) recommendations to address every causes of turnover through RJP. In sum, our findings reject the use of RJP for all drivers of employee satisfaction (Wanous, 1989) and
22
stress, similarly to Susanto and Hartika (2016), the need to narrow the operationalization of RJP to maximize its effectiveness.
Practical implications
We have seen that 60% of the employer’s e-reputation can be managed by providing accurate, favorable and unfavorable information on different aspects of the employer brand. Yet, employee reviews have a greater influence on talent attraction than the company’s voice (Miles & Mccamey, 2018). Consequently, we recommend HR practitioners to design
advertisements that fulfill a psychological contract and generate positive words of mouths, notably through the application of RJP in the form of enhancement and reduction previews. A coordination of external branding and internal branding departments should enable a building of the brand from “inside out” (Pietersis, Leeuwen, & Crawford, 2005) that ensures that all promises made to applicants reflect employees’ experiences. A “crowdsourced employer branding” is advocated to screen employees’ pros and cons reviews on e-recruiting platforms, replacing the analysis of competitors’ reviews as advocated by Dabirian et al. (2017). Finally, these negative reviews should be translated into “challenges” (Thorsteinsein et al., 2004) and be equally balanced with positive information (Susanto & Hartika, 2016) to attract applicants.
However, we recommend companies to carefully implement RJP to limit harm on talent attraction and maximize positive effects on reputation. First, the employer’s existing reputation and commitment HRM need to be assessed to determine the potential use of RJP. We recommend low-rated employers with fewer benefits to limit the number of RJP to balance the number of enhancement and reduction previews (Meglino et al., 1988). However, we advise all employers to address their organizational culture or mission as well as their management vision with RJP. These aspects best contribute to the employers’ reputation and interestingly, can be used by low-rated employers as they are not related to commitment HRM. In sum, HR recruiters need to design on brand advertisements that portray their
organization’s unique working culture. In-depth interviews or open-ended questionnaires with employees can be a first step into giving a “realistic” image of the workplace to future
applicants.
Limitations and future research
The recommendations made above have to be taken with caution because of the low external validity deriving from our sampling choices. Indeed, our sample criteria limited our analysis to fashion retailers who are more likely to present RJP to control applicants’ high
23
expectations (Broadbridge et al., 2007) and deal with the causes of turnover (Batty, 2014). Future research should investigate whether other industries use RJP and whether a similar effect on ratings can be observed. For instance, the “management value” is intensively addressed by retailers because of their need to tackle negative reviews on this EVP (Suneson & Stebbins 2018), therefore its importance in the psychological contract and effect on ratings might be weaker for other industries. A universal framework assessing the importance of designing RJP for each EVP is needed.
Secondly, the reliability of our measures can be questioned due to the aggregation of multiple scales and the lack of factor analyses. Indeed, face value was used due to the nominal level of measurement of the items included in each measure. We suggest future research to extend the operationalization of “reduction” previews to other EVP following Thorsteinsein and al. (2004). This operationalization will not only serve researchers but will help companies in designing realistic and yet attractive advertisements (Thorsteinsein et al., 2004) that limit the negative effect of reduction previews on highly qualified applicants (Baur et. al, 2014). Indeed, it should be noted that our research fails to inform practitioners on the side-effects of using RJP, notably on the quality of applicants recruited, and this should guide future
researches.
Finally, our research design severely limited our operationalization of RJP and our ability to contribute to the RJP literature. Indeed, we have measured RJP as the presence of accurate, favorable and unfavorable information in job advertisements regardless of the effective delivery or absence of these benefits. Future research should integrate in-depth interviews to measure whether job advertisements accurately reflect employees’ actual experience and what role this accuracy plays in the making of the employers’ reputation online. Similarly, future research can integrate other important factors that influence the employer’s ratings, such as the number of benefits offered by the firm or applicants’ previous experiences, to stress further limitations on the effects of RJP to be an employer of choice.
References
Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. Journal of brand management, 4(3), 185-206 Alnıaçık, E., Alnıaçık, Ü., Erat, S., & Akçin, K. (2014). Attracting talented employees to the
company: Do we need different employer branding strategies in different cultures?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 336-344.
Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career
24
Batty, J. (2014). A study on attrition – turnover intentions in the retail industry. International Journal
of Business and Administration Research Review.1 (3). 55-61
Baur, E. Buckley, R. Bagdasarov, M. Zhanna, S. & Dharmasiri, A. (2014) A historical approach to realistic job previews, Journal of Management History, 20(2), 200-223
Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Lian Hah, L. (2005). Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding. International Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 151-172.
Biswas, M. K., & Suar, D. (2014). Antecedents and Consequences of Employer Branding. Journal of
Business Ethics, 136(1), 57–72.
Breaugh, J. A., & Starke, M. (2000). Research on Employee Recruitment: So Many Studies, So Many Remaining Questions. Journal of Management, 26(3), 405–434.
Breaugh, J. A. (2008). Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and important areas for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), 103-118.
Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Judge, T. A. (1998). Realistic job previews: A test of the adverse self-selection hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 330–337.
Broadbridge, A. M., Maxwell, G. A., & Ogden, S. M. (2007). Experiences, perceptions and
expectations of retail employment for Generation Y. Career Development International, 12(6), 523– 544.
Carley, F. Khanyapuss,P. & Ranis, C. (2010) Exploring the relationship between corporate, internal and employer branding, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(6), 401-409
Dabirian, A., Kietzmann, J., & Diba, H. (2017). A great place to work!? Understanding crowdsourced employer branding. Business Horizons, 60(2), 197-205.
Djewanowska, K. Pearce, A. & Zupan, N. (2016). Generation Y’s expectations of their
future employment relationships pose a challenge for their employers. Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19(1), 1-12.
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.
Eunmi, C. Hyun, C. (2018) Signaling or experiencing: Commitment HRM effects on recruitment and employees' online ratings. Journal of Business Research, 84, 175-185
Fertik, M. (2018, August 6) Attracting Talents with a Strong Employer Brand. Retrieved from:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelfertik/2018/08/06/attract-talent-with-a-strong-employer-brand/#583fc0f69247
Glassdoor Report. (2017). Why Online Reviews Matter for Employer Brand: Evidence from
Glassdoor. Retrieved from:
https://www.glassdoor.com/research/app/uploads/sites/2/2017/01/GD_Report_ReviewsMatterEmploy erBrand_FINAL.pdf
25
Glassdoor Report (2018). Best places to work, employees choice. Retrieved from: https://www.glassdoor.com/Award/Best-Places-to-Work-LST_KQ0,19.htm
Huang, M. Li, P. Meshke, F. & Guthrie. J. (2015) Family firms, employee satisfaction, and corporate performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 34, 108-127
Kong, H. Wang, S. & Fu, X. (2015) "Meeting career expectation: can it enhance job satisfaction of Generation Y?", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27 (1),147-168
Linkedin Talent Solution Report (2016). Global recruiting trends in 2016: relationships at the core. Retrieved from
://business.linkedin.com/content/dam/business/talent-solutions/global/en_us/c/pdfs/GRT16_GlobalRecruiting_100815.pdf
Lee, S., & Ha-Brookshire, J. (2017). Ethical Climate and Job Attitude in Fashion Retail Employees’ Turnover Intention, and Perceived Organizational Sustainability Performance: A Cross-Sectional Study. Sustainability, 9(3), 465.
McGregor, J. (May 10, 2018). How job reviews site Glassdoor became one of the biggest tech deals of 2018. The Washington Post. Retrieved from:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on- leadership/wp/2018/05/10/how-job-reviews-site-glassdoor-became-one-of-the-biggest-tech-deals-of-2018/?utm_term=.4dfe1fb29c31
Martin, C. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: What managers need to know about Generation Y. Industrial and commercial training, 37, 39-44.
Meglino, B. M., DeNisi, A. S., Youngblood, S. A., & Williams, K. J. (1988). Effects of realistic job previews: A comparison using an enhancement and a reduction preview. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73(2), 259–266.
Miceli, M. P. (1985). The effects of realistic job previews on newcomer behavior: A laboratory study.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26(3), 277–289
Miles, S & Mccamey, R. (2018) The candidate experience: Is it damaging your employer brand?.
Business Horizons, 61(5), 755-764
Moroko L & Uncles MD. (2008) Characteristics of successful employer brands. Journal of Brand
Management, 16, 160–175
Mosley, R.W. (2007).Customer experience, organisational culture and the employer brand. Brand
Management, 15 (2), 123-34.
Morton L.P. (2002). Targeting Generation Y. Public Relations Quarterly. 46-48.
O’Nell, S Larson, S. Hewitt, A. & Sauer, J. (2001). RJP overview. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute on Community Integration.
Pietersis, J., van Leeuwen, B., & Crawford, T. (2005). Building Philips’ employer brand from the inside out. Strategic HR Review, 4(4), 16–19.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the Resource-Based “View” a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22.
26
Rampl, V. & Kenning, P. (2014). Employer brand trust and affect: linking brand personality to employer brand attractiveness. European Journal of Marketing, 48(1/2), 218-236
Rayton, B. & Yalabik ,Z. (2014). Work engagement, psychological contract breach and job satisfaction, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Rosoiu, O. & Popescu, C. (2016) E-recruiting Platforms: Features that Influence the Efficiency of Online Recruitment Systems. Informatică economică, 20(2), 46-55
Sartain, L. (2005) Branding from the inside out at Yahoo!: HR's role as brand builder. Human
Resource Management, 44(1), 89-93
Sullivan, J. (2004, 23 Februrary). Eight elements of a successful employment brand, ER Daily, Retrieved from: http://www.ere.net/2004/02/23/the-8-elements-of-asuccessful-employment-brand/ Suneson & Stebbins (2018, Jun 15). What are the worst companies to work for? New report analyzes employee reviews. USA Today. Retrieved from:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/06/15/worst-companies-to-work-for-employee-reviews/35812171/
Susanto, P. & Hartika,L. (2016) Revisiting Realistic Job Preview in Recruitment: A Theoretical Perspective. Matrik: Jurnal Manajemen, Strategi Bisnis dan Kewirausahaan, 10 (2)
Tanwar, K., & Prasad, A. (2016). Exploring the Relationship between Employer Branding and Employee Retention. Global Business Review, 17(3_suppl), 186S–206S.
Templer, KJ, Tay, C. & Chandrasekar, N.A. (2006), "Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural adjustment". Group and Organization
Management, 31 (1). 154-73
Thorsteinson, T. J., Palmer, E. M., Wulff, C., & Anderson, A. (2004). Too Good to Be True? Using Realism to Enhance Applicant Attraction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1), 125–137. Tavassoli, N. (2008). Branding from the inside out. Business Strategy Review, 19(2), 94–95. Verwaeren, B. Van Hoye, G. & Baeten, X. (2017). “Getting Bang for Your Buck : the Specificity of Compensation and Benefits Information in Job Advertisements.” International Journal of Human
Resource Management 28 (19): 2811–2830.
Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection and socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wanous, J. P. (1989). Installing a Realistic Job Preview: Ten Tough Choices. Personnel Psychology, 42(1), 117–134.
Young, J., & Foot, K. (2005). Corporate E-Cruiting: The Construction of Work in Fortune 500 Recruiting Web Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 44–71
27 Appendix 1. Codebook
The aim of this study is to measure the use and role of Realistic Job Previews as an employer branding strategy on e-recruiting platforms. The companies sampled are American fashion retailers recruiting in the United States on Glassdoor. Five employee value propositions (EVP) that constitute organizational attractiveness in job advertisements are examined (Elving et al., 2013; Dabirian et al., 2017). Realistic information is formulated for each of these EVP by giving positive information that reduces commonly negative expectations about the role – enhancement preview—and negative information that reduces too optimistic expectations—the reduction preview (Meglino et al., 1988). The reduction preview consists of “challenges” to job seekers’ expectations (Thorsteinson et al.,2004).
General Information:
E = enhancement preview R = reduction preview
All general descriptions of factors are in italic (Dabirian et al., 2017, p.200)
All examples per EVP item (in italic) come from an exploratory research on fashion retailers’ advertisements on Glassdoor
1.Data collection procedure 1.1 Get to the sample
-Go on glassdoor.com -Select the British flag.
-Enter the name of the “company” in the company’s bar entry (see below 3.4 for the companies selected)
-Enter “United States” in the country’s bar entry -Select “Full-time” for “job type”
-Press enter.
-Code the first 10 job advertisements
BE CAREFUL: do not code advertisements that include in the title “INTERN”, “INTERNSHIP”, “TRAINEE”
1.2. Get to the content
-Only code the “job” section of the advertisement (no coding of the “company”, “rating” and “reviews”)
28 2. Coder information
2.1 Coder 1.Alexia 2.Maria
2.2.Date of coding (dd/mm/yyyy)
3. Job advertisement manifest characteristics 3.1.Date published (dd/mm/yyyy)
3.2 Job Position
(Note the number to which it corresponds)
0. Managing positions
The title of the position includes the keyword “manager” or “director” or “coordinator”. Ex: Marketing
Coordinator, Assistant Manager, Department Manager, General Manager, Regional Manager, .Sales Manager, Store Manager
1. Other positions
All other positions which do not meet the former criterion. Ex: Cashier, Customer Service, Floor
leader, Loss Prevention, Sales Associate, Stocker, Team Leader
3.3.Length of the job advertisement (number of words) 3.4.Employer
1.Belk
2.The Children’s Place Retail 3. Family Dollar Stores 4. Nike
5. Adidas 6. Rei COOP
3.5 Employer’s global ratings (out of 5) -Open answer
(Info: the global score is indicated under the employers’ name)
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Determining the amount of realistic information for each EVP
Instructions:
The presence of one element from the description of an EVP item is necessary and sufficient for “mentioned”.
29
Description: “People care deeply about the enjoyment they gain from a positive work atmosphere; coworkers who are fun and collegial, and who share similar values; a team approach to problem solving; and a people-focused organizational culture.”
4.1.1 E Exciting work environment (EVP items)
A fun, happy, dynamic working environment with highly driven people, passion is necessary to achieve the organization’s mission. Ex: “joining an incredible team of talented, passionate and
innovative people who work together to bring fashion to everyone”
0.Not mentioned 1.Mentioned
4.1.2 R Challenging work environment
Fast-paced working environment looking for individuals able to cope with pressure, strict deadlines and meet urgent business demands. Productivity, efficiency and professionalism are stressed. Ex:
“demonstrate a sense of urgency while still delivering quality results to upper management” “Ability to multi-task in a fast-paced setting”
0.Not mentioned 1.Mentioned
4.1.3 E Supportive team climate
Organization is proud of its team-oriented, friendly and supportive working atmosphere. Employer gives an image of acceptance and belonging, encourages peer support. Ex: you’ve got a group of
dedicated people behind you every step of the way” “we’re family” “Make yourself available to support other team members when needed”
0.Not mentioned 1.Mentioned
4.1.4. R Demanding team climate
The employer demands particular personality traits and behaviors that contribute independently to the organization success, employees who are dedicated and motivated without the reliance on peers and managers. Ex: “a positive attitude and be self-motivated” “outgoing, stylish, and helpful”
0.Not mentioned 1.Mentioned
4.1.5. E Organization is socially responsible
Organization shows its social or environmental achievements and mission, employees can significantly help society. Ex: “we’ve won national awards for community involvement.””EOE” *EOE means equal opportunity employer
0.Not mentioned 1.Mentioned
4.1.6.R Organization is market oriented
Organization is proud of its financial performance, employees can be part of a success story. Ex: “In
just 25 years, we’ve grown from zero to $2.5 billion in assets””we are leaders in…”
0.Not mentioned 1.Mentioned
