Employer Branding Campaigns and Reputation:
A research on the Effects of Campaigns and Reputation on the Level of Employer Attractiveness and Job Choice Intention
Sanne Abalain 10753591 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s program Communication Science
Supervisor: dhr. drs. T.B. (Theo) Araujo
Abstract
Organizations need to attract the right people to gain a competitive advantage. Implementing employer branding campaigns could be an essential strategy for employers to attract potential employees and to get them to apply for a job. An important asset for organizations is
reputation, as it could influence the level of employer attractiveness and the level of job choice intention. Therefore, this study involves a survey experiment with students (N = 156) in order to investigate how reputation affects the relation between employer branding
campaigns, consisting of utilitarian and hedonic job descriptions, and employer attractiveness and job choice intention. Results from the survey experiment indicate no direct effect of employer branding campaigns on employer attractiveness and job choice intention. More specifically, we found no difference in effect when the utilitarian and hedonic campaigns were compared. However, the results indicate positive relations between reputation and employer attractiveness and job choice intention: If the level of reputation increases, the level of employer attractiveness and job choice intention increase as well. Based on these results, we can conclude that organizations need to improve and maintain their reputation in order to attract the right potential employees. These findings can give a better understanding for future research by highlighting the relation between reputation, employer attractiveness and job choice intention.
Introduction
Employer branding has become a very important strategic topic for organizations. Due to global competition and technological advances, employment patterns are changing
(Berthon, Ewing & Hah, 2005): Organizations are looking for more intellectual and human capital, which are regarded as the foundation of competitive advantage (Berthon et al., 2005; Martin, Gollan & Grigg, 2011; Uen, Ahlstrom, Chen, & Liu, 2015). Human capital is defined as the quality of individual competences and is often described as having the right people with the right skills (Martin, 2008). Intellectual capital involves using knowledge as an asset to create wealth: It includes the talents and skills of individuals and groups (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997). Accordingly, high-quality employees are crucial for organizations to both be competitive and to fulfill the needs of stakeholders (Elving, Westhoff, Meeusen &
Schoonderbeek, 2013). In order to bring these high-quality employees into the organization and to retain them, advertising the employer brand is considered important (Berthon et al., 2005; Elving et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2011). The employer brand is defined as “the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with the employing company” (Berthon et al., 2005, p. 153). Employer branding - or
recruitment communication - is the strategic tool to create this employer brand and to attract potential employees (Elving et al., 2013).
Although companies acknowledge the importance of implementing employer branding strategies, it does not alter the fact that finding the right talent is hard: Many organizations are looking for the same skills and experiences in employees (Elving et al., 2013). This could lead to organizations hunting for the same applicant. In order to get a better understanding of how to enhance attractiveness as an organization, it is crucial to determine what these potential employees find important. For instance, one of the things potential employees value when considering applying for a job at a particular organization is whether the organization has a
positive reputation or not (Edwards, 2009; Williamson, King, Lepak & Sarma, 2010; Cable & Turban, 2003; Turban & Cable, 2003). In this paper we adopt the definition of Fombrun (1996) about reputation, “A perceptual representation of a company’s past actions and future prospects that describes the firm’s overall appeal to all of its key constituents when compared with other leading rivals” (p. 72).
According to previous research, there is a relation between reputation, the
attractiveness and the likelihood a potential employee will apply for a job – in this paper called job choice intention (Edwards, 2009): The greater the organization’s reputation, the greater the attractiveness and the more likely the potential employee will apply. This study aims to confirm the relation between reputation and employer attractiveness and between reputation and job choice intention.
In employer branding, there are two types of benefits that are perceived by potential employees: Utilitarian and hedonic benefits. Utilitarian benefits are tangible elements employers offer, as for example salary, working conditions, and other benefits and leave allowances (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Batra & Ahtola, 1991). Hedonic benefits are intangible elements that are related to the fulfillment of social approval and feelings that are associated with how pleasant and fun it would be to work at a certain organization (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Batra & Ahtola, 1991).
As mentioned above, organizations implement recruitment advertising in order to attract the right people (Backhaus, 2004). One communication tool that is often used for recruitment advertising is job descriptions: These provide potential employees with
information that helps them understand the organization as an employer (Backhaus, 2004). Therefore, this study has decided to investigate job descriptions as employer branding campaigns. These campaigns put emphasis on eitherthe utilitarian or hedonic benefits, as these are the two main types in employer branding. When a potential employee is reading a
job description, he might feel more related to the utilitarian benefits while someone else prefers the hedonic benefits.
Although researchers have studied the utilitarian and hedonic benefits (Batha & Ahtola, 1991; Chitturi, Raghunathan & Mahajan, 2008; Brecht, Eckhardt & Günther, 2012) there exists little research on the perception of these benefits in relation to employer branding. Therefore, we specifically want to study the differences in effect of utilitarian benefits and hedonic benefits and whether job descriptions as employer branding campaigns have an impact on employer attractiveness and job choice intention. Furthermore, the effects of employer branding are not fully understood yet as both scholars and practitioners were unsuccessful in connecting it to reputation (Martin et al., 2011). With respect to this, we aim to gain more insight into these effects.
In sum, this study will focus on the way an organization’s reputation is related to employer attractiveness and job choice intention, and if employer branding campaigns will help increase employer attractiveness and job choice intention. Studying this will help get a better understanding of the different types of employer branding campaigns and how it is related to attracting and bringing in the right people: It can help scholars to get a better
understanding of the effects of employer branding. Furthermore, this study aims to investigate what is important when organizations are looking for talent. Therefore, the research question is formulated as follows:
How do employer branding campaigns, consisting of utilitarian and hedonic job descriptions, affect the relation between reputation, employer attractiveness and job choice intention?
Theoretical Background
Employer branding is a strategic tool that organizations are implementing to attract the right talent (Martin et al., 2011). Edwards (2009) describes it as an HR activity in which current and potential employees are considered as the target group. The main goal of
organizations when implementing employer branding is to create positive associations of the organization for potential employees and to distinguish itself from competitors (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). More specifically, employer branding serves as a management framework that can help improve recruitment, retention and commitment (Elving, 2013). As Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) argue, the employer brand “highlights the unique aspects of the firm’s
employment offerings or environment” (p.502). Therefore, employer branding involves the process of building an identifiable and unique employer identity on the organizational level (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004).
Attracting potential employees and bringing them into the organization is one of the main goals of employer branding activities (Rampl & Kenning, 2014; Berthon et al., 2005; Elving et al., 2013). An organization’s attractiveness refers to the strength the organization has in attracting people and describes a general feeling of favorableness (Gomes & Neves, 2010). Specifically for employers, the goal of employer attractiveness is to get potential employees to perceive an organization as a good and positive place to work (Williamson et al., 2010).
Another desirable outcome of employer branding activities is a high job choice intention. The process of choosing a job “can be characterized as a series of decisions made by an applicant as to which jobs and organizations to pursue for possible employment” (Gatewood, Gowan & Lautenschlager, 1993, p. 414). Choice intention is the likelihood to produce a certain outcome (Song & Chathoth, 2011). More specifically for job choice, it means the likelihood a potential employee will apply for a job.
According to Williamson et al. (2010), strategic actions that are taken by organizations to attract potential employees during the initial phases of recruitment processes have
important implications for the development of a high quality workforce: It appears that the attraction of potential employees will influence later recruitment activities as well
(Williamson et al., 2010). For instance, perceptions that are created by these recruitment processes have shown to be strong predictors for job seekers to eventually take a job (Williamson et al., 2010).
The Importance of Reputation for Employer Branding
An important asset for organizations is reputation (Williamson et al., 2010), which is described as a set of perceptions, developed over time, that make stakeholders think and feel a certain way about an organization (Barnett, Jermier & Lafferty, 2006). Reputation is
considered as what people actually think of the organization, regardless of what the organization thinks about itself (Bronn, 2010). In sum it is a perceptual representation that makes stakeholders think a certain way about an organization, based on overall corporate appeal, products and services, vision and leadership, financial strength, and social
responsibility (Fombrun & Gardberg, 2000). Groups of stakeholders involve customers, investors, employees and job seekers (Williamson et al., 2010). Job seekers and employees are important stakeholders when it comes to implementing employer branding strategies.
Reputation influences potential employees in two ways: From an economic and an institutional perspective. From the economical perspective, an organization’s reputation can reduce uncertainty about the quality of the organization (Williamson et al., 2010). From the institutional perspective, it will create perceptions about the social standing of an organization (Williamson et al., 2010). Organizations with good reputations are more likely to be viewed as good employers (Williamson et al., 2010). This means that the more positive an
organization’s reputation is, the more likely it is potential employees will evaluate the organization positively (Edwards, 2009). According to Gomes and Neves (2011) these evaluations are key in successfully attracting employees.
As mentioned before, potential employees are more likely attracted to an organization with a good reputation and therefore have a higher job choice intention (Edwards, 2009; Williamson et al., 2010; Cable & Turban, 2003; Turban & Cable, 2003). Herriot and Rothwell (1981) found that recruitment advertisements have an effect on the potential employees’ job choice intention. More specifically, potential employees will more likely respond to an organization with a high reputation (Gatewood et al., 1993). Moreover, Cable and Turban (2003) state that a job offering is more attractive for potential employees when it is offered by an organization with a positive reputation. Based on these findings from earlier literature, we hypothesize that:
H1: Reputation will influence employer attractiveness positively
H2: Reputation will influence job choice intention positively
Types of Employer Branding Campaigns
As discussed earlier, in order to create positive associations for potential employees, organizations are using communication tools like recruitment advertising and events to approach potential employees (Elving et al., 2013). Employer branding tools that often are implemented by organizations are recruitment communication, recruitment events,
advertisements and job descriptions, focused on employer benefits. These tools are part of employer branding campaigns. The clarification and management of an organization’s tangible and intangible employment offering are part of these employer branding campaigns
(Edwards, 2009). With respect to this, in order to successfully find employees that match with an organization, a good employer branding campaign needs to be developed.
Organizations are investing a lot of resources in these employer branding campaigns as these, next to reputation, can help improve associations that potential employees have of a brand and the employer (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Interestingly, according to Martin et al. (2011) employer branding efforts play a direct role in organizational reputation. That is because employer branding not only helps attract and retain potential employees, it also helps build trust in leadership and helps companies to be innovative, thus having a competitive advantage (Martin et al., 2011). According to Martin et al. (2011) the link between employer branding and innovation is not direct, but is supported by reputation. In spite of this research, there still exists little research on the effect of employer branding on reputation. In this study we expect that employer branding campaigns will influence reputation. We therefore propose the following hypothesis:
H3: The exposure to employer branding campaigns will influence the perceived reputation of a company
Utilitarian and hedonic job descriptions
Job descriptions are often used as recruitment advertisements to attract the right people (Backhaus, 2004). As mentioned before, branding activities in general have two different types of benefits that are perceived by people: Utilitarian and hedonic benefits.
Batra and Ahtola (1991) describe the utilitarian and hedonic dimension as attitudes towards brands and behaviors. In other words, these dimensions help people behave in a certain way. For example the utilitarian dimension is related to how useful an object is found to be, while the hedonic dimensions explains how pleasant the feelings are associated with the object (Batra & Ahtola, 1991). Basically, the two dimensions are divided between a thinking
and feeling dimension. Thinking on the one hand requires more rational and informative advertising, or in this case, recruitment (Batra & Ahtola, 1991). Feeling on the other hand is more effective when emotions and pleasure appeals are used.
The utilitarian benefits relate to the functional or instrumental value a person
experiences. Chitturi et al. (2008) describe the utilitarian benefits as practical benefits. In the context of job descriptions, the utilitarian benefits describe the usefulness of a job: Questions that are related are how much do I get paid, what do I need, what does the organization offer?
Brecht et al. (2012) define the hedonic benefits as a self-fulfilling value to a person. Hedonic benefits are experiential and enjoyment-related (Chitturi, et al., 2008). This is based on the degree to which a person experiences fun when doing something. The hedonic benefits are related to the perceived feelings one associates with the organization: Do I like the
organization, would I be proud to work there?
In sum, the utilitarian benefits are based on the instrumental value of the functional attributes a brand has, and the hedonic benefits are based on an overall evaluation of the degree in which a person perceives pleasure (Batra & Ahtola, 1991).
From the applicant’s perspective, certain perceptions exist about job characteristics and the organization’s characteristics (Elving et al., 2013). These perceptions will help the applicant to determine how it could be to work for an organization (Elving et al., 2013). The perceptions of job characteristics and the organization’s characteristics are strongly related to the level that the applicant feels attracted to the organization (Turban et al., 1998; Elving et al., 2013). Interestingly, there have been little attempts to predict the difference of using utilitarian or hedonic benefits within an employer branding campaign and how that influences employer attractiveness and job choice intention. The expectations of this study are that different types of campaigns may influence companies with different levels of reputation. For instance, a company can have a low reputation because of economic reasons. In this case
utilitarian benefits could be important for potential employees to consider. And when a company has a high reputation, based on the social standing of the company, hedonic benefits might be important for potential employees to regard. Therefore, the following research questions that have been developed aim to find out if different employer branding campaigns will lead to a difference in the outcome of employer attractiveness and job choice intention.
RQ1: How does the type of employer branding campaign (utilitarian or hedonic) affect employer attractiveness for different levels of reputation?
RQ2: How does the type of employer branding campaign (utilitarian or hedonic) affect job choice intention for different levels of reputation?
All these hypotheses and research questions lead to the following model:
Methods Participants
In order to test the hypotheses and answer the research questions of this study, we developed an online questionnaire and invited students to participate via social media platforms LinkedIn and Facebook. A total of 156 respondents agreed to participate.
This study only selected participants who were raised in the Netherlands, because previous knowledge of the organizations was necessary. Therefore, this study excluded participants who did not grow up in the Netherlands (N = 3). Furthermore only students are included in this research, as the employer branding campaigns described traineeships. In the Netherlands traineeships are mostly targeted at students. When participants were not currently studying, this research decided to exclude them from the sample (N = 3).
Of 156 participants 39 did not finish the survey experiment. Therefore, we excluded them from participation. In the end 111 students (66.7% female) ranging in age from 18 to 30 years (M = 23.15 years, SD = 1.87) participated in the survey experiment.
Procedure
We designed the survey experiment in the online survey tool Qualtrics. The survey experiment that was constructed and used contained a reputation scale, an employer attractiveness scale, a job choice intention item, campaigns and general questions. Before starting the survey experiment, the ethical committee of the University of Amsterdam gave approval to proceed with the study. In the introduction of the survey experiment, we explicitly stated that participation was voluntary and that the recorded answers were treated
anonymously. Furthermore, the participant could end the survey experiment at all times. If the participant agreed to these terms the survey experiment started (Appendix C presents the concept of the survey experiment).
When starting the survey experiment, the participants were randomly assigned to one of six different groups (see Table 1). Every group contained at least 17 participants.
Table 1. Six groups based on the conditions
Utilitarian campaign Hedonic campaign Control: No campaign
Low Reputation 17 19 21
High Reputation 19 18 17
Participants rated reputation, employer attractiveness and job choice intention. We assigned them to the utilitarian condition, the hedonic condition or the control condition. The
participants assigned to the utilitarian or the hedonic condition evaluated reputation and job choice intention twice: Before and after seeing the campaign. Participants in the control condition only evaluated reputation and job choice intention once. In all the conditions employer attractiveness is measured once. Specifically for the utilitarian and hedonic conditions, participants evaluated employer attractiveness after seeing the campaign. The survey experiment lasted approximately five till ten minutes.
Stimuli
The stimuli that were used in this survey experiment were job descriptions of companies with different levels of reputation. This study wanted to have a strong division between a low level of reputation and a high level of reputation. Therefore, we used two real companies as stimuli: The Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) as stimulus for low reputation and the Koninklijke Luchtvaartmaatschappij (KLM) as stimulus for high reputation.
In the survey experiment two different types of campaigns were created (see Appendix B for the campaigns): The utilitarian and the hedonic campaign (see Appendix A for the
characteristics of the utilitarian and hedonic campaign). In order to have a control group, the survey experiment did not present any campaign to a group of participants in both the low reputation group and the high reputation group. In the end, this created 2x3 conditions.
Pretest results
In a pretests, students (N = 10) rated the reputation of five different organizations .We were looking for companies that are comparable for potential employees. Therefore, we selected five participating companies from a big employer branding event (Techniek Bedrijven Evenement): BAM, KLM, NS, Schiphol Group and Unilever. Based on these organizations, we chose NS as the stimulus for low reputation and KLM as the stimulus for high reputation. The scores showed that NS has a lower reputation (M = 4.61, SD = .62) than KLM (M = 5.73,
SD = .57). In order to find a significant difference, a One-Sample t-test has been performed.
The mean of NS in the sample lies with 95% certainty between 4.17 and 5.06. This differs significantly from the mean of KLM, t(10) = 33.15, p = .000, 95% CI [5.34, 6.12]. Therefore, we were able to use NS and KLM as stimulus.
Furthermore, in the pretest shorter versions of the different campaigns were presented to the same group of students. Shorter versions meant we did not use a large introduction about the organizations. However, we used the same utilitarian and hedonic characteristics as in the campaigns used for the survey experiment. The participants were asked to score the campaigns on Utilitarian characteristics and Hedonic characteristics, based on the scale of Spangenberg, Voss and Crowley (1997). In order to find significant differences, another One-Sample t-test was performed. The mean of the utilitarian characteristics (M = 5.32, SD = .81) in the utilitarian campaign lies with 95% certainty between 4.74 and 5.90. This differs
significantly from the mean of the hedonic characteristics (M = 4.52, SD = .87), t(10) = 16.43,
in the hedonic campaign lies with 95% certainty between 5.28 and 6.32. This differs significantly from the mean of the utilitarian characteristics (M = 4.83, SD = .73),
t(10) = 25.15, p = .000, 95% CI [4.02, 5.46]. From these t-tests, we can conclude that
utilitarian campaign scored significantly higher on utilitarian characteristics when compared to the hedonic campaign. Furthermore, the hedonic campaign scored significantly higher on hedonic characteristics when compared to the utilitarian campaign. Therefore, we could continue working with the campaigns and their characteristics, which are based on the scale of Spangenberg et al. (1997).
Employer branding campaigns
In order to investigate if the respondents of the actual survey experiment perceived the campaigns correctly as either utilitarian or hedonic, the utilitarian and hedonic characteristics were presented again. We asked respondents to score both utilitarian and hedonic items to see if there is a difference in ranking. The utilitarian characteristics scored higher in the utilitarian campaign (M = 5.06, SD = .75) than the hedonic characteristics (M = 4.79, SD = 1.12). A One-Way ANOVA showed that the difference between the characteristics is significant, F (1, 72) = 5.06, p = .027. The hedonic characteristics scored higher in the hedonic campaign (M = 5.29, SD = .93) than the utilitarian characteristics (M = 4.70, SD = .73). Another One-Way ANOVA showed that the difference between the characteristics is significant, F (1, 72) = 4.40, p = .038.
Measures
Reputation
The reputation scale by Chun (2005) was utilized in this study. The scale consists of 20 items in which the subject is to score the different items on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 =
Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree. Examples of items within the scale were: ‘I have a
good feeling about the company’ and ‘Has a clear vision for its future’ (see Appendix A to find the complete set of questions). The reputation scale was manipulated by changing the order of the items. Furthermore, we reversed three items ‘The company does not have a clear vision for its future’, ‘The company does not look like a good company to work for’ and ‘The company does not support good causes’.
We performed a factor analysis: The first component has an Eigenvalue of 9.20 and explains 48.41% of the variance in reputation. Out of 20 items, 15 loaded on the first component with a score higher than 0.45. The second component has an Eigenvalue of 1.57 and explains 8.28% of the variance in reputation. This component only consists of one item, which is profitability. The third component has an Eigenvalue of 1.19 and explains 6.1% of the variance in reputation. The third component consists of only one item, which is
environmentally responsible. The fourth component has an Eigenvalue of 1.04 and explains 5.5% of the variance. It involves two items: supporting good causes and outperforming competitors. Substantively, these two items as one scale do not make sense. In calculating the Cronbach’s Alpha, this study excluded all the items that did not load in the first component. The Cronbach’s Alpha of reputation is α = .95 and therefore reliable.
Afterwards the scores of the 15 items were computed into one variable that presents the mean of the total scores per participant. A higher mean indicates that reputation is perceived higher.
Job Choice Intention
Furthermore, the dependent variable job choice intention was measured. The job choice intention scale that has been used in this survey experiment is from Cable and Judge (1996). The scale consists of only one item: ‘Please rate the likelihood that you would accept
a job offer from this organization, if it were offered.’ The participants were asked to rate this item on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree. A higher score indicated that one would more likely to be working for a company.
Employer Attractiveness
The employer attractiveness scale was utilized in this study (see Appendix A). It is a questionnaire created by Berthon et al. (2005) which consists of 25 items in which the goal is to score the different items on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 =
Strongly agree. Examples of items within the scale are: ‘Working in an exciting environment’
and ‘Good promotion opportunities within the organization’. The Employer attractiveness scale was manipulated by changing the order of the items. Furthermore, we reversed three items ‘There are no supportive and encouraging colleagues’, ‘It is not an innovative employer’ and ‘There is no good promotion opportunities within the organization’.
In order to investigate the scale another factor analysis was performed. The first component has an Eigenvalue of 6.86 and explains 38.08% of the variance in Employer Attractiveness. Out of 25 items, 15 loaded on the first component with a score higher than 0.45. The second component has an Eigenvalue of 1.52 and explains 8.45% of the variance in employer attractiveness. This component only consists of one item, which is salary. It is not possible to construct a scale on one item and therefore it is excluded. The third component has an Eigenvalue of 1.18 and explains 6.57% of the variance in employer attractiveness. The third component consists of only one item, which is work relationships. The fourth component has an Eigenvalue of 1.03 and explains 5.74% of the variance. The two items that are loaded in the fourth component are also loaded on the first component, and even higher. The fifth component has an Eigenvalue of 1.02 and explains 5.66% of the variance. It involves one item: support of colleagues. Thus, this study decided to exclude all the items that did not load
in the first component. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the items in the first component that is now employer attractiveness is α = .91 and therefore reliable.
Control Variables
The control variables gender, age and doing an internship were tested. The last control variable measures if participants are doing or have done an internship in an organization.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Standard Deviation
Reputation before campaign 111 4.74 1.09
Job Choice Intention before campaign 111 4.84 1.81
Employer Attractiveness 111 4.62 79
Reputation after campaign 73 4.79 .98
Job Choice Intention after campaign 73 4.94 1.78
Control variables Age 111 23.15 1.87 Gender - Female 66.7 % Level of education - HBO 14.5 % - WO 85.5 % Internship - Yes 60.7 %
Results
The following section will report the data analysis and present the results about the hypotheses and sub questions accordingly. For testing the hypotheses, the average means of the main variables (Reputation, Employer Attractiveness and Job Choice Intention) were conducted and used in either a linear regression or in ANOVA’s. In order to test the research questions, the means of Reputation, Employer Attractiveness and Job Choice Intention were compared for the utilitarian condition, the hedonic condition and the control condition.
Reputation
The Effect of Reputation on Employer Attractiveness
The first hypothesis that has been researched is ‘Reputation will influence Employer
Attractiveness positively’. In order to find out if the level of Employer Attractiveness
increases or decreases when the level of Reputation increases or decreases, a linear regression model has been created with Reputation as independent variable and Employer Attractiveness as dependent variable.
The regression suggested that Reputation affects Employer Attractiveness when it increases, is significant: F(1, 111) = 102.70, p < .001. The regression can therefore be used to predict the effect of Reputation on Employer Attractiveness, and the strength of the prediction is strong (R2 = .48): 48% of the variation in Employer Attractiveness can be predicted by
Reputation, b* = 0.50, t = 11.05, p < .000, 95% CI [0.40, 0.60]. For the control variables age,
gender, education and internship, no significant effect was found.
The Effect of Reputation on Job Choice Intention
This study also wanted to investigate whether the level of Job Choice Intention would increase when the level of Reputation increases, and also if the level of Job Choice Intention
would decrease when the level of Reputation decreases. This analysis aims at the second hypothesis ‘Reputation will influence Job Choice Intention positively’. Another linear regression model has been created with Reputation as independent variable and Job Choice
Intention as dependent variable. This regression is significant: F(1, 112) = 52.67, p < .001.
The regression can therefore be used to predict the effect of Reputation on Employer
Attractiveness, and the strength of the prediction is moderate (R2 = .32): 32% of the variation in Job Choice Intention can be predicted by Reputation, b* = 0.93, t = 7.26, p < .000, 95% CI [0.68, 1.18]. For the control variables age, gender, education and internship, no significant effect was found.
Employer Branding Campaigns
Campaigns and Reputation
For the third hypothesis ‘The exposure to Employer Branding Campaigns will influence the perceived Reputation of a company’ the Reputation means of the utilitarian condition and the hedonic condition were compared.
In order to find out if there is a difference in ranking Reputation before and after a campaign was presented, a general linear model of repeated measures has been performed, with Reputation before and after the campaign as the Within-Subjects Variables and the different campaign groups (utilitarian and hedonic) as the Between-Subject Variable. The results suggest that there is no significant effect for Reputation when a campaign is presented
F (1, 69) = .54, p = .464. This means that the presentation of campaigns do not influence the
ranking of Reputation.
It should be noted that the assumption of equal variances in the population is correct, Levene’s F (72, 69) = .92, p = .341.
Effect of campaigns on Employer Attractiveness
This study also questioned whether there is a difference in the level of Employer
Attractiveness after the utilitarian or hedonic campaign was presented. More specifically, the
means are compared for low Reputation and high Reputation.
In order to answer the first research question ‘How does the type of Employer
Branding Campaign (Utilitarian or Hedonic) affect Employer Attractiveness for different
levels of reputation?’ a univariate analysis has been performed. Employer Attractiveness is the dependent variable in this analysis; the campaigns and Reputation are fixed factors. The results in Table 5 suggest that there is a significant difference for the outcome of Employer
Attractiveness when the organization with a low Reputation is compared with the organization
with a high Reputation , F (47, 78) = .5.26, p < .000. However, for the employer branding campaigns no significant difference was found, F (2, 78) = .1.12, p = .337. This means that there is no difference in the type of campaign. It also means that the campaigns do not influence the level of Employer Attractiveness. More specifically, when low and high
Reputation are compared, also no significant difference has been found.
Table 5. Significance of Employer Attractiveness
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2
Reputation 57.01 47 1.21 5.26 < .000 .03
Campaign .52 2 .26 1.12 .337 .00
Reputation * Campaign 6.70 29 .23 .98 . 515 .00
It should be noted that the assumption of equal variances in the population is correct, Levene's
Effect of campaigns on Job Choice Intention
In order to answer the second and last research question ‘How does the type of Employer
Branding Campaign (Utilitarian or Hedonic) affect Job Choice Intention for different levels
of reputation?’ another general linear model of repeated measures has been performed. Hereby Job Choice Intention, before and after the campaign, is analyzed as the Within-Subjects Variables and the different campaign groups (utilitarian and hedonic) as the Between-Subject Variable.
The results suggest that there is no significant difference for Job Choice Intention before and after the campaign was presented, F (1, 70) = .12, p = .726. This means that the ranking of
Job Choice Intention does not change after an employer branding is presented. .More
specifically, the difference in Reputation and the different types of campaigns do not have an influence on the level of Job Choice Intention, F (1, 70) = .39, p = .535.
It should be noted that the assumption of equal variances in the population has been violated, Levene’s F (114, 91) = 28.39, p = .000.
Discussion
Implementing employer branding strategies is crucial for organizations to find and retain potential employees in a competitive market. Previous research has been exploring the relation between employer branding and reputation (Williamson et al., 2010; Edwards, 2009; Gomes & Neves, 2011). However, little research has been done on the effect of reputation and the use of employer branding campaigns on employer attractiveness and job choice intention. Therefore the aim of this study was to investigate how employer branding campaigns,
consisting of utilitarian and hedonic job descriptions, affect the relation between reputation, employer attractiveness and job choice intention. Key findings in this study are that the level of reputation is related to the levels of employer attractiveness and job choice intention. Even
more, when reputation increases, employer attractiveness and job choice intention increase as well.
Thus, this study confirms previous findings on the positive influence of reputation on employer attractiveness (Edwards, 2009; Williamson et al., 2010; Cable and Turban, 2003; Turban and Cable, 2003). As argued, there is a strong relation between reputation and attractiveness (Gomes & Neves, 2011). More specifically, potential employees are more likely to be attracted to an organization with a good reputation (Edwards, 2009). However, not only it appears that there is a relation between high reputation and high employer
attractiveness and between low reputation and low employer attractiveness: This study confirms previous findings that the higher the reputation is, the higher the employer attractiveness will become.
Furthermore a relation between reputation and job choice intention has been found. As Turban et al. (1998) found reputation will influence job and organizational attributes, thereby having an indirect effect on the applicant’s likelihood to apply. This study extends this previous research by finding a direct relation between the level of reputation and job choice intention: When reputation increases the job choice intention of potential employees will increase as well.
For employer branding campaigns no significant effects have been found. The use of employer branding campaigns does not seem to be related to the outcomes of employer
attractiveness and job choice intention. More specifically, there was no difference found in the levels of employer attractiveness and job choice intention when the utilitarian campaigns were compared with the hedonic campaigns. Interestingly, Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) stated that employer attractiveness is the desired outcome of employer branding. A reason that the presented employer branding campaigns did not give significant results regarding employer attractiveness and job choice intention could be that participants need to be exposed to more
employer branding efforts, like events or visual tools. Job descriptions are communications tools that companies always use when looking for applicants; perhaps the participants did not perceive these job descriptions as employer branding efforts. Although the job descriptions were designed with utilitarian and hedonic benefits - important aspects in branding attitudes (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Chitturi et al., 2008) – it did not change the relations.
Another reason for the lack of significant results could be the missing match between the student and the organization. Perhaps the analyses suggest these results, because
participants did not perceive a fit with the organizations or the job descriptions. As Cable and Judge (1996) stated, job choice intentions or attractions can be stimulated by a match between someone’s personality and the organizations characteristics. Therefore, for future research an implication could be to test personalities and the perceived match as well, to better clarify hedonic and utilitarian campaigns.
Furthermore, the levels of reputation and job choice intention did not significantly change after campaigns. A suggestion why that could be, is that participants might need more time to form an opinion on these different scales. For future research it could be interesting to measure the changes in these scales over a longer period of time.
Limitations
This study also has its limitations and shortcomings. First of all, the use of only job descriptions could be a limitation in this study. Potential applicants might need more visual aspects (promotion material) when they think about an organization or employer. For future research it could be interesting to work with more visual tools that belong to the organization. For instance, an employer branding video that presents an interview with one of the employees. Furthermore, potential employees might perceive employer attractiveness and job
choice intention differently when they have visited an employer branding event of a certain organization.
Furthermore, the sample might be too limited for actually researching reputation, employer attractiveness and job choice intention. Only high educated students volunteered to participate in this study. For future research it could be interesting to have participants in all age groups and on all education levels, as it could help generalize larger groups.
Furthermore, the sample was only limited to students. Possibly, this study could give different results about the relations between reputation, employer attractiveness and job choice intention when – for instance - different age groups are studied. Even more, only high educated students volunteered to participate. For future research it could be interesting to have participants in all education levels, as it could help generalize larger groups.
Managerial and Practical Implications
The results of this study offer some implications for organizations and managers to improve employer attractiveness and job choice intention and by that, finding and retaining potential employees. The essential aspect to realize is that when an organization has a low reputation, the levels of employer attractiveness and job choice intention are low as well. For an organization it will be then very hard to find the right people and gain a competitive advantage over other organizations. Even more, the use of employer branding do not seem to help an organization then. However, when reputation increases it will help increase the employer attractiveness and job choice intention as well. An important note for managers is thus that it is really important to keep maintaining and improving their organization’s reputation if they want to have the best and most talented employees.
Although there were no significant results for employer branding campaigns, this study still advises organizations to keep improving employer branding strategies and keep
maintaining reputation, as these are determinant aspects for organizations in gaining and keeping a competitive advantage.
References
Backhaus, K. B. (2004). An exploration of corporate recruitment descriptions on Monster. com. Journal of Business Communication, 41(2), 115-136.
Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career development international, 9(5), 501-517.
Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J. M., & Lafferty, B. A. (2006). Corporate reputation: The definitional landscape. Corporate reputation review, 9(1), 26-38.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing letters, 2(2), 159-170.
Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Hah, L. L. (2005). Captivating company: dimensions of
attractiveness in employer branding. International journal of advertising,24(2), 151-172.
Botha, A., Bussin, M., & De Swardt, L. (2011). An employer brand predictive model for talent attraction and retention: original research. SA Journal of Human Resource
Management, 9(1), 1-12.
Brecht, F., Eckhardt, A., Berger, C., & Günther, O. (2012, May). Corporate career presences on social network sites: an analysis of hedonic and utilitarian value. In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2441-2450).
ACM.
Bronn, P. S. (2010). Reputation, communication, and the corporate brand. The SAGE
Handbook of Public Relations, 307.
organizational entry. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67(3), 294-311.
Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2003). The value of organizational reputation in the recruitment context: A brand-equity perspective. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 33(11), 2244-2266.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48-63.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company's True Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower.
Edwards, M. R. (2009). An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel Review, 39(1), 5-23.
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.
Fombrun , C . J . ( 1996 ) Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image , Harvard Business School Press, Boston .
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of management Journal, 33(2), 233-258.
Gatewood, R. D., Gowan, M. A., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (1993). Corporate image, recruitment image and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management
journal, 36(2), 414-427.
Gomes, D., & Neves, J. (2011). Organizational attractiveness and prospective applicants' intentions to apply. Personnel Review, 40(6), 684-699.
Behaviour?¿ Limita la Marca del Empleador la Conducta de Búsqueda de
Empleo?. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 26(3), 223-234. Knox, S., & Freeman, C. (2006). Measuring and managing employer brand image in the
service industry. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(7-8), 695-716.
Martin, G. (2008). 13 Employer branding and corporate reputation management.The Peak
Performing Organization, 252.
Martin, G., Gollan, P. J., & Grigg, K. (2011). Is there a bigger and better future for employer branding? Facing up to innovation, corporate reputations and wicked problems in SHRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(17), 3618-3637.
Song, Z., & Chathoth, P. K. (2011). Intern newcomers’ global self-esteem, overall job satisfaction, and choice intention: Person-organization fit as a mediator. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 119-128.
Spangenberg, E. R., Voss, K. E., & Crowley, A. E. (1997). Measuring the hedonic and
utilitarian dimensions of attitudes: a generally applicable scale. Advances in Consumer
Research, 24, 235-241.
Turban, D. B., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 733-751.
Turban, D. B., Forret, M. L., & Hendrickson, C. L. (1998). Applicant attraction to firms: Influences of organization reputation, job and organizational attributes, and recruiter behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52(1), 24-44.
Uen, J. F., Ahlstrom, D., Chen, S., & Liu, J. (2015). Employer brand management, organizational prestige and employees' word‐of‐mouth referrals in Taiwan. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 53(1), 104-123.
personality to employer brand attractiveness. European Journal of Marketing, 48(1/2), 218-236.
Williamson, I. O., King, J. E., Lepak, D., & Sarma, A. (2010). Firm reputation, recruitment web sites, and attracting applicants. Human Resource Management, 49(4), 669-687.
Appendix A
The Reputation scale, the Employer Attractiveness scale and the Hedonic and Utilitarian benefits that have been used for the survey experiment
A1. Reputation scale (Chun, 2009)
I have a good feeling about the company I admire and respect the company I trust this company
Stands behinds its products and services
Offers products and services that are good value for money Has excellent leadership
Has a clear vision for its future
Recognizes and takes advantages of market opportunities Is well managed
Looks like a good company to work for
Looks like a company that would have good employees Supports good causes
Is an environmentally responsible company Has a strong record of profitability
Looks like a low risk investment Tends to outperform its competitors
Looks like a company with strong prospect for future growth
A2. Employer Attractiveness scale (Berthon, Ewing & Hah, 2005)
There is an opportunity to teach others what you have learned This employer offers recognition from management
I will have a good relationship with my superiors There are no supportive and encouraging colleagues
I will feel good about myself as a result of working for an organization I will work in an exciting environment
I will gain career-enhancing experience
I will have a good relationship with my colleagues It is not an innovative employer
The organization has a fun working environment This organization offers an above average basic salary This company offers a feeling of acceptance and belonging The organization values my creativity
There is no good promotion opportunities within the organization This company offers job security within the organization
This employer offers an attractive overall compensation package I think the organization has a friendly and informal culture This employer offers a happy work environment
A3. Hedonic and Utilitarian benefits (Spangenberg, Voss & Crowley, 1997). Utilitarian Hedonic Useful Exciting Practical Delightful Necessary Sensuous Functional Fun Sensible Pleasant Helpful Funny Efficient Thrilling Effective Happy Beneficial Playful Handy Enjoyable Productive Cheerful
Appendix B
The different employer branding campaigns that have been used in the survey experiment
B1. Utilitarian campaign: NS
Traineeship at NS
NS is looking for recently or nearly graduated people to apply for our traineeships. NS plays an important role in the Netherlands as the largest passenger railway operator. On a daily base, 1.1 million passengers are using our services. Our mission is to take more passengers safely, comfortably and on time across multifunctional stations.
Are you ambitious and looking for a great opportunity to boost your career? Then we offer the right job for you: a traineeship at NS aims to help young 'high potentials' develop into our future (top) management. Within the traineeship you can choose between different tracks: Management, Finance, IT, Technique and Logistics. From the first day on, you will get a lot of responsibilities. These responsibilities will be a big challenge, but thanks to your own personal mentor you will get the right support you need.
Next to this, we offer the following:
- An above average salary: €2800 on full time base - An unlimited public transport membership - 35 free days
- 9% bonus fee - 8% holiday fee
B2. Hedonic campaign: NS
Traineeship at NS
Do you like to travel? Or even more, do you have a passion for trains? And are you looking for a warm and welcoming environment where you can enjoy this passion with other colleagues? Then we have great news: NS is looking for new trainees! We consider our trainees as the future of our company. NS is focused on giving our trainees the self-fulfilling job they have always wanted.
Everyone knows us as the largest passenger railway operator in the Netherlands. Thanks to our employees we are able to provide service to 1.1 million passengers each day. Due to that and unexpected situations, every day is as exciting as other days! Do you want to part of this? Do not hesitate any longer, and apply for a job as trainee. In sum, this is what we can offer you when you start working at NS:
- A job you will love doing - An above average salary
- Free traveling in the Netherlands by train
- Discount on traveling by train in Europe so that you can follow your dreams - Enough free days to enjoy your own activities and trips as well
- Of course you will get a nice holiday fee for this - And an attractive pension scheme
B3. Utilitarian campaign: KLM
Traineeship at KLM
KLM is looking for recently or nearly graduated people to apply for our traineeships. KLM is the flag carrier airline of the Netherlands and operates scheduled passenger and cargo
services to more than 130 destinations worldwide. Our mission is to take our customers across different destinations in a safe and efficient manner.
Are you ambitious and looking for a great opportunity to boost your career? Then we offer the right job for you: a traineeship at KLM aims to help young high potentials develop into our future (top) management. Within the traineeship you can choose between different tracks: Management, Finance, IT, Technique and Logistics. From the first day on, you will get a lot of responsibilities. These responsibilities will be a big challenge, but thanks to your own personal mentor you will get the right support you need.
Next to this, we offer the following:
- An above average salary: €2800 on full time base - An unlimited public transport membership
- 35 free days - 9% bonus fee - 8% holiday fee - Pension scheme B4. Hedonic campaign: KLM Traineeship at KLM
Do you like to travel? Or even more, do you have a passion for airplanes? And are you looking for a warm and welcoming environment where you can enjoy this passion with other colleagues? Then we have great news: KLM is looking for new trainees! We consider our trainees as the future of our company. KLM is focused on giving our trainees the self-fulfilling job they have always wanted.
Everyone knows us as the largest passenger flight operator of the Netherlands. Thanks to our employees we are able fly our passengers to 130 different destinations. Due to that and unexpected situations, every day is as exciting as other days! Do you want to be part of this? Do not hesitate any longer, and apply for a job as trainee.
In sum, this is what we can offer you when you start working at KLM: - A job you will love doing
- An above average salary
- Discount on flights so that you can follow your dreams all over the world - Enough free days to enjoy your own activities and trips as well
- Of course you will get a nice holiday fee for this - And an attractive pension scheme
Appendix C
The survey experiment concept that has been used for analyses
Q1. In this survey you will be answering questions about the Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS)/ Koninklijke Luchtvaartmaatschappij (KLM). NS is the largest passenger railway operator in the Netherlands; on a daily base, 1.1 million passengers are using the services of NS/ KLM is the flag carrier airline of the Netherlands. KLM operates scheduled passenger and cargo services to more than 130 destinations worldwide. . Please indicate what you think and feel about NS/KLM.
Q2. Reputation scale (see Appendix A1)
Q3. Please rate the likelihood that you would accept a job offer from NS/KLM, if it were offered.
Q4. Please read the following job description carefully (see Appendix B for the full job descriptions). Only for the groups in the utilitarian and hedonic conditions. Q5. Utilitarian and hedonic benefits scale (see Appendix A3). Only for the groups in the utilitarian and hedonic conditions.
Q6. For this question you have to consider NS/KLM as an employer. Please indicate if you think NS/KLM offers the following as an employer. Employer Attractiveness scale (see Appendix A2)
Q7. You are presented with the same question you have answered at the start of the survey. Please indicate again what you think about NS. Reputation scale. Only for the groups in the utilitarian and hedonic conditions.
Q8. Please rate the likelihood that you would accept a job offer from NS/KLM, if it were offered. Only for the groups in the utilitarian and hedonic conditions.
Q9. For the last part of the survey I’m asking you to fill in some general questions. Q10. What is your age?
Q11. What is your gender?
Q12. Are you currently a student?
Q13. Did you grow up in the Netherlands? Q14. What is your level of education? Q15. What is/was your field of study?
Q16. Are you doing or have you done an internship during your study? Q17 If yes, where?
