Job choice and its determinants; the role of consumer based brand equity and employee based equity.

Job choice and its determinants; the role of consumer based brand equity and employee based equity.

By

Joris Moossdorff

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

MSC Marketing Intelligence

June 2015

1st supervisor: Dr. Felix Eggers 2nd supervisor: Prof. Dr. Jaap Wieringa

Allersmastraat 2a 9716 AT Groningen

(06) 34447700

j.v.moossdorff@student.rug.nl

student number 2025884

2 Abstract

This paper empirically demonstrates the impact of employee based brand equity in a job choice context. The explanatory power of employee based brand equity depends on consumer based brand equity. The employer brand, as a main effect, was found to have a significant effect in a job choice context. This effect is moderated by some symbolic and functional associations that consumers derive from their product experiences, which confirms the relationship between employee based brand equity and consumer based brand equity. This paper offers prove that applicants are willing to pay to work for a preferred brand and what causes the preference for an employer brand. This extends the knowledge of previous research which tended to focus mainly on more straightforward job choice attributes. This study empirically demonstrates via conjoint analysis that brand equity is a non neglect able factor within a job choice context. Hence, recruiters can get a better understanding when applicants accept or decline a job offer. It provides theoretical implications and limitations regarding future research.

Keywords: Brand equity, CBBE, Conjoint analysis, EBBE, Job choice

Introduction

There are several points of view in determining important job choice attributes.

Regardless of what point of view is used, knowledge about factors that influence job choice is important for both the individual and the community (Athanasou, 2003).

Applicants genuinely state that the recruitment process is an important factor in their

job choice process (Boswell, Roehling, LePine, & Moynihan, 2003). When the

employing firm uses this recruitment process to show that their organization is a good

place to work, it can be stated that the firm actively uses employer branding (Sullivan,

2004). Employer branding can be defined as the process of building an identifiable

and unique employer identity, and the employer brand as a concept of the firm that

differentiates it from its competitors (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). In order to

differentiate from competitors as an employer brand the firm should have a higher

employee based brand equity; the value a brand provides to a firm through its effects

on the attitudes and behaviours of its prospective employees (Tavassoli, Sorescu, &

3

Chandy, 2014). In an example in the fast food industry it was found that the employer brand equity (in the article it is called company employment image) is significantly influenced by the product image of a firm (Highhouse, Zickar, Thorsteinson, Stierwalt, & Slaughter, 1999). This product image may influence the associations a consumer has with a firm as a potential employer. Just as firms market their product brand, they are increasingly marketing their brand as an employer, these types of branding can be classified as external marketing (products) and internal marketing (jobs) (Berthon & Ewing, 2005). This differential terminology acknowledges that there are differences between consumer based brand equity (CBBE) and employee based brand equity (EBBE) (Berthon & Ewing, 2005). The relationship between both however, is poorly developed in academic literature and should be further researched (Yoo & Donthu, 2001). Furthermore, (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004) argue that it is not clear what happens when both forms of brand equity are not congruent and are perceived as different within one company by applicants or consumers. They suggest future research which should compare perceptions of the employer brand and the general reputation of the corporation. Also, the role of job choice attributes and EBBE should be studied in relation to each other to address the importance of EBBE in a job choice context (Baum & Kabst, 2013)

This paper will fill this research gap by investigating the link of CBBE on the

influence of EBBE on job choice. The challenge will be to academically disentangle

both types of equity and study the relation between them in relation to previously

acknowledged important job choice attributes. The inclusion of other job choice

attributes are essential, because they allow this study to address the importance of

EBBE in relation to previously determined important attributes. Therefore, the

concept of EBBE will not just be studied in relation to CBBE but also in a managerial

relevant way. This paper will first discuss the relevant theoretical background

followed by methodology which will try to disentangle the importance of each

variable in predicting job choice, finally results will be discussed together with

implications, limitations and future research directions.

4 Theory

Consumer based brand equity

Although the current dynamic world of business highlights several important topics, a companies’ lifeline is still based on the selling of products and therefore CBBE is a critical measure in the field of business (Vazquez, Belen del Rio, & Iglesias, 2002).

CBBE can be defined in terms of both psychological aspects and informational marketing aspects (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2010). The psychological aspects reflect, for example, brand awareness and brand identification (Keller, 1993).

The informational marketing aspects are based on consumers’ judgements about a company’s marketing activities over time (Erdem & Swait, 1998). Although both conceptualizations are from a different research perspective, they complement each other and it is proposed to use both when defining CBBE (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2010). In addition to this (Vazquez et al., 2002) found that both the product and the brand provoke functional and symbolic associations with the customer. In the same article they find empirical evidence for consumers' different perceptions of the brand and the product from a firm, although they clearly acknowledge that brand managers can't treat both aspects separately from each other.

An important factor for the alignment of both is the signaling perspective; this describes factors that make brands more effective as signals for their product offerings (Erdem & Swait, 1998). Other empirical evidence (Oliveira-castro et al., 2008) suggests that CBBE is significantly positive related to market share, although this was not true for all the tested product categories. This lack of generalizability throughout categories is also suggested in a meta analysis, which signals additional control variables like business model and product or service brands (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2010). An hierarchy of effects model is proposed by (Yoo & Donthu, 2001), which proposes that consumers first create brand associations and awareness before they can infer quality and eventually become loyal.

Although CBBE is commonly referred to as the differential value of a brand

towards consumer (Keller, 1993), several researchers acknowledged that there is no

such thing as a universal definition for CBBE (Christodoulides & de Chernatony,

2010; Oliveira-castro et al., 2008). So depending on the angle of your research the

definition for CBBE can differ. In this paper CBBE will be defined as, the overall

5

utility that the consumer associates to the use and consumption of the brand; including associations expressing both functional and symbolic utilities (Vazquez et al., 2002)

Employee based brand equity

The ongoing battle for competitive advantage is increasingly shifting from an economic towards a more service oriented perspective (King & Grace, 2009). Within this service perspective there has come an increasing focus on the role of employees, who should be able to reflect the company’s core values (Bendapudi & Bendapudi, 2005). Therefore the concept of employer branding is rising as firms can use employee based branding to attract the most valuable employees (Moroko & Uncles, 2009). The current academic focus on how firms can build the best employer brand and become the most attractive company to work for confirms the rising importance of this topic (Berthon & Ewing, 2005; Biswas & Suar, 2014; D. M. Cable & Graham, 2000; Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2010; DelVecchio, Jarvis, Klink, & Dineen, 2007; Highhouse et al., 1999; Lievens, Van Hoye, & Anseel, 2007; Moroko &

Uncles, 2008, 2009; Rampl & Kenning, 2014; Tavassoli et al., 2014; Van Hoye, Bas, Cromheecke, & Lievens, 2013; Vazquez et al., 2002; Yoo & Donthu, 2001).

The employer, as a brand, represents an intangible asset for a company (Biswas & Suar, 2014). This intangibility causes an ambiguous academic elaboration, just as with CBBE, about what causes a high or a low EBBE. In addition to this, it was found that EBBE can’t be created according to one’s preferences, it is inhibited in an organization and develops according to future employees judgments about the company, as an employer (Berthon & Ewing, 2005; King & Grace, 2009). Despite the lack of generalizable key success factors in an EBBE context, research have acknowledged different advantages for firms with a high EBBE. For example, it was found that companies with a high EBBE are expected to be preferred towards companies with a lower EBBE in the job choice process of potential applicants (Turban & Cable, 2003). Furthermore, it was found that employers can charge lower salaries when employees value working for the company due to increased self enhancement and social status the employer can charge lower salaries (Cable &

Turban, 2003; Tavassoli et al., 2014). The previously mentioned urge for attracting

the most valuable employees in order to create a competitive advantage seems to be

the most obvious and important advantage.

6

Previous research found that affect and trust are two psychological phenomena that are significant predictors of EBBE (Rampl & Kenning, 2014). In addition to this article Van Hoye et al. (2013) found that symbolic traits that job seekers associate with organisations might be the key determinants of organisational attraction. In order to be consistent with the previous definition for CBBE, EBBE will be defined as the overall utility that the employee associates with being employed by the brand, including associations expressing both functional and symbolic utilities

The effect of CBBE on EBBE

When comparing both forms of brand equity, it can be argued that they both possess certain intangible aspects. These intangible aspects result in different interpretations of the entire construct of brand equity, both for CBBE and EBBE, which should be viewed rather complementary than competing (Ambler & Styles, 1997; Erdem &

Swait, 1998; Vazquez et al., 2002). Furthermore, firms with a high general brand equity are more likely to be remembered by job seekers compared to less familiar firms (Cable & Turban, 2003). Regarding the interdependency of EBBE and CBBE employer brands should be designed to be consistent with the firm’s corporate brand and products (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Also, it was found that employees play a significant role in the process of delivering a consistent brand (King & Grace, 2005).

To elaborate on the interdependency between EBBE and CBBE it can be stated that brand equity consists of extended associations that consumers have when they get confronted with a product in a marketing setting (Vazquez et al., 2002). Following from this definition, EBBE can be perceived as the extended associations that follow when applicants get confronted with the company in an employment setting.

Although CBBE and EBBE mutually reinforce each other in an ideal setting there are some differences between them. The employer brand is employment specific and characterizes the firm as employer, moreover it is expressed to internal and external stakeholders whereas CBBE is explicitly aimed at external stakeholders (Backhaus &

Tikoo, 2004). Despite the rise of EBBE to attract human capital as a valuable strategic

asset, a companies’ lifeline is still, as previously mentioned, based on the selling of

products and therefore CBBE is a critical measure in the field of business (Vazquez et

al., 2002).

7

Regarding critical success factors that mutually reinforce CBBE and EBBE the previously mentioned alignment of both types of brand equity seems to be a rather a requisite qualification than a source of competitive advantage. Potential mismatch of brand images may cause negative associations in the mind-set of applicants (Moroko

& Uncles, 2008). Furthermore, to avoid such mismatch, companies need to emphasize what the brand contains towards their employees, in order to encourage their employees to deliver the brand promise (King & Grace, 2005). Although King and Grace (2005) studied the role of employees in delivering a brand, they did not study the role of EBBE as such. In an additional research, King and Grace (2009), conceptualized EBBE and its antecedents. Although they studied EBBE in relation to CBBE and financial based brand equity, their study remained rather explorative and did not find significant interactions. Another study found that EBBE and CBBE possess similar brand personality traits that contribute to their attractiveness (Rampl

& Kenning, 2014), despite this similarity it does not empirically demonstrate the link between both forms of brand equity. Interestingly, it was found that the relationship between corporate reputation and employer reputation is positive but insignificant (Cable & Turban, 2003). So, although several researchers have argued that brand images should be consistent throughout several channels, there is no evidence that CBBE and EBBE relate to each other. A theory that could explain the potential linkage between CBBE and EBBE is the halo effect. This branding halo can be defined as the failure to discriminate among conceptually distinct (EBBE and CBBE) and potentially independent attributes, with the result that individual attribute ratings co-vary more than they otherwise would (Leuthesser, Kohli, & Harich, 1995). Since it is likely that people have not acted with a brand as employee before, but only as a consumer, they may be prone to this halo effect. Since the definitions this paper uses for both CBBE and EBBE includes the provoked associations in the consumer/applicants mind-set the psychological effects that underlie both forms of equity are salient. One symbolic trait that can be found in both consuming certain products and being employed is social image; people value to be associated with strong brands, both as a consumer and as an employee (Cable & Turban, 2003;

DelVecchio et al., 2007).

8 Job choice determinants

Factors that can be important in job choice can either be implicit or explicit (Athanasou, 2003). Explicit refers to the advertised and stated features of a job, whereas implicit refers to the provoked individual reaction of applicants to certain occupational features (Athanasou, 2003). Therefore it could be argued that the individual response to implicit job features causes heterogeneity between applicants.

These individual responses vary mostly with worker characteristics, notably gender, domestic circumstances, highest qualification held and occupation (Sutherland, 2011).

Most of the previous research stress the importance of salary in job choice prediction (Uggerslev, Fassina, & Kraichy, 2012). The abundant research in the willingness to pay salary for the improvement of other job attributes confirms the importance of salary in the job choice context (Felfe, 2012; Mccue & Reed, 1996).

The position that employees occupy is also genuinely perceived as an important factor in predicting job choice (Uggerslev et al., 2012). This seems obvious, since the position reflects the activities that an employee has to perform in his work. Besides these two evident attributes, there is no straightforward list of the most important attributes in predicting job choice. Although job choice determinants has been studied intensively (for a review see Uggerslev et al., 2012) different studies have established different results. Depending on the attributes that were included, papers yielded different results about the relative importance of the attributes, and therefore lacked univocal practical relevance (Uggerslev et al., 2012). The cause of these different effects is not clear, however gender differences and experimental setting can both moderate this heterogeneity (Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005).

Despite the lack of consistent findings throughout the literature there is some consensus about attributes that genuinely play a role in job choice. A meta-analysis (Uggerslev et al., 2012) confirms the broadly accepted importance of; benefits, advancement/promotions, development, autonomy, challenge and travel costs (also non-monetary) as important job choice determinants. Also the new generation tends to value a decent work life balance (Carless & Wintle, 2007).

Despite the individual differences, research can address the relative

importance of job choice attributes by letting participants make trade-offs between

them (Shapira, 1987). Furthermore, considering the high amount of assumed

important factors it is important to classify them (Baum & Kabst, 2013). When

9

classifying job choice determinants factors like autonomy, challenge, development and advancement are not generalizable and prone to heterogeneity in the understanding of participants. Within this decision making process there are several different phases in which the applicant has to make decisions about the job (Anseel &

Duyck, 2009). A recent study (Baum & Kabst, 2013) used 10 job choice determinants in their research, which concluded that salary is by far the most important attribute.

The other 9 attributes, were rather inconclusive ranging from approximately 5% to 10% in stated preference amongst participants. Therefore, and also regarding the emphasis of this paper on CBBE and EBBE, this study will only use salary, working hours, holiday days and developing opportunities as job choice determinants.

Hypotheses

The strength of a strong brand is revealed when people actively use a brand in their daily lives (Rindell, Korkman, & Gummerus, 2011). This practical expression of brand equity seems a decent framework for the conceptualization of the concept, since the repeated usage of a brand reflects the favourable attitude one has towards a certain brand. The continuously decision making as a consumer, however does not apply to the one-off nature of a job choice. When choosing a job it is not likely that applicants will try to address their brand loyalty towards an employer, moreover consumers can be loyal towards several brands in different categories which does not apply for job choice. Although the expression of CBBE in terms of purchase loyalty is not likely to be salient within a job choice, people may think that being employed by a strong brand can be socially enhancing due to résumé power and being associated with a strong brand (DelVecchio et al., 2007). The associations that people get when they are confronted with a certain brand in a job choice context also establish an attitude towards a brand that is expected to be influential in the decision making process.

H 1 : The employer, as a brand has a significant influence in the job choice process.

The influence of numerous decision making processes within a firm are influential

when studying the dynamic concept of a brand (Martínez & Chernatony, 2004). A

brand, as perceived symbol, is no static figure but evolves throughout time according

to stakeholders' judgement of their performance in all relevant fields. Therefore every

10

stakeholder can interpret a brand in their own way and decide to assign value to a brand (Balmer, 2012). Depending on the alignment of a brand throughout different channels a firm can consistently manage their brand image. For an employer, the enforcement of EBBE can be created by managing the employer brand in a way that it matches the consumer brand (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Depending on the emphasis firms lay on managing different parts of their 'brand' consistently they can create value as a brand in total. The consequences of diverging brand images are contingent (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004) and, moreover not valued by firms since they strive to deliver a consistent brand image. The difference in perception and reality seems key in understanding the link of CBBE and EBBE; although firms are generally expected to create a consistent brand image, consumers decide whether the brand does not diverge on certain aspects. So a favourable attitude towards the product of a firm does not necessarily result in a favourable attitude towards the firm as an employer depending on how firms manage their employer brand. Assuming that a firm successfully manages its brand consistently, the psychological response from their stakeholders may be prone to the previously mentioned halo effect.. Despite the common acceptance of this theory it has not been tested empirically in relation with CBBE and EBBE. It may also be interesting to see if consumers respond rather homogeneous or that there are strong differences in their judgement of the relation between CBBE and EBBE

H ₂ : CBBE is positively related to EBBE

H ₃ : CBBE moderates the relationship between EBBE and job preference

The definition of both CBBE and EBBE used in this paper allows for both functional and symbolic associations. In distinguishing between these two aspects it can be argued that they are both pivotal terms in studying CBBE and EBBE. It was previously found that that the functional and symbolic conceptualization of EBBE is a useful framework to study EBBE (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Lievens et al., 2007).

In addition to this, the emphasis of literature on consistency between differential

branding aspects suggests that EBBE will benefit the most when symbolic and

functional aspects are managed in convergence. Although the role of job choice is not

clear in this situation, it can be expected that people better like products when they

value them for both functional and symbolic aspects (Vazquez et al., 2002). In order

11

to better investigate the link between CBBE and EBBE this paper will test if these symbolic and functional aspects in CBBE carry over towards the equity of an employer. It can be argued that the functional aspects of an employer are already represented within the studied job choice attributes however, this does not account for a possible halo effect of functional aspects from CBBE into EBBE.

H ₄ Both symbolic and functional product associations have a positive moderating effect on the relationship between CBBE and EBBE

Figure 1 conceptual model

12 Methods

Procedure

Participants started with a demographical survey where after they rated brands according to their preference. Brands were ranked on the basis of functional and symbolic aspects as a consumer. Participants were asked whether they knew the brands in order to control for brand awareness which is a critical antecedent of CBBE (Keller, 1993). Functional aspects were measured according to the core CBBE facets of Netemeyer et al., (2004). This article measures and validates critical aspects of CBBE, wherein the functional aspects are explicated as perceived quality, perceived value for the cost and brand uniqueness Symbolic aspects were measured via the brand personality scale established by Aaker (1997). This scale proposes five dimensions of brand personality; excitement, ruggedness, competence, sincerity and sophistication. Participants ranked all brands on each of these aspects. The way participants ranked the symbolic and functional aspects of brands was used in the subsequent analysis of their preference for certain jobs. After all brands were rated the respondents were confronted with the conjoint part of the survey. They filled out twelve choice sets about jobs with varying attribute levels. Each choice set consisted of five attributes, with three levels, and a no choice option.

A key aspect in this study is the choice of the different employer brands.

Unilever was chosen as standard employer because it owns several common brands.

Unilever is an international company that possesses several products which are common in supermarkets. In order to test the main effect of the brand on job choice there were brands included that were expected to have a reasonable variation on both CBBE and EBBE. The included brands were rather common brands in the Netherlands, this was checked by asking participants whether they knew the brands.

All brands score quite reasonable (see table 1) on brand awareness except Sunsilk;

only 23% of the respondents indicated that they were aware of the brand Sunsilk.

Next, the participants were given some background information about Unilever and

they had to imagine that they would be working for Unilever. If respondents indicated

that they did not know a brand, the CBBE scores were set to 0 for these respondents

indicating that this brand has the lowest possible CBBE.

13

Table 1 Brand awareness

Conjoint Analysis

To analyze participants' responses conjoint analysis was used, this type of analysis was initially developed by Luce and Tukey in 1964. This methodology is one of the most popular methods in both the academic world and marketing (Wlömert & Eggers, 2014). A big advantage of this method is that it can state the preferences in relation to each other. When asking participants face to face about what they would value in a job. One would probably end up with loads of factors that participants find important.

Conjoint analysis addresses this problem by making respondents choose between these factors and consequently check what factors are valued the most in general or perhaps between different segments. Thus, individuals will face an actual job-choice decision and evaluate the relative importance of job attributes on varying levels.

Conjoint analysis is an appropriate technique for this because it clearly reflects the relative importance of different variables in relation to each other because respondents have to make trade-offs between them. A limitation of this technique is that too many variables can result in stimuli overload and possible tiredness of participants.

Therefore only the most important job choice determinants, that were found in previous studies, were included. These attributes are important to address the importance of CBBE and EBBE in relation to each other, but they are not the focus of this paper.

The mathematical foundation behind conjoint analysis is based on the utility function. This function assumes that the total utility for a job is the sum of all individual job choice attributes. The formula below explains this utility function.

with

k = (1, …, 5) number of attributes

x = indicating the specific attribute level of attribute i β = utility of consumer n for attribute k

Brands Sunsilk Omo Lipton Axe Ben &

Jerry´s

Blue band Unilever

% of brand familiarity

23,0 93,4 100 100 96,7 95,1 98,3

14

Based on the total utility of a possible job, the probability that the job will be chosen can be calculated. The formula to calculate the probabilities is displayed below, where Pr is the estimated probability.

The conjoint data was analyzed with LatentGold. LatentGold is a statistical program which has the direct ability to analyze conjoint data and generate the Beta values for all attributes. This study only chose the 1 class solution in LatentGold because a segmentation approach is out of scope for this study.

Experimental design

Participants were confronted with twelve choice sets of which they had to choose their most preferred job option. Within these choice sets consumers rated job choice attributes together with the potential employer (brand). The job choice attributes were salary (€2200, €2500, €2800), working hours (36 hours, 40 hours, 42 hours), holidays per year (20 days, 25 days, 30 days) and developing opportunities (In 1 year, in 2 years, in 3 years). The employer brands were Sunsilk, Omo, Lipton, Axe, Ben &

Jerry's and Blue Band, an overview is available in table 2.

Table 2 Attributes and attribute levels

Attribute Levels

Salary €2200, €2500, €2800

Working Hours 36 hours, 40 hours, 42 hours

Advancement/developing opportunities In 1 year, in 2 years, in 3 years

Amount of holiday days per year 20 days, 25 days, 30 days

Work department Sunsilk, Omo, Lipton, Axe,

Ben & Jerry's, Blue Band

15

The choice sets all consisted of five attributes with three levels, therefore not all brands were represented within each choice set. It can be argued that a total of three employer brands would be more appropriate in order to create a more efficient design.

The inclusion of only three brands however, may not give enough variation in order to test for the differential effect between brands. The no choice option was also included in the choice sets to test whether, in general, the job offerings were acceptable. An example choice set is displayed in figure 2 below.

Figure 2 Example choice set

Results

Sample

The study consisted of 60 participants who were mostly students. Their age ranged from 18 to 29 with an average age of 23, 63% were male whereas 37% was female.

They were mostly students at the University of Groningen which makes them

susceptible to job offers since they have to find a job soon. The participants

participated online to this research and they accepted approximately 80% of the job

offers. Each participant provided 12 data points in the choice experiment which gives

this study a total of 720 data points for the estimation. They have contributed

voluntary to this research and their responses were recorded anonymously and

confidential.

16 Brand valuation

As previously discussed it is desirable to have some variation in CBBE amongst the brands. Table 3 shows the average rating for all brands on each symbolic and functional aspect. Please note that these constructs were measured using a 7 point likert scale. The brands show a decent amount of variation given that they are measured on a 7 point scale. The mean values for symbolic aspects range from 2.01 (Sunsilk) to 4.36 (Ben & Jerry´s). The mean values for functional aspects range from 2.30 (Sunsilk) to 4.99 (Ben & Jerry´s).

Table 3 Brand valuation

Sunsilk Omo Lipton Axe Ben &

Jerry´s

Blue Band

Symbolic

Excitement 1.43 1.47 3.70 4.07 4.28 1.87

Sincerity 2.58 3.77 4.22 3.12 4.10 4.13

Competence 2.33 3.58 4.15 4.30 4.42 3.85

Prestige 2.05 3.13 4.45 4.40 5.68 4.07

Ruggedness 1.67 1.93 3.30 5.27 3.03 2.57

Functional

Quality 2.32 4.03 5.27 4.48 5.45 4.73

Uniqueness 2.07 2.37 4.35 4.45 5.73 3.03

Value for money 2.50 3.40 4.32 3.88 3.78 3.60

Mean symbolic 2.01 2.78 3.96 4.232 4.36 3.30

Mean functional 2.30 3.27 4.65 4.27 4.99 3.79

Model Fit

The overall model fit is displayed in table 4. The naive model contains no explanatory

variables and is based on random prediction. The main effects model consists of the

job choice attributes salary, working hours, holiday days, developing opportunities

and the employer brand. The full model consists of all the included job choice

attributes and the symbolic and functional moderators. Salary and holidays were

changed from path-worth to linear because both models did not differ significantly

(p > 0.1). Therefore the more parsimonious model is preferred. Based on this

parsimonious model the Beta's for all job choice attributes are estimated and shown in

17

table 5. The difference between the Log likelihood of the full model and the naive model provides us with a χ ² of 951.93, indicating that the full model predicts better then the naive model (p <0.01). This same reasoning holds for the main effects model with a χ ² of 914.51 (p <0.01) The hit rate of 66.67% indicates that the full model does best in predicting the chosen option. Compared to the hit rate of the main effects model which is 64.58 and also to the naive model, which is 33.33%. Therefore, the predictive validity is two times higher than a naive model. The full model is also significant better than the main effects model (χ ² = 37.43 p <0.01).

Table 4 Model fit

Main effects model

The previously accepted job choice attributes were all significant at the at the 1%

level. The employer brand was also found to be highly significant (p <0.01).The positive linear beta for salary indicates that for every dollar increase in salary the utility goes up with 0.0029. For example the differential utility between a salary of 2500 and 2800 is 0.0029*300 = 0.87, indicating an expected increase in utility when salary increases. Contrary, the beta's for working hours indicate a negative relationship between working hours and expected choice. When the amount of working hours increases from 36 to 40 the utility of the option is lowered by 0.7661- 0.0179 = 0.7482. Developing opportunities shows a similar pattern with the highest utility for the smallest values, indicating that applicants prefer developing opportunities in the short term. Developing opportunities within 1 year compared to within 2 years has a differential utility of 0.3819- (-0.0270) = 0.4089. Holidays has a positive beta of 0.0709 for every additional holiday between 20 and 30 days per year.

All parameter signs are as expected and do not interfere with previous literature, therefore the face validity is satisfactory.

Model LL R

R

χ

df parameters p value Hit Rate Naive

model

-998.1319

Main effects model

-540.8775 0.458 0.446 914.51 49 11 <0.001 64.58%

Full model

-522.1641 0.477 0.457 951.93 41 19 <0.001 66.67%

18

Table 5 main effects model

Attribute Level Utility Willingness to

pay

p value %

Importance

Salary (linear) Beta 0.0029 0.00** 29.36

Working hours 36 0.7661 0.00** 26.15

40 0.0179

42 -0.7840

Advancement/developing opportunities in

1 year 0.3819 0.00** 12.43

2 years -0.0270 3 years -0.3549 Holidays per year

(linear)

Beta 0.0709 0.00** 11.96

Employer brand Sunsilk -0.5756 -198.48 0.00** 20.10

Omo -0.3759 -129.62 Blue band -0.0789 -27.20 Lipton 0.1076 37.10

Axe 0.3069 105.83

Ben &

Jerry´s

0.6160 212.41

** significant at the 1% level

Regarding the employer brands there is no previously established framework to base results on. It may be expected that a Dutch common brand as Axe would have a high utility which is confirmed with a beta of 0.3069, although, the international brand, Ben & Jerry’s has the highest utility with a beta of 0.6160. The other beta's seem quite reasonable, and do not obtain unexpected values.

The relative importance indicates that salary is the most important job choice with a relative importance of 29.36%, also working hours revealed to be of a high relative importance with 26.15%. After these two job attributes there is a gap in relative importance towards the employer brand, which has a relative importance of 20.1%. Developing opportunities and holidays were found to be of the least importance with 12.43% and 11.96%

Based on the Beta values for all brands the willingness to pay (WTP) is

calculated for each brand. WTP is calculated by dividing the utility for each brand by

the utility of salary. Applicants are willing to pay for example €212.41 to work for

Ben & Jerry´s and want a salary raise of €198.48 to work for Sunsilk.

19 Moderation effects model

To account for the possible moderating effect of CBBE the symbolic and functional aspects were included in LatentGold as a moderator for EBBE. Factor analysis did not provide satisfactory results with regard to constructing two moderators; one symbolic and one functional. This is not surprising since Aaker (1997) and Netemeyer et al.

(2004) already found these 8 aspects as the most comprehensive factors to measure symbolic and functional brand aspects. Since factor scores were not appropriate all eight moderators were included in the model. Data was adjusted in a way that all individuals' rating for symbolic and functional aspects were aligned with all brands they rated. Therefore each brand was matched with the relevant score and LatentGold was able to test the moderating effect of symbolic and functional scores on choice.

Since the parameters of the other job choice attributes only differed marginally from the main effects model they will not be discussed again (see appendix for details).

Table 6 CBBE moderation

Moderators Beta P value

Symbolic

Excitement 0.1528 0.001***

Sincerity 0.0463 0.036**

Competence 0.0256 0.63

Prestige -0.1655 0.002***

Ruggedness 0.0809 0.11

Functional

Quality 0.0885 0.1*

Uniqueness 0.0967 0.084*

Value for money -0.0208 0.72

Employer brand

Sunsilk -0.0894 0.11

Omo 0.0538

Blue band -0.0423

Lipton -0.2510

Axe -0.0770

Ben & Jerry´s 0.3213

* Significant at the 10% level ** significant at the 5% level *** significant at the 1% level

20

The employer brand was found to be non-significant (p = 0.11) when the moderators were included. This means that there is a moderating effect so that the valuation of the employer brand depends on the value of the moderators. The results in table 6 indicate that excitement and prestige are highly significant as moderator at the 1% level.

Furthermore, sincerity is significant at the 5% level and uniqueness and quality proved to be marginally significant at the 10% level. In sum, three symbolic aspects are significant and two functional aspects are marginally significant. Therefore symbolic aspects clearly have the most influence compared to functional aspects. The first moderator, excitement, has a beta of 0.1528 indicating that an increase of 1 point (7 point scale) results in an increase of utility for an employer brand of 0.1528.

Interestingly, prestige has a negative beta of -0.1655 indicating that consumers who think a product is prestigious do not see this product as a suitable employer. This seems rather counterintuitive, although it could be that prestige has certain downsides in peoples mind-set. Sincerity has a beta of 0.0463 indicating that companies whose products are associated with sincerity have a higher utility. The same reasoning holds for quality and uniqueness, however they are only marginally significant.

Relation between CBBE and EBBE

The valuation of employer brands depends on the functional and symbolic CBBE

scores. Since these scales are not previously used to measure the relationship between

CBBE and EBBE it is necessary to study to what extent these scales for CBBE can

predict EBBE. Furthermore, based on the theory section H ₂ states that CBBE is

positively related to EBBE regardless of the moderating effect on job choice. To study

both issues a multinomial logit was performed. This method is used in prior studies to

estimate the probability of choosing an alternative compared to the other alternatives

available (Guadagni & Little, 1983). In this study however, the goal of this method is

not to study which brands are affected most by the functional and symbolic attributes,

since the brands remain to be chosen rather arbitrary. This implies that the

independence from irrelevant alternatives (IIA) assumption is not an issue here, since

the emphasis is not on explaining influential brands. When this IIA assumption would

be violated it causes systematic errors in the choice probabilities for the brands of

interest. Additionally, it may be that multicollinearity causes errors in the estimated

parameter values. To test whether the eight explanatory functional and symbolic

21

variables have multicollinearity issues they were regressed on each other in a linear regression with each variables as dependent variables once. The maximum VIF score was 2.8 which is substantially lower than the cut off point of 5 (Leeflang, Wieringa, Bijmolt, & Pauwels, 2015), indicating that multicollinearity is not an issue here.

To test whether CBBE is positively related to EBBE it is necessary to choose Sunsilk as the reference category since this brand has the lowest valuation for each symbolic and functional aspect. This means for all other brands that the parameter signs should be positive, since a higher symbolic or functional rating should lead to an expected increase in utility, given that CBBE is positively related to EBBE. The estimation was performed based on the symbolic and functional aspects from participants only for the options they chose as most preferred option. The non chosen options were excluded since the goal is to study what causes a brand choice. The results in table 7 indicate that all significant symbolic CBBE aspects are positively related to EBBE. The functional aspects however, show less consistency in parameter sign and obtain negative values as well. The positive signs for prestige deserve attention since prestige was found to have a negative moderating effect on the relationship between CBBE and EBBE in a job choice context. Furthermore competence does not prove to be significant for any brand. This is not surprising since the moderating effect of competence was far from significant as well (p = 0.63).

Table 7 Beta values

Omo Lipton Axe Ben & Jerry´s Blue Band Symbolic

Excitement -0.09 0.87** 0.68** 1.15*** -0.18

Sincerity 0.73* 0.70* -0.03 0.68* 0.86**

Competence 0.33 0.19 0.09 0.14 0.16

Prestige 0.31 0.77** 0.81** 1.32*** 1.06***

Ruggedness 0.66 -0.35 1.21*** -0.43 0.30

Functional

Quality -0.47*** 0.26 -0.32* 0.28 0.19

Uniqueness -0.63*** 0.17 0.39** 1.26*** -0.27

Value for money 0.19 0.02 -0.10 -0.77** 0.02

* significant at the 10% level ** significant at the 5% level *** significant at the 1% level

Reference category = Sunsilk

22 Predictive validity

Previous literature stresses the intangible aspects for CBBE and EBBE (Ambler &

Styles, 1997; Erdem & Swait, 1998; Vazquez et al., 2002). Hence, it can be difficult to clearly isolate both types of brand equity and relate them towards each other. The way how the relationship between both constructs is established in this paper is theoretically founded but not validated. In order to better understand this relationship the predictive validity for the employer brand based on CBBE will be tested trough a hit rate. Again a multinomial logit was performed based on the chosen brands as dependent variable and the symbolic and functional aspects as independent variables.

The predicted brands were saved and matched with the actually chosen brands in the job choice context.

Table 8 Hit rate Predicted brand

1

Observed brand 2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

14 59 0 1 6 1

2 63 2 6 0 11

2 2 52 25 28 20

11 5 11 110 12 4

0 1 13 3 126 11

3 13 8 10 11 74

439

The diagonal in table 8 show that 439 people were predicted correct based on the

symbolic and functional aspects as explanatory variables. Given that the study is

based on 60 people who performed 12 choice sets the total number of predictions was

720. Therefore the obtained hit rate is 439/720 = 60.97%. This outperforms the hit

rate of a naive model with 6 brands which is 100/6 = 16.67%. Although there is no

other literature known to compare this result with, the employer brand can be

predicted quite well based on the CBBE aspects.

23 Hypotheses testing

The results indicate that EBBE does play a significant role in this job choice context, therefore H ₁ is supported. The role of CBBE consisted of both the symbolic and functional product associations. The expected positive effect for CBBE on EBBE was confirmed for all the symbolic aspects of CBBE. Despite this, the functional aspects obtained negative signs as well. Therefore H ₂ can only be partially supported.

Table 9 Hypotheses

Hypotheses Moderator Confirmed p value

H

Yes 0.00***

H

Partial -

H

Symbolic Excitement Yes 0.001 ***

Sincerity Yes 0.036**

Competence No 0.63

Prestige Yes 0.002***

Ruggedness No 0.11

Functional Quality Partial 0.1*

Uniqueness Partial 0.084*

Value for money No 0.72

Beta

H

Symbolic Excitement Yes 0.1528

Sincerity Yes 0.0463

Prestige No -0.1655

Quality Yes 0.0885

Uniqueness Yes 0.0967

* significant at the 10% level ** significant at the 5% level *** significant at the 1% level

The moderation tests show that the valuation of the employer brand depends on the

value of the moderators so that the remaining EBBE effect remains insignificant,

which supports H 3. The expected positive signs for the symbolic and functional

moderators were not fully confirmed, because of the negative sign of prestige,

therefore H 4 is not fully supported. An overview of all hypotheses is provided in table

9, please not that for H ₄ only the significant parameters are reported.

24 Discussion

The goal of this paper was to study the role of CBBE and EBBE in a job choice context. Wherein the relation between CBBE and EBBE was tested by the effect of symbolic and functional associations on employer choice. The in previous literature acknowledged influence of salary, developing opportunities, holidays and working hours were confirmed. The most important driver of job choice according to the relative importance was salary which confirms the established hierarchy in job choice attributes according to Uggerslev et al. (2012).

This paper empirically demonstrates the relationship between CBBE and EBBE, a finding that had not been confirmed in previous literature. Functional and symbolic brand associations can be used to influence both a company's CBBE and EBBE. In general the finding that symbolic aspects are key in organizational attraction by van Hoye et al. (2013) can be confirmed, since the symbolic aspects were more significant than the functional aspects which makes them more influential..

These findings confirms the tendency in literature to include symbolic aspects in brand equity studies. The most influential symbolic driver in this process is excitement; exciting products lead to anticipated excitement in applicants mindset in a job choice context. For sincerity the same reasoning holds, which indicates that people value sincerity (honest, down to earth, cheerful) in both branding contexts.

This study indicates that prestige is a product association that does not lead to a favourable attitude towards employment in a job choice context. Opposed to this prestige is a positive predictor for the chosen brands without the job choice context.

These findings do not specifically indicate that applicants are not willing to work for

prestigious companies, however it does indicate that prestigious product associations

are not desired in a job choice context. This leads to two possibilities assuming that

prestige is a desirable product aspect; either there is general separation between

prestigious CBBE and EBBE attitudes i.e. properties that cause consumers to rate

products as prestigious do not lead to prestigious employer associations, or people

perceive prestige as a negative characteristic in the job choice decision. The first

would support the reasoning that potential mismatch of brand images causes negative

associations (Moroko & Uncles, 2008) The last would contradict the finding of

Backhaus & Tikoo (2004) that employer brands should be designed to be consistent

with the firm’s corporate brand and products. Furthermore it would add to the finding

25

of Rampl & Kenning (2014) which states that EBBE and CBBE possess similar brand personality traits that contribute to their attractiveness, in a way that there are also brand personality traits that do not mutually reinforce both types of brand equity.

Where the functional CBBE aspects proved to be only marginally significant it can be stated that applicants distinguish between their functional preferences as consumers and applicants. Furthermore the main effects of functional aspects on brand choice concluded negative signs for both brands and aspects. A possible explanation for this is, that the functional aspects are more easily to differentiate as consumer and applicant. Whereas symbolic aspects are hard to express in terms of quantity or metrics, functional aspects may be more concrete in the mind-set of people compared to symbolic. The functional aspects of a job for example may be interpreted as the included job choice attributes in this study which reflect all the job conditions which make the linkage with functional product aspects less salient, therefore decreasing the effect of functional aspects of CBBE on EBBE. In addition the symbolic aspects are not likely to follow the same reasoning since they are implicit, intangible and reflect the mind-set of applicants (Athanasou, 2003; Van Hoye et al., 2013).

Managerial implications

The role of the employer brand is salient within a job choice context. For managers

this means that they have to be more aware of what the company is and what their

brand entails. The willingness to pay figures for brands in this study confirms the

finding that employers can charge lower salaries when employees value to work for

their company (Tavassoli et al., 2014; Turban & Cable, 2003). Furthermore it can

help managers reflect why applicants choose for competitive firms maybe even when

they offer worse conditions. In addition to this managers can try to compensate their

shortcomings based on WTP measures which can help them in searching the most

valuable employees. The relative importance of the job choice attributes can also help

in determining where to improve in job offerings. This study only tested relevant

attribute levels, and within these levels it is clear that for example working hours has

more influence than holiday days, two factors that can be altered relatively easy

within a job offer.

26

The moderating effects of CBBE on the relation of EBBE on job choice gives guidelines for influential factors in brand alignment. Exciting and sincere product associations are beneficial for EBBE which allows firms to better control their entire branding and focus on broadly relevant aspects. Value for money, a monetary related variable proved to be insignificant which suggests that it does not matter for EBBE whether or not a firm offers reasonable prices for their products.

The included employer brands were categorical diverse and therefore not per se comparable. A main reason to include diverse brands was to assess differences in brand equity between these brands. This does not necessary suggest that managers of Omo or Sunsilk should worry because they are outperformed by Axe and Ben &

Jerry´s. The category characteristics combined with necessary applicant qualifications should be taken into regard when comparing with competitors.

Theoretical implications

The relative importance of the employer brand outperforms the importance of holidays and developing opportunities. This means that in future research on this topic the role of the brand can´t be neglected. Furthermore the moderating effect of CBBE on the effect of EBBE on job choice adds an important point to studies that investigate how firms can get employer of first choice. The previous finding of Backhaus & Tikoo (2004) which states that firms should try to align all their brandings activities should be reconsidered, since this paper found negative associations between CBBE and EBBE in terms of prestige. There is no compelling evidence for a brand Halo between CBBE and EBBE; although this failure to discriminate amongst two distinct aspects may be seen in the excitement and sincerity aspects, the negative beta for prestige indicates that people do discriminate amongst different symbolic aspects in branding.

When studying in a job choice context, future studies should consider the

inclusion of EBBE in their study. This study found the relative importance of the

employer brand to be substantial and therefore not trivial. Whereas the meta analysis

of Uggerslev et al. (2012) included several commonly accepted job choice attributes

the role of brand equity was not discussed.

27 Limitations and future research

The sample of this study consists of young students and therefore potential job seekers. Although this sample is expected to engage in future job choice the results can´t be generalized amongst other demographic groups. Furthermore this study was aimed at studying the main effects of CBBE and EBBE in a job choice context.

Despite the confirming results it is likely that the results differ amongst clusters. Since this study only consisted of 60 respondents, a cluster analysis was not performed. A larger sample should provide more reliable results and therefore facilitate a cluster analysis.

The data was altered in a way that the symbolic and functional scores for CBBE were set to 0 for participants who indicated that they did not know a certain brand. This assumes that this brand has the lowest possible brand equity since the respondent did not know this brand. This solution, however does not account for the possibility of negative brand equity i.e. people may perceive unfamiliar brands as neutral, whereas they may rate familiar brands more negative since they may have negative experiences with the brand. Future research should try to isolate the construct of brand equity towards a validated solution, where in the familiarity of brands is assessed.

Since most job choice studies differ in their choice of job choice attributes it is likely that they produce different results. This paper included only four job choice attributes due to the focus on brand equity. Despite this focus it could be that omitted variables bias the results, the inclusion of other job choice attributes or maybe even different levels may product different results.

CBBE was operationalized via symbolic and functional product aspects. These eight aspects were tested as moderators for the brands, future research should test whether the moderation effect is significant for all brands individually to better understand when a moderating effect occurs. The contradicting findings for prestige is counterintuitive and has no logical explanation. Since prestige was a highly significant moderator, the effect of this variable should be studied in more detail given the contradicting findings.

Future research should try to better understand the drivers of EBBE for

people who already work for specific companies, it could be that the perception of

their employment gives different results compared to future job applicants.

28

Furthermore this study does not control whether or not participants have worked for the included brands, although it is not likely that a substantial amount of participants did so given the sample, it should be controlled in future research.

Finally, the included brands were common supermarket brands with diverse categories included. Therefore the effect of category diversity could not be isolated.

Future research should assess the differential effect within and between categories.

29 References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347.

Ambler, T., & Styles, C. (1997). Brand development versus new product

development: toward a process model of extension decisions. Journal of Product

& Brand Management, 6, 222–234.

Anseel, F., & Duyck, W. (2009). Implicit letter preferences in job choice: an experimental test of the role of cognitive load. The Journal of Psychology, 143(2), 207–223.

Athanasou, J. A. (2003). Factors Influencing Job Choice. International Journal of Educational and Vocational Guidance, 3, 205–221.

Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career Development International, 9(5), 501–517.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2012). Strategic corporate brand alignment. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 1064–1092.

Baum, M., & Kabst, R. (2013). Conjoint implications on job preferences: the

moderating role of involvement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(7), 1393–1417.

Bendapudi, N., & Bendapudi, V. (2005). Creating the Living Brand. Harvard Business Review, 5(83(5)), 124–126, 128–32, 154.

Berthon, P., & Ewing, M. (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, (December).

Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., LePine, M. a., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003).

Individual job-choice decisions and the impact of job attributes and recruitment practices: A longitudinal field study. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 23–

37.

Cable, D. M., & Graham, M. E. (2000). The determinants of job seekers’ reputation perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(August 1999), 929–947.

Cable, D., & Turban, D. (2003). The Value of Organizational Reputation in the

Recruitment Context: A Brand-Equity Perspective. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 33(11), 2244–2266.

30

Carless, S. A., & Wintle, J. (2007). Applicant Attraction: The role of recruiter

function, work–life balance policies and career salience. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(4), 394–404.

Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. a, Piasentin, K. a, & Jones, D. a. (2005).

Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 928–44.

Christodoulides, G., & de Chernatony, L. (2010). Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement: a literature review. International Journal of Market Research, 52(1), 43.

DelVecchio, D., Jarvis, C. B., Klink, R. R., & Dineen, B. R. (2007). Leveraging brand equity to attract human capital. Marketing Letters, 18, 149–164.

Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131–157.

Felfe, C. (2012). The willingness to pay for job amenities: evidence from mothers’

return to work. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 65(April).

Guadagni, P. M., & Little, J. D. C. (1983). A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data. Marketing Science, 2(3), 203–238.

Highhouse, S., Zickar, M. J., Thorsteinson, T. J., Stierwalt, S. L., & Slaughter, J. E.

(1999). Assessing company employment image: An example in the fast food industry. Personnel Psychology, 52, 151–172.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing and Measuring , Brand Managing Customer- Based Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

King, C., & Grace, D. (2005). Exploring the role of employees in the delivery of the brand: a case study approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(3), 277–295.

King, C., & Grace, D. (2009). Employee Based Brand Equity: A Third Perspective.

Services Marketing Quarterly, 30(2), 122–147.

Leeflang, P. S. H., Wieringa, J. E., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Pauwels, K. H. (2015).

Modeling Markets.

Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C. S., & Harich, K. R. (1995). Brand equity : the halo effect measure. European Journal of Marketing, 29(4), 57–66.

Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). the Relation of Instrumental and Symbolic

Attributes To a Company ’ S Attractiveness As an Employer. Personnel

Psychology, 56(2002), 75–102.

31

Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G., & Anseel, F. (2007). Organizational Identity and Employer Image: Towards a Unifying Framework. British Journal of Management, 18(s1), S45–S59.

Martínez, E., & Chernatony, L. De. (2004). The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21, 39–50.

Mccue, K., & Reed, W. . (1996). New evidence on Workers’Willingness to pay for Job Attributes. Southern Economic Journal, 627–652.

Moroko, L., & Uncles, M. D. (2008). Characteristics of successful employer brands.

Journal of Brand Management, 16(3), 160–175.

Moroko, L., & Uncles, M. D. (2009). Employer branding and market segmentation.

Journal of Brand Management, 17(May), 181–196.

Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., … Wirth, F. (2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 209–224.

Oliveira-castro, J. M., Ã, G. R. F., James, V. K., Pohl, H. B. F., Dias, M. B., &

Chang, S. W. (2008). Consumer-based brand equity and brand performance.

Service Industries Journal, 28(4), 445–461.

Rampl, V. L., & Kenning, P. (2014). Employer brand trust and affect: linking brand personality to employer brand attractiveness. European Journal of Marketing, 48(1/2), 218–236.

Rindell, A., Korkman, O., & Gummerus, J. (2011). The role of brand images in consumer practices: uncovering embedded brand strength. Journal of Product &

Brand Management, 20, 440–446.

Shapira, Z. (1987). Preference for Job Attributes: Tradeoffs from Present Position.

Industrial Relations, 26(2), 146–157.

Sutherland, J. (2011). Job attribute preferences: who prefers what? Employee Relations, 34(2), 193–221.

Tavassoli, N. T., Sorescu, A., & Chandy, R. (2014). Employee-Based Brand Equity : Why Firms with Strong Brands Pay Their Executives Less. Journal of Marketing Research, LI(December), 676–690.

Turban, D. B., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(April), 733–751.

Uggerslev, K. L., Fassina, N. E., & Kraichy, D. (2012). Recruiting Through the

Stages: A Meta-Analytic Test of Predictors of Applicant Attraction at Different

Stages of the Recruiting Process. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 597–660.