1
Shaping the role of job attributes and the moderating effect of
employer based brand equity
A choice based conjoint analysis for testing job acceptance intentions
Martinus Feddema
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business MSC Marketing Intelligence Thesis
June 22, 2015
Dr. Felix Eggers Prof. Dr. Jaap Wieringa
Maluslaan 72 9741LM Groningen
06 -575 53 685 m.feddema@student.rug.nl
2
Abstract
This paper examined the effect of different job attributes, i.e., salary, promotion opportunities, culture and training, on job acceptance intentions, and tested whether employer brand equity, i.e., familiarity and image, moderated this relationship. The sample consisted on 63 university students who completed an online survey. A choice based conjoint analysis was employed to assess the importance of the four job attributes on job acceptance intentions. Results showed that salary, promotion opportunities, culture and training significantly predicted job acceptance intentions. In addition, image was found to moderate the relationship between salary and job acceptance intentions. Familiarity did not show to be a significant moderator. Findings of this paper suggest that when a company has a higher image, the relative weight of salary increases compared to companies with a lower image. This paper is the first to examine the moderating role of employer brand equity, providing in this way important insights for the recruitment literature.
3
1. Introduction
In the last decades it has become clear that attracting the best available talent into an organization will benefit its competitive advantage. Thus, nowadays it is not only important to understand how organizations choose new employees but also how job seekers choose among job offers. Job attributes play a central role in the applicant´s evaluation of job offers. Last decades of research on job attributes has shown that they are a significant determining factor on job decisions (Powell, 1984). Moreover, job attributes showed to be more important than recruiting practices on determining the likelihood of job acceptance (Powell, 1984; Posner, 1981).
Besides job attributes, brand equity has become a construct of interest in recruitment research. Brand equity refers to the set of beliefs that a consumer has regarding a product or a service of a brand. These beliefs affect the costumer’s preferences and purchase decisions of a product above other with similar attributes (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 1993). The way brand equity influences the consumer’s decision is by increasing the probability that the product is considered for purchase and creating positive affect towards the product of the brand (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 1993). Since human resources have to compete for talent in a similar way like sales has to compete for favorable positions in the mind of customers, the concepts of brand equity can be generalized to the field of human resource management. Like consumers form beliefs about products, job seekers form beliefs about potential employers that in turn affect their decisions regarding acceptance or pursuit of a job offer. Cable & Turban (2001) were the first to propose that the concept of brand equity can be applied to recruitment scenarios, referring to it as employer brand equity. The effect of employer brand equity on a job seeker’s intentions to apply for or join a company is now well documented (Han & Collins, 2002; Turban & Greening, 1997; Gatewood, Gowan, & Lautenschlager, 1993; Highhouse, et al., 1999).
4 way the understanding of the effects of job attributes on job acceptance intentions. This paper starts with a review of the literature on job attributes and employer based brand equity, and the formulation of hypotheses. Subsequently, the method section is presented, followed by the results. Finally, the discussion and conclusion are elaborated.
2. Literature
2.1. Job acceptance intentions
Past research on recruitment has used several outcome variables to assess the probability of job choice (Chapman et al., 2005). The most accurate outcome is the actual job choice, however, it is usually difficult to obtain information on the actual job choices made by job seekers (specially in cross-sectional study designs). As an alternative, other options like job pursuit intention (a person’s desire to submit an application, Chapman et al., 2005 p. 929), job-organization attraction (an applicant´s overall evaluation of the attractiveness of the job and/or organization, Chapman et al., 2005 p. 929) or job acceptance intentions can be assessed. Job acceptance intentions is defined as the likelihood that a respondent would accept an offer if one were forthcoming (Chapman et al., 2005 p. 929). In a meta-analysis, assessing 667 coefficients form 71 studies, Chapman et al. (2005) found that job acceptance intentions was the most reliable predictor of job choice. Therefore, job acceptance intentions was measured as the dependent variable in the present paper.
2.2. Job Attributes
5 besides salary and promotion opportunities (Collins & Stevens, 2002). Training can encompass education besides the training for the job, either inside the company or external (Cable & Turban, 2003). The impact of different company cultures has been well established in previous literature on job acceptance intention. Applicants have fundamental needs to recognize an environment that they assess as compatible with their character before making a job decision. That is, individuals look for a culture in which they perceive to fit (Kristof‐Brown, Zimmerman & Johson, 2005). Risk taking, entrepreneurial cultures are more attractive than cultures with a focus on regulations or hierarchy (Cable, Aiman-Smith, Mulvey & Edwards, 2000). In addition, applicants are drawn to cultures that are perceived as personal and warm (Toops Mazzuca, 2013).
Past literature has outlined the important predictive value of salary, advancement opportunities, training and culture on job pursuit intentions. In one longitudinal study, Boswell et al (2003) evaluated the impact of different job attributes on individual job choice among a sample of 109 graduate students who were to engage in recruitment processes. Data was collected in three time points, before the recruitment started (time 1), when they were offered a job (time 2) and after accepting a job (time 3). Results showed that company culture, advancement opportunities, training and the salary were considered important attributes for job choice at time 1. These attributes remained important at time 2 and 3, in addition, other factors like reputation, location and industry became important. One study showed that salary had greater influence on job choices than did opportunity to use important skills and abilities, autonomy and independence, responsibility, providing essential services and products, or flexibility in setting work schedules (Feldman & Arnold, 1978). In another study advancement opportunity was the most influent job attribute, followed by salary, flexibility, and assignment duration (Zedeck, 1977). In addition, salary and advancement opportunities have shown to remain significant predictors of job offer acceptance decisions when different work values (i.e., achievement, helping others, honesty, and fairness) are also considered as predictors (Judge & Bretz, 1991).
Considering past research findings on the importance of different job attributes on job choice, this paper included salary, promotion opportunities, training and culture as determinants of job acceptance intentions.
2.3. Employer brand equity
6 ability to retrieve the brand when thinking of the product category. Brand image consists on the perceptions about the brand as reflected by the associations held in the consumer memory.
Cable & Turban (2001) argued that individual’s perceptions of organization have an impact on job acceptance intentions. The authors applied the concept of brand equity to recruitment creating the concept of ‘employer brand equity’. Employer brand equity is defined as ‘a job seeker’s memories and associations regarding an organization’ (p. 123). According to Cable & Turban (2001), employer brand equity is divided into familiarity, reputation and image. Familiarity refers to the level of awareness that an applicant has of an organization. Reputation is defined as the beliefs of an applicant about the public´s evaluation of an organization. Image refers to the set of beliefs that an applicant has about the attributes of an organization.
Past literature have found that employer brand equity has an effect on a job seeker’s intentions to apply for or join a company (Han & Collins, 2002; Turban & Greening, 1997; Gatewood, Gowan, & Lautenschlager, 1993; Highhouse, et al., 1999). Further, it has been shown that familiar companies are perceived more favourable as employers than unfamiliar companies (Gatewood et al. 1993). Evidence also suggests that applicants are more attracted to companies with a strong positive reputation than to companies with either no or negative reputations (Cable & Turban, 2003). Moreover, Collins & Stevens (2002) found that employer brand image mediated the relationship between recruitment practices (i.e., publicity, sponsorships, word of mouth endorsements, and advertising) and applicant’s job intentions and decisions. In this study, the theoretical models of Keller (1993) and Cable & Turban (2001) are combined to measure employer brand equity as comprised by familiarity and image. Familiarity is defined as the job seekers’ awareness of or ability to identify a company as a potential employer. Image is defined as the job seeker’ personal evaluation of the company and the beliefs regarding how other people view the company as an employer.
3. Hypothesis
7 compensation for employment, that applicants highly value a company that fits their character (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) and that promotions opportunities, training and education are necessary for a successful professional career.
Hypothesis 1: salary, company culture, training programs and promotion opportunities predict job acceptance intention.
Brand equity is proposed to moderate the relationship between marketing activities and consumers actions (Raggio & Leone, 2007). In the same line, we propose that employer brand equity can moderate the relationship between job attributes and job acceptance intentions. Scholars have argued that employer brand equity influences the way people process and react to information of an organization (Cable & Turban, 2001). Results from one study suggested that image perceptions of job seekers influence the perception of job attributes, and that in turn, job attributes perception influence job pursuit intentions (Cable & Turban, 2003). However, research has not yet examined the combined effects of job attributes and employer brand equity on job acceptance intentions; thus, it is still unclear if the impact of job attributes on job acceptance might vary as a function of the job applicant’s perceptions of familiarity and image of a company. In this way, employer brand equity can strengthen or weaken the effect of job attributes on job acceptance intentions. A high level of employer brand equity should influence job acceptance intentions in favour of the company. On the other hand, a low level of employer brand equity could influence job acceptance intentions at a loss for the company.
Hypothesis 2: familiarity moderates the relationship between job attributes (i.e., salary, company culture, training programs and promotion opportunities) and job acceptance intention.
Hypothesis 3: image moderates the relationship between job attributes (i.e., salary, company culture, training programs and promotion opportunities) and job acceptance intention.
8 Figure 1. Conceptual model
4. Method
4.1. Procedure and design
Participants answered an online survey made in Preference Lab. Initially, participants were instructed to imagine that several supermarkets have interest in offering them a job for their preferred function. After answering some demographic questions, participants were presented with twelve choice sets of size 3 and were ask to choose the best job offer from every choice set. All the choice sets contained five attributes with three levels (for an example see figure 2). After choosing the best job offer, participants were asked whether they would accept that job offer. Finally, participants were presented with two self-report questionnaires of 7 items each. Giving that past literature has shown that location has an impact on job acceptance intention (Cable & Turban, 2001; Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005; Rynes, Schwab, & Heneman, 1983; Wilden et al., 2010), location was controlled by instructing the responders to consider the location of the company to match their preferences. Taken into account that the attractiveness of a company is related to the industry (Wilden et al., 2010), the brands used in this study are all part of the same industry (i.e., Dutch supermarkets). The brand names used in this study were Albert Heijn, Coop, Aldi and a nameless headhunter vacancy. In the Dutch supermarket industry, Albert Heijn differentiates on the quality of the product where Aldi differentiates on price. Coop differentiates on location by placing its supermarkets in rural areas. The headhunter vacancy was included to measure the effect of the attributes without the additional brand equity.
Job attributes Salary
Company culture Training
Promotion opportunities
Utility function Job
acceptance intention
Employer brand equity Familiarity
9 The impact of the different job attributes on job acceptance intention was assessed by the use of a choice based conjoint analysis. A conjoint analysis with balanced structure and orthogonal design was used, where all the possible levels and combinations were presented an equal number of times (Chrzan & Orme, 2000; Huber& Zwerina, 1996). Since the total number of levels for the attributes are 3 * 3 * 3 * 4 * 4 = 432 with 432!
(432−3)!∗3!> 10.000.000, no full factorial design could be
conducted, and instead a fractional factorial was used (Chrzan & Orme, 2000). The levels were displayed one time per choice set, that is, there was no overlap. The effects were effect coded in order to make the results zero centered.
Figure 2. Example of a choice set
4.2. Sample
The sample consisted in 63 respondents, of whom 52.4% were female and 47.6% were male, with a mean age of 23.5 years old (SD = 2.01), ranging from 20 to 29 years old. A total of 66.7% responders were master students and 33.3% were bachelor students. A large percentage of the responders studied marketing (41.3%), 9.5% study business administration, 4.8% study economics, 3.2% study strategy and innovation management and 41.3% respondents have a non-business related study. All respondents study in a university or a university for applied science so the presented job options were realistic since they can expect similar offers in the future.
4.3. Measures
10 best job offer. The dual response option increases the validity of the estimates without the loss of information over separate estimates like a no-response option (Brazell et al., 2006).
Job attributes. The four job attributes were assessed within the conjoint analysis (Appendix 1).
Salary included three levels of €2200, €2400 and €2600. The difference between these levels was clear but subtle in order to control for the effect of exaggerated attention on salary when the differences between levels are large (it has been suggested that salary increases in importance when the differences between offered salaries increase; Rynes, Schwab and Heneman, 1983). Promotional
opportunities were presented in a career path of 1 year, 2 years or 3 years. Training included three
incremental levels: the first levels represented task related training, limited to the job task itself, the second level consisted of task related training plus management training opportunities (i.e., training to grow within the firm), and the third level represented task related training, management training opportunities and external university or certificate education, fulfilling in this way the educational range of training that a firm can offer. Finally, to assess company culture the theoretical model of Camaron and Quinn (2006) was used, were four different types of culture, i.e., clan, adhocracy, market orientated structure and hierarchic structure, were included (Camaron & Quinn, 2006). Clan refers to a ‘organization that focuses on internal maintenance with flexibility, concern for people and sensitivity to customers’ (p. 223). Adhocacy makes references to a ‘dynamic, entrepreneurial and creative place to work with low guidance and high risk taking’ (p. 222). In a market orientated company ‘the major concern is getting the job done, people are competitive and achievement orientated’ (p. 66, 223). A hierarchic structure refers to ‘a very formalized and structured place to work. Procedures govern what people do’ (p. 66, 224). This four cultures are based on two dimensions: 1) flexibility and discretion (trust) versus stability and control (rules), and 2) internal focus and integration versus external focus and differentiation. A schematic representation is given in Appendix 2. This way of assessing culture sought to overcome limitations of previous research in which company culture was assessed by asking respondents to rate the culture of the organization even though job applicants lack a clear understanding of different forms of culture within a firm (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Baum & Kabst, 2012; Judge & Bretz, 1991; Wilden et al., 2010).
11 both of own personal perceptions about a brand and also of perceptions of reputation (Keller, 1993). Responders rated in a five point likert scale the image of each one of the brands.
4.4. Mathematical specifications
In this section, the schematically depicted framework of the conceptual model is captured in a mathematical formula. The choices of respondents are based on overall utilities of alternatives. The utility for respondent i for job offer j is modeled in the following equation:
𝑈𝑖𝑗 = 𝑉𝑖𝑗+ ɛ𝑖𝑗
Where:
𝑉𝑖𝑗: ‘Systematic part of the utility’
ɛ𝑖𝑗: ‘Unexplained variance in the error term’
The systematical part of the utility function is formed by summing the values that are derived from the attributes. The attributes can consist of path worth utilities or the sum of quadratic or linear attributes. The accompanying formula is modeled as followed:
𝑈𝑖𝑗= ∑𝑘=1𝐾 β𝑖𝑘𝑋𝑗𝑘
K: (1, …, K) number of attributes
β: ‘part-worth utility of consumer i for attribute k’
X: ‘dummy for the level of attribute j’
The systematic part of the utility function for the preference for job offer j for individual I used in this paper is depicted bellow:
12 The probability that a certain choice will be selected by a respondent from a given choice set is captured in a multinomial logit model:
𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏 (𝑗l 𝐶) = 𝐸𝑥𝑝(𝑉𝑖𝑗) ∑𝑐=1𝑚 𝐸𝑥𝑝 (𝑉𝑖𝑗)
Here j is the alternative from choice set C where m is the number of choice sets that a respondent can choose from. Through this model, the above stated, method is assessed. The results are listed below in the next chapter.
5. Results
5.1 Factor analysis
A principal component factor analysis with orthogonal rotation was conducted in order to assess the factorial structure of image and familiarity. Table 1 shows KMO statistics close to one, indicating excellent adequacy for sampling and all Bartlett’s tests show to be highly significant (Malhotra, 2010). The results show a one-factor solution for both image and familiarity with eigenvalues greater than one. The variance explained by both factor exceeds sixty percent. Therefore, for both image and familiarity one factor was used for further analysis.
Reliability of factoring the data
The internal consistency of the factors for image and familiarity was assessed with a Cronbach Alpha test. The critical value for a Cronbach Alpha is 0.6, with values of 0.8 or higher indicating a good internal consistency (Malhotra, 2010). Results indicated that both familiarity and image have a good internal consistency (α = 0.9). In appendix 4, the Cronbach alpha’s after deleting the individual items are listed. When the item six of familiarity is deleted (i.e., I am familiar with this company as an employer) the Cronbach Alpha’s increases. Thus, this item was deleted for further analyses.
Table 1. Results of the factor analyses
KMO Bartlett’s Eigen Value Variance Expl Minimum communality Maximum communality Image ,883 ,000 5,545 79,209 ,717 ,841 Familiarity ,873 ,000 4,017 80,341 , 526 ,927
Summed scores for the different brands
13
Table 2. Mean and SD of the summed rankes of image and familiarity for the companies.
Brand Mean SD Albert Heijn Familiarity 4,4857 0,9448 Image 3,7415 0,8150 Aldi Familiarity 3,2317 0,8855 Image 2,2404 0,7321 COOP Familiarity 2,3460 1,0350 Image 2,1927 0,6785
5.2. No choice descriptives
A chi-square tests of independence were performed to examine the relation between the no–choice option and gender, type of study, master or bachelor students, culture, promotion opportunities, training and salary. For this test, salary and promotion opportunities were coded as nominal, matching the original output of the conjoint analysis. There was a significant relationship between culture and the no-choice option, X2 (3, N=756)=20.9, p. <.001. Respondents were more likely to choose the no-choice option for the hierarchical and mechanistic culture. None of the other variables showed a significant relationship with the no-choice option.
5.3 Choice models
Different models
To assess the fit of the models, the log likelihood of every model was compared with the log likelihood of the null model1. Eight model forms were tested, where model 1, 2, 3 and 4 were the
main effect models, and model 5, 6, 7 and 8 included the moderators. To assess whether salary and promotion opportunities should be kept in a linear or nominal form, four different main effects models were built. Model 1 had both salary and promotion opportunity in a linear form, model 2 had salary in a linear form and promotion opportunity in a nominal form, model 3 had promotion opportunity in a linear form and salary in a nominal form and model 4 had both salary and promotion opportunity in a nominal form. Because the model with full moderation showed only insignificant parameters for the individual moderations, the least significant parameters were excluded until one model (model 8) showed significant effects for both the main effects of brand equity and a moderating effect. The models are listed in table 3. Model 5 included the moderating effects on salary, culture, promotion opportunities and training; model 6 included the moderation of EBE on
14 salary, culture and promotion opportunities; model 7 included the moderation of EBE on salary and culture and model 8 only included the moderation of employer brand equity on salary.
Model choice
In order to test whether the models were significant, chi-square tests were conducted for each one of the models. In addition the pseudo R2 and adjusted pseudo R2 were assessed. The results are listed in table 3.
Table 3. Fit statistics of the models
LL(B)
Chi-square value P- R
2 R2
adjusted Hitrate DF AIC BIC
Model1 -675,534 310,033 0,000 0,2062 0,1782 59,26% 56 1365,07 1380,07 Model2 -675,152 310,798 0,000 0,2058 0,1775 58,99% 55 1366,30 1383,45 Model3 -673,976 313,150 0,000 0,2083 0,1789 58,73% 55 1363,95 1381,10 Model4 -673,631 313,840 0,000 0,2079 0,1781 59,66% 54 1365,26 1384,55 Model5 -659,352 342,399 0,000 0,2274 0,1784 60,45% 40 1364,70 1415,00 Model6 -660,099 340,905 0,000 0,2263 0,1824 59,92% 44 1358,20 1398,92 Model7 -660,507 340,089 0,000 0,2270 0,1843 60,71% 46 1355,01 1391,45 Model8 -663,048 335,006 0,000 0,2239 0,1884 60,19% 52 1348,10 1371,67
To compare the different models, a likelihood ratio test was performed (Werner and Schermelleh Engel, 2000):
𝑋𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓2 = -2(𝐿𝐿𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑− 𝐿𝐿𝑘) and 𝐷𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 - 𝐷𝐹𝑘
15
5.4 Main effect model
Model outcomes
The results of the conjoint analysis showed that culture, salary, promotion opportunity and training significantly predict job acceptance intentions at a 1% level. The relative importance of the attributes is derived from dividing the individual ranges by the sum of the total ranges which is 3,4572 and Willingness to pay is derived from dividing the utility of the focal attribute level by the utility of salary. In a relative sense, the path worth utility function of culture is the strongest predictor of job acceptance intention with a relative importance of 32,50%. Within this attribute, the clan culture was the most preferred culture with a beta of 0,5431 followed by the adhocracy with a beta of 0,4737. The hierarchical culture was the least preferred with a beta of -0,5804, performing slightly better than the market focused culture, that received a beta of -0,4365. Salary, in the form of a linear function, was second in relative importance with a relative share of 30,08%. The beta indicates that for every euro increase of the monthly salary, the utility for the focal offer increased with 0,0026. The promotion opportunities have a relative importance of 21,87%. Since this variable is linear, the beta indicates that per year of respondent must wait for an opportunity to receive promotion, the utility of that job offer decreases with -0,3780. Training receive the relative importance of 15,55%. It becomes clear that only task related training (-0,3112) ranks lower than task related training with management training opportunities (0,0847) and task related training with management training opportunities and external university or certificate education (0,2265). (Table 4)
Table 4. Values of the direct effects from the conjoint analysis
Attributes Beta Wald p-value Range Relative
Importance Willingness to pay
Culture***
Clan Culture 0,5431 124,44 0,000 1,1235 32,50% 205,85
Adhocracy Culture 0,4737 185,04
Hierarchic Culture -0,5804 -221,96
Market Focused Culture -0,4365 -168,92
Salary***
0,0026 98,39 0,000 1,0400 30,08%
Promotion Opportunity in Years***
-0,3780 54,45 0,000 0,7560 21,87% -149,88
Training***
Task related traing -0,3112 27,96 0,000 0,5377 15,55% -123,5
Task + Management training 0,0847 32,85
Task + Man. + Extern. Edu 0,2265 90,62
16
Willingness to pay
Willingness to pay (WTP) is a construct that measures how much a job seeker is willing to accept a lower payment. For job seekers it is not easy to assess the monetary value of complex offers because humans cannot directly measure relative importance of different aspects (Louviere & Islam, 2008). WTP can be revealed through assessing the output of a conjoint analysis (Breidert et al., 2006; Voelckner, 2006). Results of this paper showed that responders are willing to accept a lower salary for either a clan culture (205,85) or for an adhocracy (185,04). However, the values of hierarchic culture (-221,96) and market-focused culture (-168,92) indicate that respondents want a higher salary for working in such an environment. For every year that a respondent has to wait to receive an opportunity for promotion, the requested monthly salary should increase with €149,88. Image shows a WTP value of 110,88 per point (on a five point scale). For the training variable, the choice based conjoint analysis revealed that respondents were willing to pay €32,85 for management training besides basic training. For the extension with external training even €90,62 was accepted in the form of lower wages.
5.5. Moderation effect model
After including the moderators in the model, all the job attributes remained as significant predictors. Image also had a significant positive direct effect (p<.05) on job acceptance intentions. This relationship was as expected since a positive image of the company should lead to a more favorable perception towards the job offer. No direct effect for familiarity was found. (Table 5)
17
Table 5. Results of the moderators
Attributes and Moderators Beta Wald p-value
Culture***
Clan Culture 0,5670 131,3640 0,000
Adhocracy Culture 0,5060
Hierarchic Culture -0,6171
Market Focused Culture -0,4559
Salary***
0,0027 100,4385 0,000
Promotion Opportunity in Years***
-0,3847 54,9122 0,000
Training***
Task related traing -0,3119 27,2601 0,000
Task + Management training 0,0847
Task + Man. + Extern. Edu 0,2245
Familiarity -0,0244 0,0875 0,770 Image** 0,1895 5,0388 0,025 Familiarity x Salary -0,0001 2,1422 0,140 Image x Salary** 0,0001 4,8238 0,028
*significant at 10% ** significant at 5% ***Significant at 1% **** Reference group
5.6. Hypotheses overview
From the results it can be derived that salary, promotion opportunities, culture and training significantly predicted job acceptance intentions confirming in this way H1. Familiarity was not a
significant moderator for any of the effects of the different job attributes on job acceptance intentions, thus H2 was rejected. Image significantly moderated the relationship between salary and
job acceptance intentions, though it did not moderate the effect of company culture, training and promotion opportunities on job acceptance intentions. Therefore, H3 was partially confirmed. (Table
6)
Table 6. Hypotheses overview
Hypothesis Confirmed
1 Salary, company culture, training programs and promotion opportunities predict job acceptance intentions
Yes***
2 Familiarity moderates the relationship between job attributes (i.e., salary, company culture, training programs and promotion opportunities) and job acceptance intentions
No
3 Image moderates the relationship between job attributes (i.e., salary, company culture, training programs and promotion opportunities) and job acceptance intentions
Partially
18
6. Discussion
6.1. General discussion
The aim of this paper was to assess the effect of different job attributes, i.e., salary, promotion opportunities, culture and training, on job acceptance intentions, and to test whether brand equity, i.e., familiarity and image, moderated this relationship. Findings suggest that salary, promotion opportunities, culture and training are significant predictors of job acceptance intentions. The resulting importance of salary did not rank highest among the other job attributes, also in line with findings of Boswell et al. (2003) and Wilden et al. (2010). Other researchers have found that salary is the attribute that strongest predicts job acceptance intention (Baum & Kabst, 2012). However, this can be due to the fact that the differences between the presented salary options were too large, making salary the outmost important attribute when assessing a job. This paper evaluated salary with three levels in a range between €2200 and €2600, with equal intervals of 200 euro, preventing in this way an exaggerated attention on salary. In addition, findings of this paper suggest that that company culture is the most important attribute when assessing a job offer, confirming the results of Boswell (2003) and Wilden et al. (2010). As expected, cultures that are described as personal and family like, or as dynamic and entrepreneurial scored highest. Result-orientated cultures showed to be less attractive to possible applicants, than the also not preferred formal and structured culture. Finally, and as found by Chapman (2005), Boswell (2010) and Rynes et al. (1983), the offered training and promotion opportunities had a significant and large impact on job acceptance intentions.
This paper is the first to test whether employer brand equity moderates the relationship between job attributes and job acceptance intention. Results showed that image significantly moderated the relationship between salary and job acceptance intentions. Therefore, an increase of salary of a company with a higher image has more impact than an increase of salary in a company with lower image. This finding might suggest that for similar job offers, a company with a higher perceived image can offer a lower salary for the same impact of the offer. In contrast, familiarity did not show to moderate any of the relationships between the job attributes and job acceptance intentions. These findings can further indicate that the image of a company is more important than its familiarity when evaluating a job offer, especially when it is considered together with the offered salary.
6.2. Managerial findings
19 of assessing it in isolation) and adjust the offered salary in correspondence.
The utilities of the attribute levels presented in this paper can be used to assess the attractiveness of possible job offers. When creating new job offers, the presented levels can be used as tradeoffs to decide where to invest (e.g. invest extra in training programs or in promotion opportunities). Moreover, through the willingness to pay statistic, investments in training programs or promotion opportunities can be assessed in comparison to offer a higher salary in order to gain a larger preference share. In addition, through the presented values of the attributes, the focal offer can be compared to offers of competitors to assess how big the probability of gaining the choice of the applicant is opposed to competing offers.
For a long-term perspective, the attractiveness of culture of the company can be evaluated. To keep attracting scarce talent over time, employers should shape their culture in a way that they become attractive to possible applicants (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). This paper gives a direction to the attractiveness of different types of culture and how they relate to other cultures. Based on this paper, management can assess how their culture and accompanying attractiveness holds opposed to its competitors. This information can be used as an incentive to change internal culture (Camaron & Quinn, 2006).
6.3. Theoretical implications
Image has typically being studied as a direct predictor of job acceptance intention; however, our findings show that it moderates the relationship between salary and job acceptance intentions. Employer branding literature should acknowledge the moderating role of image, and more generally, the fact that individuals evaluate job attributes in the light of their own perceptions and beliefs about the company. In addition, this paper integrates the distinction of culture made in change literature (Camaron and Quinn, 2006) into the literature of employer based brand equity. This distinction provides more information about the preferences for different types of culture, enriching in this way the understanding of how culture actually impacts job acceptance intentions. Findings from this paper show that distinct types of cultures are differently valued by individuals when evaluating job offers, and that therefore, it is important to distinguish between clan, adhocracy, hierarchy and market focused cultures in the recruitment literature.
6.4. Limitations and future research
20 respondents make different choices could be evaluated. In addition, respondents were students living in Groningen, therefore, generalizations to other populations must be made with care.
21
References
Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career Development International, 9(5), 501–517.
Baum, M., & Kabst, R. (2012). Conjoint implications on job preferences: the moderating role of involvement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(7), 1–25.
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.
Brazell, J. D., Diener, C. G., Karniouchina, E., Moore, W. L., Séverin, V., & Uldry, P. F. (2006). The no-choice option and dual response choice designs. Marketing Letters, 17(4), 255–268.
Breidert, C., Hahsler, M., & Reutterer, T. (2006). A Review of Methods for Measuring Willingness-To-Pay.
Innovative Marketing, 2(4), 8–32.
Cable, D. M., Aiman-Smith, L., Mulvey, P. W., & Edwards, J. R. (2000). The sources of accuracy and job applicants’ beliefs about organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1076–1085. Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2001). Establishing the dimensions, sources and value of job seekers’ employer knowledge during recruitment. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20, 115-164. 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, 2244–2266.
Camaron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture.Training. New York, Wiley.
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), 928–944.
Chrzan, K., & Orme, B. (2000). An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth software research paper series.
Collins, C. J. (2007). The interactive effects of recruitment practices and product awareness on job seekers’ employer knowledge and application behaviors. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 180–190. Collins, C. J., & Stevens, C. K. (2002). The relationship between early recruitment-related activities and the
application decisions of new labor-market entrants: a brand equity approach to recruitment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1121–1133.
Gerstner, E. (1985). Do Higher Prices Signal Higher Quality? Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2), 209–205. Huber, J., & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing
research, 307-317.
Jiang, T., & Iles, P. (2012). Employer-brand equity, organizational attractiveness and talent management in the Zhejiang private sector, China. Journal of Technology Management in China, 6(2), 97–110.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz Jr., R. D. (1991). The Effects of Work Values on Job, Cornell Paper 1991.
22 Kim, K. H., Jeon, B. J., Jung, H. S., Lu, W., & Jones, J. (2012). Effective employment brand equity through
sustainable competitive advantage, marketing strategy, and corporate image. Journal of Business Research,
65(11), 1612–1617.
Knox, S., & Freeman, C. (2006). Measuring and Managing Employer Brand Image in the Service Industry. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(0), 695–716.
Kristof‐Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). CONSEQUENCES OF INDIVIDUALS'FIT AT WORK: A META‐ANALYSIS OF PERSON–JOB, PERSON–ORGANIZATION, PERSON–GROUP, AND PERSON–SUPERVISOR FIT. Personnel psychology, 58(2), 281-342.
Lemmink, J., Schuijf, A., & Streukens, S. (2003). The role of corporate image and company employment image in explaining application intentions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 1–15.
Louviere, J. J., & Islam, T. (2008). A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. Journal of Business Research, 61, 903–911.
Malhotra, N.K. (2010). Marketing research. An applied orientation. New Jersey. Pearson education Inc. Mitchel, O. S. (2014). The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. The Journal of Human
Resources, 17(2), 286–289.
Moroko, L., & Uncles, M. D. (2008). Characteristics of successful employer brands. Journal of Brand Management,
16, 160–175.
Na, W. B., Marshall, R., & Keller, K. L. (1999). Measuring brand power: validating a model for optimizing brand equity. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(3), 170–184.
Orme, B. K. (2010). Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. New York, Research Publishers.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Powell, G. N. (1984). Effects of Job Attributes and Recruiting Practices on Applicant Decisions: A Comparison.
Personnel Psychology, 37, 721–732.
Raggio, R. D., & Leone, R. P. (2007). The theoretical separation of brand equity and brand value: Managerial implications for strategic planning. Journal of Brand Management, 14(5), 380–395.
Rynes, S. L., Schwab, D. P., & Heneman, H. G. (1983). The role of pay and market pay variability in job application decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31(3), 353–364.
Supornpraditchai, T., & Miller, K. (2007). Employee based brand equity: antecedents and consequences.
Proceedings of the Australia, New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand., 1723– 1733. Retrieved from http://anzmac.info/conference/2007/papers/TSupornpraditchai_1.pdf
Toops Mazzuca, L. (2014). Ways to Attract & Keep Young Talent. Recruitment and Mentoring, (December), 38– 42.
Voelckner, F. (2006). An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay.
Marketing Letters, 17, 137–149.
Wieseke, J., Alavi, S., & Habel, J. (2014). Willing to Pay More, Eager to Pay Less: The Role of Customer Loyalty in Price Negotiations. Journal of Marketing, 78(November), 17–37.
Werner, C., & Schermelleh-Engel, K. (2010). Deciding between competing models: Chisquare difference tests.
23 Wilden, R., Gudergan, S., & Lings, I. (2010). Employer branding: strategic implications for staff recruitment.
Journal of Marketing Management, 26, 56–73.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale.
Journal of Business Research, 52, 1–14.
24 Appendix 1. Attributes and levels
Attribute Levels
Culture ‘The organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves’.
‘The organization is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks’.
‘The organization is very results-oriented. A major concern is with getting the job done. People are very competitive and achievement-oriented’.
‘The organization is a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do’.
Employer Albert Heijn
Aldi
COOP
Undisclosed headhunter vacancy Promotion
opportunities in:
1 year
2 years
3 years
Training Task related training
Task related training and management training opportunities
Task related training, management training opportunities and external university or certificate education
Salary 2200
2400
25 Appendix 2. Dimensions of culture
Inte rna l f o cus & int egr ati o n
Flexibility & discresion
Ex te rnal fo cus & dif fe re ntat io n CLAN ADHOCRACY HIERARCHY MARKET
Stability & control
26 Appendix 3. Questionnaire
Familiarity
questions 1-6 (Collins 2007)
1. This supermarket is one of the first that comes to my mind when I think of a supermarket. 2. I am familiar with the products or services that this company offers.
3. I have frequently seen advertisements for the products or services of this company. 4. I can quickly recall the products or services of this company.
5. I can recognize this company among other employers. 6. I am familiar with this company as an employer.
Image
questions 1-4(Collins 2007)
questions 5-7 (Cable and Turban 2003)
1. I believe that other students in the school think highly of this company. 2. My friends have high regard for this company as a supermarket.
3. I believe that my friends hold a favorable impression of this company as a good employer. 4. Other students in my school hold a favorable impression of this company as an employer. 5. I would feel proud to be an employee of this company.
27 Appendix 4. Reliability table
Familiarity Cronbach if item
deleted
1. This supermarket is one of the first that comes to my mind when I think of a
supermarket. 0,907
2. I am familiar with the products or services that this company offers. 0,864 3. I have frequently seen advertisements for the products or services of this company. 0,876 4. I can quickly recall the products or services of this company. 0,866 5. I can recognize this company among other employers. 0,874
6. I am familiar with this company as an employer. 0,937
Image
Cronbach if item deleted
1. I believe that other students in the school think highly of this company. 0,946 2. My friends have high regard for this company as a supermarket. 0,950 3. I believe that my friends hold a favorable impression of this company as a good
employer. 0,946
4. Other students in my school hold a favorable impression of this company as an
employer. 0,947
