EMPLOYER ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE
CUSTOMER-CENTRIC ORGANISATION
Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management
Master thesis, Msc Marketing, specialisation Marketing Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 14, 2015
GABI WALS Studentnumber: 1856642 Gerrit van der Veenstraat 122-1
1077 ER Amsterdam tel: +31 (0)6 83 36 03 07
Supervisor/Human Resource Management/University of Groningen J. Oezdes, Msc.
Supervisor/Marketing/University of Groningen dr. J.C.Hoekstra
2 ABSTRACT
The results of this study reveal the attractiveness of two organisational types of employer to prospective employees moderated through personality characteristics. The results show that prospective employees are more attracted to a customer-centric organisation than to a product-centric organisation. Specifically, individuals who have extroverted personalities, minimal neuroses and a minimal personal need for structure are more attracted to the customer-centric organisation, and therefore, they are more suitable for employment in such an organisational type. Customer-centric organisations should, therefore, utilize these personality characteristics as a method to select prospective employees.
Furthermore, a supplementary analysis showed that the customer-centric organisation is perceived as efficient, natural, unpredictable, fair and chaotic. Organisations should utilize these perceptions in their marketing communication to recruit the most suitable prospective employees. Findings of this study suggest recruitment strategies to select the most appropriate prospective employees for a specific type of organisation (i.e., product or customer-centric organisation).
Keywords: Customer-centric organisation, personality characteristics, marketing recruitment communication and selection
3 INTRODUCTION
Much of the organisational literature has focused on identifying key antecedents of employee attractiveness (Berthon et al., 2005; Branham, 2001; Vroom, 1966). For example, studies show that, in order to attract a large number of prospective employees, organisations increase their employee attractiveness through the provision of symbolic and instrumental attributes such as a positive brand image, higher salaries or more advancement opportunities (Aaker, 1997; Berthon et al., 2005; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Vroom, 1966).
However, little research has been conducted on organisational characteristics (Bretz & Judge, 1993; Turban & Keon, 1993) that may determine the way prospective employees perceive an organisation, and in turn influence their attractiveness toward the organisation (Schein & Diamante, 1988). Knowledge on this topic is of interest to organisations because organisations increasingly change their organisational focus from a product-centric towards a customer-centric organisation (Reinartz et al., 2004; Shah et al., 2006) as they have recognize that “sales from existing customers is more profitable than sales to new customers” (Galbraith, 2005, p.1). Little research has been done on whether prospective employees perceive this shift to the customer-centric organisation as attractive. Therefore, I have investigated both types of organisations and how they affect employer attractiveness in relation to prospective employees.
4 Therefore, I expect that personality characteristics will moderate the effect of the organisational type on employer attractiveness. In the current study, I will focus on the “Big Five” personality factors and the “Personal Need for Structure”. The Big Five is the most common and extensive personality measurement, due to its parsimonious and relevance to organisational preferences (Bretz et al., 1989; Judge & Cable, 1997; Lievens et al., 2001). For example, the Big Five trait openness to experience has been shown to influence the attractiveness of an international organisation (Lievens et al., 2001).
Additionally, the Personal Need for Structure measures the perceived need for structure and control by the individual (Friesen et al., 2014; Neuberg & Newsom, 1993). As both types of organisation (i.e., product and customer-centric) have very different internal structures, this personality trait can serve as a plausible moderator in the relation on employer attractiveness.
5 organisations and by branding the organisation as such, employers may then unintentionally attract a narrow range of employees, who are attracted and suitable for employment in these organisational types.
The paper is structured as follows. The first chapter discusses the relevant literature and the moderation hypotheses. The second chapter on methodology explains the scenario study and a first analysis of the participants. The third chapter presents the analysis and outcomes of the study, and finally, the last chapter discusses the implications on employer attractiveness and suggestions for further research.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Shift in Management Philosophy
6 organisation; and thereby to increase the lifetime value of the individual customer (Lamberti, 2013). These objectives allow the organisation to understand the individual customer, and thereby it offers the most suitable products to meet his specific needs and desires. Eventually, the understanding enables the growth of a long-term relationship between the customer and the organisation (Reinartz & Kumar, 2002). Even though, not every customer values a long-term relationship with the organisation, the organisation should be aware of the creation and building of customer relationship, and how to respond to that specific individual customer with its offerings (Avery et al., 2014). However, the ability of the organisation to implement a customer orientation is dependent on the organisational structure within the organisation (Kirca et al., 2005). The organisational structure has to realign various departments to achieve the common objective in serving the individual customer in its needs and desires (Kirca et al., 2005; Lamberti, 2013). In specific, this means an alteration in the organisational structure to transform to a customer orientation within the organisation.
Organisational Structure and Employer Attractiveness
Recently, organisations have shifted from top-down, product-centric organisations towards more flexible customer-centric organisations. In fact, a number of organizations have dramatically changed its structural characteristics and have moved from a hierarchical (i.e., product-centric) to an egalitarian (i.e., customer-centric) organisation (Shah et al., 2006). The product and the customer-centric organisations have different structures, specifically differences regarding specialisation, formalization and centralization (Burns & Stalker, 1961). These characteristics manifest as different arrangements in power, authority, roles and responsibilities within the organisation (Burns & Stalker, 1961).
7 responsible for the delivery of one specific product. This leads to a high level of specialisation in the organisation, where employees have specialised functional tasks (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Shah et al., 2006). The product-centric organisation is characterised by many layers of management which implies that employees have hierarchical relationships towards each other (Burns & Stalker, 1961). Furthermore, the organisation relies on many rules, procedures, instructions and communications to facilitate operations (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Shah et al., 2006).
8 Table 1.
Overview of the Characteristics of the Product and Customer-centric Organisation.
Organisational Types
Structural Characteristics Product-centric Organisation Customer-centric Organisation
Specialisation High Low
Formalisation High Low
Centralisation High Low
Previous studies have shown the importance of internal organisational characteristics in attracting prospective employees (Aaker, 1997; Cable & Turban, 2003; Highhouse et al., 1999; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Rynes, 1991; Turban & Keon, 1993). Specifically, organisational characteristics influence initial perceptions on the organisation as they allow prospective employees to make assumptions on the organisational culture and values (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Rynes, 1991; Turban & Keon, 1993). Furthermore, research indicates that individuals have different perceptions on the attractiveness of organisational size due to different associations on related attributes such as bureaucracy and hierarchy (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). As individuals are attracted to different organisational characteristics, I expect that the structure of the product and customer-centric organisation also leads to different perceptions. Therefore, I propose that organisational types determine employer attractiveness.
9 attractiveness is defined as ‘the interest in working for an organisation by the prospective employee’ (Schein & Diamante, 1988).
However, I do not expect that there is a main effect between organizational type and employer attractiveness, although I do assume that personality characteristics moderate between the customer-centric organization and employer attractiveness.
The Moderating Effect of Personality Characteristics
Personality is defined as the stable characteristics and tendencies of individuals leading to differences in thoughts, emotions and behaviour (Deng et al., 2013). Both the Big Five and the Personal Need for Structure are utilized as personality measurements. The Big Five is the most common and extensive method to measure personality (Bretz et al., 1989; Judge & Cable, 1997; Lievens et al., 2001). The Big Five personality traits include extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, neuroticism and conscientiousness. The Personal Need for Structure measures the individual’s need for structure and control (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993).
Of the Big Five, extraversion affects the relationship between organisational types and employer attractiveness. Extraverts are defined as social, assertive and ambitious (Goldberg, 1990; Watson & Clark, 1997). These individuals want to express their skills and knowledge and to be perceived more superior to others (Barrick et al., 2002; Oreg, 2003; Paulhus & John, 1998; Saksvik & Hetland, 2009). Therefore, I expect that extraverted individuals are more attracted to specialised roles in hierarchical organisations. The customer-centric organisation is then perceived as less attractive, as it is not able to provide the individual high on extraversion with a status position based on superiority.
10 Second, openness to experience affects the relationship between organisational types and employer attractiveness. Individuals high on the openness to experience scale are defined as imaginative, original and eager to learn new opportunities (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Deng et al., 2013). These individuals want to learn as much as possible to fulfil their thirst for knowledge (McCrae & Costa, 1997). This means that their ideal work environment should not be repetitive: it should be dynamic with sufficient learning opportunities (Butt & Philips, 2008). Therefore, I expect that individuals high on the openness to experience scale are more attracted to organisations where they have diverse tasks and responsibilities such as the generalist roles in the customer-centric organisation.
H2: Openness to experience moderates the relationship between organisational structure and employer attractiveness; a positive relationship exists between individuals high the on openness to experience scale and the customer-centric organisation.
11 H3: Agreeableness affects the relationship between organisational structure and employer attractiveness; a negative relationship exists between individuals high on the agreeableness scale and the customer-centric organisation.
Fourth, neuroticism affects the relationship between organisational types and employer attractiveness. Individuals who score high on the neuroticism scale are defined as anxious, self-consciousness, hostile, depressive, and impulsive (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Consequently, these individuals lack the ability to make psychological adjustments, and they lack emotional stability (Judge et al., 1999). Neurotic individuals need to have rules and regulations to reduce their anxieties and insecurities. The product-centric organisation is characterized with many rules and regulations, which makes that organisational type attractive to the neurotic individual. Therefore, I expect that individuals who score high on the neuroticism scale are less attracted to the customer-centric organisation where there are only a few rules and regulations.
H4: Neuroticism moderates the relationship between organisational structure and employer attractiveness; a negative relationship exists between individuals who score high on the neuroticism scale and the customer-centric organisation.
12 score high on the conscientiousness scale are less attracted to the customer-centric organisation.
H5: Conscientiousness moderates the relationship between organisational structure and employer attractiveness; a negative relationship exists between individuals who score high on the conscientiousness scale for the customer-centric organisation.
Finally, personal need for structure affects the relationship between organisational types and employer attractiveness. Individuals with a high personal need for structure are defined as disliking ambiguity, and therefore, they tend to simplify their work and social life (Slijkhuis et al., 2013). Consequently, individuals with a high personal need for structure prefer to be employed in structural environments with clear rules and regulations to guide them through their activities (Slijkhuis et al., 2013). Therefore, I expect that individuals with a high personal need for structure are less attracted to the customer-centric organisation as there are few rules and regulations.
13 Conceptual Model
The following conceptual model represents the effect of the personality characteristics on the relationship between organisational types and employer attractiveness, specifically the customer-centric organisation. I expect that the customer-centric organisation does not influence employer attractiveness. The relationship can only be influenced through moderating influence of personality characteristics of the prospective employee.
Figure 1.
14 METHODOLOGY
The attractiveness of the product and customer-centric organisational employers was investigated through a scenario study, whereby organisational structure was manipulated. Prospective and graduate students in a convenience sample were asked to participate in an online questionnaire on the subject of employer attractiveness.
Design and Participants
The experiment employed a one-factorial between-subjects design with two organisational type conditions: product and the customer-centric organisations. In the product-centric condition, participants were presented with an organisation described as having a high level of specialisation, centralisation and formalisation. In the customer-centric condition, participants were presented with an organisation described as having a low level of specialisation, centralisation and formalisation.
A total of 176 prospective and recent graduated students (54% women) participated in the experiment with a majority of Dutch nationality (62%). Forty-one participants were removed from the sample size as they stopped after the first few questions. Another fifty-eight participants were removed after the manipulation checks. This lead to a sample size of 77 respondents with the majority of respondents prospective graduates (60% women; 82% not graduated). The participants came from different study fields: business and economics (44%), liberal arts (12%), social and behavioural sciences (12%), mathematics (4%), medicine (4%) and others (24%). The average age was 23.5 (SD = 1.46) years old.
Procedure
15 participants were presented with a scenario of a job vacancy at a fictitious organisation and asked to assess the employer’s attractiveness. Participation was voluntarily and confidentiality was assured1. Furthermore, participants were given the possibility to be informed of the outcomes of the study.
First, participants were asked to complete a pre-scenario questionnaire with questions regarding personality traits. Second, they were randomly distributed across the two organisational type conditions (product versus customer-centric organisation). Participants were asked to imagine that they were looking for job opportunities after their graduation. Then, a job vacancy was presented at an organisation described by several organisational structure characteristics. After the scenario, the participants were asked to indicate their level of attraction to the particular employer. Third, after the questions on employer attractiveness, they were asked to judge the scenarios on several items in terms of order, structure and predictability. Fourth, manipulation checks were presented to verify whether the participants understood the job vacancy scenarios accurately2. Finally, the participants were asked to complete several questions regarding their education and biographical information. The online questionnaire took approximately 10 to 15 minutes of the participants’ time.
Manipulations of Organisational Descriptions
The manipulation of product and customer-centric organisation were based on the three organisational structure characteristics defined by Burns and Stalker (1961)3: specialisation, centralisation and formalisation. The manipulation of the product-centric organisation was as follows:
1 Participants were allowed to leave statements unanswered. This resulted in several items with missing values.
These missing values have been replaced with their means to increase the internal consistency of these variables.
2 A total of 58 participants had to be removed from the sample size as their answers were not accurate to the
manipulation check.
3 A pilot test study was conducted on the organisational descriptions with five students to assess the validity of
16 Attractive job offer available for graduated students:
Our organisation is divided into functional divisions. You will be working in one of these functional divisions with colleagues from similar functional backgrounds and departments. Within a division, you will be responsible for a specific number of tasks, which makes you a specialist in your area of operation [specialisation]. There are many layers of management, which means that employees have a hierarchical relationship towards each other [centralization]. In order to work successfully, we rely on clear rules and procedure to get the work done [formalization]. Please send your CV and resume to GabiW@joboffer.com before the 31ste of May 2015.
The scenario for the customer-centric organisation had similar structure:
Attractive job offer available for graduated students.
Our organisation is divided into cross-functional segments. You will be working in one of these cross-functional segments with colleagues from different functional backgrounds and departments. Within this segment, you will be responsible for a broad number of tasks, which makes you a generalist in your area of operation [specialisation]. There are a few layers of management, and employees have egalitarian (equal) relationship towards each other [centralization]. In order to work successfully, we rely on a few rules and procedures to get the work done [formalization]. Please send you CV and resume to GabiW@joboffer.com before the 31ste of May 2015.
17 Figure 2.
Pictures of the structural characteristics of the product and the customer-centric organisation.
Measures
Employer Attractiveness. Employer attractiveness was measured with the scale developed by Schein and Diamante (1988). The scale consist of four statements. Example items include the following: ‘I feel I fit in the organisation’ and ‘I would very much like to work in this organisation’. The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘totally disagree’ to ‘totally agree’. The internal consistency of these four items were high (α = 0.91); therefore the average on these four items were taken as the employer attractiveness value.
Big Five. The Big Five personality traits were measured with the scale developed by Goldberg (1992). The scale consists of fifty items, ten items for each of the five personality traits. Example items include the following: ‘I have excellent ideas’, ‘I do not mind being the
18 centre of attention’, and ‘I spend time reflecting on things’. The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘totally disagree’ to ‘totally agree’. The internal consistency of these five personality traits, extraversion (α = 0.79), openness to experience (α = 0.74), agreeableness (α = .81), conscientiousness (α = .082) and neuroticism (α = 0.85), were high; therefore the average of the ten statements were taken as the value for each of the personality traits.
Need for Structure. The Personal Need for Structure was measured with the Personal Need for Structure-scale developed by Thompson and colleagues (1989). The scale consists of 12 statements. Example items include the following: ‘It upsets me to go into a situation without knowing what I can expect from it’ and ‘I enjoy the exhilaration of being in unpredictable situations’. The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘totally disagree’ to ‘totally agree’. The internal consistency of the items were high (α = 0.78); therefore the average of the twelve statements were taken as the need for structure value.
Control Variables. Previous studies indicate that age and gender are relevant in employer selection behaviour (Cable & Judge, 1994; Judge & Bretz, 1992). Both variables can influence the other variables, and therefore, they are utilized as control variables.
19 segments, c. neither, d. both’ or ‘In the organisation described employees have: a. an egalitarian relationship with each other, b. a hierarchical relationship, c. neither, d. both’ and ‘In the organisation described there are: a. clear rules and regulations, b. a few rules and regulations, c. neither, d. both’.
Supplementary measure. As an additional control measure, participants were asked to judge the job vacancy scenario in terms of twelve words related to the meaning of order, structure and predictability of the organisation. These items were taken from the study of Friesen and colleagues (2014). The words were rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 presents the mean, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables. The correlation between organisational type and employer attractiveness reveals that the customer-centric organisation is significantly correlated to employer attractiveness (r = .508, p < .01). Contrary to my expectation, organisational type was positively related to employer attractiveness meaning that there is probably a main effect of the customer-centric organisation on employer attractiveness.
20 characteristics and employer attractiveness. Thus, the results revel that there is only one independent variable, organizational type influencing employer attractiveness4.
Hypothesis Testing
The hypotheses were tested using Ordinary Least Squares Regression. All predictor variables were standardised. In order to examine the hypotheses of the moderation variables, a separate hierarchical regression analysis was performed on each of the personality characteristics. First, I regressed organisational structure on employer attractiveness. Results show that the organisational type positively influences employer attractiveness (B = .51, p <.00). This can be found in Model 1, Table 3. Contrary to my expectation, I found a significant positive effect of organisational type on employer attractiveness. It revealed that employer attractiveness is positively influenced by the customer-centric organisation. Second, I added the trait variables. Results show that none of the trait variables has a significant relation to employer attractiveness. Third, the hypothesised interactions between the organisational structure and the personality characteristics were added. The alteration in R² shows the extent to which the personality characteristics moderated the relationship between organisational type and employer attractiveness.
Concurrent with the hypotheses, I found significant interactions between organisational structure and 1) extraversion (B = .27, p <.03), 2) neuroticism (B = -.31, p <.02) and 3) personal need for structure (B = -.27, p <.04). Specifically, the results reveal that individuals low and high on the extraversion scale are more attracted to the customer-centric organisation, as well as individuals low on the neuroticism scale and personal need for structure. The simple slope analysis of the three personality characteristics can be found in Figures 4, 5 and 6 in the Appendix.
4 As there is only one independent variable affecting employer attractiveness, I chose to remove the control
21 The results of the other three variables, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness, did not show a significant moderation effect between organisational type and employer attractiveness. Therefore, the hypotheses 2, 3 and 5 are not confirmed5.
Supplementary Analysis
The mean associations on the product- and customer-centric organisations were analysed through a paired t-test. This allowed an examination of the differences in perception on both organisational types. The product-centric organisation was perceived by the study sample as more structured, resistant to change, well controlled, predictable, well-coordinated, stable and more dependable (each of them had a p < .05). The customer-centric organisation was perceived as more efficient, natural, unpredictable, fair and chaotic (each of these characteristics had a p < .05). The values of the mean associations are represented in Figure 36.
Figure 3: Mean associations of the product and customer-centric organisation.
5 I also performed an analysis with all trait variables and interactions included. However, the small sample size
did not provide sufficient statistical power. As expected, this analysis lead to non-significant results.
6 For the supplementary measure ‘safe’, I found no significant difference between the conditions. It is therefore
22 Table 2: Correlation table : Descriptive statistics and Pearson zero-order correlations among the study variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Age 23.51 1.46 - 2. Gender1 .60 .49 -.23* - 3. Organisational Structure² .38 .49 -.11 .04 - 4. Extraversion 3.96 .78 -.13 .07 0.01 (.79) 5. Openness to Experience 3.68 .49 -.05 -.24* -.16 .45** (.82) 6. Agreeableness 3.99 .56 -.27* .32** .16 .40** .17 (.81) 7. Neuroticism 2.70 .67 -.03 .12 .11 -.40** -.29* -.02 (.85) 8. Conscientiousness 3.53 .62 -.05 .16 -.04 .02 .02 .16 .04 (.82)
9. Personal Need for Structure 2.91 .50 0.08 .15 -.02 -.46** -.52** -.12 .41** .44** (.78)
10 Employer Attractiveness 3.02 .91 -0.01 -.19 .51** .00 .02 .12 .06 .01 0.1 (.91)
1
Dummy coded, 0 = male, 1 = female
² Dummy coded, 0 = product-, 1= customer-centric organisation
* p < .05 ** p < .01
23 Table 3: Hierarchical regression table7
7 The second step is removed from the hierarchical regression table otherwise it is not convenient for interpretation purposes. Employer Attractiveness
Predictors Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Main effects (z-scored)
Organisational Structure¹ .51 (.94)** .51 (.94)** 0.53 (0.98)** .49 (.90)** .52 (.97)** .51 (.95)** .51 (.94)** Extraversion -.17 (-.16) Openness to Experience .05 (.04) Agreeableness .15 (.25) Neuroticism .19 (.18) Conscientiousness -.01 (-.01)
Personal Need for Structure .19 (.18)
Interaction (z-scored)
Org Type* Extraversion H1: .27 (.39)*
Org Type * Openness to Experience
H2: .09 (.12)
Org Type* Agreeableness H3: -.04 (-.03)
Org Type * Neuroticism H4: -.31 (-.44)*
Org Type* Conscientiousness H5: .06 (.09)
Org Type* Personal Need for Structure
H6: -.27 (-.37)*
Model R2 .26 .26 .27 .26 .26 .26 .26
Interaction R2 .30 .27 .27 .31 .26 .30
24 DISCUSSION
In this research, I examined whether personality characteristics moderate the relationship between organisational type and employer attractiveness to the prospective employee. Contrary to my expectation, I found a main effect between organisational type and employer attractiveness. The results show that prospective employees are more attracted to the customer-centric organisation than to the product-centric organisation. Although I expected no main effect, it appears that individuals prefer to work in organisations where there is equality in the organisation. Similar results were also found by Baane, Houtkamp and Knotter, who argued that employee equality leads to an increase in employees’ happiness (Baane, Houtkamp & Knotter, 2011).
Furthermore, in line with research of Kirca, Jayachandra and Bearden (2005), prospective employees are more committed to organisations with a high level of collaboration between employees as created through a higher level of interconnectedness between departments. Moreover, these same authors argue that this leads to a higher level of improved performance for the organisation, as they are more orientated to the dynamics of the market, and thereby it increases the ability to understand more the needs and desires of the individual customer (Kirca et al., 2005; Slater & Narver, 1994). In specific, this can be interpreted as an increased level of attractiveness towards the customer-centric organisation, as prospective employees prefer to work in organisational structures with a high level of collaboration between employees and departments to achieve together a common objective of serving the individual customer in its needs and desires. Accordingly, the study revealed that prospective employees are more attracted to the equality and interconnectedness within the customer-centric organisation; and thereby they are more attracted to the organisational values of achieving the common objective of serving the individual customer.
25 moderated the relationship between organisational type and employer attractiveness. Specifically, the personality characteristics openness to experiences, agreeableness and conscientiousness did not reveal a signification relation. The second hypothesis on openness to experience predicted that individuals scoring high on openness to experience scale are more attracted to the customer-centric organisation. This is not confirmed through the study. However, the rejection of this hypothesis is contrary to previous literature which indicated that individuals scoring high on openness to experience scale are more attracted to highly complex and diverse jobs (De Jong et al., 2001; Herald, 2003). The difference in results can be explained through the described characteristics in the scenario. The scenario described a generalist role with a diverse number of tasks and responsibilities, which was meant to be perceived as complex and diverse. However, individuals who scored high on openness to experience scale did not perceive the scenario as it was intended, which suggests that the scenario was not an effective measure for individuals who score high on openness to experience scale.
26 cultural differences might explain the divergence in expectation and results.
The fifth hypothesis predicted that individuals scoring high on the conscientiousness scale are less attracted to the customer-centric organisation. The results do not confirm this hypothesis. The provision of a few rules and regulations offered the individual less structure to experience efficiency and success in its work. However, research showed that individuals high on the conscientiousness scale are goal-oriented and hard workers to achieve personal objectives (Carter et al., 2015). This means that the scenario study was not an effective measure for individuals high on conscientiousness, as their employer attractiveness is related to the achievement of personal objectives.
The other three personality characteristics did reveal significant relationships with employer attractiveness. The first hypothesis predicted that individuals scoring high on the extraversion scale are less attracted to the customer-centric organisation, as there are fewer management layers to recognise the superiority of the extraverted individual. The results indicate that these individuals are actually more attracted to the customer-centric organisation than to the product-centric organisation. This was contrary to my expectation. However, I assume that superiority is not only achieved in specialist roles, but as well in the diverse character of the generalist role, where the individual is able to reveal superior skills in the broad domain of tasks and responsibilities.
The fourth hypothesis confirmed that individuals who score low on the neuroticism scale are more attracted to the customer-centric organisation, as these individuals tend to prefer working in organisations where there is less structure in the form of rules and regulations. The same line of reasoning is also valid for the sixth hypothesis that confirmed that individuals who score low on the personal need for structure scale are more attracted to the customer-centric organization.
27 employer attractiveness of the customer-centric organisation over the product-centric organization. Specifically, the results of this research show that prospective employees who score high on the extraversion scale, low on the neuroticism scale, and low on the conscientiousness scale are more attracted to the customer-centric organization. Knowing which personality characteristics are attracted to a particular organisational type enables organisations in the selection of most attracted prospective employees. For example, it can be utilized in assessments, where organisations observe prospective employees through discovering their personality characteristics to find a desirable match between the individual and the organisation.
28 LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
This research has several limitations. First, the sample size was too small for generalization purposes, as 176 respondents participated and only 77 respondents were left in the sample size. The sample size had to be reduced by forty-one respondents who left the questionnaire after the first questions, which can mean that the questionnaire was perceived as too long, and thereby it did not align with the time estimate given beforehand. Furthermore, fifty-eight respondents were left out after the manipulation check due to misinterpretation of the scenarios. This is a large number, which means that the scenario was not completely understandable to many respondents. Further research should utilize a higher sample to ensure the validity of the outcome.
Second, the questionnaire was conducted in English as original English measurements were utilized. The majority of respondents had a Dutch nationality, which means there could have been interpretation difficulties through translation. Unfortunately, there was no question in the questionnaire to indicate their proficiency in English to counteract this argument. Further research should incorporate questions for English proficiency indication to reduce the possibility of interpretation problems.
29 CONCLUSION
Employer attractiveness has been examined in this study through two organisational types moderated through personality characteristics. The results show that individuals are more attracted to the customer-centric organisation than to the product-centric organisation. This means in specific that prospective employees are more attracted to organisational structures, where there are equalitarian relationships among employees, a diverse number of tasks and responsibilities, and a few rules and regulations to guide them in their activities to create and build relationships with the individual customer. Knowing these results, it reveals that both prospective employees and organisations are attracted to the customer-centric paradigm. Prospective employees prefer organisations that focus on the creation and building of customer relationships to satisfy the individual customer in its needs and desires.
30 REFERENCES
Aaker, J. 1997. Dimensions of brand personality, Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3): 347-356.
Avery, J., Fournier, S., and J. Wittenbraker (2014). Unlock the mysteries of your customer relationships: Are you connecting with consumers they way they want you to?
Harvard Business Review, July-August, 72-81.
Baane, R., Houtkamp, P., and Knotter, M. 2011. Het nieuwe werken ontrafeld; over Bricks, Bytes & Behaviour. Assen: Koninklijke van Gorcum.
Backhaus, K. and Tikoo, S. 2004. Conceptualizing and researching employer branding, Career Development Journal, 9 (5): 501-517.
Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L. and Piotrowski, M. 2002. Personality and job performance: test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 43-51.
Berthon, P., Ewing, M. and Hah, L.L. 2005. Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding, International Journal of Marketing, 24 (2): 151-172.
Branham, L. 2001. Keeping the people who keep you in business: 24 ways to hang on to your most valuable talent. New York: American Management Association.
Bretz, R.D., Ash, R.A. and Dreher, G.F. 1989. Do the people make the place? An
31 Bretz, R.D. and Judge, T.A. 1993. Person-organisation fit and the theory of work
adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure and career success. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 21: 50-59.
Burke, R.J. and Deszca, E. 1982. Preferred organisational climates of type A individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21: 50-59.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock Publications.
Butt, S. and Philips, J.G. 2008. Personality and self-reported mobile phone use, Computers in Human Behaviour, 24 (2): 346-360.
Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. 1994. Pay preferences and job search decisions: A person-organisation fit perspective. Personnel Psychology,47: 317-348.
Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. 2003. The value of organisational reputation in the recruitment context: a brand-equity perspective, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33 (11): 2244-2266.
Costa, P.T. Jr., and McCrae, R.R. 1992. Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13: 653-665.
Carter, N.L., Guan, L., Maple, J.L., Williamson, R.L., Miller. J.D. 2015. The downsides of extreme conscientiousness for psychological wellbeing: The roll of obsessive compulsive tendencies. Journal of Personality, DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12177.
32 De Jong, R.D., Velde, M.E.G. and Jansen, P.G.W. 2001. Openness to experience and growth
need strength as moderators between job characteristics and satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9 (4).
Fader, P. (2012). Customer centricity: Focus on the right customers for strategic advantage. Wharton Executive Essentials: Pennsylvania.
Friesen, J.P., Kay, A.C., Eibach, R.P. and Galinsky, A.D. 2014. Seeking structure in social organisation: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106 (4): 590-609.
Furnham, A., and Gunter, B. 1993. Corporate culture: Diagnosis and change. In C.L. Cooper and I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology (pp. 233-621). Chichester: Wiley.
Galbraith, J.R. 2005. Designing the customer-centric organisation: A guide to strategy, structure, and process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goldberg, L.R. 1992. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure, Psychological Assessment, 4: 26-42.
Graziano, W.G. and Eisenberg, N.H. 1997. Agreeableness: a dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnston and S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology: 795 -824. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
33 Highhouse, S., Zickar, M.J., Thorsteinson, T.J., Stierwalt, S.L., Slaugther, J.E. 1999.
Assessing company employment image: An example in the fast food industry, Personnel Psychology, 52: 151-172.
Hoekstra, J.C., Leeflang, P.S.H., and D.R.Wittink (1999). The customer concept: The basis for a new marketing paradigm, Journal of Market Focused Management, 4, 43-76.
Holland, J.L. 1973. Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J.L. 1985. Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Judge, T. and Bretz, R.D. 1992. Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 261-271.
Judge, T., Higgins, C., Thoresen, C. and Barrick, M. 1999. The Big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52: 621-652.
Judge, T. and Cable, D.M. 1997. Applicant personality, organisational culture, and organisational attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50 (2); 359-394.
Kirca, A.H., Jayachandran, S., and W.O. Bearden (2005). Market orientation: A meta -analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance, Journal of Marketing, 69, 24-41.
34 Lievens, F., Decaesteker, C., Coetsier, P. and Geirnaert, J. 2001. Organisational
attractiveness for prospective applicants: a person-organisation fit perspective, Applied Psychology: an International Review, 50 (1): 30-51.
Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. 2003. The relationship of instrumental and symbolic
attributes to a company’s attractiveness as an employer, Personnel Psychology, 56: 75-102.
MacDonald, K. 1992. Warmth as a developmental construct: An evolutionary analysis. Child Development, 63: 753-773.
MacDonald, K. 1995. Evolution, the five-factor model, and levels of personality. Journal of Personality, 63: 525-567.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. 1997. Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In Hogan, R., Johnson, J. and S. Brigs (Eds), Handbook of Personality Psychology: 835-846. San Diego: Academic Press.
McCrae, R.R., and John, O.J. 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60: 175-216.
Mohan, G. and Mulla, Z.R. 2013. Openness to experience and work outcomes: Exploring the moderation effects of conscientiousness and job complexity. Great Lakes Herald, 7 (2): 18-36.
35 Narver, J.C., and F.S. Stanley (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business
profitability, Journal of Marketing, 54 (4), 20-35.
Neuberg, S.L. and Newsom, J.T. 1993. Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (1): 313-138.
Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.T., Sorensen, K.L., and Feldman, D.C. 2005. Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58: 367-408.
Oreg, S. 2003. Resistance to change: Developing an individual difference measure, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (4): 608-693.
Paulhus, D.L., and John, O.P. 1998. Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: the interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives, Journal of Personality, 66: 1025-1060.
Ramani, G., and V. Kumar (2008). Interaction orientation and firm performance, Journal of Marketing, 72 (1), 27-45.
Reinartz, W., Krafft, M. and Hoyer, W.D. 2004. The customer relationship management process: its measurement and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (3): 293-305.
Reinartz, W., and V. Kumar (2002). Mismanagement of customer loyalty, Harvard Business Review, July.
36 Saksiv, I.B. and Hetland, H. 2009. Exploring dispositional resistance to change. Journal of
Leadership and Organisational Studies, 16: 175-183.
Schein, V.E. and Diamante, T. 1988. Organisational attraction and the person-environment fit, Psychological Reports, 62: 167-173.
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place, Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.
Shah, D., Rust R.T., Parasuraman A., Stealin R., and Day, G.S. 2006. The path to customer centricity, Journal of Service Research, 9 (2): 113-124.
Slater, S., and J. Narver (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58 (1), 46-55.
Slijkhuis, J.M., Rietzschel, E.F. and van Yperen, N.W. 2013. How evaluation and need for structure affect motivation and creativity, European Journal of Work and
Organisational Psychology, 22 (1): 15-25.
Thompson, M.M., Naccarato, M.E. and Parker, K.E. 1989. Assessing cognitive need: the development of the personal need for structure and the personal fear of invalidity scales, paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological
Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Tom, V.R. 1971. The role of personality and organisational images in the recruitment process, Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 6, 573-592.
Turban, D.B. and Keon, T.L. 1993. Organisational attractiveness: an interactionist perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 184-193.
37 -ARTThe%20World%20is%20not%20Enough%20-Van%20den%20Bergh.pdf (accessed on the 15th of May 2015).
Vroom, V.H. 1966. Organisational choice: a study of pre- and post decision processes, Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, I: 212-225.
Yao, Q. and Moskowitz, D.S. 2015. Trait agreeableness and social status moderate
behavioural responsiveness to communal behaviour. Journal of Personality, 82 (2) :191-201.
38 APPENDIX
Figure 4: Moderation effect Extraversion
Figure 5: Moderation effect Neuroticism 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Product-centric organization Customer-centric organization
E m p loye r At tr ac tive n ess Low on extraversion High on extraversion 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Product-centric organization Customer-centric organization
39 Figure 6: Moderation effect Personal Need for Structure
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Product-centric organization Customer-centric organization
