graduate attraction?
Research, MSc Human Resource Management.
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business.
12-7-2012 PUBLIC VERSION Eliene Helmers Kanaaldijk 9 8355 VH Giethoorn (06) 52281782 e.h.helmers@student.rug.nl studentnr.: 2041529
Supervisor University of Groningen: Drs. J. van Polen
Second corrector University of Groningen: Dr. K.S. Prins
Supervisor Organization X: A. Haisma MSc
ABSTRACT
The aim of this research, was to investigate how job- & organizational attributes and employer knowledge affect Generation Y graduate attraction. We examined preferred job- and organizational attributes of graduates. Additionally, we assessed which knowledge graduates possess about Organization X. We interviewed employees of Organization X who belong to Generation Y, 118 last-year graduates filled in a questionnaire and desk research was carried out. There is a relationship between providing desired job- and organizational attributes and successfully attracting graduates. Results indicate that Generation Y is a demanding generation in terms of job- and organizational attributes, such as training opportunities and promotion prospects. On the other hand, Organization X realizes that their success depends on their workforce. Thus, Organization X tries to offer preferred job- & organizational attributes. This research also indicates that employer knowledge affects Generation Y graduate attraction. Graduates are not really familiar with Organization X as an employer. Graduates are not really aware of, or able to indicate Organization X as a potential employer. This negatively affects graduate attraction. Nevertheless, if graduates are familiar with Organization X, they perceive the reputation and image as rather good. By developing an honest and winning value proposition, using employer branding and by utilizing low-information recruitment practices Organization X can increase her attractiveness. In addition, Organization X can make use of employee endorsements, company visits, internships and youth apprenticeships. This paper also presented some limitations, e.g. there may be subgroups within the Generation, which might bias the results. Lastly, suggestions for future research are presented.
1. INTRODUCTION
“The most critical resource wears shoes and walks out of the door everyday” (Ridderstråle, Nordstöm, 2000). Many scholars claim that if a company possesses human resources which are valuable, scarce and cannot be substituted, it will be the foundation for organizational success and survival (Greening & Turban, 2000; Srinivasan, 2011; Wayne & Casper, 2012; Huang, Huang & Chiu, 2011; Saks & Uggerslev, 2010).
Nevertheless, companies encounter an aging workforce and at the same time less people enter the labor market (Streb, Voelpel & Leibold, 2008; Saks & Uggerslev, 2010). As claimed by Potter (2005) several demographic factors such as longevity and reduced birthrates lead to a labor market which consists of relative more older employees compared to younger employees (Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Streb et al., 2008).
According to the European Commission the median age of a European employee was 39 in 2004 and increases to 49 in 2050 (McKinnon, 2010). However, this particularly holds for developed countries like the Netherlands (Streb et al., 2008). In 2012, the process of a reducing potential workforce, which includes people between 20-64 years, started (CBS, 2011). This can be seen in figure 1.1.
FIGURE 1.1
Amount of people between 20-64 (CBS, 2011)
Prognosis 2008 Apperception /
The aging workforce has a major effect on companies. Companies are now trying to attract younger employees which caused a ‘War for talent’ (Saks & Uggerslev, 2010; Streb et al., 2008). Many organizations are competing to attract Generation Y, which contains people born between 1982 and 1999. Consequently, the competition of attracting employees of this generation is fierce and problematic for companies (Saks & Uggerslev, 2010).
Attracting Generation Y employees is also fierce and problematic for Organization X. Organization X, employs 300fte, with an average age of 46.
Attracting Generation Y employees is severe for several positions within Organization X (Organization X, 2011). If no activities are undertaken to attract Generation Y employees, Organization X will face a problem in the future. Therefore Organization X would like to attract Generation Y graduates. By attracting graduates Organization X also hopes to create an age diverse workforce as well (Heneman III, Judge, & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011). The HR-department wonders how Organization X can succeed in attracting Generation Y graduates. Therefore, this research will be executed in commission of Organization X. The purpose of this research is to investigate the influence of both ‘job- and organizational attributes’ and ‘employer knowledge’ on ‘Generation Y graduate attraction’. The reason for focusing on these variables is that, although there have been many studies on the aging workforce and the war for talent (Streb et al., 2008), the effects of employer knowledge and job- & organizational attributes have not often been researched (Collins, 2007; Turban & Greening, 1996; Terjesen, Vinnicombe & Freeman, 2007). However, both employer knowledge and job- & organizational attributes affect the process of attracting employees (Collins, 2007; Powell, 1984). Job- and organizational attributes are features related to a job or organization, whereas employer knowledge is the manner job seekers perceive a potential employer (Collins, 2007; Powell, 1984). Collins (2007) claims that graduates must be able to and willing to indicate a company as a potential employer. This depends on the knowledge graduates possess about an employer (Collins, 2007). Then, job seekers will choose the employer who offers conditions which are congruent with their preferences (Noe & Hollenbeck, 2010).
Further, Lindquist (2008) states that graduates’ preferences are influenced by the generational cohort, in this case generation Y, they belong to.
In this research graduates of generation Y are last year students who will finish their education in 2012.
This study has both a theoretical and practical significance. This research contributes to the body of work by examining the influence of job- & organizational attributes and employer knowledge on attracting Generation Y graduates. We determined, which preferences Generation Y graduates have with regard to job- and organizational attributes, since this affects the recruitment of Generation Y graduates. Further, we assessed which knowledge graduates possess about Organization X as an employer, because this variable also affects Generation Y graduate attraction. Organization X can use this research to determine to what extent Generation Y graduates possess employer knowledge and which job- & organizational attributes are interesting for this generation. Organization X can then act on these attributes and decide how their recruitment strategy may look like (Collins, 2007). Consequently, it provides Organization X insight on how to deal with the war for talent and an aging workforce.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND QUESTIONS
This chapter is subdivided into main themes. First, the general process of Generation Y graduate attraction will be presented. Then, job- and organizational attributes will be discussed, whereas in the third part employer knowledge will be addressed.
2.1 Generation Y graduate attraction
Applicant attraction, or in this case Generation Y graduate attraction, is defined as the process of enthusing and convincing graduates, so that graduates perceive a specific organization is interesting to work for (Williamson, King Jr, Lepak & Sarma, 2010). Attracting qualified graduates, enables an organization to be better able to select the best applicants, since the talent pool is increased (Williamson et al., 2010; Turban, 2001). However, if companies would like to effectively attract employees from specific age groups, companies must be aware of generational distinctiveness, and could adapt their attracting strategies to generational cohorts (McDonald & Hite, 2008; Lindquist, 2008). Generational distinctiveness is created by several generational cohorts and these groups of people are born in the same period. Generational cohorts all have a common persona (Lindquist, 2008). Personas are distinguished by three features: 1) membership in a common generation, 2) common beliefs and behaviors, 3) a common location in history (Lindquist, 2008:56). In addition, each generational cohort possesses resemblances in attitudes, values, work styles and expectations (Soulez & Guillot-Soulez, 2011).
Nowadays, the current workforce of companies consist of individuals from three generations: 1) the baby boomers (born between 1946-1964), 2) Generation X or GenX (born between 1965-1981) and 3) Generation Y (born between 1982-1999). The last generation is also known as GenMe, Millenials, nGen and iGen (Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman & Lance, 2010).
We will focus on Generation Y only, since the graduates in which Organization X is interested, belong to this generational cohort.
results oriented, in order to move to the next level (Yeaton, 2008). In addition, this generation thinks that information is available anytime. Gen Yers are highly educated and value education and knowledge (Lindquist, 2008; Yeaton, 2008; Beekman, 2011; Bristow et al., 2011). Colleagues who make contributions to the organization are respected, and respect is not related to a position (Lindquist, 2008; Yeaton, 2008). About one third of this generation grew up with divorced parents and with individualism, which makes this generation individualistic (Lindquist, 2008; Yeaton, 2008; Bristow et al., 2011).
In order to realize dreams, making career is very important for Generation Yers. As a result, this generation wants opportunities for making career (Lindquist, 2008). This generation makes plans for the future, with regard to salaries and retirement (Lindquist, 2008). At the same time, Gen Yers switch employers very often (Hughes & Rog, 2008). Quality of life is another important motive. Family and friends are of importance and therefore, this generation demands flexibility in their work schedules to create work life balance (Lindquist, 2008; Yeaton, 2008; Twenge et al., 2010; Beekman, 2011; Bristow et al., 2011). In addition, they would like to work at home instead at the office anytime, anywhere (Yeaton, 2008; Beekman, 2011). Generation Yers are aware of the globalization and cultural differences (Yeaton, 2008; Beekman, 2011; Lindquist, 2008; Bristow et al., 2011). This generation has been educated with group projects (Yeaton, 2008; Lindquist, 2008). This impatient, critical and demanding generation wants everything immediately such as, challenging work, promotion prospects, good pay and benefits and corporate social responsibility (Ng, Schweitzer, Lyons, 2010; Lindquist, 2008; Beekman, 2011).
Since graduate attraction is the process of enthusing and convincing graduates that an organization is great to work for, the extent to which graduates think that their preferences match with what the company can offer in return, affects the attraction process (Catanzaro, Moore & Marshall, 2010; Noe & Hollenbeck, 2010). This is related to job and organizational attributes, since these attributes say something about the working conditions, and thus what the company offers (Powell, 1984; Greening & Turban, 2000; Turban, 2001). As claimed by Schneider, Goldstein & Smith (1995), employers must be aware of graduates’ preferences, in order to attract them (Slaughter, Stanton, Mohr, Schoel III, 2005; Catanzaro et al., 2010).
about an organization as an employer, this will negatively affect the process of attracting graduates (Collins, 2007). Graduates are then not able, or not willing to indicate an organization as a potential employer (Collins, 2007). As a result, they are not motivated to search for information about the employer (Collins, 2007).
Now, we will zoom in on job- & organizational attributes and employer knowledge.
2.2 Job and organizational attributes
2.3 Employer Knowledge
If job seekers seek for information about an employer, they will develop employer knowledge. Collins (2007:180) made use of the definition developed by Cable and Turban (2001) who defined employer knowledge as: “the beliefs held by job seekers about the recruiting company as an employer”. Employer knowledge consists of three dimensions: employer familiarity, employer reputation and employer image. The first dimension, employer familiarity, is according to Cable & Turban (2001) defined as: “job seekers’ awareness of, or ability to identify a company as a potential employer” (Collins, 2007:181). Graduates interpret well-known employers as more positive than other companies which are less familiar, because employer familiarity leads to feelings which acts like signals of the authenticity of an organization as an employer. Thus, by being familiar with an employer, graduates are aware of, or able to identify a company as a potential employer. Therefore, employer familiarity is able to influence the process of attracting graduates (Collins, 2007). The second dimension, employer reputation, can according to Cable & Turban (2001) be defined as the convictions graduates have about how others view the organization as an employer (Collins, 2007). Graduates are influenced by the opinion their friends and students have about an employer. Hence, it is claimed that a positive reputation leads to more applicants (Collins, 2007). The third dimension of employer knowledge is employer image. Employer image can according to Cable & Turban (2001), be defined as convictions graduates have with regard to job and organizational attributes and associations related to the organization, e.g. ‘this company will provide me above average benefits’ (Collins, 2007). If people think that there is a match between their preferences and what the company can offer in return, this positively affects the attraction process (Catanzaro, Moore & Marshall, 2010; Noe & Hollenbeck, 2010). Therefore, graduates are more willing to indicate a company as a potential employer, if the employer image is good (Collins, 2007).
By being familiar with an employer, an individual does not know much about the image of an employer. Nevertheless, individuals are motivated to search for more information about the employer. As a result there is a relationship between employer familiarity and employer image (Collins, 2007).
2000; Collins, 2007). Employer image and reputation affect employees’ self-image, because people’s self-concepts are affected by their linkages to social groups or firms. This process is also known as the social identity theory (Greening & Turban, 2000). This theory, thus helps to explain why people belong to a group and why they would like to become an employee of an organization or not (Greening & Turban, 2001). Consequently, this affects the beliefs job seekers have about being a member of the organization and about potential jobs (Noe & Hollenbeck, 2010; Greening & Turban, 2000). Employer knowledge, which is also related to the reputation and image of an employer, is thus an essential component which is able to influence the process of attracting graduates.
2.4 Research questions
In this section several theories concerning the research question are presented. The aim of this research is to investigate the influence of both job- & organizational attributes and employer knowledge on Generation Y graduate attraction. This leads to the following questions:
Research question: "How do job- & organizational attributes and employer knowledge affect Generation Y graduate attraction?”
Sub question 1: How do preferences of Generation Y graduates with regard to job- and organizational attributes affect Generation Y graduates attraction?
Sub question 2: How do existing job- and organizational attributes affect Generation Y graduate attraction?
Sub question 3: How does the possession of employer knowledge by Generation Y graduates affect Generation Y graduate attraction?
FIGURE 1.2
Model of the relationship between job- and organizational attributes, employer knowledge and Generation Y applicant attracting.
3. METHODS
3.1 Data collectionRespondents for the questionnaires were recruited by approaching graduates. We contacted Windesheim University of applied sciences seated in Zwolle and ROC A12 seated in Ede, which offers intermediate vocational education. These schools were asked to cooperate. They advised us to visit the schools and hand over the questionnaire to those graduates who would fill in the
questionnaire. In order to have respondents from several levels of education, we sent a digital questionnaire to former (pre) master colleagues of the University of Groningen.
These people are selected, since it is claimed that studies about recruiting job seekers must be concentrated on the group from which a company would like to recruit (Turban, 2001). The students received a cover letter which described the study, and guaranteed confidentiality. 118 students filled in the questionnaire and 48,3% were male, whereas 51,5% was female. These participants had an average age of 22,47 (SD = 2,36). Most participants were enrolled in a study on a higher vocational educational level (45,8%). In Appendix A the entire sample profile can be found.
On the other hand, since only eighteen people of Generation Y work for Organization X, we decided to conduct four interviews with Generation Y employees about job- and organizational attributes. Another reason for conducting interviews was to reduce the workload, since employees claimed they have to fill in many surveys. In order to reduce the risk that employees of Organization X do not deliberately fill in the survey, conducting interviews was also a reason for gathering data.
The interviews enabled us to compare preferences with regard to job- and organizational attributes of Gen Yers, with the actual presence of job- and organizational attributes offered by Organization X.
However, we do know that current employees of Organization X might give socially desirable answers (Baarda & De Goede, 2006). For example, interviewed employees may think that they should answer that their relationship with their supervisor or manager is good, although these employees think the relationship with their manager is not good. As a result, data might be misrepresented. Therefore, we did a desk-research to increase objectivity. Another reason for conducting desk research was because some items are hard to compare with other companies for employees. For instance, employees may think that their job is secure, however desk-research may indicate that Organization X cannot provide job security. Consequently, data might be misrepresented as well.
3.2 Measures
were asked to fill in a questionnaire. This questionnaire contained 26 propositions regarding job and organizational attributes. In order to determine which organizational attributes are of importance to Gen Yers, we used items which are utilized by Terjesen et al. (2007) in their analysis of final year students’ perception of the importance of organizational attributes. Some examples of items regarding organizational attributes are ‘Care about employees as individuals’, ‘Friendly and informal culture’, ‘Opportunity in the early years, to move around the organization and work in different areas/roles’. In addition we used items related to job attributes utilized by Ng et al. (2010) and Sutherland (2011). Some examples of items which are related to job attributes are: ‘Good relations with your supervisor or manager’, ‘Job security’ and ‘Choice in your hours of work’. Noteworthy, we saw some similarities between job and organizational attributes, e.g. variety in the type of work, good promotion prospects and good people to work with. The entire list of job- and organizational attributes can be found in appendix B. We used these existing attributes of the peer reviewed articles, because we saw that people have different preferences with regard to these attributes. We would like to know how Generation Y responds to these attributes.
By using a Likert-scale that ranged from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), graduates were able to value the job and organizational attributes.
Sub question two. In order to determine existing job- and organizational attributes, semi-structured interviews were conducted. These interviews were conducted with employees of Organization X who belong to the Generation Y cohort. Semi-structured interviews enabled us to ask for more clarification (Barnball, 1994). Questions of the interview were based on the items regarding job- and organizational attributes which can be found in appendix B. It enabled us to compare the preferences of Generation Y job seekers with the actual presence of job- and organizational attributes. For example, if generation Y graduates state that they highly prefer ‘Choice in hours of work’ and employees of Organization X state they do not have the opportunity to have a choice in the hours of work, Organization X could think about how to solve this problem.
work’, ‘Employ people with whom you have something in common’ and ‘Good relations with supervisor/manager’. To measure ‘Training and development opportunities’, ‘Good promotion prospects’ and ‘Opportunity to move around the organization and work in different areas/roles’ we analyzed the collective labor agreements. This also allowed us to assess ‘Good initial salary level’, ‘Good pay during employment’ and ‘Good fringe benefits’. These collective labor agreements are applicable to all Dutch establishments of Organization X. However, these collective labor agreements are also applicable to other companies within the same branch. It will be too complicated to compare these agreements with agreements for other branches and for several jobs. Therefore we limited ourselves to say in general something about the salary level and the fringe benefits. We make use of the mission, vision and the salary policy of Organization X, to assess the salary level and fringe benefits.
To determine to what extent Organization X commits to social responsibility, we analyzed their policies with regard to Corporate Social Responsibility. This also enabled us to determine whether Organization X has a meritocracy and whether Organization X provides her employees variety in daily work. However, for determining variety in daily work, we also made use of the mission and the vision.
Although items like ‘Freedom to work on your own initiative’ and ‘Work you like doing’ are difficult to measure objectively, we decided to use the Barometer. The ‘Barometer’ is a tool used to become more successful with utilizing soft factors and acting on the mission and vision. The Barometer measures whether Organization X is acting on the mission and vision. In order to successfully do that, readiness to change among the workforce is a precondition. Therefore, this tool measures employee satisfaction and the degree to which employees think the organization they work for is a winning company. In order to guarantee confidentiality, Organization X hired Bing Research. The Barometer contains several questions, e.g. ‘Organization X provides me freedom to work on my own initiatives’ and ‘I like doing my work’.
In order to determine whether Organization X is ‘Regarded as a prestigious employer’ we looked at the organizational size and awards won by Organization X. This also enabled us to say anything about ‘Opportunity to work abroad’ and ‘Opportunity to travel’. However, for the last two attributes, we also analyzed the long term assignment policy.
To determine whether Organization X has an ‘Internationally mix of colleagues’, we looked at a percentage of employees with non-Dutch nationality.
As stated before, we made use of the collective labor agreements. These collective labor agreements were also used to say something about ‘Convenient hours of work’, ‘Choice in hours of work’. In addition, also the handbook regarding terms of employment was used for these items.
To assess a ‘Friendly and informal culture’, we analyzed the guideline with regard to the organizational culture. This guideline is applicable to Organization X in order to have the right culture and to act on the mission and vision.
Lastly, to asses ‘Job security’ we looked whether forced resignations took place at Organization X.
employer image include ‘A job at Organization X would have a good working environment’ and ‘Organization X would provide me jobs with good prospects for work-life balance’. Respondents rated items for each measure on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). The entire list of employer knowledge measures can be found in appendix C.
3.3 Data analyses
For the 26 job- and organizational attributes, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. This was done to assess differences in ratings of job- and organizational attributes. In addition, we performed a one-way ANOVA. This enabled us to look for differences among independent variables in the same sample.……….. Previous research has shown that variables such as gender, work experience and level of education, are able to influence the outcomes of a study (Baarda & De Goede, 2006). For example, differences in preferences regarding job- and organizational attributes exist between gender. Males prefer a high starting salary (Terjesen et al., 2007; Chapman et al., 2005). Therefore, we were interested whether gender, sector of study, internship and work experience affected the rating of job- and organizational attributes.
For determining to what extent Generation Y graduates possess employer knowledge, we made also use of one-way ANOVA’s. By performing these one-way ANOVA’s we were also investigating whether gender, sector of study, internship and work experience affect the possession of employer knowledge. However, before performing one-way ANOVA’s the mean value of each of the measures related to employer familiarity, employer reputation and employer image had to be calculated. Then, a reliability check was performed by using the Cronbach’s Alpha. The reliability of employer familiarity (α = 0.81), employer reputation (α = 0.9) and employer image α = 0.82) were sufficient.
4. RESULTS
In this chapter the results of the questionnaire, interviews and desk research will be presented. First, the results for sub question one will be provided. Second, the results of sub question two will be rendered. Lastly, the results of sub question three will be provided.
4.1 Results sub question one: Preferences of Generation Y graduates with regard to job- and
organizational attributes………..
Graduates of generation Y rated ‘Invest heavily in the training and development of their employees’ (M = 4.43) as the most important attribute. The remainder of the top-five desirable attributes list consist of ‘Work you like doing’ (M = 4.41); ‘Good promotion prospects’ (M = 4.32); ‘Forward looking approach to their business’ (M = 4.27) and ‘A pure meritocracy’ (M = 4.24). All other attributes also have a relative high mean, however ‘opportunity to work abroad’ (M = 2.73) and ‘Internationally diverse mix of colleagues’ (M = 2.87) have a mean ≤ 3 (see table 1).
TABLE 1.
Preferred job- and organizational attributes Generation Y (N=118)
Attribute M SD
Invest heavily in the training and development of their employees. 4.43 .63
Work you like doing. 4.41 .51
Good promotion prospects. 4.32 .73
Forward looking approach to their business. 4.27 .71
A pure meritocracy. 4.24 .64
Variety in daily work. 4.21 .62
Freedom to work on your own initiative. 4.19 .63
Job security. 4.16 .7
Good pay during employment. 4.07 .71
Good fringe benefits. 4.06 .73
Provides work-life balance. 4.04 .79
Convenient hours of work. 4.03 .67
Scope for creativity in your work. 3.98 .74
Employ people with whom you feel you will have things in common. 3.93 .78
Good initial salary level. 3.91 .77
Friendly and informal culture. 3.8 .84
Good relations with your supervisor or manager. 3.75 .69
Opportunity, in the early years, to move around the organization and work in different areas/roles.
3.71 .91
Choice in hours of work. 3.7 .82
Care about their employees as individuals. 3.41 .81
Relatively stress-free work environment. 3.4 .95
Commitment to social responsibility. 3.37 .82
Regarded as a prestigious employer. 3.24 .9
Opportunity to travel. 3.08 1.08
Internationally diverse mix of colleagues. 2.87 .95
TABLE 2
Desired job- and organizational attributes explained by work experience.
Attribute Yes related to study (N = 70) Yes, not related to study (N= 31) No (N = 15) M M M Invest heavily in the training and development of their employees. *** 4.39 4.7 4.27
Work you like doing. * 4.34 4.61 4.33
Good promotion prospects.* 4.33 4.33 4.47
Forward looking approach to their business.** 4.29 4.39 4.13
A pure meritocracy. 4.2 4.35 4.27
Variety in daily work.** 4.16 4.26 4.47
Freedom to work on your own initiative. 4.17 4.29 4.13
Job security. 4.07 4.16 4.5
Good pay during employment. 3.96 4.32 4.13
Good fringe benefits. 4.09 4.03 4.07
Provides work-life balance. 3.94 4.16 4.33
Convenient hours of work. 3.97 4.16 4.07
Scope for creativity in your work. 3.88 4.19 4.07
Employ people with whom you feel you will have things in common.* 3.78 4.16 4.2
Good initial salary level.** 3.78 4.22 4.07
Friendly and informal culture.** 3.6 4.16 4.00
Good relations with your supervisor or manager. 3.74 3.68 3.93
Opportunity, in the early years, to move around the organization and work in different areas/roles.
3.7 3.65 3.93
Choice in hours of work. 3.79 3.81 4.0
Care about their employees as individuals. 3.45 3.35 3.46
Relatively stress-free work environment. 3.34 3.36 3.67
Commitment to social responsibility. 3.37 3.38 3.4
Regarded as a prestigious employer. 3.33 3.07 3.2
Opportunity to travel. 3.1 2.94 3.4
Internationally diverse mix of colleagues. 2.89 2.97 2.6
Opportunity to work abroad. 2.76 2.61 3
By performing ANOVA we see that (relevant) work experience leads to a different rating of job- and organizational attributes. Examples are: ‘Invest heavily in the training and development of their employees’ (F (3,114) = 6.715, p = .00), ‘Work you like doing’ (F (3,114) = 2.69, p = .05), ‘Forward looking approach to their business’ (F (3,114) = 2.71, p = .048), ‘Friendly and informal culture’ (F (3,114) = 3.84, p = .012) and ‘Employ people with whom you feel you will have things in common’ (F (3,114) = 2.6, p = .056). Furthermore, the items: ‘Variety in daily work’ (F (3,114) = 3.88, p = .011), ‘Good promotion prospects’ (F (3,114) = 2.5, p = .063), ‘Good initial salary level’ (F (3,114) = 3.91, p = .011), ‘Good pay during employment’ (F (3,114) = 2.43, p = .069) were also rated differently. Additionally, we conducted the Bonferroni post hoc analyses for job- and organizational attributes of p < .05. By inspecting the mean scores we see that graduates with work experience (M = 3.6, SD = .87) related to their study rated ‘Friendly and informal culture’ lower than graduates with working experience which is not related to their study (M = 4.16 SD = .73).
4.2 Results sub question two: existing job- and organizational attributes.
First the results of the four interviews will be provided. Then, the results of the desk-research will be rendered. The job- and organizational attributes will be presented here in the same sequence as they were in appendix B.
4.3.1 Results from the interviews
Care about their employees as individuals. One employee stated: “Organization X cares about her employees, however it depends on the job you have. If you work in the production, you have to work overtime regularly. Organization X could make some improvements on how often production workers have to work overtime.” All other employees had the same statements. Employees feel they are valued not as just employees, but also as individuals. All employees are allowed to share their point of view. In summary, all interviewees are satisfied about the degree to which Organization X cares about employees as individuals.
Freedom to work on your own initiative. All interviewees were very satisfied with the freedom they have to work on their own initiative. All interviewed employees claimed that Organization X provides her employees the freedom to work on their own initiative. One employee stated: “An example of freedom to work on your own initiative are autonomous teams which are responsible for the workability of work areas. It allows us as team members to work on their own initiative”. In addition, other employees claimed that several projects allow employees to work on their own initiative. However, all interviewees claimed that freedom to work on your initiative also depends on the job they have. Office staff has more freedom to work on their own initiative than production personnel. However, production personnel also encounter freedom to work on their own initiative. If employees would like to have more freedom to work on their own initiative they can become project members.
Scope for creativity in your work. Just as many other attributes, a scope for creativity in work also depends on the job an employee has. According to one employee: “Office personnel will encounter a higher scope for creativity in their work in comparison to production personnel. However, if you enter a project you have more creativity in your work”. Employees are asked to be a member of a project. In addition, if they would like to increase their scope for creativity, they can ask their team leaders.
work at Organization X for a very long time. They would not do that if they did not like the work they do and if we do not like our employer. Very often we are celebrating 40, 25, or 12.5 year tenure of one of our colleagues.’
Forward looking approach to their business. All interviewees agreed that Organization X has a forward looking approach to their business and they appreciate it. One interviewee claimed that this leads to encouragement of employee development. On the other hand, the other interviewees claimed that this is related to job security. One employee stated: ‘We are one of the biggest companies within this branch! We would not have this position if we did not have a forward looking approach on our businesses. Two other employees claimed that if one works for a big organization with a forward looking approach one does not have to fear that the company will capsize. It is also stated that the winning company sessions are an example of the forward looking approach to their business.
Friendly and informal culture. All Interviewees claimed they face a friendly and informal culture. According to one employee: “It feels like we are one big family at Organization X. However, in history everyone knew each other. Nowadays, Organization X has so many employees, and as a result we do not know everyone anymore. Nevertheless, we have a friendly and informal culture”. Organization X has an open door system. All employees are allowed to visit other departments. They sometimes only face some tensions between production personnel and office personnel.
Employ people with whom you feel you will have things in common. All interviewees claimed they have many colleagues. According to one employee:“Organization X employs so many employees, thus there are always people with whom you feel you will have things in common”. Therefore, they always have colleagues with whom they have things in common. However, they claim that they have relatively old colleagues.
Good relations with your supervisor or manager. All interviewees were satisfied with the relations they have with their supervisors or managers. One interviewee claimed that the feedback course was a required condition in order to have a good relation. This course enables all employees to both give and receive feedback.
Variety in daily work. Although a function is related to specific tasks, Organization X is doing everything to make the job as attractive as possible. This also includes creating variety in daily work.
Opportunity, in the early years, to move around the organization and work in different areas/roles. Nowadays, more opportunities exist to move around the organization and work in different areas/roles, according to interviewees. This depends on the personal development plan. All employees are allowed to do an ‘internship’ at other departments. It does not matter whether this kind of ‘internship’ is related to one’s current job or not. If an employee states that (s)he would like to work on another department or would like to switch function, a plan will be set up.
Good promotion prospects. According to all interviewees, Organization X is really eager to train and develop her employees. As a result, employees are prepared for promotions. Thus, all interviewees claim that good promotion prospects exist.
Good initial salary level & good pay during employment. All interviewees claimed that their salary offered by Organization X is in line with the market. “On Monster board I can see that my salary is in line with the market”, one employee said.
A pure meritocracy. All interviewees claimed that the salary offered by Organization X is in line with the market. As a result they said it should be a meritocracy. The balance between the rewards and work is good according to them.
Good fringe benefits. All interviewees are satisfied with the provided fringe benefits. They are for example very satisfied about the amount of spare days they have. Overall, they think that the fringe benefits are in line with the market due to trade unions.
Opportunity to work abroad. Organization X has many factories in several countries. This enables employees to work abroad, if they like to. One employee stated:“Last year, one of our colleagues went to Italy, because he would like to work there”. A special policy is developed which indicates the benefits employees can enjoy if they work abroad, such as language & intercultural training and vacation home residence. This also indicates that there is an opportunity to work abroad.
Opportunity to travel. The opportunity to travel depends on the job you have. Some jobs, e.g. purchasing jobs, require employees to travel a lot. Also for this attribute a policy is developed.
Provides work-life balance. Whereas one interviewee claimed that a work-life balance depends on oneself, other interviewees claimed that a work-life balance also depends on Organization X. For example, a production related job does not really provide a work-life balance. Sometimes people have to work overtime. On the other hand, office staff has to prepare for meetings etc., which might lead to a work-life misbalance. However, interviewees think it is part of the job. If employees complain a lot, the HR-department will work on that.
Relatively stress-free work environment. Interviewees claimed that Organization X is doing anything in order to create a stress-free work environment. As an example, they come up with health management. Interviewees claim they have to fill in surveys about stress, a work-life balance. They have to fill in this survey very soon.
Convenient hours of work. Production personnel has to work overtime regularly. If they are not able to work overtime, some team leaders say they have to look for another job. Overall, employees claimed that the intention of Organization X with regard to convenient hours of work is good, however interviewees state that it depends on the communication skills of team leaders. In addition, all interviewees agree that employees knew that they could work overtime before they started their jobs. Nevertheless, Organization X asks those employees whether they can handle it.
Commitment to social responsibility. ‘It is part of our policy’. Organization X sticks to human, labor and environmental rights, according to the interviewed employees.
Job security. All interviewees claimed that they are glad to work for a big company, which performs well. If an establishment of Organization X has to close, employees can sometimes work at other establishments in the same function. However, sometimes one can better speak of employment security, according to the interviewees. An employee does not always have the possibility to work within the same job. Two interviewees even state that Organization X has a special policy for people who will lose their job, although they perform well. They claimed that Organization X is doing everything in order to reduce forced resignations.
4.3.2 Desk research results.
Invest heavily in the training and development of their employees, good promotion prospects & Opportunity to move around the organization and work in different areas/roles. According to the collective labor agreements, all establishments of Organization X should encourage training and development of its personnel (with a permanent contract, a fixed-term contract, fulltime and part-time) as much as possible. Three kinds of trainings can be followed: 1) Legally and essential studies with regard to the current function, 2) Career-oriented studies and 3) Personal studies which add value for Organization X. The total budget for training and development for 2012 allows all employees to have at least one or more training each year. For higher personnel Organization X has a training academy. This academy provides for example behavioral capability programs, management and leadership capability programs and functional capability programs, e.g. consumer marketing.
According to Organization X, both employees and management should be prepared for the future. Training and development are important for Organization X. Therefore, good promotion prospects exist. All employees at Organization X have the opportunity to develop a personal development plan. In this plan development requirement and decisions can be found and this plan will be discussed each year with the manager. In this plan, an employee can also state that (s)he would like to move around in organization and to work in different roles.
Good initial salary level, good pay during employment, a pure meritocracy and good fringe benefits. As stated before, two collective labor agreements are applicable to Organization X. These collective labor agreements are also applicable for other employers within the same branch. We make use of the mission and vision of corporate HR-department. The mission and vision are partly expressed in good payment and good fringe benefits. A department of Organization X, Compensation & Benefits, is partly responsible for the execution of the mission and vision. This department is responsible for competitive compensation & benefits, which are legal and cost effective as well. Ultimately, it results in the ability of Organization X to attract and retain the right talents. In the salary policy Organization X’s starting point is that the salary level is in line with other employers within the same branch.
Lastly, a pure meritocracy is also of importance to Organization X. The rewards they offer, must be fair. This is also part of the CSR policy.
Commitment to social responsibility. A part of the mission of Organization X is related to corporate social responsibility. This means that Organization X attach much value to corporate social responsibility. Organization X claims that CSR is related to a positive employer brand, which is important for attraction and retention of employees. Some components of the CSR policy have an influence on workplace practices, such as a healthy and safe workplace; providing a work-life balance. In the CSR policy Organization X claimed she would like to have social impact. Social impact entails for example charity supporting activities and employee volunteering days. Furthermore, Organization X has a code of conduct and a whistleblower policy.
Variety in daily work. Variety in daily work is also part of the CSR policy and the mission and vision of Organization X. Organization X would like to be an attractive employer, by providing variety in daily work.
work), employees rated a 7.7. Moreover, employees rated freedom to work on your own initiative a 7.5. In addition, Organization X makes use of autonomous teams. These teams are responsible for a work area which is efficient, safe and which guarantees quality. It enables employees to be creative and to work on their own initiative.
Forward looking approach to their business. Organization X’s ambition and strategy are written down in the ‘XXX’. XXX should enable Organization X to achieve the following results:
Provides work-life balance and relatively stress-free work environment. In the CSR policy and in the strategic direction of Organization X, Organization X claims she would like to offer working conditions which are attractive. This also includes reducing the work pressure as much as possible and realizing a work-life balance for its workforce.
Regarded as a prestigious employer. Although Organization X employs 239 people, the entire cooperation Organization X employs XXX people in XX countries. Organization X belongs to the biggest companies of the XX branch worldwide. As a result, it gives Organization X the opportunity to have power.
Opportunity to work abroad. Since Organization X has establishments in XX countries, employees have the opportunity to work abroad. It sometimes happens that employees would like to work abroad, e.g. on March 2012 one employee of Organization X started working for Organization X Italy.
Opportunity to travel. Depending on the job one has, there are opportunities to travel, e.g. the purchasers, have to travel a lot (and abroad).
Internationally diverse mix of colleagues. Of the 239 employees working at Organization X, six people have a non-Dutch nationality. This is 2.5% which is rather low. However, many employees now have a Dutch passport, but were born in another country.
allowed to work more than 36 hours a week. These people are in principal not allowed to work for more than 9 hours a day. In addition, within a period of six weeks, these people are not permitted to work for more than 216 hours. Most of them work in shifts (morning (6.30am – 2.30pm, afternoon 2.30pm-10.30pm, nightshift 10.30pm-6.30am). They are compensated for working on unpalatable hours and for working on weekends.
Choice in hours of work. At Organization X, higher personnel is able to have a choice in their hours of work. From 7 am to 7 pm these employees are allowed to work on the office of Organization X. In addition, they can work at home. Production personnel do not have a choice in their hours of work, since they work in shifts.
Friendly and informal culture. ‘XXX’ is a guideline, applicable for Organization X, in order to have the right culture and to act on the mission and vision. This guideline is very important for a friendly and informal culture. Organization X strives to have a people-oriented, open and approachable culture. Soft factors such as culture, are very important to Organization X.
Job security. According to the collective labor agreements, we see that during the running time of these collective labor agreements collective forced resignations are in principle not allowed. Forced resignations are only allowed, if the employer thinks he cannot prevent these forced resignations, e.g. it will negatively affect the entire organization. Employees are protected by the Social Plan which is part of the collective labor agreement. The Social Plan provides employees, who lose their jobs due to reorganizations, several privileges. Receiving salary if an employee has to quit his job is an example of a privilege. Another possible privilege is the possibility to apply for a function before all other employees within the entire organization are able to apply for a function. The purpose of the Social Plan is to mediate for a new function within Organization X. If this is not possible, Organization X will act as an agent in the employees’ search of a new job outside the organization. In addition, the aim of the Social Plan is to organize procedures with regard to decisions which lead to the closing or a reorganization of an establishment of Organization X. A Social Plan provides employees the right to appeal to disputes committee.
4.3 Results sub question three: possession of employer knowledge by Generation Y. The mean score of employer familiarity was 2.35 (SD = .94, N = 118), whereas the mean scores of employer reputation and image were respectively 3.43 (SD = .47, N = 29) and 3.58 (SD = .53, N = 28). This can be seen in table three.
TABLE 3. Employer knowledge
Employer knowledge N M SD
Average Employer familiarity 118 2.35 .94
Organization X is one of the first to come to mind when I think of employers.
1.96 1.11
I can recognize Organization X among other employers. 2.86 1.18 I am aware that Organization X hires students from this school. 2.68 1.29 I am very familiar with Organization X as an employer 1.89 1.15
Average Employer reputation 29 3.43 .47
I believe that other students in the school think highly of Organization X.
3.34 .48
My friends have high regard for Organization X as an employer. 3.28 .45 I believe that my friends hold a favorable impression of
Organization X as a good employer.
3.51 .58
Other students in my school hold a favorable impression of
Organization X as an employer.
3.58 .63
Average Employer image 28 3.58 .53
Organization X offer jobs with a good working environment. 3.71 .6 Organization X would provide me with above-average benefits. 3.53 .74 Organization X would provide jobs with good prospects for work-life
balance.
3.42 .74
Organization X would provide jobs with good career opportunities. 3.67 .67 Organization X would provide me the type of job that I want. 3.39 .99 A job at Organization X would have interesting assignments and
responsibilities.
3.71 .6
5..DISCUSSION
5.1 Discussion of results. The purpose of this research was to investigate the influence of both job- and organizational attributes and employer knowledge on Generation Y graduate attraction. On the one hand, the success of graduate attraction depends on the extent to which graduates think that their preferences with regard to job- and organizational attributes match with what the company can offer in return (Catanzaro et al., 2010: Noe & Hollenbeck, 2010). Therefore, a company must be aware of preferences Generation Y graduates have with regard to job- and organizational attributes (Slaughter et al., 2005; Catanzaro et al., 2010; Schneider et al., 1995; McDonald & Hite, 2008). At the same time, a company must be aware of already existing job- & organizational attributes. Consequently, a company can determine to what extent it already meets preferred attributes. In addition, a company can assess which preferred job- & organizational attributes could be met in the future in order to attract Generation Y graduates.
On the other hand, success of Generation Y graduate attraction depends on the extent to which graduates possess employer knowledge (Cable & Turban, 2001; Collins, 2007). If graduates are not aware of and do not have good beliefs about an organization as an employer, this will negatively affect the process of attracting graduates (Collins, 2007). Graduates are then not able, or not willing to indicate an organization as a potential employer. However, if graduates are very familiar with a company and both the reputation and image of the employer are good, graduates are more likely to indicate the company as a potential employer. At the same time graduates are more willing to indicate the company as a potential employer, since they are more enthusiastic about the employer.
and flexibility are demanded (Yeaton, 2008, Lindquist, Twenge et al., 2010; De Meuse & Mlodzik, 2010; Bristow et al., 2011). According to Bristow et al. (2011:78) ‘Gen-Yers need to be challenged and excited, are opinionated, want flexible jobs, view a company as a job or career store in which they are customers, have less direction, and earn money to spend rather than save’.
However, although this generation is raised up with the globalization, our results show that they do not really like to work abroad or to have colleagues from all over the world. This might be the case, since they are rather selfish and family and friends are very important to this generation (Lindquist, 2008; Yeaton, 2008; Twenge et al., 2010; De Meuse & Mlodzik, 2010; Beekman, 2011; Bristow et al., 2011). By working abroad, Generation Y graduates may think that they are not often able to spent time with friends and family.
On the other hand, we can see that work experience has an influence on the results. Graduates with work experience, which is not related to their study, rated ‘Investments in training and development’, higher than graduates with relevant work experience or without work experience. Graduates with relevant work experience do not attach as much value to ‘Friendly and informal culture’ than other graduates with work experience which is not related to their study. Overall, we can conclude that Generation Y is an impatient and demanding generation. This generation would like to work hard and would like to do anything to achieve career progression. Ultimately, it enables them to chase their dreams. Nevertheless, Gen Yers do not want to become workaholics (Lindquist, 2008; Yeaton, 2008; Beekman, 2011).
At the same time, Organization X provides good job- and organizational attributes which satisfies employees. However, a few jobs and its related tasks result in the fact that ‘choice in hours of work’ and ‘convenient hours of work’ are not always guaranteed. Organization X realizes that their organizational success depends on the quality and motivation of her employees. As a result, the company would like to be one of the ten best employers in the countries where it has establishments in 2015. Thus, Organization X must offer preferred job- and organizational attributes.
able to see Organization X as a potential employer. Organization X does not belong to one of the first companies which come to mind when graduates are thinking of an employer. Additionally, graduates do not always recognize Organization X and graduates are not always aware that the company hires students. However, only 28 graduates were able to fill in questions regarding image and reputation. Still, these results indicate that the image and reputation of Organization X are not really convincing to graduates to work for this organization.
5.2 Practical implications. Although the job- and organizational attributes provided by Organization X are rather good, the problem is that graduates are not really familiar with the organization. Therefore, Organization X could improve employer familiarity, by making use of low-information recruiting practices (Collins, 2007). These low-information recruiting practices can also be applied for improving employer reputation. Even though graduates are not really focused on gathering information about organizations, they become aware of the employers message (Collins & Han, 2004). At the same time, it takes little effort for graduates to be exposed to low-information recruitment practices. Further, it provides graduates with positive signals about the employer, even though they are not searching for information about employees (Collins & Han, 2004). Thus, Organization X can use general recruitment posters, slogan, banners, ads and sponsoring activities. An example may be recruitment posters in schools or recruitment adds in student papers (Collins & Han, 2004).
In order to improve employer image as well as employer reputation, Organization X could develop a more extensive and distinctive proposition. The proposition can focus on desired job- and organizational attributes, e.g. by stating that Organization X heavily invests in training and development of their employees or that they provide good promotion prospects (Gowan, 2004). If job seekers are aware of the fact that organizations attach value to their desired attributes, this is positively related to the process of attracting them (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Ng et al., 2010). Further, Organization X could introduce employee endorsements. By organizing student events or at least being present at events, Organization X enables employees or interns to tell students how they perceive working for Organization X. In addition, these employees or interns can inform students about job- and organizational attributes (Collins & Han, 2004; Saks & Uggerslev, 2010; Heneman III et al., 2011). However, students must be willing to listen to those stories, thus these stories must be interesting (Collins & Han, 2004). Lastly, Organization X could invest in internships and apprenticeships. This enables students to experience what it is like to work for Organization X. At the same time, they can be offered jobs after fulfilling their internships (Zhao & Liden 2011; Heneman III et al., 2011). This also holds for youth apprenticeships, which is a combination of on the job training and education (Noe & Hollenbeck, 2010). This also enables these interns and apprentices to share their experiences with regard to the employer with other students. Since graduates are influenced by other students and friends, this can have a positive effect (Collins, 2007). Consequently, it helps Organization X to deal with the war for talent.
might have filled in questions regarding ‘employer reputation’ and ‘employer image’. On the other hand, we may consider whether the items used for ‘employer familiarity’, ‘employer reputation’ and ‘employer image’ were good. We used the items of Collins (2007), which is a peer-reviewed research. However, one might wonder whether items like ‘I am very familiar with Organization X as an employer’ are not too strict. If a respondent is a bit familiar with Organization X, this person is probably opinionated about the reputation and image of Organization X. Nevertheless, since this respondent is only a bit familiar with Organization X, this person will not fill in questions regarding reputation and image of Organization X.
Another limitation is that Gen Y graduates do not have fulltime work experience and the employees we interviewed, do have full time work experience. This might bias the results, since research indicates that work experience may have an influence on results (Terjesen et al., 2007). For example, if people do have work experience, they perceived some job- and organizational attributes they attach value to. As a result, they are more able to indicate which attributes they prefer (Terjesen et al, 2007).
In addition, we do not know which job decisions our respondents will make. Are the desired job- and organizational attributes also applicable to the jobs, our respondents will apply for? We focused on actual behavior, however we are aware that this behavior might differ over time (Terjesen et al., 2007). For example, our respondents indicated that they attach value to investments in training and development. However, if some Gen Yers are not able to get a job, they might take a job with fewer investments in training and development, in order to be employed (Terjesen et al., 2007). Another limitation is that we did not ask every Generation Y employee of Organization X about the job- and organizational attributes. Maybe, not all employees agreed on all the items. Lastly, we focused on Generation Y to deal with the war for talent and an aging workforce. However, we also could have focused on, e.g. Generation X. These people already possess work experience and can also be offered jobs. However, Organization X would like to have an age diverse workforce. Many employees of Organization X, belong to generation X or the baby boomers. Therefore, Organization X needs to attract younger employees of Generation Y.
6. REFERENCES
Ambler, T. & Barrow, S., 1996, ‘The employer brand’. Journal of Brand Management, 4: 185-206.
Baarda, D.B. & De Goede, M.P.M., 2006, Basisboek Methoden en Technieken. Handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van kwantitatief onderzoek. Groningen/Houten: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Backhaus, K. & Tikoo, S., 2004, Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career development international, 9(5): 501-517.
Barnball, L. K. & While, A., 1994. Collecting data using semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 19, 328-335
Beechler, S. & Woodward, I.C., 2009, The global ‘war for talent’. Journal of International Management, 15 (3): 273-285
Beekman, T., 2011, Fill in the generation gap. Strategic Finance, 93(3): 15-17
Bristow, D., Amyx, D., Castleberry, S.B. & Cochran J.J., 2011, A cross-generational comparison of motivational factors in a sales career among gen-x and gen-y college students. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 31(1): 77-85.
Burkce, R.J. & Ng, E., 2006, The changing nature of work and organizations: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 16 (2): 86-94.
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 Resource Management, 20: 115-163.
CBS, 2011. Bevolkingstrends. Statistisch kwartaalblad over de demografie van Nederland. 59 (1), assessed on: 14 March 2012 from: http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/476F84A8-B876-43B4-AA21-350338C052EB/0/2011k1b15pub.pdf
Chambers, E.G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S.M., Micheals III, E.G., 1998, The war for talent, McKinsey Quarterly, 3: 44-57
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, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (5): 928-944.
Collins, C.J., 2007, The interactive effects of recruitment practices and product awareness on job seekers’ employer knowledge and application behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1): 180-190.
Collins, C.J. & Han, J., 2004, Exploring applicant pool quantity and quality: the effects of early recruitment practice strategies, corporate advertising and firm reputation. Personnel psychology, 57: 685-717
Edwards, M.R., 2010, An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel Review, 39 (1): 5-23.
Gowan, M.A., 2004. Development of the recruitment value proposition for geocentric staffing. Thunderbird International Business Review, 46(6): 687-708.
Greening, D.W. & Turban D.B., 2000, Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39(3): 254- 280.
Huang, W.D., Huang W. & Chiu, C., 2011, The impact of specified professional development programme information as a marketing tool for effective recruitment. Human Resource Development International, 14(1): 57-73
Hughes, J. C. & Rog, E., 2008, Talent management: A strategy for improving employee recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organizations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20 (7): 743-757.
Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G. & Anseel, F., 2007, Organizational identity and employer image: towards a unifying framework. British Journal of Management. 18: 45-59
Lindquist, T.M., 2008, Recruiting the millennium generation: the new CPA. CPA Journal, 78(8): 56-59.
McDonald, K.S. & Hite, L.M., 2008, The next generation of career success: Implications for HRD, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10 (1): 86-103.
McKinnon, R., 2010, An ageing workforce and strategic human resource management: staffing challenges for social security administrations. International Social Security Review, 63 (3/4): 91-113.
Meuse, de, K.P & Mlodzik, K.J., 2010, A second look at generational differences in the workforce: implication for HR and Talent Management. People & Strategy, 33 (2): 50-58.
Ng, E.S.W, Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S.T., 2010, New generation, great expectations: A field study of the Millennial Generation, Journal of Business Psychology, 25 (2): 281-292.
Noe, R.A. & Hollenbeck, J.R., 2010, Human resource management. Gaining a competitive advantage, New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Organization X, 2011. Strategisch bezettingsplan 2011-2015.
Organization X, 2011. CSR policy.
Organization X.com, accessed on: 2nd of May 2012.
Potter, E., 2005, Part 1: changing workforce demographics and management challenges. Retrieved from http://mcgraw-hill.co.uk/tpr/chapters/1591395216.pdf. March 15.
Powell, G.N., 1984, Effects of job attributes and recruiting practices on applicant attraction: A comparison, Personnel Psychology, 37: 721-732.
Ridderstråle, J. & Nordstöm, K., 2000, Funky business: Talent makes capital dance, Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Saks, A.M. & Uggerslev, K.L., 2010. Sequential and combined effects of recruitment information on applicant reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3): 351-365.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H.W. & Smith, D.B., 1995, The ASA Framework: An Update. Personnel Psychology, 48(4): 747-773.
Slaughter, J.E., Stanton, J.M., Mohr, D.C. & Schoel III, W.A., 2005, The interaction of attraction and selection: implication for college recruitment and Schneider’s ASA model. Applied
psychology: an international review, 54(4): 419-441
Soulez, S. & Guillot-Soulez, C., 2011, Recruitment marketing and generational segmentation: a critical analysis based on sub-segment of Generation Y. Recherché et Applications en Marketing (English edition), 26(1): 39-55.
