Master thesis University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Msc Business Administration
Marketing Management and Marketing Research
Wendy Wieringa 1736582
The effect of a firm’s social networking site on firm awareness,
reputation and image
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Msc Business Administration
Marketing Management and Marketing Research
Author Wendy Wieringa 1736582 Havenstraat 1 9964 AN Wehe-den Hoorn 06-55750405 w.s.wieringa@student.rug.nl Supervisors
First supervisor: H. Risselada Second supervisor: Y.C. Ou
External Supervisor
M. van Koert Organization: Achmea
Management summary
In this study the effect of the social networking sites Facebook and LinkedIn on the
awareness, image and reputation of the employer is investigated. The main goal is to get more insight in the effects of social networking sites during the recruiting time and if there are differences in effects between the sites. This leads to the following research questions:
“Does the use of the social networking site Facebook and LinkedIn as a medium provide positive evaluations on the image, reputation and awareness for the organization as an
employer?”
“Are their differences in evaluation when only one or both of the sites are presented?”
The study discusses the effect of the social networking sites Facebook and LinkedIn on the aided and spontaneous awareness before and after seeing one or both pages of the employer. Also, the effects of the Facebook and LinkedIn or a combination of the reputation and
instrumental and symbolic image of the employer are discussed. In the literature review these aspects are further described and explained in relation to this research. The hypotheses are tested by use of an experiment that is divided in two surveys which were filled in by 174 respondents.
The main conclusion of this study is that in the post-test more respondents are spontaneous aware of the employers. This increase cannot be explained only by seeing a social media page. The differences are too small in comparison with the control group. Furthermore, if there is an effect found between the Facebook and/or LinkedIn page with the dependent variables, the effect is negative. For example, this occurs by the employer
Preface
This master thesis is part of the final phase of the combination of the study Marketing Management and Marketing Research at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Writing the thesis was not always easy, it was an educational challenge. Therefore, I want to thank my
supervisor of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Hans Risselada, for his support and valuable provided knowledge and feedback. Also, I want to thank my second supervisor of the
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Yi-Chun Ou for here provided feedback. And I want to thank my external supervisor of Achmea, Mitchell van Koert, for the opportunity to get insights in the social media challenge of Achmea.
Moreover, I want to thank Kirsten van Wingerden and Jori van de Spijker of Metrixlab for their advice and knowledge during the phase of creation the questionnaire.
Finally, I want to thank all the respondents who filled in the questionnaires. Without their help no results can be made and the thesis could not have been finished.
TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 3 PREFACE 4 1. INTRODUCTION 6 2. ACHMEA 11 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 13 3.1 Employer awareness 14 3.2 Employer reputation 15
3.3 Employer brand image 18
4. RESEARCH DESIGN 22 4.1 Research method 22 4.2 Questionnaire design 23 4.3 Data collection 25 4.4 Measurement 26 4.5 Plan of analysis 27 5. RESULTS 29 5.1 Descriptives 29 5.2 Factor analyses 33
5.3 Hypotheses testing: Pooling 38
5.4 Hypotheses testing: General impression 39
5.5 Hypotheses testing: Spontaneous and aided awareness 41
5.6 Testing for multicollinearity 43
5.7 Hypotheses testing regarding reputation and image 45
5.8 Testing for mediation 53
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 56
6.1 Awareness 56
6.2 Reputation and image 57
6.3 Overall conclusion 58
6.4 Managerial implications 59
7. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 61
REFERENCES 62
APPENDIX A: SURVEY 1 67
APPENDIX B: SURVEY 2 74
APPENDIX C: RESULT POOLING 77
1. Introduction
Organizational recruitment has been defined as the process of seeking out and attempting to attract individuals from the external labor market who are capable of and interested in filling job vacancies (Heneman et al. 1983). Recruitment is a crucial resource function for
organizations for at least three reasons (Taylor & Collins, 2000). First demographic trends such as smaller supply of younger workers combined with the retirement of baby boomers will make it increasingly difficult for organizations to fill job openings (Collins & Stevens, 2002). Second, the most talented job seekers often receive multiple job offers, enabling them to critically evaluate potential employers (Van Hoye & Sakes, 2011). Third, there will always be hard to fill vacancies for which organizations must compete fiercely to attract applicants even in an otherwise loose labor market (Ployhart, 2006). These reasons make the competition between companies in attracting good qualitative employees stronger and more difficult which make, as noted by Taylor and Collins (2000), recruitment one of the most important elements of HR management.
Attracting employees starts with creating awareness of the organization. A strategy that companies are going to use more is “employer branding” (Edwards, 2010). Employer branding is an activity where principles of marketing are applied to HR activities in relation to current and potential employees (Edwards, 2010). While branding is not a new concept, using social networks in the process of recruiting, hiring, or firing individuals is relatively new (Davinson et al. 2011). Although it is new, more and more organizations are turning in Facebook for recruiting (Smith and Kidder, 2010). In 2006, 21% of the organizations are using social networking for HR. A poll report by the Society for human research management shows that in 2011, 56% of the organizations frequently use social networks for recruitment purposes. Before this trend, companies only had a company site, some of the companies also had a special company recruitment website, e.g. Achmea, Connexxion and Uwv. This site has become a key tool for companies to generate applicants, often serving as the primary vehicle by which job applicants initially gather information about the attributes of the organization (Williamson et al., 2003).
Social networking sites have emerged as important communication channels used by
individual consumers to create content, distribute materials, share ideas, express opinions, and use information and knowledge (Heinrichs et al., 2011). Two predictors of the attraction of the applicant to an organization comes from the recruitment process characteristics, this includes the attractiveness and usability of various recruiting activities (Cober et al., 2003) and the extent to which recruiting messages are perceived as complete, realistic, timely and credible (Breaugh et al., 2008; Cable & Yu, 2006). Smith and Kidder (2010) recommend that firms should take advantage of the opportunity to enhance their organization identity through the use of Facebook. The social networking sites can be a complementation to the firm’s recruitment site in the sense that for example Facebook has a reach of 522 million daily active users this can generates a large platform to attract people to the firm’s additional and
recruitment site. For example when a blogger of Achmea posted a new blog, an
announcement is given on the Facebook site with a link to the recruitment site of Achmea. Because a firm needs to attract customers and employees a selection need to be made which information can be placed on a company website. Collaborating with social media a company can provide more targeted information. For example Achmea had used here Facebook page to inform and target people for the Achmea Business Course. During the Achmea Business Course Facebook was used each day to post what was happened during that day sometimes along with pictures. On the site of Achmea only a summary is given about the Achmea Business Course whit some pictures afterwards. It gives the possibility to send more information out to create more traffic to the firm’s website.
Another reason why social networking can be seen as a complementation to the recruitment and the company website is the fact that social networking is a place where it is important to insert on regular basic information, to ensure that the page still is attractive to job seekers. On the recruitment or company website information is placed which is valuable for a longer time span. In that case employers can make a cross-reference to the company site and social networking site, this increase the traffic to both. Because attracting traffic to the
company or recruitment site is difficult, due to the factual information about the company and the long time span the same information is stored.
Because the effectiveness of later recruitment stages can only maintain or degrade the size and quality of the initial applicant pool. Besides the recruitment process characteristics the attraction of the applicant to an organization is also influenced by organizational
characteristics, such as an image of the company, work environment, familiarity, location and size (Gatewood et al., 1993) and job characteristics such as salary, opportunities for
advancement, location, career programs or organizational structure (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). But what Lievens and Highhouse (2003) also mention is that organization attraction is determined by more than simply instrumental attributes of the job, but also by more symbolic meanings associated with being a part of a particular firm. These symbolic meanings are part of the brand image. In the branding literature symbolic meanings are seen as the reasoned or emotional perceptions consumers attach to specific brands (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). For example the feeling that a brand is innovative or that it is a reliable company. In the employer market it becomes more difficult for job seekers to differentiate the employers. This is due to the fact that the aspects of a company or a job become transparent by the use of the internet. So job seekers can use symbolic traits to distinguish organizations form another (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Walker et al, 2011). There is a lack of research on how organizations can manage their symbolic brand image during recruitment. Job seekers organizational image perceptions can be based on information such as news reports, a scandal or employee relation’s violations. This research will take the social networking sites as a medium where job seekers can base their perceptions on.
Besides the aspect of the image of the employer, also the firm’s reputation may influence job application decisions. Particularly in the early stages of recruitment when job seekers must decide which jobs to apply for and which jobs to remove from their
Davinson et al. (2011) mention there can be a difference in clientele between the sites, LinkedIn is seen as a social networking site with a more professional focus (Smith and Kidder, 2010), whereas Facebook is largely used for making social connections. Twitter can be considered a real-time network driven by people all over the world that allows individuals to share and discover the current events (Heinrichs et al., 2011). This difference in the purpose of the sites can indicate that it also can generate differences in the effects on the awareness, reputation and image of the organization as a potential employer. The social networking sites Facebook and LinkedIn are included in this research. Facebook because it has already a large amount of users and this number is still growing. Besides that it is seen as a social site which people use more frequently than LinkedIn. For making a good comparison, LinkedIn is included as the second social networking site. This is because most employers have both, Facebook and LinkedIn.
This leads to the underlying research questions:
“Does the use of the social networking site Facebook and LinkedIn as a medium provide positive evaluations on the image, reputation and awareness for the organization as an employer?”
“Are their differences in effectiveness between the social networking sites Facebook and LinkedIn on the evaluations?”
In this research the Facebook and LinkedIn page of five employers in the Netherlands, which are present on social media, will be used in an experimental setting to investigate the research question. In this research an employer is present on social media when an employer has a social networking page which they are using at least on a monthly basis and where they are placing information on, at least once a month. The employers included in this research are insurance companies; ABN Amro, Achmea, Menzis, Nationale Nederlanden and Rabobank
The findings of this study are relevant to the recruitment and branding literature in the way that it will give insights in if the use of the upcoming social networking site (Facebook and LinkedIn) as a recruitment medium has an effect on the awareness, image and reputation of the employer.
use social media to generate awareness of the employer. For employers this research will give insights in if Facebook and/or LinkedIn have an influence on the awareness, image and reputation of the company this will have an impact on the recruitment strategy of
organizations, but also for job seekers. The strategies of recruiting, job posting and searching are going to be different.
Before the conclusions and recommendations can be made, the first step of this
research will be to give a literature review of the variables. After that the questionnaire will be described, where after the relations will be analyzed and the conclusions will be compared with the literature. Finally, some areas for further research will be raised. As an example how social media can be used by a company, the next part will show how Achmea, as one of the largest insurance companies in the Netherlands deals with it. This is included because it shows how Achmea has changed its recruitment strategy and how they use a social
2. Achmea
In the introduction a short announcement is given about the company Achmea, now we will go in the company and its strategy.
Achmea is one of the largest insurance companies in the Netherlands. Achmea is the corporate brand which consists of different other brands such as; FBTO, Centraal Beheer Achmea, Avero Achmea, Agis and Interpolis.
In 2011 Achmea had changed their recruitment strategy; the reason for the introduction of a new recruitment strategy was that after the development of the last
recruitment campaign a new corporate strategy and campaign was designed. This resulted in the fact that both are not pronouncing the same message anymore. Another reason for the new campaign is that times are changing and it was time to communicate a new message to their target groups. For this they start to use the concept of employer branding. The reason behind this is that there is a structural demand towards new employees in a large company as
Achmea. But the difficulties lie in the demand for people in the sparse areas such as actuaries, IT, young and old financial talent. These are difficult to find and (still) have no preference for Achmea as an employer. Achmea wants to generate the preference for Achmea as an
employer, by expanding their employer brand. This saves the company in recruitment costs; it enables their recruiters to find the right person without the use of recruitment agencies. Before Achmea is able to marketer their employer brand, they need to get an understanding of how people see Achmea as an employer. To get this information they had used a LinkedIn community page where they asked their current employees’ questions about what they think of Achmea as an employer to work for. They thought to attract 50 people from their
organization which want to interact, but finally almost 500 people from different divisions of Achmea participate in this discussion. An important insight form this discussion is that the employees, from the different divisions of Achmea, all see the work that they perform for the customers as the most important.
On Twitter not the company is active, but the recruiters are active for the company. They are using their own social network to send and inform people.
3. Theoretical framework
Employer branding considers current and potential employees as branding targets (Edwards, 2010). Employer branding campaigns will tend to involve the clarification and management of an organization tangible and intangible employment job offering. Employers also will manage the aspects of the organizations image and identity through sophisticated campaigns (Edwards, 2010). As the branding literature suggests, a brand is a name with the power to influence the market, a brand is a shared desirable and exclusive idea embodied in products, services, places and our experiences (Kapferer, 2012). The more this idea is shared by a larger number of people the more power the brand has (Kapferer, 2012). The messages which are communicated by the organization are used by job seekers and consumers to develop positive and negative perceptions about companies (Collins & Stevens, 2002). The internet enables, with the social networking tools, many rich sources of easily accessible content for
information sharing (Heinrichs et al., 2011). This can indicate that the Facebook and LinkedIn page will influence the awareness, reputation and image of the employer. These three
constructs are included in this analysis because research studies called attention to the important roles that employer image and reputation play in influencing individual reactions during the recruitment process. Awareness is a prerequisite for job seekers to obtain and recall information related to the image and reputation. Awareness can act as an anchor upon which employers can build their image and reputation to influence job seeker behavior.
Figure 1 gives an overview of the conceptual model with the constructs underlying this research.
Figure 1: Conceptual model
The constructs of the image and reputation look very similar, so before elaborating each construct these are distinguished from each other. Image and reputation both concerns the evaluation of a given object (target), in this case the employer.
Organizational attributes refer to perceptions regarding an organization’s policies and work conditions (Robertson et al., 2005). In recruitment the tangible attributes such as career perspectives, work environment, stability and job security (Van Hoye & Saks, 2011; Collins & Stevens 2002) are commonly used.
On the other hand employer reputation refers to a job seeker’s belief about the public affective evaluation of an organization as an employer. Brand equity theory distinguishes image from reputation in two ways; (a) unlike image, reputation consists of an evaluative component and (b) reputation is a job seeker’s belief about how an employer is evaluated by others, whereas image comprises an individual’s own belief (Yu and Cable, 2012). A person’s self-concept is influenced by the characteristics that others may infer about them based on where they work (Dutton & Dukericht, 1991, Dutton et al., 1994). Cable and Turban (2003) found that employer reputation in turn influenced the pride that individuals expected from organizational membership.
Reputation is something you gain over time it is more enduring than image; the image can be changed to take advantage of market trends. This indicates that because the image is more time related a social networking site can affect this directly. On these sites information is placed about what happens now, at this moment. It is possible for hiring organization to manage their image during the recruitment process through company and product information sources. On the other hand the social networking site can influence reputation with the placed information to give more insights in if it matches with the image you have in mind due to other experiences. Now each construct will be more elaborated.
3.1 Employer awareness
Awareness is one of the important aspects in employer branding because if a company wants that a job seekers take them in account, the job seekers first need to be aware of the company. And, not only as a company, but especially as a company to work for. If a job seekers become more aware of the company the likelihood increases that the company will be part of the final decision set when job seekers identify the job opportunities (Collins & Stevens 2002). Collins and Stevens (2002) defined awareness as the level of familiarity that job seekers hold
regarding an organization.
Instead of top of mind, Kapferer (2012) recommend the consideration set and if the brand is already consumed or not. Spontaneous awareness is that people were asked, without any prompting, to name the brands they know in the category. By the aided awareness the brands are presented to the respondents, where the respondents need to indicate they know the brand (Laurent et al., 1995; Kapferer, 2012). For this research the constructs (aided, spontaneous) are also used for measuring the effectiveness of the social media sites on the awareness of the employer.
The following hypotheses are formulated to measure the effects of the Facebook and or LinkedIn page on the aided and spontaneous awareness:
H1a: The employer’s Facebook page generates awareness of the employer
H1b: The employer’s LinkedIn page generates awareness of the employer
H1c: The combination of the employer’s Facebook and LinkedIn page generate awareness of the
employer
H1d: The combination of the employer’s Facebook and LinkedIn page generate more awareness of the
employer than the Facebook or LinkedIn page separated.
3.2 Employer reputation
In a simple explanation organizational reputation is that, over time an organization can become well known, can accrue a generalized understanding in the minds of observers as to what it is known for, and can be judged favorably or unfavorably by its observers (Lange et al., 2011). Fombrun and Shanley (1990) go a step further, they define the organizational reputation as the public evaluation of an organization relative to other organizations, should influence its success in attracting quality applicants. Job seekers need to get insight on what kind of company it is, and job seekers need to see the company favorably in such a way that they find it an attractive employer to work for. Turban and Cable (2003) find that firms with more positive reputations attracted larger applicant pools. They find that a firm’s reputation is positively related to the number of applicants and to applicants’ actual job pursuit behaviors. Research in the branding literature has identified multiple sources which influence a
company’s reputation, e.g. experience and information (Yoon et al., 1993).
Experience is important because a customer’s first experience will influence all other offerings of the same company (Wollinsky, 1987; Shapiro, 1983). The information source of reputation can be diffused in two routes; the communication between marketers and
There is evidence that suggests that some early recruitment practices can have a positive impact on how favorable potential recruits may view an organization and the likelihood for applying for a job there (Edwards, 2010). This will give potential, for a social network site, to influence the impression job seekers have about an employer.
Facebook and LinkedIn can influence the reputation of an employer due to the fact that reputation is a public evaluation of an organization relative to other organizations, this can influence the attractiveness of the employer. The belief a job seeker has on the reputation of an employer is based on the evaluations of others. And the job seekers belief is also based on the comparison which is made between employers. For job seekers, social networking sites can be used to create a belief of the reputation, because all employers have the same basic template. Within this template the site is made in such a way that it fits with the representation of the employer. In this case job seekers can make a comparison if the page fits with the belief they have in mind of the employer. And a comparison can be made between employers, in the same branch, to see how they deal with the social networking page.
A good reputation is important the reason for this is that it may also lead perceivers to give organizations the benefit of the doubt when negative information becomes available (Lange et al, 2011). Employers with a better reputation are not only attracting more applicants, but also higher quality applicants (Turban & Cable, 2003). Having a good
reputation seems to be important, but the next question arises how to influence this reputation. In the literature around the twelve categories can be distinguished which suggest that these could affect the job seeker reputation perception. For example, the degree of awareness (Cable & Turban, 2003; Cable & Graham, 2000), external ratings of the corporate reputation (Cable & Turban, 2003), the type of industry in which an employer operates and the
profitability of the company (Cable & Graham, 2000) can positively affect the job seekers' reputation perceptions.
To keep the number of categories which affect the reputation manageable and for the participants relevant, five categories are included in this research. The categories of industry,
opportunities for growth and culture are included since they are seen as the most important
factors (Cable & Graham, 2000). The expectation for this research is that the Facebook and LinkedIn site of the employer can give information about these factors, which can give the potential employee the opportunity to get insights in these aspects and can make a judgment if they like the employer.
Facebook would affect this more than LinkedIn, since on LinkedIn more factual information is placed of the company and his employees. The fourth factor that is included is familiarity because it is likely that reputation perceptions are influenced by their familiarity with the company (Cable & Turban, 2003) and Gatewood et al. (1993) found that organization's
familiarity was strongly related to job seekers’ reputation perceptions. And, repeated exposure to an object results in positive evaluations of the object (Zajonc, 1968).
This may mean that when job seekers is exposed to the Facebook and LinkedIn site the evaluations are more positive than when the job seeker is exposed to only one of these sites. The last factor that is examined in this study is organizational profitability. This is included because earlier research suggests that company profitability affects job seekers’ reputation perceptions (Cable & Graham, 2000; Turban & Greening, 1997).
This leads to the following hypotheses:
H2a: The employer’s Facebook page will positively influence the factors of the employer’s reputation
H2b: The employer’s LinkedIn page will positively influence the factors of the employer’s reputation.
H2c: The employer’s Facebook and LinkedIn page will positively influence the factors of the employer’s
reputation.
H2d: The employer’s Facebook and Linkedin page together will have a larger positive influence on the
factors of employer’s reputation than Facebook and LinkedIn separated.
The hypotheses will not be tested only in the sense of viewing a page, in the questionnaire respondents need to answer questions relating to the content of the site. Because on both pages not exactly the same information is placed and a respondent will see both pages they receive more information which can influence the reputation in a positive or negative sense when the information placed fits with the reputation in mind than when only one page is seen. In that case seeing both pages can influence the reputation differently than seeing only one of them. With these hypotheses also can be seen whether there are differences between the sites and if the sites together have more influence than separated. A positive reputation is important because job applicants are more likely to pursue a job at firms which have a positive
Instead the social networking site can influence reputation with the information what is inserted on the page to give more insights in if it matches with the belief the job seeker has in mind due to other experiences.
3.3 Employer brand image
Organizational images are particularly important in the context of recruiting new employees (Cable and Yu, 2006). Different definitions of the organizations’ perceived image as an employer are used by authors; image is seen as a people’s beliefs about what is central,
distinctive, and relatively enduring about the organization as an employer (Cable & Yu, 2006; Dutton et al., 1994). Whereas Collins and Stevens (2002) define an employer brand image as potential applicants’ attitudes and perceived attributes about the job or organization.
Highhouse et al. (1999) sees the organization’s perceived image as an employer, as the individuals’ impressions of an organization as a place to work. According to the instrumental-symbolic framework, images are composed of both instrumental and instrumental-symbolic dimensions (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). Both will be used in this research starting with the instrumental image.
This gives the applicant the opportunity to receive more information about these attributes in the recruitment phase. And, the possibility arises that the person can provide a clearer
impression of the employer and their attractiveness. Job seekers seem to be more attracted to organizations with a more favorable image (Highhouse et al., 1999; Turban & Greening; 1997; Belt & Paolillo, 1982). On this basis the following hypotheses for the instrumental image are formulated:
H3a: The employer’s Facebook page will have a positive influence on the instrumental image of the
employer.
H3b: The employer’s LinkedIn page will have a positive influence on the instrumental image of the
employer.
H3c: The combination of the employer’s Facebook and LinkedIn page will have a positive influence on
the instrumental image of the employer.
H4d: The employer’s Facebook page will have a larger positive influence on the symbolic features of the
employer than the LinkedIn page.
Since it becomes more difficult for employers to distinguish themselves from other employers in terms of the job attributes. Job seekers not only concern tangible attributes (e.g. career perspectives and work environment) but also the symbolic meanings. These symbolic meanings accrue from how people perceive the organization and make inferences about it rather than what they think an organization actually involves (Lievens et al., 2005), briefly it is the meaning people associate with the employer (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).
For this research these findings can be used as a predictor because the included employers are in the insurance industry, and some of them are also active in the banking industry.
Since symbolic traits are seen as an important part of the image where job seekers can base their acceptation of a job on. Employers need to give the job seekers the opportunity to get insights in the employer image in the early recruitment process. The social networking sites can be the medium to give the employer the opportunity to bring out their symbolic meanings. A social networking site is the medium to give information in a personal way and get in interaction with customers and (potential) job seekers.
In comparison with a company’s website, where factual information is stored in a formal and businesslike manner, on Facebook employers can place also non tangible
information. For example about what happened at work, how their workplace look like, e.g. a Christmas tree in their office. These aspects can be related to the symbolic image aspects of an employer, the Christmas tree can give a feeling of warmth. While a picture of a
competition board or a picture of a winner, would give the intention that a prestigious
mentality is present. By this the expectation is that the Facebook page will influence more the aspects of warmth, acceptance, and honesty. On the other side LinkedIn is a professional medium, if a LinkedIn page of an employer is evaluated here comes forward that the
information shows which new employees are hired, and what their background is. It shows a profile how successful the company is in their business. Due to that, the expectation is that if symbolic meanings are influenced it would be the aspects of competence and sophistication. When combined the influences of the pages, this gives the expectation that when seeing both pages would influence the aspects more than when seeing only one of them. The following hypotheses are formulated:
H4a: The employer’s Facebook page will positively influence the symbolic features that job seekers have
from an employer.
H4b: The employer’s LinkedIn page will positively influence the symbolic features that job seekers have
from an employer.
H4c: The combination of the employer’s Facebook and LinkedIn page will positively influence the
symbolic features job seekers have from an employer.
H4d: The employer’s Facebook page will have a larger positive influence on the symbolic features job
seekers have from an employer than the LinkedIn page.
4. Research design
4.1 Research methodIn order to answer the research question, an experimental study with the use of a
questionnaire is performed. In order to test the hypotheses the experiment is divided in two surveys with a between-subjects design which consist of four different conditions, (1) respondents does not see the Facebook or LinkedIn page, (2) respondents see only the Facebook page, (3) respondents see only the LinkedIn page and (4) respondents see the Facebook and LinkedIn page. The respondents who see a Facebook or LinkedIn page need to answer questions regarding the social media page which they see of the employer.
The second survey is sent to the respondents a few days after participating in the first survey. In the section of questionnaire design the experiment will be extensively explained. In appendix A, survey 1 can be found, and in Appendix B survey 2.
For the experiment five employers are used in each condition, these are: ABN Amro, Achmea, Nationale Nederlanden, Menzis and Rabobank. The included employers have both a Facebook and LinkedIn page; all employers are more active on their Facebook than LinkedIn page. For example, the Facebook pages include vacancies, information about employees, questions with which they can interact with customers or potential employees. Achmea and Menzis both have a Facebook page that is specially related to job seekers in the sense that their page URL includes “werkenbij”. The LinkedIn pages contain more factual information about the employer and its new hired employees.
Background
In order to check how the respondents know the included employers, the respondents were asked to define their relationship with the employer.
Question “Would you specify the relationship you have with the employers where you are familiar with´: I am employed I am a customer A family member or friend is employed A family member or friend is a customer Otherwise ABN Amro Achmea
Question: “How often have you visited the Facebook page of Achmea in the last month?”:
0 0 0 0 0
This is my first visit 2-5 times 6-10 times More than 10 times I don’t know
These background questions are used to get an indication of the background of the
respondents; it is possible that if a respondent is an employee of the employer they can give more positive evaluations on the Facebook/LinkedIn pages. This can explain large
differences in the data. The question about the number of visits will give an indication if respondents are visiting Facebook or LinkedIn pages of employers by themselves. It is possible that there are differences between who already visited the page and a person who does this for the first time.
4.2 Questionnaire design
There has already been stated that the study consists of two surveys. In this section, the design of the study will be discussed in more detail. In the first survey the questionnaire is divided in four different sections, in the first three sections (a, b, c) the questions are the same for all respondents, section d consist of different questions. The second questionnaire is divided in two sections, but includes the same questions for all respondents.
First survey. The questionnaire of the first survey starts with section (a), this part
begins with four questions to develop a personal code of the respondent. These questions are also asked in Survey 2. This ensures that both surveys are filled in by the same person. After that, general questions related to demographics like; gender, age, education, working
experience, and if the person is a job seeker.
Section (b) consists of questions related to the aided and spontaneous awareness of the employers. In this section, the respondent needs to specify their relationship with the familiar employer and they need to give an overall impression of all included employers measured on a 5 point Likert scale 1 (very positive) to 5 (very negative).
The third part, section (c) includes questions related to the participant’s personal reason for use and frequency of social media pages in general. And, specific questions related to if the respondent visits social media pages of employers and for what reason. Thereafter, the respondents are asked to give their e-mail address which would be used to send them the second questionnaire.
The four conditions are based on (1) the respondent does not see a Facebook or LinkedIn page, this is the control group. (2) the respondent will see the Facebook page, (3) the respondent will see the LinkedIn page, and in the final condition (4) the respondent will see the Facebook and LinkedIn page.
In the three conditions where the respondents will see a Facebook and/or LinkedIn page the respondent is randomized to answer questions for two of the five included
employers. The respondents can click on a picture of the employer and will then be directed to the Facebook and/or LinkedIn page of the employer. In these conditions the participants were asked to respond to questions regarding the attractiveness of the page, statements about usability, reliability and completeness of the information and if the page corresponds to the impression the participant has of the employer. These questions are asked to ensure that the respondent need to look to the page in such a way that they can form an opinion about the page which can influence the impression the person has about the employer. Because the general impression is measured between the first and second survey and between the four conditions this give some insight in if the page influences the impression the person has about the employer.
An example of a question measured on a 5 point Likert scale 1 (very positive) to 5 (very negative) is: “What is your first impression of the Facebook page of Achmea”. In the control group (condition 1) only the next question needs to be answered:
Question: “How often have you visited the following social media pages of Achmea in the last month?” Never once 2-5 times 6-10 times More than 10 Facebook 0 0 0 0 0
LinkedIn 0 0 0 0 0 Twitter 0 0 0 0 0
The respondent needs to answer this question for all the employers that they have indicated in the question about the aided awareness to be aware of.
Second survey. The second survey is sent to the email address of the participant three
A comparison can be made with the control group to see if the social media page generates the difference. And, the difference between the general impression before and after seeing a Facebook or LinkedIn page can be compared.
In the second survey the participants were asked to respond to questions regarding the constructs of employer awareness part (A) (1) Spontaneous awareness (2), Aided awareness, (3) Consideration, and (4) Preference. Spontaneous and aided are measured are measured in the first and second survey to get insights in if differences exist between the first and second survey on the respondent level. But also to get insights in the differences between the four conditions.
Part (B) consists of questions regarding the employer reputation and employer symbolic and instrumental image. Thirteen aspects which are covered by the five categories of symbolic meanings which are distinguished by Lievens and Highhouse (2003) are asked to rate on a five point scale.
For example:
Symbolic image:
“To what extent are the following aspects applied at Achmea as an employer? Reliable
Totally fitting 1 2 3 4 5 Not fitting
Honesty
Totally fitting 1 2 3 4 5 Not fitting
Safe
Totally fitting 1 2 3 4 5 Not fitting
Also two statements for the instrumental image are asked. And for the reputation five statements are asked which need to rate on a five point scale. The questions in this part (B) need to be answered for the two employers the respondent has assessed in the first survey. Finally, in the last question the respondents need to rate their general impression of the employers on a 5 point scale, 1 (very positive) to 5 (very negative).
4.3 Data collection
The data for this study is collected by using an online survey tool, Qualtrics. This is an online program which you can access through the University of Groningen. This program is used to develop and distribute the questionnaire. The distribution of the questionnaire was done by sending emails, using social networking and by recruiters of Achmea.
One of the respondents who filled in the first and the second survey wins the Fatboy. A control question is included to see if the same person fills in both surveys. In survey 1 and 2 they need to fill in a personal code on the basis of four personal questions. It is ensured that both codes match.
4.4 Measurement
Measurements first survey
In section (d) of the first survey the participants are asked to answer questions related to the Facebook and/or LinkedIn page. The questions are related to the amount of information, aspects of the site and the usability of the site.
The questions can be found in appendix A. These questions are asked to ensure that the respondent needs to view the page and create an opinion based on what the respondent has seen on the page. For example; “The Facebook page of Achmea gives enough information about vacancies” is measured on a 5 point scale ranging from 1 (totally agree) to 5 (totally
disagree).
Because the questions in this part are related to the Facebook or LinkedIn page, a factor analysis will be performed for data reduction. The questions involved are “what is your first impression of the Facebook page of Achmea’ is measured on a scale from 1 (very
positive) to 5 (very negative). The other questions, e.g. “The information on the Facebook
page is ... usable” 1 (totally agree) to 5 (totally disagree).
Measurements second survey
Employer reputation. To measure the five reputation categories (type of industry,
opportunities for growth, culture, familiarity and profitability) for each category a statement is formulated which need to berate on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The factors for the statements used are investigated by Cable and Turban (2003), Gatewood et al. (1993) and (Cable & Graham, 2000; Turban & Greening 1997). A Factor analysis will be performed to determine if the five included categories can be related to the reputation of the employer.
Employer image. Image is measured in two components namely instrumental and
symbolic attributes. The symbolic framework which has been used by Lievens and Highhouse (2003) is used. Which indicate that there were five broad factors. Namely sincerity,
The participants were asked to rate each symbolic trait underlying these factors on a scale from 1 (entirely appropriate) to 5 (not appropriate).
To see if the traits in this research also can be taken together with the five factors (Sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness) a Factor analysis was carried out.
Also two instrumental image aspects are measured. The two statements are; the employer takes care of their employees and the employer has an eye for social developments. The participants were asked to rate the two statements on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). If these statements can be taken together a new variable is formed by averaging the ratings across the items.
4.5 Plan of analysis
The data analysis follows multiple steps. First, factor analyses will be done in this analysis the reason to use is twofold; the first is to create the factors of symbolic, instrumental image and the reputation. The second reason is for data reduction of the variables in part (d) of the first survey.
The next step is pooling, here a regression analysis will be performed for each of the independent variables where all employees are taken together. Then, a regression analysis will be performed for each of the independent variables, where the employers are separated. The Chow test is used, for testing the hypothesis if pooling is allowed. If it is, a model will be performed including all employers. If it is not allowed, a selection will be made which employers are used for the further analysis.
Third, for testing the hypotheses if a social media page has influence on the general impression, a Paired sample t-test is done with the pre and post measurement. This test is performed for all the employers.
Fourth, a McNemar test is done to measure if seeing a page has influence on the spontaneous and aided awareness of the employers. The McNemar test is used when two non-parametric dichotomous variables are compared which has a link between them (Field, 2009). Here, the pre and post measurements of the spontaneous and the aided awareness of the employers are measured in a dichotomous way. Those data show if the respondents are aware of the employer before and after seeing a Facebook and/or a LinkedIn page. The control group is used for comparing if these changes are related to seeing a page or that it comes from filling in the questionnaire.
A combination between the enter-method and the stepwise-method is used for placing predictors in the regression model to see whether or not they are significant. With the enter-method the basic variables are placed in the regression equation, and the stepwise-enter-method is used to extend the model with significant and predictive variables.
5. Results
This chapter will give an overview of the results of this study. First, the descriptive will be presented which will provide information about the characteristics of the sample. Thereafter, factor analyses will be done for data preparation. Followed by the pooling test and finally a multicollinearity analysis will be performed before hypotheses can be tested.
5.1 Descriptives
In this section the sample will be outlined. The first survey was filled in by 291 respondents. Since survey one and two need to be filled in, this resulted in a total of 175 participants (response rate =60%). Of the 175 respondents, 174 reviewed two employers. Only one person reviewed one employer, because she only knows one employer. This results in a dataset which can be used for hypotheses testing of 349.
Demographics
Table 1 shows the demographic aspect of the population. The population of the study involves people aged between 18 and 85. The sample is rather young; the largest part of the sample 68% has an age between 18 and 28 years. Followed by 22.9% of the respondents who has an age between 29 and 38 years. The proportion male/female is quite equal 55.4% are male, and 44.6% are female. Since the questionnaire was sent to students of a University this result in terms of education that the main part 62.3% has a scientific education, followed by 20% who has a higher education.
Variable Percentage Variable Percentage
Age 18-28 68 % Education Primary Education 1.1 % 29-38 22.9 % Secondary Education (LBO, LTS) 2.3 % 39-48 4.6 % Secondary Education (Mavo) 3.4 % 49-58 1.1 % Vocational Education (MBO) 1.09 % 59-68 2.3 % University of Applied Sciences (HBO) 20 % 69-78 0.6 % Research University 62.3 % 79-88 0.6 %
Table 1: Demographics
Which result in the fact that17.1% is actively searching for a job, 22.9% is not actively searching, but is watching the labor market, and 15.4% is not watching the labor market, but if there will become an opportunity they would think about it. And, 44.6% is not searching for another job.
Variable Percentage
Daytime activities Employed, full-time 20,6 %
Employed, part-time 4,6 %
Not working, seeking 1,7 % Not working, incapacitated 0,6 % Not working, another reason 0,6 %
Retired 1,7 %
Studying 70,3 %
Experience Starter, less than one year 23.4 %
1-3 years 14.9 %
4-8 years 19.1 %
9 years or more 42.6 %
Total number of employed respondents 47 % Search behavior Actively seeking 17.1 %
Not actively looking, but keep an eye on the labor market 22.9 % Do not mind the labor market, but do want to consider
the possibility if it occurs
15.4 %
Not looking 44.6 %
Table 2: Daytime activities, experience and search behavior of the respondents Social media usage
Table 3 gives an overview of the usage of social media by the respondents. Facebook (144) is the most used social media site, followed by LinkedIn (94) and Twitter (56). The expectation that Facebook is the most frequently used site come forward from the data.
Count Percentages
Social media
Use Does not use
Use Less than once a week Once a week 2-5 times a week 6-10 times a week Multiple times a day Facebook 144 17.7 82.3 0.69 2.78 7.64 15.97 72.92 Google+ 34 80.6 19.4 51.52 6.06 3.03 6.06 33.33 Hyves 46 73.7 26.3 76.09 6.52 6.52 4.35 6.52 LinkedIn 94 46.3 53.7 21.28 37.23 29.79 7.45 4.26 Myspace 2 98.9 1.1 100 0 0 0 0 Twitter 56 68.0 32.0 23.21 5.36 21.43 16.07 33.93 Anders 9 94.9 5.1
Table 3: Social media pages used by the respondents and their frequencies
For the professional aspects (contact with companies, establish professional contacts, searching vacancies) Facebook is never used for more than 80%.
Facebook Percentage
Reason for use Never Less than once a week Once a week Multiple times a week Multiple times a day
Contact with companies 83.3 12.5 3.5 0 0.7 Find information about companies 66 26.4 6.9 0 0.7 Find information about other persons 2.8 16.7 27.8 43.1 9.7 Sharing photo’s, links and video’s 5.6 32.6 26.4 31.9 3.5 Watching photo’s, links and video’s 0.7 6.3 11.1 45.1 36.8 Establish social contacts (professional) 52.8 26.4 10.4 6.3 4.2 Establish social contacts (private) 0.7 1.4 13.9 50 34
For pleasure 0.7 1.4 5.6 38.2 54.2
Searching vacancies 88.2 9.7 2.1 0 0
Other 89.6 0 6.3 2.1 2.1
Table 4: Frequencies for the reasons why Facebook is used by the respondents
On the other hand, these professional aspects are reasons for LinkedIn users to use LinkedIn (Table 5). The amount of respondents who use it never is much smaller than with Facebook. While Facebook scores high percentages on using it multiple times a week and even a day, these numbers are very small for LinkedIn.
LinkedIn Percentage
Reason for use Never Less than once a week Once a week Multiple times a week Multiple times a day
Contact with companies 40.4 39.4 13.8 5.3 1.1 Find information about companies 24.5 47.9 19.1 7.4 1.1 Find information about other persons 8.5 41.5 36.2 12.8 1.1 Sharing photo’s, links and video’s 80.9 17 0 2.1 0 Watching photo’s, links and video’s 61.7 25.5 8.5 3.2 1.1 Establish social contacts (professional) 16.0 46.8 24.5 11.7 1.1 Establish social contacts (private) 57.4 27.7 12.8 2.1 0
For pleasure 30.9 42.6 17 9.6 0
Searching vacancies 34.0 42.6 16 5.3 2.1
Other 87.2 6.4 4.3 2.1 0
Table 5: Frequencies for the reasons why LinkedIn is used by the respondents Awareness employers
The direct relationship means that someone is employed or is customer with the company, or knows a relative or friend who is employed or customer.
Employer ABN Amro Achmea Nationale Nederlanden Menzis Rabobank Variable
Aided Awareness (first survey) 164 160 155 163 170 Relationship company Self-employed 1 9 1 0 3 Relative/friend employed 28 17 6 10 24 I am a customer 36 30 13 28 90 Relative/friend customer 69 37 18 35 54 Otherwise 50 85 117 97 173
Table 6: Aided awareness (first survey) and relationship company Social media and employers
Although that Table 6 shows that the respondents are very aware of the included employers, the times that they have visited a Facebook or LinkedIn page of the employer is very low. The question “How many times do you have visited the Facebook/LinkedIn page of the
employer?” results in that 97.37% of the respondents do not visit the Facebook page of the mentioned employer. For the LinkedIn page, the number is not much better, 95.37% have not visited the page of the employer.
Since some of the respondents have visited a Facebook of LinkedIn page of an employer, Table 7 shows the results in percentages of how often and from which employer the social media page is visited. Here, the results come back that the Rabobank is the most well-known employer and also has received the most visits of respondents in the last month. Also, the LinkedIn page of the ABN Amro and Achmea is visited by a respondent. It is surprising that the LinkedIn page is more visited than the Facebook page because Facebook is seen as a more social medium than LinkedIn and includes, in most of the time, more
information.
Employer Facebook LinkedIn
Never 1 time 2-5 times More than 10 times Never 1 time 2-5 times More than 10 times ABN Amro 21.72% 0 0 0 20.85% 0.38% 0 0 Achmea 16.48% 0 0.37% 0 18.15% 0 0.77% 0 Nationale Nederlanden 20.22% 0 0 0 18.92% 0 0.38% 0.77% Menzis 20.60% 0 0 0.37% 18.53% 0.38% 0 0 Rabobank 18.35% 0.75 % 1.12% 0 18.92% 1.16% 0.77% 0
In the research only five employers are included; there are many more employers in the Netherlands who have a social media page. So also a general question is asked if respondents are following a (potentially) employer through social media. Since it is very interesting why a person is following an employer also the respondents need to give an answer to the question “Why do you follow these employers?”
Of the 174 respondents of this survey 29.1% are following an (potentially) employer in any industry in the Netherlands. Of those 51 respondents, 76.5% indicates that they follow the employer for information about the company, followed by 56.9% who follow an employer to get information about vacancies (Table 8).
Table 8: Why do you follow (Potential) employers?
The possibility to ask questions is only 9.8% of the time given as a reason to follow. This is a very low number in comparison that they use the social media page as a basis to get
information about the employer and the field. They do not see the page (yet) as a medium to get in interaction with the employer. Or they prefer another way to get in interaction with the company.
5.2 Factor analyses
A factor analysis can be done for multiple purposes (Stewart, 1981; Ford et al., 1986), here the method is used for data reduction, and data summarization. The goal is to downsize the amount of variables which need to be entered in the regression equation. Before the factor analysis can be done, two tests can be used to see if it is appropriate to do a factor analysis. These are the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and the Bartlett’s test. The KMO gives a value between 0 and 1 as an ability to analyze the variables.
Values above 0.7 results in that the analysis can be done without objection. The
Barlett’s test needs to be lower than 0.05, then factor analysis is appropriate (Hair et al., 2010) After it is determined that a factor analysis is allowed, the number of factors needs to be considered. A good strategy to examine the number of factors to use is using a number of decision rules (Ford et al., 1986). The first criterion is that of the eigenvalue above 1, the second is that, the cumulative percentage needs to be larger than 60% (Hair et al., 2010).
For
information about the field
For information about the company For information about vacancies
If those criteria do not give a clear solution for the amount of factors to extract, a scree plot is done. In a scree plot a large break in the plot of the eigenvalues is taken to indicate the point where factoring should stop (Stewart, 1981). The combination of the roots criterion and the scree test appears to provide an effective means for determining the number of factors (Stewart, 1981).
Evidence suggests that it is better to overestimate rather than to underestimate the number of factors (Stewart, 1981; Ford et al., 1986). For the interpretation of the factors a commonly used rule specifies that only variable with loadings greater than .40 on a factor should be considered significant and used in defining that factor (Ford et al., 1986).
Factor analysis variables first survey
The first factor analysis is done with the questions which are asked in section (d) the condition part of the first survey. The questions are shown in Table 9.
Question number Question
5.2 What is your first impression of the Facebook/LinkedIn page of … 5.3 The Facebook/LinkedIn page gives sufficient information about vacancies
5.4 The Facebook/LinkedIn page creates a clear picture what it is like to work for this company 5.5 I found the information on the Facebook/LinkedIn page…
Reliable Useful Readable
Written in understandable language Up-to-date
Complete
5.6 The Facebook/LinkedIn page fits well with the image I have of …
Table 9: Questions section (d) first survey
The appropriateness of the factor analyses of the 10 variables of the first survey is tested, the KMO has a value of 0.795 and the Barlett’s Test has a p-value of 0.000. These values both result that a factor analysis may be performed.
The four factors (impression of the employer, usability of the information, the quality of the information and completeness of the information) are formed by averaging the results of the questions in a new variable. The variable quality of the information consist of the categories; reliable, readable and written in understandable language. The variable completeness of information consists of the aspects up-to-date and complete.
Number of factors Eigenvalues
Total Cumulative % 1 3.636 36.355 2 1.408 50.434 3 0.993 60.359 4 0.832 68.676
Table 10: Result factor analysis first survey Factor analysis variables second survey
The questions in the second survey are aspects of the variable reputation and symbolic image. A factor analysis is done for the reputation and symbolic image separated. For both,
reputation and image will be examined whether the stated factors, prescribed in the literature are also reflected in this analysis. The first factor analysis is for the variable reputation.
Employer reputation
The value of KMO is 0.78 this is higher than 0.6 and also the Barlett’s Test has a p-value of 0.00 which indicate that it is appropriate to do a factor analysis.
The eigenvalue of 1 criterion is met at a one factor solution (2.416). The cumulative percentage of 60 is met at a solution with two (65.240%) and three factors (79.125) (Table 11).
Table 11: Result number of factors
Since the criteria do not give a clear picture about which solution to choose a scree plot is made. The slope of the scree plot becomes flatter after a two factor solution. Between the one and two it goes steeply down. Which indicate that the solution lies between one and two factors. The interpretability of the factors can make the difference. In the solution with two factors (Table 12), the first factor has aspects which are the results of the company itself and can be influenced by their own strategy. They are the results of how the company is
performing their business. The second factor is influenced by the industry where the company is active. The industry of the employer is not only determined by the employer itself, but by all companies operating in the industry.
Number of factors Eigenvalues
Despite the statement about “the personal development” is assigned to both factors and has the highest value for factor 2, the personal development is a result of the strategy of the company itself.
Table 12: Solution with two factors reputation
This research shows for this data the perceptions can be divided in two factors which can be categorized as; employer influenced reputation and industry influenced reputation. Those factors are formed by averaging the rating by the items.
Employer image – Symbolic instruments
The KMO and Barlett’s test resulted in a Barlett’s test of 0.817, this indicate that it is
appropriate because the minimum criterion is 0.6. KMO has a p-value of 0.00 which indicate that it is also appropriate to do a Factor analysis.
The result of the Factor analysis is displayed in Table 13. The eigenvalue of 1 criterion complies with the factor solution of one (4.028), two (2.753) and three (1.175). The
cumulative percentage of 60 is met at the solution of three (61.205), four (67.382) and five (72.629) factors. These numbers show that a solution with three factors both criteria are met, but this is not in line with the mentioned five factors by Lievens and Highhouse (2003). A scree plot is done for getting an indication of the solution. This result in that between a three and four factor solution the line has a break, and after four factors the lines becomes flatter.
Table 13: Factor solution criteria
This is still not in line with the literature, so the three, four and five factors are based on the interpretability skills of the factors. The results of those solutions are presented in Table 14 and Table 15.
Reputation statements Factors
1 2 Is a profitable business .806
Provides opportunities for personal development .524 .594 Works in an interesting industry .894
Is widely known .715
Has a nice corporate culture/atmosphere .616 .479
Number of factors Eigenvalues
The differences between the solutions are that at the four and five solutions (Table 15) multiple instruments are assigned to more than one factor. While at the three factor solution (Table 14) this only happens at the symbolic instrument ‘though’.
Symbolic instruments Factors Factors 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Acceptance .427 .833 .327 .863 Reliable .783 .441 .769 .324 Imaginative -.836 .722 .368 .326 Honesty .786 .359 .782 Spirited .409 -.709 .337 .316 .770 Upper class .818 -.302 .809 Masculine .799 .798 Prestigious .831 -.678 .812 Tough .628 -.678 .549 .559 Successful .724 .588 .400 -.382 Trendy .326 -.761 .848 Secure .847 .858 Warmth .708 -.309 .743
Table 15: Solution with 4 and 5 factors
The interpretability of the three factor solution is decisive in the choice of the number of factors. The three variables are formed by averaging the results of the instruments which are assigned to that variable. The symbolic instruments; acceptance, reliability, honesty,
successful, secure and warmth are merged in the variable Integrity.
From the symbolic meanings Upper class, masculinity, prestigious and tough the variable
Robust performed. Imaginative, spirited and trendy are merged in the variable Innovativeness
Symbolic instruments Factors 1 2 3 Acceptance .586 Reliable .832 Imaginative .806 Honesty .808 Spirited .669 Upper class .803 Masculine .793 Prestigious .800 Tough .523 .605 Successful .678 Trendy .754 Secure .822 Warmth .647
Conclusion
A short summary of the conclusion of the results of the factor analyses is presented in Table 16. In the first survey the amount of variables is downsized to three factors. The employer reputation is located in two factors. And, the symbolic meaning generates in this analysis three factors instead of the five which are expected from the literature.
Variables Number of factors Recoded variables
First survey 4 View of employer Quality of the information Usability of the information Completeness of the information Employer reputation 2 Reputation influenced by employer
Reputation influenced by industry Symbolic meanings 3 Integrity
Robust Innovativeness
Table 16: Conclusion factor analysis 5.3 Hypotheses testing: Pooling
The first step in pooling is establishing a pooled model; all employers are included, in the model for the dependent variables; employer influenced reputation, industry influenced reputation, instrumental image, integrity, robust, innovativeness. Thereafter, the model is established for each employer separated. A chow-test is then used to test the following hypotheses:
H0: Pooling is allowed
H1: Pooling is not allowed
For every dependent variable (employer influenced reputation, industry influenced reputation, instrumental image, integrity, robust, innovativeness) a pooling test is done. The results are given in Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix C. These results are put in the Chow test which gives the F values (Table 17). The F value and the difference in degrees of freedom between the pooled and the unpooled model, and the degrees of freedom of the pooled model are used to calculate the p-values. These p-values can be used for testing the pooling hypothesis.
Table 17 Results Chow test
Dependent variables F value P value H0 Pooling allowed
Employer influenced reputation 1.70 0.0002* Rejecting No Industry influenced reputation 1.15 0.1778 Accepting Yes Instrumental Image 1.08 0.2992 Accepting Yes Integrity 1.20 0.1134 Accepting Yes Robust 1.12 0.2303 Accepting Yes Innovativeness 1.07 0.3156 Accepting Yes
Conclusion
The result of the pooling test is stated in Table 17. The conclusion is that only for the
dependent variable employer influenced reputation H0 is rejected (p= 0.002) which means that pooling is not allowed. For all the other dependent variables (industry influenced reputation,
instrumental image, integrity, robust and innovativeness) the p values are larger than 0.05
which result in that H0 is accepted, and that pooling is allowed for these variables. In order to get a consistent overview of the results the choice is made that for every dependent variable an unpooled model is used. For three of the five employers the hypotheses will be
investigated and will be reported in the results section.
Achmea is chosen because they do not have a social media strategy, but have a special recruitment Facebook site. Also Menzis has a recruitment Facebook site.
Rabobank is chosen because they are very active on their social media sites and have commercials on the Radio and television to make people aware of their Facebook page. It seems that they have a kind of strategy which can have an influence on the results. These three employers can give different results on the hypotheses which can be very valuable.
5.4 Hypotheses testing: General impression
In the first and second survey the respondents are asked to rate the general impression of the employers, on a 5 point Likert scale, they have about all the employers. This result in that a pre and post measurement can be done to see if the conditions ((1) See no page, (2) See Facebook, (3) See LinkedIn, (4) See Facebook and LinkedIn) has influence on the general impression the respondents have about the employers. Only the data on the assessed
employers are included. For getting insights in if the expectation fits that a social media page has influence on the impression the respondents have about the employer a paired sample t-test will be performed. A paired t-t-test can be used when the groups are divided in dependent groups with a within subject design and when the subjects are studied at two different times (Field, 2009). The hypotheses underlying this test are as follows:
