RESEARCH REPORT

ON

“EMPLOYER ATTRACTIVENESS AND THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA”

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

TOWARDS THE AWARD OF

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

(2018 – 20)

SUBMITTED BY:

KUSHAGRA KULSHRESTHA

INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

 PREFACE

This research report is the study conducted in employer branding. This

research report is basically based on to study “ employer attractiveness
and the use of social media ”.

During my research I have been associated with different arears of

department & Learned About how to bridge the gap between theoretical
knowledge & practical working. Mainly I have experienced the working
of different marketing section and share trading is done.

I would like to extend my thanks to the market department.

I feel rewarded by the management of who gave me this opportunity to

do my research in Such a reputated organization.

Kushagra Kulshrestha
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to thanks for giving me a chance to work for this research and I

would like to express my sincere thanks to and his team who helped , inspired and

mentored me and without their help this research report would not have taken its

current shape.

I could complete the research being undertaken on the customer satisfaction towads

online trading successful in time. Their meticulous attention and invaluable

suggestions have helped me in simplifying the problem involved in the work.

I would also like to thank all the faculty members of the department for their support

and advice throughout the study.

Kushagra Kulshrestha
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Description
 Preface
 Acknowledgement
Introductory Pages  Student Declaration
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures

1.1 Introduction
Chapter I 1.2 Related Concepts
Introduction
1.3 Operational Definition of the Concepts
1.4 Need & Relevance of Study
2.1 Extensive Literature Review
Chapter II
Review of Literature
3.1 Objectives of Research
3.2 Research Methodology
Chapter III 3.2.1 Sampling Design
Objectives & Research
Methodology 3.2.1.1 Sample Size
3.2.1.2 Sample Method
3.2.1.3 Sample Locale
3.2.1.4 Sample Selection
3.2.2 Data Collection & Data Sources
3.2.3 Tools used for Data Collection
3.2.4 Tools for Data Analysis
3.2.5 Hypothesis
3.2.6 Research Procedure

Chapter IV4.1 Objective 1:

4.1.1 Table, Figure, Interpretation
Data Analysis & 4.1.2 Table, Figure, Interpretation
Interpretation
Objective 2:
4.2.1 Table, Figure, Interpretation & So On.

Chapter V5.1 Major Findings

Conclusion5.2 Recommendations
5.3 Limitations of the Study
5.4 Scope for Further Research
6 References
7 Appendix
Introductory Pages
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this research report work entitled “employer attractiveness and

the use of social media” is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the

award of MBA as a part of the Degree of Master of Business Administration is an

original work done by me and this research work has not formed the basis for the

award of any degree to any candidate of any university.

 Chapter I

Introduction
 INTRODUCTION

All organizations strive for sustained competitive advantage in order to attain

economic profit and to survive in an increasingly global and competitive marketplace.

Human resources (HR) are crucial for competitive advantage, and they often represent

the main investment in knowledge intensive firms. In order to be a resource for

competitive advantage, the selection of human capital needs to have a high level of

competence and willingness to show productive behavior (Wright et al., 1994). If an

organization finds and retains qualified employees and combine their talents better

than the competitors, they can achieve an advantage (Box all, 1996).

In large and open competing markets, brand and corporate reputation are crucial for

attracting the best employees (Cappelli, 2001). There is a constant war over talent in

several industries (Fishman, 1998 in Cable and Turban, 2003). The importance of

brand and reputation is well known in the product market, and has recently become

salient as well in the labour market including the recruitment process.

Employer branding is an emerging field, which may be used to attract potential

employees. Employer branding is grounded in the resource-based view and human

resource theory, and focuses on developing the image of organizations as potential

employers (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004). Several different concepts from the field of

psychology, such as reputation, attractiveness, image and brand equity (e.g. Collins

and Stevens, 2002; Berthon et al., 2005), are used to describe what job seekers
emphasize when they consider applying for a job. Our emphasis related to employer

branding is on attractiveness, corporate reputation and attracting potential employees.

Reputation can be considered as an intangible and valuable resource in the resource-

based view, which could contribute to the achievement of sustainable competitive

advantage for the organization (Barney, 1991, 2002; Dowling, 1994; Hall, 1992;

Milgrom and Roberts, 1982; van Riel, 1997, all in Walsh and Beatty, 2007). In

addition, use of social media is increasingly used in employer branding campaigns

and in the recruiting process. There is a lack of studies focusing on social media

within recruiting (Davison et al., 2011; Madera, 2012; Walker et al., 2011), and this

study investigates the use of social media in relation to corporate reputation and

intentions to apply for a job. Taken together, this is relevant to combine with a focus

on employer branding that aims at improving attractiveness of companies.

The main purpose of this paper is to identify potential employees’ perceptions of

employers and their intentions to apply for a job. We investigate how the dimensions

for employer attractiveness and how the use of social media in the recruitment process

influences corporate reputation and the intention to apply for a job. The research

question we pose is therefore: How are potential employees’ perceptions of the

dimensions for employer attractiveness and the employers’ use of social media

related to corporate reputation and intentions to apply for a job? Findings from this

study will contribute theoretically to the literature on the use of social media and

employer branding in particular, and to the practical field of HR and recruitment in

general. Increased knowledge of potential employees’ perceptions of the use of social

media will enable organizations to aim their employer branding and recruitment

actions more purposefully.

A further contribution implicit in the study will be to validate the employer

attractiveness (Emp. At) scale in order to test it in the employer branding field.

This scale was developed in a study by Berthon et al. (2005). To our knowledge,

the EmpAt scale has only been employed in one study in India (Roy, 2008) and in

one study in Sri Lanka (Arachchige and Robertson, 2011). Roy’s (2008) use of the

EmpAt scale in the Indian study resulted in three more dimensions than the original

model had (Berthon et al., 2005). Arachchige and Robertson (2011) used the scale

to measure which characteristics students in Sri Lanka valued most when

considering potential employers. They included seven more indicators, which

resulted in eight dimensions in total. These differing results demonstrate a need

for testing the scale further.

Employer branding and recruiting

Organizations strive to be attractive employers, with the goal of hiring competent

employees. Recruiting is defined as organisational activities that affect the number

and type of applicants who apply for an open position (Gatewood et al., 2011). The

use of internet facilitates the hiring process, both for the person seeking employment

and for the organization (Borstorff et al., 2005; Walker et al., 2011).

Job seekers often consider several organizations when they are going to apply for a

job, and they may use corporate reputation as a source of information about working

conditions in different organizations (Cable and Turban, 2003). Reputation is defined

as a set of characteristics which are socially constructed for an organization, based on

the organization’s previous actions (Weigelt and Camerer, 1988). Dowling and Moran

(2012) presented Charles Fombrun’s definition, which also included future prospects.
In this study, reputation is defined as an organization’s set of socially constructed

characteristics, defined by the organization’s previous actions and future prospects. In

order to contribute to grooming the reputation and increasing the attractiveness of the

company, employers seek to strengthen the company’s name as a brand, and this is

labelled employer branding.

Organizations have experienced that effective employer branding leads to certain

competitive advantages, and this makes it easier to attract and retain employees

(Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004). Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) mention two differences in

the use of branding, depending on whether it is directed at employees or at promoting

organizations and products. First, employer branding is specifically directed towards

employment and characterises the organization’s identity as an employer. Second,

employer branding is directed towards both an internal and external audience,

while corporate and product branding is mainly directed towards an external audience.

Foster et al. (2010) highlight the importance of the relations between corporate

branding, internal branding, and employer branding. The internal branding process

relates to what kind of picture the employer paints of the organisation, how this is

communicated to the other employees, and how the employees understand it.

Employer branding towards an external audience, in this context, encompasses how

the organization exposes itself and how others evaluate the organization as an

employer (Martin et al., 2005). From the standpoint of internal branding and employer

branding towards an external audience, the corporate brand could be stronger and

more consistent (Foster et al., 2010).

Employer branding is a growing field, and the concept has been defined in several

ways. Edwards (2010) defines employer branding as activities where principles from

marketing, especially within branding, are used for HR initiatives regarding both
existing and potential employees. Backhaus and Tikoo’s (2004, p. 502) definition of

the same concept is “the process of building an identifiable and unique employer

identity, and the employer brand as a concept of the firm that differentiates it from the

competitors”. Ambler and Barrow (1996, in Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004, p. 502) define

employer branding as “the package of functional, economical, and psychological

benefits, provided by employment, and identified with the employing company”. In

this paper we have combined these definitions to mould our own understanding of the

concept; we consider employer branding to be the process of building employer

identity directed at existing and potential employees, in order to differentiate the firm

from its competitors.

The theoretical foundations of employer branding are manifold, and one of the

reasons for this being perhaps that it is a relatively new concept. When the focus is on

recruiting, employer branding is combined with principles from marketing, HR, and

strategy, including the resource-based view, external and internal branding,

organizational behaviour, and psychology (e.g. Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Edwards,

2010). In this paper, the focus is on employer branding in relation to the resource-

based view, HR, recruiting, and, to a certain extent, marketing. Employer branding is

used to increase employer attractiveness and improve corporate reputation. Employer

attractiveness is defined as the benefits potential employees see in an employment in a

specific organization (Berthon et al., 2005). Research indicates that potential

employees compare the organization’s image with their own needs, personality, and

values (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004). When a potential employee’s needs, personality,

and values fit the organisation’s image, the organisation becomes attractive for this

person (Schneider, 1987; Cable and Judge, 1996; Judge and Cable, 1997, all in

Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004).

Employer attractiveness has been measured using the EmpAt scale. The scale was

developed by Berthon et al. (2005) and derived from Ambler and Barrow’s (1996)

dimensions for psychological, functional, and economic benefits. This scale consists

of 25 items constituting five dimensions:

1. interest value,
2. social value,
3. economic value,
4. development value, and
5. application value.

Interest value encompasses innovation and interest in the product or services. Social

value refers to the work environment and relations to other employees. Economic

value relates to economic benefits. Development value points to the possibility for

future job opportunities. Lastly, application value encompasses the possibility to use

what has been learned earlier and indicates to which extent the organisation is

customer-oriented.

Within recruiting, different types of marketing channels such as the internet,

newspapers, and word of mouth are used. The world wide web opened for several

new opportunities in both advertising and information sharing, especially through

social network sites. For organisations, this has changed the way of thinking in trying

to attract new employees. To advertise job vacancies through the internet has become

common, and this allows organisations to find and evaluate candidates to a lower cost

than before (Borstorff et al., 2005). In addition to attract active job seekers, the

internet has made it possible to identify the passive job seekers (Cappelli, 2001).

Social network sites are defined as:

Web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi- public

profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they
share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made

by others within the system (Boyd and Ellison, 2008, p. 211),

What makes social network sites unique is that they allow the users to make a public

profile and make their social network visible to others. Communication takes place

primarily between humans who already are a part of their extended social network

(Boyd and Ellison, 2008). This gives the opportunity to expand the social network,

which can help active job seekers find a job and help employers find both active and

passive job seekers.

There are, however, some limitations to the use of social media in the recruitment

process. One study found that 74 per cent of employers think it is easy to destroy an

organisation’s reputation through social media (Deloitte, 2009 in Davison et al.,

2011). There is also some uncertainty related to social media and the number of

qualified applicants for a position or whether the use of social media also leads to a

higher number of not qualified applicants. Nevertheless, using social media for

recruiting seems to be accepted by the users, probably because it is quite similar to

advertising job vacancies on the internet (Davison et al., 2011). The use of social

media for organisations has benefits such as free, unlimited use and shorter response

time with respect to contact and activities (Furu, 2011).

In the following we will present the hypotheses of the study, followed by the

methodological section.

Hypotheses and research model

When employers are running employer branding campaigns, they need to know which

factors that actually lead to a good impression of the organisation. On this basis, they

can design the employer branding campaigns with the explicit purpose of improving

the attractiveness of the organization. In the study by Berthon et al. (2005),

respondents were asked to rate the overall attractiveness of a well-known firm, in

addition to the indicators in the EmpAt scale. A positive relationship was found

between the five dimensions and overall attractiveness. We want to take this research

further and include the variables corporate reputation, use of social media, and

intentions to apply for a job in a model with the dimensions of employer

attractiveness. There are several studies that have demonstrated relations between an

organization’s reputation and how it attracts applicants (Collins and Han, 2004). In

our study, however, we hypothesize whether the dimensions for employer

attractiveness have a relation with corporate reputation. This leads to the first

hypothesis:

H1. Potential employees’ perception of the five dimensions of employer attractiveness

has a positive relation with their perception of a good corporate reputation.

If social media are capable of destroying an organization’s reputation, they should

probably be capable to help building a good reputation for the organization as well.

Moreover, through a study of engineering students, Collins and Stevens (2002) found

that the impression of an organization could be improved with the help of substantial

and easily available information through job vacancy ads on internet sites. Social

media can also be useful to attract potential employees (Davison et al., 2011).

Because of the evolved use of social media in recruiting and employer branding

campaigns, we find it important to assess whether this way of using social media
actually does work. We have therefore extended the model to encompass social

media, and investigate whether social media affect corporate reputation.

H2. Potential employees’ perception of employers’ use of social media has a

positive relation with a good corporate reputation.

There are several studies that have found a positive relation between corporate

reputation and intentions to apply for a job (e.g. Edwards, 2010; Belt and Paolillo,

1982; Gatewood et al., 1993, in Cable and Turban, 2003). Within the field of

psychology, Edwards (2010) finds that when an organization has a good reputation,

the chances that potential employees apply for a job increase. Collins and Stevens

(2002) studied engineering students and their intentions to apply for a job in an

organization, and to what degree they were positive to specific organizations. They

found that positive perceptions of the organizations affected the students’ intentions to

apply for a job in these organizations. Building on this literature we are testing

whether potential employees’ impressions of corporate reputation and their intention

to apply for a job are related.

H3. High corporate reputation has a positive relation with the potential employees’

intention to apply for a job.

When social media is used by organizations as means of attracting potential

employees it should be seen in relation to potential job seekers intention to apply for a

job (Cappelli, 2001). However, as perceived corporate reputation is assumed to

strongly influence the intention to apply (Collins and Han, 2004); we suggest that the

use of social media may impact the strength of this relationship rather than having an

independent relation to the dependent variable (i.e. intention to apply). Because the

intention to apply for a job appears to be strongly connected to the quality and
perceived reputation of the employer, the use of social media itself may not have an

impact if the reputation is poor. As such, we expect that social media has a moderating

effect on the relationship between corporate reputation and intentions to apply for a

job. As an example, a potential employee could see job vacancies for a specific firm

in social media, but not have any intentions to apply for a job because he or she thinks

the firm has bad reputation. This leads to the fourth hypothesis:

H4. Potential employees’ perception of employers’ use of social media

positively moderates the relationship between corporate reputation and potential

employees’ intention to apply for a job. Based on the reviewed theory and the

proposed hypotheses, the research model is presented in Figure 1.

METHOD

Procedure and participants

In the present study we asked Norwegian engineering students through a web-based

survey about three well- known Norwegian engineering firms. Students are suitable

for the present research as they are job seekers in the near future and, hence, potential

employees for the firms in question. The reason for choosing engineering students in

particular, is that they are sought after among engineering firms and in the work

domain in general, and organizations have to compete to attract the best talents.

Therefore, in this domain, employer branding is of particular interest. Also, choosing

a relatively homogeneous group of students strengthens the design by avoiding

disturbance from possible third variables and helps isolating the relationships under

study (Bollen, 1989).

The three firms we based the questionnaire on are Statoil and Aker Solutions,

operating within the oil and gas industry, and Kongsberg, an actor in the defence and

maritime industry. They are all international companies with several locations around

the world. Statoil, Aker Solutions, and Kongsberg are rated as the three most ideal

employers for undergraduate engineering students in Norway (Universum, 2013).

Technology and innovation are crucial in their industries, and engineers are their most

valuable resource. This is why employer branding is of high importance to these

firms.

A link to the survey was made available for the relevant engineering students at three

different universities in Norway. We asked the respondents to state how familiar they

were with these firms, and consequently to answer only the questions related to the

firms they had knowledge about. In total 184 engineering students, 133 male and 51

female, answered the survey. Of the respondents, 4 per cent were less than 20 years

old, 90 per cent were between 21 and 30, and 6 per cent were more than 31 years old.

There were 45 per cent with no work experience, 39 per cent had less than two years

of work experience, and 16 per cent had more than two years of work experience.

Because of closely related means and standard deviation between the results from the

three organisations, we have included the results from all three as one sample. In total

we have 366 answers. As the respondents had the possibility to answer the question

for more than one organisation, some of the respondents have done so.

The scales used in this paper have been translated from English into Norwegian for

this survey. The translation has been checked for spelling and content by peers.
Measures

Employer attractiveness

Employer attractiveness was measured using the 25 indicators in the employer

attractiveness (EmpAt) Scale developed by Berthon et al. (2005). The five dimensions

– interest value (e.g. “The organisation produces innovative products and services”),

development value (e.g. “Feeling good about yourself as a result of working for a

particular organisation”), social value (e.g. “Having a good relation with your

colleagues”), economic value (e.g. “An attractive overall compensation package”),

and application value (e.g. “A customer oriented firm”) were measured using a seven-

point Likert scale ranging from 1 (to a very little extent) to 7 (to a very great extent).

Figure 1 Research model

 Chapter II
Review of Literature
Review of Literature

Social media is defined as ‘a group of Internet-based applications build on the

ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and
exchange of user generated content” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61). Perdue
(2010) noted that the enormous growth of social media, especially in terms of users,
carries many implications for transforming businesses; encouraging the
organizations to be engaged in more and more activities via social networks
(Correa, Hinsley, & De Zuniga, 2010). In the United States alone, 86% of the top
100 companies use at least one social media platform (Coon, 2010), and
websites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter have become one of the prime
sources for attracting and acquiring job applicants (Cooper, 2007). Nevertheless,
social media has also reduced the efforts on the part of applicants and allows them to
apply for a job position by a few mouse clicks (Chauhan, Buckley, & Harvey, 2013).
Consequently, recruitment firms have also began to use social media as a tool for
searching desired candidates, making it worthwhile for the job seekers to have
presence on these websites (Cooper, 2007).
If you have to write an undergraduate dissertation, you may be required to begin by
writing a literature review. A literature review is a search and evaluation of the
available literature in your given subject or chosen topic area. It documents the state
of the art with respect to the subject or topic you are writing about.
A literature review has four main objectives:
 It surveys the literature in your chosen area of study
 It synthesises the information in that literature into a summary
 It critically analyses the information gathered by identifying gaps in current
knowledge; by showing limitations of theories and points of view; and by
formulating areas for further research and reviewing areas of controversy
 It presents the literature in an organized way
A literature review shows your readers that you have an in-depth grasp of your
subject; and that you understand where your own research fits into and adds to an
existing body of agreed knowledge.
Here’s another way of describing those four main tasks. A literature review:
 demonstrates a familiarity with a body of knowledge and establishes the
credibility of your work;
 summarises prior research and says how your project is linked to it;
 integrates and summarises what is known about a subject;
 demonstrates that you have learnt from others and that your research is a
starting point for new ideas.
 Chapter III
Objectives & Research
Methodology
Research Objective
In order to bridge the research gaps, the present study takes up a qualitative approach

to gain insights into the perception of job seekers about the use of social networking

sites for and whether or not they feel attracted towards the employers making use of

these social media tools. A qualitative inquiry is the suitable approach when one is

trying to make sense about the lived experiences of the target population and aims to

gain an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon experienced by a homogeneous

group of individuals. It also provides enough scope to the participants so as to share

their lived experiences and perception about a particular event or phenomenon in

question.

Method of the Study

Researchers’ Background We would like to present our background so as to enablethe

readers to build a perspective for making inferences about our findings. The first author of

this paper is a doctoral

scholar in the area of Human Resource Management in a gla, where she is actively

conducting research work in the areas of e-recruitment and job search from last 4 years. The

second author of this paper is an associate professor and was formerly working

with the same business school in the Department of Human Resource. He has successfully

guided PhD students in the areas of e-recruitment sources and employer branding. The third

author of this paper is a doctoral scholar in Department of Finance and has been trained in

conducting focus group interviews. All the authors have previously published articles using
qualitative research methods.

Participant Selection

Purposive opportunistic sampling (cf. Willig, 2013) was used with an objective to find

the appropriate sample to address the research question of the present study. Smith and

Osborn (2007) have also recommended purposive sampling for IPA studies so as to find a

more closely defined group of participants for whom the research question will be significant.

The target samples, therefore, were the final year job seeking students from some of the

renowned educational institutions located across two major cities in India namely; New

Delhi and Hyderabad. Selection of the cities was based on the ease of accessibility to a large

student population, representing different parts of the country.

Data Collection
After seeking permission from the institutional review board, comprised of senior

faculty members at our university, and deans of the other educational institutes identified for

data collection, first and third authors conducted a total of 4 focus group interviews consisting

of 8 students in each group. Out of the total number of participants, 13 were females and 19

were males. Focus groups are identified as the 2nd most extensively used method of data

collection in IPA studies, after semi-structured interviews (Brocki & Wearden, 2006).

Selection of participants was based on a two-fold exercise. We first asked all the final year

students across different disciplines about their average social media usage per day and

whoever found to be spending more than two hours a day were then asked about their usage

of social media for the purpose of job search. Finally, we approached the respondents

who reported to be spending at least 30 minutes a day on social media for job hunting and

requested.
Corporate reputation

Corporate reputation was measured using a scale developed by Turban et al. (1998).

The scale consists of four indicators, e.g. “I have heard a lot of good things about this

firm”. The items were measured using a five-point Liker scale ranging from 1 (not at

all accurate) to 5 (very accurate).

Intentions to apply for a job

Intention to apply for a job was measured using High house et al.’s (2003) scale for

intention to apply for a job, e.g. “I would accept a job offer from this company”.

Five items were measured using a five-point Liker scale ranging from 1 (not at all

accurate) to 5 (very accurate).

Social media

Social media was measured using a scale developed by Collins and Stevens (2002).

As the scale originally was meant for use in the general marketing of organizations

and job vacancies, we modified it to adapt it to the use of social media in employer

branding. A sample item is “I have seen advertising for jobs at this organization in

social media”. Four indicators were measured using a five-point Linker scale ranging

from 1 (not at all accurate) to 5 (very accurate).

Control variables

Some control variables were also included. These are gender, age, place of residence,

academic results, and work experience.

Results

The proposed model was tested by means of structural equation modeling in LISREL

8.80, which enables a simultaneous test of models with multiple dependent variables

by statistically controlling for relations between these variables. The analyses were

conducted on a covariance matrix and with the maximum likelihood method of

estimation. The overall fit of the models was evaluated using the Chi-Square test

(x2), its degrees of freedom (df) and p-value, as well as on the basis of root mean

square approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI),

non-normed fit index (NNFI), and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGIF). The x2

statistic should be insignificant with a p-value above 0.05 and the ratio of x2 to

degrees of freedom smaller than 3:1 (Gefen et al., 2000). A good fit for RMSEA

should be close to 0.06 (Hu and Bentler, 1999) or have an upper limit of 0.07 (Steiger,

2007). CFI, NFI, and NNFI should have a value of 0.95 or above, while AGIF should

be above 0.80 (Hu and Bentler, 1999).

Preliminary analyses

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the fit of the EmpAt

scale. Even though the factor loadings on the CFA were adequate for most items,

results from the CFA yielded bad model fit.

The problems seem to stem from possible cross loadings for several of the items.

For example, “Acceptance and belonging” (item 25) might relate to social value

or to the psychological aspect of the job. In addition, some dimensions included items

that can be seen as two separate dimensions. For example, economic value includes

items about salary as well as job security and promotional opportunities. These

indicators might tap different dimensions of employer attractiveness. Similar

examples can be made for several of the indicators and the related dimensions.

Because of these problems, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) specified with five

factors was conducted to see how the items would distribute among the five

dimensions. The Appendix (Table AI) with the values for the EFA indicates low

loadings for many of the items with weak and similar loadings on several of the

factors. This indicates that the items related to each dimensions is not distinct from

other dimensions in the scale. By way of adjusting the modification indices by

removing items with loadings much below 0.6, cross loadings, and based on a

theoretical rational, adequate model fit was finally obtained in a second CFA

The modifications of the EmpAt scale resulted in elimination of ten indicators. Only

indicators clearly related to its underlying dimension were kept. In addition, the

dimensions were somewhat altered to fit the items representing each dimension based

on our findings. To be specific, we ended up with five dimensions – innovation value

(three items), psychological value (two items), social value (four items), economic

value (two items), and application value (four items) (see the Appendix, Table AII).

As such, we ended up with the same number of dimensions as in the original scale by

Berthon et al. (2005), but the two first dimensions have different names due to the

change in item composition. These dimensions are the ones included in the main

analysis of the structural model below. Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and
composite reliability for these dimensions are reported in Table I and prove

satisfactory with values above 0.5 and 0.7 for validity and reliability, respectively

(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978).

Furthermore, CFA was extended to examine the factor structure of all the five

measurement scales used in the present study. After removing weak items on the

scales in question based on both theoretical and statistical evaluations, results

yielded satisfactory fit indices for the measurement models combined:

Means (M), standard deviations (SD), factor loadings, and t-values for the final

items are presented in The Appendix (Table AII), while composite reliability (CR),

Cronbach’s alpha (a), and average variance extracted (AVE) for the latent variables

according to results from the CFA are presented in Table I, along with the squared

correlations between these constructs. According to these tables the reliability

estimates are all over the threshold value of 0.7 recommended by Nunnally (1978)

indicating adequate reliability. Moreover, AVE’s are all above 0.5 and the squared

correlations indicating convergent validity and discriminant validity, respectively

(Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Main analysis

The results of the structural equation modelling yielded adequate fit for the model:

However, social value and economic value did not have a significant relation with

corporate reputation, and the interaction effect between reputation and use of social

media did not have a significant relation with intentions to apply for a job. These

variables were, hence, removed from the model. Moreover, modification indices
suggested adding a path from development value to intentions to apply for a job.

As such, also a direct relation between these variables is evident. The results of the

final model showed in Figure 2 yielded better model fit than the theoretical

model.

As shown in Figure 2, we find a significant positive relation between innovation value

and corporate reputation, between psychological value and corporate reputation, and

between application value and corporate reputation, which partly supports the first

hypothesis. On the other hand, no relation was found between the social value

dimension or the economic value dimension and corporate reputation. No interaction

effect was found of social media between corporate reputation and intentions to apply

for a job. Hence, H4 is not supported in the present study. Furthermore, the use of

social media is positively linked to corporate reputation, while there is a positive

relation between corporate reputation and intentions of job application, supporting

hypotheses two and three, respectively. In addition, we find a significant relation

between psychological value and intentions to apply for a job.

To test the indirect effects in the final model, bootstrapped confidence interval

estimates were calculated (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). Results revealed the indirect

effect of innovation value on intentions to apply for a job. In sum, psychological value

is both directly and indirectly linked to intentions to apply for a job, making corporate

reputation a mediator in the relationship. The other dimensions of the EmpAt scale are

only indirectly linked to intentions to apply for a job and these effects are rather small

(see Table II).

Figure 2 Results from the structural equation analysis
 Table I CR, alpha, AVE, and squared correlations for the study variables

Variables M SD CR a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Innovation value 5.29 0.99 0.81 0.81 0.59

2. Psychological value 4.60 1.49 0.89 0.88 0.36 0.80

3. Social value 4.93 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.25 0.41 0.73

4. Economic value 5.43 1.03 0.79 0.79 0.09 0.05 0.13 0.65

5. Application value 5.06 0.90 0.83 0.83 0.28 0.28 0.49 0.34 0.55

6. Use of social media 1.89 1.00 0.82 0.80 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.60

7. Corporate reputation 3.82 0.97 0.88 0.88 0.35 0.53 0.29 0.04 0.27 0.03 0.79

8. Application intentions 3.61 1.06 0.85 0.84 0.21 0.59 0.23 0.06 0.17 0.01 0.53 0.65

Table II Tests of mediations of the links emerging in Figure 2

Bootstrapping BC 95 % CI

Innovation value Corporate reputation Application intentions 0.07 0.03 2.55 ** 0.0112 0.1288

Psychological value Corporate reputation Application intentions 0.20 0.04 4.80 ** * 0.1216 0.2784

Application value Corporate reputation Application intentions 0.05 0.02 2.10 ** 0.0108 0.0892

Social media Corporate reputation Application intentions 0.03 0.02 2.03 ** 20.0092 0.0692

Independent variable (IV) Mediator variable (MV) Dependent variable (DV) Point estimate SE t-value Lower Upper
Finding

The results indicate that several employer attributes are positive for corporate

reputation, which again is related to attraction of potential employees.

Specifically, the results suggest that innovation value, psychological value,

application value, and the use of social media positively relate to corporate

reputation, which in turn is positively linked to intentions to apply for a job.

Psychological value, which is the strongest predictor, is also directly related to

intentions to apply for a job. Furthermore, the validation of the EmpAt scale

resulted in different dimensions than in the original study. New dimensions

and a re-arrangement of indicators are proposed.

Chapter V

Conclusion
A conclusion is the last part of something, its end or result. When you
write a paper, you always end by summing up your arguments and
drawing a conclusion about what you've been writing about.
The phrase in conclusion means "finally, to sum up," and is used to
introduce some final comments at the end of a speech or piece of writing.
The phrase jump to conclusions means "to come to a judgment without
enough evidence." A foregone conclusion is an outcome that seems
certain.
 DISCUSSION

In this study we have investigated relations between the dimensions in the EmpAt

scale, use of social media, corporate reputation, and intentions to apply for a job in an

employer branding perspective in order to identify important factors which

organisations should focus on in employer branding campaigns. In addition, the

EmpAt scale has been validated in Norwegian for the purpose of the study. Two out of

four hypotheses, H2 and H3, were confirmed, while H1 was partly confirmed. One of

the hypotheses, H4 was not confirmed. The results will be discussed in the following.

First, the results from the validation of the EmpAt scale have altered the five

dimensions and their related indicators compared to the dimensions originally

contained in the scale. The reason for the differing results may be cultural differences

between Australia and Norway. The results are also different compared to the studies

by Roy (2008) and Arachchige and Robertson (2011). Both of these studies resulted in

eight factors, including different indicators. However, in addition to the 25 indicators

from the EmpAt scale, several new indicators were added in these two studies. This

may be another reason for why our own study arrives at different results. In addition,

the EFA performed in the validation is context specific in the way that it produces the

best fit for the specific data analyzed.

Second, the study contributes to research on employer branding by identifying

attributes of employer attractiveness that potential employees seem to value in

employers. Specifically, findings show that the attractiveness dimensions innovation

value, psychological value, and application value have positive relations with

corporate reputation. On the other hand, the dimensions of social value and economic

value did not have a significant relation with corporate reputation. Accordingly, the
more non-materialistic aspects of the work seem more important to create a positive

reputation of the organisation to potential employees. This may seem surprising as

compensation is often seen as maybe the most important aspect of the work-contract

in order to attract and retain employees (Cappelli, 1999). The lack of relation for

social value is also controversial as the work climate in social terms is often thought

of as important for employees.

In the study of Berthon et al. (2005), all of the five dimensions in the EmpAt scale,

including social and economic value, proved important for potential employees’

perception of the organisation. However, according to the result of the present study,

organisations are better off focusing on the innovation, personal growth, and self-

confidence, as well as a good environment for learning and application of skills rather

than investing in their employer branding activities. Moreover, these findings add to

research that identifies monetary questions as less important in terms of attracting and

retaining employees (e.g. Challenger, Gray and Christmas, 1999), and proposes non-

monetary factors as more important for recruiting employees (Hiltrop, 1999). The

lack of importance of the social value dimensions is more complicated to explain. One

possible explanation could be that it is difficult to evaluate the relationship with

colleagues and managers in an organisation where the respondents do not work, than

it is to evaluate the other dimensions of the EmpAt scale for specific organisations.

In addition to the relationship with corporate reputation, psychological value has a

direct relation with intentions to apply for a job. This finding indicates that potential

employees, who believe they are going to feel better about themselves and feel more

self-confident if they work in a specific organisation, are also more likely to think

about applying for a job in the organisation. This finding adds to the relevance of the
more psychological factors of the work as important in attracting and retaining

employees.

Third, we tested the use of social media as employer branding campaigns and the use

of social media as a recruiting tool, as called for by Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) and

Davison et al. (2011). The results in the study at hand indicate that use of social media

in employer branding campaigns can be helpful in building a good reputation. This is

important as there is a clear link between a positive corporate reputation and

intentions to apply for a job. Moreover, as we have identified important attributes

through the test of the dimensions in the EmpAt, use of social media may be even

more effective for these purposes if the organisation focuses on the attributes that

seems important for potential employees when they consider employers. As such, the

combined results point to social media as an effective tool for employer branding and

recruiting. However, more research on these relations is needed to get a clearer picture

of such results.

Fourth, we found, not surprisingly, that corporate reputation has a positive relation

with intention to apply for a job, which adds to earlier findings that suggest that there

is a relation between reputation and job pursuit intension (Belt and Paolillo, 1982;

Gatewood et al., 1993, in Cable and Turban, 2003; Collins and Han, 2004). On the

other hand, we did not find an interaction effect of the use of social media and

corporate reputation on intentions to apply for a job. Hence, the use of social media

does not strengthen the already positive relation between corporate reputation and

intentions to apply for a job. However, as the measurement is somewhat new and it

reflects an overall use of social media and not particularly related to employer

branding, future research may look further into this relationship.

 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

In relation to managers and HR-practitioners the results of the present study indicate

several suggestions. First, the focus on employer branding campaigns and recruiting

should be on non-monetary factors and avoid focus on, for example, compensation as

a key element for the organisation. In particular, the study at hand underscores the

importance of psychological values, innovation values, and application

values for potential employees when they evaluate employers. This involves

innovation opportunities, feeling of confidence and self-worth, and in general growth,

learning, and the opportunity to use ones skills and knowledge. These factors are

important for building a positive reputation of the firm, which will enhance intentions

to apply for a job among potential employees. As such, firms that are in need for

employees with specific qualifications, such as engineers, or just talented people in

general, should build their recruitment strategy based on such evaluations.

In addition, social media may play a key role in the recruitment process in terms of

branding the organisation to potential employees. In this branding process it will be

important to focus on the same factors as mentioned above.

 LIMITATIONS AND ISSUES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The present research has limitations. Firstly, since the findings are based on

correlational data, conclusions about the direction of the relationships are

unwarranted. We have presented directions in the models, but that is only for

illustration.

Second, engineering students are chosen as respondents for this study as they are

attractive in the labour market. This leads to competition between the organisations to

get the best employees, and the focus on employer branding is high in the industry.

This may differ from industry to industry. In general, there are both positive and

negative aspects related to the use of students as respondents; for instance, it may

affect external validity and decrease the possibility for generalising (Wells, 1993, in

Berthon et al., 2005). In the present study engineering student were singled out as

respondents. This limits the opportunity to generalise the result of the study. On the

other hand, the homogeneous group contributes to isolating the relationships. In

addition, organisations often direct their recruitment efforts towards students, since

students are likely to apply for a job in near future. The fact that earlier studies on the

subject, and specifically those including the EmpAt scale, have used students,

simplifies the comparison of the results.

Third, the fact that the survey is answered using self-reports by the respondents may

be a limitation. However, other methods are not necessarily superior if construct

validity is examined (Conway and Lance, 2010). Satisfactory psychometric

attributes of the measures used in the present study are demonstrated in the result

section.
Fourth, the results from the validation of the EmpAt scale resulted in elimination of

ten indicators. In terms of the results from the EFA it is important to underscore that

such a factor analysis produces the best possible fit for the data used in the present

research. As such, this part of the validation is specific to this dataset and may not be

accurate in another sample. However, based on a theoretical evaluation we feel that

the composition of items are accurate in terms of the dimensions intended measured.

On the basis of the discussion and of the limitations of the present study, we propose

the following directions for future research. We suggest developing the employer

attractiveness scale further based on the findings in the present research. It would be

relevant to test the dimensions proposed in the present research to further validate this

composition, as well as develop the scale by adding more indicators to the proposed

dimensions and testing these dimensions in a model including relevant employer

branding variables. Further development of the EmpAt scale would build on the

present research in terms of identifying which factors employers should focus on in

employer branding campaigns. A second suggestion is to develop a scale with more

indicators in order to measure the use of social media in the context of employer

branding and recruiting. This scale could be used to further investigate how social

media influences corporate reputation and intentions to apply for a job. Finally, a

combination of different methods could be used in further research on the topic to

account for the limitations of the cross-sectional design in the present study.
 REFERENCES

Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996), “The employer brand”, The Journal of Brand

Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 185-206.

Arachchige, B.J.H. and Robertson, A. (2011), “Business student perceptions of a

preferred employer: a study identifying determinants of employer branding”, The

IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 25-46.

Backhaus, K. and Tikoo, S. (2004), “Conceptualizing and researching employer

branding”, Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 501-517.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.

Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal

of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120. Barney, J.B. (2002), Gaining and

Sustaining Competitive Advantage, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Belt, J.A. and Paolillo, J.G. (1982), “The influence of corporate image and

specificity of candidate qualifications on response to recruitment advertisement”,

Journal of Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 105-112.

Berthon, P., Ewing, M. and Hah, L.L. (2005), “Captivating company: dimensions of

attractiveness in employer branding”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24

No. 2, pp. 151-172.

Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York,

NY.
Borstorff, P.C., Marker, M.B. and Bennett, D.S. (2005), “Online recruitment:

attitudes and behaviors of job seekers”, Journal of Strategic E-Commerce, Vol. 5 No.

2, pp. 1-24.

Boxall, P. (1996), “The strategic HRM debate and the resource-based view of the

firm”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 59-75.

Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2008), “Social network sites: definition, history and

scholarship”, Journal of Computer Mediated Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 210-230.

Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1996), “Person-organization fit, job choice

decisions and organizational entry”, Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 294-311.

Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. (2003), “The value of organizational reputation in the

recruitment context: a brand-equity perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.

33 No. 11, pp. 2244-2266.

Cappelli, P. (1999), The New Deal at Work, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,

MA.

Cappelli, P. (2001), “Making the most of on-line recruiting”, Harvard Business

Review, March.

Challenger, Gray and Christmas (1999), “Results of a survey reported in ‘overworked

and overpaid: the American manager’”, The Economist, 30 January, pp. 61-62.

Collins, C.J. and Han, J. (2004), “Exploring applicant pool quantity and quality: the

effects of early recruitment practice strategies, corporate advertising, and firm

reputation”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 685-717.

Collins, C.J. and Stevens, C.K. (2002), “The relationship between early recruitment-

related activities and the application decisions of new labor-market entrants: a

brand equity approach to recruitment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 6,

pp. 1121-1133.

Conway, J. and Lance, C. (2010), “What reviewers should expect from authors

regarding common method bias in organizational research”, Journal of Business and

Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 325-334.

Davison, H.K., Maraist, C. and Bing, M.N. (2011), “Friend or Foe? The promise and

pitfalls of using social networking sites for HR decisions”, Journal of Business and

Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 153-159.

Dowling, G. and Moran, P. (2012), “Corporate reputations: built in or bolted on?”,

California Management Review, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 25-43.

Dowling, G.R. (1994), Corporate Reputation: Strategies for Developing the Corporate

Brand, Kogan Page, London.

Edwards, M.R. (2010), “An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory”,

Personnel Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 5-23.

Fishman, C. (1998), “The war of talent”, Fast Company, Vol. 16 No. 104.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.

18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Foster, C., Punjaisiri, K. and Cheng, R. (2010), “Exploring the relationship

between corporate, internal and employer branding”, Journal of Product & Brand

Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 401-409.

Furu, N. (2011), “De beste hodene er pa˚ nett” (“The best

heads are online”), Personal og ledelse, Vol. 4, pp. 32-35. Gatewood, R.D., Feild,

H.S. and Barrick, M. (2011), Human

Resource Selection, South Western Cengage Learning, Independence, KY.

Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M.A. and Lautenschlager, D.J. (1993), “Corporate

image, recruitment image, and initial job choice decisions”, Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 414-427.

Gefen, D., Straub, D. and Boudreau, M. (2000), “Structural equation modeling

techniques and regression: guidelines for research practice”, Communications of the

Association for Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 71-78.

Hall, R. (1992), “The strategic analysis of intangible resources”,

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 135-144. Highhouse, S.,

Lievens, F. and Sinar, E.F. (2003),

“Measuring attraction to organizations”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,

Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 986-1001.

Hiltrop, J.M. (1999), “The quest for the best: human resource practices to attract

and retain talent”, European Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 422-430.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance

structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation

Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.

Judge, T.A. and Cable, D.M. (1997), “Applicant personality, organizational culture,

and organization attraction”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 359-394.

Madera, J.M. (2012), “Using social networking websites as a selection tool: the role

of selection process fairness and job pursuit intentions”, International Journal of

Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1276-1282.

Martin, G., Beaumont, P., Doig, R. and Pate, J. (2005), “Branding: a new performance

discourse for HR?”, European Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 76-88.

Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1982), “Predation reputation, and entry deterrence”,

Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 280-312.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for

assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behaviour

Research Methods, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.

Roy, S.K. (2008), “Identifying the dimensions of attractiveness of an employer brand

in the Indian context”, South Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 110-

130.

Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40

No. 3, pp. 437-454.

Steiger, J.H. (2007), “Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in

structural equation modeling”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 42 No. 5,

pp. 893-898.

Turban, D.B., Forret, M.L. and Hendrickson, C.L. (1998), “Applicant attraction to

firms: influences of organization reputation, job and organizational attributes, and

recruiter behaviors”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 24-44.

Universum (2013), “Norway’s ideal employers”, available at:

http://universumglobal.com/ideal-employer-rankings/ student-surveys/norway/

(accessed 10 August 2013).

van Riel, C.B.M. (1997), “Increasing effectiveness of managing strategic issues

affecting a firm’s reputation”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 135-

140.

Walker, H.J., Feild, H.S., Giles, W.F., Bernerth, J.B. and Short, J.C. (2011), “So

what do you think of the organization? A contextual priming explanation for

recruitment web site characteristics as antecedents of job seekers’ organizational

image perceptions”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.

114 No. 2, pp. 165-178.

Walsh, G. and Beatty, S.E. (2007), “Customer-based corporate reputation of a

service firm: scale development and validation”, Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 127-143.

Weigelt, K. and Camerer, C. (1988), “Reputation and corporate strategy: a review of

recent theory and applications”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 443-

454.
Wells, W.D. (1993), “Discovery-oriented consumer research”, Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 489-504. Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C. and McWilliams,

A. (1994),

“Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based

perspective”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 301-326.

Further reading

Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”,

 APPENDIX

Q1. The organisation produces innovative products and services

a) Innovation value 0.91

b) Development value 20.05
c) Social value 20.12
d) Economic value 20.15
e) Application value 0.06

Q2. Innovative employer – novel work practices/forward-thinking

a) Innovation value 0.72

b) Development value 0.10
c) Social value 0.03
d) Economic value 0.00
e) Application value 20.05

Q3. The organisation both values and makes use of your creativity

a) Innovation value 0.34

b) Development value 0.23
c) Social value 0.00
d) Economic value 20.14
e) Application value 0.37

Q4. The organisation produces high quality products and services

a) Innovation value 0.77

b) Development value 20.06
c) Social value 0.11
d) Economic value 0.12
e) Application value 20.14

Q5. The organisation has an exciting environment

a) Innovation value 0.39

b) Development value 0.39
c) Social value 0.09
d) Economic value 0.04
e) Application value 0.06

Q6. Feeling more self-confident as a result of working for this particular organisation

a) Innovation value 0.07

 b) Development value 0.84
c) Social value 0.02
d) Economic value 20.01
e) Application value 0.00

Q7. Feeling good about yourself as a result of working for this particular organisation

a) Innovation value 0.01

b) Development value 0.89
c) Social value 0.05
d) Economic value 20.05
e) Application value 20.04

Q8. Gaining career-enhancing experience

a) Innovation value 0.33
b) Development value 0.19
c) Social value 0.00
d) Economic value 0.28
e) Application value 0.06
Q9. A springboard for future employment
a) Innovation value 0.14
b) Development value 0.31
c) Social value 20.11
d) Economic value 0.29
e) Application value 0.14

Q10. Recognition/appreciation from management

a) Innovation value 0.11

b) Development value 0.08
c) Social value 0.33
d) Economic value 20.03
e) Application value 0.33

Q11. Good relationship with colleagues

a) Innovation value 20.07

b) Development value 0.02
c) Social value 0.80
d) Economic value 0.09
e) Application value 0.07

Q12 The employees have a good relationship with their superiors

a) Innovation value 0.01

b) Development value 20.08
c) Social value 0.71
d) Economic value 20.05
e) Application value 0.29

Q13. Supportive and encouraging colleagues

a) Innovation value 20.07

b) Development value 0.09
c) Social value 0.85
d) Economic value 0.03
e) Application value 0.02
Q14. A fun working environment

a) Innovation value 0.14

b) Development value 0.27
c) Social value 0.51
d) Economic value 20.03
e) Application value 0.02

Q15. Happy work environment

a) Innovation value 0.13

b) Development value 0.06
c) Social value 0.79
d) Economic value 0.02
e) Application value 20.09

Q16. An attractive overall compensation package

a) Innovation value 0.01

b) Development value 20.13
c) Social value 0.21
d) Economic value 0.79
e) Application value 20.07
About the authors

Anne-Mette Sivertzen is a Project Controller at FMC Technologies Norway. She has

a Master of Science degree (2013) in Strategic Management from Buskerud

University College in Norway. Her main research interests are within human

resources, strategy, and management. Anne-Mette Sivertzen is the corresponding

author and can be contacted at: annemette.sivertzen@outlook.com

Etty Ragnhild Nilsen is an Associate Professor at Buskerud University College,

Norway. Nilsen received her PhD from BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo in

2010. Her main research interests are within strategy, organisational learning, learning

in projects, and regional innovation. She is currently the project manager of a regional

research project on development and innovation, and participates in a research

program on reforms in the healthcare sector in Norway. She teaches strategy,

organisational behaviour, and knowledge management, and has worked for many

years as an editor in the private sector.

Anja H. Olafsen is a PhD-student at the Norwegian School of Economics and is

employed as a PhD-scholar at Buskerud University College. Her main research

interests are within human resources management and work motivation.

This article has been cited by:

DeepaR., R. Deepa, BaralRupashree, Rupashree Baral. 2019. Importance-

performance analysis as a tool to guide employer branding strategies in the IT-BPM

industry. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance 6:1, 77-95.

AhamadFaiz, Faiz Ahamad. Impact of word-of-mouth, job attributes and relationship

strength on employer attractiveness.

MishraSovanjeet, Sovanjeet Mishra, KumarS. Pavan, S. Pavan Kumar. 2019. E-

recruitment and training comprehensiveness: untapped antecedents of employer

branding. Industrial and Commercial Training 51:2, 125-136. Yves Emery. In-Depth

Modernization of HRM in the Public Sector: The Swiss Way 205-220.

Johan Ninan, Stewart Clegg, Ashwin Mahalingam. 2019. Branding and

governmentality for infrastructure megaprojects: The role of social media.

International Journal of Project Management 37:1, 59-72.

GuneshPriya, Priya Gunesh, MaheshwariVishwas, Vishwas Maheshwari. Role of

organizational career websites for employer brand development. International Journal

of Organizational Analysis, ahead of print.

BerryAlison, Alison Berry, MartinJeanette, Jeanette Martin. An exploratory analysis

of employer branding in healthcare.

International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, ahead of print.

BellouVictoria, Victoria Bellou, StylosNikolaos, Nikolaos Stylos, RahimiRoya, Roya

Rahimi. 2018. Predicting hotel attractiveness via personality traits of applicants.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30:10, 3135-3155.

Patrick van Esch, Margaret Mente. 2018. Marketing video-enabled social media as

part of your e-recruitment strategy: Stop trying to be trendy. Journal of Retailing and

Consumer Services 44, 266-273.

RondaLorena, Lorena Ronda, ValorCarmen, Carmen Valor, AbrilCarmen, Carmen

Abril. 2018. Are they willing to work for you? An employee-centric view to employer

brand attractiveness. Journal of Product & Brand Management 27:5, 573-596.

Raoul Könsgen, Mario Schaarschmidt, Stefan Ivens, Andreas Munzel. 2018. Finding

Meaning in Contradiction on Employee Review Sites — Effects of Discrepant Online

Reviews on Job Application Intentions. Journal of Interactive Marketing 43, 165-177.

BruschInes, Ines Brusch, BruschMichael, Michael Brusch, KozlowskiTherese,

Therese Kozlowski. 2018. Factors influencing employer branding. International

Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 10:2, 149-162.

AggerholmHelle Kryger, Helle Kryger Aggerholm, AndersenSophie Esmann, Sophie

Esmann Andersen. 2018. Social Media Recruitment 3.0. Journal of Communication

Management 22:2, 122-137.

Milota Vetráková, Miloš Hitka, Marek Potkány, Silvia Lorincová, Lukáš Smerek.

2018. Corporate Sustainability in the Process of Employee Recruitment through

Social Networks in Conditions of Slovak Small and Medium Enterprises.

Sustainability 10:5, 1670.

NaimMohammad Faraz, Mohammad Faraz Naim, LenkaUsha, Usha Lenka. 2018.

Development and retention of Generation Y employees: a conceptual framework.

Employee Relations 40:2, 433-455.

Ådne Vik, Bjørn Nørbech, Debora Jeske. 2018. Virtual Career Fairs: Perspectives

from Norwegian Recruiters and Exhibitors.

Future Internet 10:2, 19.

Tom Sander, Biruta Sloka, Henrijs Kalkis. The Trust of the Information from

Employer Rating Platforms 216-228.

Christian P. Theurer, Andranik Tumasjan, Isabell M. Welpe, Filip Lievens. 2018.

Employer Branding: A Brand Equity-based Literature Review and Research Agenda.

International Journal of Management Reviews 20:1, 155-179.

Miroslavas Pavlovskis, Inga Pavlovska. 2018. VERSLO SOCIALINĖS

ATSAKOMYBĖS INICIATYVOS ĮGYVENDINIMAS TAIKANT BIM: LIETUVOS

STATYBŲ SEKTORIAUS SITUACIJOS ANALIZĖ IR PERSPEKTYVOS /

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

INITIATIVE WITH BIM: ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES OF THE SITUATION

OF THE LITHUANIAN CONSTRUCTION SECTOR. Mokslas - Lietuvos ateitis

10:0, 1.

B. Pandiya, V. Tewari, R. S. Dubey. An identification of dimensions able to attract the

potential workforce for I.T. industry in Indias 260-263.

ReisGermano Glufke, Germano Glufke Reis, BragaBeatriz Maria, Beatriz Maria

Braga, TrullenJordi, Jordi Trullen. 2017. Workplace authenticity as an attribute of

employer attractiveness. Personnel Review 46:8, 1962-1976.

Marieke Carpentier, Greet Van Hoye, Sara Stockman, Eveline Schollaert, Bart Van

Theemsche, Gerd Jacobs. 2017. Recruiting nurses through social media: Effects on

employer brand and attractiveness. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50. .

Irena Bakanauskiene, Rita Bendaravičienė, Laima Barkauskė. 2017. Organizational

attractiveness: an empirical study on employees attitudes in lithuanian business sector.

Problems and Perspectives in Management 15:2, 4-18.

VeloutsouCleopatra, Cleopatra Veloutsou, GuzmanFrancisco, Francisco Guzmán. 2017. The

evolution of brand management thinking over the last 25 years as recorded in the Journal of

Product and Brand Management. Journal of Product & Brand Management 26:1, 2-12.

Helle Kryger Aggerholm, Sophie Esmann Andersen. 273.

Reto Felix, Philipp A. Rauschnabel, Chris Hinsch. 2017. Elements of strategic social media

marketing: A holistic framework.

Journal of Business Research 70, 118-126.

Yves Emery, Armand Brice Kouadio. 2017. Marque employeur et stratégies RH pour les

employeurs publics. Le cas du bassin d’emploi Franco-Valdo-Genevois. Management

international 21:2, 47.

Tom Sander, Biruta Sloka, Henrijs Kalkis. 2017. The Trust of the Information from

Employer Rating Platforms. International Journal of Web Portals 9:1, 13-28.

Eeva-Liisa Oikarinen, Saila Saraniemi. 2016. Categorizing Humorous Employer Brand

Message in a Small Company’s Online Job Ads. Corporate Reputation Review 19:3, 198-

218.
Wayne F. Cascio, Brooke Z. Graham. 2016. New Strategic Role for HR: Leading the

Employer-Branding Process. Organization Management Journal 13:4, 182-192.

Donald H. Kluemper, Arjun Mitra, Siting Wang. Social Media use in HRM 153-207.

Stephanie Russell, Matthew J. Brannan. 2016. “Getting the Right People on the Bus”:

Recruitment, selection and integration for the branded organization. European Management

Journal 34:2, 114-124.

Filip Lievens, Jerel E. Slaughter. 2016. Employer Image and Employer Branding: What We

Know and What We Need to Know.

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 3:1, 407-440.

Maria Cesaria Giordano, Amelia Manuti, Pasquale Davide de Palma. Human Capital

Reloaded: The Use of Social Media in Human Resource Management 1-13.

John Nadeau, Anja H Olafsen. 2015. Country image evaluations and migration intentions.

Place Branding and Public Diplomacy

11:4, 293-308.

Susan E. Myrden, Kevin Kelloway. 2015. Young workers’ perception of brand image: main

and moderating effects. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance

2:3, 267-281.

Esra Alnıaçık, Ümit Alnıaçık, Serhat Erat, Kültigin Akçin. 2014. Attracting Talented

Employees to the Company: Do We Need Different Employer Branding Strategies in

Different Cultures?. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150, 336-344.

. The Role of Social Media in Special Types of Brand Building 132-154.