Few more weeks

Iwantalldegrees

1462466845_1.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Few more weeks

Examining how preferences for employer branding attributes

differ from entry to exit and how they relate to commitment, satisfaction, and retention

Jack K. Ito Faculty of Business Administration, University of Regina, Regina, Canada

Céleste M. Brotheridge ESG-UQAM, Montreal, Canada, and

Kathie McFarland Ministry of Parks, Government of Saskatchewan, Culture and Sport,

Regina, Canada

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to address three broad questions: Are preferences for branding attributes similar for entry and for retention? Are there generational and career stage differences in one’s entry and exit priorities? How is current satisfaction with brand image attributes related to overall commitment, satisfaction and retention?

Design/methodology/approach – This paper reports on the results of a survey of 144 workers employed at 37 day care centers in a medium sized Canadian city.

Findings – Although the level of respondents’ priorities for entry and exit differed, most priorities remained in the same order. However, their perspectives were more disaggregated for entry than for exit, where branding attributes were more strongly correlated. Consistent with the exploration stage of career development, younger people planned to stay a shorter length of time with a particular center.

Research limitations/implications – This study includes only child care workers in a small geographic region. Future research should be undertaken in larger scale firms that also offer greater heterogeneity in professions as well as career options. Also, a longitudinal study that follows new entrants for several years, using both instrumental and symbolic measures, would provide information on what attracted individuals and what influenced their intention to leave.

Practical implications – Although there were few differences by age or career stage, the variation within each factor suggests that a brand image may need to be relatively broad to accommodate diversity. HR practitioners can use the practice symbolic pattern to build and maintain a culture that is attractive to present and prospective employees. The opposite symbolic practice pattern may help current employees understand reasons for new practices.

Originality/value – Organizations face significant challenges in designing programs for recruitment and retention. This study considers how employees’ to two questions – “why do people enter the organization” and “why do people remain?” – may differ.

Keywords Employee turnover, Human resource management, Recruitment, Age groups

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

CDI 18,7

732

Received 28 May 2013 Revised 29 September 2013 Accepted 3 October 2013

Career Development International Vol. 18 No. 7, 2013 pp. 732-752 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1362-0436 DOI 10.1108/CDI-05-2013-0067

Human resource management has adopted the marketing concept of brand management using such terminology as employer branding to better recognize what has long been understood: the attractiveness of an organization is an important factor in recruiting and retaining employees (Edwards, 2010). A favorable image, for example being granted a Best Employer award, helps to expand the applicant pool and enhance selectivity in meeting workforce requirements (Bowes, 2008; Love and Singh, 2011). The brand image literature classifies product/service attributes into instrumental (what the product does) and symbolic (what it implies, such as status) categories. In employment branding, the instrumental/organizational component (hereafter referred to as instrumental) includes human resource management systems and policies (e.g. job security) and the symbolic component includes corporate values, such as honesty and fairness (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003). In concert with factors such as product or service characteristics and environmental responsibility, employer brand image helps to distinguish the organization from others (Bakhaus and Tikoo, 2004). Although institutional imitation may result in common HRM practices such as providing opportunities and a team-based culture, employer brand image nonetheless supports other corporate attributes in competing in the labor market.

Brand-centered HRM practices form part of a psychological contract that represents what an organization offers in return for employees’ commitment and performance (Edwards, 2010). This contract is dynamic as employee preferences may change from recruitment through career and life stages, including retirement (Fisher and Fraser, 2010). For example, as investments in organizationally specific knowledge increase, extra-organizational mobility may decline, thereby increasing the importance of job security (Baron and Kreps, 1999). The employee’s perception of brand image may also evolve from one based on conveyed image at the attraction stage (e.g. advertising and word-of-mouth) to one rooted in personal experience (e.g. is the workplace really family friendly) with an attendant shift from generalities (e.g. espoused managerial philosophies) to more tailored experiences (e.g. supervisor – staff relations). This evolution over time is consistent with Lievens’ (2007) finding that the perceived attractiveness of service in the Belgian army differed between potential candidates and employees.

Thus, employer brand management is concerned with several key issues, such as understanding employees’ preferences at entry and how these priorities may change as they build their careers. On the other hand, organizations also need to understand employees’ perceptions and attributions of the employer side of the psychological contract in order to identify and address weaknesses in recruitment and retention strategies. This includes any changes that the organization undertakes in meeting its strategic objectives that may alter the contract, such as enhancing innovation or reducing costs.

Research questions Although brand-centered HRM practices have been widely studied (e.g. Meyer et al., 2002), several areas have received scant attention. Accordingly, this exploratory study, undertaken in a sample of child care workers and their managers, addresses three broad questions. First, are preferences for branding attributes similar for entry and retention? In other words, do experience and career stage affect what is valued (thus influencing whether recruitment and retention messages need tailoring)? Second, are

Employer branding attributes

733

there generational and career stage differences in one’s entry and exit priorities? This question is important since a brand image that appeals to existing employees may not appeal to prospective (and younger) employees. Finally, how is current satisfaction with brand image attributes related to overall commitment, satisfaction, and retention? And, are regression coefficients consistent with stated priorities at entry and exit? Although instrumental and symbolic factors have been related to dependent variables individually, few studies have combined these variables in a single model. If the priorities recalled on entry differ from regression coefficients on retrospective satisfaction, this may indicate that priorities change with experience over time. Similarly, we can determine whether current priorities on exit accurately reflect their anticipated influence in exit decision-making. The answers to these questions may help HR managers design and communicate effective branding programs to prospective and present employees.

Literature review Employer branding, instrumental and symbolic factors Employer branding (Heilmann, 2010) as a means of attracting new employees and retaining existing employees is gaining popularity, particularly in employment contexts where the unique talents and contributions of employees represent a distinctive competitive advantage for organizations. Some branding attributes are instrumental, subject to managerial control, and readily communicated (e.g. pay structure (salary versus commission) and developmental opportunities(. However, other attributes are more intangible in nature, ascribing human traits to organizations (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003). These symbolic attributes are often expressed in organizational culture terms, such as membership in a family (denoting warmth and support) and a cooperative, team based approach versus an individualistic, competitive one (Catanzaro et al., 2010).

Instrumental and symbolic factors share a reciprocal relationship. First, the instrumental ! symbolic linkage can be functional for example, appraisal and compensation systems incorporating group interdependence (such as group based incentive programs) may encourage teamwork and a “we” type of atmosphere. Second, this relationship may be based on attributions, “causal explanations that employees make regarding management’s motivations for using particular HR practices” (Nishii et al., 2008, p. 507). Nishii et al. argue that practices attributed to an employee well-being philosophy (versus exploitation) are linked to positive (versus negative) affect. Thus, having collaborative processes for layoffs are likely to be linked to symbolic factors such as fairness and honesty. Individuals may interpret the presence or absence of policies as symbolic; for example, shared group rewards may symbolize being part of a family. Attributions are subject to group interpretation of specific policies and actions, cultural attributes and expectations, and testimonials or word-of-mouth (Collins and Stevens, 2002). Moreover, since values can be heterogeneous by career level, interpretations can vary within an organization or between organizations (Rashid et al., 2004).

Also, HRM practices (Aggarwal and Bhargava, 2009) and the brand image are part of an employer’s side of the psychological contract from recruitment through later stages of employment. The fulfillment of the anticipatory psychological contract (APC) (Anderson and Thomas, 1996; De Vos et al., 2009) is a strong predictor of later job

CDI 18,7

734

satisfaction and commitment. The downsizing literature is replete with examples of changes in organizational systems and procedures that violate psychological contracts. Thus, seemingly arbitrary organizational actions may influence feelings regarding the organization’s values (such as people versus profit) and reliability (such as being honest versus dishonest in forming psychological contracts).

The symbolic ! practice relationship also has multiple bases. The values embodied in a culture may serve as criteria against which alternatives are assessed or as a means of developing common ground for decision-making. Thus, downsizing programs that are consistent with a well-accepted organizational culture are less likely to break psychological contracts, and work units that have established a strong team-based organization are more likely accept a team-based reward system than an individualistic one. Alternatively, practices such as changes in incentive plans may be introduced to encourage changes in behavior such as increased innovation or growth.

Employer branding and recruitment/retention Researchers have associated HRM variables with satisfaction, commitment and retention as a means of examining how people choose employers (Martin et al., 2006). The factors for recruitment effectiveness cited by Williamson et al. (2002) and Lievens and Highhouse (2003) are similar to those used in studies of job satisfaction, commitment, and turnover (Meyer et al., 2002). The present study considers six factors that are common to recruiting/retention studies and studies of brand image (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003; Williamson et al., 2002).

The first instrumental factor, pay, includes one’s absolute pay level and pay level relative to others employed by organizations in the same or other industries. The second factor is flexibility in one’s work schedule and its fit with one’s lifestyle (including leisure). This issue has emerged in importance, not only for younger generations in which lifestyle is a major value, but also Boomers, for whom flexibility is important for meeting family obligations, including eldercare (Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007). The third factor includes job security, policies for keeping, or laying off employees, and the nature of the retirement package. Security, which is considered to be especially important for the Boomer generation, remains important for many individuals. The fourth factor, development, refers to opportunities to learn and use knowledge, skills and abilities and to work in occupations for which the individual has training. This factor relates to employability, as well as the competence motive in exercising knowledge and skills. The fifth factor is the prospect for promotion. The final factor, a multifaceted symbolic factor entitled values, represents an employer’s orientation toward employees (with an emphasis placed on achievement, honesty, and fairness of decisions, and the opportunity to be part of a team and included in making changes).

HRM practices facilitate the attainment of goals, which leads to rewards such as higher social status, which, in turn, is related to satisfaction, commitment and lower turnover. Expectations about resources to meet goals play an important role in recruiting. For example, De Vos et al. (2009) found that career-related antecedents (e.g. expecting to have only a few employers over one’s career) influenced expectations about employer obligations such as providing interesting work. This goal oriented approach is consistent with the notion of employability in which individuals seek

Employer branding attributes

735

development opportunities in current and future employment with other organizations. Also, employer branding helps prospective and current employees assess the fit between instrumental and symbolic attributes and their own values (Edwards, 2010). For example, Catanzano et al. (2010) found that women were more likely than men to pursue positions in organizations that were more supportive. Similarly, Trank et al. (2002) found that high achievers preferred more challenging jobs and rapid promotion than did low achievers. Moreover, high social achievers indicated a strong initial commitment to an organization, as well as a tendency to leave if their expectations were not met.

Consistent with the instrumental – symbolic model, Nishii et al. (2008) tested a model in which HRM practices influenced employee attributions, which, in turn, predicted levels of commitment and satisfaction. Although the mediating effect was supported in their study, other studies that related HRM practices directly to variables such as commitment, satisfaction, and turnover have also shown significant relationships (Frincke et al., 2007). This suggests that models that incorporate both direct and indirect effects are likely to be more instructive than more limited models.

Differences in priorities From entry to exit: Individuals’ valuation of attributes may change with continued employment and as attributes, such as the need for training, emerge. In their study of the nursing system in rural Australia, Fisher and Fraser (2010) found that organizational challenges shifted as employees moved through the system and were faced with changing options. Attracting and maintaining employees in rural areas included encouraging rural young people to consider nursing as a career choice (previews), consider attachment to place (selection into schools), take up rural practice (acceptance of job offer, infrastructure of support and integration into communities), and remain in their jobs (developmental opportunities). While addressing the Australian context, the approach may apply to a number of professions as careers develop.

By age: Generational differences have influenced recruitment and retention over time. Common generational ranges are as follows: Baby Boomers (1946 – 1964), Generation X (1965 – 1979) and Generation Y (1980 – 1999). Younger generations (X and Y) are said to seek flexibility in work hours and a work-life pattern that addresses their concerns for a life beyond work (versus the “work takes precedence” attitude of Boomers; Dodd et al., 2009). They are also said to be less concerned about job security as are the Boomers, preferring instead a boundaryless career focused on employability. However, empirical evidence in this regard is mixed. For example, King (2003) found that security in a traditional career may be attractive even for those with mobility aspirations. Also, Hewlett et al. (2009) found that 45 percent of Generation Y employees expected to work with their current employer for the remainder of their work lives. It may be that, as employees age, their family and other obligations and knowledge investments may increase how much they value job security. Also, certain trends may be reducing the differences between generations. For example, as members of the sandwich generation, Boomers may seek flexibility in order to meet family obligations (Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007). Finally, as organizations and individuals increasingly look toward employability as security, expectations for training and development, including enriching experiences, are likely to grow for all employees.

CDI 18,7

736

Between managers and staff: Career expectations and job experiences may play a role in entry and exit decisions. Relevant factors may include the importance placed on professional practice versus promotion to managerial positions, careers within a single functional area versus many areas, the desire for single versus multiple employers, and the need to balance work and non-work activities. However, differences in priorities could be confounded with age, since age is related to career status, with a lower percentage of Generation Y members being managers than Generation X or Boomers. The manager-employee dichotomy considered in this study is simply a starting point for assessing the question of how careers influence priorities for brand image characteristics. One’s career stage may also influence how employees decide to join or leave an organization.

In summary, organizations face significant challenges in designing programs for recruitment and retention. On the one hand, their brand image can be based on policies and practices that have broad appeal to existing employees. This responds to the question, “Why do people remain?” However, the question, “Why do people enter the organization?” may have different answers or, in this study, different priorities. This may be influenced by career stage or generational differences.

Method Sample As a result of interviews and a focus group session with seven child care center directors, an employee questionnaire was developed and distributed to 291 employees in 37 child care centers in a medium sized Canadian city in 2003. Although 198 employees responded to the questionnaire (for a response rate of 68 percent), to control for the nature of the work, only the responses of those who reported that they were management (Director, Assistant Directors, or Supervisors) or Early Childhood Educators were included in the analyses. This reduced the size of the sample to 166. Using the birth ranges indicated previously, in 2003, those 19 to 24 years old were classified as Generation Y, those 25 to 39 years old as Generation X and those 40 to 55 years old as Boomers. Since the average retirement age for Canadians was reported to be 62, and the “expected stay” measure had an upper limit of five years or more, those included in the Boomer category had a maximum age of 55, thus eliminating four respondents. As well, the responses of 12 individuals who expected to be promoted within the organization were removed, given that this study was concerned with people leaving the organization. As a result, the final sample included 144 respondents.

Measures Figure 1 presents the items used to measure recruitment and retention. The three items used to measure satisfaction with pay were found in Williamson et al. (2002), Cable and Judge (1994) and Aiman-Smith et al. (2001). Flexibility was measured by three items (Feldman and Arnold, 1978; cited in Williamson et al., 2002) and Williamson et al. (2002). Security was composed of three items: job security ( Jurgenson, 1978; Bundy and Norris, 1992); layoff policies (Aiman-Smith et al., 2001); and the retirement package (Williamson et al., 2002). Developmental opportunities concerned developing and using knowledge and skills in chosen occupations and professions (Feldman and Arnold, 1978; Rowe, 1976; cited in Williamson et al., 2002). The two items measuring promotion were from Jurgenson (1978) and Bundy and Norris (1992) in Williamson et al. (2002)

Employer branding attributes

737

and Aiman-Smith et al. (2001). Williamson et al. (2002) was the primary reference for the five people factors (example: emphasis placed on achievement). Their literature review on person-job fit suggested three of these items, and two items were from Judge and Bretz (1992; cited in Williamson et al., 2002). The Cronbach alpha reliability scores for all these variables (six variables, three time periods) were above 0.70, except for security (current; a ¼ 0.63); the range for the others was 0.74 to 0.95, with mean of 0.84. For all scales, the few missing data were replaced by the mean score for the item (item by item replacement) for all multiple item variables.

Affective commitment was measured by four items (Meyer and Allen, 1997; a ¼ 0.85). Retrospective satisfaction was measured by three items (e.g. If you could look back . . . how likely is it you would . . . Apply for this job?) from Williamson et al. (2002; a ¼ 0.95). One’s intention to search for another job was measured by three items (Fried et al., 1996; Hackman and Oldham, 1980; a ¼ 0.79). Employees’ expectation that they will stay in their current job was measured by a single item: “How long do you believe you will stay with your present position?” Response choices were: “less than

Figure 1. Items used to measure recruitment and retention factors

CDI 18,7

738

two months, less than six months, less than one year, less than two years, less than five years, and more than five years.” This scale was used after consulting the work by Cohen (1993) and Cotton and Tuttle (1986).

Results and discussion Method Confirmatory factor analyses were used to assess the items-variable fit (AMOS 4; Arbuckle and Wothke, 1999). The items were the indicators of the latent variables, the latent variables were associated with each another, and error terms among items were left uncorrelated. A total of four separate analyses were conducted: entry, exit, current state on brand image factors and the current state with affective commitment, retrospective satisfaction, and the intention to search. Results showed that the data had a good fit with the models, and common methods variance, while statistically significant, played a minor role. (A description of the results can be obtained from the authors.)

Differences in priorities From entry to exit: Shifts in priorities over time were explored in several ways. First, we grouped the attributes in order of importance, using the criterion of significant differences between groups and non-significant differences within groups (Table I). Since no predictions for priority or direction of change were made, the two-tailed level of significance was used. For entry, the six factors reduced to four groups in order of priority:

(1) development;

(2) values;

(3) flexibility and security; and

(4) promotions and pay.

However, for exit, there were only two groups:

(1) development and values; and

(2) pay, flexibility, and promotion.

Entry Exit Absolute difference Correlation

Mean SD Mean SD Difference exit-entry Mean SD Entry-exit

Pay 3.29 1.01 3.64 1.04 0.35 * * * 0.96 0.91 0.23 * * *

Flexibility 3.64 0.98 3.69 1.23 0.05 0.81 0.91 0.43 * * *

Security 3.54 1.01 3.78 1.10 0.24 * 0.84 0.95 0.31 * * *

Development 4.28 0.75 3.92 1.15 20.36 * * * 0.72 0.99 0.30 * * *

Promotion 3.20 1.11 3.48 1.20 0.28 * * 0.83 0.97 0.42 * * *

Values 4.12 0.85 3.91 1.05 20.21 * 0.73 0.96 0.23 * *

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001. Priorities in order of importance: Entry: (1) Development; (2) Values; (3) Flexibility, Security; (4) Promotion, Pay. Exit: (1) Development, Values; (1-2) Security; (2) Flexibility, Pay, Promotion. Significant difference ( p , 0.05 or better) between groups; no significant differences within groups. For exit, security is not significantly different from any member in either group

Table I. Decision priorities for

entry and for exit

Employer branding attributes

739

For exit, security was not significantly different from any of the other factors. Moreover, the range of mean scores narrowed from 3.20 to 4.28 (for entry) to 3.48 to 3.92 (for exit). Similarities between entry and exit included the importance of development and values and the lesser weight placed on pay and promotion. However, the smaller number of groups and narrower range suggest that entry criteria were more clearly delineated than exit ones.

Second, we considered the difference in importance of each variable between entry and exit. The priorities for pay, promotion, and security increased between entry and exit ( p , 0.001, p , 0.01, and p , 0.05, respectively); the importance of developmental opportunities and values declined ( p , 0.001; p , 0.05, respectively); and the priority for flexibility remained the same. The difference may be partly due to the “regression to the mean” as indicated by negative correlations (all at p , 0.01 or better) between the entry score and the difference score (exit – entry). The absolute change scores seem relatively high, with the average change being over 20 percent of the initial score.

Third, the correlations between entry and exit were significant, but relatively low (Table II), and correlations among the factors at entry were significant (averaging 0.38 over the 15 pairs) but lower than those at exit (r ¼ 0.59). The correlation between difference scores (exit – entry) were all significant at p ,0.01 or better: declines (increases) in one attribute also showed declines (increases) in the other attributes. (Detailed analyses are available from the authors.) These results suggest that the factors tended to reinforce each other, moving toward Gestalts or brand images that are holistic in nature rather than discrete. The pattern appears to support the four entry and two exit groupings. The general theme is that the relative weights are similar, but less distinct (four groups for entry versus two groups for exit), and most stated preferences at entry differed from those at exit (some increasing, others decreasing). Moreover, the correlations suggest that the employer brand image is less coherent at entry than at exit, perhaps resulting from experience within the organization.

Age: ANOVA with post hoc comparisons was used to examine the differences in priorities by age group. There was one marginal difference for entry ( p , 0.07, NS): promotion was higher in priority for Generation Y than for Boomers ( p , 0.06). But there were no significant differences for the exit factors or for the difference scores (exit – entry). Thus, the criteria used by older employees for entry and exit are generally the same as those used by younger employees. However, the absolute difference (exit – entry) was significant for three factors (flexibility at p , 0.05; security and values at p , 0.01). Generation Y reported less change than Generation X or the Boomers for flexibility ( p ,0.05) and security ( p ,0.01); and less change than the Boomers for values ( p ,0.05). Thus, while changes in priorities did not differ by age, the absolute change or magnitude of the change increased with age, which may simply reflect seniority and career stage rather than a generational issue. Finally, there were no significant differences by age for any of the current perceptions of the factors, affective commitment, retroactive satisfaction, or the intention to search for another job. However, how much longer respondents expected to remain with the organization varied by age ( p , 0.001). Generation Y respondents expected to stay a shorter time than Generation X ( p , 0.06; NS) and Boomers ( p , 0.001); and Generation X expected a shorter stay than Boomers ( p , 0.10; NS).

CDI 18,7

740

S y

m b

o li

c fa

ct o r

R et

ro sp

ec ti

v e

sa ti

sf a ct

io n

A ff

ec ti

v e

co m

m it

m en

t In

te n

ti o n

to se

a rc

h E

x p

ec te

d st

a y

D em

o g

ra p

h ic

s [0

.0 0 3 ]

(0 .2

4 N

S )

[0 .0

6 3 ]

(4 .7

5 *

* )

[0 .0

0 5 ]

(0 .3

8 N

S )

[0 .1

0 3 ]

(8 .0

9 *

* * )

O rd er

o f en tr y

In st

ru m

en ta

l [0

.2 4 8 ]

(9 .0

3 *

* * )

[0 .1

9 5 ]

(7 .1

5 *

* * )

[0 .3

9 4 ]

(1 7 .8

4 *

* * )

[0 .1

2 8 ]

(4 .5

4 *

* * )

S y

m b

o li

c [0

.0 6 0 ]

(1 1 .8

5 *

* * )

[0 .0

8 6 ]

(1 7 .7

5 *

* * )

[0 .0

0 2 ]

[0 .0

0 1 ]

(0 .2

1 N

S )

S y

m b

o li

c [0

.2 5 8 ]

(4 8 .9

6 *

* * )

[0 .2

3 7 ]

(4 7 .4

4 *

* * )

[0 .1

9 2 ]

(3 3 .5

6 *

* * )

[0 .0

3 4 ]

(5 .4

7 * )

In st

ru m

en ta

l [0

.0 5 1 ]

(1 .9

8 N

S )

[0 .0

4 4 ]

(1 .8

2 N

S )

[0 .2

0 3 ]

(9 .1

7 *

* * )

[0 .0

9 6 ]

(3 .3

7 *

* )

R eg re ss io n co ef fi ci en ts

C o n

st a n

t 0 .8

4 1 .8

9 6 .9

3 1

0 .3

5 A

g e

0 .0

0 0 .0

5 2

0 .0

7 0 .4

3 *

* *

M a n

a g

em en

t 2

0 .0

3 2

0 .3

6 *

* 2

0 .0

6 2

0 .1

5 P

a y

2 0 .0

1 2

0 .0

5 2

0 .0

2 0 .0

6 F

le x

ib il

it y

0 .0

2 0 .0

9 2

0 .2

4 *

0 .1

1 S

ec u

ri ty

0 .3

1 *

0 .1

9 *

2 0 .4

9 *

* *

0 .3

1 *

D ev

el o p

m en

t 0 .0

5 0 .0

6 2

0 .1

1 (p

, 0 .1

0 )

2 0 .0

1 P

ro m

o ti

o n

0 .1

1 2

0 .1

0 2

0 .2

0 *

0 .1

9 (p

¼ 0 .0

6 )

V a lu

es 0 .4

0 *

* *

0 .3

4 *

* *

2 0 .0

7 2

0 .1

1 T

o ta

l R

S Q

(A d

ju st

ed )

[0 .3

1 2

(0 .2

7 1 )]

[0 .3

4 4

(0 .3

0 6 )]

[0 .4

0 1

(0 .3

6 6 )]

[0 .2

3 3

(0 .1

8 7 )]

F ¼

7 .6

6 *

* *

F ¼

8 .8

7 *

* *

F ¼

1 1 .3

0 *

* *

F ¼

5 .1

1 *

* *

N o te s :

V a lu

es in

[ ]

a re

R S

Q co

n tr

ib u

ti o n

s; v

a lu

es in

( )

a re

F st

a ti

st ic

s. N

S ¼

N o t

si g

n ifi

ca n

t, * p ,

0 .0

5 ;

* * p ,

0 .0

1 ;

* *

* p ,

0 .0

0 1 . T

o ta

l R

S Q

: th

e fi

rs t

n u

m b

er in

th e

[ ]

is th

e R

S Q

w it

h th

e A

d ju

st ed

R S

Q in

() .

C o ef

fi ci

en ts

a re

n o t

st a n

d a rd

iz ed

Table II. Regression results

Employer branding attributes

741

Between managers and staff: The managers rated values (at entry) as being somewhat less important ( p , 0.10, NS) than did employees. For exit, they rated development as being less important ( p ,0.05) and values as being somewhat less important ( p , 0.10, NS) than did employees. Managers reported a marginally higher score for security at exit than at entry ( p , 0.10, NS) than did employees. The absolute differences were significant for security (higher for managers at p , 0.01) and for values ( p , 0.05). With respect to satisfaction with the current state, managers scored marginally higher regarding pay ( p , 0.06, NS), affective commitment ( p , 0.01) and the expected length of time that they will stay with the organization ( p , 0.05). Managers’ experience with hierarchical success likely underpins their feelings of commitment, remaining with the organization for longer periods of time, satisfaction with current levels of pay and the higher value that they placed on security (arising from investments in the organization).

Relationships between instrumental and symbolic factors Table III shows the means, standard deviations, reliabilities (coefficient a) for the current state of the variables. Regression results are presented in Tables II and IV. The two-tailed levels of significance were used for these correlations and regressions, given that direction was not predicted. These factors were expected to influence each other, but given the study’s cross-sectional design, we were unable to assess reciprocal relationships or directionality. However, as stated earlier, theory suggests that instrumental variables may influence value formation and/or act as a vehicle for understanding values, hence they are important levers for managing the symbolic attributes important to individuals. As shown in Table III the instrumental variables are correlated at p , 0.01 or better with the symbolic factor (values), and a regression showed that the variance explained in values was 43.1 percent ( p , 0.001). The regression coefficients (including demographics) were as follows: Age (0.10), Management (0.00), Pay (20.06), Flexibility (0.19 *), Security (0.37 * * *), Development (0.18 * * *), and Promotion (0.06).

Relationships of factors with commitment, satisfaction, search, and stay To assess the relative importance of instrumental and symbolic factors in predicting the affective and retention variables, we followed the Lievens and Highhouse (2003) two-stage procedure. The first stage used stepwise regression to estimate the variance explained by demographic variables, (instrumental variables, and symbolic factors in commitment, satisfaction, intention to search, and how long one expected to stay with one’s employer. At the second stage, the order of entry for the instrumental and symbolic variables was reversed. These processes clarified the relative importance of these variables and any potential causal sequences.

Affective commitment: A fundamental proposition is that brand image is associated with commitment, which in turn reduces voluntary turnover. As shown in Table II, demographics explained 6.3 percent of the variance in commitment. Instrumental variables contributed 19.5 percent when entered first, and symbolic variables added 8.6 percent. When the order was reversed, symbolic variables contributed 23.7 percent and instrumental variables contributed 3.7 percent (NS). In the overall equation, the manager-employee categorization was significant, as were security and values. These results are consistent with a model in which instrumental variables are associated with

CDI 18,7

742

M S

D 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

1 0

1 1

1 .

A g

e 1 .9

8 0 .7

2 –

2 .

M g

m t

1 .6

9 0 .4

6 2

0 .3

1 –

3 .

P a y

3 .2

0 0 .9

3 0 .1

3 2

0 .1

6 *

(0 .7

5 )

4 .

F le

x ib

il it

y 3 .9

4 0 .8

1 0 .0

4 2

0 .1

0 0 .2

1 *

* (0

.7 5 )

5 .

S ec

u ri

ty 3 .6

7 0 .7

7 0 .0

5 0 .0

4 0 .3

3 *

* *

0 .3

4 *

* *

(0 .6

3 )

6 .

D ev

el o p

m en

t 4 .2

8 1 .3

1 0 .0

4 2

0 .1

1 0 .1

9 *

0 .2

4 *

* 0 .3

0 *

* *

(0 .8

2 )

7 .

P ro

m o ti

o n

3 .1

3 1 .0

3 2

0 .0

2 2

0 .1

0 0 .3

2 *

* *

0 .3

7 *

* *

0 .4

3 *

* *

0 .2

0 *

* (0

.8 6 )

8 .

V a lu

es 3 .9

0 0 .9

5 0 .1

0 2

0 .0

7 0 .2

1 *

* 0 .4

1 *

* *

0 .5

3 *

* *

0 .4

2 *

* *

0 .4

7 *

* *

(0 .9

1 )

9 .

C o m

m it

m en

t 3 .5

2 0 .8

3 0 .1

6 *

2 0 .2

4 *

* 0 .1

1 0 .3

0 *

* *

0 .3

6 *

* *

0 .3

2 *

* *

0 .1

9 *

0 .5

1 *

* *

(0 .8

5 )

1 0 .

S a ti

sf a ct

io n

4 .0

4 1 .1

4 0 .0

5 2

0 .0

4 0 .1

8 *

0 .2

7 *

* 0 .4

4 *

* *

0 .2

8 *

* *

0 .3

6 *

* *

0 .5

1 *

* *

0 .4

4 *

* *

(0 .9

5 )

1 1 .

S ea

rc h

2 .5

4 1 .1

4 2

0 .0

7 0 .0

3 2

0 .2

5 *

* 2

0 .4

1 *

* *

2 0 .5

4 *

* *

2 0 .3

3 *

* *

2 0 .4

4 *

* *

2 0 .4

4 *

* *

2 0 .4

5 *

* *

2 0 .5

1 *

* *

(0 .7

9 )

1 2 .

S ta

y 3 .0

3 1 .1

2 0 .3

1 *

* *

2 0 .1

7 *

0 .2

3 *

* 0 .2

2 *

* 0 .3

2 *

* *

0 .1

1 0 .2

9 *

* *

0 .2

2 *

* 0 .2

6 *

* 0 .2

9 *

* *

2 0 .5

9 *

* *

N o te :

* p ,

0 .0

5 ;

* * p ,

0 .0

1 ;

* *

* p ,

0 .0

0 1 , r ¼

2 1

Table III. Means (standard

deviations), correlations, reliabilities (coefficient

alpha on diagonal)

Employer branding attributes

743

In te

n ti

o n

to se

a rc

h In

te n

ti o n

to se

a rc

h E

x p

ec te

d st

a y

E x

p ec

te d

st a y

[i n

cl u

d es

E S

] [i

n cl

u d

es IS

] (1

) (2

) (3

) (4

)

C o n

st a n

t 7 .6

5 7 .6

3 2

0 .0

5 4 .4

5 A

g e

2 0 .0

6 0 .1

2 0 .4

3 *

* *

0 .3

9 *

* *

M a n

a g

em en

t 2

0 .1

7 2

0 .2

1 2

0 .0

9 2

0 .1

9 A

ff ec

ti v

e co

m m

it m

en t

2 0 .2

8 *

* 2

0 .2

2 *

* 0 .1

4 2

0 .0

9 R

et ro

a ct

iv e

sa ti

sf a ct

io n

2 0 .2

2 *

* 2

0 .1

6 *

* 0 .1

5 0 .0

1 P

a y

2 0 .0

3 2

0 .0

0 0 .0

7 0 .0

5 F

le x

ib il

it y

2 0 .2

1 *

2 0 .1

7 (0

.0 5 2 )

2 0 .0

9 2

0 .0

3 S

ec u

ri ty

2 0 .3

6 *

* *

2 0 .2

6 *

0 .2

4 0 .0

3 D

ev el

o p

m en

t 2

0 .0

8 2

0 .0

9 2

0 .0

3 2

0 .0

8 P

ro m

o ti

o n

2 0 .2

1 *

2 0 .1

3 0 .1

9 (0

.0 6 4 )

0 .0

7 V

a lu

es 0 .1

2 0 .0

5 2

0 .1

6 2

0 .0

9 E

S 2

0 .4

3 *

* *

IS 2

0 .5

9 *

* *

R S

Q (R

S Q

A d

ju st

ed )

0 .4

7 7 (0

.4 3 8 )

0 .6

0 9 (0

.5 7 6 )

0 .2

5 9 (0

.2 0 3 )

0 .4

4 5 (0

.3 9 9 )

F (1

0 ,1

3 3 )

1 2 .1

5 *

* *

F (1

1 ,1

3 2 )

1 8 .6

7 *

* *

F (1

0 ,1

3 3 )

4 .6

4 *

* *

F (1

1 ,1

3 2 )

9 .6

1 3

* *

N o te s : p ,

0 .0

5 ;

* * p ,

0 .0

1 ;

* *

* p ,

0 .0

0 1 .

T h

e co

ef fi

ci en

ts a re

n o t

st a n

d a rd

iz ed

. E

q u

a ti

o n

s 1

a n

d 3

in cl

u d

e a ff

ec ti

v e

co m

m it

m en

t a n

d re

tr o a ct

iv e

sa ti

sf a ct

io n

, w

it h

in st

ru m

en ta

l a n

d sy

m b

o li

c fa

ct o rs

. E

q u

a ti

o n

2 a d

d s

th e

ef fe

ct s

o f

ex p

ec te

d st

a y

o n

in te

n ti

o n

to se

a rc

h .

E q

u a ti

o n

4 a d

d s

th e

ef fe

ct s

o f

in te

n ti

o n

to se

a rc

h o n

ex p

ec te

d st

a y

Table IV. Regression results: supplementary analysis

CDI 18,7

744

commitment, primarily through their association with symbolic variables, with security making an independent contribution. That is, respondents may be interpreting instrumental policies as reflecting values that are the basis for their sense of belonging to the organization.

Retroactive satisfaction: The regression weights on retrospective satisfaction indicated what would be important to experienced employees if they had the option of entering the organization again: a succinct and concrete way that people communicate how they feel about their employer. Table II shows that demographics were not associated with retrospective satisfaction (e.g. I would apply again for this job). Instrumental variables explained 24.8 percent of the variance in retroactive satisfaction when entered first, with symbolic variables contributing 6.0 percent. When the order was reversed, symbolic variables contributed 25.8 percent, and instrumental variables contributed 5.1 percent (NS). The overall equation showed only two significant contributors: security and values. These results are similar to those obtained for affective commitment.

The regression weights enables comparisons between what currently makes people satisfied (similar to the policy capturing approach; Williamson et al., 2002) and what they say was important when they entered the organization. The strong relationship between values and retroactive satisfaction is consistent with the weight placed on this factor at entry. However, as an entry criterion, security was in the third group, but its correlation with satisfaction (0.44) is close to that of values (0.55), and it has a significant effect independent of values. One explanation for this is that security may be less important for accepting employment, but, once employed, its value increases, a pattern that is supported by its relative importance for exit. Interestingly, development, which is listed as most important for entry, has a significant, but comparatively low (0.28) correlation with retrospective satisfaction (Table III). Moreover, in a supplementary analysis using solely the instrumental variables, development’s regression coefficient only neared significance and diminished to NS when the values variable was added to the equation.

Intention to search: The regressions weights for intention to search differed from those of commitment or satisfaction. Instrumental variables contributed 39.4 percent when entered first, while symbolic variables added only 0.002 percent (NS). When the order of entry was reversed, symbolic variables contributed 19.2 percent, and instrumental variables contributed 20.3 percent. The overall equation showed security, promotions, and flexibility as significant contributors.

The comparison of these results with the exit priorities is analogous to policy capturing. The importance of security in stimulating search is consistent with its relatively high priority for exit (between the first and second groups), but promotions, ranked in the second of two groups is also a significant predictor. Interestingly, while development had the highest priority, it did not have a significant effect in the full equation or in the equation with only instrumental variables as predictors. Whereas values played a significant role in the overall equation for affective commitment and retroactive satisfaction, its influence here appears to have been subsumed by the effects of security and promotions. This implies a model in which instrumental variables “cause” both a symbolic factor (values) and intentions to search or a model in which instrumental variables mediate the relationship between symbolic variables and search. In either case, instrumental variables play an important role, one which has

Employer branding attributes

745

been underestimated due to the limited research that incorporates instrumental and values in understanding turnover.

Since both affective commitment and retroactive satisfaction can be theoretically related to one’s intention to search ( Joo and Park, 2010), and low commitment has long been associated with voluntary turnover (Meyer et al., 2002), we entered them first in a stepwise regression to assess the residual impact of the instrumental and symbolic variables (Table IV). These two variables added 31.8 percent to the intention to search, but at the second stage, the instrumental and symbolic variables added 15.4 percent. In the overall equation, commitment and satisfaction were significant, as were flexibility, security, and promotion. The complete set of variables explained 47.7 percent of the variance in the intention to search. These findings suggest the importance of the instrumental variables, since they appear to affect the intention to search directly as well as through commitment and satisfaction.

Expected length of stay: This variable had a different pattern of results from those obtained for one’s intention to search (Table II). Demographics contributed 10.3 percent to the expected length of stay, and instrumental variables added 12.5 percent when entered first with values adding 0.00 percent. When the order was reversed, values contributed 3.4 percent, and instrumental variables contributed 9.6 percent. In the overall equation, age had the greatest weight, with security being significant and promotion nearing significance. The importance of security and promotions to expected length of stay is consistent with their influence on the intention to search. Interestingly, age played no role in the intention to search yet played a significant role in the expected length of stay.

As with the intention to search, we used stepwise regression to assess the contributions of commitment and satisfaction and the incremental contribution of the instrumental and symbolic variable (Table IV). Demographic variables contributed 10.3 percent, affective commitment and retroactive satisfaction 8.3 percent, and instrumental and symbolic variables added 7.3 percent to the explanation of expected length of stay. In the overall regression, however, age was the only significant contributor, with promotions and security nearing significance. In sum, age was the sole identifiable predictor, since the effects of all the other variables were dispersed.

Mutual influence of intention to search and length of stay: Both of these cognitive intentions (Tett and Meyer, 1993) are related in that, the more likely employees search for reasons to leave, the less likely they will remain in an organization. Therefore, we incorporated both in our exploring the relationships between instrumental and symbolic factors, affective measures and turnover intentions. First, we regressed (in order) expected stay, demographics, commitment, retroactive satisfaction and instrumental and symbolic variables on the intention to search (Table IV). These variables explained 60.9 percent of the variance: expected stay explained 34.9 percent when entered first (and 13.1 percent when added last). Thus, expected stay contributed 13 percent of unique variance to intention to search, satisfaction and commitment and the image variables 26 percent. Although expected length of stay had the strongest influence, commitment, retrospective satisfaction, security and flexibility (NS) also explained variance in intention to search.

Second, we regressed (in order) intention to search, demographics, commitment, retroactive satisfaction, and instrumental and symbolic variables on the expected length of stay (Table IV). These variables explained 44.5 percent of the variance in the

CDI 18,7

746

expected length of stay, with intention to search explaining 34.9 percent (as above), and 18.6 percent when entered last. Thus, intention to search adds 18.6 percent of unique variance, with 9.6 percent contributed by the other variables, with 16.3 percent being shared. In the regression equation, only the intention to search and age made significant contributions. This suggests that satisfaction, commitment and the image variables have an effect, but, only through the intention to search and respondents’ age seemed to independently influence the time that they plan to remain. This is consistent with the perspective that younger employees tend to explore opportunities to a greater extent than do older employees. Moreover, this effect appears independent of commitment or satisfaction, since age is unrelated to these variables.

Finally, to further explore the way in which age affects one’s expected length of stay, we noted that the latter’s correlation with the raw, uncategorized score (0.34) was close to the relationship with categorized age (0.31). That is, categorizing age into groupings did not materially affect the explanation in expected length of stay. To explore this possibility, we dichotomized age (#30 and ? 30) to use in regression analyses. First, the dichotomized variable explained 10.9 percent of the variation in expected length of stay (compared with the 11.1 percent for raw age). Second, we performed separate regressions of raw age on expected stay for each group. Raw age explained 2.8 percent (NS) of the variance in expected length of stay in the younger group and 2.4 percent (NS) in the older group. This supports the step function concept, at least in the child care industry, where there may be age groupings that affect the estimated length of stay with the organization.

Conclusions and managerial implications The foregoing analyses suggest the model presented in Figure 2, which links the study variables. For the sake of simplicity, we have not referenced the specific instrumental variables. The interrelationships among the instrumental variables are significant, and, in some cases, very strong. We have not made any causal inferences among these variables. The proposed causal linkages, which are subject to longitudinal testing, form the basis for interventions that encourage and support the recruitment and retention of employees.

Differences in priorities from entry to exit Regarding the first research question, which considered whether preferences for branding attributes were similar for entry and for retention, we found that there were similarities in the groupings for entry and exit (e.g. the importance of development opportunities) and some differences (security’s importance increased from entry to

Figure 2. Proposed model

Employer branding attributes

747

exit). The scores themselves changed from entry to exit, some rising (such as security) with others declining (such as values); moreover, the absolute differences appeared relatively large (slightly above 20 percent of the entry scores for all but values). These results suggest that the relative importance of the factors remained similar, but because some rose in importance while others declined, the difference narrowed. Moreover, we found four groups of variables at entry but only two groups at exit; the correlations among the factors were much higher at exit than at entry; and the correlation among differences (exit – entry) were high.

This implies that, at entry, people may have a more disaggregated perspective of an organization’s image, that is, a perspective that is less cohesive regarding how factors are related to one another than after they have experience and are considering the factors for potential exit. This suggests that, in recruiting, organizations may highlight a few of the most important factors; whereas in retention, the Gestalt of factors and the rationale that connects them may be most important. For example, security can be linked to internal promotion, training and development and flexibility. In short, experience may be important in designing messages, since individuals may build rationales over time, with or without interpretations by managers. The variation in each factor suggested that a brand image may need to be relatively broad to accommodate diversity. This may include a cafeteria approach to benefits or a niche strategy that appeals to enough people to meet staffing requirements.

Differences in priorities given age and career stage In response to the second research question regarding the possibility of generational and career stage differences in one’s entry and exit priorities, we found few such differences by age or career stage. Analyses revealed that the criteria used by older employees for entry and exit were not significantly different from those used by younger employees. Regarding career stage, managers rated development as being less important as a factor influencing their potential exit than did employees. Moreover, age (by generation) played a very minor role in respondents’ exit, entry, and current state (including affective commitment, retrospective satisfaction and intention to leave). Younger people planned to stay a shorter length of time with the organization, consistent with the exploration stage in career development. However, the importance of security for satisfaction, commitment and decreasing turnover intentions implied that organizations can use this practice (in conjunction with others) in retaining young people, recognizing that many more may leave if they do not.

Relationship between branding attributes and attitudinal variables Finally, the third research question asked how current satisfaction with brand image attributes related to overall commitment, satisfaction and retention. We found that values and security were the most important predictors of retrospective satisfaction as well as affective commitment. That values should have a strong relationship with commitment is consistent with many other studies, but, the independent impact of security seems important for HRM decision-makers. Values are an important priority, yet are difficult to communicate, except, perhaps through HRM practices that signal these values. The comparison between stated priorities on exit and the regressions show that values and development, both high in priority, are not significant in directly predicting the intention to search in the near

CDI 18,7

748

future or in terms of the length of future employment. The factors predicting satisfaction/commitment and retention are not the same (except for security), though commitment and satisfaction predict intention to search. Only age directly predicted the length of future employment.

Also, although a stated priority, training and development was not an important factor in the regressions. It is possible that its role was partly subsumed by its relationship to values. The high level of satisfaction with development may have influenced its role in a curvilinear fashion (after a certain point, it has limited impact). Moreover, training and development within an industry such as child care may be perceived as being similar across many organizations, and, therefore its presence is taken for granted, and its absence is the basis for decisions on entry and exit.

Relationship between instrumental and symbolic attributes Finally, this study revealed that the instrumental components of brand image (security, flexibility, promotion, and development) were strongly related to its symbolic aspects (values). The factors may be reciprocally related since values may be attributed to HRM systems and serve as the basis for developing and supporting policies and procedures. In terms of practice, the instrumental ! symbolic pattern is may be useful in building and maintaining a culture that is supportive and attractive to present and prospective employees. The instrumental factors may be demonstrated to employees through written policies and practices that are relatively concrete and observable. However, the attribution of a practice to values is critical, since a practice such as training and development can be attributed to helping staff become more mobile (employee – centered change) and/or to increasing productivity for the benefit of the firm. This suggests that organizations need to convey the rationales for practices, demonstrating their underlying values and how these beliefs support an array of mutually reinforcing policies. The opposite symbolic ! practice pattern may help current employees understand reasons for new practices. However, symbolic factors may be hard to convey directly. This means that organizations’ values should be at the forefront in designing policies and should be evident in the development and implementation stages. Employee surveys and other methods of obtaining rich information may help in understanding worker perspectives and formulating plans for communicating values as well as modifying practices to suit values.

This study has several limitations. Although including only child care workers in a relatively small geographic region removed occupational variations, the child care centers had relatively flat structures. Future research should be undertaken in larger scale firms that also offer greater heterogeneity in professions as well as career options, and consider exit from sub-units, as well as the organization as a whole. Also, the questionnaire design enabled comparisons of entry and retention criteria over time, but the results may be subject to the problem of erroneous recall. A longitudinal study that follows new entrants for several years, using both instrumental and symbolic measures, would provide information on what attracted individuals and what was associated with their attitudes and intentions to leave. Moreover, longitudinal data would help to identify causal paths (instrumental ! symbolic, and vice versa). More precisely defined instrumental variables and other variables should be included

Employer branding attributes

749

(e.g. organizational growth and future opportunities; prospects for career mobility). The symbolic variables referred to “people values”, but other factors such as social and environmental consciousness are also relevant to symbolic meanings. Finally, studying the role of attributions as moderators would help in furthering our understanding of these relationships.

References

Aggarwal, U. and Bhargava, S. (2009), “Reviewing the relationship between human resource practices and psychological contract and their impact on employee attitude and behaviours”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 4-31.

Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T. and Cable, D. (2001), “Are you attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A recruiting policy capturing study”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 219-237.

Anderson, N. and Thomas, H.D.C. (1996), “Work group socialization”, in West, M.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Work Groups, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 423-450.

Arbuckle, J.L. and Wothke, W. (1999), Amos 4.0 User’s Guide, SmallWaters, Chicago, IL.

Baron, J.N. and Kreps, D.M. (1999), Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for General Managers, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Bowes, B.J. (2008), “Being an employer of choice has bottom-line benefits”, CMA Management, Vol. 82 No. 7, pp. 14-15.

Bundy, P. and Norris, D. (1992), “What accounting students consider important in the job selection process”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 8, pp. 1-6.

Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1994), “Pay preference and job search decisions: a person-organization fit perspective”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 317-340.

Catanzaro, D., Moore, H. and Marshall, T.R. (2010), “The impact of organizational culture on attraction and recruitment of job applicants”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 649-662.

Cohen, A. (1993), “Organizational commitment and turnover: a meta-analysis”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 1140-1157.

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.

Cotton, J.L. and Tuttle, J.M. (1986), “Employee turnover: a meta-analysis and review with implications for research”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 55-70.

Crumpacker, M. and Crumpacker, J.M. (2007), “Succession planning and generational stereotypes: should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad?”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 349-369.

De Vos, A., De Stobbeleir, K. and Meganck, A. (2009), “The relationship between career-related antecedents and graduates’ anticipatory psychological contracts”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 289-290.

Dodd, J., Saggers, S. and Wildy, H. (2009), “Retention in the allied health workforce: boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y”, Journal of Allied Health, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 215-219.

Edwards, M.R. (2010), “An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory”, Personnel Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 5-23.

Feldman, D.C. and Arnold, H.J. (1978), “Position choice: comparing the importance of organization and job factors”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 706-710.

CDI 18,7

750

Fisher, K.A. and Fraser, J.D. (2010), “Rural health career pathways: research themes in recruitment and retention”, Australian Health Review, Vol. 34, pp. 292-296.

Fried, Y.Y., Tiegs, R.B., Naughton, T.J. and Asforth, B.E. (1996), “Managers’ reactions to a corporate acquisition: a test of an integrative model”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, pp. 401-427.

Frincke, J., Lockwood, N., Esen, E. and Williams, S. (2007), 2007 Job Satisfaction: A Survey Report by the Society for Human Resource Management, Society for Human Resource Management, Alexandria, VA.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addisson-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Heilmann, P.A.K. (2010), “Employer brand image in a health care organization”, Management Research Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 134-144.

Hewlett, S.A., Sherbin, L. and Sumberg, K. (2009), “How Gen Y & Boomers will reshape your agenda”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 71-76.

Joo, B-K. and Park, S. (2010), “Career satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 482-500.

Judge, T.A. and Bretz, R.D. Jr (1992), “Effects of work values on job choice decisions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 261-271.

Jurgenson, C.E. (1978), “Job preferences (what makes a job good or bad)”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 479-487.

King, Z. (2003), “New or traditional careers? A study of UK graduates’ preferences”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 5-26.

Lievens, F. (2007), “Employer branding in the Belgian army: the importance of instrumental and symbolic beliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants, and military employees”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, p. 69.

Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003), “The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company’s attractiveness as an employer”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 75-102.

Love, L.F. and Singh, P. (2011), “Workplace branding: leveraging human resource management practices for competitive advantage through Best Employer Surveys”, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 175-181.

Martin, A., MacTaggart, D. and Bowden, J. (2006), “The barriers to recruitment and retention of supervisors / managers in the Scottish tourism industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 380-397.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 20-52.

Nishii, L.H., LePak, D.P. and Schneider, B. (2008), “Employee attributions of the why of HR practices: their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer attitudes”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 503-545.

Rashid, Z.A., Sambasivan, M. and Rahman, A.A. (2004), “The influence of organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-179.

Rowe, P.M. (1976), “Effects of expected job characteristics and interview factors on organizational choice”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 38, pp. 1011-1018.

Employer branding attributes

751

Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. (1993), “Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnoveer intentions, and turnover: path analysis based on meta-analytic findings”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 259-293.

Trank, C.Q., Rynes, S.L., Bretz, J.r. and R, D. (2002), “Attracting applicants in the war for talent: differences in work preferences among high achievers”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 331-345.

Williamson, C.L., Cope, J.G., Foster Thompson, L. and Wuensch, K.L. (2002), “Policy capturing as a tool to enhance recruiting”, Career Development International, Vol. 7, pp. 159-166.