Where appropriate you shall introduce a company, give company data or description and site the communication issue or problem or any communication phenomenon according to the attached document; but also remember;

w8.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Where appropriate you shall introduce a company, give company data or description and site the communication issue or problem or any communication phenomenon according to the attached document; but also remember;

Industry branding: attracting talent to weaker profile industries

Michelle Wallace Southern Cross University, Australia Ian Lings Queensland University of Technology, Australia Roslyn Cameron Central Queensland University, Australia

There is global competition for engineering talent with some industries struggling to attract quality candidates. The ‘brands’ of industries and organisations are important elements in attracting talent in a competitive environment. Using brand equity and signalling theory, this paper reports a quan- titative study examining factors that attract graduating engineers and technicians to engineering careers in a weak brand profile industry. The survey measures graduating engineers’ preferences for career benefits and their perceptions of the rail industry, which has identified a significant skilled labour shortfall. Knowledge of young engineers’ preferences for certain benefits and segmenting preferences can inform branding and communications strategies. The findings have implications for all industries and organisations, especially those with a weaker brand profile and issues with attracting talent.

Keywords: employer branding, engineers/technical staff, rail industry, talent management, weak brand profile industries

Global economic trends, increased demand for technological skills, mobility and growing workforce diversity have led to international competition for talent in certain occupations. Beechler and Woodward (2009, 275) point to four main reasons influencing the war for

Correspondence: Associate Professor Michelle Wallace, Southern Cross Business School, Southern Cross University, Tweed Gold Coast Campus, Locked Mail Bag 4, Coolangatta, Qld 4225 Australia; e-mail: [email protected]

Accepted for publication 14 February 2012.

Key points 1 Branding theory may be applied to industries as well as organisations in order to

better understand low brand profiles and their effects on recruitment, especially in contexts of skills shortages and competition between industries for talent.

2 Some industries with weaker brand profiles, such as the rail industry, report difficul- ties in competing for engineering talent.

3 Branding may be strengthened though a nuanced understanding of the benefits the targeted labour market segments value and perceive that a particular industry offers.

bs_bs_banner

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (2012) 50, 483–502 doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00040.x

talent and the quantity, quality and features or characteristics of talent: ‘(1) global demo- graphic and economic trends; (2) increasing mobility of people and organizations; (3) transformational changes to business environments, skills and cultures; and (4) growing levels of workforce diversity’. When all these factors are taken into combined account the result is a constantly changing, challenging and complex environment in which organisa- tions must compete to attract and retain key talent. This is the case for the Australian rail industry, which is facing a tsunami of retirements, loss of corporate knowledge and increased competition for talent.

The strategic management of talent involves defining an organisation’s direction and the human capital in terms of skills, knowledge and competencies needed to support that direction. Within the rail industry there is a particular focus on engineering and related technical professionals as the skills of these occupational groups are in highest demand. Skilled tradespersons, technicians and engineers rank first, second and third in the list of (non-medical) greatest skills shortages worldwide (Manpower 2011). Organisations with weaker employer brand profiles (i.e. those with unknown, unclear or unattractive employment value propositions) appear to have particular difficulties in attracting the skilled employees who are necessary to sustain competitiveness (Manpower 2011, 8).

In Australia, industries that employ large numbers of engineers such as transport and mining are in a growth phase and demand for engineering and related skills is thus high. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2011) lists almost all engineering and engineering technologist positions as ‘in demand’ and current skilled migration levels and domestic graduates combined are insufficient to meet Australia’s demand for engin- eers (Engineers Australia 2010; Kaspura 2011). Reports from some industries with weaker brand profiles, such as rail, indicate that they face widespread skilled labour shortages and are having difficulty competing for engineering talent (Australasian Railway Association, Department of Education and Employment and Workplace Relations (ARA/DEEWR) 2007a, b).

The research presented in this paper addresses the issue of how weak brand profile industries or organisations can engage in strategic talent management. We extend the use of employer branding and signalling theory to describe how organisations may position themselves in recruitment markets through better understanding the aspirations and drivers of their target labour pools.

Employer branding has emerged from academic research as a synthesis of marketing principles and recruitment practices. Essentially employer branding is based on the notion that, just as customers have perceptions of an organisation’s brand, so do other stakehold- ers, in particular potential employees. Branding thus plays a role in the attraction of talent. At the macro level, industries also have a brand image based on recruits’ evaluation of attributes associated with those industries (e.g. Wilden, Giudergan and Lings 2010). Under- standing these attributes and how different groups of recruits evaluate employer brand is integral to managing and communicating the employer brand.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

Our research questions are thus:

Research question 1: What brand attributes do potential engineering recruits use to differentiate employers?

Research question 2: What impact do these attributes have on their perceptions of the employer?

Research question 3: Do groups in this target labour pool seek different employment benefits?

The paper is organised as follows. The next section reviews the theoretical underpin- nings of employer branding. This is followed by the research methodology, results and analyses and finally, a discussion on our findings and their limitations.

Employer branding

Conceptualising brand equity The branding discourse focuses on the impact of corporate brands on individuals’ attitudes (e.g. Keller 1993; Swait et al. 1993). Two means of conceptualising brand equity dominate this field. The first, derived from cognitive psychology, suggests that the performance and personality of the brand gives rise to its value (or equity). Brand knowledge facilitates information processing and gives rise to brand equity by increasing individuals’ confidence in their choices. In the context of employment, previous research has adopted this cognitive psychology approach to employer brand equity. Edwards (2010) provides a comprehen- sive review of employer branding literature from both the marketing and HR fields, focus- ing on the cognitive psychology conceptualisation of brand equity. This view assumes that individuals have access to extensive brand information. While this assumption might be valid in the case of existing employees, it does not account for information asymmetries where potential employees may not have first-hand experience of the employer.

Grounded in signalling theory (Akerlof 1970; Mirrlees 1971; Spence 1973; Vickrey 1961), a second conceptualisation of brand equity, based on information economics, has arisen. The signalling theory perspective suggests that to avoid bad choices, information seekers use signals such as brands to formulate their judgments of quality (e.g. Dawar and Parker 1994; Koku 1995). This is pertinent in recruitment markets as potential employees rarely have perfect information about an employer. Job choices are high risk, which motivates potential employees to invest effort into gaining knowledge about prospective employers. Organisations that communicate appropriate signals, via employer branding, can increase the likelihood that they will be preferred over competitors.

Communicating the brand Just as traditional marketing practices, such as advertising, communicate the characteristics of a product to consumers, employer branding suggests that recruitment practices can be used to communicate the job and employer characteristics to potential recruits (Collins and

Michelle Wallace, Ian Lings and Roslyn Cameron

Stevens 2002). Employer branding has been shown to increase the quantity and quality of job applicants (Collins and Han 2004) and to have positive consequences for organisational performance (Fulmer, Gerhart and Scott 2003).

Potential recruits’ beliefs that an employer will satisfy their needs represents the value of the employer’s brand in the recruitment market. Potential recruits who perceive an employer to have high employer brand value consider that working for the employer is more attractive or at least less risky than working for an employer with low brand value. (Berthon, Ewing and Hah 2005). When making evaluations of employer brand signals, potential recruits evaluate the clarity, consistency and credibility of the brand information (Erdem and Swait 1998).

In many industry contexts, potential recruits are likely to have experiences of an indus- try, for example through direct customer experiences or from the media. The clarity and consistency of the information and the experiences that people have with the industry is paramount (Fernandez-Barcala and Gonzalez-Diaz 2006). For example, inconsistencies between product promises and consumer experiences increase the risk that potential recruits will perceive that employment promises will not be fulfilled, making the industry less attractive as both a customer and an employment choice.

Interpreting the brand According to Keller (1993), potential recruits evaluate the information that they receive in order to develop a multifaceted perception of employers. The facets of an employer’s brand that potential recruits consider in their decisions can be categorised in three ways. Functional aspects relate to objective, physical and tangible attributes such as a good salary or career advancement (Lievens, Van Hoye and Anseel 2007). Experiential aspects such as job diversity emphasise the brand’s effect on what it feels like to work for an employer (Ambler and Barrow 1996; Lievens, Van Hoye and Anseel 2007). Symbolic aspects relate to subjective, abstract and intangible attributes such as status that maintain or enhance self- identity (Ambler and Barrow 1996; Lievens, Van Hoye and Anseel (2007).

Berthon, Ewing and Hah (2005), present five alternative benefits of employer brands. Interest benefit is the extent to which the industry provides an exciting work environment. Social benefit refers to perceptions of a working environment that provides a team atmo- sphere. Economic benefit refers to an above-average compensation package. Development benefit refers to recognition and career enhancing experiences, and application benefit refers to opportunities to apply what they have learned and to teach others. Lievens, Van Hoye and Anseel (2007) present three additional benefits, namely travel, culture (a positive work environment) and prestige (perceptions that working for the employer is highly regarded). Potential recruits’ anticipation of these benefits influences how attracted they are to careers with an employer or industry (e.g. Lievens and Highhouse 2003; Slaughter et al. 2004; Lievens, Van Hoye and Schreurs 2005).

In understanding a recruit’s evaluation of the employer brand, it is important to note that all benefits are not equally important to all recruits. Recruits are unlikely to view the provision of a benefit as either very good or bad if they do not consider it to be important.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

Consequently, it is necessary to establish the relative importance of each benefit for different types of recruit. This gives rise to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Interest, social, economic, development, application, travel, culture and prestige benefits are differentially important in potential employees’ evaluations of employers.

Hypothesis 2: Potential employees’ beliefs that an employer will provide these employment benefits is positively related to how attractive they will find the employer.

Possible segments in the target recruitment market Previous research shows that male and female final-year university engineering students (DEEWR 2008) have different preferences for job benefits. Opportunities to access profes- sional development, work overseas, and contribute to society, were ranked higher by females than males. In contrast, males ranked opportunities such as being involved in new and emerging technologies, cash bonuses, and fixed-term contracts higher than females.

Also, it is likely that potential recruits at different life/career stages will have different motivations and may prioritise employment benefits differently. Raj, Walia and Gill (2011) report that employees of different ages and experience levels report dissatisfaction with different aspects of their current employment. They assert that the employees’ life stage and experience in the role impact their satisfaction with various job characteristics such as pay, security and advancement. Following their logic, we contest that age and work experiences influence individuals’ expectations of their employment and consequently the benefits which they consider important. While age and experience are unlikely to correlate perfectly in our sample we would anticipate that respondents under 22 would not have work experience (they are more likely to have progressed directly from school to further educa- tion), whereas respondents over 22 are more likely to have a period of full-time employ- ment prior to commencing tertiary education. Consequently, we examine whether age is a useful demographic variable for segmentation, specifically segmenting respondents under age 22 from those over age 22. In line with Raj, Walia and Gill (2011) and the DEEWR (2008) study we predict that potential employees with different demographic characteris- tics, specifically gender and experience, will have significantly different benefit preferences. This gives rise to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Potential employees with different demographic characteristics (age and gender) will have different preferences for job benefits.

Rail: an industry with a skills shortage and brand profile issues

The engineering shortage is impacting on the Australian rail industry. It is estimated that the demand for rail engineers will increase by 22%-33% to 2014 (Association of Profes- sional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia 2009). Previous small-scale research indicated that the rail industry, as an employer, has weak brand awareness and any aware- ness that exists is generally negative (ARA/DEEWR 2007a, b; Kerr and Waterhouse 2008).

Michelle Wallace, Ian Lings and Roslyn Cameron

Our research responds to a recommendation for further analysis of rail’s attraction strat- egies and identification of the perceptions of the rail brand and rail careers held by target labour pools (Kerr and Waterhouse 2008).

As will be seen below, our research focuses on one target labour pool, soon-to-graduate engineering students, explores their perceptions of the major employment benefits they value and quantifies how these perceptions influence the attractiveness of a rail career.

Methodology

This research represents part of a larger study exploring attitudes to the rail industry as an employer. Previous qualitative research (Wallace et al. 2010) confirmed that eight benefits identified by Berthon, Ewing and Hah (2005) and Lievens, Van Hoye and Anseel (2007), discussed earlier, were used by final-year students to evaluate rail as an employer. This paper focuses on the quantitative study that tested these eight benefits.

Two methods are appropriate for measuring the relative importance of the eight ben- efits. First, stated importance can be measured by asking respondents questions to measure how important different elements of the benefit are to them. Responses to these questions may be averaged to measure the overall importance of the benefit. Second, the relative importance of the eight benefits can be estimated by examining beliefs that a particular benefit will be delivered by an employer. This is the derived importance of the benefit. We use linear regression to estimate the derived importance of each benefit.

An understanding of both stated and derived importance is useful for recruitment professionals. Benefits stated to be important are those that respondents believe are relevant to them and are likely to be the benefits that they seek information about in recruitment materials. Benefits showing derived importance are those that signal the attractiveness of an employer to a potential recruit. In order to achieve our research aims it was necessary to measure the stated importance of each of the benefits to respondents, how well respondents consider that rail, as an employer, will provide them with these benefits and how attractive they consider a career in the rail industry.

Measures of benefits were adapted from the reflective scales published by Berthon, Ewing and Hah (2005) and Lievens, Van Hoye and Anseel (2007) in order to be relevant to the rail industry. Questions relating to each of the benefits were presented in a random order in two sets, the first asking respondents how important each benefit was and the second asking how well rail organisations could deliver these benefits. For example:

Application benefits • Working for an employer that is environmentally responsible is important/unimportant

to me • The rail industry is environmentally responsible (strongly agree/strongly disagree)

Economic benefits • Working for an employer that provides a competitive salary is important/unimportant

to me

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

• The rail industry provides a competitive salary (strongly agree/strongly disagree)

Each of the eight benefits was operationalised as an index (see Appendix). An index is composed of multiple items, each comprising a different element of the overall construct. For example, economic benefit encompasses promotion opportunities, job security, flex- ibility, salary, security and other benefits such as superannuation or travel allowances. In such situations a measure is most appropriately treated as a formative index rather than a reflective scale.

Survey design Several design initiatives were incorporated into the survey instrument to ensure that the data collected were as free from error as possible and were valid measures of the constructs under observation. Following Spector (1987) and Podsakoff et al. (2003) we included both positively and negatively worded questions to minimise acquiescence bias. To minimise social desirability bias, surveys were collected anonymously. To minimise order effects, respondents′ opinion of rail as an employer was solicited prior to asking respondents to think about how well rail would be able to deliver each of the benefits sought. Demographic questions relating to gender, age, and course of study were collected at the end of the survey.

Sample The survey was administered in late 2009/early 2010 to a representative sample of 407 final-year, women and men engineering students from seven universities and one Technical and Further Education (TAFE) college across New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. Surveys were paper-based and administered in person at the educational institutions. Students were a mix of international and domestic but their ethnic background, citizenship or Australian residency status were not measured. The data were cleaned, removing incomplete surveys (mainly because some students left for other classes) and a usable sample of 352 was obtained. The sample was overwhelmingly male (87%) which is slightly higher than the 82% male composition of the engineering student body in Australia (Kaspura 2011). The modal age was 21 years with a range from 19 to 36. Most of the respondents were studying for a Bachelor degree (85%) with the bulk of the remainder studying for a Masters degree (8%) or Certificate III (5.5%).

Data manipulation and analysis The objectives of the research were threefold: to measure the stated importance of the benefits sought by respondents, to estimate their derived importance, and to identify if the derived importance of the benefits differed for respondents of different age and gender. To do this several manipulations of the data were required.

To measure the stated importance of each benefit, a measure of how respondents rated each benefit was required. This was calculated by using the mean of each respondent’s responses to each benefit. The grand mean score for each benefit for the whole sample was then calculated for each benefit. This grand mean ranked the eight benefits in order of their

Michelle Wallace, Ian Lings and Roslyn Cameron

stated importance for the whole sample. A series of t-tests comparing the scores for each benefit provided information about whether the stated importance differs between benefits.

It is insightful to understand the stated importance of the different elements of each benefit as represented by the index items (for example, for interest benefits, is an exciting work environment more important than novel work practices?). This was achieved by examining the sample mean scores for each item (rather than the grand mean scores for the benefits). The mean score of all items relating to respondent’s perceptions of how well rail provided each benefit gave a score for perceptions of rail as an employer. Regression analysis was used to quantify the impact that perceptions of rail had on respondent’s perceptions of how attractive they considered a career in rail. The regression coefficients represent the derived importance of the benefits.

Finally, a series of regression analyses on subsets of the data (men/women, younger/ older) identified if these segments of the market were attracted to different perceived benefits. Following the logic established above that potential recruits at different life/career stages will have different motivations and may prioritise employment benefits differently, we analysed age segments of those under 22 and over 22. Although age was not a perfect proxy for experience, in this instance, if there were significant differences in experience and thus perceived benefits, a split based on the age of the respondents should show this.

Results

Prior to conducting the analysis, several quality checks were conducted on the data. Har- man’s (1967) one-factor test was conducted to test for method bias. The test revealed no general factor present and was taken as post hoc support for the absence of method bias (Mattila and Enz 2002). Measures of internal consistency are not appropriate for formative indices but do provide useful insights into the performance of reflective scales. The items for employer attractiveness demonstrated adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93) which exceeded the recommended minima suggested by Churchill (1999), Gerbing and Anderson (1988) and Hair et al. (1998), justifying their inclusion into the analysis.

The next stage of the analysis was to establish respondents’ perceptions of the relative importance of each of the benefit dimensions of the employer brand. The data indicated that respondents considered development benefits to be most important, followed by economic, interest, social, culture, application, travel and prestige benefits. A series of 28 paired t-tests indicated 27 significant differences between the means of the importance scores, supporting hypothesis 1, that the benefits were differentially important in potential employees’ evaluations of employers.

Most and least important facets of benefits In order to identify which facets of each benefit were most important, each index item was examined and those with the highest important scores were identified. It is also helpful to understand which facets were the least important. Components that were rated least impor- tant corresponded primarily to application and prestige benefits. Table 1 describes these aspects.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

Paired t-tests revealed that within the development benefits, gaining experience to support career progression and working in an organisation that enhances career flexibility were significantly more important than other facets. For economic benefits, attractive employment package, competitive salary, promotion opportunities and job security were significantly more important. Within interest benefits, the opportunity to work on inter- esting projects was rated the most important facet, and for social benefits, relationships with the team and managers were rated the highest importance.

Table 1 Aspects considered most/least important by respondents

Important benefit

Important aspects of benefit Mean importance

Development Gaining experience to support their career progression 4.35 Working in an organisation that enhances their career

flexibility in the future 4.26

Economic An attractive employment package (superannuation, travel, allowances etc)

4.29

A competitive salary 4.28 Good promotion opportunities in the organisation 4.26 Job security in the organisation 4.23

Interest The opportunity to work on interesting projects 4.45 Social Having a good relationship with the team 4.38

Supportive and encouraging team 4.22 Having a good relationship with the management 4.10

Unimportant benefit

Unimportant aspects of benefit Mean importance

Application Working for an employer that is environmentally responsible

3.48

Working as part of a diverse workforce 3.46 Working for organisation that makes an important

contribution to our nation 3.35

Working for an organisation that is customer focussed 3.34 Prestige Working in an industry that is easy to get into 3.15

Working for a multinational organisation 3.11 Working for an organisation that is positively reported in

the media 3.09

Economic Working for organisation that has a streamlined, simple recruitment process

3.47

The opportunity to rotate jobs within the organisation 3.46 Interest The opportunity to work for a high profile organisation 3.43 Travel The opportunity to work interstate 3.21 Culture Working for an organisation that makes quick decisions 3.13

Michelle Wallace, Ian Lings and Roslyn Cameron

The impact of benefits on employer attractiveness Scores for perceptions of rail as an employer were within one standard deviation of the mid-point, suggesting that rail had a weak image and respondents did not know if a career in rail would offer the benefits that they sought. This weak image of rail in the recruitment market suggests that potential recruits lack information about rail’s brand.

However, it is still possible to estimate how well perceptions of the benefits encapsulated in the rail brand predict how attractive a career in rail is perceived (derived benefit). Multiple regression analysis provided an estimate of the impact of each benefit on employer attractiveness. Three of the eight benefits, interest, economic, and prestige were found to significantly predict perceptions of the attractiveness of a career with rail, offering partial support for hypothesis 2. Other benefits did not have any significant role in determining how attractive a career with rail was seen to be. Table 2 describes these predictors of rail attractiveness.

Segmentation To test for meaningful segments the sample was split into subsamples representing different ages (22 and older, and younger than 22) and gender segments. Regression analyses were conducted on each subsample. Comparison of the regression analyses revealed the deter- minants of industry attractiveness for respondents with different demographic character- istics. The results are presented in Table 2 and support hypothesis 3.

A comparison of the results for men and women confirmed the findings of (DEEWR 2008) that the benefits sought by these two segments differ considerably. Notwithstanding the low sample size for the female segment, it appears that women were seeking different employment benefits to men. Women appeared to consider prestige, culture and social benefits when evaluating the attractiveness of an employer, and men considered economic and interest benefits, and to a lesser extent the opportunity to travel.

Table 2 Predictors of rail attractiveness

All Men Women Younger !22

Older "22

n 352 234 28 127 119 R2 .40 .39 .83 .37 .60 Interest benefit .428 .430 NS .759 NS Economic benefit .357 .378 NS NS .417* Prestige benefits .275 NS .352 NS .569 Culture benefits -.253 NS .328 NS NS Social benefits NS NS .475 NS NS Development benefits NS NS NS NS NS Application benefits NS NS NS NS NS Travel benefits NS .148* NS NS .338

All values significant at 5% (two tailed except for * significant at 5% (one-tailed)). NS = non significant.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

Similarly, there appeared to be a significant difference between younger and older respondents. The sample was split at the mean age (22) to provide two roughly equal segments. Respondents younger than 22 years appeared to consider interest benefits as the dominant factor in evaluating the attractiveness of rail as an employer, whereas older respondents (22 years and over) appeared to value economic and prestige benefits, and the opportunity to travel. This finding is broadly in line with that of Raj, Walia and Gill (2011) who report that older employees are less satisfied with salary and incentives than younger employees, suggesting the importance of economic benefits to older employees.

Discussion

A number of important findings were obtained from the research. First, our quantitative data suggest that not all benefits encompassed within the employer brand impact potential recruits’ attitudes towards employers. We find that only four benefits (interest, economic, prestige and culture) impact perceptions of employer attractiveness. These benefits vary across recruitment segments. In the majority of segments a multi-attribute decision is made, suggesting that while decision heuristics are probably being used, these still require the evaluation of several pieces of information about the employer.

Second, the results highlight the disparity between stated importance of the benefits and their derived importance. Rational decision-making would suggest that those benefits individuals report as important to them in seeking a career would be those that best predict how attractive the individual finds an employer. However, in this study this is not so. Respondents stated that development benefits were the most important benefit to them when seeking a position. Yet, development benefits had no significant impact on how attractive these respondents reported a career in rail to be. This disparity between stated and derived importance has been the subject of extensive academic debate (e.g. Chu 2002). One possible explanation arises from the assumptions inherent in standard multiple regression analysis. Such analyses are based on linear models and any deviation in the relationship between the independent variables (benefits) and the dependent variable (rail attractive- ness) would give rise to a serious underestimation of the strength of the relationship (the derived importance of the benefit).

The third finding offers a strong confirmation of previous, small-scale research that suggested an overall weak brand position of rail as an employer (ARA/DEEWR 2007a, b; Kerr and Waterhouse 2008). In our research, despite some relatively high ratings for indi- vidual items, respondents did not express a strong view of how well rail provided these benefits. This confirms that rail as an employer does not have a clear brand position. The unclear brand position is particularly problematic as it is the recruits’ beliefs in the employ- er’s ability to provide important benefits that drives employer attractiveness (Berthon, Ewing and Hah 2005). As indicated by signalling theory (Akerlof 1970; Mirrlees 1971; Spence 1973; Vickrey 1961) and information economics, a lack of information about the employer brand compromises potential recruits’ perceptions and they perceive decisions about employment to be more risky than when the brand is clearly communicated.

Michelle Wallace, Ian Lings and Roslyn Cameron

The fourth finding is the presence of meaningful and more nuanced segments within the recruitment market. As the results demonstrate, men and women are seeking different benefits from employment. If the rail industry is to successfully attract both segments, this diversity of motives must be understood and addressed in job design and the messages communicated to potential recruits. We also found that younger recruits appear to be solely driven by the interest benefit and a desire to work on interesting, innovative and varied projects. Older recruits seek more varied benefits; economic, prestige and travel. The dominant influence of a single benefit within the younger segment may represent a par- ticular decision rule that is being used to compensate for lack of information about rail as an employer and lack of experience of employment in general. The use of decision rules, or heuristics, by individuals required to make decisions has been extensively studied, and a large body of evidence suggests that individuals use a rather limited set of evaluation criteria to make decisions about complex phenomena (e.g. Meyer 1987). Our findings may reflect different heuristics being adopted by respondents with different levels of experience. For example, respondents with work experience might be expected to follow a trade-off heuristic, where they make trade-offs between one benefit and another. For a more com- prehensive discussion of different heuristics see Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier (2011).

These results suggest employers need to be cognisant of heterogeneity in their recruit- ment markets and to target employer brand messages accordingly. For example, it would seem prudent when targeting female employees to emphasise the more subjective social benefits of prestige, organisational culture and social standing, as these appear to be the drivers of industry attractiveness to this segment. The male recruitment segment appears to be better approached with messages that emphasise economic and interest criteria. Although sample restrictions do not allow meaningful differences between early and mid- career engineers to be made, it appears that younger engineers (presumably taking their first job) seek an interesting role whereas those that are slightly older (presumably with more personal responsibilities) seek financial benefits more than interest.

Knowledge of these differences in motives and decision criteria will allow HR profes- sionals to better target different groups of potential recruits with messages that help them to make efficient decisions. Communications that bombard potential recruits with addi- tional information may interfere with the most salient information required for the deci- sion. Recruitment messages can be tailored to target specific segments, or audiences might be more effectively segmented to receive different versions of the recruitment message. While we identify two demographic characteristics that provide a meaningful basis for segmentation in this context, it is likely that other demographic and/or psychographic characteristics will provide other bases for segmenting the recruitment market.

Limitations and further research The methods used in this research are replicable and applicable to other industries. However, this research is not without limitations. First, our dependent measure was indus- try attractiveness and we determined the impact of the eight benefits on how attractive individuals consider a career in rail to be. While career attractiveness is undoubtedly a

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

determinant of career choice, there may be other factors that influence choice such as family circumstances that are not considered in this research. These factors warrant consideration in future research. Future research exploring the job preferences of student engineers may provide insights into strategies that meet the inclination of young people, and foster the development of HR, branding or marketing strategies to accommodate these anticipated job characteristics.

Second, there are limitations inherent in the data collected from final-year engineering students. While these respondents are valid for the research questions we posed, they do not provide insights into the motivations or beliefs of mid-career engineers who could consti- tute a major recruitment possibility for the rail industry. The career decision-making literature recognises that mid-career employees have different employment preference characteristics (Macky, Gardner and Forsyth 2008; Treuren and Anderson 2010). Research aimed at understanding their motives may yield useful talent management information for the rail industry. Our sample was dominated by male respondents, which, while represen- tative of the population that we sampled, limits the ability to generalise the findings. Purposive sampling of female engineering students, while not strictly representing the population, would allow more insights to be drawn about the motives of female engineers.

Finally, linear regression is not without its limitations, especially in deriving the import- ance of choice elements. As noted earlier, non-linear relationships between the independent variables (benefits) and the dependent variable (rail attractiveness) will give rise to under- estimation of the derived importance of the benefit. It is likely that the benefits explored here also display non-linear relationships with industry attractiveness; for example, some travel may be attractive to a potential recruit, too much may make them feel the industry is unattractive. Future research may seek to identify non-linear relationships between benefits and perceived attractiveness of an industry for a range of segments in the recruitment market.

Like other weak brand profile industries, rail must make strategic decisions about the relationship between the marketing, human resources and recruitment functions, and consider whether employee value propositions are viewed internally as a strategic talent management consideration or a marketing/branding issue. Specific research into this rela- tionship may prove useful in better positioning the public rail industry as a career choice. Research should also consider the impact of ‘noise’ generated from other sources of infor- mation and personal experiences. This represents a unique challenge, as does developing and maintaining an organisational culture that ensures consistent experiences of the brand across many touch points and in many stakeholder roles.

Conclusion

In response to research questions 1 and 2, the survey results indicate that most engineering students are seeking economic, development, social and interest benefits from their jobs. Other benefits considered important include working on interesting, innovative projects in which they will be using cutting-edge technology. These results are supported by other

Michelle Wallace, Ian Lings and Roslyn Cameron

surveys of final-year engineering students (Chandler Macleod and Australian Human Resources Institute 2007; DEEWR 2008). However, there were some significant differences between females and males which disconfirm earlier findings that overall, women and men share similar priorities when job-seeking (DEEWR 2008; Seeto 2008).

This study confirms that rail branding is generally weak. However, this, rather than being a drawback, offers rail an opportunity to strengthen its branding along the lines of what attracts young engineers. Low economic, development, social and interest benefits are associated with rail careers. Notwithstanding, these associations are relatively weak and consequently more easily changed than entrenched opinions. Recruitment and marketing initiatives that provide engineering students with clear, consistent, and credible information may achieve a stronger and better aligned employer brand position. This will require considering the relationship that marketing, human resources and recruitment functions should develop to successfully implement employee value propositions.

In response to research question 3, this research also indicates that the employment market has multiple segments with differing job characteristic preferences and rail will need to respond accordingly with multiple employment value propositions. These propositions need to be effectively conveyed to the recruitment markets, which will require closer engagement and willingness to provide recruiters with information that accurately describes both the job role and the cultural environment in which the role is situated.

The lessons learned through this research apply to other industries with weak brand profile seeking to attract talent. Their first step would be to research the aspirations of the desired labour pools to understand employment attractors among their different segments (inter- and intra-generational, early or mid-career, male or female) in order to better strategise branding within an overall approach to talent management.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the CRC for Rail Innovation (established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres program) for the funding of this research, Project R1.112 Attraction and Industry Image for the Rail industry.

The authors acknowledge the invaluable contribution of Research Associate Neroli Sheldon to the research project that informs this paper.

Michelle Wallace (PhD) is an associate professor of human resources in the Southern Cross Univer- sity Business School. Michelle led the Attraction and Industry Image research project for the CRC for Rail Innovation and currently leads the Career Pathways for Australasian Rail Industry project. She teaches, researches and supervises doctoral students on a range of HR topics in Australian and Asian contexts.

Ian Lings (PhD) is professor of marketing at Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. His research has been published in a range of journals and he is the associate editor of the European Journal of Marketing and sits on the international advisory board of the Journal of Service Management.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

Roslyn Cameron (PhD) is a senior lecturer in HRM in the School of Management and Marketing at Central Queensland University. Roslyn has been on the research team of four workforce devel- opment projects for the CRC for Rail Innovation. She teaches, researches and supervises in a range of HRM topics.

References

Akerlof G (1970) The market for ‘lemons’: Qualitative uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(3), 488–500.

Ambler T and S Barrow (1996) The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management 4(3), 185–206. Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia (2009) Australia needs a

national engineer strategy. Briefing paper distributed at the APESMA National Engineer Confer- ence, 9–10 October, Sydney.

Australasian Railway Association and Department of Education Employment and Workplace Rela- tions (2007a) The changing face of rail: A journey to the employer of choice. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Canberra, ACT.

Australasian Railway Association and Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (2007b) A rail revolution: Future capability, identification and skills development for the Australasian rail industry. Australasian Railway Association, Canberra, ACT.

Beechler S and IC Woodward (2009) The global ‘war on talent’. Journal of International Management 15, 273–285.

Berthon P, M Ewing and L Hah (2005) Captivating company: Dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding. International Journal of Advertising 24(2), 151–172.

Chandler Macleod and Australian Human Resources Institute (2007) Workplace barometer – employer of choice: A reality check.

Chu R (2002) Stated-importance versus derived-importance customer satisfaction measurement. Journal of Services Marketing 16(4), 285–301.

Churchill GA (1999) Marketing research: Methodological foundations, 7th edn. Dryden Press, Orlando, FL.

Collins CJ and J Han (2004) Exploring applicant pool and quality: The effects of early recruit- ment practices, strategies, corporate advertising, and firm reputation. Personnel Psychology 57, 685–717.

Collins CJ and CK Stevens (2002) The relationship between early recruitment-related activities and the application decisions of new labour market entrants: A brand equity approach to recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(6), 1121–1133.

Dawar N and P Parker (1994) Marketing universals: Consumers′ use of brand name, price, physical appearance, and retailer. Journal of Marketing 58(2), 81–95.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2008) Views of engineering students: Reports of a survey of final year university engineering students. Commonwealth of Australia, Can- berra, ACT.

Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2011) Skilled occupations list (SOL). http:// www.immi.gov.au/skilled/sol

Edwards MR (2010) An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel Review 39(1), 5–23.

Engineers Australia (2010) Engineering sector remains well short of meeting demand. Engineers Australia, Barton, ACT.

Michelle Wallace, Ian Lings and Roslyn Cameron

Erdem T and J Swait (1998) Brand equity as a signalling phenomena. Journal of Consumer Psychology 7(2), 31–157.

Fernandez-Barcala M and M Gonzalez-Diaz (2006) Brand equity in the European fruit and vegetable sector: A transaction cost approach. International Journal of Research in Marketing 23, 31–44.

Fulmer J, B Gerhart and KS Scott (2003) Are the 100 best better? An empirical investigation of the relationship between being a ‘great place to work’ and firm performance. Personnel Psychology 56, 965–993.

Gerbing DW and JC Anderson (1988) An updated paradigm for scale development unidimension- ality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research 25(2), 186–192.

Gigerenzer G and W Gaissmaier (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 62, 451–482.

Hair J, R Tatham, R Anderson and WC Black (1998) Multivariate data analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Harman HH (1967) Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Kaspura A (2011) The engineering profession statistical overview, 8th edn. Institution of Engineers:

Barton, ACT. Keller K (1993) Conceptualising, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of

Marketing 57(1), 1–22. Kerr C and J Waterhouse (2008) Bridging the gap: Towards a better understanding of target cohort belief

systems. CRC for Rail Innovation, Brisbane, Qld. Koku PS (1995) Price signalling: Does it ever work? Journal of Consumer Marketing 12(1), 45–49. Lievens F and S Highhouse (2003) The relation of industrial and symbolic attributions and a

company’s attractiveness as an employer. Personal Psychology 56(1), 75–102. Lievens F, G Van Hoye and F Anseel (2007) Organizational identity and employer image: Towards a

unifying framework. British Journal of Management 18(1), S45–S59.. Lievens F, G Van Hoye and B Schreurs (2005) Examining the relationship between employer knowl-

edge dimensions and organizational attractiveness: An application in a military context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 78, 553–573.

Macky K, D Gardner and S Forsyth (2008) Generational differences at work: Introduction and overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23(8), 857–861.

Manpower (2011) Talent shortage survey results. Manpower Inc. Mattila AS and CA Enz (2002) The role of emotions in service encounters. Journal of Service Research

4(2), 268–277. Meyer R (1987) The learning of multiattribute judgement policies. Journal of Consumer Research 4(2),

155–173. Mirrlees J (1971) An exploration in the theory of optimum income taxation. Review of Economic

Studies 38(2), 175–208. Podsakoff P, S Mackenzie, JL Lee and N Podsakoff (2003) Common method biases in behavioural

research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psy- chology 88(5), 879–903.

Raj E, N Walia and P Gill (2011) Developing an integrated information system to enhance employee performance. Global Business and Management Research 3(1), 7–20.

Seeto C (2008) Generation F: Attract, engage, retain. Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace, Canberra, ACT.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

Slaughter J, M Zickar, S Highhouse and D Mohr (2004) Personality trait inferences about organisa- tions: Development of a measure and assessment of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy 89(5), 85–103.

Spector PE (1987) Method variance as an artefact in self reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology 72(3), 438–443.

Spence A (1973) Job marketing signalling. Quarterly Journal of Economics 87(3), 355–379. Swait J, T Erdem, J Louviere and C Dubelaar (1993) The equalization price: A measure of consumer-

perceived brand equity. International Journal of Research in Marketing 10, 23–45. Treuren G and K Anderson (2010) The employment expectations of different cohorts: Is generation

Y that different? Australian Journal of Career Development 19(2), 49–61. Vickrey W (1961) Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance

16(1), 41–50. Wallace M, N Sheldon, I Lings and R Cameron (2010) Attraction and image for the Australian rail

industry. Paper presented at the British Academy of Management, Sheffield, UK. Wilden R, S Giudergan and IN Lings (2010) Employer branding: Strategic implications for staff

recruitment. Journal of Marketing Management 26(1/2), 56–73.

Appendix Perception of benefits

How important are the following to you when considering potential employers? (Not important at all/very important)

How much do you agree with the following? (Strongly disagree/strongly agree)

Application benefits Application benefits Working for an organisation that is customer

focussed The rail industry is customer focussed

The opportunity to work with both men and women

The rail industry offers good opportunities for both men and women

Working as part of a diverse workforce The rail industry has a diverse workforce Working for an employer that is

environmentally responsible The rail industry is environmentally

responsible Working for an employer that is socially

responsible The rail industry is socially responsible

A career that is mentally challenging Working as an engineer in rail would be mentally challenging

Working for an organisation that makes an important contribution to my nation

The rail industry makes an important contribution to my nation

Working for an organisation that allows me a high level of professional freedom

Working in rail would allow me a lot of professional freedom

The opportunity to apply what I have learned in my qualifications

Working in rail would allow me to apply what I learned in my qualifications

Culture benefits Culture benefits Working for an organisation that makes quick

decisions The rail industry makes quick decisions

Michelle Wallace, Ian Lings and Roslyn Cameron

Appendix Perception of benefits Continued

How important are the following to you when considering potential employers? (Not important at all/very important)

How much do you agree with the following? (Strongly disagree/strongly agree)

Working for an organisation that has an open management structure

The rail industry has an open management structure

Working for an organisation that has strong, dynamic leadership

The rail industry has strong, dynamic leadership

Having easy access to my managers Managers in the rail industry are easy for engineers to get access to

Working for an organisation that includes me in decision-making

The rail industry has an inclusive decision-making process

Working for an organisation that has clear, responsive communication channels

Rail companies have clear, responsive communication channels

Development benefits Development benefits Gaining experience to support my career

progression Working in the rail industry would give me

valuable experience to support my career progression

Recognition and appreciation for my work achievements

Engineers in the rail industry are well recognised and appreciated for their work achievements

Feeling proud of the organisation that I work for

I would feel proud to work in the rail industry

Support from my organisation for my continued learning

A rail company would support my continued learning

Having the opportunity to work on high profile, challenging projects

Engineers in rail work on high profile, challenging projects

Opportunities to network Working in rail would allow me to network Working in an organisation that enhance my

career flexibility in the future Working in rail will limit my career flexibility

in the future Economic benefits Economic benefits Good promotion opportunities in the

organisation The rail industry offers good promotion

opportunities Job security in the organisation The rail industry offers job security Flexible working conditions The rail industry offers flexible working

conditions A competitive salary The rail industry offers a competitive salary Promotion based on merit rather than length

of service The rail industry promotes people mostly

based on length of service The opportunity to rotate between jobs in the

organisation Engineers in the rail industry rotate jobs

around the organisation Working in an industry that has a secure

future The rail industry has a secure future

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

Appendix Perception of benefits Continued

How important are the following to you when considering potential employers? (Not important at all/very important)

How much do you agree with the following? (Strongly disagree/strongly agree)

An attractive employment package (superannuation, travel, allowances etc)

The rail industry offers a good employment package (superannuation, travel, allowances etc)

Working for an organisation that has a streamlined, simple recruitment process

Rail companies have simple recruitment process

Interest benefits Interest benefits The opportunity to work for a high profile

organisation Engineering projects in the rail industry are

high profile The opportunity to work on interesting

projects Engineering projects in the rail industry are

interesting The opportunity to design and innovate Working in the rail industry would allow me

to be innovative The opportunity to use cutting edge

technology The rail industry uses cutting edge technology

The opportunity to work in a variety of locations

A engineering job in the rail industry would involve working on a variety of projects

The opportunity to work on a variety of projects

An engineering job in the rail industry would involve working in a variety of locations

Prestige benefits Prestige benefits Working for an organisation that has high

status Engineering jobs in the rail industry are

prestigious Working for an organisation that is highly

regarded Engineering jobs in the rail industry are

highly regarded Working for an organisation that is well

respected Engineering jobs in the rail industry are well

respected Working in an industry that is easy to get

into Getting a job in the rail industry is easy

Working in an industry where the workload is not too heavy

Engineering jobs in the rail industry are not very demanding

Working for an organisation that is positively reported in the media

Rail companies are positively reported in the media

Working for a multinational organisation Rail companies are multinational organisation Social benefits Social benefits A relaxed working environment The rail industry has a relaxed working

environment Having a good relationship with the

management Rail workers have good relationships with rail

management Having a good relationship with the team The rail industry has a strong team spirit

Michelle Wallace, Ian Lings and Roslyn Cameron

Appendix Perception of benefits Continued

How important are the following to you when considering potential employers? (Not important at all/very important)

How much do you agree with the following? (Strongly disagree/strongly agree)

Supportive and encouraging team Engineers in rail companies are supportive of each other

Working in a high pressure environment Working as an engineer in rail would be high pressure

Travel benefits Travel benefits The opportunity to travel for my organisation The rail industry offers good opportunities to

travel for work The opportunity to work overseas Engineers in rail can work overseas The opportunity to work interstate Engineers in rail can work interstate

Adapted from: Berthon, Ewing and Hah (2005) and Lievens, Van Hoye and Anseel (2007).

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50