Got Employer Image? How Applicants Choose Their Employer

IF 1.5 Q3 BUSINESS CORPORATE REPUTATION REVIEW Pub Date : 2021-07-22 DOI:10.1057/s41299-021-00119-3
Daniel Hoppe, Helen Keller, Felix Horstmann
{"title":"Got Employer Image? How Applicants Choose Their Employer","authors":"Daniel Hoppe, Helen Keller, Felix Horstmann","doi":"10.1057/s41299-021-00119-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This research investigates applicants’ preferences in employer choice to identify relevant components of employer image that are best to be communicated in employer branding. Based on the instrumental–symbolic attribute framework assumptions about the relative importance of the organizational characteristics salary, location, flexibility of working hours, task attractiveness, prestige, innovativeness, and corporate social responsibility (CSR), and their interrelations were tested in an empirical setting. Additionally, interindividual differences in career ambition were investigated as a moderating variable. To measure the actual decision behavior of <i>N</i> = 136 ongoing university graduates, Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint (ACBC) Analysis was used. Based on the respondents’ preferences, the importance of each attribute was calculated and set in relation to one another. The results show that moderate attractive instrumental organization attributes form a precondition for symbolic attributes to become relevant at all. There is no evidence for a compensating relationship between instrumental and symbolic attribute classes. Career ambition shows some effects, especially on two-way interactions between instrumental and symbolic attributes. The innovative use of conjoint analysis in the instrumental–symbolic framework allowed to further investigate trade-off effects of attribute classes in the employer decision. The findings provide additional information on relevant elements of employer image and give suggestions for employer branding researchers and practitioners.</p>","PeriodicalId":47317,"journal":{"name":"CORPORATE REPUTATION REVIEW","volume":"AES-2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CORPORATE REPUTATION REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-021-00119-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This research investigates applicants’ preferences in employer choice to identify relevant components of employer image that are best to be communicated in employer branding. Based on the instrumental–symbolic attribute framework assumptions about the relative importance of the organizational characteristics salary, location, flexibility of working hours, task attractiveness, prestige, innovativeness, and corporate social responsibility (CSR), and their interrelations were tested in an empirical setting. Additionally, interindividual differences in career ambition were investigated as a moderating variable. To measure the actual decision behavior of N = 136 ongoing university graduates, Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint (ACBC) Analysis was used. Based on the respondents’ preferences, the importance of each attribute was calculated and set in relation to one another. The results show that moderate attractive instrumental organization attributes form a precondition for symbolic attributes to become relevant at all. There is no evidence for a compensating relationship between instrumental and symbolic attribute classes. Career ambition shows some effects, especially on two-way interactions between instrumental and symbolic attributes. The innovative use of conjoint analysis in the instrumental–symbolic framework allowed to further investigate trade-off effects of attribute classes in the employer decision. The findings provide additional information on relevant elements of employer image and give suggestions for employer branding researchers and practitioners.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
雇主形象?申请人如何选择雇主
本研究调查了申请人在雇主选择方面的偏好,以确定雇主形象的相关组成部分,这些组成部分最适合在雇主品牌中进行沟通。基于工具-符号属性框架,对薪酬、工作地点、工作时间灵活性、任务吸引力、声望、创新能力和企业社会责任的相对重要性进行了假设,并对它们之间的相互关系进行了实证检验。此外,职业抱负的个体间差异作为调节变量进行了研究。为了测量N = 136名在职大学毕业生的实际决策行为,采用了基于自适应选择的联合(ACBC)分析。根据受访者的偏好,计算出每个属性的重要性,并根据彼此的关系进行设置。结果表明,适度吸引的工具性组织属性是符号属性完全相关的先决条件。没有证据表明工具性和象征性属性类之间存在补偿关系。职业抱负表现出一定的影响,特别是在工具性属性和象征性属性的双向互动中。在工具-符号框架中创新性地使用联合分析,可以进一步研究雇主决策中属性类别的权衡效应。研究结果为雇主形象的相关要素提供了额外的信息,并为雇主品牌研究人员和实践者提供了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Corporate Reputation Review is the leading international journal for all scholars and academics concerned with managing and measuring corporate reputation.The Journal is reviewed by a distinguished editorial board, under the guidance of Guido Berens (Erasmus University, The Netherlands). Corporate Reputation Review provides a forum for rigorous, practically relevant academic research into reputations and reputation management, as well as related concepts such as identity and corporate communication.
期刊最新文献
‘A Reputation to Protect’: Sport-Team Reputation as a Strategic Source of Brand Equity A Bibliometric Review of Customer Engagement in the International Domain: Reviewing the Past and the Present CSR Reporting Practices: A Cross-Time Comparison of the Food & Beverage and Energy Industries in the U.S. Through Topic Modeling Exploring the Factors Influencing Blame Attribution and Attitudes Toward Brands with COVID-19 Semantical Associations: A Study During the Lockdown Period CSR Did Not Take Place: An Empirical Study Exploring Consumers Trapped in Paradoxes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1