Value-driving factors for Employer Attractiveness : A multiple case study within the IT industry

(1)

Linköping university SE- 581 83 Linköping, Sweden +46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se Linköping University | IEI: Department of Management and Engineering Master Thesis, 30 Hp | M.Sc. Design and Product Development – master in Industrial Marketing Spring semester 2021 | LIU-IEI-TEK-A--21/04120--SE

Value-driving factors for Employer

Attractiveness

– A multiple case study within the IT industry

Authors: Jonatan Moen

Magdalena Woodhouse

Supervisor: Roland Sjöström Examiner: Johan Holtström

(2)

II

Abstract

As the society we live in today is moving towards being more technology-driven, the competition in the labor market of attracting people within the IT industry is increasing. To attract people within the IT industry, firms must understand what attracts these people to then be able to form a proposition that suits these individuals. The case company of this study, DAF (Digital ASIC and FPGA), an internal organization within Ericsson AB, wants to get a better understanding of what people within the IT industry value in an employer and what actions they should take to be more attractive in the labor market. Therefore, the purpose of this report has been to explain how and to what extent different value-driving factors affect employer attractiveness for employees holding a specific technical competence needed at DAF.

Based on a pre-study consisting of six interviews with working professionals within the field of employer branding and industrial marketing, as well as a comprehensive literature review, a model of analysis is established consisting of six value-driving factors; interest-, social-, management-, application-, development-, and economic value, that is expected to affect the overall attractiveness of an employer. These factors are further operationalized into 30 different codes that are set to explain the value factors more in detail.

The main study is a multiple case study of employees working at DAF, as well as four competitor firms to DAF. The study is based on interviews with 21 employees spread out on the five case companies, all holding the targeted competence needed at DAF. During the interviews, the respondents spoke freely about what they value in their current and previous position so underlying value factors could be identified. Additionally, the respondents were asked to elaborate on their perception of the most important factors of an employer, as well as their perception of Ericsson as an employer to deepen the analysis and get an understanding of how the respondents perceive Ericsson. The interviews were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. In the analysis, the respondents were grouped based on what company they work for and the case companies were firstly analyzed separately. Secondly, the cases were compared to each other to answer how and to what extent the value-driving factors in the model of analysis affect employer attractiveness. Third, a series of inductive analyses where cross-case patterns between different groups of individuals were analyzed.

Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the most important factors of employer attractiveness for employees holding the target competence needed at DAF are social value, mostly in terms of organizational culture, teamwork, and collegial relationship, as well as application value, mostly in terms of challenging work tasks, task diversity, and the work tasks to be meaningful for the employee. Moreover, management-, development-, economic-, and interest value are all considered important drivers of employer attractiveness.

For DAF to improve their employer brand and attractivity, they should craft a proposition that aligns with their unique selling points of first of all being a leader in telecommunication, technology, and innovation. Secondly, having supportive management that empowers employees to make decisions by themselves and shape their position based on personal preferences. Thirdly, offering challenging, diverse, and creative work tasks to enable opportunities for developing new skills. Furthermore, DAF is recommended to promote life at DAF and create a unified organizational culture within the organization, clarify opportunities for development, and provide more social- and team-building activities.

(3)

III

Acknowledgments from the authors

Dear readers,

This study is a master thesis project within the master’s profile Industrial Marketing at Linköping University. The study has been conducted in collaboration with DAF (Digital ASIC and FPGA), an internal organization within Ericsson, which we would like to reach out to and show our appreciation for getting the opportunity to be a part of while conducting this study. Especially, we would like to thank our supervisors at DAF, Sara Karlsson and Lova Hallberg, for the time and effort they have put into making it possible to conduct this study, as well as their accessibility during the project.

Furthermore, we would like to thank all the interviewees in the pre-study, as well as in the main study. As the results of this study are based on the opinions of these individuals, we would like to thank them for their time and engagement during the interviews.

Lastly, we would like to thank our supervisor at Linköping University, Roland Sjöström, as well as our opponents, Johanna Thorsander and Nelly Wesslander, for inspiring and valuable discussions along the way of conducting this study.

Enjoy your reading and best wishes, Jonatan Moen and Magdalena Woodhouse

(4)

IV

Definitions of key concepts in the study

A list of definitions of key concepts used in this report is listed below.

Employer branding

“A targeted, long-term strategy to manage the awareness and perceptions of current employees, potential employees, and related stakeholders with regards to a particular firm” (Sullivan, 2004)

Employer attractiveness

“The envisioned benefits that a potential employee sees in working for a specific organization“ (Berthon, et al., 2005)

ASIC

Application Specific Integrated Circuit. A chip that is customized to handle one specific task.

FPGA

Field Programmable Gate Array. A chip that can handle several tasks and can be changed by programming.

DAF

Digital ASIC and FPGA. An internal organization within Ericsson working on the development of ASIC and FPGA chips, which are delivered internally into products handled at Ericsson. This organization is also the client for this master thesis.

(5)

V

Innehåll

1 The Employer Brand and its impact on present and prospective employees ... 1

1.1 The competition of talent attraction and retention within the IT industry ... 1

1.2 DAF and their challenges as an employer ... 2

1.3 Employer Branding – a long term strategy to retain and attract new talent ... 3

1.4 Employer Branding according to the conducted pre-study ... 4

1.4.1 How Ericsson works with Employer Branding ... 6

1.5 Employer Attractiveness – a measurement of what makes an employer attractive ... 7

1.6 Synthesis ... 8 1.7 Purpose ... 9 1.8 Limitations ... 9 1.9 Report structure ... 9 2 Frame of reference ... 10 2.1 Interest value ... 12 2.2 Social value ... 13 2.3 Management value ... 14 2.4 Application value ... 15 2.5 Development value ... 16 2.6 Economic value ... 17 2.7 Model of analysis ... 18

2.8 Specified research questions ... 19

2.9 Triangulation ... 19

3 Method ... 20

3.1 Study design ... 20

3.2 Operationalization of the value-driving factors in the model of analysis ... 21

3.3 A multiple case study of DAF- and competitor employees ... 22

3.4 Unit of analysis ... 23

3.5 Sample of interviewees in the study ... 24

3.5.1 Sample in the pre-study ... 24

3.5.2 Sample in the main study ... 25

3.6 Methods for conducting data ... 25

3.6.1 Collection of literature ... 26

(6)

VI

3.6.3 Interview guide for the main study ... 26

3.6.4 Validation form ... 28

3.7 Tactics for analysis ... 28

3.7.1 Qualitative text analysis ... 29

3.7.2 Quantitative content analysis ... 29

3.7.3 How the analysis contributes to answering the specified research questions ... 30

3.8 Execution of the study ... 31

3.8.1 Pre-study and frame of reference ... 31

3.8.2 Collection of empirical data for the main study ... 31

3.8.3 Analysis of the main study ... 32

3.9 Quality evaluation of the study ... 33

3.9.1 Reliability of the study ... 33

3.9.2 Validity of the study ... 34

3.9.3 Ethical grounds ... 34

4 Empirics ... 36

4.1 Competitor A ... 36

4.1.1 Previous position ... 36

4.1.2 The transition phase between the previous position and current position ... 37

4.1.3 Current position at Competitor A ... 38

4.1.4 Important factors of an employer ... 39

4.1.5 Competitor A:s perception of Ericsson as an employer ... 41

4.2 Competitor B ... 42

4.2.3 Current position at Competitor B ... 43

4.2.5 Competitor B:s perception of Ericsson as an employer ... 46

4.3 Competitor C ... 47

4.3.3 Current position at Competitor C ... 49

(7)

VII

4.4 Competitor D ... 53

4.4.3 Current position at Competitor D ... 53

4.4.5 Competitor D:s perception of Ericsson as an employer ... 55

4.5 DAF ... 55

4.5.3 Current position at DAF ... 58

4.5.5 DAF: s perception of Ericsson as an employer ... 63

5 Analysis ... 66

5.1 Summarizing analysis of each case ... 66

5.1.1 Competitor A ... 66

5.1.2 Competitor B ... 67

5.1.3 Competitor C ... 68

5.1.4 Competitor D ... 69

5.1.5 DAF ... 70

5.2 Value driving factors for employer attractiveness ... 72

5.2.1 Interest value ... 72 5.2.2 Social value ... 74 5.2.3 Management value ... 77 5.2.4 Application value ... 79 5.2.5 Development value ... 84 5.2.6 Economic value ... 87 5.3 Inductive analysis ... 88

5.3.1 Differences in what managers value in an employer compared to developers ... 88

5.3.2 Differences in young- and senior professionals´ perception of employer attractiveness ... 90

5.3.3 DAF´s view compared to competitors view of Ericsson as an employer ... 91

5.3.4 The importance of the value-driving factors in different stages of an employment ... 93

6 Conclusions ... 95

(8)

VIII

6.2 Theoretical implications ... 97

6.2.1 A comparison to previous research ... 97

6.2.2 Further research ... 98

6.2.3 A revised model of analysis ... 99

7 Recommendations for DAF ... 101

7.1 Unique selling points for DAF ... 101

7.2 Actions of improvement ... 102

7.2.1 Promote life at DAF and create a unified organizational culture ... 102

7.2.2 Acknowledge the importance of challenging work tasks and development opportunities . 103 7.2.3 Provide more team-building and social activities ... 104

(9)

IX

Appendices

Appendix A. Frame of Reference ... 110

Appendix A1. Investigation of work-life balance ... 110

Appendix A2. Compilation of authors talking about different aspects ... 111

Appendix B. Method... 117

Appendix B1. Sample of the interviewees in the pre-study ... 117

Appendix B2. Questions asked during the pre-study interviews ... 117

Appendix B3. Sample of the interviewees in the main study ... 118

Appendix B4. Interview guide ... 119

Appendix B5. Validation form ... 122

Appendix C. Analysis ... 124

Appendix C1. Analysis of Competitor A ... 124

Appendix C2. Analysis of Competitor B ... 133

Appendix C3. Analysis of Competitor C ... 140

Appendix C4. Analysis of Competitor D ... 147

(10)

1

1 The Employer Brand and its impact on present and prospective

employees

This report covers the topic of what makes an employer attractive within the Information Technology (IT) industry. By understanding what aspects attract individuals within the IT industry, the case organization of the study, Digital ASIC & FPGA (DAF), an internal organization within Ericsson AB, can easier form a proposition that suits these individuals. This will in turn make it easier for DAF to retain as well as attract talented people. This chapter is framed as a problematization which sets the scope of the report and reveals why this topic is important to investigate.

1.1 The competition of talent attraction and retention within the IT industry

In a modern knowledge-based economy, characterized by progressive technologies affecting multiple industries, retaining knowledge that lies within the employees of a firm is of severe importance to keep up with the competition on the market (Kucherov & Zavyalova, 2012). A major challenge for firms in a rapidly changing business environment lies in meeting the demand for executive talent (Chhabra & Sharma, 2014). According to Alshathry et al. (2017), the challenge of retaining and attracting new employees is a marketing-related challenge similar to the challenge of gaining and maintaining customers. To the same extent that companies collect marketing research on how to attract the best potential customers, the importance of collecting market research on how to attract the best potential employees has risen (Alshathry, et al., 2017).

According to Flodberg (2018) and statistics from the Swedish Regional Bank, the rate of people switching jobs is related to the economic situation, whereas the booming economy during the last decade has yielded increased numbers of people switching jobs. Specifically, highly educated people are the ones who are switching jobs the most, and one reason for this is increased salary when switching employer (Flodberg, 2018). Another reason for people switching jobs may be that employees nowadays are not as limited to their geographic position as before (Dabirian, et al., 2019). Furthermore, the societal implications of covid-19 have indeed enabled us to work more remotely and changed our behaviors. Consequently, when searching for new job opportunities, talented people can choose jobs from a broader spectrum than before. On a company level, this intensifies the competition within the labor market of attracting and retaining talented people between companies who are competing for the same competence (Dabirian, et al., 2019). Moreover, the trend of people working remotely enables companies to attract people located within a geographic distance.

What employees value in an employer varies across different industries (Dabirian, et al., 2019). Although a dynamic labor market, to some extent, may be beneficial in some industries, labor mobility in the IT industry is a major concern since these organizations heavily rely on the competence of highly skilled individuals (Dabirian et al., 2019; Ewing et al., 2002). A reason why this is a concern is that replacing these individuals is costly in terms of training and development activities for new employees (Dabirian, et al., 2019). Another aspect of the intensified competition in retaining and attracting employees within the IT industry is brought up by Täuscher & Kietzmann (2017), discussing the shift from markets such as retail and real estate, which previously have been dominated by traditional retail- and hotel companies, now have been replaced by high tech IT-companies such as Amazon and Airbnb. As these new technology-based companies' business models heavily rely on technology, the competition of attracting and retaining employees with IT competence has moved from previously being industry-specific competition to now

(11)

2 being cross-industry competition across multiple industries (Täuscher & Kietzmann, 2017). As we are moving towards a more information-intensive economy, the competition between firms searching for IT competence heavily intensifies since firms in different industries nowadays, to some extent, are competing for the same competence (Dabirian, et al., 2019).

1.2 DAF and their challenges as an employer

Ericsson is a global supplier of technology solutions to service providers and a leading actor within the field of Information and Communication Technology (Ericsson, u.d.). One part of Ericsson´s core business is the development of its Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), and Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) chips. ASICs and FPGAs are digital chips that are being delivered internally as a part of Ericsson’s Radio-Baseband System. These digital chips are designed by a certain branch within the Ericsson organization called Digital ASIC & FPGA (DAF). DAF can be considered as an internal organization within Ericsson and is globally spread out in several different countries across the globe but is mainly represented in the offices located in Stockholm, Lund, and Austin. DAF mainly consists of hardware developers who design and verify ASIC:s and FPGA:s and the organization will during the upcoming period expand by recruiting ASIC & FPGA developers externally.

When recruiting externally, DAF has a clear understanding of the competence profiles that are desired to recruit (Karlsson, 2021). When recruiting to DAF, DAF is looking for both new graduates and individuals with industry experience. For both of those groups, the basic requirements are that the individual has a bachelor or master's degree in Electrical Engineering, Applied Physics, Computer Science with an orientation towards Electronics, System on Chip (SoC), or Embedded systems. The specific skill sets that DAF is looking for is “How to design and test an ASIC or an FPGA”, this typically includes languages such as System Verilog, UVM, VHDL, and System C. Even if the engineers at DAF spend most of their time programming, they need more knowledge about Hardware and Electronics as compared to what an individual with pure software skill set have.

DAF also knows there is a competition of these individuals in the labor market. If compared to the IT industry in general, the ASIC and FPGA competence DAF is looking for is hardware-related, which is considered a fairly separated part of the labor market (Karlsson, 2021). According to Karlsson (2021), it is not either sure whether the industry-specific competitors to Ericsson on a company level, are the same as those who are looking for the same competence profile as needed at DAF. This is further supported by Pettersson (2021), Head of Marketing & Communication Intelligence and Strategy at Ericsson, arguing that a large part of the expertise needed at Ericsson nowadays is technology-specific rather than industry domain-specific. Meaning, companies operating in a completely different industry than Ericsson may still be a competitor to Ericsson from a competence perspective. This in turn creates fierce competition for attracting talents across different industries.

DAF has recently noticed that they have trouble filling their open positions with people who hold the desired ASIC and FPGA competence. More specifically, the number of employees who have worked at DAF for approximately 3-6 years after graduation is higher, compared to the number of newly recruited employees with the same amount of working experience (Karlsson, 2021). Levander (2021) mentions that these, so-called young professionals, are harder to find than students because they don’t have a unified forum to the same extent that students have. Stålhammar (2021) further argues that this segment of individuals is one of the most desired to recruit and insists that the competition of attracting and retaining these individuals is high.

(12)

3 Moreover, DAF does not know what specific attributes employees value in DAF as an employer, and they do not know how attractive they are as an employer compared to competitor companies searching for people with the same competence profile. DAF wants to get a better understanding of what attracts potential employees with the desired target competence. DAF also wants to understand what their current employees’ value in an employer as well as what actions they should take to make themselves more attractive in the labor market.

1.3 Employer Branding – a long term strategy to retain and attract new talent

According to Barney et al. (2001), competitive advantage derives from the resources and capabilities embedded within an organization. Employees can be seen as resources that are difficult to imitate and substitute, which is why employees can contribute to a sustainable competitive advantage (Berthon, et al., 2005). Similarly, Chhabra & Sharma (2014) argue that the survival and success of companies in many ways depends on the quality of their workforce. Moreover, Parment et al. (2017) mean it is hard to deliver high quality, customer value and problematic to grow as an organization without the right employees. Consequently, a firm´s employees are a valuable resource and a key to gain a competitive edge in the market.

The term Employer Branding is a widely recognized term within the research field of industrial marketing. The term was initially defined by Ambler & Barrow (1996) as “the package of functional, economic and

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

(2002) in Berthon et al. (2005) describe employer branding as “the sum of a company’s efforts to

communicate to existing and prospective staff that it is a desirable place to work”. Ever since the term was

introduced, researchers have come up with new definitions to further distinguish the term and understand the underlying constructs of how it affects a firm. Sullivan (2004) describes employer branding as “a targeted, long-term strategy to manage the awareness and perceptions of current employees,

potential employees, and related stakeholders with regards to a particular firm”. Similarly, Backhaus &

Tikoo (2004) frames employer branding as the construct of what makes a firm different from its competitors and desirable as an employer. Furthermore, the authors express employer branding as a combination between employer brand loyalty and employer brand associations which suggests that employer branding is affected by both internal and external factors. Retaining current employees is related to internal employer branding whilst attracting new ones is related to external employer branding (Minchington, 2010). With loyal employees, a firm can increase employee productivity, and with a strong brand image, employers can more easily attract new employees (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Ambler & Barrow (1996) express it like a positive spiral, see Figure 1. Hence, companies should strive to craft a proposition that makes potential employees associate the brand with the company’s actual identity and culture (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Creating consistency between the employer brand and a firm´s culture and identity is further argued by Moroko & Uncles (2008) as an important aspect of employer branding.

(13)

4 Ambler & Barrow (1996) discuss that employer branding consists of internal marketing, corporate reputation, and corporate culture and identity. Regarding internal markets, Berthon et al. (2005) explain that if customers are a part of the external market, employees would be a part of the internal where the employees are the internal customers and the jobs are the internal products. Berry & Parasuraman (1991) in Berthon et al. (2005) argue that the jobs must be attractive and help the internal customers (the employees) to develop and motivate themselves while addressing the overall objectives of the organization. Furthermore, Bergstrom et al. (2002) in Berthon et al. (2005) refers to three things concerning internal branding, namely, communicating the brand effectively to the employees, communicating to them the brands value, and relevance and successfully linking every job in the organization to delivery of the brand essence. According to Ambler & Barrow (1996), employer branding represent the similarities between marketing and human resources and the authors argue that theories within each area can be applied in both fields.

1.4 Employer Branding according to the conducted pre-study

To further explore the topic of employer branding, a pre-study was conducted by interviewing six working professionals within the field of employer branding and Industrial Marketing from different organizations. A compilation of the people interviewed in the study can be found in Table 1. The purpose of the pre-study was for the researchers to get a broader understanding of the subject and understand what factors affect the employer brand.

Table 1: A compilation of the interviewees in the pre-study.

Interviewee Job title Organization Date

Karin Levander Employer Branding Lead Stora Enso 29-01-2021

Anders Parment Employer Branding & Generations Expert

Stockholms universitet 29-01-2021 Lena Berlin

Stålhammar

Director of Employer Branding and Talent Acquisition Strategy

Schibsted 01-02-2021

Elin Pettersson Head of Marketing & Communications Intelligence and Strategy

Ericsson 01-02-2021

Ann Ericsson Communications Manager (previously responsible for employer branding)

Skanska 02-02-2021

Jasmina Hubinette Global Brand Director Ericsson 02-02-2021

The scholars within employer branding seem to agree that the work with the employer brand must start from within the company (Lievens, 2007; Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Chhabra & Sharma, 2014). Interestingly, three of the six respondents in the pre-study mention the same thing. The respondents mean that the first step is to understand what is attractive for current employees, make sure they stay at the company and that they feel seen and needed (Levander, 2021). Similarly, Parment (2021) argues that employer branding is about creating a basic understanding of the employees within the organization and then find the right position and place for each individual. In line with Parment (2021), Levander (2021) argues that employees need to be able to test different positions within a company. Levander argues: “Career

opportunities should be a grid where employees can climb to the side and try different things instead of a steep ladder upwards. It is important to find your role and understand what you are passionate about”.

Additionally, Stålhammar (2021) means that employer branding is about building a long-term relationship with the employees for the company to be their long-term choice. Firms should strive to set a culture

(14)

5 within the organization that every employee can identify themselves with (Levander, 2021). After doing so, a firm should try to mediate this to people outside of the organization (Levander, 2021). If the employees of an organization can identify themselves with the culture and the core values of an organization, they will provide the best advertising a company can get (Levander, 2021).

Additionally, firms should strive to form a unified organizational culture that each individual can identify themselves with and Ericsson (2021a), former head of Employer Branding at Skanska, outlines the importance of this created image of the organization to be real. For an individual to thrive and stay at a company, the promises made before getting employed at the company must also match with the actual values of the company (Ericsson, 2021a). Most companies have core values and strategies to fulfill these values, but the importance of actually embracing these values on an individual level is severe (Ericsson, 2021a). Furthermore, Ericsson (2021a) suggests that each employee within a company should be able to tell a story of a real-life event around each core value. Once an employee can apply the values of an organization to real-life events, the values are valid and can be considered transparent and real (Ericsson, 2021a).

Another interesting aspect brought up in the pre-study interviews is the rising importance of employer branding during recent years. Hiring people is not something that is done over a coffee break anymore. Nowadays, this process is more complicated, and firms must strive to constantly improve the process (Stålhammar, 2021). According to Stålhammar (2021), employers must view the people within the labor market as consumers. What people read in newspapers and hear on the radio does indeed influence their perception of a brand or a company (Stålhammar, 2021). Consequently, all employees within a company have a responsibility when expressing themselves to the public, and as an employer, you want these people to share a common image of the company (Stålhammar, 2021).

A common mistake within employer branding is to build the employer brand to win over individuals that are not satisfied with you as an employer (Parment, 2021). Contrary, firms should strive to align their employer brand with the people who identify themselves with the company and promote the aspects they think are important (Parment, 2021). Adding to this, hearing and talking to people who love their workplace is more powerful than any commercial or other marketing-related campaign there is (Levander, 2021; Parment, 2021). Aligned with the arguments of individuals having a huge influence on the employer brand, lies the importance of leaving a good mark on people leaving the company (Ericsson, 2021a). Whether an employee is fired or decides to leave by themselves, this individual will become a primary source of information amongst friends and future colleagues. Hence, by putting effort into being honest and transparent to people leaving the organization, the employer brand can be protected (Ericsson, 2021a).

Moreover, Parment (2021) argues the importance of protecting the employer brand by expressing the difference between the consumer brand and the employer brand. A consumer brand is quite simple to change through advertising or different kinds of re-branding activities, whilst the employer brand is more imprinted into the organization and harder to change (Parment, 2021). The employer brand is something that takes time to build (Parment, 2021). One explanation for this might be that the employer brand is highly affected by the opinions of the individuals within and outside of the organization. Hence, individual experiences and perceptions of an employer are hard to erase. Consequently, when considering the overall growth opportunities of a company, the employer brand can sometimes be considered to be even more important than the consumer brand (Parment, 2021).

(15)

6

1.4.1 How Ericsson works with Employer Branding

In the process of retaining and attracting new talent, Ericsson works with employer branding on a global level according to a specific framework illustrated in Figure 2. The framework is built upon the keywords “see”, “think”, “do”, and “care” and describes the process of life before, at, and after Ericsson. According to Hübinette (2021), Global Brand Director at Ericsson, the employer branding team at Ericsson mostly works with “see” and “think” which is about building brand awareness, interest, and preference. Furthermore, the talent acquisition team is responsible for the “do” phase whilst the “care” phase describes how current and former employees perceive Ericsson as an employer. Hübinette (2021) describes this process as a positive spiral. If current and former Ericsson employees feel satisfied with Ericsson as an employer, they will share their positive experiences with their friends and the public, which in turn will help build awareness and preference in the “see” and “think” phase.

Figure 2: How Ericsson works with employer branding.

Moreover, Hübinette (2021) expresses the importance of peer-to-peer communication within the “care” phase and outlines the employees of Ericsson as a crucial part of attracting new talent. For Ericsson to attract engineers with a certain targeted competence profile, engineers with this specific competence profile need a forum to share their experiences of Ericsson as an employer (Hübinette, 2021). Hence, the communication from the marketing department needs to be complemented with engaged engineers at Ericsson who can reach out and influence people with similar competence to theirs on competitor firms (Hübinette, 2021). Furthermore, to segment the competence profiles needed at Ericsson, and to be able to target the right people with the right competence profile, Ericsson mostly uses interviews, market insights from LinkedIn, and surveys (Hübinette, 2021). By doing so, Ericsson gets an insight into what forums these professionals use, where they are located, the demand for different competencies within different areas, and so on. Based on this information, Ericsson has identified ten main competence profiles needed at Ericsson, where ASIC developers are one of the groups.

When considering Ericsson as an employer in the future, Pettersson (2021), Head of Marketing & Communication Intelligence and Strategy at Ericsson, pinpoints the importance of ensuring competence development within the company. According to Pettersson (2021), the competence Ericsson possesses in their employees today will not be enough in five years. Consequently, Pettersson (2021) believes companies within the IT industry that do not enables learning and development will not make it in the

(16)

7 future. Hence, Ericsson needs to ensure they keep up with the technology trends on the market to stay at the technical forefront (Pettersson, 2021).

1.5 Employer Attractiveness – a measurement of what makes an employer attractive

Similar to how the positioning of a company is a strategic tool to attract customers, employer branding has during the last decade emerged as being a strategic tool for companies to retain and attract new talent (Chhabra & Sharma, 2014). According to various authors, a closely related concept to employer branding is the notion of Employer Attractiveness (Bhanot, 2016; Thomas, et al., 2014; Dabirian, et al., 2019). Employer attractiveness can be defined as “the envisioned benefits that a potential employee sees in

working for a specific organization“ (Berthon, et al., 2005). Employer attractiveness will affect the

employer brand, hence the more attractive an employer is perceived by potential employees, the stronger the organization's employer brand (Berthon, et al., 2005). Wilden et al. (2010) further investigate the relationship between employer branding strategy and employer attractiveness and find that a well-thought employer branding strategy is an important tool to craft an attractive and competitive employer brand. Similarly, Kucherov & Zavyalova (2012) underline the relation between employer attractiveness and employer branding in their definition of an employer brand as “qualitative features of the employing

company, which are attractive to a target audience”. Hence, the importance of understanding what

aspects attract employees is crucial to crafting a strong employer brand.

As the shared image of a brand is highly related to a firm´s ability to retain current employees, as well as attract new talent, the employer brand can be considered as one of the most valuable assets of a company (Dabirian, et al., 2019). However, for firms to increase the attractiveness of their company, they need to understand what attracts their current employees to attract new potential employees (Dabirian et al., 2019; Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Chhabra & Sharma, 2014). To break down what makes an employer attractive, three main categories which describe the relationships between a company and an employee have been identified.

The first dimension of what seems to make an employer attractive can be categorized as psychological benefits associated with a firm. The psychological benefits of an employer describe the feelings related to a company such as belonging, direction, and purpose (Ambler & Barrow, 1996). According to Berthon et al. (2005), psychological benefit contributes to socially satisfied employees in terms of collegial relationships and a firm's ability to create a team atmosphere. To summarize, psychological benefits relate to an individual’s perception, feelings, and emotions towards a company.

The second dimension of what seems to make an employer attractive can be categorized as functional benefits associated with a firm. Functional benefits are related to the actual work an employee is performing within an organization (Kucherov & Zavyalova, 2012). Ambler & Barrow (1996) describe functional benefits as development and activities within a company that distinguishes what an employee does for a company. According to Parment (2021), a high focus on functional attributes are common within the IT industry and people with a niche competence tend to value their actual work tasks higher as compared to other “soft” benefits offered by an employer.

The third dimension of what seems to make an employer attractive can be categorized as economic benefits associated with a firm. Economic benefits include not only the salary offered to an employee but also different kinds of employee benefits and perks which are offered by the employer to the employee (Ambler & Barrow, 1996). The economic benefits of an employer is according to Dabirian, et al. (2019)

(17)

8 considered as one of the most important factors to make the employer attractive within the IT industry. However, according to Parment (2021), aspects of an employer other than the economic ones, such as challenging and stimulating work tasks, seem to be more important when attracting IT talent. How important the economic benefits of an employer are considered in comparison to functional and psychological benefits stated above is to be investigated in this study.

1.6 Synthesis

Throughout this introductory chapter, it has been discovered that having the right employees are important to keep up with the competition on the market since having the right employees are a valuable resource to gain a competitive edge. The pre-study also indicates that employees are important for advertising the employer brand. Furthermore, it is important to strive to set a culture within the organization that every employee can identify themselves with, have a well-thought hiring process, as well as keeping a good relationship with people leaving the company. Additionally, as previously stated, higher educated people are more likely to switch jobs and talented people have several opportunities to change employers. This can be argued as particularly true within the IT industry, as the competence within the industry has faced serious competition from other industries that demands IT competence to keep up with the digitalization trend and to form a competitive edge.

As previously argued, firms must first understand what attracts their current employees to then attract new potential employees and increase the attractiveness of their company (Dabirian et al., 2019; Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Chhabra & Sharma, 2014). The pre-study similarly indicates that a company needs to start with the employees within the company to then form a value proposition that attracts people outside of the company. For DAF to understand what attracts people with the targeted competence, employer attractiveness will be further investigated in this study. As concluded from section 1.5, the term is initially divided into three broad categories; psychological-, functional-, and economic benefits, as illustrated in Figure 3, which shows an initial model of analysis. The categories were initially discovered by Ambler & Barrow (1996) and have ever since been verified by numerous research papers within the field of employer branding (Dabirian, et al., 2019; Berthon, et al., 2005; Deepa & Baral, 2019; Eger, et al., 2019; Alshathry, et al., 2017; Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). The categories illustrated in Figure 3 will be further assessed in the upcoming chapter of this report to come up with a more detailed model of analysis.

(18)

9

1.7 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to investigate how and to what extent different value-driving factors affect employer attractiveness for employees within the IT industry with ASIC and FPGA competence.

Based on what employees with this specific competence value in an employer, recommendations will be made on what actions DAF should take to attract present and prospective employees and make themselves more attractive as an employer.

1.8 Limitations

This study is limited to investigating employer attractiveness for people holding ASIC and FPGA competence. Furthermore, the study will only assess the Swedish labor market. This limitation is made due to that an employee’s perceptions of what makes an employer attractive may also differ across different countries and cultures (Berthon, et al., 2005). The concern of cultural differences affecting what aspects job applicants from different countries value in an employer was investigated by Eger et al. (2019), concluding that cultural differences indeed affect what employees think is attractive in an employer. Consequently, in the context of DAF, only employees from the Stockholm and Lund office will be involved in the study, whilst employees from the Austin office will be excluded from the study. Moreover, the study will be limited to only assessing individuals from competitor companies to Ericsson which has at least one branch located in Sweden. Hence, all the respondents in this study are working professionals located in Sweden.

1.9 Report structure

This report is structured as a scientific investigation which according to Sjöström (2018) can be divided into three steps, namely problem breakdown, gathering data relevant to the problem, and based on an analysis of the conducted data draw conclusions and provide recommendations. In this chapter, the challenge for employers to attract and retain employees is introduced and linked to the theory of employer branding as well as employer attractiveness. The problem breakdown is continued in Chapter 2, where a detailed literature review is presented, resulting in a model of analysis for the study as well as specified research questions that are to be answered. In Chapter 3, the method used to answer the purpose and the specified research questions is explained in detail. Furthermore, in Chapter 4 the empirics conducted from the interviews in the study are presented and further analyzed in Chapter 5. Lastly, the conclusions of the study are presented in Chapter 6 followed by Chapter 7, which is aimed to provide recommendations for DAF based on what has been concluded in the study.

(19)

10

2 Frame of reference

In this chapter, a detailed breakdown of the psychological-, functional-, and economic benefits discovered in the previous chapter is made.

Having an attractive employer brand is both desirable and valuable, although, one major problem is that firms lack knowledge about what characteristics make their employer brand successful contra unsuccessful (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). When investigating employer attractiveness, the initial psychological, functional-, and economic benefits discovered by Ambler & Barrow (1996), can be divided into different value-driving factors. These factors can further be described with employer value propositions (Dabirian, et al., 2019; Alshathry, et al., 2017). Employer value propositions are value propositions that define what makes an employer attractive and stand out amongst its competitors (Dabirian, et al., 2019; Thomas, et al., 2014; Alshathry, et al., 2017). Furthermore, a firm’s employer brand can be considered as a unique value proposition that communicates what a specific firm represents (Love & Singh, 2011). To the same extent as firms may strive to craft value propositions to tie their customers to their business (Payne, et al., 2020), firms may consider crafting employer value propositions to tie their employees closer and use the employer value propositions as a marketing tool to attract new employees (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Moroko & Uncles (2008) suggests that firms embracing employer value propositions can form a competitive edge since the expertise and knowledge that lies within a firm's employees is a key source for creating value for the firm.

Adding to the psychological-, functional-, and economic benefits initially discovered by Ambler & Barrow (1996), Berthon et al. (2005) confirm their categorization and further suggest these benefits can be divided into interest-, social-, development-, application-, and economic value. The suggestion is based on an exploratory study using an inductively developed 32-item Employer Attractiveness (EmpAt) scale developed by the authors. In the study, the 32 items (employer value propositions) all stating a question reflecting upon a factor that makes an employer attractive were tested on a sample of 683 final-year university students in Australia. The results reveal the categorization of the five value dimensions stated above generated from exploratory factor analysis. Ever since Berthon et al. (2005) introduced the EmpAt scale to measure employer attractiveness, which in turn generated the five value dimensions stated above, researchers across the globe have made similar studies using the same EmpAt scale. A compilation of studies made to explore how employer attractiveness can be divided into different value-driving factors is shown in Table 2, some of them using the same 32 employer value propositions as Berthon et al. (2005), and some of them adding new employer value propositions. An overview of how the studies have been dividing different value factors is illustrated in Table 3.

Table 2: A compilation of research papers investigating different value-driving dimensions of employer attractiveness.

Author Sample/method/approach

(Berthon, et al., 2005) A qualitative study of recorded and transcribed answers of 683 final-year university students in

Australia.

(Dabirian, et al., 2019) Reviews from 14 927 IT employees within top IT firms (e.g. Facebook and Google) in the US.

(Eger, et al., 2019) Electronic questionnaire answered by 281 final-year business management students in the Czech

Republic.

(Deepa & Baral, 2019) Questionnaire survey answered by 520 information technology-business process management

employees in India.

(Sivertzen, et al., 2013) Electronic questionnaire answered by 336 final-year engineering students from three top

universities in Norway.

(Ronda, et al., 2018) Literature review of 249 articles from peer-reviewed journals assessing employee perceived value

(20)

11

Table 3: A compilation of how different value factors have been divided and described in previous studies brought up in Table 2. The factors in the same color scheme are considered to belong to the same overall factor (Psychological, functional, and

economic), and the factors with the same color are considered to be different names on the same factor.

Author Factor Bertho n , e t al . (2 00 5 ) D ab iri an , e t al. (2 01 9 ) Eger, et al. ( 20 19 ) D eepa & Baral (2 01 9 ) Si vertz en, e t al. ( 2 01 3) Ro n d a, e t al. ( 2 01 8 ) Am b ler & Barr o w (1 9 96 ) Psychological value x x Psychological Social value x x x x x Work-life balance x Interest value x x x x

Use of social media x

Employer reputation x Ethical value x Market value x Brand image x Innovation value x x Management value x Cooperation value x Application value x x x x x Functional Work value x Development value x x x x x

Economic value x x x x x Economic

As can be concluded from Table 3, researchers seem to disagree on how employer attractiveness can be divided into different value-driving factors. Ronda et al. (2018) pinpoint this issue when discussing the dilemma of combining both value-driving attributes of an organization, and employee benefits when analyzing employer attractiveness. Eger et al. (2019) further discuss the issue of cultural differences when analyzing employer attractiveness and concludes that the categorization of value dimensions indeed differs depending on in which country a survey is conducted. Based on a comparison of the value dimensions generated from the studies shown in Table 2, extended literature research within the field of employer attractiveness, and pre-study interviews, the authors of this report have come up with six value-driving dimensions of how to investigate employer attractiveness. The dimensions are interest-, social-, and management value which is factors that describe psychological benefits; application- and development value, which describes functional benefits; and economic value, which describes the economic benefits. Each value factor will be elaborated on and described separately in the upcoming part of this chapter.

(21)

12

2.1 Interest value

There is no consensus between researchers on how to define interest value. However, by going through previous work within the field of interest value, some topics are consistent within the researcher’s definition. Interest value refers to the level of excitement in work according to Berthon et al. (2005). Dabirian et al. (2019) mention both level of innovation and brand image as something that affects the interest value of a firm, which is supported by Sivertzen et al. (2013) who also argue interest value to be about innovation and interest in the products or services.

Dabirian et al. (2019) argue that interest value is one of the most important value factors to attract IT talent and that IT firms should emphasize how stimulating and interesting the work is in external branding efforts to seem more attractive. The authors argue that bureaucracy and low innovation level can lead to lower interest value, which goes in line with Ronda et al. (2018) and Berthon et al. (2005), who both argue that innovativeness and high-quality products and services will make prospective employees perceive the employer as more attractive. Furthermore, Ronda et al. (2018) also mention novel work practices as something that make prospective employees see and form an interest in an organization.

According to Alshathry et al. (2017), corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities affect how the employer brand is associated. Choi et al. (2021) argue that CSR activities affect prospective employees differently depending on the individual's work attitude and values. The authors also argue that CSR would have a positive impact on a company’s attractiveness because it increases the prospective employee’s application interest. Alshathry et al. (2017) argue that potential employees look for signals from employers to develop impressions regarding the organization. Working with CSR can make potential employees see signals which make the company more interesting and therefore find the employer as a more attractive choice than other potential employers (Alshathry, et al., 2017; Choi, et al., 2021; Kumari & Saini, 2018). Another part of CSR activities is sustainability, which is argued by Levander (2021) as an important aspect in today's society to build a strong brand.

Furthermore, Brand image is something that affects the attractiveness of an employer. The study made by Dabirian et al. (2019) concluded that newly hired employees were less satisfied by the brand image than people that’s been working at the company for a long time. One conclusion of this issue was that the gap between how the new employees perceived the brand image during the recruitment process was far different from how the image was perceived within the organization. Therefore, the brand image must be represented within the organization for the organization to be attractive (Dabirian, et al., 2019; Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). The same goes for brand name and corporate image which are different names on the same thing (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Chhabra & Sharma, 2014; Abulsaoud, et al., 2021). Brand associations of a certain firm form a brand image which in turn affects the possibilities for firms to attract new employees (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Hence, an employee’s brand image of a firm is important when measuring the overall attractiveness. Closely related to brand image and brand association is brand commitment, which is said to create brand strength (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005). According to Backhaus & Tikoo (2004), brand strength is also a part of the brand association and is therefore also a part of the interest value of an organization.

Corporate reputation is important in forming employee perception and a company’s reputation can therefore make them more accessible to individuals in the labor market because exposure increases familiarity within the company (Alshathry, et al., 2017). Moreover, the brand strength will also influence the reputation of a corporation (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005), and the reputation can also make a company

(22)

13 more prestigious to work at than other companies. Prestige is mentioned as more important for potential employees than people already working at a company according to Lievens (2007).

To summarize, interest value can be described as the perception of an employer from an outside-in perspective. The factor handles the feelings towards innovativeness, quality, and CSR of an employer as well as how reputation and prestige affect the attractiveness of an employer. Hence, interest value describes how the activities and the image of an employer are perceived and known from the outside of a firm.

2.2 Social value

In this study, social value follows the definition made by Berthon et al. (2005) with a slight change. A comparison between several investigations shows that some attributes in Berthon et al. (2005) are moved to interest- and management value. Social value refers to the degree to which an employee feels socially satisfied in terms of collegial relationships and a firm's ability to create a team atmosphere (Berthon, et al., 2005). In line with Berthon et al. (2005), Backhaus & Tikoo (2004) argue that the organizational culture and feelings of belonging are a part of the organizational identity, which in turn affect the overall attractiveness of a firm. Furthermore, Deepa & Baral (2019) explain social value as an employee’s social needs that provide belonging and a sense of harmony outside and within an organization.

The team atmosphere and good collegial relationship are mentioned as a factor that increases employer attractiveness (Berthon, et al., 2005; Eger, et al., 2019; Deepa & Baral, 2019; Ronda, et al., 2018). Deepa & Baral (2019) argue that a culture of supportive and encouraging colleagues will increase the social value at work and further enhance the attractiveness of the employer. Supportive colleagues are also mentioned by Eger et al. (2019) as the most important part of the social value when measuring employer attractiveness. Furthermore, social and team activities, mentioned by Lievens (2007) can be classified as team atmosphere because the author's definition of team activities is the possibility to work in a team, be among people, and the possibility to enjoy a good group atmosphere.

Moreover, a fun and exciting work environment is important to improve employer attractiveness (Berthon, et al., 2005; Dabirian, et al., 2019; Ronda, et al., 2018; Eger, et al., 2019). The colleagues are a great part of this (Berthon, et al., 2005), as well as the general organizational culture (Dabirian, et al., 2019). Dabirian et al. (2019) argue that organizational culture in IT companies should focus on people, problem-solving, and team atmosphere to be attractive. Furthermore, a welcoming atmosphere will facilitate employer attractiveness for prospective employees and brand loyalty for the current employees (Chhabra & Sharma, 2014).

Dabirian et al. (2019) are one of few authors who mention work-life balance as a separate factor in their model of analysis and define it as a factor that allows employees to manage success both at home and at work. According to the authors, IT professionals need to succeed both at home and at work, therefore, flexible working can be classified as a social value that contributes to the overall attractiveness of a firm. According to Kumari & Saini (2018), work-life balance will be one of the three major attractiveness factors for the emerging generations entering the labor market, and especially the millennials. Furthermore, they argue that work-life balance can signal quality and enhance the attractiveness of the employer. Moreover, Renaud et al. (2016) in Kumar & Saini (2018) divide work-life balance into three categories, meanwhile, Firfiray and Mayo (2017) also in Kumar & Saini (2018) suggest that the term contains four benefits. When looking at those definitions, it goes in line with several value propositions in Berthon et al. (2005) as well

(23)

14 as Rhonda et al. (2018). So, in that sense, work-life balance is included in several models of analysis from several different researchers, but not specified as a specific term. In this study, work-life balance is defined as a flexible work schedule and the ability to balance life and work in a wished-for way. An evaluation of how the term work-life balance is divided upon different attributes can be found in Appendix A1.

Lastly, travel and international exposure can also be argued to be social value because it affects the employee’s social life whether he or she needs to travel or be away from home regularly. This also includes workplace location and whether the employer has an office close to the employees. Dabirian et al. (2019) argue that people are more able to work remotely, hence the workplace location is not as important for employees anymore. On the other hand, Ronda et al. (2018) describe workplace location as an attribute and will affect the attractiveness of an employer which goes in line with Parment et al. (2017), who argue that employers need to adapt the workplace location after their employees, not the other way around. To summarize, social value can be described as the degree to which an employee feels socially satisfied on and outside of their work in terms of collegial relationship and a firm's ability to create a team atmosphere, an exciting work environment, and provide flexible working in a wished-for environment. Included in the definition is an individual's feelings of belonging within the organization in terms of the organizational culture.

2.3 Management value

The support from leaders and managers within a company is of great importance for employees to be satisfied with their employer (Berthon, et al., 2005). Although Berthon et al. (2005) does not mention management value as an independent value driver of employer attractiveness, the authors categorize some managerial aspects within social value. The same applies to the studies of Deepa & Baral (2019) and Eger et al. (2019), which indicate that different managerial aspects can be categorized into different value aspects. Dabirian et al. (2019) are one of few who categorizes management value as an independent value factor affecting employer attractiveness. The authors describe the factor as a typical complaint factor, which means that if the leadership and management are not good, it will damage the attractiveness of the firm. In this study, management value is categorized as an independent value factor according to Dabirian et al. (2019). Moreover, the value factor includes aspects from other studies that have been categorized under other value-driving factors.

Dabirian et al. (2019) mention that management value facilitates good, honest leaders who encourage employees, inspire them to do their best as well as develop and enable them to succeed. Moreover, the relationship with the superior will affect how employees perceive the company (Dabirian, et al., 2019). Eger et al. (2019) argue that recognition and appreciation are important for employees to feel valued at their job which goes in line with Berthon et al. (2005), who also mention that recognition from management drives employer attractiveness. The importance of solid management is further argued by Levander (2021) to be one of the most crucial aspects for an employer to be attractive in the future. Moreover, Deepa & Baral (2019) mention the importance of management to be supportive in personal crises and overall life events. Whether it is a pregnancy, a funeral, or depression, management and leaders need to show empathy and understanding of what the person is going through (Deepa & Baral, 2019). Another aspect of management value is periodic feedback on performance, which is argued to have some importance of how attractive an employer is perceived (Deepa & Baral, 2019; Love & Singh, 2011). Love & Singh (2011) also talks about leadership and that they need to be visible and committed to the

(24)

15 employees. The management needs to promote the organizational core values and connect employees to common goals, values, and purposes (Love & Singh, 2011).

In addition to support and encouragement, leaders also need to show trust in employees through empowerment (Deepa & Baral, 2019; Love & Singh, 2011). Chhabra & Sharma (2014) also mention empowerment as a strategy to keep employees engaged. In their study, few of the respondents perceived employee empowerment as a driver for employer attractiveness. However, they discuss the importance of communicating the meaning behind empowerment and argue that empowerment is something that positively affects employer attractiveness, even though the outcome of their results indicated something else. The definition of empowerment in this study is the leaders' ability to trust the employee to make their own decisions, which is also closely connected to that the leaders trust and take pride in working with the employees (Love & Singh, 2011).

To conclude, management value describes the relationship between the employee and its superiors in terms of trust and transparency. Included in the definition is the degree to which management gives feedback, supports, and empowers employees.

2.4 Application value

Application value describes the extent to which employees are satisfied with their work tasks and how they are contributing to the overall performance of a firm (Berthon, et al., 2005). There is a consensus between researchers that challenging work assignments have a positive impact on the perceived attractiveness of a firm (Alshathry, et al., 2017; Dabirian, et al., 2019; Deepa & Baral, 2019; Ronda, et al., 2018). Alshathry et al. (2017) argue that challenging work tasks makes employees feel responsible and valued by an employer which in turn contributes to employee motivation and increases the overall experience with the employer. The content of work also has implications on potential employees in terms of what is expected by the employer from a work task perspective (Alshathry, et al., 2017). Hence, what employees do on their job is an important part of application value and the overall attractiveness of a firm. Interestingly, Parment (2021) argues that the content of the work tasks is particularly important for employees working within the IT and engineering industry.

Another important aspect of application value is brought up by Berthon et al. (2005), partly describing application value as the extent to which an employer provides the employee with tasks that stimulate the employee to apply what they have previously learned. Chhabra & Sharma (2014) similarly discusses the importance of the job profile offered by an employer for a firm to be attractive. In other words, it is important that employee’s knowledge and skills are being applied in a way that makes sense for the employee. Furthermore, another aspect of the degree to which employees apply knowledge to their work is the extent to which they can teach colleagues (Berthon, et al., 2005; Ronda, et al., 2018). Hence, not only how an employee is applying work-related knowledge to a specific job task is important, it is of similar importance that the knowledge can be transferred to other employees. Related to this is the extent to which an employer makes use of an employee’s creativity in appointing work tasks to the employee. The more a firm values an employee’s sense of creativity, the more attractive the firm will be perceived by the employee (Berthon, et al., 2005; Ronda, et al., 2018).

As application value embraces the implications of how work-related tasks are contributing to the overall attractiveness of a firm, another important aspect of application value is the extent to which employees are feeling good about themselves as a result of working for a specific organization (Berthon, et al., 2005;

(25)

16 Ronda, et al., 2018). In other words, the work needs to be meaningful for the employee (Dabirian, et al., 2019). The more an employee’s knowledge is applied in a meaningful way, the more inspired employees, which in turn may have implications on the success of a firm (Dabirian, et al., 2019). As argued by Levander (2021), the extent to which an employee feels needed and appreciated in the organization is important to make individuals thrive within an organization. Hence, employers must be transparent with how their employees are contributing to accomplishing higher goals within an organization. Employees who believe their work contributes in a meaningful way and are contributing to a higher purpose may also be stimulated on an individual level and sense a feeling of accomplishment within the organization (Ronda, et al., 2018).

A closely related topic to the degree of meaningfulness of the work is brought up by Harris (2017) discussing the ethics of the work practices that are being performed within big tech companies. Harris (2017) brings up companies like Google and Facebook, whose business models are built on designing their digital platforms to become as addictive as possible to expose users to as much commercial as possible. Although these major tech companies have contributed to simplifying our everyday lives, their platforms raise an ethical dilemma since they are designed to make users as addictive as possible which might violate ethical rules (Harris, 2017). This can be linked to the overall purpose of the work that is being performed by an employee as being ethically right or wrong. In other words, work ethics and the degree to which the work practices follow or violate ethical rules might be an aspect that makes people want to work for an organization or not.

Lastly, another work-task-related aspect that affects the perceived attractiveness of a firm is brought up by Lievens (2007), discussing the importance of task diversity in an employee's work. Similarly, Deepa & Baral (2019) assess the importance of working across multiple technologies as a factor that affects the attractiveness of a firm. Hence, the variation of work tasks seems to be an important aspect of what makes an employer attractive.

To conclude, application value describes the contents of the work practices performed by an employee. Included in the definition is the degree to which the tasks are challenging, diverse, contributes to a higher purpose, and whether the work practices follow or violate ethical rules. Moreover, application value facilitates the opportunity for an employee to apply knowledge to their work practices as well as teach others.

2.5 Development value

Development value refers to the extent to which an employer offers career-enhancing experiences within the job that is being performed by the employee (Berthon, et al., 2005). Similarly, Dabirian et al. (2019) describe development value as the opportunities for employees to grow and advance professionally. Hence, the extent to which an employee sees possibilities to develop and advance within an organization is what defines development value which in turn is considered as an important factor for an organization to be attractive.

For a firm to provide employees with development opportunities, it is important to offer them training aside from their regular work tasks (Chhabra & Sharma, 2014; Love & Singh, 2011). By offering training, firms help employees develop new skills (Deepa & Baral, 2019). Moreover, training provides employees with a broader knowledge base and an enriched toolbox to solve problems in their work. According to Love & Singh (2011), the best employers have a comprehensive talent management system and