Optimizing The Employer Value Proposition:
A Study on Value Perceptions amongst Passive Job-Seekers Within the Engineering Industry
Authors: Amina Catic & Melissa Todorovska
Tutor: Dr. Christine Tidåsen Examiner: Dr. Anders Pehrsson Term: Spring 2021
Course: Degree Project in Marketing for The Business Administration and
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this explanatory study is to extend the knowledge of how to develop an employer value proposition that conveys an attractive employer brand.
Literature Review: Literature reviewed for this study includes the concepts of employer brand, employee value proposition, and different aspects of work attributes (i.e. interest value, social value, economic value, development value, and application value) that together form perceived employer attractiveness. Further literature that is reviewed includes the concepts of attitudes and the hierarchy of effects.
Methodology: A mixed-method approach with a deductive logic of inquiry was adopted for this explanatory study, for which primary data of both quantitative and qualitative nature were collected from engineers, through the conduction of web-based self-completion questionnaires and semi-structured interviews.
Findings: The study found that the involvement and motivation level behind the hierarchy of effects had a significant impact on the perceived value of one of the categories of the work attributes reflecting the employer's attractiveness, whilst the perceived value of the other work attributes included in the study were not expected to increase or decrease in combination with the intensity towards job search activities. It was also found that the attitudes towards the behavior of applying for a job, measured through the involvement and motivation level towards job search activities, were shifting within the target group, hence influencing their perceived employer attractiveness. Further on, the study showed a consistent high perceived value of all work attributes that were studied, in terms of what work attributes to include in the employer value proposition. Meanwhile, a multidimensional nature of the perceptions on employer attractiveness was also acknowledged, which hence could be crucial in developing an employer value proposition that stands out on the employer market.
Keywords – Employer Attractiveness, Employer Brand, Employer Value Proposition, Work Attributes, Attitudes, Hierarchy of Effects
Table of Content
Abstract 2
Table of Content 3
List of Figures 6
List of Tables 6
1. Introduction 7
1.1 Background 7
1.2 Problem Discussion 10
1.3 Purpose 14
1.4 Research Questions 14
1.5 Delimitations 14
1.6 Report Structure 15
1.7 Dictionary 16
2. Literature Review 17
2.1 The Attractive Employer Brand 17
2.2. Employer Value Proposition 20
2.2.1 Interest Value 21
2.2.2 Social Value 22
2.2.3 Economic Value 24
2.2.4 Development Value 26
2.2.5 Application Value 27
2.3. Attitudes and The Hierarchy of Effects 28
2.3.1 Affection Based Attitudes 28
2.3.2 Behavioral Based Attitudes 30
2.3.3 Cognitive Based Attitudes 31
3. Hypothesis Development & The Conceptual Framework 33
3.1 Hypothesis Development 33
3.2 Conceptual Model 38
4. Methodology 39
4.1 Chapter Overview 39
4.2 Research Approach 40
4.3 Research Design 42
4.4 Research Method 43
4.5.4 Semi-Structured Interviews 49
4.5.5 Sampling 55
4.5.6 Operationalization for The Interview Guide 57
4.5.7 The Interview Guide 57
4.6 Data Analysis Methods 59
4.6.1 Quantitative Data Analysis 59
4.6.1.1 Descriptive Analysis 59
4.6.1.2 Linear Regression 60
4.6.2 Qualitative Data Analysis 61
4.6.2.1 Thematic Analysis 61
4.7 Quality Criteria 63
4.7.1 Quality Criteria in Quantitative Research 63
4.7.1.1 Reliability 63
4.7.1.1 Validity 63
4.7.2 Quality Criteria in Qualitative Research 64
4.7.2.1 Trustworthiness 64
4.7.2.2 Authenticity 66
4.8 Ethical Considerations 67
5. Results 70
5.1 Quantitative Data Analysis 70
5.1.1 Descriptive Statistics 70
5.1.2 Quality Analysis 73
5.1.3 Regression Analysis 74
5.1.4 Hypothesis Testing 76
5.2 Qualitative Data Analysis 77
5.2.1 Interview Participants 77
5.2.2 Thematic Analysis 78
5.2.2.1 Attitudes Towards The Behavior of Applying For a Job 78
5.2.2.2 Perceived Employer Attractiveness 81
6. Discussion 87
6.1 Shifting Attitudes Towards The Behavior of Applying For a Job 87
6.2 Value Perceptions of Work Attributes 89
7. Conclusions 94
7.1 Managerial Implications 95
7.2 Theoretical Contributions 97
7.3 Limitations 98
7.4 Suggestions for Future Research 99
9. References 100
10. Appendices 106
10.1 Appendix 1: Questionnaire Design - Version 1 106
10.2 Appendix 2: Questionnaire Design - Version 2 109
10.3 Appendix 3: Questionnaire Design - Swedish Version 113 10.4 Appendix 4: Operationalization Table for Questionnaires 117 10.5 Appendix 5: Operationalization Table for The Interview Guide 119
10.6 Appendix 6: Interview Guide 121
10.7 Appendix 7: Demographic Frequencies 123
10.8 Appendix 8: Interview Transcripts 124
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Model 38
List of Tables
Table 1: Methodological Chapter Overview 39
Table 2: Operationalization table for Questionnaires 117
Table 3: Operationalization Table for The Interview Guide 119
Table 4: Demographic Frequencies 122
Table 5: Descriptive statistics: Item Summary 71
Table 6: Descriptive statistics: Concept summary 72
Table 7: Cronbach’s Alpha 73
Table 8: Pearson's R Correlation of all variables. 74
Table 9: Regression Analysis. 75
Table 10 : Hypothesis Verdict 77
Table 11: Interview Participants 78
Table 12: Coding Framework: Attitudes Towards The Behaviour of Applying For a Job 80
Table 13: Coding Framework: Employer Attractiveness 84
1. Introduction
The first chapter begins with a background of the increasing demand for a competent workforce in combination with the challenges of a narrowing supply, in terms of recruiting and maintaining a competitive advantage. Continuing, a problem discussion critically reviews previous research within the field and presents the relevance of further investigating employer branding approaches in order to address these challenges, as well as it presents the research gap addressed in the study at hand. The introduction chapter also includes a specification of the delimitations, a report structure, and a dictionary that aims to further clarify the study purpose.
1.1 Background
Competition between firms is known for being the ultimate driving force for innovation and development worldwide (Tanwar & Kumar, 2019). With sustained economic growth as a result of a continuously increasing competitive environment, all organizations strive to attain sustainable competitive advantage, which allows them to be more competitive and successful than their competitors, not just temporarily, but over a longer period of time, in order to survive in a marketplace with increasing and global competition, and to achieve economic profit (Collins & Stevens, 2002; Sivertzen et al. 2013; Cambridge Dictionary, 2021).
Given the importance of organizations achieving a sustainable competitive advantage in order to survive in an environment that, according to Tanwar and Kumar (2019), has been undergoing “some radical evolutionary leaps led by intense global competition and technology” (p. 799) over the recent years, has had many researchers investigating the concept of competitive advantage, where factors, such as intellectual capital, innovation, or dynamic capabilities, were found to facilitate an organization’s sustainable competitive advantage (Tanwar & Kumar, 2019; Huang et al., 2015).
However, as the environment is becoming more and more competitive and global, researchers
(2013) state that “the selection of human capital needs to have a high level of competence and willingness to show productive behavior” (p. 473), in order for it to be a resource for such advantage. For that reason, attracting and retaining a talented and skilled workforce has thus become a key strategic priority and main investment for many organizations, as these resources are crucial in facilitating a sustainable competitive advantage (Maheshwari et al., 2017; Sivertzen et al., 2013). This advantage can hence be achieved when an organization recruits and retains qualified employees with valuable skills and talents, and then combines these abilities of the workforce better than the competitors (Sivertzen et al., 2013).
Therefore, since many organizations, if not all, have recognized the importance of acquiring valuable and necessary human resources to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage in a highly competitive environment, Tanwar and Kumar (2019) hence argue that “war for talent has become a strategic business challenge, as organizations struggle to attract and retain qualified human capital” (p. 799) in the tough competition for skilled and talented employees, especially for knowledge-based jobs, as a result of sustained economic growth and tight labor markets around the world (Tanwar & Kumar, 2019; Collins & Stevens, 2002).
Following this economic growth, were then also high levels of employment, notably in many developed economies, with some regional differences, which would further intensify the competition for individuals with rare and valuable skills and talents globally, due to the combination of high demand for skilled workers and shortages of labor (Wilden et al., 2010;
Rampl & Kenning, 2014).
However, based on numerous data, the competition for qualified talent is likely to continuously intensify as the world population ages (Rampl & Kenning, 2014; Wilden et al., 2010). In fact, according to Pawar and Charak (2014), “demographic predictions show that there will be a stark contrast in population growth in certain areas of the world” (p. 3). For many countries, this will mean a significant decline in population growth, and hence increased difficulties in recruiting rare and valuable talent, whereas in, for example, emerging economies, it is likely to lead to large increases in population growth, making it much more difficult to attract qualified talent from such an overly large pool (Pawar & Charak, 2014). In addition, Wilden et al. (2010) also illustrated that “the proportion of the European population aged 15–60, from which most employees are drawn, is set to decrease from 62% to 49%” (p.
56), whereas in North America, it “[... ] will decline from 60% to 54%” (p. 56), by the year of 2050 (Wilden et al., 2010).
It is thus indicated that acquiring necessary human resources within an organization is becoming increasingly challenging, as the competition for rare and valuable talent will intensify in relation to the expected dramatic decline in population growth in many parts of the world, hence resulting in a simultaneous decline in the number of applicants per vacancy, and not to mention a decline in talented and skilled job-seekers (Pawar & Charak, 2014;
Wilden et al., 2010).
Continuing, further census data show demographic trends indicating that retirements among baby boomers and a smaller supply of younger potential employees, due to declining population growth, will bring greater challenges in recruiting qualified workers and to filling the openings for the next decade, and potentially also for upcoming decades (Hubbard &
Hubbard, 2009; Collins & Stevens, 2002). Collins & Stevens (2002) continue to add that the challenges in recruiting qualified workers particularly involve those requiring technical and engineering skills (Collins & Stevens, 2002). Thus, given the intense competition for skilled and talented employees, and particularly for those with technical and engineering skills, talent scarcity has become an increased concern within many knowledge-intensive industries, and not least in the engineering industry, as projected retirements in the engineering workforce and increased job growth within this industry, is facing a smaller supply of younger potential employees with suitable skills and talents (Hubbard & Hubbard, 2009).
Meanwhile, Maheshwari et al. (2017) also state that talent scarcity is identified as “the second-most-important threat to business success, after competition” (p. 743), since a loss of not only experienced, but also talented and skilled employees, could lead to the loss of valuable intellectual capital, and hence risk organizations’ ability to compete in an increasingly competitive and global environment (Maheshwari et al., 2017).
Considering that talent scarcity is becoming an increasingly prominent issue, especially in the engineering industry, the importance of attracting and retaining skilled and talented individuals has come to emphasize the major relevance of recruitment, particularly in an
who even suggest it to be of top priority within engineering firms (Hubbard & Hubbard, 2009).
Furthermore, the relevance and need for recruiting talented and qualified engineers heavily rely on today’s intensely competitive and global environment, where the knowledge, skills, abilities, and personal traits of such engineers, are considered of great importance. This is not only because the recruitment of engineers with rare and valuable traits can contribute to an organization’s quick adaptation to an environment that is characterized by rapid and continuous innovation, technology advancements, and increasing complexity, but also because they can contribute to an organization’s innovative outputs and technological developments in the society, and thereby also in a sustainable competitive advantage in the market (Williamson et al., 2013; Sivertzen et al., 2013).
1.2 Problem Discussion
Although the recruitment of competent employees is an acknowledged struggle for today's organizations mainly due to either the supply being higher than the demand for jobs (Rahim et al., 2016; Barnow et al., 2013) or a mismatch between potential employees’ qualifications and the job demands (Barnow et al., 2013), ”[…] the shortage of skilled manpower affects the competitiveness of businesses” (Commission of the European Communities, 2020, p. 3) and is therefore, an unavoidable task they face in order to prosper in the competitive climate of other employers.
Flanigan (2008) writes that in addition to targeting active job-seekers, a company recruitment strategy should be constructed to also embrace the passive job-seekers; an already employed individual who is not looking for a new position but would consider it if it presented a better offer (Flanigan, 2008). The passive job-seekers not only make up for about 70% of the global workforce (LinkedIn, 2015), they are also the group that many HR professionals consider most desirable since they are not exposed to recruitment agencies and involved with recruitment professionals in the same way as active job-seekers, at the same time this group of potential employees are considered more competent due to their knowledge and experience (DeKay, 2009). Regardless of the potential employee being active or passive, a higher attractiveness of an employer brand is tightly connected with a higher possibility to recruit a
talented and skilled workforce (Khalid & Tariq, 2015), the development of a desired employer brand, therefore, becomes centric in the struggle for competitive advantage.
Franca & Pahor (2012) write that due to the changes in HR management where it is becoming increasingly apparent that it is no longer the potential employees competing for a position, but rather companies competing for the same candidate, the importance regarding the task of
”selling” job positions arises. The authors therefore suggest finding solutions to fulfill this human resource task within what is usually considered pure marketing areas, for this particular purpose by looking deeper into the brands of employers (Franca & Pahor, 2012).
The Employer Brand (EB) was first acknowledged by Ambler and Barrow in 1996 as “[…]
the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment and identified with the employing company” (p. 187) and has the main objective to positively influence the potential employee's attraction towards an employer (Berthon et al., 2005).
The EB has since its introduction in the 1990s developed into a multi-dimensional concept within the world of marketing and HR management. Different dimensions of the EB found in previous research has been stated by Franca & Pahor (2012) to be employer knowledge (Lievens et al., 2005), employment image (Highhouse et al., 1999), firm reputation (Brooks et al., 2003), and Berthon et al. (2005) discuss it directly in terms of employer attractiveness.
Thus, the EB is tightly connected with the process of “Employer Branding” which is centered around the organization's value proposition (VP) towards its employees. A VP can in general terms be defined as ”[…] a reason given by a seller for buying their particular product or service, based on the value it offers customers'' (Cambridge Dictionary, 2021, [no page number in online source]) and in terms of employees, the employer value proposition (EVP) refers to the specific value that the employer offers to its current or potential employees that is based on the characteristics that make an employer attractive for them (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004).
Although the two concepts EB and the EVP go by confusingly similar definitions, the need to
multiple parties looking to benefit themselves through applying their specialized competences for the benefit of another party. According to Sengupta et al. (2015) a similar perspective can be effective when looking at the relationship between employers and their employees.
Thereby, by using the EVP as a tool, employers aim to find a balance between what they offer their employees and what they get in return (Noe et al., 2008 referred to in Arasanmi &
Krishna, 2019). However as mentioned by Arasanmi & Krishna (2019), talented employees are the key resources for achieving desired organizational outcomes and gaining advantages over competitors, which is the reason for a remarkable focus being placed on the employee benefits. The promotion of ”what’s in it for me” and an employee-centered EVP rather than one that focuses on the employer, therefore becomes crucial when approaching potential employees (Pawar & Charak, 2015).
From the perspective of promoting employee benefits, Berthon et al. (2005) have categorized different work attributes (WA) into five groups and based on those categorizations the authors state that the attractiveness of an employer is dependent on their perceived; interest value (work environment), social value (collegial work environment), economic value (salary &
benefit), development value (recognition & career opportunities) and application value (value the knowledge and ability to pass it further) (Berthon et al. 2005).
Nevertheless, the different categories of WA are determinators of the perceived attractiveness of an employer, and are what employees search for in a job (Berthon et al. 2005) and such knowledge should be implemented in what Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) refer to as the initial step in employer branding: the investigation of what process could be used to develop the underlying EVP. Although the obvious approach for employers could be to investigate different aspects of Employer Attractiveness directly, by measuring the differences in the perceived value of different WA and shape the EVP accordingly, Theurer et al. (2018) argue that such findings would not contribute much to research without being put into perspective.
The issue arises since the same WA not always translate into the same mindsets, but are rather subjects of individual differences, as well as they are influenced by environmental factors (Baum & Kabst, 2013; Theurer et al., 2018). To overcome this obstacle and to be able to link the perceived value of different WA to actual behaviors of potential employees, previous research has introduced the middle step of ”attitudes'' (Theurer et al., 2018). Theurer et al. (2018) argue that the relationship between different WA and employee attitudes require further investigations, and that by tracking employee attitudes the findings would provide
valuable insights that could be used when forming decisions and actions connected to employer branding approaches. Based on such knowledge there is an interest in investigating how attitudes amongst potential employees might influence their perceived value of different WA and thereby, their perceived employer attractiveness (Berthon et al., 2005).
Baron & Byrne (1987) define the phenomena of attitudes as a lasting general evaluation of an attitude object, that is anything towards what an attitude can be formed (Solomon et al., 2019). A three-component model consisting of the aspects: affect, behavior and cognition was first presented in terms of attitudes as the ABC-model by Hovland and Rosenberg (1960), who argued that an attitude consists of these components and that they should be measured in order to gain an understanding of attitudes and their influence on individuals’
behaviors. Due to the complexity of attitudes, and their tendency to differ between individuals (Baum & Kabst, 2013; Theurer et al., 2018), one attempt to emphasize the individual differences within the concept of attitudes is done by Solomon et al. (2019) who elaborates the ABC-model to the so-called ”hierarchy of effects’'. The authors argue that there are three main sequences through which attitudes can be formed: ”feel-do-think”,
”do-feel-think'' or ”think-feel-do”, and that the possessed sequence is dependent on the individual’s motivation and involvement level towards the attitude object (Solomon et al., 2019). Thereby, Solomon et al. (2019) conclude that the involvement and motivation level behind the hierarchy of effects presents one key element to the differences in attitudes amongst different individuals, which makes them of interest to put in relationship towards these individuals perceptions of employer attractiveness
Continuing, as previously mentioned, Theurer et al. (2018) connect attitudes to actual behaviors, and Solomon et al. (2019) argue in line with this connection as they write that the attitudes are one important concept to understand in order to also understand behaviors.
However, Solomon et al. (2019) write that measures of attitudes many times do not accurately reflect what they tend to measure and argue that there is a need to highly specify the attitude towards a behavioral outcome in order to overcome this obstacle. These previous findings point out the relevance of measuring attitudes specifically towards the behavior of
1.3 Purpose
To extend the knowledge of how to develop an employer value proposition (EVP) that conveys an attractive employer brand (EB).
1.4 Research Questions
In order to fulfill the study purpose to extend the knowledge on how to develop an EVP that conveys an attractive EB, the necessity to address the relevance of different WA arises. By looking into the influence that individuals’ attitudes (i.e. hierarchy of effects) might have on the perceived value of different WA, and thereby also the perceived employer attractiveness, such insight could be reached.
1. How can employer attractiveness be influenced by the hierarchy of effects?
2. What WA are relevant to include in the EVP in order to convey employer attractiveness?
1.5 Delimitations
Attitudes have been defined as subjects of individual differences and the influence of environmental factors (Baum & Kabst, 2013; Theurer et al., 2018) and it therefore becomes important to specify who's attitudes are to be measured. The following paper aims to investigate the engineering industry, due to the defined challenges and relevance for these employers to recruit a competent workforce (Collins & Stevens, 2002; Hubbard & Hubbard, 2009; Smith, 2020). Also, as discussed by DeKay (2009) passive job seekers tend to be more competent due to their knowledge and experience, making them of interest to these employers. Based on these findings, the following paper intends to be delimited towards the potential employees within the engineering industry that already have ongoing employment.
Furthermore, As the risk that measures of attitudes at times fail to actually reflect what they intend to measure has been acknowledged, so is the need to specify them towards what behavioral outcome the attitudes are targeted (Solomon et al. 2019). Since the study at hand centers around the development of an EVP that conveys an attractive employer brand in order to positively influence employers’ recruitment practices, it becomes relevant to target the behavioral outcome of applying for a job. Thereby, when discussing attitudes, the study at
hand refers to them in the specific context of attitudes towards the behavior of applying for a job.
1.6 Report Structure
The first chapter of this paper offers an introduction to the research topic and consists of the background, problem discussion, purpose and research questions. Chapter 2 holds a literature review that intends to study previous research within the field, followed by the presentation of the hypothesis development and conceptual framework in chapter 3. Chapter 4 consists of the methodological approach used for this paper, as well as a discussion of the data collection and data analysis methods. Chapter 5 presents and analyses the data collected through the empirical investigation. Further on, chapter 6 provides a discussion that connects the empirical investigation with the theory, and a conclusion of the study is given in chapter 7, which also includes managerial implication, theoretical contributions, limitations and suggestions for future research.
1.7 Dictionary
Employer Brand (EB)
”[…] the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment and identified with the employing company”
(Ambler & Barrow, 1996, p. 187).
Employer Branding
The process of promoting a unique and attractive image for the employer (Backhaus 2004; Backhaus and Tikoo 2004).
Employer Attractiveness
“[…] the envisioned benefits that a potential employee sees in working for a specific organization’’ (Berthon et al, 2005, p. 156)
Value Proposition
(VP)
”[…] a reason given by a seller for buying their particular product or service, based on the value it offers customers” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2021).
Employer Value Proposition
(EVP)
The specific value that the employer offers to its current or potential employees, that is based on the characteristics that make an employer attractive for them (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004).
Work Attributes (WA)
Different work values that employees search for in a job, previously categorized into: interest value, social value, economic value, development value and application value(Berthon et al. 2005).
Attitude A lasting general evaluation of an attitude objective (Baron & Byrne, 1987).
Attitude Object Anything towards what an attitude can be formed is referred to as an attitude object (Solomon et al. 2019).
Hierarchy of Effects
The sequence of attitude hierarchies, dependent on the involvement and motivation level towards the attitude object. (Solomon et al. 2019)
2. Literature Review
The following chapter holds an explanation of the concepts Employer Brand, Employee Value Proposition and different aspects of the work attributes that together form the perceived employer attractiveness (i.e. the ones belonging to the categories of interest value, social value, economic value, development value and application value). Further on, Attitudes and The Hierarchy of Effects are further studied in order to identify research gaps within contemporary literature.
2.1 The Attractive Employer Brand
The concept of ‘employer branding’, which emerged in the mid-nineties, was conceptualized by Amber and Barrow (1996) through the application of branding principles (e.g. target audience identification, segmentation, promotion) in the context of human resource management (HRM), in terms of personnel recruitment (Sengupta et al., 2015; Kucherov &
Zavyalova, 2012; Banerjee et al., 2020; Maheshwari et al., 2017). Since then, the field of employer branding has continued to grow, and the concept has come to be defined in several ways. Amber and Barrow (1996) defined employer branding as “the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with the employing company” (Amber & Barrow, 1996, in Sivertzen et al., 2013, p. 474), while Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) defined the same concept as “the process of building an identifiable and unique employer identity, and the employer brand as a concept of the firm that differentiates it from the competitors” (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004, in Sivertzen et al., 2013, p. 474). Lloyd (2002) further described 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”
(Lloyd, 2002, in Maheshwari et al., 2017, p. 744). The employer brand thereby aims to create and communicate an image of the organization, both within and outside the organization, as a distinct and desirable employer (i.e. as ‘a great place to work’), which, according to Sengupta et al. (2015), is an image based on the organization’s/employer’s “[...] offerings in terms of values, systems, policies, and behavior for attracting, motivating, and retaining the current
As discussed in the introductory chapter of this paper (see chapter 1), interest in employer branding has been driven by the intense competition for talented and skilled employees, due to an increasingly competitive environment and decline in population growth. Consequently, the concept has become prominent in HRM, especially in terms of personnel recruitment, as the accurate understanding and application of the principles of employer branding can help act as a tool for an organization to acquire and retain rare and valuable talent in an era marked by ‘war for talent’. However, in order for an organization to win the ‘battle’ for personnel talent, and there so be able to achieve sustainable competitive advantage and survive in an increasingly competitive environment, an organization’s employer brand, and the image that it promotes, must be unique and have a strong appeal on both current and potential employees (Tanwar & Kumar, 2019; Collins & Stevens, 2002; Wilden et al., 2010; Maheshwari et al., 2017; Kucherov & Zavyalova, 2012). As research indicates, that is because potential employees compare their own personality, values, and needs, with the organization’s employer brand. Thus, when the personality, values, and needs of a potential employee are compatible with the image that the employer brand of the organization promotes, the organization becomes an attractive employer for this individual (Sivertzen et al., 2013).
Therefore, scholars have come to emphasize the importance of organizational attractiveness, or employer attractiveness, which Berthon et al. (2005) define as “[…]the envisioned benefits that a potential employee sees in working for a specific organization.’’ (p. 156), in the creation, maintenance and positioning of an organization’s employer brand in the labor market, as the promotion of an attractive image is relevant to both attract qualified individuals, and to retain existing and value-adding employees (Sengupta et al., 2015;
Sivertzen et al., 2013; Berthon et al., 2005; Kucherov & Zavyalova, 2012). Moreover, an organization with a highly attractive employer brand can consequently be established as the
‘employer of choice’ (EOC), which Tanwar and Kumar (2019) describe as “an organization which inspires a potential employee to join it and also stay on” (p. 802). An EOC status is thereby achieved at a company when potential employees, or active job-seekers, wish to work for it and prefer it above all other employers. Being considered as the EOC can thus enable the organization to successfully recruit the best and most talented employees, based on the promotion of an attractive employer brand (Tanwar & Kumar, 2019; Kucherov & Zavyalova, 2012).
What makes an organization attractive as an employer to potential employees then? Current literature suggests that there is no common classification of attributes that make an employer brand attractive. Kucherov and Zavyalova (2012), however, came to propose four distinct groups of attributes that can make an organization’s employer brand attractive, namely (1) economic attributes, (2) psychological attributes, (3) functional attributes, and (4) organizational attributes. The authors described that the (1) economic attributes include the material or monetary remuneration in an organization, which are attributes that thus affect the welfare status of employees (e.g. high salary; fair systems of rewards and bonuses; job safety, meaning, stable guarantees of employment). (2) Psychological attributes were, on the other hand, described to influence employees’ feelings of recognition and membership in the organization (e.g. positive interpersonal relations in company; team-working; objective assessment of work). Further, (3) functional attributes were described to concern the workplace (e.g. content of work; training perspectives; opportunities of career progression;
opportunities of fully realizing employees’ knowledge and skills). The three groups of attributes that have been mentioned so far are, however, considered as internal attributes of the employer brand, whereas the last group of attributes - (4) organizational attributes - instead relates to how the organization is be perceived in the external market (e.g. company’s history; company reputation; management style; leadership in market segment; international scope of activity). Thus, when potential employees (and existing employees) can associate their personality, values, and needs, with these economic, psychological, functional and organizational attributes of an organization, the organization’s employer brand becomes attractive to them. (Kucherov & Zavyalova, 2012; Sivertzen et al., 2013).
Previous research does, however, suggest that the process of designation of an organization as an attractive employer (based on the employer brand), and even as the ‘employer of choice’, starts with the development of the employer’s value proposition to potential employees, given that the more a potential employee is able to associate his or her values with the values offered by the organization, the more he or she will find the organization/employer attractive above others (Tanwar & Kumar, 2019; Sengupta et al., 2015).
2.2. Employer Value Proposition
Backhaus & Tikoo (2004) define the process of employer branding as an effort by employers to first develop and then promote the employee value proposition (EVP) with aims to increase the value of human capital by improving recruitment and retention. The authors state that the initial step in this process is the development of the EVP, which they explain should be based on the specific value that the employer offers to its employees that makes an employee attractive for them (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Continuing Sullivans (2002) elaborates the stage of EVP development and writes that it should include particular value one employer offers its employees by making use of information about the organization, such as its organizational culture, management style, etc. (Sullivan, 2002 in Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). There is an understanding of the importance that what the EVP communicates reflects what the employer actually offers to its employees (Sullivan, 1999). From the perspective of recruiting employees, Pawar (2016) states that by managing to incorporate the EVP in the actual organization, the percentage of employees acting as advocates for the firm as it being a great place to work increases remarkably, which is a feasible strategy for appealing to, and attracting people from ”tough-to-hire” talent groups.
Previous research has been defining different pillars which they argue set the foundation for the information to include in the development of the EVP in different ways. Sullivan (2002 in Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004) for example mentioned organizational culture and management style as relevant attributes, Pawar (2016) discussed the relevance of including reward systems and managerial culture and Kucherov & Zavyalova (2012) divided these into economic attributes, psychological attributes, functional attributes, and organizational attributes.
However, Berthon et al. (2005) made the effort to identify, investigate and divide different attributes based on multiple previous research studies into five specific categories of work values: interest value (work environment), social value (collegial work environment), economic value (salary & benefit), development value (recognition & career opportunities) and application value (value the knowledge and ability to pass it further).
2.2.1 Interest Value
Berthon et al. (2005) label the first category of work attributes as ‘interest value’, which the authors consequently define as “[...] the extent to which an individual is attracted to an employer that provides an exciting work environment, novel work practices and that makes use of its employee’s creativity to produce high-quality, innovative products and services” (p.
159).
Meanwhile, research has found that there is an interconnection between employee creativity and work environment, as the interaction between an employee and his/her work environment can result in the cultivation of creativity (Horng et al., 2016). In fact, the work environment is a factor that, in various studies, have shown to be of significant influence on an individual’s creative behavior (Jaskyte et al., 2020). For example, Horng et al. (2016) explain that “a work environment is capable of inspiring creativity because it provides [...] social stimuli that contribute to the generation of new ideas” (p. 27). However, the extent to which a work environment is capable of inspiring creativity will thus be determined by how well the organization provides these social stimuli, which in turn may influence the perceived
‘interest value’ of potential and existing employees, based on the definition by Berthon et al.
(2005), and given that an employee will become more creative by nature if the work environment (with the focus on only the social-organizational environment in this paper) creates more opportunities for employees to engage in creativity efforts (Horng et al., 2016;
Berthon et al., 2005).
Jaskyte et al. (2020) explain that “employees’ creativity efforts can be strengthened through creative processes that are encouraged by organizational systems, procedures, and processes” (p. 395). This is significantly prominent in a social-organizational environment that supports the freedom of employees to think creatively and explore their ideas, and that tolerates, as well as encourages, failure, to continue to encourage and motivate employees to engage in creative efforts despite previous failure. The authors therefore stress that it is important for an organization to encourage and support employee creativity in the workplace, as it does not only foster a creative workforce, but also results in more innovative outputs of
For that reason, Dul et al. (2011) and Dul and Ceylan (2014) managed to identify nine creativity-supporting elements of the social-organizational work environment that enhance employee creativity, namely (1) challenging tasks (i.e. the complexity of tasks; how demanding the tasks are), (2) teamwork (Dul and Ceylan (2014) refer to employees working in groups “[...] toward a common goal, by having interactions with each other” (p. 1258)), (3) task rotation (Dul and Ceylan (2014) refer to having “a schedule with a set of different tasks to be performed simultaneously” (p. 1258)), (4) autonomy (Dul and Ceylan (2014) refer to the “decision latitude in the job, e.g., with respect to deciding about the order of work tasks” (p. 1258)), (5) encouragement and guidance from management (Dul and Ceylan (2014) refer to management that “[...] supports and encourages employees, builds mutual trust and commitment, and provides positive feedback” (p. 1258)), (6) time for thinking (Dul and Ceylan (2014) refer to it as “the availability of time for idea generation without the time pressure of everyday work” (p. 1258)), (7) creative goals (Dul and Ceylan (2014) refer to
“the situation that the employee must produce new ideas according to goals, and with the expectation of evaluation” (p. 1258)), (8) recognition of creative ideas (Dul and Ceylan (2014) refer to “the recognition, e.g., praise, awards, of new ideas” (p. 1258)), and (9) incentive for creative results (Dul and Ceylan (2014) refer to the “possibility of rewards, e.g., pay raises, profit sharing, bonuses, promotions, after reaching creative results” (p. 1258).
2.2.2 Social Value
In an era characterized by continuous innovation, increasing competition, and population decline, organizations must now confront the major global challenge of recruiting qualified employees, due to the intensified competition for talented and value-adding individuals, in order to obtain a competitive edge and survive in today’s increasingly global and competitive environment (see chapter 1) (Tanwar & Kumar, 2019; Collins & Stevens, 2002; Sivertzen et al., 2013; Naz et al., 2020). Meanwhile, statistics also indicate that more than 80 % of employees would like to work in an environment where they are supported. Scholars have therefore emphasized the importance of providing a supportive work environment to retain personnel talent, as well as to attract potential employees (Naz et al., 2020).
As the literature describes a supportive work environment to include employees’
relationships with supervisors and colleagues in the workplace, and the support (with the
focus on ‘social support’ in this paper) and encouragement received from these supervisors and colleagues (Naz et al., 2020; Hamama, 2012, van der Heijden et al., 2010), this can thus be linked to the second category of work attributes discussed by Berthon et al. (2005), which the authors label as ‘social value’, and define as “[...] the extent to which an individual is attracted to an employer that provides a working environment that is fun, happy, provides good collegial relationships and a team atmosphere” (p. 159).
Continuously, literature has defined ‘social support’ in various ways (van der Heijden et al., 2010). However, Collins et al. (2016) specifically defined it as “verbal and nonverbal communication between receiver and provider that reduces uncertainty about a situation, one’s self, another, or a relationship” (p. 162). In turn, social support can be categorized into four types: (1) emotional (i.e. when an individual provides sympathy, listens to someone else’s problems or concerns, and provides consolation) (Collins et al., 2016), (2) informational (i.e. when an individual provides someone with advice and information) (Collins et al., 2016), (3) instrumental (i.e. when an individual provides someone with tangible help to get the job done) (Collins et al., 2016), and (4) appraisal (van der Heijden et al., 2010).
Furthermore, in a work environment where social support is valued, encouraged and accessible, a sense of partnership is created between the providers and receivers of this support, thus giving rise to supportive work relationships within the organization. Here, social support mainly concerns the support employees receive from their supervisors and colleagues in the workplace (Hamama, 2012).The extent to which supervisors and colleagues provide this support in the work environment can thus have a significant impact on employees’ experience of work (Collins et al., 2016).
According to van der Heijden et al. (2010), employees perceive their supervisors as supportive when they experience that their supervisors show concern for their feelings and needs in the work environment, and provide them with help, information, and good constructive feedback. Employees further perceive their supervisors as supportive when they
organizational commitment, and more opportunities for career progression, among the employees in the work environment (Collins et al., 2016).
As for colleagues, employees perceive them as supportive when they are considered as encouraging, caring, willing to help, and open to share knowledge and expertise with one another to improve learning (van der Heijden et al., 2010; Joiner, 2007). Moreover, employees perceive high amounts of social support from colleagues who convey interest in and value the work and the output that is achieved by one another in the work environment, through the constructive feedback that colleagues provide to each other (van der Heijden et al., 2010). Such support thereby fosters close and important relationships between colleagues at work, as they share expert levels of functioning and an understanding of the work environment that non-employees do not have (Collins et al., 2016; van der Heijden et al., 2010).
2.2.3 Economic Value
Berthon et al. (2005) label the third category of work attributes as ‘economic value’, which the authors define as “the extent to which an individual is attracted to an employer that provides above-average salary, compensation package, job security, and promotional opportunities” (pp. 159-162).
Based on this definition of the ‘economic value’ (Berthon et al, 2005), remuneration in an organization is an important economic attribute for the evaluation of an employer’s attractiveness, likewise as the two aforementioned work attributes (i.e. interest value and social value) defined by the same authors (Berthon et al., 2005; Lis, 2018). Although recent research has shown a decrease in the importance of remuneration, compared to other attributes, in the evaluation of employer attractiveness, it is nevertheless an integral part of potential employees’ determination of their employer of choice when applying for a job, as the remuneration has a significant influence on their welfare status, that is, their quality of life and their assurance of existence (Lis, 2018; Kucherov & Zavyalova, 2012).
Remuneration refers to the compensation that individuals receive for their work services from the company for which they are employed and work for, or have contracts to provide these work services (Lis, 2018). In addition, most of these individuals generally work for
remuneration that involves direct financial payments and indirect financial payments (Nguyen et al. 2015). Nguyen et al. (2015) describe these direct financial payments to include payments, such as wages, salaries, commissions, and bonuses, whereas the indirect financial payments instead are described to include financial benefits, such as vacations, employer-paid health insurance, and workers’ compensations. Meanwhile, remuneration serves as a strategic component for the quality of individual work services, as well as a motivational tool for employees to achieve higher job performance within an organization (Powell, 1984; Larkin et al., 2012). In fact, to increase job performance of workers, many organizations provide performance related pay to those who meet performance standards. In that way, workers are likely to exert extra effort if they value the monetary rewards of a company, while being aware that these awards result from their increased job performance. Thereby, an organization that pays higher remuneration will not only result in potential employees’ evaluating the organization more positively, but also in higher productivity among workers and, not least, in the organization as a whole (Nguyen et al., 2015; Powell, 1984).
Another important attribute of the ‘economic value’ that is considered when evaluating the attractiveness of an employer involves the promotional opportunities within an organization (Berthon et al., 2005).
Promotional opportunities within an organization serve as the opportunities for employees to be rewarded their hard work and for meeting, or even exceeding, the performance standards set by the organization. Promotion in turn allows opportunities for career progression of employees, as it involves them being placed in higher positions within an organization where they are required greater responsibility and are expected to perform tasks that are more suitable for their abilities and skills (Nguyen et al., 2015; Gibbons, 1996). As well as with monetary remuneration, promotion can result in increased job performance of employees, as the benefits that promotions often provide, are likely to encourage employees to exert greater effort to exceed the performance expectations of an organization (Nguyen et al., 2015).
Meanwhile, using promotional opportunities as a motivational tool to increase job performance of employees, can in some cases work out even better than using monetary
to be more motivated by promotional opportunities rather than pay rise or bonuses, to work harder and exceed the performance standards set by the organization (Nguyen et al., 2015).
2.2.4 Development Value
Berthon et al. (2005) label the fourth category of work attributes as ”Development value”
which the authors refer to as the impact of the organization's ability to provide recognition, self-worth and confidence, as well as a job position that is considered a career-enhancing experience and a springboard to future employment, on the employer attractiveness.
Pierce & Gardner (2004) address self-worth and confidence in the context of employers as organizational-based self-esteem, which refers to an employee's self-esteem that is formed around organizational experiences. Based on previous research the authors find that organization-based self-esteem has shown to be of high importance regarding work-related attitudes (satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, etc.), as well as behaviors (performance, turnovers, etc.) These findings act in line with Bethon et al. (2005) that point out employee perceived self worth and confidence as a result of working for an organization to be one crucial element of a firm's development value.
According to Berthon et al. (2005) the perceived development value is dependent on the recognition and appreciation from management. Self-esteem and management are further interlinked in the study by McAllister & Bigley (2002) that provides insight into how organizational context may influence employee’s self-esteem, and states that organizations with values and organizing principles that are based on fulfilling employee’s needs as well as keeping in mind the employee interests, results in a workforce with high self-esteem. The study by Pierce & Gardner (2004) claims that work environment structures that provide opportunities and give the employee’s the impression that they are able to have a self-direction within the organization and that this self-direction is valued by the management, has a positive influence on the employees organization-based self-esteem.
Therefore the relevance of an employer to provide jobs that are considered springboards for future employment, as well as career-enhancing experience also becomes a crucial factor of the employers development value (Berthon et al., 2005).
2.2.5 Application Value
The continual changes in work as well as in the way it is carried out, and thereby the increasing demand for learning makes competence development a fairly used term within today's organizations. At the same time as the constant need to gain new knowledge might come hand in hand with additional stress, both employers and employees are aware of its importance. (Paulsson et al., 2004) The study by Paulsson et al. (2004) finds that an increased employee control of their learning process, not only reduces the related stress but also makes competence development a more stimulating process. Continuing, by also enabling the employee to apply the competencies as well as teaching others based on his/her own knowledge, competence development could positively influence the employer’s application value (Berthon et al., 2005) Berthon et al. (2005) define an employer application value the employer’s ability to provide opportunities for the employees to apply what they have learned and to pass it further.
To their definition of application value, the authors add that a second aspect places focus on the importance of the employer's ability to provide a work environment that is both consumer-oriented and humanitarian (Berthon et al., 2005). From the perspective of gaining knowledge, the employees are becoming increasingly aware of today's customer-oriented market (Mukerjee, 2013), which makes customer-oriented organizations especially appealing for them (Berthon et al, 2005). By tracking employee satisfaction and thereby adapting the organization in order to meet the constantly changing preferences of customers, employers could gain insight into current market trends (Mukerjee, 2013). The study by Brady (2003) finds that organizational responsibility taking and engagement that quickly responds towards occurring issues in society creates trust towards the organization, and makes it an important value aspect in shaping strong brands that potential employees want to join. This conclusion is in line with the findings of Berthon et al. (2005) who state that an employer that gives back to society is considered especially desired amongst employees.
2.3. Attitudes and The Hierarchy of Effects
Baron & Byrne (1987) refer to attitudes as a lasting general evaluation of an attitude object.
Solomon et al. (2019) elaborate this definition by stating that the attitude object refers to anything towards what an attitude can be formed. Attitudes were presented through three components: affect, behavior and cognition, in the ABC-model of attitudes in the 1960s (Hovland and Rosenberg, 1960). This model has followed the concept of attitudes by most researchers since then (Solomon et al., 2019). Hovland and Rosenberg (1960) argued that an attitude consists of the same three main components and that these should be measured in order to gain an understanding of attitudes and their influence on individual behaviors.
Solomon et al. (2019) explain that the component of Affect (feel) refers to an individual's feelings towards the attitude object whilst the component of behavior (do) represents the intention to act with regards to this attitude object. However, the intention to act should not be confused with the actual behavior taking place, since ”an intention does not always result in an actual behavior” (Solomon et al., 2019, p. 254) Lastly, the authors mention cognition (think), as the component of the ABC-model that represents the beliefs that an individual has towards an attitude object. Solomon et al. (2019) argue these three components determine how the ABC-model will be formed, and while all three components are significant in investigating attitudes, their individual importance is dependent on the individual level of motivation and involvement regarding the attitude object and thereby a hierarchy of effects occur. The authors continue explaining the impact of the three components by specifying sequences in which they generally occur: ”the standard learning hierarchy, the low involvement hierarchy” and ”the experimental hierarchy” (Solomon et al., 2019).
2.3.1 Affection Based Attitudes
The ABC-model connects the component of affect to the individual’s feelings, and the experiential hierarchy is based on the sequence of ”Feel-Do-Think” where ”feelings” set the foundation for attitude formation. Thereby, the experiential hierarchy becomes affection-based. (Solomon et al., 2019). Such a development sequence of attitudes is possessed by individuals that entirely base their decision-making on feelings regarding a particular alternative and do not evaluate the different aspects of the offer until after the actual decision has been made (Solomon et al., 2019). Thereby, they have no involvement in the decision making process (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). According to Mowen (1988), in addition to no engagement prior to decision making, individuals with affection-based
attitudes have been considered to make decisions that create emotions and experience rather than simply solve a problem. Within the perspective of affection-based attitudes, impulsive decision-making and a variety-seeking behavior is defined. Impulsive decision-making refers to; a decision that has been made without any identified problem or initial intention for the decision to be made, whilst variety-seeking can be explained as; the tendency to make a decision even though there is a satisfaction with the current alternative (Mowen, 1988). For individuals with affection based attitudes, environmental inputs of the emotive character as well as affective themes are considered effective in order to reach the response systems and provoke decision making (Mowen, 1988). These considerations make individuals with affection based attitudes especially influenced by advertisement and are of high importance to target with well-considered marketing efforts. (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981) According to Mowen (1988) contexts with limited differentiations on offers compared to competitors on the market, require marketing approaches on the basis of affect.
Involvement attitudes towards job opportunities are discussed by Wanberg et al. (2020) in terms of intensity, which the authors define as how much effort an individual is spending on his/her job search. This is generally measured through times engaged in different job search activities such as; gathering information, revising and sending out a resume, speaking to previous employers etc (Wanberg et al., 2020). Some employees have been referred to as defuse job seekers by Mano-Negrin & Tzafrir (2004), which means that they are in a situation where they are both unbothered by but still open to all possibilities, however not dedicating any effort at all towards identifying new job opportunities (Mano-Negrin & Tzafrir, 2004).
As previous studies suggest, individuals with affection based attitudes act based on their feelings instead of cognitive-based beliefs (Solomon et al., 2019) as well as they are open towards, but still generally unaware of possibilities presented by different alternatives (Mano-Negrin & Tzafrir, 2004). At the same time, these individuals belong to the no involvement category in terms of job search activities and therefore need the persuasion of very carefully selected external stimuli in order to make decisions (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981).
2.3.2 Behavioral Based Attitudes
The low investment hierarchy follows the sequence of ”Do-Feel-Think” which is based on the intention to act, and thereby, becomes a behavioral-based attitude formation process (Solomon et al., 2019). According to Solomon et al. (2019) the consumers belonging to this category do not care enough about the decision in order to conduct and evaluate a lot of information before making the actual decision. Although there might be an initial thought to make the decision (Solomon et al., 2019), the involvement towards the decision-making process is low (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). According to Mowen (1988) informative information, as well as tangible benefits, are relevant for both low- and high involvement decision-makers, as long as the content is adjusted to suit the response system of that specific target group. Petty & Cacioppo (1981) elaborate this by stating that a low involvement attitude requires a careful selection of marketing input. Since individuals with behavioral-based attitudes act on limited knowledge due to their lack of motivation to process a lot of complex information regarding different alternatives, this indicates that highly informative marketing communication approaches might go wasted (Solomon et al., 2019) Therefore, the authors argue that the less important the decision is to an individual the more important it becomes to select marketing information (Solomon et al., 2019).
Low involvement characteristics, like the ones possessed by individuals with behavioral-based attitudes, can be viewed from the perspective of employees and the intensity of their job search (Wanberg et al., 2020) The study by Mano-Negrin & Tzafrir (2004) refers to a low intensive level of job search as a ”passive mode” which they define as an initial intention to change positions but where the individual only takes on limited information of different job opportunities by friends, colleagues, etc. and does not put any major effort into the actual search themselves. The authors state that a passive mode indicates that the perceived opportunity within the current organization is higher than opportunities outside the organization, and that if the situation was the opposite the passive mode could easily result in an active job search and thereby possibly in an employee turnover (Mano-Negrin & Tzafrir, 2004).
As the behavioral-based attitudes are characterized by low involvement (Solomon et al., 2019) individuals that possess such attitudes about certain attitude objects tend to only dedicate limited time to research regarding different alternatives due to the low perceived
importance of the task (Solomon et al, 2019). Employees that are satisfied within their current organization show a tendency in line with the characteristics of behavioral-based attitudes regarding considering and evaluating new job opportunities (Mano-Negrin & Tzafrir, 2004).
Thereby, these individuals require external stimuli that are in line with the amount of information that actually reaches their response system (Mowen, 1988; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981: Solomon et al., 2019)
2.3.3 Cognitive Based Attitudes
The sequence of ”Think-Feel-Do” refers to the standard learning hierarchy where the belief is the initial point. The concept of cognition therefore sets the base for attitude formation.
(Solomon et al. 2019). The standard learning hierarchy considers the individual to be of high involvement (Solomon et al. 2019) and to carry out extensive research regarding the attitude objective, that is further on, taken into consideration before making a decision (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1981). Due to this high level of involvement through the decision-making process, individuals with cognitive-based attitudes generally bond with one specific alternative over time and gain loyalty towards it (Solomon et al., 2019) Solomon et al. (2019) argue that cognitive-based attitudes are formed towards attitude objects that are important to the individual and his/hers self-concept and to which the individual therefore is motivated to dedicate time for research. The study by Albarracin & Wyer (2000) investigates the cognitive impact of past behaviors on future decisions and conclude that these two factors are highly interlinked. The authors provide deeper insight into this positive relationship by stating that past behaviors had a higher impact on future decisions with individuals that were not exposed to any distractions that made them consider the potential consequences of a new decision (Albarracin & Wyer, 2000). That is, past experiences, regardless if they are of the positive or negative character, affect new decisions less if new stimuli highlight the potential outcome from a new decision being made. Mowen (1988) enlightens the benefits of including extensive environmental inputs in terms of information, tangible benefits, economic benefits etc. when targeting the response system of individuals with these types of attitudes due to the high involvement nature of these individuals attitudes which is in line with the conclusions by both Petty & Cacioppo (1981) as well as Solomon et al. (2019). The findings by Albarracin &
As discussed by Wanberg et al. (2020) involvement attitudes towards job opportunities in terms of intensity is generally measured through times an individual engages in different job search activities. According to this study, high-intensity job search behavior is generally more common amongst individuals with higher employment commitment and a positive attitude towards the job search process (Wanberg et al., 2020) Individuals with a high intensive job search are generally searching for new opportunities through multiple sources such as: in media sources, newspapers, agencies, etc. (Mano-Negrin & Tzafrir, 2004)
As found, the high involvement nature of individuals with cognitive-based attitudes towards an attitude object (Mowen, 1988; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; Solomon et al. 2019) is interlinked with a higher level of effort in regards to noticing new job opportunities (Wanberg et al., 2020; Mano-Negrin & Tzafrir, 2004) which once again implies that there might be useful to communicate more extensive information about an offer in order to reach out to the response system of these individuals and in that way influence their behaviors.
3. Hypothesis Development & The Conceptual Framework
The following chapter connects the concepts from the literature review (in chapter 2) through a hypothesis development that the quantitative research approach of this study further on, is based on. It also provides an illustration and description of the conducted conceptual framework.
3.1 Hypothesis Development
In order to be able to study how employer attractiveness can be influenced by the hierarchy of effects, and further on gain an understanding of what WA that are relevant to include in the EVP in order to convey employer attractiveness, the two different components have to be specified into measurable variables.
When addressing the attractiveness of an employer, previous research has defined it to be dependent on the perceived value of different WA (Berthon et al., 2005). As previously discussed (in chapter 2), based on the ‘interest value’ defined by Berthon et al. (2005), individuals who value creativity and seek to implement creativity efforts in their workplace, would thereby likely be attracted to an employer that values and supports employees’
forward-thinking and creativity in the organization, and find it exciting to work in an environment where employees’ creativity efforts are encouraged. Meanwhile, to benefit the
‘social value’, organizations should value and promote supportive relationships with colleagues and supervisors in the work environment, given that the extent to which they provide social support and encouragement in the workplace have a significant impact on employees’ experience of work (Hamama, 2012; Collins et al., 2016). In accordance with the definition by Berthon et al. (2005), a potential employee is therefore likely to be attracted to an employer that provides a work environment characterized by good work relationships with colleagues and supervisors from whom social support is provided (Berthon et al., 2005;
Hamama, 2012). As for the ‘economic value’ defined by Berthon et al. (2005), remuneration and promotional opportunities become important attributes in the evaluation of the
higher monetary remuneration and promotional opportunities (Lis, 2018; Nguyen et al., 2015;
Berthon et al., 2005). To benefit the ‘development value‘, the management should recognize and appreciate their employees (Berthon et al. 2005; McAllister, 2002) and in line with that provide development opportunities to positively influence their self-esteem at the workplace (Pierce & Gardner, 2004; Berthon et al, 2005). The knowledge-intensive work culture of today's organizations not only stresses the importance of competence development strategies and use (Paulsson et al, 2004) but also on the influence that this knowledge has on organizational approaches towards consumers (Mukerjee, 2013) and the society as a whole (Brady, 2003), which combined form the ”application value” that employees take into consideration when choosing an employer (Berthon et al. 2005).
Although these different categories of WA have been defined as important elements connected the perceived employer activeness (Berthon et al., 2015), previous research finds that by simply investigating their perceived value alone would not contribute too much knowledge without being put into a particular context (Baum & Kabst, 2013; Theurer et al., 2018). Theurer et al. (2018) connect WA to actual behaviors by introducing a middle step in terms of ”attitudes”, and mean that investigations of the relationship between attitudes and the perceived value of WA could provide useful insight into how to execute employer branding approaches. Continuing, by investigating the perceived value of different categories of WA in the context of a particular behavior the chances that the investigation would actually reflect what it intends to measure increases (Solomon et al., 2019). Since the study at hand aims to optimize the EVP for recruitment purposes, the relationship between the perceived value of different categories of WA, and attitudes towards the behavior of applying for a job therefore becomes relevant to measure.
When moving on to discussing attitudes towards the behavior of applying for a job, the authors argue that attitudes are subjects that are influenced by individual and environmental differences (Theurer et al., 2018). Solomon et al. (2019) address these differences by looking at the attitude development process, the so-called hierarchy of effects. The authors state that it sets the base for the differences in the individual's attitudes towards an attitude object, which are dependent on their involvement and motivation level towards that specific object (Solomon et al., 2019). As stated by Solomon et al. (2019) the hierarchy of effects can be divided into three different levels of involvement and motivation depending on what type of attitude development process the individual belongs to (i.e. an affection based, a behavioral
