Organizational attractiveness: an empirical study on employees attitudes in lithuanian business sector

  • Received February 21, 2017;
    Accepted March 23, 2017;
    Published June 7, 2017
  • Author(s)
    Irena Bakanauskiene ,
    Rita Bendaravičienė
    ORCID , Laima Barkauskė
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(2).2017.01
  • Article Info
    Volume 15 2017, Issue #2, pp. 4-18
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    6 articles
  • 1944 Views
  • 3607 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Measurement of employer’s attractiveness has been given much attention in many countries all over the world, but there was no extensive research performed in Lithuania so far, providing empirical evidence to define the landscape of organizational attractiveness in Lithuanian business sector. The aim of this study (N = 1020 respondents) is to identify which dimensions make organizations attractive as employers in Lithuanian business sector. The article employs a research approach based on a postpositivistic perspective. The relevant literature on organizational attractiveness is critically reviewed, analyzed, compared and generalized. Addressing research aim, a scale to measure organizational attractiveness as an employer was developed and administered in Lithuanian business sector in such a manner. Existing methodologies measuring organizational attractiveness were analyzed composing a list of 67 dimensions. Using content validity, scale comprising 30 dimensions was developed to measure organizational attractiveness of companies in Lithuanian business sector. A telephone interview survey method for data collection was used. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and frequencies) is used to analyze the data of the survey. 30 dimensions of organizational attractiveness were rank-ordered according to their means in descending order from most important to least important drivers of employer’s attractiveness. Specifically, the results suggested that good working atmosphere, adequate salary and interesting job are key to the attractiveness as an employer of business companies in Lithuania as perceived by their employees. The article also discusses the implications of the findings.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Organizational attraction metatheories
    • Table 2. Measurement of organizational attractiveness
    • Table 3. Demographic characteristics of the sample
    • Table 4. Descriptive statistics for employee attitudes towards dimensions of organizational attractiveness in descending order
    • Table 5. Frequency distribution of employees’ attitudes towards employers attractiveness
    • Table 6. Frequency distribution of employee’s recommendations of the current employer as a good place to work
    • Table 7. Correlations
    • Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
    • Albinger, H. S., and Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 243-253.
    • Ambler, T., and Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management, 4(3), 185-206.
    • Backhaus, K., and Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding, Career Development International, 9(5), 501-517.
    • Bakanauskienė, I., Bendaravičienė, R., Bučinskaitė, I. (2016). Employer’s attractiveness: generation Y employment expectations in Lithuania. Human resources management and ergonomics, 10(1), 6-22.
    • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 247 p.
    • Baron, J. N. (2004). Employing identities in organizational ecology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(1), 3-32.
    • Barrow, S., and Mosley, R. (2011). The employer brand: bringing the best of brand management to people at work (Reprinted. ed.). Chichester [u.a.]: Wiley, 232 p.
    • Beach, L. R. (1990). Image theory: decision making in personal and organizational contexts. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley, 270 p.
    • Bendaravičienė, R. (2015). Measurement of organizational attracti¬veness for employer branding in higher education. EuroMed 2015: Innovation, entrepreneurship and sustainable value chain in a dynamic environment. The 8th annual EuroMed conference, Verona, Italy, 16-18 September 2015: conference readings book proceedings. Bradford: EuroMed Press, 263-284.
    • Berens, G., and Riel, C. B. (2004). Corporate associations in the academic literature: three main streams of thought in the reputation measurement literature. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 161-178.
    • Berthon, P., Ewing, M., Hah, L. L. (2005). Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding. International Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 151-172.
    • Cable, D. M., and Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: a theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822-834.
    • Cable, D. M., and Turban, D. B. (2006). The value of organizational reputation in the recruitment context: a brand-equity perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(11), 2244- 2266.
    • Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 928-944.
    • Davies, G. (2008). Employer branding and its influence on managers. European Journal of Marketing, 42(5/6), 667-681.
    • Davies, G., Chun, R., Silva, R. V., Roper, S. (2001). The personification metaphor as a measurement approach for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(2), 113-127.
    • Dawis, R. V., and Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An individual differences model and implication. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    • Devendorf, S. A., and Highhouse, S. (2008). Applicant-employee similarity and attraction to an employer. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(4), 607-617.
    • DeVon, H. A., Block, M. E., Moyle-Wright, P., Ernst, D. M., Hayden, S. J., Lazzara, D. J. et al. (2007). A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39(2), 155-164.
    • Eagly, A. H., and Chaiken, S. (1984). Cognitive theories of persuasion, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 267-359.
    • EB Insights (2011). Universum. Spring Edition.
    • Edwards, M. R. (2010). An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel Review, 39(1), 5-23.
    • Ehrhart, K. H., and Ziegert, J. C. (2005). Why are individuals attracted to organizations? Journal of Management, 31(6), 901-919.
    • Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., Sever, J. M. (2000). The Reputation Quotient: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand Management, 7(4), 241-255.
    • FORTUNE World’s Most Admired Companies (2013). Hay Group–Worldwide.
    • Fulmer, I. S., Gerhart, B., Scott, K. S. (2003). Are the 100 best better? An empirical investigation of the relationship between being a “great place to work” and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 56(4), 965-993.
    • Gallup Great Workplace Award Criteria (2013).
    • Geiger, R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money, research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 336 p.
    • Great Place to Work (2014). What is a Great Workplace?
    • Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., Plowman, S. K. (2013). The relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes: 2012 Q12® Meta-Analysis. Gallup: Washington, D. C.
    • Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(6), 986-1001.
    • Highhouse, S., Thornbury, E. E., Little, I. S. (2007). Social-identity functions of attraction to organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 134-146.
    • Hillebrandt, I., and Ivens, B. S. (2013). Scale Development in Employer Branding. Impulse fur die Markenpraxis und Markenforschung, Tagungsband der internationalen Konferenz “DerMarkentag 2011”, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 65-86.
    • Jiang, T. and Iles, P. (2011). Employer-brand equity, organizational attractiveness and talent management in the Zhejiang private sector, China. Journal of Technology Management in China, 6(1), 97-110.
    • Kausel, E. E., and Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Narrow personality traits and organizational attraction: Evidence for the complementary hypothesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(1), 3-14.
    • Korman, A. K. (1966). Self-esteem variable in vocational choice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(6), 479-486.
    • Kroustalis, C. M., and Meade, A. W. (2007). Portraying an Organization’s Culture through Properties of a Recruitment Website. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.
    • Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality; selected paper. New York and London: McGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc., 286 p.
    • Lievens, F. (2007). Employer branding in the Belgian army: the importance of instrumental and symbolic beliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants, and military employees. Human Resource Management, 46(1), 51-69.
    • Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company’s attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 75-102.
    • Lievens, F., Decaesteker, C., Coetsier, P., Geirnaert, J. (2001). Organizational attractiveness for prospective applicants: A person-organization fit perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 576-587.
    • Lievens, F., Hoye, G. V., Anseel, F. (2007). Organizational identity and employer image: towards a unifying framework. British Journal of Management, 18(s1), S45-S59.
    • Lievens, F., Hoye, G. V., & Schreurs, B. (2005). Examining the relationship between employer knowledge dimensions and organizational attractiveness: An application in a military context. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 78, 553-572.
    • Marston, C. (2007). Motivating the “what’s in it for me?” workforce manage across the generational divide and increase profits. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons.
    • Martin, G. (2007). Employer branding – time for some long and “hard” reflections? Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Research Insight.
    • Measuring job satisfaction in surveys – Comparative analytical report. (2007). Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
    • Miller, G. J. & Yang, K. (eds.) (2007). Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration. 2nd ed., Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
    • Minchington, B. (2011). Employer Branding Without Borders – A Pathway to Corporate Success.
    • Moroko, L., & Uncles, M. D. (2009). Employer branding and market segmentation. Journal of Brand Management, 17(3), 181- 196.
    • Mosley, R. (2007). Customer experience, organizational culture and the employer brand. Brand Management, 15(2), 123-134.
    • Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: a clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Nadler, J. T., Cundiff, N. L., Lowery, M. R., Jackson, S. (2010). Perceptions of organizational attractiveness: The differential relationships of various work schedule flexibility programs. Management Research Review, 33(9), 865-876.
    • Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Staffing in the 21st century: new challenges and strategic opportunities. Journal of Management, 32(6), 868-897.
    • Rousseau, P. (2008). Talent chooses prestige over pay. Vlerick Leuven Gent, Press release.
    • Sartain, L. (2005). Branding from the inside out at Yahoo!: HR’s role as brand builder. Human Resource Management, 44(1), 89-93.
    • Schneider, B. (1987). The People Make The Place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453.
    • Schreurs, B., Druart, C., Proost, K., & Witte, K. D. (2009). Symbolic attributes and organizational attractiveness: the moderating effects of applicant personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(1), 35-46.
    • Shahzad, K., Gul, A., Khan, K., & Zafar, R. (2011). Relationship between perceived employer branding and intention to apply: evidence from pakistan. European Journal of Social Sciences, 18(3), 462-467.
    • Sivertzen, A., Nilsen, E. R., & Olafsen, A. H. (2013). Employer branding: employer attractiveness and the use of social media. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(7), 473-483.
    • Soelberg, P. O. (1967). Unprogrammed decision making. Industrial Management Review, 8, 19-29.
    • Spence, M. (1973). Job market signalling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374.
    • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (Eds.). Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed) Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 7-14.
    • Turban, D. B. (2001). Organizational Attractiveness as an Employer on College Campuses: An Examination of the Applicant Population. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 293-312.
    • Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness To Prospective Employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658- 672.
    • Tuzuner, V. L., & Yuksel, C. A. (2009). Segmenting Potential Employees According to Firms’ Employer Attractiveness Dimensions in The Employer Branding Concept. Journal of Academic Research in Economics, 1(1), 46-61.
    • Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.
    • Wilden, R., Gudergan, S., & Lings, I. (2010). Employer branding: strategic implications for staff recruitment. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(1-2), 56-73.
    • Yu, K. Y. T. (2014). Person-organization fit effects on organizational attraction: A test of an expectations-based model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 75-94.
    • Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt. 2), 1-27.
    • Zaveri, M., & Mulye, R. (2010). Country of origin effect and employer attractiveness: A missing link, in Paul Ballantine and Dr. Jorg Finsterwalder (ed.) Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference 2010, Christchurch, New Zealand, 29 November – 1 December 2010.
Related Articles

  • Impact of digitalization on the attractiveness of employee recruitment and retention in Moroccan companies

    Mohamed HabachiORCID , Zakia NouiraORCID , Cheklekbire MalainineORCID , Omar HajajiORCID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.20(3).2022.02
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 20, 2022         Issue #3         pp. 12-27 Views: 772 Downloads: 293 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The relevant evolution of social networks and the expansion of digitalization has led to significant changes in the classical processes used by Moroccan companies in different fields such as marketing, human resources management, etc. This paper investigates the effects of digitalization on the attractiveness of Moroccan companies in terms of recruitment and safeguarding these constructs by using structural equation models according to the PLS approach. The study was carried out to touch 74 companies in different sectors. The study showed positive relationships between management support, digitalization, and recruitment performance (defined as the attractiveness of a company for recruitment and federalization of employees). The results show that the T-statistics are equal to 67.55, 6.862, and 5.941, respectively. The Q² value is 0.884 for scanning and 0.937 for performance, which means that the model is predictive in nature. The GoF is 1.388, which means that model is sufficiently large for the overall validity of the PLS model. While jobseeker behavior and competitive intensity did not affect recruitment performance because the test T-statistics is less than 1.64, the two factors have no moderating effect as the p-values are 0.228 and 0.082, respectively, exceeding the threshold of 0.05.

Download Preview
Close
Problems and Perspectives in Management
Problems and Perspectives in Management