Employer Branding. - An empirical study on the important attributes that make an employer attractive to employees in the health care sector

Transcription

1 Employer Branding - An empirical study on the important attributes that make an employer attractive to employees in the health care sector Author(s): Daniel Jönsson Marketing Program Erik Karlsson Marketing Program Stephanie Sundström Marketing Program Tutor: Rana Mostaghel Examiner: Pejvak Oghazi Subject: Employer Branding Level and semester: Bachelor s Thesis, Spring 2012

2 Abstract Sweden and the Western World are facing large retirements in the near future. This will lead to a shortage of people with expertise in specific areas, where the shortage will become the largest in the healthcare sector. Employer branding can help an organization to attract and retain employees if it provides employees with valuable benefits. However, limited research has been done in how an organization s brand can attract employees, and every organization will most likely have its own set of attributes. The purpose of this study is to examine the attributes that are important to make an organization s employer brand attractive to employees. The method used in the research was a quantitative study where 160 respondents answered a survey in six different units in a health care organization in Sweden. The results from the empirical study showed that the attributes; Strategic Vision, Organizational Culture, Stakeholders Images, Internal Branding, Functional Benefits, Symbolic Benefits, Organizational Successes, Work Environment, Type of Work and Services Attributes all were important to make the organization s employer brand attractive to its employees. However, some of the attributes varied in importance among some of the units in the organization. This research provides managers with a guideline for what attributes they can start working with in their own organizations employer brands. 1

3 Acknowledgements First and foremost we would like to thank all the teachers and colleagues during our three years at the Marketing program at Linnaeus University. Thanks to our opponent groups that have helped us to improve the thesis by bringing a lot of thoughts and opinions. We would like to give special thanks to our supervisor Dr. Rana Mostaghel and co-teacher Dr. Magnus Hultman. Special thanks also go to Ingrid Persson and her colleagues at the department of public relations in Organization X for their courtesy and helpfulness. Finally, we would like to thank each other for really good co-operation and all the fun times we have had together during the process of writing this bachelor thesis. Linnaeus University Daniel Jönsson Erik Karlsson Stephanie Sundström 2

4 Table of contents 1. Introduction Background to employer branding Problem discussion Purpose Objectives Outline of thesis Literature review Corporate branding The construction of corporate brands When the corporate brand is failing The corporate brand and employees as a stakeholder Internal branding Employer branding The concept of employer brands The employer brand s relation to corporate brands Employer branding and employees Employer brands and employees loyalty Employer brand image and benefits Social identity approach and the organization Organizational identity and image Employees identification to an organization Definitions of concepts from the literature review Research questions and frame of reference Research discussion Research questions Definitions and Frame of reference Methodology Research approach Inductive vs. Deductive Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research design Data sources Research strategy Data collection method Data collection instrument Operationalization and measurement of variables Survey design Pre- testing Sampling Sampling frame Sample selection and data collection procedures Data analysis method Descriptive statistics Correlation analysis One- Sample T- test One- Way ANOVA test Post Hoc (LSD) test

5 4.9 Quality criteria Content validity Construct validity Reliability Data analysis Descriptive statistics Reliability test Validity test Analysis of the research questions One- Sample T- test One- Way ANOVA test Post Hoc (LSD) test Conclusions and implications Discussion Theoretical and managerial implications Limitations Suggestions for future research Reference List Appendices Appendix 1 Pre- study: Organization X Appendix 2 The Swedish version of the letter of intent Appendix 3 The Swedish version of the survey Appendix 4 The English version of the survey Appendix 5 Centers and sub- units of Organization X Appendix 6 Mean values on items within the constructs Appendix 7 The entire Post Hoc (LSD) test Table of figures Table 2-1: Definitions of concepts and their working definitions Table 3-1: Research constructs and their definitions Table 4-1: Research strategies and their contents Table 4-2: Measurement and scaling of construct Table 4-3: Calculation of the required sample size Table 5-1: Reliability test of constructs and its items Table 5-2: Correlation analysis Table 5-3: One- Sample T- test Table 5-4: One- Sample Statistics Table 5-5: One- Way ANOVA Table 5-6: The Post Hoc (LSD) test with significant measures Table: Items mean values Table: Post Hoc (LSD) test

6 1. Introduction 1.1 Background to employer branding The Central Bureau of Statistics in Sweden has done a prognosis where it is stated that the population of Sweden is estimated to grow from 9,4 million in 2010 to 10,3 million in 2030 ( However, the group that will grow the most is senior citizens (people over 65 years) and they are estimated to grow from 1,7 millions to 2,3 millions until 2030 ( This will lead to a shortage of people that are working, where the shortage will become the largest in the healthcare sector ( Moreover, from a global perspective the bank HSBC published the global study The Future of Retirement The Power of Planning where it is claimed that both North America and Europe are getting closer to a critical stage when the first baby boomers are starting to retire ( This will lead to a shortage of the population that is working ( Therefore the war for attracting talented and educated employees will play a larger part for organizations in the near future. The corporate brand of an organization that is well managed can provide an organization with positive outcomes (Balmer & Grey, 2003; Foster et al., 2010; Hatch & Schultz, 2008), however, an effective and successful corporate brand takes it starting point within the organization (Balmer & Grey, 2003; Hatch & Schultz, 2003; Hatch & Schultz, 2008). Therefore has an organization s employees been recognized to play a key role to achieve successful corporate branding (Foster et al., 2010; Harris & de Chernatony, 2001). Internal branding can be used to guide employees to act and behave in accordance with a brand and to deliver brands promises to customers (Foster et al. 2010). A similar concept to internal branding is employer branding, however, employer branding is more focused on attracting employees who matches the brand and its values from the beginning (Foster et al. 2010). To attract new and keep current employees who are engaged in an organization and its corporate brand (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004), the concept of employer branding arose in the early 1990 s (Rosethorn et al., 2009). The concept evolved from the fields of human resource management and brand management (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004) and it is rooted in the thought that brands and human capital is one of an organizations most valuable assets (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Therefore, it is recognized that the employer brand is 5

7 strengthened when the values of the corporate brand are aligned with the benefits offered to employees (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). Furthermore, an employer brand is employment specific and only focusing on characterizing the organization as an employer (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Moreover, the employer brand must clarify both what employees can expect from its employer and what the employer can expect from its employees (Mosley, 2007). Employer brands help an organization to differentiate itself from competitors as an employer (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). To be able to attract and maintain talented employees, organizations must pinpoint out what is unique about working at the organization through the organizations value propositions ( It is argued that an organization can be seen as a social group (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) where the relationship between the employer and its employees will affect attitudes and behaviors of the employees (Cole & Bruch, 2006). When employees feel that they belong to and have a bond with an organization they tend to include an organization s characteristics and attributes into their own self-concepts (Dutton et al., 1994). This will lead to that the employees will identify themselves with, and become loyal to, an organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). 1.2 Problem discussion A group of people who have started or soon will start to enter the labor market is Generation Y ( Kotler et al. (2009) define Generation Y as the babies born by the baby boomers between 1977 and 1994, were the baby boomers are the generation between 1946 and Generation Y has grown up with the comfort of having access to computers, mobile phones and digital/internet technologies and they are said to be impatient and now-oriented (Kotler et al., 2009). Moreover, it is said that Generation Y have strong opinions about what they like and dislike and that they easily can leave an employer that dissatisfy them (Rosethorn et al., 2009). Therefore, it is important for employers to make this generation feel committed and loyal to an organization (Rosethorn et al., 2009). Hira wrote in 2007 an article in Fortune magazine that Generation Y is ambiguous, demanding and that the organizations that they work for are not that prioritized for people from Generation Y ( 6

8 A strong employer brand may provide competitive and sustainable advantage when it comes to retain and attract employees (Maxweel & Knox, 2009). Employer branding has an impact on organizations cultures and identities, which in turn will contribute to the employees loyalty to their employer so that employee productivity may be increased (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). To attract and retain Generation Y and other employees the employer brand should offer a package of different benefits through a value proposition to employees (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). To be successful the value proposition should be relevant and resonant with both current and potential employees (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). What is important according to Priyadarshi (2011) is that the image that the employee has is positive and sustained during the whole time in the organization. Wilden et al. (2010) claim that an organization and its employer brand has to be consistent, distinct and credible in the signals that it send out to potential employees. A recent study in 2010/2011 by Universum showed that 76 % of the 632 participating organizations believed that their ability to attract the right talented employees is depending on their reputation and image as an employer ( The second most important factor of attractiveness is the organizations culture and the people that work at the organization ( Kimpakorn & Tocquer (2009) claim that the literature on employer branding is relatively recent. Overall, limited research has been done about how an organization s branding can attract and retain employees (Lievens et al., 2007; Wilden et al., 2010). Although, the research that has been done has had its focus on the employer brand in recruitment contexts, leading to that the employer brand and current employees has had limited research (Maxwell & Knox, 2009). Foster et al. (2010) agree with this by saying that literature of employer branding has been focused on communicating the brand externally, but not to existing employees. In order to manage the corporate brand and the employer brand, managers need to understand how the employees experience their employer. This is a challenge for managers and marketers because the traditionally way of focusing on behavior of their customers is not the same as for employees (Maxwell & Knox, 2009). Therefore, it is important to examine what makes an employer brand considered to be attractive to employees. As Maxwell & Knox (2009) claim, an organization is most likely to have its own set of important attributes of their employer brand. 7

9 1.3 Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the attributes that are important to make an organization s employer brand attractive to employees. 1.4 Objectives The objectives of this research is to examine the attributes that make an organization s employer brand attractive to employees, this to be able to retain employees within the organization and to attract new ones. Moreover, a successful employer brand should be founded in the corporate brand and the corporate values of an organization to be attractive and successful. Therefore, this research also will identify if attributes in corporate branding are considered to be important to employees, as well as attributes from internal branding. The objectives also include examining if attributes in an employer brand vary in importance and attractiveness between different units in an organization. This to see if some attributes are more critical than others and need to be managed so that they are perceived more similar to employees in different units. 8

10 1.5 Outline of thesis Chapter 1 The introduction chapter of the thesis where the concept of employer branding and related concepts is presented and problem discussed. These parts lead to the purpose, delimitations and objectives of the thesis. Chapter 2 The chapter concerns a literature review on relevant literature to the subject of employer branding. The concepts of corporate branding, internal branding and especially employer branding, as well as the theory of social identity approach in an organizational context are discussed in the literature review. Chapter 3 Discuss the research gap in the literature on employer branding, which leads to the formulation of research questions and frame of reference for the research. Chapter 4 This chapter considers different methodology approaches and discusses an appropriate procedure to execute the methodology relevant for the thesis and its stated research questions. Chapter 5 The data analysis chapter involves the presentation and analysis of the collected data. The chosen data analysis methods are used to answer the stated research questions. Chapter 6 The results from the data analysis are being discussed and concluded. Moreover, theoretical and managerial implications are being discussed, as well as limitations of the study. The chapter ends with suggestions for future research, which are based on the findings from the research. 9

11 2. Literature review 2.1 Corporate branding Hatch & Schultz (2008) describe a corporate brand as the term of an organization that includes the corporation and all its stakeholders in their businesses. Harris & de Chernatony (2001) agree to what is written by Hatch & Schultz (2008) by describing that corporate branding is depending on that all members of an organization behave in accordance with the brand identity. Moreover, Balmer & Grey (2003) contribute to the term of a corporate brand by saying that the corporate brand of an organization is the organization s face outwards in the sense that it is the brand of the entire organization. The entire enterprise is involved in creating the brand of the organization and an organization s heritage is built up by the values and beliefs that the multiple stakeholders share in common (Hatch & Schultz, 2008) The construction of corporate brands Hatch & Schultz (2008) describe that a healthy organizational identity - the central ideas that underpins the corporate brand, is created if there is an alignment between the organization s strategic vision, organizational culture and stakeholders images. Moreover, Hatch & Schultz (2008) describe the vision as the management s aspiration for the future of the organization and the organizational culture as the internal values and beliefs shared among employees. If this alignment occurs, then the corporate brand becomes strong and can become successful. In accordance to this, Schlager et al. (2011) claim that the brand of a service organization, called a service brand, is created when considering both the organization itself, the employees of the organization, as well as customers, and therefore it is more than a dyadic approach. Harris & de Chernatony (2001) have an alternative description of corporate branding and what they call the brand identity, which consists of six connected parts. Harris & de Chernatony (2001) explain that the brand vision, the core purpose of the brand, and brand culture - values that guide employees in their behavior, are the most central pieces in the brand identity. Thus, the brand vision and culture will affect the brand s desired positioning on a market, the brand s personality (the emotional characteristics of the corporate brand) and the brand s relationships with stakeholders and stakeholders self-images (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001). Balmer & Grey (2003) describe that the success of a corporate brand 10

12 is depending on the organization s identity and employees and other stakeholders commitment to the organizations ethos and values. Urde (2003) agrees with this by saying that an organization s identity is built by core values and these core values are the guidance for both internal and external brand building processes. The core values also should guide the organization s behavior and communication processes (Urde, 2003). Moreover, core values will affect the image of the corporate brand (Urde, 2003) When the corporate brand is failing Furthermore, Hatch & Schultz (2008) describe that if the vision and the organizational culture is not aligned with each other, then the organization does not deliver its promises. This may lead to that misalignments occur which leads to dissatisfaction among the external stakeholders. According to Harris & de Chernatony (2001), corporate brand building is described as the process of closing the gap between the brand identity and the brand reputation. Brand reputation is described as the perceptions and overall estimations that stakeholders form over a considerable time of the corporate brand and that the reputation emerges from stakeholders images about the organization (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001). However, there are some more problems with possible misalignments. According to Hatch & Schultz (2008), when external stakeholders overall impression of the organization and the organizational culture is not aligned with each other, employees might not understand and support the strategic vision. This is argued to happen because an organization s identity is dynamic and the identity will be affected by how external stakeholders perceive the corporate brand (Hatch & Schultz, 2008). A clear dialogue between top management, external stakeholders and members of the organizational culture is needed to create this interplay and alignment (Hatch & Schultz, 2003; Hatch & Schultz, 2008). Harris & de Chernatony (2001) concludes that it is important to create a coherent brand identity to stakeholders and to do this organizations have to put emphasis on their internal resources in the corporate brand building The corporate brand and employees as a stakeholder Foster et al. (2010) claim that the employees of an organization are the key to build an organization s corporate brand. This is because of the fact that there is a need of commitment from all employees of the organization to be able to fully deliver on the brand promise (Foster et al., 2010). Moreover, Harris & de Chernatony (2001) write that 11

13 employees play an important role in brand building processes and managers should strive to achieve a united view of the brand among all employees. Therefore internal resources, as communication capabilities and coordinating staff of an organization are important to consider in corporate branding so that stakeholders will experience a coherent brand identity. Hatch & Schultz (2003) contributes to this by saying that a particularly important part when building a corporate brand is the organizational culture, i.e. the internal values and beliefs shared among employees of the organization. According to Grönroos (2007), the internal sharing of beliefs and values among employees are especially important in organization that offers services to customers. 2.2 Internal branding Foster et al. (2010) claim that the main focus of internal branding is on how the employees within an organization adopt the brand concept, in order to ensure that employees within the organization live up to the promises that the brand should deliver to its external stakeholders. In other words, the aim is to teach and communicate the brand values to employees (Foster et al., 2010; Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Punjaisri et al., 2009). By doing so it is argued that the emotional and intellectual commitments to the brand are strengthened (Foster et al., 2010; King & Grace, 2008; Punjaisri & Wilson, 2011). Punjaisri et al. (2009) have a similar opinion and say that internal branding can positively affect how employees identify with the brand. Mosley (2007) puts it differently, claiming that internal branding is about shaping the perceptions that employees have about the brand. Grönroos (2007) says that internal branding is the describing of the needs existing within an organization so that a concordant between internal and external values can be created, in order to create a desirable image of the organization. However, it is argued by Punjaisri & Wilson (2011) that the impact of internal branding might not be constant among all the employees within an organization. It is suggested that there is a clear link between corporate branding and internal branding (Punjaisri & Wilson, 2011, Foster et al., 2010). According to Foster et al. (2010) internal branding can, along with employer branding, be seen as developments or extensions of corporate branding. Harris & de Chernatony (2001) explain that employees play an important role in the processes of building the brand and that it is therefore important to create a consistent image of the brand among the employees. Schlager et al. (2011), claim that employees who identify themselves with the brand can interact much better 12

14 with the customers. Kotler et al. (2009); Knox & Freeman (2006) and de Chernatony & McDonald (2003) agree when writing that everyone in an organization needs to live the brand to achieve complete success. Moreover, Foster et al. (2010) explain that it is important that both the employees who come into direct contact with consumers and those working more "backstage" understand the values of the brand. Punjaisri et al. (2009) do not express it differently when explaining that the quality of a service and the deliverance of brand promises are ultimately dependent on the employees who come into direct contact with consumers. Finally, King & Graces (2008) findings showed that that management plays a big role in guiding and teaching employees what the brand stands for. 2.3 Employer branding The concept of employer brands According to Ambler & Barrow (1996), an employer brand is all the efforts made by an organization to try to communicate to current and potential employees what a desirable workplace it is. An employer brand is employment specific (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004) and characterizes what kind of employer the organization is (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Davies, 2008). Kimpakorn & Toquer (2009) and Moroko & Uncles (2008) define an employer brand as a package provided by the organization, existing of functional, economic and psychological benefits. Further on, employer branding is the process when an organization is building an identifiable and unique employer identity (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004) and by doing so the organization can differentiate itself from its competitors (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Kimpakorn & Tocquer, 2007; Davies, 2008; Foster et al., 2010). Moroko & Uncles (2008) relate to the same thing when they write that the key to attract the right people is to have a differentiated employer brand. Moroko & Uncles (2008) say that successful employer brands are known and noticeable among employees, but also among other important stakeholders. In contrast to product and service brands, which try to reach consumers (Maxwell & Knox, 2009; Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004), an employer brand is focusing more on the inside of the organization (Maxwell & Knox, 2009). Backhaus & Tikoo (2004) has another opinion, when saying that employer branding is directed towards both internal and external audiences. Moroko & Uncles (2008) relate to this by saying that current and potential employees are the 13

15 central concern of an employer brand. Researchers agree that an employer brand is supposed to attract new fellow workers (Kimpakorn & Toquer, 2009; Davies, 2008; Gaddam, 2008) but also be able to keep the best, most competent, within the organization (Kimpakorn & Toquer, 2008; Gaddam, 2008). The employees should act as ambassadors and protectors of brands images and cultures (Kimpakorn & Toquer, 2009). Maxwell & Knox (2009) also write about ambassadorship when saying that employees need to be as one with the brand and act as ambassadors. Furthermore, employer brands can positively or negatively affect the expectations of the organization at every stage of the employee life-cycle (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). According to Rosethorn et al. (2009), there are three stages in the employee life-cycle. The first is when employees are looking for a job; the next is when they work at the organization and the third is when they leave the organization. These stages must be managed well and appropriately (Rosethorn et al., 2009). Moreover, Rosethorn et al. (2009) claim that it is possible to compare the attitudes of potential employees with consumers purchasing behavior, such as the stages of searching for information, decisions-making about buying and evaluation after a purchase The employer brand s relation to corporate brands It is argued that employer brands have to be integrated with both marketing and organizational aspects (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Edwards, 2010; Moroko & Uncles, 2008), and that the human resource (HR) department needs to work together with marketing department to recruit, train and develop employees so they can connect with the corporate brand (Hulberg, 2006). Therefore, Maxwell & Knox (2009) claim that employer brands should fit the identity, values and culture of an organization. Foster et al. (2010) add to this by saying that it is important that rational and emotional benefits of the corporate brand and the employer brand goes hand in hand so that the culture, identity and values of the organization positively affect the fulfilling of contract to employees, and from the employees to customers. Therefore, according to Mosley (2007), it is very important that the organization's culture is aligned with the right customer brand experience, which to a large extent is depending on the employees' abilities to behave in accordance to the brand. Moreover, to establish a strong brand, there must be a connection to the corporate identity and image (Kimpakorn & Tocquer, 2009). To establish and ensure that there is a link between the identity and image, it is 14

16 important that employees understand the brand values and are able to convey them when interacting with consumers and other stakeholders (Maxwell & Knox, 2009; Foster et al., 2010). When including more employees in an organization the organization has to ensure that employees attitudes and behavior are in alliance with what the corporate brand stands for (Kimpakorn & Tocquer, 2009). Maxwell & Knox, 2009 argue that employer branding is an effective way of pursuing that employees attitudes and behavior are in alliance with the corporate brand. Kimpakorn & Tocquer (2009) further suggest that when the brand values are communicated in a good way to employees it is likely that they become committed to the brand and behave in accordance with organization s values. Furthermore, Foster et al. (2010) write that employer branding can help organizations to attract the right employees that possesses values that matches a corporate brand Employer branding and employees Kimpakorn & Tocquer (2008), Moroko & Uncles (2008) and de Chernatony & McDonald (2003) say that the success of a brand and especially a service brand is emphasized by how the employees work when interacting with the customers. When an organization is heavily depending on the employees' probability to deliver interpersonal customer brand experiences and services, it is of great importance that the organization and its employer brand attracts the right kind of employees at every position and reinforces the right kind of culture (Mosley, 2007; Priyadarshi, 2011). According to Rosethorn et al. (2009), companies should see their employees as consumers and try to achieve a strong relationship between employers and employees, whether they are potential, current or former employees. To put it more precisely, people consume a job (Rosethorn et al. 2009). Employees as well as consumers like to be associated to a particular organization and its brand (Foster et al., 2010) and employees will consume a job at an organization that they like to be associated with (Rosethorn, 2009). Maxwell & Knox (2009) also writes that the employees tend to identify themselves more strongly to the organization when the external image of the organization is strong. When understanding and accepting the brand values employees become more likely to identify themselves with the brand and be emotionally attached to 15

17 the brand (Foster et al., 2010). If the employees do not convey the values in a good way there will be no good customer experience for the customer and, the coherence between the brand and customers will become weak (Kimpakorn & Tocquer, 2009). If the employees understand the brand values, employees can act naturally during service encounters and still deliver in accordance with the brand promise (Foster et al., 2010). Employer branding is about providing the right benefits and values of the brand to attract the right employees (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). However, employees tend to look at the organization and its employer brand in different ways. Current employees do not assess their own organizations as attractive in the same way as potential employees might do (Maxwell & Knox, 2009). Therefore, Wilden et al. (2010) claim that the search for talented employees should be focused on target markets that are relevant to the organization and the type of industry that it is in Employer brands and employees loyalty An outcome of an employer brand is to create loyalty among employees (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Davies, 2008). Backhaus & Tikoo (2004) argue that employer branding creates loyalty to the brand through impacting the culture and identity of the organization. Moroko & Uncles (2008) argue that employees form views of reciprocal obligations during the recruitment process, meaning that both the brand and the employee have obligations to fulfill. If this kind of psychological contract is fulfilled it is more likely that employees will be engaged and loyal (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). According to Rosethorn et al. (2009) employer branding is not about writing a contract with empty promises for the new employees, because this does not lead to productive and loyal future employees. Moreover, employer brands create expectations about the workplace (Davies, 2008). However, if the organization succeeds with living up to its promises it has a good chance to create engaged and loyal employees (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). Gaddam (2008) has the same opinion when writing that it is important for an organization to live up to its promises. Priyadarshi (2011) and Foster et al. (2010) also relate to it, by writing that employees and employers unrealistic expectations are one key factor leading to turnover and dissatisfaction. 16

18 2.3.5 Employer brand image and benefits Knox & Freeman (2006) and Priyadarshi (2011) agree that there is a linkage between an attractive employer brand image and potential employees likelihood to apply for a job. Also, Backhaus & Tikoo (2004) think that potential employees that find positive aspects of an employer image are more likely to identify with the employer and its brand and in turn be more likely to looking for a job at the organization. What is important according to Priyadarshi (2011) is that the image that the potential employee has is positive and sustained during the whole time in the organization that he or she is employed. Wilden et al. (2010) claim that an organization and its employer brand has to be consistent, distinct and credible in the signals that it send out to potential employees. According to Moroko & Uncles (2008), the employer brand should offer a package of different benefits through a value proposition to potential employees. To be successful the value proposition should be relevant and resonant with both current and potential employees (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). Rosethorn et al. (2009) argue that values should be what makes that the potential employees decide to apply for the job. These values should be unique and motivate and engage the potential employees (Rosethorn et al., 2009). Furthermore, Edwards (2010) claims that an employer brand has to offer a mix of tangible and intangible rewards that attract employees. Backhaus & Tikoo (2004) writes that an employer brand image for employees are functional benefits like elements of employment with the organization that are desirable in objective terms, like for instance salary, benefits and leave allowances. Lievens et al. (2007) call the functional benefits for instrumental factors and those are factors that are physical and objective. There are also symbolic benefits that relate to perceptions about the prestige and pride of working at an organization (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Instead, Lievens et al. (2007) describe symbolic factors as subjective, abstract and intangible. According to Davies (2008), if an employee has more influence at the workplace, this will reduce the chance that the employee quits. Davies (2008) also says that the purpose of the employee s resignation can be related to stress, lack of commitment and affinity. 2.4 Social identity approach and the organization The social identity approach includes both social identity theory and self-categorization theory (Cole & Bruch, 2006). Ashforth & Mael (1989) explain that social identity theory describes that people classify themselves and others in their surroundings into personal 17

19 social categories and that people identify with these categories to enhance self-esteem. Moreover, how individuals define him- or herself are dependent on which social group, for instance religion, gender and age, they participate in and are members of (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). According to Haslam et al. (2000), self-categorization theory describes that people s sense of the self and who they are is defined by that people categorize themselves either as individuals or as member of social groups. Further on, a person s behavior will be affected depending on which self-category that he or she is in, and what needs that are attempted to be satisfied (Haslam et al., 2000). When a person is categorizing him- or herself as a unique individual then it is the personal identity that is concerned (Haslam et al., 2000). However, when a person is categorizing him- or herself as a member of a social group, then it is the social identity that is concerned and the identity is shared by other members of that group (Haslam et al., 2000). Ashforth & Mael (1989) discussed and argued for that social identity theory could be applied to organizations in the sense that organizations can be seen as a social group. Moreover, Cole & Bruch (2006) claim that the relationship between a member of an organizations and its employing organization will affect the member s attitudes, behaviors and well-being. However, an individual s social identity is not only derived from the organization as a whole, the social identity could also be derived from the department and work group as an employee belong to (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Therefore there is a possibility that different groups within an organization may come in conflict with each other, which can be related to hierarchical levels (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) Organizational identity and image Dutton & Dukerich (1991) describe that an organization s identity is what the members of the organization think and believe is the character of the organization. This may also be called for perceived organizational identity where the organization s identity is perceived individually by each of its members (Dukerich et al., 2002). Moreover, members of an organization often share a set of beliefs of an organization and this is called the organization s collective identity (Dutton et al., 1994). In more detail, the organization s identity reflects its central attributes and characteristics, where the core 18

20 values and organizational values play a large part (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991) and a strong organizational identity should try to unify organizational members (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Dutton & Dukerich (1991) describe an organization s image as the attributes that members of an organization think that people outside the organization use to distinguish it from organizations. This can also be called construed external image (Dutton et al. 1994). The actual attributes that stakeholders of an organization use to distinguish it from others is called reputation (Dutton et al. 1994). An organization becomes meaningful to an individual when individuals create their own picture of the organization s identity and image in their minds (Dutton et al. 1994). In other words, an individual will create personal feelings and emotions about an organization and the characteristics that the individual experience from that organization. However, as Ashforth & Mael (1989) say that a positive and distinctive identity does not only attract organizational members, it also attracts other stakeholders like customers and potential employees. It is suggested by Elsbach & Kramer (1996) that an individual can gain a more positive social identity by belonging to an organization that have a positive identity Employees identification to an organization Ashforth & Mael (1989) describes identification as the individual s perception of being part of a group. Therfore, Dutton et al. (1994) explain that a member of an organization that incorporate the characteristics and attributes they perceive that the organization contains into their self-concepts, they will likely become psychologically attached to the organization. Organizational identification has been defined as: a cognitive linking between the definition of the organization and the definition of the self (Dutton et al., 1994, page 242). It is suggested by Ashforth & Mael (1989) that when an individual leaves a group that he or she identify himself/herself with, it is likely that the individual feels a psychical loss of leaving the group. This happens because when an individual identify with a group the individual often feel loyal to that group (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Moreover, Ashforth & Mael (1989) claim that an individual can also feel loyal to an organizations and its corporate culture. Dukerich et al. (2002) explain that an organizational identity that helps an individual to maintain their individual sense of self, 19

21 and enhance their self-esteem is going to be viewed as attractive, which will lead to a stronger organizational identification. 2.5 Definitions of concepts from the literature review Table 2-1 illustrates four main concepts that have been found in the literature review that are going to be used in the research. Working definitions of how these four terms are defined in this research are also included in the table. Table 2-1: Definitions of concepts and their working definitions Main Concept Corporate Branding Internal Branding Employer Branding Social Identity Approach to Organizational Identification (SIA) Working Definiton or Description A corporate brand is created from the organizational identity if there is an alignment between the organization s strategic vision, organizational culture and stakeholders images (Hatch & Schultz, 2008). The teaching and communication of brand values to employees to strengthen their emotional and intellectual commitment to a brand (Foster et al. 2010; Punjaisri et al 2009). A package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by an organization to its employees (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). An approach to organizational identification (based on Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorization Theory), where an organization and its departments can be seen as social groups (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Moreover, employees will become psychologically attached to an organization or department when they incorporate attributes of an organization or department into their own self-concepts (Dutton et al., 1994). 20

22 3. Research questions and frame of reference 3.1 Research discussion Internal branding has its focus on getting employees to act in accordance with brand promises (Foster et al., 2010). Foster et al. (2010) claim that internal branding fails to demonstrate how organizations must attract employees with values that match the brand, as literature on employer brands is focused on. Previous research that has been done in the field of how an organization s branding can attract and retain employees Wilden et al. (2010) did qualitative research on potential employees and concluded that the effectiveness of attracting potential employees is dependent on the consistency, clarity, credibility, and associated investments in the employer brand. Knox & Freeman (2006) did quantitative research among students in UK universities. The findings show that current and potential employees perceive an organization s employer brand differently. Knox & Freeman (2006) also state that employees and recruiters have to reinforce messages that are sent out to potential employees, to give a more integrated approach between internal and external marketing for recruitments. Lievens et al. (2007) did quantitative research to measure the instrumental factors (objective, physical and tangible attributes) like salary and symbolic factors (subjective, abstract and intangible attributes) like the prestige gained from working at an organization. Moreover, they studied factors on the attraction to the military among potential employees and identification with the military among current employees. Lievens et al. (2007) findings showed that to potential employees (external stakeholders), both instrumental and symbolic factors are important for the organizational attraction. For current employees (internal stakeholders), the symbolic factors were important, and the instrumental factors were less important (Lievens et al., 2007). Kimpakorn & Tocquer (2009) did quantitative research on employees in the hotel industry in Thailand. Their research concluded that employees brand commitment is 21

23 strongly linked to customers perceptions about brands and the way that employees experience the employer brand. Five factors, leadership style, organizational culture, the nature of the employees and employees perceptions of products and services were identified to affect employer brand image (Kimpakorn & Tocquer, 2009). Maxwell & Knox (2009) did investigate employer branding by conducting qualitative research. Maxwell & Knox (2009) switched focus from measuring both the external and internal view of an employer brand to only measuring the internal view. This because little is known about what makes an organization s employer brand attractive to the current employees. The authors did a case study in five different organizations to identify different categories of attribute that make an organization s employer brand attractive. Maxwell & Knox (2009) findings showed that the attributes that were perceived most attractive by employees were different among the five organizations, which were linked to the theory of Social Identity Approach. Thus, the research lead to that some main categories of attribute were concluded among the five organizations. The concluded categories were employment, organizational successes, construed external image, and product or service characteristics (Maxwell & Knox, 2009). The gap in the literature on employer branding Maxwell & Knox (2009) recommend that every organization have to identify their own attributes that are most attractive to employees. This should be done to be able to connect the employer brand with the identity of the organization and employees interests. Further on, Maxwell & Knox (2009) suggest that future investigations of employer brands where employees behaviors in accordance to a corporate brand s values are included would be appropriate. Maxwell & Knox (2009) also suggest that employer branding needs to be investigated by applying a quantitative approach. For example it is suggested that it would be useful to develop a measurement that measures the importance that employees assign to individual attributes (Maxwell & Knox, 2009). Related to this, Lievens et al. (2007) suggests that future research should be done where instrumental (functional) and symbolic benefits are tested on other groups than the military. Because of the theory of social identity approach, Maxwell & Knox (2009) motivate that the importance and attractiveness of attributes in an employer brand can vary between 22

24 organizations. However, the theory of social identity approach also says that things can vary between groups within the same organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Moreover, Lievens et al (2007) also suggests that future research should investigate if there are any differences among groups when it comes to the importance of the instrumental and symbolic framework. Therefore, in this research the context is switched to check if the importance and attractiveness of attributes in an employer brand can vary between groups within the same organization, instead of between organizations. 3.2 Research questions Research question 1 (RQ1) and research question 2 (RQ2) are examining the importance of attractive attributes in an employer brand. Research question 3 (RQ3) and research question 4 (RQ4) are examining whether the attributes vary in importance between units in an organization. This is based on the theory of Social Identity Approach to Organizational Identification, which is one of the main concepts that are stated in Table 2-1. RQ1: What are the most attractive attributes of an employer brand to employees? RQ2: What are the least attractive attributes of an employer brand to employees? RQ3: What attributes vary in attractiveness between departments in an organization? RQ4: Between which departments do the attributes vary in attractiveness in an organization? 3.3 Definitions and Frame of reference Table 3-1 illustrates the constructs (attributes) that have been found in the literature concerning the subject of employer branding. Moreover, these constructs are developments from the main concepts that were earlier illustrated in Table 2-1. The constructs of Strategic Vision, Organizational Culture and Stakeholders Images were taken from the literature on corporate branding. The construct of Internal Branding was taken from the literature on internal branding. The final six constructs; Functional Benefits, Symbolic Benefits, Organizational Successes, Work Environment, Type of Work and Services Attributes were taken from literature on employer branding. The ten constructs presented in Table 3-1 are the ones that were used in the research. Also, the conceptual definitions of the constructs - the definitions of the constructs from the 23

25 literature, and the operational definition - how the definitions were used in this research, can be found in the table. Table 3-1: Research constructs and their definitions Construct Conceptual Definition Operational Definition Strategic Vision (SV) Managers aspiration for the future of an organization (Hatch & Schultz, 2008). A construct capturing if manager s aspiration for the future is of importance to Organizational Culture (OC) Stakeholders Images (SI) Internal Branding (IB) Functional Benefits (FB) Symbolic Benefits (SB) Organizational Successes (OS) Work Environment (WE) Type of Work (ToW) Services Attributes (SA) The internal values and beliefs shared among an organization s employees (Hatch & Schultz, 2008). External stakeholders desires and expectations of the organization (Hatch & Schultz, 2008). The teaching and communication of brand values to employees to strengthen their emotional and intellectual commitment to a brand (Foster et al. 2010; Punjaisri et al 2009). Elements of the employment with the organization that are desirable in objective terms (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). The functional benefits are also physical (Lievens et al. 2007) Perceptions about the prestige and pride of working at an organization (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). The symbolic benefits are subjective, abstract and intangible (Lievens et al. 2007). An organization s past-, currentand expected future successes and their importance to the individual employee (Maxwell & Knox 2009). The social- and the functional environment of the work place (Maxwell & Knox 2009). The challenges of the work and the variety in the work (Maxwell & Knox 2009). Employees perceptions about the organization s services and its values (Maxwell & Knox, 2009). employees. A construct capturing the level an employee perceives that it is important to share values and beliefs with co-workers. A construct capturing the importance employees put into what external stakeholders expect from the organization. A construct capturing how important employees think it is that the organization communicates brand values to the employees. A construct capturing the importance that an employee put into functional benefits provided by the employer. A construct capturing the importance that an employee put into symbolic benefits provided by the employer. A construct capturing the importance of an organization s successes to employees. A construct capturing the importance that the social environment and the functional environment have for employees. A construct capturing the importance that the actual work and work tasks have for employees. A construct capturing to what extent an organization s services are important for employees. 24

26 4. Methodology 4.1 Research approach When a research is carried out there are choices to be made about the research approach that the researcher has. The choices are whether the research is inductive or deductive, and whether the research is qualitative or quantitative (Bryman & Bell, 2005) Inductive vs. Deductive Inductive approach: An inductive approach is most commonly used in qualitative research and theory is the result from a research (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Thereby, the inductive approach sees theory as a result of a research effort (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Deductive approach: A deductive research approach is the most commonly used approach in quantitative research (Bryman & Bell, 2005). The deductive approach starts by using existing theories, which are tested by collecting data, and where the data are gathered when applying the existing theory in a context (Bryman & Bell, 2005). The research approach of this investigation was of a deductive kind due to the fact that it was based on existing theories and that this research used quantitative research. The existing theories were practically applied and tested by collecting data, so the inductive research approach was not appropriate because in such an approach is theory a result of a research effort Qualitative vs. Quantitative Qualitative research: A qualitative research approach is a less formalized approach, which strives to get a more comprehensive and deep understanding (Bryman & Bell, 2005). The qualitative research approach put emphasize on words rather than numbers when collecting and analyzing data (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Quantitative research: A quantitative research approach can be seen as a research approach that put emphasize on quantifying when it comes to gathering and analyzing data (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Therefore, the research approach is based on collecting data in the form of numbers, instead of words, to analyze and draw conclusions from the data (Bryman & Bell, 2005). 25

27 A quantitative research approach was the most appropriate due to the fact that this research was about drawing conclusions by collecting data in the form of numbers and make generalization from the collected data. The qualitative research approach was not appropriate because emphasizes was not put on collecting data in the form of words. 4.2 Research design A research design is a structure that directs how to use a method concretely and how to analyze the data or information that is gathered (Bryman & Bell, 2005; Creswell, 2009). The research design can also be seen as a process and plan for the research. When deciding which research design to use, it should be based on the research problem (Kotler et al. 2009). The decision of the chosen research design may also be influenced by personal experience and to whom the researcher addresses to write to (Creswell, 2009). Exploratory research design: Exploratory research has the objective of collecting information that may help define a problem and come up with hypotheses (Kotler et al. 2009). The exploratory research design could be used in cases when the researcher needs to define a problem more precisely, identify appropriate actions and to gain more knowledge before an approach can be elaborated (Malhotra, 2010). The information that the researcher uses in exploratory research is loosely defined and the process is flexible and unstructured. Conclusive research designs: Descriptive and causal research designs are two branches from conclusive research design, which is more of a formal and structured design (Malhotra, 2010). The conclusive research design is often based on huge representative samples and more quantitative analysis. Conclusive designs are also often used for managerial decisions making (Malhotra, 2010). Descriptive research design: A descriptive research design has the objective of describing something (Kotler et al. 2009), and is often conducted to illustrate: The characteristics of appropriate groups like for example: organizations, consumers or market areas; See if a specific population displays certain behaviors by estimating 26

28 percentages; Determine if marketing variables may be associated with each other; To make predictions (Malhotra, 2010). Causal research design: Causal design has the objective of finding relationships in causes and effects by testing hypotheses (Kotler et al. 2009). Causal research design can be useful when understanding if variables are the cause, and which are the effect of an observable fact, to see if the nature of the relationship between the variables and the effect can be predicted (Malhotra, 2010). When using the causal research design it is of importance that the validity of causal relationships is studied via formal research. Longitudinal design: A longitudinal design occurs when a research is lasting over a period of time to see if changes appear on a specific sample during a time of period (Bryman & Bell, 2005; Malhotra, 2010). Cross-sectional design: A cross-sectional design, on the other hand, is an investigation that occurs at a specific point in time (Bryman & Bell, 2005). The multiple crosssectional designs use two or more samples to obtain data at a specific point in time, whereas a single cross-sectional design uses only one sample at a specific point in time (Malhotra, 2010). This study used a descriptive research design as the main research design since the research was based on earlier studies on employer branding. Moreover, characteristics of an organization were studied to be able to help managers in their decision-making. A causal research design was not appropriate because the research did not test hypotheses to see relationships between variables; instead the research investigated research questions to see what attributes that are important in an employer brand. An exploratory research was conducted as a pre-study to investigate how managers in an organization worked with employer branding practically. The pre-study also was conducted to make it easier to develop the main data collection instrument and operationalize constructs to make them measurable (See Appendix 1 for the pre-study). The descriptive research design was a single cross-sectional design, due to the fact that one sample was used to obtain data at a specific point in time. 27

29 4.3 Data sources Primary data: Primary data are data gathered for a specific study (Aaker et al., 2011). Primary data are gathered specifically for a present purpose, which will bring up-to-date information for a specific study (Aaker et al., 2011; Bryman & Bell, 2005). Secondary data: Secondary data is data that have been collected for some other reason than helping to solve the problem of the study at hand (Aaker et al., 2011). There are two kinds of secondary data, internal secondary data and external secondary data (Aaker et al., 2011). Internal secondary data are different kinds of internal records, like billing records, budgets and schedules and therefore is a need of access to get hold of internal secondary data (Aaker et al., 2011). On the other hand, external secondary data are data that have been published (Aaker et al., 2011) and therefore are external secondary data available for everyone. Examples of sources of external secondary data are public annual reports and blogs. Obvious benefits of using secondary data instead of primary data are that it saves a lot of effort when it comes to time and money (Aaker et al., 2011; Bryman & Bell, 2005).). This research only used primary data since the data in the study was collected for a certain purpose, by conducting a tailor-made data collection instrument to gather up-todate information. Moreover, secondary data collection was not used in this research, because only first-hand information was gathered. 4.4 Research strategy There are five major research strategies (Yin, 2008): Experiment: Experiments are useful when knowledge about causes and actions are of interest (Esaiasson et al., 2012). Moreover, experiments make it possible to study effects of factors that are dependent on a variable, where a researcher randomly chooses the participants and then expose the participants to different stimulus (Esaiasson et al., 2012). Survey: A survey method could either be a structured interview or a survey (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Further on, a sample of individuals from a population is used to gather information about attitudes, values and/or opinions from the individuals that in turn can 28

30 be used to do statistical inferences and generalizations about the population (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Archival analysis: The focus of the archival method is to analyze texts/documents to systematically quantify the content by using pre-decided categories (Bryman & Bell, 2005). The pre-decided categories decide what information that should be searched for and what information that should not be searched for (Bryman & Bell, 2005). History: The research strategy of history is about collecting and reviewing historical archives and documents (Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2005). This is done to describe what has happened in the past so that it can be easier to understand the presence and plan for what the future might bring (Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2005). Case study: A case study is useful when testing and developing theory in the context of an object, individual, group or organization (Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2005). Case studies are often used when the focus is put on a current phenomenon that exists in a real-life context (Yin, 2008). A case study on a single object can give depth to the study compared to multiple case studies, which can give breadth (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Table 4-1 illustrates the five major research strategies to choose among. Moreover, the table describes during what circumstances each research strategy is appropriate to use. Table 4-1: Research strategies and their contents Research strategy Form of research question Requires control over behavioral events Focuses on contemporary events Experiment How, why Yes Yes Survey Who, what, where, No Yes how, many, how much Archival analysis Who, what, where, how No Yes/no many, how much History How, why No No Case study How, why No Yes Source: Yin (2008), Page 8 As illustrated in Table 4-1 history was not used due to the fact that business research is about looking of what happens in present time. The information that was going to be used would not be gathered from texts and/or documents, because primary data sources were used. The research was neither of an experimental kind, because some of the research questions were about finding what attributes that were important to make an 29

31 employer attractive to employees. The other research questions were about if and how the attractiveness of attributes may differ between departments in a specific organization. Therefore, the research strategy of a case study was a possibility. However, theory was going to be tested by doing a survey at a specific organization in the health care sector to be able to make generalizations and collect quantitative data about the population by choosing a sample (See Appendix 1 for the chosen organization). The motivation of the chosen organization was based on that organizations in the health care sector in Sweden would suffer from the largest shortage of employees in the near future ( The purpose was not to collect a deep understanding of the organization, so the research strategy of a survey was most appropriate and chosen. 4.5 Data collection method A data collection method can be described as a technique for collecting different types of data, where different data collection instruments can be used based on what type of data that shall be collected (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Primary data, i.e. information collected for a specific purpose (Kotler et al. 2009), can be collected by a variety of instruments (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Quantitative data collection instruments are structured and not very flexible and they are useful when making generalized conclusions by studying a sample of a population (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Qualitative data collection instruments are less structured, more flexible and they are useful when gathering deep understandings of peoples attitudes, beliefs and perceptions (Bryman & Bell, 2005). In-depth interview: An in-depth interview is a qualitative research method where an individual respondent get to answer pre-decided question from a researcher (Christensen, 2008). Qualitative interviews are less structured, flexible and they are focusing on the interviewee s opinions and to get detailed answers (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Focus group: An interview in the form of more individuals than one is called a focus group (Kotler et al. 2009). Respondents are then often interviewed together about a specific subject or theme to get a deep knowledge about that specific subject or theme (Bryman & Bell, 2005). 30

32 Survey: A survey, sometimes called a questionnaire, is a quantitative method of research where respondents answer a number of questions often without the presence of a researcher (Bryman & Bell 2005). The respondents themselves have to read the questions and answer them, which means that the survey has to be constructed in a way that the respondents easily can understand (Bryman & Bell 2005). Some benefits of using surveys are that they are cheaper and more efficient to manage for the examiners (Bryman & Bell 2005). Moreover, because the examiners are not present when respondents are answering a survey the examiners do not potentially affect them (Bryman & Bell 2005). Electronic surveys, also called online surveys, have the main advantage that they are easier to manage and less expensive, compared to a paper form survey (Duffy et al., 2005). The responses also tend to be quicker, which may result in a good coverage and a higher response rate. An online survey also allows the research to be more flexible, visual and interactive (Duffy et al., 2005). Another advantage is that an online survey may fit the respondents lives better, with the use of today s technology. There are also some disadvantages with online surveys. There is a tendency that respondents use scales differently in an online survey compared to respondents that should answer questions in other ways. In general respondents are more likely to choose mid-points in a scale, however it does not necessarily mean that the online survey is less accurate (Duffy et al., 2005). Observation: Observational research is a method to gather information about an organization s offerings by observing people and how they behave in a specific environment (Kotler et al. 2009). The behaviors that are of relevance for a researcher could be how customers (participants) behave in a store, how participants approach products/services, and how participants make buying decisions (Kotler et al. 2009). For this research a deductive- and quantitative research approach had been chosen. Moreover, a descriptive research design and the collection of primary data had also been decided upon. The research strategy of a survey was chosen over a research strategy of a case study due to the fact that quantitative data and generalizations about a population were going to be made. Therefore, the most suitable data collection instrument was a 31

33 survey. To be even more detailed, an electronic survey was chosen because it gave a possibility to reach out to a large amount of respondents. It was also chosen because then respondents were given the possibility to answer the survey whenever they had time and access to Internet and their accounts. 4.6 Data collection instrument Operationalization and measurement of variables Table 4-2 illustrates the operationalization of the constructs found in the literature on employer branding. Each construct was broken down into several measurable items, ranging from at least two items up to four items on some constructs, which all were adapted from research within the field of employer branding. Hair et al. (2003) recommend that a construct should at least consist of three items, thus this was not the case on all the constructs in this research. The table also tells how the items were supposed to be measured - by using a 7-point Likert-scale. 32

34 Table 4-2: Measurement and scaling of construct Construct Strategic Vision (SV) Organizational Culture (OC) Stakeholders Images (SI) Internal Branding (IB) Functional Benefits (FB) Type of scale and its construction 3-item, 7-point Likertscale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree 2-item, 7-point Likertscale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree 3-item, 7-point Likertscale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree 2-item, 7-point Likertscale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree 3-item, 7-point Likertscale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree Items used SV1 An explicit future plan SV2 Participation in the future plan SV3 Impact on the future plan of the work place OC1 Sharing same values as co-workers OC2 Sharing same values as managers SI1- Other organizations images of the organization SI2 Customers images of the organization SI3 Society s images of the organization IB1 Communicating explicit brand values IB2 Explicit guidelines for employees behavior FB1 Salary FB2 Condition of employment FB3 Other benefits Adapted from (Harris & de Chernatony 2001; Hatch & Schultz 2008) (Harris & de Chernatony 2001; Hatch & Schultz 2008) (Harris & de Chernatony 2001; Hatch & Schultz 2008; Maxwell & Knox 2009) (Backhaus & Tikoo 2004; Foster et al. 2010; Punjaisri et al. 2009) (Backhaus & Tikoo 2004; Maxwell & Knox 2009; Moroko & Uncles 2008; Lievens et al. 2007) Symbolic Benefits (SB) Organizational Successes (OS) Work Environment (WE) Type of Work (TW) Services Attributes (SA) 4-item, 7-point Likertscale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree 2-item, 7-point Likertscale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree 4-item, 7-point Likertscale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree 3-item, 7-point Likertscale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree 2-item, 7-point Likertscale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree SB1 Pride in work SB2 Personality development SB3 Career opportunities leadership SB4 Career opportunities education OS1 Past successes OS2 Future successes WE1 Get along with coworkers WE2 Get along with managers WE3 Good work place WE4 The actual work environment ToW1 Flexible work tasks ToW2 Importance of work tasks ToW3 Contribution to work place SA1 Delivering quality SA2 The delivered services is of main focus (Backhaus & Tikoo 2004; Maxwell & Knox 2009; Moroko & Uncles 2008; Lievens et al. 2007) (Maxwell & Knox 2009) (Maxwell & Knox 2009; Kimpakorn & Tocquer 2009) (Maxwell & Knox 2009) (Maxwell & Knox 2009; Kimpakorn & Tocquer 2009) 33

35 4.6.2 Survey design The conduction of the survey An internet-survey was used, meaning that employees at the organization got a link to the survey by . The director of public relations at the organization was used as a source to reach out with the survey to employees accounts at the organization. The survey was constructed by using the online tool of Google Docs, which is a freeaccount platform where professional surveys can be constructed and administered in multiple ways ( The survey took approximately ten minutes to complete. Letter of intent Letters of intent can help to prevent that respondents do not complete the survey or do the survey at all (Bryman & Bell, 2005). In a letter of intent the purpose and importance of the survey should be developed (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Therefore, a letter of intent was attached in the s, including the link to the survey that was sent out to respondents at the organization. The letter of intent begun with a greeting to the respondents and then came the background information of why the study was done and who the sender of the survey was. (See Appendix 2 for the letter of intent in Swedish) The construction of the survey The survey started with a short instruction of what to think about and how the survey worked was developed to guide the respondents when answering the survey. The survey was constructed so that the respondents used a 7-point Likert-scale to answer twenty-eight questions about different attributes that may make an employer attractive to employees. The scale gave possibilities for respondents to choose one of the seven alternatives that suited the individual the most (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Moreover, the scale used values that ranged from 1-7, where the number 1 meant, strongly disagree with the statement and number 7 meant strongly agree with the statement. The same scale needed to be used on every question to give consistency in the survey (Kylén, 2004). A scale with seven steps also gave the respondents a possibility to choose a mid-point (number 4) if they did not agree with the question either positively or negatively (Kylén, 2004). Question 7 was a control question that was negatively 34

36 formulated where all the other 27 questions were positively formulated. This was done to check that respondents were concentrated and focused when answering the survey. The final questions in the survey concerned respondents gender, the amount of years that respondents had worked in the organization, respondents work district and current department that the respondents worked at. These final four questions did not concern the ranking of attributes and they were answered by choosing one of multiple choices. There were no open questions in the survey where respondents themselves got the opportunity to write down their own answer in the survey. Moreover, open questions can often be misunderstood so that the respondent is not answering the question in the way that examiners think suits the research and respondents also tend to write very short answers (Bryman & Bell 2005). For the researcher it is easier to process the answers in a survey using closed questions instead of open questions. Closed questions also make it easier to compare the different answers and quantify them with each other than the case with open questions (Bryman & Bell 2005). This is why closed questions were used in the survey. When constructing the survey the questions were formulated as precise and simple as possible, so that the respondents could be able to understand and answer them (Bryman & Bell 2005). The layout, the amount of questions and clear instructions were kept in mind when constructing the survey so that the survey should appeal more to respondents (Bryman & Bell 2005). With this in mind, the first question of the survey was considered to be interesting and easy to understand so that the respondent would get a good feeling about the survey from the start (Bryman & Bell 2005). The entire order of the questions was also considered so that the survey would not discourage the respondents. See Appendix 3 for the final version of the Swedish survey that was sent out to respondents and Appendix 4 for the English version of the survey Pre- testing The survey was previewed and tested on students at the marketing program at Linnaeus University before it was sent out to respondents. The supervisor of this bachelor thesis 35

37 checked the survey as well. The survey was also tested on students in a health care program, and on educated nurses, to make sure that the survey was understandable and interpreted as intended. Finally, before ing the respondents the director of public relations and other staff that work at the public relation department at the organization checked the survey and had some opinions about it. Thereafter, some questions had to be reformulated to make the survey more understandable. 4.7 Sampling A census survey studies every element of a population, where a sample survey studies a representative part of the population. A population is all the potential persons or units (nations, cities or companies etc.) that can be studied in quantitative methods (Bryman & Bell, 2005). A sampling frame is a description of all persons or units that take part in a population (Bryman & Bell, 2005). When a group of persons or units in a population are chosen to participate in a study, then a sample of the population has been chosen for the study (Bryman & Bell, 2005). It is often too expensive, too time-consuming and too hard to manage a study on a whole population and therefore a representative sample can be useful (Bryman & Bell, 2005). A sample can either be randomly chosen or a sample could be chosen due to specific reasons (Bryman & Bell, 2005). An organization in the health care sector, where the employees at the organization should answer a survey, had previously been decided upon. The entire population of the organization consisted of approximately 5000 employees (See Appendix 1). A sample survey was chosen over a census survey, due to time and resource constraints. A sample survey also was chosen due to the fact that the director of public relations at the organization helped to send out the surveys by to employees by using the organization s database of employees accounts. For this procedure to be manageable, a sample survey had to be chosen Sampling frame The organization that was used in this study consisted of a population of approximately 5000 employees (See Appendix 1) and the employees worked under nine different centers within the organization. The nine main centers were; Emergency Center, Children- and Women Center, Surgeon Center, Medical Center, Medical Service Center, Primary Health Care- and Rehab Center, Psychiatry Center, Service Center and Dental 36

38 Care Center. In turn, these nine main centers all consisted of multiple sub-units (See Appendix 5 for a full list of the centers sub-units). These centers and their sub-units were the sampling frame of this study Sample selection and data collection procedures By having a discussion with the director of public relations at the head office of the organization, suggestions for appropriate sample selection came up, because these units consisted of the largest amount of respondents. The sample of the centers and their subunits ended up to be: The administrative units (financial and human resources), Ambulance unit, Care centers in Work District Y city, Ear-, nose-, throat- and skin clinic, The medical clinic in Work District X and the Image- and functional medicine (X-ray). The different sub-units were chosen because they consisted of the largest amount of respondents among the different sub-units in each main center. With the use of a formula, which is illustrated in Table 4-2, for calculating the required sample size an actual number of how many respondents that the sample required was concluded. The population size used was 5000 employees and the number of standard errors that was used was the number 1,96 for a confidence level of 95 %. The calculation lead to that a sample size of 357 respondents was required. Table 4-3: Calculation of the required sample size Formula n = (2500 x N x Z^2) / ((25 x (N-1)) + (2500 x Z^2)) Variables n = sample size required N = population size Z = number of standard errors (1,64 for 90 % confidence level, 1,96 for 95 % confidence level and 2,58 for 99 % confidence level) Source: Malhotra (2010) Even if the formula showed a requirement of 357 respondents, the selected sub-units chosen as sample consisted of 735 persons working at the organization. The survey was ed to the respondents 3rd of April, and collected 17th of April. 160 respondents had answered the survey by 17th of April. According to Jin (2011), an average response rate for online surveys is between 6-15 %. The response rate for the survey was 22 % and exceeded the value of 6-15 %. 37

39 4.8 Data analysis method When a researcher uses quantitative data a common mistake is to wait with decisions related to the analysis of the data until the data that is going to be used for the analysis is collected (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Even if the phase of analyzing is late in the process of a research, decisions of how the analysis will be carried out and what techniques that will be used should be taken as early as possible (Bryman & Bell, 2005). The reason is that all techniques cannot be used at all kinds of data. The techniques must fit the kind of variables that has been constructed in the investigation (Bryman & Bell, 2005). When entering and summarizing the collected data there might be noticed some internal loss of data (Bryman & Bell, 2005). That is when a respondent have answered to the survey but for some reason left one or several questions unanswered. It is important to deal with this, by giving it the value of 0 and then to mention it in the analysis (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Another way of dealing with the problem is to calculate the average value of all the respondents for that specific question (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Before entering the data the researcher need to code the data that is not pre-coded. To code data means that the variables are given a specific number so it is possible to quantify the answers and analyze the data (Bryman & Bell, 2005). A pre-coded variable is already given a number as in the case when using a Likert-scale (Bryman & Bell, 2005). In this specific study the questions with a 7-point Likert-scale were already coded with a value ranging from 1-7, depending on what the individual respondent had answered on the different questions in the survey. Thus, in questions that are answered in words, for example how long a respondent has worked in an organization, there was a need to give the answering alternatives codes in the shape of numbers; 0-5 years (0), 6-10 years (1), years (2), more than 20 years (3) (see Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 for the survey used in this study). The four last questions in the survey had to be manually pre-coded. Question 7 that was a negatively formulated question (See Appendix 3 and Appendix 4) had to be switched into a positively formulated question in SPSS, so that it could be analyzed with all the other questions that were positively formulated in the survey. 38

40 Some values were missing when summarizing the data from the survey. When this occurred the mean value of the item (survey question) was calculated from the values from the respondents that had answered the items (questions). Then this mean value was inserted where values were missing. However, many values that were missing from the same respondent were not occurring, so the values that were missing were occasional. The survey had 17 respondents that had forgotten or ignored one question or maximum two questions. Question 7 that was negatively formulated in comparison to the other questions had 7 respondents that had misinterpreted the question. However, this question showed that some respondents might have not been focused while answering the survey. Therefore, these seven respondents were excluded from the survey. This also indicated that most of the respondents were concentrated and aware of the negatively formulated question Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics make data to a more manageable size by reducing large amounts of data but still keeping it large enough to be meaningful. It is about taking a set of numerical data and organize, summarize and communicate the data (Nolan & Heinzen, 2007). Thus, one can say that descriptive statistics describe the data. Moreover, a descriptive approach means that there are possibilities to identify different causal relations that should be analyzed (Yin, 2008). The descriptive statistics in this thesis was; gender, years worked at the Organization X and which units the respondents worked at, as well as mean values of items and constructs Correlation analysis The focus of correlation analysis, or bivariate analysis, is to see the correlation between two variables (Bryman & Bell, 2005). The purpose is to find out how the two variables are related to each other. When trying to figure out variables and the relation between them there is a search for signs or evidences if the variation of one of the variables is related to the variation of the other variable (Bryman & Bell, 2005). The correlation coefficient in correlation analysis should not exceed a value of 0.9, because then it is not 39

41 sure that the constructs do not measure the same thing (Farrar & Glauber, 1967). In other words, a correlation coefficient that is less than 0.9 indicates that constructs are measuring different concepts. If the correlation coefficient should be trusted it also should not exceed the significant value of 0.05 that is often used in marketing and economics (Malhotra, 2010). In this research did none of the constructs receive correlation coefficients that exceeded a value of 0.9. However, three correlation coefficients exceeded the significance level of One- Sample T- test T-statistics are used to be able to indicate the distance of a sample mean from the mean of a population (Nolan & Heinzen, 2008). A One Sample T-test, or Single Sample T- test, uses a distribution of means to be able to compare data from a single sample to a population. In this test the mean of the population is known (Nolan & Heinzen, 2008). When doing a One-Sample T-test there is also a possibility to choose a test value that means are compared to, to see if there are any differences between means and the test value (Nolan & Heinzen, 2008). When calculating the One Sample T-test a score that will be given is degrees of freedom, or df. Degrees of freedom show the number of possible different scores of the sample used, showing the size of the sample (Nolan & Heinzen, 2008). The One Sample T-test was used to be able to see if the mean score of the different variables was different than the known mean, or mid-point. Since a Likert-scale from 1-7 was used for the investigation the mean value that was used when calculating the One Sample T-test was 4. Therefore, it was possible to measure whether the different attributes were important or not. A positive mean difference (mean values higher than 4) indicated that the attribute was of importance and a negative mean difference (mean values less than 4) indicated that the attribute was not of importance One- Way ANOVA test Analysis of variance, or ANOVA, is appropriate to use when having something more complicated than a two-group design. It is used with nominal independent variables, with more than two samples, and an interval dependent variable (Nolan & Heinzen, 40

42 2008). If using an ANOVA with just one independent variable it is a called a One-Way ANOVA (Nolan & Heinzen, 2008). In this study the One-Way ANOVA test was used to see if the attributes differed between the different units from which the sample was collected. If the significant value was less than 0.05 or 0.1 it indicated that there was a significant variance between units Post Hoc (LSD) test The One-Way ANOVA can tell whether there is something significant going on between the means of a study but not between what specific means. The Post-Hoc test makes it possible to multiply compare between several means; therefore it shows between what specific means and samples the significant variance/variances are (Nolan & Heinzen, 2008). The LSD is the name of one of several Post Hoc tests that calculates the same thing in SPSS. The Post-Hoc test for this specific study was used to see between which units of the sample the significant variance/variances were. If the significance level was less than 0.05 then there were significant variance/variances between units and a specific attribute. 4.9 Quality criteria A quantitative study should be rigorous, meaning that it should be of high quality in terms of validity and reliability. The validity is concerning the fact that variables, or indicators, are measuring what they are intended to measure and there are different ways to measure validity (Bryman & Bell, 2005; Malhotra, 2010). Reliability concerns the stability of a measurement instrument (Bryman & Bell, 2005) Content validity Content validity is a subjective and systematic view of how well a measurement reflects the content of a construct (Bryman & Bell, 2005; Malhotra, 2010). The level of content validity can be determined by letting someone else, for example an expert in the field, examine whether or not the content of a construct is being measured appropriately (Bryman & Bell, 2005; Malhotra, 2010). Content validity is not a sufficient measure, but it is good to use for common sense interpretation (Malhotra, 2010). 41

43 In this study the supervisor of the thesis looked at the operationalization and the survey to check the content validity and the theoretical framework. Students at a Marketing program at Linnaeus University also checked the content validity. Further, the survey was pre-tested on respondents to check the content validity. The director of public relations and other staff that work at Organization X also checked the survey questions Construct validity Construct validity is about evaluating the validity of a measurement s concepts (Bryman & Bell, 2005). The concept that is being measured is derived from relevant theory and by operationalization measurable variables/constructs can be derived (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Moreover, when measuring, the researcher tries to answer theoretical questions about why the criterion works, and what deductions may be in underlying theory (Malhotra, 2010). Construct validity is a way to see and relate to other constructs and are the most complicated types of validity (Malhotra, 2010). In this study the construct validity was measured by doing a correlation analysis in SPSS to see that constructs/variables in concepts were not correlating too highly, meaning that correlation > 0.9. The construct validity could be done after that the items that measured the same construct had been combined in SPSS. This means that the mean values of all the items that measured the same construct were combined into a mean value for the construct. Thereafter could the construct validity be checked in SPSS Reliability Reliability is when the criterion of a result is consistent and that the study can be repeated with the relatively same results (Malhotra, 2010). Therefore, a measurement instrument has to possess stability and be consistent so that researchers can be sure that studies easily can be repeated again (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Internal reliability is concerning whether a scale as a measurement is reliable, and that respondents answers on the constructs that are measuring the same concept are related (Bryman & Bell, 2005). Systematic sources of error do not need to have an impact on reliability, because it will not affect the measurement in a constant way and it will not lead to contradictions (Malhotra, 2010). Thus, random errors do create inconsistency, which leads to lower reliability. Reliability is high when measures are free from random errors (Malhotra, 42

44 2010). When respondents are answering questions that measure the same construct in a consistent manner, the reliability is at an acceptable level (Hair et al. 2003). Reliability can be measured by checking that Cronbach s Alpha is preferably higher than 0.7, thus also acceptable at a Cronbach s Alpha higher than 0.6 (Hair et al. 2003). If the Cronbach s Alpha is lower than 0.6 on a construct this indicates that the reliability is poor for that construct (Hair et al. 2003). The reliability of this study was determined by calculating the Cronbach s alpha coefficient in SPSS and check that it was preferably > 0.7, however also accepted at > 0.6. One constructs consisted of three items which got a Cronbach s Alpha < 0.6, thus after removing one of the items the Cronbach s Alpha of this construct increased to Cronbach s Alpha > 0.6. One construct got a lower Cronbach s than 0.6, and it only consisted of two items so one item could not be removed to try to improve the Cronbach s Alpha. Thus, the construct was still used in the research. 43

45 5. Data analysis 5.1 Descriptive statistics The survey was sent out to 735 respondents that worked in Organization X. The amount of respondents that answered the survey was 167. Seven respondents were excluded from the analysis, due to the fact that they showed signs of being non-focused. Therefore, 160 respondents were used, which lead to a response rate of 22 %. According to Jin (2011) the average response rate on online surveys is 6-15 %. The response rate of this research exceeded this average response rate value. The amount of answering males was 20 % of the respondents and 80 % were female. The quantity of respondents that had worked within the organization for 0-5 years was 13 %, 12 % had worked there for 6-10 years, 20 % had worked at the organization for years, and the majority, 55 % had worked at the organization more than 20 years. The amount of respondents that worked in the Work District X were 37 %, 61 % worked in the Work District Y and 2 % of the respondents worked in other districts. The quantity of respondents that belonged to the Administrative unit (financial and HR) was 19 %, 11 % belonged to the Ambulance unit, 19 % belonged to the Image- and functional unit (Xray), 22 % belonged to the Medicine clinic in Work District X, 16 % belonged to Care centers in Work District Y and 13 % of the respondents belonged to Ear- nose- throatand skin clinic. 5.2 Reliability test Table 5-1 illustrates the reliability of the constructs by measuring if respondents interpreted the items of each construct in a similar way. A Cronbach s Alpha > 0.6 has an acceptable reliability and a Cronbach s Alpha > 0.7 has a trustworthy reliability (Hair et al. 2003). The constructs Strategic Vision (SV), Stakeolders Images (SI), Internal Branding (IB) and Organizational Successes (OS) got a Cronbach s Alpha > 0.7. The constructs Organizational Culture (OC), Symbolic Benefits (SB), Work Environment (WE) and Type of Work (ToW) got a Cronbach s Alpha > 0.6. However, the construct Functionl Benefits (FB), consisting of three items, got a lower Cronbach s Alpha than 0.6. Since the construct consisted of three items one item could be removed and the reliability increased to The item that was removed was FB3 (See Table 4-2) that 44

46 was measured in Question 12 in the survey (See Appendix 3 and Appendix 4). The constructs of Services Attributes (SA) did receive a Cronbach s Alpha of and because it only consisted of two items, one item could not be removed to test if the reliability increased. However, the constructs was still kept in the research due the fact that the low Cronbach s Alpha could have occurred because of how the questions measuring the construct was formulated in the survey. Table 5-1: Reliability test of constructs and its items Construct Number of items Cronbach s Alpha Strategic vision (SV) Organizational culture (OC) Stakeholders images (SI) Internal branding (IB) Functional benefits (FB) Functional benefits (FB) Symbolic benefits (SB) Organizational successes (OS) Work environment (WE) Type of Work (ToW) Services attributes (SA) Validity test Before doing the validity test and checking correlations of the items, and their mean values, that measured the same construct was combined into one mean value for the construct. As illustrated in Table 5-2 none of the constructs did exceed a Pearson Correlation value of 0.9, when testing the correlation between the different constructs. This means that the constructs were measuring different concepts. However, three measures exceeded the significance level of 95 %, which is the acceptable level of significance used in marketing (Malhotra, 2010). The correlation between Stakeholders Images and Organizational Culture got a significance of 88 %, Functional Benefits and Organizational Culture got a significance of 94 % and Type of Work and Organizational Culture got a significance of 90 %. 45

47 Table 5-2: Correlation analysis SV Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) SV OC SI IB FB SB OS WE ToW SA OC SI IB FB SB OS WE ToW SA Pearson Correlation,226** Sig. (2-tailed) 0,004 Pearson Correlation,541** 0,124 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0,117 Pearson Correlation,707**,226**,459** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0,004 0 Pearson Correlation,403** 0,151,335**,370** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0, Pearson Correlation,442**,172*,487**,304**,378** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0, Pearson Correlation,693**,177*,764**,579**,445**,479** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0, Pearson Correlation,445**,263**,447**,369**,488**,446**,506** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0, Pearson Correlation,504** 0,13,477**,411**,479**,531**,495**,612** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0, Pearson Correlation,386**,156*,317**,476**,236**,252**,298**,489**,431** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0, ,003 0, ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Where: SV = Strategic Vision; OC = Organizational Successes; SI = Stakeholders Images; IB = Internal Branding; FB = Functional Benefits; SB = Symbolic Benefits; OS = Organizational Successes; WE = Work Environment; ToW = Type of Work; SA = Services Attributes 46

48 5.4 Analysis of the research questions One- Sample T- test By doing a One-Sample T-test on the combined items that measured the same constructs, RQ1 (What are the most attractive attributes of an employer brand to employees?) and RQ2 (What are the least attractive attributes of an employer brand to employees?) could be tested. The One sample T-test was carried out to test the extent to which the mean scores for the constructs were significantly higher than the mid-point (number 4) on the scale that ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. As Table 5-3 illustrates, all the constructs received mean scores that were significantly higher than the mid-point of the scale, i.e. the value of a 4. Moreover, all the constructs had a significance score of This indicates that the results of the One-Sample T- test, that constructs are higher than the value of a 4, are almost 100 % certain. The fact that all the constructs had a mean score higher than the mid-point on the scale, the score of 4, shows that all the constructs (attributes) are important to employees. Table 5-3: One- Sample T- test Test Value = 4 Construct t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Strategic Vision 24, ,89583 Organizational Culture 21, ,49688 Stakeholders Images 15, ,40625 Internal Branding 32, ,22188 Functional Benefits 38, ,325 Symbolic Benefits 23, ,71563 Organizational Successes 13, ,37812 Work Environment 69, ,51563 Type of Work 51, ,49792 Services Attributes 60, ,

49 As shown in Table 5-4, five constructs got a higher mean value than 6. The constructs that got a higher mean value than the value of 6 were Internal Branding, Functional Benefits, Work Environment, Type of Work and Services Attributes. The other five constructs got a mean value between 5 and 6. These constructs were Strategic Vision, Organizational Culture, Stakeholders Images, Symbolic Benefits and Organizational Successes. The three constructs that got the highest mean values were Work Environment, Type of Work and Services Attributes. The two constructs that got the lowest mean values were Stakeholders Images and Organizational Successes. Further, these two constructs also were the only constructs that had standard deviations that exceeded Therefore, these two constructs can be said to significantly deviate from the average. Table 5-4: One- Sample Statistics Construct N Mean Std. Deviation Strategic Vision 160 5,8958 0,98073 Organizational Culture 160 5,4969 0,87685 Stakeholders Images 160 5,4063 1,14478 Internal Branding 160 6,2219 0,85918 Functional Benefits 160 6,325 0,75694 Symbolic Benefits 160 5,7156 0,91093 Organizational Successes 160 5,3781 1,27105 Work Environment 160 6,5156 0,46045 Type of Work 160 6,4979 0,61201 Services Attributes 160 6,5938 0,54133 Too see the most and least attractive items (their mean values) that were used to measure every construct, see Appendix One- Way ANOVA test An ANOVA test was done to be able to answer RQ3 (What attributes vary in attractiveness between departments (units) in an organization?) to see if constructs (attributes) differed among units in the health care organization. As illustrated in Table 5-5, three constructs Symbolic Benefits, Work Environment, and Services attributes got a value less than 0.05 in the level of significance. The construct Type of Work got a value less than 0.1 in the level of significance. Therefore, the four constructs did vary between units. The other constructs got a higher value of 48

50 significance than 0.05 and 0.1 and therefore they did not significantly vary between units. Table 5-5: One- Way ANOVA Sum of Squares Mean Square F Sig. Construct df Strategic Vision Between Groups 6, ,348 1,42 0,22 Within Groups 146, ,949 Total 152, Organizational Culture Between Groups 2, ,421 0,54 0,746 Within Groups 120, ,78 Total 122, Stakeholders Images Between Groups 9,77 5 1,954 1,515 0,188 Within Groups 198, ,29 Total 208, Internal Branding Between Groups 5, ,113 1,533 0,183 Within Groups 111, ,726 Total 117, Functional Benefits Between Groups 3, ,711 1,25 0,288 Within Groups 87, ,568 Total 91,1 159 Symbolic Benefits Between Groups 12, ,588 3,35 0,007 Within Groups 118, ,773 Total 131, Organizational Successes Between Groups 6,35 5 1,27 0,781 0,565 Within Groups 250, ,627 Total 256, Work Environment Between Groups 3, ,654 3,307 0,007 Within Groups 30, ,198 Total 33, Type of Work Between Groups 3, ,721 1,985 0,084 Within Groups 55, ,363 Total 59, Services attributes Between Groups 4, ,89 3,251 0,008 Within Groups 42, ,274 Total 46,

51 5.4.3 Post Hoc (LSD) test The One-Way ANOVA test could tell that four constructs varied significantly between units, but the test could not tell between what units they varied. To be able to answer RQ4 (Between which departments (units) do the attributes vary in attractiveness in an organization?) to see between what units that the constructs varied a Post Hoc (LSD) test was made. As illustrated in Table 5-6 the construct Symbolic Benefits varied significantly among all six units (Administrative, Image- and functional unit (X-ray), Medicine clinic in Work District X, Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic, Ambulance unit and Care centers in Work District Y). The construct of Work Environment varied significantly among all six units. The construct of Type of Work varied significantly among three units of six (Ambulance unit, Image- and functional unit (X-ray) and Care centers in Work District Y). The construct Services Attributes also varied significantly among all six units. (See the Table in Appendix 7 for the complete results from the Post Hoc (LSD) test) 50

52 Table 5-6: The Post Hoc (LSD) test with significant measures Construct Unit Unit Mean Std. Error Sig. Difference Symbolic Benefits Administrative unit Image and functional unit -,70699* 0, ,002 Medicine clinic in W.D. X -,62381* 0, ,005 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic -,54762* 0,2501 0,03 Ambulance unit Image and functional unit -,62856* 0, ,019 Medicine clinic in W.D. X -,54538* 0, ,037 Image and functional unit Care centers in W.D. Y,53071* 0, ,025 Work Environment Administrative unit Image and functional unit -,29516* 0, ,01 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic -,31667* 0,1265 0,013 Ambulance unit Image and functional unit -,40987* 0, ,003 Medicine clinic in W.D. X -,31471* 0, ,018 Care centers in W.D. Y -,33201* 0, ,018 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic -,43137* 0, ,003 Type of Work Ambulance unit Image and functional unit -,49209* 0, ,008 Care centers in W.D. Y -,45777* 0,188 0,016 Services Attributes Administrative unit Image and functional unit -,35591* 0, ,009 Ambulance unit Image and functional unit -,58729* 0, * The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Medicine clinic in W.D. X -,36471* 0, ,02 Care centers in W.D. Y -,39932* 0, ,016 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic -,43137* 0, ,012 Where: Medicine clinic in W.D X stands for Medicine clinic in Work District X and Care centers in W.D. Y stands for Care centers in Work District Y 51

53 6. Conclusions and implications 6.1 Discussion Although the findings from this research indicated that all ten attributes were important to employees there were some differences. The most attractive attributes of an employer brand to employees were the attributes of Work Environment, Type of Work and Services Attributes. Maxwell & Knox (2009) identified in their research that these three attributes were collectively more or less important among five different organizations and their employer brands. However, their research did not include an organization in the health care sector. Therefore, this research examined that these three attributes also were important in a health care organization, and moreover, they actually were the most attractive attributes in that organization. In this study, the least attractive attributes of an employer brand to employees were the attributes of Stakeholders Images and Organizational Successes. Hatch & Schultz (2008) argue that Stakeholder s Images play a central role in corporate branding. Moreover, Maxwell & Knox (2009) identified that Organizational Successes play a significant role as an attribute in employer branding. These two attributes refer to an organization as a whole and its corporate brand. In addition to this, Maxwell & Knox (2009), Foster et al. (2010) and Moroko & Uncles (2008) argue that the employer brand has to be integrated with the corporate brand of an organization to become strong. Even though, Stakeholders Images and Organizational Successes were attractive to employees in the health care organization, they were the least attractive ones. Therefore, these attributes that considered the aspects of a corporate brand were important, but the least important ones. Furthermore, this may indicate that the three most attractive attributes that are closer to employees and their daily work in the health care organization are more essential than attributes considering employees interests in the organization as a whole. This can indicate that personal interests and the satisfaction of personal needs and wants among employees are of greater importance than the interests and satisfaction of the entire organization. However, it is recognized that employees at the health care organization 52

54 consider attributes that are more than employment specific to be important for their employment in the organization. The attributes of Strategic Vision and Organizational Culture also were attractive to employees. According to Hatch & Schultz (2008), these two attributes also play a central role in corporate branding along with Stakeholders Images. As argued by Maxwell & Knox (2009), Foster et al. (2010) and Moroko & Uncles (2008), an employer brand has to be integrated with the corporate brand of an organization. The fact that these two attributes were attractive and important to employees in this research indicates what Maxwell & Knox (2009), Foster et al. (2010) and Moroko & Uncles (2008) already have claimed is true. Punjaisri & Wilson (2011) and Foster et al. (2010) claimed that internal branding is linked to corporate branding. Further on, Foster et al. (2010) claim that internal branding, along with employer branding, can be seen as extensions of corporate branding. In this research, the attribute of Internal Branding was attractive to employees, which indicate that it was important to employees and their employment in the health care organization. Therefore, it is argued that the concept of internal branding could be interlinked with employer branding. Furthermore, the attributes of Functional Benefits and Symbolic Benefits also were attractive to employees in the health care organization. Lievens et al. (2007) findings showed that Symbolic Benefits (feeling pride in belonging to an employing organization) were more important than Functional Benefits (salary, condition of employment) to current employees. However, this research indicates the opposite, even though the difference between the two attributes was not very significant. Therefore, it can be said that the employees in the health care organization preferred Functional Benefits to Symbolic Benefits. The three most important attributes varied in importance between units in the organization. The attributes of Work Environment and Services Attributes varied in importance among all the units in the organization, whereas the attribute of Type of Work varied among three units (Ambulance unit, Image- and functional unit (X-ray) and Care centers in Work District Y) in the organization. Another attribute, Symbolic Benefits, also varied in importance between all the units in the organization. Maxwell & Knox (2009) concluded that the attractiveness of attributes of an employer brand could 53

55 vary between different organizations, based on the Social Identity Approach to Organizational Identification. However, Ashforth & Mael (1989) argued that departments in an organization could perceive an organization differently, due to the fact that they belong to different social groups in the organization. In this research, employees in some units in the health care organization perceived some of the attributes differently. The variation between these units indicates that the units identify themselves with different social groups and therefore have different interests in the attractiveness of attributes. As Dutton et al. (1994) claimed that employees would become psychologically attached to an organization or department when they incorporate attributes of an organization or department into their own self-concepts. Therefore, the variation of the attractiveness of some attributes between units can be explained through the fact that the employees in these units are not psychologically attached to the organization in exactly the similar way. To summarize, all the ten attributes included in the research were important to employees in the health care organization. The fact that the attributes were adopted from the literature on corporate-, internal- and employer branding indicates that these areas of branding are important in an attractive employer brand. However, it should be recognized that some attributes might vary in attractiveness between some units in an organization. 6.2 Theoretical and managerial implications Theoretical implications The findings add to the research about employer branding by being a quantitative study applied in the context of these specific attributes and their attractiveness in an employer brand. Maxwell & Knox (2009) identified important categories and sub-categories of attributes, both attractive and less attractive ones, in employer brands. This research confirmed that some of these attributes were important in employer branding. However, by including attributes from both corporate branding and internal branding, this research also showed that these two concepts were important for employees and their employment in an organization. Therefore this research gives evidence to the existing literature on employer branding that corporate-and internal branding should be more included in the 54

56 theory of employer branding. The research also indicates that corporate-, internal- and employer branding are linked to each other, as suggested by Foster et al. (2010). Lievens et al. (2007) found out that symbolic benefits are more important to current employees than functional benefits. However, this research indicated the opposite, even though the difference was not that significant. With this said, this research adds to the specific concepts of Functional- and Symbolic Benefits in employer branding that Symbolic Benefits are not necessarily preferred over Functional Benefits in attractiveness to current employees. Maxwell & Knox (2009) has already concluded that attributes in an employer brand could vary in importance between different organizations. However, this research indicates that attributes in an employer brand also can vary in importance between units in an organization, as Ashforth & Mael (1989) have suggested. Therefore this research brings further evidence to the theory of Social Identity Approach to Organizational Identification in the context of employer branding and that attributes in employer brands can vary between units in an organization. Managerial implications It is agreed with Maxell & Knox (2009) that every organization has to identify their own set of attributes that are important to make their employer brand attractive to employees. Thus, this process can become costly so the attributes that have been examined in this research can be a starting point for organizations and managers when they try to identify their own attributes. Moreover, the research identified that all the ten attributes were important to employees. However, some of the attributes varied in importance among some or all of the units. Managers should therefore try to identify if this is occurring in their own organizations and try to coordinate the attributes among units and employees to minimize these variances. The first attributes to work with, according to this research, could be the three most attractive ones. When it comes to the Work Environment, managers could try to think more about how the work environment is designed and how it works from a social point of view. Moreover, when it comes to the Type of Work attribute, let employees know that they do a good and meaningful job and listen to their needs and wants. When it 55

57 comes to Services Attributes, it is important that employees feel that the products or services that the organization offer are of good quality and that they bring utility to customers. Further on, managers should let employees have opinions regarding corporate activities, like the strategic vision and goals, to get the organization s brand behind the employees and not vice versa. This is based on the fact that corporate aspects of organization were important to employees in the organization in this study. Therefore, it is crucial to make the employees understand the importance of the successes of the organization as a whole, but it is also critically for the employer to understand that the situation and interests of every employee are important. The satisfaction of every single employee might be the key to success of the organization. 6.3 Limitations This research consisted of ten attributes where six of them were adopted from empirical studies concerning employer branding. Three attributes were adopted from conceptual research concerning corporate branding and one from conceptual research regarding internal branding. The attributes taken from conceptual research on corporate branding and internal branding have very likely not been empirical tested in this specific context of employer branding before. Therefore, the fact that these specific ten attributes and their items have been applied in this study might have affected the Cronbach s Alpha on some constructs (attributes). Four attributes (Organizational Successes, Work Environment, Type of Work and Services Attributes) were adopted from Maxwell & Knox (2009) and applied in this quantitative study might not have been broken down into the most appropriate items. Moreover, they could preferably been broken down into more items to measure the constructs. For example, the construct (attribute) Services Attributes, consisting of two items, got a lower Cronbach s Alpha than 0.6. Since the construct only consisted of two items one item could not be removed to test if the reliability increased. Question 8 and Question 9 in the survey (See Appendix 3 and Appendix 4) measured the construct of Services Attributes could have been more well formulated. Moreover, some units in the study might have misinterpreted the questions, because they do not have direct contact with patients on a daily basis. For example, the Administrative unit does not work directly with patients in the same way as Care Centers do. 56

58 Even though the other constructs got a higher Cronbach s Alpha than 0.6, some of the constructs only consisted of two items, when three items or more would have been more appropriate. However, the problems with items partly were dependent on the fact that, as Kimpakorn & Tocquer (2009) say, the literature on employer branding is relatively recent and as Lievens et al. (2007) and Wilden et al. (2010) say, overall limited research has been done in the field of employer branding. This affected how many items the different constructs could be broken down into in this research. Moreover, the research only focused on Services Attributes, however Maxwell & Knox (2009) also identified Products Attributes, which could be interesting to examine for organizations that produce products. A major limitation in the research was that only one organization in one type of industry was investigated. Moreover, a cross-sectional research design was used because of restricted time frame of the research. However, a longitudinal research design in the health care organization would be appropriate to get an even higher response rate among respondents. Only 6 units among 46 possible were investigated when it came to the attractiveness and difference of attributes between units in the organization. With this said, only current employees working in the organization in these six units was investigated and not any potential employees. Therefore, it might be hard to generalize results on the whole organization by only examining six units. Finally, 80 % of the respondents that answered the survey were females, whereas only 20 % were males. With this said, the respondents were not equally represented in gender. 57

59 6.4 Suggestions for future research The attributes taken from conceptual literature regarding corporate branding and internal branding need to be included in more empirical studies concerning employer branding. Furthermore, only ten attributes were investigated. However, there might be more attributes from corporate-, internal- and employer branding that are important to discover in in the context of employer branding. Due to the fact that internal branding was given a positive importance, more attributes of this construct (attribute) should be investigated. The same goes for corporate branding. The constructs used in the research could also preferably be broken down into more items to get more consistent and reliable measures of the constructs in the future. This is especially important because of the fact that limited research has been done in the field of employer branding and that the literature on employer branding is relatively recent. In this study an organization that provides services to customers (patients) were used. Therefore, the attribute of Services Attributes adopted from Maxwell & Knox (2009) was used, whereas Maxwell & Knox (2009) also identified that the attribute of Products Attributes were important in employer branding. Therefore, research that includes the attribute of Products Attributes and examines that attribute is suggested in the future. It is also suggested that a Regression Analysis of how Corporate Branding, Internal Branding and Employer Branding are related to each other and how they lead to employer brand attractiveness should be done in the future. If a conceptual model of how these three concepts, and attributes from them, lead to employer brand attractiveness is developed then there is a possibility to test how these concepts affect one another. Also, more research about an organization s employer brand attractiveness as a whole has to be conducted due to the fact that this research only identified specific attributes. It is recommended that a longitudinal research design should be applied in the health care organization used in this study to get more consistent results from the organization. If another study is done in the organization, the representation of both genders should also preferably be closer to fifty-fifty. More males could preferably be investigated to get a more even distribution of the genders in the health care organization. Further on, 58

60 more organizations in the industry of the health care sector, as well as other industries, need further investigations to get more reliable and valid results. Especially organizations that produce products need to be investigated, where Maxwell & Knox s (2009) identified Product Attributes can be included and tested. Some of the attributes in this research varied in importance between units in the organization. More units would be interesting to investigate in the future, because when it comes to the chosen organization in this research, only 6 of 46 possible units were tested. The attributes may have varied between more units in the investigated organization if more units had been included. More research about why and how attributes of an employer brand vary between units also need further investigations. Finally, it could be interesting to investigate what organizations should do and how they could manage when attributes vary in importance between units in organizations. To take it further, if investigating how the attributes vary between departments it may give a possibility to find out why the departments have different interests in the attributes. If finding the reason to why the attributes vary among departments (units), it might be possible to find tools to interpret the understanding and identification of the organization as a whole among employees. 59

61 Reference List Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., Day, G. S., Leone, R. P. (2011), Marketing Research International Student Version, 10 th Edition, John Wiley & Sons Ambler,T., Barrow, S. (1996), The employer brand, Journal of Brand Management, 4:3, pp Ashforth, B. E., Mael, F. (1989), Social Identity Theory and the Organization, The Academy of Management Review, 14:1, pp Backhaus, K., Tikoo, S. (2004), Conceptualizing and researching employer branding, Career Development International, 9:5, pp Balmer, J. M. T., Gray, E. R. (2003), Corporate brands: what are they? What of them?, European Journal of Marketing, 37:7/8, pp Bryman, A., Bell, E. (2005), Företagsekonomiska forskningsmetoder, 1st Edition, Liber Christensen, L., Engdahl, N., Grääs, C., Haglund, L. (2008) Marknadsundersökning en handbok, 2nd Edition, Studentlitteratur AB Cole, M. S., Bruch, H. (2006), Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter?, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27:5, pp Creswell, J. W. (2009), "Research design, qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches" 3th Edition, SAGE Davies. G (2008), Employer branding and its influence on managers European Journal of Marketing, 42:5/6, pp De Chernatony, L., McDonald, M. (2003), Creating Powerful Brands, 3 rd Edition, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd Reviewed: Duffy B, Smith K, Terhanian G, Bremer J (2005) Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys International Journal of Market Research, 47:6, pp Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B., Shortell, S. (2002), Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: the impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47:3, pp Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M. (1991), Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in organizational adaption, Academy of Management Journal, 34:3, pp

62 Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., Harquail, C. V. (1994), Organizational images and member identification, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39:2, pp Edwards, M. R. (2010), An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory, Personnel Review, 39:1-2, pp Elsbach, K. D., Kramer, R. M. (1996), Members responses to organizational identity threats: encountering and countering the business week rankings, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41:3, pp Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Oscarsson, H., Wängnerud, L. (2012), Metodpraktikan: Konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad, 4 th Edition, Norstedts Juridik AB Farrar, D. E., Glauber, R.R. (1967), Multicollinearity in regression analysis: The problem revisited, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 49:1, pp Foster, C., Punjaisri, K., Cheng, R. (2010), Exploring the relationship between corporate, internal and employer branding, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19:6, pp Gaddam, S. (2008), Identifying the Relationship Between Behavioral Motives and Entrepreneurial Intentions: An Empirical Study Based on the Perceptions of Business Management Students., ICFAI Journal of Management Research, 7:5, pp Ghauri, P., Gronhaug, K. (2005), Research Methods in Business Studies A Practical Guide 3 rd Edition, Pearson Education Limited Grönroos, C. (2007), Service Management and Marketing: Customer Management in Service Competition, 3 rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons Hair, J. F., Babin, B., Money, A. H., Samouel, P. (2003) Essentials of Business Research Methods, Wiley & Sons, Inc., Danvers, MA, USA Harris, F., de Chernatony, L. (2001), Corporate branding and corporate brand performance, European Journal of Marketing, 35:3, pp Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., Turner, J. C. (2000), Social identity, self-categorization, and work motivation: rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organizational outcomes, Applied Psychology: an International Review, 49:3, pp Hatch, M. J., Schultz, M. (2003), Bringing the corporation into corporate branding, European Journal of Marketing, 37:7/8, pp Hatch, M. J., Schultz, M. (2008), Taking Brand Initiative: How Companies Can Align Strategy, Culture and Identity Through Corporate Branding, 1 st Edition, Jossey-Bass 61

63 Reviewed: Hulberg, J. (2006), Integrating corporate branding and sociological paradigms: A literature study, Journal of Brand Management, 14:1/2, pp Reviewed: Jin, L. (2011), Improving response rates in web surveys with default settings, International Journal of Market Research, 53: 1, pp Kimpakorn, N., Tocquer, G. (2009), Employees commitment to brands in the service sector: Luxury hotel chains in Thailand., Journal of Brand Management, 16:8, pp King, C., Grace, D. (2005), Exploring the Role of Employees in the Delivery of the brand: A Case Study Approach, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8:3, pp Knox, S., Freeman, C. (2006), Measuring and Managing Employer Brand Image in the Service Industry, Journal of Marketing Management, 22:7/8, pp Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Harker, M., Brennan, R. (2009), Marketing an Introduction, European Edition, 1 st Edition, Pearson Education Kylén, Jan Axel (2004), Att få svar: intervju, enkät, observation, 1st Edition, Bonnier Utbildning Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G., Anseel, F. (2007), Organizational Identity and employer Image: Towards a Unifying Framework, British Journal of Management, 18:1, pp Maxwell, R., Knox, S. (2009), Motivating employees to live the brand : a comparative case study of employer brand attractiveness within the firm, Journal of Marketing Management, 25:9-10, pp Malhotra, N. K. (2010), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation", 6 th Edition, Pearson Education Nadira A. Hira Attracting the twentysomething worker Reviewed: Moroko, L., Uncles, M. D. (2008), Characteristics of successful employer brands, Journal of Brand Management, 16:3, pp

64 Mosley, R.W (2007), Customer experience, organisational culture and the employer brand, Journal of Brand Management, 15:2, pp Nolan, S. A., Heinezen, T. E. (2007), Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, First Edition, Worth Publishers Inc., U.S. Priyadarshi, P. (2011) Employer brand image as predictor of employee satisfaction, affective commitment & turnover Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46:3, pp Punjaisri, K., Evanschitzky, H., Wilson, A. (2009), Internal Branding: An Enabler of Employees Brand Supporting-Behaviours, Journal of Service Management, 20:2, pp Punjaisri, K., Wilson, A. (2011), Internal Branding Process: Key Mechanisms, Outcomes and Moderating Factors, European Journal of Marketing, 45:9, pp Rosethorn, H. Members of Bernard Hodes Group and Contributors (2009), The Employer Brand Keeping Faith With The Deal, Gower Publishing Ltd, Cornwall - The Central Bureau of Statistics in Sweden Reviewed: Schlager, T., Bodderas, M. Maas, P., Cachelin, J. L. (2011), The influence of the employee brand on employees attitudes relevant for service branding: an empirical investigation, Journal of Services Marketing, 25:7, pp Reviewed: Urde, Mats (2003), Core Value-Based Corporate Brand Building, European Journal of Marketing, 37:7, pp Wilden, R., Gudergan, S., Lings, I. (2010), Employer branding: strategic implications for staff recruitment, Journal of Marketing Management, 26:1-2, pp Yin, R. K. (2008), Case Study Research Design and Methods, 4 th Edition, SAGE Publications Inc 63

65 Appendices Appendix 1 Pre- study: Organization X An exploratory interview was made the 8 th of February 2012 with the director of public relations at the health care organization. The interview took place at the head office of the organization in Sweden, between The interview was of a semistructured type, meaning that some key questions where written down before the interview. The interview was used as a pre-study before conducting the main data collection instrument to understand how the organization worked with employer branding practically. Key questions to the interview Can you describe the organization and its different departments? Why did you start working with your employer brand? Did you experience any problems that you wanted to solve by starting working with employer branding? What goals do you have when it comes to developing your employer brand? How does the daily work with the employer brand being executed? What does the corporate brand the organization stands for? Are their any differences between the corporate brand and the employer brand of the organization? The information from the interview with the director of public relations The health care organization consists of approximately employees that work in nine different centers. Each centers consists in their turn by different sub-units. The organization is considered to be a quality-controlled organization that offers good, safe and accessible health care. Providing patients with good treatment from a holistic view and using resources effectively are of main focus for the organization. The external image of the organization, through patient survey, has showed that the organization has many satisfied patients. Thus, medias image of the organization as an employer can often be of a more negative kind. For example, one view that media has projected is that the organization has many dedicated employees that are working to develop health care, 64

66 where a more negative image is that the organization contains of long delays for patients, stressful work environment, poor wages for employees and cutbacks. During the fall of 2010 the organization started working with the process of strengthening their employer brand. The communication department and the HR department of the organization started this process together because they saw the need and the opportunity of working with their employer brand. The reason to this was that the organization is going to face large recruitment needs, due to the fact that many employees will retire in the near future. Previous investigations within the organization show that they need to employ approximately people over a five-year period, calculated between the years of During the same period, approximately 40 managers will retire. The organization considers that out of these retirements, certain jobs are easier to recruit, while others require more effort to compensate. Thus, the most difficult jobs to compensate are biomedical scientists, specialist nurses, medical specialties, psychologists, dentists and managers. Competition and labor mobility is increasing and according to the organization, they need to conduct long-term efforts to attract new, talented and competent employees, but also to retain the employees that they already have today. The communications and HR departments have created a marketing plan designed to guide them in their efforts to strengthen their employer brand. Employees are seen as key figures in the employer brand and during recruitment processes. The aim of the organization and their employer branding is to improve the image of organization as an attractive employer. Also, the employer branding is about communicating the benefits of working within the organization and to communicate promises to employees that can be lived up to. When building the employer brand, the base is clear vision and goals, health promotion, a stable economy, a meaningful workplace, the history of the organization, storytelling, have a modern approach to leadership and staff participation and development opportunities. 65

67 Appendix 2 The Swedish version of the letter of intent Hej! Som medarbetare i Organisation X är du en viktig tillgång. Därför vill vi, tre studenter från Linnéuniversitet, med hjälp av en enkät undersöka vad du tycker är viktigt hos din arbetsgivare, Organisation X. Detta genomförs med godkännande av Organisation Xs HR-direktör och kommunikationsdirektör. Enkäten består av 28 frågor som tar cirka 10 minuter att besvara. Samtliga enkäter kommer att behandlas anonymt. Detta är en möjlighet att anonymt uttrycka vad som är viktigt för dig på din arbetsplats. Dina svar är av stor betydelse. Om du har några frågor eller kommentarer så tveka inte på att kontakta Erik Karlsson på e-postadress: xxx /telefonnummer: xxx eller Daniel Jönsson på e-postadress: xxx/telefonnummer: xxx. Tack för din medverkan! Med vänliga hälsningar Erik Karlsson, Daniel Jönsson och Stephanie Sundström 66

68 Appendix 3 The Swedish version of the survey 67

69 68

70 69

71 70

72 71

73 Appendix 4 The English version of the survey Organization X as an employer When you are answering the questions below please answer how you feel that your work place should be and not how it is today. The questions below should be ranked (on a scale from 1-7) depending on the importance that the statements have for you personally. If you are choosing the value of a 1 then you strongly disagree with the statement and if you are answering the value of a 7 then you strongly agree with the statement. The survey is completely anonymous and marketing students at the Linnaeus University will process the collected material. Thank you for your participation! Q1: It is important that I feel pride in working at Organization X. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q2: Patients perceptions about my employer are of great importance to me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q3: It is of significance to me that I contribute to my work place with knowledge and joy. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q4: It is important to get along with my colleagues. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q5: It is important to have the same values as my colleagues. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q6: It is important to get along with my managers. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q7: It is NOT important to have the same values as my managers. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q8: It is important that work tasks are executed in a way that satisfies patients. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q9: The services and caring that Organization X offers to patients are important. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 72

74 Q10: My salary is of great importance to me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q11: Conditions of employment is important to me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q12: Other benefits, like health maintenance or a personnel club, are important to me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q13: The opportunity of career development, through leadership and executive position, is important to me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q14: The opportunity of career development, in the form of deeper knowledge through education and researching, is important to me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q15: It is important that my personality can develop through my work. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q16: It is important that to me that my work place is designed in a way that satisfies me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q17: My work tasks are of importance to me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q18: It is of great importance that my work tasks are diverse. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q19: A good work environment is significant to me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q20: The way other organizations in the health care perceive Organization X is important to me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q21: Citizens view on Organization X is of great importance. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 73

75 Q22: Organization X s achieved successes are important to me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q23: Organization X s future successes are important to me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q24: It is important to have explicit guidelines for my work. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q25: It is important that Organization X communicate its values in an explicit way. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q26: A clear plan for the future is important to me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q27: It is desirous to me to be able to participate in the future developments of Organization X. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Q28: It is important to me to have an impact on the development of my work place. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Gender Male Female The amount of years worked at Organization X. 0-5 years 6-10 years years More than 20 years Work district Work District X Work District Y Other district Today I work at The administrative unit (financial or human resources) Ambulance unit Medicine clinic in Work District X Image- and functional unit (X-ray) Care centers in Work District Y Ear- nose- throat and skin clinic 74

76 Appendix 5 Centers and sub- units of Organization X Center Sub-units Emergency Center Acute geriatric clinic Emergency clinic Resource unit Ambulance unit Children- and Women Center Children- and youth rehabilitation Children- and youth clinic Children- and youth psychiatric clinic Women clinic Mothers- and children health psychologists Surgeon Center Anesthesia clinic Surgeon clinic Orthopedic clinic Secretarial unit in Work District Y Care unit surgeon center in Work District Y Ear-, nose-, throat and skin clinic Medical Center Infection clinic Medical clinic in Work District X Medical clinic in Work District Y Oncologist clinic Eye clinic Medical Service Center Image- and functional medicine Clinical chemistry- and transfusion medicine Clinical microbiology Medical physics and technology Pathologist unit Infection control in Work District Y Primary Health- and Rehab Center Health centers 1177 Health care advice Centers of doctors on call The organization for rehabilitation of the organization Coordinators for diabetes, asthma and incontinence Resources for investigations of dementia Drug prevention Medical foot care Psychiatry Center Regional psychiatry clinic Adult psychiatry Care- and treatment facility Z Service Center Financial administration Properties Information technology Nutrition and restaurants Cleaning Human resources Procurement department Dental Care Center Dental care Dental care on call Source: The director of public relations at the organization 75

77 Appendix 6 Mean values on items within the constructs Table: Items mean values Descriptive Statistics Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation SV ,84 1,104 SV ,51 1,41 SV ,34 0,925 OC ,49 1,052 OC2Pos ,5 0,997 SI ,82 1,434 SI ,71 1,376 SI ,69 1,204 IB ,07 1,111 IB ,37 0,815 FB ,28 0,877 FB ,37 0,88 FB ,18 1,627 SB ,97 1,192 SB ,56 0,759 SB ,84 1,548 SB ,49 1,558 OS ,29 1,32 OS ,46 1,312 WE ,77 0,479 WE ,21 0,817 WE ,43 0,782 WE ,66 0,561 ToW ,41 0,827 ToW ,47 0,784 ToW ,61 0,709 SA ,56 0,715 SA ,62 0,661 Where: SV = Strategic Vision; OC = Organizational Successes; SI = Stakeholders Images; IB = Internal Branding; FB = Functional Benefits; SB = Symbolic Benefits; OS = Organizational Successes; WE = Work Environment; ToW = Type of Work; SA = Services Attributes 76

78 Appendix 7 The entire Post Hoc (LSD) test Table: Post Hoc (LSD) test Construct Unit Unit Mean Std. Error Sig. Difference Symbolic Benefits Administrative unit Ambulance unit - 0, , ,769 Image and functional unit -,70699* 0, ,002 Medicine clinic in W.D. X -,62381* 0, ,005 Care centers in W.D. Y - 0, , ,455 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic -,54762* 0,2501 0,03 Ambulance unit Administrative unit 0, , ,769 Image and functional unit -,62856* 0, ,019 Medicine clinic in W.D. X -,54538* 0, ,037 Care centers in W.D. Y - 0, , ,722 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic - 0, , ,104 Image and functional unit Administrative unit,70699* 0, ,002 Ambulance unit,62856* 0, ,019 Medicine clinic in W.D. X 0, ,2168 0,702 Care centers in W.D. Y,53071* 0, ,025 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic 0, , ,522 Medicine clinic in W.D. X Administrative unit,62381* 0, ,005 Ambulance unit,54538* 0, ,037 Image and functional unit - 0, ,2168 0,702 Care centers in W.D. Y 0, , ,051 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic 0, , ,754 Care centers in W.D. Y Administrative unit 0, , ,455 Ambulance unit 0, , ,722 Image and functional unit -,53071* 0, ,025 Medicine clinic in W.D. X - 0, , ,051 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic - 0, ,2579 0,152 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic Administrative unit,54762* 0,2501 0,03 Ambulance unit 0, , ,104 Image and functional unit - 0, , ,522 Medicine clinic in W.D. X - 0, , ,754 Care centers in W.D. Y 0, ,2579 0,152 ( Medicine clinic in W.D X stands for Medicine clinic in Work District X and Care centers in W.D. Y stands for Care centers in Work District Y) 77

79 Work Environm ent Administrative unit Ambulance unit 0, , ,397 Image and functional unit -,29516* 0, ,01 Medicine clinic in W.D. X - 0,2 0, ,073 Care centers in W.D. Y - 0, , ,07 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic -,31667* 0,1265 0,013 Ambulance unit Administrative unit - 0, , ,397 Image and functional unit -,40987* 0, ,003 Medicine clinic in W.D. X -,31471* 0, ,018 Care centers in W.D. Y -,33201* 0, ,018 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic -,43137* 0, ,003 Image and functional unit Administrative unit,29516* 0, ,01 Ambulance unit,40987* 0, ,003 Medicine clinic in W.D. X 0, , ,387 Care centers in W.D. Y 0, , ,511 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic - 0, , ,864 Medicine clinic in W.D. X Administrative unit 0,2 0, ,073 Ambulance unit,31471* 0, ,018 Image and functional unit - 0, , ,387 Care centers in W.D. Y - 0, , ,881 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic - 0, , ,343 Care centers in W.D. Y Administrative unit 0, , ,07 Ambulance unit,33201* 0, ,018 Image and functional unit - 0, , ,511 Medicine clinic in W.D. X 0, , ,881 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic - 0, , ,447 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic Administrative unit,31667* 0,1265 0,013 Ambulance unit,43137* 0, ,003 Image and functional unit 0, , ,864 Medicine clinic in W.D. X 0, , ,343 Care centers in W.D. Y 0, , ,447 ( Medicine clinic in W.D X stands for Medicine clinic in Work District X and Care centers in W.D. Y stands for Care centers in Work District Y) 78

80 Type of Work Administrative unit Ambulance unit 0, , ,197 Image and functional unit - 0, , ,101 Medicine clinic in W.D. X 0, , ,975 Care centers in W.D. Y - 0, ,1615 0,174 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic - 0, , ,803 Ambulance unit Administrative unit - 0, , ,197 Image and functional unit -,49209* 0, ,008 Medicine clinic in W.D. X - 0, , ,194 Care centers in W.D. Y -,45777* 0,188 0,016 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic - 0, , ,156 Image and functional unit Administrative unit 0, , ,101 Ambulance unit,49209* 0, ,008 Medicine clinic in W.D. X 0,2596 0, ,083 Care centers in W.D. Y 0, , ,831 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic 0, , ,215 Medicine clinic in W.D. X Administrative unit - 0, , ,975 Ambulance unit 0, , ,194 Image and functional unit - 0,2596 0, ,083 Care centers in W.D. Y - 0, , ,151 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic - 0, , ,775 Care centers in W.D. Y Administrative unit 0, ,1615 0,174 Ambulance unit,45777* 0,188 0,016 Image and functional unit - 0, , ,831 Medicine clinic in W.D. X 0, , ,151 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic 0, , ,317 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic Administrative unit 0, , ,803 Ambulance unit 0, , ,156 Image and functional unit - 0, , ,215 Medicine clinic in W.D. X 0, , ,775 Care centers in W.D. Y - 0, , ,317 ( Medicine clinic in W.D X stands for Medicine clinic in Work District X and Care centers in W.D. Y stands for Care centers in Work District Y) 79

81 Services Attributes Administrative unit Ambulance unit 0, , ,147 Image and functional unit -,35591* 0, ,009 Medicine clinic in W.D. X - 0, , ,307 Care centers in W.D. Y - 0, , ,233 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic - 0,2 0, ,181 Ambulance unit Administrative unit - 0, , ,147 Image and functional unit -,58729* 0, Medicine clinic in W.D. X -,36471* 0, ,02 Care centers in W.D. Y -,39932* 0, ,016 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic -,43137* 0, ,012 Image and functional unit Administrative unit,35591* 0, ,009 Ambulance unit,58729* 0, Medicine clinic in W.D. X 0, , ,087 Care centers in W.D. Y 0, , ,179 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic 0, , ,293 Medicine clinic in W.D. X Administrative unit 0, , ,307 Ambulance unit,36471* 0, ,02 Image and functional unit - 0, , ,087 Care centers in W.D. Y - 0, , ,799 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic - 0, ,1444 0,645 Care centers in W.D. Y Administrative unit 0, , ,233 Ambulance unit,39932* 0, ,016 Image and functional unit - 0, , ,179 Medicine clinic in W.D. X 0, , ,799 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic - 0, , ,835 Ear- nose- throat- and skin clinic Administrative unit 0,2 0, ,181 Ambulance unit,43137* 0, ,012 Image and functional unit - 0, , ,293 Medicine clinic in W.D. X 0, ,1444 0,645 Care centers in W.D. Y 0, , ,835 ( Medicine clinic in W.D X stands for Medicine clinic in Work District X and Care centers in W.D. Y stands for Care centers in Work District Y) 80

82 Linnaeus University a firm focus on quality and competence On 1 January 2010 Växjö University and the University of Kalmar merged to form Linnaeus University. This new university is the product of a will to improve the quality, enhance the appeal and boost the development potential of teaching and research, at the same time as it plays a prominent role in working closely together with local society. Linnaeus University offers an attractive knowledge environment characterised by high quality and a competitive portfolio of skills. Linnaeus University is a modern, international university with the emphasis on the desire for knowledge, creative thinking and practical innovations. For us, the focus is on proximity to our students, but also on the world around us and the future ahead. Linnæus University SE Kalmar/SE Växjö Telephone