Got Employer Image? How Applicants Choose Their Employer

Abstract

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

Appendices

Appendix 1: Ambition Subscale Items of Perceived Employability Scale

• A1. I want to be in a position to do mostly work which I really like

• A2. I am satisfied with the progress I have made meeting my goals for the development of new skills

• A3. I have clear goals for what I want to achieve in life

• A4. I regard myself as highly ambitious

• A5. I feel it is urgent that I get on with my career development

• A6. What I do in the future is not really important (reverse-scored)

Appendix 2: Chi-square Test of Attribute Interactions

Variable	Log-likelihood fit	X 2	p
Salary ×
Task attractiveness	− 4164.21	25.66	< 0.001
Location	− 4170	14.09	0.007
CSR	− 4170.36	13.37	0.01
Prestige	− 4172.2	9.7	0.046
Location ×
Prestige	− 4170.38	13.32	0.01
Task attractiveness ×
Innovativeness	− 4172.15	9.8	0.044
Prestige	− 4172.97	8.14	0.087

Appendix 3: Part-worth Utility Scores of Attribute-Level Interactions

Salary × prestige (p = 0.046)		Salary
		High	Moderate	Low
Prestige	High	1.68	0.53	− 1.69
	Moderate	1.46	0.36	− 1.68
	Low	0.99	0.06	− 1.71

Salary × CSR (p < 0.01)		Salary
		High	Moderate	Low
CSR	High	2.06	1.02	− 0.76
	Moderate	1.59	0.47	− 1.87
	Low	0.58	− 0.44	− 2.66

Location × prestige (p < 0.01)		Location
		High	Moderate	Low
Prestige	High	1.36	0.66	− 1.33
	Moderate	1.18	0.38	− 1.2
	Low	0.92	0.19	− 2.15

Task attract. × innovative. (p = 0.044)		Task attractiveness
		High	Moderate	Low
Innovativeness	High	1.52	0.70	− 1.65
	Moderate	1.24	0.78	− 1.61
	Low	0.79	0.17	− 1.94

Task attract. × prestige (p = 0.087)		Task attractiveness
		High	Moderate	Low
Prestige	High	1.52	0.69	− 1.62
	Moderate	1.17	0.68	− 1.6
	Low	0.90	0.31	− 2.06