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

 1  

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.

 2  

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

2012-05-23

Daniel Jönsson Erik Karlsson Stephanie Sundström

 3  

Table  of  contents

1.  Introduction  ...........................................................................................................................................  5  1.1  Background  to  employer  branding  ......................................................................................  5  1.2  Problem  discussion  .....................................................................................................................  6  1.3  Purpose  .............................................................................................................................................  8  1.4  Objectives  ........................................................................................................................................  8  1.5  Outline  of  thesis  ............................................................................................................................  9  

2.  Literature  review  ..............................................................................................................................  10  2.1  Corporate  branding  ..................................................................................................................  10  2.1.1  The  construction  of  corporate  brands  .....................................................................  10  2.1.2  When  the  corporate  brand  is  failing.........................................................................  11  2.1.3  The  corporate  brand  and  employees  as  a  stakeholder  ....................................  11  

2.2  Internal  branding  ......................................................................................................................  12  2.3  Employer  branding  ...................................................................................................................  13  2.3.1  The  concept  of  employer  brands  ...............................................................................  13  2.3.2  The  employer  brand’s  relation  to  corporate  brands  .........................................  14  2.3.3  Employer  branding  and  employees  ..........................................................................  15  2.3.4  Employer  brands  and  employees’  loyalty  ..............................................................  16  2.3.5  Employer  brand  image  and  benefits  ........................................................................  17  

2.4  Social  identity  approach  and  the  organization  ............................................................  17  2.4.1  Organizational  identity  and  image  ............................................................................  18  2.4.2  Employees’  identification  to  an  organization  .......................................................  19  

2.5  Definitions  of  concepts  from  the  literature  review  ....................................................  20  3.  Research  questions  and  frame  of  reference  ..........................................................................  21  3.1  Research  discussion  .................................................................................................................  21  3.2  Research  questions  ..................................................................................................................  23  3.3  Definitions  and  Frame  of  reference  ..................................................................................  23  

4.  Methodology  .......................................................................................................................................  25  4.1  Research  approach  ...................................................................................................................  25  4.1.1  Inductive  vs.  Deductive  ..................................................................................................  25  4.1.2  Qualitative  vs.  Quantitative  ..........................................................................................  25  

4.2  Research  design  .........................................................................................................................  26  4.3  Data  sources  ................................................................................................................................  28  4.4  Research  strategy  ......................................................................................................................  28  4.5  Data  collection  method  ...........................................................................................................  30  4.6  Data  collection  instrument  ....................................................................................................  32  4.6.1  Operationalization  and  measurement  of  variables  ...........................................  32  4.6.2  Survey  design  .....................................................................................................................  34  4.6.3  Pre-­‐testing  ...........................................................................................................................  35  

4.7  Sampling  ........................................................................................................................................  36  4.7.1  Sampling  frame  ..................................................................................................................  36  4.7.2  Sample  selection  and  data  collection  procedures  ..............................................  37  

4.8  Data  analysis  method  ..............................................................................................................  38  4.8.1  Descriptive  statistics  .......................................................................................................  39  4.8.2  Correlation  analysis  .........................................................................................................  39  4.8.3  One-­‐Sample  T-­‐test  ............................................................................................................  40  4.8.4  One-­‐Way  ANOVA  test  ......................................................................................................  40  4.8.5  Post  Hoc  (LSD)  test  ..........................................................................................................  41  

 4  

4.9  Quality  criteria  ...........................................................................................................................  41  4.9.1  Content  validity  .................................................................................................................  41  4.9.2  Construct  validity  .............................................................................................................  42  4.9.3  Reliability  .............................................................................................................................  42  

5.  Data  analysis  .......................................................................................................................................  44  5.1  Descriptive  statistics  ................................................................................................................  44  5.2  Reliability  test  .............................................................................................................................  44  5.3  Validity  test  ..................................................................................................................................  45  5.4  Analysis  of  the  research  questions  ....................................................................................  47  5.4.1  One-­‐Sample  T-­‐test  ............................................................................................................  47  5.4.2  One-­‐Way  ANOVA  test  ......................................................................................................  48  5.4.3  Post  Hoc  (LSD)  test  ..........................................................................................................  50  

6.  Conclusions  and  implications  ......................................................................................................  52  6.1  Discussion  .....................................................................................................................................  52  6.2  Theoretical  and  managerial  implications  .......................................................................  54  6.3  Limitations  ...................................................................................................................................  56  6.4  Suggestions  for  future  research  ..........................................................................................  58  

Reference  List  ..........................................................................................................................................  60  Appendices  ...............................................................................................................................................  64  Appendix  1  –  Pre-­‐study:  Organization  X  ................................................................................  64  Appendix  2  –  The  Swedish  version  of  the  letter  of  intent  ...............................................  66  Appendix  3  –  The  Swedish  version  of  the  survey  ...............................................................  67  Appendix  4  –  The  English  version  of  the  survey  .................................................................  72  Appendix  5  –  Centers  and  sub-­‐units  of  Organization  X  ...................................................  75  Appendix  6  –  Mean  values  on  items  within  the  constructs  ............................................  76  Appendix  7  –  The  entire  Post  Hoc  (LSD)  test  .......................................................................  77  

 Table  of  figures  

Table  2-­‐1:  Definitions  of  concepts  and  their  working  definitions  ....................................  20  Table  3-­‐1:  Research  constructs  and  their  definitions  ............................................................  24  Table  4-­‐1:  Research  strategies  and  their  contents  .................................................................  29  Table  4-­‐2:  Measurement  and  scaling  of  construct  ..................................................................  33  Table  4-­‐3:  Calculation  of  the  required  sample  size  ................................................................  37  Table  5-­‐1:  Reliability  test  of  constructs  and  its  items  ...........................................................  45  Table  5-­‐2:  Correlation  analysis  ........................................................................................................  46  Table  5-­‐3:  One-­‐Sample  T-­‐test  ...........................................................................................................  47  Table  5-­‐4:  One-­‐Sample  Statistics  ....................................................................................................  48  Table  5-­‐5:  One-­‐Way  ANOVA  .............................................................................................................  49  Table  5-­‐6:  The  Post  Hoc  (LSD)  test  with  significant  measures  .........................................  51  Table:  Items’  mean  values  .................................................................................................................  76  Table:  Post  Hoc  (LSD)  test  .................................................................................................................  77  

 5  

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 (www.scb.se). 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 (www.scb.se). This will lead to a shortage of people that are working, where

the shortage will become the largest in the healthcare sector (www.scb.se). 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 (www.hsbc.com). This will lead to a shortage of the population that is working

(www.hsbc.com). 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

 6  

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 (www.jimc.medill.northwestern.edu).

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 (www.money.cnn.com). 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 1964. 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 (www.money.cnn.com).

 7  

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 (www.universumglobal.com).

The second most important factor of attractiveness is the organizations’ culture and the

people that work at the organization (www.universumglobal.com).  

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.

 8  

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.

 9  

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.

 

 10  

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).

2.1.1  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

 11  

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).

2.1.2  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.

2.1.3  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

 12  

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

 13  

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  

2.3.1  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

 14  

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.

2.3.2  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

 15  

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.

2.3.3  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

 16  

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.  

2.3.4  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.

 17  

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

 18  

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).

2.4.1  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

 19  

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.

2.4.2  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,

 20  

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 Working Definiton or Description Corporate Branding 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).

Internal Branding 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).

Employer Branding A package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by an organization to its employees (Moroko & Uncles, 2008).

Social Identity Approach to Organizational Identification (SIA)

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).

 

 21  

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

 22  

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

 23  

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

 24  

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 employees.

Organizational Culture (OC) The internal values and beliefs shared among an organization’s employees (Hatch & Schultz, 2008).

A construct capturing the level an employee perceives that it is important to share values and beliefs with co-workers.

Stakeholders’ Images (SI) External stakeholders’ desires and expectations of the organization (Hatch & Schultz, 2008).

A construct capturing the importance employees put into what external stakeholders expect from the organization.

Internal Branding (IB) 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 construct capturing how important employees think it is that the organization communicates brand values to the employees.

Functional Benefits (FB) 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)

A construct capturing the importance that an employee put into functional benefits provided by the employer.

Symbolic Benefits (SB) 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).

A construct capturing the importance that an employee put into symbolic benefits provided by the employer.

Organizational Successes (OS) An organization’s past-, current- and expected future successes and their importance to the individual employee (Maxwell & Knox 2009).

A construct capturing the importance of an organization’s successes to employees.

Work Environment (WE) The social- and the functional environment of the work place (Maxwell & Knox 2009).

A construct capturing the importance that the social environment and the functional environment have for employees.

Type of Work (ToW) The challenges of the work and the variety in the work (Maxwell & Knox 2009).

A construct capturing the importance that the actual work and work tasks have for employees.

Services’ Attributes (SA) Employees’ perceptions about the organization’s services and its values (Maxwell & Knox, 2009).

A construct capturing to what extent an organization’s services are important for employees.

 25  

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).

4.1.1  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.

4.1.2  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).

 26  

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

 27  

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 cross-

sectional 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.

 28  

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-to-

date 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

 29  

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,

how, many, how much No Yes

Archival analysis Who, what, where, how many, how much

No Yes/no

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

 30  

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 (www.scb.se). 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).

 31  

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

 32  

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 e-mail accounts.

4.6  Data  collection  instrument  

4.6.1  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.

 33  

Table  4-­‐2:  Measurement  and  scaling  of  construct  Construct Type of scale and its

construction Items used Adapted from

Strategic Vision (SV) 3-item, 7-point Likert-scale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree

SV1 – An explicit future plan SV2 – Participation in the future plan SV3 – Impact on the future plan of the work place

(Harris & de Chernatony 2001; Hatch & Schultz 2008)

Organizational Culture (OC)

2-item, 7-point Likert-scale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree

OC1 – Sharing same values as co-workers OC2 – Sharing same values as managers

(Harris & de Chernatony 2001; Hatch & Schultz 2008)

Stakeholders’ Images (SI) 3-item, 7-point Likert-scale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree

SI1- Other organizations’ images of the organization SI2 – Customers images of the organization SI3 – Society’s images of the organization

(Harris & de Chernatony 2001; Hatch & Schultz 2008; Maxwell & Knox 2009)

Internal Branding (IB) 2-item, 7-point Likert-scale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree

IB1 – Communicating explicit brand values IB2 – Explicit guidelines for employees’ behavior

(Backhaus & Tikoo 2004; Foster et al. 2010; Punjaisri et al. 2009)

Functional Benefits (FB) 3-item, 7-point Likert-scale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree

FB1 – Salary FB2 – Condition of employment FB3 – Other benefits

(Backhaus & Tikoo 2004; Maxwell & Knox 2009; Moroko & Uncles 2008; Lievens et al. 2007)

Symbolic Benefits (SB) 4-item, 7-point Likert-scale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree

SB1 – Pride in work SB2 – Personality development SB3 – Career opportunities leadership SB4 – Career opportunities education

(Backhaus & Tikoo 2004; Maxwell & Knox 2009; Moroko & Uncles 2008; Lievens et al. 2007)

Organizational Successes (OS)

2-item, 7-point Likert-scale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree

OS1 – Past successes OS2 – Future successes

(Maxwell & Knox 2009)

Work Environment (WE) 4-item, 7-point Likert-scale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree

WE1 – Get along with co-workers WE2 – Get along with managers WE3 – Good work place WE4 – The actual work environment

(Maxwell & Knox 2009; Kimpakorn & Tocquer 2009)

Type of Work (TW) 3-item, 7-point Likert-scale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree

ToW1 – Flexible work tasks ToW2 – Importance of work tasks ToW3 – Contribution to work place

(Maxwell & Knox 2009)

Services’ Attributes (SA) 2-item, 7-point Likert-scale anchored by (1) strongly disagree (7) strongly agree

SA1 – Delivering quality SA2 – The delivered services is of main focus

(Maxwell & Knox 2009; Kimpakorn & Tocquer 2009)

 34  

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 e-mail. The director of public relations at the organization was used as a

source to reach out with the survey to employees’ e-mail accounts at the organization.

The survey was constructed by using the online tool of Google Docs, which is a free-

account platform where professional surveys can be constructed and administered in

multiple ways (www.docs.google.com). 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 e-mails, 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

 35  

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.

4.6.3  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

 36  

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 e-mailing 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 e-mail to employees by using the

organization’s database of employees e-mail accounts. For this procedure to be

manageable, a sample survey had to be chosen.

4.7.1  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

 37  

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.

4.7.2  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 sub-

units 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 e-mailed 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 %.

 38  

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),

11-20 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.

 39  

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.

4.8.1  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.

4.8.2  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

 40  

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

0.05.

4.8.3  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.  

4.8.4  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,

 41  

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.

4.8.5  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).

4.9.1  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).

 42  

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.

4.9.2  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.

4.9.3  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,

 43  

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.

 44  

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

11-20 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 (X-

ray), 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- throat-

and 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 0.652. The item that was removed was FB3 (See Table 4-2) that

 45  

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 0.382 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) 3 0.796 Organizational culture (OC) 2 0.634 Stakeholders’ images (SI) 3 0.813

Internal branding (IB) 2 0.715 Functional benefits (FB) Functional benefits (FB)

3 2

0.561 0.652

Symbolic benefits (SB) 4 0.648 Organizational successes (OS) 2 0.928

Work environment (WE) 4 0.617 Type of Work (ToW) 3 0.698

Services’ attributes (SA) 2 0.381  

5.3  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 %.

 46  

Table  5-­‐2:  Correlation  analysis  

SV OC SI IB FB SB OS WE ToW SA

SV Pearson

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

OC Pearson

Correlation ,226**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,004

SI Pearson

Correlation ,541** 0,124

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0,117

IB Pearson

Correlation ,707** ,226** ,459**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0,004 0

FB Pearson

Correlation ,403** 0,151 ,335** ,370**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0,057 0 0

SB Pearson

Correlation ,442** ,172* ,487** ,304** ,378**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0,03 0 0 0

OS Pearson

Correlation ,693** ,177* ,764** ,579** ,445** ,479**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0,025 0 0 0 0

WE Pearson

Correlation ,445** ,263** ,447** ,369** ,488** ,446** ,506**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0,001 0 0 0 0 0

ToW Pearson

Correlation ,504** 0,13 ,477** ,411** ,479** ,531** ,495** ,612**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0,102 0 0 0 0 0 0

SA Pearson

Correlation ,386** ,156* ,317** ,476** ,236** ,252** ,298** ,489** ,431**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0,048 0 0 0,003 0,001 0 0 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

 47  

5.4  Analysis  of  the  research  questions  

5.4.1  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 0.000. 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 24,452 159 0 1,89583 Organizational Culture 21,593 159 0 1,49688 Stakeholders’ Images 15,538 159 0 1,40625

Internal Branding 32,711 159 0 2,22188 Functional Benefits 38,853 159 0 2,325 Symbolic Benefits 23,823 159 0 1,71563

Organizational Successes 13,715 159 0 1,37812 Work Environment 69,107 159 0 2,51563

Type of Work 51,627 159 0 2,49792 Services’ Attributes 60,607 159 0 2,59375

 

 48  

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 1.00. 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 6.

5.4.2  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

 49  

significance than 0.05 and 0.1 and therefore they did not significantly vary between

units.

Table  5-­‐5:  One-­‐Way  ANOVA  

Construct Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Strategic Vision Between Groups 6,738 5 1,348 1,42 0,22

Within Groups 146,192 154 0,949 Total 152,931 159

Organizational Culture Between Groups 2,106 5 0,421 0,54 0,746

Within Groups 120,143 154 0,78 Total 122,248 159

Stakeholders’ Images Between Groups 9,77 5 1,954 1,515 0,188

Within Groups 198,602 154 1,29 Total 208,372 159

Internal Branding Between Groups 5,566 5 1,113 1,533 0,183

Within Groups 111,808 154 0,726 Total 117,373 159

Functional Benefits Between Groups 3,554 5 0,711 1,25 0,288

Within Groups 87,546 154 0,568 Total 91,1 159

Symbolic Benefits Between Groups 12,941 5 2,588 3,35 0,007

Within Groups 118,995 154 0,773 Total 131,936 159

Organizational Successes Between Groups 6,35 5 1,27 0,781 0,565

Within Groups 250,523 154 1,627 Total 256,873 159

Work Environment Between Groups 3,269 5 0,654 3,307 0,007

Within Groups 30,442 154 0,198 Total 33,711 159

Type of Work Between Groups 3,606 5 0,721 1,985 0,084 Within Groups 55,948 154 0,363 Total 59,555 159

Services’ attributes Between Groups 4,449 5 0,89 3,251 0,008

Within Groups 42,145 154 0,274 Total 46,594 159

 50  

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)

 51  

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* 0,22513 0,002

Medicine clinic in W.D. X -,62381* 0,21871 0,005

Ear- nose- throat- and skin

clinic -,54762* 0,2501 0,03 Ambulance unit Image and functional unit -,62856* 0,26529 0,019 Medicine clinic in W.D. X -,54538* 0,25986 0,037

Image and functional unit Care centers in W.D. Y ,53071* 0,23376 0,025 Work

Environment Administrative unit Image and functional unit -,29516* 0,11387 0,01

Ear- nose- throat- and skin

clinic -,31667* 0,1265 0,013 Ambulance unit Image and functional unit -,40987* 0,13418 0,003

Medicine clinic in W.D. X -,31471* 0,13144 0,018 Care centers in W.D. Y -,33201* 0,13868 0,018

Ear- nose- throat- and skin

clinic -,43137* 0,14506 0,003 Type of Work Ambulance unit Image and functional unit -,49209* 0,18191 0,008

Care centers in W.D. Y -,45777* 0,188 0,016 Services’

Attributes Administrative unit Image and functional unit -,35591* 0,13398 0,009 Ambulance unit Image and functional unit -,58729* 0,15788 0 Medicine clinic in W.D. X -,36471* 0,15465 0,02

Care centers in W.D. Y -,39932* 0,16317 0,016

Ear- nose- throat- and skin

clinic -,43137* 0,17068 0,012 * The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

 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

 52  

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

 53  

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

 54  

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

 55  

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

 56  

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.

 57  

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.

   

 58  

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,

 59  

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.

 

 60  

Reference  List    Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., Day, G. S., Leone, R. P. (2011), “Marketing Research – International Student Version”, 10th Edition, John Wiley & Sons Ambler ,T., Barrow, S. (1996), “The employer brand”, Journal of Brand Management, 4:3, pp. 185-206 Ashforth, B. E., Mael, F. (1989), “Social Identity Theory and the Organization”, The Academy of Management Review, 14:1, pp. 20-39 Backhaus, K., Tikoo, S. (2004), ”Conceptualizing and researching employer branding”, Career Development International, 9:5, pp. 501-517 Balmer, J. M. T., Gray, E. R. (2003), ”Corporate brands: what are they? What of them?”, European Journal of Marketing, 37:7/8, pp. 972-997 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. 585-605

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. 667-681 De Chernatony, L., McDonald, M. (2003), “Creating Powerful Brands”, 3rd Edition, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd www.docs.google.com Reviewed: 2012-03-18 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. 615-639 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. 507-533 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. 517-554

 61  

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., Harquail, C. V. (1994), “Organizational images and member identification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39:2, pp. 239-263 Edwards, M. R. (2010), “An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory”, Personnel Review, 39:1-2, pp. 5-23 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. 442-476 Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Oscarsson, H., Wängnerud, L. (2012), “Metodpraktikan: Konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad”, 4th 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. 92-107 Foster, C., Punjaisri, K., Cheng, R. (2010), ”Exploring the relationship between corporate, internal and employer branding”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19:6, pp. 401-409 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. 35-55 Ghauri, P., Gronhaug, K. (2005), “Research Methods in Business Studies – A Practical Guide” 3rd Edition, Pearson Education Limited Grönroos, C. (2007),”Service Management and Marketing: Customer Management in Service Competition”, 3rd 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. 441-456 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. 319-339 Hatch, M. J., Schultz, M. (2003), ”Bringing the corporation into corporate branding”, European Journal of Marketing, 37:7/8, pp. 1041-1064 Hatch, M. J., Schultz, M. (2008), ”Taking Brand Initiative: How Companies Can Align Strategy, Culture and Identity Through Corporate Branding”, 1st Edition, Jossey-Bass

 62  

www.hsbc.com http://www.hsbc.com/1/content/assets/retirement/110520_for6_pages.pdf Reviewed: 2012-02-13 Hulberg, J. (2006), “Integrating corporate branding and sociological paradigms: A literature study”, Journal of Brand Management, 14:1/2, pp. 60-73 www.jimc.medill.northwestern.edu http://jimc.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/2001/peoples.pdf Reviewed: 2012-02-15 Jin, L. (2011), “Improving response rates in web surveys with default settings”, International Journal of Market Research, 53: 1, pp. 75-94 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. 532-544 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. 277-295 Knox, S., Freeman, C. (2006),”Measuring and Managing Employer Brand Image in the Service Industry”, Journal of Marketing Management, 22:7/8, pp. 695-716 Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Harker, M., Brennan, R. (2009), “Marketing an Introduction”, European Edition, 1st 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. 45-59 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. 893-907 Malhotra, N. K. (2010), “Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation", 6th Edition, Pearson Education www.money.cnn.com – Nadira A. Hira “Attracting the twentysomething worker” http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033934/ Reviewed: 2012-02-13 Moroko, L., Uncles, M. D. (2008), ”Characteristics of successful employer brands”, Journal of Brand Management, 16:3, pp. 160-175

 63  

Mosley, R.W (2007), ”Customer experience, organisational culture and the employer brand”, Journal of Brand Management, 15:2, pp. 123-134 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. 510-522 Punjaisri, K., Evanschitzky, H., Wilson, A. (2009), ”Internal Branding: An Enabler of Employees’ Brand Supporting-Behaviours”, Journal of Service Management, 20:2, pp. 209-226 Punjaisri, K., Wilson, A. (2011), ”Internal Branding Process: Key Mechanisms, Outcomes and Moderating Factors”, European Journal of Marketing, 45:9, pp. 1521-1537 Rosethorn, H. Members of Bernard Hodes Group and Contributors (2009), ”The Employer Brand – Keeping Faith With The Deal”, Gower Publishing Ltd, Cornwall www.scb.se - The Central Bureau of Statistics in Sweden http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/UF0515_2012A01_BR_AM85BR1201.pdf Reviewed: 2012-02-13 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. 497-508 www.universumglobal.com http://www.universumglobal.com/stored-images/81/81405691-a9bb-41e1-9b6b-afbff9af11d2.pdf Reviewed: 2012-02-15 Urde, Mats (2003), ”Core Value-Based Corporate Brand Building”, European Journal of Marketing, 37:7, pp. 1017-1040 Wilden, R., Gudergan, S., Lings, I. (2010),”Employer branding: strategic implications for staff recruitment”, Journal of Marketing Management, 26:1-2, pp. 56-73 Yin, R. K. (2008), “Case Study Research – Design and Methods”, 4th Edition, SAGE Publications Inc

 64  

Appendices  

Appendix  1  –  Pre-­‐study:  Organization  X  

An exploratory interview was made the 8th 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 16.00-18.00. The interview was of a semi-

structured 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 5.000 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,

 65  

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 1.500 people over a five-year period, calculated between the years of

2010-2015. 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.

 66  

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

     

   

 67  

 

Appendix  3  –  The  Swedish  version  of  the  survey  

       

 68  

                 

 69  

                     

 70  

 

                       

 71  

 

                   

 72  

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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q2: Patients perceptions about my employer are of great importance to me.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q3: It is of significance to me that I contribute to my work place with knowledge and joy.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q4: It is important to get along with my colleagues.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q5: It is important to have the same values as my colleagues.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q6: It is important to get along with my managers.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q7: It is NOT important to have the same values as my managers.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q8: It is important that work tasks are executed in a way that satisfies patients.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q9: The services and caring that Organization X offers to patients are important.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

 73  

Q10: My salary is of great importance to me.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q11: Conditions of employment is important to me.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q12: Other benefits, like health maintenance or a personnel club, are important to me.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q13: The opportunity of career development, through leadership and executive position, is

important to me.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q14: The opportunity of career development, in the form of deeper knowledge through education

and researching, is important to me.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q15: It is important that my personality can develop through my work.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q16: It is important that to me that my work place is designed in a way that satisfies me.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q17: My work tasks are of importance to me.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q18: It is of great importance that my work tasks are diverse.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q19: A good work environment is significant to me.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q20: The way other organizations in the health care perceive Organization X is important to me.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q21: Citizens’ view on Organization X is of great importance.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

 74  

Q22: Organization X’s achieved successes are important to me.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q23: Organization X’s future successes are important to me.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q24: It is important to have explicit guidelines for my work.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q25: It is important that Organization X communicate its values in an explicit way.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q26: A clear plan for the future is important to me.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q27: It is desirous to me to be able to participate in the future developments of Organization X.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Q28: It is important to me to have an impact on the development of my work place.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

Gender

• Male

• Female

The amount of years worked at Organization X.

• 0-5 years

• 6-10 years

• 11-20 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

 75  

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

 76  

Appendix  6  –  Mean  values  on  items  within  the  constructs  

Table:  Items’  mean  values  Descriptive  Statistics  

    N   Minimum   Maximum   Mean   Std.  Deviation  

SV1   160   2   7   5,84   1,104  SV2   160   1   7   5,51   1,41  SV3   160   2   7   6,34   0,925  OC1   160   3   7   5,49   1,052  OC2Pos   160   3   7   5,5   0,997  SI1   160   1   7   4,82   1,434  SI2   160   1   7   5,71   1,376  SI3   160   1   7   5,69   1,204  

IB1   160   3   7   6,07   1,111  IB2   160   3   7   6,37   0,815  

FB1   160   2   7   6,28   0,877  FB2   160   1   7   6,37   0,88  FB3   160   1   7   5,18   1,627  SB1   160   2   7   5,97   1,192  SB2   160   3   7   6,56   0,759  SB3   160   1   7   4,84   1,548  SB4   160   1   7   5,49   1,558  

OS1   160   1   7   5,29   1,32  OS2   160   1   7   5,46   1,312  

WE1   160   4   7   6,77   0,479  WE2   160   4   7   6,21   0,817  WE3   160   3   7   6,43   0,782  WE4   160   5   7   6,66   0,561  

ToW1   160   3   7   6,41   0,827  ToW2   160   3   7   6,47   0,784  ToW3   160   3   7   6,61   0,709  SA1   160   4   7   6,56   0,715  SA2   160   4   7   6,62   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

 77  

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   -­‐0,07843   0,26685   0,769  

        Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐,70699*   0,22513   0,002           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   -­‐,62381*   0,21871   0,005           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   -­‐0,17628   0,23553   0,455           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐,54762*   0,2501   0,03  

    Ambulance  unit   Administrative  unit   0,07843   0,26685   0,769           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐,62856*   0,26529   0,019           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   -­‐,54538*   0,25986   0,037           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   -­‐0,09785   0,27417   0,722           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐0,46919   0,28679   0,104  

    Image  and  functional  unit   Administrative  unit   ,70699*   0,22513   0,002           Ambulance  unit   ,62856*   0,26529   0,019           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   0,08318   0,2168   0,702           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   ,53071*   0,23376   0,025           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   0,15937   0,24844   0,522       Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   Administrative  unit   ,62381*   0,21871   0,005           Ambulance  unit   ,54538*   0,25986   0,037           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐0,08318   0,2168   0,702           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   0,44753   0,22759   0,051           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   0,07619   0,24264   0,754  

    Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   Administrative  unit   0,17628   0,23553   0,455           Ambulance  unit   0,09785   0,27417   0,722           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐,53071*   0,23376   0,025           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   -­‐0,44753   0,22759   0,051           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐0,37134   0,2579   0,152  

   Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  

clinic   Administrative  unit   ,54762*   0,2501   0,03           Ambulance  unit   0,46919   0,28679   0,104           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐0,15937   0,24844   0,522           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   -­‐0,07619   0,24264   0,754           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   0,37134   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)

 78  

Work  Environm

ent   Administrative  unit   Ambulance  unit   0,11471   0,13497   0,397           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐,29516*   0,11387   0,01           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   -­‐0,2   0,11062   0,073           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   -­‐0,21731   0,11913   0,07           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐,31667*   0,1265   0,013       Ambulance  unit   Administrative  unit   -­‐0,11471   0,13497   0,397           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐,40987*   0,13418   0,003           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   -­‐,31471*   0,13144   0,018           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   -­‐,33201*   0,13868   0,018           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐,43137*   0,14506   0,003  

    Image  and  functional  unit   Administrative  unit   ,29516*   0,11387   0,01           Ambulance  unit   ,40987*   0,13418   0,003           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   0,09516   0,10966   0,387           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   0,07785   0,11823   0,511           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐0,02151   0,12566   0,864  

    Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   Administrative  unit   0,2   0,11062   0,073           Ambulance  unit   ,31471*   0,13144   0,018           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐0,09516   0,10966   0,387           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   -­‐0,01731   0,11511   0,881           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐0,11667   0,12272   0,343       Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   Administrative  unit   0,21731   0,11913   0,07           Ambulance  unit   ,33201*   0,13868   0,018           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐0,07785   0,11823   0,511           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   0,01731   0,11511   0,881           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐0,09936   0,13045   0,447  

   Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  

clinic   Administrative  unit   ,31667*   0,1265   0,013           Ambulance  unit   ,43137*   0,14506   0,003           Image  and  functional  unit   0,02151   0,12566   0,864           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   0,11667   0,12272   0,343           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   0,09936   0,13045   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)

 79  

Type  of  Work   Administrative  unit   Ambulance  unit   0,23725   0,18298   0,197  

        Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐0,25484   0,15437   0,101           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   0,00476   0,14997   0,975           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   -­‐0,22051   0,1615   0,174           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐0,04286   0,17149   0,803  

    Ambulance  unit   Administrative  unit   -­‐0,23725   0,18298   0,197           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐,49209*   0,18191   0,008           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   -­‐0,23249   0,17819   0,194           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   -­‐,45777*   0,188   0,016           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐0,28011   0,19665   0,156       Image  and  functional  unit   Administrative  unit   0,25484   0,15437   0,101           Ambulance  unit   ,49209*   0,18191   0,008           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   0,2596   0,14866   0,083           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   0,03433   0,16029   0,831           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   0,21198   0,17035   0,215  

    Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   Administrative  unit   -­‐0,00476   0,14997   0,975           Ambulance  unit   0,23249   0,17819   0,194           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐0,2596   0,14866   0,083           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   -­‐0,22527   0,15606   0,151           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐0,04762   0,16637   0,775       Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   Administrative  unit   0,22051   0,1615   0,174           Ambulance  unit   ,45777*   0,188   0,016           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐0,03433   0,16029   0,831           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   0,22527   0,15606   0,151           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   0,17766   0,17684   0,317  

   Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  

clinic   Administrative  unit   0,04286   0,17149   0,803           Ambulance  unit   0,28011   0,19665   0,156           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐0,21198   0,17035   0,215           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   0,04762   0,16637   0,775           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   -­‐0,17766   0,17684   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)

 80  

Services’  Attributes   Administrative  unit   Ambulance  unit   0,23137   0,15881   0,147  

        Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐,35591*   0,13398   0,009           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   -­‐0,13333   0,13016   0,307           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   -­‐0,16795   0,14017   0,233           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐0,2   0,14884   0,181  

    Ambulance  unit   Administrative  unit   -­‐0,23137   0,15881   0,147           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐,58729*   0,15788   0           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   -­‐,36471*   0,15465   0,02           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   -­‐,39932*   0,16317   0,016           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐,43137*   0,17068   0,012       Image  and  functional  unit   Administrative  unit   ,35591*   0,13398   0,009           Ambulance  unit   ,58729*   0,15788   0           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   0,22258   0,12902   0,087           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   0,18797   0,13912   0,179           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   0,15591   0,14785   0,293  

    Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   Administrative  unit   0,13333   0,13016   0,307           Ambulance  unit   ,36471*   0,15465   0,02           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐0,22258   0,12902   0,087           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   -­‐0,03462   0,13544   0,799           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐0,06667   0,1444   0,645       Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   Administrative  unit   0,16795   0,14017   0,233           Ambulance  unit   ,39932*   0,16317   0,016           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐0,18797   0,13912   0,179           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   0,03462   0,13544   0,799           Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  clinic   -­‐0,03205   0,15349   0,835  

   Ear-­‐  nose-­‐  throat-­‐  and  skin  

clinic   Administrative  unit   0,2   0,14884   0,181           Ambulance  unit   ,43137*   0,17068   0,012           Image  and  functional  unit   -­‐0,15591   0,14785   0,293           Medicine  clinic  in  W.D.  X   0,06667   0,1444   0,645           Care  centers  in  W.D.  Y   0,03205   0,15349   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)

 81  

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-391 82 Kalmar/SE-351 95 Växjö Telephone  +46  772-­‐28  80  00