EMPLOYER BRANDING IN THE BELGIAN ARMY: THE …flievens/hrm.pdf · Employer Branding in the Belgian Army 53 zation in terms of the objective, concrete, and factual attributes inherent

Employer branding, or employer brandmanagement, involves internally andexternally promoting a clear view ofwhat makes a firm different and de-sirable as an employer (Backhaus &

Tikoo, 2004; Cable & Turban, 2001). Ac-cording to Backhaus and Tikoo (2004), em-ployer branding is essentially a three-stepprocess. First, a firm develops a concept of

the particular value it offers to prospectiveand current employees. This value proposi-tion provides the central message that isconveyed by the employer brand. It is of keyimportance that this value proposition de-rives from a thorough audit of the charac-teristics that make the firm a great place towork. Once the value proposition is deter-mined, the second step in employer brand-

EMPLOYER BRANDING IN THE

BELGIAN ARMY: THE IMPORTANCE

OF INSTRUMENTAL AND SYMBOLIC

BELIEFS FOR POTENTIAL

APPLICANTS, ACTUAL APPLICANTS,

AND MILITARY EMPLOYEES

HHuummaann RReessoouurrccee MMaannaaggeemmeenntt,, Spring 2007, Vol. 46, No. 1, Pp. 51–69

© 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20145

F I L I P L I E V E N S

This study conceptualizes employer brand as a package of instrumental andsymbolic attributes. Using a sample of 955 individuals (429 potential appli-cants, 392 actual applicants, and 134 military employees), we examine therelative importance of instrumental and symbolic employer brand beliefsacross different groups of individuals: potential applicants, actual applicants,and military employees (with less than three years of tenure). Results showthat instrumental attributes explain greater variance in the Army’s attractive-ness as an employer among actual applicants compared to potential appli-cants or employees. In all three groups, symbolic trait inferences explain asimilar portion of the variance. In addition, in all three groups, symbolic traitinferences explain incremental variance over and above instrumental attrib-utes. Implications for employer branding practices and image audits are dis-cussed. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Correspondence to: Filip Lievens, Dept. of Personnel Management and Work and Organizational Psychology,Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Ghent University, Belgium, Phone: +32 9 264 64 53, Fax: + 32 9 264 64 94, E-mail:[email protected]

52 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2007

ing consists of externally marketing thisvalue proposition to attract the targeted ap-plicant population. The third step of em-ployer branding involves carrying the brand“promise” made to recruits into the firm andincorporating it as part of the organizationalculture. In other words, this last step consistsof internally marketing the employer brand.

Although employer branding has be-come a popular topic in the HR practitionerliterature (e.g., Frook, 2001), empirical re-search is still relatively scarce (Cable & Tur-ban, 2001). A first group of studies (High-

house, Zickar, Thorsteinson,Stierwalt, & Slaughter, 1999;Lievens & Highhouse, 2003;Lievens, Van Hoye, & Schreurs,2005; Slaughter, Zickar, High-house, & Mohr, 2004) focused onthe first step in employer brand-ing. Generally, these studies doc-umented the importance of care-fully determining and auditingthe factors that make firms attrac-tive employers. Another study(Collins & Stevens, 2002) concen-trated on the second step in em-ployer branding. This study dis-covered that organizations couldexternally market their employerbrand by using various early re-

cruitment practices. A last group of studiesinvestigated the consequences of employerbranding. Evidence showed that a strongemployer brand positively affected the pridethat individuals expected from organiza-tional membership (Cable & Turban, 2003),applicant pool quantity and quality (Collins& Han, 2004), and firm performance advan-tages over the broad market (Fulmer, Ger-hart, & Scott, 2003).

The current study focuses on the imageaudit step of the employer branding processbecause it is the basis on which the othersteps develop. Given the key role of theimage audit step, it should incorporate im-portant stakeholder beliefs about the char-acteristics of an attractive employer. There-fore, the purpose of this study is to examinethe relative importance of different aspectsof employer brand beliefs across different

groups of individuals ranging from the gen-eral labor pool to actual applicants and cur-rent employees. This study contributes toprior research on image audits because it isthe first that examines employer brand be-liefs across such diverse groups of individu-als—namely, potential applicants, actualapplicants, and military employees.

The context of this study is the BelgianArmy. Similar to other armed forces, theBelgian Army faces both recruitment andretention challenges. As in many other Eu-ropean countries, the importance of beingan attractive employer has been bolsteredby the recent transition from compulsory tovoluntary military service. Apart from thesesimilarities, the Belgian Army is relativelysmall in comparison with other countries.Another potential difference is that the Bel-gian Army mainly focuses on humanitarianand peacekeeping operations. Current re-cruitment campaigns are communicatingthis mission, as exemplified by slogans suchas “Priority to Peace.”

Study Background

The Content of Employer BrandBeliefs

Ambler and Barrow (1996) defined the em-ployer brand in terms of benefits, calling it“the package of functional, economic, andpsychological benefits provided by employ-ment, and identified with the employingcompany.” The basic premise that people as-sociate both instrumental functions and psy-chological (symbolic) benefits with a brand iswell supported in the marketing literature(Katz, 1960; Keller, 1993, 1998; Shavitt,1990). Instrumental benefits correspond toproduct-related attributes. These describe theproduct in terms of its objective, physical,and tangible attributes. Katz (1960) linkedinstrumental attributes to people’s basicneed to maximize benefits and minimizecosts. For example, consumers want to buy acar because it provides them with instru-mental functions such as transportation,protection, comfort, and safety.

Applied to a recruitment context, instru-mental attributes describe the job or organi-

Given the key role of

the image audit step,

it should incorporate

important

stakeholder beliefs

about the

characteristics of an

attractive employer.

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Employer Branding in the Belgian Army 53

zation in terms of the objective, concrete,and factual attributes inherent in a job or or-ganization (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).These attributes primarily trigger interestamong applicants because of their utility(i.e., maximizing benefits and minimizingcosts). In the context of the Army, instru-mental characteristics might refer to pay andbenefits, or the opportunities to travelabroad and engage in physical activities.

Conversely, symbolic meanings corre-spond to non-product-related attributes, es-pecially user imagery (Keller, 1998). Here, theproduct is described in terms of subjective,abstract, and intangible attributes that ac-crue from how people perceive a product andmake inferences about it. Symbolic attributesare linked to people’s need to maintain theirself-identity, to enhance their self-image, orto express themselves (their beliefs, theirtraits, and their personality) (Aaker, 1997,1999; Highhouse, Thornbury, & Little, inpress; Katz, 1960; Shavitt, 1990). For in-stance, consumers desire a particular car be-cause it appears cool and trendy, and thesetraits may reflect their self-concept.

Applied to a recruitment context, sym-bolic attributes describe the job or organiza-tion in terms of subjective, abstract, and in-tangible attributes (Lievens & Highhouse,2003). Specifically, they convey symboliccompany information in the form of im-agery and general trait inferences that ap-plicants assign to organizations. For in-stance, applicants might ascribe specifictraits (e.g., prestige, ruggedness) to theArmy and therefore be attracted to theArmy. Although people may use a variety ofperson-descriptive traits for describing or-ganizations, five higher-order factors seemto underlie symbolic image attributes(Aaker, 1997; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003):sincerity (traits such as honest, sincere, andfriendly), excitement (traits such as trendy,spirited, and innovative), competence(traits such as reliable, secure, and success-ful), sophistication (traits such as upper-class and prestigious), and ruggedness(traits such as masculine and tough).

To date, empirical research generally hassupported the instrumental-symbolic

framework for describing and auditing anorganization’s image as an employer.Slaughter et al. (2004) confirmed that sym-bolic trait inferences were related to organi-zational attractiveness. In addition, theyfound that specific traits assigned to organ-izations were more attractive depending onapplicants’ personality traits. Applicantstended to be especially attracted to organi-zations with traits similar to their owntraits. Lievens and Highhouse (2003)showed that symbolic trait inferences ac-counted for incremental variance over andabove instrumental attributes inpredicting a bank’s perceived at-tractiveness as an employer.Moreover, it was easier to differ-entiate among banks on thebasis of symbolic trait inferences,versus instrumental attributes.Lievens et al. (2005) confirmedthe incremental variance of sym-bolic trait inferences over andabove instrumental attributes ina sample of potential applicantsfor the Army.

The Importance ofEmployer Brand BeliefsAcross Different Groups

As shown above, most prior stud-ies (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003;Lievens et al., 2005; Slaughter et al., 2004)have used the instrumental-symbolic frame-work for auditing an organization’s image asan employer among potential applicants.Given the key role of an image audit, itshould be clear that potential applicantsconstitute only one stakeholder in the re-cruitment process. Specifically, Barber’smodel of the recruitment process distin-guished between three relevant groups. Afirst group is the applicant population. Bar-ber (1998) defined the applicant populationas the group from which the organizationcan recruit given its recruitment decisions(i.e., decisions to target a particular seg-ment). So, this group consists of potentialapplicants. The applicant pool is the secondgroup of interest distinguished by Barber

Applied to a

recruitment context,

symbolic attributes

describe the job or

organization in

terms of subjective,

abstract, and

intangible

attributes.



(1998). Contrary to the applicant popula-tion, the individuals in this group no longerare potential applicants targeted by the or-ganization. Instead, individuals in the appli-cant pool have already applied for a job inthe organization. The third relevant popula-tion in Barber’s (1998) model consists of in-dividuals who have been selected to join the

organization (selectees). To date, no studies have ex-

plored employer brand beliefs (in-strumental and symbolic) of dif-ferent groups of individualsranging from potential applicantsto actual applicants and currentemployees.1 Yet, such an exami-nation is of both practical andtheoretical importance. From apractical view, it should be clearthat combining information froman external image audit (amongboth potential applicants and ac-tual applicants) and an internalimage audit (among military per-sonnel already enlisted) providesorganizations with a richer andmore comprehensive picture oftheir image as an employer. Forexample, auditing image factorsamong both internal and externalstakeholders might ensure that arecruitment campaign promotesfactors that make it likely thatpeople not only apply to the or-ganization, but also stay workingthere.

From a conceptual view, it might be in-teresting to know whether the same factorsmake an employer attractive for the threedifferent groups. Models of the job searchand recruitment process (Barber, 1998; Bar-ber, Daly, Giannantonio, & Phillips, 1994;Blau, 1993; Saks & Ashforth, 2000) might beused fruitfully to formulate hypothesesabout which employer beliefs might beprevalent for these different groups. In fact,these models posit that in the early stages,potential applicants have only broad rudi-mentary information about possible job op-portunities. Typically, potential applicantsare conducting a broad search among many

employment alternatives and gather only alimited amount of information per employ-ment alternative. Conversely, actual appli-cants have narrowed down their search toone or several specific employers. They typi-cally have in-depth information about thisemployer.

Applying the insights from these processmodels to the instrumental-symbolic frame-work leads to three sets of hypotheses. A firstset of hypotheses considers the favorabilityof the employer beliefs. A straightforwardhypothesis is that actual applicants will havemore positive perceptions about an em-ployer’s instrumental and symbolic attrib-utes than potential applicants because theseindividuals have just made the decision toapply for a job in a given organization. Con-versely, potential applicants have not yet ap-plied for a job in the organization. This firsthypothesis also is supported by decision-making theories such as the GeneralizableDecision Processing Theory (Barber, 1998;Highhouse & Hoffman, 2001; Power &Aldag, 1985; Soelberg, 1967). One of the cen-tral premises of this theory is that early on,people identify an implicit favorite employerand engage in some confirmatory bias to ra-tionalize their choice (i.e., the so-calledchoice confirmation process). To this end,applicants might deliberately distort theirperceptions in support of their favorite em-ployer. Thus, this theory predicts that appli-cants might have more favorable beliefs thanpotential applicants. As no prior studies havetested this, I posit the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1a: Actual applicants will have morefavorable perceptions about an employer’sinstrumental and symbolic attributes thanwill potential applicants.

It is more difficult to predict differencesbetween perceptions of actual applicants andpeople who have recently joined the Army(military employees with tenure less thanthree years). On the one hand, it is possiblethat people further engage in rationalizationand confirmatory processes once they haveentered the organization. As noted by Barber(1998), the job-choice process might modify

…auditing image

factors among both

internal and

external

stakeholders might

ensure that a

recruitment

campaign promotes

factors that make it

likely that people

not only apply to the

organization but

also stay working

there.



the views that employees hold of the em-ployer they have chosen to work for. Accord-ing to this hypothesis, employees would haveeven more favorable beliefs than actual appli-cants. On the other hand, the attrition prob-lems that the armed forces are typically fac-ing might indicate the reverse. In fact,employees might experience some kind ofshock once they enter the Army because theirperceptions about the Army might not beconsistent with the actual work in the mili-tary (Mael & Ashforth, 1995). Thus, a com-peting hypothesis is that employees have lessfavorable perceptions than actual applicants.

Hypothesis 1b: Actual applicants will have morefavorable perceptions about an employer’sinstrumental and symbolic attributes thanwill employees.

Hypothesis 1c: Actual applicants will have lessfavorable perceptions about an employer’sinstrumental and symbolic attributes thanwill employees.

A second set of hypotheses posits thatdifferent factors will make the Army an at-tractive employer for these different groups.Again, these hypotheses are grounded on theaforementioned job-search process models.Potential applicants typically are conducting abroad search. As they have not narroweddown their preferences to one or two em-ployers, they have only some general infor-mation about potential employers. This gen-eral information will typically be moretrait-like (i.e., the Army is an exciting placeto work) instead of factual and concrete.Along these lines, Barber (1998) stated: “Atearly stages of recruitment, potential appli-cants may have little or no knowledge of theorganization other than its image. Advertise-ments, postings, and other initial recruit-ment contacts often provide very little infor-mation, so applicants may rely on generalimpressions of the organization in lieu ofmore specific knowledge” (p. 34). On a moregeneral level, temporal construal theory(Trope & Liberman, 2003) also proposes thatfuture-distant events (e.g., working for agiven company in the minds of potential ap-plicants) are more likely to be represented in

terms of a few abstract and essential features,rather than in terms of concrete details.Therefore, I expect that symbolic attributeswill explain more variance among potentialapplicants than among actual applicants.

The reverse seems to be true for actual ap-plicants. This group has chosen to apply to aspecific employer. Thus, the notion of po-tentially working for a specific company is anear-future event in their minds. On thebasis of temporal construal theory (Trope &Liberman, 2003), it can be expected thatthey will attach a lot of attention to specific,concrete, and factual informationabout the specific instrumentalattributes of a given employer.Therefore, I expect that instru-mental attributes will explainmore variance among actual ap-plicants than among potentialapplicants.

With regard to employees, I ex-pect that symbolic trait inferenceswill explain more variance thaninstrumental attributes. This hy-pothesis is based on the impor-tance of symbolic meanings inthe development and manage-ment of organizational identifica-tion (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Infact, the symbolic attributes thatapplicants perceive to be relatedto an organization as a place towork map very well onto the fac-tors that are posited to be relatedto organizational identification.For instance, the distinctive, cen-tral, and relatively enduring at-tributes (e.g., trustworthy, competent, up-to-date) that Dukerich, Golden, and Shortell(2002) used to describe an organization’sidentity bear close resemblance to the sym-bolic trait dimensions identified by Lievensand Highhouse (2003). Thus, I present thefollowing hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Perceptions of instrumental at-tributes will explain more variance in theArmy’s perceived attractiveness as an em-ployer among actual applicants as comparedto potential applicants.

…the symbolic

attributes that

applicants perceive

to be related to an

organization as a

place to work map

very well onto the

factors that are

posited to be

related to

organizational

identification.



Hypothesis 2b: Perceptions of instrumental at-tributes will explain more variance in theArmy’s perceived attractiveness as an em-ployer among actual applicants as comparedto employees.

Hypothesis 3a: Perceptions of symbolic attributeswill explain more variance in the Army’s per-ceived attractiveness as an employer amongpotential applicants as compared to actualapplicants.

Hypothesis 3b: Perceptions of symbolic attributeswill explain more variance in the Army’s per-ceived attractiveness as an employer amongemployees as compared to actual applicants.

Method

Sample and Procedure

As noted above, three different samples wereused. The first sample consisted ofpotential applicants. Along theselines, prior research demonstratedthat people who enlist in theArmy during the first years afterhigh school knew they would doso by the end of their senior yearin high school (Bachman, Segal,Freedman-Doan, & O’Malley,2000). For this reason, I contacteda representative set of Belgian highschools (in terms of region andtype of education) and mailedquestionnaires to 800 final-yearstudents of these high schools.Participation in the study was vol-untary and anonymous. I receivedcomplete responses from 429final-year students (86% men,14% women; mean age = 18.1 yrs.,SD = 1.0), yielding a response rateof 54%.

With respect to the secondsample (actual applicants), information wascollected at Army recruitment offices whereindividuals apply for Army jobs. The largestArmy recruitment office in each of the fivemain regions in Belgium participated, ensur-ing that the sample of actual applicants wasgeographically representative. All individualswho applied for an Army job in one of thesefive recruitment offices in January 2004 were

asked to complete the research question-naire. I emphasized that participation wasvoluntary and anonymous and that the dataprovided would in no way affect the selec-tion decision. Applicants completed thisquestionnaire prior to completing the psy-chometric tests of the selection procedure.Most of the applicants were willing to partic-ipate in the study, resulting in 392 usable re-sponses (a response rate of 78%). The appli-cant sample consisted of 88% maleapplicants and 12% female applicants. Theirmean age was 21.3 years (SD = 3.6).

The third sample consisted of militaryemployees who recently had joined theArmy (i.e., military employees with less thanthree years’ tenure). Specifically, question-naires were distributed to a representativegroup of military employees during a workbreak that was organized for completing thequestionnaires. I received completed ques-tionnaires from 134 military employees(99% response rate) with less than threeyears’ tenure (89% men, 11% women; meanage = 22.6 yrs., SD = 3.3). The mean tenurewas 1.9 yrs. (SD = 0.8). The distributionacross the various commands of the Armywas as follows: Ground Force (70%) and AirForce (30%). Seventy-nine percent of the re-spondents were soldiers, 18% were noncom-missioned officers, and 4% were officers.

Generally, these three samples were simi-lar in terms of gender composition (all weremale-dominated samples). In addition, thesethree samples had similar educational back-grounds. Specifically, over 95% of the re-spondents in the actual applicant and mili-tary employee samples had an educationaldegree obtained at high schools targeted inthe sample of potential applicants.

Measures

Job and Organizational Characteristics

As it was important to ensure that relevantjob and organizational attributes were in-cluded in the main study, I used an inductivestrategy for identifying job and organiza-tional attributes related to the attractivenessof the Belgian Army as an employer. In par-

The largest Army

recruitment office in

each of the five

main regions in

Belgium

participated,

ensuring that the

sample of actual

applicants was

geographically

representative.



ticular, semistructured interviews with actualapplicants and military employees were con-ducted. Respondents were asked to state var-ious reasons for joining the Army. Thesefocus groups and interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. The primary reasonsper interviewee were extracted from the in-terview transcripts and sorted in 17 nonre-

dundant categories (see Table I). Note thatthe participants in the semistructured inter-views were not included in the samples ofthe main study. Next, I removed reasons thatwere tied to a specific division of the Army(e.g., “become a pilot”) or that were given byless than 1% of the interviewees (e.g., “weara uniform”). Finally, two research assistants


T A B L E I Results of Pre-Study Examining Reasons for Joining the Army


coded whether the remaining 13 reasonswere instrumental or symbolic. Agreementwas satisfactory (Kappa = .84), and discrep-ancies were resolved upon discussion. Asshown in Table I, nine reasons were seen asinstrumental (e.g., “a job in the Army in-volves a lot of physical activities,” “workingin the Army provides you with a goodsalary”), whereas two reasons were classified

as symbolic (“working in theArmy is prestigious,” “working inthe Army is adventurous”).2 Tworeasons (“fulfillment of a dream”and “someone of my family is inthe Army”) could not be classi-fied. The nine instrumental rea-sons served as a basis for writingitems per attribute. Respondentsanswered these items using a five-point rating scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5 = stronglyagree.

I examined the psychometricproperties of this questionnaire inthe total sample. I began bychecking the internal consisten-cies of the scales. Items within thescales were removed if removal of

them meant that the internal consistency(homogeneity) of the scale increased. Next, Iconducted a confirmatory factor analysisusing EQS (Bentler, 1995). In particular, Ispecified a confirmatory factor analysismodel in which each indicator variable(item) was specified to load only on the la-tent variable it was purported to measure. Inaddition, each latent variable was allowed toco-vary with the other latent variables. Asthere were nine scales, there were nine corre-lated latent variables specified. No structuralrelationships between these latent variableswere specified.

To assess model fit, the following fit in-dices were used: the relative noncentralityindex (RNI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI),and the root mean square error of approxi-mation (RMSEA). The RNI and TLI measuresof fit are found to be unbiased and to be rel-atively independent of sample size (Marsh,Balla, & McDonald, 1988; McDonald &Marsh, 1990). The RMSEA is a measure of fit

per degree of freedom of the model (Browne& Cudeck, 1993; Steiger, 1990). It is also pos-sible to establish confidence intervals aroundthe RMSEA. The criteria for evaluating thesefit indices were for the RNI and TLI to havevalues equal to or above .90 (Becker & Cote,1994; Conway, 1996) and for the RMSEA tobe less or equal to .08 (Browne & Cudeck,1993). According to these fit statistics, a con-firmatory factor analysis with nine corre-lated factors produced a good fit to the data,RNI = .93, TLI = .92, and RMSEA = .050(.047–.054). The nine-factor model clearlyoutperformed a one-factor model, as indi-cated by the fit indices of the latter model(RNI = .61, TLI = .58, and RMSEA = .117). Asshown in Table II, the internal consistenciesof the scales were satisfactory. The Appendixpresents the 30 items associated with thenine scales.

Trait Inferences About the Army

I used the 18-item scale of Lievens et al. (2005)for measuring the Army’s symbolic trait di-mensions. Lievens et al. developed this scaleon the basis of Aaker’s (1997) brand personal-ity scale. They found evidence for six distinctfactors—namely, sincerity (e.g., honest, sin-cere), cheerfulness (e.g., cheerful, friendly),excitement (e.g., daring, exciting), compe-tence (e.g., intelligent, technical), prestige(e.g., high status, highly regarded), andruggedness (e.g., tough, rugged). Respondentsindicated their agreement with these itemsusing a five-point rating scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

The psychometric properties of thismeasure were examined by conducting aconfirmatory factor analysis using EQS(Bentler, 1995). A model with six correlatedlatent variables was specified, with each itemloading only on the latent variable it waspurported to measure. Inspection of the fitstatistics revealed that the six-factor modelprovided a good fit to the data, RNI = .96, TLI= .95, and RMSEA = .056 (.051–.062). Thissix-factor model also clearly outperformed aone-factor model as indicated by the fit in-dices of the latter model (RNI = .59, TLI = .53,and RMSEA = .168). As shown in Table II, the

The nine-factor

model clearly

outperformed a one-

factor model, as

indicated by the fit

indices of the latter

model (RNI = .61,

TLI = .58, and

RMSEA = .117).



internal consistencies of these scales weresatisfactory. The Appendix presents theitems associated with each of these six scales.

Army’s Attractiveness as an Employer

Three items (see Appendix) were adaptedfrom the measure of organizational attrac-tiveness proposed by Highhouse et al. (2004)<ZAQ;1>. An example item is “For me, theArmy would be a good place to work.” Theseitems were slightly reworded in the militarysample because this sample consisted of peo-ple who were already working for the Army(e.g., “For me, the Army is a good place towork.”). Respondents rated these items on afive-point rating scale, ranging from 1 =strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Theinternal consistency of this scale was .95.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table II presents the means, standard devia-tions, and correlations among this study’svariables. Internal consistencies are on thediagonal. Virtually all variables were signifi-cantly related to the Army’s attractiveness asan employer. This is not surprising because Iconducted a pre-study to identify relevant

variables. The average correlation betweeninstrumental attributes and symbolic traitinferences was .34.

Test of Hypotheses

The first set of hypotheses dealt with the rat-ings of the instrumental and symbolic attrib-utes related to the Army as an employer acrossthe three samples. Table III presents themeans and standard deviations of the studyvariables broken down by sample. I testedthese hypotheses using multivariate analysisof variance (MANOVA), which showed a sig-nificant multivariate effect for sample, F (32,1852) = 61.56, p < .001, Wilks’s lambda = .24,partial eta2 = .52. I followed this MANOVAwith planned comparison tests related to Hy-potheses 1a to 1c. Hypothesis 1a stated thatactual applicants would have more favorableperceptions about an employer’s instrumentaland symbolic attributes than potential appli-cants. The planned comparison tests revealedthat there were significant (p < .01) differencesbetween actual and potential applicants for allattributes. Table III shows that the means ofactual applicants were significantly higherthan those of potential applicants, supportingHypothesis 1a. I also included an effect sizemeasure (Cohen’s d) as an index of the mag-


T A B L E I I Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Study Variables in Total Sample (N =955)


nitude of the differences across the samples(see the second-to-last column of Table III).The largest differences between the percep-tions of potential and actual applicants werefound for instrumental attributes such as payand benefits, job security, and task diversity.

The next competing hypotheses referredto differences between actual applicants andemployees. The planned comparison testsshowed that there were significant (p < .01)differences between actual applicants andenlisted military for all attributes (with theexception of ruggedness). As indicated inTable III, actual applicants had more favor-able perceptions about an employer’s attrib-utes than did employees. These differenceswere quite large, as shown by the effect sizes.For nine attributes, the effect sizes exceeded1 SD. These results lend support to Hypothe-sis 1b but not to Hypothesis 1c.

Hypothesis 2a stated that perceptionsof instrumental attributes would explainmore variance in the Army’s perceived at-tractiveness as an employer among actualapplicants as compared to potential appli-cants. In addition, Hypothesis 2b posited

that perceptions of instrumental attributeswould explain more variance in the Army’sperceived attractiveness as an employeramong actual applicants as compared toemployees. Table IV presents the results ofa regression analysis in which all nine in-strumental job and organizational attrib-utes were entered simultaneously. In allsamples, these attributes explained a sub-stantial amount of variance—40% for theactual applicant and 22% for both the po-tential applicant and military employeesamples. I then tested whether the differ-ence in explained variance between thesegroups was statistically significant. On thebasis of formulas outlined in Cohen,Cohen, West, and Aiken (2002, p. 88), Icomputed a 95% confidence intervalaround the difference in R2. Results showedthat this confidence interval did not con-tain zero for both the difference in R2 be-tween actual applicants and potential ap-plicants, �R2 = .17 (.07–.28) and thedifference in R2 between actual applicantsand employees, �R2 = .17 (.03–.31). Theseresults support Hypotheses 2a and 2b.


T A B L E I I I Means and Standard Deviations of Study Variables Broken Down by Sample



T A B L E I V Regression of the Army’s Attractiveness as an Employer Broken Down by Sample

T A B L E V Regression of the Army’s Attractiveness on Symbolic Trait Inferences Broken Down by Sample


Finally, Hypothesis 3a posited that per-ceptions of symbolic attributes would ex-plain more variance in the Army’s per-ceived attractiveness as an employeramong potential applicants as compared toactual applicants. Hypothesis 3b stated thatperceptions of symbolic attributes wouldexplain more variance in the Army’s per-ceived attractiveness as an employeramong employees as compared to actualapplicants. Table V presents the results of aregression analysis in which all symbolicattributes were entered simultaneously.

Symbolic attributes explained asubstantial amount of variance:26% in the potential applicantsample, 30% in the actual appli-cant sample, and 29% in themilitary employee sample. So,symbolic attributes were impor-tant predictors in all samples,lending no support to Hypothe-ses 3a and 3b. In fact, using theformulas of Cohen, Cohen,West, and Aiken (2002, p. 88),the differences in explained vari-ance between these groups werenot statistically significant.

Tables IV and V further indi-cate that excitement emerged asthe only consistent significantpredictor of the Army’s attrac-tiveness as a place to work acrossthe three samples. In the poten-tial applicant sample, social ac-tivities, travel opportunities, task

diversity, cheerfulness, and prestige weresignificant predictors. In the actual appli-cant sample, the significant predictors weresocial activities, physical activities, struc-ture, job security, educational opportuni-ties, task diversity, cheerfulness, compe-tence, and prestige. Finally, in the militaryemployee sample, structure, sincerity, andcompetence predicted the Army’s attractive-ness as an employer.

I also conducted a hierarchical regressionin which the instrumental job and organiza-tional attributes were entered as a first block.As a second block, the symbolic trait infer-ences were entered in the regression equa-

tion. This set of factors was entered after thejob and organizational attributes becausesymbolic trait inferences typically accruefrom how people perceive an organization’smore factual attributes (Lievens & High-house, 2003). In all samples, symbolic attrib-utes explained a significant additional por-tion of the variance. In the potentialapplicant sample, symbolic trait inferencesexplained 10% of incremental variance, 13%in the military employee sample, and 4% inthe actual applicant sample.

Discussion

Over the last few years, employer brandinghas emerged as a buzzword in the profes-sional HR literature. To date, empirical stud-ies examining its assumptions and effects arescarce. This study builds on conceptualiza-tions of the employer brand as a package ofinstrumental and symbolic attributes. As themain purpose, this study examines the rela-tive importance of instrumental and sym-bolic employer brand beliefs across differentgroups of individuals that are relevant to or-ganizations in the recruitment process.Specifically, theory-driven hypotheses areformulated about the employer brand beliefsheld by three groups of individuals—namely,potential applicants, actual applicants, andmilitary employees.

Main Conclusions

First, this study confirms the usefulness ofthe instrumental-symbolic framework as aconceptualization of employer brands(Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Lievens et al.,2005). In all three samples, the set of instru-mental job and organizational attributes andsymbolic trait inferences are significantly re-lated to the Army’s attractiveness as an em-ployer. In all three samples, symbolic trait in-ferences also explain incremental varianceover and above perceptions of instrumentaljob and organizational attributes. These re-sults have implications for employer brand-ing theory and practice. Specifically, they un-derscore that current conceptualizations ofcompany employment image should include

Symbolic attributes

explained a

substantial amount

of variance: 26% in

the potential

applicant sample,

30% in the actual

applicant sample,

and 29% in the

military employee

sample.



both instrumental attributes and symbolicmeanings (person-descriptive trait infer-ences) that people associate with particularorganizations.

Second, this study adds some key find-ings to the extant literature on employerimage, as support was found for several hy-potheses with respect to the relative impor-tance of instrumental and symbolic attrib-utes across the three different groups.Accordingly, this study informs our under-standing of how organizations should inter-act with different populations during recruit-ment. Consistent with my hypotheses,perceptions of instrumental attributes ex-plain significantly more variance (40%) inthe Army’s perceived attractiveness as an em-ployer among actual applicants compared topotential applicants and employees. Ourfinding that actual applicants attach muchmore importance to instrumental factorsthan the other groups might be explained bythe fact that they gather specific, concrete,and factual information about the specificemployer for whom they want to work. Thisfinding does not mean that actual applicantsdo not value the symbolic image dimen-sions, since these dimensions also explaineda substantial amount of variance (30%) inthis group.

Another key finding was that symbolictrait inferences played an important role indetermining attractiveness among all threegroups. The large portion of variance (26%)explained by symbolic trait inferences inthe potential applicant sample can be un-derstood on the basis of job search processmodels (Barber, 1998; Barber et al., 1994;Blau, 1993; Saks & Ashforth, 2000). Asnoted above, these models posit that in theearly stages, potential applicants conduct abroad search among many employment al-ternatives and gather only a limitedamount of information per employment al-ternative. Hence, potential applicants arelikely to be more or less attracted to theArmy based on generalized beliefs (i.e.,symbolic attributes).

The result that symbolic meanings ac-count for so much variance (29%) in ex-plaining the Army’s attractiveness as an em-

ployer for current military employees fitswell with the literature on organizationalidentification. Dutton, Dukerich, and Har-quail (1994) defined perceived organiza-tional identity as organizational members’beliefs about the distinctive, central, and en-during attributes of the organization. Theyfurther proposed a relationship between theattractiveness of this perceived identity andan employee’s organizational identification.So, it seems likely that the Army attributesthat emerged as significant determinantsamong military employees will be especiallyimportant with respect to the or-ganizational identification of mil-itary employees (see Mael & Ash-forth, 1995). Clearly, futureresearch is needed that links sym-bolic trait inferences to organiza-tional identification and job satis-faction.

Third, this study reveals thatactual applicants have consis-tently more favorable perceptionsabout an employer’s instrumentaland symbolic attributes than po-tential applicants. In addition, ac-tual applicant perceptions are con-sistently higher than employeeperceptions. Whereas the first re-sult is not surprising, the other re-sult deserves some attention. Thisresult does not support the ideathat employees engage in confir-matory processes to rationalizetheir choice once they have en-tered an organization. Instead, it seems to in-dicate that a difference exists between the per-ceived image of the Army among applicantsand its perceived identity among employees.The finding that actual applicants have morefavorable perceptions about the Army as anemployer than do employees is important be-cause it may partially explain why there existssubstantial attrition among enlisted recruits.As this implication is based on cross-sectionalself-reports gathered by a single survey, itshould be interpreted with caution, and lon-gitudinal research is needed to confirm it fur-ther. For example, one could examinewhether applicants carry these optimistic per-

…this study reveals

that actual

applicants have

consistently more

favorable

perceptions about

an employer’s

instrumental and

symbolic attributes

than potential

applicants.



ceptions forward into employment (Bauer,Morrison, & Callister, 1998) and whetherthese flawed perceptions affect job perform-ance and turnover.

Limitations

This study is not without limitations. First,this study is conducted in the Belgian Army.Therefore, future studies are needed to ex-amine the generalizability of the results inother settings and countries. Generally, I be-lieve that the conclusions with regard toimage audits are relevant for many large or-ganizations in the private and public sectorthat face the constant challenge to attractand retain the necessary quantity and qual-ity of personnel. However, a potentialboundary condition to generalizability isthat the Army typically has a strong and dis-tinctive image as an employer. Clearly, notall organizations have such a distinctiveimage. Second, the independent and de-pendent variables are collected at the samepoint in time. So, the results may be subjectto common method variance. Given thecross-sectional nature of the data, reversecausality also may be a problem. In fact, itseems equally likely that individuals who arenot attracted to the military will rate all at-

tributes as low, whereas individuals who areattracted to the military will rate all attrib-utes as high even if they do not have accu-rate information on which to develop thesebeliefs.

Implications for Practitioners

This study has various implications for HRpractice. In particular, it highlights that animage audit should be conducted not onlyin applicant samples (external imageaudit), but also in employee samples hold-ing an insider view of the organization (in-ternal image audit). This audit enables or-ganizations to compare and integrate theperceptions of potential and actual appli-cants with these of current employees. Ul-timately, this integrated informationshould be indicative of what the Armymight promote as a value proposition toapplicants and employees. From a practicalpoint of view, the results further suggestthat organizations should include both in-strumental and symbolic attributes in theirimage audits. If they only focus on job andorganizational attributes (as is traditionallythe case), an important part of what makesan organization an attractive employer isignored.


FILIP LIEVENS is a professor in the Department of Personnel Management and Workand Organizational Psychology at Ghent University, Belgium. In 1999, he earned hisPhD from the same university. His current research interests focus on selection proce-dures (e.g., assessment centers, situational judgment tests) and organizational attrac-tiveness. He is the author of over 50 articles and 100 presentations at internationalconferences. He has published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psy-chology, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, the Journal of Occupational and Or-ganizational Psychology, Applied Psychology: An International Review, and the Inter-national Journal of Selection and Assessment. He has received several awards,including the Best Paper Award from the International Personnel Management Associ-ation (2001) and the Distinguished Early Career Award from the Society of Industrialand Organizational Psychology (2006).

NOTES1. In Barber’s (1998) model, the third group refers to

selectees—namely, individuals who are offeredemployment. In this study, our third group con-

sists of military employees. However, I concen-trated on employees who recently joined theArmy, because only employees with less thanthree years of tenure were included.


2. The two symbolic reasons for joining the Armythat arose from the pre-study are captured in themeasure for symbolic trait inferences about theArmy. “Working in the Army is prestigious” be-longs to the factor prestige, whereas “Working inthe Army is adventurous” relates to the factorexcitement.

REFERENCES

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality.Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356.

Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Re-search, 36, 45–57.

Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand.Journal of Brand Management, 4, 185–206.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity the-ory and organization. Academy of ManagementReview, 14, 20–39.

Bachman, J. G., Segal, D. R., Freedman-Doan, P., &O’Malley, P. M. (2000). Who chooses military serv-ice? Correlates of propensity and enlistment in theU.S. Armed Forces. Military Psychology, 12, 1–30.

Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing andresearching employer branding. Career Develop-ment International, 9, 501–517.

Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individualand organizational perspectives. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Barber, A. E., Daly, C. L., Giannantonio, C. M., &Phillips, J. M. (1994). Job search activities: An ex-amination of changes over time. Personnel Psy-chology, 47, 739–765.

Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998).Organizational socialization: A review and direc-tions for future research. In G.R. Ferris (Ed.), Re-search in personnel and human resources man-agement (Vol. 16, pp. 149–214). Stamford, CT: JAIPress.

Becker, T. E., & Cote, J. A. (1994). Additive and multi-plicative method effects in applied psychologicalresearch: An empirical assessment of three meth-ods. Journal of Management, 20, 625–641.

Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS: Structural equations pro-gram manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software,Inc.

Blau, G. (1993). Further exploring the relationshipbetween job search and voluntary individualturnover. Personnel Psychology, 46, 313–330.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative waysof assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S.

Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models(pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2001). Establishing thedimensions, sources and value of job seekers’employer knowledge during recruitment. In G. R.Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human re-sources management (pp. 115–163). New York: El-sevier Science.

Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2003). The value of or-ganizational reputation in the recruitment context:A brand-equity perspective. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 33, 2244–2266.

Cohen, P., Cohen, J., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S.(2002). Applied multiple regression/correlationanalysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Collins, C. J., & Han, J. (2004). Exploring applicantpool quantity and quality: The effects of early re-cruitment practices, corporate advertising, andfirm reputation. Personnel Psychology, 57,685–717.

Collins, C. J., & Stevens, C. K. (2002). The relation-ship between early recruitment related activitiesand the application decisions of new labor-mar-ket entrants: A brand equity approach to recruit-ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,1121–1133.

Conway, J. M. (1996). Analysis and design of multi-trait-multirater performance appraisal studies.Journal of Management, 22, 139–162.

Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M.(2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Theimpact of organizational identification, identity,and image on the cooperative behaviors of physi-cians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47,507–533.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994).Organizational images and member identification.Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.

Frook, J. E. (2001). Burnish your brand from the in-side. B to B, 86, 1–2.

Fulmer, I. S., Gerhart, B., & Scott, K. S. (2003). Arethe 100 best better? An empirical investigation ofthe relationship between being a “great place towork” and firm performance. Personnel Psychol-ogy, 56, 965–993.

Highhouse, S., & Hoffman, J. R. (2001). Organiza-tional attraction and job choice. In C. L. Cooper &I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of in-dustrial and organizational psychology (pp.37–64). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. (2003). Mea-suring organizational attraction. Educational and



Psychological Measurement, 63, 986–1001.<ZAQ;1>

Highhouse, S., Thornbury, E. E., & Little, I. S. (inpress). Social-identity functions of attraction toorganizations. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes.

Highhouse, S., Zickar, M. J., Thorsteinson, T. J., Stier-walt, S. L., & Slaughter, J. E. (1999). Assessing com-pany employment image: An example in the fastfood industry. Personnel Psychology, 52, 151–172.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Esti-mating within-group interrater reliability with andwithout response bias. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 69, 85–98. <ZAQ;2>

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the studyof attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24,163–204.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, andmanaging customer-based brand equity. Journalof Marketing, 57, 1–22.

Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation ofinstrumental and symbolic attributes to a com-pany’s attractiveness as an employer. PersonnelPsychology, 56, 75–102.

Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G., & Schreurs, B. (2005). Ex-amining the relationship between employerknowledge dimensions and organizational attrac-tiveness: An application in a military context.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-chology, 78, 553–572.

Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day


one: Biodata, organizational identification, andturnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychol-ogy, 48, 309–333.

Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988).Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factoranalysis: The effect of sample size. PsychologicalBulletin, 103, 391–410.

McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing amultivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness-of-fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247–255.

Power, D. J., & Aldag, R. J. (1985). Soelberg’s jobsearch and choice model: A clarification, review,and critique. Academy of Management Review,10, 48–58.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2000). Change injob search behaviors and employment outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56,277–287.

Shavitt, S. (1990). The role of attitude objects in atti-tude functions. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 26, 124–148.

Slaughter, J. E., Zickar, M. J., Highhouse, S., &Mohr, D. C. (2004). Personality trait inferencesabout organizations: Development of a measureand assessment of construct validity. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 89, 85–103.

Soelberg, P. O. (1967). Unprogrammed decisionmaking. Industrial Management Review, 8, 19–29.

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluationand modification: An interval estimation ap-proach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25,173–180.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal.Psychological Review, 110, 403–421.



A P P E N D I X A Overview of Items Measuring Study Variables



A P P E N D I X B



A P P E N D I X C

Documents

EMPLOYER BRANDING IN THE BELGIAN ARMY: THE …flievens/hrm.pdf · Employer Branding in the Belgian Army 53 zation in terms of the objective, concrete, and factual attributes inherent