1

The Right ‘Fit’? Bringing Marketing and HR Together: A literature study

of employer branding

Introduction

The role of employees in creating value through delivering experiences to the customer has

been recognised in the literature on relationship and internal marketing (Mosley, 2007;

Ballantyne, 2000) and researchers have examined how to attract the right employees,

motivate them and motivate them to deliver a better performance (Gounaris, 2006; Ahmed &

Rafiq, 2003; Ahmed et al., 2003; Rafiq & Ahmed, 1993). Employer branding is an effective

marketing strategy which aims to establish the identity of the firm as a unique and desirable

place to work, in line with key objectives such as attracting, motivating and retaining the best

employees (Backhaus & Tikoo 2004).

Employer branding adapts principles from branding theory and applies them to the

management of a company’s human resources. As such, employer branding is a cross-

functional management approach which encompasses both marketing and HR (Martin et at.,

2011; Maxwell & Knox 2009; Hulberg, 2006; Burmann & Zeplin 2004). However, while

employer branding has been explored both conceptually and empirically in the marketing

literature, limited attention has been paid to the effect of employer brand-supporting

behaviour from the HR perspective (Matanda & Oly Ndubisi 2013; Cable & DeRue 2002).

This paper addresses this issue by viewing employer branding as a cross-disciplinary topic.

Firstly, employer branding is defined and the theoretical background of the employer

branding discussed. Secondly, a route to effective implementation of employer branding

strategy is proposed which aligns theory from both the Marketing and HR disciplines.

1. What is Employer branding?

Employer branding focuses on how organisation-level variables affect employee behaviour. It

aims to establish the identity of the firm as a unique and desirable place to work. Its

objectives are attracting job applicants in the job market, retaining and motivating the hired

employees to deliver a quality performance (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Similarly, Lloyd

(2002) also defines employer branding as the sum of a company’s efforts to communicate to

existing and prospective staff that it is a desirable place to work (Lloyd, 2002). Lievens (2007)

further confirms that employer branding involves promoting internally to existing employees

and externally to potential employees “a clear view of what makes a firm different and

desirable as an employer”, so that job seekers will be interested in applying for the job, and

existing staff members will be inspired to stay (Lievens, 2007)

2. How does employer branding work?

Traditionally, a brand’s functional and symbolic attributes influence consumer behaviour

(Lam et al., 2012; Van Hoye & Saks 2011; Lievens 2007; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).

Specifically, functional attributes describe the products’ ‘objective, physical, and tangible

attributes that a product either has or does not have’ (Lievens and Highhouse 2003). These

functional attributes tend to fulfill consumers’ physical needs through using products. The

symbolic attributes describe the products’ ‘subjective and intangible attributes that accrue

from how people perceive a product and make inferences about it rather than what they think

a product does or has’ (Lievens and Highhouse 2003, Park et al. 1986). These symbolic

attributes are identified to fulfill consumers’ personal psychological needs and desire for

social approval (Backjaus & Tikoo, 2004).

2

An attractive brand image, which successfully reflects both functional and symbolic benefits

is an initial step to attract custom (Lam et al., 2012; Van Hoye & Saks, 2011; Lievens, 2007;

Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). When the brands’ symbolic meanings resonate with individual

consumers’ self-identity, the intensity of the psychological bond between the consumer and

the brand will be enhanced. It is argued that this psychological bond transfers into consumer

buying and re-buying decisions, thus building and enhancing customer loyalty. Consumers

may demonstrate a high degree of loyalty by, for example, introducing the products to others

and convincing them to purchase (Kim et at., 2011) (See Appendix A: Company’s branding

strategy influences customers’ behaviors).

Employer branding is the application of branding principles to employees (Backhaus & Tikoo,

2004). Within the employee branding paradigm, the experiences of employees in relation to

the company appear to be core products whose quality is largely shaped by the employer

(Moroko & Uncles 2008; Ambler & Barrow, 1996).

Early impressions of an employer brand image, generating from both the functional and

symbolic benefits offered by employer branding, form the basis of job seekers’ perceptions of

their future life working in the company. Building the brand image includes the company

firstly offering tangible job benefits, or functional benefits which can be observed, such as

salary, position and company location, and secondly offering intangible job benefits, or

symbolic benefits which cannot be observed directly, such as job promotion opportunities, a

friendly working environment and positive organisational culture (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005).

Symbolic benefits can also be explained as employees’ perceptions about the company’s

prestige, and the social identity job seekers believe they would gain or enjoy if they work for

the company. For example, in terms of symbolic benefits, job seekers may aspire to work for

a company with a prestigious reputation as they anticipate their own social identity will be

enhanced (Backhaus & Tikko, 2004). It is argued that when the symbolic attributes of the

brand image resonates with the job seekers’ perception towards their self-identity, the

possibility that the job seeker will choose the company is high. It is also suggested that initial

perception of the brand image can be a starting point for the development and enhancement

of the intensity of the relationship between the job seeker and company at a later stage

(Wilden et al., 2010) (See Appendix B: The role of branding with customers and employees).

Consumers build relationships with companies based on whether companies successfully

deliver promised benefits. Similarly, the intensity of the relationship with the employer for

new employees starts to develop according to the extent to which the company can

successfully deliver the promised benefits in the recruitment advertising (Gounaris, 2006;

Hoeffler & Keller 2002).

A psychological contract is held to be based on the subjective beliefs individual employees

have concerning the exchange agreement they have with their employer (Backhause & Tikoo,

2004). Accordingly, when the benefits and rewards promised, such as the agreed salary and

associated benefits, are perceived to be true, individual employees will consider the company

as trustworthy (based on their subjective beliefs). In exchange, employees will start to build a

psychological contract with the company. The extent of employee’s perceptions of the

psychological contract will influence employee motivation, trust, performance, commitment

and satisfaction (Mangold & Miles, 2007). Furthermore, a long and stable psychological

relationship with the company will positively impact employees’ job retention decisions.

Employees tend to stay longer and be loyal to such companies (Wilden et al., 2010).

3

Consistently delivering the promised benefits to extend the psychological contract encourages

employees to commit to the employer brand. Brand commitment is the extending of

employees’ psychological contract to the brand which involves employees’ understanding of

and identification with the organisation’s value (Burmann & Zeplin, 2004; Heskett et al.,

2003).

Committed consumers continuously purchase the same product even when the product is of

poor quality if they are committed to the brand. Similarly, employees who are committed to

the employer brand are less likely to leave the company even when their working situation

allows them to consider other employer opportunities (Backhaus & Tikoo 2004). A further

benefit of employer brand commitment is that employees are willing to exert extra effort to

help company achieve their goals. O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) explain that such

commitment related behaviour includes employees’ high levels of motivation for extending

effort beyond the basic job requirements and considering the company’s welfare (O’Reilly &

Chatman 1986). As such, not only will employees’ intention to leave be reduced but they will

also be inspired to engage with their job and contribute extra efforts (See Appendix C: How

the characters of branding influence customer and employees’ behaviour).

3. Implementing employer branding: aligning theory from Marketing and HR

3.1 Employees make their job decisions when the employer branding attributes match

their needs

In line with the theoretical foundations examined in the branding literature, it can be

concluded that to achieve the objectives of employer branding it is vital to ensure that the

employer branding attributes successfully meet with individuals’ personal requirements and

expectations.

Specifically, according to ‘needs theory’, individuals’ behaviour is motivated by the drive to

satisfy unmet needs. People’s needs are differentiated in a hierarchy ranging from the lower-

order needs (which largely comprise basic needs for living such as shelter), to the higher-

order needs, which are grounded in the psychological and social needs (such as esteem).

Examples of hierarchy-based needs theory include Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’,

Herzberg’s ‘Hygiene-motivation’ framework and work by Alderfer and McClelland (Haslam

et al., 2000). It is argued, therefore, that only when the employer branding attributes,

including both functional and symbolic attributes, match with employees’ hierarchical needs,

will job applicants be attracted and existing employees be motivated to stay (Lievens, 2007;

Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).

3.2 Exploring employee job decisions within the HR discipline

The concept of ‘fit’ within the HR paradigm largely focuses on employee recruitment,

selection and retention. It is well established in the literature that employees structure and use

the ‘fit’ perceptions when they look for jobs and make decisions as to whether to stay or

leave (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Generally, employees compare their goals, values, needs,

interests and personalities with organisations’ cultures, pay systems, sizes, structures, future

development and values (Judge & Cable, 1997). Therefore, exploring the ‘fit’ theory is

necessary to pursue a better understanding of employee attraction and retention, which is also

the main research focus of employer branding.

• Fulfilling employees’ basic and value needs: Needs-Supplies fit (N-S fit)

4

Firstly, employees judge the congruence between their needs and the rewards they receive in

exchange for their contributions to the company (Needs-supplies fit). The rewards offered

include payment, benefits and welfare.

Cable and DeRue (2002) argue that individuals’ needs in this stage usually focus on the basic

needs for living. Therefore whether the individual’s basic needs can fit with the offered

rewards is usually the primary driver of employees’ decisions and work attitudes. In other

words, whether job applicants are willing to work for the company and how they are going to

contribute to the job are driven by whether the companies’ rewards can successfully fit with

employees’ basic needs (Cable & DeRue, 2002).

• Matching with the needs of job skills and abilities: Personal-job fit (P-J fit)

Secondly, employees also consider if their job skills and abilities are compatible with the

demands and the characteristics of a specific job (Personal-job fit) (Van Vianen, 2000).

Employees’ job-related skills include their task habit, task skill and task knowledge that may

influence their task performances (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001).

Previous studies suggest that the P-J fit influences employees’ retention decisions. Therefore

companies who direct efforts toward increasing employees’ P-J fit by locating the right job to

the right people tend to have more engaged employees and lower rates of staff turnover

(Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001, Becker & Billings, 1993). In addition, Lauer and Dristof-

Brown (2001) and Bauer et al. (1998) claim that designing training programs which

emphasise improving the employees’ job knowledge, behaviours and attitudes is an efficient

strategy to strengthen the P-J fit (Lauer & Dristof-Brown, 2001; Bauer et al., 1998).

• Matching with organisations’ value and culture: Personal-organisation fit

‘Values are conceived of as fundamental and relatively enduring’ (Van Vianen, 2000), as

such, employees also evaluate the fit between their personal values and the organisation’s

values and culture (Personal-organisation fit) (Van Vianen, 2000; Kristof, 1996). In particular,

employees’ evaluations of the organisational culture include evaluating firstly the culture

which is shaped by organisations’ strategic position and environment, secondly evaluating the

culture which is developed by the people who work in the organisation (Cable & DeRue,

2002; Van Vianen, 2000).

Previous literature already confirms the significant relationships between P-O fit and

employees’ decisions on job retention and the leaving intentions (Westerman & Cyr 2004;

Cable & DeRue 2002; Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001; Cable & Judge, 1996). Firstly,

individuals use values to make choices, including the choice as to whether to participate in

the organisation’s activities (Westerman & Cyr, 2004). In particular, when employees’ values

match with their organisations’ values and the values of other employees, it is more likely the

employees will feel involved with the organisation. Turner (1984) defines this involvement as

employees joining the psychological group. This psychological group is ‘a collection of

people who share the same social identification or define themselves in terms of the same

social category membership’ (Turner, 1984, P 530). It is suggested that joining the

psychological group effectively motivates employees to participate in the organisation

activities, especially the activities that are beneficial for company performance.

Secondly, employees’ behaviours are guided by their beliefs and values. If their deeply held

values match with the organisation’s, employees can be highly motivated to engage in the

organisation’s activities and perform in the way that the organisations expect (Lauver and

5

Kristof-Brown, 2001). Moreover, Lauver and Kristof- Brown (2001)’s study demonstrates

that individual employees would contribute more than what was expected of them when they

found their company’s values matched their own (Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001).

Thirdly, in terms of employees’ decision as to whether to stay or leave, even with better

tangible offers, if individuals perceive that their organisation’s values reflect their own values

(value fit), the decision to leave will be very difficult. Further, employees whose values

match with their colleagues usually find it comfortable to work and communicate within the

company. As a result, their leaving decisions will be more difficult to make (Jackson et al.,

1991). Therefore, when the organisations’ values fit with employees’, or employees’ values

can match each other, employee turnover rate will be low (Cable & DeRue, 2002).

4. Aligning Branding and HR theory for effective implementation of the employer

branding strategy

To implement an employer branding strategy effectively, it is necessary to understand what

drives the employees’ job decisions. Employees’ decisions are argued to be largely shaped by

the attributes of employer branding. In particular, employees will be motivated to make their

job decision when the employer branding’s functional and symbolic attributes fulfil

employees’ lower level and higher level needs.

In addition, considering the ‘fit’ concept helps companies to implement the employer

branding strategy effectively by further understanding what different individuals consider

when they make job decisions from an HR perspective. In particular, previous literature

indicates that the N-S fit, which is largely associated with employees’ lower level needs and

employer branding’s functional attributes, influences job seekers’ initial decision in the job

market. P-J fit and P-O fit, which are associated with employees’ higher needs and employer

branding’s symbolic attributes, have a significant impact on employees’ decisions on job

retention and thus impact on levels of staff turnover (Westerman & Cyr 2004; Cable &

DeRue 2002; Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001; Cable & Judge, 1996).

Therefore, from a practical perspective, aligning Branding and HR theory to consider the

employer branding implementation allows a company better to understand what shapes

employees’ job decisions. As such, job seekers will be attracted to work for the company,

existing employees will be motivated to engage fully with the company and stay longer. In

addition, the fact that employer branding is a cross-discipline study also indicates that theory

from the HR perspective should be added into the employer branding framework.

5. Conclusion

Reviewing the existing literature indicates that successfully implementing employer branding

requires the consideration of knowledge from both marketing and HR paradigms. However

this paper is only the starting point in viewing employer branding as a cross-disciplinary topic;

more research is needed to further explore how to align the theory from different paradigms

to pursue a better understanding of this new phenomenon.

6

References

Ahmed, P. K., & Rafiq, M. (2003). Internal marketing issues and challenges. European

Journal of Marketing, 37(9), 1177-1186.

Ahmed, P. K., Rafiq, M., & Saad, N. M. (2003). Internal marketing and the mediating role of

organizational competencies. European Journal of Marketing, 37(9), 1221-1241.

Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding.

Career Development International, 9(5), 501-517.

Ballantyne, D. (2000). Internal relationship marketing: a strategy for knowledge renewal.

International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18(6), 274-286.

Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. M., & Callister, R. B. (1998). Organizational socialization: A

review and directions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and

human resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 149-214). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Becker, T. E., & Billings, R. S. (1993). Profiles of commitment: An empirical test. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 14, 177-190.

Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Hah, L. L. (2005). Captivating company: dimensions of

attractiveness in employer branding. International Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 151.

Burmann, C., & Zeplin, S. (2004). Building brand commitment: A behavioural approach to

internal brand management. Brand management, 12(4), 279-300.

Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The Convergent and Discriminant Validity of

Subjective Fit Perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and

organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294-311.

Christopher, M., Payne, A., & Ballantyne, D. (1991). Relationship Marketing: Bring Quality,

Customer Service and Marketing Together. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.

Gounaris, S. P. (2006). Internal-market orientation and its measurement. Journal of Business

Research, 59, 432-448.

Harris, F., & de Chernatony, L. (2001). Corporate branding and corporate brand performance.

European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 441-456.

Hulberg, J. (2006). Integrating corporate branding and sociological paradigms: A literature

study. Brand management, 14(1/2), 60-73.

Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991).

Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as

correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675-

689.

Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicat personality, organizational culture, and

organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 356-394.

Kristof, A. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,

mesurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

7

Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between Employees' Perceptions

of Person-Job and Person-Organization Fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 454-470.

Lievens, F. (2007). Employer branding in the Belgian Army: The importance of instrumental

and symbolic beliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants, and military employees.

Human Resource Management, 46(1), 51-69. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20145

Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a

company's attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology, 56, 75-102.

Martin, G., Gollan, P. J., & Grigg, K. (2011). Is there a bigger and better future for employer

branding? Facing up to innovation, corporate reputations and wicked problems in SHRM.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(17), 3618-3637.

Matanda, J. M., & Ndubisi, O. N. (2013). Internal marketing, internal branding, and

organisational coutcomes: The moderating role of perceived goal congruence. Journal of

Marketing Management, 29(9-10), 1030-1055.

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(893-907).

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(893-907).

MIles, S. J., & Mangold, W. G. (2007). Growing the Employee Brand at ASI: A Case Study.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 77.

Mosley, R. W. (2007). Customer Experience, Organizational Culture and the Employer

Brand. Journal of Brand Management, 15(2), 123-134.

O'Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational Commitment and Psychological

Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on Prosocial

Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499.

Payne, A., & Holt, S. (2001). Diagnosing Customer Value: Integrating the Value Process and

Relationship Marketing. British Journal of Management, 12, 159-182.

Payne, A., Ballantyne, D., & Christopher, M. (2005). A stakholder appoach to relationship

marketing strategy, The development and use of the 'six markets' model. European Journal of

Marketing, 39(7/8), 855-871.

Rafiq, M., & Ahmed, P. (1993). The scope of internal marketing: Defining the boundary

between marketing and human resource management. Journal of Marketing Management,

9(3), 219-232.

Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations:

A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 462-

470.

Schneider, B., W., G. H., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel

Psychology, 48, 747-773.

8

Turner, J. C. (1984). Social identification and psychological group formation. In H. Tajfel

(Ed.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 518-

538). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000). Personal-organization fit: the match between newcomers' and

recruiters' preferences for organizational cultures. Personel Psychology, 53, 113-149.

Westerman, J. W., & Cyr, L. A. (2004). An Integrative Analysis of Person- Organization Fit

Theories. International Journal of Selection of Assessment, 12(3), 252-261.

Wilden, R., Gudergan, S., & Lings, I. (2010). Employer branding: strategic implications for

staff recruitment. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(1-2), 56-73.

9

Appendix A: Company’s branding strategy influences customers’ behaviors

10

Appendix B: The role of branding with customers and employees

11

Appendix C: How the characters of branding influence customer and employees’

behaviour