employer brand and retention word 2007

A Study on Employer branding and employee retention strategies

INTRODUCTION

Employees are the ultimate location of the employer brand so

understanding their perceptions of the company through research is a vital stage

in the process of employee retention. While HR is currently awash with a

ludicrous number of national surveys, employer branding research is very

different from these generic surveys.

The employer brand concept was first conceived in the early Eighties to

help organisations drive greater employee commitment to ‘the brand they work

for’ and compete more effectively for talent. Ultimately, strong employer

branding can foster feelings of trust and loyalty among existing or future

employees. Candidate attraction and retention strategies are critical in helping

the banking sector to recover. Employers with damaged reputations will need to

put their employer brand at the forefront of all their HR plans and activities.

Penny Lovett, General Manager Human Resources at BUPA Australia,

refers to their employer brand as an “organisational fingerprint”. She explains:

“Each company has one that is unique. If you don’t know your own

‘fingerprint’, you won’t be able to develop actions that make best use of your

company’s specific strengths and weaknesses”. My whole study is to

understand the term Employer branding and its influence in retaining the

employees in a branded organisation. It focuses on various components on

employer branding like Employee value proposition (EVP), the vision, the

1


values etc. Also this study identifies the various factors associated with

employer branding which contributes as an effective branding building

technique.

1.1 CONCEPTS

Employer branding

One of the earliest definitions of the concept was provided in 1996 by Simon

Barrow (of people in Business, a consulting firm that specializes in employer

branding) and Prof. Tim Ambler (senior Fellow at the London Business

School), who defined Employer Branding as “the package of functional,

economic and psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified

with the employing company”. Employer branding represents a firm's efforts to

promote, both within and outside the firm, a clear view of what makes it

different and desirable as an employer.

“An Employer Brand is about capturing the essence of the Company in a

way that it engages employees. It is who you are as an employer. It conveys

your ‘value proposition’- the totality of your culture, systems, attitudes and

employee relationships. And it encourages your people to embrace and further

shared goals- success, productivity and satisfaction- on a personal and

professional level.” – Simon Barrow 1996.

2


Employee Retention

“Employee retention is a systematic effort by employers to create and

foster an environment that encourages current employees to remain employed

by having policies and practices in place that address their diverse needs.”

Employer branding is Not Recruitment Advertising

The employer brand is not simply a slick new recruitment advertising campaign.

The employer brand is a much broader concept and describes the emotional

connections that an employee has for its employer. The first stage in any

successful employer brand process is to take this more holistic perspective as

Shane Freeman Group General Manager of People Capital at ANZ explains:

“The employer brand is really the DNA of the organisation. It’s the essence of

who we are and how we interact with each other, with our customers and other

stakeholders. Simply adopting a tag line that doesn't represent the organisation's

real essence or DNA will be shown very quickly to be artificial and not real”.

It’s Not Just About Recruitment

Many organisations are attracted to employer branding because they perceive it

will improve their ability to attract good people. While this is true, employer

3


branding is not simply a recruitment strategy. Consumer brands are not valuable

simply because they attract increased sale. They also inspire loyalty and alter a

consumer’s perception of the product’s performance. In the same way a strong

employer brand does much more than simply improve recruitment levels. A

stronger employer brand leads to greater retention, improved job performance

and lower degree of salary sensitivity. At Pacific Brands, CEO Paul Moore has

made people and brands two of the key pillars of the organisation. It’s no

coincidence therefore that the company is now revamping its induction program

to include sessions in which employees learn about the history and heritage of

the brand that they have been employed by. The biggest benefits of employer

branding are usually realized with existing, not potential, employees.

The Employee Value Proposition (EVP)

Once all the research is complete the real challenge begins. The lesson

from consumer marketing is that no brand can be built without a proposition.

The proposition captures the true essence of a brand and is used to drive every

marketing activity from pricing to promotions. In employer branding the EVP

plays exactly the same role. It represents the essence of the employer brand.

Too many organisations lazily compile the usual pointless series of words to

define their organisation. Walk around the boardrooms of Australia and you will

repeatedly encounter these anodyne values: innovative, integrity, quality,

excellence. In every instance they spell dull, indolent and underperforming

4


organisations. When companies get their EVP right they use research to create a

different and more authentic brand proposition. The key to a good EVP is using

research to inform the process.

Employer Brand is Linked but Distinct from the Corporate Brand

One of the key challenges of developing the EVP is its relationship to the

corporate brand positioning. While employer brand and corporate brand are

distinct, they must also be consistent with each other. It’s a challenge that

Richard Bowden the Managing Director of BUPA Australia is well aware of:

“We are constantly aligning the people in our business to the customers in our

business. So, having an Employer Brand which aligns to our customer brand

allows us to attract and retain the right people for our business”. This alignment

process means that marketing and HR must work together (and not against each

other) on the EVP. Both have so much to gain from the experience. For

marketing there is a chance to ensure that employees will support the corporate

brand values. For HR there is the opportunity to ensure that the external

perception of the company, which is usually driven by the corporate brand, will

be linked to the internal employer brand. Sometimes it is easy to forget that HR

and Marketing do actually work for the same brand.

Break the Generic Rules of HR

5


The real value of employer branding is what the EVP gives you. At the end of

the process a company finally knows what its employees want and also what it

can offer better than others in the market. From this understanding comes the

ability to break some of the generic practices of HR and truly differentiate itself

in the market and to its employees. Only then will an organisation enjoy the real

advantages of a strong employer brand: better people, recruited for less,

working harder and better, staying longer.

1.2 Need and objective of the study:

This study aims to Recognize the most effective sources that have a positive

impact on employment brands. Identify the most efficient and effective

retention processes. Explain the key messages to portray a positive experience

with an organization. Evaluate the most effective retention strategies as

recommended by candidates and employees

Employer Branding is a collection of ideas and beliefs that influence the way

current and potential employees view an organisation and the employment

experience that the organisation is offering. It communicates the company’s

culture and values and helps to ensure employees are passionate about, and fit in

with, the organisational culture to help move the company forward.

All organisations are facing similar business challenges – difficulty of attracting

talent and retaining quality employees, lack of employee loyalty, increased

overseas competition, generational change and skills shortages.

6


With competition in local, state, national and global markets, it is important for

companies to understand how to position themselves and make them desirable

for potential employees.

“Recruitment should be viewed as an extension of marketing and organisations

must have clear strategies to market the brand to employees” – David Jones,

Managing Director, Robert Half, UK.

General Objective:

To study the employee views and perception over organizational brand

image and its influence on job retention.

Specific Objective:

To identify various factors as felt by employees which influences

employee retention?

To learn effective Employer brand building techniques being used in the

organization to promote employee retention.

To elicit employee’s views on employer branding, as a motivational

factor on their job retention.

To understand the reasons for employees to quit an employer branded

organization.

WHAT makes an employee happy, healthy and wise? The answer lies in

working with a company that has successfully differentiated its people practices

and provides the employees with an environment that matches up to the

7


expectations that have been created in the market. This is where employer

branding becomes imperative.

The actual ‘concept’ behind employer branding has been around since a

while now. Every company has its own HR policies and culture – the only

difference lies in the way and the extent to which these companies market such

a proposition. Indian old-times like Aditya Birla Group, Godrej and DCM

Shriram never specifically focused on creating a certain image about their

workplaces in the minds of employees and potential employees. They were

simply ‘known’ as the best, most reliable brands to work with.

This model has now changed. Employees today have more resources at their

disposal than ever before. The company brand definitely matters, but

increasingly, it is the employer brand (those HR practices that the company is

“famous’ for) that truly attracts the kind of employees that all employers want.

In fact, a July 2008 Mercer Insight states:” We see companies with strong

employer brands that are able to pay below the median and still attract and

retain high-quality employees.” At the same time, there are companies that

successfully extend their company brands and merge them with the employer

brand. McDonald’s is one such example. Their catchphrase “I’m Lovin’ It!”

applied not just to their outlets, but to the employment experience as well. The

McDonald’s People Promise affirms: “we’re not just a hamburger company

serving people; we’re a people company serving hamburgers”.

8


Employer branding closely relies on marketing concepts for highlighting the

positioning of a company as an employer. The ‘customer’ here is the

‘employee/potential employee,’ while the aim remains the same: attracting new

customers while retaining the current ones. Also, just like a consumer brand, the

employer brand highlights the emotional and rational benefits that the employer

provides to the employees.

Employee Retention involves taking measures to encourage employees to

remain in the organization for the maximum period of time. Corporate is facing

a lot of problems in employee retention these days. Hiring knowledgeable

people for the job is essential for an employer. But retention is even more

important than hiring. There is no dearth of opportunities for a talented person.

There are many organizations which are looking for such employees. If a person

is not satisfied by the job he’s doing, he may switch over to some other more

suitable job. In today’s environment it becomes very important for

organizations to retain their employees.

1.3 Theoretical and practical background of the problem:

In theory, an ‘employer brand’ has the ability to attract and retain the

right people, influence productivity, engage, motivate, innovate, and therefore

fend off competitors. An organisation’s wellbeing and reputation relies on more

than the sum-total of its varying operations. Everything an organisation says and

does play a part in shaping its employer brand.

9


How inextricable is the ‘employer brand’ from an employer’s overall

identity and reputation? Some companies possess an innately strong and

distinguishable brand presence -The BBC, Marks & Spencer and Proctor &

Gamble, for example. All have made appeals to job-seekers, who formed

queues at the door as a result. Specific communication efforts were part of the

plan. But an employer brand is built on far more than any slick road show or

induction brochure. This is because potential employees have worn other

stakeholder hats before, whether as investors, customers or members of the

community.

Any marketer knows that brand reputations are built on perceptions matched by

experience. And that is no different with employer brands. Employees know

what it is really like working for the organisation; they ‘live’ it every day, good

and bad. This is a key differentiator between overly-clever employer marketing

or positive spin and effective employer branding. Good employer branding

might accentuate the positive but, ultimately, it paints a picture that people can

and will relate to.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

Due to time constraints and busy schedules of the employee it was

difficult to interact with them completely.

The personal biases of the respondents might have entered into their

response.

10


Some of the respondents were not co-operative so it might affect the

analysis.

Respondents were reluctant to disclose complete and correct information.

The main limitation of the review is that, while different areas and fields

of research are being drawn on to help identify useful knowledge that can

improve one's understanding of what effective employer branding might

involve, the literature and research in each area will be (necessarily)

selective.

Operational Definitions:

Employer Branding:

Minchington (2005) defines “Employee branding is the image of an

organization as a great place to work in the minds of its current employees”.

Employee Retention:

Miles and Mangold, 2004 define “Employee Retention involves taking

measures to encourage employees to remain in the organization for the

maximum period of time”.

Employer branding helps companies attract and retain high performing

employees. If your company wants to succeed in an increasingly competitive

marketplace, leveraging employer branding may help.

11


Employer branding sells your workplace culture, values and goals to potential

and existing employees. By attracting and retaining people with the right fit,

you can create a more productive workforce and position your organization for

long term success.

Benefits of employer branding:

1. A strong employer brand can help your organization stand out. With the

shift to fragmented workforces of small and mid-sized businesses, it can be

challenging to recruit and retain employees, if you don’t have a consistent

employer brand.

2. Positioning your employer brand helps you attract and retain people who

“fit”. With four generations in the workplace and a wide variance in employee

motivations, a compelling employer brand can help you identify, attract and

retain the right people.

3. A great employer brand can help you stand out, even when you don’t have

the resources to offer traditional benefits or salaries. Many people prefer to

work for employers aligned with their values. A great employer brand can help

you become an employer of choice.

4. A distinct employer brand can streamline recruitment. By being clear about

your organization’s values, goals and culture, you can avoid interviewing

people who are out of sync with your organization. And you can increase

applications from people who “fit”.

12

http://www.bcjobs.ca/re/hr-resources/human-resource-advice/employer-branding/being-an-employer-of-choice

http://www.bcjobs.ca/re/hr-resources/human-resource-advice/recruitment-and-retention/small-business-employee-benefits

http://www.bcjobs.ca/re/hr-resources/human-resource-advice/recruitment-and-retention/small-business-employee-benefits

http://www.bcjobs.ca/re/hr-centre/human-resource-advice/recruitment-and-retention/how-to-identify-what-motivates-your-employees

http://www.bcjobs.ca/re/hr-centre/human-resource-advice/recruitment-and-retention/how-to-identify-what-motivates-your-employees

http://www.bcjobs.ca/re/hr-resources/human-resource-advice/recruitment-and-retention/four-generations-in-the-workplace

http://www.bcjobs.ca/re/hr-resources/human-resource-advice/employer-branding/employer-branding-the-web-2-0-way

http://www.bcjobs.ca/re/hr-centre/human-resource-advice/employer-branding

http://www.bcjobs.ca/re/hr-centre/human-resource-advice/employer-branding


5. Great people seek out great brands. The best potential employees may not

be the ones applying to random job postings. Great people seek out great

employers who represent opportunities to fulfill their goals, achieve their

dreams and live their values. By building a great employer brand, you can

compel great hires to seek you out – rather than waiting for a job opening to

come up.

Employer branding is a derivative of the following factors:

- Impressive and consistent track record in business leadership.

- Demonstrated investment in growth by way of future products, R&D spend,

articulation of the roadmap ahead, and viable strategies.

- The organisation should clearly be perceived as a place where every employee

could learn and develop skills in the latest technologies, concepts and

knowledge areas.

- Aggressive, competitive compensation and benefits package.

- Transparent and merit-oriented performance management system, wherein the

polarization between various levels of performance is both visible and fair.

- Very high score on the leadership, business conduct and customer satisfaction,

or any other parameter evaluated by an independent third party.

13

http://www.bcjobs.ca/content/index.cfm?objectid=58F45B3D-1372-5900-ADD6BF3DBF7985EF


Employee Motivation:

The job of a manager in the workplace is to get things done through employees.

To do this the manager should be able to motivate employees. But that's easier

said than done! Motivation practice and theory are difficult subjects, touching

on several disciplines.

In spite of enormous research, basic as well as applied, the subject of motivation

is not clearly understood and more often than not poorly practiced. To

understand motivation one must understand human nature itself. And there lies

the problem!

Human nature can be very simple, yet very complex too. An understanding and

appreciation of this is a prerequisite to effective employee motivation in the

workplace and therefore effective management and leadership.

Of these seven factors in the employer branding model, four have proven to be crucial for a large majority of high performing employees. These are:

• Culture

• Pay and benefits

• Leadership and management

• Performance management, growth and development.

14


REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In the new economy, the word that makes its presence felt most in the

business world is 'competition'. The primary source of long-term competitive

advantage for a business firm or an industry is its people.

Human resource has to be handled with great care in this era of cut-throat

competition. Companies are always on the lookout for a talented employee pool

for achieving and sustaining the competitive advantage in the long run. But,

there is a widening gap between the demand and supply of future business

leaders and competent employees. It could be due to the lack of experiential

learning and lack of awareness among potential employees. Hence, it is an

uphill task for employers to attract the right kind of workforce. Retaining the

current employees is yet another most talked about issue in the business circle.

This is the right time for the advent of a technique called 'employer branding' -

considered as the most effective strategy that is fast gaining worldwide attention

- which may act as a differentiating factor for the employer who uses it

effectively. Effective employer branding is about building the overall image of

the organization, both internally and externally. At all levels of building the

image of the employer, it requires involvement of the employees and their

views on continuous improvement in the organization. The tagline, employer by

choice, is a popular device to attract the best talents. Employer branding is a

concept where the recruitment process has to be managed in the same way as

15


customers are. It involves employees and customers, human resource and

marketing professionals. The success of employer branding depends on the

prevailing culture in the organization. The employer brand image has its impact

on the brand image of the product/services.

For Shane Freeman at ANZ the research stage has been fundamental to their

employer brand approach. He has used first qualitative and then quantitative

research to create a clearer picture: “In trying to define our employer brand, we

started by carrying out a series of one-on-one interviews with our current

employees to find out what they think and feel about working at ANZ. We then

mined vast amounts of our internal survey data to corroborate and shape those

findings. We are also in the process of carrying out an external research study to

determine what our target demographics look for in an employer and what the

perception of ANZ in the labour market really is – what we are known (or not

known)for”.

Attracting and retaining the best and brightest employees is a daily struggle

for most human resources professionals. Companies that try to recruit

candidates with salary, benefits and other job-specific dimensions alone have

missed the point. This intangible, yet compelling notion motivates target

candidates to choose you as an employer. The bond created by a sense of shared

values motivates and retains employees. Developing an employer brand is not a

small undertaking. Top management support is critical, as is a structured

16


approach. What are the next steps? Build a Brand Team Developing and

maintaining an employer brand is a far-reaching and ongoing process that

benefits from a team approach. The team should include staff members

responsible for approving strategic direction and creative within human

resources. What are your strengths and weaknesses? What makes your company

unique? Identify the one-of-a-kind characteristics, such as work environment,

company history and values that attract, motivate and retain high quality

employees. Know Your Target Candidates Through focus groups, surveys or in-

depth interviews; find out what is important to prospective candidates when

selecting an employer, how they see themselves as people and how they want to

be seen. This will indicate which segment of the audience best fits your

company and whom your brand should target. Communicate and Integrate Your

Employer Brand. Consistent support of your employer brand in all of your

company's actions and words strengthens your brand. Your employer brand

should be evident in your employee communications, recruitment marketing

materials, Web site and recruiting process.

Like a consumer brand, it is an emotional relationship, but between an employer

and employee, one that radiates out from this core to other stakeholders, to the

community at large, and obviously to potential employees. Employer branding

is the development and communication of an organization's culture as an

employer in the marketplace. It conveys your "value proposition" - the totality

17


of your culture, systems, attitudes, and employee relationship along with

encouraging your people to embrace and share goals for success, productivity,

and satisfaction both on personal and professional levels. Employer branding is

the essence of the employment experience, providing points that commence

with initial employer brand awareness, and continuing throughout the tenure of

employment, even extending into retirement. Employer branding is a

distinguishing and relevant opportunity for a company to differentiate itself

from the competition creating its branded factors as its USP for employee

satisfaction and happiness resulting in retention, productivity and efficiency.

When properly planned and executed, an employer branding initiative can

generate lively dialogue between an employer and its employees, build a

rationale for a 'mutual working arrangement', and establish compelling reasons

to commit to the arrangement.

The IT industry being people-oriented, what differentiates the best from the rest

is the “quality of human capital” in every organization. While there is plenty of

talent available, the difficulty comes in finding the talent with the “best fit” to

the organization. Potential employees would like to associate themselves with

companies which have a “brand” of success, leadership, people development

initiatives and also instill a deep sense of pride and commitment. Employer

branding is all about the company’s value in the market, a timeless process that

in today’s scenario has gained even more significance. It is essentially a

18


combination of the reputation of the organization, the career offer and the

corporate culture existing in the company. Typically, there are two types of

employer branding exercises. One is for prospective employees and the other

for the current set of employees. In case of the former, the employer branding

initiatives are targeted at building mindshare in potential recruits about the

company as a preferred place to work. This can be in the form of

communication through advertisements, third-party endorsements through the

media or going to campuses. Employer branding is a part of overall branding

strategy of a company. Both these factors are very significant. “Every single

employee should buy into the vision, commitment and ethics of the company

and should be a walking advertisement for the company. An organization must

adopt a concerted and focused approach to building and maintaining its

reputation as a ‘Best Workplace’ and constantly work towards reinforcing this

branding through continuous exercises.

The existing employees are brand ambassadors of the organisation, and

this is what decides the rate of return on investment

Ms. Wadhwa(2009) continues her assesses that a candidate’s individual

experience, people experience and employer experience forms the core

components of an employer brand. The employer brand should be reflected in

the candidate’s experience. This includes all processes, from the first time a

candidate is the time he joins the company. Also, once a candidate joins the

19


company, the systems and process in an organisation should match

expectations, created and promised to be fulfilled, during his, her journey. The

existing employees are brand ambassadors of the organisation, and unless they

live and communicate the organisation’s values and principles, investment in

external branding will be wasted.

Ms. Wadhwa further explains, “Our people are our biggest assets and

differentiators. They are the key reason why our clients choose us over others.

We focus heavily on retaining talent. Unlike most other companies that focus on

the reasons people leave, we analyse and understand why people love to stay

with Sapient.”

At Sapient, the focus clearly in on underscoring the company’s position as a top

ranked place to work, and emphasizing the encouragement of career growth.

The People Success team further reinforces the distinguishing aspects of the

company’s culture. Ms. Wadhwa explains this point, “Sapient Brand Team, our

in – house agency, focuses on our recruitment needs. Each department works

with the team to present an explicit project brief for every business vertical. The

Brand team then develops several different concepts that integrate the themes of

growth and opportunity. We shortlist the appropriate themes and develop a

multi-channel campaign, which includes online advertising as well as internal

referral programmes.”

20


The people’s catchphrase at Sapient is “Our people are our partners of success’.

A critical aspect of the people philosophy is to enable to them to “choose”, an

initiative that starts at the time of induction itself. This philosophy helps them

attract high quality talent that is ready to align to a common objective.

Some of the other unique branding initiatives at Sapient are:

1. Everybody Thinks Sapient road shows, which help people across the

company understand and live the brand

2. Sapient Start, a week along long on-boarding training session for new

hires which focuses on the brand and its value proposition

3. People Voice campaign, which recognizes people and builds role models

within the company. This has been used extensively as a means of

external communication with campuses and through the website. The

chosen brand champions are forthcoming and happy to endorse Sapient

has been consistently ranked among the top 10 in the “Best Companies to

Work For” survey held by Business Today-Mercer. Awards such as these

validate the employer brand internally as well as externally.

Ms. Wadhwa clarifies that the brand message remains the same across target

groups, except for some minor tweaks. The key takeaway is that Sapient offer

limitless growth opportunities. Says Ms. Wadhwa, “We believe this message

rings true, especially in an environment where people are looking for more than

just another job.”

21


Ms. Wadhwa brings the discussion to a close by remarking on how today’s

complex and competitive global business environment will demand increased

value addition. There will be demand for people with not only technical skills

but specialization in multi-disciplinary practices. Skill sets of efficiency and

scale will be in demand. HR will increasingly emphasis on leadership

development.

Branding and people management

In the so-called 'weightless economy', brand has become the critical source of

competitive advantage for many organisations. The production of physical

output is not as important for these businesses as managing the brand concept.

So, what does this shift in emphasis for organisations mean to the way that

people are managed and developed, and what role should the HR function play

in the brand management process?

The study was designed to fill the gap in existing research in this area, which

largely does not consider in detail the importance of people management and

development policies and practices in promoting and sustaining brands. It draws

together common messages from a wealth of literature across different

disciplines to provide an evidence-led argument for the crucial role that people

strategies can play in managing brand. It looks beyond the concept of 'employer

of choice' to help people management and development specialists better

22


understand the brand management process and their critical part in managing

brand.

The varying definitions of brand illustrated in the report show the importance

that has been attributed to the internal, as well as external, role of brand. The

shift away from product brand towards corporate-level brand and corporate

reputation management has increased the need for people management issues to

be taken into account in the branding process.

Culture of excellence

Recent work in the 'culture of excellence' school of thought, (which began with

In Search of Excellence by Peters and Waterman (1982)), shows the importance

of the alignment of senior management's vision for the organisation with that

understood by employees. It also stresses the need for organisations to apply

consistently the values extolled by their brand, and for their external image to

match that aspired to by senior managers.

Strategic management

The strategic management literature, or 'resource-based view' of the firm, argues

that organisations gain competitive advantage through their unique combination

of resources - which cannot be copied - with people as the most important asset.

Most recently, work in this field has focused on core competencies and the

balanced scorecard approach, which has stressed the need to balance the

23


satisfaction of external demands and the management of internal processes and

people. This illustrates the importance of linking external marketing needs with

people management and development, as illustrated by the employee-customer-

service-profit chain. Employee behaviour is thus shown to play a critical role in

promoting brand loyalty.

Employer of choice

Literature on the 'employer of choice' became more popular in the 1990s as the

'war for talent' hit the headlines. The 'employer of choice' concept was based on

research concerned with the psychological contract - the unwritten promises and

expectations that form the basis of the employment relationship. An

understanding of this idea has led to some organisations reviewing their

commitment to staff and the values on which the employment relationship is

based.

Employment branding

The research on employment branding is concerned with the need for

employees to 'live the brand'. This is centred on engaging employee loyalty to

the brand and developing commitment to the organisation. The report argues

that it is critical for the HR function to develop a compelling story for existing

and potential employees about working for the organisation.

24


Branding in practice

The two case studies, Agilent Technologies and Abbey National Group, showed

clearly that there is no one best way of managing brand and people. Different

relationships between the two are required for different contexts. They also

demonstrate that developing an 'employer of choice' strategy can have

enormous benefits in terms of employee commitment and alignment behind the

brand.

The success of the policies pursued by Agilent Technologies illustrates the

advantages of consistently applying values in good and bad economic

conditions. Agilent argues that this has been achieved through an 'employer of

choice' policy that goes beyond the recruitment stage to incorporate terms and

conditions and a strong commitment to training and development. And Agilent

has managed to maintain its position as an employer of choice, despite having to

make pay cuts and redundancies, as shown by its rankings in the Sunday Times

and Fortune's 'best companies to work for' lists in 2002.

In Abbey National, the HR team is responsible for considering the relationship

between branding and people management. The Abbey National Group has

developed an employment proposition that is based on the principle that all

employees are partners in the business. This proposition includes offering

25


flexible and family-friendly working and external initiatives focused on the

wider community.

However, the authors argue that the relevance of HR for managing brand will

vary according to organisational context.

Stage 1: Branding is seen as a well-defined and protected signifier or logo

for particular products, services or businesses, with HR playing little or no role

in supporting the brand.

Stage 2: Companies may have a master brand or logo but also place more

emphasis on the vision and values behind it. HR's role is to support those

individual brands.

Stage 3 : Companies can capitalize on the vision and values of a

strong corporate brand to bring about organisational change, such as in bringing

together units through mergers. HR can help by aligning change programmes.

Stage 4 : The corporate brand is the centrepiece of the overall

strategy, with HR holding a pivotal role in facilitating employees to act as

'brand ambassadors'.

In today’s business environment there is an increasing recognition that

human resources are a valuable asset to distinguish a company from its

competitors. This tendency, in combination with increasing job mobility among

26


employees and an ongoing demographic change, has turned the labour market

into a competitive arena.

Employer Branding and Talent-Relationship-Management are two fairly new

concepts in the area of Human Resource Management, which have the aim to

differentiate companies on the labour market and to support them effectively in

their endeavour to approach, acquire and retain the most talented employees.

In this study, the internal and external determinants, which form an appealing

employer brand are investigated. A conceptual framework is first constructed

and later modified in the lights of the empirical findings gained through four

conducted interviews with four large organizations. In contrast, a deeper insight

in the prioritization of different TRM elements is gained by means of a

quantitative study among university graduates and international scholarship

holders.

The major findings outline that there is a continuous challenge in creating a

level of consistency in favour of a credible employer brand message.

Furthermore, it becomes apparent that a change or adoption of the employer

brand in the short-term is difficult due to the culture and values of the respective

organization. In addition, the employer brand plays an important role in

preventing unplanned impulses, which result out of negative impacts from the

business environment.

27


The comparison of the major findings among the different groups within the

quantitative study shows that the instruments ‘Information about vacancies’,

‘Scholarship’, ‘Company Workshops’ as well as ‘Exclusive Information’ are

among the most valued ones in comparison with ‘Periodical Services’,

‘Personalized Websites’ or ‘Giveaways’, which most respondents do not

perceive as interesting.

Compared with the more typically customer centric focus of Internal

marketing, internal branding / brand engagement takes a more ‘inside-out’,

value-based approach to shaping employee perceptions and behaviours,

following the lead of the highly influential ‘Built to Last: Successful Habits of

Visionary Companies’ study published in the mid-90’s. This sought to

demonstrate that companies with consistent, distinctive and deeply held values

tended to outperform those companies with a less clear and articulated ethos.

While brand-led culture change is often the stated desire of these programmes

their focus on communication-led, marketing methods (however, involving or

experiential) has been prone to the same failings of conventional internal

marketing. As Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos, asserts: “One of things you find

in companies is that once a culture is formed it takes nuclear weaponry to

change it”. You cannot simply assert your way to a new culture, no more can

you assert your way to a strong brand, it needs to be consistently and

continuously shaped and managed, which is one of the primary reasons many

28

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built_to_Last:_Successful_Habits_of_Visionary_Companies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built_to_Last:_Successful_Habits_of_Visionary_Companies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_marketing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_marketing


organisations have turned from the short term engagement focus of internal

branding initiatives to more long term focus of employer brand management.

There is growing recognition of the role employees play in the development and

success of a company’s brand. This is encapsulated in the notion of employer

branding. Based on a review of previous studies, the internal and external

effects of employer branding are conceptualized.

A critical assessment of the conceptualization shows that while it has

much merit, there are significant gaps and limitations. This paper argues for a

more systematic approach that puts process-related issues at the centre of the

investigation. The need for a study of the mechanisms underlying the process of

employer branding at the firm and individual (employee) levels is required to

address key questions, including the nature of and sufficient and necessary

conditions for successful employer branding processes. Methodological

implications are also discussed.

Employees – the Emerging Force Behind Effective Brand Management

In recent years, increasing attention has been given to the critical role

employees play in the development and success of a company’s brand. In this

context “brand” is defined as “a recognizable and trustworthy badge of origin

and also a promise of performance” (Feldwick, 1991, p.21). Employees’

ongoing personal contact with consumers gives them a great deal of influence

over the way in which consumers view the company (Kennedy, 1977; Stuart,

29


1999; Dowling, 2001). Employees also have the ability to help build strong and

enduring brands, particularly within the services sector (McDonald et al, 2001;

de Chernatony et al, 2003).

As such, employees are becoming a recognised determinant of successful brand

management.Recruiting and retaining employees who can consistently represent

the brand in interactions with clients is now accepted as a significant source of

competitive advantage (Chambers et al, 1998; Michaels et al, 2001).

Recognising this, Ambler and Barrow (1996) and Ewing et al(2002) have

introduced the concept of the “employer brand”. Defined by Ambler and

Barrow(1996), the employer brand is “the package of functional, economic and

psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with the

employing company” (p. 187). The employerbrand concept unites a broad

spectrum of existing thought relating to the way in which potential and current

employees interact with a company’s brand and, in particular, the company’s

brand image as an employer (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Ewing et al, 2002;

Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Freeman & Knox, 2003; Backhaus, 2004;

Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004).

Despite growing practitioner and academic interest in employer brands,

little is known about the process of employer branding - specifically the

operation of mechanisms at the firm and individual (employee) levels that shape

and perpetuate the employer brand.

30


The employer branding process as defined here is an overarching concept. It is

inclusive of the mechanisms that bring “life” to the employer brand (i.e., firm

level mechanisms that shape and define the brand as well as underpin its

ongoing implementation). It also includes the mechanisms by which potential

and current employees interact with the employer band (i.e. how individuals

build associations, brand meaning and ongoing loyalty for the employer brand).

The following section outlines the existing literature on the employer branding

process and is followed by a discussion of how our understanding may be

improved by taking a more mechanism related view.

Current Understanding of the Employer Branding Process – a Broad View

While a small body of employer branding literature exists, the focus of theses

studies has been to define the phenomenon (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Ewing et

al, 2002), consider its foundations (Ambler & Barrow, 1996, Backhause &

Tikoo, 2004), or examine the outcome of the process with respect to

recruitment, i.e. employer brand attributes or positioning (Ewing et al, 2002;

Freeman & Knox, 2003; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Backhaus, 2004).

To establish what may constitute the employer branding process, a

broader review of the literature is required. A number of general marketing

concepts would appear to be relevant, including relationship marketing,

corporate branding, culture and identity, internal marketing and corporate

reputation. In addition, concepts from human resources and organizational

31


behaviour literatures, as well as industry journals, are also relevant, illuminating

the relationship between prospective employees, employees and employers.

In reviewing the literature, it is evident that previous studies refer

primarily to what can be seen as the effects of the process. These effects relate

to external aspects of the organization (i.e. those components that primarily

impact external stakeholders, including customers, prospective employees,

shareholders or to internal stakeholders (i.e., existing employees).

Effects on interactions external to the firm

At the crux of the employer branding process from the firm’s perspective is the

attraction and retention of “the best” employees. In this context, “best” refers to

those employees who can add value to the company and are able to deliver on

the company’s brand promise.

In defining the employee value proposition and aligning it with the

company’s brand promise, the company may attract potential employees with

skills and personal values that allow them to deliver on the brand promise and

enable them to represent the brand and company in a consistent way (Ambler &

Barrow, 1996; Reichheld, 1996). Thus, employees are able to meet or exceed

customers’ expectations based on brand promise or previous encounters with

the company (Pringle & Gordon, 2001). By exceeding customer expectations

(i.e., by providing positive disconfirmation) customers attain satisfaction

(Woodruff et al, 1983). According toHeskett et al (1994) and others (Yeung et

al, 2002; Rust & Zahorik 1993; Anderson &Sullivan, 1993; Dowling, 1994),

32


increases in customer satisfaction can drive increases in customer loyalty

(although this is not automatic).

This, in turn, drives revenue growth and profitability. Shultz (2004)

makes a stronger link between employees’ alignment with the brand promise,

customer satisfaction and increases in profit. Reichheld & Sasser (1990) report a

5% rise in customer loyalty (i.e., a 5% fall in defection) may increase profit

from 25%-85%, dependent on the industry under study.

By fostering conditions for profitability and a positive external corporate

reputation, the employer branding process attains an aspect of self-perpetuation.

Profitable firms with positive external reputations both attract (Fombrun &

Shanley, 1990; Denton 1997) and retain (Michaels et al, 2001) employees who

want to share in and be associated with the company’s success.

Effects on interactions internal to the firm

In actively managing their employer brand, firms can maintain consistency of

key brand messages across stakeholder groups, a practice which may be of

value (Duncan & Moriarty,1998). Not only does congruence positively

influence the perception of all related messages (to employees, customers and

other stakeholders), it also ensures that employees are “properly aligned” with

the brand and what it represents (Keller, 2002). This allows employees to “live”

the brand, delivering on the objectives of the brand/organization (Ouchi, 1981),

and reinforcing corporate values and performance expectations among new and

existing staff (Ind, 2001).

33


The relationship between expectations and behavior has been explored in

the employee citizenship behavior literature. Morrison (1994) contends that

employee pro-social behavior (characterized by Bateman & Organ (1993) as

employee citizenship behavior) is more likely to occur when such behaviors are

incorporated into role expectations. Furthermore, when performance

expectations and values are clear a “contract” is formed between the company

and the employees (Rousseau, 1990). Expected behavior and resulting rewards

are explicit, evaluation of staff is objective, good performers are rewarded,

nurtured and become satisfied and loyal (Dowling, 1994; Mendes, 1996; Major

et al, 1995).

Satisfied, loyal employees are more likely to remain with the firm

(Heskett et al, 1994) and to share good views about the company with each

other and prospective employees (Reichheld, 1996). Positive word of mouth

amongst employees assists in building camaraderie within and across teams,

engendering greater loyalty to the firm and to team members (Herman, 1991),

thus improving staff retention. Furthermore, existing employees have a large

“signaling” impact on prospective employees (Rynes, et al, 1991). Positive

word-of-mouth helps contextualize the employment experience for prospective

employees, attracting those with values that will fit with the brand and allow

them to flourish (Chambers et al, 1998; Ind 2001).

The interplay between internal and external effects

34


Employer Branding provides a visual summary of key aspects of the internal

and external effects of the employer branding process, as described in the

previous sections. Hatch and Shultz (1997) posit that due to “networking,

business process re-engineering, flexible manufacturing, delayering, the new

focus on customer service,” the external and internal boundaries of firms are

“collapsing” (p. 356). Accordingly, there is support in the literature for an

interaction between the external and internal “virtuous circles” of the employer

branding process.

Multidisciplinary, Process Related Empirical Examination – Equally

Critical for Theorists and Practitioners

This conceptualisation, arrived at by reviewing the academic literature, is

echoed in part or in whole in human resources management and marketing trade

publications (see, for example:Lee, 2002; Linstedt, 2002; Donath, 2001; Simms,

2003; Buss, 2002; Woods, 2001; Hatfield,1999). Agreement between the two

bodies of literature could indicate that the benefit of additional empirical

investigation is minimal. However, the consceptualisation highlights only a

normative, conjectural view of the outcome of the process. Taking a truly

process-related view, which considers the underlying generative mechanisms of

the employer branding process and the scope of outcomes that may arise from

these mechanisms, is a way in which our deficiency of understanding may be

addressed. Theorists and practitioners alike would benefit from a systematic,

multidisciplinary, empirical examination of the following:

35


A coherent view of the “virtuous circles” of employer branding in practice

While the literature indicates a range of plausible, even logical outcomes, these

outcomes are at best conjectural. It does not necessarily follow that

implementing an employer branding process will result in the outcomes

suggested by the existing literature. Employer branding has not been studied as

a process, i.e. mechanisms at the firm and individual level that constitute the

process have not been examined over time and from the perspective of a variety

of related actors. While there is support for links between one or more of the

components (for example Heskett et al, 1994), there is no compelling evidence,

as yet, that the virtuous circles operate wholly as specified

The scope of the outcomes of employer branding

The literature and initial anecdotal evidence indicates that firms undertaking

employer branding experience positive outcomes, particularly with respect to

attracting and retaining desirable employees. It is not known, however, whether

there may also be neutral or negative outcomes attributable to the employer

branding process. For example, Aldrich (1999) raises what may be a potentially

undesirable outcome of the process. He posits that when there is a high level of

cultural consistency in an organization, organizational growth may be

threatened as variation to existing work practices introduced by employees is

likely to be low. Organizational behaviour literature points to a similar

phenomenon where employers hire employees with similar characteristics,

36


skills, and attitudes to themselves. This approach is not necessarily beneficial to

the firm as it limits diversity (Robbins, 1996).

Similarly, negative outcomes of the process may arise when employees find

their experience of employment differs from that promised by the company in

communication of the employer brand. Rousseau (1990) describes a

psychological contract as “individual beliefs in reciprocal obligations between

employees and employees” (p.389). Brands, by definition (Feldwick,

1991) contain a “promise of performance” (p.149) which, if unfulfilled in the

eyes of the employee, may have negative consequences for the employee and

firm including reduced job satisfaction, reduced organizational trust, decreased

job performance and increased turnover (Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Robinson

& Rousseau, 1994).

Research to date does not shed light on whether there is such a thing as an

unsuccessful employer branding process, i.e. a process that results in negative or

counterproductive outcomes. Furthermore, the hallmarks of a successful or

unsuccessful employer branding process have not been identified.

Mechanisms underpinning the process

As Ambler & Barrow (1996) state, traditional marketing techniques are not

directly applicable, but mutatis mutandis applicable to the employer brand. This

raises the question “how do they differ and under what conditions?” It is also

evident in the review of literature that other schools of thought and practice may

offer techniques outside those traditionally associated with marketing and

37


branding. Mechanisms “can be seen as a systematic set of statements that

provide a plausible account of how [entities] are linked to each other”

(Hedstrom & Swedberg, 1998; p. 7). Human resources and organizational

management literatures, for example, may be shown to be pivotal to the

employer branding process, providing mechanisms that plausibly account for

the employee and employer interaction.

In order to employ a systemic approach to the examination of the process,

mechanisms that may combine to create and perpetuate the process need to be

identified. This will allow a focused and theoretically meaningful analysis of the

process in practice. It will also allow a structured comparison of those

companies identified as having a successful employer brand with those having

an unsuccessful employer brand to identify variations in the presence and

operation of those mechanisms.

The relationship between employer branding and other branding processes

It is convenient, normatively, to prescribe a series of activities based on the

review of the literature. However, this deterministic approach does nothing to

bring us closer to uncovering the process as it is grounded in practice. This

limits our understanding of sufficient and necessary conditions for employer

brands to succeed, as well as making it difficult to find methods we may use to

judge the level of success. For example, is a successful employer branding

process predicated on a successful corporate or product branding process? Is it

possible to have an unsuccessful employer branding process in the presence of a

38


successful corporate or product brand? Conversely, is it possible to sustain a

successful employer branding process in the absence of a successful corporate

or product brand?

Employer branding has been described 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). Advertising may become a critical tool in the efforts that

firms make to identify, acquire and retain skilled employees. Increasingly, it is

likely to also be used to create what has in the popular business press recently

been referred to as ‘employment brands’ (Sherry 2000) – building and

sustaining employment propositions that are compelling and different. The

moniker ‘employer brand’ appears to have first been coined by Ambler and

Barrow (1996), who defined it as ‘the package of functional, economic and

psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with the

employing company’ (p. 187). The authors go on to suggest that, just like a

traditional brand, an employer brand has both personality and positioning.

Employment branding is therefore concerned with building an image in the

minds of the potential labour market that the company, above all others, is a

‘great place to work’ (Ewing et al. 2002). According to human resources

consultants Hewitt Associates,2 there are five steps to developing a strong

employer brand: (i) understand your organisation, (ii) create a ‘compelling

brand promise’ for employees that mirrors the brand promise for customers, (iii)

develop standards to measure the fulfillment of the brand promise, (iv)

39


‘ruthlessly align’ all people practices to support and reinforce the brand

promise, and (v) execute and measure. Moreover, it is posited that companies

with strong employer brands can potentially reduce the cost of employee

acquisition, improve employee relations, increase employee retention and even

offer lower salaries for comparable staff to firms with weaker employer brands

(Ritson 2002). Collins and Stevens (2002), confirming prior research, suggest

that early recruitment activities are indirectly related to intentions and decisions

through two dimensions of employer brand image: general attitudes towards the

company and perceived job attributes. Examples of employer brands, and

indeed employer advertising, are becoming increasingly common.

Ewing et al. (2002) classify existing approaches to employment branding by

identifying three basic types of employment advertising strategy, and provide

numerous examples of each. Lloyd (2002) cites the example of an Australian

bank’s TV commercial, clearly aimed at existing and potential employees.

While there are numerous examples of ‘employer advertising’, few are as

explicit as a recent DaimlerChrysler ad, which appears to target potential

employees as the primary audience. The double-page spread advertisement in

Figure 1 shows a number of DaimlerChrysler vehicles, positioning them not as

consumer products but as company cars (i.e. a potential benefit for prospective

employees). The copy is even more direct: ‘As a successful car company there

is many things that make working for us an attractive prospect. In addition to a

diverse range of career possibilities …’

40


Employer attractiveness

A closely related concept to ‘employer branding’ is the notion of ‘employer

attractiveness’. This concept has been broadly discussed in the areas of

vocational behaviour (Soutar & Clarke 1983), management (Gatewood et al.

1993), applied psychology (Jurgensen 1978; Collins & Stevens 2002),

communication (Bergstrom et al. 2002) and marketing (Ambler & Barrow

1996; Gilly & Wolfinbarger 1998; Ambler 2000; Ewing et al. 2002). It has also

become an increasingly ‘hot topic’ in the contemporary business press (see, for

example, Sherry 2000; Lloyd 2002; Ritson 2002), and ‘Best Employer’ status is

something that more and more organisations are striving for, as attention is

drawn to this mantle in both the contemporary electronic3 and print media (e.g.

The Economist 2003). We define ‘employer attractiveness’ as the envisioned

benefits that a potential employee sees in working for a specific organisation.

The construct may be thought of as an antecedent of the more general concept

of employer brand equity. In other words, the more attractive an employer is

perceived to be by potential employees, the stronger that particular

organisation’s employer brand equity. This study seeks to contribute by

identifying and operationalising dimensions of employer attractiveness.

41


Ask most people about “branding,” and they’ll usually start talking about

products and services. But in recent years, companies have begun branding

themselves as employers, too, betting that if they can convey to the world why

their workplace is appealing and unique, they will have an easier time attracting

good workers.

In fact, for many companies, employer branding has become a critical

management tool, as the emergence of China, India and Brazil as economic

powers and aging work forces in the U.S., European Union and Japan have

increased the competition for skilled workers. More recently, the current

economic slowdown—and the pressure to cut costs and increase productivity—

has made the need to get the best people in the right jobs even more crucial.

But how should a company brand itself as an employer? The key is to align the

brand with the company's business plan, meaning the brand is designed to

attract and retain the kinds of workers the company needs most—those who can

help it increase sales, profits and market share. And the key to doing that is to

borrow a tool from the product-marketing toolbox.

Marketers have long divided consumers into groups based on things like their

demographics, buying behavior and lifestyle, and then tailored product offerings

and advertising messages specifically for them in the belief that it is more

profitable to treat certain groups of people differently than to treat them all the

42


same. A movie studio puts out some movies for kids, some for teens, some for

women, and so on. Each product has its own marketing and advertising

message. This is known as segmentation, and it lies at the heart of brand

marketing.

We argue the same principle applies in employer branding—that it is more

profitable to treat certain groups of current and potential employees differently

than to treat them all the same. Employers who use segmentation to pinpoint

who they need to attract and what they need to do to attract them will have an

advantage over those who don’t.

Beyond Entry Level

When a company undertakes employer branding, the “product” it is selling is

the employment experience it offers, and the “customers” of this product are

current and prospective staff. Benefits, which may include tangibles such as pay

and intangibles such as status and a sense of collegiality, are what back up the

employer’s brand in the marketplace.

Of course, segmentation is being used in employer branding to some degree

already, in that many companies focus the bulk of their branding efforts on

attracting entry-level staff. They target recent college graduates based on things

like age, university, grade-point average and location, and then bombard them

43


with multimedia campaigns promising exciting careers, promotion, travel and

exceptional pay.

The problem with focusing too much on the entry-level end of hiring, however,

is that it doesn’t take the big picture into account. It is based on a mistaken

belief that a good proportion of entry-level employees will start at the bottom of

an organization and work their way to the top, and that the skills, knowledge

and experience they gather along the way will be exactly what the company

needs to expand its business in the future.

In reality, most companies at some point will have to hire new talent to cope

with the changing nature of their business. To create a more well-rounded

brand, one with multiple messages for multiple audiences, companies have to

dig a little deeper.

Differences Matter

Previous research has suggested that there are five major ways to think about

differences among consumers, and that marketers who take those consumer

differences into account will enjoy higher sales and profits. The differences

center on the profitability consumers bring to a company, the product features

they prize, the reference groups they turn to for advice and approval, the ability

of consumers to negotiate attractive prices, and the barriers that may prevent

them from making purchases.

44


We believe those five segmentation approaches also apply in the context of the

employee-employer relationship and can be used as a basis for employer

branding. Here’s a closer look:

Potential Profitability

In consumer marketing, profitability segmentation takes into account that

buyers differ from each other in terms of the actual or potential profitability

they bring to a company. Consumers who make repeat purchases and buy in big

quantities, for example, are more profitable than those who buy in small

amounts only once or twice a year. Knowing who the high-profit clients are

allows marketers to channel more effort and resources toward winning their

business.

The same goes for employees. Those who have the skills, experience or

knowledge that are critical to the areas of a business that are driving growth are

strategically important. Identifying these employee groups through

segmentation allows employers to devote more resources toward hiring and

retaining them.

There is little point in a California company putting a lot of effort into attracting

domestic engineers, for example, if the bulk of its future earnings are to come

from on-site engineering projects in China and India. Likewise, a focus on

family-friendly benefits may make an employer look nice, but it is a

45


misallocation of resources if an all-expenses-paid executive education at

Harvard Business School is what the profit-driving employees really want.

Product-Feature Preferences

Grouping buyers according to the product features they desire is a well-

understood and much-used approach to segmentation in consumer marketing.

Some consumers prefer extra-strength pain relievers; others want milder

versions. Some prefer pills; others buy only capsules. Creating market segments

based on these preferences allows marketers to tailor product offerings and

advertising messages that appeal to them.

In much the same way, employees can be grouped according to the career

benefits they value. Some employees want educational assistance and training,

while others value opportunities for travel; some are looking for flexible

working hours, while others seek on-site child care. Much of what employees

want depends on where they are in their lives and careers.

Once a company has identified the groups it needs to attract using profitability

segmentation, it can then use product-feature segmentation to gain a better

understanding of the benefit bundles those groups of employees prize.

A pharmaceutical company we studied used product-feature segmentation to

help attract and retain a high-quality sales force that remained engaged,

motivated and effective despite working in an industry known for high turnover.

46


The process began when one sales representative returned to work after having

children and wanted a part-time position that also offered a reasonable salary

and a challenge commensurate with her skills and experience. By offering

benefits like job sharing, child-care assistance, unpaid leave, flexible hours and

minimal overnight travel, the pharmaceutical company earned a reputation as

being “family friendly” within its industry, and that image allowed it to create a

talent pool of potential staff with appropriate knowledge and skills plus great

industry experience and contacts.

Reference Groups

Marketers understand that consumers don’t make buying decisions in a vacuum,

which is why some use segmentation to identify the groups to whom buyers

turn for advice and approval when making a purchase. People often ask

pharmacists and other health-care professionals to recommend pain relievers,

for example, so it benefits marketers to ensure that those groups have a good

impression of their product, too.

This same goes for employers. People want to work for companies with great

reputations, and they often turn to family members, friends or colleagues for

advice and approval when choosing between employment offers, or even where

to apply for work in the first place. That is why it is crucial for the employer

47


brand to be viewed favorably by the group the potential employee most often

turns to for advice and approval.

Employers can reach out to these references groups in various ways. For

example, they can tout themselves as award-winning employers, responsible

entities and good corporate citizens through advertising and public-relations

campaigns. They can provide specific, detailed information about the unique

workplace experience they offer on job-search sites, in the employment sections

of newspapers and to recruiters. They also can encourage existing employees to

spread the word by rewarding them for candidate referrals.

Bargaining Power

Grouping consumers according to their ability to negotiate attractive prices or

terms and conditions help marketers determine the types of rates and prices they

need to offer to win their business. Consumers with excellent credit scores, for

example, have more loan options than those with spotty credit histories,

meaning banks may have to offer more competitive rates to win them over.

In employer branding, bargaining power refers to the power that certain

employee groups have in negotiating the terms of their employment because of

the rarity of their skills, level of seniority, relevant experience and

qualifications. The higher the demand for these attributes within the company,

48


or indeed, within the broader employment market, the greater the bargaining

power these employees can exert.

Richer benefits packages may be required to attract employees with greater

bargaining power. Given that companies have limited resources to remunerate

their staffs, understanding bargaining power helps them better prioritize where

they spend their money.

Choice Barriers

A variety of factors can prevent consumers from buying products and services

they normally would find desirable. Sometimes consumers aren’t aware the

products and services exist, or they lack the information they need to properly

appraise them. Using segmentation to identify and understand these barriers

makes it easier for marketers to knock them down. But sometimes marketers

use choice barriers to their own advantage, to lock in customers they value

highly. Airlines and hotels, for example, offer rewards to their best customers to

discourage them from using rival services.

In employer branding, choice barriers are the hiring and pay policies set up by

employers to prevent people from entering or leaving a firm. Companies often

segment employees according to education, experience and visa or residency

status in order to rule out candidates for certain job roles. On the flip side,

things like delayed bonuses and lucrative retirement or retrenchment packages

49


serve as “golden handcuffs,” tying employees into a company when they might

otherwise be tempted to seek new opportunities elsewhere.

Choice barriers, in particular, are in the control of the company and can be used

to counter the bargaining power of desirable employees.

50


RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research in common parlance to research of knowledge. It is an endeavor

to discover answer to the problem, through scientific method to knowledge of

universe. Research is a systematic enquiry seeking fax to the objectives

verifiable method in order to discover the relationship among them. It is a

method of critical thinking.

According to John W. Best, “Research may be defined as the systematic

objective analysis and recording of controlled observations that may lead to the

developments of generalizations, principles or theories, resulting in prediction

and possibly ultimate control of events.

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN

A research design is the specification of methods and procedures for

acquiring the information needed. It is the overall operational pattern or frame

work, of the project that stipulates what information is to be collected from

which source by what procedures.

Research Design enables the researcher to save time and resources

while collecting data.

Research design will facilitate the researcher to make intensive

enquiry into the problem so that it helps the researcher to study

about employer branding and its influence on employee retention.

Research design helps the researcher for the smooth flow of the

researcher work in the industry in order to achieve the objective.

51


Descriptive research:

The research study’s purpose is to understand the various perceptions of

the workers on HR department in manufacturing industry. For a study of this

nature, the best possible research design is that of a Descriptive research

design. A descriptive design encompasses the job of describing the

phenomenon or characteristics of a particular event. In this research study, this

descriptive research design would describe and portray the various perceptions

of the employees towards employer branding and its influence on their

retention.

In addition to it this project will also give a clear picture of the Function

of the HR department based of the employee’s perception in the manufacturing

industry.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RESEARCH DESIGN

Descriptive research design was chosen because it helps obtain

information from respondents without influencing the information in any way.

The researcher intends to describe as what’s their perception towards employer

branding is and how it influence them to retain their job. The aim is a mere

attempt to portray the observed facts pertaining in the minds of respondents.

Hence Descriptive Design is chosen.

UNIVERSE

The respondents of this research belong to various branded employers.

These respondents come from different sector in Tamil Nadu. These

respondents are from companies listed in NASSCOM and CII with employee

strength of more than 2000. The respondents occupy various levels across the

organization.

52


3.2 SAMPLING

Chambers, R L, and Skinner, C J (editors) (2003), in his book Analysis of

Survey Data Sampling defines it is that part of statistical practice concerned

with the selection of an unbiased or random subset of individual observations

within a population of individuals intended to yield some knowledge about the

population of concern, especially for the purposes of making predictions based

on statistical inference. Sampling is an important aspect of data collection.

Stuart, Alan (1962) in his book Basic Ideas of Scientific Sampling defines

Sampling is the selection of part and aggregate totality on the basis of which

judgment or inference about the aggregate or the totality is made.

When a group of people is selected with the intension of finding various

perceptions of them towards employer branding and its influence on employee

retention; that group of people is referred as sample and the process of selection

is called Sampling.

3.3 Sample Design

Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. (1991) in his book Measurement design and

analysis: An integrated approach defines sampling design as “A Sample design

is the theoretical basis and the practical means by which we infer the

characteristics of some population by generalizing from the characteristics of

relatively few of the units comprising the population”.

53

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_collection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_inference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_(statistics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical


Sampling Method

The chosen method of Sampling is: Non Probability Sampling

Non Probability Sampling

Non Probability Sampling is that sampling procedure which does not

afford any basis for estimating the probability that each item in the population

has of being included in the sample. Under this method the units of the

population are selected so as to be representative of the whole.

Convenient Sampling

The researcher has used this technique just because through this method more

time can be saved and this also helps the researcher not to choose any specific

industry for data collection. By this method, the data can be controlled from the

respondents from any industry. The sample size will be 120 and will consist

only the individual working for companies listed in NASSCOM and CII with

employee strength more than 2000.

Universe size: 5, 00,000 (approx) Chennai city

Sample size: 120.

Sectors to be covered:

Manufacturing: 4

IT : 4

ITES : 4

Total : 12

54


Sample break up is:

IT sector Employees : 40

ITES sector Employees : 40

Manufacturing sector Employees : 40

Total : 120

Companies covered in IT Sector:

Companies are chosen who are registered member of NASSCOM and

employees more than 2,000.

1. TATA Consultancy Service.

2. Cognizant Technology Service.

3. Hexaware Technologies.

4. Wipro Technologies.

Respondents inclusive criteria: Respondents are chosen with minimum 6

months of experience.

Reference: http://www.nasscom.in

Companies covered in ITES sector:

Companies are chosen who are registered member of NASSCOM and

employees more than 2,000.

1. Dell Perot Systems.

2. Wipro BPO.

3. Barclays shared services.

4. WNS Aviva.

Respondents: Respondents are chosen with minimum 6 months of experience.

55


Reference: http://www.nasscom.in

Companies covered in manufacturing sector:

Companies are chosen who are registered member of CII and employees more

than 2,000.

1. Areva

2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.

3. Ford Motors.

4. Renault Nissan.

Respondents: Respondents are chosen with minimum 6 months of experience.

Reference: http://www.cii.in

TOOL FOR DATA COLLECTION

The tool to be made use of for Data Collection is Questioner. This method of

data collection is very useful in extensive enquiries and can lead to fairly

reliable results & seems to be the appropriate tool because of the following

reasons:

Direct Personal contact established with respondents.

Reliability and accuracy of responses

Clarification of Respondent’s queries

TYPES OF QUESTIONS

Multiple-Choice Questions and Open ended Question

These questions consist of responses (multiple options) out of which

respondents can choose the appropriate response based on their understanding.

56

http://www.cii.in/


There are also questions on which respondents indicate their preference and can

comment their views.

3.4 SOURCES OF DATA COLLECTION

The compilation of both Primary and Secondary data were used in the

present study.

Primary Data

Primary Data refers to information that is generated to meet the specific

requirements of the investigation at hand. It would be collected from the

employees, who are in any small or medium or large industry.

Secondary Data

Secondary Data is the information that is collected for a purpose other

than to solve the specific problem under investigation.

The Secondary Data would be the information collected regarding the

different perceptions of employees from various sources such as Journals,

Articles, books, Internet, etc. The secondary data obtain will aid in the

structuring and execution of the questionnaire, which is to be the tool adopted in

the process of collecting primary data.

57


DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This interpretation will focus to elicit the various components of

employer branding also to understand the employee’s perception towards their

employer branding. On the other hand it understands the various techniques

followed by employer in branding their organisation which helps them to retain

their most assertive employees.

Table 0.1: Table showing age of the respondents

S.NO Age

classification

Number of respondents (n = 120) Percentage

%

1 < 30 60 50

2 30 - 40 36 30

3 >40 24 20

Total 120 100

58


Table 0.1 shows the age category of the respondents. It shows that 50% of the

respondents are less than 30 years and 20% of the respondents are more than 40

years of age. While 20% of the respondents are between the age group of 30 to

40 years.

In the Figure 0.1 it is found that majority of the respondent are young

professionals at the age category less than 30 years and has a majority of

responses of 71.67% and it is because most of the respondents are from the

ITES sector working in executive level. Employees from managerial level have

contributed 65% of total response and 10.83% of respondent are senior

managerial level who fall between the age category of more than 40 years. In

the manufacturing sector 70 percent of the respondents are between the age

group of more than 40 years as most employees in the manufacturing sector

have more than 15 years of work experience with the current employer and at an

average their total work experience in 25 to 30 years. Hence from

manufacturing sector there is a total respondent percentage of 33.3 percent out

of which 59 percent respondents are from the senior managerial level and 31

percent of the respondents are mid managerial level. While 10 percent of the

respondents are from the entry level.

From the IT sector there is a total number of respondents of 33.3 percent

of which 60 percent of the respondents are from the trainee or entry level. 30

59


percent of the respondents are from the mid managerial level and the rest 10

percent are from the senior managerial level.

Reference: Armstrong, Michael (2006). A Handbook of Human Resource

Management Practice (10th ed.). London: Kogan Page. ISBN 0-7494-4631-5.

OCLC 62282248

Table 0.2: Table showing Gender of the respondents

S. No Gender

Classification:

Number of respondents


(Number of respondents (n

= 120))

Percentage

%

1 Male 84 70

2 Female 36 30

Total 120 100

From the above table we can understand the gender level of the respondents.

From the table 0.2, it shows that 70 percent of the respondents are male while

60

http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/62282248

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Computer_Library_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-7494-4631-5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number


30 percent of the respondents are female. We clearly show that large numbers of

respondents are male.

Figure 0.2 indicates that in India, there is majority in men employment that that

of the females. We also learn that across all sectors men have their dominance

in employment than that of female. From the ITES sector 69 percent of the total

respondents are male while 31 percent of the total respondents are female.

When it comes to the manufacturing sector 72 percent of the respondents are

male while 28 percent of the respondents are female. This is because there is a

notion that manufacturing sector is meant for male rather than a female. As we

look on to the IT sector majority of the respondents are again men with a total

response percent of 69 and the rest 31 percent of the respondents are female.

But after a course of time we could see women dominating the IT sector in

employment.

Table 0.3: Table showing Education Qualification of the respondents

S. NO Education

Qualification


(Number of

respondents (n = 120))

Percentage %

1 Under Graduate 72 60

2 Post Graduate 48 40

3 Diploma 0 0

4 Certification 0 0

Total 120 100

61


From the above table 0.3, it shows 60 percent of the respondents are

undergraduates and 40 percent of the respondents are post graduate. It is

important to understand their graduation level for this study as it would clearly

portray the respondent’s perception of employer branding.

Figure 0.1 shows that the education level among employees in any organization

is just an under graduation as from the figure it is show than 60 percent of the

employees are under graduate. Also we can learn that employees under

executive level and mid managerial level are mostly undergraduates because an

employee needs to have a master’s degree for his or her promotion. It clearly

shows that employers can inherit this as a brand building technique by

providing opportunity to pursue higher education for their employees.

Table 0.4: Table showing total work experience of the respondents

62


S. No Total Work Experience Number of respondents

(Number of respondents

(n = 120))

Percentage

%

1 6 months to 2 years 72 60

2 2 years to 3 years 24 20


4 More than 4 years 12 10

Total 120 100

From the above table 0.4 we observe the total work experience of the

respondents. It shows that 60 percent of the employees working in a branded

organization have 6 months to 2 years of total work experience. 20 percent of the

employees have 2 years to 3 years total work experience. 10 percent of the

respondents have 3 years and above experience.

Figure 0.4 gives as the reason as to why there is a variation in total work

experience. As most of the respondents are young between the age group of less

than 30 years of age they are either trainees or entry level executives they have a

maximum work experience of 2 years. Respondents with more than 3 years of

63


experience are in higher designation and on an average they have total work

experience of 25 to 30 years. This gap is because of the age of the respondents.

Table 0.5: Table showing total work experience with the current employer

of the respondents

S.

No

Total Work Experience

with current employer



(n = 120))

Percentage

%

1 6 months to 2 years 60 50



4 More than 4 years 12 10

Total 120 100

Table 0.5 indicates the total years of experience with the current

employer. We understand that 50 percent of the total respondents have 6 months

to 2 years of experience with the current employer while 20 percent of the

64


respondents have 2 years to 4 years of experience with the currently employer

and 10 percent of the respondents have more than 4 years of experience with the

current employer.

In the figure 0.5 it gives us the reason as to why there is a difference in

work experience with the current employer. This is because the age of the

respondent with more than 4 years of experience with the current employer is

between the ranges 35 to 40 years. 20 percent of the respondents admit they

have 2 to 3 years of experience with the current employer because they would

have opted the current employer for career growth or compensation growth.

Also their age range is between 28 to 35 years of age. A large number of

respondents say they have 6 months to 2 years of experience with current

employer because they must be in the entry level or job hoppers.

To Study the employee’s views and perception over employer branding and

its influence on job retention.

Table 1.1: Components in a branded organisation

65


S. No Components in a

branded organisation


(Number of respondents (n =

120))

Percentage

%

1 Values 33 27.5

2 Policies 33 27.5

3 Compensation 28 23.4

4 Infrastructure 12 10

5 Career 14 11.6

6 Other 0 0

Total 120 100

When employees in a branded organization were asked what was would

they see on a branded company that is different from other non branded

companies. 27.5 percent of the respondents said they would see the values and

the policies of the organization. 23.4 percent said they would watch for the

compensation benefits. 10 percent said they would focus on the infrastructure

66


while the others 11.6 percent of the respondents said they would focus on their

career.

From the figure 1.1 we understand that 27.5 percent of the respondents

were focusing on the values and policies of the organization as they have more

than 4 years of experience working for the current employer and all their needs

are fulfilled if they have to look at then they would obviously see the values and

policies that the other employer carry. 23.4 percent of the respondents who

mentioned that they would look for the compensation package because they are

of age group 30 to 35 years and they believe it’s the right time to focus on the

salary than other components in a non branded company. While 10 percent of

the respondents of the age group 25 to 30 look for the infrastructure and career

growth in an organization because they think it’s the right time to have a steady

career and peaceful work atmosphere.

Table 1.2: To understand if branded organisation treats their employees as

customers

S. No To understand if branded

organisation treats their

employees as customers



(n = 120))

Percenta

ge

%

1 Agree 66 55

2 Partially agree 38 31.7

3 Do not agree 16 13.3

67


Total 120 100

Table 1.2 shows the respondent’s answer of employees being treated as

customers in a branded organization. 55 percent of the respondents agreed that

employees are being treated as customer. 31.7 percent of the respondents

partially agreed that employees are treated as customers and 13.3 percent of the

respondents did not agree the statement.

As we look at the figure 1.2 the maximum number of respondents agreed

to the fact that employees are being valued as customers because they are with

the employer for longer period of time and they have experience the fruit of

employment with the current employer. However the 13.3 percent of the

respondents are between the age group 25 to 30 who have less amount of

experience with the employer and they are mostly job hoppers who tend to quit

68


the organization within a short period of time. The intermediate respondents of

31.7 percent who partially agreed are employees with 2 to 4 of experience with

current employer and are experience the fact that they are valued as equal to the

customers of their organization.

Table 1.3: Employee in branded organisation or branded company

S.

No

What according to employee is

branded organisation or branded

company

Number of

respondents

(Number of

respondents (n =

120))

Percentage

%

1 Benefactor 50 41.7

2 Service Provider 70 58.3

Total 120 100

From the table 1.3 we could observe that 41.7 percent of the respondents

believe branded organization as benefactor and 58.3 percent of the employees

believe that branded organization are service providers.

69


As we look at the figure 1.3 41.7 percent of the respondents who believe

branded organizations are benefactor are of the age group more than 40 as they

have a notion that their employer are keen to extract large sum of work and

deliver quick results. However if we analyze with the previous table we would

also find they are with the current employer for more than 4 years. 58.3 percent

of the respondent who believe that their employers are service provider because

they are new to the professional field and have not seen the different facets of

work environment.

Table 1.4: Employer branding gives a platform to shape employees

perception to retain their job

S.

No

Employer branding gives a

platform to shape employees

perception to retain their job

Number of

respondents (n =

120)

Percentage

%

1 Yes 49 40.8

2 No 71 59.2

Total 120 100

70


Table 1.4 shows that 40.8 percent of the total respondent believe that

employer branding gives a platform to shape employees perception to retain

their job while 59.2 percent believe not.

From the figure 1.4 we understand that 40.8 percent of the employees are

mostly from the manufacturing sector who contributes 33.5 percent of the total

respondent. And in this sector employees do not have a strong bonding with the

organisation and they are led to misconception. While in the other sector

employers have constant touch with the employees and work according to their

feedbacks which in turn gives them a platform to lead their employees in proper

direction and will lead the employees to have an wrong perception about the

employer.

Table 1.5: Employer branding today represents a bond with its employees,

like the one with its customers

S.

No

Employer branding today

represents a bond with its

employees, like the one with its

Number of

respondents (n =

120)

Percentage

%

71


customers

1 Yes 60 50

2 No 60 50

Total 120 100

Table 1.5 shows the Reponses when respondents were asked does

employer branding today represents a bond with its employees, like the one

with its customers. 50 per cent of the respondents gave a positive answer while

the rest 50 percent did not agree the statement.

From the above figure 1.5 we understand that 50 percent on the

respondents who were positive have their view as service provider, towards

their employer. While the rest disagreed as they think their employer as

benefactors. Hence we learn that there is a gap formed where employer portray

themselves wrong to their employees. Employer who has a large work force and

less attrition will always be on the good books of the employees however at the

end it’s the employee who sets the perception towards their employers.

72


Table 1.6: Retaining the job under unfavorable condition while working

for employer branded organisation

S. No Retaining the job under unfavorable

condition while working for

employer branded organisation


(Number of

respondents (n = 120)) %

1 Yes 52 43.3

2 No 68 56.7

Total 120 100

From the table 1.6 we observe that 43.3 percent of the respondents will

retain the job under unfavorable condition while working for an employer

branded organisation. While the rest 56.7 percent of the respondents denied that

they will not retain the job under unfavorable condition even while working for

an employer branded organisation.

Figure 1.6 shows us clearly that where there is no favorable work

environment employees quit the organisation as they are concerned about their

73


career and job security and these are respondents with 6 months to 2 years of

work experience. They contribute to 40 percent of the total respondent strength.

While there are significant amount of respondent who believe under

unfavorable condition it is safe to work for a branded organisation rather

shifting job to another employer. They contribute to 60 percent of the total

respondent strength.

Table 1.7: Engagement and involvement with branded organisation is

much longer time and in more ways than a customer

S.

No

Engagement and involvement with

branded organisation is much longer

time and in more ways than a

customer

Number of

respondents

(Number of

respondents (n =

120))

Percenta

ge %

1 Yes 63 52.5

2 No 57 47.5

Total 120 100

74


When respondents were asked, are they involved and engaged in their

organisations brand for a much longer time and in a way more than a customer.

52.5 percent of the total respondents believed that they are engaged and

involved in their organisations event. While 47.5 percent of the respondent

believed that they were not engaged and involved in their organisations brand.

This is shown in the table 1.7.

Figure 1.7 depicts that respondent working for an branded organisation

where there is regular employee communication conducted in their organisation

and chances are given to employees to contribute in the corporate activities

believe they form a integral for their organisation’s brand. Most of the

respondents of age group 40 and above believe that they don’t form an integral

part as they think their organisations focuses on their customers rather than

employees. There are about 35 percent of the respondents who believe this.

While the rest 65 percent who fall under the age group of 40 and below believe

that their organisation values the employees than its customer.

Table 1.8: Successful employment brand develops a theme and establishes

an image

S.

No

Successful employment brand

develops a theme and

establishes an image

Number of

respondents (Number

of respondents (n =

120))

Percentage

%

1 Strongly agree 48 40


75


3 Do not agree 16 13.3

Total 120 100

Respondents were then asked if they agree that successful employment

branding develops a theme and establishes an image of the employment at an

organisation and retains its employees 40 percent of the total respondents

strongly agreed the statement while 46.7 percent of the respondents partially

agreed and 13.3 percent of the respondents did not agreed the statement. This is

shown in the table 1.8.

From the figure 0.5 where it shows the total work experience of the

respondents 50 percent of the respondents has 6 months to 2 years of experience

with the current employer and from the figure 0.4 60 percent of the employees

has 6 months to 2 years as their total work experience hence they are the

respondents who believe and partially agree to the statement that successful

employer branding develops a theme and establishes an image of the

76


employment at an organisation and retains its employees which is shown in the

figure 1.8.

Table 1.9: Improving branding of the organisation will help in low attrition

S. No Improving branding of the

organisation will help in

low attrition


(Number of respondents (n =

120))

Percenta

ge

%

1 Yes 83 69.2

2 No 37 30.8

Total 120 100

Table 1.9 shows the percentage of respondents who agreed and disagreed

the statement that organisation with strong employer brand like Google,

Honeywell, and FedEx have managed attrition low while making significant

improvement in branding of the organisation. 69.2 percent of the respondent

agreed to the statement while the rest 30.8 percent disagreed.

From the above figure 1.9 there is higher strength of respondents

supporting the statement because they are the respondents who agreed when

they were asked if their employers treat them as their customers. 55 percent of

77


the respondents agreed to the statement and 33.7 percent partially agreed to the

statement. Because employers like Google, Honeywell, and FedEx have

managed to make a significant improvement in branding with low attrition level

and this would be possible only if they treat their employees as customers.

Table 1.10: Organisation failing to build employer brand loses

S.

No

Organisation failing to build

employer brand loses

Number of

respondents (Number

of respondents (n =

120))

Percenta

ge

%

1 Most talented resource 52 43.4

2 Return on investment 18 15

3 Employee Value Proposition 25 20.8

4 Financial growth of an organisation 25 20.8

Total 120 100

78


Table 1.10 shows the response when respondents were asked what an

employer loses if the organisation fails to build its employer branding. 43.4

percent of the respondents replied that an employer would lose the most talented

resource if it fails to build its employer branding. 15 percent of the respondent

mentioned it would lose the return on investment from an employee as he would

quit for proper branded organisation. 20.8 percent of the respondent mentioned

it would lose the employee value proposition while 20.8 percent of the

respondent mentioned that financial growth of an organisation is lost when the

employer fails to build its brand.

From the figure 1.10 we learn that it’s the most talented resource that an

employer would lose where employer fails to concentrate on its branding.

Respondents who believed vales and policies are the most important component

of employer branding responded that employer would lose the most talented

resource. 40 percent of the total responded believed that employer must

concentrate on its branding measures. 35 percent of the respondents who

partially agreed that employer must focus more on its branding measure

believed that it would lose employee value proposition and financial growth of

the organisation. 25 percent of the rest who did not agreed to employer branding

believed that an employer would lose its return on investment.

Table 1.11: Employer branding a successful way to retain and expand market share

S. Employer branding a successful Number of respondents Percenta

79


No way to retain and expand market

share


(n = 120))

ge

%

1 Yes 64 53.3

2 No 56 46.7

Total 120 100

Table 1.11 talks about the percentage of respondents who supported

Employer branding is a successful way to retain and expand market share. 53.3

percent of the total respondents accepted the above statement and 46.7 percent

did not accept the above statement.

From the figure 1.11 53.3 percent who supported the statement agreed

that employer branding today represents a bond with its employees, like the one

with its customers. If the employer does not have a good bond with its

employees then it would lose its customers resulting in loss of market share.

80


2. To identify various factors associated with employer branding as felt

by employees which influence employee retention

Table 2.1: Organisation’s unique HR practices contribute to employer

branding and retention

S.

No

Organisation’s unique HR

practices contribute to

employer branding and

retention



(n = 120))

Percenta

ge

%

1 Yes 74 61.7

2 No 46 38.3

Total 120 100

Table 2.1 represents the respondents reply when they were asked if their

organisation’s unique HR practices contribute to employer branding and

retention. 61.7 percent of the respondents mentioned yes it would contribute

while 38.3 percent of the employees denied the statement. The fit between

employer and employee is important for hiring compatibility.

81


Table 2.2: Retain job under less paid salary in branded organisation

S.

No

Retain job under less paid

salary in branded

organisation



(n = 120))

Percentage

%

1 Yes 52 43.3

2 No 68 56.7

Total 120 100

Table 2.2 shows that 4.3 percent of the respondents would retain their in a

company with strong employer branding in spite of being paid lesser salary and

56.7 percent of the respondents would quit the organisation when paid less.

Table 2.3: Marketing concepts influence employer branding

S. No Marketing concepts

influence employer

branding



(n = 120))

Percentage

%

1 Strongly agree 40 33.3


3 Do not agree 24 20

82


Total 120 100%

Table 2.3 shows that 33.3 percent of the respondents strongly agreed that

marketing concepts influence employer branding for highting the position of a

company as an employer which in turn is the factor for employee’s retention

while 46.7 percent partially agreed and 20 percent of the respondent did not

agree.

Table 2.4: Benefit provided by branded organisation which inspires retention

S.

No

Benefit provided by branded

organisation which inspires

retention

Number of

respondents (Number

of respondents (n =

120))

Percenta

ge

%

1 Emotional Benefit 35 29.2

2 Rational Benefit 54 45

3 Compensational Benefit 30 25

4 Others 1 .8

Total 120 100

83


Table 2.4 represent 29.2 percent of the respondent believed emotional

benefits is the benefit provided by their organisation which inspires them to

retain their job under adverse situation that is related as prime brand building

factor. 45 percent believed it’s the rational benefits, 25 percent believed it’s the

compensation benefit, and .8 percent believes it’s the medical benefit.

Table 2.5: Factor that initiates employer branding and retention

S.

No

Factor that initiates


retention



(n = 120))

Percentage

%

1 Systematic and transparent

policies

45 37.5

2 Job satisfaction 33 27.5

3 Compensation 34 28.3

4 Compensational benefits 7 5.8

5 Others 1 .8

Total 120 100

84


From the Table 2.5 we observe that 37.5 percent of the respondents

believe that it’s the systematic and transparent policies of the organisation that

is most important factor that initiates employer branding and retention. While

27.5 percent believe it’s the job satisfaction, 28.3 percent believes it’s the

compensation or the salary, 5.8 percent believes it’s the compensation benefits

like the perk, conveyance etc. And .8 per of the respondent believe it the values

of the organisation that is most important factor that initiates employer branding

and retention.

Table 2.6: Important component to retain employees in branded

organisation

S.

No

Important component to retain

employees in branded

organisation



(n = 120))

Percenta

ge

%

1 Financial compensation 12 10

2 Job role and responsibility 28 23.3

3 Designation 29 24.2

4 Work Environment 30 25

85


5 Proposed career development

plan

21 17.5

6 Others 0 0

Total 120 100

Table 2.6 shows that 10 percent of the total respondent agree that

financial compensation is the most important to retain an employee, 23.3

percent believe it’s the job role and the responsibility, 24.2 percent believe it’s

the designation, 25 percent believe it’s the work environment, 17.5 percent

believe it’s the proposed career development plan that retains employee in a

branded organisation.

Table 2.7: Quitting branded organisation

S.

No

Quitting branded organisation Number of respondents

(Number of

respondents (n = 120))

Percenta

ge

%

1 Less compensation package 14 11.7

2 Work pressure 41 34.2

3 When there is no values and

ethics followed in the

28 23.3

86


organisation

4 No career opportunity 36 30

5 Other 1 .8

Total 120 100

Table 2.7 shows that 11.7 percent of the respondents quit branded organisation

because of less compensation package, 34.2 percent quit because of work

pressure, 23.3 percent quit when there is no values and ethic followed in the

organisation, 30 percent quit when there is no career opportunity, 08 percent

quit when there is no proper infrastructure.

Table 2.8: Non recognition of competency factor with high compensation

will retain employees in branded organisation

S.

No

Non recognition of competency factor

with high compensation will retain

employees in branded organisation

Number of

respondent

s (Number

of

respondent

s (n = 120))

Percentage

%

1 Yes 74 61.7

2 No 46 38.3

87


Total 120 100

Table 2.8 shows that 61.7 percent of the respondent would quit when there is no

recognition of competency factor however there is high compensation factor

while 38.3 percent responded that they wouldn’t quit even when there is no

recognition for competency factor.

Table 2.9: Identified factor related to employer branding

S.

No

Identified factor related to

employer branding


(Number of respondents (n

= 120))

Percenta

ge

%

1 Perception towards the

employer in terms of values

and ethics

26 21.7

2 Compensation package 62 51.7

3 Clear step for career

progression across all levels

32 26.6

Total 120 100

88


Table 2.9 shows 21.7 percent of the respondents that perception towards the

employer in terms of values and ethics as identified factor for employer

branding, 51.7 percent said it’s the compensation package, 26.6 percent said it’s

the clear steps for career progression across all levels.

3. To learn effective employer branding techniques being used in the organisation to promote employee retention

Table 3.1: Expectation of an employee to retain in branded organisation

S.

No

Expectation of an employee to retain in

branded organisation

Number of

respondents (n

= 120)

Percent

age

%

1 Spend large sum of money on

employees on their recreational

activities

29 24.2

2 Develop visual identities like the people,

culture, values, vision etc.,

54 45

3 Redesign the compensation package of

their employees and nature of job

32 26.7

4 Others 5 4.1

Total 120 100

89


From the table 3.1 24.2 percent of the respondents said spending large

sum of money on employees on their recreational activities is expected from an

organisation to build its employer brand when it comes to employee retention,

45 percent said it’s the development of visual identities like the people, culture,

values, vision etc, 26.7 percent said its to redesign the compensation package of

their employees and nature of job, 4.1 percent said it to concentrate on corporate

social responsibilities.

Table 3.2: Employees are involved in framing employer brand

S.

No

Employees are involved in

framing employer brand

Number of

respondents (n = 120)

Percentage

%

1 Yes 70 58.3

2 No 50 41.7

Total 120 100

90


Table 3.2 shows 58.3 percent agreed that employees are involved in framing the

employer brand while 41.7 percent denied that employees are involved in

framing the employer brand.

Table 3.3: Identifying good employer with employer branding and

employee retention

S.

No

Identifying good employer with


employee retention

Number of


Percentage

%

1 The knowledge you have about

the company

13 10.8

2 From other’s opinion 21 17.5

3 What is being read in press and

public

23 19.2

4 Content on the website 30 25

5 The style of advertising 18 15

6 The quality of employees

working for the organisation

15 12.5

7 Others 0 0

Total 120 100

91


From the table 3.3 we observe that 10.8 percent of the respondents supported

that the knowledge that they have about the company is best way to identify a

good employer who is conscious of employer branding and concentrates more

on employee retention, while 17.5 percent believed from others opinion, 19.2

percent believed it is what is being read in press and public, 25 percent believed

that it’s the content on the website, 15 percent believed the style of advertising,

12.5 percent believed that it’s the quality of employees working for the

organisation which helps them identify a good employer who is conscious of

employer branding and concentrates more on employee retention.

Table 3.4: Visual identity influence branded Company

S.

No

Visual identity influence branded

Company

Number of


Percenta

ge

1 Yes 63 52.5

2 No 57 47.5

Total 120 100

92


Table 3.4 shows that 52.5 percent of the respondents believe that visual

presentation truly influence in identifying a branded company while 47.5

percent denied it.The advantage of visual identity of an organisation is that

branding gives a very clear statement to a potential employee as to a company's

vision, market position, culture, and/or other qualities that basically equate to a

recognizable, desirable commodity.

Table 3.5: Employer branded organisation for its employee retention need

to concentrate on

S.

No

Employer branded organisation

for its employee retention need

to concentrate on

Number of

respondents (n =

120)

Percentage

1 Self actualization 21 17.5

2 Esteem 30 25

3 Social 38 31.7

4 Safety 25 20.8

5 Physiological 6 5

Total 120 100

93


Table 3.5 shows that 17.5 percent of the respondents believe that self

esteem is the need of the employee, an branded organisation must concentrate

more to retain them, 25 percent believe it’s the esteem, 31.7 percent believe it’s

the social need, 20.8 percent believe it’s the safety need, 5 percent believe it’s

the physiological need.

Table 3.6: Important measure that an employer must be conscious for

employee retention

S.

No

Important measure that an

employer must be conscious for

employee retention

Number of


Percentage

%

1 Industry reputation 47 39.2

2 Corporate culture 56 46.7

3 Job satisfaction 17 14.1

Total 120 100

94


Table 3.6 shows that 39.2 percent of the respondents believe that industry

reputation is the important measure that an employer must be conscious of when

it comes to retaining its employees, 46.7 percent of them believe it’s the

corporate culture, 14.1 percent believe it’s the job satisfaction.

Table 3.7: Effective brand building technique for employee retention

S. No Effective brand building technique

for employee retention

Number of

respondents (n =

120)

Percenta

ge

%

1 The values of the organisation that

employee believe in

33 27.5

2 The positive leadership traits of the

organisation

59 49.2

3 The open and transparent work

environment of the organisation

28 23.3

Total 120 100

95


Table 3.7 shows 27.5 percent of respondents believe that the values of the

organisation that employee believe in is the primary factor when it comes to

retaining a job which the employer would focus which in turn can be an

effective brand building technique, 49.2 percent believe it’s the positive

leadership traits of the organisation, 23.3 percent believe it’s the open and

transparent work environment of the organisation.

A work environment can be identified as the place that one works. i.e. -in an

office building in a cube, at home at the kitchen table, from a car or truck, at a

construction site. All are work environments. We tend, however, to hear about

"healthy work environments." This can point to other factors in the work

environment, such as co-workers, air quality, ergonomic seating, management

(the boss!), child care, parking, noise, and even the size of one's cube. A work

environment doesn't require a job.

Table 3.8: Important component of employer branding helping in employee

retention

96


S. No Important component of

employer branding helping in

employee retention

Number of


Percenta

ge

%

1 Functional component like

setting career platform for

employees

55 45.8

2 Economic component like

rewards and recognition policies

43 35.8

3 Psychological component like

feeling of purpose, belonging and

recognition felt for the company

22 18.4

Total 120 100

Table 3.8 shows that 45.8 percent of the respondents believe that functional

components like setting career platform for employees is important component

of employer branding helping in employee retention, 35.8 percent believe in

economic component like rewards and recognition policies, 18.4 percent believe

in psychological component like feeling of purpose, belonging felt for the

company.

97


4. To elicit employee’s views on employer branding, as a motivational

factor on their job retention

Table 4.1: Quality of a branded organisation motivates retention

S. No Quality of a branded organisation

motivates retention

Number of

respondents (n =

120)

Percenta

ge

%

1 Solid standing of the organisation in

the market

24 20

2 Just and fair HR policies 40 33.3

3 Being a good paymaster 56 46.7

Total 120 100

Table 4.1 shows that 20 percent of respondents believe in solid standing of the

organisation in the market as a quality of the organization with strong employer

branding motivates them to retain their job, 33.3 percent believe in just and fair

HR policies, 46.7 percent believe in being a good paymaster.

Table 4.2: Employees expectation from branded organisation that gives positive reinforcement

S. No Employees expectation from branded Number of Percenta

98


organisation that gives positive

reinforcement

respondents (n =

120)

ge

%

1 Should be recognized as a modern,

progressive, fast growing

organisation with extremely

professional ethos.

22 18.3

2 Should portray the image of a

growth-oriented, efficiency-driven

company where stability is a way of

life

63 52.5

3 Should respect experience and

encourage entrepreneurship.

35 29.2

Total 120 100

Table 4.2 shows that 18.3 percent of the respondents believe that their employer

should be recognized as a modern, progressive, fast growing organisation with

extremely professional ethos. 52.5 percent believe that they would expect their

employer should portray the image of a growth-oriented, efficiency-driven

99


company where stability is a way of life. 29.2 percent believe that their

employer should respect experience and encourage entrepreneurship.

Table 4.3: Employee retention depends on power, authority, company’s

brand name and market position

S. No Employee retention depends on

power, authority, company’s brand

name and market position

Number of

respondents (n =

120)

Percenta

ge

%

1 Strongly agree 49 40.8


3 Strongly disagree 33 27.5

Total 120 100

Table 4.3 shows that 40.8 percent of the respondents believe that employee

retention depends on power, authority, company’s brand name and market

position. 31.7 percent partially agree the statement. 27.5 percent strongly

disagreed the statement.

Table 4.4: Motivation to retain inspite of better offer from competitor

100


S.

No

Motivation to retain inspite of

better offer from competitor

Number of

respondents (n =

120)

Percentage

%


2 Job profile 42 35

3 Employer branding of that

organisation

34 28.4

4 Profit of the organisation 13 10.8

Total 120 100

Table 4.4 shows that 10.8 percent of the total respondents believe in

compensation package as a motivation factor to retain inspite of better offer

from competitor, 35 percent believe in job profile, 28.4 percent believe in

employer branding of the organisation, 10.8 percent believe in profit of the

organisation.

Table 4.5: At work, employee gets motivated which transforms into

retention

S. At work, employee gets motivated which Number of Percentage

101


No transforms into retention respondent

s (n = 120)

%

1 When there is constant recognition on the

performance

30 25

2 When there is more fun at work 39 32.5

3 When there is ethical bonding with the

colleagues

32 26.7

4 When there is constant hike in pay no

matter based on performance

19 15.8

Total 120 100

Table 4.5 show that 25 percent of the respondents get motivated when there is

constant recognition on the performance, 32.5 believe when there is more fun at

work, 26.7 believe when there is ethical bonding with the colleagues, 15.8

percent believe when there is constant hike in pay no matter based on

performance which at work will transform to retention.

102


Table 4.6: Do you agree above selected option is found in employer

branded organisation by default

S.

No

Do you agree above selected option

is found in employer branded

organisation by default

Number of


Percenta

ge

%

1 Yes 73 60.8

2 No 47 39.2

Total 120 100

Table 4.6 percent of the respondents agreed that above option is found in

employer branded organisation by default while 39.2 percent disagreed that.

Table 4.7: Branded organisation conveys EVP which motivates the

employee retention

S.

No

Branded organisation conveys EVP

which motivates the employee

retention

Number of

respondents (n =

120)

Percentage

%

1 Creating career platform 50 41.7

103


2 Developing a fun at work

environment

43 35.8

3 Policies, procedures and practices 24 20

4 Action plans and behaviours of the

leaders

3 2.5

Total 120 100

Table 4.7 shows that 41.7 percent of the respondents believe that creating career

platform by branded organisation conveys EVP which motivates the employee

retention. 35.8 percent believe in developing a fun at work environment. 20

percent believe in policies, procedure and practices. 2.5 percent believe in

action plans and behaviours of the leaders.

Table 4.8: Factors of employer branding motivating retention

S.

No

Factors of employer branding

motivating retention

Number of

respondents (n =

120)

Percentage

%

104



2 Employee value proposition 48 40

3 Vision and Mission 19 15.8

4 Position that the company posses

among its competitors

14 11.7

Total 120 100

Table 4.8 shows that 32.5 percent of the respondents believe that compensation

package is the key factor of employer branding motivating retention. 40 percent

believe in employee value proposition. 15.8 percent believe in vision and

mission of the organisation. 11.7 percent believe in position that the company

posses among its competitors.

5. To understand the reason for employees to quit an employer branded

organisation

Table 5.1: Understanding the circumstance for an employee to quit an

organisation

105


S.

No

Understanding the circumstance

for an employee to quit an

organisation

Number of

respondents (n =

120)

Percentage

%

1 The job or workplace is not, what

was expected

16 13.3

2 Mismatch between job and

myself

35 29.2

3 Too little coaching 16 13.3

4 Poor growth and advancement

opportunities

16 13.3

5 Feeling devalued 10 8.3

6 Feeling Unrecognized 15 12.5

7 Stress from overwork 10 8.4

8 Loss of trust and confidence in

senior leaders

2 1.7

9 Personal / Family reason 0 0

10 Others 0 0

Total 120 100

106


Table 5.1 shows that 16 percent of the respondents believe that they would quit

the organisation when job or workplace is not, what were expected. 35 percent

of the respondents quit when there is mismatch between job and themselves. 16

percent believe when there is too little coaching, poor growth and advancement

opportunities. 10 percent believe when there is devalued feeling and stress from

overwork. 15 percent believe when they are unrecognized. 2 percent believe

when they lose trust and confidence in senior leaders.

Table 5.2: Compensation, a prime factor to quit an employer branded

organisation

S.

No

Compensation, a prime factor to

quit an employer branded

organisation


(n = 120)

Percenta

ge

%

1 Yes 63 52.5

2 No 57 47.5

Total 120 100

107


Table 5.2 shows that 52.5 percent of the respondents that compensation is the

prime factor for them to quit an employer braded organisation. 47.5 percent

believe compensation is not the reason to quit.

Table 5.3: Employer branded organisation faces resignation even when

employees are cared more

S.

No

Employer branded organisation faces

resignation even when employees are

cared more

Number of

respondents (n

= 120)

Percentage

%

1 Fear of layoffs and retrenchment that

an employer branded organisation

creates during recession

23 19.2

2 No salary hike even when the

organisation is making profits

70 58.3

3 Sudden change in work culture 26 21.7

4 Others 1 .8

Total 120 100

108


Table 5.3 shows that 19.2 percent of the respondents specifies that an

employer branded organisation sometimes faces resignation where the

employees are cared more when there is fear of layoffs and retrenchment that an

employer branded organisation creates during recession. 58.3 percent believe

that resignation is faced when there is no salary hike even when the organisation

is making profits. 21.7 percent believes when there is sudden change in work

culture and .8 percent believes where no growth in career.

Table 5.4: Bad appraisal system, a reason for employees to quit

S.

No

Bad appraisal system, a reason for

employees to quit

Number of

respondents (n =

120)

Percenta

ge

%

1 Yes 72 60

2 No 48 40

Total 120 100

109


Table 5.4 shows that 60 percent of the respondents believe that bad appraisal

system is a reason for employees to quit while 40 percent believe that bad

appraisal system is not a reason for resignation.

Table 5.5: Association with the organisation for longer period of time needs change

S.

No

Association with the organisation

for longer period of time needs

change

Number of


Percenta

ge

%

1 Yes 83 69.2

2 No 37 30.8

Total 120 100

Table 5.5 shows that 69.2 percent of the respondents believe that association

with the organisation for longer period of time needs change while 30.8 percent

does not agree.

Table 5.6: Prime reason for employees in a branded organisation to quit

S.

No

Prime reason for employees in a branded

organisation to quit

Number of

respondents

(n = 120)

Percentage

%

110


1 Envy caused during peer promotion 23 19.2

2 Dissatisfaction with the appraisal system

of the organisation

66 55

3 Sudden change in the organisational

structure

30 30

4 Others 1 .8

Total 120 100

Table 5.6 shows that 19.2 percent of the respondents quit because of envy

caused during peer promotion as prime reason. 55 percent believe that

dissatisfaction with the appraisal system makes them quit. 30 percent believe

that sudden change in the organisational structure makes them quit. .8 percent

believes that compensation is the prime reason to quit.

Table 5.7: Quitting an employer branded organisation when failed to fulfill

the job requirement and feel guilty

S.

No

Quitting an employer branded

organisation when failed to fulfill the job

requirement and feel guilty

Number of

respondents (n

= 120)

Percenta

ge

%

111


1 Yes 79 65.8

2 No 41 34.2

Total 120 100

Table 5.7 shows that 65.8 percent of the respondents quit employer

branded organisation when they fail to fulfill the job requirement and feel guilty

while 37.2 percent deny the reason.

CHI-SQUARE TEST

1. Chi-Square test of independence carried out to find if any correlation existed between age and factors of employer branding

Q: Age of the respondents + To identify the factors of employer branding. Table of observed frequency

Work

experience Influence by factors of Employer Branding

To a To some To certain Not Tota

112


great

extent extent extent satisfied l

20 to 30 31 41 24 9 100

30 to 40 above 3 11 4 2 20

Total 34 52 28 11 120

Table of expected frequency

Work

experience

Influence by factors of Employer Branding

To a great

extent

To

some

extent

To

certain

extent

N

ot

satisfied Total

20 to 30 28.56 43.68 23.52 9.24 100

30 to 40 above 5.44 8.32 4.48 1.76 20

Total 34 52 28 11 120

Chi square table

Observed

frequency (O)

Expected

frequency (E) O-E (O-E)^2

Chi square = (O-

E)^2/E

31 28.56 2.44 5.9536 0.208459384

41 43.68 -2.68 7.1824 0.164432234

24 23.52 0.48 0.2304 0.009795918

9 9.24 -0.24 0.0576 0.006233766

3 5.44 -2.44 5.9536 1.094411765

113


11 8.32 2.68 7.1824 0.863269231

4 4.48 -0.48 0.2304 0.051428571

2 1.76 0.24 0.0576 0.032727273

Σᵡ2 2.4307

Degree of freedom = (r-1)*(c-1)

= 3*1

Degree of freedom = 3

Table value of ᵡ2 for 3 at 5% level of significance = 7.815

Here the calculated value < the tabulated value

Null - Hypothesis: Hypothesis is accepted.

The statistical tool – used: Chi-square.

Level of Significance: 5 %

Conclusion: As the calculated value of ᵡ2 is less than the tabulated value, Null

hypothesis is accepted. Hence there is no evidence of correlation between age and

factors of employer branding.

2. Chi-Square test of independence carried out to find if any correlation

existed between gender and employee perception of employer branding.

Q: Gender

114


+

Employee’s perception of employer branding.

Table of observed frequency

Gender


Val

ues

Polic

ies

Comp

ensation

Infrastru

cture

Total

Male 43 28 20 10 9 0

Female 12 7 3 2 3 0

Total 55 35 23 12 120


Gender


Values Policies

Compensatio

n Infrastructure

Tota

l

Male 44.44 28.28 18.584 9.696 90

Female 10.56 6.72 4.416 2.304 30

Total 55 35 23 12 120

Chi square table

115


Observed

frequenc

y (O)

Expected

frequency

(E) O-E

(O-

E)^2

Chi square = (O-

E)^2/E

43 44.44 - 1.44 2.0736 0.046660666

28 28.28 - 0.28 0.0784 0.002772277

20 18.584 1.416 2.005056 0.10789152

10 9.696 0.304 0.092416 0.009531353

12 10.56 1.44 2.0736 0.196363636

7 6.72 0.28 0.0784 0.011666667

3 4.416 - 1.416 2.005056 0.454043478

2 2.304

-

0.304 0.092416 0.040111111

Σᵡ2 0.869


= 3*1




Null - Hypothesis: There is no relationship between the gender and opinion on

availability of HR.


116



Conclusion: As the calculated value of ᵡ2 is less than the tabulated value, Null

hypothesis is accepted. Hence there is no evidence of correlation between gender

and employees perception on employer branding.

3. Chi-Square tests of independence carried out to find if any

correlation existed between genders and understand if marketing

concepts influence employer branding.

Q: Gender + Does marketing concepts influence employer branding.


Gender

Influence of marketing concepts on employer

branding

Yes No Total

Male 27 41 70

Female 21 36 50

117


Total 48 77 120


Gender

Influence of marketing concepts on employer

branding

Yes No Total

Male 26.112 41.888 70

Female 21.888 35.112 50

Total 48 77 125

Chi square table

Observed

frequency (O)

Expected

frequency (E) O-E (O-E)^2

Chi square = (O-

E)^2/E

27 26.112 0.888 0.788544 0.030198529

41 41.888 -0.888 0.788544 0.018825057

21 21.888 -0.888 0.788544 0.036026316

36 35.112 0.888 0.788544 0.022457963

Σᵡ2 0.1075


118


= 1*1




Null - Hypothesis: There is no relationship between the marital status and

financial assistance for employees children.



Conclusion: As the calculated value of ᵡ2 is less than the tabulated value, null

hypothesis is accepted. Hence there is no evidence of correlation between

genders and understand if marketing concepts influence employer branding.

4. Chi-Square test of independence carried out to find if any correlation

existed between work experience and need of the employees

Q: Gender

+

Needs of the employee that an employer must concentrate to retain its employees

Ho = There is no correlation between gender and need of the employees.

119



Work

experience

Need of the employees

Self

Actualization Esteem Social Safety Total

Male 21 33 35 20 106

Female 2 8 3 3 14

Total 23 41 38 23 120


Work

experience

Need of the employees

Self

Actualization Esteem Social Safety Total

Male 20.056 35.752 33.136 20.056 106

Female 2.944 5.248 4.864 2.944 14

Total 23 41 38 23 120

Chi square table

Observed

frequency (O)

Expected

frequency

(E) O-E (O-E)^2 Chi square = (O-E)^2/E

120


21 20.056 0.944 0.891136 0.044432389

33 35.752 -2.752 7.573504 0.211834415

35 33.136 1.864 3.474496 0.104855625

20 20.056 -0.056 0.003136 0.000156362

2 2.944 -0.944 0.891136 0.302695652

8 5.248 2.752 7.573504 1.443121951

3 4.864 -1.864 3.474496 0.714328947

3 2.944 0.056 0.003136 0.001065217

Σᵡ2 2.8224


= 3*1




Null - Hypothesis: There is no relationship between gender and need of the

employees



121


Conclusion: As the calculated value of ᵡ2 is less than the tabulated value, null

hypothesis is accepted. Hence there is no evidence of correlation between work

gender and need of the employees.

FINDINGS

Findings are basically to summarize and substantiate the result. The data has

been collected, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted will be listed down as

pointer along with statistics so as to enable the reader to conclude from the

study easily. The summary finding for this study:

Age of the respondents:

It shows that 50% of the respondents are less than 30 years and 20% of

the respondents are more than 40 years of age. While 20% of the respondents

are between the age group of 30 to 40 years.

Genders of the respondents:

122


It is found that 70 percent of the respondents are male while 30 percent of

the respondents are female. We clearly show that large numbers of respondents

are male.

Education Qualification of the respondents

It is found that 60 percent of the respondents are undergraduates and 40

percent of the respondents are post graduate. It is important to understand their

graduation level for this study as it would clearly portray the respondent’s

perception of employer branding.

Total work experience of the respondents:

We found that 60 percent of the employees working in a branded

organization have 6 months to 2 years of total work experience. 20 percent of

the employees have 2 years to 3 years total work experience. 10 percent of the

respondents have 3 years and above experience as the total work experience of

the respondents.

Total work experience with the current employer of the respondents

We find that 50 percent of the total respondents have 6 months to 2 years

of experience with the current employer while 20 percent of the respondents

have 2 years to 4 years of experience with the currently employer and 10

percent of the respondents have more than 4 years of experience with the

current employer.

1. To Study the employee’s views and perception over employer

branding and its influence on job retention.

123


When respondents from the branded organization were asked what was

would they see on a branded company that is different from other non branded

companies. 27.5 percent of the respondents said they would see the values and

the policies of the organization. 23.4 percent said they would watch for the

compensation benefits. 10 percent said they would focus on the infrastructure

while the others 11.6 percent of the respondents said they would focus on their

career.

The respondent’s answer of employees being treated as customers in a

branded organization. 55 percent of the respondents agreed that employees are

being treated as customer. 31.7 percent of the respondents partially agreed that

employees are treated as customers and 13.3 percent of the respondents did not

agree the statement.

We found that 41.7 percent of the respondents believe branded

organization as benefactor and 58.3 percent of the employees believe that

branded organization are service providers.

We found that 40.8 percent of the total respondent believes that employer

branding gives a platform to shape employees perception to retain their job

while 59.2 percent believe not.

It shows from the responses where respondents were asked does

employer branding today represents a bond with its employees, like the one

124


with its customers. 50 per cent of the respondents gave a positive answer while

the rest 50 percent did not agree the statement.

We observe that 43.3 percent of the respondents will retain the job under

unfavorable condition while working for an employer branded organisation.

While the rest 56.7 percent of the respondents denied that they will not retain

the job under unfavorable condition even while working for an employer

branded organisation.

When respondents were asked, are they involved and engaged in their

organisations brand for a much longer time and in a way more than a customer.

52.5 percent of the total respondents believed that they are engaged and

involved in their organisations event. While 47.5 percent of the respondent

believed that they were not engaged and involved in their organisations brand.

Respondents were then asked if they agree that successful employment

branding develops a theme and establishes an image of the employment at an

organisation and retains its employees 40 percent of the total respondents

strongly agreed the statement while 46.7 percent of the respondents partially

agreed and 13.3 percent of the respondents did not agreed the statement.

It is found that the percentage of respondents who agreed and disagreed

the statement that organisation with strong employer brand like Google,

Honeywell, and FedEx have managed attrition low while making significant

125


improvement in branding of the organisation. 69.2 percent of the respondent

agreed to the statement while the rest 30.8 percent disagreed.

It is found from the response when respondents were asked what an

employer loses if the organisation fails to build its employer branding. 43.4

percent of the respondents replied that an employer would lose the most talented

resource if it fails to build its employer branding. 15 percent of the respondent

mentioned it would lose the return on investment from an employee as he would

quit for proper branded organisation. 20.8 percent of the respondent mentioned

it would lose the employee value proposition while 20.8 percent of the

respondent mentioned that financial growth of an organisation is lost when the

employer fails to build its brand.

It is found that the percentage of respondents who supported Employer

branding is a successful way to retain and expand market share. 53.3 percent of

the total respondents accepted the above statement and 46.7 percent did not

accept the above statement.

2. To identify various factors associated with employer branding as felt

by employees which influence employee retention

The respondents reply when they were asked if their organisation’s

unique HR practices contribute to employer branding and retention. 61.7

percent of the respondents mentioned yes it would contribute while 38.3 percent

of the employees denied the statement.

126


It was found that that 4.3 percent of the respondents would retain their in

a company with strong employer branding in spite of being paid lesser salary

and 56.7 percent of the respondents would quit the organisation when paid less.

It was found that 33.3 percent of the respondents strongly agreed that

marketing concepts influence employer branding for highting the position of a

company as an employer which in turn is the factor for employee’s retention

while 46.7 percent partially agreed and 20 percent of the respondent did not

agree.

It was found that 29.2 percent of the respondent believed emotional

benefits is the benefit provided by their organisation which inspires them to

retain their job under adverse situation that is related as prime brand building

factor. 45 percent believed it’s the rational benefits, 25 percent believed it’s the

compensation benefit, and .8 percent believe it’s the medical benefit.

We observe that 37.5 percent of the respondents believe that it’s the

systematic and transparent policies of the organisation that is most important

factor that initiates employer branding and retention. While 27.5 percent believe

it’s the job satisfaction, 28.3 percent believes it’s the compensation or the

salary, 5.8 percent believes it’s the compensation benefits like the perk,

conveyance etc. And .8 per of the respondent believe it the values of the

organisation that is most important factor that initiates employer branding and

retention.

127


It was found that 10 percent of the total respondent agree that financial

compensation is the most important to retain an employee, 23.3 percent believe

it’s the job role and the responsibility, 24.2 percent believe it’s the designation,

25 percent believe it’s the work environment, 17.5 percent believe it’s the

proposed career development plan that retains employee in a branded

organisation.

It was found that 11.7 percent of the respondents quit branded

organisation because of less compensation package, 34.2 percent quit because

of work pressure, 23.3 percent quit when there is no values and ethic followed

in the organisation, 30 percent quit when there is no career opportunity, 08

percent quit when there is no proper infrastructure.

It was found that 61.7 percent of the respondent would quit when there is

no recognition of competency factor however there is high compensation factor

while 38.3 percent responded that they wouldn’t quit even when there is no

recognition for competency factor.

It was found that 21.7 percent of the respondents that perception towards

the employer in terms of values and ethics as identified factor for employer

branding, 51.7 percent said it’s the compensation package, 26.6 percent said it’s

the clear steps for career progression across all levels.

128


3. To learn effective employer branding techniques being used in the

organisation to promote employee retention

It was found that 24.2 percent of the respondents said spending large sum

of money on employees on their recreational activities is expected from an

organisation to build its employer brand when it comes to employee retention,

45 percent said it’s the development of visual identities like the people, culture,

values, vision etc, 26.7 percent said its to redesign the compensation package of

their employees and nature of job, 4.1 percent said it to concentrate on corporate

social responsibilities.

It was found that 58.3 percent agreed that employees are involved in

framing the employer brand while 41.7 percent denied that employees are

involved in framing the employer brand.

We found that 10.8 percent of the respondents supported that the

knowledge that they have about the company is best way to identify a good

employer who is conscious of employer branding and concentrates more on

employee retention, while 17.5 percent believed from others opinion, 19.2

percent believed it is what is being read in press and public, 25 percent believed

that it’s the content on the website, 15 percent believed the style of advertising,

12.5 percent believed that it’s the quality of employees working for the

129


organisation which helps them identify a good employer who is conscious of

employer branding and concentrates more on employee retention.

It was found that 52.5 percent of the respondents believe that visual

presentation truly influence in identifying a branded company while 47.5

percent denied it.

It was found that 17.5 percent of the respondents believe that self esteem

is the need of the employee, an branded organisation must concentrate more to

retain them, 25 percent believe it’s the esteem, 31.7 percent believe it’s the

social need, 20.8 percent believe it’s the safety need, 5 percent believe it’s the

physiological need.

It was found that 39.2 percent of the respondents believe that industry

reputation is the important measure that an employer must be conscious of when

it comes to retaining its employees, 46.7 percent of them believe it’s the

corporate culture, 14.1 percent believe it’s the job satisfaction.

It was found that 27.5 percent of respondents believe that the values of

the organisation that employee believe in is the primary factor when it comes to

retaining a job which the employer would focus which in turn can be an

effective brand building technique, 49.2 percent believe it’s the positive

leadership traits of the organisation, 23.3 percent believe it’s the open and

transparent work environment of the organisation.

It was found that 45.8 percent of the respondents believe that functional

components like setting career platform for employees is important component

130


of employer branding helping in employee retention, 35.8 percent believe in

economic component like rewards and recognition policies, 18.4 percent believe

in psychological component like feeling of purpose, belonging felt for the

company.

4. To elicit employee’s views on employer branding, as a motivational

factor on their job retention

It was found that 20 percent of respondents believe in solid standing of

the organisation in the market as a quality of the organization with strong

employer branding motivates them to retain their job, 33.3 percent believe in

just and fair HR policies, 46.7 percent believe in being a good paymaster.

It was found that 18.3 percent of the respondents believe that their

employer should be recognized as a modern, progressive, fast growing

organisation with extremely professional ethos. 52.5 percent believe that they

would expect their employer should portray the image of a growth-oriented,

efficiency-driven company where stability is a way of life. 29.2 percent believe

that their employer should respect experience and encourage entrepreneurship.

It was found that 40.8 percent of the respondents believe that employee

retention depends on power, authority, company’s brand name and market

position. 31.7 percent partially agree the statement. 27.5 percent strongly

disagreed the statement.

131


It was found that 10.8 percent of the total respondents believe in

compensation package as a motivation factor to retain inspite of better offer

from competitor, 35 percent believe in job profile, 28.4 percent believe in

employer branding of the organisation, 10.8 percent believe in profit of the

organisation.

It was found that 25 percent of the respondents get motivated when there

is constant recognition on the performance, 32.5 believe when there is more fun

at work, 26.7 believe when there is ethical bonding with the colleagues, 15.8

percent believe when there is constant hike in pay no matter based on

performance which at work will transform to retention.

It was found that 60.8 percent of the respondents agreed that above option

is found in employer branded organisation by default while 39.2 percent

disagreed that.

It was found that 41.7 percent of the respondents believe that creating

career platform by branded organisation conveys EVP which motivates the

employee retention. 35.8 percent believe in developing a fun at work

environment. 20 percent believe in policies, procedure and practices. 2.5 percent

believe in action plans and behaviours of the leaders.

It was found that 32.5 percent of the respondents believe that

compensation package is the key factor of employer branding motivating

retention. 40 percent believe in employee value proposition. 15.8 percent

132


believe in vision and mission of the organisation. 11.7 percent believe in

position that the company posses among its competitors.

5. To understand the reason for employees to quit an employer branded

organisation

It was found that 16 percent of the respondents believe that they would

quit the organisation when job or workplace is not, what were expected. 35

percent of the respondents quit when there is mismatch between job and

themselves. 16 percent believe when there is too little coaching, poor growth

and advancement opportunities. 10 percent believe when there is devalued

feeling and stress from overwork. 15 percent believe when they are

unrecognized. 2 percent believe when they lose trust and confidence in senior

leaders.

It was found that 52.5 percent of the respondents that compensation is the

prime factor for them to quit an employer braded organisation. 47.5 percent

believe compensation is not the reason to quit.

It was found that 19.2 percent of the respondents specifies that an

employer branded organisation sometimes faces resignation where the

employees are cared more when there is fear of layoffs and retrenchment that an

employer branded organisation creates during recession. 58.3 percent believe

that resignation is faced when there is no salary hike even when the organisation

is making profits. 21.7 percent believes when there is sudden change in work

culture and .8 percent believes where no growth in career.

133


It was found that 60 percent of the respondents believe that bad appraisal

system is a reason for employees to quit while 40 percent believe that bad

appraisal system is not a reason for resignation.

It was found that 69.2 percent of the respondents believe that association

with the organisation for longer period of time needs change while 30.8 percent

does not agree.

It was found that 19.2 percent of the respondents quit because of envy

caused during peer promotion as prime reason. 55 percent believe that

dissatisfaction with the appraisal system makes them quit. 30 percent believe

that sudden change in the organisational structure makes them quit. .8 percent

believe that compensation is the prime reason to quit.

It was found that 65.8 percent of the respondents quit employer branded

organisation when they fail to fulfill the job requirement and feel guilty while

37.2 percent deny the reason.

Conclusion:

The findings reveal that the opinions, expectations, and specifying personal and

organisational information related to employer branding from various

professionals across different sectors. And it had been taken from the

respondents from three different sectors to study employer branding and its

influence on employee retention.

134


SUGGESTION

The suggestions of the study are based on the main findings that have been

enunciated. The possible and viable suggestions are to improve the employer

branding of the organisation.

Organization's brand can include a wide range of factors, such as

compensation, culture, benefits, management style, and organizational goals.

Hence it becomes important to focus on the mentioned factor to build effective

employer brand which would result in greater employee retention.

From the study it is evident that employees need more than just monetary

rewards: They want to work in a place they can feel proud of and have a job that

has more than just monetary worth.

135


In addition to compensation, pride is a strong motivator for employees.

Employees who can feel proud of where they work are more likely to remain

with that employer. Hence employers can concentrate on the pride factor which

is an effective return on investment and can avoid paying fat salaries to the

employee.

Employers can create a culture that endeavors the brand which now as a

way to head off the large percentage of employees who may be getting ready to

leave the organisation.

Employer can treat their employees as customers which in turn will

develop a strong bonding which will make the employees retain their job for

longer period of time.

When the responded were asked if they would retain their job inspite of

being paid less, 75 percent said they would retain their jobs provided if their

employers have good brand image in the industry hence employers can

concentrate more on their brand for retaining their most talented resource.

Employer can conduct periodic open house meetings which will give

them the platform to express their grievance and suggestions which will help the

employers to change their branding technique. Their constant feedbacks not

only help the organisation to rectify the unnoticed areas for improvement but

helps in retaining them as they feel special.

Conclusion:

136


The suggestions of the study were to help the employer to know their branding

techniques, and find solution for their employee’s to retain their job with the

organisation. The suggestions were given from the findings, which gives clear

idea to rethink employer branding of the organisation.

CONCLUSION

The report concludes that HR strategies are intimately linked to how brand -

particularly at the corporate level - is valued by customers and employees.

These strategies include the extent to which the organisation sees its workforce

as a driver of business success, how successfully it seeks to be an employer of

choice, and how effectively it communicates the employer brand identity to its

employees. The report stresses that the relationship between HR and corporate

brand is mediated by the extent to which employees perceive the brand

proposition to match reality, and by the brand reputation, that is, the past ability

of the company to deliver its promised outcomes.

The report stresses that appropriate people management and development

policies and practices are positively linked to strong brands, particularly at a

137


corporate level. Brand performance is strongly influenced by people

management and development strategies, through the consistent pursuit of

'employer of choice' policies and the successful communication of an

employment proposition to the workforce. However, this relationship is

adversely affected by any incongruence between brand identity and employees'

perception of the reality of the brand, and the brand's reputation.

The report outlines stages of development in the brand and HR relationship,

starting from branding as a logo for products or services (Stage 1), with little or

no input from the HR function, to corporate brand at the centre of strategy, with

HR in a pivotal role (Stage 4). A new language of branding and people

management and development does not offer radical solutions to organisational

problems, but it can lead to a new way for HR professionals to engage in the

development of business strategy in their organisations.

This research will help people management and development professionals to

engage in the strategic debate on brand management in their organisations, and

to understand the key role they can play in developing and promoting brand.

The brand concept is unlikely to be short-lived, and its prominence in

organisational strategy clearly has implications for people management and

development.

138


QUESTIONNARIE

Name: Age:

Sex:

Graduation:

a) Under Graduate

b) Post Graduate

c) Others

______________________________________________________

Employer’s Name:

__________________________________________________________

Total Work Experience:

a) 6 months to 2 years

b) 2 years to 3 years

c) 3 years to 4 years

d) More than 4 years

Total Work Experience with the current employer:

a) 6 months to 2 years

b) 2 years to 3 years

c) 3 years to 4 years

d) More than 4 years

139


Designation:

_______________________________________________________________

To study the employee’s views and perception over employer branding and

its influence on job retention.

1. What is that you see on a branded company that is different from

other non – branded companies?

a) Values

b) Policies

c) Compensation

d) Infrastructure

e) Career

f) Others_________________________________________

2. It is said branded organisation treat their employees as customers.

a) Agree

b) Partially Agree

c) Do not agree

3. What according to you is branded organisation or branded

company?

a) Benefactor

b) Service Provider

4. Do you think employer branding gives a platform to shape

employees perception to retain their job?

140


a) Yes

b) No

5. Does an employer branding today represents a bond with its

employees, like the one with its customers?

a) Yes

b) No

6. Will you retain your job under unfavorable condition while

working for an employer branded organization?

a) Yes

b) No

7. Do you think you are engaged and involved with your

organisation’s brand for a much longer time and in more ways than

a customer is?

a) Yes

b) No

8. Do you agree that successful employment branding develops a

theme and establishes an image of the employment experience at

an organisation and retains its employees?

a) Strongly Agree

b) Partially Agree

c) Do not Agree

141


9. Do you think organisation with strong brand like Google,

Honeywell and FedEx have managed attrition low while making

significant improvement in branding of the organisation?

a) Yes

b) No

10.What does an employer lose if the organisation fails to build its

employer branding?

a) Most talented resource

b) Return on investment

c) Employee Value proposition

d) Financial growth of the organisation

11.Is the employer branding a successful way to retain and expand

market share?

a) Yes

b) No

To identify various factors associated with employer branding as felt by

employees which influence employee retention.

12.Do you think your organisation’s unique HR practices contribute to

employer branding and retention?

a) Yes

b) No

142


13.Would you retain your job in a company with strong employer

branding in spite of being paid lesser salary?

a) Yes

b) No

14.Do the marketing concepts influence employer branding for

highlighting the position of a company as an employer which in

turn is the factor for employee’s retention?

a) Strongly agree

b) Partially agree

c) Do not agree

15.Which is the benefit provided by your organisation which inspires

you to retain your job under adverse situation that is related as

prime branding factor?

a) Emotional Benefits

b) Rational Benefits

c) Compensation Benefits

d) Others

_________________________________________________

____

16.What is the most important factor that initiates employer branding

and retention?

a) Systematic and transparent policies

143


b) Job satisfaction

c) Compensation

d) Compensational Benefits

e) Others

_________________________________________________

_____

17.In a branded organisation, which component is most important to

retain its employees?

a) Financial compensation

b) Job role and responsibility

c) Designation

d) Work environment

e) Proposed career development plan

f) Others

_________________________________________________

______

18.Under what circumstance you will quit branded organisation?

a) Less compensation package

b) Work pressure

c) When there are no values and ethics that are followed in that

organisation

d) No career opportunity

144


e) Others

_________________________________________________

_

19.Would you continue to work in a branded organisation where your

competency factor is not recognized however your compensation

factor is high?

a) Yes

b) No

20.What is you identified factor that is related to employer branding?

a) Perception towards the employer in terms of values and

ethics

b) Compensation package

c) Clear step for career progression across all levels

To learn effective Employer branding techniques being used in the

organisation to promote employee retention.

21.What is expected from an organisation to build its employer brand

when it comes to employee retention?

a) Spend large sum of money on employees on their

recreational activities

b) Develop visual identities like the people, culture, values,

vision etc.,

145


c) Redesign the compensation package of their employees and

nature of job

d) Others

_________________________________________________

22. Are employers involved in efforts to frame employer’s brand?

a) Yes

b) No

23. How do you identify a good employer who is conscious of

employer branding and concentrate more on employee retention?

a) The knowledge you have about the company

b) From other’s opinion

c) What is being read in the press/ public

d) Content on the website

e) The style of advertising

f) The quality of employees working for the organisation

g) Others

________________________________________________

24. Does visual presentation truly influence in identifying a branded

company?

a) Yes

b) No

146


25.On which need of the employee, an employer branded organisation

must concentrate more to retain them.

a) Self actualization

b) Esteem

c) Social

d) Safety

e) Physiological

26.What is the important measure than an employer must be conscious

of when it comes to retain its employees?

a) Industry reputation

b) Corporate culture

c) Job satisfaction

27.When it comes to retaining a job, what an employer would focus

which in turn can be an effective brand building techniques?

a) The values of the organisation that employee believe in

b) The positive leadership traits of the organisation

c) The open and transparent work environment of the

organisation.

28.What is the most important component of employer branding that

helps in employee retention.

a) Functional component like setting career platform for

employees

147


b) Economical component like rewards and recognition policies

c) Psychological component like feeling of purpose, belonging

and recognition felt for the company.

To elicit employee’s views on employer branding, as a motivational factor

on their job retention.

29.What quality of the organisation with strong employer branding

motivated you to retain your job?

a) Solid standing of the organisation in the market.

b) Just and fair HR policies.

c) Being a good paymaster.

30.What would an employee from an organisation that gives positive

reinforcement to the employee to retain his or her job.

a) Should be recognized as modern, progressive, fast growing

organisation with extremely professional ethos.

b) Should portray the image of a growth – oriented, efficiency –

driven company where stability is a way of life.

c) Should respect experience and encourage entrepreneurship.

31.It is said ‘ In order to motivate the employee on his or her retention

with the organisation, it’s not the compensation package that

matters but it’s the power and authority, company’s brand name

and market position that matter’s a lot.

a) Strongly agree

148


b) Partially agree

c) Do not agree

32.On your job what motivates you to retain when you get better offer

from the competitors?

a) Compensation package

b) Job profile

c) Employer branding of that organisation

d) Profit of the organisation

33.At work when does an employee get motivated which transforms

into his or her retention with the organisation?

a) Where there is constant recognition on the performance

b) Where there is more fun at work

c) Where there is ethical bonding with the colleagues

d) When there is constant hike in pay no matter based on

performance.

34.Do you agree that the above selected option is found in employer

branded organisation by default?

a) Yes

b) No

35.How could a branded organisation convey its employee value

proposition which motivates the employee retention?

a) Creating a career platform

149


b) Developing a fun at work environment

c) Policies, Procedures and practices

d) Action plan and behaviors of the leaders

36.Which factor of employer branding motivates you to retain your

job?

a) Compensation package

b) Employee value proposition

c) vision and mission

d) Position that the company posses among its competitors

To understand the reason for employees to quit an employer branded

organisation

37.Under what circumstances you would quit the organisation?

a) The job or workplace is not, what was expected

b) Mismatch between job and myself

c) Too little coaching

d) Poor growth and advancement opportunities

e) Feeling devalued

f) Feeling unrecognized

g) Stress from overwork

h) Loss of trust and confidence in senior leaders

i) Personal and family reason

150


j) Others

________________________________________________

38.Is compensation a prime factor to quit an employer branded

organisation?

a) Yes

b) No

39.Can you specify why an employer branded organisation sometimes

faces resignation where the employees are cared more?

a) Fear of layoffs and retrenchment that an employer branded

organisation creates during recession

b) No salary hike even when the organisation is making profits

c) Sudden change in work culture

d) Others

________________________________________________

40.Is the bad appraisal system in a branded organisation, a reason for

the employees to quit?

a) Yes

b) No

41.Do employees working in a branded organisation leave because

they have been associated with the organisation for a longer period

of time and need change?

a) Yes

151


b) No

42.What is the prime reason you feel is influencing employee

resignation in a branded organisation?

a) Envy caused during peer promotion

b) Dissatisfaction with the appraisal system of the organisation

c) Sudden change in the organisation structure

d) Others

_________________________________________________

43.Would you quit an employer branded organisation when you fail to

fulfill the job requirements and feel guilty?

a) Yes

b) No

152


BIBILIOGRAPHY

Online Journals:

1. The Human Factor, Employer brand is the USP

December 2008, Volume 1 issue

Binoo Wadhwa, Director-People Success, Sapient Corporation

2. Employer Branding: A Literature Review

The ICFAI Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 19-34, June

2006 - Sanjit Roy

3. Uniquely You - Employer Branding: The David Group

http://www.indianmba.com/Faculty_Column/FC669/fc669.html

The David Group

4. Employer Branding: A Ripple Effect for organizational

effectiveness

http://www.expressitpeople.com/20030512/cover.shtml

Ms. Vijt Chaturvedi, Faculty (HRM), ICFAI University

5. Brand building to attract and retain the best talent

http://www.recruitersnetwork.com/articles/article.cfm?ID=1529

Punita Jasrotia

153


Books Review:

44.Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo and Gary N. Mclean 2006, Best

Employer Studies: A Conceptual Model from a Literature, Vol. 5,

No. 2, 228-257, DOI: 10.1177/1534484306287515.

2. Martin R. Edwards 2010, An integrative review of employer

branding and OB theory. Page: 5 – 23. ISSN: 0048-3486. DOI:

10.1108/00483481011012809. Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing

Limited

3. Author: Kevin Lane 2006, Marketing Management. Edition: 12th.

Publication: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN: 81-297-1119-2

4. Hinkin 2005, International Journal of Advertising, 24(2), pp. 151–

172. Published by the World Advertising Research Center. Year:

2005

5. Aswathappa. K (2008): Human Resource Management, 5th

Edition, Tata McGraw- Hill Publishing, New Delhi

6. Craig, Robert L, 2005, A Guide to Human resource development,

Tata McGraw-Hill Publishers New Delhi; 4th edition.

7. Chaudhuri. K. K., 2009, HRM- Priorities of HR Professionals

(2009), Personnel Today, NIPM, Volume-30, No: 2, New Delhi.

154


8. Dressler, Gary (2005), Human Resource Management, 8th Edition,

Person Education Asia, New Delhi.

9. Gennard.J and Judge.G (2005), Employee Relations, Jaico

Publishing House, Mumbai.

10. Ivancevich.M (2006), Human Resource Management, 9th Edition,

Tata McGraw- Hill Publishing, New Delhi

11. Khanka.S (2002), Human Resource Management, 5th Edition, S.

Chand, New Delhi.

12. Luthans.F (2008), Organizational Behaviour, 11th Edition,

McGraw Hill, Asia.

13. Mathur N. D, 2009, Work environment and plight of employees

in industrial sector, Personnel Today, NIPM, Volume-30, No: 2, New

Delhi.

14. Paul Hersey, Kenneth H. Blanchard, Dewey E. Johnson, 2002,

Management of Organisational Behaviour, Prentice Hall of India ,

New Delhi (2002).

15. Robbins and Judge, 2007, Organizational Behaviour, 13th Edition,

PHI Learning Pvt Ltd, New Delhi.

155


Web Site Addresses:-

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_n3_v43/

ai_20514399/pg_6

http:// managementeducationgroup.com

http://humanresources.about.com/od/retention/a/

emplo_complaint.htm

http://www.ewin.com/articles/whnHR.htm

***********************

156

http://www.ewin.com/articles/whnHR.htm

employer brand and retention word 2007

Documents