Decision

DOI 10.1007/s40622-015-0097-x

RESEARCH PAPER

Value proposition framework: implications for employer

branding
Atri Sengupta . Umesh Bamel . Pankaj Singh

Ó Indian Institute of Management Calcutta 2015

Abstract Employer branding has drawn the maxi- Keywords Employer branding
Internal employer
mum attention of researchers and industry practition- branding
External employer branding
Value
ers in recent days. Retaining and attracting current and proposition framework
potential employees essentially require the employers
to understand the work value preferences of employ-
ees which vary across time and culture. This paper has Introduction
twin objectives (a) to identify the value proposition
frameworks for internal and external employer brand- Managing intangibles—brand and talent of the organ-
ing from work value preferences of Indian workforce; isation is crucial for earning competitive advantage.
and (b) to analyse the effects of demographic variables Integrating the two, Ambler and Barrow coined the
and their interactional effects on work value prefer- term ‘employer branding’ in the year of 1996. The
ences of employees. Data were collected from 302 construct is found to be highly relevant with today’s
Indian employees from different Indian organisations. organisations which irrespective of their sizes are
Findings suggested six-factor model for internal actively engaged in talent war and thus has received
employer branding and five-factor model for external major attentions of the industry practitioners and
employer branding. Further analyses (MANOVA) for academicians in recent days. To retain star performers
demographic variables and their interactional effects and attract new talents, organisations need to establish
on work value preferences also revealed significant their images as ‘great place to work’, or ‘employer of
findings. Value proposition framework and their choice’ (Backhaus and Tikoo 2004; Jiang and Iles
policy implications in Indian context are discussed in 2011). According to Sullivan (2004), employer brand-
detail. ing is ‘‘a targeted, long-term strategy to manage the
awareness and perceptions of employees, potential
employees, and related stakeholders with regards to a
A. Sengupta (&)
U. Bamel
P. Singh particular firm’’. This is a strategic tool for the
Department of OB & HR, Indian Institute of Management organisation to market their unique employment
Raipur, GEC Campus, Sejbahar, Raipur 492015, India
e-mail: asengupta@iimraipur.ac.in; offerings or value propositions to the internal and
atrisengupta@hotmail.com potential employees. Value propositions are the cen-
U. Bamel tral message of employer brand (Eisenberg et al.
e-mail: umeshbamel@iimraipur.ac.in 2001). The concept of value propositions is borrowed
P. Singh from the field of marketing management where it has
e-mail: psingh@iimraipur.ac.in been defined as the promises a seller makes to his/her

123
 Decision

customers in terms of value-in-exchange and value-in- towards employer branding. This is perhaps the crucial
use (Lusch et al. 2007). It is also said in the consumer time for Indian employers to use employer branding as
studies that an organisation may offer value proposi- a strategic tool. This paper focuses on identifying
tions, but it is the customers or other beneficiaries who internal and external employer branding models
decide its acceptability (Holttinen 2014). This indi- (value proposition framework) as directed from work
cates that effective relationships between customers value preferences of current and potential employees
and organisation may exist if value propositions are in Indian context.
aligned with customers needs for values. Similar
arguments may be effective between employees and
organisations. Employees who look for jobs are found Literature review
highly conscious about the values offered by the
employers as similar to the consumers for product/ Employer branding
service values (Marriott 2001). ‘‘Values are seen as
source of motivation for individual action’’ (Gursoy Employer branding was conceptualised by Amber and
et al. 2013, p. 41) thus leading to talent retention and Barrow (1996) by applying the concept of brand, ‘‘a
attraction. mixture of attributes, tangible and intangible, symbol-
Valentine (2000) states the relevance of person-job ised in a trade mark, which if managed properly,
fit, person-organisation fit, and cultural differences in creates value and influence’’ (Swystun 2007, p. 14), in
determining recruitment success. Studies have the context of HR field in terms of employment
revealed that culture is a differentiating factor between experience. Amber and Barrow (1996) defined it as
work values (Hofstede 1980; Pelled and Xin 1997; ‘‘The package of functional, economic and psycho-
Schneider and Barsoux 1997; Trompenaars and logical benefits provided by employment, and identi-
Hampden-Turner 1998; Holden 2002; Jaw et al. fied with the employing company’’ (p. 187).
2007). Indians, being members of relationship-ori- According to Dell and Ainspan (2001), employer
ented vertical culture may project different work brand creates the image of the organisation based on
values than western culture. Indian employees are their offerings in terms of values, systems, policies,
used to prefer organisational stability, employee and behaviours for attracting, motivating, and retain-
welfare, value obedience more as compared to Eng- ing the current and potential employees. It communi-
land and the US employees (Chatterjee and Pearson cates to the targeted employees as ‘great place to
2000). ‘‘It is important that organizations continue to work’ (Ewing et al. 2002; Lloyd 2002). Researchers
grow and evolve newer perspectives in terms of their often bring another concept into picture while dealing
values and redefine their linkages with the society. In with employer branding—organisational attractive-
doing so the organisations should acknowledge the ness (Sherry 2000) which may be defined as ‘‘the
emotional expectations and personal values of the envisioned benefits that a potential employee sees in
employees which influence their attitude to work and working for a specific organisation’’ (Berthon et al.
their behaviours. Unfortunately, these dimensions of 2005, p. 156). Envisioned benefits are not only
socio-cultural reality are either ignored or rarely relevant to the potential employees to get attracted to
considered in designing organisations or in socialising a potential employer, but may also be significant to the
the employees‘‘ (Prakash 1995, p. 200). With time, existing employees for their current employer. Exter-
changes are evident in the socio-cultural aspects of a nal employer branding (EEB) aims at attracting
country. Therefore, it is essential for the organisations potential talents towards organisation, whereas inter-
to introspect the relevance of their employment nal employer branding (IEB) facilitates star perform-
offerings or value propositions from time to time. ers that other organisations find difficult to imitate
Age or other demographic variables also play signif- (Backhaus and Tikoo 2004).
icant roles in value preferences (Gursoy et al. 2013). A
very few studies are available in this direction in External and internal employer branding
recent times in India. The current picture of value
preferences of Indian workforce may help the Indian EEB is often overshadowed by corporate external
as well as MNCs to design their value propositions branding. Corporate external branding includes the

123
Decision

moral practices of leaders, organisation’s activities feeling autonomous (Deci 1975), related (Baumeister
towards fulfilling the social responsibilities, building and Leary 1995), and competent (White 1959); and
trust, and trustworthiness to shareholders and cus- not meeting these preferences may lead to the negative
tomers by being authentic. IEB, on the other hand, is psychological consequences (Vansteenkiste et al.
one by which an organisation creates the culture of 2007). Research reveals that there may be the influ-
trust between employer and employees by keeping the ence of personal and social characteristics, for exam-
‘promise’ made to the recruits at the time of interview ple, age and period on work values (Parry and Urwin
(Frook 2001), or by establishing strong moral corpo- 2011); even studies support that older individual have
rate values which make their employees proud to be a more intrinsic and less extrinsic orientations (Sheldon
member, or by satisfying its current employees by and Kasser 2001). There also exists evidence for
fulfilling their psychological contracts (Moroko and culture having significant influence on work values
Uncles 2008). It helps the organisation to retain their and attitudes (Hofstede 1993; Adler and Jelinek 1986).
talents (Ambler and Barrow 1996). Satisfied employ- Therefore, it is essential for any organisation to
ees are the best source of employer branding. Quick understand deeply the dynamics of value preferences
growth, systematic career management, economic of its current and potential employees who belong to a
benefits, work-life balance (Deery 2008), jovial and specific national culture. Value proposition frame-
innovative work culture, recognising and rewarding work or employment offerings should be designed in
achievements (Heinen and O’Neill 2004; Scheweyer line with those value preferences so as to retain and
2004), employee development, employee engagement attract current and potential employees.
(Hughes and Rog 2008; Bhatnagar 2007) are some of Borrowed from the field of marketing management,
the methods by which organisations create their the concept of value proposition is defined as ‘‘a
corporate internal branding. Not only satisfying cur- promise the seller makes that value-in-exchange will
rent employees, but employees-alumni activities can be linked to value-in-use. When a customer exchanges
also add value to attract potential employees. The money with a seller s/he is implicitly assuming the
more an employee can associate his/her values with value-in-exchange will at least result in value-in-use
the organisational offered values, the more he/she will that meets or exceeds the value-in-exchange’’ (Lusch
feel attracted towards the organisation (Schneider et al. 2007, p. 13). Similar exchange relationship exists
1987; Cable and Judge 1996; Judge and Cable 1997). between employee and employer as suggested by the
theory of psychological contract (Millward and Brew-
Work values and value proposition framework erton 1999). It is suggested by Cliffe (1998) that right
value proposition may attract the right talent in the
Work values are the end-state or worth employees organisation. Employee values congruent with organ-
look for from their jobs (Super 1980; Elizur 1984). isational offerings may lead to job satisfaction and
Dose (1997) states work values as perception of organisational commitment (Glazer et al. 2004). Value
preferences of the employees that influence their proposition framework has been considered inter-
attitudes and behaviour in the workplace. Organisa- changeably as factors of organisational or employer
tional researchers support different preference sets of attractiveness. For example, Berthon et al. (2005)
individuals for work values according to their orien- identified five factors for employer attractiveness,
tations—intrinsic and extrinsic (Akhtar 2000; Cotton namely, interest value, social value, economic value,
et al. 1997; Vansteenkiste et al. 2007). Intrinsically development value, and application value. According
oriented individual prefers to the values like self- to Barber (1998), job and work characteristics, total
actualisation, development, growth, harmonious rela- rewards, and corporate image are important value
tionships, challenging tasks, etc.; and externally proposition for recruitment and are most often found
oriented individuals focus on status, pay and facilities, in recruitment advertisements. Most of these earlier
power, hierarchical position, rewards and incentives, studies focused on identifying the factors of attrac-
etc. (Amabile et al. 1994; Sheldon and Kasser 1995; tiveness for potential employers and the scholarly
Vansteenkiste et al. 2007). Self-determination theory inquiries on attractiveness factors for current employ-
(Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000) suggests ers are limited. Therefore, present study intends to add
that individuals have natural preferences towards value to the body of employer branding knowledge by

123
 Decision

identifying factors of attractiveness for both potential independence period, economic reforms, and global-
and current employers in Indian context. isation. With the rising phase of multinational corpo-
rations and technological advancement, lifestyles of
Value proposition and demographic variables Indian workforce are undergoing rapid changes so as
to their work value orientations. Educational, political,
Findings support the influence of demographic vari- and managerial reforms are also contributing to this
ables on work values of individuals as mentioned direction.
earlier. There exists generational impact on job Therefore, it is essential for the organisations
outcomes as well as the personal values of the working in Indian context to understand the value
individual (Gursoy et al. 2013). Generation X has orientations of Indian workforce in recent times in
affection for work centrality and power as compared to order to properly design their value proposition
Baby Boomers and Millennial (Gursoy et al. 2013). framework. It should also be noted from the reality
Sullivan et al. (2002) also stated that younger gener- that there may be variations in work value preferences
ation are more concerned about the fulfilment of their of the employees from the current and potential
individual values while looking for potential employ- employers. This paper intends to draw the directions
ers. Older generation, on the other hand, have more for value proposition framework for Indian work-
strong ethical values and commitment than younger force—current and potential. The former may be
one (Rhodes 1983; Joyner 2000). According to Ma and termed as IEB and latter as EEB.
Ni (1998), younger generation have preference for In the light of the above discussion on value
vocational work values and multi-directional thinking proposition framework for internal and external
as compared to the older one. In their study on Chinese employer branding, this study attempts to analyse
employees, Li et al. (2008) reported significant impact following objectives.
of age, education, position, and gender on work
values. They identified that in Chinese context older Research objective 1
employees prefer to rate work values high, especially
in terms of work-life balance and self-development; To identify the value proposition framework for
departmental managers favour work values like mak- current and potential employees (IEB and EEB) in
ing contributions and self-development. Therefore, Indian context.
enterprises should consider these demographic vari-
ables while designing their value propositions. Research objective 2

Research setting To identify the value proposition framework as

impacted by demographic variables, viz. age, gender,
Researchers also acknowledge that value proposition types of organisations, hierarchical positions, and their
is user as well as context specific (Ballantyne et al. interaction effects.
2011; Johnson et al. 2008) and these offerings are
perceived through cultural lenses (Overby et al. 2005).
Different nations have different value sets as sug- Method
gested by Hofstede (1998). For example, Italians are
loyal to their functional bosses, Africans prefer Sample and procedure
sequenced promotions (Trompenaars and Hampden-
Turner 1998); Asians give more weightage to proto- Data were collected from 302 Indian working people
col, status, and rank (Harris and Moran 2000). Indian from different organisations across the nation (pub-
workforce is more oriented towards tighter control and lic = 120; private = 182) with the age range of 20–57
supervision (Gopalan and Rivera 1997), group coop- (M = 29.52; SD = 7.42) from all four regions of
eration, and problem solving (Cray and Mallory 1998). India—North, South, East, and West. Range of their
Indian work values, mostly derived from traditional work experience varies from 1 year to 33 years
ethos, have been impacted by different periods, (M = 8.00; SD = 7.38); educational qualification
namely, ancient times, British colonialism, post- from graduation to masters level and above

123
Decision

(M = 16.25; SD = 1.19). The ratio of male to female Results

in the sample is 177:125. Hierarchy wise—102 were
taken from junior level, 108 from middle level, and 92 Descriptive statistics
from senior level managers. Random sampling
method was followed in collecting data. Organisations Table 1 and 2 lists the mean and standard deviation
were chosen both from service and manufacturing score of internal and external employer branding
sectors, namely, steel producing companies, Indian values, respectively.
nationalised and private banks, railways, aviation, and
hotels. Research objective 1: to identify the value
In the first step, 50 working individuals of different proposition framework for current and potential
age groups were given a list of work values which employees (IEB and EEB) in Indian context
were identified from earlier literatures, to mark as their
preferences from current job and future potential job IEB values
on the scale of ‘preferable for current job’, ‘preferable
for future job’, ‘preferable for both’, and ‘not prefer- Principal component analysis (PCA1) with PROMAX
able’. This helped us to prepare the scale for internal rotation was computed using SPSS 21.0 to identify
and external employer branding. In the second step, IEB values for Indian working population. PROMAX
500 working individuals were asked online to rate was used as a prerequisite for computing MANOVA in
their value preferences on the scale of internal and order to identify the influences of demographic
external branding. Among 500, 302 finally responded variables on the extracted factors [research objective
to the questionnaires in 6 months time period starting (ii)]. PROMAX are normally used when extracted
from September, 2014. factors from PCA are expected to be correlated with
each other (Gorsuch 1983; Brown 2009). Before
Questionnaire employing PCA, we check for if the data fulfil the
basic assumptions of factor analysis. We computed
Participants were asked two questions with the list of correlation score which were found significant at
factors identified from the existing literature. IEB p \ 0.05 and 0.01 with mean correlations above 0.3
Scale: what do you look for from your current job? for all the items. Secondly, the Bartlett test of
EEB Scale: what do you look for when you apply for a sphericity which was found significant at p \ 0.001;
new job? IEB includes 21 values and EEB consists of and the KMO score 0.818 clearly indicated the
20 values. In both the cases respondents were required relevance of PCA with the given data set (Hair et al.
to rate their preferences from a set of values. Values 2011).
were chosen from the literatures as discussed above; Six components or latent factors were extracted
the existing scales (e.g., Berthon et al. 2005; Li et al. with eigenvalues more than 1.0 (Table 3). Total
2008); and the interviews of Indian managers. Respon- variance of 63.54 % was accounted for by the six
dents were asked to rate the values based on a scale of factors together. IEB value proposition framework is
‘‘Neither essential nor desirable = 0’’ to ‘‘Highly presented in Table 4 and Fig. 1.
essential and highly desirable = 4’’. All constructs Interpreting and renaming extracted factors in
had Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.60 (Nunnally PCA1 Factor 1 had been extracted based on five
1967), suggesting the internal consistency of items to variables. Those were—based on the high to low
measure each construct. For IEB, the scale M = 2.8 factor loading—‘quick growth’ (factor load-
and SD = 0.46; whereas for EEB, the scale M = 2.87 ing = 0.88), ‘recognition of potential’ (factor load-
and SD = 0.21 were reported. Sum of value of each ing = 0.81), ‘skills utilisation’ (factor loading =
construct of the respondent was assessed by dividing 0.66), ‘continual training and development’ (factor
the number of items in that construct to keep the value loading = 0.52), and ‘challenging and interesting
of the construct within the range of the response scale work’ (factor loading = 0.51). From the communality
(0–4). Both the constructs had M C 2.5 as the marker values, it can be said that factor solution accounted for
to high preference of the respondents for both the value 73 % of variability in quick growth, 77 % in recog-
proposition frameworks (IEB and EEB). nition of potential, 69 % in skills utilisation, 46 % in

123
 Decision

Table 1 Descriptive Internal employer branding values M SD

statistics for internal
employer branding values Competitive pay and facilities (CPF1) 3.36 0.75
Scope of balancing work and personal lives (WLB1) 3.33 0.73
Challenging and interesting work (CIW1) 3.31 0.77
Working environment—relationship with peers and supervisor (WE1) 3.21 0.78
Skills utilisation (SU1) 3.19 0.87
Job security (JS1) 3.11 0.93
Recognition of potential (ROP1) 3.11 0.95
Moral practices of managers (MPM1) 3.06 0.89
Transparent company policies (TCP1) 3.05 0.91
Continual training and development (CTD1) 3.03 0.89
Company keeps the promises made at the time of interview (KP1) 2.90 1.12
Scope of diversified learning (DL1) 2.88 0.94
Company brand (CB1) 2.81 1.07
Hierarchical position (HP1) 2.81 0.90
Scope of contributing to organisational objectives (COO1) 2.79 1.06
Office infrastructure (OI1) 2.77 0.91
Duty hours (DH1) 2.69 0.91
Quick growth (QG1) 2.65 0.98
Stretched assignment (SA1) 2.26 0.96
Feeling emotionally connected with the organisation and job (ECOJ1) 2.20 1.14
Transferability of the job (TOJ1) 2.00 1.25

Table 2 Descriptive External employer branding values M SD

statistics for external
employer branding values Competitive pay and facilities (CPF2) 3.45 0.72
Hierarchical position (HP2) 3.26 2.65
Challenging and interesting work (CIW2) 3.24 0.80
Scope of balancing work and personal lives (WLB2) 3.21 0.89
Job security (JS2) 3.19 0.89
Working environment—relationship with peers and supervisor (WE2) 3.17 0.83
Company brand (CB2) 3.11 0.90
Continual training and development (CTD2) 2.95 0.89
Quick growth (QG2) 2.90 0.93
Recognition or reward policy (RRP2) 2.89 1.00
Scope of diversified learning (DL2) 2.88 0.93
Moral practices of managers (MPM2) 2.85 1.00
Duty hours (DH2) 2.83 0.90
Office infrastructure (OI2) 2.73 1.03
Location of the posting (LOP2) 2.64 1.04
Duration of assignment in case of project-based job (DAJ2) 2.58 1.03
The nature of job advertisement given by the company (JA2) 2.56 1.15
Attrition rate (AR2) 2.52 1.13
Referred by somebody whom you trust (RST2) 2.25 1.27
Referred by employee of the organisation—present or past (REO2) 2.22 1.25

123
Decision

Table 3 Extracted factor loadings after PROMAX rotation in PCA1 (pattern matrix)
Values Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

QG1 0.88
ROP1 0.81
SU1 0.66
CTD1 0.52
CIW1 0.51
TCP1 0.85
MPM1 0.82
COO1 0.64
WE1 0.42
ECOJ1 0.77
SA1 0.71
TOJ1 0.62
DL1 0.42
KP1 0.69
JS1 0.54
WLB1 0.46
DH1 0.81
OI1 0.70
CB1 0.66
HP1 0.64
CPF1 0.58
Variance explained (eigen value) 28.15 (5.9) 38.98 (2.2) 46.77 (1.6) 52.89 (1.2) 58.39 (1.1) 63.53 (1.1)
Source primary data

continual training and development, and 52 % in Factor 3, based on high to low factor loading,
challenging and interesting work. Considering the included ‘‘feeling emotionally connected with the
relative importance in mind from communality values, organisation and job’’ (factor loading = 0.77),
Factor 1, thus was renamed as ‘‘Career Potential ‘‘stretched assignment (factor loading = 0.71), ‘‘trans-
Values’’. ferability of the job’’ (factor loading = 0.62), and
Factor 2, based on high to low factor loading, ‘‘scope of diversified learning’’ (factor load-
consisted of ‘transparent company policies’ (factor ing = 0.42). Inference can be drawn from the commu-
loading = 0.85), ‘moral practices of managers’ (fac- nality values that 66 % of the variability was accounted
tor loading = 0.82), ‘scope of contributing to organ- for both in feeling emotionally connected with the
isational objectives’ (factor loading = 0.64), and organisation and job, and stretched assignment by the
‘working environment—relationship with peers and factor solution, 57 % in transferability of the job, and
supervisor’ (factor loading = 0.42). Communality 55 % in scope of diversified learning. Thus, Factor 3
values indicated that 69 % of variability was was renamed as ‘‘Employee Engagement Values’’.
accounted for transparent company policies by the Factor 4, based on high to low factor loading,
factor solution, 71 % in moral practices of managers, consisted of ‘‘company keeps the promises made at the
65 % in scope of contributing to organisational time of interview’’ (factor loading = 0.69), ‘‘job
objectives, and 61 % in working environment—rela- security’’ (factor loading = 0.54), and ‘‘scope of
tionship with peers and supervisor. Factor 2 was balancing work and personal lives’’ (factor loading =
renamed as ‘‘Justice Values’’. 0.46). Communality values indicated that 70 % of

123
 Decision

Table 4 Value proposition framework for internal employer branding in India

IEB values Operational definition Dimensions

Career potential Values which offer opportunities to grow faster and realize true Quick growth
values potentials Recognition of potential
Skills utilisation
Continual training and development
Challenging and interesting work
Justice values Values which offer fair judgements and moral practices to create Transparent company policies
harmonious relationships Moral practices of managers
Scope of contributing to organisational
objectives
Working environment—relationship
with peers and supervisor
Employee Values which foster employees to feel attached with the job and Feeling emotionally connected with
engagement organisation that leads to employee engagement the organisation and job
values Stretched assignment
Transferability of the job
Scope of diversified learning
Feel-good values Values which offer trust security and balance that leads to happiness Company keeps the promises made at
the time of interview
Job security
Scope of balancing work and personal
lives
Comfort values Values which offer comfortable working environment Duty hours
Office infrastructure
Esteem values Values which offer status and identity in the society Company brand
Hierarchical position
Competitive pay and facilities

variability in company keeps the promises made at the variability in company brand, 65 % in hierarchical
time of interview, 60 % in job security, and 51 % in positions, and 75 % in competitive pay and facilities.
scope of balancing work and personal lives was Thus, Factor 6 was renamed as ‘‘Esteem Values’’.
explained by the factor solution. Thus, Factor 4 was Assessing statistical significance of findings of
renamed as ‘‘Feel-Good Values’’. PCA1 Findings revealed that range of factor loadings
Factor 5, based on high to low factor loading, varied from 0.42 to 0.88 which were found significant
included ‘‘duty hours’’ (factor loading = 0.81), and with N = 302 (Hair et al. 2011, p. 152).
‘‘office infrastructure’’ (factor loading = 0.700).
Communality values indicated that factor solution EEB value proposition
accounted for 72 % of variability in duty hours, and
56 % in office infrastructure. Factor 5 was thus Another PCA2 with PROMAX rotation was computed
renamed as ‘‘Comfort Values’’. using SPSS 21.0 to identify the factors of choice of
Factor 6, based on high to low factor loading, Indian employees in potential jobs, i.e. external
consisted of ‘‘company brand’’ (factor load- employer branding values.
ing = 0.66), ‘‘hierarchical positions’’ (factor load- Majority of the items of EEB correlations were
ing = 0.65), and ‘‘competitive pay and facilities’’ found significant at p \ 0.05 and 0.01 with mean
(factor loading = 0.58). Communality values correlations above 0.3; the Bartlett test of sphericity
revealed that factor solution accounted for 55 % of significant at p \ 0.001; and KMO score was 0.78

123
Decision

Fig. 1 Value proposition

model for internal employer
branding
Career Potential
Values

Justice
Esteem Values Values

Internal Employer
Branding Values

Employee
Comfort Values Engagement
Values

Feel-Good Values

which clearly indicated the relevance of PCA with the 58 % in moral practices of managers, 52 % in working
given data set (Hair et al. 2011). environment—relationship with peers and supervisor,
Five components or latent factors were extracted 61 % in scope of diversified learning, 64 % in
(eigen values more than one) after PROMAX rotation. company brand, and 46 % in duty hours. Considering
Factor loadings are displayed in Table 5. Total the relative importance of variables in mind, Factor 1,
variance of 70.05 % was accounted for by the five- thus was renamed as ‘‘Image and Fundamental
factor model (Table 5; Fig. 2). Operational definitions Values’’.
of EEB value proposition framework are presented in Factor 2 consisted of, based on high to low factor
Table 6. loadings, ‘‘information about continual training and
Interpreting and renaming extracted factors in development’’ (factor loading = 0.80), ‘‘job secu-
PCA2 Factor 1 had been extracted based on eight rity—permanent or temporary’’ (factor load-
variables, namely (based on the high to low factor ing = 0.67), and ‘‘challenging and interesting job
loading), ‘‘competitive pay and facilities’’ (factor details’’ (factor loading = 0.50). Communality values
loading = 0.77), ‘‘scope of balancing work and per- indicated that factors solution has accounted for 66 %
sonal lives’’ (factor loading = 0.76), ‘‘the nature of variability in information about continual training and
job advertisement given by the company’’ (factor development, 57 % in job security—permanent or
loading = 0.65), ‘‘moral practices of managers’’ temporary, and 49 % in challenging and interesting
(factor loading = 0.55), ‘‘working environment—re- job details. Factor 2 was renamed as ‘‘Job Structure
lationship with peers and supervisor’’ (factor load- Values’’.
ing = 0.55), ‘‘scope of diversified learning’’ (factor Factor 3 included, based on high to low factor
loading = 0.51), ‘‘company brand’’ (factor load- loadings, ‘‘attrition rate’’ (factor loading = 0.84),
ing = 0.50), and ‘‘duty hours’’ (factor load- ‘‘duration of assignment in case of project based
ing = 0.43). From the communality values, it was job’’ (factor loading = 0.76), ‘‘quick growth’’ (factor
found that factor solution has accounted for 61 % of loading = 0.58), and ‘‘office infrastructure’’ (factor
variability in competitive pay and facilities, 55 % in loading = 0.55). Communality values reflected the
scope of balancing work and personal lives, 50 % in variances were accounted for in variables by the factor
the nature of job advertisement given by the company, solution 63 % in attrition rate, 59 % in duration of

123
 Decision

Table 5 Extracted factor loadings after PROMAX rotation in PCA2 (pattern matrix)
Values Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

CPF2 0.77
WLB2 0.76
JA2 0.65
MMP2 0.55
WE2 0.55
DL2 0.51
CB2 0.50
DH2 0.43
CTD2 0.80
JS2 0.67
CIJ2 0.50
AR2 0.84
DAJ2 0.76
QG2 0.58
OI2 0.55
REO2 0.91
RST2 0.90
LOP2 0.42
RRP2 0.68
HP2 0.64
Variance explained (eigen value) 28.37 (5.67) 40.79 (2.48) 47.58 (1.35) 53.65 (1.21) 58.89 (1.05)
Source primary data

Fig. 2 Value proposition

model for external employer
branding Image and
Fundamental
Values

Pride Values Job Structure

Values

External Employer
Branding Values

Reference Values Work Culture

Values

assignment in case of project based job, 63 % in quick Factor 4 consisted of, based on high to low factor
growth, and 61 % in office infrastructure. Factor 3, loadings, ‘‘referred by employee of the organisation—
thus, was renamed as ‘‘Work Culture Values’’. present or past’’ (factor loading = 0.91), ‘‘referred by

123
Decision

Table 6 Value proposition framework for external employer branding in India

EEB values Operational definition Dimensions

Image and fundamental values Values which fulfil basic requirements of job Competitive pay and facilities
incumbents and create company image in Scope of balancing work and personal lives
their minds
The nature of job advertisement given by the
company
Moral practices of managers
Working environment—relationship with
peers and supervisor
Scope of diversified learning
Company brand
Duty hours
Job structure values Values which offer scope and nature of the Information about continual training and
job itself development
Job security—permanent or temporary
Challenging and interesting job details
Work culture values Values which offer long-term relationships, Attrition rate
quick growth and comfortable work Duration of assignment in case of project
environment based job
Quick growth
Office infrastructure
Reference values Values which offer reference for the job by Referred by employee of the organisation—
known person present or past
Referred by somebody whom you trust
Location of the posting
Pride values Values which offer senses of being superior Recognition or reward policy
to others Hierarchical position

somebody whom you trust (factor loading = 0.90), and Grice (2001) suggested that factor scores can be
‘‘location of the posting’’ (factor loading = 0.42). Com- used for subsequent analysis. In the present study,
munality values indicated that factor solution explained regression factor scores were used for the subsequent
85 % variance in referred by employee of the organisa- analyses. These computed factor scores are standard-
tion—present or past, 82 % in referred by somebody ised to a mean of 0 with standard deviation 1.
whom you trust, and 44 % in location of the posting.
Thus, factor 4 was renamed as ‘‘Reference Values’’. Research objective 2: to identify the value
Under Factor 5, ‘‘recognition or reward policy’’ proposition framework as impacted
(factor loading = 0.68), and ‘‘hierarchical position’’ by demographic variable, viz. age, gender, types
(factor loading = 0.64) have been extracted. Com- of organisations, hierarchical positions, and their
munality values revealed that factor solution interaction effects
accounted for 57 % variance in recognition or reward
policy, and 44 % in hierarchical position. Based on Pearson correlations were conducted to analyse the
this relative importance, Factor 5 was renamed as relationships of internal and external branding values
‘‘Pride Values’’. with age of the individuals.
Assessing statistical significance of findings of Findings (Table 7) revealed that significant corre-
PCA2 Findings revealed that range of factor loadings lations, although very negligible values, were found
was varied from 0.43 to 0.91 and it was found between age and IEB values such as employee
significant with N = 302 (Hair et al. 2011, p. 152). engagement values, feel-good values, comfort values,

123
 Decision

Table 7 Relationships of age with IEB and EEB values

Age Internal employer branding External employer branding values
Employee engagement Feel-good Comfort Esteem Image and fundamental Job structure Pride
values values values values values values values

-0.199** 0.197** -0.133* 0.193** -0.149* -0.151* -0.262**

* p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01 (only significant values are shown in the table)

and esteem values; and with external employer between middle and senior level managers in the said
branding factors such as image and fundamental values. Negative sign of mean differences indicated that
values, job structure values, and pride values. The junior level managers have less preference for esteem
nature of relationships indicated that with age needs values as compared to middle and senior level
for feel-good values, esteem values (IEB values) got managers.
increased whereas employee engagement values, Further, interactional effect of gender and hierarchy
comfort values (IEB values), and image and funda- on internal employer branding factors was found
mental values, job structure values, pride values (EEB significant [F = 1.775, p \ 0.05, partial g2 = 0.036,
values) decreased. observed power = 0.884]. Tests of between-subjects
Two independent MANOVAs were computed to effects revealed that there were significant result in
analyse the group differences between gender (male case of interactional effect of gender and hierarchy on
and female), types of organisations (private and feel-good values [F = 6.931, p \ 0.001, partial
public), and hierarchical positions (senior, middle, g2 = 0.046, observed power = 0.923]. Table 8
and junior managerial levels) in terms of internal and depicts the mean responses of one group in combina-
external employer branding values. MANOVA 1 was tion with other groups along with their SDs. From
computed for IEBVs and MANOVA 2 for EEB mean values it is evident that female employees
values. Two-way between-subjects designs were also working in middle management have highest positive
adopted in both the MANOVAs to analyse the preference (M = 0.328) towards feel-good values as
interactional effects of independent variables on the compared to junior (M = -0.237) and senior (M =
dependent variables. -0.293) female managers. Negative values denote the
To analyse group differences, Pillai trace scores least preferences. However, male managers working
were observed in order to deal with violation of Box’s in middle level management have negative preference
M score. The multivariate effect was found significant (M = -0.442) towards feel-good values as compared
for hierarchy which indicated significant differences to junior (M = 0.367) and senior (M = 0.202)
exist amongst the dependent variables across hierar- categories.
chical positions in terms of internal employer branding Findings of MANOVA 2 reported that neither the
factors [F = 2.069, p \ 0.05, partial g2 = 0.042, multivariate effect nor the interactional effect of the
observed power = 0.935]. Tests of between-subjects independent variables was found significant. These
effects revealed that these significant differences were indicated that no significant differences exist amongst
found in terms of career potential values [F = 3.044, the EEB values across gender, types of organisations,
p \ 0.05, partial g2 = 0.021, observed power = hierarchical positions, and their interactions amongst
0.586], and esteem values [F = 4.613, p \ 0.01, partial themselves.
g2 = 0.031, observed power = 0.777]. From post hoc
analysis, it was observed that there were no significant
mean differences found in terms of career potential Discussion
values, but significant result (p \ 0.05) was noted
between junior and middle level managers (mean In the current research, attempts have been made to
difference = -0.375), and junior and senior level identify value proposition framework for internal and
managers (mean difference = -0.434) in terms of external employer branding in India based on individ-
esteem values. No significant difference was found ual and personal needs of Indian working people.

123
Decision

Table 8 Descriptive statistics (mean value) for internal employer branding values in MANOVA 1
Independent Career Justice Employee Feel-good Comfort Esteem
variables potential values engagement values values values
values values

Female
Public
Junior -0.300 -0.011 -0.962 -0.210 -0.216 0.831
Middle 0.540 0.679 0.036 0.724 0.075 0.243
Senior -0.481 -0.401 0.156 -0.472 0.456 -0.528
Private
Junior 0.216 0.077 -0.081 -0.264 -0.285 0.191
Middle 0.081 -0.299 0.287 -0.068 0.022 -0.374
Senior -0.010 -0.208 0.634 -0.114 -0.274 -0.093
Male
Public
Junior -0.265 -0.648 -0.022 0.512 -0.191 0.199
Middle 0.066 0.026 -0.228 -0.942 0.439 0.064
Senior 0.166 -0.299 -0.011 0.015 0.033 -0.129
Private
Junior 0.292 0.188 -0.435 0.221 -0.203 0.172
Middle 0.060 0.241 -0.110 0.057 0.336 -0.034
Senior -0.106 -0.121 0.185 0.389 0.048 -0.040
Source primary data

Findings reveal a six-factor value proposition model (friendliness, competence); Chapman et al. (2005)
for internal employer branding—career potential val- suggested type of work and perceived environment,
ues, justice values, employee engagement values, feel- recruiter behaviour, applicant perceptions of the
good values, comfort values, esteem values; and a recruitment process; for Lievens et al. (2001), it was
five-factor value proposition model for external larger company, openness; and Schneider (1987)
employer branding—image and fundamental values, identified achievement, affiliation, and power of
job structure values, work culture values, reference stability as the values of organisational attractiveness.
values, and pride values. Another eight-factor model (Herman and Gioia 2000)
Jiang and Iles (2011) have identified value propo- suggests company reputation, company culture,
sitions or employee-based brand equity in terms of enlightened leadership, treatment of people, opportu-
economic value, social value, development value, nity for career growth and opportunity, meaningful
interest value, and brand trust. Several other studies work, and compensation and benefits are the preferred
have focused on organisational attractiveness in this choice of knowledge workers regarding employer of
regard (Rynes et al. 1991; Aiman-Smith et al. 2001; choice. Indian knowledge workers also prefer values
Jiang and Iles 2011). Distinct value proposition in line with this.
models for internal and external employer brand as From the qualitative inquiries (an inductive
revealed in the present study have been supported by approach), Ambler and Barrow (1996) conceptualised
the earlier literatures (Jiang and Iles 2011; Highhouse employer brand in terms of functional, economic, and
et al. 2003). Organisations need to focus separately to psychological benefits associated with employment
increase their attractiveness to their current and and employing company. They considered employees
potential group of employees. Turban et al. (1998) associated with employment and employing compa-
have suggested values like job characteristics (espe- nies—a bigger target group as contrast to only
cially pay) and organisational characteristics potential or current employees. Berthon et al. (2005),

123
 Decision

on the other hand, preferred to follow a deductive The current study finds that age has significant
approach to develop their employer attractiveness relationships with both internal employer branding
scale based on only potential employees. Combining (employee engagement values, feel-good values, com-
these two, we have developed value proposition fort values, and esteem values) and external employer
frameworks using deductive approach for current branding (image and fundamental values, job structure
and potential employees separately as these two values, and pride values). Amongst these relationships,
groups differ in terms of their value preferences. In feel-good values and esteem values have only positive
terms of values, there are much similarities that exist association with age. These indicate that older Indian
between our models and the models offered by these knowledge workers prefer mental peace and a settled
two studies. Economic, developmental, psychological life from their current employers that may help them to
values are considered for value propositions in all earn status in the society above other values. With the
these models. However, offering different sets of value age, family and self come first as compared to
framework for two different groups (current and attachment to the company. Therefore, they feel less
potential employees) is the uniqueness of this study. preference for employee engagement values and com-
The current research reveal that potential employ- fort values. Surprisingly, older employees look for
ees have less number of value preferences (five value esteem values from their current employees but pride
dimensions) as compared to current employees who value may not be a matter for them while applying for a
have six in choice. Job scarcity in the market plays new job. Similarly, they have less preference for image
critical role here. Job seekers in Indian industry focus and fundamental values and job structure values in case
more on securing jobs rather than fulfil their value of potential employers. With the age resistance to
preferences. Also, potential employees (job seekers) change increases which reflects in their job change
may overlook the value preferences due to not decisions also. Older employees may feel very choosy
possibly having full information about the company before applying for a new job. Therefore, some of the
policies and other aspects related to jobs. Develop- important values like image and fundamental values,
mental values are also found important for both the job structure values, and pride values do not even attract
group of employees as ‘Employees do not come to them towards potential employers.
work just to do a job, they expect development and an Group differences in terms of internal and external
organisation that will pay them to hone their skills’ branding factors between male and female managers
(Johnson 2000). Fewer choices for employment may (gender); junior, middle, and senior managers (hier-
be the reason for it. In other Asian countries, like archical position); and managers working in private
China, companies think belongingness and pride and public sector organisations (type of organisation)
(esteem values) are important for retaining current have also been analysed. Findings suggest that there
employees (Bjorkman and Lu 1999). Potential exist group difference (with respect to hierarchical
employees, while choosing the company focus on position) in career potential values and esteem values
moral image of the company, whether being referred of IEB framework. Junior managers have less prefer-
by any trusted person, attrition rate or growth values to ence for esteem values as compared to middle and
understand work culture of the company, and com- senior level managers. Value preferences vary across
pany brand or pay package which can give them social life stages. It is quite obvious that the more a person
status. After joining the organisation, employees look holds higher position in the company, more is his/her
for some more value preferences apart from those societal status. Therefore, preferences for esteem
before joining the company, such as, career growth in values increase with higher management cadre.
terms of quick growth or recognition, nature or terms Significant results have also been found in interac-
of assignment, administrative rules, and emotional tional effects of gender (male and female) and
connection. Furthermore, company brand and hierar- hierarchy (junior, middle, and senior) IEB framework
chical position are preferred values from potential (feel-good values). Findings suggest that middle level
employers as compared to current employers. Both female managers have high preference and middle
current and potential employees emphasise on com- level male managers have least preference for feel-
petitive pay and facilities. good values. This is evident from Indian family

123
Decision

structure that female members at their mid-career need competitive pay package, positional benefits, com-
to take care of entire family and are mostly responsible pany reputation, developing emotionally connected
for establishing peace in the family. Work-life stress work culture (feeling home attitude), etc. Organisa-
influences peace in personal-life adversely. Therefore, tions should also take distinct strategic decisions for
female middle level managers are keener towards feel- young and aged Indian knowledge workers in terms of
good values. Male middle level managers, on the other attracting and retaining them.
hand, have least preference for the same values as
during their mid-level career they become more career
oriented and fulfilling career objectives get highest Conclusions and implications
priority to them.
Findings also indicate that no significant differ- Employer branding has emerged as an important
ences exist amongst the EEB framework across strategic tool to the organisations to deal with talent
gender, types of organisations, hierarchical positions, war effectively. Present article has conceptualised
and their interactions amongst themselves. Job market employer branding in terms of internal and external
scenario of India is not very lucrative to the Indian employer branding which will facilitate organisations
workforce as a whole in recent days because of the retaining current employees and attracting potential
business volatility. Therefore, employees irrespective employees, respectively, in the Indian context. Indi-
of gender, hierarchy, and the type of organisation they vidual and personal needs have got a cultural impact.
are working with have similar value preferences while Thus, a necessity has been felt to conduct a study
looking for new jobs. which will explore these needs of Indian knowledge
Organisational attractiveness may be increased by workers, such that organisations can design their value
creating values to the individual and personal needs of propositions accordingly. Findings suggest a six-
the employees through several policy offerings by the factor value proposition model for internal employer
organisation. Thus organisations in India may design branding and a five-factor value proposition model for
their policy offerings on image and fundamental external employer branding. These values have also
values, job structure values, work culture values, been found to be correlated with age. Further studies
reference values, and pride values to attract potential related to group differences reveal that male and
employees; and career potential values, justice values, female middle level managers have distinct prefer-
employee engagement values, feel-good values, com- ences in terms of internal branding factors. Findings of
fort values, and esteem values for retaining current the present article are found quite logical in Indian
employees. Continual development in terms of spon- context.
sored education or sabbaticals, several employee Value proposition models are the backbones of
engagement programmes in order to increase belong- employer branding. Once the policy models are ready,
ingness, ethical ways of doing business and fulfilling organisations can move to the next step of employer
social responsibilities, employee referral benefits, branding process. In view of talent scarcity, organi-
employee alumni, performance-based promotion, well sations should take the employer branding activities to
designed career planning, flexi timing, virtual office the same level of importance with corporate branding
space or hi-tech office infrastructure, competitive pay activities. The present study is a directional study for
package, increasing corporate reputation through the organisations, both Indian and Multinational,
corporate external branding process may be such which deal with Indian knowledge workers in order
offerings to attract potential employees. In order to to design their employment offerings in the compet-
retain current employees, organisations may focus on itive talent market. Both types of organisations are
offerings like continual development in terms of facing challenges towards retaining and attracting
experimentations and skill diversification, transparent current and potential employees. This study will show
and laid down policy matters, practicing morality, them a path towards designing talent management
friendly and fun work environment, well designed strategies. Considering these value proposition frame-
career planning, performance reward, challenging and works, MNCs may have the advantageous position in
interesting jobs, promise less and keep it, work-life policy development in talent management for their
integration (family engagement programme, etc.), Indian counterparts.

123
 Decision

Future directions of the study Cliffe S (1998) Human resources: winning the war for talent.
Harv Bus Rev 76:18–19
Cotton L, Bynum DR, Madhere S (1997) Socialization forces
The current research has considered Indian organisa- and the stability of work values from late adolescence to
tions only to map the value preferences of Indian early adulthood. Psychol Rep 80:115–124
workforce. People working in multinationals may Cray D, Mallory G (1998) Making sense of managing culture.
have different sets of value preferences because of International Thomson Business Press, London
Deci EL (1975) Intrinsic motivation. Plenum, New York
cultural implications that should also be accounted for Deci EL, Ryan RM (2000) The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pur-
in the future study. Further attempt may be made to suits: human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior.
assess the fit between employee work values and value Psychol Inq 11:227–268
propositions as currently offered by Indian employers. Deery M (2008) Talent management, work-life balance and
retention strategies. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag
20:792–806
Dell D, Ainspan N (2001) Engaging employees through your
brand. In: Conference Board Report No. R-1288-01 RR,
References Conference Board, Washington, D.C
Dose JJ (1997) Work values: an integrative framework and
Adler N, Jelinek M (1986) Is ‘‘organization culture’’ culture illustrative application to organizational socialization.
bound? Hum Resour Manag 25:73–90 J Occup Organ Psychol 70:219–240
Aiman-Smith L, Bauer TN, Cable DM (2001) Are you attrac- Eisenberg B, Kilduff C, Burleigh S, Wilson K (2001) The role of
ted? Do you intend to pursue? A recruiting policy-captur- the value proposition and employment branding in retain-
ing study. J Bus Psychol 16:219–237 ing top talent. Society for Human Resource Management,
Akhtar S (2000) Influences of cultural origin and sex on work Alexandria
values. Psychol Rep 86:1037–1049 Elizur D (1984) Facets of work values: a structural analysis of
Amabile TM, Hill KG, Hennessey BA, Tighe EM (1994) The work work outcomes. J Appl Psychol 69:379–389
preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic moti- Ewing MT, Pitt LF, de Bussy NM, Berthon P (2002) Employ-
vational orientations. J Personal Soc Psychol 66:950–967 ment branding in the knowledge economy. Int J Advert
Ambler T, Barrow S (1996) The employer brand. J Brand 21:3–22
Manag 4:185–206 Frook JE (2001) Burnish your brand from the inside. B to B
Backhaus K, Tikoo S (2004) Conceptualizing and researching 86:1–2
employer branding. Career Dev Int 9:501–517 Glazer S, Daniel SK, Short KM (2004) A study of the rela-
Ballantyne D, Frow P, Varey R, Payne A (2011) Value propo- tionship between organizational commitment and human
sitions as communication practice: taking a wider view. Ind values in four countries. Hum Relat 57:323–345
Mark Manage 40:202–210 Gopalan S, Rivera J (1997) Gaining a perspective on Indian
Barber AE (1998) Recruiting employees. Sage Publications, value orientations: implications for expatriate managers.
Thousand Oaks Int J Organ Anal 5:156–179
Baumeister RF, Leary MR (1995) The need to belong: desire for Gorsuch RL (1983) Factor analysis, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erl-
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human moti- baum, Hillsdale
vation. Psychol Bull 117:497–529 Grice JW (2001) Computing and evaluating factor scores.
Berthon P, Ewing M, Hah LL (2005) Captivating company: Psychol Methods 6:430–450
dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding. Int J Gursoy D, Chi CG-Q, Karadag E (2013) Generational differ-
Advert 24:151–172 ences in work values and attitudes among frontline and
Bhatnagar J (2007) Talent management strategy of employee service contract employees. Int J Hosp Manag 32:40–48
engagement in India ITES employees: key to retention. Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL
Empl Relat 29:640–663 (2011) Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Pearson Edu-
Bjorkman I, Lu Y (1999) The management of human resources in cation, Gurgaon
Chinese-Western joint ventures. J World Bus 34:306–324 Harris PR, Moran RT (2000) Managing cultural differences:
Brown JD (2009) Principal components analysis and explora- leadership strategies for a new world of business. Gulf
tory factor analysis—definitions, differences, and choices. Publishing Company, Houston
JALT Test Eval SIG Newsl 13:26–30 Heinen JS, O’Neill C (2004) Managing talent to maximize
Cable DM, Judge TA (1996) Person-organization fit, job choice performance. Employment Relations Today, Summer,
decisions and organizational entry. Organ Behav Hum pp 67–82
Decis Process 67:294–311 Herman R, Gioia J (2000) How to become an employer of
Chapman D, Uggerlev K, Carroll S, Piasentin K, Jones D (2005) choice. Oakhill Press, Virginia
Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: a Highhouse S, Lievens F, Sinar E (2003) Measuring attraction to
meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting out- organizations. Educ Psychol Meas 63:986–1001
comes. J Appl Psychol 90:928–944 Hofstede G (1980) Motivation, leadership and organization: Do
Chatterjee SR, Pearson CAL (2000) Indian managers in transi- American theories apply abroad? Org Dyn 9:42–63
tion: orientations, work goals, values and ethics. Manag Int Hofstede G (1993) Cultural constraints in management theories.
Rev 40:81–95 Acad Manag Exec 7:81–94

123
Decision

Hofstede G (1998) A case for comparing apples with oranges: Prakash A (1995) Organisational functioning and values in the
international differences in values. Int J Comp Sociol Indian context. In: Kao HSR, Sinha D, Ng SH (eds)
39:16–31 Effective organsiations and societal values. Sage, New
Holden N (2002) Cross-cultural management: a knowledge Delhi
management perspective. Pearson Education, London Rhodes SR (1983) Age related differences in work attitudes and
Holttinen H (2014) Contextualising value propositions: exam- behaviour: a review and conceptual analysis. Psychol Bull
ining how consumers experience value propositions in their 93:328–367
practices. Aust Mark J 22:103–110 Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the
Hughes CJ, Rog E (2008) Talent management: a strategy for facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and
improving employee recruitment, retention and engage- well-being. Am Psychol 55:68–78
ment within hospitality organizations. Int J Contemp Hosp Rynes S, Bretz R, Gerhart B (1991) The importance of
Manag 20:743–757 recruitment in job choice: a different way of looking. Pers
Jaw B-S, Lig Y-H, Wang CY-P, Chang W-C (2007) The impact Psychol 44:487–521
of culture on Chinese employees’ work values. Pers Rev Scheweyer A (2004) Talent management systems: best practices
36:128–144 in technology solutions for recruitment, retention and
Jiang TT, Iles P (2011) Employer-brand equity, organisational workplace planning. Wiley, New York
attractiveness and talent management in the Zhejiang pri- Schneider B (1987) The people make the place. Pers Psychol
vate sector, China. J Technol Manag China 6:97–110 40:437–453
Johnson M (2000) Winning the people wars: talent and the battle Schneider S, Barsoux JL (1997) Managing across cultures.
for human capital. Prentice Hall, London Prentice Hall, Harlow
Johnson MW, Christensen CM, Kagermann H (2008) Rein- Sheldon KM, Kasser T (1995) Coherence and congruence: two
venting your business model. Harv Bus Rev 86:51–59 aspects of personality integration. J Personal Soc Psychol
Joyner T (2000) Gen X-ers focus on life outside the job fulfil- 68:531–543
ment. Xecured Lender 56:64–68 Sheldon KM, Kasser T (2001) Goals, congruence, and positive
Judge TA, Cable DM (1997) Applicant personality, organiza- well-being: new empirical support for humanistic theories.
tional culture, and organization attraction. Pers Psychol J Humanist Psychol 41:30–50
50:359–394 Sherry A (2000) Put some branding iron into your image. Bus
Li W, Liu X, Wan W (2008) Demographic effects of work Rev Wkly 22:66
values and their management implications. J Bus Ethics Sullivan J (2004) Eight elements of a successful employment
81:875–885 brand, ER Daily, 23 Feb. http://www.ere.net/2004/02/23/
Lievens F, Decaesteker C, Coetsier P, Geirnaert J (2001) the-8-elements-of-asuccessful-employment-brand/. Acces-
Organizational attractiveness for prospective applicants: a sed 13 Nov 2012
person-organization fit perspective. Appl Psychol Int Rev Sullivan W, Sullivan R, Buffton B (2002) Aligning individual
50:30–51 and organisational values to support change. J Change
Lloyd S (2002) Branding from the inside out. BRW 24:64–66 Manag 2:247–254
Lusch RF, Vargo SL, O’Brien M (2007) Competing through Super DE (1980) A life-span, life-space approach to career
service: insights from service-dominant logic. J Retail development. J Vocat Behav 13:282–298
83:5–18 Swystun J (2007) The brand glossary: interbrand. Palgrave
Ma JH, Ni CM (1998) The analysis of enterprise employees’ Macmillan, Basingstoke
work value characteristics. Chin J Appl Psychol 4:10–14 Trompenaars F, Hampden-Turner C (1998) Riding the waves of
Marriott JW Jr (2001) Our competitive strength: human capital. culture: understanding diversity in global business. The
Exec Speeches 15:18–21 Economist Books, London
Millward LJ, Brewerton PM (1999) Contractors and their psy- Turban D, Forret M, Hendrickson C (1998) Applicant attraction
chological contracts. Br J Manag 10:253–274 to firms: influences of organization reputation and organi-
Moroko L, Uncles MD (2008) Characteristics of successful zational attributes, and recruiter behaviors. J Vocat Behav
employer brands. J Brand Manag 16:160–175 52:24–44
Nunnally JC (1967) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New Valentine S (2000) International person-organization fit: the
York role of national culture. Int J Manag 17:295–302
Overby JW, Woodruff RB, Gardial SF (2005) The influence of Vansteenkiste M, Neyrinck B, Niemiec CP, Soenens B, Witte
culture upon consumers’ desired value perceptions: a HD, Broeck AVD (2007) On the relations among work
research agenda. Mark Theory 5:139–163 value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job
Parry E, Urwin P (2011) Generational differences in work val- outcomes: a self-determination theory approach. J Occup
ues: a review of theory and evidence. Int J Manag Rev Organ Psychol 80:251–277
13:79–96 White RW (1959) Motivation reconsidered: the concept of
Pelled LP, Xin KR (1997) Work values and their human resource competence. Psychol Rev 66:297–333
management implications: a theoretical comparison of China,
Mexico, and the United States. J Appl Manag Stud 6:185–198

123