International Journal of Manpower

Worker word of mouth on the internet. Influence on human resource image, job seekers and employees
Santiago Melián-González Jacques Bulchand-Gidumal
Article information:
To cite this document:
Santiago Melián-González Jacques Bulchand-Gidumal , (2016),"Worker word of mouth on the internet. Influence on human
resource image, job seekers and employees", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 37 Iss 4 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJM-09-2014-0188
Downloaded on: 09 June 2016, At: 02:57 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7 times since 2016*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:239791 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Worker word of mouth on the Internet. Influence on
human resource image, job seekers and employees.

1 Introduction
Individuals build an organizational image trough the information that they
perceive about a firm. It has been suggested that organizational image should
refer to specific areas of organizational distinction. One of these areas is the
employer or human resource image (Highhouse et al., 2009). There is
agreement about the importance of this employer role for organizations’
reputation (Highhouse et al., 2009; Roberts & Dowling, 2002).
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

The exposure and transparency of organizations to society have increased

hugely with the phenomenon of social media, which allows people to
communicate and influence certain aspects of the reality around them (Sigala &
Marinidis, 2009). Since theory about organizational image states that it is
formed from particular cues (Highhouse et al., 2009), social media has resulted
in more potential influences on an organization’s image. As happened with
companies’ products and services, recently the Internet has generated websites
dedicated to rating the employer role of organizations. These employer review
websites are based on the opinions of workers, creating what we have named
worker electronic word of mouth or weWOM. Due to its content, weWOM is an
important cue for the human resource or HR image. In this sense, weWOM can
influence organizations’ recruitment activities and job seekers intentions (Cable
& Yu, 2006; Van Birgelen et al., 2008). Further, since workers give importance
to outsiders’ perception of their company (Lievens et al., 2007; Smidts et al.,
2001), weWOM could also affect employees.

Virtually nothing has been written about weWOM. Theoretically weWOM could
affect HR image and, also, applicants and employees; however, there are no
data that test these assumptions. With the exception of one study carried out
before 2005, to our knowledge there is no empirical data or research about the
impact of employees’ opinions on organizational image and workers. Without
the Internet, it was difficult to learn the opinions of employees, so the relevance
of this kind of information for the organizational image, job seekers decisions

1
 and workers was low, but nowadays it is easily accessible. On the other hand,
research on organizational reputation is scant and more contributions are
needed (Ferris et al., 2007). HR image is important, since it produces HR
reputation (Hannon & Milkovich, 1996), and this is part of the organization’s
reputation.

Therefore, with the purpose of contributing to the topics investigated in the

organizational image and recruitment fields, our basic research objective is to
analyze the consequences of weWOM for HR image, and for job seekers and
employee’s intentions and perceptions. As far as we know, this is the first study
to consider the influence of a contemporary, freely available, and independent
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

source of information about organizations’ employment practices that anybody

can access through a few clicks. To that end, we designed and conducted a
Web-based experiment with three groups of people that were exposed to
different types of weWOM.

2 Literature review
2.1 HR image

When considering how people perceive organizations, one key concept arises:
organizational image. Organizational image has been defined as “a dynamic
perception of a specific area of organizational distinction” (Highhouse et al.,
2009: 487). According to the Signaling Theory (Spence, 1973), organizational
image is built upon particular cues such as the organization’s product
development, public relations, advertising, word of mouth, and media exposure
(Highhouse et al., 2009). Highhouse et al. (2009: 1485) state that “Cues are
specific pieces of information about the organization that signal certain images
of the company (e.g., image as an employer, image as a provider of
goods/services) in the mind of the constituent”. Among these cues, word of
mouth and exposure media are highlighted since these remain out of the control
of the organization (Cable & Turban, 2001; Highhouse et al., 2009; Lievens et
al., 2007).

Stern et al. (2001) explain that organization image is multidimensional,

depending on the groups that perceive it (e.g., clients, employees, suppliers,

2
 etc.). One of the types of organizational image is the employer or HR image,
which globally refers to the perception of the organization attractiveness as a
good place to work (Kanar et al., 2008; Lievens et al., 2007). This image is
usually operationalized through the perception of the quality of HR practices
from a worker’s point of view (Kanar et al., 2008; Lievens et al., 2007). HR
image is particularly important in the context of job searching and recruitment
(Cable & Yu, 2006). In addition, it has been suggested that people’s perceptions
about organizations are formed quite early, prior to any recruitment processes,
and may be very difficult to modify (Cable & Turban, 2001).

Except for the works of Kanar et al. (2008) and Van Birgelen et al. (2008) there
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

is little research about the cues that induce a particular HR image. Kanar et al.’s
(2008) research was conducted out of the Internet world and regardless the
active role of job seekers. This feature is relevant, since job search literature
has shown that job seekers tend to search for information about positions
(Šverko et al., 2008) and that the Internet has become one of the main means
of searching for employment (Stevenson, 2009). Van Birgelen et al.’s (2008)
work was developed in a digital context and showed the influence of a particular
cue that is under the employer control: the corporate employment websites’
career section.

Organizational image not only has effects on outer organization’s constituents.

External constructed image refers to how members of an organization believe
that it is perceived by those on the outside of it (Dutton et al., 1994). Workers
feel proud to be part of companies with a high reputation, as it strengthens their
feelings of self-worth (Bhattacharya et al., 1995). Furthermore, affiliation with a
reputable firm improves employees' self-esteem (Turban & Cable, 2003).
Similarly, members may feel discontented belonging to a company with a
negative image, which can result in looser psychological ties with the
organization (Smidts et al., 2001).

2.2 Employer review websites

Work-related WOM has been defined as an information exchange among

individuals about an organization as an employer or about specific jobs (Van

3
 Hoye & Lievens, 2009). Since the information content is about the employer
behavior or job characteristics, this work-related WOM is a particular cue for the
HR image formation.

Similar to product-related WOM, work-related WOM may be different depending

on the way it is expressed (e.g., face-to-face vs. the Internet). Thus, drawing on
the marketing literature terms (Dellarocas, 2003), we have considered weWOM
as the electronic version of work-related WOM. Before the existence of the
Internet, it was difficult for job seekers to acquire substantial information about
employers before actually working in an organization. This was especially true
in the beginning stages of the recruitment process, when job seekers have to
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

decide which jobs to apply for (Rynes, 1989; Turban & Cable, 2003; Van Hoye,
2012). The Internet has created an answer to this social demand for information
about job conditions and facilitated a large number of employment innovations
for jobseekers (Nakamura et al., 2009). Among these innovations are employer
review websites. These sites run similarly to the well-known product review
websites (e.g., TripAdvisor), but instead of consumers, it is employees and ex-
employees who review their employers and their HR practices, performing
weWOM.

With respect to work-related WOM, research is scarce (Van Hoye & Lievens,
2009). Considering different company information sources, Van Hoye (2012)
found that this was the most important predictor of organizational attractiveness.
Keeling et al. (2013) studied the effect of positive and negative work-related
WOM. The authors found significant relationships with organizational
attractiveness and that the impact of the negative messages was stronger than
the impact of the positive ones. Regarding weWOM, Cable and Yu’s (2006)
study includes what they called “electronic bulletin boards” such as Vault.com,
in which current employees of companies post messages about what it is like to
work there. Contrary to the authors’ predictions it was found that this site had
little impact on job applicants. Cable and Yu (2006) cite the fact that “electronic
bulletin boards” were not very familiar to job seekers as a possible explanation
for this result (their study was conducted before 2005). Instead of employer
review sites, Tan et al. (2014) include a social network like Facebook and

4
 consider the influence of friends’ opinions on intended job choice. Although
friends’ opinions (e.g., My Facebook friends encourage me to choose the job)
do not necessary coincide with weWOM, the authors found that social networks
have significant impact on job choice intentions.

weWOM may also influence current employees’ attitudes. Although there are no
data in that regard, this expected influence is based on the importance that
outsiders’ opinions have for organization employees (Dutton et al., 1994;
Lievens et al., 2007; Smidts et al., 2001).

3 Research objectives
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

The general objective of this study is to test if a new and unexplored worker
conduct such as weWOM constitutes a relevant behavior for human resource
management. This global aim is particularized in three specific objectives.
These objectives are to test if weWOM is:

a) a significant antecedent of HR image and, thus, a determinant of job

seekers behavior and decisions;
b) a factor that influences current employees’ perception and attitudes; and
c) a reliable information source about organizations.

The foundation for these objectives is commented below.

Regarding the first objective, literature establishes that, as a WOM type,

weWOM may be a determining factor for an organizational image such as HR
image. In the case of negative work-related WOM based on email and press
sources, a negative relationship with the HR image was found (Kanar et al.,
2008). Nevertheless, in the case of weWOM a similar relationship needs to be
tested, since this is on the Internet and on line trust depends on both website’s
characteristics and people’s perceptions (Lee et al., 2011). In this sense, Cable
and Yu (2006) found that the influence of an electronic bulletin board was lower
than expected. The authors explain this result based on the unfamiliarity of their
study participants with these sites. On the other hand, weWOM informs readers
about HR practices, and these have shown to be relevant for job seekers
decisions and attitudes (Backhaus et al., 2002; Van Birgelen et al., 2008). The

5
 job seekers decisions that literature foresees to be influenced by information
about organizations’ HR practices are intention to apply for a job (Rynes, 1989)
and intention to recommend a firm as a place to work (Ferris et al., 2007;
Highhouse et al., 2009). In addition, since weWOM may suggest a balance or
unbalance between what a worker aspires to and what a firm offers, we think
that it can condition the applicants’ compensation demands. This is because
workers seek and expect to be adequately compensated for their effort and
work (Gouldner, 1960).

Regarding the second objective, little has been done to explore what shapes
external constructed image (Carmeli & Freund, 2002). As an organization cue,
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

weWOM can influence it. External constructed image is an employee’s

perception about his/her employers and it may affect the employee’s attitudes.
Dutton et al. (1994), Smidts et al. (2001) and Buoncore (2010) suggest that if
the external constructed image is positive, identification with the organization is
strengthened. Furthermore, employees feel proud to belong to high reputed
firms (Bhattacharya et al., 1995) and they may feel discontented belonging to a
company with a negative image (Smidts et al., 2001).

Last, regarding the third objective, it has been suggested that firms deliberately
overstate their image (Cable & Yu, 2006; Kanar et al., 2008). Compared to
company-dependent information sources, company-independent sources are
likely to be perceived as providing more credible information because they do
not have the explicit purpose to promote the organization (Van Hoye & Lievens,
2007). Van Hoye (2012) found work-related WOM being more credible for
applicants than job fairs, firm publicity and recruitment advertising. According to
Joo and McLean (2006), companies often attempt to improve their employer
images and boast about the recognition accorded to their human resources
management (e.g., 100 Best Companies to Work For). These recognitions are
granted by consultant firms and companies must pay to participate in the
evaluation process. Unlike them, weWOM is a company-independent source.
Therefore, we posit that weWOM will be more credible than a traditional source
of organizations’ HR attractiveness like the recognitions awarded to firms for
their HR practices.

6
 4 Research methodology
The research consisted in a Web-based experiment that involved showing three
different types of real weWOM to three different samples and analyzing their
reactions. Using real weWOM helps to the external validity of the experiment
context since the websites’ graphical characteristics and content influence the
Internet users trust. The website designed for the purpose of the experiment
randomly showed one of three types of weWOM: positive, negative, or
intermediate weWOM, respectively. These three kinds of weWOM were
constructed using real weWOM extracted directly from the employer review site
Glassdoor. In order to ascertain the relevance of this website, an analysis with
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

two of the available tools to measure website popularity (Alexa and Google
Rank) was conducted. As of June 2011, the results showed that Glassdoor was
by far the most popular among the employer review websites.

In September 2011, the three cases of weWOM were chosen randomly.

Glassdoor offers a global rating of the companies on a scale from 1 to 5. This
rating is then assigned one of the following meanings, according to the range it
belongs to: “Employees are very dissatisfied,” when the rating is below 1.5;
“Employees are dissatisfied,” for ratings equal to or higher than 1.5 and below
2.5; “Employees say it’s OK”, for ratings equal to or higher than 2.5 and below
3.5; “Employees are satisfied,” for ratings equal to or higher than 3.5 and below
4.0; and “Employees are very satisfied,” for values equal to or higher than 4.0.
Thus, we took negative weWOM to be in the range 1.0–2.4, intermediate
weWOM to be in the range 2.5–3.4, and positive weWOM in the range 3.5–5.0.
One firm with a similar number of ratings, between 50 and 60, was chosen
randomly in each of these groups.

The Web page designed for the experiment was a replica of the Glassdoor
format. Thus, it showed the following information: global rating of the firm;
number of ratings; CEO rating; and detailed rating of its human resource
practices, classified into the sections that Glassdoor shows. Additionally, the
rating and full review by one of the reviewers of the company were also shown.
This rating was chosen as the first one that appeared on the Glassdoor website
with the same valence as the global rating of the firm, since just one review was

7
 going to be shown. For example, to illustrate positive weWOM, one review with
a rating of 4 or 5 was chosen. All the data were anonymous, so the organization
was not easily identified.

Measures

The data were gathered via a self-administered questionnaire. We used a

single-item scale approach to our measures. According to Fuchs and
Diamantopoulos (2009), this kind of measures can be both reliable and valid
and their use has advantages. For instance, they are easier to understand,
completed more quickly, and changes in scores are more interpretable than in
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

multiple-item measures (Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2009). From a psychometric

perspective, single-item measures compare favorably with multiple-item
measures regarding reliability, convergent, discriminant and predictive validities
(Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). Therefore, we used a single-item approach for
three reasons: to get a short questionnaire in order to obtain high participation;
to assess scores changes among the three kinds of weWOM more clearly; and
because our study conditions satisfied the criteria for the suitability of using
single-item measures such as seeking to get an overall feeling about the
constructs and not go too deeply into their nature (Fuchs & Diamantopoulos,
2009).

Since we used single-item measures the validity was assessed by a content

validity procedure (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). After reviewing the literature,
measurements were prepared based on others utilized in similar and known
studies when those were available. Afterwards, three HR academics revised the
measurements to ensure that they represented the expected object or attribute.
Finally the questionnaire (Table 1) was pretested with six workers who had
never visited Glassdoor’s site. The consequence of this pretest was the
reformulation of six questions to improve understanding. We will now present
the variables we used in our questionnaire. All except for one (influence on
applicant’s compensation demands) were measured with a five-point Likert
scale. The variables are ordered according to the research objective that they
are expected to contribute to.

8
 Research objective (a)

HR image. Measured through the perception of the organization as a good

place to work after showing weWOM about HR practices. The question used
(Q1 in Table 1) was similar to those carried out in studies about HR image
(Kanar et al., 2008; Taylor & Bergman, 1987).

Intention to apply for a job. Measured through the interest in sending a résumé
to the firm if it was seeking candidates for a job (Q2 in Table 1). This measure
was similar to the one of indicating the probability of responding as a
percentage from 0 to 100% used by Gatewood et al. (1993), and to the two
items used by Taylor and Bergman (1987) and Kanar et al. (2008): “If I saw a
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

job opening for this organization, I would apply for it” and “If I were searching for
a job, I would apply to this organization.”

Recommendations of firms as a place to work. Measured by the degree to

which a firm would be recommended to others as a place to work (Q3 in Table
1).

Influence on applicant’s compensation demands. Measured by the minimum

wage percentage increment that would be demanded to accept an offer from
the firm for a job similar to the one the respondent has now (Q4 in Table 2). In
this case, the variable ranged from 1 to 14, as explained in Table 1.

Research objective (b)

Employee’s pride of being part of an organization. Measured by how weWOM

would affect pride in being part of the firm if the respondent worked for it (Q5 in
Table 1).

External constructed image. Measured by the respondents’ opinion about

others’ negative or positive pictures formed by weWOM (Q6 in Table 2).

Research objective (c)

weWOM’s credibility compared with recognitions. Measured by comparing the

trustworthiness of weWOM versus the recognitions awarded to the firms’ HR
practices (Q7 in Table 1). We based our measure on the source reliance

9
 measure of Johnson and Kaye (2002), consisting of a five-point scale ranged
from “heavily rely on” to “don’t rely at all.”

4.1 Data gathering and statistics

In this study, the population is individuals who want to know how companies
behave as employers. Most of these are persons who are looking for a job,
since job search literature has shown that job seekers tend to search for
information about positions (Šverko et al., 2008). Thus, if we exclude students
and people who can afford not to work, our population is any individual. When
laboratory researchers seek to include nonstudent subjects, they face a real
challenge in enticing such individuals to participate. We followed a self-selected
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

sample procedure (Gosling et al., 2004). The process of survey distribution took
place via multiple channels (i.e., social networks such as Facebook and Twitter,
email, and blogs), in which the objective of the study and the instructions
requesting collaboration during the participation were posted together with a link
to the Web page that hosted the questionnaire. As the user logged in, the Web
page would choose randomly which of the three types of weWOM to show.
Once the respondents read the weWOM information, they were asked to
answer the questionnaire. This kind of convenience sampling is frequent in
experiments about eWOM (Gupta & Harris, 2010) and firm image (Cable & Yu,
2006; Kanar et al., 2008; Turban & Cable, 2003) due to the population’s
vagueness (Baltar & Brunet, 2012). Gosling et al. (2004) demonstrated that the
validity of self-selected samples is not adversely affected by
non-responsiveness (unmotivated, repeated or non-interpretable responses).
Furthermore, previous research has shown that participants from self-selected
samples provide clearer and more complete responses than participants who
are not self-selected volunteers, such as undergraduate students (Pettit, 2002).

Data were collected during November 2011. A total of 238 valid responses were
received distributed in the following manner: 85 had been presented positive
weWOM, 77 intermediate weWOM, and 76 negative weWOM. The three groups
χ2=1.137; p=0.567).
did not show statistically significant differences by sex (χ

10
 89.1% of participants had a university degree (without significant differences
between the three groups, χ2=5.972; p=0.426) and worked mainly in private
firms (40.3%), followed by unemployed (27.4%), employees in public
organizations (21.8%), and self-employed workers (10.5%) (once again, without
statistically significant differences between the three groups, χ2=9.013;
p=0.702). Technical and qualified personnel accounted for 46.3%, executives
18.5%, and middle managers 16% (without significant differences between
groups, χ2=7969; p=0.788). Their ages ranged between 18 and 25 years
(8.9%), 26 and 35 years (36.2%), 36 and 45 years (40.4%), and more than 45
years (14.5%) (without significant differences between groups, F=0.183;
p=0.833). Although not representative of the general population, the sample
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

qualitatively fitted in the population of our study, since all the respondents
worked or were unemployed and none was a student.

A general linear model (GLM) multivariate analysis (MANOVA) was conducted

to examine whether the means of the dependent variables were different across
the three types of weWOM. To test the shared perception about HR image and
the indicator of inter-individual agreement, the rwg was calculated (Kozlowski &
Hattrup, 1992).

5 Results
Table 2 shows correlation between variables, and variance inflation factors
(VIF). VIFs are all far below 10 indicating the absence of serious
multicollinearity problems (Kleinbaum et al., 2007). Regarding that, Table 2
shows that most of the dependent variables’ correlations intensity were between
0.30 and 0.73, which usually statistics manuals describe as moderate and
appreciable (Morales-Vallejo, 2008). Therefore, although some variables’
correlations are relatively high (e.g., HR image and external constructed image)
we can assume a sufficient independence among them.

Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations and Tukey HSD post-hoc test of
all the comparisons made. The results of MANOVA’s multivariate test support
the influence of the different types of weWOM on the considered dependent
variables, since all multivariate tests were significant at p=0.000 (Pillai's Trace,

11
 F=16.246; Wilks' Lambda, F=21.835; Hotelling's Trace, F=28.027; Roy's
Largest Root, F=55.388).

Research objective (a) was to test weWOM influence on company HR image

and on job seekers behavior and decisions. Table 3 shows that those exposed
to positive weWOM perceived the company as a good place to work, while the
group exposed to negative weWOM did not perceive the company as such.
Those exposed to intermediate weWOM positioned themselves in an
intermediate manner. The difference between groups were all significant
(F=138,590; p=0.000). The rwg of the three groups were above the suggested
cutoff value of .70 (James, 1982), so the perceptions about the HR image of the
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

organizations were shared by all the respondents.

Furthermore, it was thought that weWOM would influence the applicant’s

intention to apply for a job. Those exposed to positive weWOM stated that they
would send their résumé with great interest to the company. Those exposed to
negative weWOM showed a low interest in sending their résumé, while those
exposed to intermediate weWOM also showed a neutral interest (F=58.981;
p=0.000). Similarly, it was foreseen that weWOM would influence the
recommendations of firms as a place to work. The group exposed to positive
weWOM would recommend the company to acquaintances as a good place to
work, while the group exposed to negative weWOM would not. Those exposed
to intermediate weWOM had a less clear position on this subject (F=1.889;
p=0.000). The last issue included in the research objective (a) regarded that
weWOM could influence on applicant’s compensation demands. The group
exposed to negative weWOM demanded greater salary increases to accept a
job in the evaluated firm, while those exposed to positive weWOM demanded
lower salary increases. Increases demanded by those exposed to intermediate
weWOM fell between the two levels (F=0.642; p=0.000). Let us keep in mind
that the variable for the demands for salary increases ranges from 1 to 14, with
1 meaning a very low salary increase and 14 the highest increase.

Research objective (b) was to test the influence of weWOM on company

employees’ perception and attitudes. weWOM could influence the external
constructed image, so participants were asked to assume the role of employees

12
 of the evaluated firm. Positive external image was generated by positive
weWOM, negative by negative weWOM, and an intermediate position by
intermediate weWOM (F=27.10; p=0.000). Additionally, weWOM may influence
the employee’s pride in being part of an organization. Those exposed to positive
weWOM stated that if they worked for the firm and knew that weWOM was
available on the Internet, they would feel proud of belonging to the company.
Negative weWOM induced the opposite reaction; respondents said weWOM
would negatively affect their pride in belonging to the company. Last, as with the
rest of the reactions, those exposed to intermediate weWOM showed
responses in between the other two (F=81.506; p=0.000).
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

Finally, research objective (c) was to test weWOM credibility. In doing so, it was
compared to a well-known way used by companies to obtain a good HR image:
recognitions awarded to firms for their human resource management practices.
All participants agreed on weWOM’s superior reliability. Thus, independently of
which weWOM they were exposed to, there were no opinion differences about
the superior reliability of the reviews of current and former employees compared
to the prizes and recognition awarded for human resource practices developed
by the firm (F=1.366; p=0.257).

6 Conclusions
The main conclusion of our study is that weWOM is a relevant behavior that
must be taken into account by firms. Just as the Internet has generated many
opportunities for people to participate and voice their opinions in other areas,
employer review websites allow employees to do the same regarding their work
conditions. weWOM hosted in these sites can improve or complicate their
recruitment processes. Furthermore, their staff attitudes may be affected too. It
must be borne in mind that, in most cases, these websites can be freely
accessed by anyone.

The results regarding the influence of weWOM are clear. Depending on the kind
of weWOM people see, perceived HR image changes. Furthermore, positive,
intermediate and negative weWOM produce different behavioral intentions with
respect to different recruiting aspects. There are three such intentions: intention

13
 to apply, intention to recommend a company as a place to work, and
compensation demands. Regarding the last intention (compensation demands)
we provide empirical evidence for an unexplored job seeker evaluation.
Therefore, if we consider that two of the challenges that organizations face
today are the talent flow between countries and the lack of suitable talent
available in their markets (Tarique & Schuler, 2010), the importance of weWOM
for firms is evident.

We have also proven that weWOM influences two important employee

evaluations: the external constructed image and their pride in being part of an
organization. A positive weWOM has positive effects on both the
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

aforementioned evaluations. The relevance of these results lies in the fact that a
positive constructed external image can influence identification with the
organization (Buonocore, 2010; Dutton et al., 1994). It has indeed been shown
that strong identification on the part of employees may positively contribute to a
company’s success (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) and may explain the superior and
sustained performance of some corporations (Hunt et al., 1989). For their part,
the pride of belonging to a company creates psychological conditions that
promote affective commitment (Foreman & Whetten, 2002), which, in turn, has
been associated with employee performance (Vandenberghe, 2009).

This study contributes to strengthen the theory about how organizational image
is built showing that a type of WOM (i.e., weWOM) and social media exposure
(i.e., employer review websites) are significant determinants of two kind of
organizational images (i.e., employer and external constructed images). These
relationships had been proposed previously (Highhouse et al., 2009; Lievens,
Van Hoye, & Anseel, 2007) and our findings support them. Furthermore we
have indicated specific information (i.e., HR practices) that resulted relevant in
terms of work related WOM content for both organizational image and
recruitment literature. Regarding the last, our results respond empirically to the
demand for research about both work related WOM and initial applicant
decisions (Turban & Cable, 2003; Van Hoye, 2012). We contribute to the theory
about recruitment showing detailed information about what may occur during
the first phases of this HR practice. People search for jobs on the Internet and

14
 what they are going to see is weWOM about companies. The potential
candidates’ behavior is more probably going to be driven by weWOM than by
the popular reputation lists, since these lists are static (e.g., annual publishing),
only include a very small number of companies and are geographically limited
(Carmeli & Freund, 2002). Further, given the lower reliability ascribed by the
participants to recognition for human resource practices in comparison to
weWOM, companies should analyze whether these recognitions are adequate
to create or maintain their image as employers. Our results suggest that these
prizes should be supported and accompanied by positive weWOM to reinforce
their credibility.
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

The current study also contributes to organization reputation research, since up

to now research in this area had been conducted outside the Internet and
ignored the fact that people search for jobs and for information on firms on their
own initiative, and how they do it (i.e., using the Internet options). In fact, one
component of corporate reputation which highlights companies as good places
to work refers to attractiveness (Schwaiger, 2004). This is important because
reputation has shown to be associated with business performance (Roberts &
Dowling, 2002).

What should companies do about this new behavior of their employees/ex-

employees? Companies should manage this behavior, as they do with other
employee behaviors that they consider to be important to company activity. For
example, social media has caused the appearance of the position of
Community Manager in the field of marketing, so that the companies can be
aware of what is being said about them online and can act accordingly. In a
similar manner, the human resources area must also incorporate the Internet,
and more specifically, employer review websites, into its activities. Further, it
should be noted that many employer review websites allow companies to
provide information about themselves and their employment practices, as well
as respond to existing weWOM.

Thus, first, companies should generate relevant and attractive information about
the most common categories of weWOM (usually HR practices) and place that
information on the employer review websites. Second, just as the marketing

15
 field has documented that company interventions against negative WOM on
product review sites can generate positive WOM (Pantedilis, 2011), the same
could also be the case with respect to weWOM. For example, explaining the
reason for certain criticisms and the solutions implemented to overcome them
can transmit an image of a company that pays attention to the opinions of their
employees and takes actions accordingly. Third, if weWOM is positive it can be
showed to employees in order to create a positive constructed external image,
which may influence their identification with the organization, and to improve
their sense of belonging. If weWOM is negative it may represent an opportunity
for companies to understand and improve their HR practices, as well as to show
that they care about the welfare of their staff.
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

7 Limitations and suggestions for future research

Our results and comments are based on an experiment that imposes some
limitations regarding its generalization to real life. The only variable we have
worked on is the valence of weWOM, and not others that, in a real context, can
influence the behavior of people (i.e., the time that a person has been looking
for a job or other economic needs). Additionally, our sample is a convenience
one and is quite homogeneous in relation to the qualification of the participants
(most of them had a University degree, and only a few were little qualified).

Furthermore, it would be good to assess these results with another sample to

analyze weWOM’s consequences and compare it to internal aspects of
companies, such as work environment or organizational climate. Following this
thought process, the relationship between weWOM and human resource
management can be examined. This is important, since HR managers may be
reluctant to admit weWOM’s credibility due to their unfamiliarity with this kind of
information.

References
Backhaus, K., Stone, B., and Heiner, K. (2002), “Exploring the relationship
between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness”,
Business and Society, Vol. 41 No.3, pp. 292-318.

16
 Baltar, F. and Brunet, I. (2012), “Social research 2.0: virtual snowball
sampling method using Facebook”, Internet Research, Vol. 22 No.1, pp. 57-
74.

Bergkvist, L. and Rossiter, J. R. (2007), “The predictive validity of multiple-

item versus single-item measures of the same constructs”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol 44 No. 2, pp. 175–184.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., and Glynn, M.A. (1995), “Understanding the
bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum
members”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No.4, pp. 46-57.

Buonocore, F. (2010), “Contingent work in the hospitality industry: A

Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

mediating model of organizational attitudes”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31

No.3, pp. 378-385.

Cable, D. M. and Turban, D. B. (2001), “Establishing the dimensions,

sources, and value of job seekers' employer knowledge during recruitment”,
Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 20, pp.
115-164.

Cable, D.M. and Yu, K. (2006), “Managing job seekers’ organizational image
beliefs: the role of media richness and media credibility”, The Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol 91 No. 4, pp. 828-840.

Carmeli, A. and Freund, A. (2002), “The Relationship between Work and

Workplace Attitudes and Perceived External Prestige”, Corporate Reputation
Review, Vol. 5 No.1, pp. 51-68.

Dellarocas, C. (2003), “The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and

challenges of online feedback mechanisms”, Management Science, Vol 49
No. 10, pp. 1407–1424.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., and Harquail, C. V. (1994), “Organizational

images and member identification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.
39 No. 2, pp. 239–263.

17
 Ferris, G., Perrewe, P., Ranft, A., Zinko, R., Stoner, J., and Brouer, R.,
(2007), “Human resources reputation and effectiveness”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 117–130.

Foreman, P. and Whetten, D. A. (2002), “Members’ identification with

multiple identity organizations”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp.
618–635.

Fuchs, C. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2009), “Using single-item measures for

construct measurement in management research”, Business Administration
Review, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 195–210.

Gatewood, R. D., Gowan, M. A., and Lautenschlager, G. J. (1993),

Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

“Corporate image, recruitment image and initial job choice decisions”,

Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 414-427.

Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S. Srivastava, S., and John, O.P. (2004), “Should we
trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions
about internet questionnaires”, American Psychologist, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 93-
104.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement”,

American Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-178.

Gupta, P. and Harris, J. (2010), “How e-WOM recommendations influence

product consideration and quality of choice: A motivation to process
information perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 9, pp.
1041-1049.

Hannon, J. and Milkovich, G. (1996), “The effect of human resource

reputation signals on share prices: An event study”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 405–424.

Highhouse, S., Brooks, M. E., and Gregarus, G. (2009), “An organizational

impression management perspective on the formation of corporate
reputations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1481–1493.

18
 Hunt, S.D., van Wood, R., and Chonko, L.B. (1989), “Corporate ethical
values and organizational commitment in marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 53 No. 3, pp., 79-90.

James, L. R. (1982), “Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual

agreement”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 219–229.

Johnson, T. J. and Kaye, B. K. (2002), “Webelievability: A path model

examining how convenience and reliance predict online credibility”,
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 619–642.

Joo, B. and McLean, G. N. (2006), “Best employer studies: A conceptual

model from a literature review and a case study”, Human Resource
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

Development Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 228-257.

Kanar, A. M., Collins, C. J., and Bell, B. S. (2008), “How does unfavorable
information impact job seekers’ organizational attraction?” (CAHRS Working
Paper #08-10), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor
Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, available at:
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/487 (accessed 16 March
2013).

Keeling, K. A., McGoldrick, P. J., and Sadhu, H. (2013), “Staff Word-of-

Mouth (SWOM) and retail employee recruitment”, Journal of Retailing, Vol.
89 No. 1, pp. 88-104.

Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., and Muller, K. E. (2007), Applied

Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. Duxbury Press,
Pacific Grove, CA.

Kozlowski, S. W. J. and Hattrup K. (1992), “A disagreement about within-

group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 161-167.

Lee, J., Park, D. H., and Han, I. (2011), “The different effects of online
consumer reviews on consumers' purchase intentions depending on trust in
online shopping malls: An advertising perspective”, Internet Research, Vol,
21 No. 2, pp. 187-206.

19
 Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G., and Anseel, F. (2007), “Organizational Identity
and Employer Image: Towards a Unifying Framework”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 45-59.

Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the
antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 171-194.

Morales-Vallejo, P. (2008), Estadística aplicada a las ciencias sociales.

Universidad Pontificia de Comillas. Madrid.

Nakamura, A. O., Shaw, K. L., Freeman, R. B., Nakamura, E., and Pyman,
A. (2009), “Jobs on line”, in Autor, D.H. (Ed.), Studies of labor market
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

intermediation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 27–65.

Pantedilis, I. (2010), “Electronic Meal Experience: A Content Analysis of

Online Restaurant Comments”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 4,
pp. 483-491.

Pettit, F. A. (2002), “A comparison of World-Wide Web and paper-and pencil

personality questionnaires”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 50–54.

Roberts, P. W. and Dowling, G. R. (2002), “Corporate reputation and

sustained superior financial performance”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1077-1094.

Rynes, S.L. (1989), Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A

call for new research directions (CAHRS Working Paper #89-07), Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for
Advanced Human Resource Studies, available at:
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/398 (accessed 3 February
2012).

Schwaiger, M. (2004), “Components and parameters of corporate reputation

– an empirical study”, Schmalenbach Business Review, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp.
46 – 71.

20
 Sigala, M. and Marinidis, D. (2009), “Exploring the transformation of tourism
firms’ operations and business models through the use of web map
services”, paper presented at the European and Mediterranean Conference
on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS 2009), July 13-14, Crowne Plaza
Hotel, Izmir.

Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. H., and Van Riel, C. B. M. (2001), “The impact of
employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational
identification”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 1051–
1062.

Spence, A. (1973), “Job market signaling”, Quarterly Journal of Economics,

Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 355–379.

Stern, B., Zinkhan, G.M., and Jaju, A. (2001), “Marketing Images: Construct
Definition, Measurement Issues, and Theory Development”, Marketing
Theory, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 201-224

Stevenson, B. (2009), “The Internet and Job Search”, in David, H (Ed.),

Studies of Labor Market Intermediation, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, pp. 67-86.

Šverko, B., Galić, Z., Seršić, D. M., and Galešić, M. (2008), “Unemployed
people in search of a job: Reconsidering the role of search behavior”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 415-428.

Tan, T., Zhang, Y., and Kankanhalli, A. (2014), “How online social networks
affect my job choice intention: an empirical approach”, paper presented at
the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems 2014 (PACIS 2014),
June 24-28, Chengdu, China, available at: http://www.pacis-
net.org/file/2014/1874.pdf (accessed 01 December 2013)

Taylor, M. and Bergman, T. (1987), “Organizational recruitment activities

and applicants reactions at different stages of the recruitment process”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 261-285.

Tarique, I., and Schuler, R. S. (2010), “Global talent management: Literature

review, integrative framework and suggestion for future research”, Journal of
World Business, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 122-133.

21
 Turban, D. B., and Cable D. M. (2003), “Firm reputation and applicant pool
characteristics”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 733-
751.

Van Birgelen, M. J., Wetzels, M. G., and Van Dolen, W. M. (2008),

“Effectiveness of corporate employment web sites: How content and form
influence intentions to apply”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 29 No.
8, pp. 731-751.

Van Hoye, G. (2012), “Recruitment sources and organizational attraction: A

field study of Belgian nurses”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 3, pp. 376-391.
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

Van Hoye, G. and Lievens, F. (2007), “Investigating web-based recruitment

sources: Employee testimonials versus word-of-mouse”, International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 372-382.

Van Hoye, G. and Lievens, F. (2009), “Tapping the Grapevine: A Closer

Look at Word-of-Mouth as a Recruitment Source”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 341-652.

Vandenberghe, C. (2009), “Organizational commitments”, in Klein, H.

Becker, T.E. and Meyer, J.P. (Eds.), Commitment in organizations:
Accumulated wisdom and new directions, Routledge, New York, pp. 99–135.

Author Biographies:

Santiago Melián-González is an associate professor at the University of

Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, in the Canary Islands, in Spain. His research
interest is focused on human resources, social media, and information
technologies and more specifically in the areas of tourism and public
administration. He has published several papers in the previous topics.

Jacques Bulchand-Gidumal is an associate professor at the University of

Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, in the Canary Islands, in Spain. His research
interests include information technologies, social media, and

22
 entrepreneurship. He is focused in the tourism sector and in the start-up
sector. He has published several papers in the previous topics.
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

23
 Table 1. Questions and scales used
QUESTION
1. From the information in the previous figure, overall,
to what degree do you think this company is a good
place to work?
2. If you were looking for a job and the rated firm was
seeking candidates for a job in which you feel you
would fit, how interested would you be in sending
your résumé?
3. Would you recommend this company to people you
know, as a place to work?
4. Suppose you are working for a firm and you are
satisfied with your job, what minimum wage
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)
increment would you demand to accept an offer from
the firm displayed above for a job similar to the one
you are supposedly doing now?
5. If you worked for this company and knew that this
information is published on the Internet, overall, how
do you think it would affect you?
6. Overall, what picture do you think people who have
read the review formed about this company?
7. What do you think gives more reliable information on
the behavior of a company as an employer—the
opinions of employees and ex-employees or the
recognition awarded for their human resource
practices?
Source: Own elaboration
ANSWER SCALE
Scale from 1 to 5, where 1 was “None” and 5
was “Very high”
Scale from 1 to 5, where 1 was “I would not
send it” and 5 “I would be very interested in
sending it”
Scale from 1 to 5, where 1 was “Never” and
5 was “Yes I would”
The scale ranged from 1 to 14. 1 represented
“Any increment”, 2 corresponded to “10%
increment” and then it went up to 14 that
meant “more than 70%” in 5% increments for
each level.
Scale from 1 to 5, where 1 was “It would very
negatively affect my pride in being a part of
this firm” and 5 was “It would very positively
affect my pride in being a part of this firm”
Scale from 1 to 5, where 1 was “Very
negative” and 5 was “Very positive”
Scale from 1 to 5, where 1 was “The opinions
of employees and ex-employees” and 5 was
“The recognition awarded for their human
resource practices”
 Table 2. Correlations and variance inflation factor

Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) VIF

1. HR image 0.65** 0.68** -0.43** 0.67** 0.73** 0.06 2.78
2. Intention to apply 0.67** -0.45** 0.53** 0.67** 0.06 2.27
3. Recommendations -0.44** 0.56** 0.66** 0.04 2.16
4. Compensation -0.30** -0.42** -0.02 1.32
demands
5. Pride of being part 0.69** 0.12 2.17
6. External 0.14* 2.78
constructed image
7. weWOM’s credibility 1.03

Levels of significance: *p < .05, **p < .01

Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)
 Table 3. Statistics of the three groups of participants

Groups Mean Standard Tukey HSD

deviation
HR image 1. weWOM + 3.89 0.831 1-2; p=0.000
2. weWOM +/- 3.00 0.585 1-3; p=0.000
3. weWOM - 2.00 0.712 2-3; p=0.000
Interesting in sending the 1. weWOM + 4.40 0.790 1-2; p=0.000
résumé
2. weWOM +/- 3.36 1.099 1-3; p=0.000
3. weWOM - 2.68 1.134 2-3; p=0.000
Recommendation of the 1. weWOM + 4.29 0.737 1-2; p=0.000
company
2. weWOM +/- 3.66 0.940 1-3; p=0.000
3. weWOM - 2.74 1.204 2-3; p=0.000
Downloaded by University of York At 02:57 09 June 2016 (PT)

Required salary increase 1. weWOM + 7.45 4.168 1-2; p=0.002

2. weWOM +/- 9.79 4.265 1-3; p=0.000
3. weWOM - 11.86 4.644 2-3; p=0.001
Pride of belonging 1. weWOM + 3.75 0.785 1-2; p=0.000
2. weWOM +/- 3.08 0.739 1-3; p=0.000
3. weWOM - 2.24 0.728 2-3; p=0.000
External constructed image 1. weWOM + 4.21 0.832 1-2; p=0.000
2. weWOM +/- 3.08 0.839 1-3; p=0.000
3. weWOM - 2.03 0.938 2-3; p=0.000
weWOM reliability 1. weWOM + 2.25 0.932 1-2; p=0.967
2. weWOM +/- 2.29 0.998 1-3; p=0.384
3. weWOM - 2.04 0.939 2-3; p=0.278