CASE CHAPTER 12: QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS: HYPOTHESIS TESTING

PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL ATTRACTIVENESS

INTRODUCTION

When Song Mei Hui moved from being Vice President for Human Resources at Pierce & Pierce in
Shanghai to her international assignment in New York, she was struck by the difference in
perception of Pierce & Pierce as an employer in China and the United States. Pierce & Pierce in China
stands for an attractive and popular place to work, as opposed to its image as an employer in the
United States, which was one of an unattractive, traditional, and uninspiring place of work. This
difference in perception was bothering Song Mei Hui, because a strong and appealing ‘employer
brand’ has the capacity to attract (and retain) talent as denoted by the number of university
graduates aspiring to work for companies such as SAS, Google, Cisco, and the Boston Consulting
Group.

According to Song Mei Hui, the drivers of employer attractiveness have evolved into a complex and
challenging set in this day and age. Even though she believes that the success of the organization
itself is at the cornerstone of being an attractive employer (and Pierce & Pierce is flourishing
indeed), she feels that a wide variety of factors contribute to being successful in attracting and
retaining talent. “For many employees, being a part of a profitable, thriving corporation is a reward
on its own,” she says. “However, this is obviously not enough. Opportunities for empowerment, a
feeling of achievement, a substantial compensation package, and a culture of grooming and
development also play a major role in the decision making process of today’s young professionals.
Job candidates are looking for a career, and not just for a job.”

Song Mei Hui has hired a graduate student in management, Timothy Brice, to develop and test a
model of employer attraction. The results of Timothy’s study should help Pierce & Pierce to become
more popular as an employer in the United States and hence to attract and retain talented young
professionals.

Timothy has conducted a literature review and in-depth interviews with graduate students and
young professionals who have just started their careers in order to establish the drivers of employer
attractiveness. Based on the results of the literature review and the qualitative study, he has
developed the following model.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

Figure 1: A conceptual model of employer attraction

EMPLOYER BRAND IMAGE

Instrumental attributes:
- Workplace atmosphere
- Job opportunities
- Industry characteristics Employer
attraction
Symbolic attributes:
- Excitement
- Sincerity
- Prestige

Subjective norms

From this model, Timothy has derived the following hypotheses.

The effect of Brand Image on Employer attraction

Employer brand image can be defined as the potential applicants’ perceptions of instrumental and
symbolic attributes of an organization (cf. Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Lievens and Highhouse, 2003;
Lievens, 2007; Martin, Beaumont, Doig and Pate, 2005). The instrumental dimension includes
tangible attributes related to the job and/or the organization such as ‘job opportunities’, whereas
the symbolic dimension includes (the perception of) intangible attributes of an employer (as if it
were a person) such as ‘sincerity’ and ‘being exciting’. Both instrumental and symbolic attributes
have been found to affect applicant attraction to an employer (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Cable and
Turban, 2001; Turban and Greening, 1997). Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1a: The more positive the perception of instrumental attributes of an employer, the stronger
applicant attraction to the organization.
H1b: The more positive the perception of symbolic attributes of an employer, the stronger applicant
attraction to the organization.
Feelings of significant others.
If significant others in someone‘s surrounding (e.g., family and friends) tell this person that a
company is a much better employer than other employers, someone’s level of attraction to that
particular organization will grow. It is generally recognized that potential applicants often consult
other people (e.g., family, friends, and/or acquaintances) about jobs and organizations (e.g., Van
Hoye and Lievens, 2007)”. What’s more, Turban (2001) found that university personnel’s beliefs
about organizations affect students’ attraction to that organization. Kilduff (1990) also found that in
the early stages of job search, college students are heavily influenced by the beliefs of their friends
and classmates. These findings all point at the relevance of social influences to potential applicants
in influencing the level of employer attraction. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: The more positive significant others are about an organization, the stronger applicant attraction
to the organization.

To test these hypotheses, Timothy has undertaken a quantitative field study. He has collected data
using a questionnaire measuring the variables in his model and a couple of respondent
characteristics such as age, gender, and level of education with closed-ended questions. The results
of this study are provided next.

RESULTS
Table 1 provides the means and standard deviations of the variables of interest to this study and the
results of a multiple regression analysis that was conducted to test the hypotheses of this study.

Table 1 Summary statistics and results of the regression analysis

Adjusted R2 df F M SD B SE t p

Regression .365 7, 89 7.304 - - - - - .000a

Constant - - 2.213 .522 4.238 .000
Instrumental attributes
Workplace atmosphere 4.32 .75 .088 .152 .577 .565
Job opportunities 4.73 .75 .390 .136 2.868 .005
Industry characteristics 4.24 .74 .275 .186 1.473 .144
Symbolic attributes
Excitement 3.78 .91 .071 .149 .474 .637
Sincerity 5.13 .80 .109 .137 .794 .429
Prestige 4.05 .81 .146 .115 1.268 .208
Subjective norm 4.98 1.13 .317 .100 3.169 .002
Employer attraction 3.71 1.23 - - - -
Note. df = degrees of freedom; F = F-statistic; M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; B = Unstandardized beta coefficient; SE =
standard error; t = t-statistic; p = significance level; Scale 1-7 a. Predictors: (Constant), Workplace atmosphere, Job
opportunities, Industry characteristics, Excitement, Sincerity, Prestige, Subjective norm.
b. Dependent Variable: Employer Attraction.
N= 197 (88 men and 109 women).
QUESTIONS
1. a. Discuss the following statement: “One of the most important issues in regression
analysis concerns model specification (the determination of which independent variables
should be included in or excluded from a regression equation).”
b. Do you like Timothy’s model? Is it, for example, in line with Song Mei Hui’s ideas?
2. What’s the difference between simple regression analysis and multiple regression analysis?
3. Why can’t Timothy run a series of simple regressions (for instance three or seven) to test
the hypotheses of his study?
4. Provide the equation of Timothy’s model.
5. Interpret the results of the regression analysis. Discuss:
a. the model fit;
b. the significance of the model;
c. the constant;
d. the statistical validity of the beta coefficients;
e. the face validity of the results.
6. A common problem encountered in regression analysis is multicollinearity.
a. What is multicollinearity and how does it affect the estimates of the regression
coefficients?
b. Describe two ways to test for multicollinearity. Which one do you prefer?
c. Suppose that multicollinearity is a problem in this study. What can Timothy do about it?
d. Do you expect that multicollinearity is a problem in this study? Explain.
7. Timothy suggests that Pierce & Pierce should create more exciting jobs to attract more
employees since the mean of the independent variable “excitement” is relatively low. Do
you agree?
8. What managerial conclusions can you draw based on the results of the regression analysis?
9. Song Mei Hui believes that the gender of potential employees may affect the original
relationship between prestige and employer attraction. She asks Timothy to test this idea.
a. How can Timothy test this idea?
b. Provide a new equation of the model: include Song’s ideas about the moderating effect
of gender on the relationship between prestige and employer attraction.
10. Discuss the following statement: “Regression analysis does not address the issue of
causality.”
REFERENCES

Backhaus, K. and S. Tikoo (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career
Development International, Vol. 9 (5), 501-517.
Cable, D.M. and D.B. Turban (2001). Establishing the Dimensions, Sources and Value of Job
Seekers’ Employer Knowledge During Recruitment. Research in personnel and human resources
management, Vol. 20, 115-163.
Kilduff, M. (1990). The interpersonal structure of decision making: A social comparison approach
to organizational choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 47 (2),
270-288.
Lievens, F. (2007). Employer Branding in the Belgian Army: The Importance of Instrumental and
Symbolic Beliefs for Potential Applicants, Actual Applicants, and Military Employees. Human
Resource Management, Vol. 46 (1), 51-69.
Lievens, F. and S. Highhouse (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a
company’s attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56, 75-102.
Martin, G., P. Beaumont, R. Doig and J. Pate (2005). Branding: A New Performance Discourse for
HR? European Management Journal, Vol. 23 (1), 76-88.
Turban, D.B. (2001). Organizational Attractiveness as an Employer on College Campuses: An
Examination of the Applicant Population. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58 (2), 293-312.
Turban, D.B. and D.W. Greening (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational
attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 (3), 658-
672.
Van Hoye, G. and F. Lievens (2007). Social Influences on Organizational Attractiveness:
Investigating If and When Word of Mouth Matters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37
(9), 2024-2047.