Examining how preferences for employer branding attributes differ from entry to exit and how they relate to commitment, satisfaction, and retention Jack K. Ito Faculty of Business Administration, University of Regina, Regina, Canada Céleste M. Brotheridge ESG-UQAM, Montreal, Canada, and Kathie McFarland Ministry of Parks, Government of Saskatchewan, Culture and Sport, Regina, Canada Abstract Purpose – The aim of this paper is to address three broad questions: Are preferences for branding attributes similar for entry and for retention? Are there generational and career stage differences in one’s entry and exit priorities? How is current satisfaction with brand image attributes related to overall commitment, satisfaction and retention? Design/methodology/approach – This paper reports on the results of a survey of 144 workers employed at 37 day care centers in a medium sized Canadian city. Findings – Although the level of respondents’ priorities for entry and exit differed, most priorities remained in the same order. However, their perspectives were more disaggregated for entry than for exit, where branding attributes were more strongly correlated. Consistent with the exploration stage of career development, younger people planned to stay a shorter length of time with a particular center. Research limitations/implications – This study includes only child care workers in a small geographic region. Future research should be undertaken in larger scale firms that also offer greater heterogeneity in professions as well as career options. Also, a longitudinal study that follows new entrants for several years, using both instrumental and symbolic measures, would provide information on what attracted individuals and what influenced their intention to leave. Practical implications – Although there were few differences by age or career stage, the variation within each factor suggests that a brand image may need to be relatively broad to accommodate diversity. HR practitioners can use the practice symbolic pattern to build and maintain a culture that is attractive to present and prospective employees. The opposite symbolic practice pattern may help current employees understand reasons for new practices. Originality/value – Organizations face significant challenges in designing programs for recruitment and retention. This study considers how employees’ to two questions – “why do people enter the organization” and “why do people remain?” – may differ. Keywords Employee turnover, Human resource management, Recruitment, Age groups Paper type Research paper The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm CDI 18,7 732 Received 28 May 2013 Revised 29 September 2013 Accepted 3 October 2013 Career Development International Vol. 18 No. 7, 2013 pp. 732-752 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1362-0436 DOI 10.1108/CDI-05-2013-0067 Human resource management has adopted the marketing con ...

1. Examining how preferences for
employer branding attributes
differ from entry to exit and how
they relate to commitment,
satisfaction, and retention
Jack K. Ito
Faculty of Business Administration, University of Regina,
Regina, Canada
Céleste M. Brotheridge
ESG-UQAM, Montreal, Canada, and
Kathie McFarland
Ministry of Parks, Government of Saskatchewan, Culture and
Sport,
Regina, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to address three broad
questions: Are preferences for branding
attributes similar for entry and for retention? Are there
generational and career stage differences in
one’s entry and exit priorities? How is current satisfaction with
brand image attributes related to
overall commitment, satisfaction and retention?
Design/methodology/approach – This paper reports on the
results of a survey of 144 workers

2. employed at 37 day care centers in a medium sized Canadian
city.
Findings – Although the level of respondents’ priorities for
entry and exit differed, most priorities
remained in the same order. However, their perspectives were
more disaggregated for entry than
for exit, where branding attributes were more strongly
correlated. Consistent with the exploration
stage of career development, younger people planned to stay a
shorter length of time with a
particular center.
Research limitations/implications – This study includes only
child care workers in a
small geographic region. Future research should be undertaken
in larger scale firms that also
offer greater heterogeneity in professions as well as career
options. Also, a longitudinal
study that follows new entrants for several years, using both
instrumental and symbolic
measures, would provide information on what attracted
individuals and what influenced their
intention to leave.
Practical implications – Although there were few differences by
age or career stage, the variation
within each factor suggests that a brand image may need to be
relatively broad to accommodate
diversity. HR practitioners can use the practice symbolic pattern
to build and maintain a culture that is
attractive to present and prospective employees. The opposite
symbolic practice pattern may help
current employees understand reasons for new practices.
Originality/value – Organizations face significant challenges in

3. designing programs for
recruitment and retention. This study considers how employees’
to two questions – “why do
people enter the organization” and “why do people remain?” –
may differ.
Keywords Employee turnover, Human resource management,
Recruitment, Age groups
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm
CDI
18,7
732
Received 28 May 2013
Revised 29 September 2013
Accepted 3 October 2013
Career Development International
Vol. 18 No. 7, 2013
pp. 732-752
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1362-0436
DOI 10.1108/CDI-05-2013-0067
Human resource management has adopted the marketing concept
of brand

4. management using such terminology as employer branding to
better recognize what
has long been understood: the attractiveness of an organization
is an important factor
in recruiting and retaining employees (Edwards, 2010). A
favorable image, for example
being granted a Best Employer award, helps to expand the
applicant pool and enhance
selectivity in meeting workforce requirements (Bowes, 2008;
Love and Singh, 2011).
The brand image literature classifies product/service attributes
into instrumental
(what the product does) and symbolic (what it implies, such as
status) categories. In
employment branding, the instrumental/organizational
component (hereafter referred
to as instrumental) includes human resource management
systems and policies (e.g. job
security) and the symbolic component includes corporate
values, such as honesty and
fairness (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003). In concert with factors
such as product or
service characteristics and environmental responsibility,
employer brand image helps
to distinguish the organization from others (Bakhaus and Tikoo,
2004). Although
institutional imitation may result in common HRM practices
such as providing
opportunities and a team-based culture, employer brand image
nonetheless supports
other corporate attributes in competing in the labor market.
Brand-centered HRM practices form part of a psychological
contract that represents
what an organization offers in return for employees’
commitment and performance

5. (Edwards, 2010). This contract is dynamic as employee
preferences may change from
recruitment through career and life stages, including retirement
(Fisher and Fraser,
2010). For example, as investments in organizationally specific
knowledge increase,
extra-organizational mobility may decline, thereby increasing
the importance of job
security (Baron and Kreps, 1999). The employee’s perception of
brand image may also
evolve from one based on conveyed image at the attraction stage
(e.g. advertising and
word-of-mouth) to one rooted in personal experience (e.g. is the
workplace really family
friendly) with an attendant shift from generalities (e.g. espoused
managerial
philosophies) to more tailored experiences (e.g. supervisor –
staff relations). This
evolution over time is consistent with Lievens’ (2007) finding
that the perceived
attractiveness of service in the Belgian army differed between
potential candidates and
employees.
Thus, employer brand management is concerned with several
key issues, such as
understanding employees’ preferences at entry and how these
priorities may change as
they build their careers. On the other hand, organizations also
need to understand
employees’ perceptions and attributions of the employer side of
the psychological
contract in order to identify and address weaknesses in
recruitment and retention
strategies. This includes any changes that the organization
undertakes in meeting its

6. strategic objectives that may alter the contract, such as
enhancing innovation or
reducing costs.
Research questions
Although brand-centered HRM practices have been widely
studied (e.g. Meyer et al.,
2002), several areas have received scant attention. Accordingly,
this exploratory study,
undertaken in a sample of child care workers and their
managers, addresses three
broad questions. First, are preferences for branding attributes
similar for entry and
retention? In other words, do experience and career stage affect
what is valued (thus
influencing whether recruitment and retention messages need
tailoring)? Second, are
Employer
branding
attributes
733
there generational and career stage differences in one’s entry
and exit priorities? This
question is important since a brand image that appeals to
existing employees may not
appeal to prospective (and younger) employees. Finally, how is
current satisfaction
with brand image attributes related to overall commitment,
satisfaction, and retention?
And, are regression coefficients consistent with stated priorities
at entry and exit?

7. Although instrumental and symbolic factors have been related to
dependent variables
individually, few studies have combined these variables in a
single model. If the
priorities recalled on entry differ from regression coefficients
on retrospective
satisfaction, this may indicate that priorities change with
experience over time.
Similarly, we can determine whether current priorities on exit
accurately reflect their
anticipated influence in exit decision-making. The answers to
these questions may help
HR managers design and communicate effective branding
programs to prospective
and present employees.
Literature review
Employer branding, instrumental and symbolic factors
Employer branding (Heilmann, 2010) as a means of attracting
new employees and
retaining existing employees is gaining popularity, particularly
in employment
contexts where the unique talents and contributions of
employees represent a
distinctive competitive advantage for organizations. Some
branding attributes are
instrumental, subject to managerial control, and readily
communicated (e.g. pay
structure (salary versus commission) and developmental
opportunities(. However,
other attributes are more intangible in nature, ascribing human
traits to organizations
(Lievens and Highhouse, 2003). These symbolic attributes are
often expressed in
organizational culture terms, such as membership in a family
(denoting warmth and

8. support) and a cooperative, team based approach versus an
individualistic, competitive
one (Catanzaro et al., 2010).
Instrumental and symbolic factors share a reciprocal
relationship. First, the
instrumental ! symbolic linkage can be functional for example,
appraisal and
compensation systems incorporating group interdependence
(such as group based
incentive programs) may encourage teamwork and a “we” type
of atmosphere. Second,
this relationship may be based on attributions, “causal
explanations that employees
make regarding management’s motivations for using particular
HR practices” (Nishii
et al., 2008, p. 507). Nishii et al. argue that practices attributed
to an employee
well-being philosophy (versus exploitation) are linked to
positive (versus negative)
affect. Thus, having collaborative processes for layoffs are
likely to be linked to
symbolic factors such as fairness and honesty. Individuals may
interpret the presence
or absence of policies as symbolic; for example, shared group
rewards may symbolize
being part of a family. Attributions are subject to group
interpretation of specific
policies and actions, cultural attributes and expectations, and
testimonials or
word-of-mouth (Collins and Stevens, 2002). Moreover, since
values can be
heterogeneous by career level, interpretations can vary within
an organization or
between organizations (Rashid et al., 2004).

9. Also, HRM practices (Aggarwal and Bhargava, 2009) and the
brand image are part
of an employer’s side of the psychological contract from
recruitment through later
stages of employment. The fulfillment of the anticipatory
psychological contract (APC)
(Anderson and Thomas, 1996; De Vos et al., 2009) is a strong
predictor of later job
CDI
18,7
734
satisfaction and commitment. The downsizing literature is
replete with examples of
changes in organizational systems and procedures that violate
psychological contracts.
Thus, seemingly arbitrary organizational actions may influence
feelings regarding the
organization’s values (such as people versus profit) and
reliability (such as being
honest versus dishonest in forming psychological contracts).
The symbolic ! practice relationship also has multiple bases.
The values
embodied in a culture may serve as criteria against which
alternatives are assessed
or as a means of developing common ground for decision-
making. Thus, downsizing
programs that are consistent with a well-accepted organizational
culture are less
likely to break psychological contracts, and work units that
have established a

10. strong team-based organization are more likely accept a team-
based reward system
than an individualistic one. Alternatively, practices such as
changes in incentive
plans may be introduced to encourage changes in behavior such
as increased
innovation or growth.
Employer branding and recruitment/retention
Researchers have associated HRM variables with satisfaction,
commitment and
retention as a means of examining how people choose
employers (Martin et al., 2006).
The factors for recruitment effectiveness cited by Williamson et
al. (2002) and Lievens
and Highhouse (2003) are similar to those used in studies of job
satisfaction,
commitment, and turnover (Meyer et al., 2002). The present
study considers six factors
that are common to recruiting/retention studies and studies of
brand image (Lievens
and Highhouse, 2003; Williamson et al., 2002).
The first instrumental factor, pay, includes one’s absolute pay
level and pay level
relative to others employed by organizations in the same or
other industries. The
second factor is flexibility in one’s work schedule and its fit
with one’s lifestyle
(including leisure). This issue has emerged in importance, not
only for younger
generations in which lifestyle is a major value, but also
Boomers, for whom flexibility
is important for meeting family obligations, including eldercare
(Crumpacker and
Crumpacker, 2007). The third factor includes job security,

11. policies for keeping, or
laying off employees, and the nature of the retirement package.
Security, which is
considered to be especially important for the Boomer
generation, remains important for
many individuals. The fourth factor, development, refers to
opportunities to learn and
use knowledge, skills and abilities and to work in occupations
for which the individual
has training. This factor relates to employability, as well as the
competence motive in
exercising knowledge and skills. The fifth factor is the prospect
for promotion. The
final factor, a multifaceted symbolic factor entitled values,
represents an employer’s
orientation toward employees (with an emphasis placed on
achievement, honesty, and
fairness of decisions, and the opportunity to be part of a team
and included in making
changes).
HRM practices facilitate the attainment of goals, which leads to
rewards such as
higher social status, which, in turn, is related to satisfaction,
commitment and lower
turnover. Expectations about resources to meet goals play an
important role in
recruiting. For example, De Vos et al. (2009) found that career-
related antecedents
(e.g. expecting to have only a few employers over one’s career)
influenced expectations
about employer obligations such as providing interesting work.
This goal oriented
approach is consistent with the notion of employability in which
individuals seek

12. Employer
branding
attributes
735
development opportunities in current and future employment
with other organizations.
Also, employer branding helps prospective and current
employees assess the fit
between instrumental and symbolic attributes and their own
values (Edwards, 2010).
For example, Catanzano et al. (2010) found that women were
more likely than men to
pursue positions in organizations that were more supportive.
Similarly, Trank et al.
(2002) found that high achievers preferred more challenging
jobs and rapid promotion
than did low achievers. Moreover, high social achievers
indicated a strong initial
commitment to an organization, as well as a tendency to leave if
their expectations
were not met.
Consistent with the instrumental – symbolic model, Nishii et al.
(2008) tested a model
in which HRM practices influenced employee attributions,
which, in turn, predicted
levels of commitment and satisfaction. Although the mediating
effect was supported in
their study, other studies that related HRM practices directly to
variables such as
commitment, satisfaction, and turnover have also shown
significant relationships

13. (Frincke et al., 2007). This suggests that models that
incorporate both direct and
indirect effects are likely to be more instructive than more
limited models.
Differences in priorities
From entry to exit: Individuals’ valuation of attributes may
change with continued
employment and as attributes, such as the need for training,
emerge. In their study of
the nursing system in rural Australia, Fisher and Fraser (2010)
found that
organizational challenges shifted as employees moved through
the system and were
faced with changing options. Attracting and maintaining
employees in rural areas
included encouraging rural young people to consider nursing as
a career choice
(previews), consider attachment to place (selection into
schools), take up rural practice
(acceptance of job offer, infrastructure of support and
integration into communities),
and remain in their jobs (developmental opportunities). While
addressing the
Australian context, the approach may apply to a number of
professions as careers
develop.
By age: Generational differences have influenced recruitment
and retention over
time. Common generational ranges are as follows: Baby
Boomers (1946 – 1964),
Generation X (1965 – 1979) and Generation Y (1980 – 1999).
Younger generations (X
and Y) are said to seek flexibility in work hours and a work-life
pattern that addresses

14. their concerns for a life beyond work (versus the “work takes
precedence” attitude of
Boomers; Dodd et al., 2009). They are also said to be less
concerned about job security
as are the Boomers, preferring instead a boundaryless career
focused on employability.
However, empirical evidence in this regard is mixed. For
example, King (2003) found
that security in a traditional career may be attractive even for
those with mobility
aspirations. Also, Hewlett et al. (2009) found that 45 percent of
Generation Y employees
expected to work with their current employer for the remainder
of their work lives. It
may be that, as employees age, their family and other
obligations and knowledge
investments may increase how much they value job security.
Also, certain trends may
be reducing the differences between generations. For example,
as members of the
sandwich generation, Boomers may seek flexibility in order to
meet family obligations
(Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007). Finally, as organizations
and individuals
increasingly look toward employability as security, expectations
for training and
development, including enriching experiences, are likely to
grow for all employees.
CDI
18,7
736

15. Between managers and staff: Career expectations and job
experiences may play a
role in entry and exit decisions. Relevant factors may include
the importance placed on
professional practice versus promotion to managerial positions,
careers within a single
functional area versus many areas, the desire for single versus
multiple employers, and
the need to balance work and non-work activities. However,
differences in priorities
could be confounded with age, since age is related to career
status, with a lower
percentage of Generation Y members being managers than
Generation X or Boomers.
The manager-employee dichotomy considered in this study is
simply a starting point
for assessing the question of how careers influence priorities for
brand image
characteristics. One’s career stage may also influence how
employees decide to join or
leave an organization.
In summary, organizations face significant challenges in
designing programs for
recruitment and retention. On the one hand, their brand image
can be based on policies
and practices that have broad appeal to existing employees. This
responds to the
question, “Why do people remain?” However, the question,
“Why do people enter the
organization?” may have different answers or, in this study,
different priorities. This
may be influenced by career stage or generational differences.
Method
Sample

16. As a result of interviews and a focus group session with seven
child care center
directors, an employee questionnaire was developed and
distributed to 291 employees
in 37 child care centers in a medium sized Canadian city in
2003. Although 198
employees responded to the questionnaire (for a response rate of
68 percent), to control
for the nature of the work, only the responses of those who
reported that they were
management (Director, Assistant Directors, or Supervisors) or
Early Childhood
Educators were included in the analyses. This reduced the size
of the sample to 166.
Using the birth ranges indicated previously, in 2003, those 19 to
24 years old were
classified as Generation Y, those 25 to 39 years old as
Generation X and those 40 to 55
years old as Boomers. Since the average retirement age for
Canadians was reported to
be 62, and the “expected stay” measure had an upper limit of
five years or more, those
included in the Boomer category had a maximum age of 55, thus
eliminating four
respondents. As well, the responses of 12 individuals who
expected to be promoted
within the organization were removed, given that this study was
concerned with
people leaving the organization. As a result, the final sample
included 144 respondents.
Measures
Figure 1 presents the items used to measure recruitment and
retention. The three items
used to measure satisfaction with pay were found in Williamson
et al. (2002), Cable and

17. Judge (1994) and Aiman-Smith et al. (2001). Flexibility was
measured by three items
(Feldman and Arnold, 1978; cited in Williamson et al., 2002)
and Williamson et al.
(2002). Security was composed of three items: job security (
Jurgenson, 1978; Bundy and
Norris, 1992); layoff policies (Aiman-Smith et al., 2001); and
the retirement package
(Williamson et al., 2002). Developmental opportunities
concerned developing and using
knowledge and skills in chosen occupations and professions
(Feldman and Arnold,
1978; Rowe, 1976; cited in Williamson et al., 2002). The two
items measuring promotion
were from Jurgenson (1978) and Bundy and Norris (1992) in
Williamson et al. (2002)
Employer
branding
attributes
737
and Aiman-Smith et al. (2001). Williamson et al. (2002) was the
primary reference for
the five people factors (example: emphasis placed on
achievement). Their literature
review on person-job fit suggested three of these items, and two
items were from Judge
and Bretz (1992; cited in Williamson et al., 2002). The
Cronbach alpha reliability scores
for all these variables (six variables, three time periods) were
above 0.70, except for
security (current; a ¼ 0.63); the range for the others was 0.74 to

18. 0.95, with mean of 0.84.
For all scales, the few missing data were replaced by the mean
score for the item (item
by item replacement) for all multiple item variables.
Affective commitment was measured by four items (Meyer and
Allen, 1997;
a ¼ 0.85). Retrospective satisfaction was measured by three
items (e.g. If you could
look back . . . how likely is it you would . . . Apply for this
job?) from Williamson et al.
(2002; a ¼ 0.95). One’s intention to search for another job was
measured by three items
(Fried et al., 1996; Hackman and Oldham, 1980; a ¼ 0.79).
Employees’ expectation that
they will stay in their current job was measured by a single
item: “How long do you
believe you will stay with your present position?” Response
choices were: “less than
Figure 1.
Items used to measure
recruitment and retention
factors
CDI
18,7
738
two months, less than six months, less than one year, less than
two years, less than five
years, and more than five years.” This scale was used after
consulting the work by

19. Cohen (1993) and Cotton and Tuttle (1986).
Results and discussion
Method
Confirmatory factor analyses were used to assess the items-
variable fit (AMOS 4;
Arbuckle and Wothke, 1999). The items were the indicators of
the latent variables, the
latent variables were associated with each another, and error
terms among items were
left uncorrelated. A total of four separate analyses were
conducted: entry, exit, current
state on brand image factors and the current state with affective
commitment,
retrospective satisfaction, and the intention to search. Results
showed that the data had a
good fit with the models, and common methods variance, while
statistically significant,
played a minor role. (A description of the results can be
obtained from the authors.)
Differences in priorities
From entry to exit: Shifts in priorities over time were explored
in several ways. First,
we grouped the attributes in order of importance, using the
criterion of significant
differences between groups and non-significant differences
within groups (Table I).
Since no predictions for priority or direction of change were
made, the two-tailed level
of significance was used. For entry, the six factors reduced to
four groups in order of
priority:
(1) development;

20. (2) values;
(3) flexibility and security; and
(4) promotions and pay.
However, for exit, there were only two groups:
(1) development and values; and
(2) pay, flexibility, and promotion.
Entry Exit
Absolute
difference Correlation
Mean SD Mean SD Difference exit-entry Mean SD Entry-exit
Pay 3.29 1.01 3.64 1.04 0.35 * * * 0.96 0.91 0.23 * * *
Flexibility 3.64 0.98 3.69 1.23 0.05 0.81 0.91 0.43 * * *
Security 3.54 1.01 3.78 1.10 0.24 * 0.84 0.95 0.31 * * *
Development 4.28 0.75 3.92 1.15 20.36 * * * 0.72 0.99 0.30 * *
*
Promotion 3.20 1.11 3.48 1.20 0.28 * * 0.83 0.97 0.42 * * *
Values 4.12 0.85 3.91 1.05 20.21 * 0.73 0.96 0.23 * *
Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001. Priorities in order
of importance: Entry: (1)
Development; (2) Values; (3) Flexibility, Security; (4)
Promotion, Pay. Exit: (1) Development, Values;
(1-2) Security; (2) Flexibility, Pay, Promotion. Significant

21. difference ( p , 0.05 or better) between
groups; no significant differences within groups. For exit,
security is not significantly different from
any member in either group
Table I.
Decision priorities for
entry and for exit
Employer
branding
attributes
739
For exit, security was not significantly different from any of the
other factors.
Moreover, the range of mean scores narrowed from 3.20 to 4.28
(for entry) to 3.48 to
3.92 (for exit). Similarities between entry and exit included the
importance of
development and values and the lesser weight placed on pay and
promotion. However,
the smaller number of groups and narrower range suggest that
entry criteria were
more clearly delineated than exit ones.
Second, we considered the difference in importance of each
variable between entry
and exit. The priorities for pay, promotion, and security
increased between entry and
exit ( p , 0.001, p , 0.01, and p , 0.05, respectively); the
importance of

22. developmental opportunities and values declined ( p , 0.001; p ,
0.05,
respectively); and the priority for flexibility remained the same.
The difference may
be partly due to the “regression to the mean” as indicated by
negative correlations (all
at p , 0.01 or better) between the entry score and the difference
score (exit – entry).
The absolute change scores seem relatively high, with the
average change being over
20 percent of the initial score.
Third, the correlations between entry and exit were significant,
but relatively low
(Table II), and correlations among the factors at entry were
significant (averaging
0.38 over the 15 pairs) but lower than those at exit (r ¼ 0.59).
The correlation
between difference scores (exit – entry) were all significant at p
,0.01 or better:
declines (increases) in one attribute also showed declines
(increases) in the other
attributes. (Detailed analyses are available from the authors.)
These results suggest
that the factors tended to reinforce each other, moving toward
Gestalts or brand
images that are holistic in nature rather than discrete. The
pattern appears to
support the four entry and two exit groupings. The general
theme is that the
relative weights are similar, but less distinct (four groups for
entry versus two
groups for exit), and most stated preferences at entry differed
from those at exit
(some increasing, others decreasing). Moreover, the correlations
suggest that the

23. employer brand image is less coherent at entry than at exit,
perhaps resulting from
experience within the organization.
Age: ANOVA with post hoc comparisons was used to examine
the differences in
priorities by age group. There was one marginal difference for
entry ( p , 0.07, NS):
promotion was higher in priority for Generation Y than for
Boomers ( p , 0.06). But
there were no significant differences for the exit factors or for
the difference scores (exit
– entry). Thus, the criteria used by older employees for entry
and exit are generally the
same as those used by younger employees. However, the
absolute difference (exit –
entry) was significant for three factors (flexibility at p , 0.05;
security and values at
p , 0.01). Generation Y reported less change than Generation X
or the Boomers for
flexibility ( p ,0.05) and security ( p ,0.01); and less change
than the Boomers for
values ( p ,0.05). Thus, while changes in priorities did not differ
by age, the absolute
change or magnitude of the change increased with age, which
may simply reflect
seniority and career stage rather than a generational issue.
Finally, there were no
significant differences by age for any of the current perceptions
of the factors, affective
commitment, retroactive satisfaction, or the intention to search
for another job.
However, how much longer respondents expected to remain with
the organization
varied by age ( p , 0.001). Generation Y respondents expected
to stay a shorter time

24. than Generation X ( p , 0.06; NS) and Boomers ( p , 0.001); and
Generation X
expected a shorter stay than Boomers ( p , 0.10; NS).
CDI
18,7
740
S
y
m
b
o
li
c
fa
ct
o
r
R
et
ro
sp
ec
ti

25. v
e
sa
ti
sf
a
ct
io
n
A
ff
ec
ti
v
e
co
m
m
it
m
en
t
In
te
n

26. ti
o
n
to
se
a
rc
h
E
x
p
ec
te
d
st
a
y
D
em
o
g
ra
p
h

27. ic
s
[0
.0
0
3
]
(0
.2
4
N
S
)
[0
.0
6
3
]
(4
.7
5
*
*
)
[0

28. .0
0
5
]
(0
.3
8
N
S
)
[0
.1
0
3
]
(8
.0
9
*
*
*
)
O
rd
er

29. o
f
en
tr
y
In
st
ru
m
en
ta
l
[0
.2
4
8
]
(9
.0
3
*
*
*
)
[0
.1

30. 9
5
]
(7
.1
5
*
*
*
)
[0
.3
9
4
]
(1
7
.8
4
*
*
*
)
[0
.1
2

31. 8
]
(4
.5
4
*
*
*
)
S
y
m
b
o
li
c
[0
.0
6
0
]
(1
1
.8
5
*

32. *
*
)
[0
.0
8
6
]
(1
7
.7
5
*
*
*
)
[0
.0
0
2
]
[0
.0
0
1
]

33. (0
.2
1
N
S
)
S
y
m
b
o
li
c
[0
.2
5
8
]
(4
8
.9
6
*
*
*

34. )
[0
.2
3
7
]
(4
7
.4
4
*
*
*
)
[0
.1
9
2
]
(3
3
.5
6
*
*
*

35. )
[0
.0
3
4
]
(5
.4
7
*
)
In
st
ru
m
en
ta
l
[0
.0
5
1
]
(1
.9

36. 8
N
S
)
[0
.0
4
4
]
(1
.8
2
N
S
)
[0
.2
0
3
]
(9
.1
7
*
*

37. *
)
[0
.0
9
6
]
(3
.3
7
*
*
)
R
eg
re
ss
io
n
co
ef
fi
ci
en
ts
C
o
n

38. st
a
n
t
0
.8
4
1
.8
9
6
.9
3
1
0
.3
5
A
g
e
0
.0
0
0
.0
5

39. 2
0
.0
7
0
.4
3
*
*
*
M
a
n
a
g
em
en
t
2
0
.0
3
2
0
.3

40. 6
*
*
2
0
.0
6
2
0
.1
5
P
a
y
2
0
.0
1
2
0
.0
5
2
0

41. .0
2
0
.0
6
F
le
x
ib
il
it
y
0
.0
2
0
.0
9
2
0
.2
4
*
0
.1

42. 1
S
ec
u
ri
ty
0
.3
1
*
0
.1
9
*
2
0
.4
9
*
*
*
0
.3
1

43. *
D
ev
el
o
p
m
en
t
0
.0
5
0
.0
6
2
0
.1
1
(p
,
0
.1
0
)

44. 2
0
.0
1
P
ro
m
o
ti
o
n
0
.1
1
2
0
.1
0
2
0
.2
0
*
0
.1

45. 9
(p
¼
0
.0
6
)
V
a
lu
es
0
.4
0
*
*
*
0
.3
4
*
*
*
2
0

46. .0
7
2
0
.1
1
T
o
ta
l
R
S
Q
(A
d
ju
st
ed
)
[0
.3
1
2
(0

47. .2
7
1
)]
[0
.3
4
4
(0
.3
0
6
)]
[0
.4
0
1
(0
.3
6
6
)]
[0
.2
3

48. 3
(0
.1
8
7
)]
F
¼
7
.6
6
*
*
*
F
¼
8
.8
7
*
*
*
F
¼

49. 1
1
.3
0
*
*
*
F
¼
5
.1
1
*
*
*
N
o
te
s
:
V
a
lu
es
in
[

50. ]
a
re
R
S
Q
co
n
tr
ib
u
ti
o
n
s;
v
a
lu
es
in
(
)
a
re

51. F
st
a
ti
st
ic
s.
N
S
¼
N
o
t
si
g
n
ifi
ca
n
t,
*
p
,
0
.0

52. 5
;
*
*
p
,
0
.0
1
;
*
*
*
p
,
0
.0
0
1
.
T
o
ta
l
R
S

53. Q
:
th
e
fi
rs
t
n
u
m
b
er
in
th
e
[
]
is
th
e
R
S
Q
w

54. it
h
th
e
A
d
ju
st
ed
R
S
Q
in
()
.
C
o
ef
fi
ci
en
ts
a
re

55. n
o
t
st
a
n
d
a
rd
iz
ed
Table II.
Regression results
Employer
branding
attributes
741
Between managers and staff: The managers rated values (at
entry) as being somewhat
less important ( p , 0.10, NS) than did employees. For exit, they
rated development as
being less important ( p ,0.05) and values as being somewhat
less important
( p , 0.10, NS) than did employees. Managers reported a
marginally higher score for
security at exit than at entry ( p , 0.10, NS) than did employees.
The absolute

56. differences were significant for security (higher for managers at
p , 0.01) and for
values ( p , 0.05). With respect to satisfaction with the current
state, managers scored
marginally higher regarding pay ( p , 0.06, NS), affective
commitment ( p , 0.01) and
the expected length of time that they will stay with the
organization ( p , 0.05).
Managers’ experience with hierarchical success likely underpins
their feelings of
commitment, remaining with the organization for longer periods
of time, satisfaction
with current levels of pay and the higher value that they placed
on security (arising
from investments in the organization).
Relationships between instrumental and symbolic factors
Table III shows the means, standard deviations, reliabilities
(coefficient a) for the
current state of the variables. Regression results are presented
in Tables II and IV. The
two-tailed levels of significance were used for these
correlations and regressions, given
that direction was not predicted. These factors were expected to
influence each other,
but given the study’s cross-sectional design, we were unable to
assess reciprocal
relationships or directionality. However, as stated earlier,
theory suggests that
instrumental variables may influence value formation and/or act
as a vehicle for
understanding values, hence they are important levers for
managing the symbolic
attributes important to individuals. As shown in Table III the
instrumental variables
are correlated at p , 0.01 or better with the symbolic factor

57. (values), and a regression
showed that the variance explained in values was 43.1 percent (
p , 0.001). The
regression coefficients (including demographics) were as
follows: Age (0.10),
Management (0.00), Pay (20.06), Flexibility (0.19 *), Security
(0.37 * * *), Development
(0.18 * * *), and Promotion (0.06).
Relationships of factors with commitment, satisfaction, search,
and stay
To assess the relative importance of instrumental and symbolic
factors in predicting
the affective and retention variables, we followed the Lievens
and Highhouse (2003)
two-stage procedure. The first stage used stepwise regression to
estimate the variance
explained by demographic variables, (instrumental variables,
and symbolic factors in
commitment, satisfaction, intention to search, and how long one
expected to stay with
one’s employer. At the second stage, the order of entry for the
instrumental and
symbolic variables was reversed. These processes clarified the
relative importance of
these variables and any potential causal sequences.
Affective commitment: A fundamental proposition is that brand
image is associated
with commitment, which in turn reduces voluntary turnover. As
shown in Table II,
demographics explained 6.3 percent of the variance in
commitment. Instrumental
variables contributed 19.5 percent when entered first, and
symbolic variables added 8.6
percent. When the order was reversed, symbolic variables

58. contributed 23.7 percent and
instrumental variables contributed 3.7 percent (NS). In the
overall equation, the
manager-employee categorization was significant, as were
security and values. These
results are consistent with a model in which instrumental
variables are associated with
CDI
18,7
742
M
S
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0

59. 1
1
1
.
A
g
e
1
.9
8
0
.7
2
–
2
.
M
g
m
t
1
.6
9
0
.4

60. 6
2
0
.3
1
–
3
.
P
a
y
3
.2
0
0
.9
3
0
.1
3
2
0
.1
6
*

61. (0
.7
5
)
4
.
F
le
x
ib
il
it
y
3
.9
4
0
.8
1
0
.0
4
2
0
.1

62. 0
0
.2
1
*
*
(0
.7
5
)
5
.
S
ec
u
ri
ty
3
.6
7
0
.7
7
0
.0
5

63. 0
.0
4
0
.3
3
*
*
*
0
.3
4
*
*
*
(0
.6
3
)
6
.
D
ev
el
o

64. p
m
en
t
4
.2
8
1
.3
1
0
.0
4
2
0
.1
1
0
.1
9
*
0
.2
4
*

65. *
0
.3
0
*
*
*
(0
.8
2
)
7
.
P
ro
m
o
ti
o
n
3
.1
3
1
.0

66. 3
2
0
.0
2
2
0
.1
0
0
.3
2
*
*
*
0
.3
7
*
*
*
0
.4
3
*

67. *
*
0
.2
0
*
*
(0
.8
6
)
8
.
V
a
lu
es
3
.9
0
0
.9
5
0
.1

68. 0
2
0
.0
7
0
.2
1
*
*
0
.4
1
*
*
*
0
.5
3
*
*
*
0
.4
2

69. *
*
*
0
.4
7
*
*
*
(0
.9
1
)
9
.
C
o
m
m
it
m
en
t
3
.5

70. 2
0
.8
3
0
.1
6
*
2
0
.2
4
*
*
0
.1
1
0
.3
0
*
*
*
0
.3

71. 6
*
*
*
0
.3
2
*
*
*
0
.1
9
*
0
.5
1
*
*
*
(0
.8
5
)

72. 1
0
.
S
a
ti
sf
a
ct
io
n
4
.0
4
1
.1
4
0
.0
5
2
0
.0
4
0
.1

73. 8
*
0
.2
7
*
*
0
.4
4
*
*
*
0
.2
8
*
*
*
0
.3
6
*
*
*

74. 0
.5
1
*
*
*
0
.4
4
*
*
*
(0
.9
5
)
1
1
.
S
ea
rc
h
2

75. .5
4
1
.1
4
2
0
.0
7
0
.0
3
2
0
.2
5
*
*
2
0
.4
1
*
*
*

76. 2
0
.5
4
*
*
*
2
0
.3
3
*
*
*
2
0
.4
4
*
*
*
2
0
.4
4

77. *
*
*
2
0
.4
5
*
*
*
2
0
.5
1
*
*
*
(0
.7
9
)
1
2
.
S

78. ta
y
3
.0
3
1
.1
2
0
.3
1
*
*
*
2
0
.1
7
*
0
.2
3
*
*
0
.2

79. 2
*
*
0
.3
2
*
*
*
0
.1
1
0
.2
9
*
*
*
0
.2
2
*
*
0
.2

80. 6
*
*
0
.2
9
*
*
*
2
0
.5
9
*
*
*
N
o
te
:
*
p
,
0
.0

81. 5
;
*
*
p
,
0
.0
1
;
*
*
*
p
,
0
.0
0
1
,
r
¼
2
1
Table III.
Means (standard

82. deviations), correlations,
reliabilities (coefficient
alpha on diagonal)
Employer
branding
attributes
743
In
te
n
ti
o
n
to
se
a
rc
h
In
te
n
ti
o

83. n
to
se
a
rc
h
E
x
p
ec
te
d
st
a
y
E
x
p
ec
te
d
st
a
y

84. [i
n
cl
u
d
es
E
S
]
[i
n
cl
u
d
es
IS
]
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
(4

85. )
C
o
n
st
a
n
t
7
.6
5
7
.6
3
2
0
.0
5
4
.4
5
A
g
e
2
0

86. .0
6
0
.1
2
0
.4
3
*
*
*
0
.3
9
*
*
*
M
a
n
a
g
em
en
t

87. 2
0
.1
7
2
0
.2
1
2
0
.0
9
2
0
.1
9
A
ff
ec
ti
v
e
co
m

88. m
it
m
en
t
2
0
.2
8
*
*
2
0
.2
2
*
*
0
.1
4
2
0
.0
9
R

89. et
ro
a
ct
iv
e
sa
ti
sf
a
ct
io
n
2
0
.2
2
*
*
2
0
.1
6
*

90. *
0
.1
5
0
.0
1
P
a
y
2
0
.0
3
2
0
.0
0
0
.0
7
0
.0
5
F
le

91. x
ib
il
it
y
2
0
.2
1
*
2
0
.1
7
(0
.0
5
2
)
2
0
.0
9
2
0
.0

92. 3
S
ec
u
ri
ty
2
0
.3
6
*
*
*
2
0
.2
6
*
0
.2
4
0
.0
3
D

93. ev
el
o
p
m
en
t
2
0
.0
8
2
0
.0
9
2
0
.0
3
2
0
.0
8
P

94. ro
m
o
ti
o
n
2
0
.2
1
*
2
0
.1
3
0
.1
9
(0
.0
6
4
)
0
.0

95. 7
V
a
lu
es
0
.1
2
0
.0
5
2
0
.1
6
2
0
.0
9
E
S
2
0
.4
3

96. *
*
*
IS
2
0
.5
9
*
*
*
R
S
Q
(R
S
Q
A
d
ju
st
ed
)
0

97. .4
7
7
(0
.4
3
8
)
0
.6
0
9
(0
.5
7
6
)
0
.2
5
9
(0
.2
0
3
)
0

98. .4
4
5
(0
.3
9
9
)
F
(1
0
,1
3
3
)
1
2
.1
5
*
*
*
F
(1
1
,1

99. 3
2
)
1
8
.6
7
*
*
*
F
(1
0
,1
3
3
)
4
.6
4
*
*
*
F
(1

100. 1
,1
3
2
)
9
.6
1
3
*
*
*
N
o
te
s
:
p
,
0
.0
5
;
*
*
p

101. ,
0
.0
1
;
*
*
*
p
,
0
.0
0
1
.
T
h
e
co
ef
fi
ci
en
ts
a

102. re
n
o
t
st
a
n
d
a
rd
iz
ed
.
E
q
u
a
ti
o
n
s
1
a
n
d

103. 3
in
cl
u
d
e
a
ff
ec
ti
v
e
co
m
m
it
m
en
t
a
n
d
re
tr
o

104. a
ct
iv
e
sa
ti
sf
a
ct
io
n
,
w
it
h
in
st
ru
m
en
ta
l
a
n
d

105. sy
m
b
o
li
c
fa
ct
o
rs
.
E
q
u
a
ti
o
n
2
a
d
d
s
th
e

106. ef
fe
ct
s
o
f
ex
p
ec
te
d
st
a
y
o
n
in
te
n
ti
o
n
to
se

107. a
rc
h
.
E
q
u
a
ti
o
n
4
a
d
d
s
th
e
ef
fe
ct
s
o
f

108. in
te
n
ti
o
n
to
se
a
rc
h
o
n
ex
p
ec
te
d
st
a
y
Table IV.
Regression results:
supplementary analysis
CDI

109. 18,7
744
commitment, primarily through their association with symbolic
variables, with
security making an independent contribution. That is,
respondents may be
interpreting instrumental policies as reflecting values that are
the basis for their
sense of belonging to the organization.
Retroactive satisfaction: The regression weights on
retrospective satisfaction
indicated what would be important to experienced employees if
they had the option of
entering the organization again: a succinct and concrete way
that people communicate
how they feel about their employer. Table II shows that
demographics were not
associated with retrospective satisfaction (e.g. I would apply
again for this job).
Instrumental variables explained 24.8 percent of the variance in
retroactive satisfaction
when entered first, with symbolic variables contributing 6.0
percent. When the order
was reversed, symbolic variables contributed 25.8 percent, and
instrumental variables
contributed 5.1 percent (NS). The overall equation showed only
two significant
contributors: security and values. These results are similar to
those obtained for
affective commitment.

110. The regression weights enables comparisons between what
currently makes people
satisfied (similar to the policy capturing approach; Williamson
et al., 2002) and what
they say was important when they entered the organization. The
strong relationship
between values and retroactive satisfaction is consistent with
the weight placed on this
factor at entry. However, as an entry criterion, security was in
the third group, but its
correlation with satisfaction (0.44) is close to that of values
(0.55), and it has a
significant effect independent of values. One explanation for
this is that security may
be less important for accepting employment, but, once
employed, its value increases, a
pattern that is supported by its relative importance for exit.
Interestingly, development,
which is listed as most important for entry, has a significant,
but comparatively low
(0.28) correlation with retrospective satisfaction (Table III).
Moreover, in a
supplementary analysis using solely the instrumental variables,
development’s
regression coefficient only neared significance and diminished
to NS when the values
variable was added to the equation.
Intention to search: The regressions weights for intention to
search differed from
those of commitment or satisfaction. Instrumental variables
contributed 39.4 percent
when entered first, while symbolic variables added only 0.002
percent (NS). When the
order of entry was reversed, symbolic variables contributed 19.2
percent, and

111. instrumental variables contributed 20.3 percent. The overall
equation showed security,
promotions, and flexibility as significant contributors.
The comparison of these results with the exit priorities is
analogous to policy
capturing. The importance of security in stimulating search is
consistent with its
relatively high priority for exit (between the first and second
groups), but promotions,
ranked in the second of two groups is also a significant
predictor. Interestingly, while
development had the highest priority, it did not have a
significant effect in the full
equation or in the equation with only instrumental variables as
predictors. Whereas
values played a significant role in the overall equation for
affective commitment and
retroactive satisfaction, its influence here appears to have been
subsumed by the
effects of security and promotions. This implies a model in
which instrumental
variables “cause” both a symbolic factor (values) and intentions
to search or a model in
which instrumental variables mediate the relationship between
symbolic variables and
search. In either case, instrumental variables play an important
role, one which has
Employer
branding
attributes
745

112. been underestimated due to the limited research that
incorporates instrumental and
values in understanding turnover.
Since both affective commitment and retroactive satisfaction
can be theoretically
related to one’s intention to search ( Joo and Park, 2010), and
low commitment has long
been associated with voluntary turnover (Meyer et al., 2002),
we entered them first in a
stepwise regression to assess the residual impact of the
instrumental and symbolic
variables (Table IV). These two variables added 31.8 percent to
the intention to search,
but at the second stage, the instrumental and symbolic variables
added 15.4 percent. In
the overall equation, commitment and satisfaction were
significant, as were flexibility,
security, and promotion. The complete set of variables
explained 47.7 percent of the
variance in the intention to search. These findings suggest the
importance of the
instrumental variables, since they appear to affect the intention
to search directly as
well as through commitment and satisfaction.
Expected length of stay: This variable had a different pattern of
results from those
obtained for one’s intention to search (Table II). Demographics
contributed 10.3 percent
to the expected length of stay, and instrumental variables added
12.5 percent when
entered first with values adding 0.00 percent. When the order
was reversed, values
contributed 3.4 percent, and instrumental variables contributed

113. 9.6 percent. In the
overall equation, age had the greatest weight, with security
being significant and
promotion nearing significance. The importance of security and
promotions to
expected length of stay is consistent with their influence on the
intention to search.
Interestingly, age played no role in the intention to search yet
played a significant role
in the expected length of stay.
As with the intention to search, we used stepwise regression to
assess the
contributions of commitment and satisfaction and the
incremental contribution of the
instrumental and symbolic variable (Table IV). Demographic
variables contributed
10.3 percent, affective commitment and retroactive satisfaction
8.3 percent, and
instrumental and symbolic variables added 7.3 percent to the
explanation of expected
length of stay. In the overall regression, however, age was the
only significant
contributor, with promotions and security nearing significance.
In sum, age was the
sole identifiable predictor, since the effects of all the other
variables were dispersed.
Mutual influence of intention to search and length of stay: Both
of these cognitive
intentions (Tett and Meyer, 1993) are related in that, the more
likely employees search
for reasons to leave, the less likely they will remain in an
organization. Therefore, we
incorporated both in our exploring the relationships between
instrumental and

114. symbolic factors, affective measures and turnover intentions.
First, we regressed (in
order) expected stay, demographics, commitment, retroactive
satisfaction and
instrumental and symbolic variables on the intention to search
(Table IV). These
variables explained 60.9 percent of the variance: expected stay
explained 34.9 percent
when entered first (and 13.1 percent when added last). Thus,
expected stay contributed
13 percent of unique variance to intention to search, satisfaction
and commitment and
the image variables 26 percent. Although expected length of
stay had the strongest
influence, commitment, retrospective satisfaction, security and
flexibility (NS) also
explained variance in intention to search.
Second, we regressed (in order) intention to search,
demographics, commitment,
retroactive satisfaction, and instrumental and symbolic variables
on the expected
length of stay (Table IV). These variables explained 44.5
percent of the variance in the
CDI
18,7
746
expected length of stay, with intention to search explaining 34.9
percent (as above), and
18.6 percent when entered last. Thus, intention to search adds
18.6 percent of unique

115. variance, with 9.6 percent contributed by the other variables,
with 16.3 percent being
shared. In the regression equation, only the intention to search
and age made
significant contributions. This suggests that satisfaction,
commitment and the image
variables have an effect, but, only through the intention to
search and respondents’ age
seemed to independently influence the time that they plan to
remain. This is consistent
with the perspective that younger employees tend to explore
opportunities to a greater
extent than do older employees. Moreover, this effect appears
independent of
commitment or satisfaction, since age is unrelated to these
variables.
Finally, to further explore the way in which age affects one’s
expected length of
stay, we noted that the latter’s correlation with the raw,
uncategorized score (0.34) was
close to the relationship with categorized age (0.31). That is,
categorizing age into
groupings did not materially affect the explanation in expected
length of stay. To
explore this possibility, we dichotomized age (#30 and ? 30) to
use in regression
analyses. First, the dichotomized variable explained 10.9
percent of the variation in
expected length of stay (compared with the 11.1 percent for raw
age). Second, we
performed separate regressions of raw age on expected stay for
each group. Raw age
explained 2.8 percent (NS) of the variance in expected length of
stay in the younger
group and 2.4 percent (NS) in the older group. This supports the

116. step function concept,
at least in the child care industry, where there may be age
groupings that affect the
estimated length of stay with the organization.
Conclusions and managerial implications
The foregoing analyses suggest the model presented in Figure 2,
which links the study
variables. For the sake of simplicity, we have not referenced the
specific instrumental
variables. The interrelationships among the instrumental
variables are significant,
and, in some cases, very strong. We have not made any causal
inferences among these
variables. The proposed causal linkages, which are subject to
longitudinal testing,
form the basis for interventions that encourage and support the
recruitment and
retention of employees.
Differences in priorities from entry to exit
Regarding the first research question, which considered whether
preferences for
branding attributes were similar for entry and for retention, we
found that there were
similarities in the groupings for entry and exit (e.g. the
importance of development
opportunities) and some differences (security’s importance
increased from entry to
Figure 2.
Proposed model
Employer
branding
attributes

117. 747
exit). The scores themselves changed from entry to exit, some
rising (such as security)
with others declining (such as values); moreover, the absolute
differences appeared
relatively large (slightly above 20 percent of the entry scores
for all but values). These
results suggest that the relative importance of the factors
remained similar, but
because some rose in importance while others declined, the
difference narrowed.
Moreover, we found four groups of variables at entry but only
two groups at exit; the
correlations among the factors were much higher at exit than at
entry; and the
correlation among differences (exit – entry) were high.
This implies that, at entry, people may have a more
disaggregated perspective of an
organization’s image, that is, a perspective that is less cohesive
regarding how factors
are related to one another than after they have experience and
are considering the
factors for potential exit. This suggests that, in recruiting,
organizations may highlight
a few of the most important factors; whereas in retention, the
Gestalt of factors and the
rationale that connects them may be most important. For
example, security can be
linked to internal promotion, training and development and
flexibility. In short,
experience may be important in designing messages, since

118. individuals may build
rationales over time, with or without interpretations by
managers. The variation in
each factor suggested that a brand image may need to be
relatively broad to
accommodate diversity. This may include a cafeteria approach
to benefits or a niche
strategy that appeals to enough people to meet staffing
requirements.
Differences in priorities given age and career stage
In response to the second research question regarding the
possibility of generational
and career stage differences in one’s entry and exit priorities,
we found few such
differences by age or career stage. Analyses revealed that the
criteria used by older
employees for entry and exit were not significantly different
from those used by
younger employees. Regarding career stage, managers rated
development as being less
important as a factor influencing their potential exit than did
employees. Moreover, age
(by generation) played a very minor role in respondents’ exit,
entry, and current state
(including affective commitment, retrospective satisfaction and
intention to leave).
Younger people planned to stay a shorter length of time with the
organization,
consistent with the exploration stage in career development.
However, the importance
of security for satisfaction, commitment and decreasing
turnover intentions implied
that organizations can use this practice (in conjunction with
others) in retaining young
people, recognizing that many more may leave if they do not.

119. Relationship between branding attributes and attitudinal
variables
Finally, the third research question asked how current
satisfaction with brand
image attributes related to overall commitment, satisfaction and
retention. We found
that values and security were the most important predictors of
retrospective
satisfaction as well as affective commitment. That values should
have a strong
relationship with commitment is consistent with many other
studies, but, the
independent impact of security seems important for HRM
decision-makers. Values
are an important priority, yet are difficult to communicate,
except, perhaps through
HRM practices that signal these values. The comparison
between stated priorities
on exit and the regressions show that values and development,
both high in
priority, are not significant in directly predicting the intention
to search in the near
CDI
18,7
748
future or in terms of the length of future employment. The
factors predicting
satisfaction/commitment and retention are not the same (except
for security), though
commitment and satisfaction predict intention to search. Only

120. age directly predicted
the length of future employment.
Also, although a stated priority, training and development was
not an important
factor in the regressions. It is possible that its role was partly
subsumed by its
relationship to values. The high level of satisfaction with
development may have
influenced its role in a curvilinear fashion (after a certain point,
it has limited
impact). Moreover, training and development within an industry
such as child care
may be perceived as being similar across many organizations,
and, therefore its
presence is taken for granted, and its absence is the basis for
decisions on entry and
exit.
Relationship between instrumental and symbolic attributes
Finally, this study revealed that the instrumental components of
brand image
(security, flexibility, promotion, and development) were
strongly related to its
symbolic aspects (values). The factors may be reciprocally
related since values may
be attributed to HRM systems and serve as the basis for
developing and supporting
policies and procedures. In terms of practice, the instrumental !
symbolic pattern
is may be useful in building and maintaining a culture that is
supportive and
attractive to present and prospective employees. The
instrumental factors may be
demonstrated to employees through written policies and
practices that are relatively

121. concrete and observable. However, the attribution of a practice
to values is critical,
since a practice such as training and development can be
attributed to helping staff
become more mobile (employee – centered change) and/or to
increasing productivity
for the benefit of the firm. This suggests that organizations need
to convey the
rationales for practices, demonstrating their underlying values
and how these beliefs
support an array of mutually reinforcing policies. The opposite
symbolic !
practice pattern may help current employees understand reasons
for new practices.
However, symbolic factors may be hard to convey directly. This
means that
organizations’ values should be at the forefront in designing
policies and should be
evident in the development and implementation stages.
Employee surveys and other
methods of obtaining rich information may help in
understanding worker
perspectives and formulating plans for communicating values as
well as
modifying practices to suit values.
This study has several limitations. Although including only
child care workers in a
relatively small geographic region removed occupational
variations, the child care
centers had relatively flat structures. Future research should be
undertaken in larger
scale firms that also offer greater heterogeneity in professions
as well as career options,
and consider exit from sub-units, as well as the organization as
a whole. Also, the

122. questionnaire design enabled comparisons of entry and retention
criteria over time, but
the results may be subject to the problem of erroneous recall. A
longitudinal study that
follows new entrants for several years, using both instrumental
and symbolic
measures, would provide information on what attracted
individuals and what was
associated with their attitudes and intentions to leave.
Moreover, longitudinal data
would help to identify causal paths (instrumental ! symbolic,
and vice versa). More
precisely defined instrumental variables and other variables
should be included
Employer
branding
attributes
749
(e.g. organizational growth and future opportunities; prospects
for career mobility).
The symbolic variables referred to “people values”, but other
factors such as social and
environmental consciousness are also relevant to symbolic
meanings. Finally,
studying the role of attributions as moderators would help in
furthering our
understanding of these relationships.
References
Aggarwal, U. and Bhargava, S. (2009), “Reviewing the

123. relationship between human resource
practices and psychological contract and their impact on
employee attitude and
behaviours”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 4-31.
Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T. and Cable, D. (2001), “Are you
attracted? Do you intend to pursue?
A recruiting policy capturing study”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 16,
pp. 219-237.
Anderson, N. and Thomas, H.D.C. (1996), “Work group
socialization”, in West, M.A. (Ed.),
Handbook of Work Groups, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 423-450.
Arbuckle, J.L. and Wothke, W. (1999), Amos 4.0 User’s Guide,
SmallWaters, Chicago, IL.
Baron, J.N. and Kreps, D.M. (1999), Strategic Human
Resources: Frameworks for General
Managers, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Bowes, B.J. (2008), “Being an employer of choice has bottom-
line benefits”, CMA Management,
Vol. 82 No. 7, pp. 14-15.
Bundy, P. and Norris, D. (1992), “What accounting students
consider important in the job
selection process”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol.
8, pp. 1-6.
Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1994), “Pay preference and job
search decisions:
a person-organization fit perspective”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 47, pp. 317-340.

124. Catanzaro, D., Moore, H. and Marshall, T.R. (2010), “The
impact of organizational culture on
attraction and recruitment of job applicants”, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 649-662.
Cohen, A. (1993), “Organizational commitment and turnover: a
meta-analysis”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 1140-1157.
Collins, C.J. and Stevens, C.K. (2002), “The relationship
between early recruitment-related
activities and the application decisions of new labor-market
entrants: a brand equity
approach to recruitment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
87 No. 6, pp. 1121-1133.
Cotton, J.L. and Tuttle, J.M. (1986), “Employee turnover: a
meta-analysis and review with
implications for research”, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 11, pp. 55-70.
Crumpacker, M. and Crumpacker, J.M. (2007), “Succession
planning and generational
stereotypes: should HR consider age-based values and attitudes
a relevant factor or a
passing fad?”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp.
349-369.
De Vos, A., De Stobbeleir, K. and Meganck, A. (2009), “The
relationship between career-related
antecedents and graduates’ anticipatory psychological
contracts”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 289-290.

125. Dodd, J., Saggers, S. and Wildy, H. (2009), “Retention in the
allied health workforce: boomers,
Generation X, and Generation Y”, Journal of Allied Health,
Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 215-219.
Edwards, M.R. (2010), “An integrative review of employer
branding and OB theory”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Feldman, D.C. and Arnold, H.J. (1978), “Position choice:
comparing the importance of
organization and job factors”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 63, pp. 706-710.
CDI
18,7
750
Fisher, K.A. and Fraser, J.D. (2010), “Rural health career
pathways: research themes in
recruitment and retention”, Australian Health Review, Vol. 34,
pp. 292-296.
Fried, Y.Y., Tiegs, R.B., Naughton, T.J. and Asforth, B.E.
(1996), “Managers’ reactions to a
corporate acquisition: a test of an integrative model”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 17, pp. 401-427.
Frincke, J., Lockwood, N., Esen, E. and Williams, S. (2007),
2007 Job Satisfaction: A Survey
Report by the Society for Human Resource Management,
Society for Human Resource

126. Management, Alexandria, VA.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign,
Addisson-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Heilmann, P.A.K. (2010), “Employer brand image in a health
care organization”, Management
Research Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 134-144.
Hewlett, S.A., Sherbin, L. and Sumberg, K. (2009), “How Gen
Y & Boomers will reshape your
agenda”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 71-76.
Joo, B-K. and Park, S. (2010), “Career satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and turnover
intention”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 482-500.
Judge, T.A. and Bretz, R.D. Jr (1992), “Effects of work values
on job choice decisions”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 261-271.
Jurgenson, C.E. (1978), “Job preferences (what makes a job
good or bad)”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 479-487.
King, Z. (2003), “New or traditional careers? A study of UK
graduates’ preferences”, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 5-26.
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 No. 1, p. 69.

127. Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003), “The relation of
instrumental and symbolic attributes to a
company’s attractiveness as an employer”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 75-102.
Love, L.F. and Singh, P. (2011), “Workplace branding:
leveraging human resource management
practices for competitive advantage through Best Employer
Surveys”, Journal of Business
Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 175-181.
Martin, A., MacTaggart, D. and Bowden, J. (2006), “The
barriers to recruitment and retention of
supervisors / managers in the Scottish tourism industry”,
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 380-
397.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the
Workplace: Theory, Research, and
Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L.
(2002), “Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of
antecedents, correlates, and
consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 20-
52.
Nishii, L.H., LePak, D.P. and Schneider, B. (2008), “Employee
attributions of the why of HR
practices: their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and
customer attitudes”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 503-545.
Rashid, Z.A., Sambasivan, M. and Rahman, A.A. (2004), “The

128. influence of organizational culture
on attitudes toward organizational change”, Leadership &
Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-179.
Rowe, P.M. (1976), “Effects of expected job characteristics and
interview factors on
organizational choice”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 38, pp.
1011-1018.
Employer
branding
attributes
751
Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. (1993), “Job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, turnoveer
intentions, and turnover: path analysis based on meta-analytic
findings”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 259-293.
Trank, C.Q., Rynes, S.L., Bretz, J.r. and R, D. (2002),
“Attracting applicants in the war for talent:
differences in work preferences among high achievers”, Journal
of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 331-345.
Williamson, C.L., Cope, J.G., Foster Thompson, L. and
Wuensch, K.L. (2002), “Policy capturing as
a tool to enhance recruiting”, Career Development International,
Vol. 7, pp. 159-166.
Further reading

129. Judge, T.A. and Cable, D.M. (1997), “Applicant personality,
organizational culture, and
organizational attraction”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50, pp.
359-394.
Corresponding author
Céleste M. Brotheridge can be contacted at: celeste_
[email protected]
CDI
18,7
752
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details:
www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.