Thesis_Poola Isomäki

The role of social media in building an employer brand:Finland’s most attractive employers
Poola Isomäki
Department of Entrepreneurship
Hanken School of Economics
Helsinki
2016

HANKEN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
Department of:
Entrepreneurship
Type of work:
Thesis
Author and Student number:
Poola Isomäki s142160
Date:
6.3.2016
Title of thesis:
The role of social media in building an employer brand: Finland’s most attractive
employers
Abstract: This thesis is about employer branding in social media. Employer branding
practices have become more popular in the real world, but academic research has been
very limited on the topic with a few articles in the marketing literature until recent.
(Backhaus & Tikoo 2004; Fisher et al.2014; Bakanauskienè et al. 2015.) The following
is a case study (8 case companies that according to Universum’s ranking are
considered to be ideal employers), more specifically their social media presences. The
research is done with the help of these research question:
• How are companies using the new forms of communication channels
(social media) in building their brand and employer reputation?
• What kind of content do they publish in their social media channels?
What kind of posts affect positively on their employer brand and reputation as an
employer?
• How are they trying to appeal to new talent?
The used method is qualitative content analysis, and with the help of it a review was
conducted by analysing the companies’ web sites and social media profiles.
The results give a versatile glimpse over how companies from different industries
utilise the possibilities provided by the social media regarding their employer brand
and reputation.
Keywords: Employer Branding, Employer Reputation, Generation Y, Ideal
Employer, Universum, Current and Potential Employees, Case Study, Qualitative
Content Analysis

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................3
1.2 Research questions..............................................................................................3
1.3 Demarcations ......................................................................................................4
1.4 The Structure of this Research............................................................................4
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...............................................................6
2.1 Concepts..............................................................................................................6
2.1.1Employer Branding as a Concept ................................................................6
2.1.2 Employer Attractiveness........................................................................7
2.1.3 Generation Y .......................................................................................... 8
2.1.3.1 The Eight Norms of Generation Y .......................................... 8
2.1.3.2 Generations X and Z ................................................................9
2.2 Social Media, Use and Strategy in Companies....................................................9
2.2.1 The use of social media in companies................................................... 11
2.2.2 Dimensions of Social Media..................................................................12
2.3 Employer Branding ...........................................................................................14
2.3.1 Employer Branding as a Process...........................................................16
2.3.2 The strength of an Employer Brand ..................................................... 17
2.3.3 Instrumental and symbolic dimension................................................. 17
2.3.4 The Future of Employer Branding........................................................19
2.4 Employer Reputation ....................................................................................... 20
2.4.1 Encounters............................................................................................24
2.4.2 The Dimensions of a Reputation ..........................................................26
2.4.3 Evaluating and Measuring Employer Reputation ................................27
3 METHOLOGY AND DATA.....................................................................29
3.1 Qualitative method and technique....................................................................29
3.2 The Trustworthiness of this Research and Limitations....................................32
3.3 Data ...................................................................................................................34
3.3.1 Universum.............................................................................................34
3.3.2 Background...........................................................................................35
3.3.3 Introduction to the eight companies.....................................................36
3.3.3.1 KONE.....................................................................................36

3.3.3.2 Nordea....................................................................................37
3.3.3.3 Fazer.......................................................................................37
3.3.3.4 Google ................................................................................... 38
3.3.3.5 Microsoft............................................................................... 38
3.3.3.6 Supercell ................................................................................39
3.3.3.7 ABB ........................................................................................39
3.3.3.8 The Finnish Environment Institute - Suomen
ympäristökeskus SYKE......................................................... 40
3.3.3.9 Data Conclusion and the case companies’ social media
presence ................................................................................ 40
3.3.4 Data collection ......................................................................................41
4 ANALYSIS...............................................................................................43
4.1 Overview of the social media presences............................................................43
4.2 How is social media used in employer branding and reputation?....................45
4.2.1 Companies using social media channels in building their brand and
reputation as an employer ................................................................... 46
4.2.2 The social media content that has a(n) (positive) impact on the
employer brand and reputation........................................................... 48
4.2.2.1 Industry of Business ..............................................................52
4.2.2.2 Industry of IT.........................................................................53
4.2.2.3 Industry of Engineering.........................................................55
4.3 Targeted marketing towards new talents..........................................................56
4.3.1 Industry of Business..............................................................................56
4.3.2 Industry of IT ........................................................................................58
4.3.3 Industry of Engineering....................................................................... 60
4.4 General thoughts about the use of different social media channels in employer
branding ............................................................................................................63
5 DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................66
5.1 Conclusions and Remarks................................................................................ 68
6 SVENSK SAMMANFATTNING ..............................................................71
6.1 Introduktion till ämnet ..................................................................................... 71
6.2 Motivering av studien och en syftesformulering...............................................72
6.3 Presentation av tidigare forskning, val av metoder och material .....................73
6.4 Resultatredovisning och konkluderande avslutningen....................................74
REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 79

TABLES
Table 1. The impact of social media on employer branding and HR in the years of
2013-2018……………………………………………………………………………………….18
Table 2. The social media presence of the case companies……………………………………40
FIGURES
Figure 1. The dimensions of social media …………………………………………………………….12
Figure 2. The four elements of employer reputation……………………………………………..20
Figure 3. The making of reputation……………………………………………………………………..24
Figure 4. The six dimensions of reputation in Finland…………………………………………..26
PICTURES
Picture 1. A Twiit from Microsoft Women.............................................................................48
Picture 2. Supercell’s cover picture on Facebook………………………………………………………………………49
Picture 3. A LinkedIN post from Google………………………………………………………………..50
Picture 4. Baab the Lamb……………………………………………………………………………………..50
Picture 5. Gayglers in California……………………………………………………………………………53
Picture 6. Nordea’s Graduate Program…………………………………………………………………..56
Picture 7. Google scholarships………………………………………………………………………………58
Picture 8. Google’s post for inters………………………………………………………………………….58
Picture 9. ABB Talent Trainee Program…………………………………………………………………60
Picture 10. ABB on Instagram……………………………………………………………………………….60
Picture 11. ABB got visitors……………………………………………………………………………………61

1
1 INTRODUCTION
Today, brands are considered to be a company’s most valuable asset, and this has
led to brand management being a key activity in many firms. In the past,
companies have focused their branding efforts towards product development but
nowadays it can also be used in the area of human resource management. The
process of applying the branding principles to human resource management is
called employer branding. Companies are using employer branding more and
more to attract talents and to make sure the existing employees are engaged
within the organizational culture and the strategy of the company. (Sullivan
2004.) Today, many companies have developed an official employer brand or are
interested in developing such a program (Conference Board 2001).
Employer brand image has become highly important in today’s job search. This
is mainly the result of employees’ attitudes towards work evolving (Herman &
Gioia 2011). According to Argenti (2009), employees look for more extensive
knowledge and information about the company he or she works or is going to
work for. A job has become more of a career and it now holds more value for the
individual than just a mean to pay the rent. Especially to the new generation
stepping to the working life: Generation Y (Tapscott 2010). As a result, being a
good employer is not enough anymore. Instead, in order to retain current
employees and attract new ones a company needs to be seen as a good employer
as well. (Hepburn 2005.) Many attempts have been used when companies have
tried to face the challenges of having a good employer brand, such as e-
recruitment practices (Tong 2009) and reputation management (Hepburn
2005).
It has been studied that stakeholders will only have positive thoughts about a firm
if it has shown similar positive actions towards them (Lewis 2001). This exchange
is especially true when the stakeholder groups are customers or employees
(Davies et al. 2003). At the same time, a new board-level concern has risen:
managing how employees – current and potential – see the company as an
employer (Hepburn 2005). This highlights the importance of employer
reputation. Organizations compete on getting on different Best Employer –

2
ranking lists – such as Great Place to Work, Talentum, and Universum – because
they are a powerful tool in employer brand building.
According to Mosley (2014) measurements of the employer branding results are
done at least somehow only in 25 % of all organizations. This is partly due to the
fact that human resource department collects the data from numerous
independent sources which makes it complex and there might not be enough
skills to analyze the data. The most typical meters are employer branding surveys
made by outsiders – as mentioned previously.
Social media might have solutions to some of the challenges in reputation
management and it is due to the way it operates. Social media is referred “as a
medium with potential for real-time interaction, dialogue, spontaneity, reduced
anonymity, a sense of propinquity, short response times and the ability to time
shift” (Kent 2010, 645). Second definition is by Henderson and Bowley (2010,
237) who see social media as “online tool that emphasises participation,
connectivity, user-generation, information sharing and collaboration”.
Today, companies appear to be using multiple resources on employer branding
campaigns. It can be interpreted that they find value in them. According to
reports on organizations who do employer branding, effective employer branding
leads to many positive outcomes: competitive advantages, helps employees
internalize company values, and assist in employee retention (Conference Board
2001). Additionally, according to a national recruitment survey (Duunitori 2015)
38 % of the respondents say that a good employer brand is vital to a successful
recruitment and 49 % has partly the same opinion. This means that 87 % of the
respondents believe that an employer brand is important for recruitments.
Companies have understood this, and are willing to invest in it.
Organization creates an employee value proposition (EVP) that is connected to
the employer brand (Backhaus & Tikoo 2004). Employee value proposition
means the value that the company offers to its employees. This EVP defines who
the organization wishes to be seen. It lists the key definitions that are wanted to
be associated with the organization as an employer. Efficient value propositions

3
are clear and easy to understand. Basically EVP is the translation of the
company’s values into employee context; it should clarify the company’s values
to the employee and highlight those features of the brand’s ideology, culture, and
future visions that are relevant to tempt new talents and keep the current ones in
the organization. (Mosley 2014.)
Nowadays employer branding practices have become more popular in the real
world, but only just a decade ago academic research was very limited on the topic
with a few articles in the marketing literature (Backhaus & Tikoo 2004). Within
today’s academic research this theme is a little more researched (e.g.
Bakanauskienè et al. 2015; Fisher et al. 2014; Aggerholm Kryger, Esman
Andersen, & Thomsen 2011) but still the academic community comes a little
behind. The theoretical background of employer branding stems from consumer
and corporate branding, but the main target groups are current and potential
employees (Moroko & Uncles 2008). Within this there lays a gap that should be
researched better. This raises interesting questions for management scholars:
which theories can help us understand employer branding and how should
employer branding be investigated and validated as an appropriate practice for
human resource management? (Backhaus & Tikoo 2004.)
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this thesis is to research companies that are considered to be good
employers and the ways these companies portray their employer brands and
reputations through social media, how they can be interpreted, and, specifically,
how these companies address the new talents of Generation Y.
1.2 Research questions
The main focus of this research is to look into eight companies’ employer brand,
their employer reputation, to find out how they use social media in constructing
it. That is why I believe that these three research questions help in understanding
that phenomena.

4
 How are companies using the new forms of communication channels
 What kind of content do they publish in their social media channels? What
kind of posts affect positively on their employer brand and reputation as
an employer?
 How are they trying to appeal to new talent?
The Universum’s ranking is based on the answers of university students, and in
this thesis it is used as a source of companies with good employer brands in
Finland. That is why it is chosen to specifically look into their way of “marketing”
themselves to young talents (from Generation Y). This is also in the interest of
aTalent Recruiting (more of this in 3.3.2).
1.3 Demarcations
Even though the concepts of generations Y and Z are quite similar, this thesis
addresses only the ideas and thoughts of Generation Y. Recruitments are usually
connected to employer branding but in this thesis the literature of recruitments
is not handled and it will not be a part of the theoretical framework. Different job
advertisements are not a part of the data and only the introduction words
connected to open positions that are posted in different social media platforms
will be analysed. This thesis does research only on three major social media
channels: Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. This is because it is important that
all or at least majority of the case companies are represented in all of the chosen
social media channels.
1.4 The Structure of this Research
The research starts with an introduction to the whole theme and presents the
research problem and research questions. After that, in chapter 2, the theoretical
framework is presented with the main focus on social media, employer branding,
and employer reputation. In chapter 3 the chosen methods and data are opened
and explained thoroughly. Chapters 4 and 5 handle the analysis, results,

5
conclusions, and remarks of this thesis. The Swedish summary is before
references.

6
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Concepts
In this first sub-chapter the most important concepts are explained and opened.
They help with understanding the whole phenomena better. Some other
concepts, with lesser importance to the thesis’ subject, are opened in the main
theoretical text as they appear.
2.1.1 Employer Branding as a Concept
Kotler (1997, 443) defines the concept of brand as “a name, term, sign, symbol,
or design, or combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and
services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of
competitors”. The use of branding has changed over the years; it was originally
used to differentiate tangible products but now it is used to differentiate people,
places, and companies (Peters 1999).
The term employer branding suggests distinguishing a company’s attributes as
an employer from its competitors. The concept highlights the uniqueness of what
a company can offer as an employer. Ambler and Barrow (1996) define the
concept in benefits; functional, economic, and psychological aspects. A deeper
description of these can be found from 2.3. In a likewise way the Conference
Board (2001) suggests that “the employer brand establishes the identity of the
firm as an employer. It encompasses the firm’s value system, policies and
behavio[u]rs toward the objectives of attracting, motivating, and retaining the
firm’s current and potential employees”.
Both of these definitions point out that employer branding implies promotion,
both in-house and outside the company, which provides a clear view of what
differentiates a company and makes it desirable as an employer (Backhaus &
Tikoo 2004).

7
2.1.2 Employer Attractiveness
Employer attractiveness is closely related to the concept of employer branding.
Employer attractiveness can be defined as benefits which the potential employees
believe will be received if they get hired to a certain organization (Berthon, Ewing,
& Hah 2005). The higher the potential employees see the employer
attractiveness, the more the position has brand capital (Berthon et al. 2005;
Wilden, Gudergan, & Lings 2010).
It is important to understand so called attractiveness factors if a company is seen
as an attractive employer to potential and current employees (Berthon, Ewing, &
Hah 2005). For instance, Berthon with his fellow researchers (2005) have created
a 32-part EmpAt-scale, and that can be used as a tool in recognizing these factors
and valuating the attractiveness of an employer.
Potential employees evaluate the employer attractiveness through different work
place and task related features (Wilden et al. 2010). These kinds of features are
listed e.g. in the above-mentioned scale. Certain features are easier to evaluate,
such as the salary, where as some features – say working atmosphere – is harder
to predict in beforehand (Wilden et al. 2010).
Evaluating the employer attractiveness causes some information seeking related
costs to the job seekers. If the potential job seekers need to use a lot of resources
to get information about the company they might feel that there are too many
risks and the employer is seen less attractive. But if the information found about
the employer is found promising is the felt risk smaller. At the same time, the
expected quality of the job and in that way the attractiveness are seen as much
bigger. (Wilden et al. 2010.)
According to the framework, how attractive as an employer potential employees
see the company depends on the consistency of the employer image, clarity,
believability of the messages transmitting the employer brand, and on the
investments done to support the employer branding. Other factors also, such as
previous work experience and the company’s field, location, and size, have an
impact on the felt employer brand attractiveness. (Wilden et al. 2010.)

8
2.1.3 Generation Y
The term ‘Generation Y’ is usually used when describing a generation born in
Europe and in the USA approximately between the years 1977 to 2000 who are
believed to be democratic and liberal. This generation is named after a previous
generation, Generation X, named by Douglas Coupland in his novel Generation
X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture (1991). This generation questions the values
of the previous generation, is more open to diversity, and has grown together with
the development of technology. Actually, the advocates do most of their
communicating through the international network. (Shroer 2013.) This is why the
generation has been called also the Internet generation and Diginatives (Tapscott
2010; Suutarinen 2011). Generation Y is strongly family and individual oriented.
They are flexible and demand that from others as well. (Shroer 2013.) The
children of generation Y have been encouraged to express themselves, to make an
impact, and to network. These skills are used later also in the working life. They
expect this from others as well. (Suutarinen 2011.)
Globally, the Generation Y started to enter the working life in the 21st century
(Tienari 2010; Suutarinen 2011) and it has been forecasted that until 2020 the
Generation Y makes up 50 % of world’s work force (Raunio 2011). This is why it
is important to realize what this generation looks from an employer, and to do
research how companies try to brand themselves to attract them.
2.1.3.1 The Eight Norms of Generation Y
Don Tapscott, an assistant professor in leadership and management from the
University of Toronto, has found in his researches eight “norms”, with what he
means Generation Y’s typical attitude and behavior related features that
differentiate this generation from the previous and other generations represented
by their parents. These norms are freedom, modifying, researching, ethicalness,
collaboration, entertainment, speed, and innovativeness. They value freedom;
freedom to be whomever they want to be and freedom of choice. They want to
modify everything – their job as well. They learn to question and check everything
they see and hear. Honesty, sincerity, foresightness, openness, and holding on to

9
commitments are on the top of the list they value. They are excellent in working
in groups. Speed is something they enjoy, same as new thoughts. (Tapscott 2010.)
2.1.3.2 Generations X and Z
The generation born approximately in 1965–1982 are called Generation X
(Tulgan 1997). The concept first came to be in Douglas Coupland’s novel called
Generation X. The Generation Xs are usually described as independent and
technology-oriented. They define success with their own terms and they want to
participate into decision making (when it comes to their own job). The members
of this generation are not interested in working for the organization’s common
good. (Kinnaird 2002.) They believe that their ideas and abilities need to be
evaluated according to their accomplishments.
The so called “new generation” (born after 1990) – Generation Z – is soon starting
their careers. According to Tapscott (2010), they want freedom with everything
they do and they love solutions and tailoring. They question, look for honesty and
openness from companies and want entertainment to their lives. The members of
Generation Z want their work to be challenging but at the same time they want it
to be fun, they want to enjoy the time they spend at the work place. (Tapscott
2010.) This generation resembles quite much the previous generation, Y.
2.2 Social Media, Use and Strategy in Companies
Social media utilizes mobile and web based technologies to create interactive
platforms through which individuals and communities can share, produce, and
modify user-generated content and discuss about it. The concept of social media
contains multiple sub-concepts: social network sites, blogs, collaborative
projects, content communities, and virtual game worlds. (Bondarouk et al. 2013.)
Chaffey (2011, 718) defines social media as “a category of media focusing on
participation and peer-to-peer communication between individuals with sites
providing the capability to develop user-generated content (UGC) and to
exchange messages and comments between different users”.

10
At the moment, pages of social media are versatile, and they differ from each
other with their target group and the activities they offer. Some pages are targeted
to big masses, like Facebook. On the other hand, other pages are more focused on
professional networks, like LinkedIn. Some pages are also focused on media
sharing, like YouTube and Flickr. After a slow start in the 1990’s web-logs (or
blogs) have transformed into popular because they are easy to create and keep.
The writers of blogs vary from private persons to professionals and to public
figures. (Kietzmann et al.2011.)
In this study, the focus is on social network sites which are defined as following:
”Web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-
public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with
whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections
and those made by others within the system” (Ellison 2008). To avoid confusion,
the terms ‘social network sites’ and ‘social media’ are used as synonyms. The
definition above applies for the both of them.
When talking about the users of social media, Generation Y builds an interesting
segment of users both to academics and to practitioners (Bissola & Imperatori
2013). Manroop and Richardson (2013) have made a discovery based on a lot of
research that, apart from their age, only the use of social media characterizes the
Generation Y most explicitly.
However, this special attribute has been noted and extensively researched only
from a personal life point of view: how these Generation Y users socialize, receive
information, and entertain themselves etc. It was only recently that it was
discovered that social media have a significant impact on the way this generation
notices brands and companies; this led to a great rise in interest that companies
currently express for this topic. (Fischer et al. 2014).
Employer branding has received growing attention in the past years, but still it
can be called a rather new and underdeveloped research area (Bondarouk et al.
2013). Bondarouk with his colleagues (2013) define employer branding as “a
long-term strategy of any given company, aimed at both building a unique and

11
desirable employer identity and managing the perceptions of prospective and
current employees, in order to gain competitive advantage”, and it is seen as a
part of corporate branding, which means a company’s general strategy of
branding.
The main reason for a firm to care about its employer brand image is to be
tempting to competent, potential, and talented current and/or future employees
to be able to attract and retain those (Sivertzen et al. 2013). Hence, recruiting is
considered to be of uttermost priority for employer brand image (Sivertzen et al.
2013).
Companies customarily use multiple channels of marketing when they work with
their recruitment strategies: word-of-mouth, offline periodical publications and
the Internet (Sivertzen et al. 2013). During the upcoming years, the role of social
media in employer branding strategies is envisioned to grow notably, especially
with the process of recruitments (Fischer et al. 2014).
2.2.1 The use of social media in companies
Even though it is clear that there lies a lot of power within social media, many
leaders are reluctant or incapable of creating strategies and allocating resources
to utilize social media effectively (Kietzmann et al. 2011). Because of this
companies ignore regularly or manage poorly the possibilities and threats
brought to their attention by creative consumers (Berthon et al. 2007). One
reason for this incompetentness is the lack of understanding of social media and
ignorance on what kind of forms it can take (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010).
Even though social media offers great potential advantages when used as a part
of the employer image strategy, it and its practical meaning on this has not
received a lot of attention from the academic community (Sivertzen et al. 2013).
Although, most of today’s marketing plans include elements of Facebook, Twitter,
and YouTube, very few marketers work systematically to understand and manage
the company’s social media strategy. At the same time, they take a risk when
going after the newest application and treating different elements as different

12
platforms instead of trying to understand the basics. The ecosystem of social
media enables the marketer’s thoughts to be directed to the common strategy and
not the tactics. Working with this ecosystem enables the marketers to wonder
who are part of the target group, on what traditional or social platform do these
target groups live, what kind of marketing content does the company want to
publish, and how do the marketers feed this information through the ecosystem.
(Hanna, Rohm, & Crittenden 2011.)
With the rise of social media it seems like the organized communication is
democratized. Individuals and communities have taken over the personnel
working with marketing and PR, and they produce, share, and consume blogs,
twiits, Facebook posts, movies, photos, and alike. Communication about different
brands happens with or without the permission of the company in question. This
means that companies need to decide if they will take social media seriously and
take part in that kind of communication or keep ignoring it. Both of these have
massive consequences. (Kietzmann et al. 2011.)
2.2.2 Dimensions of Social Media
Kietzmann and his fellow researchers (2011) describe the seven dimensions of
social media applications (Figure 1.): identity, conversations, sharing, presence,
relationships, reputation, and groups. The dimensions demonstrate the features
of social media that all of them or just part of them can appear in each social
media application. With analyzing these dimension companies can monitor and
understand the procedures and effects of social media, and based on these create
a working strategy to use them. (Kietzmann et al. 2011.)

13
Figure 1. The dimensions of social media (retold from Kietzmann et al. 2011).
Identity is very visible on social media. For an individual this means most
commonly sharing large amounts of personal data in public. Companies need to
take into consideration how much sharing of information they enable taking also
the information security risks into account. This all needs to be done well while
choosing the channels of social media. (Kietzmann et al. 2011.) The relationships
define how many options to connect with other users the application creates
(Kietzmann et al. 2011). According to the meaning of the word ‘social’
relationships work as an essential element on social media, because without them
it would all be about structures of codes (Knight & Cook 2013).
Reputation in the context of social media means the amount of content shared by
a user(s) that is visible to other users. Companies can measure their reputation
with objective meters based on the number of followers or viewing times or based
on collected opinions, for instance. (Kietzmann et al. 2011.)
Conversations means the amount of opportunities that social media provides to
communicate between the users. Some services are created exactly for this
purpose only, the conversations between users. For companies the freedom of
speech can be both positive and negative: on the other hand it creates a possibility
Identity
Presence
Relationships
Reputation
Groups
Conversations
Sharingn

14
to communicate with clients but the bad feedbacks travel quickly on the social
media. (Kietzmann et al. 2011.)
Sharing means the amount of sharing and receiving the particular social media
channel enables. To reach the wanted target group companies should think about
what the company and its clients have in common, and what kind of content these
target groups would be interested in receiving. (Kietzmann et al. 2011.)
Presence means the feature of social media that shows where the users are and
how much it is relevant to know where the users are in the interest of the feature
of social media. Simplified, this can mean that a user appears to be ‘online’ when
the users is present. (Kietzmann et al. 2011.)
Forming groups is typical to many social media channels. Groups can be formed,
for instance, based on common interests, and this can be one way a company tries
to reach its target group. (Kietzmann et al. 2011.)
2.3 Employer Branding
Ambler and Barrow (1996) were one of the firsts in creating the base for the
concept of employer branding. They defined it as follows: a combination of
functional, economical, and psychological employment-related benefits that can
be connected to the employer. Functional benefits can be advancing the
development and/or otherwise useful activities. Economic benefits can be ether
tangible or monetary benefits. Psychological benefits, on the other hand, are
emotions, such as feeling of social cohesion or meaningfulness. (Ambler & Barrow
1996.)
The same concepts are used in employer branding as well as in product branding.
For instance, according to Ambler and Barrow (1996) the employer brand has a
personality and it can be positioned in the same way as product brands. The
context is different, though, because employer branding is related to human
resources.

15
According to Tybout and Calkins (2005) positioning answers to questions (1)
what is/what are the brand’s target group(s)? (2) What is the aim these target
groups can receive with the help of the brand? And (3) Why to choose one brand
over the others, especially when the aims are possibly the same? In other words,
the target group needs to know what the specific brand is, what is its meaning,
what does it do, and what is the gain from it, also in the long hall (Dahlèn et al.
2010). When positioning is applied to employer branding it is important to find
answers to these questions also then when product brands and employer brands
are similar in this way.
What comes to the humane side of the brand, the so called personalities, has
Aaker (1997) developed five personality types, or characters, and they are
competence, excitement, ruggedness, sincerity, and sophistication. According to
Dahlèn and his colleagues (2010) these brand personalities form a good starting
point for marketing communication because with the help of these describing a
brand and understanding its position amongst other competing brands is easy.
Rampl and Kenning (2014) studied how these five personalities affect the
jobseekers’ trust and liking towards the employer brand and how attractive the
employer brand was. In the research students were asked to evaluate some
consulting companies’ employer brands.
According to the findings, companies, who wished for a head start in the
competition for the best applicants should pay attention to their employer brand’s
characteristics by finding out which traits especially affect positively the
jobseekers’ formation of trust and liking (Rampl & Kenning 2014).
Edwards (2009) says that in employer branding the branded “product” is a
unique work experience that is individual with every employer. The assumption
is, that when a company clarifies and manages this work experience, the end
result is the formed (positive or negative) value and impact for the target group.
In this case, the targets for employer branding are, among other things, current
and potential employees but also on some level the company’s other (outside)
stakeholders.

16
2.3.1 Employer Branding as a Process
According to Backhaus and Tikoo (2004), employer branding is a three-faced
process:
1. Value proposition
Information about the culture of the company, leading styles, and the attributes
of current employees are told through the employer brand. A description of what
the company can offer to its employees belongs to value proposition as well.
2. External marketing
The value proposition of an employer brand is communicated to recruitment
partners, among others, so that they can reach the right target group. Building a
unique image helps so that the potential job applicants can imagine themselves
working in the company. A unique image also strengthens the commitment of the
employees. On the other hand, a distinguished brand enables getting the distinct
human capital to the company.
3. Internal marketing
A company must respect the promises given to the employees before the
recruitments because these promises become a part of the office culture. Through
internal marketing the company builds a staff to itself that others have difficulties
in copying – a staff that is committed to shared objectives. With the help of
internal marketing the company can build a unique culture, and the permanence
of the staff grows.
An office culture is an important part of organizations’ employer brands because
73 % of organizations reveal their culture to allure the best employees to work for
them (Jobvite 2014).

17
2.3.2 The strength of an Employer Brand
To get a strong position on the labour market a company needs to create an
employer brand strong as possible. Moroko and Uncles (2008) have defined the
key features of a strong employer brand as follows:
1. Brand awareness with current and potential employees.
2. The relevance of the brand in the eyes of current and potential employees.
o What kind of package is offered to the (current and future)
employees?
o What is the employee value proposition?
3. How does the brand differ from the competitor’s brand?
o Challenging to execute in practise
4. The brands ability to fill its promises
o A psychological contract is the key here; in other words, the
employee gets what is promised to him/her, for instance,
through marketing or in an interview. Especially standing out
from the competitors demands some investments from the
organization.
For the freshly graduated who are taking the first steps into the working life the
difference between potential employers might be very marginal or even none
existing.
2.3.3 Instrumental and symbolic dimension
An employer brand can be researched through its instrumental and symbolic
features. Previous researches support the usefulness of the framework of
instrumental and symbolic in understanding employer brand (Lievens 2007).
Both instrumental and symbolic features have been noticed to have a huge impact

18
on the employer brand attractiveness in the eyes of potential job applicants and
the current employees (Lievens 2007).
The instrumental features indicate to the organization’s or work’s concrete and
objective attributes. For instance, salary, benefits, flexible working hours, and the
location of the work place are considered to be instrumental features. The
features like the above-mentioned wake the interest of the job applicants mainly
because of their usefulness. (Lievens & Highhouse 2003.)
Lievens (2007) studied the army and according to the results instrumental
features had an impact on the actual job applicants and how they felt the
attractiveness of the employer brand more strongly than on the potential job
applicants and the current employees. One reason for this might be that the actual
job applicants collect fact-based concrete information about the employer. This
did not diminish the meanings of the symbolic features because they were
perceived to have a significant impact on all three above mentioned groups and
how they see the employer image. (Lievens 2007.)
The symbolic dimension indicates to work and organization’s subjective and
intangible features (Lievens 2007). These are attributes that stem from the work
of individuals, their observations and conclusions. Examples of symbolic factors
are innovativeness and authority. (Wilden et al. 2010.) Symbolic features relate
to supporting identity, improving self-image, and self-impression (Lievens
2007). For instance, a desire to apply for a certain job might appear because the
applicant sees the job as exciting which can reflect his/hers self-image. Previous
research (e.g. Berthon et al. 2005) has shown that the more organization’s brand
is in line with the needs and values of the potential employers, the more attractive
the individuals feel the job.
It is important to take into consideration both of these dimensions (Wilden et al.
2010). Although, it has been observed that the intangible attributes have a bigger
effect on the employer attractiveness than the tangible features (Lievens 2007).
This was seen also in the results of Universum’s student survey. The survey
showed that the respondents appreciated especially the versatility of the work

19
tasks, friendly atmosphere, job leadership and management, respecting the
employees, as well as the competitiveness of the salary (Universum 2015b).
2.3.4 The Future of Employer Branding
Employer branding is heading more and more to the digital world, social media.
According to Bondarouk and his fellow researchers (2013), the employer
branding’s strategic future should be taken into consideration because social
media – and especially the use of it – will be keeping to grow in the future as well.
In their study, Bondarouk and his colleagues (2013) used the Delfoi-method to
interview experts, HR-professionals, and academics on the subject of employer
branding’s and social media’s future. According to the study, the impact to
employer branding and HR of social media in the years of 2013-2018 are going to
be as follows:
Academics HR-professionals
1. Cost monitoring 1. The visibility of the company
2. Transparency 2. The empowerment of the employees
3. Targeting when it comes to
recruiting from the target group
3 Employer image
4. Interactivity 4. The company policies
5. The ways of communicating 5. The internal communication and
information sharing
Table 1. The impact of social media on employer branding and HR in the years of
2013-2018 (Boundarouk et al. 2013).
As it can be seen from the table 1, academics and HR-professionals have some
common thoughts but some different ideas as well on how the future of employer
branding is going to look like. This raises some questions, and it might be useful

20
for the academic researchers to work together with the practical professionals
when forecasting the future of employer branding and the digital side of it.
2.4 Employer Reputation
Reputation is easy to understand as a word because it is used frequently in
everyday conversations. It is fairly easy to understand if a company has a good or
a bad reputation. In dictionary descriptions the focus is on the following three
things:
 A reputation is something people talk and tell others about
 Evaluation is connected to reputation that can be good or bad and it
separates the target from similar ones
 A reputation is a recipient-centered phenomena
(Aula & Heinonen 2002.)
According to Argenti (2009), a company’s employees are a valuable point to begin
for measuring a company’s reputation because they are those who put the
organization’s values into practice. Hence, it does not come as a surprise that
conducting how potential and current employees see the company reputation has
recently turned into a board-level concern (Hepburn 2005).
According to Viitala (2007), employer image does not change easily because it is
formed during a long period of time. Although, a meaningful organization-related
theme might affect the way one sees an employer image negatively. The positive
changes happen much slower. (Viitala 2007.)
According to Fombrun (1996), a holding reputation is achieved by creating a
strong interaction relationship with customers and with other important
stakeholders. All the past and present actions have an impact on the reputation.
To get a good reputation the organization needs to provide a good job for its
employees, provide products and services on the right way to its customers, be a

21
good investment to its investors, and be highly valued as a company citizen within
its local community. (Fombrun 1996.)
Employer reputation is also related to employer branding. While the goal of
employer branding is to show the differences of the company compared its
competitors by featuring what it can offer as an employer and by using marketing
tools to advertise those attributes, employer reputation takes a more overall view.
When building an employer reputation a company needs to acknowledge other
ways of managing a reputation than only doing marketing campaigns. (Davies
2008.) Hepburn (2005, 20) defines employer reputation as “based on what you
do as an employer plus what you say you do; how you communicate to the outside
world as an employer”. He has further defined the building blocks of employer
reputation as corporate reputation, culture, people, policies, and values. Figure 2
is a visualization of his idea.
Figure 2. The four elements of employer reputation (Reprinted from Hepburn,
2005, p. 21).
It is said that being a good employer is no longer enough (Hepburn 2005).
Instead, a company need to be seen as a good employer in order to maintain
existing employees and to attract the potential ones. According to a study,
Employer
Reputation
Values
Culture
Corporate
Reputation
People
Policies

22
stakeholders will only act and feel positively towards a company if it has shown a
similar positive disposition towards them (Lewis 2001).
The base of organization’s reliability is the expectations of the customers
(Fombrun 1996). The promises given of the products and services should be filled
in order to keep the trust of the customers. On the other hand, the investors
expect the organization to have credibility and that the management of the
company commit to the promises given in different financial messages.
Responsible actions are also expected of the company from the society’s side.
(Fombrun 1996; Heinonen & Aula 2011.)
Fombrun (1996) sees the organization’s reputation as intangible capital and with
the help of it the organization can get some competitive advantage. Reputation
capital is born when the organization’s inner and outer target groups are satisfied
with the actions of the organization. Within a company with a good employer
reputation the employees are more committed and the turnover of the personnel
is small. This kind of organization is also more attractive and more trustworthy
as an employer in the eyes of potential employees. (Fombrun 1996.)
Heinonen and Aula (2011) emphasize the meaning of trust-building marketing.
Understanding the ultimate meaning of a company’s existence, summarizing, and
communicating are the essential parts of building a reputation. In this sense, this
dimension meets the definition of trustworthiness by Fombrun (1996).
Building a good reputation is a common project where both the company and its
stakeholders together define the company and build its reputation (Heinonen &
Aula 2011). This model of building a reputation describes well the challenges
within building a reputation in today’s societies. The basic principles defined by
Fombrun (1996) are not likely to lose their meaning in the near future, but it is
good to consider the changing factors as well.
The employer reputation is a more specific part of reputation that Juholin (2008)
divides into outer and inner employer reputation. The outer evaluation of the
employer reputation is build, for instance, from the visions on how well the
organization is lead or how tempting as an employer the potential applicants see

23
the organization (Fombrun & Gardberg 2000). Looked from inside the company,
employer reputation is the appraisal given by members of the work community
on the organization’s reputation and what it should. Both the inner and outer
evaluations concern the organization’s attractiveness, responsibility, and honor,
most commonly. (Juholin 2008.)
…
Due to changes in social structures (Hepburn 2005) and people’s attitudes
towards work (Herman & Gioia 2011) attracting and retaining employees have
become challenging. A job or a career means more than just paying the rent
nowadays, it has value and relevance for an individual (Hepburn 2005). Instead
of transporting only pre-planned agendas companies’ communicators should
notice and accept the priorities of the audiences (Lewis 2001) because the choice
of applying to a company and not to their competitor is also affected by affective
states, attitudes, and beliefs (Allen, van Scotter, & Otondo 2004). Fombrun
(2008) argues that there are similarities with the processes with employer and
employee decision makings: in the same way as managers use employees’
reputations to make personnel decisions and prefer better-regarded
professionals, the employees prefer to work for better-regarded companies
Companies need to constantly streamlining their processes simultaneously with
the mentioned developments in social structures and applicants’ expectations
alone. Hence, they are becoming even more dependent on current employees’
performance as well as on holding right the kind of talent that can develop their
organization (Hepburn 2005). Those companies that do succeed in managing and
holding their employer reputation are seen as ‘employers of choice’. This can cost
a lot in a short period of time but the goal of growing to an employer of choice will
bring benefits to the company through better candidates in the long term
(Torrington, Hall, & Taylor 2008) and also help it to gain a competitive advantage
(Hepburn 2005).
There are several benefits to having a good employer reputation (Hepburn 2005).
These benefits do mean “more effective recruitment processes, increased

24
employee motivation and retention, more diverse workforce, gaining a
competitive advantage, positive consumer perceptions, and tenacity in times of
crisis” (Hepburn 2005, 21). Smith, Gregory, and Cannon (1996) had a similar idea
already in 1996; they suggested that employee commitment affects positively
employee satisfaction which in turn has an impact on a company’s success.
Another supporting result is by Cable and Turban (2003): according to their
findings, job applicants’ impressions of a company were influenced by corporate
reputation and corporate familiarity which then had an impact on their
impressions on the job’s attributes and expected organizational membership
pride, which in turn has an impact on the intentions of job-pursuit and the
required minimum salary.
Halo effect is also mentioned when employer reputation is discussed. Helm
(2007) defines it as an effect where participants who do not have enough
knowledge about an attribute of a company base their impression of that
characteristic on another they do have knowledge about. They might even
emphasize those attributes that have personal meaning to them. So, should a
company not actively provide information and sources of reference about
themselves, might potential employees base their observations of the company as
an employer on the materials that they are able to find – some of which might not
be relevant to do the evaluation on. (Helm 2007.)
2.4.1 Encounters
Reputation is born in different encounters. Stakeholders make interpretations of
the actions of the organization in these interaction situations. In turn, these
interpretations construct the images of the organization, which form the
organization’s reputation. (Aula & Heinonen 2002.) How an encounter is born
can be seen from Figure 3.

25
Organization Reputation Stakeholder
Encounter
Figure 3. The making of reputation (Aula & Heinonen 2002, 90).
Reputation has three levels:
 Level 1: the company and stakeholders meet face-to-face, e.g. press
conferences and direct customer service situations
 Level 2: interaction situations where a stakeholder meets a product or
service provided by the organization, but the organization might not be
present personally
 Level 3: an encounter where the organization is not directly present, e.g. a
news or advertisement
(Aula & Heinonen 2002.)
On the first level, the encounters are demanding for the forming of the reputation
and failing with the affects negatively to the following encounters. If a customer
has once received bad service, it is hard to get that customer to buy some other
new products from the organization. Bad experiences are also usually shared to
others. (Pitkänen 2001; Aula & Heinonen 2002.)
With the second level encounters previous experiences and images have an effect.
Within these encounters the stakeholder often needs to choose between a specific
product and service. Hearsay and discussions with others affect the encounters.
In the third level encounters the stories made by the organization and the images

26
of the stakeholders take the leading role. In that case, media communication and
media publicity make the reputation. (Pitkänen 2001; Aula & Heinonen 2002.)
Organizations should prepare to encounters of every level and recognize the
meanings of these encounters to different stakeholders. Big advertisement
campaigns from the third level are no use to be organized if the first level
customer encounters do not grow the reputation. (Aula & Heinonen 2002.)
2.4.2 The Dimensions of a Reputation
Reputation is a culture-bound phenomena. It varies between countries and
between subcultures inside a country what is valued at the time. Cultural,
economic, and social differences make the reputation building and maintaining
challenging. In addition, reputation is dependent on time. It follows the current
trends and changes that are prevailed in the social, cultural, and economic
surroundings. (Aula & Heinonen 2002.) Nowadays, the meaning of social
responsibility is emphasized in the actions of organizations, but in ten years
things might be different (Heinonen 2006).
The reputation of an organization cannot be managed without knowing what the
organization’s reputation on a specific time is and what affects it. The reputation
has to be measured in that surrounding where it operates. For instance,
organizations operating in Finland need to know which factors have a remarkable
impact on the Finnish business surroundings. (Aula & Heinonen 2002.)
According to a research, the reputation of Finnish organizations builds from six
dimensions: the organizational culture and management, products and services,
success, social responsibility, public image, and the ability to change and develop.
These, in turn, involve 24 different factors, and based on them Finnish
stakeholders evaluate the organization (Figure 4). (Aula & Heinonen 2002;
Heinonen 2006.)

27
Figure 4. The six dimensions of reputation in Finland (Pitkänen 2001, 24).
These sub-factors are commonly appreciated attributes, and with every
characteristic the reviewer gives points to the organization. The total points lets
people know what kind of reputation the company has. (Aula & Heinonen 2002;
Aula & Mantere 2005.) These sub-factors can also be held as a note list that an
organization concerned about its reputation should take notice to. History and
traditions could also be added to sub-factors, some of improves the reputation
significantly. (Pitkänen 2001.)
2.4.3 Evaluating and Measuring Employer Reputation
According to Juholin (2008) employer reputation needs to be observed from
inside and outside. Seen from inside it is an assessment from the members of the
work community about their own organization as well as how should the
reputation look like or what kind they would want it to be. Seen from outside,
reputation is an assessment that potential employers and other stakeholders give
about the organization.
Different surveys measuring employer reputation have become more popular
during the last years, and companies are competing to get in the top of the ranking
lists. Feedback received from these listings can be used in managing and building

28
an employer reputation. (Juholin 2008.) In addition to the Universum’s survey
that is being used as data in this thesis some examples of these Finnish employer
reputation surveys are the Great Place to Work –survey and the Graduates-
survey, executed by T-media.

29
3 METHOLOGY AND DATA
The aim of this thesis is to investigate at the perceptions of Finland’s best places
to work about employer reputation and especially their use of social media in that
context. The chosen method of research is a qualitative and interpretive case
study. The data was collected by doing a review of their online presence and social
media engagement.
Because of the nature of this research, qualitative research gives the best results.
Usually the objective of a qualitative research is to try to explain the phenomena
as a whole and describe real life and its many sides. It is typical that with
qualitative research, inductive reasoning follows: from personal observations to
more common meanings. (Hirsjärvi et al. 2009.)
3.1 Qualitative method and technique
Content analysis is the choice of method. It is seen mostly as an analysis method
for qualitative data that emphasizes the qualitative and content-related meanings
(Seitamaa-Hakkarainen 2000). With its help mainly linguistic data is researched,
where the researcher tries with the help of different classifications to analyze
structures and contents related to the examined phenomena (Chi 1997).
A well-covered and systematic description of the data-related contents is the
end result that content analysis tries to help achieve. Content analysis can be
executed with the research strategy of ether quantitative or qualitative methods.
The research problem and theoretical frame build the foundation of choosing
and defining the content categories. Content categories can also be constructed
based on the researched data or on an outside concept systems, frameworks or
theories. (Seitama-Hakkarainen 2000.)
Content analysis is text-based analysis and follows a coding chart – as do other
positivistic text analysis. All data is analyzed systematically and objectively so
that the end results correspond with the data’s contents as much as possible and
so that the results are usable for the conclusions. This method should not be
limited to only examining specific words or sayings, but also one should look the

30
connections between them. First, the data is scattered into pieces that are
conceptualized and combined with a new way into a logical whole. Reducing,
classifying, and creating theoretical concepts are part of data analysis, which
leads into interpretations, deduction, and into a more theoretical perception of
the researched phenomena. The forms of analysis are data-driven, theory-
driven and theory-guiding content analysis. In data-driven content analysis the
concepts are constructed from the data, in theory-driven the theme, concepts, or
the frame of the analysis are guiding the analysis, and with theory-guiding
analysis the concepts are ready to use. (Grönfors 1982; Tuomi & Sarajärvi
2009.)
Theory-guiding analysis fits to this reserch better than the other two. The
analysis units are chosen directly from the data but the previous information
guides and helps the analysis. The effect from previous knowledge is
recognizable but the meaning of it is not to test the theory but to open new
thought paths. Gathering the data – how the researched phenomena as a
concept is defined – has a free relationship towards the theory part and what is
already known about the phenomena. In the reporting phase the analysis
changes into more theory-driven style. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2009.) As a support
to the analysis some theoretical concepts are used but they are not there to stop
whatever kind of themes rising up freely.
With the help of researcher Timo Laine’s (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2009) instructions,
the analysis’s phases are going to be:
1. The decision: what are the most interesting findings from the data
2. Going through the data, separating and marking the interesting parts.
Everything else is left out from the research. The marked parts are
collected together and separated from the rest of the data
3. Classifying, dividing, or categorizing
4. Writing the conclusions
The analysis of qualitative data is not usually seen as the last phase of the
research process, but the research is conducted cyclically and the analysis of the

31
data starts already with collecting it. Usually the analyzation starts by reading
the whole data to get an over-all picture of it. In qualitative content analysis the
categories change and evolve during the analyzing process as well as during
some possible additional data gathering. In other words, the categories are
flexible tools to understand the data. The analysis phase usually ends when
there are no new angles found. Qualitative data is very eclectic by nature: there
is not just one right way to make categories, and one categorization system does
not necessarily fit to another data. Researchers are quite cautious when it comes
to giving standardized instructions to conducting researches, and this is why
they emphasize every individual researcher’s creative work with evolving the
categorization systems. (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen 2000.)
The analysis process is systematic by nature and reaches the whole data, but it is
not stiff or strictly following the beforehand defined categories. New analysis
categories can be born during the analysis as well as in co-operation with the
data gathering. With content analysis it is possible to combine qualitative and
quantitative analysis; in this way both methods can fulfill each other and not be
opposite alternatives. (Moilanen & Roponen 1994; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen
2000.)
Choosing and defining the content categories is the most important phase in
content analysis, and the frame of categories is hardly formed directly. The text
can be coded into beforehand defined categories or the frame of categories can
be created during the analysis according to the content. It depends of the nature
and basis of the research if the beforehand defined categories are leaned on,
they born during the analysis, and what kind of statistical analysis is needed. As
a basis to all classifications is always some kind of categories: variables
(categories)/ themes that are independent from each other. Defining one case in
regards with one variable should not affect the categorization in regards with
other variables. In addition, it affects the analyzing of the data if it is done with
qualitative or quantitative analyzing programs, and deciding about it is
important to do before textualizing the data. (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen 2000.)

32
A reliable analysis requires that the data is divided. This can be done with ether
following the language’s outer features or based on meaning contents:
 A structural division is based on the outer features of a linguistic report,
for instance, on pauses, silences, sentences, or chapters
 Semantic division is based on dividing the content of meanings; in this
case the analysis unit is an idea or a unified whole.
(Seitamaa-Hakkarainen 2000.)
Doing the categorization, or the coding, is based on comparison. Comparing and
confrontation are used through the whole analysis when doing the
categorization. The aim in content analysis is to look for similarities in concepts
that form from elements in the categories. In content analysis synthesis and
analysis combine: the collected data is scattered into parts of concepts, and with
the help of synthesis the parts are rebuild into scientific conclusions. (Grönfors
1982.) In content analysis the data is organized in that way so that the
conclusions based on it can be let go step by step from singular people, events,
words, and be lifted to a more general theoretical and conceptional level
(Seitamaa-Hakkarainen 2000).
To sum up, a theory-guided qualitative content analysis is used in this study.
After collecting the data, a semantic division has been used to do the categories
followed by getting back to the theoretical base.
3.2 The Trustworthiness of this Research and Limitations
Because mistakes are tried to be avoided in all research activities, it is important
to evaluate the trustworthiness of every study (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2009). In
method literature the trustworthiness of research methods are usually covered
with the concepts of validity (the study examines what is promises) and reliability
(is the study repeatable). Though, these concepts are criticized within the field of
qualitative research because they have originated from evaluating quantitative
research and as concepts their field mainly answers to the needs of quantitative
research. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2009; Bryman & Bell 2003.)

33
Qualitative research has to also be objective, whereupon the perceptions’
trustworthiness and neutrality needs to be separated from each other. The
neutrality becomes a factor when trying to understand weather the researcher
tries to understand the subject as him, her, or itself or is the story filtered through
the researcher’s own framework. Basically, it is admitted within qualitative
research that this is inevitable because the researcher is the creator and
interpreter of the research design. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2009.)
As it has turned out, there is no one unequivocal instruction to evaluate a
research’s trustworthiness. A study is evaluated as a whole, where the emphasis
is on the inner consistent. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2009.)
The nature of this thesis is an investigation into the chosen eight case companies
and the features of their social media use, and this means that this study is mainly
applicable as a view into the perceptions and current status of these companies.
This thesis contributes in offering a look at what the situation with employer
branding and social media is in these particular companies during one year’s
time. It provides some thoughts on how companies, presumably at the top of the
employer image game, portray their employer brand and whether and how they
utilise social media in it.
Additionally, using social media as a research subject cases difficulties for the
reliability of the study. The main challenge is that social media does not conform
well to the idea of stability and duplicable results. In the centre are the
perceptions of people, which means that it can be expected that these opinions
may change over time. Thus, if duplicated the results might vary to some extent
from the results and findings of this study.
The choice of companies and the case company method can be considered as
redeeming; these companies have performed well enough in the survey to earn
their statuses in the Universum’s ranking can be seen as an insurance of a good
employer image. Hence, the eight companies can be considered to be a good
reference point on good employer branding, also when using the newer forms of
communication – social media.

34
3.3 Data
The data is built from eight (8) companies from three (3) different industries,
according to the Universum’s results from the year 2015 – one company is listed
in two different industries – as well as the factors that build the dream employer.
From the business sector the representatives are KONE, Nordea, and Fazer; from
the IT industry Google, Microsoft, and Supercell; from the technology branch
KONE, ABB, and Suomen ympäristökeskus SYKE. The factors that build a
company into a dream employer are versatile job tasks, friendly working
atmosphere, being a good reference to the future career, supporting supervisors,
and competitive salary (Opiskelijatutkimus 2015).
As the theme of the thesis is employer brand, I am going to look into these eight
companies from one year’s time and how they portray their employer brand
through what kind of content they have published on their own social media
platforms and own webpages. The data is collected under time period from
30.11.2014 to 30.11.2015.
3.3.1 Universum
Lars-Henrik Friis Molin founded Universum in 1988 in Stockholm, Sweden,
while still studying. It all started with a class project to better improve the
communication between students and the companies who want to recruit them.
It was then when Lars Henrik wrote and distributed the first Universum student
survey. The results were interesting and insightful and they made the press.
Employers saw these insights and were surprised by the results. They made
contact with Lars-Henrik and a new company, Universum, was born. (Universum
14.9.2015.)
Today Universum is an international corporation that “delivers surveys to
millions of students and professionals and provides Ideal Employer™ research,
full-service communication and strategic consulting services to more than 1200
clients globally” (Universum 14.9.2015). “With top talent having more choices
than ever in where and whom they can work, a strong employer brand can be a
critical tool in getting the best talent” (Universum 14.9.2015).

35
Universum produces new employer rankings every year, and the Finnish results
were last published 28.4.2015. There are six different industries: Engineering, IT,
Business, Health, Humanities, and Law. (Universum Trends and Rankings
22.10.2015.) During the spring 2015 Universum gathered the opinions of over
12 000 Finnish students regarding today’s ideal employers from the industries of
business, engineering, IT, and law. The students represent over 40 different
universities. (Työelämä 15.12.2015.)
The rankings are formed as follows: “Basically, students select the companies
they would consider working for and then select their five ideal employers.
Depending on how many students choose one company as an ideal employer,
determines its ranking position. The most attractive employers are not only the
ones that are top-of-mind, but are also the ones that excel in talent attraction.”
(Universum 2015b.)
In this thesis only Engineering, IT, and Business industries are looked into more
deeply. This selection is done in the interest of aTalent Recruiting where the
recruiting scope is business and technology sectors.
3.3.2 Background
This thesis is done together with aTalent Recruiting, which is a startup–spirited
recruiting agency owned by alumni and student organizations of Aalto University.
The aim of aTalent is to help companies recruit, develop, and attract young and
educated professionals. Founded in 2004, aTalent has grown into a company
which currently employs almost 40 people, and in 2014 exceeded 1,6 M€ in
revenue (information received from aTalent’s CEO, Anniina Tchernych on the
16th of February 2015). The employees at aTalent work with client companies to
find the most suitable and talented employees according to their specific needs.
The focus is on university students and recent graduates, especially in the fields
of business and technology. (aTalent Recruiting 17.9.2015.)

36
3.3.3 Introduction to the eight companies
In this part all of the eight case companies are presented. In general the language
of their social media channels varied from Finnish to English. Some companies
had even their own social media page for the Finnish markets. If so this page was
used as a part of the data and not the global one. The reason for this is that the
Universum’s results are based on Finnish students’ answers. It should also be
mentioned that some of the case companies have multiple Twitter accounts (for
instance, for their different products), but in this thesis only the general account
and (possible) careers account are used as the data.
The logos are taken from the companies own web pages.
3.3.3.1 KONE
KONE was founded in 1910 and it belongs to one of the leading companies of the
industry. The company offers its clients advanced elevators, escalators, and
automatic doors as well as versatile solutions to their maintenance and basic
reparation. Understanding of different clients’ needs has lead their way of
operating for over hundred years. (KONE 19.10.2015.)
KONE wants to give the best user experience by developing and delivering
solutions that allay people to move effortlessly between buildings safely,
comfortably, and without delays in more and more urban surroundings. The
themes that are important to KONE are safety, environmental-friendly,
unobstructedness, and design. Their turnover in 2014 was 7, 3 billion euros, and
they employed globally over 47 000. (KONE 19.10.2015.)

37
3.3.3.2 Nordea
The history of Nordea in Finland starts with the founding of the first commercial
bank, Suomen Yhdyspankki. The senate verified the licence of the bank in May
21st, 1862. The bank started its activities in July the same year. The name of
Nordea have changed many times, and it got its current form in the end of 2001.
By then the concern consisted also of Danish bank Unibank and Norwegian
Christiania Bank og Kreditkasse. (Nordea 11.11.2015.)
3.3.3.3 Fazer
Fazer started its operation in 1891. They describe themselves as responsible, team
spirited company “that creates taste sensation and fosters beloved local flavors
with a global touch”. (Fazer 11.11.2015a.)
Today Fazer operates in eight countries (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia,
Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden). In 2014 Fazer Group’s net sale amounted over
1,6 billion euros, and the company employs over 15 000 employees. “Fazer’s
operations comply with ethical principles that are based on the Group’s values
and the UN Global Compact.” (Fazer 11.11.2015b.)

38
Fazer gives an employer promise: “At Fazer we think that whatever position
you’re in, you’re an important member of our winning team – an international
and innovative brand house. Join the family that lives for taste sensations” (Fazer
11.11.2015b).
3.3.3.4 Google
The founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, met in the University of
Stanford in 1995. First they created a search engine in the year 1996, and Google
was founded in 1998. It grew quickly to a company that services millions of people
around the world. (Google 11.11.2015.)
3.3.3.5 Microsoft
Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Microsoft in 1975 in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
and it is an American software company. Today the head quarter of the company
is in Redmond, Washington. Microsoft is the manufacturer and seller of
Windows-operating system. In the end of 2014 it employed around 123 000
people. (Microsoft 11.11.2015.)

39
3.3.3.6 Supercell
Supercell is a Helsinki-based mobile game developer and it has offices in San
Francisco, Tokyo, Seoul, and Beijing. Currently they have 150 employees, 5
offices, and over thirty different nationalities. Supercell was founded in 2010 and
it is most famous for three games: Clash of Clans, Hay Day, and Boom Beach.
Their goal is to create a new kind of gaming company. (Supercell 28.10.2015.)
3.3.3.7 ABB
ABB was founded in 1988, but the history of the company leads to over 120 years
ago. In Finland ABB operates in 21 places and employs around 5 200. Globally,
ABB has workers in approximately 100 countries and it employs around 140 000
people. (ABB 28.10.2015.)
The company has seven research centers around the world and their investments
in product development has continued in every market circumstances. Their
turnover in 2014 was around 2, 1 billion euros. Today, ABB is one of the world’s
leading deliverer in motors and frequency transmitters, wind turbine generators
and electric networks. (ABB 28.10.2015.).

40
3.3.3.8 The Finnish Environment Institute - Suomen ympäristökeskus SYKE
The Finnish Environment Institute (Suomen ympäristökeskus SYKE) was
founded in 1995 to follow the Board of Water and Environment (Vesi- ja
ympäristöhallitus). SYKE is a research and expert institute owned by the Finnish
government that offers information regarding the sustainable development,
knowledge, and services. “SYKE forms part of Finland's national environmental
administration, and mainly operates under the auspices of the Ministry of the
Environment, although the Institute's work related to water resources is
supervised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.” (SYKE 28.10.2015.)
SYKE’s actions are under seven centers: water, ocean, nature, spenditure and
production, environmental politics, laboratories, and information center. The
main tasks of these centers are research and development work and producing
different services. Administrative services, management support, and
communication support the actions of the centers and the management. (SYKE
11.11.2015.)
3.3.3.9 Data Conclusion and the case companies’ social media presence
The thesis focuses only on three separate social media channels: Facebook,
LinkedIn, and Twitter. This is because of the reason that all eight companies are
more or less all presented in these channels, except for two. As it was mentioned
in 1.4, the focus is only on those channels or platforms where all of the case
companies are presented. This excludes in some cases company presence in
platforms like YouTube and Instagram.

41
LinkedIn Facebook Twitter
KONE 72 668 - 5 983
Nordea 71 215 26 162 6 067
Fazer 12 035 280 503 12 200/1632*
Google 3 795 975 19 180 964 13.2 M
Microsoft 2 663 762 477 398 7.31 M/65 000**
Supercell 19 308 532 403 199 000
ABB 571 290 381 116 1 044
SYKE - 4 862 4 427
Table 2. The social media presence of the case companies.
* Ura Fazerilla –Twitter account
** Microsoft Careers – Twitter account
Follower/liker numbers checked on November 29th, 2015
3.3.4 Data collection
A review of eight selected companies’ online employer presence was conducted.
The aim was to collect information on how potential candidates, potential future

42
employees, would be able to connect with the companies online and get
familiarized to the company’s employer image based on their social media
presence. In practice the review was conducted by analysing the companies’ web
sites and social media profiles.
Every company’s own career page from their web site was analysed and each
social media channel where the company has a profile was read through from one
year’s time and made notes. Based on those notes the analysis is conducted in the
next chapter.

43
4 ANALYSIS
In this chapter the data is analysed according to the three research questions
presented in 1.3, which are:
an employer?
 How are they trying to appeal to new talent?
The data consists of eight case companies and their social media presence in
Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter as well as their own career page on their web
site (presented in the previous chapter). But first an overview of the social media
presences of the case companies is presented in the next chapter.
4.1 Overview of the social media presences
The main reason for a firm to care about its employer brand image is to be
tempting to competent, potential, and talented current and/or future employees
to be able to attract and retain those (Sivertzen et al. 2013). Hence, recruiting is
considered to be of uttermost priority for employer brand image (Sivertzen et al.
2013). According to a framework, how attractive as an employer potential
employees see the company depends on the consistency of the employer image,
clarity, believability of the messages transmitting the employer brand, and on the
investments done to support the employer branding. Other factors also, such as
previous work experience and the company’s field, location, and size, have an
impact on the felt employer brand attractiveness. (Wilden et al. 2010.) With this
data and based on these social media sights it is quite clear these companies have
succeeded in being attractive employers. The employer image shown through
social media supports the rankings in Universum’s list.

44
As a generalization, it can be said that all eight case companies have active social
media platforms and that they use the new forms of communication channels as
platforms for showing their employer brands – more or less. The way these
companies use different channels varies and some use specific platforms more
especially to employer branding than the others. In chapter 5 the possible
insufficiency of social media explaining the high appreciation as an employer is
assessed more.
In a nut shell, the information over the companies’ employer brands are easily
accessed for the potential employee or job seeker. As it was mentioned earlier, if
the potential job seekers need to use a lot of resources to get information about
the company they might feel that there are too many risks and the employer is
seen less attractive. But if the information found about the employer is found
promising is the felt risk smaller. At the same time, the expected quality of the job
and in that way the attractiveness are seen as much bigger. (Wilden et al. 2010.)
The members of Generation Y are very comfortable in using social media for
working and during their free time. They like to network and through different
social media platforms this is very easy and at the same time these networks can
be global. (Tapscott 2010; Chaffey et al. 2011.) This explains why Finnish
university students can find big, non-Finnish based companies interesting and a
possibility to future employment: because, in this case, through social media they
can easily get in contact and receive the same employer image as they can from
companies based in Finland, the local ones. Social media and the internet make
this possible. This is the reason why a Finnish student can get the same kind of
employer image from a company based in San Francisco and in Sweden. And the
Generation Y members can easily access this information through networking via
internet. More ways and examples on how these eight case companies reach out
specifically to the population of Generation Y are presented in 4.3.
Within the field of business one could say that all three companies are active when
it comes to social media and all of them use social media platforms in building
their employer brand.

45
Within the field of IT the results go to two different directions. The two big and
global IT corporations, Google and Microsoft, have a very active social media
presence. On the other hand, Supercell is the least active “social media doer” of
all the eight companies.
Within the field of engineering – same as with the IT field – the two big global
companies, KONE and ABB, are actively taking care of their social media
platforms. Whereas SYKE has a more low profile when it comes to employer
branding in the social media, and it uses these platform more to portray their own
expertise and professionalism.
More thoughts and analyzation about the reasons why some of the companies
might be less active than others will be presented in the 5.chapter. In the next
subchapter the real contents of these social media platforms are analysed from
the angle of the first two research questions, which are:
an employer?
After that the text will proceed to answering the third research question:
 How do they position themselves to new talent?
4.2 How is social media used in employer branding and reputation?
A good starting point to this subject is that the target group needs to know what
the specific brand is, what is its meaning, what does it do, and what is the gain
from it, also in the long hall (Dahlèn et al. 2010). With these eight case companies
the brands must be quite known to others, to their target groups and
stakeholders, to be named in employer rankings in the first place.

46
Aaker (1997) have developed five personality types, or characters, and they are
competence, excitement, ruggedness, sincerity, and sophistication to showcase
the more humane side of the brand. All of the researched companies show these
characters in their social media postings. It is not known if this have been a
conscious decision from the companies’ side but these brand personalities form
a good starting point for marketing communication because with the help of these
describing a brand and understanding its position amongst other competing
brands is easy – it is easier to compare (Dahlèn et al. 2010).
Juholin (2008) divides employer reputation into outer and inner employer
reputation. The outer evaluation of the employer reputation is build, for instance,
from the visions on how well the organization is lead or how tempting as an
employer the potential applicants see the organization (Fombrun & Gardberg
2000). Looked from inside the company, employer reputation is the appraisal
given by members of the work community on the organization’s reputation and
what it should. Both the inner and outer evaluations concern the organization’s
attractiveness, responsibility, and honor, most commonly. (Juholin 2008.)
Naturally in this thesis the emphasis is on the outer employer reputation based
on the method of data collection.
In the next part this theme is analyzed more detailed.
4.2.1 Companies using social media channels in building their
brand and reputation as an employer
In this chapter seven different ways of using social media channels are presented
and how they effect on the employer brand and reputation.
Different social media platforms are targeted to different stake holders, and
usually a company only has one channel that they use specifically to create their
employer brand. Other channels can be targeted to their customers and
consumers as well. Companies also tend to mix contents in their social media
channels which gives an image that not all of them have an actual strategy on how
to use social media and on systematic publishing.

47
Some of the companies, such as Nordea, ABB, and Microsoft, use their social
media to present their own success within their business. This gives out a message
that they are successful, and naturally employees would choose a successful
company over a less successful one.
Almost all of the companies communicate their values through social media. The
meaning of this is to show potential employees – and customers and other stake
holders – that those are things the company cares about and are ready to work
for. This makes the company more appealing to those who share the company’s
values. Generation Y appreciates that the employer shares his or her own values
(Argenti 2009).
Most of the companies have actually published at least one post when the
Universum’s results were published on spring 2015. Some of them have been
successful in other similar rankings and this is also mentioned in their social
media. They are proud to be considered as good employers and want to let others
know that too. This is also important for potential future employees because for
those who value these rankings knowing how a company has done might make a
change when they decide to apply for a job in one company and not their
competitor, for instance.
On one hand, to show their employer brand companies post blog texts over their
current employees and tell about their regular working days. This gives a practical
glimpse to see what a normal day at work in that company might look like.
All of the companies, except for SYKE, post open job positions in their social
media. This is a good place to let the company’s followers to know when they are
hiring. This is also a good place employer brand wise to show that they are
recruiting because usually that is linked to growth. Today, when the economy is
not so stable, companies in growth phases interest many. Many companies, for
instance Supercell and Microsoft, use some adjectives in their introductionary
words to describe the current employees and to attract similar future employees.
This is a way to let potential employees know what kind of personalities are
valued by the company.

48
A couple of the companies posted from public events, such as Slush. This gives an
impression that these companies are trying to attract entrepreneurship-minded
people. Maybe they value this attribute amongst their own employees. Also they
are aware of current phenomena, which is important when discussing employer
reputation (Aula & Heinonen 2002).
4.2.2 The social media content that has a(n) (positive) impact on
the employer brand and reputation
The instrumental features indicate to the organization’s or work’s concrete and
objective attributes. For instance, salary, benefits, flexible working hours, and the
location of the work place are considered to be instrumental features. The
features like the above-mentioned wake the interest of the job applicants mainly
because of their usefulness. (Lievens & Highhouse 2003.)
The symbolic dimension indicates to work and organization’s subjective and
intangible features (Lievens 2007). These are attributes that stem from the work
of individuals, their observations and conclusions. Examples of symbolic factors
are innovativeness and authority. (Wilden et al. 2010.) Symbolic features relate
to supporting identity, improving self-image, and self-impression (Lievens
2007). For instance, a desire to apply for a certain job might appear because the
applicant sees the job as exciting which can reflect his/hers self-image. Previous
research (e.g. Berthon et al. 2005) has shown that the more organization’s brand
is in line with the needs and values of the potential employers, the more attractive
the individuals feel the job.
First a general overview from this topic is discussed and after that a more industry
specific dividing is done.
Many companies, such as Nordea and Google, publish pictures over regular
working days of their employees. This is a good way to show what it would look
like to work for the particular company and the potential employee can try to
imagine how he or she could fit into the working community. Usually the
employees are smiling (picture 1) which would suggest that they are rather happy
working there, which is very important (Jobvite 2014).

49
Picture 1. A Twiit from Microsoft Women.
In addition to showing the day-to-day working life, many companies post pictures
of after work activities. This gives an impression of tight community that enjoys
spending time together outside working hours. This could be connected to the
norm of entertainment that the members of Generation Y require (Tapscott
2010).
One other way to show how tight of a community a work place is, is Supercell’s
example: they have a picture of their employees in a happy group picture as a
cover picture on their Facebook page. This is quite clever to show the sense of
communality as it is the first picture a potential future Supercell employee sees
when visiting their Facebook page. (Picture 2)

50
Picture 2. Supercell’s cover picture on Facebook.
Within some companies they have taken notice into the rhetoric way of portraying
an employer brand. Words are an important and powerful channel to show the
employer brand and reputation (Hepburn 2005). At Google they have launched
a term ‘Googler’ which describes a person who works at Google. Many other
companies use we-rhetoric and indicate that the work community is a family in
their social media platforms (Fazer, for instance) especially regarding posts about
job advertisements.
The big corporations – Google and Microsoft – have published their own advice
on how to apply for a job at them as well as general tips on job hunting. This gives
the impression that they want the applicants to succeed and that they are on their
side. They seem very welcoming as an employer and the possible employees feel
actually wanted. Lewis (2011) backs this up.
One way to stand out of the sea of companies is to have something unique. For
instance, Google gives one good example on this: they have launched a ‘Take Your
Parents to Work’ Day. From Picture 3 a mentioning of the term ‘Googler’ can also
be seen. Another example is ABB’s arranged James Bond movie night.

51
Picture 3. A LinkedIN post from Google.
One way to showcase the company’s working atmosphere is to use humor. Here
is one example of Supercell and their Baab the Lamb (Picture 4). This shows the
playfulness of the current employees and can be seen as a sign for the future
employees too of the level of humor at the office. In addition to Supercell
introducing a character, Nordea has also their own who is called Jalmari.

52
Picture 4. Baab the Lamb.
4.2.2.1 Industry of Business
KONE has certain values and important themes that they want to bring up front,
such as climate change and sustainability. They also present People Flow Day
which shows many interesting opportunities inside the company. Mentioning
their success in different rankings – other kind than related to employer image –
means that they care about their reputation, work to get praised, and value others’
opinions. (Juholin 2008.) They also use many pictures about international teams
and different positions.
KONE takes the advantage of social media’s attribute about networking and
sharing (Chaffey 2011) when they share private people’s twiits and posts. This
also gives more value to their success when other people notice it and publish
posts about this. Those people might also be current employees and that would
mean that KONE has clearly invested in internal marketing (Backhaus and Tikoo
2004).
Nordea, like KONE, also publishes posts when they have done well and received
awards or honorable mentions. They want to make themselves to seem
approachable by potential employees by letting people know on their social media
that they are present on different career fairs.
Nordea have posted information over their partnership with Aalto Women in
Business and describing this relationship with proud. Other values are written on
their web site where there is a Responsibility tab, from what a social media post
over Nordea’s contribution to society gives a preview. One example on how
caring, humane and how low threshold Nordea has is the picture with the CEO
wishing all happy Christmas.
Nordea always advertises their open job positions with a picture. In these pictures
poses people who are smiling and who look business smart. One idea is that they
try to attract similar people to apply and that they describe the current employees.
Because social media is a place where others can participate (Chaffey 2011) under

53
these job posting some comments do occur. Based on the contents it seems like
often the commentators are Nordea’s current employees. This shows that
Backhaus and Tikoo’s (2004) process of employer branding has succeeded in
Nordea.
More of the targeted employer brand images and showing how attractive of an
employer (Berthon, Ewing, & Hah 2005; Berthon et al. 2005; Wilden, Gudergan,
& Lings 2010) Nordea is to new talents of Generation Y is analyzed in 4.3.
Fazer advertises the results of Universum showing that an objective party
recognizes them as an ideal employer. Along with some other case companies,
also Fazer publishes posts that show their values such as green campaigns,
utilizing difference and equal opportunities. One big value choice is Fazer’s own
daycare: they want to support families with children. Mentioning that they are
part of different recruitment fairs they want to some near possible employees.
4.2.2.2 Industry of IT
Google is big with publishing posts about celebrating difference and they
advertise that they are world’s largest corporate buyer of renewable energy. Some
other values Google wants to put out there are equality, giving fair shots for all,
and celebrating difference. One example of this can be seen from Picture 5 where
Google has changed their own term ‘Googler’ into ‘Gaygler’ for making a point.

Thesis_Poola Isomäki

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Thesis_Poola Isomäki

Similar to Thesis_Poola Isomäki (20)

Thesis_Poola Isomäki