Business Student Perceptions of a Preferred

Employer: A Study Identifying Determinants

of Employer Branding
Bhadra J H Arachchige* and Alan Robertson**

There is an increasing evidence that employers need to give greater emphasis to attract the right
employees to meet their goals of maximizing organizational value and success. The concept of the
employer brand, adapted from marketing theory, has increasingly become the focus of organizations
towards developing their image as an employer of choice, thereby enabling the recruitment and
retention of the best possible workforce. An antecedent to the development of an effective employer
brand is the concept of employer attractiveness, the perceived benefits that a potential employee
identifies with an organization. The paper identifies the significant factors which attract Sri
Lankan university graduates to potential employees, both on a general basis and for specific student
segments. Drawing on the research results, eight dimensions of employer attractiveness are posited.
These would enable organizations to gain a meaningful understanding as to how to strategically
develop their employer brand. The paper also discusses the implications of the findings, identifies
the limitations and suggests the directions for future research.

Introduction
Although a graduate unemployment problem exists in Sri Lanka, there are many fields in
which graduates are eagerly sought by employers. Even where graduate availability is
plentiful, employers in many cases compete actively to attract the higher quality potential
job applicants. As Collins (2001) in his ‘Good to Great’ study stresses, it’s not just a matter
of getting people on the bus before you figure out where to drive it. Of greater importance
is getting the ‘right people’.
It is known that firms with better reputations attract more as well as higher quality
applicants (Turban and Cable, 2003). Available research on the factors that affect job
seekers’ reputation perceptions of employers is, however, sparse. Of the studies available
many are inconclusive, often conflicting significantly with each other (Cable and Graham,
2000). If employers are to be successful in recruiting the best available talent, it is
important that they understand their current reputation among job seekers and locate any
incorrect beliefs that may be held (Fombrun, 1996). This process is going to be more
effective if managers are aware of the factors that are most important in determining the
perceptions of job applicants. The principal objective of this study is therefore to identify
these factors.
* Senior Lecturer, Department of Human Resource Management, Faculty of Management Studies and
Commerce, University of Sri Jayawardenepura, Sri Lanka. E-mail: bhadra@sjp.ac.lk
* * Australian Programs Director, American National College, Sri Lanka. E-mail: nalalanka@yahoo.com

© 2011 IUP
Business . All Rights
Student Reserved.
Perceptions of a Preferred Employer: 25
A Study Identifying Determinants of Employer Branding
Overview of Past Research
Chambers et al. (1998) in “The War for Talent” explore the difficulty faced by large US
companies in attracting the most suitable executive employees. Reasons for this include
the aging population which is resulting in a reduction of the proportion of working age
people, no increase in the percentage of female workers, a flattening of workforce
productivity improvements, stable immigration levels and executives not prolonging their
careers. These quantitative factors are further exacerbated by three qualitative challenges
which Chambers et al. (1998) identify as:
1. The need of a more complex economy for more sophisticated talent with global
business skills, multicultural fluency, technological and entrepreneurial skills,
2. The rise of many small and medium size companies that are increasingly
targeting the same people sought by large companies, and
3. The increase in job mobility.
While Chambers et al. (1998) published these findings more than a decade ago, their
relevance is nonetheless still current. Konig (2008) acknowledges the existence of a
“talent crisis” which he believes will worsen in the years ahead.
“For every person entering the job market by 2012, four will exit. By 2016 the
ratio will be one to six” (Konig, 2008, p. 46).
In addressing this issue he suggests that businesses should be continually asking the
following:
a. Are we attracting the right people at all levels of the organization?
b. Does our corporate culture enable the identification and development of the
right talent?
c. Do we offer the incentives which create opportunities for talent to rise within
the organization?
To bring the right people on board is not simply a matter of placing an advertisement
in the newspaper and expecting to be inundated with applications. While advertising and
publicity have a role in the recruitment process, many companies now realize that finding
people capable of creating organizational success requires the same level of organizational
research and planning as does, for example, product development or project management
(Kaliprasad, 2006).
Organizational success can be measured in a variety of ways; however there is evidence
to demonstrate that measuring profit per employee is the key to understanding corporate
wealth in the present day. Bryan (2007, p. 60) states that:
The real engines of wealth creation today are the knowledge, relationships,
reputations and other tangibles created by talented people and represented by
investments in such activities as R&D, marketing and training.

26 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VIII, No. 3, 2011

 Bryan advocates that measuring corporate performance by financial indexes alone
(balance sheets, cash flows, ROIC) does not truly reflect real wealth generation. He points
out that from 1995 to 2005 the world’s leading corporations increased their profitability
fivefold, this being largely generated by a doubling of both profit per employee and the
number of employees. Hornung (2010) adds weight to this argument in showing that
Fortune magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work for in the US” consistently show higher
profit per employee than firms not on the list.
Over the last decade, companies across the globe have been developing their
reputation image through systematic application of marketing principles to the
recruitment and retention of employees. Employer branding, as it is known, has been
described as “the sum of a company’s efforts to communicate to existing and prospective
staff that it is a desirable place to work” (Lloyd, 2002).
The 2008-10 global financial crisis, with its impact on all aspects of economic life,
made many companies eager to cut costs across the board. The resulting mergers,
acquisitions, hiring freezes and layoffs have undoubtedly dented the image of many
companies as employers. In arguing that employer branding offers the best way to redefine,
and improve the way a company recruits, Johnson and Roberts (2006) cited a study that
indicated 40% of job seekers ranked treatment of employees highest in their perceptions
of organizations as a place to work (29% ranked quality of products or services as most
important). Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)
shows that approximately 75% of companies that use employer branding as a tool for
recruitment find it effective (Dyer, 2007).
Sri Lankan organizations have similar demands as do their developed nation
counterparts in attracting and retaining top talent, especially in the light of a growing
post-internal war economy, a shortage of graduate applicants in a number of occupation
sectors, and the availability of competitive overseas employment opportunities particularly
in the Middle East. A total of 266,450 Sri Lankans were registered by the Foreign
Employment Bureau as leaving for overseas work in 2010 out of a total workforce of
approximately 8 million. An additional factor affecting the business sector is the local
perception that the security, flexibility and less-pressured work environment of the public
service offers a more attractive employment proposition. The official unemployment rate
in December 2010 stood at 4.9%.
Given the importance of attracting the right people to an organization, Lievens and
Highhouse (2003) have explored the most important factors in this process. They
concluded that a brand symbolic image model, drawn from the marketing literature,
provides a company with a framework for auditing their image as an employer and for
benchmarking their image to competitors. It can also serve to set it apart from other
companies, more so than job and organizational attributes. They also identify the need for
further research into how prospective applicants form a global impression of a company,
how they make trait inferences and which traits might be more attractive in different
types of organizations and industries. Subsequent research supported the importance of

Business Student Perceptions of a Preferred Employer: 27

A Study Identifying Determinants of Employer Branding
symbolic beliefs as a recruiting tool but was of limited application as it looked at only one
organization (Lievens, 2007). There are, however, examples of symbolic traits having a
positive impact on recruitment. Greening and Turban (2000) used an experimental
approach in which they manipulated the Corporate Social Performance (CSP) image of
organizations. They found that prospective job applicants are more likely to pursue jobs
from socially responsible firms than from firms with poor social performance reputations.
Hieronimus et al. (2005) emphasize the need for companies to determine which
attributes are most important to specific types of potential employees. They mention that
traditional job recruitment focuses on functional employment benefits rather than
intangible and emotional benefits. Moroko and Uncles (2008) also point out that job
seekers can be segmented into a range of groups based on demographic, geographic,
psychographic and behavioral characteristics and, as with consumer branding, these
should be acknowledged in the recruitment process.
Having identified the need for effective recruitment practices and the factors that are
important to potential recruits, it is also essential to recognize the role played by employer
branding in this process.
There is little doubt that employer branding is increasingly used to attract employees
(Business Day, 2004). It should ideally present a picture of the instrumental and symbolic
traits of an organization which permit job seekers to differentiate the organization from
its competitors in the recruitment market. During the recruitment process the employer
brand messages indicate the nature of the employment, career opportunities, challenges
and the unique features of the organization. They may clarify misconceptions and reduce
reliance on prior notions (Rousseau, 2001). Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) stress the
importance of accuracy of perceptions about the organization. This is supported by Cable
et al. (2000) who warn that providing only positive and desirable value-based information
can lead to unrealistic expectations on the part of recruits with subsequent disappointment
at a later date, in effect representing a violation of the psychological contract which could
lead to increased intentions to quit, reduced job satisfaction and trust, and decreased job
performance. A more realistic presentation which provides input on both sides of the
employment opportunity is considered preferable (Meglino amd Ravlin, 1999) and is
purported to reduce unreal expectations which leads to lower employee turnover, increases
trust and perceptions of honesty and reduces role ambiguity (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004).
The employer brand is, like the consumer brand, all about perception, as Knox and
Freeman (2006) indicate in their recruitment process model which is adapted from
Dukerich and Carter (2000). One of the key aspects of this model, also highlighted by
Davies et al. (2004), is the significance of internal marketing within an organization.
An integrated approach needs to be taken for both internal and external marketing for
the recruitment market. Additionally, employer branding strategies should be aligned with
a company’s overall corporate brand and customer brand strategy (Hieronimus et al., 2005;
Wheeler et al., 2006; and Mark and Toelken, 2009). The messages that firms send out to
potential recruits should be reinforced by its own employees. An interesting finding of

28 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VIII, No. 3, 2011

Knox and Freeman’s research is that recruiters and potential recruits have statistically
different perceptions of an organization’s image. Recruiters, it is claimed, have a much
rosier picture of how potential recruits see the organization.
Perception is closely aligned to the reputation of an organization. Drawing from
organizational behavior studies, there is a useful body of research to assist in
understanding the role of employer branding in the recruitment process as reputation is
formed from the image which in turn is a reflection of the brand.
Some research studies have identified a relationship between an organization’s
reputation and its success in attracting quality applicants (Fombrun, 1996; and Cable and
Turban, 2001), with Highhouse et al. (1999) suggesting overall perceptions of reputation
are in fact the most significant factor influencing the choice by recruits. Factors that
contribute to an organization’s reputation include financial performance, company size,
media exposure, advertising expenditures and type of industry (Cable and Graham, 2000).
Turban and Cable’s (2003) study of the impact of a firm’s reputation on the
characteristics of job applicants can possibly shed some light on the contribution of the
employer brand to job recruitment. They conducted two studies which both supported the
belief that firms with better reputations attract more applicants as well as higher quality
applicants. They did not, however, identify why this occurs but suggested that the social
identity and signaling theories may provide an avenue for investigating the causes of the
relationship. Subsequent findings by Collins and Han (2004) may indicate that Turban and
Cable’s study was too simplistic in isolating a single factor, reputation, as a major contributor
to recruitment attraction, and that applicant pool quantity and quality are the result of an
interaction between numerous practices. The Collins and Han study examined the influence
of low-involvement and high-involvement recruitment practices, corporate advertising and
firm reputation. While all had some impact, they were nonetheless surprised that firm
reputation showed a low level of relationship with applicant pool quantity and quality,
although they did find that corporate advertising together with firm reputation did correlate
with recruitment outcomes. This tends to suggest that for employer branding to succeed in
its aim of making the organization more attractive to potential recruits, any specific
information that presents the organization’s employment offering is required to be closely
linked with a general increase in corporate advertising (Edwards, 2010).
Whether it is linked with other factors or not, research has shown that reputation is
a significant factor in the recruitment process. Organizations need to recognize the type
of image they present to potential employees and endeavour to present themselves clearly
to the labor market in order to attract the best match of applicant. As to the nature of
the image there is little agreement. In the earlier discussion on brand identity and
organizational identity, a range of character dimensions were identified from the available
literature.
A popular approach has been the personification of the organization, in essence giving
it human qualities in order for those both in and outside to understand the corporate

Business Student Perceptions of a Preferred Employer: 29

A Study Identifying Determinants of Employer Branding
character. This approach does have some criticisms. Firstly, personification essentially is
a metaphor. If taken too seriously it can be deceptive as it tends to simplify the complex
phenomenon of corporate reputation (Hunt and Menon, 1995). Secondly, organizations
are not human beings and do not share their characteristics (Morgeson and Hofmann,
1999). Finally, difficulties arise in comparing the reputations of organizations and in
explaining why one firm has a better reputation than another. One example of a corporate
character scale which attempts to overcome these deficiencies has been developed by
Davies et al. (2004).
Some generic scales (scales that can be applied to a wide range of organizations) are
used to compare firms in more detail. Fortune’s America’s Most Admired Companies
annual survey evaluates companies on eight criteria: quality of management, quality of
products and services, innovativeness, long-term investment value, financial soundness,
employee talent, use of corporate assets, social responsibility and overall company results
(Davies et al., 2004). Similar measures are used in Europe and Asia. A Sri Lankan
equivalent is that of the Nielsen Company’s survey of the most respected entities in Sri
Lanka (Lanka Monthly Digest, 2010) which selects the top 100 businesses on the basis of
financial performance, quality consciousness, management profile, work environment,
corporate social responsibility, honesty, innovation, dynamism, vision and nation-
mindedness.
One particularly relevant example of the value of reputation in attracting staff is
reported by Cafolla (2008) and relates to the difficulty experienced by mainland Chinese
retailers of luxury goods to attract qualified staff capable of providing the high level of
service required for the demanding customers in their stores. While salary was once the
main incentive, it has been replaced by the lure of working for a well-branded company,
that which offers training, especially overseas, career growth, an attractive work
environment and social status.
Another approach to how a company should brand itself as an employer with the goal
of attracting new staff is proposed by Moroko and Uncles (2008) who draw on the product
branding strategy of segmentation. They propose that the market for potential employees
should be segmented, just as it is done for consumer groups, and outline a strategy for
carrying out this based on the five major ways in which marketers think about consumers.
Their differences are centered on the profitability consumers bring to a company, the
product features they prize, the reference groups they turn to for advice and approval, the
ability of consumers to negotiate attractive prices, and the barriers that may prevent them
from making purchases. It is suggested that these five segmentation approaches also apply
in the context of the employer-employee relationship and can be used as a basis for
developing the employer brand as a recruitment tool.
As the previous discussion has shown, the employer brand has a range of dimensions
and is the product of a variety of influencing factors. Its strength and value, the brand
equity, is closely related to the level of ‘employer attractiveness’, defined as “the
envisioned benefits that a potential employee sees in working for a specific organization”

30 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VIII, No. 3, 2011

(Berthon et al., 2005). The attractiveness of the employer brand and the organizational
reputation will therefore relate to the degree to which the employer brand attracts the
number and quality of job applicants. As a result, the dimensions of attractiveness need
to be identified if organizations wish to maximize the effectiveness of their recruiting
process. It should be noted however that ‘attractiveness’ is a perception and, as such, will
vary between segments of the market for new employees (Moroko and Uncles, 2008).

Objectives
The objectives of the study are threefold. Firstly, it is aimed to identify the attributes of
organizations that are most significant in attracting Sri Lankan graduate students to seek
employment, a valuable tool to assist organizational recruitment practices. Students,
as with all elements of a population, differ in a variety of ways. Secondly, therefore, the
research differentiates the perception factors on the basis of student gender, course of
study and academic performance. It is considered important to recognize variations in the
perceptions of different student segments. This information can give a more specific focus
to the efforts of human resource managers to attract the most suitable recruits for their
organizations. Finally, in order to provide a framework for organizational recruitment
planning, the research results will be analyzed to identify the key dimensions of
organizational attractiveness within the Sri Lankan context.

Methodology
In order to obtain the information required to meet the objectives of the study, a sample
of 221 final year business course students from a Sri Lankan university were surveyed. The
students were drawn from the following course streams: human resource management
(81 students), marketing management (62 students) and finance (78 students). These
students were less than four months away from completing their undergraduate degrees
and, as such, actively contemplating their employment prospects. In addition, they had
mostly been working for the previous six months as full-time interns in business
organizations as a course requirement. This had given them some exposure to work and
the characteristics of different types of employers. It is believed that this was an ideal group
from which to gain an understanding of the attributes that will attract graduates to seek
employment in organizations.
Data was gathered from the students through a self-completion questionnaire which
was divided into two sections. Part A consisted of 32 items representing factors that the
respondents may consider important when considering potential employers. Of these
items, 25 were drawn from an Employer Attractiveness (EmpAt) scale developed by
Berthon et al. (2005) as a result of focus groups using final year students at a large
Australian university. Of the original 32 factors, or employer attributes, that were
identified by the focus groups, seven were eliminated as a result of a two-stage purification
using Cronbach’s Alpha. The alpha for the final 25 item EmpAt scale was 0.96. In the
review of literature on this topic, the authors identified further seven factors which were
not included in Berthon et al.’s scale. These were: profitability, company size, awareness

Business Student Perceptions of a Preferred Employer: 31

A Study Identifying Determinants of Employer Branding
of the company through advertising and media exposure, type of product and/or service
produced, quality of management, honesty and fairness of the organization, and providing
greater respect from family and friends. The seven factors were added to the EmpAt scale
and tested for consistency before being considered in the overall analysis. Respondents
were asked to rate each of the items on a 7-point Likert scale.
Part B of the questionnaire contained five questions which enabled segmentation of
the students on the basis of gender, course of study and academic success level as reflected
by their GPA.
Data analysis for the first objective, identification of attributes which attract graduate
applicants, was carried out by computing the mean of respondents’ values for each of the
items in Part A of the questionnaire. Once an overall value was obtained, it was further
extended by calculating the mean for each of the segmented groups in order to provide
the information required for objective two.
As a refinement of the information obtained, it was also decided to use Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) to attempt to identify the broader dimensions of employer
attractiveness.

Analysis and Results

Overall Preferred Attributes
Table 1 indicates the mean scores for the 32 items which were rated on a 7-point Likert
scale by the respondents in relation to their importance as an attractor for employment.
The first 25 items were used in a trial of the EmpAt scale administered to the final year
business students at an Australian university and the results are included as a comparison.
It should be noted that the terminology of some questions was changed to make them
more easily understood by Sri Lankan university students, many of whom come from a
background where English is not used in everyday parlance. The final seven items were,
as indicated previously, drawn from the relevant literature and added to the questionnaire
as these factors were not included in the EmpAt instrument.
The correlation between the two groups on the 25 common items is 0.577. On the
t-test this is not recognized as a significant difference.
A comparison between the most and least preferred attributes of the two groups based
on the common 25 items is summarized in Table 2.
There is a greater level of commonality between the least preferred employer attributes
(57.14%) than the most preferred (28.57%). In relation to the latter, Sri Lankan students
place greatest value on the opportunities for self development and relationship with
management and superiors. The greater availability of job opportunities together with a
less formal working environment and organizational hierarchical relationship structure is
reflected in the Australian students’ greater interest in socializing (happiness, fun,

32 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VIII, No. 3, 2011

 Table 1: Mean Scores of Employer Attractiveness Items

How Important are the Following to You When Sri Lankan Mean Australian Mean
Considering Potential Employers? (7-Point (7-Point
Item Likert Scale) Likert Scale)

Recognition/appreciation from management 6.11 5.58

A fun working environment 5.20 5.75
Provides opportunity for better jobs in the future 6.38 5.62
Feeling good about yourself as a result of working 6.26 5.69
for the organization
Feeling more self-confident as a result of 6.22 5.72
working for the organization
Gaining experience that will help your career 6.48 5.83
Having a good relationship with your superiors 6.09 5.66
Having a good relationship with your colleagues 6.07 5.92
Supportive and encouraging colleagues 5.87 5.65
Working in an exciting environment 4.84 5.37
Innovative employer—new work practices and ideas 5.89 5.31
The organization values and makes use 5.99 5.45
of your creativity
The organization produces high quality 5.57 5.41
products and services
The organization produces innovative 5.32 5.22
products and services
Good promotion opportunities 5.92 5.82
within the organization
Socially responsible organization 5.75 5.00
Opportunity to apply what was learned at university 5.80 5.19
Opportunity to teach others what 5.24 4.85
you have learned at university
Acceptance and belonging 5.67 5.63
The organization is customer-oriented 5.23 5.24
Job security within the organization 6.23 5.75
Can gain experience in a range of departments 5.69 5.43
Happy work environment 6.23 6.01
An above average basic salary 6.00 5.97
An attractive overall compensation package 5.93 5.94

Business Student Perceptions of a Preferred Employer: 33

A Study Identifying Determinants of Employer Branding
 Table 1 (Cont.)
How Important are the Following to you when Sri Lankan Mean Australian Mean
Considering Potential Employers? (7-Point (7-Point
Item Likert Scale) Likert Scale)

A very profitable organization 5.41 N/A

A large company 4.64 N/A
Company is well-known through advertising 4.57 N/A
and media exposure
The type of product and/or service produced 4.94 N/A
by the organization
The quality of the management 5.86 N/A
The organization is known for its honesty 5.85 N/A
and fairness
Giving you greater respect from family and friends 5.45 N/A

Table 2: Most-Preferred and Least-Preferred Employer Attributes (25 EmpAt Items)

Preferred Employer Sri Lankan Graduating Australian Graduating
Attributes Students Students
Most Preferred Attributes • Gaining experience to help • Happy environment
(in descending order) career* • Above average salary
• Future opportunities
• Attractive compensation
• Promotes self-esteem package
• Develops confidence • Good relationship with
• Appreciation from management colleagues*

• Good relationship with • Gaining experience to

superiors help career*

• Good relationship with

• Opportunities for
promotion
colleagues*
• Fun working environment
Job security
• Exciting environment* • Opportunity to teach
Least Preferred Attributes • Fun working environment thers*
(in ascending order) • Socially responsible
• Customer-oriented*
• Opportunity to teach others* • Applying university
learning
• Innovative products*
• Innovative products*
• High quality products and
services
• Customer-oriented

• Acceptance and belonging • Innovative employer

• Exciting environment*
Note: * Item occurs for both groups.

34 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VIII, No. 3, 2011

collegial relationships) and compensation factors. The cultural and economic differences
between the two cohorts are less evident in the least preferred attributes. However, both
groups tend to display lack of interest in the actual products and services of the organizations
they wish to work for. This observation needs to be further investigated but it should
nonetheless be of concern to recruitment personnel if they are to select the type of newly
graduated employees who will most effectively deliver the outcomes required to maximize their
organization’s success.
Inclusion of the additional seven items on the questionnaire administered to the
Sri Lankan graduating students was prompted by the results of studies including Cable and
Graham (2000), Davies et al. (2004) and Edwards (2010). Three of these items (company
size, exposure and type of product/service) were in fact rated as the lowest of the employer
attributes appealing to Sri Lankan graduating business students which contradict the
findings of the overseas studies. As with the Sri Lankan/Australian student comparison,
cultural and economic factors may be significant in explaining this result. The most and
least preferred of the 32 items on the extended list is summarized in Table 3.
It is also noteworthy that while the alpha for the original 25 items used in the
Australian survey was reported to be 0.95, it was a lower 0.888 on the same items in the
Sri Lankan study. This is still well above the minimal acceptable level of 0.7. With the
additional seven items added, the alpha coefficient was 0.903.
Table 3: Most-Preferred and Least-Preferred Employer Attributes (32 Items)
Preferred Employer Attributes Sri Lankan Graduating Students
Most Preferred Attributes • Gaining experience to help career
(in descending order)
• Future opportunities
• Promotes self-esteem
• Develops confidence
• Appreciation from management
• Good relationship with superiors
• Good relationship with colleagues
Least Preferred Attributes • Well-known company
(in ascending order)
• Size of company
• Exciting environment
• Type of product or service
• Fun working environment
• Customer-oriented
• Opportunity to teach others
• Innovative products
• High quality products and services

Business Student Perceptions of a Preferred Employer: 35

A Study Identifying Determinants of Employer Branding
Instrumental and Symbolic Attributes
There is a considerable amount of research demonstrating that applicants are attracted to
organizations on the basis of instrumental dimensions (for example, Highhouse et al.,
1999; and Cable and Graham, 2000). Instrumental factors include job and organizational
characteristics such as salary, promotional opportunities, career development and
organizational structure. Further studies have, however, revealed that while instrumental
factors are important in attracting applicants to a particular category of organization, it
is the symbolic perspective that differentiates a company from its competitors (Lievens
and Highhouse, 2003). The symbolic dimension is related to perceived traits such as
innovativeness, excitement, sincerity and competence. In terms of employer attributes
preferred by the Sri Lankan students it can be seen that although instrumental factors
predominate (career experience, future opportunities, recognition from management and
internal relationships), symbolic attributes also influence student perceptions (esteem,
confidence and happiness). Where competition for particular types of graduate employees
is tight, HR managers may find that these are the attributes which can prove most
effective in attracting the applicants they require.

Preferred Attributes of Student Segments

The need to recognize that newly graduated applicants vary in terms of personal and
academic attributes and employment interests has been emphasized by Moroko and Uncles
(2008). Recruitment practices, therefore, need to be tailored to the specific requirements
of the employees that are sought rather than the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. For this
reason the factors affecting graduate perceptions need to be considered for different
student segments. In this respect, we have examined the variations in preferred attributes
on the basis of gender, academic course and level of academic achievement. The means
of the responses for each of the 32 test items of the groupings were measured for
correlation in order to identify whether any significant differences could be identified. The
results are summarized in Tables 4, 5 and 6.
The very high correlation coefficient (0.947) between the attribute ratings of males
and females indicates little difference in preference on the basis of gender using the
expanded EmpAt test (Table 4).

Table 4: Comparison of Mean Attribute Ratings by Gender

Gender

Male Female

Mean 5.6512 5.7384

Standard Deviation 0.49850 0.51026

Correlation 0.947

36 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VIII, No. 3, 2011

 Similar to the gender ratings, there is little differentiation in the job attribute
preferences of students from the three course streams. All are highly correlated
(Table 5).

Table 5: Correlation of Mean Attribute Ratings by Course

Human Resource Marketing

Finance
Management Management

Human Resource 1 0.935 0.940

Management

Marketing 0.935 1 0.891

Management

Finance 0.940 0.891 1

As indicated in Tables 4 and 5, segmentation has little significance in relation to

gender and course type. Table 6, however, indicates two counteracting relationships in
preferred employer attribute selection: firstly, a progressive reduction in the correlation
between the highest level of achievers through to the lowest level, and secondly, a
progressive increase in the correlation between the lowest level of achievers through to
the highest level. In other words, high achievers correlate more highly with upper-middle
and lower-middle achievers than with low achievers (a ‘top-down’ relationship), while low
achievers correlate more highly with high and upper-middle achievers than with lower-
middle achievers (again a ‘top-down’ relationship).

Table 6: Correlation of Mean Attribute Ratings by Academic Achievement

Level of Student Lower-Middle Upper-Middle High

Low Achievers
Academic Achievement Achievers Achievers Achievers

Low Achievers 1 0.565 0.640 0.677

(GPA = 2.0-2.39

Lower-Middle Achievers 0.565 1 0.846 0.856

(GPA = 2.4-2.79)

Upper-Middle Achievers 0.640 0.846 1 0.962

(GPA = 2.8-3.19)

High Achievers 0.677 0.856 0.962 1

(GPA = 3.2+

While statistically there is a significant correlation between all achievement level

groups, a noticeable difference nonetheless appears as the achievement gap widens, as can
be observed from Table 7.

Business Student Perceptions of a Preferred Employer: 37

A Study Identifying Determinants of Employer Branding
 Table 7: Most-Preferred and Least-Preferred Employer Attributes of Highest
and Lowest Levels of Academic Achieving Students

Level of Student Academic Most-Preferred Employer Least-Preferred Employer

Achievement Attributes Attributes

Highest Achieving Students • Gaining career experience • Large company

• Develops confidence • Well-known company
• Promotes self-esteem • Product or service type
• Future opportunities • Exciting environment
• Happy environment • Fun environment
• Job security • Profitable company

Lowest Achieving Students • Good relationship with • Exciting environment

superiors
• Product or service type
• Develops confidence
• Fun environment
• Values creativity
• Can teach others
• Future opportunities university knowledge
• Promotes self-esteem • Good promotion
opportunities
• Good relationship with
superiors • Innovative products
• Good relationship with • Attractive compensation
colleagues package

Factor Analysis
In order to provide a more concise view of the types of factors that impact upon graduating
students’ perception of employers, data reduction using factor analysis was used. In their
original paper introducing the employer branding concept, Ambler and Barrow (1996)
identified three dimensions that defined employer identity, namely psychological,
functional and economic. Berthon et al. using the EmpAt scale extended this perspective
to five dimensions: social, development, application, interest and economic.
As noted earlier, cultural and economic factors appear to have resulted in some
variation in the results between Australian and Sri Lankan students. This combined with
the addition of seven further items to the employer attractiveness questionnaire were, we
believed, reasons to further explore the main dimensions of employer attractiveness. The
student data from the questionnaire was therefore analyzed using PCA with Varimax
rotation and an extraction of all factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1. The results are
reported in Tables 8 and 9, while Table 10 summarizes the component variables which
constitute each identified factor.

38 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VIII, No. 3, 2011

 On the basis of this

Cumulative
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
analysis, we have classified

10.256

20.237

29.238

36.838

44.244

51.629

58.862

63.088
%
the eight factors as follows:
Factor 1 Corporate
Variance environment

9.981

9.001

7.600

7.406

7.385

7.233

4.225
10.256
% of

Factor 2 Job structure

Factor 3 Social
commitment
3.282

3.194

2.880

2.432

2.370

2.363

2.315

1.352
Total

Factor 4 Social
environment
Factor 5 Relationships
Cumulative
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Factor 6 Personal
26.620

35.287

42.434

47.482

52.092

56.087

59.864

63.088
%

growth
Table 8: Variance of Extracted Factors

Factor 7 Organiza-
tional
dynamism
Variance

8.667

7.147

5.047

4.610

3.995

3.777

3.224
26.620
% of

Factor 8 Enjoyment
Relating these to the
highest and lowest preferred
8.518

2.773

2.287

1.615

1.475

1.278

1.209

1.032

employer attributes of the

Total

Sri Lankan graduating

business students, it can be
seen that the personal
Cumulative

growth and relationship

26.620

35.287

42.434

47.482

52.092

56.087

59.864

63.088
%

factors are most important

while the corporate
Initial Eigenvalues

environment and
enjoyment are of least
Variance

26.620

8.667

7.147

5.047

4.610

3.995

3.777

3.224

interest.
% of

Discussion of Findings
Preferred Attributes
The EmpAt scale, developed
8.518

2.773

2.287

1.615

1.475

1.278

1.209

1.032
Total

in Australia by Berthon et
al. (2005), has, with some
modifications, proven
Component

effective in identifying the

graduating business
1

students’ perceptions of
preferred employer
Business Student Perceptions of a Preferred Employer: 39
A Study Identifying Determinants of Employer Branding
 Table 9: Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Large Company 0.840 0.067 –0.134 –0.048 0.071 0.065 –0.104 0.068
Well-Known 0.805 0.122 0.013 –0.084 0.011 0.055 –0.016 0.154
Company
Product or 0.699 –0.129 0.239 0.229 0.097 0.007 0.046 –0.112
Service Type
Profitable 0.563 0.352 0.040 0.350 0.161 –0.010 0.143 –0.144
Company
High Quality 0.511 0.088 0.101 0.289 0.057 0.115 0.346 0.134
Products
Quality 0.444 0.270 0.372 0.411 0.085 –0.012 0.050 –0.031
Management
Above 0.101 0.826 0.047 0.145 0.104 0.194 0.068 0.040
Average Salary
Attractive 0.124 0.823 0.149 0.099 0.066 0.127 0.133 0.014
Compensation
Package
Job Security 0.134 0.647 0.281 0.262 0.005 0.220 0.128 0.027
Future –0.095 0.467 0.010 0.195 0.086 0.432 0.076 0.060
Opportunities
Good Promotion 0.146 0.456 0.409 0.032 0.007 0.398 0.025 0.190
Opportunities
Can Use Univ. –0.124 0.088 0.819 –0.043 0.197 0.061 0.171 –0.041
Knowledge
Can Teach Others 0.047 0.167 0.697 0.023 0.142 0.034 0.117 0.061
Univ. Knowledge
Socially Responsible 0.263 –0.002 0.550 0.314 –0.005 0.280 0.204 0.149
Acceptance and –0.081 0.180 0.402 0.398 0.298 0.268 –0.043 0.135
Belonging
Happy –0.025 0.420 0.071 0.580 0.131 0.170 0.096 0.036
Environment
Appreciation 0.107 0.293 –0.007 0.569 0.072 0.275 0.055 –0.042
from Management
Honest and Fair 0.284 0.132 0.458 0.513 0.199 0.016 0.087 –0.002
Customer-Oriented 0.338 0.001 0.375 0.411 0.005 –0.066 0.167 0.205
Good Relationship 0.030 0.141 0.111 0.023 0.864 0.045 0.100 0.111
with Colleagues

40 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VIII, No. 3, 2011

 Table 9 (Cont.)
Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Good Relationship 0.132 –0.028 0.134 0.124 0.798 0.066 0.088 0.056
with Superiors
Supportive 0.137 0.142 0.140 0.135 0.638 0.135 0.236 0.162
Colleagues
Develops 0.091 0.188 0.068 0.147 0.015 0.757 0.159 –0.021
Confidence
Promotes 0.083 0.214 0.065 0.278 0.070 0.744 0.042 –0.028
Self-Esteem
Gaining 0.001 0.114 0.138 –0.290 0.296 0.562 0.265 0.081
Career Experience
Innovative –0.030 0.041 0.073 0.030 0.092 0.158 0.815 0.106
Values Creativity –0.081 0.071 0.117 0.068 0.263 0.295 0.658 0.003
Innovative Products 0.279 0.093 0.347 0.093 –0.020 0.078 0.574 0.078
Offers Range 0.016 0.402 0.042 0.089 0.209 –0.132 0.573 –0.074
of Experience
Exciting 0.015 –0.027 0.139 –0.033 0.268 –0.043 0.123 0.759
Environment
Fun Environment 0.131 0.124 –0.092 0.514 0.054 0.157 0.092 0.555
Gives Personal 0.368 0.275 0.401 0.029 0.086 0.032 –0.180 0.427
Respect
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization; a Rotation converged in 9 iterations.
attributes. While there is an overall correlation between the views of the Sri Lankan and
Australian students, the most preferred attributes reflect the impact of cultural and
economic differences between the two student cohorts.
The seven additional items which we added for the survey of Sri Lankan students, as
a result of their considered importance in the relevant academic literature, were in fact
largely among the least-preferred attributes. These factors included organizational
characteristics such as size, public image, profitability, quality of management and nature
of product and/or services. This does not necessarily mean that they should be discarded
at this point as they may be of greater significance to either students of other academic
disciplines or to more experienced workers. As a result of employment experience and
position within an organization, current employees are likely to have a greater
understanding of the relevance and impact of these factors in the workplace. They may
therefore be rated quite differently by these groups.
It should also be noted that the inclusion of the additional items did improve the
internal consistency of the test items in this exercise. The original EmpAt scale tends to

Business Student Perceptions of a Preferred Employer: 41

A Study Identifying Determinants of Employer Branding
 Table 10: Summary of Component Variables
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 8
Large Above Can Use Happy Good Develops Innovative Exciting
Company Average University Environment Relationship Confidence Environment
Salary Knowledge with
Colleagues
Well- Attractive Can Teach Appreciation Good Promotes Values Fun
Known Compensation Others from Relationship Self- Creativity Environment
Company Package University Management with Esteem
Knowledge Superiors
Product or Job Security Socially Honest and Supportive Gaining Innovative Gives
Service Responsible Fair Colleagues Career Products Personal
Type Experience Respect
Profitable Future Acceptance Customer- Offers
Company Opportunities and Oriented Range of
Belonging Experience
High Good
Quality Promotion
Products Opportunities
Quality
Management

be mostly directed towards student respondents. The additional items, we believe, give it
more relevance to the existing workforce.
Instrumental and Symbolic Factors
The relevance of both instrumental and symbolic factors to students’ perceptions of
preferred employer attributes was supported by this study, with instrumental being of
greater significance to the student group (71.4% of the seven most preferred attributes).
This supports the findings of Lievens and Highhouse (2003) in that the job applicants are
initially drawn to an industry or type of organization by instrumental factors whereas
symbolic attributes will have a greater role in differentiating firms from their competitors.
Our survey did not ask for particular organizations to be evaluated, therefore, symbolic
factors are less likely to be considered at this stage of employer selection.
Segmentation
The commonality of the academic background of the students resulted in the lack of
differentiating segments within the student cohort, apart from the level of academic
achievement. Recruitment managers may find the preferred attributes of the highest
academic achieving group useful in considering their strategies for attracting this type of
potential employee.
Factor Analysis
The identification of eight student preference factors has the potential to allow
organizations to more carefully match their recruitment strategies with the job-seeking

42 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VIII, No. 3, 2011

motives and preferences of graduate students. Business students, for example, have
indicated personal growth and relationship factors as being most important while the
corporate environment and enjoyment are of least interest. Higher achieving students are
more concerned with personal growth and job structure.
The range of factors is of sufficient breadth to be applied to many types of employee
categories.

Conclusion
This study has thrown light on the preferred employer attributes of graduating business
degree students within the Sri Lankan context through the use of a modified version of
the Australian-developed EmpAt scale. In addition, factors that may influence the job
seekers’ perceptions such as reputation variables, personal characteristics and academic
background have been considered. Finally, analysis of the survey results has indicated eight
dimensions of employer attractiveness. These can enable organizations to gain a
meaningful understanding of how to strategically develop their employer brand both for
the recruitment and retention of employees.
Increasingly, organizational wealth is being generated by converting the intangible
products created by talented employees into “institutional skills, patents, brands, software,
customer bases, intellectual capital and networks that raise profit per employee and return
on invested capital” (Bryan, 2007). The imperative to understand the motives of
job-seekers is becoming increasingly evident if companies wish to gain a competitive
advantage through attracting the best available human capital.
Limitations of the Study: As this is an exploratory study, it was confined to the students
of one academic faculty at one university, although students were drawn from three
different specializations. Generalizing from these findings in relation to students from
other disciplines could be misleading as other factors such as academic and employment
skills, job opportunities and employer characteristics may vary from those relevant to
business studies. The influence of cultural and economic factors on Sri Lankan business
students was also observed when comparing the results with those of Australian business
students. Care would therefore be required in relating the results to other national
entities.
A majority of job seekers are current or former employees who, as pointed out
previously, are likely to have quite different perceptions of employer attributes.
The student outcomes may therefore not be applicable to more experienced workers.
Implications and Further Research: Demographic changes in many countries together
with an ever-increasing competitive business environment will necessitate greater
attention by companies of all types towards attracting the most suitable employees
required for organizational success. A greater understanding of what factors influence
the employment preferences of job applicants is a fundamental and necessary
prerequisite for both a recruitment strategy and the development of an employer

Business Student Perceptions of a Preferred Employer: 43

A Study Identifying Determinants of Employer Branding
brand. There is little academic research to support either function at a global level
or within Sri Lanka.
This study has presented a profile of the employer attributes that attract business
graduate students from a Sri Lankan university. A viable measurement mechanism has
been identified and tested, and relevant influencing factors and segmentation variables
investigated. The development of an eight-component structure to explain the broad
dimensions of employer attractiveness can enable human resource management
departments to find a focus for recruitment strategies by gaining an awareness of the
factors that influence graduating students’ choice of employers.
From this basis, it should now be possible to extend the research based on the following
four sectors:
1. Students from a wider range of courses and universities;
2. Experienced employees;
3. Middle- and upper-level managers and executives; and
4. Human resource management personnel, in relation to what attributes they
believe their organization has, to attract new employees. This could be compared
with the perceptions of job seekers.
In all instances some modification to the questionnaire items would be required.
A longitudinal study of changing perceptions of job seekers in relation to their preferred
employer attributes, both general and related to specific industries and organizations, may
also reveal trends at both a macro and micro level. 
References
1. Ambler T and Barrow S (1996), “The Employer Brand”, The Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 185-206.
2. Backhaus K and Tikoo S (2004), “Conceptualising and Researching Employer
Branding”, Career Development International, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 501-517.
3. Berthon P, Ewing M and Hah L L (2005), “Captivating Company: Dimensions of
Attractiveness in Employer Branding”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24,
No. 2, pp. 151-172.
4. Bryan L (2007), “The New Metrics of Corporate Performance: Profit per Employee”,
McKinsey Quarterly, No. 1, pp. 56-65.
5. Cable D B and Turban D M (2001), “Establishing the Dimensions, Sources and Value
of Job Seekers’ Employer Knowledge During Recruitment”, Research in Personnel and
Human Resource Management, Vol. 20, pp. 115-163.
6. Cable D M and Graham M (2000), “The Determinants of Organizational Reputation:
A Job Search Perspective”, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 21, No. 8,
pp. 929-947.

44 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VIII, No. 3, 2011

 7. Cable D M, Aiman-Smith L, Mulvey P W and Edwards J R (2000), “The Sources and
Accuracy of Job Applicants’ Beliefs About Organizational Culture”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 1076-1085.
8. Cafolla L (2008), “How to Build an Effective Employer Brand”, China Staff, Vol. 14,
No. 9, pp. 23-26.
9. Chambers E G, Foulon M Handfield-Jones H, Hankin S M and Michaels E G (1998),
“The War for Talent”, McKinsey Quarterly, No. 3, pp. 44-57.
10. Collins J (2001), Good to Great, Random House, London.
11. Collins C J and Han J (2004), “Exploring Applicant Pool Quantity and Quality: The
Effects of Early Recruitment Practice, Strategies, Corporate Advertising and Firm
Reputation”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57, pp. 685-717.
12. Davies G J (2008), “Employer Branding and Its Influence on Managers”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, Nos. 5 & 6, pp. 667-681.
13. Davies G J, Chun R, Da Silva R and Roper R (2004), Corporate Reputation and
Competitiveness, Routledge, London.
14. Dukerich J M and Carter S M (2000), “Distorted Images and Reputation Repair” in
M Schultz, M J Hatch and M H Larsen (Eds.), The Expressive Organisation: Linking
Identity, Reputation and the Corporate Brand, pp. 97-112, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
15. Dyer K (2007), “Employer Branding: A Vital Tool for Success”,
Strategic Communication Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, p. 2.
16. Edwards M R (2010), “An Integrative Review of Employer Branding and OB Theory”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 5-23.
17. Fombrun C (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
18. Greening D W and Turban D B (2000), “Corporate Social Performance as a
Competitive Advantage in Attracting a Quality Workforce”, Business and Society,
Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 254-280.
19. Hieronimus F, Schaefer K and Schroder J (2005), “Using Branding to Attract Talent”,
McKinsey Quarterly, No. 3, pp. 12-14.
20. Highhouse S, Zickar M J, Thorsteinson T J, Stierwalk S L and Slaughter J E (1999),
“Assessing Company Employment Image: An Example in the Fast Food Industry”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 151-172.
21. Hornung D M (2010), “How to Measure Your Employer Brand”, available at
www.iabc.com. Accessed on December 12, 2010.
22. Hunt S D and Menon A (1995), “Metaphor and Competitive Advantage: Evaluating
the Use of Metaphor in Theories of Competitive Strategy”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 81-90.
Business Student Perceptions of a Preferred Employer: 45
A Study Identifying Determinants of Employer Branding
23. Johnson M and Roberts P (2006), “Rules of Attraction: Recruit and Retain the Best
Staff with Employer Branding”, Marketing Health Services, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 38-40.
24. Kaliprasad M (2006), “The Human Factor I: Attracting, Retaining and Motivating
Capable People”, Cost Engineering, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 20-26.
25. Knox S and Freeman C (2006), “Measuring and Managing Employer Brand Image in
the Service Industry”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22, Nos. 7 & 6,
pp. 695-716.
26. Konig C (2008), “Employer Branding: Management Crunch”, Brand Strategy,
December, p. 46.
27. Lanka Monthly Digest (LMD) (2010), “Most Respected Entities in Sri Lanka”, August.
28. Lievens F (2007), “Employer Branding in the Belgian Army: The Importance of
Instrumental and Symbolic Beliefs for Potential Applicants, Actual Applicants and
Military Employees”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 51-69.
29. Lievens F and Highhouse S (2003), “The Relation of Instrumental and Symbolic
Attributes to a Company’s Attractiveness as an Employer”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 75-102.
30. Lloyd S (2002), “Branding from the Inside Out”, BRW, Vol. 24, No. 10, pp. 23-31.
31. Mark P and Toelken K (2009), “Poisoned by a Toxic Brand: A Worst Case Scenario
of Employer Branding – A Case of a Fortune 100 Technology Firm”, Organisation
Development Journal, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 21-29.
32. Meglino B M and Ravlin E (1999), When are Realistic Job Previews Most Effective,
Academy of Management, Chicago, Illinois.
33. Morgeson F P and Hofmann D A (1999), “The Structure and Function of Collective
Constructs; Implications for Multilevel Research and Theory Development”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 249-265.
34. Moroko L and Uncles M D (2009), “Employer Branding and Market Segmentation”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 181-196.
35. Rousseau D M (2001), “Schema, Promise and Mutuality: The Building Blocks of the
Psychological Contract”, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology,
Vol. 74, pp. 511-541.
36. Turban D B and Cable D M (2003), “Firm Reputation and Applicant Pool
Characteristics”, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 733-751.
37. Wheeler A R, Richey R G, Tokkman M and Sablynski C J (2006), “Retaining
Employees for Service Competency: The Role of Corporate Brand Identity”, Journal
of Brand Management, Vol. 14, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 96-113.

Reference # 25J-2011-09-02-01

46 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. VIII, No. 3, 2011

Copyright of IUP Journal of Brand Management is the property of IUP Publications and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.