The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm

IJOA
26,2 Linking dimensions of employer
branding and turnover intentions
Vaneet Kashyap
Department of Human Resource Management,
282 Indian Institute of Management Sirmaur, Sirmaur, India, and
Received 7 March 2017 Neha Verma
Revised 5 July 2017
Accepted 25 August 2017
Master of Business Administration Program, Jaipuria Institute of Management,
Ghaziabad, India

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the impact of employer branding dimensions i.e. social value, interest
value, economic value, development value and application value on turnover intentions (TIs) of employees
working in Indian information technology (IT) sector organizations.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 380 junior-, middle- and senior-level executives have been
surveyed using a structured questionnaire to measure employees’ perception with respect to the dimensions
of employer branding and TIs. Hypotheses have been tested using multiple regression analysis.
Findings – Employer branding dimensions are negatively correlated with employees’ TIs, and two
dimensions (social value and development value) are significant predictors of TIs.
Practical implications – Higher perceived value in employer brand reduces the TIs. Higher employee
retention rates further lead to reduction in the cost of hiring and training of new employees, thereby
contributing to the profitability of any organization. Hence, practical relevance is there for handling employee
turnover and theoretical importance is for further enhancing the talent management concepts.
Originality/value – Uniqueness of this study lies in its approach. The role of organizational-level factors
rather than individualistic characteristics has been analyzed as predictors of the employees’ decision to leave
their organization. Furthermore, the sample of progressive Indian IT sector executives adds to the originality
of the work.
Keywords Turnover intentions, Social value, Employer branding, Economic value,
Application value, Development value, Interest value
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The existing literature on employee retention and employee turnover process highlights the
role of various models in preventing turnover and enhancing retention in organizations
(Holtom et al., 2005; Mowday et al., 1982; Mobley, 1977). Majority of researchers tend to focus
on individual characteristics rather than explaining the role of organizational-level factors
that might explain the employee’s decision to stay or leave an organization (Zheng and
Lamond, 2010a, 2010b). Turnover and retention remain significant topics to explore because
of their impact on organizational settings (Bhatnagar, 2007; Hausknecht et al., 2009; Huang
et al., 2006). Specifically, it is important for Indian organizations because of high attrition
rate (of 26 per cent surveyed by Hay Group, Biswas, 2013). Despite struggling with high
International Journal of
Organizational Analysis employee turnover rates, India has persuaded many global organizations to enter in its
Vol. 26 No. 2, 2018
pp. 282-295
potential market making the competition to attract and retain talent more intense (Ready
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1934-8835
et al., 2008). Thus it becomes vital for the organizations to adopt and continuously build best
DOI 10.1108/IJOA-03-2017-1134 possible policies and practices to fulfill employee expectations that may enhance retention.
Organizations must focus on the market-driven retention strategies as the employees’ Employer
movement in competing organizations is influenced by market dynamics (Cappelli, 2000). branding
For extending employee’s association with their organizations, innovative human resource
(HR) practices are needed. Also the organizations should be proactive while devising such
policies; otherwise the results could be drastic (Michelman, 2003). The organizations are
adopting several mechanisms in this regard. One of such mechanisms is becoming the
“employer of choice” and focus on the development of employer branding strategies. The
term employer branding is for best employers, employer of choice and great place to work 283
for (Joo and Mclean, 2006). Great place to work for institute defined a great workplace as
“one where employees trust the people they work for, have pride in work they do and enjoy
the company of people they work with” (Chaturvedi et al., 2014). A survey by great place to
work and The Economic Times in 2014 revealed that great work places are financially
successful and best retain their talent as compared to other firms in the industry. So
employer brand as a great place to work can result in long-term business success
(Chaturvedi et al., 2014). As dissatisfied consumers refuse the product (Patwardhan et al.,
2010), employees have high turnover intentions (TIs) if their expectations are not met. With
the concern to explore organizational-level factors to explain employee turnover issues, this
research attempts to empirically investigate the impact of employer branding dimensions on
employees’ TIs.

Theoretical framework
“Employer brand” as an idea emerged from two different roots: the first as a power of a
“corporate brand” whose growth is linked to the “recruitment communication” and the second
as an occupational psychology that gives rise to the idea of “psychological contract.” The two
roots are now clubbed together as “employer brand” into the focus of attention (Rosethorn,
2009, p. 4). The role of employer brand has become more important to deal with the changing
expectations of the twenty-first-century workforce entering the workplaces (Rosethorn, 2009,
p. 16). Ambler and Barrow (1996) first coined the term “employer branding” and defined it as
“the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by the employment
and is identified with the employing organizations. The main role of the employer brand is to
provide a coherent framework for management to simplify and focus priorities, increasing
productivity and improve recruitment, retention and commitment.” The current research study
also follows this conceptualization. Furthermore, literature has various dimensions to measure
the value of an employer brand as perceived by potential and existing workforce of any
organization. Various instrumental job and organizational attributes include characteristics
such as benefits, pay, flexible working hours, location of the organization near one’s hometown
and bonuses and the symbolic attributes include sincerity, robustness, competence,
innovativeness and prestige (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003; Van Hoye et al., 2013). These
attributes vary with the type of industry and sector (Lievens et al., 2005).
Following Ambler and Barrow (1996), Berthon et al. (2005) categorized employer
branding dimensions into five practices offered by the employing company that generates
value for the potential and existing employees, which are interest value (IV) and social value
(SV) serving the psychological benefits, development value (DV) and application value (AV)
serving functional benefits and economic value (EV) serving economic benefits. Some
researchers measured the employer branding from the perspective of potential applicants
(Alnıaçık and Alnıaçık, 2012) and others from the perspective of existing employees of an
organization (Schlager et al., 2011; Biswas and Suar, 2013). The current study conceptualized
the dimensions proposed by Berthon et al. (2005) from the perspective of existing employees
of an organization.
IJOA Literature review and hypotheses development
26,2 Employer branding – a human resource imperative
The concept of employer branding has witnessed early research work by HR practitioners
(Edwards, 2010; Martin et al., 2005). Their main aim was to help human resource
management (HRM) professionals in building their strong identities by aligning HR goals
with organizational functions such as marketing, which are central to the development and
284 continuance of corporate reputation. Building a status of an “employer of choice” amongst
potential candidates and existing employees is central to and inescapable strategy for HR
and business (Pfeffer, 1998). However, the concept employer branding in context to HRM
literature still has limited research and academic literature (Edwards, 2010). Backhaus and
Tikoo (2004) suggested that the practice of employer branding is based on the assumption
that human capital of any organizations is crucial for delivering value to the firm, and
investment in such human capital can result in enhancement of organizational performance.
Accordingly, “resource-based perspective” of the firm emerged as one of the basis to build
clear framework for employer branding (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004). In this view, any
organization’s resources are categorized into three main categories, i.e. human capital
resources, organization capital resources and physical capital resources (Barney, 2001).
To fill the gap in existing literature regarding the lack of clear framework and theoretical
foundation of the concept employer branding, the current research emphasizes on the
importance of organizational capital resources that provide organization competitive and
sustained competitive advantages. Organizational capital resources of the firm include
planning, co-coordinating systems and informal relations among the groups of the firm
(Wright et al., 1994). Particularly, planning and implementation of unique policies and
practices of any organization create a strong and positive employer brand image that helps
organizations attract the talent pool and retain the existing workforce. The unique
employment experience by any organization binds the employees to extend their association
with the current employers. Joo and Mclean (2006) highlighted that resource-based view
provides employer brands a fundamental theoretical background embracing engaged
employees, strategy and firm’s financial performance.

Linking employer branding and turnover intentions

Human resource development policies and practices play a vital role in conveying and
building unique employment offerings and snapshots of employee–employer relationships
(Martin et al., 2011). Unique employment experience offered by the employing company
helps in attracting and retaining talent and building trust (Burke et al., 2007). An
organization’s efforts to provide support to its employees also results in building and
improving the employer branding phenomenon, as Whitener (1997) found that
implementation of innovative practices conveyed that the organization supported its
employees. Furthermore, the employees reciprocate the organizational support with lower
absenteeism and higher performance (Eisenberger et al., 1997; Meyer and Allen, 1997).
Considering employer branding as an important HR strategy, the current research proposes
that employer branding as a crucial phenomenon helps organizations in retaining the top
talent by reducing their intent to turnover.

Interest value and employee turnover intentions

Interest value is a kind of psychological benefit provided by the employing organization.
According to the researchers (Berthon et al., 2005) “interest value” gauges the extent to
which the organizations are able to use their employee’s skills to develop innovative
products and services, provide great work environment and believe in following novel work
practices. With the continuous change in the expectations of the employees, it becomes Employer
necessary to understand that what existing and prospective employees (specially the branding
younger generation) admire more in terms of employment experience, as it is the ultimate
source of their motivation to work longer for an organization, (Westerman and Yamamura,
2007). According to Schlager et al. (2011), “challenging tasks” and “broad varieties of tasks”
are important to be considered while evaluating the IV as interesting job characteristics
associated with higher levels of job satisfaction. Goal orientation and system work
environment (Westerman and Yamamura, 2007) and accomplishment at work (Lee and 285
Way, 2010) are important predictors of employee satisfaction with employee retention
practices. Creative requirement of jobs also associate with higher job satisfaction and lower
intent to turnover (Shalley et al., 2000). Furthermore, Monsen and Boss (2009) posited that
entrepreneurial orientations such as proactiveness and innovativeness influence employee
decision to stay or leave an organization, and thus can be a retention source. As higher IV of
an employer brand may result in reducing employees’ TIs, the hypothesis is:
H1. Interest value is negatively associated with employee turnover intentions.

Social value and employee turnover intentions

Social value dimension is also regarded as psychological benefit provided by the
employment. Berthon et al. (2005) defined “social value” as “the value that gauges the extent
to which an employer provides a working environment that is full of fun and happiness,
provides good collegial relationships and a team atmosphere.” Environment full of fun and
happiness acts as one of the important motivators for employee retention (Michelman, 2003;
Moncarz et al., 2009; Wildes, 2007). Factor such as relationships with superiors and co-
workers have been investigated as important predictors of employee decision to stay with
an organization (Hausknecht et al., 2009). Golden and Veiga (2008) revealed that superior–
subordinate relationships have a salient impact on individual work-related outcomes such
as organizational commitment, which further leads to lower absenteeism and turnover
(Meyer and Allen, 1997; Riketta, 2002). Moreover, if employees fit well in the organizational
social culture, then their tendency to stay in the organization increases (Sheridan, 1992;
Taormina, 2009; Zheng and Lamond, 2010a, 2010b, De Vos and Meganck, 2009). SV has also
been found to be strongly associated with employee identification that may ultimately
results in enhancing employee commitment (Schlager et al., 2011) and retention possibly.
The hypothesis due to an expected negative association between SV and employee TIs is:
H2. Social value is negatively associated with employee turnover intentions.

Development value and employee turnover intentions

Development value is linked with the functional benefits provided by the employment. Berthon
et al. (2005) defined “development value” as the “value that assesses the degree to which
organizations provide recognition, self-worth and confidence, coupled with career-enhancing
experience and a spring-board for future employment.” “Strong mentoring culture,” “training
opportunities” and “empowering environment” are also found to be important in assessing the
DV provided by the employment (Schlager et al., 2011). Any kind of developmental support
received from the organization is strongly associated with organizational commitment (Tansky
and Cohen, 2001) and enhanced organizational identification (Lee, 1971). Hausknecht et al.
(2009) concluded that certain work-related and personal factors explain employee turnover
process, for e.g. advance opportunity (work-related factor) is a relational and intangible aspect
(Zhao et al., 2007, DiPietro and Milman, 2008) that results in enhancing employee retention. The
IJOA DV also includes aspects such as mentoring and empowering environment (Schlager et al.,
26,2 2011, Hall and Smith, 2009). Empowering environment is linked with organizational
commitment, which further enhances employee retention (Albrecht and Andreetta, 2011;
Dewettinck and Van Ameijde, 2011). As various DV aspects associate with employee retention,
the current research proposes a negative relationship between DV and employee TIs. Thus, it is
hypothesized that:
286 H3. Development value is negatively associated with employee turnover intentions.

Application value and employee turnover intentions

This dimension is associated with functional benefits provided by the employing
organization. Berthon et al. (2005) defined “application value” as:
The value that assesses the degree to which employing company provides an opportunity for the
employee to apply what they have learned and to teach others, in an environment that is both
customer oriented and humanitarian.
Customer-oriented environment and behaviors significantly associate with commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior (Donavan et al., 2004) that further relates to TIs (Paré
and Tremblay, 2007) and employee retention (Paré et al., 2001). Humanitarian approach and
development of mutually benefitted long-term relationships between employer and
employees are specifically important in enhancing employee retention (King and Grace,
2008). Furthermore, inclusion of rich experience in work practices and abundant
opportunities for learning may also help in retaining skilled workforce in an organization
(Kyndt et al., 2009). If the internal mobility and experimentation opportunities are available
within the organization, it will help the organization to deal with employee turnover
behavior effectively (Mobley, 1982 as cited by Zheng and Lamond, 2010a, 2010b). On the
basis of the literature, the current study hypothesizes that higher AV of an employer brand
may result in reducing employees’ TIs, i.e.:
H4. Application value is negatively associated with employee turnover intentions.

Economic value and employee turnover intentions

Economic value is associated with economic benefit provided by the employing
organization. “Economic value” is defined as “the value that assesses the extent to which an
organization provides an above average salary, compensation package, job security and
promotional opportunities” (Berthon et al., 2005). It includes competitive remuneration and
recognition that cause positive employee attitudes such as high intentions to stay in
organizations (Chew and Chan, 2008). Organization’s provision for benefits and perquisites
helps in attraction and retention of employees (Ash and Bendapudi, 1996). Being an honored
employee and relative pay are important decisive factors in determining employees’
decisions to stay (Huang et al., 2006). Employee equity models suggests that low value
equity, low retention equity and low brand equity are the three important equity areas that
organizations should consider in handling employee turnover issues (Cardy and Lengnick-
Hall, 2011). Financial rewards are significantly associated with employee turnover (De Vos
and Meganck, 2009). Supervisor satisfaction and pay satisfaction are important predictors of
employees’ intent to turnover (DeConinck and Stilwell, 2004). Beyond the relationship
between employees and organizations, the satisfaction with compensation is an important
key element of retention policies (Vandenberghe and Tremblay, 2008). Due to the evidences
from literature, this research hypothesizes a negative association between EV and employee Employer
TIs, i.e.: branding
H5. Economic value is negatively associated with employee turnover intentions.

Method
Sample 287
Target employees from Indian information technology (IT) sector organizations belonged to six
major cities of India (Bangalore, Hyderabad, Gurgaon, Pune, Chennai and Mumbai). A total of
1,500 employees were approached, and 380 usable responses were ultimately considered. The
sample had 84.2 per cent men and 15.8 per cent women; majority of respondents were from age
category of less than 25 (29.5 per cent) and between 26 and 30 years (26.1 per cent). The
respondents were working at different hierarchical levels in organizations with 34.2 per cent at
junior level, 53.7 per cent at middle level and 12.1 per cent at senior level. A majority of
respondents (49.5 percent) reported less than five years of experience.

Measures
Employer branding scale developed by Berthon et al. (2005) is used for survey. A total of
25 items represent five employer branding dimensions i.e. SV, IV, EV, DV and AV. The
survey questions were modified to capture response from existing employees instead of
prospects on a five-point Likert scale (1 – to a very small extent to 5 – to a very great
extent). Turnover intentions scale developed by Cammann et al. (1979) is used to capture
responses on a five-point Likert scale (1 – strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree). The
reliability coefficients Cronbach’s alpha (a) for all the dimensions are high (a > 0.70), as
shown in Table I.

Results
Measurement models
To examine whether common method bias was an issue, a series of confirmatory factor
analyses (CFA) was performed for calculating various indices following guidelines by Hair
et al. (2010). Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and comparative fit index (CFI) greater than 0.9 and
the values for root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) less than 0.08 are
considered good to indicate model fit (Hu and Bentler, 1998). Furthermore, measurement
model with five employer branding dimensions with construct of TIs was run. It exhibited
acceptable fit and good psychometric properties ( x 2 = 755.56, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90,

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

IV 3.63 0.767 (0.822)

SV 3.92 0.647 0.624** (0.763) Table I.
DV 3.79 0.704 0.656** 0.644** (0.750) Mean, SD and
AV 3.76 0.729 0.652** 0.609** 0.648** (0.799) intercorrelations
EV 3.68 0.735 0.574** 0.555** 0.559** 0.608** (0.784) among the
TI 2.61 1.15 0.192** 0.286** 0.293** 0.229** 0.229** (0.914) dimensions of
Notes: N = 380, **p < 0.01, IV = interest value, SV = social value, DV = development value, AV = employer branding
application value, EV = economic value, TI = turnover intentions. Italic values represent reliability and employees’
coefficient Cronbach’s alpha (a) turnover intentions
IJOA RMSEA = 0.058). However, the model with one general factor exhibited very poor fit ( x 2 =
26,2 2,035.948, CFI = 0.65, TLI = 0.63, RMSEA = 0.113) indicating that one-factor solution fails to
account for the majority of variation in data.

Descriptive statistics
Means and standard deviations and inter correlations among the study variables are
288 displayed in Table I. The results indicate that the dimensions of employer branding were
found to negatively associate with employees’ TIs. As displayed in Table I, the negative
correlations between various dimensions of employer branding and employees’ TIs are as
follows: IV (r = 0.192, p < 0.01), SV (r = 0.286, p < 0.01), DV (r = 0.293, p < 0.01), AV
(r = 0.229, p < 0.01), and EV (r = 0.229, p < 0.01).

Tests of hypotheses
To test the hypotheses, multiple hierarchical regression was run. In Step 1, the control
variables were entered in Block 1 and independent dimensions of employer branding
were entered in Block 2 in SPSS (Table II). Out of five employer branding dimensions,
only SV (b = 0.380, t = 3.071, p < 0.05) and DV (b = 0.272, t = 2.281, p < 0.05) were
found to be significant predictors of employee TIs. The other dimensions of employer
branding i.e. IV (b = 0.188, t = 1.740, p > 0.05), AV (b = 0.076, t = 0.654, p > 0.05) and
EV (b = 0.109, t = 1.062, p > 0.05) were found to be insignificant predictors of TIs.

Discussion
This study aimed at investigating the impact of employer branding dimensions on
employees’ TIs. The results indicated that SV and DV significantly predict employees’ TIs.
Furthermore, IV, AV and EV were found to be insignificant.
First, social value found to lessen employees’ TIs. This indicates that employees’ in
Indian organizations leave their negating superiors and uncooperative colleagues. This
finding is in alignment with previous studies, such as those of Hausknecht et al. (2009) and

Turnover intentions Turnover intentions

Variable Step 1 Step 2
Step 1: Control variables b t p b t p

Constant 3.388 12.699 0.000 5.999 13.334* 0.000

Age of respondent 0.075 0.923 0.356 0.076 0.988 0.324
Gender of respondent 0.313 1.873 0.062 0.411 2.601* 0.010
Hierarchical level 0.006 0.058 0.954 0.051 0.518 0.604
Total experience 0.089 0.936 0.350 0.111 1.239 0.216
Step 2: Independent variables
Interest value 0.188 1.740 0.083
Social value 0.380 3.071* 0.002
Table II. Development value 0.272 2.281* 0.023
Result of multiple Application value 0.076 0.654 0.513
hierarchical Economic value 0.109 1.062 0.289
regression for testing F-value 5.120* 8.371*
R2 0.052 0.169
the impact of Adjusted R2 0.042 0.149
employer branding DR2 0.117*
dimensions on
turnover intentions Notes: N = 380 *p < 0.05
Golden and Veiga (2008). Superiors and co-workers are important predictors of employee Employer
decision to stay with an organization. Supervisory behaviors adversely affect employee’s job branding
performance when they intimidate the subordinate, use aggressive body language,
humiliate the subordinate in public, withhold critical information and ignore them (Tepper,
2000). Whereas, positive superior–subordinate relationships have a prominent impact on
individual work-related outcomes such as organizational commitment, which further leads
to lower absenteeism and turnover (Riketta, 2002). Compatible supervisors are important for
long stay of an employee in an organization (Zheng and Lamond, 2010b). Another important 289
aspect to socialization models suggests that if employees fit well in the organizational social
culture, then their tendency to stay in a particular organization increases (Sheridan, 1992;
Taormina, 2009; Zheng and Lamond, 2010a, 2010b). Indian culture has collectivist
orientation wherein people prefer relational harmony (Chakrabarti, 2013). Suggestively,
social–psychological processes of employees must be focused on avoiding employee
turnover problem in Indian IT software industry (Bhal and Gulati, 2006) because relatedness
with co-workers is an important factor determining long-term association of employees with
their employer.
Furthermore, employees’ intention to quit is observed to reduce due to the presence of
developmental value, and vice versa. This finding fetches adequate empirical support. The
presence of meaningful work adds to employee’s decision to stay further (Pradhan and Jena,
2016). While explaining why individuals stay with a particular organization, Hausknecht
et al. (2009) concluded that there are certain work-related factors and personal factors
explaining employee turnover process. Work-related factor such as advancement
opportunity is an intangible aspect (Zhao et al., 2007) that results in reducing employees’
TIs. Despite being from younger age group, the respondents majorly belong to middle level
in the organization. Bangalore has attained the status of Silicon Valley of India as a hub for
IT companies. Moreover, all metropolitan cities where the respondents were located offer
most attractive opportunities to IT sector workforce in terms of career. This adds to the fact
that sustainability and developmental aspects suppress the intention to quit. In other words,
growth needs drive employees’ decision to continue with their employer.
The findings are congruent with those of Chaturvedi et al. (2014) that the lack of
collaboration, favoritism and politicking by managers leads to higher TIs; however, no
impact of absence of benefits on TIs is in contrast. The IT sector has brought noteworthy
change in job market through abundant job opportunities. Big IT players, as well as small
IT firms, left no dearth of job opportunities for Indian software professionals (Verma et al.,
2012). Due to plenty of workforce in IT sector, employees remain in demanding position
rather than in commanding position. Pay packages are determined on market conditions
and EV is thus not a key factor in influencing employees’ intention to quit as the EV
attached to their employment brand is not significant. Contemporary youth choose learning
and advancement opportunities over salary. Youth is ready to work on lower packages if the
employer is providing better social working environment (Glass, 2007); the result that
economic value is not associated with the reason for leaving the organization is thus
justifiable.
Moving ahead, the results reflect that employees did not have interest value and
application value as an important consideration for staying or leaving an organization. This
is perhaps because majority of respondents were below 30 years of age and in the middle
stage of their careers. Moreover, the nature of tasks in IT sector is different than that in
manufacturing design firm where IV and AV are key determinants of employees’ decisions
to continue or discontinue. IT executives do not essentially require creative experimentation
and entrepreneurial orientation in jobs (Monsen and Boss, 2009). Advancement in their
IJOA careers is the result of consistencies in their performance rather than unusual creative
26,2 contributions. This is how IV has not been considered important by the respondents to
influence their retention or turnover decisions. In a shift-based always-active working
environment of IT sector, the jobs do not allow off-the-job learning and teaching (Berthon
et al., 2005). Employees have to learn and reflect their learning during live on-the-job
performance. They consider such application as a routine part of their jobs. Therefore, the
290 AV (as opportunities for learning) has no significant role in retaining workforce in an IT
organization. Also, the well-established training policy and standardized methods of
execution constrain employees’ flexibility to work in their own way. It further nullifies the
impact of AV on the intention to quit or sustain. Besides, employers provide limited
preference/flexibility to employees to switch their shifts. This restricts flexi working
resulting in minimal significance of either IV or AV choosing to continue or discontinue in a
job. Contrastingly, the other factors like internal mobility opportunities (developmental
value) and favorable organizational climate (SV) remain more significant in predicting
employee turnover behavior.

Implications
The findings have significant implications for theory as well as for practice. From a
pragmatic point of view, the dyad of superior subordinate relationship is needed to be
strengthened with supervisory support and followers’ confidence in leadership quality.
Possibly, organizations should curtail abusive supervision and promote team-based
working to increase cohesion at workplace. Though tolerance of abuse varies from person to
person, majority decide to escape workplace instead for continuing the job. Training
programs and stress relieving workshops should be conducted to alter employee’s intention
to quit. Moreover, supervisors may be counselled to control abusive behavior which
enhances attrition rate of their organization. Team-building exercise may further contribute
to increase SV thereby lessening TIs. Besides this, organizations must focus on devising job
fits and career progression schemes. To start with, IT firms must reconsider their offered
designations, and redesign the jobs with enriched content in addition to enlargement. This
further should be supplemented with career graphs and ladders, providing the employees
stepping stones to continue with their employers. Suggestively, rotational assignments may
be initiated to test employees’ eligibility for promotion and progression. Results may be
tracked with occasional analysis of their engagement levels. Practitioners and consultants
have insights to portray in their projects for employer branding and attrition control.
Theoretical contribution of the research constitutes the addition to literature on employer
branding and TIs.

Limitations and future research directions

The results and implications are subject to certain limitations. The data collection procedure
is one of those. Not all the contacted participants responded to the survey. The response rate
remained only 25.33 per cent (380/1,500). Thus the sample may not be representative of the
population. The cross-sectional nature of data and sample size may pose a question on
generalization in the absence of a longitudinal research. The organizations should keep a
track on how the employer brand is perceived by the human capital of the organization; the
perception of the employees at one point of time is not enough to reach valid conclusions.
Future research studies can focus on longitudinal research design to measure the perception
of employees regarding their employer brand over a period of time to make more significant
contributions on how, when and on which factors organizations change and maintain an
employer brand to meet the needs of employees. Furthermore, the data have been collected
with self-reports survey that may have a vulnerability to common method variance. Employer
Though, the CFA results and satisfactory indices removed any such possibility. Thus the branding
source of common error did not inflate the relationships between variables. The
corroboration of findings with special economic zone IT firms in India may be undertaken
by scholars. Researchers may conduct studies on variations across demographics and
national settings. Choice of different sectors and comparative analysis is also possible in
further studies. As employer branding is an emerging trend in management field,
academicians may initiate interactions on research findings through summits, seminars and 291
conferences.

Conclusion
Employees intend to quit their employers if their expectations are not met. In conclusion, it
may be posited that while deciding to stay in an organization, Indian IT talents value
relatedness as an indicator of their collectivist orientation and growth as a symbol of their
futuristic concern. The lack of relatedness and growth factors may intensify their decision to
quit. Although, AV, IV and EV were also observed negatively correlated with TIs, the
predictive association is not evident from the results. It points that the presence or absences
of lucrative pay packages, creative experimentation and reflective learning has little impact
on stability of IT executives with their employer. Therefore, for strengthening the IT
companies as great places to work for and stay with, the employers must boost progressive
approach and team spirit. Such considerations would contribute toward successful retention
of talent in IT firms. Ultimately, it will add to long-term business success in IT industry.

References
Albrecht, S.L. and Andreetta, M. (2011), “The influence of empowering leadership, empowerment and
engagement on affective commitment and turnover intentions in community health service
workers: test of a model”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 228-237.
Alnıaçık, E. and Alnıaçık, Ü. (2012), “Identifying dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding:
effects of age, gender, and current employment status”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 58, pp. 1336-1343.
Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996), “The employer brand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 185-206.
Ash, R.A. and Bendapudi, V. (1996), “Revisiting the measurement of pay satisfaction: testing an
improved measure”, SM Carraher (Chair), Pay satisfaction and the PSQ. Symposium presented
at the 11th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San
Diego, CA.
Backhaus, K. and Tikoo, S. (2004), “Conceptualizing and researching employer branding”, Career
Development International, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 501-517.
Barney, J.B. (2001), “Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: a ten-year retrospective on the
resource-based view”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 643-650.
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.
Bhal, K.T. and Gulati, N. (2006), “Predicting turnover intentions: Incorporating the role of organization
and work-group level variables”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 7 Nos 3/4,
pp. 41-50.
Bhatnagar, J. (2007), “Predictors of organizational commitment in India: strategic HR roles,
organizational learning capability and psychological empowerment”, The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18 No. 10, pp. 1782-1811.
IJOA Biswas, M. and Suar, D. (2013), “Which employees’ values matter most in the creation of employer
branding”, Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 93-102.
26,2
Biswas, S. (2013), “Attrition in India to top world charts in 2013; one in four employees to change jobs”,
The Economic Times, available at: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-0607/
news/39815456_1_three-employees-indian-employees-attrition (accessed 27 January 2014).
Burke, C.S., Sims, D.E., Lazzara, E.H. and Salas, E. (2007), “Trust in leadership: a multi-level review and
292 integration”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 606-632.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1979), The Michigan Organizational Assessment
Questionnaire, Unpublished Manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Cappelli, P. (2000), “A market-driven approach to retaining talent”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 103-111.
Cardy, R.L. and Lengnick-Hall, M.L. (2011), “Will they stay or will they go? Exploring a customer-
oriented approach to employee retention”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 213-217.
Chakrabarti, S. (2013), “Cultural aspects of caregiver burden in psychiatric disorders”, World Journal of
Psychiatry, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 85-92.
Chaturvedi, A., Sengupta, D., Bhattacharyya, R., Roy, S., Mitra, M., Ganguly, D., Sangani, P. and
Mahanta, V. (2014), India’s Best Companies to Work 2014, The Economic Times.
Chew, J. and Chan, C.C. (2008), “Human resource practices, organizational commitment and intention to
stay”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 503-522.
De Vos, A. and Meganck, A. (2009), “What HR managers do versus what employees value: exploring
both parties’ views on retention management from a psychological contract perspective”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 45-60.
DeConinck, J.B. and Stilwell, C.D. (2004), “Incorporating organizational justice, role states, pay
satisfaction and supervisor satisfaction in a model of turnover intentions”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 225-231.
Dewettinck, K. and van Ameijde, M. (2011), “Linking leadership empowerment behaviour to employee
attitudes and behavioural intentions: testing the mediating role of psychological empowerment”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 284-305.
DiPietro, R. and Milman, A. (2008), “Retention factors of tipped hourly employees in the casual dining
restaurant segment: exploratory research in Central Florida”, International Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Administration, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 244-266.
Donavan, D.T., Brown, T.J. and Mowen, J.C. (2004), “Internal benefits of service-worker customer
orientation: Job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 128-146.
Edwards, M.R. (2010), “An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S. and Lynch, P. (1997), “Perceived organizational support,
discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 812-820.
Glass, A. (2007), “Understanding generational differences for competitive success”, Industrial and
Commercial Training, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 98-103.
Golden, T.D. and Veiga, J.F. (2008), “The impact of superior–subordinate relationships on the
commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 77-88.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, A.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Pearson Education.
Hall, M. and Smith, D. (2009), “Mentoring and turnover intentions in public accounting firms: a research
note”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 Nos 6/7, pp. 695-704.
Hausknecht, J.P., Rodda, J. and Howard, M.J. (2009), “Targeted employee retention: performance-based Employer
and job-related differences in reported reasons for staying”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 269-288.
branding
Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, T.W. and Inderrieden, E.J. (2005), “Shocks as causes of turnover: what
they are and how organizations can manage them”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 44 No. 3,
pp. 337-352.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, p. 424. 293
Huang, C., Lin, H.C. and Chuang, C.H. (2006), “Constructing factors related to worker retention”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 491-508.
Joo, B.K.B. and Mclean, G.N. (2006), “Best employer studies: a conceptual model from a literature review
and a case study”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 228-257.
King, C. and Grace, D. (2008), “Internal branding: exploring the employee’s perspective”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 358-372.
Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Michielsen, M. and Moeyaert, B. (2009), “Employee retention: organisational and
personal perspectives”, Vocations and Learning, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 195-215.
Lee, C. and Way, K. (2010), “Individual employment characteristics of hotel employees that play a role
in employee satisfaction and work retention”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 344-353.
Lee, S.M. (1971), “An empirical analysis of organizational identification”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 213-226.
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.
Lievens, F., Hoye, G. and Schreurs, B. (2005), “Examining the relationship between employer
knowledge dimensions and organizational attractiveness: an application in a military
context”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4,
pp. 553-572.
Martin, G., Beaumont, P., Doig, R. and Pate, J. (2005), “Branding: a new performance discourse for HR”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Martin, G., Gollan, P.J. and Grigg, K. (2011), “Is there a bigger and better future for employer branding?
facing up to innovation, corporate reputations and wicked problems in SHRM”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 17, pp. 3618-3637.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Application,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Michelman, P. (2003), “Why retention should become a core strategy now”, Harvard Management
Update, Vol. 8 No. 10, pp. 1-4.
Mobley, W.H. (1977), “Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee
turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 2, p. 237.
Mobley, W.H. (1982), Employee Turnover: Causes, Consequences and Control, Addison-Wesley,
Reading.
Moncarz, E., Zhao, J. and Kay, C. (2009), “An exploratory study of US lodging properties’ organizational
practices on employee turnover and retention”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 437-458.
Monsen, E. and Boss, R.W. (2009), “The impact of strategic entrepreneurship inside the organization:
examining job stress and employee retention”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 71-104.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.M. and Steers, R.M. (1982), Employee-Organizational Linkage: The Psychology
of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, New York, NY.
IJOA Paré, G. and Tremblay, M. (2007), “The influence of high-involvement human resources practices,
procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information
26,2 technology professionals’ turnover intentions”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 326-357.
Paré, G., Tremblay, M. and Lalonde, P. (2001), “Workforce retention: what do IT employees really
want”, Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer personnel research,
ACM, pp. 1-10.
294
Patwardhan, M., Flora, P. and Gupta, A. (2010), “Identification of secondary factors that influence
consumer’s buying behavior for soaps and chocolates”, The IUP Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 55-72.
Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Pradhan, S. and Jena, L.K. (2016), “The moderating role of neutralizers on the relationship between
abusive supervision and intention to quit: a proposed model”, Journal of Human Values, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 238-248.
Ready, D.A., Hill, L.A. and Conger, J.A. (2008), “Winning the race for talent in emerging markets”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 11, pp. 62-70.
Riketta, M. (2002), “Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a Meta-analysis”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 257-266.
Rosethorn, H. (2009), The Employer Brand: Keeping Faith with the Deal, Gower Publishing, Surrey.
Schlager, T., Bodderas, M., Maas, P. and Luc Cachelin, J. (2011), “The influence of the employer brand
on employee attitudes relevant for service branding: an empirical investigation”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 497-508.
Shalley, C.E., Gilson, L.L. and Blum, T.C. (2000), “Matching creativity requirements and the work
environment: effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 215-223.
Sheridan, J. (1992), “Organization culture and employee retention”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 1036-1056.
Tansky, J.W. and Cohen, D.J. (2001), “The relationship between organizational support, employee
development, and organizational commitment: an empirical study”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 285-300.
Taormina, R.J. (2009), “Organizational socialization: the missing link between employee needs and
organizational culture”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 650-676.
Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43
No. 2, pp. 178-190.
Van Hoye, G., Bas, T., Cromheecke, S. and Lievens, F. (2013), “The instrumental and symbolic
dimensions of organisations’ image as an employer: a large-scale field study on employer
branding in Turkey”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 543-557.
Vandenberghe, C. and Tremblay, M. (2008), “The role of pay satisfaction and organizational
commitment in turnover intentions: a two-sample study”, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 275-286.
Verma, N., Rangnekar, S. and Barua, M.K. (2012), “Need pattern of Indian IT sector executives: an
Empirical analysis in contexts of Indian Economy” in Aktekin, O., Kutlu, O., Gorgun, H. and
Aras, G. (Eds), ITAM 8 Conference Proceedings, International Conference on IT Applications
and Management 2012, Istanbul, pp. 16-22.
Westerman, J.W. and Yamamura, J.H. (2007), “Generational preferences for work environment fit:
effects on employee outcomes”, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 150-161.
Whitener, E.M. (1997), “The impact of human resource management activities on employee trust”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 389-404.
Wildes, V. (2007), “Stigma in food service work: how it affects restaurant servers’ intention to stay in Employer
the business or recommend a job to another”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 213-233. branding
Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C. and McWilliams, A. (1994), “Human resources and sustained competitive
advantage: a resource-based perspective”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 301-326.
Zhao, H.A.O., Wayne, S.J., Glibkowski, B.C. and Bravo, J. (2007), “The impact of psychological
contract breach on work-related outcomes: a Meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 60 295
No. 3, pp. 647-680.
Zheng, C. and Lamond, D. (2010a), “Organisational determinants of employee turnover for
multinational companies in Asia”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 423-443.
Zheng, C. and Lamond, D. (2010b), Retaining Employees, Harvard Business Press, Boston.

Corresponding author
Vaneet Kashyap can be contacted at: vaneet21kashyap@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.