Assessing Impact of Employer Branding on Job Engagement: A Study of Banking Sector

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of employer branding practices on job engagement in banking sector of Uttarakhand. Further, based on the existing literature, only five employer branding practices (interest value, social value, development value, application, and economic value) which are widely accepted in banking sector has selected for present study. By using convenience sampling, data were collected from 245 employees, who are working in the banks in Uttarakhand districts. EFA, CFA, and SEM statistical techniques were used to analyze the data. Further, reliability and validity tests were also performed. Findings of this study revealed that employer branding practices such as interest value, social value, development value, and economic value positively affect the job engagement. When employees perceive the workplace as interesting, socially supportive, and filled with creative value, they undergo growth and advancement which develop employee confidence and satisfaction; further, they are simultaneously engaged with their jobs. The study is cross-sectional in nature and only focus on job engagement. For future research, employee’s level of commitment and organizational attractiveness need to be explored. This study is highly beneficial for employees, corporate practitioners, academicians and researchers for guidelines and policies implementations of employer branding practices.

Keywords

Employer branding job engagement performance career advancement banking sector

Introduction

In this day and age, organizations experience continual demand for skilled employees due to inadequate human capital (Sakiru, Othman, Silong, DSilva, & Kareem, 2013). Attracting employees has emerged as a significant challenge for firms (Shafique, 2012). Due to lack of capable applicants, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find the right applicant for the right position (Lakshmi & Sohail, 2013). Due to the consistent increase in demand for skilled labor, firms struggle to find capable workers. The global economy is driven by the power of the brain rather than physical work; knowledge workers understand that knowledge is the basis of production. To this end, they put in efforts to create a positive reputation. Thus, it is vital for firms to devise adequate and effective strategies to attract, nurture, and retain talented employees (Rucci, Kirn, & Quinn 1998).

Image of banking sector has been tainted in the eyes of some potential recruits by the losses and trading scandals of recent years. In India, banks also face tough competition for bright young talent from seemingly more glamorous and exciting fashion and media companies. Banking is essential to the economic system of the nation; it plays a significant role in economic development of any country. Indeed, banking services have gone through significant change, also, there has been remarkable increase in customer and employee expectations from banks. To fulfill the customers and employees requirements, development of this sector is utmost important. Growth of the banking sector depends on several factors such as government policies, inflation rate, employee satisfaction, good work culture and there should exist climate of the organization. Among these, employer branding (EB) is considered crucial to organizational development and has gained importance in the last decade due to its unique characteristics.

These evolving conditions are forcing employers to rethink their approach toward retaining and attracting employees. EB is developing as a best practice to ensure that companies are prepared for an unpredictable future (Jiang & Iles, 2011). In these disruptive times, nobody can claim complete control of their business and its readiness for what lies ahead. But one thing that remains true is that people are a company’s most valuable asset. Any employer that can develop, retain, and attract great people will have the intellectual capital to compete far into the future, and this is the essence of contemporary EB (Bakanauskienė, Žalpytė, & Vaikasienė, 2014).

According to Ambler and Barrow 1996), EB is a reflection of organization culture which ensures clear communication and development of employees. It suggests psychological, functional, and economic benefits offered by the employing firm, projecting it as a good workplace. Sullivan (2004) sees employment branding as a long-term strategy aimed at managing perception and awareness (of current and potential stakeholders and employees) regarding a firm. Chhrabra and Mishra 2008) describe EB as a firm’s identity creation and image management process as an employer. EB has been employed to project a firm as a superior employer, as well as incorporate techniques to engage and motivate employees. Mossevelde (2014) highlighted that lack of skilled labor and changed perceptions of the new generation were responsible for the emergence of EB. CIPD (2009) states that EB comprises intangible qualities and attributes that draw potential workers toward a firm. Backhaus and Tikoo 2004) emphasized that EB is a distinctive facet of a firm’s employment offerings that differentiates it from rival firms. King and Grace 2008) stated that EB was the identity of an organization as an employer.

Another construct that has been taken in this study is job engagement (JE). Engagement goes beyond simply job satisfaction and high rates of retention (Hobel, 2006). Workers who are fully engaged exhibit physical energy, emotional connection, mental focus and are in line with the organizational goal (Loehr & Schwartz, 2003). Engaged workers share a connection with the firm. Such people are of the belief that they are in control of their fate and work. JE represents the degree to which an employee is attached emotionally to the organization and displays passion for work. Firms consider engagement to be a competitive advantage source. Studies suggest a strong association between engagement, employee performance and business outcomes. Communication, opportunity for employees to convey their views higher, and feeling that managers are committed to the firm are key drivers of JE. According to Robinson, Perryman, and Hayday (2004), job engagement is ‘a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization and its values’. An engaged worker is mindful of the business environment and strives in collaboration with co-workers to enhance job performance in the interest of the firm. Moroko and Uncles 2008) argued that there was greater likelihood of not engaged employees wasting their efforts on tasks that had low priority, failing to commit to tasks fully, and staying with the business for only a short time. JE refers to employee devotion, passion, and effective leadership skills supported by top management. Human resource leaders drive and lead the firm and uplift employee morale (Sarangi & Nayak, 2016). EB is considered as a staff retention technique that influences the whole employment experience while furthering the good workplace concept and reducing voluntary turnover, thereby enhancing JE (Riley, 2009). EB affects employee attraction, satisfaction, engagement, and commitment, all of which associated with greater productivity (Gaddam, 2008). EB aims to enhance engagement through different proven with attractive work environment, better technology and pay (Barrow & Mosley, 2005), employees differentiate with emotional benefits (e.g., feeling good at the workplace) which are thought to boost engagement and meet psychological needs (Barrow & Mosley, 2005).

Profile of Uttarakhand Banking Industry

Uttarakhand state is served by 23 commercial banks in the public sector, 11 co-operative banks (1 state co-operative bank and 10 district central co-operative banks), 1 regional rural bank called ‘Uttarakhand Gramin Bank’ and 14 private sector banks. The chief public sector commercial banks of the state are State Bank of India (also the leading bank in nine districts and State Level Bankers’ Committee [SLBC] convener in the state), Punjab National Bank (leading bank in Dehradun and Haridwar districts), Bank of Baroda (leading bank in Nainital and Udham Singh Nagar district). The average number of villages served per branch varied between 15 (commercial banks) and 107 (private sector banks). Villages located in plain areas have better accessibility to bank branches as against hamlets in hills. Hilly districts such as Chamoli, Pauri, Rudraprayag, Pithoragarh, Almora, Bageshwar, and Champawat have over 20 villages for every branch. Banking in Uttarakhand is modern and hi-tech. The state harbors branches of majority of national and state government banks, and several renowned private banks. Banks located in different parts of Uttarakhand include State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Allahabad Bank, Punjab National Bank, The Nainital Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, Yes Bank, ING Vysya Bank Ltd, Indian Bank, etc. Most of these banks in Uttarakhand are fully computerized and offer trade, educational, agricultural, car and home loans to customers. They also provide small business loans. Emerging private banks such as Yes Bank, Induslnd Bank, HDFC Bank, and ING Vysya are entering the Uttarakhand banking sector to tap the potential customers in different sectors of commerce and business. This study will make an effort to observe the impact of dimensions of EB on JE.

Although there is abundant literature on the link between EB and JE (MacLeod & Clarke, 2009; Richman, Civian, Shannon, Hill, & Brennan, 2008), there is a shortage of literature on the robustness of the relationship between EB and JE specially in banking sector. Hence, banking sector have been selected to assess the influence of EB on JE and the same has been shown in symmetrically in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Source: The author.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

Research shows that EB is a novel and exciting field with the capability to change how firms operate (Ahmad & Daud, 2016). Minchington (2010) defined employer brand as ‘the image of organization as a great place to work in the mind of current employees and key stakeholders in the external market (active and passive candidates, clients, customers and other key stakeholders)’.

EB is considered a staff retention technique that influences the whole employment experience while furthering the good workplace concept and reducing voluntary turnover, thereby enhancing JE (Riley, 2009).

Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, and Lima (2004) also emphasized that EB enhanced JE and that more engaged employees had a lesser likelihood of quitting. Thus, firms must plan work such that encourages JE. Vance (2006) found that engaged and committed employees are offered firm’s important competitive advantages which included greater production and lesser turnover of employees.

According to Gupta, Tanwar, and Ahuja (2014), retaining and attracting talented employees is a challenge for firms. EB could effectively help in retaining and attracting talent. Several firms, irrespective of size, have adopted the approach. Retaining and attracting the right people for the job has assumed greater importance. EB generates organization’s positive image, values (Austin, 2011), flexibility and fair and supportive organizational policies and justice among employees (MacLeod & Clarke, 2009).

This scarcity of literature highlights the need for this research. This study analyzes the relevance of branding practices in Indian banking industry. Thus, this study seeks to determine if a firm’s employer brand acts as a significant factor when deciding to join or remain in the firm. The discussion above suggests that EB affects JE. Branding values mentioned above such as economic, interest, application, salary, security, development capability, etc. bear similarity to many EBs included in the present study. This article aims to determine the association between EBs and JE in the context of banking sector in Uttarakhand, India and in doing so, to fill the gap in extant literature. To achieve this objective, links between separate aspects of EB and dimensions of JE have been analyzed while observing the overall effect of EB on overall JE. It is therefore proposed:

H1: Significant association exists between EB (social value [SV], development value [DV], application value [AV], interest value [IV], and economic value [EV]) and JE. Also, EB will significantly predict JE.

Methodology

Measures

Data were collected with the help of two measuring instruments. A description of each scale has been given as follows:

Employer Branding (EB)

EB instrument carries 25 items generated by Berthon et al. (2005). The scale identifies five dimensions. These are ‘SV, DV, IV, EV and AV’. The use of the instrument in various nations and contexts, and across occupational levels establishes its validity. The reliability coefficients for these dimensions are 0.91, 0.91, 0.89, 0.91, and 0.91, respectively. Respondents were requested to reply on a seven-point Likert scale (‘anchored on “to a very little extent” and “to a very great extent”’).

EB dimensions are defined as follows:

Interest value: Evaluates the extent of attraction of a person toward an employer providing a work environment that is exciting, new work practices, and that uses creativity of employees to manufacture innovative and high-quality services and products.

Social value: Observes the degree of attraction of a person toward an employer providing a happy and fun working environment that presents healthy collegial associations and a team atmosphere.

Economic value: Assesses how much a person is drawn toward organization salary compensation package, promotional opportunities, and security.

Development value: Evaluates the degree of attraction of a person toward ‘an employer that offers confidence, self-worth and recognition along with career-enhancing experience and a launch pad to employment in future’.

Application value: ‘Assesses the degree to which a person is drawn toward an employer’ offering workers opportunities to apply their learning and educate others in a humanitarian and customer-oriented environment.

Job Engagement (JE)

This scale was developed by Kahn (1990) having 18 items under three dimensions, namely, physical engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement. The Cronbach’s alphas of these dimensions were 0.89, 0.64, and 0.90, respectively. Respondents were requested to reply on a five-point Likert scale (‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5)’. According to Kahn (1990), cognitive engagement refers to those who are rationally aware of their roles and mission within an organizations. Emotional engagement refers to those who are emotionally connected to others (such as managers and co-workers); physical engagement refers to physical expression to engagement such as extra role performance.

Data Collection

Different banks of Uttarakhand were approached for the purpose of data collection using convenience sampling. Questionnaires were distributed to bank employees in different regions. Respondents from senior as well as junior levels were contacted for making assessment about the branding and engagement. Duly filled questionnaires were returned by 245 employees.

Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

EFA was carried with principal component analysis procedure of Varimax to summarize original data with minimum factors and optimal coverage. Items having factor loadings below 0.5 and factors having Eigen values less than 1.0 were eliminated from further analysis (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2010). Factor analysis was carried out on EB practices and JE. EB practices scale originally consisted of 25 statements which met under five factors. Employee engagement initially comprised of 18 statements which came down to 15 statements. The construct values of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) exceeded 0.80; for all constructs, total variance explained was over 60 percent; factor loadings and extracted communalities for all constructs exceeded 0.5 and Eigen values exceeded 1 for all constructs (Hair et al., 2010). Details of EFA are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of Result of Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor	Mean	SD	FL	C	EV	VE (%)	KMO
Employer branding	4.04	0.79	–	–	–	70.467	0.899
Interest value	4.01	0.61	–	–	2.76	8.627	0.858
INTV1	4.12	0.78	0.659	0.624	–	–
INTV2	4.02	0.81	0.689	0.62	–	–
INTV3	3.9	0.83	0.680	0.584	–	–
INTV4INTV5	4.034.01	0.770.70	0.5890.543	0.5110.523	–	–
Social value	4.07	0.55	–	–	10.652	33.286
SV1	4.22	0.78	0.539	0.593	–	–
SV2	4.02	0.71	0.535	0.548	–	–
SV3	4.14	0.81	0.52	0.518	–	–
SV4	3.97	0.83	0.751	0.657	–	–
SV5	4.13	0.77	0.667	0.527	–	–
	–	–	–	–	–	–
	–	–	–	–	–	–
Economic value	4.08	0.53	–	–	3.28	10.25
EV1	3.94	0.83	0.734	0.548	–	–
EV2	4.11	0.84	0.713	0.672	–	–
EV3	4.22	0.71	0.67	0.59	–	–
EV4EV5	4.084.19	0.790.76	0.5570.596	0.5570.540	–	–
Development value	4.01	0.54	–	–	1.219	3.808
EMP1	3.97	0.88	0.585	0.517	–	–
EMP2	4.18	0.68	0.51	0.583	–	–
EMP3	4.07	0.73	0.675	0.601	–	–
EMP4	3.94	0.81	0.534	0.532	–	–
EMP5	3.87	0.82	0.564	0.517	–	–
	–	–	–		–	60.824
Application value	3.27	0.57	–	0.683
AV1	3.89	0.81	0.541	0.621
AV2	2.22	0.9	0.73	0.546
AV3	3.9	0.77	0.565	0.638
AV4	2.29	0.87	0.525	0.532
AV5	4.03	0.84	0.646
Job engagement	4.27	1.23	–	–	–	79.02	–
JE1	4.01	0.79	0.651	–	–	–	–
JE2	4.23	0.68	0.690	–	–	–	–
JE3	4.19	0.82	0.703	–	–	–	–
JE4	3.80	0.67	0.721	–	–	–	–
JE5	3.76	0.74	0.682	–	–	–	–
JE6	4.65	0.89	0.753	–	–	–	–
JE7	3.86	0.88	0.638	–	–	–	–
JE8	3.86	0.73	0.664	–	–	–	–
JE9	4.76	0.78	0.788	–	–	–	–
JE12	3.70	0.78	0.678	–	–	–	–
JE13	4.08	0.76	0.775	–	–	–	–
JE14	2.98	0.85	0.618	–	–	–	–
JE15	3.84	0.79	0.669	–	–	–	–
JE17	4.55	0.65	0.684	–	–	–	–
JE18	4.15	0.82	0.655	–	–	–	–

Source: The author.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has been employed to evaluate goodness of model fit, reliability and validity of the scales. Items having standardized regression weights (SRWs) below 0.50 have been eliminated (Hair et al., 2010). EB practices consisted of IV, SV, EV, DV, and AV. At first, measurement model for each practice has been prepared and then second order model has been tested.

Measurement Models

Interest Value (IV)

IV consisted of five manifest variables, namely, IV1, IV2, IV3, IV4, and IV5 (Figure 2). Application of CFA resulted in moderate to high SRWs. The model shows excellent fitness indices (x²/df = 0.140, GFI = 0.987, AGFI = 0.988, NFI = 0.965, CFI = 1.000, RMR = 0.005, RMSEA = 0.000). The results indicate that IV1 is most significantly contributing to JE than the other four items.

Figure 2.

Source: The author.

Social Values (SV)

CFA model of performance management comprised five items (Figure 3). By observing SRW, it has been found that all the values are above 0.5 and model fitness is also good (x²/df = 2.676, GFI = 0.971, AGFI = 0.953, CFI = 0.987, NFI = 0.987, TLI = 0.972, RMR = 0.025, and RMSEA = 0.079). The standard regression weight of all items is above 0.6.

Figure 3.

Source: The author.

Economic Value (EV)

EV consisted of five manifest variables, namely, EV1, EV2, EV3, EV4, and EV5 (Figure 4). Application of CFA resulted in moderate to high SRWs. The model shows excellent fitness indices (x²/df = 0.198, GFI = 0.978, AGFI = 0.949, NFI = 0.934, CFI = 1.000, RMR = 0.005, RMSEA = 0.000). The standard regression weight of all items is above 0.70

Figure 4.

Source: The author.

Development Value (DV)

DV1, DV2, DV3, DV4, and DV5 are the manifest variables. All variables have good and significant standardized loadings (Figure 5). The goodness of fit indices (x²/df = 1.122, GFI = 0.975, AGFI = 0.936, NFI = 0.976, CFI = 0.967, RMR = 0.017, RMSEA = 0.024) yielded excellent results.

Figure 5.

Source: The author.

Application Value (AV)

AV consisted of five manifest variables, namely, AV1, AV2, AV3, AV4, and AV5 (Figure 6). Application of CFA resulted in moderate to high SRWs. The model shows excellent fitness indices (x²/df = 0.188, GFI = 0.878, AGFI = 0.999, NFI = 0.964, CFI = 1.000, RMR = 0.006, RMSEA = 0.000). The standard regression weight of all items is above 0.5

Figure 6.

Source: The author.

Reliability and Validity

Data reliability was checked through construct reliability and Cronbach’s alpha and values are greater than 0.70, which proved the reliability of data. Construct validity has been checked through convergent validity and discriminate validity. The values of average variance extracted and factor loadings (SRW) for all the scales are above 0.50, which proved the convergent validity of the scales. Further, the detailed results of reliability and validity analysis are shown in Table 2. Discriminate validity got established as the square root of average variance extracted for all the scales are higher than the correlation between different scales, which is shown in Table 3.

Table 2.

Reliability and Validity Analysis

Constructs	Dimensions	AVE	CR	Alpha Value
Employer branding practices	–	0.823	0.971	0.909
–	Interest value	0.674	0.828	0.758
–	Social value	0.776	0.824	0.832
–	Economic value	0.643	0.827	0.738
–	Development value	0.827	0.843	0.754
–	Application value	0.765	0.765	0.845
Job engagement		0.657	0.823	0.763

Source: The author.

Table 3.

Discriminate Validity and Correlation Analysis

Constructs	Correlation Matrix
Constructs	EB Practices	Interest Value	Social Value	Economic Value	Development Value	Application Value	Job Engagement
EB Practices	0.823	–	–	–	–	–	–
Interest value	(0.525)0.771**	0.674	–	–	–	–	–
Social value	(0.424)0.676**	(0.521)0.752**	0.796	–	–	–	–
Economic value	(0.276)0.622**	(0.427)0.646**	(0.348)0.599**	0.663	–	–	–
Development Value	(0.426)0.704**	(0.424)0.724**	(0.452)0.687**	(0.323)0.619**	0.817	–	–
Job engagement	(0.352)0.593**	(0.326)0.613**	(0.369)0.601**	(0.367)0.587**	(0.485)0.532**	0.637	–

Source: The author.

Notes: The diagonal axis represents average variance extracted and values in parenthesis represent squared correlation between the constructs. ** denotes correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Hypotheses Testing

SEM was employed to assess proposed relationships. This technique seeks to describe associations among several variables. The relationships between IV, SV, EV, DV, and AV and JE have been assessed through SEM. The SRW (standard regression weight) came out to be 0.62 (p < 0.001), 0.67 (p < 0.001), 0.73 (p < 0.001), and 0.69 (p < 0.001), which revealed that IV, SV, EV, DV, and AV significantly and positively affect JE.

Further integrated models have also been framed. In this model, impact of all the EB practices on JE has been checked. The result revealed that all the EB practices have been significantly affecting JE (Figure 7). By observing Figure 7, it can be seen that EV significantly affect JE, the most followed by social and DV, and so on. Model fit indices are also good for this model (x²/df = 1.783, RMR = 0.046, GFI = 0.884, AGFI = 0.865, CFI = 0.891, RMSEA = 0.056). Further, the model included control variables also which bore no variation in prior associations, hence, they are not depicted in diagram (Figure 7).

Discussion and Conclusion

Figure 7 shows that EB leads to JE. Findings indicate that EB provides a reputation to the firm as the best workplace; employers have to offer economic, functional, psychological, and social benefits to ‘attract and retain the best talent’, and by doing so, firms can enhance employee motivation (Copenhagen Business School, 2009; Dell, Ainspan, & Bodenberg, 2001). EB is the perfect package that provides salary, proper atmosphere, and career development opportunities to their employees that attract them toward organization. According to Verma and Verma 2014), employers are responsible to provide workers the perfect workplace. Sullivan (2004) suggested that EB was an approach for organizations during a slowdown in the economy; it helped build an image in potential workers’ minds of ‘a grade place to work’ (Minchington, 2006). SV, DV, and EV at the workplace provide envisioned benefits to workers so that they are attracted toward organizations. DV and AV motivate employees to effectually utilize their skills and abilities at work, and lead them to perceive the workplace as enjoyable; this gives shape to their expectations with respect to their employment (Lievens et al., 2007).

Figure 7.

Notes: IV = Interest value, SV = Social value, EV = Economic value, DV = Development value, AV = Application value, JE = Job engagement, e1–e32 = Error term of manifest variables.

Figure 7 shows that EB dimensions positively correlate with JE. When employees perceive the workplace as interesting, socially supportive, and filled with creative value, they undergo growth and advancement which causes employee confidence and satisfaction; further, they are simultaneously engaged toward the job. Findings further suggest that development, application and EV encourage employees satisfaction, high ROI on professional as well as personal levels (Dawn & Biswas, 2010). Therefore, employees exhibit engagement with their job. Results indicate that EB in disrupting economic time conveys a firm to generate a choice of employer.

Results clearly indicate that EV is the most robust predictor of among all the dimensions of EB. JE was predicted by economic and DV. Findings imply that EV at place of work, such as above average salary, job security, and career development opportunities attract employees in a competitive market. In banking sector, employees are generally less likely to pursue alternative employment; they prefer companies offering secure jobs and promotional opportunities for continuous learning (Wallace, Lings, Cameron, & Sheldon, 2014).

AV, DV, and SV also positively engage employees at workplace which delivers a stimulating innovative work environment along with building a set of different competencies among employees through training, coaching, and mentoring opportunities (Cooper, 2008; Minton-Eversole, 2009). All these values collectively provide better career development and impose greater challenges to a modern approach to transacting with the firm in future EV, SV, and AV also emerged as key predictors of prestige. It has been suggested that these dimensions of EB change the way employees think by developing creative programs and provide challenges, recognition, and empowerment to retain and attract brightest employees in disruptive economy. Findings indicate that EV influences a company’s image in terms of reputation, popularity, and status (prestige); therefore, employees are attracted toward healthy climate of innovation which engage and retain employees.

Implications and Contribution

This study carries significant implications for practitioners and academics. Findings reveal that EB influences JE, thus, managements could use our findings to recognize EB aspects that are particularly effectual in obtaining JE. Given the fact that ‘economic value, application value, social value and development value emerged as strong predictors of attracting and retaining employees in recent trend such as downsizing, and outsourcing’ in banking sector, ‘employers provide employees with marketable skills through training and development in return for effort and flexibility’ (Baruch, 2004). Practitioners, with some effort, would be able to recognize the dimensions helpful in drawing workers to firms, thus leading to JE.

Limitations and Future Research Direction

Limitations of this research article are as follows. First, the population could have been better represented by a larger sample. Second, the present student provides useful literature for the researcher and practitioner in banking sector in rural area but it have certain limitations too. The study is cross-sectional in nature and only focuses on JE. For future research, larger samples could be an area of study. Further, similar studies could be conducted in multi-cultural organizational contexts and environments.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ahmad

Daud

(2016). Engaging people with employer branding. Procedia Economics and Finance , 35, 690–698.

Allen

T. D.

Eby

L. T.

Poteet

M. L.

Lentz

Lima

(2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89(1), 127–136.

Ambler

Barrow

(1996). The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management , 4(3), 185–206.

Austin

(2011). The art of engagement [Electronic version]. Retrieved from http://www.russell-cook.co.uk/clientUpload/dcument/file/Presentation%20-%20%20Art%20of%20Engagement.pdf

Backhaus

Tikoo

(2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career Development International , 9(5), 501–517.

Bakanauskienė

Žalpytė

Vaikasienė

(2014). Employer’s attractiveness: Employees expectations vs reality in Lithuania. Human Resources Management & Ergonomics , 8(1), 23–37.

Barrow

Mosley

(2005). The employer brand: Bringing the best of brand management to people at work . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Baruch

(2004). Transforming careers: From linear to multidirectional career paths: Organizational and individual perspectives. Career Development International , 9(1), 58–73.

Berthon

Ewing

Erthen

(2005). Captivating company: Dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding. International Journal of Advertising , 24, 151–172.

10.

Chhrabra

Mishra

(2008). New Zealand talent acquisition and employer branding case studies. Human Resources Magazine , 17, 26–27.

11.

CIPD. (2009). Employer brand . London: CIPD.

12.

Cooper

(2008). Attract, develop and retain: Initiatives to sustain a competitive workforce . Brisbane: Mining Industry Skills Centre.

13.

Copenhagen Business School. (2009). Employer branding—a possible value creating attribute . Retrieved from http://employerbrandingmarketing.wordpress.com/thesis

14.

Dawn

K. S.

Biswas

(2010). Employer branding: A new strategic dimension of Indian corporations. Asian Journal of Management Research , 7, 21–33.

15.

Dell

Ainspan

Bodenberg

(2001). Engaging employees through your brand (Research Report No. 1288–01–RR). New York, NY: The Conference Board.

16.

Gaddam

(2008). Modeling employer branding communication: The softer aspect of HR marketing management. The ICFAI Journal of Soft Skills , 2(1), 45–55.

17.

Gupta

A. P.

Tanwar

Ahuja

(2014). Employer branding: A descriptive study abstract. International Journal of Economic and Management Strategy , 4(1), 1–10.

18.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

19.

Hobel

(2006). Loyal staff worth the effort. Canadian HR Reporter , 19(19), 26.

20.

Jiang

Iles

(2011). Employer-brand equity, organizational attractiveness and talent management in the Zhejiang private sector, China. Journal of Technology Management in China , 6(1), 97–110.

21.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal , 33(4), 692–724.

22.

King

Grace

(2008). Building and measuring employee-based brand equity. European Journal of Marketing , 44(7–8), 938–971.

23.

Lakshmi

V. S.

Sohail

(2013). Crunch branding: The innovative HR tool to lead Indian incorporation in creating favorable employer branding and employee retention. Human Resource Management, 54, 12507–12512. Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/toc/rijh20/current

24.

Lievens

Greet Van Hoye

V. G.

Anseel

(2007). Organizational identity and employer Image: Towards a unifying framework. British Journal of Management , 18, 45–59.

25.

Loehr

Schwartz

(2003). The power of full engagement: Managing energy, not time, is the key to high performance and renewal . New York, NY: Free Press.

26.

MacLeod

Clarke

(2009). Engaging for success: Enhancing performance through employee engagement: A report to government . London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

27.

Minchington

(2006). Your employer brand: Attract, engage, retain . Torrensville: Collective Learning Australia.

28.

Minchington

(2010). The employer brand manager’s handbook . Torrensville: Collective Learning.

29.

Minton-Eversole

(2009). Quality measurement: Key to best-in-class talent acquisition. HR Magazine , 6, 64–66.

30.

Moroko

Uncles

M. D.

(2008). Characteristics of successful employer brands. Journal of Brand Management , 16(3), 160–175.

31.

Mossevelde

C. V.

(2014 14 March). What-is-employer-branding . Retrieved from http://universumglobal.com/2014/03

32.

Richman

A. L.

Civian

J. T.

Shannon

L. L.

Hill

E. J.

Brennan

R. T. (2008).

The relationship of perceived flexibility, supportive work–life policies, and use of formal flexible arrangements and occasional flexibility to employee engagement and expected retention. Community, Work & Family , 11(2), 183–197.

33.

Riley

(2009). Employment brands to protect against increased staff churn in recovery. Keeping Good Companies , 61(11), 688.

34.

Robinson

Perryman

Hayday

(2004). The drivers of employment engagement . Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.

35.

Rucci

A. J.

Kirn

S. P.

Quinn

R. T.

(1998). The employee-customer-profit chain at sears. Harvard Business Review , 76, 83–97.

36.

Sakiru

O. K.

Othman

Silong

A. D.

DSilva

J. L.

Kareem

S. D.

(2013). Review of leadership theories and organizational performances. International Business Management Journal , 7(1), 50–54.

37.

Sarangi

Nayak

(2016). Employee engagement and its impact on organizational success—A study in manufacturing company, India. Journal of Business and Management , 18(4), 52–57.

38.

Shafique

(2012). Recruitment in the 21st Century. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business , 4(2), 887–901.

39.

Sullivan

(2004 23 February). The 8 elements of a successful employment brand . Retrieved from https://www.ere.net/the-8-elements-of-a-successful-employment-brand

40.

Vance

R. J.

(2006). Employee engagement and commitment. SHRM Foundation’s effective practice guidelines . Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/about/foundation/research/Documents/1006EmployeeEngagementOnlineReport.pdf

41.

Verma

(2014). A study on attractiveness dimensions of employer branding in technical educational institutions. Journal of Human Resource Management , 6(1), 36–43.

42.

Wallace

Lings

Cameron

Sheldon

(2014). Attracting and retaining staff: The role of branding and industry image. Workforce Development . doi: 10.1007/978981-4560-58-0_2