See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242346766

Employer branding and its influence on managers

Article  in  European Journal of Marketing · May 2008

DOI: 10.1108/03090560810862570

CITATIONS READS
176 7,449

1 author:

Gary Davies
The University of Manchester
102 PUBLICATIONS   3,129 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gary Davies on 16 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Journal of Marketing
Employer branding and its influence on managers
Gary Davies
Article information:
To cite this document:
Gary Davies, (2008),"Employer branding and its influence on managers", European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 42 Iss 5/6 pp. 667 - 681
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560810862570
Downloaded on: 16 November 2016, At: 00:53 (PT)
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 39 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 12841 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2012),"HRD practices and talent management in the companies with the employer
brand", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 36 Iss 1 pp. 86-104 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090591211192647
(2011),"Applying employer brand management to employee engagement", Strategic HR Review, Vol. 10 Iss
3 pp. 19-26 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14754391111121874

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:426046 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Employer
Employer branding and its branding and
influence on managers its influence
Gary Davies
Manchester Business School, Manchester, UK 667
Received October 2006
Abstract Revised January 2007;
Purpose – The paper seeks to explore the role of the employer brand in influencing employees’ April 2007
Accepted May 2007
perceived differentiation, affinity, satisfaction and loyalty – four outcomes chosen as relevant to the
employer brand.
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

Design/methodology/approach – A multidimensional measure of corporate brand personality is

used to measure employer brand associations in a survey of 854 commercial managers working in 17
organisations. Structural equation modelling is used to identify which dimensions influence the four
outcomes. Models are built and tested using a calibration sample and tested on two validation samples,
one equivalent to the calibration sample and another drawn from a single company.
Findings – Satisfaction was predicted by agreeableness (supportive, trustworthy); affinity by a
combination of agreeableness and (surprisingly) ruthlessness (aggressive, controlling); and perceived
differentiation and loyalty by a combination of both enterprise (exciting, daring) and chic (stylish,
prestigious). Competence (reliable, leading) was not retained in any model.
Research limitations/implications – Further work is required to identify how appropriate
improvements in employee associations can be managed.
Practical implications – The findings emphasise the importance of an employer brand but the
results also highlight the complexity in its management, as no one aspect has a dominant influence on
outcomes relevant to the employer. At issue is which function within an organisation should be tasked
with managing the employer brand.
Originality/value – Employer branding is relatively new as a topic but is attracting the attention of
both marketing and HR academics and practitioners. Prior work is predominantly conceptual and this
paper is novel in demonstrating empirically its role in promoting satisfaction, affinity, differentiation
and loyalty.
Keywords Brands, Product differentiation, Customer satisfaction, Customer loyalty
Paper type Research paper

Increasingly companies are allocating funds to what has been termed the employee or
employer brand, i.e. the set of distinctive associations made by employees (actual or
potential) with the corporate name. A strong employer brand attracts better applicants
(Collins and Stevens, 2002; Slaughter et al., 2004) and shapes their expectations about
their employment (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003). What is less clear is the role of
branding with existing employees, the focus for this paper.
A brand is a symbol that encapsulates the many associations that are made with
a name (Gardner and Levy, 1955) and many things can be branded (Levitt, 1980),
including the company itself, but is the role and effect of the employer brand similar
to that of the brand in its usual context, that of influencing customers? This paper European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 42 No. 5/6, 2008
identifies the roles that the employer brand might be expected to play, the roles that pp. 667-681
are relevant to a corporate brand and to employees: creating (employee) satisfaction, q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
affinity and loyalty and perceived differentiation. The main contribution of the DOI 10.1108/03090560810862570
 EJM paper is to provide empirical evidence of the influence of employer branding. The
42,5/6 context is that of one important and potentially mobile employee group, i.e.
commercial managers.

Branding and the employer brand

668 When considering customers, a brand provides its owner with two benefits:
differentiation, so that the customer is less able to decide on price alone and a franchise
(Davies, 1992), the latter stemming from customer satisfaction with the brand and
loyalty to it. Customers choose to purchase for rational reasons but their emotional
attachment is also important. These four attributes of a brand – the ability to
differentiate, to create loyalty, to satisfy and to develop an emotional attachment – are,
it is argued, also relevant to the employer brand.
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

The effects of a brand are often referred to as its “equity”, rooted in the customer’s
knowledge about the brand. Two factors contribute to brand knowledge:
(1) awareness; and
(2) image (Keller, 1993).

Awareness is not at issue for existing employees and so the focus in this paper is
therefore on image. Brand image concerns the associations held of a brand in
memory; and brand personality, the projective technique used here, is one measure
of these (Keller, 1998). Brand personality, the human associations we make with a
brand, is a way of obtaining a holistic view of a brand’s associations by using the
metaphor of brand as person and applying the equivalent of a personality test to
the brand.
Two such measures have been developed to measure employee views (Davies et al.,
2002, 2004; Slaughter et al., 2004) using human personality traits, similar to those used
in assessing the personality of an individual. For example one corporate brand may be
described as being more “honest” or more “daring” than another. The approach forms
part of the psycholexical tradition, that languages develop groups of adjectives to
describe the most important differences between significant objects. We personify
brands, and a similar but not identical list of adjectives that we use to describe people
exists for brand personality (Caprara et al., 2001).
The Corporate Character Scale (Davies et al., 2004) that was adopted here has five
main and orthogonal dimensions:
(1) agreeableness;
(2) enterprise;
(3) chic;
(4) competence; and
(5) ruthlessness (Table I).

Agreeableness has three facets, each with a number of measurement items:

(1) warmth (e.g. friendly, pleasant);
(2) empathy (concerned, supportive); and
(3) integrity (honest, trustworthy).
 Employer
Agreeableness Enterprise Competence Chic Ruthlessness
branding and
Cheerful Cool Reliable Charming Arrogant its influence
Pleasant Trendy Secure Stylish Aggressive
Open Young Hardworking Elegant Selfish
Straightforward Imaginative Ambitious Prestigious Inward-looking
Concerned Up to date Achievement-oriented Exclusive Authoritarian 669
Reassuring Exciting Leading Refined Controlling
Supportive Innovative Technical Snobby
Agreeable Extravert Corporate Elitist
Honest Daring
Sincere
Trustworthy
Socially responsible Table I.
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

The five main dimensions

Source: Davies et al. (2004) of corporate personality

Enterprise includes:
.
modernity (cool, trendy);
.
adventure (imaginative, innovative); and
.
boldness (extravert, daring).

Competence includes:
.
conscientiousness (reliable, hardworking);
.
drive (ambitious, leading); and
.
technocracy (technical, corporate).

This dimension represents the more tangible aspects of a corporate brand, those
associated with quality. The chic dimension includes:
.
elegance (charming, stylish);
.
prestige (prestigious, exclusive); and
.
snobbery (snobby, elitist).

This dimension represents an aspect of branding that is well developed by luxury

brands. Ruthless has two facets – egotism (arrogant, aggressive) and dominance
(authoritarian, controlling) – and is the one negatively valenced dimension.
There is limited literature to guide expectations on what aspects of brand
personality might be most influential with employees and, in the absence of any clear
direction, a more exploratory approach was adopted in the following empirical study.
No initial assumptions were therefore made about which dimensions of brand
personality would be salient for each outcome.

Brand and differentiation

The original objective for branding (a burn on cattle or a mark on bricks) was to
distinguish the ownership or origin of one item from other similar items; hence the
traditional association of branding with differentiation. A brand name is more than
 EJM just a label to differentiate (Gardner and Levy, 1955), but differentiation is still the
42,5/6 essence of branding (Aaker, 2003). Marketing campaigns seek to differentiate the
brand by positioning it as superior on one or more attributes relevant to the customer
(Pechmann and Ratneshwar, 1991). Differentiation reduces price competition and is
consequently seen as a source of competitive advantage at the corporate level, where it
is one of three generic strategies (Porter, 1980). Employees as well as customers like to
670 be associated with distinctive organisations (Dutton et al., 1994). One role of the
employer brand should be then to distinguish the employer in the minds of employees.
Hence the first hypothesis:
H1. The stronger one or more aspects of the employer brand’s personality, the
greater will be the perceived differentiation of the employer.
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

Brand and loyalty

Brand loyalty refers to a customer’s propensity to purchase the same product over time
(Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978) and differs somewhat from employer brand loyalty. While
there are examples in business-to-business markets of long-standing relationships and
examples in employment of short term contracts, switching brands in a consumer
market can be done relatively frequently and at little cost to the individual. Switching
employers involves far higher costs and is done only every few years (respondents to
the study reported here had spent an average of 12.9 years with their employer).
Various factors can influence the employee to leave an organisation, or to remain
despite being dissatisfied. Employees who have greater opportunity to voice
dissatisfaction are less likely to quit (Spencer, 1986). An intention to quit is related to
job stress, lack of commitment to the employer, and job dissatisfaction (Mellor et al.,
2004). Most labour turnover models include a significant impact of affective factors,
including organisation commitment, well-being and job satisfaction (Steel et al., 2002;
Steel, 2002). Job satisfaction and organisational commitment are frequently assumed to
influence the decision to leave (Winterton, 2004) but the influence of the corporate
brand on this process, probably the most significant affective factor in an organisation,
is never considered. To assess the potential relevance of its role in creating loyalty, a
second hypothesis is proposed:
H2. The stronger one or more aspects of the employer brand’s personality, the
greater will be employee loyalty.

Brand and satisfaction

One role of a brand is to create and enhance satisfaction. Satisfaction predicts future
behaviour towards the brand (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001) and, as explained above,
satisfaction with the job and with the employer are useful predictors of an intention to
leave an organisation. Employees who are more satisfied also create better
relationships with customers (Heskett et al., 1997). Customer satisfaction is often
measured in commercial surveys by using multi-attribute scales, each attribute
representing one aspect of the desired product or service (Wirtz, 2003). Work on
employment issues tends to focus on job satisfaction and on its links to employee
behaviour, rather than on satisfaction with the employer, but job satisfaction is less
likely to be influenced by the employer brand than will be overall satisfaction with the
 company. One important role of the employer brand should then be to promote Employer
employee satisfaction, hence: branding and
H3. The stronger one or more aspects of the employer brand’s personality, the its influence
greater will be employee satisfaction.

Branding and affinity 671

A strong brand elicits an emotional response from a consumer (Yeung and Wyer,
2004). The level of arousal, the quality of consumption experience and the emotional
attachment to a brand all influence the consumer’s affective evaluation (Tsai, 2005).
The emotional attachment of the employee to their employer is normally assessed by
measuring commitment (Steel, 2002), the desire to maintain one’s membership of an
organisation (Meyer and Allen, 1991), or the allied construct of identification (Riketta,
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

2005), the linking of the organisational member to his/her self-concept by feeling a part
of the organisation and having pride in membership. Recognising the importance of
commitment and identification goes some way to recognising that an organisation can
be viewed usefully through an emotional lens and not just through the lens of
rationality (see, for example, Fineman, 1993). As the success of branding is concerned
with promoting an emotional response from the target, the employer brand should
promote an affective response from the employee. Hence:
H4. The stronger one or more aspects of the employer brand’s personality, the
greater will be the employee’s affinity to the brand.

Methods
Sample
The market for employees is heterogeneous but one relatively coherent and important
sector is “commercial managers”, defined here as those with managerial responsibility,
working in a business context but not working in a technical role, such as research and
development. In total, 854 commercial managers working for 17 organisations were
surveyed. A main database of 527 responses from managers in 16 organisations
(Table II) was randomly divided into two, a calibration sample of 269 and a validation
sample of 258. A second validation sample of 327 managers from one company, a food
retailer, was used to test whether any findings were relevant at the level of a single
organisation. Response rates to the questionnaire varied but were always higher than
80 per cent of those approached. The managers were surveyed while attending
management development courses at a business school.

Measures
The Corporate Character Scale (Table I), was used to measure the managers’ brand
associations. Respondents were asked to imagine that their organisation had “come to
life” as a human being and to rate its personality on a five-point Likert-type scale
anchored by 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 5 ¼ strongly agree that the item described the
organisation perfectly.
Perceived differentiation was measured with two items: that the firm had a “distinct
identity” and a “unique personality”. Satisfaction with the organisation was measured
using two items, overall satisfaction and willingness to recommend the company to
others. Affinity was measured with two items: “pleased to be associated with” and “I
 EJM
Company Sample Percentage
42,5/6
Chain store retailer 27 5.12
Ladies’ fashion store 29 5.50
Variety store 21 3.98
Food retailer 68 12.90
672 Accountancy practice 39 7.40
Bank 30 5.69
Academic department 42 7.97
Construction (A) 71 13.47
Construction (B) 42 7.97
Financial services retailer 15 2.85
Systems manufacturer 30 5.69
Advertising agency 26 4.93
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

Infrastructure services 7 1.33

Electronics manufacturer 33 6.26
Public relations 12 2.28
Capital goods manufacturer 9 1.71
Table II. Media conglomerate 26 4.93
Survey sample Total 527 100

feel an affinity with” the employer. All items had a five-point Likert-type scale
anchored by 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 5 ¼ strongly agree. All scales proved suitably
reliable (Table III).
Loyalty was measured with a single item, the number of years the employee had
been employed by the same company.
Average scores for each variable are reported by company in Table IV.

Modelling
Models linking employer brand personality to outcomes were constructed and tested
using structural equation modelling. Separate models were built for each target
variable (satisfaction, affinity, differentiation and loyalty). The measures for the five
dimensions of corporate character were aggregated at the facet level (see example in
Figure 1). Each dimension was assumed to predict the target variable and allowed to
co-vary with all other dimensions to eliminate any halo effect. Using the calibration

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Agreeableness (1) 0.90

Enterprise (2) 0.33 * 0.86
Competence (3) 0.52 * 0.58 * 0.79
Ruthless (4) 2 0.47 * 2 0.02 2 0.01 0.70
Chic (5) 0.08 * 0.37 * 0.33 * 0.23 * 0.79
Differentiation (6) 0.34 * 0.43 * 0.40 * 2 0.02 0.34 * 0.78
Satisfaction (7) 0.66 * 0.45 * 0.57 * 2 0.28 * 0.12 * 0.43 0.84
Table III. Affinity (8) 0.59 * 0.41 * 0.49 * 2 0.24 * 0.10 * 0.46 0.77 * 0.78
Construct to construct Loyalty (9) 0.18 * 0.11 * 0.21 * 2 0.02 2 0.01 0.20 0.23 * 0.28 *
correlations and
reliabilities Notes: *Significant at p , 0:05; Cronbach’s a scores are shown on the diagonal
 Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

Company Chic Agreeableness Enterprise Competence Ruthlessness Satisfaction Differeniation Affinity Service

Chain store retailer 2.77 3.40 2.20 3.69 3.41 3.63 3.98 3.76 12.23
Ladies fashion store 2.91 4.07 4.17 4.06 2.40 4.53 4.47 4.38 6.88
Variety store 2.37 3.43 2.26 3.22 2.59 3.43 2.93 3.60 13.43
Food retailer 3.13 3.71 3.57 4.12 2.96 4.18 4.01 4.01 10.14
Accountancy practice 3.42 3.16 3.75 4.21 3.69 3.88 4.13 4.01 6.70
Bank 2.87 2.85 2.67 3.29 3.31 3.60 3.77 3.97 10.47
Academic department 2.00 3.12 2.38 3.15 3.09 3.45 2.51 3.45 7.48
Construction (A) 2.90 3.62 2.98 3.94 2.85 4.08 3.37 4.02 8.70
Construction (B) 2.91 3.94 2.87 3.92 2.91 4.24 4.00 4.30 14.73
Financial services retailer 2.43 3.86 2.32 3.56 2.88 4.17 4.30 4.23 17.93
Systems manufacturer 2.61 2.84 2.51 3.07 3.21 2.65 3.10 3.13 8.33
Advertising agency 2.60 3.36 3.40 3.37 2.88 3.65 3.42 3.87 5.04
Infrastructure services 2.34 3.17 3.48 4.09 3.64 4.14 3.57 4.21 4.58
Electronics manufacturer 3.66 3.31 3.49 3.79 2.97 3.83 4.09 4.09 13.97
Public relations 3.06 3.53 3.18 3.88 3.10 3.75 2.71 3.79 2.10
Capital goods manufacturer 3.77 2.64 3.69 3.79 4.22 3.39 4.67 3.78 8.61
Media conglomerate 2.61 3.22 3.63 3.44 3.38 4.02 3.75 4.17 7.06
its influence
Employer
branding and

Average scores
673

Table IV.
 EJM
42,5/6

674
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

Figure 1.
Example of initial SEM
model (shown without
covariance links between
corporate character
dimensions)

data, models were modified by eliminating any non-significant links one at a time and
then re-running the model (Jöreskog, 1993; Bullock et al., 1994; Long, 1983). The process
continued until there were no further insignificant links and the resulting model fitted
the data well. (For example, agreeableness was the only dimension to be retained in the
model predicting employee satisfaction.) These models were then retested on the two
validation samples and finally for the combined database.

Results
The results of the analyses are shown in Table V. The validation models confirmed the
calibration models in each case, both for the random sample and for the sample from
one company.
For example, in the satisfaction calibration model, only agreeableness (friendly,
supportive) was retained after removing all non-significant links in the model, showing
that this dimension is best at explaining the variance in employee satisfaction. The
overall fit (x 2 ½df ¼ 2
¼ 4:46, p ¼ 0:11) is good and so the model cannot be rejected.
Other fit indices are also good (CFI ¼ 0:99, GFI ¼ 0:99, Hoelter 0:01 ¼ 674 and
RMSEA ¼ 0:00) indicating a well fitting model. The overall fit for the first validation
 Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

Target Sample Retained dimensions x2 df p CFI GFI Hoelter 0.01 RMSEA SMC of target

Satisfaction Calibration Agreeableness 4.46 2 0.11 0.99 0.99 674 0.061 0.32
Validation 1 Agreeableness 0.50 2 0.78 1 1 9,654 0.00 0.51
Validation 2 Agreeableness 3.18 2 0.2 0.99 0.99 744 0.048 0.50
Combined Agreeableness 2.45 2 0.29 1.0 1.0 1,009 0.029 0.51
Affinity Calibration Agreeableness, ruthlessness 12.88 7 0.075 0.99 0.98 385 0.056 0.38
Validation 1 Agreeableness, ruthlessness 10.4 7 0.167 0.99 0.99 457 0.04 0.40
Validation 2 Agreeableness, ruthlessness 14.1 7 0.049 0.99 0.99 690 0.04 0.39
Combined Agreeableness, ruthlessness 14.92 7 0.037 0.98 0.98 404 0.059 0.38
Differentiation Calibration Enterprise, chic 22.42 7 0.002 0.98 0.97 221 0.091 0.32
Validation 1 Enterprise, chic 16.32 7 0.022 0.99 0.98 291 0.072 0.37
Validation 2 Enterprise, chic 16.08 7 0.024 0.98 0.98 375 0.063 0.16
Combined Enterprise, chic 33.35 7 0.000 0.98 0.98 292 0.085 0.32
Loyalty Calibration Enterprise, chic 0.97 3 0.81 1.0 1.0 2,667 0.00 0.06
Validation 1 Enterprise, chic 10.01 3 0.18 0.98 0.98 240 0.10 0.09
Validation 2 Enterprise, chic 12.99 3 0.005 0.96 0.98 282 0.10 0.03
Combined Enterprise, chic 7.46 3 0.059 0.99 0.99 671 0.058 0.07

dimensions
its influence

Model fits and retained

Table V.
Employer
branding and

675
 EJM sample is even better (x 2 ½df ¼ 2
¼ 0:50, p ¼ 0:78) and other fit indices are again
42,5/6 good (CFI ¼ 1:0, GFI ¼ 1:0, Hoelter 0:01 ¼ 9; 654 and RMSEA ¼ 0:00). The fit for the
single company sample was also good (x 2 ½df ¼ 2
¼ 3:18, p ¼ 0:20) and again the
model cannot be rejected and other fit indices are similarly sound (CFI ¼ 0:99,
GFI ¼ 0:99, Hoelter 0:01 ¼ 744 and RMSEA ¼ 0:048). For the combined sample the
overall fit is again good (x 2 ½df ¼ 2
¼ 2:45, p ¼ 0:29), (CFI ¼ 1:0, GFI ¼ 1:0, Hoelter
676 0:01 ¼ 1,009 and RMSEA ¼ 0:029). The models also predict a high level of variance in
the target variable (SMC ¼ 0:32-0:51). The implication is that commercial managers
are more satisfied the higher their perception of the employer’s agreeableness.
Perceived differentiation was predicted by a combination of enterprise (trendy,
exciting) and chic (stylish, prestigious), but the influence of enterprise was not as
strong overall as that of chic. For example, in the combined sample the standardised
path coefficient for enterprise was 0.16 (CR ¼ 2:15, p ¼ 0:032) and for chic 0.44
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

(CR ¼ 5:59, p , 0:001). Chic’s standardised contribution to differentiation was 0.44

compared to that from enterprise at 0.16. Managers see their employer as more
different/distinctive if they appear more chic and enterprising but chicness is the more
important, managers apparently preferring prestige over excitement.
Interestingly the same two dimensions were retained to predict loyalty, measured
by length of service. However this time the influence of enterprise was negative. For
example, in the combined sample analysis, enterprise has a path coefficient of 2 0.39
(CR ¼ 23:88, p , 0:001) and chic 0.40 (CR ¼ 3:91, p , 0:001). The total standardised
effects of the two dimensions on loyalty are 0.40 for chic and 2 0.39 for enterprise. In
other words managers stay longer with firms that they see as chic and not enterprising.
The variance explained in loyalty was not high (0.07 for the combined sample model)
and it would appear therefore that loyalty at least measured by the time the manager
had been with the company is not heavily influenced by brand imagery.
Employee affinity correlated strongly with employee satisfaction and agreeableness
was important in predicting affinity. However, ruthlessness (arrogant, aggressive) was
also retained and had a positive relationship with affinity. The model proved valid for
all samples. The stronger path coefficient was from agreeableness to employee affinity
(0.73) but the path from ruthlessness to affinity was not weak at 0.23 (CR ¼ 3:15,
p ¼ 0:002) for the calibration sample, and was similar for the combined sample at 0.18
(CR ¼ 3:66, p , 0:000). The standardised effects of agreeableness and ruthlessness on
affinity were 0.72 and 0.18, respectively, so while the influence of ruthlessness is small
it is still important. Managers have a greater affinity to an employer whose image is
arrogant, aggressive, authoritarian and controlling. For all employees the correlation
between ruthlessness and satisfaction is, as one might expect, negative (Davies et al.,
2002) but managers appear to be more attracted to companies with a hint of
totalitarianism.
Four hypotheses were used to assess the role of the employer brand and three were
fully supported by the data. H1 was supported. Perceived differentiation is enhanced
by a combination of enterprise (trendy, exciting, daring) and chic (stylish, prestigious,
elitist). The fit indices are good for the four final models with the exception of RMSEA,
which is slightly above the recommended limit of 0.08 for two of the models (Browne
and Cudeck, 1993). H2 was not fully supported as one aspect of imagery had a negative
influence on loyalty. The number of years a manager has been employed is apparently
promoted by chic (stylish, prestigious) but reduced by enterprise (trendy, exciting). The
 fit indices are good for the four models, with the exception of the two validation models Employer
where RMSEA is high. The final model fits required the dropping of one facet, branding and
boldness (extravert and daring) from enterprise, and one from chic, i.e. snobbery
(snobby, elitist). H3 was supported. The fit indices are good and the level of prediction its influence
of employee satisfaction is high for all models. Employee satisfaction is promoted by
an image for agreeableness (friendly, concerned, honest). If employees trust their
employer, find them supportive and open then they will be more satisfied. The finding 677
is compatible with previous work that suggests trust is an important issue in the
employee-employer relationship. H4 was supported. These models had the most
consistently good fit indices. Agreeableness was positively associated with affinity,
but the results contained a surprise in that ruthlessness had a significant but positive
impact on managers’ affinity.
Causal ordering was tested in all four relationships using alternative models where,
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

for example, affinity is used to predict agreeableness and ruthlessness rather than vice
versa. The fit levels for three models – loyalty, perceived differentiation and affinity –
were not acceptable. For satisfaction there was an acceptable fit but the fit was lower
than that for the relationship in the direction as originally proposed. For example for
the combined database (x 2 ½df ¼ 2
¼ 6:5, p ¼ 0:039) (CFI ¼ 0:99, GFI ¼ 0:99, Hoelter
0:01 ¼ 1; 083 and RMSEA ¼ 0:054).
Testing the data in Table IV using one-way ANOVA showed that the ratings of
each company varied significantly for each of the five dimensions of corporate
character (p , 0:001), demonstrating that the brand images of the companies differ.
Such differences can be used to “position” individual employer brands. Differently
positioned product brands elicit different responses from customers; and the same is
true of employees and the employer brand.

Discussion and conclusions

Four outcomes were selected from the consumer branding literature that should be
relevant to employees – perceived differentiation, loyalty, satisfaction and affinity – to
test the relevance of the employer brand concept. All four outcomes were predicted by
aspects of brand personality. Agreeableness was the most prominent dimension of
corporate brand personality in influencing outcomes. It dominated employee
satisfaction and made the larger of two contributions to predicting affinity.
Employers need to focus on this dimension in their promotion of their employer brand.
But the contribution of other dimensions should not be ignored as four of the five main
dimensions of corporate character were found to influence one or more of the four
outcomes. Competence (reliable, leading, corporate) alone was not retained in any
model. This in itself is surprising, as the competence dimension is often used by
companies when trying to position themselves (Chun and Davies, 2001). Is the lack of
efficacy of this dimension an indication that competence represents a hygiene factor, a
dimension that in reality has little impact because few would work for an employer for
long that they saw as incompetent? However, the variance of competence was no less
across organisations than any other dimension (Table IV). Further work is needed to
explain why, if competence is often emphasised in corporate communication (which
will be seen by employees as well as other stakeholders), it has little apparent
comparative benefit in positioning corporate brands to employees.
 EJM The influence of ruthlessness was unexpected in its positive contribution to affinity.
42,5/6 Is ruthlessness, in moderation at least, an inevitable or even a positive aspect of
modern organisations? Are managers attracted to such ideas because this reflects the
behaviour traits of those who would manage others? Theory suggests that people
associate with brands that allow them to sustain or develop their own self-image. But
neither of the two organisations with particularly high scores for ruthlessness was
678 pleased by the finding. Further work is needed to explore how a ruthless brand can
evolve and what its consequences are both for employees and customers alike.
The role of chic in promoting differentiation and loyalty has face validity in
emphasising the influence of prestige in employment. What is interesting and worthy
of further study is why companies do not make more of this in their corporate
communication or employment advertising. Chic was important in conjunction with
enterprise on both occasions, implying that a combination of these two dimensions
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

may be a key to presenting the employer brand. However, enterprise was negatively
associated with loyalty, making its promotion somewhat problematic (although loyalty
was not well predicted by employer brand personality).
Brand differentiation in the eyes of customers makes price comparison more
difficult and reduces price sensitivity. Is the same true for the employer brand? Are
employees willing to trade a lower salary to work for a business they see as being more
chic and agreeable? Some employers at least will be interested in investigating such a
possibility.
Thus far internal marketing or marketing to employees has had two main foci,
especially in service industries:
(1) aligning employee views of the corporate brand and their behaviour to what is
being promoted externally to customers (e.g. Vallaster and de Chernatony,
2005); and
(2) treating employees as “customers” who need to be communicated to, so that
they have a favourable view of their employer.

Internal marketing may benefit from an even wider conceptualisation (Varey and
Lewis, 1999). One potential contribution from the work reported here is to emphasise
how different aspects of brand image can be useful in different roles for the employer
brand, an issue not identified in previous work. Satisfaction and affinity are closely
correlated and agreeableness is important for promoting both. But quite different
dimensions influence perceived differentiation and loyalty and, to complicate matters
further, Enterprise is negatively associated with loyalty but positively associated with
perceived differentiation. Enterprise may also be negatively associated with the
satisfaction of more junior employees (Chun and Davies, 2006). Further, it is also
believed that the internal view of the organisation may become its external image
(Davies et al., 2002). While ruthlessness may promote affinity among managers it may
do little to influence more junior employees in a positive way and have a more negative
effect still if it influences customers and other external stakeholders alike.
Clearly managing the employer brand is a complex task, an observation that leads
to a final question of relevance to both employers and researchers: who should be
responsible for managing the employer brand? There is some empirical evidence as to
how to promote the employer brand internally (e.g. Hickerman et al., 2005) and how
external promotion such as sports sponsorship may also influence employees, but no
 consensus on the coordination of customer and employer branding. There are various Employer
and often competing perspectives, including expanding the role of marketing or a branding and
greater understanding of branding issues among HR professionals (e.g. Martin and
Beaumont, 2003). Others argue for a new role, that of reputation manager (e.g. Davies its influence
et al., 2002), responsible for co-ordinating internal and external branding and to all
stakeholders. Certainly there is value in managing the employer brand and a potential
danger if no function accepts or is given responsibility for it. 679

References
Aaker, D. (2003), “The power of the branded differentiator”, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 83-7.
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, in Bollen, K.A.
and Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, CA, pp. 136-62.
Bullock, H.E., Harlow, L.L. and Mulaik, S.A. (1994), “Causation issues in structural equation
modelling research”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 253-67.
Caprara, G.V., Barbaraelli, C. and Guido, G. (2001), “Brand personality: how to make the
metaphor fit?”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 377-95.
Chun, R. and Davies, G. (2001), “E-reputation: the role of mission and vision statements in
positioning strategy”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 8 Nos 4/5, pp. 315-33.
Chun, R. and Davies, G. (2006), “The influence of corporate character on customers and
employees: exploring similarities and differences”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 138-46.
Collins, C.J. and Stevens, C.K. (2002), “The relationship between early recruitment-related
activities and the application decisions of new labour market entrants: a brand equity
approach to recruitment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 1121-33.
Davies, G. (1992), “The two ways in which retailers can be brands”, International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 24-34.
Davies, G.J., Chun, R., Da Silva, R. and Roper, R. (2002), Corporate Reputation and
Competitiveness, Routledge, London.
Davies, G.J., Chun, R., Da Silva, R. and Roper, R. (2004), “A corporate character scale to assess
employee and customer views of organisation reputation”, Corporate Reputation Review,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 125-46.
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organizational images and member
identification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 239-63.
Fineman, S. (Ed.) (1993), Emotion in Organisations, Sage Publications, London.
Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.J. (1955), “The product and the brand”, Harvard Business Review,
March/April, pp. 33-9.
Heskett, J.L., Sasser, W.E.J. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1997), The Service Profit Chain: How Leading
Companies Link Profit and Growth to Loyalty, Satisfaction and Value, The Free Press, New
York, NY.
Hickerman, T.M., Lawrence, K.E. and Ward, J.C. (2005), “A social identities perspective on the
effects of corporate sport sponsorship on employees”, Sports Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 148-57.
 EJM Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R. (1978), Brand Loyalty, Measurement and Management, Wiley, New
York, NY.
42,5/6
Jöreskog, K.G. (1993), “Testing structural equation models”, in Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (Eds),
Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 294-316.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.
680 Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand
Equity, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Levitt, T. (1980), “Marketing success through differentiation – of anything”, Harvard Business
Review, January/February, pp. 83-90.
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, pp. 75-101.
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

Long, J.S. (1983), Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Preface to LISREL, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, CA.
Martin, G. and Beaumont, P.B. (2003), Branding and People Management: What’s in a Name?,
CIPD, London.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualisation of organisational
commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1, pp. 61-89.
Mellor, D.J., Moore, K.A. and Loquet, C. (2004), “How can managers reduce employee intention to
quit?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 170-87.
Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W.A. (2001), “Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior:
investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 131-42.
Pechmann, C. and Ratneshwar, S. (1991), “The use of comparative advertising for brand
positioning: association versus differentiation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 145-61.
Porter, M. (1980), Competitive Strategy, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Riketta, M. (2005), “Organizational identification: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 358-84.
Slaughter, J.E., Zickar, M.J., Highhouse, S. and Mohr, D.C. (2004), “Personality trait inferences
about organizations: development of a measure and assessment of construct validity”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 85-102.
Spencer, D.G. (1986), “Employee voice and employee retention”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 488-502.
Steel, R.P. (2002), “Turnover theory at the empirical interface: problems of fit and function”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 346-60.
Steel, R.P., Griffith, R.W. and Hom, P.W. (2002), “Practical retention policy for the practical
manager”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-62.
Tsai, S. (2005), “Utility, cultural symbolism and emotion: a comprehensive model of brand
purchase value”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 22, pp. 277-91.
Vallaster, C. and de Chernatony, L. (2005), “Internationalisation of services brands: the role of
leadership during the internal brand building process”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 21, pp. 181-203.
 Varey, R.J. and Lewis, B. (1999), “A broadened conception of internal marketing”, European Employer
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 9/10, pp. 926-44.
branding and
Winterton, J. (2004), “A conceptual model of labour turnover and retention”, Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 371-90. its influence
Wirtz, J. (2003), “Halo in customer satisfaction measures: the role and purpose of rating, number
of attributes and customer involvement”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 96-119. 681
Yeung, C.W.M. and Wyer, R.S. Jr (2004), “Affect, appraisal and consumer judgement”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 412-25.

About the author

Gary Davies is Professor of Corporate Reputation at Manchester Business School, England. He
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

has published, inter alia, in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of International
Business Studies, Journal of Advertising Research and Industrial Marketing Management. His
books include What Price Reputation?, a study of how companies manage corporate reputation,
and Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness, which covers much of the early work of the
Corporate Reputation Group at MBS. Gary Davies can be contacted at: gary.davies@mbs.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Isabel Buil, Eva Martínez, Jorge Matute. 2016. From internal brand management to organizational
citizenship behaviours: Evidence from frontline employees in the hotel industry. Tourism Management
57, 256-271. [CrossRef]
2. Rafael Bravo, Jorge Matute, José M. Pina. 2016. Corporate identity management in the banking sector:
effects on employees’ identification, identity attractiveness, and job satisfaction. Service Business 10:4,
687-714. [CrossRef]
3. Eeva-Liisa Oikarinen, Saila Saraniemi. 2016. Categorizing Humorous Employer Brand Message in a Small
Company’s Online Job Ads. Corporate Reputation Review 19:3, 198-218. [CrossRef]
4. Christian P. Theurer, Andranik Tumasjan, Isabell M. Welpe, Filip Lievens. 2016. Employer Branding:
A Brand Equity-based Literature Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management
Reviews . [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

5. AnselmssonJohan Johan Anselmsson Johan Anselmsson (PhD) is Associate Professor in Marketing at

the School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Sweden. Branding is one of his many
research interests, and his work has been published in several academic journals: Journal of Marketing
Management, Journal of Brand Management and Journal of Product and Brand Management. He works as
an analyst and consultant to several of the largest Scandinavian brands. BondessonNiklas Niklas Bondesson
Niklas Bondesson (PhD) is Assistant Professor in Marketing at Stockholm Business School in Sweden.
Brand management as a whole is his main research area, with a particular focus on brand equity and
brand metrics. His work has been published in the following academic journals: Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Journal of Brand Management, Journal of Product and Brand Management and
Industrial Marketing Management. MelinFrans Frans Melin Frans Melin (PhD) is Assistant Professor in
Marketing at the School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Sweden. Brand management
as a whole is his main research area, with a particular focus on brand orientation and brand strategy. His
work has been published in a number of books, as well as in Journal of Brand Management and Journal of
Marketing Management. Frans works as a consultant to several Scandinavian organizations, in both private
and public sectors. School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Lund, Sweden Department
of Business Administration, Stockholm Business School, Stockholm, Sweden School of Economics and
Management, Lund University, Lund, Sweden . 2016. Customer-based brand equity and human resource
management image. European Journal of Marketing 50:7/8, 1185-1208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Linn Viktoria Rampl, Christian Opitz, Isabell M. Welpe, Peter Kenning. 2016. The role of emotions
in decision-making on employer brands: insights from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
Marketing Letters 27:2, 361-374. [CrossRef]
7. Mukesh K. Biswas, Damodar Suar. 2016. Antecedents and Consequences of Employer Branding. Journal
of Business Ethics 136:1, 57-72. [CrossRef]
8. Fathima Zahara Saleem Department of Marketing Management, ESADE Business School, University
Ramon Llull, Spain Oriol Iglesias Department of Marketing Management, ESADE Business School,
University Ramon Llull, Spain . 2016. Mapping the domain of the fragmented field of internal branding.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 25:1, 43-57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Filip Lievens, Jerel E. Slaughter. 2016. Employer Image and Employer Branding: What We Know and
What We Need to Know. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 3:1,
407-440. [CrossRef]
 10. Victoria Bellou, Ioannis Chaniotakis, Ioannis Kehagias, Irini Rigopoulou. 2015. Employer Brand of
Choice: an employee perspective. Journal of Business Economics and Management 16:6, 1201-1215.
[CrossRef]
11. Susan E. Myrden Maine Business School, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA Kevin Kelloway
Department of Psychology, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada . 2015. Young workers’
perception of brand image: main and moderating effects. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People
and Performance 2:3, 267-281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. John M T Balmer, Mario Burghausen. 2015. Introducing organisational heritage: Linking corporate
heritage, organisational identity and organisational memory. Journal of Brand Management 22:5, 385-411.
[CrossRef]
13. Ulla Hytti School of Economics, University of Turku, Pori, Finland Päivikki Kuoppakangas School
of Economics, University of Turku, Pori, Finland Kati Suomi School of Economics, University of
Turku, Pori, Finland Chris Chapleo The Business School, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK Massimo
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

Giovanardi Stockholm Business School, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden . 2015. Challenges in
delivering brand promise – focusing on municipal healthcare organisations. International Journal of Public
Sector Management 28:3, 254-272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Sabrina Rashid Department of Marketing, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand Kamal Ghose
Department of Marketing, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand . 2015. Organisational culture
and the creation of brand identity: retail food branding in new markets. Marketing Intelligence & Planning
33:1, 2-19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Astrid Vandendaele, Tom Bruyer, Geert Jacobs“We Never Even Wondered Whether We Trusted Them
or Not”: From Freedom to Mutuality in a Student Research Project 102-116. [CrossRef]
16. Jason Perepelkin College of Pharmacy & Nutrition University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada David
Di Zhang Edwards School of Business, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada . 2014. Quality
alone is not enough to be trustworthy. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing
8:2, 226-242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Linn Viktoria Rampl Corporate Management & Economics, Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen,
Germany Peter Kenning Corporate Management & Economics, Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen,
Germany . 2014. Employer brand trust and affect: linking brand personality to employer brand
attractiveness. European Journal of Marketing 48:1/2, 218-236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Mari Juntunen, Jouni Juntunen, Vesa Autere. 2013. Recruits’ Corporate Brand Co-creation Experiences
of the Finnish Military Forces. Corporate Reputation Review 15:2, 88-104. [CrossRef]
19. Sandra A. Vannoy, B. Dawn Medlin, Charlie C. Chen. 2013. Enhancing the Trust of Members in
Online Social Networks. International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social Networking 3:4, 15-31.
[CrossRef]
20. Tanya Bondarouk Huub Ruël Elena Axinia Roxana Arama What Is the Future of Employer Branding
Through Social Media? Results of the Delphi Study into the Perceptions of HR Professionals and
Academics 23-57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
21. Dr. Haris Doukas, Assistant Professor Alexandros Flamos and Professor John PsarrasPia
HeilmannLUT School of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
Sami SaarenketoLUT School of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta,
Finland Katja LiikkanenLUT School of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta,
Finland. 2013. Employer branding in power industry. International Journal of Energy Sector Management
7:2, 283-302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 22. Gary Davies. 2013. In Support of Personality as a Measure of Reputation: A Rejoinder to Clardy's
‘Organizational Reputation: Issues in Conceptualization and Measurement’ (2012). Corporate Reputation
Review 16:2, 168-173. [CrossRef]
23. Martin Lauzier, Dorra Annabi, Sophie Hélène Matte, Stéphanie Mélançon. 2013. La mise en marché
d’une expérience de travail : étude diachronique des critères utilisés par les recruteurs canadiens dans les
annonces d’emploi. Revue multidisciplinaire sur l'emploi, le syndicalisme et le travail 8:1, 83. [CrossRef]
24. Temi Abimbola, Myfanwy Trueman and Oriol IglesiasBill MerrileesDepartment of Marketing, Griffith
Business School, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia Dale MillerDepartment of Marketing, Griffith
Business School, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia Carmel HeringtonDepartment of Marketing,
Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. 2012. Multiple stakeholders and
multiple city brand meanings. European Journal of Marketing 46:7/8, 1032-1047. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
25. T.C. Melewar, Manto Gotsi and Constantine AndriopoulosT.C. MelewarBrunel Business School, Brunel
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

University, Uxbridge, UK Manto GotsiBrunel Business School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK

Constantine AndriopoulosCardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 2012. Shaping the
research agenda for corporate branding: avenues for future research. European Journal of Marketing 46:5,
600-608. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Esra Alniacik, Umit Alniacik, Nihat Erdogmus. 2012. How Do the Dimensions of Corporate Reputation
Affect Employment Intentions?. Corporate Reputation Review 15:1, 3-19. [CrossRef]
27. Jason PerepelkinCollege of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada
David Di ZhangEdwards School of Business, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada. 2011.
Brand personality and customer trust in community pharmacies. International Journal of Pharmaceutical
and Healthcare Marketing 5:3, 175-193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Merlyn MittinsWits Business School, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Russell AbrattNova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA and Wits Business
School, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Peter ChristieWits Business
School, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 2011. Storytelling in reputation
management: the case of Nashua Mobile South Africa. Management Decision 49:3, 405-421. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
29. Umit Alniacik, Ersan Cigerim, Kultigin Akcin, Orkun Bayram. 2011. Independent and joint effects of
perceived corporate reputation, affective commitment and job satisfaction on turnover intentions. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences 24, 1177-1189. [CrossRef]
30. Temi Abimbola and Ming LimCarley FosterNottingham Business School, Chaucer Building, Nottingham
Trent University, Nottingham, UK Khanyapuss PunjaisriNottingham Business School, Chaucer Building,
Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK Ranis ChengNottingham Business School, Chaucer
Building, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK. 2010. Exploring the relationship between
corporate, internal and employer branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management 19:6, 401-409.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Lara Moroko, Mark D Uncles. 2009. Employer branding and market segmentation. Journal of Brand
Management 17:3, 181-196. [CrossRef]
32. John Aydon SimmonsLiverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.
2009. “Both sides now”: aligning external and internal branding for a socially responsible era. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning 27:5, 681-697. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 33. Sandra A. Vannoy, B. Dawn Medlin, Charlie C. ChenEnhancing the Trust of Members in Online Social
Networks 201-217. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 00:53 16 November 2016 (PT)

View publication stats