Employer attractiveness: Measurement scale development and validation

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

3

Employer attractiveness:

Measurement scale development and validation

Nguyen Minh Ha¹, Nguyen Vinh Luan^1,2*, Nguyen Minh Trung³

¹Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Vietnam

²Imexpharm Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company, Dong Thap Province, Vietnam

³The Member of Tan Phu District Party Inspection Committee, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

^*Corresponding author: [email protected]

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

DOI:10.46223/HCMCOUJS.

econ.en.11.1.1367.2021

Human resource quality is one important factor that affects the

success of each organization. The need to build a human resource

foundation with knowledge, skills and good attitude is one urgent

task for all business leaders. The first task is to attract and recruit

excellent individuals to work for the business; therefore, how to

attract candidates is always academic researchers’ as well as

business managers’ top priority. Employer attractiveness factor

(Berthon, Ewing, & Hah, 2005) has been applied in some recent

studies. However, because talent recruitment and attraction are

diverse and different for individual organizations, cultures and

countries, the scale of employer attractiveness concept still implies

many points that are not appropriate for Vietnamese contexts. This

research, based on the social exchange theory and the employer

branding theory, develops in great details and confirms the employer

attractiveness scale in Vietnamese business. The mixed-method

(interviewing 4 experts and 2 staff in-depth groups as well as

surveying quantitatively 937 employees working for Vietnamese

enterprises) has been applied. The research results determine the

employer attractiveness dimension factor comprising social value,

development value, application value, safety value and economic

value. This research has discovered a new factor of employer

attractiveness scale: safety value.

Received: December 24^th, 2020

Revised: January 25^th, 2021

Accepted: January 26^th, 2021

Keywords:

employer attractiveness,

recruitment, employees,

safety value, social value,

development value,

application value, economic

value

1. Introduction

Activities to attract and retain employees, one crucial strategy, identifies human resource

quality in each organization and affects business success or failure. Therefore, many researchers

and practitioners have analyzed and explored the most fundamental solutions to attract the best

personnel working for the organization. The starting point is Berthon et al. (2005), in which,

employer attractiveness is the benefit of an organization perceived by potential candidates as a

particular workplace, presents the scale related to potential candidates’ views on the company’s

attraction ability: interest, social, economic, development and application values. Following this

first concept, Elving, Westhoff, Meeusen, and Schoonderbeek (2013) develops the new research

direction in which employer brand is valued as the position of this organization in the market;

especially, loyalty does help the organization to actively build an employer brand and contribute

4

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

to organizational development. The diversity of different concepts on employer attractiveness

factor refers to vocational behavior (Soutar & Clarke, 1983), management (Gatewood, Gowan, &

Lautenschlager, 1993), psychology (Collins & Steven, 2002; Jurgensen, 1978), communication

(Bergstrom, Blumenthal, & Crothers, 2002) and marketing (Ambler & Barrow, 1996). Employer

attractiveness, according to Jiang and lles (2011), refers to current and potential employees’

awareness levels. This concept implies that marketing process effectiveness in one organization is

better than that of its competitors with long-term and sustainable success. If analyzed in terms of

recruitment activity, employer attractiveness is defined as the functional group comprised of the

candidate’s personality and the organization’s features (Schreurs, Druart, Proost, & De Witte,

2009). As a result, employer attractiveness can be classified into internal and external

classification. In particular, internal employer attractiveness reflects the degree to which current

employees feel attracted by the company’s image. In contrast, the external employer attractiveness

shows how attractive the company is to outside candidates (Pingle & Sharma, 2013). In summary,

Berthon et al.’ scale (2005) has been applied because of popularity and suitability. In this study,

the author is using Berthon et al.'s (2005) employer attractiveness scale as the foundation to

develop and determine the scale.

2. Literature review

Internal branding emphasizes the role of the employee in one organization. The service and

corporate branding theory indicate that employees influence both customers and stakeholders

through their role in terms of what values they have performed and how emotional they are (de

Chernatony, 2002). Employees have become the center of the branding process and their behavior

will greatly contribute to the corporate brand image promotion. In other words, the employee’s

values and behavior may be similar to those expected by the organizational brand (Harris & de

Chernatony, 2001). Once the employee is aligned with brand value, the company can achieve a

sustainable competitive advantage (Pringle & Thompson, 2001). Consequently, internal branding

is to gain a competitive advantage through employees’ achievements (e.g., coring goals that are

difficult to replicate from rival companies) (Jacobs, 2003). According to Aurand, Gorchels, and

Bishop (2005) and Burmann and Zeplin (2005), internal branding is assumed to enable employees

to perceive brand promise through services because of its impacts as a shared understanding in the

organization. In addition, internal branding includes three roles as follows: effectively

communicating corporate brand to employees, convincing them of relevant and valuable things,

successfully linking all jobs in the organization (Bergstrom et al., 2002). In summary, internal

branding is seen as a tool to influence employee attitudes and shape their behavior associated with

the brand by giving employees knowledge related to the insight value of the brand name and the

actual brand association (de Chernatony & Segal-Horn, 2001; Drake, Gulman, & Roberts, 2005;

Thomson, Chernatony, Arganbright, & Khan, 1999).

Employer branding theory was developed by Ambler and Barrow (1996) who combines

marketing area and human resource major. The term ‘employer branding’ is composed of

economic and psychological benefits. One cornerstone of employer branding theory is external

marketing and internal marketing: external marketing builds the company as the first choice to

attract the best candidates to join the company whereas internal marketing constructs one

distinctive and unique working environment. Candidates can perceive the values of the working

environment and organizational culture through the external manifestations of the company; e.g.,

development goals. On the other hand, that the employer branding activities help one company

achieve the distinctive and unique organizational culture assists this company’s business strategy

implementation. In other words, creating a unique working environment for each company avoids

being duplicated by competitors. In short, internal marketing not only contributes to employee

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

5

retention but also uses brand strength to improve the overall quality of human resources (Ambler

& Barrow, 1996).

Besides the external marketing and internal marketing theoretical background,

psychological contract theory is also an important basis for the employer branding theory. The

psychological contract theory focuses on the relationship between the employee and the

organization: The employees will have loyalty promise to the organization in return for job security

(Hendry & Jenkins, 1997). However, due to the impact of new trends (downsizing, outsourcing

and flexibility), some companies have adjusted the psychological contract orientation: the

company will proactively provide employees with the latest market skills through training and

coaching programs; on the contrary, the employees will commit to doing his best at work (Baruch,

2004). In addition, companies, to address the employee’s negative emotions, can use employer

branding to increase attractiveness (training programs, career development opportunities, personal

development, etc.). Consequently, the employer branding theory is judged as an effective strategy

for companies to move from ineffective solutions to innovative solutions in relationships with

employees (Hendry & Jenkins, 1997; Newell & Dopson, 1996).

From another perspective, employer branding theory influences brand equity concept

formulation. In marketing, ‘brand equity’ term is defined as a set of brand assets and liabilities

linked to a brand that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm

and /or to that firm’s customers’ (Aaker & Equity, 1991). Customers will depend on brand equity

through brand knowledge impacts on customers’ feedback (Keller, 1993). Brand equity can attract

potential candidates as well as current employees to work long-term and dedicate themselves to

the company. In other words, the fact that employees (current as well as potential) may face

dissatisfactory issues in recruitment processes although companies make great efforts in the talent

retaining process indicates the differences in brand equity of each company.

3. Dimensions of employer attractiveness scale

3.1. Social value (SOC)

This factor reflects the extent to which an individual is attracted to the employer by

providing a fun and happy working environment, good working relationship and team atmosphere

(Berthon et al., 2005). Social value (SOC) means an individual attracted to businesses due to the

provision of a fun and happy working environment, good working relationship and a team

atmosphere (Berthon et al., 2005). According to social exchange theory (Emerson, 1976), the

trade-offs between employer and employee can be classified into tangible and intangible rewards

(Edwards, 2010): Intangible reward, or the spiritual reward, refers to the social values provided to

the employees (a fair, fun and supportive work environment) while the employees may provide

the employer with the social value of engagement. Social value plays a very important role in

maintaining the relationship between employee and employer in an organization. If an employee

feels fit with organizational culture, they will tend to stay in the organization for a longer period

(De Vos & Meganck, 2009; Sheridan, 1992; Taormina, 2009; Zheng & Lamond, 2010). Social

value has a strong effect on employee identification in improving employee engagement (Schlager,

Bodderas, Maas, & Cachelin, 2011).

3.2. Development value (DEV)

Development value (DEV) shows an individual attracted to businesses by providing

recognition, confidence, engagement with professional experience and a foundation for future

growth (Berthon et al., 2005). Similar to social value, according to social exchange theory (Emerson,

1976), the value exchanged between employer and employee consists of material benefits and social

6

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

benefits (Shore, Coyle-Shapiro, Chen, & Tetrick, 2009). Accordingly, if the employer provides the

employee with values (growth opportunities including work experience as the foundation for future

growth or confidence in employee, etc.), the employees will devote their best ability to the employer

(Berthon et al., 2005). Therefore, development value can imply a positive impact on employee

engagement in the organization. According to Schlager et al. (2011), a strong mentoring culture,

training opportunities and an empowering environment for employees are important criteria in

evaluating an organization’s growth value. At the same time, whatever form of development value

an employee receives from the organization, this form will affect their commitment to the

organization (Tansky & Cohen, 2001). In addition, the development value also improves

organizational identification (Lee, 1971). With this point of view, according to Parsley (2005),

training activities, as well as career development opportunities in the organization, always have a

positive impact on employee engagement. Specifically, 35% of employees from this survey feel

happy in the working environment of the organization with their career development opportunities.

3.3. Application value (APP)

Application value (APP) represents an individual who is attracted to businesses providing

the opportunity to apply what they have been taught to coworkers in the humanistic and customer-

oriented working environment (Berthon et al., 2005). According to social identity theory,

individuals tend to join a social group matching their interests within the company that is

considered to be their identity. The employees feel a sense of belonging to this organization and

comfortable presenting them. Therefore, they are willing to share their knowledge and experience

to their colleagues. In addition, a customer-oriented working environment will have a positive

impact on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Donavan, Brown,

& Mowen, 2004). Furthermore, this value can affect employee turnover (Paré & Tremblay, 2007)

and employee retention (Paré, Tremblay, & Lalonde, 2001). Furthermore, a humanistic and

developmental orientation will create a long-term and sustainable relationship between employees

and employer as well as the degree of engagement of employees with the organization (King &

Grace, 2008). On the other hand, the accumulation of practical experiences and learning

opportunities will help maintain a skill-rich working environment in the organization (Kyndt,

Dochy, & Nijs, 2009).

3.4. Safety value (SAF)

Safety value (SAF) reflects the degree to which an individual is attracted to businesses for

safety and security at work (Berthon et al., 2005). According to Hendler (2012), the role of

employee awareness in the ethical leadership style increases employee engagement in one

organization. Safety value is proved its leading role in leadership style and positive effects on

employee engagement. In addition, Zohar, Huang, Lee, and Robertson (2015) discover that

employee engagement is an intermediate variable between safety climate and safety behavior. In

another study, Lyu (2016) found the intermediary role of psychological safety in the relationship

between organizational justice and employee engagement. Thus, quite a few researchers have

confirmed the impact of safety value on employee engagement. The researchers believe

psychological safety helps improve job engagement because, in difficult situations (employees

feeling hurt due to negative effects on the job), safety value is likely the key solution in solving

problems and employees engaging more in their work (Kahn, 1990; Schneider, Macey, Barbera,

& Young, 2010).

3.5. Economic value (ECO)

Economic value (ECO) reflects the degree to which an individual is attracted by firms by

providing average wages and competitive benefits and bonus packages (Berthon et al., 2005).

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

7

According to the social exchange theory (Emerson, 1976), the fact that an individual’s actions will

depend on others’ rewarding actions (Blau, 1964) suggests the value exchange between the two

sides as long as each party believes in this fair and reasonable exchange. Economic value, an

important factor in maintaining the relationship between employer and employee, has two

important elements: exchange content and exchange process (Shore & Coyle-Shapiro, 2003),

especially, economic benefits. Employees contribute their abilities to the organization in order to

receive economic rewards from the employer. Economic benefits depend on employees’

effectiveness and capacity levels in contributing to the organization. In return, employees will

contribute more to the organization if they receive the increased economic benefits from the

organization. Economic value is understood to include competitive recognition and remuneration

for employees. This value has a positive impact on the employee’s attitude towards their intention

to stay in the organization for a long time (Chew & Chan, 2008). Therefore, when the organization

provides the employees with high salaries and benefits, these activities will attract more potential

employees and retain employees more effectively (Ash & Bendapudi, 1996).

4. Research methodology

4.1. Research methodology and sampling

The mixed research method (qualitative research methods and quantitative research

methods) is used to achieve the proposed research objectives. Qualitative research applies the

expert interview method and group discussion. Participants in the discussion include 4 experts and

2 staff groups. The experts interviewed are four experts with Ph.D. qualifications: an expert in

researching, an expert in marketing & Journal editor, an expert with application experience in

human resources (consultant) and a lecturer in human resources. Two discussion groups

comprising employees with for 5 year working experience or more to clarify and modify words in

the questionnaire. The group discussion is conducted under the author’s chair with a discussion on

the guide outline. The results of qualitative research summarize research concepts and employer

attractiveness with 5 factors: social value (SOC), development value (DEV), application value

(APP), safety value (SAFE) and economic value (ECO). In addition, through group discussion,

the study scales are also adjusted to suit the surveyed subjects’ thoughts.

In the next step, respondents surveyed by questionnaires focus on the employees currently

working in enterprises located in Vietnam. As for the sample number, according to Hair, Sarstedt,

Ringle, and Gudergan (2017), it is impossible to analyze a sample with fewer than 50 observations

and preferably 100 or more observations. As a rule, the minimum number of observed samples

must be equal to 5 times the number of observed variables. The acceptable sample level for sample

size is 10:1 ratio. Some researchers propose, at least, 20 cases for each variable. According to

Tabachnick, Fidell, and Ullman (2007), the sample sizes: 50 are very poor, 100 are bad, 200 are

pretty good, 300 are good, 500 are great and 1000 are excellent. This means that researchers are

always trying to achieve the highest number of cases per variable to help minimize the overfitting

(deriving factors are sample-specific with low generalizability). To achieve this goal, researchers

need to save on building variables guided by concepts and practices. In selecting a smaller sample

size or a lower case-to-variable ratio, the researchers need a suitable explanation. Therefore, the

number of 937 samples in this study is appropriate and meets the standard requirement and

research resource optimization.

4.2. Measurement

All research concepts are based on previous studies, qualitative research results, adjusted

through preliminary research and presented in statement form. Likert scale, with 5 levels from (1)

Totally disagree to (5) Totally agree, is used as follows:

8

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

Table 1

Employer attractiveness measurement scale

No.

I

Dimensions

Social value (SOC): 6 items

Resources

1

Colleagues in the company always get along with each other

Having a good relationship with your colleagues

Supportive and encouraging colleagues

Having a good relationship with your superiors

Happy work environment

Qualitative research

Berthon et al. (2005)

2

3

4

5

6

A fun working environment

II Development value (DEV): 6 items

You feel the desire to stick with the organization because of the

opportunities that come from experience in a professional workplace

1

Qualitative research

Berthon et al. (2005)

Feeling good about yourself as a result of working for a particular

organization

2

Feeling more self-confident as a result of working for a particular

organization

3

4

5

6

A springboard for future employment

Berthon et al. (2005)

Qualitative research

Gaining career-enhancing experience

My organization always implements decentralized employee

III Application value (APP): 4 items

1

2

Opportunity to teach others what you have learned

Berthon et al. (2005)

Opportunity to apply what was learned at a tertiary institution

You have the opportunity to share your real experiences with

everyone in the organization

3

4

Qualitative research

Berthon et al. (2005)

Acceptance and belonging

IV Safety value (SAF): 3 items

The organization I work with always ensures occupational safety

during work activities

1

Qualitative research

Berthon et al. (2005)

Qualitative research

2

3

Job security within the organization

The organization I work with is always safe in the work environment

(without pressure, sexual harassment, etc.)

V Economic value (ECO): 3 items

1

2

3

An above-average basic salary

Berthon et al. (2005)

Qualitative research

An attractive overall compensation package

My organization has good allowances for employees

Total: 22 items

Source: The researcher’s data analysis

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

9

5. Data analysis

5.1. Cronbach’s Alpha

This study also uses Cronbach’s Alpha testing to check scale reliability. To test the scale

internal consistency, the author uses the results of factor analysis (EFA).

From Table 3, all scales meet the reliability requirements: Cronbach’s Alpha of the scales

is greater than 0.8. No item, if deleted, creates the Cronbach’s Alpha larger than the original value;

therefore, all items must be maintained.

Table 2

Cronbach’s Alpha results

SOC (Social value)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha

N of Items

0.911

6

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach’s Alpha if

Item Deleted

Item Deleted Total Correlation

Item Deleted

SOC1

SOC2

SOC3

SOC4

SOC5

SOC6

20.15

7.765

7.882

8.250

7.608

7.614

8.021

.786

.766

.721

.788

.734

.720

.890

20.25

.893

20.17

.899

20.16

.889

20.36

.898

20.21

.899

DEV (Development value)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha

0.902

N of Items

6

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach’s Alpha if

Item Deleted

Total Correlation

Item Deleted

DEV1

DEV2

DEV3

DEV4

DEV5

DEV6

20.12

6.979

.782

.793

.761

.749

.733

.579

.877

20.08

6.893

.875

20.10

7.050

.880

20.22

6.973

.882

20.11

7.249

.885

20.23

7.619

.907

10

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

APP (Application value)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha

0.832

N of Items

4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach’s Alpha

Item Deleted

Total Correlation if Item Deleted

APP1

APP2

APP3

APP4

11.72

2.604

.702

.584

.714

.649

.770

.821

.765

.794

11.74

2.820

11.67

2.649

11.69

2.610

SAF (Safety Value)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha

N of Items

0.844

3

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance if

Corrected Item- Cronbach’s Alpha

Item Deleted

Total Correlation

if Item Deleted

SAF1

SAF2

SAF3

8.31

1.386

.771

.691

.670

.726

.800

.821

8.39

1.400

8.32

1.402

ECO (Economic value)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha

N of Items

0.849

3

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach’s Alpha

Item Deleted

Total Correlation if Item Deleted

ECO1

ECO2

ECO3

7.44

7.31

7.05

2.031

.700

.797

.662

.806

.710

.841

1.817

2.123

Source: Data analysis result of the research

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

11

5.2. Explore Factor Analysis (EFA)

From Table 3, the KMO index reaches 0.948 and ranges from [0.5 - 1] indicates that the

scale is suitable. The significance in Bartlett’s test has a value of 0.000 (<0.05), a standard fit (Hair

et al., 2017), proves that this scale is in accordance with the exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

criteria. That the eigenvalue of the employer branding factor is 5 (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988)

shows that the number of factors is 5: social value (SOC), development value (DEV), application

value (APP), safety value (SAF) and economic value (ECO). Moreover, that the Total Variance

Explained index reaches 71.583% (> 50%) meets the required standard (Gerbing & Anderson,

1988). Finally, Factor loading shows the correlation level between observed variables and factors.

That most items reach values of more than 0.5 means that the relationship between all observed

variables in different factors, the value of association capacitor and the discriminant value of the

scale achieve the criteria requirement.

In addition, the employer attractiveness scales achieve the internal consistency reliability

requirement: Composite Reliability (CR) value is greater than 0.70 and convergent validity with

Average Variance Extracted (AVE) is greater than 0.50.

Table 3

The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) results

Component (Loading factor)

SOC

0.795

0.768

0.734

0.728

0.709

0.700

DEV

APP

SAF

ECO

SOC1

SOC2

SOC3

SOC4

SOC5

SOC6

DEV1

0.771

0.755

0.744

0.660

0.568

0.562

DEV2

DEV3

DEV4

DEV5

DEV6

APP1

0.833

0.729

0.715

0.565

APP2

APP3

APP4

SAF1

0.819

0.735

0.727

SAF2

SAF3

ECO1

ECO2

0.838

0.832

0.653

0.908

0.767

ECO3

Composite Reliability (CR)

AVE

0.931

0.694

0.925

0.674

0.889

0.666

0.906

0.764

KMO: 0.948 (>0.5)

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: Sig = 0.000 (<0.05).

Cumulative %: 71.583% (> 50%).

Eigenvalues: 5 (> 1.0)

Source: Data analysis result of the research

12

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

6. Discussion

Employer branding scale is based on the definition by Berthon et al. (2005): Employer

Attractiveness refers to the organizational benefits (interesting value, economic value, social value,

developmental value and application value) recognized by potential candidates as one special

organization to work in. From this definition, the study, based on Berthon et al.’s definition (2005)

and qualitative research, has developed an employer attractiveness scale. In particular, Berthon et

al. (2005) use economic value (ECO), social value (SOC), developmental value (DEV) and

application value (APP). Interesting value is not mentioned in this study because the scale content

is not appropriate in Vietnamese business contexts. Employer Attractiveness scale adds an

important factor in the current Vietnamese business period, that is safety factor. Safety value scale,

based on qualitative research, separates 1 item from ECO (Berthon et al., 2005): “Job security

within the organization”. This Safety factor is addressed in measuring content safety at all working

processes (SAF1: “The organization I work with always ensures occupational safety during work

activities”). In addition, safety concerns consist of physical, psychological and mental issues.

Safety issues for sexual abuse included in Labor Code provisions by Vietnamese government

(SAF3: The organization I work with is always safe in the work environment (without pressure,

sexual harassment, etc.)). In addition, the safety factor will have a positive effect on employee

engagement in companies (Brown & Leigh, 1996; Hendler, 2012; Lyu, 2016); therefore, in

Vietnamese research context, safety factor is attractive to potential candidates.

For the remaining factors, the study has added more items. For example, social factors

include ‘Colleagues in the company always get along with each other’ which clarifies the

relationship among organization members better in harmony. This social value is what employees

expect to receive from the organization. For development value, some differences compared to the

original scale of Berthon et al. (2005) are identified: 2 more contents, including the employee’s

desire to have the opportunity to experience in a professional environment. (“You feel the desire

to stick with the organization because of the opportunities that come from experience in a

professional workplace”) and wish to be delegated to practice work skills for development (“My

organization always implements decentralized employee”). Additionally, research has shown that

management recognition (‘recognition/appreciation form management’) is not a significant

content in employees’ growth value perception. For the application factor, two items unsuitable

for the research context should be excluded from the construct of this factor: “Humanitarian

organization - gives back to society” and “The organization is customer-orientated”. Because of

the human sense of an organization as well as the customer-focused orientation, it is more social,

rather than demonstrating the value of the employee’s application to the organization’s activities.

The study results also add another application content in an organization that is experience sharing

(“You have the opportunity to share your real experiences with everyone in the organization”).

These items help complement the employee’s application value in the organization more fully,

including teaching what is learned, applying what is learned, sharing experiences and feeling

accepted at the organization. Finally, the construct of the economic factor, according to the results

of this study, is quite different from the original scale. Accordingly, the item “good promotion

opportunities within the organization” are excluded because the meaning of this content is oriented

towards career development (related to development value) rather than economic value. Similarly,

item “job security within the organization” is excluded from economic value because this content

is related to the safety factor in the organization, not the economic issue of the employee. The

other “hands-on inter-departmental experience” excluded item is related to the experience of inter-

departmental experiences in the organization. In contrast, in terms of the economic factor, the

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

13

added factor of the company has an allowances system for employees helps to fully complement

aspects of economic value.

7. Conclusion and managerial suggestions

Social factors always play a very important role in attracting and retaining talents. In order

to build this value well at the enterprise, managers need to note that it is necessary to build well

all 3 aspects: a good working environment, creating a good working relationship and a good team

atmosphere within the company. For the working environment, to ensure both fun and happiness

helps employees to have a comfortable and happy spirit when they come to work every day.

Managers must make employees feel that they belong to the organization and the people there.

Next, building good relationships should be done between colleagues as well as superiors and

subordinates. Finally, the company must always encourage employees in helping and motivating

each other at work. Besides social factors, the development factor is also very crucial for attracting

potential candidates. Accordingly, managers need to provide employees with awareness,

confidence and engagement to professional experience, especially, the foundation for future

development. In terms of perception, how employees feel they belong to the organization because

the opportunities come from professional working environment experience and feel themselves as

a result of a team. From there, helping employees feel more confident. In addition, enabling

employees to experience the experience and accumulate knowledge to create a development

platform for the future is of great value in employee development. Finally, managers need to

increase authorization to enable employees to perform challenging and critical jobs with the

purpose of helping employees to train and improve their working capacity. Next, giving employees

the opportunity to apply what they have learned to teach others as well as create a customer-

oriented and humane working environment also helps to make a good impression on the mind of

the employee. In application value, managers can enable employees to teach and share what they

learn from schools and from their working experience. This will give employees great motivation

and their contribution value to the organization and society. At the same time, managers should

create a feeling of being welcome and belonging to the organization working for the employees:

The organization is aiming for humanitarian values in the corporate culture.

This study also develops employer attractiveness scale with a new factor: safety value - a

very important factor for employees in the current period when the physical and psychological

safety issues are increasingly concerned and valued by companies. With 3 items: "The

organization I work with always ensures occupational safety during work activities" "Job security

within the organization" and "The organization I work with is always safe in the work environment

(without pressure, sexual harassment, etc.)”, the scale covers all aspects of safety value in the

working environment. Through scale testing, safety value completely meets the standards to

become the factor in employer attractiveness scale. Practically, this scale is suitable for the current

trend of applying sustainable development business strategies in Vietnam. Last but not least, it is

necessary to give employees financial benefits. A salary above the market average is the

expectation of any employee. Therefore, in terms of budget allows, managers, need to pay attention

to building competitive wages for employees. In addition, companies can design attractive bonus

and benefits packages to attract and retain talent. The discovery and addition of the safety value

factor in the employer attractiveness scale will help supplement the employer branding theory in

terms of conceptually and the scale of this factor. Accordingly, the term employer attractiveness

will be included in ensuring the safety of the employee both physically and mentally.

14

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

8. Limitations and future research

Because the sampling method of the study is a non-probabilistic method, namely

convenient sampling, the representativeness of the population has many limitations. Respondents

work mainly in enterprises so this scale can only represent business organizations but has not yet

reached the totality for all types of organizations (socio-political organizations, state management

agencies, non-profit organizations, associations, clubs, etc.). Another limitation of this study is the

data collected from firms located in major cities in southern Vietnam. Due to the differences in

culture and personality between regions in Vietnam, research results are also affected. Moreover,

in terms of the timeframe of data retrieval, this study only takes data at the fixed time without

sufficient data at different times for comparison. This makes it impractical to evaluate an

employee’s perception changes towards employer branding at different time intervals. This

limitation also affects the research results.

The future research directions can be referenced, including survey methods, data collection

and new research factors. First, that the follow-up studies can survey respondents in a wider scope

and across the country will help increase the overall coverage and reliability of the scale. Likewise,

another research direction, which extends surveys at other organization types, includes socio-

political organizations, state management agencies, non-profit organizations, associations, clubs,

etc. Next, the sampling method can use the probability method as well as be performed at different

times to compare the changes in the candidate’s perception. Therefore, the scale will be more

accurate and reliable. In addition, it is possible to study the effect of employer attractiveness on

current employee factors (engagement, satisfaction, work performance, work motivation, etc.).

References

Aaker, D. A., & Equity, M. B. (1991). Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York, 28(1),

35-37.

Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management, 4(3),

185-206.

Ash, R. A., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Revisiting the measurement of pay satisfaction: Testing an

improved measure. Presented at the 11th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial

and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

Aurand, T. W., Gorchels, L., & Bishop, T. R. (2005). Human resource management’s role in

internal branding: An opportunity for cross-functional brand message synergy. Journal of

Product & Brand Management, 14(2), 163-169.

Baruch, Y. (2004). Transforming careers: From linear to multidirectional career paths:

Organizational and individual perspectives. Career Development International, 9(1),

58-73.

Bergstrom, A., Blumenthal, D., & Crothers, S. (2002). Why internal branding matters: The case

of Saab. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 133-142.

Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Hah, L. L. (2005), Captivating company: Dimensions of attractiveness

in employer branding. International Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 151-172.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Publishers.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to

job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 358- 368.

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

15

Burmann, C., & Zeplin, S. (2005). Building brand commitment: A behavioural approach to

internal brand building. Journal of Brand Management, 12(4), 279-300.

Chew, J., & Chan, C. C. (2008). Human resource practices, organizational commitment and

intention to stay. International Journal of Manpower, 29(6), 503-522.

Collins, C. J., & Stevens, C. K. (2002). The relationship between early recruitment-related

activities and the application decisions of new labor-market entrants: A brand equity

approach to recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1121-1133.

de Chernatony, L. (2002). Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate name? Corporate

Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 115-132.

de Chernatony, L., & Segal-Horn, S. (2001). Building on services characteristics to develop

successful services brands. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7/8), 645-669.

De Vos, A., & Meganck, A. (2009). What HR managers do versus what employees

value. Personnel Review, 38(1), 45-60.

Donavan, D. T., Brown, T. J., & Mowen, J. C. (2004). Internal benefits of service-worker customer

orientation: Job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational citizenship

behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 128-146.

Drake, S. M., Gulman, M. J., & Roberts, S. M. (2005). Light their fire. Chicago, IL: Dearborn.

Edwards, M. R. (2010). An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel

Review, 39(1), 5-23.

Elving, W. J., Westhoff, J. J., Meeusen, K., & Schoonderbeek, J. W. (2013). The war for talent?

The relevance of employer branding in job advertisements for becoming an employer of

choice. Journal of Brand Management, 20(5), 355-373.

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review Of Sociology, 2(1), 335-362.

Gatewood, R. D., Gowan, M. A., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (1993). Corporate image, recruitment

image and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 414-427.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development

incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2),

186-192.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial

least squares structural equation modeling. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Harris, F., & de Chernatony, L. (2001) Corporate branding and corporate brand performance.

European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 441-451.

Hendler, D. (2012). Psychological safety as a mediating variable in the relationship between

ethical leadership and employee engagement at work (Doctoral dissertation).

Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa.

Hendry, C., & Jenkins, R. (1997). Psychological contracts and new deals. Human Resource

Management Journal, 7(1), 38-44.

Jacobs, R. (2003). Turn employees into brand ambassadors. Bank Marketing, 35(3), 22-26.

Jiang, T., & Iles, P. (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.

16

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

Jurgensen, C. E. (1978). Job preferences: What makes a job good or bad? Journal of Applied

Psychology, 63, 267-276.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand

equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

King, C., & Grace, D. (2008). Internal branding: Exploring the employee’s perspective. Journal

of Brand Management, 15(5), 358-372.

Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., & Nijs, H. (2009). Learning conditions for non‐formal and informal

workplace learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(5), 369-383.

Lee, S. M. (1971). An empirical analysis of organizational identification. Academy of Management

Journal, 14(2), 213-226.

Lyu, X. (2016). Effect of organizational justice on work engagement with psychological safety as

a mediator: Evidence from China. Social Behavior and Personality: An International

Journal, 44(8), 1359-1370.

Newell, H., & Dopson, S. (1996). Muddle in the middle: Organizational restructuring and middle

management careers. Personnel Review, 25(4), 4-20.

Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources practices,

procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information

technology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32(3),

326-357.

Paré, G., Tremblay, M., & Lalonde, P. (2001). Workforce retention: What do IT employees really

want? Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel

Research, 1-10.

Parsley, A. (2005). Employee engagement: The what, why and how. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from

http://www.management-issues.com/2006/5/25/opinion/a-road-map-for-employee-

engagement.asp

Pingle, S. S., & Sharma, A. (2013). External employer attractiveness: A study of management

students in India. Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 7(1), 78-95.

Pringle, H., & Thompson, M. (2001). Brand spirit. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Schlager, T., Bodderas, M., Maas, P., & Cachelin, J. L. (2011). The influence of the employer

brand on employee attitudes relevant for service branding: An empirical investigation,

Journal of Services Marketing, 25(7), 497-508.

Schneider, B., Macey, W. H., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2010). The role of employee trust

in understanding employee engagement. In Handbook of employee engagement:

Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 159-173). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Schreurs, B., Druart, C., Proost, K., & De Witte, K. (2009). Symbolic attributes and organizational

attractiveness: The moderating effects of applicant personality. International Journal of

Selection and Assessment, 17(1), 35-46.

Sheridan, J. E. (1992). Organizational culture and employee retention. Academy of Management

Journal, 35(5), 1036-1056.

Shore, L. M., & Coyle‐Shapiro, J. A. M. (2003). New developments in the employee -organization

relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial,

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

17

Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(5), 443-450.

Shore, L. M., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Chen, X. P., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009). Social exchange in work

settings: Content, process, and mixed models. Management and Organization

Review, 5(3), 289-302.

Soutar, G. N., & Clarke, A. W. (1983). Examining business students’ career preferences: A

perceptual space approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23(1), 11-21.

Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374.

Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston,

MA: Pearson.

Tansky, J. W., & Cohen, D. J. (2001). The relationship between organizational support, employee

development, and organizational commitment: An empirical study. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 12(3), 285-300.

Taormina, R. J. (2009). Organizational socialization: The missing link between employee needs

and organizational culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(7), 650-676.

Thomson, K., de Chernatony, L., Arganbright, L., & Khan, S. (1999). The buy-in benchmark: How

staff understanding and commitment impact brand and business performance. Journal of

Marketing Management, 15(8), 819-835.

Zheng, C., & Lamond, D. (2010). Organisational determinants of employee turnover for

multinational companies in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal Of Management, 27(3), 423-443.

Zohar, D., Huang, Y. H., Lee, J., & Robertson, M. M. (2015). Testing extrinsic and intrinsic

motivation as explanatory variables for the safety climate-safety performance relationship

among long-haul truck drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and

Behaviour, 30, 84-96.

18

Nguyen Minh Ha et al. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 11(1), 3-18

APPENDIX

Employer attractiveness scale

No. Items

1. Social value

1

2

3

4

5

6

Colleagues in the company always get along with each other.

Having a good relationship with your colleagues.

Supportive and encouraging colleagues.

Having a good relationship with your superiors.

Happy work environment.

A fun working environment.

2. Development value

You feel the desire to stick with the organization because of the opportunities that come

from experience in a professional workplace.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Feeling good about yourself as a result of working for a particular organization.

Feeling more self-confident as a result of working for a particular organization.

A springboard for future employment.

Gaining career-enhancing experience.

My organization always implements decentralized employee.

3. Application value

1

2

Opportunity to teach others what you have learned.

Opportunity to apply what was learned at a tertiary institution.

You have the opportunity to share your real experiences with everyone in the

organization.

3

4

Acceptance and belonging.

4. Safety value

1

2

The organization I work with always ensures occupational safety during work activities.

Job security within the organization.

The organization I work with is always safe in the work environment (without pressure,

sexual harassment, etc.).

3

5. Economic value

1

2

3

An above average basic salary.

An attractive overall compensation package.

My organization has good allowances for employees.