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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

CDI
23,4 Do instrumental and symbolic
factors interact in influencing
employer attractiveness and job
444 pursuit intention?
Received 5 March 2018
Revised 3 August 2018
Shweta Kumari and Gordhan K. Saini
Accepted 19 August 2018 School of Management and Labour Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
Mumbai, India

Abstract
Purpose – The changing demographics of talent market calls for a better understanding of the
expectations of diverse job seekers. However, there is limited research on employer attractiveness (EA)
factors which cover the expectations of new generation job seekers. The purpose of this paper is to examine
the effect of career growth opportunities (CGO), work–life benefits (WLB) and corporate social
responsibility (CSR) reputation on the perceived attractiveness of an organization as an employer and the
job pursuit intention ( JPI) of job seekers.
Design/methodology/approach – A 2 (CGO: many vs limited) × 2 (WLB: many vs limited) × 2 (CSR
reputation: high vs low) between-subjects experimental design was used for this study. A total of 240
respondents participated in the study.
Findings – The results showed that provision of CGO had the highest effect on both EA and JPI. This effect
was strong enough to compensate for limited WLB and a low CSR reputation. A significant interaction effect
between CGO and CSR reputation revealed that the effect of CSR reputation on EA depends on the
availability of many or limited CGO.
Originality/value – The study contributes and expands literature on attributes relevant in job choice
decisions by providing useful insights regarding how job seekers weigh these attributes while making an
employment choice. Also, the study offers suggestions for designing organizations’ recruitment strategy for
attracting talent.
Keywords Employer attractiveness, CSR reputation, Job pursuit intention, Career growth opportunities,
Work–life benefits
Paper type Research paper

Attracting the best talent can generate a distinct advantage for an organization (Ployhart,
2006; Harari, 1998). This realization has resulted in a war for talent among organizations
(Mahroum, 2000; Michaels et al., 2001). Organizations are likely to compete more fiercely for
talented employees than for consumers. To attract and retain the best talent, organizations
are increasingly focusing on branding themselves as employers of choice. There is extensive
literature on employer branding and employer attractiveness (EA) (Lievens and Slaughter,
2016; Banerjee et al., 2018; Saini et al., 2014; Theurer et al., 2018). Berthon et al. (2005,
p. 156) defined EA as “the envisioned benefits that a potential employee sees in working for
a specific organization.” Job seekers assess an organization’s attractiveness on various
parameters such as pay, career growth, security, etc., before seeking employment with
the organization.
Existing literature (Ehrhart and Ziegert, 2005; Firfiray and Mayo, 2017; Jones et al., 2014;
Renaud et al., 2016) has examined the influence of various employment benefits/factors
on an organization’s attractiveness as an employer. These factors have been classified into
Career Development International two broad categories – instrumental factors and symbolic factors. Instrumental
Vol. 23 No. 4, 2018
pp. 444-462
factors are tangible in nature and provide utilitarian value to employees such as pay,
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1362-0436
benefits, location, advancement opportunities, etc. In contrast, symbolic factors are
DOI 10.1108/CDI-03-2018-0069 intangible and provide symbolic value such as a sense of prestige to be associated with an
organization. Literature shows that both symbolic and instrumental factors have a Instrumental
significant effect on EA. and symbolic
However, changing demographics (i.e. baby boomers, generation X and generation Y or factors
millennials) calls for a better understanding of the expectations of different generations
co-existing in the workplace ( Johnson and Johnson, 2010; Lyons and Kuron, 2014).
Montgomery and Ramus (2011) noted that it is important for organizations to understand the
expectations of young graduates and the organizational attributes that influence their choice 445
of employment. Existing research on emerging expectations of the newer generation has
identified three major attractiveness factors: career growth opportunities (CGO), work–life
benefits (WLB) and association with organizations that are socially responsible or have a good
reputation in terms of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Literature shows that millennials
want quick promotions (Ng et al., 2010; Smola and Sutton, 2002), flexibility in work hours,
quality of life, recognition, continued feedback, and a positive environment and relationships
at the workplace (Cavazotte et al., 2012). LaPlante (2004) reported that jobseekers are willing to
forego financial benefits to work for an organization that has a better reputation in terms of
CSR and ethics. This signals the growing importance assigned by the workforce to social and
environmental engagement (Heslin and Ochoa, 2008). Researchers have highlighted that such
emerging factors that appear to have a positive effect on organizational attractiveness need to
be studied with empirical data (Ehrhart and Ziegert, 2005; Lievens, 2007).
A review of extant literature reveals that empirical studies examining these three factors
(i.e. CGO, WLB and CSR reputation) in relation to EA and job pursuit intention ( JPI)
are limited. A few notable empirical studies (e.g. Honeycutt and Rosen, 1997) have examined
the relationship between WLB and an organization’s recruitment strategy. The results are
inconclusive about the likely positive impact of WLB on EA and raise concerns about
efficiency of such benefits to multiple employee (or job seeker) segments. Also, CGO are
likely to increase EA, but it has been studied mainly with respect to employee commitment
(Weng et al., 2010) and turnover intentions (Weng and Mcelroy 2012). Using social identity
and signaling theories, Turban and Greening (1996) found that corporate social performance
relates positively to organizational reputation and increases organizational attractiveness.
Prospective job applicants are more likely to pursue jobs in socially responsible firms than
in firms with a poor record of social responsibility (Turban and Greening, 2000). Backhaus
et al. (2002) showed that CSR has a positive impact on EA. However, the role of CSR
reputation in increasing the positive effect of instrumental variables (i.e. CGO and WLB) on
EA and JPI has not been investigated. Moreover, these attributes have so far not been
studied in an emerging country context (e.g. India).
This study is an attempt to address these research gaps by answering the following main
research questions:
RQ1. What is the relative influence of CGO and WLB vis-à-vis CSR reputation on EA
and JPI?
RQ2. Does the presence of instrumental variables (i.e. CGO and WLB) increase the
positive effect of the symbolic variable (i.e. CSR reputation) on EA and JPI?
Accordingly, the main objective of this study is to examine the effect of CGO, WLB and CSR
reputation on the perceived attractiveness of an organization as an employer and the JPI of job
seekers. Specifically, we examine the main effect and interaction effect of two instrumental
attributes (i.e. CGO and WLB) and one symbolic attribute (i.e. CSR reputation) on EA and JPI.

Theoretical background and hypotheses development

Instrumental-symbolic framework has been applied extensively in studying the EA factors
(Lievens, 2007). As cited earlier, instrumental factors are related to tangible attributes of the
CDI job or organization (e.g. location, pay, benefits or advancement opportunities) and provide
23,4 utilitarian value. Studies show that instrumental attributes (e.g. organizational training and
compensation practices) are positively and significantly associated with EA (Cable and
Graham, 2000; García et al., 2010). Symbolic factors are subjective, abstract and intangible
attributes of a job and organization. They are also labeled as perceptions or traits of
organizational personality (Slaughter et al., 2004). Job seekers are attracted to symbolic
446 factors as these traits enable them to maintain their self-identity, enhance their self-image, or
express themselves (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003). Symbolic dimensions of organizational
image such as competence, prestige, sincerity (Hoye et al., 2013) and ethical image
(Renaud et al., 2016) have been found to be positively related to EA.
Studies have reported that generations tend to prioritize different elements in the
workplace (Terjesen et al., 2007; Twenge, 2010). For example, millennials prefer work
environments that emphasize freedom, status and social involvement; they tend to leave the
organization if their expectations are not fulfilled (Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007;
Dries et al., 2008; Loughlin and Barling, 2001; Smola and Sutton, 2002). Studies have also
revealed that generation Y individuals have motivations that prioritize pleasure, focus on
individual interests, stimulations, novelties, changes and challenges (Reis et al., 2010), and they
expect quicker promotions (Ng et al., 2010), flexibility, quality of life, recognition, continued
feedback and a positive environment and relationships at the workplace (Cavazotte
et al., 2012). Sokro (2012) finds that several factors make an organization an “employer of
choice”; these include job security, enhanced future employability, WLB, competitive pay and
benefits, interesting and rewarding work, and opportunities for learning and development.
Another factor that impacts an employer’s image is the reputation of an organization
(Auger et al., 2013); reputation is heavily influenced by CSR activities. Maden et al. (2012)
confirm that CSR has a strong positive effect on corporate reputation which subsequently
has a strong positive effect on the behavior of customers, employees and investors. This is
evident from a rise in social awareness and willingness to contribute to the society and
environment. For example, 63 percent of millennials donate to charities, 43 percent actively
volunteer or are members of a community organization and 52 percent have signed petitions
(The Deloitte Millennial Survey, 2014). Hence, CSR plays an important role in determining
the reputation of an organization, which, in turn, is an important determinant of EA. Based
on the literature on EA, major attributes relevant in the context of demographically diverse
labor force (including millennials) can be grouped into three categories: CGO, WLB and
socially responsible image or CSR reputation of an organization.
Work–life benefits (WLB)
WLB, one of the EA factors, falls within the larger domain of a company’s responsible
behavior toward employees (Firfiray and Mayo, 2017). WLB can be categorized as an
indirect extrinsic compensation that has three sub-categories of employee benefits:
protection programs (e.g. health plan, pension plan), employee services (e.g. use of a vehicle,
rebates) and time-related benefits (e.g. breaks, sick leave, vacation time) (Renaud et al., 2016).
In case of time-related benefits, organizations have increasingly multiplied their offerings in
response to the latest trends and employee expectations (Levering and Moskowitz, 2007).
Following an “investment-in-employees” approach as against the traditional utilitarian
view, Firfiray and Mayo (2017) suggest that a WLB package may include the following
benefits: child-related (e.g. childcare facilities, financial assistance and referral and
maternity/paternity leave), time/schedule (e.g. flexi-time, compressed work week and job
sharing), wellness programs (e.g. counseling and employee assistance programs) and
eldercare (e.g. assistance and referrals).
Given the significant amount of stress experienced by individuals in today’s workplace
(Podsakoff et al., 2007), the provision of WLB may signal a higher quality of work life and
enhance applicants’ attraction toward prospective employers. Casper and Buffardi (2004) Instrumental
found that work–life practices such as schedule flexibility and dependent care assistance and symbolic
have a universal appeal on recruitment outcomes. Uggerslev et al. (2012) showed that factors
flexi-time/WLB programs accounted for a unique portion of the variance in an applicant’s
attraction toward a prospective employer. Thompson et al. (2015) indicated that the
combination of a high level of both flexi-time and flexi-space yielded the highest ratings of
anticipated organizational support and organizational attraction, supporting the view that 447
individuals work for more than just a paycheck and seek intrinsic satisfaction (Grant and
Parker, 2009). Further, provision of supplementary employment benefits like WLB represent
the socially responsible proclivities which are valued by jobseekers (LaPlante, 2004; Turban
and Greening, 1996), and therefore, organizations offering WLB in addition to their standard
employment benefits are expected to be perceived as attractive. Thus, we propose:
H1a. Potential candidates are more attracted to an employer offering many WLB than to
an employer offering limited WLB.
H1b. Potential candidates’ JPI is higher with an employer offering many WLB than with
an employer offering limited WLB.

Career growth opportunities (CGO)

Weng and Hu (2009) provide a comprehensive definition of career growth that covers three
aspects: career goal progress, development of professional ability and rewards (i.e. promotion
speed and remuneration growth). Career growth consists of both the employees’ own efforts in
achieving their career goals and acquiring new skills as well as the organizations’ efforts in
rewarding such efforts through promotions and salary increases. This holistic view of
CGO can be understood as organizational efforts in fulfilling the psychological contract
(Coyle-Shapiro and Morrow, 2006). Therefore, CGO is one of the most important factors in a
student’s decision to choose a job (Hu et al., 2008); it is found to increase applicants’ attraction
(Allen and O’Brien, 2006; Chapman et al., 2005; Terjesen et al., 2007). Millennials, who form a
significant portion of the current or potential employees, expect an exponential rise in their
career. For this segment, career advancement is expected to be the top priority. Ng et al. (2010)
suggested that CGO is amongst the five themes of priorities of millennials; applicants prefer
an organization that provides an important aspiration (Ehrhart and Ziegert, 2005). This
implies that job seekers will prefer organizations which provide a better CGO. An organization
offering training and development opportunities could be a sign for job applicants that it is
concerned about employees’ welfare; such firms may be perceived favorably by potential
employees, thereby increasing EA. Thus, we propose:
H2a. Potential candidates are more attracted to an employer offering many CGO than to
an employer offering limited CGO.
H2b. Potential candidates’ JPI is higher with an employer offering many CGO than with
an employer offering limited CGO.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reputation

CSR is defined as the ways in which organizations achieve commercial success using methods
that honor ethical values, respect for people, communities and the natural environment
(Odumeru et al., 2014). Duarte et al. (2010) suggested three different conceptions of a socially
responsible company – ecological, ethical and social. Drawing from these views, Dahlsrud
(2008) proposed that CSR has five dimensions – community relations, diversity activities,
employee relations, environmental activities and product quality/sustainability. In the
employment context, CSR contributes in enhancing corporate reputation, organizational
CDI attractiveness, diversity activities and employee relations (Lis, 2012). Literature reveals that a
23,4 firm’s CSR reputation is related to its ability to attract younger job applicants (Greening and
Turban, 2000; Turban and Greening 1996), and jobseekers are willing to forego financial
benefits to work for an organization having better CSR reputation and ethics (LaPlante, 2004),
because of the growing importance of social issues among new jobseekers (Heslin and
Ochoa, 2008).
448 Using signaling theory, Spence (1973) suggested that a corporation’s socially responsible
practices send positive signals to potential employees, and EA is significantly affected by
such signals. Enhancement in EA through these signals can be explained by three reasons:
first, job seekers’ anticipated pride because of the firm’s reputation; second, perceived value
fit between firm and oneself; and third, expected positive treatment inferred through the
firm’s community involvement and pro-environmental practices ( Jones et al., 2014).
Social identity theory also explains job seekers’ attraction toward organizations having
good CSR practices (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Individuals derive self-worth from and
identify with the community or society they belong to. It is expected that candidates
associate and identify with firms with higher CSR values.
The interactionist perspective, rooted in the similarity–attraction concept, suggests that
applicants are more attracted to organizations where specific organizational characteristics
match with their own (Schneider et al., 1995; Turban and Keon, 1993). Considering the new
generation workforce’s increasing awareness of the community and environment, it may be
argued that applicants will be attracted to an organization that shows similar sensitivity
toward these matters. Thus, we propose:
H3a. Potential candidates are more attracted to an employer having high CSR reputation
than to an employer having low CSR reputation.
H3b. Potential candidates’ JPI is higher with an employer having high CSR reputation
than with an employer having low CSR reputation.
Lis (2012) showed that various dimensions of CSR are evaluated differently by job
candidates, and diversity and employee relations are found to have the strongest influence
on EA. These two dimensions of CSR are also the most relevant to employees. Hence, it can
be argued that the aspects of CSR that are relevant to employees have the strongest positive
effect on EA or JPI. In this context, the provision of CGO and/or WLB may be seen as an
alignment to the broader concept of CSR, and job seekers are likely to be positively
influenced by coexistence of symbolic (i.e. CSR reputation) and instrumental (i.e. CGO and
WLB) attributes. Alternately, absence of CGO and/or WLB might lead to discounting of a
great CSR reputation as jobseekers may perceive it as a deviation from the true spirit of
CSR. Thus, we hypothesize:
H4a. There is an interaction effect between CSR reputation and CGO in influencing
organizations’ EA. Potential candidates are more attracted to an employer having
high or low CSR reputation and offering many CGO than an employer having high
or low CSR reputation and offering limited CGO.
H4b. There is an interaction effect between CSR reputation and CGO in influencing
potential candidates’ JPI. Potential candidates’ JPI is higher with an employer
having high or low CSR reputation and offering many CGO than an employer
having high or low CSR reputation and offering limited CGO.
H5a. There is an interaction effect between CSR reputation and WLB in influencing
organizations’ EA. Potential candidates are more attracted to an employer having
high or low CSR reputation and offering many WLB than an employer having high
or low CSR reputation and offering limited WLB.
 H5b. There is an interaction effect between CSR reputation and WLB in influencing Instrumental
potential candidates’ JPI. Potential candidates’ JPI is higher with an employer and symbolic
having high or low CSR reputation and offering many WLB than an employer factors
having high or low CSR reputation and offering limited WLB.
The strategic HRM literature (Butler et al., 1991; Delery and Doty, 1996) suggests that
offering a combination of best practices will be more attractive than offering just one.
Similarly, Subramony (2009) observed that bundles, including multiple complementary 449
practices, are typically preferred over individual best practices. This is because combined
individual practices create a synergistic effect that is substantially greater than individual
best practices. Both CGO and WLB are considered to be emerging best HR practices, and we
believe that their simultaneous presence will increase the attractiveness of an organization
significantly more than their individual presence. This argument is in line with the fact that
job seekers do not evaluate the organizational characteristics in isolation. While making an
employer choice, they simultaneously consider all information about different aspects or
attributes of the organization. Also, as discussed earlier, the presence/absence of one
attribute might enhance/decrease the effect of other attributes or might compensate for the
absence of other attributes. For example, if an organization is engaged in multi-dimensional
CSR activities such as community development, environment protection, diversity and
inclusion, and hence, enjoys a reputation of being socially responsible, applicants may
consider the provision of CSR activities as an extension of great HR practices (offering many
CGO and WLB to its employees). It may be noted that CSR reputation of an organization is
affected by its investment in CSR and also depends on the types of activities undertaken
(Ersoy and Aksehirli, 2015; Glavas and Kelley, 2014). Further, high CSR reputation may
increase the credibility of other benefits such as CGO and WLB. This is highly likely
because job seekers might consider the provision of employee benefits as a prerequisite for
being able to do great CSR for society. Thus, we hypothesize:
H6a. There is an interaction effect among CGO, WLB and CSR reputation in influencing
organizations’ EA. Potential candidates are more attracted to an employer offering
a combination of CGO, WLB and CSR reputation than one not offering
this combination.
H6b. There is an interaction effect among CGO, WLB and CSR reputation in influencing
potential candidates’ JPI. Potential candidates’ JPI is higher with an employer
offering a combination of CGO, WLB and CSR reputation than one not offering
this combination.

Methodology
Study design
A 2 (WLB: many vs limited) × 2 (CGO: many vs limited) × 2 (CSR reputation: high vs low)
between-subjects experimental design was used for this study. Thus, a total of eight scenarios
were constructed for eight fictitious organizations (a sample description of Scenario 1 is given
in the Appendix) and respondents were presented with one of the eight different
organizational descriptions. These descriptions presented information on three factors: WLB,
CGO and CSR reputation. Upon reading the description, participants were asked to imagine
themselves as jobseekers and provide their responses to a series of questions to measure their
attitudes toward EA and JPI for the organization mentioned in the description.

Sample
The respondents were invited to participate in this study through e-mail with a request to
fill a standard questionnaire. The e-mail invitation along with the questionnaire was sent to
CDI the students who were pursuing final year of their engineering and management courses
23,4 from premier institutions and were about to enter the employment market, making them
appropriate for this study. University students have been used in many earlier studies on
organizational attractiveness and job seekers’ application intention (Highhouse et al., 2003;
Terjesen et al., 2007; Tews et al., 2012). Participation in the study was completely voluntarily
and respondents could opt out of the study anytime during the data collection. A total of 264
450 respondents participated in the study; however, 24 responses were incomplete, leaving 240
responses for subsequent analysis. Thus, we had 30 responses per experimental condition
(i.e. scenario).
The sample had 175 male (72.9 percent) and 65 female respondents. In total, 171
respondents had no prior work experience, and the mean age of respondents was 25 years.
In total, 198 out of 240 respondents were in the second year of their two-year post
graduate course in management and the remaining 42 students were in the final year of their
four-year undergraduate course in engineering.

Measures of dependent variables

To measure EA, we used a four-item scale borrowed from Highhouse et al. (2003). A sample
scale item is as follows: “This company is attractive to me as a place for employment.” JPI
was measured using a four-item scale borrowed from the literature (i.e. Highhouse et al.,
2003; Roberson et al., 2005). A representative scale item for JPI is as follows: “If I get a job
offer from this organization, I would probably accept it”. Both, EA and JPI were measured
on a seven-point Likert scale (1 – strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree) and showed
adequate reliability with a very high Cronbach’s α value of 0.958 and 0.963, respectively.
Average variance extracted (AVE) estimates were 0.890 and 0.900 for EA and JPI,
respectively, while composite reliability (CR) estimates were 0.970 and 0.973 for EA and JPI,
respectively. AVE values for both constructs were significantly higher than 0.50, the
criterion recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Similarly, CR values for both
constructs were higher than 0.70, the criterion recommended by Hair et al. (2006). Highhouse
et al. (2003) showed the predictive validity of these scales (i.e. attitudes predicted intentions,
which predicted actual application behavior). This is a very strong valid evidence in that the
inferences from the scale scores were validated against the actual applicant behavior.

Operationalization of independent variables

Work–life benefits. In the Indian context, there are some WLB mandated by statutory bodies.
For example, under Section 48 of Factories Act, 1948, Government of India mandates the
provision of crèche (childcare facilities) if the number of female employees in a factory is
more than 30. Standard benefits, especially the ones mandated by law, are more likely to be
seen as a right rather than a privilege, and thus may not increase EA. However, if an
organization provides WLB over and above the statutory requirements, it is most likely to
be seen as being responsive to the expectations of its employees, influencing EA. Since we
intended to compare the effect of extensive WLB and basic or/and the statutory WLB, we
operationalized mandatory or basic WLB as limited WLB and the WLB over and above the
basic/statutory ones as many WLB.
Career growth opportunities. Following Weng and Hu (2009), we included three facets of
CGO: learning opportunities provided by challenging jobs and job rotation; training
opportunities for professional skill development of employees; and recognition of efforts and
abilities of employees by promotions with appropriate salary increases. Organizations
which provide CGO in these three areas are considered providing many CGO and vice versa.
CSR reputation. Under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Government of India
made CSR investment (2 percent of the average net profit of the last three years) mandatory for
all companies operating in India which meet defined profit and revenue criteria. Lantos (2001) Instrumental
proposed that responsibilities which are mandatory cannot be treated as CSR while those that and symbolic
are voluntary can. Similar to WLB, we intended to study the effect of mandatory CSR and CSR factors
activities over and above the statutory requirements. Hence, we categorized the organizations
merely performing the statutory requirements as ones having low CSR reputation and the
organizations engaging in many CSR activities as ones having high CSR reputation.
451
Manipulation checks
To assess that experimental conditions were established correctly, we did a pre-test with a
sample of 20 students who did not participate in the main study, but were representative of
the study sample. Specifically, the pre-test was done to establish the two categories
of three independent variables. For instance, for CGO, descriptions of two separate
organizations - one providing many career opportunities (e.g. see the Appendix) and second,
offering limited career opportunities, were given to two different sets of respondents.
Similarly, descriptions of organizations comprising two categories of the other two variables
(i.e. WLB and CSR) were given to respondents. Responses were recorded on a seven-point
Likert scale (1 – strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree). The following three items were
used for recording responses for the pre-test: first, “The organization offers many career
growth opportunities” for CGO; second, “The organization offers many work–life benefits”
for WLB; and third, “The organization enjoys a good CSR reputation and a socially
responsible image” for CSR reputation. To confirm the variable manipulation, significant
differences between the mean responses of two groups of participants were tested using two
sample t-tests. The results confirmed that the mean values of two groups were significantly
different ( p o0.01) for all three independent variables (see Table I for mean values).

Results
Table II shows the mean and standard deviation for the two dependent variables, EA and
JPI, by experimental scenarios. As expected, amongst all the scenarios, Scenario 1 has the

Many/high Limited/average
Variable Mean SD Mean SD p-value

Career growth opportunities (many or limited) 5.84 0.68 3.56 0.90 0.000
Work–life benefits (many or limited) 5.38 0.98 3.71 0.70 0.001 Table I.
CSR reputation (high or low) 5.49 0.87 3.53 0.98 0.000 t-test comparing
Note: Pre-test results: n ¼ 20 scenario conditions

Employer Job pursuit

Independent variables attractiveness intention
Scenario Career growth opportunities Work–life benefits CSR reputation Mean SD Mean SD

1 Many Many High 6.13 0.629 6.30 0.651

2 Many Many Low 5.93 0.740 6.20 0.610
3 Many Limited High 5.97 0.669 6.10 0.803
4 Many Limited Low 4.77 1.406 5.10 1.494
5 Limited Many High 4.77 1.104 5.10 1.242 Table II.
6 Limited Many Low 4.00 1.640 4.20 1.606 Mean and standard
7 Limited Limited High 3.03 1.273 3.23 1.331 deviation for different
8 Limited Limited Low 3.83 1.621 4.00 1.576 scenarios
CDI highest mean values for both EA (6.13) and JPI (6.30). This is followed by Scenario 2 (6.20)
23,4 and Scenario 3 (6.10) for the JPI, and Scenario 3 (5.97) and Scenario 2 (5.93) for the EA.
Scenarios with limited CGO (Scenarios 5–8) lead to lower EA as well as lower JPI.
Since we had two dependent variables, multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) was the most appropriate method for testing the hypotheses. Table III
reports Wilks’ λ values from MANCOVA. Wilks’ λ reveals the significant effect of CGO
452 (F ¼ 67.53, p o 0.01), WLB (F ¼ 18.37, p o 0.01) and CSR (F ¼ 2.76, p o 0.10) on both
dependent variables – EA and JPI. CGO has the largest effect size (0.37) followed by WLB
(0.14). Further, Wilks’ λ is significant (F ¼ 2.43, p o 0.10) for the two-way interaction
between CGO and CSR reputation; three-way interaction among CGO, WLB and CSR
reputation (F ¼ 7.14, p o 0.05).
MANCOVA results of between-subject effects are reported in Table IV. The results
demonstrate that the three independent variables have main effects on both the dependent
variables. While all are statistically significant, the effect size of each attribute varies
significantly. The effect sizes of 0.01, 0.059 and 0.138 are considered small, medium and
large, respectively (Cohen, 1988). The results reveal the significant main effects of CGO
( po 0.01), WLB ( p o0.01) and CSR reputation ( p o0.05) for both EA and JPI. For EA, CGO
has the largest effect size ( η2 ¼ 0.37, po 0.01) followed by WLB (η2 ¼ 0.14, p o0.01). The
effect sizes of CGO (η2 ¼ 0.34, p o0.01) and WLB (η2 ¼ 0.12, p o0.01) are also similar for JPI.
CSR reputation is also significant but with a small effect size for both EA and JPI (η2 ¼ 0.02,
p o0.05). Thus, the results support H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b, H3a and H3b. The interaction
effect between CGO and CSR reputation is statistically significant for EA (F ¼ 4.88, po 0.05)
and marginally significant for JPI (F ¼ 3.74, po0.10), supporting H4a and H4b, albeit with
small effect sizes. No support is found for H5a and H5b as interaction effects between CGO
and WLB are insignificant ( pW 0.10). This suggests that the effect of CSR reputation on EA
is not contingent on the presence or absence of WLB while the opposite is true for CGO.
Between-subject effects are statistically significant for both EA (F ¼ 13.92, p o0.01) and JPI
(F ¼ 12.84, p o0.01) for three-way interaction effect, supporting H6a and H6b. It can be
inferred that if an organization offers many CGO, then the presence of WLB does not have a
significant effect on the EA. However, the same is not true for CSR, that is, if the
organization provides many CGO, then the presence of a great CSR reputation significantly
enhances the EA. Among demographic variables, only work experience was significant for
both EA (F ¼ 7.69, p o0.01) and JPI (F ¼ 7.46, p o0.001) and the rest of the variables were
insignificant, so we removed them from the final model.
Notably, the results show a significant interaction effect between CGO and CSR
reputation of an organization (F ¼ 4.88, p o0.05) in influencing EA. This implies that the
effect of CSR reputation on EA varies depending on CGO (Figure 1). More specifically, if the
organization offers many CGO, then the CSR reputation has a significantly greater effect on

Independent variables Wilks’ λ F Partial η2

Career growth opportunities (CGO) 0.630 67.53*** 0.370

Work–life benefits (WLB) 0.862 18.37*** 0.138
CSR reputation (CSR) 0.977 2.76* 0.023
CGO × WLB 0.988 1.34 0.012
CGO × CSR 0.979 2.43* 0.021
WLB × CSR 0.999 0.07 0.001
Table III. CGO × WLB × CSR 0.942 7.14*** 0.058
Wilks’ λ value from Work experience 0.966 4.02** 0.034
MANCOVA results Notes: *po 0.10; **p o0.05; ***p o0.01
 Dependent Sum of Mean Partial
Instrumental
Source of variation variable squares df square F η2 and symbolic
factors
Independent variable
Career growth opportunities EA 176.90 1 176.90 132.63*** 0.365
(CGO) JPI 166.47 1 166.47 119.71*** 0.341
Work–life benefits (WLB) EA 48.88 1 48.88 36.65*** 0.137
JPI 42.86 1 42.86 30.82*** 0.118 453
CSR reputation (CSR) EA 7.39 1 7.39 5.54** 0.023
JPI 5.814 1 5.81 4.18** 0.018
CGO × WLB EA 3.06 1 3.06 2.29 0.010
JPI 3.71 1 3.71 2.67 0.011
CGO × CSR EA 6.52 1 6.52 4.88** 0.021
JPI 5.20 1 5.20 3.74* 0.016
WLB × CSR EA 0.044 1 4.04 0.03 0.000
JPI 0.142 1 0.14 0.10 0.000
CGO × WLB × CSR EA 18.56 1 18.56 13.92*** 0.057
JPI 17.86 1 17.85 12.84*** 0.053
Covariate EA 10.25 1 10.25 7.69*** 0.032
Work experience JPI 10.37 1 10.37 7.46*** 0.031 Table IV.
MANCOVA results:
Error EA 308.11 231 1.33
tests of
JPI 321.24 231 1.39 between-subjects
Total EA 6,189.37 240 effects for employer
JPI 6,728.06 240 attractiveness and
Notes: EA-employer attractiveness; JPI-job pursuit intention. *p o0.10; **po 0.05; ***po 0.01 intention to apply

CSR
6.50
reputation
High

6.00 Low
Estimated marginal means for EA

5.50

5.00

4.50

4.00 Figure 1.
Interaction effect of
career growth
3.50
opportunities and CSR
reputation on
Many Limited
employer
attractiveness
Career growth opportunities

EA (Scenarios 1 and 3) while in the cases of limited CGO, even a high CSR reputation
generates lower EA (Scenarios 5 and 7). On the contrary, the effect of CSR reputation on EA
is very small in scenarios when the organization offers limited CGO. Overall, this implies
that an offer of many CGO increases the effect of CSR reputation on EA, and vice versa.
CDI Interestingly, CGO have a significant effect on the EA when WLB are limited and CSR
23,4 reputation is high. Table II reveals that the differential effect of CGO in Scenarios 2 and 6
(many WLB and low CSR reputation) is 1.93 (5.93–4.00) and this effect increases to
2.94 (5.97–3.03) in Scenarios 3 and 7 (limited WLB and high CSR). Thus, the effect of CGO on
the EA increases by a significant portion (1.1 ¼ 2.94–1.93). Therefore, it can be argued that
the effect of CGO on EA is better reinforced by great CSR reputation than the provision of
454 many WLB.
A comparison of means of Scenario 7 (3.83; i.e. low CSR reputation) and Scenario 8
(3.03; i.e. high CSR reputation) reveals that a job seeker may not perceive a high CSR
reputation as attractive in the absence of many CGO and many WLB. The presence of
limited CGO and limited WLB with a high CSR reputation (Scenario 8) is the worst
scenario than limited CGO and limited WLB with a low CSR reputation (Scenario 7)
(Figures 2 and 3). This is counter-intuition. Such results may be explained by the varied
preference of job seekers for different employment attributes. While a high CSR reputation
generates a positive impact at an aggregate level leading to main effect, job seekers are
more concerned about CGO and WLB; and absence of the latter two may outweigh the
positive effect of a high CSR reputation.
Interestingly, both Scenario 4 (i.e. many CGO, limited WLB, low CSR reputation) and
Scenario 5 (i.e. limited CGO, many WLB and high CSR reputation) have equal means for
both EA (4.77) and JPI (5.10). This implies that the effect of many CGO is strong enough to
compensate for limited WLB and a low CSR reputation.

Discussion of results
In this study, we examined the influence of two instrumental attributes – CGO and WLB,
and one symbolic attribute –CSR reputation, on EA and JPI. The results show significant
main effects for all the three variables, though their effect sizes differ significantly. Provision
of CGO came out to be the most significant factor with the highest effect on both EA and JPI,
followed by WLB with a medium effect and CSR reputation with a small effect. Such results
are consistent with the findings of Smola and Sutton (2002) that individuals appreciate skill

CSR
5.00 reputation
High
Low
Estimated marginal means for EA

4.50

4.00

3.50
Figure 2.
Interaction effect of
work–life benefits and
CSR reputation on
employer 3.00
attractiveness: case of
limited career Many Limited
opportunities
Work–life benefits
 5.50
CSR Instrumental
reputation
High
and symbolic
Low factors
Estimated marginal means for JPI

5.00

4.50 455

4.00

3.50
Figure 3.
Interaction effect of
work–life benefits and
3.00 CSR reputation on job
pursuit intention: case
Many
of limited career
Limited
opportunities
Work–life benefits

development and prefer a balance between personal life and work, and Sokro (2012) that
good working conditions, career development and core values of the organization are major
talent attraction drivers.
The study results add to the literature on EA drivers (Ersoy and Aksehirli, 2015; Hu
et al., 2008; Renaud et al., 2016; Terjesen et al., 2007) in an emerging economy context. Our
results confirm that the provision of CGO attracts millennial job seekers. Previous studies
have also found that career growth was one of the most important factors considered by
students in their job choice decisions (Hu et al., 2008) and information on career development
opportunities positively influences job seekers’ attraction toward an organization (Allen and
O’Brien, 2006; Chapman et al., 2005).
This study also corroborates that the provision of WLB significantly affects JPI. This
contributes to the insights provided by Casper and Buffardi (2004) and Wayne and
Casper (2012). Casper and Buffardi (2004) showed that for young job seekers, availability of
WLB (e.g. schedule flexibility and dependent care assistance) and recruitment outcomes are
positively related. Similarly, Wayne and Casper (2012) found that perceptions of college
students regarding a firm’s reputation in work–life practices affected their decision to apply
for a job. We find a significant main effect of WLB on both EA and JPI, reaffirming findings
by Zhang et al. (2007) that millennials believe in “making a life” over “making a living”. Such
results are likely because these benefits enhance job seekers’ perceptions of organizational
prestige, anticipated organizational support and role performance. Organizations make
significant investments in helping employees strike a balance between professional
and personal lives by offering innovative perks (Renaud et al., 2016) which may be part of
many WLB.
Consistent with findings of previous studies (Evans et al., 2011; Kim and Park, 2011;
Turban and Greening, 1996), we find CSR reputation positively affects job seekers’ perception
about an employer and their JPI. However, we observed that as compared to CGO and WLB,
CSR reputation is a weak predictor of EA and JPI. We believe this is an incremental
contribution to the literature in an emerging economy context. Such results have important
implications for recruitment communications in assessing relative effectiveness of different
attractiveness drivers (please see the section on managerial implications).
CDI The most important finding of this study is the two-way interaction effect between CGO
23,4 and CSR reputation which we believe is a unique contribution to literature. The results show
that CSR reputation has a significant effect on EA only when many CGO are provided by
organizations and it fades when there are only limited CGO. This implies that CSR
reputation alone may not be able to make an organization attractive as job seekers place a
greater importance on CGO. Additionally, we find that an organization offering many CGO
456 but limited WLB and low CSR reputation is equally attractive as an organization offering
many WLB, having a high CSR reputation and limited CGO. This indicates that CGO alone
can compensate for limited WLB and low CSR reputation. Such results can be explained by
an increasing emphasis on CGO by job seekers. Savickas (2011) noted that in the
past, an individual’s career rested in the hands of an organization; today, individuals
own their careers. Consequently, career changes and job mobility have become common
practice among individuals and their career is no longer tied to a single organization
(Rousseau, 1998). Thus, if an organization fails to provide attractive career opportunities to
its employees, it may face a fluid talent pool with a high attrition rate and become less
attractive to new talent.
Another major contribution of this study relates to the three-way interaction effect
among the independent variables, which suggests that an organization offering limited CGO
and limited WLB, but having a high CSR reputation, is less attractive than an organization,
which is low on all these three attributes. This reinforces that job seekers place greater
importance on instrumental variables (i.e. CGO and WLB) than symbolic variables (i.e. CSR
reputation). In the absence of top preferred attributes (in this case CGO and WLB,
respectively), job seekers may undermine and ignore the organization’s CSR reputation in
their job search decisions. We believe that if an organization does not provide attractive
CGO and WLB, its high CSR reputation may come with a sense of dissonance. For instance,
job seekers may feel that an organization enjoys high CSR reputation, but does not fulfill the
basic expectations of its employees, leading to a sense of ambiguity and dissonance.

Conclusion and managerial implications

This study examines the role of CGO, WLB and CSR reputation in influencing EA and JPI.
We find that all three attributes have significant and positive effects on EA and JPI;
however, their effect sizes vary significantly. A significantly large effect size of CGO
compared to WLB and CSR reputation, interaction effect between CGO and CSR reputation
and CGO effect compensating for limited WLB and low CSR reputation are the major and
unique contributions of this study. The study contributes and expands the literature
(e.g. Renaud et al., 2016; Terjesen et al., 2007) on attributes relevant in job choice decisions by
providing useful insights regarding how job seekers weigh these attributes while making an
employment choice. The results have the following managerial implications:
(1) The findings of this study can help human resource managers to understand
potential employees’ expectations and their preferences for a particular attribute.
The interaction of CGO with CSR reputation provides important insights about how
job seekers react to different combinations of attributes in a job search context. This
could help organizations in designing and communicating the most attractive
employee value proposition (EVP) for potential employees. Considering a
significantly greater emphasis on CGO, organizations should design attractive
career growth paths, training and learning opportunities, and professional
development plans for employees. Availability of such opportunities should be
communicated through proper channels as job seekers actively seek information on
CGO provided by prospective employers (Allen and O’Brien, 2006; Chapman et al.,
2005; Terjesen et al., 2007).
 (2) The study identifies the most attractive combinations of three attributes for job Instrumental
seekers (i.e. Scenarios: 1, 2 and 3) which could be used by companies in designing and symbolic
effective HRM interventions. The study concludes that CGO has a higher factors
effect on EA in the presence of high CSR reputation than in the presence of many
WLB; therefore, if an organization already has a great CSR reputation, then it
should invest in building avenues for career growth instead of WLB for
increasing its EA. However, if an organization currently provides many CGO, then 457
it can either invest in WLB or in building a great CSR reputation. Further, in a
resource-constraint environment, it may be better to invest in CGO as the effect of
many CGO on EA and JPI is equal to the combined effect of many WLB and high
CSR reputation.
(3) The results show that if an organization does not provide the desired CGO and
WLB, then the presence of a great CSR reputation may not make an organization
attractive. This implies that an organization should first perform well on
instrumental variables such as CGO and WLB that directly impact job seekers
before building a great CSR reputation. Merely focusing on the latter may send
inconsistent signals in the talent market about work environment at an organization.
Thus, consistency should be maintained in employer branding signals both within
and outside the firm (Wilden et al., 2010). This is in alignment with Backhaus and
Tikoo (2004, p. 120) who suggested that organizations should market their offerings
to current and potential employees, communicate with them and maintain their
loyalty “promoting both within and outside the firm, a clear view of what makes a
firm different and desirable as an employer.”
(4) Since millennials will form majority of the workforce in the next decade, it is
important to consider their preference for balance between work and life, and
incorporate this as one of the elements in the proposed EVP. Also, companies can
actively identify CSR activities (and include them in the EVP) which resonate well
with the younger candidate pool that values social responsibility. Establishing a
connection between a company’s CSR policies and recruitment strategy can lead to
significant talent acquisition gains, and bridging the CSR “knowledge gap”
between recruiters and potential candidates can help attract talented individuals
with similar values.

Limitations and direction for future research

While the study makes an important contribution to literature in the area of employer
branding, the major limitations should be noted. The study considered only three variables
(two instrumental attributes and one symbolic attribute); however, job seekers consider a
broader set of variables while making job choice decisions. Further studies can assess other
symbolic variables such as leadership and company culture, and examine their interaction
with other instrumental variables like CGO and compensation. Also, the study focused only
on potential employees and did not consider current employees. Sokro (2012) suggested that
growth opportunities, job security and organizational reputation play a significant role in
retention of employees. Therefore, it may be interesting to examine the effect of these
attributes on existing employees’ stay decision or engagement level, and compare their
effects on different segments (i.e. baby boomers, generation X and generation Y).
Future research could replicate these findings in other contexts and populations by
having a more diverse and large sample size, which may help in generalizing the findings of
this study. Moreover, our sample was a bit skewed in terms of education stream of
respondents. Our respondents belonged to management and engineering courses. We did
not have respondents from other fields such as arts, economics, commerce, etc. In the Indian
CDI context, management students usually take hefty loans to pursue their education and prefer
23,4 employment in organizations which promise them lucrative career opportunities. Also, the
ecosystem of institutions/organizations is highly competitive, which cultivates among
employees, the need to rise quickly in their careers. These contextual factors might have a
role in influencing students’ higher preference for CGO in our study, and a different pattern
may emerge for students from arts, humanities, economics and law. Therefore, future
458 research may focus on examining how the effect of CGO, WLB and CSR reputation differs
across job seekers from different education streams.

References
Allen, T.D. and O’Brien, K.E. (2006), “Formal mentoring programs and organizational attraction”,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 43-58.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Auger, P., Devinney, T., Dowling, G.R., Eckert, C. and Lin, N. (2013), “How much does a company’s
reputation matter in recruiting?”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 79-88.
Backhaus, K.B. and Tikoo, S. (2004), “Conceptualizing and researching employer branding”, Career
Development International, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 501-517.
Backhaus, K.B., Stone, B.A. and Heiner, K. (2002), “Exploring the relationship between corporate social
performance and employer attractiveness”, Business & Society, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 292-318.
Banerjee, P., Saini, G.K. and Kalyanaram, G. (2018), “The role of brands in recruitment: mediating role
of employer brand equity”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Forthcoming.
Berthon, P., Ewing, M. and Hah, L.L. (2005), “Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness in
employer branding”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 151-172.
Butler, J.E., Ferris, G.R. and Napier, N.K. (1991), Strategy and Human Resources Management,
South-Western Publishing Co., Cincinnati, OH.
Cable, D.M. and Graham, M.E. (2000), “The determinants of job seekers’ reputation perceptions”,
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 929-947.
Casper, W.J. and Buffardi, L.J. (2004), “Work-life benefits and job pursuit intentions: the role of
anticipated organizational support”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 391-410.
Cavazotte, F., Lemos, H.C. and Viana, M.D. (2012), “New generations in the job market: Renewed
expectations or old ideals?”, Cadernos EBAPE. BR, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 162-180.
Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., Carroll, S.A., Piasentin, K.A. and Jones, D.A. (2005), “Applicant
attraction to organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting
outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 928-944.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Routledge, Hillsdale, NJ.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. and Morrow, P.C. (2006), “Organizational and client commitment among contracted
employees”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 416-431.
Crumpacker, M. and Crumpacker, J.M. (2007), “Succession planning and generational stereotypes:
should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad?”, Public
Personnel Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 349-369.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008), “How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions”,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Delery, J.E. and Doty, D.H. (1996), “Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: tests
of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 802-835.
Dries, N., Pepermans, R. and De Kerpel, E. (2008), “Exploring four generations’ beliefs about career: is
‘satisfied’ the new ‘successful?’ ”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 907-928.
Duarte, A.P., Mouro, C. and Neves, J. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility: mapping its social Instrumental
meaning”, Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, and symbolic
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 101-122.
factors
Ehrhart, K.H. and Ziegert, J.C. (2005), “Why are individuals attracted to organizations?”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 901-919.
Ersoy, I. and Aksehirli, Z. (2015), “Effects of perceptions of corporate social responsibility on employer
attractiveness”, Research Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 507-518. 459
Evans, W.R., Davis, W.D. and Frink, D.D. (2011), “An examination of employee reactions to perceived
corporate citizenship”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 938-964.
Firfiray, S. and Mayo, M. (2017), “The lure of work–life benefits: perceived person organization fit as a
mechanism explaining job seeker attraction to organizations”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 629-649.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
García, M.F., Posthuma, R.A. and Quiñones, M. (2010), “How benefit information and demographics
influence employee recruiting in Mexico”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 523-531.
Glavas, A. and Kelley, K. (2014), “The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee
attitudes”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 165-202.
Grant, A.M. and Parker, S.K. (2009), “Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational and
proactive perspectives”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 317-375.
Greening, D.W. and Turban, D.B. (2000), “Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in
attracting a quality workforce”, Business and Society, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 25-280.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harari, O. (1998), “Attracting the best minds”, Management Review, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 23-26.
Heslin, P.A. and Ochoa, J.D. (2008), “Understanding and developing strategic corporate social
responsibility”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 125-144.
Highhouse, S., Lievens, F. and Sinar, E.F. (2003), “Measuring attraction to organizations”, Educational
and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 986-1001.
Honeycutt, T.L. and Rosen, B. (1997), “Family friendly human resource policies, salary levels, and
salient identity as predictors of organizational attraction”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 271-290.
Hoye, G.V., Bas, T., Cromheecke, S. and Lievens, F. (2013), “The instrumental and symbolic dimensions
of organizations’ image as an employer: a large-scale field study on employer branding in
Turkey”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 543-557.
Hu, B., Weng, Q.X. and Yang, H. (2008), “The empirical study of organizational attractiveness: based on
the angle of prospective employees”, Forecasting, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 53-59.
Johnson, M. and Johnson, L. (2010), Generations, Inc.: From Boomers to Linksters – Managing the
Friction between Generations at Work, AMACOM, New York, NY.
Jones, D., Willness, C. and Madey, S. (2014), “Why are job seekers attracted by corporate social
performance? Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 383-404.
Kim, S.Y. and Park, H. (2011), “Corporate social responsibility as an organizational attractiveness
for prospective public relations practitioners”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 103 No. 4,
pp. 639-653.
Lantos, G.P. (2001), “The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 595-630.
CDI LaPlante, A. (2004), “MBA graduates want to work for caring and ethical employers”, available at:
23,4 www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/hr_mbajobchoice.shtml (accessed August 14, 2016).
Levering, R. and Moskowitz, M. (2007), “In good company”, Fortune, Vol. 155 No. 1, pp. 94-114.
Lievens, F. (2007), “Employer branding in the Belgian Army: the importance of instrumental and
symbolic beliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants, and military employees”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 51-69.
460 Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003), “The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes
to a company’s attractiveness as an employer”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1,
pp. 75-102.
Lievens, F. and Slaughter, J.E. (2016), “Employer image and employer branding: what we know and
what we need to know”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 3, pp. 407-440, available at: www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-
orgpsych-041015-062501
Lis, B. (2012), “The relevance of corporate social responsibility for a sustainable human resource
management: an analysis of organizational attractiveness as a determinant in employees’
selection of a (potential) employer”, Management Revue, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 279-295.
Loughlin, C. and Barling, J. (2001), “Young workers’ work values, attitudes, and behaviours”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 543-558.
Lyons, S. and Kuron, L. (2014), “Generational differences in the workplace: a review of the evidence
and directions for future research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. S1,
pp. 139-157.
Maden, C., Telci, E.E. and Kantur, D. (2012), “Linking corporate social responsibility to corporate
reputation: a study on understanding behavioral consequences”, Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 58 No. 12, pp. 655-664.
Mahroum, S. (2000), “Highly skilled globetrotters: mapping the international migration of human
capital”, R&D Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 23-31.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H. and Axelrod, B. (2001), The War for Talent, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Montgomery, D.B. and Ramus, C.A. (2011), “Calibrating MBA job preferences for the 21st century”,
Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 9-26.
Ng, E., Schweitzer, L. and Lyons, S. (2010), “New generation, great expectations: a field study of the
millennia generation”, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 281-292.
Odumeru, J.A., Ayodeji, I.O., Asabi, O.M. and Amos, N.B. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility and
organisation attractiveness to jobseekers”, World Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 171-182.
Ployhart, R.E. (2006), “Staffing in the 21st century: new challenges and strategic opportunities”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 868-897.
Podsakoff, N.P., Lepine, J.A. and Lepine, M.A. (2007), “Differential challenge stressor–hindrance
stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal
behavior: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 438-454.
Reis, G., Antonio, F., Laizo, A. and Marinho, B. (2010), “Do business manager values change over the
course of a career? Relationship between axiological priorities and time of formation”, Revista de
Administração Mackenzie, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 32-54.
Renaud, S., Morin, L. and Fray, A.M. (2016), “What most attracts potential candidates?
Innovative perks, training, or ethics?”, Career Development International, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 634-655.
Roberson, Q.M., Collins, C.J. and Oreg, S. (2005), “The effects of recruitment message specificity
on applicant attraction to organizations”, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 319-339.
Rousseau, D.M. (1998), “Why workers still identify with the organizations”, Journal of Organizational Instrumental
Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 217-233. and symbolic
Saini, G.K., Rai, P. and Chaudhary, M.K. (2014), “What do best employer surveys reveal about employer factors
branding and intention to apply”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 95-111.
Savickas, M.L. (2011), “Constructing careers: actor, agent, and author”, Journal of Employment
Counseling, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 179-181.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H.W. and Smith, D.B. (1995), “The ASA framework: an update”, Personnel 461
Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 747-773.
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 No. 1, pp. 85-103.
Smola, K.W. and Sutton, C.D. (2002), “Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for
the new millennium”, Journal of Organisational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 363-382.
Sokro, E. (2012), “Impact of employer branding on employee attraction and retention”, European
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 18, pp. 164-173.
Spence, M. (1973), “Job market signalling”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3,
pp. 355-374.
Subramony, M. (2009), “A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between HRM bundles and
firm performance”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 745-768.
Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S. and Freeman, C. (2007), “Attracting generation Y graduates: organisational
attributes, likelihood to apply and sex differences”, Career Development International, Vol. 12
No. 6, pp. 504-522.
Tews, M.J., Michel, J.W. and Bartlett, A. (2012), “The fundamental role of workplace fun in applicant
attraction”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 105-114.
The Deloitte Millennial Survey (2014), Big Demands and High Expectations, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Limited, London.
Theurer, C., Tumasjan, A., Welpe, I. and Lievens, F. (2018), “Employer branding: a brand equity-based
literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 155-179.
Thompson, R.J., Payne, S.C. and Taylor, A.B. (2015), “Applicant attraction to flexible work
arrangements: separating the influence of flexi-time and flexplace”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 726-749.
Turban, D.B. and Greening, D.W. (2000), “Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in
attracting a quality workforce”, Business and Society, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 254-280.
Turban, D.B. and Keon, T.L. (1993), “Organizational attractiveness: an interactionist perspective”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 184-193.
Turban, D.B. and Greening, D.W. (1996), “Corporate social performance and organizational
attractiveness to prospective employees”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 658-672.
Twenge, J. (2010), “A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 201-210.
Uggerslev, K.L., Fassina, N.E. and Kraichy, D. (2012), “Recruiting through the stages: a meta-analytic
test of predictors of applicant attraction at different stages of the recruiting process”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 597-660.
Wayne, J.H. and Casper, W.J. (2012), “Why does firm reputation in human resource policies influence
college students? The mechanisms underlying job pursuit intentions”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 121-142.
Weng, Q. and Mcelroy, J.C. (2012), “Organizational career growth, affective occupational commitment
and turnover intentions”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 256-265.
CDI Weng, Q., Mcelroy, J.C., Morrow, P.C. and Liu, R. (2010), “The relationship between career growth and
23,4 organizational commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 391-400.
Weng, Q.X. and Hu, B. (2009), “The structure of career growth and its impact on employees’ turnover
intention”, Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 14-21.
Wilden, R., Gudergan, S. and Lings, I. (2010), “Employer branding: strategic implications for staff
recruitment”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 26 Nos 1/2, pp. 56-73.
462 Zhang, Y., Straub, C. and Kusyk, S. (2007), “Making a life or making a living? Cross-cultural
comparisons of business students’ work and life values in Canada and France”, Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 174-195.

Further reading
Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T.N. and Cable, D.M. (2001), “Are you attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A
recruiting policy-capturing study”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 219-237.
Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. (2001), “Establishing the dimensions, sources and value of job seekers’
employer knowledge during recruitment”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, Vol. 20, pp. 115-163, available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1016/S0
742-7301%2801%2920002-4
Lievens, F., Decaesteker, C. and Cotsier, P. (2001), “Organizational attractiveness for prospective
applicants: a person-organization fit perspective”, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 30-51.

Appendix
Scenario 1 (many CGO, many WLB and high CSR reputation) description
The organization offers challenging job assignments and job rotation giving rich work experience.
It offers trainings, seminars, professional development workshops, e-learning, coaching, special
assignments and tuition fee reimbursement for the employees. Promotions are on time and
accompanied with salary increases in line with what the market offers. The organization has adopted
best talent management practices and offers well defined career paths to its employees. Apart from the
statutory WLB (such as crèche and maternity benefits), it offers other benefits like child-related
benefits (e.g. childcare facilities, financial assistance and maternity/paternity leave), flexible work time
and job sharing, wellness programs (e.g. counseling and employee assistance programs) and eldercare
benefits. The organization complies with the statutory requirement of spending 2 percent of profits on
CSR activities. Apart from this, it aims at sustainable growth and engages in protecting and improving
the quality of the natural environment. It also supports NGOs working in problematic areas,
contributes toward the well-being of society and community development (independently or in
collaboration with the govt.). It respects consumer rights beyond the legal requirements. It ensures fair
labor practices and decent work for its workforce and managerial decisions related to employees are
usually fair. It complies with corporate governance rules and disseminates comprehensive and clear
information to shareholders and investors.

Corresponding author
Gordhan K. Saini can be contacted at: gksaini@tiss.edu; gksaini81@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com