Attracting and Retaining Staff: The Role [623481]

Chapter 2
Attracting and Retaining Staff: The Role
of Branding and Industry Image
Michelle Wallace, Ian Lings, Roslyn Cameron and Neroli Sheldon
Abstract In increasingly competitive labour markets, attracting and retaining tal-
ent has become a prime concern of organisations. Employers need to understand
the range of factors that influence career decision making and the role of employerbranding in attracting human capital that best fits and contributes to the strategicaims of an organisation. This chapter identifies the changing factors that attract peo-ple to certain employment and industries and discusses the importance of aligningemployer branding with employee branding to create a strong, genuine and lastingemployer brand. Whilst organisations have long used marketing and branding prac-tices to engender loyalty in customers, they are increasingly expanding this activity todifferentiate organisations and make them attractive from an employee perspective.
This chapter discusses employer branding and industry image as two important com-
ponents of attraction strategies and describes ways companies can maximise theirbrand awareness in the employment market to both current and future employees.
Introduction
In increasingly competitive labour markets, attracting and retaining talent has beenone of the prime concerns of organisations (Collins 2001). While this competition
may have abated recently in some countries due to the financial crisis, in otherslabour markets remain tight for some occupations. One example of this is the labourmarket for engineers in Australia. Employer branding has the potential to attract thehuman capital that best fits and contributes to the strategic aims and bottom line of
M. Wallace ( /envelopeback)·N. Sheldon
Business School, Southern Cross University, Coolangatta, Queensland, Australia
e-mail: [anonimizat]
I. Lings
Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australiae-mail: [anonimizat]
R. Cameron
School of Business and Law, Central Queensland University, Gladstone, Queensland, Australiae-mail: [anonimizat]
N. Sheldon
e-mail: [anonimizat]
R. Harris, T. Short (eds.), Workforce Development, DOI 10.1007/978-981-4560-58-0_2, 19
© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014

20 M. Wallace et al.
organisations (Backhaus and Tikoo 2004; Martin et al. 2011). In this chapter we bring
together, conceptually and practically, the work of two functions in organisations:
the HR function—most specifically recruitment and learning and development—and the marketing/communications function, specifically employer branding. Wealso demonstrate how branding and signalling theory, usually applied to companiesor employers, can be adopted at the level of an industry with a weak brand imageand some difficulty in attracting human resources.
Employer Branding and Image
In much the same way that organisational brands communicate the benefits of usinga product or service to potential consumers, employer brands communicate the ben-efits of employment to potential employees (Ambler and Barrow 1996). The process
of branding is ‘involved in creating a unique name and image for a product (goodor service) in the consumers’ mind, through advertising campaigns with a consistenttheme’ (Business Dictionary 2013) and can be controlled by an industry or organisa-
tion. Branding influences ‘the beliefs held by individual consumers about a product’s,or service’s brand (perception of the name or logo)’ (Collins and Stevens 2002,p .
1122). These beliefs constitute the brand image of a business or industry that individ-uals evoke when its name is heard. Image can be influenced by branding activities,but is also subject to the influence of consumer experiences of an organisation, andis only partially in the control of the organisation.
To generalise these concepts to the attraction and recruitment context, the value of
an organisation’s brand as an employer reflects potential employees’beliefs that theiremployment needs will be met by the employer. Just as consumers depend on brandsto differentiate between products, employer branding is used by potential employeesto differentiate between employers and assist their decision making (Collins andStevens 2002). Employers who have ‘high employer brand value’ are perceived
by potential employees as more attractive than those with lower employer brandvalue (Berthon et al. 2005). A potential employee’s appraisal of an employer brand
is prompted by factors including their awareness and perceptions of the employerbrand which may be developed through word of mouth, personal experience andmarketing strategies.
Branding theory and practices originally associated with consumer goods and
services, in an effort to engender brand loyalty in customers, have been expanded todifferentiate firms and to make them desirable from an employee perspective. Em-ployer branding is a synthesis of marketing principles and recruitment practices andis based on the concept that, just as customers have perceptions of an organisation’sbrand, so do other stakeholders including employees. In the same way that potentialcustomers form preferences for one product brand over others, potential employeesalso evaluate the attributes of competing jobs and employers. As traditional adver-tising communicates characteristics of a product to consumers, employer brandingsuggests that marketing concepts can be applied to recruitment in which jobs areregarded as products and current or potential employees as customers or potentialcustomers (Fyock 1993).

2 Attracting and Retaining Staff: The Role of Branding and Industry Image 21
The term employer branding can thus be defined as ‘the package of functional,
economic, and psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with
the employing company’ (Ambler and Barrow 1996, p. 186). Cooper discussed
employer branding in terms of
what a company has to offer its employees. Employer branding can be used as a long-
term strategy to manage the awareness and perceptions of employees, potential employeesand related stakeholders with regards to a particular organisation …Employer branding
strategies assist in shaping the perceptions of an organisation as an employer of choice…Employer branding is the communication of a company’s brand positioning within its
recruiting and human resources marketplace. (2008, pp. 14–15)
Employer branding is not something that employers undertake in isolation from their
other business activities or independently of their employees. Stakeholders such asemployees, customers and investors are part of inadvertent and planned brandingwhich encompasses the use of symbolism, behaviours and communication activities(Einwiller and Will 2002). Projecting the brand to these stakeholders must match the
experience of working in, or being a customer of or an investor in the enterprise. Thecorporate brand constitutes a promise provided by the organisation to its stakeholders;it needs to permeate all of the companies’ behaviours and actions (Tilley 1999;
Backhaus and Tikoo 2004). Ambler and Barrow stressed that the main role of the
employer brand was ‘to provide a coherent framework for management to simplifyand focus priorities, increase productivity and improve recruitment, retention andcommitment’ (Barrow and Mosley 2006, p. xvi), bringing together the marketing
and HR functions of an organisation.
The ‘fit’ between current employees and the brand image of a company has been
particularly applied to the service industry where front-line customer service staffenact the value proposition of the firm and we will deal with this below in relation toemployee branding. Notwithstanding the critique of front-line service staff identitywork from post-structuralist perspectives (Du Gay 1996), we acknowledge but do
not adopt this critical management studies perspective.
From a human resource management perspective employer branding has three el-
ements. Firstly, the value proposition is developed around the organisation’s culture,management style, current employment image which enable the organisation to con-ceptualise the value offered by their organisation to employees. Second, this valueproposition is marketed to potential employees and, third, the value proposition is alsomarketed to current employees so they enact the company’s values (Backhaus and
Tikoo 2004). Internal employer branding, as the third stage is called, contributes to
employee productivity and retention (Ambler and Barrow 1996). Backhaus and Tikoo
(2004) provided the following model to explain the effects of employer branding(Fig. 2.1).
According to Van Dam, ‘employer branding is a logical process through which
companies reach one main goal: to have a strong appeal on their current and futureideal employees’ (2006, p. 13). It is associated with a number of benefits. Firmswith a strong employer brand exhibit a number of features: high recognition andpositive image in the labour market, adherence to the promises of the psychologicalcontract, unique economic and symbolic features that are valuable to potential em-ployees, accurate differentiation as an employer, and stable policies and activities

22 M. Wallace et al.
Fig. 2.1 Effects of employer branding. (Backhaus and Tikoo 2004, p. 505)
for positioning the company in the labour market (Kucherov and Zavyalova 2012).
Successful employer branding has been shown to increase the quantity and quality
of job applicants (Collins and Han 2004) and contributes to the bottom line of a firm
in a number of ways (Fulmer et al. 2003). Specifically, employer branding reduces
the costs of recruitment through better communication with potential employees; itcontributes to employee retention thus reducing the costs of turnover, and enhancesemployee engagement and corporate culture (Barrow and Mosley 2006; Backhaus
and Tikoo 2004). Moroko and Uncles (2008) proposed that economic benefits of
employer branding can be tracked through HR metrics, including externally focusedmeasures (number of applicants per job and the percentage of job offers accepted)and internal measures (average length of tenure and staff turnover).
While an organisation controls its employer branding, attraction and recruitment
practices, it has much less control over its image as market provider and as anemployer. Information that potential employees gain about an employer forms theimage they attribute to the brand of an organisation. Brand clarity refers to employerinformation that is unambiguous and instantly recognisable; brand consistency refersto the employer’s image being reinforced across all information sources; and brandcredibility refers to recruits’ confidence that an organisation’s employment promisecan be delivered. When formulating an image of a potential employer, informationfrom these different sources is viewed as more or less credible. Information basedon firsthand experience is generally viewed as the most credible, while informationfrom personal sources and impartial commentators is viewed as more credible thancompany-generated information.
Potential recruits’experiences of the firm’s products or services or word-of-mouth
from current or past employees may undermine the company’s value proposition asan employer (Erdem and Swait 1998). Our research on the rail industry in Australia
showed that its image as an employer was often influenced by individuals’commuterexperiences; ‘They can’t even run their trains on time’ (Wallace et al. 2010). Simi-
larly, if a company’s recruitment practices are at odds with its espoused position ofconcern for employees, its credibility as a potential employer may slip. Fernández-Barcala and González-Díaz (2006) highlight the branding gains for employers whenthe information received by potential recruits through the organisation’s marketing

2 Attracting and Retaining Staff: The Role of Branding and Industry Image 23
materials, the media, from personal experience and the broader community (includ-
ing family and friends) is unambiguous and consistent. Conversely, when potentialrecruits receive contradictory brand experiences and messages from multiple sources,their perceptions that employer promises will not be fulfilled make the organisationless attractive as an employer.
Research indicates that potential employees have expressed preference for work-
ing in a particular industry either based on the products or services offered (e.g. theairline industry) or by the preferred tasks (e.g. marketing, finance) (Wilden et al.2010). Extrapolating from this, we suggest that concepts relating to employer brand-ing and image may also be applied to specific industries. Some industries such asaviation have a forward-looking, high-technology, ‘glamour’ image that attracts po-tential recruits. Others have a negative, less attractive or low profile image that makesit difficult to attract or retain staff.
Employee Branding
Drawing from theories of marketing and organisational studies, employee brandingforms employees’ attitudes and behaviours so that the brand identity of their organi-sation is projected through their work behaviour. The employee branding process isa complex process that has its foundation in an organisation’s mission and values.It defines the desired brand image, which, if transmitted effectively and consistentlyto employees, enables them to understand and experience the brand image that anorganisation wishes to convey. Employee branding also constitutes part of the psy-chological contract between employer and employee (Miles and Mangold 2005). The
employee branding process, done well, provides a competitive advantage with tan-gible positive impacts on HRM. These include enhanced employee satisfaction andretention (Miles and Mangold 2005). In turn, this positively influences the reputation
and profile of the organisation as an employer both internally and in the market, asshown in Miles and Mangold’s (2005) conceptualisation of the employer brandingprocess (Fig. 2.2).
Theoretical Perspectives
There are a number of theories that impact on attraction and image. First, the under-
lying theoretical perspective of employer branding appears to be informed by humancapital theory and the resource-based view of the firm. It appears that attractingskilled people (human resources) is equally as important as acquiring the equipmentor technological resources that are required to build competitive advantage (Back-haus and Tikoo 2004). Attracting and retaining the ‘right sort’ of people with the
required skills mix is thus a combination of the branding proposition and a range ofrecruitment, selection and performance management strategies.

24 M. Wallace et al.
FeedbackOrganisat
ion
Mission
and
valuesDesired
brand
imageSources and
modes of
messages
Internal
Formal
HRM systems
PR systems
Informal
Culture and co –
worker
influence
PR systems
External
Formal
Advertising &
PR
PR systems
Informal
Customer
feedbackOutcomes
Position of
organisation in
offerings in the
customer’s mind
Turnover
Employee
satisfaction
Customer
satisfaction
Customer loyalty
Favourable
reputationEmployee
brand
imageEmployee
psyche
Knowledge of
desired brand
image
Psychological
contract
Fig. 2.2 A conceptualisation of the employer branding process. (Miles and Mangold 2005, p. 537)
Brand equity is another perspective of branding theory. From a human resource
management perspective, positive regard for an employer encourages potential appli-
cants to apply and current employees to stay and constitutes employer brand equity(Wilden et al. 2010). Signalling theory is also linked to branding. It explores how
certain types of information influence applicants’ perceptions of an organisation.Celani and Singh (2011) have discussed the central role of signalling theory in re-cruitment. Potential employees see the information put out by a company and itsorganisational characteristics as signals about the company. Positive signals attractpotential recruits to positions in the organisation. The greater the attraction of a com-pany through brand signals and reputation, the greater the quality and quantity ofapplicants and the higher the job acceptance rate.
Another concept is that the employer and employee brand constitute a psycho-
logical contract between the company and employees (Foster et al. 2010). Potential
employees compare the perceived functional, economic and psychological benefitsstated or implied in the brand promise with their own needs to ascertain whether they‘fit’ with the organisation (Foster et al. 2010). If an employer fails to deliver their
employer brand promise, evaluation of the organisation will be negatively affectedwhen recent recruits assess their employment decision and may result in increasedturnover for the organisation (Schein 1996; Backhaus and Tikoo 2004). Therefore,
organisations must provide accurate brand messages about their work culture, val-ues and identity in order to form a realistic preview of the psychological contracton offer (Foster et al. 2010). The increasing amount of precarious employment, in
the forms of contracts and casual work, offers opportunities for employer branding.Brand promises of opportunities to enhance marketable skills through training anddevelopment and having a prestigious company on one’s curriculum vitae might beexchanged in a psychological contract for employees’ effort and flexibility (Baruch2004).

2 Attracting and Retaining Staff: The Role of Branding and Industry Image 25
Career Development
As we will see in Chap. 4, within this new psychological contract the onus of career
development is on the individual rather than the organisation (Patton and McMahon
2006). McDonald and Hite (2005) identified three major shifts in this transitionwhich impact on the attractiveness of an employer. These shifts include an employeefocus on obtaining transferable skills rather than developing skills specific to anyone organisation, replacing loyalty to one’s organisation with a broader professionalcommitment to create a more portable network of skills and knowledge, and a greaterinterest in work–life balance rather than high salaries and status.
Another perspective that is useful when gauging the factors that attract young
people to certain employment and industries relates to the concept of career anchors.Schein (1996) defined a person’s career anchor as the self-image of one’s ability, tal-ent, basic values and career motives and needs. Schein’s (1996) career anchor modelrevolves around eight categories reflecting basic values, motives and needs, namely:autonomy/independence, security/stability, technical/functional competence, man-agerial competence, entrepreneurial creativity, service/dedication to a cause, purechallenge and lifestyle.
Career anchors develop as a person gains life and professional work experience
(Schein 1996) and serve as a stabilising force—an ‘anchor’ once an individual’s
self-image has been established and which then influences an individual’s careerdecisions. Whilst Schein (1996) notes that for most individuals the needs underlyingdifferent anchors are likely to be met by several careers, the model is useful inallowing potential recruits some awareness of their values, interests, employmentaspirations and areas of competence. The model also assists individuals in identifyingwhich career or occupation might satisfy their personal characteristics and needs(Chang et al. 2007).
The Potential Employee Perspective
As suggested above, potential recruits evaluate the information that they receive in
order to develop a multifaceted image of employers (Keller 1993). When seeking
and making employment decisions potential employees evaluate features of an em-ployer’s image that can be categorised as functional or instrumental, experiential orsymbolic (Keller 1993). Potential recruits form an opinion about the attractiveness
of the employer through evaluating the value of these features to form an opinionabout the attractiveness of the employer. This represents the value of the employerbrand to the potential recruit.
Functional or instrumental brand benefits describe an employer’s brand with re-
spect to the objective, physical and tangible attributes that an employer may or maynot offer employees. From a recruitment perspective, these represent basic motiva-tions such as remuneration, compensation and benefits, training and development,promotion opportunities, and job security (Cable and Graham 2000; Lievens et al.
2005).

26 M. Wallace et al.
Experiential benefits emphasise the brand’s effect on sensory satisfaction or cog-
nitive stimulation and relate to what it feels like to work for an employer. These
benefits may be embodied by the employment experience and include social activi-ties, team accomplishments, job diversity, work environment and travel opportunities(Ambler and Barrow 1996; Lievens et al. 2005).
Symbolic benefits describe the brand in terms of subjective, abstract and intan-
gible attributes tied to people’s need to maintain or improve their self-image, or toexpress themselves through their beliefs, values, qualities and individuality (Amblerand Barrow 1996). As such, symbolic value represents the more intrinsic benefits
of employment with an organisation that satisfies an individual’s need for socialapproval, personal expression and self-esteem (Ambler and Barrow 1996).
Berthon et al. (2005) presented an alternative perspective with a scheme of five
benefits, or dimensions of employer image, that are relevant to potential recruits: in-terest value, social value, economic value, development value and application value.Interest value is based on the perception that an organisation delivers a stimulatingwork environment, innovative employment policies and procedures, and utilises theingenuity of its workers to create reputable products and services. Social value refersto the extent the organisation offers potential recruits an employment atmosphere thatis friendly, enjoyable and promotes collegiality and teamwork. Economic value isbased on the perception that the organisation provides its employees above-averageremuneration, job security and career prospects. Development value refers to theextent to which an employer recognises the achievements of its employees, and pro-vides career-enhancing experiences that act as a springboard to future employment.Finally, application value is based on the perception that the employer offers recruitsthe prospect of applying their skills and knowledge at work and of teaching othersthrough training, coaching and mentoring opportunities.
In addition to these benefits, Lievens et al. (2005) presented three others: travel,
culture and prestige. Travel benefits relate to the opportunities to travel for work.Culture benefits accrue from a work environment that includes an open and supportivemanagement structure. Prestige benefits arise from wider perceptions that workingfor the employer is highly regarded.
Potential recruits’ anticipation of these benefits influences how attracted they are
to careers with an employer (see for example Berthon et al. 2005; Lievens and
Highhouse 2003; Slaughter et al. 2004; Lievens et al. 2005). Not all attributes are
equally important to all recruits. Recruits are more likely to view an attribute orbenefit as either good or bad if they first consider it to be important. Consequently,it is necessary to establish the relative importance of functional, instrumental andexperiential values for different types of recruit, since it is likely that potential recruitsat different life/career stages will have different motivations and may value the variousaspects of employment differently.
Much of the empirical work on employer branding has been conducted in western
countries, specifically Europe and the US (Ong 2011). In one of a relatively few non-
western studies, Arachchige and Robertson (2011) explored a sample of final-yearbusiness course students in Sri Lanka, and identified eight attributes that constitutethe employer brand. These attributes were:

2 Attracting and Retaining Staff: The Role of Branding and Industry Image 27
 corporate environment
 job structure social commitment social environment relationships personal growth organisational dynamism enjoyment.
Job Characteristic Preferences
Features or attributes relevant to a particular job are referred to as job characteris-tic preferences (Chang et al. 2007). These may include work tasks or conditions,
including compensation, professional development, training, interpersonal relation-ships and wellbeing. Such preferences allow prospective employees to ascertain theattractiveness of an employer. In a survey of final-year university engineering stu-dents, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2008)indicated consensus among male and female final-year engineering students aboutthe importance of job-related factors. In descending order these were: good workingconditions, good work–life balance, opportunity for a variety of work, good pay, op-portunities for promotions and career advancement, opportunities to apply skills andknowledge in a practical way, and permanency/job security. Each of these job-relatedfactors constitutes an element of the employer brand.
Interestingly, and in line with the view that potential recruits at different life/career
stages may value the various aspects of employment differently, significant differ-ences between men and women were observed. These were most marked in itemsranked of lesser overall importance. Women ranked the following items between 6and 11 % points higher than men: opportunity to extend experience and skill throughprofessional development programs, opportunity to work overseas, opportunity tocontribute to society and opportunity to help people improve their lives. In contrastmen ranked the following items between three and seven percentage points higherthan women: opportunity to be involved in new and emerging technologies, avail-ability of cash bonuses and fringe benefits and fixed-term contracts. These findingshighlight the need for employer brand managers to be sensitive to the different needsof potential recruits and to be open to the possibility of segmenting the recruitmentmarket and communicating tailored brand messages to these segments.
Employer of Choice
There are polarised opinions on the relationship between firms becoming an em-
ployer of choice and attraction of potential recruits. Chandler McLeod’s (2007)research suggested that 52 % of job seekers reported that they were rarely attracted

28 M. Wallace et al.
by claims by an organisation to be an employer of choice and only 5 % of job seekers
revealed that the employer of choice status was an important consideration. In con-trast, 93 % of employers thought employer of choice status was important to recruits.
When considering an employer, benefits considered most important by potential em-
ployees were flexible work arrangements and workplace development opportunities(Chandler McLeod 2007). However, more research is needed to identify whether
these attractors can be generalised across multiple recruitment markets.
Organisations seeking to identify the specific attributes of employment that their
employees value typically do so using employee surveys. Love and Singh (2011)identified a dual role for these surveys. They argued that employer surveys can alsoact as a strong medium for workplace branding and identified eight common themesfor HR success from a sample of ‘best employer’ surveys related to HR practices:
 inspired leadership
 strategic plan that promotes ‘best employer HR practices’ employee communication performance management training and development benefits based on ‘best practices’ physical workspace corporate citizenship.
Love and Singh (2011) also made the salient point that the use of ‘best employer’ is
not a new idea and has over time reached a point of saturation, with many organi-sations positioned as an employer of choice, essentially removing any competitiveadvantage derived from the label. They noted a move towards targeted or specialisedemployer branding and the increasingly global nature of labour markets forcing manyorganisations to have a consistent worldwide brand.
Franca and Pahor (2012) conducted research focused upon recruitment and how
employer image is communicated through the employer brand. They proposed a newmodel for measuring the strength of employer brand referred to as the brand valuepyramid. The brand value pyramid operates at three levels: recognition, considerationand employer of choice (Fig. 2.3).
The researchers conducted a large-scale study to identify how different factors
influenced the strength of an employer’s brand. Their findings confirmed the generalfindings of other employer branding studies : that employer brand has several dimen-sions to it and that different organisations/employers will have issues with differentdimensions of their respective employer brand.
Recently, App et al. (2012) examined how the concept of sustainable human
resource management (sustainable HRM) can assist organisations to establish an at-tractive employer brand. Ehnert defined sustainable HRM as ‘the pattern of plannedor emerging human resource strategies and practices intended to enable organi-sational goal achievement while simultaneously reproducing the HR base over along-lasting calendar time’ (2009, p. 74). App et al. (2012) made links between sus-tainable HRM and employer branding, developed ways to integrate sustainable HRM

2 Attracting and Retaining Staff: The Role of Branding and Industry Image 29
Fig. 2.3 Brand value
pyramid. (Franca and Pahor
2012,p .9 4 )Employer of choice
Consideration
Recognition
practices into the different stages of the employee value proposition and provided
insights for attracting new, and retaining existing, employees who are at differentlife and career stages.
Recent Research on Employer Branding and Attraction
There have been a number of qualitative and quantitative studies on employer brand-
ing and its relationship to attracting and retaining staff. Kucherov and Zavyalova(2012) examined Russian companies and MNCs in Russia from industries includingIT/telecommunications, professional services, oil and gas, and banking. Eighteen ofthe 123 companies were ranked as ‘best employers’ and consequently were deemedto have strong employer branding. The remaining 95 ‘control’ companies were notranked as ‘best employers’ and were deemed to have weak employer branding. Theyfound that organisations with strong employer branding invested more in trainingand development activities and had staff turnover rates 6 % lower than the controlcompanies. Furthermore, companies with strong employer branding were found toengage more in collaborative decision-making with staff and in supportive manage-ment processes, thus promoting a positive image to the internal and external labourmarkets. Kucherov and Zavyalova (2012) concluded that culture and experientialbenefits were thus the main attractors for current and potential employees in theirstudy.
Wilden et al. (2010) identified that potential recruits seek information about re-
cruiting organisations beyond that provided by the organisation. The informationsought included popular perceptions from peers and word of mouth from existingemployees or those connected with them. This highlights the danger that there maybe inconsistency between the employer brand message and what is ‘out there’ inpublic perceptions and lived experiences. Wilden et al. (2010) also reported thatapplicants with more work experience were more cynical about employer brandingsignals but conversely they valued specific companies’ contribution to their careerdevelopment more than less experienced applicants. Inexperienced applicants valued

30 M. Wallace et al.
the contribution that a strong corporate brand would make to their curriculum vitae.
These findings highlight the need for employers to communicate appropriate brand
messages to the recruitment market and that specific rather than general information
might be more compelling (Fyock 1993; Huang et al. 2011; Wilden et al. 2010).
Specific information on such professional development programs is indicative of
opportunities for continuous learning and career enhancement (Ito and Brotheridge2005) and also signals the value that a firm places on its employees and its willingnessto develop them (Joo and McLean 2006). Other attractors in employer branding have
been identified as clear messages about salary, clear job descriptions, organisationalclimate and person–job fit, work–life balance, promotion opportunities, task attrac-tiveness and location of the organisation. Kucherov and Zavyalova ( 2012) report that
a higher salary is needed to compensate for inadequate provision of other attractors.However, while an advertised higher salary yields a higher number of applicants italso results in a greater number of poor-fitting applicants, with cost implications forHR departments having to sift large numbers of applicants.
Employer branding is an integral part of an attraction strategy and there are a
range of ways companies can place their brand in environments in which it mightbe recognised by prospective employees. These include advertising and publicity,sponsorship activities, word-of-mouth endorsements including from past and currentemployees, creative and engaging recruitment advertising and using websites andsocial networking sites such asYouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter, videos andpodcasts, and online chat, in order to stay in touch with past employees who mightrejoin the organisation as well as to reach potential new employees (Carmichael 2009;
Collins and Stevens 2002; Cooper 2008; Minton-Eversole 2009; Russell 2009).
Other more generic strategies for successful talent acquisition include: targeting
mid-career workers, for example, retiring, technically trained military personnelwhere engineers or technicians are in short supply, cutting down on the ‘time to hire’so as to not lose potentially strong candidates to other recruiters, and catering tothe flexible work preferences of older workers. In addition, searching for ‘passivecandidates’ through the creation and improvement of data repositories of active andinactive candidates and implementing detailed analysis of attraction measures, suchas the ratio of employment applications to open positions, average number of daysto fill vacancies, ratio of acceptances to offers, applicant drop-out rate, number ofrecruiting sources used, and percentage of new employees who remain longer thansix months have been recommended (Cooper 2008; Minton-Eversole 2009; Sample
2007).
There also appears to be a disconnect between what job seekers value in an
employer and what employers perceive as important. Research with 2,186 job seekersand 436 HR professionals across Australia indicated a difference between what jobseekers wanted and what HR professionals thought made their organisation attractiveto prospective employees (Chandler McLeod 2007). The ten most attractive employer
attributes listed by job seekers were:
 an employer’s reputation for looking after and valuing employees
 challenging and/or engaging work

2 Attracting and Retaining Staff: The Role of Branding and Industry Image 31
 training and development
 a fun, positive and vibrant working environment career development and progression an attractive salary or financial incentives recognition of performance understanding the importance of family or life outside work fair pay for a fair day’s work definitive and strong company values.
The most apparent differences were that employers ranked recognisable company
brand, challenging and engaging work, and strong company values much higher thandid employees. Employees ranked a vibrant and positive work environment, attractivesalary and other financial incentives, performance rewards and recognition, fair payfor a fair day’s work and a manager they liked much higher than employers did.
Examples of Successful Employer/Employee Branding and Image
There are a number of examples of successful employee branding as a source of
competitive advantage. Southwest Airlines have used employee branding to gain apositive organisational ‘position’ in the minds of customers and other stakeholdersincluding potential employees. As a service-oriented organisation SouthwestAirlineshave reversed the traditional ‘customer first’ approach taken by most organisationsby positioning their employees first and in turn expecting their employees to mirrorthe behaviours that they as employees receive from the company. This approach hasallowed employees to genuinely ‘live’the values and behaviours encapsulated in theirmission statement, which can be found on their website: ‘The mission of Southwest
Airlines is dedication to the highest quality of Customer Service delivered with a
sense of warmth, friendliness, individual pride and Company Spirit’ (Southwest
Airlines no date).
According to Miles and Mangold (2005), Southwest Airline’s articulation and
reinforcement of their mission and values is a key success factor in their use of theemployee branding process to position themselves in customers’ minds. The con-sistency and accuracy of their messages not only promote the desired brand imagebut reinforce the psychological contracts of their employees. Through implement-ing a range of HR practices the organisation has been able to reduce its employeeturnover rate to under 5 %, when the average turnover rate for the American airlineindustry is between 20 and 30 % (Miles and Mangold 2005), and win a range of
accolades including entry into Fortune magazine’s ‘100 Best Companies to Work for
in America’.
Miles and Mangold (2005) refer to both formal and informal methods used by
Southwest Airlines to communicate its brand messages to current and potential em-ployees. It communicates formal internal and external messages via the HR and PRsystems including, for example, advertisements, media releases and compensation.
The recruitment and selection process is used to screen out employees and ensure that
those coming into the organisation are likely to enact their values and behaviours.

32 M. Wallace et al.
Similarly, training and development and the performance management systems both
clarify and reinforce the Southwest Airlines culture. Informal internal and externalmethods such as relationships between employees, customer feedback and word-of-mouth communications are also recognised by Southwest Airlines as importanttransmitters of the desired brand image.
The psychological contract has already been established as an important factor
in the employee branding process. To monitor the extent to which the psychologicalcontract has been upheld Southwest Airline employees who have been with theorganisation less than nine months are invited to discuss how well their employmentexpectations have been met. As Miles and Mangold (2005) explain, the ability ofSouthwest Airlines to uphold their employees’ psychological contract has been keyto their success in positioning themselves in the minds of customers, employees andpotential employees.
A further example of employer branding is the process undertaken by McDonalds
starting in the early 2000s. McDonalds faced a situation where employment at Mc-Donalds had come to be associated with low-paying, low-status work with little orno chance of progression. So synonymous was McDonalds with poor employmentconditions and low prospects that in 2001 the Oxford English Dictionary includedthe term ‘McJobs’, defined as ‘an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects’.Using the principles of employer branding McDonalds revised the image associatedwith McJobs through a variety of initiatives including advertising campaigns em-phasising the positive aspects of working at McDonalds. Essentially, McDonaldsattempted to align their image as an employer with the employee value proposi-tion that they wished to embed into their brand, thereby closing the gap betweenperceptions of potential recruits and the real employment experience of employees.
Recently, Gould (2010) reported survey data from a sample of Australian Mc-
Donalds outlets to gauge employee experiences and attitudes towards working atMcDonalds. His findings indicated that McDonalds jobs offer human resourceadvantages, potential career opportunities and, for some, a sought-after form ofemployment, and suggested that McDonalds’ attempts to reposition their employerbrand has, at least in part, been successful. This is borne out by the award of the‘Best Place to Work in Hospitality’ to McDonalds in 2007. Gould’s research, how-ever, also suggested that the employer brand is not equally attractive to all. He foundthat jobs at McDonalds offer benefits such as job security and the possibility ofcareer advancement, but that these benefits are important only to some employees.In particular, older employees and those with higher education are less attracted tothese benefits of working at McDonalds. Gould’s findings highlight the need fororganisations to understand the segments of the recruitment market that offer themost fruitful prospects for satisfied recruits, an area that he asserted has previouslynot been well explored. We suggest that, just as these employers have successfullybranded or re-branded themselves and lived up to their brand promise in attractingand retaining staff, so too can industries brand themselves to attract and retain staff.
We thus extrapolate that signalling theory as a brand equity and image approach
can be applied to industry branding, especially for those industries with a low brandprofile and low or negative image as an employment choice for potential recruits.

2 Attracting and Retaining Staff: The Role of Branding and Industry Image 33
Branding Issues in Lower Profile Industries: The Example of Rail
In Australia, previous research with graduating engineers has identified that the rail
industry, as an employer, has low brand awareness and a poor brand image comparedto public engineering companies as well as an ageing workforce and looming retire-ments (Australasian Railway Association/DEEWR 2007a, b; Kerr and Waterhouse
2008). As a consequence, potential recruits have seen little value in ‘rail’ as an em-ployer brand. This low brand awareness and poor brand image result in a high-riskevaluation of rail by potential recruits; rail is seen as less attractive than competitorswith higher employer brand value. This is especially so among younger potentialrecruits.
Attracting a younger workforce requires companies to provide opportunities based
on merit and achievement, and to offer attractive salaries and diverse job opportuni-ties. Rail could adopt a more enlightened approach to recruiting. This could involvetaking into account individuals’ personal preferences and skills, the use of aptitudeand psychological testing, enabling staff to participate in company policy making,offering lateral movement, making greater use of the internet, being involved in cam-pus recruiting activities and job fairs, increasing public exposure to the developmentsin the rail industry, and offering flexible hours (Sample 2007).
Other western countries also have issues with attracting young workers to some
industries. In the UK and US, industry sources acknowledge that despite the railinfrastructure investment in both countries, the image of the industry is often seenas unattractive by school leavers and graduates. Both countries recognise that anational approach that promotes railway engineering as an ‘exciting, sustainablecareer of choice’ within schools and universities is essential to meet infrastructurecommitments.
The UK Engineering and Technology Board has advertised engineering as a
lifestyle choice and advertised and gained editorial coverage in magazines such asMarie Claire, Nintendo Official Magazine andXbox World 360. It has also developed
the Scenta online portal which links to databases of engineering courses and casestudies with a lively magazine-like quality and interactivity.
Skills shortages in the US paper and pulp industry have been addressed in a num-
ber of ways and these may be applicable to rail. Kargar and Qasemi (2008) advocateon-campus information, working with faculty members to integrate technical aspectsof the industry into the curriculum, promotional campaigns, presence at on-campuscareers fairs, supporting other extracurricular activities, offering internship oppor-tunities, sponsoring faculty research, affiliation with professional associations, andsponsoring back-to-school events.
Conclusion
Organisations have long used marketing and branding practices to engender productand service brand loyalty in customers. Increasingly, organisations are expanding thisactivity to differentiate themselves and make themselves desirable from an employee

34 M. Wallace et al.
perspective. In this chapter we have attempted to highlight the need for organisations
to strategically align the HR function, most specifically recruitment and learning anddevelopment, and the marketing/communications functions, specifically employerbranding, in order to attract and retain talent in competitive labour markets.
At a macro level the role of branding and industry image are important in attracting
the human capital that is required to contribute to the strategic aims and financialperformance of the organisation. Not only does branding provide an organisationwith a framework to simplify and focus priorities and increase productivity; it isalso important for improving recruitment, retention and commitment of employees.
At the micro level potential recruits rely on employer branding developed through
marketing, personal experience, word of mouth and their perceptions of the brand toassist their decision making when evaluating or comparing potential employers.
We have raised employee branding as an important component of an organisation’s
overall branding strategy. Employees project their organisation’s image and brandto customers and others including potential employees. Case studies in this chapterincluding Southwest Airlines demonstrate how employee and employer brandingprocesses are helpful to position organisations in the minds of customers and otherstakeholders. In particular, they highlight the need to ensure that a promised brand im-age matches the organisational reality and suggest this can only be achieved througha genuine alignment of the mission and values of the organisation with the desiredbrand image. The results for employers of not delivering on their employer brandpromise are significant. A weak brand image and reputation as an employer canlead to poorer candidates, disengaged and resentful employees, higher turnover andultimately reduced organisational performance.
References
Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management, 4(3),
185–206.
App, S., & Merk, J., et al. (2012). Employer branding: Sustainable HRM as a competitive advantage
in the market for high-quality employees. Management Revue, 23(3), 62–278.
Arachchige, B. J. H., & Robertson, A. (2011). Business student perceptions of a preferred employer:
A study identifying determinants of employer branding. IUP Journal of Brand Management,
8(3), 25–46.
Australasian Railway Association & Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Re-
lations. (2007a). The changing face of rail: A journey to the employer of choice. Canberra:
PriceWaterHouseCoopers.
Australasian Railway Association & Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Re-
lations. (2007b). A rail revolution: Future capability identification and skills development for
the Australasian rail industry. Canberra: Australasian Railway Association & Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career
Development International, 9(5), 501–517.
Barrow, S., & Mosley, R. (2006). The employer brand: Bringing the best of brand management to
people at work. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

2 Attracting and Retaining Staff: The Role of Branding and Industry Image 35
Baruch,Y . (2004). Transforming careers: From linear to multidirectional career paths, organizational
and individual perspectives. Career Development International, 9(10), 58–73.
Berthon, P., & Ewing, M., et al. (2005). Captivating company: Dimensions of attractiveness in
employer branding. International Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 151–172.
Business Dictionary (2013). Branding. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/branding.
html. Accessed 23 May 2010.
Cable, D., & Graham, M. (2000). The determinants of job seekers’ reputation perceptions. Journal
of Organizational Behaviour, 21(8), 929–947.
Carmichael, M. (2009). On the fast track to civvy street. Human Resources, August, 51–52.
Celani, A., & Singh, P. (2011). Signaling theory and applicant attraction outcomes. Personnel
Review, 40(2), 222–238.
Chandler Macleod. (2007). Workplace Barometer—Employer of Choice: A Reality Check. http://
www.workplacebarometer.com.au/DownloadCentre/tabid/987/Default.aspx. Accessed 23 May2010.
Chang, I., & Hwang, H., et al. (2007). A study of career anchors and job characteristic preferences
of IS students. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 47(3), 24–33.
Collins, C. J., & Han, J. (2004). Exploring applicant pool and quality: The effects of early recruit-
ment practices, strategies, corporate advertising, and firm reputation. Personnel Psychology, 57,
685–717.
Collins, C. J., & Stevens, C. K. (2002). The relationship between early recruitment-related activ-
ities and the application decisions of new labour market entrants: A brand equity approach torecruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1121–1133.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap—and others don’t. New
York: Harper Business.
Cooper, K. (2008). Attract, develop and retain: Initiatives to sustain a competitive workforce.
Spring Hill, Qld: Mining Industry Skills Centre.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2008). Views of engineering stu-
dents: Report of a survey of final year university engineering students. Canberra: Commonwealthof Australia.
Du Gay, P. (1996). Consumption and identity at work. London: Sage.
Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management. Heidelberg: Springer.
Einwiller, S., & Will, M. (2002). Towards an integrated approach to corporate branding—an
empirical study. Corporate Communications, 7(2), 100–109.
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signalling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 7(2), 31–157.
Fernández-Barcala, M., & González-Díaz, M. (2006). Brand equity in the European fruit and
vegetable sector: A transaction cost approach. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
23, 31–44.
Foster, C., & Punjaisri, K. et al. (2010). Exploring the relationship between corporate, internal and
employer branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(6), 401–409.
Franca, V ., & Pahor, M. (2012). The strength of the employer brand: Influences and implications
for recruiting. Journal of Marketing & Management, 3(1), 78–122.
Fulmer, I., & Gerhart, B., et al. (2003). Are the 100 best better? An empirical investigation of the
relationship between being a ‘great place to work’and firm performance. Personnel Psychology,
56, 965–993.
Fyock, C. (1993). Get the best: How to recruit the people you want. Chicago: Irwin Professional
Publishers.
Gould, A.M. (2010).
Working at McDonalds: Some redeeming features of McJobs. Work,
Employment and Society, 24(4), 780–802. doi: 10.1177/0950017010380644.
Huang, W.-H. D., & Huang, W.-Y ., et al. (2011). The impact of specified professional develop-
ment programme information as a marketing tool for effective recruitment. Human Resource
Development International, 14(1), 57–73.

36 M. Wallace et al.
Ito, J., & Brotheridge, C. (2005). Does supporting employees’ career adaptability lead to
commitment, turnover or both? Human Resource Management, 44(1), 5–19.
Joo, B. K., & McLean, G. (2006). Best employer studies: A conceptual model from a literature
review and a case study. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 228–257.
Kargar, J., & Qasemi, F. (2008, January/February). Recruiting young engineers. IEEE Industry
Applications Magazine, pp. 50–55.
Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal
of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Kerr, C., & Waterhouse, J. (2008). Bridging the gap: Towards a better understanding of target cohort
belief systems. Brisbane: CRC for Rail Innovation.
Kucherov, D., & Zavyalova, E. (2012). HRD practices and talent management in the companies
with the employer brand. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(1), 86–104.
Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of industrial and symbolic attributions and a
company’s attractiveness as an employer. Personal Psychology, 56(1), 75–102.
Lievens, F., &Van Hoye, G., et al. (2005). Examining the relationship between employer knowledge
dimensions and organizational attractiveness: An application in a military context. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 553–572.
Love, L. F., & Singh, P. (2011). Workplace branding: Leveraging human resources management
practices for competitive advantage through ‘best employer’ surveys. Journal of Business &
Psychology, 26(2), 175–181.
Martin, G., & Gollan, P. J., et al. (2011). Is there a bigger and better future for employer branding?
Facing up to innovation, corporate reputations and wicked problems in SHRM. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(17), 3618–3637.
McDonald, K., & Hite, L. (2005). Reviving the relevance of career development in human resource
development. Human Resource Development Review, 4(4), 418–439.
Miles, S. J., & Mangold, W. G. (2005). Positioning southwest airlines through employee branding.
Business Horizons, 48, 535–545.
Minton-Eversole, T. (2009). Quality measurement: Key to best-in-class talent acquisition. HR
Magazine, December, 64–66.
Moroko, L., & Uncles, M. D. (2008). Characteristics of successful employer brands. Emerald
Management Reviews, 16(3): 160–175.
Ong, L. D. (2011). Employer branding and its influence on potential job applicants. Australian
Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 5(9), 1088–1092.
Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (2006). Career development and systems theory: Connecting theory
and practice. Rotterdam: Sense.
Russell, J. (2009). Web 2.0 technology: How is it impacting your employer brand? Nursing
Economics, 27(5), 335–336.
Sample, J. (2007). Looking for new talent? Railway Age, May, 26–27
Schein, E. (1996). Career anchors revisited: Implications for career development in the 21st century.
Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 80–88.
Slaughter, J., & Zickar, M., et al. (2004). Personality trait inferences about organizations: Devel-
opment of a measure and assessment of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
85–103.
Southwest Airlines (2013).
About Southwest. http://www.southwest.com/html/about-southwest/
index.html. Accessed 25 May 2013.
Tilley, C. (1999). Built-in branding: How to engineer a leadership brand. Journal of Marketing
Management, 15, 181–191.
Van Dam, N. (2006). Building an employer brand through investments in learning. Chief Learning
Officer, 5(6), 13.
Wallace, M., & Sheldon, N., et al. (2010). Attraction and image for the Australian rail industry.
Paper presented at British Academy of Management Conference, Sheffield, UK, 16 September.
Wilden, R., & Gudergan, S., et al. (2010). Employer branding: Strategic implications for staff
recruitment. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(1–2), 56–73.

http://www.springer.com/978-981-4560-57-3