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

net/publication/240644238

Characteristics of successful employer brands

Article  in  Journal of Brand Management · March 2008

DOI: 10.1057/bm.2008.4

CITATIONS READS

128 1,493

2 authors:

Lara Moroko Mark D. Uncles

Macquarie University UNSW Sydney
6 PUBLICATIONS   209 CITATIONS    98 PUBLICATIONS   2,892 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The World Record Book of Job Creators View project

Brand extensions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lara Moroko on 27 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Characteristics of Successful Employer Brands

Lara Moroko, Mark Uncles, University of New South Wales

Abstract

In the last decade, employer branding has been hailed as a key strategic marketing activity.
This study examines the perceived characteristics of successful and unsuccessful employer
brands. Information from an expert panel is analysed to uncover successful/unsuccessful
employer brand characteristics and to establish areas of convergence and divergence with
existing product and corporate branding literature. A typology of the characteristics is
presented, the two dimensions of which are: attractive/unattractive and accurate/aspirational.
The cells of this typology are linked to HR metrics of practical and theoretical interest.

Introduction – Employer Branding Success as a Strategic Lever

Much has been made of employer branding (EB) in the last decade. EB is defined as “the sum
of a company’s efforts to communicate to existing and prospective staff that it is a desirable
place to work” (Lloyd, 2002) or, more formally, as “the package of functional, economic and
psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with the employing company”
(Ambler and Barrow, 1996). Practitioners have embraced EB as as a significant and important
consideration (Wilcock, 2005). The demand for skilled, specialist, value-adding employees is
likely to increase dramatically in the short to medium term, and at the same time the available
supply of these employees has been reduced by demographic and other factors (such as the
rapid growth of new industry sectors and economic regions) (Chambers et al, 1998; Ewing et
al, 2002; Mahroum, 2000). OECD projections indicate that by 2050, 10 active workers will
support an average of more than seven older, inactive people, compared with a ratio of four to
10 in 2000, for the same countries (Taylor, 2005). Identifying strategies to address this skill
shortage has become imperative.

For marketers, the impact of potential skill shortages poses a significant strategic challenge.
The impact of employees on marketing and strategic business effectiveness has been
understood for some time, particularly with respect to brand strategy and management.
Employees have the ability to help build strong and enduring brand equity, particularly within
the service brand context (McDonald, de Chernatony, and Harris, 2001; de Chernatony,
Drury, and Segal-Horn 2003; King and Grace, 2005). Their ongoing personal contact with
consumers gives employees a great deal of influence over the way in which consumers view
companies and brands (Kennedy, 1977; Stuart, 1999; Dowling, 1994). Consequently, the need
for strategies to attract and retain staff has never been more pressing (Cairncross, 2000).
Cultivating an employer brand is one approach that firms (Siemens, Honeywell, Accenture,
Coca-Cola Amatil, Deloitte, Roche, Australian Defence Force, Yahoo, Starbucks, for
example) have chosen to secure and retain the most sought after employees; those who will
enable them to perpetuate their brand success and secure ongoing profitability.

Growing interest amongst marketing academics reflects the rise of EB as a competitive

strategy. Marketing scholars have defined EB (Ambler and Barrow, 1996; Ewing et al, 2002),
considered its functional and theoretical foundations (Ambler and Barrow, 1996, Backhaus
and Tikoo, 2004) and examined employer brand attributes and positioning in practice (Ewing

1687
et al, 2002; Berthon, Ewing, and Hah, 2005; Freeman and Knox, 2006; Lievens and
Highhouse, 2003; Backhaus, 2004). However, what constitutes “employer branding success”
has not been definitively identified by academics (nor for that matter by practitioners) despite
being a popular topic in management literature and trade journals (e.g., Simms, 2003; Buss,
2002; Barrow and Mosley; 2005).

Research Question – Characteristics of Successful Employer Brands

It is tempting to adapt a definition of EB success from the broader branding literature and test
this empirically. However, given the embryonic state of EB theory development we do not
know which product/corporate brand success characteristics might apply or which other
characteristics may be relevant. Employees experience the employer brand in a substantively
different way to consumers experiencing product or corporate brands (e.g., employees are
paid for their experience). Therefore, it is inadequate to rely solely on corporate and product
brand theory to identify EB success characteristics. Consequently, this study uses expert
practitioner perceptions of the characteristics of EB success as a starting point to bridge the
current gap in our understanding and to add to the body of EB theory. By understanding what
managers are consistently striving for when undertaking and evaluating EB strategies, it is
possible to propose criteria for evaluating successful/unsuccessful employer brands.
Accordingly, our key research question is: What are the perceived characteristics of
successful and unsuccessful employer brands?

Methodology
A qualitative approach was taken to data collection and analysis, using an expert industry
panel. This approach has been used successfully to gain practitioner perspectives for the
advancement of theory (e.g., Ambler and Barrow, 1996; Nijssen and Agustin, 2005; Grove,
Fisk and John, 2003). Seventeen depth interviews were conducted with thirteen senior
industry participants. Based on a review of the existing EB literature, relevant areas of theory
and specialist practice were identified (Ambler and Barrow, 1996; Backhaus and Tikoo,
2004), with the sampling frame of expert respondents purposively constructed to reflect the
spectrum of pertinent theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). In addition to specialist EB
consultants, data were collected from senior internal marketing, human resources,
recruitment, marketing communications and brand strategy consultants and directors.
Individual participants were selected based on their standing in their industry and their
relevant experience.

The interviews were semi-structured in nature. Each of the expert respondents was asked
whether the terms “successful” and “unsuccessful” applied to EB. They were then asked to
characterise successful and unsuccessful employer brands and give examples in practice to
clarify and further explore their characterisations. Verbatim transcripts of the interviews and
field notes were coded following the process outlined by Spiggle (1993). Common themes
within the data were identified and were examined for similarity. The themes were then
grouped by conceptual consistency to give the main constructs (characteristics) of the initial
framework. These constructs were compared for the purpose of establishing possible inter-
relationships and assessed as a whole to arrive at the final framework. As a last step, and in
the interest of adding to the robustness of the findings, member checking was undertaken with
four of the initial expert respondents (Creswell, 1998), i.e. the draft findings of the analysis
were discussed with the respondents to check for resonance

1688
 Results
Figure 1 shows a typology of EB success characteristics. There are two key dimensions of
success characteristics: attractive/unattractive and accurate/aspirational.

Figure 1. Typology of Employer Branding Success Characteristics

The attractive (successful)/unattractive (unsuccessful) dimension was not surprising of itself;

however, it was surprising that the characteristics underpinning this dimension were so
strongly consistent with the extant product and corporate branding literature, namely that
successful employer brands were:

(a) Known and noticeable: There is a great body of work proclaiming the benefits of brand
awareness (e.g., Keller, 1993; Hoyer and Brown, 1990; Holden, 1993). These benefits appear
to operate similarly for employer brands. Successful employer brands were characterised as
being “known” and “noticeable” in their market:
“In a supermarket aisle as you are going down with your trolley there are things on the shelf.
Now if you are not looking for a particular product then you are just going to walk straight
past that product and therefore the opportunity is lost for a customer to trial it. The same goes
with EB…Yes, you could sit there quietly and have your value proposition, have your people
talking about what it is that you do as a business, internally…If you don’t have an external
marketing plan then it’s only half the job done” (EB Consultant D)
“It’s noticeable and known in the market place” (Marketing Communications Consultant)
The link between an employer brand being known and successful is supported in the broader
literature. Collins and Stevens (2002) found that company-based attributes had greater impact
on job seekers than role-specific attributes, and Cable and Turban (2003) assert that strong
brand identity and positive reputation are important factors in attracting job applicants.

(b) Relevant and resonant: A brand’s value proposition and its relevance to customers can
form the basis of a relationship between customers and the brand (Aaker, 1996). For employer
brands, “customers” are existing and prospective employees, for whom a discrete value
proposition applies. Successful employer brands are characterised as having a value
proposition that is relevant to, and resonant with, their prospective and current employees:
“The company really knows what employees value, carry it through and communicate it
effectively” (EB Consultant C)
“[a bad employer brand is] just not thought through from a perspective of the prospective
audience. It might comply with the corporate standards, it might tow the line perfectly with
what the branding and the positioning and stuff is, but it’s not translated into terms that a
potential hire is interested in”(Brand Identity Strategist)

1689
(c) Differentiated: The ability to differentiate brands has been linked to corporate and product
brand health and ongoing success (Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1996; Kapferer, 2004) and is regarded
as a key step in the brand building process (Agres, 1995). Chambers et al (1998) have
suggested that having a differentiated employer brand is a core aspect in winning the “war for
talent”. This was reflected in the data.
“[unsuccessful employer brands] are completely soulless and tell you nothing about the
identity or character of the organization. There’s no differentiation” (Brand Strategist)
“…it’s a bad employer brand for me because it doesn’t say what’s unique about joining your
company”(EB Consultant E)
“You need to look at your emotional reasons why you are different and they can’t qualify it”
(EB Consultant B discussing an unsuccessful employer brand)

The second main dimension to emerge from the analysis was that of accurate (successful)
versus aspirational (unsuccessful) employer brands. Among the many and varied definitions
of “brand” is the notion of brands as a “promise” (Feldwick, 1991; Ind, 2004; Kapferer,
2004). The employer brand as an ongoing promise to employees was a very strong and
recurrent theme across all the expert respondents. Successful employer brands were seen as
being accurately portrayed though marketing communications and as consistently delivering
on the inherent promise of the brand:
“It’s honest - not just at the beginning, but for the whole employment lifecycle” (EB
Consultant A)
“The engagement has to equal the brand once employees have joined you” (HR Strategy
Director B).
“…gives you an accurate idea of culture, so it attracts the right candidates” (Brand
Strategist)
“[a good employer brand] matches what your were sold”(Internal Marketing Director)
This view corresponds to research in the organisational behaviour literature on psychological
contracts, or the “individual beliefs in reciprocal obligations between employees and
employers” (Rousseau, 1990, p.389). Employees form a view of these reciprocal obligations
during the recruitment process, based on explicit statements of the firm together with informal
and perhaps imprecise information (e.g., from external recruiters, word of mouth, press, etc.).
When the psychological contract is fulfilled, the employee is more likely to be engaged and
loyal; however, if the contract is broken a fall in engagement and productivity can result,
accompanied by a rise in staff turnover (Rousseau, 1990; Robinson and Morrison, 1995;
Robinson and Rousseau, 1994).

An accurate employer brand helps to inform the terms of reciprocal obligations in line with
what the firm can realistically deliver and also helps to counter misleading or misguided
information conveyed by sources external to the firm. EB Consultant D gave the example of
recruitment promotion and an employer brand promise that was not supported by the
processes of the firm or, consequently, by the employment experience:
“Here is a classic example of where [company] went ‘We need to get graduates and we need
to offer work life balance’. So the HR department recruited graduates based on ‘we will give
you work life balance’. No one told the managers or the senior managers that this was the
new way of working…The graduates started there and realised that ‘My manger is still
around at 7pm or 8pm. This isn’t what was promised to me’. Within 12 months, they had all
gone...[Company] were selling a promise they could never deliver”

1690
This vignette demonstrates why the level of accuracy in brand communications for employer
brands ought to be more rigorous than for other forms of branding. Product and corporate
brands have an additional facet of brand image management that employer brands do not
have, i.e. being able to maintain a distinction between “front stage” and “back stage” for the
brand (Johns, 1999). There are aspects of corporate and product brands that are not commonly
accessed by their target audience (e.g., production and management processes) that allow the
brands to maintain aspects of mystique on which emotive associations can be built. The
distance from which the brand is viewed allows aspirational associations to be promoted, i.e.
associations based on how the company or product would like to be seen (or how the
consumer would like to see themselves) rather than being based on current reality (Kapferer,
2004). By comparison, for current employees, employer brands are entirely experienced
“back stage”, creating a unique branding context in which perceived promise and brand
experience need to be tightly aligned and can be monitored at close range by the target
audience at all times.

Discussion
Developing the typology of EB success characteristics gives rise to certain implications for
theorists and practitioners.

Indication of EB as a Distinct Context for Research and Theory Development

Much extant brand theory is clearly applicable to the EB context, particularly with respect to
the employee attraction role of the employer brand. Further research using the lens of brand
theory is indeed warranted. However, EB should rightly be viewed as a distinct context for
brand theorists to consider, given the ability of a great number of the brand’s audience, i.e.
current employees, to view the brand from all aspects and the importance of psychological
contracts to the success of the employer brand. Various aspects of the branding process that
are regarded as peripheral to product branding necessarily take on pivotal importance for the
employer brand (e.g., the accuracy of internal communications and consistency with external
communications, or the importance of senior management in demonstrating behaviours
consistent with the brand). Acknowledging the distinctness of this context will help to guide
researchers to those aspects of the process that will perhaps facilitate the most meaningful
theory development.

Inclusion of Variance of EB Success in Future Research

Identifying employer brands with varying levels of success is useful for future empirical
investigation. Using the typology as a starting point, researchers can identify employer brands
with varying levels of success, allowing the processes underpinning successful and
unsuccessful employer brands to be meaningfully examined. This is a first step in quantifying
the benefit of success and developing other, quantitative, measures of success. Table 1 gives a
summary of common human resources metrics that correspond to the attractive/unattractive,
accurate/aspirational dimensions. These metrics enable researchers to initially categorise the
level of success of potential respondent firms.

1691
 Table 1. HR Metrics and Corresponding Dimensions of Success
Type of metric
Percentage of job offers accepted
Number of applicants per role
Average length of tenure
Average staff turnover
Level of staff engagement*
Indications for successful employer brands
Higher percentage than industry average indicates
attractive
Higher number of applicants than industry average
indicates attractive
Higher than industry average indicates attractive^
Lower than industry average indicates accurate
(contract fulfilled)^
Higher than industry average indicates accurate
(contract fulfilled)

*Staff engagement (May, Gilson and Harter, 2004) is a measure of physical, cognitive and
emotional fulfilment by employees at their place of work. ^Execessively low turnover/long
tenure may be a misleading indicator of EB success as a stagnant employee pool may inhibit
the evolution of the firm and the overall engagement of employees. Long tenure/low turnover
should be assessed in combination with other metrics, particularly staff engagement.

While these metrics are not a substitute for a deep and robust understanding of a firm’s
employer brand, taken together, they can help to establish a snapshot of the nature of the
firm’s current EB success. Practitioners may use the typology as an initial “health check” of
their employer brand and analysts can use this to identify or filter respondent firms for further
investigation.

Conceptualisation of the Employment Experience as a Product

The concept of the employment experience as a product and employees as consumers of this
product was first put forward by Berry (1981), but has yet to be fully explored in the
literature. The employment “product” consists of aspects of the firm that shape the experience
of the employee. From the data, the firm’s culture, policies and processes appear to be core
product components. By conceptualising the employment experience as a product, the scope
of applicable marketing theory increases. For example, product management and development
theory may prove a rich resource for firms seeking meaningful differentiation of their
employment experience which, in turn, is the foundation of their employer brand.

Further Support for Theory Alignment Across HR and Marketing

As indicated by the results, the alignment of employment experience with perceptions of the
employee value proposition (managed and informal) determine the extent to which the
psychological contracts are fulfilled and the employer brand is successful. Both the marketing
and HR functions have a stake in the firm’s culture, policies and processes and the way that
they are portrayed internally (through internal marketing and communications) and externally
(through product, corporate and recruitment promotion). Interaction between these two
disciplines occurs throughout the EB process (Glassman and McAfee, 1992; Zeithaml,
Parasuraman and Berry, 1985). It would be useful, especially in the EB context, to strive for
greater theoretical and practical alignment so that firms may reap the benefits of strategic
consistency across HR and marketing.

1692
 Conclusion

This study takes a first step in addressing the need for a better understanding of employer
brand characteristics and drivers of success. Theorists and practitioners would benefit from,
initially, empirically linking the human resources metrics listed in Table 1 to employer brands
in varying states of success. Even greater benefit would be achieved by examining successful
and unsuccessful employer brands in practice to establish links between underlying brand
processes and successful outcomes. Finally, the development of metrics quantifying the
strategic benefit (or otherwise) of EB outcomes and linking these to changes in corporate
value would assist in rounding out the knowledge base for this emerging area of marketing
theory and strategy.

1693
 References

Aaker, D. A., 1996. Building Strong Brands. The Free Press, New York.

Agres, S., 1995. Leading and lagging indicators of brand health. In Brand Equity and the Marketing
Mix; Creating Customer Value, S. Sood ed. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.

Ambler, T., Barrow, S., 1996. The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management, 4 (3), 185-206.

Backhaus, K, Tikoo, S., 2004. Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career
Development International, 9 (4/5), 501-517.

Backhaus, K., 2004. An exploration of corporate recruitment descriptions on monster.com. Journal

of Business Communication, 41 (2), 115-120.

Barrow, S. Mosley, R., 2005. The Employer Brand. Wiley & Sons Ltd, London.

Berry, L., 1981. Employee as customer, Journal of Retail Banking, 3 (1), 33-40.

Berthon, P., Ewing, M. Hah, L. L., 2005. Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness in
employer branding. International Journal of Advertising, 24 (2), 151-172.

Buss, D., 2002. In good company. Brandweek, 43 (20), 28-33.

Cable, D. M., Turban, D. B., 2003. The value of organizational reputation in the recruitment context:
a brand-equity perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33 (11), 2244-2266.

Cairncross, F., 2000. Inside the machine: survey of e-management. The Economist, 11/11, 6.

Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M, Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S. M, Michaels, E .G., 1998. The war for
talent. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1 (3), 44 – 58.

Collins, C. J. &, Stevens, C. K., 2002. The relationship between early recruitment-related activities
and the application decisions of new labor-market entrants: a brand equity approach to recruitment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (6) 1121-1133.

Creswell, J. W., 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design; Choosing Among the Five
Traditions. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

De Chernatony, L., Drury, S.Segal-Horn, S., 2003. Building a services brand: stages, people and
orientations. The Service Industries Journal, 23 (3), 1-21.

Dowling, G. R., 1994. Corporate Reputations: Strategies for Developing the Corporate Brand.
Longman Professional Publishing, Melbourne.

Ewing, M.J., Pitt, L.F., de Bussy, N.M., Berthon, P., 2002. Employment branding in the knowledge
economy. International Journal of Advertising, 21 (1), 3-22.

Feldwick, P., 1991. Defining a brand. In Understanding Brands. ed. Cowley, D., Kogan Page,
London, p.21.

1694
Freeman, C. Knox, S., 2003. Measuring and managing employer brand image in the service industry.
Working Paper.

Glassman, M., McAfee, B., 1992 Integrating the personnel and marketing functions. Business
Horizons, 35 (3), 52-60.

Grove, S., Fisk, R. P. & John, J., 2003. The future of services marketing: forecasts from ten services
experts. The Journal of Services Marketing, 17 (2/3), 107-121.

Hatch, M. J. & Schultz, M., 1997. Relations between organizational culture, identity and image.
European Journal of Marketing, 31 (7/8), 356-365.

Holden, S. J. S., 1993. Understanding brand awareness: let me give you a c(l)ue!. Advances in
Consumer Research, 20 (1), 383-38.

Hoyer, W. D., & Brown, S. P., 1990. Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-
purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (2), 141-149.

Ind, N., 2001. Living The Brand: How to Transform Every Member of Your Organization into a
Brand Champion. Kogan Page, London.

Johns, N., 1999. What is this thing called service? European Journal of Marketing, 33 (9/10), 958-
973.

Kapferer, J. N., 2004. The New Strategic Brand Management. Kogan Page, London.

Keller, K.L., 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of
Marketing, 57 (1), 1-23.

Keller, K.L., 2002. Strategic Brand Management, Second Edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Kennedy, S.H., 1977. Nurturing corporate images. European Management Journal, 11(3), 120-164.

King, C & Grace, D., 2005. Exploring the role of employees in the delivery of the brand: a case study
approach. Qualitative Market Research, 8 (3), 277-298.

Knox, S. & Freeman, C., 2006. Measuring and managing employer brand image in the service
industry. Journal of Marketing Management, 22 (7/8), 695-716.

Lievens, F. & Highhouse, S., 2003. The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a
company's attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology, 56 (1), 75-103.

Lloyd, S., 2002. Branding from the inside out. BRW, 24 (10), 64-66.

Mahroum, S., 2000. Highly skilled globetrotters: mapping the international migration of human
capital. R & D Management, 30 (1), 23-31.

May, D. R. Gilson, R. L.; Harter, L. M., 2004. Psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety
and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, 77 (1), 11-37

McDonald, M. H. B., de Chernatony, L. & Harris, F., 2001. Corporate marketing and service brands -

1695
 moving beyond the fast-moving consumer goods model. European Journal of Marketing, 35 (3/4),
335-352.

Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H. & Axelrod, B., 2001. The War For Talent, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston.

Nijssen, E.J. & Agustin, C., 2005. Brand extensions: a manager's perspective. Journal of Brand
Management, 13 (1), 33-50.

Robinson, S. L. and Morrison, E., 1995. Psychological contracts and organizational citizenship
behavior: the effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 16, pp. 289-98.

Robison, S. L. and Rousseau, D.M., 1994. Violating the psychological contract: not the exception but
the norm, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 245-59.

Rousseau, D.M., 1990. New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: a study of
psychological contracts, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11 (5), 389-400

Spiggle, S., 1994. Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21 (3), 491.

Strauss & Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research 2nd Edition. Sage, Newbury Park.

Stuart, H., 1999. Towards a definitive model of the corporate identity management process.
Corporate Communications, 4 (4), 200-207.

Taylor, A., 2005. Global growth to fall unless people work longer. Financial Times (London), 11
October, 12.

Willock, R., 2005. Employer branding is key in fight for talent. Personnel Today, 17 May, 4.

Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A & Berry, L., 1985. Problems and strategies in services marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 49 (2), 33.

1696
View publication stats