An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory

Personnel Review (Impact Factor: 0.96). 02/2010; 39(1):5-23. DOI: 10.1108/00483481011012809


Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to review the existing literature linked to the emerging field of employer branding, with a view to adding insight from the perspective of the management of human resources. Design/methodology/approach - The approach taken entails reviewing books and academic journals from the area of marketing, organisational behaviour (OB) and business management. The review shows that research and theory from a range of fields can help add to one's knowledge of employer branding; these include areas of research that investigate organisational attractiveness to potential new recruits, research and writing linked to the psychological contract literature as well as work that examines organisational identity, organisational identification and organisational personality characteristics. Research limitations/implications - The main limitation of the review is that, while different areas and fields of research are being drawn on to help identify useful knowledge that can improve one's understanding of what effective employer branding might involve, the literature and research in each area will be (necessarily) selective. Practical implications - The review has a number of general practical implications; many of these are highlighted in the propositions set out within each section. Originality/value - The originality of the review is that it is unique in showing how different areas of literature can be linked to employer branding. The review helps to integrate the existing literature in a way which can help personnel practitioners to immediately see the relevance of theories and research from a range of key academic fields.

Download full-text


Available from: Martin R. Edwards, Jan 06, 2015
971 Reads
  • Source
    • "Existing research supports the recognition of the importance of being an attractive employer brand when it comes to choosing a future employer (e.g. Edwards, 2010; Fulmer et al., 2003; Wilden et al., 2010). According to Hewitt (2009), the best employers get nearly twice as many applications as other organizations. "
    09/2015; 2(3):267-281. DOI:10.1108/JOEPP-09-2014-0055
    • "Although employer branding is still a relatively young field, several models can already be found in the literature (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Mosley, 2007; King and Grace, 2010). Some researchers consider employer branding strategies to be a source of sustainable competitive advantage (Kimpakorn and Tocquer, 2009; Maxwell and Knox, 2009; Edwards, 2010), making the concept analogous to that of consumer branding (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). This group of researchers holds that employer branding is "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years employer branding has become increasingly important as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Companies are trying to engender affective commitment in the best employees in a global labour market. In this study, we develop and validate a multidimensional scale to measure the strength of an employee's affective commitment to the employer brand in five separate studies. In Studies 1 and 2 the Affective Commitment to the Employer Brand (ACEB) scale was developed and tested for its structure, reliability and convergent validity. Study 3 examines additional reliability and discriminant validity. Study 4 provides evidence of external validity. Study 5 examines the scale's nomological validity showing that a positive experience with the employer brand is important in making the employee develop affective commitment towards it. The limitations of the scale and the boundary conditions of its applicability are also discussed.
    Business Research Quarterly 08/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.brq.2015.06.001 · 0.29 Impact Factor
    • "In light of the speed and magnitude of organizational change characteristic of today's business environment, we argue that a better understanding of the factors that drive individuals to identify with organizational values is important not only in terms of employer branding (Edwards, 2010) and newcomer induction (Morrison, 2002), but also in terms of what drives values-based identification on an ongoing basis. What is more, values are likely to be a more enduring basis of identification, and also potentially more appealing to younger generations entering the workforce (Winter & Jackson, 2014) than group membership alone. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dual organizational identification – with both the whole corporation and the local subsidiary – is considered valuable for subsidiary employees, international assignees, and multinational corporations (MNCs). While extant research has examined antecedents of separate targets of identification, it has not fully addressed the challenge of identifying factors capable of supporting both simultaneously. This study examines the influence of individual- and organizational-level factors on the dual values-based identification of foreign subsidiary employees. Drawing on acculturation and organizational socialization theory, we test hypotheses on multilevel data from 793 managers and professionals in 90 foreign subsidiaries belonging to 11 Nordic MNCs. The results show that dual values-based identification is associated with acculturation and first-hand contact at the individual level, and a supportive social context for affective learning at the organizational level. Through its emphasis on higher-order elements that connect different parts of the MNC, rather than those that lead to the formation of in-groups and out-groups, the values-based approach to identification contributes to our understanding of dual identification in MNC subsidiaries, and represents a more positive treatment of cultural diversity. The findings have heightened practical relevance given the emphasis individuals are placing on values congruence in career choices and MNC efforts at instilling shared values.
    Journal of International Business Studies 06/2015; 46(7). DOI:10.1057/jibs.2015.18 · 3.56 Impact Factor
Show more