Employer attractiveness from a generation perspective: Implications for employer branding

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study aimed to identify the employer attractiveness factors prioritized by different generations: Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y. The survey was conducted with a sample of 937 professionals, working in various areas and companies, most of them were managers and had a high education level. The Employer Attractiveness Scale proposed by Berthon et al. (2005) was adopted and the results indicate that, when choosing a company, the generations under study have specific features regarding the attractiveness attributes they prioritize. It was also observed that Generation Y discriminates and ranks such attributes more clearly than the others. Possible implications for employer branding and research limitations are discussed at the end of the article.

Full text

ISSN 1984-6142
R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016 103
Recebido em 09/dezembro/2014
Aprovado em 25/novembro/2015
Sistema de Avaliação: Double Blind Review
Editor Cientíco: Nicolau Reinhard
DOI: 10.5700/rausp1226
Employer attractiveness from a generational
perspective: Implications for employer branding
Germano Glufke Reis
Fundação Getulio Vargas – São Paulo/SP, Brasil
Centro Universitário das Faculdades Metropolitanas Unidas – São Paulo/SP, Brasil
Beatriz Maria Braga
Fundação Getulio Vargas – São Paulo/SP, Brasil
Atratividade do empregador na perspectiva
geracional: implicações para o employer branding
Este estudo teve por objetivo identicar os fatores de atratividade
do empregador priorizados por diferentes gerações: Baby Boomers,
Geração X e Geração Y. A pesquisa foi realizada com uma amostra
de 937 prossionais, atuantes em diversas áreas e empresas, em
sua maioria gestores e com alto nível de instrução. Foi adotada a
Escala de Atratividade do Empregador de Berthon et al. (2005) e
os resultados indicam que, ao escolher uma empresa, as gerações
estudadas apresentam especicidades em relação aos atributos de
atratividade que priorizam. Também se observou que a geração Y
é a que mais nitidamente discrimina e hierarquiza tais atributos.
Possíveis implicações para o employer branding e limites da
pesquisa são discutidos ao nal do artigo.
Palavras-chaves: atratividade do empregador, recrutamento, gerações,
employer branding.
1. INTRODUCTION
Attracting potential candidates is a signicant issue in the recruitment
process, since it involves how companies compete for often scarce skills
in the labor market (Collins & Kanar, 2013; Fernandez-Araoz, Groysberg
& Nohria, 2009; Hewlett & Rashid, 2010). In this context, organizations
may attain differentiation and become more competitive in attracting talent
through Employer Branding (EB) initiatives. By effectively communicating
an employer’s unique and positive aspects and the corresponding employment
value proposition, EB strategies contribute to increase employer attractiveness
in the labor market as a whole and, more specically, among potential skilled
candidates (Backaus & Tikoo, 2004; Collins & Kanar, 2013; Edwards &
RESUMO
Germano Glufke Reis, Professor da Fundação
Getulio Vargas (CEP 01332-000 – São Paulo/
SP, Brasil) e Professor do Programa de Mestrado
em Administração do Centro Universitário das
Faculdades Metropolitanas Unidas (CEP 01503-001
– São Paulo/SP, Brasil).
E-mail: germanoglufkereis@yahoo.com.br
Beatriz Maria Braga, Professor da Fundação Getulio
Vargas (CEP 01332-000 – São Paulo/SP, Brasil).
E-mail: beatriz.braga@fgv.br
Endereço:
Fundação Getulio Vargas
Rua Itapeva, 474, 11º andar,
01332-000 - São Paulo - SP

104 R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016
Germano Glufke Reis and Beatriz Maria Braga
Edwards, 2013; Pingle & Sharma, 2013). Nevertheless, despite
this increasing visibility and relevance for companies, there
are few academic studies on the EB subject (Sokro, 2012).
Moreover, literature has been mainly focused on concepts
and results obtained through EB; research on the employer
attractiveness dimensions used in EB strategies is still scarce
(Biswas & Suar, 2014). Thus, one of the contributions of this
paper is to investigate the employer attractiveness dimensions.
The arrival of new generations of professionals in
organizations has the potential to promote challenges to the
policies and practices related to the management of people.
Preferences and motivations concerning work may be different
for each generation, and would require adjustments in people
management practices (Amaral, 2004; Cennamo & Gardner,
2008), especially in the recruitment and retention processes.
Indeed, literature has reported that different generations tend
to prioritize different elements in the workplace (Terjesen,
Vinnicombe & Freeman, 2007; Twenge, 2010). This seems
to be valid for Generation Y, for example, who have shown
quite peculiar characteristics when compared to previous
generations, such as, for instance, greater interest in new
technologies, the fact they were already born “digital” (Prensky,
2001) and their wish for fast career development (Tapscott,
2010; Smola & Sutton, 2002). Besides, other generations
(such as the Baby Boomers and Generation X) may also have
peculiarities (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Jurkiewicz, 2000) and,
therefore, different expectations regarding potential employers.
Identifying these specificities can contribute to set EB
strategies. However, most studies on generations have focused
on aspects such as personality traits (Twenge & Campbell,
2008), values (Parry & Urwin, 2011), career expectations
(Ng, Schweitzer & Lyons, 2010), among others. Very little
research has investigated the employer attractiveness factors’
preferences by the various generations. Therefore, we tried to
address this shortcoming by conducting a research with the
purpose of answering the question: “Which are the employer
attractiveness attributes prioritized by different generations:
Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y?”
Although authors have dened generations differently
in terms of birth years, we chose to dene generations as in
Miller (2011), Brosdahl and Carpenter (2011), and Bolton
et al. (2013): Baby Boomers refer to people born between
1946 and 1960; Generation X, those born between 1961 and
1981; and Generation Y comprises those born between 1982
and 2000. A survey was conducted with a sample of 937
professionals working in various areas and companies, from
different age groups, most of them managers and having a
high education level. Among the contributions of this paper,
it is worth mentioning a better understanding of the EB and
the attractiveness attributes concepts, and their usefulness in
attracting desired candidates in recruitment processes.
T his article contains six sections, besides this introduction.
In the literature review, the generational issue, the concepts of
employer attractiveness, attractiveness attributes, and EB are
reviewed and discussed. Next, the methodological procedures
are presented. Then, results are shown and discussed and
limitations and suggestions for further studies are presented.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This section reviews and discusses the literature considered
relevant for the proposed research – the studies on the
generational issue and the concepts of employer attractiveness
and employer branding.
Studies about the generational issue have increased
substantially in the academic and managerial literature
(Ansoorian, Good & Samuelson, 2003; Benson & Brown,
2011; Constanza et al., 2012; Lyons & Kuron, 2014). The key
premise that guides most of these works is that there might
be signicant differences between generations currently in
the labor market, which could cause not only a greater degree
of conict in the workplace, but could also bring the need for
rethinking people management practices, such as recruitment,
compensation, development, performance assessment, and
feedback, among others.
In fact, the generational issue has been the research subject
in different areas, such as the study of social movements and
families and, even more frequently, in consumer segmentation
studies (Parry & Urwin, 2010). In general, these works depart
from the definition of generation proposed by Manheim
(1993), who emphasizes the importance of social location, i.e.
a generation would comprise individuals who have experienced
the same facts or relevant historical events during their
socialization process, which will inuence their perceptions,
values, and ways of thinking (Manheim, 1993). Parry and
Urwin (2010) remind us that generations end up forming bonds
and recognizing themselves through shared cultural symbols,
such as music, fashion, movies, etc.
Studies point out that at least three generations interact
in the workplace today, the Baby Boomers, Generation X,
and Generation Y. Most of these studies, however, have been
conducted in countries such as the United States (Constanza et
al., 2012; Mencl & Lester, 2014) and Canada (Ng et al, 2010),
in Europe (Parry & Urwin, 2010) and in Australia and New
Zealand (Benson & Brown, 2011; Cennamo & Gardner, 2008;
Treuren & Anderson, 2010), among others. Thus, some authors
have emphasized that the existing literature may not adequately
reect specicities of other contexts, such as the Brazil (see, for
instance, Rocha-de-Oliveira, Piccinini & Bittencourt, 2012).
Research results have shown that Baby Boomers grew up
within a positive and optimistic period (Kupperschmidt, 2000);
they appreciate learning new skills, personal development,
and creativity; they work hard and seek extrinsic rewards
and status, in exchange for their loyalty and commitment
(Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). In Brazil, this generation
experienced the oppression of the military dictatorship and a

R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016 105
EMPLOYER ATTRACTIVENESS FROM A GENERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYER BRANDING
period of economic growth and industrialization, followed by
a period of economic stagnation, as well as the entrance of a
greater number of women into the labor market. Generation
X’s characteristics include self-condence and independence
(Jurkiewicz, 2000). Individuals also demonstrate greater
commitment to their careers rather than to their employers;
they appreciate developing skills and prefer a balance between
personal life and work rather than status and stability (Smola
& Sutton, 2002). In Brazil, this generation has seen the rise of
the yuppie philosophy, which greatly valued money; they grew
up watching TV and under strong inuence of the American
culture after the opening of the Brazilian economy; they also
experienced the re-engineering and downsizing movements at
the workplace, the emergence of AIDS, and increased violence
and drug use (Cordeiro, 2012).
However, it is Generation Y that has been the main focus
of academic research in the last few years (Bolton et al.,
2013; Terjesen et al., 2007; Tulgan, 2009). This generation
has experienced a context of rapid growth of the Internet
and technology development (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008),
the war against terror (9/11), the fall of the Berlin Wall, and
increased cultural diversity (Dries, Pepermans & De Kerpel,
2008). According to Ng et al. (2010), Generation Y has over-
committed to work Baby Boomers as their parents, who have
often been red during downsizing processes. Concerning
work, studies found that these individuals have personal
motivations that prioritize pleasure, focus on individual
interests, and stimulation (novelties, changes, and challenges)
(Reis et al., 2010); they want fast promotions (Smola & Sutton,
2002; Ng et al., 2010); they seek exibility, quality of life,
recognition, continued feedback, and positive environments
and relationships at the workplace (Cavazotte et al., 2012; Ng
et al., 2010); they assign lower centrality to work and appreciate
extrinsic rewards, such as wage (Twenge, 2010). In Brazil,
this generation grew up with greater economic stability, mass
consumption, and a greater integration into the international
scenario (Cordeiro, 2012).
Some studies have investigated work-related differences
between generations. Cennamo and Gardner (2008) pointed
out differences in terms of status (inuence and responsibility
levels) and freedom (autonomy at work), which are more
valued by Generation Y. Twenge et al. (2010) found that
younger generations place a higher value on leisure at work
and, along these lines, Smola and Sutton (2002) found that
younger generations place less value on work for its own
sake and present lower work centrality. In Mencl and Lester
(2014), differences emerged regarding career advancement
opportunities, diversity climate, and immediate recognition
and feedback, also more valued by Generation Y. Other
studies found that Baby Boomers tend to feel more satised
and identied with their work and less likely to quit (Benson
and Brown, 2011; Constanza et al., 2012; Veloso et al., 2008).
Silva et al. (2010) found that Baby Boomers and Generation Y
tend to pursue less traditional careers than Generation X and
the study by Lester et al. (2012) indicate that the differences
perceived between generations (how a generation sees the
other) are greater than the differences identied through actual
values declared. Thus, the idea that “older workers are rigid and
inexible, younger workers are irresponsible and entitled, and
the workers in the middle are misunderstood by both younger
and older generations” (Lester et al., 2012, p. 351) still remains.
However, some authors contend that these differences
should be carefully analyzed because they could be, in fact,
due to other factors such as aging, working experience, life and
professional career stage (Smola & Sutton, 2002; Jorgensen,
2003; Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Constanza et al., 2012;
Parry & Urwin, 2010). Moreover, studies have found more
similarities than differences among generations (Cennamo
& Gardner, 2008; Constanza et al., 2012; Lester et al., 2012;
Mencl & Lester, 2014).
Intergenerational differences have also been addressed
through other dimensions, such as, e.g. personality proles
(Twenge et al, 2010; Twenge & Campbell, 2008) and
vocational interests of students (Bubany & Hansen, 2011).
However, generational studies have not focused on employer
attractiveness factors. A noticeable exception is the work of
Terjesen et al. (2007), who investigated the importance of
organizational attributes in the choice of employers; however,
their study focused on undergraduate students, exclusively
Generation Y.
2.1. Employer attractiveness, attractiveness attributes, and
employer branding
Employer attractiveness has received considerable research
attention in recent years (Breaugh & Starke; 2000; Boswell,
Roheling, LePine & Moynihan, 2003; Aiman-Smith, Bauer
& Cable, 2001; Gatewood, Gowan & Lautenschlager, 1993),
and it refers to the benets that potential employees envisage
they could get by working in a particular company (Berthon,
Ewing & Hah, 2005; Pingle & Sharma, 2013). Therefore,
employer attractiveness influences the recruitment and
selection processes (Gatewood et al., 1993) and the retention of
professionals (Helm, 2013). Aiman-Smith et al. (2001, p.221)
add that attractiveness refers to “an attitude or expressed general
positive affect toward an organization, toward viewing the
organization as a desirable entity with which to initiate some
relationship”. The authors also indicate that attractiveness is
revealed when people effectively seek for an opportunity to
participate in the selection processes in a specic organization.
Developing an employer’s attractiveness differs from the
attraction stage in the recruitment process (Breaugh & Starke,
2000). While in the initial stage of the recruitment process the
goal is to attract applicants for specic available positions at a
given time, organization attractiveness must be continuously
worked on, so that the company becomes a recognized and

106 R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016
Germano Glufke Reis and Beatriz Maria Braga
attractive employer in the labor market; this will, in turn,
facilitate the recruitment process (Collins & Stevens, 2002).
Attractiveness has been operationalized through the
attractiveness attributes, the factors considered by potential
candidates when choosing an employer (Berthon et al., 2005).
These factors will be prioritized by applicants according to their
respective needs and expectations (Cable & Turban, 2001).
Authors have proposed different approaches for research on
these attributes. According to Lievens and Highhouse (2003),
they may be instrumental and symbolic attributes, where the
rst refer to what the organization actually offers that is useful
for the job seeker (e.g. salary package, exible schedule,
location, etc.). Symbolic attributes, in turn, represent subjective
and intangible aspects (e.g. business innovation degree,
culture, prestige, etc.). According to Cruise O´Brien (1995),
attributes may be classied into cognitive/rational (reliability,
competence, etc.) and affective/emotional (openness, support,
attention, etc.). Srivastava and Bhatnagar (2010) identied eight
attributes reecting characteristics of what an organization
“offers” as an employer (global exposure, career opportunities,
development, etc.) and what it “is” (exible and ethical, reliable
and fair, etc.). Furthermore, studies have shown that symbolic
attributes may be specially relevant and differentiate more an
employer from its competitors than instrumental attributes
do (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003; Srivastava and Bhatnagar,
2010).
Berthon et al. (2005) developed the Employer Attractiveness
Scale, by integrating dimensions considered in other
taxonomies, particularly, the functional, psychological, and
economic aspects of attractiveness proposed by Ambler
and Barrow (1996). The scale comprises ve attractiveness
attributes and it assesses to what extent the organization offers
the following values: 1) Interest Value (IV): a challenging and
stimulating job, with innovative working practices, products
and services, in an environment that encourages creativity
and innovation; 2) Social Value (SV): a positive and pleasant
social and interpersonal environment; 3) Economic Value
(EV): above- average wages, compensation package, job
security, and promotion opportunities; 4) Development Value
(DV): provides recognition, self-worth and condence, the
development of skills and career-enhancing experiences; 5)
Application Value (AV): opportunity to apply expertise and
convey knowledge to others, in a customer-oriented and
humanitarian workplace.
Although the various proposals have different structures,
in general, the attributes refer to the dimensions proposed by
Ambler and Barrow (1996). However, the scale developed
by Berthon et al. (2005) has been more frequently used in
subsequent studies (Alniaçik & Alniaçik, 2012; Arachchige
& Robertson, 2011; Roy, 2008; Sivertzen, Nilsen & Olafsen,
2013), suggesting a convergence in terms of attribute
classication. And that is why we adopted this instrument in
this study.
EB refers to the “sum of a company’s efforts to communicate
to existing and prospective staff that it is a desirable place to
work” (Berthon et al., 2005, p. 153). It involves applying
branding principles to the recruitment and hiring process
and focuses on the “package of functional, economic, and
psychological benefits provided by the employment and
identied with employing company” (Ambler & Barrow, 1996,
p. 187), in order to create differentiation from other employers,
both to attract potential candidates and to motivate, engage, and
retain current employees (Backaus & Tikoo, 2004).
According to Lievens (2007), EB involves three stages: in
the rst, a compelling and unique employer value proposition -
the attributes or benets to be offered to prospective and actual
employees - is designed; in the second, this value proposition is
communicated; and the third is the implementation stage, that is,
to actually implement the promises made in the value proposition,
in terms of the attraction attributes. EB relies on brand equity
theories to analyze the inuence of attractiveness attributes on
people. Such theories focus on people’s perceptions and beliefs
concerning products and services brands, which inuence their
preference hierarchies (Collins & Stevens, 2002), and that
increase the likelihood of differentiation from competitors.
According to Cable and Turban (2001), brand equity principles
may be extrapolated to the attraction and recruitment situation,
where the choice among attractive employers will be made
according the applicants’ attributes preferences.
Therefore, EB strategies and activities contribute to
organization attractiveness to the extent that they create,
convey, and reinforce the positive aspects of the company as an
employer (Collins & Kanar, 2013; Edwards, 2010). In addition,
EB is not only about recruitment because “where traditional
recruitment strategies are short-term, reactive, and subject to
job openings, employment branding is a long-term strategy
designed to maintain a steady ow of skills in the organisation”
(Srivastava & Bhatnagar, 2010, p. 26).
The premise behind EB strength and value derives from
the benets achieved from a strong brand: differentiation
and loyalty. The brand must be able to differentiate, to create
loyalty, to satisfy and establish an emotional connection with
potential candidates (Davies, 2008). Thus, the value of a
brand is associated with its awareness/recognition degree and
the image it conveys to people. Besides differentiation and
loyalty, EB can bring additional benets to the organization,
insofar as it provides a rationale to simplify management and
to establish and focus on priorities, increasing productivity
and improving recruitment, by ensuring a continued ow of
adequate candidates (Holliday, 1997).
Attractiveness and prioritization of attractiveness attributes
may vary according to the different cultures and demographic
characteristics (Alniaçik, Alniaçik, Erat & Akçin, 2014;
Newburry, Gardberg & Belkin, 2006) and, therefore, it is
important to understand these aspects in relation to national
contexts.

R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016 107
EMPLOYER ATTRACTIVENESS FROM A GENERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYER BRANDING
3. METHODOLOGY
In order to pursue the research objective - i.e. the
identication of an employer attractiveness factors ranking for
different generations - we chose to adopt a quantitative study
that, according to Creswell (2003) provides a quantitative or
numerical description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a
population.
3.1. Data collection and sample
For data collection, a recruitment rm’s database was
utilized. We invited 3,000 professionals to answer the online
questionnaire. The questionnaire contained the Employer
Attractiveness Scale and demographic questions. The return
rate was about 34%, with a nal number of 937 responses.
The sample consisted of professionals who work mainly in
southeastern Brazil, 34% of them were women and 66% were
men. In terms of hierarchical levels, there is a predominance of
managers (42%), followed by coordinators/supervisors (19%)
and directors (16%); analysts and specialists corresponded to
14% and 9% of the sample, respectively. As for the education
level, 71.9% of the respondents are graduates and 24.5% have
Higher Education. The average age was 37, ranging from 21
to 65 years. Regarding the distribution by generation, 42 (5%)
are Baby Boomers, 606 (66%) are from Generation X, and 272
(30%) are from Generation Y.
The industry sectors more frequently represented in the
sample (where the respondents worked in) were: Consumer
goods (14.4%), Others (13.2%), Services (12.2%), and
Technology and computing (11.8 %). Most professionals work
in the nance (24.8%), IT (15.3%), HR (13.9%), and purchase/
sales (11.5%) sectors.
3.2. Employer attractiveness scale validation
The survey employed the Employer Attractiveness Scale
developed by Berthon et al. (2005). As mentioned, this
instrument was chosen because it has already been employed by
various international studies, showing good reliability (Alniaçik
& Alniaçik, 2012; Arachchige & Robertson, 2011; Roy, 2008;
Sivertzen et al., 2013; Wallace, Lings & Cameron, 2012).
Furthermore, Sivertzen et al. (2013) found that the instrument
involves employer attributes that influence a company’s
reputation and this, in turn, effectively inuences the employer
attractiveness among job seekers. Respondents must evaluate
each item in the questionnaire through the following question:
“How much is this aspect important to you when choosing a
new job?” In this regard, a ve-option Likert scale was used
(1 = not important at all, 5 = very important).
A pretest with 6 human resources researchers was
performed, in order to check and adjust the understanding of
the translated scale. Then, in order to examine scale validity and
reliability, a conrmatory factor analysis was conducted. As a
normal distribution was not observed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test), partial least squares (PLS) estimation was adopted. At
the rst stage of the conrmatory analysis, convergent validity
was addressed through average variance extracted (AVE). It is
recommended that AVE is 0.50 or over (Hair et al., 2011). So,
in order to maximize AVEs, we chose to delete two items of
Economic Value and two of Development Value dimensions.
Table 1 shows the indicators used in the study and the AVEs for
each dimension. Table 1 also displays the reliability indicators
(composite reliability) of each attractiveness dimension; as they
are above 0.70, the reliability of dimensions was regarded as
satisfactory (Hair et al., 2011).
Regarding the reliability of each indicator, although factor
loadings of 0.70 or over are regarded as the most desirable,
loadings between 0.50 and 0.70 are also acceptable and, in such
cases, the items may still be maintained (Chin, 1998; Hair et
al., 2011; Hulland, 1999). At this stage, we chose to delete the
item having the lowest factor load (0.60), which was a Social
Value item (“A fun working environment”). The choice also
took into account the pre-tests with human resource researchers,
who pointed out that this item might be redundant (“Happy
work environment”). Finally, as shown in Table 1, the outer
loadings of remaining indicators are all above 0.60.
Regarding discriminant validity, it was evaluated having
two procedures as a basis. First, we checked the existence of
cross loadings between the factors, which were not detected.
Then, it was noticed that, as needed, the square roots of the
AVEs were higher than the correlations between the factors
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Thus, discriminant validity was
also regarded as satisfactory.
4. RESULTS
Table 2 shows the results obtained for the entire sample. It
is observed that Development Value (MM = 4.24, SD = 0.58)
and Economic Value (M = 4.23, SD = 0.55) had the highest
mean scores, followed by Social Value (M = 4.10, SD = 0.55),
Interest Value (M = 4.07, SD = 0.62), and Application Value
(M = 3.81, SD = 0.64). The results also indicate correlations
between dimensions, and the highest ones are those between
Development Value and Social Value, Social Value and Interest
Value, and Development Value and Interest Value.
As for gender (female = 0, male = 1), there is a signicant
and negative correlation with Development Value and Social
Value; i.e. these factors are more appreciated by women than
by men. Age (continued values), in turn, had a signicant
and positive relationship with Interest Value and negative
with Economic Value, i.e. generally, the higher the age, the
more people tend to appreciate the work itself and the less
value is assigned to extrinsic rewards. Furthermore, the
statistical signicance of differences between the scores for
attractiveness factors was tested by using the non-parametric

108 R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016
Germano Glufke Reis and Beatriz Maria Braga
Table 1
Dimensions of the Employer Attractiveness Scale
Dimensions Outer loadings
Interest Value (AVE: 0.60; composite reliability: 0.88)
Working in a vibrant/challenging environment 0.81
Innovative employer – novel work practices/forward-thinking 0.83
The organization both values and makes use of your creativity 0.82
The organization produces high-quality products and services 0.73
The organization produces innovative products and services 0.66
Social Value (AVE: 0.51; composite reliability: 0.84)
Having a good relationship with your colleagues 0.81
Having a good relationship with your superiors 0.70
Supportive and encouraging colleagues 0.72
Happy work environment 0.73
Application Value (AVE: 0.51; composite reliability: 0.84)
Humanitarian organization – gives back to society 0.77
Opportunity to apply what was learned in college/university 0.65
Opportunity to teach others what you have learned 0.72
Acceptance and belonging 0.71
The organization is customer-orientated 0.72
Economic Value (AVE: 0.56; composite reliability: 0.79)
Good promotion opportunities within the organization 0.89
An above average basic salary 0.69
An attractive overall compensation package 0.64
Development Value (AVE: 0.54; composite reliability: 0.78)
Feeling more self-condent as a result of working for a particular organization 0.81
Feeling good about yourself as a result of working for a particular organization 0.64
Gaining career-enhancing experience 0.75
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations (Spearman)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Development Value 4.24 0.58 1
2. Economic Value 4.23 0.55 .259** 1
3. Social Value 4.10 0.55 .448** .257** 1
4. Interest Value 4.07 0.62 .335** .252** .441** 1
5. Application Value 3.81 0.64 .017 .025 .015 .050 1
6. Gender - - -.130** .006 -.082*.055 -.016 1
7. Age37.04 8.23 -.042 -.184** .025 .133** -.032 .202** 1
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016 109
EMPLOYER ATTRACTIVENESS FROM A GENERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYER BRANDING
Wilcoxon test, which is suitable to perform the comparison
between means of related samples or between repeated
measurements of the same sample, just as in the case of this
analysis. To do this, the score of each attractiveness factor was
paired with others. Thus, Table 3 shows comparisons between
the scores for the sample as a whole, without considering the
generational groups.
Considering altogether the results listed in tables 2 and 3,
it is observed that Development Value (M = 4.24, SD = 0.58)
had higher mean scores than Social Value (M = 4.10, SD =
0.55), Value of interest (M = 4.07, SD = 0.62), and Application
Value (M = 3.81, SD = 0.64) and that these differences were
statistically signicant (p < 0.01). Similarly, Economic Value
(M = 4.23, SD = 0.58) showed higher and signicant average
values related to Social Value, Interest Value, and Application
Value. Nevertheless, the difference between Development Value
and Economic Value, representing the two factors with higher
average score values was not signicant; so, it is observed that
these two attributes are shown as the attractiveness factors most
appreciated by respondents as a whole, without considering the
generational differences. On the other hand, both the scores
for Social Value and Interest Value were higher than the score
for Application Value, with p < 0.01. The latter dimension
was shown, therefore, as the attractiveness factor having the
lowest weight for professionals as a whole. The scores for
Social Value and Social interest did not register, however, a
signicant difference from each other.
Next, mean scores were determined on each attribute, for
different generational group (Table 4). Comparisons were made
between generations (Table 5), by using the Mann-Whitney test,
with which the means sof the three groups were compared,
indicating which of them appreciate more or less each employer
attributes.
In all generational comparisons, differences between means
were signicant for Economic Value. Thus, it is observed that
Generation Y (M = 4.36, SD = 0.55) appreciates more this
attribute than the others (Table 4); Generation X (M = 4.18,
SD = 0.49), in turn, values it more than Baby Boomers (M =
4.02, SD = 0.57). This attribute involves aspects such as: salary
above average, compensation package, security, and promotion
opportunities.
It was also identied that Application Value is considered
more relevant by Generation Y (M = 3.87, SD = 0.78) than by
Baby Boomers (M = 3.57, SD = 0.78); this attribute comprises
aspects such as opportunities to apply expertise and convey
knowledge to others. It also involves the degree to which
the job has an environment where application is aimed at
the market and, at the same time, the society. Finally, the
comparison between average values also indicated that Interest
Value obtained higher scores among Baby Boomers (M =
4.26, SD = 0.52) and Generation X (M = 4.09, SD = 0.61)
than Generation Y (M = 3.99, SD = 0.64). This dimension is
related to a challenging and stimulating job, with new working
practices, innovative products and services, in an environment
Table 3
General Comparisons Between the Average Scores of Attractiveness Factors
Comparisons
DV x EV DV x SV DV x IV DV x AV EV x SV EV x IV EV x AV SV x IV SV x AV IV x AV
-0.68 -7.44* -7.79* -14.01 -4.9* -5.98* -13.81* -1.9 -10.22* -8.8*
Obs.: Values in the cells represent Z in the Wilcoxon test, where: * p < 0.01. DV = Development Value; EV = Economic Value; SV = Social Value; IV = Interest Value; AV =
Application Value.
Table 4
Mean Scores for Generational Groups and Attractiveness Factors
N
Development
Value
Economic
Value Social Value Interest Value Application
Value
M SD M SD M SD M SD MSD
Baby Boomers 42 4.22 0.57 4.02 0.57 4.19 0.41 4.26 0.52 3.57 0.78
Generation X 606 4.22 0.58 4.18 0.49 4.10 0.56 4.09 0.61 3.80 0.64
Generation Y 272 4.28 0.57 4.36 0.55 4.10 0.55 3.99 0.64 3.87 0.61

110 R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016
Germano Glufke Reis and Beatriz Maria Braga
that encourages creativity and innovation. Differences between
the scores for Development Value and Social Value were not
signicant.
Next, attractiveness factors within each generational group
were compared by using the Wilcoxon test (Table 6), in order
to verify to what extent the differences between scores for each
group are statistically signicant. This analysis enabled us to
identify whether the attractiveness attributes were effectively
discriminated/differentiated and prioritized – i.e. whether
some attributes were perceived as more or less important than
others - in each generation. By highlighting the discrimination
and appreciation of employer attractiveness factors, we can
identify their potential to set an employer value proposition
and an employer brand (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Collins &
Stevens, 2002; Cable & Turban, 2001), from the viewpoint of
each generation.
On the one hand, Table 4 indicates that Baby Boomers
prioritize Interest Value (M = 4.26, SD = 0.52), Development
Value (M = 4.22, SD = 0.57), and Social Value (M = 4.19,
SD = 0.41); they value less Economic Value (M = 4.02, SD
= 0.57) and Application Value (M = 3.57, SD = 0.78). On the
other hand, Table 6 shows that Baby Boomers had only ve
signicant differences in comparisons between the attributes´
scores (out of ten possible comparisons): between Application
Table 5
Comparison Between Generational Groups
Comparisons Development
Value
Economic
Value Social Value Interest Value Application
Value
Baby Boomers versus
Generation X 12512.50 10142.00** 11999.00 10723.50 10637.50
Baby Boomers versus
Generation Y 5313.50 3726.00* 5293.00 4278.50* 4513.00**
Generation X versus
Generation Y 77768.00 66662.00* 81693.00 74810.00** 78193.00
Obs.: Values in the cells represent U in the Mann-Whitney test, where: * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05.
Table 6
Comparison of Attractiveness Factors, by Generation
Comparisons Baby Boomers
N = 42
Generation X
N = 606
Generation Y
N = 272
DV x EV -1.39 -1.37 -3.52*
DV x SV -0.13 -5.64* -5.01*
DV x IV -0.81 -5.16* -6.94*
DV x AV -3.67* -11.29* -7.35*
EV x SV -1.17 -2.72* -6.80*
EV x IV -2.01** -2.99* -8.79*
EV x AV -3.05* -9.06* -9.49*
SV x IV -1.23 -0.81 -2.81*
SV x AV -3.72* -8.55* -4.37*
IV x AV -4.20* -8.00* -2.23**
Obs.: Values in the cells represent Z in the Wilcoxon test, where: * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05. DV = Development Value; EV = Economic Value; SV = Social Value; IV = Interest
Value; AV = Application Value.

R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016 111
EMPLOYER ATTRACTIVENESS FROM A GENERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYER BRANDING
Value and Interest Value; between Application Value and
Social Value; between Application Value and Economic Value;
between Application Value and Development Value; and, nally,
between Interest Value and Economic Value. Furthermore, there
are signicant differences between Application Value and the
others, having this attribute achieved the lowest score in the
Baby Boomers group.
Also according to Table 4, respondents from Generation
X had higher scores for Development Value (M = 4.22, SD =
0.58) and Economic Value (M = 4.18, SD = 0.49); then, there
are Social Value (M = 4.10, SD = 0.56) and Interest Value
(M = 4.09, SD = 0.61); the lowest score was for Application
Value (M = 3.80, SD = 0.64). Table 6, in turn, indicates that,
for Generation X, most comparisons between the scores were
signicant. The two exceptions, with no signicant differences,
were the comparisons between: Development Value and
Economic Value; and Social Value and Interest Value. These
attribute pairs are equivalent in terms of importance, for this
generation. It is relevant to note that this generational group
showed greater discrimination of the studied attractiveness
attributes than Baby Boomers.
As shown in Table 4, members of Generation Y, in turn,
assigned greater importance to: Economic Value (M = 4.36,
SD = 0.55) and Development Value (M = 4.28, SD = 0.57);
it is followed by Social Value (M = 4.10, SD = 0.55) and
Interest Value (M = 3.99, SD = 0.64); the lowest score was for
Application Value (M = 3.87, SD = 0.61). Since all differences
were signicant, the results indicate a well-dened ranking of
priorities, distinguishing all attributes from each other. Through
the comparisons between generational groups it is noted that
younger people have clearer and more marked preferences
regarding attractiveness factors; on the other hande, these
preferences tend to be less marked for Baby Boomers.
5. DISCUSSION
Initially, mean scores for attractiveness factors were
examined for the sample as a whole (tables 2 and 3). The
results pointed out that all dimensions of the attractiveness
scale seem to be relevant for the group of professionals under
study, taking into account that the lowest score achieved was
3.81 (Application Value). The high scores found may reect the
importance that all factors of the Employer Attractiveness Scale
have for the recruitment process, a nding that is consistent
with the results of previous studies on employer attractiveness,
in topics such as work values and the meaning of work (Parry
& Urwin, 2010; Dose, 1997; Morin, 2001; MOW, 1987), job
and career expectations (Twenge et al., 2010; Cennamo &
Gardner, 2008; Dries et al., 2008), among others. This nding
is also aligned with Deal et al. (2010, p. 196) that emphasize
that it is advisable to be attentive to all employees,: “If you
provide employees with an interesting job, good compensation,
opportunities to learn and advance, colleagues they like to
work with, a boss they trust, and leaders who are competent,
employees of all generations will respond positively”. What
this article reinforces, however, is that such aspects are, in fact,
observed and taken into account by job seekers; all of these
elements (or only some of them) may be emphasized on EB
strategies, since they can come to inuence the preference for
an employer over another. On the other hand, even if all factors
seem to be relatively important, it was possible to determine
differences between them. In fact, Development Value and
Economic Value were more valued than Social Value, Interest
Value, and Application Value by the sample as a whole.
However, although these ndings are supported by the
literature, some considerations are important, to put them in
perspective. First, it should be noted that EB strategies seek
to focus on specic attributes - rather than on all attributes
at the same time - taking into account characteristics of the
addressed audiences (Ambler & Barrow, 1996). This justies
the stratication by age, gender, etc., which highlights the
expectations prioritized by each group. Second, the employed
instrument (Berthon et al., 2005) may have limitations usually
related to questionnaires that do not adopt forced-choice scales;
e.g. occasionally respondents might assign higher scores to the
assessed dimensions because they perceive all dimensions as
positive/desirable (see, for instance, Braunscheidel, Suresh &
Boisnier, 2010), eventually increasing mean scores globally.
However, this potential bias was managed through the
comparisons between generational segments, which focused
on differences between groups rather than on absolute results.
Furthermore, when the three generations under study were
compared, insightful nuances emerged, providing additional
information that can be explored in EB initiatives, taking into
account specic traits of these three groups.
In fact, comparisons between groups (tables 4 and 5)
indicated differences between them. The most signicant ones
concern Economic Value, which seems to have a decreasing
importance from younger to older generations, a nding which
is consistent with studies that analyze generations already
entered into the workplace (Chen & Choi; 2008; Ng et al.,
2010). The Application Value, which involves being able to
put into practice and sharing what has been learned, was also
more appreciated by Generation Y, and it was decreasing for
older generations. The reverse happens with Interest Value,
where differences were identied between Generation Y and
Baby Boomers and between Generation Y and Generation X;
i.e. more experienced respondents seem to prefer employers
who offer an environment with challenges, with new working
practices and innovative products, and also a creative and
innovative environment. This result does not align with studies
showing that younger generations´ values tend to prioritize
novelties, changes, and challenges (e.g. Reis et al., 2010).
This contradiction might suggest that, despite the importance
of such values, when choosing the employer these generations
can combine them to other parameters (the need to become

112 R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016
Germano Glufke Reis and Beatriz Maria Braga
nancially established, for instance) in order to rank company
attributes; later on, as an employee, other expectations with
regard to the employer and the workplace could emerge,
resetting priorities. Therefore, it may be suggested that further
studies examine how such prioritization evolve over time.
Another interesting nding refers to differences within each
of these three groups (tables 4 and 6). The results show that,
for Baby Boomers, Interest Value is more important than the
other attributes (including economic value) when choosing
an employer. This may align with studies suggesting that
this individuals from this generation tend to be committed
to work (Gursoy et al., 2008; Dries et al., 2008), since they
seem to primarily prefer an employer that offers an interesting
and innovative job, developed within an equally creative
environment. Development Value is also an attractiveness
factor that stands out; this attribute is related to the fact that
an employer provides professional development and career
growth opportunities. Application Value, on the other hand, is
the least important attribute for this group.
Among respondents from Generation X, the following
attributes were prioritized: Development Value and Economic
Value, followed by Social Value and Interest Value and, nally,
by Application Value. These results are consistent with previous
research, which describe the members of this generation as more
independent and less committed to the organization - and this
can also lead to greater interest in Development Value - and they
like to earn rewards quickly (Gursoy et al., 2008; Appelbaum
et al., 2005). Regarding Generation Y, there were well marked
differences in their preferences as for employer attributes; they
ranked the attributes in the following order (from the most to
the least valued): Economic Value => Development Value =>
Social Value => Interest Value => Application Value. This
nding is supported by studies showing that this generation
prioritizes extrinsic rewards, development opportunities, and
the workplace itself (Cavazotte et al., 2012; NG et al., 2010;
Twenge, 2010; Veloso et al., 2008).
In fact, differences were observed with regard to how
each generation discriminates and ranks the various employer
attributes (Table 6), and such ranking is clearer in Generation
Y and more diffuse among Baby Boomers. As an example of
this diffusion among more experienced professionals, we notice
they do not distinguish signicantly, for example, between
Development Value and Social Value, or Economic Value and
Social Value (Table 5), among others. Seemingly, this group
tends to prioritize more clearly and focus on Interest Value when
choosing an employer; most of the other attributes, although
relevant, have no greater differentiation from each other, thus
losing impact on employer value proposition and EB strategies
(Ambler & Barrow, 1996;. Berthon et al, 2005). Interest
Value constitutes a primarily symbolic attribute (Lievens
& Highhouse, 2003), connected to what the organization
“is” (Srivastava & Bhatnagar, 2010), and might be the most
emphasized one to recruit professionals from this group.
Younger generations (especially Generation Y), in turn,
seem to be more sensitive with regard to various employer
attributes, distinguishing them more clearly. Among these
groups, a broader range of attributes can be considered
and combined aiming at brand equity and EB strategies
conguration (Cable & Turban, 2001; Collins & Kanar, 2013).
Rewards, development opportunities, and social environment
are attributes that could be emphasized in the value proposition
focused on this segment. So, what we observe is that EB
initiatives could be customized, according to the generation
addressed by the company.
6. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
This study aimed to identify employer attractiveness
attributes prioritized by Baby Boomers and generations X and
Y. Survey results provide insights for designing EB strategies
aimed at people from different generations who, as we can see,
prioritize attributes in different ways. For Baby Boomers, it is
suggested to prioritize issues such as the possibility of pursuing
an innovative job, in a positive workplace, which encourages
creativity and new working practices, besides providing
personal development opportunities. For Generation X, it
may be interesting to emphasize development opportunities,
combined to a good compensation package, but also offer the
opportunity to work in a stimulating and creative workplace
and have good relationships at work. Finally, to attract people
from Generation Y, it seems clearer that the rewards package is
very relevant, as well as the development opportunities and a
positive workplace. Furthermore, the results conrm the claim
by Newburry et al. (2006) that attractiveness is “in the eyes
of the beholder” and, therefore, contextual and demographic
characteristics such as gender, race, age, education, and income
inuence people’s perceptions on organizations’ attractiveness.
By examining attractiveness attributes, this paper
contributes to the literature by providing a different viewpoint
on generations. Many studies on career and values at the
workplace examine what people expect for a career and
an indenite/generic job, over a lifetime (Cordeiro, 2012;
Ng et al., 2010; Morin, 2001; MOW, 1987). The survey on
attractiveness, in turn, brings the question to the moment of the
job choice, i.e., it examines the prioritization of attributes that
are offered by employers, at a particular stage of someone’s
life. Besides, it highlights specic traits of each generation,
identifying the preference for certain attributes and differences
in the attractiveness factors prioritization. Mapping these
characteristics may contribute to set an employer brand within
each generational segment, in order to attract the best talents
(Turban & Cable, 2003). A limitation of this study is its focus
on southeastern Brazil and on a population with high education
level, thus it does not represent the reality of the Brazilian
population as a whole; further studies may cover a more
diversied sample, better representing the Brazilian population.

R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016 113
EMPLOYER ATTRACTIVENESS FROM A GENERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYER BRANDING
Moreover, as aforementioned, the instrument used (Berthon et
al., 2005) may show limitations typically associated with scales
that do not adopt forced-choice items, and this could increase
scores globally; this aspect is mitigated, however, in analyses
focusing on comparisons between groups. Another aspect is
that the survey was cross-sectional; so, it does not examine
the phenomenon of attractiveness over time, leading to new
questions: To what extent do the attributes valued by people
actually turn into their employment choices? Moreover: Do
they vary over time? Do they contribute to retain professionals?
These aspects may be investigated in further studies; also, a
longitudinal approach could bring additional insights to the
theme. Further research could also examine the impact of
attractiveness factors on the psychological contract with hired
employees: Which are the implications? Which expectations
emerge with regard to EB? This is a particularly relevant aspect:
attractiveness attributes incorporated into EB strategies make
sense only when reecting the employer’s reality and when they
are, in fact, provided to the employee, as a part of the actual
experience within the company she/he works in (Ambler &
Barrow, 1996; Cable & Turban, 2001; Edwards & Edwards,
2013; Martin et al., 2011).
Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T., & Cable, D. (2001). Are you
attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A recruiting policy-
capturing study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2),
219-237. doi:10.1023/A:1011157116322
Alniaçik, E., & Alniaçik, U. (2012). Identifying dimensions
of attractiveness in employer branding: effects of age,
gender, and current employment status. In: International
Strategic Management conference, 8., 2012, Barcelona.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 1336-1343.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1117
Alniaçik, e., Alniaçik, U., Erat, S., Akçin, K., (2014).
Attracting talented employees to the company: Do we need
different employer branding strategies in different cultures?
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 336-344.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.074
Amaral, S. (2004). Virando gente grande: como orientar os
jovens em início de carreira. São Paulo: Gente.
Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand.
Journal of Brand Management, 4, 185-206.
Appelbaum, S.H., Serena, M., & Shapiro, B.T. (2005).
Generation X and the Boomers: An analysis of realities
and myths. Management Research News, 28, 1-33.
doi:10.1108/01409170510784751
Ansoorian, A., Good, P., & Samuelson, P. (2003).
Managing generational differences. Leadership, May/June,
34-35.
Arachchige, B., & Robertson, A. (2011). Business student
perceptions of a preferred employer: a study identifying
determinants of employer branding. The IUP Journal of
Brand Management, 8(3), 25-46.
Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing
and researching employer branding. Career
Development International, 9(5), 501-517. doi:
10.1108/13620430410550754
Benson, J., & Brown, M. (2011). Generations at work: are
there differences and do they matter? International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 22(9), 1843-1865.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.573966
Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Hah, L. (2005). Captivating
company: Dimensions of attractiveness in employer
branding. International Journal of Advertising, 24(2),
151-172.
Biswas, M. & Suar, D. (2014). Antecedents and
consequences of employer branding. Journal of Business
Ethics, doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2502-3
Bolton, R. et al. (2013). Understanding Generation Y and
their use of social media: a review and research agenda.
Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 245-267.
Boswell, W., Roehling, M., Lepine, M., & Moynihan, L.
(2003). Individual job-choices decisions and the impact
of job attributes and recruitment practices: A longitudinal
eld study, Human Resource Management, 42(1),
23-37.
Braunscheidel, M., Suresh, M., & Boisnier, A. (2010).
Investigating the impact of organizational culture on supply
chain integration. Human Resource Management, 49(5),
883 – 911.
Breaugh, J., & Starke, M. (2000). Research on employee
recruitment: so many studies, so many remaining
questions. Journal of Management, 26(3), 405-434.
doi:10.1177/014920630002600303
Brosdahl, D., & Carpenter, J. (2011). Shopping orientations
of US males: A generational cohort comparison. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services,18, 548-554.
Bubany, S. T., & Hansen, J. C. (2011). Birth cohort
change in the vocational interests of female and male
college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78,
59-67.
Cable, D., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2013). Breaking them
in or eliciting their best? Reframing socialization around
newcomers’ self-expression. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 58(1), 1-36. doi:10.1777/0001839213477098
Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. (2001). Establishing the
dimensions, sources and value of job seekers’ employer
knowledge during recruitment. Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 20, 115-163.
REFERENCES

114 R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016
Germano Glufke Reis and Beatriz Maria Braga
Cavazotte, F., Lemos, H. C., & Viana, M. D. (2012). A.
Relações de trabalho contemporâneas e as novas
gerações produtivas: renovadas ou antigos ideais?
Cadernos EBAPE. BR, 10(1), 162-180.
Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences
in work values, outcomes and person‐organisation values
t. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891-906.
doi:10.1108/02683940810904385
Chen, P., & Choi, Y. (2008). Generational differences in
work values: a study of hospital management. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20,
595-615.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to
structural equation modeling. In. G. A. Marcoulides (Org.)
Modern Methods for Business Research, London, Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, C., & Stevens, C. (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.
doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.6.1121
Collins, C., & Han, J. (2004). Exploring applicant pool
quantity and quality: The effects of early recruitment practice
strategies, corporate advertising and rm reputation.
Personnel Psychology, 57, 685-717.
Collins, C., & Kanar, A. (2013). Employer brand equity and
recruitment research. In: Yu, K; Cable, D. (eds.) The
Oxford Handbook of Recruitment. Oxford Library of
Psychology.
Constanza, D. et al. (2012). Generational differences in
work-related attitudes: a meta-analysis, Journal of Business
Psychology, 27, 375-294.
doi:10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4
Cordeiro, H.T.D. (2012). Pers de carreira da geração
Y. Dissertação de Mestrado, Faculdade de Economia,
Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São
Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: qualitative,
quantitative and mixed methods approaches, New York:
Sage.
Cruise O’Brien, R. (1995). Is Trust a Calculable Asset
in the Firm? Business Strategy Review, Winter; 6(4),
39-54.
Davies, G. (2008). Employer branding and its inuence on
managers, European Journal of Marketing, 42(5/6), 667-681.
doi:10.1108/0309056081086257
Deal, J., Altman, D., & Rogelberg, S., (2010) Millennials at
work: what we know and what we need to know (if anything),
Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 191-199.
doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9177-2.
Dose, J. (1997). Work values: An integrative framework and
illustrative application to organizational socialization. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70,
219-241. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00645.x
Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & De Kerpel, (2008). E. Exploring
four generations’ beliefs about career: is ‘satised’ the new
‘successful’? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23,
907-928. doi:10.1108/02683940810904394
Edwards, M. (2010). An integrative view of employer
branding and OB theory. Personnel Review, 39(1), 5-23.
doi:10.1108/004834810011012809
Edwards, M., & Edwards, T. (2013). Employee responses
to changing aspects of the employer brand following a
multinational acquisition: a longitudinal study. Human
Resource Management, 52(1), 27-54. doi:10.1002/
hrm.21519
Ewing, M., Pitt, L., Bussy, N. & Berthon, P. (2002).
Employment branding in the knowledge economy,
International Journal of Advertising, 21(1), 3-22.
Fernandez-Araoz, C., Groysberg, B., & Noharia, N. (2009).
The denite guide to recruiting in good times and bad,
Harvard Business Review, 87(5), 74-84.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Valuating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39–50.
Gatewood, R., Gowan, M., & Lautenschlager, G. (1993).
Corporate image, recruitment image and initial job choice
decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 414-
427. doi:10.2307/256530
Gursoy, D., Maier, T., & Chic, C. (2008). Generational
differences: an examination of the work values and
generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(3), 448-458.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.11.002
Hair, J., Ringle, C, & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed
a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
19(2), 139–152. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Helm, S. (2013). A matter of reputation and pride:
associations between perceived external reputation, pride in
membership, job satisfaction and turnover intentions. British
Journal of Management, 24 (4), 542–556. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8551.2012.00827.x
Hewlett, A., & Rashid, R. (2010) The battle for female talent
in emerging market. Harvard Business Review, 88(5),
101-106.
Holliday, K. (1997). Putting brands to test, U.S. Banker,
107(12), 58-60.
Jorgensen, B. (2003). Baby Boomers, Generation X and
Generation Y? policy implications for defense forces in the
modern era. Foresight, 5, 41-49.
REFERENCES

R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016 115
EMPLOYER ATTRACTIVENESS FROM A GENERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYER BRANDING
Jurkiewicz, C.E. (2000). Generation X and the public
employee. Public Personnel Management, 29(1), 55-74.
Kupperschmidt, B. (2000) Multigeneration employees:
strategies for effective management. The Health Care
Manager, 19, 65-76.
Lester, S., Standifer, R., Schultz, N., & Windsor,
J. (2012). Actual versus perceived generational
differences at work: An empirical examination. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(3), 341-354.
doi:10.1177/1548051812442747
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, 46, 51-69.
doi:10.1002/hrm.20145
Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of
instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company’s
attractiveness as an employer, Personnel Psychology, 56(1),
75-102. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00144.x
Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in
the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for
future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1),
S139–S157. doi:10.1002/job.1913
Manheim, K. (1993). El problema de las generaciones.
Revista Espanola de Investigaciones Sociologicas, 62, 193-
242.
Martin, G., Gollan, P., & Grigg, K. (2011). Is there a better
future for employer branding? Facing up to innovation,
corporate reputation and wicked problems in SHRM, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management. 22
(17), 3618-3637. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.560880
Mencl, J., & Lester, S. (2014). More alike than
different: What generations value and how the values
affect employee workplace perceptions. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1-16.
doi:10.1177/1548051814529825
Miller, J. (2011). The Generation X report: Active, balanced,
and happy: These young Americans are not bowling alone.
Longitudinal study of American youth, 1(1), 1-7. http://home.
isr.umich.edu/les/2011/10/GenX_Report_Fall2011.pdf
Morin, E., (2001). Os sentidos do trabalho, Revista de
Administração de Empresas, 41(3), 8-19.
MOW International Research Team. (1987). The meaning of
working. New York : Academic Press.
Newburry, W., Gardberg, N., & Belkin, L. (2006).
Organizational attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder:
the interaction of demographic characteristics with
foreignness. Journal of International Business Studies,
37(5), 666-686. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400218
Ng, E., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. (2010). New generation,
great expectations: a eld study of the Millennia generation.
Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 281-292. doi:10.1007/
s108869-010-9159-4
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences
in work values: A review of theory and evidence.
International Journal of Management Review, 13, 79-96.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285x
Pingle, S., & Sharma, A. (2013). External Employer
Attractiveness: A Study of Management Students in India.
Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 7(1),
78-95.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, On
the Horizon, 9 (5), 1-6.
Reis, G.., Antonio, F., Laizo, A., & Marinho, B. (2010). Os
valores dos administradores de empresas mudam ao longo
da carreira? Relações entre prioridades axiológicas e tempo
de formado. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 11, 32-54.
Rocha-de-Oliveira, S., Piccinini, V. & Bitencourt, B. (2012).
Juventude, gerações e trabalho: é possível falar em geração
Y no Brasil? Organizações & Sociedade, 19(62), 551-558.
Roy, S. K. (2008). Identifying the dimensions of
attractiveness of an employer brand in the Indian context.
South Asian Journal of Management, 15(4), 110-130.
Silva, M.R.S., Mendonça, H., & Zanine, D.S. (2010).
Diferenças de gênero e valores relativos ao trabalho.
Paideia, 20(45), 39-45.
Sivertzen, A., Nilsen, E., & Olafsen, A. (2013). Employer
branding: Employer attractiveness and the use of social
media, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(7),
473-483. doi:10.1108/JPBM-09-2013-0393
Smola, K., & Sutton, C. (2002). Generational differences:
revisiting generational work values for the new millennium.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382.
doi:10.1002/job.147
Srivastava, P., & Bhatnagar, J. (2010). Employer brand for
talent acquisition: An exploration towards its measurement,
The Journal of Business Perspective, 14(1e2), 25-34.
doi:10.1777/097226291001400103
Sokro, E. (2012). Impact of employer branding on employee
attraction and retention. European Journal of Business and
Management, 4(18), 164-173.
Tapscott, D. (2010). Grown up digital: How the next
generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S., & Freeman, C.
(2007). Attracting Generation Y graduates. Career
Development International, 12(6), 504-522.
doi:10.1108/13620430710821994
Treuren, G., Anderson, K. (2010). The employment
expectations of different age cohorts: Is generation Y really
that different? Australian Journal of Career Development,
19(2), 49-61.
REFERENCES

116 R.Adm., São Paulo, v.51, n.1, p.103-116, jan./fev./mar. 2016
Germano Glufke Reis and Beatriz Maria Braga
Tulgan, B. (2009). Not Everyone Gets a Trophy: how to
manage generation Y. San Francisco: John Wiley Trade.
Twenge, J. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence
on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201-210. doi:10.1007/
s10869-010-9165-6
Twenge, J., & Campbell, S. (2008). Generational differences
in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 862-877.
doi:10.1108/02683940810904367
Twenge, J., Campbell, S., Hoffman, B. & Lance, C. (2010).
Generational differences in work values: Leisure and
extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values
decreasing. Journal of Management, 36, 1117-1142.
doi:10.1177/0149206309352246
Veloso, E., Dutra, J., & Nakata, L. (2008). Percepção sobre
carreiras inteligentes: diferenças entre as gerações Y, X e
Baby Boomers. Anais do Encontro da Associação Nacional
de Pós –Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração –
ANPAD. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 32.
Wallace, M.. Lings, I., & Cameron, R. (2012). Industry
branding: Attracting talent to weaker prole industries. Asia
Pacic Journal of Human Resources. Special Issue: Talent
management in the Asia Pacic, 50(4), 483-502.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00040.x
Employer Attractiveness from a Generational Perspective: Implications for Employer Branding
This study aimed to identify the employer attractiveness factors prioritized by different generations: Baby Boomers,
Generation X, and Generation Y. The survey was conducted with a sample of 937 professionals, working in various
areas and companies, most of them were managers and had a high education level. The Employer Attractiveness Scale
proposed by Berthon et al. (2005) was adopted and the results indicate that, when choosing a company, the generations
under study have specic features regarding the attractiveness attributes they prioritize. It was also observed that
Generation Y discriminates and ranks such attributes more clearly than the others. Possible implications for employer
branding and research limitations are discussed at the end of the article.
Keywords: employer attractiveness, recruitment, generations, employer branding.
Atractivo como Empleador en Perspectiva Generacional: Implicaciones en el Employer Branding
Este estudio tuvo como objetivo identicar los factores del atractivo como empleador priorizados por diferentes
generaciones: Baby Boomers, Generación X y Generación Y. La encuesta se realizó con una muestra de 937
profesionales, que trabajan en diferentes áreas y empresas, en su mayoría gerentes y con altos niveles de educación.
Fue adoptada la Escala del Atractivo como Empleador de Berthon et al. (2005) y los resultados indican que, al
elegir una empresa, las generaciones estudiadas tienen especicidades con relación a los atributos de atractivo que
priorizan. También se observó que la generación Y es aquella que más claramente discrimina y jerarquiza dichos
atributos. Posibles implicaciones en el employer branding y limitaciones de la investigación se discuten al nal
del artículo.
Palabras clave: atractivo como empleador, reclutamiento, generaciones, employer branding.
COMO REFERENCIAR ESTE ARTIGO
(De acordo com as normas da American Psychological Association [APA])
Reis, G. G., & Braga, B. M. (2016, janeiro/fevereiro/março). Employer attractiveness from a generational
perspective: Implications for employer branding. Revista de Administração [RAUSP], 51(1), 103-116.
doi:10.5700/rausp1226
RESUMEN ABSTRACT REFERENCES