Chinese Management Studies

A study on the factors to measure employer brand: the case of undergraduate

senior students
Chi-Cheng Lee, Rui-Hsin Kao, Chia-Jung Lin,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Chi-Cheng Lee, Rui-Hsin Kao, Chia-Jung Lin, (2018) "A study on the factors to measure employer
brand: the case of undergraduate senior students", Chinese Management Studies, https://
doi.org/10.1108/CMS-04-2017-0092
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-04-2017-0092
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 20 September 2018, At: 07:22 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 56 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-614X.htm

Factors to
A study on the factors to measure measure
employer brand: the case of employer
brand
undergraduate senior students
Chi-Cheng Lee
Department of Business Administration, Cheng Shiu University,
Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Rui-Hsin Kao
Department of Ocean and Border Governance, National Quemoy University,
Kinmen Hsien, Taiwan, and
Chia-Jung Lin
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

Department of Business Administration, Cheng Shiu University,

Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to develop the structure of employer brand and discuss whether employees and
employers have the same view on the elements of employer brand.
Design/methodology/approach – The employer brand of Taiwan, which includes 5 facets and 20 eight
terms, was obtained. Management, welfare, interest and environment are the common facets of employer
brand in China and Western countries. In addition, family and atmosphere is an important factor that merges
both Western and Eastern job applicants. Its contents emphasize family life, which is only found in applicants
from Taiwan and China.
Findings – The results showed that enterprises utilize functional factors in order to connect emotions
closely and satisfy psychological sustenance, which have true attraction to young Taiwanese applicants and
the current workforce of employees.
Originality/value – In general, after 20 years of establishment and empirical research, the
achievements are rich and many practical opinions are provided. However, most of the existing
literatures come from the researches of Western scholars, and they may be affected by the Western
social value. This study has explored the Oriental and Western literatures. In the study field of Taiwan,
it is found that employer brand will definitely show different style features due to the cultural
difference. Therefore, when an enterprise applies the relevant connotation of the employer brand, it is
necessary considering the cultural difference. This shows the importance of cross-cultural study of
employer brand recently. At the same time, this also highlights the contribution of this study on theory
and practice.

Keywords Human capital, Employer brand, Employee recruitment

Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Research has shown that an organization’s human capital can be positively associated with
its productivity, performance and competitive advantage (Breaugh and Starke, 2000).
Employer branding allows the organization, through a series of intentional efforts, to create, Chinese Management Studies
change and improve its corporate reputation, and is an important way for organizations to © Emerald Publishing Limited
1750-614X
acquire talented employees and build human capital (Edwards, 2009). Because excellent DOI 10.1108/CMS-04-2017-0092
 CMS employer brand recognition allows companies to attract competent applicants, many studies
therefore (Lievens, 2007; Zhu et al., 2014) have sought to investigate and measure its
dimensions. This will provide companies with a direction toward which they can invest in
the pursuit of a distinctive organizational attractiveness; by shaping the company into an
attractive employer brand, it may be able to recruit and retain talent in the labor market at
the same time.
In the past, the construction of and empirical research on employer brands were mainly
from Western literature sources, whose research findings are predominantly inclined to
values of Western societies (e.g. the USA, Australia and Belgium). However, under cross-
cultural theories, the Western employer brand’s constituent factors may be different from
the recognition of non-Western job seekers, due to the different values and cultures of the
latter (Anderson et al., 2010). This makes it difficult to generalize the brand factors of
Western employers in non-Western societies. Therefore, this study examined employer
brand recognition factors in Taiwan, which has a non-Western culture but is part of the
Chinese-speaking region and is different from those of Western societies and mainland
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

China.
Additionally, the employer brand includes both internal and external branding and
covers the organic integration of internal and external brands (Sartain and Schumann, 2006).
External branding means establishing brand awareness among prospective employees and
building an image that the company is a great place to work so as to encourage the
prospective employees. Internal branding in turn is the image established by the company’s
existing staff with regard to the operations of the firm, and it is closely related with
employee retention and stimulation of employee potential. As per the study by Ambler and
Barrow (1996), “Employer Brand” refers to overall benefits provided by the company, for
which job seekers and employees believe that it could create distinctive employer
enthusiasm so that they are willing to join or stay in the company (Fernandez-Lores et al.,
2016). Therefore, the employer brand is similar to consuming brand. If it has uniqueness and
good image in the labor market, it could form a close association between the brand and
employees (Pitt et al., 2002). Thus, many scholars (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Minchington,
2006) believe that the employer’s brand can attract prospective employees and retain the
already-existing staff. Besides, some researchers believe that the employer brand strategy of
the company could help it keeping the competitive advantage (Kimpakorn and Tocquer,
2009; Edwards, 2010), making the concept analogous to that of consumer branding (Keller
and Lehmann, 2006). Researchers believe that the external target of employer brand is to
attract talented persons, while the internal target is to keep them staying in the company
(Gavilan and Avello, 2011; Kimpakorn and Tocquer, 2009; Fernandez-Lores et al., 2016). Yet,
are the employer brand’s recognition factors between external prospective employees and
existing internal staff consistent with each other? Very few empirical papers have focused
on Chinese organizations. Moreover, the internal staff also plays an important role in the
recruitment process, as Ewing et al. (2002) have argued, as the internal staff sends signals to
external (prospective) employees during the recruitment process, thereby affecting the
formation of employer brands. Therefore, to reduce employee recruitment costs, to improve
labor relations and to improve employee retention rate, the company’s employer brand can
better display its value in achieving these objectives, if the external brand image is
positively related to and consistent with the internal brand image.
In summary, employer branding is a research topic that has emerged over the past
decade (Ambler and Barrow, 1996) and is one of the best weapons through which companies
attract employees (Mandhanya and Shah, 2010). Hence, understanding the structure of
employer brand and building a strong employer brand accordingly is of great benefit to
 human resources management practice (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Edwards, 2010). Hence, Factors to
because the framework of employer brand involves a wide range of levels, there is great measure
divergence in the framework and so far, no common or clear framework exists (Collins and
Stevens, 2002; Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004). This study attempted to establish employer
employer
brand dimensions and factors in a Taiwanese context, (which belongs to a Chinese-speaking brand
region), so that companies may follow and adopt, as well as improve their organizational
attractiveness in the process.

Literature review
The meaning of employer brand
The concept of employer brand, first proposed by Ambler and Barrow (1996, p. 187), defines
employer brand from the perspective of benefits, believing it to be “the package of
functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified
with the employing company”. This shows that employer brand formation is derived from
the synthesis of the aforementioned benefits which are provided by the employer to the
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

employees. Based on this definition, the employer brand establishes the characteristics of
the company itself as an employer, which includes the value system, policies and behavior
which the company uses to attract, motivate and retain the already-existing and prospective
employees (Conference, 2001). In addition, Kristin and Surinder (2004) argued that employer
brand is the process by which a company establishes recognition and uniqueness. It is also a
concept that sets the company apart from its competitors. The aforementioned definition
suggests that employer brand may allow companies to enjoy a higher visibility, reputation
and loyalty in the human resources market for their corporate brand recognition (Knox and
Freeman, 2006). Moreover, Cooper (2008) defined employer brand from the areas covered,
believing it to be the employer’s reputation, image and identity, and how it transmits these
messages to already-existing and prospective employees. Thus, from an internal
perspective, excellent employer brand recognition can make a company appear superior to
its competitors. This makes the organization to be perceived as an ideal company (Love and
Singh, 2011) and, at the same time, allow existing employees to feel highly identified;
experience higher levels of job satisfaction, organizational commitment and motivation; and
provide extra role performance (Ngo et al., 2013).
The study by Ambler and Barrow (1996) emphasized that the main objective of employer
brand is to help the management handling the tasks and processes in priority and improve
the recruitment, willingness of staying in company and participation. Therefore, the
employer brand plays the major role for the enterprise attracting and keeping the talented
persons in the market (Janhonen, 2017). Besides, the quality of labor is the major factor
whether the company will be successful (Dodini, 2015). Therefore, the employer brand
would be the key factor for the enterprise getting competitiveness from the competitive
labor market (Zavyalova and Kuchero, 2010). Overall, this study argued that employer
brand is a set of characteristics that differentiates a company from its competitors. It is a
function provided by the company, the total combination of economic, psychological and
other benefits. It can take care of both the internal staff’s sense of (company) identification
and the company’s external image development. The employer brand is also the weapon by
which companies attract, motivate and retain existing and prospective employees.

The functions of employer brand

From an internal marketing perspective, the employer brand has the ability to help
companies strengthen their competitive advantage, enhance employee loyalty and help
employees internalize organizational values (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991). From the point
 CMS of view of external marketing, the employer brand can attract better-qualified candidates
and is an important way for organizations to acquire talented employees (Ewing et al., 2002;
Edwards, 2009). Moreover, Kristin and Surinder (2004) argued that employer branding
creates two important assets, namely, brand association and brand loyalty, where the
former shapes the attractiveness of the using organization’s image to prospective
employees, while the latter helps improve employee productivity. Furthermore, a strong
employer brand can reduce the cost of acquiring employees and promote employee
relationships (Berthon et al., 2005). Jenner and Taylor (2007) argued that over the past 20
years, the concept of brands have gradually formed a strong force in organizational and
social life. This has strengthened the company’s reputation, impacted profitability at the
management level and played a greater role in the market of recruitment advertising. Hence,
in uncertain economic times, the employer brand is an important factor in the organization’s
ability to motivate existing employees, enhance employee engagement and attract
prospective employees to work in the organization.
“Every employer needs quality people to meet this cut throat competition and quality
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

people want a good organization to work with. This is the reason that organizations have to
promote themselves and built a strong brand” (Aggarwal, 2015, p. 79). In addition, the
employer brand represents the internal and external effort of the enterprise improving the
corporation reputation and becoming an excellent and distinguished enterprise for employee
to pursue (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004). Put together, employer branding not only helps
companies attract prospective employees but also helps in securing the services of high-
quality staff and reducing the cost of personnel recruitment. For the companies internally,
employer brand promotes the relationship between employees, improves employee
productivity and loyalty, helps with talent retention, is conducive for organizational
performance and enhances competitive advantage.

The structure and factors of employer brand

A study on the factors to measure employer brand is helpful for both practitioners and
researchers. “A deeper insight into the dimensions may help managers to identify their
impact on organizational outcomes like employee satisfaction, employee retention,
commitment and productivity. Also, organizations can measure the perceptions of employees
for identifying improvement gaps and developing effective attraction and retention
strategies”. (Tanwar and Prasad, 2017, p. 389).
Regarding the structure of employer brand, Ambler and Barrow (1996) divided employer
brand into economic, functional and psychological dimensions. The economic dimension
includes financial remuneration, salaries/wages and other payments provided by the
employer, while the functional dimension involves potential opportunities such as career
development and other activities provided by the employer. Also, the psychological
dimension refers to employee perceptions in employment relations such as the sense of
belonging, adaptability and purpose. Subsequently, Berthon et al. (2005) suggested that the
employer brand comprises five dimensions: interest value, social value, economic value,
development value and application value. Interest value is the assessment of the employer in
providing an exciting work environment and in making use of the employee’s creativity to
produce high quality, innovative products and services. Social value assesses the work
environment provided by the employer that is fun, happiness, having good collegial
relationships and a team atmosphere. Economic value is the employer’s ability to provide
above-average salary, compensation package, job security and opportunities for promotion.
Development value assesses the employer in providing recognition, sense of self-worth,
career enhancement experience and a springboard to future employment. Application value
 evaluates the employer in terms of providing opportunities for employees to apply their Factors to
professional skills and to teach others, in the promotion of good customer experience. measure
Additionally, Lievens and Highhouse (2003) proposed an instrumental-symbolic framework
of employer brand. This framework incorporates the attributes that are associated with job
employer
applicants to an employing organization; hence, many scholars (Lievens, 2007; Van Hoye brand
et al., 2013) have recommended its application in empirical studies. Furthermore, Zhu et al.
(2014) attempted to construct an indigenous employer brand structure entirely in the
mainland Chinese context. They conducted empirical research on fresh university graduates
in mainland China and developed a five-dimensional structure of employer brand, namely,
compensation and benefits, recognition, opportunity for development, work-life
effectiveness and organizational symbolism.
With regard to factors that affect employer brand, for knowledge workers, the key
factors that determine their loyalty to the organization are brand development opportunities,
challenging work environments, personal training and development opportunities, as well
as performance-related pay and profit-sharing factors (Sutherland et al., 2002). Previously,
Freeman (2002) interviewed 32 British college students and extracted 84 common attributes
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

through the content analysis method, before finally selecting the 20 most important
attributes, including merit-based job assignment, attention to staff training and
development, high starting salary, friendly corporate culture, highly reputed employer and
others. However, the literature on Chinese employer brand recognition is very limited. In
2010, Zhang conducted a research on fresh university graduates of mainland Chinese
universities, using the employer brand structure developed by Ambler and Barrow (1996)
and obtained 20 important factors. These factors included eight functional benefits such as
work autonomy, working conditions, space for promotion and corporate personnel use; four
economic benefits such as wages, benefits, incentives, employment relation protection; and
eight psychological benefits, namely, interpersonal relationships in the company, product
and service quality, corporate reputation, leader’s charisma and employee’s sense of
belonging. Additionally, Zhu et al. (2014) used focus group interviews and the method of
content analysis to establish a more generalized framework of employer brand for mainland
Chinese employers. Through research on fresh university graduates, an employer brand
structure was constructed for Chinese enterprises, based on five major dimensions and a
total of 29 factors. Of these five major dimensions, three are consistent with the
instrumental-symbolic dimensions in a Western context, as well as with the economic,
functional and psychological dimensions; that is, compensation and benefit (Ambler and
Barrow, 1996), opportunity for development (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003) and recognition
(Berthon et al., 2005). This finding indicates that these dimensions are more common and
may be universally applied in Asian and Western contexts. In contrast, work-life
effectiveness and organizational symbolism are unique in the context of a Chinese company.

Similarities and differences in employer branding between Chinese and Western

classifications
In summary of the above, although scholars have not agreed on the structure of employer
brand and classification of factors, it is still possible to note many common factors. Some
categories were further refined based on previous scholars’ arguments or theories, such as
those found in the study of Berthon et al. (2005) and Zhang (2010). Some differences in
classification emanated as a result of the differences in Chinese and Western cultures; for
example, the difference between Zhang (2010), Zhu et al. (2014) and other Chinese scholars
on one side, and Freeman (2002), Lievens and Highhouse (2003) and other European or
American scholars on the other. In addition, some differences in categories are caused by
 CMS dissimilarities in research subjects (e.g. students versus employed knowledge workers) or
simply by scholars’ dissimilar arguments and theories, such as that of Ambler and Barrow
(1996) and Collins and Stevens (2002).
Although Taiwan and mainland China are linguistically and ethnically alike and have
similar cultural backgrounds, the long-term estrangement between the two sides of the
Taiwan Strait and the differences in political systems have made both to have different
values and ways of thinking. This causes differences in values that are held at work
between the people on both sides of the strait. Many empirical studies (Wu, 2004; Wang,
2007; Chao, 2011) have shown that there are significant differences in work values
between mainland Chinese and Taiwanese employees. Because work values are an
evaluation criteria used by individuals to determine the correctness of affairs and assess
the importance of an action or outcome in work or in a work environment (Dose, 1997),
they guide personal behavior trends, and as an indicator of work choice, they deeply
affect the individual’s perception and evaluation of work (Feather and Rauter, 2004).
Therefore, work values will affect an individual’s identification with the hiring position
and with the employing unit or the current position, which in turn determines the unit to
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

which they decide to apply for employment, their investment in the current position, their
level of job satisfaction, etc. On this basis, different work values may lead to differences
in employer brand recognition.
The study about the Favorite Top 40 Enterprises for College Students by Common
Wealth Magazine showed that the main job considerations for fresh and recent graduates
include “good corporate reputation and image”, “good salary and benefits”, “good training
program”, “large enterprise scale”, “multinational enterprise” and other factors. Huang et al.
(2003) pointed out that the top-ten corporate image demands to which job seekers paid
relatively more attention in newspaper recruitment advertisements are:
(1) the existence of numerous opportunities for advanced study and learning;
(2) the availability of a good prospect for development in the company;
(3) good salary;
(4) stable company operations;
(5) pleasant working atmosphere;
(6) well-established (corporate) employment system;
(7) job stability and security;
(8) comfortable work environment;
(9) numerous promotional opportunities; and
(10) cheerful management style.

Also, a Taiwan online job bank, Eastern Online (2012), investigated the factors that affect
job-seekers’ choice of employment, and its results showed that job seekers pay attention to
high salary, good corporate benefits, corporate vision/development, personal job
development, convenient transportation, proximity to place of residence, regular work
hours, the nature/content of work, similarity to the nature of the current job, as well as the
size of the company and whether it is listed. In addition, the study by Uen et al. (2015)
pointed out that corporate reputation is the most important factor in employer brand.
Companies may enhance their organizational prestige through the employees’ word-of-
mouth marketing.
From the above discussion on job seekers’ work values and important factors affecting
work considerations, it can be seen that employer brand factors in mainland China, Taiwan
 and Western countries share many similarities, but some differences still exist. Job seekers Factors to
in Taiwan are similar to their counterparts in Western countries, but different from those in measure
mainland China, in the extent to which they pay attention to company size, choice of work employer
location, whether company is a multinational enterprise, work creativity and other factors.
Past studies found similarities between mainland China and Taiwan. For example, in a
brand
study on work values in Taiwan, the “family harmony” factor proposed by Chao (2011) was
found to be similar to the “work-life effectiveness” dimensional factor proposed by mainland
Chinese scholars (Zhu et al., 2014). Both are concepts that emphasize “family” values at
work, which is different from Western countries. Therefore, Taiwan’s employer brand factor
covers some factors found in mainland China and Western countries. To construct employer
brand factors of Taiwanese companies, this study combined the employer brand factors
mentioned by scholars in mainland China, Taiwan and Western countries. It used
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to further establish employer brand dimensions and
factors that are unique to Taiwan. The classification of employer brand factors is shown in
Table I.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

Method
Analytical strategy
In this study, two formal survey questionnaires were used. The first questionnaire
examined the structure of employer brand. Principal dimensions and their factors were
extracted by EFA, and then construct validity and overall fit was examined by
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The second questionnaire was used to investigate
whether job seekers and current employees have consistent views with respect to
employer brands. This study used the SPSS V22.0 and LISREL V8.52 statistical software
to carry out questionnaire collection and data processing, which include descriptive
statistics, independent and single sample t-test, Cronbach’s a coefficient and correlation
analysis, for the purpose of establishing a measure of employer brand in Taiwan and
verifying whether there is consistency in the views of current employees and job seekers
on employer brand factors.

Work environment Work stability, heavy work, work diversity, work is close to home, work traffic,
(9 items) standard working hours, flexible work hours, a comfortable environment and
overseas work
The meaning of Work interest, professionalism display, work challenge, work autonomy, work
work (6 items) participation, self-fulfillment, receive respect and trust, and job promotion
Work growth Experience in departments, advanced study and learning, on-the-job training,
(5 items) career development and professional mentor
Company Company size, multinational enterprise, highly international, merit-based job
operations assignment, sound management, forward-looking management, management
(13 items) style, operating system, care for employees, operating performance, procedural
fairness, corporate culture and sound training
Friendship Work atmosphere, relationship with supervisors, relationship with colleagues,
(5 items) sense of belonging and happy family
Salary and benefits High starting salary, competitive salary, salary fairness, performance feedback, Table I.
(7 items) holiday bonus, foreign travel and paid leave Employer brand
Organizational Honesty, capacity for innovation, technical performance, leader charisma, dimensions and
symbolism (7 items) owner, corporate reputation and corporate social responsibility factors in Taiwan
 CMS Sample and participants
To establish a measure of employer brand, the study used recent graduates from Taiwan’s
universities (day division) as one of the sample populations. Because graduates are
confronted with the problem of looking for a job right away, there is a sense of immediacy
and urgency to the employer brand factors that they consider in the employing organization.
Hence, surveying these students rather than other samples seems objective and reasonable.
The number of students enrolled in public universities in Taiwan is less than that of private
universities, but their admission scores are generally better than those of private university
students. This difference in admission scores may lead to differences in job importance
factors during employment search between public and private university students.
Moreover, there are differences in living standards in the Northern, Central and Southern
regions of Taiwan, which may affect job seekers’ work values and in turn result to
differences in job importance factors. Therefore, this study included in its sample, new
graduates of public and private universities in the Northern, Central and Southern regions of
Taiwan. The first formal questionnaire was given out four months to when the final-year
students graduated. A total of 600 questionnaires were sent to universities in Northern,
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

Central and Southern Taiwan – 220, 200 and 180 surveys each, respectively. The ratio of
public to private universities was 1: 3, and 520 questionnaires were returned. There are 20
invalid questionnaires, which includes not answering over three questions, or same answers
for all questions (such as not agree for all questions). After removing 20 invalid
questionnaires, the number of effective ones was 500, with an effective response rate of 96.2
per cent.
Additionally, to understand whether job seekers and current employees are consistent in
their views with respect to important employer brand factors and to establish a measure of
employer brand from the perspective of job seekers, this study used a second survey
questionnaire on current employees. As a result of industry type differences in the sample of
the current employees, the differences in work values and attitudes affected the current
employees’ consideration of factors of the employer brand. Therefore, the source of current
employees’ sample was different types of industries, which reflected more objectively
important factors affecting employer brands in different industries. Like the first
questionnaire, 220, 200 and 180 copies of the second questionnaire were sent to current
employees in Northern, Central and Southern regions of Taiwan, respectively, and the
selected industries included the technology industry, as well as traditional manufacturing
and service industries. A total of 460 questionnaires were returned, there are 40 invalid
questionnaires, which includes not answering over three questions, or same answers for all
questions (such as not agree for all questions), leaving only 420 valid ones, with an effective
response rate of 91.30 per cent.

Data collection and informed consent

The participants were asked to fill the questionnaires on site. The questionnaires were
immediately collected after completion to enhance the response rate. To obtain informed
consent from the participants, the objectives and procedure of the research was well
explained by the research associates. Questions from the volunteer participants were taken
and answered accordingly. The participants were assured of the confidentiality and
anonymity of their responses (Kao, 2017).

Questionnaire design and implementation

This study aimed to construct Taiwanese employer brand dimensions and its factors. After
exploring the related literature on the employer brand in Western countries, mainland China
 and Taiwan, preliminary analysis yielded seven major dimensions and a total of 54 factors Factors to
for the employer brand concept. On the basis of the questionnaire’s draft, a five-point Likert measure
measurement scale was used, where 1 to 5 points represent “very unimportant” to “very
important”, respectively, and the higher the score, the greater the importance of the item. For
employer
survey respondents to reflect on various factors of the employer brand, before conducting brand
the formal survey study, 100 fresh graduates from a certain University of Science and
Technology in Taiwan were selected for pre-test. Results from the pre-test were used to
modify any wording or semantic ambiguities in the questionnaire, and single sample t-test
was used for item analysis. Thereafter, a total of eight items were deleted. Thus, the formal
survey questionnaire scale contained 46 items/questions, of which there were six items on
work environment, six items on the meaning of work, four items on work growth, 12 items
on company operations, five items on friendship, seven items on salary and benefits and six
items on organizational symbolism. Table I shows the details of each item. Many researches
in the past showed that the gender of the subjects would affect the consuming characteristic,
which in turns will affect the cognition of the employers of the enterprises to them (Wu,
2003). Therefore, the gender of the subjects was added as the control variable. Besides, the
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

property of the school and department of the subjects may also affect the analysis of
the questionnaires (Berthon et al., 2005). Therefore, these two variables were added as the
control variables. The control variables of this study have been commonly applied by many
researchers (Chen and Kao, 2012). Therefore, the questionnaire also requested for some basic
information about the respondents, such as their gender, school type, department and future
job employing industry.

Results
Basic analysis
Table II shows the sample structure of the surveyed subjects. It can be seen from Table II
that the fresh graduates were mostly women (62.8 per cent), and more people enrolled in
private universities (62.0 per cent), studied engineering (24.4 per cent) and worked in the
service industry (40.6 per cent). Moreover, among the current employees, most were men and
employed in the service sector (32.8 per cent). Overall, the two questionnaire samples were
diverse and representative.

Significance testing of employer brand factors

To construct a measure of the Taiwanese employer brand, this study selected 100 fresh
graduates for pre-test. The results of the pre-test were used to examine factors that the
graduates found important by the single sample t-test. Table III shows that among the 54
factors, 46 were significantly different (p # 0.05). Therefore, the first formal questionnaire
used these 46 factors in its empirical investigation.

Empirical analysis
First, EFA was used to extract the employer brand’s main dimensions and their factors.
Before such analysis, KMO values were determined and Bartlett’s spherical tests were
performed. The results showed that the KMO value was 0.947. According to Kaiser and Rice
(1974), if KMO  0.9, then it was highly suitable for conducting factor analysis. Moreover,
Bartlett’s spherical test result was x 2 = 8451, p < 0.001, which is quite significant,
indicating that the existence of common factors between the populations and factor analysis
was suitable. Next, to extract employer brand dimensions, the study followed the principles
set by Hair et al. (1998). The EFA results on the employer brand’s 46 factors are shown in
Table IV. As shown in Table IV, 12 factors had loadings less than 0.5, and six factors could
 CMS Undergraduate senior Current
students employees
Dimension No. of people (%) No. of people (%)

Gender
Male 186 37.2 224 53.3
Female 314 62.8 196 46.7
School type
Public 190 38.0 Not investigated Not investigated
Private 310 62.0 Not investigated Not investigated
Department
Business/ 97 19.4 Not investigated Not investigated
management
Engineering 122 24.4 Not investigated Not investigated
Literature 83 16.6 Not investigated Not investigated
Medicine/nursing 57 11.4 Not investigated Not investigated
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

Agriculture 79 15.8 Not investigated Not investigated

Leisure/food and 22 4.4 Not investigated Not investigated
Beverage/tourism
Beauty/makeup 40 8.0 Not investigated Not investigated
Other 0 0.0 Not investigated Not investigated
Future job employing Industry
Traditional 49 9.8 115 27.4
manufacturing
industry
Science and 131 26.2 72 17.1
technology industry
Service industry 203 40.6 138 32.8
General retail 65 13.0 28 6.7
industry
Other 52 10.4 67 16.0
Table II. Location
Demographic Northern Taiwan 181 36.2 140 33.4
characteristics of the Central Taiwan 168 33.6 132 31.4
sample Southern Taiwan 151 30.2 148 35.2

belong to two dimensions simultaneously; these factors were all deleted. In total, the study
extracted a total of five dimensions and 28 factors. The eigen values of the dimensions were
12.074, 2.425, 1.513, 1.179 and 1.081, respectively; and the cumulative explained variance
was 64.33 per cent. Dimension 1 had nine factors and was named “affection and
atmosphere” according to factor connotations. Dimension 2 had eight factors and was
named “management and operations”. The third dimension was named “benefits and
feedback”. Dimension 4 was named “foreign company,” while Dimension 5 was named
“interest and environment”. Finally, after EFA, the study performed CFA to evaluate the
validity of each dimension. It can be seen from Table IV that all factor loadings (Column B)
were greater than 0.55; the composite reliability for each dimension was greater than 0.75;
and x 2= 1306.05, df = 345, CFI = 0.97, IFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.05, exceeding
all cutoff criteria (Hu and Bentler, 1998). Given that the factors in five dimensions can
significantly converge to their respective dimensions, the above results show that the
study’s measurement scale has good construct validity. This indicates that the employer
 Structure Factor T p-value Significance
Factors to
measure
Work environment Work stability 8.507 0.000 yes employer
Hard work 5.051 0.000 yes
Work diversity 0.784 0.433 No brand
Work is close to home 4.055 0.000 yes
Work traffic 3.277 0.001 yes
Standard Working Hours 0.712 0.477 No
Flexible work hours 0.378 0.705 No
A comfortable environment 2.677 0.008 yes
Overseas work 4.892 0.000 yes
The meaning of work Work interest 6.882 0.000 yes
Professionalism display 6.837 0.000 yes
Work challenge 1.607 0.066 No
Work autonomy 0.467 0.641 No
Work participation 3.321 0.001 yes
Self-fulfillment 7.549 0.000 yes
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

Receive respect and trust 9.514 0.000 yes

Job promotion 8.460 0.000 yes
Work growth Experience in departments 3.173 0.002 yes
Advanced study and learning 4.671 0.000 yes
On-the-job training 3.603 0.000 yes
Career development 3.664 0.000 yes
Professional mentor 0.087 0.930 No
Company operations Company size 1.833 0.067 No
Multinational enterprise 3.721 0.000 yes
Highly international 2.142 0.033 yes
Merit-based job assignment 8.099 0.000 yes
Sound management 9.613 0.000 yes
Forward-looking management 6.382 0.000 yes
Management style 7.625 0.000 yes
Operating system 11.139 0.000 yes
Care for employees 9.091 0.000 yes
Operating performance 7.633 0.000 yes
Procedural fairness 8.028 0.000 yes
Corporate culture 7.096 0.000 yes
Sound training 5.607 0.000 yes
Friendship Working atmosphere 10.963 0.000 yes
Relationship with supervisors 8.626 0.000 yes
Relationship with colleagues 12.145 0.000 yes
Sense of belonging 9.127 0.000 yes
Happy family 9.635 0.000 yes
Salary and benefits High starting salary 4.262 0.000 yes
Competitive salary 4.001 0.000 yes
Salary fairness 9.962 0.000 yes
Performance feedback 9.705 0.000 yes
Holiday bonus 6.705 0.000 yes
Foreign travel 5.857 0.000 yes
Paid leave 5.740 0.000 yes
Organization symbolize Honesty 13.784 0.000 yes
Capacity for innovation 9.694 0.000 yes
Technical performance 7.931 0.000 yes
Leader charisma 7.786 0.000 yes Table III.
Owner 0.740 0.460 No One-sample t test of
Corporate reputation 9.425 0.000 yes employer brand
Corporate social responsibility 8.645 0.000 yes factors
 CMS Factor loadings A Eigen Cumulative explained Reliability A
Construct and factor (B) values variance (B)

Affection and atmosphere 12.074 42.46 0.910 (0.912)

Happy family 0.76 (0.76)
Relationship with colleagues 0.72 (0.75)
Working atmosphere 0.72 (0.75)
Competitive salary 0.70 (0.67)
Sense of belonging 0.69 (0.81)
Corporate culture 0.62 (0.66)
Corporate reputation 0.59 (0.69)
Sound training 0.56 (0.72)
Relationship with 0.56 (0.77)
supervisors
Management and operations 2.425 50.98 0.901 (0.876)
Management style 0.74 (0.80)
Sound management 0.71 (0.74)
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

Merit-based job assignment 0.66 (0.64)

Forward-looking 0.65 (0.74)
management
Operating system 0.64 (0.74)
Career development 0.59 (0.76)
Care for employees 0.57 (0.78)
Job promotion 0.52 (0.65)
Salary and benefits 1.513 56.26 0.836 (0.839)
Holiday bonus 0.75 (0.77)
Paid leave 0.71 (0.67)
Salary fairness 0.66 (0.78)
Performance feedback 0.65 (0.78)
Foreign company 1.179 60.47 0.809 (0.813)
Multinational enterprise 0.85 (0.82)
Highly international 0.77 (0.83)
Overseas work 0.74 (0.63)
Experience in departments 0.55 (0.61)
Interest and environment 1.081 64.33 0.756 (0.764)
Work interest 0.78 (0.76)
A comfortable environment 0.68 (0.64)
Table IV. Professionalism display 0.61 (0.76)
Employer brand
EFA Notes: Column A contains EFA values; Column B contains CFA values

brand structure of Taiwan’s new university graduates is based on 5 dimensions and 28

factors. The structure of the employer brand after LISREL treatment is shown in Figure 1. In
addition, it can be seen from Table IV that all the dimensions in the study’s measurement
scale have high reliability values.

Comparison of recognition factors of employer brand between internal and prospective

external employees
The previously mentioned survey of fresh university graduates represents the employer
brand recognition of prospective external employees. However, is it consistent with the
 Factors to
measure
employer
brand
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

Figure 1.
The factors of
employer brand

views of current employees? Are job seekers affected by recruitment publicity from current
employees, and will their work values conflict once they enter the workforce? Or will they
even choose to leave (the company) if they fail to properly exercise their expertise or because
their work values are in conflict? To obtain comparative information on employer brand
recognition factors of internal and prospective external employees, this study conducted a
second survey, with a target sample which consisted of existing employees from different
industries in Taiwan. The survey had a total of 420 valid returns, which were used to
compare the differences in employer brand views between external and internal employees,
by performing an independent sample t-test (Table V). It can be seen from Table V that there
are no significant differences between job seekers and the current employees in 25 of the 28
employer brand factors. However, for three factors – opportunities for overseas work/
assignment, whether the work environment is comfortable and sound training system –
there was a significant difference in employer brand recognition. Job seekers attached more
importance (higher average value) to opportunities for overseas work and a comfortable
work environment than the current employees did. The current employees gave higher
recognition to a sound training system than job seekers. Company managers should be
concerned with these findings in their employee recruitment or retention policies.
 CMS Job Incumbent
Construct Factor applicants employees t P Difference

Affection and Happy family 4.36 4.32 0.74 0.459 NS

atmosphere Relationship with 4.44 4.42 0.52 0.600 NS
colleagues
Working atmosphere 4.41 4.50 1.78 0.073 NS
Competitive salary 4.17 4.20 0.51 0.609 NS
Sense of belonging 4.34 4.33 0.22 0.830 NS
Corporate culture 4.28 4.33 0.80 0.423 NS
Corporate reputation 4.34 4.30 0.77 0.442 NS
Sound training 4.24 4.37 2.23 0.026 1<2
Relationship with 4.34 4.38 0.58 0.561 NS
supervisors
Management and Management style 4.30 4.28 0.47 0.64 NS
operations Sound management 4.39 4.39 1.08 0.281 NS
Merit-based job 4.31 4.30 1.11 0.912 NS
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

assignment
Forward-looking 4.25 4.32 1.37 0.170 NS
management
Operating system 4.39 4.41 0.53 0.595 NS
Career development 4.15 4.14 0.22 0.826 NS
Care for employees 4.35 4.35 0.04 0.971 NS
Job promotion 4.31 4.30 0.313 0.754 NS
Salary and Holiday bonus 4.27 4.21 1.04 0.300 NS
benefits Paid leave 4.23 4.18 0.82 0.410 NS
Salary fairness 4.36 4.30 1.29 0.199 NS
Performance 4.35 4.29 1.12 0.264 NS
feedback
Foreign company Multinational 3.82 3.76 0.81 0.418 NS
enterprise
Highly international 3.90 3.83 1.12 0.262 NS
Overseas work 3.77 3.62 2.15 0.032 1>2
Experience in 4.12 4.01 1.88 0.06 NS
Table V. departments
Comparison of Interest and Work interest 4.26 4.18 0.12 0.905 NS
recognition factors of environment A comfortable 4.11 3.98 2.16 0.031 1>2
environment
employer brand Professionalism 4.27 4.26 0.12 0.905 NS
between internal and display
prospective external
employees Note: NS means not significantly different

Conclusion and suggestions

Conclusion and discussion
This study used a survey questionnaire to obtain the structure and factors of employer
brand in the Taiwanese context, which produced 5 dimensions and 28 factors. Among them,
3 dimensions – “management and operations”, “benefits and feedback”, as well as “interest
and environment” – are similar to those found from job seekers in mainland China and
Western countries. For example, for the research from Berthon et al. (2005), the interest and
social value are similar to “interest and environment” in this study. Both of them are to
evaluate whether the employer could provide an exciting working environment, build up an
environment for good relationship between colleagues, and team work atmosphere. Besides,
 the economic value and “welfare and remuneration” of this study are similar. Both of them Factors to
are to evaluate whether the employers provide over the average salary, reward package, job measure
security and promotion opportunity. For the study by Zhang (2010), the functional benefit
(such as autonomy, working condition, promotion opportunity, employment concept [. . .]
employer
etc), and economic benefit (such as salary, welfare, reward, employment protection) are also brand
similar to the previous mentioned dimensions of this study. This shows that these
dimensions has certain commonality, and may be applicable to cognition of employer brand
for oriental and western employees and consumers. This means that job seekers in the East
and West will generally pay great attention to the management styles and operations of the
company, as well as their benefits, salary and incentive mechanisms, work interest and
professionalism, and working environment. Therefore, these three factors can be seen as the
common employer brand that is generalizable to job seekers globally. With respect to
differences among these three dimensions, Taiwanese job seekers placed more importance
on “benefits and feedback” (M = 4.30) than “management and operations” (M = 4.29) or
“interest and environment” (M = 4.21), especially for holiday bonuses, paid leave and other
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

benefits. These results show that job seekers pay great attention to whether the employing
company can bring personal real values. According to the reasons above, enterprise should
provide competitive salary to the employees. According to their professional skills and
performances, the reasonable and fair remunerations should be provided, and the proper
rewards should be provided according to their efforts, such as extra bonus or holiday bonus.
Next, the enterprise should have perspective innovation under the stable business so that
the employees could feel that the company is a prospective enterprise. Furthermore, the
enterprise should develop good corporate culture. It could contribute to the communities and
care about the society so that the employees would be proud of the enterprise. It should also
provide complete employee training and help them arranging the career development so that
there would be promotion opportunities for the employees. In this way, the enterprise would
be able to foster and keep the talents.
Next, the study found that “affection and atmosphere” dimension, which integrates
important factors from job seekers in mainland China and Western countries, is another
factor for which job seekers in both the East and West showed concern. For example, the
factors of dimensions for “harmonious family” proposed by Taiwan scholar Chao (2011), and
the “Job-life performance” propose by scholar Zhu et al.(2014) from mainland China are
similar. Although the concept is to give weightage to the “family” value in job, it is different
from foreign countries. As in mainland China, Taiwanese job seekers pay great attention to
family life, which may be derived from the fact that oriental culture is greatly influenced by
Confucianism, making people to consider whether family life may be accommodated as an
important factor in job selection. Moreover, Taiwanese job seekers also valued the
organization’s atmosphere, friendship aspects and emotional needs, all of which bring
spiritual and psychological satisfaction in employees, create organizational cohesion and
reduce the turnover rate. Furthermore, the factors of employer brand are similar to the factors
of job seeker from Western countries. For example, the study from Berthon et al. (2005) shows
that the job seekers from Western countries pay attention to see whether the employer is able
providing the interesting and happy environment, good relationship with colleagues and
team work working environment. This will help the employees building up the
organizational commitment and become psychological satisfaction (Ambler and Barrow,
1996). Taiwan is a society known for its human warmth and kindness; hence, it is not
surprising that job seekers emphasized the importance of workplace friendships. What
stands out is the fact that job seekers not only valued functional factors but also cared about
emotional exchange and sustenance in the job application process. As indicated by Maslow’s
 CMS hierarchy of needs theory, job seekers have shifted to higher level needs of “social friendship”
from lower level needs – physiological and safety. With the discovery of “affection and
atmosphere” dimension in the study, it signifies that job seekers not only placed emphasis on
time spent, harmony and happiness with family members, they also care about psychological
satisfaction brought forth by social friendship from getting along with colleagues and
superiors in the workplace. Therefore, the content of this dimension integrates the “work-life
efficiency” concept developed by mainland Chinese scholars such as Zhu et al. (2014), as well
as the “psychological functions” in Ambler and Barrow (1996) and “social values”
dimensions in Berthon et al. (2005), and other Western scholars. As such, “affection and
atmosphere” can be said to contain common dimensions from Eastern and Western cultures,
particularly when job seekers give considerable attention to whether the company supports
both their work and family life, rather than just focus on the work. In addition, job seekers
value the workplace’s organizational atmosphere, friendship aspects and emotional needs, so
that their inner sustenance can be satisfied. This emotional aspect has been widely discussed
in both Eastern and Western human resources management theory and practice and is also
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

one of the needs that Taiwanese job seekers give special emphasis. According to the reasons
stated before, the enterprise should first build up the good working atmosphere. That can be
started from the enterprise policy, such as paying attention to the managing approach of the
chiefs, treating every members fair, providing reasonable and fair remuneration to promote
getting alone harmoniously between the colleagues. This could improve the organizational
commitment of the employees. Besides, provide more opportunity of gathering for the
employees and their family, such as reasonable leaving system, holding company trip or
dinner to promote the harmonious and happy family.
In addition, with an economic downturn and Taiwan’s economic situation which is
characterized by industry offshoring, Taiwan is in a state in which work is generally hard to
find and the salary is low. Job seekers are now actively looking for overseas job opportunities,
expanding their job search channels and applying for jobs in foreign companies to earn
higher salaries. Therefore, the study also found that Taiwanese job seekers also place great
importance on the “foreign company” dimension. This dimension was formed by Taiwan’s
overall economic environment and is different from mainland Chinese and Western employer
brand dimensions. Arguably, this dimension may be described as a product of Taiwan’s
unique environment. This result matches with the study conducted by CommonWealth
Magazine in 1997, for which “Multinational Corporation” is the important factor for Taiwan
young people choosing the employers.This “foreign company” dimension means that
Taiwanese job seekers focus attention on the possibility of working for foreign companies or
opportunities to work overseas. Under the current economic situation, this career
development and work value is unique. Not only does it differ from today’s mainland Chinese
job seekers but it is also unlike Western job seekers’ work values. This dimension reflects the
fact that domestic companies in Taiwan are unable to attract job seekers: on one hand, job
opportunities are few; on the other hand is the phenomenon of low wages. Furthermore, the
sustained low salary in the country has also affected employee retention in domestic
companies. Hence, local branches of multinational companies or overseas subsidiaries are all
employer brand characteristics that job seekers value and care for. According to the reasons
above, the enterprise should enhance the employer brand starting from salary and
corporation reputation and provide high starting salary that is competitive with the
multinational corporation so that the salary would be competitive. Besides, the subjects of
this study paid close attention to the performance reward, holiday bonus, traveling abroad,
annual leave with salary and corporate social responsibility. If the enterprise achieves the
 aforementioned factors that job seekers and employees care about, it is able to contend Factors to
talented employees with the local multinational corporation or foreign subsidiary. measure
Finally, this study examined the internal and external consistency of employer brand
factors, beyond attempting to understand whether corporate recruiters will affect job
employer
seekers. Also, it has sought to further understand which important factors, existing brand
employees associate with employer brand, for the purpose of providing a sound talent
retention policy. It was found that a great majority of important employer brand factors (90
per cent) between job-seekers and current employees are the same, only a few are different.
That is, job seekers attributed a higher degree of importance to overseas job opportunities
and a comfortable working environment than the current employees did, while the current
employees focused more on a sound training system as compared to job seekers. This
difference shows that job seekers pay more attention to functional factors, while existing
employees are more concerned about the meaning of work and self-meaning. Therefore,
human resource managers must understand the different areas of key concern between the
two groups, and only then can the company successfully acquire and retain talent.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

In summary, enterprise should pay a series of intentional effort, such as good enterprise
performance and corporate social responsibility, to create, change and improve the corporation
reputation so that the enterprise can get the talented employees and build up the human capital
(Edwards, 2009). This could also attract the talented applicants (Lievens, 2007; Zhu et al., 2014)
and build up good impression for the internal employees to the enterprise to keep the
employees and inspire their potentials (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Minchington, 2006).

Implications for theory and practice

Based on theories relevant to the employer brand, and through survey questionnaire
and statistical analysis, this study has constructed a structure and factors of employer
brand that are suitable for Taiwan. To establish a uniquely Taiwanese employer brand,
factors based on gender and industry categories for future academic follow-up studies,
the study provided adequate findings that corporate managers may use to assess the
attractiveness of their organizations both internally and in the labor market, so as to
facilitate their success in acquiring and retaining talent. This is the study’s primary
theoretical implication and contribution. Additionally, the process of constructing a
Taiwanese employer brand structure can extend and deepen the global understanding
of the employer brand, so that multi-national enterprises know how to promote their
employer brand factors and attract high-quality job seekers in a competitive labor
market. Internally, human resource management can be more attentive to the needs of
employees, thereby reducing employee turnover rate. This is the study’s other
theoretical implication and contribution.
In addition to the above, the study also has its practical implications. First, based on the
employer brand factors developed in this study, companies can assess and identify the
attractiveness and weakness of its organization and decide on the appropriate approach to
promote its employer brand for attracting prospective employees and stabilizing the
existing personnel. Second, the employer brand valued by individual job seekers has been
found to be mostly functional; that is, there is a bias toward external conditions and values,
and there is less emphasis on intrinsic self-worth. However, Taiwanese job seekers are also
concerned with affective relationships and social friendships. Therefore, it is recommended
that companies use functional factors and closely link the interaction and sustenance of
psychological emotions to attract young Taiwanese job seekers, as well as help to stabilize
its existing employees. Moreover, the study showed that job seekers pay great attention to
whether they can obtain personal real values. Therefore, how to respond to the needs of job
 CMS seekers is a labor market issue that a market-oriented employing company should take
seriously. Finally, when human resources managers are recruiting new talent and
stabilizing the current personnel, it is necessary for them to understand the different factors
of key concern between job seekers and existing personnel, so that the goals of acquiring,
nurturing and retaining the talent may be attained. According to the theory and practical
implication, the dimensions and factors development of this study on employer brand has
contribution on both academic and practical. The employer brand has special function on
attracting potential employees and stabilizing the current employees. Therefore, after
building up the competitive employer brand, enterprise should consider how the
measurement tools of employer brand developed by this study could be applied on
consumer-brand communication and relationship. For example, the integrated marketing
communication strategy has been developed from pure communication tool to become
mature business strategy. Through the IMC, the enterprise may apply the strategic business
process and apply long-term planning, development, implementation and assessment of the
measurable, harmonious and convincing brand communication plan, for which
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

the consumers, customers, potential customers and other internal and external targets are
the core of communication (Nowak and Phelps, 1994). The enterprise could therefore
conduct brand communication with the consumers and build up the long-term relationship.
Based on this information, IMC could help the communication between the employer brand,
and consumers and internal employees, and transmit the harmonious messages (Saeed et al.,
2013, p. 124), and develop the maximum benefit to the employer brand. This is the reason
why this study suggests the enterprise, after building up the employer brand, it could apply
IMC strategy to communicate with the consumers and promote the long-term relationship
between the enterprise and customers.
In general, after 20 years of establishment and empirical research, the achievements are
rich, and many practical opinions are provided. For example, the consumer brand provides
value system, policies and action guidelines for the enterprise to attract, encourage and keep
the existing employees and potential employees (Conference, 2001). The enterprise could
also transmit the benefit of employer brand to the existing employees and external potential
job seekers. It also helps the enterprise winning an advantage over the competitors (Love
and Singh, 2011) and attracting talented applicants by the ideal corporate image. It also
helps the existing employees building up the organizational commitment and be satisfied
with the current job (Ngo et al., 2013). Therefore, it is important to explore the forming
factors of employer brand.
However, most of the existing literatures come from the researches of Western scholars,
and they may be affected by the Western social value. This study has explored the oriental
and Western literatures. As specified in Introduction, many viewpoints of the factors of
employer brand between Mainland China, Taiwan and Western countries are similar
(Berthon et al., 2005; Zhu et al., 2014), but there are also certain differences (Anderson et al.,
2010; Chao, 2011). This study also found that some dimensions are the same as Western
society and Mainland China (such as “management and operation”, “reward and
remuneration” and “interest and environment”), but some items are still different from
Western society and Mainland China. This is the reason for this study integrating the
oriental and Western literatures. In the study field of Taiwan, it is found that employer
brand will definitely show different style features due to the cultural difference. Therefore,
when enterprise applies the relevant connotation of the employer brand, it is necessary
considering the cultural difference. This shows the importance of cross-cultural study of
employer brand recently. At the same time, this also highlights the contribution of this
study on theory and practice.
 References Factors to
Aggarwal, S. (2015), “Factors determining employer branding in India: an empirical of fresh measure
management students”, International Journal of Applied Sciences and Management, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 79-90.
employer
Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996), “The employer brand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 3,
brand
pp. 185-206.
Anderson, M.H., Haar, J.M. and Gibb, J.L. (2010), “Personality trait inferences about organizations and
organizational attraction: an organizational-level analysis based on a multi-cultural sample”,
Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 16, No. 1 pp. 140-150.
Backhaus, K. and Tikoo, S. (2004), Conceptualizing and Researching Employer Branding, Career
Development International, Vol. 9, pp. 501-517.
Berthon, P., Ewing, M. and Hah, L.L. (2005), “Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness in
employer branding”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 151-172.
Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), “Marketing services: competing through quality”, by Leonard
L. Berry, A. Parasuraman, American Marketing Association, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 132-134.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

Breaugh, J.A. and Starke, M. (2000), “Research on employee recruitment: so many tudies, so many
remaining questions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 405-434.
Chao, Y.T. (2011), “A Comparison of Work Values and Organizational Commitment of Chain
Restaurant, between Taiwan and China -the Restaurant of Taiwan-Funded Graduate Institute of
Hospitality, National”, Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, Taiwan.
Chen, C.H. and Kao, R.H. (2012), “Work values and service-oriented organizational citizenship
behaviors: the mediation of psychological contract and professional commitment: a case of
students in Taiwan police college”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 149-169.
Conference (2001), Engaging Employees through Your Beand, The conference Board, New York, NY,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Collins, C.J. and Stevens, C.K. (2002), “The effects of company recruitment practices on job seekers,
perceived employment brand equity and intentions to pursue job opportunities”, Academy of
Management Proceedings, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 1121.
Cooper, N. (2008), Brand on the Run [J], Personnel Today, Vol. 1: S4.
Dodini, D. (2015), “New Work Culture Attracts Millennials”, MLA 7th ed. UWIRE Text 25 June 2015: 1.
Dose, J.J. (1997), “Work values: an integrative framework and illustrative application to organizational
socialization”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 219-240.
Eastern Online (2012), “Investigated on factors that affect job-seekers’ choice of employment”, available
at: http://www.isurvey.com.tw/1_about/2_en.aspx (accessed 15 April 2016).
Edwards, M.R. (2009), “An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Edwards, C.R. (2010), “An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Ewing, M.T., Pitt, L.F., de Bussy, N.M. and Berthon, P. (2002), “Employment branding in the knowledge
economy”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 21, pp. 3-22.
Feather, N.T. and Rauter, K.A. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behaviours in relation to job status,
job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 81 -94.
Fernandez-Lores, S., Gavilan, D., Avello, M. and Blasco, F. (2016), “Affective commitment to the
employer Brand: development and validation of a scale”, Business Research Quarterly, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 40-54.
Freeman, C. (2002), “Recruiting for diversity”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2,
pp. 68-76.
 CMS Gavilan, D. and Avello, M. (2011), “Employer brand attraction: factores para atraer el talento”, Vol. 112,
pp. 30-38.
Nowak, G.J. and Phelps, J. (1994), “Conceptualiting the integrated marketing communications’
phenomenon: an examination of its impact on advertising practices and its implications for
advertising research”, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 49-64.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), “Multivariate data analysis” (5th ed.),
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structuring modeling: sensitivity to under
parameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 424-453.
Huang, I.C., Tsai, C.F., Huang, Y.H. and Chen, C.H. (2003), “Appeals of recruiting advertisement
contents in E-Recruiting: job seekers’ perspective”, Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 43-61.
Janhonen, M. (2017), “The role of the employer brand in employee attraction and retention”,
Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of International Business Management, Turku
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

University of Applied Sciences.

Jenner, S. and Taylor, S. (2007), “Employer branding - fad or the future of HR?”, In Humpage, S. (Ed.),
Research Insight: Employer Branding: The Latest Fad or the Future for HR, London, pp. 7-9.
Kaiser, H.F. and Rice, J. (1974), “Liffy mark IV”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 111-117.
Kao, R.H. (2017), “The Relationship between work characteristics and change-oriented OCB: a
multilevel study on transformational leadership and organizational climate in immigration
workers”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 8.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and branding: researchfindings and future priorities”,
Mark. Sci, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740-759.
Kimpakorn, N. and Tocquer, G. (2009), “Employees¨commitment to brands in the service sector: luxury
hotel chains in Thailand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 532-544.
Knox, S. and Freeman, C. (2006), “Measuring and managing employer brand image in the service
industry”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22 No. 7-8, pp. 695-716.
Kristin, B. and Surinder, T. (2004), “Conceptualizing and researching employer branding”, Career
Development International, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 501-517.
Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003), “The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a
company’s attractiveness an employer”, Personal Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 75-103.
Lievens, F. (2007), “Employer branding in the Belgian army: the importance of instrumental and
symbolic beliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants, and military employees”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 46, pp. 51-69.
Love, L.F. and Singh, P. (2011), “Workplace branding: leveraging human resource management
practices for competitive advantage through ‘best employer’ surveys”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 175-181.
Mandhanya, Y. and Shah, M. (2010), “Employer branding-a tool for talent management”, Global
Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 43-48.
Minchington, B. (2006), “Your Employer Brand: Attract, Engage, Retain”, Collective Learning
Australia, Torrensville, SA.
Ngo, H-y., Loi, R.F., Zheng, S.X. and Zhang, L. (2013), “Perceptions of organizational context and job
attitudes: the mediating effect of organizational identification”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 149-168.
Pitt, L.F., Ewing, M.T. and Berthon, P.R. (2002), “Proactive behavior and industrial salesforce
performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 639-644.
 Saeed, R., Naeem, B., Bilal, M. and Naz, U. (2013), “Integrated marketing communication: a review Factors to
paper”, Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 124-133.
measure
Sartain, L. and Schumann, M. (2006), “Brand from the inside: Eight Essentials to Emotionally Connect
Your Employees to Your Business”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. employer
Sutherland, M.M., Torricelli, D.G. and Karg, F.R. (2002), “Employer - of - choice branding for knowledge brand
workers”, South African Joumal of Business Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. l3 -20.
Tanwar, K. and Prasad, A. (2017), “Employer Brand scale development and validation: a second-order
factor approach”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 389-409.
Uen, J. F., Ahlstrom, D., Chen, S. and Liu, J. (2015), “Employer Brand management, organizational
prestige and employees’ word-of-mouth referrals in Taiwan”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, Vol. 53 No. 1 pp. 104-123.
Van Hoye, G., Bas, T., Cromheecke, S. and Lievens, F. (2013), “The instrumental and symbolic
dimensions of organizations’ image as an employer: a large-scale field study on employer
branding in Turkey”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 543-557.
Wang, K.W. (2007), “Comparison of work values of employees in mainland China and Taiwan-Example
Downloaded by INSEAD At 07:22 20 September 2018 (PT)

of a DRAM module company”, Unpublished master’s dissertation, Department of Industrial

Engineering and Engineering Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Wu, S.I. (2003), “The relationship between consumer characteristics and attitude toward online
shopping”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Wu, C.F. (2004), “A comparative study on the work values between Taiwanese and Chinese”.
Unpublished master’s dissertation, Graduate Institute of Human Resource Management,
National Central University, Taiwan.
Zavyalova, E. and Kucherov, D. (2010), “Relationship between organizational culture and job
satisfaction in Russian business enterprises”, Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 225-235.
Zhang, J.C. (2010), “A study on the elements and structure of employer brand for Chinese enterprises-an
empirical analysis based on senior students from five universities in guangzhou”, Journal of
Maming University, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 63-66.
Zhu, F., Wang, Z., Yu, Q., Hu, T.L., Wen, Y. and Liu, Y. (2014), “Reconsidering the dimensionality and
measurement of employer brand in the Chinese context”, Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 933-948.

Further reading
Common Wealth Magazine (1997), “College Students’ Favorite Top-40 Large Enterprises”, Vol. 191,
pp. 76-86, in Chinese)
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), “Psychometric Theory”, Mc Graw-Hill, New York, NY.
Zavyalova, E. and Kucherov, D. (2010), “Relationship between organizational culture and job
satisfaction in Russian business enterprises”, Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 225-235.

Corresponding author
Rui-Hsin Kao can be contacted at: toptop074@yahoo.com.tw

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