DDBA 8307B Week 6 Assignment: Evaluation of a Quantitative Data Analysis Using

Multiple Linear Regression

Perception of Organizational Attractiveness

Introduction

When Linda Hui moved from being Vice President for Human Resources at Pierce &
Pierce in Shanghai to her international assignment in New York, she was struck by the
difference in perception of Pierce & Pierce as an employer in China and the United States.
Pierce & Pierce in China stands for an attractive and popular place to work, as opposed to its
image as an employer in the United States, which was one of an unattractive, traditional, and
uninspiring place of work. This difference in perception was bothering Linda Hui, because a
strong and appealing ‘employer brand’ can attract (and retain) talent as denoted by the
number of university graduates aspiring to work for companies such as SAS, Google, Cisco,
and the Boston Consulting Group.

According to Linda Hui, the drivers of employer attractiveness have evolved into a
complex and challenging set in this day and age. Even though she believes that the success of
the organization itself is at the cornerstone of being an attractive employer (and Pierce &
Pierce is flourishing indeed), she feels that a wide variety of factors contribute to being
successful in attracting and retaining talent. “For many employees, being a part of a
profitable, thriving corporation is a reward on its own,” she says. “However, this is obviously
not enough. Opportunities for empowerment, a feeling of achievement, a substantial
compensation package, and a culture of grooming and development also play a major role in
the decision making process of today’s young professionals. Job candidates are looking for a
career, and not just for a job”.

Linda Hui has hired a graduate student in management from a local university,
Timothy Brice, to develop and test a model of employer attraction. The results of Timothy’s
study should help Pierce & Pierce to become more popular as an employer in the United
States and hence to attract and retain talented young professionals.

Timothy has conducted a literature review and in-depth interviews with graduate
students and young professionals who have just started their careers in order to establish the
drivers of employer attractiveness. Based on the results of the literature review, he has
developed the following model.

Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

From this model in Figure 1, Timothy has derived the following hypotheses.

The Effect of Brand Image on Employer Attraction

Employer brand image can be defined as the potential applicants’ perceptions of
instrumental and symbolic attributes of an organization (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Lievens &
Highhouse, 2003; Lievens, 2007; Martin, Beaumont, Doig, & Pate, 2005). The instrumental
dimension includes tangible attributes related to the job and/or the organization such as ‘job
opportunities’, whereas the symbolic dimension includes (the perception of) intangible
Figure 1
A Conceptual Model of Employer Attraction

Employer Brand Image

Instrumental attributes:
- Workplace atmosphere
- Job opportunities
- Industry characteristics Employer
attraction

Symbolic attributes:
- Excitement
- Sincerity
- Prestige

Subjective norms

attributes of an employer (as if it were a person) such as ‘sincerity’ and ‘being exciting’. Both
instrumental and symbolic attributes have been found to affect applicant attraction to an
employer (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Cable & Turban, 2001; Turban & Greening, 1997).
Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1a: The more positive the perception of instrumental attributes of an employer, the
stronger applicant attraction to the organization.
H1b: The more positive the perception of symbolic attributes of an employer, the
stronger applicant attraction to the organization.

Feelings of Significant Others.

If significant others in someone‘s surrounding (e.g., family and friends) tell this
person that a company is a much better employer than other employers, someone’s level of
attraction to that particular organization will grow. It is generally recognized that potential
applicants often consult other people (e.g., family, friends, and/or acquaintances) about jobs
and organizations (Van Hoye & Lievens, 2007). What’s more, Turban (2001) found that
university personnel’s beliefs about organizations affect students’ attraction to that
organization. Kilduff (1990) also found that in the early stages of job search, college students
are heavily influenced by the beliefs of their friends and classmates. These findings all point
at the relevance of social influences to potential applicants in influencing the level of
employer attraction. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: The more positive significant others are about an organization, the stronger
applicant attraction to the organization.

To test these hypotheses, Timothy has undertaken a quantitative field study. He has
collected data using a questionnaire measuring the variables in his model and a couple of
respondent characteristics such as age, gender, and level of education with closed-ended
questions. The results of this study are provided next.
 Results

Table 1 provides the means and standard deviations of the variables of interest to this
study and the results of a multiple regression analysis that was conducted to test the
hypotheses of this study.

Table 1
Summary Statistics and Results of the Regression Analysis
Adjusted df F M SD B SE t p
R2
Regression .365 7, 89 7.304 - - - - - .000a
Constant - - 2.213 .522 4.238 .000
Instrumental
attributes
Workplace atmosphere 4.32 .75 .088 .152 .577 .565
Job opportunities 4.73 .75 .390 .136 2.868 .005
Industry characteristics 4.24 .74 .275 .186 1.473 .144
Symbolic attributes
Excitement 3.78 .91 .071 .149 .474 .637
Sincerity 5.13 .80 .109 .137 .794 .429
Prestige 4.05 .81 .146 .115 1.268 .208
Subjective norm 4.98 1.13 .317 .100 3.169 .002
Employer attraction 3.71 1.23 - - - -
Note. df = degrees of freedom; F = F-statistic; M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; B =
Unstandardized beta coefficient; SE = standard error; t = t-statistic; p = significance level;
Scale 1-7.
a. Predictors: (Constant), Workplace atmosphere, Job opportunities, Industry characteristics,
Excitement, Sincerity, Prestige, Subjective norm.
b. Outcome Variable: Employer Attraction.
N = 197 (88 men and 109 women).

Questions

1. a. Discuss the following statement: One of the most important issues in regression
analysis concerns model specification (the determination of which independent
variables should be included in or excluded from a regression equation).
b. Do you like Timothy’s model? Is it, for example, in line with Linda Hui’s ideas?
Explain.

2. What’s the difference(s) between simple regression analysis and multiple regression
analysis?

3. Why can’t Timothy run a series of simple regressions (for instance three or seven) to test
the hypotheses of his study?

4. Provide the equation of Timothy’s model.

5. A common problem encountered in regression analysis is multicollinearity.

a. How does multicollinearity affect the estimates of the regression coefficients?
b. Describe a way you prefer to test for multicollinearity.
 c. Suppose that multicollinearity is a problem in this study. What can Timothy do about
it?
d. Do you expect that multicollinearity is a problem in this study? Explain.

6. Explain what it means when adjusted R2(R2adj) is much less than R2.

7. Interpret the results of the regression analysis. Discuss:

a. the model fit;

b. the significance of the model;
c. the constant;
d. the statistical validity of the beta coefficients;
e. the face validity of the results.

8. Provide the properly formatted inferential APA results of this study.

9. Timothy suggests that Pierce & Pierce should create more exciting jobs to attract more
employees since the mean of the independent variable “excitement” is relatively low. Do
you agree? Explain.

10. Linda Hui believes that the gender of potential employees may affect the original
relationship between prestige and employer attraction. She asks Timothy to test this idea.
a. How can Timothy test this idea?
b. Provide a new equation of the model: include Linda Hui’s ideas about the
moderating effect of gender on the relationship between prestige and employer
attraction.
 References

Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding.

Career Development International, 9(5), 501-517.

Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2001). Establishing the dimensions, sources and value of job

seekers’ employer knowledge during recruitment. Research in Personnel and Human

Resources Management, 20, 115-163.

Kilduff, M. (1990). The interpersonal structure of decision making: A social comparison

approach to organizational choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 47(2), 270-288.

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(1), 51-69.

Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a

company’s attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology, 56, 75-102.

Martin, G., Beaumont, P., Doig, R., & Pate, J. (2005). Branding: A new performance

discourse for HR? European Management Journal, 23(1), 76-88.

Turban, D. B. (2001). Organizational attractiveness as an employer on college campuses: An

examination of the applicant population. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 293-

312.

Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational

attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3),

658-672.

Van Hoye, G., & Lievens, F. (2007). Social influences on organizational attractiveness:

Investigating if and when word of mouth matters. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 37(9), 2024-2047.