Original Article

Managing employer brand

attributes to attract potential future
leaders
Received (in revised form): 15th August 2013

Marino Bonaiuto
is full Professor of Social Psychology at the Faculty of Medicine and Psychology in Sapienza University of Rome, where he is
President of a master degree in Psychology of Communication and Marketing and a member of the PhD board in Social
Psychology at the Department of Psychology of Socialization and Development Processes; he is also vice-director of CIRPA
(Interuniversity Centre for Research in Environmental Psychology). His main research areas are: environmental psychology;
verbal, bodily and organizational communication; work and organizational psychology.

PY
Stefano De Dominicis
is PhD candidate in Social Psychology at the Department of Psychology of Socialization and Development Processes, Sapienza
University of Rome; he also collaborate with CIRPA (Interuniversity Centre for Research in Environmental Psychology). His
main research areas are: environmental psychology; organizational communication; work and organizational psychology;
attitude–behavior relation.
O
Laura Illia
C
is Assistant Professor of Corporate Communication at IE University and Academic Director of the Master in Corporate
Communication. Her current research focuses on how issues of identity, social responsibility, corporate communication and
branding are involved in organizational management and change. She has been doing research at the University of Cambridge
R

(UK), London School of Economics and Political Science (UK) and University of Lugano (CH). She published in MIT Sloan
Management Review, British Journal of Management and Journal of Business Research, among others.
O

Belén Rodríguez-Cánovas
TH

is an Economist, Statistician and PhD candidate in Business Administration. She has been working as Senior Brand Manager at
Kimberly-Clark, L’Oréal and Bosch. After having an international experience in Eastern Europe in the real estate industry, she
joined her family-run company as Commercial Manager in the pharmaceutical industry. She combines this position with
academic research at IE Business School and teaching at ICADE, Comillas University Madrid.
U

Gabriele Lizzani
is Adjunct Professor of Internal Marketing and Employer Branding at the Faculty of Medicine and Psychology at Sapienza
A

University of Rome; he is also CEO of Contattolavoro.it (Recruiting and Employer Branding Company). His main research
areas are: organizational communication; work and organizational psychology; internal marketing; employer branding; and
social media strategy. He collaborates with top employers such as Ferrero, Robert Bosch, Barilla, Leroy Merlin and so on.

ABSTRACT Attracting and retaining professionals with the potential to become leaders
Correspondence: is crucial for ensuring the success of companies. The purpose of this study is to con-
Marino Bonaiuto
Facoltà di Medicina e Psicologia,
tribute to the field of employer branding (EB) by identifying which employer brand
Dipartimento di Psicologia dei
Processi di Sviluppo e
attributes are perceived as particularly relevant for attracting talented people. Using
Socializzazione, Sapienza three empirical studies, we identify brand attributes that have not been very widely
Università di Roma, Via dei
Marsi 78, 00185 Roma, Italy diffused among real companies (versus ideal) but are relevant for attracting young
E-mail: marino.bonaiuto@
uniroma1.it professionals with the potential to become leaders. We also identify which brand

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792

www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/
 Bonaiuto et al

attributes already present among real employees allow for attracting talented indivi-
duals versus the non-talented ones. The three studies are conducted with a sample of
493, 729 and 1605 recent graduates from Italian universities, respectively. The results
indicate that the most idealized brand attributes are related to the future employers’
ability to innovate, be committed to social responsibility, be open, be a corporation
that values capabilities and knowledge and, finally, be a place offering different career
paths. The last three factors in particular have become more important in recent years.
The results are discussed with reference to how they contribute to our understanding
of EB, brand management and the attraction of future leaders.
Journal of Brand Management (2013) 20, 779–792. doi:10.1057/bm.2013.18

Keywords: employer branding; brand attribute; potential leaders; ideal employer; real
employer; talents

INTRODUCTION these strategies should be centered mainly

Employer branding (EB) focuses on the on soft aspects, as such aspects are not
identification and communication of the easy for competitors to copy (Sullivan,
functional, economic, and psychological 1999; Wilden et al, 2010) and also enable

PY
benefits and values provided by an employer
and a profession to current and future
employees (Ambler and Barrow, 1996). It
O
depends on an organization’s implementa-
tion of communication and marketing
C
activities to find and retain the market’s best
talents (Allen et al, 2004; Cober et al, 2003,
2004).
R
employees to identify with their current or
future workplace (Ashforth and Mael, 1989;
Gatewood et al, 1993).
An analysis of the EB literature shows
that prior studies have identified the values
of individuals to be attracted (see, for
example, Turban, 2001; Kristof et al,
2005) or proposed brand attributes expres-

EB has gained importance because, in the sing symbolic value for candidates (Lievens
last two decades, companies’ competitive and Highhouse, 2003; Lievens, 2007;
O

advantages and success have depended on Moroko and Uncles, 2008; Maxwell and
winning the talent war – that is, attracting Knox, 2009; Kausel and Slaughter, 2011;
TH

and retaining potential future leaders Jiang and Iles, 2011). Nevertheless, very
(Lermusiaux and Snell, 2001; Micheals et al, few studies have comprehensively exam-
2001; Allen et al, 2004; Edwards, 2010; ined the topic of EB and brand attributes
U

Wilden et al, 2010). In particular, it is key by highlighting which brand attributes

that the EB strategy relate to the company’s are not provided by real versus ideal
A

creation of a corporate brand that is employers (Bonaiuto et al, 2008, 2010).

coherent with the company’s identity as
employer so that the company can acquire
distinctiveness from its competitors
(Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Mosley, 2007;
Moroko and Uncles, 2009, 2008).
Traditionally, EB scholars have explored
both hard and soft aspects that might help
design strategies for attracting and retaining
talent (Ambler and Barrow, 1996). How-
ever, today it is commonly believed that
To achieve this aim, we conducted three
studies with a sample of 493, 729 and 1605
recent graduates from Italian universities,
respectively.
The article is structured as follows.
First, we provide a discussion of why brand
attributes matter for EB. Second, we present
studies providing scales of brand attributes
and EB. On the basis of this review,
we refer to empirical studies on young

780 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792

graduates showing which brand attributes
are specifically attractive for young talents or
non-talents seeking to enter companies’
job market in reference to real and ideal
employers. We then draw conclusions
regarding which brand attributes are crucial
because they (i) are not widespread in the
market of employers nowadays and (ii) are
attracting potential future leaders. Such a
method and approach can obviously pro-
vide more general validity beyond the spe-
cific sample, context and period of the
present study.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Why brand attributes matter for the
employer
PY
Brand attributes express what is promised
and expected by a company (Balmer and
Gray, 2003; Balmer and Greyser, 2006;
O
Brown et al, 2006). They are extremely
important for EB because job search is like
C
‘a matching game, where job seekers and
their potential employer make decisions
about each other on the basis of the simi-
R
larity they perceive to have in values and
personality’ (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004,
O
p. 506). This matching game is based on the
principles of the attraction–selection–attri-
TH
tion theory (Schneider, 1987), which
emphasizes the process of attraction and
retention produced by the organization on
U
the workforce.
The attraction–selection–attrition theory
A
(Schneider, 1987) underscores the psycho-
logical comparative processes involved in
the transaction between individuals and the
organizations for which they work or will
work. Individuals are attracted to, and seek
to become a part of, organizations with
which they share attitudes, opinions and
values (that is, attraction). In turn, organi-
zations choose those candidates who present
similar characteristics to them (that is, selec-
tion). Finally, when individuals do not
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792
Managing employer brand attributes
adapt to the work environment (that is,
attrition), they have to leave it, thereby
turning the organization into a more
homogenous entity than the one to which
they initially were attracted, generating
relevant implications for diversity issues
(Van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007).
In this process, brand attributes are
particularly important in the first phase
because applicants are typically not ade-
quately informed about an organization;
consequently, during the attraction period,
they draw inferences about the company
based on their own views about the
future employer (Spence, 1974; Barber and
Roehling, 1993). Thus, companies willing
to attract potential future leaders need to
take into consideration the perceptions of
those whom they want to attract (Cable and
Turban, 2001). Brand attributes are also
important after a candidate has been attrac-
ted to the company. Brand attributes have
the advantage of postponing the final phase
of the process of organizational sociali-
zation (that is, departure). They also have
the positive outcome of minimizing the
risks of the immediately previous phase (that
is, marginalization) (Levine and Moreland,
1991). It is important to consider what
employees expect and the match they find
(Edwards, 2010). Thus, it is crucial that an
EB strategy consider not only the brand
attributes of real employers, but also those
of ideal employers.
Brand attributes that attract potential
future leaders
A company ought to utilize recruitment
strategies that focus on the beliefs of the
individuals that the company wants to
attract (Kristof, 1996; Turban, 2001;
Turban and Cable, 2003; Kristof et al,
2005). A company’s tangible attributes are
not the only factor that contributes to
increasing the attraction of current candi-
dates; its symbolic brand attributes are also
781
 Bonaiuto et al
important for attracting in particular
potential candidates with high talent while
also ensuring the retention of current
employees.
Two studies have provided an extensive
overview of symbolic values in the EB
context. The first one, by Lievens (2007)
and Lievens et al (2005), analyzed how the
Belgian army could attract young talented
candidates. In this study, the authors refer-
red to Cable and Turban’s (2001) employer
knowledge model, according to which
candidates perceive an organization based
on how its brand attributes express a degree
of familiarity (employer/familiarity), good
image (employer/image) and reputation
(employer/reputation). Lievens et al’s (2005)
results corroborated these hypotheses and
underscored the importance of a good
PY
reputation and image in order to predict
the attraction of future potential leaders;
indeed, these two elements matter more
O
than familiarity. In a later work, Lievens
(2007) once again proved that employer
C
attractiveness is influenced by these sym-
bolic brand attributes. Although crucial
attributes are those that describe the work
R
or the employer in an objective, concrete
and tangible way (for example, salary, loca-
O
tion and organizational structure), the sub-
jective, intangible and highly symbolic
TH
aspects of a company such as its reputation
and good image matter the most. Indeed,
these intangible brand attributes result
U
from individuals’ inferences, which often use
human features to describe a brand’s person-
A
ality (Levy, 1983; Plummer, 1985; Caprara
and Barbaranelli, 2000; Aaker, 1997).
The second study, by Berthon et al
(2005), constructed and validated the scale
of measurement of employer attractiveness
(Employer Attractiveness Scale, EMPAT
Scale) in the Australian context. This scale,
defined as ‘the package of the invisible
benefits that a potential employee sees in
the work in a specific organisation’
(Berthon et al, 2005), can be applied to
782 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792
different contexts and situations and admi-
nistered to various populations (for exam-
ple, students, graduates and professionals).
The five main dimensions of the construct
are essentially an extension of the work by
Ambler and Barrow (1996). Berthon et al
(2005) also identified psychological, func-
tional and economic benefits as key; more-
over, they highlighted the importance of
multidimensionality in employers’ efforts to
brand attractiveness. The five dimensions of
the brand attributes include: (i) the interest
value, which evaluates how an individual is
attracted to an employer who creates a
work environment stimulating creativity in
order to achieve a product of high quality;
(ii) the social value, which measures the
degree with which an individual is attracted
to an employer that creates an entertaining
and positive environment and promotes
relationships between colleagues and super-
iors; (iii) the economic value, which evalu-
ates the way in which one attracts a
potential candidate through remuneration,
safety in the workplace and promotions; (iv)
the development value, which tries to
determine how the personal and profes-
sional development of a career contributes
to the employer’s attractiveness; and (v) the
application value, referring to an organiza-
tion offering the opportunity to use one’s
own knowledge and transmit it to others.
In summary, based on the previous
discussions on why brand attributes matter,
we can conclude that young talents with the
potential to become future leaders idealize
their workplace before joining it. Thus,
their expectations might be related not only
to real attributes, but also to ideal ones.
It is worth noting that the previous
overview of EB studies shows that they
focus on real employers. These studies
highlight the importance of including attri-
butes expressing key elements of a com-
pany’s reputation, social engagement or
other soft brand attributes with social and
developmental value in an EB strategy

brand. In light of this, we conclude that it is
useful to consider (i) how future talents with
the potential to become leaders perceive
their own ideal (rather than real) employer
in terms of brand attributes and (ii) how
their expectations of an ideal employer ver-
sus a real employer might depend on soft
attributes related to a company’s reputation
and social engagement. In the next para-
graphs, we propose an assessment of brand
attributes that takes into account these two
pillars. The brand attributes considered are
composed into a 40-item list created from
major contributions from the relevant
quoted literature, particularly Berthon et al
(2005), Lievens et al (2005) and Fombrun
et al (2002).
PY
METHOD
We conducted three studies in order to
compare employers’ branding features of
O
the more talented versus least or non-talen-
ted recent graduates in Italy entering the
C
companies’ job market, within the main
metropolitan national areas. The first two
studies focused on individuals’ ideal
R
employer; the third study focused on an
individual’s perceived gap among her/his
O
ideal versus potential best real employer.
TH
Sample
Study 1’s sample included 493 students,
U
with a balanced gender division (49.5 per
cent male). Their average age was 22.38
A
years (SD = 2.39); specifically, 53.5 per cent
were 18–22 years old, 44.7 per cent were
23–27 years old, 1.5 per cent were 28–32
years old and 0.2 per cent were over 32
years old. Regarding subjects’ education,
57.1 per cent were students in universities in
Milan (13.1 per cent in Cattolica, 19.4 per
cent in Bocconi and 24.5 per cent in
Bicocca), whereas 42.9 per cent were stu-
dents in universities of Rome (13.7 per cent
in Sapienza, 17.6 per cent in Tor Vergata
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792
Managing employer brand attributes
and 11.7 per cent in Roma Tre). Almost the
entire sample were students of economics
(99 per cent), although a few studied engi-
neering (0.4 per cent) and medicine/
pharmacy (0.6 per cent).
Study 2’s sample included 729 students,
with a balanced gender division (45.8 per
cent male). Their average age was 22.34
years (SD = 2.25); specifically, 55.8 per cent
were 18–22 years old, 42.4 per cent were
23–27 years old, 1.4 per cent were 28–32
years old and 0.3 per cent were over
32 years old. Regarding subjects’ education,
29.7 per cent were students in universities in
Milan (12.6 per cent in Cattolica, 11.1 per
cent in Bocconi and 6 per cent in Bicocca),
35.6 per cent were students in universities in
Rome (10.8 per cent in Sapienza, 13.2 per
cent in Tor Vergata and 11.6 per cent in
Roma Tre) and 34.8 per cent were students
in universities in Naples and Salerno (34.8
per cent in Federico II–Naples). All were
students of economics.
Study 3’s sample included 1605 students
and recent graduates, with a balanced
gender division (51 per cent male). Their
average age was 22.5 years (SD = 3.3); most
(62 per cent) were 19–24 years old, 24 per
cent were 25–27 years old, 9 per cent were
28–30 years old and 5 per cent were over
30 years old. Regarding geographical ori-
gin, 34 per cent of the participants were
from central Italy, 34 per cent were from
northwest Italy, 25 per cent were from
south Italy and the islands, and 7 per cent
were from northeast Italy. Participants
majored in engineering (36 per cent), eco-
nomics (37 per cent), human sciences (27
per cent) and other programs (5 per cent).
Procedure
For Studies 1 and 2, we used a paper-based
survey in 2009 and 2010. For Study 3, both
paper-based (N = 1059; 66 per cent) and
online (N = 546; 34 per cent) surveys were
administered in 2006 and 2007. The link to
783
 Bonaiuto et al
the survey page was sent to the forums and
virtual communities most frequently visited
by students as well as to some teachers and
university structures, requesting them to
send a copy to their students.
Measures
The questionnaire includes two thematic
areas: one for the principal dimension of the
ideal (as well as real in Study 3) EB and one
for socio-demographic information. For the
ideal (and real) EB scale elaboration, we
took inspiration from the literature on EB
and reputation, especially in terms of the
constructs of the models by Berthon et al
(2005) (see also Lievens et al, 2005). We also
included variables that helped assess EB
brand attributes related to the following
PY
reputation pillars (Fombrun et al, 2002; Van
Riel and Fombrun, 2007; Bhattacharya et al,
2008): (i) innovativeness (relative to the
O
capacity of the organization to adapt itself to
the market thanks to innovation); (ii) good
C
governance (relative to the opened and
transparent management and the imple-
mentation of ethical and honest behaviors);
R
(iii) feelings toward the organization (plea-
sure, admiration, respect, confidence); and
O
(iv) CSR (the well-being of the community
and the society). The following paragraphs
TH
describe the specific dimensions of the
scales.
U
Dimension of ideal (or real) EB
A
In order to evaluate the core dimension
describing the ideal (or real) employer, we
asked to respondents to use a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = not at all important; 5 = absolutely
important) to evaluate some important tan-
gible (that is, guarantee a permanent posi-
tion or being financially solid) and
intangible (that is, having a nice organiza-
tional climate, having bosses whom the
employees can trust) organizational aspects.
In total, 40 attributes were considered. In
784 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792
the case of the ideal employer, the initial
instruction to complete this section was
‘for an organization to offer you the ideal
work, what matters most to you among the
following aspects?’ For a full list of items, see
Tables 1 and 2 in the results section. Some
of the 40 items were obtained by the
EMPAT Scale (Berthon et al, 2005), such as
‘to be attentive to the quality of products
and services’, ‘to have a good organizational
climate’ and ‘to fully value the capacity and
knowledge of the employees’. Other items
were acquired from the scale used by
Lievens et al (2005) in the research on the
factors of the attractiveness of the Belgian
army (for example, ‘to predict the coopera-
tion between groups’, ‘to have an organiza-
tional stable and well-defined structure’, ‘to
offer employments in which it is needed to
travel’). Finally, other items refer to the
corporate reputation quotient (Fombrun
et al, 2002); these items include ‘to have
profit in growth’, ‘to worry about the well-
being of the employees’ and ‘to be ethically
responsible’. Similar instructions were used
for the evaluation of the real employer.
Socio-demographic characteristics
The questionnaire concludes with a session
to measure the following socio-demo-
graphic characteristics: nationality, gender,
age, work of the mother and the father,
place and province of birth, current job
situation, university, faculty and academic
performance.
Data analysis
One-way ANOVAs were performed in
order to identify differences in the ideal EB
features among three groups of respondents
(in Studies 1 and 2) or among two groups of
respondents (in Study 3) based on respon-
dents’ talent: low, moderately and highly
talented person (Studies 1 and 2) or low
versus highly talented person (Study 3).

The measure of talent was created based
on subjects’ academic performance: the
average grade earned by the individual in
the Italian system (pass-threshold ranging
from 18 to 30). In Studies 1 and 2, where
more than two groups were compared via
the ANOVA, a series of post-hoc tests (LSD
method) were conducted in order to com-
pare the three groups.
The dependent variable in each study was
different. For Studies 1 and 2, the depen-
dent variable was the average score of each
item, which referred to the ideal employer.
For Study 3, it was the difference between
each item’s average score for the ideal versus
real employer identified as the best one
by each respondent (that is, ideal–real
employer gap).
PY
RESULTS
Study 1 (see Table 1), comparing different
O
talented students on the ideal EB attributes,
showed a significant main effect of talent on
C
several ideal EB attributes. Hereafter, only
those items that significantly differentiate
among lower-, medium- and higher-talen-
R
ted respondents are presented.
The item valuing abilities and knowledge
O
characterizes highly talented candidates
(M = 4.05) compared with low-talented
TH
candidates (M = 3.75): F (2, 336) = 2.07,
P = 0.043. A similar pattern of results
holds true for the possibility of offering
U
different careers to the prospective employee,
as higher-talented students (M = 4.23)
A
attached significantly more importance to
this attribute compared with less-talented
candidates (M = 3.90): F (2, 337) = 3.01,
P = 0.015. Four other attributes of the
ideal employer were significantly different
between low- and medium-talented stu-
dents, with the higher-talented respon-
dents being systematically slightly nearer
to the medium talented average score: pos-
sibility of rewards based on performance:
F (2, 337) = 2.51, P = 0.026; possibility of
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792
Managing employer brand attributes
having freedom of opinion: F (2, 336) = 2.08,
P = 0.042; possibility of working in different
areas: F (2, 336) = 2.50, P = 0.026; and pos-
sibility of having jobs abroad: F (2, 335) = 1.95,
P = 0.050.
Similar to Study 1, Study 2 (see Table 2)
compared talented versus non-talented stu-
dents on the ideal EB attributes and showed
a significant main effect of talent on several
ideal employer attributes. Compared with
the first study, this second study presented a
more coherent and systematic pattern of
results. The higher-talented students always
scored higher than the medium and/or
lower talented ones for 11 of the 40 attri-
butes of EB referring to their ideal
employer. These significant differences
include three of the six that emerged in
Study 1: valuing abilities and knowledge: F (2,
562) = 8.91, P < 0.001; different careers: F (2,
565) = 3.06, P < 0.05; and freedom of opinion:
F (2, 566) = 2.32, P < 0.05. Moreover, the
attributes significantly differentiating the
talented respondents versus others included
eight attributes of the ideal employer that
were not significant in Study 1: clear and fare
rewards: F (2, 564) = 4.91, P < 0.05; stimu-
lating motivation: F (2, 565) = 2.30, P < 0.05;
technically competent: F (2, 566) = 6.44,
P < 0.05; valuing diversities: F (2, 566) = 4.70,
P < 0.01; valuing creativity: F (2, 566) = 2.83,
P < 0.05; good climate: F (2, 566) = 3.82,
P < 0.01; development and learning: F(2,
565) = 3.32, P < 0.05; and flexible work hours:
F (2, 564) = 2.46, P < 0.05. Table 2 includes
only about those items that significantly
differentiate among lower-, medium- and
higher-talented students.
Finally, the dependent variable adopted
in the third study is different from the first
two studies, expressing the gap between the
ideal and the best real employer. It is
important to highlight that below zero
values (that is, negative values) indicate that
the item is perceived as being more typical
of an ideal company compared with the best
real employer identified by each student
785
 Bonaiuto et al

Table 1: Study 1 synthesis of one-way ANOVAs comparing differently talented students on the ideal EB attributes (N = 493)

Ideal EB Low talent Medium talent High talent F (DF) Significance

(18–24) (25–27) (28–30)

Equal salary NS NS NS
Good internal communication NS NS NS
Supporting employees NS NS NS
Career opportunities NS NS NS
Clear and fair rewards NS NS NS
Employes well-being NS NS NS
Valuing abilities and knowledge 3.75* 3.87 4.05* 2.067 (2, 336) P = 0.043
Different careers 3.90* 4.01 4.23* 3.007 (2, 337) P = 0.015
Promotes objectives that employees believe in NS NS NS
Ethically responsible NS NS NS
Security at work NS NS NS
Good reputation NS NS NS
Innovation NS NS NS
Improves consumers life and actions NS NS NS
Has trust of employees NS NS NS
Prestigious NS NS NS
Quality of services and products NS NS NS
Permanent positions NS NS NS
Is near to employees NS NS NS

PY
Stimulating motivation NS NS NS
Technically competent NS NS NS
Open to listen suggestions NS NS NS
Valuing diversity NS NS NS
Gives possibility to travel while working NS NS NS
O
Valuing creativity NS NS NS
Good climate NS NS NS
C
Development and learning NS NS NS
Rewards based on performance 3.41* 3.66* 3.55 2.510 (2, 337) P = 0.026
Freedom of opinion 3.88* 4.00 4.16* 2.085 (2, 336) P = 0.042
Group work NS NS NS
R

Different areas where one can work 3.44* 3.69* 3.58 2.504 (2, 336) P = 0.026
Expatriates employees 3.31* 3.55* 3.47 1.949 (2, 335) P = 0.050
O

Diversifies work NS NS NS
Has respect of rules NS NS NS
Stable work strucutre NS NS NS
TH

Co-operation between groups NS NS NS

Salary above the average NS NS NS
Revenues are increasing NS NS NS
Financially solid NS NS NS
U

Flexible work hours NS NS NS

Note: Italic items are significant in both Studies 1 and 2; Within a line, two means with the same superscript symbol are
A

significantly different (pairwise comparison).

(that is, an attribute that is therefore not
present enough in the job market). This
means that these attributes, once adopted,
could potentially differentiate a company
more than other attributes, as they are
attributes that are still not very widely dif-
fused among real companies. Meanwhile,
positive values indicate that an attribute is
considered by respondents to be already
present among real companies – that is, at
least in the one they identified as the best
real employer. Therefore, despite being
attractive for the respondents, such an attri-
bute potentially represents a lower distinc-
tiveness for a company as it is an attribute
that at least another real company already
has (according to each respondent’s opi-
nion). Only those items with either a

786 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792
 Managing employer brand attributes

Table 2: Study 2 synthesis of one-way ANOVAs comparing different talented students on the ideal EB attributes (N = 729)

Ideal EB Low talent Medium talent High talent F (DF) Significance

(18–24) (25–27) (28–30)

Equal salary NS NS NS
Good internal communication NS NS NS
Supporting employees NS NS NS
Career opportunities NS NS NS
Clear and fair rewards 3.26* 3.24^ 3.45*^ 4.913 (2, 564) P* = 0.026; P^ = 0.002
Employes well-being NS NS NS
Valuing abilities and knowledge 3.25* 3.32^ 3.54*^ 8.907 (2, 562) P* = 0.000; P^ = 0.000
Different careers 3.16* 3.17^ 3.33*^ 3.056 (2, 565) P* = 0.047; P^ = 0.022
Promotes objectives that employees NS NS NS
believe in
Ethically responsible NS NS NS
Security at work NS NS NS
Good reputation NS NS NS
Innovation NS NS NS
Improves consumers life and actions NS NS NS
Has trust of employees NS NS NS
Prestigious NS NS NS
Quality of services and products NS NS NS
Permanent positions NS NS NS

PY
Is near to employees NS NS NS
Stimulating motivation 3.45* 3.58 3.61* 2.298 (2, 565) P = 0.041
Technically competent 3.29* 3.42^ 3.56*^ 6.441 (2, 566) P* = 0.000; P^ = 0.022
Open to listen suggestions NS NS NS
Valuing diversity 2.78* 2.92 3.08* 4.697 (2, 566) P = 0.002
O
Gives possibility to travel while working NS NS NS
Valuing creativity 3.06* 3.14 3.26* 2.826 (2, 566) P = 0.021
C
Good climate 3.35* 3.46 3.56* 3.820 (2, 566) P = 0.006
Development and learning 3.30 3.26* 3.43* 3.320 (2, 565) P = 0.011
Rewards based on performance NS NS NS
Freedom of opinion 3.34 3.33* 3.47* 2.319 (2, 566) P = 0.040
R

Group work NS NS NS
Different areas where one can work NS NS NS
O

Expatriates employees NS NS NS
Diversifies work NS NS NS
Has respect of rules NS NS NS
TH

Stable work strucutre NS NS NS

Co-operation between groups NS NS NS
Salary above the average NS NS NS
Revenues are increasing NS NS NS
U

Financially solid NS NS NS
Flexible work hours 2.64°* 2.85° 2.88* 3.460 (2, 564) P°= 0.021; P* = 0.016
A

Note: Italic items are significant in both Studies 1 and 2; Within a line, two means with the same superscript symbol are
significantly different (pairwise comparison).

negative or a positive gap value that is more according to low-talented candidates

significantly different between higher- and
lower-talented youngsters are described in
the results (see Figure 1).
Ability to innovate is an item that char-
acterizes the ideal company more according
to highly talented candidates (M = −0.13),
whereas it characterizes the real company
(M = 0.15): F(1, 1359) = 10.34, P < 0.01.
Thus, the potential innovativeness of a
company is a brand value that should
be more emphasized in real companies in
order to address a presently unsatisfied need
in the most talented youngsters, who look
for it in their ideal employer but fail to

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792 787
 Bonaiuto et al
Figure 1:
PY
Differently talented students’ comparison on ideal EB attributes.
O
find it even in what they consider the best
C
real employer. On the contrary, less-talen-
ted people find that their best real employer,
meaning it already satisfies their ideal com-
R
pany’s ability to innovate.
Both talented and non-talented candi-
O
dates indicated a negative value for what
concerns rewards based on performance (respec-
TH
tively, M = −0.55, M = −0.38). Thus, both
profiles believe that real companies do not
express this brand value yet. However, it is
U
important to note that this score is sig-
nificantly lower for highly talented candi-
A
dates compared with non-talented ones:
F(1, 1353) = 4.44, P < 0.05. Therefore,
higher-talented people find their expecta-
tions of such an employer attribute to be
unsatisfied by their best real employer in the
job market.
Similarly, both groups more often
described the ideal, versus the best real
company, as a company that guarantees well-
being of employees (something that real com-
panies therefore seem to lack compared
788 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792
with the ideal one). Highly talented candi-
dates are more extreme in this gap com-
pared with non-talented ones (respectively,
M = −0.76, M = −0.60): F(1, 1356) = 4.27,
P < 0.05.
A similar result is present for what con-
cerns the perception of the ideal company
as ethically responsible. Both talented and
non-talented prospective employees per-
ceive the best real companies as lacking
this aspect when they compare them
with the ideal employer (that is, a gap
negative score). In addition, talented res-
pondents (M = −0.40) are more radical in
this view compared with non-talented ones
(M = −0.20): F(1, 1356) = 6.24, P < 0.05.
These results indirectly indicate that highly
talented candidates are more difficult to
satisfy for this attribute compared with
non-talented candidates, as they see real
companies lacking much more in this brand
dimension than non-talented candidates
do, once they compare them with their
ideal employer.

The offer of career advancement is some-
thing that both talented and non-talented
respondents perceived as being present
more often in real companies than ideal
ones. In this case, non-talented candidates
see this element as more present than non-
talented candidates (respectively, M = 0.31,
M = 0.14): F(1, 1356) = 5.39, P < 0.05. This
brand value is therefore already well dev-
eloped by real employers, although this
situation holds more for non-talented than
for highly talented students.
The real company is also perceived to
be more able to facilitate cooperation bet-
ween groups. This element was rated higher
among talented versus non-talented indivi-
duals (respectively, M = 0.50, M = 0.34):
F(1, 1340) = 4.16, P < 0.05. Thus, highly
talented people find real employers able
PY
to meet their expectations for such a brand
value.
In terms of the ability of the company
O
to value diversities and to innovate, the two
groups expressed divergent opinions. These
C
are the only two brand attributes where
talented and non-talented respondents were
split in terms of the gap between the ideal
R
and the real employer: negative for the
talented people (who have a higher demand
O
than an already available offer) and positive
for the non-talented people (who have a
TH
lower demand than an already available
offer). Specifically, talented candidates
consider valuing diversities as a typical ideal
U
characteristic not present in the reality
of contemporary companies (M = −0.05),
A
whereas non-talented candidates see that
this brand attribute is already present in real
employers (M = 0.14): F(1, 1348) = 5.13,
P < 0.05. Such a feature is therefore a parti-
cularly crucial one because it is important
for talented people.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSON
Our findings draw attention to the key
role of measuring EB and brand attributes
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792
Managing employer brand attributes
following a perspective that identifies dif-
ferences between real and ideal employers
and between highly talented and low-
talented candidates, an area which has
remained underdeveloped in EB research.
In contrast to prior studies (Berthon et al,
2005; Lievens et al, 2005; Lievens, 2007)
that focus on the importance of providing
an assessment of brand attributes according
to a series of attributes, we highlighted the
particular importance of assessing brand
attributes that are (i) typical of an ideal
hypothetical company (allowing for a focus
on those brand identity attributes that
enable a firm to be more distinctive as still
not present among other employers) and
(ii) are specifically attractive for highly
talented candidates (thereby attracting the
leaders of tomorrow). These findings make
three main contributions to the literature on
EB and branding.
First, our results highlight that a number
of brand-identity attributes are crucial fac-
tors for attracting talented candidates: the
capacity to (i) innovate, (ii) value the diver-
sity, (iii) value abilities and knowledge,
(iv) offer different careers and (v) ensure
freedom of opinion. The last three brand
attributes in particular have been more
valued in recent years than in the past.
Additional key, but secondary, brand attri-
butes for becoming an ideal employer
attracting future potential leaders include
(vi) having an ethically responsible profile,
(vii) promoting the well-being of employ-
ees, (viii) ensuring a good climate and
(ix) stimulating motivation and creativity.
Finally, less symbolic brand attributes
include (x) rewards, (xi) technical compe-
tence of the company and (xii) flexible
hours.
Second, our findings show how essential
it is for EB managers to think in terms of real
and ideal employers. Prior studies have
focused on the importance of identifying
the primary values of individuals the firm
wants to attract (for example, Turban, 2001;
789
 Bonaiuto et al
Kristof et al, 2005) and proposing brand
attributes that express symbolic value for
candidates (for example, Lievens, 2007).
However, these studies failed to specify
which attributes are not provided by current
real employers (in contraposition with ideal
employers) and are essential for attracting
leadership. In addition, previous studies
(for example, Berthon et al, 2005) did not
directly consider reputation, prestige and
CSR-oriented policies in their EB scales.
Our study shows that these are crucial for
attracting candidates, particularly talented
candidates.
Third, our analysis shows the importance
for corporations to have a presentation
strategy. Specifically, our study reveals that
highly and low-talented candidates construe
their ideal employer in different ways.
PY
Talented candidates affirm that they prefer
direct interaction with the companies
through the hiring process (see Bonaiuto
O
et al, 2008). Therefore, in order to attract
them, companies should use channels to
C
communicate their employer brand attri-
butes such as job/career days or offered
internship experiences. Regarding their
R
process of selection, our results demonstrate
that it is important to involve highly talen-
O
ted candidates through the hiring pro-
cess and give them information about the
TH
organizational position, get feedback and
find themselves involved in the hiring
process.
U
As any empirical study, our study is not
free of limitations. One limitation relates to
A
the transferability of our findings given our
samples. Although our sample was ran-
domly built, it relates to the Italian context.
The robustness of our model still has to be
demonstrated in other cultural contexts.
Another limitation relates to the fact that
we considered only young graduates, from
19 to 24 years old. An interesting next step
would be to explore the robustness of our
findings among older people and maybe
focus on how brand attributes identified
790 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792
in our study are interesting not only for
attracting leadership but also retaining it.
A final limitation of our study relates to the
way we measured talented candidates. Our
measure of talented people relates to per-
formance and grading at school. One might
consider this measure to be reductive as
there are many other features of a person –
many related to interpersonal communica-
tion abilities – that define a person as a
talented candidate who will be the leader of
tomorrow.
In conclusion, our study shows that those
managers interested in attracting potential
future leaders can assess their company’s
brand based on those brand attributes typi-
cal of an ideal hypothetical employer and
very attractive for talented candidates. In
addition, they can use our study to deter-
mine whether the hiring processes they
have in place are the right ones for attracting
leadership.
REFERENCES
Aaker, J.L. (1997) Dimension of brand personality.
Journal of Marketing Research 34(3): 347–356.
Allen, D.G., Van Scotter, J.R. and Otondo, R.F.
(2004) Recruitment communication media: Impact
on prehire outcomes. Personnel Psychology 57(1):
143–171.
Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996) The employer brand.
Journal of Brand Management 4(3): 186–206.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989) Social identity theory
and the organization. The Academy of Management
Review 14(1): 20–39.
Backhaus, K. and Tikoo, S. (2004) Conceptualizing and
researching employer branding. Career Development
International 9(4/5): 501–517.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003) Corporate brands:
What are they? What of them? European Journal of
Marketing 37(7/8): 972–997.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2006) Corporate
marketing: Integrating corporate identity, corporate
branding, corporate communications, corporate
image and corporate reputation. European Journal of
Marketing 40(7/8): 730–741.
Barber, A.E. and Roehling, M.V. (1993) Job postings
and the decision to interview: A verbal proto-
col analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(5):
845–856.
Berthon, P., Ewing, M. and Lian Hah, L. (2005)
Captivating company: Dimensions of attractiveness

in employer branding. International Journal of
Advertising 24(2): 151–172.
Bhattacharya, C.B., Sankar, S. and Daniel, K. (2008)
Using corporate social responsibility to win the
war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review 49(2):
37–44.
Bonaiuto, M., Giacomantonio, M. and Pugliese, E.
(2008) Azienda, azienda delle mie brame: i giovani
scelgono le organizzazioni. In: G. Lizzani, G.M.
Mussino and M. Bonaiuto (eds.) L’Employer
Branding tra ricerca e applicazione. Milano, Italy:
Angeli, pp. 61–103.
Bonaiuto, M., Giacomantonio, M., Pugliese, E. and
Lizzani, G. (2010) Employer branding: Come
misurare la sua efficacia. Micro & Macro Marketing
XIX(1): 7–26.
Brown, T.J., Dacin, P.A., Pratt, M.G. and Whetten,
D.A. (2006) Identity, intended image, construed
image and reputation: An interdisciplinary frame-
work and suggested terminology. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 34(2): 99–106.
Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. (2001) Establishing
the dimensions, sources and values of job seekers
employer knowledge during recruitment. Research
PY
in Personnel and Human Resources Management
20: 115–163.
Caprara, G.V. and Barbaranelli, C. (2000) Capi di
governo, telefonini, bagni schiuma. Milano, Italy:
Raffaello Cortina Editore.
O
Cober, R.T., Brown, D.J. and Levy, P.E. (2004) Form,
content and function: An evaluative methodology
C
for corporate employment web sites. Human Resource
Management 4(2/3): 201–218.
Cober, R.T., Brown, D.J., Levy, P.E., Keeping, L.M.
and Cober, A.B. (2003) Organizational web sites:
R
Web site content and style as determinants of
organizational attraction. International Journal of
O
Selection and Assessment 11(1): 158–169.
Edwards, M.R. (2010) An integrative review of
employer branding and OB theory. Personnel Review
TH
39(1): 5–23.
Fombrun, C. (1996) Reputation: Realizing Value from the
Corporate Image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
U
Fombrun, C.J., Gardberg, N.A. and Sever, J.M. (2002)
The reputation quotient: A multi-stakeholder
measure of corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand
A
Management 7(4): 241–255.
Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M.A. and Lautenschlager, G.J.
(1993) Corporate image, recruitment image and initial
job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal
36(2): 414–427.
Jiang, T.T. and Iles, P. (2011) Employer-brand equity,
organizational attractiveness and talent management
in the Zhejiang private sector, China. Journal of
Technology Management in China 6(1): 97–110.
Kausel, E.E. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011) Narrow
personality traits and organizational attraction:
Evidence for the complementary hypothesis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
114(1): 3–14.
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792
Managing employer brand attributes
Kristof, A.L. (1996) Person-organization fit: An integra-
tive review of its conceptualizations, measurement
and implications. Personnel Psychology 49(1): 1–49.
Kristof, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C.
(2005) Consequences of individuals’ fit at work:
A meta analysis of person-job, person-organization,
person group and person supervisor fit. Personnel
Psychology 58(2): 281–343.
Lermusiaux, Y. and Snell, A. (2001) Perceptions vs.
Reality: Job Seekers Behavior Online. San Francisco,
CA: ILogos Research.
Levine, J.M. and Moreland, R.L. (1991) Culture
and socialization in work groups. In: L.B. Resnick,
J.M. Levine and S.D. Teasley (eds.) Perspectives
on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington DC:
American Psychological Association, pp. 257–279.
Levy, J. (1983) Individual differences in cerebral
hemisphere asymmetry: Theoretical issues and
experimental considerations. In: J.B. Hellige (ed.)
Cerebral Hemisphere Asymmetry: Method, Theory,
Application. New York: Praeger, pp. 465–497.
Lievens, F. (2007) Employer branding in the Belgian
Army: The importance of instrumental and symbo-
lic beliefs for potential applicant, actual applicants
and military employees. Human Resource Management
46(1): 51–69.
Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003) The relation of
instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company’s
attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology
56(1): 75–102.
Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G. and Anseel, F. (2005)
Examining the relationship between employer
knowledge dimensions and organizational attrac-
tiveness: An application in a military context. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
78(4): 553–572.
Maxwell, R. and Knox, S. (2009) Motivating emp-
loyees to ‘live the brand’: A comparative case
study of employer brand attractiveness within
the firm. Journal of Marketing Management 25(9–10):
893–907.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H. and Axelrod, B.
(2001) The War for Talent. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Moroko, L. and Uncles, M.D. (2008) Characteristics
of successful employer brand. The Journal of Brand
Management 16(3): 160–175.
Moroko, L. and Uncles, M.D. (2009) Employer
branding and market segmentation. The Journal of
Brand Management 17(3): 181–196.
Mosley, R.W. (2007) Customer experience, organi-
zational culture and the employer brand. The Journal
of Brand Management 15(2): 123–134.
Plummer, J.T. (1985) How personality makes a difference.
Journal of Advertising Research 24(December/January):
27–31.
Schneider, B. (1987) The people make the place.
Personnel Psychology 40(3): 437–453.
Spence, A.M. (1974) Market Signaling: Informational
Transfer in Hiring and Related Screening Processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
791
 Bonaiuto et al

Sullivan, J. (1999) Building an employment brand.
Electronic Recruiting Exchange, 23 July, http://www
.erexchange.com, accessed 23 July 2012.
Turban, D.B. (2001) Organizational attractiveness as an
employer on college campuses: An examination of
the applicant population. Journal of Vocational Behavior
52(1): 24–44.
Turban, D.B. and Cable, D.M. (2003) Firm reputation
and applicant pool characteristics. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 24(6): 733–745.
Van Knippenberg, D. and Schippers, M.C. (2007)
Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology
58: 515–541.
Van Riel, C. and Fombrun, C.J. (2007) Essentials of
Corporate Communication: Implementing Practices for
Effective Reputation Management. London: Routledge.
Wilden, R.M., Gudergan, S. and Lings, I.N. (2010)
Employer branding: Strategic implications for
staff recruitment. Journal of Marketing Management
26(1–2): 56–73.

PY
O
C
R
O
TH
U
A

792 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 9, 779–792