The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm
Impact of word-of-mouth,
job attributes and
relationship strength on
employer attractiveness
Faiz Ahamad
School of Management and Labour Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
Mumbai, India
Impact of
word-of-mouth
721
Received 11 November 2017
Revised 28 June 2018
10 November 2018
Accepted 20 December 2018
Abstract
Purpose – Job information through word-of-mouth (WOM) has a crucial impact on employer attractiveness.
The phenomenal rise of social media offers alternate WOM platforms for sharing job information, which is quite
different from traditional face-to-face WOM. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differential impact
of traditional word-of-mouth (t-WOM) and social media word-of-mouth (s-WOM) on employer attractiveness
along with the difference in the job attributes and relationship strength with the information source.
Design/methodology/approach – A 2 2 2 experiment was conducted to examine the impact of
information source (t-WOM and s-WOM), job attributes (tangible and intangible) and relationship strength
(strong and weak), on employer attractiveness. Source expertise and source trust were treated as the control
variable.
Findings – The result shows the differential impact of t-WOM and s-WOM on employer attractiveness.
Moreover, t-WOM from strong relation source found to have a high impact on employer attractiveness than
s-WOM. No significant difference due to job attributes was found.
Research limitations/implications – Use of only positive WOM and not the negative one, student as
the subjects, etc.
Practical implications – The present study suggests using t-WOM and s-WOM to attract talented job
seekers.
Originality/value – This is the first study to analyze the differential impact of t-WOM and s-WOM on
employer attractiveness.
Keywords Human resource management, Recruitment, Word-of-mouth, Social media,
Relationship strength, Employer attractiveness, Job attributes, Job seeker,
Tangible and intangible attributes
Paper type Research paper
Human resources, being the key source for attaining competitive advantage, is
indispensable for organizations to attract talents, by enhancing the effectiveness of
recruitment strategies (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007). However, attaining that competitive
edge in the market is stimulating. The organizations deal with humans who are governed by
their respective needs, values and goals. Managing volatile beings in a volatile environment
demand exertion (Billsberry et al., 2010). Job seeker recognizes cues while making a
conscious choice, such cues are called attraction factor which can be tangible as well as
intangible. Hence, an organization needs to use all its sources of information to communicate
these factors to potential candidates (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2009). Job seekers affiliate more
credibility and authenticity to the independent source such as word of mouth (WOM), as it
negates the chance of any information manipulation (Lee and Youn, 2009). This makes
Management Research Review
Vol. 42 No. 6, 2019
pp. 721-739
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
DOI 10.1108/MRR-11-2017-0382
MRR
42,6
722
WOM as one of the basic and most reliable among information sources (Lievens and
Slaughter, 2016). The WOM influence is further enhanced by the phenomenal growth of
internet and network technology, empowering millions to share job information as well as
experiences (King, Racherla, and Bush, 2014), resulting in high degree of online engagement
and communication (Metzger et al., 2010), which ultimately influences job seekers’ decision.
The relationship between WOM communication and employer attractiveness has been
an explored area of study (Collins and Stevens, 2002; Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007, 2009;
Keeling et al., 2013), but to the best of our knowledge, hitherto, very few literature could be
found on a comparative study between traditional-WOM (t-WOM) and social media-WOM
(s-WOM) for employer attractiveness. The inclusion of this comparative study gives it a
leading edge in the existing pool of resources. The comparative criteria will help us in
understanding the differential effect of two different sources of information on the
attractiveness of the employer.
Literature review
Word-of-mouth study in recruitment
WOM influences behavior, perception as well as attitude of the receiver (Sweeney et al.,
2008). In comparison to other communication sources, WOM is low cost, credible, high
delivery speed and nine times more effective in getting a high response from the target
audience (Mazzarol et al., 2007) such as job seekers. However, WOM studies have been done
mostly in the field of consumer behavior, but rarely in the context of recruitment (King et al.,
2014) and employer attractiveness. Previous studies have mostly examined the influence of
WOM on employer attractiveness, but hitherto no attention has been given to a comparative
analysis of t-WOM and s-WOM.
T-WOM and s-WOM are two different communication source and having different
characteristics (Steffes and Burgee, 2009). For example, s-WOM have unmatched scalability,
measurable, easy to observe, fast diffusion, large network, no geographical limitation, etc.
(Cheung, Luo, Sia, and Chen, 2009). Though these attributes are not available in t-WOM, but
trust, credibility and chance of rapport building are more in t-WOM, because of the physical
proximity of sender and receiver (Steffes and Burgee, 2009). Furthermore, due to high degree
of accessibility and presence of a large number unknown online user, it is complicated to
assess the credibility of s-WOM information (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2005).
Research gap
WOM influence on jobseeker
Recently, many marketing concepts are being applied in human resource management such
as employer brand, job referrals etc. (Keeling et al., 2013; King et al., 2014). Similarly, the
concept of WOM in employment context is taken from marketing literature, due to high
degree of similarities between consumer purchasing behavior and job seeker application
behavior (Maurer et al., 2006), as in both case the main purpose is to attract the individuals
either for product or for job (Van Hoye et al., 2013). Moreover, WOM publicity is a good
alternative to traditional marketing communication system (Trusov et al., 2009), and
positively influences product recommendation, selection and purchasing behavior (Libai
et al., 2009; Lu et al., 2014; Rosengren and Bondesson, 2014; Senecal and Nantel, 2004;
Sweeney et al., 2008). Consumers share the WOM to inform the potential buyer about the
product quality (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004), risks in purchasing (Cheung et al., 2009),
seeking mass opinion (Chan and Misra, 2013), saving time in getting product details (De
Bruyn and Lilien, 2008) and getting assured about purchase decision (Sweeney et al., 2008).
Hence, in communicating the job and employer attributes, the underlying concept is similar
to product communication and highly depends on effective communication (Van Hoye and
Lievens, 2005).
The impact of WOM on recruitment has been investigated in few studies (Van Hoye,
2012; Van Hoye et al., 2013, Van Hoye, 2013; Van Hoye and Lievens, 2005, 2007; Keeling
et al., 2013; King et al., 2014). Keeling, McGoldrick and Sadhu (2013) found that staff WOM
has quite a key role in the job-seeker decision. Hence, stimulation of WOM influences
employer attractiveness (Collins and Stevens, 2002; Van Hoye, 2012; Van Hoye and Lievens,
2005; Keeling et al., 2013; Uen et al., 2011). However, very few studies have been done to find
the impact of WOM, on employer attractiveness (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2009; Van Hoye
et al., 2013, Van Hoye, 2013), because most of the previous studies have considered the job
applicants as an individual decision-maker, without having any social influence (Van Hoye
and Lievens, 2007), except few studies where social influence on job decision is also
supported (Fisher et al., 1979; Higgins, 2001; Ryan, Sacco, McFarland and Kriska, 2000;
Cable and Turban, 2001). According to Highouse and Hoffman (2001) social influence on job
decision is one of the most crucial areas to investigate (Van Hoye et al., 2013), because before
applying for a job, a job-seeker tries to get information from different sources (Maurer et al.,
2006) such as WOM from family, friends, colleagues, etc. (Keeling et al., 2013). Moreover, as
t-WOM and s-WOM have different characteristics, hence in this study, our main objective is
to find the differential impact of these two information sources on employer attractiveness.
Theoretical development
Employer attractiveness
The concept of employer attractiveness has been used in many studies (Brown and Swartz,
1989; Elving et al., 2013; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2018; Schreurs et al., 2009; Sivertzen et al.,
2013) because an attractive employer gives a good return on investment by attracting and
retaining talented job seeker (Lievens and Slaughter, 2016). Therefore, Highhouse et al.
(2003) described that the attractiveness of an employer is associated with an individual or
job seekers perception of the organization as a good place for employment. It is the process
by which a job seeker view the company as the best place to work for (Ehrhart and Ziegert,
2005). Furthermore, employer attractiveness is also described as the employment experience
and benefits received during the course of employment (Berthon et al., 2005). Hence, the
attractiveness as an employer has been described by various attributes, which are being
prioritized by job seeker depending on their goal, needs, expectation as well as personality
(Berthon et al., 2005; Cable and Turban, 2001).
Because of their limited information about job nature, the job-seekers decision is greatly
affected by recruitment activities which serve as the cues for job nature and employer
characteristics (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007). Job seeker collects information from various
sources, but as organization independent source such as WOM is perceived as more credible,
the chance of message acceptance is higher in case of WOM (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007).
Hence, WOM can play a crucial role in employer attractiveness. Moreover, among the
t-WOM and s-WOM, traditional one is perceived as more authentic, credible and having
better information quality than s-WOM (Cheung and Thadani, 2012; Wathen and Burkell,
2002). Moreover, the inability to assess message sender’s credibility and authenticity makes
s-WOM more vulnerable to rejection (Cheung et al., 2009). Furthermore, the absence of social
tie and rapport among individuals in s-WOM communication also reduces its acceptance,
which is not the case t-WOM (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2005; Steffes and Burgee, 2009). Hence,
t-WOM is more effective in employer attractiveness.
Impact of
word-of-mouth
723
MRR
42,6
724
Word-of-mouth and employer attractiveness
T-WOM is more accessible because of the closeness between sender and receiver, and it is
also more diagnostic because of high information quality, so in accordance to accessibilitydiagnostic model, it is perceived as more authentic, credible and influences jobseeker
decision to a considerable extent (Wathen and Burkell, 2002). Hence, the inability to assess
message sender’s credibility and authenticity makes s-WOM more vulnerable to rejection
(Sweeney, Soutar, and Mazzarol, 2008). Moreover, employee WOM is perceived as less
credible than non-employee WOM:
H1a. The WOM from strong relation will have a higher impact on employer
attractiveness than WOM from the weak relation.
H1b. Traditional WOM from a weak relation will have a low impact on employer
attractiveness than employee WOM.
H1c. Traditional WOM from a strong relationship will have a high impact on the
employer attractiveness than employee WOM.
H1d. The effect of t-WOM will be higher on employer attractiveness than s-WOM.
Relationship strength and information acceptance
Relationship strength enhances the source credibility, which in turn affects the receiver’s
attitude (Wathen and Burkell, 2002) and increases the chance of information acceptance. In tWOM, tie strength is stronger than s-WOM (Steffes and Burgee, 2009). However, in s-WOM
due to lack of physical presence and closeness, often the relation strength is not as strong as in
case of t-WOM, and hence, credibility decreases, reducing the chance of acceptance (Van Hoye
and Lievens, 2005). Moreover, even if the t-WOM is received from weak relation, then there are
more chances of rapport building because of interpersonal communication and physical
presence, which enhances the trust level between sender and receiver (Mazzarol et al., 2007),
which is not present in s-WOM, reducing its credibility as well as acceptance:
H2a. The s-WOM received from a strong relation, will enhance the employer
attractiveness more than if the same WOM is received from an employee in a
traditional way.
H2b. The WOM received from an employee in a traditional way, will enhance the
employer attractiveness more than if the same WOM is received from a weak
relation on social media platform.
H2c. S-WOM from weak relation will have low influence on employer attractiveness
than t-WOM received from the same source.
Job attributes and employer attractiveness
Communicating job attributes to potential jobseeker, helps in making a positive impression
on them (Cable and Judge, 1994). These job attributes can be classified into two different
categories, namely, tangible and intangible. The concept of tangible and intangible
attributes have been widely used in describing the product quality (Ding and Keh, 2017).
Tangible attributes are concrete or objective attributes, whereas intangible attributes are
those which are subjective in nature. For example, good pay and compensation is the
tangible job attributes, and a given amount mean same for every employee, but the pride of
being associated with a reputed employer is intangible attributes, which cannot be same for
each and every employee. Hence, a job attribute is the combination of both the intangible as
well as tangible attributes. However, previous studies have focused mostly on tangible job
attributes role in employer attractiveness, and only a few studies examined the role of
intangible attributes.
Slaughter et al.(2004) highlighted that job seeker associate traits to the employer, in
the way as consumer attribute to products or an individual attributing to other person.
These traits influence the job seeker decision to apply for the job (Slaughter and
Greguras, 2009). These traits have been classified into five different categories, which
are boy scout, innovativeness, dominance, style and thrift (Slaughter et al., 2004). The
first four traits influence the job seeker positively, whereas the last one decreases the
attraction. These employer traits can be communicated to potential job seeker through
various information sources such as advertisements, employee testimonial, etc. (Kausel
and Slaughter, 2011; Slaughter et al., 2004). Moreover, these traits are intangible in
nature and better differentiate one employer from other (Van Hoye, 2012; Van Hoye and
Saks, 2011; Lievens and Highhouse, 2003; Slaughter et al., 2004). Furthermore, tangible
attributes act as secondary attractiveness factors with respect to intangible one,
because applicants prefer to join an organization if only their traits, goal and values are
similar to that of organization’s.
According to person-organization fit theory, employer which is perceived as similar to
the job seekers own personality, is more attractive than the one which is not (Lievens and
Highhouse, 2003; Schreurs et al., 2009; Slaughter et al., 2004). Hence, the intangible attributes
help in attracting job seeker because the jobseeker connects themselves to the organizational
traits which are intangible in nature such as prestige, innovativeness, honesty, etc.
(Slaughter et al., 2004). Moreover, because of closeness and trustworthiness, the sharing of
information by t-WOM has more chance of acceptance than s-WOM (Steffes and Burgee,
2009). However, if the s-WOM is shared by strong relation, then there is a high chance of
getting accepted, rather than if the same information is shared by t-WOM but from the weak
relation:
H3(a). The effect of intangible attributes will be higher on employer attractiveness than
tangible attributes.
H3(b). Tangible attributes communicated through t-WOM will have a higher effect on
employer attractiveness than the tangible attributes communicated by s-WOM.
T-WOM have more positive impact on employer attractiveness than s-WOM. But for
intangible attributes, the social media provide a platform which can help in better delivery
than the t-WOM. Intangible attributes, being subjective in nature such as, pride, valueoriented social status etc (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003) and they give symbolic information
in imagery and general trait inferences (Lievens, 2007). These subjective values can be
communicated to job seeker through social media platform in a better way. This increases
the effectiveness of intangible attributes when delivered through social media platform.
Hence, if a person having strong relation with the job seeker, deliver intangible job
attributes, then the effect of s-WOM will be more than t-WOM:
Impact of
word-of-mouth
725
MRR
42,6
726
H4. S-WOM having intangible attributes from a strong relation, will have a higher
impact on employer attractiveness than t-WOM consisting of intangible attributes
with the same person.
Methodology
In all, 352 business management graduate students who were ready to enter job markets,
selected by purposive sampling. 69 per cent were male respondents and 31 per cent were
female. The mean age for both female and male was 23 year.
Operationalization of variables
Employer attractiveness is operationalized as job seeker’s perception of the organization as
the best place to work for (Highhouse et al., 2003). Traditional WOM is operationalized as
the verbal and casual communication about the organization as an employer or about any
job, without any commercial intention (Collins and Stevens, 2002; Van Hoye et al., 2007).
Social media WOM is operationalized as casual non-commercial communication between
two or more people about an organization as an employer shared on a social media platform
(Litvin et al., 2008). Employee WOM is operationalized as job-related WOM received from an
employee of the organization. Tangible job attribute is operationalized as objectives or
concrete benefits which the employee receives such as pay and compensation, whereas
intangible job attribute is operationalized as subjective benefits which the employee feels, on
being associated with the employer such as pride, etc. Relationship strength is
operationalized as the degree of closeness of the social tie between the source and the
receiver of WOM messages (Brown and Reingen, 1987). It is categorized as strong strength
(whom the subjects know and met several times) and weak strength (whom the subjects do
not know and have never met or received any information). The information source
credibility which comprises of source trust and source expertise (Fisher et al., 1979) were
treated as control variables. Hovland, Janis and Kelley (1953) defined information source
expertise as “the extent to which a communicator is perceived to be a source of valid
assertions,” and source trust as “the degree of confidence in the communicator’s intent to
communicate the assertions he considers most valid” (Ohanian, 1990).
Study design and procedure
A 2 2 2 between subject factorial design was applied among three independent variables,
each having two categories, namely, WOM (t-WOM and s-WOM), job attributes (tangible and
intangible) and relationship strength (strong and weak). These were manipulated to get eight
different scenarios (Appendix). The t-WOM is presented as WOM delivered to subjects through
direct face to face conversation. As it is tough to observe t-WOM in its natural setting and
occurrence (East et al., 2008), so scenario method was used, which has been found to be very
effective (Chawdhary and Dall’Olmo Riley, 2015; Dabholkar, 1996; Garnefeld, Helm, and
Eggert, 2011; Wien and Olsen, 2014), because of accuracy in forecasting the real situations and
problems which helps in exploring different possibilities (Mietzner and Reger, 2005). The
s-WOM was presented as WOM delivered through social media platform. Among job
attributes, the tangible one was presented to subject as objective things that employer offers
such as pay and compensation, whereas intangible one was presented as subjective benefits. In
the case of relationship strength, the strong relation was presented as someone whom the
subjects know for the very long time, whereas week relation was presented as someone whom
the subjects have never met.
Moreover, we used the factorial design with the help of scenarios, because it is better than
WOM survey studies. First, survey studies are usually based on recalling the past
experiences, which hugely depends on respondent recalling ability (Wirtz and Chew, 2002).
Second, factorial design helps in investigating the effect of two or more variable
simultaneously (Zikmund, 2012) which helps in measuring the interaction effect, that is,
measuring the changes in dependent variable (employer attractiveness) at the various levels
because of the combination of independent variables (Zikmund, 2012). Furthermore, the use
of factorial design and fictitious scenarios helps in reducing biases because of memory
problem (Wien and Olsen, 2014), social desirability to a large extent (Wirtz and Chew, 2002)
and enhances the internal validity (Wien and Olsen, 2014). Furthermore, to decrease the
social desirability, we mentioned in the introduction page of questionnaires that there are no
right or wrong answer, and all answer are equally acceptable (Grimm, 2010). Similarly, the
questionnaires were made self-administered (Nederhof, 1985).
Procedure
Subjects from a top-ranked Indian business management institute, who were ready to enter
the job market, were communicated through their placements coordinator during the preplacement talk. The pre-placement talk includes the presentation by company staff about
the selection process, company’s achievements and various benefits which could be offered
to selected candidates, that is, a WOM advertisement from company employees. The author
along with a research intern delivered three categories of materials to subjects, namely,
t-WOM, s-WOM and employee WOM. The WOM materials consist of scenario followed by
questionnaires carrying a five-item scale for measuring employer attractiveness developed
by Highhouse et al. (2003). A sample item is, “this company is attractive to me as a place for
employment”. The questionnaire also included a scale for control variables, namely, source
trust and source expertise measured by the six-item scale developed by Fisher et al. (1979).
The sample items are, “I feel this person is extremely trustworthy”, “this person really
knows what he is talking about”. All the variables are measured on the seven-point scale
(strongly agree as 7 to strongly disagree as 1). Few demographic variables such as gender,
age, etc., were also included in the questionnaire.
Eight groups, having 44 subjects in each, were treated with experimental conditions,
whereas the control group was exposed only to employee WOM. Out of eight group, four
were t-WOM groups, of which two received the t-WOM having tangible job attributes, one
group from the strong relation (placement committee team member), and other from the
weak relation (a research intern from another college) whom they have never met and was
hired to assist in this study. Similarly, the other two t-WOM group received intangible job
attributes, one group from the strong relation and the other group from the weak relation.
Moreover, in case of s-WOM, four different Facebook close chat groups were created. Two
group received the s-WOM having tangible job attributes, one group from the strong
relation and other from the weak relation. Similarly, the other two s-WOM group received
intangible job attributes, one group from the strong relation and the other group from the
weak relation.
Participants, who were exposed to t-WOM, were not allowed to be part of any of these
Facebook groups. In two t-WOM and two Facebook group, the placement coordinator
(strong relationship) shared the WOM about the fictitious companies. In another two
t-WOM and two Facebook group, WOM was shared by the research intern (weak
relationship). Each participant was instructed to read the WOM and then requested to fill
out the questionnaire, which was for measuring employer attractiveness, source trust,
source expertise and few demographic variables. The employee WOM to the ninth group
Impact of
word-of-mouth
727
MRR
42,6
728
(control group) was shared by the author who presented himself as an employee of the
fictitious company. Moreover, a fictitious company name was used so that there is no effect
of organization’s reputation awareness (Turban and Cable, 2003) as well as to reduce the
biases against any particular organization (Harris et al., 2006).
The experimental conditions depict the scene where the respondents received t-WOM or
s-WOM from a person who shares his view regarding an organization as an employer. The
experimental groups were exposed to t-WOM or s-WOM. Whereas the control group was
exposed only to employee WOM, during the pre-placement talk. S-WOM from different
source might have the different impact, so only Facebook was used to deliver s-WOM.
Utmost care was taken to reduce the demand characteristics, such as using an experimental
disguise, that is, subjects were not completely told about the hypothesis, isolating the
respondents from each other and giving one treatment level to each subject. To find WOM
effectiveness, the experimental group results were compared with that of the control group.
Also, to reduce the confound effect due to difference in information quantity or category, all
the above three sources were designed to provide information about the same organization,
same job position, as well as same location (Kanar et al., 2010), equal number of words in all
scenarios, were used, keeping them gender neutral (Bendapudi and Leone, 2003; Laczniak
et al., 2001) and describing the same level of attractiveness or unattractiveness (Van Hoye
et al., 2007).
Manipulation check
Manipulation test was done to test the effectiveness of the manipulation of the independent
variables. A questionnaire containing scenario and scale for measuring employer
attractiveness was given to respondents in the form of t-WOM and s-WOM. The
independent t-test showed a statistically significant decrease in employer attractiveness due
to WOM from strong relation (M = 6.11, S.D = 0.66) to WOM from weak relation (M = 1.81,
S.D = 0.58), t61.13 = 27.60, p < 0.001. Similarly, the study finds the difference in the
effectiveness of WOM by manipulation of t-WOM (M = 4.55, S.D = 2.25) and s-WOM (M =
3.38, S.D = 2.14), t61.86 = 2.12, p < 0.037. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference
in employer attractiveness was found because of manipulation of tangible WOM (M = 4.06,
S.D = 2.28) and intangible WOM (M = 3.86, S.D = 2.26), t61.99 = 0.34, p < 0.734 (not
significant).
Scenarios realism and scale reliability
The realism of content of any job information is crucial (Breaugh, 2008); hence, for all the
scenarios, both experimental as well as mundane realism was checked on a seven-point
semantic differential scale (Liao, 2007; Roschk and Kaiser, 2013). To check the experimental
realism, subjects were asked if the scenarios seem to be realistic or not (extremely realistic =
7 to extremely unrealistic = 1), while the mundane realism was checked by questioning the
chance of occurrence of scenarios in real life exactly as it is described (extremely likely = 7 to
extremely unlikely = 1) (Chawdhary and Dall’Olmo Riley, 2015; Hui et al., 2007). Table I
summarizes the single sample t-test, with the test value of 4, that is, the point indicating no
preference in seven-point scale for measuring realism. It is clear that all the eight scenarios
were perceived by the respondents as extremely realistic as well as showing a high chance
of occurrence, as their mean value is significantly higher than the neutral response indicated
by neutral test value of 4.00 (Hui et al., 2007). For example, for scenario 1, that is, t-WOM
about tangible job attributes and from strong relation the mean value of experimental
realism is 5.18, higher than the test value 4. Hence, the scenario is perceived as realistic by
the subjects. Furthermore, the reliability value for employer attractiveness scale was 0.92,
0.83 for source trust and 0.87 for source expertise.
Data analysis and results
Hypothesis testing
To examine the effectiveness of t-WOM with respect to employee WOM, the experimental
groups were compared with the control group by conducting independent t-test. A
significant difference in the employer attractiveness was found between t-WOM from a
strong relationship (M = 6.25, SD= 0.58) and employee WOM (M = 5.21, SD = 0.41), t130 =
11.77, p < 0.001, thus supporting H1c. Similarly, a second independent t-test showed that
traditional WOM from weak relationship have a low impact on the employer attractiveness
(M = 2.10, SD = 5.22) with respect to employee WOM (M = 5.21, SD = 0.41), t130 = 39.60,
p < 0.001, supporting H1b. Third independent t-test, for comparing the s-WOM with respect
to control group who were exposed to only employee WOM, showed that s-WOM from
strong relation (M = 6.13, SD = 0.13) enhances employer attractiveness more than employee
WOM (M = 5.14, SD = 0.37), t48.37 = 17.36, p < 0.001. Furthermore, another independent
t-test revealed that s-WOM from weak relation (M = 1.8, SD = 0.30) decreases employer
attractiveness to a great extent with respect to employee WOM (M = 5.22, SD = 0.41), t130 =
53.74, p < 0.001. Hence, it supports H2a and 2b.
Rest of the hypotheses were tested by examining the main and interaction effects
through ANCOVA, after verifying the assumptions. As evident from the Table II for
ANCOVA, there is the significant main effect of WOM on the attractiveness of the
organization as an employer, after controlling the effect of source trust and source expertise,
F(1, 342) = 120.57, p < 0.001.
Moreover from Tables III and IV, employer attractiveness is highest in the case of
t-WOM from strong relation and having tangible attributes (M = 6.81, SD = 0.14) than
s-WOM from strong relation, having tangible attributes (M = 6.17, SD = 0.13), s-WOM from
strong relation with intangible attributes (M = 6.10, SD = 0.11), t-WOM from strong relation
and intangible attributes (M = 5.69, SD = 0.13). Hence, t-WOM from the strong relation and
having tangible attributes, creates more attractiveness than any other form of t-WOM,
whereas for intangible attributes s-WOM is better than t-WOM communication.
Overall, t-WOM (M = 4.18, SD = 2.14) has more impact on employer attractiveness than
s-WOM (M = 3.97, SD = 2.18), supporting H1d. H3(a) is also accepted because the main
effect of job attribute on employer attractiveness is significant, F(1,342) = 1,038.75, p <
0.000, which means that there is the difference in the impact of tangible and intangible
Scenarios
Experimental realism (Mean)
t-value
Mundane realism (Mean)
t-value
5.18
5.13
5.20
5.30
4.75
5.33
5.20
5.47
7.76
7.57
5.49
6.83
3.06
7.49
4.68
7.17
5.67
5.05
5.45
5.26
4.95
5.40
5.25
5.32
8.62
5.54
6.57
7.55
3.68
7.55
4.94
6.31
t-WOM Tangible Strong
t-WOM Tangible Weak
t-WOM Intangible Strong
t-WOM Intangible Weak
s-WOM Tangible Strong
s-WOM Tangible Weak
s-WOM Intangible Strong
s-WOM Intangible Weak
Notes: t-values > 1.96; p < 0.05
Source: Author’s calculation
Impact of
word-of-mouth
729
Table I.
t-test for
experimental and
mundane realism
MRR
42,6
730
Table II.
ANCOVA output
Sources
df
SS
MS
F
p
Corrected model
Intercepts
AvST
AvSE
WOM
ATR
REL
WOM ATR
WOM REL
ATR REL
WOM ATR REL
Error
Total
Corrected total
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
342
352
351
1,634.82a
22.93
0.01
0.01
3.77
32.49
1,540.40
8.06
0.77
0.02
4.13
10.69
7,487.44
1,645.52
181.65
22.93
0.01
0.01
3.77
32.49
1,540.40
8.06
0.77
0.02
4.13
0.03
5,807.11
733.04
0.12
0.03
120.57
1,038.74
49,245.68
257.56
24.67
0.67
132.09
0.000
0.000
0.724
0.872
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.412
0.000
Notes: AvST = Average of source trust; AvSE = Average of source expertise; WOM = Word-of-mouth;
ATR = Job attributes; REL = Relation strength
Source: Author’s calculation
WOM
ATR
Traditional WOM
Tangible
Intangible
Total
Social media WOM
Tangible
Intangible
Total
Total
Tangible
Intangible
Total
Dependent variable: Av.EA
REL
Mean
Strong
Weak
Total
Strong
Weak
Total
Strong
Weak
Total
Strong
Weak
Total
Strong
Weak
Total
Strong
Weak
Total
Strong
Weak
Total
Strong
Weak
Total
Strong
Weak
Total
Table III.
Descriptive statistics Note: AvEA = Average of employer attractiveness
6.814
2.464
4.639
5.691
1.745
3.718
6.252
2.105
4.178
6.177
2.073
4.125
6.100
1.527
3.814
6.139
1.800
3.969
6.495
2.268
4.382
5.895
1.636
3.766
6.195
1.952
4.074
Std. deviation
N
0.1391
0.2314
2.1957
0.1326
0.3031
1.9976
0.5805
0.4498
2.1433
0.1309
0.1227
2.0679
0.1181
0.1436
2.3032
0.1299
0.3048
2.1880
0.3470
0.2693
2.1422
0.2406
0.2601
2.1502
0.4233
0.4124
2.1652
44
44
88
44
44
88
88
88
176
44
44
88
44
44
88
88
88
176
88
88
176
88
88
176
176
176
352
attributes on the attractiveness of the organization. Furthermore, there is a significant twoway interaction effect of WOM and attributes, F(1,342) = 257.56, p < 0.001, on employer
attractiveness. Hence, from Tables III and IV, in case of strong relation, WOM having
tangible attributes (M = 6.50, SD = 0.35) have more impact on employer attractiveness than
WOM with intangible attributes from same person (M = 5.89, SD = 0.24). In case of weak
relation, WOM having intangible attributes (M = 1.64, SD = 0.26) have low impact on
employer attractiveness than tangible attributes WOM (M = 2.27, SD = 0.27). However, the
two-way interaction effect of attributes and relation strength on employer attractiveness is
not significant F(1,342) = 0.67, p = 0.41, indicating an insignificant difference in employer
attractiveness when tangible attributes are conveyed by strong or weak relation.
Tables III and IV show that in case of tangible attributes, t-WOM (M = 4.64, SD = 2.20)
has a high impact on attractiveness than s-WOM (M = 4.12, SD = 2.06); hence, H3(b) is
supported. The main effect of relationship strength on employer attractiveness is
significant, F(1, 342) = 1,540.409, p< 0.001. WOM from strong relationship enhance
attractiveness (M = 6.20, SD = 0.42), more than WOM from weak relation (M = 1.95, SD =
0.41). Furthermore, from strong relation both t-WOM (M = 6.30, SD = 0.58) and s-WOM
(M = 6.13, SD = 0.13) are effective in enhancing employer attractiveness more than when
weak relation source delivers t-WOM (M = 2.12, SD = 0.45) and s-WOM (M = 1.8, SD =
0.30), supporting H1a.
Moreover, in case of weak relation, the mean of s-WOM is less than the mean of t-WOM.
Hence, in case of a weak relationship, WOM shared on social media is less effective in
attracting job seeker more than t-WOM, supporting H2c. In addition to this, the two way
interaction effect of WOM and relationship strength is significant, F(1, 342) = 24.67, p<
0.001, and from descriptive Tables III and IV, it is clear that in case of strong relation,
t-WOM is slightly more effective (M = 6.25, SD = 0.58) than s-WOM (M = 6.13, SD = 0.13).
Furthermore, the three-way interaction effect of WOM, attributes and relationship strength
is significant, F(1, 342) = 132.09, p < 0.001 and the mean of s-WOM having intangible
attributes and from the strong relationship is higher than t-WOM having intangible
attributes, supporting H4.
Impact of
word-of-mouth
731
Discussion
Due to scarcity of WOM studies in recruitment area (Collins and Stevens, 2002), this study
contributes to the recruitment literature. First, by examining the difference in the effect of
traditional and social media WOM, we found that overall effect of t-WOM is higher than
s-WOM, signifying the importance of t-WOM communication in employer attractiveness.
Second, we examined the difference in the effect of relationship strength and attributes on
Scenarios
t-WOM Tangible Strong
t-WOM Tangible Weak
t-WOM Intangible Strong
t-WOM Intangible Weak
s-WOM Tangible Strong
s-WOM Tangible Weak
s-WOM Intangible Strong
s-WOM Intangible Weak
Source: Author’s calculation
M
SD
6.81
2.46
5.69
1.75
6.17
2.07
6.10
1.52
0.14
0.23
0.13
0.30
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.14
Table IV.
Mean and standard
deviation for
different scenarios
MRR
42,6
732
employer attractiveness, when delivered through t-WOM or s-WOM. Concerning our
objectives, we found that there is insignificant difference in the impact of tangible (or
intangible) job attributes. However, the attributes have a significant effect with respect to
the mode of WOM delivery, that is, t-WOM and s-WOM. Hence, even if the job attributes
are communicated by weak relation, then t-WOM will be more impactful. This rationalizes
the need for focusing on t-WOM. Moreover, for potential jobseeker, both the job attributes
are equally important irrespective of relation strength. The reason for this might be because
most of the subjects are student, having no prior work experience. For them, the main
intention is to get hired by any reputed company, unlike experienced candidate for whom
intangible benefits matter more than tangible benefits, because at the higher stage of career
the experienced employee prefer social status, pride, attainment of personal goal and values,
etc., more than tangible benefits (Van Hoye and Saks, 2011; Lievens, 2007; Lievens and
Highhouse, 2003; Schreurs et al., 2009). Furthermore, we found that, if there is a strong
relationship between the source and recipient than t-WOM communication is better than
s-WOM for tangible benefits, but in case of intangible benefits, s-WOM from strong relation
has more impact on employer attractiveness. The reason behind this is that social media
provide better tools and techniques to communicate intangible job attributes information
which cannot be quantified, such as video blogs, pictures depicting organization’s work
environment which increases the message credibility, etc., whereas tangible attributes such
as pay is easier to communicate by traditional WOM communication.
Moreover, it has been found that the tangible attributes are effective in attracting the
job seeker, if only jobseeker’s preferences, personality, goal are being matched with
that of employer’s characteristics. Hence, to find and validate if the intangible
attributes are in match with their personal goal or not, the job-seeker tries to get clues
from the various online social platform where experiences are exchanged by a large
number of the online user. Also, we found that WOM from strong relation (both t-WOM
and s-WOM) enhance the employer attractiveness more than the WOM from weak
relation (both t-WOM and s-WOM). This finding extends the previous work where only
t-WOM was studied. The present study further verifies that if the person having strong
relationships with recipients shares WOM on social media, then it enhances the
attractiveness but to a lesser extent than t-WOM. However, if the information is shared
by the person having a weak relation, then s-WOM enhances the employer
attractiveness more than t-WOM, but to a lesser extent than WOM shared by strong
relation. This finding signifies that when information is shared on a social media
platform by weak relation source, then its degree of acceptance increases more than if
the same information is shared by traditional way. The social media platform
compensate for the weak relation strength, which enhances the trustworthiness of the
information and its chance of acceptance increases to much higher level than WOM
shared by traditional way.
Theoretical and practical implications
The present study finds that credible information sources have a decisive impact on the jobseekers decision, which is well supported by accessibility-diagnostic model. Moreover, the
signaling theory signifies that due to incomplete information, the job-seekers decision is
based on the information that they have (Turban and Cable, 2003), and they look for more
signals and cues. Hence, the signals or cues which are perceived as more credible as well as
diagnostic will influence the job seeker decision. This is the theoretical contribution of the
present study.
Moreover, the organizations’ early recruitment activities become the source for
getting more information (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007) and act as the signal and cue
about job and employer traits (Joo, 2006). Hence, to attract potential candidate, the
employer sends signals to stimulate them to apply for the job. This is mostly done by
company controlled information source such as the company career website and rarely
the indirect source of information such as WOM is considered. Furthermore, in
t-WOM, because of high accessibility and diagnostic factors, the impact will ultimately
be higher than s-WOM. Similarly, the present study finds that WOM from strong
relation has a higher impact on employer attractiveness, which is because of the
perceived credibility. This is in accordance with the Vroom model of job choice (Van
Eerde and Thierry, 1996), which signifies that job trust and tangibility are very crucial
in attracting job applicants.
In term for practical implications, this study has found the differential effect of
traditional and social media WOM on employer attractiveness. Hence, along with the
social media presence, it is necessary for the organization to stimulate t-WOM.
Moreover, before accepting any recruitment information, job seeker evaluates the
information source trustworthiness and expertise (Keeling et al., 2013), which is
directly associated with the relationship of the job seeker with the source. Hence, to
attract talented job seeker, the company can engage their present employees, their
relatives, friends, etc., in different cultural and humanitarian activities such as CSR,
apart from family perk and benefits. It will encourage them to share positive WOM
about the company, which can be a great tool for attracting the job seeker who is close
to them.
Furthermore, being an external as well as an organization’s independent source of
information, t-WOM can be generated or stimulated only indirectly (Van Hoye and Lievens,
2007a). For example, by investing in corporate social responsibility activities, making strong
public relation (Lievens and Slaughter, 2016), eco-friendly friendly policies, being customer
friendly etc., plays a decisive role in making its image and creates a good impression among
potential job seeker, who may be the user of that product or service. These activities will
stimulate interest in potential job seeker to know more about the organization and to share
their information as well as experiences. Furthermore, fresh graduates show equal
importance to both the attributes. Hence, to attract fresh un-experienced candidates, it is
needed for the organization to communicate both the attributes through traditional as well
as the social media platform.
Limitations
Students being subjects in present study, there can be minor issues in generalizing the
results (Zikmund, 2012). There might be some difference in outcome if the respondents
would have been employees from different organizations because of the difference in
expectation, personality and choices of students and employees. For students, their
expectation is mainly based on what they have been taught in classes without much
exposure to real life employment situations (Jusoh et al., 2011; Wickramasinghe and
Perera, 2010). They tend to choose those jobs which seem to be trendier, providing
learning platform, international exposure along with good remuneration. On the other
hand, an employee would prefer a job which can give them more societal status, pride,
stability and satisfaction (Van Hoye, 2013; Schreurs et al., 2009). Hence, we have not
found any significant difference in employer attractiveness because of tangible and
intangible job attributes when shared through t-WOM or s-WOM. If the study would
have been done among employees, then there might be a significant difference in the
Impact of
word-of-mouth
733
MRR
42,6
734
impact of tangible and intangible job attributes on employer attractiveness, which can
be explored in the future studies. Many studies have confirmed that for experienced
employees the intangible job attributes are more important than tangible one (Van
Hoye and Saks, 2011; Lievens, 2007; Lievens and Highhouse, 2003; Schreurs et al., 2009).
Furthermore, the significant difference in employer attractiveness due to t-WOM and
s-WOM as well as from strong and weak relation will be same even if the subjects
would have been employees. Similarly, the experimental design of the study may not
lead to full generalization of the study (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007b). Also, it was not
checked if there is a difference in observed effect if the same negative and positive
messages are provided as information and if it is provided in the form of scenarios, that
is, is there any difference if the same message contents are provided as information and
not in a face-to-face conversation. Another limitation of this study is that we have
tested only positive WOM, and not the negative WOM which has quite a magnificent
impact on employer attractiveness. In case of negative WOM, the s-WOM can have a
greater impact on decreasing the employer attractiveness. Similarly, the difference in
sender and receiver personality, style of WOM delivery and communication skill can
influence the outcome. Controlling this was not easy, as we needed two different people
with same personality and WOM delivery style. Hence, future research can be done
with some more control on these variables.
Future research areas
Students are mostly hooked to Facebook rather than Linkedin or any other social media
platform, so we selected Facebook as the platform for delivering s-WOM. In future study,
selecting experienced employee as the subjects, different s-WOM platform such as Linkedin
can be used. Moreover, the impact of source difference can be examined if the s-WOM are
shared from the different social media platform as well as electronic WOM platform such
as chat rooms, blogs, emails, video chat, etc., because each one has some different
characteristics and, hence, would have a different impact on job applicants. Moreover, our
finding reveals that in case of tangible attributes, t-WOM is less effective than s-WOM, this
can be an area to explore in future research. Similarly, the difference in impact because of
employee WOM and non-employee WOM can be an interesting area to explore. An
employee will provide more information than non-employee, but may not be perceived as
much trustworthy as non-employee. An employee is perceived as organization’s dependent
source of information whereas non-employee is perceived as organization’s independent
source of information, and hence, non-employee is perceived as a credible information source
(Eisend, 2006). Similarly, future research is needed to explore the impact of s-WOM and
t-WOM both for positive and negative information. The same study can be done on the
employee as the subjects, which can give some other insight to the research objectives.
Another avenue for future concern is the impact of media richness on jobseeker perception,
that is, audio versus video mode of delivery and their content. Additionally, comparing
WOM to information provided by organization-controlled information source such as career
website, employee testimonials, etc., would also provide some different outcome. Similarly,
the future investigation can be done on how to stimulate positive WOM and what are the
strategies that organization can adopt and which strategy have a higher impact on
stimulation of positive WOM. These strategies can include spending on corporate social
responsibilities, college fest, providing internship, rewarding employees and involving their
family, friend in company cultural activities, etc.
References
Bendapudi, N. and Leone, R.P. (2003), “Psychological implications of customer participation in
co-production”, Journal of Marketing, American Marketing Association, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 14-28.
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.
Billsberry, J., Talbot, D.L., Nelson, P.C., Edwards, J.A., Godrich, S.G., Davidson, R.A.G. and Carter, C.J.P.
(2010), “The people make the place: dynamic linkages between individuals and organizations”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, p. 316.
Breaugh, J.A. (2008), “Employee recruitment: current knowledge and important areas for future
research”, Vol. 18, pp. 103-118.
Brown, J.J. and Reingen, P.H. (1987), “Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 350-362.
Brown, S.W. and Swartz, T.A. (1989), “A gap analysis of professional service quality”, The Journal of
Marketing, pp. 92-98.
Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.a. (1994), “Pay preferences and job search decisions: a person-organization fit
perspective”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 317-348.
Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. (2001), “Establishing the dimensions”, Sources and Value of Job Seekers’
Employer Knowledge during Recruitment, Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, Vol. 20, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(01)20002-4
Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. (2003), “The value of organizational reputation in the recruitment context:
a Brand-Equity perspective”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 11, pp. 2244-2266.
Chan, K.K. and Misra, S. (2013), “Characteristics of the opinion leader: a new dimension”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 53-60.
Chawdhary, R. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (2015), “Investigating the consequences of word of mouth from a
WOM sender’s perspective in the services context”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Routledge, Vol. 31 Nos 9/10, pp. 1018-1039.
Cheung, M.Y., Luo, C., Sia, C.L. and Chen, H. (2009), “Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth”,
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 9-38.
Cheung, C.M.K. and Thadani, D.R. (2012), “The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: a
literature analysis and integrative model”, Decision Support Systems, Elsevier B.V, Vol. 54 No. 1,
pp. 461-470.
Collins, C.J. and Stevens, C.K. (2002), “The relationship between early recruitment-related activities and
the application decisions of new labor-market entrants: a brand equity approach to recruitment”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 1121-1133.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1996), “Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options: an
investigation of alternative models of service quality”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-51.
Dabholkar, P.A., Thorpe, D.I. and Rentz, J.O. (1996), “A measure of service quality for retail stores: scale
development and validation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 3-16.
De Bruyn, A. and Lilien, G.L. (2008), “A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through viral
marketing”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijresmar.2008.03.004
Ding, Y. and Keh, H.T. (2017), “Consumer reliance on intangible versus tangible attributes in service
evaluation: the role of construal level”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45
No. 6, pp. 848-865.
East, R., Hammond, K. and Lomax, W. (2008), “Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of
mouth on brand purchase probability”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 215-224.
Impact of
word-of-mouth
735
MRR
42,6
736
Ehrhart, K.H. and Ziegert, J.C. (2005), “Why are individuals attracted to organizations?”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 901-919.
Eisend, M. (2006), “Source credibility dimensions in marketing communication – a generalized
solution”, Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science, Vol. 10, pp. 1-33.
Elving, W.J.L., Westhoff, J.J.C., Meeusen, K. and Schoonderbeek, J.-W. (2013), “The war for talent? The
relevance of employer branding in job advertisements for becoming an employer of choice”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2012.21
Fisher, C.D., Ilgen, D.R. and Hoyer, W.D. (1979), “Source credibility, Information favorability, and job
offer acceptance”, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 94-103.
Garnefeld, I., Helm, S. and Eggert, A. (2011), “Walk your talk: an experimental investigation of the
relationship between word of mouth and communicators’ loyalty”, Journal of Service Research,
SAGE PublicationsSage CA, Los Angeles, CA, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 93-107.
Grimm, P. (2010), “Social desirability bias”, Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing, John Wiley
and Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057
Harris, K.E., Grewal, D., Mohr, L.A. and Bernhardt, K.L. (2006), “Consumer responses to service
recovery strategies: the moderating role of online versus offline environment”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 425-431.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via
consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the
internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Wiley-Blackwell, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Higgins, M.C. (2001), “Follow the leader? The effects of social influence on employer choice”, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 255-282.
Highouse, S. and Hoffman, J.R. (2001), “Organizational attraction and job choice”, International Review
of Industrial And Organizational Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 37-64.
Highhouse, S., Lievens, F. and Sinar, E.F. (2003), “Measuring attraction to organizations”, Educational
and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 986-1001.
Hui, M.K., Au, K. and Zhao, X. (2007), “Interactional justice and the fair process effect: the role of
outcome uncertainty”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 210-220.
Joo, B.-K. (2006), “Best employer studies: a conceptual model from a literature review and a case study”,
Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 228-257.
Jusoh, M., Simun, M. and Choy Chong, S. (2011), “Expectation gaps, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment of fresh graduates”, Education þ Training, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 53
No. 6, pp. 515-530.
Kausel, E.E. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Organizational behavior and human decision processes”,
“Narrow personality traits and organizational attraction: evidence for the complementary
hypothesis q”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier Inc, Vol. 114
No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Kanar, A.M., Collins, C.J. and Bell, B.S. (2010), “A comparison of the effects of positive and negative
information on job seekers' organizational attraction and attribute recall”, Human Performance,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 193-212.
Keeling, K.A., McGoldrick, P.J. and Sadhu, H. (2013), “Staff word-of-Mouth (SWOM) and retail
employee recruitment”, Journal of Retailing, New York University, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 88-104.
King, R.A., Racherla, P. and Bush, V.D. (2014), “What we know and don’t know about online word-ofmouth: a review and synthesis of the literature”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, B.V.,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 167-183.
Laczniak, R.N., DeCarlo, T.E. and Ramaswami, S.N. (2001), “Consumers’ responses to negative word-ofmouth communication: an attribution theory perspective”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 57-73.
Lee, M. and Youn, S. (2009), “Electronic word of mouth (eWOM): how eWOM platforms influence
consumer product judgement”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 473-499.
Liao, H. (2007), “Do it right this time: the role of employee service recovery performance in customerperceived justice and customer loyalty after service failures”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 475-489.
Libai, B., Muller, E. and Peres, R. (2009), “The social value of word-of-mouth programs: acceleration
versus acquisition”.
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 No. 1, pp. 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, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 75-102.
Lievens, F. and Slaughter, J.E. (2016), “Employer image and employer branding: what we know and
what we need to know”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 407-440.
Litvin, S.W., Goldsmith, R.E. and Pan, B. (2008), “Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism
management”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 458-468.
Lu, L.-C., Chang, W.-P. and Chang, H.-H. (2014), “Consumer attitudes toward blogger’s sponsored
recommendations and purchase intention: the effect of sponsorship type, product type, and
Brand awareness”, Computers in Human Behavior, Pergamon, Vol. 34, pp. 258-266.
Maurer, S.D., Howe, V. and Lee, T.W. (2006), “Organizational recruiting as marketing management: an
interdiscipinary study of engineering graduates”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 807-833.
Mazzarol, T., Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2007), “Conceptualizing word-of-mouth activity, triggers
and conditions: an exploratory study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 11/12,
pp. 1475-1494.
Mesmer-Magnus, J.R., Asencio, R., Seely, P.W. and DeChurch, L.A. (2018), “How organizational identity
affects team functioning: the identity instrumentality hypothesis”, Journal of Management,
SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 1530-1550. , CA.
Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J. and Medders, R.B. (2010), “Social and heuristic approaches to credibility
evaluation online”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 413-439.
Mietzner, D. and Reger, G. (2005), “Advantages and disadvantages of scenario approaches for strategic
foresight”, International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 220-239.
Nederhof, A.J. (1985), “Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review”, European Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 263-280.
Ohanian, R. (1990), “Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived
expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness”, Journal of Advertising, Taylor and Francis
Group, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 39-52.
Roschk, H. and Kaiser, S. (2013), “The nature of an apology: an experimental study on how to apologize
after a service failure”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 293-309.
Rosengren, S. and Bondesson, N. (2014), “Consumer advertising as a signal of employer attractiveness”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 33 No. 2, available at: https://doi.org/10.2501/
332253269
Ryan, A.M., Sacco, J.M., McFarland, L.A. and Kriska, S.D. (2000), “Applicant self-selection: correlates of
withdrawal from a multiple hurdle process”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 2, p. 163.
Schreurs, B., Druart, C., Proost, K. and De Witte, K. (2009), “Symbolic attributes and organizational
attractiveness: the moderating effects of applicant personality”, International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 35-46.
Impact of
word-of-mouth
737
MRR
42,6
738
Senecal, S. and Nantel, J. (2004), “The influence of online product recommendations on consumers’
online choices”, Journal of Retailing, JAI, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 159-169.
Sivertzen, A.-M., Nilsen, E.R. and Olafsen, A.H. (2013), “Employer branding: employer attractiveness
and the use of social media”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 22 No. 7,
pp. 473-483.
Slaughter, J.E. and Greguras, G.J. (2009), “Initial attraction to organizations: the influence of trait
inferences”, Vol. 17 No. 1.
Slaughter, J.E., Zickar, M.J., Highhouse, S., Mohr, D.C., Morgan, V., Connor, J.O. and Richard, E. (2004),
“Personality trait inferences about organizations: development of a measure and assessment of
construct validity”, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 85-103.
Steffes, E.M. and Burgee, L.E. (2009), “Social ties and online word of mouth”, Internet Research, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 42-59.
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N. and Mazzarol, T. (2008), “Factors influencing word of mouth effectiveness:
receiver perspectives”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 3/4, pp. 344-364.
Trusov, M., Bucklin, R.E. and Pauwels, K. (2009), “Effects of word-of-Mouth versus traditional
marketing: findings from an internet social networking site”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5,
pp. 90-102.
Turban, D.B. and Cable, D.M. (2003), “Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 733-751.
Uen, J.F., Peng, S.P., Chen, S.Y. and Chien, S.H. (2011), Asia Pacific Management Review, “The impact of
word of mouth on organizational attractiveness”.
Van Eerde, W. and Thierry, H. (1996), “Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: a metaanalysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 575-586.
Van Hoye, G. (2012), “Recruitment sources and organizational attraction: a field study of belgian
nurses”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 376-391.
Van Hoye, G. (2013), “Recruiting through employee referrals: an examination of employees’ motives”,
Human Performance, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 451-464.
Van Hoye, G., Bas, T., Cromheecke, S. and Lievens, F. (2013), “The instrumental and symbolic
dimensions of organisations’ image as an employer: a large-scale field study on employer
branding in Turkey”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 543-557.
Van Hoye, G. and Lievens, F. (2005), “Recruitment-related information sources and organizational
attractiveness: can something be done about negative publicity?”, International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 179-187.
Van Hoye, G. and Lievens, F. (2007), “Investigating web-based recruitment sources – employee
testimonials vs word-of-mouse”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 372-382.
Van Hoye, G. and Lievens, F. (2009), “Tapping the grapevine: a closer look at word-of-mouth as a
recruitment source”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 341-352.
Van Hoye, G., Lievens, F. and Psychology, O. (2007), “Social influences on organizational attractiveness:
investigating if and when word of mouth matters 1”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37
No. 9, pp. 2024-2047.
Van Hoye, G. and Saks, A.M. (2011), “The instrumental-symbolic framework: organisational image and
attractiveness of potential applicants and their companions at a job fair”, Applied Psychology,
Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 311-335.
Wathen, C.N. and Burkell, J. (2002), “Believe it or not: factors influencing credibility on the web”, Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 134-144.
Wickramasinghe, V. and Perera, L. (2010), “Graduates’, university lecturers’ and employers’
perceptions towards employability skills”, Education Training, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 226-244.
Wien, A.H. and Olsen, S.O. (2014), “Understanding the relationship between individualism and word of
mouth: a self-enhancement explanation”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 416-425.
Wirtz, J. and Chew, P. (2002), “The effects of incentives, deal proneness, satisfaction and tie strength on
word-of-mouth behaviour”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 141-162.
Zikmund, W.G. (2012), “Basic and applied research”, Business Research Methods.
Appendix
Scenario1: T-WOM containing tangible attributes delivered by strong relation (placement coordinator)
The company IMC Infotech limited offers the best pay and compensation in the market, along with
high growth opportunity and many other financial and non-financial perks and benefits. Working
here is always fun filled. The company has good employee welfare schemes such as flexible work
hour, flexible work schedule, flexible career path, job sharing, wellness packages employee assistance
programs, training opportunities, fitness facilities such as gym membership etc.
Corresponding author
Faiz Ahamad can be contacted at: faizahamad24@gmail.com
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
Impact of
word-of-mouth
739
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.