Sponheuer, Birgit, Müller, Jenny, Integrating employer branding into

6 th Thought Leaders International Conference on Brand Management
Integrating employer branding into a holistic brand management framework
Authors
Dr. Birgit Sponheuer
Senior Project Manager
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants
Am Sandtorkai 41
20457 Hamburg
birgit_sponheuer@de.rolandberger.com
Jenny Müller
Research Associate, Chair of Marketing Management
HHL – Leipzig Graduate School of Management
Jahnallee 59
04109 Leipzig
jenny.mueller@hhl.de
1

6 th Thought Leaders International Conference on Brand Management
Integrating employer branding into a holistic brand management framework
Abstract
Companies use employer branding to enhance their position as an attractive employer. But
employer branding is not an isolated HR exercise: It needs to be integrated into a company's
broader brand management approach. The interdependencies between different stakeholder
groups – employees, potential employees and customers – mean that careful coordination of
the design and implementation of brand strategies is essential. While each target group's
specific needs and expectations should be addressed by consumer and employer branding to
maximize the brand's effect, contradictions that threaten the credibility of a brand must be
avoided. Such coordination maximizes impact and minimizes risks. This study attempts to
clarify the relationship between employer brand management and consumer-oriented brand
management. It proposes a conceptual framework for a holistic brand management approach
to employer brands, and derives implications for companies based on their specific situation.
Keywords:
Employer branding; stakeholder; coordination; holistic brand management; self-congruence
hypothesis; person-organization fit
2

1 Introduction
The idea that employees are a key resource for a company's success has received much
empirical and theoretical support (Huselid, 1995; Penrose, 1997; Höllmüller, 2002). Winning
and retaining highly-qualified talent is a core element on the corporate agenda. But while the
demand for high-performing employees is steadily rising in today's knowledge economy,
demographic change and shortcomings in the educational sector mean that fewer and fewer
candidates are available. Indeed, countries like Germany already faces a severe shortage of
specialized workers in crucial areas such as engineering (Esch, Wicke, 2001; Meffert, Giloth,
2002; Statistisches Bundesamt, 2003; High Potentials, 2008/2009). Consequently, companies
are looking for ways to gain a competitive edge in the war for talent. "Employer branding" is
one such solution. It is a recent conceptual approach to human resources marketing that
applies the well-understood mechanisms of brand management in the consumer market to the
labor market (Barrow, Mosley 2005; Kirchgeorg, Günther 2006; Sponheuer, 2010). But while
employer branding is targeted to potential and current employees and thus needs to address
their needs, values and expectations in the first place, it is important that companies integrate
employer branding into their overall brand management to ensure that they send a consistent
message to both internal and external audiences. The present study expands on existing
research on the relationship between employer and consumer branding, developing a holistic
conceptual framework that integrates the two.
2 Problem formulation and definitions
Employer branding refers to the targeted planning, management, coordination and controlling
of a brand for the company in its function as employer. The employer brand can be seen as a
benefit bundle that provides the company (as employer) with specific benefit characteristics,
which differentiate the company from other employers in the eyes of employees (Sponheuer,
2010). Employer branding can thus be characterized as a special aspect of corporate branding
(Kernstock et al., 2004). The employer brand focuses on the labor market and thus on the target
groups of potential, current and former employees, while the corporate brand addresses all
the company's stakeholders equally (Davidson 1999; Demuth 2000; Bierwirth, 2003).
Brands signal specific values and promises that create preferences and desirable behavior in
target groups. The "self-congruence hypothesis" goes some way to explaining how brands
function. It states that individuals tend to choose brands whose perceived value system
reflects most closely their own self-image and thus their own values (Burn 1979, Sirgy 1982).
This connection can be demonstrated empirically not only for the consumer market but also
for the labor market. Here, one speaks of "work value congruence" or "person-organization
fit" (Balmer, Dinnie 1999; Hogg, Terry, 2000). Various studies have shown that applicants
with a good value fit are more interested in a company, accept job offers, fit in quicker, are
more committed and stay with the company longer (Shamir, 1991; Dutton, 1994). A good fit
between the corporate values (as embedded in the employer brand) and the employee's own
values is thus essential for the brand to influence the employee's behavior. To maximize the
effectiveness of the employer brand – i.e. its impact on current and potential employees – the
employer brand strategy thus has to be as closely targeted toward these groups as possible.
At the same time, the literature on brands calls for a high level of consistency in brand
management with regard to the various stakeholder groups (Balmer, 2001; Hatch, Schultz,
2001; van Riel, 2003). As different stakeholder groups may have different, even opposing,
interests, companies must consider carefully which expectations their brand promise is to
3

address. In "identity-based brand management," a distinction is drawn between how internal
target groups view themselves (brand identity) and how external target groups view the brand
(brand image). Both aspects are formed by the messages sent out by the company and the
individual brand-related experiences of individuals (Burmann et al., 2009 (a); Burmann et al.,
2009 (b)). Contradictory signals about a brand can endanger its effectiveness, as they weaken
the clarity of its perception and hence the credibility of the brand. Accordingly, the greatest
possible conformity between brand identity and image is required. This can be achieved
through strict consistency in the internally and externally oriented brand management (Burmann
et al., 2009 (a); Burmann et al., 2009 (b)). Consistency here is taken to mean the integrated,
internally and externally oriented coordination of all the brand characteristics in the
form of an internally and externally consistent combination of individual brand contents
(Meffert, Giloth, 2002).
These considerations have led some researchers to conclude that brand management should be
largely uniform for the different stakeholder groups (Olins, 1989; Fombrun, 1996; Leitch,
1999; Balmer, Greyser, 2002). Yet this could run counter to the goal of targeting the employer
brand as closely as possible at individual target groups, and so undermine the impact of brand
management. To achieve these two apparently contradictory goals, the brand management in
the consumer and labor markets must be coordinated (van Riel, 2003; Hatch, Schultz, 2001;
Balmer, 2001). Four interdependencies are key here (Sponheuer, 2010; Adam, 1997):
• The corporate brand forms an overarching umbrella that influences both consumer and
employer branding
• Employees play a dual role in brand management: They are the target group of corporate
and employer branding, and at the same time they are brand messengers for consumers and
employees
• The overlapping perceptions and roles of a company's various stakeholder groups make it
impossible to send completely separate brand messages to each of these groups
• Consumer-oriented brand management has an overarching attraction and identification
effect on employees, too.
To achieve the required coordination between the brand management in the consumer and
labor markets, employer branding cannot remain an isolated HR-discipline, but has to be
embedded in a holistic brand management approach – one that also takes into account
consumer brand management. The aim here is to avoid perceptible contradictions in the brand
messages directed toward the various different target groups (Festinger, 1978). At the same
time, the brand messages aimed at the different target groups should strengthen each other
and so support the credibility of the company (Bierwirth, 2003; Barrow, Mosley, 2005). For
example, a positive corporate image makes the company more attractive as an employer and
thus makes it easier to attract, retain and motivate employees (Aiman-Smith et al., 2001;
Barrow, Mosley, 2005). Likewise, a positive image as an employer – e. g. with regard to
social responsibility – can improve a company's reputation and boost its sales (Grayson,
Hodges, 2004). To achieve this coordination, it is necessary to develop a framework that
captures all the elements that must be taken into account in the strategic design and
operational implementation of the employer brand.
3 Conceptual framework
Three possible approaches to stakeholder coordination in brand management can be identified
in the literature:
4

1. Prioritization of stakeholders (Mitchell et al.,1997; Kernstock, 2004; Jones, 2005):
Stakeholder groups are rated according to their importance. Brand management is then
targeted toward the needs of the most important group. As almost all companies see their
customers as the key stakeholder group, the result is that employer brands are shaped in
line with consumer brands.
2. Design of the brand architecture (Bierwirth, 2003; Kapferer, 2004): This approach assumes
that different stakeholder groups have different relationships with the various hierarchical
levels of the company and brand. Thus customers relate most closely to product brands,
while employees and other stakeholders relate mainly to the corporate brand. This allows
companies to separate out the perceptual interdependencies between the different
stakeholder groups and so reduce the need for coordination. In practice, however, this
approach is problematic: stakeholders generally take a comprehensive view of a company,
so separating out their different perceptions is impractical.
3. Meta-positioning (Klein-Bölting, Gürntke, 2002): The meta-positioning of the corporate
brand is defined in sufficiently broad and abstract terms that it integrates the interests of all
relevant stakeholders. The need for coordination is met by striving to achieve conformity
between the internal and external image on the basis of shared identity dimensions (De
Chernatony, 1999). This approach achieves the required consistency, but at the cost of
brand impact, as the brand's orientation toward specific target groups is relatively weak.
None of these approaches, then, allows the employer brand to be oriented sufficiently toward
specific target groups. A number of researchers have investigated the development of an
employer brand and employer brand management (Moroko, Uncles, 2008; Kirchgeorg,
Lorbeer, 2002; Franke, 2000; Grobe, 2000; Judge, Bretz, 1992). However, a truly holistic
concept is still lacking – one that would encompass all the elements influencing the definition
and implementation of an employer brand at the same time as considering consumer-oriented
brand management (Mellor, 1999). This paper attempts to fill this gap with a new conceptual
framework that integrates both employer and consumer-oriented branding.
Our approach is to extend the previously one-dimensional, consumer-oriented brand management
process to include the internal and the labor-market-oriented perspective. The conceptual
basis underlying the framework is the concept of identity-based brand management.
The core idea in identity-based brand management is to interlink the brand identity (how
internal target groups view themselves) with the brand image (how external target groups
view the brand). An integrated view of the consumer and the labor market thus comprises
three distinct elements: the company itself, the labor market, and the consumer market. For
the company, the brand identity is the key concept for brand management; for the labor and
consumer markets, it is the brand image. Thus the internal (identity) and external (image)
perspectives on the brand are considered in an integrated fashion (Burmann et al. 2009 (a);
Burmann et al. 2009 (b)).
In addition, the brand management process is used as the basis for the conceptual framework.
The revolving process of developing and implementing a brand strategy can be divided into
five main steps (Meffert, Burmann, 2002):
1. Analysis of target groups and context: the values, expectations and decision-making
processes of target groups; the perceptions of external target groups (image) and internal
target groups (identity); the company's broader contextual situation regarding the business
5

2. Definition of objectives
3. Brand strategy development (brand architecture and positioning)
4. Internal and external implementation (human resources marketing mix, consumer-oriented
operational marketing mix, internal brand management)
5. Brand controlling
Arranging these five steps and their sub-steps according to the three different perspectives –
labor market, company, and consumer market – gives the framework shown in Fig. 1 (Sponheuer,
2010). This holistic framework is the first one that comprises all the elements influencing
the definition and implementation of an employer brand while considering consumeroriented
brand management at the same time. We have excluded brand controlling to reduce
complexity. Each step builds on and shapes other steps in an iterative process. Some interdependencies
are indicated by arrows, focusing on those relevant for coordination between
employer and consumer branding. Influencing factors need to be considered when defining
objectives, strategy or implementation measures. Strategic decisions and contextual factors in
return may have an effect on influencing factors one should be aware of in employer brand
management (e.g. the effect of labor market image on expectations of current employees).
ANALYSIS
Target groups
Situation/
context
OBJECTIVES
STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTA-
TION
Influence Effect
LABOR MARKET COMPANY CONSUMER MARKET
• Values and expectations
• Decision process
Brand image
Objectives
Employer brand
architecture
Employer brand positioning
HR marketing mix
Fig. 1: Conceptual framework
• Values and expectations
• Decision process
Identity
Interface employee/
external people
Corporate strategy
and current situation
Internal brand
management
• Values and expectations
• Decision process
Brand image
Market and competition Market and competition
Objectives Objectives
Brand architecture
Positioning
• Corporate brand
• Further brands (e.g. product brands, if
applicable)
Marketing mix
Some selected elements of the conceptual framework will be further analyzed in the next
chapter with regard to the need for coordination.
6

4 Assumptions regarding the need for coordination
In identity-based brand management, the company's brand management should ideally be as
consistent as possible for the different stakeholder groups. However, we may assume that the
need for coordination between employer and consumer-oriented brand management depends
on differing situational and company specific factors within the proposed framework, and so
will vary from company to company. We can thus develop assumptions as to the conditions
under which coordination is less important. These conditions then allow for the creation of a
more independent employer brand in order to be able to position the employer brand more
precisely toward the needs of employees, maximizing the brand's effectiveness. In our
understanding, a strong need for coordination means extensive conformity between the
different elements involved in brand management, while a weak need for coordination allows
for differentiation, particularly in the brand architecture and positioning (Sponheuer, 2010).
Based on an analysis of the linkages between the different elements in the conceptual framework
shown above, we propose four assumptions about the need for coordination at different
points in the brand management process. We include practical examples taken from literature.
Assumption 1: Where stakeholder groups in the consumer and labor markets have distinct
value profiles, the need for coordination tends to be less
According to the self-congruence hypothesis, the fit between the brand's values and the values
of the target groups determines the effectiveness of the brand. If a company wants to attract a
different type of employee from its customers, conformity between consumer and the employer
brand will result in an undesirable "selection mechanism" (Schneider, 1987; Meglino et al.,
1989; Aiman-Smith et al., 2001). In this case, differentiating the brand positioning between
the consumer and the employer brand can make sense, as it allows to address the values of the
employees in a targeted fashion. In practice, this can be observed in the case of discount
stores that intentionally differentiate between the consumer and the labor market in their price
positioning: Brands are positioned as price-conscious or low for customers, but high salaries
are offered to staff to make the company attractive on the job market (Sponheuer, 2010).
Assumption 2: Where a company has a different corporate identity in the consumer and labor
markets, the need for coordination tends to be less
The characteristics ascribed by employees to a company as employer, i.e. its corporate identity,
may differ substantially from the characteristics ascribed to it as a provider of products and
services (Pratt, Foreman, 2000; Chernatony, 2002). In this case, differentiating between the
consumer and the employer brand does not run the risk of a loss of credibility, as long as a
brand positioning is developed for each market that is relevant, distinct and desirable for the
target groups in question. For example, the pharmaceuticals group Roche uses the value
"passion" in its employer brand, stressing the dedication of its staff to their work, but it does
not use this value in its positioning of products and services in the consumer market, as it is
not part of the consumer brand identity (Sponheuer, 2010).
Assumption 3: The less the brand perception of external parties is shaped by the behavior of
the company's employees, the less the need for coordination tends to be
As well as a company's products, its employees form a core interface between internal and
external stakeholder groups. The employees play an important role as brand ambassadors,
depending on the amount of contact they have with customers, which in turn depends on the
7

type of business the company is in. Employees are also important multipliers of the employer
brand (Sutherland et al., 2002). The more employees identify with the values of the company,
the better they can act as its ambassadors. Due to the "person-organization fit" mechanism, an
employer brand appeals to a specific target group as employees through the brand values it
projects. This also determines the ability of its employees to live these values and communicate
them externally (Balmer, Dinnie 1999; Hogg, Terry, 2000). In industries based strongly
on services, employees form a crucial interface between the brand and the customers. For
product-driven companies such as L'Oréal, on the other hand, this is less important, as most
staff have no direct contact with customers (Universum Communications, 2005).
Assumption 4: Where a company employs different brands in the consumer and labor
markets, the need for coordination tends to be less
To a degree, the brand architecture allows companies to direct the attention of different
stakeholder groups toward different objects (Bierwirth, 2003). If a company uses several
product brands with distinct positions on the consumer market but focuses on its corporate
brand on the labor market, the positioning of the employer brand may differ from those of the
consumer brands (Grout, 2002; Kernstock, 2004). In practice, a company's overarching brand
architecture appears to play a dominant role in shaping the employer branding strategy. While
companies with strong corporate brands such as RWE, UBS, and BP emphasize consistency
between their employer and consumer brands, companies with complex brand portfolios such
as Kraft, L'Oréal and Johnson & Johnson try to develop a more independent employer brand
(Universum Communications, 2005).
Summarizing above assumptions, companies must pay particular attention to consumer brand
management when defining and implementing their employer branding strategies,
coordinating the two. This allows them to maximize the impact of their employer brand by
striking the correct balance between consistency and target-group orientation. The recent
attention paid to this topic in academic circles forms a solid basis for this undertaking.
5 Conclusion and management implications
The situation of every company is different. Differences in corporate culture or the
expectations and values of target groups in the labor market, for example, have an impact on
how the employer brand is shaped. Companies must coordinate their employer brand with the
consumer-oriented brand strategy on the basis of these different situational factors.
The objective of such coordination is to target the different groups in the labor market as
specifically as possible with the employer brand, while achieving a harmonious overall brand
management approach for all stakeholder groups. In this study, we first developed a holistic
overall framework, then investigated individual situational factors to see what coordination
was required, and finally derived assumptions regarding the need for coordination. In this way
we have deepened our understanding of identity-based brand management, adding a new
element of cross-stakeholder brand management in which the company's most important
target groups – customers and employees – are addressed equally.
Holistic approaches such as that proposed here are still rare in practice. Most companies
somewhat neglect the issue of targeted coordination. Very often individual factors play a
dominant role, such as the company's brand architecture or, in the case of the service industry,
the close relationship between the company's customers and its staff.
8

In the future, companies themselves can analyze their individual need for coordination in
brand management using the holistic conceptual framework proposed here. This will enable
them to coordinate their employer and consumer branding in a targeted fashion, boosting the
impact of their employer brand and improving the overall effectiveness of their brand
management. Three basic options for positioning the employer brands are identified
(Sponheuer, 2010):
• If the need for coordination is weak, the employer brand can be positioned independently
of the consumer brand, i.e. the employer and consumer brands can communicate different
values and benefits to their respective stakeholder groups
• If the need for coordination is somewhat stronger, the employer and consumer brands can
be given the same values and benefits. However, these values and benefits can then be
interpreted differently for the different target groups, allowing at least a minimum of
differentiation in the communication toward consumer and labor markets
• If the need for coordination is strong, the employer and consumer brands should be
positioned and communicated identically
In the first two options – differentiation either in the positioning or the interpretation of the
brands – it is important that no obvious contradictions arise between messages sent toward the
different target groups. Any such contradictions will undermine the credibility of the brand
management. Those involved in brand management should therefore try to identify a "zone of
tolerance" within which differentiation is possible without being perceived as contradictory
by stakeholder groups. The exact boundaries of this zone of tolerance can be determined by
conducting surveys of target groups, for instance (Sponheuer, 2010).
6 Limitations of the study and avenues for future research
Employer branding is a relatively new and, from the perspective of strategic brand
management, largely unresearched field. The framework presented in this paper is a first
attempt to define a comprehensive – although perhaps not exhaustive – approach. Given the
complexity of the subject and the many different influencing and company specific factors
involved, it has been necessary to focus our attention on particular areas of interest.
Subsequent research should attempt to incorporate additional elements into the model and
provide insights into the need for coordination in brand management depending on other
factors. It would also theoretically be possible to extend the framework to include other
relevant stakeholder groups, such as investors. In this way a general model for comprehensive
brand management that embraces all relevant target groups could emerge.
The assumptions presented in this paper were examined purely on a qualitative basis, backed
up with examples from the literature. Future research should re-examine the results of this
study using quantitative methods and looking at a larger number of cases. Such research
should include additional assumptions derived from analyzing the remaining elements in the
conceptual framework presented here (Sponheuer, 2010).
The research approach outlined in this paper should thus be seen as an encouragement to
further research. At the same time, it is hoped that it will provide those responsible for
employer brands in companies with a framework for action, thus contributing to an
increasingly professional approach to brand management in the labor market.
9

References
Adam D. Planung und Entscheidung. 4th ed. Gabler, Wiesbaden 1997.
Aiman-Smith L. Bauer T. N. Cable D. M. Are you attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A
recruiting policy-capturing study. Journal of Business and Psychology 2001; 16(2): 219-237.
Balmer J. M. T. From the Pentagon: A New Identity Framework. Corporate Reputation
Review 2001; 4 (1): 11-22.
Balmer J. M. T. Dinnie K. Corporate identity and corporate communications: The antidote to
merger madness. Corporate Communications 1999; 4 (4), 182-192.
Balmer J. M. T. Greyser S. A. Managing the Multiple Identities of the Corporation. California
Management Review 2002; 44 (3): 72-86.
Barrow S. Mosley R. The Employer Brand. Chichester 2005.
Bierwirth A. Die Führung der Unternehmensmarke. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 2003.
Burmann C. Hegner S. Riley N. Towards an identity-based branding. Marketing Theory 2009
(b); 9 (1): 113-118.
Burmann C. Jost-Benz M. Riley N. Towards an identity-based brand equity model. Journal of
Business Research 2009 (a); 62 (3): 390-397.
Burmann C. Zeplin S. Building brand commitment: A behavioural approach to internal brand
management. The Journal of Brand Management 2005; 12 (4): 279-300.
Burn R. B. The Self-Concept in Theory, Measurement, Development and Behaviour. London,
Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd, 1979.
Davidson H. Broaden your brandwidth. Marketing Business 1999: 28-29.
De Chernatony L. Living the corporate brand: brand values and brand enactment. Corporate
Reputation Review 2002; 5 (2/3): 114-132.
De Chernatony L. Brand Management through narrowing the gap between brand identity and
brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management 1999; 15 (1-3): 157-179.
Demuth A. Das strategische Management der Unternehmensmarke. Markenartikel 2000; 1:
14-22.
Dutton J. E. Dukerich J. M. Harquail C. V. Organizational Images and Member Identification.
Administrative Science Quarterly 1994; 39 (2): 239-263.
Esch F.-R. Wicke A. Herausforderungen und Aufgaben des Markenmanagements. In: Esch
F.-R., editor. Modernes Markenmanagement, 3rd ed. Wiesbaden, Gabler, 2001. pp. 3-55.
Festinger L. Theorie der kognitiven Dissonanz. Bern, Stuttgart, Wien, Huber Hans, 1978.
10

Fombrun C. Reputation: Realising Value from the Corporate Image. MA: Boston, 1996.
Franke N. Personalmarketing zur Gewinnung von betriebswirtschaftlichem
Führungsnachwuchs. Marketing ZFP 2000; 22 (1): 75-92.
Grayson D. Hodges A. Corporate Social Opportunity. Sheffield, Greenleaf Pubs, 2004.
Grobe E. Corporate Attractiveness – eine Analyse der Wahrnehmung von
Unternehmensmarken aus Sicht von High Potentials. Arbeitspapier der HHL – Leipzig
Graduate School of Management 2003; 50 Leipzig.
Grout J. How to recruit excellent people. People Management 2002; 8 (9): 44-45.
Hatch M. J. Schultz M. Are the Strategic Stars Aligned for Your Corporate Brand? Harvard
Business Review 2001; 79 (2): 128-134.
High Potentials 2008/2009. In: Kienbaum Consultants International GmbH, editor. URL:
http://www.kienbaum.de/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-501/649_read-3801/Kienbaum-Studie,
Status: 2009/10/01
Hogg, M. A. Terry, D. J. Social Identity and self-categorization processes in organizational
contexts. Academy of Management Journal 2000; 25 (1), 121-140.
Höllmüller M. Strategische Akquisition hochqualifizierter Nachwuchskräfte. Wiesbaden,
Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, 2002.
Huselid M. A. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity
and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 1995; 38 (3): 635-
672.
Jones R. Finding sources of brand value: Developing a stakeholder model of brand equity.
Journal of Brand Management 2005; 13 (1): 10-32.
Judge T. A. Bretz Jr. R. D. Effects of work values on Job Choice Decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology 1992; 77 (3): 262.
Leitch S. Motion J. Multiplicity in corporate identity strategy. Corporate Communications
1999; 4 (4): 193-200.
Kapferer J.-N. The new strategic brand management: creating and sustaining brand equity
long term, 3 rd ed. London, Kogan Page, 2004.
Kernstock J. Esch F.-R. Tomczak T. Langner T. Zugang zum Corporate Brand Management.
In: Esch, F.-R. Tomczak T. Kernstock J. Langner T., editors. Corporate Brand Management,
1st ed., Wiesbaden, 2004. pp. 1-52.
11

Kirchgeorg M. Lorbeer A. Anforderungen von High Potentials an Unternehmen - Eine
Analyse auf der Grundlage einer bundesweiten Befragung von High Potentials und
Personalentscheidern. Arbeitspapier der HHL – Leipzig Graduate School of Management
2002; 49 Leipzig.
Kirchgeorg M. Günther E. Employer Brands zur Profilierung im Personalmarkt – Eine
Analyse der Wahrnehmung von Unternehmensmarken auf der Grundlage einer
deutschlandweiten Befragung von High Potentials. Arbeitspapier der HHL – Leipzig
Graduate School of Management 2006; 74 Leipzig.
Klein-Bölting U. Gürntke K. Corporate Branding im Zeitalter fundamentaler
Unternehmenstransformationen. Insights, Mai 2002: 6-22.
Meffert H. Burmann C. Kirchgeorg M. Marketing - Grundlagen marktorientierter
Unternehmensführung. 1th ed. Wiesbaden, Gabler, 2008.
Meffert H. Burmann C. Managementkonzept der identitätsorientierten Markenführung. In:
Meffert H. Burmann C. Koers M., editors. Markenmanagement - Grundfragen der
identitätsorientierten Markenführung, 1. ed. Wiesbaden, Gabler, 2002. pp. 73-97.
Meffert H. Giloth M. Aktuelle markt- und unternehmensbezogene Herausforderungen an die
Markenführung. In: Meffert H. Burmann C. Koers M., editors. Markenmanagement -
Grundfragen der identitätsorientierten Markenführung, 1st ed. Wiesbaden, Gabler, 2002. pp.
73-97.
Meffert H. Identitätsorientierter Ansatz der Markenführung – eine entscheidungsorientierte
Perspektive. Arbeitspapier der Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft für Marketing und
Unternehmensführung e.V. 2003; 165, Münster.
Mellor V. Delivering brand values through people. Strategic Communication Management
1999; 3 (2): 26-29.
Meglino, B. M. Ravlin E. C. Adkins C. L. A work values approach to corporate culture: A
field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal
of Applied Psychology 1989; 74 (3): 424-432.
Mitchell R. K. et al. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the
principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 1997; 22 (4): 853-
886.
Moroko L. Uncles M. Characteristics of successful employer brands. Journal of Brand
Management 2008; 16 (3):160-175.
Olins W. Corporate Identity: Making Business Strategy Visible Through Design. London,
Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1989.
Pratt M. G. Foreman P. Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational
Identities. Academy of Management Review 2000; 25 (1): 18-42.
12

Penrose E. T. The theory of the growth of the firm. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New
York 1997.
Schneider B. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology 1987; 40 (3): 437-453.
Shamir, B. Meaning, Self and Motivation in Organizations. Organization Studies 1991; 12
(3), 405-424.
Sirgy J. M. Self-concept in Consumer Behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer
Research 1982; 9 (3): 287-300.
Sponheuer B. Employer Branding als Bestandteil einer ganzheitlichen Markenführung.
Wiesbaden, 2010.
Sutherland M. M. Torricelli D. G. Karg R. F. Employer-of-choice branding for knowledge
workers. South African Journal of Business Management 2002; 22 (4): 13-20.
Statistisches Bundesamt. In the spotlight: Population of Germany today and tomorrow,
Wiesbaden, 2003.
Universum Communications. Employer Branding Global Best Practices 2005. Stockholm,
2005.
Turban D. B. Cable D. M. Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 2003; 24 (6): 733-751.
van Riel C. B. M. The Management of Corporate Communication. In: Balmer J. M. T.
Greyser S. A., editors. Revealing the Corporation. Routledge, London, 2003. pp. 161-170.
13