Leadership and Employer Branding - AIMS International

Tenth AIMS International Conference on Management January 6-9, 2013 

Leadership and Employer Branding: Where Do Employee Engagement 

and Psychological Attachment Stand? 

Avinash D. Pathardikar 

Sangeeta Sahu 

Kamlesh Kumar Maurya 

avinashphrd@gmail.com 

sangeeta_hrd@yahoo.co.in 

VBS Purvanchal University, Jaunpur 

1. Introduction 

What drives employer branding (EB)? This crucial question has attracted studies conceptualizing and 

researching the framework of EB. It represents a firm’s efforts to promote, both within and outside the firm, a 

clear view of what makes it different and desirable as an employer (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004). The importance 

paid by researchers to EB is oriented towards attracting potential and competent employees to the organization 

and retaining the performers. Effective EB leads to give the organization a competitive edge in human resource 

management compared to its competitors in the skilled manpower market (Ambler and Barrow, 1996). While 

there is hardly any debate among scholars on the relevance of EB, the actual drivers behind EB are not 

completely explored, and how these mechanisms differ due to disparity between the internal environments of 

the organizations. In this article, we build on the framework of EB by arguing that (1) Transformational 

leadership, (2) Employee engagement, and (3) Psychological attachment are the important factors to help us 

understand the drivers behind EB. We do this with a special focus on the usefulness of employer branding in an 

increasingly knowledge- based economy where skilled employees are often in short supply (Ewing et al., 2002). 

Two important motivations fuel this article. First, from organization valuation perspective, we argue that going 

beyond the influence of first degree information about the organization like organization culture, quality of 

current employees, impression of public or service quality (Sullivan, 2002) to second order of factors 

influencing EB through leadership style, employee engagement and psychological attachment can be of 

substantial importance. Though, the early attraction of company outsiders to the firm is a useful outcome of EB 

(Lievens et al., 2007; Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004). The value attached to the factors governing behavioural 

aspects through interpersonal and psychological aspects has not been paid sufficient attention leading in past 

research on EB. 

Second, from competitive advantage perspective it is important to consider the aspects that regulate the 

internal branding; this learning can further help in developing better human resource management practices 

(Love and Singh, 2011). To compete in the open market economy the concept of branding has been worked out 

(Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1991).This concept provides a complementary perspective to understand EB through 

resource-based view (RBV) contributing to sustainable competitive advantage (Priem and Butler, 2001; Boxall, 

1998; Barney, 1991). While some studies have incorporated the element of learning in understanding the drivers 

of EB activities, their discussion is limited and mainly focused on the outcome of it (Moroko and Uncles, 2008; 

Wilden et al., 2010; Glen, 2006). Few studies are reported on generating an understanding on the issues that 

inspire internal branding (Maxwell and Knox, 2009; Edwards, 2010; Mosley, 2007). 

Overall, this article departs from previous work in two significant ways. First, we develop the argument that the 

drivers of EB can be revealed by a focus on the leadership style, employee engagement and the psychological 

attachment felt by the employee. Second, we open the ways for how these determinants and their learning affect 

EB. 

2. Literature Review 

Employer Branding 

The American Marketing Association defined brand as a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of 

them, intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from 

those of competitors (Schneider, 2003).The term branding when applied to the employer suggests the 

differentiation of a firms’ characteristics as an employer from those of its competitors. It highlights the unique 

aspects of the firms’ employment situations (Ambler and Barrow, 1996). It includes the firms’ value system, 

policies and behaviours towards attracting, motivating and retaining current and potential employees. EB has 

been described in three- step process by human resource practitioners through valuation approach (Sullivan, 

2265


2002; Eisenberg et al. 2001). On application aspect, the notion of employer attractiveness is a closely related 

concept to employer branding (Collins and Stevens, 2002; Berthon et al., 2005). The understanding of factors 

contributing towards employer attractiveness is essential for employer branding valuation. At certain places in 

this study the term “employer branding” and “employer attractiveness” has been interchangeably used. 

As an important means for firms to expand and create market, branding has been predominantly studied by 

researchers (Schneider, 2003; Keller, 2003; Aaker 1991). Brand knowledge refers to a sign, symbol, term or 

design intended to identify the goods or services. It speaks for the product and its quality. Its main objective is to 

differentiate from its competitors (Schneider, 2003). Over the years branding has been applied to people, 

places and firms (Peters, 1999). The cognitive interpretation related to brand (Keller, 2003) widens its 

applicability in attracting and retaining competent people. Employment brand emerged highlighting the different 

aspects of the firm’s employment conditions. Subsequently employer brand evolved, defined in terms of 

benefits provided to the employee by the employer and through the process of employment, also identified with 

the employing company (Ambler and Barrow, 1996). 

Such a view may overlook the fact that EB is subjected to the influences of other factors (Moroko and Uncles, 

2008; Carley et al., 2010; Kaufmann et al., 2012). A number of studies have shown that a firm’s branding may 

be driven by company culture and values (Moroko and Uncles, 2008; Mosley, 2007), organization’s leader 

(Strobel et al., 2010; Tuuk, 2012; Pereira and Gomes, 2012; Lievens, 2007), that define the work environment. 

Such studies have pointed out some useful drivers for EB that we extend in this study. Further, EB research has 

primarily relied on the instrumental and symbolic distinction, where the instrumental attributes describe the job 

or organization as the symbolic attributes that are intangible and can be interpreted in the form of trait inferences 

(Lievens and Highhouse, 2003; Lievens et al., 2007). These dimensions, especially symbolic image 

incrementally accounted for predicting attractiveness as an employer (Lievens et al, 2005). Both the job and 

organization attributes explain employee engagement (Saks, 2006). Specially drawing on the employee value 

perspective and social identity theory that deal with quality of current employees and their psychological aspects 

form the base of identification (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), and that could focus on employees’ psyches (Miles 

and Mangold, 2004) putting impact on their loyalty and commitment (Khanyapuss and Alan, 2011) resulting in 

retaining employees (Martin et al.,2005). In short, we advocate leadership, employee engagement and 

psychological attachment to be the building blocks that can further enhance our understanding of the drivers 

behind EB. 

Transformational Leadership 

Over the past few years, several studies have examined how the leadership styles influence a wide range of 

variables, including satisfaction, commitment, employees ’intention to quit and employee performance 

(Dumdum et al., 2002; Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Rafferty and Griffin, 2004). However, research on EB is yet in 

an embryonic stage and the relationship between leadership style and employer branding is sparse. Though 

some researchers highlighted on the influence of leadership, but concrete empirical confirmation on which 

leadership style is applicable and contributes in the branding has to be explored. 

This leadership perspective is important to EB research as prior studies, especially those based on affect of 

leader behaviour on organizational attractiveness offer scope for this study. The role of leader in general 

attractiveness of the organization through their ethical behaviour draws on creating an image for the firm 

(Strobel et al., 2010). The multifactor leadership theory (Tejeda et al., 2001) comprises of three broad types of 

leadership, namely transformational, transactional and laissez-faire. The concept of transformational leadership 

was initially developed by Burns (1978), represents those leaders who stimulate and inspire followers to both 

achieve extraordinary outcomes and, in the process, develop their own leadership capacity (Bass and Riggio, 

2006). The four dimensions associated with the transformational leadership style are idealized influence, 

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Leaders with these 

characteristics stand as a model for their employees (Bass, 1985), inspire vision ( Podsakoff et al., 1990)and 

motivate them, cultivate creativity (Avolio, 1999) and are sensitive to needs of employees ( Judge and Piccolo, 

2004). From the transactional leaders’ point of view employees are valued in return for their behaviour such as 

increased effort or cooperation (Podsakoff et al., 1990). The laissez- faire leader is characterized by a relative 

lack of concern for their subordinates (Bass and Riggio, 2006). It is evident that transformational leaders greatly 

influence organizations and provide movement (Tucker et al., 2004). 

Employee engagement 

Drawing on diverse relevant literatures and research findings on employee engagement, three dimensions 

consisting of employee psychological state, traits, and behaviours predict employee outcomes (Macey and 

Schneider, 2008). Such outcomes lead to organizational success and financial performance (Bates, 2004; 

2266


Baumruk, 2004; Lockwood, 2007). Some other studies have investigated employee engagement into two types, 

job and organizational engagements (Saks, 2006). Engagement of the employee is subjected to the role indicates 

the influence of other factors affecting it (Robinson et al., 2004). The academicians, researchers and 

practitioners have explained the phenomena of engagement in many different ways Maslach et al, 2001; 

Schaufeli et al., 2002; Rothbard, 2001; Richman, 2006; Shaw, 2005). The outcome of it is usually similar in 

their point of view. Engagement involves the active use of emotions and behaviours along with cognition (May 

et al., 2004), differentiating it from commitment, citizenship behaviour and job involvement. The consequences 

of engagement are thought to be of value to unit performance (Harter and Schmidt, 2006) and organization 

effectiveness (Erickson, 2005). The holistic approach towards employee engagement for motivating and 

retaining employees addresses the basic objective behind branding (Glen, 2006). In this study, we contend that 

employee engagement may affect employer branding and influence its outcomes. 

Psychological attachment 

Although much research has been conducted in the area of organizational commitment, few studies have 

explicitly worked on psychological attachment. The relevance of it is felt especially in developing retention 

strategy. The perception approach advocates of the message received within employees’ psyches that enable its 

interpretation and make sense. Psychological attachment is predicted on compliance, identification and 

internalization (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). Compliance refers to the instrumental involvement for specific 

extrinsic rewards. The other two dimensions identification and internalization formed a single factor (Martin and 

Bennett, 1996) confirmed involvement based on a desire for affiliation and resulting from congruence between 

individual and organizational values. Identification and internalization significantly predicted turnover 

intentions (Abrams et al., 1998; Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Scholars have also shown cross- cultural differences 

in psychological aspects of workers’ turnover intentions (Besser, 1993; Abrams et al., 1998). 

Our study endeavours to provide a systematic work explaining the impact of employer branding on 

psychological attachment, extending the line of research to observe the role of employer branding on 

psychological aspect of employee. We focused on the Information Technology (IT) sector, the knowledge based 

organizations witnessing high turnover. They are gradually moving towards employer branding as a strategy for 

competitive edge. 

3. Hypotheses 

To examine the drivers behind EB, we follow the aspects regulating employee behaviour. We argue that 

employees working under transformational leader with higher degree of employee engagement and attachment 

will affect EB, such impact can change due to varying degree of these factors. Prior research has also suggested 

that the effect of leadership style influence employee behaviour (Bass et al, 2003; Tucker and Russell, 2004). 

The other variables employee engagement and psychological attachment are antecedents to job satisfaction and 

employees’ turnover intentions (Saks, 2006; Abrams et al., 1998; Harris et al., 1993; Mael and Ashforth, 1995; 

Besser, 1993). 

Transformational leadership and Employer branding 

Of the various outcomes of leadership (Tucker and Russell, 2004), we argue that transformational leader is most 

appropriate, as they strongly engage followers’ by connecting them to the mission of the organization (Mink, 

1992; Shamir et al, 1993; Bass and Avolio, 1997), enhancing commitment to the organization (Avolio and 

Yammarino, 2002; Bass et al., 2003) and team effectiveness (Bass, 1985). This happens by emphasizing culture 

and values in the organization by such leaders (Keller, 1995; Niehoff et al, 1990; Pereira and Gomes, 2012). 

They impact interpersonal processes (Balthazard et al., 2002; Kahai et al., 2000) and empower the employees 

(Kark et al., 2003). 

The discipline of employer brand management takes a more holistic approach in shaping the culture of the 

organization by alignment of people and organization ethos (Mosley, 2007). This can be well achieved by a 

leader exhibiting transformational leadership. Studies have highlighted the ethical behaviour of leader’s ability 

to attract highly qualified employees (Strobel et al, 2010). As a result, research work work on leadership 

development is seen as a way by which organizations can differ from each other (Tuuk, 2012). From leadership 

perspective, we argue that integrated employees with innovative approach under the leadership of 

transformational leader will account for higher degree of EB. Therefore: 

H1a: Transformational leadership style exhibited by leaders will affect employer branding. 

H1b: Transformational leaders will influence psychological attachment of the employees. 

2267


Employee engagement and Employer branding 

Employee engagement is a long term process with continuous interactions over time to generate obligations and 

a reciprocal interdependence (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Past studies reveal the role of job and 

organization engagement in predicting job satisfaction, organizational commitment and intention to quit 

(Saks,2006; Maslach et al., 2001). Firms’ value and culture can be reflected through their people management 

strategy influencing employee engagement (Glen, 2006). The attributes related to positive, fulfilling and work 

related state of mind (Schaufeli et al, 2002) through job characteristics like job enrichment (May et al.,2004), 

workload and control conditions (Maslach et al.,2001) may contribute in employee engagement. Also support of 

group members at workplace shows relation with employee engagement (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). These 

are some reasons to expect engagement to be related to work outcomes. It has been found to be related to good 

health and positive work (Sonnentag, 2003). Such employees have a lower tendency to leave their organization. 

The possession of such characteristics by the firm provides a sustainable competitive edge and allows the firm to 

move ahead of its competitors (Barney, 1991). Definitely the employees of the firm play crucial role in it (Priem 

and Butler, 2001). Therefore, we assume that these employees contribute to spreading the goodwill about the 

organization and in the process impact employer branding. 

H2: Employees’ high on engagement will influence employer branding. 

Employer branding and psychological attachment 

The employer branding literature has argued for the role of psychological and social aspects of group behaviour 

such as identity from social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Love and Singh, 2011) and its relation to 

turnover intentions (Abrams et al., 1998). It supports the link between workplace brand and the attraction to the 

individual. Membership of the organization influences individuals’ self-concept (Joo and McLean, 2006) and 

social attraction to in-group members (Mael and Ashforth, 1995). 

Following the marketing brand loyalty, EB speaks of attachment approach (Keller and Lehmann, 2003). The 

brand concept expressed through symbols intends to identify and differentiate with the competitors (Schneider, 

2003) and has contributed in explaining attraction to the organization (Lievens et al., 2005) and employee 

identification (Livens et al., 2007). These symbolic attributions are linked to peoples’ need to maintain self- 

identity and self-image (Aaker, 1997, 1999). Our study attempts to extend past research findings that explored 

the role of employer branding on employees’ perception (Davies, 2008) and identified a compatible relation 

between work group and organizational identification (Pate et al., 2009). 

A review on organization commitment shows it to be conceptualized as a general orientation to a set of 

organization goals or values; whereas identification involves psychological attachment to a specific company 

(Ashforth and Mael, 1989, Mael and Ashforth, 1995; Dutton et al., 1994). Past surveys by O’Reilly and 

Chatman (1986) suggest that psychological attachment may be predicted on compliance (instrumental 

involvement for specific extrinsic rewards), identification (involvement based on a desire for affiliation), and 

internalization (involvement resulting from congruence between individual and organizational variables). 

Therefore, we argue that since the major task of the employer brand is to attract and retain superior employees 

(Berthon et al., 2005; Martin et al., 2005), our study is focused on revealing the relation of EB on the 

psychological attachment of the employees. Therefore: 

H3: The value of employer branding will influence employees’ psychological attachment. Specially, higher 

employer branding will increase the attachment of the employee with the respective organization. 

4. Method 

Participants 

The data was collected through convenient sampling from middle level executives of ten sample organizations 

in Information Technology (IT) sector in India. The IT executives were employed in different – big and midsized 

–units located in northern and southern part of Indian subcontinent. To obtain better external validity and 

increased generalibility of results, the study used a sample from a single industry (IT) yet collected data from 

different organisations. Initially a personal request was made telephonically to the HR manager of the 

organization and explained the purpose of the study. After obtaining prior approval the online version of survey 

prepared on google docs was mailed to subjects directly into their personal mailboxes. Electronic version survey 

was sent along with a covering letter from the researchers describing the study with the assurance of 

confidentiality of responses. 

2268


Four hundred and twenty five questionnaires were mailed. One hundred and fifty surveys were returned, 

approximately a 35percent response rate. The vast majority (82.7 percent) of the respondents were male. The 

average age of the respondents was 29 years (SD=3.86), and their average tenures in the organization and the 

occupation were 30.39 (SD=23.87) and 60.52 (SD=34.97) months, respectively. 57.3 percent of the respondents 

were married. 88 percent of the respondents were working in the operation (Software development, R&D etc) 

and 12 percent executives were from non-technical (HR, Marketing, and Finance etc) departments. 

Measures 

In the study four variables namely; transformational leadership, employee engagement, employer branding and 

psychological attachment were taken to find out the interaction between them. Responses to these variables 

were collected on a five-point scale ranging from 1= Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. 

Transformational Leadership: Transformational leadership was assessed by 25-item scale developed by Bass 

& Avolio, 1992. The scale was used to assess Transformational Leadership from organization. The sample item 

includes, ‘My superiors enable us to think about old problems in new ways’, and My superiors enable us to 

think about old problems in new ways. The internal consistency coefficient obtained for transformational 

leadership was 0.96. 

Employee Engagement: Employee engagement was assessed by the 12-item scale developed by Gallup, 1998. 

Sample items are: “At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day”, and “My supervisor, or 

someone at work, seems to care about me as a person”. The internal consistency coefficient was 0.88. 

Psychological Attachment: Psychological attachment was measured with the 11-item scale developed by 

O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986. Sample items are: “How hard I work for this organization is directly linked to how 

much I am rewarded.” and “My private views about this organization are different from those I express 

publically.” The internal consistency coefficient was found 0.87. 

Employer branding: 25-item employer branding scale was adopted from the scale developed by Berthon et al, 

2005. Sample items includes “Recognition/appreciation from management is good in this organization”, and “I 

am working in an exciting environment”. The internal consistency coefficients for employer branding was found 

0.95. 

5. Data Analysis and Procedure 

At the outset screening of the data was performed and box plots were prepared separately for each variable to 

find out the outliers. Extreme values up to one and a half box length were considered and rectified by lowering 

or increasing the values to the acceptable limit. In the next step Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness-of-fit test for 

normality and log transformation was conducted, followed by t-test between transformed and untransformed 

data. On comparison no significant difference was found between the two datasets. Thus untransformed data 

was considered for further analysis. 

The research models in Figure 1 are examined with AMOS. As suggested in the literature (Bollen and Long, 

1993; Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993; Kline, 1998), model fit was assessed with several indices. The accepted 

thresholds for these indices are χ 2 /df ratio should be less than 3; the values of GFI, RFI, NFI, and CFI should be 

greater than 0.90; and RMSEA is recommended to be up to 0.05, and acceptable up to 0.08 (Gefen et al., 2000; 

Hair et al., 1992). 

Results 

Table I shows the descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients and the inter-correlations among the research 

variables. The findings show good reliability coefficients for all the research measures with each one of the 

measures exceeding the 0.70 threshold (Hair et al., 1992). 

From the mean value of the age it is evident that workforce working in the IT organizations are of the young 

age group with average experience of five years (60 months) and average experience in the current organization 

is about two and half years (30 months). 

The correlations among the Psychological attachment and other variables reveal strong relationship with each 

other. Psychological attachment has strong and shows positive relationships with employee engagement 

(r=0.690, p


transformational leadership (r=0.795, p


Notes: EE= Employee Engagement, TL= Transformational Leadership, EB= Employer Branding, PA= Psychological 

Attachment 

The path model depicted in Figure I hypothesizes that subjects interpretation of employee engagement will 

indirectly affect on psychological attachment; the indirect influence. Similarly transformational leadership 

shows both direct and indirect effect on psychological attachment. The indirect influence being mediated by 

their endorsement of the employer branding; the direction of the arrows depicts the hypothesized direct and 

indirect paths. To estimate the magnitude of these paths, path analysis was conducted through AMOS software. 

The path coefficients between psychological attachment and three predictors, were obtained by regressing the 

former on the latter two variables. The results from the coefficient table (see Table-4) generated from the first 

regression analysis shows that all three variables are significant predictors (Model-4). The beta presented in the 

standardized total effects column, represents the standardized regression coefficients between psychological 

attachment and three variables in the study (Employer Branding: beta= 0.72; transformational leadership: Beta= 

0.15; employee engagement: Beta= 0.376- indirect effect). 

The path coefficients between the employer branding and other two predictors, employee engagement and 

transformational leadership were obtained by regressing the former on the latter two variables. The results from 

the coefficient table generated from the second regression analysis show that both employee engagement and 

transformational leadership are significant predictors of employer branding (Employee engagement: Beta= 0.52; 

Transformational Leadership: Beta= 0.40). 

Table 4 Parameter Estimates for the Hypothesized Model 

Structural Relationship 

Standardized 

Total effects 

(Regression 

weights) 

Employee Engagement�Employer Branding 0.519*** 

Transformational Leadership�Employer Branding 0.405*** 

Employer Branding � Psychological Attachment 0.724*** 

2271 

Standardized 

Indirect effect 

(Regression 

weights) 

Transformational Leadership�Psychological Attachment 0.148* 0.293*** 

Employee Engagement� Psychological Attachment 0.376*** 

Employee Engagement �� Transformational Leadership 0.682*** 

R Square 

0.72*** 

0.71*** 

Notes: ***p


study indicates that transformational leadership contributes to developing psychological attachment directly and 

indirectly through the mediation of employer attractiveness. 

A second key finding was the effect of employee engagement on employer branding. Engaged employees 

work with passion and feel connected to the organization, driving innovation and moving the organization 

forward. It shows in the business result (Harter et al., 2002). Employee engagement has been found to relate to 

organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment, performance and withdrawal (Maslach et al., 

2001; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004) and positive work affect (Sonnentag, 2003). Our study adds to this line of 

outcomes by predicting the influence of engagement on branding. In addition, the finding of Sak’s (2006) on 

mediating relation of employee engagement between its antecedents and consequences is further validated in 

this study. The findings indicate that employee engagement on brand image communicating the organization 

being a great place to work. 

Third, the current findings show that organizational image in form of employer branding is associated with 

attachment and identification. The consequences of identification include support for the organizations, this 

could be manifested as increased commitment to remain within the organization (Mael and Ashforth, 1995). 

Though brand appears more as an outsider’s image of the organization, the existing employees contribute 

toward and benefit from this image and brand (Love and Singh, 2011). Our study shows that employer branding 

creates an emotional connection of brand loyalty with its employees. This attractiveness towards the brand and 

the emotional attachment is driven by the values they derive from the total work experience as evaluated in the 

measure of employer branding through interest value, social value, economic value, development value, and 

application value (Barrow and Mosley, 2005; Berthon et al., 2005; Caldwell et al., 1990). This connection with 

the organization will help the business to succeed (Sartain and Schumann, 2006). The results of this study 

supports past finding on the influence of employer branding on its managers (Davies, 2008). Thus our findings 

strongly explain the dynamics of certain drivers of employer branding and its outcomes. 

8. Implications for research 

This study has responded to the calls of Berthon et al. (2005), Lievens et al. (2007), Love and Singh (2011), 

Hochegger and Terlutter (2012) and Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) for more rigorous research on the role of 

employer branding. In particular, we have moved beyond mere descriptions of branding by exploring how 

employer branding mediates in the process. The aspects of branding were assumed but seldom empirically 

established in the growing economy, since most of the past studies are based on the American and European 

context. This study contributes to both the employer branding literature and human resource management 

literature by systematically exploring and establishing the role of factors in driving brand image and its affect on 

the employees. Our path analysis also speaks of its relevance for strategic management working on the changing 

dynamics of labour market (Agrawal and Swaroop, 2007; Andreassen and Lansing, 2010; Collins and Stevens, 

2002) and gives insight into drivers through empirical examination. In some sense, our study has also shed light 

on the debate regarding the applicability of Western theories in emerging economies. 

In terms of future research, more work is needed for integrating the concepts of employer branding. There are 

several avenues to consider. One area would be to investigate other potential predictors of employer branding. 

The present study included factors on leadership style and employee engagement, these included the importance 

given on culture and values by the transformational leaders and the dimensions on job and organizational 

engagement that consisted of workplace, communication, support, satisfaction, future prospects (Dionne at al., 

2004; Sahu and Pathardikar,2012; Lockwood, 2007; Saks, 2006). Future research could include a broader range 

of predictors that are linked to other human resource practices. Another potential area of research lies in the 

effect of employer branding and its relevance for Indian economy. Research in this field is hardly two decades 

old, therefore, lot of study is anticipated explaining the dynamics of employer branding. 

9. Implications for practice 

This article offers a unique perspective to understand the drivers of employer branding and its outcome. Our 

studies show that the organization features in managing its employees add value to the organization image 

influences in attachment of employees to the organization. This hypothesis well proved in our study provides an 

opportunity to the practitioners to play with the drivers of branding and tune their employees’ psychology. For 

this reciprocal response, more thrust has to be given to building managers who exhibit qualities of 

transformational leader. It is clearly evident from the findings and result of our study that leader behaviour 

highly contributes in employer branding. Issues related to employee engagement in the organization also carry 

with it the forces driving the image building process. Therefore managers should understand the long term effect 

of these relationships and work on such strategies. It can work out as a panacea against the problem of attrition. 

2272


10. Limitations 

The limitations of the study offer opportunities for future improvement. First, for accuracy and simplicity we 

have studied one industry in India that faces high rate of attrition. Caution must be exercised in generalizing our 

findings to other industries. Second, while our studies reflect attachment in Indian cultural set up, the findings 

may vary in other cultures as individual behaviour is greatly influenced by the cultural dimensions (Pathardikar 

and Sahu, 2011). Third, our study was restricted to interplay of certain factors and their influence. Such studies 

including other factors can be researched out in future. Finally, may be a longitudinal study can further validate 

the causal relationships explained in the study. 

11. Conclusion 

Although employer branding has gained attention in last few years among practitioners and consultants, there 

has been few empirical research in the area. Some conceptual frameworks that came up required to be studied 

for quantitative analysis to validate the assumptions. The results of this study suggest the importance of 

transformational leadership in creating brand image. It shows that highly engaged employees add to the value of 

employer brand. The findings establish the impact of employer branding on the psychological attachment of the 

employees. The research work analysed the views of employees working in the Indian IT companies and 

contributes in understanding the mechanisms around employer branding in these industries. 

12. References 

1. Aaker, David A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity, San Francisco: Free Press. 

2. Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of marketing research, 34, 347-356. 

3. Aaker, J.L. (1999). The malleable self: the role of self expression in persuasion. Journal of marketing 

research, 36, 45-57. 

4. Abrams, D., Ando, K. and Hinkle, S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group: cross cultural 

differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers turn over 

intentions. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 24 (10), 1027-1039. 

5. Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. The Journal of Brand Management, 4, 185-206. 

6. Andreassen, Tor W., Even J. Lanseng, (2010). Service differentiation: A self-image congruency 

perspective on brand building in the labor market. Journal of Service Management, 21 (2), 212 – 236. 

7. Ashforth, B. E. and F. Mael (1989). ‘Social identity theory and organisation’. Academy of Management 

Review, 14, 20–39. 

8. Avolio, B. J. and Yammarino F. J. (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road 

ahead, Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. 

9. Backhaus, Kristin, and Tikoo, Surinder (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. 

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

10. Balthazard, P., Waldman, D., Howell, J. And Atwater, A. (2002). Modelling performance in teams: the 

effects of media type, shared leadership, interaction style and cohesion, paper presented at the August, 

2002, Academy of management meeting, Denver, C.O. 

11. Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 

99-120. 

12. Barrow, S., and Mosley, R. (2005). The employer brand, bring the best of brand management to people 

at work. London: Wiley. 

13. Bass, B and Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, 

Mahwah, N.J.69. 

14. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond expectations, New York: Free Press. 

15. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1992). Multifactor leadership questionnaire-Short form 6S. Binghamton, 

NY: Centre for leadership studies. 

16. Bass, B.M., and Avolio, B. (1997). Full range leadership development: manual for the multifactor 

leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden. 

17. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting uit performance by assessing 

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 88 (2), 207-218. 

18. Bates, S. (2004), ‘Getting engaged’, HR Magazine, Vol. 49 (2), 44-51. 

19. Baumruk, R. (2004), ‘The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success’, 

Workspan, 47, 48-52. 

20. Berthon, P., Ewing,M. and Hah, Li. Lian (2005). Captivity Company: dimensions of attractiveness in 

employer branding. International journal of advertising, 24 (2), 151-172. 

2273


21. Besser, .L. (1993). The commitment of Japanese workers and US workers: A reassessment of the 

literature. American sociological review, 58, 873-881. 

22. Bollen, K.A. and Long, J. Scott (1993), Testing Structural Equation Models (Eds), Sage, Thousand 

Oaks, CA. 

23. Boxall, P. (1998). Achieving competitive advantage through human resource strategy: towards a theory 

of industry dynamics. Human Resource Management Review, 8 (3), 265-88. 

24. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Collins. 

25. Carless, S, Mann, L. and Wearing, A. (1995). An empirical Test of the Transformational leadership 

model. Paper presented at the Australian Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, 

Sydney. 

26. Carley Foster, Khanyapuss Punjaisri, Ranis Cheng, (2010) "Exploring the relationship between 

corporate, internal and employer branding", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 19 (6), 

401 – 409. 

27. Collins, Christopher J. and Stevens, Cynthia Kay (2002). The relationship between early recruitmentrelated 

activities and the application decisions of new labor-market entrants: A brand equity approach 

to recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1121-1133. 

28. Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, 

Journal of Management, 31, 874-900. 

29. Davies, Gary (2008) "Employer branding and its influence on managers", European Journal of 

Marketing, 42 (5/6), 667 – 681. 

30. Dionne, S., Yammarino, F., Atwater, L., and Spangler, W. (2004). Transformational leadership and 

team performance. Journal of organizational change management, 17, 177-193. 

31. Dumdum, U.R., Lowe, K.B. and Avolio, B.J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and 

transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: an update and extension, in Avolio, 

B.J. and Yammarino, F.J.(Eds), Trasformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead, JAI 

Press, Oxford, pp. 35-66. 

32. Dutton, J. E., J. M. Dukerich and C. V. Harquail (1994). ‘Organisational images and member 

identification’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263. 

33. Eisenberg, B., Kilduff, C., Burleigh, S. and Wilson, K. (2001). The Role of the Value Proposition and 

Employment Branding in Retaining Top Talent, Society for Human Resource Management, 

Alexandria, VA. 

34. Erickson, T. J. (2005). Testimony submitted before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor and Pensions, May 26. 

35. Ewing, Michael T., Pitt, Leyland F., de Bussy, Nigel M., Berthon, Pierre (2002). Employer branding in 

the knowledge economy. International Journal of Advertising, 21, 3-22. 

36. Gefen, D., Straub, D.W. and Boudreau, M.C. (2000). Structural equation modelling and regression: 

guidelines for research practice”, Communication of the Association for Information Systems, 4 (7), 1- 

30. 

37. Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating 

unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186-92. 

38. Glen, Clayton (2006). Key skills retention and motivation: the war for talent still rages and retention is 

the high ground. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38 (1), 37 – 45. 

39. Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1992), Multivariate Data Analysis with 

Readings, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 

40. Harris, S.G., Hirschfeld, R.R., Field, H., and Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Psychological attachment: 

Relationship with job characteristics. Group and Organization management, 18 (4), 459-482. 

41. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), Business-unit level relationship between employee 

satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 268-79. 

42. Hochegger, Simone and Terlutter, Ralf (2012). Why Organizations Systematically Engage in 

Employer Branding: A Conceptual Framework. Advances in Advertising Research, III, 403-419. 

43. Joo, B.K. and McLean, G.N. (2006). Best employer studies: A conceptual model from a literature 

review and a case study. Human resource Development Review, 5 (2), 228-257. 

44. Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS 

Command Language, Scientific International Software, Chicago, IL. 

45. Judge,T.A. and Piccolo, R.F.(2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta- analytic 

test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (5), 755-68. 

2274


46. Julia Christensen Hughes, Evelina Rog, (2008). Talent management: A strategy for improving 

employee recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organizations. International 

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20 (7), 743 - 757 

47. Kahai, S.S., Sosik, J. J. And Avolio, B.J. (2000). Effects of leadership style, anonymity and rewards in 

an electronic meeting system environment, working paper, Centre for leadership studies, Binghamton 

University. 

48. Kark, R., Shamir, b. And Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment 

and dependency. Journal of applied psychology, 88 (2), 246-255. 

49. Keller, K.L. (2003). Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of 

consumer research, 29 (4), 596-597. 

50. Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2003). How brands create value? Value emerges through a unique 

chain of events. Marketing management, 12, 28-29. 

51. Keller, Kevin L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing consumer-based brand equity. 

Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22. 

52. Keller, R. (1995). Transformational leaders make a difference. Research-technology management. 38, 

41-44. 

53. Khanyapuss Punjaisri, and Alan Wilson, (2011). Internal branding process: key mechanisms, outcomes 

and moderating factors", Emerald 45. 

54. Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press, New 

York, NY. 

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

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

56. Lievens, F., G. van Hoye and B. Schreurs (2005). Examining the relationship between employer 

knowledge dimensions and organisational attractiveness: an application in a military context. Journal 

of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 78, 553–572. 

57. Lievens, F., van Hoye, G. & Anseel, F. (2007). Organizational identity and employer image: towards a 

unifying framework. British Journal of Management, 18, 45-59. 

58. Lockwood, Nancy R. (2007). Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR’s 

Strategic Role, SHRM Research Quarterly. 

59. Love, Linda; Singh, Parbudyal (2011). Workplace Branding: Leveraging Human Resources 

Management Practices for Competitive Advantage Through “Best Employer” Surveys. Journal of 

Business and Psychology, 26 (2), 175-181. 

60. Macey, William H. and Schneider, Benjamin (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. 

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30. 

61. Mael, F. A., and Ashforth, B.E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Bio data, organizational identification and 

turnover among new comers. Personnel Psychology, 48, 307-333. 

62. Martin R. Edwards, (2010). An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel 

Review, 39 (1), 5 - 23 

63. Martin, C.L. and Bennett, N. (1996). The role of justice judgments in explaining the relationship 

between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Group and organizational management, 21 

(1), 84-104. 

64. Martin, Graeme, Beaumont, Phillip, Doig, Rosalind and Pate, Judy (2005). Branding: A New 

Performance Discourse for HR? European journal of management, 23 (1), 76-88. 

65. Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”. Annual Review of Psychology, 

52, 397-422. 

66. Maxwell, Rachael & Knox, Simon (2009). Motivating employees to "live the brand": a comparative 

case study of employer brand attractiveness within the firm. Journal of Marketing Management, 25 

(9/10), 893-907. 

67. May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, 

safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational & 

Organizational Psychology, 7, 11-37. 

68. Miles, Sandra Jeanquart and Glynn Mangold (2004). A Conceptualization of the Employee Branding 

Process. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 3 (2/3), 65-87. 

69. Mink, O. (1992). Creating new organizational paradigms for change. International journal of quality 

and reliability management, 9, 21-22. 

70. Moroko, Lara and Uncles, Mark D. (2008). Characteristics of successful employer brands. Journal of 

Brand Management, 16, 160–175 

2275


71. Mosley, Richard, W. (2007). Customer experience, organisational culture and the employer brand. 

Journal of Brand Management, 15, 123-134. 

72. Niehoff, B., Enz, C., and Grover, R. (1990). The impact of top management actions on employee 

attitudes and perceptions. Group and organization studies, 15 (3), 337-352. 

73. O'Reilly, Charles A. and Chatman, Jennifer (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological 

attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on pro-social behavior. 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499. 

74. Parent, M. and Gallupe, R.B. (2001). The role of leadership in group support systems failure. Group 

decision and Negotiation, 10, 405-422. 

75. Pathardikar Avinash D. and Sahu, Sangeeta (2011). Implications of the Organization Cultural 

Antecedents on Organizational Commitment: A Study in Indian Public Sector Units. Global Business 

Review, 12(3), 431–446. 

76. Pereiraa, Carmen M.M.and Jorge F.S. Gomes (2012). The strength of human resource practices and 

transformational leadership: impact on organisational performance. The International Journal of 

Human Resource Management, 23 (20), 4301-4318. 

77. Peters, T. (1999). The Brand You 50: Fifty Ways to Transform Yourself from an Employee into a 

Brand that Shouts Distinction, Knopf Publishers, New York, NY. 

78. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.V., Moorman, R.H. and fetter, R. (1990). The influence of 

transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and 

organizational citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1 (2), 107-142. 

79. Priem, R.L. and Butler, J.E. (2001). Is the resource based view a useful perspective for strategic 

management research? The Academy of Management Review, 26, 22-40. 

80. Punjaisri, Khanyapuss , Evanschitzky, Heiner and Wilson Alan, (2009). Internal branding: an enabler 

of employees' brand-supporting behaviours. Emerald, 20. 

81. R.K. Agrawal & P. Swaroop (2009). Effect of Employer Brand Image on Application Intentions of B- 

School Undergraduates. Vision- The Journal of Business Perspective, 13(3), 41-49. 

82. Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: conceptual and 

empirical extensions. Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 329-354. 

83. Richman, A. (2006), Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Workspan, 49, 36- 

9. 

84. Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004). The Drivers of Employee Engagement, Institute for 

Employment Studies, Brighton. 

85. Rothbard, N.P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. 

Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-84. 

86. Sahu, S. and Pathardikar, Avinash, D. (2012). Transformational leadership as a predictor of conflict 

handling strategy: An empirical study in Indian IT companies. Indian journal of training and 

development, XXXXII (2), 60-75. 

87. Saks, Alan M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of managerial 

psychology, 21 (7), 600-619. 

88. Sartain, L. and Schumann, M. (2006). Brand from the inside, San Francisco: Wiley. 

89. Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with 

burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315. 

90. Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement of 

engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness 

Studies, 3, 71-92. 

91. Schneider, L. (2003). What is branding and how is it important to your marketing strategy?. available 

at: http://marketing.about.com/cs/brandmktg/a/whatisbranding.htm (accessed October 22, 2003). 

92. Segars, A.H. (1997). Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: a paradigm and Illustration 

within the context of information system research. Omega, 25 (1), 107-21. 

93. Shamir, B. House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A 

self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4 (4), 577-594. 

94. Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators. Strategic Communication 

Management, 9 (3), 26-29. 

95. Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface 

between non work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518-528. 

2276


96. Strobel, Maria, Tumasjan, Andranik; Welpe, Isabell (2010). Do business ethics pay off?: The influence 

of ethical leadership on organizational attractiveness. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of 

Psychology, 218 (4), 213-224. 

97. Sullivan, J. (2002), “Crafting a lofty employment brand: a costly proposition” ER Daily, November 25, 

available at: www.erexchange.com/articles/db/9856ED899A524B8A8C61146906E21331.asp 

(accessed October 22, 2003). 

98. Sullivan, J. (2004). Eight elements of a successful employment brand. ER Daily, 23 February, available 

at: www.erexchange.com/articles/db/52CB45FDADFAA4CD2BBC366659E26892A.asp (accessed 

April 14, 2004). 

99. Tajfel, H., H., and Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter group behaviour. In S. 

Worchel & L.W. Austin (eds), Psychology of inter group relations. Chicago: Nelson Hill. 

100. Tejeda, M.J., Scandura, T.A. and Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and 

recommendations, Leadership Quarterly, 12 (1), 31-52. 

101. Tucker, B.A. and Russell, R.F. (2004). The influence of the transformational leader. Journal of 

leadership and organizational studies, 10 (4), 103-111. 

102. Tuuk, E. (2012). ‘Transformational leadership in the coming decade: a response to three major 

workplace trends’. Cornell HR Review. Retrieved [insert date] from Cornell University, ILR School 

site: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/chrr/25 

103. Wilden, Ralf, Gudergana, Siegfried & Lings, Ian (2010). Employer branding: strategic implications 

for staff recruitment. Journal of Marketing Management, 26 (1), 56-73. 

2277

Leadership and Employer Branding - AIMS International

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?