The relationship among employer branding, employee engagement and employee performance

ABSTRACT

The dissertation research on the relationship between employer branding (comprising 10 factors: Corporate social responsibility, Promotion, Work- Life Balance Satisfaction, Education, Behavior-based family interference with work, Travel opportunities, Time-based work interference with family, Teamwork, Supporting, Strain-based family interference with work), employer attractiveness (including 5 factors: social value, developmental value, application value, safety value and economic value), employee engagement (consisting of 3 factors: dedication, vigor and absorption) and employee performance (made up of 3 factors: Teamwork, Innovator and Job).

The dissertation uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods (mixed method) in implementation process. Qualitative research method is used in developing interview questionnaires through direct exchanges to get expert opinions and group discussion related to built scale content, supplementing the scales is complete and appropriate to Vietnamese context. Quantitative research methods are used in the data analysis process. Quantitative analysis steps are composed of analyzing scale reliability by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), SEM structural model analysis. This dissertation uses convenient sampling method (non-probability) with the participants as employees working in enterprises and organizations in Vietnam, in which the official sample size is 937 samples.

The results of testing the hypotheses in the detailed research model are as follows: a) Employer branding has a positive impact on employer attractiveness; b) Employer branding has a positive impact on employee engagement; c) Employer branding has no impact on employee performance; d) Employer attractiveness has a positive impact on employee engagement; e)

Employer attractiveness has a positive impact on employee performance; f) Employee engagement has no impact on employee performance.

Based on hypothesis testing outcomes in the research model, the dissertation discusses the results and proposes managerial implications to provide managers with measures towards the improved quality of employer branding besides employer attractiveness development so as to better employee engagement and employee performance.
Page i

 

 

CONTENT

 

CONTENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………i LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………………………….v LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………………………….ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………….1

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENTS ………………………………………………………………..1

1.1.1 Practical reasons……………………………………………………………………………..1

1.1.2 Literature review …………………………………………………………………………….4

1.1.3 From previous studies ……………………………………………………………………..6

1.1.4 Problem statements …………………………………………………………………………9

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ……………..13

1.3 RESEARCH SCOPE AND RESEARCH PARTICIPANT ………………….14

1.3.1 Research Scope …………………………………………………………………………….14

1.3.2 Research Participant………………………………………………………………………14

1.3.3 Time of survey ……………………………………………………………………………..14

1.4 NEW FINDINGS……………………………………………………………………………….14

1.5 STUDY SIGNIFICANCE…………………………………………………………………..15

1.6 THESIS STRUCTURE………………………………………………………………………17

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………..19

2.1 CONCEPTS ………………………………………………………………………………………19

2.1.1 Employer Branding ……………………………………………………………………….19

2.1.2 Employer Attractiveness ………………………………………………………………..22

2.1.3 Employee Engagement ………………………………………………………………….24

2.1.4 Employee Performance ………………………………………………………………….25

2.2 MAIN THEORIES…………………………………………………………………………….27

2.2.1 Social exchange theory ………………………………………………………………….28
Page ii

 

 

2.2.2 Person – Organization Fit Theory ……………………………………………………36

2.2.3 Theory of Employer Branding ……………………………………………………….. 46

2.2.4 Theory of Employee Engagement…………………………………………………… 50

2.2.5 Theory of planned behavior and social cognitive theory…………………….53

2.2.6 Reviewing previous studies ……………………………………………………………58

2.2.7 The research gap …………………………………………………………………………119

2.3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS AND STUDY MODEL ………………………..120

2.3.1 Impact of employer branding on employer attractiveness …………………120

2.3.2 Impact of employer branding on employee engagement …………………..129

2.3.3 Impact of employer branding on employee performance ………………….133

2.3.4 Impact of employer attractiveness on employee engagement ……………136

2.3.5 Impact of employer attractiveness on employee performance …………..150

2.3.6 Impact of employee engagement on employee performance …………….163

2.4 PROPOSED RESEARCH MODEL………………………………………………….166

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 2 …………………………………………………………………..166

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………..169

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN ……………………………………………………………………..169

3.2 SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION ………………………………………..171

3.2.1 Sampling ……………………………………………………………………………………171

3.2.2 Data collection ……………………………………………………………………………172

3.3 SCALE MEASUREMENTS …………………………………………………………….175

3.3.1 From literature…………………………………………………………………………….180

3.3.2 Opinions of the expert interviews and groups discussions ………………..180

3.3.3 The complete scale………………………………………………………………………186

3.3.4 Scale measurements …………………………………………………………………….189

3.4 DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE…………………………………………………….207

3.4.1 Descriptive statistics…………………………………………………………………….209

3.4.2 Internal consistency reliability ………………………………………………………209

3.4.3 Convergent validity……………………………………………………………………..210
Page iii

 

 

3.4.4 Discriminant Validity…………………………………………………………….211

3.4.5 Multi-collinear assessment…………………………………………………………… 211

3.4.6 Path coefficients of the structure model ……………………………………………….. 211

3.4.7 Determination coefficient (R² value) ……………………………………………..212

3.4.8 Impact coefficient f² …………………………………………………………………….213

3.4.9 Blindfolding and predict relevance Q² ……………………………………………213

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 3 …………………………………………………………………..214

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………….216

4.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS………………………………………………………….216

4.1.1 Demographic ………………………………………………………………………………216

4.1.2 Scale descriptive………………………………………………………………………….220

4.2 SCALE VALIDITY ASSESSMENT …………………………………………………242

4.2.1 Cronbach Alpha ………………………………………………………………………….242

4.2.2 Explore Factor Analysis (EFA)……………………………………………………..262

4.3 MEASUREMENT MODEL VALIDITY ASSESSMENT ………………….275

4.3.1 Employer Branding ……………………………………………………………………..275

4.3.2 Employer Attractiveness ………………………………………………………………279

4.3.3 Employee Engagement ………………………………………………………………..282

4.3.4 Employee Performance ………………………………………………………………..284

4.4 STRUCTURAL MODEL ASSESSMENT…………………………………………287

4.4.1 Multi-collinear assessment……………………………………………………………287

4.4.2 Determination coefficient (R² value) ……………………………………………..288

4.4.3 Impact coefficient f² …………………………………………………………………….288

4.4.4 Blindfolding and predict relevance Q² ……………………………………………289

4.4.5 Path coefficients of the structure model & Hypothesis Testing …………290

4.5 RESULT DISCUSSION …………………………………………………………………..293

4.5.1 Discussion the results of the research Scale…………………………………….293

4.5.2 Discussion research model and hypothesis……………………………………..304
Page iv

 

 

SUMMARY CHAPTER 4…………………………………………………………………………321

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION & POLICY IMPLICATIONS…………………… 322

5.1 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………… 322

5.2 NEW FINDINGS……………………………………………………………………………..323

5.3 MANAGERIAL POLICY IMPLICATIONS…………………………………….327

5.4 LIMITATION & FUTURE RESEARCH …………………………………………332

5.4.1 Limitation …………………………………………………………………………………..332

5.4.2 Future research ……………………………………………………………………………333

REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………………………335

LIST OF THE ARTICLES RELATED TO THE THESIS …………………………386

APPENDIX A: THE EXPERTS AND GROUP LIST …………………………………. A-1

APPENDIX B: THE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL SAMPLE………………………… A-4

APPENDIX C: THE ORGINAL SCALE ………………………………………………… A-33

APPENDIX D: THE EXPERT 1 INTERVIEW RECORD ………………………… A-45

APPENDIX E: THE EXPERT 2 INTERVIEW RECORD ………………………… A-68

APPENDIX F: THE EXPERT 3 INTERVIEW RECORD ………………………… A-89

APPENDIX G: THE EXPERT 4 INTERVIEW RECORD ………………………. A-111

APPENDIX H: THE GROUP 1 INTERVIEW RECORD………………………… A-133

APPENDIX I: THE GROUP 2 INTERVIEW RECORD………………………… A-155

APPENDIX J:THE SCALE AFTER QUANLITATVE RESEARCH………….. A-178

APPENDIX K: THE SURVEY QUESTIONAIRE………………………………….. A-193

APPENDIX L: THE SURVEYED COMPANY LIST …………………………….. A-209
Page v

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Summary of studies related to Employer Branding and Employer

Attractiveness …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 63

Table 2.2 Summary of studies related to Employer Branding and Employee

Engagement ………………………………………………………………………………………….77

Table 2.3 Summary of studies related to Employer Branding and Employee

Performance ………………………………………………………………………………………….87

Table 2.4 Summary of studies related to Employer Attractiveness and Employee

Engagement ………………………………………………………………………………………….95

Table 2.5 Summary of studies related to Employer Attractiveness and Employee

Performance ………………………………………………………………………………………. 102

Table 2.6 Summary of studies related to Employee Engagement and Employee

Performance ………………………………………………………………………………………. 113

Table 2.7 Summary of Hypothesis………………………………………………………………. 165

Table 3.1 Descriptive statistics Results………………………………………………………… 177

Table 3.2 Summary of expert opinions and group discussion results……………….. 186

Table 3.3 Summary of qualitative method results …………………………………………. 188

Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics Results………………………………………………………… 216

Table 4.2 Cronbach Alpha of CSR ……………………………………………………………… 242

Table 4.3 Scale validity result of CSR …………………………………………………………. 242

Table 4.4 Cronbach Alpha of WLSA…………………………………………………………… 243

Table 4.5 Scale validity result of WLSA ……………………………………………………… 243

Table 4.6 Cronbach Alpha of PRO ……………………………………………………………… 244

Table 4.7 Scale validity result of PRO…………………………………………………………. 244

Table 4.8 Cronbach Alpha of PRO ……………………………………………………………… 245

Table 4.9 Scale validity result of EDU ………………………………………………………… 245

Table 4.10 Cronbach Alpha of WLBE…………………………………………………………. 246

Table 4.11 Scale validity result of WLBE ……………………………………………………. 246

Table 4.12 Cronbach Alpha of TRA ……………………………………………………………. 247
Page vi

 

 

Table 4.13 Scale validity result of TRA ………………………………………………………. 247

Table 4.14 Cronbach Alpha of WLTI ………………………………………………………….. 248

Table 4.15 Scale validity result of WLTI……………………………………………………… 248

Table 4.16 Cronbach Alpha of GRO …………………………………………………………… 249

Table 4.17 Scale validity result of GRO ………………………………………………………. 249

Table 4.18 Cronbach Alpha of SUP…………………………………………………………….. 250

Table 4.19 Scale validity result of SUP ……………………………………………………….. 250

Table 4.20 Cronbach Alpha of WLST …………………………………………………………. 251

Table 4.21 Scale validity result of WLST…………………………………………………….. 251

Table 4.22 Cronbach Alpha of SOC ……………………………………………………………. 252

Table 4.23 Scale validity result of SOC……………………………………………………….. 252

Table 4.24 Cronbach Alpha of DEV……………………………………………………………. 253

Table 4.25 Scale validity result of DEV ………………………………………………………. 253

Table 4.26 Cronbach Alpha of APP…………………………………………………………….. 254

Table 4.27 Scale validity result of APP ……………………………………………………….. 254

Table 4.28 Cronbach Alpha of SAF…………………………………………………………….. 255

Table 4.29 Scale validity result of SAF ……………………………………………………….. 255

Table 4.30 Cronbach Alpha of ECO ……………………………………………………………. 256

Table 4.31 Scale validity result of ECO ………………………………………………………. 256

Table 4.32 Cronbach Alpha of DED……………………………………………………………. 257

Table 4.33 Scale validity result of DED ………………………………………………………. 257

Table 4.34 Cronbach Alpha of VIG…………………………………………………………….. 258

Table 4.35 Scale validity result of VIG ……………………………………………………….. 258

Table 4.36 Cronbach Alpha of ABS ……………………………………………………………. 259

Table 4.37 Scale validity result of ABS……………………………………………………….. 259

Table 4.38 Cronbach Alpha of TEA ……………………………………………………………. 260

Table 4.39 Scale validity result of TEA……………………………………………………….. 260

Table 4.40 Cronbach Alpha of INO…………………………………………………………….. 261

Table 4.41 Scale validity result of INO ……………………………………………………….. 261
Page vii

 

 

Table 4.42 Cronbach Alpha of JOB…………………………………………………………….. 262

Table 4.43 Scale validity result of JOB………………………………………………………… 262

Table 4.44 KMO and Bartlett’s test of Employer Branding ……………………………. 262

Table 4.45 Total variance explained of Employer Branding …………………………… 263

Table 4.46 Rotated component matrix of Employer Branding ………………………… 265

Table 4.47 KMO and Bartlett’s test of Employer Attractiveness …………………….. 267

Table 4.48 Total variance explained of Employer Attractiveness ……………………. 268

Table 4.49 Rotated component matrix of Employer attractiveness ………………….. 269

Table 4.50 KMO and Bartlett’s test of Employee Engagement ………………………. 270

Table 4.51 Total variance explained of Employee Engagement ……………………… 271

Table 4.52 Rotated component matrix of Employee Engagement …………………… 272

Table 4.53 KMO and Bartlett’s test of Employee Performance ………………………. 273

Table 4.54 Total variance explained of Employee Performance ……………………… 273

Table 4.55 Rotated component matrix of Employee Performance …………………… 274

Table 4.56 Outer loading and the internal consistency reliability of Employer

Branding……………………………………………………………………………………………. 276

Table 4.57 HTMT of Employer Branding ……………………………………………………. 278

Table 4.58 HTMT Ratio of Employer Branding……………………………………………. 278

Table 4.59 Outer loading and the internal consistency reliability of Employer

Attractiveness…………………………………………………………………………………….. 280

Table 4.60 HTMT of Employer Attractiveness …………………………………………….. 281

Table 4.61 HTMT Ratio of Employer Attractiveness…………………………………….. 281

Table 4.62 Outer loading and the internal consistency reliability of Employee

Engagement ………………………………………………………………………………………. 283

Table 4.63 HTMT of Employee Engagement……………………………………………….. 284

Table 4.64 HTMT Ratio of Employee Engagement ………………………………………. 284

Table 4.65 Outer loading and the internal consistency reliability of Employee

Performance ………………………………………………………………………………………. 285

Table 4.66 HTMT of Employee Performance ………………………………………………. 286
Page viii

 

 

Table 4.67 HTMT Ratio of Employee Performance………………………………………. 286

Table 4.68 VIF value in research model ………………………………………………………. 287

Table 4.69 Determination coefficient R2 adjusted …………………………………………. 288

Table 4.70 Impact coefficient f² ………………………………………………………………….. 289

Table 4.71 Q2 value…………………………………………………………………………………… 290

Table 4.72 Hypothesis testing result ……………………………………………………………. 291

Table 4.73 The Employer Branding scale…………………………………………………….. 294

Table 4.74 Items of the interesting value ……………………………………………………… 298

Table 4.75 The Employer Attractiveness scale……………………………………………… 299

Table 4.76 Employee Engagement scale ……………………………………………………… 301

Table 4.77 The Employee Performance scale……………………………………………….. 303
Page ix

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Various Conceptualizations of Person – Organization Fit ………………. 38

Figure 2.2 Theory of planned behavior ………………………………………………………… 54

Figure 2.3 Relations among three factors in social cognitive theory …………………56

Figure 2.4 The theory framework of research model ………………………………………58

Figure 2.5 Antecedents and consequences of EB and EA …………………………….. 119

Figure 2.6 Detailed Proposal research model ……………………………………………… 166

Figure 3.1 Research procedure …………………………………………………………………. 170

Figure 3.2 General research process ………………………………………………………….. 171

Figure 4.1 The PLS-SEM research model (Standardize) ……………………………… 292
Page 1

 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the most general content: research reasons, problem statement, research objectives and research questions. This chapter also clarifies the research scope, the participants as well as the survey time. Moreover, this chapter shows the new findings, study significance and thesis structure. Last but not least, the overall research process is also presented for the overview of the research steps.

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENTS

1.1.1 Practical reasons

From the macro perspective, human resource is one important factor that determines the success or the failure of an organization. Human resource is both development motivation and goal in each organization and the economy – society. Firstly, human factor is the driving force for the socio-economic development because the employees use the input factors of enterprises (machinery, equipment, raw materials, finance and so on) to create products for the business. Although the inputs are good whereas the capacity of the human resources is poor, it cannot create value for the organization. Therefore, if any organization possesses high quality human resources, this organization will take advantage of its competitive advantage so as to develop in the market. In addition, human resources research and create new and creative products for the organization, whether tangible product (product) or intangible (service). This shows that organizations, especially businesses aiming to survive, must have these creative products; in other words, so as to depend on the creative capacity of their human resources. Consequently, a society can develop in a sustainable way thanks to an important development force: human capacity. Secondly, human resource is also the development goal for each organization and society because human needs are the targets of all producing and business activities. The rich and diverse human resource needs both physical and
mental for opportunities for companies, businesses and organizations to develop

 

Chapter 1: Introduction
Page 2

 

their production and business activities in continuous development. The number and the types of products are also dependent upon that being developed and grown continuously. To help the socio-economic development, employment increases, unemployment rate decreases and the positive impact on the economic growth of the countries in the world is born. Thirdly, when the industrial revolution 4.0 is taking place in a strong way around the world, a profound shift from the economy, mainly based on resources and low cost labor to the economy-based knowledge and dependent on human resources requiring higher skills and technology, has been available. Therefore, that high-quality human resources at organizations become increasingly scarce leads to the battle called ‘war of talent’ to attract and retain potential employees. In short, because of the enormous role of the human factor in the macro aspect above, most organizations from enterprises to state management agencies, social organizations and so on have considered human resources as the most valuable asset of every organization. Therefore, the research direction focusing on solutions to attract and retain talented human resource is an important goal towards all organizations.

From the micro perspective, the turnover rate in enterprises is on the rise. As reported by the human resources consultancy, Anphabe Company, the employee turnover rate has increased rapidly in the last 3 years. In particular, in 2019, the warning level of 24% has been reached: At the employee level with below-10- million-VND salary, the rate of leave is up to 29%. This implies that for every 5 employees, 1 employee quits. According to Vietnamworks’ 2019 recruitment market report, up to 79% of employers surveyed reported that they were short of human resources in their organizations. Up to 36% reason that this was from the high rate of resignation. That the relatively risky human resources situations in Vietnam, leading to the great impact on the stability and performance of each business is explained by the current economic development in Vietnam and the world over the years (Vietnamworks, 2019). At the same time, the trend of
increasing integration and globalization has led to an increase in both domestic and

 

Chapter 1: Introduction
Page 3

 

foreign enterprises. The employees have more career opportunities and choices. Therefore, the degree of employee engagement with an enterprise is decreasing compared to that of the previous time so retaining employee is becoming a huge challenge for every business and organization. Besides, according to Anphabe, a reputable human resource consulting organization in Vietnam, the current level of employee engagement in companies in Vietnam tends to decrease alarmingly. According to survey report of Anphabe, up to 39.3% of human resources in Vietnam are not engaged; in which, 2.5% are very non-engaged whereas 36.8% are apathetic. However, 36.8% of employees are indifferent, up to 66.9% decided to stay in business. That means they are working without making an effort; in other words, they have no intention of quitting even though they are not totally engaged. These employees are called ‘office zombies’: employees understood as a ‘virtual engagement’. This proportion of “office zombie” is increasing over time with the negative impact on the performance of each organization. This is one urgent problem from reality for business managers in this period. However, up to this point, solutions to retain employees as well as to increase their true engagement are still ineffective in the long term. Therefore, practical requirements should include adequate researche on the factors that can positively impact employee engagement (Anphabe, 2017).

In addition, according to Asian Economy and Productivity Map data (2020) shows that labor productivity of Vietnam in 2018 only ranked 9th among 11 ASEAN countries with labor productivity of 12,740 USD/worker. While the leading country in labor productivity is Singapore with a rate of 149,050 USD/worker. Thus, Vietnam is only 1/12 of the labor productivity of Singapore. This shows that Vietnam needs solutions to improve employee performance. Therefore, it is still urgent to study the factors affecting employee performance and productivity of
employees of enterprises and organizations in Vietnam.

 

 

 

Chapter 1: Introduction
Page 4

 

In the last 5 years, businesses in Vietnam have implemented employer- branding strategies in creating their brands towards more attractive and potential candidates. From the survey report by Vietnamwork, among the reasons for employee shortage, up to 24% is that the employer branding is not strong enough (Vietnamwork, 2019). In recent years, the annual award of ‘Vietnamese best places to work’ has been awarded to multinational companies (Unilever) or large domestic companies (Vinamilk). That Unilever continuously won the award for 3 consecutive years 2014, 2015 and 2016 while Vinamilk won the award for 2 consecutive years
2017 and 2018 implies that only a few large enterprises and multinational corporations have new activities effectively for employer branding (Anphabe,
2019). As for the majority of small and medium enterprises in Vietnam, this activity is rather new and weak according to the survey results above by Vietnamwork (Vietnamwork, 2019). In particular, the role of employer branding affecting employee engagement at organizations has not been implemented effectively. At the same time, the impact of employing mainly focuses on attracting potential candidates, rather than talent retention application in organizations. Therefore, this research direction is towards the relationship between employer branding and employee engagement.

In a nutshell, the practical reasons both from macro or micro perspectives require the need to study the factors that form an effective employer branding in organizations. At the same time, another important issue that should be explored deeply in further details is the impact of employer branding on employee engagement.

1.1.2 Literature review

Brand is an important element in any business, including tangible value and intangible value. This is the factor that makes the difference between one business and another in the market. Currently, there are three approaches to branding,
including financial-based brand equity (FBBE), customer-based brand equity

 

 

Chapter 1: Introduction
Page 5

 

(CBBE), and employee-based brand equity (EBBE) (Ailawadi et al., 2003; Chu & Keh, 2006; King & Grace, 2010; Netemeyer et al., 2004). Thus, employer branding is the brand value based on an employee-based approach. Therefore, the dissertation focuses on employer branding which is necessary for contributing to improving the efficiency of production and business activities of the company.
Currently, the theory of employer branding is in incomplete stage due to its recent appearance. This theory is derived from the combination of marketing and human resources (Ambler & Barrow, 1996). Researchers only study in some certain areas. First, researchers focus on employer branding concepts: Employer branding as a package of economic and psychological benefits provided to employees from the management level of the organization (Ambler & Barrow, 1996) creating an organizational culture as well as an internal spirit (Fombrun & Wally, 1989) or the organization’s reputation for the relevant partners (Hlavsa et al., 2015). Second, other follow-up studies go towards human capital (K. Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004), characteristics of company resources (Barney, 1991) and competitive advantages of the organization (Priem & Butler, 2001) and so on.

Because employer branding is closely linked with human resource management activities in businesses. These studies, despite highly applicable, do not provide much support to the theoretical framework of employer branding. Third, the employer branding theory largely focuses on potential candidates: building and developing scales (Berthon et al., 2005), positioning the organization’s brand in the market and building a good employer brand (Elving et al., 2013). Finally, the employer branding theory goes into research on brand equity (Aaker & Equity,
1991): Brand equity can affect both potential candidates and current employees in talent recruitment, selection and retention. In terms of the theory of employer branding, the lack of research direction on the relationship between employer branding to employee engagement is obvious. In other words, the research direction on the role of employer branding in affecting current employees of the
organizations is limited in quantity and incomplete. Therefore, one research on the

 

Chapter 1: Introduction