SuGyaan

Volume II, Issue I

34

Introduction

Indian Information Technology (IT) andInformation Technology EnabledServices (ITES) industry has recordedtremendous growth and is regarded bydeveloping countries the world over as amodel for how they can leapfrog stagesof industrial development. Beingknowledge based industry-the humancapital and intellectual assets make adifference to the competitive advantageof the firm. In the quest for manpowercompanies are cajoling talent around theworld. Global expansion in marketopportunities in the IT sector, theshortage in manpower in both numbersand skills has resulted in a seller's market.So HR teams are pressurized to devise,optimize compensation packages, andprovide opportunities for growth,learning and development. Thus,employer branding is likely to assumegreater substance in India in the years tocome as it is one of the available panacea.

An Empirical Study of Most Attractive Employer in IndianIT Industry: Potential Employee Perspective

R. Saraswathy and N. Thamaraiselvan

Abstract

Despite advances in technology and major shifts in economy people remain an organizations mostvaluable resource. Human capital and intellectual assets make a difference to the competitiveadvantage of the firm in a knowledge based industry. A reputable brand can entice top talent to anorganization hence companies devote their time, effort and money on honing their employer brands.An Employer Brand is an organization’s image as seen through the eyes of its employees and potentialhires. Relatively little is known about which specific factors determine employee’s attraction to anemployer. This study empirically examines the elements of employer attractiveness in InformationTechnology (IT) industry from the perspective of potential employees and determines the mostattractive employer in the Indian IT industry. As result of the analysis we came to know that potentialIndian IT employees valued economic factors, global opportunities, development factors andapplication factors. Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) was the most attractive employer, followedby Infosys, Wipro, Polaris Software Lab and Hexaware.

It helps build a brand recall and quickidentification of the company in theminds of its target audience. For anemployer brand to be successful it isessential to know the factors thatcontribute to employer attractiveness. Itcomprises an imperative idea ininformation intensive contexts whereattracting employees with superior skillsand knowledge tunes the competitiveedge of a company. In India, getting theright people to work has always been achallenge and employer branding andmarketing will play the keydifferentiating factor. Some apt exampleswould be Accenture, HCL. Accenture hadrelatively been an obscure brand in India;Accenture with Tiger Woods has been awinning combination portrayingAccenture as a great place to work. (BrianSommer, 2009, ZDnet).

This paper begins by giving an overviewof IT industry in India. The next sectionpresents the literature review;

SuGyaan 35

Volume II, Issue I

methodology used is elaborated.Implications of the approach are thenconsidered, limitations noted and futureresearch direction outlined and closeswith a conclusion.

Overview

Information Technology is the fastestgrowing sector of India, a sunriseindustry and the area of growth for themillennium. According to theNASSCOM-McKinsey report India'ssoftware and services exports were $17.2billion in the fiscal year ended March 31this year, up by 34.5 percent from theprevious year. The total addressablemarket for global offshoring isapproximately $300 billion, of which$110 billion will be offshored by 2010. ITsector is one of the highest paying sectorsand also provides room for development.It is currently facing a dearth of talent.Engineers are in high demand in thesector as most of the jobs requireextensive mathematical skills as well aslogical and analytical abilities. However,most technical people lack good softskills, and verbal and writtencommunication skills. An aspirant in theindustry who has a combination of boththese sets of skills can find himself orherself in an advantageous position evenat entry level. The skills and quality ofthe workforce needs to be improved asonly 25 percent of technical graduates aresuitable for employment in the offshoreIT industry in India, while only 10percent to 15 percent of general collegegraduates are suitable for employment bythe BPO industry, according to McKinseyand Co.

Literature Review

Kotler (1994) defines internal marketingas 'the task of successfully hiring, trainingand motivating able employees to servethe customer well'. Job products mustattract, develop and motivate employees,thereby satisfying the needs and wantsof these internal customers, whilstaddressing the overall objectives of theorganization (Berry and Parasuraman1991). The present study is concernedprincipally with the successful 'hiring ofemployees'. It observes how judiciousemployers can hold the principles andpractices related with external brandmanagement and marketingcommunication, internally. Simply put itextends beyond the HRM notion ofrecruitment advertising (Gatewood et al.1993) and considers how firms mightassess the degree to which they areconsidered to be 'employers of choice' andin the process, attract the highest-caliberemployees. It is generally understood thatintellectual and human capital is thefoundation of competitive advantage inthe contemporary economy. That is whywe touch upon the resource based view.Accordingly, the war among employersto attract and retain talented workerstakes place in a world wheretechnological progress and global contestare driving extensive change in theemployment blueprint. (Osborn-Jones,2001). Thus the literature review beginsby presenting the competitive job marketscenario, shortage of quality talent, itseffect on talent acquisition and retention.Next, we broaden the focus to employerbranding, the essence of employment -the employer value proposition link it

SuGyaan

Volume II, Issue I

36

with goal of being an employer of choice.Finally we introduce and define theconcept of employer attractiveness, theelements that influence employerattractiveness like an organizationalimage and relate it to talent acquisition.We also look into the factors that makean employer attractive.

The War for Talent is a phrase coined bySteven Hankin of McKinsey andCompany in 1997, and is a book by EdMichaels, Helen Handfield-Jones, andBeth Axelrod, Harvard Business Press. Itrefers to an increasingly competitivesetting for recruiting and retainingtalented employees. In the book,Michaels, et al, portray it as a mindsetthat emphasizes the importance of talentto the success of organizations. It isdriven by demographic and technologicaladvancement impacts the availability oftalent significantly leading to the war fortalent. Warning bells of talent dearth areringing loud and clear. Forethoughtdemands that business leaders need toelevate management of talent to aburning corporate priority. In fact, qualitypeople are no longer available in plentyand cannot be easily replaced.Organization's to tackle with the ironicscarcity among the apparent plenty ofqualified jobseekers. HR needs to be atthe heart of business. In turn to keep theconduit full of talented people, companiesare resorting to unconventionalapproaches to recruiting and are keen oncomprehending the ingredients thatmakes an employer attractive. Theresource-based view (RBV) of the firmdefines a strategic asset as one that is rare,valuable, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable. In these knowledge-

intensive organizations, processingknowledge is central to business success.(Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Drucker,1998). Sustainable competitive advantageis no longer rooted in physical assets andfinancial capital, but in effectivechanneling of intellectual capital(Seubert, Balaji and Makhija, 2001).Within the resource-based view (RBV),researchers assumed that the firm is apool of hard-to-copy resources andcapabilities (Conner, 1991) and thosediscrepancies in size distribution andcompetitiveness of firms occur from theirdistinctive capabilities to build up,expand, and organize those resources andcapabilities to create and apply value-enhancing strategies (Amit andSchoemaker, 1993; Barney, 1991; Peteraf,1993). In the resource-based view(Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1986, 1991;Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Peteraf, 1993;Conner, 1991), knowledge is seen as astrategic asset with the potential to be asource of sustainable competitiveadvantage for an organization. Theknowledge-based view of the firm (Grant,1995, 1996) builds upon and extends theresource-based theory of the firm initiallypromoted by Penrose (1959) andexpanded by others (e.g., see Alavi andLeidner 2001).

Organizational Image: Tom (1971)defined organizational image as "a loosestructure of knowledge, beliefs, andfeelings about an organization".According to (High house et al, 1999) anorganization's employer image can bedefined as potential applicants'perceptions of overall corporate image asa place to work. Previous studies provethat an organization's image significantly

SuGyaan 37

Volume II, Issue I

influenced the attraction of applicants toan organization. Applicants were moreattracted to organizations with a morefavorable image (Belt and Paolillo, 1982;Gatewood, Gowan, and Lautenschlager,1993; Turban and Greening, 1997) andpreferred employers whose imagescorresponded to their own self-images(Tom, 1971). Other studies tried toidentify the determinants of anorganization's image as an employer(Cable and Graham, 2000; Highhouse etal, 1999; Turban, 2001). Familiarity withthe organization, organizational characte-ristics (e.g., type of industry), and jobcharacteristics (e.g., opportunities foradvancement) are importantdeterminants of an organization's imageas an employer. The name 'employerbrand' was coined by Ambler and Barrow(1996), who defined it as "the packageof functional, economic andpsychological benefits provided byemployment and identified with theemploying company". Employerbranding can be described as the "sum ofa company's efforts to communicate toexisting and prospective staff that it is adesirable place to work" (Lloyd 2002 inBerthon et al. 2005) Thus it has beendescribed as the company's image as seenthrough the eyes of its associates andpotential hires, closely coupled to the"employment experience" of what is itlike to work at a company, includingtangibles such as salary and intangiblessuch as company culture and values"(Ruch, 2002 in Martin et al. 2005).It is atargeted, long-term strategy to managethe awareness and perceptions ofemployees, potential employees, andrelated stakeholders with regards to a

particular firm. There are twoperspectives to an employer brand, theexternal - this is with regard to how theoutside world perceives the employerbrand and the internal outlook refers tothe employee's perception of theemployer brand. It covers all associationsthat both present and prospectiveemployees have with an organizationHow attractive a company's employmentexperience is to the outside worlddepends a lot on how attractive acompany's employment experience is toits own employees. It can be a uniquedifferentiator to project the uniquenessof the organization. An employer brandgives information about employmentexperience and what is expected out ofthem. An employer brand has bothpersonality and positioning in line witha traditional brand .It answers questionslike: Functional Benefits: What is the joblike? What will I be doing in this job? WillI enjoy the experience? How will Idevelop personally and professionally?Economic Benefits: How will I berewarded? What can I expect in returnfor my effort? And Psychological benefitslike: What will I be part of? What will Ibelong to? Simon Barrow, has describedfour elements that go together to makean employer brand. The first element isthe employment package which is theoffer that an employee gets including jobresponsibilities, financial compensation,work/life balance, the employee's role inorganization and professionaldevelopment. The second elementcomprises of culture and environmentwhich includes the physical workingenvironment, the size of the organization,and the organization's approach to work.Then there is integrity. Delivering what

SuGyaan

Volume II, Issue I

38

has been initially committed alwayscounts. High attrition rates and dip inmanagement performance are theconsequence of lack of integrity. Buildinga brand is a dual process. One is forprospective employees and the other forthe current set of employees. Whilebuilding brand for prospective employees,initiatives are targeted at building reputein potential recruits about the companyas a preferred place to work. On the otherhand, while building brand internally, thecompany has to live up to its standardsand incorporate a culture of respect andtrust for employees. Hewitt Associates,human resource consultants have laiddown e five steps to developing a strongemployer brand: (i) understand yourorganization, (ii) create a 'compellingbrand promise' for employees thatmirrors the brand promise for customers,(iii) develop standards to measure thefulfillment of the brand promise, (iv)'ruthlessly align' all people practices tosupport and reinforce the brand promise,and (v) execute and measure. An effectiveEmployer Brand is genuine,differentiated and very much alignedwith the external brand. HR's role is toalign and nurture HR systems likestaffing, induction, performancemanagement, learning and development,rewards and recognition to be consistentwith the brand. The advantage is thatbranding gives a very clear statement toa potential employee as to a company'svision, market position, culture, and/orother qualities that basically equate to arecognizable, desirable commodity. Inshort, branding helps to make a candidatewant to come to work for a company byselling you on whom and what they are.

Employee Value Proposition (EVP): EVPis the value or benefit an employee theemployee perceives by serving anorganization. (Brian.K. Heger, 2007). Itis a statement of why the total workexperience at their organization issuperior to that of other companies. Thevalue proposition will identify the uniquepeople policies, processes and programsthat demonstrate the company'scommitment to employee growth andrecognition and managementdevelopment. The reasons people chooseto commit themselves to the organizationare contained within the valueproposition. To effectively attract,motivate, and retain talented employees,many firms try to become employers ofchoice defined as firms that are alwaysthe first choice of first-class candidatesdue to their status and reputation interms of corporate culture and HRpractices (Sutherland et al, 2002). Inother words, employers of choice arethose organizations that outperform theircompetition in attracting, developing, andretaining people with business-requiredtalent. They achieve this reputationthrough innovative and compelling HRpractices that benefit both employees andtheir organizations. External marketingof the employer brand establishes the firmas an employer of choice and therebyenables it to attract the best possibleworkers. The assumption is that thedistinctiveness of the brand allows thefirm to acquire distinctive human capital.Further, once recruits have been attractedby the brand, they develop a set ofassumptions about employment with thefirm that they will carry into the firm,thereby supporting the firm's values and

SuGyaan 39

Volume II, Issue I

enhancing their commitment to the firm(Backhaus, K.B., and Tikoo, S., 2004).

Employer Attractiveness (EA): EA isdefined as the envisioned benefits that apotential employee sees in working for aspecific organization (Berthon et al.2005).The image of an employingorganization and discernments formedbased on available information relatingto the organization influence initial jobchoice decisions . (Gatewood et al. 1993).EA is defined as the degree to which anapplicant has interest in pursuingemployment opportunities with anorganization (Cable and Judge 1994; Rauand Hyland, 2002; Schwoerer and Rosen,1989).Employer Attractiveness isinterrelated to the concept of 'employerbranding' It has also become the in thingin contemporary business press (Sherry2000; Lloyd 2002; Ritson 2002), and 'BestEmployer' status is something thatcompanies die to acquire, as attention isdrawn to this shroud in both thecontemporary electronic and print media(e.g. The Economist 2003). Initial jobchoice decisions are often related to theimage of the employing organization, andthese perceptions are based upon theinformation about the organizationwhich is available to job seekers(Gatewood et al. 1993). Age, values,gender, work experience, education level,job offers extended and organizationaleffectiveness are some of the factors thathave been used as control variables inexamining employer attractiveness(Judge and Bretz, 1992). Respondentselects organization that seems to sharesimilar values. (Schneider 1987; Tom,1971).An applicant's intent to apply,attend interview and accept job offers is

influenced by Business performance,relationship with environment andtreatment of minorities. (Greening andTurban, 2000) EA has been studied inthe context of recruiting and also a toolfor retention. Various studies have beenconducted wherein EA has beendiscussed as a dependant variable inrelation to Corporate SocialResponsibility (CSR). (Koys, 2001). Astudy by Schmidt Albinger and Freeman(2004) indicates that Corporate SocialPerformance (CSP) is positively relatedto employer attractiveness for job seekerswith high level of job choice. Employerattractiveness can be classified as internaland external employer attractiveness.Internal employer attractiveness is thedegree of attractiveness among thecompany's current employees.Attractiveness in the eyes of prospectiveemployees is the external employerattractiveness. This branch can be furthersubdivided into two categories. First, wehave external employer attractivenessfrom the viewpoint of experts withexperience in the field. Second, we haveexternal employer attractiveness from theviewpoint of novices, predominantlystudents. Novices do not posses expertknowledge, but on the other hand, theybring certain other useful characteristics.The construct employer attractivenessmay be thought of as an antecedent ofthe more general concept of employerbrand equity. The stronger theorganizations employer brand equityrelatively strong is the perception ofattractiveness of the organization held bythe potential employees. Berthon et al.(2005) have identified five factors as thecomponents of employer attractiveness

SuGyaan

Volume II, Issue I

40

from the perspective of potentialemployees. The five factors are: InterestValue, Social Value, Economic Value,Development Value, and ApplicationValue. Interest value refers to an excitingwork environment, novel work practicesthat makes use of its employee's creativityto produce high-quality, innovativeproducts and services. Social value talksabout a working environment that is fun,happy, provides good collegialrelationships and a team atmosphere. Anorganization's working environment isthe social value. Above-average salary,compensation package, job security andpromotional opportunities put togetherare the economic value. Developmentvalue appraises the extent to which anindividual is attracted to an employer thatprovides recognition, self-worth andconfidence, combined with a career-enhancing experience and a springboardto future employment. Application valuemeasures the extent to which anindividual is attracted to an employer thatprovides an opportunity for the employeeto apply what they have learned. Finallywe have proposed Factor 6, named asGlobal Opportunities which purports tomeasure world class training, right fromthe initial years as well as an opportunityto work across domains and geographies.Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) -refers to a company's voluntary activitiesthat aids in giving back to the society.This study seeks to contribute byidentifying and operationalisingdimensions of employer attractiveness.We have suggested Global opportunitiesas another interesting factor whichenhances the attractiveness of anemployer taking into consideration themindset of Indian IT employees.

Methodology

The objective of this paper is to adjudgethe most attractive employer and tomeasure the importance of differentfactors that contribute to employerattractiveness of IT firms amongprospective employees. The survey wascarried out to demonstrate the need forstrong employer branding within the ITsector and to find out the factors thatcontributed to employer attractiveness.Prospective employee, were chosen assubrogates to find out the most attractiveIT employer. The primary sources wereacquired through AHP Questionnairesurvey which was conducted accordingto general questionnaire survey method.

Our seven-factor structure is essentiallya refinement and extension of the threedimensions proposed by Ambler andBarrow (1996) and 5 factors proposed byPierre Berthon, Michael Ewing, and LiLian Hah (2005) .Factors 1(Interestvalue) and 2 (Social value) capture their'psychological benefits'; our Factors 4(Development value) Factor 5(Application value) and factor 6 (Globalopportunities expand on their 'functionalbenefits'; and Factor 3 has an economicdimension. Factor 1,named as 'Interestvalue', gauges the degree to which anindividual is attracted to an organizationthat is interesting in terms of workenvironment and calls for the use ofemployee's ingenuity to produce ground-breaking products and services. Factor 2,named as 'Social value', measures theextent to which an individual is attractedto an employer who caters to thefulfillment of the sense of belongingness.Factor 3, named as 'Economic value',refers to an organization's capacity to

SuGyaan 41

Volume II, Issue I

take of the physiological and securityneeds by providing a competitiveemployment package. Factor 4, tagged as'Development value', refers to thefulfillment of higher order needs esteemand self worth need combined with acareer-enhancing experience. Factor 5,named as 'Application value', assesses theextent to which an organization providesan opportunity for the employee to applywhat they have learned for self andothers. Finally we have proposed Factor6, named as Global Opportunities whichpurports to measure world class training,right from the initial years as well as anopportunity to work across domains andgeographies. Factor 7 'Corporate SocialResponsibility's- refers to a company'svoluntary activities "demonstrating theinclusion of social and environmentalconcerns in business operations and theinteraction of stakeholders" (VanMarrewijk and Werre, 2003).

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)is a mathematically scrupulous, provenprocess for prioritization and decision-making. By reducing complex decisionsto a series of pair-wise comparisons, thensynthesizing the results, decision-makersarrive at the best decision with a clearrationale for that decision. The AHP wasdeveloped at the Wharton School ofBusiness by Thomas Saaty allowsdecision makers to model a complexproblem in a hierarchical structureshowing the relationships of the goal,objectives (criteria), sub-objectives, andalternatives (See Figure 1).Uncertaintiesand other influencing factors can also beincluded. It is a method to derive ratioscales from paired comparisons. Theinput can be obtained from actual

measurement or from subjective opinion.AHP allow some small inconsistency injudgment because human is not alwaysconsistent. The AHP technique isextensively used in modeling the humanjudgment process (Lee et al, 1995).

AHP has three main steps (Saaty, 1994)decomposition, comparative judgments,and hierarchic composition or synthesisof priorities

(i) Problem decomposition: A complexproblem is decomposed into levelsconsisting of a few manageable elements;each element is also, in turn, decomposedhierarchically in lower decision levels.The hierarchy model of the decisionproblem is developed in such a way thatthe goal is positioned at the top, withcriteria in the middle and alternatives atthe bottom of the model.

(ii) Comparative analysis: On eachhierarchy structure level the pair wisecomparisons should be done by allpossible pairs of the elements of this level.The decision maker's preferences areexpressed by verbally describedintensities and the correspondingnumeric values on 1-3-5-7-9 scale (Saaty,1980). The detailed scale is given in table1

(iii) Synthesis of priorities: On thebasis of the pair wise comparisons relativesignificance (weights) of elements of thehierarchy structure (criteria andalternatives) are calculated, which areeventually synthesized into an overallalternatives priority list. The priorityweights of each element will be calculatedbased on Eigen vector.

The computational process of the

SuGyaan

Volume II, Issue I

42

priorities is detailed in this section. Letthere be n criteria and their actual relativepriorities are w1, w2,…, wn. Further, letA be an n × n matrix of pair wisecomparison, whose elements are assignedfrom Table 1. These elements, aij may beregarded as an estimate of the ratio wi /wj.

(1)

We suppose that aij > 0 and aij = aji-1.If

the relative significance ratios aij are usedto form the matrix A, and in the case ofconsistent evaluations where aij = aik akj

the equation Aw = ëmaxw is satisfied.

The analytical solution of Equation (2)then provides the relative weights foreach decision element. According to theeigenvalue method, the normalized righteigenvector (W = {w1, w2 ,…, wn}

T)associated with the largest eigenvalue(ëmax) of the square matrix A provides the

weighting

values for all decision elements. Thelargest eigenvalue (ëmax) can be computedby using Equation (3)

(2)

(3)

The weights are normalized by constraintÓwi=1.Due to this matrix features theëmax e”1is valid, whereas the differenceëmax – n is used for measuring theassessment consistency. By means ofconsistency indices given by equation (4)

(4)

the consistency ratio CR=CI/RI can becomputed, where RI is the random index(consistency index for matrices withrandom generated pair wisecomparisons). The table 2 with the RIvalues computed by simulation is used forthe calculation of the CR. Generally, a CRof 0.10 or less (for n 5); 0.09 or less (forn = 4); 0.05 or less (for n = 3), isconsidered acceptable. Otherwise the

SuGyaan 43

Volume II, Issue I

relative importance for each objective willbe revised to improve the judgmentalconsistency.

Then the priorities are pulled togetherthrough the hierarchic composition toprovide the overall assessment of theavailable alternatives.

Application of the AHP model

Basic rules for modeling and solving thehierarchical problem involved four stagessuch as Structuring: This phase involvedformulating an appropriate hierarchy ofthe AHP model consisting of the goal,criteria, sub criteria and the decisionalternatives.

Data collection: This involved forminga team of evaluators who assigned pairwise comparisons to the major criteriaand sub criteria used in the AHPhierarchy. The primary sources wereacquired through AHP Questionnairesurvey which was conducted accordingto general questionnaire survey method.

Population: We delimited our populationto consist of students within final yearengineering programs, management andcomputer science streams since those arethe students who are relevant asprospective future employees for ITcompanies. Calder et al. (1981) argue thatstudents are acceptable theory-testingresearch subjects when the multivariaterelationships among constructs ratherthan the univariate differences betweensamples are being examined. Moreover,the students were in fact the subjects ofmeasurement as they were hardly lessthan six months away from entering thejob market themselves; they are primetargets for employer advertising andrecruitment campaigns.

Sampling Frame: List and AttendanceRegister of final year students.

Sampling Unit: Students within finalyear engineering programs, managementand computer application streams.

Sampling method: Total strength of thestudent was 720. From the list of thestudents every alternative student wereselected using Simple random samplingmethod resulting in a sample size of 360.From them we got about 284 validresponses. All the 284 valid responseswere evaluated for consistency index. 184responses which met the consistencycriteria were considered for furtheranalysis.

Normalized weights in differenthierarchies: The pair wise comparisonjudgment matrices were combined usingthe geometric mean approach at eachhierarchy level to obtain thecorresponding consensus pair wisecomparison judgment matrices.

Synthesis: The final step for this studywas to synthesize the solution for judgingthe most attractive employer.

Goal

The goal is a statement of the overallobjective. In our case, to find out the mostattractive employer.

Objectives

What are the factors that are consideredin selecting the best employer? Factorscontributing to employer Attractivenesscriteria) were determined based on theexisting literature (Ewing and Berthon.,2005,) (CSP and CSR, Albinger andSchmidt, 2000) and global opportunitieswere suggested by the author.

SuGyaan

Volume II, Issue I

44

Alternatives

Here we consider the 5 Indian ITcompanies in the finance vertical (BFSI,Banking, Financial Services andInsurance.) were taken intoconsideration. TCS, Infosys, Wipro 3topmost Indian based IT companies andPolaris Software lab and Hexawaremediocre companies were chosen torepresent a slice of Indian IT reality.

Calculation of the Weights of theCriteria

First the degree of preference betweenand within the criteria at each level ofthe hierarchy in a pair wise form usingSaaty’s scales ranging from 1 – equallypreferred to 9 – extremely preferred wasobtained from prospective employees. Wedelimited our population to consist ofstudents within final year engineeringprograms, management and computerscience streams since those are thestudents who are relevant as prospectivefuture employees for IT companies.Calder et al. (1981) argue that studentsare acceptable theory-testing researchsubjects when the multivariaterelationships among constructs ratherthan the univariate differences betweensamples are being examined. Moreover,the students were in fact the subjects ofmeasurement as they were hardly lessthan six months away from entering thejob market themselves; they are primetargets for employer advertising andrecruitment campaigns. Next stepinvolved the weight calculation of eachlevel to obtain the overall score of eachemployer with respect to the 7 pair wisecomparisons of the main selectioncriteria. Consistency ratio calculation wasdone.

Table 2Random Consistency Index (RI)

n RI

1 02 03 0.584 0.95 1.126 1.247 1.328 1.419 1.4510 1.49

Consistency Index calculation for thefactors CI = (7.55716-7)/6 =.09286

CR = .09286/1.32=.0703484

Consistency Index (CI) calculationfor the companies

CI = (5.3739-5)/ (5-1) CI = 0.093486

CR = 0.0934864/1.12 = 0.08347

If the value of Consistency Ratio issmaller or equal to 10%, theinconsistency is acceptable. If theConsistency Ratio is greater than 10%,we need to revise the subjectivejudgment. As 0.08347 and .0703484 isless is less than 0.1 the judgment isconsistent.

Based on the vector values for factorsdetermining the employer attractiveness(Table 3) the prospective Indian ITemployees valued economic factors,global opportunities, development factorsand application factors relatively morethan interesting job environment , socialfactors or corporate social responsibility.

SuGyaan 45

Volume II, Issue I

Figure 2Heirarchy of Decision Criteria

Table 3

Priority Vector for the Factors Determining Employer Attractiveness

Table 4

Company and Priority Vector

Company Priority Vector

TCS .350234

Infosys .301342

Wipro .230143

Polaris .114621

Hexaware .101123

Factors Priority Vector

Economic 0.360540677

Social 0.096999731

Interest 0.032002774

Application 0.119045579

Development 0.161984752

Global 0.181983323

CSR 0.047443164

SuGyaan

Volume II, Issue I

46

Economic, Application, development andglobal opportunities factors have beengiven top priorities by prospectiveemployees as they are final year studentsand they would be keen to apply theknowledge gained, they would like to trypositions that would allow them tochallenge the tried and true, and tocollaborate across technologies andcontinents and be globe trotters in orderto acquire skills to be employable,deployable and portable anywhere in theworld. Hence it is believed that higher thelevel of mix of application, global factors,economic factors and development factorin the Indian IT employee experience thegreater will be the attractiveness. So inorder to be an attractive employercompanies need to take care and makesure that they have right mix of economicfactors, development factors, applicationfactors and should also provide room forglobal opportunities to make theemployee experience the greater will bethe attractiveness. Based on the vectorvalues in Table 4 we came to know thatTata Consultancy Services (TCS) was the

most attractive employer, followed byInfosys, Wipro, Polaris Software Lab andHexaware. In table 5 we are taking intoconsideration the factors enhancingattractiveness in conjunction with thecompanies. This helps us to judge howeach company is faring with respect tothe factors. TCS has scored high oneconomic factors, social factor,application, development and globalopportunities factor and CSR. Infosys hasan interesting work environment. Basedon the values in Table 4 we came to knowthat Tata Consultancy Services (TCS)was the most attractive employer,followed by Infosys, Wipro, PolarisSoftware Lab and Hexaware.

Implications

This study has various implications forHR professionals. HR professionals mustpay attention to various needs ofemployees. Some of them want to seeclear picture of the company. Thereshould be a consistency between thebrand image of the company and thereality. If not, the turnover will increase,

Table 5:Priority Vectors for Companies and Factors Factors

Factors TCS Infosys Wipro Polaris Hexaware

SuGyaan 47

Volume II, Issue I

the job satisfaction will decrease. The oldsocial contract of the employee being loyalto the company and the company takingcare of the employee until retirement nolonger holds. Employees are moreresponsible for managing their owncareers. According to this study, potentialemployees still want to see theadvancement opportunities in thecompanies (Daft R. and Marcic D., 2007).Though, companies in order to beattracted by the employees or to eliminatethe negative perceptions of this newemployment reality they should focus onadvertising the internal culture. Anotherimplication for HR practitioners isassessing periodically their brandstrength in labour market. Employerbranding an integral activity will be toestablish an image of the organizationand communicate this in a number ofdifferent ways to either current orpotential employees. So the corporationswho want to attract integrators shouldidentify organizational values, byclarifying the advantages and the benefitsof work place. As well as conversationswith the employees to clarify what theorganization needs in terms of values,attributes and characteristics is needed.Once the corporate branding image oremployer profile has been established anorganization will then consistently usethis in its communication to both currentemployees and in its advertising orrecruitment material (Edwards M. R.,2010).

Suggestions for Future Research

For further research we have somesuggestions to the academicians andpractitioners who are interested in theemployer branding concept. In this study

final year students expectations regardingemployer attractiveness are examined. Inanother research the longitudinal studyof the perceptions of final-year studentsbefore and after entering the workforcewould help in determining theirperceptions of employer attractiveness.As it is mentioned in the paper, thisresearch has been conducted with thepotential employees who are not part ofthe labour market yet. So this study wasfocused on the first step of employerbranding. The third step of employerbranding involves carrying the brand"promise" made to recruits into the firm.In other words, this last step consists ofinternally marketing the employer brand(Lievens, F., 2007). Further studiesconcentrate on the current employees inthe context of internal marketing.Another related study could be the linkbetween corporate social responsibilityand branding activities. The studies showthat new graduates are becomingincreasingly concerned about acompany's values and how sociallyresponsible they are when consideringwhere to work. Finally, several authorshighlight the importance employerbranding in the context of humanresource management and marketing.The aim of the scholars and practitionersshould be finding the integration pointsof these two disciplines in companies.

Conclusion

To succeed in the war for talent manyorganisations need to brand themselvesas employers of choice. This researchrecognized the factors potentialknowledge workers regard as important.attributes of best employer. We haveattempted to study the elements that

SuGyaan

Volume II, Issue I

48

constitute employer attractiveness andtried to pronounce the best employerfrom the perspective of potentialemployee. It is expected that the resultsof this research, will both add to andkindle discussion around the 'employerattractiveness' and 'employer of choice'concepts.

References

Ambler, T. (2000), Marketing and theBottom Line. Pearson Education Ltd, UK.

Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996), TheEmployer Brand. Journal of BrandManagement, 4(3), 185-206.

Albinger, H. S. and Freeman, S. J. (2000),Corporate Social Performance andAttractiveness as an Employer toDifferent Job Seeking Populations",Journal of Business Ethics, 28, pp. 243-254.

Amit, Raphael and Paul J.Schoemaker(1993), Strategic assets andorganisational rent. StrategicManagement Journal 14 (January) pp.33-46.

Backhaus, K. B. and Tikoo, S. (2004):Conceptualizing and ResearchingEmployer Branding, Career DevelopmentInternational, 9(5),pp. 501-517.

Barney, Jay B. 1991.Firm Resources andSustained Competitive Advantage.Journal of Management 17(3), pp. 99-120.

Bergstrom, A, Blumenthal, D. andCrothers, S. (2002), Why InternalBranding Matters: The Case of Saab.Journal of Communication Management(2/3), pp. 133-142.

Berthon Pierre, Ewing Michael, Hah Li

Lian (2005) Captivating Company:Dimensions of Attractiveness inEmployer Branding, InternationalJournal of Advertising, 21(1), pp. 151-168.Berry, L.L. (1981) Perspectives on theRetailing of Services, Theory in Retailing,Ronald Stampfl and Elizabeth Hirschman(eds.), American Marketing Association,1981, pp. 9-20.Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991),Marketing Services. Competing ThroughQuality. New York: The Free Press.Biel, A.L. (1999) Exploring Brand Magic,in Jones, J.P. (ed.), How to UseAdvertising to Build Strong Brands.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,pp. 157-176.Bolles, R.N. (1997), What Color is yourParachute? Berkley, CA: Ten Speed Press.Cable and Judge (1994), Pay Preferencesand Job Search Decisions: A Person-Organization Fit Perspective. PersonnelPsychology, 47, pp. 317-348.Calder, B.J, Philips, L.W. and Tybout,A.M. (1981), Designing Research forApplication. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 8 (9), pp. 197-207.Carman, J.M. (1990), ConsumerPerceptions of Service Quality: AnAssessment of the SERVQUALDimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66(1),pp. 33-55.Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), A Paradigm forDeveloping Better Measures of MarketingConstructs. Journal of MarketingResearch, XVI, pp. 64-73.Conner, K. R. (1991), A HistoricalComparison of Resource-Based Theoryand Five Schools of Thought within

SuGyaan 49

Volume II, Issue I

Industrial Organizational Economics,Journal of Management, 17, pp. 121 - 154.Daft, R.L, Marcic, D (2007), Manage-ment: The New Workplace, ThomsonSouth-Western.Edwards, M. R, (2010), An IntegrativeReview of Employer Branding and OBtheory, Personnel Review, 39 (1), pp. 5-23.Ewing, M.T. and Caruana, A (1999), AnInternal Marketing Approach to PublicSector Management: The Marketing andHuman Resources Interface. Interna-tional Journal of Public SectorManagement, 12(1), pp. 17-26.Ewing, M.T, Pitt, L.F, de Bussy, N.M. andBerthon, P. (2002), EmploymentBranding in the Knowledge Economy,International Journal of Advertising,21(1), pp. 3-22.Faust, B. and Faust, M. (2003) PitchYourself: Stand Out from the CV Crowdwith a Personal Elevator Pitch. PearsonEducation.Gatewood, R.D, Gowan, M.A. andLautenschlager, G.J. (1993) CorporateImage, Recruitment, Image and Initial JobChoice Decisions. Academy ofManagement Journal, 36 (2), pp. 414-427.George, W.R. (1990) Internal Marketingand Organizational Behavior: APartnership in Developing Customer-Conscious Employees at Every Level.Journal of Business Research, 20, 63-70.Greening, D. W. and Turban, D. B.(2000), Corporate Social Performance asa Competitive Advantage in Attracting aQuality Workforce. Business and Society,39, pp. 254-280.Harari, O. (1998), Attracting the best

minds. Management Review, 87(4), pp.23-26.Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001)Corporate branding and corporate brandperformance. European Journal ofMarketing, 35(3/4), pp. 441-451.Handfield R., Walton S.V., Sroufe R. andMelnyk S.A. (2002), ApplyingEnvironmental Criteria to SupplierAssessment: A Study in the Applicationof the Analytical Hierarchy Process,European Journal of OperationalResearch, 141(1), pp. 70-87.Kotler, P. (1994), Marketing Manage-ment: Analysis, Planning, Implemen-tation and Control (8th edn). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Lievens, F. (2007), Employer Branding inthe Belgian Army: The Importance ofInstrumental and Symbolic Beliefs forPotential Applicants, Actual Applicants,and Military Employees. HumanResource Management, 46, pp. 51-69.Lloyd, S. (2002), Branding from theInside Out. BRW, 24(10), pp. 64-66.Osborn-Jones, T. (2001), ManagingTalent: Exploring the New PsychologicalContract. UK: Henley ManagementCollege. Aspirations. AccountingEducation, 3(4), pp. 283-297.Judge, T. A., and Bretz, R. D. (1992),Effect of Work Values on Job ChoiceDecisions. Journal of Applied Psychology,77, pp. 261-271.Koys, D.J. (2001), The effects ofEmployee Satisfaction, OrganizationalCitizenship Behavior, and Turnover onOrganizational Effectiveness: A Unit-Level, Longitudinal Study. PersonnelPsychology, 54, pp. 101- 114.Marrewijk, M. Van and Hardjono,

SuGyaan

Volume II, Issue I

50

T.W.(2002), European CorporateSustainability Framework for ManagingComplexity and Corporate Change,Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), pp.121-132.Martin G, Beaumont P, Doig R, and PateJ, (2005), Branding: New PerformanceDiscourse for HR?, European Manage-ment Journal, 23(1),pp. 76-88.Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) TheCore Competence of the Corporation,Harvard Business Review 68(3),pp. 79-91.Peteraf, Margaret A. (1993), TheCornerstones of Competitive Advantage:A Resource-Based View, StrategicManagement Journal. 14 (3), pp. 179-191.Rau, B. L, and Hyland, M. M. (2002),Role Conflict and Flexible WorkArrangements: The Effects on ApplicantAttraction. Personnel Psychology, 55, pp.111-136.Ritson, M. (2002) Marketing and HECollaborate to Harness Employer BrandPower. Marketing, 24 (8), p. 24.Ruch W. (2002), Employer BrandEvolution: A Guide To Building Loyaltyin Your Organization, http:/www.versantsolutions.com.Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., and Gerhart B.(1993). Recruiter Perceptions ofApplicant Fit: Implications for IndividualCareer Preparation and Job SearchBehavior, Journal of Vocational Behavior,43, pp. 310-327.Saaty, Thomas L. (1980), The AnalyticHierarchy Process: Planning, Priority

Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill International Book Co. (New Yorkand London).Schneider, B. (1987), The People Makethe Place. Personnel Psychology, 40, pp.437-453.Seubert, E., Balaji, Y. and Makhija, M.(2001), The Knowledge Imperative, CIOSpecial Advertising Supplement, March15.Sherry, A. (2000), Put Some BrandingIron into Your Image. Business ReviewWeekly, 22(28), pp.66.Sutherland, M. M., Torricelli, D. G., andKarg, R. F. (2002). Employer-of-ChoiceBranding for Knowledge Workers. SouthAfrican Journal of BusinessManagement, 33(4), pp.13-20.Tom, V.R. (1971). The Role of Personalityand Organizational Images in theRecruiting Process. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 6, pp.573-592.http://www.zdnet.com/blog/sommer/accenture-branded-by-the-tiger-woods-mess/717Authors:R. Saraswathy is a fulltime researchscholar in the Department ofManagement Studies, National Instituteof Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India.sara_ar97@yahoo.com.N.Thamaraiselvan is an AssistantProfessor in the Department ofManagement Studies, National Instituteof Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India.selvan@nitt.edu.#MJSSIM1(I)03, 2010