The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company's attractiveness as an employer.

By Filip Lievens, Scott Highhouse. 2003

935 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Marketing, Sociology and Political Science, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/60cc206ccee1fb4c203373f4b8bda48952c63258

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Marketing

In Sociology and Political Science

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Employer branding in the Belgian Army: The importance of instrumental and symbolic beliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants, and military employees (2007, background): “A first group of studies (Highhouse, Zickar, Thorsteinson, Stierwalt, & Slaughter, 1999; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Lievens, Van Hoye, & Schreurs, 2005; Slaughter, Zickar, Highhouse, & Mohr, 2004) focused on the first step in employer branding.”
A multinational examination of the symbolic–instrumental framework of consumer–brand identification (2011, positive): “Other research has also treated the symbolic and instrumental components of people’s attitude and behavior as drivers that function independently (e.g., Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).”
The Instrumental-Symbolic Framework: Organisational Image and Attractiveness of Potential Applicants and their Companions at a Job Fair (2011, positive): “Along these lines, Lievens and Highhouse (2003) argued that future research on employer image can benefit from existing conceptualizations of consumers " perceived brand images and introduced the instrumental-symbolic framework from social and consumer psychology (Katz, 1960; Keller, 1993) as an…”
Initial Attraction to Organizations: The influence of trait inferences (2009, positive): “This initial attraction of applicants to organizations tends to be influenced by factors outside of conventional recruitment activities and before formal recruitment (Barber, 1998; Cable & Graham, 2000; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).”
Social-identity functions of attraction to organizations ☆ (2007, methodology): “Lievens and Highhouse (2003) noted that organizational attraction is determined by more than simply instrumental attributes of the job, but also by more symbolic meanings associated with being a part of a particular Wrm.”
Following Display Rules in Good or Bad Faith?: Customer Orientation as a Moderator of the Display Rule-Emotional Labor Relationship (2010, background): “These negative outcomes for employees can be avoided when they choose to work for organizations where they have a good fit ( Lievens & Highhouse, 2003 ; Morrison, 2002 ).”
Person–organization fit effects on organizational attraction : a test of an expectations-based model (2014, background): “…job seeker expectations using a wide range of job and organizational attributes ranging from functional aspects like pay, work hours, and security to more symbolic aspects like prestige and personal growth (Greenhaus, Sugalski, & Crispin, 1978; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; Sheard, 1970).”
Employer brand trust and affect: linking brand personality to employer brand attractiveness (2014, background): “, 2006), brand personality traits have been effectively used to explain responses revealing considerable variance in employer brand attractiveness (Lievens, 2007; Lievens and Highhouse, 2003).”
Corporate Social Responsibility, Applicants’ Individual Traits, and Organizational Attraction: A Person–Organization Fit Perspective (2011, background): “These variables include perceptions of organizational attractiveness (e.g., Lievens and Highhouse 2003; Turban and Greening 1996; Turban and Keon 1993), job pursuit intentions (e.g., Cable and Judge 1994; Gatewood et al. 1993), acceptance intentions (e.g., Cable and Judge 1996), and actual job…”
Organizational attractiveness and prospective applicants' intentions to apply (2011, background): “Though conceptually distinct, research has shown a strong positive relationship between organizational attractiveness and image, employer brand, and reputation ( Lievens and Highhouse, 2003”