The Impact of Culture on Perceived

Employer Attractiveness

Magnus Landqvist

Business Administration, master's level (120 credits)

2018

Luleå University of Technology

Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences

Acknowledgements WritingthisthesishasbeenthefinalchapterofthemasterprograminInternationalBusinessIhaveattendedforthepasttwoyearsatLuleåUniversityofTechnology.Forthepastmonths,a lotof longhoursandhardworkhasbeenput intowriting this thesis. In theend, IhavelearnedalotandIhavebeenabletoputtogetherathesisIamsatisfiedwithandthatIhopeotherscanlearnfromaswell.However,thisisnotsomethingIcouldhavemanagedallonmyown,sothereforeIwouldliketothankthepeoplewhohavehelpedmethroughit.Firstofall,Iwouldliketothankmysupervisor,KerryChipp,forherinvaluableguidanceandinput.Next,IwouldliketothankmyclassmatesandalltheteachersIhavehadthroughoutmystudies,aswellasmyfriendsandfamilyforalwayssupportingme.Luleå,June2018 MagnusLandqvist

Abstract Astheyearsgoonthestruggletoattractthemosttalentedpeoplehasgottenincreasinglyfiercefororganisationsallovertheworld.Inordertohelpthemwinthisstruggleorganisationshave developed a tool. This tool is employer branding, which is when an organisationimplementsmarketingstrategiestohumanresourceactivities.Abranchofemployerbrandingwhich deals specifically with the ability to attract employees is employer attractiveness.Studies on what makes an organisation particularly attractive as an employer has beenconductedallovertheworld,andtheyhavereacheddifferentconclusions.Therehasbeenspeculationthattheculturaldifferencesbetweencountriesistheunderlyingcausetothesedifferencesinthefindings,butnotenoughresearchhasbeenconductedintheareatosayforcertain.Thepurposeofthisthesisistoexplainthatapparentconnectionbetweenwhatmakesandemployerattractive to someoneand thatperson’sculturalvalues,aswellas seeing ifculturehasanimpactonwhatsomeonefindsattractiveinanemployer.The best way of doing so was to conduct a quantitative, explanatory study, wherequestionnairesweresenttouniversitystudentsintwocountries,SwedenandGermany.Thequestionnaire contained both elements related to employer attractiveness as well as toculture.Thedatawasthenanalysedusingstatisticaltestssuchascorrelationandregressioninordertofulfilthepurposeofthestudy.Aftertheanalysiswasconducteditwasclearthatthere is a significant connectionbetweenemployer attractiveness and culture, and that aperson’sculturehasanimpactonwhattheyfindattractiveinapotentialemployer.However,notallaspectsofemployerattractivenessperfectlycorrespondwithallaspectsofculture,butenoughdotostatethataconnectionandimpactdoesexists.Thesefindingsareofvaluefororganisationswantingtobettertargettheirstrategiesofattractingemployees.Thefindingsare especially relevant for organisations operating in amultinational environment, whereimpact of difference between cultures have to be taken into account to an even greaterextent.Key Words: Employer attractiveness, Employer branding, Culture, Cultural differences,Sweden,Germany

Sammanfattning Underdensenastetidenhardenkampsomfinnsmellanorganisationervärldenövernärdetkommertillattlockatillsigdemestbegåvadepersonernablivitallthårdare.Förattunderlättadennakampharorganisationerutvecklatettverktyg.Dettaverktygäretsåkallade”Employerbranding,” vilket är när en organisation tillämpar marknadsföringsstrategier till sina HR-aktiviteter. En gren av ”Employer branding” som specifikt handlar om en organisationsförmåga att attrahera anställda är ”Employer attractiveness” eller arbetsgivarattraktivitet.Studierinomdettaområdehargenomförtsvärldenöver,menresultatensomharnåttsharinteöverensstämt.Detharspekuleratsattanledningentilldettaärdetkulturellaskillnadersomfinnsmellanländer,mendetharinteutförtstillräckligtmycketforskninginomområdetförattkunnasägadetmedsäkerhet.Syftetmedstudienärattförklarakopplingenmellanvadsomgörenarbetsgivareattraktiv förenpersonochdenpersonenskulturella värderingar,samtomkulturellavärderingarharenpåverkanpåvadenpersontyckergörenarbetsgivareattraktiv.Det bästa sättet att förklara denna koppling var genom att genomföra en förklarande,kvantitativstudiedärettfrågeformulärskickadestilluniversitetsstudenteritvåländer,SverigeochTyskland.Frågeformuläretinnehållbådedelarsomberörhurattraktivenarbetsgivareärsamtdelarangåendekulturellavärderingar.Deinsamladedataanalyseradessedanmedhjälpavstatistiskatester,såsomkorrelationochregression,förattsyftetmedstudienskullekunnauppfyllas. Resultaten från analyserna visade att det fanns en tydlig koppling mellanarbetsgivarattraktivitetochkultur,samtattenpersonskulturellavärderingarpåverkarvaddenfinnerattraktivthosenpotentiellarbetsgivare.Detfinnsinteperfektakopplingarmellanallaaspekteravdetvåkoncepten,mendet finnsmellantillräckligtmångaförattmankanpåstå att en koppling finns. Studiens resultat är relevanta för organisationer som ärintresseradeavatthittaettbättresättattattraheraarbetstagare.Resultatenärframföralltrelevanta för multinationella organisationer, där effekterna kulturella skillnader spelar enännustörreroll.Nyckelord:Arbetsgivarattraktivitet,Employerbranding,Kultur,Kulturellaskillnader,Sverige,Tyskland

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 1

BACKGROUND 1PROBLEMDISCUSSION 3RESEARCHPURPOSE 4RESEARCHPROPOSITIONS 4DELIMITATIONS 4THESISOVERVIEW 4

LITERATUREREVIEW 6

EMPLOYERATTRACTIVENESS 6DIMENSIONSOFEMPLOYERATTRACTIVENESS 6CULTURE 10CULTURALDIFFERENCES 10HOFSTEDE’SCULTURALDIMENSIONSMODEL 11CONNECTIONBETWEENEMPLOYERATTRACTIVENESSANDCULTURALDIMENSIONS 16CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK 17

RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY 20

RESEARCHPURPOSE 20RESEARCHAPPROACH 20RESEARCHSTRATEGY 21DATACOLLECTION 22QUESTIONNAIREDEVELOPMENT 22SAMPLESELECTION 25RESPONDENTS 26DATAANALYSIS 27DATAPREPARATION 27DESCRIPTIVESTATISTICS 28STATISTICALTEST 29QUALITYSTANDARDS 30RELIABILITY 30VALIDITY 31

PRESENTATION&ANALYSISOFDATA 32

RESPONDENTPROFILE 32EMPLOYERATTRACTIVENESS 34CULTURALDIMENSIONS 39CRONBACH’SALPHA 40T-TEST 41CORRELATION 42REGRESSION 46

FINDINGS&CONCLUSIONS 49

RESEARCHPROPOSITION1 49RESEARCHPROPOSITION2 50LIMITATIONS 51IMPLICATIONSFORPRACTITIONERS 51

IMPLICATIONSFORTHEORY 52RECOMMENDATIONSFORFUTURERESEARCH 52ReferencesAppendicesAppendixA–QuestionnaireElements

List of Tables Table1–CulturalDimensionsScoresforSweden&Germany 13Table2–MethodologyOverview 20Table3–StepstobeFollowedintheDesignofaQuestionnaire 23Table4–EmployerAttractivenessScale(EmpAtscale) 24Table5–GenderDistribution 32Table6–AgeDistribution 33Table7–FieldsofStudy 34Table8–EmpAtScaleMean&StandardDeviation 35Table9–EmpAtScaleMeanComparison 37Table10–CulturalDifferenceComparison 39Table11–Cronbach’sAlpha–EmpAtScale 41Table12–IndependentSamplesT-Test 42Table13–PearsonCorrelationBetweenEmpAtFactors&CulturalDimensions 43Table14–ModelFitbyEmpAtFactor 46Table15–RegressionCoefficients 47

List of Figures Figure1–ConceptualFramework 19Figure2–CorrelationsInvolvingMasculinity/Femininity 45Figure3–SelectedCorrelations 49

1

Introduction In thischapter, thethesis topicsofemployerattractivenessandculturaldimensionswillbeintroduced.Thebackgroundandtheunderlyingsituationandproblemsofthethesiswillbediscussed.Nextthepurposeofthestudywillbestatedandtheresearchpropositionswillbepresented.Finally, thedelimitationsof the studywillbe statedandanoverviewof the fullthesiswillbeprovided.

Background Allcompaniesandorganisationsstrivetowardsbeingassuccessfulaspossible.However,whatsuccess means might differ from case to case, a majority measure it with financialperformance,otherswanttosatisfytheircustomerstothebestoftheirabilitiesorleaveapositive impact on the planet. (Bonaiuto,DeDominicis, Illia, Rodríguez-Cánovas& Lizzani,2013)Theonethingtheyallhaveincommonisthatnomatterhowsuccessisdefinedtheywillneedonething inparticular inorder toachieve it, therightpeople.While itmightbestatingtheobvious,onethingwhichmightnotbeasobviousishowyoushouldattractthosepeople.(Bonaiutoetal.,2013)Inordertohelpclearthisissueup,thisstudywilllookatwhatmakesanemployerattractive in theeyesofpotential futureemployees, somethingwhichshouldhelporganisationsadapttheirstrategiesofattractingthem.Thestudywillalsolookathowdifferent cultural valuesbeingheld indifferent countries impactswhat thepeople inthosecountriesfindattractiveintermsofapotentialfutureemployer.

“Thekeyresourceforfirmscompetingintheneweconomyisnolongerland,capital,orhardassetsbutthehumancapitalnecessarytoadaptorganizationstoglobalcompetitionandmaximizethebenefitsassociatedwiththecurrenttechnologicalboom.”

Gardner,2002,p.4

Thestruggletomakesurethatyourorganisationistheoneendingupwiththebesthumancapitalhasbeenaptlynamed“thewarfortalent.”Thistalentwarisaphenomenonwhereorganizationsofallsizescompetewitheachotherinordertohireandretainthebesthumancapital available. (Nagpal, 2013) According to Aguinis, Gottfredson and Joo (2012), theproblemlieswithintheavailabilityoftopqualityhumancapital,itisn’tlargeenoughtomeetthedemandorganisationshavefortoptalent.Thetalentdeficit leadstotheorganisationstryingtodifferentiatethemselvesfromtheircompetitioninordertoconvincethetoptalentavailable to work for them. Rather than joining one of their competitors or anotherorganizationwiththesameproblem.(Aguinisetal.,2012)Anotherissuefacingorganisationstryingtoattracttopqualityhumancapitalisthattheyarenolongeronlycompetingwithotherorganisationswithinthesamecountryforthecapital,theyarenowcompetingonaglobalmarket.Theupsideofthatisthattheorganisationcanthenalsoattracttalentfromoutsidetheircountryifthatwouldbeconsiderednecessary.Thismeansthatthelabourmarkethas

2

beenglobalised,andthatorganisationswantingtobeabletoattractthebesthumancapitalneedtokeepthisinmindandactaccordinglyinordertodoso.(Hili,Lahmandi-Ayed&Lasram,2016)

Since the struggle to attract and retain desirable personnel became as apparent andwidespreadasitistoday,organisationstartedtodevelopa“weapon”inordertotrytowinit.Theweaponissocalledemployerbranding.(Nagpal,2013)AccordingtoBackhausandTikoo,(2004) employer branding is when an organisation applies similar branding strategies oreffortstohumanresourcemanagementastheyhavetraditionallydonetowardsdevelopingproductsortheircorporatebrand.Thesebrandingeffortsareusedinordertoattractpotentialemployeesandtomakesurethatexistingemployeesareengagedinthefirm.

Employerbrandingcanfurtherbedefinedasalong-term,targetedstrategywiththegoaltomanagetheawarenessandperceptionofcurrentandpotentialemployees,aswellasotherrelevantstakeholders(Sullivan,2004).Sullivan(2004)goesontostatethatthegoalofthestrategy is tohelp the companyororganisationbecomebetterat recruitingand retainingemployeesaswellasproductivitymanagement.Onewaytohelpachievethisismakingsurethe imagesurroundingtheorganization isonethatsays it isagoodplacetowork. Ifdonecorrectly, employer branding will improve the image and reputation of the organisation,whichwill lead tomorehigh-qualityapplicants forvacantpositions, reduced turnoverandincrease the overall productivity. (Sullivan, 2004) According to Bhattacharya, Sen, andKorschun (2008) an increasingly largepartof a company’s success in the currentbusinessenvironment iscoming from itsability toattract,motivateandretain talentedemployees,sincethereisalimitedsupplyavailableandthecompetitionforsaidsupplyisferocious.

Oneaspectofemployerbrandingthatisvitaltoanorganisationsabilitytoattractthebestemployees to fill vacancies is how attractive the organisation is towork for. This area ofemployerbrandingisreferredtoasemployerattractiveness.Previousresearchhighlightstheimportanceofperformingwellinthisareasincetheattractivenessofanorganisationisheavilylinkedwithpotentialemployees’intentiontoapplyforajobwithintheorganisation.(Gomes&Neves,2011)Duetothepreviouslydiscussedwarfortalentthereisfiercecompetitiontoattractthemostdesirablepotentialemployees,insomecasesalsoinbetweenindustries.Thiscompetitionforcesorganisationstostandoutfromthecompetitioninordertoattractthetoptalent intheirfield.(Sivertzen,Nilsen&Olafsen,2013)Accordingtopreviousresearchit isvitalfororganisationstolookovertheirimageandthemessagestheyconveytothegeneralpublic.Thereasonforthisisanorganisationbecomesattractivetoapotentialemployeeoncethatpersonhascomparedthecompany’simagewiththeirownneeds,valuesandpersonalityandhasfoundthattheymatch.(Backhaus&Tikoo,2004)

Berthon,EwingandHah(2005)defineemployerattractivenessas“theenvisionedbenefitsthatapotentialemployeeseesinworkingforaspecificorganisation.”(p.156)Theygoontostatethatemployerattractivenessispartofwhatmakesupthetotalemployerbrandequity

3

andthemoreattractiveanorganisationisthestrongeritsemployerbrandequityis.ThegoalofthestudybyBerthonetal.(2005)wastodevelopandvalidateascalewhichcouldbeusedtoestablishwhatpotentialfutureemployeesvaluewhenitcomestoapotentialemployer.Theresultofthestudywasa25-itememployerattractiveness(EmpAt)scale.The25itemsweredividedintofivedimensionsdependingonwhatsortofvalueitprovidestothepotentialemployee. The five dimensions are: Interest Value, Social Value, Economic Value,DevelopmentValueandApplicationValue.(Berthonetal.,2005)

Problem Discussion TheEmpAtscaledevelopedbyBerthonetal.(2005)hasbeenusedinseveralotherstudiesthroughouttheyearssinceitwasfirstdeveloped.Forexample,ithasbeenusedbyRoy(2008),Sivertzenetal.(2013),andAlnıaçık,Alnıaçık,EratandAkçin(2014)inordertojudgeemployerattractivenessindifferentcases.However,thedifferentstudieshavenotreachedthesameresults. One thing which has been consistently different between the different studiesimplementing theEmpAt scale is thecountries thestudieswereconducted in.TheEmpAtscalewasfirstdevelopedinAustralia(Berthonetal.,2005)andithassincebeenimplementedinstudiesinIndia(Roy,2008),Norway(Sivertzenetal.,2013),Turkey,andLatvia(Alnıaçıketal.,2014).

PreviousresearchbyHofstede(1984)cangiveanindicationofwhatmightbebehindthesedifferences, the well-established fact that there is a connection between countries andcultural values, and that those values differ between countries. Hofstede (1984) dividescultureintofourdifferentdimensions,Individualism,PowerDistance,UncertaintyAvoidance,and Masculinity. Later two further dimensions were added, Long Term Orientation andIndulgence(Hofstede,2011).Dependingonthecultureofacountryascorebetween0and100 isgivenforeachdimension.Usingtheresultsfromthisstudy,aswellasotherstudiesconfirming the findings, the cultureof different countries canbe comparedwithin the sixculturaldimensions.(Hofstede,2011)Basedonthis,onecouldmaketheassumptionthatitistheculturaldifferencesbetweenthecountriesthestudiesusingtheEmpAtscalewereperformedinthatarepartlyresponsibleforthevaryingresults.ThisisanassumptionSivertzenetal.(2013)madewhentheresultsoftheirstudydifferedfrompreviousstudiesusingtheEmpAtscale.Berthonetal.(2005)foresawthisdevelopmentandgaveawordofcautionagainstusingthescaleinacross-culturalcontextwithout takingall relevant factors intoaccount.Despite this, therehas, to thebestof theauthor’sknowledge,notbeenasufficientamountofresearchconductedontheconnectionbetweenthesetwoareasofresearch,areaswhichseemtobewellconnected.Theapparentgapintheoryiswhattheauthorwillattempttofillbyperformingthisstudyandwritingthisthesis.Thereasonwhythisareaisconsideredrelevanttostudyisthattheconnectionbetweenwhatmakesanemployerattractiveandthecultureandhomecountryofapotentialfutureemployeeissomethingwhichwillmostlikelybeofgrowingimportanceastheyearsgoon.

4

The reason for the growing importance is the growing influence globalisation has on theworld.Duetotheglobalisationofthebusinessenvironmentaroundtheworldanincreasingnumberoforganisationsarebecoming involvedoutsideof thebordersof their countryoforigin.Theyarebecomingmultinationalorevenglobalinnature.(Santangelo&Meyer,2017)Ifanorganisationthenhastoemploypeopleoutsideofitsoriginalcountryitisvitaltoknowif theyneed to alter thewayof attractingemployees in thenewcountryor if its valid tocontinueastheyweredoingbefore.(Alnıaçıketal.,2014).Explainingtheconnectionbetweenemployerattractivenessandcultureshouldhopefullymakethisquestioneasiertoanswer,aswellasprovidingageneralguidelineofhowtoadapttheeffortsifitisdeemednecessarytodoso.

Research Purpose The purpose of this study is to identify and explain the connection between employerattractivenessandculturaldimensions,aswellastheimpactapotentialemployees’culturalvalueshaveontheirviewsofhowattractiveanemployeris.

Research Propositions RP1:Thereisaconnectionbetweenemployerattractivenessandculture.RP2:Culturehasanimpactonperceivedemployerattractiveness.

Delimitations In order to narrow down the scope of the study and make it more manageable somedelimitationshavetobemade.Thecomparativeportionofthestudywillbelimitedtotwocountries,SwedenandGermany.Thesecountrieswerespecificallychosenbecausetheyaretwocountrieswithahighdegreeofbusinessexchange.Becauseofthatitwouldbeimportantfororganisationsoperatinginthemultinationalenvironmenttoknowifandhowtheyshouldadapttheiractionsandstrategiesinordertoattractpersonnelfromandintheothercountry.Thestudywillalsofocusontheexternalmarketingaspectofemployerbrandingandemployerattractivenessi.e.howanorganisationappearstopotentialfutureemployees,ratherthantocurrent employees. Because of this the focus will be on attracting personnel rather thanretainingthem,whichwouldbecoveredbytheinternalmarketingaspect.Adelimitationofthetargetpopulationwasalsoimplemented,andthepopulationthestudyfocusedonwasuniversitystudents.ThemotivationforthischoiceoftargetpopulationcanbefoundintheRespondentssectionoftheMethodologychapter.

Thesis Overview Thethesisconsistsoffivedifferentchapters,andinthefirstchapterthetopicofemployerattractivenessandcultureisfirstintroducedandnarroweddown.Thesecondchapterlooksdeeper into theseareasbyexaminingpreviously conducted researchaswell as creatinga

5

conceptual framework for the thesisbasedonthemost relevantpreviousresearch. In thefollowingchapterthemethodologyofthestudyispresented,thisincludes,forexample,theresearchpurposeandapproach, aswell ashow thedatawas collectedandanalysed.Thefourth chapterpresents theempiricaldatagatheredduring the studyand itwasanalysedusingdifferent statistical tests introduced in thepreviouschapter. In the final chapter thefindings of the study are presented, conclusions are drawn and recommendations andimplementationsarediscussed.

6

Literature Review Thischapterwillprovideanoverviewofthepreviousresearchthathasbeenconductedintheareas of employer attractiveness and culture, which has been considered relevant for thestudy.Afterthatthemostrelevanttheorieswillbeusedtoformtheconceptualframeworkwhichwillguidethestudy.

Employer Attractiveness Employerattractivenesscanbedefinedasthebenefitsapersonseesinworkingforaspecificorganisationratherthananotherone.Becauseofthisanorganisationwithstrongemployerattractivenessoftenhasacompetitiveadvantageover lessattractiveones. (Berthonetal.,2005) As previously discussed, employer branding, and more specifically employerattractivenesshasbecomeamuch-appreciatedtoolfororganisationstobeabletoattractthemost desirable human capital in a competitive labour market. (Sivertzen et al., 2013)Organisationsmustdotheirutmostinordertonotbeperceivedasunattractive,asthatwouldseverely limit theabilityof theorganisation toattractandemploy thebesthumancapitalavailable.(Wilden,Gudergan&Lings,2010)However,accordingtoReisandBraga(2016),anorganisation developing their employer attractiveness is not simply another step in therecruitment process. During the recruitment process an organisation attempts to attractpersonnel forapositionwhich isvacantat thetime.Employerattractivenessontheotherhand must be continuously developed in order to strengthen the general view that theorganisationisanattractiveemployeroverall,somethingwhichinturnwillhelpfacilitatetherecruitmentprocess.(Reis&Braga,2016)Onewaytomaketheconceptofemployerattractivenessmoreconcreteistodevelopascalein an attempt to measure it. There have been several attempts at doing so by differentresearchers,andacommonwayofmeasuringistofirstbreaktheconceptdownintosmallercomponents.AnexampleofsuchascaleistheOrganizationalAttractivenessExtractionScale(OAES),whichwasdevelopedbyBendaraviciene,Krikstolaitis,andTurauskas(2013)inordertomeasureorganisationalattractivenessinhighereducation.Thescaleconsistsof67items,divided into eleven dimensions such as “Organisational Culture”, “Fairness and Trust”,“Supervisor Relationship” and “Work-Life Balance.” (Bendaraviciene et al., 2013) Anothermethod, which is one of the most used and recognised methods of measuring theattractiveness of an employer in the eyes of a potential employee is the Employerattractiveness(EmpAt)scaledevelopedbyBerthonetal.(2005).

Dimensions of Employer Attractiveness Like with most concepts, employer attractiveness can be broken down into differentdimensions.Thisisoftendonebaseduponwhichvalueisprovidedtothepotentialemployee.Onemodelwhere this is the case iswith the Employer attractiveness scale developedbyBerthonetal.(2005).WhendevelopingtheirscaleBerthonetal.(2005)hadadeductivebase

7

builtontheresearchofAmblerandBarrow(1996),whichestablishedthreedimensionsofbenefitsworking for a certain employer canhave. Those threedimensions are functional,economicandpsychologicalbenefits.Functionalbenefitscanbesummarisedaswhatworkingfor a certain employer will do for the employee when it comes to aspects such asdevelopment.Economicbenefitsrefernotonlytothesalaryanemployeegetbuttotheentirecompensationpackage.Psychologicalbenefitsonemightgetfromworkingatanorganisationarefeelingsofdirection,belongingoragreaterpurpose.(Ambler&Barrow,1996)WiththehelpoftheirstudyBerthonetal.(2005)wereabletoconfirmthesethreedimensionsaswellas break them down further into five total dimensions. The five dimensions, or factors,Berthon et al. (2005) ended up with were Interest Value, Social Value, Economic Value,DevelopmentValue andApplicationValue. The first two factors capture thepsychologicalbenefits brought upbyAmbler andBarrow (1996), the last twoexpandon the functionalbenefitsandtheeconomicvaluerepresenttheeconomicbenefits.(Berthonetal.2005)Eachofthefivefactorscanthenbebrokendownintofiveitems,resultinginthefivefactor,25itemEmpAt scale, which can be found in full under Questionnaire Development in theMethodologychapter.

Although the creatorsof themodelhada certaindeductivebasis in thepreviousworkofAmblerandBarrow(1996),muchofthecreationoftheEmpAtscalewasinductive.TheEmpAtscalewasdevelopedbyfirstconductingsixfocusgroupswithfinalyearstudentsatalargeAustralianuniversityaboutwhattheywouldliketoseeinanidealemployer.Afterthefocusgroupswereconductedthedatawastranscribedandanalysedwhichresultedinalistwith32itemsofemployerattractiveness.Aquestionnairecontainingthe32 itemEmpAtscalewasadministeredto683universitystudents.(Berthonetal.,2005)Fromtheresultingdatasevenoftheitemswereexcludedduetoinsufficientreliability.Anexploratoryfactoranalysiswasthenrunonthedataandthefivefactorspresentinthescaleabovewereformed.Thefactorswerelateralsoconfirmedusingstructuralequationmodelling.(Berthonetal.2005)Aspreviouslystated,thedifferentfactorsmeasuredifferentvaluesanemployeecouldfindattractivetobefulfilledwhen itcomestoapotential futureemployer.Belowwill followadescriptionofwhateachfactorentails,aswellasalookatwhatpreviousresearchhasfoundintheareas.

Interest value InterestValueassessestowhatlevelsomeoneisattractedtoanemployerwhoisofferinganexciting, forward-thinking and creative environment, and who produces innovative, high-qualityproducts.(Berthonetal.,2005)Theimportanceofanorganisationhavingtheimageof being an innovative organisation is clearly demonstrated by Sommer,Heidenreich, andHandrich(2017)intheirstudyontheissue.Thefindingsofthestudyshowthatanorganisationwhichhasthereputationofhavingastrongcultureof innovation,aswellasan innovativeportfolio of products is considered to be more attractive as a potential employer. Thisattraction increases further if the person in question also considers themselves to be

8

innovative.Thus,beinganinnovativeorganisationandcommunicatingthisfactwillincreasethechanceoftheorganisationbeingabletoattractinnovativeemployeesinacompetitivelabourmarket.(Sommer,Heidenreich&Handrich,2017)

Social Value According to Berthon et al. (2005), Social Value assesses the importance of an employerprovidinga funandhappyworkenvironmentwithgood relationshipswithcolleaguesandsuperiors alike. The vast importance of an organisation being able to provide good socialvalues suchashappyworkingenvironmentwith good relationshipsbetween thedifferentmembersoftheorganisationissomethingwhichhasbeenclearlystatedinpreviousliterature.(Lievens,2007;Rampl,2014)Rampl (2014)claimsthat it isoneof themainaspectswhichturnsanorganisationintoaso-calledemployerfirst-choicebrand,anorganisationwhichissupremelyattractiveforpotentialemployees.

Economic Value Thisfactorassessestheextenttowhichapersonisattractedtoanemployerbecauseofthemoffering an attractive salary package and other benefits, along with aspects such as jobsecurityandopportunitiesforpromotion.Theimpactaspectssuchasmonetarybenefitsandadvancementopportunitiesissomethingpreviousresearchhasnotbeenabletoreachaclearconsensus on. According to Lievens and Highhouse (2003), both the salary level andopportunities for advancement are among the bestways to predict the attractiveness anorganisationhasintheroleofanemployer.AmorerecentstudyperformedbyRampl(2014)showedthatnotonlywherethesefactorsnotamongthemostimportantwhenitcomestoemployerattractiveness,infacttheydidnothaveanysignificantimpactonwhetherornotanorganisationisanattractiveemployer.

Development Value The factorDevelopmentValue looksathowattractedan individual is toanemployer thatprovidesrecognition,self-worthandconfidence,aswellascareer-enhancingopportunities.Receivingrecognitionorappreciationfromthemanagementisanexcellentwayofincreasingtheperformanceofanemployee,aswellasincreasingtheirself-confidence.Itisalsomorelikelytoresultinlong-termchangesandhavealasting,positiveeffectonthecorporatecultureofanorganisationthanrewards,whichareoftenmonetary.(Glasscock&Gram,1995)Whichinturnhelpsmakeanorganisationmoreattractiveforpotentialemployees.(Wildenetal.,2010;Rampl,2014)Previousresearchseemstoindicatethatcareerenhancingopportunitieshavealimitedimpactontheperceivedattractivenessofanemployer.(Rampl,2014)

Application Value Thefinalfactor,ApplicationValue,assesseshowappealingitisforanemployertooffertheiremployeesanopportunitytoapplywhattheyhavepreviouslylearned,aswellaspassingthatknowledge on to others, and working in an organisation which cares both about theircustomersandsocietyingeneral.(Berthonetal.2005)Creatingaworkenvironmentwhere

9

employees are able to use knowledge they have previously gained, as well as beingencouraged to share that knowledge with their colleagues is a good way to make surecontinuouslearningtakeplacewithintheorganisation.(Cascio,2014)Althoughtheeffectthishasonemployerattractivenesshasnotbeenclearlyestablished.However,previousresearchclearly shows the importance of an organisations humanitarian side when it comes tocorporatesocialperformance(CSP)andcorporatesocialresponsibility(CSR).Findingsinthesestudies indicates that organisations efforts within these fields has an impact on theirattractivenessasanorganisation,animpactwhichincreaseswhenthepotentialapplicantspersonalattitudetowardsCSRinhigher.(Klimkiewicz&Oltra,2017;Sohn,Sohn,Klaas-WissingandHirsch2015)

Implementation in Other Studies SincetheEmpAtscalewasdevelopedithasbeenusedtomeasureemployerattractivenessinanumberofotherstudiesindifferentcountriesaroundtheworld.OneexampleofitbeingimplementedisbySivertzenetal.(2013)whousedthescaleinNorwayinordertoinvestigatewhichareasofemployerattractivenessorganisationsshouldfocuson.Theresultoftheirstudywas that in order to best attract potential employees’ organisations should focus on“innovation,personalgrowth,andself-confidence,aswellasagoodenvironmentforlearningandapplicationofskills.” (p.479)TheyalsofoundtheEconomicValuetobe lessappealingthan non-monetary aspects, as well as Social Value not being considered particularlyimportant. (Sivertzen et al., 2013) The EmpAt scale was also implemented in a studyperformedinSriLankabyArachchigeandRobertson(2011).ThepurposeofthestudywastoidentifythedimensionsofattractivenessaswellasfindingoutwhicharemostimportantinthecontextofSriLanka.TheauthorsfoundthatincomparisontothefindingsoftheoriginalBerthonetal. (2005)study,respondents inSriLankavalueditemswithintheDevelopmentValueandSocialValuefactorshigher,whiletheEconomicValuewasvaluedroughlythesame.(Arachchige&Robertson,2011)

AnotherstudyimplementingtheEmpAtscalewasacomparativestudyconductedbyAlnıaçıketal.(2014).ThefindingsofthestudyshowedthattheTurkishrespondentsplacedahigherimportanceonapotentialemployerbeingattractivethantheLatvian.ThiswasespeciallytruewhenitcametotheApplicationValuefactorwhereasforEconomicValuetheoutcomewasmoresimilar. (Alnıaçıketal.,2014)While thestudymighthavesomeweaknesseswhen itcomestothesampling,e.g.usingaconveniencesampleandhavingamixofprofessionalsandstudents,itstillclearlyshowsthatwhatmakesanemployerattractiveisnotuniversal.Thisnon-universality ofwhatmakes an employer attractive is also backed up by the previousstudiesdiscussedabovewheredifferencescanalsobefound.Whatisthenthereasonbehinditwhichcausesthesedifferencebetweenthecountries?Itiswell-establishedthatthereareculturaldifferencesbetweencountries,andthatthoseculturaldifferenceshaveanimpactonthe values andbeliefs of the peoplewithin the countries. There is then no reason to notassumethatitwouldalsohaveanimpactonwhattheyvalueandfindattractiveintermsofapotentialemployer,andtowhatextent.Thisissueiswhatthefollowingsectionofthechapter

10

willdealwith,presentingculture,discussingculturaldifferences,andthendrawingclearlinksbetweenemployerattractivenessandculture.

Culture Culturecanbeaquiteabstractconceptwhichcanbehardtodefineordescribe.Therehavebeen a large number of different definitions used by different researchers and scholarsthroughouttheyears.Triandis(1982)forexample,definescultureasthe“human-madepartoftheenvironment.”(p.139)Thisincludesbothobjectssuchasbuildingsandinfrastructureaswellassubjectiveaspectssuchasnormsandvalues.Hofstede(1984)definescultureas“the collectiveprogramingof themindwhichdistinguishes themembers of one grouporsocietyfromthoseofanother.”(p.82)Hegoesontostatethatcultureconsistofpatternsofthinkingwhicharepassedonfromonememberofaculturetoanotherandthatcultureisreflectedinthemeaningmembersofthecultureattachestoaspectsoftheirlivesaswellasthevaluestheyholdandtheiroutlookonlifeingeneral.(Hofstede,1984)Theconceptofculturecanalsobeusedinafewdifferentcontexts.Itcanforexamplebeusedinthecontextofethnicgroups,nations, individualsororganisations.Therearedifferencesbetweenthesedifferent typesofcultureshowever. (Hofstede,2011)Societalandnationalculturestendtobemuchdeeperrootedinapersonthanorganisationalorgroupculture.Thisislikelyduetothefactithasbeenacquiredatanearlyageandthencontinuedtobedevelopedthroughouttheyears.(Hofstede,2011)Organisationalcultureontheotherhandisacquiredwhenworkingfororbeinginvolvedwithanorganisation(Ehrhart,Schneider&Macey,2014).Organisationalcultureisalsoreplacedfasterifapersonmovestoanotherorganisationthannationalculturewouldbereplacedifapersonmovestoanothercountry.(Hofstede,2011).Anotherdifferenceisthatnationalandsocietalculturetendstoconsistofvalueswhichareoftenunconscious,whileorganisationalculturetoagreaterextentconsistsofpractises,whichtendtobemoreconscious.(Hofstede,2011)Thisstudywillhavealargerfocusonthedeeperrooted,moreunderlyingtypeofcultureratherthan,forexample,organisationalculture.

Cultural Differences Theareaofculture,andmorespecificallyculturaldifferences,isanareawhichhashadalotofresearchdedicatedtoitforalongtime.Therearegoodreasonswhytherehasbeenalargeamountofresearchconductedwithregardstoculturaldifferences.Themainreasonisthatculturaldifferenceshavethepotentialtocausealargeamountofissueswhenpeoplefromdifferentcultures interact. (Hofstede,Hofstede&Minkov,2010)This isespeciallytrue inabusinesscontext,wherepractisesassimpleasacommoninteractionandascomplicatedasacontractnegotiationcouldberadicallyaffectedifculturaldifferencesarenotkeptinmind.(Teoh&Yazdanifard,2015)Oneofthemostwell-knownresearchersintheareaofcultureandcultural differences is the social psychologist Geert Hofstede. In a 2008 article in TheEconomistHofstedeisquotedassaying:

11

“Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are anuisanceatbestandoftenadisaster.”

GeertHofstedeinTheEconomist,2008Thisquoteshowstheimpactculturaldifferencescanhave,andthereforealsotheimportanceonhavingknowledgeabout said impact inorder tobeable topredictandcounteractanynegativeeffectsculturaldifferencesmightcause.Sinceculturecanbeaquiteabstractconceptitmightthereforebedifficulttoknowhowoneculturediffersfromanother,andthereforedifficulttopredictwhatpossibledifferencesinvaluesandopinionsmightbe(Stahl,Miska,Lee&DeLuque,2017).Luckilytherearewaystocompareculturesinawaywhichmakesitlessabstract.Onesuchway isbystudying iftherearedifferencesbetweenwhatthepeopleofthoseculturesvalue.ThatiswhatSchwartz(1992;2012)didwithhisTheoryofBasicHumanValues.Theessenceofthetheoryisthattherearebasichumanvalueswhichcanbefoundacrossallcultures,thedifferencebetweenthemishowimportanteachvalueisconsideredtobe.Schwarz identifiedtenbasichumanvalues,whichcanbeplaced inoneoffourgroups,dependingonwherethevalueisplacedalongtwodimensions.ThetwodimensionsareSelf-Transcendence/Self-EnhancementandOpenness tochange/Conservation.Anotherway tomakeculturemoreconcreteandmoreapplicable isbydividingculture intodimensions inorder to better be able to compare differences across cultures, and therebymake cross-culturalcomparisonsmoremanageableandfeasible(Soares,Farhangmehr&Shoham,2007).

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model Anothermethodforcomparingcultures,andoneofthemostwell-knownandreadilyusedmethodsfordoingsois,theso-calledHofstede’sCulturalDimensionsModel,whichwas,asthenamesuggests,developedbyGeertHofstede.Itisamodelwhichcanbeusedtodefineandcomparetheculturalvaluesfoundindifferentcountriesandsocietiesaroundtheworld.(Hofstede, 2011) At its inception, the theory consisted of four dimensions; Individualism,Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Masculinity. (Hofstede, 1984) After furtherresearch had been conducted two additional dimensions, Long Term Orientation andIndulgence,wereaddedandthemodelwasexpandedinordertogiveamorecompleteviewofthecultureofacountry.Thesedimensionsalltaketheformofascalefrom0to100andeachculturecanbeplacedalongthatscaledependingonthevaluesthecultureholdsandpractises.(Hofstede,2011)AccordingtoSoaresetal.(2007)themodelisasimpleandpracticaltoolwheninvestigatingculture,althoughitisnotwithoutitsfaults.PossibleweaknessesofthemodelwillbediscussedindepthfurtheralonginthechapterinthesectionCriticismoftheModel.Ashortsummaryofwhateachofthesixculturaldimensionentailscanbefoundbelow:

• Individualism/Collectivism(IDV)–Inanindividualistculturethefocusisontakingcareofonlyyourselfandyourclosestfamily.Societyisnotseenasaclose-knitgroupandpeoplearerathertakingcareofthemselves.Ontheotherendofthespectrumculturescanbecollectivist. Inacollectivistculturepeopleprefertohaveatightlyknitsocial

12

framework where a lot of importance is placed on being able to trust the othermembersofthatsociety.Themainaspectcoveredbythisdimension isthe levelofinterdependencebetweenthemembersofasociety.(Hofstede,1984)

• Large/SmallPowerDistance(PD)–Thedifferenceinlevelofpowerdistancebetween

culturescomefromthedifferentlevelsofacceptancethatpowerwithinasocietyisdistributedunequally.Inaculturewithalargepowerdistancepeopleareacceptingofahierarchicalpowerstructurewhereeveryonehastheirsetplace.Inaculturewithasmallerpowerdistanceontheotherhandthereisademandforpowerequalityandanyinequalitiesmustbeproperlyjustified.Inessence,thisdimensionmeasureshowasocietyaddressesinequalitieswhentheyoccur,whethertheyareacceptedorseenassomethingtoevenout.(Hofstede,1984)

• Strong/WeakUncertaintyAvoidance(UA)–Thisdimensionmeasurestowhatextent

membersofasocietywanttoavoidthingsbeinguncertainorambiguous,dueto itbeingperceivedasuncomfortable. In cultureswitha stronguncertaintyavoidance,strongcodesofbeliefandbehaviourareusedandpeopleorideasdeviatingfromthosecodesarenottolerated.Cultureswithaweakuncertaintyavoidanceontheotherhandhaveamorerelaxedapproachtothingsbeinguncertainanddeviancefromthecodesismoretolerated.Themainissueofthisdimensionishowasocietyreactstothefactthatthefutureisuncertain,whetherittriestocontrolitorwhetheritletssimplyletsithappen.(Hofstede,1984)

• Masculinity/Femininity(MAS)–Inamasculinesocietyalotofvalueisplacedonthings

suchasachievements,materialsuccess,assertivenessandheroism.Inthesesocietiesmentendtohavetheoutgoing,assertiveroleswhilewomenhavethemoredrawnback,caringroles.Thistypeofsocietiescanalsobecalled“performancesocieties.”Afeminine society on the other hand places a larger emphasis on, for example,relationships,qualityoflifeandmodesty.Inasocietyofthiskinditismorecommonandacceptedtohavebothmenandwomenfulfillingbothofthepreviouslymentionedrolesinsociety.Thistypeofsocietiescanalsobereferredtoas“welfaresocieties.”Themainissuemeasuredbythisdimensionishowasocietydividesthesocialrolesbetweenthesexes.(Hofstede,1984)

• Long-/Short-TermOrientation(LTO)–Asocietywhichpreferstokeepupitstraditions

andnormswhichhavebeenaroundfordecadesorcenturies,andwhichseeschangesin society as something to vary of would be consider a society that is Short-TermOriented.Asocietyonwhichontheotherhandembraceschangeanddevelopmentinthesociety,andencouragesmodernisationandpreparingforthefutureratherthanholdingontotraditionscanbeconsideredtobeLong-TermOriented.Inessence,thedimensionlooksathowasocietymaintainsitslinkswiththepastwhilepreparingfor

13

thefuture.(Hofstedeetal.,2010)

• Indulgence/Restraint (IND) – The final cultural dimension can be seen as acomplement to the previous dimension, Long-/short-Term Orientation, while stillcoveringanissuenotcoveredbytheotherfivedimensions.Thedimensionmeasurestowhatextentmembersofasocietytrytocontroltheirdesiresandimpulses.Inanindulgentsociety,thememberscanenjoyrelativelyfreegratificationoftheirdesiresand impulsesrelatedtoenjoying lifeandhaving fun. Inasocietywhererestraint ispractisedthisgratificationofneedsanddesiresiscontrolledandregulatedbystrictsocialnorms.(Hofstede,2011)

Country Comparison Eventhoughthetwocountriesrepresentedinthisstudyarelocatedrelativelyclosetoeachothergeographically,therearestilldifferencesculturallyaccordingtotheculturaldimensionsmodel.ThefollowingisasummaryoftheresultsforSwedenandGermanywhichshowsthedifferencesandsimilaritiesbetweenthetwocountries.(Hofstede,1984;Hofstedeetal.,2010)Forafewoftheculturaldimensionsthereisnotmuchdifferencebetweenthem,butfortheothers thedifference is clearer. Thedimensionswhich aremost similar are Individualism/Collectivism and Power Distance. Both Sweden and Germany score relatively high forIndividualism,meaningthatthefocusisonsmallerfamilyunitsratherthansocietyatlarge.WhenitcomestoPowerDistancebothcountriesscorerelativelylow,thisindicatesthattheyaresocietieswhichvaluepowerbeingequalitydistributedanddecentralised.However,thiswherethesimilaritiesendastheresultsfortheremainingfourdimensionsarevastlydifferent.When it comes to Uncertainty Avoidance Sweden score quite low while Germany scorerelativelyhigh.ThiswouldindicatethatSwedishpeoplehaveamorerelaxedoutlookontheuncertaintyofthefuture.Masculinity/Femininityiswherethelargestdifferencebetweenthecountries canbe found. Sweden isoneof themost feminine countries in theworldwhileGermanysscoreindicatesthembeingafairlymasculinesociety.GermanyisalsoaquiteLong-TermOrientedcountry,whileSweden’sscoreisrightinthemiddleofthescaleandthereforedoesnotindicateapreferenceeitherway.Forthefinaldimension,Indulgence/RestraintthescoresindicatethattheSwedishsocietyisamoreindulgentonewhiletheGermanismorerestrained.AfurthersummaryofthedifferencesbetweenthetwocountriescanbefoundinTable1below.Table1:CulturalDimensionsScoresforSweden&Germany IDV PD UA MAS LTO IND

Sweden 71 31 29 5 53 78 Germany 67 35 65 66 83 40

Source:AdaptedfromHofstedeetal.,2010

14

Criticism of the Model Even thoughHofstede’sCulturalDimensionsModel iswidely regardedasoneof themostcomprehensivemodelforcomparingnationalcultures,itisnotwithoutitscritics.OneofthemostcommoncritiquesofthemodeliswithregardstothesamplingoftheIBMquestionnaireswhichleadtotheoriginalmodelwithitsfourdimensions.Althoughthesamplecontainedover100000responsesitdoesnotmeanitwasrepresentativefortheentirecountrieswherethesurveyswere performed. Seeing how theywere distributed exclusively to peopleworkingwithinasingleorganisation,holdingrelativelywellpayedjobs,theresultscouldmostlikelynot be considered representative for an entire nation.Another criticism is that looking atculture fromanational perspective couldbemisleading since it grossly overlooks culturaldifferencesandtheexistenceofsubcultureswithincountries.(McSweeney,2002)Hofstede’sreply to the first issue brought upwas that themodel ismade for identifying differencesbetweencultures,andforthathavingdatagatheredfrompeople inasimilarposition,butfrom different countries is an excellent way to identify differences in national culture. Inaddition, the findings have been validated by additional research which includedrepresentative samples. Regarding the statement that a national perspective can bemisguidingHofstede agreedbut counteredby stating thatwhile itmightbemisleading insomecasesitisstillthebestunitavailabletocompareculturesatthisscale.(Hofstede,2002)Other potential issues with the Hofstede model the researcher has encountered whileperforming the study range from ratherminor technicalities tomore conceptual issues.Amoredetailrelatedissueistheissueoftranslatingthedatagatheringinstrumentsforeachcountry.TocreateamodelwiththespanoftheHofstedemodelpeopleinalargenumberofcountrieswerequestioned,andthishadtobedonealmostasmanydifferentlanguages.Ifthetranslationswerenotperformedcarefullyitispossibleformisunderstandingstooccurifthemainpointofaquestiongetsdistorted.Thiswouldthenleadtotheresearchersattemptingtocomparetwoanswersgiveninresponseto“different”questions.AperhapsmorepressingissueisthatHofstede’smodelcouldbecomeoutdated.Thefoundationstothemodelwerelainalmost50yearsago,andwhilecultureandculturalvaluesissomethingwhichmovesatarather slowpace, there have been somedevelopments since themodelwas first createdwhichcouldhaveaneffectonit.Themaindevelopmentistheriseofglobalisation,somethingwhichhasmadetheworldasmallerplacebymakingmucheasiertointeractandexperienceotherculturesandtherebyalsobeinfluencedbythem.Thiscouldleadtoculturesbecomingincreasinglysimilar,orattheveryleastitcouldincreasethespeedbywhichaculturedevelopsandchanges,somethingwhichshouldbetakenintoaccountinHofstede’sCulturalDimensionsModel. The reality of cultures evolving rather than remaining static is somethingwhich isillustratedbyWu(2006)astheyconductastudylookingtoupdatetheresultsofTaiwanandtheUnitedStates.

15

Implementation in Other Studies Aspreviously stated, theCulturalDimensionsModel developedbyHofstede iswell-know,well-usedandwell-respected constructwhichhas seenplentyof implementation inotherstudiesthroughouttheyears.OnesuchstudyisconductedbyMorlingandLamoreaux(2008)whentheyperformameta-analysisonthe impactof Individualism/Collectivismonculturalproducts.Intheirstudy,theauthorsanalyseddatafromdifferentstudiesconductedonthetopicofcomparingcultureswhen itcomes to Individualism/Collectivism.What they foundafterconductingthestudywassomethingwhichsupportedtheexistenceofanimpactofthisdimension. (Morling & Lamoreaux, 2008) For example, they found that public culturalproducts,suchasadvertising,tendedtohaveamorecollectivisticfocusincollectivistcultures,suchasEastAsia,andthatittendedtobemoreindividualisticinindividualisticculturessuchastheUnitedStatesandWesternEurope.Thereasonforthiscouldbeboththatitisawayofappealingtothepeoplewithinthatculturebyexpressingsimilarvalues,butalsotheotherwayaroundthattheculturalproductsaffectsandreinforcestheculturalvalues.(Morling&Lamoreaux,2008)Another study which incorporates Hofstede’s model and also looks at brand perceptionsacross culture is theoneconductedbyFoscht,Maloles III, Swoboda,MorschettandSinha(2008).Thestudy looksatwhat impactculturehasonhowabrand isperceivedacrosssixcountries;theUnitedKingdom,Singapore,Austria,Germany,theNetherlandsandtheUnitedStates.Whattheyfoundduringtheirstudywasthatbrandswhowerepositionedidenticallyacrossthesesixcountries,werestillperceiveddifferentlybytherespondents,duetoculturaldifferencesbetweenthecountries.(Foschtetal.,2008)Inordertocombatthisandinordertobeperceivedastheywanttobeperceivedbrandsshouldnotstrivetopositionthemselvesthesameacrossallcultures,butratherpositionthemselvessotheyareperceivedthesameacrosscultures,takingtheculturalvaluesofaregionintoconsideration.(Foschtetal.,2008)Inaddition,culturaldifferenceasmeasuredwiththehelpofHofstede’sculturaldimensionshasbeen shown tohavean impacton the successofmergersandacquisitions ina cross-border context. (Rozen-Bakher, 2018) Success in this case ismeasured by looking at howsuccessfultheintegrationis,howsuccessfulthesynergyisandhowprofitabilityisaffectedpost-merger.TheresultsofthestudyshowedthatMasculinity/FemininityandPowerDistancearethedimensionswhichhaveasignificantimpact.FurtheritshowedthathighdifferencesinMasculinity/Femininityleadstosuccessfulintegrationandsynergy,whilehighdifferencesinPowerDistanceleadstoincreasedsynergysuccessbuthasanegativeimpactonprofitability.(Rozen-Bakher,2018)Anotherareawhereculturaldimensionshavebeenshowntohaveanimpact is corporate environmental performance. (Petruzzella, Salvi&Giakoumelou, 2017)TheirfindingsshowedthathighMasculinity,Indulgence,Long-TermOrientationandPowerDistancebeingfoundinacountriesnationalculture,themorecommittedtoenvironmentalprotectiontheorganisationis.(Petruzzellaetal.,2017)

16

Connection Between Employer Attractiveness and Cultural Dimensions Basedontheinformationgiventousfromtheauthorsofthesetwoconstructsitseemsclearthattherearelogicalconnectionsbetweensomeofthefactorsanddimensions.Thiscanbedonewhenacertainfactorfromtheemployerattractivenessscaleandacertaindimensionfromtheculturalmodeldealwithvalueswithinasimilararea.Asofrightnowthisissimplyspeculation based on a logical connection, but with the help of statistical tests it will berevealediftheselogicalconnectionsbetweenthetwoconstructsarealsobackedupbythedatacollectedduring thestudy.Belowfollowsa listwithashortdescriptionof the logicalconnectionsfoundbytheauthorwhileperformingthestudy.

• Masculinity–EconomicValue-Oneofthesepairswherethereseemstobealogicalconnection is between Masculinity and Economic Value. As previously statedmasculinevaluesinthiscaseincludesthingslikematerialsuccessandachievements.(Hofstede,2011) Itwouldthereforeseemlogical thatpeoplewhovaluethathighlywould also find economic values such as high salary, benefits and promotionopportunities(Berthonetal.,2007)importantwhenlookingforajob.

• Femininity–SocialValue-Withthelargeremphasisonaspectssuchasrelationships

and quality of life which can be found at the Femininity end of the Masculinity/Femininityspectrum,(Hofstede,2011)thereseemstobealogicalconnectionwiththeSocialvaluefactoroftheEmpAtscale.ThereasonforthisisthatSocialValueincludesitemssuchashavinggoodrelationshipswithyourcolleaguesandsuperiorsaswellashavingafunandhappyworkingenvironment.(Berthonetal.,2007)ThiswouldmeanthatanegativeconnectionbetweenMasculinity/FemininityandSocialValuecanbeassumed.

• Femininity–ApplicationValue -AlsoApplicationValue canbeassumed tohavea

connectionwith Femininity. This is due toApplicationValue featuring itemswhichrelate to the relationship building and caring aspects of Femininity, such ashumanitarianism, teaching others and acceptance and belonging. (Berthon et al.,2007; Hofstede, 2011) This would then also indicate that a negative connectionbetweenMasculinity/FemininityandApplicationValuecanbeassumedtoexist.

• Collectivism – Application Value - Another connection which includes Application

Value is theonebetween it andCollectivism.ThepreviouslymentionedaspectsofApplicationValuesuchashumanitarianismandteachingothersalsocorrespondswellwith benefitting a tightly-knit, collectivist society which people who highly valueCollectivismwouldvalue(Berthonetal.,2007;Hofstede,2011).Duetothisyoucouldexpect to find a negative connection between Individualism/Collectivism andApplicationvalue.

17

• Individualism–DevelopmentValue - In the samewayCollectivismseems logically

connectedtoApplicationValue,IndividualismcanbeassumedtoshareaconnectionwithDevelopmentValue.The reason for this is thataspectsofDevelopmentValuewhichdealwith furtheringyourcareer (Berthonetal.,2007)seemto relate to theindividualisticvaluesoftakingcareofyourselfinthefirsthandandcaringmoreaboutasmallergroupofpeople(Hofstede,2011). Ifthisassumedconnectionistruethenthere should be a positive connection between Individualism/Collectivism andDevelopmentValuewhenthedatahasbeenanalysed.

• Long-TermOrientation–DevelopmentValue -Aconnectionwhere the logical link

doesnotseemtobequiteasstrongastheonespreviouslydiscussed,butwhereitstillexistsisbetweenLong-TermOrientationandDevelopmentValue.OnecouldassumethatpeoplewhovaluethepreviouslydiscussedaspectsofDevelopmentValuerelatedtofurtheringones’careerwouldbemorelong-termorientedandmindfulofpreparingfor the future (Hofstede, 2011). Therefore, apositive connectionbetween the twoconceptscouldpossiblybeassumedtoexist.

• Indulgence – Social Value There also seems to be a logical connection between

IndulgenceandSocialValue.Itwouldmakesensethatthetwoareconnectedandthatpeoplewhovaluehavingfunandenjoyingtheirlives(Hofstede,2011)wouldbethesamepeoplewhovalueafunandhappyworkenvironment,whichareitemsincludedinSocialValue(Berthonetal.,2007).BecauseofthisapositiveconnectionbetweenIndulgenceandSocialValuecouldpossiblyexist.

Conceptual Framework Thefinalaspectoftheliteraturereviewistopresenttheconceptualframeworkwhichwillguidetheremainingpartsofthestudy,thedatacollection,thedataanalysisanddrawingofconclusions.Duetothenatureofthepurposeofthestudy,explainingtheconnectionbetweenemployerattractivenessandnationalculture,muchofthestudythusfarhasdealtwithtwodistinct topics or areas, employer attractiveness and culture. This twofold approach willcontinuewiththeconceptualframework.Afterreviewingtherelevantliteratureinthesetwoareas itbecameclear that theconceptual frameworkof thestudywillbemadeupof twoseparateconstructs,eachwiththeirownitemsandvariables.The Employer Attractiveness scale by Berthon et al. (2005) was deemed to be the mostappropriateconstructformeasuringemployerattractiveness.Thescalehaspreviouslybeenpresented and discussed in depth, but in summary it measures employer attractivenessaccordingtofivefactorsbasedonwhatvalueapotentialemployeesees inworkingforanemployer. The five factors are as follows: Interest Value, Social Value, Economic Value,DevelopmentValueandApplicationvalue.(Berthonetal.2005)Althoughthescalehasbeen

18

modified to varying degreeswhile being implemented in different studies throughout theyears, the original version presented by Berthon et al. (2005) is the one which will beimplementedduringthisstudy.Theconstructwhichwasconsideredmostappropriatetomeasuretheculturalaspectofthepurpose is Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model developed by Geert Hofstede and hisassociates over the past 4 decades. Themodel evaluates countries based on the culturalvaluesthepeoplehaveanditprovideseachcountrywithascoreof0to100forsixsocalledcultural dimensions. The six dimensions are: Individualism/Collectivism, Power Distance,Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity/Femininity, Long-/Short-Term Orientation andIndulgence/Restraint.Thescoresforthecountriescanthenbeusedtocompareculturesandshowwheresimilaritiesanddifferencesmightexist.(Hofstede1984;2011)Amoredetaileddescription of the Cultural DimensionsModel, where for example the six dimensions areclarifiedcanbefoundaboveintheculturesectionoftheliteraturereview.Despitethetworesearchareasbeingseparatethereseemstobea linkbetweenthem.Aspreviously discussed the culture a person is brought up in and surroundedbyhas a largeimpactonhowthatpersonseestheworldandalsowhatthatpersonvalues.Duetoculturesbeingdifferentfromcountrytocountryandfrompersontopersonitissafetoassumethatwhat one person values is not somethingwhich is universally valued to the same extenteverywhere.There isno reason toassumethat thesituation looksanydifferentlywhen itcomestowhatpeoplewouldvaluewhenitcomestoapotentialfutureemployer.Infact,thedifferences in the findingswhen the EmpAt scale has been applied in different studies indifferentcountriesandculturesseemstosupporttheideathatculturehasanimpactonwhatapersonperceivestobeattractivewhenitcomestoselectinganemployer.Thisideaisalsowhatthestudy,withthehelptheconceptualframeworkdescribedhere,willdissectandtrytoexplainbylookingattherelationshipbetweenemployerattractivenessandculturalvalues.

19

Figure1:ConceptualFrameworkSource:AdaptedfromBerthonetal.,2005&Hofstede,2011

20

Research Methodology Thischapterdescribesthemethodusedtodesignandperformthestudy.Itcoversthepurpose,approachandstrategyaswellashowthesamplewasselectedandhowthedatawascollectedandanalysed.Finally,itwilllookatthevalidityandreliabilityofthestudy.AsummaryofthemethodologicalchoicescanbefoundinTable2.Table2:MethodologyOverviewResearch Purpose Explanatory Research Approach Quantitative Research Strategy Survey Data Collection Self-Completion Questionnaire Sample Selection Quota Data Analysis Descriptive, Statistical Tests

Research Purpose AccordingtoSaunders,LewisandThornhill(2016)thereareseveraldifferentpurposesastudycanhave.Itcanbeeitherexploratory,descriptiveorexplanatory,oracombinationofthesepurposes.Astudywithanexploratorypurposehastheaimtoaskanopenquestionandgaingeneralknowledgeabouttheareaofresearch.Thissortofstudyisbestimplementediftheproblem area is unclear and flexibility is needed throughout the study. The goal of adescriptive study is to as accurately as possible profile an event, person or situation.Explanatoryresearchseekstoestablishandexplainthecausalrelationshipbetweencertainvariablesinordertogetanunderstandingofaspecificsituation.(Saundersetal.,2016)Sincethepurposeofthisstudyandthegoaloftheresearchpropositionsistoinvestigateandexplaintheconnectionbetweenemployerattractivenessandculturaldimensionsthemostfittingtypeofresearchtoconductinordertofulfilthatwasexplanatoryresearch.Thepurposewasthentoestablishandexplaintherelationshipbetweenthesetwovariablesbyperformingvariousstatisticalanalysesonthecollecteddataandthendrawingconclusionsfromthat.

Research Approach Therearetwowaysaresearchercanapproachaproblem,theycaneitherchoosetogatherand analyse numeric data or they can choose to gather and analyse non-numeric data(Saunders et al., 2016). Relying on numeric data is what is commonly referred to asquantitativeresearch.Thistypeofresearchapproachismostoftenusedinordertoidentifyandconfirmrelationshipsbetweenvariablesusingnumericdata.Thenumericdataismostoftengatheredthroughtheuseofquestionnairesorexperimentsbutitcanalsobedoneusing,forexample,quantitativeinterviews.(Saundersetal.,2016)Researchusingnon-numericdataontheotherhandisreferredtoasqualitativeresearch.Qualitativeresearchaimstogainadeeper understanding or knowledge in a certain area rather than establishing causal

21

relationshipsandcanthereforemakeuseofnon-numeric,non-standardiseddata.(Saundersetal.,2016).Inreality,amixedora“multimethods”approachmightbeconsideredtobethemostappropriate.This iswhere the twopreviouslydiscussedapproachesarecombined inordertoreachthebestresultsforacertainstudy.Thiscouldforexampleentailusingafewopenendedandqualitativequestionsinanotherwisequantitativequestionnaireorincludingquantitativeaspectsinamainlyqualitativestudy.(Saundersetal.,2016)Due to the purpose of this study being to establish and explain a relationship betweenemployer attractiveness and cultural dimensions when it comes to university students inSwedenandGermany itwasmoreappropriatetouseaquantitativeapproach. Inordertoestablisharelationshipbetweentwovariablesalargeamountofdataisneededandthedataneedstobepossibletoanalyseusingdifferentstatisticalmethods.Thisisthesortofnumericdata you get from conducting a study with a quantitative research approach and sincequantitativedataisalsoeasiertogatherinlargevolumesaquantitativeapproachwasmostappropriateforthisstudy.

Research Strategy Aresearchstrategyistheplanofhowtheresearcherwantstoconducttheirresearchandhowtheywillanswer their researchquestions.Since therearemanydifferentways toconductresearchtherearealsomanydifferentresearchstrategiestochoosefrom,anddependingontheresearchapproachofthestudytherearedifferentstrategiesavailable.(Saundersetal.,2016)Forexample,anexperimentorasurveyareprimarilyusedforquantitativeresearch,ethnographyandactionresearchareexclusivelyusedforquantitativeresearchwhilearchivalresearchandcasestudiesmaybeusedforbothquantitativeandqualitativestudies.(Saundersetal.,2016)Theresearchstrategyusedbythisstudywasasurvey.Thereasonforthisdecisionwasthatasurvey,accordingtoSaundersetal.(2016),allowsresearcherstogatherstandardiseddatafromarelativelylargepopulation,whichisnecessaryinordertoperformthisstudy.Italsoallowsforittobedoneinaneconomicalwaywhichisabenefitsincetheresourcesavailabletotheresearcherforthisstudywereratherlimited.Havingstandardiseddatafromalargepopulation allows for easy comparisons to be made and for the data to be analysedquantitativelyusingdifferentstatisticalmethods,somethingwhichisvitalwhenperforminganexplanatory,quantitativestudylikethis.(Saundersetal.,2016)Whenusingsurveyastheresearchstrategyitisalsopossibletogenerateresultswhicharerepresentativeforawholepopulation, without needing the resources to collect data from the entire population. Apossibledownsideofusingthis researchstrategyhowever is thatprogresscanbedelayedsince the researcher is often dependent on others to provide them with the necessaryinformation.(Saundersetal.,2016)

22

Data Collection AccordingtoHair,Money,SamouelandPage(2007),themethodsforcollectingquantitativedatawhenperformingasurveystrategycanbedividedintothreecategories,self-completion,interviewer-completionandobservation.Self-completionmethodsinclude,forexample,mailsurveys, internet/electronicsurveysordrop-off/pickupsurveys.Themain ideabehindthiskind of survey is that the researcher hands over the responsibility of completing thequestionnaire to the respondent, thereby allowing them to gather large amounts of datawithoutbeinginvolvedineachcase.(Hairetal.,2007)Interviewer-completedmethodsontheotherhandrequiretheresearchertobepresentfordirectcontactwitheachrespondent.Anexampleofinterviewer-completionmethodsarepersonalinterviews,bothinpersonandviaphone or a similar tool. Observation in quantitative research involves collecting a largeamount of numerical data, examples of such data are internet click-through behaviour orpurchasebehaviour.(Hairetal.,2007)The data collection method used for this study was an internet-based, self-completionquestionnairewhichwasdistributedviae-mail.Thereasonforchoosingthatmethodwasthatinordertogathertheamountofdataneeded inordertoperformthestudyandfulfil thepurposeitwouldnotbefeasibletouseaninterviewer-completedorobservationmethod.Duetothetimeconstraintsofthestudyitthereforehadtobeaself-completionquestionnaire.Thequestionnairebeinginternet-basedwasthesuperioroptionsinceitdoesnotrequiretheextraresourcesneededtosendaphysicalquestionnaireinthemailorrequiretheresearchertobepresentatbothlocationstohandoutandpickupaphysicalquestionnaire.However,self-completionquestionnairesarenotwithoutissues.Themainissueisthelossofcontrolfortheresearchers.Itis,forexample,impossibletoknowifitistheintendedpersonansweringthesurveyoriftheyaretakinginputfromothersduringtheprocessofresponding.(Hairetal.,2007)Anotherpossibledownsideofusingself-completionquestionnairesisthatthemomentumoftheresearchprocesscanbelostsincetheresearcherisdependentonotherpeopletoprovidethemwiththedataneededtocontinue.(Saundersetal.,2016)

Questionnaire Development Whenusingaquestionnairetocollectdatathereareseveralstepswhichneedtobetakeninordertomakesurethatitleadstoasuccessfulstudy.Awell-constructedquestionnairealsohelpsensurethereliabilityandvalidityofthestudy.(Hairetal.,2007)Onthenextpage,inTable3followsasetofstepsrecommendedbyHairetal.(2007)totakewhendesigningaquestionnaire,andthesestepswerefollowedbytheauthorthroughoutthestudyinordertocreateahigh-qualitydatacollectioninstrument.

23

Table3:StepstobeFollowedintheDesignofaQuestionnaireStep 1: Initial Considerations • Clarify the nature of the research problem and objectives.

• Develop research questions to meet the research objectives. • Define target population and sampling frame (identify potential respondents). • Determine sampling approach, sample size and expected response rate.

• Make a preliminary decision about the method of data collection. Step 2: Clarification of Concepts • Ensure the concept(s) can be clearly defined.

• Select the variables/indicators to represent the concepts. • Determine the level of measurement.

Step 3: Determine Question Types, Format and Sequence • Determine the types of questions to include and their order. • Check the wording and coding of questions. • Decide on the grouping of the questions and the overall length of the questionnaire. • Determine the structure and layout of the questionnaire.

Step 4: Pretest the Questionnaire • Determine the nature of the pretest for the preliminary questionnaire.

• Analyse initial data to identify limitations of the preliminary questionnaire. • Refine the questionnaire as needed. • Revisit some or all of the above steps, if necessary.

Step 5: Administer the Questionnaire • Identify the “best practise” for administering the type of questionnaire utilised.

• Train and audit field workers, if required. • Ensure a process is in place to handle completed questionnaires. • Determine the deadline and follow-up methods.

Source:Hairetal.,2007,p.258Thequestionnairewasmadeupofthetwoconstructsintroducedintheliteraturereviewandconceptualframework,theEmployerAttractivenessScalebyBerthonetal.(2005),seeTable4onthenextpage,andtheCulturalDimensionsModel(Hofstede,1984;2011).Bothoftheconstructshavebeenpreviouslyusedandtestedanumberoftimesandthevalidityofeachinstrumentisthereforeconsideredtobeproperlyestablished.Thisissomethingwhichhelpedthegeneralstrengthofthethesisasawhole,knowingthatthedatawascollectedusingtriedand trusted instruments. Since the questionnaire was made up from already createdconstructs aspects such as the response format were already set. In this case, the

24

questionnairefeaturedexclusivelyclosedquestions,wheretheanswersweregivenonsevenandfivepointLikertscales.This isawayofcollectingdatawhich lends itselfexcellentlytobeingusedinaquantitativestudysuchasthisone.(Hairetal.,2007)Table4:EmployerAttractivenessScale(EmpAtscale)Interest Value • Working in an exciting environment • Innovative employer (forward-thinking) • The organisation produces innovative products and services • The organisation produces high-quality products and services • The organisation both values and makes use of creativity Social Value • Having a good relationship with your superiors • Having a good relationship with your colleagues • Supportive and encouraging colleagues • Fun working environment • Happy working environment Economic Value • Above average basic salary • Attractive overall compensation package • Job security within the organisation • Good promotion opportunities within the organisation • Hands-on inter-department experience

Development Value • Feeling good about yourself as a result of working for a particular organisation • Feeling more self-confident as a result of working for a particular organisation • Gaining career-enhancing experience • Recognition/appreciation from management • Springboard for future employment

Application Value • Humanitarian organisation (gives back to society) • Opportunity to apply what was learned at a tertiary institution • Opportunity to teach others what you have learned • Acceptance and belonging • The organisation is customer-oriented Source:AdaptedfromBerthonetal.,2005

25

Theculturaldimensionsoftherespondentswerecapturedbyincludingtheso-calledValueSurveyModule (VSM) in thequestionnairedistributedduring thestudy.TheVSM isa tooldevelopedmyGeertHofstedeandMichaelMinkovforcollectingandputtingtogetherdataontheculturaldimensions.Thetoolhasgonethroughmultiple iterationssince itwasfirstdevelopedin1980,andtheoneusedforthisstudywasthemostrecentedition,namedValueSurveyModule2013.TheVSMfeatures24questionsforarespondenttoanswerregardingcultureandculturalvalues,aswellasdemographicquestions.TheanswersaretobegivenbymeansofaLikertscalerangingfromonetofiveforsomequestions,andbyselectingoneoutoffivechoicesfromamultiple-choiceformatforothers.FormulastocalculatethescoresforeachdimensionarealsoprovidedinthemanualaccompanyingtheVSM.Since the studywas performed in Sweden and in Germany, two separate versions of thequestionnaire were created. The two versions contained the same questions, the onlydifferencebetweenthemwasthattheyweretranslatedtoSwedishandGermanrespectively.ThetranslationswereperformedbynativespeakersofbothlanguageswithagoodlevelofEnglishknowledgeinordertomakesurethetranslationswereaccurate.Thetranslationswerethencontrolledbyanothernativespeakerofeachlanguagebeforeitwasconsideredfinished.As an added securitymeasure in order to limit the risk ofmisunderstandings the originalEnglishquestionwasaddedbeloweachofthetranslatedquestions.Pilot study Beforethequestionnairewasdistributedasmallpilotstudywasconducted,wheretheaimwastopre-testthequestionnaire.Thegoalofapilotstudyistodetect,andtherebybeabletocorrect,anymistakesandclearupanymisunderstandingsbeforethequestionnairewasdistributedforthefinalstudy.(Saunders,Lewis&Thornhill,2012)Thewaythiswasdonewasbydistributingboth theSwedishandGermanversionsof thequestionnaire to fivepeoplefromeachcountry,bothstudentsandnon-students.Theywerethengiventheopportunitytogive feedback on the questionnaires and point out any mistakes or places wheremisunderstanding might occur. The result of the pilot study was minor changes to bothversionsofthequestionnairewithregardstohowcertainquestionswereformulatedinordertomakeitmoreclearandeasiertounderstand.

Sample Selection Inaperfectworld,researcherswouldcollectdatafromeverysinglepersoninthepopulationtheyareinvestigating,unfortunatelythisisnotpossibleinamajorityofcases.Whenitisnotpossibletheyhavetoturntothesecond-bestalternative,whichisselectingasamplefromthepopulation tocollectdata from instead. (Hairetal.,2007)Asamplecanbeselectedusingeither a probability or a non-probability method. Probability sampling means selecting asamplewhichisrepresentativefortheentirepopulationbyusingarandomprocedure.Ifthesample is representative then the findings of the study can be applied to the rest of thepopulation as well with a certain degree of accuracy. With non-probability sampling the

26

selectionofthesampleisnotperformedrandomlybutisratherdoneby,forexample,usingthe judgementof the researchersorbyconvenience.The findingsofa studyusinganon-probabilitysamplingmethodcouldbeusedtogeneralizethepopulationbutthiscannotbedonewithanydegreeofaccuracy.(Hairetal.,2007)SincethetargetpopulationofthisstudywasuniversitystudentsinSwedenandGermanyitwasnotfeasibletouseaprobabilitybasedrandom sampling method due to the limited time and resources available. Instead non-probabilitysamplingwasimplemented.Dependingon ifprobabilityornon-probabilitysampling isdeemedtobemostappropriatethereareanumberofdifferentsamplingmethodstochoosefrom.Examplesofprobabilitymethods are simple random, stratified ormulti stage sampling. Non-probability samplingmethodsincludeconvenience,judgementandquotasampling.(Hairetal.,2007)Thesamplingmethodusedforthisstudywasquotasampling.Thequotawasbasedonnationalitysinceacertain number of respondentswas required in order to performanymeaningful analysisusingthetwogroups.Thisnumber,orthequota,forthetwocountrieswas110respondentseach,inordertogetenoughdepthinthesampletointheendbeabletoreachmeaningfulconclusions.Thereasonitwas110wasinordertofulfiltherecommendationofhavingatleast10respondentsfromeachpopulationperfactoryouwanttouse,inthiscasethefivefactorsoftheEmpAtscaleandthesixculturaldimensions.

Respondents Inmostcases,usinguniversity studentsas the respondentsofa study is somethingwhichslightlyfrowneduponsinceitisthoughttosomewhatdevaluethestudy.Thereasonforthatisthatinmostcasesitisnotasamplewhichisrepresentativeforanentirepopulation.Despitethis,amajorityofstudiesareperformedwithstudentsastherespondents,mainlyfortheiravailabilityandconveniencetotheresearcher.Aspreviouslymentioned,thisstudyalsomakesuseofstudentsintheroleofrespondents,butinthiscaseitmightnothavetoberegardedassomething negative. According to Berthon et al. (2005) and Sivertzen et al. (2013), usingstudentrespondentswhenresearchingemployerattractivenessdoesnothavetobeabadthing.Thereasonforthatisbecauseuniversitystudentsarealargepopulationwhoareabouttoenterthejobmarketintheclosefuture,anditwouldbevaluablefororganisationstoknowhowtoattractthem.Thismakesthemtheirownrelevantpopulationtomeasureratherthanaconvenientsubstitute.As previously stated the goal of the data collectionwas to have 110 respondents in eachcountry.Afterthedatacollectionwascompletethatgoalhadbeenmetforbothcountries.Thetotalnumberofrespondentswas247,117(47.4%)ofwhichwerefromGermanyand130(52.6%) fromSweden. Inbothcountries, the respondentswere reachedbyemail via theirrespectiveuniversityemailsystems.InSweden,theuniversityinquestionwasLuleåUniversityofTechnology,andinGermanytherespondentsweredividedbetweenAugsburgUniversityofAppliedSciencesandRheinMainUniversity.Theuniversitieswerechosenonaconvenience

27

basis,astheauthorhadaccesstotheemailsystemsatallthree,whichmadedistributingthequestionnaire in a timely fashion easier. The reason why two universities were used inGermanywasthatthequotaofrespondentswasnotfilledatthefirstuniversityandasecondoneneededtobeadded.InSweden,atotalof1647emailsweresent,resultinginaresponserateof7.89percent.TheresponserateforGermanyisnotasclearasforbothuniversitytheoptiontosendanemailwhichwasdeliveredtoallstudentsateachoftheuniversitieswasused,but itcanbeassumedtobe lowerthantheSwedishresponserate.Amoredetailedbreakdown of the respondents can be found in the next chapter under the heading“RespondentProfile.”

Data Analysis Analysingquantitativedatacanbelargelydividedintotwoapproaches.Thefirstoneisusingdescriptivestatisticsinordertobetterunderstandthedata.Thesecondoneisusingstatisticaltestinordertotestpropositionsorhypotheses.Theresultsofthetwoapproachescanthenbetransformedintodifferenttypesofchartsandgraphicsinordertomakeiteasiertograspand understand the outcomes. (Hair et al., 2007) In this study, like in most others, acombinationofdescriptivestatisticsandstatisticaltestwasimplementedinordertogetthemostoutof thedata.Abreakdownof themethodsusedcanbe foundunder“DescriptiveStatistics”and“StatisticalTests”below.Thesoftwareused toanalyse thedataduring thisstudywasIBMsSPSSStatisticsversion24andthequestionnaireswerecreatedanddistributedusingQualtrics.Thecollecteddatawillbeanalysedattwodifferentlevels,individuallevelandnationallevel.The individual level analysis will be implemented in order to answer the first researchproposition, establishing whether or not there is a connection between the factors ofemployerattractivenessandthedimensionsofculture.Eventhoughtheanalysistakesplaceonanindividualleveltheresultscanbeappliedatanationallevelifaconnectionbetweenthe two concepts is established. To answer the second research proposition, to see if aperson’snationalculturehasanimpactontheiropinionofwhatmakesapotentialemployerattractive,thedatawillbeanalysedatanationallevel.

Data preparation Inordertoarriveatastagewherethecollecteddatacanbeanalyseditmust,inmostcases,beeditedandcodedinordertomakesenseofthedataandensurethatstatisticalanalysiscanbeperformed.(Hairetal.,2007)ThefirststepofthedatapreparationwastoinputtherawdatafromthequestionnairesintoSPSS.Afterthatslighteditshadtobemadeinordertomakesurethatdatawasconsistentanduseableacrosstheboard.Thedatacamepre-codedwhenitwasimportedfromQualtricsbutsomesmalleditshadtobemadeinordertoensuretheanalysisprocesswouldrunsmoothly.Anotherstepofthedatapreparationprocesswastoeliminateincompletequestionnaireresponses.FollowingtherecommendationofHairet

28

al. (2007) responsesmissingmore than10percentof the totaldatawerediscarded.Howmissingdatawasotherwisedealtwithisdiscussedbelow.Missing Data Duetothehumanfactorinvolvedinconductingastudylikethisitisnotuncommontoendupwithincompletedatainsomecases.(Pallant,2010)Animportantpartofdatapreparationistoscanformissingdata.Ifthereisahighamountofdatamissingforacertainvariableitisimportanttoconsiderwhyitmighthavehappened,ifitisrandomorsystematic.Incompletesetsofdatacouldalsocreateissuesforthestatisticalanalysestheresearchershadplannedtoperform.(Pallant,2010)However,thereareafewdifferentwaysofcorrectingformissingdatadescribedbyPallant(2010),andthesearesummarisedbelow.

• Excludecases listwise–Using thismethodwillonly include thecaseswhichhavecompletedataforallvariableslisted.Thismethodcanbeconsideredextremesinceitcompletelyexcludesacasefromallanalysesifasinglepieceofdataismissing.

• Excludecasespairwise–Thisisalessextremeoptionofdealingwithmissingdata,sinceitonlyexcludesthecasesifthedatatheyaremissingisrequiredforacertaintypeofanalysis.Itcanstillbeincludedinotheranalyseswherealltherequireddataispresent.Thiswasthemethodofdealingwithmissingdataimplementedduringthisstudy.

• Replacewithmean–Usingthisoptioncalculatesthemeanforacertainvariableand

fillsintheresultinplaceforanymissingdatawithinthevariable.Thishoweverisamethodwhich should not be used, since it can gravely alter the outcome of theanalysis.

Descriptive Statistics Belowfollowsabriefdescriptionofthetypesofdescriptivestatisticswhichwereusedtohelpunderstandandpresentthedatacollectedduringthestudy.

• FrequencyDistribution–Thisisusedwhentheresearcherwantstoansweraquestionregarding a single variable. Frequency distribution then presents the number ofresponses foreachvaluewithin thevariable.This informationcan, forexample,beprovidednumericallyinatableorgraphicallyusingachart.(Hairetal.,2007)Forthisstudyitwasusedtoillustratehowgender,ageandfieldsofstudywererepresentedinthecollectedsample.

• MeasuresofCentralTendency–Thesemeasuresareusedwhentheresearcherneedtosummarizeinformationinordertogainabetterunderstandingofit.Theylocatethecentre of distribution and other valuable information for the different variables.

29

Examplesofmeasuresofcentraltendenciesaremean,medianandmode.(Hairetal.,2007) In this study mean and median were used when showing the age of therespondents,andmeanwasalsousedtoprovideanoverviewofhowtherespondentsvaluedthedifferentitemsoftheEmpAtscale.

• Measures of Dispersion – The function of these measures is to help provide the

completepictureofthesampledistribution.Theyshowhowsampleresponsesdeviatefromthecentraltendency.Examplesofmeasuresusedforthispurposearevariance,range, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis. (Hair et al., 2007) Like mean,standarddeviancewasalsoimplementedinthisstudywhenlookingattheresultsoftheEmpAtscale.

Statistical Test Onthefollowingpage,abriefdescriptionofthestatisticaltestwhichwereusedforthestudycan be found. The tests were used in order to test the relationship between employerattractivenessandculturaldimensions,andtohelpconfirmordenytheresearchpropositionsofthestudy.

• Cronbach’s Alpha – This is a statistical test whichmeasures the so-called internalconsistencyofacertainscale. Itmeasuresiftheitemswithinsaidscaleareactuallymeasuringthesamethingoriftheyseemtobeunrelatedtoeachother.(Pallant,2010)In this study Cronbach’s Alpha was implemented in order to test the internalconsistencyofthescalesusedinthequestionnaire.

• T-test – T-test is a statistical method which is used in order to test the level ofsignificanceattributedtodifferences inmean foundbetweendifferentpartsof thedata for certain items. (Pallant, 2010) In this study t-test was used to test thesignificanceofdifferencesinmeanbetweenthetwocountrieswhenitcomestothefactorsoftheEmpAtscale,aswellasHofstede’sCulturalDimensions.

• Correlation–Correlationisastatisticaltechniquewhichmeasurestheexistenceandstrengthofarelationshipbetweentwovariables.Italsoindicatesifitisapositiveornegativerelationship.(Pallant,2010;Hairetal.,2007)Thistestwasusedinordertoanswerthefirstresearchproposition,andtoidentifytheexistenceandstrengthoftherelationshipbetweenemployerattractivenessandculture.

• Regression – Much like correlation, regression is a technique which looks at therelationshipbetweentwovariables.However,unlikecorrelation,regressionshowstheimpact an independent variable has on a dependent variable. (Hair et al., 2007)Regressionwasusedinthisstudytoidentifyifcultureisanindependentvariablewhich

30

hasanimpactonemployerattractiveness.Thismethodwasthereforeusedtotestthesecondresearchproposition.

Quality Standards Inorderforastudytobetrustedandbeabletostanduptoscrutinyandtherebybeabletoaddsomethingtothescientificcommunityortopractitionersthestudyhastobeabletoproveitsquality.Thequalitystandardsofastudyareoftendividedintotwomeasures,reliabilityandvalidity.(Saundersetal.,2016)Belowthesequalitymeasureswillbeintroducedandtheeffortstoensurethequalityofthestudywillbepresented.

Reliability Thereliabilityofastudyisbasedontheabilityofsaidstudytoberepeatedwithconsistentresultsondifferentoccasionsandbydifferentresearchers.Therecanbeanumberofissueswhichmakesthisdifficulttoachieve.(Saundersetal.,2016)Theseissuescanbedividedintotwo categories, errors and biases, and then further divided between the researcher andparticipantbeingtheoneaffectedbythem.Anerrorisanyfactorwhichcouldhaveanegativeimpactonthewayaparticipantofthestudyperforms,aso-calledparticipanterror,oronthewaytheresearcherinterpretsthedatagathered,aso-calledresearchererror.(Saundersetal.,2016)Aresearcherbiascanbeanythingthatcausesbiasestoaffectthestudy,forexamplethesubjectiveviewstheresearcherholds.Abiasontheparticipantsendisanyfactorwhichcouldhaveaneffectontheparticipanttotheextentthatitleadstoafalseresponse.(Saundersetal.2016)Severalstepsaretakeninordertoensurethatthesesbiasesanderrorsareavoidedin this study. For example, the research process is clearly stated in order to ensurerepeatability.Thestudyhasalsobeen reviewedbybotha supervisorandpeersat severalinstances throughout the researchprocess inorder tomake sure there areno logic leapswheresubjectivityandbiaseshaveaneffectontheendresult.Anotheraspectofthereliabilityofastudyisthereliabilityoftheinstrumentsusedtomeasureduring the study. A common method by which to assess the reliability of a measuringinstrumentisCronbach’sAlpha.(Hairetal.,2007)Thistestmeasureshowwelldifferentpartsofaninstrumentmeasurestheunderlyingfactorsandgivesitascorebetweenzeroandonewhereahigherscoreindicatesamorereliablemeasuringinstrument.(Hairetal.,2007)Themeasuring instruments,orconstructs, implemented in thisstudywerebothborrowedfrompreviousstudies.ThefirstconstructwastheEmployerAttractivenessScaledevelopedbyBerthonetal. (2005).TheCronbach’sAlphaof thescale in theoriginal studywas0.96,whichaccordingtoHairetal.(2007)canbeconsidered“Excellent.”(Berthonetal.,2005)Thescalehasalsobeenusedinotherstudiesandithasachievedscoresrangingfrom“VeryGood”to“Excellent.”Forexample,inastudyperformedinSriLankathescalehadanalphaof0.89(Arachchige&Robertson,2011),inanotherstudytakingplaceinTukeyandLatviaithad0.91(Alnıaçıketal.,2014)and0.85duringaNorwegianstudy(Sivertzenetal.2013).Basedonthis

31

theEmpAtscale isconsideredtobeareliablescalewhenitcomestomeasuringemployerattractiveness. For the second construct, Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model, theCronbach’sAlphaof theoriginal IBM studywasnot ashighas for theEmpAt scale in thevarious studies ithasbeenused in. Itwashoweverover the limitof0.7,which iswhat isconsidered“good”(Hairetal.,2007),foreachofthedimensions(Hofstede,2011)soitcanalsobeconsideredtobereliablewhenitcomestomeasuringculturaldifferences.

Validity Thevalidityofaconstructdealswithtowhatextentaconstructused inastudymeasureswhatitsetsouttomeasure(Hairetal.,2007).AccordingtoHairetal.(2007),validitycanbefurther divided into three parts, which should be controlled in order to make sure themeasurements made during the study are valid. These three parts are content validity,constructvalidityandcriterionvalidity.(Hairetal.,2007)Inordertocheckthecontentvalidityofascaleormeasureisdonebysystematicbutsubjectiveassessmentofthescalesabilitytomeasurewhatitsetsouttomeasure.Itcanbedonebyconsultingtypicalrespondentsofthestudyor experts and let themassess the scale in order to identifymissingor superfluouselementsandthesuitabilityofthescale ingeneral.Duringthisstudy,thiswasdoneintheformofapilotstudy,wherethequestionnaireincludingthescalesusedwasgiventoamixoftypicalrespondentsandpeopleoutsideofthetargetpopulationforfeedback.However,thefactthatthecontentisvalidisoftennotconsideredenoughtostatethatthemeasureisvalid,thereforetheothertwopartsofvalidityneedtobefulfilledaswell.(Hairetal.,2007)Thesecondpartofvalidityisconstructvalidity,whichassesseswhattheconstructisactuallymeasuring.Inordertocontrolthecontentvaliditytwocheckshavetobemade,convergentvalidityanddiscriminantvalidity.(Hairetal.,2007)Asopposedtocontentvalidity,theseareobjective numerical tests. Convergent validity measures to what extent the construct ispositively correlated to the other measures of the construct, and discriminant validitymeasures towhatextent theconstructdoesnot correlatewithothermeasureswhicharedifferentfromit.(Hairetal.,2007)Thefinalaspectofvalidityistheso-calledcriterionvalidity.Thisaspectmeasuresifaconstructperformsasexpectedcomparedtoothervariableswhichhavebeenidentifiedasmeaningful.Thewaytoestablishcriterionvalidityistodemonstratethatscoresobtainedfromthescaleareabletopredictscoresobtainedtheoreticaldependentvariable, theso-calledcriterionvariable. (Hairetal.,2007)Theconstructsusedduringthisstudyarewellestablishedandhavebeentestedandusednumeroustimesovertheyearsinamultitudeofdifferentstudiesandarethereforeconsideredtohavesufficientvaliditythatfurthertestsdonotneedtobemadeduringthisstudy.

32

Presentation & Analysis of Data In this chapter, the empirical data gathered during the study will be presented and thenanalysedusingthemodelsdescribedinthemethodologychapter.Thelayoutisasfollows,firsttherewillbeaprofilepresentingtherespondentsbasedoncollectedcontrolvariables.Thenthegeneralfindingsregardingemployerattractivenessandculturewillbepresentedbeforethecollecteddataisfurtheranalysedusingthestatisticalmethodsmentionedpreviously.

Respondent Profile Thisrespondentprofileisintendedtogiveaclearerviewoftherespondentswhoseanswersmakeupthedataofthestudy.Theprofilewillpresenthowtherespondentsansweredonnumberofcontrolvariablescollectedtogetherwiththemaindata,suchasgender,ageandfieldofstudy.Theprofilewillpresentboththedistributionswithinthetwocountriesaswellastheoveralltotaldistributionoftheentirestudy.Thefirstcontrolvariablewhichwascollectedisgender.Asshownintable5,outofthe247totalrespondentsaslightmajorityof131(53percent)werefemaleandaslightminorityof115(46.6percent)weremale.Therewasalsoonerespondentwhoselected“Other/None”whenaskedabout theirgender.Thisgenderdistributionseemstobewellbalancedwhichwouldmakethefindingsofthestudymorelikelytoberepresentativeforalargerpopulation.LookingatonlytheSwedishdata,thegapinthegenderdistributionisslightlylargerthaninthe total data. Here 54.6 percentwere female and 44.6 percentmale. It was also in theSwedish sample the person who selected “Other/None” can be found. Compared to theSwedishdatatheGermanwasmoreevenlybalanced.Herethedistributionisalmostequalasthedifferencebetweenmalesandfemalesisonlythreerespondents,infavouroffemale.AmoredetailedlookatthegenderdistributioncanbefoundinTable5below.Table5:GenderDistribution Total Sweden Germany

n Percent n Percent n Percent

Male 115 46.6 58 44.6 57 48.7

Female 131 53.0 71 54.6 60 51.3

Other/None 1 0.4 1 0.8 - -

Total 247 100 130 100 117 100

Thesecondcontrolvariablewhichwascollectedistheageoftherespondents.Asonemightexpectwhentherespondentsarestudentsthemajorityoftherespondentscanbefoundintheloweragebrackets,whichisalsothecaseinthisstudy.62percentoftherespondentsare

33

partofthe19-24bracket,withthemeanageoftheentiresamplebeing24.7yearsoldandthemedianagebeing24yearsold.TheagesrecordedfortheSwedishrespondentsareslightlyhigherthanthoseofthetotalsample.Thereisanabouttenpercentincreaseinthe25-30-year-oldbracketto37.7percent,andboththemeanandthemedianagesareexactlyoneyearhigherthanthoseofthetotalsample.AsopposedtotheSwedishsampletheGermansampleis younger thanboth the complete sampleand theSwedish sample.A vastmajority, 76.1percent,oftherespondentscanbefoundinthelowestagebracket,coveringtheages19to24yearsold.Lessthanonepercentofthesampleareabove37yearsofage.AllthedetailsregardingtheagedistributionofthesamplecanbefoundinTable6below.Table6:AgeDistribution Total Sweden Germany

n Percent n Percent n Percent

19-24 153 62.0 64 49.2 89 76.1

25-30 69 27.9 49 37.7 20 17.1

31-36 19 7.7 12 9.2 7 6.0

37 or older 6 2.4 5 3.9 1 0.8

Total 247 100 130 100 117 100

Mean 24.7 25.7 23.5

Median 24 25 23

Thefinalcontrolvariablecollectedduringthestudyiswhatfieldsofstudytherespondentsare involved in.Thedata showsa reasonablywide rangeof subjectscovered,butwithanemphasisonfourwhicharelargerthantherest.Thelargestoneisbusinessandeconomicsstudies,whichaccountsfor28.7percentofthetotalrespondents,followedbyengineering,computerscienceandhealthscience.AsshowninthetablebelowthesamefourmainfieldsofstudyrepresentedintheSwedishdata,allwith20percentormore.Itmakessensethatthesefieldsarepopularconsideringthenatureoftheuniversitywherethedatawascollectedwithitstechnologicalinfluence.TheGermanrespondentscoveredawiderrangeoffieldsofstudy,despitebeing fewer innumbers. The reason for thismightbe that studentsat twodifferentuniversitiesweresurveyed,openingupthepossibilityofawiderrangeofprogramstobeavailablecomparedtoatasingleuniversityaswasthecaseinSweden.Themostpopularchoicesarebusinessstudiesandengineering,whichtogetherrepresent58.1percentofthetotal,followedbyanumberofsmallerfields.AmoredetailedlookatthefieldsofstudyoftherespondentscanbefoundinTable7onthefollowingpage.

34

Table7:FieldsofStudy Total Sweden Germany

n Percent n Percent n Percent

Business & Economics 71 28.7 29 22.3 42 35.9

Engineering 52 21.1 26 20 26 22.2

Computer Science 42 17 34 26.2 8 6.9

Health Science 31 12.7 27 20.8 4 3.4

Educational Science 13 5.3 3 2.3 10 8.5

Geography 10 4 - - 10 8.5

Humanities 9 3.6 6 4.6 3 2.6

City Planning 5 2 - - 5 4.3

Media 5 2 5 3.8 - -

Art History 3 1.2 - - 3 2.6

Architecture 2 0.8 - - 2 1.7

Graphic Design 2 0.8 - - 2 1.7

Law 2 0.8 - - 2 1.7

Total 247 100 130 100 117 100

Employer Attractiveness Thewayemployerattractivenesswasmeasuredforthisstudywasbylettingtherespondentsfillintheemployerattractiveness(EmpAt)scaledevelopedbyBerthonetal.(2005).Thescaleconsistsof25itemswhichcouldhaveanimpactonhowattractiveapotentialfutureemployermightbe.Theitemsaredividedintofivefactorsbasedonthevaluetheitemshold,interest,social,economic,developmentorapplicationvalue.TheEmpAtscaleanditsitemsandfactorsaredescribedanddiscussedingreaterdepthintheLiteratureReviewchapterofthisthesis.Thewaytheimportanceofeachitemwhenitcomestomakinganemployerattractivewasmeasuredwasbyaskingtherespondentstogradeeachitembyhowimportanttheyconsiderittobewhenconsideringapotentialfutureemployee.ThegradingwasdoneusingasevenpointLikertscale,rangingfrom“Veryimportant”atsevento“Notatallimportant”atone.ThefindingswerethenputtogetherinTable8onthenextpage,wherethemeanandstandarddeviationforeachofthetwocountriessurveyedaswellasthetotalsamplecanbefoundforeachofthe25itemsaswellasforthefivefactors.

35

Table8:EmpAtScaleMean&StandardDeviation Total Sweden Germany

Mean

Std. Dev.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Interest Value 5.17 0.98 5.29 0.93 5.04 1.01

Working in an exciting environment 5.58 1.30 5.32 1.36 5.87 1.16

Innovative employer (forward-thinking) 5.02 1.35 5.05 1.28 4.97 1.42

The organisation produces innovative products and services

4.52 1.41 4.65 1.35 4.38 1.46

The organisation produces high-quality products and services

5.31 1.45 5.81 1.20 4.76 1.51

The organisation both values and makes use of creativity

5.49 1.31 5.62 1.12 5.34 1.48

Social Value 6.13 0.76 6.15 0.71 6.11 0.81

Having a good relationship with your superiors 5.87 0.89 5.98 0.92 5.74 0.83

Having a good relationship with your colleagues

6.29 1.00 6.30 0.78 6.27 1.20

Supportive and encouraging colleagues 6.27 0.89 6.35 0.83 6.19 0.95

Fun working environment 6.10 1.15 5.88 1.15 6.34 1.10

Happy working environment 6.13 1.13 6.24 0.96 6.01 1.29

Economic Value 5.31 0.89 5.21 0.92 5.42 0.86

Above average basic salary 5.10 1.36 5.37 1.29 4.80 1.38

Attractive overall compensation package 5.30 1.39 5.0 1.53 5.64 1.13

Job security within the organisation 5.90 1.13 5.98 1.01 5.82 1.25

Good promotion opportunities within the organisation

5.60 1.27 5.37 1.38 5.86 1.09

Hands-on inter-department experience 4.62 1.51 4.33 1.48 4.95 1.49

Development Value 5.27 0.80 5.45 0.75 5.07 0.82

Feeling good about yourself as a result of working for a particular organisation

5.13 1.42 5.45 1.37 4.76 1.40

36

Feeling more self-confident as a result of working for a particular organisation

4.68 1.47 5.00 1.29 4.32 1.57

Gaining career-enhancing experience 5.79 1.11 5.96 0.99 5.60 1.20

Recognition/appreciation from management 5.53 1.22 5.58 1.09 5.46 1.35

Springboard for future employment 5.23 1.12 5.25 0.92 5.22 1.31

Application Value 5.01 0.92 5.18 0.81 4.83 0.99

Humanitarian organisation (gives back to society)

4.62 1.68 4.84 1.53 4.38 1.80

Opportunity to apply what was learned at a tertiary institution

5.30 1.38 5.72 1.10 4.84 1.51

Opportunity to teach others what you have learned

4.71 1.41 4.78 1.35 4.62 1.48

Acceptance and belonging 5.86 1.06 5.93 1.04 5.78 1.08

The organisation is customer-oriented 4.58 1.52 4.62 1.51 4.53 1.52

TheoveralldatafrombothregionscombinedseemstoindicatethattheSocialvalue(6.13)isthemostimportantoutofthefivefactorsbyaratherclearmargin.ItisfollowedbyEconomic(5.31)andDevelopmentalvalue(5.27)whoareclosetogether,thenInterestvalue(5.17)andlastlyApplicationvalue(5.01).Lookingatthecountryspecificdatathesituationlooksabitdifferent.Germany’srankingofthefivefactorsmirrorsthatofthetotalsamplewhenitcomestotheorder,evenifthemeantendstobelower,exceptforEconomicvaluewhereitishigher.Sweden’s ranking looks a little different as it has Development value as the secondmostimportantfactor,followedbyInterestvalueinthirdplaceandEconomicvalueinfourthplace.Allfactorshavearelativelysimilarstandarddeviationatjustbelowone.ThefactorwiththelargeststandarddeviationisInterestvalue,andtheonewiththesmallestisSocialvalue,thisisthecaseforbothsetsofcountrydataaswellasthetotal.AtrendwhichcanbeobservedisthattheGermandatafeaturesalargerstandarddeviationforallfactorsexceptforEconomicvalue,whichisalsotheonlyfactorwheretheGermandatahadahighermeanforafactorthantheSwedishone.Asfortheseparateitemsconsideredtobethemostimportantwhenconsideringapotentialfuture employer therewas awide range covered. The item consideredmost important is“havingagoodrelationshipwithyourcolleagues”whichwasrated6.29byallrespondentscombined. It was followed by “Supporting and encouraging colleagues,” “Fun workingenvironment”and“happyworkingenvironment”whichallwererated6.10orabove,andallofwhichbelongtothefactorSocialvalue.TheHighestrateditemsoutsideofSocialvalueare“Jobsecuritywithintheorganisation”with5.90and“Acceptanceandbelonging”with5.86.Thelowestrateditemsare“Theorganisationproducesinnovativeproductsandservices”with

37

aratingof4.52and“Theorganisationbeingcustomer-oriented”withascoreof4.58.Whenitcomestodifferencesbetweenthecountriesinratingtheseparateitemsthesituationlooksrather similar, the top-rated items are the four within the Social value factormentionedpreviously.Onedifferenceoccurswhenlookingatthelowestrateditems,theSwedishonesmostly follow that of the total but for the German data the situation is a little different.“Feelingmoreself-confidentasaresultofworkingforaparticularorganisation”isthelowestrateditemwithintheGermandata(4.32)whilebeinganaveragerateditemintheSwedishdata (5.0). The most divisive item, or the item with the largest standard deviation, was“Humanitarianorganisation(givesbacktosociety)”whichhadastandarddeviationof1.68overall,1.53 inSwedenand1.80 inGermany.Thiswould indicate that the impactbeingahumanitarianorganisationhasonemployerattractivenessvariestoagreaterextentthananyoftheotheritemsbasedonthepersonsviewsofit.SincetheEmpAtscaleisanalreadyestablishedandusedscaletheresultscanbecomparedwithresultsfromotherstudies implementingit. InTable9below,thefindings, intermsofmeanvaluesfortheitemsandfactors,ofthisstudyarecomparedwiththefindingsofthestudyperformedbyBerthonetal.in2005.ThestudybyBerthonetal.(2005)tookplaceinAustraliaandalsousedastudentsample.Inaddition,itwasthestudyfromwhichtheEmpAtscalewasfirstdeveloped.Table9:EmpAtScaleMeanComparison

Mean -

Total

Mean -

Sweden

Mean -

Germany

Mean – Berthon

et. al (2005)

Interest Value 5.17 5.29 5.04 5.35 Working in an exciting environment 5.58 5.32 5.87 5.37 Innovative employer (forward-thinking) 5.02 5.05 4.97 5.31 The organisation produces innovative products and services

4.52 4.65 4.38 5.22

The organisation produces high-quality products and services

5.31 5.81 4.76 5.41

The organisation both values and makes use of creativity

5.49 5.62 5.34 5.45

Social Value 6.13 6.15 6.11 5.80 Having a good relationship with your superiors

5.87 5.98 5.74 5.66

Having a good relationship with your colleagues

6.29 6.30 6.27 5.92

Supportive and encouraging colleagues 6.27 6.35 6.19 5.65

38

Fun working environment 6.10 5.88 6.34 5.75 Happy working environment 6.13 6.24 6.01 6.01

Economic Value 5.31 5.21 5.42 5.78 Above average basic salary 5.10 5.37 4.80 5.97 Attractive overall compensation package 5.30 5.0 5.64 5.95 Job security within the organisation 5.90 5.98 5.82 5.75 Good promotion opportunities within the organisation

5.60 5.37 5.86 5.82

Hands-on inter-department experience 4.62 4.33 4.95 5.43

Development Value 5.27 5.45 5.07 5.69 Feeling good about yourself as a result of working for a particular organisation

5.13 5.45 4.76 5.69

Feeling more self-confident as a result of working for a particular organisation

4.68 5.00 4.32 5.72

Gaining career-enhancing experience 5.79 5.96 5.60 5.83 Recognition/appreciation from management 5.53 5.58 5.46 5.58 Springboard for future employment 5.23 5.25 5.22 5.62

Application Value 5.01 5.18 4.83 5.18 Humanitarian organisation (gives back to society)

4.62 4.84 4.38 5.00

Opportunity to apply what was learned at a tertiary institution

5.30 5.72 4.84 5.19

Opportunity to teach others what you have learned

4.71 4.78 4.62 4.85

Acceptance and belonging 5.86 5.93 5.78 5.63 The organisation is customer-oriented 4.58 4.62 4.53 5.24

ThereareafewmaindifferencesbetweenthefindingsofBerthonetal.(2005)inAustraliaandthoseofthisstudyinSwedenandGermany.Thefirstoneisthatoverallallofthefactors,exceptsocialvalue,andmostoftheitemsarevaluedhigherintheBerthondatathaninthefindingsofthisstudy.AseconddifferenceishowsimilarlythefactorsarevaluedintheBerthondata, the range from the most valued factor (Social value, 5.80) and the least valued(Applicationvalue,5.18)isonly0.62.Comparedwiththetotalsampleofthisstudytherangebetweenthemostandleastvaluedfactorisalmostdoublethatat1.12.

39

Afinalinterestingdifferencebetweenthetwosetsofdataisthatwhiletherespondentsinthe study by Berthon et al. (2005) overall seem to value most factors higher than therespondents in this study, there is one they value less. That factor is social value, whichalthoughitisthehighestratedfactorinbothsetsofdataitissignificantlyhigherratedinthedatacollectedduringthisstudy,6.13comparedwith5.80.ItwouldseemthattherespondentsoftheBerthonstudyhadhigherbutoverallquiteequalratingofwhatwouldbeimportanttothem,whiletherespondentsinthisstudyhadaloweroverallratingbutwithahigherpeakforsocialvalues.AsBerthonetal.(2005)andSivertzenetal.(2013),aswellastheauthorofthisthesishavepreviouslyspeculated,thesedifferencescouldbetheresultofculturaldifferencesbetweentherespondentsprovidingtheresearcherswiththedata.Thisissuewillhopefullybeclearedupfurtheraheadinthisthesiswhentheconceptofculturewillbebroughtintothemixandtherelationshipbetweenthetwoconceptswillbeexplained.

Cultural Dimensions Themainfunctionoftheculturaldimensionsistocomparetheculturalvaluesoftwoormorepopulations,mostcommonlyitisimplementedatanationallevelbycomparingtheoverallcultureofcountries.Ifonedisregardsthescoresgiventothecountriesintermsofanabsolutevalue,andinsteadlooksatthedistancebetweenthecountriesyoucangetaclearviewofhowtheculturesscorerelativetoeachother.Thisiswhatwasdonewiththeculturaldataduringthisstudy.TheculturalscoresofSwedenforeachdimensionwassetasthebasevalueandthewaytheGermanscoresdeviatedfromthosebasevalueswereindicated.ThisprocesswasconductedforboththeoriginaldimensionalscoresprovidedbyHofstede(1984;2011)aswellasthescoresfromthedatacollectedduringthisstudy.ThefindingshavebeensummarisedinTable10onthefollowingpage.Table10:CulturalDifferenceComparison Differences in

Hofstede data – Hofstede 1984 & 2011

Differences in data

from this study Individualism/Collectivism -4 -6 Power Distance +4 +9 Uncertainty Avoidance +36 +13 Masculinity/Femininity +61 -9 Long-/Short-Term Orientation +30 +26 Indulgence/Restraint -38 +14 ThefindingsregardingculturaldifferencesbetweenSwedenandGermanycorrespondswellwiththefindingsofHofstede(1984;2011)forthreeofthedimensions,itcorrespondsfairlywellforonedimensionanditdifferscompletelyfortwoofthesixdimensions.ThedimensionswherethefindingscorrespondwellareIndividualism/Collectivism,bothfoundGermanstobeslightlymorecollectivistic,PowerDistance,bothfoundGermanstobeslightlymoreaccepting

40

ofinequalitiesofpower,andLong-/Short-TermOrientation,wherebothfoundGermanstobesignificantlymorelong-termorientedthanSwedes.ThedimensionwherethefindingsofbothHofstede (1984;2011) and of this study were fairly close, but not as close as the threementionedpreviously,wasUncertaintyAvoidance.AccordingtotheHofstededataGermansare significantlymore interested in avoiding the uncertainties of the future than Swedes.However,according to the findingsof this study theyare stillmorekeenonavoiding thatuncertainty,butnotasmuchmoreastheHofstededatawouldindicate.Finally,thetwodimensionswherethedifferencesbetweenthetwosetsofdataareextremelylarge are the two highlighted in bold in the above table, Masculinity/Femininity andIndulgence/Restraint. Hofstede (1984;2011) found that Germany is a country wheremasculine cultural values aremuchmore prevalent than in Sweden, the differencewas astaggering61pointsona100-pointscale.However,thefindingsofthisstudyshowthatnotonly isthedifferencemuchsmaller, infactSwedenseemstovaluemasculinevaluesmorethanGermany.ThesituationisreversedforIndulgence/Restraint,theHofstededatafoundGermanstobesignificantlymorerestrainedthanSwedes,38pointsona100-pointscaletobeexact.However,thisstudyfoundthattheGermansrespondentsareslightlymoreindulgentthanSwedishones.It should be noted that the findings ofHofstede (1984;2011) are based on amuch largersample than the findings of this study, and are therefore more likely to be an accuraterepresentationofthepopulationsofthetwocountriesasawhole.Onethingwhichwouldfavour the findings of this study is that they aremore recent and are compiled from theresponsesofyoungerpeople,whichcouldbeshowingtrendsofwhichdirectiontheculturesareevolvingin.Foramorein-depthdescriptionofwhatthedifferentdimensionsentail,aswellasamoredetaileddescriptionofthedimensionalscoresforSwedenandGermanyfromHofstede(1984;2011),refertotheCultureportionoftheLiteratureReviewchapterofthisthesis.

Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’sAlphaisastatisticaltestwhichmeasuresthereliability,orconsistency,ofascale.Inthiscaseitmeasurestheinternalconsistency,meaninghowwelltheitemswithinascalemeasuresthesamethings.AccordingtoPallant(2010),itdoessobycorrelatingtheresponsestoquestionswitheachotherandmeasurestheconsistencyintheresponses.Thisanalysiscanberunbothonanentirescale,oronsmallersubgroupswithinthescale.(Pallant,2010)Thealphavalueisbetween0and1,andthecloseritistoonethehighertheinternalconsistencyofthescaleorgroupmeasuredis,andthereforealsothereliability.Thecut-offforwhatisanacceptable alpha valuewas deemed to be .650 for this study,which can be considered areasonablelevelforasocialsciencestudysuchasthis.TheresultsofthetestcanbefoundbelowinTable11.

41

Table11:Cronbach’sAlpha–EmpAtScale Cronbach’s Alpha (a)

Interest Value .742 Social Value .802 Economic Value .690 Development Value .677 Application Value .649 EmpAt Overall .856 AsshowninthetabletheoverallalphaoftheentireEmpAtscaleputtogetheris.856,whichindicatesthattheinternalconsistencyofthescaleishigh.Lookingathowwelltheitemswithintheindividualfactorsmeasurethesamethingtheresultsshowthatitisofvaryingstrength.ThefactorwiththehighestalphavalueisSocialValue,with.802itcanbesaidtohavegoodinternalconsistencyandreliability.SocialvalueisfollowedbyInterestValueandEconomicValue, who with scores of .742 and .690 have acceptable but not excellent internalconsistency.Specialconsiderationshadtobetakenforthefinaltwofactors.Atfirst,theydidnotreachtheacceptedlimitsetforthestudyat.650andbecauseofthisanitemhadtobeexcludedfromeach.DevelopmentValuestartedoutwithanalphaof.614,butaftertheitem“Recognition/appreciation frommanagement”wasexcludedthealpharoseto .677. In thecaseofApplicationValuethealphastartedoutat .647,andcouldbe increasedto .649byremovingtheitem“Acceptanceandbelonging”fromtheequation.Doingthisstilldidnothelpachievinganalphaof.650orabove,insteaditlandedjustunderneaththelimit.TheimpactofthisisthatthereliabilityoftheApplicationValuemightbeslightlylowerthanthatoftheotherfactors.Thelowerscorescouldalsobeduetothelownumberofitemswithinthefactors,atfiveeach,sincethealphavaluecantendtobelowerifthenumberofitemsislowerduetothewayitiscalculated(Pallant,2010).Unfortunately,inthisstudyCronbach’sAlphaisonlyavailableforthefactorsoftheEmployerAttractiveness scale, and not for the dimensions of culture. The reason for this is thataccording to Hofstede and Minkov (2013), Cronbach’s alpha cannot be used to test thereliabilityofthemeasurementwhenusingtheculturaldimensionsatanindividuallevel,asisthecasewiththisstudy.Itcanonlybeusedatacountrylevel,andthenonlyifatleasttencountriesareincludedinthesamplethestudyinquestionisusing.(Hofstede&Minkov,2013)Becauseofthisithasbeenexcludedfromthestudybutconsideringthepedigreeofthescaleandthemeasuringinstrumentitcanbeassumedtobeatleastatanacceptablelevel.

T-Test At-testisnormallymainlyusedinordertofindoutifdifferencesfoundbetweentwosetsofdataarestatisticallysignificant.AccordingtoPallant(2010),thereareafewdifferentversionsofT-testsavailable,andresearcherscanchoosewhichonetoimplementdependingonwhat

42

theywanttoachieveandhowtheirdatalooks.Theversionusedforthisstudyisaso-calledIndependentSamplest-test.Thiskindoftestisusedwhentheresearcherswanttotestthelikelihoodof the differences inmean foundbetween two independent samples being theresultofchance,orwhetherthedifferencesarestatisticallysignificant. (Pallant,2010)Thedifferenceisdeterminedtobesignificantifthesignificancelevelprovidedinfromthetestis.05 or lower. The size and the direction of difference between the two samples is thenindicatedbythet-value.(Pallant,2010)TheresultsoftheT-testfortheEmpAtscalefactorsandtheculturaldimensionscanbefoundinTable12.Table12:IndependentSamplesT-Test t Sig. (2-tailed) Interest Value -1.977 .049 Social Value -.409 .683 Economic Value 1.816 .071 Development Value -3.799 .000 Application Value -3.029 .003 Individualism/Collectivism -.765 .445 Power Distance 1.375 .170 Uncertainty Avoidance 1.640 .102 Masculinity/Femininity -1.084 .279 Long-/Short-Term Orientation 3.401 .001 Indulgence/Restraint 1.467 .144 Thedifferencesbetweenthesamplesisassumedtobesignificantwhenthep-valueis.05orbelow.AsshowninthetableabovethatisthecaseforthreeoftheEmpAtfactorsandforoneof the cultural dimensions. The three factors are Interest Value, Development Value andApplicationValue, and the cultural dimensionswhere thedifference is significant is Long-/Short-TermOrientation.Thelevelofsignificancefoundforthesefourfactorsmeansthatitishighlylikelythatthedifferencesinmeanscoresfoundforthefactorsduringthisstudyarealsosignificant.Basedonthet-valuesofthesignificantfactorsanddimensionswecanseethatthemeanishigherforSwedenforthefirstthree,sincethet-valueisnegative.However,themeanforLong-/Short-TermOrientation issignificantlyhigherfortheGermansideofthesample,since the t-value for this dimension is positive. The fact that thedifferences between thesamplesare foundtobestatistically significantandnotcausedbychance for someof thefactors and dimensions would seem to support the argument that there is a connectionbetweenemployerattractivenessandculturalvaluessincethatmightbewhatisbehindthesignificantdifferences.

Correlation AccordingtoPallant(2010)acorrelationtestisusedinordertodescribethestrengthandthedirectionof the relationshipbetween twovariables.Therearea fewdifferentmethodsof

43

analysing correlation, but themethod implemented in this study is the so-called Pearsoncorrelationcoefficient.(Pallant,2010)Pearsoncorrelationassignseachrelationshipavalue(r),andthisvaluecanrangefrom-1to1.Anegativevalueindicatesthatthecorrelationisnegative, meaning that when one of the variables in the equation increases the otherdecreases, and a positive value indicates the opposite, if one value increases so does theother,andtheotherwayaround.(Pallant,2010)Thestrengthofthecorrelationismeasuredbyhowclosether-valueisto1,regardlessifitisapositiveornegativecorrelation.Thecloserthevalueisto1,thestrongerthecorrelationisbetweenthetwovariables involved. Ifthevalueiseither1or-1thenthevalueofonevariablecouldbepredictedexactlybyknowingthevalueof thesecondvariable. (Pallant,2010) If r isbetween0and .10thenthere isnocorrelation,ifrinsteadisbetween.10and.29thereisasmallcorrelation,between.30and.49 it can be considered amedium correlation and if it is between .50 and 1 it is a largecorrelation.Thepreviouslystatedguidelinesarethesameregardlessofifthevalueinquestionispositiveornegative, thestrengthof thecorrelation is thesamebasedonthenumericalvalue.(Pallant,2010)Oneimportantthingtokeepinmindwhenimplementingcorrelationsinastudyistheissueofcorrelationversuscausality.Thefactofthematteristhatacorrelationonlyshowsthatarelationshipbetweentwovariablesexists,itdoesnotsaythatonevariablecausestheother.Itcouldverywellbethecasethatonevariablecausestheother,orthatthesecondoneisthecasualvariable.However,itcouldalsobethecasethatbothofthetestedvariablesareinfactcausedbyathird,unmeasuredvariable.(Pallant,2010)Duetothisfact,oneshouldalwaysbecarefulnotthelookatcorrelationsandthinkoftheoutcomesintermsofcausality.WiththisinmindaPearsoncorrelationcoefficientanalysiswasrunonthedatacollectedduringthisstudy.Thevariables thecorrelation testwas runonwere the five factorsof theemployerattractivenessscale,aswellasthesixdimensionsofHofstede’sculturalmodel.TheoutcomeofthetestcanbefoundonthenextpageinTable13.Table13:PearsonCorrelationBetweenEmpAtFactors&CulturalDimensions Interest

Value Social Value

Economic Value

Development Value

Application Value

Individualism/ Collectivism

.134* .165** -.239** -.203** .086

Power Distance .038 .175** -.102 -.063 .260** Uncertainty Avoidance

-.005 -.001 .060 .189** .017

Masculinity/ Femininity

.072 -.179** .332** .288** -.204**

Long-/Short-Term Orientation

-.157* -.070 .191** .033 -.190**

Indulgence/Restraint .052 .306** .103 -.048 .292**

44

Overallthecorrelationsbetweenthevariableswithinthissetofdatacanbesummarisedbysaying there is a mix of both positive and negative correlations, with a majority of thecorrelationsbeingso-calledsmallcorrelationswithanr-valuebetween.10and.29.Therearealsoafairnumberofinstancesoftherebeingnosignificantcorrelationbetweencertainsetsof variables, and a few where the correlation would be classified as a medium-strengthcorrelation.Allcorrelationswhichhaveanr-valueabove.10andarethereforesignificanthavebeenhighlightedinboldintheabovetable.One of themedium strength correlations is the correlation between Economic value andMasculinity/Femininity.Withapositivecorrelationof.332itisthestrongestcorrelationoftheentire set of data. The relationship between these two variables indicates that therespondentswhovaluetheeconomicaspectsoftheEmpAtscalealsotendtoscorehighly,ortowardsthemasculineside,ofthatdimension,andviceversa.Anotherinterestingcorrelationinvolving theMasculinity/Femininitydimension is theonebetween thatandDevelopmentvalue.Withanr-valueof.288itisacorrelationwhichisjustbelowthelineofbecomemedium-strength,anditshowsthattherespondentswhoplacedhighlytowardsthemasculineendofthe dimension valued developmental factors highly, and the other way around.Developmental value isa factor inwhich items suchas furtheringyour careerandgettingrecognitionwere thehighest valuedones.OverallMasculinity/Femininity seems tobe theculturaldimensionwhichhasthestrongestcorrelationswiththeEmpAtfactors.Aspreviouslymentionedithasonemediumcorrelation,andonewhichissmallbutontheedgeofmedium,aswellasafurthertwocorrelationsonthehigherendofthesmallrange,andonewithoutasignificant correlation. The correlations involving Masculinity/Femininity can be foundpresentedgraphicallyinFigure2onthenextpage.

45

Figure2:CorrelationsinvolvingMasculinity/FemininityThe second medium-strength correlation is the one between Social value andIndulgence/Restraint, which has an r-value of .306. This means that respondents whoansweredthattheyvaluesocialvalues,suchashavinggodrelationshipswithcolleaguesandhaving a happy and funwork environment, seems to bemore indulgent, and vice versa.AnothercorrelationwhichisjustonthevergeofbeingamediumisthecorrelationbetweenApplicationvalueandIndulgence/Restraintwithanr-valueof.292.Thiswouldmeanthattherespondentswhovalueitemssuchashumanitarianismandbeingabletoapplywhattheyhavelearnedalsotendtobemoreindulgent,andtheotherwayaround.ThestrongestnegativecorrelationistheonebetweenEconomicvalueandIndividualism/Collectivismat-.239.Thisnegative correlation means that the respondents who value the economic aspects of apotentialemployerofferhighly,interestinglytendstoscoremoretowardscollectivismonthisculturaldimensionandtheotherwayaround.AnotherinterestingnegativecorrelationisthecorrelationinvolvingDevelopmentalvaluesandonceagainIndividualism/Collectivism.Withanr-valueof-.203itisoneofthestrongestnegativecorrelationsfoundinthissetofdata,andlike the previously discussed correlation it shows a relatively strong negative relationshipconnectedwithIndividualism/Collectivism.

46

Regression Muchlikecorrelation,regressiondealswiththerelationshipbetweencertainvariables,butitdoessobyaddingafurtherlayerofcomplexityanddepthofanalysis.Whatsetsregressionapartfromcorrelationisthatinsteadofsimplylookingatthedirectionandstrengthoftherelationship between two variables it allows the researcher to look at the relationshipbetweenadependentandanindependentvariable.(Hairetal.,2007)Thedependentvariableisreferredtoasacriterionvariable,andtheindependentvariable,orvariables,isreferredtoas a predictor variable. The goal of the regression analysis is to find out what effect theindependentvariableorvariableshaveonthedependentvariable.(Pallant,2010)Dependingontheintentionsoftheresearcherandhisorherdatathereareafewdifferentmethodsofregressionanalysistochoosefrom.(Pallant,2010)Theversionofregressionimplementedinthisstudy istheso-called linearregression,andthefactorsoftheEmployerAttractivenessscaleweredependentvariablesandtheculturaldimensionsaswellashomecountryweretheindependentvariables.ThefirststepofthatmethodwastocheckthesignificanceleveloftherelationshipsandtheRsquarevalue,whichstateshowmuchofthevarianceinthedependentvariable the independent variables are responsible for. The results for the fivedependentvariablescanbefoundonthenextpageinTable14.Table14:ModelFitbyEmpAtFactor ANOVA

Sig. Adjusted R

Square Interest Value .014 .043 Social Value .000 .122 Economic Value .000 .240 Development Value .000 .183 Application Value .000 .210 AswiththeT-testthelevelwherearelationshipisconsideredstatisticallysignificantisifthescoreis.05orlower,andasisshowninthetableaboveallofthefactorsarebelowthesetlimitforsignificance.Aspreviouslymentioned,Rsquare,alsoreferredtoasR2or“coefficientof determination,” explains how much of the variance in the dependent variable theindependentvariablesareresponsiblefor.Inthecasetheresultsarevaried.Forexample,only4.3 percent of the variance in Interest Value can be explained by changes in the culturaldimensionsandhomecountry,while24percentofthevarianceinEconomicValueand21percentofthevarianceinApplicationValuecanbeexplainedthesameway.Thenext stepof the regressionanalysisprocess is to lookat thecoefficientsbetween thedependent variables and the independent variables. This includes taking two values intoconsideration. The first one is if the effect an independent variable has on a dependentvariableissignificantornot,andlikementionedabovearelationshipisconsideredstatisticallysignificantifthe“sig.”valueisequaltoorlowerthan.05.(Pallant,2010)Thesecondoneis

47

the so-called standardised coefficient beta, which shows the strength of the effect theindependentvaluehasonthedependentvalue.LikewiththePearsoncorrelationcoefficientusedpreviously,itcanbeeitherpositiveornegativedependingoniftheindependentvariablehasapositiveornegativeimpactonthedependentvariable,andthelargerthevalueofbetais,whetherpositiveornegative,thelargertheeffectoftheindependentvariableis.(Pallant,2010)Theresultsof theanalysiscanbefound inTable15onthefollowingpage,withthedependentvariablesfoundhorizontallyacrossthetopandtheindependentvariablesfoundverticallyalongtheside.Table15:RegressionCoefficients

Interest Value

Social Value

Economic Value

Development Value

Application Value

Individualism/ Collectivism

Beta .166 .079 -.231 -.153 -.026

Sig. . 016 .231 .000 .016 .679

Power Distance

Beta .047 .064 -.082 -.016 .178

Sig. .485 .318 .171 .794 .004

Uncertainty Avoidance

Beta .083 .186 .064 .227 . 204

Sig. .258 .009 .330 .001 .002

Masculinity/ Femininity

Beta .124 -.092 .318 .247 -.127

Sig. .065 .152 .000 .000 .037

Long-/Short-Term Orientation

Beta -.158 .002 .248 .080 -.098

Sig. .021 .977 .000 . 206 .115

Indulgence/ Restraint

Beta .022 .340 .355 .207 .319

Sig. .777 .000 .000 .004 .000

Country Beta .090 .086 -.040 .285 .246

Sig. .173 .172 .495 .000 .000

Asshowninthetabletherearequiteafewcoefficientswhicharestatisticallysignificant,andtheyarehighlightedinboldinordertomakeiteasiertoreadandinterpret.Lookingatthetable we can see that Individualism has a significant effect on three of the dependentvariables,Interest,EconomicandDevelopmentValue.Ithasanegativeimpactonthelattertwovariables,whilehavingapositiveimpactonInterestValue.TheeffectithasonInterestandDevelopmentValueisratherlimitedasthebetavaluesforthesefactorsarequitelow,butsincethebetavalueforEconomicValue isabithigher,the impact ithasonEconomic

48

Valueisalsoslightlyhigher.ThenextindependentvariableisPowerDistance,anditonlyhasasignificant impactononeofthedependentvariables,ApplicationValue. Ithasapositivecoefficient,butaswiththeInterestandDevelopmentvaluepreviouslyithasaratherlimitedimpact,withabetaof.178.UncertaintyAvoidanceontheotherhandhasasignificantimpactonthreeofthefivedependentvariables.ThosethreeareSocialValue,DevelopmentValueandApplicationValue,andall threeofthecoefficientsarepositiveandroughlyaverage instrengthintermsoftheonesfoundinthisstudy.TheimpactMasculinity/FemininityhasonEconomicValueisoneofthestrongeronesofthestudywithabetavalueof.318,meaningthatforeveryincreaseof1inMasculinity,EconomicValuewill increasewith .318. Italsohasan impactontwofurthervariables,DevelopmentValue and Application Value. The impact on Development Value is slightly lower than onEconomicValue,whilestillremainingquitehigh,andtheimpactonApplicationvalueisthelowest significant impact found in this study with a beta of -.127. Long-/Short-TermOrientationhasasignificantimpactontwooftheEmpAtfactors,InterestValueandEconomicValue. Ithasanegativeandquitesmalleffecton InterestValue,whilehavinga largerandpositiveeffectonEconomicValue.Thereisnodoubtthattheindependentvariablewiththelargestamountofinfluence,onthelargestnumberofdependentvariablesisIndulgence/Restraint.Ithasasignificantinfluenceonfourofthefivedependentvariables,allexceptInterestValue.Ontopofthatitalsofeaturesthethreestrongestcoefficientsfoundinthisstudy,.355withEconomicValue,.340withSocialValueand.319withApplicationValue. ItfurtherhasanimpactonDevelopmentValuebutwithabetaof.207itisnotquiteasstrongofanimpactasithasontheotherthreefactors.Thefinalindependentvariableusedforthisregressionanalysiswasthehomecountryoftherespondent. This variable has a significant impact on two of the dependent variables,DevelopmentValueandApplicationValue.Bothof thesignificantcoefficientsarepositive,andbotharerelativelystrongwithbetasof.285and.246.Thismeansthatthecountrycodedwithaoneintheanalysis,whichinthiscaseisSweden,hasasignificantpositiveimpactonthesetwofactors.

49

Findings & Conclusions Thischapterwillfeaturethefindingsofthestudyandtheconclusionsreachedbycomparingthosefindingstotherelevanttheoryforeachresearchproposition.Possiblelimitationsofthestudyaswellasimplicationsitmighthavefortheory,practitionerswillalsobediscussedandrecommendationsforfutureresearchwillbegiven.

Research Proposition 1 Inordertofindoutifthefirstresearchproposition,“Thereisaconnectionbetweenemployerattractivenessandculture,”istrueornotacorrelationanalysiswasperformedonthedatacollectedduringthestudy.Theanalysisjudgesthestrengthoftherelationshipbetweentwovariables,aswellasifitisapositiveornegativerelationship.SincetheanalysiswasconductedonthefivefactorsoftheEmployerAttractivenessscaleandthesixculturaldimensionstherewere30correlationsintotal.Outofthose30correlations18werefoundtobestrongenoughtobeconsideredsignificant,whilethe12remainingoneswerenot.ThestrongestcorrelationfoundinthedatawastheonebetweenMasculinity/FemininityandEconomicValue,withanr-valueof.332whichmakesitamediumstrengthcorrelation.OverallMasculinity/FemininitywastheculturaldimensionwhichsharedthestrongestconnectionswiththeEmpAtfactors,anditwassignificantlycorrelatedwithallofthemexceptforInterestValue.Individualism/Collectivismalsosharedasignificantcorrelationwithfourofthefactors,althoughtheywereslightly weaker than those of Masculinity/Femininity. The strongest and most interestingcorrelationsfoundinthisstudycanbefoundsummarisedinFigure3below.

Figure3:SelectedCorrelations

50

Connectingthefindingsofthecorrelationanalysisbacktothelogicalconnectionsbetweenthe EmpAt factors and the cultural dimensionsmade at the end of the Literature reviewchaptertheresultsaremixed.Outofthesevenproposedpossibleconnectionsstatedthere,fouraresupportedbytheactualfindings.ThesearetheconnectionsbetweenMasculinityandEconomicValue,FemininityandSocialValue,FemininityandApplicationValue,aswellastheonebetweenIndulgenceandSocialValue.Threeofthefourcorrectlypredictedconnectionsare connected to theMasculinity/Femininity dimension of culture, which would seem toindicateitisareliablepredictor.Intwoofthethreecaseswherethedatadidnosupportthepredictions no significant correlation was found either direction, but in the case of theconnectionbetweenIndividualismandDevelopmentValuetheoppositeofthepredictionwasfoundwhenperformingtheanalysis.Tosumup,basedonresultsofthecorrelationanalysisperformedonthedatacollectedduringthis study it can be concluded that there appears to be a connection between employerattractiveness and culture. It is not the case that all aspects of employer attractivenesscorrelateperfectlywithallaspectsofculture,butsinceamajorityorthecorrelationsfoundwithinthedataaresignificantthereisenoughsupporttoclaimthataconnectionbetweenthe twoexists.Due to this it canbe stated that the first researchproposition, “There is aconnectionbetweenemployerattractivenessandculture,”canbeconfirmed.

Research Proposition 2 Thegoalofthesecondresearchpropositionwastofindoutwhetherornotculturehasanimpact on what a person perceives as an attractive employer. In order to answer thatquestionsregressionanalysiswasimplemented.Regressionanalysisshowstheimpactoneormoreindependentvariables,inthiscasethesixdimensionsofcultureandthehomecountryof the respondent, has on a dependent variable, in this case the factors of the EmployerAttractivenessscale.Astherewerefivedependentvariablesandsevenindependentvariablesincludedintheregressionanalysistherewasatotalof35separatecoefficientsprovidingtheamountof impacteach independentvariablehasonthedependentones.Outofthose35coefficients,18werestatisticallysignificantwhiletheremaining17werenot.TheseeminglymostinfluentialoftheindependentvariableswasIndulgence/Restraint,whichwasfoundtohavearelativelylargeimpactonfouroutofthefiveEmpAtfactors.OntheotherendofthespectrumwasPowerDistance,whichonlyhadasignificantimpactononeofthedependentvariables,ApplicationValue,inadditionitwasoneoftheweakersignificantimpactsobservedinthestudy.Inpractise,thefindingsoftheregressionanalysiswouldindicatethatifanorganisationwantsto attract employees in or from a region where the cultural values associated with highIndulgenceareprevalent,theyshouldfocusonconveyingattributesassociatedwithSocial,EconomicandApplicationValueinordertohavethebestchanceofattractingtalent.Ifthey

51

insteadwanttoattractpeopleinorfromaregionwithstrongmasculineculturalvaluesthefocusshouldbeonsignallingaspectsofEconomicValueandDevelopmentValue.AccordingtothefindingsofthestudythesameistrueforpeoplewhoareonthecollectivistendoftheIndividualism/Collectivism dimension, and so on. The inclusion of the respondents’ homecountryintheregressionanalysistellsusthat,accordingtothisstudy,SwedesvalueaspectscoveredbyDevelopmentValueandApplicationValuemorethanGermansdo.Insummation,withthehelpofregressionanalysisaclearpictureoftheimpactculturehasonperceived employer attractiveness has been provided. As with the outcome of the firstresearchproposition,notalloftheculturaldimensionshaveasignificantimpactonalloftheemployerattractivenessfactors.However,intheendthereareenoughcaseswhereaculturaldimensionhasasignificantenough impactononeormoreof theemployerattractivenessfactorsthatitcanbesafelystatedthat,accordingtothisstudy,culturedoeshaveanimpactonhowoneperceivestheattractivenessofapotentialemployer.Thus,confirmingthesecondresearchpropositionofthestudyaswell.

Limitations Veryfewstudiesareperfect,mostcontainsomeaspectswhichmightholdthembackorwhichcouldaffecttheoutcome,andthisstudyisnodifferent.Oneissuewhichkeptthestudyfrombeingasgoodasitcouldhavebeenwerelimitationsontimeaswellaslimitedresources.Oneareawhichthatdirectlyinfluencedwasthesampleselection,ifnosuchlimitationsexistedalargersample,andonethatwasprobabilitybased,couldhavebeenusedandthe findingswould have been more representative. The limited time also resulted in self-completionquestionnairesbeingused,whichresultinlossofcontrolfortheresearcherandopensupforbiases.Itcouldalsobeconsideredalimitationthatthecountrieschosenforthisstudyaretoosimilarculturallytoseethefulleffectsculturehasonemployerattractiveness.However,thiscouldalsobeastrengthbecauseifaconnectioncanbefoundbetweenthesetwothenitcanbeassumedtoexistbetweenmoreculturallydistantcountriesaswell.

Implications for Practitioners Themainimplicationthisstudyhasforpractitionersisitcanhelpbenefitthoseworkingonincreasing their employer attractiveness, or changing their branding strategies in order tobetterbeabletoattracttalentedhumancapitaltotheirorganisation.Withthehelpoftheresultsofthisstudy,anorganisationnowhasabetterideahowtheyshouldtrytoadapttheperception of themselves in order to appear as amore attractive employer to universitystudents within the two countries of the study. With the connection between culturaldimensions and employer attractiveness, organisations outside of these countries, ororganisationswantingtoattracttalentfromoutsidethesecountriescouldalsousethisstudytobenefitthem.Duetotheimpactaperson’sculturehasonwhattheyfindattractiveinapotentialemployeranorganisationcouldaltertheirimageandtheirvaluesinordertomatch

52

thoseofthepeopleintheregionwheretheyaretryingtoattractpeople.Thismoretargetedapproachshouldintheorybemoresuccessfulthanblindlyattemptingtoattracttalentedandfittingemployeestoyourorganisation.Thefindingsofthestudyarealsoparticularlyrelevantformultinationalorganisations.Thereasonforthisisthatmultinationalorganisationsarebydefinitionmoreinvolvedwithpeoplefromdifferentculturesandwhoholddifferentculturalvalues,duetothisitisimportantforthemtoknowtheimpactthosevalueshaveonsomethinglikeemployerattractivenessinordertobeabletooperateinamoreefficientmanner.

Implications for Theory Theimplicationsthisstudyhasontheoryisthreefold.Firstly,itexpandstheresearchavailableonemployerbrandingandemployerattractivenessbyaddingnewandcurrentdatafromtwocountriestothepoolofdataavailableusingtheEmpAtscale.Thesecondimplicationisthatthe study helps add new cultural dimension data for Sweden and Germany, covering ayoungersegmentwhichcould indicatechanges inculturalvaluesandtrends.Thefinalandperhapsmost important and significant implicationof this study is that it is, as far as theauthor knows, a first attempt to examine and explain the apparent connection betweenemployerattractivenessandculture.Lookingathowtheemployerattractivenessstrategiesan organisationmight want to implement and the cultural values of the future potentialemployees’organisationsarelookingtoattractcometogether.Thiswillhopefullybeafirststepwhichopensupthefieldformoreresearcherstocontinuetoconductstudiesandfurtherexpandourknowledgeinthearea.Theauthorsrecommendationsforfurtherresearchcanbefoundinthefollowingsectionofthechapter.

Recommendations for Future Research Aspreviouslystatedthisstudycanbeseenasa firststepwhen itcomestoexplainingtheconnectionbetweenemployerattractivenessandcultureandculturalvalues.Itisbynomeansastudywhichcapturesallthereistocaptureorsaysallthereistosayregardingthistopic,sothereisadefiniteneedforfurtherresearchwithintheareainordertofurtherourknowledge.SomethingIwouldliketoseewhichwouldhelpachievingthisisalargerstudywithmoretimeandresourcesavailablewhichcouldexpandthescaleandscopebylookingatlargersampleswithinalargernumberofcountries.Thenpreferablycountriescoveringawiderculturalrangethan the two countries represented in this study. It would also be interesting to see aqualitativestudy lookingat thereasonswhypeoplevaluecertain thingswhen itcomes toemployer attractiveness, and then perhaps overlay that with findings in culture andpsychologyresearch.Aswithmostresearchregardingemployerattractiveness,thisstudyuseduniversitystudentsasitstargetpopulation.Whileitisrelevantandinterestingpopulationtosurveyinthiscaseitwouldbe interesting to seea similar studyconductedwithadifferentpopulation,namelypeople who are already working fulltime. It would be interesting to see if what attracts

53

studentstoapotentialemployercorrespondswithwhatattractssomeonewhohasalreadyhad significant experience, say five to ten years, of working when it comes to changingemployer. Another suggestion for a future study is to instead of focusing on attractingemployees,tofocusonretainingemployees.Liketheprevioussuggestionthiswouldhavetobedonewithanon-studentsample,andlikethisstudyitwouldbeinterestingtocomparethefindingsacrossculturessinceculturalvalueswillalmostdefinitelyhaveanimpactonthataswell.

54

References Aguinis,H.,Gottfredson,R.K.,&Joo,H.(2012).UsingPerformanceManagementtoWintheTalentWar.BusinessHorizons,55,609-616.

Alnıaçık, E., Alnıaçık,U., Erat, S.,&Akçin, K. (2014).Attracting TalentedEmployees to theCompany: Do We Need Different Employer Branding Strategies in Different Cultures?Procedia-SocialandBehavioralSciences.150,336-344

Ambler,T.,&Barrow,S. (1996).TheEmployerBrand. JournalofBrandManagement,4(3),185-206.

Arachchige, B. H., & Robertson, A. (2011). Business Student Perceptions of a PreferredEmployer: A Study Identifying Determinants of Employer Branding. IUP Journal of BrandManagement,8(3),25-46.

Backhaus,K.,&Tikoo,S.(2004).ConceptualizingandResearchingEmployerBranding.CareerDevelopmentInternational,9(5),501-517.

Berthon,P.,Ewing,M.,&Hah,L.L.(2005).CaptivatingCompany:DimensionsofAttractivenessinEmployerBranding.InternationalJournalofAdvertising,24(2),151-172.

Bendaraviciene,R.,Krikstolaitis,R.,&Turauskas,L. (2013).ExploringEmployerBrandingtoEnhanceDistinctivenessinHigherEducation.EuropeanScientificJournal,9(19),45-78Bhattacharya,C.B.,Sen,S.,&Korschun,D.(2008).UsingCorporateSocialResponsibilitytoWintheWarforTalent.MITSloanManagementReview,49(2),37-44.

Bonaiuto,M.,DeDominicis,S.,Illia,L.,Rodríguez-Cánovas,B.,&Lizzani,G.(2013).ManagingEmployerBrandAttributestoAttractPotentialFutureLeaders.JournalofBrandManagement,20(9),779-792.

Cascio,W.F.(2014).LeveragingEmployerBranding,PerformanceManagementandHumanResource Development to Enhance Employee Retention. Human Resource DevelopmentInternational,17(2),121-128.

Ehrhart,M.G.,Schneider,B.,&Macey,W.H.(2014).OrganizationalClimateandCulture:AnIntroductiontoTheory,Research,andPractice.NewYork,Routledge/Taylor&FrancisGroup.

Foscht,T.,MalolesIII,C.,Swoboda,B.,Morschett,D.,&Sinha,I.(2008).TheImpactofCultureonBrandPerceptions:ASix-NationStudy.JournalofProduct&BrandManagement,17(3),131-142.

Gardner,T.M.(2002).IntheTrenchesattheTalentWars:CompetitiveInteractionforScarceHumanResources.HumanResourceManagement,41(2),225.

55

Glasscock, S., & Gram, K. (1995). Winning Ways: Establishing an Effective WorkplaceRecognitionSystem.NationalProductivityReview(Wiley),14(3),91-102.

Gomes, D., & Neves, J. (2011). Organizational Attractiveness and Prospective Applicants'IntentionstoApply.PersonnelReview,40(6),684-699.

Hair, J. F.,Money,A.H., Samouel, P.,&Page,M. (2007). ResearchMethods forBusiness.Chichester:JohnWileyandSons.

Hili, A., Lahmandi-Ayed, R., & Lasram, H. (2016). Differentiation, Labor Market andGlobalization.JournalofInternationalTrade&EconomicDevelopment,25(6),809-833.

Hofstede,G.(1984).CulturalDimensionsinManagementandPlanning.AsiaPacificJournalofManagement,1(2),81-99.

Hofstede, G. (2002). Dimensions Do Not Exist: A Reply to Brendan McSweeney. HumanRelations,55(11),1355-1361.

Hofstede,G.H.,Hofstede,G.J.,&Minkov,M.(2010).Culturesandorganizations:Softwareofthemind.Maidenhead:McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. OnlineReadingsinPsychologyandCulture,2(1).

Hofstede, G. & Minkov, M. (2013). Value Survey Module 2013 – Manual, Available at:https://geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/vsm-2013/(accessedMay14,2018)

Klimkiewicz,K.,&Oltra,V.(2017).DoesCSREnhanceEmployerAttractiveness?TheRoleofMillennial Job Seekers' Attitudes. Corporate Social Responsibility & EnvironmentalManagement,24(5),449-463Lievens,F.,&Highhouse,S.(2003).TheRelationofInstrumentalandSymbolicAttributestoaCompany’sAttractivenessasanEmployer.PersonnelPsychology,56(1),75-102.Lievens,F.(2007).EmployerBrandingintheBelgianArmy:TheImportanceofInstrumentaland Symbolic Beliefs for Potential Applicants, Actual Applicants, and Military Employees.HumanResourceManagement,46(1),51-69McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's Model of National Cultural Differences and TheirConsequences:ATriumphofFaith—aFailureofAnalysis.HumanRelations,55(1),89-118.

Morling,B.,&Lamoreaux,M.(2008).MeasuringCultureOutsidetheHead:AMeta-Analysisof Individualism-Collectivism in Cultural Products. Personality & Social Psychology Review(SagePublicationsInc.),12(3),199-221

56

Nagpal,G.(2013).TalentEconomics:TheFineLineBetweenWinningandLosingtheGlobalWarforTalent.London:KoganPage.

Pallant,J.(2010).SPSSSurvivalManual:AStepbyStepGuidetoDataAnalysisUsingSPSS,4thEdition,England:McGraw-HillInternational.

Petruzzella, F., Salvi, A., & Giakoumelou, A. (2017). The Impact of National Culture onCorporateEnvironmentalPerformance:HowMuchDoesYourOriginSayAboutHowGreenYouAre?.JournalofEnvironmentalSustainability,5(1),1-25.

Rampl,L.V. (2014).HowtoBecomeanEmployerofChoice:TransformingEmployerBrandAssociations intoEmployerFirst-ChoiceBrands. JournalofMarketingManagement,30(13-14),1486-1504.

Reis,G.G.,&Braga,B.M.(2016).EmployerAttractivenessfromaGenerationalPerspective:ImplicationsforEmployerBranding.RevistaDeAdministração,51(1),103-116Roy,S.K.(2008). IdentifyingtheDimensionsofAttractivenessofanEmployerBrandintheIndianContext.SouthAsianJournalofManagement,15(4),110-130.

Rozen-Bakher,Z.(2018)HowDoestheDimensionsofHofstede’sNationalCulturalInfluenceCross-BorderM&AsSuccess?,TransnationalCorporationsReview,1-16

Santangelo,G.,&Meyer,K.(2017).InternationalizationasanEvolutionaryProcess.JournalofInternationalBusinessStudies,48(9),1114–1130.

Saunders,M.,Lewis,P.&Thornhill,A.(2012),ResearchMethodsforBusinessStudents,6thEdition,England:PearsonEducationLimited

Saunders,M.,Lewis,P.&Thornhill,A.(2016),ResearchMethodsforBusinessStudents,7thEdition,England:PearsonEducationLimited

Schwartz,ShalomH.(1992).Universals intheContentandStructureofValues:TheoreticalAdvancesandEmpiricalTestsin20Countries.AdvancesinExperimentalPsychology,25,1–65.Schwartz, ShalomH. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values.OnlineReadingsinPsychologyandCulture.2(1),1-20Sivertzen, A., Nilsen, E. R., & Olafsen, A. H. (2013). Employer Branding: EmployerAttractivenessandtheUseofSocialMedia.JournalofProduct&BrandManagement,22(7),473-483.

Soares,A.M.,Farhangmehr,M.,&Shoham,A.(2007).Hofstede'sDimensionsofCultureinInternationalMarketingStudies.JournalofBusinessResearch,60(3),277-284.

57

Sohn,M.,Sohn,W.,Klaas-Wissing,T.,&Hirsch,B.(2015).TheInfluenceofCorporateSocialPerformanceonEmployerAttractivenessintheTransportandLogisticsIndustry.InternationalJournalofPhysicalDistribution&LogisticsManagement,45(5),486-505.

Sommer, L. P., Heidenreich, S., & Handrich, M. (2017). War for Talents-How PerceivedOrganizational Innovativeness Affects Employer Attractiveness. R&D Management, 47(2),299-310Stahl,G.K.,Miska,C.,Lee,H.,&DeLuque,M.S.(2017).TheUpsideofCulturalDifferences.CrossCultural&StrategicManagement,24(1),2-12Sullivan,J.(2004),“EightElementsofaSuccessfulEmploymentBrand”,ERDaily,Availableat:https://www.ere.net/the-8-elements-of-a-successful-employment-brand/ (accessedJanuary24,2018)

Teoh,S.,&Yazdanifard,R.(2015).GlobalizationofRetailingandRelatedCross-CulturalIssues.InternationalJournalofManagement,Accounting&Economics,2(9),1088-1109.

The Economist (2008) Guru – Geert Hofstede, Available at: http://www.economist.com/(accessedFebruary21,2018)

Triandis, H. C. (1982). Dimensions of Cultural Variation as Parameters of OrganizationalTheories.InternationalStudiesofManagement&Organization,12(4),139-169.Wilden,R.,Gudergan,S.,&Lings,I.(2010).EmployerBranding:StrategicImplicationsforStaffRecruitment.JournalofMarketingManagement,26(1-2),56-73.Wu,M. (2006).Hofstede'sCulturalDimensions30Years Later:AStudyofTaiwanand theUnitedStates.InterculturalCommunicationStudies.15.33-42

Appendices Appendix A – Questionnaire Elements EmployerAttractivenessScaleHowimportanttoyouarethefollowingwhenconsideringapotentialfutureemployer? 1=Notatallimportant,…,7=Veryimportant• Working in an exciting environment • Innovative employer (forward-thinking) • The organisation produces innovative products and services • The organisation produces high-quality products and services • The organisation both values and makes use of creativity • Having a good relationship with your superiors • Having a good relationship with your colleagues • Supportive and encouraging colleagues • Fun working environment • Happy working environment • Above average basic salary • Attractive overall compensation package • Job security within the organisation • Good promotion opportunities within the organisation • Hands-on inter-department experience • Feeling good about yourself as a result of working for a particular organisation • Feeling more self-confident as a result of working for a particular organisation • Gaining career-enhancing experience • Recognition/appreciation from management • Springboard for future employment • Humanitarian organisation (gives back to society) • Opportunity to apply what was learned at a tertiary institution • Opportunity to teach others what you have learned • Acceptance and belonging • The organisation is customer-oriented

CulturalDimensionsPleasethinkofanidealjob,disregardingyourpresentjob,ifyouhaveone.Inchoosinganidealjob,howimportantwoulditbetoyouto...

1=ofutmostimportance2=veryimportant

3=ofmoderateimportance4=oflittleimportance5=ofverylittleornoimportance

01.havesufficienttimeforyourpersonalorhomelife 02.haveaboss(directsuperior)youcanrespect 03.getrecognitionforgoodperformance 04.havesecurityofemployment 05.havepleasantpeopletoworkwith 06.doworkthatisinteresting 07.beconsultedbyyourbossindecisionsinvolvingyourwork 08.liveinadesirablearea 09.haveajobrespectedbyyourfamilyandfriends 10.havechancesforpromotion Inyourprivatelife,howimportantiseachofthefollowingtoyou:

1=ofutmostimportance2=veryimportant3=ofmoderateimportance4=oflittleimportance5=ofverylittleornoimportance

11.keepingtimefreeforfun 12.moderation:havingfewdesires 13.doingaservicetoafriend 14.thrift(notspendingmorethanneeded) 15.Howoftendoyoufeelnervousortense?

1.always2.usually3.sometimes4.seldom5.never16.Areyouahappyperson?

1.always2.usually3.sometimes4.seldom5.never17.Dootherpeopleorcircumstanceseverpreventyoufromdoingwhatyoureallywantto?

1.yes,always2.yes,usually3.sometimes4.no,seldom5.no,never18.Allinall,howwouldyoudescribeyourstateofhealththesedays?

1.verygood2.good3.fair4.poor5.verypoor

19.Howproudareyoutobeacitizenofyourcountry?1.veryproud2.fairlyproud3.somewhatproud4.notveryproud5.notproudatall

20.Howoften,inyourexperience,aresubordinatesafraidtocontradicttheirboss(orstudentstheirteacher?)

1.never2.seldom3.sometimes4.usually5.AlwaysTowhatextentdoyouagreeordisagreewitheachofthefollowingstatements?

1=stronglyagree2=agree3=undecided4=disagree5=stronglydisagree

21.Onecanbeagoodmanagerwithouthavingapreciseanswertoeveryquestionthatasubordinatemayraiseabouthisorherwork 22.Persistenteffortsarethesurestwaytoresults 23.Anorganizationstructureinwhichcertainsubordinateshavetwobossesshouldbeavoidedatallcost 24.Acompany'sororganization'srulesshouldnotbebroken-notevenwhentheemployeethinksbreakingtherulewouldbeintheorganization'sbestinterest

Demographics• Age • Gender • Field of Study