Employer Ratings through Crowdsourcing on Social Media: An Examination of U.S. Fortune 500 Companies
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Crowdsourced Employer Ratings and Employee Recommendations of an Employer as an Employer of Choice
2.2. Specific Employer Ratings and Overall Employer Ratings through Crowdsourcing
2.3. U.S. Fortune 500 Ranking and Crowdsourced Employer Ratings on Glassdoor
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Data Source and Collection
3.1.1. Fortune Rankings
3.1.2. Crowdsourced Employer Ratings
3.1.3. Crowdsourced Employee Comments
3.2. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Crowdsourced Employer Ratings by Industry
4.2. Number of Reviews and Crowdsourced Employer Ratings
4.3. Crowdsourced Employer Ratings and Recommend to a Friend
4.4. Specific Employer Ratings and Overall Employer Rating through Crowdsourcing
4.5. The Fortune 500 Ranking and Overall Crowdsourced Employer Ratings
4.6. Popular Pros and Cons of Working with an Employer
5. Discussion and Conclusions
5.1. Key Findings
5.2. Practical Implications
5.3. Research Limitations and Implications
5.4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ambler, T.; Barrow, S. The employer brand. J. Brand Manag. 1996, 4, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berthon, P.; Ewing, M.; Hah, L.L. Captivating company: Dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding. Int. J. Advert. 2005, 24, 151–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kashive, N.; Khanna, V.T.; Bharthi, M.N. Employer branding through crowdsourcing: Understanding the sentiments of employees. J. Indian Bus. Res. 2020, 12, 93–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kargas, A.; Tsokos, A. Employer branding implementation and human resource management in Greek telecommunication industry. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gehrels, S. Sustainability and employer branding. In Employer Branding for the Hospitality and Tourism Industry: Finding and Keeping Talent; Gehrels, S., Ed.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Howard House, UK, 2019; pp. 31–42. [Google Scholar]
- Hadi, N.U.; Ahmed, S. Role of employer branding dimensions on employee retention: Evidence from educational sector. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- App, S.; Büttgen, M. Lasting footprints of the employer brand: Can sustainable HRM lead to brand commitment? Empl. Relat. 2016, 38, 703–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saini, G.K.; Jawahar, I. The influence of employer rankings, employment experience, and employee characteristics on employer branding as an employer of choice. Career Dev. Int. 2019, 24, 636–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Celani, A.; Singh, P. Signaling theory and applicant attraction outcomes. Pers. Rev. 2011, 40, 222–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lievens, F.; Van Hoye, G.; Anseel, F. Organizational identity and employer image: Towards a unifying framework. Br. J. Manag. 2007, 18, S45–S59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saini, G. Do attractiveness rankings and employment experience matter in employee recommendation? Acad. Manag. Proc. 2018, 2018, 11705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshathry, S.; Clarke, M.; Goodman, S. The role of employer brand equity in employee attraction and retention: A unified framework. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2017, 25, 413–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dabirian, A.; Kietzmann, J.; Diba, H. A great place to work!? Understanding crowdsourced employer branding. Bus. Horiz. 2017, 60, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.Y.; Lee, S.W. Social media use and job performance in the workplace: The effects of facebook and kakaotalk use on job performance in South Korea. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kietzmann, J.H. Crowdsourcing: A revised definition and introduction to new research. Bus. Horiz. 2017, 60, 151–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, S.; Saini, G.K. Information source credibility and job seekers’ intention to apply: The mediating role of brands. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, M.; Grossenbacher, M.; Martin-Raugh, M.; Kochert, J.; Prewett, M. Crowdsourcing expertise: Using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to develop scoring keys for situational judgment tests. PsyArXiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glassdoor. About Glassdoor - Key Stats. 2020. Available online: www.glassdoor.com (accessed on 31 December 2019).
- Landers, R.; Brusso, R.; Auer, E. Crowdsourcing job satisfaction data: Examining the construct validity of glassdoor.com ratings. Pers. Asssess. Decis. 2019, 5, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Melián-González, S.; Bulchand-Gidumal, J. Worker word of mouth on the internet: Influence on human resource image, job seekers and employees. Int. J. Manpow. 2016, 37, 709–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evertz, L.; Kollitz, R.; Süß, S. Electronic word-of-mouth via employer review sites – the effects on organizational attraction. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatterjee, D.S. Explaining customer ratings and recommendations by combining qualitative and quantitative user generated contents. Decis. Support. Syst. 2019, 119, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kashive, N.; Khanna, V.T. Study of early recruitment activities and employer brand knowledge and its effect on organization attractiveness and firm performance. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2017, 18, S172–S190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson Education International: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Siering, M.; Deokar, A.V.; Janze, C. Disentangling consumer recommendations: Explaining and predicting airline recommendations based on online reviews. Decis. Support. Syst. 2018, 107, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasdaq. Nasdaq Launches Global Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Reporting Guide for Companies. 2019. Available online: http://ir.nasdaq.com/news-releases/news-release-details/nasdaq-launches-global-environmental-social-and-governance-esg (accessed on 25 July 2020).
- Branham, L. Planning to become an employer of choice. J. Organ. Excell. 2005, 24, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, M.R. An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Pers. Rev. 2010, 39, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousseau, D.M. Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Biswas, M.K.; Suar, D. Antecedents and consequences of employer branding. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 136, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, Y.C.; Su, W.Z.; Chen, S.C.; Hou, J.; Huang, Y.C. Exploring users’ self-disclosure intention on social networking applying novel soft computing theories. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Melián-González, S.; Bulchand-Gidumal, J.; López-Valcárcel, B.G. Online customer reviews of hotels: As participation increases, better evaluation is obtained. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2013, 54, 274–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.L.; Hyun, S.S. The relationships among perceived value, intention to use hashtags, eWOM, and brand loyalty of air travelers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brooke, Z. How to make Glassdoor work for you. Marketing News, June 2017; 88–90. [Google Scholar]
- Robertson, J.; Ferguson, S.L.; Eriksson, T.; Näppä, A. The brand personality dimensions of business-to-business firms: A content analysis of employer reviews on social media. J. Bus. Bus. Mark. 2019, 26, 109–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spense, M. Job market signaling. Q. J. Econ. 1973, 87, 355–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lievens, F.; Slaughter, J.E. Employer image and employer branding: What we know and what we need to know. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016, 3, 407–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seo, E.J.; Park, J.W.; Choi, Y.J. The effect of social media usage characteristics on e-WOM, trust, and brand equity: Focusing on users of airline social media. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Glassdoor. Search Company Reviews and Ratings. 2019. Available online: https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/index.htm (accessed on 31 December 2019).
- Fortune. Fortune 500. 2019. Available online: https://fortune.com/fortune500/2019 (accessed on 31 December 2019).
- Glassdoor. Ratings on Glassdoor. 2020. Available online: https://help.glassdoor.com/article/Ratings-on-Glassdoor/en_US/ (accessed on 31 December 2019).
- Connor, P.E.; Becker, B.W. Values and the organization: Suggestions for research. Acad. Manag. J. 1975, 18, 550–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotras, M. Corporate culture and its connection with external and internal public relations. Comp. Econ. Res. Cent. East. Eur. 2010, 13, 27–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moroko, L.; Uncles, M.D. Characteristics of successful employer brands. J. Brand Manag. 2008, 16, 160–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winkler, R.; Fuller, A. How Companies Secretly Boost Their Glassdoor Ratings. Wall Str. J. 2019. Available online: https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-manipulate-glassdoor-by-inflating-rankings-and-pressuring-employees-11548171977 (accessed on 31 December 2019).
- Laursen, L. Fraudulent Company Reviews are Flooding the Internet. Here’s What Firms Can Do. Fortune 2019. Available online: https://fortune.com/2019/01/23/online-company-ratings-manipulations/ (accessed on 31 December 2019).
- Gálvez, A.; Tirado, F.; Martínez, M.J. Work–life balance, organizations and social sustainability: Analyzing female telework in Spain. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Industry | Overall Ratings | Culture and Values | Compensation and Benefits | Senior Management | Work–Life Balance | Career Opportunity | Business Outlook | CEO Approval | Recommend to a Friend |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aerospace and Defense | 3.43 | 3.17 | 3.57 | 2.86 | 3.34 | 3.25 | 55% | 81% | 66% |
Apparel | 3.68 | 3.62 | 3.40 | 3.10 | 3.44 | 3.14 | 56% | 81% | 71% |
Business Services | 3.39 | 3.27 | 3.37 | 2.94 | 3.35 | 3.18 | 56% | 80% | 62% |
Chemicals | 3.47 | 3.39 | 3.55 | 2.97 | 3.39 | 3.19 | 53% | 73% | 66% |
Energy | 3.54 | 3.31 | 3.81 | 3.01 | 3.38 | 3.24 | 53% | 78% | 66% |
Engineering and Construction | 3.34 | 3.29 | 3.42 | 2.95 | 3.12 | 3.18 | 50% | 73% | 59% |
Financials | 3.46 | 3.47 | 3.46 | 3.10 | 3.50 | 3.20 | 55% | 82% | 63% |
Food and Drug Stores | 3.24 | 3.17 | 3.16 | 2.79 | 3.00 | 3.09 | 40% | 58% | 53% |
Food, Beverages and Tobacco | 3.42 | 3.26 | 3.68 | 2.97 | 3.20 | 3.10 | 48% | 73% | 61% |
Health Care | 3.33 | 3.26 | 3.45 | 3.42 | 3.22 | 3.11 | 50% | 70% | 60% |
Hotels, Restaurants and Leisure | 3.68 | 3.62 | 3.54 | 3.21 | 3.39 | 3.49 | 60% | 84% | 71% |
Household Products | 3.50 | 3.49 | 3.54 | 2.97 | 3.44 | 3.15 | 49% | 80% | 66% |
Industrials | 3.55 | 3.44 | 3.51 | 3.03 | 3.50 | 3.32 | 54% | 80% | 68% |
Materials | 3.28 | 3.03 | 3.67 | 2.72 | 2.88 | 3.04 | 48% | 74% | 56% |
Media | 3.50 | 3.40 | 3.25 | 3.07 | 3.41 | 3.12 | 47% | 72% | 66% |
Motor Vehicles and Parts | 3.50 | 3.32 | 3.62 | 2.99 | 3.16 | 3.26 | 58% | 89% | 68% |
Retailing | 3.19 | 3.15 | 2.99 | 2.78 | 2.94 | 2.98 | 42% | 67% | 54% |
Technology | 3.63 | 3.59 | 3.56 | 3.15 | 3.54 | 3.36 | 58% | 80% | 69% |
Telecommunications | 3.02 | 3.01 | 3.36 | 2.70 | 3.10 | 2.87 | 38% | 59% | 50% |
Transportation | 3.48 | 3.38 | 3.59 | 2.98 | 3.11 | 3.36 | 54% | 71% | 64% |
Wholesalers | 3.02 | 2.92 | 3.10 | 2.61 | 3.03 | 2.79 | 42% | 64% | 49% |
Average | 3.41 | 3.32 | 3.46 | 3.00 | 3.29 | 3.16 | 51% | 75% | 62% |
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Fortune ranking | 1 | |||||||||
2. Number of reviews | −0.422 ** | 1 | ||||||||
3. Overall ratings | −0.183 ** | 0.075 | 1 | |||||||
4. Culture and values | −0.171 ** | 0.104 * | 0.916 ** | 1 | ||||||
5. Compensation and benefits | −0.078 | 0.043 | 0.761 ** | 0.785 ** | 1 | |||||
6. Senior management | −0.107 * | 0.002 | 0.892 ** | 0.896 ** | 0.749 ** | 1 | ||||
7. Work–life balance | −0.166 ** | −0.075 | 0.730 ** | 0.598 ** | 0.503 ** | 0.586 ** | 1 | |||
8. Career opportunity | −0.242 ** | 0.136 ** | 0.881 ** | 0.838 ** | 0.615 ** | 0.850 ** | 0.631 ** | 1 | ||
9. Recommend to a friend | −0.168 ** | 0.066 | 0.948 ** | 0.888 ** | 0.740 ** | 0.861 ** | 0.705 ** | 0.868 ** | 1 | |
10. CEO approval | −0.066 | −0.017 | 0.730 ** | 0.712 ** | 0.554 ** | 0.729 ** | 0.514 ** | 0.655 ** | 0.748 ** | 1 |
11. Business outlook | −0.098 * | −0.013 | 0.767 ** | 0.723 ** | 0.514 ** | 0.774 ** | 0.578 ** | 0.778 ** | 0.796 ** | 0.737 ** |
Model | Independent Variables | Standardized β | T | p Value | Adjusted R-Square |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | Overall Rating | 0.948 | 65.155 | 0.000 | 0.898 |
Number of Reviews | −0.006 | −0.404 | 0.686 | ||
B | Overall Rating | 0.631 | 13.200 | 0.000 | 0.916 |
Number of Reviews | −0.004 | −0.304 | 0.761 | ||
Culture and Values | 0.063 | 1.634 | 0.103 | ||
Compensation and Benefits | 0.028 | 1.372 | 0.171 | ||
Senior Management | 0.109 | 2.983 | 0.003 | ||
Work–Life Balance | 0.088 | 3.834 | 0.000 | ||
Career Opportunities | 0.126 | 3.912 | 0.000 | ||
CEO Approval | 0.080 | 3.667 | 0.000 | ||
Business Outlook | 0.132 | 5.322 | 0.000 |
Step | Independent Variables | Standardized β | T | p Value | Adjusted R-Square |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Culture and Values | 0.914 | 49.723 | 0.000 | 0.836 |
2 | Culture and Values | 0.746 | 39.901 | 0.000 | 0.889 |
Compensation and Benefits | 0.286 | 15.292 | 0.000 | ||
3 | Culture and Values | 0.544 | 21.897 | 0.000 | 0.911 |
Compensation and Benefits | 0.229 | 13.050 | 0.000 | ||
Career Opportunities | 0.283 | 11.000 | 0.000 | ||
4 | Culture and Values | 0.425 | 13.814 | 0.000 | 0.917 |
Compensation and Benefits | 0.226 | 13.401 | 0.000 | ||
Career Opportunities | 0.218 | 8.091 | 0.000 | ||
Senior Management | 0.196 | 6.165 | 0.000 | ||
5 | Culture and Values | 0.359 | 10.807 | 0.000 | 0.921 |
Compensation and Benefits | 0.218 | 13.103 | 0.000 | ||
Career Opportunities | 0.248 | 9.142 | 0.000 | ||
Senior Management | 0.159 | 4.986 | 0.000 | ||
Work–Life Balance | 0.100 | 4.705 | 0.000 | ||
6 | Culture and Values | 0.340 | 10.183 | 0.000 | 0.923 |
Compensation and Benefits | 0.211 | 12.680 | 0.000 | ||
Career Opportunities | 0.248 | 9.262 | 0.000 | ||
Senior Management | 0.130 | 3.978 | 0.000 | ||
Work–Life Balance | 0.105 | 4.954 | 0.000 | ||
CEO Approval | 0.064 | 3.378 | 0.001 |
Model | Independent Variables | Standardized β | T | p Value | Adjusted R-Square |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | Number of Reviews | 0.022 | 1.653 | 0.099 | 0.923 |
Culture and Values | 0.332 | 9.838 | 0.000 | ||
Compensation and Benefits | 0.214 | 12.550 | 0.000 | ||
Senior Management | 0.136 | 3.947 | 0.000 | ||
Work–Life Balance | 0.107 | 5.022 | 0.000 | ||
Career Opportunities | 0.228 | 7.868 | 0.000 | ||
CEO Approval | 0.057 | 2.759 | 0.006 | ||
Business Outlook | 0.027 | 1.130 | 0.259 | ||
B | Number of Reviews | 0.023 | 1.592 | 0.112 | 0.923 |
Culture and Values | 0.332 | 9.829 | 0.000 | ||
Compensation and Benefits | 0.214 | 12.447 | 0.000 | ||
Senior Management | 0.136 | 3.924 | 0.000 | ||
Work–Life Balance | 0.107 | 5.000 | 0.000 | ||
Career Opportunities | 0.228 | 7.799 | 0.000 | ||
CEO Approval | 0.057 | 2.753 | 0.006 | ||
Business Outlook | 0.026 | 1.117 | 0.264 | ||
Rank of the Fortune 500 | 0.002 | 0.170 | 0.865 |
Pros | Number of Reviews | Percentage | Cons | Number of Reviews | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Work–life balance | 316 | 33.58% | Work–life balance | 380 | 37.92% |
Pay and benefits | 265 | 28.16% | Upper management | 169 | 16.87% |
Work from home | 54 | 5.74% | Long hours | 84 | 8.38% |
Great people | 43 | 4.57% | Full-time work | 16 | 1.60% |
Work environment | 40 | 4.25% | Low pay | 14 | 1.40% |
Others | 223 | 23.70% | Others | 339 | 33.83% |
Total | 941 | 100.00% | Total | 1002 | 100.00% |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Suen, H.-Y.; Hung, K.-E.; Tseng, F.-H. Employer Ratings through Crowdsourcing on Social Media: An Examination of U.S. Fortune 500 Companies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6308. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166308
Suen H-Y, Hung K-E, Tseng F-H. Employer Ratings through Crowdsourcing on Social Media: An Examination of U.S. Fortune 500 Companies. Sustainability. 2020; 12(16):6308. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166308
Chicago/Turabian StyleSuen, Hung-Yue, Kuo-En Hung, and Fan-Hsun Tseng. 2020. "Employer Ratings through Crowdsourcing on Social Media: An Examination of U.S. Fortune 500 Companies" Sustainability 12, no. 16: 6308. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166308
APA StyleSuen, H.-Y., Hung, K.-E., & Tseng, F.-H. (2020). Employer Ratings through Crowdsourcing on Social Media: An Examination of U.S. Fortune 500 Companies. Sustainability, 12(16), 6308. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166308