Atractivo como Empleador en Perspectiva Generacional: Implicaciones en el <i>Employer Branding</i>

Reis, Germano Glufke; Braga, Beatriz Maria

doi:10.5700/rausp1226

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista de Administração (São Paulo)

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

HUMAN RESOURCES & ORGANIZATIONS • Rev. Adm. (São Paulo) 51 (1) • Jan-Mar 2016 • https://doi.org/10.5700/rausp1226 copiar

Atractivo como Empleador en Perspectiva Generacional: Implicaciones en el Employer Branding

Autoría SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMEN

Este estudio tuvo como objetivo identificar los factores del atractivo como empleador priorizados por diferentes generaciones: Baby Boomers, Generación X y Generación Y. La encuesta se realizó con una muestra de 937 profesionales, que trabajan en diferentes áreas y empresas, en su mayoría gerentes y con altos niveles de educación. Fue adoptada la Escala del Atractivo como Empleador de Berthon et al. (2005)Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Hah, L. (2005). Captivating company: Dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding. International Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 151-172. y los resultados indican que, al elegir una empresa, las generaciones estudiadas tienen especificidades con relación a los atributos de atractivo que priorizan. También se observó que la generación Y es aquella que más claramente discrimina y jerarquiza dichos atributos. Posibles implicaciones en el employer branding y limitaciones de la investigación se discuten al final del artículo.

Palabras clave:
atractivo como empleador; reclutamiento; generaciones; employer branding

Dimensions	Outer loadings
Interest Value (AVE: 0.60; composite reliability: 0.88)
Working in a vibrant/challenging environment	0.81
Innovative employer – novel work practices/forward-thinking	0.83
The organization both values and makes use of your creativity	0.82
The organization produces high-quality products and services	0.73
The organization produces innovative products and services	0.66
Social Value (AVE: 0.51; composite reliability: 0.84)
Having a good relationship with your colleagues	0.81
Having a good relationship with your superiors	0.70
Supportive and encouraging colleagues	0.72
Happy work environment	0.73
Application Value (AVE: 0.51; composite reliability: 0.84)
Humanitarian organization – gives back to society	0.77
Opportunity to apply what was learned in college/university	0.65
Opportunity to teach others what you have learned	0.72
Acceptance and belonging	0.71
The organization is customer-orientated	0.72
Economic Value (AVE: 0.56; composite reliability: 0.79)
Good promotion opportunities within the organization	0.89
An above average basic salary	0.69
An attractive overall compensation package	0.64
Development Value (AVE: 0.54; composite reliability: 0.78)
Feeling more self-confident as a result of working for a particular organization	0.81
Feeling good about yourself as a result of working for a particular organization	0.64
Gaining career-enhancing experience	0.75

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Development Value	4.24	0.58	1
2. Economic Value	4.23	0.55	.259^ p < 0.01	1
3. Social Value	4.10	0.55	.448^ p < 0.01	.257^ p < 0.01	1
4. Interest Value	4.07	0.62	.335^ p < 0.01	.252^ p < 0.01	.441^ p < 0.01	1
5. Application Value	3.81	0.64	.017	.025	.015	.050	1
6. Gender	-	-	-.130^ p < 0.01	.006	-.082^* * p < 0.05.	.055	-.016	1
7. Age	37.04	8.23	-.042	-.184^ p < 0.01	.025	.133^ p < 0.01	-.032	.202^ p < 0.01	1

Comparisons
DV x EV	DV x SV	DV x IV	DV x AV	EV x SV	EV x IV	EV x AV	SV x IV	SV x AV	IV x AV
-0.68	-7.44^* * p < 0.01. DV = Development Value;	-7.79^* * p < 0.01. DV = Development Value;	-14.01	-4.9^* * p < 0.01. DV = Development Value;	-5.98^* * p < 0.01. DV = Development Value;	-13.81^* * p < 0.01. DV = Development Value;	-1.9	-10.22^* * p < 0.01. DV = Development Value;	-8.8^* * p < 0.01. DV = Development Value;

	N	Development Value		Economic Value		Social Value		Interest Value		Application Value
	N	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Baby Boomers	42	4.22	0.57	4.02	0.57	4.19	0.41	4.26	0.52	3.57	0.78
Generation X	606	4.22	0.58	4.18	0.49	4.10	0.56	4.09	0.61	3.80	0.64
Generation Y	272	4.28	0.57	4.36	0.55	4.10	0.55	3.99	0.64	3.87	0.61

Comparisons	Development Value	Economic Value	Social Value	Interest Value	Application Value
Baby Boomers versus Generation X	12512.50	10142.00^ p < 0.05	11999.00	10723.50	10637.50
Baby Boomers versus Generation Y	5313.50	3726.00^* * p < 0.01	5293.00	4278.50^* * p < 0.01	4513.00^ p < 0.05
Generation X versus Generation Y	77768.00	66662.00^* * p < 0.01	81693.00	74810.00^ p < 0.05	78193.00

Comparisons	Baby Boomers N = 42	Generation X N = 606	Generation Y N = 272
DV x EV	-1.39	-1.37	-3.52^* * p < 0.01
DV x SV	-0.13	-5.64^* * p < 0.01	-5.01^* * p < 0.01
DV x IV	-0.81	-5.16^* * p < 0.01	-6.94^* * p < 0.01
DV x AV	-3.67^* * p < 0.01	-11.29^* * p < 0.01	-7.35^* * p < 0.01
EV x SV	-1.17	-2.72^* * p < 0.01	-6.80^* * p < 0.01
EV x IV	-2.01^ p < 0.05. DV = Development Value;	-2.99^* * p < 0.01	-8.79^* * p < 0.01
EV x AV	-3.05^* * p < 0.01	-9.06^* * p < 0.01	-9.49^* * p < 0.01
SV x IV	-1.23	-0.81	-2.81^* * p < 0.01
SV x AV	-3.72^* * p < 0.01	-8.55^* * p < 0.01	-4.37^* * p < 0.01
IV x AV	-4.20^* * p < 0.01	-8.00^* * p < 0.01	-2.23^ p < 0.05. DV = Development Value;

Departamento de Administração da Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo Avenida Professor Luciano Gualberto, 908, sala F184, 05508-900 São Paulo / SP Brasil, Tel./Fax 55 11 3818-4002 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rausp@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Germano Glufke Reis, Professor da Fundação Getulio Vargas (CEP 01332-000 - São Paulo/SP, Brasil) e Professor do Programa de Mestrado em Administração do Centro Universitário das Faculdades Metropolitanas Unidas (CEP 01503-001 - São Paulo/SP, Brasil). E-mail:germanoglufkereis@yahoo.com.br