The Use of Employer Branding to Attract

Millennials in Sweden

Sara Rosencrantz

International Business and Economic, bachelor's level

2018

Luleå University of Technology

Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences

Acknowledgement

This thesis was written at the end of the spring semester of 2018, finalizing three years of

studies in the area of International Business Administration at Luleå University of Technology.

The aim of this thesis was to gain and provide a deeper understanding of what attributes of an

organization is the most important to attract and retain Millennials. Even though the work of

producing this thesis has been challenging at times, it has at least provided me, the author with

more knowledge in an area that was interesting.

The author would like to thank family, friends as well as everyone who have had a direct or

indirect impact on the writing of this thesis. In addition, the author would like to express special

gratitude to the following people: the supervisor, Seyedeh Fatemeh Mostafavi Shirazi

(Mahboobeh) for the guidance, support and overall help with this thesis. Bilal Nuru, whose

input and help has been invaluable in the process of writing this thesis.

Luleå University of Technology, May 2018

Sara Rosencrantz

Abstract

The use of employer branding has gained popularity since the concept was introduced by Tim

Ambler and Simon Barrow in 1996. At first, this consisted of three types of benefits (e.g.,

functional, economic and psychological) and later Lievens and Highhouse (2003) added two

additional benefits: instrumental and symbolic. The concept of employer branding has then

been used to attract potential employees, and lately, it has been discussed that the employer

brand needs to be adapted to attract and retain Millennials. One way to adapt the employer

brand is to review what attributes of an organization is communicated to potential employees.

Most research regarding Millennials and employer branding has been conducted in the United

States of America (USA) and not in many countries. Because of this, this thesis was conducted

with the foundation of previous research that was adapted to and focused on Swedish

Millennials. The objective was to find out what attributes is the most important to Swedish

Millennials in order to attract and retain them as employees.

The result of this thesis was created by first looking at previous research and defining a research

problem and a research question. Then, the theoretical framework was conducted, leading to

the method chosen to perform this study. Thereafter, the data was gathered and analyzed,

leading up to the findings and conclusions that the attributes that are most important concerns

the psychological benefits, followed by instrumental benefits and then functional benefits.

Furthermore, economic and symbolic benefits are not considered to be as important to Swedish

Millennials.

Keywords: Employer branding, employer attractiveness, Millennials, Generation Y,

Millennials in the workforce, generational differences, organizational attributes.

Sammanfattning

Sedan begreppet employer branding introducerades av Tim Ambler and Simon Barrow år 1996,

har dess användning ökat. När begreppet först introducerades bestod det av tre förmåner

(funktionella, ekonomiska och psykologiska) och utökades sedan av Lievens and Highhouse

(2003) med instrumentella och symboliska förmåner. Sedan dess har employer branding

använts för att attrahera eventuella arbetstagare. På senare tid har diskussioner först huruvida

ett företags employer brand behöver anpassas för att attrahera och behålla individer som tillhör

Generation Y (milleniegenerationen). Ett sätt att anpassa ett företags employer brand är att

undersöka vilka attribut en organisation förmedlar till potentiella anställda.

Majoriteten av all forskning som har skett kring Generation Y har genomförts i USA och det

är svårt att hitta forskning kring ämnet som har utförts i ett annat land. På grund av detta har

denna uppsats fokuserat på svenska millennier och undersökt vilka attribut hos ett företag som

är viktigast för att ett företags ska bli attraktivt för dem.

Resultatet i den här uppsatsen togs fram genom att först att ha tittat på vad tidigare forskning

har kommit fram till och vad som har saknat för att hitta ett teoretiskt gap och framställa ett

syfte med den här uppsatsen. Sedan sammanställdes relevant forskning som ledde till en

passande metod. Detta i sin tur ledde till en datainsamling som analyserades för att hitta vilka

attribut som är viktigast för svenska millennier, vilket visade sig vara främst psykologiska följt

av instrumentella samt funktionella attribut. De ekonomiska samt symboliska attributen räknas

inte vara lika viktiga som de övriga attributen.

Nyckelord: Employer branding, employer attractiveness, Millennials, Generation Y,

Millennials in the workforce, generational differences, organizational attributes.

Table of contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem Discussion ............................................................................................... 3

1.3 Overall Purpose / Research Problem ...................................................................... 5

1.4 Delimitations ......................................................................................................... 5

2. Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Millennials ............................................................................................................ 6

2.1.1 Characteristics of Millennials............................................................................. 6

2.1.2 Millennials in the Workforce ............................................................................. 7

2.2 Employer Branding ............................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 The Employer Branding Process ...................................................................... 10

2.2.2 Functional Benefits .......................................................................................... 11

2.2.3 Economic Benefits ........................................................................................... 11

2.2.4 Psychological Benefits ..................................................................................... 12

2.2.5 Instrumental Benefits ....................................................................................... 12

2.2.6 Symbolic Benefits ........................................................................................... 12

2.3 Frame of Reference ............................................................................................. 14

3. Methodology ............................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Research purpose ................................................................................................. 15

3.2 Research Approach .............................................................................................. 16

3.3 Research strategy ................................................................................................. 16

3.3.1 Data Collection ................................................................................................ 17

3.3.2 Sample Selection ............................................................................................. 18

3.3.3 Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 19

3.3.4 Quality of research........................................................................................... 20

4. Empirical Data ............................................................................................................. 22

4.1 Demographic information .................................................................................... 22

4.2 Functional benefits .............................................................................................. 24

4.3 Economic benefits ............................................................................................... 25

4.4 Psychological Benefits ........................................................................................ 26

4.5 Instrumental Benefits ........................................................................................... 28

4.6 Symbolic Benefits ............................................................................................... 29

5. Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 31

5.1 Functional Benefits .............................................................................................. 32

5.2 Economic Benefits .............................................................................................. 33

5.3 Psychological benefits ......................................................................................... 34

5.4 Instrumental Benefits ........................................................................................... 35

5.5 Symbolic Benefits ............................................................................................... 36

5.6 The Most Important Benefits ..................................................................................... 37

6. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations ................................................................ 39

6.1 Findings .............................................................................................................. 39

6.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 40

6.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 41

6.3.1 Theoretical implications................................................................................... 41

6.3.2 Managerial Implications .................................................................................. 42

6.3.3 Limitations ...................................................................................................... 42

6.3.4 Further Research .............................................................................................. 43

References .......................................................................................................................... 44

List of figures

Figure 1: Metric of the characteristic of a successful employer brand ................................... 9

Figure 2: The employer branding process ........................................................................... 10

Figure 3: Gender Distribution ............................................................................................ 22

Figure 4: Presentation of Functional Benefits ..................................................................... 24

Figure 5: Presentation of Economic Benefits ...................................................................... 25

Figure 6: Presentation of Psychological Benefits ................................................................ 27

Figure 7: Presentation of Instrumental Benefits .................................................................. 28

Figure 8: Presentation of Symbolic Benefits....................................................................... 29

List of tables

Table 1: Intervals of the birth years of each generation ......................................................... 1

Table 2: Characteristics of generations ................................................................................. 7

Table 3: Categories of Symbolic Benefits ........................................................................... 13

Table 4: Frame of References ............................................................................................. 14

Table 5: Age Distribution ................................................................................................... 23

Table 6: Distribution of Work Experience .......................................................................... 23

Table 7: Percentages of Functional Benefits ....................................................................... 25

Table 8: Percentage of Economic Benefits ......................................................................... 26

Table 9: Distribution of Psychological benefits .................................................................. 27

Table 10: Distribution of Instrumental Benefits .................................................................. 29

Table 11: Distribution of Symbolic Benefits....................................................................... 30

Table 12: Explanation of the Variables ............................................................................... 31

Table 13: Statistics of Functional Benefits.......................................................................... 32

Table 14: Statistics of Functional Benefits.......................................................................... 33

Table 15: Statistics of Psychological Benefits .................................................................... 34

Table 16: Statistics for Instrumental Benefits ..................................................................... 35

Table 17: Statistics of Symbolic Needs ............................................................................... 36

Table 18: The Most Important Benefits .............................................................................. 37

1

1. Introduction This chapter is intended to provide a brief introduction to the research area of employer

branding. This will be done by a discussion around the areas that are relevant to this thesis:

definition of generations, characteristics of Millennials, Millennials in the workforce, employer

branding and its components. The chapter will later end in a problem discussion and followed

by the overall purpose of this thesis.

1.1 Background According to Kowske, Rasch and Wiley (2010), media is saying that there are great

generational differences at work, in general characteristics, values and beliefs. This is coherent

with generations being viewed as age cohorts. Pînzaru, Vătămănescu, Mitan, Săvulescu,

Vițelar, Noaghea and Bălan (2016) define age cohorts as “groups of people with particular

beliefs and attitudes, who experience similar problems and share similar experiences in a

certain period of time” (p. 174). The cohort’s beliefs and attitudes are being influenced by

external factors such as media exposure, friends and social- and economic events (Pînzaru, et

al., 2016).

The ranges of the age cohorts vary in different studies as early researchers do not agree on

when the oldest or the youngest person of each generation is born (Culiberg & Mihelič, 2016;

Pînzaru, et al., 2016; Parry & Urwin, 2011). Therefore, it is important to make a clear

distinction between the generations. Table 1 presents the yearly intervals that will be used in

this report.

Table 1: Intervals of the birth years of each generation

Generation name Yearly intervals

Baby Boomers 1944 - 1964

Generation X 1965 – 1981

Generation Y (Millennials) 1982 - 1996

Source: Pînzaru et al., 2016; Culiberg & Mihelič, 2016; Parry & Urwin, 2011

As Table 1 shows, the generation that is called “Baby Boomers” is born between 1944 and

1964. “Generation X” is born between the years of 1965 and 1981. Generation Y, which is

2

more commonly known as Millennials are born between the years of 1982 and 1996 (Culiberg

& Mihelič, 2016; Pînzaru, et al., 2016; Parry & Urwin, 2011). According to Costanza, Badger,

Fraser, Severt and Gade (2012), Baby Boomers are commonly known as materialistic and time-

stressed, Generation X is known as being individualistic and sceptical while Millennials are

known to be cynical, socially conscious and narcissistic.

It is the latter generation, Millennials, that is currently heading into the workforce and

according to Trunk (as cited in Kowske et al., 2010), organizations are being warned by

consultants that managers have to take special precautions to attract and maintain Millennials

as employees. This is because of the distinct characteristics that many researchers present

(Culiberg & Mihelič, 2016; Saussier, 2017; Sinha & Kshatriya, 2016). For instance, Saussier

(2017) states that one general characteristic is that Millennials are the generation that is the

most conscious of the environment. In addition to this, Culiberg and Mihelič (2016) states that

Millennials are not likely to perform an activity if they find it ethically questionable.

Parry and Urwin (2011) also mention other characteristics of Millennials, including traits such

as a preference for teamwork, trust for centralized authority, optimism and a preference for

career flexibility. In other words, they are not necessarily loyal to their employer and this,

among other reasons, can in turn lead to an increased turnover rate within the organization (Ito,

Brotheridge, & McFarland, 2013). According to Davidson, Timo and Wang (2010) turnover

comes with hidden costs that cannot be calculated in a monetary value, such as loss of skills

and knowledge. An organization should try to avoid turnover by attracting loyal employees.

However, as mentioned earlier, Millennials are not attracted to the same things as the other

generations which means that the managers in the organization need to know what attracts this

generation.

One way to keep the turnover rate low and attract loyal employees is to use employer branding.

According to Ambler and Barrow (1996), “The ‘Employer Brand’ can be defined as ‘the

package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment, and

identified with the employing company” (p. 187). These benefits can, according to Ambler and

Barrow (1996) be divided into 3 types: functional (e.g., opportunities offered by the employer

to the employee), economic (e.g., salary or other financial benefits) and psychological (i.e.,

intangible benefits that offer a sense of belonging). According to Lievens and Highhouse

(2003) (cited in Soulez & Guillot-Soulez, 2011), the employer brand also includes two

additional benefits that was not mentioned by earlier research: instrumental (i.e. tangible and

3

factual attributes, such as salary, place of work and career opportunities) and symbolic benefits

(i.e., intangible attributes that the potential employee applies to the organization, such as

prestige and ethical behavior). By communicating these five benefits, which is done by any

and all of the communication channels such as the current employees, corporate portals and

newspaper, the employer brand is used to help differentiate an organization from its

competitors and communicate what is unique with the organization. This will attract talented,

loyal and hardworking potential employees (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004).

Employer branding is similar to an organizations product brand. According to Backhaus and

Tikoo (2004), it differs in mainly two ways. “One, the employer brand is employment specific,

characterizing the firm’s identity as an employer. Two, it is directed at both internal and

external audiences whereas product and corporate branding efforts are primarily directed at an

external audience” (p. 503). Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) explains that it is important for

organizations to align the different branding strategies with each other to create a clear and

trustworthy message for potentialive employees. In addition, Wilden, Gudergan and Lings

(2010) found that there is a link between clarity of a firm’s brand and the attractiveness of the

firm as a possible employer. If a brand does not provide sufficient, correct and consistent

information about the company, there is a likelihood that the potential employee will consider

it to be a risk to join the organization and determine that the firm is not suitable as an employer.

An organization can overcome the mentioned risk by designing a transparent employer brand

that communicates the firm’s policies, values and behaviors towards current employees, thus

reaching employer attractiveness. This is defined by Berthon, Ewing and Hah (2005) as “the

envisioned benefits that a protentional employee sees in working for a specific organization”

(p. 156). In addition to the definition by Berthon et al. (2005), the attractiveness of an employer

is revealed in the application process when a potential employee is actively seeking an

opportunity to participate in an organization’s hiring process (Reiz & Braga, 2014).

As the concept of employer branding has evolved, researchers have started to look at the

components of the employer brand that can affect the efficiency of the employer brand. In other

words, what managers can do or change with the organization's employer branding process that

can attract future employees (Soulez & Guillot-Soulez, 2011).

1.2 Problem Discussion Culiberg and Mihelič (2016) mention that although Millennials ethical reasoning in the

workplace is of interest to organizations, it still has not been properly addressed in academic

4

literature. They found that Millennials have different values and they also react and observe

ethical misbehavior differently than their coworkers that do not belong to the same generation

and these differences are well noticeable. Pînzaru et al. (2016) adds to this that Millennials are

more affected by pressure and stress, which, in a way, can make them seem more fragile. If an

organization’s culture appears to be too stressful it is likely that it will work as a repellant factor

for individuals in the Millennial generation and they will not seek a job at that organization.

An organization that is viewed to be too stressful will also lower Millennials view of the

organization’s employer brand.

However, according to Stewart, Goad Oliver, Cravens and Oishi (2017), Millennials are not

influenced by the workplace culture (the physical and psychological working environment).

This means that the workplace culture cannot affect their level of organizational commitment.

Yet, Stewart et al. (2017) also found that if the workplace culture is positive, Millennials will

find job satisfaction. Job satisfaction will, however, still not increase their organizational

commitment. In conclusion, the promotion of the organization’s culture will not be effective to

increase the view of the employer brand. This, in turn, means that it would be inefficient for an

organization to promote this component of their brand to Millennials.

In addition, as Davidson et al. (2010) emphasize that since Millennials have drastically

different work characteristics, values and attitudes, traditional Human Resources (HR)

paradigms may not be effective in terms of Millennials contra Baby Boomers or Generation X.

According to Soulez and Guillot-Soulez (2011), this has led to managers wondering if they

need to adapt their marketing strategy (i.e. employer branding strategy) to adapt to Millennials.

It is clear that earlier research has found that there are some distinct differences between

generations in attitudes, beliefs, values and employer brand loyalty. As mentioned earlier, this

leads to a higher turnover rate among Millennials, which causes increased administration cost

in regard to employer management (Culiberg & Mihelič 2016; Sinha & Kshatriya, 2016).

Although researchers have listed these differences and causes, they have not made any clear

suggestions on what part of the employer branding process that managers should change or do

to increase the employer attractiveness and the employer brand loyalty (Soulez & Guillot-

Soulez, 2011). There is not enough information about what employees, or future employees,

that belong to the millennial generation are looking for in an organization. This thesis aims to

find out what attributes of the organization that is the most attractive to Millennials which in

turn will lead to employer attractiveness and in turn, employer brand loyalty.

5

1.3 Overall Purpose / Research Problem In the background and in the research problem it has been acknowledged that managers are

being recommended to adapt their employer branding process to attract Millennials. Based on

this, the purpose of this thesis is to gain a better understanding of what attributes of an

organization that is most attractive to Millennials. With a better understanding, managers can

spend less cut costs connected to employees at a minimum as well as keeping the turnover rate

low.

RQ: What attributes of an organization is most important in order to attract and retain

Swedish Millennials?

1.4 Delimitations Based on the review of earlier research, it has been noticed that most studies regarding

Millennials have been conducted in the United States of America (USA). While it has been

argued that people from the same generation have more in common with each other than with

people from another generation, there has not been sufficient studies regarding Millennials

outside of the USA to support this theory.

This thesis will solely focus on Millennials born in, and/or raised in Sweden. If the Millennial

population of Sweden share similarities with other Millennials of the world, the theory of

Millennials having more in common with other Millennials in other countries of the world will

be strengthened. However, if this is not the case, this study can indicate that the Swedish

Millennials might be an exception to this “rule”. In addition, this thesis only includes

Millennials born between 1982 and 1996 as that is the range that is considered to be Millennials

in this study.

This study will be limited to students at Luleå University of Technology (LTU). The sample

will consist of Millennials who are currently studying to get a degree in a higher level of

education (bachelor’s or master’s degree). According to LTU’s own website, about half of the

student on the technological faculty has moved north from the southern part of Sweden (Luleå

University of Technology, 2011). This means that even though this thesis is limited to

Millennials who are studying to get a higher level of education, it is still representative of

Millennials from all geographic locations in Sweden.

In summary, this thesis is limited to Millennials in Sweden born between 1982 and 1996, who

are currently studying to receive a higher educational degree.

6

2. Literature Review While the previous chapter introduces the reader to the background, problem discussion and

the research problem, this chapter aims to provide the reader with relevant studies to the

research area. This is also intended to dig deeper into the previously mentioned relevant areas.

2.1 Millennials Pînzaru et al. (2016) were looking at differences Millennials versus other generations in the

workforce and found that the majority of the active workforce around the world consist of

Millennials. Furthermore, Millennials have “different occupational values than previous

generations, they have different expectations related to the job and their particularities

influence the recruitment strategies of the companies to a great extent” (p.174).

In the study, they have concluded that there is a difference regarding how Millennials behave

and think compared to older generations, however, the authors address the fact that most studies

they have reviewed have taken place and focused on the population in the United States of

America (USA). They state that Millennials can be divided into either one of two categories.

At one hand, they can be so-called crispies, which are perfectionists and overachievers and will

ultimately burn-out. On the other hand, they can be teacups, who appears to be tough on the

outside, but on the inside a very fragile, sensitive and deeply affected by colleagues and bosses.

Rohdes’s study (as cited in Parry & Urwin, 2011) shows that if the differences among

generations are due to age effects, such as being a child or a teenager, younger individuals

would behave and think in a similar way as the older population when they grow up. However,

it is these differences are due to age cohorts and not age effects, the differences and traits are

expected to remain as the generations age.

2.1.1 Characteristics of Millennials

Stewart et al. (2017) list some of the common Millennials traits, such as seeking a team-based

workplace, having a lack of initiative and their lack of etiquette. They also talk about how

Millennials value different things in the organization that they work in, such as frequent

feedback and not being willing to fully commit their time to their work. Costanza et al. (2012)

on the other hand states that based on their research, there are no generational differences in

regard to work-related variables. According to Parry and Urwin (2011), there might or might

not be a generational difference depending on what earlier research has focused on.

7

Kowske, Rasch and Wiley (2010) made a cross-generational article that focuses on differences

and similarities between different generations and listed some characteristics of Millennials.

Some of the general characteristics of each generation can be seen in table 2 below.

Table 2: Characteristics of generations

Generation Baby Boomers Generation X Millennials (Gen Y)

Characteristics

Self-absorbed, socially mature, critical thinkers, self-confident, culturally wise, smug, intellectually arrogant

Lost, shallow, independent, distrusting, under-achieving, pragmatic, frenetic, shocking, mature for their age.

Pressured, accepting of authority, team players, optimistic, rule-followers, smart, special, confident, sheltered

Source: Adapted from Kowske et al. (2010)

Table 2 presents common characteristics of Millennials which includes, among others,

acceptance of authority and have an appreciation for rules. In addition, they are cooperative,

optimistic, pressured and sheltered. According to Pînzaru et al. (2016), many of these

characteristics can be explained by their upbringing, as Millennials have been raised by so-

called helicopter parents; they have been raised to think that they are better than people around

them and have had large parts of their lives controlled by their parents. Furthermore, they state

that Millennials have a sense of entitlement, which can be observed by demands put on

educational institutions and employers.

Pînzaru et al. (2016) however, deny that Millennials have a preference of strict rules and states

that they rather reject them. Instead, they like to be motivated by their employer and prefer to

make their own decisions, execute them and then receive positive feedback when successful in

their actions. Nonetheless, Table 2 shows some significant differences among characteristics

between the generations, and as previously mentioned, these differences have to be taken into

consideration when an organization tries to attract and retain loyal employees.

2.1.2 Millennials in the Workforce

As Millennials have different characteristics and traits, some researcher advocate that they also

behave differently in the workforce in comparison to other generations Pînzaru et al. (2016).

Costanza et al. (2012) analyzed previous research to see if there are any differences in work

attitudes among generations and focused on mainly three different measurements: job

satisfaction, organizational commitment and intent to turnover. According to their findings’,

Millennials are slightly less satisfied with their job in comparison with older generations such

as Baby Boomers and Generation X. As for organizational commitment, there is no significant

8

difference between the generations regarding their level of commitment. However, when

looking at the intent to turnover it was discovered that Millennials have a higher intention to

leave their employer in comparison to older generations. In spite of these findings, Costanza et

al. (2012) state that the differences are not significant enough to support the idea that there are

systematic and substantive differences among generations.

Parry and Urwin (2011) supports the idea that there are no systematic differences as previous

researchers have used cross-sectional surveys and focused more on age affects instead of age

cohorts. Parry and Urwin (2011) cite Jurkiewicz (2000) who suggest that there are generational

differences outside of the workplace, but that Millennials are still similar to other generations

in what they want from their work. Yet, according to Davidson et al. (2010) Millennials do

have different work preferences that need to be addressed in the employer brand by

organizations when they try to attract these individuals.

2.2 Employer Branding As mentioned earlier, employer branding is used to showcase the attributes of an organization

and how the organization differentiates itself from its competitors (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004).

Wilden et al. (2010) state the following:

In employment markets characterized by high competition, obtaining suitable human resources

becomes increasingly problematic as the number of applicants per vacancy declines. Firms need

to develop strategies to ensure that their human-resource base remains adequate for the challenge

of doing business. In increasingly competitive employment markets, developing strategies to

become an employer of choice and to increase the number of applicants per advertised vacancy

can facilitate the recruitment of suitable employees and provides a strategic advantage to the firm

(pp. 56-57).

With this, Wilden et al. (2010) imply that with the help of employer branding, an organization

can make sure that they can access potential employees. Moroko and Uncles (2008) searched

for characteristics of a successful employer brand and found 3 traits that stood out: being known

and noticeable, being seen as relevant and resonant and finally, being differentiated from direct

competitors. In addition to this, they created a metric to show the strategic issues regarding

characteristics of a successful employer brand which is presented in Figure 1.

9

Figure 1: Metric of the characteristic of a successful employer brand

Source: Moroko & Uncles, 2008

The strategic issues in Figure 1 can be broken down into 4 cells and Moroko and Uncles (2008)

describe the different cells as the first concerning a firm that is attractive, yet not

instantaneously chosen by the targeted candidates. Cell two refer to an organization that is

attracting the targeted candidates but cannot deliver what is promised to the already existing

staff. The third cell describes an unattractive employer brand to the targeted candidates which

are also not attractive to the current employees. In addition, it does not have a strong and

effective employer brand that will help retain the current employees. Finally, the fourth cell

shows a successful employer brand, meaning that it is attractive to the potential employees and

it delivers what has been promised to the current employees as well. This cell is also the most

desired by the employing organization as “it ought to result in the company being able to

acquire and retain the best possible candidates. Furthermore, these employees are likely to be

highly engaged, resulting in buoyant productivity” (pp. 172-173).

Moroko and Uncles (2008) further explain that even though a company might find itself in one

of these cells at one point in time, they are not likely to stay in the cell for a long time. This is

due to the turnover rate within the organization as well as the information that the organization

sends out to current and potential employees. This is aligned with the theory presented by

Wilden et al. (2010).

10

As mentioned earlier, Wilden et al. (2010) also found that there is a link between the

effectiveness of a brands signal and credibility, consistency, clarity and the investments that

are associated with the employer brand. The signals that the brand sends out about the brand

identity (the summary of the attributes and benefits of an organization) needs to consistent with

the organization’s brand image, which is how the employee think about the organizations

employer brand. If the signals are not credible, consistent or clear, the potential employee will

consider it to be a risk to join the organization. However, this risk can still be overcome with

an employer brand that is purposefully designed to one specific employer market.

2.2.1 The Employer Branding Process

Leekha Chhabra and Sharma (2014) introduced a conceptual model to explain the employer

brand process; a way for organizations to create a strong employer brand. The process can be

seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The employer branding process

Source: Leekha Chhabra & Sharma, 2014

According to Leekha Chhabra and Sharma (2014), the employer branding process consists of

four steps which starts with identifying the organizational attributes. This step includes the

different benefits the employee can look forward to when joining an organization, which,

according to Soulez and Guillot-Soulez (2011) can be divided into five different categories

concerning benefits that the organization offer. The benefits are summarized as functional,

economic, psychological, instrumental and symbolic. When the organization has analyzed

11

these attributes, the process continues with the choice of the promotion channel(s) by which

the organization will communicate these attributes to the potential employee market. This is an

essential part of the process as it does not matter what attributes an organization have if it is

not communicated towards the targeted group. If that image is positive, this will create an

attractive employer image that will generate benefits such as a more qualified candidate pool.

If the image on the other hand is negative, the employer image will be unattractive, and the

organization will not be able to enjoy the benefits of an attractive employer brand. In summary,

this means that the organization will not reach employer attractiveness (Leekha Chhabra &

Sharma, 2014).

2.2.2 Functional Benefits

The functional benefits are the opportunities that an organization offers to the employees,

referring to development or and activities that are useful to the employee (Ambler & Barrow,

1996). This can be done through activities that encourage personal growth and performing

meaningful work (Soulez & Guillot-Soulez, 2011). As mentioned earlier, the employer brand

is closely linked to the product brand, which is why it can be important to consider the

consumer need when defining the functional benefits of an organization. Ghodeswar (2008)

explains that functional needs can be defined as “those that motivate the search for products

that solve consumption related problems (e.g. solve a current problem, resolve conflict,

restructure a frustrating situation)” (p. 5). This can be adapted to the employer brand, indicating

that the functional benefits can help the employee solve problems or learn how to deal with

frustrating problems. From the list of organizational attributes seen in Figure 2, the career

potentials and growth can be linked to the functional benefits (Leekha Chhabra & Sharma,

2014).

2.2.3 Economic Benefits

According to Soulez and Guillot-Soulez (2011), economic benefits are the financial or

materialistic rewards that an employee receives from the employer. It’s the compensation for

the work that the employee performance (Leekha Chhabra & Sharma, 2014). The

compensation for work performance does not only have to consist of a salary and bonuses,

rather it is all the forms of compensation that can provide an economic benefit to the employee

(Ambler & Barrow, 1996). Other economic benefits can be health- and dental insurance,

vacation, pension plan or receiving a company owned vehicle. This would not give the

employee a direct increase in money at the bank, however, it will cut costs in the future

(Chamberlain & Tain, 2016).

12

2.2.4 Psychological Benefits

The psychological benefits are the benefits that create a sense of belonging to the organization

(Soulez & Guillot-Soulez, 2011). According to Ambler and Barrow (1996), it also aims to

provide the employee with a purpose and a direction in the individuals work. Hence, it is the

organizational culture and the employee empowerment (Leekha Chhabra & Sharma, 2014).

Sweeney and Webb (2007) state that the psychological benefits create a sense of trust and

confidence in the other party; the employer organization. Moreover, the authors explain that

the psychological benefits “addresses perceptions of reliability, empathy, support,

understanding between parties, and psychological assurance in a business relationship context”

(p. 474).

2.2.5 Instrumental Benefits

The instrumental benefits can be summarized as the “tangible and factual attributes inherent in

the job or organization” (Soulez & Guillot-Soulez, 2011, p. 42). These attributes include the

salary, the career opportunities, the place where the work is located as well as the organization

in whole (Soulez & Guillot-Soulez, 2011). According to Lievens (2007), instrumental benefits

are linked to peoples basic needs to minimize the costs while maximizing the benefits. When

applied to recruitment, Lievens (2007) explains that the instrumental benefits describe the

objective, concrete and factual attributes the employee will gain when working in the

organization.

2.2.6 Symbolic Benefits

Soulez and Guillot-Soulez (2011) explain the symbolic benefits as “subjective and intangible

attributes that describe the job or organization and specific traits that applicants attribute to the

organization […] these benefits are linked to the individual’s need to maintain his personal

identity, improve his self-image or express his beliefs or personality.” (p. 42). The attributes

that can be associated with working within an organization can include prestige, sincerity and

enthusiasm (Soulez & Guillot-Soulez, 2011). Furthermore, these attributes communicate

information about the organization. Potential employees have images of what it would mean

to them to work in one particular organization and assign general traits to the organization

(Lievens, 2007). According to Aaker as well as Lievens and Highhouse (cited in Lievens,

2007), symbolic attributes can be subcategorized into 5 general categories: sincerity,

excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. These categories have traits of their

own, which can be found in Table 4.

13

Table 3: Categories of Symbolic Benefits

Category Sincerity Excitement Competence Sophistication Ruggedness

Traits Friendliness, honesty, sincerity

Trendiness, spirit, innovativeness

Reliability, security, successfulness

Prestige, status, social class

Masculinity vs femininity, toughness

Source: Aaker, 1997; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003 (as cited in Lievens, 2007)

Slaughter, Zickar, Highhouse and Mohr (2004) (as cited in Lievens, 2007) agrees that the

symbolic benefits of an organization affect the employer attractiveness. The better the fit

between the organization’s traits and the individual’s personality traits, the more attractive the

organization will appear to be to the individual.

In summary, all the listed benefits mentioned in this section will affect the employer brand.

Some of them are similar to each other and they overlap in some ways; the salary can, for

instance, be considered both an economic and an instrumental benefit. This thesis focus on

what attributes is most important to Millennials when creating an attractive employer brand.

By dividing the attributes into different categories, it should now be easier to determine what

sort of attributes are the most important.

The following part summarizes the most important research mentioned in the literature review.

It also aims to provide a supportable idea of what this thesis is focusing on, which in turn, is

connected to the research purpose and the research question of this thesis.

Table 4: The Research Purpose & Research Question

Purpose To gain a better understanding of what attributes of an organization that is most attractive to Millennials.

Research Question What attributes of an organization is most important in order to attract and retain Millennials?

The purpose and the research question presented in Table3 is connected to the organizational

attributes found in Figure 2 in the previous section. Because of this, this thesis focuses on the

attributes mentioned by Leekha Chhabra and Sharma (2014) as well as Soulez and Guillot-

Soulez (2011). The attributes are in this thesis also arranged in the five main categories (i.e.

functional, economic, psychological, instrumental and symbolic benefits).

14

2.3 Frame of Reference The frame of reference presented in Table 5 summarizes the most important research

mentioned in the literature reviews and will in turn help guide the data collection method later

in this thesis.

Table 4: Frame of References

Subject Authors / References

Millennials

Costanza et al. (2012)

Kowske et al. (2010)

Parry and Urwin (2011)

Pînzaru et al. (2016)

Stewart et al. (2017)

Functional Benefits

Ambler and Barrow (1996)

Chodeswar (2008)

Leekha Chhabra and Sharma (2014)

Soules and Guillot-Soulez (2011)

Economic Benefits

Ambler and Barrow (1996)

Chamberlain and Tain (2016)

Leekha Chhabra and Shrma (2014)

Soules and Guillot-Soulez (2011)

Psychological Benefits

Ambler and Barrow (1996)

Leekha Chabra and Sharma (2014)

Soules and Guillot-Soulez (2011)

Sweeney and Webb (2007)

Instrumental Benefits

Lievens (2007)

Lievens and Highhouse (2003)

Soules and Guillot-Soulez (2011)

Symbolic Benefits

Aaker (1997)

Lievens (2007)

Lievens and Highhouse (2003)

Soules and Guillot-Soulez (2011)

15

3. Methodology Chapter 3 is intended to provide the reader with information regarding the chosen methods

and the reasoning behind the choice of these methods. All the methods were chosen in order to

provide relevant information for this study. In the end, there will be a short summary of this

chapter.

There have been previous studies that have researched Millennials in the workforce (Culiberg

& Mihelič 2016), characteristics of Millennials (Parry & Urwin, 2011), employer branding in

general (Ambler & Barrow, 1996) as well as the employer branding process (Leekha Chhabra

& Sharma, 2014). However, so far there has not been a study that focuses on what attributes

are the most important when Millennials search for a job.

Considering previous research and the intention of this thesis, this study was conducted in a

quantitative approach, with a descriptive research purpose. As the objective of this study is to

find out what organizational attributes are the most important to Swedish Millennials in order

for an organization to be considered attractive, the research sample was consistent of Swedish

Millennials. With all this in mind, the decisions regarding the methodology will be described

more thoroughly.

3.1 Research purpose When deciding on the research purpose (e.g. if it is exploratory, descriptive or explanatory) the

research questions were once again taken into consideration. The research questions are stated

as the following:

RQ: What attributes of the organization are the most important to attract and retain

Millennials?

A study that has an exploratory research purpose seek new insights in a phenomenon and is

used when there is a problem that needs to be clarified or understand, especially if there are

some uncertainties of the nature of the problem. A study with an explanatory purpose examines

a problem and then explains the relationship between two or more variables (Saunders et al.,

2009). A descriptive research intends to “portray an accurate profile of persons, events or

situations” (Saunders et al. p. 140).

As stated earlier, there has already been earlier research conducted around all the relevant areas

as scholars have already recognized trends regarding employer branding and general traits of

Millennials. This thesis used the results of those studies and knowledge to investigate whether

16

or not those trends would apply to Swedish Millennials. In other words, the purpose of this was

to portray what attributes of an organization that is the most important to Millennials in

Sweden. Because of this, the intention of this study aligns with a descriptive research purpose.

3.2 Research Approach According to Yin (2014), and inductive approach is used when there is not any known pattern,

instead the researcher collects data and then investigate the cause of a problem or a

phenomenon (Yin, 2014). A deductive research, on the other hand, is appropriate to use when

there have already been previous studies conducted that have already noticed trends that can

be adapted or explained in a new setting (Saunders et al. (2009). These trends include the

employer brand process (Leekha Chhabra & Sharma, 2014) and general traits of Millennials

(Parry & Urwin, 2011; Stewart et al. 2017). As mentioned earlier, this study used these previous

researchers as a foundation and observed how well these applied to Millennials in Sweden.

Based on this information, the research approach was decided to be deductive.

In addition to the research approach being deductive, a study can be either quantitative or

qualitative. A quantitative study is often described as a study that focuses on gathering data

that is numerical. If, on the other hand, a study is qualitative, the gathered data is non-numerical

(Saunders et al. 2009). This thesis has been conducted in a quantitative approach, in other

words, the data collection method was to use a survey. It was necessarry to observe Swedish

Millennials in a way that would generate numerical data (i.e. if the majority of the population

would agree that one attribute is more attractive than another).

3.3 Research strategy The research strategy is the general plan describing how this thesis intended to answer the

research question (Saunders et al., 2009). The authors explain that a survey is often used in

association with a deductive approach and is described as “a popular and common strategy in

business and management research and is most frequently used to answer who, what, where,

how much and how many questions” (p. 144). In addition, a survey is a popular strategy for a

descriptive approach as it allows for a large amount of data do the gathered from a bigger

sample. Moreover, it’s often cost-effective and an easy way to reach the targeted sample if they

are known (Saunders et al., 2009).

Based on a descriptive and quantitative research approach, the information provided by the

quote above, as well as the delimitations in this study, a survey was decided as the best strategy

17

for this thesis. With the research strategy in mind, decisions regarding the method of data

collection and sample selection could be made.

3.3.1 Data Collection

With the research strategy being a survey, Saunders et al. (2009) argue that questionnaires are

commonly used as a way to gather data since each person is answering the same set of questions

as everyone else. That way, a questionnaire provides an effective way to collect responses from

a large sample population.

A questionnaire can be conducted in many ways, and in this thesis, the questionnaire was

conducted online. This made it a self-administered (i.e., it was completed by the respondents

and then submitted to the author) and Internet-mediated questionnaire. The foundation of this

was that it would be cost-effective and a quicker solution than conducting a postal

questionnaire (Saunders et al., 2009). Based on the sample population, it was also a better fit

to access the email addresses of the students at LTU and email them the link to the

questionnaire, rather than seeking the students personally.

3.3.1.1 Questionnaire

As already mentioned, the questionnaire was sent out electronically to the students at LTU with

the desired number of responses to a minimum of 100 students, yet preferably 200 respondents

to ensure that there would be enough responses, the link to the survey was introduced with a

letter in form of an email. The email introduced the potential respondents to the area which the

questionnaire covered as well as the expected time for the participation.

The questions were based on previous research mentioned in the literature review as well as

the conceptual framework of this study. Firstly, it introduced the respondent to demographic

questions for statistical purpose. Further, statements regarding functional, economic,

psychological, instrumental and symbolic benefits were presented. The questionnaire used can

be found in Appendix 1. These statements were presented in a way that would correspond with

opinion variable, which records the respondent’s feelings about an issue. It could also be used

to understand whether or not the respondents agree with a situation (Saunders et al., 2009).

In order to understand the respondent’s perception of the importance of the attributes, a Likert

scale was used. According to Barua (2013), a Likert scale is a commonly used in survey

questionnaires as the respondents “specify their level of agreement or disagreement on a

symmetric agree-disagree scale for a series of statements while responding to a particular Likert

questionnaire item. The range of Likert scale captures the intensity of their feelings for a given

18

item” (p.35). In the questionnaire that was sent out, the respondents could choose between five

alternatives on a Linkert scale, where 1 represented “strongly disagree” and 5 represented

“strongly agree”.

The questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1.

3.3.2 Sample Selection

According to Saunders et al. (2009), there are two categories of sample selection methods

existing today, probability sampling and non-probability sampling. With the use of probability

sampling, the sample is chosen randomly and the chances of one person being selected for the

study is the same as for everyone else. With the use of non-probability sampling, the probability

of one person being chosen over another is not known. Because of this, it is still possible to

create generalizations about a population, yet it is not possible to draw statistical conclusions.

In this thesis, two versions of a non-probability sampling method were used: purposive

sampling and convenience sampling. This was due to the delimitations and drawn in section

1.4.

A purposive sampling enables the researcher to use his or her judgement to select a sample that

will best ensure that the sample will meet the criteria, which in turn will help answer the

research question (Saunders et al., 2009). Even though this sampling technique is often used

with a very small sample, such as for a case study, the author still applied this technique when

deciding on the sample. Based on when the youngest person is born in the Millennial generation

in this thesis, the author gathered the email addresses from students who are currently on their

sixth or later semester at LTU, as that would make sure that the youngest person would be born

in 1996. This way, the sample would fit the criteria’s mentioned earlier.

As mentioned, the sample was selected with the mix of two techniques. The other sample

method that was used was convenience sampling, as the author asked students at LTU as a

sample instead of finding individuals who would fit the criteria at other universities. When

using this method, the respondents are chosen at random based on how easy they are to obtain

(Saunders et al., 2009). As it was easy to obtain the email addresses of students at LTU based

on the program the students are currently studying at. However, after the email addresses were

gathered, they were not divided into groups. Any student that is studying at their sixth or later

semester could receive an email with the questionnaire. This makes the method consistent with

being viewed as a convenient sample.

19

For conducting this study, 1 700 emails was sent out to students that in theory would fit the

criterions listed for the sample as they were currently at their sixth or later semester at LTU.

The emails were sent out to these as they were the first 1 700 from the email database at LTU.

In addition, this number of students would represent the chosen sample selection. Out of the

emails that was sent out, there were 250 respondents where a total of 23 were removed from

the data. This was because they were either too young or too old to fit in the criterions, reducing

the valid responses to a total number of 227 and the valid response rate to 13,6%.

By the use of these methods of sampling, this thesis also indicated as a more preliminary study,

meaning that more in-depth analysis could be required in the future for a more exact

representation of the entire population (Saunders et al., 2009).

3.3.3 Data Analysis

The data was analyzed with the help of a couple of statistical measurements: the minimum and

maximum value, the mean, the median as well as the standard deviation. There was no further

analyzing done, such as multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), regression analysis or

a correlation analysis, as none of the questions asked was an independent variable. Because of

this, there is not possible to generate statistical implications, yet it is still possible to produce

generalizations (Saunders et al., 2009).

The demographic questions were only asked for statistical purpose, meaning that they were

only included to ensure that the respondents were appropriate according to the criterions for

the sample (i.e., being a student at LTU and being born between 1982 and 1996). This means

that those questions were not analyzed further, only presented in the chapter regarding data

collection. As this thesis is of a descriptive research purpose and not comparative, there will be

no comparison among gender or age. In addition, It will not be possible to conduct any in-depth

comparison with Millennials in the USA either as the due to the same reasoning.

The questions regarding the different types of benefits (i.e. functional-, economic-,

psychological-, instrumental- and symbolic benefits) was analyzed through the statistical

measurements mentioned. These measurements were chosen as it is possible to rank the

answers to these question on a scale of 1-5, responding to the level of agreement of the

importance of the mentioned benefits. The ranking system was mainly based on the mean, yet,

if some of the benefits had similar mean value, the standard deviation was taken into

consideration as it showed the spread of the answers. Based on the statistics generated from the

answers, it was then possible to find the most important attributes.

20

3.3.4 Quality of research

The quality of research refers to the credibility of the research findings; that the answers to the

questionnaire is accurate and credible. By ensuring the credibility, the validity and reliability

are taken into consideration. Both the internal validity and the external validity, as well as the

reliability of the data collected, are largely dependent on the design and structure of the

questionnaire (Saunders et al., 2009)

3.3.4.1 Validity

Validity can be created both internally and externally. The internal validity concerns the

findings from the data and whether or not the findings measure what the questionnaire was

intended to measure. The external reliability regards the generalizability of the data, that is, if

the findings are generalizable for the whole population or not. Earlier researchers have

concluded that generations have more in common with other people in the same generation

than with people from other generations, which is why there is some common characteristic of

Millennials (Pînzaru, et al., 2016). Because of previous research and the way that the sample

was selected, this thesis shows reliability as it can be generalizable to other Millennials.

The internal validity, on the other hand, can be threatened by factors such as history, testing,

instrumentation, mortality, maturation and ambiguity about casual direction (Saunders et al.

2009). All of these threats can affect the validity of any thesis, however, not all of the threats

mentioned is relevant. Because of this, the most relevant threats to the data gathering for this

report is discussed further.

The way the questionnaire was tested could affect the answers to the questionnaire. For

example, if the questionnaire would be too long, the individuals might not reflect on the

questions after a while and only choose an alternative that is convenient at the end (Saunders

et al 2009). With this in mind, the questionnaire that was sent out was limited to 29 questions

(demographic information included) to ensure that the respondents would take the time and

answer all the questions accordingly.

The threat of instrumentation refers to the instructions that the respondents were given. For

example, they could have been told to imagine a scenario or to answer the questions as fast as

possible (Saunders et al. 2009) There were no specific instructions given along the

questionnaire as the author of this thesis wanted answers that were not affected by a specific

organization or other influences. Rather wished for the respondents to interpret the questions

in their own way.

21

In summary, the threats of validity were taken into consideration when conducting the

questionnaire to ensure that the gathered data would be valid.

3.3.4.2 Reliability

The reliability is concerned with the fact that the findings are consistent with the techniques

used when gathering the data, as well as the findings would be observed in similar ways if there

was another study done on the topic (Saunders et al. 2009). According to Kothari (2004),

reliability also means that a criterion is reproducible or stable as well as accurate and measured

precisely. There are normally two ways to ensure reliability, first to look at the stability aspect

and then to look at the equivalence aspect (Kothari, 2004). As the equivalence aspect demands

another investigator to test the same method on the same or on a different sample, this was not

taken into consideration when conducting the questionnaire. However, the stability aspect is

discussed further.

Kothari (2004) explains that the stability aspect is “concerned with securing consistent results

with repeated measurements of the same person and with the same instrument” (p. 75). In other

words, the degree of stability is measured by repeating the same measurement multiple times

with one test subject and then compare the results to each other (Kothari, 2004). The author

did not conduct extra testing concerning the reliability in this way beforehand. However, the

questions were based on previous research which had already lifted the beneficial attributes of

an organization in regard to employer branding which in turn generate reliability to this thesis.

This study examined what attributes Millennials of Sweden find most attractive in an

organization, which is based on the respondent’s own perception of what is important to them

as individuals. Because of this, the respondents should in theory answer in the same way if the

questions were asked in the same way. However, what could have influenced the stability of

the data and make the respondents fill in the questionnaire in another way at another time,

would be if the questions were explained thoroughly or put in a context or a scenario.

Even though the questionnaire was not tested on one person on multiple occasions, the

questionnaire was tested on 3 individuals before it was sent out. This was done to ensure that

the questions were easy to understand. If a test person was uncertain about any question, that

question was altered accordingly to the feedback. With this said, the reliability was ensured.

22

4. Empirical Data In this chapter, the empirical data that was gathered for the purpose of answering the research

question will be presented. The data was gathered through a questionnaire that was sent out

online. The presentation follows the structure of the questionnaire as well as the conceptual

framework.

The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of what attributes in an

organization is the most important to Swedish Millennials, which in turn would create a strong

employer brand. This was reflected in the research question that was stated as the following:

RQ: What attributes of an organization is most important in order to attract and retain

Millennials?

As mentioned in the methodology, the questionnaire was sent out to 1 700 students at LTU who

was studying their sixth or later semester in any of the programs that the university offered. Out

of the 1 700 students, 250 answers were generated. Out of this number, 23 of the answers was

sorted out of the data as the respondents were either too young or too old to fit the Millennial

criteria. This resulted in 227 valid answers that will be presented further.

4.1 Demographic information The demographic questions were asked for statistical purpose only and was conducted out of

5 questions concerning gender, age, educational level, geographical origin and work

experience. Following, the distribution of gender, age and work experience is presented.

The gender distribution is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Gender Distribution

Female; 130; 57%

Male; 92; 41%

Other; 1; 0%Prefer not to

answer; 4; 2%

Gender

Female

Male

Other

Prefer not toanswer

23

As can be seen in Figure 3, the majority of the respondents were female, making up for

approximately 57%. Male respondents added up to about 40% while prefer not to answer made

about 2% of the respondents. None of the respondents chose the option other.

In addition to the gender distribution, the respondents were also asked to state their age. This

was to make sure that the respondents were eligible to be viewed as Millennials. This is

presented in Table 6.

Table 5: Age Distribution

Age Born Respondents % of age

22 – 24 1996 – 1994 117 51,5%

25 – 27 1993 – 1991 71 31,3%

28 – 30 1990 – 1988 22 9,7%

31 – 33 1987 – 1985 11 4,9%

34 – 36 1984 – 1982 6 2,6%

Total - 227 100%

In Table 6, the reader can see that the majority of the respondents belong to the younger ages

of the Millennial generation. Almost 52% are born in the mid-1990’s while only 2,6% of the

respondents were born in the early 1980’s.

Table 7 presents the respondents work experience.

Table 6: Distribution of Work Experience

Work experience Respondents % of Work

Experience

Less than 1 year 53 23,3%

1-2 years 54 23,8%

3-4 years 39 17,2%

More than 4 years 72 31,7%

Not applicable 9 4%

Total 227 100%

24

According to Table 7, the majority of the students have worked for more than 1 year. Almost

32% of the respondents have more than 4 years of work experience, 17% have between 3-4

years of work experience and approximately 24% have 1-2 years of work experience.

4.2 Functional benefits As mentioned in the conceptual framework, the functional benefits refer to the opportunities

that an organization offers to the employees (Soulez & Guillot-Soulez, 2011). The questions

that were asked in the questionnaire regarding the functional benefits are presented in Figure 4

to provide an easy overview of how many students answered each question. The gathered data

will then be broken down into percentages in Table 8.

Figure 4: Presentation of Functional Benefits

In Figure 4, the reader can see that the majority of the respondents answered with either Agree

or Strongly Agree to most of the questions concerning the functional benefits. This can be seen

through the number above the bars presented in the chart.

While Figure 4 presents an easy display of the gathered data regarding the functional benefits,

Table 7 presents the percentage of the responses (n = 227) for each alternative. In Table 7, the

reader can see the distribution of the answers in percentage. In this table, it can, for example,

be seen that 46.3% answered with Strongly agree to the statement “it’s important to me to work

0 0 0 0 23 9 215 1819

59

9

5547

100112

7990

79

105

47

137

6781

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Focus onpersonal growth

Takeresponsibility andsolve problems on

my own.

Job assignmentsare stimulating.

Work withsomething that I

care deeply about.

Can make acareer/get a

promotion at mywork

Functional Benefits

1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Agree5 Strongly Agree

25

in an organization that focus on personal growth” and 44% answered with Agree. To the last

statement “it’s important to me that I can make a career/get a promotion at my work”, it is

possible to see that 8% of the respondents answered with Disagree.

Table 7: Percentages of Functional Benefits

Statement

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly agree

It’s important to me to work in an organization that focus on personal growth 0% 1,3% 8,4% 44% 46,3%

It’s important to me that my managers expect me to take responsibility and solve problems on my own. 0% 4% 26% 49,3% 20,7%

It’s important to me that my job assignments are stimulating. 0% 0.9% 4% 34,8% 60,3%

It’s important to me that I can work with something that I care deeply about. 0% 6,6% 24,2% 39,7% 29,5%

It’s important to me that I can make a career/get a promotion at my work 0,9% 8% 20,7% 34,8% 35,6%

4.3 Economic benefits The numerical distribution regarding the economic benefits (i.e., the compensation for

performance) is presented in Figure 5 and in Table 9.

Figure 5: Presentation of Economic Benefits

1

21

47

8 14

51 57

19 1428

11097

52 49

101

33

15

748893

12 11

74 75

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Offers a salarythat I want

Offers bonuses. Offers otherbenefits such as a

car.

Provideshealthcare

Long paidvacation

Economic Benefits

1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Agree

5 Strongly Agree

26

In Figure 5, it can, for example, be seen that regarding question one, there were 93 respondents

who answered with Strongly Agree and 101 persons who answered with Agree regarding if

they believed it was important to be offered the salary that they want by their employer. While

regarding the question if it is important that the employer offers bonuses, the majority (110

respondents) answered that they Neither agree nor disagree to that statement. The numbers are

similar for question three, concerning the importance of being offered other benefits such as a

company owned car. To this question, 97 individuals answered that they Neither agree nor

disagree.

The distribution of the economic benefits is presented in the form of percentage in Table 8. It

further explains what could be seen in Figure 5. For example, it can be seen that 44.5%

answered with Agree and 41% answered with Strongly Agree to the question regarding if it is

important to the Swedish Millennials if the employer offers the salary that the want.

Table 8: Percentage of Economic Benefits

Statement

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree Agree Strongly

agree

It’s important to me that my employer offers a salary that I want 0,4% 1,8% 12,3% 44,5% 41%

It’s important to me that my employer offers bonuses. 9,2% 22,5% 48,5% 14,5% 5,3%

It’s important to me to receive other benefits such as a car from my employer. 20,7% 25,1% 42,7% 6,6% 4,9%

It’s important to me that my employer provides healthcare 3,5% 8,4% 22,9% 32,6% 32,6%

It’s important to me to have long paid vacation 0,4% 6,2% 21,6% 38,8% 33%

4.4 Psychological Benefits Figure 6 presents the respondent’s opinions regarding the psychological benefits that an

organization offers.

27

Figure 6: Presentation of Psychological Benefits

In Figure 6, it can be seen that most respondents Strongly Agree with the questions asked

concerning the psychological benefits. This can be seen through the number of respondents

which was 147 Strongly agree to the first question, followed by 147 Strongly agree to question

number two and then 154 and 154 Strongly agree to the last two questions regarding this topic.

Table 9 further presents the data in percentage, where the numbers from Figure 6 is converted

to percentages. Here it can be seen that the 64,8% of the respondents answered with Strongly

agree to the first question, followed by 63%, 68.7% and 67.9% Strongly agree respectively to

the other questions in this category.

Table 9: Distribution of Psychological benefits

Statement

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree Agree Strongly

agree

It’s important to me that the working environment is open and positive 0,4% 1,3% 4,4% 29,1% 64,8%

It’s important to me that I can have fun at work. 0% 1,8% 6,6% 28,6% 63%

It’s important to me to that I feel like I belong at work. 0% 1,8% 2,6% 26,9% 68,7%

It’s important to me that my employer trust me 0% 0% 2,6% 29,5% 67,9%

1 0 0 03 4 4 010 15

6 6

66 65 61 67

147 143156 154

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Open and positiveworking environment

Can have fun at work. To feel like I belong atwork.

My employer trust me

Psychological Benefits

1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree

3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Agree5 Strongly Agree

28

4.5 Instrumental Benefits The instrumental benefits (i.e., the objective and concrete attributes an employee will gain) is

presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Presentation of Instrumental Benefits

Regarding the answers in Figure 7, it is possible to see that the respondents consider it to be

important that the basic needs are fulfilled and that the respondents can have a good work-life

balance. This can be seen through the high number of Strongly agree which is 143 and 131

respectively to the questions.

Table 10 present the responses regarding the instrumental benefits in percentage. In relation to

the numbers presented in Figure 7, the percentages shown the distribution of the answers even

further. Here it is possible to see that for the first question, the majority either Agree or Strongly

agree to the importance of the working hours fitting the respondent’s lifestyle. This can be

viewed from the 40.1% answering with Strongly Agree and 39.2% answering with Agree.

2 08

0 07 12 18

3 1

3829

4026

12

89 8772 67 71

9199

89

131143

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

The workinghours fits my

lifestyle

Have job security Work is locatedwhere I want to

live

A good work-lifebalance

Basic needs arefulfilled

Instrumental Benefits

1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree

3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Agree5 Strongly Agree

29

Table 10: Distribution of Instrumental Benefits

Statement

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree Agree Strongly

agree

It’s important to me that the working hours fits my lifestyle 0,9% 3,1% 16,7% 39,2% 40,1%

It’s important to me that I have job security 0% 5,3% 12,8% 38,3% 43,6%

It’s important to me to that my work is located where I want to live 3,5% 7,9% 17,6% 31,7% 39,3%

It’s important to me to have a good work-life balance 0% 1,3% 11,5% 29,5% 57,7%

It’s important to me that my basic needs are fulfilled 0% 0,4% 5,3% 31,3% 63%

4.6 Symbolic Benefits In Figure 8 the reader can see the distribution of the symbolic benefits (i.e., the intangible

attributes that describe the job or organization which the employee associates with the

organization in question.

Figure 8: Presentation of Symbolic Benefits

Based on the bars presented in Figure 8, it can be seen that the respondents’ answers to the

questions concerning the symbolic questions are diverse. Here it can be seen that the option

4856

8 8 11

63 65

2115 20

6860 60

68

52

36 36

95 9784

12 10

43 39

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Work will impressother people

Work gives mehigh status

My employer’s values and beliefs align with my own

To be proud of myemployer

Employer care forthe environment

Symbolic Benefits

1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Agree5 Strongly Agree

30

Neither agree nor disagree have been used almost equal throughout the questions asked. The

number of individuals who chose this option ranges from 52 to 68.

Table 11 further present the gathered data in percentage. Here it can be seen that the option

Neither agree nor disagree has been chosen between 22.9% and 29.9%.

Table 11: Distribution of Symbolic Benefits

Statement

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree Agree Strongly

agree

It’s important to me that my work will impress other people 21,1% 27,8% 29.9% 15,9% 5,3%

It’s important to me that my work gives me high status 24,7% 28,6% 26,4% 15,9% 4,4%

It’s important to me to that my employer’s values and beliefs align with my own values and beliefs 3,5% 9,3% 26,4% 41,9% 18,9%

It’s important to me to be proud of my employer 3,5% 6,6% 29.9% 42,8% 17,2%

It’s important to me that my employer care for the environment 4,9% 8,8% 22,9% 37% 26,4%

31

5. Data Analysis While Chapter 4 presented the empirical data gathered from students at Luleå University of

Technology, Chapter 5 focuses on the analysis of the gathered data with a more in-depth

discussion than the previous chapter. This chapter is again structured in accordance with the

questionnaire that was sent out to the students at LTU.

With the help of the data provided by the respondents to the questionnaire, which was

introduced in section 4 (Empirical Data), it was possible to analyze the answers with the help

of the statistical mean and the standard deviation. In addition to the percentage every option

from the Likert scale generated, it is now possible to rank the different benefits as there is a

statistical mean available. Each benefit will be discussed further as based on the statistical

variable presented in Table 12.

Table 12: Explanation of the Variables

Code Definition

Rank Shows how highly the respondents agree about the importance of a benefit in comparison to the other benefits in the category.

Min The minimum value that any of the respondents answered a question.

Max The maximum value that any of the respondents answered a question.

Mean Represents the average level of agreement that the respondents felt with the questions.

Med In a sequence of number, the median represents the number in the middle.

Std. dev Helps to assess the spread of the variables in the collected data

Source: Saunders et al. (2009)

The rank is included to show how highly the respondents agree or disagree with the importance

of one attribute or benefit in comparison to the other statements in the category (e.g., functional,

economic etc). The rank is also based on mainly the mean; however, the other statistical

measurements are taken into consideration when the value of the mean is similar in more than

one attribute.

The minimum (min) value refers to the lowest degree a respondent has agreed or disagreed

with a statement, with the opposite being true for the maximum (max) value (Saunders et al.,

2009). The minimum value is 1, as it represents the option strongly disagree. In comparison,

the maximum value is 5 and represent strongly agree. The mean indicates the average level of

agreement that the respondents felt with the statements while the median (med) is the number

32

in the middle of a sequence of number. The standard deviation (std. dev) indicates the spread

of the responses in the collected data (Saunders et al., 2009).

5.1 Functional Benefits As explained in the background, the functional benefits are linked to the product brand, and as

with the importance of considering the consumers need when defining the product brand, it is

also important to consider the potential employees functional needs when creating an employer

brand (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). In Table 13, the various questions regarding the functional

benefits as well as the statistical measurements are displayed.

Table 13: Statistics of Functional Benefits

Statement Rank N Min Max Mean Med Std. dev

It’s important to me that my job assignments are stimulating. 1 227 2 5 4,55 5 0,62

It’s important to me to work in an organization that focuses on personal growth 2 227 2 5 4,35 4 0,69

It’s important to me that I can make a career/get a promotion at my work 3 227 1 5 3,96 4 0,98

It’s important to me that I can work with something that I care deeply about. 4 227 2 5 3,92 4 0,89

It’s important to me that my managers expect me to take responsibility and solve problems on my own. 5 227 2 5 3,87 4 0,78

From the information provided in Table 13, it is clear that the most important functional benefit

is that the organization can offer stimulating job assignments. This can be interpreted through

the high mean at 4.55 and the median being at 5 and through the relatively low value of the

standard deviation. This means that most of the Millennials said that they strongly agree with

this statement.

The second most important functional benefit according to Swedish Millennials is that the

organization focuses on personal growth for their employees. As with the importance of

stimulating job assignments, the mean is relatively high in comparison to the mean of the other

statements. The standard deviation is just slightly higher in comparison to the statement

concerning job assignments, which means that there is a relatively low spread of the variables

in that statement.

33

Worth to notice with the functional benefits is that even though the standard deviation and the

median is not the lowest regarding the statement It’s important to me that my managers expect

me to take responsibility and solve problems on my own, Millennials do not consider this

benefit to be as important as the other functional benefits, this can be seen through the low

value of the mean.

Even though the statement It’s important to me that I can make a career/get a promotion at my

work has the biggest spread, the lowest value and the highest standard deviation, this benefit

was still ranked number 3 as it still has a relatively high mean.

5.2 Economic Benefits The economic benefits are, as mentioned earlier, linked to the compensation an employee

receives from the employer in exchange for the performed work. The questionnaire included 5

questions regarding economic benefits and these are presented in Table 15.

Table 14: Statistics of Functional Benefits

Statement Rank N Min Max Mean Med Std. dev

It’s important to me that my employer offers a salary that I want 1 227 1 5 4,24 4 0,76

It’s important to me to have long paid vacation 2 227 1 5 3,99 4 0,91

It’s important to me that my employer provides health care 3 227 1 5 3,82 4 1,09

It’s important to me that my employer offers bonuses. 4 227 1 5 2,84 3 0,96

It’s important to me to receive other benefits such as a car from my employer. 5 227 1 5 2,31 2 1,03

According to the answers from the students at LTU which is presented in Table 14, the

statement It’s important to me that my employer offers a salary that I want is the most important

attribute regarding the functional benefits. This can be seen by the high mean, the high median

as well as the relatively low standard deviation.

Based on the relatively high standard deviation on all of the questions, the spread is relatively

big, meaning that students do not seem to agree whether or not the economic benefits are

important or not for them. This can also be seen by the generally low mean, it’s only the salary

and the vacation that has a value close to, or over 4. This means that the salary and the long-

34

paid vacation is the most important economic benefit, while other benefits such as a company

provided car is the least important economic benefit.

5.3 Psychological benefits Soulez and Guillot-Soulez (2011) explained that the psychological benefit were the attributes

that create a sense of belonging to the organization and these are often intangible. In the

questionnaire, there were only four questions asked regarding the psychological benefits and

the level of importance of each of the questions asked regarding these attributes are presented

in Table 15.

Table 15: Statistics of Psychological Benefits

Statment Rank N Min Max Mean Med Std. dev

It’s important to me that my employer trust me 1 227 3 5 4,65 5 0,53

It’s important to me to that I feel like I belong at work. 2 227 2 5 4,63 5 0,63

It’s important to me that the working environment is open and positive 3 227 1 5 4,56 5 0,68

It’s important to me that I can have fun at work. 4 227 2 5 4,53 5 0,70

The psychological benefits are generally considered to be important to Swedish Millennials.

This can be seen through the generally high mean, the relatively low standard deviation in

general, as well as most of the questions did not receive answers for the full range. Instead, the

range started with a higher number. The only exception is for the statement It’s important to

me that the working environment is open and positive, which received answers for the full

range. However, since the mean is relatively high, this means that there were not that many

respondents who disagreed with the statement.

The attribute that was ranked the most important (meaning that most students strongly agreed

or agreed with the statement) was the importance of having an employer who trusts the

employee. This can be seen through the high mean, the high minimum, the high median and

the low standard deviation. The latest indicates that the spread was low and that most

respondents answered strongly agree or agree, with only a few answering neither agree nor

disagree.

The second most important attribute is, according to the gathered data, the feeling of belonging

at the organization, while the least important attribute of the psychological benefits, it the sense

35

of having fun at work. However, this is still considered to be very important, which can be seen

through the relatively high mean and that the standard deviation still is comparatively low.

5.4 Instrumental Benefits The instrumental benefits are, as mentioned earlier, the tangible attributes that the employer

receive which minimizes the cost while maximizing the benefits (Soulez & Gouillot-Soulez,

2011; Lievens, 2007). The statistics for the five questions asked regarding the instrumental

benefits are presented in Table 16.

Table 16: Statistics for Instrumental Benefits

Statement Rank N Min Max Mean Med Std. dev

It’s important to me that my basic needs are fulfilled 1 227 2 5 4,57 5 0,62

It’s important to me to have a good work-life balance 2 227 2 5 4,44 5 0,75

It’s important to me that I have job security 3 227 2 5 4,20 4 0,86

It’s important to me that the working hours fits my lifestyle 4 227 1 5 4,15 4 0,87

It’s important to me that my work is located where I want to live 5 227 1 5 3,95 4 1,10

Looking at the statistics presented in Table 16, it’s possible to identify that the fulfilment of

the basic needs is the most important of the instrumental benefits, due to the high mean, the

high median and the relatively low standard deviation. In contrast, the statement It’s important

to me that my work is located where I want to live, is the least important benefit to the

respondents, indicating that Swedish Millennials do not agree whether or not it is important for

them to work where they want to live. This is indicated by the standard deviation which

explains that the spread of the answers is wide.

In general, all the benefits in this category seems important to the Swedish Millennials, as most

have a mean that is close to, or above 4. However, only the need for fulfilment of basic needs

and a need for a good work-life balance have 5 (e.g., strongly agree) as the median and lower

standard deviations in comparison to the other 3 benefits. This indicates that those benefits are

more important to Swedish Millennials than the other instrumental benefits.

36

5.5 Symbolic Benefits Finally, the symbolic benefits are the intangible benefits that a person associates with an

organization. These should align with an individual’s self-image and personal identity and in

the end, it should help the individual to express his or her own beliefs (Soulez & Guillot-Soulez,

2011). The statistics of the answers regarding the symbolic needs are presented in Table 17.

Table 17: Statistics of Symbolic Needs

Statment Rank N Min Max Mean Med Std. dev

It’s important to me that my employer care for the environment 1 227 1 5 3,71 4 1,10

It’s important to me to be proud of my employer 2 227 1 5 3,63 4 0,96

It’s important to me to that my employer’s values and beliefs align with my own values and beliefs 3 227 1 5 3,63 4 1,01

It’s important to me that my work will impress other people 4 227 1 5 2,56 3 1,14

It’s important to me that my work gives me high status 5 227 1 5 2,47 2 1,15

Looking at the statistics presented in Table 17, the Swedish Millennials don’t seem to agree

with each other how important the symbolic benefits are. This can be seen through the generally

low mean, median and the generally high standard deviation. In all of the questions, the answers

have ranged from 1 (e.g., strongly disagree) to 5 (e.g., strongly agree). In general, the symbolic

benefits are not considered to be important to Swedish Millennials.

The symbolic benefit that seems to be the most important is that the employer cares for the

environment. This can be seen through the high mean in relation to the other questions in this

category as well as the median being a 4 (e.g., Agree). In addition, even though the standard

deviation for this question is not the lowest, the higher mean indicates that the majority of the

respondents chose either strongly agree or agree.

The least important symbolic benefit, according to the statistics, is that the job gives the

Swedish Millennial high status. According to the numbers presented in Table 18, this benefit

only generated a mean at 2,47, a median at only 2 and a standard deviation at 1,15. This

indicates that most of the respondents answered this question with a 1 (e.g., Strongly disagree)

or with a 2 (e.g., Disagree). However, as the spread is wide, there was also many who agreed

with this statement. Close to this these numbers are the statement It’s important to me that my

37

work will impress other people, also indicating that this is not important to the Swedish

Millennials.

5.6 The Most Important Benefits Following in Table 18, the data that had the 10 best statistical values in the data analysis is

presented and ranked based on how important the benefits are according to Millennials in

Sweden.

Table 18: The Most Important Benefits

Category Statement N Min Max Mean Med Std. dev Rank

Psychological It’s important to me that my employer trust me 227 3 5 4,65 5 0,53 1

Psychological It’s important to me to that I feel like I belong at work. 227 2 5 4,63 5 0,63 2

Instrumental It’s important to me that my basic needs are fulfilled 227 2 5 4,57 5 0,62 3

Functional It’s important to me that my job assignments are stimulating. 227 2 5 4,55 5 0,62 4

Psychological It’s important to me that the working environment is open and positive 227 1 5 4,56 5 0,68 5

Psychological It’s important to me that I can have fun at work. 227 2 5 4,53 5 0,70 6

Instrumental It’s important to me to have a good work-life balance 227 2 5 4,44 5 0,75 7

Functional It’s important to me to work in an organization that focus on personal growth

227 2 5 4,35 4 0,69 8

Economic It’s important to me that my employer offers a salary that I want 227 1 5 4,24 4 0,76 9

Instrumental It’s important to me that I have job security 227 2 5 4,20 4 0,86 10

As can be seen in Table 18, the attribute that has been ranked the most important is a

psychological benefit which concerns the importance of trust from an employer. The statistics

show that this attribute had the lowest range and the lowest spread, all while having the highest

mean, indicating that the majority of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the

importance of this attribute. In other words, it is important for Millennial that the employer

trust the individual and let him or her do the job.

38

In a close second place, according to the statistics, is another psychological benefit, the feeling

of belonging to an organization. Followed, Table 18 also shows that an instrumental benefit is

considered to be the third most important benefit, which is the importance of the basic needs

being fulfilled. In the bottom of the list of the 10 most important benefits, an instrumental

benefit is presented concerning the importance of job security. This statement still has a

relatively high mean, indicating that most of the Millennials considered this to be a relatively

important benefit.

As interesting it is to look at what attributes made the list of the most important attributes, it is

also noteworthy to look at the attributes that did not make it on the list. None of the symbolic

benefits received as good values as any of the one listed in Table 18, indicating that Swedish

Millennials don’t consider these attributes to be of importance. In addition, only one of the

economic attributes is listed in Table 18, demonstrating that the economic benefits are not of

significant importance to Swedish Millennials either.

In general, it is the psychological and instrumental benefits that are considered to be the most

important to Swedish Millennials due to the psychological benefits are represented four times

in the top 10 list while the instrumental benefits are included three times.

39

6. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations This chapter is aimed to summarize the most important discoveries as well as discuss the

conclusion drawn from the discoveries. The overall objective of this thesis was to gain a better

understanding of what attributes in the organization is the most important in order to attract

and retain Swedish Millennials. To fulfil this purpose, a research question was outlined which

is further discussed in this chapter followed by the findings, a conclusion, and

recommendations. Finally, the limitations and further research will be discussed.

6.1 Findings Based on the research purpose and the research question stated earlier in Chapter 1, the gathered

data was analyzed, and the findings are here presented accordingly. The research question was

outlined as the following:

RQ: What attributes of an organization is most important in order to attract and retain

Millennials?

In order to provide more information to be to answer the research question, previous research

was acknowledged in the Literature review, which included information about Millennials

(characteristics and Millennials in the workforce) as well as the employer brand (definition and

the employer brand process). This was then followed by a theoretical framework which referred

to the attributes of the organization as a part of the employer brand, categorized into five types

of benefits: functional, economic, psychological, instrumental and symbolic.

A questionnaire was sent out, asking students at LTU who fit the Millennials criteria to answer

whether or not they agreed to statements regarding the types of benefits that was mentioned

above. The raw data was then analyzed and presented and in section 5.6 The most important

benefits, the benefits were ranked according to the importance to Millennials. As mentioned

earlier, Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) explains that if an organization communicates benefits that

are considered most important to Millennials, the organization should be able to attract and

retain talented and loyal employees from this generation.

Based on the analysis that was presented in section 5.6, Millennials at LTU care mostly about

the attributes of the Psychological character, since these were the attributes managed to score

four places on the list of the most important benefits. In addition, they are also concerned about

the instrumental benefits, specifically, to have their basic needs fulfilled and have a good work-

40

life balance. Further, Millennials at LTU are concerned about the functional attributes, such as

having stimulation work assignments and being able to experience personal growth.

6.2 Conclusions The purpose of this thesis was to gain a better understanding of what organizational attributes

are the most important in order to attract and retain Swedish Millennials. Based on the findings,

general conclusion concerning the research purpose could be made.

Principally, as there were four psychological benefits that made it to the list of the most

important benefits, it can be determined that the attributes in this category are considered to be

the most important to Swedish Millennials. Based on previous theory mentioned in the

literature review, the employer brand is strong and will attract the targeted group of employees

when the communicated attributes are aligned with what the targeted groups is searching for

(Moroko & Uncles, 2008). This, in turn, indicates that the organizational attributes that are the

most important to attract Swedish Millennials are the ones that belongs to the psychological

category. In addition, Moroko and Uncles (2008) added that if the employing organization also

offers the attributes that they communicate that they offer, that will lead to loyal employees,

implicating that Swedish Millennials will remain with an organization if they are offered what

they have been promised.

In accordance with Pînzaru, et al. (2016) who explained that individuals within generations (as

age cohorts) have similar beliefs and values as other people in the same generation, this seems

to be true according to the statistical measurements generated from the data analysis. The

benefits listed in the table of most important have all generally high mean and a low standard

deviation, indicating that most of the respondents either Strongly agreed or agreed with those

benefits being important.

In addition, Pînzaru et al. (2016) stated that Millennials are more affected by pressure and

stress, indicating that the psychological environment is important to Millennials. They

explained that if an organization seems to be too stressful, the organization’s employer brand

will be reduced. Conflicting to this theory, Stewart et al. (2017) found that the workplace

culture (the physical and psychological working environment) do not affect Millennials. As

there were two opposing theories about this, it is interesting to note that four of the

psychological attributes ended up in the top six most important attributes/benefits, which

supports the theory presented by Pînzaru et al. (2016).

41

Another aspect of Millennials that were noted by previous research was that Millennials are

the generation that cares the most about the environment (Saussier, 2017) and that they are not

likely to perform an activity if they found it ethically questionable (Culiberg & Mihelič, 2016).

However, looking at the data analysis, the symbolic attributes that concerned this (i.e., the

importance of the employer’s values and beliefs aligning with the Millennials and the

importance of the employer caring for the environment) was not as important as the other

attributes. Even though the findings do not disregard that Millennials do care about the

environment, there cannot be any generalizations drawn saying that this is something that

Swedish Millennials find to be an important organizational attribute.

Parry and Urwin (2011) also informed the reader of their study of the fact that Millennials are

not necessarily loyal to their employer, instead they want to keep their career options open.

This was supported by Constanza et al. (2012). However, this cannot be fully supported by the

finding in this thesis, as the benefit job security ended up in the top ten most important

attributes. This does not disregard Parry and Urwin’s (2011) or Constanza et al. (2012) theory

completely though, as it only managed to end up on a tenth place, indicating that other attributes

and benefits are more important to Swedish Millennials.

Finally, Pînzaru et al. (2016) also found that Millennials preferably make their own decisions,

execute these decisions and then receive feedback when they are done. This is supported

through the findings, as the statements It’s important to me that my employer trust me topped

the list, indicating that Millennials find it to be important that their employer trust them to be

able to do their work.

6.3 Recommendations The recommendations is here summarized as the implications of this study, as well as the

limitations and suggestions for further research.

6.3.1 Theoretical implications

The findings and conclusions correspond with previous research, which strengthens the theory

that there are generational similarities among people born in the Millennial generation.

However, as there has not been any comparison with older generations in Sweden in this study,

it cannot be stated that there are generational differences. Nevertheless, this thesis supports the

notion that Millennials in Sweden share similar beliefs and values.

42

6.3.2 Managerial Implications

As this thesis purpose was to gain a better understanding of what organizational attributes is

the most important to Swedish Millennials in order to attract and retain them as employees,

this should be taken into consideration by managers when creating the employer brand. As

mentioned earlier, the employer brand is used to differentiate an organization from other

organizations and provide individuals with information about the organization as an employer

(Ambler & Barrow, 1996). Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) also explained the importance of

creating a clear and honest employer brand that can be communicated to the potential

employees and Davidson et al. (2010) states that the organizations need to take the intended

targeted group (e.g. Millennials) into consideration when communicating the employer brand.

Because of the implication of previous research, and the findings from the data analysis,

managers are recommended to make the following three implementations, or take them into

consideration when they try to reach potential employees from the Millennial generation.

v Treat the current employees accordingly to the desires of the potential employees as,

according to Leekha Chhabra and Sharma (2014), current employees are a

communication channel who interconnects the internal characteristics to the external

environment.

v When creating a job advertising, put the focus on the psychological benefits the

potential employee, such as the benefit of joining a trusting, open and positive working

environment.

v Inform the potential employees about the job assignments and how those assignments

will help the individual to grow personally.

6.3.3 Limitations

As mentioned in Chapter 3 (Methodology), the author did not have the possibility to further

test the reliability of this thesis beforehand and in addition to this, no further testing was done

after the data gathering to ensure reliability or to strengthen the validity. This generates some

limitations to this study that will be presented further.

Firstly, the questionnaire was sent out to 1 700 students at LTU, which was selected from a list

of approximately 2 475 student e-mails. The number of suitable responses was 227, which

generated a response rate of 13,6%. This is a relatively low response rate, which could indicate

that either the questions were too difficult to understand or that the topic of this study was not

of interest to students.

43

In addition, the questions were not explained to the students, rather the author wanted the

students to respond to the questions in a way that were not influenced by the author. However,

as the questions was freely interpreted by all individuals, there is a risk that the findings are

misleading as the student might have interpreted the questions differently. Also, there can be

many other attributes within the benefit categories that was not mentioned in the questionnaire,

leading to the possibility that if the questions were formulated differently or if other attributes

within each category were lifted, the result of the most important attributes could change.

Furthermore, there was no time limit to respond to the questionnaire, which could have led

some of the respondents to have thought their decisions through while other might have

responded instinctively. This could also make the findings misguiding. Moreover, the data was

not further analyzed with a more extensive statistical method such as regression analysis or

correlation. The reason behind this was that there was no independent variable presented. This

means that it is not possible to generate statistical inferences, however, it is still possible to

produce the findings which can be generalized for the Swedish Millennials with higher

education.

6.3.4 Further Research

This study has found that some of the theories presented in the background and in the literature

review are applicable to Swedish Millennials whereas others are not. Thereby, further research

could contribute with more extensive research regarding differences or similarities with

Millennials in other parts of the word.

In addition, further research could be done with a more in-depth approach, looking for other

attributes that are not mentioned in this thesis to gain more and new knowledge about this

research area. Furthermore, this thesis was conducted with the sample only consisting of

students, studying at Luleå University of Technology who fulfilled the Millennial criteria stated

in this thesis. More research could be conducted looking at students from the whole of Sweden

to see if the findings truly are generalizable. Moreover, further research could look at all

Swedish Millennials and not only those who are studying to receive a higher diploma.

44

References Articles

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, pp.

347-356.

Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. The Journal of Brand Management,

4(3), pp. 185-206.

Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding.

Career Development International, 9(5), pp. 501-517.

Barua, A. (2013). Methods for Decision-Making in Survey Questionnaires Based on Likert

Scale. Journal of Asian Scientific Research, 3(1), pp. 35-38.

Berthon, P., Ewin, M., & Hah, L. L. (2005). Captivating company: dimensions of

attractiveness in employer branding. International Journal of Advertising, 24(2), pp.

151-172.

Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012).

Generational Differences in Work-Related Attitudes: A Meta-analysis. Journal of

Business Psychology(27), pp. 375-394.

Culiberg, B., & Mihelič, K. K. (2016). Three Ethical frames of reference: insight into

Millennials' ethical judgement and intentions in the workplace. Business Ethics: A

European Review, 25(1), pp. 94-111.

Davidson, M. C., Timo, N., & Wang, Y. (2010). How much does labour turnover cost?: A

case study of Australian four- and five-star hotels. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(4), pp. 451-466.

Ghodeswar, B. M. (2008). Building brand identity in competitive markets: a conceptual

model. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(1), pp. 4-12.

Ito, J. K., Brotheridge, C. M., & McFarland, K. (2013). Examining how preferences for

employer branding attributes differ from entry to exit and how they relate to

commitment, satisfaction, and retention. Career Development International, 18(7),

pp. 732-752.

45

Jurkiewicz, C. (2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel

Management, 29, pp. 55-74.

Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials' (Lack of) Attitude Problem: An

Empirical Examination of Generational Effects on Work Attitudes. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 25, pp. 265-279.

Leekha Chhabra, N., & Sharma, S. (2014). Employer branding: strategy for improving

employer attractiveness. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 22(1), pp.

48-60.

Lievens, F. (2007). Employer branding in the Belgian army: the importance of instrumental

and symbolic beliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants and military

employees. Human Resource Management, 46(1), pp. 51-69.

Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a

company's attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), pp. 75-102.

Moroko, L., & Uncles, M. D. (2008). Characteristics of successful employer brands. Journal

of Brand Management, 16(3), pp. 160-175.

Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational Differences in Work Values: A Review if Theory

and Evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, pp. 79-96.

Pînzaru, F., Vătămănescu, E.-M., Mitan, A., Săvulescu, R., Vițelar, A., Noaghea, C., &

Bălan, M. (2016). Millennials at Work: Investigating the Specificity of Generation Y

versus Other Generations. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 4(2),

pp. 173-192.

Reiz, G. G., & Braga, B. M. (2014). Employer attractiveness from a generational perspective:

Implications for employer branding. Revista de Administração, 51(1), pp. 103-116.

Rhodes, S. (1983). Age-related differences in work-attitudes and behaviour: a review and

conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93, pp. 328-367.

Saussier, J. (2017). Millennials drive sustainability. Global Investor, pp. 46-47.

Sinha, N., & Kshatriya, N. (2016). Gen Y’s Workplace Expectations on Employment Terms

and Conditions: Comparative Analysis of Collegians and Office Goers. Scholedge

International Journal of Management & Development, 03(08), pp. 137-163.

46

Slaughter, J. E., Zickar, M. J., Highhouse, S., & Mohr, D. C. (2004). Personality trait

inferences about organizations: Development of a measure and assessment of

construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, pp. 85-103.

Soulez, S., & Guillot-Soulez, C. (2011). Recruitment marketing and generational

segmentation: a critical analysis based on a sub-segment of Generation Y. Recherche

et Applications en Marketing, 26(1), pp. 39-55.

Stewart, J. S., Goad Oliver, E., Cravens, K. S., & Oishi, S. (2017). Managing Millennials:

Embracing generational differences. Business Horizons, 60, pp. 45-54.

Sweeney, J. C., & Webb, D. A. (2007). How functional, psychological, and social

relationship benefits influence individual and firm commitment to the relationship.

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 22(7), pp. 474-488.

Wilden, R., Gudergan, S., & Lings, I. (2010). Employer branding: strategic implications for

staff recruitment. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(1-2), pp. 56-63.

47

Books Kothari, C, R, (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques (2nd ed.). New Delhi:

New Age Publishers

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students (5th

ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research (5th ed.). London: SAGE.

48

Websites

Chamberlain, A., Tain, G. (2016, 10, June). How 50+ Benefits Correlate with Employee

Satisfaction [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.glassdoor.com/research/how-50-

benefits-correlate-with-employee-satisfaction/

Luleå University of Technology. (2011). Framtida nätverk under studietiden. Retrieved from

https://www.ltu.se/edu/bli-student/2.39804 Skolverket. (2018). Gymnasieskola. Retrieved from

https://www.skolverket.se/skolutveckling/larande/nyanlandas-larande/information-

till-nyanlanda-elever/gymnasieskola-1.236765

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

Cover letter

To whom it may Concern,

This questionnaire aims to find out what beneficial attributes an organization offer that is the

most important to people between the ages of 22-36. With your help, this study can hopefully

find out what attributes the organization should promote or focus on, so it can be an attractive

employer.

I would appreciate if you took a few minutes to fill in this questionnaire as your answers will

truly help me conduct this study.

Thank you in advance,

Sara Rosencrantz

Demographic Information Your personal data for statistical purpose.

1. Gender: □ Female □ Male □ Other

2. Age: □ < 22 □ 22-24 □ 25-27 □ 28-30 □ 31-33 □ 34-36 □ 36 <

3. Educational Level: □Bachelor’s student □Master’s student

4. From: □ Norrland □ Svealand □ Götaland □ Other

5. Work experience: □ < 1 year □ 1-2 years □ 3-4 years □ 4 years <

□not applicable

A: Functional benefits

Please tick (ü) the appropriate number that indicates how much you agree or disagree

1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3=neither disagree nor agree 4=agree 5=strongly

agree

It’s important to me to work in an organization that focus on personal

growth. 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me that my managers expect me to take responsibility and

solve problems on my own. 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me that my job assignments are stimulating. 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me that I can work with something that I care deeply about. 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me that I can make a career/get a promotion at my work 1 2 3 4 5

B: Economic benefits

Please tick (ü) the appropriate number that indicates how much you agree or disagree

1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3=neither disagree nor agree 4=agree

5=strongly agree

It’s important to me that my employer offers a salary that I want 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me that my employer offers bonuses. 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me to receive a car from my employer. 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me that my employer provides healthcare 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me to have long paid vacation 1 2 3 4 5

C: Psychological benefits

Please tick (ü) the appropriate number that indicates how much you agree or disagree

1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3=neither disagree nor agree 4=agree

5=strongly agree

It’s important to me that the working environment is open and positive 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me that I can have fun at work. 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me to that I feel like I belong at work. 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me that my employer trust me 1 2 3 4 5

C: Instrumental benefits

Please tick (ü) the appropriate number that indicates how much you agree or disagree

1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3=neither disagree nor agree 4=agree

5=strongly agree

It’s important to me that the working hours fits my lifestyle 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me that I have job security 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me to that my work is located where I want to live 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me to have a good work-life balance 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me that my basic needs are fulfilled 1 2 3 4 5

D: Symbolic benefits

Please tick (ü) the appropriate number that indicates how much you agree or disagree

1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3=neither disagree nor agree 4=agree

5=strongly agree

It’s important to me that my work will impress other people 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me that my work gives me high status 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me to that my employer’s values and beliefs align with my own values and beliefs 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me to be proud of my employer 1 2 3 4 5

It’s important to me that my employer care for the environment 1 2 3 4 5