The article has the theoretical-empirical character. The problems related to the meaning of connotations with an university as an employer among potential employees were presented. In the theoretical part the method of the cognitive-critical analysis of the world literature on image management, marketing and human resources management was applied. On the base of the results of this analysis the key role of the potential employees' connotations with the employer in the process of image creation was underlined. There are not considerations in this scope connected with an university as an employer in the literature. So, one can state that two gaps (cognitive and research) exist. That's why in the article the following aims were to be gained: identifying young potential employees' connotations with an university as an employer, defining the changes of these connotations, grouping identified connotations etc. To prepare the empirical part the method of questionnaire research (to gather primary data) and the methods of quantitative analysis (including average rating analysis and comparative analysis) were applied. The results showed that respondents' connotations with an university as an employer were worst in 2018 in the comparison to 2016 year. It's reflected in the growth of values of five average ratings in the case of negative connotations as well as in the decrease of values of some average ratings in the case of positive ones.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Abratt, R., Kleyn, N. (2012). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations: reconciliation and integration. European Journal of Marketing, vol. 46, no. 7/8, pp. 1048-1063.
2. Akareem, H.S., Hossain, S.S. (2016). Determinants of education quality: what makes students’ perception different? Open Review of Educational Research, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 52-67.
3. Azoury, N., Daou, L., Koury, C.E. (2014). University image and its relationship to student satisfaction: case of the Middle Eastern private business schools. International Strategic Management Review, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-8.
4. Bakanauskiene, I., Bendaraviciene R., Bucinskaite I. (2016). Employer's attractiveness: generation Y employment expectations in Lithuania. Human Resources Managemetn & Ergonomics, vol. 1, pp. 6-22.
5. Balmer, J.M.T., Gayser, S.A. (2006). Corporate marketing integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing, vol. 40, no. 7/8, pp. 730-741.
6. Baruk, A. ( 2016). Postrzeganie uczelni jako pracodawcy przez młodych potencjalnych pracowników. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych, vol. 21, iss. 3, pp. 1-18.
7. Baruk, A., Goliszek, A. (2017). Zewnętrzny wizerunek uczelni w roli pracodawcy jako podstawa segmentacji młodych potencjalnych pracowników. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych, vol. 23, iss. 1, pp. 79-96.
8. Berens, G., Van Riel, C.B.M. (2004). Corporate associations in the academic literature: three main streams of thought in the reputation measurement literaturę. Corporate Reputation Review, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 161-178.
9. da Costa, F.R, Pelissari, A.S. (2017). Corporate Image: Influencing Factors from the Viewpoint of Students of Distance Learning Courses. Brazilian Business Review, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 108-130.
10. Goliszek, A. (2015). Homogenizacja i heterogenizacja zachowań konsumenckich w społeczeństwie globalnym. Handel Wewnętrzny, nr 1, pp. 101-109.
11. Greer, I., Hauptmeier, M. (2016). Management whipsawing: The staging of labor competition under globalization. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 29-52.
12. Jiang, T., Iles, P. (2011). Employer-brand Equity, Organizational Attractiveness and Talent Management in the Zhejiang Private Sector, China. Journal of Technology Management in China, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 97-110.
13. Moczydłowska, J.M. (2015). Determinants of organization attractiveness as an employer in the opinion of managers, „Forum Scientiae Oeconomia” , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 47-56.
14. Polat, S. (2011). The relationship between university student's academic achievement and perceived organizational image. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, vol. 1, no. 11, pp. 257-262.
15. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. S.G. Rogelberg, Sage Publications Thousand Oaks 2016.
16. Thompson, A.B. ( 2015). The Intangible Things Employees Want from Employers. Harvard Business Review, no. December, https://hbr.org/2015/12/the-intangible-things--employees-want-from-employers (06.03.2018).