The Reasons for the Lack of Interest in the University as an Employer among young Potential Employees and their Changes in 2016–2018

Open access

Abstract

The article is theoretical-empirical in character. In the theoretical part on the basis of the results of cognitive-critical analysis of literature on the subject the chosen aspects associated with the role of the university as an employer and with the way universities can efficiently attract young people as potential employees are discussed. Attention was paid also to the necessity to apply complex image-related activities and to visible negligence in this area. The results of this analysis point to the existence of a cognitive and research gap. It is because the previous theoretical deliberations and empirical analyses conducted with regard to such activities refer to companies and not to universities. That’s why the article strives to achieve, among others, such goals as: identification of the reasons for the lack of interest in work at a university among the respondents; defining the changes in the reasons for the lack of interest in work at a university given by the respondents in the 2016–2018 period; hierarchical arrangement of the identified reasons. In the process of carrying out these goals an attempt was made to find answers to three research questions and to test the research hypothesis saying that sex is a feature differentiating the reasons for the lack of interest in work at a university mentioned by the respondents. In the empirical part of the article the results of an analysis of primary data collected by means of the method of questionnaire survey are presented. In course of the analysis the method of average assessment analysis and the Kruskal-Wallis test were used. The results of the analysis show that the significance of the reasons for the respondents’ unwillingness to start work at a university has changed. Also, their hierarchy has changed. Moreover, sex turned out to be the distinguishing feature in case of only one reason, namely, the will to use knowledge and skills gained during studies in a workplace other than a university.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Alniaçik E. Alniaçik U. Erat S. Akçin K. (2014). Attracting talented employees to the company: Do we need different employer branding strategies in different cultures? Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences no. 150 pp. 336–344.

  • 2. Alniaçik E. Alniaçik Ü. (2012). Identifying dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding: effects of age gender and current employment status. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences vol. 58 pp. 1336–1343.

  • 3. Arachchige B. Robertson A. (2011). Business student perceptions of a preferred employer: a study identifying determinants of employer branding. The IUP Journal of Brand Management vol. 8 no. 3 pp. 25–46.

  • 4. Bakanauskiene I. Bendaravièiene R. Buèinskaite I. (2016). Employer’s Attractiveness: Generation Y Employment Expectations In Lithuania. Human Resources Management & Ergonomics vol. X no. 1 pp. 6–22.

  • 5. Baruk A. (2017). Polska uczelnia jako (nie) atrakcyjny potencjalny pracodawca. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych vol. 26 iss. 4 pp. 101–116.

  • 6. Baruk A. Goliszek (2018). Zmiany skojarzeń z uczelnią jako pracodawcą — opinie młodych polskich potencjalnych pracowników. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych vol. 28 iss. 2.

  • 7. Biswas M. Suar D. (2016).Antecedents and consequences of employer branding. Journal of Business Ethics vol. 136 iss. 1 pp. 57–72.

  • 8. Dabirian A. Kietzmann J. Diba H. (2017). A great place to work!? Understanding crowdsourced employer branding. Business Horizons vol. 60 iss. 2 pp. 197–205.

  • 9. Dutta A. Punnose E.M. (2010). Factors Affecting Choice of First Employer. A Study of Indian Management Graduates. Global Business Review vol. 11 iss. 3 pp. 435–448.

  • 10. Gillett R. The 50 best places to work in 2018 according to employeeshttp://www.businessinsider.com/best-places-to-work-2018-2017-12?IR=T (viewed: 23.06.2018).

  • 11. http://www.ewaluacja.gov.pl/media/29016/rk1.pdf (dostęp: 23.06.2018).

  • 12. http://www.statystycy.pl/t4997_1_test_rangowy_kruskala-wallisa.php (viewed: 10.04.2018).

  • 13. http://www.statystyka.az.pl/test-anova-kruskala-wallisa.php (viewed: 10.04.2018).

  • 14. Moczydłowska J.M. Leszczewska K. (2015). Determinants of organization attractiveness as an employer in the opinion of managers. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia vol. 3 no. 4 pp. 47–56.

  • 15. Morgan J. (2014). The Top 10 Factors For On-The-Job Employee Happiness. Forbeshttps://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/12/15/the-top-10-factors-for-on-the-jobemployee-happiness/#328c67395afa (viewed: 23.06.2018).

  • 16. Mugge R. Schifferstein H.N.J. Schoormans J.P.L. (2010). Product attachment and satisfaction: understanding consumers’ post-purchase behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing vol. 27 no. 3 pp. 271–282.

  • 17. Priyadarshini Ch. Mamidenna S. Sayeed O.B. Identifying dimensions of employer attractiveness in Indian universities: an approach towards scale development „Journal of Asia Business Studies” 2016 vol. 10 iss. 2 pp. 183–193.

  • 18. Reis G.G. Braga B.M. Employer attractiveness from a generational perspective: Implications for employer branding. Revista de Administraçao vol. 51 no. 1 pp. 103–116.

  • 19. Sivertzen A. Nilsen E. Olafsen A. (2013). Employer branding: Employer attractiveness and the use of social media. Journal of Product & Brand Management vol. 22 no. 7 pp. 473–483.

  • 20. Vivek S.D. Beatty S.E. Morgan R.M. (2012). Customer engagement: Exploring Customer Relationships Beyond Purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice vol. 20 no. 2 pp. 122–146.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 51 51 2
PDF Downloads 37 37 0