HRM Role and Fixing Corporate Governance Failures

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

Recently, companies have started paying more regard to the HR function within the organizational structure. It has finally taken a seat at the firm’s decision-making table and has been promoted from a partner to an equally important and powerful player (Lasserre, 2017). The main objective of moderating the HR function is to positively influence a company’s success – its climate, culture, strategy, and strategic capabilities. It is essential that a company understands that an HR’s fundamental role within the structure entails both human interaction and legal and professional/ ethical standards. As a responsibility, monitoring behavior is surely assigned to other firm functions as well. However, Enron and other recent scandals have shown that without a strong HR department, a company may find it difficult to adhere to legislation (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2017).

The HR function needs to analyze these issues and come up with a viable decision as to how to reward employees and motivate them to serve the company’s goals. At that, honesty and personal integrity are highly appreciated, at least in theory. In practice, however, the HR function is often forced to “dance with the devil” and compromise its standards and principles (Sun, Robinson, & Polowczyk, 2018). Disagreements over human resource management are frequent and natural, and yet, many specialists do not know exactly how to approach them. They do not want to jeopardize their careers over one conflict and prefer to refrain from intervening (Sparrow, Brewster, & Chung, 2016).

HR professionals are often confronted with difficult decisions that might lead to a conflict of interest if picking a side means favoring one stakeholder other another. The question arises as to how the company can foster and encourage decision-making operating on professional judgment and courage. Only by ensuring this, can the organization move in a direction that would yield the best results in the long perspective and heed the interests of its most important critical constituencies and investors. The only way that HR professionals can resolve these seemingly intractable dilemmas is by reminding themselves that they should prioritize customers and stakeholders over top management (Cascio, 2015). The understanding that managers are not their primary customers can change an HR professional’s work ethic for the better (Rahim, 2017).

In the case of Enron, WorldCom, and others, HR and non-HR employees have felt impelled to become whistle-blowers. Such frankness is rare because few are willing to risk the consequences of informing the emperor that he or she is wardrobe-challenged. Confronting wrongdoing can lead to being shunned for disloyalty or being terminated. Issues of frankness and openness go to the heart of an organization’s culture. Without them, the level of trust seldom reaches the point where an organization can exercise its fiduciary responsibilities as expected by external stakeholders. When indicted executives deny knowledge of any wrongdoing within their corporation, is this merely an exercise in survival or a sign of the lack of internal organizational frankness? In either case, the public’s trust in such organizations suffers.

We believe that the senior HR executive’s most fundamental organizational responsibility lies in creating a culture that encourages the frankness and openness needed to gain customer and investor trust. The process begins by identifying and modeling the appropriate behavior for the firm and its workforce, as well as designing systems and practices that clarify behavioral standards, search out and deter behaviors that violate the public’s trust and reward those behaviors in the organization’s best interest. This responsibility demands the ultimate focus, courage, and skill of HR professionals. The behaviors in question can be broken into three broad areas. The most straightforward is lawful behavior, where it is generally easier to determine what is “in bounds” and what is not. Violations of laws relating to environmental pollution, racial or sexual discrimination, or wages and hours are usually clear and must be brought to the attention of top management. HR has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure laws are followed. Failure to do so puts the firm in legal jeopardy.

A more challenging and complex HR concern is the organization’s financial measurement and reward systems. While these are intended to reward deserving leadership, poorly designed reward systems can lead executives to “cook the books.” There have been several recent revelations that raise questions about a firm’s integrity and leadership. In such instances, the HR professional may need to go outside the firm to further the best interests of customers and investors.

The root cause of the problem may lie with the person to whom the HR professional reports or even with the parent company or board of directors. A different HR challenge occurs when leaders turn to HR to bail out senior executives who are prima facie legal violators in order to “protect” the organization. This puts the senior HR professional in jeopardy, risks the sting of future litigation (as well as loss of the firm’s public trust), and may encourage further violations and thus additional litigation. Such circumstances can put HR leaders in the position of choosing between the interests of customers and investors and the demands of executives. At this point, the HR professional may conclude that it is time to “bet their job.” There are instances in which HR professionals may decide to put their jobs on the line to ensure legal compliance.

The second behavioral area pertains to ethics, the complex system of values, ideals, standards, and beliefs that is characteristic of a certain group such as a professional association or community (Newton & Mazur, 2016). Ethical issues are often challenging to deal with: at times, a conflict is not legal in nature and does not violate any actual policies. However, it concerns the notions of right and wrong and if unaddressed, can wreak havoc on an organization and demoralize its employees. Moreover, were it to gain publicity, the said ethical conflict could compromise a company’s entire reputation. Ethical issues often revolve around managing a company’s internal governance system and its compliance with existing professional standards. Some of the prime examples relate to so-called “earnings management” – restating earnings, which is usually a tell-tale sign of reward system manipulation (Gitman, Juchau, & Flanagan, 2015). Major firms such as Tyco, Lucent, Xerox, IBM, GE, ConAgra, Kmart WorldCom, and Qwest have been discovered to be involved in earnings management.

What this practice usually entails is revenue enhancements that make a company appear more successful. At the same time, the said company often bestows unmerited rewards such as internal bonuses or external equity appreciation, which is supposed to pass for organizational performance. This phenomenon is directly relevant to the HR function within an organization as normally, it should be in control of the rewards system and collaborate with other functions to enhance it further (Fraser, Bhaumik, & Wright, 2015).

Manipulating receivables and bad debt has become all too common. Depending on the egregiousness of the act, such behavior may step over the boundary into illegality as well. Senior HR professionals who work with executive incentive compensation systems (and with the board’s compensation committee) must be alert to when “the fox is in the hen-house” and how the system can be abused to misrepresent the firm to its various constituencies for the benefit of the fox. Within HR, ethical standards are often defined by groups and professional associations. HR professionals are often aware of these standards. They also understand the difficulties in applying them within U.S. organizations, especially when dealing across countries and cultures. behaviors considered acceptable by one society may be unacceptable in another. Thus, knowing and understanding cultural nuances can be essential for organizational success abroad.

Some senior executives may not perceive the relevance of statements of professional standards and ethics. Nevertheless, such standards must be incorporated into the firm’s governance protocol. Professional and ethical standards must be assessed for the potential to damage a firm’s reputation if violated. On the other hand, because professional standards vary across cultures and regions of the world, the same standards may be seen as irrelevant in other cultures. For example, the financial scandals involving various forms of executive compensation and conflicts of interest that are of pressing concern in North America are dismissed as trivial by some executives (and their workforces) in Europe and Asia.

The third behavioral area, and perhaps the murkiest, is what we label “vocal constituencies.” Whatever the issue, there may be deep-rooted, heartfelt feelings on various sides. What is critical for senior HR professionals is to be attuned to such issues and understand the underlying strategic unity necessary for the organization internally and externally. How a firm represents itself and the congruence of this representation with the external environment are important yet difficult to manage, such as instances of “political correctness,” which may have several constituencies. The three domains of corporate conscience often overlap, as shown in. Thus, it may be difficult to demarcate clearly where one area begins and another end.

A Prescription for Human Resources

A prescription for HR would be to engage the workforce in the best interests of customers and investors—that is, as was mentioned earlier, providing a focus on investors and customers as the primary beneficiaries of HR work. Clearly, being subservient only to immediate management may place HR in a far more vulnerable position than it would like. Communicating the business model and how the organization is to succeed will also be valuable in helping clarify why individuals joined the organization and what they need to do in order to see it succeed. This involves a series of causal steps that, if acted upon in the appropriate ethical framework, could help reduce a firm’s vulnerability to legal and ethical violations.

Another strategy that a company might want to adopt is ensuring the transparency of financial and customer outcomes and providing insight into them in comparison to the company’s objectives. Transparency is often seen as pertainings strictly to the financial community; however, in recent years, it has also become one of the ethical and customer service objectives (Ferrell, Harrison, Ferrell, & Hair, 2019). Today, customers wish to know from whom they are buying and why they are buying from that particular concern. The “brand” or image that a company seeks to create has now become as important and influential as the functionality of a product or a service itself (Theurer, Tumasjan, Welpe, & Lievens, 2018). The same concept of transparency applies to the process of the talent search. Many companies wish to uphold their employer brand and be able to contend for titles such as “employer of the year” (Özçelik, 2015). For this, they make an effort to make the ethical framework transparent and comprehensible for those applying so those appropriate candidates could select them based on the shared values.

Reengineering corporate boards so that they have an independent relationship with HR is another course of action that a company might want to undertake (Ferreira & Laux, 2016). This may imply building an in-between relationship, which can prove reasonably effective (Pratheepkanth, 2017). Senior finance, legal, and HR executives all need to have direct access to the said board (especially to independent board members). The creation of the board and establishment of an in-between relationship might be a necessary prerequisite for putting in place the ethical “arm’s length” distance (Lightle, Castellano, Baker & Sweeney, 2015). However, managers are likely to object since they often hold the opinion that the people who report to them are their employers, first and foremost, which makes it necessary for them to respond in the best interests of those to whom they forward the reports. Yet, as the practice has shown, on many occasions, a relationship that lacks some recourse is vulnerable to conflict and failure on legal and ethical grounds (Tassadaq & Malik, 2015). It is HR’s responsibility to promote board participation and involvement in the development of measurement and reward systems. The HR function should ensure transparency by providing input to the organization regarding such aspects as financial reporting. This holds especially true given that there is a certain need for alternative methods of financial reporting, to which HR may make a valuable contribution. As of now, investors would like to have greater insight into company successes. This goal may be attainable if financial reporting processes are standardized and all firms agree to comply (Flower & Ebbers, 2002). On the other hand, different industries might need different forms of financial reporting to serve their needs.

One type of reporting that may be useful is to redefine earnings per share with the denominator for shares determined not only by outstanding shares but also by shares represented by options. This approach might also differ by industry. For example, in most industries, options might be an immediate deduction. However, other industries may need different reporting standards, especially where innovation is critical to attracting not only a workforce but capital from Wall Street in order to build the critical mass through mergers and acquisitions. That is, in industries such as pharmaceutical, biotech, and high-tech, we may need to have an additional industry financial metric that would provide the best indication of these firms’ success.

We should also treat board members’ appointments as a selection process. In many instances, boards are self-nominating and shareholders are merely rubber stamps for board membership (Pratheepkanth, 2017). Actively involving the HR community in the board selection process, as with any other effective selection process, might yield substantial improvement in the quality, capability, and ethics of board members.

Finally, HR needs to ensure that the appropriate financial models for measuring business success are used and linked to executive compensation. This may be a truism, but it is rare to find it put into practice. Earnings generated through strategic operations (i.e., operating income generated through the intent of the organization) are what is necessary. Firms must “design to win and deserve to win” within the intended business model. Obviously, all businesses cheerfully record profits from endeavors not connected to their core operations, but those should be explained clearly as extraordinary and not be used to mislead investors to expect that these recur. Clearly, businesses use various pronouncements to explain away bad news created by the economic environment. The same should be done with positive influences upon a firm’s earnings. Thus, earnings through intended operations appear to be the only economically viable measure that should be used to assess an organization and the success of an organization’s business model and its executives. Pro forma financial results should not be used as the basis of executive compensation.

Obviously, the import of this for HR professionals is to assure that the measurement component of the reward and measurement system focuses upon these same measures. That is, the strategy should drive measurement and measurement should drive reward. Thus, if financial metrics have been enhanced by factors other than the strategic intent of the business, this should be reported as extraordinary income. In essence, regardless of what earnings return model is used, what we are really interested in is avoiding reporting “everything but the bad stuff.”

Rebuilding Corporate Integrity

As of now, rebuilding corporate integrity might be one of the most difficult tasks at hand. Statistically, the level of corporate integrity is at an all-time low since the 1930s (Gerstein & Friedman, 2017). The most basic aspects to be fixed include corporate oaths, the signing of financial statements, and ethics statements (Gerstein & Friedman, 2017). Apart from that, companies need to minimize and prevent the emergence of conflicts of interest between accounting and consulting CFOs and financial reporting, compensation committees, and board membership. The rule of thumb, in this case, should be valuing honesty over profit – something that is easier said than done. Businesses are trying to move in the said direction, but their efforts are barely sufficient. Many of them lack a strong ethical foundation upon which they could build further corporate practices. An ethical foundation is needed to define what is in bounds and what is out of bounds, considering the relevant legislation and professional standards of the industry.

The key to building an ethical culture is articulating clear boundaries so that people can modify their day-to-day decision-making processes to comply with the new policies (Guiso, Sapienza, & Zingales, 2015). Another important aspect concerns long-term planning that should be heeded when solidifying the ethical foundation of a company. In search of quick solutions, many companies settle on short-term maximization that leads to long-term failures. Instead, it makes more economic and ethical sense to separate core operating earnings from total profitability. At the end of the day, enhanced decision-making will account for the accurate representation of a company’s performance. Moreover, it will be reflective of the relationship between the company’s performance and financial enhancement.

Another suggestion would be to require business law courses to make a return to EMBA programs. Previously, many companies deemed enrolling their employers to MBA courses a common practice. However, recently, these courses have excluded business law from their curriculums (Cameron & Pagnattaro, 2017). It is about time that these curriculums were modified to cover legal aspects as well as ethical issues characteristic of the industry. This may include fostering the belief in what is right as opposed to the relativism of the business world that has become the new norm (Demuijnck, 2015). It is essential that the relevant rules are interpreted clearly and explicitly, especially when it comes to consequences.

Another idea would be for business media to educate themselves on finance and accounting. It is becoming increasingly common to idealize business leaders in the press with little to no regard for their actual success and performance. It is very probable that if this shift were to happen earlier, the public and especially shareholders would have a much better understanding of the full picture.

Lastly, one more strategy that would be consistent with the points made above is ensuring punitive measures for those who have clearly violated the laws. This may include warnings as well as legal action that can have the potential of resulting in doing hard times (Lys, Naughton, & Wang, 2015). Regardless of their wealth and status, the CEOs, CFOs, general counsels, and others who have played a major role in financial wrongdoing must face the legal consequences of their behavior (Christensen, 2015). If the public does not receive enough cautionary tales, management greed will lead to more violations.

Research Methodology

The research adopts a multi-methodology approach based mainly on descriptive and analytical research methodologies, since it sets to define and describe the basics to determine their argumentative and problematic points, and then analyses these problems to produce solutions based on the human resources. The research opts to describe first the different theoretical postulations and their arguments, to find out the results of their applications by analyzing them in correlation in a comparative way to find out the importance of the role of human resources. The comparative and correlational descriptive research paradigm helps find out which factors are most essential, without intervention and without modifying the variables.

The analytical research paradigm, on the other hand, is useful since the research is based on the theories mentioned above. Basic research exists already and the researcher sets to analyze the theoretical information in order to evaluate these theories and provide an elaborate explanation of the relationship between corporate governance and human resources from a new perspective based on a different methodology. The researchers analyze the vital function of human resources in corporate governance to highlight its other functions on different levels, especially the sociological level since most previous studies highlight mainly the financial level. The analytical research methodology is then vital when approaching a certain analysis through different theories, especially for evaluation.

The Importance of Human Resources in the Corporate Governance from the Perspective of Corporate Governance

In this regard, this position can be clarified through the examples of corporate governance. These examples can be divided into two broad categories based on defining the relationship between them. The first model, Shareholder, for instance, implies the existence of only one important representative of human resources (Sauerwald, Van Oosterhout, & Van Essen, 2016). He or she takes up the role of the executive director (manager) with the shareholder (Sethi, Martell, & Demir, 2017). This relationship is somewhat limited and can cause issues that require the separation between the management and the ownership. When this role is limited strictly to that of the executive director, the respective model ignores the other side of human resources, which is the dynamics of the company development. Moreover, one can safely say that the position of human resources in corporate governance within the shareholder model is partly due to the marginalization of this important role (Adnan & Tandigalla, 2017). Thus, there is a need to upgrade the HR function and its role within the company so that its qualification and efficiency could guarantee the highest levels of performance.

The new model put forward by Freedman is called the Stakeholder Model (Bourne, 2016). Under the said concept, it is possible to define several individuals or entities who have the leverage to affect the business success of a company. At the same time, they are also affected by the company’s performance, which compels them to improve and evolve. This definition is deemed as too broad by some scholars, calling for further categorization of the model. Nowadays, researchers single out primary and secondary stakeholders in accordance with their degree of impact on the company’s potential to reach its objectives (Davis, 2018).

The general idea of the Stakeholder concept implies a radical redefinition of the organization. It has clear guidelines regarding what the organization should be and how it could be conceptualized. Within the proposed model, the organization itself should be seen as a group of stakeholders. Drawing on this logic, one can argue that the purpose of the organization should lie in the management of their interests, needs, and viewpoints (Davis, 2018). On the one hand, it is critical that managers ensure the rights and liberties of the stakeholders. At the same time, there is a need for a shared vision that would help to safeguard the long-term stake of each group (Nurdiniah & Pradika, 2017).

Milton Freedman considered the employee as one of the most important factors that influence and affects the enterprise. This indicates that the fact a company that follows the corporate governance would also affect human resources and be affected by it. This leads to the creation of the value and realization of job satisfaction and commitment, and by that, it would have already social responsibility, which generally aims to ensure the rights of individuals within the company, by considering them before all as customers enrolling in it.

Human Resources Position in Corporate Governance from the Perspective of Human Resources

It goes without saying that human resources function is one of the basic pillars of corporate governance. Human resources should be seen as mediating in all processes, and even when assigning different roles and labels such as workforce, employees, workers, administrative agents, and others, the purpose should not change. One of the main interests of the HRM field is employees’ encouragement to partake in corporate governance and by doing that, gain more self-agency REF.

At the same time, employee participation is not limited to corporate governance. In addition to that, it should be fostered at all levels below the board, be it in the immediate workplace or within the employee’s team. There are two types of participation: direct and indirect. In the first case, the employee has the chance to impact work processes without mediators. In the second case, he or she contributes to the decision-making process or takes action through representatives REF.

The performance and efficiency of the HR function within a company can be measured by the degree to which employees participate in corporate governance. The question remains as to how to ensure that employees have enough awareness and autonomy to be active participators. One of the ways to enhance engagement and productivity is through increasing the psychological comfort of staff (Glavas, 2016). Mental wellness is generally associated with creativity, administrative innovation, and managerial leadership (Glavas, 2016). The latter has the potential of reducing the agency problem and resolving conflicts of interest. Recent research shows the importance of maintaining a relationship between HR and corporate governance. It also states the central purpose of HRM as that of enhancing performance and implementing corporate governance practices.

The diagram explains how the administrative board is considered as the main engine or the common point between corporate governance and human resources. The use of the remuneration and compensation systems, which give privileges to the Executive Director to be a shareholder in the company, and increase the motivation of “wage earners”, are amongst the corporate governance duties, which consider the administrative board as one of the internal mechanisms that guarantee to apply it properly. On the other side, the human resources in the administrative board occur in the presence of the Executive Director and the workers’ representative, and the internal auditor. The latter works on the proper and accurate disclosure of information under the framework of transparency in order to lay the strategic plan that makes the foundation pillar of the company on behalf of the investors. All of this comes in order to improve the ability of companies to create the added value.

Corporate governance is one of the most important topics in strategic management research and practice. That is why we cannot speak about the proper application of the rules and principles of corporate governance without talking about the human resources, which is one of the foundations to achieve the planned objectives. We must take into account consideration the human resources within an organization, which comprises both the Executive Director and workers, and considers them as a portion of the sets through which a company would aim to increase investments to achieve the added values. This demonstrates that the relationship between human resources and corporate governance is a complementary one because each element affects and is affected by the second element.

Corporate governance affects human resources through several factors, the most important of which is the systems of remuneration and compensation that contribute to creating added value and realizing professional satisfaction. This interest also realizes one of the very important aspects of social responsibility, which has become recently one of the criteria of competitiveness, which is improved when the administrative board is well managed to properly exert its responsibilities and make the best strategic decisions through consultation with its human resources. This can realize the achievement of better performance and increased productivity that leads to the increase in profits, which means realizing advantages for all interested parties, including stakeholders and shareholders.

References

Adnan, A. T. M., & Tandigalla, H. (2017). The dramatic shift in emphasis from a shareholder-dominated approach to a stakeholder-oriented corporate governance model. European Journal of Business and Economics, 12(2). Web.

Bourne, L. (2016). Stakeholder relationship management: A maturity model for organisational implementation. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Cameron, E. A., & Pagnattaro, M. A. (2017). Beyond millennials: Engaging generation Z in business law classes. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 34(2), 317-324.

Cascio, W. F. (2015). Managing human resources. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Christensen, D. M. (2015). Corporate accountability reporting and high-profile misconduct. The Accounting Review, 91(2), 377-399.

Davis, K. (2018). Reconciling the views of project success: A multiple stakeholder model. Project Management Journal, 49(5), 38-47.

Demuijnck, G. (2015). Universal values and virtues in management versus cross-cultural moral relativism: An educational strategy to clear the ground for business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), 817-835.

Ferreira, M., & Laux, P. (2016). Corporate boards and SEOs: The effect of certification and monitoring. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 51(3), 899-927.

Ferrell, O. C., Harrison, D. E., Ferrell, L., & Hair, J. F. (2019). Business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and brand attitudes: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 95, 491-501.

Flower, J., & Ebbers, G. (2002). Global financial reporting. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fraser, S., Bhaumik, S. K., & Wright, M. (2015). What do we know about entrepreneurial finance and its relationship with growth? International Small Business Journal, 33(1), 70-88.

Gerstein, M., & Friedman, H. H. (2017). A new corporate ethics and leadership paradigm for the age of creativity. Journal of Accounting, Ethics and Public Policy, 18(2), 179-230.

Gitman, L. J., Juchau, R., & Flanagan, J. (2015). Principles of managerial finance (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Higher Education AU.

Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: Enabling employees to employ more of their whole selves at work. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 796.

Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2015). The value of corporate culture. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(1), 60-76.

Lasserre, P. (2017). Global strategic management. London, UK: Macmillan International Higher Education.

Lightle, S. S., Castellano, J., Baker, B., & Sweeney, R. J. (2015). The role of corporate boards in employee engagement. IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 14(4), 7-13.

Lys, T., Naughton, J. P., & Wang, C. (2015). Signaling through corporate accountability reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(1), 56-72.

Newton, C. J., & Mazur, A. K. (2016). Value congruence and job-related attitudes in a nonprofit organization: A competing values approach. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(10), 1013-1033.

Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Nurdiniah, D., & Pradika, E. (2017). Effect of good corporate governance, KAP reputation, its size and leverage on integrity of financial statements. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 7(4), 174-181.

Özçelik, G. (2015). Engagement and retention of the millennial generation in the workplace through internal branding. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(3), 99. Web.

Pratheepkanth, P. (2017). Corporate board attributes and profitability: A case of Australia. ARSYM-2017, 57.

Rahim, M. A. (2017). Managing conflict in organizations. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Sauerwald, S., Van Oosterhout, J., & Van Essen, M. (2016). Expressive shareholder democracy: A multilevel study of shareholder dissent in 15 Western European countries. Journal of Management Studies, 53(4), 520-551.

Sethi, S. P., Martell, T. F., & Demir, M. (2017). Enhancing the role and effectiveness of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports: The missing element of content verification and integrity assurance. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(1), 59-82.

Sparrow, P., Brewster, C., & Chung, C. (2016). Globalizing human resource management (2nd ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Sun, W., Robinson, S., & Polowczyk, P. Ł. (2018). Integrity and Its counterfeits: Implications for economy, business and management. Palgrave Communications, 4(19). Web.

Tassadaq, F., & Malik, Q. A. (2015). Creative accounting & financial reporting: Model development & empirical testing. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5(2), 544-551.

Theurer, C. P., Tumasjan, A., Welpe, I. M., & Lievens, F. (2018). Employer branding: A brand equity‐based literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 155-179.

Click Here To Order Now!