IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/assjnl/v12y2016i2p68.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Job Attribute Preference of Executives: A Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Shakila Yasmin
  • Khaled Mahmud
  • Farzan Afrin

Abstract

This research explores the job attribute preferences of executives in Bangladesh. Unlike most past researches that deployed isolated estimation methods, this research used conjoint analysis, a marketing research tool to measures the relative utilities and trade-off matrices of different job attributes. Data was collected from 140 executive MBA students from a premier business school in Dhaka using a questionnaire presenting an array of hypothetical job offers. Salary & benefit and person-job match are found to be the top two most preferred job attributes. Workenvironment and company- reputation are indicated as the two least important job attributes. Simulation was run to demonstrate the trade-offs people make in their job choice decisions. Case-wise conjoint results show no significant difference among different demographic groups (e.g. married-single, have-don’t have dependents and others) in terms of the order of importance of the job attributes. However, the value of the relative importance was found to be slightly different for different demographic groups.This research is important for academics as it demonstrate a new technique to analyze job attribute preferences. Managers can use the results of this study for designing jobs to attract and retain the best talents of the market. They can use the simulation process demonstrated here for optimizing overall preference of their job offers.Â

Suggested Citation

  • Shakila Yasmin & Khaled Mahmud & Farzan Afrin, 2016. "Job Attribute Preference of Executives: A Conjoint Analysis," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(2), pages 1-68, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:assjnl:v:12:y:2016:i:2:p:68
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/download/55001/30173
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/55001
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Holger Herz & Tom Wilkening, 2013. "The Lure of Authority: Motivation and Incentive Effects of Power," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1325-1359, June.
    2. Miller, Robert A, 1984. "Job Matching and Occupational Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 92(6), pages 1086-1120, December.
    3. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    4. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    2. Emmanuel Olateju Oyatoye & Sulaimon Olanrewaju Adebiyi & Bilqis Bolanle Amole, 2013. "An Application of Conjoint Analysis to Consumer Preference for Beverage Products in Nigeria," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 9(6), pages 43-56, December.
    3. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    4. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    5. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    6. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    7. Shuto Mikami & Yutaka Ito & Hernan Gabriel Oyola Gonzales, 2021. "Assessing Peruvian University Students’ Preferences for Labor Conditions in Mining Site," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-13, August.
    8. P. De Pelsmacker & L. Driesen & G. Rayp, 2003. "Are fair trade labels good business ? Ethics and coffee buying intentions," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 03/165, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    9. Nikou, Shahrokh & Bouwman, Harry, 2012. "Mobile service platform competition," 19th ITS Biennial Conference, Bangkok 2012: Moving Forward with Future Technologies - Opening a Platform for All 72515, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    10. Roest, Henk & Rindfleisch, Aric, 2010. "The influence of quality cues and typicality cues on restaurant purchase intention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 10-18.
    11. Jean-Pierre H. Dube & Günter J. Hitsch & Pranav Jindal, 2012. "The Joint Identification of Utility and Discount Functions From Stated Choice Data: An Application to Durable Goods Adoption," NBER Working Papers 18393, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Florian Schreiber, 2017. "Identification of customer groups in the German term life market: a benefit segmentation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 365-399, July.
    13. Yutaka Ito & Shuto Mikami & Hyongdoo Jang & Abbas Taheri & Kenta Tanaka & Youhei Kawamura, 2020. "University Students’ Preferences for Labour Conditions at a Mining Site: Evidence from Two Australian Universities," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.
    14. Konstantinos Pouliakas & Ioannis Theodossiou, 2010. "Measuring the Utility Cost of Temporary Employment Contracts Before Adaptation: A Conjoint Analysis Approach," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(308), pages 688-709, October.
    15. Vinaytosh Mishra & Cherian Samuel & S. K. Sharma, 2019. "Patient’s Utility for Various Attributes of Diabetes Care Services," IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, , vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    16. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    17. Jean-Pierre Dubé & Günter Hitsch & Pranav Jindal, 2014. "The Joint identification of utility and discount functions from stated choice data: An application to durable goods adoption," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 331-377, December.
    18. Fa Wang & Haifeng Wang & Joung Hyung Cho, 2022. "Consumer Preference for Yogurt Packaging Design Using Conjoint Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, March.
    19. Paul R. Steffens & Clinton S. Weeks & Per Davidsson & Lauren Isaak, 2014. "Shouting from the Ivory Tower: A Marketing Approach to Improve Communication of Academic Research to Entrepreneurs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(2), pages 399-426, March.
    20. Marie Caussimont & David Carassus, 2015. "L’audit financier en contexte territorial : vers un audit de performance de la gestion locale ?," Post-Print hal-02141946, HAL.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:assjnl:v:12:y:2016:i:2:p:68. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.