Greta Drūteikienė

In recent years, employer brand has been widely addressed as a crucial factor in attracting and retaining the best employees. Research on its impact on organizations can provide a better understanding of the benefits of employer branding in unlocking the potential of employees. Thus, this paper aims to evaluate the impact of employer brand on the relationship between psychological empowerment and employee engagement in Lithuanian companies. The study surveyed 429 employees (from < 18 years to > 65 years) of Lithuanian companies. The data were collected via an online survey of the respondents and by sending e-mails to the administrators of randomly selected Lithuanian companies requesting to share the survey link with their employees. Descriptive statistics, reliability assessment, ANOVA tests, multiple linear regression, and moderation analysis were used to analyze the collected data. The study found that employer brand directly impacts employee engagement (β = 0.114, p = 0.004). However, employer brand does not have a statistically significant effect on the relationship between psychological empowerment and employee engagement (p = 0.2224). Based on the results, employees working in Lithuanian companies are more engaged when they perceive their employer brand as positive. In contrast, when psychologically empowered, employees engage in work regardless of their perception of the employer brand.

The board of directors plays a pivotal role in firm governance, endorsing strategic choices, coordinating operations, ensuring regulatory compliance, and furnishing organizational support. This paper aims to examine the characteristics of the boards of directors and the guidelines for board composition in publicly listed firms in the Baltic countries. The analysis consists of two stages. The first is a quantitative investigation of the attributes of boards (board size, CEO duality, gender diversity, foreign directors, board committees, board independence, and directors’ occupational background) targeting 35 firms and 187 directors. The second is a qualitative analysis of guidelines for board composition of Nasdaq Baltic-listed firms in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The results reveal that the attributes of boards of directors do not raise concerns. Despite their relatively smaller scale in contrast to the United States or Europe, the boards of Nasdaq Baltic companies align effectively with their respective firm sizes. Notably, CEO duality is absent in Estonian and Latvian listed firms, while it is only partially evident in Lithuania. Moreover, directors’ heterogeneous professional backgrounds distinctly contribute to these boards’ overall enhancement. While the existence of board committees is strongly recommended, they are primarily implemented as a tool for controlling.