Increased competitive pressure for speed and innovation, global commoditization, and competition for talented workers has provided firms with greater incentives to assess and improve their human resource strategies with respect to attracting, motivating, and retaining employees. Consequently, many firms want to be perceived by employees as a great firm to work for. However, becoming perceived by employees as a great firm to work for requires a significant resource commitment. If firms are going to make this resource commitment, a relationship between being perceived by employees as a great firm to work for and firm performance should be clearly established. Extant academic studies about being a great firm to work for are generally approached from the managerial perspective. Studies that investigate being a great firm to work for from the employee perspective are more scarce. In order to develop a better understanding of the potential performance benefits of being perceived by employees as a great firm to work for, this study compares the performance of great firms to work for (as determined by employees) to their respective industry averages. Further, potential contextual factors that affect the strength of the relationship between being perceived by employees as a great firm to work for and firm performance are examined in order to identify the situations where devoting resources to being perceived by employees as a great firm to work for is more beneficial. Results support the existence of a relationship between being perceived by employees as a great firm to work for and several firm performance outcomes. In addition, some support for the moderating roles of contextual factors is found.