See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/300770608

Scale Development in Employer Branding

Chapter · January 2013

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-00427-9_4

CITATIONS READS

22 4,433

2 authors, including:

Bjoern Ivens
Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg
234 PUBLICATIONS   2,338 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Crowdfunding and Prediction Markets View project

Services vs Products View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bjoern Ivens on 06 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 How to measure Employer Brands?

The Development of a Comprehensive Measurement Scale

Isabelle Hillebrandt, Björn Sven Ivens

In: Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Winter Educators’ Conference,

St. Petersburg (Florida), February 17-19, 2012.

1. Academic and Managerial Marketing Issue

“IF YOU TAKE AS A GIVEN - and we do - that companies must build

strong brands to be competitive, then you are faced with a simple yet
staggering challenge: How?” (Joachimsthaler and Aaker 1999, p. 1).

Academic Marketing Issue. The competition for recruiting and retaining talented employees

has increased greatly since the turn of the 21st century. The War for Talent (Michaels,

Handfield-Jones, and Axelrod 2001) has become the synonym for this competition that

companies in knowledge economies face towards labor markets. A tool that has been put

forward to tackle this competition is employer branding. Employer branding is the application

of the long-term strategy of branding to the human resource tasks of recruiting and retention.

Its ultimate goal is to establish a strengthened recruiting position and to ensure differentiation

from competitors. In order to do so, a unique employer value proposition, which reflects the

employment situation in a given company, is established. Subsequently, this employer value

proposition is communicated to potential employees who intend to gain a clear picture of

what benefits arise when working for a specific organization (Ambler and Barrow 1996).

The determination of an employer value proposition is the first and most important step in the

employer branding process (Sullivan 2004). For the specification of such a proposition it is

essential to know the common dimensions of employer brands. In the academic world, a few

1
initial proposals regarding the measurement of employer brands as well as dimensionalities

emanating from these proposals have been suggested (Ambler and Barrow 1996; Berthon,

Ewing, and Hah 2005; Srivastava and Bhatnagar 2010). However, all proposals have

limitations and a valid and reliable measurement scale that ensures comprehensiveness and

robustness is not available yet (Edwards 2010). Thus, academic research still lacks the

essential ground-work upon which the impact of employer brand dimensions on performance

indicators, such as employer attractiveness or work satisfaction, can be investigated.

Managerial Marketing Issue. In the light of labor market changes and an increased shortage

of skilled workers in the new economy – presently and even more so in the years to come –,

the role of attracting and retaining talented employees has become an issue of managerial

concern (Edwards 2010). Regarding demographic data, the number of 35 to 44 year old US

employees will shrink by 14 percent between the year 2000 and 2020. In Europe, the trend is

even more severe. In Germany, a decline of 27 percent of this age group of the workforce is

forecasted, followed by Italy with a decline of 24 percent, and the UK with a decline of 21

percent (McKinsey & Company 2001; U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001). Other Western

countries face similar changes, causing leading researchers to forewarn that the work-force

growth will be at its lowest level since World War II (Highhouse, Lievens, and Sinar 2003).

As a consequence, in the search for highly skilled managerial talent and especially in specific

vocational fields, companies face severe competition (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, and

Axelrod 2001). The workforce has become more flexible and mobile than only a few

years/decades ago, and a high propensity of individuals to change employers is nowadays a

given fact (Ewing et al. 2002). This willingness to resign bears the threat of lower levels of

commitment. As De Chernatony (1999) points out, the lack of commitment can be especially

harmful in service driven industries because employees have a strong brand building function

(De Chernatony 1999). While strong consumer brands, such as Procter & Gamble, Siemens,

or Lufthansa, benefit from their popularity, the situation is more difficult for Hidden
2
Champions (Simon 2007). These small and medium sized companies, which often are global

market leaders in their segments but fairly unknown by the public, most strongly face the

challenges of the War for Talent (De Chernatony 1999). Essentially, human resources

managers have to meet the new expectations of employees, who seek continuous challenges

and appreciation in order to remain committed to a company (Backhaus and Tikoo 2004).

A focus on communication with actual and potential employees and a consideration of both

target groups’ expectations is incorporated in the practice of employer branding. By

establishing a precise picture of what makes a company a desirable place to work, attraction

of new employees and retention of skilled actual employees is boosted. Through employer

branding, differentiation from competitors can be enhanced as well (Backhaus and Tikoo

2004). Due to its potential, management has thus embraced employer branding as a useful

tool to strengthen retention and commitment of human resources. However, “given the

embryonic state of employer branding theory” (Moroko and Uncles 2008, p. 161), managers

face a shortage of knowledge on how to build an employer brand and on the contents that

constitute an employer value proposition, just as researchers do.

The goal of the present work is to address both academical and managerial demands on the

extension of employer branding theory. We employ qualitative and quantitative empirical

analyses to put forth a valid and reliable full-content measurement scale of the construct of

employer branding and to reveal the fundamental dimensions underlying employer brands.

2. Literature Review

Business reports oftentimes state that people are a company´s most valuable resource and that

its brands are its greatest assets (Berthon, Ewing, and Hah 2005). The research on both topics

is well established (Huselid 1995; Srivastava, Fahey, and Christensen 2001). However,

employer branding, the union of both disciplines, has just recently been introduced (Backhaus
3
2004). The concept grounds on the work of Ambler and Barrow (1996). The employer brand

is closely related to the corporate brand and must thus be defined in consistency with the

corporate brand values (Meffert and Bierwirth 2001). For this reason, we subsequently

present the corporate brand literature first. Then, we present the employer branding literature

and explain our research contribution based on an investigation of existing employer brand

measurements.

2.1 Corporate Brand Identity and Corporate Brand Reputation

The importance of intangible assets such as brands that address functional as well as

emotional needs and provide orientation is rising in developed economies (Zeithaml, Bitner,

and Gremler 2006). While there is vast research about the impact of brands on the consumer

(Cowley 1996; Keller 1998), much less is known about the interaction between corporate

brands and current or potential employees (Aaker 1996; De Chernatony 1999).

Corporate branding is defined as the “[...] systematically planned and implemented process of

creating and maintaining a favorable reputation of the company with its constituent elements,

by sending signals to stakeholders using the corporate brand.” (van Riel 2001, p. 12). The

identity of the corporate brand is first defined internally based on the values and culture of the

organization. This self-perception is subsequently communicated to relevant stakeholder

groups, such as employees (Freeman 2010). The corporate identity establishes personality

characteristics with the help of corporate design–the visual appearance–, corporate

communication, and corporate behavior (Rode 2004; Kapferer 2008).

Corporate behavior is displayed through the actions of the employees that bring the brands

alive (De Chernatony 2001), and whose identification and commitment determine to what

extent the brand promise is delivered and customers’ service satisfaction is accomplished

(Vallaster and De Chernatony 2005). Through the interaction with customers and other

channels of communication, the corporate reputation–the outside perception of the brand’s

4
personality–is established. De Chernatony (1999) points out that corporate reputation captures

the long-term manifestation of numerous images of a brand. It is therefore a more

stable construct to regard than the continuously changing corporate image (Fombrun and van

Riel 1997). Altogether, a high congruence between the corporate identity and the corporate

reputation is the desired outcome of corporate branding (Hatch and Schultz 2003).

The corporate brand is translated to meet the informational demands of different stakeholder

groups. Towards employee markets, the employer brand is constructed and positioned in

consistency with the corporate brand to ensure authenticity. The employer brand is therefore

the derivative of the corporate values onto the employment situation. The corporate brand,

which has a strong positive impact on the initial attraction of employees, and the employer

brand are therefore closely intertwined concepts (Meffert and Bierwirth 2001).

2.2 Employer Branding

As already pointed out, employer branding targets external and internal audiences, namely

potential and current employees, with an “identifiable and unique employer identity […] that

differentiates it from its competitors” (Backhaus and Tikoo 2004, p. 502). The goal is to

create an authentic picture of why the company is a “Great Place to Work” (Great Place to

Work 2011). In Table 1 we present a selection of definitions for employer branding.

Form a practitioner’s point of view the employer brand process comprises the following

stages: First, a value proposition is defined. Interviews with employees, asking them what

they like about working for the organization, can constitute the basis for this. Second, the

value proposition is marketed to external audiences, and third, the value proposition is

communicated towards current employees in order to incorporate the values into the culture

of the organization (Sullivan 1999, 2002).

5
In addition to the previously introduced literature on corporate branding, Edwards (2010)

emphasizes that employer branding can gain theoretical foundation from psychological

contract and organizational personality theory.

The formulation of the employer value proposition implies defining a range of benefits that

distinguish the employment situation in a given company from that of competitors.

Table 1
Definitions of Employer Branding

Author (Date) Definition

Ambler und Barrow “[…] the package of functional, economic, and psychological benefits provided by
(1996, p. 187) employment, and identified with the employing company.”

Dell und Ainspan “The employer brand establishes the identity of the firm as an employer. It encompasses
(2001, p. 10) the firm’s value system, policies and behaviors toward the objectives of attracting,
motivating, and retaining the firm’s current and potential employees.”

Ewing et al. “Employer Branding is […] concerned with building an image in the minds of the potential
(2002, p. 12) labour market that the company, above all others, is a ‘great place to work’.”

Backhaus und Tikoo “[…] process of building an identifiable and unique employer identity. […] a concept of
(2004, p. 502) the firm that differentiates it from its competitors.”

As cited in Berthon, Ewing, „The sum of a company's efforts to communicate to existing and prospective staff that it is
and Hah (2005, p. 153) a desirable place to work.“ (Lloyd 2002)

Srivastava and Bhatnagar „[...] an employer brand is about giving an identity, image and distinctiveness to the
(2010, p. 26) organisation as an employer in order to attract its prospective employees and to motivate,
engage and retain its current employees.“

As, for example, developmental opportunities within the organization are seldom explicitly

put down in a written contract, the exchange agreement met upon hiring further comprises

such unwritten aspects. In the psychological contract theory, these unwritten aspects are

defined as “an individual’s beliefs regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal

exchange agreement between that focal person and another part” (Rousseau 1989, p. 123).

The psychological contract distinguishes between relational aspects such as trust and fairness,

transactional aspects such as economic exchanges, and ideological aspects such as chances to

pursue a valued cause (Rousseau 1990).

6
While personality characteristics have long been applied to product brands (Aaker 1997),

researchers have also pointed out that organizations have personality characteristics (Lievens

and Highouse 2003). Lievens and Highhouse (2003) distinguish between two types of

personality characteristics that influence a company’s employer attractiveness: First, symbolic

characteristics that are “subjective, abstract and intangible attributes” such as reputations and

second, instrumental characteristics that are “objective, physical and tangible attributes” such

as rewards and location (Lievens, van Hoye, and Anseel 2007, pp. S48). For example, the

transactional aspects of psychological contract theory and the instrumental characteristics of

organization’s characteristics show parallels with the economic dimension of employer value

propositions. As such, both areas of research contribute with orientation as of what contents

an employer brand should encompass (Edwards 2010; Lievens, van Hoye, and Anseel 2007).

2.3 Existing Employer Brand Measurement Scales

The main part of the extant literature on employer branding is directed at practitioners and the

limited amount of academic publications originates to a big extent from marketing scholars

(Edwards 2010). Therefore, as employer branding lacks the basic conceptual groundwork, a

fundamental understanding on the dimensionality of employer brands has to be established

(Edwards 2010; Highhouse, Lievens, and Sinar 2003).

When regarding previous propositions of the dimensionality of employer brands, it is

apparent that there is no consent about the contents employees should be able to derive from

the employer brand. Ambler and Barrow (1996), who are the first to introduce the idea of

applying marketing techniques to human resource questions (Backhaus and Tikoo 2004),

conclude that the three basic benefits are developmental and/or useful activities (functional),

material or monetary rewards (economic), and feelings such as belonging, direction, and

purpose (psychological). Ambler and Barrow deduct this three-way conceptualization from

two main sources: First, San Bernardino of Siena´s (c. 1420) thoughts on the consumers
7
benefits to purchase goods and services. And second, Foreman and Money´s (1995)

identification of the three types of internal marketing benefits: development (functional),

rewards (economic) and vision/something to believe in (psychological) (Foreman and Money

1995) (see Table 2). In addition to this conceptual work, the semi-structured in-depth

interviews with executives of 27 companies based in the United Kingdom support the idea

that the application of marketing techniques can be useful for addressing human resources

problems (Ambler and Barrow 1996).

Table 2
Approaches to the Measurement of Employer Brands

Author (Date) Identified Dimensionality Research Design Limitation

Internal Marketing
Foreman and Money (1995) 3 Dimensional Solution: Quantitative, „[…] it is clear in this research
Development, Rewards, Vision / British Marketing that there are different
Something to Believe In and HR Personnel, components to IM [...]. […]
15-item Scale However this discussion has
(n=204) left a fundamental question
unanswered: Is IM always
necessary for all
organizations?“ (Foreman and
Money 1995, p. 764)
Employer Branding
Ambler and Barrow (1996) 3 Dimensional Solution: Exploratory, “This paper is exploratory but
Functional, Economic, Qualitative, British we believe there is sufficient
Psychological Managers underlying strength in the
(n=27) Employer Brand concept to
warrant further investigation.”
(Ambler and Barrow 1996, p.
202)
Berthon, Ewing and Hah 5 Dimensional Solution: Quantitative, „Undergraduate students are
(2005) Development, Application, Australian Student likely to have limited relevant
Economic, Social, Interest Sample, employment experience
25-item Scale compared to ‘typical’ job
(n=683) seekers with a lack of expertise
in job search activities“
(Berthon, Ewing and Hah 2005,
p. 168)
Srivastava and Bhatnagar 8 Dimensional Solution: Quantitative, Indian „Since employer brand is a
(2010) Caring, Enabling, Career Student and multidimensional construct it
Growth, Credible and Fair, Managers Sample, was not possible to study each
Flexible and Ethical, Product and 20-item Scale and every aspect of it“
Service Brand Image, Positive (n=105) (Srivastava and Bhatnagar
Employer Image, Global 2010, p. 28)
Exposure
Organizational Attractiveness
Highhouse, Lievens, and 3 Dimensional Solution: Quantitative, “The primary implication of
Sinar (2003 ) Company Attractiveness, American this finding is that the generic
Intentions to Pursue, Prestige Undergraduate “organizational attraction”
Student Sample, concept in recruitment research
15-item Scale may need to be supplanted with
(n=305) a more multivariate conception
of dependent variables.”
(Highhouse, Lievens, and Sinar

8
 2003, p. 998)

Other propositions suggesting a more profound multidimensional construct have been put

forth since Ambler and Barrow’s initial work. However, as the analysis of adjacent

publications reveals, several limitations underlying these studies call for a more profound

exploration of the dimensionality of employer brands (see Table 2).

Berthon, Ewing, and Hah (2005) develop a 25-item scale to assess employer attractiveness.

They base their initial 32 items on Ambler and Barrow´s three employer brand dimensions

and additional information gained from interviews with six focus groups of students at an

Australian university. They use a sample of 683 students for their exploratory factor analysis

and find a five dimensional solution: development, application of previous knowledge,

economic, social, and interest (Berthon, Ewing, and Hah 2005). The authors point out that the

study has two major limitations: First, “undergraduate students are likely to have limited

relevant employment experience compared to ‘typical’ job seekers with a lack of expertise in

job search activities” (Berthon, Ewing, and Hah 2005, p. 168). As Wells (1993) explains, the

external validity and generalizability of findings based on student samples is threatened due to

the non-representativeness and special characteristics of the population (Wells 1993). This

concern is especially relevant in the context of employment as students lack labor market

experience. Hence, the application of a scale based on student interviews likely neglects

aspects that are relevant for actual employees and thus calls for further investigations. Second,

as employment is subject to cultural differences, results based on an Australian sample are not

transferrable to other populations.

Srivastava and Bhatnagar (2010) build upon previous and additional qualitative research to

develop a 20-item scale that is reduced from 72 initial items in the research process. An eight

factor solution results based on an exploratory factor analysis with 105 student and working

manager respondents. This so far most detailed solution seems to suit the complexity

underlying employment situations and aspects influencing employment decisions very well.
9
However, the major limitation of this study is that it does not ground on a full-content

measurement scale: “Since employer brand is a multidimensional construct it was not possible

to study each and every aspect of it” (Srivastava and Bhatnagar 2010, p. 28). Consequently,

the use of a comprehensible measurement scale may lead to an even more elaborate factor

solution.

Highhouse, Lievens, and Sinar (2003) establish a 15-item scale to measure organizational

attractiveness. Employer branding and organizational attractiveness are closely related

concepts. An employer value proposition is perceived and evaluated based on the

attractiveness of an organization, and vice versa. Therefore, the dimensionality of both

concepts should be consistent (Edwards 2010). This is not the case, as the three factor

solution based on the 305 American student respondents reveals: company attractiveness,

intentions to pursue, and prestige. As this conceptualization misses several relevant contents,

the authors point out that “[…] the generic “organizational attraction” concept in recruitment

research may need to be supplanted with a more multivariate conception of dependent

variables.” (Highhouse, Lievens, and Sinar 2003, p. 998).

Even if only a selection of scales is introduced due to space constraints, the previous

descriptions show that “the literature on employment branding is in its relative infancy”

(Edwards 2010, p. 19). Academia lacks a valid and reliable full-content measurement scale

for the construct of employer branding. For this reason, the research at hand addresses this

issue and overcomes previous limitations with respect to the several aspects:

• We conduct an extensive review both of academic as well as practitioner’s literature

and qualitative interviews in the item generation process.
• We develop a full-content measurement scale based on the elaborate item generation.
• We survey an all-employee sample with sufficient labor market experience.

10
 4. Developing an Employer Brand Measurement Scale

Subsequently, we describe the research process executed to derive the employer brand

measurement scale, the research design, and major results.

4.1 Item Generation

Following the previous specification of the construct domain, the process of developing

measures of marketing constructs calls for the generation of a comprehensive and

representative set of items (Churchill 1979). To do so, we generated a set of relevant items in

a first step, categorized the items in a second step, and eliminated redundancies in a third step.

First step. For the measurement of the employer brand construct we accumulated items from

three sources: Academic literature, practitioner’s literature, and qualitative interviews. We

gathered items from 24 scales related to employment situations from the academic fields of

employer branding, organizational attractiveness, psychology, human resources, vocational

behavior, organizational behavior, and general management. To overcome previous

limitations of only considering student’s perspectives, we monitored that a sufficient number

of the investigated scales relied on employee perspectives. Furthermore, we employed items

from 10 scales developed by practitioners such as consultancies and market research

institutes, e.g. (Corporate Executive Board 2006). Finally, we conducted semi-structured in-

depth interviews with marketing and human resources managers to capture the employer

perspective. A pool of more than 500 items emanated from this approach.

Second step. The 500 items were translated to German in a double-blind review process and

discussed for their clarity by the research team. Then, in order to handle the large number of

items, we assigned each trait to one category according to its content. For example, we

allocated the two items referring to rewards, “annual cash compensation is high” and

“rewarded for my individual contribution”, to the two categories “rewards” and

“performance-based rewards” (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, and Axelrod 2001). Again, we

11
conducted this procedure in a double-blind process and assessed the results for their

consistency afterwards. By using this approach we ensured reaching our primary objective to

develop a full-content measurement scale.

Third step. Based on the developed categorization, four academic experts identified

redundancies within the categories in a double-round approach. Simultaneously, the research

team discussed the content and face validity of the items. To purify the measure (Churchill

1979), we executed a pretest (n=90) and assessed the items correlations following the domain

sampling model (Nunnally and Bernstein 2008). At the end of this process, an 85 item non-

redundant scale remained.

4.2 Research Design

To collect the data, we designed a self-administered online questionnaire. We used a 7-point

Likert scale to enable sufficient levels of variance (Backhaus 2008). As previous research

suggests, “[…] familiarity with the organisation [is] […] a relevant condition to assess the

perception about the employer brand in the questionnaire […].“ (Srivastava and Bhatnagar

2010, p. 29). For this reason, we asked the respondents to evaluate their current employer

based on the presented 85 items. Additionally, we inquired standard demographical data as

well as the company’s affiliated industry, the employee’s length of affiliation with the

company, and the employee’s employment status. We distributed the online questionnaire

through the social business network Xing, the German equivalent of Linkedin, where we

posted the link in different forums. As an incentive to participate, we offered the possibility to

sign up for a lottery of 40 gift vouchers.

12
 Table 3
Demographic Profile of the Sample (n=223)

Demographics Percentage Demographics Percentage

Age Group: Affiliated Industry:
Under 24 7.2 Consultancies 20.6
25-29 45.7 Manufacturing & Automobile 18.0
30-39 37.2 Services Industry 17.5
40-49 5.4 Banking & Insurances 8.9
50-59 2.7 Retail Industry 8.1
60 and older 1.8 Other 26.9
Education: Length of Affiliation:
High School Graduation 20.6 1-2 years 52.0
College Graduation 69.5 3-5 years 27.2
PhD Completed 8.5 6-10 years 10.7
Other 1.4 11 years and more 10.1
Monthly Income: Employment Status:
Less than 1.000 Euro 14.8 Apprentice 12.6
1.001-2.999 Euro 55.6 Employee 69.1
3.000-4.999 Euro 18.4 Executive Employee 10.3
5.000 Euro and more 4.9 Manager 4.0
No declaration 6.3 Others 4.0
Gender:
Male 48
Female 52
From initially 491 individuals accessing our online survey, 229 finished the online

questionnaire. This corresponds to an effective response rate of about 45 percent. After

cleaning, a sample of 223 employees remained. We present the demographic profile of the

sample in Table 3. To ensure sufficient homogeneity of the sample, we targeted employees

with a college education (Hair et al. 2010).

4.3 Data Analysis

As an initial step in the analysis process we evaluated the correlation matrix to test for internal

consistency and to assess the quality of the data, which we found suitable in terms of item-to-

total correlation, variance, and item means (DeVellis 2009). We then used a principle

components factor analysis with varimax rotation. We deleted items that loaded on two

factors and those that did not reach a minimum factor loading of .5. In doing so, we reduced

the initial 85 items by 33 items, which left a 52-item scale for the analysis. The resulting 12-

factor solution (see Table 4) is based on the following criteria: all 12 factors had eigenvalues

greater than one, the Scree plot showed a significant dip following the 12th factor, the 12-

factor solution explained a high level of variance (73 percent), and the factors had the highest
13
informative value and meaning. Cronbach’s alpha was .944 for the 12-factor solution which

satisfied the above 0.70 criterion (Nunnally and Bernstein 2008). Also, we calculated

Cronbach’s alphas for all factors that were derived from the 52-item scale. All alphas were

greater than .7 and all items attributed to the different factors had high item-to-total

correlations.

The 12-factor solution (see Table 5) emphasized that drawing upon psychological contract

and personality theory is appropriate (see Chapter 2.2). Relational aspects were represented

by the factors Team Spirit and Diversity. The factor Benefits related both to transactional

aspects of the psychological contract theory as well as to instrumental characteristics of the

personality theory. Here, Reputation represented symbolic characteristics.

14
 Table 4

Factor Loadings and Reliability Analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Alpha
EB_75 .748 Factor 1: Culture & Communication .928
EB_58 .727
EB_59 .707
EB_77 .698
EB_63 .688
EB_64 .664
EB_76 .617
EB_18 .611
EB_74 .610
EB_19 .601
EB_29 .513
EB_49 .736 Factor 2: Team Spirit .904
EB_52 .734
EB_51 .709
EB_50 .681
EB_62 .676
EB_53 .671
EB_60 .620
EB_12 .750 Factor 3: Tasks .862
EB_14 .740
EB_16 .704
EB_15 .690
EB_13 .675
EB_11 .526
EB_35 .893 Factor 4: International Carreer & Environment .923
EB_32 .866
EB_34 .863
EB_33 .823
EB_71 .847 Factor 5: Benefits .807
EB_70 .822
EB_68 .656
EB_69 .598
EB_47 .806 Factor 6: Reputation .867
EB_46 .780
EB_48 .730
EB_45 .721
EB_83 .901 Factor 7: Work-Life-Balance .742
EB_82 .866
EB_84 .551
EB_78 Factor 8: Training & Development .811 .724
EB_79 .747
EB_80 .736
EB_25 Factor 9: Diversity .754 .701
EB_26 .749
EB_27 .681
EB_56 Factor 10: Customers .817 .711
EB_57 .804
EB_65 Factor 11: Autonomy .722 .703
EB_66 .694
EB_23 Factor 12: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) .574 .830
EB_22 .537
* Principal Component Analysis with Varimax Rotation and Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 9
In order to increase readability, items with factor loadings <.5 are not shown in the chart above.
15
The resulting factors accounted for the fact that employment situations encompass diverse

aspects that were mapped in the multidimensional solution. Also, the analysis resulted with a

detailed and meaningful array of components which can be used to draw managerial

implications for the definition of the employer value proposition and to distinguish the

employment situation in a given company.

Table 5
Factors and Item Examples

Factor Item Example

1. Culture & Communication “a clear organizational culture” (EB_58)
“communication with the employees is important” (EB_74)
2. Team Spirit “strong team spirit among coworkers” (EB_49)
“a fun working environment” (EB_50)
3. Tasks “diverse tasks” (EB_16)
“diverse skills are needed to fulfill the tasks” (EB_13)
4. International Career & Environment “international career opportunities” (EB_33)
“international work environment” (EB_35)
5. Benefits “adequate basic salary” (EB_68)
“good additional benefits” (EB_71)
6. Reputation “good public reputation of the company” (EB_45)
“it is good to have the company on your résumé” (EB_47)
7. Work-Life-Balance “good work-life-balance” (EB_83)
“possibility to comply with personal and family matters” (EB_82)
8. Training & Development “diverse training offers” (EB_78)
“skill development is a continuous process” (EB_80)
9. Diversity “diversity within the team” (EB_26)
“equal rights for men and women” (EB_25)
10. Customers “interesting customers” (EB_56)
“intense customer contact” (EB_57)
11. Autonomy “employees have a lot of autonomy” (EB_65)
“new employees quickly take responsibility for their work” (EB_66)
12. Corporate Social Responsibility “social commitment” (EB_22)
“dedication to the environment” (EB_23)

5. Discussion

In the present research we developed a comprehensive measurement scale for the employer

brand construct. The identified 12-factor solution was a refinement and extension of

previously derived factor solutions and showed a high informative value. With our research,

we contributed to the knowledge on employer branding in a twofold way: First, we helped to

16
add more substance to the academic theory on employer branding. By overcoming limitations

of previous proposals for the measurement of the employer brand construct we provided

substantial ground-work for future investigations in the academic research on employer

branding. We conducted an extensive item generation process in order to ensure capturing all

aspects relevant for the employer brand construct and collected data from an employee sample

with the crucial labor market experience. Therefore, we established a solid conceptualization

upon which researchers in a variety of disciplines, e.g. marketing, human resources,

management, advertising, or organizational behavior, can ground further investigations.

Second, by advancing the knowledge in this fairly new field of research, we provided

valuable insights for practitioners. Companies have to market towards employees, one

important stakeholder group, what makes working for their company a desirable experience.

As our factor solution showed the scope of relevant content dimensions, management can

consider these in the pursuit of employer branding objectives. Thus, a professional and

successful design of employer brands will emanate.

5.1 Limitations

The scope of our research has a few limitations. As we regarded one sample of employees

only, the robustness of the 12-factor solution remains to be established by surveying another

independent set. Moreover, while the sample size of 223 was sufficient for our present

purpose, a bigger sample would be desirable for further generalization and validation. With

respect to statistical methods, we did not yet apply structural equation modeling to confirm

our factor solution (Aaker and Bagozzi 1979). The nationality of our respondents was almost

exclusively German. For this reason, we were not able to control for cultural differences.

However, as employment situations are subject to cultural differences, the factor structure

would also have to be reassessed in different national settings. In this first research stage, we

did also refrain from checking for possible differences between varying segments, e.g. men
17
and women or age groups. This differentiation could yield useful managerial implications for

the targeting of different segments of employees.

5.2 Future Research

To cope with the challenges of today’s turbulent business surroundings, companies need to be

able to recruit and retain qualified employees that find ways to tackle these challenges.

Therefore, additional knowledge about the impacts of the established employer brand

dimensions is in demand. Based on our multidimensional solution, testing hypotheses about

links between the 12 factors and several outcome variables, either from the perspectives of

employees or employers, will be valuable. For example, relations between the different

dimensions and variables such as the overall organizational attractiveness, the organization’s

reputation, candidate’s intentions to apply at a certain organization, job satisfaction, pride

taken in working for an organization, or the attitude towards an organization can be derived

from surveying potential or current employees. Variables such as the number of applications,

the quality of applications, the extent of successful hiring, employee commitment, or the

number of referrals and their dependency on the different dimensions can be investigated

based on data gathered from employers. The latter variables also serve as key performance

indicators for companies to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of their employer branding

efforts. Finally, our measurement scale calls for the investigation of antecedents of employer

brand value.

18
 References

Aaker, David A. (1996), Building Strong Brands. New York, NY: Free Press.
Aaker, David A. and Richard P. Bagozzi (1979), “Unobservable Variables in Structural
Equation Models with an Application in Industrial Selling,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 16 (2), 147–158.
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 34 (8), 347–356.
Ambler, Tim and Simon Barrow (1996), “The Employer Brand,” Journal of Brand
Management, 4 (3), 185–206.
Backhaus, Klaus (2008), Multivariate Analysemethoden. Eine anwendungsorientierte
Einführung. Springer-Lehrbuch. Berlin: Springer.
Backhaus, Kristin and Surinder Tikoo (2004), “Conceptzalizing and Researching Employer
Branding,” Career Development International, 9 (5), 501–517.
Backhaus, Kristin B. (2004), “An Exploration of Corporate Recruitment Descriptions on
Monster.com,” Journal of Business Communication, 41 (2), 115–136.
Berthon, Pierre, Michael Ewing and Li L. Hah (2005), “Captivating Company: Dimensions of
Attractiveness in Employer Branding,” International Journal of Advertising, 24 (2), 151–
172.
Churchill, Gilbert A, JR. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs,” Journal of Marketing, 16 (2), 64–73.
Corporate Executive Board (2006), Attracting and Retaining Critical Talent Segments
Attracting and Retaining Critical Talent Segments: Identifying Drivers of Attraction and
Commitment in the Global Labor Market.
Cowley, Don (1996), Understanding Brands. By 10 People who Do. London: Kogan Page.
De Chernatony, Leslie (1999), “Brand Management Through Narrowing the Gap Between
Brand Identity and Brand Reputation,” Journal of Marketing Management, 15 (1-3), 157–
179.
——— (2001), “Succeeding with Brands on the Internet,” Brand Management, 8 (3), 186–
195.
DeVellis, Robert F. (2009), Scale Development. Theory and Applications. Applied social
research methods series, Vol. 26. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publ.
Edwards, Martin R. (2010), “An Integrative Review of Employer Branding and OB Theory,”
Personnel Review, 39 (1), 5–23.

19
Ewing, Michael, Leyland Pitt, Nigel M. de Bussy and Pierre Berthon (2002), “Employment
Branding in the Knowledge Economy,” International Journal of Advertising, 21 (1), 3–22.
Fombrun, Charles and Cees B. M. van Riel (1997), “The Reputational Landscape,” Corporate
Reputation Review, 1 (1&2), 5–13.
Foreman, Susan K. and Arthur H. Money (1995), “Internal Marketing: Concepts,
Measurement and Application,” Journal of Marketing Management, 11 (8), 755–768.
Freeman, R. E. (2010), Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Great Place to Work (2011), “The Dimensions of a Great Place to Work,” (accessed February
3, 2011), [available at http://www.greatplacetowork.com/what_we_do/dimensions.php].
Hair, Joseph F, William C. Black, Barry J. Babin and Rolph E. Anderson (2010), Multivariate
Data Analysis. A Global Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hatch, Mary J. and Majken Schultz (2003), “Bringing the Corporation into Corporate
Branding,” European Journal of Marketing, 37 (7/8), 1041–1064.
Highhouse, Scott, Filip Lievens and Evan F. Sinar (2003), “Measuring Attraction to
Organizations,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63 (6), 986–1001.
Huselid, Mark A. (1995), “The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on
Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance,” The Academy of
Management Journal, 38 (3), 635–672.
Joachimsthaler, Erich and David A. Aaker (1999), “Building Brands without Mass Media,” in
Harvard Business Review on Brand Management. The Harvard business review paperback
series, Harvard Business Review, ed. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, 1–22.
Kapferer, Jean-Noël (2008), The new strategic Brand Management. Creating and sustaining
Brand Equity long term. London: Kogan Page.
Keller, Kevin L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing
Brand Equity. New York: Upper Saddle River.
Lievens, Filip and Scott Highouse (2003), “The Relation of instrumental and symbolic
Attributes to a Company´s Attractiveness as an Employer,” Personnel Psychology, 56 (1),
75–102.
Lievens, Filip, Greet van Hoye and Frederik Anseel (2007), “Organizational Identity and
Empoyer Image: Towards a unifying Framework,” British Journal of Management, 18
(March), S45-S59.
Lloyd, S. (2002), “Branding from the Inside Out,” Business Review Weekly, 24 (10), 64–66.
McKinsey & Company (2001), “The War for Talent: Organization and Leadership Practice,”

20
Meffert, Heribert and Andreas Bierwirth (2001), “Stellenwert und Funktion der
Unternehmensmarke - Erklärungsansätze und Implikationen für das Corporate Branding,”
Thexis, 4, 5–11.
Michaels, Ed, Helen Handfield-Jones and Beth Axelrod (2001), The War for Talent. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Moroko, Lara and Mark D. Uncles (2008), “Characteristics of successful Employer Brands,”
Brand Management, 16 (3), 160–175.
Nunnally, Jum C. and Ira H. Bernstein (2008), Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill series in
psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rode, Verena (2004), Corporate Branding von Gründungsunternehmen. Der erfolgreiche
Aufbau der Unternehmensmarke. Gabler Edition Wissenschaft Entrepreneurship.
Wiesbaden: Dt. Univ.-Verl.
Rousseau, Denise M. (1989), “Psychological and implied Contracts in Organizations,”
Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 2, 121–139.
——— (1990), “New Hire Perceptions of their own and their Employer's Obligations. A
study of Psychological Contracts,” Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 11 (5), 389–400.
Simon, Hermann (2007), Hidden Champions des 21. Jahrhunderts. Die Erfolgsstrategien
unbekannter Weltmarktführer. Frankfurt/Main: Campus-Verl.
Srivastava, Pallavi and Jyotsana Bhatnagar (2010), “Employer Brand for Talent Acquisition:
An Exploration Towards its Measurement,” VISION-The Journal of Business Perspective,
14 (1&2), 25–34.
Srivastava, Rajendra K, Liam Fahey and H. K. Christensen (2001), “The Resource-Based
View and Marketing: The Role of Market-Based Assets in gaining Competitive
Advantage,” Journal of Management, 27 (6), 777–802.
Sullivan, John (1999), “The Changing Nature of Careers: A Review and Research Agenda,”
Journal of Management, 25 (3), 457–484.
——— (2002), “Crafting a lofty Employment Brand: A costly Proposition,” ER Daily, 2002.
——— (2004), “The 8 Elements of a Successful Employment Brand,” (accessed July 21,
2011), [available at www.ere.net/the-8-elements-of-a-successful-employment-brand/].
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001), “International Data Base: Demographic Data”.
Vallaster, Christine and Leslie de Chernatony (2005), “Internationalisation of Services
Brands: The Role of Leadership during the Internal Brand Building Process,” Journal of
Marketing Management, 21 (1-2), 181–203.
van Riel, Cees B. M. (2001), “Corporate Branding Management,” Thexis, 4, 12–16.

21
 Wells, William D. (1993), “Discovery-Oriented Consumer Research,” The Journal of
Consumer Research, 19 (4), 489–504.
Zeithaml, Valarie A, Mary J. Bitner and Dwayne D. Gremler (2006), Services Marketing.
Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm. Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill/Irwin

22

View publication stats