The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1934-8835.htm

IJOA
31,2 Measuring an employer brand: a
study towards valid scale
development (as a second-order
550 factor of a structural model)
Received 6 February 2021 Navin Kumar Shrivastava and Arvind Virendranath Shukla
Revised 20 May 2021
2 June 2021
Department of Management, Birla Institute of Management Technology,
Accepted 10 June 2021 Greater Noida, India

Abstract
Purpose – The study aims to conceptualise, develop and validates a scale to measure an employer brand
(ing) (EB) based on the opinion of existing and potential employees.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 431 student-respondents from B-Schools across India were
surveyed in a cross-sectional study using a 70-item scale generated through literature review and expert
interviews. Through exploratory factor analysis, six EB dimensions were derived. These were further
validated using confirmatory factor analysis on data of 120 employees of the power sector.
Findings – A new 20-item EB scale- “EmBran” covers six dimensions of EB, namely, good human resource
(HR) practices, business impression and work conditions, financial compensation, work-life balance, passive
culture and standard HR policy. The paper posits EB as a second-order factor determined by six first-order
factors.
Practical implications – The EB scale can be used by talent acquisition teams to derive meaningful
insights into designing a policy for hiring and attracting young talent. It, thus, makes a significant
contribution towards talent management. The scale also provides researchers with a fresh conceptualisation
of the concept of the EB.
Originality/value – This study is unique as it considers the opinions of both existing and potential
employees. Additionally, dimensions of passive culture and business impression and working conditions,
emerged in the study.
Keywords Scale development, Employer brand, B-schools, Potential employees
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Enhanced competition and environmental uncertainties have made talent acquisition and
retention difficult in these competitive times. At the same time, uncertainty and volatility of
the prevailing scenario have entailed talent all over the world to be on the lookout for
organisations with well-integrated processes of acculturisation and re-acculturisation
(Stokes, 2016). Talent management has thus emerged as an important tool for the success of
any organisation. To attract the right talent, organisations have to develop a culture of
learning through its signalling impressions. As a result of an organisations’ efforts to
manage talent, concepts such as “employer brand (EB)” and “best place to work” have
gained importance in recent times.
International Journal of
Organizational Analysis The concept of EB describes the degree of a company’s attractiveness to current and
Vol. 31 No. 2, 2023
pp. 550-568
potential employees (Berthon et al., 2005; Collins and Stevens, 2002; Slaughter et al., 2004). A
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1934-8835
strong EB enables companies to influence current employees and generate a favourable
DOI 10.1108/IJOA-02-2021-2615 attitude in potential employees (Tobias et al., 2011; Shukla and Shrivastava, 2013). Thus, a
valid scale to measure an EB greatly helps a company in talent management and meeting Measuring an
competition. employer
brand
Employee, employer branding and internal branding
The understanding of employees as brand builders has given rise to a stream of research on
internal branding (Aurand et al., 2005; Henkel et al., 2007; Punjaisri et al., 2009). Internal
branding is the only component of an organisation’s branding plan that focusses on its human 551
capital. Employees are strategically important to brand management (Piehler et al., 2018).
Berthon et al. (2005) pointed out the similarity of EB with internal marketing. The
broader concept of corporate branding links the concepts of EB with internal marketing
(Foster et al., 2010). Barrow and Mosley (2005) indicate the similarity between the corporate
brand and the EB as they are related to the symbolic functional and psychological benefits
that they bring for its prospective customers and employees. A company gains a
competitive advantage by strengthening the EB. It is, therefore, necessary for companies to
ascertain the effectiveness of their EB.
To ascertain the effectiveness of an EB, the research design of this study included the
consideration of the perceptions of both current employees and potential employees. For
this study, business management students, who become corporate employees in due
course of time, were studied as potential employees. The study was validated by
including the perceptions of young employees of the power sector in India as current
employees.
The focus of this study was to:

Identify and conceptualise the factors influencing an EB;

Develop a validated measurement scale for EB, based on the views of both existing
and potential employees; and

Empirically test and develop a higher-order measurement model where EB is
presented as a second-order factor.

Thus, the new scale of employer branding addresses the talent management needs of an
organisation and brings forth a psychometrically tested instrument/scale for future
application.

Literature review
Employer brand is a concept that helps in building a reputation of an organisation as a great
employer. This reputation further brings an involved response from the existing employees
towards the customers. The customer experience of a brand is largely dependent on the
interaction a customer has with the company’s employees (Nguyen, 2006). This is so in the case
of services where a brand is the outcome of the relationship between the company, its
employees and customers. The augmented relationship between these stakeholders enables
high-performance work systems that, in turn, yield better firm performance (Bou-Llusar, 2016).

Employer branding: concept and dimensions

Every company, these days, try to maintain a talent pool of highly-skilled employees for
building high-performance work systems. EB is a tool for this. A reputed EB can be effective
in talent acquisition, retention and development of employees (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004;
Barrow and Mosley, 2005; Gaddam, 2008; Mandhanya and Shah, 2010; Martin et al., 2011).
Ambler and Barrow (1996) defined EB as “[. . .] the package of functional, economic and
psychological benefits provided by employment and identified within the employing
IJOA company”. Tanwar and Prasad (2017) defined EB as “a set of tangible and intangible
31,2 benefits offered by the organisation to attract potential employees and retain existing
employees”. The concern related to the retention of existing employees is more relevant
because turnover amongst employees may create uncertainty amongst them and their
beliefs about the future of the organisation, and replacing an existing employee may be
difficult and time-consuming (Klotz and Zimmerman, 2015). Thus, it becomes desirable for
552 organisations to rely upon an effective talent retention strategy based on its employment
offerings that would ensure a highly involved and committed workforce as an offshoot of its
effective EB.
Employer branding has been suggested as a means towards career management
programmes, as a novel concept in organisations’ talent management strategies or a tool for
impression management in communicating company values (Avery and McKay, 2006;
Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Hughes and Rog, 2008; Martin et al., 2011; Ind, 2003).
Economic, social and technological forces have changed the way employer information is
communicated, encountered and interpreted, by its existing and prospective employees
(Allen et al., 2018). An important perspective of EB, therefore, is to help the company to
genuinely market itself to aspiring talents. Thus, the concept of the employer’s reputation as
a “brand” becomes very relevant and apt for the attraction and retention of employees, as
well as fresh talent.
According to Berthon et al. (2005), EB’s objective is to positively influence current and
potential employees. EB has gained a lot of importance because of its derived benefits for
organisations in attracting and retaining employees (Barrow and Mosley, 2005). Its various
dimensions also nurture employee loyalty with job satisfaction wherein employees derive
justification to remain in the organisation (Davies, 2008).
Tanwar and Kumar (2019) identified that job satisfaction mostly depends on certain
key factors such as training and development, corporate social responsibility,
reputation, organisational culture, work-life balance (WLB) and diversity. Thus, by
working on these dimensions, an organisation can enhance the levels of job satisfaction
amongst its employees. A well-designed EB strategy integrated with these dimensions
will lead to enhanced levels of job satisfaction for achieving better employee
engagement. For building an environment of an engaged and satisfied workforce in a
recent study, Tanwar and Kumar (2019) emphasised upon the affirmative role of
person-organisation fit in transferring EB dimensions to “employer of choice” status
with a significant role played by social media. Another study conducted in Taiwan
elicited the role of cultural difference in drawing relevant connotations of the EB,
floating a need to have a well-articulated EB strategy based on regional diversities for
adding value to its corporate reputation (Lee, 2018). Thus, the concept of an EB that
reflects a good employer reputation would surely lead to a better corporate reputation
(Walsh and Beatty, 2007).
Earlier, the EB has also been conceptualised as an employment experience of a firm
based on its culture, policies and processes (Moroko and Uncles, 2008). Interestingly, no
negative word-of-mouth about a firm can have a greater impact on its reputation than that of
being unknown (Stockman, 2020). Thus, in this competitive environment to attract talent,
more emphasis should be placed on factors that facilitate a better employment reputation. In
this context, the current paper focusses on the concept of EB through a validated scale based
on factors that facilitate building a better corporate reputation.
The choice of dimensions is important in developing a scale for EB. These dimensions
range from psychological, functional and economic aspects to value-based aspects that focus
on interest, social, economic, development and application values (Ambler and Barrow,
1996; Berthon et al., 2005). Roy (2008) studied it through application value, interest value, Measuring an
ethical value, economic value, social value, psychological value, career opportunities and employer
development value. Another study covered factors such as reputation value, diversity value,
social value, development value and economic value as key drivers of EB (Tobias et al.,
brand
2011). In another research, factors such as social value, market value, working environment,
cooperation value, application value and economic value were identified as key values for
EB (Almack and Almack, 2012). Table 1 summarises the general dimensions discussed in
various studies between 2005 and 2012. 553
The general dimensions, as classified earlier, were supplemented by a more generic form
of EB dimensions. These dimensions were termed as “functional dimensions” in various
studies as shown in Table 2.
Thus, reviewed literature showed that factors of EB ranged from general dimensions
(factors associated with a specific value-based connect) to pure functional dimensions
(activity-based factors). These were analysed by previous researchers for developing and
studying EBs that can be used for scale development.

Employer brand scale development

Practitioners are in search of structured scales to measure the attractiveness index of an
employer based on the perception of potential talents (Berthon et al., 2005). One such scale –
“EmpAt” developed by Berthon, is noteworthy. Various authors have used it for
measuring EB in their work (Roy, 2008; Tuzuner and Yuksel, 2009; Arachchige and
Robertson, 2011; Almack and Almack, 2012). This scale, however, does not consider current
employees. However, Maxwell and Knox (2009) identified the importance of current employees
in any measurement scale of EB. A study considering both potential and current employees
was, therefore, found important to develop a valid and reliable scale for EB.
The works of Agrawal and Swaroop (2009), Arachchige and Robertson (2011) and
Bendaraviciene et al. (2013) were considered suitable for the selection of dimensions. The
revelations made in the work of Dineen and Allen (2016), where they studied 100 best places
to work in companies by 16 agencies demonstrated the benefits of EB as is borne out by
lower labour turnover and higher levels of attraction for job applicants. In another study by
Fernandez-Lores et al. (2016), they developed a new measurement tool that revealed a

Berthon Tobias Almack and

Dimensions et al. (2005) Roy (2008) et al. (2011) Almack (2012)

1. Social    
2. Economic    
3. Career and   
development
4. Application   
5. Reputation 
6. Interest  
7. Psychological 
8. Ethical 
9. Diversity 
10. Market 
11. Working environment 
12. Cooperation 
Table 1.
Source: Compiled by the researcher General dimensions
 31,2

554
IJOA

Table 2.
Functional
dimensions
Ambler and Barrow Arachchige and Bendaraviciene Arachchige and
Dimensions (1996) Agrawal and Swaroop (2009) Robertson (2011) et al. (2013) Robertson (2013)

1. Responsibility and  
empowerment
2. Compensation   
benefits and
location
3. Learning and  
advancement
4. Cultural 
5. Corporate  
environment
6. Job structure 
7. Social commitment 
8. Social environment  
9. Relationships  
10. Personal growth  
11. Organisational 
dynamism
12. Enjoyment  
13. Psychological 
14. Functional 
15. Economic 
16. Organisational  
culture
17. Fairness and  
trust
18. Teamwork 
19. Academic environment  
20. Strategic management 
21. Job satisfaction 
22. Supervisor relationship  
23. Training and 
development
24. WLB 
25. Working conditions 

Source: Compiled by the researcher

positive experience with the EB and further strengthened employees’ affective commitment Measuring an
towards the EB. In this study, authors referred to Berthon’s EmpAt instrument and Business employer
Today[1] (BT) surveys which were conducted on “great place to work” were considered
suitable for the formulation of the survey instrument. BT’s great place to work survey of
brand
2016 and 2017 used five dimensions, i.e. career growth prospects (CGPs), financial
compensation (FC), good human resource (HR) practice (GHP), performance evaluation and
WLB, which are worth selecting as key dimensions of EB for this study. Also, the
dimensions of CGPs, structured performance evaluation (SPE) (for promotions), WLB, FC,
555
role clarity (RC), GHP were worth considering (Tuzuner and Yuksel, 2009; Backhaus
and Tikoo, 2004; Knox and Freeman, 2006; Mosley, 2007; Maxwell and Knox, 2009;
Tuzuner and Yuksel, 2009; Wilden et al., 2010; Mandhanya and Shah, 2010; Botha, 2011;
Robertson and Khatibi, 2012; Lakshmi and Sohail, 2013).

Research gap
Reviewed literature presented earlier showed that the EB scale development attempts have
so far considered views of either current employees or potential employees. According to
Maxwell and Knox (2009), there exists a significant difference in the perception of potential
and existing employees. So, the purpose of this study was to develop an EB measuring scale
based on the perspectives of both current and potential employees. A reliable scale on EB, so
developed, shall go a long way to attract potential talent and retain the existing one. Thus, to
build a strong employer reputation as is required to attract professionals belonging to the
top-tier talent pool, the right strategic tool would be needed. Knowledge of such factors that
are common to both experienced and potential employees would be beneficial in achieving
better organisational performance in the long run.

Methodology
The methodology for this study followed Hinkin’s (1995) scale development paradigm as
adopted by Tanwar and Prasad (2017). Table 3 also shows the evolving scale development
process followed in the study.

Scale development process

The scale development process was undertaken in three stages. These are as follows:
Stage 1. Generation of items. The item generation for scale development followed a
deductive and an inductive approach.
Deductive. Based on the review of literature presented earlier, the following six
dimensions were selected for the empirical study: CGPs, SPE, WLB, FC, RC and GHP. These
six dimensions covered 58 items.
Inductive. The selected dimensions were assessed and evaluated by an expert group
comprising experts from industry and academic institutions. Care was taken to include
experts with a minimum of 20 years of experience in the field.
Based on their recommendations, two new dimensions, namely, business impression and
passive culture, covering 17 items, were added to the survey instrument.

Employer brand value assessment

The selection of 14 companies for the assessment of EB value was made from the BT survey
on “great place to work”. These companies were Infosys, HCL, Wipro, Microsoft, TATA
Group, Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC), Dr Reddy’s Lab, and Aditya
Birla Group from the private sector. National Thermal Power Corporation, Bharat Heavy
 31,2

556
IJOA

process
Table 3.
Scale development
Stage 3:
Stage 1: Generation Stage 2: Scale development
of items Purification of items and validation
Survey instrument Pilot study Data collection Data analysis Final scale
development Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2

In two parts:
Pilot testing of survey
Multi-stage sampling
EFA was used on data
A 20 item
1. Total 75 items instrument on 55 respondents. was used for collecting collected from 431 “EB Scale”
generated (spread over 8 EFA was used for the purification data from 431 respondents, 70 items under 6
dimensions) of 75 items respondents from B were reduced to 21 items dimensions
a. 58 items (spread over 6 (a) 03 items dropped due to schools for EFA
CFA was used on data was developed
dimensions) generated inconsistency, 55 out of 58 items
Additional data collected from 120
deductively retained (under 6 dimensions) collected covering 120 respondents. 01 item was
b. 17 items (spread over 2 (b) The content validity was respondents from two dropped out of 21 items
dimensions) generated determined based on the opinion of power sector units for
Review of extracted
inductively the expert group CFA factors for the final scale
2. A total of 14 employer (5 industry experts and 2 Validation assessment of
brands were selected academicians). 2 items were discriminant and
for the assessment of dropped and 15 out of 17 items convergent validity SEM
employer brand value were retained (under First-order CFA model
2 dimensions) and model fit
Purified scale developed with 70 Second-order CFA model
items (55 þ 15) under 8 dimensions and model fit
for data collection and validation
purpose

Source: Compiled by the researcher

Electricals Limited, Bharat Petroleum, Indian Oil Corporation, State Bank of India and Measuring an
Government of India (GOI) were selected from the public sector. employer
Stage 2. Purification of items. In this stage, the identified items were subjected to further
validations through a pilot study. Subsequently, the surveys were conducted to arrive at the
brand
final set of scale items as shown next.
Phase 1. Pilot study. The content validity was examined in Phase 1 of the purification of
items. A pilot study was conducted on 54 respondents. These respondents were final-year
557
students of the Masters of Business Administration/Post Graduate Diploma in Management
programme in select B-Schools of north India. The respondents were required to evaluate
the influence of the 75 items on the EB of the selected 14 EBs, using a five-point Likert scale.
The expert group examined the outcome of the survey. The content validity was assessed on
the basis of the opinion of the expert group. Accordingly, three items were dropped from the
deductively derived 58 items. Similarly, two items were dropped from the inductively
derived 17 items. The survey instrument was accordingly finalised with 70 items spread
under eight dimensions.
Phase 2. Data collection. In Phase 2, data was collected from 431 respondents – students
from B-Schools selected using multi-stage sampling. Data was also collected from 120
employees from the power sector. This study thus covered the opinions of potential
employees and existing employees.
For surveying potential employees, 431 students pursuing studies in business
management at Post Graduate level from different B-Schools in India were selected using
“multi-stage sampling”. The selection of B-Schools was made using B-School data of the All
India Council for Technical Education, the apex monitoring agency of the GOI for higher
technical education. Out of the five zones of east, west, north, south and central India, seven
states were selected. These were Telangana and Karnataka from the south zone, Madhya
Pradesh from the central zone, Maharashtra and Rajasthan from the west zone, Uttar
Pradesh from the north zone and West Bengal from the east zone. Taken together, the B-
School students’ population of these seven states represented more than 70% of the total B-
School students’ population in India. To conduct a survey of the existing employees, 120
employees of the power sector companies in India were randomly selected.
Analytical tools. The objectives of the study were addressed through exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Subsequently, structural equation
modelling (SEM) was used for both the first- and second-order models to establish
reliability, validity and fit. For analyses, SPSS 18 and AMOS 21 were used.
Stage 3. Scale development and validation. The third and final stages were scale
development and validation.
Phase 1. Data analysis. A systematic procedure was used to analyse the data. The steps
involved in analysing the data were as follows: assessment of the construct reliability,
conduction of the factor analysis and finally, confirmation of the findings through a CFA.

Exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis was applied to the data collected through the 70 items
questionnaire using Varimax rotation, that yielded 21 items classified under 6 factors.
Table 4 present the results of the factor analysis.
These EB factors had strong internal consistency with Cronbach’s a (alpha) score of above
0.7. In addition, the communalities were greater than 0.6, indicating high reliability of the
data. Construct reliability was assessed by applying the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value, which
touched 0.81. Principal component analysis was carried out with Varimax rotation.
IJOA Factor
31,2 Factor Items loadings Cronbach’s a

GHP Encourage creativity at the workplace 0.745 0.819

Have supportive/encouraging colleagues to 0.739
facilitate team spirit in the organisation
Encourage healthy relationships with 0.665
558 superiors and colleagues
Implement innovative and novel work 0.587
practices
Business impression Believe in honesty and fairness rather than 0.769 0.819
and working condition “by any means”
Have humane working conditions 0.765
Have a clear policy on employee workload 0.744
distribution
Have ethical business systems rather than 0.732
only profit-focussed
FC Offer a high initial compensation package 0.839 0.814
Pay compensation that will be best 0.786
internationally
Pay compensation that will be best 0.752
nationally
Offer an attractive salary 0.678
WLB Provide free health benefits rather than 0.776 0.796
allowances
Have policies for vacations and time out 0.752
Help me to harmonise my personal and 0.693
professional life
Have structured retirement benefits 0.651
Passive culture Believe in overachieving rather than being 0.811 0.788
competent and capable
Believe in forming coalitions rather than 0.808
facilitating teamwork
Standard HR policy Have a standard and structured policy on 0.829 0.794
recruitment rather than an attractive policy
Table 4. Have a standard policy on retention of 0.822
Results of factors employees
analysis rather than an attractive policy

The extracted factors were further tested for validity with the existing employees from the power
sector. CFA was used to test and validate the extracted factors for scale development.

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFA is the technique used to realise the construct validity and to confirm the factor
structure and model significance (Hair et al., 2006). In this study, CFA was done using
AMOS 21 on the data collected from the sample of 120 respondents working in the power
sector. This process resulted in dropping one item related to the “fun/exciting/empowering/
respectful working environment”, because of its poor factor loading.
The six dimensions of EB had some resemblance with the work of Ambler and Barrow
(1996) as the FC dimension was connected to the economic dimension in their study.
Similarly, the dimensions of GHP, WLB and standard HR policy were aligned to the
psychological dimension, giving employees a healthy work environment. The dimensions of
business impression and passive culture emerged as the unique findings of this study. These
dimensions will help organisations to be more ethical and transparent to attract and retain Measuring an
potential, as well as existing talents. This can be classified under the functional dimension of employer
the aforementioned study. The next step was to test the validity of the developed scale. brand
Validity. The assessment of employer branding scale validity was exercised for the
content and construct by discriminant, as well as convergent validity. The scale validity
was checked to ascertain that it measured what was intended to be measured.
The content validity referred to the quantum of all the aspects of a given construct that a 559
measure represents. A review of the literature and structured interviews with professionals
was conducted to identify the dimensions of EB and the content validity was ascertained.
The construct validity assessed the degree to which the items of the latent construct
measured the baseline concept. The value 0.70 of composite reliability (CR) was considered
acceptable (Hair et al., 2006). Construct validity was established by determining convergent
validity and discriminant validity. The degree of coherence of representing their respective
construct was determined by examining the individual items in the model. Each of the items
fulfilled the requirements. For convergent validity, the loadings were ascertained as the
scores were above 0.5 and CR was greater than the average variance explained (AVE). In
addition, the maximum shared variance (MSV) and average shared variance (ASV) figures
for each of the seven individual constructs have been determined. The entire construct was
found to be valid in terms of discriminant validity as both the MSV and ASV figures of the
individual constructs are lower than their respective AVE estimates (Table 5). The validity
statistics for the individual constructs were determined using Microsoft Excel-based
validity concerns online toolkit developed by Dr James Gaskin. Here, these conditions were
met, and hence, the set model was accepted as shown in Table 5.
Discriminant validity was assessed according to Fornell and Larcker (1981). In this
study, all the EB factors had values of AVE greater than their corresponding squared inter-
construct correlations. This confirmed the discriminant validity as shown in Table 5.

Assessment of model fitment through structural equation modelling

Measurement model and psychometric properties of the first-order model
In a scale development process, the first-order measurement model, as shown in Figure 1,
was tested first. Subsequently, if a multi-dimensional structure of the data is identified, the
next step would be to identify the possibility of further generalisability. For the same, a
second-order measurement model was tested that implies a causal flow from the main
construct (EB) to the six first-order factors. Thus, in the present study, the theory posits that
the EB construct consists of six underlying sub-constructs, wherein each sub-construct is

Construct Construct reliability AVE MSV ASV Convergent validity Discriminant validity

GHP 0.790 0.653 0.111 0.031 Yes Yes

BIW 0.819 0.532 0.404 0.184 Yes Yes
FCO 0.821 0.534 0.500 0.219 Yes Yes
WLB 0.815 0.525 0.199 0.121 Yes Yes
PCU 0.797 0.500 0.496 0.190 Yes Yes
SHP 0.794 0.659 0.122 0.091 Yes Yes
Table 5.
Notes: BIW – Business impression and working conditions; FCO – financial compensation; PCU – passive Reliability and
culture; SHP – standard HR policy validity for
Source: Stats-tool developed by Dr James Gaskin individual constructs
IJOA
31,2

560

Figure 1.
First-order model of
employer branding

measured by using certain variables/items. All the psychometric properties of these models
are discussed in the later sections.
The minimum discrepancy per degree of freedom (CMIN/df), p-value comparative fit
indices, goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness (AGFI) and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) were calculated to ascertain that the model fits the observed data.
These were, respectively, analysed through varied fit indices.
The frequently reported ones are comparative fit index (CFI), GFI, RMSEA and
standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) (McDonald and Ho, 2002). The general
thumb rule for these indices are CMIN/df < 3, p-value > 0.05, AGFI > 0.80, CFI > 0.90,
RMSEA < 0.05 and GFI > 0.90.
The reported indices for the current study on the first-order measurement model and the
second-order structural model are shown in Table 6. The revised first-order measurement/
second-order structural model indicates that the results fall within the recommended
tolerance levels. The absolute fit indices of GFI (0.941/0.942) and the RMSEA (0.042/0.040)
indicate a good fit. The incremental fit indices of root mean residual (RMR) (0.036/0.035),
SRMR (0.047/0.0452) and CFI (0.963/0.965) also indicate a good fit.
As there were no observed changes, the measurement-model-fit indices were accepted as
valid and this confirmed the proposed six-item scale of EB. Each of the items was loaded
properly on their priori dimensions. So, the extracted model represented the most
appropriate and suitable model representing the data set perfectly.
 First-order Second-order
Measuring an
measurement structural employer
Acceptable model model brand
Fit indices range Good fit (Figure 1) (Figure 2)
CMIN
<3 0–2 1.766** 1.679**
DF
RMR 0.05–0.08 <0.05 0.036** 0.035** 561
GFI 0.9–0.95 >0.95 0.941* 0.942*
CFI 0.9–0.95 >0.95 0.963** 0.965**
RMSEA 0.05–0.08 <0.05 0.042** 0.040**
Table 6.
SRMR 0.05–0.08 <0.05 0.047** 0.0452** Model fit indices for
the first- and
Note: Acceptable fit: *. Good fit: ** second-order model

The next step was to check the viability of the second-order model with the core construct
based on EB. The following section deals with the psychometric properties of the second-
order model.

Psychometric properties of the second-order model

After identifying the multi-dimensional structure of the data, the scope of further
generalisability was explored by using a measurement model of the second-order. This
implies that there is a causal flow from the main construct of EB to the six-order factors.
This enables us to assess the structural link of the construct with its sub-constructs.
The theory in this study posits that the EB construct comprises six sub-constructs and each
sub-construct is measured by using certain variables/items. So, a structural model of the second-
order was framed according to steps indicated by Byrne (2001). This is shown in Figure 2.
The measurement model of the second-order is possible with the right fit of the
measurement model of the first-order. Therefore, in the second-order model, the EB value
based on company reputation as a great place to work was taken as the second-order
construct, which has been supported by the six first-order constructs as shown in Figure 2.
It is seen that the second-order six-factor model showed a right fit of the model and is
loaded properly having the following values:
CMIN/DF = 1.679;
CFI = 0.965;
RMSEA = 0.040; and
GFI = 0.942.
Further, the R2 for all the sub-constructs is high. The results establish the second-order
model of the EB. Next, regarding the discriminant validity, the Chi-square ( x 2) of the
individual EB (82) was compared with the other constructs in the model (261.86). Here, the
x 2 of the EB is very small. This confirms the discriminant validity (Segars, 1997). There is
good reliability of the main construct EB, which was 0.851.

Assessment of model fit
For this study, the model estimation was done through the maximum likelihood method. In
the aforementioned section, a second-order model was framed by EFA, bringing down the
data to six main factors. The extracted factors were earlier confirmed by the CFA.
IJOA
31,2

562

Figure 2.
Second-order model
of employer branding

Statistical significance of model parameters

The screening of regression weight and significance of estimates accomplished the
significance of each item/parameter in the model. The regression weights of all the 20
variables in the model were significant at p < 0.001, with values in the range of 0.66 to 0.83.
All the considered items as variables were found relevant and worth retaining. The
standardised residual covariance of parameters is displayed in Figure 2. In the study, all the
values were below 1.0 and were, thus found to be within the acceptable limits (Kaur and
Sharma, 2015).

Overall fit of the model

The model fitness was addressed by the goodness of fit of the model using relevant
measures. Table 6 displays different model fit indices used for estimation. x 2 was
found to be significant (p < 0.001). The RMSEA values indicated the residual in the model.
RMSEA values range from 0 to 1 and a smaller value of RMSEA indicates a better model fit
(Hu and Bentler, 1999). The score of CMIN/df was 1.766, which is also below the
recommended value of 2.0. The comparative fitness index was more robust, which considers
sample size for estimating the fit for small-sized samples. The value of CFI below 0.95 is
considered to be a good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Also, the SRMR indicates the misfit if the
values are between 0.08 and 1. It also states the average difference between observed Measuring an
correlations and model correlations. SRMR values range from 0 to 1 and a smaller value employer
indicates a better model. Byrne (2001) has advocated that a value below 0.05 indicates a
well-fitted model. In this study, it was 0.047.
brand
Taking into account all these indices and the statistical significance of the model
parameters, it can be inferred that the model was an appropriate fit for the structure. Hence,
all the six latent factors and their corresponding variables are vital in measuring the EB
construct. 563

Final employer branding scale: EmBran

The study resulted in the formulation of a new EB scale, relevant for designing talent
acquisition and retention strategies that will be useful for the appropriate application. The
final scale for EB, named as “EmBran” Scale is shown in Table 7.

Discussion and conclusion

The study identified the concept of an EB as a tool to assess employer attractiveness and
developed a scale to measure employer brand value. Earlier, a few empirical studies
attempted to design a scale for measuring an EB; however, these studies focussed on either
current employees or potential employees. This study moved a step further in the direction
of achieving a more exhaustive and purposeful approach towards developing a valid scale
for the measurement of the EB. Whilst earlier studies lacked universality for want of data
about the real-time experience of current employees and perception of potential employees,
both inclusive, this study covered B-Schools’ students as potential employees and power
sector employees as current employees (Cable and Turban, 2003). This study addressed the
issue of talent acquisition as faced by many organisations striving for the best-fit talent at
the managerial level. The work provides a comprehensive measurement scale for measuring
EB value based on the perception of both existing and potential employees. The identified
six-dimension scale is a refinement and extension of the previously derived factor scale with
psychometric significance.

Implications
This work contributes to the knowledge on EB by adding more insights into the theory on
EB. The EB scale developed through this study successfully addresses the limitations of the
previous scales. The identified latent constructs provide the substantial groundwork for
future investigations in the academic research on EB. Thus, in the current context of a
highly dynamic work environment, this work establishes a better conceptualisation of the
EB scale dimensions. Future research studies in disciplines of marketing, HRs, management,
finance, advertising or organisational behaviour, may ground further investigations on the
insights of this study. This research also provides practitioners with insights into “adopting
the right talent-management” practices’. As the factor solution shown in this work provides
relevant content dimensions, an organisation can consider these dimensions in framing EB
objectives.
Branding, based on internal customers or employees, has become quite significant in the
present context because of its strong link not only with employee brand equity but also with
internal brand management. Attracting the right talents is a challenge these days.
Organisations face cutthroat competition to attract and retain the right talent. The
importance of Employer Brand Scale Development can be perceived well in this context.
Whilst considerable work has been done in the area of EB, the present work brings forth
interesting outcomes to be implemented for better talent acquisition and retention. It
IJOA Factors and associated values Items
31,2
GHP/reputation value Encourage creativity at the workplace
Have supportive/encouraging colleagues to facilitate team
spirit in the organisation
Encourage healthy relationship with superiors and
colleagues
564 Implement innovative and novel work practices
Business impression and working Believe in honesty and fairness rather than “by any means”
condition/workplace value Have humane working conditions
Have a clear policy on employee workload distribution
Have ethical business systems rather than only profit
focussed
FC/economic value Offer a high initial compensation package
Pay compensation that will be best internationally
Pay compensation that will be best nationally
Offer an attractive salary
WLB/social value Provide free health benefits rather than allowances
Have policies for vacations and time out
Help me to harmonise my personal and professional life
Have structured retirement benefits
Passive culture/political value Believe in overachieving rather than being competent and
capable
Believe in forming coalitions rather than facilitating
teamwork
Standard HR policy/organisational value Have standard and structured policy on recruitment rather
than attractive policy
Table 7. Have a standard policy on retention of employees rather
EmBran scale than an attractive policy

contributes to the theory on EB. The inductive and deductive basis of scale development
used in this research adds value to the grounded theorisation of the EB concept. Further, this
work substantiates the concept of three dimensions, i.e. functional, economical and
psychological dimensions (Ambler and Barrow, 1996). These were vetted and validated in
their application on potential employees by Berthon et al. (2005). The same factors influence
the existing employees as found in this study.
A new definition of EB, based on the findings of this study, is as follows:
“Employer branding facilitates an organisations’ reputation as a great place to work based on
benefits that include GHP, business impression and work conditions, FC, WLB, passive culture,
and standard HR policy.”
This definition brings forth a new dimension on business impression and working
conditions, which adds value to the brand image of any organisation. It also brings
humaneness, honesty and ethical business systems as new branding elements based on the
internal customers’ perception.
The study proposes a psychometrically vetted EB measurement model where EB is
proposed as a second-order construct to facilitate internal branding.

Theoretical and managerial contribution

The study presents an EB measurement scale with 20 items under six broad dimensions
validated by both potential and existing employees, thus addressing the existing gap in
EB literature. The scale can be used to understand organisational needs on recruitment, Measuring an
selection, promotion and employee engagement-related issues by adopting more employer
customised offerings for the potential and existing employees. The perspectives of
brand
existing employees of power sector units can be applied to other sectors as well. Finally,
the findings of the study capture the significance of the passive culture and its negative
effect on EB image.
565
Limitations of the study and scope for future research
The study was limited to existing employees of power sector units only. Similarly, employees
with less than 10 years of experience were only considered in this study. Lengthier experience
of existing employees may impact perceptions. The role of moderators, such as job experience,
gender, type of job and the managerial level can be studied in future research studies.

Note
1. Leading business magazine of India.

References
Agrawal, R.K. and Swaroop, P. (2009), “Effect of employer brand image on application intentions of B-
school undergraduates”, VISION: The Journal of Business Perspective, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 41-49.
Allen, D.G., Collins, C., Jones, D.A., Pratt, B.R. and Yu, K. (2018), “Employer knowledge and
organizational images: new insights from novel contexts”, Academy of Management, available
at: journals.aom.org
Almack, E. and Almack, U. (2012), “Identifying dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding:
effects of age, gender, and current employment status”, Procedia-Social and Behavioural
Sciences, Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 1336-1343.
Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996), “The employer brand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 185-206.
Arachchige, B.J. and Robertson, A. (2011), “Business students perception of a preferred employer: a
study identifying determinants of employer branding”, The IUP Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 7 No. 3, L, pp. 25-46.
Arachchige, B.J. and Robertson, A. (2013), “Employer attractiveness: comparative perceptions of
undergraduate and postgraduate students”, Sri Lankan Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 33-48.
Aurand, T.W., Gorchels, L. and Bishop, T.R. (2005), “Human resource management’s role in internal
branding: an opportunity for cross-functional brand message synergy”, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 163-169.
Avery, D.R. and McKay, P.F. (2006), “Target practice: an organizational impression management
approach to attracting minority and female job applicants”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 1,
pp. 157-187.
Backhaus, K. and Tikoo, S. (2004), “Conceptualizing and researching employer branding”, Career
Development International, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 501-517.
Barrow, S. and Mosley, R. (2005), The Employer Brand: bringing the Best of Brand Management to
People at Work, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Bendaraviciene, R., Krikstolaitis, R. and Turauskas, L. (2013), “Exploring employer branding to
enhance distinctiveness in higher education”, European Scientific Journal, Vol. 9 No. 19,
pp. 45-78.
IJOA Berthon, P., Ewing, M. and Hah, L.L. (2005), “Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness in
employer branding”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 151-172.
31,2
Botha, A., Bussin, M. and De Swardt, L. (2011), “An employer brand predictive model for talent
attraction and retention”, SA Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, Art. #388,
12 pages.
Bou-Llusar, J. (2016), “Single- and multiple-informant research designs to examine the human resource
managementperformance relationship”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 3,
566 pp. 646-668.
Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: basic Concepts,
Applications, and Programming, Sage Publications, University Press.
Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. (2003), “The value of organisational reputation in the recruitment
context: a brand-equity perspective”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 11,
pp. 2244-2266.
Collins, C.J. and Stevens, C.K. (2002), “The relationship between early recruitment-related activities and
the application decisions of new labor-market entrants: a brand equity approach to recruitment”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 1121-1233.
Davies, G. (2008), “Employer branding and its influence on managers”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 667-681.
Dineen, B. and Allen, D. (2016), “Third party employment branding: human capital inflows and
outflows following ‘best places to work’ certifications”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 90-112.
Fernandez-Lores, S., Gavilan, D., Avello, M. and Blasco, F. (2016), “Affective commitment to the
employer brand: development and validation of a scale”, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, Vol.
19 No. 1, pp. 40-54.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 328-388.
Foster, C., Punjaisri, K. and Cheng, R. (2010), “Exploring the relationship between corporate,
internal and employer branding”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 401-409.
Gaddam, S. (2008), “Modeling employer branding communication: the softer aspect of HR marketing
management”, ICFAI Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 45-55.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ.
Henkel, S., Tomczak, T., Heitmann, M. and Herrmann, A. (2007), “Managing brand consistent employee
behaviour: relevance and managerial control of behavioral branding”, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 310-320.
Hinkin, T.R. (1995), “A review of scale development in the study of behavior in organizations”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 967-988.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hughes, C.J. and Rog, E. (2008), “Talent management: a strategy for improving employee recruitment,
retention and engagement within hospitality organizations”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 743-757.
Ind, N. (2003), “Inside out: how employees build value”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 6,
pp. 393-402.
Kaur, J. and Sharma, S.K. (2015), “Internal marketing: scale development and validation”, Vision: The
Journal of Business Perspective, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 236-247.
Klotz, A.C. and Zimmerman, R.D. (2015), “On the turning away: an exploration of the employee Measuring an
resignation process”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 33,
pp. 51-120.
employer
Knox, S. and Freeman, C. (2006), “Measuring and managing employer brand image in the service
brand
industry”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22 Nos 7/8, pp. 695-716.
Lakshmi, V.S. and Sohail, D. (2013), “Crunch branding: the innovative HR tool to lead Indian Inc in creating
favourable employer branding and employee retention”, Elixir Human Resource Management, p. 54.
Lee, C.C. (2018), “A study on the factors to measure employer brand: the case of undergraduate senior
567
students”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 812-832.
McDonald, R.P. and Ho, M.H.R. (2002), “Principles and practice in reporting statistical equation
analyses”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1.
Mandhanya, Y. and Shah, M. (2010), “Employer branding: a tool for talent management”, Global
Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 2.
Martin, G., Gollan, P.J. and Grigg, K. (2011), “Is there a bigger and better future for employer branding?
Facing up to innovation, corporate reputations and wicked problems in SHRM”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 17, pp. 3618-3637.
Maxwell, R. and Knox, S. (2009), “Motivating employees to ‘live the brand’: a comparative case study of
employer brand attractiveness within the firm”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 25
Nos 9/10, pp. 893-907.
Moroko, L. and Uncles, M.D. (2008), “Characteristics of successful employer brands”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 160-175.
Mosley, R.W. (2007), “Customer experience, organisational culture and the employer brand”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 123-134.
Nguyen, N. (2006), “The collective impact of service workers and services cape on the corporate image
formation”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 224-227.
Piehler, R., Grace, D. and Burmann, C. (2018), “Internal brand management: introduction to the special
issue and directions for future research”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 197-201.
Punjaisri, K., Evanschitzky, H. and Wilson, A. (2009), “Internal branding: an enabler of employees’
brand-supporting behaviours”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 209-226.
Robertson, A. and Khatibi, A. (2012), “By design or by default: creating the employer identity”, The IUP
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 31-47.
Roy, S.K. (2008), “Identifying the dimensions of attractiveness of an employer brand in the Indian
context”, South Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 110-130.
Segars, A.H. (1997), “Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: a paradigm and illustration
within the context of information systems research”, Omega, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-121.
Shukla, A.V. and Shrivastava, N. (2013), “Key drivers of talent management: a case study of an
MSME”, Organization Transformation ICMC, pp. 129-142.
Slaughter, J.E., Zickar, M.J., Highhouse, S. and Mohr, D.C. (2004), “Personality trait inferences about
organizations: development of a measure and assessment of construct validity”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 85-103.
Stockman, S. (2020), “Negative word-of-mouth and applicant attraction: the role of employer brand
equity”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 118.
Stokes, P. (2016), “Managing talent across advanced and emerging economies: HR issues and
challenges in a Sino-German strategic collaboration”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 20, pp. 2310-2338.
Tanwar, K. and Kumar, A. (2019), “Employer brand, person-organisation fit and employer of choice:
investigating the moderating effect of social media”, Personnel Review, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 799-823.
IJOA Tanwar, K. and Prasad, A. (2017), “Employer brand scale development and validation: a second-order
factor approach”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 389-409.
31,2
Tobias, S., Mareike, B., Peter, M. and Joël, L.C. (2011), “The influence of the employer brand on
employee attitudes relevant for service branding: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 497-508.
Tuzuner, V.L. and Yuksel, C.A. (2009), “Segmenting potential employees according to firms ‘employer
attractiveness dimensions in the employer branding concept”, Journal of Academic Research in
568 Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 47-62.
Walsh, G. and Beatty, S.E. (2007), “Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: scale
development and validation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 127-143.
Wilden, R., Gudergan, S. and Lings, I. (2010), “Employer branding: strategic implications for staff
recruitment”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 26 Nos 1/2, pp. 56-73.

Further reading
Kaiser, H.F. and Rice, J. (1974), “Little Jiffy Mark IV”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 111-117.
Mitchell, C. (2002), “Selling the brand inside”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 99-105.
Tanwar, K. and Prasad, A. (2016), “The effect of employer brand dimensions on job satisfaction: gender
as a moderator”, Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 854-886.
Theurer, C.P., Tumasjan, A., Welpe, I.M. and Lievans, F. (2018), “Employer branding: a brand equity-based
literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews,
p. 25.

About the authors

Navin Kumar Shrivastava is an Assistant Professor at the Birla Institute of
Management Technology, (BIMTECH) India. He holds a PhD in management and
Master of Laws. He specializes in employer branding, employee engagement,
organizational values and community development. A recipient of distinguished
services award of BIMTECH, his earlier publications are in the areas of employer
branding, talent management, organizational learning, employee engagement,
corporate social responsibility, intellectual property rights and institution building.
He has published papers in national and international journals as well as in edited
books. He is an associated reviewer to International Journal of Manpower and Journal of Brand
Management. Navin Kumar Shrivastava is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: n.
shrivastava@bimtech.ac.in
Arvind Virendranath Shukla is a Professor of Marketing at the Birla Institute of
Management Technology(BIMTECH) India. He holds a PhD in management and is
presently the Chair of the Fellow programme in Management at BIMTECH. He has
authored three books: ‘Case Studies & Case Problems in Management’, ‘Case Studies in
Marketing Management’, and ‘They said it!’. He has presented papers in National and
International Conferences and has published research papers in refereed research
journals. He has also offered consultancy in the area of recruitment and staff
development and training in marketing to some corporate and cooperative institutions.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com