www.elsevier.es/brq
BRQ
Business
Research
Quarterly
ARTICLE
Affective
commitment
to
the
employer
brand:
Development
and
validation
of
a
scale
Susana
Fernandez-Lores
∗,
Diana
Gavilan,
Maria
Avello,
Francisca
Blasco
DepartamentodeComercializacióneInvestigacióndeMercados,UniversidadComplutensedeMadrid,Spain Received26March2014;accepted29June2015
Availableonline17August2015
KEYWORDS Employerbranding; Affective commitment; Workexperience; Measurementscale
Abstract Inrecentyearsemployerbrandinghasbecomeincreasinglyimportantasasourceof sustainablecompetitiveadvantage.Companiesaretryingtoengenderaffectivecommitment inthe best employees ina global labour market. In thisstudy, we developand validatea multidimensionalscale tomeasure thestrength ofanemployee’s affectivecommitment to theemployerbrandinfiveseparatestudies.InStudies1and2theAffectiveCommitmentto theEmployerBrand(ACEB) scalewas developedandtested foritsstructure,reliabilityand convergentvalidity.Study3examinesadditionalreliabilityanddiscriminantvalidity.Study4 providesevidenceofexternalvalidity.Study5examinesthescale’snomologicalvalidityshowing thatapositiveexperiencewiththeemployerbrandisimportantinmakingtheemployeedevelop affectivecommitmenttowardsit.Thelimitationsofthescaleandtheboundaryconditionsof itsapplicabilityarealsodiscussed.
©2015ACEDE.PublishedbyElsevierEspaña,S.L.U.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCC BY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Introduction
Employer brandingis a hot topicamong companiesof all sizes, in all countries, and in all business sectors. The TalentBrandIndexsurvey(LinkedIn,2013)foundthat94% ofcompaniesplantoincrease or maintaintheir employer branding budget in 2013. In the words of Steve Barham, SeniorDirectorofLinkedInTalentSolutions,‘‘Theabilityto betterunderstand howyour company is perceived among
∗Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddresses:[email protected] (S.Fernandez-Lores),[email protected](D.Gavilan), [email protected](M.Avello),[email protected] (F.Blasco).
keyprofessionalaudiencesempowers youtotakestepsto betterengagetheprofessionalsyoumostwanttohire’’.
Academicsand practitioners alike agree that products andbrands areamongthemost valuableassetsof a com-pany(Maddenetal.,2006),andthatthegoalofbranding strategies is to attract, retain and engage customers by creating brandvalue in the consumer’s mind. Until fairly recently,onlythoseexternaltothecompanywere consid-ered tobecustomers.However,thebrandingliterature is increasinglypromotingthenotionthatafirm’sown employ-eesareitsprimarycustomers(Edwards,2010),therationale beingthatemployeesareindeed(internal)customersofa valuable(internal)product:employment.Therefore, brand-ing strategies should take into account not just external customers but also internal ones; businesses should seek toattract,retainandcommitemployeestothecorporate
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.06.001
2340-9436/© 2015 ACEDE. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
missionbysatisfyingtheirneedsandwants(Thomsonetal., 2005;Punjaisrietal.,2008).
Satisfying needs and wants has increasingly come to mean providing emotional satisfaction. In consumer mar-keting, it is widely accepted that brand success relies on making promises that add value for the customer. In recent years these promises have taken on strong emo-tionalcontent(Schmitt,1999;Thomsonetal.,2005;Gobé, 2010).Emotionsstrengthenattachmentandmaylead cus-tomerstobuy aproduct,evenwhenit carriesapremium price.
Like consumer marketing, employer branding has also shifted towards the delivery of emotional benefits to achieve employee commitment (Kimpakorn and Tocquer, 2009). This affectivecommitmentcan then leadto desir-able behaviours such aswillingness tohelp or propensity for further development (Burmann et al., 2009). In this sense,consumerbrandingandemployerbrandingareclosely linked.
Whereasinconsumermarketing,validandreliable mul-tidimensional scales already exist tomeasure consumer’s affectivebondtothebrand,suchasattachmenttobrands (Thomson etal., 2005), brand experience(Brakus et al., 2009)orbrandlove(Batraetal.,2012),inmanagementthe most commonly usedmeasure is that of Allen and Meyer (1990).Thisconceptualization consistsofthree differenti-atedcomponents:affective(desiretocommit), normative (moral obligation tocommit) and continuance (perceived costof abandon)commitmentandhasproved efficientto measure the differenttypes of commitment (bond) of an employeetowardshis/herorganisation.Inotherwords,the scaleisfocusedonthediscriminationbetweencommitment profiles(Gellatlyetal.,2006).Affectivecommitmentinturn refersthreedimensionsasinitiallydefinedby itsauthors: ‘‘identificationwith,involvementin,andemotional attach-menttotheorganization’’(AllenandMeyer,1996,p.253). Howeverthe affective commitmentmindset is measured withasingle-dimension.
Since 1990, the first publication of Allen and Mey-ers’ scale, the relevance of affective commitment has emergedasamajorissueofinterest.Severalauthorshave requested thatattentionshould bedirectedat the devel-opmentofmeasuresoftherelevantaffectivecommitment mind-sets by adopting a deeper, new, more comprehen-sive perspective (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Meyer and Herscovitch,2001;Evanschitzkyetal.,2006;Verhoefetal., 2002; Fullerton, 2005; Aaker et al., 2004; Mattila, 2004; Fullerton, 2005; Gustafssonet al.,2005; King andGrace, 2010).
Theaimofthisstudyistodevelopanewreliable,valid andparsimonious scale tomeasureaffective commitment thatdiffersfrompreviousapproachesofferedbyliterature, focusingonaffectivecommitmenttotheemployerbrand. In this study, affective commitment is described as the degree of the emotional bond between the subject and the employer brand that encompasses enthusiasm with, and attachment to the employer brand, and creates a desire in the employee to remain in the organisation in thelong term.Suchan instrumentmayserve asaneasily applicable toolfor helpingcompaniesattract,retain, and appraiseaffectivecommitmenttotheemployerbrandfrom outstandingemployeesinagloballycompetitivelandscape.
FollowingproceduresrecommendedbyChurchill(1979)
andfurther developedby others (e.g.Fornell and Larker, 1981;Anderson andGerbing, 1988;Hair etal.,2005), we usedqualitativeandquantitativeapproachestodevelopand validateapsychometricallyreliablemeasureofthestrength of affective commitment tothe employer brand. Specifi-callywepresentheretheresultsof5studies:InStudy1we conductedaqualitative investigation ofthe domainof an employee’saffectivecommitmenttotheemployer brand, leadingtothe design of a pretest questionnaire toarrive at a more parsimonious set of survey items. In Study 2, weusedaquantitativeapproachtodevelopandpurifythe scale,conductedexploratoryandconfirmatoryfactor anal-ysisandinitiallyassessedscalereliability,unidimensionality andconvergentanddiscriminantvalidity.InStudy3,using anewsample ofemployees,we conductedaquantitative studytoassessthescale’sdiscriminantvaliditywithrespect topotentiallyrelatedconstructs(e.g.satisfactionand moti-vation).InStudy 4we examinedthe stabilityofthe scale acrossindependentsamplesforfurtherevidenceof exter-nal validity. Finally, in Study 5, we examined the scale’s nomologicalvalidity.
Theoretical
background
Whatisemployerbranding?
AmblerandBarrow(1996)coinedthetermemployer brand-ingtorefertoallthebenefits offeredbyacompanythat togethercreateauniqueemployerenthusiasmintheminds ofjobapplicantsandemployees,andthatmakethemwilling tojoinorstaywiththecompany.Theseauthorssuggestthat justlikeaconsumerbrand,anemployerbrandpossessesa personalityand an image in the mindof the labour mar-ket,whichcan createtightbondsbetweenthebrandand itsworkforce(Pittetal.,2002).Anemployerbrand repre-sentsa ‘‘value proposition’’ that individuals believe they willreceive by workingfor a specific employer (Backhaus andTikoo,2004).
Recentlythetermhasevolvedtoincludeawidesetof companyactivities aimed at recruiting and retaining tal-ented professionals (Mosley, 2007; Davies, 2008). In this expanded sense, the term ‘‘employer branding’’ encom-passes the process of building the employer brand and differentiatingittomakeitcompetitive,aswellasthe spe-cificactionsundertakentoattract,recruit,select,retain, recycle and release employees (Sutherland et al., 2002). Throughoutthevariedprocessesandactivitiescollectively referred to as ‘‘employer branding’’, employee commit-menttotheemployerbrandisakeyindicatorofthestate oftherelationshipbetweentheemployeeandtheemployer (KimpakornandTocquer,2009;Fernandez-Lores,2012).
Although employer branding is still a relatively young field,several models can already be found in the litera-ture (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Mosley, 2007; King and Grace,2010). Someresearchersconsideremployer brand-ing strategies to be a source of sustainable competitive advantage(KimpakornandTocquer,2009;MaxwellandKnox, 2009; Edwards, 2010), making the concept analogous to that of consumer branding (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). Thisgroup of researchersholds thatemployer brandingis
multidisciplinary,andthatitsaimsare,externally,tomake sure that the employer brand attracts talent (Miles and Mangold,2004;BarrowandMosley,2005;GavilanandAvello, 2011) and, internally, to ensure that this talent commits itself tothe company(Burmann etal., 2009; Fernandez-Lores,2012).
Conceptualizationofaffectivebrandcommitment
Commitmentisthefoundationofalltypesofrelationships. Ithasbeenresearchedfrommanydifferentperspectivesin many different contexts, including social exchange (Cook and Emerson, 1978), romantic relationships (Bielby and Bielby, 1989), business relationships (DeShon and Landis, 1997), teamwork (Rusbult and Farrel, 1983) and occupa-tion(CarsonandBedeian,1994).Therefore,theliterature aboundswithdefinitions ofthe term(Reichers, 1986)and different conceptualisations of its dimensionality. Early research attempted to explain commitment as a one-dimensionalconstruct(Mowdayetal.,1979;Wiener,1982). However,theconceptualizationhasevolvedtowardsa mul-tiple dimension construct (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; AllenandMeyer,1990; Meyer etal.,2002).These dimen-sions varywiththe focus of thestudy (e.g. interpersonal relationships,organisation...).
Commitmenthas been coveredcomprehensively inthe managementliterature(Becker,1960;Mowdayetal.,1979; Mobley, 1982; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Mathieu and Zajac,1990;MeyerandAllen,1991;DeGilder,2003).The prevailingconceptualisationofcommitmenttothe organisa-tionistheThree-ComponentModel(TCM)proposedbyAllen andMeyer(1990),inwhichthethreedimensionsare affec-tive, continuance, and normative commitment. Affective commitmentisdefinedas‘‘identificationwith,involvement in,andemotional attachment totheorganization’’ (Allen andMeyer, 1996,p. 253). Continuancecommitmentleads theemployeetostaybecauseofthehighcostsofleaving, whilenormativecommitmentreflectsthedecisiontoremain outofafeelingofmoralobligation.
Outof thethreetypes of commitment, affective com-mitment has been shown to provide the greatest benefit totheorganisation(Meyeretal.,2002;MeyerandMaltin, 2010).It hasalsobeen shown tobemorestrongly associ-atedwithdesiredworkbehaviours(MeyerandHerscovitch, 2001),suchasmakingextraeffortstobeagood organisa-tionalcitizen (Ambler and Barrow, 1996; Burmann etal., 2009).
Thisreviewleadsustoconcludetheimportanceof affec-tivecommitmentasadriverofdesired behaviourandthe appropriatenessof studyingit isolatedfromother typeof commitmentmind-setsingreaterdepth.
Differencesbetweenaffectivecommitmenttothe employerbrandandotherconstructs
AffectiveCommitmenttotheEmployerBrand(ACEB)should bedistinguishedfromotherconstructswithwhichitmight becorrelated,suchasidentification,satisfactionand moti-vation.
Identification
FromSocialIdentityTheory(TajfelandTurner,1979), affec-tive commitmentis considered tobea key aspect of the individual’ssocialidentification.Ellemersetal.(2002) pro-posed that three components contribute to one’s social identification: self-categorization (a cognitive awareness of one’s membership in a social group), self-esteem, an evaluativecomponent(apositiveornegativevalue conno-tation attached to this group membership) and affective commitment, an emotional component. Among the three componentsBergamiandBagozzi(2000)demonstratedthat cognitive identificationhad indirecteffects oncitizenship behavioursthroughaffectivecommitment.Although identi-fication andaffectivecommitmentarecloseconcepts the formerisanantecedentofthelatter.
Satisfaction
Anemployeewhoisaffectivelycommittedtotheemployer brand is likely to be satisfied, and that satisfaction may lead to emotional attachment. Nevertheless, satisfaction andaffectivecommitmentarenotsynonymous.Satisfaction does notautomaticallyimplycertainbehaviours(Thomson etal.,2005),suchaswillingnesstohelp,positivewordof mouth, or a tendency to further one’s career within the organisation. Satisfaction can be a momentary response; for example,it mayoccur immediately afteran event in theworkplace.Ithasahedonisticcomponent:satisfaction sharescommonvariancewithpositiveemotionslike happi-ness,joy,gladness,elation,delightandenjoyment(Bagozzi etal.,1999).Italsoinvolvesevaluativejudgement: satisfac-tionintheworkplaceresultsfromanemployee’sevaluation ofhowmuchtheworkenvironmentmeetshisorherneeds (Ramayah et al., 2001). Unlike satisfaction, ACEB is con-sidered tobe an antecedent of various brand citizenship behaviours (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004). ACEB involves an affectivepromisetoremainwiththeemployerforthegood andthe bad.This willingness tomaintaintherelationship withthebrandtendstodevelopover timeasthenumber and varietyof interactionsincrease. ACEB involvesstrong behaviouralandmoral(promise-based)componentslacking intheconceptofsatisfaction.
Motivation
Luthans (1998) statedthat motivation is the process that awakens,activates,directsandsustainsbehaviourand per-formance.Itinternallyencouragespeopletowardsactions thathelpthemachieveparticulartaskeffectiveness(Weitz etal.,1986).Thus,motivationcanbeconsideredasourceof intermittentinspirationforpeopleintheworkplace.When motivated,employeesproducemorethanwhatisformally expectedofthem.
ACEBandmotivationaresimilarinthatbothareaffected by timeand interaction, and both can strongly influence employee performance. Nevertheless, they differ in one importantrespect.Motivation,generallycausedbyaneed to achieve, disappears oncethat need is satisfied. ACEB, conversely, involves a persistent bondwith the employer that includes a promise to remain loyal in the future.
Thus,theeffectsofmotivationaremuchmoreephemeral thanthoseofaffectivecommitment. Theultimategoalof commitment is to maintain the relationship itself, and it disappearsonlyifthatrelationshipfallsapart.
Summary
In thisarticle, we propose areliable and validscale that reflectsanemployee’saffectivecommitmenttowardshisor her employer brand.We first describe howthe scale was constructedonthebasisofaffectivecommitment.Second, wevalidatethescale’sinternalconsistencyanddimensional structure. Third, we examine reliabilityand demonstrate discriminant validity, showing that the scale differs from measuresof satisfactionandmotivation.Lastly,we exam-inethe scale’snomological validity by investigatingthree antecedent experiential dimensions within a nomological network.
Study
1:
qualitative
study
and
item
generation
To developa parsimoniousyet representativescale of the strength of an employee’s affective commitment to the employerbrand,wefollowedscaledevelopmentprocedures advocatedbyChurchill(1979).Ourfirstgoalwastouncover thescopeofaffectivecommitmenttoanemployerbrandby generatingasmanyitemsaspossibletodefinewhat employ-eesunderstandtobethemaindescriptorsofACEB.
Method
Procedureandparticipants
We conducted qualitative research based on seven focus groups involvingemployees ofthreemultinational compa-nies, in orderto ensure the inclusion of diverse nuances within the affective commitment construct. Participating companieswereaskedtoensurethatcandidatesforfocus groups bediversein age,gender, salary,jobcategory and seniorityintheorganisation.
The numberofparticipants ineachfocusgroupranged fromseventonine.AccordingtoMorgan(1998)andKrueger andCasey(2000)thesize ofeffective groups rangesfrom fourtotwelvewiththeidealsizebeingseventoten indi-viduals.Outofthesevenfocusgroups, onewascomposed solelybymanagers,threewerecomposedsolelyby employ-ees,andtheremainingthreefocusgroupswerecomposed bybranchbankingemployees.Thefinalsampleincluded27 menand25women.
Each focus group met for approximately two hours in a room equipped with closed-circuit cameras and sound recorders. Sessions were recorded on video and audio, allowinganalysisofbothcognitiveandemotionalresponses during group interactions. Focus group facilitators were givenacarefullydevelopedscript(MyersandMacnaghten, 2004).Duringthesessions,facilitatorsposedquestionsfrom the script and allowed time for free discussion. Tape-recordeddiscussionsweretranscribed.
Itemgenerationandselection
Acodingteamofthreestudentsandoneauthoridentified recurringthemesinthedataindividually(GubaandLincoln, 1994). Then the team met to discuss their findings and sharedsupporting quotations.The objective at this point wastosearchforcommoncriteriathatallowedforthemost accuraterepresentationofeachdomain.Inadditiontothis empiricalqualitative analysis,we undertook an extensive literaturereview(Becker,1960;Fraisse,1964;Mobley,1982; O’ReillyandChatman, 1986; Shaveretal., 1987;Mathieu andZajac,1990;MeyerandAllen,1991;MorganandHunt, 1994;Holmes,2000;BergamiandBagozzi,2000;DeGilder, 2003; Kimpakorn and Tocquer, 2009; Foster et al., 2010; KunerthandMosley,2011).
Results
Theresultsofthequalitativeanalysisandliteraturereview ledtoapreliminary listof96 itemsgrouped intothe fol-lowingseven initial categories:emotional attachment(25 items),enthusiasmwiththebrand(20),senseofbelonging (10),evangelisation (14), long-term orientation (14), per-sistence(8),andreciprocity(5).Severalmarketingfaculty membersthenevaluatedthelistof itemsfor contentand facevalidity.Itemsthatwereunclear,irrelevanttooneof thedomains,or otherwiseopentomisinterpretationwere deleted(ArnoldandReynolds,2003;Brakusetal.,2009).A totalof80itemswereretained,andweredistributedamong thesevencategoriesasfollows:emotional attachment(24 items),enthusiasmwiththebrand(19),senseofbelonging (6),evangelisation (9),long-term orientation (14), persis-tence(4),andreciprocity(4).
Theseitemswereusedtodevelopaquestionnaire captur-ingallidentifieddimensionsofaffectivebrandcommitment. Itemswereincludedinrandomorder.Thequestionnairewas administeredtoa sample of 64 employeesfromdifferent companiesandindustrialsectorswhovolunteeredto partic-ipateinourstudy.Weaskedthemtothinkoftheiremployer brandand to evaluate the extent to which the 80 items describedtheirbondwithit,usingaseven-pointLikertscale (1=notatalldescriptive,7=totallydescriptive).Following
Brakusetal.(2009),weretainedthemostfrequently men-tioneditemsthatreceivedmeanLikertvaluesgreaterthan 4.5withastandarddeviationlessthan2.0.Thisledtoafinal listof55itemsacrosssixcategories:emotionalattachment (15), enthusiasmwith the brand (11), sense of belonging (4),evangelisation(8),long-termorientation(13),and per-sistence(4).Allitemsin thecategory ofreciprocity were eliminated.
Study2:scalepurification
WedesignedStudy2topurifythescaleandfurtherreduce thenumberofitems.Scalepurificationinvolvesexploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and initial assessmentofscalereliability,dimensionality,and conver-gent and discriminant validity (Churchill, 1979; Anderson andGerbing,1988;Hairetal.,2005).Aquestionnairewas generated comprising the final set of 55 items with 20% ofthe itemsnegatively wordedaccording toWeijtersand
Table1 Study2.ACEBdimensionsrevealedbyexploratoryfactoranalysis.
Itemwording Factor
LT EB EA
LT1.Mycommitmentto<EmployerBrand>islong-termoriented 0.842 LT2.Idesiretoworkfor<EmployerBrand>foralongtime 0.835 LT3.IwouldfeelsadifIhadtoleave<EmployerBrand> 0.830 LT4.Ifeelmyselfpartof<EmployerBrand>andIwishtoremainlikethisthefuture 0.825
LT5.Iamloyalto<EmployerBrand> 0.773
PERS3.Iremainsteadfastinmycommitmentto<EmployerBrand> 0.760
EB1.Ifeelthatanyproblemof<EmployerBrand>isalsomyproblem 0.827
EB2.Ifeel<EmployerBrand>’sprojectsaremyown 0.804
EB3.<EmployerBrand>’sproblemsaffectme 0.799
EB4.<EmployerBrand>’ssuccessesarealsomine 0.760
EA1.Iamfondof<EmployerBrand> 0.806
EA2.Ihavedevelopedastrongbondwith<EmployerBrand> 0.806
EA3.Iamemotionallyattachedto<EmployerBrand> 0.791
EA4.Ifeelmy‘teamcolors’ 0.764
Note:LT,LongTermorientation;EB,Enthusiasmwiththeemployerbrand;EA,EmotionalAttachment.
Baumgartner(2012),aswellasclassificationitemssuchas age,income,gender,yearsatthecompany,andjob descrip-tion.
Method
Procedureandparticipants
Respondents belonging to a multinational company were instructed to indicate the extent to which the items described their commitmenttothe employer brand using a7-pointLikertscale(1=notatalldescriptive,7=totally descriptive).Thecompanyprovidedusalistof4000 employ-ees. We randomly selected 600 to whom we sent e-mail invitationstoparticipateinthestudy.Thosewhoaccepted weresentthequestionnairebyemail,and495werereturned (overallresponserateof82.5%).Datawasthensubjectedto bothexploratoryandconfirmatoryfactoranalysis.
Results
of
exploratory
factor
analysis
Exploratoryanalysisusingprincipalaxisfactoringand Vari-maxrotationrevealedasix-factorsolutionwitheigenvalues greater than1 (Hair etal., 2005).The six-factor solution accountedfor71%oftotalvariance,butascreeplotshowed only threefactors to be significant (Brakus etal., 2009). To interpret the three-factor solution, we examined the itemsforwhichthemainfactorhadloadingweightsgreater than 0.70. Twenty-seven items met the requirement and thereforewereretainedintheanalysis.Factor1captured the long-term orientation dimension (12 items); Factor 2 enthusiasmwiththeemployerbrand(7items)andFactor3 emotionalattachmenttotheemployerbrand(8items).To determinewhetherthethree-factorsolutionwassuperiorto thesix-factorone,werepeatedtheexploratoryfactor anal-ysiswhile restrictingthe numberof factors tothree. The three-factorsolutionaccountedfor77.6%oftotalvariance
andshowedaKMOmeasureofsamplingadequacyof0.98. Astricterloadingcriterion(>0.75)wasusedtoevaluatethe rotatedfactors.Fourteen itemsfulfilledthecondition but noneofthereversecodeditemswasamongthem(Table1).
Results
of
confirmatory
factor
analysis
On thebasis of theseresults,we conducteda setof con-firmatoryfactor analysiscorrespondingtothetwomodels showninFig.1.Allwerebasedonstructuralequation mod-ellingtoestimateparametersandcomputegoodness-of-fit measuresusingthemaximumlikelihoodestimator(Bagozzi, 1980; AndersonandGerbing, 1988;Bearden etal.,1989). Model1assumedthatallitemsloadeddirectlyontoasingle latent Affective Commitmentconstruct. Model2 assumed threelatentvariablesnamedLongTermOrientation, Enthu-siasmwiththeEmployerBrandandEmotionalAttachment reflectingasecond-orderfactor.Bothmodelsshowedthat eachpathwassignificantyetthefitmeasuresdiffered con-siderably. Model1 showed a verylow fit: 2
(77)=1544.29
(p<0.01), GFI=0.579 and RMSEA=0.205 while model 2 showedconsiderablebetterfit.However,initialinspection ofmodificationindices(MI)revealedthreeitemsas candi-datesforremoval:‘‘Iremainsteadfast inmycommitment to<EmployerBrand>’’,‘‘Iamloyalto<EmployerBrand>’’ and ‘‘<EmployerBrand>’s problems affect me’’. Allthree items accounted for two or more significant MIs, indicat-ingcross-saturationwithotherfactors.Theyweretherefore deleted.Thefinalre-specifiedsecondordermodel,with11 indicatorsand3latentvariables,showedacceptablefit:2 (41)=100.42 (p<0.01), GFI=0.961, NFI=0.975, CFI=0.985,
IFI=0.985andRMSEA=0.06.
Theseresultsprovideevidenceoftheunidimensionality ofthemeasures,witheachitemloadingononepredicted factor (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bollen, 1989). Reli-ability was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha and compositereliability,whichrangedfrom0.89to0.93.These valuesarewellabovetherecommendedthresholds(Fornell
LT1 LT2 LT3 LT4 LT5 PERS3 EB1 EB2 EB3 EB4 EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 0.63 0.61 0.62 0.71 0.72 0.64 0.47 0.52 0.44 0.50 0.54 0.50 0.51 0.54 ACEB 0.80 0.78 0.79 0.84 0.85 0.80 0.69 0.72 0.67 0.71 0.74 0.71 0.72 0.74 Long-term orientation Emotional attachment Enthusiasm with employer brand 0.76 0.88 0.82 LT1 LT2 LT3 LT4 EB1 EB2 EB4 EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 0.70 0.81 0.68 0.84 0.84 0.90 0.83 0.92 0.76 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.87 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.63 0.83 0.76 0.79 0.91 0.87 ACEB
Model 1. First order factor model Model 2. Re-specified second order three factor model
Figure1 Study2.Confirmatoryfactoranalysis.
andLarker,1981;AndersonandGerbing,1988;Hairetal., 2005)(Table2).
Convergentvaliditywasassessedfromthemeasurement model by determining whether each indicator estimated maximum likelihood loading on the underlying dimension wassignificant(AndersonandGerbing,1988).Standardised coefficientsranged from0.793 to0.918,andallwere sig-nificantwithtvaluesabove20.626.Thisindicatesthatour measuresshowconvergentvalidity.
Discriminant validity refers to the fact that each fac-tor should capture a different dimension from the rest. Theaveragevarianceextracted(AVE)forlatentdimensions rangedfrom0.72to0.76,exceedingallphi-squared corre-lations(FornellandLarker,1981).Theseresultssuggestthat themeasuresensurediscriminantvalidity(Table3).
Based on the theoretical foundation, Study 2 provides empiricalevidencethat thethreedimensions of affective commitmenttotheemployer brandareconceptualisedas
interrelatedfirstorderfactorsloadingontoa globalACEB latentconstruct.
Study
3:
additional
reliability
and
discriminant
validity
tests
Studies1 and2 providedathree-factor ACEBscale show-ingreliabilityandconvergentanddiscriminantvalidity.To test the scale more rigorously, we compared ACEB with otherscalesofsimilarconstructs(Churchill,1979).The pur-poseofStudy3wastwo-fold:toreplicatetheconfirmatory factor structure on an independent sample, and to ver-ify thescale’s discriminantvalidity by showing thatACEB is empiricallydistinguishable fromsimilar constructssuch asmotivation (Bakker,2008),satisfaction(Babakusetal., 2003),andnormativeandcontinuancecommitment(Meyer andAllen,1991).
Table2 Study2.Resultsofconfirmatoryfactoranalysis.
DIMENSION Item Standard
regressionweight (standarderror) t Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability AverageVariance Extracted Long-Term Orientation LT1 0.836(0.036) 25.149 0.93 0.93 0.76 LT2 0.899(0.033) 30.631 LT3 0.825(0.039) 24.454 LT4 0.918 Enthusiasmwith theEmployer Brand EB1 0.793 0.89 0.89 0.74 EB2 0.911(0.050) 21.794 EB4 0.874(0.053) 20.626 Emotional Attachmentto EmployerBrand EA1 0.871 0.91 0.91 0.72 EA2 0.842(0.042) 22.993 EA3 0.843(0.047) 22.990 EA4 0.835(0.045) 22.988
Table3 Study2.Squaredcorrelationmatrix.
LONG-TERM ORIENTATION
ENTHUSIASMWITHTHE EMPLOYERBRAND
EMOTIONALATTACHMENT TOEMPLOYERBRAND
LONG-TERMORIENTATION (0.76)
ENTHUSIASMWITHTHEEMPLOYERBRAND 0.38** (0.74)
EMOTIONALATTACHMENT 0.44** 0.52** (0.72)
AVEinbrackets.
*p<0.05. **p<0.01.
Method
Procedureandparticipants
Using the same list of 4000 employee’s as in Study 2, werandomlyselected250andinvitedthemtoparticipate in the study by email. None of them had participated in Study 2. We sent them a questionnaire containingthe 11 itemsoftheACEBscale,aswellastheitemsofthescales forsatisfaction,motivationandorganisationalcommitment describedbelow. Atotal of209 completed questionnaires werereturned,correspondingtoanoverallresponserateof 83.6%.
Measures
Wemeasuredsatisfaction(fouritems,␣=0.79)witha met-ric adapted from Babakus et al. (2003), motivation (four items,␣=0.90)withametricadaptedfromBakker(2008)
andorganisationalcommitmentwithAllenandMeyer’sscale (1990),whichincludesitsthreedimensions:affective com-mitment (seven items, ␣=0.91), normative commitment (four items ␣=0.81) and continuance commitment (four items␣=0.75).SeeAppendixI.Respondentsexpressedtheir agreementwiththesestatementsusinga7-pointLikertscale (1=totallydisagree,7=totallyagree).
Results
of
the
measurement
model
We then conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) including the ACEB scale together with measures of
satisfaction, motivation,affective, normative and contin-uancecommitment.Themodelindicatedacceptablefit2 (277)=744.385(p<0.01),GFI=0.952,NFI=0.972,CFI=0.969,
IFI=0.965,andRMSEA=0.07.
Resultsalsoindicatedthatforalldimensions,theitems loaded significantly(p<0.001) as predicted providing evi-dence ofunidimensionality (AndersonandGerbing, 1988). Reliability of the subscales was acceptable, as the coef-ficient alpha estimates ranged from 0.75 to 0.92 (See AppendixII).
Discriminant validity between ACEB’s dimensions and normativecommitment,continuancecommitment, satisfac-tion andmotivation wasconfirmed. The average variance extracted(AVE)forthedimensionsrangedfrom0.51to0.84, exceedingallphi-squaredcorrelations(Fornell andLarker, 1981).
Discriminant validity between ACEB and Allen and Meyer’s (1990) affective organisational commitment was not achieved. This result is consistent with the fact that theunderlyingconceptualizationofbothmeasuresisclose, although its operationalisation differs. Means, standard deviations,andsquaredcorrelation matrixareprovidedin
Table4.
Study
4:
external
validity
of
the
scale
ThepurposeofStudy4wastoconfirmthedegreetowhich thescale’sfindingscouldbereplicatedbyotheremployees at different times and in other situations. Such exter-nal validity measures the generalisability of the findings (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008); a reliable scale should be stableacrossindependentsamples.
Table4 Study3.Means,standarddeviationsandsquaredcorrelationsmatrix.
Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
(1)LongTermOrientation 6.02 0.99(0.76)
(2)EnthusiasmwiththeEB 5.45 1.03 0.35**(0.81)
(3)EmotionalAttachment 5.70 1.09 0.37** 0.51**(0.80) (4)AffectiveCommitment 5.70 0.97 0.59** 0.57** 0.87**(0.84) (5)NormativeCommitment 4.83 1.42 0.43** 0.47** 0.54** 0.43**(0.65) (6)ContinuanceCommitment 3.84 1.43 0.07** 0.03 0.50** 0.06** 0.01 (0.51) (7)Satisfaction 5.22 0.93 0.28** 0.23** 0.32** 0.29** 0.24** 0.03*(0.60) (8)Motivation 5.54 1.03 0.45** 0.40** 0.58** 0.50** 0.35** 0.10** 0.56** (0.76) AVEinbrackets. * p<0.05. **p<0.01.
Method
Procedureandparticipants
For this Study we used a professional panel data. We selected a new random sample of 700 to participate in the study. The final sample consisted of 161 employees fromvariouscompaniesandindustrialsectors correspond-ing toa responserate of 23%. They filledout an 11-item questionnaire containingtheACEB scale andclassification items.
Exploratory
and
confirmatory
factor
analysis
ExploratoryfactoranalysisusingVarimaxrotationrevealed a three-factor solution that explained 86.6% of the variance. A measurement model was then estimated. The results indicated good fit 2
(40)=60.72 (p<0.01),
GFI=0.941,NFI=0.973,CFI=0.991,IFI=0.991,andRMSEA= 0.06.
Dimensionality, reliability, convergentand discriminant validitywerethenevaluated.AsindicatedinTable5, reli-abilityofthedimensionsisacceptableascoefficientalpha ranged from0.93 to0.95 (Nunnally andBernstein, 1994). Composite reliabilityestimates (Fornell and Larker, 1981) rangedfrom0.94to0.96,andallvarianceextracted esti-mates ranged from0.82 to 0.86,exceeding the minimum acceptableof0.5(Hairetal.,2005).Convergentvalidityis evidentsinceeachitemsignificantlyloadedonthepredicted factor with standardisedcoefficients above 0.8. Evidence of discriminantvalidity was again assessed by comparing the variance extracted estimates (AVE) with the squared phicorrelationsbetweentheconstructs(FornellandLarker, 1981).
Results
Theresultsofthisstudyfurthersupportthestructure, reli-abilityandvalidityofACEBscale.
Study
5:
nomological
validity
of
the
scale
Since the importance of establishing nomological validity has been well documented (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955), we sought to investigate ACEB within a larger nomo-logical network of theoretically related constructs. The ultimate goal of Study 5 was to measure the impact of theemployerbrandexperienceupontheemployee’s affec-tive commitment towards the employer brand itself. On the basisof prior research(Brakus etal., 2009; Cacioppo and Petty, 1982; Bakker, 2008), we expected that the three dimensions of the experience with the employer brand (employee’s sensory experience of the workplace, emotionalexperiencewhilecarryingouttheworkand intel-lectualexperienceofthebrandvalues)willhaveapositive influence onthe affective commitment to that employer brand.
Method
Procedureandparticipants
Employeesofprivatecompaniesinvariousmarket sectors (e.g. banking, insurance, automotive industry, educa-tion, and consultancy) were invited to respond to an e-questionnaireusinga7-pointLikertscale.Responsedata wereanalysedusingstructuralequationmodelling.
ACEBnomologicalnetwork
Experiences, which emerge from the way in which we interactwithour environmentthroughour perceptionsof physical stimuli, feelings, emotions,thoughts and actions (DubéandLeBel,2003),provideapowerfulwaytoachieve competitive differentiation of goods and services (Pine and Gilmore, 1999). In marketing, the most important experiences has traditionally been buying and consuming (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). However, more recent researchhasshownthatmanystimulithatcustomers expe-riencehaveitsorigininthebranditself(Brakusetal.,2009). Theemployerbrandexperienceencompassesthenumerous stimuli that originate in the workplace where the expe-rienceoccurs, ranging from the jobsatisfaction obtained byfulfilling taskstothe valuesembodied bythe brandin theemployee’seyes.When anemployee thinksabout the employer brand,his/her firstthoughts arerelated tothe wayinwhichhe/sheexperiencesthebrandinhis/her day-to-daywork (Kimpakorn andTocquer, 2009). Analogous to theconsumerbrandexperience,theemployerbrand expe-riencecomprisesthreedimensions:sensory,intellectualand emotional(Brakusetal.,2009).
Sensoryexperience
Sensoryexperiencewiththeemployerbrandrefersto sen-sorystimuli supplied by the brand via the physical place where work is carried out; this constitutes the working experience(PineandGilmore,1999).Thephysicalspaceis whereabrand’sidentifyingcharacteristicsarefound,such ascolours,smells,andmusic. Apositivesensoryemployer brand experience converts the brand into a provider of sensorywell-beingcreatingan affective linkbetween the employeeandthebrand.Thisledustothefollowing hypoth-esis:
H1. Employeeswhohaveapositivesensoryexperienceof theemployerbrandwilldemonstratehigherlevelsof affec-tivecommitmenttowardsthatbrand.
Intellectualexperience
Anintellectual employerbrandexperiencemeansthatthe employee has learned and internalised the values of the brand(King andGrace, 2010).Various studieshave shown that an effective management of these values can lead employees to identify with, and commit to, the brand (Harris, 2007). Therefore, a positive experienceof brand
Table5 Study4.ACEBscale.
Item Standardregression
weight/(standard error) t Cronbach’s Alpha Construct Reliability AVE
LT1MycommitmentwiththeEmployer Brandislong-termoriented
0.929(0.044) 22.87 0.93 0.96 0.86
LT2IdesiretoworkforEmployerBrandfora longtime
0.971(0.035) 27.80 LT3IwouldfeelsadifIhadtoleave
EmployerBrand
0.874(0.046) 18.65 LT4IfeelmyselfpartofEmployerBrandand
Iwishtoremainlikethisinthefuture
0.941 EB1IfeelthatanyproblemofEmployer
Brandisalsomyproblem
0.87 0.93 0.94 0.83
EB2IfeelEmployer’sBrandprojectsasmine 0.923(0.061) 16.96 EB4EmployerBrand’ssuccessesarealso
mine
0.943(0.059) 17.58
EA1IamfondofEmployerBrand 0.84 0.95 0.95 0.82
EA2Ihavedevelopedstrongbondwith EmployerBrand
0.93(0.072) 16.38
EA3IamemotionallyattachedtoEmployer Brand
0.972(0.068) 17.77
EA4Ifeelmy‘teamcolors’ 0.865(0.045) 23.37
valuesshould leadto affectivecommitment tothe brand sincetheemployeeidentifiescloselywithit.
H2. Employees having a positiveintellectual experience oftheemployerbrandwillshowhigherlevelsofaffective commitmenttowardsthatbrand.
Emotionalexperience
Theemotionalcomponentoftheemployerbrandexperience dealswiththeemotionalexperienceofwork.Howmuchan employeeenjoyshisorherworkstronglyinfluenceshowhe orsheperceivesworklifeandworkenvironment. Employ-ees who enjoy their work, work better, positively assess thequality of their work life and areusually intrinsically motivated (Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihaly, 1991). Thisintrinsicmotivationtranslatesintoadesiretotighten the link between employee and brand (Bakker, 2008). In this way, enjoying the experience of a brand acts as an antecedenttoaffectivecommitment,leadingustopropose thefollowinghypothesis:
H3. Employeeswhoenjoytheiremotionalexperiencewith theemployer brand willdisplay higherlevelsof affective commitmenttowardsthatbrand.
Measures
In order to measure sensory experience of the employer brand,fouritemsfromthebrandexperiencescale(Brakus etal.,2009)wereadapted.SevenitemsbasedonCacioppo and Petty (1982) were used to measure the intellectual experience.Theemotionalexperiencewasmeasuredusing three items adapted from the WOLF enjoyment factor
scale (Bakker, 2008). Affective commitmentbetween the employee and the employer brand was measured using the psychometricallytested andvalidated ACEB scale. An e-questionnaire was designed containing 25 items with responsesformulatedina7-pointLikertformat(1=totally disagree, 7=totallyagree), aswell asclassificationitems coveringcompanysize,typeofwork,joblevelandlength oftimewiththecompany.SeeAppendixII.
Weusedanewprofessionalpaneldata.Simplerandom samplingwasusedtoinvite850newemployeesfromvarious sectors (banking, insurance, automotive industry, educa-tion,consultancy)toparticipate.Thefinalsampleconsisted of181people,correspondingtoaresponserateof21.3%.
Results
and
discussion
Results were obtained using a structural equation model usingAMOS17.0.
Fig.2showstheestimatedstructuralmodel.Theresults indicated good fit 2
(266)=5689.72 (p<0.01), GFI=0.898,
NFI=0.915CFI=0.942,andRMSEA=0.08.Cronbach’salpha valuesrangedbetween0.94and0.96,suggestinghigh inter-nalconsistency ofthelatent variables.Themodelshowed highfactorloadingsoftheitemsontheirrespective dimen-sion indicating a high degree of convergent validity (Hair etal.,2005).Allstandardisedcoefficientsrangedbetween 0.70and0.97andweresignificant.
The model also showed discriminantvalidity since the averagevarianceextracted(AVE)forthesixlatent dimen-sions exceeded all phi-squared correlations (Fornell and Larker,1981).TheseresultssupporthypothesesH1---H3.
The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of the employer brand experience upon ACEB. To do this, we proposed a brand experience model comprising three
dimensions:sensory,intellectualandemotionalbrand expe-rience. The results obtained suggest that all three of these dimensions positively influence affective commit-ment.Thus,a positiveemployer brandexperiencecan be importantinanemployee’sdevelopmentofaffective com-mitmenttowardsthatbrand.
Theresultswithsensoryexperiencehighlightthe impor-tanceoftheworkplaceasaproviderofsensoryexperiences (PineandGilmore,1999),anditspotentialforexpressingthe valuesthatthebrandrepresents.Theresultswith intellec-tualexperiencecorroboratethefindingsofKingandGrace (2010) concerning the importance of knowing and under-standingthebrandandwhatitstandsfor.Thepresentresults goevenfurtherbysuggestingthattheemployeemustaccept andidentify withbrandvaluesin orderfor them to stim-ulateaffective commitment(Bergamiand Bagozzi, 2000). The results with emotional experience reveal enjoyment tobeanimportantdriverofaffectivebrandcommitment. Employeeswhoexperienceworkasenjoyablefeeltrulyalive and hope thatthe situation willlast along time (Bakker, 2008).
General
discussion
Theprimaryobjectiveofthisarticlewastodevelopanew measurementtool,abletoreflectthestrengthof employ-ees’ affective commitment towards the employer brand. Affective commitment is described as the degree of the emotional bond between the subject and the employer brandthatencompassesenthusiasmwith, andattachment totheemployerbrand,andcreatesadesireintheemployee toremainintheorganisationinthelongterm.Buildingon thepremisethatemployeescanarticulateACEB,we iden-tifiedasetof11itemstoassessthistypeofcommitment. The resultingscale reflectsthreefactorslabelled enthusi-asmwiththeemployerbrand,emotionalattachmenttothe employer brandand long-term orientation. The existence
of these threefactors was consistent across samples and studies.
The scale was developed in Study 1. The dimensional structureandconvergentvalidityofthescalewereassessed inStudy2.Evidenceofdiscriminantvaliditywasobtainedin Study3,whereACEBprovedtobeempirically distinguish-ablefromotherrelatedconstructssuchassatisfactionand motivation.Study4providedevidenceofexternalvalidity. Lastly,Study 5 examined the scale’s nomological validity. Three experientialdimensions were investigatedwithin a nomological network, and the results showed that a pos-itiveexperiencewiththeemployerbrandis importantfor theemployeetodevelopaffectivecommitmenttowardsthe brand.
The main contribution of this paper is to provide evi-dencethatitisboth possibleandimportanttodistinguish betweenenthusiasmwiththebrand,emotionalattachment andlong term orientations when analyzing the emotional bondbetweenthesubjectandtheemployerbrand. Affec-tive commitment of an employee to the employer brand can be understand in light of three dimensions: ‘‘Long-TermOrientation’’referstheemployee’simplicitintention ofmaintaininghisorherbondwiththeemployerremaining loyaltothebrand.‘‘EnthusiasmwiththeEmployerBrand’’, which captures the positive emotions of being energetic, active, and relatively invulnerable to trouble or worry. Enthusiasm,asubcategoryofjoy(Shaveretal.,1987) moti-vatesproactivebehaviourstowardsemployerbrandfacing itsproblems, undertaking itsprojects and celebrating its successes.‘‘EmotionalattachmenttotheEmployerBrand’’ whichreflectstheemotional componentin the employee-employerrelationship;affection,belongingnessandsupport towardstheemployerbrand.
Thus, the phenomenon of affective commitment to an employer brand is modelled with much more rich-nessanddiagnosticinsight,whenusingaconceptualization thatincludes threedifferent dimensions. We believethat our higher-order construct adds value over the single
ACEB Sensory experience Emotional experience Intellectual experience SE1 SE2 SE3 SE4 IE1 IE2 IE3 EE1 EE2 EE3 0.65 0.75 0.74 0.58 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.79 0.91 0.83 0.89 0.95 0.91 0.49 0.76 0.68 0.80 0.72 0.59 0.71 0.70 0.87 0.82 0.89 0.85 0.77 0.84 0.46 0.53 0.17 0.20 Long-term orientation Emotional attachment Enthusiasm with the employer
brand LT1 LT2 LT3 LT4 EB1 EB2 EB4 EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 0.67 0.81 0.76 0.73 0.82 0.90 0.87 0.85 0.84 0.95 0.83 0.71 0.92 0.97 0.91 0.84 0.79 0.86 0.81 0.89 0.93 0.90 0.59 0.64 0.62 0.39 0.30 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.80 IE4 IE5 IE6 IE7
dimensionalapproachofAllenandMeyer(1990)inseveral ways.First itleads toa morecomprehensive understand-ing of how employees actually experience commitment to an employer brand than prior academic studies of its individual components. Second, it allows assessing which sub-dimensionmighthavethestrongestimpactonthe over-allstrength of feltaffective commitmentto an employer brand.
ItisalsoimportanttonotethatACEBrepresentsa com-plementary and compatible measurement tool to that of
AllenandMeyer(1990).WhilsttheThree-ComponentModel (TCM) proposed by theseauthors is useful in discriminat-ingbetween the threeforms of commitment--- affective, normativeandcontinuance---,ACEBwouldprovideadeeper understandingof theaffectivesideof commitmenttothe employer brand.The developmentof the ACEBscale sat-isfies the priorities promoted by the Marketing Science Institute(2014)tobuild upappropriatemarketingmetrics with adequate psychometric guarantees to evaluate the effectivenessofmarketing.TheACEBscalemayfind imme-diate application in various researchareas. One is in the study of brandvalue proposed by King and Grace (2010). Anotherisinthestudyoftherelationshipbetweenemployer branding and other types of branding cultivated by the organisation(e.g. consumer branding), along the lines of
MorokoandUncles(2008,2009).Thescalemayprove use-ful for studying the relationship between an employee’s experienceoftheemployerbrandandemployeeloyalty,as suggestedbyIglesiasetal.(2011).Thisrelationshipmaybe mediatedbyACEB.
Thescaleshouldbeusefulforbothresearchandpractice in marketing and management. Measuring ACEB should allow a company to diagnose the state of the relation-shipbetweenemployeesandtheemployer brand.Infact, ACEB may be an effective indicator of the relationship between human resource (HR) management and brand management. Today, companies and professional bodies realise that aligning the external corporate image with internal employee commitment is a key strategic oppor-tunity, especially for those operating in highly globalised contexts. The results of the ACEB scale can serve asthe basisforplanningactionsandcommunicationprogrammes toincreasethelevelofaffectivecommitmentandthe fre-quency of brand citizenship behaviours (Burmann et al., 2009) promoted by employer brand, such as altruism, conscientiousness,sportsmanship,willingness tohelp,and proactivity.Practitioners,consultantsandacademicsagree with the fact that having employees committed to the brandisvital,especiallyamongstaffwhoseactionsdirectly affect customer perceptions and relationships with the company.
InordertoincreaseACEB,companiesshouldpromotean effectiveinternalcommunicationstrategy,tomakeclearits corporatevalues andtoprovide transparency on business practices and company results. Furthermore, employees workexperience emergesasa keydriver of ACEBasit is expected to contribute to the development of affective commitment.Theworkexperienceincludesawiderangeof elements,fromleadershiptotheatmosphereofthe work-place. Indeed, everything capable to exert an impact on theemployee’sexperiencecanhaveaneffectonaffective commitmentbecominganACEBdriver.
AlthoughACEBisnotatoolintendedtobeuseddirectlyin therecruitmentprocess,itcouldbehelpfulintheselection ofthemostcommittedemployeestoassisttheresponsible ofsuchprocessandtomentornewemployees.SumatiReddy (2009)referstheuseofthisstrategyinthesuccessfulRitz Carlton’shotels.Additionally,itsimplementationstartsto be relevant sincethe newcandidates arealready part of theorganisation.Therefore,eitherforinternalrecruitment processes or assessment processes,ACEB appears tobe a measurewithagreatdealofpotential.
These results arelimited by several caveats. First, as
TrochimandDonnelly(2008) stated,validationis a never-endingprocess.Thuswestillneedtoexplorethepredictive validity of ACEB in greater depth. Second, although our resultsinStudy5suggestthatACEBislinkedwithemployee brand experience (nomological validity), we do not wish to suggest that sensory, intellectual and emotional expe-riencearetheonlydriversofaffectivecommitmenttothe employerbrand.Otherfactorssuchasleadership,internal communication,corporatemanagement,labourconciliation andteamworkshouldbeassessedintermsofACEBdrivers. Nevertheless, evenif the ACEB scale captures only some of thedeterminants ofaffectivecommitment, we believe itgivesreliableresultsbecauseitconceptualisesaffective commitmentastheresultofemployeeexperience,whichis consistentwiththeory.
Future work on the ACEB construct should examine drivers, effects and transculturality. It should assess the abilityofHRandmarketingpracticestoincreasetheACEB levelinanorganisation.Itwouldalsobeinterestingtofocus on behavioursarising fromACEB, and toexplore towhat extent ACEB is related to customersatisfaction. Studying the behavioural effects of ACEB would provide an addi-tionallevelofinsightbecauseitwouldallowustocompare resultsbasedonself-reportedemployeebehaviour(actor’s perspective)withresultsbasedonmanagers’orcustomers’ reportsofemployeebehaviour(observer’sperspective).
Giventhat culturaland socialfactors influence organi-sationsandrelationships,itwouldnotbesurprisingtofind thattheyalsoinfluenceACEB.Forexample,the‘‘long-term orientation’’dimensionofaffectivecommitmentmayhave different meanings and more or less importance depend-ing onwhether the culture is future- or present-oriented (Fraisse,1964).
We did not design our studies to examine ACEB dif-ferences between industrial sectors (e.g. manufacturing or services), or between white- and blue-collar employ-ees.Futureresearchshouldexaminewhethersectororjob rankmoderateACEB.Infact,itmaybefruitfultoexplore whetherdifferentlevelsofACEBaresuitablefordifferent levelsofmanagement.
Lastly,futureworkshouldexplorewhetheranemployee’s personal circumstances and personality traits moderate ACEB. Ifso,it may bepossible toidentify employee pro-files more likelytodevelop affective commitmentto the employerbrand.
Acknowledgements
WeacknowledgeSantanderBankExtraordinaireChairforits supportinthisresearch.
Appendix
I.
Study
3.
Descriptive
statistics
and
reliability
Item Mean Std.
Deviation
Cronbach Alfa ORGANISATIONALCOMMITMENT(AllenandMeyer,1990)
Affectivecommitment
Iwouldbeveryhappytospendtherestofmycareerwiththis organisation
6.39 .94 0.91
Ireallyfeelasifthisorganization’sproblemsaremyown 5.77 1.11 Idonotfeel‘emotionallyattached’tothisorganisation 5.44 1.37 Thisorganisationhasagreatdealofpersonalmeaningforme 5.20 1.30 Ienjoydiscussingaboutmyorganisationwithpeopleoutsideit. 5.86 1.06 Idonotfeelastrongsenseofbelongingtomyorganisation 5.63 1.20 Idonotfeellike‘partofthefamily’atmyorganisation 5.79 1.23 Normativecommitment
Jumpingfromorganisationtoorganisationdoesnotseematall unethicaltome(R)
5.48 1.45 0.81
Idonotbelievethatapersonmustalwaysbeloyaltohisorher organisation(R)
4.84 1.73
OneofthemajorreasonsIcontinuetoworkinthisorganisationis thatIbelieveloyaltyisimportantandthereforefeelasenseof moralobligationtoremain
4.06 1.74
Ithinkthatpeoplethesedaysmovefromcompanytocompany toooften
4.93 1.67
Continuancecommitment
ToomuchinmylifewouldbedisruptedifIdecidedtoleavemy organisationnow
4.63 1.17 0.75
IamnotafraidofwhatmighthappenifIquitmyjobwithout havinganotheronelinedup
2.97 1.67
Itwouldbeveryhardformetoleavemyorganisationrightnow, evenifIwantedto
3.74 1.81
Itwouldn’tbetoocostlyformetoleavemyorganisationnow 4.02 1.88 SATISFACTION(Babakusetal.,2003)
Iamsatisfiedwithmyjobin‘‘Employerbrand’’ 4.52 1.41 0.79
Iamsatisfiedwithmyworkingconditionsin‘‘Employerbrand’’ 4.93 1.28 IamsatisfiedwiththeamountofpayIreceivefortheworkIdo 5.47 1.05 GiventheworkIdo,IfeelIampaidfairlyby‘‘Employerbrand’’ 5.97 .99 MOTIVATION(adaptedfromBakker,2008)
Igetmymotivationfromtheworkitself,andnotfromthereward forit
5.88 1.03 0.90
Iamhighlymotivatedtoworkat‘‘Employerbrand’’ 5.68 1.21 Iworkin‘‘Employerbrand’’becauseIenjoyit 5.55 1.14
IfindthatIalsowanttoworkinmyfreetime 5.07 1.32
Appendix
II.
Study
3.
Results
of
confirmatory
factor
analysis
CONSTRUCT Item Standardisefactor
loading t-value Cronbach’s Alpha Construct Reliability AverageVariance Extracted
LongTermOrientation LT1 0.875 0.92 0.93 0.76
LT2 0.824 17.064
LT3 0.917 21.546
LT4 0.875 18.884
Enthusiasmwiththe EmployerBrand
EB1 0.801 0.89 0.93 0.81
EB2 0.940 21.794
EB4 0.947 20.626
EmotionalAttachment EA1 0.878 0.90 0.94 0.80
EA2 0.901 20.900
EA3 0.903 22.988
AppendixII(Continued)
CONSTRUCT Item Standardisefactor
loading t-value Cronbach’s Alpha Construct Reliability AverageVariance Extracted AffectiveCommitment
(AllenandMeyer,1990)
AF1 0.742 0.91 0.95 0.84 AF2 0.825 10.350 AF3 0.771 13.525 AF4 0.895 20.791 AF5 0.951 25.151 AF6 0.898 20.895 AF7 0.924 26.256 NormativeCommitment (AllenandMeyer,1990)
NOR1 0.755 0.81 0.88 0.65
NOR2 0.798 11.523
NOR3 0.913 18.300
NOR4 0.762 13.273
Continuance
Commitment(Allenand Meyer,1990) CONT1 0.766 0.75 0.76 0.51 CONT2 0.709 21.336 CONT3 0.668 17.988 CONT4 0.656 18.345 Satisfaction(Babakus etal.,2003) SAT1 0.770 0.79 0.82 0.60 SAT2 0.835 14.659 SAT3 0.722 19.791 SAT4 0.679 11.038 Motivation(adapted fromBakker,2008) MOT1 0.886 0.90 0.91 0.76 MOT2 0.921 23.156 MOT3 0.815 17.273 MOT4 0.724 19.458
Appendix
III.
Study
5.
Descriptive
statistics
and
reliability
Item Mean Std.Deviation CronbachAlfa
SENSORYEXPERIENCE(adaptedfromBrakusetal.,2009)
LT1 Myworkplacemakesanimpressiononmysenses 5.42 1.65 0.94
LT2 Ilikemyworkplace 5.45 1.66
LT3 Myworkplaceappealstomysenses 5.15 1.64
LT4 Myworkplacehelpsmedomyjobwell 5.10 1.60
INTELECTUALEXPERIENCE(adaptedfromCacioppoandPetty,1982)
IE1 Itakeprideofthecorporatevaluesofmycompany 5.55 1.43 0.95
IE2 Myjobmakesmethink 5.29 1.46
IE3 Myjobstimulatesandchallengesmythinkingabilities 5.65 1.34 IE4 Ienjoymyjobbecauseitengagesmeinalotofthinking 5.44 1.50 IE5 IbelievethatifIworkhardIwillbeabletoachievea
promotion
5.31 1.53
IE6 Irelyinmyintellectualcapabilitiestodevelopmyjob 5.80 1.49
IE7 Iliketolearnnewwaystodevelopmyjob 5.74 1.48
EMOTIONALEXPERIENCE(adaptedfromBakker,2008)
EE1 Ienjoymyjobat‘‘Employerbrand’’ 5.13 1.36 0.96
EE2 Ihavefunwhileworking 5.61 1.38
EE3 Igetpleasurefrommyjobat‘‘Employerbrand’’ 5.21 1.42
References
Aaker,J.,Fournier,S.,Brasel,S.A.,2004.Whengoodbrandsdobad. J.Consum.Res.31(1),1---16.
Allen,N.J.,Meyer,J.P.,1990.Themeasurementandantecedentsof affective,continuanceandnormativecommitmenttothe orga-nization.J.Occup.Org.Psychol.63(1),11---18.
Allen,N.J., Meyer, J.P., 1996. Affective, continuance, and nor-mative commitment to the organization: an examination of constructvalidity.J.Vocat.Behav.49(3),252---276.
Ambler,T.,Barrow,S.,1996.Theemployerbrand.J.BrandManag. 4(3),185---206.
Anderson,J.C.,Gerbing,D.W.,1988. Structuralequation model-inginpractice:areviewandrecommendedtwo-stepapproach. Psychol.Bull.103,411---423.
Arnold,M.J.,Reynolds,K.E.,2003.Hedonicshoppingmotivations. J.Retail.79(2),77---95.
Babakus,E.,Yavas,U.,Karatepe,O.M.,Avci,T.,2003.Theeffect ofmanagementcommitmenttoservicequalityonemployees’ affectiveandperformanceoutcomes.J.Acad.Mark.Sci.31(3), 272---286.
Backhaus, K., Tikoo, S., 2004. Conceptualizing and researching employerbranding.CareerDev.Int.9(5),501---517.
Bagozzi,R.P.,1980.CausalModelsinMarketing.JohnWiley&Sons, NewYork.
Bagozzi,R.P.,Gopinath,M.,Nyer,P.U.,1999.Theroleofemotions inmarketing.J.Acad.Mark.Sci.27(2),184---206.
Bakker,A.B.,2008.Thework-relatedflowinventory:construction and initial validation of the WOLF. J. Vocat. Behav. 72 (3), 400---414.
Barrow,S.,Mosley,R.,2005.TheEmployerBrand:BringingtheBest ofBrandManagementtoPeopleatWork.JohnWileyandSons, Ltd.,England.
Batra,R.,Ahuvia,A.,Bagozzi,R.P.,2012.Brandlove.J.Mark.76 (2),1---16.
Bearden,W.O.,Netemeyer,R.G.,Teel,J.E.,1989.Measurementof consumersusceptibilitytointerpersonalinfluence.J.Consum. Res.15(4),473---481.
Becker,H.S.,1960.Notesontheconceptofcommitment.Am.J. Sociol.66,32---42.
Bergami,M.,Bagozzi,R.,2000.Self-categorization,affective com-mitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 39 (4), 555---577.
Bielby,W.T.,Bielby,D.D.,1989.Familyties:balancingcommitments toworkandfamilyindualearnerhouseholds.Am.Sociol.Rev. 54(5),776---789.
Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley,NewYork.
Brakus,J.J.,Schmitt,B.H.,Zarantonello,L.,2009.Brand experi-ence:whatisit?Howisitmeasured?Doesitaffectloyalty?J. Mark.73(3),52---68.
Burmann, C., Zeplin, S., Riley, N., 2009. Key determinants of internalbrandmanagementsuccess:anexploratoryempirical analysis.J.BrandManag.16(4),264---284.
Cacioppo,J.T.,Petty,R.E.,1982. Theneedfor cognition.J. Per-sonal.Soc.Psychol.42(1),116---131.
Carson, K.D., Bedeian, A.G., 1994. Carrier commitment: con-struction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties.J.Vocat.Behav.44(3),237---262.
Churchill,G.A.,1979.Aparadigmfordevelopingbettermeasures ofmarketingconstructs.J.Mark.Res.24,19---28.
Cook,K.S.,Emerson,R.M.,1978.Power,equityandcommitmentin exchangenetworks.Am.Sociol.Rev.43,721---739.
Cronbach,L.J.,Meehl,P.C.,1955.Constructvalidityin psychologi-caltests.Psychol.Bull.52(4),281---302.
Csikszentmihalyi,M.,Csikszentmihaly,M.,1991.Flow.The Psychol-ogyofOptimalExperience,vol.41.HarperPerennial,NewYork. Davies,G.,2008.Employerbrandinganditsinfluenceonmanagers.
Eur.J.Mark.42(5),667---681.
DeShon,R.P.,Landis,R.S.,1997.Thedimensionalityofthe Hollen-beck,Williamsand Klein(1989)measure ofgoal commitment oncomplextasks.Organ.Behav.Hum.Decis.Process.70(2), 105---116.
DeGilder,D.,2003.Commitment,trustandworkbehavior:thecase ofcontingentworkers.Pers.Rev.32(5),588---606.
Dubé,L.,LeBel,J.L.,2003.Thecontentandstructureoflaypeople’s conceptofpleasure.Cogn.Emot.17(2),263---295.
Edwards,C.R.,2010.Anintegrativereviewofemployerbranding andOBtheory.Pers.Rev.39(1),5---23.
Ellemers,N.,Spears,R.,Doosje,B.,2002.Selfandsocialidentity. Annu.Rev.Psychol.53(1),161---186.
Evanschitzky,H.,Iyer,G.R.,Plassmann,H.,Niessing,J.,Meffert, H., 2006. The relative strength of affective commitment in securingloyalty inservicerelationships.J.Bus.Res.59(12), 1207---1213.
Fernandez-Lores, S., UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation 2012. Com-promiso Afectivoconla MarcadelEmpleador:Dise˜no deuna herramientaparasumedición.ComplutenseUniversity.
Foster,C.,Punjaisri,K.,Cheng,R.,2010.Exploringtherelationship between corporate,internaland employerbranding. J.Prod. BrandManag.19(1),401---409.
Fornell, C., Larker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation modelswithunobservablevariablesandmeasurementerror.J. Mark.Res.18(1),39---50.
Fraisse,P., 1964. Perceptionand estimationof time.Annu. Rev. Psychol.35(1),1---36.
Fullerton,G.,2005.Howcommitmentbothenablesandundermines marketingrelationships.Eur.J.Mark.39(11),1372---1388. Gavilan,D.,Avello,M.,2011.Employerbrandattraction:factores
paraatraereltalento.Investig.Mark.112,30---38.
Gellatly,I.R.,Meyer,J.P.,Luchak,A.A.,2006.Combinedeffectsof thethreecommitmentcomponentsonfocalanddiscretionary behaviors: a testof Meyerand Herscovitch’s propositions. J. Vocat.Behav.69(2),331---345.
Gobé,M.,2010. EmotionalBranding:TheNewParadigmfor Con-nectingBrandstoPeople.AllworthPress,NewYork.
Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S., 1994. Competing paradigms in qual-itative research. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook ofQualitative Research.Sage,Thousand Oaks,CA, pp.105---117.
Gustafsson,A.,Johnson,M.D.,Roos,I.,2005.Theeffectsof cus-tomer satisfaction, relationship commitment dimensions, and triggersoncustomerretention.J.Mark.69,210---218.
Hair,J.P.,Anderson,R.,Tatham,R.,Black,W.,2005.Análisis mul-tivariante.PrenticeHall,Madrid.
Harris,P.,2007. Wethepeople:theimportanceofemployeesin theprocessofbuildingcustomerexperience.J.BrandManag. 15(2),102---114.
Holbrook,M.B.,Hirschman,E.C.,1982.Theexperientialaspectsof consumption:consumerfantasies,feelings,andfun.J.Consum. Res.9(2),132---140.
Holmes, J.G., 2000. Social relationships: the nature and func-tion of relational schemas. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 30 (4), 447---495.
Iglesias,O.,Singh,J.J.,BatistaFoguet,J.,2011.Theroleofbrand experienceandaffectivecommitmentindeterminingbrand loy-alty.J.BrandManag.18(8),570---582.
Keller,K.L.,Lehmann,D.R.,2006.Brandsand branding:research findingsandfuturepriorities.Mark.Sci.25(6),740---759. Kimpakorn,N.,Tocquer,G.,2009.Employees´commitmenttobrands
intheservicesector:luxuryhotelchainsinThailand.J.Brand Manag.16(8),532---544.
King,C.,Grace,D.,2010.Buildingandmeasuringemployee-based brandequity.Eur.J.Mark.44(7),938---971.
Krueger,R.A.,Casey,M.A.,2000.FocusGroup.SagePublications, ThousandOaks,CA.
Kunerth,B.,Mosley,R.,2011.Applyingemployerbrand manage-menttoemployeeengagement.Strateg.HrRev.10,19---26. LinkedIn, 2013. Talent Brand Index, http://talent.linkedin.
com/employer-brand/(accessed10.04.13).
Luthans,F.,1998.OrganizationalBehavior.McGrawHill,Boston. Madden,T.J.,Fehle,F.,Fournier,S.,2006.Brandsmatter:an
empir-icaldemonstrationofthecreationofshareholdervaluethrough branding.Acad.Mark.Sci.J.34(2),224---235.
Mathieu,J.E.,Zajac,D.M., 1990.A reviewand meta-analysisof theantecedents,correlates,andconsequencesoforganizational commitment.Psychol.Bull.108(2),171---194.
Mattila,A.S.,2004.Theimpactofservicefailuresoncustomer loy-alty:themoderatingroleofaffectivecommitment.Int.J.Serv. Ind.Manag.15(2),134---149.
Maxwell,R., Knox, S., 2009. Motivating employees to ‘live the brand’:acomparativecasestudyofemployerbrand attractive-nesswithinthefirm.J.Mark.Manag.25(9),893---907. Meyer,J.P.,Allen,N.J.,1991.Athree-componentconceptualization
oforganizationalcommitment.Hum.Resour.Manag.Rev.1(1), 61---89.
Meyer,J.P.,Herscovitch,L.,2001.Commitmentintheworkplace: toward a general model. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 11 (3), 299---326.
Meyer,J.P., Stanley,D.J.,Herscovitch,L.,Topolnytsky, L.,2002. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization:a meta-analysis ofantecedents,correlates, and consequences.J.Vocat.Behav.61(1),20---52.
Meyer,J.P., Maltin,E.R.,2010. Employeecommitmentand well-being: a critical review, theoretical framework and research agenda.J.Vocat.Behav.77(2),323---337.
Miles,S.J.,Mangold,G.,2004.Aconceptualizationoftheemployee brandingprocess.J.Relationsh.Mark.3(2),65---87.
Mobley,W.,1982.EmployeeTurnover:Causes,Consequences,and Control.Addison-Wesley,Reading,MA.
Morgan,R.M.,Hunt,S.D.,1994.Thecommitment-trusttheoryof relationshipmarketing.J.Mark.58(3),20---38.
Morgan,D.L.,1998.TheFocusGroupGuidebook.Sage,Thousand Oaks.
Moroko,L.,Uncles,M.,2008.Characteristicsofsuccessfulemployer brands.J.BrandManag.16(3),160---175.
Moroko,L.,Uncles,M.,2009.Employerbrandingandmarket seg-mentation.J.BrandManag.17(3),181---196.
Mosley,R.,2007.Customerexperience,organisationalcultureand theemployerbrand.J.BrandManag.15(2),123---134. Mowday,R.T.,Steers,R.M.,Porter,L.W.,1979.Themeasurementof
organizationalcommitment.J.Vocat.Behav.14(2),224---247. Myers, G., Macnaghten, P., 2004. Focus Group en Qualitative
ResearchPractice.Clive Seale/SAGE,London/ThousandOaks, CA.
Nunnally,J.C.,Bernstein,I.H.,1994.PsychometricTheory,3rded. McGraw-Hill,NewYork.
O’Reilly,C.,Chatman,J., 1986.Organizationalcommitment and psychologicalattachment:theeffectsofcompliance, identifica-tion,andinternalizationonprosocialbehavior.J.Appl.Psychol. 71(3),492-492.
PineII,J.B.,Gilmore,J.H.,1999.TheExperienceEconomy:Work IsTheatreandEveryBusinessaStage.HarvardBusinessSchool Press,Cambridge.
Pitt,L.F.,Ewing,M.T.,Berthon,P.R.,2002.Proactivebehaviorand industrialsalesforce performance. Ind. Mark. Manag. 31 (8), 639---644.
Punjaisri, K., Wilson, A., Evanschitzky, H., 2008. Exploring the influencesof internal brandingon employees’brand promise
delivery: Implications for strengtheningcustomer-brand rela-tionships.J.Relationsh.Mark.7(4),407---424.
Ramayah, T.,Jantan, M., Tadisina, S.K., 2001. Job satisfaction: empiricalevidenceforalternativestoJDI.In:32ndAnnual Meet-ing ofDecision Sciences Institute Conference,SanFrancisco, USA.
Reddy,S.,2009.Lasatisfaccióndelclienteempiezaporlosrecursos humanos:elcasodelRitz-Carlton.Harv.DeustoBus.Rev.184, 71---79.
Reichers,A.E.,1986.Conflictandorganizationalcommitments.J. Appl.Psychol.71(3),508---514.
Rusbult,C.E.,Farrel,D.,1983.A longitudinaltestofthe invest-mentmodel:theimpactonjobsatisfaction,jobcommitment, andturnoverofvariationsinrewards,costs,alternatives,and investments.J.Appl.Psychol.68(3),429---438.
Schmitt,B.H.,1999.ExperientialMarketing:HowtoGetCustomers toSense,Feel,Think,Act,RelatetoYourCompanyandBrands. TheFreePress,NewYork.
Shaver,P., Schwartz,J., Kirson,D.,O’Connor,C.,1987. Emotion knowledge:furtherexplorationofaprototypeapproach.J. Per-sonal.Soc.Psychol.52(6),1061---1086.
Sutherland, M.M.,Torricelli,D.G.,Karg, R.F., 2002. Employerof choicebrandingforknowledgeworkers.S.Afr.J.Bus.Manag. 33,13---20.
Tajfel,H.,Turner,J.C.,1979.Anintegrativetheoryofintergroup conflict.Soc.Psychol.IntergroupRelat.33(47),74.
Thomson,M., MacInnis,D.J., Park,C.,2005. Theties thatbind: measuringthestrengthofconsumers’emotionalattachments tobrands.J.Consum.Psychol.15(1),77---91.
Trochim,W.,Donnelly,J.P.,2008.TheResearchMethodsKnowledge Base.AtomicDog/CengageLearning,Mason,Ohio.
Verhoef,P.C.,Franses, P.H., Hoekstra,J.C.,2002. Theeffectof relationalconstructsoncustomerreferralsandnumberof ser-vices purchased from a multiservice provider: does age of relationshipmatter?J.Acad.Mark.Sci.30(3),202---216. Weijters,B.,Baumgartner,H.,2012.Misresponsetoreversedand
negated items in surveys: a review. J. Mark. Res. 49 (5), 737---747.
Wiener,Y.,1982.Commitmentinorganizations:anormativeview. Acad.Manage.Rev.7(3),418---427.
Weitz,B.A.,Sujan,H.,Sujan,M.,1986.Knowledge,motivation,and adaptivebehavior:aframeworkforimprovingselling effective-ness.J.Mark.50(4),174---191.
