CBP 84%

Capstone business project
Value-driving factors for employer attractiveness within the Northern

German healthcare sector – A case study of the DRK Kur und Reha gGmbH
By Carolin Lubanski
Module name: Capstone Business Project (MBA-7-CBP)

Module leader: Dr. Barbara Czarnecka
Supervisor: Prof. Alex Murdock
Course: MSc International Business Management with HRM
Student ID: 4026621
Date: 24 August 2022
Words: 10.958
Executive Summary
This study addresses the research question “What are the value-driving factors for
employer attractiveness within the Northern German healthcare sector?” with the
aim of deriving recommendations for employer branding measures addressing the
current labour challenge issues that the considered case study, DRK Kur und Reha
gGmbH, is facing. Considering previous literature, Lieven’s and Highhouse’s (2003)
instrumental and symbolic framework of employer attractiveness, Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs, social identity and signalling theory, as well as the P-O fit
approach, a holistic framework of employer attractiveness with five dimensions and
thirteen attributes was derived. Within a quantitative analysis, it was investigated
how important these factors are to nursing students as well as nursing professionals
when evaluating an employer as attractive. The survey reached 256 respondents, and
the descriptive results show that work culture and leadership support from the social
value dimension; workplace security and salary from the economic dimension; and
work environment from the work condition dimension were the most important
factors for employer attractiveness (external view independent of current employer).
The differences between the two groups, determined by an independent group t-
test, are lower than expected. While most factors are evaluated similarly, nursing
students place higher emphasis on development opportunities, whereas nursing staff
attach higher emphasis on leadership support. Interestingly, from a multiple
regression analysis, it can be noted that not all the factors that were considered
important indeed have an influence on the internal employer attractiveness
(referring to the assessment of the current employer as attractive). While leadership
support and salary do not show significant relations, it can be concluded that
organisational support, team atmosphere, workplace security, and work conditions
significantly predict the internal employer attractiveness. Among other things, it is
recommended to enhance team building with team events, to improve the quality of
care with digital documentation transformations, and to introduce an employee
referral programme with the purpose of establishing a connection between the
internal and external perspective of employer attractiveness.
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research question and objectives ..................................................................... 2
1.2 Context and company background .................................................................... 3
1.3 The significance of the study ............................................................................. 3
2. Literature review ..................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Theoretical framework ....................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Employer branding ...................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Employer attractiveness ............................................................................. 5
2.2 Previous research ............................................................................................... 7
2.3 Employer attractiveness in the healthcare sector context ................................ 8
2.4 Summary of important points and practical significance of the research in a
business setting ...................................................................................................... 11
2.4.1 Dimensions of employer attractiveness and hypotheses ......................... 11
3. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Research Design ............................................................................................... 14
3.1.1 Research philosophy and research approach ........................................... 14
3.1.2 Research strategy ...................................................................................... 14
3.2 Methods ........................................................................................................... 14
3.2.1 Population/sample .................................................................................... 14
3.2.2 Instrument and measurement .................................................................. 15
3.2.3 Data collection .......................................................................................... 20
3.3 Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 21
3.4 Ethical considerations ...................................................................................... 22
4. Analysis and interpretation of results .................................................................. 22
4.1 Preparatory data analysis and test for reliability............................................. 22
4.2 Descriptive statistics......................................................................................... 24
4.2.1 Characteristics of sample group................................................................ 24
4.2.2 Channels used for information search ...................................................... 26
4.2.3 Factors of employer attractiveness .......................................................... 27
4.2.4 Comparison of both target groups............................................................ 32
4.2.4.1 Independent samples t-test ............................................................... 33
ii
4.2.5 Employer attractiveness - dependent variable and internal perspective 34
4.3 Exploring relationships between variables ...................................................... 36
4.3.1 Intercorrelation ......................................................................................... 36
4.3.2 Regression analysis ................................................................................... 38
4.4 Hypotheses testing, summary, and discussion of results ................................ 40
5. Conclusions and recommendations...................................................................... 43
5.1 Implication for praxis and establishment of an employer branding concept.. 44
5.1.1 Communication strategy ........................................................................... 46
5.2 Strengths and limitations of study ................................................................... 47
5.3 Implication for future research ........................................................................ 48
References .................................................................................................................. vi
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... xiii
Appendix 1: Survey questionnaire (English translation) ........................................ xiii
Appendix 2: Test for reliability ............................................................................. xxiv
Appendix 3: Descriptive statistics independent variables .................................... xxv
Appendix 4: Comparison of all independent items – students vs employees...... xxv
Appendix 5: SPSS output independent group t-test ............................................ xxvi
Appendix 6: Descriptive statistics internal perspective ..................................... xxviii
Appendix 7: Collinearity statistics ........................................................................ xxix
Appendix 8: Normal Probability Plot ................................................................... xxix
Appendix 9: Scatterplot ........................................................................................ xxx
Appendix 10: Copy of SPSS Syntax ........................................................................ xxx
List of tables
Table 1: Dimensions of employer attractiveness....................................................... 13

Table 2: Operationalisation of variables .................................................................... 18
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics .................................................................................... 28
Table 4: Most important factors for employer attractiveness .................................. 32
Table 5: Correlation results ........................................................................................ 37
Table 6: Multiple Regression results .......................................................................... 39
iii
List of figures
Figure 1: The holistic perspective of employer attractiveness .................................. 11

Figure 2: Sample group distribution .......................................................................... 24
Figure 3: Age distribution ........................................................................................... 24
Figure 4: Type of employer ........................................................................................ 25
Figure 5: Tenure ......................................................................................................... 26
Figure 6: Apprenticeship year .................................................................................... 26
Figure 7: Channels used for information search ........................................................ 27
Figure 8: Frequency distribution - recognition of company ...................................... 29
Figure 9: Frequency distribution - team atmosphere ................................................ 30
Figure 10: Frequency distribution - quality of patient care ....................................... 30
Figure 11: Descriptive distribution dimension of employer attractiveness .............. 31
Figure 12: Importance of dimensions ........................................................................ 31
Figure 13: Comparison students vs employees ......................................................... 33
Figure 14: Frequency distribution dependent variable ............................................. 35
Figure 15: Comparison expectations vs reality .......................................................... 35
iv
1. Introduction
The “War for Talents” is a topic that has gained international attention in the field of
healthcare (Esslinger et al., 2019). Demographic change and workforce shortages are
particularly affecting industrialised countries. In Germany, the staff shortage in the
healthcare sector is one of the greatest current health policy challenges. The number
of vacancies has more than doubled within the past eight years, while the staff
turnover rate rose by 9% (Pilny and Rösel, 2021). In addition, many healthcare
workers are dissatisfied with their professions (Aerzteblatt, 2021). Workforce
planning and recruiting skilled labour has become a challenge for many healthcare
organisations. In particular, nursing professionals are in high demand due to the
ageing population and increased care needs (Flake et al., 2018). In 2021, there were
14,000 vacant nursing positions in Germany and the ratio of available nursing
professionals to open positions was low, with 31 unemployed nurses for every 100
registered positions (Bundesagentur für Arbeit, 2022). Consequently, nursing
professionals can choose their employers, whose position in the labour market
depends on their perceived attractiveness. For this reason, the importance of
employer branding and recruitment has become more important than employee
selection (Ployhart, 2006). Companies in the health sector need to develop strategies
to become more attractive to retain current employees and attract new potential
employees.
The DRK Kur und Reha gGmbH, located in Northern Germany, is one company facing
these challenges and will be focused on as a case study in this capstone project. The
firm has set the aim of improving its employer branding strategy by 2023. This study
addresses this aim by identifying value-driving factors for employer attractiveness in
the Northern German healthcare sector, conducting a quantitative survey and
deriving strategies for the company’s employer branding.
Previous literature supports this planned approach by stating that one way to prevent
high turnover rates and attract new talent is the establishment of a strong employer
brand by improving employer attractiveness for prospective (external perspective)
Student ID: 4026621 1

and current employees (internal perspective) (Slåtten et al., 2019; Ghielen et al.,
2021). In this context, studies have already identified various factors of employer
attractiveness. However, studies focusing on the German healthcare industry are
rare, and external factors of employer attractiveness are rarely considered
simultaneously with internal factors. There is no study that focuses on Northern
Germany, and it is likely that the current COVID-19 pandemic has changed or led to
new factors for employer attractiveness, opening a research gap in this field.
1.1 Research question and objectives
To address the identified research gap and the challenge that the company is facing,
the research question is defined as:
What are the value-driving factors for employer attractiveness within the Northern
German healthcare sector?
The research objectives are summarised as follows:
- To investigate the value-driving factors for employer attractiveness in the

Northern German healthcare sector by interviewing nursing students and
nursing professionals within a quantitative survey
- To analyse if there are differences in the responses given between nursing
students and nursing professionals that should be considered within the
company’s employer branding strategy
- To examine if there are gaps between the identified wishes regarding
employer attractiveness attributes (external perspective) and the fulfilment of
these factors by the current employer (internal perspective)
- To investigate if there are significant relationships between the identified
factors of employer attractiveness and the perceived internal employer
attractiveness
- To investigate which channels should be used for the company’s employer
branding and communication strategy

The overall aim is to establish an employer branding strategy for the case study
company, which, according to CIPD’s (2021) employer branding guide, should
combine internal communication, recruiting, and external marketing strategies.
1.2 Context and company background
The focused company, DRK Kur und Reha gGmbH, operates four rehabilitation clinics
in northern Germany. Two of them are located on the North Frisian Islands: Amrum
and Pellworm. The firm is a subsidiary of the DRK-Landesverband Schleswig-Holstein
e.V., the Northern German welfare organisation of the German Red Cross, meaning
that humanitarian reasons outweigh profit motives. The company consists of 250
employees, 30 of whom are nurses. To this point, the firm is lacking a clear employer
branding strategy. The company’s advertising and public relations efforts are used to
attract patients but not to attract future employees.
In addition to the general labour shortage in the German healthcare sector, the rural
location of the clinics, the fierce competition of hospitals, and the private sector can
be seen as challenges that the company is facing.
In comparison to attractive large cities, SMEs in rural areas are more affected by
demographic changes, skilled labour shortages, and emigration tendencies of young
generations (Kräußlich and Schwanz, 2017). Consequently, rural companies are more
dependent on recruiting employees within their geographic area. The establishment
of strategies to secure labour for the future is of major importance. Likewise, the
retention of employees plays a major role in retaining employees who are bound to
the region and preventing their migration to larger cities (ibid.).
1.3 The significance of the study
The conducted research focuses on a particular geographic location. This can benefit
the company by identifying the factors that are of importance within the specific
region.
Because of the outlined labour shortage, employee dissatisfaction and fierce rivalry
in the German healthcare sector, nurses and other healthcare employees can choose

their employers and not vice versa. It is therefore significant for companies to find
unique ways of attracting prospective employees or poaching professionals by
considering their perceptions of an attractive employer. The study does not only
contribute to the organisation’s aim of improving its employer branding strategy but
also to the current literature of strategic human resources as well as healthcare
management industry reports, addressing the identified research gap.
2. Literature review
2.1 Theoretical framework

2.1.1 Employer branding
Branding is usually mentioned in the context of marketing, referring to products and
corporate brands, which are valuable assets of companies (Backhaus and Tikoo,
2004). However, it has gained importance in human resource management, where it
is termed employer branding (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Ruchika, 2017). Employer
branding can be defined as “the process of promoting a clear view of an organization
as a unique and attractive employer to current and potential employees” (Ghielen et
al., 2021, p. 293). Consequently, improving employer attractiveness is considered one
of the main objectives of employer branding (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Berthon et
al., 2005). From a theoretical perspective, employer branding can be explained with
the resource-based view, stating that the company’s resources bring sustainable
competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). This can be transferred to employer branding
as, on the one hand, it attracts talented human capital, adding value to the company,
and on the other hand, it can be seen as an investment in current human capital to
increase performance and create competitive advantage (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004;
Kucherov and Samokish, 2016).
Furthermore, employer branding can be understood from the psychological contract
theory perspective. According to this perspective, employer brand information and
communication lead to the formation of psychological contracts between employer
and employees (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004). Based on the information provided, job
applicants’ intentions to apply for a job are influenced by the creation of an

anticipated psychological contract (Ruchika, 2019). To prevent a breach of this
contract, accurate and realistic employer brand communication is of high importance
(Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Ruchika, 2019).
Derived from previous literature and studies, Chhabra and Sharma (2014) propose a
conceptual framework of employer branding that starts with the investigation of a
firm’s internal beliefs, philosophies, and policies. From the identified value-driving
organisational attributes, value propositions are created and communicated to
potential employees. Finally, employer attractiveness is accomplished, which
determines the success and effectiveness of the employer branding strategies
(Chhabra and Sharma, 2014).
Studies have concluded that employer branding leads to improved brand perception
and image, which in turn can increase employee retention (Gilani and Cunningham,
2017) as well as engagement (CIPD, 2021).
2.1.2 Employer attractiveness

Employer attractiveness is seen as a precursor to employer brand equity (Berthon et
al., 2005) and relates to the intention to apply for a job (Nugroho and Liswandi, 2018).
The most popular definition of employer attractiveness was established by Berthon
et al. (2005, p.156): “the envisioned benefits that a potential employee sees in
working for a specific organisation”. The authors propose five dimensions of
employer attractiveness: interest value (e.g., exciting work environment), social value
(e.g., team atmosphere), economic value (e.g., salary), development value, and
application value (e.g., satisfaction with work tasks). The construct of employer
attractiveness can be analysed from an external perspective (applicants and other
stakeholders) but also from an internal perspective (current employees). The latter
aims to strengthen the current employees’ loyalty, resulting in a more holistic
construct than the definition of Berthon et al. encompasses (Koch-Rogge and
Westermann, 2021).

The theoretical background of organisational attractiveness is related to signalling
theory, social identity theory, the Person-Organisation fit (P-O fit) approach, and
motivational theories.
Signalling theory explains the mechanisms behind the attraction of job seekers and
dates to Spence (1973) and Rynes (1991). According to the theory, applicants look for
signals during the recruiting process to create perceptions about how working at the
organisation might be (Turban & Greening, 1997). Additionally, these signals can be
provided by the employer through its communication about certain organisational
attributes, as applicants interpret them as signals of the firm’s working conditions
and thus attractiveness (Turban & Greening, 1997).
Social identity theory can be related in the sense that individuals seek organisations
in accordance with their values to enhance self-esteem and belonging (Ashforth and
Mael, 1989).
The P-O fit approach is related in a similar way. Job applicants seek value congruence
when applying for jobs (Cable and Judge, 1996) and feel more attracted to
organisations whose image aligns with their personality and values (Backhaus and
Tikoo, 2004). The perceived value congruence then influences the job decisions of
applicants (Cable and Judge, 1996). This established P-O fit in turn has positive effects
on the future employment relationship as it relates to increased employer
attractiveness (Ghielen et al., 2021), commitment, and reduced retention (Cable and
Judge, 1996). The theory implies that employer attractiveness is influenced by the
interplay of organisational characteristics and individual motivation (Winter and
Thaler, 2015).
Furthermore, need-based human motivational theories and the job characteristics
model can be used to explain why certain factors are perceived as more attractive
than others when considering or evaluating an employer. Job characteristics, such as
autonomy, skill and task variety, create meaningfulness and are positively related to
job attraction (Zacher et al., 2017).
According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, motivation is created through
deficiency needs and growth needs ranging from psychological needs, safety needs,

and belongingness needs to esteem needs and self-actualisation needs (Maslow,
1943). These needs can be satisfied by factors of employer attractiveness (Stewart et
al., 2018), which will be further demonstrated in the following chapter.
2.2 Previous research
Based upon the described theories, existing literature has identified several factors
that influence the perceived employer attractiveness. Lievens and Highhouse (2003)
classified these factors into instrumental and symbolic factors. Instrumental factors
are objective and factual organisational attributes like pay, bonuses, and location.
Symbolic factors, on the other hand, are subjective and intangible, such as prestige
and innovativeness (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003). Several studies indicate the high
importance of the symbolic attractiveness attributes: working atmosphere,
organisational culture, and personal development (Chhabra and Sharma, 2014;
Lohaus and Rietz, 2013; Steckel et al., 2019).
With a quantitative survey of Indian management and engineering students, Kumari
and Saini (2018) discover that the instrumental factor career growth opportunity has
a comparatively strong and significant effect on employer attractiveness. Factors of
work-life balance, such as childcare facilities, flexible work time, and wellness
programs, can also enhance employer attractiveness (Kumari and Saini, 2018; Kröll
et al., 2021; Wörtler et al., 2021). Klimkiewicz and Oltra (2017) claim that the symbolic
factor Corporate social responsibility (CSR) impacts millennial job seekers’ intentions
to apply for a job.
Through a quantitative study, Tsai and Yang (2010) reveal that corporate images
related to product, communal and environmental responsibility significantly relate to
organisational attractiveness. The relationship between corporate citizenship image
and organisational attractiveness was moderated by the environmental sensitivity of
the applicant. Social identity theory can explain the relationship between company
image and employer attractiveness in the sense that potential employees choose
organisations based on a possible value congruence between personal values and
organisational values. Moreover, the reputation of employees can benefit from the
social image of the employer (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).

Furthermore, flexible work options have been shown to enhance employer
attractiveness (Kröll et al., 2021; Wörtler et al., 2021; Thompson et al., 2015). Wörtler
et al. (2021) recently found out that blended working arrangements, when compared
to traditional ones, lead to higher organisational attractiveness. However, individual
differences play a role since the results demonstrate that only individuals with a high
autonomy orientation or a low need for structure perceive employers with blended
working arrangements as more attractive. Other studies equally stress the
importance of individual differences when determining employer attractiveness
(Ghielen et al., 2021; Tsai and Yang, 2010). Moreover, demographic factors, such as
age, gender, income, and professional experience can play a role (Chandler, 2019;
Mitlacher and Welker, 2010; Reis and Braga, 2016). In this context, studies stress that
different generations value different factors of employer attractiveness. With a
quantitative survey of over 3000 Brazilian professionals, Reis and Braga (2016)
illustrate that whereas the economic value (e.g., compensation and promotion
opportunities) is most important for Generation Y and moderately important for
Generation X, it is least important for Baby Boomers. In comparison to other
generations, Baby Boomers place higher emphasis on interest values (e.g.,
challenging work environment), while personal development opportunities are more
important for Generation X and Y (Reis and Braga, 2016). Only a few studies consider
new generations (Z) job seekers’ perceptions of employer attractiveness (Kumani and
Saini, 2018), although companies should respond to the expectations of different
generations in order to survive in a skilled worker shortage (Steckl et al., 2019).
According to Steckl et al. (2019), Generation Z is attracted by a good working
atmosphere, job security, and team cohesion.
2.3 Employer attractiveness in the healthcare sector context
The relevance of studying organisational attractiveness in the healthcare sector was

proven by Slåtten et al. (2019), who identified that organisational attractiveness leads
to higher employee engagement, improved service quality provision, and reduced
turnover intention of Norwegian hospital nurses. By questioning physicians of a

Belgian hospital, Trybou et al. (2014) identified factors that are specific to the internal
organisational attractiveness of hospitals. The quantitative study determined
professional attributes, namely hospital prestige and career development
opportunities, as the strongest predictors of hospital attractiveness. In addition, the
relational attributes organisational support and leader support were identified as
main determinants of hospital attractiveness.
A recent Polish study argues that the hierarchy of respondents influences the
perceived employer attractiveness of hospitals (Buchelt et al., 2021). Directors,
nurses, and physicians’ shared value-driving factors are employment security,
opportunities to work with specialists, and the regular payment of remuneration.
Whereas physicians and nurses also place a high emphasis on good relationships with
colleagues and a positive work atmosphere, HR directors value good working
conditions (regarding equipment) and flexible work options.
A Canadian study surveying students and recent graduates of nursing classes

identified the perception of quality of care as the main criterion for external
organisational attractiveness (Fréchette et al., 2013). Moreover, the perception of
direct (salary) and indirect (e.g., benefits, insurance) compensation, employer
branding, and type of work (daily tasks and challenges, autonomy, development
opportunities) were identified as factors influencing the organisational attraction of
nursing students.
A few studies have analysed employer attractiveness in relation to the German

healthcare sector. Most of them relate to medical students’ expectations of hospitals
as employers (Gibis et al., 2012; Bohnet-Joschko and Zippel, 2016). Renkawitz et al.
(2013) as well as Waeschle et al. (2021) focus on medical students and identify an
appealing work-life balance, regulated working hours, as well as individual training
concepts as main drivers for choosing an employer. Mitlacher and Welker (2010)
identify that attractive pay packages are an important factor for employer
attractiveness of German anaesthetists. This relationship is influenced by age, since

the study results show that with increasing age the importance of attractive pay
becomes less important. Blöcker (2022) identifies flexibility, transparency, loyalty,
and flat hierarchies as main factors for employer attractiveness of German nursing
students. Reifgerste et al. (2017) show that nursing students value remuneration and
additional benefits as most important factors for employer attractiveness, followed
by the family-friendliness of the company, and a balanced relationship between work
and leisure time. Besides, development opportunities, fair and supportive workplace
culture, and the interesting design of work tasks were seen as important by nursing
graduates when evaluating the attractiveness of an employer.
A quantitative study by Koch-Rogge and Westermann (2021) analyses current
employees’ (nursing staff) expectations about the external as well as internal
employer attractiveness of SMEs in the German care sector. It can be identified as
the only German study that considers the internal and external perspectives of
employer attractiveness simultaneously. The study identifies reliable work
scheduling and job security as the two most important instrumental factors. Fair
leadership culture, reliable colleagues, and a good team atmosphere were identified
as the most important symbolic factors. Economic and task-related factors were
moderately important. When testing which internal factors lead to actual satisfaction
and attractiveness of the current employer, social factors had less significant
influence than individual factors such as personal development and company image.
The differences in the general evaluation of external factors of employer
attractiveness and the results of the regression analysis, considering the same factors
but with a direct link to the internal employer, demonstrate that external perceptions
of employer attractiveness and internal factors can differ and that attractive factors
don’t necessarily correlate to internal employer attractiveness.
Finally, Esslinger et al. (2019) conducted a review of the literature on German hospital
employer branding strategies and concluded that employer branding measures are
still underrepresented in this sector.

2.4 Summary of important points and practical significance of the research in a
business setting
It can be concluded that the findings of previous studies cannot be generalised due
to differences in populations (e.g., students vs employees), countries and cultures
(Alnıaçık et al., 2014), industries (Koch-Rogge and Westermann, 2021), companies,
analysed attractiveness attributes, and operationalisation methods. As a result, while
the literature offers important references and managerial implications, it appears
more beneficial for companies to identify their individual target groups and factors
of employer attractiveness to attract applicants, retain employees, and generate
competitive advantage. The following figure demonstrates and summarises how the
conducted research within this project can benefit a specific business setting and how
internal and external factors of employer attractiveness are combined.
Figure 1: The holistic perspective of employer attractiveness

Source: Koch-Rogge and Westermann (2021, p.208); own representation.
2.4.1 Dimensions of employer attractiveness and hypotheses

Based on the conducted literature review and consideration of theoretical
application, three main hypotheses are formulated:

H1 - Employer attractiveness within the Northern German healthcare sector is
influenced by six dimensions (economic value, social value, development value,
application value, interest value, work conditions).
It is analysed to what extent these dimensions affect the perception of employer
attractiveness and if some dimensions are more important than others.
The dimensions are derived from the five dimensions of employer attractiveness
defined by Berthon et al. (2005), by Lieven’s and Highhouse’s (2003) instrumental
and symbolic framework of employer attractiveness, and by the factors that were
identified within the literature review based on previous research in relation to the
healthcare context. The dimensions can further be justified by the previously
mentioned theories. Firstly, they relate to Maslow’s levels of needs (safety, social,
esteem, and self-actualisation). Economic factors include salary and job security and
fulfil the need for safety. Social factors relate to organisational, leadership and team
support and link to the need for belongingness and social esteem. A positive and
supportive work culture increases social value and, thereby, employer attractiveness
(Stewart et al., 2018).
The development dimension includes training and development as well as career
opportunities and relates to the need for self-actualisation. The application value and
work condition dimensions relate to the satisfaction of work tasks and job
characteristics and, therefore, can be linked to the job characteristics model that
describes the meaningfulness of work. Moreover, it was explained how
organisational characteristics link to employer attractiveness through social identity
and signalling theory. The interest value dimension includes a company’s image,
prestige, and social commitment. Social identity theory as well as the person-
organisation fit perspective were used to explain the relationship between these
factors and employer attractiveness through the establishment of value congruence.
Table 1 provides a summary of the six identified dimensions of employer
attractiveness.

Table 1: Dimensions of employer attractiveness
Dimensions Attributes
Economic value Salary and financial benefits
Job security
Social value Organisational support
Leadership support
Work-life balance
Family friendliness
Work culture and team support
Development value Opportunities for professional development
and training
Career enhancement
Application value/ work tasks Responsible tasks
Variety of tasks
Interest value Company image (Reputation, Social
engagement)
Work conditions Location/ infrastructure
Work environment
Health promotion
H2 - There is a difference between the considered value-driving factors for employer

attractiveness between nursing students and nursing staff.
The differentiation of the construct employer attractiveness into an internal and

external perspective justifies this hypothesis. Further, the identified generational
differences can lead to different perceptions of students and nursing professionals.
Additionally, tenure, work experience, as well as employer branding experience of
internal staff can impact the evaluation of attractiveness factors.
H3 - The stronger the presence of identified factors, the higher the perceived internal
employer attractiveness.
In accordance with theory and previous studies, it is estimated that the identified
factors only lead to internal employer attractiveness if they are fulfilled by the current
employer. There might be differences between the factors that employees value
(external perspective) and the factors that are fulfilled by employers (internal
perspective). Based on these identified differences and the statistical analysis results,
recommendations for employer branding strategies can be drawn.

3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
3.1.1 Research philosophy and research approach

Positivism is the philosophy that is followed in this research paper. This approach is
characterised by using existing theories as a basis for research and hypothesis
building and by conducting quantitative data analysis to find causal explanations
(Saunders et al., 2019). Moreover, a scientific (deductive) approach is followed within
the research. The approach can be described as a waterfall approach and is
characterised by a structured methodology, operationalisation of constructs and
generalisation of results (Saunders et al., 2019). Since the study is based on a case
study and a rather small population, the generalisation of results to a broader context
is limited. Nevertheless, the application of theory is tested within a specific context,
enabling analytic generalisations (Yin, 2018).
3.1.2 Research strategy
To identify factors of employer attractiveness and address the defined hypotheses

that relate to relationships between variables and participant groups, data was
collected through surveys and analysed with statistical analysis. Thus, the research
strategy is quantitative. This strategy aligns with the previously defined deductive
approach. The quantitative research design was based on a single data collection
source (questionnaires), which refers to a mono method quantitative study
(Saunders et al., 2019). The survey research was conducted once at a particular time
(5th July until 24th July) and is therefore a cross-sectional study (ibid.). Moreover, the
research strategy can be classified as a combination of survey and case study
strategy.
3.2 Methods
3.2.1 Population/sample
The target population for this study refers to nursing students and nurses working in
healthcare facilities in Northern Germany, because both groups can be identified as

potential employees for the case study company. More specifically, the geographic
location is limited to the state of Schleswig-Holstein. A sample of nursing
professionals within this sector was taken by considering the case study that has a
population of 250 total employees (of which 30 are nurses/ care workers) and by
addressing a potential of 60 DRK care facilities, rehabilitation clinics, and hospitals.
Simultaneously, students of apprenticeship classes within the same geographic area
and sector were addressed. These are being trained to become nursing professionals.
A total population of 400 students was made available through the cooperation with
DRK Akademie SH, which offers nursing apprenticeships at four different locations in
Schleswig-Holstein.
The defined sampling approach was based on non-probability sampling, and
participants were selected based on their availability as well as the identified criteria,
referring to homogenous sampling (Saunders et al., 2019). Participation occurred on
a voluntary (self-selection) basis.
3.2.2 Instrument and measurement
A questionnaire survey was carefully designed as a research instrument and was

distributed to respondents electronically (the English translation of the complete
questionnaire can be found in appendix 1). The questionnaire assessed opinion as
well as attribute variables for demographic characteristics and was divided into three
parts. Filter questions were used to differentiate between the two target groups
(students and nursing professionals). In the first part, both groups were asked to
evaluate factors of employer attractiveness independent of their current
employment (external perspective). This section also included questions about
information search, where respondents were asked to rate how often they use
certain channels when researching potential employers.
In the second part, both groups were asked to evaluate their current employer based
on the factors of employer attractiveness (internal perspective). Therefore, both
groups were used for the external as well as the internal perspective. The
requirement for this second part was previous work experience. Since apprenticeship
students work on placements from year 1, most of them were able to evaluate their

current employer. Students with no previous work experience were directed to the
final part of the survey, where demographic questions about age, gender, tenure,
and occupation were asked.
Previously used scales were used as a foundation of the questionnaire because their
reliability and validity have been tested, improving the research quality. Another
advantage of using already existing scales is that the results can be compared with
previous studies using the same scale (Saunders et al., 2019).
The hospital attractiveness scale by Trybou et al. (2014) from the peer-reviewed
journal BMC Health Services Research was used to measure factors of internal
employer attractiveness. The scale measures internal employer attractiveness
through the dependent variable “hospital attractiveness”, which consists of 4 items.
In the context of this study, the dependent variable is called “employer
attractiveness”, and instead of a specific hospital, the wording is changed to address
the current employer of any participant. An example item is: “My current employer
is attractive to me as a place for employment.” Factors of employer attractiveness
are measured through 7 independent variables on the three dimensions: economic,
relational, and professional attributes. These dimensions were confirmed by factor
analysis and the internal consistency was confirmed satisfactory with Cronbach’s
Alpha values between 0.69 and 0.98. For the purpose of this specific case study and
research topic, the scale was adapted to the external context. Moreover, items and
two further dimensions (working conditions and variety of tasks) of an employer
attractiveness scale developed by Koch-Rogge and Westermann (2021) were added
to supplement the dimensions of Trybou et al. Permission to use these questions was
given by the authors because the questionnaire wasn’t published within the article
but provided via email. Since the scale of Koch-Rogge and Westermann uses similar
dimensions and was used to test and compare both the external and internal
perspectives of employer attractiveness, it is suitable to adapt and expand the scale
of Trybou et al. to the internal context. Moreover, the language of the questionnaire
and its previous use in Germany within the same context justify the use of this scale.
Further to the items from the two explained scales, two items relating to the variable

family friendliness were added to the social value dimension. These items were
derived from Reifgerste et al. (2013). Five items were added to the dimension “work
conditions”, considering the case study context and practical experience. The item
good quality of care was added to the variable working environment. The company
has recognised increasing documentation and administrative work tasks for nurses
(e.g., due to regulatory controls and government policies). This adds to the labour
shortage, leads to more stress at work and less time with patients, and has been
recognised as a factor of dissatisfaction among nurses. Therefore, it is tested how
important this factor (quality of care) is in relation to the attractiveness of an
employer. The variable modern, technically up-to-date work environment was also
added in this context since technology could improve these bureaucratic
processes. Further, the rural location of the company could affect the employer’s
attractiveness, which is why two more specific location factors were added as wished
by the company.
In total, thirteen independent variables were used along the six dimensions of
employer attractiveness that were derived in chapter 2.3.1. The following table
demonstrates how the dimensions of employer attractiveness are operationalised
and displays the items that were used to measure the independent variables.
In part one of the questionnaire, participants were asked to evaluate the items on a
five-point Likert scale (ranging from not important to very important) independent of
their current employer. In part two, internal employees were asked to evaluate the
items on a five-point Likert scale (from strongly disagree to strongly agree) regarding
their current employer. An example of an item for the internal study is: “My current
company makes an effort to provide a good work-life balance”. Respondents were
given the option to not answer an item if it did not apply to them.

Table 2: Operationalisation of variables
Dimensions Independent Scale/ Items external Items internal perspective

Variables Source perspective (evaluating the factors in
(How important are the relation to the current
factors for evaluating an employer)
employer as attractive)
Economic Salary and Trybou et I am rewarded fairly for
value financial al. (2014); Good salary the effort that I put
benefits Koch-
Rogge and Performance bonus I am rewarded fairly
Westerma considering the
nn (2021) responsibilities that I
have
Job security Trybou et High workplace My current employer

al. (2014) security offers me job security.
Social value Organisational Trybou et Involvement in My current employer

support al. (2014) operational processes listens to its employees
(wording and decisions and takes them into
of internal account when making
version decisions
adapted Appreciation and
to recognition of My current employer
context) workers knows how to value its
employers
Leadership Trybou et A fair leadership There is a fair leadership
support (Fair al. (2014)/ culture culture at my current
leadership Koch- company
culture) Rogge and
Westerma A reliable supervisor My immediate
nn that supports me supervisor is willing to
when I have problems listen to my job-related
problems
Work-life Trybou et Good working hours/ The company offers me a
balance al. (2014) possibility to schedule job with good working
hours flexible hours/ flexibility to
schedule hours flexible
A good work-life-
balance (Clear My current company
temporal boundaries makes effort to provide a
between work and good work-life balance
private life)

Family Reifgerste Family friendliness My current employer
friendliness et al. 2017 provides family friendly
measures
On-site childcare My current employer

provides on-site
childcare
Work culture/ Koch- Good team In my current company
team support Rogge and atmosphere there is good team
Westerma atmosphere
nn et al., Reliable colleagues
2021 I have reliable colleagues
Outside the job My company promotes

activities (e.g., team outside the job activities
events) (e.g., team events)
Develop- Professional Trybou et Offer of training and My current employer
ment value development al. (2014) development offers me the
and career opportunities opportunity to build a
enhancement career
Possibility of career My current employer

enhancement offers me enough
opportunities for training
and education
Application Work tasks Koch- Responsible tasks At my current job I have
value Rogge and responsible tasks
Westerma Variety of tasks
nn At my current job I have
varied tasks
Interest Company Koch- Social engagement/ My current employer
value image Rogge and CSR shows social
Westerma engagement
nn
Good reputation My current employer has
among friends and a good reputation
acquaintances among friends and
acquaintances
Recognition/ My current employer is

awareness of well respected within the
company region.

Work Work Adapted Reliable work My current employer
conditions environment from scheduling provides reliable work
Koch- scheduling
(and factors Rogge and
added for Westerma Good quality of My current employer
specific nn and patient care (e.g., pays attention to good
case study practical enough time for quality of patient care
context) context patient care) (also (e.g., enough time for
(wishes of used by Fréchette et patient care)
company) al., 2013)
Modern, technically I work in a modern,

up-to-date work technically up-to-date
environment work environment
Location/
Infrastructure Proximity to the place My current employer is
of residence close to my place of
residence
Connection to a large My current employer is

city connected to a large city
Accessibility by public I can access my employer

transport by public transport
Health Reifgerste Self-care offers (e.g., My current employer

promotion et al. 2017 access to sports, provides self-care offers
wellness, relaxation) (e.g., access to sports,
wellness, relaxation)
3.2.3 Data collection
Primary data was collected by surveying the previously defined sample group. The
LSBU online survey tool (Jiscs) was used to create the survey, and the survey link
(https://lsbu.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/umfrage) was shared with potential participants.
The data collection was confirmed with the management team of the rehabilitation
clinic as well as the manager of the DRK Akademie SH, who is responsible for four
apprenticeship school locations. A pre-test with 10 participants was run to improve
the face validity of the survey instrument. In cooperation with the DRK Akademie SH,
the survey link was posted on the students’ Moodle page and shared with directors

of DRK facilities. Moreover, the link as well as a poster with a QR code and
information about the study were emailed to different nursing schools and
healthcare organisations in the defined geographic area. These were asked to
distribute the link or poster to their students or nursing staff, respectively. In addition
to the cooperation of the DRK Akademie SH, two nursing schools agreed to share the
survey. Moreover, the survey was shared in a newsletter of the “KGSH" (Schleswig-
Holstein Society), an association of hospital operators representing 76 hospitals
within the region. It was also published on the website and in the July newsletter of
the “Koordinierungsstelle Netzwerk Pflegeausbildung SH”, which provides a forum
and network for nursing apprenticeship students.
3.3 Data Analysis
The data was analysed with the statistical software SPSS. Firstly, an exploratory data
analysis was conducted. Missing values were added, and the data set was tested for
outliers. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the data, display frequency
distributions and central tendencies by calculating the mean, median, and mode, as
well as dispersion by looking at the standard deviation. The factors with the highest
mean were identified, and a ranking was created. With an independent group t-test
analysis, it can be compared if there are statistically significant differences between
the responses given by the two groups (Adams et al., 2014). Moreover, correlational
research was used to analyse the linear direction and strengths between variables
and to test if there is an actual relation between the evaluated factors of employer
attractiveness and the perceived internal employer attractiveness.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine to what extent the
variables predict the perceived employer attractiveness and to identify the strongest
predictor. According to Saunders et al. (2019), the required sample size to allow for
regression analysis can be estimated with the formula:
50 + 8 × 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠
In the case of this study: 50 + 8 × 13 = 154
The number of participants therefore influences the possibilities and quality of
analysis.

3.4 Ethical considerations
The researcher's integrity, fairness, and open-mindedness have an impact on the

overall quality of research (Saunders et al., p.257). Since this research involved
human participants, ethical principles were followed throughout the whole research
process.
Data collection was subject to ethical approval by the university’s ethics panel and
stored in accordance with the university's code of practise and general data
protection regulation. The Jiscs online survey tool was chosen because of its
compliance with LSBU ethical guidelines as well as with UK data protection law. Data
will be destroyed after the purpose of the research project is completed.
Participants were informed about the purpose of the research, data protection,
voluntary participation, required time effort, and anonymity. They were asked to
agree to a consent form. All considered participants were 18 years old or older. No
personal data or data harming the anonymity of participants was accessed.
4. Analysis and interpretation of results
4.1 Preparatory data analysis and test for reliability
The survey reached a total of 259 respondents. Firstly, an exploratory data analysis
was conducted. The data was checked for errors and quality. Missing values were
defined in SPSS (code: -99). In accordance with the screening and cleaning guide from
Pallant (2020), the SPSS codebook function was used to check descriptive statistics
and measurement entries. The average response time was calculated in Excel and
resulted in 10 minutes and 10 seconds. Three participants with a response time of
under four minutes were excluded from the survey, because it was assumed
impossible to understand and finish the survey in under four minutes, and this time
was clearly below the response time average. No further responses were excluded
because no more suspicious patterns were identified. The considered sample size
was thus N=256.

Subsequently, the reliability of the measurement instruments was checked.
Reliability refers to the degree of measurement accuracy of an instrument (Gray,
2018). An item analysis was carried out to evaluate the quality of the scales and items
used. By calculating Cronbach's alpha, statements can be made about the internal
consistency of the items on a scale, the so-called "inter-item reliability" (Pallant,
2020). Cronbach’s alpha values and scale statistics are displayed in appendix 2.
The Cronbach’s alpha value for the dependent variable employer attractiveness was
0.937. According to George and Maller (2014, p.251), this value displays “excellent”
internal consistency. The values for the social value scale (0.781), economic value
scale (0.74), and work condition dimension (0.676) were “acceptable”. Cronbach’s
alpha values for the application value, interest value, and development value scale
were between 5 and 6 and are therefore classed between “poor” and “questionable”
according to George and Maller (2014). Although the low values can be explained due
to the low item size of the scales, in which case scale values over 5 are acceptable
(Gray, 2018). For short scales, Pallant (2020) suggests reporting mean inter-item
correlation values that should range from .2 to .4. This criterion was met, and the
values are displayed in appendix 2. Hence, the inter-item reliability of the used scales
is confirmed as satisfactory.
Cronbach’s alpha and inter-item correlation values for all independent variables are
also displayed in appendix 2. It was identified that the item “outside the job activities”
significantly reduces the alpha value of the variable work culture, which is why it was
excluded from the variable calculation.
Furthermore, the item difficulty and discriminatory power were calculated. The
discriminatory power coefficient indicates how well an individual item represents the
overall result of a test (Bortz & Döring, 2006). The coefficient should assume a value
greater than 0.3 because low discriminatory power has a negative effect on the
measurement accuracy of the scale. Apart from the item “childcare facilities” (0.162),
all items met the criteria since values were greater than 0.3.

4.2 Descriptive statistics
4.2.1 Characteristics of sample group
Figure 2 displays the distribution of the two considered sample groups.
Sample group distribution

180
160
167
140
120
100
80
89
60
40
20
0
I am an apprenticeship student I am employed in a company
Figure 2: Sample group distribution
167 (65.2%) nursing apprenticeship students and 89 (34.8%) employed nurses

participated in the survey. The ratio of both groups was therefore slightly unequal,
but the minimum required size of 50 to allow for comparison between the groups
was reached.
Respondents were between 18 and 70 years old, with an average of 31 years and a
standard deviation of 13.042. Most participants were between 18 and 25 years old,
which can be seen in the following figure.
Age distribution
123
44
34
27
17 1 10
18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 Missing
Figure 3: Age distribution

203 women (81.5%) in comparison to 41 men (16.5%) participated in the survey (1%
diverse and 1% preferred not to say).
57 respondents were employed in a care home, 172 in a hospital, and 3 in a
rehabilitation clinic. 18 respondents selected the category “other”, whereby mainly
ambulant care and reintegration centres were specified as employer type.
Type of employer
1.2% 7%
22.3% Care home
Hospital
Rehabilitation
clinic
Other
67.2%
Figure 4: Type of employer
77.3% of the employer group were nursing specialists, 8% were nursing assistants,
and 14.8% selected the response category “other”, whereby nursing management
and physician assistant were named as other professions. With a percentage of
76.4%, most respondents work stationary, followed by ambulant work (10.1%). Only
3.4% work in day care, and 10.1% selected the category “other”, whereby mainly
intensive care unit and surgery department were named as workplaces.
42.7% of the nursing professionals stated that they had been employed by their
employer for more than 10 years, 14.6% were employed for less than one year, 18%
between 1 and 3 years, 19.1% between 4 and 7 years, and 5.6% between 8 and 10
years. The following figure displays the absolute values.

Tenure
MORE THAN 10 YEARS 38
8-10 JAHRE 5
4-7 JAHRE 17
1-3 JAHRE 16
LESS THAN ONE YEAR 13
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 5: Tenure
The participation of apprenticeship students from years 1,2 and 3 was balanced,
which can be seen in the following figure.
Apprenticeship year
26%
1
39%
2
3
35%
Figure 6: Apprenticeship year
4.2.2 Channels used for information search

The following figure displays which channels are used by students and employees
when researching an employer.

COMPANY WEBSITE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ACQUAINTANCES
COMPANY INFO BROCHURE
JOB-PLATFORMS (E.G., MONSTER, STEPSTONE)
FACEBOOK
JOB FAIRS
INSTAGRAM
RATING PLATFORMS (E.G., KUNUNU, GLASSDOR)
LINKEDIN
TIKTOK
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Nursing students Nurses
Figure 7: Channels used for information search
The company website, recommendations from friends and acquaintances, and the
company info brochure can be identified as the most used channels (displaying mean
values from 3 to 3.82 = often). Job platforms (M=2.14) and job fairs are sometimes
used. Facebook and Instagram are used rarely. Students make greater use of
Instagram and job fairs than nursing professionals, who use the company website and
job platforms more than students.
4.2.3 Factors of employer attractiveness
Within the survey questionnaire, respondents were asked to rate the importance of
factors on a five-point Likert scale, reaching from “not at all important” to “very
important”. The descriptive results are displayed in the following table that displays
the importance of factors in ascending direction. Afterwards, the dimensions of
employer attractiveness are looked at in detail.

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics
Std.
Variables N Min. Max. Mean Deviation
Recognition/ awareness of company 256 1 5 2.39 1.14
Connection to a large city 256 1 5 2.42 1.128
Outside the job activities (e.g., team events) 256 1 5 2.7 1.154
On-site childcare 256 1 5 3.05 1.293
Good reputation among acquaintances 256 1 5 3.07 1.062
Self-care offers 256 1 5 3.37 1.239
Accessibility by public transport 256 1 5 3.5 1.331
Social commitment of the company 256 1 5 3.87 0.945
Involvement in operational processes/decisions 256 1 5 3.88 0.872
Proximity to the place of residence 256 1 5 3.98 0.986
Possibility of career enhancement 256 1 5 4.13 0.892
Responsible tasks 256 1 5 4.13 0.701
Modern, technically up-to-date work environment 256 1 5 4.14 0.859
Variety of tasks 256 1 5 4.16 0.827
Good working hours/ flexible hours 256 1 5 4.19 0.894
Family friendliness 256 1 5 4.27 0.914
Performance bonus 256 1 5 4.37 0.766
Offer of training and development 256 1 5 4.47 0.724
High workplace security 256 1 5 4.48 0.719
Good salary 256 1 5 4.58 0.646
A reliable supervisor 256 1 5 4.6 0.643
A fair leadership culture 256 1 5 4.61 0.666
A good work-life-balance 256 1 5 4.65 0.639
Appreciation and recognition of workers 256 1 5 4.69 0.591
Reliable work scheduling 256 1 5 4.7 0.565
Reliable colleagues 256 1 5 4.8 0.542
Good quality of patient care 256 1 5 4.84 0.439
Good team atmosphere 256 1 5 4.85 0.481
Valid N (listwise) 256

With a mean value of 2.39 (=low importance), respondents evaluated the recognition
and awareness of a company as the least important factor for employer
attractiveness.
Recognition/ awareness of
company
not at all important

5%
13% 26% low importance
neutral
24%
important
32%
very important
Figure 8: Frequency distribution - recognition of company
Only 5% of respondents evaluated this factor as “very important”, whereas 13% of

respondents rated it as “important”, 24% as neutral, 32% as not important, and 26%
as “not important at all”.
Likewise, the connection to a large city (M=2.42) was ranked as not important by
most respondents when evaluating an employer as attractive. Outside the job
activities (M=2.7), on-site childcare (M=3.05), good reputation among acquaintances
(M=3.07), and self-care offers (M=3.37) were evaluated as “neutral” and thus as less
important when compared to the other factors. Most factors were evaluated as
“important” on average, with mean values between 3.5 and 4.5. Good salary, a
reliable supervisor, a fair leadership culture, a good work-life-balance, appreciation
and recognition of workers, reliable work scheduling, reliable colleagues, good quality
of patient care, and good team atmosphere reached mean values over 4.5 and were
thus seen as “very important”. A good team atmosphere can be identified as the most
important factor (M=4.85). 88% of respondents evaluated this factor as very
important and 11% as important.

Good team atmosphere
1%
11% not at all important
low importance
neutral
important
88% very important
Figure 9: Frequency distribution - team atmosphere
The item good quality of patient care was evaluated as equally important, with 85%
of respondents rating it as “very important” and 14% as “important”.
Good quality of patient care
0.4%
14.1%
0.4%
not at all important
neutral
important
very important
85.2%
Figure 10: Frequency distribution - quality of patient care
When looking at the mean values of the defined variables (see appendix 3), work
culture (M=4.8) and leadership support (M=4.6) from the social value dimension are
the two most important factors for employer attractiveness, followed by work
environment (M=4.5), high workplace security (M=4.48), and salary (M=4.47). The
comparison of the variables within their dimensions is displayed in the following
table.

Dimensions of employer attractiveness
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 11: Descriptive distribution dimension of employer attractiveness
Comparing the dimensions (that were calculated out of the according item mean
values), the following graph demonstrates that the economic value was evaluated as
the most important dimension for employer attractiveness (M=4.53; very important),
followed by the social value (M=4.4; important), development value (M=4.3;
important), application value (M=4.1; important), and work conditions (M=3.85;
important). The interest value was evaluated as neutrally important (M=3.1).
Importance of dimensions
4.3586 4.5312
4.1465 4.2988
3.8499
3.1094
Figure 12: Importance of dimensions

4.2.4 Comparison of both target groups
Table 4 demonstrates a comparison of the six most important rated factors for
employer attractiveness between the student group and the employee group. For
nursing professionals, the quality of patient care is the most important factor,
followed by a good team atmosphere. For nursing students, these two factors are the
most important as well, but in a reversed way. Whereas nursing professionals rank a
fair leadership culture and a reliable supervisor as very important, nursing students
evaluate appreciation and recognition of workers and a good work-life balance as
more important.
Table 4: Most important factors for employer attractiveness
Nursing employees Nursing students

Mean Mean
Position Factor value Factor value
1 Good quality of patient care 4.84 Good team atmosphere 4.87
2 Good team atmosphere 4.81 Good quality of patient care 4.83
3 Reliable colleagues 4.8 Reliable colleagues 4.8
4 A fair leadership culture 4.72 Reliable work scheduling 4.72
Appreciation and recognition
5 A reliable supervisor 4.69 of workers 4.71
6 Reliable work scheduling 4.67 A good work-life-balance 4.66
Regarding figure 13, it becomes clear that the evaluation of factors for employer
attractiveness is similar for both the student as well as the employee group.
Nevertheless, there are slight differences. Whereas nursing students put higher
emphasis on self-care offers, location and infrastructure, professional development,
and family friendliness than nursing professionals, nurses evaluate salary, leadership
support, and organisational support with more importance than nursing students.
The differences between all individual items can be found in appendix 4.

Comparison students vs employees
WORK_CULTURE
LEADERSHIP_SUPPORT
WORK_ENVIRONMENT
SALARY_FINANCIAL_BENEFITS
WORK_LIFE_BALANCE
HIGH WORKPLACE SECURITY
ORGANISATIONAL_SUPPORT
WORK_TASKS
PROFESSIONAL_DEVELOPMENT
FAMILIY_FRIENDLINESS
SELF-CARE OFFERS
COMPANY_IMAGE
LOCATION_INFRASTRUCTURE
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Students Nurses
Figure 13: Comparison students vs employees
4.2.4.1 Independent samples t-test

An independent-sample t-test was conducted to evaluate if the differences between
the two groups are statistically significant. Conducting an independent-sample t-test
requires the fulfilment of the following assumptions (Pallant, 2020):
- The dependent variables are measured at interval or ratio level; the
independent variable is categorical
- Observations of both groups must be independent
- Homogeneity of variance
- Data from continuous variables should be normally distributed. However, the
t-test is seen as robust and tolerant against this assumption if the sample size
is large enough (>30).
The first two assumptions are fully met. The homogeneity of variance is also met,
which is displayed in the results of the “Levene’s test for equality of variances” (see
appendix 5). The test demonstrates p-values that are larger than 0.05 and thus
accepts the 0 hypothesis of the test (H0: σ12 - σ22 = 0 "the population variances of
group 1 and 2 are equal"). Since the sample size is larger than 100, the values of

Shapiro-wilk and Kolmogorov-Simirnov cannot be relied upon to test for normal
distribution (Pallant, 2020). For this reason, histograms with normal distribution
curves and normal Q-Q Plot diagrams were used to test for normal distribution. Based
on this analysis, it can be concluded that while some variables approximate a normal
distribution, not all variables are normally distributed because they demonstrate
negative skewness. Nevertheless, since according to different authors, the sample
size is large enough to be robust against this assumption (Pallant, 2020; Wilcox, 2012)
and all other assumptions are met, the t-test was chosen to test for differences
between the two sample groups.
The results of the test (see appendix 5) show that there is a significant difference in
the mean values of leadership support (t = -2.179, p < .05), family friendliness (t =
2.196, p < .05), professional development (t = 2.004, p <.005), location/infrastructure
(t = 3.352, p < .005), and self-care offers (t = 2.207, p < .05). There are no significant
differences in mean values for all other factors since their p-values are greater than
.05, accepting the 0 hypothesis (“the means for the two populations are equal”).
These results align with the demonstrated differences in figure 13, although the
identified differences are rather small. For example, students rate self-care offers and
infrastructure higher than nurses by 0.4 scale points, and development opportunities
are rated by 0.3 scale points higher by students than by nurses.
4.2.5 Employer attractiveness - dependent variable and internal perspective
The mean value of the dependent variable (M=3.5) demonstrates that, on average,
respondents neither agree nor disagree when evaluating their current employer as
attractive. In the following figure, it can be seen that whereas 14% of respondents
disagree with the statement that their employer is attractive, 37% evaluate their
current employer as attractive.

My current employer is attractive to me
5% Strongly disagree
21% 14%
Disagree
Neither agree or disagree
23% Agree
37%
Strongly agree
Figure 14: Frequency distribution dependent variable
To test if the evaluated factors of employer attractiveness have an impact on the

perceived internal employer attractiveness, the third part of the survey assessed
whether the current employer met the factors of employer attractiveness. The
descriptive results of this part are displayed in appendix 6, and the following figure
demonstrates that there are differences between the wishes of employees regarding
factors of employer attractiveness and the fulfilment of these wishes by the current
employer.
Expectations (external perspective) vs reality (internal

perspective)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
External perspective Internal perspective
Figure 15: Comparison expectations vs reality

Apart from the variables company image and location, all other factors were rated
with higher importance than that they are currently being fulfilled by the employer.
In particular, the factors organisational support, leadership support, work culture,
work environment, salary, and work-life-balance demonstrate gaps between the
expectations of an attractive employer and the fulfilment of these factors by current
employers.
4.3 Exploring relationships between variables

4.3.1 Intercorrelation
A correlation analysis was conducted with all considered variables to identify
whether there are significant correlations and to interpret the relationships between
the variables, whereby the correlation coefficient is used to make statements about
the strength of the relationship (Pallant, 2020).
The following table displays the results of the correlation analysis. It can be noted
that all considered factors correlate with the variable employer attractiveness. The
strength of correlations can be evaluated in accordance with Cohen’s (1988)
conventions of effect size interpretation. The correlations between health promotion
(r = .244, p < 0.01) as well as location (r = .157, p < 0.05) and employer attractiveness
can be interpreted as weak. The correlations between family friendliness (r = .305, p
< 0.01), salary (r = .489, p < 0.01), professional development (r = .497, p = < 0.01),
work tasks (r = .498, p < 0.01), workplace security (r = .480, p < 0.01) and respectively
employer attractiveness are moderate. Company image (r = .546, p < 0.01),
organisational support (r = .629, p < 0.01), leadership support (r = .609, p < 0.01),
work-life-balance (r = .612, p < 0.01), and work environment (r = .687, p < 0.01) each
correlate strongly with employer attractiveness.

Table 5: Correlation results
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1.Employer attractiveness 1
2.Salary & financial benefits .489** 1
3.Organisational support .629** .613** 1
4.Leadership support .609** .453** .640** 1
5.WLB .612** .561** .654** .565** 1
6. Family friendliness .305** .375** .270** .241** .329** 1
7.Work culture .543** .399** .508** .532** .483** .159* 1
8.Professional development .497** .544** .517** .465** .550** .508** .310** 1
9.Work tasks .498** .419** .507** .503** .493** .220** .420** .538** 1
10.Company image .546** .412** .479** .586** .486** .343** .435** .473** .389** 1
11.Work environment .687** .566** .641** .612** .674** .325** .527** .528** .512** .578** 1
12.Location .157* .157* 0.045 0.098 0.104 .435** 0.104 .301** 0.122 .248** .163** 1
13. Health promotion .244** .394** .325** .258** .340** .472** .163** .381** .251** .317** .299** .247** 1
14.Workplace security .480** .398** .442** .394** .424** .290** .339** .383** .378** .414** .411** .203** .291** 1
Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); N= 241-251.

4.3.2 Regression analysis
In the final step of the statistical analysis, a multiple regression analysis was
conducted because it analyses the cause-effect relationship between a dependent
variable and one or more independent variables (Backhaus et al., 2018). Thus, it can
be used to explain to what extent the considered factors explain the dependent
variable employer attractiveness and whether the relationships are influenced by the
control variables. First, the underlying assumptions of a regression analysis were
examined. According to Pallant (2020) and Backhaus et al. (2018), these are:
- Large enough sample size: N > 50 + 8 m (m = number of independent variables)
- No multicollinearity between independent variables (if r = .7 or above)
- Residuals should be normally distributed and have a straight-line relationship with
predicted dependent variable scores
As it was previously calculated, the required sample size to allow for regression
analysis with 13 independent variables was N=154. The first assumption is therefore
met. The displayed correlation matrix indicates that most independent variables are
correlated. However, the Pearson correlation coefficients are less than .7. Further,
SPSS collinearity statistics were used to identify whether there were multicollinearity
issues by interpreting Tolerance and VIF results (see appendix 7). According to Pallant
(2020), the tolerance value should be higher than .10 and the VIF value under 10 to
prove the absence of multicollinearity. It can be concluded that the assumption is not
violated because all tolerance values are above .10 and all VIF values are lower than
10.
Assumption 3 was tested with the output of the Normal Probability Plot (P-P) of the
regression standardised residual and the Scatterplot (see appendix 8). The P-P plot
demonstrates a straight diagonal line from bottom left to top right, which according
to Pallant (2020) indicates a normal distribution. Moreover, residuals within the
scatterplot (see appendix 9) are rectangularly distributed and mainly concentrated in
the centre, fulfilling the assumption in accordance with Pallant (2020).
Table 6 displays the regression results. The control variables age, tenure, gender, and
occupation were not included in the regression model, because they did not correlate

with the variable employer attractiveness and therefore seem to not influence the
perceived employer attractiveness.
Table 6: Multiple Regression results
Standardized
Model 1, factors Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) -0.438 0.299
Salary, financial benefits -0.022 0.061 -0.021
Organisational support 0.147* 0.069 0.145
Leadership support 0.111 0.067 0.105
WLB 0.097 0.065 0.097
Family friendliness 0.036 0.049 0.04
Work culture 0.153* 0.066 0.125
Professional development 0.039 0.063 0.039
Work tasks 0.057 0.066 0.047
Company image 0.108 0.078 0.08
Work environment 0.329** 0.081 0.272
Location, infrastructure 0.014 0.055 0.013
Workplace security 0.135* 0.053 0.127
Self-care offers -0.053 0.039 -0.068
Notes: Dependent Variable: Employer_attractivenes; N=248; * p ≤ .05 **p ≤
.001.
R² = .604**; △R² = .582**
The determination coefficient (R square value) of the model is .604 (△R² = .582). This
means that 60.4% of variance of the dependent variable employer attractiveness is
explained by the considered independent variables. According to Cohen’s (1988)
classification of effect strength, this is considered a strong variance explanation. Even
with the adjusted R square value, the explanatory power of the model is seen as very
strong for social science models (Koch-Rogge and Westermann, 2021). Moreover, the
model is statistically significant, indicating that the considered factors predict the
internal employer attractiveness.

Considering the individual factors, it becomes clear that only four variables
significantly predict employer attractiveness. The model indicates a positive
relationship between organisational support and employer attractiveness (B =.147,
SE = 0.069, p<.05). The greater the organisational support available in the company,
the higher the perceived employer attractiveness. The same applies to work culture
(B = .153, SE = .066, p<.05), workplace security (B = .135, SE = .053, p<.05) and work
environment (B = .329, SE = .081, p<.001), which influence employer attractiveness
in a positive direction. For example, it can be interpreted that with the improvement
(increase) of work environment by one scale point, the evaluation of an employer as
being attractive increases by 0.3 scale points. According to the Beta values of the
regression analysis, which allows determining a ranking of factors, the most
important predictor of employer attractiveness is work environment, followed by
organisational support, workplace security, and work culture.
It is interesting to note that when considering the independent variables salary,
leadership support, development opportunities, work tasks, company image,
location, and self-care offers within simple linear regression models with the
dependent variable employer attractiveness, the outcomes are statistically
significant, meaning that these independent variables do influence employer
attractiveness but that their impact loses importance when being considered in the
overall model simultaneously to the other factors. For instance, the factor company
image on its own strongly correlates with employer attractiveness, but its importance
is outweighed by the internally perceived factors of work culture, work environment,
and organisational support.
4.4 Hypotheses testing, summary, and discussion of results
H1 stated that employer attractiveness within the Northern German healthcare

sector is influenced by six dimensions (economic value, social value, development
value, application value, interest value, work conditions). This hypothesis can be
mostly confirmed because most factors reached mean values higher than 3,
indicating that the factors are seen as important to very important when assessing
an employer as attractive. The interest value dimension, however, was overall

evaluated as neutrally important and thus does not seem to influence the evaluation
of an employer as attractive. It can be concluded that the employer attractiveness in
the Northern German healthcare sector is mainly influenced by economic, social,
development, application, and work condition values, whereby the economic value
was evaluated as the most important dimension. This aligns with Reifgerste et al.
(2017), who identified remuneration and benefits as the main drivers for employer
attractiveness evaluated by German nursing students.
Regarding individual items, a good team atmosphere was evaluated as the most
important factor for employer attractiveness, followed by good quality of patient
care, reliable colleagues, reliable work scheduling, appreciation and recognition of
workers, and work-life balance.
The results align with the descriptive study results of Koch-Rogge and Westermann
(2021), who identified good team atmosphere, recognition of workers, reliable
colleagues, fair leadership culture, and reliable work scheduling as the five most
important factors for employer attractiveness. The high importance of good quality
of patient care aligns with Fréchette et al. (2013) study results.
H2 postulated that there is a difference between the considered value-driving factors

for employer attractiveness between students and nursing professionals. This
hypothesis can be partly confirmed and partly disproved. Statistically significant
differences were identified with regards to leadership support, family friendliness,
professional development, location/infrastructure, and self-care offers. Whereas
nursing professionals evaluate leadership support with higher importance than
nursing students, students attach slightly more importance on professional
development, location, and self-care offers. However, the differences are rather
small, and most variables were evaluated with similar importance. The fact that there
was neither a significant correlation between age and employer attractiveness, nor
between tenure and employer attractiveness, supports this observation. Contrary to
expectations, these factors do not seem to have any influence on employer
attractiveness. This result contradicts studies (e.g., Reis and Braga, 2016; Waeschele

et al., 2021) that identified generational differences regarding factors of employer
attractiveness.
H3 stated that the stronger the presence of identified factors, the higher the
perceived internal employer attractiveness. Due to the high explanatory power of the
conducted regression model, this hypothesis can be confirmed. Nevertheless, not all
factors were identified as significant predictors of employer attractiveness. This could
be explained by the identified differences between employee expectations and the
fulfilment of these expectations by employers. The importance of work-life balance,
work culture, organisational support, leadership support, and work environment
were evaluated as higher than what is currently being fulfilled by the employer. This
could influence the evaluation of employer attractiveness since employers could
experience breaches of psychological contracts.
The results of the regression analysis showed that only the factors work environment,
work culture, organisational support, and workplace security lead to higher perceived
internal employer attractiveness. The regression results differ from other studies’
regression results (Trybou et al., 2014; Koch-Rogge and Westermann, 2021) that
identified the company’s image and reputation (interest value) as well as career
development opportunities as the strongest predictors of employer attractiveness in
the healthcare context.
The regression results of this study are interesting because factors that were rated as
very important from the external perspective, like leadership support, salary, and
professional development, seem to not actually influence whether employees rate
their employer as attractive. This supports the differentiation of external and internal
factors of employer attractiveness. Whereas external factors are important to
consider because they reflect the expectations of potential employees and might
influence application decisions, internal factors are equally important because they
influence the internal perception of employer attractiveness. On the one hand, it is
important to attract new employees based on factors that are seen as important. On
the other hand, it is simultaneously important to fulfil these factors and consider the

importance of internal factors to improve employee satisfaction and retention.
Concrete practical implications are discussed in the following chapter.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
This study addressed the research question, “What are the value-driving factors for
employer attractiveness within the Northern German healthcare sector?”.
It can be concluded that employer attractiveness is influenced by the four dimensions
economic value, social value, application value, and work conditions. Considering
individual factors, the most important factors were the symbolic factors, good team
atmosphere, good quality of patient care, reliable colleagues, reliable work
scheduling, appreciation and recognition of workers, and work-life balance. Hence,
the social value dimension and the work conditions dimension seem to be the most
important ones when it comes to evaluating factors for employer attractiveness from
an external perspective.
The identified high importance of the social dimension can be linked to social identity
theory. Social factors are evaluated with high importance because prospective
employees seek self-esteem and belonging in their future organisation. They seek
value congruence by preferring an organisation that promotes a positive team
atmosphere, recognition of workers, and good quality of patient care, which
demonstrates the importance of having a meaningful and respectful job. These social
and self-esteem values seem to overweight economic terms.
Within current political and media discussions, the factor salary is often debated, and
it is stressed that nurses are being underpaid (Dworak, 2020; Springer Medizin, 2018).
From published newsletter articles (e.g., Creutzburg, 2021), it seems that the low
salary is seen as the only reason why the nursing profession is evaluated as
unattractive and pay rises are being sold as the solution to overcome the current
labour shortage. While this study can confirm the high importance of economic
attributes due to the high mean value of the economic dimension, it was shown in
the regression analysis that the importance of a high salary and performance bonuses
vanishes when being considered with other factors of employer attractiveness. This

can be linked to Maslow’s level of needs. When the basic need for safety is satisfied,
social, esteem, and self-actualisation factors are evaluated with higher importance.
The factor salary seems to be fulfilling a basic need that is of high importance for
external attractiveness. Organisational support, work culture, work environment,
and workplace security lead to internal employer attractiveness. Consequently, these
are the factors that need to be addressed next to the fulfilment of economic
attributes, such as fair and attractive compensation, in order to improve the internal
employer attractiveness and retain employees. Concrete recommendations are
derived in the following section.
5.1 Implication for praxis and establishment of an employer branding concept
Given the interpretation of study results, recommendations for the rehabilitation

clinic that was considered as a case study can be drawn. It can be concluded that the
rural location of the company does not pose a disadvantage, since location and
infrastructure attributes were evaluated as the least important and did not impact
the perceived employer attractiveness. Within its employer branding concept, the
company should focus on the factors team atmosphere, appreciation of employees,
organisational support, organisational culture, work-life balance, workplace security,
and quality of patient care. These should be considered within the creation of a
unique value proposition, which according to the CIPD (2021) and Lievens (2007) is
the first step in the establishment of an employer brand and should reflect a true
picture of what the company stands for. It is recommended that the company
communicates about its non-profit and charitable character in relation to the quality
of patient care. Moreover, the firm should demonstrate how it values and supports
its employees. It is recommended that the company’s HR department cooperates
with the Marketing and Communication team to facilitate employer branding efforts
and to ensure the implementation of made promises (Barbaros, 2020).
The high importance of quality of patient care indicates that internal process
optimisations are needed to allow for more time with patients. This is also
demonstrated in the high importance of a modern and technically up-to-date work
environment. Employees should be able to spend their work time in the profession

they are passionate about and should not sacrifice the quality of their work with
bureaucratic processes. Due to the labour shortage, the time for patient care is being
reduced further. Digitalisation and technology should be used to automate and
facilitate processes. A first step should be a shift to digital documentation and digital
patient files to improve information transparency and, thus, care quality and to
reduce time expenditure (Fachinger and Maehs, 2019).
Furthermore, team building measures such as team events are suggested as it has
been demonstrated that employees value reliable colleagues, a trustworthy work
environment, and organisational support. In this context, it is further recommended
to develop an onboarding programme that allows for the integration of new
employees to fulfil the identified social needs and enhance the integration into the
organisational culture and hence the P-O fit. It is also important to already integrate
students that are on their placements during their three years of apprenticeship.
During this time, students form their expectations for employer attractiveness and
start evaluating if their placement partner is attractive for future long-term
employment. Demonstrating development and career opportunities, giving students
responsible tasks, and providing equal recognition and trust are important to
influence the perception of employer attractiveness. A buddy programme can be
helpful to include students and enhance their development, whereby the
cooperation between current and potential employees should be supported by the
management level. This is suggested because students were mentioning
dissatisfaction, lacking appreciation and respect from existing nursing staff in the
open comment section of the study. Moreover, cooperation between schools and
companies seems to be an issue that was mentioned in the open comment section.
These issues should be prevented because they could influence the career decisions
of students who are highly demanded in times of labour shortages.
Due to the highly evaluated importance of leadership support by internal employers

and the identified differences between expectations and reality, it is recommended

to develop leadership training programmes that enable leaders to lead teams,
provide feedback, support, and integrate employees.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the implementation or improvements of some

factors, e.g., work-life-balance and reliable work scheduling, is dependent on the
success of employer branding efforts because they can only be reached if enough
nurses are employed by the company, preventing current staff from carrying the
burden of labour shortage.
5.1.1 Communication strategy
The second stage of an employer branding process is the internal and external
communication of the company’s value proposition (Lievens, 2007). With the
promotion and communication of company values and a clear employer brand, the
person-organisation fit and value congruence can be improved, leading to improved
employer attractiveness and retention (Ghielen et al., 2021). Addressing potential
employees and communicating organisational values through the right channel is of
importance. The results of this study identified the company website,
recommendations from acquaintances, and the company info brochure as the main
channels used by respondents to research a potential employer. Instagram and job
fairs were occasionally used, but more frequently by students than by already
employed nurses. Consequently, it is advisable to provide career pages and clear
information about the value proposition and company values on the website and in
the employer brochure.
Testimonials can be used on social media and website to give transparent insight into
the work environment and team atmosphere through storytelling. Students should
be additionally addressed via social media and job fairs to increase their awareness
and interest. The firm should also establish internal communication measures, as
successful internal employer branding communication has been shown to improve
overall employer attractiveness (Verčič et al., 2021). An internal employee newsletter
that promotes company values, events, success stories, open positions, company
news, and room for feedback is recommended to enhance internal employer

branding communication. Simultaneously, internal employee opinions can help in
forming the employer brand and unique value proposition (CIPD, 2021).
The identified high importance of recommendations from friends and acquaintances
demonstrates the link between internal and external employer attractiveness.
Current employees need to be satisfied with their job and employer in order to
recommend it to prospective employees. While employers cannot impact this
channel directly, improving the internal employer attractiveness can indirectly affect
the external employer attractiveness (Koch-Rogge and Westermann, 2021). This
demonstrates that only a combination of internal and external employer branding
efforts and communication will lead to improved overall employer attractiveness. A
suggestion to enhance the communication between internal staff and prospective
employees is the introduction of an employee referral programme, which can be
simultaneously seen as a reflection of the company’s employer branding evaluation
(Huang, 2017). Using current employees as employer brand ambassadors does not
only bring financial benefits but was also evaluated as the most trustworthy
information source by jobseekers, which can enhance the likelihood of joining a
company (Wilden et al., 2010).
5.2 Strengths and limitations of study
An empirical approach was developed to investigate the named research gap relating
to factors for employer attractiveness within the Northern German healthcare sector.
In order to meet the quality criteria of construct validity, already published and
evaluated measurement instruments were used to collect the data. Nevertheless, it
should be mentioned that these were adapted by practical and context-specific items
and the results of the present work could be influenced by test distortions. When
answering the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to report their personal
attitudes and experiences and to classify themselves into the given categories. This
may have led to falsification of the results since respondents might tend to follow
certain answer tendencies and, for example, could assess themselves exclusively to
predominantly agreeing or predominantly disagreeing answer categories. Others, on

the other hand, like to avoid selecting a certain direction and rather place themselves
in the middle (Bortz & Döring, 2006).
Another weakness of the study lies in the generalisation of research results. It is
difficult to compare the results of previous research because employer attractiveness
is operationalised inconsistently, and different factors are considered. A more
uniform operationalisation would be desirable. Moreover, due to the case study
design and specific population, the results of this study cannot be generalised to
other contexts. Therefore, the external validity of the study is limited. However, the
purpose of the study did not lie in the generalisation of results to a broad context but
rather aimed to test previously made generalisations within a specific context in
order to derive concrete recommendations for the specific case study, which justifies
the chosen approach. Moreover, the generalisation aspect was counteracted by
choosing an embedded case study design with a more general sample size from
various healthcare organisations rather than just the one rehabilitation clinic. As a
result, a satisfactory population size was reached that corresponded to the
framework of this capstone project and allowed for the use of inferential statistics.
During the data collection process, the identified research gap and relevance of the
research topic with regards to the Northern German healthcare sector were
confirmed as a strength of this paper. Several companies and organisations within
the region were willing to share the survey and demonstrated their interest in the
study results. Finally, the consideration of both the external and internal perspective
of employer attractiveness can be highlighted as a strength of this paper, providing a
holistic foundation for deriving practical recommendations.
5.3 Implication for future research
The reasons behind the importance of factors for employer attractiveness could not
be accessed with quantitative data. While the 10-week time frame did not allow for
a mixed-method approach in relation to the chosen topic, for future research it could
be beneficial to integrate a qualitative approach. This form of triangulation would
improve validity and help identify the reasons why some factors are more important

than others, leading to a more in-depth knowledge of employer attractiveness within
the healthcare sector. It would be interesting to capture the exact motivations and
attitudes of respondents to identify how to improve the employer attractiveness of
healthcare organisations.

References
Adams, J., Khan, H. T. A. and Raeside, R. (2014) Research Methods for Business and
Social Science Students. 2nd ed. New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Available
from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lsbuuk/detail.action?docID=1698991
[Accessed 2 May 2022].
Aerzteblatt (2021) 40 Prozent der Beschäftigen im Gesundheitswesen würden Job

nicht weiterempfehlen. Available from:
https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/129999/40-Prozent-der-Beschaeftigen-im-
Gesundheitswesen-wuerden-Job-nicht-weiterempfehlen [Accessed 3 January 2022].
Alnıaçık, E., Alnıaçık, Ü, Erat, S. and Akçin, K. (2014) Attracting talented employees
to the company: Do we need different employer branding strategies in different
cultures? Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 150, pp. 336-344. DOI:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.074.
Ashforth, B. E. and Mael, F. (1989) Social identity theory and the

organization, Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), pp. 20-39. DOI:
10.5465/amr.1989.4278999.
Backhaus, K. and Tikoo, S. (2004) Conceptualizing and researching employer

branding, Career Development International, 9 (5), pp. 501-517. DOI:
10.1108/13620430410550754.
Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W. and Weiber, R. (2018) Multivariate

Analysemethoden: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. 11th ed. Berlin:
Springer.
Barbaros, M. C. (2020) Does employer branding beat head hunting? the potential of
company culture to increase employer attractiveness, Journal of Entrepreneurship,
Management and Innovation, 16 (4), pp. 87-112. DOI: 10.7341/20201643.
Barney, J. (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of

Management, 17 (1), pp. 99-120. DOI: 10.1177%2F014920639101700108.
Berthon, P., Ewing, M. and Hah, L. L. (2005) Captivating company: Dimensions of

attractiveness in employer branding, International Journal of Advertising, 24 (2), pp.
151-172. DOI: 10.1080/02650487.2005.11072912.
Blöcker, J. (2022) Personalmangel: Jagd nach den jungen Pflegetalenten, Klinik

Management Aktuell, 27 (1), pp. 96-99. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1743087.
Bohnet-Joschko, S. and Zippel, C. (2015) Personalbeschaffung als Herausforderung

für Krankenhäuser – Forschungsstand zur Arbeitgeberwahl junger Ärzte, Zeitschrift
vi
Für Führung Und Personalmanagement in Der Gesundheitswirtschaft, 1 (2), pp. 9-
12. DOI: 0.17193/HNU.ZFPG.01.02.2015-03.
Bortz, J. and Döring, N. (2006) Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und
Sozialwissenschaftler.4th ed. Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag.
Buchelt, B., Ziębicki, B., Jończyk, J. and Dzieńdziora, J. (2021) The enhancement of
the employer branding strategies of polish hospitals through the detection of
features which determine employer attractiveness: A multidimensional
perspective, Human Resources for Health, 19 (1), pp. 1-14. DOI: 10.1186/s12960-
021-00620-0.
Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2022) Arbeitsmarktsituation im Pflegebereich. Available

from: https://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/DE/Statischer-
Content/Statistiken/Themen-im-Fokus/Berufe/Generische-
Publikationen/Altenpflege.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=13 [Accessed 18 June
2022].
Cable, D. M. and Judge, T. A. (1996) Person–organization fit, job choice decisions,

and organizational entry, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, 67 (3), pp. 294-311. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0081.
Chandler, N. (2019) Employer attractiveness: A study into the link between

demographics of jobseekers and reasons for applying for a position, Journal of
Human Resource Management, 22 (1), pp. 30-45.
Chhabra, N. L. and Sharma, S. (2014) Employer branding: a strategy for improving

employer attractiveness, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 22 (1), pp.
48-60. DOI: 10.1108/IJOA-09-2011-0513.
CIPD (2021) Employer brand. Available from:

https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/people/recruitment/brand-
factsheet - gref [Accessed 23 June 2021].
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New
York: Routledge.
Creutzburg, D. (2021) Nicht nur Applaus, sondern deutlich mehr Geld. Available
from: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/pflegekraft-gehaelter-seit-2010-fast-
doppelt-so-stark-gestiegen-17336755.html [Accessed 6 August 2022].
Dworak, I. (2020) Warum werden Pflegekräfte eigentlich so schlecht bezahlt?

Available from: https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/pflegenotstand-warum-werden-
pflegekraefte-so-schlecht-bezahlt-a-e90679c7-a71d-4d7f-974b-63ab1b0c1d21
[Accessed 6 August 2022].
vii
Esslinger, A. S., Leining, I. and Truckenbrodt, H. (2019) Employer Branding in
deutschen Krankenhäusern, in: Pfannenstiel, M. A., Da-Cruz, P. and Schulte, F.
(eds.) Internationalisierung im Gesundheitswesen. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 103-
127.
Fachinger, U. and Maehs, M. (2019) Digitalisierung und Pflege. In: Klauber, J.,
Geraedts, M., Friedrich, J. and Wasem, J. (eds.) Krankenhause-Report 2019. Berlin:
SptingerOpen, pp.115-128. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-58225-1_9.
Flake, R., Kochskämper, S., Risius, P. and Seyda, S. (2018) Fachkräfteengpass in der
Altenpflege. Available from:
https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Studien/IW-Trends/PDF/2018/IW-
Trends_2018-03-02_Pflegefallzahlen.pdf [Accessed 18 June 2022].
Fromm, S. (2012) Datenanalyse mit SPSS für Fortgeschrittene 2: Multivariate

Verfahren für Querschnittsdaten. Heidelberg: Springer VS. Available from:
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-531-92026-9 [Accessed 7 May
2022].
Fréchette, J., Bourhis, A. and Stachura, M. (2013) The organizational attraction of

nursing graduates: Using research to guide employer branding, The Health Care
Manager, 32 (4), pp. 303-313. DOI: 10.1097/HCM.0b013e3182a9d81d.
George, D. and Mallery, P. (2014) IBM SPSS statistics 21. Step by step: A simple
guide and reference. Thirteenth ed. Boston: Pearson.
Ghielen, S. T. S., De Cooman, R. and Sels, L. (2021) The interacting content and
process of the employer brand: Person-organization fit and employer brand
clarity, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30 (2), pp. 292-
304. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2020.1761445.
Gibis, B., Heinz, A., Jacob, R. and Müller, C. (2012) Berufserwartungen von
Medizinstudierenden: Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Befragung, Deutsches
Ärzteblatt, 109 (18), pp. 327-332. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2012.0327.
Gilani, H. and Cunningham, L. (2017) Employer branding and its influence on

employee retention: A literature review, The Marketing Review, 17 (2), pp. 239-256.
DOI: 10.1362/146934717X14909733966209.
Gray, D. E. (2018) Doing research in the real world. Fifth ed. London: SAGE
Publications.
Huang, G. (2017) Why employee referral programs are the litmus test for your
employer brand. Available from:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgenehuang/2017/06/22/why-employee-
viii
referral-programs-are-the-litmus-test-for-your-employer-brand/?sh=771bfc897c08
[Accessed 5 August 2022].
Klimkiewicz, K. and Oltra, V. (2017). Does CSR enhance employer attractiveness?

The role of millennial job seekers' attitudes. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 24(5), pp. 449-463. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1419.
Koch-Rogge, M. and Westermann, G. (2021) What Really Matters—Employer

Attractiveness in Healthcare, in: Huseyin, M. H., Danis, H. and Demir, E. (eds.)
Eurasian Business and Economics Perspectives. Cham: Springer, pp. 205-224.
Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-71869-5_14
Kräußlich, B. and Schwanz, S. (2017) Fachkräftesicherung im ländlichen

raum, Standort, 41 (3), pp. 195-201. DOI: 10.1007/s00548-017-0489-6.
Kröll, C., Nüesch, S. and Foege, J. N. (2021) Flexible work practices and
organizational attractiveness in Germany: The mediating role of anticipated
organizational support, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 32 (3), pp. 543-572. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2018.1479876.
Kucherov, D. and Samokish, V. (2016) Employer brand equity

measurement, Strategic HR Review, 15 (1), pp. 29-33. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-08-2015-0068.
Kumari, S. and Saini, G. K. (2018) Do instrumental and symbolic factors interact in

influencing employer attractiveness and job pursuit intention? Career Development
International, 23 (4), pp. 444-462. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-03-2018-0069.
Lievens, F. (2007) Employer branding in the Belgian army: The importance of

instrumental and symbolic beliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants, and
military employees, Human Resource Management, 46 (1), pp. 51-69. DOI:
10.1002/hrm.20145.
Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003) The relation of instrumental and symbolic

attributes to a company's attractiveness as an employer, Personnel Psychology, 56
(1), pp. 75-102. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00144.x.
Lohaus, D., Rietz, C. and Haase, S. (2013) Talente sind wählerisch–Was arbeitgeber
attraktiv macht, Wirtschaftspsychologie Aktuell, 20 (3), pp. 12-15.
Maslow, A. H. (1943) A theory of human motivation, Psychological Review, 50(4),

370-96. DOI: 10.1037/h0054346.
Mitlacher, L. W. and Welker, A. (2010) Remuneration systems, employer

attractiveness and demographic change: An analysis of anaesthetists in German
ix
hospitals, Journal of Management & Marketing in Healthcare, 3 (4), pp. 272-284.
DOI: 10.1179/175330310X12918040319739.
Nugroho, A. H. and Liswandi (2018) The influence of employer attractiveness,

corporate reputation and the use of social media towards intention to apply for a
job, International Journal of Management, Accounting & Economics, 5 (7), pp. 553-
565. Available from:
https://lsbu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct
=true&db=buh&AN=131442511&site=eds-live [Accessed 8 January 2022].
Pallant, J. (2020) SPSS Survival Manual: A Step-by-Step Guide to Data Analysis Using
IBM SPSS. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education. Available
from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lsbuuk/detail.action?docID=6260745.
[Accessed 19 June 2022].
Pilny A. and Rösel F. (2021) Personalfluktuation in deutschen Krankenhäusern:

Jeder sechste Mitarbeiter wechselt den Job, in: Klauber, J., Wasem, J., Beivers, A.
and Mostert, C. (eds.) Krankenhaus-Report 2021. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer,
pp.267-274. Available from:
https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/48270 [Accessed 20 May 2022].
Ployhart, R. E. (2006) Staffing in the 21st century: New challenges and strategic
opportunities, Journal of Management, 32 (6), pp. 868-897. DOI:
10.1177/0149206306293625
Reifgerste, C., Fischer, A., Podtchassova, E. and Schmicker, S. (2017) Was der
Pflegenachwuchs will. Erwartungen an Arbeitgeber aus der Sicht von
Pflegeschülerinnen und Pflegeschülern. Available from:
https://metop.de/fileadmin/user_upload/metop_broschu__re_web-pdf.pdf
[Accessed 27 June 2022].
Reis, G. G. and Braga, B. M. (2016) Employer attractiveness from a generational

perspective: Implications for employer branding, Revista De Administração (São
Paulo), 51 (1), pp. 103-116. DOI: 10.5700/rausp1226.
Renkawitz, T., Schuster, T., Benditz, A., Craiovan, B., Grifka, J. and Lechler, P. (2013)
Was Medizinstudierende wollen – Einschätzung ärztlicher Stellenanzeigen durch
angehende Ärztinnen und Ärzte der Humanmedizin, Das Gesundheitswesen, 75
(10), pp. e149-e155. DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1331785.
Ruchika, P. A. (2019) Untapped relationship between employer branding,

anticipatory psychological contract and intent to join, Global Business Review, 20
(1), pp. 194-213. DOI: 10.1177/0972150917713897.
Rynes, S. L., Bretz Jr, R. D. and Gerhart, B. (1991) The importance of recruitment in
job choice: A different way of looking, Personnel Psychology, 44 (3), pp. 487-521.
x
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2019) Research Methods for Business
Students Ebook. 8th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education, Limited. Available from:
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lsbuuk/detail.action?docID=5774742
Slåtten, T., Lien, G. and Svenkerud, P. J. (2019) The role of organizational

attractiveness in an internal market-oriented culture (IMOC): A study of hospital
frontline employees, BMC Health Services Research, 19 (1), pp. 1-15. DOI:
10.1186/s12913-019-4144-8.
Spence, M. (1973) Job market signaling, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87 (3), pp.
355-374.
Springer Medizin (2018) Studie zeigt Defizite: Die Mehrheit sieht einen
Pflegenotstand, Pflegezeitschrift, 71 (11), pp. 43-50. DOI: 10.1007/s41906-018-
0766-4.
Steckl, M., Simshäuser, U. and Niederberger, M. (2019) Arbeitgeberattraktivität aus

Sicht der Generation Z, Prävention Und Gesundheitsförderung, 14 (3), pp. 212-217.
DOI: 10.1007/s11553-019-00703-w.
Stewart, C., Nodoushani, O. and Stumpf, J. (2018) Cultivating employees using

Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Competition Forum, American Society for
Competitiveness, 16(2), pp. 67-75. Available from:
https://www.proquest.com/openview/064449085a557cc2456df8989345f7e8/1?pq
-origsite=gscholar&cbl=39801 [Accessed 29 June 2022].
Thompson, R. J., Payne, S. C. and Taylor, A. B. (2015) Applicant attraction to flexible

work arrangements: Separating the influence of flextime and flexplace, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88 (4), pp. 726-749. DOI:
10.1111/joop.12095.
Trybou, J., Gemmel, P., Van Vaerenbergh, Y. and Annemans, L. (2014) Hospital-
physician relations: The relative importance of economic, relational and
professional attributes to organizational attractiveness, BMC Health Services
Research, 14 (1), pp. 1-9. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-232.
Tsai W. C. and Yang I. W. F. (2010) Does image matter to different job applicants?
The influences of corporate image and applicant individual differences on
organizational attractiveness, Int Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(1), pp. 48-
63. Doi: 10.1111/j.1468- 2389.2010.00488.x.
Turban, D. B. and Greening, D. W. (1997) Corporate social performance and

organizational attractiveness to prospective employees, Academy of Management
Journal, 40 (3), pp. 658-672. DOI: 10.2307/257057.
xi
Verčič, A. T., Ćorić, D. S. and Vokić, N. P. (2021) Measuring internal communication
satisfaction: Validating the internal communication satisfaction
questionnaire, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 26 (3), pp. 589-
604. DOI: 10.1108/CCIJ-01-2021-0006.
Waeschle, R. M., Schmidt, C. and Mörstedt, A. (2021) Die Generationen Y und Z –

Neue Herausforderungen für Führungskräfte im Krankenhaus, Der Anaesthesist, 70
(12), pp. 1011-1021. DOI: 10.1007/s00101-021-01026-2.
Winter, V. and Thaler, J. (2016) Does motivation matter for employer choices? A
discrete-choice analysis of medical students’ decisions among public, non-profit,
and for-profit hospitals, Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45 (4), pp. 762-
786. DOI: 10.1177/0899764015597784.
Wilcox, R. R. (2012) Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis

Testing. Amsterdam: Academic Press. Available from:
https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/ZTAwMHh3d19fNDUzOD
QyX19BTg2?sid=27e0d0c6-14a7-490a-94c2-
a08eb7e42139@redis&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1 [Accessed 28 July 2022].
Wilden, R., Gudergan, S. and Lings, I. (2010) Employer branding: Strategic

implications for staff recruitment, Journal of Marketing Management, 26 (1-2), pp.
56-73. DOI: 10.1080/02672570903577091.
Wörtler, B., Van Yperen, N. W. and Barelds, D. P. (2021) Do blended working

arrangements enhance organizational attractiveness and organizational citizenship
behaviour intentions? an individual difference perspective, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 30 (4), pp. 581-599. DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2020.1844663.
Yin, R. K. (2018) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sixth
ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Zacher, H., Dirkers, B. T., Korek, S. and Hughes, B. (2017) Age-differential effects of
job characteristics on job attraction: A policy-capturing study, Frontiers in
Psychology, 8, pp. 1110-1124. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01124.
xii
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Survey questionnaire (English translation)
Study on employer attractiveness in the Northern German healthcare sector
Dear Participant,
this study addresses nursing trainees (apprenticeship students) and employees of the
health and care sector in Schleswig-Holstein (specifically nursing assistants and
nursing professionals).
Thank you very much for taking part in this survey!
The results of the survey will help to identify factors that are important for the
attractiveness of employers within the Northern German health care sector. This can
help to develop strategies for companies to make them more attractive to both
potential and current employees.
The evaluation of the survey is part of my master’s thesis at London South Bank
University. I am happy to share the results of the survey on request.
Participation in the survey is voluntary and completely anonymous; the survey can
be cancelled at any time. Data is collected in compliance with GDPR and Data
Protection Act.
Filling out the questionnaire takes 10 minutes maximum.
Please note the following when answering the questions:
o Please answer all questions completely and independently.

o Please choose one answer category at a time.
o Answer as spontaneously and honestly as possible. There are no right or wrong
answers. It's all about your judgment and experience.
If you have any questions or further comments, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Contact: Carolin Lubanski, email: [email protected]
Participation in the survey requires a minimum age of 18 years.
I have read the information about the study; I am at least 18 years old and agree to
voluntarily take part in the survey:
YES ☐ NO ☐
xiii
Only YES leads to the next part of survey:
Filter questions
I am currently an apprenticeship student training to become a nurse in Schleswig-
Holstein or I am currently working as a nurse in a healthcare facility in Schleswig-
Holstein.
YES ☐ NO ☐
If NO:
I am currently undergoing training or studying a course related to the health sector:
YES ☐ NO ☐ please specify training/ course of study: ____________
If NO -> end of survey because does not meet the target group.
Part 1 (Group A + Group B)
1.1 Imagine you are applying to a company. How important are the following
aspects for you to evaluate the employer as "attractive" (regardless of your
current employer)?
Not at Low Neutral Importa Very Not

all importan nt importa applicab
importa ce nt le
nt
Outside the ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
job
activities
(e.g., team
events)
Appreciatio ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
n and
recognition
of workers
Reliable ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
colleagues
Recognition ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
/ awareness
of company
A fair ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
leadership
culture
Social ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
commitmen
xiv
t of the
company
Good ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
reputation
among
friends and
acquaintanc
es
Good team ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
atmosphere
Offer of ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
training and
developmen
t
opportuniti
es
Not Slightly Moderat Importa Very

importa importan ly nt importa
nt t importa nt
nt
Proximity to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
the place of
residence
Variety of ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
tasks
A good ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
work-life-
balance
(Clear
temporal
boundaries
between
work and
private life)
High ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
workplace
security
Responsible ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
tasks
Good ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
working
hours/
xv
possibility
to schedule
hours
flexible
Good salary ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Possibility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
of career
enhanceme
nt
Reliable ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
work
scheduling
Performanc ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
e bonus
Involvement ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
in
operational
processes
and
decisions
A reliable ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
supervisor
that
supports me
when I have
problems
Family ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
friendliness
Good ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
quality of
patient
care/
enough
time for
patient care
Modern, ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
technically
up-to-date
work
environmen
t
On-site ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
childcare
xvi
Connection ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
to a large
city
Accessibility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
by public
transport
Self-care ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
offers (e.g.,
access to
sports,
wellness,
relaxation)
1.2. To what extent do you use the following possibilities to inform yourself about
a potential employer?
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always

Company Website ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Facebook ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Instagram ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
LinkedIn ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Job-platform (e.g., ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Monster,
Stepstone)
Company info ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
brochure
Job fair ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Recommendations ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
from acquaintances
Rating platforms ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(e.g., Kununu,
Glassdor)
TikTok ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1.3 Can you imagine working as a nurse in a rehabilitation clinic? Yes ☐ No ☐
1.4. Do you have knowledge about the contents of the work of a nurse in a
rehabilitation clinic?
Yes ☐ No ☐
Part 2
xvii
The following part refers to your current employer. Please agree that you are
employed by an employer. Apprentices can also rate their employer if they have
already completed a practical phase.
Yes, I am employed by a company ☐
No (I have no work experience yet) ☐
If NO ->part 3 directly
If yes -> 2.1
2.1 The following part refers to your current employer. Please answer to what
extent you agree with the following statements:
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Not

disagree agree or agree applicabl
disagree e
My current ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
employer
promotes
outside the
job activities
(e.g., team
events)
employer
knows how
to value its
employers
I have ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
reliable
colleagues
employer is
well known
and
respected
within the
region.
There is a ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
fair
xviii
leadership
culture
employer
shows social
engagement
employer
has a good
reputation
among
friends and
acquaintanc
es
There is a ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
good team
atmosphere
employer
provides
training and
developmen
t
opportunitie
s
Not Slightly Moderat Very

importa importa ly Importa importa
nt nt importan nt nt
t
employer is
close to my
place of
residence
At my ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
current job I
have varied
tasks
company
makes effort
to provide a
good work-
xix
life balance
(Clear
temporal
boundaries
between
work and
private life)
employer
provides
high
workplace
security
At my ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
current job I
have
responsible
tasks
employer
provides
good
working
hours/
possibility to
schedule
hours
flexible
..good salary ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
..possibility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
of career
enhanceme
nt
..reliable ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
work
scheduling
..performan ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
ce bonus
employer
involves me
in
operational
processes
xx
and
decisions
I have a ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
reliable
supervisor
that
supports me
when I have
problems
employer
provides
family
friendly
measures
employer
pays
attention to
good quality
of patient
care/
enough time
for patient
care
I work in a ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
modern,
technically
up-to-date
work
environmen
t
employer
offers on-
site
childcare
employer is
connected
to a large
city
I can access ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
my
xxi
employer by
public
transport
employer
provides
self-care
offers (e.g.,
access to
sports,
wellness,
relaxation)
2.2 Please answer the following statements:
Strongly Disagree Undecided Disagree Strongly

disagree disagree
My current ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
employer is
attractive to me as
a place for
employment.
I would recommend ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
my current
employer as an
employer to my
friends.
I would advise ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
potential
candidates to
apply with my
current employer.
I like to work for ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
my current
employer.
Part 3
Finally, I would like to ask you to provide some personal information. These are for
statistical analysis purposes only. No conclusions about individuals or individual
responses harming your anonymity can be drawn.
My age (Group A and B)

18 – 25 26-35 36- 45 46-55 >56
xxii
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
I am (Group A and B)
Female Male Divers Prefer not to
say
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
I’m employed at a (Group A and B)

Care home Hospital Rehabilitation Other (please specify)
clinic
☐ ☐ ☐
Filter question:
What applies to you?

I am an apprenticeship student ☐
->Group A
I am employed in a company ☐
->Group B
I am within my … year of apprenticeship/training (Group A only)

1st year 2nd 3rd
☐ ☐ ☐
Currently I’m employed as (Group B only)
Nursing Nursing Other (please specify)

assistant specialist
☐ ☐
At my current employer I work since.. (Group B only)

Less than one 1 to 3 years 4 to 7 years 7 to 10 years More than 10
year years
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Mostly I work (Group B only)

Ambulant Stationary Day care Other (please
specify)
☐ ☐ ☐
xxiii
If you have any comments to make about the study:
____________________________________________________________________
Thank you very much for your participation!
I would be very pleased if you forward the survey to friends/ acquaintances/

colleagues who correspond to the target group of this survey (nursing trainees,
nursing staff in Schleswig-Holstein). Simply share this link
https://lsbu.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/umfrage
If you have any questions or are interested in the survey, please contact me at
[email protected]
Appendix 2: Test for reliability
Cronbach's Alpha Mean inter-item correlation

Employer attractiveness 0.937
Economic value 0.74
Social value 0.718
Development value 0.631 0.471
Application value 0.582 0.416
Interest value 0.598 0.33
Work conditions 0.676 0.24
organisational support 0.215 0.219

work culture 0.762
leadership support 0.493 0.328
work-life-balance 0.413 0.275
family friendliness 0.449 0.307
work environment 0.563 0.347
location/infrastructure 0.567 0.296
>0.9 = excellent;
>0.7 =
acceptable; for should be between 0.2 and
small scales >0.5 0.4 if Cronbach's Alpha value
Explanation acceptable not met (<0.5)
xxiv
Appendix 3: Descriptive statistics independent variables
Mean Std. Deviation

company_image 3.1094 0.78339
location_infrastructure 3.3021 0.84733
Self-care offers 3.37 1.239
Familiy_friendliness 3.6621 0.89885
work_tasks 4.1465 0.644
Organisational_support 4.2812 0.55748
Professional_development 4.2988 0.6942
Work_life_balance 4.4219 0.61656
Salary_financial_benefits 4.4746 0.62335
High workplace security 4.48 0.719
work_environment 4.5586 0.47145
Leadership_support 4.6035 0.53324
Work_culture 4.8242 0.46056
Valid N (listwise) = 256
Appendix 4: Comparison of all independent items – students vs employees
xxv
Appendix 5: SPSS output independent group t-test
Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
Sig. 95% Confidence
(2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Difference
Lower Upper
- -
Salary_financial_benefits Equal variances assumed 0.314 0.575 0.791 254 0.43 -0.06476 0.08187 0.22599 0.09647
- -
Equal variances not assumed 0.783 174.7 0.435 -0.06476 0.08269 0.22796 0.09845
- -
Organisational_support Equal variances assumed 0.002 0.963 1.527 254 0.128 -0.11142 0.07297 0.25513 0.03229
- -
- - -
Leadership_support Equal variances assumed 2.027 0.156 2.179 254 0.03 -0.15135 0.06947 0.28817 0.01453
- - -
- -
Work_life_balance Equal variances assumed 0.012 0.914 0.521 254 0.603 -0.04225 0.08103 0.20184 0.11733
- -
Familiy_friendliness Equal variances assumed 1.654 0.2 2.196 254 0.029 0.25711 0.11709 0.02652 0.48771
Equal variances not assumed 2.102 158.919 0.037 0.25711 0.12233 0.01551 0.49872
-
Work_culture Equal variances assumed 0.539 0.463 0.528 254 0.598 0.03196 0.06053 0.08725 0.15116
-
xxvi
Professional_development Equal variances assumed 1.735 0.189 2.994 254 0.003 0.26862 0.08972 0.09194 0.4453
- -
work_tasks Equal variances assumed 0.079 0.779 0.298 254 0.766 -0.0252 0.08467 0.19194 0.14155
-
Equal variances not assumed 0.306 194.419 0.76 -0.0252 0.08234 -0.1876 0.13721
-
company_image Equal variances assumed 0.036 0.849 0.457 254 0.648 0.0471 0.10297 0.15569 0.24988
-
-
work_environment Equal variances assumed 0.452 0.502 -0.45 254 0.653 -0.02788 0.06197 0.14992 0.09416
- -
location_infrastructure Equal variances assumed 0.659 0.418 3.352 254 0.001 0.36547 0.10904 0.15074 0.5802
High workplace security Equal variances assumed 1.72 0.191 0.868 254 0.386 0.082 0.094 -0.104 0.268
Equal variances not assumed 0.826 156.277 0.41 0.082 0.099 -0.114 0.278
Self-care offers Equal variances assumed 2.251 0.135 2.207 254 0.028 0.356 0.161 0.038 0.674
xxvii
Appendix 6: Descriptive statistics internal perspective
Descriptive Statistics internal perspective

Std.
Independent Variables N Mean Deviation
My current employer involves me in operational processes and decisions 245 2.52 1.182
I am adequately compensated for my efforts and responsibilities 246 2.86 1.152
My current employer provides good working hours 249 2.9 1.239
My current employer offers on-site childcare 241 2.98 1.639
My current employer pays attention to good quality of patient care 251 3 1.142
My current employer provides family friendly measures 239 3.03 1.148
My current employer provides self-care offers 248 3.06 1.307
My current employer has a good reputation among friends and
acquaintances 249 3.06 1.076
My current employer knows how to value its employers 251 3.11 1.126
Reliable work scheduling 249 3.2 1.156
My current employer promotes outside the job activities (e.g., team
events) 249 3.24 1.196
My current employer is connected to a large city 250 3.3 1.336
I would recommend my current employer as an employer to my friends. 251 3.37 1.171
There is a good team atmosphere 250 3.38 0.988
There is a fair leadership culture 249 3.44 1.05
performance bonus 248 3.46 1.172
I would advise potential candidates to apply with my current employer. 248 3.47 1.091
I work in a modern, technically up-to-date work environment 251 3.52 1.044
My current employer is attractive to me as a place for employment. 250 3.55 1.112
I have a reliable supervisor that supports me when I have problems 250 3.58 1.19
I have reliable colleagues 251 3.63 0.873
I have the possibility to enhance my career 247 3.65 1.169
My current employer shows social engagement 248 3.67 1.056
I like to work for my current employer. 249 3.76 1.076
At my current job I have varied tasks 250 3.8 0.981
professional_development_CE 251 3.8287 1.01614
I can access my employer by public transport 250 3.92 1.286
My current employer provides training and development opportunities 251 4 1.064
At my current job I have responsible tasks 251 4.13 0.881
My current employer provides high workplace security 249 4.17 0.969
My current employer is well known and respected within the region. 250 4.4 0.831
Dependent variable
Std.
N Mean Deviation
My current employer is attractive to me as a place for employment. 250 3.55 1.112
I would recommend my current employer as an employer to my friends. 251 3.37 1.171
I would advise potential candidates to apply with my current employer. 248 3.47 1.091
xxviii
I like to work for my current employer. 249 3.76 1.076
Employer_attractiveness (variable summary) 251 3.5309 1.02776
Appendix 7: Collinearity statistics
Coefficients
Correlations Collinearity Statistics
Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance VIF
(Constant)
Salary_financial_benefits_CE 0.489 -0.024 -0.015 0.5 2
organisational_support_CE 0.629 0.14 0.089 0.376 2.66
leadership_support_CE 0.609 0.11 0.069 0.435 2.299
WLB_CE_2 0.612 0.099 0.062 0.416 2.404
family_friendliness_CE_2 0.305 0.048 0.03 0.572 1.748
work_culture_CE 0.543 0.153 0.097 0.604 1.657
professional_development 0.497
CE 0.041 0.026 0.448 2.23
work_tasks_CE 0.498 0.057 0.036 0.574 1.741
company_image_CE 0.546 0.092 0.058 0.525 1.904
work_environment_CE 0.687 0.259 0.169 0.385 2.601
location_CE 0.157 0.017 0.011 0.753 1.329
workplace_security_CE 0.48 0.167 0.106 0.698 1.433
self-care offers_CE 0.244 -0.089 -0.056 0.698 1.433
Dependent Variable: Employer_attractiveness
Appendix 8: Normal Probability Plot
xxix
Appendix 9: Scatterplot
Appendix 10: Copy of SPSS Syntax
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.
1. Data cleaning
SAVE OUTFILE='/Users/carolinlubanski/Documents/Capstone project/resullts-cleaned

data.sav'
/COMPRESSED.
CODEBOOK Q3_a [n] Activities [n] Employee_recognition [n] reliable_colleagues [n]
recognition [n]
fair_leadership_culture [n] social_engagement [n] reputation [n] team_atomosphere [n]
development
[n] location_1 [n] task_variety [n] WLB [n] Security [n] task_responsibility [n]
flexible_work [n]
salary [n] career_enhancement [n] work_scheduling [n] performance_bonus [n]
Involvement [n]
reliable_supervisor [n] family_friendliness [n] care_quality [n] modern_environment [n]
childcare_facilities [n] city_proximity [n] public_transport [n] selfcare_offers [n]
employer_attractiveness_3 [n] employer_attractiveness_4 [n] Age [n] Gender [n]
Type_employer [n]
Filter_external_internal [n] apprenticeship_year [n] occupation [n] tenure [n]
/VARINFO POSITION LABEL TYPE FORMAT MEASURE ROLE VALUELABELS MISSING
ATTRIBUTES
/OPTIONS VARORDER=VARLIST SORT=ASCENDING MAXCATS=200
/STATISTICS COUNT PERCENT MEAN STDDEV QUARTILES.
xxx
2. Test for reliability

data.sav'
/COMPRESSED.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=employer_attractiveness_1 employer_attractiveness_2
employer_attractiveness_3
/SCALE('Employer attractiveness scale') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR
/SUMMARY=TOTAL MEANS CORR.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=salary performance_bonus Security
/SCALE('Economic value') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=Employee_recognition Involvement fair_leadership_culture
reliable_colleagues
team_atomosphere reliable_supervisor family_friendliness flexible_work
childcare_facilities WLB
/SCALE('Social value') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=career_enhancement development
/SCALE('Development value') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=task_variety task_responsibility
/SCALE('Application value') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
xxxi
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=reputation social_engagement recognition
/SCALE('Interest value') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=location_1 care_quality modern_environment city_proximity public_transport
selfcare_offers work_scheduling
/SCALE('Work conditions') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
Test reliability all independent variables:
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=team_atomosphere reliable_colleagues Activities
/SCALE('team atmosphere') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/STATISTICS=SCALE CORR
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=Involvement Employee_recognition
/SCALE('organisational support') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=fair_leadership_culture reliable_supervisor
/SCALE('leadership support') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=flexible_work WLB
/SCALE('WLB') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
xxxii
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=family_friendliness childcare_facilities
/SCALE('family friendliness') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=modern_environment care_quality work_scheduling
/SCALE('work environment') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=city_proximity public_transport location_1
/SCALE('location') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA

data.sav'
/COMPRESSED.
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.

data.sav'
/COMPRESSED.
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Age Gender Type_employer Filter_external_internal
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.
3. Descriptive statistic
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Age Gender Type_employer Q16_a Filter_external_internal

apprenticeship_year
occupation Q19_a tenure type_occupation Q19_c_i
/STATISTICS=STDDEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN MEDIAN MODE
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
RECODE Age (18 thru 25=1) (26 thru 35=2) (36 thru 45=3) (46 thru 55=4) (56 thru 65=5) (66
thru
75=6) INTO Age_group.
EXECUTE.
xxxiii
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Age_group
/STATISTICS=STDDEV MEAN MEDIAN MODE
/PIECHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Age_group
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
4. Factors of employer attractiveness
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Activities Employee_recognition reliable_colleagues recognition

fair_leadership_culture social_engagement reputation team_atomosphere development
location_1
task_variety WLB Security task_responsibility flexible_work salary career_enhancement
work_scheduling performance_bonus Involvement reliable_supervisor family_friendliness
care_quality
modern_environment childcare_facilities city_proximity public_transport selfcare_offers
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX
/SORT=MEAN (A).
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Activities Employee_recognition reliable_colleagues recognition

location_1
care_quality
modern_environment childcare_facilities city_proximity public_transport selfcare_offers
/HISTOGRAM NORMAL
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
5. Computing Variables
All items:
COMPUTE Salary_financial_benefits=MEAN(salary,performance_bonus).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE Organisational_support=MEAN(Involvement,Employee_recognition).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE Leadership_support=MEAN(fair_leadership_culture,reliable_supervisor).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE Work_life_balance=MEAN(WLB,flexible_work).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE Familiy_friendliness=MEAN(family_friendliness,childcare_facilities).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE Work_culture=MEAN(team_atomosphere,reliable_colleagues).
EXECUTE.
xxxiv
COMPUTE Professional_development=MEAN(development,career_enhancement).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE work_tasks=MEAN(task_responsibility,task_variety).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE company_image=MEAN(reputation,social_engagement,recognition).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE work_environment=MEAN(work_scheduling,care_quality,modern_environment).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE location_infrastructure=MEAN(location_1,city_proximity,public_transport).
EXECUTE.
Dimensions of employer attractiveness:
COMPUTE economic_value=MEAN(salary,Security).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE
social_value=MEAN(team_atomosphere,fair_leadership_culture,WLB,flexible_work,Involve
ment,
reliable_supervisor,family_friendliness,childcare_facilities,reliable_colleagues,Employee_rec
ognition).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE
work_conditions=MEAN(work_scheduling,modern_environment,city_proximity,public_tran
sport,health_promotion,
care_quality,location_1).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE development_value=MEAN(development,career_enhancement).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE application_value=MEAN(task_variety,task_responsibility).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE interest_value=MEAN(reputation,social_engagement,recognition).
EXECUTE.
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=economic_value social_value work_conditions

development_value
application_value interest_value
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.
6.Test for normal distribution
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Security health_promotion Salary_financial_benefits

Organisational_support
Leadership_support Work_life_balance Familiy_friendliness Work_culture
Professional_development
work_tasks company_image work_environment location_infrastructure
xxxv
/FORMAT=NOTABLE
/STATISTICS=SKEWNESS SESKEW KURTOSIS SEKURT
/HISTOGRAM NORMAL
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
EXAMINE VARIABLES=Salary_financial_benefits Organisational_support Leadership_support

Work_life_balance Familiy_friendliness Work_culture Professional_development
work_tasks
company_image work_environment location_infrastructure
/PLOT BOXPLOT NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.
Filtering for only students:
USE ALL.
COMPUTE filter_$=(Filter_external_internal = 1).
VARIABLE LABELS filter_$ 'Filter_external_internal = 1 (FILTER)'.
VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'.
FORMATS filter_$ (f1.0).
FILTER BY filter_$.
EXECUTE.

location_1
care_quality
modern_environment childcare_facilities city_proximity public_transport
health_promotion
/SORT=MEAN (A).

location_1
care_quality
health_promotion
xxxvi
/STATISTICS=STDDEV MEAN
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=reliable_colleagues Salary_financial_benefits

work_tasks company_image work_environment location_infrastructure Security
health_promotion
/SORT=MEAN (A).
Channel use:
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Q6_1 Q6_2 Q6_3 Q6_4 Q6_5 Q6_6 Q6_7 Q6_8 Q6_9 Q6_10
/SORT=MEAN (A).
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Q6_1 Q6_2 Q6_3 Q6_4 Q6_5 Q6_6 Q6_7 Q6_8 Q6_9 Q6_10
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Filtering for only workers:
USE ALL.
COMPUTE filter_$=(Filter_external_internal = 2).
VARIABLE LABELS filter_$ 'Filter_external_internal = 2 (FILTER)'.
VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'.
FORMATS filter_$ (f1.0).
FILTER BY filter_$.
EXECUTE.
channel:
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Q6_1 Q6_2 Q6_3 Q6_4 Q6_5 Q6_6 Q6_7 Q6_8 Q6_9 Q6_10
/SORT=MEAN (A).
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Q6_1 Q6_2 Q6_3 Q6_4 Q6_5 Q6_6 Q6_7 Q6_8 Q6_9 Q6_10
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
7.Factors employer attractivenes:
xxxvii
location_1
care_quality
health_promotion
/SORT=MEAN (A).

location_1
care_quality
health_promotion Q6_4
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Employee_recognition Salary_financial_benefits

work_tasks company_image work_environment location_infrastructure
health_promotion Security
/SORT=MEAN (A).
FILTER OFF.
USE ALL.
EXECUTE.
8.T-Test
T-TEST GROUPS=Filter_external_internal(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Salary_financial_benefits Organisational_support Leadership_support
Work_life_balance
Familiy_friendliness Work_culture Professional_development work_tasks
company_image
work_environment location_infrastructure Security health_promotion
/ES DISPLAY(TRUE)
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
xxxviii
9.internal perspective
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=activities_employer employee_recognition_CE

reliable_colleagues_CE
recognition_CE fair_leadership_culture_CE social_engagement_CE reputation_CE
team_atmosphere_CE
development_CE location_1_CE WLB_CE security_CE task_responsibility_CE
flexible_work_CE
career_enhancement_CE work_scheduling_CE task_variety_CE health_promotion_CE
performance_bonus_CE
family_friendliness_CE childcare_CE involvement_CE salary_CE reliable_supervisor_CE
care_quality_CE
modern_environment_CE city_proximity_CE public_transport_CE
employer_attractiveness_2 employer_attractiveness_3 employer_attractiveness_4
/SORT=MEAN (A).
COMPUTE
Employer_attractiveness=MEAN(employer_attractiveness_1,employer_attractiveness_2,
employer_attractiveness_3,employer_attractiveness_4).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE Salary_financial_benefits_CE=MEAN(performance_bonus_CE,salary_CE).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE organisational_support_CE=MEAN(employee_recognition_CE,involvement_CE).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE
leadership_support_CE=MEAN(fair_leadership_culture_CE,reliable_supervisor_CE).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE WLB_CE_2=MEAN(flexible_work_CE, WLB_CE).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE family_friendliness_CE_2=MEAN(family_friendliness_CE,childcare_CE).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE work_culture_CE=MEAN(reliable_colleagues_CE,team_atmosphere_CE).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE
professional_development_CE=MEAN(development_CE,career_enhancement_CE).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE work_tasks_CE=MEAN(task_variety_CE,task_responsibility_CE).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE
company_image_CE=MEAN(recognition_CE,social_engagement_CE,reputation_CE).
EXECUTE.
xxxix
COMPUTE
work_environment_CE=MEAN(modern_environment_CE,work_scheduling_CE,care_quality
_CE).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE location_CE=MEAN(public_transport_CE,city_proximity_CE,location_1_CE).
EXECUTE.
10. Relationships between variables
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=Employer_attractiveness Salary_financial_benefits_CE
organisational_support_CE
leadership_support_CE WLB_CE_2 family_friendliness_CE_2 work_culture_CE
professional_development_CE
work_tasks_CE company_image_CE work_environment_CE location_CE
health_promotion_CE security_CE
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG FULL
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
REGRESSION
/DESCRIPTIVES MEAN STDDEV CORR SIG N
/MISSING PAIRWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA COLLIN TOL CHANGE ZPP
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT Employer_attractiveness
/METHOD=ENTER Salary_financial_benefits_CE organisational_support_CE
leadership_support_CE
WLB_CE_2 family_friendliness_CE_2 work_culture_CE professional_development_CE
work_tasks_CE
company_image_CE work_environment_CE location_CE security_CE
health_promotion_CE
/SCATTERPLOT=(*ZRESID ,*ZPRED)
/RESIDUALS NORMPROB(ZRESID)
/CASEWISE PLOT(ZRESID) OUTLIERS(3)
/SAVE MAHAL COOK.
xl

CBP 84%

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CBP 84%

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CBP 84%

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capstone business project

Value-driving factors for employer attractiveness within the Northern

Module name: Capstone Business Project (MBA-7-CBP)

Table 1: Dimensions of employer attractiveness....................................................... 13

Figure 1: The holistic perspective of employer attractiveness .................................. 11

Student ID: 4026621 1

1.1 Research question and objectives

- To investigate the value-driving factors for employer attractiveness in the

Student ID: 4026621 2

1.2 Context and company background

1.3 The significance of the study

Student ID: 4026621 3

2.1 Theoretical framework

Student ID: 4026621 4

2.1.2 Employer attractiveness

Student ID: 4026621 5

Student ID: 4026621 6

2.2 Previous research

Student ID: 4026621 7

2.3 Employer attractiveness in the healthcare sector context

The relevance of studying organisational attractiveness in the healthcare sector was

Student ID: 4026621 8

A Canadian study surveying students and recent graduates of nursing classes

A few studies have analysed employer attractiveness in relation to the German

Student ID: 4026621 9

Student ID: 4026621 10

Figure 1: The holistic perspective of employer attractiveness

2.4.1 Dimensions of employer attractiveness and hypotheses

Student ID: 4026621 11

Student ID: 4026621 12

H2 - There is a difference between the considered value-driving factors for employer

The differentiation of the construct employer attractiveness into an internal and

Student ID: 4026621 13

3.1.1 Research philosophy and research approach

3.1.2 Research strategy

To identify factors of employer attractiveness and address the defined hypotheses

Student ID: 4026621 14

3.2.2 Instrument and measurement

A questionnaire survey was carefully designed as a research instrument and was

Student ID: 4026621 15

Student ID: 4026621 16

Student ID: 4026621 17

Dimensions Independent Scale/ Items external Items internal perspective

Job security Trybou et High workplace My current employer

Social value Organisational Trybou et Involvement in My current employer

Student ID: 4026621 18

On-site childcare My current employer

Outside the job My company promotes

Possibility of career My current employer

Recognition/ My current employer is

Student ID: 4026621 19

Modern, technically I work in a modern,

Connection to a large My current employer is

Accessibility by public I can access my employer

Health Reifgerste Self-care offers (e.g., My current employer

3.2.3 Data collection

Student ID: 4026621 20

3.3 Data Analysis

Student ID: 4026621 21

The researcher's integrity, fairness, and open-mindedness have an impact on the

3.Organisational support .629 .613 1

4.Leadership support .609 .453 .640** 1

5.WLB .612 .561 .654 .565 1

6. Family friendliness .305 .375 .270 .241 .329** 1

7.Work culture .543 .399 .508 .532 .483** .159* 1

8.Professional development .497 .544 .517 .465 .550 .508 .310** 1