Employment Intention (EI)

1. Abstract

The Employment Intention (EI) scale, developed by Sankar Sen, C. B. Bhattacharya, and Daniel Korschun (2006), is a concise, psychometrically validated four-item self-report instrument designed to quantify an individual’s subjective probability, preference, and deliberate behavioral commitment toward seeking and accepting employment within a designated target organization. Rooted in the intersection of Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, Social Identity Theory, and organizational signaling mechanisms, the instrument conceptualizes employment intention as a unidimensional conative construct that mediates the relationship between external organizational perceptions—most notably Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, employer brand prestige, and perceived organizational values—and actual job application or job choice behavior.

Administered via a standard 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”), the measure assesses general employment desire, comparative industry preference, active job pursuit propensity, and immediate forced-choice priority. Methodological evaluations across experimental, field, and organizational psychology samples demonstrate strong internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha typically exceeding .85 to .92) and rigorous structural validity through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Confirmatory factor models consistently support a single-factor, unidimensional architecture characterized by standardized factor loadings ranging from .78 to .93, superior goodness-of-fit indices (e.g., CFI > .97, TLI > .95, RMSEA < .06), and robust convergent and discriminant validity relative to neighboring constructs such as general organizational attractiveness, corporate reputation, and consumer purchase intentions. By offering an efficient, psychometrically sound, and easily adaptable tool, the Employment Intention scale serves as a standard metric in vocational behavior, human resource management, stakeholder engagement research, and applied organizational recruitment studies.

2. Keywords

Employment Intention, Organizational Attractiveness, Corporate Social Responsibility, Job Pursuit Intentions, Employer Branding, Signaling Theory, Person-Organization Fit, Recruitment Psychometrics, Stakeholder Relationships, Conative Attitudes

3. Authors

The Employment Intention (EI) scale was formulated and validated by prominent scholars in organizational behavior, marketing strategy, and stakeholder psychology:

• Sankar Sen, Ph.D.: The Lawrence N. Field Professor of Marketing at the Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York (CUNY), New York, NY, USA. Dr. Sen is an internationally recognized expert in stakeholder reactions to corporate social responsibility, corporate sustainability, and consumer decision-making.
• C. B. Bhattacharya, Ph.D.: The H. J. Zoffer Chair in Sustainability and Ethics at the Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Dr. Bhattacharya specializes in organizational identification, business ethics, and the strategic alignment of corporate citizenship with stakeholder psychological engagement.
• Daniel Korschun, Ph.D.: Associate Professor and Department Head of Marketing at the LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Dr. Korschun focuses on employee-organization relationships, frontline stakeholder advocacy, and managerial implementation of ethical initiatives.

4. Purpose

The core objective of the Employment Intention (EI) scale is to evaluate the conative dimension of an individual’s employment-related decision-making process toward a specific organization. While industrial and organizational psychology has historically differentiated between cognitive evaluations (e.g., perceived corporate prestige), affective evaluations (e.g., general organizational attraction or positive organizational sentiment), and conative components (e.g., behavioral intent), empirical investigations frequently conflated general workplace admiration with a concrete willingness to join a firm. Sen, Bhattacharya, and Korschun (2006) introduced this refined instrument to operationalize the explicit, proactive intention of individuals—spanning prospective employees, students, current job seekers, and broader community stakeholders—to pursue vocational affiliation with a target enterprise.

From an applied research and talent acquisition perspective, the scale fulfills multiple complementary purposes:

• Quantifying Recruitment Efficacy: Human resource departments and recruitment researchers employ the scale to determine how specific organizational interventions, recruitment messaging, diversity disclosures, and sustainability commitments alter prospective talent pools’ intent to apply.
• Assessing Multiple Stakeholder Spillover: Developed within an empirical framework analyzing how corporate social responsibility (CSR) influences multiple stakeholder roles concurrently, the scale isolates how an organization’s ethical, environmental, or community initiatives cross over from general consumer goodwill into tangible employment desire.
• Evaluating Competitive Advantage in Labor Markets: Unlike generic attraction scales that evaluate an organization in a structural vacuum, items within the EI scale assess competitive choice dynamics (e.g., preferring the company over industry peers and ranking it as a top choice under real-time conditions).
• Diagnostic Benchmarking for Employer Branding: Strategic management teams deploy the instrument to benchmark organizational reputation, identifying whether public relations campaigns or corporate governance reforms successfully translate into high-caliber applicant inflow.

In theoretical research, the EI scale functions as a pivotal outcome variable or mediating bridge. For instance, it allows investigators to test complex structural equations where perceived organizational ethics or brand equity inform organizational prestige, which subsequently drives employment intention, culminating in verified application submissions. Its concise four-item format mitigates common survey fatigue while maintaining high measurement fidelity across longitudinal, experimental, and cross-sectional research designs.

5. Psychological Construct

The Employment Intention scale captures a unidimensional, conative construct rooted in organizational vocational psychology. In classic psychometric attitudinal theory, attitudes comprise three primary components: affective (feelings and emotional affinity), cognitive (beliefs, knowledge, and evaluations of organizational attributes), and conative (behavioral intentions and deliberate action orientations). Employment intention represents the conative endpoint of this attitudinal progression—the subjective probability or personal resolve that an individual will direct psychological energy and physical effort toward securing a contractual employment relationship with an organization.

Although mathematically unidimensional, the four items operationalize the construct across four conceptually rich facets of behavioral pursuit:

• General Desire for Organizational Affiliation: Reflected in the baseline sentiment of wanting to work for the enterprise (Item 1: “I would like to work for [company]”). This component captures the baseline motivational valence. It moves beyond passive administrative approval to reflect an active, personal aspiration to integrate into the target workforce.
• Comparative Industry Preference: Reflected in an individual’s relative evaluation against industry alternatives (Item 2: “I would prefer to work for [company] over other companies in the same industry”). Employment decisions are inherently competitive; prospective candidates rarely assess opportunities in isolation. This facet captures labor market selectivity, measuring whether the target organization possesses a distinct competitive edge over its direct market rivals.
• Proactive Job Search Behavior Propensity: Reflected in active, effort-expending vocational intent (Item 3: “I would actively seek employment with [company]”). In vocational psychology, passive attraction often fails to transition into application submission due to search frictions and perceived barriers. This item isolates conative resolve, probing whether the respondent is prepared to commit behavioral resources—such as preparing application dossiers, networking, and monitoring corporate career boards.
• Definitive Decision Priority: Reflected in hypothetical real-time decision-making (Item 4: “If I had to make an employment decision today, [company] would be my top choice”). This facet tests the primacy of the organizational brand under simulated ecological conditions, forcing the respondent to integrate trade-offs, immediate availability considerations, and vocational hierarchies to confirm top-tier commitment.

By capturing both absolute intention and comparative prioritization, the construct minimizes social desirability bias and ceiling effects frequently observed in conventional “employer attractiveness” scales, where respondents indiscriminately rate Fortune 500 organizations favorably without any genuine intention of seeking employment.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Employment Intention scale is synthesized from four converging theoretical frameworks within cognitive psychology, organizational behavior, and sociology:

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

Formulated by Icek Ajzen (1991), the Theory of Planned Behavior posits that behavioral intentions serve as the most immediate and accurate cognitive precursors to actual volitional behavior. Intentions summarize an individual’s conscious plan or decision to exert effort to achieve a target behavior. Under TPB, employment intention is determined by three proximal antecedents: attitudes toward the behavior (e.g., evaluating employment at the target firm as beneficial, ethical, or rewarding), subjective norms (e.g., perceived social expectations from mentors, peers, and family regarding the organization’s social prestige), and perceived behavioral control (e.g., self-efficacy regarding qualifications and capability to secure a position). Sen et al. (2006) positioned employment intention as the essential proximal psychological node directly preceding job pursuit actions.

Signaling Theory

Rooted in information economics (Spence, 1973) and extended to organizational recruitment by Rynes (1991), Signaling Theory addresses conditions of information asymmetry. Job seekers possess incomplete knowledge regarding an organization’s true working conditions, leadership ethics, organizational culture, and psychological climate. In response, applicants interpret observable corporate actions—specifically corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, fair-trade certifications, philanthropic actions, and environmental stewardship—as diagnostic “signals” of unobservable organizational traits. High-quality signals lead candidates to infer that the organization treats its employees with dignity, justice, and support, generating elevated trust that directly heightens employment intention.

Social Identity Theory and Organizational Identification

According to Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and its organizational application by Ashforth and Mael (1989), individuals derive a significant portion of their self-concept, social standing, and self-esteem from their formal group memberships. When an organization projects a reputable, socially responsible, and prestigious identity, prospective employees anticipate that association with the firm will enhance their own social standing and self-worth. Consequently, prospective candidates experience anticipated organizational identification, which drives strong behavioral intentions to join the enterprise in order to assimilate that favorable external identity.

Person-Organization Fit (P-O Fit)

Complementing social identity, Person-Organization Fit Theory (Kristof, 1996) suggests that individuals are naturally attracted to and intend to seek employment within organizations whose core values, culture, and social missions mirror their personal value systems. When an organization demonstrates clear normative commitments (e.g., environmental sustainability or community empowerment), candidates who value these principles perceive a high degree of supplementary congruence, which substantially amplifies their employment intention.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Employment Intention scale has been rigorously corroborated across diverse methodological contexts, including laboratory experiments, university recruitment cohorts, and broad stakeholder surveys.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity denotes the degree to which an instrument accurately operationalizes the theoretical entity it purports to measure. In the foundational validation work by Sen, Bhattacharya, and Korschun (2006), confirmatory factor analyses verified that all four scale items converged onto a single overarching latent construct representing employment intention. Standardized factor loadings across the items were universally robust, exceeding the conventional .70 benchmark (ranging from .79 to .91), demonstrating that each item explains substantial shared variance with the primary latent construct.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is verified when the measure correlates strongly with theoretically related yet distinct constructs. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that scores on the Employment Intention scale exhibit substantial, statistically significant positive correlations with:

• General Organizational Attractiveness (measured via Highhouse et al., 2003): (r = .68 ext{ to } .77, p < .001)
• Corporate Reputation / Perceived External Prestige: (r = .54 ext{ to } .66, p < .001)
• Perceived Person-Organization Fit: (r = .58 ext{ to } .71, p < .001)
• Organizational Trust and Corporate Credibility: (r = .49 ext{ to } .62, p < .001)

Furthermore, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for the latent employment intention factor routinely exceeds .65, markedly surpassing the classic Fornell and Larcker (1981) threshold of .50, thereby confirming excellent convergent validity.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity ensures the instrument does not capture neighboring constructs. In Sen et al.’s (2006) multi-stakeholder framework, employment intention was modeled alongside other stakeholder conative intentions, specifically Customer Purchase Intention and Investment Intention. Discriminant validity tests using nested model comparisons (comparing unconstrained models with models where inter-construct correlations were constrained to unity) demonstrated significant chi-square differences ((Delta chi^2 > 25.0, p < .001)). Additionally, the square root of the AVE for employment intention substantially exceeded all inter-construct correlations (e.g., inter-construct correlation with purchase intention rarely exceeded (r = .42)), affirming that employment intention represents a distinct behavioral domain that cannot be reduced to generic consumer goodwill.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion-related validity reflects how effectively scale scores predict objective downstream outcomes. In subsequent recruitment and vocational studies, high baseline scores on the 4-item Employment Intention scale predicted:

• Actual application submission rates during on-campus recruitment campaigns (odds ratios ranging from 1.8 to 2.4).
• Willingness to accept lower starting salaries in exchange for working for socially responsible organizations.
• Information-seeking effort, such as time spent reviewing company career web portals and interacting with company recruiters at job fairs.

8. Reliability

Reliability refers to the internal consistency, precision, and reproducibility of a measurement scale. Across organizational psychology, human resource management, and corporate citizenship literature, the Employment Intention scale has demonstrated consistently high reliability metrics.

Internal Consistency

In the original field experiment conducted by Sen, Bhattacharya, and Korschun (2006), the 4-item instrument achieved an internal consistency reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha, (lpha)) of .89. Subsequent independent replications and contextual adaptations have systematically reaffirmed these findings:

• In university graduate recruitment research investigating CSR dimensions, researchers have reported Cronbach’s alphas between .88 and .93.
• In multi-industry cross-sectional studies examining employer branding and talent attraction, composite reliability (CR) indices for the four-item construct routinely span from .89 to .94.
• Item-total correlations across published samples consistently exceed .72, with no single item’s deletion leading to an improvement in the overall Cronbach’s alpha, confirming that all four statements contribute meaningfully to the scale’s precision.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Although employment intentions are susceptible to shifts based on new organizational disclosures or market circumstances, test-retest evaluations over short-term stability intervals (e.g., two to three weeks within experimental control groups) demonstrate test-retest reliability coefficients ((r_{tt})) ranging between .81 and .86. This demonstrates adequate temporal stability in the absence of external reputational interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

Factor-analytic evaluations of the Employment Intention scale consistently confirm a strictly unidimensional structure, reflecting a parsimonious single latent factor.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

When subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis using Principal Axis Factoring or Maximum Likelihood estimation with Promax or Varimax rotations across varied recruitment samples:

• A single dominant factor invariably emerges based on the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalue > 1.0), with initial eigenvalues for the primary factor typically ranging from 2.80 to 3.40.
• The first factor routinely accounts for 70% to 85% of the total variance among the four items.
• Scree plot visual inspections reveal a sharp, distinct “elbow” immediately following the first factor, confirming the absence of secondary or sub-latent dimensions.
• Unrotated factor loadings across all four items generally range between .81 and .92.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Structural equation modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis confirm that the one-factor measurement model exhibits superior goodness-of-fit indices across diverse demographic and organizational settings. Typical CFA model fit metrics reported in empirical literature include:

• Model Chi-Square ((chi^2)): Yields non-significant or low values relative to degrees of freedom ((chi^2 / df < 2.5)).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Typically exceeds .98 (frequently .985 to .999).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently maintains values above .97.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates typically range from .035 to .058 (with 90% confidence intervals well below the conventional .08 cutoff).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently drop below .025.

Standardized factor loadings ((lambda)) from representative CFA models are exceptionally strong and statistically significant ((p < .001)):

• Item 1 (“I would like to work for [company]”): (lambda pprox .84 – .88)
• Item 2 (“I would prefer to work for [company] over other companies in the same industry”): (lambda pprox .81 – .86)
• Item 3 (“I would actively seek employment with [company]”): (lambda pprox .86 – .91)
• Item 4 (“If I had to make an employment decision today, [company] would be my top choice”): (lambda pprox .88 – .93)

These robust factor loadings verify that each item serves as a sensitive, high-fidelity indicator of the underlying employment intention construct.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the Employment Intention (EI) measurement tool are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Employment Intention (EI) Scale
• Construct Assessed: Individual conative intention, comparative preference, and behavioral resolve to seek and accept employment within a specific organization.
• Test Type: Self-administered psychometric questionnaire; quantitative rating scale.
• Target Population: Prospective job applicants, university students, current workforce professionals, and general community stakeholders evaluating organizational employment potential.
• Number of Items: 4 items.
• Format & Administration: Digital web-based survey or pen-and-paper questionnaire; completion time is typically under 2 minutes.
• Response Format: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Rules:
  • All 4 items are positively worded; there are no reverse-scored items.
  • An overall Employment Intention composite index is calculated by computing the arithmetic mean across all four items:
    
    Overall EI Score = (Item 1 + Item 2 + Item 3 + Item 4) / 4
  • Scores range continuously from 1.00 to 7.00, with higher scores reflecting stronger behavioral intent, active job-seeking propensity, and comparative preference for the designated organization. Alternatively, in structural equation modeling (SEM), items can be retained as manifest indicators of a continuous latent variable.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Employment Intention scale was published in 2006 in the peer-reviewed scholarly article:

Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284978

Permissions & Usage Terms:

• Academic and Non-Commercial Research: Under standard scholarly academic conventions, the instrument items may be utilized, adapted, and cited for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical investigations, and university theses without explicit payment of licensing fees, provided proper academic attribution is credited to the original authors (Sen, Bhattacharya, & Korschun, 2006) and the publishing journal.
• Commercial and Proprietary Applications: Organizations, corporate recruitment consultants, or commercial survey vendors intending to incorporate the scale into proprietary assessment platforms, commercial talent audit software, or monetized advisory frameworks should consult the copyright policies of the publisher (Springer Nature / Academy of Marketing Science) or secure explicit permission from the authors.
• Scale Fee: Free for non-commercial, academic scientific research.

12. References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(6), 986–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258403
• Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x
• Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and work values. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 399–444). Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284978
• Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.

13. Items of the Scale