employee retention scale

Abstract

The Employee Retention Scale (Vier-Komponenten-Modell der Mitarbeiterbindung) is a validated 14-item psychometric instrument designed to measure the multidimensional construct of Employee Retention, often referred to as organizational commitment, within corporate and academic settings. Developed by Gansser and Godbersen (2017) based on an integration of the established three-component model (Allen & Meyer, 1990) and the Composite Attitude-Behaviour Model (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), the scale delineates commitment into four distinct sub-components: affective, cognitive, normative, and contractual commitment. The scale typically employs a 6-point rating format and has demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency and factorial validity across multiple studies.

Keywords

Employee retention, organizational commitment, affective commitment, cognitive commitment, normative commitment, contractual commitment, psychological scale, psychometrics, German language scale

Authors

Prof. Dr. Oliver Gansser, Prof. Dr. Hendrik Godbersen

Purpose

The primary purpose of this scale is to provide a robust and differentiated measurement of an employee’s psychological and formal attachment to their employer. Unlike traditional models that might conflate different motivational drivers, this instrument allows researchers and practitioners to isolate and analyze the specific components driving retention behavior.

The instrument is suitable for use in academic research to investigate the relationship between employee commitment and other constructs (e.g., job satisfaction, turnover intention). Commercially, it serves as a diagnostic tool for organizations seeking to assess the level and nature of employee commitment within their workforce, enabling targeted human resource interventions aimed at improving retention.

Construct

The scale measures Employee Retention (Mitarbeiterbindung) based on a four-component model developed by Gansser and Godbersen (2017). This model expands upon earlier work, hypothesizing that commitment is composed of four distinct dimensions, each representing a different aspect of the employee-employer relationship:

• Affective Commitment: This component represents the employee’s emotional attachment, identification, and involvement with the organization. It reflects the desire to stay (the “wanting to stay” motive). High Affective Commitment is associated with positive feelings toward the employer.
• Cognitive Commitment: This component reflects the rational or calculative attachment based on perceived costs associated with leaving the organization, such as lost benefits, accrued investments, or lack of comparable alternatives in the job market. It reflects the necessity to stay (the “having to stay” motive).
• Normative Commitment: This component is rooted in feelings of moral obligation or duty towards the employer. Employees feel they ought to remain with the organization due to perceived fairness or reciprocity, often resulting from benefits received or long tenure. It reflects the obligation to stay (the “ought to stay” motive).
• Contractual Commitment: This component captures the purely formal attachment based on explicit agreements or contractual provisions that legally bind the employee to the organization for a defined period.

A crucial theoretical distinction of this model is the expected negative correlation between affective (emotional desire) and cognitive (calculative necessity) commitment, aligning with attitude theory rather than viewing them as simply additive factors.

Validity

Evidence for the scale’s validity is supported across multiple studies (Gansser & Godbersen, 2017; Godbersen, Moser & Gansser, 2021; Godbersen et al., 2022):

Content Validity: The alignment between the items and their respective components (affective, cognitive, normative, contractual) was established during development, confirming that the items adequately reflect the theoretical definitions of the four dimensions of employee commitment.

Factorial Validity: Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) consistently confirmed the hypothesized four-factor structure. Fit indices across four separate studies demonstrated satisfactory model fit, with the Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI) consistently above .90, the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) above .88, and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) falling within acceptable ranges (e.g., RMSEA typically below .08 and SRMR below .07).

Criterion Validity: Criterion validity is supported by the expected correlations between the commitment components and related external constructs, specifically job satisfaction. Studies showed the strongest positive relationship between job satisfaction facets and affective commitment, a weaker positive relationship with normative commitment, and a negative relationship with cognitive commitment. These patterns align precisely with the established nomological network of commitment research.

Reliability

The scale demonstrates satisfactory internal consistency across the multi-item subscales. Reliability coefficients were calculated using both Cronbach’s Alpha and Dillon-Goldstein’s Rho across four independent validation studies (N=329 to N=760). The results confirm the stability and internal consistency of the multi-item components:

• For the Affective Commitment component, Cronbach’s Alpha ranged from .83 to .86, and Dillon-Goldstein’s Rho ranged from .86 to .90.
• For the Cognitive Commitment component, Cronbach’s Alpha consistently ranged from .72 to .73, and Dillon-Goldstein’s Rho ranged from .82 to .83.
• For the Normative Commitment component, Cronbach’s Alpha ranged from .79 to .82, and Dillon-Goldstein’s Rho ranged from .87 to .88.

The Contractual Commitment component, measured by a single item, does not yield these traditional reliability metrics but is considered reliable due to its explicit, objective nature.

Factor Analysis

The scale development began with an exploration of the underlying dimensional structure using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation (Gansser & Godbersen, 2017, N=329). This analysis successfully extracted four components with eigenvalues exceeding 1.00, confirming the proposed four-factor structure based on the theoretical model. Item loadings supported the allocation of items to their respective subscales: Affective (Items 1-5), Cognitive (Items 6-9), Normative (Items 10-13), and Contractual (Item 14).

Subsequent studies employed Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using Maximum Likelihood estimation, confirming the robustness of the four-factor model. Item loadings across all studies generally exceeded .60 (with only three exceptions across four studies), indicating a strong relationship between the items and their intended latent constructs. Furthermore, cross-loadings were generally low, although moderate positive cross-loadings were consistently observed between the affective and normative components, consistent with findings in the broader literature (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002).

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric scale (Self-report questionnaire)

Format: 14 items administered using a multi-point rating scale (typically 6-point, ranging from “stimme überhaupt nicht zu” [strongly disagree] to “stimme voll und ganz zu” [strongly agree]). Alternative scales (5- or 7-point) have also been successfully utilized.

Language Available: German (Deutsch)

Population Group: Currently employed individuals in organizations or companies. The scale is applicable for both academic and commercial diagnostic purposes.

Age Group: Primarily young to middle-aged adults (Sample average ages ranged from 25.9 to 31.9 years across validation studies).

Population Details: Validation samples included students currently employed, and women recruited via career forums. Participants worked in various sized organizations (62% in large companies with 250+ employees in one study). Average tenure ranged from 4.1 to 4.6 years.

Test Methodology: Computer-Assisted Self-Interview (CASI), Paper & Pencil, and easily adaptable to other modes like Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) or Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) through minor instruction modifications. The estimated processing time is short, approximately 2 to 3 minutes.

Keywords

Mitarbeiterbindung, organisational commitment, psychometric property, survey methodology, Theory of Planned Behaviour, attitude theory, job satisfaction

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected], [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Prof. Dr. Oliver Gansser, FOM – Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Hochschulzentrum München, Arnulfstraße 30, 80335 München, Germany. Prof. Dr. Hendrik Godbersen, FOM – Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Hochschulzentrum Stuttgart, Rotebühlstr. 121, 70178 Stuttgart, Germany.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Specific details regarding permissions and fees are not provided in the source content. The scale was developed based on studies published starting in 2017 (Gansser & Godbersen) through 2022 (Godbersen et al.), indicating that the scale is recently validated and actively used in current research.

Reference’s

The development and validation of the scale are grounded in established psychological and organizational theories, drawing upon the following core references cited in the source material:

• Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. Springer.
• Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Dorsey Press.
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
• Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall.
• Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18.
• Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of organizational commitment: A meta-analytic examination of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(3), 241–266.
• Currivan, D. B. (1999). The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in models of employee turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4), 495–524.
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
• Eggert, A. (2000). Kundenbindung: Eine kritische Bestandaufnahme und Weiterentwicklung des State of the Art. Springer-Verlag.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
• Gansser, O., & Godbersen, H. (2017). Entwicklung eines Messinstruments zur Erfassung des Vier-Komponenten-Modells der Mitarbeiterbindung. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 19(2), 27–41.
• Godbersen, H., Gansser, O., & Moser, K. (2021). Work-life balance as a predictor of organizational commitment: A study of female employees. Journal of Applied Business Research, 37(1), 1–14.
• Godbersen, H., Moser, K., & Gansser, O. (2022). The influence of job satisfaction facets on the four components of organizational commitment. Management Review Quarterly, 72(1), 1–25.
• Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52.
• Roussel, S., Poulin, V., & Levesque, M. (2023). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. R software documentation.
• Sanchez, G. (2013). PLS Path Modeling with R. Trowchez Editions.
• Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70–82.
• Trommsdorff, V. (1975). Einstellungen und Kaufentscheidungen. Kohlhammer.
• Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 1–14). Yale University Press.

Items of the employee retention scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Instruktion

Im Folgenden finden Sie einige Aussagen zu Ihrer Beziehung zu Ihrem Arbeitgeber. Bitte geben Sie auf einer Skala von 1 (stimme überhaupt nicht zu) bis 6 (stimme voll und ganz zu) an, inwieweit Sie diesen Aussagen zustimmen.

Items

Die in Tabelle 1 dargestellten Items sind den Subskalen, wie folgt, zugeordnet:

• A = Affektive Mitarbeiterbindung
• K = Kognitive Mitarbeiterbindung
• N = Normative Mitarbeiterbindung
• V = Vertragliche Mitarbeiterbindung

Tabelle 1: Items und Subskalen.

Auswertungshinweise

Die Auswertung erfolgt, indem für jede Dimension des Vier-Komponenten-Modells der Mitarbeiterbindung der Mittelwert der jeweils zu dieser Dimension gehörenden Items gebildet wird, d.h.:

• Affektive Mitarbeiterbindung (A): Mittelwert der Items 1 bis 5
• Kognitive Mitarbeiterbindung (K): Mittelwert der Items 6 bis 9
• Normative Mitarbeiterbindung (N): Mittelwert der Items 10 bis 13
• Vertragliche Mitarbeiterbindung (V): Item 14

Es ist nicht möglich, einen Gesamt-Score über 14 Items des Messinstruments zu berechnen; es müssen einzelne Scores für die vier Komponenten berechnet werden, da die affektive Mitarbeiterbindung und die kognitive Mitarbeiterbindung in einem gegensätzlichen Verhältnis zueinanderstehen und negativ miteinander korrelieren.