Employee value proposition: Which factors matter? A Swiss case study on motivational factors

Abstract

Companies are developing strategies to attract and retain talented workforce in an always more effervescent labor market. The ones that relate to attracting talents are usually referred to as employer branding, and the ones related to retaining talents are usually referred to as employee value propositions. This study aims to investigate the motivational factors in the employee value proposition model and suggest an extension of the common models. A questionnaire was elaborated to check the validity of the hypothetical model. The sample includes a large Swiss financial institution that decided to remain anonymous. 517 employees have provided valid observations; the multivariate analysis conducted under the lenses of structural equation modeling confirms the validity of the hypothetical model. In particular, the study illustrates that extrinsic (salary, benefits, career) and intrinsic (work environment, work purpose, and job strain) motivational factors must be considered in the employee value proposition model. The intrinsic motivational factors contribute slightly more than the extrinsic motivational factors; the salary factor contributes the most among the extrinsic motivation variables, and the working environment factor contributes the most among the intrinsic motivation variables. The elaborated model has practical application for corporations who want to govern their employee value proposition and align their employer branding identity. It extends the theoretical foundations to support further research in this domain.

Full text

“Employee value proposition: Which factors matter? A Swiss case study on
motivational factors”
AUTH ORS
Xavier Bronlet
Jessica Basile
Roberta Basile
Nicola Ferla
ARTICLE INFO
Xavier Bronlet, Jessica Basile, Roberta Basile and Nicola Ferla (2024).
Employee value proposition: Which factors matter? A Swiss case study on
motivational factors. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 22(1), 279-294.
doi:10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
RELEASED ON Thursday, 25 January 2024
RECE IVED ON Thursday, 07 December 2023
ACCEPTED ON Monday, 15 January 2024
LICENSE
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License
JOURNAL "Problems and Perspectives in Management"
ISSN PRINT 1727-7051
ISSN ONLINE 1810-5467
PUBLISHER LLC “Consulting Publishing Company “Business Perspectives”
FOUNDER LLC “Consulting Publishing Company “Business Perspectives”
NUMBER OF REFERENCES
79
NUMBER OF FIGURES
1
NUMBER OF TABLES
9
© The author(s) 2024. This publication is an open access article.
businessperspectives.org

279
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
Abstract
Companies are developing strategies to attract and retain talented workforce in an
always more eervescent labor market. e ones that relate to attracting talents are
usually referred to as employer branding, and the ones related to retaining talents are
usually referred to as employee value propositions. is study aims to investigate the
motivational factors in the employee value proposition model and suggest an exten-
sion of the common models. A questionnaire was elaborated to check the validity of
the hypothetical model. e sample includes a large Swiss nancial institution that
decided to remain anonymous. 517 employees have provided valid observations; the
multivariate analysis conducted under the lenses of structural equation modeling con-
rms the validity of the hypothetical model. In particular, the study illustrates that
extrinsic (salary, benets, career) and intrinsic (work environment, work purpose, and
job strain) motivational factors must be considered in the employee value proposition
model. e intrinsic motivational factors contribute slightly more than the extrinsic
motivational factors; the salary factor contributes the most among the extrinsic mo-
tivation variables, and the working environment factor contributes the most among
the intrinsic motivation variables. e elaborated model has practical application for
corporations who want to govern their employee value proposition and align their
employer branding identity. It extends the theoretical foundations to support further
research in this domain.
Xavier Bronlet (Switzerland), Jessica Basile (Switzerland),
Roberta Basile (Switzerland), Nicola Ferla (Switzerland)
Employee value proposition: Employee value proposition:
Which factors matter? Which factors matter?
A Swiss case study A Swiss case study
on motivational factorson motivational factors
Received on: 7 of December, 2023
Accepted on: 15 of January, 2024
Published on: 25 of January, 2024
INTRODUCTION
In the contemporary business landscape, the competition for skilled
talent has become increasingly erce, prompting companies to dedi-
cate substantial resources to attracting and retaining qualied pro-
fessionals. e pursuit of top-tier talent is driven by several intercon-
nected factors that underscore human capital’s critical role in orga-
nizational success (Hongal & Kinange, 2020; Shamaileh et al., 2022;
Whysall et al., 2019). Furthermore, the rising awareness of the link
between employee satisfaction and overall productivity has accentu-
ated the importance of improving their working experience. High-
performing employees contribute to operational eciency and foster
a positive organizational culture (Ahn & Chaoyu, 2019; Islam et al.,
2023). Retaining talent involves creating an environment that nurtures
professional growth, acknowledges individual contributions, and
aligns with employees’ values and aspirations (Bejtkovský & Copca,
2020; Bilan et al., 2022; Kalati, 2019; Manupriya & Shweta, 2016).
e most frequently cited components of the employee value prop-
osition are remuneration, career, and benets (Bilan et al., 2022;
© Xavier Bronlet, Jessica Basile,
Roberta Basile, Nicola Ferla, 2024
Xavier Bronlet, Master of Science in
Business Administration, Lecturer,
Department of Business Economics,
Health and Social Care, University
of Applied Sciences and Arts of
Southern Switzerland, Switzerland.
(Corresponding author)
Jessica Basile, MSc of Business
Administration, Department of
Business Economics, Health and Social
Care, University of Applied Sciences
and Arts of Southern Switzerland,
Switzerland.
Roberta Basile, MSc of Business
Administration, Department of
Business Economics, Health and Social
Care, University of Applied Sciences
and Arts of Southern Switzerland,
Switzerland.
Nicola Ferla, MSc of Business
Administration, Department of
Business Economics, Health and Social
Care, University of Applied Sciences
and Arts of Southern Switzerland,
Switzerland.
JEL Classication M10, M51
Keywords employee value proposition, employer branding,
intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, SEM-PLS
LLC “P “Business Perspectives”
Hryhorii Skovoroda lane, 10,
Sumy, 40022, Ukraine
is is an Open Access article,
distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license, which permits
unrestricted re-use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
www.businessperspectives.org
BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES
Conict of interest statement:
Author(s) reported no conict of interest

280
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
Parameswaran, 2020; Parreira, 2007; Pattnaik & Misra, 2016; Randstad, 2022; TalentLy, n.d.). ese
are all extrinsic motivational factors. However, job satisfaction and its perceived value are also inu-
enced by intrinsic motivational factors, which do not belong to the standard denitions of the employee
value proposition (Christensen, 2006; Cohen et al., 1997; Kopina, 2019; Kurki & Wilenius, 2016; Laloux,
2015; Maino & Razetti, 2020; Malaska, 2001; Malone, 2005; Fana et al., 2020; Out et al., 2020). us, test-
ing an extended employee value proposition model made of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors
is interesting. Such a model will be useful for supporting corporations governing talent retention and
for further research on the subject.
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
Organizations are developing and projecting a
brand image that relates to values and philosophy
and supports the needs of talent. Above all, they
need to focus on bridging the gap between sup-
ply and demand in order to sell an experience in
line with what the company is eectively oering
(Manupriya & Shweta, 2016). erefore, employer
branding is a process that can inform current and
future employees about the benets of the workplace
(Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Staniec & Kalińska-Kula,
2021). Employer branding requires an employee val-
ue proposition capable of explaining why working
for a company is attractive (Backhaus, 2016; Bilan
et al., 2022; Edwards, 2010; Moroko & Uncles, 2008;
Staniec & Kalińska-Kula, 2021).
Every company builds its reputation as an em-
ployer through a process called employer branding
(Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Sharma & Prasad, 2018).
Employer branding is a process that aims to inform
current and future employees about the benets of
the workplace (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Staniec
& Kalińska-Kula, 2021). It can be internal, contrib-
uting to the achievement of corporate goals and
strengthening relationships, and external, attract-
ing new talent (Backhaus, 2016; Bilan et al., 2022;
Blokdyk, 2021; Edwards, 2010; Manupriya & Shweta,
2016). Company employees are treated as customers:
they are the center of attention (Ambler & Barrow,
1996; Staniec & Kalińska-Kula, 2021).
e main focus of employer branding is on how
talent perceives the company, as attracting and re-
taining human resources is crucial in a knowledge-
based age (Barrow & Mosley, 2011; Moroko & Uncles,
2008; Mwangi, 2022; Sharma & Prasad, 2018).
Companies develop employer branding in ma-
ny directions to improve corporate identity, em-
ployee relations, and image as an employer. At the
same time, the main objective is to promote the
unique advantages of the company as an employer
to both current and future employees (Bilan et al.,
2022; Sharma & Prasad, 2018; Staniec & Kalińska-
Kula, 2021). Employer branding eectively con-
tributes to the intention to stay or join an orga-
nization (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Backhaus &
Tikoo, 2004; Edwards, 2010; Moroko & Uncles,
2008). However, it needs an eective employee
value proposition (Backhaus, 2016; Edwards, 2010;
Moroko & Uncles, 2008).
Employee value proposition explains why work-
ing for a company is attractive, including rewards,
benets, and opportunities in return for produc-
tivity (Bilan et al., 2022; Staniec & Kalińska-Kula,
2021). In other words, it is what a company of-
fers employees in return for their contribution
(Ritzqi & Kustini, 2021). A compelling propo-
sition helps recruit and retain talent, motivat-
ing current employees to move the organization
forward (Parameswaran, 2020; Ritzqi & Kustini,
2021). Some companies promise more than they
can deliver. is makes candidates feel dissatised
(Mwangi, 2022; Aloo & Moronge, 2014). e per-
ception must correspond to reality to improve the
level of involvement of recruited employees (Bilan
et al., 2022). Consistency between employer brand-
ing and employee value proposition is crucial to
delivering on the promises made by employers
(Edwards, 2010; Staniec & Kalińska-Kula, 2021).
An employee value proposition that maintains
consistency opens several avenues to success, of-
fering various benets, including increased pro-
ductivity and protability, reduced employee
turnover, and a positive working environment
(Mwangi, 2022; Bilan et al., 2022). It must be re-
al and help dierentiate itself from competitors
to attract candidates (Staniec & Kalińska-Kula,

281
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
2021). Today, talent preferences are changing,
with an increased emphasis on continuous learn-
ing, so skills development, career development
and role changes, inclusion, and diversity. at
is, companies strive to create an environment
with a diversity of experiences, backgrounds, and
points of view to bring innovative and enriching
solutions to the entire organization (Hongal &
Kinange, 2020; Shamaileh et al., 2022; Whysall et
al., 2019). In addition, a revolution in talent prac-
tices is needed so that the best talent can stay and
change the company’s future (Hongal & Kinange,
2020; Whysall et al., 2019).
It is advisable to focus on the factors that generate
or impede satisfaction (Aziz et al., 2019; Staniec
& Kalińska-Kula, 2021). Young people seek com-
petitive salaries, professional growth, job se-
curity, exibility, and mental health (Angelici
& Profeta, 2023; Nestle, 2022; NielsenIQ, 2022).
Attention to the environment and sustainable
practices also increases candidate motivation
and attractiveness to the employer (Rzemieniak
& Wawer, 2021). Companies are struggling to
nd talent, stand out, and promote their brand to
attract suitable candidates quickly and eciently.
ey especially need to focus on bridging the gap
between supply and demand. Companies sell an
experience in line with what they can oer, le-
veraging on a brand that matches their employee
value proposition. By delivering on their prom-
ises, companies contribute to the success of their
employer branding, building a possible virtuous
circle (Manupriya & Shweta, 2016).
e core components of competitive employer
branding include remuneration and career and
work environment, which form the essence of
the employee value proposition. Each dimension
comprises multiple aspects (Bilan et al., 2022;
Parameswaran, 2020; Parreira, 2007; Pattnaik &
Misra, 2016; Randstad, 2022; TalentLy, n.d.).
e remuneration dimension investigates salary
satisfaction and management of promotions and
rewards for individual contributions. is aspect
has signicant weight as one of the most prom-
inent elements of employee value proposition
(Bilan et al., 2022; Parameswaran, 2020; Parreira,
2007; Pattnaik & Misra, 2016; Randstad, 2022;
TalentLy, n.d.).
e benets dimension examines work-life bal-
ance, satisfaction with the pension system, ex-
ible working hours, promotion of psycho-phys-
ical well-being, and working arrangements
(Bilan et al., 2022; Parameswaran, 2020; Parreira,
2007; Pattnaik & Misra, 2016; Randstad, 2022;
Tale ntLy  , n.d.).
e career dimension mainly investigates oppor-
tunities (and activities) for personal development
and growth, improving one’s mindset, and eval-
uating and recognizing personal contributions
(Pattnaik & Misra, 2016). Career is one of the most
relevant attributes in the employee value proposi-
tion. It enables present and future employees to
realize their own goals with those of the organi-
zation (Bilan et al., 2022; Information Resources
Management Association, 2017; Parameswaran,
2020; Parreira, 2007; Randstad, 2022).
e working environment dimension investigates
the adequacy of the physical environment and the
workspace, as well as the suitability of work tools
for performing tasks (Bilan et al., 2022; Pattnaik
& Misra, 2016; Randstad, 2022; TalentLy, n.d.). A
pleasant working environment increases employ-
ees’ sense of belonging and improves their com-
mitment (Staniec & Kalińska-Kula, 2021). e
standard denition of employee value proposition
relies mainly on extrinsic motivation.
Having a broader look at the factors that inuence
the work experience, one must consider the intrin-
sic motivators and how companies create the con-
ditions for employees to nd their own balance
and nurture their personal needs (Ghosh et al.,
2020). e additional factors considered appropri-
ate as constituent elements of the employee value
proposition are the evaluation of work experience
and the company’s ability to manage tensions aris-
ing from the operational context. us, integrat-
ing an intrinsic dimension ensures a comprehen-
sive and current assessment of the attractiveness
of the value proposition for the employee. Work
experience is appropriate because job characteris-
tics inuence individual well-being, organization-
al well-being, and attractiveness. e company’s
ability to manage tensions, studied in the form
of systemic agility (Bronlet, 2022), assesses adap-
tation to the external environment with exible
approaches and continuous change (Christensen,

282
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
2006; Cohen et al., 1997; Kopina, 2019; Kurki &
Wilenius, 2016; Laloux, 2015; Maino & Razetti,
2020; Malaska, 2001; Malone, 2005; Fana et al.,
2020; Out et al., 2020).
In recent years, the eects of the pandemic have
altered the work-life balance, leading to a greater
focus on health, organizational safety, social ac-
tions, and, consequently, individual well-being
(Maino & Razetti, 2020; Out et al., 2020; Fana et
al., 2020). e integration of work experience as
a constituent element of employee value proposi-
tion supports the study to capture indicators of
well-being at work and integrate multiple aspects
that inuence the experience at work (Carnevale
& Hatak, 2020).
Job characteristics inuence the psychological
well-being of employees. Consequently, individu-
al well-being dramatically inuences the general
well-being of the organization (Oades et al., 2017;
Vanhala & Tuomi, 2006). As the well-being of the
individual increases, so does the well-being of
the entire organization (Aggarwal-Gupta et al.,
2010; Yu et al., 2021). Increased organizational
well-being is possible through the improvement
of a number of variables that have a positive im-
pact on individual well-being: stress manage-
ment, physical and mental health, interpersonal
relationships, a sense of belonging, feedback on
behavior, and organizational climate (Danna &
Grin, 1999; Stocchi et al., 2010). us, organi-
zational well-being is an organization’s ability to
promote and maintain workers’ highest degree of
physical, psychological, and social well-being in
all types of employment (Avallone & Bonaretti,
2003; Vanhala & Tuomi, 2006).
In extreme synthesis, employee satisfaction is a
crucial factor in determining organizational per-
formance, while satised employees manifest
greater motivation, commitment, and dedication
to work, resulting in higher productivity and low-
er turnover. Importantly, there is a correlation be-
tween job stress, satisfaction, and turnover (Ahn
& Chaoyu, 2019; Islam et al., 2023).
rough the job strain model, the company can
measure stress in the workplace while taking the
appropriate actions to improve the health and
well-being of workers, promoting a healthy and
productive work environment at the same time
(Karasek et al., 1998). Job stress within the orga-
nization, through Karasek et al.’s (1998) model, is
detected using the job content questionnaire, us-
ing three dimensions (Kwakman, 2001; Ragazzoni
et al., 2004; Chungkham et al., 2013). e intensity
of the psychological demand dimension assesses
factors that can have a negative impact on workers’
mental health, such as the amount of work, com-
plexity of tasks, time constraints, contradictory
demands, and frequent interruptions (Kwakman,
2001; Ragazzoni et al., 2004; Karasek et al., 1998;
Chungkham et al., 2013). e freedom of decision-
making dimension states that workers with au-
tonomy and control over their work have reduced
stress. is includes the possibility of using one’s
own skills, developing new ones, and participat-
ing in decision-making (Kwakman, 2010; Karasek
et al., 1998; Chungkham et al., 2013). A working
environment promoting social support is essential
in the social support dimension. is support can
come from colleagues or the hierarchy. Moreover,
it is crucial for the well-being of employees, both
psychologically and physically (Chungkham et
al., 2013; Karasek et al., 1998; Kwakman, 2010;
Ragazzoni et al., 2004). e psychological load
construct may sometimes be considered a motiva-
tional factor (Kim & Beehr, 2018). erefore, the
employee value proposition a priori model will not
consider this factor.
Companies must adapt quickly in today’s envi-
ronment of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and
ambiguity (Farkhondeh & Müller, 2021; Landry et
al., 2005; Robertson, 2015). For this reason, estab-
lishing an employee value proposition cannot be
indierent to a company’s ability to manage ten-
sions since the management mode positively in-
uences the employee experience. Adapting to the
context requires an employee value proposition
capable of responding to employee expectations
and market demands (Sammer, 2022; Terry, 2023).
Technology and globalization redene human
reality, inuencing culture and relationships
(Billinger & Workiewicz, 2019; Laloux, 2015).
Organizations must adapt to this new environ-
ment in this context, so more horizontal structures
provide greater exibility. e new paradigms rely
on self-management with all the consequences on
talents, allowing for decentralization, high levels

283
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
of autonomy, and greater employee involvement
(Christensen, 2006; Cohen et al., 1997; Kopina,
2019; Kurki & Wilenius, 2016; Laloux, 2015;
Malaska, 2001; Malone, 2005; Robertson, 2015;
Yang & Guy, 2011). In addition, market and con-
sumer needs are changing rapidly, forcing organi-
zations to respond quickly, exibly, and customer-
oriented (Kopina, 2019; Ruch et al., 2018; Sequeira,
2019). As a result, the relationship between society
and organizations is based on a new understand-
ing of the meaning of organization. e research
observes a shi from a problem-solving approach
aimed at reducing uncertainty to a world where
progress is made by actively addressing uncer-
tainty. is approach requires high levels of agility
for organizations and leadership (Spillecke, 2019).
Agility means changing the organization with
cognitive readiness and creative thinking skills
(Kukreja, 2019).
In this perspective, the company’s ability to man-
age tensions is important, as it positively inuenc-
es employee experience, and therefore, the factors
that matter may be considered to assess the ability
of a company to address its own employee’s intrin-
sic motivation needs. e systemic agility model
identies the factors that contribute to managing
tensions (Bronlet, 2022). In particular, the model
describes six latent variables that contribute to the
ability to manage tensions:
1. Sense of purpose: intention conveyed by the
organization.
2. Management practices: the way the organiza-
tion makes things happen.
3. Organizational practices: the formal structure
that governs the organization.
4. Information ow: how knowledge circulates
within the organization.
5. Methods: the methods used to pursue objec-
tives and improve continuously.
6. Behaviors: the attitudes that characterize the
organization (Bronlet, 2022).
Measuring the constituents of employee value
proposition is a valid method to assess the em-
ployees’ perceived value of the work experience.
It is a valuable tool to evolve and understand
how to close gaps between supply and demand.
Examining the labor market landscape, focusing
on the balance between supply and demand, re-
veals the importance of the employee value prop-
osition as a tool for assessing the overall value
perceived by employees. is approach appears
essential in guiding the evolution of the business
environment, bridging any gaps, and promoting
the well-being of all parties involved (Manupriya
& Shweta, 2016). Nevertheless, the common em-
ployee value proposition models integrate only
extrinsic motivational factors, while the literature
conrms the importance of intrinsic motivation-
al factors in assessing employee experience and
satisfaction.
While the pace of change in talent preferences is
accelerating, companies may experience diculty
responding adequately to keep their essential re-
sources and potentially attract new ones. Knowing
the factors that really matter helps to concentrate
the action on the essential for the greater good of
all the involved parties.
e aim of this study is to respond to the need
by developing and testing an emerging model on
employee value proposition and help companies
bridge the gap between their oer and the market
demand.
2. METHODOLOGY
is descriptive study is developed on a quantita-
tive approach by administering a web-based ques-
tionnaire to all company employees. e literature
reviewed is crucial in outlining which elements
to consider for analyzing the phenomenon under
study. e intention is to expose a model capable
of measuring the employee value proposition by
leveraging extrinsic and intrinsic motivational
factors and measuring each factor’s proper contri-
bution. e model proposes the dimensions that
reect the company’s value proposition, consid-
ering all the elements that examine the employee
experience.
e description of each item (corresponding to
thirty questions in the form of a questionnaire)

284
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
is given in Appendix A, Table A1. Each item re-
ects one of the three latent variables to which it
contributes.
is is cross-sectional research, also called snap-
shot or cross-sectional, as it is based on data col-
lection at a specic point in time. e intention
is to examine numerous variables simultaneous-
ly and check whether there may be correlations
(Bell et al., 2019, pp.. 58-61). e approach allows
more than one case to be collected at a single point,
helping to generate a solid basis for further studies.
During the analysis of the collected data, the de-
veloped model was examined using PLS-SEM and
optimized in terms of convergent and discrimi-
nant validity.
Partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM) is a multivariate data analysis techni-
que that combines regression and linear analysis
methodologies. is type of statistical analysis al-
lows for the analysis of the relationships between
observable and latent variables (evaluation of the
measurement model) and the relationships betwe-
en latent variables (evaluation of the structural
model) (Sarstedt et al., 2021).
e case study is based on 517 valid observations
gathered among employees working for a Swiss -
nancial institution. Respondents work in the Italian-
speaking part of Switzerland, and the questionnaire
was submitted in Italian. A total of 636 observations
have been gathered, from which 90 were incom-
plete and 29 considered outliers identied based on
Mahalanobis distance (Leys et al., 2018).
e dataset has been divided into two sub-datas-
ets: the rst one is used to conduct an exploratory
factor analysis and conrm the contribution of
each item to the hypothetical model; the second
sub-dataset is used to subsequently run a conr-
matory factor analysis to conrm the goodness of
the model assessing its convergent and discrimi-
nant validity (Lorenzo-Seva, 2022).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Exploratory factor analysis has been conducted
on the rst dataset to conrm the contribution
of the items to the EVP model based on the lit-
erature review (Watkins, 2018). e Eigenvalue
analysis reveals 9 factors with Eigenvalue > 1.0
(Piedmont, 2014). e factor analysis reveals the
contribution of 29 items out of the 32 from the
questionnaire, exposing a loading value greater
than 0.5 (Beaujean, 2019). According to this cuto,
none of the items present cross-loading character-
istics amongst two or more factors, as illustrated
in Table 1. All the items measured with a good
enough loading (> 0.5) contribute to the factor es-
tablished a priori except item C5, which measures
the meritocracy. According to the factor analysis
results, C5 contributes to the retribution factor
with a factor loading 0.56. As the meritocracy may
trigger dierent kinds of recognition, item C5 is
le apart. Item RB5, which measures the promo-
tion of well-being, and C4, which measures the
personal continuous improvement report, are be-
low the cut-o value and are therefore excluded
from the model (Hair et al., 2010, p. 676).
e emerging model from the exploratory factor
analysis is tested using the second dataset of obser-
vations to conrm the goodness of the employee
value proposition model (Asparouhov & Muthén,
2009). e analysis of the observations performed
under the lenses of the partial least square meth-
odology using SmartPLS (Ringle et al., 2022) con-
rms the contribution of the selected items to the
model. However, continuous improvement was
excluded due to its poor convergent validity re-
vealed by a Cronbach’s alpha < 0.7 (Cheung et al.,
2023) (Figure 1).
Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values
are all above the desired threshold of 0.7, while the
second-order latent variables report an average
variance extract value below the desired threshold
of 0.5 (Cheung et al., 2023) (Table 2).
e discriminant validity established through the
heterotrait-monotrait correlation (HTMT) and
Fornell-Lacker criterion conrms that the rst-or-
der latent variables measure distinct characteris-
tics of the employee value proposition. All HTMT
values reported are below the desired threshold of
0.85 (Cheung et al., 2023) (Table 3).
Fornell-Lacker criterion values are all below the
desired threshold as the square root of the AVE
for a construct is greater than the correlation with

285
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
Table 1. Factor analysis results
Items
Factor 1
Retribuon
Factor 2
Purpose
Factor 3
Support of
management
Factor 4
Support of
colleagues
Factor 5
Connuous
improvement
Factor 6
Working
environment
Factor 7
Job latude
Factor 8
Career
Factor 9
Benet
AL1 0.7
AL2 0.82
AL3 0.55
JS1 0.62
JS2 0.73
JS3 0.65
JS7 0.69
JS8 0.78
JS9 0.76
JS10 0.85
JS11 0.75
JS12 0.69
RB1 0.7
RB2 0.79
RB3 0.68
RB4 0.72
RB6 0.51
RB7 0.57
RB9 0.51
SP1 0.61
SP2 0.6
MP1 0.54
AM1 0.67
AM2 0.52
AM3 0.6
C1 0.54
C2 0.58
C3 0.56
C5 0.56
Note: A cuto is 0.5; factor analysis performed with funcon factanal of R stats library (V 3.6.2). Items (AL1, AL2, …) are de-
scribed in Appendix A.
Table 2. Construct reliability and validity values
Latent variables Cronbach’s
alpha
Composite reliability
(rho_a)
Composite reliability
(rho_c)
Average variance
extracted (AVE)
Benets 0.749 0.762 0.75 4 0.507
Career 0.87 0.871 0.87 0.691
Employee value
proposion 0.929 0.938 0.93 0.342
Extrinsic movaon 0.898 0.902 0.899 0.5
Intrinsic movaon 0.886 0.893 0.888 0.335
Job latude 0.818 0.818 0.818 0.6
Purpose 0.7 55 0.755 0 .755 0.506
Salary 0.894 0.894 0.894 0.678
Support of colleagues 0.837 0. 837 0.8 37 0.632
Support of management 0.919 0.922 0.919 0.792
Working environment 0.825 0.826 0.826 0.613

286
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
Note: Done under the lenses of the SmartPLS consistent PLS-SEM algorithm with Cronbach’s Alpha on constructs.
Figure 1. Factor loadings
0.894
0.749
0.870
0.898
RB1
RB2
RB3
RB4
RB6
RB7
RB9
C1
C2
C3
0.755
MP1
SP1
SP2
0.886
0.929
0.825
AL1
AL2
AL3
0.919
JS10
JS11
JS12
0.837
JS7
JS8
JS9
0.818
JS1
JS2
JS3
E
E
m
m
p
p
l
l
o
o
y
y
e
e
e
e
V
V
a
a
l
l
u
u
e
e
P
P
r
r
o
o
p
p
o
o
s
s
i
i
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
Extrinsic
motivation
Instrinsic
motivation
Purpose
Working
environment
Support of
management
Support of
colleagues
Job
lattitude
Career
Benefits
Salary 1.004
1.013
0.900
0.950
0.839
0.861
0.836
0.887
0.717
1.034
0.777
0.767
0.780
0.788
0.807
0.789
0.933
0.896
0.838
0.792
0.788
0.768
0.712
0.701
0.721
0.804
0.866
0.823
0.661
0.802
0.664
0.823
0.841
0.810
0.820
Table 3. HTMT values
Latent variables Benets Career Job latude Purpose Salary Suppor t of
colleagues
Support of
management
Career 0.624
Job latude 0.66 0.57
Purpose 0.502 0.453 0.384
Salary 0.7 32 0. 674 0.686 0 .517
Support of colleagues 0.357 0.472 0.5 0.457 0.443
Support of management 0.475 0.556 0.451 0.386 0.513 0.506
Working environment 0.611 0.58 0.582 0.396 0.697 0.538 0.525
Table 4. Fornell-Lacker criterion
Latent variables Benets Career Job latude Purpose Salary Support of
colleagues
Support of
management
Working
environment
Benets 0.712
Career 0.624 0.831
Job latude 0.655 0.571 0.7 75
Purpose 0.507 0.455 0.384 0 .712
Salary 0.7 28* 0.674 0.686 0.516 0.824
Support of
colleagues 0.364 0.472 0.5 0.458 0.443 0.7 95
Support of
management 0. 474 0.558 0. 451 0.387 0.51 2 0.506 0.89
Working
environment 0.612 0.579 0.581 0.397 0.697 0.538 0.526 0.783

287
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
any other construct in the model, except salary,
which is slightly higher than benets (Cheung et
al., 2023) (Table 4).
e signicance analysis is performed through con-
sistent bootstrapping based on a consistent PLS-SEM
algorithm in SmartPLS. Bootstrapping is a nonpara-
metric procedure that tests the statistical signicance
of various PLS-SEM results, such as path coecients,
Cronbach’s alpha, and HTMT (Ringle et al., 2022).
All the path coecients from the inner and outer
models are signicant as the consistent bootstrap-
ping procedure establishes all p-values below 0.001
(Ringle et al., 2022) (Tables 5, 6, and 7).
Table 5. Total eects
Latent variables relaonship Original
sample (O)
Sample mean
(M)
Standard
deviaon
(STDEV)
T stascs
(|O/ST DEV|) P values
EVP → Benets 0.903 0.904 0.035 25.579 >0.0 01
EVP → Career 0.953 0.952 0.022 43.335 >0.001
EVP → Ex trinsic movaon 1.004 1.004 0.008 124.795 >0.001
EVP → Intrinsic movaon 1.034 1.034 0.006 181.183 >0.001
EVP → Job latude 0.868 0.866 0.042 20.765 >0.0 01
EVP → Purpose 0.742 0.73 8 0.062 12.007 >0.001
EVP → Salar y 1.017 1 .017 0.014 71.925 >0.0 01
EVP → Support of colleagues 0.891 0.888 0.053 16.931 >0.001
EVP → Support of management 0.865 0.862 0.035 24. 367 >0.001
EVP → Working environment 0.918 0.916 0.036 25.7 52 >0.001
Extrinsic movaon → Benets 0.9 0.901 0.035 25.704 > 0.001
Extrinsic movaon → Career 0.95 0.949 0.022 43.664 >0.001
Extrinsic movaon → Salary 1.013 1.013 0.011 89.389 >0.001
Intrinsic movaon → Job latude 0.839 0.838 0.04 20.798 >0.001
Intrinsic movaon → Purpose 0.717 0.7 14 0.06 11.962 > 0.001
Intrinsic movaon → Support of colleagues 0.861 0.86 0.051 16.82 5 >0.001
Intrinsic movaon → Support of management 0.836 0.834 0.035 2 3.61 >0.0 01
Intrinsic movaon → Working environment 0.887 0.886 0.035 25.699 >0.001
Note: EVP means employee value proposion.
Table 6. Contribuon of items on employee value proposion
Items relaonship with
EVP
Original sample
(O)
Sample mean
(M)
Standard deviaon
(STDEV)
T stascs
(|O/ST DEV|) P values
AL1 ← EVP 0.628 0.627 0.0 4 15.636 >0.0 01
AL2 ← EVP 0.626 0.623 0.041 15.204 >0.002
AL3 ← EVP 0.608 0.608 0.043 14.144 >0.0 03
C1 ← EVP 0.644 0.643 0.038 17.173 >0.004
C2 ← EVP 0.71 3 0.711 0.032 22.294 > 0.005
C3 ← EVP 0.672 0.67 0.038 17. 91 6 >0.006
JS1 ← EVP 0.6 0.601 0. 041 14.757 >0.0 07
JS10 ← EVP 0.645 0.644 0. 041 15.608 >0.0 08
JS11 ← EVP 0.644 0.642 0.0 43 14.9 41 >0.009
JS12 ← EVP 0.588 0.586 0.045 13.04 >0.010
JS2 ← EVP 0.581 0.579 0.047 1 2.414 >0.011
JS3 ← EVP 0.605 0.601 0.0 49 12. 41 >0.012
JS7 ← EVP 0.543 0.5 42 0.055 9.958 >0.013
JS8 ← EVP 0.529 0. 529 0. 051 10.42 9 >0.0 14
JS9 ← EVP 0.528 0. 527 0.047 1 1.17 >0.015
MP1 ← EVP 0.472 0.471 0.05 9.403 > 0.016
RB1 ← EVP 0.713 0.712 0 .031 23 .175 >0.017
RB2 ← EVP 0 .717 0.716 0.029 25.0 69 >0.018
RB3 ← EVP 0 .716 0.716 0.028 25.396 >0.019
RB4 ← EVP 0 .724 0.7 23 0.028 2 5.488 >0.020
RB7 ← EVP 0.658 0.656 0.037 17.921 >0.021
RB9 ← EVP 0.464 0.4 62 0.048 9.76 7 >0.022
SP1 ← EVP 0.426 0.421 0.057 7.4 0 7 >0.023
SP2 ← EVP 0.439 0.436 0.06 7. 3 13 > 0.024
Note: Items (AL1, AL2, …) are described in Appendix A.

288
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
e model designed a priori based on the litera-
ture review proves adequate and conrmed by the
exploratory factor analysis, letting apart an item
originally connected to the career latent variable.
e conrmatory factor analysis supports the de-
nition of the employee value proposition model a
posteriori and leads to removing the construct that
measures the organization’s ability to constantly
improve without a signicant convergent validity.
e case study suggests the employee value propo-
sition model’s second-order latent variables are in-
trinsic and extrinsic motivational factors.
is study suggests a new approach to measur-
ing employee value proposition using an updated
evaluation model. e model provides an alterna-
tive for evaluating extrinsic and intrinsic motiva-
tional factors. It highlights the interest to consider
Table 7. Total item weight
Latent variables
DIRECT ITEM WEIGHT ON EVP
Item Item ← rst-order
variable
rst ← second-order
variable
Second-order variable
← EVP
Total item
weight
Extrinsic movaon
Salary
RB1 0.823 1.013 1.005 0.838
RB2 0.841 1.013 1.005 0.856*
RB3 0.81 1.013 1.005 0.825
RB4 0.82 1.013 1.005 0.835
Benets
RB6 0.661 0.9 1.0 05 0.598
RB7 0.802 0.9 1.005 0.7 25
RB9 0.664 0.9 1.005 0.601
Career
C1 0.804 0.95 1.005 0.768
C2 0.865 0.95 1.005 0.826
C3 0.823 0.925 1.005 0.765
Intrinsic movaon
Job latude
JS1 0.776 0.844 1.033 0.677
JS2 0.77 0.844 1.033 0.671
JS3 0.778 0.844 1.033 0.678
Support of
colleagues
JS7 0.785 0.863 1.033 0 .700
JS8 0.805 0.863 1.033 0.718
JS9 0.79 4 0.863 1.033 0.708
Support of
management
JS10 0.937 0.837 1.033 0.810
JS11 0.898 0.837 1.033 0.776
JS12 0.8 32 0.837 1.033 0 .719
Purpose
MP1 0.70 6 0.717 1.033 0.523
SP1 0.70 4 0.717 1.033 0 .521* *
SP2 0.72 5 0.717 1.033 0.537
Working
environment
AL1 0.79 4 0.89 1.033 0.730
AL2 0.784 0.89 1.033 0.721
AL3 0.77 0.89 1.033 0.708
Note: Items (AL1, AL2, …) are described in Appendix A. * highest contribuon to EVP, ** lowest contribuon to EVP.
Table 8. Meaningful factors in the employee value proposion
Extrinsic
movaon
Salary Focus on oering a compeve package, ensuring pay sasfacon, managing
promoons and recognion through rewards for individual contribuon.
Career Learning and development opportuni es, programs, personal growth, and employee
mindset improvement.
Benets Promoon of mental and physical well-b eing, exible working hours, work-life balance,
and pension fund.
Intrinsic
movaon
Working environment Consideraon of the physic al environment, the organizaon of the workspace, and the
adequacy of tools for per forming task s
Job latude Freedom, independence, and inuence on the employee’s work.
Support of management Concern for the team’s well-being, aenon to opinions, and suppor t from the
hierarchy.
Support of colleagues Interest, friendliness, encouragement, and cooperaon from colleagues.
Purpose Focus on sustainability-focused business development, per formance appraisals through
indicators, and employee empowerment.

289
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
elements of intrinsic motivation in the creation
of the employee value proposition, such as the
evaluation of work experience through Karasek
et al.’s (1998) job strain model and the company’s
ability to manage tensions deriving from the op-
erational context thanks to the systemic agility
model (Bronlet, 2022; Christensen, 2006; Cohen
et al., 1997; Kopina, 2019; Kurki & Wilenius, 2016;
Kwakman, 2001; Laloux, 2015; Malaska, 2001;
Yang & Guy, 2011).
e PLS-SEM research provides explanations and
practical evidence of the importance of new dimen-
sions of intrinsic motivation. It conrms the impor-
tance of using some of the dimensions of extrinsic
motivation that are most cited in the literature: sala-
ry, career, benets, and working environment (Bilan
et al., 2022; Parameswaran, 2020; Parreira, 2007;
Pattnaik & Misra, 2016; Randstad, 2022; TalentLy,
n.d.). ese are standard constituent dimensions of
the employee value propositions that are discrimi-
nated against in the survey. e case study conrms
that remuneration is given greater importance than
the other elements analyzed (Angelici & Profeta,
2023; Bilan et al., 2022; Nestle, 2022; NielsenIQ,
2022; Parameswaran, 2020; Pattnaik & Misra, 2016;
Randstad, 2022; TalentLy, n.d.).
Finally, the proposed approach stands out for its
ability to integrate aspects of employee well-being,
motivation, and satisfaction, oering organiza-
tions a broader perspective to enhance and opti-
mize their value proposition toward current and
future employees. e emerging model provides a
valuable tool to measure the eective contribution
of factors that enhance the attractiveness of each
employer. It allows companies to steer employee
experience and perceived value and contribute to
their global performance.
e multivariate analysis provides signicant
measures of contribution from items and latent
variables to the employee value proposition. In
contrast, the distribution of the item evaluation
provides the employee’s actual satisfaction level.
e combination of both information is useful to
govern the employee value proposition. It is best to
pay attention and develop items with high weight
and low means for more eective results. For ex-
ample, in the case study, employees attach high
importance (weight 0.826) to item C2: “e com-
pany encourages me to improve my mindset while
at work.” However, the average employee satisfac-
tion with this item is rather average (mean 3.82/5
points).
CONCLUSION
e employee value proposition appears useful to govern employee and talent retention within corpo-
rations. e actual employee value proposition model usually consists of extrinsic motivational factors
overlooking the intrinsic ones. e purpose of the study was to extend the range of factors that matter
and inuence the employee experience and to test the appropriateness of such extensions.
517 observations gathered among employees of a large Swiss nancial institution conrmed the good-
ness of the hypothetical model, illustrating the importance of extrinsic and intrinsic motivational fac-
tors. e working environment factor contributes the most to the intrinsic factor and is followed by the
support of colleagues’ factor. e salary factor emerges as the rst contributor to the extrinsic motiva-
tional factor, followed by the career factor.
e emerging model provides a starting point for further quantitative and/or qualitative analysis,
which allows for deeper insights into the underlying motivations behind the phenomena identied
by the model. e conjunction of the model with dependent variables that measure global perfor-
mance would permit research on the relationship between employee value proposition and company
performance.
Although the emerging model was built based on the literature and validated models, the analysis per-
formed as a case study suggests that an even larger sample might be benecial to base evaluations on a
larger number of observations.

290
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualization: Xavier Bronlet, Jessica Basile, Roberta Basile.
Data curation: Xavier Bronlet.
Formal analysis: Xavier Bronlet.
Investigation: Xavier Bronlet, Jessica Basile, Roberta Basile, Nicola Ferla.
Methodology: Xavier Bronlet, Roberta Basile.
Project administration: Jessica Basile.
Resources: Xavier Bronlet, Jessica Basile, Roberta Basile, Nicola Ferla.
Supervision: Xavier Bronlet.
Validation: Xavier Bronlet, Jessica Basile, Roberta Basile, Nicola Ferla.
Visualization: Xavier Bronlet, Nicola Ferla.
Writing – original dra: Xavier Bronlet, Jessica Basile, Roberta Basile, Nicola Ferla.
Writing – review & editing: Xavier Bronlet, Jessica Basile, Roberta Basile, Nicola Ferla.
REFERENCES
1. Aggarwal-Gupta, M., Vohra, N., &
Bhatnagar, D. (2010). Perceived
organizational support and organi-
zational commitment: e media-
tional inuence of psychological
well-being. Journal of Business
and Management, 16(2), 105-
124. Retrieved from https://www.
proquest.com/scholarly-journals/
perceived-organizational-support-
commitment/docview/847845672/
se-2?accountid=207292
2. Ahn, J.-Y., & Chaoyu, W. (2019).
Job stress and turnover intention
revisited: Evidence from Korean
rms. Problems and Perspectives
in Management, 17(4), 52-61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/
ppm.17(4).2019.05
3. Aloo, V., & Moronge, D. (2014).
e eects of employee value prop-
osition on performance of com-
mercial banks in Kenya. European
Journal of Business Management,
2(1), 141-161. Retrieved from
https://docplayer.net/52526690-
e-eects-of-employee-value-
proposition-on-performance-of-
commercial-banks-in-kenya.html
4. Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996).
e employer brand. Journal of
Brand Management, 4(3), 185-
206. Retrieved from https://link.
springer.com/article/10.1057/
bm.1996.42
5. Angelici, M., & Profeta, P. (2023).
Smart working: Work exibility
without constraints. Management
Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/
mnsc.2023.4767
6. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén,
B. (2009). Exploratory struc-
tural equation modeling.
Structural Equation Model-
ing: A Multidisciplinary Jour-
nal, 16(3), 397-438. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10705510903008204
7. Avallone, F., & Bonaretti, M.
(2003). Benessere organizzativo:
Per migliorare la qualità del lavoro
nelle amministrazioni pubbliche
[Organizational well-being: To im-
prove the quality of work in public
administration]. Rubbettino Edi-
tore. (In Italian). Retrieved from
https://www.ibs.it/benessere-orga-
nizzativo-per-migliorare-qualita-
libro-vari/e/9788849805970
8. Aziz, M., Adnan, A., Ahanorhan,
A., Foziah, H., Ishak, S.-w., &
Rashid, N. (2019). e inuence
of employer value proposition
in talent demand towards talent
shortage in the Malaysian Islamic
banking institutions: A SEM ap-
proach. Management Science
Letters, 9, 843-850. https://doi.
org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.3.004
9. Backhaus, K. (2016). Employer
branding revisited. Organization
Management Journal, 13(4), 193-
201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/154
16518.2016.1245128
10. Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S.
(2004). Conceptualizing and
researching employer branding.
Career Development Interna-
tional, 9(5), 501-517. https://doi.
org/10.1108/13620430410550754
11. Barrow, S., & Mosley, R. (2005).
e employer brand: Bringing the
best management to people at work
(2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
12. Beaujean, A. A. (2019). Factor
analysis using R. Practical Assess-
ment, Research, and Evaluation,
18(1). https://doi.org/10.7275/
z8wr-4j42
13. Bejtkovský, J., & Copca, N. (2020).
e employer branding creation
and HR marketing in selected
healthcare service providers.
Management & Marketing, 15(1),
95-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/
mmcks-2020-0006
14. Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B.
(2019). Business research methods
(5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
15. Bilan, Y., Mishchuk, H., Mish-
chuk, V., & Samoliuk, N. (2022).
Employer brand: Key values
inuencing the intention to
join a company. Management &
Marketing, 17(1), 61-72. Retrieved
from https://sciendo.com/ar-
ticle/10.2478/mmcks-2022-0004
16. Billinger, S., & Workiewicz, M.
(2019). Fading hierarchies and
the emergence of new forms of
organization. Journal of Organiza-
tion Design, 8(1), 17. Retrieved
from https://link.springer.com/ar-
ticle/10.1186/s41469-019-0057-6
17. Blokdyk, G. (2021). Employer
branding: A complete guide – 2021
edition. e Art of Service –

291
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
Employer Branding Publishing.
Retrieved from https://www.
everand.com/book/487839288/
Employer-Branding-A-Complete-
Guide-2021-Edition
18. Bronlet, X. (2022). Systemic agil-
ity: A gauge to measure companies’
adaptation to their volatile, un-
certain, complex and ambiguous
environment. Journal of Business
and Economics, 13(2), 70-8.
19. Carnevale, J. B., & Hatak, I. (2020).
Employee adjustment and well-
being in the era of COVID-19:
Implications for human resource
management. Journal of Business
Research, 116, 183-187. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.037
20. Cheung, G., Cooper-omas,
H., Lau, R., & Wang, L. (2023).
Reporting reliability, convergent
and discriminant validity with
structural equation modeling: A
review and best-practice recom-
mendations. Asia Pacic Journal
of Management. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y
21. Christensen, C. M. (2006). e on-
going process of building a theory
of disruption. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 23(1),
39-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1540-5885.2005.00180.x
22. Chungkham, H. S., Ingre, M., Ka-
rasek, R., Westerlund, H., & eo-
rell, T. (2013). Factor structure
and longitudinal measurement
invariance of the demand control
support model: An evidence
from the Swedish Longitudinal
Occupational Survey of Health
(SLOSH). PLoS One, 8(8), e70541.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0070541
23. Cohen, S. G., Chang, L., & Led-
fonrd, G. (1997). A hierarchical
construct of self-management
leadership and its relation-
ship to qualitty of work life and
perceived work group eec-
tiveness. Personnel Psychology,
50(2), 275-308. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.
tb00909.x
24. Danna, K., & Grin, R. W.
(1999). Health and well-being
in the workplace: A review
and synthesis of the litera-
ture. Journal of Management,
25(3), 357-384. https://doi.
org/10.1177/014920639902500305
25. Edwards, M. R. (2010). An inte-
grative review of employer brand-
ing and OB theory. Personnel
Review, 39(1), 5-23. https://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/00483481011012809
26. Fana, M., Milasi, S., Napierata,
J., Fernàndez-Macilìas, E., &
Vàzquez, I. G. (2020). Telework,
work organisation and job quality
during the COVID-19 crisis: A
qualitative study. European Com-
mision. Retrieved from https://
joint-research-centre.ec.europa.
eu/publications/telework-work-
organisation-and-job-quality-
during-covid-19-crisis-qualitative-
study_en
27. Farkhondeh, M., & Müller, B.
(2021). Holacracy: A new way of
organizing? Mrev Management
Revue, 32(4), 302-317. Retrieved
from https://www.proquest.
com/openview/70a5103c3139
8e29c2fa331ec684e95b/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=29346
28. Ghosh, D., Sekiguchi, T., &
Fujimoto, Y. (2020). Psycho-
logical detachment: A creativity
perspective on the link between
intrinsic motivation and employee
engagement. Personnel Review,
49(9), 1789-1804. https://doi.
org/10.1108/PR-12-2018-0480
29. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., &
Anderson, R. (2010). Multivari-
ate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
30. Hongal, P., & Kinange, U. (2020).
A study on talent management
and its impact on organization
performance – An empirical
review. International Journal of
Engineering and Management
Research, 10(1), 64-71. https://doi.
org/10.31033/ijemr.10.1.12
31. Information Resources Manage-
ment Association. (2017). Orga-
nizational culture and behavior:
Concepts, methodologies, tools, and
applications. Business Science
Reference.
32. Islam, K., Bari, M., Al-Kharusi,
S., Bhuiyan, A., & E-Alam, M.
(2023). Impact of transformational
leadership, human capital, and job
satisfaction on organizational per-
formance in the manufacturing
industry. Problems and Perspec-
tives in Management, 21(3), 382-
392. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/
ppm.21(3).2023.31
33. Kalati, G. (2019, March 27).
Ask these 10 questions to dene
your employee value proposition.
Medium. Retrieved from https://
medium.com/@gunjankalati/
ask-these-10-questions-to-dene-
your-employee-value-proposition-
d83571c26ec7
34. Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawaka-
mi, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., &
Amick, B. (1998). e job content
questionnaire (JCQ): An instru-
ment for internationally compara-
tive assessments of psychosocial
job characteristics. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychol-
ogy, 3(4), 322-355. https://doi.
org/10.1037//1076-8998.3.4.322
35. Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2018).
Challenge and hindrance
demands lead to employees
health and behaviours through
intrinsic motivation. Stress and
Health, 34(3), 367-378. https://doi.
org/10.1002/smi.2796
36. Kopina, D. (2019). Reinventing
organizations: Model of self-
organized processo organization
(SOPO). Organizacija, 52(2),
127-141. https://doi.org/10.2478/
orga-2019-0009
37. Kukreja, J. (2019). e next
generation leadership in a VUCA
world. International Journal
of Trend in Scientic Research
and Development, 3(6), 37-47.
Retrieved from https://www.
academia.edu/76670533/Holacra-
cy_e_Next_Generation_Lead-
ership_in_a_VUCA_World
38. Kurki, S., & Wilenius, M. (2016).
Trust makes this organisation
unique. European Journal of Fu-
tures Research, 4(1), 23. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40309-016-0095-z
39. Kwakman, K. (2001). Work
stress and work-based learning
in secondary education: Test-
ing the Karasek model. Human
Resource Development Interna-
tional, 4(4), 487-501. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13678860010004123

292
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
40. Laloux, F. (2015). Reinventing
organizations: A guide to creat-
ing organizations inspired by the
next stage of human consciousness.
Nelson Parker.
41. Landry, B., Mahesh, S., & Hart-
man, S. (2005). e changing
nature of work in the age of
e-business. Journal of Organi-
zational Change Management,
18(2), 132-144. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/09534810510589561
42. Leys, C., Klein, O., Dominicy, Y.,
& Ley, C. (2018). Detecting multi-
variate outliers: Use a robust vari-
ant of the Malhalanobis distance.
Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 74, 150-156. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.09.011
43. Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2022). SOLO-
MON: A method for splitting a
sample into equivalent subsamples
in factor analysis. Behavior
Research Methods, 54, 2665-2677.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-
021-01750-y
44. Maino, F., & Razetti, F. (2020).
Organizzazioni solidali ai tempi
del Covid-19. Iniziative di welfare
aziendale, smart working e
responsabilità sociale avviate
nella “fase 1”: Rischi e opportu-
nità [Supportive organizations in
the time of Covid-19. Corporate
welfare, smart working and social
responsibility initiatives launched
in “phase 1”: Risks and oppor-
tunities]. Percorso di Secondo
Welfare. (In Italian). Retrieved
from https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/
handle/2434/746436/1508770/
report_2W_2406_def.pdf
45. Malaska, P. (2001). A futures
research outline of post-modern
idea of progress. Futures, 33(3-4),
225-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0016-3287(00)00069-0
46. Malone, T. (2005). e future of
work. In C. Sørensen, Y. Yoo, K.
Lyytinen, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.),
Designing Ubiquitous Information
Environments: Socio-Technical
Issues and Challenges (pp. 17-20).
Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/0-387-28918-6_2
47. Manupriya, B., & Shweta, D.
(2016). Employer brand building
for eective talent management.
International Journal of Applied
Sciences and Mmanagement, 2(1),
183-191. Retrieved from http://
www.waljatcollege.edu.om/jour-
nal/pdf/IJASM_020101.pdf
48. Moroko, L., & Uncles, M. D.
(2008). Characteristics of success-
ful employer brands. Journal of
Brand Management, 16, 160-175.
https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2008.4
49. Mwangi, C. I. (2022). Career
development and employee value
proposition people management
future. IntechOpen. https://doi.
org/10.5772/intechopen.106932
50. Nestle. (2022, May 24). Upskill-
ing, career growth and job security
among top expectations of young
workers, new survey nds. Re-
trieved from https://www.nestle.
com/media/news/career-growth-
security-young-workers-study
51. NielsenIQ. (2022). Global Youth
survey report. Prepared for Global
Alliance for YOUth. Retrieved from
https://www.globalalliancefory-
outh.org/sites/site.prod.globalal-
lianceforyouth.org/les/2022-05/
NielsenIQ%20report%20for%20
Global%20Youth%20Survey%20
_27th%20Jan%202022.pdf
52. Oades, L. G., Steger, M. F., Delle
Fave, A., & Passmore, J. (2017).
e Wiley Backwell handbook of
the psychology of positivity and
strenghts-based approaches at work.
John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781118977620
53. Otu, A., Charles, C. H., & Yaya,
S. (2020). Mental health and
psuchosocial well-being during
the COVID-19 pandemic: e
invisible elephant in the room.
International Journal of Mental
Health Systems, 14, 38. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s13033-020-00371-w
54. Parameswaran, H. (2020). A
multifactorial approach to
examine employee value proposi-
tion (EVP) in organizations: A
unique strategic paradigm in
human resource development. e
American Journal of Humanities
and Social Sciences, 03(05), 53-
61. Retrieved from https://www.
theajhssr.com/V-3/THEAJHSSR_
J035053061.pdf
55. Parreira, J. (2007). An analysis
of an employee value proposition.
North-West University. Retrieved
from https://repository.nwu.ac.za/
bitstream/handle/10394/1839/
parreira_jaco%281%29.
pdf?sequence=1
56. Pattnaik, S. K., & Misra, R. K.
(2016). Employer value proposi-
tion: A conceptual framework
and scale development for Indian
information technology profes-
sionals. International Journal of
Human Capital and Information
Technology Professionals (IJHC-
ITP), 7(4), 15-32. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4018/IJHCITP.2016100102
57. Piedmont, R. L. (2014). Eigen-
values. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and
Well-Being Research. Dordrecht:
Springer.
58. Ragazzoni, P., Tangolo, D., &
Zotti, A. M. (2004). Stress oc-
cupazionale e valorizzazione delle
risorse umane in azienda sanitaria:
Dalla valutazione al processo di
cambiamento [Occupational stress
and human resource enhancement
in health care enterprise: From
assessment to change process].
Giornale Italiano Di Medicina Del
Lavoro Ed Ergonomia, 26, 119-
126. (In Italian). Retrieved from
http://www.sabbatiniconsulting.
com/DOCUMENTAZIONE/
DOC1/27%20Stress/Stress%20
occupazionale%20in%20az%20
sanitaria%20-%20INAIL.pdf
59. Randstad. (2022). Employer brand
research 2022. Global report.
Retrieved from https://workfor-
ceinsights.randstad.com/hubfs/
REBR%202022/rebr%202022%20
global%20report.pdf?hsLang=nl
60. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., &
Becker, J.-M. (2022). SmartPLS
4. Retrieved from https://www.
smartpls.com
61. Ritzqi, A., & Kustini, K. (2021).
Employer branding and employee
value proposition: e key success
of startup companies in attract-
ing potential employee candi-
dates. Annals of Human Resource
Management Research (AHRMR),
1(2), 113-125. Retrieved from
https://media.neliti.com/media/
publications/360352-employer-
branding-and-employee-value-
pro-29b49c54.pdf

293
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
62. Robertson, B. J. (2015). Holacracy:
e new management system for a
rapidly changing world. New York:
Henry Holt and Company. Re-
trieved from https://www.amazon.
com/Holacracy-Management-
System-Rapidly-Changing/dp/
B01L985542
63. Ruch, W., Gander, F., Platt, T., &
Hofmann, J. (2018). Team roles:
eir relationships to character
strengths and job satisfaction.
Journal of Positive Psychology,
13(2), 190-199. https://doi.org/10.1
080/17439760.2016.1257051
64. Rzemieniak, M., & Wawer, M.
(2021). Employer branding in the
context of the company’s sustain-
able development strategy from
the perspective of gender diversity
of Generation Z. Sustainability,
13(2), 828. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13020828
65. Sammer, J. (2022). Finding an
eective employee value proposi-
tion: Know what employees want
and value, and review your oer-
ings regularly. SHRM. Retrieved
from https://www.proquest.com/
trade-journals/nding-eective-
employee-value-proposition/
docview/2695476501/se-2
66. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair,
J. F. (2017). Partial least squares
structural equation modeling. In
C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, &
A. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of
Market Research. Springer. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
05542-8_15-1
67. Sequeira, A. S. (2019). Leadership
in a VUCA organizational con-
text: Are we ready for a paradigm
change? European Conference on
Management, Leadership & Gov-
ernance. Kidmore End. Retrieved
from https://www.proquest.
com/openview/0a94fd148ab7
e404dd1e36569800db2f/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=1796418
68. Shamaileh, N., Alhamad, A., Al-
Qudah, M., Mohammad, A., Al-
hahalmeh, M., Al-Azzam, M., &
Alshurideh, M. (2022). e eect
of e-HRM on organizational per-
formance and talent management:
A strategic evolution perspective.
International Journal of Data and
Network Science, 6(4), 1043-
1048. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.
ijdns.2022.8.005
69. Sharma, R., & Prasad, A. (2018).
Employer brand and its unex-
plored impact on intent to join.
International Journal of Organi-
zational Analysis, 26(3), 536-566.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-11-
2017-1280
70. Spillecke, D. (2019). Reiventing
the organization for faster growth.
McKinsey Insights. Retrieved
from https://www.mckinsey.com/
capabilities/growth-marketing-
and-sales/our-insights/reinvent-
ing-the-organization-for-faster-
growth
71. Staniec, I., & Kalińska-Kula, M.
(2021). Internal employer brand-
ing as a way to improve employee
engagement. Problems and Per-
spectived in Management, 19(3),
33-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/
ppm.19(3).2021.04
72. Stocchi, M., Giobbe, T., Boscolo, P.,
Di Giampaolo, P., & Di Giampaolo,
L. (2010). Lo sviluppo del ben-
essere organizzativo: La formazi-
one organizzativa come leva stra-
tegica per il cambiamento [e
development of organizational
well-being: Organizational train-
ing as a strategic lever for change].
Giornale Italiano di Medicina
del Lavoro ed Ergonomia, 32(4),
415-418. (In Italian). Retrieved
from http://www.asqsinergie.com/
wp-content/uploads/2011/09/
Gimle_benessere_organizzativo_
formazione.pdf
73. TalentLy. (n.d.). Sample of
employee value proposition survey
questions. Retrieved from https://
www.talently.com/en/resources/
employee-value-proposition-
survey-questions
74. Terry, D. (2023, May 22). Getting
the science right: Talent acquisition
straegies in life sciences. BioSpec-
trum. Retrieved from https://
www.biospectrumasia.com/analy-
sis/28/22478/getting-the-science-
right-talent-acquisition-strategies-
in-life-sciences.html
75. Vanhala, S., & Tuomi, K. (2006).
Company performance and
employee well-being. Management
Revue, 17(3), 241-255. Retrieved
from https://www.jstor.org/sta-
ble/41783520
76. Watkins, M. W. (2018). Explor-
atory factor analysis: A guide to
best practice. Journal of Black Psy-
chology, 44(3), 219-246. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0095798418771807
77. Whysall, Z., Owtram, M., &
Brittain, S. (2019). e new tal-
ent management challenges of
Industry 4.0. Journal of Manage-
ment Development, 38(2), 118-129.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-06-
2018-0181
78. Yang, S.-B., & Guy, M. (2011). e
eectiveness of self-managed work
teams in government organiza-
tions. Journal of Business and Psy-
chology, 26, 531-541. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10869-010-9205-2
79. Yu, J., Park, J., & Hyun, S. S. (2021).
Impacts of the COVID-19 pan-
demic on employees work stress,
well-being, mental health, organi-
zational citizenship behavior, and
employee-customer identication.
Journal of Hospitability Marketing
& Management, 30(5), 529-548.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.
2021.1867283

294
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.24
APPENDIX A
Table A1. Item descripon
Second-
order
variable
First-order
variable Items Queson Sources
Intrinsic movaon
Job latude
JS1 I have the freedom to decide how to do my work
Karasek et al. (1998)
JS2 My job allows me to make decisions independently
JS3 I can inuence the course of my work
Support of
colleagues
JS7 The colleagues I work with show interest in me
JS8 The colleagues I work with are friendly
JS9 With my colleagues, we encourage each other, and there is
collaboraon
Support of
management
JS10 My manager cares about the welfare of my team
JS11 My manager pays aenon to what I say
JS12 My manager helps me in geng the job done
Working
environment
AL1 My workplace has a nice physical environment Panaik and Misra
(2016), TalentLy
(n.d.)
AL2 The work space is well- organized
AL3 I am provided with the appropriate work tools to carry out my tasks
Purpose
MP1 All employees feel empowered. The iniaves they take increase
their movaon
Bronlet (2022)
SP1
Company per formance includes mulple indicators such
as employee, customer, supplier sasfacon, and social-
environmental responsibili ty. This is in addion to turnover gures,
market share, and other economic indicators
SP2 Business development focuses on socioeconomic and
environmental sustainability
AM1 Collaborators celebrate improvements achieved and adjustment s
made
AM2 Each organizaonal unit is responsible for dening its own s trategy.
This includes convincing management to implement improvements
AM3 The organizaon is supported by tools and techniques designed to
support connuous improvement and adaptaon
Extrinsic movaon
Salary
RB1 The company has a compeve compensaon package
Panaik and
Misra (2016),
TalentLy (n.d.),
Parameswaran
(2020)
RB2 I am sased with my remuneraon
RB3 I am sased with the way promoons are handled
RB4 I felt rewarded for my individual contribuon
Benets
RB5 The company promotes the mental and physical well-being of its
employees (well-being)
RB6 The working hours are exible
RB7 The company provides opportunies for work-life balance (work-
life balance)
RB8 I am sased with the per formance of the pension fund
RB9 The company also oers the opportunit y to work from home (ex
work or hybrid)
Career
C1 The company oers learning and development opportunies
Panaik and Misra
(2016)
C2 The company encourages me to improve my mindset while at work
C3 The company supports programs for personal development and
growth
C4 At work, I am cons tantly improving my skills
C5 At my bank, people are recognized and rewarded based on their
contribuon