Methodology & Dimensions
The instrument distills your answers and professional status into five decision dimensions and from there into a decision indication. Each dimension draws on established constructs in work and organizational research. The concrete calculation is deliberately not disclosed here; what matters is the conceptual anchor of each dimension.
Foundations of the five dimensions
The choice of dimensions reflects the finding that decisions about job changes are not driven by a single factor, but emerge from the interplay of strain, alternatives, anchoring and readiness to act. This interplay is exactly what established explanatory models of turnover research describe.
D1 — Internal prospects
Captures visible development and advancement opportunities in the current employer. Conceptually, the dimension draws on research into internal labor markets and on perceived organizational support, which shows that recognizable internal prospects raise engagement and reduce turnover intentions.
Doeringer & Piore (1971), Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. · Eisenberger et al. (1986), Perceived Organizational Support, Journal of Applied Psychology.
D2 — External marketability
Captures market value and realistic options outside the current employer. The basis is human-capital and employability research, in which the availability and quality of perceived alternatives is a central and distinct driver of turnover decisions.
Becker (1964), Human Capital. · Forrier & Sels (2003) and De Vos et al. (2011) on employability, Journal of Vocational Behavior.
D3 — Exit pressure
Measures strain and misfit — the forces pushing toward a move. The dimension follows the Job Demands–Resources model and Person–Environment Fit research: high demands paired with low resources, and a poor person-environment fit, raise strain and the propensity to move.
Bakker & Demerouti (2007), Job Demands–Resources Model, Journal of Managerial Psychology. · Kristof-Brown et al. (2005), Person–Environment Fit, Personnel Psychology.
D4 — Personal / financial anchors
Describes binding factors that limit the room to move — financial buffer as well as personal and location-related commitments. Anchors here are the Three-Component Model of organizational commitment (particularly its continuance component) and the concept of Job Embeddedness.
Meyer & Allen (1991), Three-Component Model of Commitment, Human Resource Management Review. · Mitchell et al. (2001), Job Embeddedness, Academy of Management Journal.
D5 — Readiness to act
Captures the actual energy for change. The basis is the Theory of Planned Behavior and turnover research, according to which intention is the strongest direct predictor of subsequent behavior — pressure alone, without readiness to act, rarely leads to a move.
Ajzen (1991), Theory of Planned Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. · Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner (2000), meta-analysis of turnover, Journal of Management.
From dimensions to indication
The five dimensions are combined into one of five decision indications — from stabilizing the stay through to an active move. What matters is not a single number, but the pattern: e.g. high exit pressure combined with strong external marketability and clear readiness to act. This approach reflects the research view that turnover decisions are best explained as an interplay of multiple factors — prominently in the "Unfolding Model" of turnover.
Lee & Mitchell (1994), An Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover, Academy of Management Review.
How your status feeds in
Industry, region, function, seniority, capability profile and age band adjust the dimension values. These adjustments follow the same constructs — e.g. a broad, current capability profile raises external marketability, a later life stage raises anchoring. In the result, the adjustments made are transparently disclosed.