It doesn’t arrive to the size of a company, on monetary stimuli or the reputation of the company, but solely on the initial alphabetical rank! Grossenkneten, the 27.06.2012: For many years the Klaus Resch Verlag the employers ‘conducting study. Using a survey in almost all University locations of the country, we thereby determine which factors characterise the attractiveness of an employer. “Thousands of students participate every year and list, what are the criteria for a dream job” make up. It is it the content, is the quality of life of the place of residence, the work-live balance or the views of a charming Secretary, a smart wizard? Many companies would be happy if they yielded just today, in times of academic deficiency, to this mysterious factor. We are aware of the responsibility, yes the key role by Klaus Resch Verlag, which reconcile the findings of our many years of research. Therefore, the Working Group Neigel has et. Al. moved back several months meeting and with the most modern methods of statistics once again all the questionnaires evaluated twice and the result across accounted for.
The result is not only incredibly unique, but, in hindsight, obvious on almost mystical way. So here we present the key to the appeal of an employer, the magic formula for the attraction to top academic candidate: it does not arrive on the size of a company, on monetary stimuli or the reputation of the company, but solely on the initial alphabetical rank! Let’s look at just the ranking of the year 2011: 1st demonstrated (A) udi again, followed by (B) MW and (D) aimler that is beyond all doubt, in its statistical significance. Apparently companies beginning with the letter are considered quite clearly more attractive A to F company, starting with Q, X, or Y. Successful companies choose a catchy name and start it without beating around the Bush with A, B or D, already the first graders are a term. Who satisfied is placed letters alphabetically later such as X or Y, must not be surprised, if the graduates classified him as unattractive. The finding is particularly clear if one divides the attractive employer into four groups: Group I from A – F, group II by G M, group III of N S, Group IV from T to Z. Then the first, alphabetically-strong group has proud 48 members, while the last group composed of pitiful 14 companies.
It is more than clear, we think. (“Editor’s Note: the so-called C-effect” “the relatively weak position of companies, with C” begin within Group I, will be the subject of subsequent investigations.) We plan comprehensive research on this issue in the coming year. Since us spontaneously leading companies such as the Cuxhaven fish farms and the Clausthal sparrows oHG funding secured, we expect already early 2013 with the first results).