motivation and retention of knowledge workers in a...

Copyright UCT

Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm


A Research Report

presented to

In partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the

Masters of Business Administration Degree

by

Beverly Shrand FT252 December 2006

Supervisor: Professor Frank M. Horwitz

MBA Research Report December 2006 0

Copyright UCT


Acknowledgements

I am deeply grateful to a number of people who have been invaluable to me in producing this

report.

Firstly to my supervisor, Professor Frank Horwitz, who has been a constant source of wisdom,

support and inspiration.

To Steven Sollinger for welcoming me into the heart of Incubeta and for endorsing the

project, both at executive management level and with the employees.

To my brother, Rael Shrand, for proof-reading my report, and for his support and

encouragement throughout my MBA.

To Tom Van den Berckt for his assistance in gaining access to the company and to the other

individuals at Incubeta who were involved with my research in various ways; not least of all

those who participated in the surveys and the focus groups.

To Marilyn Wolensky for her help with data capturing, her support and encouragement.

To my parents, my siblings and my close friends, for your loving support, understanding,

encouragement and faith in me.

I certify that except as noted above the report is my own work and all references used are

reported in the report.

This report is not confidential. It may be used freely by the GSB.

Signed:

MBA Research Report December 2006 i

Copyright UCT


Abstract

This research explores the factors that motivate and retain “knowledge workers” in a single

organisation, that of a technology-driven start-up firm. Knowledge workers are highly mobile,

in short supply (particularly in South Africa), and often the main reason for a company’s

competitive advantage. It is therefore most important for companies to develop strategies to

effectively motivate and retain their knowledge workers. The purpose of this study is to

identify the key drivers for doing so. The study is exploratory and makes use of triangulation,

employing both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The study focuses on the two different types of knowledge workers within the company and

discusses differences in their responses. Consistent with previous studies, the study reveals

that “challenging work” and “a highly competitive pay package” are the two most important

factors for both motivation and retention of knowledge workers. The overall findings seem to

fit a “model” that was proposed in a previous study suggesting that while employees value

intrinsic factors, they will remain in a company only as long as they perceive they are in a

position of external equity.

KEYWORDS: Knowledge workers; talent management; priority skills employees;

motivation; retention; motivation strategies; retention strategies; intrinsic factors/rewards;

extrinsic factors/rewards; affective commitment.

MBA Research Report December 2006 ii

Copyright UCT


Table of Contents

1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Area of Study ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Relevance of the Study............................................................................................... 2 1.3 Context ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Objectives of the Study .............................................................................................. 4 1.5 Scope of the Study...................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Layout of the Report .................................................................................................. 5

2 Literature Review............................................................................................................... 6 2.1 The Knowledge Worker’s Mindset ............................................................................ 6 2.2 Factors that Influence Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers ................ 8 2.3 Organisational Strategies and HR Practices for Managing Knowledge Workers.... 15

3 Research Methodology..................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Type of Research...................................................................................................... 18 3.2 Overview of Primary Data Collection Methodology ............................................... 18 3.3 The Questionnaire Design........................................................................................ 20 3.4 Focus Groups............................................................................................................ 21 3.5 Quantitative Research Sampling Methodology........................................................ 25 3.6 Quantitative Data Analysis....................................................................................... 25 3.7 Qualitative Data Analysis......................................................................................... 27 3.8 Limitations of this research ...................................................................................... 28

4 Research Findings ............................................................................................................ 29 4.1 Demographics........................................................................................................... 29 4.2 Ranking of Motivation and Retention Factors ......................................................... 31 4.3 Satisfaction with Financial Package......................................................................... 34 4.4 Satisfaction with the Nature of the Work................................................................. 35 4.5 Satisfaction with Advancement Opportunities......................................................... 36 4.6 Satisfaction with Manager........................................................................................ 36 4.7 Satisfaction with Team/ Co-workers /Peers ............................................................. 37 4.8 Overall Satisfaction with Current Job ...................................................................... 38 4.9 Tabulated Responses to Open-Ended Questions...................................................... 39 4.10 Table of Retention Variables Ranked by Mean ....................................................... 43 4.11 Factor Analysis Findings.......................................................................................... 45 4.12 Commitment to Company Goals.............................................................................. 48 4.13 Incubeta’s Knowledge Workers’ Perceptions of their Own Marketability.............. 49 4.14 Job-hunting Status and Intention to Stay at Current Company................................ 50

5 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 53 6 Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................................. 58 References ................................................................................................................................ 60 Appendix A: Talent Management Questionnaire..................................................................... 64 Appendix B: Presentation to Focus Groups ............................................................................. 69 Appendix C: Factor Analysis Results ...................................................................................... 72

MBA Research Report December 2006 iii

Copyright UCT


1 Overview “As is now widely acknowledged in both management theory and practice, knowledge is

perhaps the most valuable of all resources, both for the overall economy and for individual

companies” (Goshal & Moran (2004) cited in Birkinshaw & Piramal, 2006: 10).

1.1 Area of Study

Many authors argue that in the Global Economy, an organisation’s ability to manage both

knowledge and so called “knowledge workers” effectively will determine its competitive

advantage and sustainability in the global marketplace. Drucker (1989) coined the term

“knowledge worker” to describe a group of employees who hold knowledge as a powerful

resource that they, rather than the organisation, own (Horwitz, Teng Heng & Quazi, 2003).

Knowledge workers “own” the distinct competencies, specialized knowledge and skills that

give an organisation its competitive edge in the “information age”. “Knowledge workers have

high levels of skills/education, technological literacy, high cognitive power and abstract

reasoning; ability to observe, synthesize and interpret data, as well as communicate new

perspectives and insights” (Horwitz, Teng Heng, Quazi, Nonkwelo, Roditi & van Eck, 2006:

791). Knowledge workers are a significant subset of “talent”, a term used frequently to

describe key employees considered to be of high priority by an organisation. Much of the

empirical research-based literature on the management of talent specifically addresses the

attraction, retention and motivation of knowledge workers. In the employment relationship,

power has shifted from employers to these highly mobile knowledge workers or “priority

skills employees”, since the organisation needs them more than they need the organisation

(Birt, Wallis & Winternitz, 2004). The cost of attrition of these employees is extremely high,

both in financial terms and non-financial terms (Gaylard, Sutherland & Viedge, 2005).

“Failure to retain key employees may undermine the competitive capability, intellectual

capital, cultural fabric and institutional memory” of an organisation (Horwitz, Teng Heng &

Quazi, 2003: 25). It is therefore critically important for organisations to gain an understanding

of the drivers that motivate and retain their knowledge workers in order to implement

effective strategies and best practices for managing this talent.

This research explores the factors that motivate and retain knowledge workers in a single

organisation, that of a technology-driven start-up firm. In the case of the organisation being

studied, the pool of knowledge workers comprises of two specific groups, namely


Copyright UCT


“technology workers” and “campaign managers”, considered priority skills employees in this

single organisation study.

1.2 Relevance of the Study

Cappelli (2000: 104) makes the analogy that “if managing employee retention in the past was

akin to tending a dam that keeps a reservoir in place, today it is more like managing a river.”

“The war for talent”, a phrase often quoted when referring to the competition for scarce

highly skilled employees, is a critical challenge for organisations worldwide. More so in

South Africa, where the shortage of skilled employees has been exacerbated by a history of

race-based structural inequality, restricting access to education, training, skills development

and professional work as well as a “brain drain” due to emigration (Horwitz, Teng Heng,

Quazi, Nonkwelo, Roditi & van Eck, 2004).

Much attention has been focussed on the skills shortage in South Africa in light of the

approaching 2010 Soccer World Cup being hosted in this country, with concerns being raised

about whether projects will be completed in time. “The result of our skills shortage could cost

the country an estimated 1% of the GDP and place key business and government service

delivery strategies at risk of failure” (Horwitz, 2006: 13). It has been acknowledged that

while increasing graduate output in key priority skills areas would form part of the solution,

retention of key employees is an equally critical aspect (Horwitz, 2006).” “South African

businesses are called on to attract, motivate and retain human capital, especially intellectual

capital” (Horwitz, 2006: 13). Thus it is critically important for South African organisations to

understand what factors drive the motivation and retention of their key employees in order to

ensure sustainable economic growth for both the organisation and the country.

1.3 Context

1.3.1. Company Background

Incubeta was founded in Cape Town (South Africa) in 2003. Its mission is the provision of

performance-based search engine marketing services to online retailers and its client base is

predominantly global. To date, the company has been highly successful in a new industry and

has won prestigious global awards related to innovation in its area of expertise (Dass, Davies,

Farr, Garibaldi, Mokoka, & Van den Berckt, 2006).


Copyright UCT


The company grew extremely quickly. By the end of its first year, Incubeta already had more

than 20 employees. After two years, the company needed larger premises and had almost 50

employees (Dass et al, 2006). In its third year, it became evident that the company had grown

too quickly and a process of downsizing, selling or abandoning business ventures took place,

accompanied by retrenchments and voluntary turnover of staff. At the end of 2005, a new

shareholder acquired a majority stake and established a new management team who set about

putting structures in place to rapidly scale up the business (Dass et al, 2006).

Today the company is at a crossroads, displaying many of the classic traits of an

entrepreneurial start-up experiencing a period of transition as it starts to grow in size (Dass et

al, 2006). The founder, Vinny Lingham, whose charismatic personality has been said to be

responsible for the culture, creativity and expertise of the company, is now a minority

shareholder. It is claimed that his personality is responsible not only for the company’s

marketing profile but also for attracting young, dynamic, creative, and appropriately skilled

employees (Dass et al, 2006). As importantly, it has been stated that he personally generated

the loyalty that employees sensed toward the company. It is in the context of the founder’s

diminished role in the company, a transition stage in the company’s life cycle, and a new

management team, that this study was conducted.

1.3.2. The Occupations of Incubeta’s Knowledge Workers

It would be helpful at the outset of this report to provide brief job descriptions of the two

groups that constitute Incubeta’s pool of knowledge workers, since it will help the reader to

contextualize the findings of the research:

• Technology workers comprise mostly software developers and others who provide

technological support to the operational side of the business. These employees have

become experts in their field, and have generic Information Technology (“IT”)

knowledge and skills that are transferable to other companies. However should they

develop something new and innovative while working for Incubeta, it becomes the

intellectual property of the company.

• Campaign managers identify and establish contact with companies that offer

profitable marketing opportunities, research those companies and their industries, and

search for relevant keywords that will appear as part of a marketing campaign that

they set up on various search engines. These highly skilled individuals acquire

company-specific knowledge, training and skills development over a longer period of


Copyright UCT


1.4 Objectives of the Study

Various studies (Horwitz, Teng Heng, Quazi, Nonkwelo, Roditi & van Eck, 2006; Gaylard,

Sutherland & Viedge, 2005; Birt, Wallis & Winternitz, 2004; Kinnear & Sutherland, 2000)

have been conducted in South Africa across different industries to determine the factors that

motivate and retain knowledge workers. This research seeks to build on these studies by using

a triangulated approach to gain insight into the factors that motivate and retain knowledge

workers in a small, technology-driven South African start-up company. The research

questions include:

• What are the key drivers of motivation and retention of knowledge workers and how

do they compare with the themes emerging from the literature?

• What are the levels of job satisfaction and commitment in the organisation and do

these appear to correlate with the intention to stay or leave the company in the next six

months?

• What appears to be the external, market or “pull” factors and what are the prevailing

company-related “push” factors that may influence someone to leave the company?

• What recommendations, if any, can the researcher make to the company based on her

findings that may assist with the motivation & retention of its knowledge workers?

1.5 Scope of the Study

This single organisation study focuses on a small, technology-driven South-African start-up

firm in a niche industry, namely that of online search engine marketing. Although not

generalisable to a broader population, there may be some insights that can be applied to

similar companies in South Africa. The limitations of this research are discussed on page 28

in the research methodology section.


Copyright UCT


1.6 Layout of the Report

The report is divided into six major sections as detailed below:

1. Overview

This section covers the area of study, the relevance of the study, the context within which the

study took place, the objectives of the study, the scope of the study, and provides a layout of

the report.

2. Literature Review

This section presents a brief overview of the academic literature on the topic of motivation

and retention of knowledge workers. It is divided into three sections comprising the

knowledge worker’s mindset, factors that influence the motivation and retention of

knowledge workers, and organisational strategies and HR practices for managing knowledge

workers.

3. Research Methodology

This section describes the type of research that was conducted, provides an overview of the

primary data collection methodology, discusses the questionnaire design, discusses the focus

group research, describes the quantitative research sampling methodology, describes the

quantitative and qualitative data analysis, and states the limitations of this study.

4. Findings

This section of the report highlights the main finding from both the survey and the focus

group research. The survey and focus group findings are interspersed since the qualitative

focus group data adds depth and insight to the descriptive survey data.

5. Discussion

This section analyses the findings in terms of the consistency with previous studies and

relevant literature and discusses possible implications arising from the study.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

This section concludes the study and makes recommendations based on the findings where

deemed appropriate.


Copyright UCT


2 Literature Review There is a plethora of literature that explores the topic of employee motivation and retention.

Most of the theory covered here is based on research done specifically involving talent or

knowledge workers, although certain literature is generally applicable to all employees.

The literature review will be presented in three sections:

• The Knowledge Worker’s Mindset;

• Factors that Influence the Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers;

• Organisational Strategies and HR Practices for Managing Knowledge Workers

2.1 The Knowledge Worker’s Mindset

At the outset of reviewing the literature on the motivation and retention of knowledge

workers, it is helpful to understand how knowledge workers differ from other employees. The

table below was drawn up by Despres and Hiltrop (1995) and compares knowledge work to

traditional work. This table is useful when attempting to understand the mindset of the

knowledge worker. It suggests that knowledge workers have careers that are external to an

organisation through years of education rather than internal through training and career

schemes. It further paints a picture of an employee that is of strategic, long-term importance

as opposed to short-term importance to the firm, who is process as opposed to task focussed

and who is flexible, resisting bureaucracy and rigid structures.

Source: Despres and Hiltrop,1995: p.13.


Copyright UCT


In a recent study, Horwitz, Teng Heng, Quazi, Nonkwelo, Roditi & van Eck (2006) included a

comprehensive table listing various definitions, characteristics and expectations of knowledge

workers and knowledge intensive firms. The table captured the prevailing understanding of

what differentiates knowledge workers from other employees. Below is a summary of a few

of the key themes that emerged from the table (Horwitz et al, 2006: 785):

• Competencies: knowledge workers have a “capacity to create, communicate and

facilitate new ideas” (Vogt, 1995); they have high-level abstract reasoning and

cognition to synthesize and communicate new perspectives and insights for more

effective decisions, solutions and processes (Stamps, 1996);

• Nature of work: knowledge workers thrive on “ambiguous intensive work that is non-

repetitive” (Alvesson, 2000);

• Changing control mechanisms: knowledge workers enjoy work autonomy,

occupational advancement and mobility; they reject traditional retention systems in

favour of practices that promote individualism, independence and personal

achievement (Kinnear & Sutherland, 2000); normative control through direct

command and control mechanisms is replaced by normative control through cultures

and identities (Herzenberg, Alice & Wial, 2000);

• Changing loyalty: there has been a shift from “institutional loyalty to communitarian

loyalty” (Alvesson, 2000; Thompson & Heron, 2002); knowledge workers tend to be

more loyal to peers and professional networks than to the organisation (Despres &

Hiltrop, 1995);

• High mobility: knowledge workers’ skills are in high demand since core competencies

reside in these workers making them highly mobile (Kinnear & Sutherland, 2000);

knowledge workers tend to have a strong internal locus of control (Kinnear &

Sutherland, 2000) enabling the belief that they have control over their own destiny and

thereby encouraging mobility;

• Flexibility: knowledge workers tend to grow and adapt to change (Baron & Hannan,

2002), and to flexibly balance work and life demands (Alvesson, 2000).

A knowledge worker focuses on career “self-preservation” (Gaylard, Sutherland & Viedge,

2005), on development of professional expertise and on employability as opposed to long-

term job security (Kinnear & Sutherland, 2000). “High potential people will increasingly

seek experience-based career leverage opportunities to rapidly develop their careers and to


Copyright UCT


enhance their personal marketability” (Glen, 2006: 43). Many authors refer to the “new

psychological contract” where individuals seek to be marketable in terms of their

employability rather than seeking job security, and where organisations require high work

commitment rather than loyalty (Horwitz, Teng Heng & Quazi, 2003). The shift toward

shorter tenures, greater flexibility and employee self-reliance has attendant consequences for

the retention of employees (Lee, 2001). The new psychological contract therefore “requires a

different employment relationship, organisational design and HR practices” (Horwitz, Teng

Heng & Quazi, 2003:28).

2.2 Factors that Influence Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers

The topics of motivation and retention will be dealt with separately in this section.

2.2.1. Motivation

A “classic” historical paper on motivation that is still relevant today is that of Herzberg’s two-

factor motivation theory (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). Herzberg (1959) posits that while

there are certain motivators that sustain effort, there are others that when inappropriate or

lacking served to demotivate. The important assertion emanating from this is the weak

correlation between financial reward and job satisfaction. “At the crudest level, Herzberg’s

results have been translated into the axiom that while inadequate financial reward can

demotivate, nevertheless, beyond a limited threshold, money is a hygiene factor and does not

motivate” (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005: 932). On the other hand, Herzberg (1959) found that

sources of job satisfaction include a sense of achievement, recognition, the work itself, the

opportunity to take responsibility and prospects for advancement (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd,

2005). Herzberg (1959) went on to assert that motivation is founded upon satisfaction born of

a sense of achievement, recognition for achievement, responsibility and personal growth i.e.

intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic rewards.

Much research has been done to establish the link between executive incentives and company

performance. Beer & Katz (2003) argue that there is not enough focus on how bonuses shape

executive behaviour & decision-making. While “a significant development in executive

compensation is the increasing use of performance-based bonuses and stock options”, Beer et

al’s findings suggest that efforts to design an incentive system to make pay contingent on unit

performance may be misguided (Beer & Katz, 2003: 30). Their research established that the

only variable that significantly predicts company performance is the extent to which the


Copyright UCT


culture is one of teamwork, i.e. a culture of teamwork is much more crucial to performance

than having an incentive system (Beer & Katz, 2003). Beer & Katz’s findings were consistent

with studies concluding that company-wide gain-sharing plans are associated with high-

commitment and team-based corporate cultures (Beer & Katz, 2003). However, contingent

compensation features prominently in most high-performance work systems. Results from a

study by Gardner, Van Dyne & Pierce (2004) hypothesised that the level of pay within an

organisation communicates a sense of how much the organisation values an employee and

thus affects employee organisation-based self esteem, which in turn, enhances job

performance. After controlling for organisation tenure, and previous pay changes, results

support this hypothesis. This could further explain importance of recognition-based rewards.

Beer & Katz (2003) found that the perception that the incentive system is fair is a powerful

moderator of the relationship between bonuses and behaviour.

Despres & Hiltrop (1995) concluded that “the ideal knowledge-age compensation programme

should address the full range of factors that affect the individual’s performance, rather than

only financial considerations and extrinsic sources of motivation such as cash and cash

equivalents” as well as that “compensation and reward systems must shift from objective and

rational to subjective and “soft” performance measures” (Despres & Hiltrop, 1995: 20). “In

the knowledge age, monetary incentives will be only a starting-point and the focus will be on

ways to encourage intrinsic human achievement motivation” (Despres & Hiltrop (1995: 20).

This statement is compatible with Tampoe’s findings that “the biggest motivation factor for

knowledge workers is ‘personal growth’ followed by ‘operational autonomy’ and then by

‘task achievement’” The study also noted that, “among the four major motivators, money was

the least motivational factor” (Tampoe (1993) in Kalra, 1997: 178).

2.2.2. Retention

As with the literature pertaining to the motivation of knowledge workers, the majority of

studies on retention explore the relative importance of extrinsic and intrinsic factors.

According to Horwitz et al (2003), the main reasons knowledge workers resigned were related

to pay and job prospects, personal or undisclosed. Please refer to Figure 1 below, showing the

main reasons for knowledge worker turnover. The research found that only a small percentage

of knowledge workers resigned for reasons specifically related to their jobs. The authors cite

that individuals distinguish between job specific reasons and longer-term career prospects and


Copyright UCT


argue that the findings reveal a need for employers to provide a challenging career tailored to

aligning the needs of the knowledge worker and organisational goals.

However, Gaylard, Sutherland & Viedge (2005) pointed out that the empirical findings on the

role financial reward plays in retaining individuals are contradictory. They mention a study by

Williams & Sunderland (1999) where it was reported that money was the most important

extrinsic factor in retention in a survey of 1,800 American IT employees. (In this context, IT

employees are considered to be a classic example of knowledge workers.) Gaylard et al

(2005) found that on the contrary, a 1999 Hay Group study of more than 500,000 employees

in 300 companies found that of the 50 retention factors surveyed, pay was the least important.

Gaylard et al’s research (2005) revealed three “factors”, each comprising several correlated

retention variables, perceived to most affect the retention of IT workers. The most important

factor was “equity and enablement for high performance” comprising both extrinsic and

intrinsic variables, of which the two extrinsic variables were “fairly rewarded for

contribution” and “competitive remuneration package”. This confirms a study by Birt,

Wallice & Winternitz (2004) that found that employees are conscious of what is occurring in

the marketplace and will respond to perceived equity or inequity. “External comparisons with

compensation offered by other organisations can strongly impact on the effectiveness of

compensation as a tool to retain employees (Armstrong, 1996; Corporate Leadership

Council,1999a; Rankin; 2000)” (Birt, Wallice & Winternitz, 2004: 29). Research done by

Corporate Leadership Council (1999b) disproved the theory that job satisfaction and retention

are closely correlated (Gaylard, Sutherland, Viedge, 2005). “They found that two-thirds of

high value employees who intend to leave are actually satisfied with their current job”


Copyright UCT



(Gaylard et al, 2005: 88) which again alludes to the importance of extrinsic factors such as a

competitive pay package and organisational culture.

Figure 2a below illustrates three factors perceived to most affect the retention of IT workers

(Gaylard, Sutherland & Viedge, 2005). Each factor comprises a number of retention variables

that are correlated with that particular factor, as indicated on the diagram. Certain retention

variables appear in more than one factor and this too is evident to see. Gaylard et al (2005)

established that the three factors perceived to most affect the retention of information

technology workers are, in order of importance; “equity and enablement for high

performance”, “a liberated and empowered culture”; and “an effective and interactive

communication channel between management and the employees” (Gaylard, Sutherland &

Viedge, 2005). The variables highlighted in this model are supported by a number of other

studies.

Figure 2a: Issues perceived to affect the retention of IT workers

Source: Gaylard, Sutherland & Viedge, 2005 p.95

Copyright UCT


Cappelli (2000) suggests that encouraging social ties among key employees may increase

retention. He argues that while loyalty to companies may be disappearing, loyalty to

colleagues is not. Cappelli posits that commitment to colleagues and teams replaces loyalty to

companies. He argues that organizing work around projects and creating teams are ways to

build commitment. Commitment is easier to establish among individuals than between an

individual and an abstract entity such as a company and team members work hard because

they do not want to let the rest of their team down (Capelli, 2000).

Providing the opportunity for experience-based development has been cited as one of the most

vital ways to attract, motivate and retain talent (Glen, 2006). “Rather than seeking formal

educational, training and development opportunities, skilled, high potential people (those

likely to comprise the core of organisational talent) will increasingly seek experience-based

career leverage opportunities to rapidly develop their careers, and to enhance their personal

marketability” (Glen, 2006: 43). The 1999 Hay Group study mentioned by Gaylard et al

(2005) found that the most important retention factor was career growth, learning and

development. Gaylard et al (2005) further cite Tulgan (2001) who showed that people are

entirely preoccupied with growth opportunities. Providing challenging and meaningful work,

encouraging a flexible work arrangement, and by so doing allowing greater autonomy and

freedom has been quoted as being powerful means to retain employees (Gaylard, Sutherland

& Viedge, 2005). Gaylard et al mention a Roffey Park Management Institute study (1999),

which found that the main reason for staying in a job was the challenge it provided.

Kinnear & Sutherland (2000) studied knowledge workers across different industry sectors

and concluded that the tools and technology available to an employee are one of the four main

variables influencing organisational commitment. Personality attributes have been proposed

as another dimension affecting organisational commitment (Arnold, 1995). Arnold found that

a high internal locus of control was negatively correlated to organisational commitment. This

would indicate that the more control that an employee perceives himself to have over his

destiny; the less likely he is to be committed to an organisation and the more difficult it will

be to retain such an employee. “The degree to which the employee ‘fits’ into the organisation

in terms of technical skills, leadership competencies, personal traits and values will also

strongly influence the organisation’s ability to retain the employee” (Gaylard, Sutherland,

Viedge, 2005: 88).


Copyright UCT


“Various research studies indicate that the relationship an employee has with his boss is the

single most significant factor in influencing the employee’s commitment level and the

organisation’s ability to retain the employee” (Gaylard, Sutherland & Viedge, 2005: 88).

Gaylard et al (2005) further cite research by the Saratoga Institute that showed that 50% of

work-life satisfaction is determined by the relationship an employee has with his boss.

“Dobbs (2001) concurs that while compensation and career opportunities are important, most

employees leave because of bad managers” (Gaylard, Sutherland & Viedge, 2005: 88).

Gaylard et al’s (2005) literature review lists aspects of organisational culture that are

perceived to have a strong and positive effect on staff retention. These include: “supporting

work which employees are passionate about, caring about workers’ private lives, employee

wellness and values, and striving to align these with the rest of the team and the organisation;

giving employees freedom to work in their own creative ways; and customising retention

remedies for each employee individually, providing a nurturing, enjoyable and fun work

environment, providing an environment of trust in which information flows freely and

employees’ views are respected” (Gaylard, Sutherland, Viedge, 2005: 88).

“In these days of talent wars, the best way to keep your stars is to know them better than they

know themselves - and then use that information to customize the careers of their dreams”

(Butler & Waldroop, 1999:144). Butler & Waldroop (1999) make the argument that

employees will stay in a company only if the job matches their “deeply embedded life

interests”. “These interests are not hobbies - opera, skiing, and so forth - nor are they topical

enthusiasms, such as Chinese history, the stock market, or oceanography. Instead, embedded

life interests are long-held, emotionally driven passions, intricately entwined with personality

and thus born of an indeterminate mix of nature and nurture. Deeply embedded life interests

do not determine what people are good at - they drive what kinds of activities make them

happy. At work, that happiness often translates into commitment. It keeps people engaged,

and it keeps them from quitting” (Butler & Waldroop, 1999:145-146). Butler & Waldroop

(1999) identified three variables of career satisfaction, namely abilities, values and life

interests. They concluded that the most important variable of the three is that of “life

interests” since it will keep people fulfilled over the long term - the key to retention. Butler &

Waldroop (1999) defined "business core functions" that represent the way deeply embedded

life interests find expression in business. An example of a core function, one that is relevant to

this study is that of “application of technology”. Employees with embedded life interests


Copyright UCT


associated with “application of technology” are “intrigued by the inner workings of things;

and curious about finding better ways to use technology to solve business problems” (Butler

& Waldroop, 1999: 148).

A South African study was conducted by Birt, Wallice and Winternitz (2004) in the financial

services industry to determine the variables most valued by talented employees. From their

literature review and qualitative research, the researchers identified four broad categories to

investigate, each category comprising several related variables namely “compensation and

benefits”; “organisational environment”; “work/development environment” and “work-life

balance”. Birt et al (2004) found in their study that the five variables most frequently ranked

by respondents as being most important in their jobs to be “challenging and meaningful

work”, “advancement opportunities”, “manager integrity and quality”; “empowerment and

responsibility”; and “new opportunities/challenges”. These are all intrinsic in nature and all

fell into the “work/development environment” category. The authors suggest that while the

organisation may not be able to completely control the employee’s decisions to leave by

manipulating these variables, focussing on these may have a significant influence. One of the

uniquely South African variables that this study highlighted was a concern with employment

equity and affirmative action. While it did not emerge as one of the five most important

variables, 83% of the sample rated it as being either crucial or fairly important (Birt et al,

2004).

In their discussion, Birt, Wallice and Winternitz (2004) also differentiate between

“continuance” and “affective” commitment to an organisation. With “continuance

commitment” the employee bases his/her decision on perceptions of other available

opportunities as well as the cost of leaving the organisation while with “affective

commitment”, postulated to increase retention, the employee has a more emotional

commitment. Their study revealed that the talent pool sampled appeared to experience

continuance commitment more than affective commitment, suggesting a concern with

extrinsic variables. However, the results obtained from the participants’ ratings indicate that a

very significant proportion of the sample rated all the variables i.e. extrinsic and intrinsic, as

being either crucial or fairly important. The research therefore demonstrated that market

opportunities are a significant factor regardless of current levels of affective commitment,

suggesting that organisations have to focus on both external equity and the provision of a

positive work environment in order to retain their talent (Birt et al, 2004).


Copyright UCT


2.3 Organisational Strategies and HR Practices for Managing Knowledge Workers

HR Practices for Managing Knowledge Workers - General

Horwitz et al (2003) posit that normatively organisational culture, structure, HR systems and

practices would effectively interact to attract, retain and motivate knowledge workers. “This

would facilitate autonomous, self directed work, depending on the levels of controls and

accountability, and flexibility in working conditions” (Horwitz et al, 2003: 27). It is

acknowledged that there are both tangible and intangible organisational processes and

practices in knowledge intensive firms, intangibles referring to practices like building trust

and relationships (Horwitz et al, 2003). It is argued that “talent management” should be seen

as a strategic business priority and that organisations should invest in their employee’s careers

in order to increase organisational commitment and to avoid market-driven turnover (Birt,

Wallice & Winternitz, 2004). Becoming an “employer of choice” through a process of

“employment branding” will help to attract and retain talent. “Employment branding has been

described as “the process of placing an image of being a ‘great place to work’ in the minds of

the targeted candidate pool” (Boninelli & Meyer, 2004: 145).

Motivation Strategies

A study by Horwitz et al (2003) revealed that the most popular and highly effective strategies

for motivating knowledge workers included practices which allowed a knowledge worker

“freedom to plan work”. They also found that a “challenging work environment” and

“support of top management” were both popular and highly effective for motivation. “While

having regular contact with the senior executives was popular, having access to leading edge

technology was more effective to motivate the knowledge workers together with the fact that

seeking recruits who fit an organizational culture may be more appropriate for attraction

strategies, but on its own does not appear to be an effective motivator” (Horwitz et al, 2003:

33). The first column in Table 3 on page 16 shows the top 5 motivation strategies as ranked

by employers in terms of their perceived effectiveness. These are, in order of importance,

“freedom to plan work”; challenging work”; access to leading-edge technology”; top

management support”; and “ensure fulfilling work”. Horwitz et al.(2003) also compared

results across different industries. Of relevance to this report is the finding that the top

motivation strategies in the “IT” industry category were “freedom to plan and work

independently, top executive leadership and support, access to leading edge technology and

ensuring people have fulfilling work”.


Copyright UCT


Table 3: Highly Effective Motivation and Retention Strategies

Source: Adapted from Horwitz et al (2003, p.31)

Motivation Strategies

Retention Strategies

Strategy Type Rank Strategy Type Rank Freedom to plan work

1 Challenging work 1

Challenging work

2 Highly competitive pay package 2

Access to leading-edge technology/products

3 Having performance incentives/ bonuses 3

Top management support 4

Opportunities to develop in a specialist field

4

Ensure fulfilling work 5 Top management support

5

The above ranking is based on the number of responses that were marked as highly effective in motivating and retaining knowledge workers. Total number of responses for the top five motivating strategies is 89 out of 200 (22.5%) and for retention strategies is 89 out of 196 responses (45.4%).

Retention Strategies

The study by Horwitz et al (2003) revealed that the most popular retention strategies were

related to compensation. The others were related to work environment, including providing

challenging work assignments, opportunities to develop in specialist fields, freedom to plan

work and top management leadership and support. Four out of five of the most popular

retention strategies were also found to be the most highly effective. The last column in Table

3 shows the top 5 retention strategies as ranked by employers in terms of their perceived

effectiveness. These are, in order of importance: “challenging work”; “highly competitive pay

package”; having performance incentives/bonuses”; opportunities to develop in a specialist

field; and top management support” (Horwitz et al, 2003). Where results were compared

across different industries, Horwitz et al (2003) found that the top retention strategies in the

“IT” industry category were “opportunities for development in specialist fields”, “providing

challenging work assignments/projects” and “top management leadership and support”.

Factors Common to Motivation and Retention

The study by Horwitz et al (2003) revealed an overlap of motivational and retention strategies

that were considered highly effective. These centred on “the nature of the work” and “top

management leadership and support”. Horwitz et al (2003: 34) asserts that “the idea of

identifying a ‘bundle’ of HR practices with these common attributes has a potentially


Copyright UCT


differentiating ability in a firm’s ability to manage its knowledge workers effectively”. A

schema produced by Horwitz et al (2003) is included below and proposes the most effective

bundles of best practices and strategies to attract, motivate and retain knowledge workers.

Opportunities for growth, a conducive work environment and transparent compensation

awards were found to be the three most highly effective retention strategies. The schema

suggests that these strategies all require top management leadership and support. The schema

clusters motivation strategies into four main categories: a regular communication system that

keeps the workers informed; a conducive environment for work; a compensation plan that is

commensurate with performance; and advancement opportunities (Horwitz et al, 2003). Proposed Schema for Attracting, Motivating and Retaining Knowledge Workers, Source: Horwitz et al (2003, p.41)


Copyright UCT


3 Research Methodology This section describes the type of research that was conducted; provides an overview of the

primary data collection methodology; discusses the questionnaire design; examines the focus

group research; describes the quantitative research sampling methodology; describes the

quantitative and qualitative data analysis; and states the limitations of this study.

3.1 Type of Research

This study is exploratory in nature as it strives to understand and gain insight into the main

drivers of motivation and retention among priority skill employees in a single technology-

driven organisation. “Exploratory research is intended to provide the researcher with insight

into the general nature of a decision area or research problem” (Wegner, 2000: 27). Wegner

(2000) states that exploratory research is characterised by its informal and flexible nature,

meaning it is discussion oriented and adopts a semi-structured approach to data collection.

The author goes on to mention that exploratory research explores all sources that are relevant

to the problem.

While such exploratory research is generally informal and qualitative in nature this particular

study comprises both quantitative and qualitative research methods. An extensive review of

relevant literature revealed common themes regarding crucial motivation and retention factors

of knowledge workers. Based on the literature, a questionnaire was designed and a survey was

administered to elicit structured responses that could be quantitatively analysed. Thereafter

qualitative research in the form of focus group facilitation, was conducted to clarify the

author’s understanding and interpretation (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2003) of the survey

findings.

3.2 Overview of Primary Data Collection Methodology

3.2.1. Triangulation

“Triangulation refers to the use of different data collection methods within one study in order

to ensure that the data are telling you what you think they are telling you” (Saunders et al,

2003: 99). Since there is an inevitable relationship between the method of data collection used

and the results of the research, triangulation uses different methods to cancel out what is

referred to as the “method effect” leading to greater confidence in the researcher’s

conclusions (Saunders et al, 2003). This study uses two different data collection techniques (a

survey followed by focus group research) to achieve triangulation.


Copyright UCT


3.2.2. An Outline of the Data Collection Process

This research makes use of a self-administered survey through which findings are derived

from quantitative analysis of the completed questionnaires, followed by facilitated focus

group research to assist with the interpretation of the survey results. Table 3.2.2. below

summarizes the steps involved in the research process.

Background Research

Primary Data Collection QUANTITATIVE

Primary Data Collection QUALITATIVE

STEP 1 Literature Review to Identify Key Variables

STEP 2 Design Questionnaire based on Literature Review Findings STEP 3 Pilot the Questionnaire and amend as required STEP 4 Administer the Survey 5 groups of 7 people

STEP 5 Facilitate Focus Groups 2 groups of 6 people each: one group of campaign managers; one group of technology workers

Table 3.2.2. Triangulated approach to primary data collection

Step 1: Literature Search and Review

This phase involved searching for and filtering relevant material via the internet and in UCT

libraries for academic literature relating to the topic.

Step 2: Design of Questionnaire

The questionnaire was largely based on one designed by Sutherland & Jordaan (2004), but

was adapted to incorporate variables from the research of Horwitz, Teng Heng, & Quazi

(2003) as well as that of Birt, Wallice & Winternitz (2004). It mostly contained a structured

set of questions but also included several open-ended questions. The questionnaire is

described in more detail in Section 3.3.

Step 3: Questionnaire Pilot Testing

“A brief pilot study is an excellent way to determine the feasibility of your study” (Leedy &

Ormrod, 2001). Wegner (2000) considers a pilot to be an “essential final step before

embarking on a survey” since pilot-testing identifies shortcomings of the questionnaire which

can be resolved before the full study. The questionnaire was tested on five MBA students who


Copyright UCT


had previously worked in IT-related jobs, and who could be considered to be knowledge

workers. Useful feedback was obtained and the questionnaire was modified accordingly. One

question needed to be slightly rephrased to be more clearly understood and another question

that was deemed to be superfluous was taken out.

Step 4: Administering of the Survey

Although the survey was designed to be self-administered, the researcher was present to

introduce the questionnaire and to answer any queries relating to it. There were five sessions

held at the offices of Incubeta comprising groups of seven employees at a time. The sessions

were held in a private boardroom which afforded the group a quiet space away from their

desks.

Step 5: Facilitating the Focus Groups

The researcher personally facilitated the focus groups. Two sessions were held at the offices

of Incubeta with six people in each group. The two groups represented the campaign

managers and the technology workers, respectively. Since the structure is flat and the people

working in those two groups have equal status in the company, six volunteers were invited to

participate. They were offered the opportunity to receive feedback on the findings of the

survey they had completed two weeks earlier. The sessions were held in a private boardroom

which afforded the group a quiet space away from their desks. Please refer to Section 3.4. for

a more thorough discussion on the focus group research.

3.3 The Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire consisted of a structured set of questions but also included several open-

ended questions. Refer to Appendix A to view the questionnaire. Wegner (2000) points out

that structured questionnaires are simple to administer and easy to tabulate and analyse

statistically from a data analysis perspective. On the other hand, the unstructured open-ended

questions allow respondents to freely express themselves with no pre-specified response

format, a technique mainly used in exploratory research (Wegner, 2000).

The questionnaire was designed for anonymous responses so that respondents would feel

more comfortable being frank and honest with their answers. This was particularly important

given the sensitive nature of the topic being researched.


Copyright UCT


The questionnaire is divided into five sections as follows:

• structured questions relating to demographics, satisfaction, commitment, perceived

marketability and envisaged length of time at the company;

• a table of 54 variables (generic, not company-specific) to be rated as described below

in terms of importance when deciding whether to stay or leave a company;

• a table of ten generic motivation factors (based on the literature review findings) to be

ranked in perceived importance from 1-10;

• a table of ten generic retention factors (based on the literature review findings) to be

ranked in perceived from 1-10;

• a number of open-ended questions pertaining specifically to Incußeta, the company

being studied.

The structured questions made use of either 4-point or 5-point Likert Scales. “A Likert scale

records the degree of support or non-support for a particular attitudinal statement. Consumers

express a “favourable or unfavourable” attitude toward each statement (Wegner, 2000: 86).

An example of the 5-point Likert Scale as it appears in the questionnaire can be seen in

Figure 3.3. below.

How satisfied are you with the nature of the work you currently perform?

Satisfied

4

Very Satisfied

5

Neutral

3

Somewhat Dissatisfied

2

Very Dissatisfied

1

Figure 3.3.

“Each response is graded with a numeric code. The numeric responses are treated as interval-

scaled data, thus allowing for a wide range of descriptive and inferential statistical techniques

to be employed in the analysis of this numeric data” (Wegner, 2000: 87).

3.4 Focus Groups

According to Leedy (1997), qualitative research will serve the following purposes:

• Describe: allow the researcher to reveal what employees believe motivates and retains

them in the organisation;

• Interpret: enable the researcher to gain insight into the findings of the quantitative

research;


Copyright UCT


• Verify: allow the researcher to test the validity of assumptions made by quantitative

claims in a real-world context;

• Evaluate: a means through which the researcher can judge the satisfaction and

commitment of the organisation’s key talent.

The purpose of the focus group was to achieve triangulation and to gain insight with which to

better describe, interpret, verify and evaluate the findings from the quantitative survey.

3.4.1. Definition of a Focus Group

A focus group is a label given to a focussed “group interview” (Saunders et al, 2003). “Where

group interviews are being used for a specific purpose, as in the use of focus groups, this is

likely to be associated with a higher level of interviewer-led structure and intervention”

(Saunders et al, 2003: 271). In this research, the researcher (the facilitator) used the findings

of the survey as a structure on which to base the discussion. Once a specific finding was

revealed, conversation would flow freely around that specific topic.

3.4.2. Selection of Participants

Since the topic is related to relatively emotionally involved constructs, for example

satisfaction with salaries and treatment by management, small groups were preferred

(Saunders et al, 2003). Six participants from the team of campaign managers and six from the

technology workers’ group were deemed to be appropriate sizes. Saunders et al (2003)

recommends that when selecting participants, a “horizontal slice” through an organisation is

selected to avoid inhibitions due to lack of trust, perceptions about status differences or

dominance of certain individuals. Campaign managers can be viewed as being of equal status

since the structure in the organisation is relatively flat while technology workers are perceived

to be a distinct group within the company. Employees from each of these two groups were

asked to volunteer their time. The rationale for this was that if people were attending on their

own free will, they would be more likely to fully engage with the process and participate in a

meaningful manner.

3.4.3. Facilitator Competence

“Competent facilitators have the following skills necessary for achieving reliable results:

familiarity with the respondents’ idiomatic language, ability to withhold personal opinions

and remain objective about the topic, listening skills, summation skills, membership in the

target population. Facilitators are responsible for keeping the discussion on the topic and


Copyright UCT


making certain that all members are permitted to speak” (Sayre, 2001: 158). Although the

researcher is not a member of the target population in that she doesn’t work at the company

and is not versed in the language of IT knowledge workers, the researcher perceives that she

has the necessary skills through years of work experience and specific studies in the area of

facilitation, and considers herself to be a competent facilitator. Given the sensitive nature of

confidential information being shared, it is considered appropriate that the facilitator is an

impartial “outsider”, and not an employee of the company.

3.4.4. Location and Setting

According to Sayre (2001), selecting the right place to conduct a focus group is crucial.

“Locations must be comfortable, convenient, noise free, and technologically appropriate”

(Sayre, 2001: 158). The focus groups were held in a private boardroom situated away from

the noise of the open plan office, so it was quiet and unthreatening, i.e. nothing said in the

boardroom could be heard from the outside. There were chocolates on the table for the

participants which helped create a welcoming atmosphere. Necessary technical equipment

including a projector was available for the PowerPoint presentation that was used to present

the findings of the survey to the groups. Saunders et al (2003) recommend that wherever

possible, the seating should be arranged in a circular fashion so that everyone will be facing

inward and equidistant from the central point of this circle. This seating arrangement was

followed, with chairs being arranged in a circular fashion around the boardroom table.

3.4.5. Format, Structure and Timing of the Focus Groups

As mentioned above, there were two sessions; one was held with six campaign managers and

the other with six technology workers. The two sessions were handled in an identical manner.

The format of each focus group comprised the facilitator presenting the findings of the survey

that all the knowledge workers in the company, including the participants themselves, had

completed two weeks prior. The findings had been summarized by using graphs and tables to

depict the information as clearly and as concisely as possible. Appendix B contains the

Powerpoint slides that were used for the presentation which formed the basis of the

discussion. The conversation was guided by methodically taking the group through the

presentation, one slide at a time, with each slide representing a finding to be discussed and

debated. At times the discussion went off on a tangent, and the slides were useful for bringing

the discussion back on track. Both hour long sessions took place on a Friday afternoon at the

request of management, one beginning at 12h30 and the next one at 14h30. It is


Copyright UCT


acknowledged that the employees’ mood on a Friday afternoon may differ to that on a

Monday morning. The researcher believes it might be advantageous to conduct the research

on a Friday afternoon when generally the employees are perceived to be somewhat more

relaxed.

3.4.6. Recording of the Focus Group Information

The researcher used a flip chart to make brief notes while facilitating which enabled her to jot

down key points with minimal impact on the free flow of the conversation. Saunders et al

(2003) recommend that a full record of the interview should be compiled as soon as possible

after it has taken place to ensure data validity. The researcher allowed time between focus

groups to capture the essence of what had been said and the same evening made

comprehensive notes to ensure maximum recall of the discussion.

3.4.7. Data Quality Issues: Bias and Reliability

Leedy & Ormrod (2001) define bias as “any influence, condition, or set of conditions that

singly or together distort the data”. Earlier the researcher mentioned that employees had been

invited to participate voluntarily. However, it should be noted that this may introduce some

form of sampling bias in terms of the type of person that voluntarily participates, for example

the volunteers may be more outspoken than their colleagues who wouldn’t have volunteered.

Leedy & Ormrod (2001) define sampling bias as “any influence that may have disturbed the

randomness by which the choice of a sample population has been selected”.

Interviewer bias cannot be ignored. According to Saunders et al (2003) this is where

comments, tone or non-verbal behaviour of the interviewer, based on the interviewer’s own

beliefs and frame of reference, create bias in the way that interviewees respond to the

questions being asked. In the case of the group interview, the interviewer or in this case the

facilitator, was conscious to remain “neutral” and detached in both her questioning and in her

responses to avoid this form of bias. The interviewer also aimed to consciously suspend any

preconceived notions that may have unduly influenced what she heard during the focus group

discussion (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). When dealing with the issue of reliability, Saunders et al

(2003) make the point that with qualitative research, the circumstances to be explored are

complex and dynamic. The findings derived from “non-standardised research methods” are

therefore not necessarily intended to be repeated.


Copyright UCT


3.5 Quantitative Research Sampling Methodology

Leedy & Ormrod (2001) in providing guidelines for selecting a sample size, suggested that for

small populations, where the target population is less than 100 people, there is little point in

sampling. Rather it is recommended that the entire population be surveyed instead. Since

there are only 35 knowledge workers in the company (19 technology workers and 16

campaign managers) who do not form part of the executive management team, the entire

target population was surveyed. By implication, the author conducted saturation sampling or

census, selecting 100% of the target population for survey. “Conducting a census is only

practical if the target population size is relatively small, geographically concentrated and there

are no significant cost or time constraints on gathering the complete data set” (Wegner, 2000:

108).

3.6 Quantitative Data Analysis

3.6.1. Descriptive Statistics

The structured part of the questionnaire results comprised the following data types:

• Interval data (age, length of time at company, length of time envisaged staying at

company)

• Ranked/ordinal data (numerical codes associated with the different points on the

Likert Scales)

• Categorical data (yes/no; job-hunting status; etc.)

Microsoft Excel 2003 and Statistica7 were used to produce descriptive statistics from the

above data. The following methods were used to present the findings (Saunders et al, 2003);

• Histograms (appropriate when dealing with continuous data) and bar charts

(appropriate when dealing with discrete data) were used to display the frequency of

observations;

• Bar charts and pie charts were used to show the proportion of occurrences of

categories or values for one variable;

• Contingency/cross tabulation tables were used to show the interdependence between

two or more variables so that any specific value can be read easily.


Copyright UCT



Plot of Eigenvalues

Number of Eigenvalues0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Val

ue

3.6.2. Measures of Centrality

Where 54 variables were rated in terms of their importance in the decision on whether to

leave or stay at a company, the mean scores, or averages were first calculated for each

variable and then all 54 means were ranked. Given that the lowest code (“1”) represented

“crucial”, the lowest mean represented the variable perceived to be the most important. The

mode was also shown since it is a useful indicator of the scores that were allocated to each

variable most frequently.

3.6.3. Chi-squared tests on Contingency Tables

Chi-squared tests were run on the contingency/cross tabulation tables to measure the

significance of the interdependent relationships. Since the chi-squared test requires a

minimum cell size of 5, however, most of the significant associations could just have been

due to associations between the zero cells. It was therefore considered safer to avoid using a

statistical test in this instance and to rather observe the pattern(s) of the cells.

3.6.4. Factor Analysis Methodology

Factor Analysis was conducted using Statistica 7. Factor Analysis, a data reduction technique,

was used to examine the correlations among a number of variables and to identify clusters of

highly interrelated variables that reflect underlying themes, or factors, within the data (Leedy

& Ormrod, 2001). A scree plot was produced (see Figure 3.6.4a) and in accordance with the

Kaiser criterion, only factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1 were retained. This resulted in

20 factors that cumulatively explained 87% of the variance (see Figure 3.6.4b).

Figure 3.6.4.a Scree Plot

Copyright UCT


Usually a minimum factor loading of 0.7000 is

used but given the small sample size, this cut-off

point only produced one meaningful factor. The

factor analysis was run again, this time using a

factor loading cut-off point of 0.5000 which is

considered acceptable given the sample size.

Factors comprising three or more variables with

factor loadings greater than 0.5000, were

considered to be meaningful.

Eigenvalues (Formatted data_1)Extraction: Principal components

ValueEigenvalue % Total

varianceCumulativeEigenvalue

Cumulative%

1234567891011121314151617181920

8.661815 12.55335 8.66181 12.553355.862605 8.49653 14.52442 21.049885.351183 7.75534 19.87560 28.805224.680656 6.78356 24.55626 35.588783.520873 5.10272 28.07713 40.691503.506971 5.08257 31.58410 45.774063.255483 4.71809 34.83959 50.492153.224635 4.67338 38.06422 55.165542.784091 4.03491 40.84831 59.200452.538674 3.67924 43.38699 62.879692.318353 3.35993 45.70534 66.239622.194778 3.18084 47.90012 69.420461.939472 2.81083 49.83959 72.231291.835002 2.65942 51.67459 74.890711.711183 2.47998 53.38577 77.370691.567968 2.27242 54.95374 79.643111.461295 2.11782 56.41504 81.760921.270544 1.84137 57.68558 83.602291.203009 1.74349 58.88859 85.345781.139659 1.65168 60.02825 86.99746 Figure 3.6.4b Eigenvalues

3.7 Qualitative Data Analysis

When analysing the content of the qualitative data from the focus groups and from the open-

ended questions, the researcher will essentially be seeking to identify common constructs and

themes. This process is known as content analysis which generally refers to any qualitative

data reduction and sense-making effort that takes a volume of qualitative material and

attempts to identify core consistencies and meanings” (Patton, 2002: 453). The core meanings

found through content analysis are called patterns or themes (Patton, 2002). The focus of the

analysis of this report will be on interpreting the findings in light of what the literature

suggests. The central task is to identify the common themes emerging from the respondents’

answers to the open-ended questions in the survey as well as from the two focus groups.

Findings will be related to the quantitative findings and compared with themes that emerge

from the literature review.

The process of analysing qualitative data can be seen as a spiral (Leedy, 1997) beginning with

the raw data and “spiralling upwards” until a final report is produced. The “steps” along the

way are as follows:

• Organisation of details about the study; breaking large units into smaller ones, useful

“meaning units” that relate to the topic;

• Perusal: getting an overall sense of the data and some preliminary interpretations;

• Classification: grouping the data into categories or themes and deriving meaning, seek

divergent perspectives;


Copyright UCT


• Synthesis: Confirming propositions; constructing tables or diagrams;

• Quotes will be used verbatim in the report where deemed helpful in illustrating a

point.

3.8 Limitations of this research

The research is limited in terms of its generalisability to a broader population of knowledge

workers or IT talent. Given the sample size and the fact that the research took place in a single

organisation, the results will be specifically useful to this particular company. Further to this,

it needs to be noted that the company is in transition and entering a new growth phase, so the

findings may well change if this research was conducted in one year from now. Nonetheless,

well-sampled single organisation studies have an advantage of in-depth analysis benefiting

from triangulation research methods offering deeper insights and the findings from which

may be consistent with other studies.


Copyright UCT



Employee Gender Percentages

69%31%

Male Female

Race

3% 3%

94% WhiteIndianColoured

4 Research Findings

This section of the report presents the main findings from both the survey and the focus group

research. The survey and focus group findings will be interspersed since the qualitative focus

group data adds depth and insight to the descriptive survey data.

4.1 Demographics

As mentioned in the research methodology section, the entire non-executive knowledge

worker population of Incubeta (referred to henceforth as “the respondents”, “the knowledge

workers”, or “the knowledge worker population”) was surveyed. This section describes the

demographics of this population and provides insight into the two differentiated groups that

constitute it, i.e. campaign managers and technology workers.

Gender Profile

As Figure 4.1.a. shows, the knowledge worker population comprises 69% males and 31%

females. Table 4.1.a. below shows that all 19 technology workers are males, while 11 of the

16 campaign managers (i.e. 69% of them) are female.

Figure 4.1.a.

Table 4.1.a.

Race Profile Figure 4.1.b. Table 4.1.b.

As Figure 4.1.b. shows, the knowledge worker

population of Incubeta comprises 94% white employees. There are two employees of colour

Gender Technology Workers

Campaign Manager Total

Male 19 5 24 Female 0 11 11 All 19 16 35

Race Technology Workers


White 17 16 33 Indian 1 0 1 Coloured 1 0 1 All 19 16 35

Copyright UCT



Percent age of St af f having a Degree

54%46%Have Degree

Have No Degree

Age of Employees

49%

29%11%11%

20-2425-2930-3435+

in the team of technology workers, while all the campaign managers are white. There are no

ethnic black people working for Incubeta.

Age Profile

As Figure 4.1.c. shows, almost 80% of Incubeta’s knowledge workers are between 20 and 29

years of age, indicating a very youthful workforce. Only 11% are 35 years or older. It can be

seen from Table 4.1.c. that 12 of the 19 technology workers (i.e. 63%) are between 25 and 29

years of age while 75% of the campaign managers are in that age category. Only one of the 16

campaign managers is older than 30 years of age. Figure 4.1c.

Table 4.1c.

Tertiary Qualification: Degree

From Figure 4.1.d. it can be seen that 54% of the Incubeta knowledge worker population have

acquired a degree. It can be seen from Table 4.1.d. below that only 5 of the 19 (i.e. 26%)

technology workers have a degree. On the other hand 11 of the 16 campaign managers (i.e.

69%) have degrees. Figure 4.1.d.

Table 4.1.d.

Length of Service

Please refer to Figure 4.1.e. below. It can be seen that 31% of Incubeta’s knowledge workers

Age (years) Technology Worker


20-24 7 3 10 25-29 5 12 17 30-34 3 1 4 35+ 4 0 4 All 19 16 35

Degree Status

Technology Worker


Have a Degree 5 11 16 No Degree 14 5 19 All 19 16 35

Copyright UCT



MOTIVATIONOverall Ranking

1. Challenging , meaningful, fulfilling work2. Highly competitive pay package3. Career development & learning opportunities4. Performance Incentives/ bonuses/ share options5. Freedom to plan work & work independently6. Access to leading edge technology7. Opportunities for promotion8. Fun work environment & team work9. Top management support10. Regular contact with top management

RETENTIONOverall Ranking

1. Highly competitive pay package2. Challenging , meaningful, fulfilling work3. Career development & learning opportunities4. Performance Incentives/ bonuses/ share options5. Fun work environment & team work6. Opportunities for promotion7. Freedom to plan work & work independently8. Access to leading edge technology9. Top management support10. Regular contact with top management

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%25%

30%

35%

40%

Less than 1year

less than 2years

less than 3years

3 or moreyears

Length of Time at Company

Campaign ManagersTechnology workers

have been with the company for less than one year, 29% have been at the company for one to

two years and 37% have been there for two to three years.

Figure 4.1.e.

4.2 Ranking of Motivation and Retention Factors

Ten factors believed from previous research (Horwitz et al, 2003) to be critical to motivation

and retention of knowledge workers were provided in the questionnaire and respondents were

asked to rank these in order of importance, firstly in terms of what motivates them in their

current jobs, and secondly in terms of what is important to their retention. The results can be

seen in Table 4.2.a. below.

Table 4.2.a.

The survey revealed that the most important factor in the motivation of Incubeta employees

was “challenging, meaningful, fulfilling work” while the top factor in their retention was

Copyright UCT



Campaign Managers Technology Group

2. Career development & learning opportunities3. Career development & learning opportunities

4. Freedom to plan work & work independently 4. Performance Incentives/ bonuses/ share options5. Freedom to plan work & work independently

6. Top management support 6. Access to leading edge technology7. Performance Incentives/ bonuses/ share options 7. Fun work environment & team work8. Access to leading edge technology 8. Opportunities for promotion9. Fun work environment & team work 9. Top management support10. Regular contact with top management 10. Regular contact with top management

Campaign Managers Technology Group

3. Career development & learning opportunities 3. Career development & learning opportunities4. Performance Incentives/ bonuses/ share options

5. Freedom to plan work & work independently6. Fun work environment & team work 6. Opportunities for promotion7. Performance Incentives/ bonuses/ share options 7. Freedom to plan work & work independently8. Top management support 8. Access to leading edge technology9. Access to leading edge technology 9. Top management support10. Regular contact with top management 10. Regular contact with top management

RETENTION FACTORS

MOTIVATION FACTORS

1. Challenging , meaningful, fulfilling work 1. Challenging , meaningful, fulfilling work

2. Challenging , meaningful, fulfilling work 2. Challenging , meaningful, fulfilling work

2. Highly competitive pay package3. Highly competitive pay package

1. Highly competitive pay package 1. Highly competitive pay package

5. Opportunities for promotion

4. Opportunities for promotion5. Fun work environment & team work

Table 4.2.b.

“highly competitive pay package”. The second most important factor in the motivation of

Incubeta employees was “highly competitive pay package”, while in the case of their

retention, it was “challenging, meaningful, fulfilling work”. It is interesting to observe that the

same two factors were selected as the top two for both motivation and retention, but that the

order of importance was reversed: where a “highly competitive pay package” is only second

place when it comes to motivation, it is number one when it comes to retention. The third and

fourth highest ranked variables were identical for both motivation and retention, namely

“career development and learning opportunities” and “performance incentives/bonuses/share

options”, respectively. However, where “freedom to plan work and work independently” was

the fifth most important factor for motivation, this factor was replaced by “fun work

environment and team work” in fifth position for factors that affect retention. Both the open-

ended questions and the focus group research revealed the importance of the company’s

unique work environment and the loyalty to fellow team members as being reasons to stay at

Incubeta. It was interesting to note that the factors “top management support” and “regular

contact with top management” were ranked ninth and tenth, respectively, for both motivation

and retention. This could be indicative of some of the concerns that were expressed regarding

management in both the open-ended questions and the focus group research to be discussed in

more detail in the relevant sections below. Table 4.2.b. reveals the campaign managers’

responses to this question compared with those of the technology workers.

Copyright UCT


“Challenging, meaningful, fulfilling work” was again ranked as being the most important

variable for the motivation of both campaign managers and technology workers, while “highly

competitive pay package” was again ranked by both as being the most important variable for

retention. “Highly competitive pay package” was ranked the second most important

motivation factor for technology workers, while for campaign managers this was “career

development and learning opportunities”. These two factors were reversed for the two groups

in the ranking of the third most important factor. There were differences in the fourth and fifth

motivation factors. Both groups ranked “freedom to plan work and work independently” as

being either fourth or fifth most important, but campaign managers were concerned with

“opportunities for promotion” (fifth) where technology workers were concerned with

“performance incentives/bonuses/share options” (fourth). Where “regular contact with

management” remained lowest on the ranking list for both groups as a factor for motivation,

“top management support” appeared to be somewhat more important for campaign managers

(ranked sixth) than for technology workers (ranked ninth). This may be explained by the fact

that campaign managers, through the nature of their work, interact somewhat more frequently

with top management than technology workers do.

In terms of retention factors, there was no difference in the responses of the two groups

regarding the factors that were ranked as being the top three most important. These were

identical to those of the overall group, namely “highly competitive pay package”,

“challenging, meaningful, fulfilling work” and “career development and learning

opportunities”. However, the factors ranked fourth and fifth were different for the two

groups: where campaign managers ranked “opportunities for promotion” as being the fourth

most important retention factor and “freedom to plan work and work independently” as being

the fifth, the technology workers considered “performance incentives/bonuses/share options”

and “fun work environment and team work” to be the fourth and fifth most important

retention variables, respectively. Again, as with the motivation ranking, “regular contact with

management” was ranked lowest as a retention factor for both.


Copyright UCT



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Yes No

Pay considered to be competitive

Technology worker

Campaign manager

Focus Group Finding: The Mindset of the Campaign Manager

The campaign managers’ focus group provided insight into the reasons that this group does not consider

“regular contact with management” to be important while at the same time considering “freedom to plan

work and work independently” to be very important. The group felt that the type of person who becomes a

campaign manager does not need close supervision; “it’s a personality thing”, one participant argued.

Campaign managers have the freedom to work independently and hardly have any direct supervision or

management. They enjoy managing themselves and as a group they believe they are “self-regulated”. The

group spoke of a “vacuum” between themselves and the management team, having no direct line managers to

whom to report. They mentioned that apart from each other “no-one else in the company understands exactly

what we do”. Since 60% of the campaign managers have been at the company longer than the new

management team, they feel a strong sense of pride in and ownership of the company, believing that they are

directly responsible for the company’s growth. One employee commented that “my work is my baby”, while

others nodded in agreement. As a group they claim to passionately enjoy the work they do and find it

challenging and stimulating. They feel empowered, and claim that unless something goes wrong, they are

“left alone to get on with the job”. The group enthusiastically expressed how much they enjoy the freedom

and the relaxed environment. They asserted that those were important reasons for staying at the company.

4.3 Satisfaction with Financial Package

The ranking tables revealed the importance attached to earning a “highly competitive pay

package” for both the motivation and retention of Incubeta’s knowledge workers. The survey

asked the question “would you consider your pay package to be competitive in the market

place?” Figure 4.3.a. below shows that 61% of technology workers do not consider that their

packages are competitive, while that figure is 40% in the case of campaign managers. It is

understood from a discussion that the researcher had with management that it is harder to

“benchmark” a campaign manager’s salary than it is to do for a technology worker. This

means that a campaign manager would find it harder to compare their compensation with an

“industry average” since a comparable job description would be difficult to find.

Figure 4.3.a.

Copyright UCT



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Verydissatisfied

Somewhatdissatisfied

Neutral Satisfied Verysatisfied

Satisfied with the nature of your work

TechCM

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Verydissatisfied



Satisfied with your financial package

TechCM

The survey findings further revealed that only 29% of Incubeta knowledge workers are either

“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their package, while 38% are either “very dissatisfied” or

“somewhat dissatisfied” of which 60% of these are the technology workers. Refer to Figure

4.3.b. The entire technology workers’ focus group expressed dissatisfaction with their

remuneration and confirmed that as a group the technology team felt strongly that they were

being underpaid or paid below the current market-related rate. They were all aware of an

online resource that provides up to date information on competitive salaries. Comments were

made alluding to location where one participant argued that firms that want to pay lower

salaries establish themselves in Cape Town for that reason. Another said, “we get paid half of

what we would get paid in Johannesburg for the same type of work”. The majority of

knowledge workers in both the technology

workers and the campaign managers’ focus

groups stated that they would leave the

company for a better salary. As will be

discussed shortly, the issue of salary

featured strongly in the open-ended

questions for both motivation and retention.

Figure 4.3.b.

4.4 Satisfaction with the Nature of the Work

The ranking tables revealed the importance “challenging work” for both the motivation and

retention of Incubeta’s knowledge workers. The survey asked the question “how satisfied are

you with the nature of the work you currently perform?” While the results revealed that over

half the respondents are satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the nature of their work, 17% of

key employees, mainly comprising technology workers, are somewhat dissatisfied. Refer to

Figure 4.4. The technology workers’ focus group revealed that this dissatisfaction had a lot to

do with the type of work that programming

involves. There is not much variety in the work

once the intricacies of any given industry have been

learnt. The issue of challenging work featured

strongly in the open-ended questions for both

motivation and retention. Figure 4.4.

Copyright UCT



0%

5%10%

15%20%

25%30%

35%40%

Verydissatisfied



Satisfied with advancement opportunities

TechCM

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Verydissatisfied



Satisfied with your relationship with your superior

Tech

CM

4.5 Satisfaction with Advancement Opportunities

The ranking tables revealed the importance “career development and learning opportunities”

for both the motivation and retention of Incubeta’s knowledge workers. The survey asked the

question “how satisfied are you with opportunities for advancement in the company?” The

survey results revealed that in terms of satisfaction with advancement opportunities, 41% of

employees are either “very dissatisfied” or “somewhat dissatisfied” with advancement

opportunities of which 78% of those are technology workers; 21% of respondents are either

“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with advancement opportunities of which 71% of those are

campaign managers. Refer to Figure 4.5. below. The focus groups were not surprised by the

survey findings that indicated dissatisfaction with advancement opportunities. They felt that

given the flat organisational structure, there is not much potential to be promoted and that

there is no room for additional managers given the small size of the company. The technology

workers mentioned that in the past, there had

been a level of supervision between developers

and management, namely that of “team leader”

but that it had fallen away approximately one

year ago. As a result they saw no opportunity to

be promoted in the foreseeable future. Figure 4.5.

4.6 Satisfaction with Manager

The survey asked the question “how satisfied are you with your relationship with the person

who supervises or manages you?” The results indicated that only a small portion of the

knowledge workers were at all dissatisfied. Refer to Figure 4.6. below The technology

workers’ focus group were surprised at this result, claiming that they had inadequate direct

supervision and were generally very dissatisfied. This could be explained by what is known as

“halo effect bias” or “the halo effect”, a

phenomenon that describes giving a

response which is tailored to what the

respondent believes the researcher expects.

“The halo effect named by Thorndike

(1920), has long been regarded as a

Figure 4.6.

Copyright UCT



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Verydissatisfied



Satisfied with your relationship with your team/ peers / co-workers

TechCM

pervasive form of inadvertent rater judgement bias” (Wirtz, 2001). The majority of the

technology workers’ focus group participants felt that the manager overseeing this area was

not “available” enough since he was “too stretched” in his roles and responsibilities. As a

result, the group felt that they did not have anyone looking after their interests, or anyone

senior to guide them from a technical perspective. One focus group participant commented

that the employees were “expected to be like entrepreneurs” and to motivate themselves.

Unlike the campaign managers who thrive on having little direct supervision, the technology

workers struggle with this. They stated that one of the many challenges presented by this

“missing level” is the fact that there is no “translator” to bridge the gap between the

“language” spoken by the technology workers themselves and that of the campaign managers.

This leads to briefs or specifications being misunderstood, which in turn leads to frustration

with the job and reduced motivation. Asked whether this lack of direct supervision would be a

reason to leave the company, the consensus in the focus group was “yes, it would”. This could

be a serious issue if it is likely to result in significant turnover of key technical staff and

would not have been deduced from the survey data alone. This underlines an advantage of

qualitative research which probes in greater depth to bring underlying issues to the surface.

4.7 Satisfaction with Team/ Co-workers /Peers

The survey asked the question “how satisfied are you with your relations with your team/ your

co-workers or peers?” The results showed that in terms of their relationships with their co-

workers, 77% of respondents are either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their relationships

with their co-workers. Refer to Figure 4.7. This affects retention too as the focus groups

revealed that one of the reasons to stay at Incubeta was out of loyalty to the team. One

employee described his colleagues at Incubeta as being “like family” to him, and it was an

important consideration in terms of deciding whether to stay or leave.

Figure 4.7.

Copyright UCT


4.8 Overall Satisfaction with Current Job

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Verydissatisfied



Overall satisfaction with current job situation

TechCM

Having asked questions pertaining to satisfaction with the nature of the work, the relationship

with manager, the relations with team members, financial package and advancement

opportunities, the survey then asked the following question: “Overall, how satisfied are you

with your current job situation?” The graph below showing the “overall satisfaction with

current job” shows the split between campaign managers and technology workers. Figure 4.8.

shows that over 60% of Incubeta employees are satisfied with their overall current job

situation; however, there are 30% of employees,

in the main technology workers, who claim to be

“somewhat dissatisfied”. Some of the reasons for

the technology workers’ dissatisfaction have

been discussed previously, including financial

compensation, inadequate direct supervision and

lack of advancement opportunities. Figure 4.8.

Overall Satisfaction with Current Job and Length of Service

Length of service with the company appears related to overall satisfaction with the company.

Table 4.8. shows the cross tabulation of length of service with Incubeta versus the level of

overall satisfaction with the knowledge worker’s current job.

Table 4.8.

Length of Time at Company versus Overall Satisfaction Very

DissatisfiedSomewhat Dissatisfied

Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

Row

Less than 1 year 0 0 2 8 1 11 1 – 2 years 0 4 5 1 0 10 2 – 3 years 0 3 3 7 0 13 > 3 years 0 0 0 1 0 1 Totals 0 7 10 17 1 35

There is an indication from the table that the employees who have completed more than one

year at the company tend to be less satisfied. While the focus group research revealed a

number of possible explanations for this, the overriding consensus was that over the past three

years many promises had been unfulfilled and the people who had worked at the company for

longer than a year were somewhat “jaded”.


Copyright UCT


4.9 Tabulated Responses to Open-Ended Questions

As stated previously, a number of open-ended questions were included in the questionnaire.

Where more than seven respondents (i.e. 20% of the respondents) mentioned the same

constructs, these constructs were recorded in the tables below. The frequency is also noted.

Positive Aspects affecting Current Motivation

Table 4.9.a. below summarizes the responses to the question: “Name three positive aspects of

working at Incubeta that contribute to your motivation currently.”

Table 4.9.a.: Positive Aspects that Contribute to Current Motivation

Positive aspects mentioned by seven or more respondents No. Culture/work environment 20

Challenging work 16

Working with leading / cutting edge technology 16

The people I work with 16

Flexible working hours 11

Freedom to work independently 10

The fast paced industry 7

It is evident from the above table as well as from the focus group research that the culture and

the relaxed work environment play a great role in the motivation of Incubeta employees.

“Challenging work” and “working with cutting edge technology” were two factors that were

referred to by almost half the respondents as factors positively affecting motivation at

Incubeta. The quality of and the relationships with work colleagues, discussed previously,

were mentioned as frequently as the latter two factors. “Flexible working hours”, “the

freedom to work independently” and “the nature of the industry” are also important

motivational factors that were frequently mentioned in the open-ended questions.

Actions that could be taken to Increase Motivation and Commitment at Incubeta

Table 4.9.b. below summarizes the responses to the question: “Please list three actions that

Incubeta could take to increase your motivation & commitment.”


Copyright UCT


Table 4.9.b. : Actions that could Increase Motivation and Commitment

Actions mentioned by seven or more respondents No. Increase my salary 19

Give recognition/acknowledgement/gratitude/ feedback on work done 12

Career growth/development 11

Incentive schemes 11

Clear business strategy/address lack of focus 9

Give me more challenging work/ more responsibility 8

Review my salary on a regular basis 7

Improve communication 7* * Similar constructs which relate to communication have been taken together since it was considered that they constituted a significant finding.

The topic of salary increases was mentioned by more than half the respondents. The focus

group research confirmed that particularly the technology workers felt they were being

underpaid. This issue has been covered in section 4.3. The need for recognition,

acknowledgement and gratitude with respect to work accomplished was also mentioned

several times. The focus groups revealed that the technology workers felt particularly strongly

about this issue and there is a strong sense that they feel undervalued by management. They

feel they are “treated like a cost centre” and the group felt that they were constantly being

reminded of how much of an expense they were to the company. On the other hand, they felt

that the campaign managers were always being “glorified” and were seen by all in the

company as the “cash cows”. The group also felt that they “never got a thank you”.

“Providing career growth and development opportunities” was one of the action areas

suggested by almost a third of the respondents as a way to increase motivation and

commitment. This was further endorsed by the answers to the structured question regarding

advancement opportunities as discussed above as well as by the focus group findings. The

employees acknowledged that it was “a tall order” to expect career growth and development

opportunities in this organisation given its size, the nature of the work and the flat

organisational structure, but they clearly expressed a need for it. Another action that was

proposed was the implementation of a meaningful incentive scheme. Currently, there is an

“employee of the month” award, but according to the focus group participants, it has “become

a farce” and is “not taken seriously” for a number of reasons.

Addressing the perceived lack of focus in terms of the business strategy is another issue that

many respondents raised. The focus groups revealed frustration with the fact that there was


Copyright UCT


“no clear path” and that the strategy was not fully understood by the staff. “No-one

understands the full picture – we all know pieces of the puzzle” was a comment made by one

employee. Many references were made to the fact that the strategy constantly changes and

that the uncertainty is somewhat demotivating. Related to their need for challenging work - a

factor that has already been established as being critical to both the motivation and the

retention of Incubeta knowledge workers- employees would like to be given more

responsibility in their role, more diversity in their work and more opportunities for growth.

Finally, there appear to be several ways in which communication could be more effective at

Incubeta. The employees would appreciate “more transparency” from management i.e. they

would like to understand what return the investors are getting, and how financially secure the

company is. They have the impression that the shareholders are making a lot of money and

that possibly the staff are not benefiting from higher than anticipated profits. It appears as if

much communication from top management is done via email. The focus group research

revealed that employees would prefer more personal interaction. One example is that the

shareholders in Johannesburg occasionally email a presentation to the staff related to the

business strategy. The feeling was that it would be preferable if the shareholders came instead

to present the strategy in person so there could be more explanation and clarification if need

be. When the managers go on conferences, local or abroad, there is little feedback from their

trips. The focus group revealed that this type of communication would be appreciated by the

employees since it would help them to learn about the latest trends.

Why Knowledge Workers would Leave Incußeta

Table 4.9.c. below summarizes the responses to the question: “Please list the top three

reasons that would make you leave Incubeta.” Table 4.9.c.: Reasons To Leave Incubeta

Reasons mentioned by seven or more respondents No. Salary 17

Better job offer 11

Quality of relationship with management 10*

Lack of advancement opportunities 9

No profit share/performance related bonuses / share options 8

Travel/emigration 7 * Similar constructs which relate to the quality of relationship with management have been taken together since it was considered that they constituted a significant finding.


Copyright UCT


Half the respondents cited salary as being a reason to leave the company and related to that,

almost a third gave “being made a better job offer” as one of their reasons. The quality of the

knowledge worker relationship with management has been touched on briefly above. The

focus group research provided more insight into this. The talent team feel that the company is

“being run by investors”. They feel that “investors come in, take what they can get, and get

out”. The management team has changed four times in the three-and-a-half years of

Incubeta’s existence resulting in an environment where the employees are largely self-

managed. The current management team, being fairly new, elicit no sense of loyalty,

although there were some positive remarks suggesting that they are starting to bring some

sense of stability to the company.

Another theme that featured, related to this topic, was that of “favouritism” by management. It

was also brought up in the focus group research. Comments in the unstructured answers

included “management should treat us all equally” and “there is unfair treatment of

employees”. Table 4.10 in the next section indicates the relative importance of internal equity

to Incubeta staff when deciding whether to leave or stay at the company. Lack of

advancement opportunities was another one of the issues mentioned a significant number of

times as a reason employees would leave Incubeta. This issue was discussed above since it

also featured as a factor in the answers regarding motivation and commitment. The fact that

the company has not yet implemented a profit share scheme nor offered performance-related

bonuses or share options was another reason cited by many employees as a reason to leave. At

the focus groups, employees expressed disappointment with promises related to the issuing of

share options that had not yet been fulfilled. Travel and emigration was also listed by a

minimum of seven different respondents as one of the top three reasons that an employee

might choose to leave the company.

What Incubeta could do Differently to Enhance Knowledge Worker Retention

Table 4.9.d. below summarizes the responses to the question: “Please list three things that

Incubeta could do differently that would encourage you to stay with the company for a period

longer than you indicated above.”


Copyright UCT


Table 4.9.d.: Actions that could Enhance Retention

Once again the issue of pay featured most strongly as a retention factor. This issue as well as

the others highlighted by the table above (recognition, challenging work, advancement

opportunities, management-related issues as well as profit shares, performance-related

bonuses and share options) have all been discussed already in the previous sections.

4.10 Table of Retention Variables Ranked by Mean

Respondents were presented with 54 variables and asked to rate each one in terms of

importance when deciding whether to leave or stay the company. The question used a 4-point

Likert Scale with the following options:

1 = Crucial, i.e. critically important/ “make or break” characteristic for me in a job 2 = Quite important, i.e. this is a significant plus or minus factor but not “make or break” 3 = Neutral, i.e. this would be a nice to have but it would not matter if it was not there 4 = Not important at all.

Means were calculated from the scores for each variable with the lowest mean indicating that

the corresponding variable was considered the most important when deciding whether to

leave or stay with Incubeta. All the means were then ranked and the full list of rankings can

be seen in Table 4.10. Modes are also displayed, indicating the code most frequently selected

for each variable. Table 4.10. Retention Decision Variables Ranked by Mean

RANKED BY MEAN VARIABLE Mean Mode

Frequency of mode

1 Challenging and meaningful work 1.29730 1 28 2 Competitive (market-related) pay package 1.32432 1 25 3 Manager integrity & quality 1.37838 1 24 4 The salary increase system 1.48649 1 20 5 Internal equity / fairness 1.56757 1 18 6 Advancement opportunities 1.64865 2 20 7 Base Salary 1.67568 2 19 7 Your overall job satisfaction level 1.67568 2 23 7 New opportunities/ challenges 1.67568 2 19 8 Access to leading technologies 1.72973 2 19

Actions mentioned by seven or more respondents No. Increase my salary 15

Give me recognition/acknowledgement/make me feel valued 8

Give me more challenging work/greater diversity in my work 8

Promotion/advancement opportunities 8

Management-related issues 8

Introduce profit share/performance related bonuses/share options 7


Copyright UCT


RANKED BY MEAN VARIABLE Mean Mode

Frequency of mode

9 Unfulfilled promises and unmet expectations 1.81081 2 21 9 Lack of career development/learning opportunities 1.81081 2 16 10 Your level of trust in top management 1.83784 2 20 11 Support from top management 1.86486 2 23 12 Relationship with your immediate boss 1.89189 2 25 13 Communication problems internally 1.91892 2 16 13 Empowerment & responsibility 1.91892 2 16 13 Individual recognition & praise being given 1.91892 Multiple 14 14 Flexibility with regard to working hours 1.94595 2 17 14 Issues you have raised being unattended 1.94595 2 24 15 Commitment to my team 1.97297 2 18 16 Incentive/bonus/variable pay(performance related) 2.00000 2 18 16 Recognition 2.00000 2 22 17 Company strategy problems 2.02703 2 17 18 The performance appraisal /feedback process 2.05405 2 20 18 Freedom to work independently/ autonomy 2.05405 2 21 18 Work versus personal life balance 2.05405 2 18 19 Your level of commitment to the organisation 2.08108 2 20 19 Personal fit with the organisational culture 2.08108 2 17 19 Lack of formal feedback on your performance 2.08108 2 16 20 Job security in present organisation 2.10811 2 14 21 Personal "buy-in" to business strategy 2.13514 2 14 22 Career planning by the organisation 2.18919 2 18 22 A better job offer by another organisation 2.18919 2 17 22 Company structure problems 2.18919 2 15 22 Your ideas being ignored 2.18919 2 17 23 Short-term promotion opportunities 2.21622 2 20 23 The organisation's general culture 2.21622 2 17 24 Training needs fulfilled 2.27027 2 21 25 Company reputation 2.29730 2 23 25 Physical office environment 2.29730 Multiple 13 26 Medical aid and/or retirement benefits 2.32432 2 12 27 Social friendships at work 2.35135 2 15 28 Ongoing stress at work 2.43243 3 11 29 Upsetting organisational changes 2.48649 3 16 30 Receiving an upsetting performance review 2.54054 3 18 31 Share options in the company 2.59459 2 14 32 Job not being designed around your needs 2.64865 3 22 33 Emigration intentions 2.78378 2 15 34 To change your field of work 2.83784 3 19 35 Difficulty of changing jobs 2.86486 3 16 36 To start your own business 2.89189 3 17 37 Your need to work in a different type of company 3.13514 3 17 38 Diversity /BEE/ Affirmative Action issues 3.37838 4 20

Consistent with the findings of the ranking tables, “challenging work” and “competitive

(market-related) pay package” were ranked as the top two most important retention variables

when measured against 52 other variables. The modes indicate that 80% of respondents rated

“challenging work” as “crucial”, while 71% regarded “competitive (market-related) pay

package” as “crucial”. “Manager integrity and quality” ranked third in importance with 69%

of respondents regarding this variable as being “crucial”. As discussed previously, the

qualitative research revealed concerns with regard to management in terms of their

transparency, their motives (“agendas”) and their decision-making abilities. “The salary


Copyright UCT


increase system” was ranked as the fourth most important variable with 57% of respondents

rating this variable as crucial. The issues of dissatisfaction with compensation that is

perceived to be uncompetitive and the lack of regular salary increases or reviews have been

discussed at length already. Fifty percent of respondents rated “internal equity /fairness as

being “crucial” and it was ranked as the fifth most important variable. “Favouritism” was

discussed previously when discussing the quality of relationships with management. There is

a sense that some people are treated differently to others and employees in the focus groups

expressed the need to be “treated equally”. “Advancement opportunities” was ranked sixth

most important variable, and was one of the factors that were discussed earlier when

reviewing the findings of the unstructured answers from the survey.

It is interesting in the South African context that “diversity/ affirmative action/ BEE” variable

was ranked the lowest despite the fact that the respondents are predominantly white. A

possible explanation is the high demand for these specific skills and the apparent skills

shortage in this particular industry. The focus group research revealed that quite a few of

Incubeta’s employees have been approached by “head-hunters” and most of the employees

expressed confidence in their abilities to find another comparable job should they choose to.

4.11 Factor Analysis Findings

Factor analysis was conducted on the variables to ascertain whether any of the variables were

correlated, indicating similar underlying themes or attitudes. Appendix C shows the factor

analysis results. Eight factors, comprising a minimum of three variables with factor loadings

greater than 0.5000, were identified.

Satisfaction Factor

This factor comprises of the following variables: “satisfaction with the nature of the job”;

“satisfaction with the relationship with my superior”; “satisfaction with financial

compensation”; “satisfaction with advancement opportunities” and “overall satisfaction”.

These were strongly negatively correlated with the variable that described how actively the

employee is seeking alternative employment. This can be interpreted as greater levels of

satisfaction resulting in less likelihood of seeking alternative employment. Also, there was a

negative correlation with the abovementioned satisfaction variables and whether the

respondent considered their pay to be competitive in the market place. This suggests that if

salary is not perceived to be competitive, employees are less likely to be satisfied across all


Copyright UCT


the satisfaction variables that were surveyed. This factor is particularly relevant when

considering the retention of Incubeta employees since the survey findings consistently

revealed the critical importance of a earning a competitive salary in the decision to leave or

stay at the company. It should also be seriously considered in light of the negative findings

regarding perceptions especially by the technology workers of their pay package not

perceived as being competitive.

Work Environment Factor

This factor comprises of the following variables: “ongoing stress at work”; “the physical

office environment” and “manager integrity and quality”, meaning that the importance

attached to these variables is underpinned by a similar attitude. This is relevant to the

retention of Incubeta employees in that the variable “the integrity and quality of management”

had the third highest mean when ranked against the other 53 variables, i.e. being of critical

importance when making the decision of whether to stay or leave the company.

Team Commitment vs Commitment to the Organisation Factor

In this factor, the variables “envisaged length of stay at current company” and “commitment

to company goals” are negatively correlated to the “commitment to team” and “level of

commitment to the organisation” variables. This suggests that employees who place value on

“commitment to team” and “level of commitment to the organisation” are more likely to stay

longer and be committed to the company’s goals. This is relevant to the retention of Incubeta

campaign managers in that the qualitative analysis (both the open-ended questions and the

focus groups) revealed that their commitment to their team was an important factor in their

decision to stay at the company.

Perceptions of Marketability Factor

As discussed previously, the survey findings revealed that “diversity/affirmative action/BEE”

variable had the lowest mean when ranked against the other 53 variables in terms of being

important when making the decision whether to stay or leave the company, i.e. indicating that

this issue is of little if no importance at all to the majority of the respondents. The “diversity/

affirmative action/BEE variable” was correlated with “the difficulty in finding another job”

variable as well as with the perceptions of how easy it would be to find an equivalent job in

the next six months. Further to the survey having revealed that 69% of Incubeta employees

believe that they would either “easily” or “very easily” find an equivalent job in the next six


Copyright UCT


months, this factor describes an underlying attitude of confidence that Incubeta employees

have toward their marketability.

Your Role and Recognition in the Organisation Factor

This factor comprises of the following variables: “Individual recognition & praise being

given”; “job not being designed around your needs”; “relationship with your immediate boss”

and “upsetting organisational changes”. This factor indicates that Incubeta employees have a

similar underlying attitude toward these four variables. The survey findings revealed that the

variable “relationship with your immediate boss” was ranked no. 12 in importance against the

other 53 variables in terms of being important when making the decision whether to stay or

leave their current company.

Culture Factor

This factor comprises of the following variables: “Communication problems internally”;

“personal fit with the organisational culture”; “the organisation’s general culture”; “manager’s

integrity & quality” and “your level of trust in top management”. This indicates that these

variables are positively correlated, therefore clustered together by a similar underlying theme.

The variable “manager’s integrity & quality” was ranked by Incubeta employees as being

third highest in importance against the other 53 variables when making the decision whether

to stay or leave the company. This factor suggests that the company should consider all five

variables in a similar light when addressing ways to improve the retention of Incubeta

employees.

The Industry Factor

“Access to leading technologies” and “personal buy-in to business strategy” are positively

correlated to this factor while “your need to work in a different type of company” is

negatively correlated with this factor. This factor suggests that where an employee is not

interested in working in a different type of company, the variables of “access to leading

technologies” and personal buy-in to business strategy” will be of similar importance. The

variable “access to leading technologies” was ranked by Incubeta employees as being eighth

highest in importance against the other 53 variables when making the decision whether to stay

or leave the company.


Copyright UCT


Internal Sense of Security Factor

This factor comprises of the following variables that are all positively correlated: “Internal

equity/fairness”; “job security in present organisation”; and “medical aid/retirement benefits”.

It suggests an underlying attitude toward internal security that relate to all three variables.

“Internal equity/fairness” was ranked by Incubeta employees as being fifth highest in

importance against the other 53 variables when making the decision whether to stay or leave

the company. The qualitative findings suggest that a sense of unfairness prevails in the

company that should be addressed in order to improve retention of key employees.

4.12 Commitment to Company Goals

The survey asked the question: “how committed are you to furthering the goals of the

company?” A 4-point Likert Scale provided four levels of commitment to choose from. The

survey results, displayed in the graph below, showed that 83% of the respondents are either

“very committed” or “totally committed” indicating high levels of commitment to the

company.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

NotCommitted

SlightlyCommitted

VeryCommitted

TotallyCommitted

Commitment to Company Goals

Campaign Managers

Technology w orkers

Figure 4.12. Commitment to Company Goals However, the technology workers focus group on seeing this result stated that the “very

committed” and “totally committed” figures pertaining to technology workers seemed too

high, given the way they feel about the company. A couple of them claimed to have

misunderstood the question to read “commitment to your work” rather than to “furthering the

company’s goals” and they believe that the same may have happened with their team

members. They described that they feel no sense of loyalty or commitment to the company,

but that they do feel a strong sense of commitment to their own work and to specific projects.

A couple of focus group participants stated that they take great pride in their work.


Copyright UCT


On the other hand, the campaign managers’ focus group revealed that the campaign managers

feel extremely committed to the company since they feel a sense of ownership in their work

and the fact that the company has grown to where it is today, having won international awards

and several accolades in the industry. One participant commented that “it’s only because of

us, that we are where we are”. Another stated that “whatever happens with my work comes

directly back to me, so it’s a pride issue”. There is also a strong sense of commitment to each

other and the team. One employee commented that his team members are “like family to me”

and many similar comments suggested a strong “sense of belonging”.

Commitment to Company Goals versus Intention to Stay at the Company Table 4.12. Commitment to Company Goals versus Envisaged Duration at Company < 6 months 6 months –

1yr 1-2 years 3-5 years > 5 years Row

Not committed 1 1 0 0 0 2 Slightly committed 0 1 1 2 0 4 Very committed 0 3 8 10 4 25 Totally committed 0 0 1 2 1 4 Totals 1 5 10 14 5 35

Table 4.12. above shows the cross tabulation of levels of commitment to company goals with

the length of time employees envisage staying at the company. It appears that the majority of

very committed employees envisage staying at the company for longer than 3 years.

4.13 Incubeta’s Knowledge Workers’ Perceptions of their Own Marketability

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Difficult Easy Very Easy

Perceptions of Marketability

Campaign ManagersTechnology workers

The perceptions that Incubeta’s knowledge workers have regarding their employability have

been alluded to earlier. The responses to the survey question “how easy do you think it would

be for you to find an equivalent or better job in the next six months?” revealed that 69%

believed it would be either “easy” or

“very easy”. Two thirds of the

respondents who answered that it would

be “difficult” were campaign managers.

Where 56% of the campaign managers

as a group answered that would be

“easy” or “very easy” to find equivalent or better work in the next six months, this figure was

80% for the technology workers. It is interesting to note from Figure 4.13. below that those

who considered that it would be “very easy” to find equivalent or better work in the next six

months, were between 20 and 29 years of age. Stated differently, the younger members of


Copyright UCT


Incubeta’s workforce seem to have the most confidence in their abilities to find alternative

work in the next six months.

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%

60%

70%80%

20+ years 25+ years 30+ years 35+ years

Age

Age & Perceptions of Marketability

DifficultEasyVery Easy

Figure 4.13.: Age and Perceptions of Marketability 4.14 Job-hunting Status and Intention to Stay at Current Company

Respondents were asked “which of the following categories best describes your current

situation?”

• I am not looking for another job

• I occasionally look into opportunities for changing jobs

• I am continually, actively seeking another job opportunity

Figure 4.14.a.

0

5

10

15

Not Looking ActivelySeeking

Job-hunting Status

Technology w orkers

Campaign Managers

Figure 4.14.a. shows the

number of responses to each

category. Converted into

percentages, the results suggest

that 40% of the respondents are

not currently looking for

alternative work, 54%

occasionally seek alternate work, and only 6% are actively seeking alternative work.

Although the survey findings indicated that only 10% of technology employees are actively

seeking alternative employment, the technology focus group expressed surprise at this result,

stating that they felt it was understated. They believe that the question was not answered

truthfully, and suggested that many of the technology worker respondents who had chosen the

category “occasionally seeking alternative employment” were probably “actively seeking

alternative employment” in reality. This is could once again be explained by “the halo effect”,

as described on page 36 when discussing the results of “satisfaction with manager”.


Copyright UCT


0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Less than6 months

6 monthsto 1 year

1 to 2years

3 to 5years

More than5 years

Length of Time Envisaged at Company

Technology workersCampaign Managers

The most important reason that was given for actively seeking alternative work has to do with

dissatisfaction with salaries as discussed previously. The focus group stated that they would

leave in order to earn more money elsewhere. The second reason has to do with their

perceived lack of adequate direct supervision also discussed before. The third reason has less

to do with the company itself, being more to do with the need for challenging work. The focus

group revealed that for Java developers, 1-2 years in any company is standard since they get

bored with the industry. “Programming is programming” and notwithstanding that new

versions of Java and other software development are released from time to time, technology

workers are prone to getting bored. Hence they need to find new work in a different industry

in order to learn something new and have some form of excitement in their work. One

employee stated that “once you understand the core business of any particular industry it is

time to move on”. In the case of Incubeta, a search engine marketing company, “there is only

so much you can learn about finding key words and it gets monotonous after a while…”.

Interestingly in light of this discussion, the graph above shows that 32% of technology

workers envisage staying in the company for 3-5 yrs. However, this can probably be

explained by the length of service statistics

which revealed that 79% of the technology

workers have already been working at

Incubeta for more than a year, of which 47%

have already worked there for 2-3 years.

Please refer to Figure 4.14.b.

Figure 4.14.b.

As a group, 50% of the campaign managers responded that they intended staying at the

company for 3-5 yrs and a further 13% responded that it would be longer than 5 years. The

campaign managers’ focus group felt that it would be premature to leave in the next year

since they believe that the company is “on the verge of greatness” and that they can look

forward to bonuses, share options and profit share. They believe that the company is “going

places” and if they stay, it could be an opportunity for their own wealth creation. One

campaign manager added that another reason for staying for a longer period of time is that is a

“backlash for job-hopping in our industry”. The “restraint of trade” clause that all employees

signed on joining was also cited as a deterrent to leaving the company, but there were feelings

of resentment about this. The group felt that it gave them a sense of not being trusted.


Copyright UCT


Someone commented that ‘it makes me feel trapped,” while another said they didn’t like

having to stay at the company “out of fear of a legal suit”. When asked whether the “restraint

of trade” affects their decision to leave or stay at the company, the reactions were mixed,

some participants agreeing, and others not.

Additional Insight from the Technology Workers’ Focus Group Discussion

The technology workers claimed to be unsatisfied with their salaries, their inadequate direct

supervision and their boredom with their work, yet 80% of them perceived finding an

equivalent or better job within the next six months to be easy. In light of this, the researcher

asked the technology workers why they were choosing to stay at Incubeta. Some of the

responses have been captured below:

• “I’m scared to pick the wrong company and land up in a worse position.”

• “Wait until after Christmas – there’ll be an exodus!”

• “We’re looking!”

• “I’m just taking my time to find the right place…”

The survey finding indicating that only two technology workers are actively seeking another

job opportunity does not appear to be an accurate reflection of reality. This insight once again

underlines the value of qualitative research which probes into greater depth to surface

underlying issues.


Copyright UCT


5 Discussion Previous research has revealed a certain number of overlapping of factors considered

important in the motivation and retention of knowledge workers (Horwitz et al, 2003).

Similarly, this study revealed that a number of the variables considered important to

motivation, were also considered important to retention. Furthermore, the ranking of these

variables were closely correlated in that the degree to which it was important to motivation

was similar to that of retention. The survey asked respondents to rank ten specific factors in

order of their perceived importance to the respondent’s motivation and to their retention,

respectively. The ten factors selected for the survey question were found by previous research

to be among the most critical factors in the motivation and retention of knowledge workers

(Sutherland & Jordaan, 2000, Horwitz, et al, 2003, Birt et al, 2004, Gaylard et al, 2005). The

results revealed that the most important factor in the motivation of Incubeta employees was

“challenging, meaningful, fulfilling work” while the top factor in their retention was “highly

competitive pay package”. The second most important factor in the motivation of Incubeta

employees was “highly competitive pay package”, while in the case of their retention, it was

“challenging, meaningful, fulfilling work”. These two variables, i.e. “challenging,

meaningful, fulfilling work” and “highly competitive pay package”, were also ranked from a

choice of 54 variables as the two most important variables when deciding on whether to leave

or stay at the company. These results are consistent with the findings of Horwitz et al (2003)

where “providing challenging work” was found to be one of the top two most effective

motivation and retention strategies, while “a highly competitive pay package” was found to

be the second most effective retention strategy. However, where this study found “highly

competitive pay package” to be critical to both motivation and retention, Horwitz et al’s study

did not find “a highly competitive pay package” to be one of the top five most effective

strategies for motivation. As far as retention is concerned, the findings regarding “highly

competitive pay package” are also consistent with Gaylard et al’s study (2005) of IT workers

where “a competitive remuneration package” and “fair reward for contribution” were

identified as two of the variables most likely to affect retention.

“Career development and learning opportunities” and “performance incentives/bonuses/share

options” were ranked as the third and fourth most important variables, respectively, for both

motivation and retention. These results are consistent with the findings of Horwitz et al (2003)

which showed that two of the four most effective motivation strategies include “advancement


Copyright UCT


opportunities” and “compensation commensurate with performance”, while “opportunities for

growth” and “transparent compensation commensurate with performance” were found to be

two of the three most effective retention strategies. This also confirms the findings of Gaylard

et al (2005) that showed that “being fairly rewarded for contribution” and “opportunity to

develop new knowledge and skills” were considered two of the most important variables in

the retention of IT workers. “Freedom to plan work and work independently” was ranked as

the fifth most important factor for motivation, consistent with research that showed that

allowing knowledge workers freedom to plan work was considered an effective motivation

strategy (Horwitz et al, 2003). The importance placed on “freedom to plan work and work

independently” as a motivating factor is also compatible with Tampoe’s finding (1993) that

the second biggest motivation factor for knowledge workers is “operational autonomy”. “Fun

work environment and team work” was ranked as the fifth most important factor affecting

retention. This too is consistent with Horwitz et al’s findings (2003) where “a conducive work

environment”, incorporating “fun place to work”; “informality”; and “flexible work

practices”, was considered one of the three most effective retention strategies.

“Top management support” and “regular contact with top management” were ranked on

aggregate as the two least important variables out of ten, for both motivation and retention.

“Support from top management” was ranked by the combined group as eleventh out of 54

variables that were ranked according to importance in the decision on whether to leave or stay

at the company. Based on previous research that found “top management support” to be one

of the most highly effective strategies for both the motivation and retention of knowledge

workers (Horwitz et al, 2003), the researcher expected a somewhat higher ranking of this

variable. However, the unstructured answers to the open-ended questions on ways that

retention could be enhanced at Incubeta, revealed several related top management issues,

possibly demonstrating that the issue is more important to the respondents than what the

ranking suggests. It is also worth pointing out that the variable “level of trust in top

management” was ranked tenth out of 54 in terms of importance in the decision on whether to

leave or stay at the company.

It was interesting in the South African context that “diversity/affirmative action/BEE”

variable was ranked the lowest despite the fact that the respondents are predominantly white.

As mentioned in the findings section, a possible explanation is the high demand for the

specific skills that Incubeta knowledge workers possess, and the apparent skills shortage in


Copyright UCT


this particular industry. This is consistent with previous research that despite identifying BEE

and affirmative action as an issue affecting retention of talent, found that it was a relatively

low level concern for high calibre workers (Birt et al, 2004).

There is an important difference between organisational commitment and occupational

commitment. The question regarding commitment that was asked in the survey pertained to

organisational commitment in that it spoke of “commitment to the company’s goals”.

Overall, the survey findings revealed high levels of commitment by both campaign managers

and technology workers. However, the focus group revealed that some of the technology

workers misinterpreted the question and answered as if they were referring to occupational

commitment. While the majority described feeling no sense of loyalty or commitment to the

company itself, they claimed to feel a strong sense of commitment to their own work and to

specific projects. This is consistent with the results of a recent study involving financial

services consultants (Birt et al, 2004) where questions on respondents’ perceived levels of

commitment revealed that while 89% of respondents reported being highly committed to their

current jobs, only 71% felt a high level of commitment to the organisation. Much of the

literature posits that in the knowledge age, “commitment to colleagues and teams” has

replaced “loyalty to companies” (Despres & Hiltrop, 1995; Cappelli, 2000; Beer & Katz,

2003; Gaylard, et al, 2005). The focus group research findings confirmed that this was

certainly true for some of Incubeta’s knowledge workers where it was explicitly expressed

that while not feeling particularly loyal to the company per se, a couple of the reasons for

staying included “not wanting to let my colleagues down” and “my team members are like

family to me.”

The technology workers’ focus group revealed that there was much dissatisfaction among this

group regarding their direct supervision and the participants asserted that it was one of the

reasons they would choose to leave. This is consistent with the literature pertaining to the

importance of the relationships that employees have with their managers to both commitment

and retention (Dobbs, 2001; Gaylard, Sutherland & Viedge, 2005). Campaign managers, on

the other hand, were found to thrive on having almost no direct supervision, valuing instead

their freedom to work independently. However, the campaign managers’ focus group research

revealed that even where campaign managers were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the

nature of their work, they would be willing to leave for a better job offer. This is compatible

with previous research which found that only a small percentage of knowledge workers left


Copyright UCT



PERCEIVED EXTERNAL

EQUITY

1.Continuance Commitment

2.Affective

Commitment

What other opportunities are available?

Personal Fulfilment/Satisfaction

RETENTION3.

RETENTION

Proposed Model for Talent Retention

INTRINSIC FACTORS

for reasons related to their jobs; 39% left for better pay & prospects (Horwitz et al, 2003).

This is supported by further research that showed that two-thirds of priority skills employees

intending to leave are actually satisfied with their current job (Corporate Leadership Council,

1999b, cited in Gaylard et al, 2005). This indicates the importance of extrinsic variables, such

as competitive pay, in retaining talent.

The ranking of 54 variables in terms of their importance in the decision of whether to stay or

leave the company, revealed that 43 out of the 54 variables, both intrinsic and extrinsic in

nature, were either ranked by the majority of respondents as being either “crucial” or “quite

important”. Six of the seven most important variables, however, were all related to

compensation, including “competitive pay package” being the most important. Birt et al

(2004) conducted exploratory research on variables that affect retention of talent in South

Africa. Their findings demonstrated that both extrinsic and intrinsic variables are important to

retention. The theoretical suggestion they propose in their conclusion seems to fit the findings

of this research and provides a useful analytical framework for making sense of the data in

this study. Figure 5 below summarizes the researcher’s interpretation of Birt et al’s (2004)

theory, suggesting that unless there is “continuance commitment” (achieved through

perceived external equity), efforts to retain employees exclusively through variables related to

“affective commitment” (as a result of intrinsic factors being fulfilled) will be inadequate. Figure 5.: Proposed Model for Talent Retention Source: Interpretation of Study by Birt, Wallice & Winternitz, 2004

Copyright UCT


The model “suggests that employees value intrinsic attributes and demonstrate affective

commitment only as long as they perceive they are in a position of external equity. As soon as

this situation changes though, it seems as if they are likely to leave the organisation to pursue

better offers until a sense of equity is regained” (Birt et al, 2004: 30).

There was consistency in the Incubeta findings related to financial reward. Results of

questions relating to whether respondents perceived their salaries to be competitive in the

marketplace; their levels of satisfaction with regard to their financial compensation; and the

relative importance of a competitive package to both their motivation and intention to stay at

the company, all revealed a clear pattern. Aside from compensation being considered an

important motivating factor, dissatisfaction with salaries, salaries perceived to be

uncompetitive or getting a better job offer, were the top reasons for wanting to leave the

company. Compatible with Birt et al’s findings (2004), both the focus groups and the survey

findings revealed that despite the challenging work, the relaxed culture and the freedom to

work independently, Incubeta’s knowledge workers would leave for higher financial

compensation.

Triangulation proved to be valuable in this study. While in the main, the qualitative research

findings supported the survey findings, there were instances where the focus groups provided

insights that would otherwise have been lost to this study. This underlines the value of

qualitative research as advocated by Leedy (1997); Wegner (2000) and Saunders et al (2003).

With regards to job-hunting status, the survey asked whether the respondents were actively

seeking alternative employment in the next six months, occasionally looking for other work,

or not looking at all. Although the majority of the respondents claimed they were not actively

looking, the technology workers’ focus group revealed that in reality, many of them appeared

to be dissatisfied with their present jobs and were actively seeking better ones. This is likely

to have serious consequences for the company if attendant issues are not addressed. The focus

group enabled the researcher to gain a more accurate insight into the current intentions of this

group as well as a deeper understanding of the prevailing contributory issues.


Copyright UCT


6 Conclusion and Recommendations

The findings in this study produced few surprises in terms of the factors that are generally

perceived to motivate and retain knowledge workers. This suggests that Incubeta’s knowledge

workers are driven by factors similar to those identified in previous studies of knowledge

workers across diverse industries and countries. Future research, given the homogeneity of

this sample might focus on knowledge workers more diverse in character, for example by

race, age and ethnicity. The variable, diversity, could be an intervening one which may relate

to future study of a similar type. The homogeneous nature of Incubeta’s workforce may

present a limitation to the company in the longer run. The company would be advised to

consider a diversity policy and strategy, as soon as is practicable. The potential for a sudden

loss of talent appears evident and the firm needs to be proactive in implementing recruitment

and retention strategies that may address the need to enhance employee diversity. This may

also become important given the requirements of BEE charters and could affect future

business. Incubeta is on the threshold of a new growth phase and the current management

team has an exciting vision for the company’s future - in an industry that is rife with

opportunities. Critical to their success, however, will be their ability to manage their

intellectual capital through the implementation of appropriate motivation and retention

strategies.

The study revealed that there are certain issues that could be addressed in order for Incubeta

to motivate and retain their knowledge workers more effectively. It would be wise for the

company to tailor its HR practices according to the specific needs of its two groups of

knowledge workers, since the responses of the campaign managers differed somewhat to

those of the technology workers. However, for the overall group of knowledge workers, the

study stressed the need for compensation to be perceived to be highly competitive, failing

which could result in serious consequences for the company in terms of significant staff

turnover. There was a strong perception that the remuneration package is not competitive and

in light of this, it may be prudent for Incubeta to review their current knowledge workers’

salaries as well as other forms of compensation and benefits. The organisation would be well

advised to verify their salaries against relevant salary survey data to test the veracity of these

perceptions. It is useful to take part in such surveys to keep abreast of current market trends

for key priority skills jobs. It is particularly important that they partake in these surveys in a

high mobility industry such as that of online search engine marketing, especially given the


Copyright UCT


perceptions that their knowledge workers have of being highly marketable. Furthermore, the

introduction of a meaningful incentive scheme would contribute to improving motivation,

while profit share, share options, and/or performance bonuses would assist in enhancing the

retention of Incubeta’s talent.

Notwithstanding the significance of competitive compensation, a number of areas were

highlighted that could be improved in the interest of enhancing both the motivation and

retention of Incubeta’s knowledge workers. The study revealed the importance of providing

challenging work for both motivation and retention and the company should carefully

consider the individual’s job design, scope of responsibility, work diversity and the level of

challenge to ensure that the knowledge workers feel fulfilled in their work. While responses

indicated a overall high level of commitment to company goals, a positive outlook on the

culture of the company and commitment to team members, employees expressed the need for

some acknowledgement of their achievements. The feedback suggested that recognition and

gratitude for “going the extra mile” was perceived to be lacking and as one employee stated,

“a simple thank you goes a long way”. Career growth and development/providing

advancement opportunities is another important area that could be given attention in order to

increase the motivation and retention of Incubeta’s knowledge workers. Clearly, it is a

challenge in this organisation given the flat organisational structure and the nature of the

work, but a need exists for innovative ways to deal with this. Management would also do well

to foster more trust among their knowledge workers in management’s abilities, integrity and

equitable treatment of this group of highly valued employees. This could be achieved through

more effective and transparent communication. Communicating a clear business strategy with

focussed goals that change less frequently would also assist in the motivation and retention of

these knowledge workers.

Effective talent management, i.e. motivation and retention of priority skills employees is

arguably the key to sustainable growth in any organisation, but particularly for companies like

Incubeta where knowledge management provides a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

In the “war for talent”, offering a highly competitive salary is not in itself a means to keep

knowledge workers motivated and retained – it is merely “a qualifier”. An organisation needs

to firstly offer competitive extrinsic rewards, and secondly, to ensure that all relevant intrinsic

factors are aligned with the specific needs of its knowledge workers, in order to “win”.


Copyright UCT


References

Alvesson, M. (2000), “Social Identity and the Problem of Loyalty in Knowledge Intensive

Companies”, Journal of Management Studies, 37: 8, 1101-20.

Arnold, C. (1995), “Some antecedents of employee commitment and their influence on job

performance: a multi-foci study”, South African Journal of Business Management, 26: 4, 25-

135.

Baron, J.N. & Hannan, M.T. (2002), “Organisational Blueprints for Success in High-Tech

Start-Ups”, California Management Review, 44: 3, 8-35.

Bassett-Jones, N. & Lloyd, G.C. (2005), “Does Herzberg’s motivation theory having staying

power?”, Journal of Management Development, 24: 10, 929 – 943.

Beer, M. & Katz, N. (2003), “Do Incentives Work? The Perceptions of a Worldwide Sample

of Senior Executives”, Human Resource Planning, 26: 3, 30-37.

Birt, M., Wallis, T., & Winternitz, G. (2004), “Talent Retention in a changing workplace: An

investigation of variables considered important to South African talent”, South African

Journal of Business Management, 35: 2, 25-31.

Boninelli, I. & Meyer,T.N.A. (2004), Building Human Capital South African Perspectives,

Randburg: Knowres Publishing Pty Ltd, 145.

Butler, T. & Waldroop, J. (1999), “Job Sculpting – The Art of Retaining your Best People”,

Harvard Business Review, September-October, 144-152.

Cappelli, P. (2000). “A market-driven approach to retaining talent”. Harvard Business Review

on Finding and Keeping the Best People. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 103 -111.

Corporate Leadership Council. (1998a), Crafting a “compelling offer”. Preliminary results

from primary research into the career decisions of high value employees. Washington DC:

The Corporate Advisory Board.


Copyright UCT


Corporate Leadership Council. (1999a), The compelling offer: A quantitative analysis of the

career preferences and decisions of high value employees, Washington: CLC Workforce

Commitment Series, 3.

Corporate Leadership Council. (1999b), Salient findings on the career decisions of high value

employees. Washington, D.C: Corporate Executive Board.

Dass, P., Davies, H., Farr, M., Garibaldi, C., Mokoka, G., & Van den Berckt, T. (2006), MBA

Company Analysis Report, GSB, U.C.T.

Despres, C. & Hiltrop, J. (1995), “Human Resource Management in the Knowledge Age:

Current Practice and Perspectives on the Future”, Employee Relations, 17: 1, 9-23.

Dobbs, K. (2001), “Knowing how to keep your best and your brightest”, Workforce, April, 57-60.

Drucker, P.F.(1989), The New Realities 1st Edition, Oxford: Heinemann.

Drucker, P.F. (1992), “The New Society of Organisations”, Harvard Business Review,

September-October, 3-12.

Gardner, D.G., Van Dyne, L. and Pierce, J. (2004), “The effects of pay level on organisation–

based self esteem and performance: a field study,” Journal of Occupational and

Organisational Psychology, Volume 77, 307-322.

Gaylard, M., Sutherland, M.& Viedge, C. (2005), “Factors perceived to influence the

retention of information technology workers”, South African Journal of Business

Management, 36: 3, 87-97.

Glen, C. (2006), “Key skills retention and motivation: the war for talent still rages and

retention is the high ground”, Industrial and commercial training, 38: 1, 37-45.

Goshal, S. & Moran, P. (2004), “Towards a good theory of management,” in J. Birkinshaw, J

& G. Piramal (2006), Sumantra Ghoshal on Management: A Force for Good, Harlow:

Financial Times Prentice Hall, 1-27.


Copyright UCT


Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Snyderman, B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York:

Wiley.

Herzenberg, S., Alice, J. & Wial, H. (2000), “Non-standard Employment and the Structure of

Postindustrial Labor Markets”. In Carre, F., Ferber, M., Golder, L. & Herzenberg, S. (eds)

Non-standard Work, Industrial Relations Research Association Series, 399-410.

Horwitz, F.M., (2006) “2010 highlights need to address skills shortages”, The Cape Argus,

November 13, 13.

Horwitz, F.M., Teng Heng, C. & Quazi, H.A. (2003), “Finders, keepers? Attracting,

motivating and retaining knowledge workers”, Human Resource Management Journal, 13: 4,

23-44.

Horwitz, F.M., Teng Heng C., Quazi H.A., Nonkwelo C., Roditi D., & van Eck, P. (2004),

“An Afro-Asian Nexus: Strategies for Managing Knowledge Workers in Emergent Markets”,

Convergence, 5: 2, 26-30.

Horwitz, F.M., Teng Heng, C., Quazi, H.A., Nonkwelo C., Roditi D. & van Eck P. (2006),

“Human resource strategies for managing knowledge workers: an Afro-Asian comparative

analysis”, International Journal of Human Resource Management 17:5, May, 775-811.

Kalra, S.K. (1997), “Human Potential Management: time to move beyond the concept of

human resource management?”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 21: 5, 176-180.

Kinnear, L. & Sutherland, M. (2000), “Determinants of organisational commitment amongst

knowledge workers”, South African Journal of Business Management, 32: 2, 106-111.

Lee, G. (2001), “Towards a contingent model of key staff retention: The new psychological

contract reconsidered”, South African Journal of Business Management, 32: 1, 1-9.

Leedy, P. (1997), Practical Research: Planning & Design, New Jersey: Merrill.

Leedy, P. & Ormrod, J. (2001), Practical Research Planning & Design 7th Edition, New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 116, 223-224.


Copyright UCT


Patton, M. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods 3rd Edition, California: Sage

Publications, Inc., 453.

Rankin, M. J. “Winning the war for talent: How to become an employer of choice”, Trusts

and Estates, 139: 4, 54-57.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. (2003), Research Methods for Business Students (3rd

edn), Essex: Financial Times Prentice Hall an imprint of Pearson Education Limited, 99 - 271.

Sayre, S. (2001), Qualitative Methods for Marketplace Research, California: Sage

Publications, Inc., 158.

Stamps, D. (1996), “Are We Smart Enough for Our Jobs?”, Training, 33: 4, 44-49.

Sutherland, M. & Jordaan, W. (2004), “Factors Affecting The Retention Of Knowledge

Workers”, South African Journal of Business Management, 2: 2, 63-72.

Tampoe, M. (1993), Motivating knowledge workers – the challenge for the 1990s”, Long

Range Planning, 26:3, 49-55.

Thompson, M. & Heron, P. (2002), “The Employment Relationship and Knowledge Creation:

Evidence from R&D Based High Technology Firms”, EURAM Conference, Stockholm, May,

1-10.

Tulgan, B. (2001), Winning the talent wars. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Inc.

Vogt, E. (1995), “The Nature of Work in 2010”, Telecommunications, 29: 9, 21-27.

Wegner, T. (2000), Quantitative Methods for marketing decisions, Cape Town: Juta, 27, 86-

87, 108.

Wirtz, J. (2001), “Improving the measurement of customer satisfaction: a test of three

methods to reduce halo” Managing Service Quality, 11: 2, 99-111.


Copyright UCT



Appendix A: Talent Management Questionnaire

Thank you for completing the survey below. All responses are anonymous and will remain completely confidential. Your opinions are appreciated. Please answer all questions and place an X in the appropriate box where applicable. 1. Gender 2. Age in years 3. Do you have a degree? 4. For how many completed years have you worked for your current organisation? Please put a zero if you have been there for less than a year. 5. What is your job title/ description?__________________________________ 6. How long can you envisage working for your current organisation? Less than 6 months 1

6 months to a year 2

1 to 2 years 3

3 to 5 years -4

More than 5 years

Until I retire - 6

7. How satisfied are you with the nature of the work you currently perform?

8. How satisfied are you with your relationship with the person who supervises or manages you?

9. How satisfied are you with your relations with your team/ your co-workers or peers?

10. How satisfied are you with your financial compensation/ payment package? 11. Would you consider your pay package competitive in the marketplace?

Very dissatisfied

1

Somewhat dissatisfied

2

Neutral

3

Very Satisfied

5

Satisfied

4

Male 1

Female 2

Yes 1

No 2

Very dissatisfied

1


2

Neutral

3

Very Satisfied

5

Satisfied

4

Very dissatisfied

1


2

Neutral

3

Very Satisfied

5

Satisfied

4

Very dissatisfied

1


2

Neutral

3

Very Satisfied

5

Satisfied

4

Yes 1

No 2

Copyright UCT



Appendix A continued

12. How satisfied are you with

opportunities for advancement in the company? 13. Overall, how satisfied are you with your current job situation? 14. How committed are you to furthering the goals of your employing company? 15. How easy do you think it would be for you to find an equivalent or better job

in the next six months? 16. Which one of the following categories best describes your current situation: • I am not looking for another job • I occasionally look into opportunities for changing jobs • I am continually, actively seeking for another job opportunity

17. How important do you consider each of the following factors to be in deciding whether to leave or stay with your current organisation? Please try to spread out your responses across the scale to reflect the relative importance of the items. Please answer every item.

1 = Crucial i.e. critically important/ “make or break” characteristic for me in a job 2 = Quite important i.e. this is a significant plus or minus factor but not “make or break” 3 = Neutral i.e. this would be a nice to have but it would not matter if it was not there 4 = Not important at all.

(17.a.)

Crucial

1

Quite

Important

2

Neutral

3

Not

important at all

4 1. Access to leading technologies 2. Advancement opportunities 3. A better job offer by another organisation 4. Career planning by the organisation 5. Communication problems internally 6. Company reputation 7. Company strategy problems 8. Company structure problems 9. Challenging and meaningful work 10. Competitive (market-related) pay package 11. Commitment to my team 12. Difficulty of changing jobs 13. Diversity /BEE/ Affirmative Action issues 14. Empowerment & responsibility 15. Emigration intentions

1

2

3

Not committed

1

Slightly committed

2

Very committed

3

Totally committed

4

Extremely difficult

1

Difficult

2

Easy

3

Very easy

4

Very dissatisfied

1


2

Neutral

3

Very Satisfied

5

Satisfied

4

Very dissatisfied

1


2

Neutral

3

Very Satisfied

5

Satisfied

4

Copyright UCT



(17.b.)

Crucial

1

Quite

Important

2

Neutral

3

Not

important at all

4 16. Flexibility with regard to working hours 17. Internal equity / fairness 18. Personal Fit with the organisational culture 19. Freedom to work independently/ autonomy 20. Base Salary 21. Incentive/bonus/variable pay(performance related) 22. Individual recognition & praise being given 23. Issues you have raised being unattended 24. Job not being designed around your needs 25. Job security in present organisation 26. Lack of career development/learning opportunities 27. Lack of formal feedback on your performance 28. New opportunities/ challenges 29. Medical aid and/or retirement benefits 30. Ongoing stress at work 31. Physical office environment 32. Receiving an upsetting performance review 33. Recognition 34. Relationship with your immediate boss (17.c.)

Crucial

1

Quite

Important

2

Neutral

3

Not

important at all

4 35. Share options in the company 36. Short-term promotion opportunities 37. Social friendships at work 38. The organisation’s general culture 39. The performance appraisal /feedback process 40. The salary increase system 41. Manager integrity & quality 42. Support from top management 43. To change your field of work 44. To start your own business 45. Training needs fulfilled 46. Unfulfilled promises and unmet expectations 47. Personal “buy-in” to business strategy 48. Upsetting organisational changes 49. Work versus personal life balance 50. Your ideas being ignored 51. Your overall job satisfaction level 52. Your level of commitment to the organisation 53. Your level of trust in top management 54. Your need to work in a different type of company


Copyright UCT



18. Please list any other factors that might influence your decision to leave your current employer.

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

19. Motivation Factors Please RANK in order of importance 1 being most important, 10 being least important, the factors that motivate you in your job. NB. PLEASE USE EACH NUMERAL ONLY ONCE.

RANK (1-10) . Motivation Variables Challenging , meaningful, fulfilling work Highly competitive pay package Performance Incentives/ bonuses/ share options Career development & learning opportunities Top management support Freedom to plan work & work independently Access to leading edge technology Regular contact with top management Opportunities for promotion Fun work environment & team work Please list any other factor(s) that you consider more important than those listed above: __________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

20. Retention Factors Please RANK in order of importance 1 being most important, 10 being least important, the factors that would encourage you to stay at the company. NB. PLEASE USE EACH NUMERAL ONLY ONCE.

RANK (1-10) Retention Variables Challenging , meaningful, fulfilling work Highly competitive pay package Performance Incentives/ bonuses/ share options Career development & learning opportunities Top management support Freedom to plan work & work independently Access to leading edge technology Regular contact with top management Opportunities for promotion Fun work environment & team work 21. Please list any other factor(s) that you consider more important than those listed above: __________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________


Copyright UCT



22. Name 3 positive aspects of working at Incubeta that contribute to your motivation currently:

1._____________________________________________________________________

2._____________________________________________________________________

3._____________________________________________________________________

23. Please list three actions that Incubeta could take to increase your motivation & commitment:

1._____________________________________________________________________

2._____________________________________________________________________

3._____________________________________________________________________

24. Please list the top three reasons that would make you leave Incubeta:

1._______________________________________________________________________

2._______________________________________________________________________

3._______________________________________________________________________

25. Please list three things that Incubeta could do differently that would encourage you to stay with the

company for a longer period than you indicated above:

1.__________________________________________________________________________

2.__________________________________________________________________________

3.__________________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for your assistance!


Copyright UCT


Appendix B: Presentation to Focus Groups


Copyright UCT


Appendix B continued


Copyright UCT



Factor Loadings (Varimax normalized) (Formatted data_1)Extraction: Principal components(Marked loadings are >.500000)

VariableFactor

1Factor

2Factor

3Factor

4Factor

5Factor

6Factor

7Factor

8Factor

9Factor

101.0000002.0000003.0000004.0000006.0000007.0000008.0000009.00000010.00000011.00000012.00000013.00000014.00000015.00000017.01000017.02000017.03000017.04000017.05000017.06000017.07000017.08000017.09000017.10000017.11000017.12000017.13000017.14000017.15000017.16000017.17000017.18000017.19000017.20000017.21000017.22000017.23000017.24000017.25000017.26000017.27000017.28000017.29000017.30000017.31000017.32000017.33000017.34000017.35000017.36000017.37000017.38000017.39000017.40000017.41000017.42000017.43000017.44000017.45000017.46000017.47000017.48000017.49000017.50000017.51000017.52000017.53000017.540000Expl.VarPrp.Totl

0.262384 -0.131668 0.078775 -0.093394 -0.769351 -0.004647 0.073666 -0.031970 -0.130607 -0.0152850.177257 0.113682 0.210051 0.118153 0.245055 -0.107008 0.072712 0.260880 0.198273 0.403964

-0.369138 0.035182 -0.155701 -0.063128 0.268105 -0.102169 -0.674375 -0.080878 0.085213 -0.117553-0.302640 0.186084 0.149037 0.167969 0.153465 -0.015973 -0.195594 0.397595 0.077268 -0.2123530.212890 0.265136 0.632216 0.100870 0.000596 0.001191 -0.014560 0.131816 0.114789 0.0349970.811180 -0.040677 0.075368 0.108431 -0.046706 -0.092506 0.022760 0.031167 0.006041 0.1467690.636900 0.083997 0.186978 0.092447 -0.012232 -0.108592 0.120669 -0.118716 0.053357 0.1237260.213937 -0.028608 0.097402 0.044354 -0.010115 0.008836 0.155553 -0.056523 -0.010455 -0.1273950.825864 -0.077379 -0.106345 -0.066586 0.127229 0.103133 -0.008347 0.052316 0.091802 -0.052827

-0.770668 0.121014 0.182047 0.015146 -0.073812 -0.232580 0.027509 -0.032352 0.060302 0.0368170.628023 -0.084808 0.180839 0.076255 -0.295287 0.175537 0.227410 0.176823 0.209083 -0.1470380.853671 0.025613 0.049449 0.003174 -0.091872 -0.129196 0.188124 0.107913 -0.024903 -0.0162880.258451 0.276612 0.408403 -0.033111 0.222930 0.183344 0.199885 0.025649 0.374250 0.295207

-0.130040 0.018851 0.059783 0.816520 0.097308 -0.027710 -0.038212 -0.015147 0.091880 -0.144868-0.125378 0.024287 0.131140 -0.002114 0.021178 0.085899 -0.067010 0.063563 -0.120939 -0.0577630.006199 -0.033207 -0.367351 -0.270355 0.416111 -0.317581 -0.256037 -0.283343 -0.084083 0.0915610.205255 -0.134891 0.321279 0.273774 0.582673 -0.186823 -0.036942 0.035928 -0.053688 -0.053911

-0.276828 0.182897 -0.428059 -0.055040 0.018456 -0.163724 0.151025 -0.410911 -0.015044 0.0058760.183978 0.074928 0.126061 0.069207 0.112385 0.118749 -0.105619 0.034955 0.758422 0.098086

-0.070503 -0.029984 -0.204943 0.095666 0.129308 -0.050449 0.031869 0.064545 0.057491 -0.077419-0.122061 0.029741 -0.025825 -0.015909 0.018164 -0.013697 -0.112542 -0.088326 0.001981 -0.105080-0.086578 0.067642 0.006047 0.099378 -0.011795 0.064780 -0.049954 -0.031860 0.165839 0.2763160.130933 -0.083814 -0.100898 -0.105087 0.315938 -0.051802 0.050311 -0.082539 0.087025 -0.0334930.234965 0.167687 -0.372571 0.007605 0.600047 -0.128520 -0.004688 0.194307 0.144782 0.1953510.113353 0.033669 -0.860278 -0.039851 0.054809 -0.156886 -0.100226 0.097484 -0.013300 -0.1026000.168645 -0.093777 0.080083 0.692420 0.165942 -0.145993 0.309611 0.108595 -0.046462 0.1847340.052682 0.067909 0.118408 0.761042 0.091939 0.052297 0.032247 0.099702 -0.048629 0.0263120.042892 -0.086283 0.031067 -0.217666 0.010766 0.178155 -0.227659 -0.194314 0.213397 0.0200980.081714 -0.017429 -0.070656 0.144499 -0.030597 0.125215 0.024883 0.807421 -0.196288 0.2019800.111745 0.024711 0.331680 0.190622 0.068607 0.465533 0.019392 -0.347986 0.090087 0.0041090.100482 0.221947 0.203738 -0.166473 -0.022486 0.200876 -0.163390 0.091465 0.088612 0.149844

-0.049182 0.072276 -0.123849 -0.126931 0.038341 0.012267 -0.272645 -0.100331 0.259729 0.013063-0.102557 0.392670 0.197494 -0.118504 0.328846 0.179536 0.305988 -0.518136 -0.186754 -0.0801760.247381 0.070306 0.269574 0.352985 0.110913 -0.028091 -0.014440 -0.189513 -0.042867 -0.198033

-0.254044 0.133342 -0.015507 0.124360 -0.176262 0.100672 0.221646 -0.275243 -0.128873 0.178327-0.137897 0.572440 -0.205498 0.058293 0.161405 0.151751 -0.210594 0.100465 -0.185134 0.258106-0.057597 0.288802 0.282372 0.109625 0.027246 0.538128 -0.237686 -0.200214 -0.005476 -0.0150370.159437 0.700917 0.020429 0.114309 0.179960 0.134424 0.041315 -0.092730 -0.227321 -0.0318560.007957 -0.003467 -0.015599 0.448831 0.111350 0.008709 0.105445 -0.013428 -0.027952 0.0014330.309610 -0.293008 0.291307 0.214705 0.115090 -0.162160 -0.467439 -0.123980 0.062680 0.0740090.053740 -0.209132 0.248943 0.040498 0.165064 0.070293 -0.174904 0.098364 0.112937 0.688945

-0.004877 -0.094315 -0.045991 -0.002421 0.066645 0.002523 -0.131030 -0.043022 -0.065664 0.0364480.066379 -0.128603 -0.321511 0.005091 0.073754 0.132736 0.096553 -0.086829 -0.002321 0.0370170.239533 -0.071465 0.263930 -0.039722 0.115613 0.616744 0.026188 0.031191 -0.292021 0.1838890.097913 0.087713 0.031656 -0.168225 -0.237291 0.561229 0.195025 0.188014 -0.170965 0.4473810.003753 0.365663 0.241672 0.179673 0.559618 0.065512 0.123014 0.078812 -0.146673 -0.178124

-0.123892 0.373315 0.171075 0.013765 -0.245224 0.143079 -0.171986 0.082797 -0.032038 0.100982-0.200397 0.808270 -0.014627 -0.103865 -0.008990 0.026355 0.008744 0.046710 0.237305 0.030994-0.183385 -0.139980 -0.209272 0.076253 -0.215153 0.091200 -0.221108 -0.789797 -0.124366 -0.039321-0.036183 0.216026 -0.208536 0.049866 0.140903 -0.118198 0.095575 -0.240661 0.064856 0.135062-0.164506 0.449668 -0.252429 -0.254581 0.104716 0.247441 -0.014744 -0.168948 0.055042 -0.079038-0.410489 0.134386 -0.295580 -0.253666 -0.274223 0.178950 -0.033712 -0.055927 0.378366 0.062831-0.055574 0.145712 -0.094788 -0.019549 -0.093331 0.209522 0.155340 0.053395 -0.075560 0.7965350.111492 0.249399 -0.217211 0.249900 0.111234 -0.114415 0.026118 0.146555 0.074884 0.164749

-0.071663 0.108927 0.029852 -0.010390 -0.152194 0.815452 0.012577 0.042288 0.326007 0.116044-0.145329 -0.358155 -0.302133 0.129239 0.246086 0.218629 0.243875 0.031495 -0.068520 0.0336250.198571 0.006466 -0.067695 0.329471 0.074874 -0.103820 0.731462 0.027693 0.014916 -0.0227650.107052 -0.126125 0.110703 0.160050 0.017710 0.013266 0.026362 -0.293535 -0.037005 0.2468780.203640 -0.020763 -0.072767 0.621382 -0.315224 0.232389 0.249107 -0.025967 0.123689 0.042268

-0.032755 -0.042946 -0.010174 -0.052767 -0.038367 -0.071517 0.021360 0.076120 0.121616 -0.1037610.035687 0.054639 -0.206213 -0.092562 -0.167804 -0.100047 -0.162412 -0.421930 0.036289 0.280245

-0.100529 0.503154 0.048129 0.297446 0.240986 -0.160447 0.225453 0.102404 -0.085351 0.0401840.316654 0.012129 -0.051443 0.098041 0.144544 0.169596 0.411922 0.055409 0.144343 0.080875

-0.066183 0.119056 0.361597 0.159906 0.083955 0.159866 -0.161812 -0.191741 -0.100640 0.023129-0.121742 0.169223 0.221727 -0.168703 0.271686 -0.095001 -0.141464 0.117147 -0.150395 0.286764-0.062036 0.089547 -0.766157 -0.047646 -0.016382 -0.022691 0.107137 -0.172771 0.079299 0.022934-0.056374 -0.267169 -0.211553 0.074222 0.011389 0.027873 0.107904 -0.139205 0.633607 -0.3823990.125127 0.136816 0.157761 0.130891 0.057429 0.234454 0.196642 -0.079407 -0.066422 0.2009355.240368 3.528186 4.314479 3.591216 3.248201 3.006998 2.770150 3.147190 2.270848 2.7187200.077064 0.051885 0.063448 0.052812 0.047768 0.044221 0.040737 0.046282 0.033395 0.039981

Appendix C: Factor Analysis Results Note: The column on the left contains numbers corresponding to the questions with the same numbers on the questionnaire.

Copyright UCT



Factor Loadings (Varimax normalized) (Format ted data_1)Extraction: Principal components(Marked loadings are >.500000)

VariableFactor

11Factor

12Factor

13Factor

14Factor

15Factor

16Factor

17Factor

18Factor

19Factor

201.0000002.0000003.0000004.0000006.0000007.0000008.0000009.00000010.00000011.00000012.00000013.00000014.00000015.00000017.01000017.02000017.03000017.04000017.05000017.06000017.07000017.08000017.09000017.10000017.11000017.12000017.13000017.14000017.15000017.16000017.17000017.18000017.19000017.20000017.21000017.22000017.23000017.24000017.25000017.26000017.27000017.28000017.29000017.30000017.31000017.32000017.33000017.34000017.35000017.36000017.37000017.38000017.39000017.40000017.41000017.42000017.43000017.44000017.45000017.46000017.47000017.48000017.49000017.50000017.51000017.52000017.53000017.540000Expl.VarPrp.Totl

-0.108440 -0.059724 -0.067014 -0.038034 0.144707 0.046958 -0.102633 -0.190471 0.006695 -0.1008480.029435 0.053557 -0.076472 0.115141 -0.001275 -0.333122 -0.030621 0.107309 -0.511564 0.067163

-0.056972 0.010997 0.133837 0.098824 -0.183876 -0.018592 0.063649 0.117307 0.171578 0.0673320.026862 -0.349533 0.268282 -0.006156 0.015924 -0.156537 -0.093940 0.291922 0.324035 0.004308

-0.328502 0.096314 0.011374 -0.059088 0.285712 0.112804 0.115966 0.082898 0.115497 -0.1942260.197324 -0.091140 -0.254415 0.096853 -0.054960 -0.111611 -0.032722 0.002699 -0.102338 -0.0701120.163796 -0.012858 0.027724 -0.233157 0.460797 -0.060437 -0.051803 0.111418 0.088183 -0.1191330.034758 -0.033345 0.084602 -0.062054 0.852482 -0.028839 0.049012 0.002860 -0.030259 -0.024637

-0.007782 0.130385 -0.038707 0.040731 0.071468 0.055927 0.060968 0.188345 -0.151643 0.2944400.020118 -0.015026 -0.165679 0.098946 -0.254098 -0.126642 0.024407 -0.027502 0.098108 -0.1984830.016748 0.033024 0.090381 -0.059589 0.214974 0.201187 -0.050023 -0.019043 -0.024163 -0.007836

-0.098712 0.042025 -0.036964 -0.009188 -0.090740 0.056456 -0.076153 -0.124167 0.112837 -0.0884850.036523 -0.238544 -0.094222 -0.132900 0.363138 0.058715 0.027598 0.050295 -0.062737 -0.1527540.018177 -0.168286 -0.019014 -0.004045 -0.045135 0.226738 0.180969 -0.186736 -0.000918 -0.049770

-0.892273 0.072582 -0.054701 -0.139586 -0.051760 -0.079333 -0.008407 0.160321 -0.029997 0.0200780.150131 0.073998 -0.014291 0.087671 0.018017 -0.176841 0.050773 0.158522 -0.088981 0.230337

-0.126071 0.034043 -0.071999 -0.227548 -0.330790 0.136380 0.019507 0.070470 0.135506 -0.0239550.029655 0.130244 0.218731 0.076640 0.058413 -0.099866 0.192174 -0.201545 -0.401070 0.1928920.162833 0.112345 0.325813 0.140316 -0.014119 0.004751 0.000740 -0.134248 0.076606 0.035684

-0.248253 0.229727 0.017377 0.191272 -0.520287 0.021674 0.536458 0.137944 0.206705 -0.002356-0.127190 0.081554 0.032936 0.079071 0.019472 -0.893795 0.069138 -0.034462 0.090467 -0.0260310.139446 -0.013558 0.767484 -0.218257 0.210077 0.013210 0.034451 -0.019149 -0.068667 -0.015733

-0.185222 0.122007 0.016090 0.168868 0.322153 0.004305 0.300309 0.619849 -0.047019 0.009093-0.102112 0.169770 -0.048344 0.035813 0.342180 0.092036 -0.111157 0.029346 -0.092260 0.006092-0.069578 -0.020436 -0.107198 -0.113388 -0.114070 0.070126 0.064586 0.080262 0.044977 0.000333-0.294134 0.069888 0.125687 0.042671 0.053049 -0.108732 -0.114963 -0.106718 -0.115080 0.0708240.265699 0.241681 -0.070702 -0.142985 0.074713 -0.190624 0.023887 0.195196 0.085116 -0.0987210.058885 0.699322 0.130082 -0.135466 -0.112813 -0.150920 0.061820 0.121978 -0.078476 -0.1285930.001139 0.028813 -0.017405 0.237988 -0.027284 0.075810 -0.138217 0.060058 -0.129580 0.018568

-0.174688 0.266997 -0.219129 -0.099738 0.021942 0.199692 -0.115237 0.183864 -0.152555 0.2401320.318267 -0.054051 0.018610 0.045569 -0.023058 0.023090 0.030332 -0.073125 0.096366 0.740393

-0.001224 0.012297 -0.079847 0.085541 -0.044543 -0.127668 0.026792 0.067297 0.803153 0.121787-0.057611 0.029220 0.097177 0.139753 -0.060091 0.135707 0.039341 0.304089 0.093340 -0.0656580.084202 0.099467 0.408447 0.196756 0.069967 -0.032067 -0.086649 -0.146374 -0.413505 0.2886820.128771 0.472222 -0.015309 0.162458 0.153530 -0.204354 -0.181330 0.066498 0.388763 -0.0096190.010544 0.268067 -0.145060 0.038775 0.330586 0.052358 -0.143070 -0.227915 0.135230 0.0894730.159515 -0.073122 0.337956 0.078498 0.006941 -0.284762 0.119236 -0.236030 0.035457 0.1454200.052429 0.101589 -0.088509 0.015157 -0.024225 0.000121 0.164361 -0.098377 -0.194700 0.3184960.162537 0.331152 0.198224 -0.054066 -0.105264 -0.062159 -0.072421 -0.273033 -0.264959 0.5313350.005991 -0.170463 0.246600 -0.146474 0.003888 -0.040495 0.123147 -0.280888 0.077398 0.2146290.194640 0.192986 0.111607 -0.039512 0.117032 0.148088 -0.200400 -0.110215 -0.048852 -0.019608

-0.109651 0.034809 -0.074692 -0.014979 -0.167668 0.034477 -0.113537 0.894268 0.106636 0.037389-0.255158 0.036708 -0.040316 0.065735 0.014325 0.066288 -0.031717 0.124981 0.045743 0.818579-0.184622 -0.062977 0.023104 0.080800 0.426709 -0.106571 -0.049366 -0.034542 -0.045722 0.067539-0.049292 0.101811 0.024701 -0.079036 0.372552 0.043049 -0.010015 -0.073485 0.031689 0.048189-0.062411 -0.176149 0.059147 -0.080470 0.360685 -0.154816 -0.001899 -0.102292 -0.089237 0.0796990.044613 0.182910 -0.001635 0.040080 0.539468 0.194227 0.198197 -0.199282 0.243201 0.217576

-0.099833 0.009538 0.125906 -0.066551 -0.003671 -0.116723 -0.016272 -0.048572 0.112422 -0.1525040.060238 0.061225 -0.009513 0.133247 0.039304 -0.056747 -0.157267 0.132440 0.037844 0.097134

-0.139916 0.055548 0.155069 0.013319 0.291639 -0.160427 -0.172669 0.177632 0.377557 0.4664200.047068 -0.116094 -0.085164 0.558131 0.096859 -0.098394 0.232312 -0.175501 0.145505 -0.019142

-0.105284 -0.102309 -0.033456 0.130812 -0.054732 -0.127151 0.432062 0.052915 0.199300 0.189038-0.100823 0.070074 0.087162 -0.130189 -0.162771 0.064091 0.090124 0.092313 0.073847 0.183681-0.263080 0.721111 -0.071429 0.053992 -0.004535 0.058442 -0.042667 0.061362 0.021397 0.2203820.049664 0.105591 -0.089686 -0.026491 -0.106135 0.078381 0.119906 0.061881 0.084911 0.136058

-0.272452 0.299737 0.038981 0.281012 -0.213933 -0.056761 0.037894 -0.163502 0.311828 0.1940260.121972 -0.116151 0.024184 0.093831 0.067770 0.139824 -0.084166 -0.094808 -0.173051 0.100289

-0.236954 0.160277 0.011749 0.311010 0.123222 0.394226 -0.491316 0.156946 0.247433 0.017558-0.171406 -0.074209 0.199250 -0.094659 0.024105 0.048229 -0.139684 0.184986 -0.242544 0.0488030.066989 -0.009205 -0.049381 0.922322 -0.127904 -0.055669 -0.022808 0.082614 0.012583 0.060278

-0.578489 -0.132300 -0.122723 0.187934 -0.062529 -0.121372 0.174426 0.165247 0.315995 -0.0839080.148573 -0.067120 0.420576 0.134887 0.033259 0.076618 0.172824 0.146654 -0.000749 0.1295290.054583 0.426688 -0.146321 -0.047859 0.123598 0.031770 0.267678 -0.054121 0.043673 0.1188200.009517 -0.006038 0.112599 -0.024293 0.255547 -0.076757 0.668591 -0.048383 -0.062592 -0.154616

-0.168736 0.338486 0.263694 0.075437 -0.181111 -0.096202 0.352967 -0.315261 -0.055079 0.2172430.014532 0.193161 0.110357 0.176293 -0.022659 -0.044081 -0.114823 0.075872 0.276775 0.037528

-0.031191 0.256503 -0.140166 0.151399 -0.083854 -0.026000 -0.077968 0.135418 0.274133 0.0550650.425748 -0.059257 -0.603626 -0.152031 0.329717 0.134116 -0.035828 0.168445 0.017760 -0.0094822.622142 2.731102 2.329626 2.181352 3.417753 1.873880 2.115876 2.575542 2.751229 2.8162480.038561 0.040163 0.034259 0.032079 0.050261 0.027557 0.031116 0.037876 0.040459 0.041415

Appendix C continued

Note: The column on the left contains numbers corresponding to the questions with the same numbers on the questionnaire.

motivation and retention of knowledge workers in a...

Documents