Upload
vuthuy
View
229
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 1
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
“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).
MBA Research Report December 2006 2
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 3
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 4
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 5
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 6
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 7
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 8
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 9
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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”
MBA Research Report December 2006 10
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 11
(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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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).
MBA Research Report December 2006 12
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
“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
MBA Research Report December 2006 13
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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).
MBA Research Report December 2006 14
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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”.
MBA Research Report December 2006 15
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 16
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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)
MBA Research Report December 2006 17
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 18
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 19
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 20
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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;
MBA Research Report December 2006 21
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
• 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
MBA Research Report December 2006 22
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 23
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 24
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 25
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 26
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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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;
MBA Research Report December 2006 27
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
• 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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 28
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 29
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
Campaign Manager Total
White 17 16 33 Indian 1 0 1 Coloured 1 0 1 All 19 16 35
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 30
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
Campaign Manager Total
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
Campaign Manager Total
Have a Degree 5 11 16 No Degree 14 5 19 All 19 16 35
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 31
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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 32
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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
“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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 33
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 34
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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 35
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
Somewhatdissatisfied
Neutral Satisfied Verysatisfied
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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 36
0%
5%10%
15%20%
25%30%
35%40%
Verydissatisfied
Somewhatdissatisfied
Neutral Satisfied Verysatisfied
Satisfied with advancement opportunities
TechCM
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
Verydissatisfied
Somewhatdissatisfied
Neutral Satisfied Verysatisfied
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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 37
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Verydissatisfied
Somewhatdissatisfied
Neutral Satisfied Verysatisfied
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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
4.8 Overall Satisfaction with Current Job
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Verydissatisfied
Somewhatdissatisfied
Neutral Satisfied Verysatisfied
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”.
MBA Research Report December 2006 38
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.”
MBA Research Report December 2006 39
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 40
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
“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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 41
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.”
MBA Research Report December 2006 42
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 43
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 44
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 45
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 46
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 47
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 48
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 49
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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”.
MBA Research Report December 2006 50
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 51
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 52
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 53
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 54
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 55
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 56
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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 57
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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
MBA Research Report December 2006 58
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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”.
MBA Research Report December 2006 59
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 60
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 61
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 62
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
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.
MBA Research Report December 2006 63
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 64
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
Somewhat dissatisfied
2
Neutral
3
Very Satisfied
5
Satisfied
4
Very dissatisfied
1
Somewhat dissatisfied
2
Neutral
3
Very Satisfied
5
Satisfied
4
Very dissatisfied
1
Somewhat dissatisfied
2
Neutral
3
Very Satisfied
5
Satisfied
4
Yes 1
No 2
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 65
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
Somewhat dissatisfied
2
Neutral
3
Very Satisfied
5
Satisfied
4
Very dissatisfied
1
Somewhat dissatisfied
2
Neutral
3
Very Satisfied
5
Satisfied
4
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
Appendix A continued
(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
MBA Research Report December 2006 66
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
Appendix A continued
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: __________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
MBA Research Report December 2006 67
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
Appendix A continued
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!
MBA Research Report December 2006 68
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
Appendix B: Presentation to Focus Groups
MBA Research Report December 2006 69
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
Appendix B continued
MBA Research Report December 2006 70
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
Appendix B continued
MBA Research Report December 2006 71
Copyright UCT
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 72
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
Motivation and Retention of Knowledge Workers in a Technology-Driven Start-Up Firm
MBA Research Report December 2006 73
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.