FACTORS AFFECTING
EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY
by
EDWARD H. GETCHELL
S.B.(1959) Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
M.S.(1961) Massachusetts Tnstitute
of Technology
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFTLLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF
SCIENCE
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
.. .June, 1975
Signature
of Author
.
.
---...-v--..
. .... .
Alfred P. Sloan School of Management,
May 9, 1975
Certified
by
. . . . . . . . . . ..
. .
. . . ..
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by .........
.
Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Students
Archives
JUN 131975
-1-
FACTORS AFFECTING EMPLOYEE LOYALTY
by
Edward H. Getchell
Submitted to the Alfred P. Sloan School of Management on May 9. 1975 in partial
fulfillment
of the
requirements for the degree of Master Science.
ABSTRACT
Employee turnover is an important measure of an organization's job environment and the quality of its management. A
considerable investment of management time and effort is devoted to the recruitment, training, and maintenance of employees. Job factors contributing to the loyalty of employees are
extremely important to the health of an organization. The purpose of this thesis is to determine the most significant job
factors which affect the sense of loyalty an employee has for
his organization. Data for this research was obtained in
January, 1975 by a survey of the readership of Design News, a
professional engineering journal. The questionnaire contained
roughly 70 questions. Approximately 1,200 cases were processed.
Definitions and measures of loyalty were developed and applied to the data. The result was three major loyalty categories containing the majority of the cases. They were defined
as Loyal, Disloyal, and Locked-In. The loyal group was used as
a reference group, and the disloyal and locked-in groups were
each compared to the loyal group for the variables in the questionnaire.
Before processing, the data was filtered to provide a homogeneous subset of cases. Filtering included selection according to job title, income level, supervisory responsibilities,
academic achievement, and sex. The data were also subdivided
into two age groups representing younger engineers and older
engineers.
Job factors which most significantly differentiated the
loyal and disloyal groups, and the loyal and the locked-in
groups were separated by Age and rank ordered. These are
the loyalty profiles for the younger and older disloyal and
locked-in engineers.
-2-
Although many age dependencies were discovered, it was
generally found that the disloyal engineers, relative to their
loyal counterparts, expressed greater needs for self actualization through challenging work, recognition, influence, leadership, opportunities for advancement, and knowledge of their organization. The younger locked-in engineers were found to be
essentially undifferentiated from the younger loyal engineers
while the older locked-in engineers were found to more closely
resemble the older disloyal engineers.
The most surprising and totally unforeseen result of this
research was the discovery that the disloyal engineer appears
to be a more valuable, but poorly utilized resource of aggressive talent and leadership compared to the loyal engineer who
appears more complacent, more self oriented, and more tolerant
of poor management and inefficiencies and who prefers fringe
benefits and time for personal and family affairs to challenging work assignments and opportunities for leadership and advancement.
Thesis supervisor:
Title:
Lotte Bailyn
Associate Professor of Organizational
Psychology and Management
-3-
-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is with deep gratitude that I wish to thank Professor
Lotte Bailyn for many unselfish hours of help, inspiration,
and guidance.
My appreciation is also warmly extended to Mrs. Rita
Pavlica who, in the vanishing hours before its deadline, has
typed this thesis with unfailing patience and accuracy.
-4-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter
ABSTRACT .......
. .................
......
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................
4
I
INTRODUCTION ....................................
8
II
BACKGROUND ......................................
10
2.0 Job Related Factors Affe'cting Loyalty ........
2.1 Job Satisfaction .......
10
10
11
13
e.e..................
2.1.1 Employee Self Charracterizaton .........
2.1.2 Job Compatibility with Social Demands...
2.1.3 Predictability of Job Relationships
and Demands ......
2.2 Inertial Force ........
2.3 External Factors .......
.e..
......
......
*
.....
......................
2.4 V sibility and
TII
,rn.posure
METHOLOLOGY ......................... C
o..........
3.3 The Population ..................
3.4 Some Preliminary Results .....................
LOYALTY: DEFINITi-ONSAND MEASUREMENTS ...........
4.1 Definition of Loyalty ........................
4.2 Measures of Loyalty ..........................
4.3 Further Filtering of Data ....................
Engineer ............
4.3.1 The Non-IlaInagement
4.12.2 AdditionlI
Selection
Criteria
..........
4.4 AgE:..........................................
4.5 Analysis Technirque ...........................
V
15
17
18
......................
3.1 Questionnaire !:cc:gn ............
into Occupational Categorie: ...
3.2 Classification
TV
14
20
21
23
28
32
37
37
38
43
44
45
48
54
RESULTS AND DISCUS'-O0S ..........................
5.1 Introduction .................................
5.2 Loyalty Profiles: Explanation of Tables .....
56
5.3Climate Factor: ..............................
58
56
56
5.3.1 Loyal v.
Disloyal Younger Engineers: ...
5.3.2 Loyal v
Diloyal Older Engineers ....
58
61
5.`:.3Loyal v.
Locked-In Younger Engineer...
64
-5-
Chapter
VI
Page
5.3.4 Loyal vs. Locked-In Older Engineers .....
5.4 Hold, Push, Pull and Miscellaneous Factors.
5.4.1 Loyal vs. Disloyal .....................
5.4.2 Loyal vs. Locked-In .....................
5.5 Profile Compari.son:Disloyal with Locked-In ...
5.5.1 Climate Factors .........................
5.5.2 Hold Factors ............................
5.5.3 Push Factors ............................
5.5.4 Pull Factors ............................
5.5.5 Miscellaneous Factors....................
68
70
70
78
83
83
84
84
85
85
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
87
B IBLIOGRAPHY
91
.. ..............................
Appendix
A
B
C
D
E
Page
QUESTTCNNAIRE AND RESULTS ................ ......... 92
DETAIL LOYALTY PROFILE: YOUNGER ENGINEERS.
.........
106
AGE
35 LOYAL VS. DISLOYAL ..............
DETAIL LOYALTY PROFTLE: OLDER ENGINEERS,
......... 110
AGE
36 LOYAL VS. DISLOYAL ..............
DETAIL LOYALTY PROFILE: YOUNGER ENGINEERS,
......... 115
AGE
35 LOYAL VS. LOCKED-IN .........
DETA !L LOYALTY PROFILE: OLDER ENGINEERS,
AGE p 36 LOYAL VS. LOCKED-IN ........... ......... 117
-6-
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
Magazine Circulation Data by Occupational
Function and Business Classification .............. 29
Geographical Distribution of Sampled Population .... 30
Magazine Survey Data Compared to Thesis Survey
Questionnaire Data ................................. 32
Cross-Tabulation of Job Satisfaction and Probability of Voluntarily Changing Employer ........... 42
Cross-Tabulation of Job Satisfaction and Probabflity of Voluntarily Changing Employer Fully
Filtered Data .................................... 49
Cross Tabulation of Job Satisfaction and Probability of Voluntarily Changing Employer Fully
51
35 .........................
Filtered Data, Age
of
Job
Satisfaction
and
ProbCross Tabulation
ability of Voluntarily Changing Employer Fully Filtered Data, Age ;35 ....................... 52
Loyalty Profile for Climate: Loyal vs. Disloyal
Groups Comparison: Younger vs. Older Non-Management Engineers .................................... 59
Loyalty Profile for Climate: Loyal vs. Locked-In
Groups Comparison: Younger vs. Older Non-Management Engineers .................................... 65
Loyalty Profile Loyal vs. Disloyal Groups
Comparison: Younger vs. Older Non-Management
Engineers ..........................................
71
Loyalty Profile Loyal vs. Locked-In Groups
Comparison: Younger vs. Older Non-Management
Engineers ........................................
79
-7-
CHAPTER
I
INTRODUCTION
One of the most valuable assets an organization can have
is a stable work force.
A considerable investment of manage-
ment time and effort is devoted to the recruitment, training,
and maintenance of employees.
The factors contributing to the
loyalty of this work force are extremely important to the health
of an organization.
In this thesis, an attempt is made to de-
termine the most significant job factors which affect the sense
of loyalty an employee has for his organization.
These loyalty
factors are further separated into characteristics which are
most important to the loyalty of younger employees and characteristics influencing the loyalty of older employees.
A dis-
tinction is also made between dissatisfied employees who are
motivated to voluntarily leave their present organizations, and
dissatisfied employees who, for many reasons, are "locked in"
and will not voluntarily seek new jobs.
Data for the analysis was obtained by a survey questionnaire sent to a population composed primarily of electromechanical engineers.
The questionnaire was designed to measure
the level of satisfaction employees felt towards numerous
"climate" factors in their present jobs.
Items in the question-
naire were also desinged to isolate positive and negative aspects
-8-
of the job environment which cause employees to remain at their
present jobs (holding forces) or cause them to leave their
jobs (pushing forces or, in the case of external job offers,
pulling forces).
A relatively homogeneous subset of respondents was selected from the total data base and these respondents were
classified into two age groups, "younger" and "older", and into three groups according to certain loyalty criteria.
By
comparing the loyalty groups with each other, job factors were
isolated which differentiated the loyalty behavior of the respondents.
Comparisons between the loyalty profiles of the
"younger" and "older" age groups demonstrated the variation
of the loyalty related job factors with employee age.
-9-
CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND
2.0
Job Related Factors Affecting Loyalty
In order to investigate factors that influence employee
loyalty to an organization, one must first explore such questions as:
Why do employees stay?
Why do employees leave?
Are the reasons for leaving the direct opposite of the reasons
for staying?
Of those reasons for an employee staying with an
organization, which are "good" reasons, and which are "bad"
reasons resulting in an unmotivated, turned off worker detrimental to overall organizational progress?
2.1
Job Satisfaction
Not surprising, the literature indicates that the primary
factor influencing loyalty is employee satisfaction with the
job as defined by him.
The greater the individual's satisfac-
tion with the job, the greater is his loyalty to the organization and the less his perceived desirability of movement.
But
what are the job factors that lead an employee to feel satisfied?
March and Simon (1958) have hypothesized three major
factors:
1) The greater the conformity of the job characteristics
to the self-characterization held by the individual, the
higher the level of satisfaction.
-10-
2) The greater the compatibility of work requirements
with the requirements of other roles, the higher the
level of satisfaction.
3) The greater the predictability of job relationships
and demands, the higher the level of satisfaction.
These major factors are considered in more detail below.
2.1.1
Employee Self Characterization
There appear to be three types of individual evaluations
which are significant: estimates of one's independence, one's
worth, and one's specialized competences or interests.
The
greater the consistency between supervisory practices and employee independence, the less the conflict between job characteristics and individual self-image.
The more authoritarian
the supervisory practices, the greater the job dissatisfaction
aroused.
The long term trends over the post war years would
indicate a gradual, continuous reduction in the degree of authority which is acceptable to the worker.
This is also reflect-
ed in the decreased emphasis given to obedience to authority by
our primary training institutions, such as schools, churches,
family, and even the military establishment.
Each employee has a conception of what he is worth in
money and status which is to some extent related to labor market values and environmental conditions.
The larger the amount
of tangible rewards offered by the organization (in terms of
-11-
money or status), the less the conflict between the job and the
individual's self-image. (March and Simon, 1958).
The ability
of organizations to "buy" worker job satisfaction has decreased
gradually over the last three decades with the rising level of
wealth and the increased security provided by government social
security and unemployment programs.
Also, the conflict between
an individual's self-image and the job is reduced by the degree
to which an employee participates in his job assignment.
The
results of participative management, Theory Y management styles,
and other closed loop non authoritative organizational structures tend to support this. (Fox, 1971, Ritti, 1971).
Employ-
ees want to be included in patterns of mutual influence while
organizations are typically characterized by tall hierarchies,
status differentials, and chains of command.
In the United States and in most industrialized societies,
employees have been achieving higher levels of education and
are bringing more abilities and skills to the work place.
With
this increased level of education have come higher expectations
and an increased awareness of large scale social, moral, and
ecological problems facing both local and world societies.
There has resulted a shifting emphasis from individualism and
self achievement to a broader social commitment which has had
an impact on the perceived value of jobs in many of our governmental and industrial organizations.
-12-
In a similar manner, a high historical rate of promotion,
measured as the rate of change of status or income, will produce a greater disparity between the job and the individual's
self-image.
A person has a tendency to base his future expec-
tations on his past record.
This may partially explain some
of the discontent which is experienced by employees in our
country in their late thirties and early forties since there
is a well known decrease in the time rate of change and increment size of promotions for employees over approximately thirty
years of age.
Contrast this with the straight line promotion
system based primarily on age used in Japan, where there appears
to be considerable less discontent at these specific age levels.
2.1.2 Job Compatibility with Social Demands
Job dissatisfaction and motivation for job change increase
as work and time patterns demanded by the job make it difficult
or impossible to fulfill the ordinary social expectations of
an individual.
This obvious effect is clearly reflected in pay
differentials for undesirable work schedules such as night and
weekend work.
However, March and Simon (1958) extend this ar-
gument to "social" groups, e.g., friendship roles, within an
organization.
They hypothesize that the smaller the size of
the work group the greater the compatibility of organizational
and other roles.
Where a job stimulates the development of a
number of single - purpose groups with overlapping membership,
workers can be expected to find the work less pleasant than
where a multipurpose integrated group exists.
In larger or-
ganizations, a higher probability exists for an individual to
become involved in overlapping and conflicting group memberships.
There is, however, the balancing effect in larger or-
ganizations of greater opportunities to transfer within the
organization rather than terminate.
Both the transfer rate
(when requested by the employee) and the turnover rate are
characteristic of worker discontent within an organization and
should both be considered when analyzing the employment environment of an organization
(Carr, 1972).
Management should
be very much aware of the value, as seen by the employee, of
internal "social" groups.
As a result of promotions, trans-
fers, mergers, reorganization, and other managerial actions
which disrupt internal social group structure, employees can
experience considerable psychological loss which can be reflected in job alienation.
This problem and possible techniques
for its minimization are discussed by Levinson (1972).
2.1.3 Predictability of Job Relationships and Demands
Most individuals prefer to avoid situations of conflict,
anxiety, and uncertainty.
A job environment characterized by
frequent interpersonal and inter group conflict, unclear decision mechanisms with unpredictable outcomes, poorly defined and
ambivalent reward systems or
zero sum" reward systems, intense
-14-
time pressure, political rivalry and numerous other factors
contributing to job uncertainty and personal anxiety will produce job dissatisfaction and the desire to seek a more predictable, homogeneous, and stable work environment with a new employer.
This should not be extended to include a "healthy"'
amount of anxiety associated with difficult and challenging
work assignments, which most employees accept willingly as an
opportunity for self-actualization, and as a learning and growing experience.
Nor should this argument be taken to the other
extreme as an endorsement for the simplification of work to
mind stifling boredom.
Indeed boredom or the feeling of use-
lessness are some of man's cruelest stimulants of anxiety and
job dissatisfaction.
2.2 Inertial Forces
There are important inertial factors which strongly affect
employee loyalty, but do not necessarily correlate with job
satisfaction and high performance.
In fact, they may actually
lead to "turned off' employees.
First, there is the tendency to remain at the present job
through force of habit and a reluctance to experience the anxiety of severing known relationships and forming new ones.
The greater the habituation to a particular job or organization,
the less the propensity to search for alternative work opportunities.
Thus an organization may have a large number of "loyal"
-15-
employees in terms of employment continuity who are actually
very dissatisfied with their jobs, but who will not voluntarily
seek a new job because of some uncontrollable factor such as
their age or a long history of working at that organization.
Second, there is the pension benefit package which tends
to hold employees at a job, particularly older ones, through
complicated investment rules, delayed compensation schemes,
and by the sheer accumulation of value over a period of many
years.
Pensions certainly serve a useful role which is not
being questioned here.
But management must be aware of the
possibility of employees becoming "locked in" by a pension plan
so that their loyalty does not reflect job satisfaction and a
high degree of job motivation, but rather the desire to protect
their share of their retirement benefits (Drucker, 1968).
Corporations occasionally discover a heavy load of "dead wood"
in their upper age brackets who are unproductive and who do not
set a good example for their subordinates.
Early retirement is
one solution frequently resorted to although it is somewhat of
a "cop out".
It would appear more
logical to discover
ways in
which to motivate these individuals to their past productivity
levels to the mutual benefit of both the company and the individual.
Some imagination and careful thought will no doubt be
required here since the motivational needs of employees in the
twilight of their careers are likely to differ significantly
-16-
from the needs of younger employees.
2.3
External Factors
An accurate predictor of labor turnover is the state of
the economy.
The greater the number of external alternatives,
the greater the perceived ease of movement, and hence the
greater the flow of personnel across company lines.
For a
particular individual, there are other qualifying factors.
For instance, the ease of movement of male workers has, until
recent years, been significantly greater than for female workers.
Non professional and unskilled women are rapidly approach-
ing equality to men in ease of job turnover today.
For women
possessing professional skills, quite the opposite conditions
exist today and are likely to persist for another decade or
two.
The situation for racial minorities is also improving,
but at a definitely slower rate than for women.
An employee's age is an important factor influencing the
ease with which he can move from job to job.
In ranking job
attributes, age is a negatively valued characteristic (Loomba,
1968).
This is particularly true for industries experiencing
a dependence on high technological growth, where worker obsolescence comes early or is often "terminal'" to that industry
(Perrucci & Gerstl, 1969).
This effect was prevalent in the
aerospace industry slowdown in the United States during the
late 1960's and early 1970's.
Lack of employment for periods
-17-
as short as six months to a year left many highly skilled
semiconductor electronics engineers and scientests "stranded"
in the wake of the explosive technological proliferation of the
semiconductor industry.
Related to an employee's age is the frequent correlation
between length of service and job specialization.
Again, there
is often a generally negative value placed upon high levels of
specialization - except by the current employer (Loomba, 1968).
We frequently find the situation, particularly at executive
levels, where an employee has become indispensable to the organization, replaceable only at prohibitive cost, and the employee can find another position only at prohibitive loss.
Of
course, occasionally highly specialized individuals possess
skills which, at least temporarily, are in high demand and those
individuals may become highly mobile and disloyal to their employing organizations.
Other external forces tending to hold an employee to his
present job would include the spouse's unwillingness to move,
a desirable location, consideration of children's ages and
educational environment, to name a few.
2.4 Visibility and Exposure
Certain jobs provide the opportunity for both high visibility for the individual and a wide horizon of opportunities
-18-
for the individual to scan - both conditions strongly influencing the probability of turnover.
It is worthwhile noting that a positive feedback loop is
generated by the job dissatisfaction - job search reaction,
because by the process of searching, opportunities are discovered increasing the perceived dissatisfaction of the present job and motivating the job search towards more searching
and/or a job change.
There is evidently a threshold of dis-
satisfaction above which search will begin.
The threshold
will be adjusted up or down thereafter, depending on the results of the search procedure.
The initial threshold level is
a function of factors previously discussed - the degree of job
satisfaction, age, race, sex, etc.
-19-
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The data for this research were obtained by a survey questionnaire.
The questionnaire was distributed by including it
in an engineering magazine, Design News* which is mailed twice
monthly to qualified personnel working primarily in electro
mechanical engineering fields.
The survey appeared in a regular
article entitled "Design Management Forum" which is authored by
Dr. T.F. Gautschi, P.E., and which concentrates on personnel and
organizational management problems.
The respondent was required
to fill out the questionnaire (mostly by checking the appropriate response), tear out the questionnaire, and mail the questionnaire (respondent's envelope and stamp) to the publisher.
The data are therefore the result of a "self selection"
process i.e., only respondents sufficiently motivated, for unknown reasons, to take the trouble to answer the questionnaire
become part of the data base.
The accuracy of these data is
unknown when extrapolated to represent the entire population of
potential respondents.
However, by attempting to select a
relatively homogenous body of cases from the total data base
*A publication of Cahners Publishing Co., Inc., 221 Columbus
Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts.
-20-
it is hoped that the analysis and conclusions discussed later
are accurate and representative.
With the exception of a question asking for job title, all
answers were essentially self-coding.
3.1
Questionnaire Design
Probably the most severe constraint in designing a ques-
tionnaire to be placed in a magazine is that space is very limited.
As a result, numerous questions, the answers to which
may have had a very interesting bearing on the loyalty study,
had to be eliminated, and the luxury of asking several similar
or related questions to test respondents
consistency was gen-
erally not possible.
The questionnaire shown in Appendix A was divided into
seven sections which were:
1) Work related background data such as company size,
salary, number of people supervised, etc. (questions
1 through
7, 10 and 11).
2) Two questions regarding the respondent's attitudes
toward his present job, one inquiring about the respondent's feelings of job satisfaction (question 8) and
one inquiring as to the probability of the respondent's
voluntarily changing jobs in the next two years
(question 9).
3) A set of questions testing the importance that certain
-21-
job factors would have for the respondent in coaxing
him or her from his present job to a new job.
These
factors, which represent positive aspects of the respondent's new job, are referred to as "Pull" factors
(question 12 A through N).
4) A set of questions attempting to determine the importance that certain job factors would have in causing or
encouraging a respondent to consider seeking a new job.
These factors, which represent negative aspects of the
respondent's present job, are referred to as "Push"
factors (question 13, A through J).
5) A set of questions testing the extent to which certain
job factors would tend to hold or restrain the respondent in his present job in spite of attractive outside
offers.
These are referred to as "old"
tions 14, A through J).
factors (ques-
Unlike the Pull and Push fac-
tors referred to above, Hold factors can represent
either positive or negative aspects of a respondent's
present job.
For example, if a company's location is
instrumental in restraining an employee from seeking
another job, that would be considered a positive job
factor because the employee is voluntarily making the
decision to stay.
Conversily, if the reason is related
to his wife's unwillingness to move, that would be
viewed as a negative job factor.
-22-
6) A set of questions relating to the satisfaction a respondent feels toward a number of factors descriptive
of their present jobs, such as the amount of challenge
and enjoyment they receive from their jobs.
referred
through
7) Finally,
to as '!Climatet
factors
(question
These are
15, A
I).
a set of demographic
questions
to determine
the respondent's age, sex, marital status, etc.
(questions
16 through 21).
The demographic questions were placed last so as to minimize the tendency of the respondent's perception of his demographic "status" to affect his answers to the questionnaire.
Furthermore, the questions under the Pull, Push, Hold, and
Climate categories were scrambled using a random number table
to attempt to minimize any bias inherent in the sequence of
these questions caused by the author.
3.2
Classification into Occupational Categories
All responses to the questionnaires were precoded with the
exception of Job Title.
The respondent was asked to fill in his
job title on the questionnaire and these job titles were then
coded according to a set of occupational categories and decision
rules.
-23-
The framework for developing the occupational categories
was provided by Bailyn and Schein (1974).
Because the popula-
tion sampled by the Design News questionnaire was heavily concentrated in the electro-mechanical engineering field, it was
possible to considerably reduce the number of occupational
categories compared to those used by Bailyn and Schein.
Nonetheless, the variety of job titles and descriptions
was astounding and occasionally misleading.
It was therefore
necessary to review most respondent's job titles in the light
of other data on each questionnaire before coding the response.
Such a coding technique has the obvious weakness that the coder
can introduce bias.
However, the criteria for the occupational
categories were selected after a sampling of about 10% of the
questionnaires had been reviewed to get a "feel" of the logical
breakdowns of occupational categories.
As a result, most re-
spondents were able to be categorized with confidence into the
occupational categories selected.
The respondents were classified into the occupational categories given below.
1) Top Level General Manager (1.1%) - people who clearly
occupy top level general management positions were
placed in this category.
People who said they were
-24-
self employed (question 3) were excluded from this
category.
Typical job titles falling into this cate-
gory are:
President, Vice President (with no function
indicated), Division Manager or Divisional Vice President, Vice President of Operations, Managing Director,
General Manager.
2) Functional Manager (1.3%) - people who occupy high
level functional, but non technical positions fall into
this category.
Examples would include:
Vice president
of Finance, Treasurer, Controller or Assistant Controller, Chief Accountant, Personnel Director, Manager of
Industrial Relations, Director/Manager of Quality As-
*
surance/Control.
3) Technical Manager - people who are clearly involved in
the management of a technical activity such as engineering, research, or product design and development, fall
within the category of technical manager.
Furthermore,
the category of technical manager was broken down into
three sub categories:
3a) Technical Manager, Level 1 (7.9%) - these are people
who have high level responsibility and control of broad
*Only if salary, number of people supervised and other criteria
clearly suggested this category, otherwise Business Staff
(Functional).
-25-
technical activities.
clude:
Representative job titles in-
Vice President of Engineering, Chief Engineer,
Director of Engineering, Director of R&D, Manager or
Assistant Manager of a technical area, Manufacturing
Manager.
3b) Technical Manager, Level 2 (10.3%) - these are people
who have middle level technical management functions
which entail simultaneous management of personnel,
schedules, and budgets for several projects or tasks
groups.
Representative job titles include:
Program
Manager, Section Head, Group Leader or Unit Chief,
Production Manager or Superintendent, Field Service
Manager, Service Manager, Principal Engineer*, Product
Manager*.
3c) Technical Manager, Level 3 (9.5%) - these people are
in the lowest level of technical management, with responsibilities limited to budget, schedules, and personnel on one or a very limited number of projects.
Typical job titles include:
Project Manager, Produc-
tion Supervisor, Foreman, Supervising Engineer, Supervisor of Product Development.
*Only if significant management responsibilities are clearly indicated by the number of people supervised and salary.
-26-
4) Non Management Engineer (53.1%) - by far the largest
number of respondents fell within the category of non
management engineer.
Although their salaries and job
titles range over a broad spectrum, the majority claimed that they supervised less than three people (who are
likely to be technicians).
Job titles typically fall-
ing within this category area:
Project Engineer, Pro-
cess Engineer or Product Engineer, R&D Engineer, Electrical or Mechanical Engineer, Communications Engineer,
Packaging Engineer, Quality Control Engineer, various
degreed engineers, e.g., Tool Design Engineer, Industrial Engineer, Field Service Engineer.
People with
job titles such as Chemical Engineer, Member and Associate Member of Technical Staff, Scientist, etc. were
usually included in this category after a careful survey
of their questionnaire.
5) Non Degreed Technologists (12.7%) - this category includes people without a college degree who are largely
providing technical support to the non management and
level 3 technical management functional managers.
This
category was largely composed of respondents having the
following job titles:
Associate Engineer, Engineering
Aid, Junior Engineer, Technician (all types), Mechanical
Designer, Draftsman (all types), and Technical Illustra-27tor.
6) Business Staff (Functional) (2.7%) - in this category
were collected all respondents performing functional
business support activities such as planning, scheduling, and control.
Typical job titles are:
Engineering
Coordinator, Production Coordinator, Quality Control/
Quality Assurance Inspector, Production Planner, Training Supervisor, Technical Writer.
7) Other (1.2%) - originally, separate categories for purchasing (purchasing agent, buyer, expeditor), marketing
(salesman), were set up in anticipation of a sizeable
number of respondents falling into these categories.
Because of the large amount of product advertisement
and information available in the Design News magazine,
the assumption was that a large percentage of responses
would come from the selling and purchasing profession.
Essentially none did.
Therefore, these categories were
combined with unemployed, consultant, and all other non
classifiable respondents into the category "other'".
3.3
The Population
The magazine, Design News, has made available the follow-
ing information which provides an accurate quantitative profile
of the engineering population reached by the magazine.
-28-
The
data in Table 3-1 is from the Association of Industrial Advertisers (AIA) media data form for the Design News magazine.
TABLE 3-1.
MAGAZINE CIRCULATION DATA BY OCCUPATIONAL
FUNCTION AND BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION
Total 1973 direct circulation
Total secondary circulation*
Circulation by occupation, title,
or function:
Management or supervision of the
design function
Performance of the design
engineering function
Other
Circulation by business classification
Ordinance and accessories
Fabricated metal products
Machinery, except electrical
Electrical equipment and supplies
Transportation equipment
Instruments & related products
Miscellaneous manufacturing ind.
Independent R&D labs
Consulting engineering org.
Federal government
112,026
unknown
(100%)
21,619
(19%)
90,037
370
(80%)
3,372
9,797
33,411
33,516
17,752
9,717
1,396
844
711
(30'.0%)
1 510
( 1.3%)
(100%)
112,026
(-)
( 8.7%)
(29.8%)
(29.9%)
(15.8%)
( 8.7%)
( 1.2%)
( 0.8%)
( 0.6%)
*This refers to magazine copies passed from individual to individual.
The geographical distribution of the sampled population
is presented in Table 3-2.
Additional data (unaudited) based on surveys performed by
Design News in the past are presented in Table 3-3 because they
are closely related to data obtained from the survey for this
thesis and because they help to define the population from which
the thesis sample was obtained.
-29-
It is impossible to speculate on the differences between
the results of the two surveys not knowing the circumstances
under which the surveys were carried out by Design News.
TABLE 3-2.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLED
POPULAT ION
Area
New England
Maine
138
664
New Hampshire
228
Vermont
Massachusetts 5,481
644
Rhode Island
3 730
Connecticut
10,885
Regional Total
Middle Atlantic
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Regional Total
East No. Central
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
Regional Total
West So. Central
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Regional Total
Area
Total
Circulation
10,689
5,940
7,660
24,289
8,551
3,448
9,796
7,857
3,772
West No. Central
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Regional Total
South Atlantic
Delaware
Maryland
Dist. of Col.
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Regional Total
Total
Circulation
2,508
1,595
1,887
34
56
318
729
7,127
120
2,181
91
1,123
117
1,119
445
487
2 135
7,818
33,424
263
324
621
3 737
East So. Central
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
Regional Total
4,945
-30-
857
920
644
215
2,636
TABLE 3-2.
(Continued)
Total
Circulation
Area
Mountain
Montana
9
Idaho
103
Wyoming
7
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
Regional Total
1,343
267
1,352
439
52
3,572
Pacific
Alaska
--
Washington
Oregon
California
1,167
442
15,687
Hawaii
12
Regional Total
17,308
U.S. Territories
GRAND TOTAL
22
112,026
Source and date of above information:
BPA Publisher's Statement, December 1973
Design News Circulation Department. (Audited)
-31-
TABLE 3-3.
MAGAZINE SURVEY DATA COMPARED TO THESIS
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE DATA
Design News
Survey
Thesis Survey
Question
For how many different companies
have you worked?
One company
Two or three companies
Four or five companies
Over five companies
How many people do you supervise?
None
One to three
Four to seven
Eight to twelve
Thirteen to twenty
Over twenty
What is your annual salary range?
Under $7,500
$7,501 to $10,000
$10,001 to $15,000
$15,001 to $25,000
Over $25,000
(Average annual salary)
What is your highest level of
academic achievement?
High school
Two year college (assoc.degree)
Bachelor degree
Master degree
Professional engineer
PhD degree
3.4
23 9%
41.9%
23.2%
38.0%
22.7%
11 .5%
21.1%
28.8%
44.6%
27.5%
17%
27.3%
21.8%
9.3%
5.3%
4 to 10 18.5%
11 to 20 4.2%
5.5%
4.7%
0%
3.5%
34.8%
not used
not used
21.6%
55.7% 15to 24K 65.5%
6.0% over 28K 5.2%
($18,358) Est. (18,863)
11.8%
25.4%
2.8%
1-3 yr.coll.38.5%
46.9%
10.6%
15.7%
26.9%
--
19.6%
0.2%
1.2%
Some Preliminary Results
The complete survey questionnaire with tabulated results
and program codes is presented in Appendix A.
of questionnaires processed was 1155.
The total number
The "average" respondent
was about 39 years old, married, had 2.3 children, had worked
-32-
a total of about 12.5 years for a total of 2.4 companies, and
has been at his present job about 4 years.
Ages of the respondents ranged from 22 years to above 60
years with a median age of 38.5 years.
The age distribution
was very broad, having a standard deviation of 9.475 years.
A
large number of respondents (34.6%) had worked more than 20
years, with the median career length being approximately 13.7
years.
Nearly a quarter (23.2%) had worked for only one com-
pany, while 61.2% had worked for less than three companies.
This apparent lack of mobility was reflected in the number of
years they had worked for their present company.
Sixty-five
percent had been with their current employer for five or more
years, and 32.6% for 10 or more years.
Non Management Engineers were the dominant group with 53.1%
of the cases falling into this occupational category.
This was
clearly reflected in the salary level where 41.0% of the respondents earned between $15,000 and $20,000 per year.
The median
wage for the Non Management Engineers was approximately $16,000.
The strong showing of Non Management Engineers was also reflected
in the number of people supervised by all respondents - 44.6%
claimed to supervise 0 people, and 72.4% supervised three or less
people.
Almost all respondents (93.5%) were from private industry
as opposed to public utilities or Federal, State, or Local
-33-
Government.
Most respondents were men (97.7%), and most mar-
ried (88.7%). Almost all (97.2%) had received education beyond high school, but a surprising number (38.5%) had not completed a four year college program.
Of key interest to subsequent data analysis are the questions about job satisfaction and the probability of voluntarily
changing jobs in the next two years (question 8 and 9, Appendix
A).
We find that 9.4% of the respondents were definitely dis-
satisfied with their jobs, and an additional 24.7% claimed to
be somewhat dissatisfied.
Most respondents, however, claimed
to be at least somewhat satisfied with their jobs (44.8%), and
and impressive 20.5% claimed to be definitely satisfied with
their jobs.
These percentages follow closely the answers re-
garding the probability of voluntarily changing jobs in the
next two years.
Here we find that 27.9% claim a 0% probability
of voluntarily changing jobs within two years while only 4.3%
claim a 100% probability of a job change.
Most respondents did
not rule out a job change, however, with 36.2% claiming between
a 1 and 49% chance of voluntarily seeking new employment within
two years.
Interestingly, there were 19.6%
fence sitters
-
people claiming a 50% chance of seeking a new job within two
years.
The data did not support several widely held beliefs about
workers.
For instance, the length of time an employee remained
-34-
with the same employer seemed to have no strong correlation to
the degree of job satisfaction he experienced.
Respondents
who had worked for their present employers for four or less
years were almost equally as satisfied on the average as workers who had worked 10 or more years with their present employer;
68% of former claiming to be somewhat or definitely satisfied
with their jobs compared to 68.5% of the latter.
of the
However, 89.6%
new arrivals" with less than one year with their present
employer were either somewhat or definitely satisfied with their
jobs while a 'cooling off- was evident for respondents with one
to two years with their present employer.
In this case only
59.2% of the respondents were either somewhat satisfied or definitely satisfied.
Workers with one to two years with their cur-
rent employers also showed the greatest tendency to say they
might voluntarily change employers.
While only 5.9% of employ-
ees who had spent more than 10 years with their current employer
indicated a better than 50% chance of changing employers, 16.7%
of the
new arrivals" and 27.3% of the one to two year veterans
indicated a better than 50% chance of voluntarily changing employers.
The data also did not support the belief that increasing
academic level is a precursor of job satisfaction.
No statisti-
cally significant trends were evident from the questionnaire
data on this point.
-35-
Many people also are convinced that the variety of activities and responsibilities, and the team-like relationships
possible in a small company are likely to produce more job
satisfaction in workers.
This belief appeared to be supported
by the questionnaire data since 75% of the respondents from
small companies (100 or less employees) claimed some degree of
job satisfaction, while only 64.5% of respondents from large
companies (5000 or more employees) were similarily inclined.
In the following chapters criteria and definitions are
developed to isolate '"loyal?and Wt disloyal" cases, and techniques are developed for analyzing many job factors from the
questionnaire data to determine the relative importance of these
factors in encouraging job loyalty in engineers.
-36-
CHAPTER IV
LOYALTY:
DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENTS
This chapter is devoted to a discussion of the definitions
and measures of loyalty, and the criteria and methods for selecting the actual subset of cases from the total data base
which are used in the detailed data analysis.
The reader is
reminded that the purpose of this research, as reflected in the
loyalty definitions and data selection criteria, is not primarity to learn about the statistics of a certain class of employee, but rather to attempt to obtain information useful to managers in performing their organizational design, and the development of personnel management and the reward system.
4.1
Definition of Loyalty
For the purpose of this research, "'Loyalty'will be defined
as the tendency of an employee to continue working for the same
employer as opposed to the tendency to leave a current employer
and seek a job with a new company.
Such a simple definition
includes both "good" and "bad' reasons for being
company.
' to a
loyal"
That is, some employees remain with a company for an
extended period of time because they have genuine positive
feelings about their job, while others, although unhappy about
their jobs, continue with the same job year after year because
of external considerations such as their age or their investment
-37-
in a pension plan.
In the subsequent measurement and analysis,
an attempt is made to deal with both types of "loyal" employees.
4.2
Measures of Loyalty
Ideally, a loyalty measure would include the entire past
and future employment history of an employee, or at least the
total time, both past and future,that an employee was with his
present employer.
Although such a longitudinal study is impos-
sible, the desired results may be approximated by analyzing responses to a questionnaire.
The latter approach was taken to
obtain data for this research, although the approximation to
the ideal data sample is somewhat weaker because the respondees
were self selecting rather than a random selection.
Two questions from the questionnaire are used to measure
loyalty.
One attempts to approximate an employee-'s actual be-
havior and the other tries to assess his attitude toward his
job.
The first behavioral indicator is the response to question
9 "What is the probability that you will voluntarily change
employer in the next two years?"
Those who answered that their
probability of changing jobs was less than 49% were considered
potentially loyal, while those claiming 51% or larger probability
of changing jobs were considered potentially disloyal.
Those
respondents who claimed a 50% probability of job change were
classified as undecided.
The results of this first indicator
of loyalty from the questionnaire are listed below.
-38-
Probability of Voluntary Change
of Employer in next two years
Number
Potentially
Loyal
Disloyal
Did not respond
Total
Subtotal
0%
322
27.9%
1 - 49%
418
36.2%
64.1%
50%
226
19.6%
19.6%
51 - 99%
133
11.5%
100%
50
4.3%
15.8%
6
1155
0.5%
100%
0.5%
100%
Undecided
Potentially
Percent
--
The second attitudinal indicator used for the differentiation of the respondents into loyalty categories was the response
to question 8 "'Areyou satisfied with your present job?"
Those
claiming some degree of job satisfaction were considered potentially loyal, those claiming some degree of job dissatisfaction
were classified as potentially disloyal.
The results of this
second indicator of loyalty from the questionnaire are listed
below.
Degree of Job-Satisfaction
Number.
Percent
Potentially
Loyal
Definitely Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Subtotal
237
518
755
20.5%
44.8%
65.3%
Potentially
Disloyal
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Definitely Dissatisfied
Subtotal
Did not respond
285
109
394
6
24.7%
9.4%
34.1%
0.5%
1155
100%
Total
-39-
Questions 8 and 9 have each served to subdivide the respondents into two loyalty groups, potentially loyal and potentially
disloyal, plus an undecided group from question 9.
However, since the questions were independent, the groups so
defined will overlap, i.e., a case classified as potentially
loyal according to question 8 may be classified as potentially
disloyal according to question 9.
To subdivide the cases into
unambiguous loyalty categories, certain simultaneous behavior
and attitude conditions are required.
There are actually five
separate loyalty classifications possible combining questions
8 and 9.
1.
The five groups are defined as follows:
LOYAL:
An employee who claims to be somewhat or def-
initely satisfied with his job and one who claims that his probability of voluntarily changing jobs in the next two years is
less than 50% will be classified as LOYAL.
Thus an employee
must be both relatively satisfied with his job and inclined to
stay with his present employer to be classified as LOYAL.
2.
DISLOYAL:
An employee who claims to be somewhat dis-
satisfied or definitely dissatisfied and one whose probability
of voluntarily changing jobs in the next two years is greater
than 50% will be classified as DISLOYAL.
An employee must
therefore be relatively dissatisfied with his job and be inclined to seek a new job to be classified as DISLOYAL.
-40-
There are three additional categories into which respondents may fall.
3.
They are:
LOCKED-IN:
These are cases in which the respondents
claim job dissatisfaction, but also claim less than a 50% probability of leaving their present employer.
There can be many
contributing factors holding these employees in their present
jobs including current economic conditions, investment in pension plans, or geographical or family constraints.
This is an
important group, both in terms of the large percentage of the
work force in this category, and in terms of their potentially
low motivation and productivity.
4.
UNDECIDED:
These are cases in which the respondent
has shown no positive motivation to leave or to stay at their
present jobs by indicating a middle of the road 50% chance of
voluntarily changing jobs within two years,regardless of his
indicated degree of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
5.
AMBIGUOUS:
These are cases in which the respondents
indicate that they are relatively satisfied with their present
jobs, but nonetheless are planning to actively seek new employment within two years.
The reasons for job changes are likely
to be external to the job environment and beyond the influence
of management.
By performing a cross-tabulation of the cases according to
question 8 and 9, Table 4-1 is obtained which provides the
-41-
oH
:0
-4
C4
H
0L4
E-l
P
Z
o
H
H
H
HO
r6 O
HZ
0n
cn Z
P42
I
Nt
H-1
0
U]
0
0OH
H
H
¢
W:
a H
H U]
F4 W
u Ef
E-4 0
vl ECV]H
n >
E -4
E MZ
Ow
CD P
O
rn
F4 H
H U]
cX H
Hz
Ut F
,
~
rn a
UQ
~
J
Illll
II
Nt
r
CA
I
rl
4
Z
[
II
o
0O
4
II
2
1
1
0
rII
0
Z
O oN
o-t
OH
C
I
~
I
No
Z
~
O
.
a) o
UH
,Cli
U)
coII
.
o r. 00
.
cN
Q) u
H .
Z
11b-o°II
Z
Z
*,{
1
0
o
1-0
L1)
U'
>N
E
o
IlI
I
0
H--
II
r
CNI
II
r
>4
0
Z
-
C,,
UL) 0
O O
-2o
Z
II I
Z
aH
U,
O
H
<4
CO
4-i
-4
>.O
H
o
=X *U
U
·ry
4Ory4 r
~
Z
lcl
., CU O W
o ,D-4
P > H rl
-42-
information necessary to classify the respondents into the
five loyalty categories defined above.
The categories LOYAL,
LOCKED-IN, and DISLOYAL. have important consequences for this
study of loyalty and will be used exclusively in the following
analysis.
They are important because these three categories
each contain a relatively large number of respondents, and respondents falling into the categories LOCKED-IN and DISLOYAL
demonstrate certain behavior patterns opposite or contradictory
to those displayed by respondents in the category LOYAL.
Re-
spondents in the category LOYAL will thus be used as a reference
in determining the relative importance to employee loyalty of
the various job factors contained in the questionnaire.
The category AMBIGUOUS will not be used in the further
analysis of loyalty in this study because of the relatively insignificant number of respondents in this category.
Furthermore,
their behavior suggests that their reasons for changing jobs
are external to their present job environment and therefore beyond the influence of management.
Finally, the cases catego-
rized as UNDECIDED will also not be used in the subsequent analysis because their behavior is ambivalent.
4.3
Further Filtering of Data
Additional "filtering" of the data is necessary so that
the comparison of LOYAL with DISLOYAL or LOCKED-IN cases provides
meaningful results from a personnel management viewpoint.
-43-
A
series of selection processes was performed on the cases to
attempt to obtain a more homogeneous sample of respondents.
The goal of the selection process was to isolate a category of
respondents highly representative of one of the major employee
categories with which the personnel management process must
deal.
The series of "'filters'used are described below.
4.3.1
The Non-Management Engineer
The data from the questionnaire represent respondents hav-
ing job titles covering the spectrum from president to technician and draftsman.
It is argued strongly that job factors
which foster loyalty and job satisfaction for chief executives
and high level management are not necessarily similar to those
producing loyalty and job satisfaction in lower echelons such
as non-management engineers or technicians.
To be most meaning-
ful, the analysis of loyalty factors in employment must be done
within a fairly homogenous job category.
The data from the questionnaire (see Appendix A) show that
the major response (53.1%) was from employees categorized as
Non-Management Engineer.
13%.
No other job title category exceeded
For this rather practical reason, the occupational cate-
gory Non-Management Engineer was selected for further analysis
to the exclusion of all others.
It should be noted, however,
that from the point of view of management, and more specifically
-44-
personnel management, this is a highly desirable selection because 1) the non-management engineer represents one of the
largest categories of personnel in most technologically based
firms in both numbers and money terms, and 2) the non-management engineering category represents one of the most active and
expensive recruitment, training, and maintenance activities of
the personnel management of a technologically based firm, and
3) in most engineering firms this category also represents the
largest resource of talent, experience, and productivity.
Those respondents classified as Non-Management Engineers
were found to have the following profile:
Salary:
91% had annual salaries between $10,000 and
$24,000 with a median of approximately
$17,680.
Age:
83.5% were between 35 and 50 years old (inclusive) with a median of approximately
35 years.
Academic
98.2% had achieved academic levels between
Achievement: 1 to 3 years of college and a Masters degree
inclusive (45.8% had not completed college,
however).
4.3.2
Additional Selection Criteria
Additional filtering of cases was performed in the areas
of academic achievement levels, salary, supervisory responsibility, sex, and self-employment.
Basically, an attempt was
made to eliminate the tails of the distributions in order to
develop a set of cases for careful analysis which is most highly
-45--
representative of the main body of non-management engineers
and thus the main focus for management activities.
(The author
believes that management, being largely humanistic, non-mechanical process, tends to deal with people who are in the tails
of the job profile distribution for a given job category separately, as individual or special cases, and would not apply
general employment policy rules to those individuals.)
The elimination processes and the reasoning behind each
are described below.
In some instances the elimination of
cases was not as severe as would have been preferred because
the relatively large variance for some variables would result
in the elimination of too many cases.
1.
Non-Management Engineers claiming to be self-employed
( 0.3%) were eliminated.
There is a suspicion that some of
these are unemployed, and in any case they do not represent a
"typical, employee for management purposes.
2.
Non-Management Engineers having salaries in excess of
$24,000 (2%) were eliminated for two reasons.
First, such high
salaries are non-representative of the duties, responsibilities,
and remuleration considered normal for such a job category.
Secondly, because of the imperfect nature of the categorization
of the respondents into job classifications, and the natural
ambiguity associated with job titles, there is reason to believe that such high salaried respondents located in the category
-46-
'Non-Management Engineer" are improperly categorized, and
should in reality be located in a management category.
3.
Non-Management Engineers who have no college experi-
ence (1%), or who had received Ph.D. degrees (1.8%) were eliminated.
Actually, there was a strong temptation to eliminate or
handle separately all non-degreed respondents, i.e., those cases
indicating 1 to 3 years of college as their highest level of
academic achievement.
the category
However, 46.8% of the cases falling into
Non-Management Engineers" were non-degreed en-
gineers having 1 to 3 years college as their maximum academic
achievement.
Apparently a large number of non-degreed technical
personnel in the electro mechanical engineering profession move
into the ranks of qualified engineers through the strength of
experience (Loomda,1960).
Thus the number of cases would become
too limited for statistical analysis if engineers without degrees were eliminated from our analysis sample.
4.
No respondents supervising more than three people
(10.2%) were included in the restricted Non-Management Engineer
sample.
As in the decision to eliminate respondents having
salaries in excess of $24,000, this decision is based on the
assumption that supervision of large numbers of people, say five
or more, is rarely the responsibility of non-management engineers and is therefore not typical.
In this case, supervision
is interpreted to mean "be responsible for the work of" and not
-47-
the overall management responsibility for work output plus
overall administrative duties including hiring, salary review,
budgeting etc.
5.
Female respondents were eliminated since they repre-
sented only 1.6% of the respondents and because, at present,
and (sadly) in the foreseeable future, women will represent a
very small minority in the electromechanical engineering field.
A cross-tabulation of the probability of job change and
job satisfaction for the fully filtered data is shown in Table
4-2.
4.4
Age
The job related environmental needs of workers change as
their age and careers progress.
Factors appealing to younger
engineers, such as the excitement and challenge of working on
new technology gradually are replaced by such things as time
for personal and family life as they grow older and gain more
personal responsibilities.
Therefore, in attempting to discover job factors which
have a significant influence on the perceived loyalty of an
employee to his job or company it is important to take age into
account.
For this reason data were divided into two age catego-
ries, which will henceforth be called YOUNGER ENGINEERS and
OLDER ENGINEERS representing younger and older non-management
engineers respectively.
The division between the two age groups
-48-
44
0
o0
00
0
C)
H
z
>4
H
H
>40
0
H
o
H
Ev t>
P
Eq H
V)
Qp
tz Mo.
C)
c4
4
On
0 pc
H n
Hc H
H
E-4
C/H
Q
U]
E-4
U)n
0 p~2
HCIn
cn EE-4 /3
OH
cn
3Z
z
oEl
(N.
z
H
0
.4
p
0
r4
__
LF
r-
II
II
\
·.
0 C4
II
0
-r
,. Z
r
O H)
iI.
0
4i
O .r-
H
ZHo
4-4
o 4
Z
04-
U,
(00
O
3 *,
@J
g n
r
C.I
1
-
5
~
00
Ln
I
4
|
>~
O
II
-
c
-- I
C,
H
11
LO
11
C
0
:D
H
ii
O
0" O
0s
O
0
re
0
k
J
0,-I
ON
II
0
__
0
I
d r
0
£~~0
0o0 3
0o0
04
4
O
0
c -3 X4
o PQ4J
cY
O X
H .4 >4
4co )
O r4
P4 >
-49-
was chosen as the median age for the non-management engineer
category, which was about 35 years old.
Ideally, the two groups
would be separated further, or perhaps three age groups defined
for young, middle, and late career engineers.
However, the
number of cases would dwindle to uncomfortably low levels with
the present data base if a significantly wide age band was
created between the YOUNGER and OLDER engineers.
Tables 4-3 and 4-4 show the cross tabulations of the probability of job change with job satisfaction for the two age
groups, YOUNGER ENGINEERS and OLDER ENGINEERS.
Several import-
ant features are evident from a comparison of Table 4-3 and 4-4.
1)
The percentage of older engineers classified as
LOCKED-IN has more than tripled compared to their
younger counterparts, from 7.0% to 21.7%.
2)
The percentage of older engineers classified as
DISLOYAL has decreased by a factor of 1.66, from
17.9% to 10.8%, relative to the younger engineer.
3)
The percentage of older engineers classified as LOYAL
is 46.3% compared to 40.9% for the younger engineer.
4)
The total percentage of engineers classified as
UNDECIDED or AMBIGUOUS decreased from 34.5% for the
younger engineer to 21% for the older engineer.
-50-
-I
H
O
I-;1
o
q4
O
pq
00
0n
E-4
"r O
~vl CY
z
Hw
Z
H
E X
H
C7
cn
° g
O0
-
o p
O w
F-4
H
w C/3
cn
cn
14
H
C W
E4
U]
m CD
¢~ H
vz a
z
H V
a4 H
H
cn
44
E4
a H
44X
cnU
E-4
Z
W
u
O
O
I-1
I
o~r
II
11
O'~
II
Z
Ii
I
II
11
-
i::l
HI I ill
rc
f-4 coO
u4. ,4l
O rl c4
4 r a) r-4
o
al
o *,i II
r4
() 4
Z
cnII
e..
3 U ~
,el
(1)
a4Js
~
,C
S ·I4m
r II
O
O
~ ,-i
a 4i0
¢0
rlC0 o
4
aC
,CO_I U CY
O
~~~~~~~O
,,0
tr'
,~ c
.eI
kO
o4
b-.
Z >
P4
i!lr,4
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~r
Co r-
,J
W
I
U
Eq X;
O
--
Z
cn ,.3
cl)
-M
.ta~
Pi- V
E-4
0
,4 ra
Pk
P
> O
*,
-51-
-1-
11
z
0; 4
0
P4
En
tn
H
H
3~ z
ZD
PoH 11
,
,-I
oo
O
CY
o'%r-4
r4 P
i.~ 0
9
- --
11
a°
I
II
''-
~~11
H
0
o
00
OZ
o0
O
H
E
H
¢
PI
O E
t
U)H
E-4
< >
O 4
Z
O o
;I
0zH 0,4
E-4
¢
H
V
6Q Z
E
cn
I
ONF-4
~-4
H H
H U)
>4
Ezcn
<H
H
E-
N
O H
3 Z
H
X
OU)3
Hn
ON
H
A
A
0
I>-'
0
1.
44
II
!
rl.H;
C
%O
Lf)
'-4
II
1
N
II
1
0
o,-I
.4
N
n
II
o
-
IIBI
-
III
-rl Z
.- J
IBII
-H I_
4.i
i-i4.-III
o
or
U
H
U)
O 0
00
CN
Ln
II
0
II
,-4
c,
Z
r4
Z4-I
"
0
u
C
02
-
a0
0
4-d 0^
ii
0
iI
c
-
4-)H
o
0r Clo_
4o W 0
>X
C4i 0 U
4
cU
0
rl
> HH >
P )-52-C
-52-
-
III
IIII
O
00
r-
-3
c
r-
O
II
II
00
II
H
11
U)
UJ
:D
O
H
N r-4
4 0
5)
The total number of older engineers classifying themselves or either "somewhat" or "definitely dissatisfied" was 42.2% compared to 37.1% for the younger
engineer.
The sharp increase in the percentage of older engineers
classified as LOCKED-IN is a vivid illustration of the mobility
constraining effects of internal job related factors (e.g.
pensions, company location, established hierarchy) and external
factors (e.g. age, personal and family socialization roles).
There is also a much stronger polarization between those groups
classified as LOYAL and LOCKED-IN, and, to some extent the
DISLOYAL groups with age, while the percentage of engineers
classified as AMBIGUOUS or UNDECIDED decreased with age.
The
sharp drop in the percent of older engineers classified as
AMBIGUOUS could be anticipated on the basis that they would
have already yielded to external forces that cause employees to
leave a satisfactory job (e.g. adventure, desire for another
geographical location or climate).
The decrease in the percent-
age of engineers classified as UNDECIDED with increasing age
must occur if you assume that this classification is by nature
unstable; that people must eventually make up their minds and
either move in (LOYAL), fall in (LOCKED-IN) or move out (DISLOYAL) of the company.
The percent of engineers in the DISLOYAL
-53-
classification would also be expected to decrease with increasing age because this classification is also unstable.
Employees
in the DISLOYAL classification are,by definition, changing jobs.
Since the probability of selecting a job leading to job dissatisfaction would be expected to decrease with experience, the engineers classified as DISLOYAL would be expected to decrease.
The cells for LOYAL, LOCKED-IN, and DISLOYAL
shown in Table
4-3 and 4-4 are the cases upon which all the following analysis
is performed.
4.5
Analysis Technique
A source of difficulty in determining the importance of
various job factors in the loyalty profile of a worker is that
there is no absolute reference value which can be used as a
measure or standard of comparison.
However, by comparing the
LOYAL group to the DISLOYAL group and to the LOCKED-IN group,
the determination of how satisfied or important a job factor is
on an absolute
scale is avoided.
By this technique
it is pos-
sible to determine the relative importance or satisfaction the
DISLOYAL and LOCKED-IN workers attribute to certain job factors,
relative to the LOYAL workers.
The comparison of a DISLOYAL group with a LOYAL group results in a loyalty profile
for the DISLOYAL
group
that is com-
posed of job factors which significantly differentiate the
LOYAL and DISLOYAL engineers.
Similarly, a comparison of a
-54-
LOCKED-IN group with a LOYAL group provides a loyalty profile
for the LOCKED-IN group which is composed of job factors that
significantly differentiate the LOYAL and LOCKED-IN engineers.
Since the younger and older engineers have been shown to
have different loyalty patterns, the comparisons between the
LOYAL and the DTSLOYAL and LOCKED-IN groups are restricted to
similar age groups.
For example, the young LOYAL group is com-
pared to the young DISLOYAL group and totheyoung LOCKED-IN group
only.
Cross age comparisons such as the young LOYAL group com-
pared to the old DISLOYAL group are not made because they would
be meaningless.
The comparisons within an age group isolate
job factors producing significant differences in the attitudes
within that age group only.
The loyalty profiles for the younger
and older DISLOYAL engineers are compared to demonstrate and relate differences and changes in the loyalty related job factors
of importance to older vs. younger DISLOYAL engineers.
A simi-
lar comparison is made between the older vs. younger LOCKED-IN
engineers.
The sequential steps in the data selection, filtering, and
analysis are shown in Figure 4.1.
-55-
-
Z
UZ
E
mU z
U)
2
0
ZIr
U)
zn
L
a
()
I-)
-I
F4Ld
Ii.
W
I
CHAPTER V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1
Introduction
This chapter presents the loyalty profiles which were ob-
tained by comparing the LOYAL groups to the DISLOYAL and LOCKEDIN groups for the job factors contained in the survey questionnaire.
The CLIMATE factors affecting loyalty are discussed first,
then the PUSH, PULL, and HOLD factors affecting loyalty are each
considered.
The main thrust of the discussions is focussed on
actions that management can take to reduce turnover and improve
employee motivation.
5.2
Loyalty Profiles:
Explanation of Tables
Detailed loyalty profiles for the LOYAL vs. DISLOYAL groups
and for the LOYAL vs. LOCKED-IN groups appear in Appendices B,
C, D, and E.
YOUNGER
Appendices
B and D are the loyalty profiles
of the
engineers while Appendices C and E are the profiles of
the OLDER engineers.
Only job factors with a significance level
of approximately 0.05 or less have been retained.
The group
means given in Appendices B, C, D, and E are the means of the
coded values according to the codes given in Appendix A.
A posi-
tive t value indicates a factor which is considered more important by the LOYAL group than by the DISLOYAL group or the LOCKEDIN group.
Conversely, a negative t value indicates a job factor
-56-
that is considered more important by the DISLOYAL group or the
LOCKED-IN group than by the LOYAL group.
For example, in Ap-
pendix B, PULL factor #1, "more time for personal and family
life" (t = 2.64), would have a more powerful attraction to the
LOYAL group in a job offer than to the DISLOYAL group.
However,
PULL factor #7, "greater opportunity for advancement" (t = -3.45)
would exert more attraction to the DISLOYAL group in a job offer
than to the LOYAL group.
Job factors producing the greatest differentiation of behavior will be those factors having the largest t value in absolute magnitude.
Thus, in the example given in the previous
paragraph, a "greater opportunity for advancement" will differentiate the LOYAL and DISLOYAL groups more than "more time for
personal and family life" as is indicated by the larger absolute
value of t (3.45 >
2.64).
The reader must be reminded at this point that a job factor
which is absent from the loyalty profiles or present but with a
low t value does not necessarily mean that the factor in
ques-
tion was not perceived as being very important by either the
LOYAL, DISLOYAL, or LOCKED-IN employees.
What it means is that
there was not a significant difference in the rating of that
factor by the LOYAL vs. DISLOYAL or LOCKED-IN groups.
This re-
search attempts to deal only with job factors which differentiate
the LOYAL employees from the DISLOYAL or LOCKED-IN employees.
-57-
Tables 5-1 through 5-4 of this chapter are condensed versions of the detailed loyalty profiles of LOYAL vs. DISLOYAL
groups and LOYAL vs. LOCKED-IN groups found in Appendices B
through E.
These tables compare the loyalty profiles of YOUNG-
ER and OLDER engineers and display two features: 1) the loyalty
profiles of the YOUNGER and OLDER non management engineers, and
2) the trends in the importance of certain job factors with increasing employee age.
Table 5-1 through 5-4 are the basis for
the discussions of results which follow.
5.3
Climate Factors
Tables 5-1 and 5-2 present the loyalty profiles for the
climate factors of the job environment.
The loyalty profile ob-
tained by comparing the LOYAL group to the DISLOYAL group is
given in Table 5-1 while Table 5-2 gives the loyalty profile of
the LOYAL group compared to the LOCKED-IN group.
Each table
contains subtables showing the profiles for younger and older
non management engineers.
The changes in the profiles that are
age related have been indicated by arrows.
5.3.1
Loyal vs. Disloyal Younger Engineers
Table 5-la shows that the LOYAL group experiences much
more satisfaction with nearly all the climate factors of the
questionnaire than does the DISLOYAL group.
The one exception
was the amount of time for personal and family life, which was
not a significant differentiating factor for any of the loyalty
-58-
4-i
(du
a)
0
0
'0
o4
a)
Co
~0
4U0
O
X1Z
T0
0
U-)
o)
a)
0 C au
HO
x4
0.
>
0Z
U
a)
a0
k
0..
rZ
P4
0
0r
0
Cu
0i
00
v4
H00
#4C
ur
a
a
--
:
C
C
5.
a
I-
C
-C
I-
If
.C
E-
Er
)
5-4
a)
rl
0
C
P
a)
w
'-4
Cu
E-
Q
D
44
ua)
CO r0
k
c4.J
.H
cu 0
co0
'-4
Cl.
U4P
U P
0
O
Q) C 00
to
o
a)r
Lf)
rq4-i
In. r-4
3 0
o4 O
::
C:U4-
c;
0 0 Cu
5-O
>
1l
00
0 C)
a)
;> 11
.H
a)Q)
a) r-4
:
3
4Y
r5 P
a)0
O
-1 '-4
j
0
a)
a)a)
·0;>k
0
o0 C
:-
·
a)
I
44-
o
ak
0
ON
o(
a)It
0i CQ)4J
:
a
a)
C
0 O
3 Y
II
>
O 0
*H &
un)
o
4
04r4 II D
-i ·
O0
C- C)
z
u
r
a)
,.
>a)
3
Cu0to
04i
co
0 -ri*0U
c0
·-4-4
C Uo r>
0 0
0 3 · .O
44
:
0
o0
O
r
3
0) 0
Z
CU
c C
o-
0
o0 :u1u
Cu
00
a) -
*H 0 a) 0 a)
*r
0C0
r bO
4-)
coUC
J
00
0
a) 0
>
OO
0
w P
Q)
o
a)
-r4
1
4-4 a)
·0
a)u
Ln 0 0
H U0
D
.jI
*,4
U
O4-I CO
U a
=
r
ziC 0 )o
'r
O
.H) ua
0O aH
0
00
=1
m4 > a s >-Ia)
r
0c4.4
.r4
0- 4i*
L()
>u
o a
C) a0
a
0
U:
0
0.,o
In
c
Ot-
10
a)-0o0o .
1
O
o
>.1
C
0
4
,
11 c
C O
Cu
O
03
C4
0
0O
4 - 0
C)
-
E Cu a) 0
b0 0 ;> 0
>
0 -t
b
30 o
n
S
t
0) Cu '-4 - 4 P C)
U>
Cuo0 k
C
:0 =
-'
0 o,_· ~ 4
> :
E O % '
X4 "O
-0
), 4J ) 44
PS
U) .0
4-111 ) - 3 ' *r-4
3
4*
c
44
u
C
U' 5k 43Q
U
C14
-59-
II
(a)
CO
profiles for the climate questions.*
all climate factors in Table 5-la
The significance level of
is below 0.001.
The relatively lower level of satisfaction the DISLOYAL
group has for the challenges, enjoyment, and sense of accomplishment they get from their jobs most strongly differentiates them
from the LOYAL group.
Management would do well to bear in mind
that it is through being challenged by difficult work assignments, and by successfully meeting those challenges that most
workers derive the greatest sense of accomplishment and enjoyment from a job.
(Ritti, 1971)
Another climate factor strongly differentiating the LOYAL
from the DISLOYAL group is that the Disloyal group expresses
much lower satisfaction with their knowledge of what is expected
of them and their knowledge of career paths and promotional opportunities.
It is as if they have the ambition and desire to
advance, but are unclear as to what it takes to earn the right
to move up the hierarchy, or exactly how the hierarchy will accommodate them should they get promoted.
Ambiguity in personnel
review systems and in company policies and opportunities for
promotions are elements which management could easily and effectively correct.
Unfortunately management often overlooks these
*Time for personal and family life is not really an intrinsic
climate factor of a person's job and perhaps should not have
been included in this section of the questionnaire.
-60-
factors, sometimes to avoid interactions with subordinates on
"sensitive issues" such as accurate, candid performance reviews
which, however are necessary for healthy employee motivation.
Tending to support this assumption are the lower satisfaction
levels of the DISLOYAL group with the recognition they receive
for the work they have accomplished, and with the amount of information they receive about what is going on in their companies.
The young DISLOYAL group was less satisfied with its opportunities to influence decisions made at higher levels than is
true of their LOYAL counterparts.
Presumably these people want
more influence in the decisions which directly affect their
daily work and their long term career development.
more participative,
less autociatic
decision
Perhaps a
making
process would reduce the differentiation of this climate factor.
5.3.2
Loyal vs. Disloyal Older Engineers
The loyalty profile for job climate factors of the LOYAL vs.
DISLOYAL older engineers is shown in Table 5-lb.
The climate
factors that differentiate the LOYAL and DISLOYAL groups below
a significance level of 0.05 were the same as for the younger
engineers.
However, there is an interesting tendency for the
order of the climate factors for the older engineers to be the
reverse of the order for the younger engineers.
The most signi-
ficant factors differentiating the satisfaction levels of the
-61-
LOYAL and DISLOYAL older engineers are their knowledge of career
paths and promotional opportunities, and recognition received
for work accomplished.
These factors ranked fourth and seventh
in the loyalty profile of the younger engineers.
An assumption
that can be drawn from this evidence is that the older DISLOYAL
engineers feel frustrated because they have not received credit
and recognition for their achievements which should earn for
them the right to advance in the organizational hierarchy, and
are baffled by an ambiguous or vague system of rewards and promotions.
The sense of accomplishment from the job, which was the
second most important climate factor associated with loyalty for
the younger engineers, decreased to become the seventh most important climate factor for the older engineers.
Evidently, as
the LOYAL and DISLOYAL workers advance in their careers, the desire for the idealistic "reward" of a feeling of achievement and
accomplishment diminishes as a differentiating factor while a
desire for the ego satisfying recognition of accomplishments from
the organization and from the peer group becomes much more important.
Another factor differentiating the LOYAL and DISLOYAL groups
which decreased considerably (from fifth for the younger engineers
to eighth for the older engineers) was the knowledge of what is
expected of the employee.
The decrease in the differentiation
-62-
between the LOYAL and DISLOYAL groups for this climate factor
would support the assumption that employees from either group
acquire an understanding and tollerance of the "norms" of the
organizational environment, and learn to better cope with the
system with increasing age and experience.
The DISLOYAL older
engineers like their younger counterparts are relatively dissatisfied with the challenge and the enjoyment they receive
from work.
As pointed out earlier, these are likely to be linked
since there is enjoyment in accomplishing a challenging task.
A tempting conclusion is that industry is wasting valuable talent
in underutilized engineers - either engineers left behind to
'phase out" old technology, or held in "inventory" between project cycles (Ritti, 1971).
It is interesting to formulate and compare scenarios based
on factors of the loyalty profiles of the younger and older engineers which most strongly differentiate the DISLOYAL and LOYAL
groups.
They might appear as follows:
Younger Disloyal Engineer:
"I would like to be assigned
more challenging work; I'm sure I could do it, and it really
gives me a sense of pride and accomplishment when I complete a
tough job.
That's where a lot of my enjoyment in work comes
from, and if I had the chance to prove myself more often I think
I could get ahead a lot faster in this organization - although
I don't really know what I would be promoted to, or where I would
go from there.'
-63-
Older Disloyal Engineer:
'I would like to be assigned more
challenging work; I'm sure I could do it, I've done it before.
All I ask is that when I complete a tough job, I get credit for
it.
That would make work a lot more enjoyable.
And I guess
that would give me more opportunities to get ahead in this organization - although I don't really know what I would be promoted to, or where I would go from there.T'
In both cases the key to improving the level of satisfaction of the DISLOYAL group
would seem to be
and thus reducing employee turnover
1) a more equitable distribution of interest-
ing and challenging work among a greater number of individuals,
2) a well defined system for recognizing achievement and
and
rewarding performance, and a commitment on the part of management to keep employees informed of opportunities for personal
and professional growth within the organization.
5.3.3
Loyal vs. Locked-In Younger Engineers
The loyalty profile for climate factors obtained by comparing the LOYAL with the LOCKED-IN younger engineers is presented
in Table 5-2a.
Most climate factors appearing in Table 5-la
also appear in Table 5-2a.
However, the order of the climate
factors in the loyalty profile for the LOCKED-IN group is very
different compared to the loyalty profiles of the DISLOYAL group.
All factors have a significance level below 0.001.
-64-
~
Q)
0
0
0X ;o
C
00
0Z
0.. O
H Z .,-
0HO
02
00
$-I
0
0
4i
IC)C
0
a)
J bOQ
,-00 .O'-
OA4Z
E-4O
wf
CM
H
¢
Ev
U(
,C)
a)
0
.H
bD
C
a)
-(
C
U)1
a)
a)
C
a
C4
E--
0H
P
u
9
W
H
a) 4-
o
4-40
O
-
m
o0
4
U
-
u )
a:>
4
1
OY
v4
Q),-
o
s.U
0 U
Ua
ri
a)
o
U
a) ul
0
0
.H
0)
O>
,-4
C
a)J 14
(D
W
w ,D
CY
4o
Ir-.
-
(I
4-i 4O Co
5
,-4
,--I
C
O0
Oa
C
O
IQ
H .0
:
, OD
*Ha
a)
U rUo coC00
4i
o·rO.
0.
C4
4J -H
=
' cC
0o u
0
1·
U,
5co U)
Q)4-i
O
O 4-
o
r!
bto CI itO
44
3
.II
a)
O
4-U
x
@c\
4-
r-4
a)
;>.-
r\
O'
4
u0
C
1
I
a
0o
o 0 a
* 4V
4d
0to 0Cl
°SW 11
I11
C
r4
a)
W-i
QO
W
U
0
C r4d
4-J
u bo
·
0 c.~
CU
0d
CaO
HO P
EqI U :
00
*HPn
O
a oo o - or> C!
'O
o U
W 0 HU
S
X*
X
r-
O
3 4U
r4 I
'.;>
0 -4co
C~w- 0 0
a)4
q
5-4 a)
0 l
3 o
c
-4 C ) 0C
a
a
u
'ca 4>.a
o U)
a~l
C)
k>c0
Qa) 0
a00H
C4*· H
>
11 QwP4
a rv
0
w
a>
k
a -~
4
u
O
,o
O
* a) o H C)
L'
,aa) O k
O r_
C w
a r-4
W
H Cd k
a p a)
0
,
U)
3, It
1 0~
uH
0
w 0 . o
O lCw)
O
> W
)
,
w
k'
-65-
a)
oC
1 Ua
C)
IC
4JU E-
r- 4
P
C -H
a C v-1
CM
g4
Z
r 0 r3
a
- u r-7
k
30UH- :r4 CI 0W
C4d
S a O Okn
CH 3
04
u N U 0
k
a)
P-r4 k36
~00l·
uco
UW
C
1CO
D
13. r4
O
03 M
0 ·L
0
Cd4lz
U
O Ca
>'
-4
0
U)
-ca)
t~O
r--4
a) u
0
O
H C
0
.4
u14
The first three factors of the loyalty profile for the
young engineers would imply that, relative to the LOYAL engineers, the young LOCKED-IN engineer feels as if he doesn't know
what he should do, doesn't know where he is going in the company, and doesn't know what is going on in the company.
short, he appears somewhat bewildered and confused.
In
Remember-
ing that the LOCKED-IN employee does not require encouragement
to stay with his present company but is likely to lack motivation, the needs of the LOCKED-IN employee would seem to be best
satisfied by more information and by being made to feel more a
part of things, of
belonging" to the organization.
The LOCKED-IN group like the DISLOYAL group, is less satisfied with their opportunities to influence decisions made at
higher levels.
This relative dissatisfaction the LOCKED-IN group
feels towards their abilities to influence higher level decisions
may stem from a lack of communication upward in the hierarchy.
To some extent this is also likely to be caused by the
relative dissatisfaction of this group with the amount of knowledge they have and the information they receive about their
organization, its expectation of employees, and its opportunities
for employees.
These dissatisfactions would imply poor communi-
cation down the hierarchy.
In both cases a more participatory
decision making process might tend to alievate the dissatisfaction
differential between the LOYAL and LOCKED-IN younger engineers.
-66-
The more personal and ego satisfying aspects of the job
such as the enjoyment and sense of accomplishment received from
work, and the recognition received for work accomplished were
all climate factors which were perceived as significantly less
satisfying by the LOCKED-IN relative to the LOYAL group of younger engineers, although these groups were not significantly differentiated in their relative satisfaction with the challenges
provided by the job (0.130 significance level).
The relative
dissatisfaction with the enjoyment and sense of accomplishment
the younger LOCKED-IN engineers get from their jobs may well be
a result of their relative dissatisfaction with the recognition
they receive for their accomplishments.
Although management may
not be able to directly affect the level of enjoyment and the
sense of accomplishment an employee derives from his job, they
can go a long way towards indirectly improving the environment
for such feelings, particularly for the LOCKED-IN employees, by
directing more effort towards rapidly acknowledging and rewarding accomplishments.
An increase in the level of satisfaction
that LOCKED-IN employees feel with respect to the enjoyment and
the sense of accomplishment they receive from their work might
also result from encouraging a more participative style of management so that employees can more easily influence decisions
made at higher levels in their organizations.
-67-
5.3.4
Loyal vs. Locked-In Older Engineers
The loyalty profile for climate factors for the LOYAL vs.
LOCKED-IN older engineers is presented in Table 5-2b.
All fac-
tors are below a 0.005 significance level. As was the case for
the loyalty profiles for the LOYAL vs. DISLOYAL groups, a comparison of Table 5-2a with Table 5-2b indicates a tendency for
the climate factors to reverse order in the profiles of the
older engineers compared to the younger engineers.
The LOCKED-IN older engineer, relative to the LOYAL older
engineer, seems to be less satisfied with his knowledge of career paths and promotional opportunities, the challenges and
enjoyment he gets from work, and the opportunities to influence
decisions made at higher levels.
The LOCKED-IN older engineer
seems to emerge as an employee who wants more influence in his
company but does not see a clear career path in his organization
to gain that influence.
He is relatively dissatisfied with his
knowledge of what is expected of him and of what is going on in
his company, both of which do not help his feelings of ambiguity
towards advancement in his organization.
He feels underutilized
and, probably as a result of being unchallenged in his work, he
is relatively dissatisfied with his job.
Relative to the LOYAL
older engineers, the LOCKED-IN older engineers are less satisfied
with the recognition they receive for work they have accomplished,
possibly because the tasks are not as challenging and therefore
-68-
less deserving of recognition.
The feelings of lack of recog-
nition and challenge experienced by the LOCKED-IN older engineers must surely explain some of their relative dissatisfaction
with the sense of accomplishment they derive from their jobs.
Scenarios based on factors which most strongly differentiate
the LOCKED-IN and LOYAL groups offer insight into the attitudes
of the engineers classified as LOCKED-IN.
They might appear as
follows:
Younger LOCKED-IN Engineer:
here.
I feel confused, like I don't belong
I don't know what is expected of me, or how to get ahead
in this organization.
I don't have any influence around here,
nobody ever recognizes my achievements.
I don't even know what
is going on in this company.
Older LOCKED-IN Engineer: I wish I knew how to advance in this
organization.
If I had some influence around here I might be
able to get some of the challenging work which would make work
more enjoyable and satisfying.
I'm not sure what is expected of
mq.I don't get much recognition, and I don't know what is going
on in this company.
In both cases keys to improving the level of satisfaction
and motivation of the LOCKED-IN group seems to be 1) Better information and feedback about an employee's immediate task
as-
signments and more information communicated better about what is
going on in the company.
2) Allowing the engineers to have more
-69-
participation and influence in the decisions which directly affect their work and careers.
5.4
Hold, Push, Pull and Miscellaneous Factors
Tables 5-3 and 5-4 provide loyalty profiles based on the
HOLD, PUSH, PULL and MISCELLANEOUS job factors of the questionnaire.
Table 5-3 provides the loyalty profiles for the LOYAL vs.
DISLOYAL groups while Table 5-4 provides the loyalty profiles for
the LOYAL vs. LOCKED-IN groups.
Each table contains subtables
showing the profiles for younger and older non management engineers separately.
The changes in the profiles that are time
related have been indicated by arrows.
5.4.1
Loyal vs. Disloyal
5.4.1.1
Hold Factors
The loyalty profiles for HOLD factors obtained by comparing
the LOYAL vs. DISLOYAL groups are presented in Table 5-3.1.
It
is evident that, independent of age, there are no differentiating HOLD factors which the DISLOYAL group considers more important that the LOYAL group.
Also, all of the differentiating
factors are weak (small t values) for the younger engineers relative to the older engineers.
And, with the exception of current
salary there are no factors controllable by management which differentiate the younger LOYAL engineer from the younger DISLOYAL
engineer.
-70-
cn
ZZ;
W-
Oz
co
r-4
O
oU)
r(
a
a
-
b
:::
C
a
IC
C
,J
r(I
I
u'3
C.)
,-.
..
E· rn
.
.H
3
F-
3
(L)
r-4
co)
CC
o;
bc
1,-.-
rO
rjl
Pt
0
O
o
4
C3
C3
4
a,
P
S 2;
0
~1 P4
k
O
c
1,4
qJ
0 q-
U] Mcnw
~
. ,
i-4
.o
0)3
1,
a
*H
U
"C
0C.)
>,-l
> En
0
03z
5
6 lO
PcO
o
a;
C)
0 0CY '0q4
Ca
¢ P
O
Of aUO
*q
Eq
O
2
o
CO ::
*S
a0 Q;>
.,
03~~
co
v-4
¢
cN
<bo0
I
C4
: *
.
C1 -
I4
U
Cn
Ct
0
U)
O3
o
4,-
cbo
03
I
4.
n O
"O
Q) co,
to E
M O
4-
tu .l.
,.t\ ,U ·l
,- -I
4
II l::U o .uI
co
(U
43
(U
op r-4
M
4¢~ >, C
Cl
bO
a,>
o
U >
*i po
q) (
U
4Ji
-r
u. r-I;>
I) (n q)
4 coCr.
cn O
b0
r q-,
oH4
*rl 1
tu
lr a
> 4_1
o
,.-
C) C)
,a-
q 4 tS:
O
U
O-
asO c}
O
O
q-4
q~
O
- O
O
O
u
a)
Ch
n
q) C:
p *I
r-
u
.) rj ,.a
.
ili
IIw
Q) H cn
a ' 4( 00
3 -, o
F-4
-
C
*,4
0a)
q)
- a
0
Q)-- 4
p >
r
UL
:I
i ,
I>
coc
rj0
C)
)11
, I_
I
r-- h. ,4
r ,--4
P, 3.
O cu
o
I>
::
W
co
;
,
O ,4 , a l> PO >
(n 4J >4 to
4
CY)
1
c 0
11 c
-H
a
r-A r-4
0) ()
N
1lt co
U) 11
.CN
-J
) P- 5
· r 4~~~~~
a
(U
*
;> 4
0o
4J
U q:).
C) NO
,to C..
O
,-4 II
C D
u 43
c
-I COr:4
N
.1
rd
-71-
.ro
CY
UCl
LA
'-
'H
-.
O
'H
,-4.,
94
0
I0 C
W
o
'H
4 cu >
0
O
o
aa,L4-
>
I
· r-
**,
Cd
N
cZ C
4
Cd
QI
0 II
'H
w)
.
O
WH4t-4
A t
'H
CZ 0 O
O
4
Cd .4-i
*.
0
C
I
0O.S-H
CO Cl
4-i C,-
a)
I-I
a
U
o
C
3
CI
0
0
CZ
s
Cd
O
·r-
0
CO O N1
O UO
C)
000a a
u c> k
W C'4.
W)
5-
C
0
C
0
C'4
bO 0) 4-J
O
10
11 4-4 II
v ;>
-i- r-4
-r-4
k D
rW
Q)a
0o00
O oO
OI
0
3
c)
I,
rl
0$
arO N
0O
C
3
T4
Q
Ul PCd
W
D,
lf
:n
a
a
c
b
a
C
N
.C
c,
!
LrI
-.
[--I
Cd
P
0
Cd
Crl
r,
E-l
H~
'-
u)
C
.-u·
Qi
4-
Ce cJ a)
C
5.
a
a
44a;
)H .,1
r3
rC
-H - 4
0
r-45k4
W 'H
44
CN4
P5 o04
O Ct
rH
Q
CO
'~
I
-r
I
OH
I o
Q)
II C
N
H O
( ) 1 cod
0 Uo·
H-ro kC4 Q
O *Q) I ::P
C ,X ,-40
HO4- .C
O
*5u4
P
P.I
*· O'
bo u
I 0
0
U4
'
C
N
c.1
Q) b>
Nt
O
O a) C
C
UL)
"4
4)i
I
W
C
c
1
0
44 %.O
04-4
Od
>
i-
0
r)
I1
Cdu
4-4
i
f -
4-U)
P W
0) Cd Cd 4-J
> Q)
Ul
CY
I" C4
Q,
'H C" 1
00
t1 ,3.
o00
bO CO
;>
0
i
4-U
uLr'0 t-
H0
) rC
II
r-
C
0
0
0 0
Z
-t
ta CZ
II 0
U 'H k CJ*
4
)
W 'O 4
P o XmP P 'HQ
Cl
4,-
U
P O 50 C 60.
0 0 O HO
Cd
UW
r,a %4
, U,
, .H
:D 0 w
1
Cd I
4 4
0 P
H 0
'O
CO
C CN k CN
a) I O H
r4 11 X
d
Q) 11 3 f=
0
·
0
P.1CO r4 0H
0
a) H
·
,-4
-4
OrdOW, 0 i0( 0
-4 0) 'H W)
4
4U-4X
O.
k0O )W
* >4
0 :D P
0 I1
Q
> 5U)
X-4CO W
U
4I
U4
P-a)Ca
4
4 5
a) >
:3
.
C
I~
k
O- -W 3 t k:t d
11
CO
,~l 1
2
t
a
OCc0
r.0
c
'C
II
C
ii-
11 Cy,
C'
:-i'c
r-4
CO
> rc
C
5-i
W
0)
'H
0
w
0)
Cl
Lt
rCO
H4
-72-
a)
1-4
0
10
.r-I
CY)
Ltr
H
V)
cV
o~
oI
P
rc-4
OO
C
O
a)
a)
z
0
PI
5-4
W
a)
0 0ak
Z 3 4
4lac
r--
z
:4 a)
rzn
C-l
H
0
k; .
O4 S
6 -J
C/I -H r-4
Pr
00
P
Z
a)
a1)
0
n0
o
a
a)
rl
--
0
o[
a
ur
.0
Dr
.r-4
a)
rI
a)
0
-t
a)
0
C/3
.
*r4
N C.
P. Z
C)
0o--III
CO
O
5.4C4
:
0
<
>-,CN
:J
a )
0
44
'--4
31 co
cn
U)
C
CZ
co CI
co o
r--
0
o-I
o
C!)
()
o4
a) -4
Z; 4
C~
a)
4-i
z0
a
.0
a)
Q)
u'4
c
O
a)
Cu
a,
co
0O
3
4-J
O.rq
C-
-73-
Compared to the younger engineers, there are double the
number of job factors that differentiate the LOYAL older engineers from the DISLOYAL older engineers.
differentiation is also much greater.
The intensity of the
As might be expected, the
investment in a pension or retirement plan becomes the most important factor differentiating LOYAL and DISLOYAL older engineers.
This would strongly suggest that the LOYAL older engineer is
voluntarily locked-in by his pension while the DISLOYAL older
engineer is either prepared to leave it for the right opportunity, or else has insufficient
pension benefits
to act as a hold-
ing force.
The fact that both the investment in a pension plan and the
opportunity to retire early were job factors which the LOYAL
older workers found more important raises a question:
although
these workers are classified as LOYAL because of their job satisfaction and lack of intention to change jobs, are they really
highly productive, task oriented people?
Referring back to the
loyalty profiles for climate factors, are these people satisfied
with the challenge the job provides, or satisfied with the lack
of challenge?
The PULL factors to be discussed shortly imply the
latter may be the case.
Before proceeding to the loyalty profiles for PUSH factors,
it is worth noting that the selection of a
good" company loca-
tion, which might represent a one-time cost somewhat higher than
-74-
a less desirable location, may well repay itself over a period
of years by attracting more desirable workers and reducing labor
turnover.
5.4.1.2
Push Factors
The loyalty profiles for PUSH factors obtained by comparing
LOYAL vs. DISLOYAL engineers are given in Table 5-3.2.
Independ-
ent of age, the LOYAL employees indicated that the requirement
to move to a new city would more strongly influence them to leave
their present company when compared to the DISLOYAL employees.
Two additional factors would more strongly influence the LOYAL
employees to leave compared to the DISLOYAL employees.
They are
the requirement for excessive travel and the lack of friendly
and congenial co-workers.
The older LOYAL engineer appears to
be comfortably imbedded into a social structure at work and with
his family and community life that is more important to him relative to his DISLOYAL
counterpart.
In addition to the above PUSH factors which act more strongly to cause the LOYAL employees to leave compared to the DISLOYAL
employees, there are numerous other factors which have a stronger
"pushing'"effect on the DISLOYAL engineer.
for not receiving
a promotion
or working
The tolerance level
for a poor manager
or
working in an inefficiently run organization or department was
notably lower for the DISLOYAL young engineers than for their
LOYAL counterparts.
The DISLOYAL young engineers may well
-75-
consider these three job factors as interdependent.
He may con-
sider that if his manager and his organization were better and
more efficient, he would advance faster.
A lack of promotions, working for a poor manager and the
lack of opportunity for creativity or originality are all differentiating factors less tolerated by the DISLOYAL older engineers
than by their LOYAL counterparts.
Compared to the LOYAL older
engineers, the DISLOYAL older engineers are not particularly
concerned with overall organizational efficiency as long as their
own local environment is well managed, but they are sensitive to
not receiving promotions and to work situations lacking the opportunity for creativity or originality.
Indeed, they may see
such work situations as the route to promotions.
5.4.1.3
Pull Factors
The loyalty profiles developed for PULL factors are shown
in Table 5-3.3.
As expected, most PULL factors which differen-
tiate the LOYAL from the DISLOYAL engineers are factors that are
more attractive to the DISLOYAL groups.
For both age groups the
most important factor that would encourage the LOYAL engineers
to accept an employment offer compared to the DISLOYAL engineers
is more opportunity for personal and family life.
This was the
only factor which had relatively more attraction to the LOYAL
group than to the DISLOYAL group for the younger engineers.
The older engineers have one additional factor which is more
-76-
attractive to the LOYAL group - the opportunity to retire early.
These hardly would be considered aggressive job oriented factors.
On the other hand, those factors which attracted the DIS-
LOYAL engineers relative to the LOYAL engineers are for the most
part implicitly aggressive, job oriented factors such as the
desire for leadership, recognition, advancement, and higher earnings.
From the loyalty profile for climate factors, Table 5-1,
it is seen that the LOYAL employees are more satisfied with all
such job factors than are their DISLOYAL counterparts.
Perhaps
the LOYAL employees are actually less aggressive and are satisfied with a much lower level of effort and challenge than the
DISLOYAL engineers, who feel under utilized, unchallenged, and
frustrated in their achievement of career goals.
5.4.1.4
Miscellaneous Factors
The loyalty profiles obtained for miscellaneous factors are
shown in Table 5-3.
These data provide a clue to who the LOYAL
and DISLOYAL engineers are.
It comes as no surprise to discover
that the LOYAL younger engineers have received more promotions
from their present employer and have a higher salary.
These
were the only two factors which differentiated the LOYAL and
DISLOYAL younger engineers.
The loyalty profile of the older
engineers suggests that those classified as LOYAL have worked
longer for their present company, are working for a larger company, and have changed companies less than their DISLOYAL
-77-
counterparts.
This is an indication that the loyalty of
older engineers is partly due to the force of habit and routine.
5.4.2
Loyal vs. Locked-In
5.4.2.1
Hold Factors
The loyalty profiles for HOLD factors obtained by comparing
the LOYAL with the LOCKED-IN engineers are presented in Table
5-4.1.
There are very few factors which significantly differen-
tiate the LOYAL engineers from the LOCKED-IN engineers and the
differentiation is weak (small t values).
This implies that the
LOYAL and LOCKED-IN engineers tend to attach nearly the same
degree of importance to the HOLD factors of the questionnaire.
Relative to his LOYAL counterpart, the LOCKED-IN younger
engineer feels constrained from leaving his present job by his
age and by the opportunity to retire early.
Intuitively, these
factors would be associated with the LOCKED-IN older engineers.
On the other hand, the LOYAL older engineers were differentiated
from the LOCKED-IN older engineers only by their greater reluctance to change jobs again, having
5.4.2.2
recently"? changed jobs.
Push Factors
The loyalty profiles for PUSH factors obtained by comparing
the LOYAL with the LOCKED-IN engineers are found in Table 5-4.2.
Again, as in the loyalty profiles for the HOLD factors, there are
only a few factors that differentiate the LOYAL engineers from
the LOCKED-IN engineers, and the intensity of differentiation is
-78-
U)
cz°°
0
UU
o
-4
C)
C
0
a
0a)
0bO
04C
;0
O
CJ
0
)Ul
'HH
0
0
z
H 0OZ
0nOQ
J
0.
P4 P04
U
HF **O
N0Z
H
0
U)
P
'O
ou'
.,H
I
N
0
o
C
a o
, N.
il
c
a) o
I
a)4-
C4
C
q) CJ r 4
a)
o
rl
a)
-H
a)
P
a)
5I"
4-i'1
5-1
--4
a) 11
--4
W 4
0 x
uW Cu
?
Co
4)i
a
C4
O
X
U
4u 0o
0
a
4:
W u
r-II
I
0
.
cqe
C-"
0
H
a
O
co
a)
au
k
·.4
4)
a)
0
O
Nt
0 CO U 4e
0tIC
,.
CU
·t.J
o -l
a0
0
C
H
a)
rC
a)
a)
(1)
r.
E-i
C
Cu
.M
H
a)
r-4
-i
a)
*0
rq
C
'4)
"O
a)
0
a)
0
O
0
E-4
r-4 H OWr
r-4
ri
cot
P
20
-79-
.n
II
r-
.4-I 0
i
a 4W
u)O II ·4-i
CU O r-4
-
*
C
0 c
a a) -
4-ia)
C
·) 0 r-4
P
'
(0
r
co
C
.H
ao
(n
a)
U)
0
z0
O
0I
Cu
0
IP4
u
I
¢4
1;D
PL
a.)
U)o
r-4
o
I
)
D-, co bO
4Co
a
O.H
a).-I
CZU
II
I
cor
Z
L)
C)
-t
I
Io
o
1t
14q)
a)
Icu4-J
-i
%O
la
a,..
Q0
0)
r-4
40O
u0
1-1
I
02
P
a)
0)
0
.V-4
a,
r.
a)
'-I
0
I
H4
r--
4
co
E-i
En
P
C
r-l
w
0)
0
O
C
P
4
co
-4
In
cot
Cu
Hl
.n
En
W:
0
(n
0
Iwz
kZ
w
En
zX-
0)
0
*i-4 r-4
cu
04C
u0
0 4-4
'4-4 0
P 0
P
) a)
ii
oo
9 0
o
,
I
1.4
3 cI
0
0
0
0
cO0
0
1
I
Z
0
4-a
0)
CJ
u0)
4-.)
Uo)
uo
4H
r4
o,
4r
ct
U)
)
II
c1 C,Ca>d
0 -
J\
O
-
40 0
r4
0
3
C0
0) -4
0
w0)a
P 4-J
Z
)
Z 0). I
CN
-80-
weak.
Relative to their LOYAL counterparts, the LOCKED-IN
younger engineers would be more likely to leave an employer who
required them to travel excessively.
The LOCKED-IN older en-
gineers, on the other hand, were more likely to leave because
they did not receive a promotion or because their organization
or department was inefficient.
The LOYAL engineer, who was
shown to have much greater satisfaction with the overall climate
of his job (Table 5-2) presumably has much more tolerance for
inconvenience such as excessive travel, organizational inefficiences, or even the lack of a promotion.
5.4.2.3
Pull Factors
The loyalty profiles for PULL factors obtained by comparing
the LOYAL with the LOCKED-IN engineers are presented in Table
5-4.3.
There are no factors in a job offer which significantly
differentiate the LOYAL from the LOCKED-IN young engineers.
In
other words the degree of importance which the LOYAL and the
LOCKED-IN younger engineers associate with each PULL factor does
not differ widely.
A possible conclusion is that a given job
offer to younger engineers is just as likely to cause LOYAL employees to leave (or come) as LOCKED-IN employees.
What is not
known is whether the threshold required to cause a LOYAL employee to change jobs equals the threshold required to motivate a
LOCKED-IN employee to change jobs.
The scarcity and weakness
of HOLD and PUSH factors suggests that the thresholds may be
nearly equal.
-81-
The contrast between the PULL factor loyalty profile for
the younger and older engineers is quite dramatic.
More dra-
matic yet is the sharp difference in the characteristics of a
job offer which appeal to the LOYAL older engineers compared
to the LOCKED-IN older engineers and vice versa.
For the older
engineers the differentiating factors in a job offer which have
greater appeal to the LOYAL group compared to their LOCKED-IN
counterparts are better fringe benefits, more time for personal
and family life, and the opportunity to retire early.
These
factors are all focused on the more self oriented needs of the
employee such as leisure time and security.
However, more op-
portunity to exercise leadership and to advance, and more challenging work are factors of a job offer that appeal more strongly
to the LOCKED-IN older engineer.
These factors, like the climate
profile in Table 5-2b, imply that the LOCKED-IN older engineers
are frustrated by unchallenging work and a need for self actualization.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the LOCKED-IN
older engineers are under utilized and represent a wasted resource of talent.
Management should be able to more successfully
motivate this resource through more flexible and more equitable
work assignments.
This would not only allow more individuals to
demonstrate their creativity and capabilities, but the overall
competence level of the engineering force would improve as well.
-82-
The loyalty profiles derived from the miscellaneous factors
are shown in Table 5-4.4.
The data show that the longer an em-
ployee works for a company, the more likely he is to fall into
the category of LOCKED-IN.
This tendency is reinforced for
older engineers, where the LOCKED-TN group has worked for less
companies during their careers than the LOYAL engineers.
Also,
the longer a younger engineer has been working full time the
more likely he is to be classified as LOCKED-IN.
Being "locked-
in" would appear to be partly caused by the force of habit and
routine.
Profile Comparison:
5.5
5.5.1
Disloyal with Locked-In
Climate Factors
A comparison of the loyalty profiles of the DISLOYAL younger
engineers, Table 5-la, with the LOCKED-IN younger engineers,
Table 5-2a, shows essentially no similarity in the order of importance of the climate factors in the two profiles.
The
LOCKED-IN younger group also shows considerably weaker differentiation (smaller t values) than does the DTSLOYAL older group
with respect to the LOYAL group.
Quite the opposite effect appears from a comparison of the
DISLOYAL older engineer with the LOCKED-IN older engineers.
the loyalty profiles are very similar.
Here
Three of the first four
climate factors of the two profiles are identical and have the
same rank order.
The order of all factors and the strength of
-83-
the differentiations are nearly equal with the exception of
recognition received for work accomplished which is a much less
important differentiating factor for the LOCKED-IN older engineers than for their DISLOYAL counterparts.
These data would
suggest that the needs of the DISLOYAL and the LOCKED-TN engineers are somewhat divergent during the first half of their careers but become more nearly alike during the second half of
their careers.
If management can reduce the turnover of DIS-
LOYAL older engineers by improving certain climate factors inherent in their jobs, they will simultaneously motivate the
LOCKED-IN older engineers.
5.5.2
Hold Factors
In comparing the loyalty profiles of the DISLOYAL and the
LOCKED-IN groups for HOLD factors (Tables 5-3 and 5-4), the most
notable difference is that the LOCKED-IN engineers have only a
few weak factors which differentiate them from their LOYAL
counterparts.
On the other hand, a large number of job factors
would have relatively little influence in holding the DISLOYAL
older engineers in a job compared to the LOYAL engineer.
These
data tend to support intuition which would conclude that holding
factors have much less influence on the DISLOYAL employees.
5.5.3
Push Factors
A comparison of the loyalty profiles developed for PUSH
factors for the DISLOYAL and the LOCKED-IN engineers (Table 5-3.2
-84-
and Table 5-4.2) shows that these groups are differentiated for
PUSH factors in much the same way as for the HOLD factors previously discussed.
Again it comes as no surprise to discover
that the DISLOYAL groups demonstrate a much lower threshold of
tolerance for a disagreeable employment environment than do the
LOYAL or LOCKED-IN employees.
5.5.4
Pull Factors
A comparison of Tables 5-3.3 and 5-4.3 dramatically shows
the expected difference in response of the DISLOYAL groups
towards attractive features of a new job offers expecially the
younger engineers who presumably are more mobile and less rooted
to their communities and work routines.
The LOCKED-IN older
engineers on the other hand, show a remarkable similarity to
the DISLOYAL older engineers, both in the type and rank order
of the differentiating job factors, and also the strength of the
differentiation.
5.5.5
Miscellaneous Factors
Comparing the loyalty profiles of the DISLOYAL and the
LOCKED-IN groups (Tables 5-3.4 and 5-4.4) shows an interesting
difference in the profiles of the younger engineers.
The pro-
files for the DISLOYAL young engineers are based on job factors,
e.g., the number of promotions and the annual salary level. The
profile for the LOCKED-IN young engineers was composed only of
demographic factors, e.g., the number of years working and the
-85-
number of years with the present employer.
In contrast the
profiles for the DISLOYAL and LOCKED-IN older engineers were
both based on demographic factors.
-86-
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
One object for management is to reduce employee turnover
and to improve employee motivation and job satisfaction.
The
object of this research was to determine which job factors
management could change in order to provide a working environment that will minimize the loss of employees from the organization while simultaneously causing employees classified as disloyal, undecided, and locked-in to move towards the loyal classification.
Data from this research provide some indications
as to which job factors are most likely to produce such a change
in employee attitudes.
The most important factors differentiating both DISLOYAL
and LOCKED-TN engineers of all ages from their LOYAL counterparts are the desire for more challenging work, recognition for
work accomplished, and the desire to exercise more influence on
decisions made at higher levels.
The DISLOYAL and LOCKED-IN
engineers are also differentiated from their LOYAL counterparts
by their lack of knowledge of career paths andpromotional opportunities
within their organizations, and with the lack of knowledge of
what is expected of them.
Dissatisfaction with opportunities
to exercise leadership and to advance in the organizations are
-87-
also job factors which strongly differentiated the DISLOYAL
and LOCKED-IN engineers from the LOYAL engineers.
The DISLOYAL group is differentiated from the LOYAL group
by more job factors than the LOCKED-IN group, and the differentiation is generally stronger.
This indicates that relative
to their LOCKED-IN counterparts, the DISLOYAL engineers would
be more affected by management's efforts to improve their job
environment.
The LOCKED-IN younger engineers were more weakly
differentiated from the LOYAL younger engineers implying that
this group of employees would be a less fruitful area for management to expand their efforts.
The feelings of frustration and underutilization expressed
by the DISLOYAL and LOCKED-IN engineers could be converted into
a highly productive engineering resource.
To generate feelings
of job satisfaction, enjoyment, and accomplishment in the disloyal engineers, and to provide greater motivation for the
locked-in engineers, management must assign these workers more
challenging tasks with greater opportunities and freedom for
creativity, resourcefulness,
and responsible leadership roles.
The organizational hierarchy should provide a more broadly based
and loosely structured social format which encourages active,
open two way communication.
This will permit the non management
-88-
engineering levels greater opportunities to influence their
working environments, and the feedback systems for appraisal,
recognition, and rewards will act faster and be better understood.
Perhaps the most interesting and totally unexpected results to emerge from this research is that the engineers classified as "disloyal" appear to be much more dynamic, aggressive,
and self actualizing than do those engineers classified as
1"loyal' or "locked-in".
The disloyal engineers are seeking
more challenging work, promotions, and greater leadership roles
and influence.
They want opportunities to prove their abilities,
they want recognition for their achievements, and they have low
tolerance levels for poor managers and inefficient organizations.
Compare these traits with the loyal engineers who emerge as
being content with their job environment and more tolerant of
poor management and organizational inefficiencies.
They are
locked into their present jobs by their pensions, adequate salaries, their age, early retirement prospects, and their spouse's
reluctance to relocate.
They do not seek more challenging
work, more opportunities for advancement, leadership roles, or
recognition.
Instead, they want more time for personal and
family life and the opportunity to retire early.
-89-
These results must of course be substantiated by more
broadly based and more thorough research, but if the loyal and
disloyal engineers are characterizable as these data suggest,
then the implications are enormous.
Traditionally, the goal
of organizations, and a measure of the quality of personnel
management has been to minimize turnover by building a stable
organization of loyal employees.
However, this research sug-
gests that if organizations would attract and fully utilize the
capabilities and talents of the so called disloyal employees,
these organizations would become more creative, aggressive, and
productive companies, which would be better prepared to accept
the challenges and risks of a dynamic business climate.
The challenge for management is to recognize and utilize
this resource of engineering talent by developing flexible organizational structures and reward systems more attuned to the
entrepreneurial spirit of the disloyal engineer.
Management
must search out strategies for organizational change and take
the risks involved in attempting to develop new forms of job employee relationships.
They must keep pace with the needs of
employees for more opportunities for self actualization in the
form of leadership roles under conditions which challenge their
competence, creativity, resourcefulness, and leadership qualities.
-90-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Bailyn, Lotte and Schein, Edgar H., A taxonomy of technically based careers, Working Paper WP 754-74, Alfred P.
Sloan, School of Management, November, 1974.
2.
Carr, Clay B., Jr. "Total Turnover", Personnel Journal,
July, 1972.
3.
Drucker, Peter F., The Age of Discontinuity, Harper & Rowe,
N.Y. 1968.
4.
Fox, Allan, A Sociology of Work in Industry, Collier MacMillan, London, 1971.
5.
Levinson, Harry. "Easing the Pain of Personal Loss",
Harvard Business Review, Sept. - Oct. 1972, V.50.
6.
Loomba, R.P., An Examination of the Engineering Profession
Manpower Research Groups, Center for Interdisciplinary
Studies, San Jose State College, San Jose, California, 1968.
7.
March, James C., Simon, Herbert A. Organizations, Chapter
4, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1958.
8.
Perrucci, R., Gerstl, J. The Engineer and the Social Systems Wiley, N.Y., 1969.
9.
Ritti, Richard R., The Engineer In the Industrial Corporation, Columbia University Press, N.Y., 1971.
-91-
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS
The questionnaire and results are presented below.
There
were 1155 cases processed.
1)
What is the total number of years you have been working
full time?
(exclude military service)
Range
Percent
Code
0-5 years
113
9.8
1
6-10 years
227
19.7
2
11-15 years
229
19.8
3
16-20 years
186
16.1
4
21 or more years
400
34.6
5
missing
2)
Number
O
0
O
During that time, for how many companies have you worked
including your present job?
Range
Number
Percent
Code
1 company
268
23.2
1
2-3 companies
439
38.0
2
4-5 companies
244
21.1
3
6-7 companies
122
10.6
4
82
7.1
5
O
O
O
8 or more
companies
missing
-92-
3)
In what type of industry are you currently working?
Range
Number
Percent
Code
-
Public sector (e.g., Utilities,
non profit organizations, etc)
City, State
ment
3.1
1
32
2.8
2
93.5
3
or federal govern-
1080
Private Sector
4)
36
Self employed
4
0.3
4
Missing
3
0.3
0
How many years have you worked for your present employer?
Number
Percent
48
4.2
1
1-2 years
176
15.2
2
3-4 years
180
15.6
3
5-9 years
374
32.4
4
10 or more years
377
32.6
5
Range
Less than 1 year
0
Missing
Code
0
0
5) What is the size of the company you work for?
Number
Range
Percent
Code
I
-
73
6.3
1
100-499 employees
252
30.5
2
500-999 employees
160
13.9
3
1000-4999 employees
234
20.3
4
5000 or more employees
434
37.6
5
2
0.2
0
Less than 100 employees
Missing
-93-
I
6)
What is your annual salary from your company?
Range
6a)
Number
Code
Check here if you have substantial other income.
Checked
7)
Percent
N= 37
3.2%
code=2
How many people do you supervise?
Number
Range
__
Percent
Code
__
O people
515
44.6
1
1-3 people
318
27.5
2
4-10 people
214
18.5
3
11-10 people
49
4.2
4
21 or more people
54
4.7
5
5
0.4
0
Missing
-94-
8)
Are you satisfied with your present job?
Number
Range
Code
definitely satisfied
237
20.5
1
somewhat satisfied
518
44.8
2
somewhat dissatisfied
285
24.7
3
definitely dissatisfied
109
9.4
4
6
0.5
O
missing
9)
Percent
What is the probability that you wi 11 voluntarily change
employers in the next two years?
Range
Number
Percent
Code
0o%
322
27.9
1
1-49%
418
36.2
2
50%
226
19.6
3
51-99%
133
11.5
4
50
4.3
5
6
0.5
0
100%
missing
-95-
10)
What is your job title?*
Number
Range
I
Code
Top Level General Manager
13
1.1
10
Functional Manager,
Non Technical
15
1.3
20
Top Level Technical Manager
90
7.9
30
Level 2 Technical Manager
117
10.3
40
Level 3 Technical Manager
108
9.5
50
Non Management Engineer
602
53.1
60
Non Degreed Technologists
144
12.7
70
Business Staff (Functional)
31
2.7
80
Other
14
1.2
90
Missin2
21
1.8
O
......
11)
Percent
II
Have you received a promotion(s) while working for your
present employer?
Range
Number
Percent
Code
1
0
or missing
*Coded according to rules described in Chapter III.
-96-
lla)
If so how many?
Percent
Number
*Range
J
J
Code
---
l
missing or
0
441
38.2
0
1
272
23.5
1
2
185
16.0
2
3
112
9.7
3
4
65
5.6
4
5
26
2.3
5
6
20
1.7
6
7
8
0.7
7
8
5
0.4
8
9
2
0.2
9
19
1.6
10
10 or greater
llb)
Give dates of your last two promotions.
NOTE:
Dates given by respondents were calendar dates, eg.
2/74 for February, 1974, or occasionally just 75 or
1975 for 1975. 2/74 would be keypunched as 274 and
1974 or 74 would be keypunched as 74. Unprocessed
data would therefore be too extensive and complex to
present here.
WThere are discrepancies between the answers to question 11 and
lla. This is likely due to a combination of errors by respondents and errors in keypunching. The observations were recoded
but no attempt-was made to make the data match.
-97-
a
0
O4
0
4
43
0
c)
a)
4-i
U
a)
a)
U)
0
0
*c
0
P4
Ca)
U)
CI0
bo
0
'"4
0
"--I
0
a
U
4i
co
Q)
a)
.rl
a
.C
a)
*4
a)
o
U
C
a
0
0
0
cO
C
o
,-I
0
*
0co
0
co
4C
4-i
0
a
ra
0
0
O
3
0a
0
44
a)
4-4
4-I
0
C)
o
4a)
o
0
0
0
0
0
Z
r-4 a) z
t44
0
-r-4 C
a
el
o U-4-J
3 cUk z
C
.C 0
03 a
O-4 C
U
)U
C;
a
u
00
n f \D
0000C
u r
\D 00 O
0 N0)
v--
')
C)
cPJ- M
o
-
C
r-
t 00 r r 43
U@~
~ cs
X
~
Y C C4 %
C '4 cs
o
1
0 '- ,, r~C4
' r
-n
uf 00
o 0
H
-,
r-4
0
01
r~3
-,
0
cU
0
C;
0
'-4
4-1
m
g
C;
'0-
IN
0\
O
.
I
a0
0
0
4-i
a,
C)
U)
4-4
-I
-(
Ln
4
U
4--
Q) (1
p'
C)
a)
U)
.- 0o
pi0rr
a) --4
p
C)0
O U
a)
U)
co
"0
0C
-o
0
U)
C)
U)
00
r--.
00
c4
cN
i0
C4V
PNI
v
4 .-
a
a0
U)
--4
4-1
INO
1-1
O
Cr)
I'
Nt
00
00
v
CCC4
o
H
*a
hO k
P )O
o u
O
e,
a) 0 -r
ri
-
wa-4OD
=
m m 0
-*H ( a k
=C *,i *n) 60 i
a)
C 3 -l
(
a )4 -
-
00
r00-o-i0)
r LrN r4C14
cy ) 4CY
O i)
r-4
c) C 00 - r1 CY)
0 %r 04-I 0
-
0.
* .
o (%O 000 (-It C
000 vC 10
%
**
C~r4
o'
4
tU
C)CUN
J a
co -r
0) p
k
;>0W
a) 3a)
ri
*Hl rl
k Q0 QS ' 4 -40
p
co
0
* *
0
O
O
C)
a)
a0
a)
0
O
O
Z
O o Oo O P
X *rn
-98-
b C
*,1 U) S
C
Co B
-i
CJ
4-i
0c
Erj r--
::
O-4 Co
)4.3
O C
X
)b0a
-
0 uB
i4-)
.,
Z :>
U) v-
O U)
CU
a'
o
r-
O
0
un
r-4
CL
C
U
P44
O
O
rJ-4
a
E
-g.-I
v-
0
0co
co
U)
U)
Co
k4
U)
U)
C
-rj
U)
0
'
c
!
~oj~~ ~
CN
rC\
o
-t
4i
4
4Co
z-
z
4.3
rJ::
,-4 0
,- -4
n
0)
U.)
C)
0'
a) 0 4
.H
_4HX0o
3
0
*,
r-
U)
o
O
O
0
0
0
Co
U)
0
r
o
3
3
U
oo
CZ
Or
CT
O
O
.
4N
VV
LO
ur
r
N
O
Cr )
aO
C)
(
V
C
CN
0
o,
.
N
r-.
)
CY
C
a'
t
--
L)
) , -4
Ln) 00
C-i
ro
CY)
r
'.0,
r
'.0 ,
qcC%
V.-
-.t
-
N.
Nt
a'
C')
Cm
o
c
L'
C4
N
C
CV'4
c
-.t
'D
N
OU)
' 0r
-4
0oo
4t
N
4-
4-4
r
,--
O
-
.0
O
00
Nt
I,-I
,-~
==
>
~>
0
0
0
4
U
4J
P
CY)
oo
P P 0H
r
3i) C
5-Iw-
U)
Vt
-.t
0 0O 40kO qQ
Co
co
4i
P
C)4J
0-H
0
Co
0
Q
I
a'
,-(
0
O
O
q)
~
o)
o
C
*H bo
O
p!4
COo
0a SHi
) 4-j
UO0
0
U) 0 U N CO
~
~ '-r.. 4-J 3. *-I
C
r
H-4
3
-4
*4
0
Q
z1,
Co
14 14 O f
t-4 0
F~~ H *S
v
- CoC
H
I'-
)
.O
O
o
4J
4
O
C-.
a)
P
'-I
3
()
--4
Q)
o
U)
'
UU
0
'~
4U)
a
.H
0
co
,-4
3
Co
0
U)
Co
o
C13
O
O
O
U)
r-
C
O4
co
4
O
4-)
-99-
q)
0
*r
00
O
O
U) Q)
>
4-i
r-cn
U) -4
r-4 C Z
>C
.cO~
u
z
*H 4i c
O
4
a)
CU
a0)
0
z
. oCZ
Ov~0 4-a
0
o0
10
C O
-0I
o)
O
4
O
4 C
00
-
tn
' 4
C
.
4
0
CY)
cq
CO
e'3
J.04
cN0
4
Nt
C4
r-
C)
00 00
-4
C"
r-.
4
LO
C
CO
CN
00
C
(Nr
04
rCO @.
_
0D
oo
-t
C4
v
CO)
4Ji
)
as
U)
0
.r4
0U)
4
0
co
0
' O\
0
.3
.O
4
r-4
c~
Q
rO
O4
O
<
r
O
(M
O
U
O
r
o
5-4
40
0.
U)
H
#%
P a
r4
r:
0%
1-
0,
aa)
t
O
~'~
00
CO 4
4CO
'0
*f
0~
O
O
LO
,
04
C4
0
U)
00
40
O r
bo O
0
co
oQ)
0
"t~-,-)
*,t
'0 0wa
p~0CZ
4-44-i
-%
1-4 -4 4
-%
4 0
CO
r00
r
O0
0 0CeY-c) 00
10
4
CY)
04
4
00' .
C) C
00 C
-t
r-4
CU4
CY
ON
Lr)
4
*
O.
. CY)
-4 - 4 -Cq u
O
N
"CN
000
e
00
r-44
'0
4
O'i
,-4
r- Lf
'.0
04
LO O
4
CO
r-4
~-
0Q
N* .Oe~C1
C"J
r-I
0
0
4E-4
O
0o
C
U
p.,
r- *
C
*
C"4
00
_ oc
Ca-i
P,
0) O
0
.-
>4
-100-
Cn
Co
0n
4
N
O4
'-4
r-
4
(N
C4
-4
u'
v~
00
C4
CO
0
co
cn
4.2
a)
3
U)
a
U)
po
0
L:j
O
a)
0
0
U)
C
r4
UO
,
o
.4U)C(
UH4-
0 O
OO
OQ)4
QO
4-i
oP0
40) 4Ooa
0 0n-I
-K
0)
C'
0
u
cu
·J a
*H
', u0co
EnZ
QD
cU
3
CO
4-i
c k
3
-'-'
O UZ
vl
4-J
>- CZ
cU
r4
44J
0
0)
) zO
'H
)
0)
U)k4
0)
obo
0
Ucp
an a)
O 4.3
,--)
$4
00 C
*0
\%o CY)
u~ v
r- 00
00 r
o
0
C..
c4 c4
O~
A%
0
C)
,I
0
0
C0
C4
-
-
O
O
C¥
O
0
V
CY
(N
e
c,
Co
r-A
C"J
r,-4
V
i-
r-
-4
CV
r
0
0
CN
~
0
4
1-4
(N
N
CY)
-
N
l4
00
*_
r-4
-4
0
-4
-
0
L
c0
C
,-%
oO
or,
'
00
-
C
r-4
O
c)
)
uL)
c(
n
O
CY)
(
C4
C"
C4
"0
C4
0'
(N)
Lr)
r'-
r-
-
(r
Lf)
a
O
(N
-
0C
00
00
r,-4
00
C4
(N
-I
CV
o
r-
N
rV
0-Q
N
Vl
CY
o
0
(4
O
V
) 0
a
b0
r
n0
4-e
o
0 U)
rl
H rlQ)
0 4. C
U
Q$
00'U
.O
0'r
0)
O a
-
0i
4
3
0L
O
OH fi
E
> -
4
U
X
4
"0
"
r-~
0
0)
oq 0
$4)-4)
>u =u*
r
P4
3
0)0
Q
d
00
4a) 0 0 00
O , C0 ~
~ oW
0
Q0
0
V
34
r
00u
Oa
0
,1.4 r
U
0P
$U
44
O
0
0)4J
0 c0
U)
4 -I
U-)
c)O
(Ik
x Ev'H
'-
c'
0
4J
0
4-J
4.1
O
O
0
0
rl4
0
UO
0
0o00
*-
O
C1
C
00
-, C
CN'
CN
O- C
-4
4i
Oq0
* rCr-4
!
U)
CN 00
O
N
0C O4
CN u'
.-%
,
CN
O
%O0
C
00 CY)C)
r-N.rl
un
-4C
C1N
o
oin
cb
r- C)
0
0
0
C)O
Lr)
r-l
*H
4,3
0
I
4-i
4
*H
4)
0
U
as
*H
z
0U
O
kr O
o
0)
::OC
5 r0C4
C Ca
N 00
aO 4.)4t
:
4-i
0 00)
> 4.
:j
CO
Uk 4
*H cnD
c)
4$4
#--
0a PI·044-i
croO oo>>
1-.
4-i 0 0 C
44
-101-
C)
0
0
0)
0
U
U
44
0
0C
C
4cn -)
0
I4-4
a
c0 0
4
0v0
$L
0)0
· 4
0
C
C)
r4
1010
0)
b8
q)
40c
0a 'l>
4JC0
-
"
'
Z
Z
O
U)
4i z
.40
40
co
)0
C
C
u
a, Cto
o
C
a)
0)
o
40
CJ 5
0
-
-o
Or
o
o 0 cO
CY)
1
00·
f%
n
.o
4
C'- )
.4
-, u
0C'
CY)
rb4
0r-4
mT
00
CN
CN
-
rC~0
C14
e-
4
~~~~~
¢'
V-4
00
CI?
0
r-
4
O)
r-
C4
N
C%4
o
a)
4-
:j r4
a
0
~o
Co
OE O
Ok
11-
o
00
00
%-
o
0
r-
0a
04
4
)
)0)
0)
o
o
k
co
Co a
o
O
D
0
.e
o
0)
t> 00f
~
C)
0)
r
a
=r
oH
4a
. o0 0
r- ii
0) 'H
c
C)
0 0 O0
44
= o
Fz
-102-
a)
a0
IC
0)
40
3
U)
c-4
UF)
0i)
o
.
0cu
o
0)
4-
*-l
Q)
cn
Co
C)
o
4-4
C)O
aC
a) ,w
0) 0
p4-4Pa
(ao
400) 0
a p
4-4
16)
Age*
Range
-
-
|
-
-
Code
-
actual
22-25
29
2.5
26-30
185
16.0
age
31-35
239
20.7
was
36-40
209
18.1
code
41-45
146
12.6
used
46-50
165
14.3
51-55
119
10.3
56-50
42
3.6
61 and older
16
1.3
5
0.4
missing
16a)
Percent
Number
Sex
Number
Range
I
male
female
missing
Percent
Code
I
1129
97.7
1
19
1.6
2
7
0.6
0
*Respondents answered with exact age to the year. These data
have been condensed into 5 year intervals for simplicity.
-103-
17)
Highest Academic Achievement
Range
Number
32
2.8
1
1-3 years college
445
38.5
2
bachelor's degree
122
10.6
3
masters degree
311
26.9
4
professional engineer
226
19.6
5
14
1.2
6
5
0.4
O
High School degree
doctorate's degree
missing
18)
Percent Code
Marital Status
Range
Number
Percent
Code
85
7.4
1
1025
88.7
2
39
3.4
3
Widowed
1
0.1
4
Missing
5
0.4
O
Single
Married
Divorced
-104-
19)
Number of children
Number
Range
20)
0
189
16.4
1
140
12.1
2
379
32.8
3
234
20.3
4
129
11.2
5
48
4.2
6
16
1.4
7
12
1.0
8
2
0.2
9 or more
6
0.5
Code
Spouse working with financial renumeration
Number
Range
l
Percent
l
g
-
Code
S
full time
212
18.4
1
part time
227
19.7
2
not at all
621
53.8
3
missing
21)
Percent
8
92
0
Check here if spouse earns a substantial contribution to
family income
Checked
N = 129, % = 18, Code = 2.
-105-
9
'-4
03
s4
0
0
c0
U)
c
>
v
(
0
rco
0
3
0
4-
O
¢ ec
O
4
k
cn
0
Z
0-4
z
0
0)
(0
I--
O
OP
0
0
4D
O
H
o,
i-I
0
as0)
s-
0,
4i
r-4 .r
r r-4
E-0
0ce
c0
U)
Cs-I
r-4M =1
;>
co
0O
0O
0O
O
O
O
O
CO
0
C3
O
1
41
Q)
00
c4-u
4 0
a0
bW O
3
or
BG C
O
O
00
n
Ln 00~10
CQ
C)
*'
CN
r4
0)
) 0)
o
0
0 U)
4J 4J
X)
0)
0
0
'ri
C4 C
n
0 o
03
xI
0
a
C
c' O
) r-
0
O
'
0
C
0 a0)
0
Q
Q)
.o
0
CN Ln
C( 00
-.
ON
00CN
O
C-- o
C~
0
41
0
UO0
co
0C)0
Ct5
03
>4
-t
-106-
CY)
c\ r-4
C)
00
O
qo u
o0
0)
·r'
0)
0)
0
O
- 1 4-
P
0 *rn
C
w
C
0
P
r-
H
0
X-
u
0O
n
00
'O
0
44
4,
0o
r4
0)
.- 4r
o
04 3
r-
0O
1-
C
c
a0 o
0O
C
0)0
3
C
0 0J
H
C
o. 4,. rO
>1
00o
a)
:-
0
0
r
4-i
z
6-4
H
P-4
P4
r-4
4J
)
o4r
0
30
a)
oC
0 CQ
co
cl ·tco;l
,
r5
ct
.r.
ct
P
0
uE-4
0
0
O
O
O
0
r
O
0
m
O
O
00
O
O
O
Io
O
L0
O
o
0
o
O
0
o
C1
O
C
N
o
C)
.l
Cr
*H
4-b
U
0O
o
0
C
4 -o
r-4
Lf)
o
:3
CV4
uc
N
HO
a)
.4N
O
IQ)
c0
0
C 4c
No~
C\I
I
O
a,
Cr *o
*Y)-
c14
00
00
CooC4
s
o
a)
0
0
o
o
o
a)
O
4.
a)
P
1-4
o-4
0
0
u
u
r-
-4
0
P
0
0
0m
U)
'4-
*
a0a)
a C
r).i-4
Q) 0)
0
a)U4)P
Q
:>-r44v
c-q
r. Q)
C)
rl
lll
Lr C
eJc14
P-
)
P
-C4:j
Cn
C
O
C7)
m
rl
C
O
O
O
C4
no*Ur.-(
au
¢
C
:D
P4
-17
0E
CNJ
I
m
011'1
ec,\J
0
o4
0
r4
0
0
u
-
-107-
0o
a)
U)
C.
a)
o
U)
a)
r4
) X
wo
r4
-
o
*
OwC
a
oO
o
·~C-I
H v-I
r4
. q
P
oH r0
a)
?
C ro
COQ
r4
Q)
a)
4J
C
0
z
Z4
P4
.-
C
,l. r-
0
3
rQ;
4-
Ct
r a
a)
I-
r-
0 c
*rt
a)
-o
4
r4
,-4
CO
.0
:>
4
4
O
0
00
-I
0
,4
0
C
C
0
en
00
O
r4
O
*0C0
U 00
t
O
O
L
* -4
c,, ,,.
ooN4
00
r
4
L)
I
CC
4t
O
r
I
C'
I
- 00
C0
-t 'O
0
rs
·04
0
O
r
a)Uc
C
up
Cli
Da)
cn
cf
U
o
w z
k4
r4
kCZ
cn Cn
0
0C
*r
C0
'
0
0 o
C
a)
C
1tNr)
a)
O
n Co
(n oo
M
0
I
C4
I
0.t
*,4
"-4
0
=
3 &J
Ca-,a
i 0
o1
o P4
1r
0
C
t O
Y)
t r-4
a)
C.)
.tJ
0
4-i
0 a)
Ca)
Z r-4
CI
00
0
Ci
-t
Cq
I
C
U)
a)
04a
s-I
*,l
U JH
a,-4
0C
sq
1-
-108-
9Q
3
74 rl
0 o4
3 0
E- X
0d)
,-4
co
>r:(na
0
.4
co
. rq
m
X 3.~
O
e
P4
co
.,
1--i
O
O
O
c
..
j
O
O
C)~~~~~~~v
O
O
Lr)
,-I
.
O
co
-r4
~~4coN
"
N
C0
4co
c
u
"A
ri
..,
t;
A
'~~~~b
0
4
a
j
o
Q
$4
O
0
rIn
C
I
.rr
O
· ,0
k
a
z
4
4-~~~~J
rl
4
0
..
0
H
bD
ua
P.
0 4r-I
-H
k-
S
-
Co
CS
C1
O
O
P
cD
0.H
r4 :
4 ,-
co 4C
FX4
¢
C3
c\
-J
O
U),rl
C
>..Pk
co
a)
P.,P
Q)
u
.1CY)
r
<o
rlOc~
0
r-j
.)
,-An
0
.ns
k
a
w
a
-W
;>0
~ ~
0oa
b
_
P k.4
0
nt
w
k
(n
.(
D H
Z 3
0
zw
I-;
w
u
M
zEq
Z
Z
-109-
02
-bO
0
o
0
O
4J
0
H
C0
O
W O,Cl
u
3-4
a
Q
0
o
4a0
^Ok
o
wZ
H
o
¢
o
-
4J
-4 .H
*H r-4
la
O 0o
4CZ
:
4EPI
(dC
CO
ca
o C
zC0
P
r4
O0
..
-o>q
0 (n
1.4r-
v-
O
0C;
H
E-)
H
0
0
o
C)
0
o
C
0
O
O
0
o
C
0
o
a
oo.r-4O
0,.
i
b0
*Y -
ms '
cl- C
a0
U
4i
a)
,4
0o
3a)
:3
00
a)
oH
0
4i
O cN
OC'e)
00
h.-
C)
-'0
O
0
0o
4-4
0 44
00
O
r-
H OH
I"
C0
'.
C
a)
Q) u .
rI
C >
o
:,
N *n
r
0
o
p00
o 4't
C)
o
CY)0o'T
r
u r-
U
a)
o
0
Lr)
CN
C)
0C
--I
O Lr)
C
0 00
o
o
CN
00o C
0
a
Qa)
:
Q)
D {
4-
0
b
o
a cO
O
(D
0
U)
3u
't
Hcfl
Cu
a)
r
:B
Mcq)
)LfC
i*
C
t'
N -
0o
3'
0
4-4
3
a)
O
U)
a)
-H
14Co
C
C
u u 0
ao)
*,'
0U US
*
o
o
I'D
ulr
o
I'DLf)
N H)
C14r
0U
4-I0)
Cu :H
) 4-J
P P
U0
co,
C0
0 O
-o
a)'H
-4U
aO
e~t
kP
!:I
0 10z
O
3·
1.4 Hl
u
-110-
0
0
o
Pi
osk
Ca
0
r-4
a)
a)
a1)
0o
.)l
O
4-)
(n
0)u
a)
4-J
OO
cu
a)
a) -or-
.1l
Q)
z a
Id
o4
UO
c 4
,.a)
k H
a) -)
k -4
O a)
'- P-4
n0
Q(
0Z
.a4
· ri
0
0
u
X
H
E-Il
PI
P4
P4
4.
,r-I --4
4
0 .
3 0
r-Q4)
.I
C
0C)
co zco
1)-
(M
Q
r-
z C
0r
.
ct
.r
0
u
4
0>
I :n:
0O
0O
0
0
o
0
0
CY)
0
0O
0
0
O
0
0
O
C
C4
o
0
,4
0
co
Q)
0)
(:L
C
r e
C0
or-
t
C
00
C)
C
U
0)
-4
0)
U
Lr)
4M~
U
rC a)
4-JIC
0O co
04
0
r C
NI
r
n
U
r
"Lr) 00 00
C) C4
r-
o 00
C
0
a,
0
U)
U)
o0
Cl)
0
W,
1-
0o
u
4
O
a)
CY)
3O
c
:
C
·r
0
C
co
0)
4
4. 4
0co0
0) H
0)
-4 k
4
-111-
'
a)
C:
41-3
0
.rl
0
H
uur
PW
ri .rI
3 0
o 4
P.
-r4
4IJ
c
C
OH
04
Oj P
r-
C
Ct
CT
w
V2
E4
0
X
(n
PL4
,
0
0
0O
Co
O
o
r)
U)
-
o
CO
O
o
00
e4
\
*Hl
0
C-)
.IJ
0
0
0 CT
oo
O
Th
in r-
c
4-3
0
0
O
i
D
Oo
O
C
0
*~
C4
O
CN
O
C
r-O
C)
o
00
,l
'4-4
43
0
0cO
0)
Q
kO
00
-r
w
Zo
0
3
3
O0
I 0
uO
0)
X
0 0
.f
kQ)cD
(riCO
;>
P
u
x
w
C-
E,
C4
P
0)
as
Hr
a)
00
00
00 Lr
O
c4JcN
~
a1
C
0)
CY
O
u
43
Q)
r4
0)
H
-112-
a
'0
"0
0
0
C
O
x
z
P
pI
4-i~
co
*
rl*P ·4Cu
rl
3 0
0O
0
0
0
OI
0
OI
o0
O
CVHI
II
C
O
O
N
O-
CV
O0
4i
C\I
-o.LC
o
C
C
co
o
C
r-
a)
a E5
C
a)O
UO
44
0
n0
N
0
'0
cc
I
Cu
-P
C 4
V
O
U
OC4
co
a
Ot
o4
0
X
0
a)
O'
0
X0
C
a)
-t4
Lc
U4n
0
CO
0
co
a)
Eq k
a)
C 0C:
z
4 "
4-i
0 -
L1
N0
a,
=d
.r0
D
C
C
0
da)
4CO
b~ g a)
0
-I
'0h
CN C
a)
kS
00~
P
0
ZkO
(
a
CC)
0O
a)
h
o
U4)
H
o
c1
P
0u 3
ct
O
r-4
0
Z 4-
r4
a)H
0
a)
D
a)
4-i
C
0 cu
P
V
,;aor-4*,
cu·r
.-
cu
C
P
0
E41
'-4
p-
113-
P4
z
.I
Ct
P9
30
r4
E- k
O
.
'r-
0
0
.h E-)
0
Eq
O
z
cn
0
w
Iz
u
W
C,
En
z
C
oV
C
,-
4iC
W
oDoa
0
I::
50
.7-
o
4!
5.4
k
o
*)
U) )
Z
C'
03
O
C
O r"
C
O~~
fZ
4
(
0\
~O
.
.Cr)~~~~~
.~~r
C
oO' a
c
O
rb~~~
Q~)
k0
3
C
Z
a)
k
o
E.-
P.-
U)
c
O
U)
N
-
0
4-i
Z
-114-
a)
O
C)
X
O
P
C
.r
4.
4
bO
.H
CaC
.H
k
~4-)
Q.
t5
0°
C4
0
o a
-4
4i-c
A
£
O
a
U)
~~~~
o
01
TO
U)
I 1
~
IJ
ru
D
o
,
r:I
-40O
X
H
W
P
Ctr
u)
Z
a
O0
P
o0
I U
0
0
0>
CZ
~J
aQ)
0
o
o
:4
VIl
OQL
II
a
Q)
vl
w
0V
CJ
O..Q
EH
E-4
4rrt
09
3 0
Pk
a)
O
oo
0
at)
JCZ
:>
r-
Eq
~Ct FP
4u
O^ 0t
Ul
¢
O
.~1
Q)
o
O
o
0
r
JJ
Q)
.. aa,
0
:)
CTJ
:>
.r4
P
I4
EH
O
O
O
C)
O
C
O
0)
O
CY
O
0O
O
0
It
r--
0
oo
C0e
00
CIN
O
O
o
r
L)
00
O
O
o
r-
;f
O
O
C;
r
CY
ON
Cl
O
O
C
\1
"
r-
o
00
C
CCC1
C
Cr
00 O
10 L
0
O 00
)
00
_
O
ON0
Cr)
CT
CY
-
o0o C
4 'IO
r)
0 I'D
C4
C
om C4
o
44
0
*,4
a,
(1)
O
0)
P
3
O
*:1
C:0
Q C
~>.H
o
10
*H r0OC-)P.
0)
O Q
U
0
o
4-J
a)
00
O
QJ
A
oo0
u~
C
.rl
-
oo
or .-
)-k
43
r
O
C1
CY C14
04
Q)
· rl Q)
-r4 Q)
·r [
.H C
4i
U
-H a)
0
P. 0
00
co
10
O
CY
Lr) o
P..ca
C14
C1 C1
o
U r-4
C0 %D
,
0
4J
CO
4 O~
o>
0
C:
U0
a)
P
30
O
3 c:
IH
0 i
OP
O E
Lf
-r0 :J0.w
44
-t
O4 0
1..
3U
CY)
0
0C4
0 0
1
C
CZ
4i
04H
0
a)
4P
Q)P0
3 P
O 0
440
0 P
0
r,
o4P
w 0
cq
0
% 00
>
C0
4j~
C'4 C)
CY) M
O
~C
10
Q)
x
Q)
ri
3 3z
O
C 4-4
r-
a4 0
a
O
P rl03o
,--
Z ~~~~~~.~
*
oJ ,- C.)
0
O
W
H
¢W
Eq
a
E- a
_E
-115-
a)
:j
0
0
p4
1Z
,-4-I
cd r-
0
3 0
P4
a
0)
1-4
4Ji
cu
O O
HC
O 0
C
0 O
0
a
r--
,0
.rI
co
En
o
O
00
Lr)
1
r-4
I
Q\
-- 4
P
co
aQ)
a)
,-4
4-i
a)
k
O
ii
.r4
4-
U
P4 a
O 00
E0
H-O
0
o=
C0
O
C1N
I
L)
oo
oo
C
ou'lC
a)
b0
<
0
0
O
Lf)
O
0
I
ul o
Lr) )
rC,4Ce
'0
.-a)I
a)
0)
ar-I
Ui)
EA
a)
U
o'0 x
0 w
E-4
C.
p4
En
00
p4
u
.4J
C)
U
-H
*H
0
4I
a)
U)
*H
s-i
03
a)
3
U)
0H04
F-4
r-4
Ln
O
C)
00
0
ru)
r.-
O
00oo
CN
I
00
0
.,-I
0
I4
0
N-
0
4-.'
aN
:E; r
C4
Z
0
U)
cscs~~~~~~~~~~C)~
*-
C4 Lr
CN
I
*H
LH
r*3
C4
0i%00
r- 00
00 r
k
0
9
4
a)
o-4
U)
0
3
I
r-
Ecn
0U
Sk
b
w
E-
zH
4-
U
CI
O
Z
uH
En
0
t[-
-116-
CZ
a
aa
Lr)
0
0
a
4C
x
0
o
a
4-i
a)
a)
4J
4-)I
0
4
0
4.r4
0
3
4.J
C Ctr-
0O ,U
Pv aZ
c*
r-
A
(n
CY) L
. O
I
0
Z Z
0
cNJ
X
.H
a)
:
r4
a,
0r
U)
o
a)
a)
ro
0
0
u3
c
3
:x
¢
P4
<
z
H
f:
U
41
0
Z
H
H
ul
0
.-I
O
o
0
0
P,4
o
4-I
0
4
0u
0
.-I
40
.I
0
a)
4
bO
a)
0
W
1;l
H
P4
4J
0
C)
z
PI
E-4
E
a)
o H
3 0
:
4-i
a
CU
E- k
{0
o
0Cf-4O
-o
CU
*1CU
M
1.
O
O
O
O
0
h
0 O
'r)
o
L~
n0
=a
C4
O HO
0
bfl 0
Q)
Wa-4-j
HO
30r
O O
Eq
P
0Pi 04 P.
H
'4
W
P
--:
o'
O
O
O
O
*ll)
C4
0 00
H
CY) C
E
4O
O
O
O
O
-.tI
00
I
,
.H
Q)
4-
OC
4-i
a)
)
4
O
a)
H
a,
O: ::H
O a)
0
O
4.)
Q)
H
:O
*rl-
O4
0O 0
'NO
:>.{
0
O
O
1;
O
O
Lt
C) CN
0
O
CN
1;
- O
00o
O 4e
Cr CN
0.
0
O
r-
c
~
0O
0
O
C
CY
)
m
H
c
C
n
0o
o
a)
0
0
CU0
4..O..
a'
r- r00 r--1
C
Q
C
a)
Q-I
G O
0
c
o)
3
o3
U)
05-I
g0
o
V
00
0
4o
o
c
o 0
CU
O
H
4. !2
0 4
a)
9W
bo 3
0
H 3
4
-4O
3P.,
p 441
0
I)
a)
b9
O
r
CO
a) 44
m
00
rU
EUn Wb
{
Q{
H -4-
cU
O0
>
L
0
0O
P
Q{ O
0
Cr
CZ
0
.1
o
a)
·rl
a)
x
a)
0
4rJ
o
C
(1
U)
(1)
a)
o
4J
C4
a)
0
4-4
H
w P
O
qz$4
3e
O
aQ)
k a)
P i4-i
0 H
CU
U 4.)
0O 0
oO
P0
va
'4 -0
,-.U
-117-
a0
r.-i
0
U
C;
H
z
PP4
-C
HOJrl
co
0)
"0)
_,
30
,
O
0
Q)
--4
0)
t
P
.1-4
s-
U
O
0
C;
O
0
C;
0t
0
rc
o
o
0C
co
CN
0
a) -4
0).H
0
C
0
o
0
0tl
O
0
I
C
0
O
O
0
0
O
O
0
I
I
CN
u
4-
*D -I
r4 rOne
3
:
L)
C1
I) r-
C
-tn '
r
enen7
*D
Co '4
00 C14
0
0
O
>
3
o
co
4-i
k00CZ
Pi
'D
0
In
z
)o
0)o
O
C4 C7
0)
(
a
.
a0
0 )
k P
-.
0
4-I
0)
4
k)
n
:-i
*S
4-i
0)
0
n C-4
CY CS4 eCjeJ
o
C
tl
o
Co
CN
O
-4
P
01
4-4
·r4
0bo
Q)
0)
a)
O
.1-4
,-- oO
. c
-400
I
O
4
N
'r4
0
00
H k
4
4-i
Q)
PI4
~_ --
HO 0
C
C4
)In
O
I
1-t--
r-4 r-4
00 rl
oo.e)
0
.r
0
0
0
C.)
0)
a
0
t
.1
.r1::l
0
C
U,
0
I
)Q
z
g
c
p-4
u:z
H
U
CNI
k
a0)
CNJ
1
cutI
U 0
4 i
00)
0) 4C
r4
CO
O 4-U
4-
-4
'I 0)4i
0)
C)
0))0)
*H
b
C
0)ca
P
P
0 >40
H
PZ4
0M
-118-
X
z
30
cp
.u
CIO
u
0
a)
OO,0
:4
0
uE-4
)
VD
0
H
w
I
Z
u
M
zX-4
CN
4
O
0O
0
O
0
Cl
O
a
0a
ua
U
r-4
Ct
~
IA
a)
QH
¢
a
a3
u
Li
a)
I
O
h
o0..100
i
O
oi-O
Cl
CI
CY)
0
0
00)
to
0
:
4
*HC
00oo.
Cl
o
Cor4
I
P5H
0
r-4
IH))4u
a
lQ
ca4:
'-0
J)H
C0 Q
k a,
P
O
U
00
)v-4
"IC
>
a)
4-)
P
0)04~0
1oo4
5
P-
·n oo
oo
5
Ci
0
4i-
0 44
Cl
C
z P
0.
k
a) 0)
l
) 0)
*
I0
Z 3
rc
z0
-119-