Retainment of Interim Professionals in organizations.

(1)

Esther Besseling

Student number 1576372

University of Groningen

Faculty of Management and Organization, Human Resource Management

De Stag 21

8251 DV Dronten

phone: 0031615343740

e.besseling@student.rug.nl

Graduation professor:

Mr. J. van Polen

Mr. O. Janssen

Report july 2007

By order of Yacht BV

Dhr. A.Koobs

Commercial director Logistics and Procurement

Zuiderzeelaan 17a

(2)

Retainment of Interim Professionals 2

ABSTRACT

Retainment of Interim Professionals in organizations

(3)

1. INTRODUCTION

Today, agility and flexibility in organizations are very important (Johnston, 1996; Galbraith, 1994; Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995). Therefore, organizations need employees who are flexible; they can employ contingent employees to suffice the growing flexibility. For this reason Interim Professionals (IP-ers) can be of growing importance to organizations. IP-ers are highly educated and are posted by an undertaking in other organizations to fulfill a short-term project. Johnston (1996) describes Ip-ers as employees who can quickly do the job within their own specialization. Maynard (1993) states IP-ers are important because organizations get experts on companies` needs on a short-time basis, from agencies that specialize in placing executive and professional temporaries. IP-ers are seconded employees who can be applied to different companies to fulfill the different urgent jobs to be done.

Organizations, which place IP-ers on jobs in other organizations, are mentioned secondment organizations. These organizations are the employers of the IP-ers. They develop and train IP-ers to do their outmost best on their temporary projects. These organizations may suffer problems due to the increase of job-hopping (Mitchell, Holtom & Lee, 2001), because IP-ers see many different companies and their possibilities, to which they may be attracted. For organizations in general retaining the right people in the organization is an important topic in this growing economy (Wysochi, 1997). It is a key subject for many organizations in terms of the continuity of the organization (Reichheld, 1993; Mattox & Jinkerson, 2005). Therefore, the question raises how to retain IP-ers, because IP-ers leaving the secondment organization, has many disadvantages and even more when they leave within a few years.

When IP-ers leave the secondment organization, their knowledge, expertise and relationships with customers, are lost (Wysochi, 1997; Mitchell et al., 2001; Mattox & Jinkerson, 2005). Another disadvantage is the costs of IP-ers leaving the firm, the longer employees stay in the secondment organization, the more they will learn and the more valuable they are. (Reichheld, 1993; Steel, Griffeth & Hom, 2003). Not only the investments are lost, but also the costs of hiring a new person have to be taken into account.

(4)

Shore, Newton & Thornton, 1990; Hom and Griffeth, 1995; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Furthermore Mitchell et al, 2001; Steel, Griffeth & Hom 2003 state that if employees are satisfied with their jobs and committed to their organizations they will stay. Therefore job satisfaction and organizational commitment are the two factors that are studied to research retainment of IP-ers. Furthermore, the recruitment policies in the secondment organization are mentioned in literature as important variables to satisfy employees in an organization. (Porter, Crampon & Smith, 1976; Mobley, 1977). The factors which are applicable to research organizational commitment consist of the Affective commitment, Continuance commitment and the Normative commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997). The variables and factors are explained in the following chapter.

2. THEORY

Retainment and job satisfaction

According to many research studies (Herzberg, 1966; Vroom, 1962; Hulin, 1966, Porter & Steers, 1973; Mitchell et al, 2001), there is evidence that there is a strong relationship between job satisfaction and retainment. This fact should make job satisfaction a good tool for organizations to take preventative action to retain employees. Job satisfaction is defined by Weiss (2002) as a positive or negative judgement one makes about the current job or situation. Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) describe job satisfaction as the degree to which employees have positive feelings about their jobs. In case of dissatisfaction, it can influence the intention to quit the job, but a positive judgement of the job can keep an employee within the organization. According to Herzberg`s two factor theory (1957), there are satisfiers and dissatisfiers within a job. Satisfiers are related to the job itself and consist of job preferences, development, growth, responsibility and recognition. Dissatisfiers are related to the job environment and consist of salary and rewards, prestige, safety, supervision and working conditions (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959). These factors are important to satisfy IP-ers in their job and to keep them in the organization. Wernimont (1966); Bailey (1998); Riley (2000) and Vanders (2000) used the satisfiers as intrinsic factors and the dissatisfiers as extrinsic factors. Next to these intrinsic and extrinsic factors, Porter, Crampon and Smith, (1976) state that the recruitment and selection of employees correlate with job satisfaction (Maertz & Campion, 2004; Martel, 2002).

(5)

1976). Schein (1978) stated that wishes, ambitions and needs change during time and that career possibilities will only be clarifying for employees after a few years of work. Lawler (2005) states that during work, employees develop perceptions and expectations about their job. The attitude they form can have a significant impact on feeling job satisfaction and retaining in the organization. It is important to know what your employees expect in their job and what kind of ambitions they have to keep them satisfied and keep them working in the organization (Kaye & Jordan-Evans, 1999). Therefore, starting with the right selection and recruitment is necessary to be informed about the employee’s expectations for a job. In addition, Dibble (1999) is convinced that job satisfaction and retainment of people starts with the selection and recruitment. Kaye & Jordan-Evans (1999) state that if the organization hires the right people, the chance they stay will increase significantly. When there is a fit between the organization and the employee, this will make the employee stay longer in the organization. According to Martel (2002) good contracting will increase the value of the organization, whereas bad contracting will lead to a decrease of value. This study therefore emphasizes that IP-ers will be satisfied with the job in the secondment organization when organizations know their preferences in the job from the start and help employees to achieve their preferences. It is hypothesized that IP-ers` needs have to be considered from the start to keep them satisfied and keep the IP-ers in the secondment organization

(6)

each other what their skills and abilities are. The atmosphere in the organization where people feel appreciated and welcome is important to make them feel satisfied.

(7)

work demands. Besides that, Johansson (1989) listed other differences in work conditions, such as the possibility of social interactions and the unpredictability of events. When these working conditions are satisfied to the employees, employees will feel satisfied in the job.

Employees who are satisfied with their jobs are more appreciated, make a better impression and will retain longer in the organization. It is hypothesized that job satisfaction is positive related to retainment. Next to job satisfaction another factor is important to retain IP-ers. The next theory is about organizational commitment.

Retainment and organizational commitment

Next to job satisfaction, being committed to the organization can be an explanation why Ip-ers stay in a secondment organization (Tett & Meyer, 1993; Bruel & Colsen, 1998; van Dam & Thierry, 2001; Steensma, 2002). Commitment is defined as an Affective commitment with the goals and values of the organization and the relation to these goals and values (Wiener, 1982). Organizational commitment is the relationship between an individual and the organization (Herrbach, Mignonac & Gatigon, 2004). According to Martel (2002) “commitment” is one of the most important retention factors. Mitchell et al. (2001) state that commitment makes sure that employees are compatible with job, community and organization and will retain in the organization for a longer time, which relates to the statement that commited people stay longer in the organization than people who only are fascinated by the organization (Bruel and Colsen, 1998). The fascinated workers are attracted to the firm because they see their work as a commercial contract. The commited people feel attracted to the organization because of the identity and the mission of the organization. The employee will contribute as long as the organization puts energy in him and explains the organizations` vision, mission and identity to connect to the employee.

(8)

effort to fulfill the tasks and duties. Strong relationships have been found between these components and employee retention (Meyer, Allen & Smith, 1993).

Affective commitment is based on the individuals’ identification with the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991, Meyer & Allen, 1997), and the extent to which employees feel that a part of his identity belongs to the organization (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Employees stay in the organization because they want to. They feel a part of the organization and by building relationships they feel more committed to the organization. Good treatment of employees is important for Affective commitment (Sinclair, Tucker, & Cullen, 2005), such as trust, safety and fair compensation, but also job preferences have to be clear (Van Hoof, et al., 2002). Employees who have strong relationships in the organization feel more engaged and stay longer in the organization. Mitchell et al. (2001) believe that a relationship between an employee and colleagues, groups and organizations are important to feel committed to the organization. Relationships with colleagues are a type of relationship in an organization, but also the listening skills of the manager through which an employee feels appreciated is called a relationship (Silverman, 2006). These theories conclude that Affective commitment is important to retain IP-ers in the secondment organization.

Second, the Continuance commitment means that employees stay because they need to. It refers to perceptions that the cost of leaving the organization exceeds the cost of staying in the organization (Sinclair, et al., 2005). This means that the employees` alternatives are less attractive than the current job. They will stay in the organization because they have the feeling they would give up too much by leaving the job (Mitchell et al, 2001). According to Meyer, Stanley and Herscovitch (2002); Organ and Ryan (1995), the Continuance commitment is not the most important commitment to retain employees. They state that employees will leave when alternatives are better. The effort an organization puts in to keep them, are higher than the advantages the organization receives from the IP-ers. This research will still take the Continuance commitment into account in order to measure all commitment factors.

(9)

Martel (2002) also states that the organization can make employees feel committed by investing in them through training, compensation and benefits. This leads to loyalty and commitment, which in turn will lead to retention. According to this theory it is hypothesized that Normative commitment will increase retainment of Interim professionals in the secondment organization.

(10)

3. RESEARCH METHODS

3.1 Procedure

This research collected data from nine business units in one secondment organization. This studied organization places IP-ers on different assignments in various organizations. These IP-ers are appointed at the secondment organization, but are working on assignments at other organizations. This research used two methods to gather information. The first method is a questionnaire, sent to the IP-ers. This questionnaire contained general demographic questions first, then specific questions about job satisfaction, organizational commitment and retainment. Finally, the IP-ers were given some space to provide additional information about the organization. The IP-ers received an electronic questionnaire; which increases the validity of this research because all data were gathered equally and anonymously. It generates a higher response. The data are imported in SPSS, a statistical program. The second method to gather information was by means of interviews. Questions were asked to seven recruiters from different business units. Most of the time open questions were asked, to have the possibility to interrogate. The questionnaire is presented in appendix 1 (electronic questionnaire IP-ers) and the interview list in appendix 2 (interview list recruiters).

3.2Respondents

(11)

3.2 Measures

Job satisfaction

The intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction are measured by the 20 items from the short Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) to intrinsic and extrinsic subscales from Hirschfeld (2000). Hirschfeld based this short questionnaire on the original MSQ from Weiss (1967). The short MSQ form measures intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job satisfaction, using propositions such as: ‘The chances for advancement on this job` (intrinsic), ‘The chance

to do something that makes use of my abilities’ (intrinsic), ‘The way my supervisor handles his/her workers’ (extrinsic), and ‘My pay and the amount of work I do’ (extrinsic). Hirschfeld

(2000) states that a two-factor model (intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction) is superior to a one-factor model (total job satisfaction). In this research the intrinsic and extrinsic factors are linked to the satisfiers of Herzberg (1986). In that way it clarifies which factors are relevant to retain IP-ers. In the appendix 3 (MSQ short form combined with Herzbergs theory) this combination is shown. Some items of Hirschfeld are revised to the original Questionnaire from Weiss (1967). Items 9, 17 and 18 are revised. Item 9 measures ‘recognition’ in an organization, which is an intrinsic factor. Item 17 measures ‘salary’ and item 18 ‘prestige’, which are extrinsic factors according to Herzberg. The revised version of the combined theories can be found in appendix 4 (MSQ short form in this research). It is suggested that the validity of the short form may be inferred from the validity of the long form (Weiss et al., 1967). One factor is added to the theory of job satisfaction; selection and recruitment, which is important to employ satisfied employees. A Likert-type scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) is used for each of these items (Likert, 1932). The cronbach`s alpha for job satisfaction in general is ,853. This supports the internal consistency of the scale (Hirschfeld, 2000; Lam, Baum &Pine, 1998). The factor analysis shows that all items depend on 2 factors, as shown in appendix 5 (The factor analysis)

Recruitment and selection is measured with interview questions such as; in what way

do you make sure a job-applicant will fit the profile? With a semi-structured interview the

(12)

Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment is measured through 24 items, divided into 3 parts, each containing 8 items. To assess overall organizational commitment, average ratings were used on all items of Meyer and Allen's (1997) three-dimensional measurement. For the three dimensions, Meyer and Allen's subscales were applied. The following items were adapted from items used in previous research: Affective commitment items 1 and 3 from Buchanan (1974) and Continuance commitment items 1 and 2 from Quinn and Staines (1979). Examples of the items are: I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization and I think that people these days move from company to company too often. It is measured with a five-point scale, varying from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (5). Some items were reverse coded, to measure the items at the same level. The cronbach`s α for organizational

commitment is ,941; for the Affective commitment ,855; the Continuance commitment ,827; and the Normative commitment ,846. All three scales depend separately on 1 factor, the factors 3,4 and 5.

Retainment

Two items demonstrate the intention to leave (Boroff & Lewin, 1997): I am seriously

considering quitting this firm for an alternative employer and during the next year, I will probably look for a new job outside this firm. These items are used to measure the probability

that they will leave the organization. The items are reverse coded in the SPSS files, than it measures the probability they retain in the organization. The answers are measured with a five-point-scale, from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The cronbach`s α for retainment

is ,756 and the factor analysis depends on 1 factor.

(13)

3.4 Data analysis

To research if job satisfaction and organizational commitment have a significant effect on retainment, first the correlation is measured between job satisfaction and retainment and between organizational commitment and retainment. According to the factor analysis and the cronbach`s α the last item of the 20 items of job satisfaction will not be used (The way my

co-workers get along with each other). This item depends on another factor, which indicates that

(14)

4. RESULTS

4.1 Correlations and descriptive statistics

The means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations are presented in table 1 and table 2. The main hypothesis, that job satisfaction and organizational commitment separately each have a positive effect on retainment of IP-ers can be shown in table 1. The correlation between job satisfaction and retainment is .43. There is a positive correlation between job satisfaction and retainment and significant at the 0,01 level (r = .43, p < 0.01). The correlation between organizational commitment and retainment is .39 There is a positive correlation between organizational commitment and retainment and significant at the 0,01 level. (r = .39, p<0.01).

TABLE 1

Correlation analysis job satisfaction and retainment and commitment and retainment

There is a chance that these correlations are distorted by the other variable, therefore the partial correlations are measured. The partial correlation of job satisfaction and retainment corrected with the organizational commitment variable is .35. (r = .35, p <0.01).

(15)

The correlation between the five different variables of job satisfaction and organizational commitment separately with retainment can be shown in table 2. There is a positive correlation between the intrinsic factors of job satisfaction and retainment (r = .33, p < .01), and a stronger positive correlation between the extrinsic factors of job satisfaction and retainment (r = .45, p < .01). The first factor of organizational commitment, Affective commitment, has a positive correlation with retainment (r = .42, p < .01). The second factor Continuance commitment has also a positive correlation with retainment (r = .17, p < .05) and the correlation between Normative commitment and retainment is also positive

(16)

TABLE 2

Correlation between factors of job satisfaction and retainment and factors of commitment and retainment

(17)

4.2 Hypotheses

A linear regression analysis is executed to demonstrate whether retainment is dependent on job satisfaction and whether retainment is dependent on organizational commitment. The scatter plot, as shown in appendix 6 (scatter plot job satisfaction and retainment) and appendix 7 (scatter plot organizational commitment and retainment) shows a possible relation between the variables.

The first hypothesis that job satisfaction has a positive relation on retainment and that organizational commitment has a positive relation with retainment can be shown in table 3. After control of the covariates gender, age and tenure in step 1, adding the variables job satisfaction and organizational commitment in step 2, results in the increase of the percentage of variance with .21. The second step also shows the regression analysis for job satisfaction (B .31, SE .067, T 5.9, p .00) with a significant relation of .31. The regression analysis for organizational commitment (B .29, SE .067, T 5.6, p .00) shows that there is a significant relation of .29. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment explain 27 % of retainment (∆R2_{.21, F 14.38, P .00) and the variables are significant.}

TABLE 3

Results of regression analysis

Retainment Step Variable 1 2 1. Gender - .07 - .03 Age - .03 - .06 Tenure - .25*** - .13 2. Job satisfaction .31*** Organizational commitment .29*** R 2 .06** .27*** ∆R 2 .06** .21***

Standardized regression coefficients are used, n is 213. ** p < .01

(18)

The second hypothesis in this research is which factors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment are most important to retain IP-ers in de secondment organization. In table 4, 5 and 6 respectively the regression analysis of the two factors of job satisfaction and retainment (intrinsic and extrinsic factors), the three factors of organizational commitment (Affective, Continuance and Normative commitment) and retainment and finally the significant variables from these two regression analyses are shown.

In table 4 it is shown that after the control variables in step 1, adding the intrinsic and extrinsic factors this increases the explanation of retainment with .17 in step 2 (∆R2_{.17, F}

12.06, P .00). The regression coefficient of the intrinsic factors is .10 (B .10, SE .08, T 4.6, n.s) and the extrinsic factors have a regression coefficient of .36 (B .36, SE .08, T 6.9, p<.001)

TABLE 4

Results of regression analysis; job satisfaction factors Retainment Step Variable 1 2 1. Gender - .06 - .03 Age - .02 - .001 Tenure - .24*** - .14 2. Intrinsic job satisfaction .10 Extrinsic job satisfaction .36*** R 2 .06** .23*** ∆R 2 .06** .17***

(19)

In table 5 is shown that adding the three factors of organizational commitment in step 2 this explains retainment with a surplus of .16. (∆R2_{.16, F 9.03, P .00) The regression coefficients}

of the three factors are for Affective commitment .36 (B .36, SE .07, T 6.0, p .00), for

Continuance commitment .10 (B .10, SE .07, T 3.36, n.s) and for Normative commitment .11 (B .11, SE .14, T 1.8, n.s)

TABLE 5

Results of regression analysis; organizational commitment factors Retainment Step Variable 1 2 1. Gender - .07 - .03 Age - .03 - .01 Tenure - .25 - .15*** 2. Affective commitment .36*** Continuance commitment .10 Normative commitment .11 R 2 .06** .22*** ∆R 2 .06** .16***

(20)

Table 6 shows only the significant variables from the early two regression analyses. From this final regression analyses it is clear that the regression coefficients of extrinsic factors and the Affective commitment explains the relations with retainment with respectively .32 (B .32, SE .07, T 6.5, p< .001) and .26 (B .26, SE .07, T 6.0, p<.001). The explanation of retainment increases with .16 when adding these variables in step 2. (∆R2

.16, F 15.05, p< .001)

TABLE 6

Results of regression analysis; significant variables Retainment Step Variable 1 2 1 Gender - .07 - .02 Age - .03 - .05 Tenure - .25*** - .12 2 Extrinsic job satisfaction .32*** Affective commitment .26*** R 2 .06** .28*** ∆R 2 .06** .16***

(21)

(22)

5. DISCUSSION

This research focused on the issue how to retain Interim-Professionals. In accordance with relevant theory in this field, this research emphasized on the variables job satisfaction and organizational commitment and their relation with retainment. These variables consist of various factors that identify how to retain IP-ers.

It was hypothesized that job satisfaction and organizational commitment would have separately a positive correlation with retainment. The correlation results show that these hypotheses are correct; the regression analysis also proves this relationship. The correlation of job satisfaction is stronger than the correlation of organizational commitment. This could be explained by the idea that IP-ers are working in a secondment organization because they feel satisfied about the variation in assignments and not because they want to be committed to an organization.

Second, one of the main questions asked in this research was: ”which factors of job satisfaction are most important to retain the Ip-ers?” Much literature is written about the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic factors and retainment. It is said that when employees choose a job for extrinsic rather than intrinsic reasons, for example, salary rather than opportunities for learning and growth, job satisfaction is possibly lower than when a job is chosen for intrinsic benefits (Randolph, 2005; Locke, 1978, Dunnette, Campbell, & Hakel, 1967). Thus, a job based primarily on extrinsic aspects of the job may be associated with lower satisfaction than one based on more intrinsic job features. However the results of this research do not provide proof for this statement. A correlation analysis and regression analysis demonstrates that the most important factors to retain IP-ers are the extrinsic factors, more than the intrinsic factors. But the differences in the correlation analysis is not that strong that, therefore apparently, IP-ers have many different opinions about the reason to stay within the secondment organization and do not have a strong preference for either intrinsic or extrinsic factors.

(23)

recruitment, it is not certain in what way selection and recruitment contribute the job satisfaction and therefore the retainment of IP-ers in this secondment organization

Fourth, the factors of organizational commitment were studied. It was hypothesized that the correlation between the Affective commitment and retainment and between the Normative commitment and retainment would be higher than the correlation between Continuance commitment and retainment. The research shows that there is a positive correlation between the Affective commitment and retainment, but the relation between Continuance commitment and retainment and Normative commitment and retainment are equal. In addition these correlations are not strong. An explanation for this may be that the IP-ers do not work in an organization to be loyal or that IP-ers have the feeling they ought to stay, but rather because they want to, they have chosen for a secondment organization with many different assignments.

Before going into the practical and theoretical implications of this research, first the strengths and weaknesses of this research will be raised. A strength of this research is that different business units, which consist of different people and professions, were investigated. In this way, the population is diverse and the research can be generalized, this means that the results are applicable to different people. A limitation of this research is the link that has been made between the theory of Herzberg and the intrinsic and extrinsic factors of job satisfaction. More items linked to a variable of Herzberg may result in a higher correlation. Another limitation is that this research is completed in one secondment organization. The research is completed in a way any secondment organization can use the results, but research in one organization could imply it is less reliable. Another limitation is the two items used to measure retainment. Although these items have been used in previous research, Steel and Griffith (1989) mention two limitations. They say that with only two items, “it is somewhat simplistic, and when analyses are conducted within a sample, the variance is limited”. These problems decrease the measure's relationship with retainment.

(24)

with the organization they are appointed to, the secondment organization. Furthermore the link that has been made between the intrinsic and extrinsic factors to the theory of Herzberg is innovative to identify factors of job satisfaction important to retain the IP-ers.

(25)

References

Argyris, C. 1954. Satisfactions in the white collar job. Industrial & labour relations review, 7, 492-493.

Baarda, D.B. & Goede, de, M.P.M., 2001. Basisboek methoden en technieken. p.241

Bailey, E.A. 1998. Herzberg`s job satisfaction-job dissatisfaction theory revisited: A national study of its application to chief housing officers in higher education. Humanities and Social

sciences, 58:4576.

Bruel, M., & Colsen, C. 1998. De Geluksfabriek, over het binden en boeien van mensen in

organisaties. Scriptum books, Schiedam.

Buchanan, B., 1974. Government managers, business excecutives and organizational commitment. Public administration review, 34, p.339-347.

Cummings T.G.,& Worley C.G., 2001. Essentials of Organization development and change. South-Western College Pub, p. 201

Dam van, K., & Thierry, H. 2000. Mobiliteit in perspectief en overzicht rond de mobiliteit van personeel. Gedrag in Organisaties, 13 : 29-49.

Dibble, S. 1999. Keeping your valuable employees: retention strategies for your

organization’s most important resources. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Dunette, M.D., Campbell, J.P., Hakel, M.D. 1967. factors contributing to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in six occupational groups. Organizational Behavior & Human

(26)

Ford, J.K., MacCallum, R.C., Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, issue 2, 291-314.

Galbraith, J.R. 1994. Competing with Flexible Organizations, Addison-Wesley.

Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W. & Gaertner, S. 2000. A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of management,26:3, 463-488.

Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B. & Van Vuuren, T. 1991. Job insecurity: Coping

with jobs at risk. London: Sage.

Herrbach, O., Mignonac, K., & Gatignon, A. 2004. Exploring the role of perceived external prestige in managers' turnover intentions. International journal of Human Resource

Management, 15, 1390-1407.

Herzberg, F.1966. Work and the nature of man. Oxford, England.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B.B. 1959. Motivation versus Hygiene. Motivation to work, 113-119.

Herzberg, F. 2003. One more time: How do you motivate employees. Harvard business

review, 81:86.

Hom, P. W. & Griffeth, R. W. 1995. Employee Turnover. South/Western, Cincinnati.

Hoof, J. van, E Bruin, M. Schoemaker en A. Vroom. 2002. Werk(en) moet wel leuk

zijn; Arbeidswensen van Nederlanders. Den Haag: Koninklijke van Gorcum

(27)

Hulin, C.L. 1966. Job satisfaction and turnover in a female clerical population. Journal of applied psychology, 50: 280-285.

Johansson, G. 1989. Job demands and stress reactions in repetitive and uneventful monotony at work. International Journal of Health Services, 19, 365-377.

Johnston, T.K. 1996. Find and keep interim professionals. HR Magazine, 41: 112.

Kaye, B., & Jordan-Evans, S. 1999.Love`em or Lose `em: Getting good people to stay. San Fransisco.

Kaye, B., & Jordan-Evans, S. 2005. Retaining talent. Leadership excellence, 22:8, 12.

Lawler, E.E. 2005. Creating high performance organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human

Resources, 43:10.

Locke, E.A. 1978. job satisfaction reconsidered. American psychologist, 33, p854-855. Maertz, C.P., & Campion, M.A. 2004. Profiles in quitting: integrating process and content turnover theory Academy of Management Journal, 47, 566-582

Martel, L. 2002. High performers: How the best companies find and keep them. San Fransisco, Josey Bass.

Mattox J.R., & Jinkerson, D.L. 2005. Using survival analysis to demonstrate the effects of training on employee retention. Evaluation & program planning, 28 : 423-430.

Mauno, S. & Kinnunen, U. 1999. ‘Job insecurity and wellbeing: A longitudinal study among male and female employees in Finland’, Community, Work & Family, 2:147-171.

Maynard, R. 1993. Firms can benefit from interim professionals. Nation`s Business, 81 : 10.

(28)

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1: 61-98.

Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. 1997. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and

Application. London: Sage,

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. 1993. Commitment to Organizations and Occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-Component Conceptualization, Joumal of

Applied Psychology, 78: 51-538.

Meyer, J.P., & Herscovitch, L. 2001. Commitment in the Workplace: Toward a General Model. Human Resource Management Review, 11: 299-326.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J & Herscovitch, L. 2002. Affective, Continuance and Normative commitment to the organization: A meta analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of vocational behaviour, 61:20-52.

Mobley, W.H. 1977. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of applied psychology, 62, 237-240.

Mohrman, S.A., Cohen, S.G. & Mohrman, A. M. 1995. Designing team-based organizations. San Francisco.

Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., & Lee, T.W. 2001. How to keep your best employees:developing an effective retention policy. Academy of management executives, 15 : 96-108.

Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W, Sablynski, C.J., and Erez, M. 2001. Why People Stay: Using Job Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary Tumover. Academy of Management

(29)

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. 1979. The measurement of Organizational Commitment. Journal of Vocational behaviour, 14 : 47-224.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.

Pocock, M.L., McDonald, J.B., & Pope, C.L. 2003. Estimating faculty salary distributions: an application of order statistics. Journal of income distribution, 11, 42-50.

Porter L.W., Crampon WJ, Smith FJ. (1976). Organizational commitment and managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

15,87-98.

Porter L.W., Steers RM. 1973. Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80,151-176.

Quinn, R.P., Staines, G.L.1979. American Workers evaluate the quality of their jobs. Labor

review, 102.

Randolph, D.S. 2005. Predicting the effect of extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction factors on recruitment and retention of rehabilitation professionals. Journal of Healthcare

management, 50, 49-60.

Reichheld, F.F. 1993. Loyalty-based management. Harvard Business review, 71 : 64-73.

Riley, S, D. 2002. the presence and importance of job satisfiers and job dissatisfiers among public school teachers in Georgia. Humanities and Social sciences, 62:2945.

Rothbard, A.T. 1998. How to keep employees. Journal of management in engineering, 14, 21.

Saleh, S.D., and Hyde, J. 1969. Intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation and job satisfaction.

(30)

Schein, E.H. 1978. Career dynamics: matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company

Schmidt, A.L. 2002. Retaining teams in an organization: the difference between teams and individual perceptions of retention factors and the intent to stay. Dissertation abstracts

international section, 63, 669.

Scholl, R. W (1981). Differentiating commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. Academy of Management Review, 6, 589-599.

Shore, L.F., Newton, L.A., & Thornton, G.C. 1990. Job and organizational attitudes in relation to employee behavioral intentions. Journal of organizational behavior, 11: 57-67.

Silverman, L.L. 2006. How do you keep the right people on the bus? Journal for quality and

participation, 29, 11-15.

Sinclair, R.R., Tucker, J.S. & Cullen, J.C. 2005. Performance differences among four organizational commitment profiles. Journal of applief psychology, 90:1280-1287.

Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. 1969. The measurement of satisfaction in a work and retirement. A strategy for the study of attitudes. Oxford, England. Rand Mcnally.

Steel, R.P., Griffeth, R.W. & Hom, P.W. 2003. Practical retention policy for the practical manager. Academy of management executive,16(2):149-160.

Steensma, H. 2002. Opsporing verzocht. Personeelsbeleid,3, 41-44.

Tausky, C. Meanings of work among blue-collar men. Pacific Sociological Review, 1969,12, 49-55.

Tett, R,P, & Meyer, J,P. 1993. Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Tumover Intention, and Tumover: Path Analyses Based on Meta-analytical Findings. Personnel

(31)

Timmerhuis, V.C.M. en H.J.J.M Vermeulen. 1993. Arbeidsmobiliteit van

wetenschappelijk personeel: een empirisch onderzoek naar feitelijke mobiliteit, redenen van non-mobiliteit en mobiliteitsbeleid. Tilburg: IVA Tilburg

Vanders, N.F. 2000. School superintendents: An investigation of motivation and job satisfaction. Humanities and social sciences, 60: 4276.

Vroom. V.H. 1962. involvement, job satisfaction and job performance. Personnel

psychology, 15:159-177.

Wanous, J.P., 1972. Matching individual and organization: the effects of job previews.

Academy of management proceedings, 166-169.

Weiss, H,M. 2002. Deconstructing Job Satisfaction: Separating Evaluations, Beliefs and Affective Experiences, Human Resource Management Review, 12: 94-173.

Wernimont, P.F. 1966. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors in job satisfaction. Journal of applied

psychology, 50: 41-50.

Wise, L.R. 1993. Whither solidarity. Transitions in Swedish Public sector pay policy. British

journal of industrial relations, 31:75-95.

Wiener, Y (1982). Commitment in organizations: A Normative view. Academy of

Management Review, 7, 418-428.

Witte de, H. 1999. ‘Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the literature and exploration unresolved issues’, European Journal Organizational Psychology, 8(2):155-177.

(32)

Appendix 1 Electronic questionnaire IP-ers

Questionnaire

In front of you, you find the questionnaire about job satisfaction and organizational commitment. This questionnaire will take about 10-15 minutes.

Thank you for filling in and returning it to me.

General questions

1. What is your gender?

Man woman

2. What is your age?

< 26 26-35 36-45 46-55 > 56

3. What is your highest education?

MBO HBO WO

4 Length of tenure

(33)

The first specific questions are questions about job satisfaction, which you can answer within five categories. Answer if you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the statement. Please remind that you need to answer as IP-er.

Job satisfaction

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied General Satisfied Very satisfied

Intrinsic

5.Being able to keep busy all the time

6.The chance to do different things from time to time 7.The chance to work alone on the job

8.Being able to do things that don’t go against my conscience 9.The chance to do things for other people

10.The chance to tell people what to do 11.The freedom to use my own judgment

12.The chance to try my own methods of doing the job. 13.The chances for advancement on this job

14.The chance to be “somebody” in the community.

15.The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities 16.The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job

Extrinsic

17.The way my boss handles his/her workers

18.The competence of my supervisor in making decisions 19.The way my job provides for steady employment 20.The way company policies are put into practice 21.My pay and the amount of work I do

22.The praise I get for doing a good job 23.The working conditions

(34)

The first specific questions are statements about job organizational commitment, which you can answer within five categories. Answer if you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the statement. Please remind that you need to answer as IP-er.

Organizational commitment

Totally disagree

Disagree General Agree Totally

agree

Affective commitment

25.I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization 26.I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it

27.I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own

28.I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one

29.I do not feel like 'part of the family' at my organization 30.I do not feel 'emotionally attached' to this organization

31.This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me 32.I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization

Continuance commitment

33.I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one lined up.

34.It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to

35.Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now

36.It wouldn't be too costly for me to leave my organization now

37.Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire

(35)

39. One of the few serious consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives

40. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice — another organization may not match the overall benefits I have here.

Normative commitment

41.I think that people these days move from company to company too often. 42.I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her organization 43.Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at all unethical to me 44.One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that I believe that loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain. 45.If l got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my organization

46.I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one organization

47.Things were better in the days when people stayed with one organization for most of their careers

48.I do not think that wanting to be a 'company man' or 'company woman' is sensible anymore.

Retainment

(36)

Appendix 2 Interview list

Research shows that Recruitment and Selection is an important issue to retain employees in the organization. Because I research retainment of Interim-Professionals, I wondered in which way this organization works with recruitment and selection.

1. For how long do you work in this function?

2. Are you the only person responsible for recruitment? 3. In what way do you prepare the job interview? 4. What do you think is important in the job interview?

5. Do you start the conversation with the idea that the job applicant will stay in the organization for a long time?

6. In what way do you make sure a job-applicant will fit the profile? 7. Do you ask about factors of job satisfaction important to the applicant? 8. Do you ask about factors of commitment important to the applicant?

9. Do you ask about the amount of years the applicant implies to stay in the organization?

10. Which steps do you take to concede to the expectations and wishes of the applicant?

11. Do you think IP-ers will retain longer, when the recruitment and selection is done in a differently?

(37)

Appendix 3: MSQ short form combined with Herzbergs theory.

MSQ Intrinsic and

extrinsic factors of Herzberg Intrinsic

1. Being able to keep busy all the time Job preferences

2.The chance to do different things from time to time Job preferences

3. The chance to work alone on the job Responsibility

4. Being able to do things that don’t go against my conscience Responsibility

5.The chance to do things for other people Responsibility

6. The chance to tell people what to do Responsibility

7. The freedom to use my own judgment Responsibility

8. The chance to try my own methods of doing the job. Responsibility

9.The chance to be “somebody” in the community. Recognition

10. The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities Recognition

11. The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job Recognition

12. The chances for advancement on this job Promotion/grow

Extrinsic

13. The way my boss handles his/her workers Supervision

14. The competence of my supervisor in making decisions Supervision

15.The way my job provides for steady employment Job security

16. The way company policies are put into practice Policies

17. My pay and the amount of work I do Salary

18. The praise I get for doing a good job Prestige

19. The working conditions Working

conditions

20. The way my co-workers get along with each other Working

(38)

Appendix 4 MSQ short form in this research

MSQ Short Form Item Original

(Weiss)

Revised (Hirschfeld)

This research

1. Being able to keep busy all the time Intrinsic Intrinsic Intrinsic

2.The chance to do different things from time to time Intrinsic Intrinsic Intrinsic

3. The chance to work alone on the job Intrinsic Intrinsic Intrinsic

4. Being able to do things that don’t go against my conscience

Intrinsic Intrinsic Intrinsic

5.The chance to do things for other people Intrinsic Intrinsic Intrinsic

6. The chance to tell people what to do Intrinsic Intrinsic Intrinsic

7. The freedom to use my own judgment Intrinsic Intrinsic Intrinsic

8. The chance to try my own methods of doing the job. Intrinsic Intrinsic Intrinsic 9.The chance to be “somebody” in the community. Intrinsic General Intrinsic 10. The chance to do something that makes use of my

abilities

Intrinsic Intrinsic Intrinsic

11. The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job Intrinsic Intrinsic Intrinsic

12. The chances for advancement on this job Extrinsic General Intrinsic

13. The way my boss handles his/her workers Extrinsic Extrinsic Extrinsic

14. The competence of my supervisor in making decisions

Extrinsic Extrinsic Extrinsic

15.The way my job provides for steady employment Intrinsic Extrinsic Extrinsic 16. The way company policies are put into practice Extrinsic Extrinsic Extrinsic

17. My pay and the amount of work I do Extrinsic General Extrinsic

18. The praise I get for doing a good job Extrinsic General Extrinsic

19. The working conditions General Extrinsic Extrinsic

(39)

Appendix 5 The Factor Analysis

Factor

Item 1 2 3 4 5

Job satisfaction intrinsic

Being able to keep busy all the time ,314 ,616 -,070 ,039 ,045

The chance to do different things

from time to time ,262 ,144 ,257 -,062 ,134

The chance to work alone on the job ,083 ,515 ,063 -,038 ,017

Being able to do things that don’t go

against my conscience ,077 ,440 ,105 -,085 -,155

The chance to do things for other

people ,100 ,416 ,115 -,009 ,034

The chance to tell people what to do ,092 ,606 ,090 ,032 -,011

The freedom to use my own

judgment ,091 ,721 ,105 -,061 -,184

The chance to try my own methods of

doing the job ,069 ,603 -,063 ,050 -,116

The chances for advancement on this

job ,642 ,332 -,017 ,203 ,064

The chance to be “somebody” in the

community. ,532 ,380 ,266 -,035 ,089

The chance to do something that

makes use of my abilities ,384 ,586 -,057 ,087 -,137

The feeling of accomplishment I get

(40)

Job satisfaction extrinsic

The way my boss handles his/her

workers ,550 -,010 ,202 ,191 -,147

The competence of my supervisor in

making decisions ,481 -,049 ,294 ,089 -,149

The way my job provides for steady

employment ,417 ,289 ,130 -,049 ,009

The way company policies are put

into practice ,548 ,083 ,006 ,059 -,026

My pay and the amount of work I do ,540 ,091 -,009 -,124 ,145

The praise I get for doing a good job ,714 ,182 -,013 -,027 ,038

The working conditions ,577 ,156 ,173 -,125 ,138

The way my co-workers get along

with each other ,313 ,115 ,397 ,020 ,016

Affective commitment

I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this

organization

,193 -,078 ,219 ,169 ,252

I enjoy discussing my organization

with people outside it -,013 ,146 ,574 ,152 ,075

I really feel as if this organization's

problems are my own ,015 ,067 ,678 ,144 ,047

I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one

-,251 ,192 ,220 -,209 ,119

This organization has a great deal of

(41)

I do not feel like 'part of the family' at

my organization * ,302 ,085 ,699 ,127 -,024

I do not feel 'emotionally attached' to

this organization * ,184 ,156 ,675 ,044 ,102

I do not feel a strong sense of

belonging to my organization * ,401 ,004 ,352 ,047 -,170

Continuance commitment

It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to

,064 -,029 ,147 ,627 ,098

Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now

,006 -,166 ,172 ,604 ,021

Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire

-,041 ,212 ,201 ,576 ,021

I feel that I have too few options to

consider leaving this organization -,149 -,114 -,084 ,600 ,274

One of the few serious consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives

-,018 ,111 ,107 ,620 -,032

One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice — another organization may not match the overall benefits I have here.

,043 ,189 ,095 ,576 ,317

I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one lined up. *

,187 -,295 -,127 ,398 ,024

It wouldn't be too costly for me to leave my organization now*

(42)

Normative commitment

I think that people these days move

from company to company too often. -,060 -,022 -,057 ,223 ,539

One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that I believe that loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.

,020 -,024 ,203 ,287 ,485

If l got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my organization

,372 ,021 ,332 ,163 ,449

I was taught to believe in the value of

remaining loyal to one organization ,027 -,075 ,135 ,355 ,461

Things were better in the days when people stayed with one organization for most of their careers

,013 -,165 -,126 ,135 ,468

I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her organization *

,008 -,088 ,117 -,013 ,470

Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at all unethical to me *

-,028 -,022 -,117 ,058 ,705

I do not think that wanting to be a 'company man' or 'company woman' is sensible anymore. *

,051 ,019 ,159 -,123 ,357

Retainment

I am seriously considering quitting this firm for an alternative employer

* ,608 ,049 ,337 ,037 ,145

During the next year, I will look for a

new job outside this firm * ,369 ,030 ,330 ,097 ,013

Principale componentenanalyse, varimax rotatie

(43)

Linear Regression 3,00 4,00 5,00 Job satisfaction 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00

Appendix 6 Scatterplot job satisfaction and retainment

(44)

Retainment of Interim Professionals 44 Linear Regression 2,0 0 2,5 0 3,0 0 3,5 0 Organizational commitment 1,0 0 2,0 0 3,0 0 4,0 0 5,0 0

Appendix 7 Scatterplot organizational commitment and retainment