Designing a talent management program within Sogeti:

(1)

Designing a talent management program within Sogeti:

Employees responses to different (combinations of) talent management instruments

Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

March 2011

Silje Jeanne Maria Donderwinkel

Student number: 1557157

E-mail: s.j.m.donderwinkel@student.rug.nl

Tel.: +310652050035

Supervisors University of Groningen

Prof. dr. B.A. Nijstad (1

st

_supervisor)

Dr. J. Jordan (2

nd

_supervisor)

(2)

A

cknowledgment

I want to thank Sogeti for giving me the opportunity to study the field of talent management, especially Martin Spit for providing access to the Sogeti employees and giving useful feedback.

(3)

TABLE OF CONTENT

ABSTRACT 5

1. INTRODUCTION 6

2. THE ORGANIZATION: SOGETI 9

3. LITERATURE REWIEW...10

3.1. Introduction...10

3.2. Talent...10

3.3. Talent management...11

3.4. Talent management instruments...13

4. HYPOTHESES...23

4.2. Excluded instruments...23

4.3. Included instruments...24

4.4. Combinations of instruments...28

4.5. The role of demographic factors...29

(4)

6. ANALYSES...34

6.1. Factor analysis...34

6.2. Analysis of Covariance...34

6.2.1. ANCOVA of the eight talent management instruments...34

6.2.2. Interaction between instruments...36

6.2.3. Interactions between instruments and demographic variables...38

6.2.4. Exploratory study of the dependent variable Reaction ...39

7. CONCLUSION...41

7.2. Main findings...41

7.3. Theoretical implications...44

7.4. Implications for Sogeti...45

7.5. Limitations and future research...50

7.6. Conclusion ...52

8. REFERENCES...54

9. APPENDICES...59

Appendix A: Questionnaire...59

(5)

ABSTRACT

The aim of this thesis was to study how talent management (TM) can be applied within Sogeti. Sogeti employees were confronted with different versions of a TM program, and were asked to evaluate the attractiveness of the program. A TM program existed of eight instruments with each two different versions, resulting into 256 different TM programs. Our set-up, a conjoint analysis, allowed us to measure which version of each instrument had most influence on the evaluation of the TM program and how combinations of instruments and background variables influenced the evaluation of the TM program. The main findings of this study were that employees evaluated the TM program more positively when extra financial compensation, extra non-financial compensation, mentoring and an individual training program (versus a standardized training program) were included in the program. Employees did evaluate the TM program equally for both versions of the instruments identifying talent (by the Unit Manager (UM) or through an assessment center), performance management (appraisal by the UM or through a 360-degree feedback method), succession management (versus no succession management) and job rotation (voluntary versus mandatory). An interaction effect between the presence (versus absence) of succession planning and 360-degree feedback method was found. Employees evaluated the TM program when succession planning was present more positively when the 360-degree feedback method was used as performance appraisal than when the UM appraises performance.

(6)

1. INTRODUCTION

In the United States of America, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has forecasted a shortage of six million employees to fill all the available jobs (Hughes & Rog, 2008). On top of that, the number of employees aged 35-44 years in the United States of America will decline by 15% between 2000 and 2015 (Chambers, Foulon, Handfield-Jones, Hankin & Micheals III, 1998). It will become more and more difficult to replace retirees with younger workers and thus the shortage of employees will increase even more (Stahl, Björkman, Farndale, Morris, Paauwe, Stiles, Trevor & Wright, 2007). For the Netherlands we can only expect the same, that there will be a shortage on the labor market. The expansion of the economy has put an enormous focus on human resources and having the right people in the right place. Many companies employed below-average employees just to fill the positions. Executives and experts expect only a worsening of shortage of employees who can lead a division and manage critical functions (Chambers et al., 1998). Not only the shortage of employees is a problem, job mobility is also increasing. High performers are switching jobs and employers more often than they did ten or twenty years ago (Chambers et al., 1998; Stahl et al., 2007). The task to recruit and retain talented employees becomes more difficult every day.

A majority of firms focuses on top talent, seeing it as the most important driver in influencing the effectiveness of organizations (Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001). The most talented employees of today will be tomorrow's most important source of competitive advantage (Chambers et al., 1998). The previously mentioned shortage of talent will make the search for talent a costly battle, which leads to a greater need to compete effectively against competitors for talent (Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Patel, 2002). An organization that wants to exploit its talent must implement a talent mindset throughout the whole organization (Chambers et al., 1998). It is not enough to only attract the person with high potential. There needs to be a strategy for managing talent that is supported by processes to develop the employee, keep talented employees committed, and effectively use their abilities (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), 2006).

(7)

this may not pay off in practice, because the failure rate for external hires at the executive level is about 40-60% (Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Chandler, 2009). Because managerial and Professional job openings are often difficult to fill in externally, organizations need to look internally and develop their own talents (Beechler & Woodward, 2009; CIPD, 2006). Filling vacant positions internally has several benefits, because it tends to increase the commitment of employees to the organization because of job security. It also is less costly, because the salary level is easier to control than when talents are bought (Hiltrop, 1999). Thus there are benefits for organizations that can develop their own talent internally. With this in mind, TM becomes even more important. But althoughTM is such a popular subject, a consensus on the definition of TM is still lacking and the knowledge about TM is limited (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Hughes & Rog, 2008; Lewis & Heckman, 2006). Several instruments have been developed and suggested for a TM system, but little is known about the applicability and the effectiveness of these instruments.

The aim of this thesis is to study the applicability of TM instruments in the ICT company Sogeti. Approximately 11% of the employees, especially Professionals, leave the organization and because of this knowledge flows out of the company. Also because of the leaving of employees, the division management of Sogeti has problems filling management positions. Would implementing talent management help to retain Professionals and managers at Sogeti? This leads to the following question:

How can talent management be applied within Sogeti?

To answer this question, we first need an overview of the TM instruments that are available and of the ones that might be used within Sogeti. We further decided to study the reactions of current Sogeti employees to these instruments in order to assess the potential applicability of these instruments to help Sogeti reach its goals. Indeed, if employee reactions to certain instruments are positive, these instruments are more likely to be of value to Sogeti. In all, the following sub-questionsare addressed:

1. What is talent management? And what kind of instruments are there?

2. How do Sogeti employees respond to different (combinations of) talent management instruments and does their response depend on demographic characteristics?

(8)

(9)

2. THE ORGANIZATION: SOGETI

Sogeti Nederland B.V. is part of the international Cap Gemini S.A. Organization (Sogeti Year Report, 2009). Sogeti has the goal to design, realize, organize and manage stable and reliable ICT-solutions for their clients. Special 'client teams' are responsible for a positive structural contribution to their clients. Sogeti operates in six branches, Services & Industry, Finance Banking, Finance Insurance, Trade & Transport, Government, and Telecom & Media. In 2009, the revenues were €301,250,000 and Sogeti had 3.159 employees, but the organization has the goal to grow (Sogeti Year Report, 2009).

A problem within Sogeti is that the organization wants to grow, but approximately 11% of the employees leave the organization per year. According to Sogeti, the problem is that Professionals do not know their possibilities within Sogeti. It is possible for Professionals to change jobs within Sogeti, but in reality this does not happen often. Professionals feel pressure from their Unit Manager to stay within the same unit, because the UM does not want to lose the knowledge of this employee. When Professionals want to do something else, they sometimes leave the organization. As result, Sogeti has to begin the whole process of recruitment and development again and a lot of expertise and knowledge flows out of the company. Can talent management be used to retain Professionals at Sogeti? What is necessary to encourage (talented) Professional to stay within Sogeti?

Sogeti tries to recruit and select managers from within. Professionals who have the ambition to become a manger must take an assessment to see if they have potential and then receive training to become a manager. But because many Professionals leave the organization, this also obstructs the supply of managers. The consequence is that Sogeti sometimes has a shortage of managers and often does not have a choice in which position a manager is located, which can be seen as a quality risk for the company. How can can TM be used to create a talent pool of new managers and thereby to overcome the shortage of new managers?

Sogeti's strategy toward TM is to develop the potentials talents into 'stars' (high performers), because they are crucial for the organization. Sogeti focuses on segments of the workforce, namely managerial and the Professional talent (e.g., good programmers, also called Professional guru's). They focus on managerial talent, because good leadership is essential for the organization. The focus on Professional talent is because they are the core of the organization and need extra attention.

(10)

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1. Introduction

In order to answer the first research question (i.e., what is talent management? And what kind of instruments are there?) this chapter addresses the concepts of talent and talent management. Furthermore we will discuss a variety of TM instruments.

3.2. Talent

Before talent management can be defined, the concept of talent needs to be defined, because only talented employees will be partof the TM program. According to the CIPD (2006), TM requires HR managers to define talent, which employees they consider as talented, and what their typical background might be. Hughes and Rog (2008) define talent as an individual who has the capability to make a significant difference to the current and future performance of the company. Micheals, Handfield-Jones and Axelrod (2001) define what they consider as managerial talent: "A code for the most effective leaders and managers at all levels

who can help a company fulfill its aspirations and drive its performance, managerial talent is some combination of a sharp strategic mind, leadership ability, emotional maturity, communications skills, the ability to attract and inspire other talented people, entrepreneurial instincts, functional skills, and the ability to deliver results". For this research, the talent definition of Hughes and Rog (2008) will be used. A

managerial or a Professional talent will be someone who can make a significant difference for the current and future performance of an organization.

(11)

third approach is an inclusive approach. It argues that there are various key positions to fill in at any organizational level (CIPD, 2006). Everybody has talent and the objective is to maximize the talent of all employees (Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001; Iles, Chuai & Preece, 2010). The fourth and last perspective does not overemphasize individual talents, but focuses on the importance of teams and organizational capital in relation to organizational performance (Iles, Chuai & Preece, 2010). No individual talent can work alone, a whole team is necessary for a good team performance.

As said before, Sogeti has chosen not to include everybody in the TM program. Every employee in the organization has the chance to develop and receive the appropriate training, but Sogeti’s strategy is to develop the potentials talents in 'stars', because they are crucial for the organization. Sogeti focuses on segments of the workforce, namely managerial and the Professional talent (e.g., good programmers also called Professional guru's). They focus on managerial talent, because good leadership is essential for the organization. Professional talents are the core of the organization and need extra attention. Thus an exclusive-people approach of TM can be applied in the case of Sogeti.

3.3. Talent management

In this paragraph we will discuss the concept talent management. As said before, there is no consensus on a clear definition of TM in the literature, therefore different definitions of TM will be discussed. In a comprehensive study, Lewis and Hackman (2006) identified three key streams of TM definitions. The first stream defines TM as “a collection of typical human resource department practices, such as recruiting,

selection, development, and career and succession management”. It appears not to differ from human

resource activities, only in a sense that it puts the focus on recruiting the best candidates and developing talents. Lewis and Hackman (2006) argue that this stream of TM only replace the term “Human Resource Management” with “Talent Management”. The second perspective focuses mainly on the concept of talent pools. “Talent management is a set of processes designed to ensure an adequate flow of employees into jobs

throughout the organization”. According to Lewis and Hackman (2006) this can be compared to succession

(12)

general talent, without focusing on a specific position. Talent (also called high performers) is a resource that needs to be managed according to performance levels and through classifying the employees by performance level, like “A”, “B” and “C” levels, where A is the highest level of performer. Talent needs to be recruited by the organization, regardless of their specific role (Lewis & Hackman, 2006).

After the publication of Lewis and Hackman's (2006) paper new definitions were suggested. According to the CIPD report (2006), TM can be defined as the "systematic attraction, identification,

development, engagement/retention and deployment of those individuals with high potential who are of particular value to an organization" (CIPD, 2006). Hughes and Rog (2008) have a similar perspective on

TM. They consider TM as "implementing an integrated and strategic approach to HRM, with particular

focus on human resource planning, including employee recruitment, retention, development, and succession practices, ideally for all employees but especially for those identified as having high potential or in key positions".

Collings and Mellahi (2009) define strategic TM as activities and processes that involve the systematic identification of key positions which differentially contribute to the organization's sustainable competitive advantage, the development of a talent pool of high potential and high performing employees to fill these roles, and the development of a differentiated human resource architecture to fill these positions with competent employees and to ensure their continued commitment to the organization. This definition fits the view on TM of Sogeti and will therefore will be used in this thesis. The view of Sogeti is that TM should simultaneously satisfy the strategy and the developmental needs of the organization and the developmental needs and the potential of the employee. TM is an integrated system of different talent development instruments and makes clear which type of specific talent and when this talent is needed.

(13)

3.4. Talent management instruments

Talent management is a system of various instruments to attract, identify, evaluate, develop and retain talent, resulting in a TM program. It is important that there is internal consistency, complementarity and reinforcement among all the practices. There must be an internal fit between the instruments (Stahl et al., 2007). The instruments must also align with the corporate culture (culture fit) and must link to the business strategy and long-term goals of the organization (strategic fit) (Stahl et al., 2007). The whole organization must be involved in the process of TM, inclusively the senior management and CEO. That is important to keep in mind while designing the TM system. The most important TM instruments are described below.

Attracting/ Employer Branding: The organization is only as good as its employees, the challenge is to

attract talent (Sutherland, Torricelli & Karg, 2002). That is why the organization needs to be attractive for potential talents and needs to position itself as the employer of choice (Sutherland, Torricelli & Karg, 2002). With employer branding the organization sharpens its self-marketing to potential talents to position it as the employer of choice. A market analysis can be used to gain a better understanding of what is important for talents when selecting an employer. The organization needs to segment the market in order to fine-tune the message and to attract only the talents it is interested in (Sutherland, Torricelli & Karg, 2002). The organization needs to use that information to position itself as the organization that suits the needs of the talent and to reach these talents (Stahl et al., 2007; Sutherland, Torricelli & Karg, 2002).

(14)

Recruitment/Selection: It is important to identify the high potentials out of all the applicants. For example,

background checking and school records can be used in an early stage of the selection process. In the last stages job interviews and assessments can be used to identify if a candidate is right for the job. The organization can also asses if the employee fits the organizational culture for example by means of personality- and attitude tests. Past performance of the employee may not be the best predictor for how successful he/she will be in the organization and it is possible to learn new skills (Stahl et al., 2007), but to change an employee’s character is almost impossible. So if the employee does not fit within the organization’s culture, it is unlikely that this is going to change. However, there are also disadvantages in searching for the employees who fit within the culture, because selection technology, like personality tests, are always valid predictors (Stahl et al., 2007).

Identifying talent: TM starts with identifying individuals within the organization or among new recruits,

who will make a difference to the performance of the organization (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). This can be done by providing standardized templates for performance appraisals (Hartmann, Feisel & Schober, 2010), so that for every supervisor it is clear which individual can be marked as a talent. The instrument identifying talent decides which employees will be part of the talent management program.

(15)

as biased. A way to reduce the bias is to make two people responsible for the identification of talent and to standardize the process of performance rating.

Another method is to use a potential assessment. A potential assessment in an assessment center is in that case performed to predict which job level an employee can reach within the organization and the level of skills and competencies are be tested (CIPD, 2006). The results will be used to decide if someone will be included in the talent pool and be a participant of the TM program. An advantage is that this procedure can be standardized, so that bias will be reduced. A disadvantage is that it takes much time, resources and money.

Talent Pool: A talent pool is a collective of talented employees who are capable of filling key positions

(Collings & Mellahi, 2009). It requires the identification of high potential or high performing employees (CIPD, 2006). Most employees in the talent pool receive extra benefits, like training, mentoring, and job rotation (Stahl et al., 2007). A talent pool can be designed in different ways. For example, it can exist of one big pool, for all different talents and stages of careers. A talent pool can also be grouped into two or more tiers, based on the expected time employees need to be fully developed for a top management function (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). Another form is the use of different talent pools based on different competency profiles that entail different career paths and development strategies (for example, managerial talent, Professional talent, senior management). However, it can be more effective to develop talent with broader skills and competencies than just for one specific job, so that the employee can work in a variety of jobs. This will prevent that certain key positions can not be filled (Cappelli, 2008, in Collings & Mellahi, 2009). It can be sensible to limit the number of high potentials in the talent pool, because it may lead to frustration when an employee is not promoted due to a lack of available positions , which may eventually lead to talent loss (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Stahl et al., 2007).

Performance Management: It is important that it is regularly checked whether the talented employee is still

developing in the right way and still can be part of the talent pool. Performance management must include honest observations (CIPD, 2006). Appraising talent can be useful. According to Mäkela, Björkman and Ehrnrooth (2010) “performance appraisals define performance ratings, which depend on the achievement of

(16)

values”. According to CIPD (2006) the actual results, like the results of an accomplished assignment,

achieved by employees should be explored and the level of skills and competencies should be examined to investigate whether the level is sufficient for current and future jobs. It can also include a forecast of potential. It gives a prediction of which job level employees can reach within the organization based on their past or current performance observations, development needs, career preferences, and competency levels (CIPD, 2006). The performance appraisal can be used to decide if someone should still be a part of the TM program (Mäkela, Björkman & Ehrnrooth, 2010).

The appraisal of employees can be implemented in several ways. An employee can be appraised by observations from the manager, in which the case the manager decides alone if someone has made enough progress to stay part of the talent pool (Mäkela, Björkman & Ehrnrooth, 2010). Not only should the manager look at past achievements, but also whether the employee has the potential to perform challenging task and develop skills and competencies (Mäkela, Björkman & Ehrnrooth, 2010). An advantage is that it inexpensive. A disadvantage can be that managers can be biased by their cognitive and motivational states (Boyd & Kyle, 2004; Mäkela, Björkman & Ehrnrooth, 2010). And often managers have different views of when an employee has shown enough progress, which results in inconsistent, unreliable, and invalid evaluations (Boyd & Kyle, 2004).

(17)

as more just, because employees find it important that decisions are made careful and are done in a consistent manner (Blader & Tyler, 2003). Employees have higher job motivation when they perceive their performance appraisals as fair and trustworthy (Vasset, 2010). According to Boyd and Kyle (2004) procedural justice “centers on the perceived fairness of the means, or procedures, used to determine

outcomes”. Because more sources are used to form an appraisal the employees will experience more

procedural justice.

An assessment center can also be used for the appraisals of performance. The advantage is that the assessment is standardized, so that there are no different views of how someone needs to develop. Employees can perceive it as more fair. A disadvantage is that it only can assess certain skills and competencies and not how an employee performed at a customer. Furthermore, it is very expensive and time consuming.

Retention/ Engagement: Retaining employees is a combination of offering tangible and intangible rewards.

Competitive compensation is a part of retaining an employee, but it is not enough. Also an exciting job, inspiring mission, appealing culture, exciting challenges, career planning, attention from senior managers, growth and development opportunities, and a high degree of freedom and autonomy are important (Stahl et al., 2007). All the tangible and intangible elements together are called the employee value proposition (Micheals et al., 2001). Only trying to compete for employees through money will generate that employees will leave as soon as they will get a higher bid from a competitor (Hiltrop, 1999; Stahl et al., 2007). This method to keep talent can be very costly (Hiltrop, 1999). Work-life balance becomes increasingly important for employees. By offering flexible working arrangements, like flextime, job sharing, and working at home, will help retain employees. Also organization pride, trust in the CEO's abilities, and high quality of supervision is a way of keeping talent within the organization (Hiltrop, 1999).

Rewarding: Rewarding can be seen as a part of the retention of talents. Rewarding can mean financial

(18)

compensation can exist of extra development activities, talents choosing their own assignments, or the possibility to give important presentations to clients.

Mentoring: Mentoring focuses on the relationship between an experienced senior and a less-experienced

junior employee and helps in his/her personal development (Chandler, Hall & Kram, 2009; Kram, 1985). Mentoring can be seen as a part of organizational social support, which is the degree to which employees get help from their manager and colleagues and support from a supervisor has the most impact on employees feeling supported by the organization. Social support leads to more motivation, increases performance and leads to a lower turnover (Grant & Parker, 2009). Mentors are individuals who have advanced knowledge and experience, who are willing and dedicated to help and assist their protégés, like answering work-related questions and explain formal and informal organizational norms (Noe, 1988; Ragins, Cotton & Miller, 2000). Together they can discuss career planning and in which areas the protégé needs to improve, but mentors can also coach the protégé (Groves, 2007). Mentoring has several advantages, such as that it can create a relational psychological contract between the employee and the organization. The talent can experience increased personal learning and job satisfaction, greater promotion chance, and higher compensation than their non-mentored colleagues. This reduces turnover and thus the loss of talent (Chandler, Hall & Kram, 2009; Groves, 2007; Hartmann, Feisel & Schober, 2010; Ragins, & Cotton, 1999; Tymon, Stumpf & Doh, 2010). Therefore mentoring is is not only for the benefit of the junior employee, but also for the benefit of the organization (Kram, 1985).

(19)

encouragement, providing them challenging assignments and providing feedback (Noe, 1988). Also mentoring can reduce stress and due to the lack of a peer group within the organization, women need to rely on the organization and the mentor for social support. One study showed that women who had a mentor experienced greater job success and job satisfaction than women who did not have a mentor (Noe, 1988).

Some organizations introduced a formal mentor program in which mentors and protégés are matched by a third party based on background and interests, the protégé's developmental needs and mentor experience, and job level, and where the organization supports the mentor program (Groves, 2007; Ragins, Cotton & Miller, 2000). A formal mentor program must be characterized by top management support, careful selections of mentors and protégés, an orientation program where the goals of relationship between the mentor and protégé can be established, and a pre-determined minimum number of appointments between the mentor and protégés (Noe, 1988). However, a formal mentor program may not always be the solution, because senior employees already have their own responsibilities and have to struggle to make time for mentoring (Chandler, Hall & Kram, 2009). A mentor may further choose to participate because of high commitment to the organization instead of a personal connection with the protégé. Because of this, the mentor and protégé may not develop a fully trusting relationship with each other and the protégé may not fully benefit from the relationship (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Linking a mentor and protégé can cause personality conflicts, lack of mentor commitment, and lower levels of career support and coaching (Groves, 2007).

(20)

but the mentor and protégé can decide for themselves if they want to form a relationship. This will strengthen the bond between the two and will result in more benefits for the protégé and the organization.

Succession planning: In succession planning one or more potential successors are identified for key posts

and career moves. Development activities, like leadership training, are planned for these successors (CIPD, 2006; Hor et al., 2010; Stahl et al. 2007). Not only does succession planning look at who is next in line, but it also helps in forecasting organizational needs and proactively securing succession for the key-positions (Hor et al., 2010). According to Hor et al. (2010) “succession planning targets people early in their careers and

determines what kind of training and experiences they need in order to become effective leaders”. The

potential successors will follow a special training program, designed in such a way that all the needed skills and competencies are addressed, so that they are ready to take over when key positions become available (Hor et al., 2010). An advantage of succession planning is that the organization always has a successor and does not have to appoint someone who is not fully ready. It is sensible to appoint at least two successors, because it may turn out that a potential successor does not have the right skills after all or because the potential successor quits. A disadvantage of this method is that not all the potential successors will actually be appointed to the key position and this can drive them out of the organization, which implies losing a talented employee. Also, the majority of the participants of the TM program will not be appointed as a successor. This can demotivate talents causing them to leave the organization. Succession planning is very similar to TM, but TM is a broader process than succession planning (CIPD, 2006).

Development/ Training: Training is essential for the development of talent. Leadership development

(21)

some skills and competencies will get full attention. The consequence is that not all skills of the development program will be covered.

A training institute can be started, which helps talented employees to plan their career and helps them in their development, by guiding them in their training choice (Hartmann, Feisel & Schober, 2010). Employees should also be made aware that they are responsible for their own development, by searching for new jobs within the organization and challenging tasks (Stahl et al., 2007). Sogeti has the Employability Service, which has as purpose to facilitate mobility within the organization, but only works for managers at the moment. The Employability Service records if managers want to change jobs. If there is a vacancy Sogeti can search for a suitable candidate in the Employability Service. Sogeti can expands this service where the Employability Service also show employees their opportunities within the organization and actively helps employees searching for a new job and give career counseling. This should be applicable for both managers and Professionals. Unit Managers can indicate if there are vacancies and which skills and abilities are required and the Employability Service links employees and UMs together. Sogeti can expand this service, in also facilitating training for talents. This is also applicable for job rotation (see below)

Job rotation: Job rotation is the switching of employees between jobs in an organization (Campion,

Cheraskin & Stevens, 1994). Job rotation differs from promotion because with job rotation there is a change in assignment, mostly due to changing to a different department, but it does not involve change in compensation (Campion, Cheraskin & Stevens, 1994).

(22)

non-rotated employees. New managers tend to produce more work for the non-rotated employees because they want to 'stirr things up' and change things in the department (Campion, Cheraskin & Stevens, 1994).

It is essential that managers do not keep talents in their own division, but they should stimulate that employees move within the organization. When job rotation is part of the talent management program, employees will understand that they will not be negatively affected if they move through the organization. (Stahl et al., 2007). Employees included in talent pools are likely to be very ambitious and want to be challenged, job rotation can help with that and therefore attract talented employees (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). Also employees are more motivated, more satisfied, and more productive if the job is challenging (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Erikson & Ortega, 2006). Campion, Cheraskin and Stevens (1994) noted that job rotation is more common in the early stages of an employee’s career and that younger employees are more willing to take the chance of job rotation than older employees. Younger employees expect to learn more from job rotation and see job rotation as an investment in their development.

Within Sogeti job rotation is possible, but in reality this does not happen often. Talents often feel the pressure from their UM to stay within the same unit, because the UM does not want to lose the knowledge of this employee. Mandatory job rotation obliges all the participants of the TM program to perform different jobs within Sogeti to increase their knowledge and experience. An advantage of this is that the UM cannot keep talents in their own division and talents are free to switch jobs. Another option is to implement voluntary job rotation: all the participants can switch jobs if they want to and will be helped if they want to do so. An advantage of this is that employees can stay in the same job if they want to.

As discussed before, Sogeti has the Employability Service and the organization should expand this service to use it as a instrument for job rotation, either voluntary or mandatory. The Employability Service can help employees to find a new job and give career guidance. Sogeti should take care that every employee knows this instrument, so that job rotation is made easier for employees.

Exiting: Exiting is the process of maintaining contact with talents who left the organization. Leavers often

(23)

4. HYPOTHESES

4.1. Introduction

The in the previous chapter discussed, relatively extensive, set of TM instruments provides an answer to the first sub-question (i.e., what is talent management and which instruments can be distinguished). Further, our aim is to assess responses of Sogeti employees to various TM instruments (the second sub-question). In order to answer this second sub-question, a questionnaire will be distributed among Sogeti employees, to empirically address this question. In this questionnaire various variants of the instruments will be presented to employees. However, not all the previously discussed instruments will be included in the questionnaire because of various reasons, which will be discussed in this chapter. Furthermore, we will discuss the instruments that are included in the questionnaire and formulate hypotheses about the responses of Sogeti employees to the different versions of TM instruments, responses to various combinations of TM instruments and how responses may vary by demographic factors.

4.2. Excluded instruments

In this section will be discussed which instruments are not included in the questionnaire. Due to restrictions of the study, it was decided not to include all the TM instruments. Because it is our aim to assess responses of Sogeti employees to various TM instruments, we find it important that the TM instruments that are included in the questionnaire are interesting for current employees. We think that we will receive the most accurate opinions when employees have an interest in the instruments.

Attracting/employer branding: The first instrument that is not included in the questionnaire is attracting/employer branding. Sogeti already has a form of attracting new talents, namely the Student Unit. This instrument is not interesting for the current employees, because they are already part of the organization. The opinion of students, the target group of the Student Unit, is more important in this case.

Recruitment/selection: The organization should always try to recruit the best employees and this is part of HRM and not a specific TM instrument. Also for the current employees of Sogeti, this instrument is not interesting, thus asking their opinion about the instrument is not relevant.

(24)

talent pool can be designed to support this. The presence versus absence of a talent pool is therefore not a relevant variation for Sogeti.

Retention/engagement: Retention/engagement is a very broad term and can be designed in different ways. In this study, rewarding (in financial and non-financial ways) and developing are ways to retain talent, and therefore the instrument retention/engagement will not be part of the questionnaire.

Exiting: Exiting can be a interesting instrument for Sogeti, but it is not interesting for the current employees of Sogeti, because it will not affect them if it is implemented.

As said before, these instruments will not be part of the questionnaire. But this does not mean that Sogeti should not implement some of the instruments, because they can be interesting and further study is recommended.

4.3. Included instruments

In total, eight different TM instruments were considered useful for the questionnaire. These eight instruments will be briefly discussed, and it will be described which variants of each instrument are possible. Also hypotheses are given about how each instrument or each variant of an instrument will be related to employee reactions to the TM program.

Instrument 1: Identifying talent: This instrument determines how talents will be identified and is relevant for Sogeti: a first step in each TM program is to identify talent. It is important for employees to know how talents are being identified, and it can be expected that employees find it important that the method to identify talent is fair. We study two ways of identifying talents: identification by the Unit Manager or through an assessment center. The disadvantage of having the UM identify talents is that preferences of the UM can be biased. An advantage is that it is relatively inexpensive. A disadvantage of the assessment center is that it is costly, both for the employer and the employee (for example, time costs). An advantage is that an assessment center is fair, because the performance rating is standardized. Because there are pros and cons for both these versions of the instrument, we cannot derive a clear hypothesis. That is why a research question is formulated:

(25)

Instrument 2: Performance management: it is important that the development of employees is monitored and that a decision is made whether someone still qualifies for the TM program. The organization does not want to invest heavily in employees who do not have the talent to become a Professional guru or top manager. For employees it is also important, because they want the procedure of performance appraisal to be fair. Procedural justice, as explained in the last section, can be very important.

There are at least three possible versions of the instrument: performance appraisal by the UM, performance appraisal with use of the 360-degree feedback method and performance appraisal with the use of an assessment center. Due to restrictions of the study, it was decided to only use two versions in the questionnaire. Because an assessment center is also part of the first instrument, we have chosen to drop this.

The first version of the instrument is a method that already is used within Sogeti, namely that the UM will appraise the performance and makes the decision if someone will continue to be a part of the TM program. The second version is the 360-degree feedback method. The 360-degree feedback method can be perceived as more fair by the employees than a performance appraisal by the UM, because more than one person appraises the employee. The use of more sources will thus raise procedural justice in the eyes of employees. Because this is important, and because this appraisal method is not particularly costly for employees, we suggest that the 360-degree feedback method will be preferred by the employees. So the first hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 1: Employees will evaluate the TM program more positively when performance appraisal is done through 360-degree feedback than when it is done by the UM

Instrument 3: Financial compensation: For Sogeti it is important to know if employees want extra financial compensation if they are included of the TM program. If this does not matter for the employees, Sogeti can choose not to include this. Version one of the instrument is extra financial compensation and version two is no extra financial compensation. Extra financial compensation can be a token of appreciation of the organization and is therefore valued by employees. Also being part of the TM program probably causes extra work for the employee, and it is likely that employees want extra financial compensation, leading to the second hypothesis:

(26)

Instrument 4: Non-financial compensation: As is said before, it is important to know whether employees want extra compensation, also including non-financial compensation like more options in choosing assignments and the chance to give presentations to important customers. Version one of the instrument is including extra non-financial compensation and version two is not including non-financial compensation in the TM program. Note that we have made a distinction between financial and non-financial compensation to study if there is a difference between the two and if one of the two compensations is more important than the other. As said before, extra non-financial compensation can be a token of appreciation of the organization and is therefore valued by the employee. We suggest that employees want extra non-financial compensation, the third hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 3: Employees will evaluate the TM program more positively when extra non-financial compensation is part of the TM program as compared to when no extra non-financial compensation is part of the program.

Instrument 5: Mentoring: As stated before, mentoring has several advantages, such as creating a relational psychological contract between the employee and the organization. It is important to know whether the employees also want mentoring, because it can cost a much time to form a good mentoring program and to find mentors. Because mentoring can increase personal learning and job satisfaction we expect that employees want mentoring to be a part of the TM program, thus:

Hypothesis 4: Employees will evaluate the TM program more positively when mentoring is part of the TM program as compared to when mentoring is not part of the program.

(27)

employees about this subject. Due to the different arguments we cannot formulate a hypothesis, but formulate the following research question:

Research question 2: Do evaluations of the TM program by Sogeti employees vary as a function of the presence (vs. absence) of succession planning?

Instrument 7: Development program: As stated before, training is essential for the development of both managerial as Professional talent. A training program can be standardized, version one of the instrument, or it can be individualized, version two of the instrument. The employees will probably prefer a individualized training program, because in a standardized training program the employee also needs to follow training in the development of skills and competencies that he/she already possesses, which costs time. With a individualized training program, the employee can fully develop skills that he/she lacks or are underdeveloped.

Hypothesis 5: Employees will evaluate the TM program more positively when an individualized training program is part of the TM program as compared to when a standardized training program is part of the program.

Instrument 8: Job Rotation: It is possible to implement mandatory job rotation, which is version one of the instrument, or voluntary job rotation, version two of the instrument. The instrument job rotation is relevant for Sogeti, because it appears that managers of Sogeti have a negative attitude towards job rotation, which can influence the employees. Managers do not want to lose their talented employees, which causes employees to get the feeling that they will be negatively affected if they move through the organization. Sogeti is a Professional organization where the employee spends most of his time at the client and experiences a lot of autonomy. Because of the negative attitude towards job rotation and that employees want to make their own decisions (more autonomy) regarding job rotation, the following hypothesis can be formulated:

(28)

4.4. Combinations of instruments

Certain combinations of instruments may also determine the evaluation of a TM program. For example, a certain instrument may only have effects if another instrument is also implemented. Here we derive some hypotheses regarding the interactions among instruments.

Financial and non-financial compensation: As stated in hypotheses 3 and 4 it is expected that the employees would like extra compensation, because being part of the talent pool causes extra work and extra compensation can be a token of appreciation for the employee from the organization. However, maybe it is not necessary to give both financial and non-financial compensation and is one type of compensation enough. One type of compensation also shows how the organization appreciates the employee and compensates for the extra work that the TM program brings and therefore one type of compensation may be sufficient. If it is only necessary to implement one of the compensation types, this will be less costly for Sogeti. The following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 7: There is an interaction between the presence (versus absence) of financial and non-financial compensation, such that the positive effect of financial compensation on evaluations of the TM program is weaker when non-financial compensation is present.

Succession management and 360-degree feedback method (performance management): When succession management is implemented, there is a lot at stake for the employee to be chosen as successor, because otherwise they do not have a chance to become a senior manager. It becomes more important for the employee that the appraisal of performance is done fairly. As formulated in hypothesis 1, it is expected that the employees find the 360-degree feedback method more fair due to procedural justice. And thus the following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 8: There is an interaction between the presence (versus absence) of succession management and 360-degree feedback method, such that the 360-degree feedback method leads to positive program evaluations especially when succession planning is part of the TM program.

(29)

This negative effect can be weakened when mentoring is also implemented. With mandatory job rotation it is possible that the employee has to perform a job that he or she has little experience in. A mentor can help employees prepare for the job and give advice in how to perform. Therefore the following hypothesis is formulated.

Hypothesis 9: There is an interaction between mandatory (versus voluntary) job rotation and mentoring, such that the negative effect of mandatory job rotation on evaluations of the TM program is weaker when mentoring is offered.

Mandatory job rotation and development: As said before, managers have to perform many of different roles, and job rotation helps in learning these roles. And therefore mandatory job rotation can be helpful within the organization. But in case of mandatory job rotation, an employee can also enroll in a job that he/she has little experience in. The employees need to be prepared for their next job, so employees want to have an individualized training program to specifically train them for their next job. The following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 10: There is an interaction between mandatory (versus voluntary) job rotation and individualized training program, such that the negative effect of mandatory job rotation on evaluations of the TM program is weaker when an individualized training program is offered.

4.5. The role of demographic factors

The presence of different variations of TM instruments will influence the evaluation of the TM program. However, some instruments may have a larger effect depending on demographic and background variables, such as age, function and gender. These possible interactions are considered in this section.

Mentoring and gender: Women are still unrepresented in manager functions and the ICT branch is dominated by men, and as mentioned before women have less opportunities than their male colleagues. Because mentored talents have more promotion chances and mentors can offer new possibilities, women may profit more from mentoring than men, and consequently find mentoring more important.

(30)

Mentoring and age: Because mentoring can help employees in their development needs and can offer them opportunities which otherwise would not have come along, young employees probably are in more need for a mentor than older employees:

Hypothesis 12: The effect of the presence (versus absence) of a mentoring program has a larger positive effect on the TM program evaluation for younger than for older employees.

Mandatory job rotation and function: As stated before, within Sogeti job rotation is possible, but in reality this does not happen often. Talents often feel the pressure from their UM to stay within the same unit, because the UM does not want to lose the knowledge of this employee. It is therefore likely that managers rate the TM program lower when mandatory job rotation is implemented. That is why the following the hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 13: The negative effect of mandatory (vs. voluntary) job rotation on evaluation of the TM program is stronger for managers than for other employees.

Mandatory job rotation and age: As stated before, job rotation is more common in the early stages of an employee’s career. Younger employees are more willing to take the chance of job rotation than older employees, because they expect to learn more from the rotation and see job rotation as an investment in their development. Because younger employees are more eager to rotate we can expect that younger employees value mandatory job rotation more than their older colleagues. The following hypothesis is formulated:

(31)

5. METHODOLOGY

5.1. Introduction

The aim of this study is to examine how Sogeti should design the talent management program. As stated before, the whole organization must be involved in the process of TM. For a successful implementation of TM it is important that employees accept it. Therefore it is important to study how employees of Sogeti respond to different (combinations of) TM instruments.

In this study, Sogeti employees were confronted with different versions of a TM program, and were asked to rate the attractiveness of the program. Our set-up allowed us to test both the main effects of (variation of) specific instruments, as well as interactions among them, and interactions with demographic and background variables.

5.2. Method

Talent management exists of various instruments, resulting in a TM program. We have discussed that eight instruments are useful to include in the questionnaire and that each instrument has two different versions. This results in 256 possible versions of the TM program. Because of the complexity of this study we use conjoint analysis (also called the vignette method). A conjoint analysis can be used when a product is complex, meaning that it is characterized by a large number of attributes and that every attribute is important in the rating decision (Hauser & Rao, 2003). In this study the product is the TM program. “Conjoint

measurement tries to estimate a preference structure on a multidimensional set of alternatives by observing choices for hypothetical products” (Praag & Frijters, 1997).

Each respondent was asked to evaluate three vignettes, which represented three different TM programs, leading to three responses per respondent. A vignette consisted of eight instruments, with a randomized version of each of the eight instruments, thus every vignette is different. The respondent was asked to evaluate the whole TM program, thus the combinations of instruments. Because the conjoint measure was used, it was possible to measure which version of each of the instruments has the most influence on the evaluation of the TM program without asking directly which version the respondent preferred. According to Alexander and Becker (2001) “due to the systematic variation of characteristics in

(32)

variables on corresponding change in respondent attitudes or judgements”. This is relevant for this study,

because we want to know the relative importance of each of the TM instruments, but also how combinations of instruments influence the evaluation of the TM program. Also demographic questions were asked, like age, function and gender, in order to study if these factors were of influence on the evaluation of the TM program.

We want to study the responses of the employees on the TM instruments. It would have been possible to ask the respondents directly which version of the instrument they preferred, but this could lead to predictable and socially desirable answers. Besides, we could not study effects of combinations between instruments. For example, when respondents are asked directly if they preferred financial compensation or no financial compensation it is predictable that all respondents answer financial compensation, but in combination with other instruments this may not be as important. Therefore we used the above mentioned conjoint analysis. According to Praag and Frijters (1997) the “conjoint analysis is an approach in which the

use of many alternative choices helps in avoiding socially desirable answering effects and can be used to determine the relative importance of many different attributes”.

This study had the set-up, in which we manipulate which version of the instrument the participant sees.

5.3. Participants

For this study we wanted to approach employees who probably would be a participant of the TM program if it would be implemented (A-performers), employees who would not be qualified (B-performers) and the managers who would have the task to work with the program. These employees would be the most exposed to the TM program and therefore their opinion and evaluation of the TM program is the most important for this study.

(33)

average age was 36.42. Of the total 78 participants, 12 were manager, 64 Professionals, 1 staff, and 1 other unspecified function.

5.4. Procedure

A questionnaire was used to collect data about how employees would evaluate different TM programs. The complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. An e-mail was send to the participants with some information about the questionnaire. In the e-mail there was a link to the online questionnaire. First the participants saw an introduction of the questionnaire, stating what TM was and why the study was conducted. Next, a description was given of the eight TM instruments. After that the participants saw the first TM program, in which each version of the instrument the employees saw was randomized. Eight questions about the attractiveness of the program were asked. This process was repeated two times. After that several demographic questions were asked.

The questionnaire is conducted with the use of Qualtrics, which is an online web application for making surveys. The questionnaire was in Dutch, because this is the spoken language at Sogeti.

5.5. Questionnaire

(34)

6. ANALYSIS

6.1. Factor analysis

Employees were asked to fill in eight questions about the talent management program. Six of these were meant to assess employees’ TM program evaluation. We first performed an exploratory factor analysis (Principal components with varimax rotation) to assess the dimensionality of these six items. The results of the factor analysis can be found in appendix B. There were two factors, the first of which seemed to measure ’Program evaluation´, and consisted of the first four items: the attractiveness of the program, the opinion of the employee about the TM program, the reaction of an employee if he/she is included in the TM program, and if an employee would stay at Sogeti when the TM program is implemented. Questions five and six measure the reaction of employees when they are not included in the program, and this factor was labeled 'Reaction'. Because all the hypotheses were based on how employees evaluate the TM program, the hypotheses will be tested using the first measure (i.e., the program evaluation measure). An exploratory analysis is conducted to study if the reactions on not being part of the TM of the employees of Sogeti vary as a function of the different versions of the TM instruments.

6.2. ANCOVA analyses

As discussed in chapter four, several hypotheses were formulated to answer the second sub-question (How do Sogeti employees respond to different (combinations of) talent management instruments and does their response depend on demographic characteristics?). Three Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) were performed to test these hypotheses and thereby answering the second sub-question. The results of this ANCOVA can be found in the next paragraph.

6.2.1. ANCOVA of the eight TM instruments

(35)

As can be seen in Table 1, the covariate gender had a marginally significant effect, showing that male employees in general had higher program evaluations (M= 4.54) than female employees (M= 3.96). Age and function had no effect on the TM program evaluation.

Independent variable F (1, 222) p

Age Gender Function

Instrument 1: Identifying talent

Instrument 2: Performance management Instrument 3: Financial compensation Instrument 4: Non-financial compensation Instrument 5: Mentoring

Instrument 6: Succession planning Instrument 7: Development program Instrument 8: Job rotation

1.99 2.86 0.01 0.44 0.46 9.38 16.62 6.13 0.96 3.21 0.18 .16 .09 .91 .51 .51 .00 .00 .01 .33 .08 .67 Table 1: Results main effects of independent variables on Program Evaluations

Regarding the first instrument, identifying talent, there was no clear hypothesis (cf. Research Question 1). The ANCOVA showed no significant effect for identifying talent. This implies that the way in which talent is identified, either through UM evaluation (M= 4.41) or through an assessment center (M= 4.53) did not significantly influence program evaluation.

Hypothesis 1 argued that employees would evaluate the TM program more positively when performance appraisal was done through 360-degree feedback method rather than by the UM. However, as can be seen in table 1, this effect was not significant, and this hypothesis thus needs to be rejected. Employees responded equally positive when performance appraisals are done through 360-degree feedback method (M= 4.41) as when it was done by the UM (M= 4.53).

However, the effect of offering financial compensation was significant. Program evaluations were more positive when extra financial compensation was offered (M= 4.76) than when no extra financial compensation was offered (M= 4.18). This confirms hypothesis 2.

The effect of offering non-financial compensation was significant as well. Program evaluations were more positive when extra financial compensation was offered (M= 4.85) than when no extra non-financial compensation was offered (M= 4.09). This confirms hypothesis 3.

(36)

significant, indicating that program evaluations were more positive when mentoring was part of the program (M= 4.70) rather than when mentoring was not part of the TM program (M= 4.24). Thus the hypothesis is thereby confirmed.

Regarding succession planning, no clear hypothesis was formulated (cf. Research question 2). There was no significance effect for succession planning. This implies that the evaluations of the TM do not vary when succession planning (M= 4.56) is part of the TM program as opposed to the absence of succession planning (M= 4.38).

Hypothesis 5 argued that employees would evaluate the TM program more positively when an individualized training program is part of the TM program as compared to when a standardized program is part of the program. This effect was marginally significant, and therefore hypothesis 5 is tentatively accepted. This shows that that employees evaluate the program more positively when individualized training is offered (M= 4.64) than when standardized training is offered (M= 4.30).

Hypothesis 6 argued that employees would evaluate the TM program more positively when voluntary job rotation was part of the TM program as compared to when mandatory job rotation is part of the program. This effect was not significant, and therefore hypothesis 6 is rejected. This implies that the program is evaluated equally when voluntary job rotation is part of the TM program (M= 4.51) as when mandatory job rotation is part of the TM program (M= 4.43).

6.2.2. Interactions between instrument

To test Hypothesis 7 – 10, we performed an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance). In this analysis, 'Program evaluation' was the dependent variable. Gender, age, and function (manager versus others) were entered as covariates. The eight instruments were used as independent variables. The independent variables and the covariates were tested as main effects and the interaction between financial compensation and non-financial compensation, succession planning and performance management, job rotation and mentoring, and job rotation and development were tested.

(37)

Independent variable F (1, 218) p

Age Gender Function

Financial compensation & Non- financial compensation Succession planning & Performance management Job rotation & Mentoring

Job rotation & Development program

2. 29 2.43 0.00 0.29 0.40 9.40 18.13 6.41 1.05 2.52 0.01 0.23 4.39 0.07 0.29 .13 .12 .98 .59 .53 .00 .00 .01 .31 .12 .93 .63 .04 .78 .59 Table 2: Results interaction effects of independent variables on Program Evaluations

Hypothesis 7 argued that there is an interaction between the presence (versus absence) of financial and non-financial compensation, such that the positive effect of non-financial compensation on evaluations of the TM program is weaker when non-financial compensation is present. This effect was not significant, which means that there is no interaction effect between the two instruments, and thus hypothesis 7 is rejected. Since both main effects were significant, the effects of financial and non-financial compensation are additive: both types of compensation increase program evaluations over and above the other.

(38)

Figure 3: Interaction succession planning & 360 degree feedback method

Hypothesis 9 stated that there is an interaction between mandatory (versus voluntary) job rotation and mentoring, such that the negative effect of mandatory job rotation on evaluations of the TM program is weaker when mentoring is offered. The interaction effect was not significant, thus the hypothesis is rejected.

The interaction effect between mandatory (versus voluntary) job rotation and individualized training program was not significant, thus hypothesis 10 is rejected as well.

6.2.3. Interactions between instruments and demographic variables

Hypothesis 11 – 14 stated that some effects of TM instruments would depend on demographic and background variables. To test these hypotheses we performed an ANCOVA. In this analysis, 'Program evaluation' was the dependent variable. Gender, age, and function (manager versus others) were entered as covariates. The eight instruments were used as independent variables. The independent variables and the covariates were tested as main effects, and mentoring and age, mentoring and gender, job rotation and function, and job rotation and gender were tested as interaction effects.

In Table 3 it can be seen that none of the covariates age, gender of function is significant. In hypothesis 11 we stated that the effect of the presence (versus absence) of a mentoring program has a larger positive effect on the TM program evaluation for females than for males. But this effect was not significant, which means that the hypothesis is rejected.

The hypothesis that the presence (versus absence) of a mentoring program has a larger positive effect on the TM program evaluation for younger than for older employees (Hypothesis 12) was rejected as well, as the interaction between mentoring and age was not significant.

Yes No 3,8 4 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5 Interaction

Succession planning & 360-degree feedback method

(39)

Hypothesis 13 stated that the negative effect of mandatory (vs. voluntary) job rotation on evaluation of the TM program is stronger for managers than for other employees. But this effect was not significant, thus the hypothesis is rejected.

In hypothesis 14 we formulated that the negative effect of mandatory (vs. voluntary) job rotation on evaluation of the TM program is weaker for younger than for older employees. But again, the hypothesis is rejected, because the effect was not significant.

Age Gender Function

Mentoring & Age Mentoring & Gender Job rotation & Function Job rotation & Gender

2.35 2.64 0.01 0.41 0.26 10.46 14.99 0.01 0.25 3.01 0.79 0.25 2.10 1.92 0.66 .13 .11 .91 .52 .61 .00 .00 .94 .62 .08 .38 .62 .15 .17 .42 Table 3: Results interaction effects of independent variables on Program Evaluations

6.2.4. Exploratory analysis of dependent variable Reaction

All the hypotheses and research questions were based on the evaluation of the TM program. But the factor analysis showed that only four of the six questions from the questionnaire evaluated the TM program, and questions five and six were about how the employees would feel if they were excluded from the TM program. Because no hypotheses were formulated for these questions, we performed an exploratory analysis.

The dependent variable was Reaction. Gender, age, and function (manager versus others) were entered as covariates. The eight instruments were used as independent variables. The independent variables and the covariates were only tested as main effects.

(40)

gender was not significant, which means that male and female employees react equally to not being included in the TM program. The covariate function was significant, which means that managers react more negatively to not being included in the TM program (M= 3.92) than non-managers (M= 4.42). No further effects were found.

Age Gender Function