Two sides of the same coin? An investigation into Two sides of the same coin? An investigation into factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave By Katrina Radford

i

Two sides of the same coin? An investigation into

factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay

and leave

By

Katrina Radford

BPsych (Hons), MHRM, CAPM

Griffith Business School

Department of Employment Relations and Human Resources

Griffith University

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

December 2013

ii

*Page intentionally left blank*

iii

Abstract

This study investigated Australian aged care employees’ intentions to stay and leave.

Much research has been conducted on why people leave; however, an emerging body of

research is also examining why people stay. While a few studies have investigated the

factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave, only one study (Howe,

King, Ellis, Wells, Wei, & Teshuva, 2012) has investigated the factors influencing

Australian aged care employees’ intentions to stay and leave. No study, however, has

investigated the combined influence of personal factors (age, education status, marital

status, tenure, perceived health of self and family, employment status, and area of

employment) and organisational factors (perceived organisational support, perceived

supervisor support, job embeddedness, and job satisfaction) on employees’ intentions to

stay and leave. Additionally, there has been no study that has investigated these factors

using the “Resource-Based View of the Firm”, which is the theoretical framework for

this study. Therefore, this study makes original contributions to the literature.

Examining employees’ intentions to stay and leave is particularly important within the

Australian aged care sector, which is characterised by high turnover, an ageing

workforce, and the impact of the global shortages of nurses (King et al., 2012).

Consequently, research that investigates the factors affecting the sustainability of this

sector, such as employee retention and turnover, is needed. Only one study has

investigated the similarities and differences in the factors influencing both community

care and residential care (i.e., long-term care institutions) employees’ intentions to stay

and leave (Howe et al., 2012). However, that study was limited in the data collected by

the national census of aged care employees and as such did not study the same variables

as the present study. Therefore, the present study makes valuable contributions to

understanding the Australian aged care sector by investigating further similarities and

differences among the factors influencing intentions in these two groups of employees,

as well as providing additional knowledge to the sector regarding the general factors

influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave.

This study investigated five research questions:

1. What factors influence employees’ intentions to stay?

2. What factors influence employees’ intentions to leave?

3. What are the similarities and differences between the factors influencing

employees’ intentions to stay and leave?

iv

4. Do these factors differ between residential aged care and community aged care

settings?

5. Do the factors differ by the generation of the employee?

Using a positivist approach, this study administered a cross-sectional questionnaire to

2118 employees from four differently sized organisations (one very large >4000

employees, one large <900 employees, one medium <300 employees and one small <80

employees) across two states of Australia. The questionnaire comprised both closed and

open questions to examine the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and

leave, and achieved a response rate of 19.8% (420 responses).

Overall, this study found many similarities and differences between employees’

intentions to stay and leave. Intentions to stay and leave were both influenced by

age/generation, health, location of workplace in relation to employees’ home, family

responsibilities, perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support, on-the-

job embeddedness, job satisfaction, career opportunities provided, financial

considerations, and the work environment. Employees’ intentions to leave were

influenced by tenure in position, and burnout, whereas intentions to stay were also

influenced by study commitments, and job security.

Surprisingly, this study failed to support the notion that off-the-job embeddedness

factors play an important unique contribution to employees’ intentions to stay,

suggesting that the influence of factors, which are related to where they live and their

community, may be contextual only to the United States of America, where most

research has been conducted. However, further research is needed to examine these

context differences further by, for example, conducting a comparison study of

employees from other countries and Australia or by examining different industries

and/or occupational groups. Additionally, further research is needed to examine the

broader results in more detail, to take into account differences between private and not-

for-profit organisations, as well as to further examine age differences.

Keywords: Resource-Based View of the Firm (RBV), Retention, Turnover, Job

Embeddedness, Perceived Organisational Support, Perceived Supervisor Support, Job

Satisfaction, Aged Care

v

Statement of originality

I, Katrina Radford, declare that the PhD thesis entitled Two sides of the same coin? An

investigation into factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave is no more

than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, figures, appendices, references and

footnotes.

This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis

itself.

Signed by Katrina Radford …………………………………………………………

Date: …………………………………………………………………….................

Witnessed by: ………………………………………………………………………

Date: ……………………………………………………………………...................

Witnessed by: …………………………………………….........................................

Date: ……………………………………………………………………...................

vi

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................. iii

Statement of originality ........................................................................................... v

List of figures .......................................................................................................... x

List of tables ........................................................................................................... xi

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... xiii

Statement of contribution to co-authored published papers ................................. xv

Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................... 1

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Research aims, justification, problem and questions .......................................................... 5

1.3 Nature of the study .............................................................................................................. 9

1.4 Glossary of terms and list of acronyms used ....................................................................... 9

1.5 Research limitations and de-limiters ................................................................................. 12

1.6 Chapter overview .............................................................................................................. 13

1.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 14

Chapter 2: Literature review of theoretical constructs ......................................... 15

2.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 16

2.1 Resource-Based View of the Firm .................................................................................... 16

2.1.1 Development of the Resource-Based View of the Firm ............................................. 16

2.1.2 How the resource-based view of the firm guides this research .................................. 21

2.2 Employee retention ........................................................................................................... 22

2.3 Employee turnover ............................................................................................................ 23

2.4 Personal factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave .............................. 26

2.4.1 Age and generation ..................................................................................................... 27

2.4.2 Education level ........................................................................................................... 30

2.4.3 Marital status .............................................................................................................. 30

2.4.4 Tenure ........................................................................................................................ 31

2.4.5 Kinship responsibilities .............................................................................................. 31

2.4.6 Employee and family health ....................................................................................... 32

2.4.7 Employment status ..................................................................................................... 33

2.4.8 Area of employment ................................................................................................... 33

2.5 Organisational factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave .................... 34

2.5.1 Job satisfaction and working conditions .................................................................... 35

vii

2.5.2 Perceived organisational Support ............................................................................... 39

2.5.3 Perceived supervisor support...................................................................................... 41

2.5.4 Job embeddedness ...................................................................................................... 42

2.6 Factors influencing both intention to stay and intention to leave ...................................... 46

2.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 47

Chapter 3: Literature review of the aged care sector ............................................ 49

3.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 50

3.1 The Australian health and aged care sector ....................................................................... 50

3.2 The ageing population ....................................................................................................... 51

3.3 The Australian aged care sector ........................................................................................ 53

3.3.1 Residential aged care services .................................................................................... 53

3.3.2 Community aged care services ................................................................................... 54

3.4 The Australian health and aged care workforce demands ................................................. 57

3.5 The Australian aged care workforce ................................................................................. 61

3.6 Workforce profile of aged care employees ..................................................................... 64

3.6.1 Age ............................................................................................................................. 64

3.6.2 Gender ........................................................................................................................ 65

3.6.3 Tenure ........................................................................................................................ 65

3.6.4 Perceived health ......................................................................................................... 67

3.6.5 Country of origin ........................................................................................................ 67

3.6.6 Employment status ..................................................................................................... 68

3.7 Summary of hypotheses and model proposed ................................................................... 69

3.8 Proposed models ............................................................................................................... 71

3.9 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 74

Chapter 4: Methodology and methods .................................................................. 75

4.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 76

4.1 Philosophical foundation ................................................................................................... 77

4.1.1 Ontology ..................................................................................................................... 77

4.1.2 Epistemology .............................................................................................................. 78

4.2 Method .............................................................................................................................. 79

4.2.1 Research design and justification ............................................................................... 79

4.2.2 Method comparison and justification ......................................................................... 80

4.2.3 Development of the survey instrument ...................................................................... 83

4.3 Respondents of main study ............................................................................................... 96

4.3.1 Main study respondents .............................................................................................. 96

viii

4.3.2 Sample justification .................................................................................................... 97

4.4 Measures ........................................................................................................................... 98

4.5 Validity and reliability considerations .............................................................................. 99

4.5.1 Construct validity ....................................................................................................... 99

4.5.2 External validity ......................................................................................................... 99

4.5.3 Measurement reliability .............................................................................................. 99

4.6 Data triangulation ............................................................................................................ 102

4.7 Procedure for the main study .......................................................................................... 103

4.8 Ethical issues ................................................................................................................... 104

4.9 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 104

Chapter 5: Quantitative results ........................................................................... 107

5.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 108

5.1 Data preparation and screening ....................................................................................... 108

5.1.1 Sample characteristics .............................................................................................. 108

5.1.2 Development of final dataset for analysis ................................................................ 112

5.1.3 Missing data ............................................................................................................. 117

5.2 Data analysis results ........................................................................................................ 121

5.2.1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations ....................................................... 121

5.2.2 Analysis of Group Differences ................................................................................. 127

5.2.3 Hierarchical regression ............................................................................................. 134

5.2.4 Structural equation modelling .................................................................................. 143

5.3 Chapter summary and conclusion ................................................................................... 157

Chapter 6: Results of the analysis of the open-ended questions .......................... 167

6.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 168

6.1 Sample size and analysis technique ................................................................................ 168

6.2 Overall analysis of employees’ intentions to stay and leave ........................................... 169

6.2.1 Intentions to stay: short-term .................................................................................... 171

6.2.2 Intentions to stay: long-term..................................................................................... 173

6.2.3 Intentions to leave: short-term .................................................................................. 176

6.2.4 Intentions to leave: long-term................................................................................... 178

6.2.5 Similarities and differences ...................................................................................... 179

6.3 Generational differences analysis .................................................................................... 181

6.3.1 Short-term intentions to stay by generation ............................................................. 181

6.3.2 Long-term intentions to stay by generation .............................................................. 186

6.3.3 Short-term intentions to leave, by generation .......................................................... 191

ix

6.3.4 Long-Term Intentions to Leave ................................................................................ 196

6.3.5 Similarities and differences by generation ............................................................... 201

6.4 Area of employment analysis .......................................................................................... 212

6.4.1 Short-term intentions to stay by area of employment .............................................. 212

6.4.2 Long-term intentions to stay, by area of employment .............................................. 215

6.4.3 Short-term intentions to leave by area of employment ............................................ 218

6.4.4 Long-term intentions to leave by area of employment ............................................. 220

6.4.5 Similarities and difference identified in area of employment .................................. 222

6.5 Overall summary of findings........................................................................................... 227

6.6 Chapter summary and conclusion ................................................................................... 230

Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................ 233

7.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 234

7.1 Research question 1: discussion of findings .................................................................... 235





7.5 Thesis conclusion ............................................................................................................ 259

7.5.1 Strengths ................................................................................................................... 261

7.5.2 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 262

7.6 Theoretical and practical contributions ........................................................................... 263

7.6.1 Theoretical contributions .......................................................................................... 263

7.6.2 Practical contributions .............................................................................................. 265

7.7 Future research ................................................................................................................ 266

7.8 Concluding statements .................................................................................................... 268

References ........................................................................................................... 270

Appendix A: Questionnaire used in the Expert panel review study .................... 294

Appendix B: Pilot study questionnaire ................................................................ 306

Appendix C: Final questionnaire pack distributed to participants ..................... 318

x

List of figures

Figure 1.1 The structure of this thesis.............................................................................. 13

Figure 2.1 Components of competitive advantage of human resources......................... 20

Figure 3.1 Australian health and aged care system......................................................... 51

Figure 3.2 Number of recipients of community aged care packages within Australia

2006-2007........................................................................................................................

56

Figure 3.3 RAC skill shortages by location...................................................................... 59

Figure 3.4 CAC skill shortages by location...................................................................... 59

Figure 3.5 Age distribution of the RAC and CAC workforce.......................................... 65

Figure 3.6 Tenure within the Australian aged care system.............................................. 66

Figure 3.7 Employment status of the Australian aged care workforce............................ 69

Figure 3.8 Proposed model of intention to stay.............................................................. 72

Figure 3.9 Proposed model of intention to leave............................................................. 73

Figure 4.1 The deductive approach to research............................................................... 77

Figure 4.2 The research design of this study.................................................................... 83

Figure 5.1 Structural equation model 1: Examination of the direct effects of the

organisational variables on employees’ intentions to stay and leave (with personal

variables and job satisfaction excluded, N = 359)............................................................

146

Figure 5.2 Structural equation model 2: Examination of the direct effects of the

organisational variables on employees’ intentions to stay and leave (with the personal

variables, but not job satisfaction, included, N = 359).....................................................

146

Figure 5.3 Structural equation model 3: Examination of the direct effects of all the

organisational variables, and the indirect effect of PSS, on employees’ intentions to stay

and leave (with the personal variables and job satisfaction, excluded, N =

359)..................................................................................................................................

147

Figure 5.4 Structural equation model 4: Examination of the direct effects of all the

organisational variables, and the indirect effect of PSS, on employees’ intentions to stay

and leave (with the personal variables, but not job satisfaction, included, N =

359)...................................................................................................................................

148

Figure 5.5 Outcome of tested model of intention to stay, quantitative results only......... 159

Figure 5.6 Outcome of tested model of intention to leave, quantitative results only......... 160

Figure 6.1 Summary of employees’ intentions to stay, qualitative results ........................ 230

Figure 6.2 Summary of employees’ intentions to leave, qualitative results........................ 231

Figure 7.1 Final model of intention to stay......................................................................... 244

Figure 7.2 Final model of intention to leave....................................................................... 253

xi

List of tables

Table 2.1 Definitions of job satisfaction........................................................................... 37

Table 3.1 Aged care community packages........................................................................ 55

Table 3.2 Median age of direct care workforce in RAC and CAC settings,

Australia.........

57

Table 3.3 The core workforce of Australian aged care services....................................... 62

Table 3.4 Country of birth of RAC and CAC employees.................................................... 68

Table 4.1 Comparison of method characteristics............................................................. 80

Table 4.2 Further methodological considerations examined........................................... 81

Table 4.3 Breakdown of respondents by generation........................................................ 98

Table 4.4 Data collection and analysis challenges and strategies embedded in study to

minimise or mitigate these challenges.............................................................................

100

Table 4.5 Data triangulation............................................................................................. 102

Table 5.1 Residential care workforce sampling characteristics........................................ 109

Table 5.2 Community care workforce sampling characteristics....................................... 110

Table 5.3 Chi square statistical test for differences between the sample and census data 111

Table 5.4 Exploratory factor analysis: Intentions to stay and leave.................................. 115

Table 5.5 Confirmatory factor analysis of intentions to leave scale................................. 117

Table 5.6 Number of mean substitutions per scale............................................................ 118

Table 5.7 Chi square analysis of differences between groups who did and did not

respond to the job satisfaction item...................................................................................

119

Table 5.8 Independent group t-test analysis of differences between groups who did and

did not respond to the job satisfaction item......................................................................

120

Table 5.9 Descriptive statistic and correlation between demographic and employment

related variables (N=359)................................................................................................

122

Table 5.10 Descriptive statistics and correlation between demographic and employment

related variables (N=227)............................................................................

123

Table 5.11 Descriptive statistics and correlation between tenure and intentions to stay

and leave............................................................................................................................

127

Table 5.12 Generational differences ANOVA results...................................................... 128

Table 5.13 T-test analysis results and descriptive statistics............................................. 131

Table 5.14 Differences between community and residential care employees’ job

satisfaction.......................................................................................................................

132

Table 5.15 Tolerance and variance inflation factor analysis............................................ 136

Table 5.16 Summary of hierarchical regression predicting intentions to stay and leave

(N=359)............................................................................................................................

137

xii

Table 5.17 Summary of hierarchical regression predicting intentions to stay and leave

(N=227)............................................................................................................................

140

Table 5.18 Acceptable level and interpretation of selected fit criteria............................ 145

Table 5.19 Fit statistics pertaining to structural models 1-4 in series 1 (N=359)............. 149

Table 5.20 Direct, indirect and total effects of variables on intentions to stay (N=359)... 150

Table 5.21 Direct, indirect and total effects of variables on intentions to leave (N=359). 150

Table 5.22 Fit statistics pertaining to structural models 1-4 in series 2 (N=227)............. 152

Table 5.23 Direct, indirect and total effects of variables on intentions to stay (N=227).. 153

Table 5.24 Direct, indirect and total effects of variables on intentions to leave (N=227) 154

Table 5.25 Summary of the results in relation to the hypothesis proposed.................... 157

Table 6.1 Factors influencing short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave.... 170

Table 6.2 Short-term intentions to stay by generation.................................................... 182

Table 6.3 Long-term intentions to stay by generation..................................................... 188

Table 6.4 Short-term intentions to leave by generation.................................................. 193

Table 6.5 Long-term intentions to leave by generation................................................... 198

Table 6.6 Short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave by generation........... 202

Table 6.7 Short-term intentions to stay influences by area of employment.................... 213

Table 6.8 Long term intentions to stay influences by area of employment..................... 216

Table 6.9 Short-term intentions to leave influences by area of employment.................. 218

Table 6.10 Long-term intentions to leave influences by area of employment................. 221

Table 6.11 Short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave by area of employment 223

xiii

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to all those who contributed to the

successful completion of my thesis.

To my primary supervisor, Associate Professor Kate Shacklock, thank you for being not

only a great supervisor but also a fantastic and reliable, confidant and friend. You

always seemed to have faith in me, even when my faith was tested at times. Your

feedback, attention to detail and continual support and encouragement were greatly

appreciated throughout this whole journey and without you I could not have become the

person I am today.

To my associate supervisor, Associate Professor Graham Bradley, while our journey has

been short together, my learning curve under your guidance has certainly been steep and

I truly appreciate your support, encouragement and feedback throughout this process.

To Associate Professor Janis Bailey, with whom I started this journey, your continued

support and guidance has been a treasure and one that I will not forget. It was a pleasure

working with you at the start of this journey and the friendship we have developed is

one I will treasure.

To the organisations who participated in this research, without your support, this would

not have been possible, so thank you.

To Professor Anneke Fitzgerald, Associate Professor John Rice, Dr. Geoff Carter, and

Dr. Rod Gapp, your continued support, encouragement and guidance has not been

forgotten and is truly appreciated. I have learnt so much from each of you throughout

this process that I would not be the person and researcher that I am without your help,

so thank you.

To Professor Lorraine Venturato, you were the ignition to this dream and without your

friendship, support, encouragement, words of wisdom, and belief I would not have

begun or even completed this journey, for this, I am truly thankful and appreciative.

To Beni Halvorson, Ellen Meissner, Susan Gallagher and Sharon Monahan, thank you

for the advice, guidance, laughter and support throughout this experience. I could not

have done this without you.

xiv

To Dr. William Hatherall, thank you for providing your editing expertise on this thesis.

Your contributions and guidance were greatly appreciated.

To my family, many of whom still do not know what it is that I have been doing but

who have nonetheless provided support, love and encouragement in their own way, this

is what I have been doing for all those hours at university. To my beautiful nephew and

nieces, your love and continued smiles and laughter have brought me so much joy and

happiness throughout this process, especially when I needed them the most.

To my “hub mates”, thank you for your support and encouragement throughout this

process. The ability to run ideas and gain feedback with like-minded peers has been an

honour and a privilege that I will always treasure. Again, I would not be the researcher I

am today without your guidance.

Last, but not least, to my friends, thank you for your continued laughter,

encouragement, support and the grounding you have all provided me over the past three

years. It has been full of ups, downs and inside outs, but you have all been there for me

in your own way and I truly am appreciative of your love and support.

Together, you have all been a treasure and a rock to me throughout everything that has

happened in your own way. I am truly grateful and appreciative of you all and the role

you have played in my life, so from the bottom of my heart, thank you.

xv

Statement of contribution to co-authored published papers

The bibliographic details of the co-authored papers and presentations, including all

authors are:

Journal articles

Radford, K., Shacklock, K., Bradley, G. (2013). Personal care workers’ intention to

stay and leave. Journal of Nursing Management. Accepted for publication August

2013. DOI: 10.1111/jonm.12172

Peer reviewed Conference Papers

Radford, K., Shacklock, K., & Bradley, G. (2012). Battle of the decades: Generational

differences in the retention of Australian aged care employees. Accepted (3 October

2012), Emerging Researchers in Ageing, Brisbane, 19-20 November.

Radford, K., & Shacklock, K. (2012). Generational differences in retention motives: A

review of the literature and implications for practice. Accepted (2 August 2012)

Australian New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) conference, Perth, 6-

8 December.

Conferences

Invited Presentation

Radford, K., & Shacklock, K. (August 2013). Working together in the future: Retaining

a multi-generational workforce. Building a Stronger Aged Care Workforce 2013.

Sydney: Australia, 21-22 August 2013.

Radford, K. (August 2012). Employees’ intentions to stay in and leave the aged care

sector. Presented to the Australian Association of Gerontology Annual General

Meeting. Brisbane: Australia, 30 August 2012.

Oral Presentations

Radford, K., & Shacklock, K. (December 2013). The impact of perceived organizational

support and perceived supervisor support on retention and turnover predictors in

Australian aged care employees. Presented at the Australian New Zealand

Academy of Management Conference. Hobart: Australia.

Radford, K., & Shacklock, K. (December 2012). Generational differences in retention

motives: A review of the literature and implications for practice. Presented at the

Australian New Zealand Academy of Management Conference. Perth: Australia.

Radford, K. (December 2012). Two sides of the same coin? Employees’ intentions to

stay in and leave the Australian aged care sector. Presented at the Australian New

Zealand Academy of Management Doctoral Workshop. Perth: Australia.

Radford, K, Shacklock, K., & Bradley, G. (November 2012). Battle of the decades:

Generational differences in the retention of Australian aged care employees.

Presented at the Emerging Researchers in Ageing Conference 2012. Brisbane:

Australia

xvi

Radford, K., Shacklock, K, & Bradley, G. (November 2012). Employees’ intentions to

stay in and leave aged care. Presented at the Australian Association of Gerontology

National conference. Brisbane: Australia.

Radford, K. (October 2011). Generational differences: Implications for recruitment and

retention. Presented at the Gerontology and Geriatrics Conference. Melbourne:

Australia. 23-27 October 2011.

Radford, K. (August 2010). The Future of the Australian aged care workforce.

Presented at the Building and Aged Care Workforce 2010 Conference. Sydney:

Australia. 24-25 August 2010.

Posters

Radford, K. (2012). Who will care for you when you need it the most? Employees’

intentions to stay in and leave the aged care sector. Poster presented to the Griffith

Higher Degree Researchers Poster Competition. Gold Coast: Australia. (WINNER

of poster competition.)

Other Presentations

Radford, K. (2012). Who will care for you when you need it the most? Presentation for

the three-minute thesis competition. Griffith University, Gold Coast: Australia.

Summary of my contributions to the papers and presentations:

Conducting the literature review, collecting the data, assisting in the design of the

methodology, writing up the methodology, conducting and writing up the analyses,

developing the discussion then preparing the papers and presentations for publication.

(Signed) _________________________________ (Date)______________

Katrina Radford

(Countersigned) ___________________________ (Date)______________

Associate Professor Kate Shacklock

(Countersigned) ___________________________ (Date)______________

Associate Professor Graham Bradley

(Countersigned) ___________________________ (Date)______________ Supervisor: Associate Professor Kate Shacklock

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

2

1.0 Introduction

The increased dependence on skilled staff by organisations today has resulted in a change of

power from the organisation to the employees (Leana & Rousseau, 2000). This change has

resulted in an increase in worker mobility, the “opportunity and willingness of an employee

to seek employment elsewhere” (Rousseau & Shperling, 2003, p.559) and added significant

pressure on organisations to develop appropriate people management strategies to retain

quality employees. Effective use of these people management strategies requires an

understanding of how they influence employees’ intentions to stay and leave.

These issues are of particular importance in the aged care sector, as the ageing population

puts an increased demand on the services required now and into the future. Without an

effective workforce, the Australian health and aged care system is not sustainable. While

much research has investigated the acute care workforce, only an emerging body of research

has investigated the aged care workforce. As the population ages, research investigating the

retention and turnover of the aged care workforce is urgently needed. This study therefore

focuses on employees’ intention to stay in and to leave the Australian aged care sector, with a

view to filling a number of gaps in the academic literature, and providing information that

will improve the sector’s employee retention strategies.

This chapter provides an introduction to the study by first presenting the background on the

need for this research, before discussing the research problem, research questions and the

justification for this research. Following this, a glossary of terms and acronyms is provided.

This chapter then describes the limitations and de-limitations that underpin this study, before

presenting an overview of the chapter in this thesis.

1.1 Background

Australia boasts the second longest life expectancy in the world, namely (for those born in

2010-2011), 83 years for males and 86 years for females (Australian Institute of Health and

Welfare (AIHW), 2008; Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2011a). Longer life

expectancy can be attributed to decreased fertility rates, decreased death rates and improved

health conditions (AIHW, 2008; ABS, 2004, 2008; Turrell et al., 2006). With improved

health conditions and technological changes, by 2056 Australia’s life expectancy is projected

to increase to 93.9 years for males and 96.1 years for females, and 20% of the population will

be aged over 70 (ABS, 2008). While an ageing population can be viewed as a positive

3

consequence of improved living conditions and successful ageing, it also brings with it

challenges such as the changing patterns of diseases and an increased complexity of health

conditions (Productivity Commission, 2005). Thus, the ageing population increases the need

for quality aged care services in the future.

As well as increasing the need for quality aged care services, an ageing population also

results in an ageing workforce. This results in a more experienced nursing workforce in

general (Schofield & Beard, 2005), but also requires effective workforce planning strategies

to overcome future projected workforce shortages. One strategy to begin to address the

shortages is to focus research on the retention and turnover of the current workforce in order

to inform future human resource management policies. Understanding employee turnover and

retention motivators is critical to the short-term and long-term sustainability of the

organisation (Kyndt, Dochy, Micielson, & Moeyaert, 2009). However, most research has

examined retention or turnover intentions individually (Morrell, Loan-Clarke, Arnold, &

Wilkinson, 2006), with only a few studies investigating both motivators at the same time (e.g.

Chan & Morrison, 2008; Mittal et al., 2009). Recent evidence, however, suggests the factors

influencing employees’ intentions to stay are different from those that influence employees’

intentions to leave (Howe et al., 2012). Therefore, this study examines the similarities and

differences between the factors influencing both employees’ intentions to stay and their

intentions to leave.

To examine these factors, this study uses the Resource-Based View of the Firm (RBV) as the

theoretical framework (Barney, 2001). The RBV is a commonly used strategic human

resource management framework, which posits that an organisation’s competitive advantage

lies in its human resources. There are three components that are central to the competitive

advantage of an organisation. The first is the “human capital pool”, which consists of the

knowledge, skills and abilities of the human resources available within the organisation.

These attributes are important as they are rare (limited in supply), inimitable (cannot be

copied by other organisations), valuable (in the outputs produced) and non-substitutable

(unique to that individual and cannot be replaced). Together, the human capital pool

influences, and is influenced by the “employee behaviour and relationships” and “people

management practices” that organisations implement, which are the second and third

components to the competitive advantage of human resources (Barney, 2001).

4

According to Dunford, Snell & Wright (2001), “employee behaviour and relationships” are

the actions or inactions that employees undertake that have an influence on the role they play

in an organisation’s competitive advantage. For example, on one hand, job satisfaction

influences the level of motivation employees have to produce valuable outputs for an

organisation. “People management practices”, on the other hand, are the policies that

enhance employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities and influence employee behaviours and

relationships within the organisation, such as training opportunities provided by an

organisation (Dunford et al., 2001). Proponents of the RBV argue that understanding how an

organisation’s human capital pool, employee behaviours and relationships and people

management strategies interact is essential to unlocking an organisation’s competitive

advantage within their marketplace (Dunford et al., 2001). Similarly, in order to maintain

competitive advantage, understanding how to retain an organisation’s human resources is

essential. This is particularly important within the Australian aged care sector, which is

growing rapidly as a result of an ageing population, and therefore research that focuses

specifically on this sector is vital.

The aged care sector provides both long-term care services within Residential Aged Care

(RAC) and Community Aged Care (CAC) settings, and short-term care services (respite)

within a RAC environment (AIHW, 2010). RAC settings provide permanent and temporary

accommodation to older people living in Australia. Permanent care is provided for those who

are unable to live independently in their own home. Temporary care (respite) is provided as

short-term relief to carers (of older people) who may themselves have health conditions and

require additional short-term support to alleviate carer strain (AIHW, 2010). Within RAC

service settings, both low-level and high-level care services are provided. Low-level care

services include everyday living services (meals, laundry, cleaning) and some personal care

services. High-level care services provide these services plus more complex care services

such as palliative care (end of life care), medication management, falls management, nursing

care, and other therapy services (Productivity Commission, 2011).

CAC services are provided for older people to prolong their ability to live independently in

their own homes (Department of Health and Ageing, 2011a). A range of low- and high-care

services is provided. Low-care services include domestic assistance and some personal care

services; high-care services include more complex care options such as registered nursing

care, allied health care, personal care, social support, home help, and highly technical

5

services such as assistance with oxygen and/or enteral feeding (feeding a client through a

tube) (Department of Health and Ageing, 2011b; Productivity Commission, 2011).

As the population ages, the significance and scope of the Australian aged care sector grows,

thus increasing the demand for a highly skilled workforce to support the sector. The current

aged care workforce consists of a direct care workforce and a non-direct care workforce. The

direct care workforce consists of occupations that exist only within the health care sector,

including personal carers and assistants in nursing, enrolled nurses, enrolled endorsed nurses,

registered nurses, allied health workers, directors of nursing, and other care staff workers

(including those who provide support services such as cooking, cleaning, administration and

maintenance services) (Department of Health and Ageing, 2010; Productivity Commission,

2011). The non-direct care workforce consists of occupations that are not health specific,

including engineers, project managers, researchers, architects, marketing professionals,

human resource managers, information systems personnel, accountants, finance officers, and

project officers. This study focuses predominately on the direct care workforce, as without

these workers no care could be provided in an aged care setting, and therefore these workers

are central to the sustainability of the aged care sector.

Without the direct care workforce, there would be an increase in the number of older people

occupying beds in the acute and sub-acute care sectors, reducing these sectors’ ability to

respond to the immediate care needs of the wider Australian population. This would then

likely result in a higher mortality rate and an increase in demand for acute and sub-acute care

sector services. Therefore, research that examines the retention of the direct care aged care

workforce, such as that proposed in this study, will potentially contribute to the sustainability

of the aged care sector.

1.2 Research aims, justification, problem and questions

It has been projected that by 2025 the growth in the aged population will result in a 40%

increase in demand for hospital bed days, while in the same period the population aged less

than 30 years (by which age nursing students have typically commenced study) is projected

to grow by only eight per cent (Schofield, 2007). It is expected that these developments will

compound current shortfalls in registered nurse numbers and contribute to an on-going skills

shortage.

6

A recent census of Australian aged care organisations revealed that over 75% of these

organisations reported a skill shortage in at least one direct care role in an RAC environment

(King et al., 2012). Of these organisations, 62% reported Registered Nurse (RN) shortages,

49% reported Personal Care Worker (PCW) shortages, 33% reported Enrolled Nurse (EN)

shortages, and 19.4% reported Allied Health (AH) shortages. Within a CAC environment, the

situation was less severe with 49% of organisations reporting a shortage. Of these

organisations, 16% reported RN shortages, 37% reported Community Care Worker (CCW)

shortages, 6% reported EN shortages and 10% reported AH shortages. The severity of these

staffing shortages is compelling the redesign of the nursing workforce and nursing work by

health service providers and planners. This redesign has seen a rise in the number of

unregulated care workers with varying levels of training and skill, thus altering the skill mix

available within each service.

Indeed, while registered nurse and enrolled nurses numbers in Australia rose by 13% and

29.6% respectively between the years 2000 and 2005, the number of unregulated care

workers increased by 89.5% (Segal & Bolton, 2007). More recent figures suggest that skill

mix ratios have been further altered by a reduction in the number of RNs in the period 2003-

2012 (-6.1%) and ongoing increases in the number of PCWs (+10.1%) employed in RAC

(King et al., 2012). Within the CAC environment, the number of RNs has decreased by 2%

while the number of CCWs remained at a similar level between 2007 and 2012. It should be

noted though that there is no data available on the CAC workforce prior to 2007 and therefore

comparisons should be made with caution.

The reduction in RN numbers and the associated increase in unregulated care workers in the

sector have altered the health care milieu and affected the overall quality of care

(International Centre for Human Resources in Nursing (ICHRN), 2009, 2010; Hall & Buch,

2009). Research on the impact of nursing shortages on quality of care and health outcomes

for clients demonstrates linkages between poor staffing levels and the following

developments: 1) lower levels of patient satisfaction with care; 2) an increase in clinical

complications such as urinary tract infections, pneumonia, upper gastrointestinal bleeding,

and shock; and 3) higher rates of “failure to rescue” (Eley, Buikstra, Plank, Hegney, &

Parker, 2007; Hall & Buch, 2009; ICHRN, 2009, 2010; Needleman, Buerhaus, Mattke,

Steward, & Zelevinsky, 2007; Sellgreen, Ekvell & Tomson, 2007; Teng, Hsiao & Chou,

2010). Given that the aged care industry provides services to an increasing number of frail

7

and vulnerable clients, developing and maintaining an adequate workforce to support and

deliver these services is of central concern (Skinner, Van Dijk, Elton, & Auer, 2011).

In addition to the changing health care milieu and skill mix, the aged care sector is also

experiencing an ageing workforce, which has resulted in up to six generations working

together. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, these generations are the Late

Veteran Generation, Early and Late Baby Boomer Generation, Early and Late Generation X

and Y, and Early Generation I (ABS, 2009a). Research examining generational differences

has established mixed results, where some research has identified differences between the

generations (Chen & Chio, 2008; Goldman & Schmalz, 2006), others have questioned the

utility and validity of generational differences (Parry & Urwin, 2011).

Proponents of generational differences argue that people born in different generations hold

differing values, attitudes, frames of references and traits that may lead to differences

between generations in their reactions to life events. As a result, people who belong to a

generation tend to develop similar work and life values that shape their attitudes and beliefs,

and guide their behaviour (Chen & Chio, 2008; Strauss & Howe, 1992; Tresize-Brown,

2004). However, these values can often conflict with other generations’ values causing

organisational conflict and attraction and retention difficulties (Tresize-Brown, 2004). In a

sector characterised by an ageing and diverse workforce, research investigating generational

differences in retention and turnover intentions is important yet has mostly been overlooked

to date.

Models of turnover have existed in the human resource literature for decades (Steel &

Launsbury, 2009). These models identify both personal and organisational factors that have

been found to influence employees’ intentions to stay or leave. However, only a few studies

have compared the differences between the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay

and to leave. Therefore, this study extends the literature by comparing the role that both

personal factors (age/generation, education level, marital status, tenure, kinship

responsibilities, perceived health of the employee and their family, ethnicity, job employment

status and area of employment) and organisational factors (perceived organisational support,

perceived supervisor support, job embeddedness, and job satisfaction) have on employees’

intentions to stay and leave. Chapter 2 presents a rationale for the selection of each of these

variables in this study.

8

Research examining employees’ intentions to leave is important in order to provide insights

into the factors that motivate employees to leave; such research will contribute to knowledge

on employee turnover intentions. At the same time, research examining employees’

intentions to stay is important in order to provide information on the factors that impact upon

employee retention intentions. While research in general on intention to leave and intention to

stay provides valuable information on how organisations can better retain productive

employees, research on the aged care workforce has mostly focused on employees’ intentions

to leave, with only limited research specifically on employees’ intentions to stay.

Only one study (Howe et al., 2012) has examined the differences in factors affecting

employees’ intentions to stay in and to leave the aged care sector. However, that study

examined secondary data from the 2007 census of Australian aged care workers, which was

administered to aged care workers before the global financial crisis. Since then, the global

financial crisis has affected employees’ intentions to stay and leave by changing the financial

situation of many Australians. Research by O'Loughlin, Humpel and Kendig (2010) found

that 36.5% of Australian workers aged 50-64 had postponed their intentions to retire as a

result of the global financial crisis. Additionally, 50.6% of Australian workers reported being

worse off financially after the global financial crisis, resulting in some people being forced

into returning to work, either full-time or part-time. Consequently, an updated picture of aged

care employees’ intentions to stay and leave is needed. Further, Howe et al. (2012) examined

employees’ intentions to stay and leave from only a short-term perspective (within the next

12 months). In contrast, the present study examines both short-term (within the next 12

months) and long-term (within the next five years) intentions to stay and leave through the

collection of primary data using both closed and open-ended questions, offering a deeper

understanding of factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Therefore, this

study begins to fill these literature gaps, and add to the current body of knowledge on factors

affecting employees’ intentions to stay in and leave the aged care sector. Specifically, this

study investigates the following research questions:



3. What are the similarities and differences between the factors influencing employees’

intentions to stay and leave?

4. Do these factors differ between residential and community aged care settings?


9

1.3 Nature of the study

To investigate aged care employees’ intentions to stay and leave, a quantitative method was

employed using a positivist ontology with a realist epistemology. This method consisted of

sending out a questionnaire to 2118 aged care employees, across four organisations (one very

large >4000 employees, one large <900 employees, one medium <300 employees and one

small <80 employees), which spanned two states of Australia. Both closed and open

questions were used in this survey to gather information from respondents. The closed

questions examined personal and organisational variables using established, validated and

reliable scales. The open questions gathered information on the people management,

employee behaviours and human capital pool factors influencing employees’ short-term

(within the next 12 months) and long-term (within the next five years) intentions to stay and

leave, as one way of triangulating the data collected.

1.4 Glossary of terms and list of acronyms used

The following definitions are used throughout this thesis.

Community Aged Care Services: Aged care services provided within a community setting

(Department of Health and Ageing, 2011a).

Director of Nursing: This position oversees and manages the entire Residential Aged Care

Facility.

Epistemology: What researchers consider to be acceptable knowledge within a discipline.

Endorsed Enrolled Nurse: This position administers drugs and medication to older people

receiving care in addition to the role scope of enrolled nurses.

Enrolled Nurse: This position monitors client care, maintains regular communication with

the registered nurse, provides support and comfort for clients, and assists in daily living of

clients.

Generation: Refers to an identifiable group of people who share the same birth years,

locations, and significant life events at critical developmental stages during their lives

(Kupperschmidt, 2000; Smola & Sutton, 2002).

10

Job Embeddedness: The connections and relationships employees develop over a period of

time with their employers (Allen, Bryant & Vardamen, 2010; Mitchell, Holtom, Lee,

Sablyrski & Ernez, 2001).

Job Satisfaction: An “attitudinal variable that represents the extent to which people like

(satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs” (Spector, 1997, p. 2).

Nurse Manager (also known as Care Manager or Community Program Manager): The

role responsible for managing the overall care provided in a particular area within a broader

organisational context (e.g. one area within a community care region/Residential Aged Care

Facility).

Ontology: Refers to the nature of social entities or social realities that an individual

experiences (Bryman, 2004).

Perceived Organisational Support: Refers to an employee’s perception that the

organisation by which they are employed cares about their overall wellbeing and values the

contribution they make to the organisation (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Perceived Supervisor Support: Refers to employees’ perceptions of “the degree to which

their supervisors value their contributions and care about their wellbeing” (Eisenberger,

Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski & Rhoades, 2002, p. 565).

Personal Care Worker: This position provides daily living support to clients under the

direction of the nursing team.

Positivism: An “organised method for combining deductive logic with precise observations

of individual behaviour in order to discover and confirm a set of probabilistic causal laws that

can be used to predict general patterns of human activity” (Neuman, 2011, p. 95).

Quantitative Methodology: An approach to research which uses numbers to generate

answers to hypotheses tested and produce conclusions based on research findings (Veal,

2011).

Survey: Consists of a series of questions aimed at gathering information on individuals’

attitudes, beliefs, values, interests and behaviours (Sommers & Sommers, 2002).

Realist ontology: Argues the world exists independently of an individual and that individuals

are able to experience reality through a process of enquiry (Neuman, 2011).

11

Registered Nurse: A fully qualified nurse who is responsible for case managing clients.

Reliability: Refers to the ability to find similar results when replicated (Veal, 2011).

Residential Aged Care Facility: Aged care services provided within permanent or

temporary accommodation settings (Department of Health and Ageing, 2011a).

Resource-Based View of the Firm: The argument that all organisational resources have

value-creating properties and therefore organisations should examine their internal

environment for competitive advantage (Boxall, Purcell & Wright, 2007).

Validity: The extent to which the information collected truly reflects the construct being

investigated (Thompson, 2003; Veal, 2011).

Voluntary Turnover: An employee’s decision to voluntarily leave an organisation (Allen,

Bryant & Vardoman, 2010).

Workforce Shortage (also termed skills shortage): Occurs “when there is either a

reduction in the availability of skilled labour, an increased demand for skilled labour, or

both” (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009a, p. 151).

In addition to these terms, the following acronyms are used.

ABS – Australian Bureau of Statistics

AIHW – Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing

CAC – Community Aged Care

DON – Director of Nursing

DVA – Department of Veteran Affairs

EEN – Endorsed Enrolled Nurse

EN – Enrolled Nurse

JIG – Job in General

NM – Nurse Manager

PCW – Personal Care Worker

12

POS – Perceived Organisational Support

PSS – Perceived Supervisor Support

RAC – Residential Aged Care

RACF – Residential Aged Care Facilities

RBV – Resource Based View of the Firm

RN – Registered Nurse

SPSS – Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

1.5 Research limitations and de-limiters

First, this study was limited by the sample obtained. That is, while the researcher purposely

targeted four differently sized organisations across two states of Australia, the sample used in

this study was found to be younger, less experienced, employed for a shorter period of time,

and had more permanent contracts than did the aged care workforce as a whole. Additionally,

this study lacked a national sample as it only collected data from not-for-profit organisations

and those who provided direct care to clients. Employees from the private and public sectors

of aged care and broader aged care employees, such as corporate service positions, were not

represented in the study. Therefore, caution should be made when generalising from the

results of this study to all aged care employees within Australia. Further, this study was

confined to the aged care sector, which means the results cannot be generalised outside this

sector.

A further limitation was the amount of missing data in this study. Respondents left large

amounts of missing data, particularly when responding to the job satisfaction scale. This

limited the ability of the study to analyse job satisfaction in isolation as well as the influence

that job satisfaction had on employees’ intentions to stay and leave. This missing data also

affected the sample size obtained, which resulted in non-significant findings from some of the

analyses, meaning that no differences were found in the dataset to support the hypotheses.

Further, while this study obtained an adequate sample overall, there were a large number of

non-responders in this study. This may have biased the results obtained as the sample who

did respond was different from the national census data.

Methodological limitations were also apparent in this research. In particular, the use of a

survey methodology meant that the data collected was shallow, inflexible and limited to the

13

moment in time studied. Additionally, while all care was taken to be rigorous and systematic,

it is recognized that researcher bias and error are still possible when using the qualitative

coding technique chosen. Consequently, further research is needed to gain more depth in

understanding the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave through the use

of interviews and focus groups.

1.6 Chapter overview

This thesis is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter provides an introduction to the

thesis and describes the rationale and overview of the research. The next two chapters

(chapters 2 and 3) provide a review of the literature and context for this research. Chapter 4

then describes the methodology used to examine the research questions. Following this,

chapters 5 and 6 present the results of the study, which are then discussed in chapter 7.

Additionally, chapter 7 brings the findings and theoretical and practical implications for this

research together. The structure of this thesis is illustrated in Figure 1.1.

Introduction Chapter 1: Introduction

Literature

Review

Chapter 2: Literature Review of Theoretical Constructs

Chapter 3: Literature Review of the Aged Care Sector

Methodology

and Methods

Chapter 4: Methodology and Methods

Results Chapter 5: Quantitative Results

Chapter 6: Results of the Open-Ended Questions

Discussion

and

Conclusion

Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion

Figure 1.1 The structure of this thesis

14

1.7 Conclusion

This chapter has provided an overview of the aged care sector and a rationale for research

that examines the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay in and leave the aged care

sector. It began with a description of the aged care sector as a whole, and then discussed the

impact that both the ageing population and composition of the current aged care workforce

will have on the future need for aged care in Australia. Finally, the chapter presented the

research questions and overview of the thesis. The next chapter will present a literature

review on the factors that have been found to affect employees’ intentions to leave and stay.

It will also provide a description of the theoretical framework underpinning this research.

15

Chapter 2: Literature review of theoretical

constructs

16

2.0 Introduction

Chapter 1 provided an overview of this study and emphasised that employee retention and

turnover is of critical importance within organisations today as organisations fight in the war

for talent. This is especially the case for organisations that struggle to attract and retain

suitably qualified employees in industries such as the aged care sector, which is the context

for this research.

To begin this chapter, an explanation of and rationale for the Resource-Based View of the

Firm (RBV) is provided, which is the theoretical framework that underpins this research.

Following this, the chapter reviews the literature on employee retention and turnover in two

parts. The first part concerns those variables that comprise the “personal factors” that

contribute to the “human capital pool” element of the RBV model. The second section

examines the literature around the “organisational factors” that affect employee retention and

turnover and which contribute to the “employee relationships and behaviours” and the

“people management practices” of the RBV model. Chapter 3 then further contextualises the

selection of the constructs within the Australian aged care sector and provides the proposed

models of retention and turnover for this research.

2.1 Resource-Based View of the Firm

The Resource-Based View of the Firm (RBV) is a strategic management framework designed

to understand how organisations gain competitive advantage through their resources (Boxall

Purcell, & Wright, 2007). It was influenced by the early works of Edith Penrose in 1959,

however, it was not until the early 1990s and developments since then that the RBV became

the assumed paradigm in strategic management research (Barney, 1991; Boxall et al., 2007;

Wright & Boswell, 2003). This section provides an overview of the RBV to orient readers to

the theoretical framework that underpins this research. To do this, a history of the

development of the RBV is provided, followed by a discussion of how it was used in this

research.

2.1.1 Development of the Resource-Based View of the Firm

The development of the RBV has been mostly disjointed, spanning many authors over 20

years of research in the fields of economics, strategic management, human resource

management and organisational development (Saqib & Rashid, 2013). The key influences on

this framework include the Ricardian economic perspective (Petaraf, 1993), Edith Penrose

17

(1959), Wernefelt (1984), Barney (1995), and Barney, Wright and Ketchen (2001). This

section will outline how each of these influences has shaped the development of the RBV

framework over the past 20 years.

The Ricardian economic perspective originated in the early nineteenth century and proposed

that organisations gain high rents and returns from other organisations if they own superior

resources that were valuable, rare and unique to the industry (Petaraf, 1993). This perspective

influenced the RBV framework significantly as it suggested that organisations gain

competitive advantage from the resources they own. In fact, this perspective was

acknowledged as having such an influence on the development of the RBV that Barney

(1995, p. 645) argued, “the Resource Based View is a simple extension of Ricardian

economics but with the assertion that many more factors besides land are inelastic in supply”.

A further influence on the RBV framework was Edith Penrose’s early work on the Theory of

the Growth of the Firm (1959), which argued that organisations could increase their value

creation through the effective management of the combined resources they use to create the

products and services they offer (Penrose, 1959). In this theory, the major emphasis is on the

application of an organisation’s resources, as well as on the way the organisation uses the

resources to create revenue (Penrose, 1959). An organisation’s resources were defined as

including any feature of an organisation resulting in the growth of that organisation (Penrose,

1959). The growth theory influenced the RBV by showing how resources could be used

strategically by an organisation to proactively generate competitive advantage.

In 1984, Wernefelt proposed the term “Resource-Based View of the Firm” for the first time

by drawing on existing knowledge to describe the competitive advantage organisations have

over each other through the appropriate use of their resources. Wernefelt (1984) argued that

an organisation’s resources could be used as a form of competitive advantage over similar

organisations by creating outputs that are valued by their customers and that cannot be

replicated or mimicked by other competitors (Wernefelt, 1984; Rugman & Verbeke, 2002).

Resources were defined by Wernefelt (1984, p. 171) as “anything that might be thought of as

a strength or weakness of a firm” such as “tangible and intangible assets, which are tied semi-

permanently to a firm”. Competitive advantage refers to the advantage one organisation has

over another in a given market, strategic group or industry (Kay, 1993). The RBV further

argued that it was a manager’s responsibility to ensure the correct identification,

development, protection and deployment of the developed resources to produce a competitive

18

advantage for the organisation (Wernefelt, 1984). Accordingly, sustainable competitive

advantage was achieved by an organisation through the economic returns it received when its

resources were managed effectively (Fahy, 2000; Kay, 1993; Ray, Barney & Mohanna,

2004).

In 1991, the RBV theory was further developed by Barney, who argued that sustainable

competitive advantage could only occur through an organisation’s resources when four key

conditions were met: that the resources were rare (limited in supply and not easily obtained

by competitors), valuable (produced quality outputs), inimitable (cannot be easily replicated

or mimicked by another competitor), and non-substitutable (could not be replaced by another

resource) in the marketplace (Barney, 1991). In this way, Barney (1991) argued that if these

conditions were met then the resource could be seen as a competitive advantage for an

organisation in the market. However, in developing the RBV, Barney (1991) relied on two

core assumptions. The first was the assumption of organisation resource heterogeneity, which

states that different organisations within an industry control different resources and that this

difference is the basis for the superior performance of some organisations over others

(Bechtal, 2007; Barney, 1991). The second assumption was that the resources possessed are

stable across time and could not be easily traded in the marketplace, so that heterogeneity

endured (Bechtal, 2007; Barney, 1991). If both of the assumptions were met, Barney (1991)

argued that an organisation’s resources were the key to the competitive advantage they held

within the industry.

For Barney (1991) resources were defined as “all financial, physical, human and

organisational assets used by a firm to develop manufacture, and deliver products and

services to its customers” (p. 50). However, in addition to these conditions, Kristandl and

Bontis (2007) later argued that to form a source of competitive advantage to an organisation,

resources also needed to earn rents that exceeded their cost, and that these resources must be

appropriable and immobile in the marketplace. Additionally, Kristandl and Bontis (2007)

argued that resources included all assets, capabilities, organisational processes, organisation

attributes and knowledge that a company may employ to produce an outcome. This extension

to the definition focused on when a resource could be considered a competitive advantage for

an organisation.

Barney (1991) distinguished between two specific types of internal resources that could be

considered a competitive advantage to an organisation. The first type is property-based

19

resources, which are those resources that tie up specific and well-defined assets that an

organisation possesses. The second type is knowledge-based resources, which are those that

cannot be imitated as they are subtle and hard to replicate between organisations. In

distinguishing between these types of resources, Miller and Shamsie (1996) argued that

knowledge-based resources were more flexible and less specific than property-based.

Consequently, in order to generate utility in a stable predictable market, property-based

resources were the source of competitive advantage, whereas when the market is unstable and

unpredictable due to its constant change, then knowledge-based resources become the

essential elements of competitive advantage for an organisation. In an environment that

constantly changes, knowledge-based resources become a primary and well-competed-for

source of competitive advantage. This is especially the case for the Australian aged care

sector, which is constantly changing to keep up with the demand for its services (Productivity

Commission, 2011).

One area of strategic management that has been influenced significantly by the development

of the RBV is strategic human resource management. Scholars in strategic human resource

management have argued that organisations can attain competitive advantage in their sector

and industry if they possess knowledge-based resources (Dunford, Snell & Wright, 2001).

Therefore, research in this area has focused on how competitive advantage could be attained

by organisations through their human resources and has identified three key components that

are important to achieving this competitive advantage: the human capital pool, employee

behaviours and relationships, and people management practices. Figure 2.1 presents a visual

illustration of these components.

20

As illustrated in Figure 2.1, the human capital pool consists of the knowledge, skills and

abilities of each employee. These are the unique attributes that each employee possesses that

form part of the competitive advantage organisations hold. This is important as the

knowledge, skills and abilities of each employee are usually rare (limited in supply to

organisations), inimitable (cannot be copied by other organisations), valuable (in the outputs

produced) and non-substitutable (unique to that individual and cannot be replaced by another

entirely) in a marketplace. Moreover, the human capital pool plays a central role in

influencing both employee behaviours and relationships within the organisation and the

effectiveness of the people management practices that are put in place to support and improve

employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities within organisations (Dunford et al., 2001).

Further, employee behaviours and relationships are considered to be the actions or inactions

that employees undertake, which have an influence on the role they play in an organisation’s

competitive advantage (Dunford et al., 2001). Examples of these behaviours include, job

satisfaction, perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support, and job

embeddedness. While independently these constructs are not specific behaviours as such, the

support, embeddedness and job satisfaction felt by an employee influences the behaviours

Figure 2.1 Components of competitive advantage of human resources (adapted from

Dunford, Snell & Wright, 2001)

Human Capital Pool

Knowledge

Skills

Abilities

Employee Behaviours and

Relationships

Job satisfaction

Perceived Organisational

Support

Job Embeddedness

People Management Practices

Staffing Training Rewards Appraisal

Work Design Participation Recognition Communication

21

they enact within an organisation. Consequently, all of these variables play a role in how

productive resources are within an organisation and thus how they contribute to the

competitive advantage of the organisation.

The behaviours and relationships enacted by employees are influenced by the people

management practices that support employees to perform their roles (Dunford et al., 2001).

These “people management practices” consist of policies that enhance employees’

knowledge, skills and abilities, and influence employee behaviours and relationships within

an organisation in order to create competitive advantage (Dunford et al., 2001). As outlined

in Figure 2.1, some of these practices include the training provided by organisations, the

work environment within the organisation, the rewards and recognition given to motivate

employees, and the performance appraisals implemented to monitor, motivate and reward

employees. By ensuring appropriate human resource policies and people management

practices are implemented, Dunford et al. (2001) argued that organisations are better able to

maximise their capabilities to retain employees, and consequently enhance their competitive

advantage within the marketplace.

2.1.2 How the resource-based view of the firm guides this research

According to the RBV, employees play a crucial role in the competitive advantage

organisations have in their marketplace. Specifically, researchers have argued that

organisations should ensure appropriate human resource management policies and practices

are implemented in order to maximise the retention of talented employees (Dunford et al.,

2001). Consequently, it is important to determine what employee behaviour and relationships

and people management practices affect retention and turnover, as well as how they both

contribute to retention and turnover from an employee’s perspective. Therefore, the current

research study examines the influence that employee behaviour and relationship variables,

and people management practices, have on employees’ intentions to stay and leave.

Another important consideration is the human capital pool. Each employee contributes a

varied amount of competitive advantage to an organisation depending on the knowledge,

skills and abilities they possess. However, the development of the knowledge, skills and

abilities of each employee is dependent on a number of factors such as their ethnicity,

education level, age, gender, and health status. Therefore, it becomes necessary to also

examine the influence that personal characteristics have on employees’ intentions to stay and

leave, as well as the combined influence that the human capital pool, employee behaviours

22

and relationships and people management practices have on employees’ intentions to stay and

leave. The next two sections will provide a review of what retention and turnover is and why

it is important to address these issues in the workplace. Following this, a discussion of the

factors influencing intentions to stay and leave will be provided.

2.2 Employee retention

Employee retention refers to the ability of an organisation to keep valued employees from

leaving their organisation. This is done through implementing a variety of people

management strategies and ensuring the employee behaviours and relationships exhibited

within the organisation are conducive to effectively enticing employees to stay longer within

their organisation. Such strategies include career development opportunities, reward and

recognition programs, ensuring employees have supportive supervision, monitoring and/or

enhancing job satisfaction, and creating a pleasant work environment. Implementing

appropriate retention strategies is important because employees are critical resources in

ensuring the short-term and long-term viability and sustainability of an organisation (Kyndt,

Dochy, Michielson, & Moeyaert 2009).

Research examining the benefits of employee retention has found that employees are more

productive and focused on their roles when there is a stable workforce around them (Arnold,

2005). Such stability leads to improved quality of work, improved organisational memory,

competitive advantage through retaining a more experienced workforce and reductions in

training, advertisement and recruitment costs (Jones & Gates, 2007). In health care

organisations particularly, additional benefits of employee retention are decreased patient

care errors, increased client quality of care, increased job satisfaction and increased

organisational trust (Jones & Gates, 2007). Therefore, retaining employees is critical for

maximising employee productivity and the overall competitive advantage of an organisation.

While retaining employees is essential for the competitive advantage of the organisation as

well as the benefits mentioned previously, it is not without its costs. The costs of retention

can include ongoing salary increases, employee and team bonuses, reward and recognition

events and activities, ongoing training and development opportunities and ongoing career

management of staff members, including promotions and the provision of career

advancement opportunities (Jones & Gates, 2007). However, and importantly, the benefits of

retaining key staff members typically outweigh the costs (Jones & Gates, 2007). Thus,

understanding the factors affecting employee retention is critical to maintain and support a

23

stable workforce. In addition to understanding these key retention factors, it is also important

to understand the factors affecting employee turnover. This is because the factors influencing

employees’ intentions to leave an organisation are not always the same as the factors

influencing their intentions to stay (Chan & Morrison, 2008; Mittal et al., 2009).

2.3 Employee turnover

Employee turnover is a complex phenomenon that is broadly defined as the decision for an

employee to discontinue their role with their organisation (Hartel & Fujimoto, 2010). This

decision may be voluntary or involuntary on the part of the employee. Voluntary turnover

occurs when the employee decides to leave an organisation, and comes in the form of

resignations or retirements. In contrast, involuntary turnover occurs when an organisation

decides that that employee needs to leave an organisation, through redundancies or

terminations, due to unacceptable behaviour, poor performance or organisational reasons

such as financial considerations (Allen, Bryant & Vardaman, 2010; Cascio, 2006; Price,

2001). Regardless of the decision, the impact of employee turnover can be either functional

or dysfunctional to an organisation (Allen et al., 2010).

Functional turnover occurs when poor performers leave an organisation, or when easily

replaceable employees leave an organisation. This type of turnover, while disruptive in the

short term, does not harm the organisation in the long term (Allen et al., 2010; Cascio, 2006).

Instead, it provides benefits to the organisation by eliminating poor performers and

improving the morale of the remaining employees. Additionally, functional turnover

maximises the cost savings to the organisation as a result of unpaid bonuses to outgoing

employees, and the introduction of new employees to replace outgoing employees results in

the introduction of new ideas, creativity and innovation into the organisation through the new

employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities (Cascio, 2006; Jones & Gates, 2007). However,

not all turnover is positive, in some cases turnover can be dysfunctional and harmful to an

organisation.

Dysfunctional turnover occurs when high performers and hard-to-replace employees leave an

organisation (Allen et al., 2010). This type of employee turnover causes severe disruptions to

the organisation. Some of these disruptions include a loss of productivity, loss of morale in

the remaining employees due to the increased responsibilities, compromised quality of work

produced by the departing employee, and loss in competitive advantage for the organisation

within the marketplace (Dess & Shaw, 2001; Jones & Gates, 2007; Lambert & Hogan, 2009).

24

Additionally, employee turnover may decrease the remaining employees’ job satisfaction and

perpetuate and/or accelerate the cycle of turnover and impact of turnover to the organisation

(Coomber & Barriball, 2004). While dysfunctional turnover has the most negative

consequences on organisations, both functional and dysfunctional turnover are costly to an

organisation either directly or indirectly.

Direct turnover costs are considered to be those costs that can be attributed to an activity

directly relating to replacing the employee, such as recruitment and selection activity costs,

separation costs, and replacement costs (Dess & Shaw, 2011; Jones & Gates, 2007; Lambert

& Hogan, 2009). Some examples of activities related to recruitment and selection costs

include the management and administrative time used to organise and place recruitment

advertisements, the cost of the advertisements, and the time taken out of management and

administrative roles to select an appropriate replacement employee (Dess & Shaw, 2011;

Jones & Gates, 2007; Lambert & Hogan, 2009). Examples of separation costs include

severance pay paid to the departing employee, time taken to conduct exit interviews, and time

taken to remove employees from the payroll and human resource management system.

Examples of replacement costs include the training costs of up-skilling the new employee in

the organisation’s systems and role, as well as the decreased productivity of other employees

and time taken to answer questions and assist the new employee where needed (Dess &

Shaw, 2011; Jones & Gates, 2007; Lambert & Hogan, 2009). In addition to these direct

costs, organisations also experience indirect costs relating to employee turnover.

Indirect employee turnover costs are considered to be those costs that cannot be assigned

directly to an activity but result from the action of an employee leaving an organisation.

Examples of these costs include the time taken by the new employee to adjust to their role

and to understand the organisation’s culture and protocols, the cost of decreased morale,

increased stress and pressure on the remaining employees to fill the role, losses in the

organisation’s memory and social capital, as well as losses in the competitive advantage of

the firm when its human resources join competitor organisations (Dess & Shaw, 2001; Jones

& Gates, 2007; Lambert & Hogan, 2009). Combined, these costs weigh heavily on the

bottom line of an organisation and much research has examined the factors that affect

employee turnover (Morrell, Loan-Clarke, Arnold, & Wilkinson, 2006), resulting in the many

models of turnover proposed during the past century (Steel & Laundsbury, 2009).

25

From these models, researchers have suggested that a variety of personal and organisational

factors combined influence employees’ intentions to leave and stay. However, only a few

researchers have considered the similarities and differences between the factors affecting

employees’ intentions to stay and leave (e.g. Chan & Morrison 2008; Mittal et al., 2009), and

no research has examined the combination of influence that the human capital pool, employee

behaviour and relationships, and people management practices have on both intentions to

stay and leave. Additionally, of the research conducted examining both intentions to stay and

leave, mixed results have been found. Chan and Morrison (2008) examined nurses in a

Singapore hospital and found the drivers for intentions to stay and leave to be similar.

However, Mittal et al. (2009) examined American direct aged care employees and found that

different drivers influence employees’ intentions to stay and to leave. Similarly, different

drivers of intentions to stay and leave have been found to influence Australian aged care

employees (Howe et al., 2012). However, that research examined the influence that

organisational structural characteristics, such as type of organisation (private and public) and

individual demographic characteristics (such as age and gender) have on employees’

intentions to stay and leave. Also, Howe et al. (2012) did not examine the combined influence

of the human capital pool, employee behaviour and relationships, and people management

practices on employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Additionally, the differences between

residential and community care employees’ intentions to stay and leave has been largely

ignored in the literature. Moreover, limited research has examined generational differences in

factors affecting their intentions to stay and leave within an Australian aged care setting.

Therefore, in order to address these gaps in the literature, this study investigates the following

research questions:



3. What are the similarities and differences between employees’ intentions to stay and

leave?

4. Do these factors differ across residential care and community care settings?


In order to understand the competitive advantage organisations have over each other, it is

important to examine the human capital pool, employee behaviours and relationships, and

people management strategies implemented within an organisation. Therefore, this study

investigates the human capital pool by examining the demographic characteristics that affect

26

the knowledge, skills and abilities of employees. These demographic characteristics are age

and generation, education level, marital status, tenure, kinship responsibilities, employee and

family health, employment status and area of employment. In order to investigate the

employee behaviour and relationships related to retention and turnover, this study analyses

the influence of employees’ job satisfaction, job embeddedness, perceived supervisor support

and perceived organisational support on their intentions to stay. Finally, in order to

investigate the effectiveness of the people management practices that are implemented within

the organisation, this study uses open-ended questions to identify those practices that are

important to employees’ short-term (12 months or less) and long-term (five years or more)

retention and turnover. These factors were all chosen to be investigated, as existing research

has established mixed results in the relationships between these factors and employees’

intentions to stay and leave. Additionally, research has not yet investigated the combined

influence of these factors on employees’ intentions to stay and leave. In contrast, the

influence that financial status has on employees’ intentions to stay and leave has been well

established in the literature (Shacklock & Brunetto, 2011) and as such this study did not focus

on this variable. Instead, this study begins to address the other gaps identified in the literature.

In the current study, factors affecting the knowledge, skills and abilities were considered as

“personal factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave”, whereas factors

affecting employee behaviour and relationships as well as people management practices were

addressed as “organisational factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave”.

2.4 Personal factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave

As described in section 2.1.2, the human capital pool plays a central role in influencing both

employee behaviours and relationships within the organisation and the effectiveness of the

people management practices used to support and improve employees’ knowledge, skills and

abilities within organisations (Dunford et al., 2001). The development of the human capital

pool is influenced by the personal characteristics of each employee and, therefore, it becomes

important to consider these characteristics when examining employee retention and turnover.

Much research has investigated the influence that personal factors have on employees’

intentions to stay and leave (Boxall, Macky, & Rasmussen, 2003; Rosen, Stielh, Mittal, &

Leana, 2011; Shacklock & Brunetto, 2011). Some of the characteristics examined in previous

studies researching employees’ intentions to stay or leave include age/generation, education

level, marital status, tenure, kinship responsibilities, perceived health of the employee and

27

their family, employment status and area of employment. While previous studies have found

that personal characteristics such as gender and financial circumstances are important

influences on employees’ intentions to stay and/or leave (Boxall, Macky, & Rasmussen,

2003; Shacklock & Brunetto, 2011), this study chose not to examine these characteristics as

they have been well established in the literature. Additionally, aged care is a female-

dominated sector, with males representing less than 7% of employees in the sector (AIHW,

2011). Therefore, examining the influence that gender has on aged care employees’ intentions

to stay and leave is difficult. Instead, the characteristics chosen – age and generation,

education level, marital status, tenure, kinship responsibilities, employee and family health,

employment status, and area of employment – are those that have not been extensively

discussed in the literature. The next section provides a review of the literature on the

influence of each of these characteristics on employees’ intentions to stay and leave. At the

end of chapter 3, a workforce profile is provided of the current Australian aged care sector,

which further contextualises the rationale as to why these factors were included in this study.

2.4.1 Age and generation

Research has found that age is a significant variable in employees’ intentions to stay and

leave an organisation (Boxall, Macky & Rasmussen, 2003; Cheung, 2004; Gambino, 2010;

Lavoie-Tremblay et al., 2011; Rosen et al., 2011). In particular, research has identified that

older workers (aged >45 years) are more likely to stay in an organisation than younger

workers (aged < 45 years) (Anderson & Hill, 2010; Larabeen et al., 2010; Letvuk & Buck,

2008). Conversely, younger workers were found to leave more frequently than older workers

(Apostolidis & Polifroni, 2006; Cheung, 2004; Boxall, Macky, & Rasmussen, 2003;

Gambino, 2010; Lavoi-Tremblay et al., 2011; Rosen et al., 2011; Wiener, Squillace,

Anderson & Khatutsky, 2005; Wilson, Squires, Widger, Cranley, & Tourangeau, 2008).

While these findings were mostly conducted using samples within the United States of

America and the United Kingdom, research investigating the significance of age on

employees’ intentions to stay and leave within the Australian health care sector highlights

contradictory findings. Two studies examining acute care nurses in Australia found that older

workers (aged >60 years) were more likely to leave than younger workers due to retirement

intentions (Dockery, 2004; Health Workforce Australia, 2012a), a finding which contrasts

with that of the US and UK research. However, within the Australian aged care sector, this

relationship does not appear to be replicated. That is, Howe et al. (2012) identified that older

aged care workers were more committed and had higher intentions to stay than younger

28

workers did, which was in line with similar research conducted in the US and the UK (e.g.

Larabeen et al., 2010; Letvuck & Buck, 2008).

One explanation of these contrasting results could be the use of different ages to define an

“older worker”. Howe et al. (2012) did not specify what an “older worker” was in their

analysis. While the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011b) argues that an older Australian

worker is aged over 45 years, others studies use the minimum of 50 years (Larabeen et al.,

2010) with some even using 60 years and older as a minimum age for an older worker

(Dockery, 2004; Health Workforce Australia, 2012b). Consequently, these minimum age

differences may explain the contrasting results within the literature. As the current study is

conducted in an Australian aged care setting, an “older worker” is defined as aged 45 years

and over, consistent with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011b) definition. The study

hypothesises that:

H1a: In comparison to older workers, younger workers will report lower intentions to stay

and higher intentions to leave.

To further examine age differences, much research has investigated generational differences

in the workforce, especially within a nursing context. The literature on generational

differences has yet to agree on a formal acceptable definition of what a generation is;

however, the most widely cited definition and the one which was broadly adopted in this

research was Kupperschmidt (2000) who defined a generation as, “an identifiable group that

shares the same birth years, age locations and significant life events at critical development

stages” (p. 364). As a result of this definition, there can be no global agreed upon date range

for each generation, as people from different countries experience different significant life

events at different times. Even within Australia, an agreed date range has not been reached

for each generation, especially for Generation Y. Therefore this research will use the dates

provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009a), and examine six generations: Late

Veteran Generation (1926-1945), Early Baby Boomers (1946-1955), Late Baby Boomers

(1956-1965), Early Generation X and Y (1966-1976), Late Generation X and Y (1977-1986),

and Early Generation I (1987-1996).

Research examining generational differences has identified similarities and differences

between generations in their attitudes to employment. For example, a study of the American

nursing workforce found Generation X and Y employees possessed less permanent

relationships with their employers and demanded success in a shorter period of time in

29

comparison with older generations (Weston, 2006). Additionally, research has found

differences between each generation’s satisfaction with different aspects of their jobs. For

example, Apostolidis and Polifroni (2006) identified that Generation X nurses working in the

US were more satisfied with the professional status given to them and less satisfied with the

pay in comparison to Baby Boomer nurses. Using the same context, Wilson et al. (2008)

found that Baby Boomers were more satisfied on the whole with the professional

opportunities available, the amount of praise, control, recognition and respect they received

and the extrinsic rewards offered to them by their organisation than Generation X or Y

nurses, although no differences in overall satisfaction were found between the generations.

These results indicate that generational differences may be found between the extrinsic and

intrinsic motivators provided by people management practices employed within

organisations.

Supporting these findings within an Australian acute care context, Shacklock and Brunetto

(2011) found that for Generation X employees, the relationships they held with their

supervisors and the attachment to the work itself were their main drivers in their intentions to

remain at their job. This trend has also been identified globally across different contexts by

Wong, Gardiner, Lang, and Coulin (2008), Carver and Candella (2011), LeVasseur, Wang,

Mathews, and Boland (2009), and Smola and Sutton (2002). In line with these findings, and

because this study examines the employee behaviours and relationships, perceived

organisational support, perceived supervisor support, job embeddedness, job satisfaction, as

well as people management strategies broadly in addition to intentions to stay and leave, this

study hypothesises that:

H1b: There will be generational differences in the employee behaviours and relationships

and people management strategies, as well as overall intentions to stay and intentions to

leave

In summary, much research identifies differences between age groups in the people

management strategies that are reported as important to their intentions to stay and leave.

However, while research has identified differences between age, retention and turnover

motivators in multiple settings, research is still needed to clarify which people management

strategies are important to which age group in the workforce. This is especially important in

an aged care environment where the retention of the workforce has significant implications

30

for the quality of care provided to the older population of Australia both now and into the

future.

2.4.2 Education level

The influence that an employee’s education status has on the factors influencing their

intentions to stay and leave has been the subject of contradictory findings. Boxall et al.

(2003) examined a sample of New Zealand workers and found no significant differences in

employees’ intentions to leave based on their education level. This was a general population

study of New Zealand workers across multiple industries. However, studies investigating US

nurses have found a positive correlation between education status and intentions to leave and

a negative correlation with intentions to stay. That is, the more highly educated employees

were, the more likely they were to leave and the less likely to stay (Kash, Naufal, Cortes &

Johnson, 2010; Larabeen et al., 2010).

These studies were conducted overseas, and only a limited number of studies have

investigated the influence that education level has on intentions to stay and leave in an

Australian aged care context. This is of interest, because unlike other health services in

Australia, the aged care sector does not require any qualifications to begin working in the

sector as a care worker (King et al., 2012). Therefore, investigating the relationship between

education level and intentions to stay or leave is particularly important in this setting.

Research examining this relationship using an aged care context is still emerging. One

Australian study found a similar pattern to that identified in the US research. That is,

employees who reported lower education levels were more likely to stay than those who

reported higher education levels across both residential care and community aged care

settings (Howe et al., 2012). The present study seeks to extend these findings and investigate

the influence that education status has on Australian aged care employees’ intentions to stay

and leave by proposing the hypothesis:

H2: Employees with lower education levels will report higher intentions to stay and lower


2.4.3 Marital status

Spouses play a significant role in employees’ intentions to stay or leave (Cotton & Tuttle,

1986) as retirement, relocation and financial decisions are often made together (Johnson &

Favreault, 2001; Kim & Feldman, 2000). This is supported by the Australian Bureau of

Statistics (ABS) (2009b), which reported that 13% of older females leave the workforce to

31

spend more time with their families and partners. Similarly, in older public service sector

workers in Australia, employees’ spouses had the strongest influence on their intentions to

retire (Shacklock, Brunetto & Nelson, 2007). However, while previous research established

the connection between marital status and turnover in the US and in an Australian public

sector organisation, no study has investigated the influence of marital status on employees’

intentions to stay or leave in an Australian aged care setting. Additionally, little information

is available on the marital status of aged care employees. Therefore, this study adds to the

research knowledge on the role that marital status plays on employees’ intentions to stay and

leave by hypothesising that:

H3: Employees who are married or in a de-facto relationship will report lower intentions to

stay and higher intentions to leave than those who are single.

2.4.4 Tenure

Few studies have examined the influence that employees’ role tenure has on intentions to stay

and leave. One study of nurses in the US examined the influence of organisational tenure on

nurses’ intentions to stay and found that tenure had a positive relationship with intentions to

stay. That is, the longer an employee had worked for an organisation, the higher their

intentions to stay were (Gambino, 2010). No research has been conducted to examine the

influence of employee tenure on employees’ intentions to leave, although it has been found

that older workers tend to have longer tenure and are less likely to leave, suggesting a

relationship between tenure and intentions to leave, although the relationship between tenure

and intentions to leave was not examined in this study (Gambino, 2010). Therefore the

current study extends the research into this area by exploring the role that tenure in their role,

job and sector plays in employees’ intentions to stay and leave by hypothesising that:

H4: Employees with longer tenure will report higher intentions to stay and lower intentions

to leave.

2.4.5 Kinship responsibilities

Research has found mixed results in identifying relationships between kinship responsibility

and employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Research in both the US and Jordan has

identified that nursing employees who had no kinship responsibilities were more likely to

leave, and less likely to stay, than those with kinship responsibilities (AbuAlRub, 2010;

Estryn-Behar et al., 2007; McCarthy, Tyrell & Lehane, 2007; Stewart et al., 2011).

32

The impact that kinship responsibilities have on employees’ intentions to stay and leave

becomes even more salient within an Australian context as the population is ageing, leaving

some employees to care for both their older parents as well as dependent children (Shacklock

& Brunetto, 2011). Indeed a literature review examining factors affecting midwifes and

consultant retention in the UK revealed that the provision of appropriate family care was

significant in midwife retention (Shen, Cox, & McBride, 2004). Moreover, a recent study by

Howe et al. (2012) examining the Australian aged care workforce revealed that having

financially dependent children resulted in employees’ reporting higher intentions to stay and

lower intentions to leave. However, as research on this variable’s influence on employees’

intentions to stay and leave in an aged care context is limited to a single study, further

research is required to investigate the relationship between kinship responsibility and

organisational factors on employee retention and turnover. Therefore this study proposes that:

H5: Employees with kinship responsibilities will report higher intentions to stay and lower

intentions to leave than those with no kinship responsibilities.

2.4.6 Employee and family health

In addition to the influence that other personal factors have on employees’ intentions to stay

and leave, the influence that the health of employees and their families on employees’

intentions to stay and leave is particularly salient in the context of an ageing workforce. For

example, Shacklock (2006), American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) (2006) and

Patrickson and Ranzijn (2004) all found that the health of employees and their families had a

significant influence on employees’ intentions to stay in their job. Similarly, employees who

reported poor health had higher intentions of leaving than those who reported better health in

both Australian acute care and aged care settings (Shacklock & Brunetto, 2011; Howe et al.,

2012). No relationship was found, however, between employees’ perceived health and

intentions to stay in aged care (Howe et al., 2012). As Howe et al. (2012) only investigated

employees’ perceived health, no study has investigated the additional influence that the

health of an employee’s family has on Australian aged care employees’ intentions to stay.

Therefore, this study extends research in this area to aged care employees by examining the

following hypotheses:

H6a: Employees who report better perceived health of self will report higher intentions to

stay and lower intentions to leave.

33

H6b: Employees who report better perceived health of family will report higher intentions to


2.4.7 Employment status

Research examining the role that employment status plays in employees’ intentions to stay

and leave is limited. However, employment status – whether employees are employed

permanently or temporarily, and on a full-time, part-time, or casual basis – is a particularly

important factor when examining the aged care workforce as this workforce is highly

casualised (King et al., 2012). Further, it is already known that Australian nurses who are on

casual and temporary contracts are more likely to leave than those on permanent contracts

(Health Workforce Australia, 2012a; Howe et al., 2012). This study therefore contributes to

this knowledge base by investigating the role that employment status has on employees’

intentions to stay and leave by hypothesising that:

H7: Employees who are on casual contracts will have higher intentions to leave and lower

intentions to stay than those who are employed permanently in part-time or full-time roles.

2.4.8 Area of employment

The final personal factor explored in this study is area of employment (the type of aged care

that an employee works within). This factor is particularly important in an examination of

aged care employees, as care is provided in two primary settings, Residential Aged Care

(RAC) and Community Aged Care (CAC) settings. A detailed overview of each setting is

provided in Chapter 3.

The Australian aged care workforce consists of qualified nursing staff, titled Registered

Nurses, Enrolled Nurses, Enrolled Endorsed Nurses, and Unregulated Care Workers, such as

Assistants in Nursing and Personal Care Workers (King et al., 2012). These nursing and care

workers are employed across both RAC and CAC settings. While the scope of professional

practice for each of the roles is clearly defined by regulatory and industry bodies and is

similar across the two settings, the culture, team environment and support differ. That is, in a

RAC environment, a team of carers manages a client’s care at any one time within close

proximity to each other, while in a CAC environment, the team is “virtual”, with team

members providing individual care to clients in their homes (Productivity Commission,

2011). Additionally, the internal structure and support processes for both residential and

community aged care employees differ. That is, community aged care employees work

34

autonomously within the community whereas residential aged care employees work more

closely in a team environment within a particular building. Thus, while community aged care

employees are encouraged to call their office if they need anything during their shift, they

have less tangible support than residential aged care employees, who work within a particular

building. In addition to these differences, the size of the workforce supporting a client differs

between the two settings: in a RAC setting there could be 10 or more different workers in one

day seeing a client, while in a CAC setting there could be only one worker a week, depending

on the level of support required (King et al., 2012). These differences have a significant

impact on the type of worker employed in both settings. Given the different physical and

organisational environments in which they work, it is reasonable to expect that CAC and

RAC carers will have different drivers of retention and turnover intentions. However, no

study has investigated the similarities and differences between the two settings in the factors

influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Therefore, this study begins to fill the

gap in the literature by investigating these relationships further by proposing the following

hypothesis:

H8: There will be differences in the employee behaviour and relationships, people

management strategies and intentions to stay and leave reported by residential aged care and

community aged care employees

2.5 Organisational factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave

In addition to the influence that personal factors have on employee behaviours and

relationships, people management strategies and employees’ intentions to stay and leave,

both employee behaviours and relationships and people management strategies have direct

influences on each other as well as on employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Research has

long established direct relationships between each of organisational commitment,

psychological contracts, and discretionary behaviours, and employees’ intentions to stay and

leave (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, & Eberly, 2008; Shen, Cox, &

McBride, 2004). However, the combined influence of factors influencing employee

behaviour and relationships (job satisfaction, perceived supervisor support, perceived

organisational support and job embeddedness) and people management strategies on

employees’ intentions to stay or leave has not been addressed in the literature to date. Instead,

research has focused on the relationship between one or two of these constructs and other

constructs. Therefore, these variables were selected for inclusion in this study.

35

2.5.1 Job satisfaction and working conditions

Job satisfaction as a research construct originated from early motivational theories of

employee behaviour within the disciplines of organisational behaviour and psychology.

These theories focused on the positive or negative feelings an individual has about their job

in general (Lu, While, & Barriball, 2005). Building from the early theories, Maslow argued

that there was a hierarchy of needs that individuals need to progress through in order to

achieve a sense of self-actualisation (Maslow, 1954).

Specifically, Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs theory argues that there are five levels of

human needs and that each level must be satisfied before an individual can progress to the

next level. The first level consists of satisfying an individual’s basic physiological needs,

such as an individual’s need for food, water and shelter. The second level incorporates

individual’s safety needs. To be fulfilled at this level, individuals must feel secure in their

body, employment, resources, morality, family, health and property. The third level is the

need for love and belonging. This need argues that individuals must be satisfied in their need

for family, friendship and sexual intimacy in order to progress to the fourth level of the

hierarchy, which is the need for esteem. This level includes the fulfilment of self-esteem,

confidence, achievement, respect by others, and respect of others. Finally, after attaining this

level, Maslow argued that an individual progresses to the final level, which is called “self-

actualisation”, at which point the individual seeks to obtain morality, creativity, lack of

prejudices, problem solving abilities, spontaneity and acceptance of facts (Maslow, 1954).

Maslow argued that the first four needs are deficiency needs because these are the needs that

individuals feel they are missing in their overall satisfaction in life (Maslow, 1954). In

contrast, the fifth level, self-actualisation, is considered to be a being need because it sustains

an individual’s interest to acquire something that is not driven by the lack of the need, or

deprivation (Neher, 1991). While having a seminal influence on the employee motivational

literature to describe employee behaviour, this theory has been criticised extensively

throughout the years (Spector, 1997), resulting in other theories of job satisfaction being

proposed. In relation to this research and according to Maslow, employees’ would report the

deficiency needs as important to their overall sense of job satisfaction. In contrast to Maslow,

Herzberg and Mausner proposed a two factor theory of job satisfaction.

Herzberg and Mausner’s (1959) two-factor theory of job satisfaction proposed that

satisfaction and dissatisfaction were two distinct constructs that were not always related. In

36

this theory, the two factors were termed “motivators” and “hygiene factors” to explain the

influence that intrinsic and extrinsic factors have on an employees’ overall job satisfaction.

Motivators were considered to be those factors that provide intrinsic satisfaction to

individuals, such as achievement, recognition, the work itself and responsibility. In contrast,

“hygiene factors” were considered to be job “dissatisfiers”, including extrinsic motivators

such as company policy, administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations and

working conditions (Herzberg & Mausner, 1959; Lu et al., 2005). While both factors could

contribute to employees’ job satisfaction, Herzberg and Mausner (1959) argued that one

could be more influential than another on overall job satisfaction, depending on an

individual’s primary motivators. This theory could also be used to gain an insight into the

factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave, where factors affecting

employees’ intentions to stay may be more aligned with “motivators” and factors affecting

employees’ intentions to leave may be more aligned with “hygiene” factors in Herzberg and

Mausner’s theory.

While Maslow (1954) and Herzberg and Mausner (1959) proposed two distinct theories of

job satisfaction in general, the influence of job satisfaction on employees’ intentions to stay

and leave has been extensively investigated and has resulted in many theories specific to this

aspect of job satisfaction. These theories have been categorised as either content or process

theories of motivation (Robbins, Judge, Millet & Boyle, 2011). A few researchers have also

focused on the attitudinal process of job satisfaction in their definitions in order to describe

the affective orientation employees have to their job or the work in general. This research has

resulted in multiple definitions of job satisfaction being cited in the literature, as summarised

in Table 2.1.

37

Table 2.1 Definitions of job satisfaction

Definition Reference Related Theory

An individual’s perception of how

well a job fulfils an employees’

value and how well that job

contributes to the emotional state of

satisfaction or dissatisfaction

experienced

Coomber & Bariball

(2007)

Herzberg and Mausner’s

motivation-hygiene

theory

A match between what individuals

perceive they need and what rewards

they perceive they receive from their

job

Conrad, Conrad, &

Parker (1985)

A function of satisfaction with the

various element of the job

Herzberg & Mausner

(1959)

Need fulfilment, that is, whether or

not the job meets the employee’s

physical or psychological needs for

the things within the work situation

Worf (1970)

The individual matching of personal

needs to the perceived potential of

the occupation for satisfying those

needs

Kuhlen (1963) Maslow’s human needs

theory

All the feelings that an individual

has about his or her job

Gruenberg (1980) Focus on affective

orientation or feelings

The affective orientation that an

employee has towards his or her

work

Price (2001)

“An attitudinal variable that

represents the extent to which people

like (satisfaction) or dislike

(dissatisfaction) their jobs”

Spector (1997, p. 2).

Adapted and modified from Lu et al. (2005).

As illustrated in Table 2.1, definitions of job satisfaction vary slightly depending on the

theoretical framework used. For this research, the definition provided by Spector (1997, p.2)

was adopted. This definition focuses on the attitude that employees have with their jobs, and

as such can be used to examine multiple aspects of each job. This is important as much

research has been conducted examining the influence that job satisfaction has on employees’

intentions to stay and leave.

38

Job satisfaction was first identified in the late 1990s as playing a significant role in

employees’ intentions to stay and leave (Castle, Engberg, Anderson & Men, 2007; Larabeen

et al., 2010; McCarthey, Tyrell & Lehane, 2007). Since this identification, job satisfaction

has been one of the most common variables cited in explaining employees’ intentions to stay

or leave an organisation (Castle et al., 2007; Larabeen et al., 2010; McCarthey et al., 2007).

Specifically, research has consistently found a negative relationship between job satisfaction

and intentions to leave, and a positive relationship with intentions to stay. That is, when

employees’ job satisfaction decreases, their intentions to leave their organisation increase

(Castle et al., 2007). Conversely, when employees’ job satisfaction increases, their intentions

to stay at their organisation decreases.

To examine the influence that job satisfaction has on employees’ intentions to stay and leave

in this study, two types of job satisfaction measures were used, global and facet measures

(Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriescheim, & Carson, 2002). Global measures of job satisfaction

examine employees’ satisfaction with their jobs in general, while facet measures of job

satisfaction examine different aspects of a job that have the ability to affect an employee’s

job satisfaction such as pay, promotion, supervision, work on the present job and co-workers

(Coomber & Barriball, 2007; Kinicki et al., 2002). Both global and facet measures have been

identified as important measures of employees’ job satisfaction and the influence that this

satisfaction has on employee turnover and retention. Global measures are used when

researchers are interested in employees’ overall attitude towards their job satisfaction, and

facet measures are used when researchers are interested in finding out which parts of the job

are affecting employees’ job satisfaction (Spector, 1997).

Factors influencing the job satisfaction of health care workers include both global and facet

measures of job satisfaction. In particular, a positive relationship was identified between

global job satisfaction and employees’ intentions to stay and a negative relationship was

found between global job satisfaction and employees’ intentions to leave (Castle et al., 2007;

Hill, 2011; Rosen et al., 2011). As this finding is well established in the literature, researchers

have more recently focused on examining the relationship between facet measures of job

satisfaction and employee retention and turnover. These studies have identified a variety of

people management strategies as important to employees’ job satisfaction and intentions to

stay and leave. For example, research investigating health care workers’ satisfaction with

working conditions has identified that the following factors result in an increased likelihood

of employees to report their intentions to leave: poor staff-patient ratios (Cheung, 2004);

39

work overload (Brannan et al., 2007); poor job design (Brannan et al., 2007; Kim &

Jorgaratnam, 2010); poor recognition, lack of autonomy in decision making, and lack of

challenges and responsibilities (Boxall et al., 2003; Brannan et al., 2007; McCarthy, Tyrell &

Lehane, 2007). Additionally, poor role clarity (Allen et al., 2010), increased workloads

(Baernhauldt & Mark, 2009), unsupportive work environments, and a lack of work life

balance (Pocock & Skinner, 2012) were all facet measures of job satisfaction that were found

to increase employee turnover in the health care sector globally.

Research examining working conditions more broadly has identified that satisfaction with the

following factors were all significant in employees’ intentions to stay: wages and benefits

(Bishop et al., 2008; Kash et al., 2010; Lavoie-Tremblay et al., 2008; O’Donnell & Hudson,

2011); flexible rosters (Skinner et al., 2011; Thornwaite, 2004); organisational support

(O’Donnell & Hudson, 2011); support from supervisors (Hill, 2011; O’Donnell & Hudson,

2011): perceptions of personal autonomy in the role (Shacklock, 2006): and positive work

environments (Shacklock, 2006). Moreover, work schedules, career development, and

promotion and recognition were all found to be important to nurses’ and midwives’ intentions

to stay and leave in the UK (Shen, Cox & McBride, 2004). Interestingly, however, a study of

direct care workers in the US found that pay was not a significant predictor of turnover

(Rosen et al., 2011). Similarly, Howes (2008) found that only a small percentage of aged care

workers in the US reported wage as important in their intentions to stay. Within an Australian

aged care context, Moyle, Skinner, Rowe and Gork (2003) found job satisfaction related to

work flexibility, residents, working within a team environment, and client care. However that

study was qualitative in nature and examined what job satisfaction meant to aged care

workers rather than its relationship with employees’ intentions to leave. The present study

adds to this knowledge by investigating the role that both global and facet job satisfaction

plays on employees’ intentions to stay or leave by hypothesising that:

H9: Employees who report high job satisfaction will have higher intentions to stay and lower

intentions to leave than those who report low job satisfaction

2.5.2 Perceived organisational Support

Perceived Organisational Support (POS) is defined as employees’ “global beliefs concerning

the extent to which the organisation values their contribution and cares about their wellbeing”

(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986, p. 501). This construct draws on Social

Exchange Theory, which argues that employees are motivated to perform and stay at an

40

organisation in return for recognition, social rewards and material benefits (Johlke, Stamper,

& Shoemaker, 2000; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). In particular, a social exchange is

referred to as “the voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are

expected to bring and typically do in fact, bring from others” (Blau, 1964, p. 91).

Consequently, if a positive social exchange, or reciprocity, is perceived, employees develop a

high level of perceived organisational support and are more committed to stay in an

organisation, whereas if employees have a low perception of organisational support, they

become less committed to stay in an organisation (Eisenberger, Cumming, Armeli, & Lynch,

1997; Johlke et al., 2000).

Since the concept was introduced in the late 1980s, POS has become widely used in the

human resource management literature and the relationship between POS and employee

retention and turnover has been well investigated within a US context (Paille, 2009). Riggle,

Edmonson, and Hansen (2009) identified 152 studies that examined the relationship between

POS and organisational outcomes. In particular, POS has been investigated in relation to the

effect it has on employees’ organisational commitment, job satisfaction, career satisfaction,

intentions to stay and intentions to leave. This research is detailed below.

Research examining the relationship between employees’ perceived organisational support

and their organisational commitment is extensive, with most research finding that as an

employee’s perceived organisational support increases, so does their commitment to the

organisation, resulting in employee behaviours that benefit the organisation (Aube, Rousseau

& Morin, 2007). Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades (2001) argued that this

relationship is explained by the organisation creating a felt obligation to the employee to care

about the organisation and meet its objectives because of the perceived support the

organisation provides to that person. This argument has since been supported by Newman,

Thanacoody & Hui (2012) and Pannaccio and Vandenberghe (2001).

A recent meta-analysis of 152 articles identified a negative relationship between POS and

intentions to leave (Riggle et al., 2009). This finding was further supported by individual

studies of workers in multiple sectors and industries within the US (Cho, Johanson &

Guchait, 2009; Dawley, Houghton, & Bucklew, 2010). Moreover, perceived organisational

support was found to explain 25% of the variance in intentions to leave (Riggle et al., 2009).

Conversely, a strong positive correlation has consistently been found between POS and

intentions to stay. That is, as employees’ POS increases, so too do their intentions to stay

41

with an organisation (Cho et al., 2009; Eisenberger et al., 1997; Rhoades & Eisenberger,

2002).

Most of the research on the relationships between POS and intentions to leave and stay has

been conducted in a US or UK context, with limited research being conducted within an

Australian aged care context. Consequently this present study aims to begin to fill this gap.

This is important to research because the support provided in an Australian context might be

different from that provided in a US or UK context where legislation, regulations and norms

differ. Within the aged care sector, this construct is even more important to examine as the

funding available to provide organisational support to employees is tightening (Productivity

Commission, 2011). Therefore this study hypothesises that:

H10: There will be a negative relationship between employees’ perceptions of organisational

support and employees’ intentions to leave, and a positive relationship between employees’

perceptions of organisational support and employees’ intentions to stay.

2.5.3 Perceived supervisor support

Research has also examined the influence that perceived supervisor support (PSS) has on

employees’ intentions to leave and to stay. PSS refers to the perceptions employees have

about how much their supervisor cares about their wellbeing and values their contribution to

the organisation (Eisenberger et al., 2002). Originating from Organisational Support Theory,

PSS argues that the support received from employees’ supervisors increases their POS,

resulting in an increased need for an employee to feel a sense of obligation to their supervisor

and as a result an increase an employee’s intentions to stay with an organisation (Eisenberger

et al., 2002).

Research examining this construct is still emerging. One Australian study found employees’

satisfaction with their manager plays a role in turnover behaviour (O’Donnell & Hudson,

2011), although most studies have found no direct relationship between PSS and employees’

turnover intentions (Allen et al., 2010; Brannon et al., 2002; Coomber & Barriball, 2007).

Instead, POS was found to mediate the relationship between PSS and intentions to leave (Cho

et al., 2009). Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) argued that this relationship develops as

supervisors serve as representatives to their organisations, meaning that how a supervisor

treats his/her employees will affect how an employee generally feels about how much their

42

organisation cares about their wellbeing and values the contributions they make to the

organisation.

Research investigating this construct, however, has mostly been tested within a US context,

with limited research using an Australian aged care context, and therefore the present study

aims to extend the research on this construct. Context differences are important to examine as

supervisors might play a different role in influencing employee behaviour in different

countries and in different sectors. Consequently this study hypothesises that:

H11: The relationship between perceived supervisor support and employees’ intentions to

stay and leave will be mediated by perceived organisational support.

2.5.4 Job embeddedness

First introduced to the literature by Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez (2001), job

embeddedness refers to the connection and relationships that employees develop over a

period of time with their employer and aims to capture a more comprehensive view of the

employee-employer relationship than other models of turnover and retention (Anderson &

Hill, 2010; Holtom & O’Neil, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001). The development of this construct

was influenced largely by Lewin’s (1951) Field Theory, which argues that an individual’s life

is connected and that each aspect of life is interlinked; meaning a decision to change one

aspect of their life will have an influence on another. Consequently, Mitchell et al. (2001)

argued that a broad set of influences affect employees’ intentions to stay in their job, ranging

from factors within an organisation to factors within the broader community where

employees live, which have psychological, social and financial implications to employees

(Reitz & Anderson, 2011; Zhang, Fried, & Griffeth, 2012). While these influences can vary

in strength and size for each employee, overall they influence employees’ intentions to stay

(Clinton, Knight, & Guest, 2012). Consequently, job embeddedness examines all of these

components.

The strength of connectedness between employees’ organisation and community is proposed

to be a function of three components. First, the extent to which an individual perceives

himself or herself similar to, or to ‘fit’ with, their organisation and community; second, the

“links” an individual has to other people and activities within their organisation and

community; and third, the ease with which these links could be broken, also known as the

43

“sacrifices” employees are willing to make (Anderson & Hill, 2010; Mitchell et al., 2001;

Reitz & Anderson, 2011). While this study examined on-the-job embeddedness and off-the-

job embeddedness as broad constructs, it is also important to understand the three

components of job embeddedness. Therefore an overview of these components are provided

first, followed by a review of the literature on job embeddedness.

Fit

The first component of job embeddedness focuses on the perceived compatibility or comfort

that an individual perceives that they have with their organisation and broader community

(Holtom, Mitchell, & Lee, 2006). An individual’s organisational fit refers to the compatibility

an individual perceives they have with their organisation (Clinton, Knight, & Guest, 2012).

This includes their perceived compatibility with future career development opportunities, job

demands, knowledge, skills and abilities, as well as their personal and organisational values

alignment, and any alignment or fit with any community service activities sponsored by the

organisation (Holtom et al., 2006; Reitz & Anderson, 2011). An individual’s community fit

refers to an individual’s perception of how well they fit into and suit the broader community

where they live (Clinton et al., 2012). Factors influencing this perception include the weather

conditions, location, community amenities, political and religious climate, and entertainment

activities available to them in their local community that align to their personal and family

commitments (Holtom, Tidd & Mitchell, 2006; Reitz & Anderson, 2011). For both

organisational and community fit, job embeddedness posits that the stronger the fit, the more

likely employees will remain at their organisation.

Links

The second component of job embeddedness focuses on the formal and informal discernible

connections that individuals have with others within their organisation and their broader

community (Clinton et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2001). Specifically, the construct argues that

the more links or threads an employee has within their organisation and broader community,

the harder it will be for an employee to disentangle these links in order to leave their job.

Therefore, they will have higher intentions to stay at their job. Additionally, research

investigating these links has found that employees who have a longer tenure at an

organisation will have stronger links with their organisation and community and therefore

will be less likely to leave (Holtom, Tidd, & Mitchell, 2006).

44

Sacrifice

The third and final component of job embeddedness focuses on the sacrifices employees

make to their organisation and community if they break free of the links they have made there

(Clinton et al., 2012; Reitz & Anderson, 2011). This element of the job embeddedness

framework was heavily influenced by the earlier turnover theory proposed by March and

Simon (1958), which argued that an employee’s intentions to leave an organisation is a

function of their perceived desirability and ease of movement from one organisation to

another. In job embeddedness terms, sacrifice is represented as the cost versus benefits of the

lost links they have made within their organisation and broader community in comparison

with the gains they will make or benefits, if they left. Such losses include the loss of key

networks, relationships, friends, projects and benefits they receive from their organisation

(Holtom et al., 2006; Reitz & Anderson, 2011). In other words, the more an employee will

lose by leaving, the more likely they will stay at their job. Mitchell et al. (2001) did

acknowledge that community sacrifices, as well as community links and fit, are more likely

to play a significant role in an employee’s intentions to leave if they have to relocate as a

consequence of their new job. Therefore, it becomes necessary to examine job embeddedness

in this study using the broader on-the-job (organisational) and off-the-job (community)

characteristics separately.

Research on job embeddedness

As the job embeddedness construct is relatively new, research is still emerging. Findings to

date indicate that job embeddedness plays an influential role in employees’ intentions to stay

and leave (Jiang, Liu, McKay, Lee, & Mitchell, 2012; Holtom & O’Neil, 2004; Reitz,

Anderson, & Hill, 2010). Specifically, a negative relationship between job embeddedness and

employees’ intentions to leave has been identified (Anderson & Hill, 2010; Holtom &

O’Neil, 2004). However, in reporting a relationship between job embeddedness and

intentions to leave, Holtom and O’Neil (2004) identified that the community aspect of the job

embeddedness model was more important for nurses than other professions in a study of 150

nurses and other workers in the US. Similarly, Mitchell et al. (2001) found that while all three

community embeddedness dimensions (fit, links and sacrifices) were negatively related to

turnover in hospital workers, only community links were significantly related to turnover in a

study of grocery workers in the US. This difference between health and non-health workers

was further supported by Allen (2006), Crossley, Bennett, Jex and Burnfield (2007) and

Mallol, Holtom and Lee (2007) who found no relationship between community links, fit and

45

sacrifice and turnover in research outside of health worker contexts. Together, these findings

indicate that the community aspect (off-the-job embeddedness) may not be important for all

workers. The findings also support the need to examine on-the-job and off-the-job

embeddedness separately.

Overall, research examining on-the-job embeddedness has found that employees who have

longer organisational tenures have stronger organisational links and therefore will be less

likely to leave (Holtom et al., 2006). Additionally, the more an employee will lose by leaving,

the more likely they will stay (Reitz et al., 2011).

While research establishing this construct has been predominately contextualized within a

health discipline; a significant proportion of the research conducted has been limited to a US

context. Of the research that has been conducted outside the US, some research (e.g.

Peltokorpi, 2013) questions the applicability of the validated scale used to measure the

construct to a Japanese context, although through a qualitative enquiry they found the

construct broadly applies to a Japanese context. In contrast, Mallol and Holtom (2007) found

the scale to be a robust predictor of employee retention across diverse populations within the

US. Additionally, a meta-analysis by Jiang et al (2012) found support for the construct

across cultures and even more so within female dominant sectors.

As research examining the influence that off-the-job embeddedness has on employees’

intentions to stay and leave is mixed, further clarification is needed. Extending this research

to other settings is important because while in other countries, the community where

employees live has been found to have a significant impact upon employees’ intentions to

stay or leave, in Australia, this may not be the case due to the geographical differences as

well as differences in policies, legislation and norms. While some recent Australian research

examining job embeddedness has found a significant negative relationship between

community-links and intentions to leave using a hospitality sample (Robinson, Kralj, Solnet,

Goh, & Callan, 2013). Limited research exists examining the broader on-the-job and off-the-

job embeddedness constructs within an Australian aged care sample. Therefore this research

investigates this relationship further by hypothesising that:

H12: Employees who report high on-the-job and high off-the-job embeddedness will report

higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave.

46

Moreover, while Mitchell et al., (2001) argue that job embeddedness has added new

dimensions to the turnover literature and complements studies on job satisfaction and

organisational commitment, no research has examined their combined influence of job

embeddedness, perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support and job

satisfaction on employees’ intentions to stay or leave. The present study will extend the

literature examining intentions to stay and leave by investigating the combined influence of

organisational factors on employees’ intentions to stay and leave their jobs. To examine this,

and also to examine the similarities and differences between employees’ intentions to stay

and leave, this research proposes the hypotheses that:

H13: Combined, the personal factors and organisational factors examined will explain a

higher percentage of variance in employees’ intentions to stay and leave than the individual

factors alone.

2.6 Factors influencing both intention to stay and intention to leave

Research reporting the findings of employees’ intentions to stay and leave is still emerging.

Most studies find more similarities than differences overall, however some studies report

differences. For example, a quantitative analysis of nurses working in Ireland using self-

report questionnaires found job satisfaction predicted both intention to stay and leave

however, kinship responsibilities only predicted intention to leave (McCarthy, Tyrrell,

Lehane, 2007). The influence of job satisfaction on both intentions to stay and leave was also

found in a study of bank employees within Germany (Dick et al. 2004).

In contrast, Mittal, Rosen and Leana (2009) found differences in the factors influencing

retention and turnover of direct care workers in the US. That is, in a qualitative study of

direct care workers in the US, Mittal et al. (2009) found that a lack of respect, inadequate

management, work/family conflict, difficulty of the work itself and job openings were

influences to employees’ intentions to leave. However, being “called” to service, patient

advocacy, personal relationships with residents, religion/spirituality, haven from home

problems and flexibility were important to direct care employees intentions to stay.

Similarly, Ellet, Ellis, Westbrook, & Dews (2007) found differences between the factors

influencing retention and turnover intentions of child welfare workers. In particular that study

found work/family conflict, organisational culture, inadequate pay and resources, broader

47

systematic issues, poor communication and leadership, excess paperwork and lack of

adequate training and development resulting in inadequate knowledge, skills and abilities to

perform the role influenced child welfare workers intentions to leave. In contrast, flexibility,

the nature of the job itself, passion and commitment to the job, having a supportive

atmosphere and having appropriate knowledge skills and abilities to perform the role were

influential to employees’ intentions to stay (Ellet et al., 2007).

Within an Australian aged care setting, Howe et al (2012) found those employees’ who

reported higher intentions to stay were older, had less family responsibilities and therefore

were more free to work, however had financially dependents, and had lower education levels

than leavers. Additionally, employees who reported higher intentions to stay were employed

on a more permanent basis, and wanted to work more hours. Limited research however has

examined the similarities and differences between the employee behavior and relationship

variables (perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support, job satisfaction and

job embeddedness) and people management strategies on Australian aged care employees’

intentions to stay and leave. Therefore this study extends research in this area by

investigating the hypothesis:

H14: There will be a difference in the factors that influence employees’ intentions to stay and

leave.

2.7 Conclusion

In conclusion, this chapter has provided an explanation of and rationale for the Resource-

Based View of the Firm (RBV), which is the theoretical framework that underpins this

research. Following this, a review of the employee retention and turnover literature was

provided in two parts. The first part concerned those variables that comprise the “personal

factors” that contribute to the “human capital pool” element of the Resource-Based View of

the Firm model. The second section examined the literature around the “organisational

factors” that affect employee retention and turnover, and which contribute to the “employee

relationships and behaviours” and the “people management practices” of the Resource-Based

View of the Firm model. The next chapter will provide further context and rationale for the

selection of the constructs within the Australian aged care sector. At the completion of

chapter 3, the proposed model and hypotheses are provided.

48


49

Chapter 3: Literature review of the aged

care sector

50

3.0 Introduction

This research examines workforce retention and turnover in the Australian aged care

sector. Chapter 1 provided an overview of the research problem as well as a brief

overview of the context within which this research situates itself. Chapter 2 then

described the theoretical framework and literature review of employee retention and

turnover as it related to this study. This chapter, Chapter 3, will now provide an in-depth

overview of the Australian health and aged care sector, which is the context within

which this research positions itself. Understanding this context is critical to

understanding the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave within the

Australian aged care sector. To understand the Australian aged care sector, however, an

understanding of the broader health and aged care sector is required. Therefore, this

chapter first presents an overview of the broader Australian health and aged care sector,

before reviewing the aged care sector and then presenting an overview of the current

workforce that underpins this sector.

3.1 The Australian health and aged care sector

Australia’s health and aged care system is complex, large, and divided into three sectors

in order to effectively and efficiently provide healthcare services to the general

population of Australia (Department of Health and Ageing, 2004; Human Services,

2000) : the Acute Care Sector, which provides immediate short-term treatment for those

in need through services such as hospitals and dental clinics; the Sub-Acute Sector,

which provides medium-term care services for those in need in the form of

rehabilitation units, step-down facilities and transition or interim care units; and the

Aged Care Sector, which provides short-, medium- and long-term care services targeted

at those aged over 65 years, in the form of Residential Aged Care (RAC), Community

Aged Care (CAC) and Respite Services (RS) (Department of Health and Ageing, 2004;

Human Services, 2000).

Within each of these sectors, a number of private, not-for-profit and government

organisations deliver care services to the broader Australian community (Australian

Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), 2010a). However, not all services that are

classified under the broad banner of Australia’s health and aged care system can be

segmented into these three sectors because some provide support services to all sectors.

For example, the pharmaceutical industry provides services to all sectors. Additionally,

research and administrative services, which are considered to be an integral part of the

51

Australian health and aged care system, provide general services across the sectors

rather than specific services in one sector. Thus, the Australian health and aged care

system can be depicted with two layers, as indicated in Figure 3.1. The first layer

comprises specific health services delivered specifically within each sector, and the

second layer includes support services that assist across all the sectors to provide their

health services.

One of the current strains on services provided within the Australian health and aged

care system is the ageing population. The ageing population has had, and continues to

have, a significant impact on the services provided within the Australian health and

aged care system. Therefore, an overview of the ageing population and the demands it

places on the system is provided in the following section.

3.2 The ageing population

Australia boasts the second longest life expectancy of any country in the world, namely

83 years for males and 86 years for females born in 2010-2011 (AIHW, 2008; ABS,

2011a). This high life expectancy can be attributed to increased fertility, decreased

Acute Care

- Public Hospitals

- Private Hospitals

- General Medical

Services

- Dental Services

- Community and

Public Health

- Ambulances

- Royal Flying

Doctor Services

Sub-Acute Care

- Public

Rehabilitation

Centres

- Private

Rehabilitation

Centres

- Community and

Public Health

Aged Care

- Residential

Aged Care

Facilities

- Community

Care Programs

and Packages

- Respite

Services

General services provided across sectors

- Pharmaceutical industry

- Research and administrative services

Figure 3.1 Australian health and aged care system

52

death rates and improved health conditions globally as well as nationally (AIHW, 2008;

ABS, 2004, 2008; Turrell et al., 2006). Consequently, with improved health conditions

and advances in technology, Australia’s life expectancy is projected to increase to 93.9

years for males and 96.1 years for females born in 2056 (ABS, 2008). By this time, 20%

of the Australian population is expected to be aged over 70. Hence, while an ageing

population can be viewed as a positive consequence of improved living conditions and

successful ageing, it also brings with it greater demands from a larger number of older

people, such as the changing pattern of diseases and an increased complexity of health

conditions that are presented within the Australian community (Productivity

Commission, 2005).

Research conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing (AIHW) (2008)

on the self-reported health of older Australians found that while the majority of

Australians aged over 65 considered themselves to be in excellent, very good or good

health, 32% considered themselves to be in very poor health. Additionally, 57% of

respondents over the age of 65 were found to be experiencing a disability of some sort,

with 22.5% of these people experiencing a severe or profound disability (AIHW, 2008).

Of those experiencing a severe or profound disability:

85.3% required assistance with mobility;

73.3% required assistance with transport;

71.6% required assistance with property maintenance;

70.4% required assistance with health care;

51.1% required assistance with self-care;

36.1% required assistance with meal preparation;

26.3% required assistance with cognition or emotions; and,

8.8% required assistance with communication.

(AIHW, 2008).

That research also investigated older Australians’ perceptions about whether their core

and other activities needs were met in the current system, where core activities were

defined as those activities that are essential for everyday living such as property

maintenance (AIHW, 2008). This study found that 55% of older people requiring

assistance felt they had their needs met completely. However, 43% felt they had their

needs met only partially and the remaining 2% felt they did not have their needs met at

all. These results indicate that aged care services were not meeting the needs of all older

53

Australians in 2008. While a follow-up study to the 2008 study has not been completed,

an investigation by the Productivity Commission (2008) into the need for aged care

services amongst older Australians confirmed that as people age, the need for aged care

services increases. This investigation revealed that while 32% of older Australians aged

65-74 years reported that they required assistance with personal care and everyday

activities, this figure rose to 86% in those aged over 85 years or more.

Coupling these findings with the knowledge of Australia’s ageing population, the

changing burden of disease as a result of an ageing population, and an increase in

people from a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) population requiring more

specialised care, it is clear that the need for quality aged care services is increasing

exponentially (Productivity Commission, 2005; 2008). However, in order to ensure that

an adequate workforce exists in the future to meet the expected demands, research is

needed to address the retention and turnover of the aged care workforce, which is the

focus of this research. As a prelude to this research, a detailed overview of the aged care

sector is provided in the next section of this chapter.

3.3 The Australian aged care sector

The Australian aged care sector is different from both the Australian acute care and sub-

acute care sectors as the aged care sector provides short- and medium-term options in

the form of respite, as well as long-term care options in the form of Residential Aged

Care (RAC) and Community Aged Care (CAC) services. Additionally, the aged care

sector provides care to a defined target population of Australia, namely older people

aged over 65 years living in Australia (Department of Health and Ageing, 2004; Human

Services, 2000). The relevant service settings will be described in this section.

3.3.1 Residential aged care services

RAC services provide permanent and temporary accommodation to older people living

in Australia in the form of Residential Aged Care Facilities (RACFs). Permanent care is

provided for those who are unable to live independently in their own home. Temporary

care (respite) is provided as short-term relief to carers (of older people) who may

themselves have health conditions and require additional short-term support to alleviate

carer strain (AIHW, 2010; AIHW, 2012). Within RAC service settings, both low-level

and high-level care services are provided. Low-level care services include everyday

living services (e.g. assistance with meals, laundry, and cleaning), some personal care

services (e.g. bathing and toileting assistance), and nursing care as required (Department

54

of Health and Ageing, 2011a). High-level care services provide these services plus

more complex care services such as palliative care (end-of-life care), medication

management, falls management, nursing care, and allied health services such as

recreational therapy, podiatry, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy (King et al.,

2012; Productivity Commission, 2011).

In 2010, there were 2,772 RACFs across Australia; of these 59% were owned and

operated by not-for-profit organisations, 35% were owned and operated by private, for-

profit organisations, and 6% were owned and operated by local and state governments

(Productivity Commission, 2011). By 2011, there were 2,760 RACFs operating across

Australia, 60% owned and operated by not-for-profit organisations, 30% by private, for-

profit organisations, 10% by local and state governments (AIHW, 2012). This shift

represented a 5% decrease in private organisations ownership of RACFs and a 4%

increase in the government and 1% increase not for profit ownership of RACFs. In total,

these organisations provided care services to 165,032 older people living in Australia in

2012, with 76.3% of these people receiving high-care services and 23.7% receiving

low-care services (Productivity Commission, 2011). By comparison, in 1998, 58% of

older people living in RACFs received high-care services and 42% received low-care

services (Productivity Commission, 2011). Comparing the 2011 figures with the

clientele who accessed services in 1998, it is clearly evident there has been a change in

the demographic composition of older Australians accessing RAC services and that

there has been a dramatic increase in the number of dependent and frail people, who

require high-care services, entering RACFs over the preceding 12 years.

3.3.2 Community aged care services

Community aged care services (CACS) are provided for older people living in

Australia, in order to enable them to live independently in their own homes for longer

(Department of Health and Ageing, 2011a). These services include both low-care and

high-care services to the general older population living in Australia. Low-care services

include domestic assistance and some personal care services; high care services include

more complex care options such as registered nursing care, allied health care, personal

care, social support, home help, and highly technical services such as assistance with

oxygen and/or enteral feeding (feeding a client through a tube) (Department of Health

and Ageing, 2011b; Productivity Commission, 2011). These services are provided by

the Australian government through community aged care packages and programs,

which are delivered to the wider community through approved providers (Department

55

of Health and Ageing, 2011a). The community aged care packages available are listed

and described in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Aged care community packages

Programs Description of Package

Home and Community Care (HACC) Provides basic maintenance and support services for

those wanting to live at home independently,

including meal services, nursing, transport, allied

health, home maintenance, personal care, nursing

aids and equipment.

Veterans Home Care (VHC) Provides services similar to the Home and

Community Care package specifically to war

veterans (people who have served in the military and

had direct exposure to military combat).

Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA)

Community Nursing

Provides veterans and war widow/ers with nursing

support services in addition to the services provided

under the Home and Community Care package.

Community Aged Care Packages

(CACP)

Provides planned and managed packages of

community care for complex low-level care needs,

including assistance with personal care activities

such as bathing and dressing, domestic care support

such as housework and shopping, and some social

activities such as outings.

Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH)

including Extended Aged Care at Home

Dementia (EACHD)

Provides services up to 23 hours of high-care

support services per week to assist older people

living in Australia, who have complex care needs, to

stay at home as long as possible.

EACHD includes high-care services targeting older

Australians diagnosed with dementia who have

complex cognitive, emotional or behavioural needs.

National Respite for Carers program

(NRCP)

Provides short-term relief (respite) for carers of

older people.

56

Programs Description of Package

Day care centres Provide physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech

therapy, podiatry and other therapy services to

clients living in the community

(Productivity Commission, 2008)

Since community-based aged care packages were introduced in 2002, there has been a

substantial growth in their use. By 2007, a total of 827,554 people living in Australia

were receiving community packages (Productivity Commission, 2008). The breakdown

of the use of each of these packages is shown in Figure 3.2 (Productivity Commission,

2008).

Figure 3.2 Number of recipients of community aged care packages within Australia

2006-2007 (Productivity Commission, 2008)

As illustrated in Figure 3.2, in 2007 the majority (77%) of older people using

community aged care packages accessed Home and Community Care Services

(Productivity Commission, 2008). This figure indicates 642,650 older people living in

Australia are receiving assistance to maintain their independence through basic home

support services. With more than 827,554 people accessing these services within five

years of their introduction, and with the knowledge that at present more than 55.5% of

people aged over 65 years have some type of disability, it is clear that the need for these

services, as well as RAC services, will continue to grow in the future. More recent

Home and Community Care Services (77%)

Veterans Home Care Services (8.7%)

DVA Community Nursing Services (4%)

Community Aged Care Packages (4%)

EACH and EACHD Packages (0.4%)

57

figures have reported a further 1% increase on the uptake of the CACS as of 30 June

2009, which provides further evidence of the ongoing and future needs for these

services (AIHW, 2010). Note this is the last available data found capturing client uptake

of community care packages in Australia. The changing nature of clients accessing both

RAC and CAC services places a significant demand on the workforce that supports this

sector. To understand this workforce demand further, the next section will provide an

overview of the factors that influence the future demand for the health care workforce.

3.4 The Australian health and aged care workforce demands

The Australian health and aged care sector one of the fastest growing employment

sectors in Australia, with statistics indicating that between 2001 and 2006, the health

care sector experienced a 23% growth in its workforce, which was twice that of all other

sectors (AIHW, 2008). This growth was also evident during and after the global

financial crisis: by 2012, the RAC workforce employed 202,344 people and the CAC

workforce employed 49,801 people (King et al., 2012). However, as the population ages

so does the workforce; this is particularly felt within the aged care workforce, where, in

2010, the average age of a nurse was 58.8 years, which was 4 years older than nurses in

an acute care setting (AIHW, 2011). More recent findings by King et al. (2012) found

that 27% of the aged care workforce was aged over 55 years, an increase from 17% in

2003 and 23% in 2007. A breakdown of current workforce age statistics of the direct

care workforce within a RAC and CAC setting is provided in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Median age (years) of direct care workforce in RAC and CAC settings,

Australia

RAC CAC

Registered Nurse 51 50

Enrolled Nurse 49 49

Personal Care Worker / Community Care Worker 47 50

Allied health 50 48

All occupations 48 50

(King et al., 2012).

As illustrated in Table 3.2 and from the statistics previously presented, the threat of

workforce turnover due to retirement is significant within the aged care sector. This was

clearly highlighted by the AIHW (2008) study, which found the main reason health care

workers were leaving the sector was to retire.

58

Adding to the workforce demand strain further is the impact of the ageing population

and the shortage of nurses. By 2025, the ageing population has been projected to result

in an increased demand for hospital bed days of about 40%, at the same time as the

population aged less than 30 (the age when nursing students typically commence study)

is only projected to grow by 8% (Schofield, 2007). Thus, this increase in demand is

expected to further compound current shortfalls in Registered Nurse (RN) numbers and

contribute to an ongoing skills shortage.

While most regions in Australia are currently experiencing nursing shortages,

Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory are experiencing higher than

average levels of skill shortages (Martin & King, 2008). Moreover, Health Workforce

Australia (2012b) reported that the shortage of workers is expected to be most

pronounced in the nursing workforce in the period up to the year 2025. Consequently,

the severity of these staffing shortages is compelling the redesign of the nursing

workforce and nursing work by health service providers and planners. This redesign has

seen a rise in the number of unregulated care workers with varying levels of training

and skill, thus altering the skill mix available within each service. Indeed, while

registered nurse and enrolled nurses numbers rose by 13% and 29.6% respectively

between the years 2000 and 2005, the number of unregulated care workers increased by

89.5% (AIHW, 2007). Additionally, Martin and King (2008) found the skill mix ratios

have been further altered by a reduction in the number of registered nurses in the period

2003-2007 (-3.97%) and ongoing increases in the number of Personal Care Workers

(unregulated workers) (+5.52%) employed in the aged care sector. Figures 3.3 and 3.4

provide a breakdown of the current RAC and CAC skill shortages by location as

reported by organisations by King et al. (2012). Note as multiple selections were

allowed, these numbers do not add up to 100 (reported in percentage terms).

59

Figure 3.3 RAC skill shortages (%) by location

Note: multiple selections were allowed and therefore these items do not add up to 100.

(Adapted from King et al., 2012)

Figure 3.4 CAC skill shortages by location

Note: multiple selections were allowed and therefore these items do not add up to 100.

(Adapted from King et al., 2012)

Figures 3.3 and 3.4 clearly highlight the skill shortages that exist in each area of

Australia. In particular, Figure 3.3 illustrates that remote areas of Australia have the

0 50 100 150 200 250

Major Cities

Regional (inner)

Regional (outer) rural

Remote

Very Remote

All

RACF Skill Shortage Locations

Registered Nurse Enrolled Nurse Personal Care Worker Allied Health

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Major Cities

Regional

Rural

Remote

All facilities

CAC Skill Shortage Locations

Registered Nurse Enrolled Nurse Community Care Worker Allied Health

60

highest demand for RNs in RAC services and Figure 3.4 illustrates that remote areas of

Australia also have the highest demand for Community Aged Care Workers in CAC

services. Overall, these shortages have resulted in a reduction in RN numbers and an

increase in the number of unregulated care workers employed within the sector, which

has altered the health care milieu and impacted on overall quality of care (International

Centre for Human Resources in Nursing (ICHRN), 2009, 2010; Hall & Buch, 2009).

Research conducted to examine the impact that a nursing shortage has on quality of care

and health outcomes for clients demonstrated linkages between poor staffing levels and

1) lower levels of patient satisfaction with care; 2) an increase in clinical complications

such as urinary tract infections, pneumonia, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and shock;

and 3) higher rates of “failure to rescue” (Eley, et al., 2007; ICHRN, 2009, 2010; Hall &

Buch, 2009; Needleman, Buerhaus, Mattke, Steward, & Zelevinsky, 2002; Sellgreen,

Ekvell, & Tomson, 2007; Teng, Hsiao, & Chou, 2010). Given that the aged care

industry provides services to an increasing number of frail and vulnerable clients,

developing and maintaining an adequate workforce to support and deliver these services

is of central concern (Skinner, Van Dijk, Elton, & Aurer, 2011).

Given these skill shortages, it is important to address health human resource planning to

ensure the future sustainability of the health care workforce (Cohen, 2006; ICHRN,

2009, 2010). However, this planning is further challenged by the context differences

between RAC and CAC settings, as employees in each setting are required to work

under different working conditions (King et al., 2012). For example, the internal

structure and support processes for a community care worker, who works autonomously

within the community, are different from these available to a residential aged care

worker who works as part of a team within a particular building. Other differences

include the size of the workforce supporting a particular client: in a RAC setting there

could be 10 or more different workers in one day seeing a client, while in a CAC setting

there could be only one worker a week, depending on the level of support required

(King et al., 2012). These differences have significant impacts on the type of worker

employed in both settings. Consequently, understanding the type of workers who are

employed in each service setting is an important part of human resource planning.

61

3.5 The Australian aged care workforce

The current aged care workforce consists of a direct care workforce and a non-direct

care workforce. The direct care workforce consists of occupations that exist only within

the health care sector, including personal carers and assistants in nursing, enrolled

nurses, enrolled endorsed nurses, registered nurses, allied health workers, directors of

nursing, and other workers (including those that provide support services such as

cooking, cleaning, administration and maintenance services) (Department of Health and

Ageing, 2010; Productivity Commission, 2011). The non-direct care workforce consists

of occupations that are not health-specific, including engineering, project management,

researcher, architecture, marketing, human resource management, information systems,

accountancy and finance. This research will focus predominately on the direct care

workforce within the broader aged care workforce. To begin to understand this

workforce, it is important to understand the roles, scopes of practice and minimum

education required to perform each role. These roles are summarised in Table 3.3.

62

Table 3.3 The direct care workforce of Australian aged care services

Position Scope Minimum Qualification

Required

Personal Care

Workers/Nurse’s Aid/

Assistants in Nursing

Provides personal care services and

routine tasks under the direction of

nursing staff.

Nil, although many

organisations prefer

employees to have a

minimum of a Certificate

III in Aged Care Services,

obtained through a TAFE

institution or a Registered

Training Organisation.

Advanced Personal Care

Workers

Administers medication in addition

to personal care worker role scope.

Medication management

competency, obtained

through a TAFE institution

or a Registered Training

Organisation.

Enrolled Nurses Monitors the impact of nursing care.

Maintains communication with

registered nurses.

Provides support and comfort for

clients.

Assists with daily living and

provides for emotional needs of

clients.

Diploma in Nursing,

obtained through a TAFE

institution or Registered

Training Organisation.

Enrolled endorsed nurses Administers drugs and medication

to older people receiving care in

addition to the role scope of

Enrolled Nurses.

Diploma in Nursing +

Medication Management

Competency, obtained

through a TAFE institution

or a Registered Training

Organisation.

63

Registered Nurse Assesses, plans, implements and

evaluates nursing care in

collaboration with the nursing team.

Bachelor Degree or

Hospital-Trained


through a university or a

hospital training program.

Advanced Registered

Nurse

Manages the care of individuals and

groups.

Manages the use of staff and

physical resources.

Bachelor Degree/Nursing

competency and a Master

degree in Nursing, obtained



Nurse Managers Manages the overall activities in a

particular area.

Bachelor Degree or

Hospital-Trained




Directors of Nursing Oversees and manages the entire

RACF.

Bachelor Degree or

Hospital-Trained


through a university or

through a hospital training

program.

Allied Health Workers Provides a range of allied health

services to support older people

receiving care. Examples of

positions employed include

podiatrists, exercise therapists and

diversional therapists.

Certificate, Diplomas and

Bachelor degrees

dependent on the role,

obtained through a TAFE,

Registered Training

Organisation, or University.

Adapted from Martin and King (2008) and King et al. (2012).

As evidenced in Table 3.3, the roles found in this workforce have varying levels of

responsibility and minimum required qualifications. Indeed one of the factors

differentiating between the aged care workforce and the acute/sub-acute workforce is

the minimum entry level qualification required. While in the acute and sub-acute care

workforces, all employees must hold at minimum a Certificate III, in the aged care

sector while preference is given to those holding these qualification, no formal

64

qualifications are mandated for an entry level Personal Care Worker or Community

Care Worker. A recent census of Australian aged care workers revealed that in 2012,

15.9% of Personal Care Workers, and 9.6% of Allied health workers, did not have a

formal qualification from a TAFE/university provider above a year 12 certificate (King

et al., 2012). While these figures represent an improvement since 2010 (when 23.7% of

Personal Care Workers and 23.9% of Community Care Workers did not have a

qualification above year 12 (Martin & King, 2010), there is still a proportion of workers

who are unqualified and working within the aged care sector. Therefore, the inclusion

of education level as a personal variable is important when examining employees from

an Australian aged care context. The other important statistics about employees that

require attention when examining the aged care workforce include age, gender, tenure

within the organisation and sector, health, country of origin and employment status.

A complete breakdown and trending of the aged care workforce demographics across

the years is difficult to obtain as the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) does not

clearly distinguish the aged care workforce from the broader health and community care

workforces, resulting in community-based aged care workers being incorporated into

the statistics under the broader classification “non-residential care service workers not

elsewhere classified” (ABS, 2004). Further, regular surveys on the aged care workforce

have only just been commissioned every four years since 2008, with the most recent

being conducted in 2012. Consequently, trending across the years is difficult to

complete. Therefore, the next section will provide a workforce profile of Australian

aged care employees using the information from the 2012 Census of Aged Care

Workers conducted by King et al. (2012), providing comparisons with previous research

by the AIHW (2011), Martin and King (2008) and the ABS where possible.

3.6 Workforce profile of aged care employees

3.6.1 Age

Aged care workers are, on average, four years older than public and private sector

health care workers (AIHW, 2011). In 2010, the average age for aged care workers was

48.5 years in comparison to 44.5 years for the public and private acute and subacute

care sectors (AIHW, 2011). In total, 69.9% of the CAC and 60.1% of the RAC

workforce were aged over 45 years in 2010 (Martin & King, 2008). By 2012, the

median age of an aged care worker had risen to 47 in RAC and 50 in CAC services.

Additionally, the proportion of the workforce over the age of 45 had decreased to 59.9%

65

in RAC but had increased to 70% in CAC services (King et al., 2012). Figure 3.5

illustrates the median age distribution between RAC and CAC workforces.

Figure 3.5 Age distribution of the RAC and CAC workforce (King et al., 2012)

As shown in Figure 3.5 and the statistics provided earlier, while both workforces are

ageing, the CAC workforce is older than the RAC workforce, even though the CAC

workforce has the greater demand for workers in the future as noted in section 3.3.2.

3.6.2 Gender

The Australian aged care workforce is highly feminised, with females representing

92.6% of registered nurse aged care workers in Queensland (AIHW, 2011). When

examining the entire Australian aged care workforce, Elley et al. (2007) found that

82.6% of the workforce was female.

3.6.3 Tenure

3.6.3.1 Tenure within their organisation

In 2006, the aged care workforce was quite mobile, with 90% of Queensland aged care

employees reporting having worked with their current employer for less than five years

(Elley et al., 2007). A national census by Martin and King (2008) found that 71.1% of

RAC and 74.3% of CAC employees had been employed for under five years in their

current job. By 2012, King et al. (2012) identified that the workforce had become more

stable, with only 48% of the RAC workforce and 50.1% of the CAC workforce

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

RN EN PCA/CCW Allied health All occupations

Median Age Distribution

RAC CAC

66

employed with their current employer for less than five years. These findings suggest

that more employees chose to stay with their current employer between 2008 and 2012

than had previously done so. This could reflect the global financial crisis, where jobs

were scarce globally during this period. Further research is required to investigate these

issues. Another important aspect of employee tenure, however, is tenure within the

aged care sector more broadly.

3.6.3.2 Tenure within the aged care sector

When investigating the number of years worked in aged care, King et al. (2012) found

that registered and enrolled nurses employed in both RAC and CAC tended to have

been working in the aged care sector for more than 20 years, whereas personal care

workers and community care workers tended to have been working in the sector for 10

years or less. This pattern is illustrated in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6 Tenure within the Australian aged care sector (by percentage of workers)

In other words, based on these statistics, it can be asserted that while the aged care

workforce is mobile between organisations within the aged care sector, the majority of

employees who leave an individual organisation stay within the aged care sector as a

whole. This assertion also accords with anecdotal evidence accepted within the aged

care industry.

0

10

20

30

40

50 RAC nurse

CAC Nurse

RAC Personal Care Worker

CAC Community Care Worker

RAC Enrolled Nurse

CAC Enrolled Nurse

RAC Allied Health

CAC Allied Health

Tenure in aged care industry

1 year or less

2-4 years

5-9 years

10-14 years

15-19 years

20 years +

67

3.6.4 Perceived health

An employee’s perceived health is an important determinant of employee retention in

relation to older workers as research has found that employees in good health tend to

continue working for longer periods of time (Shacklock, 2008). As the majority of aged

care workers are aged over 45 years, this is an important factor in this study.

A study of the aged care workforce in 2008 found that 66.2% of the CAC workforce

and 63.2% of the RAC workforce self-reported their health as either very good or

excellent (Martin & King, 2009). However, by 2012 the corresponding statistics had

decreased to 60% of RAC workforce and 60% of the CAC workforce (King et al.,

2012). These findings may reflect an ageing workforce, and also may have severe

implications for the number of employees who intend to retire within the next five years

due to poor health.

3.6.5 Country of origin

While the majority of employees in both RAC and CAC settings were born in Australia,

32.5% of RAC and 26.6% of CAC employees in 2008 were born elsewhere (Martin &

King, 2008). By 2012, these figures had increased to 34.6% of RAC and 27.8% of

CAC employees born outside of Australia. This is noteworthy because of the possible

consequences for qualifications and training levels, language barriers and cultural

differences. Table 3.4 shows the country of birth for RAC and CAC employees.

68

Table 3.4 Country of birth of RAC and CAC employees

(Martin & King, 2008; King et al., 2012)

Table 3.4 shows that the country of origin of employees working in the Australian aged

care workforce is diverse and has changed between 2008 and 2012. Specifically, there

was an increase in the number of employees born in eastern or unidentified countries

and a decrease in the number of employees born in western countries.

3.6.6 Employment status

Research examining the employment status of the Australian aged care workforce has

found that while positions across RAC and CAC service settings are similar in the skills

and scope of practice, they differ significantly in their employment status (King et al.,

2012). Specifically, the CAC setting employs a higher percentage of full-time

employees than does the RAC setting, as evidenced in Figure 3.7. This difference may

be attributed to the working arrangements in RAC and CAC settings. While both

provide care to clients 24 hours a day, 7 day a week, the CAC setting appears to provide

the majority of its services from Monday to Friday within normal business hours, and

only a small percentage of its services on the weekends, whereas RACFs are staffed 7

% RAC workforce % CAC Workforce

Country 2008 2012 2008 2012

Australia 67.4 65.4 73.3 72.2

New Zealand 3.5 3.0 3.4 2.6

UK, Ireland, South Africa 9.2 7.5 8.5 8.1

Italy, Greece, Germany, Netherlands 1.9 1.8 3.1 2.5

Vietnam, HK, China, Philippines 5.2 7.4 2.3 3.1

Poland 0.3 0.0 1.1 1.4

Fiji 1.6 1.4 0.3 0.3

India 1.3 2.7 0.4 0.3

Other 9.6 10.7 7.7 9.4

69

days a week for 24 hours a day. Figure 3.7 illustrates that the CAC workforce employs

more casual employees than does RAC. One possible reason for this is the regularity of

work within this sector, while there are always clients within a RAC setting to provide

services to, client needs change on a more fluctuating basis in CAC setting and there is

thus a need for a high pool of casual workers to account for these changes (King et al.,

2012).

Figure 3.7 Employment status (percentage) of the Australian aged care workforce

(King et al., 2012)

3.7 Summary of hypotheses and model proposed

Chapters 2 and 3 have provided the background literature and contextual rationale for

the selection of variables within this study. From this review, the following hypotheses

are proposed to examine the research questions this study seeks to examine.

H1a: In comparison to older workers, younger workers will report lower intentions to

stay and higher intentions to leave

H1b: There will be generational differences in the employee behaviours and

relationships and people management strategies, as well as overall intentions to stay and

intentions to leave

RAC Registered Nurse

CAC Registered Nurse

RAC Personal

Care Worker

CAC Community Care Worker

RAC Enrolled

Nurse

CAC Enrolled

Nurse

RAC Allied Health

CAC Allied Health

Casual/Contract 19.4 14.2 19.5 30.4 14.8 15.8 15.1 12.5

PPT 61.3 53.3 73.6 62.9 74.7 67.2 72.9 60.0

PFT 19.3 32.6 6.9 6.7 10.5 17.0 12.0 27.4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Employment status

70

H2: Employees with lower education levels will report higher intentions to stay and

lower intentions to leave

H3: Employees who are married or in a de-facto relationship will report lower

intentions to stay and higher intentions to leave than those who are single

H4: Employees with longer tenure will report higher intentions to stay and lower

intentions to leave

H5: Employees with kinship responsibilities will report higher intentions to stay and

lower intentions to leave than those with no responsibilities

H6a: Employees who report better perceived health of self will report higher intentions

to stay and lower intentions to leave

H6b: Employees who report better perceived health of family will report higher

intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave

H7: Employees who are on casual contracts will have higher intentions to leave and

lower intentions to stay than those who are employed permanently in part-time or full-

time roles


management strategies and intentions to stay and leave reported by residential aged care

and community aged care employees

H9: Employees who report high job satisfaction will have higher intentions to stay and

lower intentions to leave than those who report low job satisfaction

H10: There will be a negative relationship between employees’ perceptions of

organisational support and employees’ intentions to leave, and a positive relationship

between employees’ perceptions of organisational support and employees’ intentions to

stay

H11: The relationship between perceived supervisor support and employees’ intentions

to stay and leave will be mediated by perceived organisational support

H12: Employees who report high on-the-job and high off-the-job embeddedness will

report higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave

71


higher percentage of variance in employees’ intentions to stay and leave than the

individual factors alone

H14: There will be a difference in the factors that influence employees’ intentions to

stay and leave.

3.8 Proposed models

Research examining employee retention and turnover has often investigated the

personal and organisational variables proposed separately, but research to date has not

examined their combined influence on explaining employees’ intentions to stay and

leave. There are two models presented in this study. The first examines the influence of

personal factors (age, education status, marital status, tenure, kinship responsibilities,

employee and family perceived health, job employment status and area of employment)

and organisational factors (job satisfaction, perceived organisational support, perceived

supervisor support, job embeddedness) on employee retention. The second examines the

influence of the same two sets of factors on employee turnover. While the same two sets

of factors are tested in both models, the literature provides evidence suggesting that

these factors will impact differently upon employees’ intentions to stay and leave. These

models are illustrated in Figures 3.8 and 3.9.

72

+

+

+

H1: Age/Generation

H2: Education Level

H3: Marital Status

H4: Tenure

H5: Kinship

Responsibilities

H6: Perceived Health

(Employee & Family)

H7: Job Employment

Status

H8: Area of Employment

H9: Job Satisfaction

H10: Perceived

Organisational Support

H11: Perceived Supervisor

Support

H12: Job Embeddedness

Intention to Stay

ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS OUTCOME PERSONAL FACTORS

Key

Direct

Relationship Indirect

Relationship

+

Figure 3.8 Proposed Model of Intention to Stay

73

-

-

-

-

H1: Age/Generation

H2: Education Level

H3: Marital Status

H4: Tenure

H5: Kinship

Responsibilities


(Employee & Family)

H7: Job Employment

Status



H10: Perceived



Support


Intention to Leave


Key

Relationship

Indirect

Relationship

Figure 3.9 Proposed Model of Intention to Leave

74

3.9 Conclusion

Understanding the aged care workforce and the context of this research is important in order

to contextualise factors influencing the retention and turnover of this workforce. This chapter

therefore began with an overview of the Australian aged care sector before providing a

description of the workforce demand found in this sector. Following this, the chapter

presented an a current workforce profile of the aged care sector to explain the nuances within

this sector that make it different from other sectors within the Australian health and aged care

system. Finally, the proposed model and hypotheses were presented.

Coupling this chapter with the literature review presented in Chapter 2, it is evident that

understanding both the personal and organisational factors affecting employee retention and

turnover is critical in order for an organisation to create and sustain competitive advantage

over other organisations. Therefore, this research investigates the aged care workforce

looking specifically at both personal and organisational factors influencing employee

retention and turnover. The next chapter, Chapter 4, will present the methodology and

methods used in this study to examine these factors further.

75

Chapter 4: Methodology and methods

76

4.0 Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that affect employees’ intentions

to stay and leave their employment. Chapter 1 began by presenting an overview of the

research problem. Chapter 2 then provided a discussion of the factors known to

influence employee retention and turnover in the management and nursing literature to

date, as well as a description of the theoretical framework that underpins this study.

Following this, Chapter 3 contextualised this research within the complexities of the

Australian aged care sector and its workforce. This chapter, Chapter 4, describes the

methodology and methods used to investigate the research problem.

This chapter begins by outlining the philosophical foundation upon which the

methodology is based. A description of the methods used in this research then follows.

This description begins by rationalising the choice of methods used to collect data, and

includes a detailed discussion of how the survey tool was developed. Following this,

details of the respondents, measures, procedure and data analysis are provided,

including a discussion of the validity and reliability of the data as well as an overview

of how data was triangulated in this research study. This chapter then concludes with a

discussion of the ethical issues identified and how these were addressed in this research.

77

4.1 Philosophical foundation

This study was methodologically driven by the research approach of positivism.

Positivism is one of the oldest and most frequently used approaches (Neuman, 2011)

and is “[an] organised method for combining deductive logic with precise empirical

observations of individual behaviour in order to discover and confirm a set of

probabilistic causal laws that can be used to predict general patterns of human activity”

(Neuman, 2011, p. 95). Positivist approaches emphasise that there is one direction of

research enquiry (deductive logic) and that by using this, combined with empirical

observations, researchers can strive to explain human behaviour (Johnston & Duberly,

2000; Neuman, 2011). Figure 4.1 illustrates the process of deductive logic.

Figure 4.1 The deductive approach to research (Adapted from Bryman, 2004).

A positivist approach was chosen in preference to other methodological approaches as

this study is descriptive in nature and provides clues for explaining the factors

influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave. That is, this study focuses on

examining the “what” questions in order to examine the existing patterns of employee

behaviour in terms of employees’ intentions to stay and leave, rather than exploring new

fields of research or interpreting behaviours. The next section will discuss the ontology

and epistemological approaches that underpin positivism, and indeed, this research.

4.1.1 Ontology

Positivism research lends itself to realist ontology. Proponents of a realist ontology

argue that what we see, observe, touch and experience allows us to objectively

experience the world in which we live (Carson, Gilmore, Perry, & Gronhaug, 2001;

Revision of theory

Hypotheses confirmed or rejected

Results/findings

Data collection

Hypothesis development

Theory

78

Neuman, 2011). In other words, realist ontology is predicated on the assumption that,

through a process of deductive enquiry, using carefully selected research questions,

researchers can examine human behaviour in a logical manner. This allows researchers

to formulate an objective view of the world and ensures that no value judgments are

placed on respondents (Neuman, 2011).

Through using this process, researchers can remain distant and detached in order to be

emotionally neutral and interpret the research findings in an objective non-judgmental

manner (Neuman, 2011). While some researchers argue that no research is value free

(Creswell & Clark, 2007), positivist researchers assert that through using a deductive

enquiry with carefully selected research questions, the research remains objective with

minimal to no value judgments placed on the research by the researcher (Neuman,

2011). This also means that researchers are able to study separate parts of reality at one

point in time, then combine them to form the whole picture of what is happening at that

point in time (Neuman, 2011). This process is particularly relevant to this study, as a

key tenet of this research is to investigate the factors that influence employees’

intentions to stay and leave. However, without an understanding of the context within

which this research positions itself, an appropriate reflection of the results cannot be

made. Therefore, a key aspect of this research is not only in the administration of the

survey itself, but also in the understanding of the research context, in order to

appropriately understand the reality observed in this research. Consequently, in

discussing the results of this research, a reflection of the appropriateness and practical

implications of these research findings is also presented. In addition to adopting a realist

ontology, this research accepts an objectivist epistemology, which is discussed in the

next section.

4.1.2 Epistemology

A researcher’s epistemological view underpins how they research the social world that

surrounds them, in terms of the principles, procedures and ethos on which they base

their research (Bryman, 2004). Epistemology refers to the question of what researchers

consider to be acceptable knowledge within a discipline (Bryman, 2004), and how a

researcher understands and makes claims to the truth about the world around them

(Neuman, 2011). As positivist researchers adopt a realist ontology, knowledge and the

truth of reality is gained through conducting careful observations of a situation

(Neuman, 2011). In this research, careful observations of a situation are gained with a

cross-sectional survey. The findings of this survey are then discussed in the context of

79

previous research to identify similarities and differences in factors influencing

employee retention and turnover.

Additionally, research that is grounded in realist ontology focuses on the generalisation

and objective nature of the research findings (Carson et al., 2001). In particular,

positivist research is grounded in the attempt to explain what is happening, and

therefore adopts a descriptive and explanatory approach, which builds on previous

exploratory and descriptive research to examine why things occur. This type of research

aims to test theories, link topics or issues to a general principle or determine which, of

several explanations, is best in order to explain human behaviour (Neuman, 2011). This

is particularly the case for this research, where the aim is to test established theories and

extend the research in these areas. In having this aim, the researcher’s role is as a

detached external observer who aims to discover the external reality of respondents,

using a rational, consistent, verbal, logical approach in the methodology (Carson et al.

2001). The next section will further explore how the philosophical foundations

underpinning this research have influenced the methods used to examine the research

questions.

4.2 Method

4.2.1 Research design and justification

Positivist research prefers quantitative methodology (Neuman, 2011) as this

methodology is relatively free from values (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000), is standardised

(Punch, 2005; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003), allows for systematic examination of

variables (Lune, Pumar & Koppel, 2010; Punch, 2005), and emphasises the

measurement and analysis of causal relationships between variables (Denzin & Lincoln,

2000; Punch, 2005; Tashakkoir & Teddlie, 2003). All of these closely align with the

positivist philosophy. Therefore, this study adopts a quantitative approach, using a

survey to examine the research questions posed. While survey methodology can

produce only correlational evidence to answer the research questions as opposed to

causation (Tashakkoir & Teddlie, 2003), findings based on inferential statistics can be

compared to those obtained in previous studies and can add to evidence gained

previously to advance the knowledge in the area. Additionally, much previous research

on employees’ intentions to stay and leave has been conducted using a survey

methodology or quantitative approach. Moreover, this research examines and measures

relationships between multiple variables and is concerned with what aged care

80

employees’ perceptions are and how strong they are, rather than why they might have

those perceptions. Therefore, a quantitative approach was identified as being more

suited to this research than a qualitative or interpretist approach.

4.2.2 Method comparison and justification

In addition to the previous considerations noted, when choosing the method for this

study, the advantages and disadvantages of various standard research methods were

considered. Table 4.1 provides a comparison of different research methods according to

selected characteristics considered when choosing the methods for this study as well as

the extent to which the characteristic is evident in that method. In other words, the word

‘high’ shown in the table below illustrates that that methodology allows for a high level

of the characteristic listed in the left hand column.

Table 4.1 Comparison of method characteristics

Characteristic under

Consideration

In-depth

Interview

Questionnaire

based Survey

Documentation

analysis

Literature

Review

Realism High Low Low Low

Access to respondents High Moderate Low Low

Detail Moderate Low Moderate Moderate

Measurement

precision

Moderate Moderate Moderate Low

Control Low Moderate Low Low

Conclusion validity Low High Low Low

Generalisability Low Moderate High High

(Source: Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003)

As shown in Table 4.1, the survey methodology allows for the strongest validity with its

conclusions and moderate generalisability in its findings. Additionally the researcher

has greater control and moderate access to respondents when using this method. While

using surveys allows for a lower amount of detail and realism than other methods, as

this study is a descriptive in nature, these limitations were not deemed significant for

this study. In addition to the above considerations, the characteristics of the different

methods available as outlined in Table 4.2 were considered when choosing the current

methodology (Metcalf, 2005).

81

Table 4.2 Further methodological considerations examined (Metcalf, 2005).

Parameter

Method

Time period Intensive/

Extensive

Intrusive Theory

Flexibility

Quantifiability Cross-cultural

applicability

Replicability Depth of

understanding

Causality Threat to

researcher

Social survey

(snapshot)

Once Extensive Modestly

intrusive

Inflexible High Slight High Shallow Very low Low

Longitudinal

survey

Across time in

future

Extensive Fairly

intrusive

Inflexible Very high Slight Limited Fairly shallow Moderate Low

Participant

observation

Across time in

future

Intensive Very

intrusive

Very

flexible

Very low Very high Low Very shallow Very low Very high

Secondary data

analysis

Across,

historical

Very extensive Non-

intrusive

Marginally

flexible

Very high Possible but with

problems

Very high Very shallow Fairly low Nil

Semi-structured

interviews

Once Intensive Very

intrusive

Fairly

flexible

Low Fairly high Very low Fairly deep Fairly low High

Focus groups Once Intensive-

extensive

Fairly

intrusive

Fairly

flexible

Fairly low Limited Moderately

high

Fairly deep Very low High

Archival/

historical

Across

historical

Intensive-

extensive

Non-

intrusive

Very

flexible

Generally low Possible Moderate Very deep Moderate High

Oral history/

biography

Across

historical

Very intensive Very

intrusive

Very

flexible

Nil Slight Very low Very deep Moderate High

Case study Across

historical and

future

Intensive Can be

intrusive

Flexible Usually low Slight Moderate Thick Moderate Generally

low

Social

experiment

Once Intensive Very

intrusive

Inflexible High Very slight Very high Fairly shallow Very high Moderate

Content analysis Across

historical

Extensive Non-

intrusive

Fairly

inflexible

High Slight Very high Very shallow Very low Nil

82

Table 4.2 illustrates that snapshot surveys are limited by the time period in which the

data are gathered, and are shallow and inflexible. This methodology was also found to

be replicable, with low threats to the researcher, and only moderately intrusive to the

respondents. Coupling this knowledge with the moderate generalisability and high

statistical validity of conclusions along with considerations to the purpose of the

research, it was decided that this study would adopt a cross-sectional questionnaire

based survey method to examine the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay

and to leave. Thus, while this methodology was limited in terms of depth of responses

provided by respondents, a large number of respondents could be examined from all

over the country, thus increasing generalisability. Furthermore, a cross sectional survey

was selected rather than a longitudinal survey due to the limited time nature of this

study, and competing priorities in the aged care environment at the time of the study

such as changes to legislation. These priorities included other research projects and the

National Aged Care Workforce Census, which might have impacted on the quality of

responses gathered as well as the pool of respondents who chose to participate in a

longitudinal design.

A survey consists of a series of questions about a range of variables (Sommers &

Sommers, 2002). It is used to gather systematic information about respondents’

attitudes, beliefs, values, intentions and behaviours (Sommers & Sommers, 2002).

While surveys are time, energy and cost efficient, they allow only for a superficial

analysis of participants’ attitudes, beliefs, values, intentions and behaviours (Sommers

& Sommers, 2002). Moreover, this methodology is ineffective when examining very

young people or very old people (Sommers & Sommers, 2002). As these latter

conditions do not apply to this study, the use of surveys is appropriate to investigate the

research questions posed. To build on the strengths of surveys and minimise the

limitations of this methodology, this study included open-ended questions in order to

analyse respondents’ attitudes, beliefs, values, and intentions in stay and leave

employment in more detail and depth.

To summarise the methods and methodology chosen for this research, this study

adopted the research design outlined in Figure 4.2 below, adapted from Crotty (1998).

83

Figure 4.2 The research design of this study (Adapted from Crotty, 1998)

The next section of this chapter will describe the development of the survey instrument

for this research.

4.2.3 Development of the survey instrument

Cross-sectional surveys are limited in that the researcher is only able to access

respondents on one occasion to collect data (Neuman, 2011). Therefore, it is essential

that the questions asked in the survey are thoroughly piloted and developed in order to

maximise response rates and minimise errors and missing data, as well as to collect as

much detail as possible on that one occasion without causing survey fatigue. For this

study, the researcher spent a considerable amount of time piloting the survey instrument

and gathering expert feedback to develop the survey instrument. This section outlines

the steps involved in creating the survey instrument for this research, which included

conducting an expert panel review, consulting survey design and statistical experts, and

then conducting a pilot study prior to the final instrument being developed for use.

4.2.3.1 Expert Panel Review

Aim of the study

The expert panel review was designed to test the readability of the questionnaire,

perceived likelihood that respondents would complete the questionnaire, time taken to

complete the questionnaire, and any suggestions for improvements or errors found

Epistemology

Objectivism

Ontology

Realism

Philosophy

Positivism

Methodology

Cross-Sectional Survey research

Methods

Cross-Sectional survey

(using both open and closed questions)

84

within the questionnaire by the panel respondents. Additionally, this expert panel

review set out to examine any items or scales chosen that might have excessive missing

data or were identified as unclear through the feedback provided.

Sample for the expert panel review

Ten respondents who were currently working within the aged care sector were invited to

participate in this expert panel review. Of these 10 respondents, seven returned the

questionnaire, representing a response rate of 70%. The sample consisted mostly of

female workers (71.4%), aged between 27 and 65 years, and who had no primary

caregiver responsibilities (100%). Respondents had worked in the aged care sector for,

on average, 11.42 years (Min: 0 year, Max: 24 years) and at their current organisation

for, on average, 7.07 years (Min: 0 years, Max: 21 years). Additionally, they had

worked in their current role at their organisation on average for 2.6 years (Min: 0 years,

Max: 5 years).

Measures

The following measures were used in this expert panel review study in the order that

follows. See Appendix A for a complete copy of the questionnaire used in the expert

review panel.

Focused questions

In order to examine the aims of the expert panel review and receive feedback from the

panel, the first page of the questionnaire booklet asked six open-ended questions.

Time taken to complete the questionnaire

Respondents were asked to provide detail on the length of time it took them to complete

the questionnaire. To gather this information, respondents were asked a third open-

ended question, “How long did it take you to complete the questionnaire?”

Suggestions for improvements and errors found

To canvas any suggestions for improvements and errors found within the questionnaire,

respondents were asked three open-ended questions: “Do you have any suggestions to

improve the order or questions in the questionnaire?”; “Did you find any errors?”; and

“Do you have any other comments you would like to make about this questionnaire?”

85

Readability of questionnaire

Respondents were asked, “How easy it was to fill the questionnaire out?” A prompt

example of “were the instructions clear?” was also provided in order to assist

respondents answer this question.

Perceived likelihood of respondents completing the questionnaire

Respondents were asked one open-ended question, “What are your thoughts on the

likelihood that people will complete and return the questionnaire?”

Demographic data

Current position within the organisation

This questionnaire captured information on respondents’ current positions by asking

“What is your position?” and provided respondents with six options for their response.

These options were Registered Nurse (RN), Enrolled Endorsed Nurse (EEN) / Enrolled

Nurse (EN), Personal Care Worker (PCW) / Assistant in Nursing (AIN), Care Manager,

Director of Nursing (DON), or Other, please specify___.

Age range

Respondents were asked to provide information on their age by answering the question

“What is your age range” by selecting one of seven options for their response. These

options were: <16 years, 17-26 years, 27-37 years, 38-46 years, 47-56 years, 57-65

years, or 66 years or older (+).

Gender

Respondents were asked to provide information on their gender by answering the

question “What is your gender” by selecting either “Male” or “Female” for their

response.

Education level

This study examined respondents’ education level by asking “What is the highest

education level you have obtained?” and providing eight options: high school grade 10,

high school grade 12, TAFE Certificate III, TAFE Certificate IV, TAFE Diploma,

Bachelor degree, Masters/Grad Cert Degree, or other.

86

Primary caregiver responsibilities

This study asked respondents about their primary caregiver responsibilities by asking a

binary question, “Do you have any primary caregiver responsibilities?”, with possible

responses being Yes or No. If respondents reported caregiver responsibilities, they were

then asked, “If yes, please describe these”, in order to examine further these

responsibilities.

Perceived health of employee and family

This study asked respondents about their and their family’s perceived health by asking

two questions, “How would you rate your overall health?” and “How would you rate the

overall health of your family?” on a six-point scale (very poor, poor, fair, good, very

good, excellent).

Job embeddedness

Job embeddedness was measured using Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton & Holtom’s

(2004) measure of job embeddedness. While this scale is available in both a long and a

short form, previous research using both scales has identified that the long version of

the scale is a valid and reliable measure of job performance and turnover, while the

short version is a valid and reliable measure of job performance alone (Holtom, Tidd, &

Mitchell, 2006). As this study examines this factor’s relationship to employees’ intent to

leave and intent to stay, a valid and reliable measure of turnover is needed. Therefore,

the long version of this scale was chosen for this study. This scale consists of 34

questions relating to the fit, links and sacrifices employees perceive with their broader

community and with their organisation (Lee et al., 2004). Employees were asked to

respond to all items, except those listed under organisational and community links, on a

five-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Employees were

asked to respond to the items under community and organisational links as either yes,

no or not applicable. Upon creating composite scores by averaging items in on-the-job

and off-the-job embeddedness, the scale reported a high reliability, α .84 and .82,

respectively (Lee et al., 2004).

Perceived organisational support

Perceived Organisational Support (POS) refers to supervisors’ perceptions of the

support that the organisation provides to them (Walters & Raybould, 2007). POS was

examined in this study by using the shortened perceived organisational support (SPOS)

scale. This version of the scale was developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986) to provide a

87

unidimensional scale measuring supervisors’ perceptions of organisational support. The

shortened version of the scale has been found to result in high reliability, α=.83-.95 in

previous studies (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; Mallette, 2011), and is used in the

many past studies conducted to examine POS (Eisenberger, 2011; Wickramasinghe &

Wickramasinghe, 2011). Research to date on this construct has mostly involved the role

of supervisors as respondents, except for Brunetto, Far-Wharton, Shacklock and Robson

(2012) who examined public and private acute care nurses. However, this study will use

this construct to measure employees’ perceptions of organisational support and any

influence this has on all aged care employees’ intentions to stay and to leave. This scale

consists of 16 statements that represent opinions employees may have about their

organisation, rated on a seven-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly

agree (7).

Perceived supervisor support

To measure Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS), this study adapted the shortened

version of the SPOS by replacing the words “Your organisation” with “Your

supervisor” in line with previous research examining PSS such as Kottkey and

Sharafinski (1988), and Eisenberger et al. (2002). Like the POS scale, this scale

consists of 16 statements that represent opinions employees may have about their

supervisor, rated on a seven-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly

agree (7). The measure has been found to be a reliable (α=.93) and valid measure of

PSS in previous studies (Eisenberger et al., 2002; DeConinck & Johnson, 2009;

Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006).

Job satisfaction

Research has identified two types of scale that measure job satisfaction: those that

measure facet satisfaction, and those that measure global satisfaction (Kinicki et al.,

2002). Facet satisfaction examines specific aspects of job satisfaction, whereas global

satisfaction examines satisfaction with the job in general. This study investigated both

satisfaction measures using the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Job in General (JIG)

Scale (Bowling Green State University, 2011). The JDI measures respondents’

satisfaction with five working conditions – their pay, promotion, supervision, work on

present job and co-workers – using a series of words or short phrases. Employees are

required to answer Yes (Y), No (N) or unsure (?) to the short phrases and words

presented describing satisfaction with the particular facet being measured. This measure

88

is widely used within the literature and its reliability is well-established (α=.83 for the

shortened version of the scale, and α=.87, .88, .86, .88 and .89 for satisfaction with Pay,

Promotion, Co-workers, Work, and Supervision sub-scales, respectively) (Kinicki et al.,

2002; Russell et al., 2004).

Additionally, the measure has good convergent and discriminant validity (Kinniki et al.,

2002). The abridged versions of these scales were used in this study to reduce the length

of the questionnaire. The abridged version measures the same dimensions, but with

fewer short phrases or words under each facet (six statements as opposed to 12

statements in the long version). The shortened versions of both scales have also been

established as reliable and valid measures, with Russell et al. (2004) concluding that “as

a result of condensing the JIG scale by more than 50%, the abridged JIG scale offers

both practitioners and researchers a way to efficiently and accurately measure workers’

overall evaluations of their jobs” (p. 891). Moreover, both scales were found to uphold

the psychometric properties of the longer versions, while reducing the time and space

required to assess the constructs (Russell et al., 2004).

Intention to stay

Intention to stay is the “extent to which an employee plans to continue membership with

his/her employer” (Kim, Price, Mueller and Watson, 1996, p. 951). This study

measured employees’ intentions to stay using four items developed by Kim, Price,

Mueller and Watson (1996). Respondents respond to each item using a five-point Likert

scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Intention to leave

This study measured intention to leave using two items developed by Hom and Griffeth

(1991): “I will likely look for another job in the next twelve months” and “I will likely

look for another job in the next five years”. These items have demonstrated reliability of

α=0.93, when measuring the likelihood to look for another job within the next five years

(Dawley, Houghton & Bucklew, 2010). They were measured on a five-point scale, the

same as that used to measure employees’ intention to stay, ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). These items were chosen as they have been measured in

other studies such as Mitchell et al. (2001) and Dawley, Houghton, and Bucklew

(2010).

89

Open-ended questions

In order to provide more detailed understanding of any other factors influencing

employees’ intentions to stay and to leave, four open-ended questions were asked:

1) What factors influence your intentions to stay at your organisation for the next

12 months?

2) What factors influence your intentions to stay at your organisation for the next 5

years?

3) What factors influence your intentions to leave your organisation within the next

12 months

4) What factors influence your intentions to leave your organisation within the next

5 years?

Procedure

Respondents were initially asked if they would like to participate in the expert panel

review and told they would have two weeks to complete the questionnaire. Once

approval from respondents had been provided, the questionnaire booklets were provided

to respondents. Respondents were given two weeks to complete the questionnaire and

return the completed questionnaire to the researcher. Once the questionnaires had been

returned, the researcher entered the data into SPSS version 21.0 and Microsoft Excel

1997.

Results

This expert panel review set out to test to readability, perceived likelihood of

respondents to complete the questionnaire, time taken to complete the questionnaire,

and any suggestions for improvements or errors found within the questionnaire.

Additionally, any items or scales that had excessive missing data or comments from

respondents for improvement were examined.

Most respondents (71.4%) reported that the questionnaire was easy to read and

understand. The remaining two respondents (28.6%) felt the introduction to each section

could be improved to aid readability, giving clear feedback on the questionnaire to

indicate these improvements. In addition to this feedback, respondents also noted minor

spelling errors and inconsistencies within the questionnaire document, which they

highlighted to the researcher through circling the error or hand writing a suggestion for

improvement on the questionnaire. These changes predominately centred on the

90

introductions provided for each scale in order to improve respondents’ understanding of

the scale.

Additionally, when enquiring into the respondents’ perceived likelihood of other aged

care employees completing the questionnaire, all respondents indicated that they felt

that it was “fairly likely”, “depending on what is happening at the time” as “it is not

overly long or onerous” to complete. Investigations into the time taken to complete the

questionnaire revealed that respondents took, on average, 15 minutes to complete the

questionnaire (with a range of five to 30 minutes). However, two respondents did not

report on the time taken.

Upon investigating any items or scales that had missing data or excessive comments,

most scales had no excessive missing data, although two respondents (28.6%) failed to

answer the job satisfaction subscales about their supervisor and the negative questions

in the job in general job satisfaction scale. Upon further physical inspection of their

completed questionnaires, the reason for this missing data was found to be due to an

incorrectly worded paragraph describing the scale. No other scale or item had

significant comments for improvements from respondents.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the expert panel review study suggested some changes were needed to

the questionnaire to aid readability and improve the likelihood for respondents to

complete the questionnaire. In general, it was found that while the questionnaire was

appropriate for the study sample and the likelihood for respondents to complete was

fair, the researcher felt that some additional considerations about the questionnaire

design and feedback from statistical experts and graphic designers were required prior

to conducting a pilot study.

4.2.3.2 Survey design and statistical experts considerations

Three survey design and statistical experts were consulted between the expert panel

review and the pilot study. These consultations focused on examining the survey tool in

more detail to improve the layout and readability to respondents. Each expert reviewed

the questionnaire prior to the interview and was asked to suggest any changes needed to

increase readability and maximise response rates. The interviews lasted 10-20 minutes

each, and resulted in four changes to the questionnaire.

The first change made was to the location of the demographic data in the questionnaire.

In version one, the demographic data was located at the front of the questionnaire on

91

page one. However, survey experts advised to move the demographic data collection to

the end of the questionnaire. After further consideration using the literature (e.g.

Roberson & Sundstrom, 1990), it was found that the benefits of collecting demographic

data at the end of the survey included maximising the available time on accurate and

fresh perspectives, leaving the factual and “automatic” responses for the end of any time

spent completing the survey.

The second suggested change was to the wording of the question on respondents’ age.

Specifically, version one of the questionnaire asked respondents a forced choice

question between age ranges. However, after consultation with statistical and survey

experts, the question asking respondents’ age was changed from a forced choice option

to an open-ended, “In what year were you born?” question. It was advised that through

changing the question to an open-ended format, the researcher would have better control

of the statistical analyses performed on this more detailed data. However, as previous

questionnaires on the aged care workforce had only collected data in the form of forced

choice options, the researcher was hesitant about asking an open question in this format.

However, after further consideration of this suggested change, the researcher decided to

pilot the question to determine the impact of this before making a final decision on this

suggested change.

The third suggested change was the addition of two demographic data questions as a

result of expert feedback: “What is your job employment status?” and “How many

hours of work do you work at your main job?” It was advised that by capturing data on

these items, the researcher would gain a better understanding of respondents and that

these characteristics could have an influence on their behaviour. Consequently, the

researcher decided to add these items to the next draft for the pilot.

Finally, the fourth suggested change related to the scale measuring intention to leave.

This was advised because, while the scale had been previously validated, the experts

consulted advised that when comparing two constructs, such as intention to stay and

intention to leave, it is better to have the same or similar number of items measuring the

different constructs. Therefore, the scale was changed from a two-item intention to

leave scale to a four-item intention to leave scale in version two of the questionnaire.

Graphic design considerations

To enhance readability and maximise response rates, the researcher opted to have the

layout of the questionnaire professionally designed. Therefore, once the questionnaire

92

was finalised, the questionnaire was sent to a graphic design company for formatting.

An initial face-to-face consultation was conducted to communicate the intent of the

questionnaire, anticipated participant characteristics and background of the

questionnaire development. The questionnaire was then emailed to the graphic

designers for consideration and drafting an initial design. Follow-up phone interviews

and emails were then sent back and forth to finalise the first draft of the questionnaire

design. These discussions resulted in slight changes to the wording of the introductions,

font style and size, and the layout of the scales themselves within the context of the

whole document. The final draft of the design was then emailed to the researcher for use

in the pilot study. A copy of this design is included in Appendix B.

4.2.3.2 Pilot Study

Aim

This pilot study aimed to examine the impact of the changes in readability, time taken

and any errors identified in the revised questionnaire. To test this, the researcher

targeted a sample of university lecturers, tutors, students and general workers from

outside the aged care sector in order to gain a broader range of participants in this pilot

that mimicked the range of education qualifications of aged care employees targeted in

the main study. This sample was targeted in order to capture any additional

improvements that could be made to the questionnaire design and to identify any further

errors that had not previously been identified. In order to reflect this, the focus questions

were changed to be more specific about the feedback desired on this questionnaire from

these experts.

Sample size

A total of 25 respondents were invited to participate in the second pilot of this

questionnaire. Of these 25, 14 respondents returned their completed questionnaire to the

researcher, representing a response rate of 56%. These respondents were female (50%),

lived in Queensland, Australia, and were aged 18-45 years (M=26 years, SD = 10.56).

Measures

The pilot study used similar measures as in the expert panel review study with the

exception of those discussed above. Therefore, this section describes only those

measures that were changed significantly between the expert panel review study and the

pilot study. It should be noted that the new order of the questionnaire scale items in pilot

study was Perceived Organisational Support, Perceived Supervisor Support, Job

93

Satisfaction, Intention to Stay, Intention to Leave, Job Embeddedness, and

Demographic data. A copy of this questionnaire is included in Appendix B.

Focus questions on readability, time taken and errors

The first page of the questionnaire asked six open-ended questions focusing on two

specific areas, time taken to complete the questionnaire and the readability/suggestions

for improvement.

Time taken

Respondents were asked to record the approximate time taken to complete the

questionnaire through the open-ended question, “How long did it take you to complete

the questionnaire?”

Readability of questionnaire and suggestions for improvements

To examine the readability of the questionnaire as well as to gain feedback on areas for

improvement, five open-ended questions were asked:

1. “Were there any spelling mistakes?”

2. “Were any questions difficult to follow?”

3. “Did it logically flow? Do you have any suggestions for improvement?”

4. “Were there any other errors that you found?” and,

5. “How easy it was to fill the questionnaire out?” with a prompt example of “Were the

instructions clear?”

Additional job embeddedness question

Hours worked

In order to further contextualise the employee’s work status, the open-ended question

“How many hours of work do you work at your main job” was added in the job

embeddedness section. While this item was not included as a measure of job

embeddedness, it was added to this section due to readability and flow considerations.

Intention to leave

The statistical and survey design experts consulted advised that when comparing two

constructs, such as intention to leave and intention to stay, it is better to have the same

or similar number of items measuring the different constructs. Therefore, the scale was

changed from a two-item intention to leave scale to a four-item intention to leave scale

in version two of the questionnaire.

94

In version two of the questionnaire, intention to leave was measured using three items

adapted from University of Melbourne (1990) and Bradley (2007):

1. “Over the past month, I have seriously thought about leaving my primary

organisation to work with another organisation within the aged care industry.”

2. “Over the past month, I have seriously thought about resigning from this

organisation even though I do not have another job to go to.”

3. “Over the past month, I have seriously thought about making a real effort to

enter a new or different occupation outside the aged care sector.”

An additional item was added to examine intentions to resign: “Over the past month, I

have seriously thought about resigning from the workforce altogether.” Bradley (2007)

found the original 3-item scale to have adequate reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .79) and

concurrent validity in the form of moderate to high correlations with job demands and

job stress. These items were measured on a five-point scale, the same as that used to

measure employees’ intention to stay, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree), to gain an overall understanding of employees’ intentions to leave.

Demographic questions

Following a more thorough review of the literature, as well as considering advice

provided by experts in the field as discussed in the previous section, some changes were

made to the demographic data collected in the pilot study.

Age

Respondents were asked to provide information on their age by answering the open

question, “In what year were you born”, in the space provided.

Job status

Respondents were asked to provide information relating to their job status by answering

the question, “What is your job employment status?”, with one of five options provided,

which were Permanent Full Time, Permanent Part Time, Temporary Full Time,

Temporary Part Time or Casual.

Location

Respondents were asked to provide information relating to the location of their work by

answering the question, “What state or territory do you work in?”, with one of the

options provided: QLD (Queensland), NSW (New South Wales), VIC (Victoria), SA

95

(South Australia), NT (Northern Territory), ACT (Australian Capital Territory), TAS

(Tasmania), or WA (Western Australia).

Area of aged care

Respondents were asked to provide information categorising the area of aged care they

work in by answering the question, “What area of aged care do you primarily work in?”,

with one of three options provided: Home Care, Residential Care, or Other.

Procedure

Respondents were invited to participate in the pilot study of the questionnaire and told

that they had two weeks to complete and return the questionnaire. Once approval from

respondents had been provided, the questionnaire booklets were provided to them. Once

the completed questionnaire had been returned, the researcher entered the data into

SPSS version 21.0 and Microsoft Excel 1997. Data was then analysed by examining

descriptive and frequency statistics to determine the number of responses to each

question.

Results

The aim of this pilot study was to measure the time taken to complete the questionnaire,

and to test for improvements in readability as well as to further identify any errors found

within the questionnaire after changes were made. Upon examining the open-ended

questions enquiring into the readability of the questionnaire, it was found that all

respondents commented that the questionnaire was logically structured, flowed well and

contained only minor grammatical errors. Additionally, respondents also reported that

the questionnaire was “very easy” to complete. Examination of the time taken to

complete the questionnaire revealed that with the changes made, the average time taken

to complete remained at 15 minutes (range 10-20 minutes).

However, further investigation of the completed questionnaires revealed that three items

had more than 15% missing data. The first of these was the revised question capturing

participant age, where 50% of respondents failed to answer this question. Further

reflection on this item with statistical experts resulted in the researcher deciding to keep

the item as it was written in this version. The second and third item that had more than

15% missing data was the question about the location and area of aged care in which the

respondent works, which was not answered by 40% of respondents. However, because

most pilot study participants did not work in aged care and they all resided in

Queensland, the missing data on the questions were not considered a problem by the

96

researcher. No other questions had more than 15% missing data. Instead, the rest of the

missing data within the responses resulted from the fact that one participant chose not to

complete most of the questionnaire and instead focused on identifying detailed

grammatical errors within the questionnaire. No other scale or item within a scale was

identified as problematic in this pilot study.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this pilot test investigated the improvements in readability, time taken

and overall integrity of the final questionnaire using a representative sample. This pilot

test revealed that the changes made improved readability and the overall integrity of the

questionnaire, and the researcher was comfortable to progress with data collection.

4.2.3.3 Structure of the final questionnaire

The final questionnaire consisted of four A4 pages and measured the constructs in the

following order:

Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support

Job Satisfaction

Intention to Stay closed and open-ended questions

Intention to Leave closed and open-ended questions

Job Embeddedness

Demographic Data.

A copy of the final questionnaire can be found in Appendix C.

4.2.3.4 Cover Page, information Sheet, and frequently asked questions

Following the finalisation of the questionnaire, the cover page, description of study,

information sheet and frequently asked questions were developed to include in the final

package that was sent to respondents. Copies of these documents are included in

Appendix C.

4.3 Respondents of main study

4.3.1 Main study respondents

Sample size

Invitations to participate in this study were sent to 2118 direct care workers from four

organisations. Respondents were employed at not-for-profit or private Australian aged

care organisations that ranged in size from small (less than 50 employees), medium

97

(less than 300 employees), large (less than 900 employees) to very large organisations

(more than 4000 employees) across two states of Australia. Two of these organisations

offered both residential aged care and community aged care services, one offered

residential aged care only, and the fourth offered only community aged care services to

people living in Australia. Of the invited respondents, 420 returned the questionnaire to

the researcher. This represents a 19.83% response rate. It is recognised that this is not in

line with previous research, which identifies that research using a questionnaire

methodology should expect between a 27-35% response rate (Baruch & Holtom, 2008;

King et al., 2012). One possible reason for this lower than usual response rate could be

to the fact that reply-paid envelopes were not made available to respondents in this

study due to budget constraints, which may have influenced respondents’ perceptions of

confidentiality or ease of return. Another possible reason could be the confounding

impacts of the National Census of Australian Aged Care Workforce questionnaire being

administered a month prior to the release of this study’s questionnaire. Nonetheless,

while the sample size is acknowledged as a limitation to this research, a 19.83%

response rate is considered adequate for this study.

4.3.2 Sample justification

Sampling appropriate respondents is a key tenet of quality research (Sommers &

Sommers, 2002). When determining sample sizes, researchers need to consider the size

of the population, the available resources and time constraints, the strength of the effect

desired, the number of analyses to be performed on the data, and the expected return

rate (Sommers & Sommers, 2002). In direct terms, a sample is considered to be of

appropriate size if it represents the larger population being studied (Lune et al., 2010).

Gpower 3 computer software was used to determine the sample size required (URL:

http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3/). Power was set at .80 using

a medium effect size of .25, in line with previous research in this area (Holtom &

O’Neil, 2004; Reitz, Anderson, & Hill, 2010). The software highlighted that a minimum

of 180 employees was required for statistical power in this study. This was based on a

power study, using a one-way ANOVA, to determine whether there was a difference

between employees in each generation and their responses to the quantitative measures

proposed. This analysis was chosen because it involved more subgroups (6) than any

other analysis. Thus, providing the most stringent test of the sample size required. This

study draws upon six subgroups within the generations examined. Thus, a minimum of

http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3/

98

30 employees in each generation examined is required to achieve statistical power in

this study. The generations examined in this study were late Veteran Generation (1926-

1945), early Baby Boomers (1946-1955), late Baby Boomers (1956-1965), early

Generation X and Y (1966-1976), late Generation X and Y (1977-1986), and early

Generation I (1987-1996) (ABS, 2009a). Table 4.3 illustrates how this study achieved

adequate power for the analyses performed.

Table 4.3 Breakdown of respondents per generation (N=420)

Generation Number of

respondents

Adequate Power

for inclusion (Y/N)

Late Veteran Generation 6 N

Early Baby Boomers 91 Y

Late Baby Boomers 151 Y

Early Generation X and Y 54 Y

Late Generation X and Y 37 Y

Early Generation I 20 N

Missing data 61 -

Total Respondents 420 -

*Y = minimum of 30 respondents to have adequate power for analysis

As evident from Table 4.3, four groups were identified as having meeting the minimum

requirement for achieving appropriate statistical power in this study. Therefore, any

analyses that are performed examining differences between the generations will need to

exclude respondents from the Late Veteran Generation and Early Generation I.

In order to examine differences between the size of the organisation and participant

responses in the study, a minimum sample size of 720 respondents (30 employees per

generation group x 6 groups x 4 organisations) was required for statistical power. As

this study did not achieve this sample size, the researcher was unable to examine any

differences that may be due to the size of the organisation that the respondents worked

in.

4.4 Measures

The measures used in the final questionnaire were the same as those used in pilot study

(see 4.2.3.2 Pilot study - measures). Therefore they will not be presented again here. See

Appendix C for a copy of this questionnaire.

99

4.5 Validity and reliability considerations

The methods chosen to collect the data and analyse the results have known challenges

associated with them. As positivist researchers are concerned with the generalisability

of the research findings, reliability and validity are of utmost concern to the researcher

(Johnston & Duberly, 2000). Validity and reliability issues of concern for the study, and

actions taken to address these concerns, where feasible, are therefore discussed below.

4.5.1 Construct validity

Construct validity has been defined as “a type of measurement validity that uses

multiple indicators and has two subtypes: how well indicators of one construct

converge, or how well indicators of different constructs diverge” (Neuman, 2006, p.

194). This was addressed in the present study by ensuring that all scale measurements

were previously evidenced of validity and reliability.

4.5.2 External validity

External validity has been defined as the ability of the research to be generalised outside

the sample investigated (Neuman, 2006). This was addressed in this study by gathering

data from four differently sized organisations. In addition, the findings from this study

have been compared to findings of related studies from the broader health care sector in

order to determine whether these findings are relevant to the aged care sector alone or

whether they might be generalised to the health care sector more broadly. It is noted,

however, that a limitation of this study was the lack of a national sample.

4.5.3 Measurement reliability

Measurement reliability has been defined as “the dependability or consistency of the

measure of the variable” (Neuman, 2006, p. 189). To ensure measurement reliability

was upheld in this study, only measures that previous research had demonstrated to be

reliable were used. Reliability tests were also completed to verify these results in the

context of this study. Additionally, the data entered were screened for human error prior

to any analyses being completed. The results of these tests can be found in Chapter 5.

Table 4.4 provides more detail about the challenges identified in data collection and

analysis and the strategies put in place to minimise or mitigate these challenges.

100

Table 4.4 Data collection and analysis challenges and strategies embedded in the study

to minimise or mitigate the challenge

Challenge Identified Strategy embedded in design of study

Data Collection Phase

Introduction of bias through data

collection

This study used only validated tools to

examine the variables of interest.

Threats to internal validity: Testing

(Changes occurring as a result of the

study)

This study examined employees’

intentions to stay and leave using a single

questionnaire methodology and therefore

this threat was minimised.

Threats to internal validity:

Instrumentation (Something changes the

way respondents measure pre and post

testing)

Pre and post testing was not completed as

part of this study’s design. Therefore, this

was not a threat to the current study.

Threats to internal validity: Mortality

(respondents dropping out)

This threat was minimised by ensuring the

mail-out exceeded that required for the

stated power and effect sizes.

Additionally, as this research involved a

single questionnaire data collection

methodology, this threat was minimised.

Threats to internal validity: Selection

(respondents chosen are not

representative of population)

All care employees working at

participating organisations were invited to

participate in this study. As only not-for-

profit organisations participated in this

study, the scope of this study are

acknowledged as limitations of this

research.

Threats to internal validity: Ambiguity

about causal direction

This study investigated the correlation

between variables using a deductive

approach. While causal direction was not

able to be determined, correlational

direction was assessed.

101

Threats to external validity: Selection

(findings specific to the group studied)

All direct care employees working at both

not-for-profit organisations were invited to

participate. Thus, this threat was

minimised as the participation should be

representative across organisations.

However, the scope of this study is an

acknowledged delimitater of the study.

Additionally, the results of this study were

compared to other national surveys to help

assess and control for this threat

Threats to external validity: Setting

(findings specific to context studied)

Results from this study were compared to

results found in both acute care and aged

care settings. These comparisons are

discussed in Chapter 7: Discussion and

Conclusions.

Threats to external validity: Construct

effects (Constructs examined specific to

group studied)

This study was grounded in research and

used only validated constructs found to be

appropriate to employees’ intentions to

stay and leave factors.

Threat to reliability: Subject error All care was taken to explain the questions

clearly to minimise the possibility of this

error. Additionally, an expert review panel

study and pilot study were undertaken.

Finally, data were screened prior to any

analysis being undertaken, and erroneous

responses were deleted.

Threat to reliability: Observer error This threat was not applicable to this study

as a survey methodology was used.

Threat to reliability: Observer bias This threat was not applicable to this study

as a survey methodology was used.

Data Analysis Phase

Not addressing validity issues Chapter 7 includes a dedicated discussion

on validity issues to appropriately address

these issues.

Graziano and Raulin (2004); Neuman (2011).

102

4.6 Data triangulation

The triangulation of data is critical to rigorous research studies, as it allows the

researcher to look at the research problem from multiple angles in order to improve the

accuracy of the findings established (Neuman, 2006). There are many methods of

ensuring data triangulation occurs in research. These are described in Table 4.5 below.

Table 4.5 Data triangulation methods

Data triangulation method Description

Triangulation of measures

This is the most common method

employed, and involves the researcher

examining the same research construct

with multiple measures: for example,

asking both open ended and closed

questions on a questionnaire to measure a

construct.

Triangulation of observers

This occurs when multiple observers

measure one phenomenon in order to

reduce the limitation of researcher bias

impacting the study’s findings.

Triangulation of theory

This type of triangulation occurs when a

researcher uses multiple theories to plan or

interpret the data obtained.

Triangulation of method

This type of triangulation occurs when the

researcher mixes qualitative and

quantitative research methods in order to

maximise the benefits of both types of

research methods.

(Neuman, 2006)

This study collects and analyses data through the use of triangulation of measures.

Specifically, in order to examine the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay in

and leave their employment, this study employs the use of valid and reliable scales as

well as open-ended (qualitative) questions within the questionnaire. It is argued that

through using this methodology, the researcher is able to examine the factors that affect

employees’ intentions to stay and leave that are similar to the constructs examined as

103

well as additional information about the factors that respondents see as important to

their intention to stay or leave. By using this methodology, the researcher was able to

look at the problem from multiple angles and examine the results critically.

4.7 Procedure for the main study

Formal ethics approval for this study was obtained from Griffith University’s Human

Research Ethics Committee prior to commencing data collection (EHR/19/11/HREC).

Upon approval, the researcher approached four large aged care organisations to

participate in this study (two not-for-profit and two for-profit organisations). Further

ethics approval was then gained by another university’s ethics committee as per the

requirement of one of the approached organisations. Unfortunately, due to reasons

beyond the researcher’s control, both the for-profit and one of the not-for-profit

organisations were unable to participate in the study after ethics approval was gained.

Therefore, the researcher re-commenced the recruitment process to find more

participating organisations by contacting 27 organisations around Australia using the

“contact me” email on their website. This approach resulted in the recruitment of three

additional organisations, ranging from small to large, to join the very large organisation

already recruited for this research project. The result was that the data were collected in

four not-for-profit organisations.

Upon the granting of approval to conduct research at these participating organisations,

the researcher requested each organisation to provide the number of direct care workers

employed at each organisation, in order to inform questionnaire distribution. The total

number of questionnaires distributed to each organisation differed according to size.

The first not-for-profit organisation employed over 4000 eligible staff members across

residential and community care services meaning it was not viable or necessary to

survey all eligible employees. Instead, 1000 questionnaires were distributed to the

organisation. This equated to 25% of the total number of eligible employees. A total of

1118 questionnaires were then distributed to the remaining three organisations.

Questionnaires were distributed in bulk to each site by the researcher, matching the total

number of direct care workers employed at each site provided by each organisation.

Questionnaire packs were placed in staff rooms or common rooms as allocated by site

management, to be filled in by as many voluntary respondents as were willing. No

information was gathered on who participated in the survey; instead, each questionnaire

104

pack included a sealable envelope into which respondents placed their completed

questionnaire and either directly posted it to the researcher personally or placed it in the

box provided by the site. Two weeks after distribution, a reminder email was sent to all

participating organisations through their research coordinator or nominated personnel as

determined through the approval stage.

Each participating organisation received a final summary report of the study at the

conclusion of the research, as well as a copy of any publication that arose from the

research, to inform their practices. The reports were also sent to any respondent who

contacted the researcher in order to obtain a copy of the results.

Once the completed questionnaires had been received, the researcher then entered the

quantitative data into SPSS Version 21.0 and the qualitative data into Microsoft Excel

2007 as the first step in the data analysis process.

4.8 Ethical issues

This study identified five key ethical issues that could affect this research study, and put

in place strategies to address them: informed consent; confidentiality; feedback of

results; negative impact on employability; and security of data (Graziano & Raulin,

2004; Neuman, 2006; 2011). Informed consent was provided by respondents in this

study through the return of their completed questionnaires to the researcher as explained

in the cover sheet provided to the respondent in their questionnaire pack. Confidentiality

was maintained and upheld by the researcher in three ways. First, by securing the

returned questionnaires in a location external to the participating organisation; second,

by using aggregated results in any published work; and, third, through the de-

identification of each questionnaire participant. Feedback of results to respondents was

achieved through the provision of a research summary highlighting key findings to each

participating organisation, which was then encouraged to distribute the findings to their

employees. Negative impact on employability was protected through upholding

confidentiality of responses. Finally, security of data was upheld by storing all

responses in a locked filing cabinet at Griffith University.

4.9 Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that affect employees’ intentions

to stay in and leave. This chapter described the methodology and methods used to

undertake this research. It began by outlining the philosophical foundation upon which

105

the methodology is based. A description of the methods used in this research then

followed, which included a rationalisation of the methods chosen as well as a

description of the process undertaken for developing the survey tool that was used in

this research, using an expert panel review and pilot study to develop the final survey

instrument. A description of the questionnaire package and the process for collecting the

data was then presented. Following this, a description of data triangulation, validity and

reliability was provided. This chapter then concluded with a discussion of the ethical

issues identified and the strategies put in place to minimise them. The next chapter,

Chapter 5, presents the results of the quantitative analysis of the data collected using

these methods and will address the research questions posed. Chapter 6 then provides

the results of the analysis of the open-ended questions.

106


107

Chapter 5: Quantitative results

108

5.0 Introduction

This study investigated employees’ intentions to stay and leave. This chapter presents

the results of the quantitative data in the context of the research questions and

hypotheses. It first describes the data preparation and screening conducted prior to the

analyses performed. Then the results are presented from the analysis of quantitative data

using several data analysis techniques including descriptive statistics, bivariate

correlations, t-tests, Analysis of Variances (ANOVAs), Multivariate Analysis of

Variance (MANOVAs), hierarchical regression analyses, and structural equation

modelling analyses. Chapter 6 then presents the results of the qualitative data from the

open-ended questionnaire questions.

5.1 Data preparation and screening

Data preparation and screening is a critical pre-requisite to any analysis performed to

ensure that the assumptions underlying statistical tests are satisfied and thus the results

identified are free from bias and accurately reflect the sample examined. Key aspects of

this stage include describing the sample characteristics in relation to the workforce

characteristics of the broader population, identifying and responding to missing data,

and preparing the dataset to be ready for analysis. These aspects are discussed in this

section.

5.1.1 Sample characteristics

Understanding the sample within this study is critical so that any differences between

the sample and the broader aged care workforce can be detected. The present sample

cannot be compared to the national population on all demographic variables. Instead, a

comparison was made by position type and area of employment because this was the

way the publically available data was presented. Therefore, Tables 5.1 and 5.2 present

those demographic statistics for the current sample and for the corresponding national

population for Residential Aged Care (RAC) and Community Aged Care (CAC)

workers by position type.

109

Table 5.1 Residential Care Workforce Sample Characteristics (Total Sample N=175)

Registered Nurses Enrolled nurses Personal Care Workers Managementa

Administrativea

Sample Census Sample Census Sample Census Sample Sample

N=17 Data N=22 Data N=106 Data N=20 N=10

Age (Median) 43 51 52 49 50 47 44 48.5

Job Employment Status (%)

Full time 11.8 19.3 27.3 10.5 7.5 6.9 85.0 40.0

Part Time 70.6 61.3 59.1 74.7 86.8 73.6 15.0 60.0

Casual 11.8 19.4 13.6 14.8 5.7 19.5 0.0 0.0

Unknown 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Number of hours worked a week (%)

1-15 11.8 3.6 4.5 3.9 4.7 3.9 0.0 10.0

16-34 76.5 33.5 59.1 42.7 74.5 56.4 5.0 40.0

35-40 11.8 34.2 36.4 36.0 19.8 32.1 75.0 50.0

>40 0.0 28.6 0.0 17.4 0.9 7.6 20.0 0.0

Tenure in aged care industry (%)

1 year or less 11.8 4.8 4.5 1.8 21.7 9.8 0.0 30.0

2-4 years 23.5 2.1 13.6 1.3 24.5 4.7 30.0 20.0

5-9 years 29.4 21.3 27.3 22.0 24.5 35.4 20.0 20.0

10-14 years 11.8 20.8 18.2 22.6 10.4 22.8 5.0 10.0

15-19 years 0.0 15.0 13.6 11.7 8.5 10.6 20.0 10.0

20 years + 23.5 36.0 22.7 40.5 10.4 16.7 25.0 10.0

Tenure in current job (%)

1 year or less 47.1 21.5 36.4 13.3 41.5 15.1 65.0 60.0

2-4 years 41.2 31.9 13.6 23.5 37.7 34.1 25.0 20.0

5-9 years 5.9 21.0 27.3 25.9 11.3 30.7 5.0 20.0

10+ years 5.9 25.5 22.7 37.3 9.4 20.1 5.0 0.0

*Note census data reported in this table is based on the Residential Care Workforce for the 2012 census was based on 8,568 employees nationally (King et al., 2012) a

Census data was not available for these positions

110

Table 5.2 Community Care Workforce Sample Characteristics (Total Sample N=176)

Registered Nurses Enrolled nurses Community Care Workers Managementa

Administrativea

Sample Census Sample Census Sample Census Sample Sample

N=11 Data N=9 Data N=104 Data N=38 N=14

Age (Median) 46.0 50.0 53.0 49.0 51.0 50.0 44.0 51.0

Job employment status (%)

Full time 11.8 32.6 22.2 17.0 11.5 6.7 92.1 40.0

Part Time 70.6 53.3 77.8 67.2 79.8 62.9 7.9 60.0

Casual 11.8 14.2 0.0 15.8 7.7 30.4 0.0 0.0

Unknown 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Number of hours worked a week (%)

1-15 18.2 2.3 0.0 4.7 22.1 18.5 0.0 14.3

16-34 36.4 41.1 44.4 39.1 70.2 56.4 7.9 7.1

35-40 45.5 38.0 55.6 39.1 7.7 20.2 86.8 71.4

>40 0.0 19.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 4.9 5.3 14.3

Tenure in aged care industry (%)

1 year or less 45.5 5.7 0.0 7.4 28.8 11.6 15.8 7.1

2-4 years 0.0 3.7 22.2 0.7 17.3 5.7 18.4 42.9

5-9 years 18.2 23.3 11.1 16.1 35.6 39.3 26.3 0.9

10-14 years 18.2 19.3 22.2 22.1 5.8 20.8 5.3 14.3

15-19 years 9.1 13.2 11.1 14.8 7.7 9.9 21.1 14.3

20 years + 9.1 34.5 33.3 38.9 4.8 12.6 13.2 7.1

Tenure in current job (%)

1 year or less 72.7 23.8 44.4 13.3 51.0 15.4 55.3 71.4

2-4 years 9.1 29.6 55.6 23.5 22.1 34.6 3.6 14.3

5-9 years 0.0 24.3 0.0 25.9 24.0 31.2 10.5 14.3

10+ years 18.2 22.3 0.0 37.3 2.9 18.8 2.6 0.0

* Note census data reported in this table is based on the Community Care Workforce for the 2012 census was based on 3,128 employees nationally (King et al., 2012) a Census data was not available for these positions

111

Tables 5.1 and 5.2 illustrate both similarities and differences between the sample in this

study and the national workforce census data. The median age for Personal Care

Workers (PCW, 50 and 51 years) and Enrolled Nurses (EN, 52 and 53 years) in this

study is older than the census data for Personal Care Workers (47 and 50 years) and

Enrolled Nurses (49 and 49 years) in both RAC and CAC workforces. In contrast to

this, however, Registered Nurses (RN) examined in this study was younger than the

census data across both RAC (43 compared to 51 years) and CAC samples (46

compared to 50 years). Additionally, the sample in this study reported lower tenure

within their current role and in the industry compared to the national averages. Due to

the small sample size for each comparison group in this study, statistical differences

could be examined on only four variables (job status, number of hours worked, tenure in

aged care, and tenure in role) and only for personal care workers and community care

workers. Note tenure in role refers to the length of time they have spent in their current

position. Table 5.3 presents the results of these analyses.

Table 5.3 Chi square statistic tests for differences between sample and census data

N df Chi Square

Job employment status

Community care worker (CAC) 103 2 26.24**

Personal care worker (RAC) 106 2 12.98***

Number of hours worked

Community care worker (CAC) 104 3 17.39**

Personal care worker (RAC) 106 3 17.53**

Tenure – aged care sector

Community care worker (CAC) 104 5 68.37***


Tenure – role

Community care worker (CAC) 104 3 105.81***


** p < .01 *** p < .001

Table 5.3 illustrates that there are statistically significant differences between the

sample and the national census data on all four variables, for two types of employees.

When compared to data from the national census, those who participated in this study

(a) had not been employed as long within either their current role or the sector, (b)

112

worked significantly fewer hours per week, and (c) often held had more permanent jobs

than did the broader aged care population sample.

Most (92.8%) of the present sample was female, and 77.9% of all respondents reported

having an educational qualification higher than a year 12 certificate. This is similar to

previous research which suggests that the aged care workforce is highly feminised and

that a percentage of the workforce still does not have a qualification above year 12

(AIHW, 2011; Elley et al., 2010; King et al., 2012).

Together these statistics reveal that, while there are some similarities, there are also

some significant differences between the sample in this study and the broader national

aged care workforce. As the census data was collected one month prior to the

distribution and collection of this questionnaire, one possible reason for the differences

found could be that the sample that responded to the present questionnaire might not

have responded to the census questionnaire, and thus might have different employee

characteristics and values to those who completed the census questionnaire.

Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, as the census data is based on all aged care

organisations within Australia, and this study samples only four organisations from two

states of Australia, the workforce profile of these organisations may be different from

the national average. However, as the exact reasons for these differences are unknown,

caution should be exercised when generalising these results to the broader population of

aged care workers.

5.1.2 Development of final dataset for analysis

To prepare the dataset for final analysis it was necessary to convert raw scores to the

scale requirements in order to reflect the final scales ready for analysis. This conversion

included both reverse coding and constructing summed scales for each organisational

construct.

Perceived organisational support and perceived supervisor support

Both Perceived Organisational Support (POS) and Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS)

scales were treated the same way. Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 were reverse-coded in

line with previous research by Eisenberger (2011). Averaging the responses to all items

then created the final composite score for each scale, such that higher scores mean

higher levels of POS and PSS, respectively.

113

Job embeddedness

Item 33 of this scale was reverse-coded in line with previous research (Lee et al., 2004).

Additional modifications were made from the original scale to two of the links-

community items to fit an Australian context. First, in the original scale, the item asking

“If you are married, does your spouse work outside the home” was replaced by the item

“If you are married or living with your partner, does your spouse work outside the

home?”, because de-facto relationships often have the same legal rights and recognition

as married couples in Australia. Second, the original item, “Are you currently married?”

with the response options yes and no, was changed to, “What is your relationship

status?” with the options living with a partner or not living with a partner. The

community and organisational links items were then recoded on a scale from zero to

five, as the original scale was open-ended and all other items on this construct were

measured using a zero to five scale. To do this, the raw scores were divided by the

maximum value provided by respondents and then multiplied by five in order to covert

the item to a zero to five scale. In line with past research by (Lee et al., 2004) separate

fit, links and sacrifices sub-scale scores were not computed. Instead, two composite

scales for were created by averaging responses to the items on both the community scale

(off-the-job embeddedness) and organisational scale (on-the-job embeddedness), such

that higher scores meant higher levels of embeddedness within their broader community

or organisation.

Job satisfaction

The job descriptive index and job in general scales were treated as individual subscales.

Job descriptive index

For the work on the present job subscale, item 6 was reverse coded; for the

opportunities for promotion subscale, items 2 and 3 were reverse coded; for the people

on present job subscale, items 1, 3, 4 and 6 were reverse coded; for the satisfaction with

pay subscale, items 1, 4 and 5 were reverse coded; and for the satisfaction with

supervision subscale, item 3 was reverse coded. Scores on each subscale were then

averaged to form composite scales, where higher scores indicated higher satisfaction

with that aspect of their job. This was done in line with instructions provided by the

scale developers (Bowling Green University, 2011).

114

Job in general scale

For the job in general scale, items 5, 6 and 8 were reverse coded as per instructions

provided by Bowling Green State University (2011). Responses to the items were then

averaged to create a composite score ready for analysis, with higher scores indicating

higher levels of general job satisfaction.

Intention to stay and leave

A critical component of investigating two similar constructs as dependent variables is to

ensure all the items measured what they were supposed to measure. Therefore, an

exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring with oblique rotation) was

conducted to ensure the items intended to measure the two dependent variables loaded

onto two distinct scales. Table 5.4 presents the results of this analysis.

115

Table 5.4 Exploratory factor analysis: Intention to leave vs. intention to stay (N=359)

Item Factor 1 (Intent to Leave) Factor 2 (Intent to Stay)

Over the past month I have seriously

thought about resigning from this

organisation even though I do not

have another job to go to

.909 .141


thought about resigning from the

workforce altogether

.824 .098


thought about making a real effort to

enter a new or different occupation

outside the aged care sector

.614 -.150


thought about leaving my primary

organisation to work with another

organisation within the aged care

industry

.577 -.141

Under no circumstances will I

voluntarily leave this organisation

.031 .608

I would be reluctant to leave this

organisation

-.060 .756

I plan to stay at this organisation for

as long as possible

-.016 .808

I plan to leave this organisation as

soon as possiblea

.429 -.340

a This item cross-loaded and was not used in subsequent analyses.

Two clear factors with eigenvalues greater than one were found to be measured in the

intention to stay and intention to leave questionnaire data. The intention to stay data was

found to explain 14.99% of variance and had an eigenvalue of 1.05. The intention to

116

leave data explained 51.9% of the variance and had an eigenvalue of 3.63. One reverse-

coded item of the intention to stay scale, however, did not clearly load onto factor two

and was subsequently removed from further analysis. This resulted in three items

measuring employees’ intentions to stay and four items measuring employees’

intentions to leave. Responses to these items were then averaged to create composite

scores for both intentions to stay and leave. No reverse codes were performed on the

remaining items.

To confirm the validity of the intention to stay and leave scale, two confirmatory factor

analyses were performed using AMOS (version 21). One assumption of confirmatory

factor analysis is that all variables must be measured on a continuous scale (Kline,

2011). This assumption was met for both scales. The first confirmatory factor analysis

performed examined the convergent validity of the intention to stay scale and the

second examined the convergent validity of the intention to leave scale.

The chi square value for the intention to stay model was not significant, χ2 (1) = .116, p

< .733, thus indicating a good model fit. Further examination of other fit statistics

confirmed a good model fit with the three-item intention to stay scale, Comparative Fit

Index (CFI) = .98, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 1.00, Root Mean Square Residual

(RMR) = .01, and Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) = .00). A

description of the cut-off points for each of these “fit statistics” is provided later in this

chapter.

To confirm the validity of the inclusion of an additional item to the intention to leave

scale (retirement intentions, explained in Chapter 4), two confirmatory factor analyses

were conducted, one on the four intentions to leave scale items (model 1) and one using

just the original three-item scale (model 2). Table 5.5 shows the fit statistics for both.

Upon removing the extra item (retirement intentions), the fit improved dramatically, as

illustrated by an increase to the CFI and TFI values, and decrease in the RMR and the

RMSEA statistics. Therefore, the researcher conducted all analyses using the original

three-item intention to leave scale, and the three-item intention to stay scale.

117

Table 5.5 Confirmatory factor analysis of intention to leave scale

After completing these modifications, the two final data sets were established, ready for

analysis.

5.1.3 Missing data

Analysing missing data is an important part of the data screening process. This can

ensure that the responses gathered represent the views of all respondents, and are not

biased towards only those who answered. To examine the missing data in the sample for

this study, a missing data analysis and subsequent non-response bias tests were

conducted.

A missing data analysis was performed to identify any patterns in the missing data that

may affect the results obtained. As described later, a substantial amount of participants

did not complete the job satisfaction scale correctly. Leaving this aside, the analysis

revealed that the missing data was missing completely at random with no systematic

issues identified using the Little MCAR technique (χ2

= 20508, df = 20473, p = .429).

Therefore, the researcher was confident in proceeding with the treatment of this missing

data using a two-step procedure involving mean substitution and listwise deletion, both

of which have been recognised as acceptable treatments of missing data (McKnight,

McKnight, Sidani, & Figueredo, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).

At step 1, mean value substitution was performed for all missing responses to items that

formed part of a scale where less than 10% of data was missing for that particular

participant on that scale. In practice, this meant that 45 responses were replaced with the

sample mean. No data imputation was performed on variables that were measured using

a single item. Table 5.6 summarises the changes made to participants’ responses to each

scale.

Model

Number

Fit statistics

χ2 df CMIN

(χ2/df)

RMSEA (90%CI) CFI TLI RMR

1 25.18 2 12.59 0.18 (0.12-0.25) 0.959 0.88 0.06

2 0.38 1 0.38 0.00 (0.00-0.12) 1.00 1.01 0.02

118

Table 5.6 Number of mean substitutions per scale

At step two, if more than 10% of a respondent’s data was missing from a particular

scale, all of that participant’s responses were deleted from the dataset using listwise

deletion. Using this two-stage approach for the variables, perceived organisational

support, perceived supervisor support, job embeddedness, intention to leave and

intention to stay scales, a total of 359 useable responses were identified. However, when

performing the same analysis with the inclusion of the job satisfaction scale, a total of

only 227 useable responses were identified. Therefore, two (overlapping) datasets were

prepared for analysis in this study. The first dataset included all variables except the job

satisfaction items (N=359), and the second included the job satisfaction items plus all

other items (N=227). The large difference between the datasets was due to the job

satisfaction scale, where respondents were asked to answer Yes (Y), No (N), or

Unknown (?) to a series of statements that applied to them. While this scale has been

widely validated in the literature (Kinicki et al., 2002; Russell et al., 2004), in this study

respondents failed to provide a response to each statement. Instead, many respondents

to the questionnaire tended to provide a Yes for one or more items in the scale, leaving

the remaining unanswered statements blank. As the researcher could not validly

ascertain if the blank responses meant respondents disagreed (N) or were unsure (?)

Scale Number of Cases Changed

Perceived organisational support 9

Perceived supervisor support 5

Job satisfaction: Work on present job 2

Job satisfaction: Satisfaction with supervision 6

Job satisfaction: Opportunities for promotion 0

Job satisfaction: People on the present job 4

Job satisfaction: Pay 0

Job satisfaction: Job in general 1

Intention to stay 4

Intention to leave 2

On-the-job embeddedness 4

Off-the-job embeddedness 8

Total mean substitutions made 45

119

with their answer, this was recorded as missing data. Thus, because only 227

respondents completed this scale correctly, two datasets were created in order to

maximise the data available for analysis using the other scales.

To examine the differences between the two datasets, and thereby to determine if there

were any differences between the responders and non-responders to the job satisfaction

item, non-response bias tests were conducted using chi-square and t-test analyses on the

personal and organisational factors. The results are presented in Tables 5.7 and 5.8.

Table 5.7 Chi Square analysis of differences between groups who did and did not

respond to the job satisfaction items

Group 1 Frequencya

Group 2 Frequencyb

χ2

Education status

Grade 10 21 20

.697

Grade 11-12 24 13

TAFE Cert III 60 35

TAFE Cert IV 30 17

TAFE Diploma 33 15

Bachelor 32 7

Masters 9 7

Hospital 17 6

Kinship responsibilities

Yes 82 145

.131 No 37 95

Area of aged care

Community 112 61

.630 Residential 107 68

Both 8 3

aGroup 1 represents those employees who responded to all items on the questionnaire

(N = 359) .

bGroup 2 represents those employees who did not respond to the Job Satisfaction scale

items (N = 227)

120

Table 5.8 Independent group T-test analyses of differences between groups who did and

did not respond to the job satisfaction items

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

aGroup 1 represents those employees who responded to all items on the questionnaire

(N=359)

bGroup 2 represents those employees who did not respond to the job satisfaction scale

items (N=227)

cAge, tenure-job, tenure-organisation and tenure-sector were open-ended questions; Health of

Self and Family were measured on a scale of 1 = strongly disagree, to 6 = strongly agree.

Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured on a seven-

point Likert scale. Off-the-Job and On-the-Job Embeddedness were measured using both open

and five-point scales. Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave scales were measured using a

five-point Likert scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

As shown in Table 5.7, there were no differences between the two datasets on the

categorical items examined. However, as demonstrated in Table 5.8, the two sub-

samples differed in age, tenure and on-the-job embeddedness. That is, the smaller data

set consisted of older, more experienced and more embedded (on the job) workers than

did the larger data set. One possible reason for these differences could be that the older,

Variablesc

Group 1a

Mean (SD)

Group 2b

Mean (SD)

T Value

Age (years) 47 (11.34) 51 (11.87) 3.08**

Overall health of self 5.41 (1.25) 5.52 (1.01) -0.84

Overall health of family 5.34 (1.36) 5.44 (1.15) -0.68

Tenure – present job (years) .55 (.69) .71 (.71) -2.07*

Tenure – organisation (years) .64 (.69) .87 (.83) -2.78**

Tenure – sector (years) 1.09 (1.05) 1.38 (1.09) -2.50*

Perceived organisational support 4.63 (1.15) 4.71 (.96) -0.64

Perceived supervisor support 5.09 (1.17) 4.91 (1.02) 1.45

Off-the-job embeddedness 2.99 (.46) 3.08 (.36) -1.67

On-the-job embeddedness 2.40 (.41) 2.54 (.38) -3.09**

Intention to stay 3.38 (1.01) 3.46 (.88) -0.72

Intention to leave 2.15 (1.07) 2.06 (.94) 0.80

121

more experienced and more embedded employees are more used to completing

questionnaires at their workplace. Therefore, they took their time to read the instructions

carefully. Alternatively, perhaps they were more interested in these items, and their

answers reflected this interest. Regardless, as the exact reasons for these differences are

unknown, care should be made when interpreting analyses involving these items in the

smaller dataset. Importantly, no differences between the datasets were found on

employees’ intentions to stay and leave or any other predictor variable. Therefore the

researcher was comfortable to proceed with caution to conduct further analyses. The

next section reports on the analyses performed using these two datasets (N=359 and

N=227).

5.2 Data analysis results

This study investigated five primary research questions:



3. What are the similarities and differences between the factors influencing

employees’ intentions to stay in and leave?

4. Do these factors differ across residential and community aged care settings?


To investigate these questions and the hypotheses proposed in chapter 3, descriptive

statistics, bivariate correlations, t-tests, Analysis of Variances (ANOVAs), Multivariate

Analysis of Variance (MANOVAs), hierarchical regression analyses and structural

equation modelling analyses were performed. This section begins by providing an

overview of the descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations before discussing the

assumptions underlying the multivariate analyses.

5.2.1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations

Tables 5.9 and 5.10 present the descriptive statistics and correlations between the study

variables for both the larger (Table 5.9) and smaller (Table 5.10) datasets.

122

Table 5.9 Descriptive statistics and correlations between the demographic and employment-related variables (N=359)

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

a Age and Hours worked were open-ended questions; Education level was coded 1 (grade 10) -7 (Masters/ Graduate Certificate); Health of Self and Family

were measured on a scale of 1 = strongly disagree, to 6 = strongly agree. Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured

on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Off-the-Job and On-the-Job Embeddedness was measured using both

open and five-point scales. Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave scales were measured using a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) – 5

(strongly agree).

Variable a M SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Age 48.20 11.68 - -

2. Education level 5.00 2.04 - .13* -

3. Hours worked 30.24 8.94 - .04 .24*** -

4. Primary caregiver responsibility 0.33 0.47 - .17** .02 -.15** -

5. Overall health – self 5.46 1.17 - .01 .13* .04 -.09 -

6. Overall health – family 5.38 1.29 - -.03 .13* .01 -.02 .63*** -

7. Off-the-job embeddedness 3.16 0.48 .78 -.01 -.07 -.07 .07 .28*** .26*** -

8. On-the-job embeddedness 2.82 0.51 .86 .03 .06 .13* -.05 .13* .07 .40*** -

9. Perceived organisational support 4.66 1.09 .94 .14** -.01 -.09 .09 .07 .02 .21*** .68*** -

10. Perceived supervisor support 5.03 1.11 .95 .11* .06 .01 .04 .03 .02 .20*** .54*** .69*** -

11. Intention to stay 3.41 0.97 .85 -.12* -.10 .01 .09 .06 .02 .26*** .49*** .41*** .34*** -

12. Intention to leave 2.12 1.02 .78 -.03 .02 -.04 -.09 -.04 -.06 -.22*** -.53*** -.52*** -.40*** -.50***

123

Table 5.10 Descriptive statistics and correlations for the demographic and employment-related variables (N=227)

Variable a Mean SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Age 48.00 11.37 - -

2. Education level 5.03 1.96 - .15* -

3. Hours worked 30.54 8.81 - .03 .16* -

4. Primary caregiver responsibility 0.37 0.49 - .15* -.05 -.20** -

5. Overall health – self 5.41 1.23 - -.02 .12 .06 -.07 -

6. Overall health – family 5.34 1.36 - -.11 .15* .40 -.05 .69*** -

7. Off-the-job embeddedness 2.96 0.47 .81 -.11 -.02 -.09 .09 .23*** .20***

8. On-the-job embeddedness 2.42 0.42 .86 -.08 .05 .13* -.02 .12 .11

9. Perceived organisational support 4.63 1.16 .95 .16* .03 -.08 .12 .12 .08

10. Perceived supervisor support 5.11 1.17 .96 .09 .09 .02 .03 .07 .09

11. Satisfaction with work on present job 2.09 0.68 .69 .04 -.12 .01 .08 .01 .01

12. Satisfaction with supervisor 2.31 0.83 .80 .08 -.03 -.09 .11 -.01 .05

13. Satisfaction with opportunities for

promotion 1.18 0.89 .82 .14* .01 .18** .03 .03 .01

14. Satisfaction with people on job 2.23 0.85 .80 .09 .04 .00 .14* .12* .13 *

15. Satisfaction with pay 1.37 1.01 .84 .18** .11 .25*** -.09 .06 -.04

16. Satisfaction with job in general 2.33 0.71 .80 -.04 -.11 .05 .08 .07 .04

17. Intention to stay 3.42 1.00 .81 -.01 -.12 .02 .09 .07 -.01

18. Intention to leave 2.13 1.07 .81 -.02 -.06 -.08 -.17* -.03 -.08

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

a Age and Hours worked were open ended questions; Education level was coded 1 (grade 10) – 7 (Masters/ Graduate Certificate); Health of Self and Family

were measured on a scale of 1= strongly disagree, to 6 = strongly agree. Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured


open and five-point scales. Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave scales were measured using a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree).

124

Table 5.10 Descriptive statistics and correlations for the demographic and employment-related variables (N = 227) continued

Variablea

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. Age

2. Education level

3. Hours worked

4. Primary caregiver responsibility

5. Overall health- self

6. Overall health – family

7. Off-the-job embeddedness -

8. On-the-job embeddedness .41*** -

9. Perceived organisational support .22*** .62*** -

10. Perceived supervisor support .15* .49*** .64*** -

11. Satisfaction with work on present job .23*** .50*** .46*** .31*** -

12. Satisfaction with supervisor .12 .37*** .46*** .68*** .33*** -

13. Satisfaction with opportunities for

promotion .00 .48*** .51*** .39*** .40*** .33*** -

14. Satisfaction with people on job .29*** .40*** .45*** .30*** .41*** .34*** .28*** -

15. Satisfaction with pay .04 .43*** .31*** .18*** .20*** .20*** .26*** .26*** -

16. Satisfaction with job in general .24*** .60*** .58*** .44*** .64*** .41*** .45*** .44*** .35*** -

17. Intention to stay .30*** .51*** .42*** .33*** .37*** .32*** .33*** .26*** .22** .50*** -

18. Intention to leave -.22*** -.52*** -.53*** -.41*** -.35*** -.32*** -.39*** -.41*** -.32*** -.54*** -.54***

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

a Age and Hours worked were open ended questions; Education level was coded 1 (grade 10) – 7 (Masters/ Graduate Certificate); Health of Self and Family

were measured on a scale of 1= strongly disagree, to 6 = strongly agree. Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured


open and five-point scales. Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave scales were measured using a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree).

125

As demonstrated in Table 5.9, both the predictors and dependent variables displayed

good reliability (α = >.78). Respondents reported moderately low intentions to leave as

indicated by the mean of intention to stay that was above the scale mid-point and a

mean of intention to leave that was below the scale mid-point. The two dependent

variables were moderately negatively correlated (r = -.50) and the four main predictors

(perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support, on-the-job

embeddedness, and off-the-job embeddedness) were significantly correlated, in the

expected directions, with both intention to stay and intention to leave. Contrary to

expectations, each of education level, hours worked, primary caregiver responsibility,

overall health of self and of family were all unrelated to the dependent variables (DVs),

intention to stay and leave. Instead, the only personal variable found to be related was

age and even that was related to the DVs in the larger data set only.

Interestingly and unexpectedly, Table 5.9 shows significant positive relationships

between overall health of self and off-the-job embeddedness (r = .26), overall health of

family and off-the-job embeddedness (r = .23), overall health of self and on-the-job

embeddedness (r = .11), and hours worked and on-the-job embeddedness (r = .14).

Moreover, significant positive relationships were found between age and both perceived

organisational support (r = .14) and perceived supervisor support (r = .13).

Additionally, the correlations between on-the-job and off-the-job embeddedness and

intention to leave are in line with previous research by Jiang et al. (2012). That is, in

this study, on-the-job (r = -.52) and off-the job (r = -.22) embeddedness were

moderately correlated with intention to leave, and in the meta-analysis conducted by

Jiang et al. (2012) moderate correlations between on-the-job (r = -.44) and off-the-job

(r = -.21) embeddedness and intentions to leave were reported.

Using the smaller dataset, with the addition of job satisfaction, Table 5.10 demonstrates

all measures report good overall reliabilities (α >.80). Additionally, respondents

reported low intentions to leave in respondents. Similarly to Table 5.9, in this dataset

there was a moderate negative correlation between the two dependent variables (r = -

.54) and significant correlations, in the expected directions, of the main predictors with

the dependent variables. In this dataset, the personal variable, primary caregiver

responsibilities, had a significant relationship with the intention to leave. Therefore, to

control for the possible influence of this variable, primary caregiver responsibility was

included in the regression analyses performed.

126

Table 5.10 also highlighted some unpredicted relationships between the variables. First,

a positive relationship was found between education level and overall health of family

(r = .15). Additionally, positive relationships were found between primary caregiver

responsibilities and satisfaction with opportunities for promotion (r = .17), and overall

health of family and satisfaction with people on the Job (r = .13). Interestingly, a

significant positive relationship was identified between age and on-the-job

embeddedness (r = .15), satisfaction with opportunities for promotion (r = .16), and

satisfaction with pay (r = .14). A significant negative relationship was found between

primary caregiver responsibilities and opportunities for promotion (r = -.14). Finally, all

of the organisational predictors were significantly correlated with each other, with the

exception of off-the job embeddedness and each of satisfaction with supervisor,

satisfaction with opportunities for promotion, and satisfaction with pay.

Together, these findings provide partial support for hypothesis 5, which proposed that

employees with kinship responsibilities (primary caregiver responsibilities) will report

higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave. That is, a relationship between

kinship responsibilities and intention to leave was found in the smaller data set.

Additionally, bivariate correlation analyses provided no support for the expected

relationships between any of the four predictor variables (education levels - H2,

perceived health of self - H6a, perceived health of family - H6b, and number of hours

worked - H7b) and either of the dependent variables, intention to stay or intention to

leave.

Tenure

To investigate the relationship between years of employee tenure and intentions to stay

and leave, bivariate correlation analyses were performed. Tenure was not included in

the original bivariate analyses as job embeddedness included tenure as a factor in the

calculation of an employees’ on-the-job embeddedness. Therefore, a separate bivariate

analysis was performed to examine the relationship between tenure and employees’

intentions to stay and leave. Table 5.11 presents the correlations and descriptive

statistics for this analysis (N=359).

127

Table 5.11 Descriptive statistics and correlations for tenure and intentions to stay and

leave (N= 359)

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

aTenure in position, organisation and industry were measured using open-ended questions. Intention

to stay and leave was measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to

5 (strongly agree)

As evident in Table 5.11, tenure at an organisation and within the aged care sector was

not significantly correlated with intentions to stay or intentions to leave. However,

tenure within position was significantly positively correlated with intention to leave.

This finding was contrary to our expected result as hypotheses 4 proposed that

employees with longer tenure will have higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to

leave. Instead, this finding suggests those with longer tenures are more likely to leave.

To further examine the relationships between age, marital status, area of employment

and job employment status on employees’ intentions to stay and leave, group level

analyses were performed. These are described in the next section.

5.2.2 Analysis of Group Differences

5.2.2.1 Age differences

Age differences were examined in two ways. First, differences between younger and

older workers were examined, then differences between generations were further

explored.

To examine the differences between younger and older workers’ intentions to leave and

stay (H1a), a cut-off value of 45 years was used as the Australian Bureau of Statistics

(2011) defines older workers as those aged 45 years or above. To examine any

differences between these two groups, an independent samples t-test was performed.

This analysis revealed no significant differences between older (M = 3.44, SD = 0.94)

and younger (M = 3.35, SD = 1.05) workers’ intentions to stay. Similarly, no significant

Variablea

M SD α 1 2 3 4

1. Tenure in position (years) 3.65 4.21 -

2. Tenure in organisation (years) 4.47 4.64 .81*** -

3. Tenure in industry (years) 9.60 8.59 .43*** .53*** -

4. Intention to stay (years) 3.41 0.97 .85 .00 .04 .03 -

5. Intention to leave (years) 2.12 1.03 .78 .11* .07 .01 -.50***

128

differences were found between older (M = 2.13, SD = 1.05) and younger (M = 2.11,

SD = 0.96) employees’ intentions to leave. Therefore, no support was provided for

hypothesis 1a, which proposed that younger workers would report lower intentions to

stay and higher intentions to leave than older workers.

Table 5.12 Generation differences ANOVA results

* p < .05.

a Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured on a seven-point

Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Off-the-Job and On-the-Job

Embeddedness was measured using both open and five-point Likert scales scales ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave scales were measured

using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Hypothesis 1b proposed that there will be generational differences in the employee

behaviours and relationships and people management strategies, as well as overall

intentions to stay and intentions to leave. Given the small numbers within the Veteran

and I-generation groups, this study investigated differences between four groups only:

late Baby Boomer (N = 140), early Baby Boomer (N = 91), early Generation X and Y

(N = 54) and late Generation X and Y (N = 37). To examine these differences, one-way

between groups analyses of variances (ANOVAs) were performed. Differences between

each generation’s job satisfaction could not be performed due to inadequate sample

sizes.

Visual inspections of histograms, box-plots and normal probability plots (Q-Q plots) to

examine the skewness and kurtosis of each variable, as well as inspections of the

Variablea

Early Baby

Boomer

Mean (SD)

Late Baby

Boomer

Mean (SD)

Early Gen

X & Y

Mean (SD)

Late Gen X

& Y

Mean (SD)

F

Perceived organisational

support 4.56 (1.03) 4.52 (1.13) 4.95 (1.10) 5.00 (0.96) 3.63*

Perceived supervisor support 4.84 (1.03) 4.94 (1.22) 5.32 (1.05) 5.38 (0.86) 3.70*

On-the-job embeddedness 2.83 (0.51) 2.78 (0.52) 2.94 (0.49) 2.92 (0.52) 0.42

Off-the-job embeddedness 3.17 (0.39) 3.19 (0.49) 3.11 (0.60) 3.13 (0.52) 0.45

Intention to stay 3.60 (0.98) 3.37 (0.91) 3.62 (1.08) 3.15 (0.90) 2.86*

Intention to leave 2.16 (1.04) 2.11 (1.07) 2.01 (0.98) 2.16 (0.87) 0.26

129

Shapiro-Wilk statistic for each variable, demonstrated the normality assumption was

met for all six variables. Similarly, the levene’s statistic was non-significant for

perceived organisational support (F (3,329) = .12, p = .95), perceived supervisor

support (F (3,329) = 1.66, p = .18), on-the-job embeddedness (F (3,329) = .12, p = .95),

intention to stay (F (3,329) = .55, p = .65) and intention to leave (F (3,329) = 1.25 p =

.29), meaning that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not violated.

However, this assumption was violated for off-the-job embeddedness, as indicated by a

significant Levene’s statistic (F (3,329) = 3.19, p < .05). Therefore, a Welch F-test was

used to examining off-the-job embeddedness.

To examine differences between the levels of perceived organisational support in each

generation, a one-way between-groups ANOVA was performed. Table 5.12 presents the

results of this analysis, which revealed a statistically significant difference between the

generations on their perceived organisational support, F (3,332) = 3.63, p < .05. Further

examination of these differences using Tukey’s HSD (α = .05) revealed no statistically

significant differences between the groups, although the difference between early Baby

Boomers and Early Generation X and Y was approaching significance (p = .05). The

omnibus effect size for this comparison was η2

= .032, indicating that 3.2% of the

variability in perceived organisational support can be attributed to generational

differences, representing a small effect size.

To examine generational differences in perceived supervisor support, another one-way

between-groups ANOVA was performed. Similar to perceived organisational support

and as shown in Table 5.12, a significant difference was identified between generations

on their reported perceived supervisor support, F (3,332) = 3.70, p < .05. Examination

of Tukey’s HSD (using an α of .05) highlighted no significant differences between the

generations; however, the difference between early Baby Boomers and early Generation

X and Y was approaching significance (p = .06) as was the difference between early

Baby Boomers and late Generation X and Y (p = .06). These findings suggest that early

Baby Boomers reported slightly lower levels of perceived supervisor support than did

early and late Generation X and Y, although these differences were not significant at the

0.05 level. For this comparison, the omnibus effect size was η2 = .033, indicating that

3.3% of the variability in perceived supervisor support can be attributed to generational

differences, representing a small effect size.

130

The third ANOVA examined generational differences in on-the-job embeddedness;

these findings are also displayed in Table 5.12. No significant differences were found

between the generations in their on-the-job embeddedness, F (3,332) = .419, p = .74.

For this comparison, a very small omnibus effect size was found η2

= .004.

To examine generational differences in off-the-job embeddedness, a between-groups

ANOVA was also performed. However, because the assumption of homogeneity of

variance was violated for this analysis, the Welch F statistic was used to examine

generational differences. This analysis revealed no significant differences between the

generations’ off-the-job embeddedness, F (3, 113) = .45, p = .72. Similar to on-the-job

embeddedness, a very small omnibus effect size was found η2

= .003.

The fifth ANOVA performed investigated generational differences in employees’

intentions to stay. This analysis found significant differences between the generations

on their intentions to stay, F (3,332) = 2.86, p < .05 as shown in Table 5.12. Further

examination of Tukey’s HSD statistic (α = .05) revealed no statistically significant

differences between the groups. The omnibus effect size for this comparison was η2

=

.025, indicating that 2.5% of the variability in intentions to stay can be attributed to

generational differences, representing a small effect size.

The final ANOVA performed to examine generational differences in intentions to leave

revealed no significant differences, F (3,332) = .26, p =.86, η2

= .002 in this analysis,

which is characterised as a very small effect size. Table 5.12 displays the results of this

analysis.

In summary, these analyses revealed significant overall generational differences in

perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support and intentions to stay.

However, post-hoc analyses revealed that all differences between pairs of generational

groups were not significant. Although, there was a trend in the data for the Generation

X and Y respondents to report higher levels of perceived organisational support and

perceived supervisor support than did the Baby Boomers. This meant that partial

support was found for hypothesis 1b, which proposed there will be generational

differences in the employee behaviours and relationships and people management

strategies, as well as overall intentions to stay and intentions to leave. Further

examination of these differences in the qualitative data received through the open-ended

questionnaire questions will be presented in Chapter 6.

131

5.2.2.2 Residential care vs. community care workers

Hypothesis eight proposed that there will be differences in the employee behaviour and

relationships, people management strategies and intentions to stay and leave reported by

residential aged care and community aged care employees. Six independent samples t-

tests were performed to examine differences between area of employment and

employees’ perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support, on-the-job

embeddedness, off-the-job embeddedness, intention to stay and intention to leave. The

results of this analysis are found in Table 5.13

Table 5.13 Independent group t-test analysis results and descriptive statistics

Variable

Community

Care Workers

Mean (SD)

Residential Care

Workers

Mean (SD)

t

Perceived Organisational Support 4.97 (0.98) 4.33 (1.12) 5.74***

Perceived Supervisor Support 5.31 (0.99) 4.73 (1.18) 5.02***

On-the-job embeddedness 2.85 (0.47) 2.78 (0.54) 1.51

Off-the-job embeddedness 3.20 (0.45) 3.11 (.50) 1.75

Intention to Stay 3.50 (0.99) 3.29 (0.93) 2.03*

Intention to Leave 1.98 (0.97) 2.28 (1.06) -2.75**

* p < .05. ** p <.01. *** p < .001.

a Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured on a seven-point

Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Off-the-Job and On-the-Job

Embeddedness was measured using both open and five-point Likert scales scales ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave scales were measured using a

five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were met in these analyses.

Significant differences between residential care and community care workers were

identified in perceived organisational support (t (349) = 5.75, p < .001), perceived

supervisor support (t (349) = 5.02, p < .001), intention to stay (t (349) = 2.03, p < .05),

and intention to leave (t (349) = -2.75, p < .01). Inspection of the group means revealed

that community care workers reported higher levels of perceived organisational support

(M = 4.97. SD = 0.98), perceived supervisor support (M = 5.13. SD = 0.99), higher

intentions to stay (M = 3.50. SD = 0.99), and lower intentions to leave (M = 1.98. SD =

0.97), than did residential care workers.

132

Further examination of differences between residential care and community care

workers’ job satisfaction using the smaller dataset also highlighted significant

differences between the groups, as shown in Table 5.14. Assumptions of normality and

homogeneity of variances were also met in this set of analyses.

Table 5.14 Differences between community and residential care employees’ job

satisfaction

* p < .05 *** p < .001

aAll variables were measured by answering Yes (3), No (0), or ? (1).

As shown in Table 5.14, significant differences were identified between community

care and residential care workers’ job satisfaction. Further examination of these

differences revealed that community care workers reported significantly higher levels of

satisfaction with the work on present job (t (317) = 3.85, p < .001), supervision (t (317)

= 4.70, p < .001), people on present job (t (317) = 5.58, p < .001), pay (t (317) = 2.17, p

< .05), and job in general (t (317) = 4.21, p < .001). No differences were identified

between satisfaction with opportunities for promotion between the two groups.

Combined, these findings in the majority support hypothesis 8, which proposed that

there would be differences in the employee behaviour and relationships, people

management strategies, intentions to stay and intentions to leave reported by residential

aged care and community aged care employees. Further assessment of any differences

Variablea

Community Care Workers

Mean (SD)

Residential Care Workers

Mean (SD)

t

Satisfaction with work on

present job

2.25 (0.60) 1.90 (0.73) 3.85***

Satisfaction with supervision 2.56 (0.60) 2.06 (0.96) 4.70***

Satisfaction with

opportunities for promotion

1.28 (0.88) 1.12 (0.92) 1.39

Satisfaction with people on

present job

2.52 (0.62) 1.91 (0.96) 5.58***

Satisfaction with pay 1.52 (1.01) 1.23 (.98) 2.17*

Satisfaction with job in

general

2.50 (0.55) 2.11 (0.92) 4.21***

133

between the factors influencing residential and community care employees’ short-term

and long-term intentions to stay and leave is provided in Chapter 6.

5.2.2.3 Employment status

To investigate any differences between employee employment status (Full-Time, Part-

Time and Casual) and their intentions to stay and leave, two one-way Analyses of

Variance (ANOVAs) were performed. Assumptions of normality were met for

variables, and the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met for intentions to

leave (F (2,356) = 1.38, p = .25) but not intention to stay (F (2, 356) = 6.69, p < .01),

therefore Welch’s F statistic was used to compare the groups on intentions to stay.

Analysis of differences between full-time (M = 3.41, SD = 1.13) part-time (M = 3.39,

SD = 0.87) or casual (M = 3.71, SD = 1.13) employees and their intentions to stay

revealed no significant differences between groups, F (2, 356) = 1.14, p = .32). This

analysis represented a very small effect size, as indicated by η2

= 0.006. Additionally, no

differences were found between full-time (M = 2.08, SD = 0.98) part-time (M = 2.18,

SD = 1.05) or casual (M = 1.73, SD = 0.92) employees and their intention to leave (F

(2, 356) = 1.13, p = .12). Similar to the analysis of intentions to stay, this analysis

revealed a small effect size, η2 = .012.

These findings are contrary to hypotheses 7A, which predicts that employees who are

on casual contracts will have higher intentions to leave and lower intentions to stay than

those who are employed more permanently in part-time or full-time roles. Instead, in

this study, there was a trend for more permanent employees to have higher intentions to


To examine the combined influence that personal variables (age and primary caregiver

responsibilities) and organisational variables (perceived organisational support,

perceived supervisor support, job embeddedness and job satisfaction) have on

employees’ intentions to stay and leave, hierarchical regression analyses were

performed. Prior to performing these analyses, considerations as to the sample size and

assumptions underpinning this analytic technique are discussed.

134

5.2.3 Hierarchical regression

5.2.3.1 Sample size

In order to perform regression analyses, there is a need to ensure that the data set is an

appropriate size. However, the literature offers different views about an appropriate

sample size. Green (1991) proposed that a minimum of 103 responses are needed for

regression analyses to detect a medium effect size, with seven predictors. On the

contrary, Tabachnick & Fiddell (2013) proposed that is required when

examining relationships between variables, using a medium effect size, where m is

equal to the number of predictors. Adopting this formula for this study, the minimum

sample size for this study would be 106 respondents. As this study uses a minimum of

227 and a maximum sample size of 359 to conduct the analyses, the sample sizes were

considered to be satisfactory for performing the current hierarchical regression analyses.

5.2.3.2 Assumptions for regression analyses

Three core assumptions of hierarchical regression analyses are addressed in this section

(Hair et al., 2008).

1. Linear relationships between the independent and dependent variables.

The use of regression analyses requires there to be a linear relationship between the

independent variables and the dependent variables. To test this, the researcher inspected

the residual plots of each predictor variable to the dependent variable and found this

relationship to be linear.

2. Constant variance of the error terms

The second assumption required to be met is the presence of equal variance in the

residuals across all values predicted. Visual inspection of residual plots found this

assumption met in the current study.

3. Normality of the error term distribution

To investigate the normality of error terms, visual inspection of a residual histogram

was initially performed to detect any non-normality. Normal probability plots were then

inspected to compare the standardised residuals to the normal distribution. This revealed

the residual line was close to the diagonal line (normal line) and therefore error terms

were determined as meeting this criterion.

135

In addition to these assumptions, some other considerations were investigated. First, the

variables need to be measured reliably. This is indicated by Chronbach’s a > .70

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). In this study, as discussed previously, all measures

reported were reliable, Chronbach’s a > .69. The second additional consideration is the

absence of outliers among the predictor variables on the dependent variable. This was

examined using visual inspection of boxplots, and residual plots, as well as

investigating Mahalanobis distance scores for multivariate outliers. Any Mahalanobis

distance score above 24.3 (seven predictors at p < .001) was considered to be an outlier.

Inspection of these scores revealed no outliers on any variable within this study.

The final consideration needing examination prior to conducting regression analyses

was the absence of multicollinearity and singularity. To examine the absence of

multicollinearity and singularity, tolerance statistic and variance inflation factor (VIF)

scores were calculated after performing the hierarchical regression analysis as these

statistics require knowledge of R2.

Tolerance examines the amount of variability of IVs not explained by other variables,

and is calculated using the formula 1 - R2.

The variance inflation factor examines the

degree to which the standard error has been increased due to multicollinearity, and is

measured by the formula 1√R2

(Tabachnick & Fiddell, 2013). This analysis revealed no

multicollinearity in the data set as evident in Table 5.15.

136

Table 5.15 Tolerance and variance inflation factor analyses

Variablea

Tolerance Variance Inflation Factor

Age 0.94 1.07

Primary caregiver responsibility 0.99 1.01

Perceived organisational support 0.37 2.68

Perceived supervisor support 0.49 2.04

Off-the-job embeddedness 0.82 1.21

On-the-job embeddedness 0.47 2.13

Job In general* 0.56 1.78

*This variable was measured using the smaller database (N=227). All other variables were measured

using the larger database (N=359)

a Age was an open-ended questions; Primary caregiver responsibility was measured as a dichotomous

variables (yes, no); Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured

on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Off-the-Job and

On-the-Job Embeddedness was measured using both open and five-point scales. Job in General was

measured by answering Yes (3), No (0), or ? (1).

Upon examination of the assumptions, the researcher was comfortable to move onto

performing the hierarchical regression analyses.

5.2.3.3 Hierarchical regression analyses results

To examine the relationship that the personal variables, age and primary caregiver

responsibility, and the core theoretical variables, perceived supervisor support,

perceived organisational support, on-the-job embeddedness, and off-the-job

embeddedness had with employees’ intentions to stay and leave, two hierarchical

regressions were performed. Predictors were entered in three steps: 1. Age and primary

caregiver responsibility; 2. Perceived supervisor support, On-the-job embeddedness and

Off-the-job embeddedness; and 3. Perceived organisational support. Age and primary

caregiver responsibilities were entered first in order to control for the effects that these

variables have on the relationship between the core theoretical variables and the

dependent variables. Additionally, hypothesis 12 predicts that perceived organisational

support mediates the relationship between perceived supervisor support and intention to

leave and stay; therefore perceived organisational support was added at step 3 in the

analysis. Table 5.16 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analyses.

137

Table 5.16 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses predicting intentions to stay and leave (N=359)

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

a Age was an open-ended question; Primary caregiver responsibility was measured as a dichotomous variables (1 = yes, 0 = no); Perceived Organisational Support and

Perceived Supervisor Support were measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Off-the-Job and On-the-Job

Embeddedness were measured using five-point scales ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave variables were

measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Step Predictor Variablea

Intention to Stay Intention to Leave

B SE

B

β R2

(Adj.R2)

R2

Chang

e

B SE B Β

R2

(Adj.R2)

R2

Change

1 Age -.01 .00 -.14** .00 .01 .05

Primary caregiver responsibility -.23 .11 -.11* .03 (.02)** .03** -.22 .12 -.10 .01 (.01) .01

2 Age -.01 .00 -.16** .01 .00 .08

Primary caregiver responsibility .17 .10 .10* -.17 .10 -.08

Perceived supervisor support .11 .05 .12* -.16 .05 -.17**

Off-the-job embeddedness .12 .10 .06 .00 .10 .00

On-the-job embeddedness .77 .11 .40*** .28 (.27)*** .26*** -.88 .11 -.44*** .31 (.30)*** .30***

3 Age -.01 .00 -.17*** .01 .00 .10*

Primary caregiver responsibility -.16 .09 -.08 -.14 .10 -.07

Perceived supervisor support .05 .06 .05 -.04 .06 -.04

Off-the-job embeddedness .13 .10 .07 -.03 .10 -.02

On-the-job embeddedness .64 .13 .34*** -.62 .13 -.31***

Perceived organisational support .13 .06 .15* .29 (.28)*** .01* -.27 .07 -.29*** .34 (.33)*** .04***

138

As shown in Table 5.16, the model predicting intentions to stay explained 29% of the

variance, p < .001. At step 1, age and primary caregiver responsibilities were

significant, explaining 3% of the variance, p < .01. At step 2, entry of the core

predictors accounted for an additional 26% of the variance in the criterion (p < .001),

with perceived supervisor support, on-the-job embeddedness, primary caregiver

responsibilities and age all found to be significant individual predictors of intentions to

stay. However, off-the-job embeddedness was not significant. At step 3, the influence of

perceived organisational support was examined, and was found to explain a further 1%

of the variance in employees’ intentions to stay. The introduction of this variable meant

that the direct relationship between perceived supervisor support and intention to stay

became non-significant. These changes suggest that perceived organisational support

may be mediating the relationship between perceived supervisor support and intention

to stay. In summary, this analysis found that the variables age, primary caregiver

responsibilities, on-the-job embeddedness and perceived organisational support were

significant individual predictors of employees’ intentions to stay.

In contrast, the model predicting employees’ intentions to leave explained 34% of the

variance in this criterion, p < .001. At step 1, age and primary caregiver responsibilities

were found to explain 1% of the variance in employees’ intentions to leave. At step 2,

entry of three core predictors accounted for an additional 30% of the variance (p <

.001). At this step, perceived supervisor support and On-the-job embeddedness were

significant (p < .01), whereas age, primary caregiver responsibility and Off-the-job

embeddedness were not. At step 3, perceived organisational support was added to the

model to examine the additional influence this variable plays in explaining employees’

intentions to leave. This variable explained an additional 4% of the variance in

employees’ intentions to leave (p < .001). After adding this variable, age, On-the-job

embeddedness and perceived organisational support were significant individual

predictors of employees’ intentions to leave; however, perceived supervisor support,

Off-the-job embeddedness and primary caregiver responsibilities were not. These

findings provide initial support for hypotheses 12, which argues that the relationship

between perceived supervisor support and intention to leave is mediated by perceived

organisational support. Similar to the intention to stay model, age, on-the-job

embeddedness and perceived organisational support were all significant individual

predictors in the intention to stay model. However, primary caregiver responsibilities

were not. Thus, while similar relationships were found in the organisational predictors’

139

relationship to the dependent variables, personal factors influenced employees’ intention

to stay more so than they predicted their intention to leave. Additionally, the findings

provide some support for hypothesis 13, which proposed that, combined, the personal

factors and organisational factors explain a higher percentage of variance in employees’

intention to stay and leave than the individual factors alone.

To examine the additional variance that job satisfaction explains in employees’

intentions to stay and leave, two further hierarchical regression analyses were performed

on the smaller dataset, using the same variables in the analysis, with the exception of the

addition of the job satisfaction variable. Predictors were entered in four steps: 1. Age

and primary caregiver responsibility; 2. Perceived supervisor support, on-the-job

embeddedness, and off-the-job embeddedness; 3. Perceived organisational support; and

4. Job satisfaction in general. Table 5.17 presents the results of the hierarchical

regression equation. As evident in this table, the introduction of the job satisfaction in

general variable resulted in a significant amount of extra variance explained in both the

intention to stay and intention to leave models, even with a reduced sample size.

140

Table 5.17 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses predicting intentions to stay and leave (N = 227)

Step Predictor Variable Intention to Stay Intention to Leave

B SE B β R2

(Adj.R2)

R2

Change

B SE B Β

R2

(Adj.R2)

R2

Change

1 Age -.01 .01 -.11 .00 .01 .05

Primary Caregiver Responsibility .22 .14 .11 .02 (.01) .02 -.39 .15 -.18** .03 (.02)* .03*

2 Age -.01 .01 -.08 .00 .01 .03

Primary Caregiver Responsibility .20 .12 .10 -.39 .12 -.18**

Perceived Supervisor Support .11 .06 .13 -.18 .06 -.20**


On-the-job embeddedness .95 .17 .40** .29 (.28)*** .27*** -1.06 .18 -.42*** .33 (.31)*** .30***

3 Age -.01 .01 -.10 .01 .01 .07

Primary Caregiver Responsibility .17 .12 .08 -.32 .12 -.15**

Perceived Supervisor Support .05 .06 .06 -.07 .06 -.08


On-the-job embeddedness .78 .19 .33*** -.72 .20 -.28***

Perceived Organisational Support .14 .08 .16* .30 (.28)*** .01 -.28 .08 -.30*** .37 (.35)*** .04***

4 Age -.01 .01 -.08 .01 .01 .05

Primary Caregiver Responsibility .13 .12 .06 -.29 .12 -.13*

Perceived Supervisor Support .04 .06 .04 -.05 .06 -.06


On-the-job embeddedness .55 .20 .23** -.46 .20 -.18*

Perceived Organisational Support .06 .08 .07 -.20 .08 -.21*

Job Satisfaction – Job in General .38 .10 .27*** .34 (.32)*** .04*** -.43 .10 -.29*** .42 (.40)*** .05***

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

a Age was an open-ended questions; Primary Caregiver Responsibility was measured as a dichotomous variables (1 = yes, 0 = no); Perceived Organisational

Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Off-the-Job and

On-the-Job Embeddedness were measured using five-point scales ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Intention to Stay and Intention to

Leave variables were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree; Job Satisfaction (Job in General) was

measured using 0 = No, 1 = ? and 3 = Yes.

141

Table 5.17 demonstrates that the addition of the job satisfaction variable to the intention

to stay model increased the variance explained overall to 34%, p < .001 (from 29% in

the larger dataset). At step 1, age, and primary caregiver responsibility accounted for

2% of the variance in intention to stay. An additional 27% of the variance was then

explained with the introduction of the perceived supervisor support, on-the-job

embeddedness, and off-the-job embeddedness variables. At this step, on-the-job

embeddedness was the only significant unique predictor of intention to stay. The

addition of perceived organisational support at step 3 accounted for an additional 1% of

variance to be explained, and at this step both perceived organisational support and on-

the-job embeddedness were found to be unique predictors of intentions to stay. The

addition of job satisfaction in general, however, explained an additional 4% of the

variance in the model and account for a unique predictor of intentions to stay. However,

with the introduction of job satisfaction, perceived organisational support was no longer

a significant predictor in the model.

In contrast, the model predicting employees’ intentions to leave explained 42% of the

variance in this criterion, p < .001 (compared to 34% in the larger data set that did not

include job satisfaction). At step 1, the variables, age and primary caregiver

responsibility were found to explain 3% of the variance in intention to leave. At this

step, primary caregiver responsibility was the only predictor of intention to leave. At

step 2, the effects of perceived supervisor support, on-the-job embeddedness, and off-

the-job embeddedness accounted for an additional 30% of the variance. In doing so,

perceived supervisor support, on-the-job embeddedness, and primary caregiver

responsibility were individual predictors of intention to leave. At step 3, the entry of

perceived organisational support explained an additional 4% of variance. Upon adding

perceived organisational support to the model, the relationship between perceived

supervisor support and intention to leave became non-significant, suggesting a possible

mediation effect, again consistent with hypotheses 12. With the addition of perceived

organisational support in the model, the remaining individual predictors of intention to

leave were primary caregiver responsibility, on-the-job embeddedness, job satisfaction,

and perceived organisational support. The addition of job satisfaction in general at step

4 increased the variance explained by 5%.

142

Job satisfaction and intention to stay and leave

To examine the relationships between the different facets of job satisfaction and

employees’ intentions to stay and leave, bivariate correlations were examined. These

correlations are shown in Table 5.10. This analysis revealed that employees’ satisfaction

with their work itself, supervision, opportunities for promotion, people on present job

and pay were all significantly correlated in the expected direction with employees’

intentions to stay (positively correlated) and leave (negatively correlated), p <.001.

To further identify the role these facets play in employees’ intentions to stay and leave,

two multiple regression analyses were performed. The first examined employees’

intentions to stay and the second examined employees’ intentions to leave. In both

analyses, the predictors were the five specific job satisfaction variables (satisfaction

with the work itself, supervisor, opportunities for promotion, people on present job and

pay).

The first model explained 28.8% (p <.001) of the total variance in employees’ intentions

to stay. Examination of the individual facets, however, revealed that no individual facet

of satisfaction was significant in explaining employees’ intentions to stay, although

satisfaction with supervisor approached significance (p = .07). The second model

explained 37.2% (p <.001) of the total variance of employees’ intentions to leave. This

analysis revealed, satisfaction with promotion opportunities and satisfaction with people

on present job were individual predictors of intentions to leave (p < .05).

5.2.3.4 Summary of findings from hierarchical regression analyses

The hierarchical regression analyses illustrated some similarities and differences in the

variables that play a role in employees’ intentions to stay and leave. First, the analyses

revealed that on-the-job embeddedness and perceived organisational support were

important individual predictors of employees’ intentions both to stay and leave. The

analyses also suggested that the effect of perceived supervisor support on both

intentions to stay and leave was mediated through the variable perceived organisational

support. Therefore, further examination of this relationship is warranted.

In contrast, when adding the variable job satisfaction to the equation, using a smaller

dataset, a more distinct difference was found between the predictors of intention to stay

and leave. That is, primary caregiver responsibility, perceived organisational support,

job satisfaction and on-the-job embeddedness were all significant individual predictors

of intention to leave, while job satisfaction and on-the-job embeddedness were the only

143

significant predictors of intention to stay. Moreover, in this dataset, the predictors

examined explained a higher percentage of variance in intention to leave (42%) than

intention to stay (35%). Similarly, the addition of the job satisfaction variable increased

the percentage of variance explained in both intention to stay (from 29% to 34%) and

intention to leave (34% to 42%), indicating that job satisfaction plays a significant role

in employees’ intentions both to stay and leave.

Interestingly, when examining the relationship between facet satisfaction and

employees’ intentions to stay and leave, differences between the dependent variables

were found. That is, while no individual facet was significant in explaining employees’

intentions to stay, satisfaction with the promotion opportunities available to employees

and satisfaction with the people on present job both played significant independent roles

in predicting employees’ intentions to leave.

While these findings reveal significant relationships, regression analyses are limited to

assessing effects on a single dependent variable. Structural equation models are better

equipped at finding the best fitting model than other multivariate analyses (Cheng,

2011). Consequently, to simultaneously assess the effects of the independent variables

on both dependent variables, and to obtain indices of the overall fit of these predictive

models, structural equation modelling is the most efficient and appropriate technique to

use (Hair et al., 2006).

5.2.4 Structural equation modelling

Two series of structural equation models were specified and tested using AMOS version

21. The first series of analyses used the larger database (N = 359) and examined the

direct and indirect paths between age, primary caregiver responsibility, on-the-job and

off-the-job embeddedness, perceived organisational support and perceived supervisor

support and employees’ intentions to stay and leave. The second series of analyses used

the smaller database (N = 227) and examined the influence that additional pathways

from job satisfaction played in employees’ intention to stay and leave. The maximum

likelihood estimation technique was used, as the data were was free from missing data

and followed a normal distribution (as described previously in section 5.3.3.2). In all

models, the path between the disturbances in the two dependent variables, intentions to

stay and leave, was permitted to co-vary as illustrated in Figures 5.1 to 5.4. These

dependent variables were measured as latent variables. However, due to sample size

considerations, all exogenous variables were measured as observed variables.

144

In each series, four different models were tested. The first examined the direct

relationship between the organisational variables and the dependent variables, intention

to stay and leave. The second examined the additional influence of the personal factors,

age and primary caregiver responsibilities, on the DVs. Only these two personal factors

were included as they were the only variables found to have a significant correlation

with the dependent variables. The third model was the same as model 1, except that it

included the mediation (indirect) pathways from perceived supervisor support to each of

intention to stay and intention to leave, through perceived organisational support. The

last model then examined the additional influence that age and primary caregiver

responsibility played in model 3 that included both the direct and indirect relationships.

There is significant debate in the literature about what constitutes an “adequate” sample

size required for conducting structural equation modelling. Hair et al. (2006) argues that

when the model contains five or fewer constructs, a sample of between 100 and 150 is

adequate; however, when the model contains six or more variables, a sample of 500 or

more may be needed. In contrast, Kline (2011) reports that, as a rule of thumb, a sample

size of more than 200 is required when using maximum likelihood estimation. As this

study used a minimum sample size of 227 and a maximum sample size of 359, the use

of structural equation modelling to analyse the results was considered appropriate.

Several indices – Chi Square, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI),

Normed Chi Square (CMIN), Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) and Root Mean

Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) – were used to evaluate the fit of each model.

Table 5.18 presents the acceptable limits and interpretation for each of these fit criteria.

145

Table 5.18 Acceptable level and interpretation of selected fit criteria

Model Fit Criterion Acceptable level Interpretation

Chi square Tabled χ2 value Compares obtained value with

tabled value for given df

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0 (no fit) – 1 (perfect fit) Value close to (or more

than) .95 reflects a good fit

Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 0 (no fit) – 1 (perfect fit) Value close to (or more

than) .95 reflects a good fit

Normed Chi Square (CMIN) 1.0-5.0 Less than 1.0 is a poor model

fit. More than 5.0 reflects a

need for improvement.

Root Mean Square Residual

(RMR)

Researcher defines limit Indicates the closeness of Σ to

Ѕ Matrix

Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation (RMSEA)

<.05 Value less than .05 indicates

good fit

(Adapted from Schumacker & Lomax, 2004, p.82)

Figures 5.1 to 5.4 present the findings from the structural equation modelling. As this

study collected data on a single occasion, the causal nature of these relationships is

speculative. Observed variables are presented as rectangles and ellipses are used to

represent latent variables, with error terms represented by squares. Standardised

estimates are provided on the lines between each parameter and curved lines illustrate

co-varied terms.

146

Figure 5.1 Series 1 structural equation model 1: Examination of the direct effects

of the organisational variables on employees’ intentions to stay and leave (with

personal variables and job satisfaction excluded, N = 359).


of the organisational variables on employees’ intentions to stay and leave (with the

personal variables, but not job satisfaction, included, N = 359).

147

Figure 5.3 Series 1 structural equation model 3: Examination of the direct effects of all

the organisational variables, and the indirect effect of PSS, on employees’ intentions to

stay and leave (with the personal variables and job satisfaction, excluded, N = 359).

148


of all the organisational variables, and the indirect effect of PSS, on employees’

intentions to stay and leave (with the personal variables, but not job satisfaction,

included, N = 359).

149

Series 1, Model 1 presents the model with no personal factors or mediation paths.

Model 2 examines the fit with the addition of the personal variables but does not include

the mediation path. Model 3 examines the fit of the model when the mediation path is

included without the effects of personal variables added. Lastly, model 4 examines the

additional influence that personal factors have on the pathways when the mediation path

is included. Table 5.19 provides the fit statistics for these four models and Tables 5.20

and 5.21 present the direct, indirect and total effects on intention to leave and intention

to stay.

Table 5.19 Fit Statistics Pertaining to Structural Models 1-4 in Series 1 (N = 359)

Model

Number

Mediation

Path

included?

Personal

factors

included?

Fit statistics

χ2 df

CMIN

(χ2/df) RMSEA (90%CI) CFI TLI RMR

1 N N 23.62 24 0.98 .00 (.00 - .04) 1.00 1.00 0.02

2 N Y 35.34 32 1.10 .02 (.00 - .04) 1.00 1.00 0.16

3 Y N 127.17 26 4.89 .10 (.09 - .12) 0.93 0.88 0.06

4 Y Y 144.69 36 4.02 .09 (.08 - .11) 0.93 0.86 0.19

150

Table 5.20 Direct, indirect, and total effects of variables on intention to stay (N=359)

Predictors of Intention to stay

Series 1

Model

Number

Mediation

Path

included?

Personal

factors

included?

JE-

ONa

JE-OFFa

POSa

PSSa Age

Caregiver

Resa

R2

Dira Dir Dir Dir Ind

a Tot

a Dir Dir

1 No No .40*** .11 .15* .05 - .05 - - .35

2 No Yes .39*** .09 .17* .07 - .07 -.20*** .10 .39

3 Yes No .40*** .12* .15* .05 .11* .16* - - .33

4 Yes Yes .39*** .09 .18* .07 .12* .19* -.21*** .10 .37

* p < .05 ** p <.01 *** p < .001

aJE-On = On-the-job Embeddedness, JE-off = Off-the-job Embeddedness, POS = Perceived Organisational Support, PSS = Perceived

Supervisor Support, Caregiver Res = Primary Caregiver Responsibility, Dir = Direct Effect, Ind = Indirect Effect, Tot = Total Effect

Table 5.21 Direct, indirect, and total effects of variables on intention to leave (N=359)

Predictors of Intention to leave

Series 1

Model

Number

Mediation

Path

included?

Personal

factors

included?

JE-ONa

JE-

OFFa POS

a PSS

a Age

Caregiver

Resa

R2

Dir Dir Dir Dir Ind Tot Dir Dir

1 No No -.34*** -.03 -.33*** -.04 - .04 - - .42

2 No Yes -.34*** -.02 -.33*** .05 - .05 .10* .07 .43

3 Yes No -.36*** -.03 -.34*** -.04 -.23*** -.27*** - - .38

4 Yes Yes -.35*** -.02 -.34*** -.05 -.24*** -.29*** .11* -.07 .39

* p < .05 ** p <.01 *** p < .001

aJE-On = On-the-job Embeddedness, JE-off = Off-the-job Embeddedness, POS = Perceived Organisational Support, PSS = Perceived

Supervisor Support, Caregiver Res = Primary Caregiver Responsibility, Dir = Direct Effect, Ind = Indirect Effect, Tot = Total Effect

151

Table 5.19 presents the goodness of fit indices for the hypothesised models. These

indices demonstrate that while most models have a very good fit to the data, when the

mediation path was included a poorer fit was evident (CMIN value of 0.98 in model 1

versus 4.89 in model 3). A similar pattern was also found when the personal variables

were added to the model, with a CMIN value of 1.10 (model 2) versus 4.02 in model 4.

To examine these differences further, a chi square difference test was conducted on both

pairs of models. This analysis revealed that model 1 provided a significantly better fit

than model 3 (χ2difference

= 103.55, dfdiff

= 2, p = <.001). Similarly, model 2 presented a

significantly better fit than model 4 (χ2difference

=109.35, dfdiff

= 4, p = <.001).

Table 5.20 presents the direct, indirect, and total effects of the pathways on the

dependent variable, intention to stay. Model 2 explained the greatest amount of variance

in the dependent variable, intention to stay (R2

= .39). This analysis revealed that

perceived organisational support, on-the-job embeddedness and age had significant

direct effects on intention to stay. These relationships did not change with the

introduction of personal variables to the model, or with the introduction of the

mediation effect. Instead, both models testing the mediation effect found significant

indirect effects (p <.05), which confirmed that the mediating relationship existed, even

though the model was not the best fitting overall.

Similar results were also found when examining the pathways to the dependent variable,

intention to leave, where model 2 explained a greater amount of variance (R2

= .43) than

other models. Additionally, the mediation paths were significant in both models 3 and 4;

however, in comparison with model 2 they did not explain as much variance nor did

they fit the data as well. In conclusion, the best fitting model was model 2 for both

intentions to stay and leave, where personal data but no mediation effects were tested.

In series 2, the observed variable job satisfaction was added to the model, using the

smaller dataset for analysis. Table 5.22 presents the fit statistics for this set of analyses.

Tables 5.23 and 5.24 present the direct, indirect and total effects for these models.

152

Table 5.22 Fit statistics pertaining to structural models 1-4 in series 2 (N=227)

Model

Number

Mediation

Path

included?

Personal

factors

included

?

Fit statistics

χ2 df

CMIN

(χ2/

df) RMSEA (90%CI) CFI TLI RMR

1 No No 38.16 28 1.36 .040 (.000-.069) .991 .982 .028

2 No Yes 45.25 36 1.26 .034 (.000-.061) .992 .982 .190

3 Yes No 108.91 31 3.51 .105 (.084-.127) .929 .873 .082

4 Yes Yes 132.50 41 3.23 .099 (.081-.119) .918 .845 .247

153

Table 5.23 Direct, indirect, and total effects of variables on intention to stay (N=227)

Predictors of intention to stay

Model

Number

Mediation

Path

included?

Personal

factors

included?

JE-ONa

JE-OFFa

POSa

PSSa

JSa

Age

Caregiver

Resa

Dir Dir Dir Dir Ind Tot Dir Dir Dir R2

1 N N .27** .13* .03 .05 - .05 .36*** - - .45

2 N Y .27** .11* .05 .06 - .06 .34*** .11 .09 .47

3 Y N .27** .14* .03 .04 .02 .06 .36*** - - .44

4 Y Y .27** .12* .05 .06 .03 .09 .34*** .11 .09 .45

* p < .05 ** p <.01

aJE-On = On-the-job Embeddedness, JE-off = Off-the-job Embeddedness, POS = Perceived Organisational Support, PSS = Perceived Supervisor

Support, Caregiver Res = Primary Caregiver Responsibility, D = Direct Effect, I = Indirect Effect, T = Total Effect

154

Table 5.24 Direct, indirect, and total effects of variables on intention to leave (N=227)

Predictors of intention to leave

Model

Number

Mediation

Path

included?

Personal

factors

included?

JE-ONa

JE-

OFFa POS

a PSS

a JS

a Age

Caregiver

Resa

Dir Dir Dir Dir Ind Tot Dir Dir Dir R2

1 N N -.18 -.03 -.26* -.05 - -.05 -.34** - - .51

2 N Y -.21* -.01 -.24* -.06 - -.06 -.33** .06 .15* .53

3 Y N -.19* -.04 -.27* -.05 -.17* -0.22 -.36** - - .47

4 Y Y -.22* -.01 -.25* -.06 -.16* -.22 -.34** .06 .15* .49

* p < .05 ** p <.01

aJE-On = On-the-job Embeddedness, JE-off = Off-the-job Embeddedness, POS = Perceived Organisational Support, PSS = Perceived Supervisor

Support, Caregiver Res = Primary Caregiver Responsibility, Dir = Direct Effect, Ind = Indirect Effect, Tot = Total

155

Table 5.22 demonstrates that when including the mediating relationship, the model

presents a poorer fit as illustrated through an increase in the CMIN value from 1.36 in

model 1 to 3.51 in model 3. A similar pattern was also found when the personal

variables were included in the model, with the CMIN value increasing from 1.26 (model

2) to 3.23 in model 4. To examine these differences further, chi square difference tests

were conducted on both model comparisons. This revealed that model 3 was a

significantly poorer fit than model 1 (χ2difference

= 70.75, dfdiff

= 3, p <.001). Similarly,

when examining the differences between models 2 and 4 using the chi-square difference

test, model 4 provided a poorer fit to the data than model 2 (χ2difference

=87.25, dfdifference

= 5, p <.001). Consequently, the models without the mediation path were found to

provide a better fit.

Table 5.23 shows that model 2 explained the greatest percentage of variance in

employees’ intentions to stay, with 47% of the variance accounted for. Additionally,

intention to stay was influenced significantly by age, on-the-job embeddedness, off-the-

job embeddedness and job satisfaction. These findings are similar to those obtained in

the larger dataset; however, a significant mediating relationship between perceived

supervisor support and intention to stay through perceived organisational support was

not observed in the same analysis using the smaller dataset. Additionally, a significant

direct effect of perceived organisational support on intention to stay was not found

using the smaller data set. One possible reason for this could be the sample size, where

the addition of more variables may have increased the probability of making a type II

error (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 2013).

Similarly, Table 2.24 demonstrates that model 2 explains the greatest percentage of

variance in employees’ intentions to leave (R2 = .53). Direct effects were found between

each of on-the-job embeddedness, perceived organisational support, job satisfaction and

primary caregiver responsibility on intention to leave. A significant indirect relationship

between perceived supervisor support and intention to leave through perceived

organisational support was also identified, confirming a mediation effect between these

variables and supporting hypothesis 11.

Further comparisons of the CFI values in the non-nested models 1 and 2 between series

1 and 2 revealed that while series 1 (both models 1 and 2) provided a better fit to the

data overall (.997 and .998 compared to .991 and .992), model 2 in series 2 explained a

greater percentage of variance and had a greater number of significant direct pathways

156

than model 1 in series 1. Therefore, the model with the addition of the job satisfaction

variable and personal data (no mediation) provided the best overall predictions of

intention to stay and intention to leave in this study.

5.3.4.1 Summary of Structural Equation Modelling

In summary, both series of structural equation models found the model that predicted

intentions to stay and leave was the one with personal data but no mediation effect.

Further analyses revealed significant positive direct pathways from each of on-the-job

embeddedness and perceived organisational support on employees’ intentions to stay.

These findings indicate that when employees’ report higher on-the-job, and higher

perceived organisational support, they are more likely to report an intention to stay. On

the other hand, significant negative direct pathways were between, on-the-job

embeddedness, off-the-job embeddedness, and perceived organisational support on

employees’ intentions to leave. These findings indicate that when employees report

lower on-the-job and off-the-job embeddedness, and lower perceived organisational

support, they are more likely to report an intention to leave. Furthermore, a significant

mediation effect was identified, supporting the mediating hypothesis proposed.

The second series of models examined the additional influence of job satisfaction and

found the model without the mediation pathways but with personal data provided a

better fit to employees’ intentions to stay and leave with 53% of the variance accounted

for. Further examination revealed the variables age, on-the-job embeddedness, off-the-

job embeddedness and job satisfaction had significant positive direct pathways to

employees’ intentions to stay. In contrast, employees’ intentions to leave were

negatively influenced directly by on-the-job embeddedness, perceived organisational

support, job satisfaction and primary caregiver responsibility. This model explained

53% of the variance in employees’ intentions to leave. Additionally, an indirect

relationship between perceived supervisor support and intention to leave through

perceived organisational support was identified.

Upon comparing all the models proposed between series 1 and 2, the model with the

addition of the job satisfaction variable and personal data with no mediation was found

be the model that best fitted the data (series 2, model 2).

157

5.3 Chapter summary and conclusion

This chapter presented the results for the quantitative analyses of the study. In doing so,

similarities and differences were found between the predictors of intention to stay and

intention to leave. Specifically, the following conclusions were made from these

analyses in relation to the hypotheses. These results are also displayed visually in Table

5.25 and in Figures 5.5 and 5.6.

Table 5.25 Summary of the results in relation to the hypotheses proposed

Hypothesis Supported?

H1a: In comparison to older workers, younger workers will report lower

intentions to stay and higher intentions to leave

No

H1b: There will be generational differences in the employee behaviours

and relationships and people management strategies, as well as overall

intentions to stay and intentions to leave

Partial

H2: Employees with lower education levels will report higher intentions

to stay and lower intentions to leave

No

H3: Employees who are married or in a de-facto relationship will report

higher intentions to leave than those who are single

No

H4: Employees with longer tenure will report higher intentions to stay and

lower intentions to leave

No

H5: Employees with kinship responsibilities will report higher intentions

to stay and lower intentions to leave than those with no responsibilities.

No

H6a: Employees who report better perceived health of self will report

higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave

No

H6b: Employees who report better perceived health of family will report

higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave

No

H7: Employees who are on casual contracts will have higher intentions to

leave and lower intentions to stay than those who are employed

permanently in part time or full time roles

No

H8: There will be differences in the employee behaviour and

relationships, people management strategies and intentions to stay and

leave reported by residential aged care and community aged care

employees

Yes

158

Table 5.5 Summary of the results in relation to the hypotheses proposed continued

Hypothesis Supported?

H9: Employees who report high job satisfaction will have higher

intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave than those who report

low job satisfaction

Yes

H10: There will be a negative relationship between employees’

perceptions of organisational support and employees’ intentions to

leave, and a positive relationship between employees’ perceptions of

organisational support and employees’ intentions to stay

Yes

H11: The relationship between perceived supervisor support and

employees’ intentions to stay and leave will be mediated by perceived

organisational support

Yes

H12: Employees who report high on-the-job and high off-the-job

embeddedness will report higher intentions to stay and lower


Partial

H13: Combined, the personal factors and organisational factors

examined will explain a higher percentage of variance in employees’

intentions to stay and leave than the individual factors alone.

Yes

H14: There will be a difference in the factors that influence

employees’ intentions to stay and leave.

Yes

159

Figure 5.5 Outcome of tested model of intention to stay from quantitative results

+

+

+

+


Support (Supported)


(Partially supported)

Key


(supported)

Outcome

H1: Age/Generation


H2: Education Level

(Not supported)

Organisational Factors Personal Factors

H3: Marital Status

(Not supported)

H4: Tenure (Not

supported)

H5: Kinship responsibilities

(Not supported)

H6: Employee and Family

health (Not supported)

H7: Job Employment

Status (Not supported)


(Supported)

Intention to stay

Key

Direct

Relationship

Indirect

Relationship

H10: Perceived


(Supported)

160

Figure 5.6 Outcome of tested model of intention to leave from quantitative results

-

-

-

-

H1: Age/Generation


H2: Education Level

(Not supported)

H3: Marital Status

(Not supported)

H4: Tenure


H5: Kinship

Responsibilities (Not

supported)


(Employee & Family)

(Not supported)

H7: Job Employment

Status

(Not supported)


(Supported)


(Supported)

H10: Perceived


(Supported)


Support

(Supported)



Intention to Leave


Key

Direct


Relationship

161

H1a: In comparison to older workers, younger workers will report lower intentions to

stay and higher intentions to leave.

This study found no statistical differences between younger and older workers intentions to

stay and leave. Additionally, age did not correlate significantly with either dependent

variable. Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported.

H1b: There will be generational differences in the employee behaviours and

relationships and people management strategies, as well as overall intentions to stay and

intentions to leave

This analysis revealed significant generational differences on perceived organisational

support, perceived supervisor support, intention to stay and intention to leave for the four

generations tested. Further investigation of these differences revealed no significant

differences between each group upon analysis of Tukey HSD post hoc tests. Although, there

was a trend in the data for the Generation X and Y respondents to report higher levels of

perceived organisational support and perceived supervisor support than did the Baby

Boomers. Therefore, only partial support was found from this analysis for hypothesis 1b.

Further examination of these differences in the qualitative data received through the open-

ended questionnaire questions will be presented in Chapter 6.

H2: Employees with lower education levels will report higher intentions to stay and

lower intentions to leave.

This study found no support for this hypothesis, in that education levels was unrelated to

higher intentions to stay or lower intentions to leave in this study.

H3: Employees who are married or in a de-facto relationship will report lower

intentions to stay and higher intentions to leave than those who are single.

Marital status was not found to be a significant influence of employees’ intentions to stay or

leave. Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported.

H4: Employees with longer tenure will report higher intentions to stay and lower


Tenure at an organisation and tenure within the aged care sector were not significantly

correlated with intentions to stay or intentions to leave. However, tenure within current

position was significantly positively correlated with intention to leave. This finding is in

162

contrast with the expected direction of hypotheses 4, which proposed employees with longer

tenure are more likely to stay. Therefore this hypothesis was rejected.

H5: Employees with kinship responsibilities will report higher intentions to stay and

lower intentions to leave than those with no responsibilities.

A significant negative relationship was found between kinship responsibility (primary

caregiver responsibilities) and employees’ intentions to leave using the smaller dataset;

however, no relationship was found between these variables in the larger dataset. One

possible reason for this could be the fact that the respondents in this study were on average

older than the national census and as such may not have as many kinship responsibilities as

the average aged care employee and as such, no support is provided for this hypothesis.

Additionally, no relationship was found between kinship responsibilities and employees’

intentions to stay in either database.

H6a: Employees who report better perceived health of self will report higher intentions

to stay and lower intentions to leave.

No relationship was found between employees’ perceived health of self and their intentions

to stay and leave, therefore this hypothesis was not supported.

H6b: Employees who report better perceived health of family will report higher

intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave.

Employees’ perceived health of family did not significantly influence their intentions to stay

and leave, therefore no support was found for this hypothesis.

H7: Employees who are on casual contracts will have higher intentions to leave and

lower intentions to stay than those who are employed permanently in part time or full

time roles.

No significant relationship was found between employees’ job status and their intentions to

stay and leave, instead there was a trend for this to occur in the opposite direction. Therefore

this hypothesis was not supported.

163


management strategies and intentions to stay and leave reported by residential aged

care and community aged care employees

This study found differences between the factors that influence residential and community

aged care employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Specifically, community care workers

perceived higher levels of organisational and supervisory support, and higher intentions to

stay and lower intentions to leave than residential care workers. Moreover, community care

workers were more satisfied with their work on present job, supervision arrangements, people

on present job, pay, and their job in general compared to residential care workers. Chapter 6

investigates these differences further in the qualitative data gathered from the open-ended

questions.

H9: Employees who report high job satisfaction will have higher intentions to stay and

lower intentions to leave than those who report low job satisfaction.

This study found satisfaction with pay, supervision, work on the present job, co-workers and

promotion opportunities available to employees had significant positive and negative

relationships with the dependent variables, intentions to stay and intentions to leave,

respectfully. No facet was found to be a significant unique predictor of intentions to stay;

however, satisfaction with opportunities available and with co-workers (people on the present

job) did uniquely predict intentions to leave. Therefore partial support is provided for this

hypothesis.

H10: There will be a negative relationship between employees’ perceptions of

organisational support and employees’ intentions to leave, and a positive relationship

between employees’ perceptions of organisational support and employees’ intentions to

stay.

A positive relationship between perceived organisational support and intentions to stay was

identified in this study. Similarly, a negative relationship between perceived organisational

support and intentions to leave was found. Regression and SEM analysis supported this

relationship for both the smaller and larger datasets. Therefore, this hypothesis was

supported.

164

H11: The relationship between perceived supervisor support and employees’ intentions

to stay and leave will be mediated by perceived organisational support.

Hierarchical regression analyses and structural equation modelling provided support for the

mediated role of perceived organisational support on the relationship between perceived

supervisor support and employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Therefore, this hypothesis

was supported.

H12: Employees who report high on-the-job and high off-the-job embeddedness will

report higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave.

This hypothesis was partially supported, as employees who reported high on-the-job

embeddedness had significantly higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave.

However, while a significant correlation was found between off-the-job embeddedness and

intention to leave, further investigation revealed no unique contribution was made to models

when examining employees’ intentions to stay and leave.


higher percentage of variance in employees’ intentions to stay and leave than the

individual factors alone.

This study found that the best fitting model was the one that included both personal (age,

primary caregiver responsibilities) and organisational variables (perceived organisational

support, perceived supervisor support, job embeddedness and job satisfaction), which

explained 47% of the variance in employees’ intentions to stay and 53% of the variance in

intention to leave. A similar finding was also identified through hierarchical regression

analyses where the addition of job satisfaction to the variable significantly improved the

amount of variance explained. Therefore, these results confirm that the personal and

organisational factors when combined explain a higher percentage of variance in employees’

intention to stay and leave than when examined individually. Therefore this hypothesis is

supported.

H14: There will be a difference in the factors that influence employees’ intentions to

stay and leave

This study found that there were slight differences in the factors that influence employees’

intentions to stay and leave. Job satisfaction, perceived organisational support and on-the-job

165

embeddedness were significant unique predictors of both intentions to stay and leave.

However, primary caregiver responsibilities was a unique predictor of employees’ intentions

to leave. Additionally, the variables explained a greater percentage of variance in employees’

intentions to leave than stay, suggesting that there are other variables influencing employees’

intentions to stay. Therefore this hypothesis is supported. The next chapter will further

explore the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave, as well as the

similarities and differences found between these factors, by presenting the results of the

qualitative analysis of open-ended questionnaire questions.

166

*Page Intentionally Left Blank*

Katrina Radford

167

Chapter 6: Results of the analysis of the

open-ended questions

168

6.0 Introduction

This chapter presents the qualitative data analysis of and findings from the open-ended

questions embedded within the questionnaire. These questions asked participants about

their short-term (12 months) and long-term (five years) intentions to stay and leave their

organisation. The chapter begins with a description of the overall analysis of the data for

all participants, and then presents the analyses by generation and area of employment.

These secondary analyses are provided in order to better answer the hypotheses

proposed, which argued that each generation and employees from different areas of

employment will report different factors as influences upon their intentions to stay and

leave.

6.1 Sample size and analysis technique

A total of 420 questionnaires were received back from participants (19.83% response

rate). This section reports on the analysis of the qualitative data from these

questionnaires. Thematic analysis was used to identify common patterns of data that

emerged from the data set in a systematic objective way (Creswell, 2007). To do so, the

dominant and less dominant themes that emerged from analysis of each question were

listed and then compared with each other to identify similarities and differences.

Participants’ answers were first coded into themes according to the words used and the

meanings provided. For example, if a participant answered, “I need money to live”, that

response was coded as the “financial need to stay”. Each answer provided by

participants was coded, that is, if a participant provided multiple influences, all of these

responses were coded as equally dominant as the question asked about what factors

(plural) influenced employees’ intentions to stay and leave. This process resulted in

more responses being coded than participants, therefore each section presents the

number of responses and the number of participants at the beginning of the section to

highlight these differences. Following this coding process, the researcher used the

number of responses (or frequency of responses) in each theme as a basis for

determining the most and least dominant theme arising from this analysis.

While this technique has the potential to be biased through interpretation differences,

and subjectivity, this bias is minimised by reducing these themes into dominant and less

dominant categories (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Namey, Guest, Thairo, & Johnson,

2007). To further ensure the data analysis was as rigorous and systematic as possible, in

line with a positivist approach, NVivo version 10.0 was used to assist to analyse the

169

data, adding to the reliability and trustworthiness of the analyses overall (Denzin &

Lincoln, 2000).

6.2 Overall analysis of employees’ intentions to stay and leave

This section presents the results from the analysis of four open-ended questions

concerning the short-term and long-term intentions of employees to stay and leave.

These results are also summarised in Table 6.1.

170

Table 6.1 Factors influencing short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave (all employees)

Short-Termb Intentions to

Stay (N=385)

%a Long-Term

b Intentions to

Stay (N=309)

%a

Short-Termb Intentions to Leave

(N=188)

%a

Long-Termb Intentions to Leave

(N=175)

%a

Personal Factors

Location 3.8 Age 4.5 Family 8.0 Age 8.6

Family 2.7 Location 4.5 Health 2.7 Family 8.6

Age 2.5 Family 2.9 Study 2.1 Health 6.3

Study 1.5 Health 1.3 Relocation 2.1 Study 3.4

Age 1.6 Relocation 2.9

Subtotal 10.5 Subtotal 13.2 Subtotal 16.5 Subtotal 29.8

Organisational factors

Job Satisfaction 39.5 Job Satisfaction 27.1 Work environment (management,

workload, work hours, working

conditions, and unfriendly co-

workers)

44.1 Work environment (management,

workload, co-workers, burnout,

hours, organisation itself, and

working conditions)

29.1

Work environment (culture,

co-workers and

management)

24.0 Work environment (working for

the organisation, culture,

flexibility, management, and

people)

23.2 Pay 17.1 Career opportunities 19.4

Pay 13.0 Pay 15.8 Career opportunities 16.4 Pay 17.7

Career opportunities 7.5 Career opportunities 13.6 Job Satisfaction 5.9 Job satisfaction 4.0

Job Security 5.5 Job Security 7.1


TOTAL 100.0 TOTAL 100.0 TOTAL 100.0 TOTAL 100.0

a % = percentage of total responses in descending order of frequency

b Short-term intentions refer to the factors reported to influence employees’ intentions to stay or leave within the next 12 months; Long-term intentions refer to the

factors reported to influence employees’ intentions to stay or leave within the next five years.

171

The overall results of the analysis are presented in Table 6.1 in two sections, the top of

the table illustrates the personal factors reported as influencing employees’ intentions to

stay or leave and the bottom of the table presents the organisational factors reported as

influencing employees’ intentions to stay or leave. The table also presents factors by the

four types of intentions across the table, plus the percentage rate of the frequency of that

factor’s occurrence within the data. All factors are listed in descending order of

frequency and all responses fitted into one of these broad categories. Each category was

kept broad to allow for all responses to be categorized into one of these themes. The

remainder of this section presents the results and analysis from each of the four

intentions types – short-term intentions to stay (12 months), long-term intentions to stay

(five years), short-term intentions to leave (12 months) and long-term intentions to leave

(five years).

6.2.1 Intentions to stay: short-term

To examine the factors that influence employees’ short-term intentions to stay at their

organisation, an open-ended question, “What influences your intentions to stay at your

organisation for the next 12 months?”, was asked. This question resulted in 422

responses (from 385 participants) reporting the dominance of both personal and

organisational factors when considering their short-term intentions to stay motives. This

response rate was representative of 76.19% of those who responded to the

questionnaire. Four personal variables (location, family, study and age) and five

organisational variables (job satisfaction, work environment, pay, career opportunities

and job security) were reported as influences on employees’ short-term intentions to

stay. Each of these is elaborated below.

Personal Factors Influencing Short-Term Intentions to stay

Four personal factors (representing 10.5% of total responses) were reported as

influences on employees’ short-term intentions to stay: location, family, study and age.

The most dominant personal factor influencing short-term intentions to stay was the

location of work in relation to home. This factor was dominant for 3.8% of participants,

who reported the “convenience to my dwelling” as a factor influencing their intentions

to stay within the next 12 months. The second most dominant personal influence cited

by participants was family commitments, where 2.7% of participants reported this as an

influence on their intentions to stay. Examples of responses in this theme included

statements that the job “fits in well with family” and “home/family commitments”. The

172

third most dominant personal factor influencing employees’ short-term intentions to

stay was age, with 2.5% of participants citing “nearing retirement” or “difficulty in

getting employment because of my age” as key factors influencing their intentions to

stay. Finally, study commitments were reported as dominant for 1.5% of participants’

short-term intentions to stay. Together, personal factors accounted for 10.5% of the

influences on short-term intentions to stay in this study, with the majority of

participants’ responses focusing on organisational factors (89.5%)

Organisational Factors Influencing Short-Term Intentions to Stay

An overwhelming majority of participants reported organisational factors as influencing

their short-term intentions to stay (89.5%). In total, five themes were identified as

dominant for employees’ intentions to stay: job satisfaction, work environment, pay,

career opportunities, and job security.

The most dominant organisational theme cited by 39.5% of participants, was job

satisfaction. In particular, satisfaction with the job itself, satisfaction with clients, and an

overall satisfaction with working in the sector or organisation were reported as central

to employees’ intentions to stay for 12 months. For example, one participant

commented, “I really enjoy my work as it is so rewarding”, whereas another participant

commented that it was a “huge satisfaction to be able to help our residents”, while

“providing a needed community service”. Together, these findings illustrate the

influence of different types of job satisfaction on employees’ short-term intentions to

stay.

The second dominant theme emerging from the data was the influence of participants’

working environment. This was an influence for 24% of participants’ responses, who

reported that culture (10%), co-workers (8%) and management (6%) within their place

of work influenced their intentions to stay. For example, “Good work environment,

company ethics, and great management team” were influential for one employee.

Additionally, being employed in a “caring organisation” was influential for another

participant. The dominance of good co-workers was reinforced through comments such

as “the people I work with and for”, “the great people I work immediately with”, and

“my direct supervisor and team of fellow workers”. Finally, the influence of good

management was reinforced through comments such as “management look after their

staff well”, “immediate supervisor is the best I have ever worked with”, and “I feel

173

appreciated, challenged and supported.”

The third most dominant theme was pay, with 13% of participants reporting pay as

influencing their short-term intentions to stay. Responses to this theme centred on the

financial need to work in order to pay bills, with participants reporting the “need [for]

money for everyday expenses” as dominant. These findings highlight the financial need

for a job as an influence on employees’ short term intentions to stay.

Career opportunities also emerged as a factor in 7.5% of participants’ responses. That

is, participants reported the allure of possible career progression as a factor influencing

their intentions to stay. This was represented through responses such as “the chance of

promotion” and the “ability to further my career”.

The final dominant theme emerging from the data was job security, with 5.5% of

responses indicating that short-term intentions to stay were influenced by “lack of a

better job to go to in this industry, for this town”. Additionally, the influence of having

security of working hours was reported by for one participant who wrote, “I’m

permanent part time and do not want to go back to being casual”.

Together these findings highlight that while 10.5% of participants’ responses reported

personal factors as influencing their intentions to stay, these factors were not reported as

frequently as the factors that could be influenced by management and organisational

policies, which accounted for 89.5% of responses. The next section highlights the

factors influencing employees’ long-term intentions to stay (for the next five years).

6.2.2 Intentions to stay: long-term

To examine intentions to stay in the long-term, participants were asked an open-ended

question, “What influences your intentions to stay at your organisation for the next 5

years?” A total of 309 participants provided a response to this question, representing

72.4% of those who returned the questionnaire. Similar to the influences on employees’

intentions to stay in the short-term, both personal and organisational factors were found

to influence long-term intentions to stay. In particular, 13.2% of the responses were

personal factors (age, location, family and health) with the remaining 86.8% of

responses citing organisational influences (job satisfaction, work environment, pay,

career opportunities and job security) on their intentions to stay. See Table 6.1 for a

summary of the responses.

174

Personal factors influencing long-term intentions to stay

Four key personal factors were found to be dominant in employees’ intentions to stay

long-term: employees’ age, location of work in relation to their home, family and

health. Two factors were found to be equally dominant to employees’ long-term

intentions to stay and these were the age of the employee (4.5%) and the location of

their work in relation to their home (4.5%). Employees reported their concern with

being able to find alternative work options because of their age as an influence on their

intentions to continue working, with one participant reporting, “my age (at 53 years old)

may not be viewed as employable somewhere else”. These comments were also made

by other participants who reported “age” as a factor to remaining employed, and that

they were “too old for new job” or at “61 years of age, I would not get another job”.

Equally dominant to employees’ long-term intentions to stay were the location of their

work in relation to their home. One registered nurse reported that she would stay for the

next five years with her current employer “if I get more local work”. Another registered

nurse reported that because she works “about a five-minute drive from home” she

would stay with her employer. Thus, employee’s residential location in relation to their

work has an influence on their intentions to stay.

The third dominant theme arising from the data was the influence that family had in

employees’ intentions to stay with their organisation in the long term. In particular,

2.9% of participants reported that they were dependent on “whether husband transfers

with his job or not” and “family commitments”, but added that they would stay if they

were “able to work around family commitments”. These findings suggest that flexible

work practices are influential in retaining employees in the long term.

The final personal factor influencing employees’ long-term intentions to stay was the

health of the respondent, with 1.3% of participants reporting that they would stay “as

long as my health permits me to work”.

Combined, personal factors accounted for 13.2% of participants’ reported long-term

intentions to stay. This indicates that organisational factors still play a dominant role in

influencing employees’ intentions to stay long term. The next section will outline the

organisational themes arising from this analysis.

Organisational factors influencing long-term intentions to stay

Similar to short-term intentions to stay, five key themes emerged from the data relating

to organisational factors. Interestingly, the five themes were the same and in the same

175

order as the factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to stay: job

satisfaction, work environment, pay, career opportunities and job security.

The most dominant theme was job satisfaction with 27.1% participants reporting

satisfaction with work itself and their overall job satisfaction as dominant to their long-

term intentions to stay. Unlike short-term intentions to stay, satisfaction with working in

the aged care sector was not mentioned as dominant in their long-term intentions to

stay. Instead, the influence of the job itself was dominant. That is, participants reported,

“it’s a fantastic job, love the client and love the work” and “like my position, love

interaction with residents” as their focus for long-term intentions to stay.

Satisfaction with the working environment was the second most dominant theme with

23.2% of responses reporting that working for the organisation itself (8.6%), the

organisational culture (6.8%), flexible work practices (3.4%), management (2.2%) and

people (2.2%) were influential factors to stay with their organisation in the long term.

Examples of responses included in this theme included the following: “the company has

always looked after me”, “I want to stay because this place is better than other

companies”, “great support and encouragement provided”, “flexible hours” and “good

management”.

The third dominant theme identified was pay, with 15.8% of participants reporting pay

as an influence for staying in the long term. While the financial need to continue

working was evidenced in responses such as “I am undertaking further studies and need

employment”, participants also focused on the pay conditions they were working under

as motivators, such as “super fund and public holidays plus Sunday shift”, suggesting

that the pay conditions available are influential on participants’ long-term intentions to

stay in addition to the financial need to stay.

The next dominant factor influencing long-term intentions to stay was career

opportunities, with 13.6% of participants stating this as an influence. For example, one

participant reported that she “can see there are lots of opportunities in this

organisation”, while another participant reported that “promotion opportunities” were

influential to her long-term intentions to stay. These findings suggest that providing

clear career opportunities are one way of influencing employees’ long-term intentions to

stay.

Finally, 7.1% participants reported the influence of job security to their long-term

intentions to stay. One care manager reported that she was “at an age and am female

176

that I need job security” as an influence for her to stay for 5 years. Additionally, a

personal care worker reported that “I feel my job is secured”, and as such intended to

stay in the long term.

The next section highlights the short-term and long-term influences of employees’


6.2.3 Intentions to leave: short-term

To investigate employees’ intentions to leave in the short term, an open-ended question,

“What influences your intentions to leave your organisation in the next 12 months?”,

was posed. In total, 188 responses were provided from 153 participants responding to

this question, a response rate of 36.4% of all participants who completed the

questionnaire. The remaining participants reported that “nothing would influence their

intentions to leave” within the next 12 months (6.5%) or left this question blank in their

returned questionnaire (57.1%). This section reports on only those participants who

reported influences on their intentions to leave. The analysis of the responses to this

data revealed that both personal and organisational factors influenced employees’ short-

term intentions to leave. See Table 6.1 for a summary of these results.

Personal factors influencing short-term intentions to leave

Five dominant themes relating to personal factors emerged from the dataset: family

commitments, health, relocation, study commitments and age. Of these, the most

dominant theme emerging related to family considerations with 8.0% of participants

reporting “husbands’ work commitments”, “family commitments” and “family growth”

as key influences on their intentions to leave their organisation within the next 12

months. The second most dominant factor for short-term intentions to leave was

participants’ health with 2.7% of participants reporting that “getting backaches,

repetitive work” and “injury – incapacitated” would prompt them to leave. Third, study

commitments were reported by 2.1% of participants, who reported they “might decrease

hours to further education/qualification” or they will leave if it “clashes with university

study”. Similarly, 2.1% of participants reported relocation as a result of “leaving town”

or “moving out of area” as a dominant influence in their short-term intentions to leave.

The final factor mentioned by 1.6% of participants was age, where participants reported,

“I am getting older” and having “many things to do at home”. Together, personal

factors accounted for 16.5% of the responses given as influences on participants’

intentions to leave within the next 12 months.

177

Organisational factors influencing short-term intentions to leave

Four broad themes were identified in the responses regarding the influences on short-

term intentions to leave: dissatisfaction with the work environment, career

opportunities, pay and job satisfaction.

Dissatisfaction with the work environment was reported by 44.1% of participants and

referred to dissatisfaction with management, unfair workload, poor work hours, poor

working conditions, difficult co-workers and broader workplace environment

dissatisfaction. In particular, 11.1% of participants reported dissatisfaction with

management as central in their short-term intentions to leave, as evidenced through

statements such as “management not doing its job” and “management not playing fair”.

Following dissatisfaction with management, 10.6% of participants reported unfair

workloads as an influence on their intentions to leave within the next 12 months. This

was evidenced by statements such as “frustration at not being able to complete work in

allocated time”, “poor staff imbalances”, “staff ratios”, and the “stress of workload”.

“Not enough hours” was also cited as an influence for leaving by 6.5% of participants.

Finally, participants reported dissatisfaction with their broader workplace environment

(6.3%), working conditions (4.8%), or their co-workers (4.8%) as influences on their

intentions to leave. In particular, participants reported “feeling frustrated at not being

able to contribute”, “poor conditions”, and “other staff/conflicts” as factors influencing

their intentions to leave.

The second dominant theme emerging from responses was dissatisfaction with pay,

with 17.1% of participants reporting, “If things like pay and conditions do not improve”

they intended to leave. Additionally, participants reported that they would leave if they

“get a better paying job” or there were “better financial opportunities” elsewhere.

The third theme that emerged from the responses was the influence of career

opportunities within the organisation and the allure of better career opportunities

elsewhere, with a total of 16.4% of participants reporting one of these as a factor for

their intentions to leave. In particular, 13.9% of participants would leave for a better

offer or “more experiences, challenges, learning new skills” and 2.5% would leave “if

not given a chance for career progression”.

The final theme identified as dominant in participants’ intentions to leave their

organisation was job satisfaction, with 5.9% of participants reporting that they would

leave if “(they) become unhappy” or become “dissatisfied in the workplace”.

178

Together these findings reveal that personal factors were found to account for 16.5% of

participants’ responses to the factors influencing their short-term intentions to leave.

The remaining 83.5% of responses related specifically to factors that could be

influenced by organisations and management.

6.2.4 Intentions to leave: long-term

To examine employees’ intentions to stay in the long term, an open-ended question,

“What influences your intentions to leave your organisation within the next 5 years?”,

was posed. In total, 175 responses were provided from 162 participants, representing a

response rate of 41.7% of all participants who completed the questionnaire. The

remaining participants reported either that “nothing” would influence their intentions to

leave within the next five years (7.9%) or left this question blank in their returned

questionnaire (50.4%). This section therefore reports the response of those participants

who reported factors that influence their long-term intentions to leave.

Personal factors influencing long-term intentions to leave

Personal factors were included in 29.8% of participants’ responses as influences on their

intentions to leave within the next five years. These factors included age, family, health,

relocation and study. The most dominant personal theme was age, where 8.6% of

participants reported their intentions to retire within the next five years. Equally

dominant were family considerations, where 8.6% of participants reported their “family

situation” as a factor influencing their intentions to leave within the next five years.

Health was also a concern for 6.3% of participants, either their own “poor health” or an

“illness in own family”. Next, 3.4% of participants reported that they intend to leave to

pursue alternative careers “related to my university studies”. Lastly, 2.9% of responses

reported that they would leave if they “move from the city” or “work overseas”.

Organisational factors influencing long-term intentions to leave

Similar to short-term intentions to leave, four predominant themes were identified as

influencing employees’ long-term intentions to leave: the work environment, career

opportunities, pay and job satisfaction.

The most dominant theme influencing employees’ intentions to leave was their work

environment, which was reported by 29.1% of participants, including dissatisfaction

with management (9.7%), unfair workloads (4.0%), conflict with co-workers (3.4%),

burnout (3.4%), lack of available hours of work (3.4%), the organisation itself (2.9%)

179

and poor working conditions (2.3%). Dissatisfaction with management was the most

influential sub-theme where “no appreciation from management” or participants

“feeling unvalued and unsupported in my career” were cited as reasons for intending to

leave the organisation. “Low staff ratio to residents”, “unreasonable expectations”,

“lack of camaraderie”, “not enough hours”, “early burnout”, “organisations’ attitudes”

and “all the bullying and harassment” were also reported as work environment factors

influencing long-term intentions to leave.

The second dominant theme arising from the data was career opportunities, with 19.4%

of participants reporting lack of career opportunities within the organisation and better

opportunities outside the organisation as influences on their intentions to leave. In

particular, participants reported wanting career progression within their own

organisation (11.6%), with one participant wanting “to work as an enrolled nurse after I

graduate”, whereas other participants wanted to leave the aged care sector and work in

the acute care sector after they graduate (7.8%). This was evidenced through statements

such as “when study is completed I want experience in a hospital” or to simply “change

industries” and “try other workforces”.

The third theme arising from the data was pay. A total of 17.7% of participants’

responses reported “poor pay” or “no increase in pay” as factors influencing their

intentions to leave. Thus, long-term intentions to leave were influenced by the pay

conditions provided by organisations.

Finally, the influence of job satisfaction was reported in 4.0% participants’ responses,

who suggested that they would leave their organisation within the next five years if they

become “not happy”.

Combined, these results suggest that the influences of personal factors are stronger in

affecting employees’ long-term intentions to stay, where 29.8% of participants reported

personal factors as influences. However, the large majority (70.2%) of participants still

report organisational factors as influencing their long-term intentions to stay at their

organisation.

6.2.5 Similarities and differences

This chapter has provided an overview of the factors influencing employees’ short-term

and long-term intentions to stay and leave, and as such some similarities and differences

180

become apparent, which are discussed in this section to provide a deeper insight into the

factors that influence employees’ intentions to stay and leave.

In terms of the personal factors that influenced participants’ intentions, while age was a

consistent influence across both intentions to stay and intentions to leave, it was the

least dominant factor in both short-term intentions to stay and leave but the most

dominant factor influencing long-term intentions to stay and leave. Similarly, while

location and family were dominant influences on both intentions to stay and intentions

to leave, they differed in influence, because location was more influential than family

on intentions to stay, but family was more influential than location in intentions to

leave. Finally, employees’ health was reported as a dominant factor for long-term

intentions to stay and intentions to leave, but was not reported as a theme in short-term

intentions to stay, suggesting that it plays a stronger role in influencing intentions to

leave than intentions to stay, or that participants’ health is not yet a concern, but may

become an influence over the next few years.

Upon examining similarities and differences in the organisational factors reported as

dominant to intentions to stay and leave, some noteworthy themes were identified. First,

job satisfaction was the strongest factor influencing employees’ intentions to stay but

was the least dominant factor influencing employees’ intentions to leave. For short-term

intentions to stay, participants reported the influence of working for the aged care sector

as well as the job itself. However, for long-term intentions to stay, satisfaction with the

job itself was the primary influence. In comparison, for both employees’ intentions to

leave in the short and long term, job satisfaction was broadly cited as a factor as was

being unhappy in their job.

Second, while work environment was consistently reported as influential across

employees’ intentions to stay and leave, the type of work environment conditions that

affected employees’ intentions to stay and leave varied. For example, management and

co-workers were consistent influences on both intentions to stay and intentions to leave.

However, working for a particular organisation was influential for long-term intentions

to stay only.

Another noteworthy finding was the influence that providing flexibility had on both

intentions to stay and intentions to leave. That is, the provision of flexible work

practices was dominant for long-term intentions to stay, but it was not noted as

dominant for intentions to leave or short-term-intentions to stay. Instead, the influence

181

of work-life balance desires on employees’ intentions to leave was reported through

family commitments, where participants reported they would leave if they could no

longer work around family commitments. Additionally, participants reported that a lack

of hours or poor hours influenced their intentions to leave. These findings suggest that

work-life balance is influential to intentions to stay and leave.

Similarly, pay was consistently reported as an influence on both intentions to stay and

intentions to leave, although the focus differed. That is, for short-term intentions to stay

participants who reported pay referred to the financial need to work. However, for long-

term intentions to stay, and both short-term and long-term intentions to leave, the

meaning of pay reported included both the financial need to work as well as the

influence that the pay conditions and benefits offered by organisations had on


Together, these findings provide further support for similarities and differences between

the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave. The next section

examines generational differences in employees’ intentions stay or leave.

6.3 Generational differences analysis

This study investigated generational differences in employee behaviours and

relationships as well as differences in people management strategies that influenced

employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Chapter 5 presented the results of the

quantitative differences between generations, and this chapter presents the qualitative

differences between the responses to the four open-ended questions by each generation.

6.3.1 Short-term intentions to stay by generation

In total, 422 responses were received from 385 participants, representing a sample

across six generations answering the question, “What factors influence your intentions

to stay over the next 12 months?” Specifically, responses were received from the

Veteran generation (6 responses), Early Baby Boomer generation (89 participants), Late

Baby Boomer generation (152 participants), Early Generation X and Y (53

participants), Late Generation X and Y (34 participants) and Generation I (17

participants). Table 6.2 illustrates these findings according to the two types of factors –

personal and organisational and for all generations, in descending order of frequency.

182

Table 6.2 Short-term intentions to stay by generation (in descending order of frequency)

Veteran

Generation

(1926-1946)

N=6 %a

Early Baby

Boomers

(1946-1955)

N=89 %

Late Baby Boomers

(1956-1965)

N=152 %

Early Generation X

and Y

(1966-1976)

N=53 %

Late Generation X

and Y

(1977-1986)

N=34 %

Early Generation I

(1987-1996)

N=17 %

Personal Factors

Age 4.9 Age 6.6 Location 3.2 Location 4.2 Location 3.7

Location 3.3 Family 3.2

Family 4.2

Family 0.8 Location 3.2

Health 0.8 Health 0.8

Subtotal 0.0 Subtotal 9.8 Subtotal 13.8 Subtotal 3.2 Subtotal 8.4 Subtotal 3.7

Organisational Factors

Job satisfaction 50.0 Job satisfaction 59.3 Job satisfaction 26.6

Work environment

(conditions, people

hours) 39.7

Work environment

(conditions, people,

flexibility) 37.5 Pay 33.3

Work

environment

(people, hours) 33.3

Work

environment

(atmosphere,

support,

workload) 10.6

Work environment

(hours, working

conditions, long

service leave,

people at work) 22.5 Job Satisfaction 31.7 Career opportunities 20.8

Working environment

(people, workload) 18.5

Pay 16.7 Pay 8.1 Pay 21.0 Job Security 11.1 Job Satisfaction 18.7 Career Opportunities 18.5

Job Security 8.1

Career

Opportunities 11.3 Pay 9.5 Pay 10.4 Job Satisfaction 18.5

Career

Opportunities 4.1 Job Security 4.8 Career opportunities 4.8 Job Security 4.2 Job Security 7.5

subtotal 100.0 Subtotal 90.2 Subtotal 86.2 Subtotal 96.8 Subtotal 91.6 Subtotal 96.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


183

As evident in Table 6.2, the generations had both similarities and differences between

them across both personal and organisational factors.

Personal factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to stay

The percentage of participants who reported the influence of personal factors on their

intentions to stay within the next 12 months ranged from 0% to 13.8%. Veteran

employees reported no personal factors to be dominant in their intentions to remain

within the next 12 months, whereas Early Baby Boomers reported the influence that

age, location, family, and health have on their short-term intentions to stay. For Early

Baby Boomers, age was the most dominant influence with 4.9% of participants

reporting age, for example “being between 56 and 65 (years)”, as an influential factor in

their intentions to stay. The location of work in relation to their home was next most

dominant factor for this group, with 3.3% of participants reporting that they intended to

stay because of how close their workplace was to their home. Finally, participants

reported the influence that family (0.8%) and health (0.8%) have on their intentions to

stay within the next 12 months, specifically citing “family commitments” and “health”

as dominant influences.

Similarly, Late Baby Boomers reported the influence that age, family, location, and

health have on their decision to stay for the next 12 months. Similar to Early Baby

Boomers, age was the most dominant factor reported with 6.6% of responses reporting

“difficulty at getting a job because of my age”. Following age, “family commitments”

(3.1%) and location (3.1%) were the next most dominant influences cited for staying,

followed by health (0.8%).

In contrast, Early and Late Generations X and Y, along with Generation I, did not report

their age or health as influences in their intentions to stay. Instead, 3.2% of Early

Generation X and Y responses, 4.2% of Late Generations X and Y responses and 3.7%

of Generation I responses reported the influence that the location of work in relation to

their home has on their intentions to stay. Interestingly, for Early Generations X and Y,

and Generation I, this was the only personal factor influencing their intentions; however

for Late Generations X and Y, family was equally dominant with 4.2% of responses.

Organisational factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to stay

The overwhelming majority of factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to

stay were those that could be influenced by organisations (>86% across all generations).

184

Job satisfaction, factors relating to the working environment and the financial need to

stay (or pay) were common influences across all groups’ intentions to stay; however

there were also differences.

For the Veteran Generation, job satisfaction was the most dominant factor for staying

over the next 12 months, with 50% of responses highlighting this theme as dominant.

Specifically, participants reported that “providing a needed community service” and the

fact that “clients appreciate what I do” influenced their intentions to stay for the next 12

months. Working environment was the next most dominant factor with 33.3% of

responses reporting the influence of work hours (“shifts and hours”) and people on the

present job (“people I look after”) on their intentions to stay. Finally, pay was the least

dominant factor, with 16.7% of participants’ responses arguing that the “financial need”

was keeping them employed.

Similar to the Veteran Generation, 59.3% of responses from the Early Baby Boomer

Generation reported job satisfaction as the most salient factor influencing their short-

term intentions to stay. This was evidenced through comments such as the “nature of

my job” and “enjoy doing the work and the one-on-one basis of my work” as factors

influencing their job satisfaction and intentions to stay. Work environment factors were

the second most dominant factor with 10.6% of participants reporting the influence that

the general work environment (4.6%), support provided (3.8%) and workload (2.2%)

has on their short-term intentions to stay. Pay (8.1%) and job security (8.1%) were

ranked as equal third influences on their short-term intentions to stay where participants

reported “an increase in wages” and “job security” as key to their intentions to stay. The

final influence on this generation’s short-term intentions to stay was career

opportunities, with 4.1% of participants reporting that “training and promotions” were

central to their intentions.

Job satisfaction was also the most dominant factor for the Late Baby Boomer

generation, with 26.6% of responses reporting that they were “happy and content with

(their) role and position” and that they “enjoy the work and contact with clients and the

team in the office”. Following job satisfaction, factors relating to the work environment

were the next most dominant theme, with 22.5% of responses reporting work conditions

(8.6%), hours (6.3%), long service leave (4.2%), and people on the job (3.4%) as

influential. This was evidenced by statements such as “the people I work with”, “the

clients”, “great management and support”, “long service leave” and working for a

185

“caring organisation”. The third most salient factor influencing Late Baby Boomer’s

short-term intentions to stay was pay, with 21% of participant’s responses indicating

they intended to stay because of “financial need”. The fourth most dominant factor that

emerged from the data was the influence of career opportunities on this generation

where 11.3% of participants reported that the “chance of promotion” and “education

and training” were motivating them to stay. Finally, job security was reported as

influential by 4.8% of responses from this generation.

In contrast to Baby Boomers and Veteran Generation employees, the most influential

factor influencing Early Generation X and Y employees was work environment, cited

by 39.7% of responses, including mention of work conditions (15.7%), people (12.4%)

and hours (11.1%) as influences on their intentions to stay. Following work

environment, job satisfaction was the second most dominant theme with 31.7% of

participants reporting that “the job in general makes me content” and the “communities

that we influence” as influential on their intentions to stay. Next, the influence that job

security had on participants was reported, with 11.1% of participants indicating they

were intending to stay because there was “no other work available”. The fourth

motivator for this generation was pay, with 9.5% of responses reporting the financial

need to work as influential on their intentions to stay. Finally, career opportunities were

highlighted as influential by 4.8% of participants.

Similar to Early Generation X and Y employees, 37.5% of Late Generation X and Y

employees reported the influence of the work environment, with working conditions

(20.8%), flexibility (2.1%), and people on the job (14.6%) all reported as factors

influencing short-term intentions to stay. Interestingly, Late Generation X and Y

employees reported career opportunities (20.8%) as the second most influential factor

on their intentions to stay for the next 12 months, with one participant reporting that

their workplace provided a “good opportunity to learn and gain skills as a newly

graduated registered nurse”. Job satisfaction was the third most dominant factor for

18.7% of participants, with responses including “I am happy with my job at present and

am content” and that they had “interesting client work and fantastic work colleagues”.

The fourth theme identified as dominant was pay, with 10.4% of participants reporting

that this influenced their intentions to stay, followed by job security (4.2%).

Interestingly, for Generation I, pay was the most salient factor influencing intentions to

stay, accounting for 33.3% of responses. Other factors listed were job satisfaction

186

(18.5%), factors relating to the work environment (people on the job and workload)

(18.5%), and career opportunities (18.5%). Finally, job security was reported by 7.4%

of participants’ responses as influencing their short-term intentions to stay.

Together these findings suggest similarities and differences between generations’ short-

term intentions to stay. The Veteran and Baby Boomer generations all reported job

satisfaction as the most dominant factor influencing their short-term intentions to stay.

However, Generation X and Y reported work environmental factors as influential and

Generation I reported pay as the most dominant influence on their intentions to stay.

These results suggest that there are differences between the generations, although some

similarities were apparent within generations.

Early and Late Baby Boomers reported similar rankings in the influences of their short-

term intentions to stay, with the exception of job security which was reported as more

dominant by Early Baby Boomers than Late Baby Boomers, who in return reported

career opportunities as more dominant in their intentions to stay than Early Baby

Boomers. Early and Late Generation X and Y shared similar influences on their

intentions to stay. In particular, both Early and Late Generation X and Y reported

location as a common personal factor influencing their intentions to stay, although Late

Generation X and Y also noted the influence of family considerations on their intentions

to stay. Additionally, both generations reported work environment as the most dominant

influence to their intentions to stay. In doing so, conditions, people and hours were

reported as of similar importance although Early Generation X and Y employees were

more influenced by the availability of hours while Late Generation X and Y employees

were more concerned about the flexibility of those hours. Additionally, Early and Late

Generation X and Y employees reported similar organisational factors as influences on

their intentions to stay within the next 12 months. Unlike Early Generation X and Y

employees, however, these findings highlight that the younger generation (Late

Generation X and Y) was influenced more by career opportunities than was the older

generation (Early Generation X and Y) who in turn reported being influenced more by

job security.

6.3.2 Long-term intentions to stay by generation

Similar to short-term intentions to stay, 318 responses were gained from six generations

to the question, “What factors influence your intentions to stay at your organisation for

the next five years?” Specifically, six responses were received from Veteran generation

187

employees, 74 Early Baby Boomer employees, 129 Late Baby Boomer employees, 48

Early Generation X and Y employees, 32 Late Generation X and Y employees, and 19

Early Generation I employees. Responses revealed both similarities and differences

between the generations. Table 6.3 presents the factors that are dominant for each

generation’s long-term intentions to stay by rank of frequency of responses, and in

descending order.

188

Table 6.3 Long-term intentions to stay by generation (in descending order of frequency)

Veteran

Generation

(1926-1946)

N=6 %

Early Baby

Boomers (1946-

1955)

N=74 %

Late Baby Boomers

(1956-1965)

N=129 %

Early Generation X

and Y

(1966-1976)

N=48 %

Late Generation X

and Y

(1977-1986)

N=32 %

Early Generation I

(1987-1996)

N=19 %

Personal Factors

Age 50 Age 12.2 Age 7.8 Location 5.2 Location 8.6

Health 6.8 Family 3.1 Family 5.2

Location 4.0 Location 3.1

Family 1.4 Health 0.8

Subtotal 50 Subtotal 24.4 Subtotal 14.8 Subtotal 10.4 Subtotal 8.6 Subtotal 0


Job

Satisfaction 33.3 Job satisfaction 36.4

Work environment (conditions,

pay, flexibility, hours, people at

work)

30.2

Work environment


hours, flexibility)

41.4

Work environment

(Conditions,

people)

37.1 Career

Opportunities 47.4

Pay 16.7 Job security 13.4 Job satisfaction 22.5 Career opportunities 19.0

.

Career

opportunities 31.4 Pay

15.8

Work environment

(conditions, long

service leave, people)

12.2 Pay 17.1 Pay 12.1 Job satisfaction 14.3 Job satisfaction

15.8

Pay 12.2 Career opportunities 12.3 Job satisfaction 10.2 Pay 8.6 Job security 10.5

Career Opportunities 1.4 Job security 3.1 Job security 6.9

Working

environment

(People, workload)

10.5

Subtotal 50 Subtotal 75.6 Subtotal 85.2 Subtotal 89.6 Subtotal 91.4 Subtotal 100

TOTAL 100

100

100

100

100

100


189

As shown in Table 6.3, both personal and organisational factors were found to influence

employees’ long-term intentions to stay.

Personal factors impacting employees’ long-term intentions to stay

Across all generations, except for the Veteran Generation and Generation I, the location

of an organisational workplace close to an employee’s home was a motivator to long-

term intentions to stay although the influence of this factor varied. Location was

dominant for 4.1% of Early Baby Boomers, 4.0% of Late Baby Boomers, 5.2% of Early

Generation X and Y, and 8.6% of Late Generation X and Y. However, while it was the

dominant theme for both Early Generation X and Y and Late Generation X and Y, it

was the third and second dominant personal factor for Early Baby Boomers and Late

Baby Boomers, respectively. This finding suggests that location of home in relation to

their workplace may be more influential for younger workers than for older workers,

although this may also be due to sample size differences within this study. Additionally,

age was dominant for 50% of the Veteran Generation, and 12.2% and 7.8% of Early and

Late Baby Boomers respectively. In contrast, family was dominant for 1.4% of Early

and 3.1% of Late Baby Boomers as well as 5.2% of Early Generation X and Y,

suggesting that retirement intentions and the inability to get another job was critical for

influencing older workers’ intentions to stay. However, this was not a factor influencing

the younger employees.

Organisational factors impacting employees’ long-term intentions to stay

Similar to short-term intentions to stay, job satisfaction and pay were common

influences across all generations, although of varying influence. For Veteran Generation

employees, job satisfaction was the most dominant factor influencing their intentions to

stay over the next five years, with 33.3% of responses reporting similar comments to “it

is so good to be able to help people in need”. Pay was then reported by 16.6% of

employees as second most dominant factor in their long-term intentions to stay in the

form of the “financial” need to stay.

For Early Baby Boomer employees, job satisfaction was the most dominant factor

influencing their long-term intentions to stay for 36.4% of employees, with participants

reporting they “enjoy what I do most of the time”. The second most dominant influencer

was job security with 13.4% of responses. Following this was the influence of work

environment (12.2%), where working conditions such as management (“my boss and

higher up the chain”), “long service leave”, and “people on the present job” were

190

reported as dominant factors by 8.1%, 2.7%, 1.4% of participants, respectively. Equal

third was pay, with 12.2% of responses arguing the “need to work” as the dominant

influence on their long-term intentions to stay. Following pay, career opportunities were

dominant influences for 1.4% of employees, with one participant reporting they were

“hoping for extra training”.

For Late Baby Boomers, work environment was the most dominant theme (30.2%),

comprising working conditions (17.8%), people (7%), hours (4.6%), and flexibility

(0.8%). Following work environment, job satisfaction was the next dominant factor for

22.5% of participants, with one participant reporting they would stay “if I continue to

enjoy my job”. The third most dominant influence on employees’ intentions to stay

long-term was pay, with 17.1% of participants indicating they “need to earn a living” or

“to continue to pay house off”. The fourth most dominant theme was the desire for

career opportunities (12.3%); in particular, participants were influenced by “promotion

opportunities” and their desire “to build my career within this organisation”. Finally, job

security was a dominant factor for 3.1% of participants as the allure of an “ongoing

contract” and “long-term position” motivated them to stay long-term.

Similar to Late Baby Boomers, work environment was the most dominant theme for

Early Generation X and Y employees, with 41.4% reporting either working conditions

such as “other organisations supply a car” (27.7%), hours (6.9%), flexibility (3.4%) or

people (3.4%) as influences on their long-term intentions to stay. The second most

dominant theme accounting for 19% of Early Generation X and Y responses was career

opportunities with one participant arguing that the “opportunity to grow professionally

and the opportunities for promotion” influenced them. Pay was then reported as the

third most dominant theme by 12.1% of participants, followed by job satisfaction

(10.2%) and job security (6.9%).

For Late Generation X and Y employees, work environment was the most dominant

theme with 37.1% of responses. For these employees, work environment included work

conditions (31.5%), and people on the job (5.6%). The second most dominant theme for

Late Generation X and Y employees was the allure of career opportunities (31.4%)

where one participant reported the perceived “room for movement” influenced her to

stay. Job satisfaction was the next most dominant theme with 14.3% of participant’s

responses reporting the influence that “rewarding roles” had on their intentions to stay.

191

Finally, the influence that pay had was evident in 8.6% of participants’ responses

through statements highlighting the “financial need to stay”.

In contrast, for Generation I employees, the most dominant factor emerging from the

data was career opportunities, with 47.4% of responses reporting the opportunities to

gain “experience” and “opportunities for promotion” would influence their intentions to

stay. Equal second most dominant factors for Generation I were job satisfaction (15.8%)

and pay (15.8%). For example, participants reported that “it’s a fantastic job, love the

clients, love the work” and the “need (for) money” as influential to their long-term

intentions to stay. Job security (10.5%) and the work environment (10.5%) were

reported as equal third dominant influences on Generation I employees’ long-term

intentions to stay, where factors affecting the work environment for this generation were

the people (5.3%) which includes “people on the job”, “the staff” and “the residents”

and the hours of work (5.3%).

Together these findings suggest both similarities and differences between the

generations. In particular, job satisfaction was found to be the most dominant influence

on intentions to stay for both the Veteran Generation as well as the older Baby Boomers

(Early Baby Boomer). However, work environment factors were more influential to

Late Baby Boomers, Early Generation X and Y and Late Generation X and Y. In

contrast to other generations, however, Early Generation I employees reported career

opportunities as the most dominant factor influencing their intentions to stay long-term

and work environment factors as the least dominant. Additionally, pay was reported as

second dominant for Early Generation I employees while pay was ranked second for

Veteran and Early Baby Boomers (along with work environment), third for Late Baby

Boomers, and fourth for Late Generation X and Y. Combining these findings with the

factors influencing short-term intentions to stay, the results seem to suggest that more

individualist characteristics such as pay and career opportunities influence Generation I

more than other variables such as the work environment and job satisfaction in

comparison to other generations.

The next section presents the results of the analysis of the factors influencing short-term

intentions to leave by generation.

6.3.3 Short-term intentions to leave, by generation

This study received a total of 279 responses to the short-term intentions to leave

question from two Veteran Generation participants, 31 Early Baby Boomers

192

participants, 71 Late Baby Boomers participants, 23 Early Generation X and Y

participants, 21 Late Generation X and Y participants and 14 Generation I participants.

Examination of the responses revealed both similarities and differences among

generations in the factors influencing their short-term intentions to leave. Table 6.4 lists

the dominant themes influencing the various generations’ short-term intentions to leave

(within the next 12 months).

193

Table 6.4 Short-term intentions to leave by generation

Veteran

Generation

(1926-1946)

N=2

%

Early Baby

Boomers

(1946-1955)

N=31

%

Late Baby Boomers

(1956-1965)

N=71

%a

Early Generation X

and Y (1966-

1976)

N=23

%a

Late Generation

X and Y

(1977-1986)

N=21

% a

Early

Generation I

(1987-1996)

N=14

%a

Personal Factors

Age 50.0 Family 12.9 Family 9.9 Family 8.7 Location 3.6 1. Location 8.7

Age 9.7 Health 2.8

2. Health 4.2

Health 3.3 Location 1.4

Travel 4.2



Direction of

aged care 50.0

Work

environment

(conditions,

hours)

41.9

Work environment

(conditions,

management,

workload, hours)

47.9

Work environment

(management,

workload, hours)

47.8

Work environment

(hours, workload,

people)

35.8 Career

opportunities

38.5

Pay 16.1 Pay 18.3 Career opportunities 26.1

Career

opportunities 21.4

Work

environment 31.6

Career

opportunities 16.1

Career

opportunities 12.7 Pay 17.4 Pay 21.4

(conditions,

workload,

people, hours)

Poor job

satisfaction 7.0

Poor job

satisfaction 10.7

Poor job

satisfaction 8.6

Poor job security 7.1 Pay 4.2


Total 100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100


194

As illustrated in Table 6.4, there was a less diverse range of factors influencing

employees’ intentions to leave within the next 12 months compared to intention to stay.

Across all generations, except for the Veteran Generation, work environment, career

opportunities and pay were common themes, although with varying influence. Similar

to intentions to stay, both personal and organisational factors played a role in

influencing employees’ intentions to leave within the next 12 months, as further detailed

below.

Personal factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to leave

One of the two (50%) Veteran Generation employees who responded to the short-term

intentions to leave question reported that they would leave within the next 12 months

due to retirement intentions. Similarly, age was a dominant factor for Early Baby

Boomers where 9.7% of participants reported retirement intentions as the influencing

factor, although age was the second most dominant theme for these Early Baby

Boomers. The most dominant theme for Early Baby Boomers was family commitments

(12.9%). The third and final influence on short-term intentions to leave among Early

Baby Boomers was health factors where 3.3% of participants indicated they intended to

leave if “health reasons” made them do so.

For Late Baby Boomers, family was the most dominant influence on intentions to leave

(9.9%), followed by health (2.8%), then location (1.8%). In particular, participants

reported that they would leave if the “family situation” required them to. Similarly,

family was the most dominant factor (8.7%) for Early Generation X and Y employees’

short-term intentions to leave. For Late Generation X and Y employees, the location of

the workplace in relation to their home was an influential factor for 1.4% of responses.

Interestingly, for Generation I employees also, location was dominant (8.7%) followed

by health (4.2%) and travel intentions (4.2%).

Organisational factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to leave

As with intentions to stay motivators, the majority of participants reported factors that

could be managed by organisations as dominant influences to their short-term intentions

to leave. Specifically, for one Veteran Generation employee (50%), “the (negative)

direction aged care was heading” was influential to their short-term intentions to leave

intentions. In contrast, for Early Baby Boomers, work environment was the most

195

dominant factor, with working conditions (38.7%) and hours (3.2%) reported as central

influences. Equal second most dominant were pay (16.1%) and career opportunities

(16.1%), with employees reporting that “more money each week” and “the opportunity

of a change for a new job” would influence them to leave.

For Late Baby Boomers, the work environment was also the most dominant factor with

47.8% of responses. This included the broader work environment, such as “conditions”

(12.9%), management (12.8%), workload (12.4%), and the provision of desirable hours

(9.7%) with participants citing “management not playing fair”, “unfair workload” and

the opportunity for “less hours” as central to their decision to leave. The second most

dominant factor for Late Baby Boomers was pay, with 18.3% of responses indicating

that “finances” and “dissatisfaction with pay” were influences for them to leave.

Following pay, a lack of career opportunities within the organisation and the desire to

“further my career” elsewhere were factors (12.7%) influencing employees’ short-term

intentions to leave. Finally, a lack of job satisfaction was reported by 7% of participants,

who argued that they would leave when they had to perform “boring, uninteresting

work”.

Early Generation X and Y employees reported three dominant organisational factors

that impacted their short-term intentions to leave. The first was work environment,

which was evident in 47.8% of participants’ responses. Specifically, the work

environment meant the influence of management (30.4%) such as “management style”

workload (13.0%) and desirable hours (4.4%) on employees’ intentions to leave.

Following work environment factors, this generation was influenced by a lack of career

opportunities (26.1%) within the organisation as well as attracted to career opportunities

outside their organisation. The third theme identified was pay, with 17.4% of responses

citing this as an influence.

Work environment was the most dominant influence (35.7%) on Late Generation X and

Y employees’ short-term intentions to leave, and included management (18%),

workload (10.7%), and hours (7.1%). In particular, responses included the influence of

“poor management”, the perception that “(there is) more responsibility (in aged care)

than acute care (for lower pay)”, and a “lack of flexible hours” on employees’ intentions

to leave. The lack of career opportunities (21.4%) within their organisations as well as

pay rates (21.4%) were equal second most dominant factor for this group of employees,

with participants arguing that “financial need” and the lack of “learning opportunities”

196

were motivating them to leave. Following this, poor job satisfaction was noted as an

influence with 10.7% of responses. Finally, lack of job security was an influence in

7.1% of participants’ responses.

Interestingly, Generation I employees reported a lack of career opportunities as the most

dominant factor (38.5%) influencing intentions to leave, with one participant stating that

“promotional and personal growth opportunities” would entice them elsewhere. The

second most dominant influencer for this generation was the work environment, with

29.2% of responses arguing that the high workload (8.3%), poor working conditions

(8.3%), disrespectful people on the job (including management, co-workers and

residents) (8.3%) as well as a lack of hours (4.2%) would all influence Generation I

employees’ intentions to leave. Poor job satisfaction was then noted as an influence by

8.3% of responses followed by poor pay rates (4.3%).

In summary, this analysis found that Early Baby Boomers and Late Baby Boomers were

influenced by similar factors (work environment, pay and career opportunities),

although Late Baby Boomers also intended to leave if they had poor job satisfaction. A

similar pattern was also found with Early and Late Generation X and Y employees

where a poor work environment, lack of career opportunities and poor pay or better pay

elsewhere would influence their intentions to leave within the next 12 months. In

addition to this, however, Late Generation X and Y employees also reported that poor

pay, poor job satisfaction and poor job security would influence them to leave (in

addition to poor work environment, career opportunities and pay). Generation I

employees reported the lack of career opportunities as the most dominant influence on

their intentions to leave, followed by work environment, poor job satisfaction and pay.

Together these findings suggest both similarities and differences between the

generations.

The next section presents the results of the analysis by generations of factors

influencing long-term intentions to leave.

6.3.4 Long-Term Intentions to Leave

In response to the question, “What factors influence your intentions to leave within the

next five years?”, this study received responses from six Veteran Generation employees,

41 Early Baby Boomer employees, 82 Late Baby Boomer employees, 25 Early

Generation X and Y employees, 27 Late Generation X and Y employees, and 12

Generation I employees. A variety of personal and organisational factors were reported

197

as dominant to their long-term intentions to leave, as listed in Table 6.5 in descending

order of frequency.

198

Table 6.5 Long-term intentions to leave by generation

Veteran

Generation

(1926-1946)

N=2 %a

Early Baby Boomers

(1946-1955)

N=41 %a

Late Baby Boomers (1956-

1965)

N=82 %a

Early Generation X

and Y (1966-1976)

N=25 %a

Late Generation X and Y

(1977-1986)

N=27 % a

Early Generation I

(1987-1996)

N=12

% a

Personal Factors

Age 100.0 Age 24.4 Health 8.5 Family 8.0

Location 9.1

Health 19.5 Family 7.3

Relocation 4.9 Age 4.9

Family 4.9 Relocation 3.7

Subtotal 100.0 Subtotal 53.7 Subtotal 24.4 Subtotal 8.0 Subtotal 0 Subtotal 9.1


Pay 19.5

Work environment

(conditions, management,

flexibility, hours, workload)

35.0 Career opportunities 36.0 Career opportunities 37.0 Career

opportunities

54.5

Career opportunities 14.6 Pay 24.8

Work environment

(management,

workload, hours)

32.0

Work environment

(culture, work environment,

workload)

25.9 Pay

13.6

Working conditions 12.2 Career opportunities 12.2 Pay 24.0 Pay 18.5 Job Satisfaction 13.6

(conditions,

management)

Job Security 2.4

Job Satisfaction 11.1 Working

conditions

9.2

Burnout 1.2

Burnout 7.5


TOTAL 100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0


199

Personal factors influencing employees’ long-term intentions to leave

Table 6.5 highlights that there were no common personal factors across all generation

groups. Instead, age was a significant influence on the Veteran Generation (100%), and

both Early (24.4%) and Late Baby Boomers (4.9%) – the predominant influencer on

Veteran and Early Baby Boomers employees, but only the third most dominant

influencer for Late Baby Boomers. For Early Baby Boomers, in addition to age, the

influence of their own health was noted by 19.5% of participants’ responses, followed

by relocation of partners/self (4.9%) and family commitments (4.9%).

For late Baby Boomers, health was the most dominant influence with 8.5% of

responses, followed by family demands (7.3%), age (4.9%), and relocation (3.7%). In

contrast, for Early Generation X and Y, family commitments (8%) were the only

personal factor influencing their intentions to leave within the next five years and

location was the only personal influence for Early Generation I (9.1%). Interestingly,

personal factors were more dominant overall in older generations (100% for Veterans,

53.7% for Early Baby Boomers, and 24.4% for Late Baby Boomers) than younger

generations (8% for Early Generation X and Y, 0% for Late Generation X and Y, and

9.1% for Early Generation I), although factors relating to the organisation were also

influential to all but the Veteran Generation.

Organisational factors influencing employees’ long-term intentions to leave

While all veteran employees were intending to leave within the next five years, across

all other groups, insufficient pay, poor working environment and the need for career

opportunities were common influences on employees’ intentions to leave. Interestingly,

pay was the most dominant factor for 19.5% of Early Baby Boomers in their intentions

to leave long-term, with one participant reporting, for example, that the “terrible pay

with no increase in the past and none in the future” was influencing their intentions to

leave. The need for career opportunities was the second most important factor, evident

in 14.6% of participants’ responses, including statements that they would leave to

“work as an Enrolled Nurse after I graduate” or “to look for a new career”. Finally,

work conditions were reported in 12.2% of responses as a factor influencing Early Baby

Boomers’ long-term intentions to leave. These conditions included having a “car, other

organisations supply car and phone” (Conditions, 8.6%) and the “(negative) approaches

and mannerisms of higher authority” (Management, 3.6%).

200

For Late Baby Boomers, the work environment was the most dominant factor (35.0%)

influencing their intentions to leave, with high workload (7.3%), lack of hours (4.9%),

poor work environment (19.5%) and a lack of flexibility (3.3%) noted as influential by

these employees. The second dominant factor in their long-term intentions to leave was

pay (24.8%) followed by a lack of career opportunities within the organisation (12.2%).

Specifically, one participant said they would leave “to further my career”. Finally, job

security (2.4%) and burnout (1.2%) were also reported as influences, with responses

indicating that “if burnout should occur” then they would leave.

For Early Generation X and Y, career opportunities were the most dominant factor

(36% of responses) influencing their intentions to leave in the next five years, with

participants reporting that they would leave “to pursue nursing career” and to pursue

“further work experience”. The second dominant factor was their work environment

where poor management (24%), poor hours (4%) and workload (4%) were influences in

their intentions. Finally, pay was reported as an influence with 24% of participant’s

responses indicating they would leave due to the “poor pay” provided within the sector.

Similarly, a lack of career opportunities available at their organisation motivated Late

Generation X and Y employees (37%), where participants reported they would leave for

a “better chance and opportunity to cultivate my nursing skills and knowledge

clinically”. Next in importance, factors influencing the working environment (25.9%)

were noted as influencing intentions to leave, including a negative workplace

environment (11.1%), poor culture (7.4%), and a lack of desired hours (7.4%). In

particular, participants reported that “lack of investment in aged care systems”, “poor

leadership” and “poor hours” were influential to their intention to leave their

organisation. Pay was the next dominant factor for 18.5% of responses, followed by a

lack of job satisfaction (11.1%) and the possibility of burnout (7.4%).

For Generation I employees, the lack of career opportunities within their organisation

influenced 54.5% of employees’ intentions to leave long-term. In particular, participants

reported that opportunities for “promotions and personal growth”, “to work overseas”,

“to work in a hospital”, “to find a job related to my uni studies” and “to work in

government” were influences of their long-term intentions to leave. These findings

suggest that this generation saw working in aged care as a transition to other career

choices. However, not all employees felt this way, as responses indicated that poor pay

(13.6%) and a lack of job satisfaction (13.6%) were also influential to their intentions to

201

leave. Finally, negative working conditions from “the lack of respect or appreciation”

and “the bitchiness of my co-workers” were reported as motivating factors by 9.2% of

participants.

In summary, this analysis found both similarities and differences between the

generations. In particular, age was a consistent influence across the older generations,

and personal factors were more dominant overall in the older generation (100% for

Veterans, 53.7% for Early Baby Boomers, and 24.4% for Late Baby Boomers) than

younger generations (8% Early Generation X and Y, 0% for Late Generation X and Y,

and 9.1% for Early Generation I). Interestingly, career opportunities were most

dominant in these younger generations, where Early Generation X and Y, Late

Generation X and Y and Early Generation I all reported the lack of career opportunities

as an influence to their long-term intentions to leave. Pay, career opportunities and the

work environment were all consistent factors across all generations except for the

Veteran Generation, who were intending to retire in the next five years. The next

section highlights the similarities and differences in intentions to stay and leave within

each generation.

6.3.5 Similarities and differences by generation

To summarise, this section has provided an overview of the results of the data analysis

concerning the differences between the six generations in both their short-term and

long-term intentions to stay and leave. In addition, a description has been provided of

the results in terms of the similarities and differences in the factors influencing

employees’ intentions to stay and leave between the generations. This section of the

chapter now analyses, by generation, the similarities and differences in the factors

influencing employees’ intentions to stay and/or leave. Table 6.6 provides a summary of

the factors influencing each generation’s short-term and long-term intentions to stay and

intentions to leave, by personal and organisational factors, in descending order.

202

Table 6.6 Short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave by generation


Generation Short-Term Intentions to

Stay

(N=6)

% a Long-Term Intentions

to Stay

(N=6)

% a Short-Term Intentions

to Leave

(N=2)

% a Long-Term Intentions

to Leave

(N=2)

% a

Veteran

Generation

(1926-1946)

Personal Factors

Age 50.0 Age 50.0 Age 100

Subtotal 0.0 Subtotal 0.0 Subtotal 50.0 Subtotal 100


Job Satisfaction 50.0 Job satisfaction 33.3 Direction aged care is

heading

50.0

Work environment

(people & hours of work)

33.3 Pay 16.7

Pay 16.7


TOTAL 100 100 100 100

203

Table 6.6 Short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave by generation (continued)

Generation Short-Term Intentions to Stay

N=89

%a

Long-Term Intentions to Stay

N=74

%a

Short-Term Intentions to

Leave

N=31

%a

Long-Term

Intentions to Leave

N=41

%a

Personal Factors

Early Baby

Boomer

(1946-1955)

Age 4.9 Age 12.2 Family 12.9 Age 24.4

Location 3.3 Health 6.8 Age 9.7 Health 19.5

Family 0.8 Location 4.0 Health 3.3 Re-location 4.9

Health 0.8 Family 1.4 Family 4.9



Job satisfaction 59.3 Job satisfaction 36.4 Work environment

(conditions, hours)

41.9 Pay 19.5

Work environment (support,

workload, culture)

10.6 Job security 13.4 Pay 16.1 Career Opportunities 14.6

Pay 8.1 Work environment (people,

conditions, long service leave)

12.2 Career Opportunities 16.1 Working conditions

(benefits, hours)

12.2

Job security 8.1 Pay 12.2

Career opportunities 4.1 Career opportunities 1.4


TOTAL 100 100 100 100


204


Generation

Short-Term Intentions

to Stay

N=152

%a

Long-Term Intentions to

Stay

N=129

%a


to Leave

N=71

%a


Leave

N=82

%a

Personal Factors

Late Baby Age 6.6 Age 7.8 Family 9.9 Health 8.5

Boomer Location 3.2 Family 3.1 Health 2.8 Family 7.3

(1956-1965) Family 3.2 Location 3.1 Location 1.4 Age 4.9

Health 0.8 Health 0.8 Relocation 3.7



Job satisfaction 26.6 Work environment (work

conditions, pay, flexibility,

hours, people at work)

30.2 Work environment (work

conditions, workload,

hours)


conditions, flexibility,

hours, workload)

35.0

Working environment

(hours, conditions, long

service leave, people)

22.5 Job satisfaction 22.5 Pay 18.3 Pay 24.8

Pay 21.0 Pay 17.1 Career opportunities 12.7 Career opportunities 12.2

Career opportunities 11.3 Career opportunities 12.3 Poor job satisfaction 7.0 Job security 2.4

Job security 4.8 Job security 3.1 Burnout 1.2


TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


205


Generation


to Stay

N=53

%a

Long-Term Intentions

to Stay

N=48

%a

Short-Term

Intentions to

Leave

N=23

%a


to Leave

N=25

%a

Personal Factors

Early

Generation X

and Y

(1966-1976)

Location 3.2 Location 5.2 Family 8.7 Family 8.0

Family 5.2



Work environment


hours)

39.7

Work environment


hours, flexibility)

41.4

Work environment

(management,

workload, hours)

47.8 Career Opportunities 36.0

Job satisfaction 31.7 Career opportunities 19.0 Career opportunities 26.1

Work Environment

(management, workload,

hours)

32.0

Job security 11.1 Pay 12.1 Pay 17.4 Pay 24.0

Pay 9.5 Job satisfaction 10.2

Career opportunities 4.8 Job security 6.9


TOTAL 100.0

100.0 100.0

100.0


206


Generation


Stay

N=34

%a


Stay

N=32

% a


Leave

N=21

% a


to Leave

N=27 % a

Personal Factors

Late

Generation X

and Y

(1977-1986)

Location 4.2 Location 8.6 Location 3.6

Family 4.2



Work environment


flexibility)

37.5 Work environment

(conditions, people) 37.1

Work environment (hours,

workload, people,

management)

35.7 Career opportunities 37

Career opportunities 20.8 Career opportunities 31.4 Career opportunities 21.4

Work environment

(culture, work

environment, workload)

25.9

Job satisfaction 18.7 Job satisfaction 14.3 Pay 21.4 Pay 18.5

Pay 10.4 Pay 8.6 Poor job satisfaction 10.7 Job satisfaction 11.1

Job security 4.2

Poor job security 7.1 Burnout 7.5


TOTAL 100.0 100.0

100.0

100.0


207


Generation


Stay

N= 17

%


Stay

N= 19

%


Leave

N= 14

%


to Leave

N= 12 %

Personal Factors

Early

Generation I

(1987-1996)

Location 3.7 Location 8.7 Location 9.1

Health 4.2

Travel 4.2



Pay 33.3 Career opportunities 47.4 Career opportunities 38.5 Career opportunities 54.5

Work environment (people,

workload)

18.5 Pay 15.8 Work environment

(conditions, workload,

people, hours)

31.6 Pay 13.6

Career opportunities 18.5 Job satisfaction 15.8 Job satisfaction 13.6

Job satisfaction 18.5 Job security 10.5 Poor job satisfaction 8.6 Working conditions 9.2

Job security 7.5 Work environment

(people, workload)

10.5 Pay 4.2


TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


208

Veteran Generation

Job satisfaction was a key influencer of Veteran employees’ short-term (50%) and long-

term (33.3%) intentions to stay, but it was not a factor in Veteran employees’ short or

long-term intentions to leave. Instead, age and the intentions to retire were the dominant

influences. However, the work environment (33.3%) and pay (16.7%) were also

influences on the Veteran generation’s short-term intentions to stay but not their

intentions to leave. Together these findings suggest that Veteran Generation

employees’ intentions to stay are influenced by job satisfaction, pay and the work

environment. On the other hand, their intentions to retire and dissatisfaction with the

direction aged care are the main influences on their intentions to leave both now and

into the future. Although it should be noted that the sample size for this group was small

(N=6) and therefore these results may not be a true reflection of all veteran generation

employees working within these organisations.

Baby Boomer Generations

Both Early and Late Baby Boomer employees were influenced by both personal and

organisational factors. This section will compare personal factors first, followed by

organisational factors.

Age, health and family were consistent personal factors found to influence employees’

intentions to stay and leave. In particular, age was found to be a primary factor

influencing their intentions to stay and long-term intentions to leave, including their

intentions to retire and perceived inability to get another job. Additionally, health was

the second most dominant influencer across long-term intentions to stay and leave.

Interestingly, personal factors influenced short-term and long-term intentions to leave

(25.9% and 53.7%) more than their short-term and long-term intentions to stay (9.8%

and 24.5%).

Similarly, for Late Baby Boomers, family, location, age and health were dominant

factors influencing employees’ short-term and long-term intentions to stay, although the

order of influence among these factors differed from the Early Baby Boomers.

Interestingly, age was the most dominant factor affecting intentions to stay, where

participants reported the inability to get another job as key to their intentions to stay.

However, family and health were reported as the most dominant factors influencing

both short- and long-term intentions to leave, and age was not a factor in Late Baby

Boomers’ short-term intentions to leave. Unlike Early Baby Boomers, there was no

209

obvious difference between the influence that personal factors had on employees’

intentions to stay and leave, although personal factors had a stronger influence on long-

term intentions to leave (24.4%) than short-term intentions to leave (14.1%), and short-

(13.8%) and long-term (14.8%) intentions to stay. In addition to these personal factors,

organisational factors were also found to influence Baby Boomers’ intentions to stay

and leave.

Interestingly, job satisfaction was the most dominant factor influencing early Baby

Boomers’ short-term and long-term intentions to stay but not their intentions to leave,

indicating that job satisfaction could be considered more of an enticing factor

influencing employees’ intentions to stay, rather than attracting them to other

employment options. In contrast, the work environment, pay (financial need to stay and

pay conditions) as well as career opportunities were all common influences on Early

Baby Boomers’ intentions to stay and leave, although they differed in influence.

Factors related to the work environment were more dominant for short-term intentions

to stay and leave as well as long-term intentions to stay for the early Baby Boomers.

However, they were less dominant than pay and career opportunities in long-term

intentions to leave. Similarly, pay was more dominant than career opportunities for both

early Baby Boomers’ intentions to stay and leave. Additionally, job security was a

dominant influence for Early Baby Boomers’ intentions to stay but not their intentions

to leave.

Together these findings reveal that for the early Baby Boomer Generation, the intrinsic

satisfaction of the job itself is a primary motivator for Early Baby Boomers’ intentions

to stay, followed by work conditions associated with the job, job security and

appropriate pay. In contrast, work environment, pay and career opportunities influenced

employees’ intentions to leave.

For late Baby Boomers, work environment conditions were the most dominant

influence on employees’ long-term intentions to stay as well as short-term and long-

term intentions to leave. In particular, the workloads, hours, and conditions of work

were noted as environmental factors that influenced both intentions to stay and leave. In

addition to work environment conditions, job satisfaction, career opportunities and pay

were common factors influencing both intentions to stay and leave for Late Baby

Boomers. This finding was similar to the factors influencing Early Baby Boomers,

suggesting some similarities between the two groups. Unlike Early Baby Boomers,

210

however, intentions to leave for Late Baby Boomers were also influenced by burnout as

well as poor job satisfaction and job security. This finding suggests that while there are

similarities between the groups, there are also differences, which may be attributed to

the working circumstances that each may be experiencing.

In summary, both Early and Late Baby Boomers were influenced by the personal

factors, age, health, location and family, although personal factors influenced their

short-term and long-term intentions to leave more so than their short-term and long-

term intentions to stay for Early Baby Boomers only. Additionally, the organisational

factors of job satisfaction, work environment, job security, pay and career opportunities

were common influences of both Early and Late Baby Boomers, although with varying

degrees of dominance. Pay was ranked at equal or more influential than career

satisfaction across both generations, while work environment was ranked as more

influential for Late Baby Boomers than Early Baby Boomers in terms of intentions to

stay and leave. In contrast, job satisfaction was ranked more influential for Early Baby

Boomers. Together these findings highlight that while all factors were influential to

employees’ intentions to stay, some were more influential than others dependent on the

generation.

Generations X and Y

Unlike the Veteran and Baby Boomer Generations, Generation X and Y employees

were motivated primarily by organisational factors, although location and family were

noted as personal influences. In particular, location was influential for employees’

intentions to stay for both Early and Late Generation X and Y employees, whereas

family influences were dominant for intentions to leave in Early Generation X and Y

only. In contrast, Late Generation X and Y employees were influenced by location for

short-term intentions to leave, with no personal factors cited as influential in their

intentions to leave long-term.

Early and Late Generation X and Y employees were influenced to stay and leave by the

organisational factors, job satisfaction, work environment, pay, and career

opportunities, although with varying degrees of influence. Work environment was the

most dominant factor influencing both Early and Late Generation X and Y employees’

short-term intentions to stay and leave as well as their long-term intentions to stay, and

career opportunities influenced their long-term intentions to leave. Additionally, career

opportunities were the second most dominant factor for both generations’ long-term

211

intentions to stay and short-term intentions to leave. Interestingly, however, job

satisfaction and job security were dominant factors in Early Generation X and Y

employees’ intentions to stay but did not influence their intentions to leave. Instead,

career opportunities and pay were influential for intentions to leave. In contrast, job

satisfaction, job security and burnout were influences on Late Generation X and Y

employees’ intentions to leave. Thus, while there are slight differences in the emphasis

placed on organisational factors, there are mostly similarities between the factors

influencing the Generation X and Y employees’ intentions to stay and leave.

In summary, Early and Late Generation X and Y employees were influenced primarily

by organisational factors, although location and family were noted as personal

influences. Unlike the Baby Boomer Generations, the factors influencing Early and Late

Generations X and Y employees’ intentions to stay were more similar than different,

with the only difference noted being the ranking of dominance. Differences were found

between the generations in terms of the factors influencing employees’ intentions to

leave. However, while the work environment, career opportunities and pay were found

to be dominant factors in intentions to leave for Early Generation X and Y, job

satisfaction, security and burnout were also reported as influences on late Generation X

and Y employees’ intentions to leave.

Early Generation I

Comparable to the situation with Generations X and Y, the most dominant influence for

Generation I employees were related to organisational factors, although location was

noted as a common influence for short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave.

Interestingly, though, the desire to travel and work overseas as well as their own health

were noted as influences on short-term intentions to leave, but not mentioned as

influences on short-term or long-term intentions to stay or long-term intentions to leave.

Unlike Baby Boomers and Generations X and Y, factors related to Generation I

employees’ work environment were not the dominant influence of their intentions to

stay and leave. Instead, pay was the primary motivator of short-term intentions to stay,

and career opportunities were the most dominant influence on long-term intentions to

stay and both short and long-term intentions to leave. Similar to Baby Boomers and

Generations X and Y, pay, job satisfaction and working conditions were dominant

influences on both intentions to stay and intentions to leave. Additionally, factors

related to the work environment were the second most dominant factor influencing

212

short-term intentions to stay and leave, whereas pay and job satisfaction were equal

second dominant factors influencing long-term intentions to stay and leave. This finding

provides further evidence of both slight differences and similarities between each

generation.

6.4 Area of employment analysis

To examine whether there were any similarities and differences between the area of

employment in relation to employees’ intentions to stay and leave, the responses to

open-ended questions were re-analysed. The two areas of employment were residential

care and community care. This section provides the results of this analysis, using the

same methods as previously reported in this chapter.

6.4.1 Short-term intentions to stay by area of employment

In total, 169 responses from employees in residential care and 183 responses from

employees in community care were provided about the influences on their intentions to

stay within the next 12 months. This section describes the results of the analysis of the

data and then analyses both the personal and organisational factors that were reported as

influential to their intentions to stay. Table 6.7 presents a list of the dominant themes

reported by both residential and community care employees, in two sections – personal

and organisational factors –where the factors are listed in descending order of

frequency.

213

Table 6.7 Short-term intentions to stay influences by area of employment

Residential Care (N=169) %a

Community Care (N=183) %a

Personal Factors

Location 5.3 Family 2.7

Age 2.4 Location 1.1

Family 2.4 Age 1.1

Health 0.6

Subtotal 10.7

4.9


Work environment 30.0 Job satisfaction 35.6

(management, co-workers, work

conditions, hours, workload) Work environment

26.5

Job satisfaction 25.2 (work conditions, team,

management, flexibility, hours)

Pay 22.3 Pay 13.3

Career opportunities 7.1 Career opportunities 10.1

Job security 4.7 Job security 6.9

Sense of being “stuck” 2.7

Subtotal 89.3

95.3

TOTAL 100.0

100.0


As Table 6.7 illustrates, there are both similarities and differences between the personal

and organisational factors influencing both residential care and community care

employees’ short-term intentions to stay. For residential care employees, the location of

their work in relation to their home was the most dominant influence in their intentions

to stay with 5.3% of responses, followed by their age (2.4%) and family commitments

(2.4%). Notably, health concerns were reported by 0.6% of residential care workers as a

factor influencing short-term intentions to stay, whereas community care workers did

not report this factor as influential.

Community care workers reported the influence of family (2.7%), age (1.1%) and

location of work in relation to their home (1.1%) as the only personal factors

influencing their intentions to stay for the next 12 months. These findings suggest that

214

residential care workers (10.7%) are more influenced by personal factors in comparison

to community care workers (4.9%).

Both similarities and differences between the two areas of employment were also noted

in the organisational factors influencing short-term intentions to stay. Residential care

workers reported work environment (30%) as a critical factor influencing their

intentions, with responses suggesting it was “the best place in the work industry for

now”. Job satisfaction (25.2%) and pay (22.3%) were ranked as the second and third

most dominant influences. The influence of career opportunities was then noted by

7.1% of participants, where responses included “the lack of other opportunities” as well

as “opportunities for promotion”. Finally, the need for job security was noted by 4.7%

of responses.

In contrast, the most dominant factor influencing community care employees’ intentions

to stay for the next 12 months was job satisfaction, with 35.6% of participant responses

reporting that the “job is rewarding”. Following this, factors related to the work

environment were reported by 26.5% of responses. These factors were positive work

conditions (8.5%), friendly and supportive co-workers (10.4%), supportive management

(4.4%), availability of flexibility (1.6%) and desired hours (1.6%). This was in contrast

to the factors reported as dominant for residential care workers, which included

supportive management (17.6%), good work conditions (5.3%), available hours (4.2%)

and having a manageable workload (2.9%).

These results suggest that for residential care employees, management seemed to have a

greater influence on their intentions to stay than in a community care environment,

where the work conditions itself and friendly and supportive colleagues were reported

as more influential. This was evidenced in statements by residential care respondents

such as “reasonable working conditions”, “attitude of corporate office”, “caring

organisation, good to work for” and the “appreciation, value, support and

encouragement” they received. Following work environment, and in the same pattern of

influence as residential care workers, the influence of pay (13.3%), career opportunities

(10.1%) and job security (6.9%) were reported as factors influencing community care

employees’ short-term intentions to stay. In particular, these community care

participants reported that the “good pay”, the “ability to further career” and the need for

a “steady job” influenced their intentions to stay. Interestingly, however, 2.7% of

215

community care responses included a sense of “stuckness” in their job where, for

example, a “lack of other options in the area” influenced one participant to stay.

In summary, both residential and community care employees were influenced by

personal and organisational factors. Job satisfaction was more dominant for community

care workers while the work environment was reported as the most dominant influencer

for residential care workers, although work environment was reported as second

dominant for community care workers. Within this finding, management was more

influential in residential care employees’ intentions to stay whereas supportive

colleagues and work conditions themselves were more dominant in community care

employees’ intentions to stay.

6.4.2 Long-term intentions to stay, by area of employment

Similar to short-term intentions to stay responses, 127 Residential Care and 152

Community Care employees provided 136 and 188 responses respectively to the

questions regarding the factors that influence their intentions to stay at their

organisation over the next five years. Table 6.8 illustrates the results of the analysis of

this data, by the two types of factors – personal and organisational – by area of

employment. The factors are listed in descending order of frequency.

216

Table 6.8 Long-term intentions to stay influences by area of employment



Personal Factors

Age 10.3 Age 6.6

Location 7.4 Location 0.7

Family 2.2

subtotal 19.9

7.3


Work environment 22.8 Job satisfaction 32.1

(work environment and

culture, management,

workload)

Work environment (work

environment, flexibility,

management, people on the job)

27.4

Job satisfaction 21.2 Career opportunities 22.6

Pay 19.9 Job security 6.5


Job security 8.1

subtotal 80.1

92.7

TOTAL 100.0

100.0


Table 6.8 illustrates that both personal and organisational factors influence employees’

long-term intentions to stay. In contrast to short-term intentions to stay, more

participants reported personal factors influencing their long-term intentions to stay. That

is, for residential care employees, 10.3% of participants reported the influence of age on

their intentions to stay for the next five years. Location of employment was mentioned

by 7.4% of residential care participants as influencing their intentions to stay long-term.

Finally, 2.2% reported family commitments as dominant to their intentions to stay. In

contrast, for community care employees, 6.6% of participants reported age as

influential, whereas only 0.7% of participants reported location of work in relation to

their home as an influence. Interestingly, family commitments were not reported as

influences to community care employees. While exact reasons for this are unknown,

this may be a reflection of the community care work situation itself where the work is

mostly conducted during standard business hours, Monday to Friday, or it may be

reflective of the employees who work within community care settings. Additionally,

217

these results show similarities with both residential and community care employees’

short-term intentions to stay, where residential care employees reported more personal

factors (19.9%) influencing their intentions to stay than did community care employees

(7.3%).

Influences of the work environment were reported by 22.8% of residential care

employees and were the most dominant influence on their intentions to stay long-term.

These work environment factors comprised culture and environment (12.5%),

management (9.6%) and workload (0.7%), with responses indicating that the

“conditions” of being in a “very nice place to work” as well as working with an

organisation that has “work harmony and practice” were dominant factors influencing

long-term intentions to stay. The second dominant influence for residential care

employees was job satisfaction, with 21.2% of participants reporting that they “love

(their) job”. The influences that poor pay conditions and the financial need to stay

(19.9%) had on their long-term intentions to stay were then reported as dominant. In

particular, participants cited the “need (for) a job to earn a living” as well as the “pay

rate” influenced their intentions to stay. The equal fourth most dominant themes

identified were career opportunities (8.1%) and job security (8.1%).

In contrast, for community care employees, job satisfaction was the most dominant

influence, with 32.1% of responses reporting that “nature of the job”, “the job and

clients” and the “type of work” as dominant in influencing their intentions to stay long-

term. The second most dominant factor was the work environment (27.4%), where the

broader work environment itself, such as “reasonable working conditions and pay rates”

(12.5%), management (5.3%) flexibility (5.3%), and people (4.3%) influenced

employees’ long-term intentions to stay. These factors followed the same order as the

short-term intentions to stay influences.

Career opportunities were reported as the third most dominant factor, where 22.6% of

responses reported the allure of a “great organisation to work for”, “good team work”,

and “reasonable working conditions” as influential to their intentions to stay. The fourth

influence identified in 6.5% of responses was job security. In particular, participants

reported that the allure of an “ongoing contract”, “steady employment” and “stability”

influenced their intentions to stay. Finally, the influence of pay was noted by 4.1% of

participants with “the need for extra income in my family” and “money” reported as

influences on participants’ long-term intentions to stay.

218

Together, these findings suggest that while age, location, work environment, job

satisfaction, career opportunities, job security and pay were all common factors to both

areas of employment, they each played a different role in terms of influences for

residential and community care employees’ long-term intentions to stay.

6.4.3 Short-term intentions to leave by area of employment

In contrast to the larger volume of responses provided to intentions to stay questions,

only 77 residential care and 82 community care employees provided responses to the

factors influencing their intentions to leave their organisation within the next 12

months. The results of this analysis are provided in Table 6.9, in descending order of

frequency.

Table 6.9 Short-term intentions to leave influences by area of employment



Personal Factors


Family 5.2 Age 3.7

Relocation 1.3 Relocation 3.7

Subtotal 13.0 18.4


Work environment 35.8 Career opportunities 27.2

(workload, work conditions,

management, hours)

Career opportunities 22.8

Work environment (management,

job focus change, workload) 26.4

Pay 18.2 Pay 19.5

Job satisfaction 10.2 Job satisfaction 8.5

Subtotal 87.0 81.6

TOTAL 100.0

100.0


Table 6.9 illustrates that similar and different factors influencing residential and

community care workers’ intentions to leave within the next 12 months. In particular,

6.5% of residential aged care employees cited health concerns as influencing their

intentions to leave, whereas this was not cited as a factor for community care

219

employees. Instead, family (11.0), age (3.7%) and relocation (3.7%) were reported as

personal factors influencing community care employees’ intentions to leave. Family

(5.2%) and relocation (1.3%) were also cited by residential care employees as factors

influencing their intentions to leave in the short term, although in smaller frequency.

Age was also reported as a short-term intention to leave influencer by 3.7% of

community care employees; however it was not reported as an influence for residential

aged care employees.

In terms of organisational factors, the work environment of residential care employees

was noted as the most dominant influence on short-term intentions to leave. For

residential care employees, work environment was noted in 35.8% of responses with

workload concerns (12.7%), poor work conditions (8.8%), unsupportive management

(7.8%), and unavailability of desired hours of work (6.5%) reported as factors

influencing short-term intentions to leave. In particular, residential care participants

argued that “all the bullying and harassment”, “lack of camaraderie” and being “not

happy with management” influenced their intentions to leave.

In contrast, community care participants cited a lack of career opportunities or better

career opportunities elsewhere as the most dominant influence (27.2%) in their short-

term intentions to leave. In particular, participants reported “different career paths”, “no

change in current position” and “professional development opportunities” as influences

to their intentions to leave.

The second most dominant factor affecting short-term intentions to leave for residential

employees was career opportunities (22.8%). In particular, participants reported that

their desire “to look for another job” as well as for “more experiences” would influence

their intentions to leave the residential care sector. In contrast, the second most

dominant influence for community care employees was the work environment, where

26.4% of community care participants cited unsupportive management (15.4%), job

focus changes (9.8%) and excessive workload (1.2%) as influences on their intentions

to leave, with responses indicating the “change of the nature of my present job”, “poor

leadership” and the “pressure of the role”.

Pay was the third most dominant factor for both residential and community aged care

employees, mentioned by 18.2% and 19.5% of responses respectively. Both residential

and community care responses were focused on “if they pay better somewhere else” and

a “lack of wages” as influencing their intentions to leave. The loss of job satisfaction

220

was then reported as the fourth and final influence for both residential care (10.2%) and

community care (8.5%) employees, with responses indicating that “boring,

uninteresting work” would motivate them to leave within the next 12 months.

In summary, there are both similarities and differences between factors influencing

residential and community care employees’ intentions to leave within the next 12

months. In particular, these findings suggest that management and workload are

common and dominant influences on intentions to leave across both the residential and

community care workforce. However, residential care employees were influenced more

by broader working conditions and hours of work, whereas community care employees

were more influenced by potential changes in roles and career opportunities. Small

numbers of both residential and community care workers reported pay and a lack of job

satisfaction as influencing their intentions to leave within the next 12 months.

6.4.4 Long-term intentions to leave by area of employment

There were fewer responses to the question about employees’ intentions to leave long-

term than to the intentions to stay questions. A total of 96 residential care and 86

community care responses were obtained. Table 6.10 presents the dominant factors

influencing these employees’ intentions to leave, in descending order of frequency.

221

Table 6.10 Long-term intentions to leave influences by area of employment



Personal Factors

Age 10.4 Age 10.5


Family 6.3 Health 4.7

Relocation 1.0 Relocation 3.5

Subtotal 25.0 25.7


Work environment 32.6 Career opportunities 30.6

(management, work


hours/shifts allocated)

Work Environment (job

focus change, management,

workload)

23.8


Pay 12.5 Poor job satisfaction 3.5

Poor job satisfaction 2.1 Burnout 2.4

Subtotal 75.0

74.3

TOTAL 100.0

100.0


In contrast to short-term intentions to leave, Table 6.10 illustrates that there are some

differences in the frequency of factors influencing both residential care and community

care workers intentions to leave long-term (within the next five years).

For both residential and community care workers, age was the primary influencer for

leaving, with 10.4% of residential care and 10.5% of community care workers reporting

age as a factor. Residential care employees reported health concerns as the second most

dominant factor influencing their intentions to leave, with 7.3% of responses. For

example, one participant reported “injury – incapacitated” would prevent them from

continuing at their workplace. In contrast, only 4.7% of community care employees

reported health as a factor. Instead, 7.0% of community care employees indicated that

family commitments were a factor in their long-term intentions to leave compared to

6.3% of residential care employees. Relocation was the fourth most dominant factor

influencing 3.5% of community care employees, but present in only 1.0% of responses

from residential care employees.

222

Interestingly, factors affecting the work environment were stronger influences on long-

term intentions to leave for residential care (32.6%) than community care employees

(23.8%). For residential care employees, work environment factors included poor

management (14.5%) such as “team leader picking on me”, poor work conditions

(9.3%), excessive and unmanageable workloads (6.7%), and undesired hours/shifts

allocated (2.1%) as dominant influences on their intentions to leave. However, for

community care employees, job focus changes (9.1%), unsupportive management

(7.4%) and excessive workload (7.3%) were the only factors reported through responses

such as “work availability”, the “change of nature of my present job” and “management

style”. This suggests that for both residential care and community care employees,

management and workload were common influences on their intentions to leave;

however, the work conditions and hours allocated were influences for residential care

employees and the job role itself was an influence for community care employees.

Both, residential and community care employees reported pay (12.5% and 14.0%

respectively) and a lack of job satisfaction (2.1% and 3.5%) as the third and fourth most

dominant factors affecting their intentions to leave long-term. Specifically, employees

reported that it was “terrible pay, no increases in the past and future” (community care),

as well as the lack of “job satisfaction” as influences on their intentions to leave. In

contrast to residential care employees, 2.4% of community care employees reported

burnout as a factor in their intentions to leave long-term.

6.4.5 Similarities and difference identified in area of employment

Both similarities and differences were identified in the factors influencing residential

care and community care employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Table 6.11 illustrates

these similarities and differences, providing the percentages of frequency of responses

by the two types of factors – personal and organisational – and by area of employment.

223

Table 6.11 Similarities and Differences in Short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave by area of employment

Area of

Employment

Short-Term Intentions to Stay

(N=169) %

a


Stay

(N=136)

%a


Leave

(N=77)

%a


Leave

(N=96)

%a

Residential Care

Personal Factors

Location 5.3 Age 10.3 Health 6.5 Age 10.4

Age 2.4 Location 7.4 Family 5.2 Health 7.3

Family 2.4 Family 2.2 Relocation 1.3 Family 6.3

Health 0.6 Relocation 1.0



Work environment 30.0 Work environment 22.8 Work environment 35.8 Work environment 32.6

(management, work conditions

and culture, hours, workload)

(work environment and

culture, management,

workload)

(workload, work conditions,

management, hours)

(management, work


hours/shifts allocated)

Job satisfaction 25.2 Job satisfaction 21.2 Career opportunities 22.8 Career opportunities 27.8

Pay 22.3 Pay 19.9 Pay 18.2 Pay 12.5

Career opportunities 7.1 Career opportunities 8.1 Job satisfaction 10.2 Poor job satisfaction 2.1

Job security 4.7 Job security 8.1


TOTAL 100

100

100

100


224

Table 6.11 Similarities and Differences in Short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave by area of employment


Area of

Employment


Stay

(N=183)

% a

Long-Term Intentions to Stay

(N=188) %

a


Leave

(N=82)

% a


to Leave (N=86)

% a

Community

Care

Personal Factors

Family 2.7 Age 6.6 Family 11.0 Age 10.5

Location 1.1 Location 0.7 Age 3.7 Family 7.0

Age 1.1

Relocation 3.7 Health 4.7

Relocation 3.2



Job satisfaction 35.6 Job satisfaction 32.1 Career opportunities 27.2 Career opportunities 30.6

Work environment (work

conditions and culture,

team, management,

flexibility, hours)


environment, flexibility,

management, people on the job)


(management, job focus change,

workload)


(job focus change,

management, workload)

23.3

Pay 13.3 Career opportunities 22.6 Pay 19.5 Pay 14.0

Career opportunities 10.1 Job security 6.5 Job satisfaction 8.5 Poor job satisfaction 3.5

Job security 6.9 Pay 4.1

Burnout 2.4


TOTAL 100

100

100

100

225

For residential care employees, age was the primary personal motivator for both long-

term intentions to stay (10.3%) and to leave (10.4%). Factors affecting the workplace

were also dominant across both short-term and long-term intentions to stay (30% and

22.8% respectively) and leave (35.8% and 32.6% respectively), with management,

working conditions and environment, and workload being common factors influencing

both intentions to stay and leave. In contrast, the availability and desirability of working

hours influenced short-term intentions to stay as well as short and long-term intentions

to leave, although they were not reported as influences for long-term intentions to leave.

Job satisfaction was the second most dominant factor influencing both short- (25.2%)

and long-term (21.2%) intentions to stay; however, it was the least dominant factor

influencing both short- (10.2%) and long-term (2.1%) intentions to leave. Thus, while

job satisfaction was not as influential to intentions to leave, it still had an influence. Pay

was the third most dominant organisational factor reported for all short-term and long-

term intentions to stay (22.3% and 19.9%, respectively) and leave (18.2% and 12.5%,

respectively), while career opportunities was a more dominant influence on both short-

term and long-term intentions to leave (22.8% and 27.8%, respectively) than intentions

to stay (7.1% and 8.1%, respectively). Job security was the only factor influencing

residential care employees’ intentions to stay, with 4.7% of participants responses

reporting it as an influence on their short-term intentions to stay and 8.1% reporting job

security as an influence to their long-term intentions to stay.

For community care workers, family commitments was the most dominant personal

factor influencing both short-term intentions to stay (2.7%) and leave (11.0%), and age

was the most dominant influence of long-term intentions to stay (6.6%) and leave

(10.5%). Location and the possibility of relocation were also common influences for

both short-term and long-term intentions to stay (1.1% and 0.7%, respectively) and

leave (3.7% and 3.2%, respectively). Interestingly, and in contrast with residential care,

factors affecting the work environment were the second most dominant organisational

factor influencing community care workers’ short-term and long-term intentions to stay

(26.5% and 27.4%, respectively) and leave (26.4% and 23.8%, respectively), with poor

management and negative work conditions reported as common factors influencing both

short- and long-term intentions to stay and leave. Workload was also a factor for short-

term intentions to stay as well as short- and long-term intentions to leave for community

care employees. This finding suggests that ensuring employees receive a manageable

workload is influential for employees’ intentions to stay, where excessive workloads

226

influence intentions to leave and having a manageable workload was reported as a

factor in staying. Flexibility, desirable hours and people on the job were unique factors

influencing intentions to stay, whereas job focus changes was a unique influencer on

intentions to leave. Career opportunities were more dominant for short- and long-term

intentions to leave (27.2% and 30.6%, respectively) than short- and long-term intentions

to stay (10.1% and 22.6%, respectively), indicating the influence of providing clear

career opportunities within organisations. Finally, pay was dominant for both short-term

and long-term intentions to stay (13.3 and 4.1, respectively) and leave (19.5 and 14.0,

respectively).

Together these findings illustrate that both similar and different personal and

organisational factors influence the intentions to stay and leave of residential and

community care workers in the Australian aged care sector. Additionally, these findings

illustrate that while work environment, job satisfaction, pay, and career opportunities

were dominant for both residential and community care employees in this study, the

influence of each of these factors on employees’ intentions to stay and leave differed.

227

6.5 Overall summary of findings

Overall findings

In summary, both personal and organisational factors were found to influence

employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Personal factors were more influential for long-

term intentions to leave (29.8%) than short-term intentions to leave (16.5%), short-term

intentions to stay (10.5%) and long-term intentions to stay (13.2%). Age and family

considerations were consistent influences across intentions to stay and leave, although

both age and family considerations were more influential in intentions to leave than

intentions to stay.

However, while personal factors had an influence on employees’ intentions to stay and

leave, organisational factors were more influential, with over 70% of reported factors

influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave relating to organisations. In

particular, job satisfaction, work environment, pay and career opportunities were

consistent factors that affected both intentions to stay and leave. Although job

satisfaction was the most dominant influence of intentions to stay, it was the least

dominant factor influencing intentions to leave. Instead work environment was the most

dominant influence on intentions to leave.

Interestingly, pay and career opportunities were consistently reported as the third and

fourth most dominant factors influencing intentions to stay and leave, with career

opportunities reported as more dominant than pay. The need for job security was

highlighted as a unique factor contributing to intentions to stay. No unique factors

predicted intentions to leave. Combined these factors suggest that while there are factors

influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave that organisations cannot control,

most of those factors relate to the workplace and are within the control of management

and the broader organisation.

Generational differences

Veteran Generation employees’ intentions to stay are influenced by job satisfaction, pay

and the work environment. However, their intentions to retire and dissatisfaction with

the direction aged care is heading influenced their intentions to leave both now and into

the future. Early and Late Baby Boomers were influenced by the personal factors, age,

health, location and family, although personal factors influenced their short-term and

long-term intentions to leave more so than their short-term and long-term intentions to

228

stay for Early Baby Boomers only. Additionally, the organisational factors of job

satisfaction, work environment, job security, pay and career opportunities were common

influences of both Early and Late Baby Boomers, although with varying degrees of

dominance. Pay was ranked at equal or more influential than career satisfaction across

both generations, although work environment was ranked as more influential for Late

Baby Boomers than Early Baby Boomers in their intentions to stay and leave. In

contrast, job satisfaction was ranked more influential for Early Baby Boomers.

Unlike the Veteran and Baby Boomer Generations, Generation X and Y employees

were influenced primarily by organisational factors, although location and family were

noted as personal influences. The factors influencing Early and Late Generations X and

Y employees’ intentions to stay were more similar than different, with the only

difference noted being the ranking of dominance. Differences were found between the

generations in the factors influencing employees’ intentions to leave. Where the work

environment, career opportunities and pay were found to be dominant factors in Early

Generation X and Y’s intentions to leave, job satisfaction, security and burnout were

also reported as influences on late Generation X and Y employees’ intentions to leave.

Generation I employees were similar to Generation X and Y employees in that they

were influenced more by organisational factors than personal factors. However, unlike

Baby Boomers and Generation X and Y, factors related to their work environment were

not the most dominant influence on their intentions to stay and leave. Instead, pay was

the primary motivator of short-term intentions to stay, and career opportunities were the

most dominant influence on long-term intentions to stay and both short- and long-term

intentions to leave. However, work environment, job security, job satisfaction and

working conditions were dominant influences to intentions to stay and intentions to

leave. This finding suggests that extrinsic factors (such as pay and career opportunities)

influenced Generation I employees’ intentions to stay more than intrinsic factors such as

job satisfaction. In contrast, career opportunities were the most dominant influence for

Generation I employees’ short-term intentions to leave, followed by work environment,

poor job satisfaction and pay. For long-term intentions to leave, Generation I reported

career opportunities, pay, job satisfaction and work environment, again highlighting the

extrinsic rewards sought by this generation in comparison to other generations.

Together, these findings highlight that there are both similarities and differences

between the generations on their short term and long term intentions to stay and leave.

229

Early and Late Baby Boomer Generation and Generation X and Y employees shared

more similarities than differences, however Generation I tended to reveal more

differences than similarities compared to other generations. This suggests and provides

partial support for hypothesis 1b, which proposes that each generation will report

different factors as influential to their intentions to stay and leave.

Area of employment

This study also identified similarities and differences between residential care and

community care employees’ intentions to stay and leave. For short-term intentions to

stay, job satisfaction was more dominant as a factor than work environment for

community care employees; however, the reverse was the case for residential care

employees. Interestingly, pay, career opportunities and job security were reported with

the same order of dominance, influencing both residential and community care

employees’ short-term intentions to stay.

For long-term intentions to stay, overall personal factors were more influential for

residential care employees (19.9%) compared to community care employees (7.3%).

Across both areas of employment, however, age and location were common personal

influences although residential care employees also reported the influence that family

has on their intentions to stay. Unlike short-term intentions to stay, the order of

influence of organisational factors was different for long-term intentions to stay. In

particular, residential care employees reported work environment characteristics as most

dominant and job security as least dominant influence on their intentions to stay long-

term. In contrast, community care employees reported job satisfaction as most dominant

and pay as least dominant influences on their long-term intentions to stay.

Consequently, the factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to stay were

more similar than those that influenced employees’ intentions to leave.

Upon examining the factors influencing employees’ intentions to leave by area of

employment, community care employees reported more personal factors overall than

residential care employees. This was in direct contrast to intention to stay, where the

opposite occurred. Across both residential care and community care employees, the

organisational factors work environment, career opportunities, pay and job satisfaction

were reported as common influences to their short-term intentions to leave, although the

degree of influence varied. That is, residential care employees reported the work

environment as most dominant, and career opportunities as second most dominant,

230

whereas community care employees reported the opposite. Similarly, pay and job

satisfaction factors were ranked as third and fourth most dominant across both

residential and community care employees. These findings suggest that residential care

employees were influenced more by broader working conditions and hours of work,

whereas community care employees were more influenced by potential changes in roles

and opportunities for career opportunities. A similar pattern also occurred when

examining the factors affecting residential and community care workers’ long-term

intentions to leave, where age, family health and relocation opportunities were

consistently reported personal factors. Additionally, the same ranked influences were

reported by both residential and community care employees’ long-term intentions to

leave as their short-term intentions to leave, with the only exception being the influence

of burnout on community care employees’ intentions to leave within the next five years.

Overall these findings reveal both similarities and differences in employees’ intentions

to stay and leave. Work environment, job satisfaction, pay and career opportunities were

common influences on both intentions to stay and leave. Job security was found to be a

unique factor influencing employees’ intentions to stay, whereas burnout was a unique

factor influencing community care employees’ long-term intentions to leave. These

findings revealed mixed support for hypothesis 8, which proposes that there will be

differences between the factors influencing residential aged care and community aged

care employees’ intentions to stay and leave.

6.6 Chapter summary and conclusion

This chapter has presented the results of the open-ended questions, offering an analysis

of the results overall, by generation and by area of employment in order to provide

further guidance on the factors that influence employees intentions to stay and leave.

From analysing these results, it can be concluded that there are more similarities than

differences between employees’ intentions to stay and leave and that these similarities

and differences vary by generation and area of employment. A summary of the

qualitative findings of this study is presented in Figures 6.1 and 6.2. The next chapter

discusses these findings and presents the overall conclusions of this study.

231

Figure 6.1 Summary of Employees’ Intentions to Stay, qualitative data only

Age/Generation

Family commitments

Perceived health

Area of employment

Job satisfaction

Organisational support

Supervisor support

Intention to stay


Pay

Job security

Career opportunities

Working conditions

(flexibility, workload)

Location of work

Study commitments

232

Figure 6.2 Summary of Employees’ Intentions to Leave, qualitative data only

Age/Generation

Health

Study commitments

Family commitments

Relocation

Area of Employment


Supervisor Support

Working conditions

(burnout, flexibility,

workload)

Career opportunities

Intention to Leave


Pay

Job satisfaction

233

Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion

234

7.0 Introduction

The aim of this study was to examine the factors influencing employees’ intentions to

stay in and leave the Australian aged care sector. To do this, this research employed a

questionnaire methodology examining current employees of the Australian aged care

sector from four organisations across two states of Australia using both open-ended and

closed questions to triangulate the data. The theoretical framework underpinning this

study was the Resource Based View of the Firm (RBV).

According to the Resource Based View of the Firm (RBV), organisations can gain

competitive advantage in their marketplace through the acquisition of rare, valuable,

inimitable, and non-substitutable human resources (Barney, 1991). This theory argues

that it is the human capital pool, employee behaviour and relationships, and people

management strategies employed within an organisation that determine the extent of

competitive advantage each employee provides to an organisation (Barney, 1991).

Consequently, it is important to determine what human capital pool, employee

behaviours and relationships, and people management practices affect employees’

intentions to stay and leave so that organisations can implement effective strategies to

maximise retention (Dunford et al., 2001). This study, therefore, investigated which

factors influenced employees’ intentions to stay and leave using this theoretical

framework.

The structure of the thesis has been as follows. Chapter 1 provided an outline of the

research problem and contextualised the retention and turnover difficulties facing the

Australian aged care sector. Chapter 2 then explored the retention and turnover

literature further and provided a description of the theoretical framework that

underpinned this research, the Resource Based View of the Firm. Following this,

Chapter 3 contextualised this research by providing a review of the Australian aged care

sector and demonstrated the complexities of the characteristics of this workforce.

Through doing so, that chapter highlighted the need for research examining aged care

workforce retention and turnover strategies in order to ensure the sustainability of the

sector. The two models that this research set out to examine were then presented at the

conclusion of that chapter. Chapter 4 then oriented readers to the methodology and

methods that were used to test the models and research questions proposed. After this,

Chapter 5 and 6 described the results of this study in the context of the research

questions.

235

The aim of this final chapter is to integrate these findings, and discuss their application

to the Australian aged care sector in the context of the five research questions posed.

The chapter will also provide comparisons with the literature in the field to identify

support (or otherwise) for the results from this study. Importantly, the contributions of

both theory and practice will be described, as well as the implications for aged care

organisations and their management. The strengths and limitations of this study will

then be highlighted, as will a discussion of the future research needed to examine

employee retention and turnover in the Australian aged care sector as well as in the

management research field. Finally, this chapter will present the overall conclusions of

this research.

7.1 Research question 1: discussion of findings

The first research question enquired into the factors that influence employees’ intentions

to stay. To examine this question, the researcher investigated factors affecting the

human capital pool (age/generation, education level, marital status, tenure, kinship

responsibilities, perceived health of self and family, job employment status and area of

employment), employee behaviours and relationships (perceived organisational support,

perceived supervisor support, job satisfaction and job embeddedness), and people

management strategies (as determined by open-ended questions) and their influence on

employees’ intentions to stay. This section will discuss the findings of this question and

link these findings to relevant literature in the area.

Human capital pool

The relationship between age and employees’ intentions to stay was complex. That is,

while statistically there were no relationships identified between age and employees’

intentions to stay, upon examining the qualitative feedback, age or the “intention to

retire” was important to employees’ short-term and long-term intentions to stay. This

qualitative finding was similar to research conducted on Australian nurses by Shacklock

(2006) and, Shacklock and Brunetto (2011), where their qualitative data suggested that

the intention to retire or the employee’s age was important to older nurses’ intentions to

stay. Together these quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that while statistically

age was not important to all employees in this study, to a certain group age had an

influence on their intentions to stay.

This trend was further identified when the data were analysed for generational

differences, where no statistical relationship was found between generations and their

236

intentions to stay although age (including comments about employees’ intention to

retire or their “inability to get another job”) was important to older generations’

(Veteran and Baby Boomer) short-term and long-term intentions to stay but not to the

intentions of younger generations (Generation X and Y, and Generation I). This finding

may reflect the older workforce, which is providing challenges for the aged care sector

more broadly and suggests that the effect of age on perceived ability to get another job

plays a dominant role in employees’ planning to remain or not, supporting previous

research by Shacklock (2006). It also highlights a significant and possibly long-term

deficit in the ability of the aged care sector to provide sufficient care for the ageing

population in the future. This finding reinforces the importance of attracting and

retaining younger employees to and within the sector. However, the lack of a statistical

relationship between age and employees’ intentions to stay was in contrast to the

findings of Howe et al. (2012), who examined Australian aged care employees using the

data provided by the 2007 national census of aged care employees. The fact that the

sample in the present study was found to be statistically younger than the most recent

2012 aged care workforce census may explain the differences found between these two

studies.

Contrary to expectations, however, no statistically significant relationship was identified

between employees’ intentions to stay and their education level (H2). This is in contrast

to previous research by Kash et al. (2010) and Howe et al. (2012), which found that the

more educated health care employees were, the less likely they were to stay, across both

a US acute care setting and Australian aged care settings. One possible explanation for

these differences could be the sample examined. That is, while the samples could not be

compared on education level differences, it is possible that the sample in the current

study was not as educated as the broader population of Australian aged care workers on

which Howe et al. (2012) based their study. Therefore, research is needed to further

examine these differences. Interestingly, however, study commitments were reported as

influential for a small percentage of employees’ short-term intentions to stay, although

for these employees it was the expectation of staying until they had completed their

study that influenced their intentions to stay. Study commitments were not reported as

influential for long-term intentions to stay, which may suggest that the need to work

during study keeps employees at their organisation but their intention to remain at their

organisation post-study commitments are influenced by other factors relating to the

organisation.

237

Marital status did not have a statistically significant influence on employees’ intentions

to stay. However, the influence that partners had on employees’ intentions to stay were

reported through the general theme “family commitments” in the qualitative findings,

although this influence was important only for a small percentage of employees and was

the third most dominant personal factor identified. This is an important finding as

previous research by Johnson and Favreault (2001) and Kim and Feldman (2000) has

only found a relationship between marital status and employees’ intentions to leave, and

no research has investigated the relationship between marital status and employees’

intentions to stay. This finding suggests that while spouses and partners play a small

role in employees’ intentions to stay, other factors are more influential.

The fourth human capital variable investigated in this study was the influence that

kinship (or dependent) responsibilities had on employees’ intentions to stay. In contrast

to previous research by AbuAlRub (2010), Estryn-Behar et al. (2007), Howe et al.

(2012), McCarthy, Tyrell, and Lehone (2007) and Stewart et al. (2011), this study found

no significant differences between employees with and without kinship responsibilities

in terms of their intentions to stay, although family commitments were reported in the

qualitative data as important for a small percentage of employees’ short-term and long-

term intentions to stay. This finding suggests that while for some employees, family

commitments are important, for others they are not a factor. However, they are still

important to consider when developing retention strategies. This is particularly

important in the context of an ageing population where some employees need to care for

both their older parents as well as dependent children (Shacklock & Brunetto, 2011).

Within the US, some organisations already provide elder-care and child-care

arrangements for their employees, but the significance and need for both of these

provisions within an Australian aged care setting remain under-researched. Therefore,

further research is needed to examine the extent of care that employees provide to their

families and how this care can be supported by organisations to encourage retention.

The fifth human capital pool factor investigated was the influence that tenure played in

employees’ intentions to stay. Limited research has investigated the influence that

tenure plays in employees’ intentions to stay, with one study identifying positive

relationships between tenure and intentions to stay (Gambino, 2010), that is, the longer

an employee had worked for an organisation, the higher their intentions to stay. In

contrast, Howe et al. (2012) examined the Australian aged care workforce and found the

opposite, that is, the longer employees had worked in their role, the less likely they were

238

to stay. However, no study has investigated the relationships between tenure in role at

an organisation within the aged care sector on employees’ intentions to stay. Upon

investigating this relationship in the present study, no significant relationships between

any form of tenure and intentions to stay were found. Additionally, tenure was not

identified specifically as an influence on employees’ intentions to stay in the qualitative

findings, although a few employees reported the importance of long service leave as a

factor influencing their intentions to stay. One possible explanation of this could be the

sample collected, as in this study employees were less experienced than those of the

national census. It is possible there may be an interaction effect with age on this

relationship, however further research is warranted to explore this relationship further.

This finding has significant practical implications, which are discussed later in this

chapter.

An unexpected finding of this study was the influence that location of work in relation

to home had on employees’ intentions to stay. That is, the qualitative data revealed that

the location of an employee’s workplace in relation to their home was the most

dominant personal factor influencing employees’ short-term intentions to stay and

second most dominant personal factor influencing employees’ long-term intentions to

stay across all generations, except for the Veteran Generation. Previous research

examining the importance of location of work to employees’ intentions to stay has

found that this factor is particularly important for females (Wheatley, 2013). One

possible explanation of this finding was put forward by Carter and Butler (2008) who

argued that the role females play in their home life, such as a mother, partner and

homemaker, influence their desire and ability to travel far for work. Accordingly, the

location of work in relation to their home played a stronger role in female employees’

intentions to stay. In this study, differences between the genders could not be examined

because the majority of the participants in this study were female (92.8%). However,

because the Australian aged care workforce is highly feminised (AIHW, 2011), this

finding is of particular relevance and is an important new finding for the sector.

The final two human capital pool factors investigated in this study were perceived

health of self and perceived health of family. This study found no statistical support for

a relationship between perceived health of self and intentions to stay. However, the

importance of health was reported in the qualitative data to be a factor affecting a small

percentage of employees’ long-term intentions to stay. In particular, these comments

centred on the employees’ desires to continue working as long as their health holds out.

239

This was particularly the case for Baby Boomer generations, providing support for

previous research by Shacklock (2006), AARP (2006), and Patrickson and Ranzijn

(2004) who all found that the health of older employees (aged 50+) and their families

had a significant influence on employees’ intentions to stay. The lack of a statistical

relationship, however, also supports research by Howe et al. (2012) who investigated

the Australian aged care workforce and found no statistical support for the relationship

between perceived health of self and employees’ intentions to stay. Combined, these

findings suggest that health is an influential personal factor for intentions to stay for a

small proportion of older generation employees but, for the majority of aged care

employees, health did not play a role in their intentions to stay.

In summary, this study found generational differences in employees’ intentions to stay

as well as relationships between family commitments, location of work in relation to

their home and the health of older employees and employees’ intentions to stay. This

finding provides valuable new knowledge to the aged care sector, because the factors

influencing employees’ intentions to stay continues to be an under-researched area. In

particular, these findings highlight to aged care management the importance of

considering these factors when developing human resource management strategies in

order to enhance the retention of valued employees. In addition to these factors, the

influence of employee behaviour and relationships and people management strategies

were also investigated in this study. Findings pertaining to these factors are discussed

next.

Employee behaviour and relationships

This study found a significant positive relationship between perceived organisational

support and employees’ intentions to stay, supporting and extending previous work by

Eisenberger et al. (2011), Johlke et al. (2000), and Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) to

an Australian aged care context. This finding suggests that employees’ intentions to stay

is influenced by the amount of support that an organisation is perceived to provide.

This extension to an Australian setting was important as previous research in this area

had been conducted using samples from within the US or Asia (Cho et al., 2009;

Eisenberger, 2011), with no research examining the importance of this construct on

Australian aged care workers’ intentions to stay.

This finding is particularly important in the aged care sector, as the funding available to

provide this support to employees is tightening (Productivity Commission, 2011).

240

Therefore, reinforcing the importance of organisational support in influencing

employees’ intentions to stay is an important finding for the sector, with important

practical implications as more tangible connections with the support available from the

broader organisation may be needed to influence employees’ intentions to stay in the

future. However, capacity to provide this support may be greater in smaller

organisations than larger organisations because of the physical proximity and close

connections between employees and management that smaller organisations allow. This

may result in employees working within smaller organisations having higher perceived

organisational support, and subsequently higher intentions to stay, than those working in

larger organisations. While organisational support may be attainable in larger

organisations through teams (Dekker and Barling, 1995) and at each individual site and

service, organisations need to first consider how support is perceived in their

organisations and how they can provide more tangible evidence of support in order to

influence the intentions to stay of valued employees. Therefore, further research

investigating this relationship is needed.

This study found that the relationship between perceived supervisor support and

employees’ intentions to stay was mediated by perceived organisational support. This

finding is in line with previous research by Allen et al. (2010), Brannon et al. (2002),

Coomber and Barriball (2007), and Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002). Rhoades and

Eisenberger (2002) argued that this relationship develops as supervisors serve as

representatives to their organisations and as such how a supervisor treats his/her

employees will affect how an employee generally feels about how much their

organisation cares about their wellbeing and values their contributions. Within both

residential and community aged care, supervisors play a significant role in employees’

perceptions of the organisation, as the work performed is done so through rotating

shifts, meaning that not all staff have the opportunity to interact with the broader

organisation. This is because visits from corporate office, anecdotally, are conducted

mostly between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday. Instead, the support provided to

employees from an organisation is perceived through their supervisors. Therefore,

training supervisors in how to support the staff they supervise may lead to higher

perceptions of supervisor support and higher perceptions of organisational support,

which in turn is likely to lead to higher intentions to stay.

The influence that management, culture and supervision have on employees’ intentions

to stay was further reinforced through the qualitative findings of this study. In

241

particular, the work environment factor (working for the organisation, culture,

management and people) was the second most dominant factor influencing employees’

long-term intentions to stay while the work environment factor (culture, management

and co-workers) was the second most dominant factor influencing employees’ short-

term intentions to stay. This finding is in line with previous research by Shacklock

(2006) who reported that positive work environments were important to nurses’

intentions to stay.

The third employee behaviour and relationship factor examined in this study was job

embeddedness. Job embeddedness encompasses the links, fit and sacrifices employees

have and make within their community (off-the-job embeddedness) and organisation

(on-the-job embeddedness). Interestingly however, only partial support was provided

for the proposed relationship between job embeddedness and employees’ intentions to

stay. While previous research found relationships between both on- and off-the-job

embeddedness and employees’ intentions to stay (Jiang, Liu, McKay, Lee, & Mitchell,

2012; Holtom & O’Neil, 2004; Reitz, Anderson & Hill, 2010), this study only identified

significant correlations between on- and off- the-job embeddedness and employees’

intentions to stay. Further investigation of this relationship revealed a significant unique

relationship between employees’ intentions to stay and on-the-job embeddedness.

Thus, employees who were more embedded within their organisation were more likely

to stay, but the same could not be said for off-the-job embeddedness as no significant

independent relationship with employees’ intentions to stay was identified.

This was an important and new finding in the area of job embeddedness, where research

has previously only been conducted using organisations predominately within the US.

One possible explanation for these differences is that the community where people live

in Australia may not be as important to employees as it is in a US context, thus

questioning the applicability of this construct globally. However, as this study is part of

an emerging body of research, future research is needed to further investigate these

findings using a comparison sample of US and Australian plus testing within and

between other country settings.

Additionally and as expected, a significant positive relationship was identified between

employees’ intentions to stay and their satisfaction with pay, supervision, work on

present job, co-workers and opportunities for promotion, as well as satisfaction with the

work in general. This finding supports previous research by Bishop et al. (2008), Castle

242

et al. (2007), Hill (2011), Kash et al. (2010), Lavoi-Tremlay et al. (2008), O’Donnell

and Hudson (2011) Rosen et al. (2011) and Shacklock, (2006) who found satisfaction in

general as well as satisfaction with pay, supervision, and the work environment

important to employees’ intentions to stay in studies conducted within the US, UK and

Australia.

Further support for the influence that job satisfaction in general as well as the influence

that pay, the work itself, friendly co-workers and good opportunities for promotion, has

on employees’ short-term and long-term intentions to stay was provided in the findings

from the open-ended questions. Interestingly, although the financial need to stay was

noted as important, it was less important to employees’ short-term and long-term

intentions to stay than were other factors such as the work environment. One possible

explanation for this could be that because aged care employees are the lowest paid

health care workers in Australia (National Seniors Australia, 2011), so the satisfaction

gained by the job itself and other facets become more important to employees within

this sector. This is an important finding and has significant practical implications for

management within this sector, as it demonstrates that while pay is still an influential

factor, employees’ intentions to stay are influenced more by other organisational factors

such as career opportunities, job security and work conditions. This may be of particular

relevance to aged care organisations as the funding within this sector tightens

(Productivity Commission, 2011).

People management strategies

The qualitative findings of this study identified that job security and work environment

factors such as management, work conditions, culture, workload, and good rosters/hours

were dominant factors influencing both short-term and long-term intentions to stay.

This finding has significant practical implications for management as it identifies that,

for aged care employees, having a good workplace to go to, with friendly and

supportive colleagues, management, good conditions of work and available hours and

flexible working hours as well as plenty of career development opportunities were key

influences on intentions to stay. These findings support previous research by Howes

(2008), Rosen et al. (2011), and Shen, Cox, and McBride (2004) who found working

conditions as a key influence on employees’ intentions to stay. Additionally, this study

supports previous research that found satisfaction with wages and benefits (Bishop et

al., 2008; Kash et al., 2010; Lavoi-Tremblay et al., 2008), flexible rosters (Skinner et

243

al., 2011; Thornthwaite, 2004); and positive work environments (Shacklock, 2006) all

influenced employees’ intentions to stay.

Summary of Intentions to Stay Findings

In summary, the combined quantitative and qualitative data revealed that the personal

factors age, health, location of the job in relation to home, study commitments, family

and area of employment were influential to employees’ intentions to stay. Additionally,

the organisational factors of perceived organisational support (including work

conditions and culture), perceived supervisor support (including management), on-the-

job embeddedness, job satisfaction, career opportunities, job security, pay, workload,

allocated shifts were all influential to employees’ intentions to stay. These results are

displayed visually in Figure 7.1.

244

Figure 7.1 Final model of intention to stay

Age/Generation

Health

Location of home in

relation to work

Study commitments

Kinship responsibilities

Area of employment

Job Satisfaction


Support

Perceived Supervisor

Support

Job Embeddedness

Intention to Stay


Key

Direct


Relationship

Pay

Job Security

Career Opportunities

Working conditions

(flexibility, workload)

245


The second research question asked, “What factors influence employees’ intentions to

leave?” Similar to research question one, factors related to the human capital pool,

employee behaviours and relationships and people management strategies were

investigated.

Human capital pool

As was the case with the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay, no statistical

relationship was identified between age and employees’ intentions to leave. This is in

contrast to previous research from the US, UK and Australian health care sectors

(including the aged care sector) reporting that older workers were more likely to stay

and younger workers more likely to leave (Anderson & Hill, 2010; Dockery, 2004;

Health Workforce Australia, 2012; Howe et al., 2012; Larabeen et al., 2010; Letvuk &

Buck, 2008). One possible reason for this finding could be the differences in sample

between this study and the national census, where the study sample was found to be

statistically younger in age than the national aged care workforce. Interestingly, the

qualitative findings revealed that age was the least dominant personal influence on

employees’ short-term intentions to leave, but the most dominant personal influence on

employees’ long-term intentions to leave. This suggests that while only a small

percentage of employees intended to leave due to retirement in the next 12 months, a

larger percentage of employees intended to leave due to retirement within the next five

years. While this finding is unsurprising given the ageing workforce that is challenging

the aged care sector, it also highlights the need to successfully attract and retain younger

workers in the sector. To gain a deeper understanding of generational differences in

intentions to leave, the qualitative and quantitative data was analysed further for

generational differences.

The second human capital variable investigated in this study was the influence that level

of education has on employees’ intentions to leave. No statistical relationship was

identified between education level and intentions to leave, which supported previous

research by Boxall et al. (2003) based on a national questionnaire of employees across

different contexts in New Zealand. One possible reason for this could be the fact that

entry into the sector as a personal or community care worker, who make up more than

60% of the aged care workforce, does not require a degree or certificate (King et al.,

2012). In this study, care workers made up 59% of the community care workforce and

246

60% of the residential care workforce, of which 21.3% did not have a qualification past

year 12. This is an important theoretical finding as previous research conducted has

argued that employees who have higher qualifications are more likely to leave (Kash,

Naufal, Cortes, & Johnson, 2010; Larabeen et al., 2010). This study suggests that this

relationship is actually more complex, and may be influenced by the available options

and compatible roles within the sector. However, as this study is limited to the aged

care sector, this relationship needs to be further examined in future research.

No statistical relationship was found between either marital status or kinship

responsibilities and intentions to leave. However, the qualitative findings suggested that

spouses have an influence more generally through the broader theme “family” for Early

and Late Baby Boomers as well as for Early Generation X and Y employees. However,

family was not an influence for Late Generation X and Y or Generation I employees.

This finding may be reflective of age differences, as previous research by Johnson and

Favreault (2001), Kim and Feldman (2000), and Shacklock, Brunetto, and Nelson

(2007) found retirement, relocation and financial decisions are often made with spouses.

Additionally, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2009) reported that 13% of

older females leave the workforce to spend more time with their family and partners.

This is an important finding as it suggests that younger workers (Late Generation X and

Y and Generation I) are not influenced by family/spouses, but older workers (Early and

Late Baby Boomers and Early Generation X and Y) were, which is a new finding in the

aged care workforce literature. This finding provides important practical implications

for management, showing that flexible work practices and family friendly policies are

needed to retain older workers.

This study also examined the relationship between tenure and employees’ intentions to

leave, and unexpectedly found that tenure within a position was significantly positively

correlated with intention to leave. That is, employees who have been in their position

longer are more likely to leave than those who have been in their position for a shorter

period of time. This may reflect an increasing demand from employees on their

organisation for career progression. Interestingly, the qualitative findings of this

research also identified that a lack of career opportunities was a dominant factor

influencing employees’ intentions to leave. This may reflect the changing nature of the

workforce as described earlier when discussing generational differences. However, it is

an important contribution of this study as no previous research has examined the

relationship between tenure within a position and employees’ intentions to leave. This is

247

even more interesting as the sample in this study had been working in the sector for a

shorter period of time than the national census. While this is a limitation to this research

and could perhaps be an influence on this result, the finding is still interesting and

important theoretically because little research has investigated this research prior to this

study using an aged care sample.

As was the case with intentions to stay, this study found that relocation had an influence

on employees’ intentions to leave. That is, employees reported they would leave if they

relocated from where they currently live to work overseas or somewhere else in

Australia. This was an important influence for most generations, except for Early

Generation X and Y and Veteran Generation. This finding was complemented by the

influence that travel has on Generation I employees’ intentions to leave, suggesting that

the desire to travel and/or relocate was considered as possible by some employees either

within the next 12 months or within the next five years.

The final two human capital pool variables investigated in this study were the

relationships between perceived health of self and perceived health of family with

employees’ intentions to leave. Previous research has identified that employees who

reported poorer health had higher intentions of leaving than those who reported better

health in both Australian acute care and aged care settings (Shacklock & Brunetto,

2011; Howe et al., 2012). This study, however, did not support this hypothesis, with one

possible reason being the demographic make-up of the sample where only 6.7% of

employees reported their own health as poor or very poor, whereas 7.8% of employees

rated their family health as poor or very poor. Additionally, 87.7% reported their health

and 85% reported their family’s health as good or better. Thus, the good health of

employees and their families in this study may explain the lack of support for this

hypothesis. Further examination of the open-ended question responses revealed that

health was reported as the second most dominant factor influencing a small percentage

of employees’ short-term and long-term intentions to leave. Further examination of this

data by generation revealed that only the Baby Boomers employees reported health as

influential to their intentions to leave.

In summary, this section has highlighted that generation, location, health, tenure within

a position, and family are dominant influences on employees’ intentions to leave both

soon and into the future. These findings have important management implications for

the sector and suggest that these factors should be considered when designing retention

248

policies for the aged care sector. The next section discusses the employee behaviours

and relationships that influence employees’ intentions to leave.

Employee behaviours and relationships

This study examined the relationship between four employee behaviour and relationship

variables and employees’ intentions to leave. These variables were perceived

organisational support, perceived supervisor support, job embeddedness and job

satisfaction.

A significant negative relationship between perceived organisation support and

intentions to leave was found in this study, which suggests that that when employees

feel supported by their organisations their intention to leave decreases. This finding

supports and extends previous research by Cho et al. (2009), Dawley et al. (2010) and

Riggle et al. (2009) to an Australian aged care context. This is important as research

investigating the aged care workforce has not previously considered the role which

employees’ perceptions of organisational support play in employees’ intentions to leave.

The influence of organisational support on employees’ intentions to leave was also

highlighted in the qualitative findings of this research. In particular, management, co-

workers and working conditions were reported as key working environment factors that

affected both short-term and long-term intentions to leave. This supports previous

research by Pocock and Skinner (2012), who also found unsupportive working

environments a key influencer in employees’ intentions to leave.

In addition to the support provided by organisations, this study found that perceived

organisational support played a mediating role between perceived supervisor support

and employees’ intentions to stay and leave. This was in line with previous research

conducted in the US and UK by Allen et al. (2010), Brannon et al. (2002), Cho et al.

(2009), Coomber and Barriball (2007), and Eisenberger (2002). As most previous

research has investigated this construct overseas and only a limited amount of studies

have examined the construct in an Australian setting, this study provides further support

for the applicability of these constructs globally. Further, the findings of this study

highlight the important role that supervisors play in influencing employees’ intentions

to leave, as how a supervisor treats its employee’s influences how an employee

generally feels about how much their organisation cares about their wellbeing and

values the contributions they make to the organisation. These findings also support

249

research more generally on the importance of support from supervisors on employees’

intentions to leave by Hill (2011) and O’Donnell and Hudson (2011).

The significant relationship between perceived organisational support and perceived

supervisor support in influencing employees’ intentions to leave further highlights the

need to provide tangible evidence of support to employees directly as well as through

the management team. This is an important practical contribution of this research and

suggests that training in the softer skills of management is needed in order to ensure the

right messages are passed on to employees, especially when for some employees the

only contact they have with the wider organisation is through their direct supervisor.

This is especially the case within a community care environment where most work is

performed autonomously in the field.

In addition to the influence perceived organisational and supervisor support has on

employees’ intentions to leave, this study also investigated the role that job

embeddedness plays in employees’ intentions to leave. In doing so, a significant

relationship between on-the-job embeddedness and employees’ intentions to leave was

found. That is, the more employees were embedded within their organisation through

the perceived fit they felt with the values of the organisation, the more links they had

established within the organisation and the higher the sacrifice would be if they left, the

less likely they were to stay. However, no unique relationship was found between off-

the-job embeddedness and their intentions to leave, indicating the same links, fit and

sacrifice criteria for where they live did not impact their intentions to leave.

These findings about job embeddedness were significant as previous studies

investigating this relationship within a US context found that off-the-job embeddedness

was just as influential as on-the-job embeddedness within a health care context

(Anderson & Hill, 2010; Holtom & O’Neil, 2004). One possible reason for the

differences between the findings of this research and previous research could be the

country of study, as Australian employees may not have a strong need to work close to

where they live, or alternatively they may not be as connected with their communities as

people are in the US. Additionally, the loss of a job within an Australian aged care

context does not necessarily mean re-locating or a loss of community. As research is

still emerging on this construct, the current study makes a significant theoretical

contribution to the literature by finding that off-the-job embeddedness does not play a

role in employees’ intentions to leave within an Australian aged care context.

250

The final employee behaviour and relationship examined was the importance of job

satisfaction in employees’ intentions to leave. This was examined using both global and

facet measures of job satisfaction. In doing so, a significant negative relationship was

found between job in general, satisfaction with pay, supervision, work on the present

job, people on the present job, opportunities for promotion, and employees’ intentions

to leave. Moreover, people on the present job and satisfaction with the opportunities for

promotion available were found to be significant unique predictors of intentions to

leave, indicating that these particular facets of job satisfaction were important to

employees’ intentions to leave. The importance of job satisfaction was further identified

in the open-ended question responses where job satisfaction was the fourth most

dominant organisational factor influencing intentions to leave in the short term and long

term. However, good colleagues, work environment, opportunities for promotion, pay,

and good management were also reported as influential, while dissatisfaction with

management, unfair workload, unfriendly co-workers, burnout, undesirable hours, lack

of support from the organisation itself, and poor working conditions were reported as

influential factors in participants’ short- and long-term intentions to leave.

Taken together, these findings support previous research conducted on health workers

in the US and UK (Boxall et al., 2003; Brannan et al., 2007; Kim & Jorgaratnam, 2010;

McCarthy, Tyrell and Lehare, 2007; and Pocock & Skinner, 2012) who found that poor

job design, poor recognition, lack of autonomy in decision making, lack of challenges

and responsibilities and unsupportive work environments were all factors influencing

employees’ intentions to leave. Additionally, this study supports previous findings by

Moyle, Skinner, Rowe, and Gork (2003) who found job satisfaction related to work

flexibility, residents, working within a team environment and client care in aged care

influence intentions to leave. The finding that both global and facet measures of

satisfaction were significant to employees’ intentions to leave extends the literature on

job satisfaction to an Australian aged care sector context. This is important, as the

factors influencing aged care employees’ intentions to leave may be different from those

influencing acute care or sub-acute care employees’ intentions to leave because of

context differences between the sectors. Additionally, previous research examining aged

care employees’ intentions to leave has mostly focused on job satisfaction globally,

rather than examining the specific components of how job satisfaction influences

intentions to leave (Rodwell & Martin, 2013).

251

These finding have important practical implications as they provide aged care managers

and human resource professionals with greater insight into the factors that influence

employees’ intentions to leave and may be used to generate appropriate human resource

management strategies designed to retain employees within the sector.

People management strategies

Investigations into people management strategies further reinforced the important roles

that pay, career development opportunities, burnout, and the work environment factors

management, flexibility, workload, and availability of work hours have on employees’

intentions to leave. These findings supported previous research by Allen, Bryant and

Vardoman (2010), Boxall et al. (2003), Brannon et al. (2007), Moyle, Skinner, Rowe

and Gork (2003), and Shen, Cox and McBride (2004) who found hectic work schedules,

and a lack of career development and promotion opportunities influenced employees’

intentions to leave. The qualitative findings of this study also revealed that while pay

was influential (third most dominant factor) in employees’ intentions to leave, work

environment and career development opportunities were more dominant factors. This

suggests that while improvements to pay are needed in the future, good performance

management, clear succession planning, promotion opportunities, good supportive

working environment with manageable workloads, flexibility and a choice of hours may

influence employees’ intentions to stay in the meantime. This is an important practical

finding of this research and provides practitioners with specific factors that influence

intentions to leave that they can use when developing human resource strategies in the

future.

Summary

In summary, the findings of both the qualitative and quantitative results revealed that

employees’ intentions to leave were influenced by both personal factors

(age/generation, health, location of workplace in relation to employees’ homes, tenure

in position, and family commitments), and organisational factors (perceived

organisational support, perceived supervisor support, on-the-job embeddedness, job

satisfaction, pay, career opportunities, burnout, and the work environment (including

flexibility, workload, and the availability of work hours)). These findings are visually

represented in Figure 7.2.

252

Figure 7.2: Final model of intentions to leave

Age/Generation

Health

Location of work in

relation to employees’

home

Tenure in role

Family Responsibilities

Area of Employment


Support

Perceived Supervisor

Support

Job Embeddedness

Intention to Leave


Key

Direct


Relationship

Job Satisfaction

Pay

Career Opportunities

Working conditions

(flexibility, hours,

workload)

253


The third research question examined by this study questioned the similarities and

differences in the factors influencing employee retention and turnover. This study found

that age, family commitments (primary caregiver responsibilities), perceived

organisational support, perceived supervisor support, on-the-job embeddedness, job

satisfaction, pay, career opportunities, and the work environment factors, management,

allocated roster, and providing a fair workload were common influences on both

employees’ intentions to stay and leave. The influence of pay on both intentions to stay

and leave was previously identified in a qualitative study of direct care workers

conducted in the US (Mittal et al., 2009). However, that study did not find any other

overlapping constructs between intentions to stay and leave. In contrast, Howe et al.

(2012) found that family commitments, being employed as a casual or part-time

employee, and the desire for more hours, were common factors influencing Australian

aged care employees’ intentions to stay and leave.

In addition to commonalities, this study also found differences between the factors

influencing intentions to stay and leave. In particular, the unique factors influencing

employees’ intentions to stay were study commitments, location of the job in relation to

home, job security, the financial need to stay and the desire to receive long service

leave. Unique influences on employees’ intentions to leave were tenure in position,

burnout, the organisation itself and the allure of better benefits and conditions of work

elsewhere (including better pay). These similarities and differences could reflect

different satisfiers to employees according to the two factor theory of job satisfaction. In

particular, Herzberg and Mausner (1959) suggested that “motivators” were those factors

that provide intrinsic satisfaction to individuals, such as achievement, recognition, work

itself and responsibility and “hygiene” factors were those factors that dissatisfied

employees such as company policies, administration, supervision, salary, working

conditions and interpersonal relationships. Extending that theory to explain employees’

intentions to stay and leave, these distinctions seem to apply generally, where the

motivators related to factors influencing intentions to stay (e.g. study commitments and

job security) and the hygiene factors aligned with those factors influencing intentions to

leave (e.g. organisation itself and the allure of better benefits and conditions elsewhere).

However, no previous studies have found these differences between intentions to stay

and leave and while this study advances theoretical knowledge in this area, further

research is also warranted to investigate these differences further.

254

In summary, as predicted, factors influencing the human capital pool, employee

behaviours and relationships and people management strategies all contributed to

employees’ intentions to stay and leave. These findings further support Howe et al.

(2012) who found that the drivers of intentions to stay are different from the drivers of

intentions to leave, and suggest that aged care management needs to start seeing the two

sets of drivers differently in order to aid the development human resource management

strategies that promote the retention of aged care workers.


The fourth research question examined differences between the factors influencing

residential care and community care employees’ intentions to stay and leave. To answer

this research question, the relationship between area of employment and organisational

factors was investigated. No previous research examining differences between the

residential care and community care workforce as a whole has been conducted, and as

such this study makes a significant contribution to academic and practitioner knowledge

bases.

The quantitative analysis found that community care workers reported significantly

higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave. This trend was also found when

investigating specifically personal care workers and community care workers in the

Australian aged care workforce (King, Wei & Howe, 2013). Additionally, this study

found that community care workers perceived significantly higher levels of

organisational and supervisor support than residential care workers. This was an

unexpected finding as the community care workforce works within a semi-virtual team

environment, where they check their rosters with management and administration daily

before conducting their daily tasks autonomously. One possible explanation for this

finding is that the perception of support could be influenced by the virtual support

provided, where support is available for employees immediately via telephones. This

finding also suggests greater support and satisfaction with supervision, which supports

the findings of King et al. (2012) who found community aged care workers were more

satisfied than residential aged care workers with their current job conditions.

Similarities and differences were also found within the qualitative findings of this study.

For short-term intentions to stay, job satisfaction was a more dominant influence than

work environment in community care employees’ but the reverse applied for residential

255

care employees. Additionally, work environment and job satisfaction combined were

slightly more influential in residential care employees (62.1% of responses) than

community care employees (59.5% of responses). This suggests that residential care

employees were marginally influenced more by these factors than community care

employees. One possible reason for this could be that the work conditions, culture,

management and hours are more stable and predictable within a residential care

environment than a community care environment and as such become more of an

influence for residential care employees. Previous research investigating relationships

between community care and residential care intentions to stay and leave have found a

similar result for personal care workers, where job conditions and dissatisfaction with

the work itself were more influential for residential care employees than community

care employees (King et al., 2013). Interestingly pay, career opportunities and job

security were reported as similar factors with the same order of dominance in

influencing both residential and community care employees’ short-term intentions to

stay. No previous research has examined the differences between these factors and area

of employment so this finding is significant for management as it suggests that there are

both similarities and differences between the factors influencing short-term intentions to

stay by area of employment. Consequently, human resource managers should consider

different policies for the retention of aged care employees for the different workforces.

For long-term intentions to stay, overall personal factors were more influential for

residential care employees (19.9%) compared to community care employees (7.3%),

where age and location were common personal factors influencing intentions to stay;

however, family played a unique role in influencing residential care employees’

intentions to stay. This was surprising as both workforces had similar family

commitments. One possible explanation for this could be the shift time differences, as

residential care employees provide care for clients around the clock, whereas the

majority of care provided to clients in community care is within normal business hours

(Productivity Commission, 2011) meaning that community work can be arranged more

easily around family commitments. Both workforces, however, reported the influence of

organisational factors – job satisfaction, work environment, pay, career opportunities

and job security – although the order of influence differed. In particular, residential care

employees reported work environment characteristics as most dominant and job security

as least dominant influences on their intentions to stay long-term. In contrast,

community care employees reported job satisfaction as most dominant and pay as least

256

dominant influences to their long-term intentions to stay. No previous research has

examined these similarities and differences, and as such this study makes an important

contribution to the literature as it reinforces the differences identified between the two

workforces. This finding also makes a significant practical contribution by reinforcing

the importance of flexibility in human resource strategies across both workforces.

A similar pattern of similarities with slight differences emerged when examining the

influences of short-term and long-term intentions to leave. Both family and the

possibility of relocating were reported as similar personal factors influencing

community care and residential care employees’ intentions to leave within the next 12

months. In addition to this, however, age was a dominant influence in community care

employees’ short-term intentions to leave, and health was important to residential care

employees’ intentions to leave within the next 12 months. In contrast to short-term

intentions to leave, both community care and residential care employees reported the

influence that age, health, family and relocation have on their long-term intentions to

leave.

Interestingly, for both short-term and long-term intentions to leave, both community

care and residential care employees reported the influence that work environment

factors (management, hours, workload and work conditions/benefits), career

opportunities, pay, and job satisfaction have on their intentions to leave. These factors

were also found to be important influences on employees’ intentions to stay, indicating

that there are more similarities than differences between the two areas of employment.

Although career opportunities were reported as the dominant influence on community

care employees’ long-term intentions to leave, residential care employees reported this

as second most dominant factor in their long-term intentions to leave. Additionally,

changes to the job itself influenced community care employees’ short-term and long-

term intentions to leave, whereas hours and work conditions/benefits offered were

unique influences to residential care employees’ intentions to leave.

Taken together, these findings illustrate that both similar and different factors influence

the intentions to stay and leave of residential and community care employees within the

Australian aged care sector and support the argument of Howe et al. (2012) that

residential and community care workforces should be considered separately when

developing human resource management strategies to retain employees within these

workforces.

257


The final research question investigated the differences between the factors influencing

intentions to stay and leave by the generation of the employee.

Overall, there were differences in the factors influencing each generation’s intentions to

stay. Veteran Generation employees were influenced to stay by job satisfaction, pay and

the work environment. In comparison, Early and Late Baby Boomers were influenced

by the personal factors: age, health, location and family and the organisational factors:

work environment, career opportunities, pay, job satisfaction and job security.

However, Early Baby Boomers were influenced to stay long-term more by job

satisfaction than the work environment, whereas the opposite was the case for Late

Baby Boomers. A similar situation applies to Generations X and Y, where Late

Generation X and Y were influenced more by job satisfaction than work environment

and Early Generation X and Y were influenced more by work environment than job

satisfaction. Across both Early and Late Baby Boomer generations, pay was ranked at

equal or more influential than career opportunities. In contrast, career opportunities

were found to be more influential than pay for both Early and Late Generation X and Y.

These findings may reflect differences in priorities between generations, which have

been identified in previous research by Martin (2005), Piper (2008), Shaw and Fairhust

(2008), Smola and Sutton (2002) and Weston (2006), who all found that Generation X

and Y employees expected success in a shorter period of time than other generations

and, as such, were more demanding of professional development opportunities in the

workplace than other generations. Research by Wilson, Squires, Widger, Cranley and

Tourangeau (2008) also found that Baby Boomers were more satisfied with the

professional opportunities available to them than other generations, which may explain

the stronger influence that pay has on intentions to stay found in this research.

Alternatively, the Baby Boomer generation may be at an age where financial security is

more important to them than career opportunities. However, as this research collected

only very brief statements about the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay,

further research is needed to explore these differences in more depth.

Generation I also reported career opportunities as the dominant influence on their long-

term intentions to stay, suggesting the need for career development may reflect a trend

for younger workers within the workforce. However, as little is known about this

generation from the literature to date, further research is needed. Regardless, it is clear

258

that career development opportunities play a stronger role in the factors influencing

younger generations’ intentions to stay compared to older generations.

In contrast to other generations, Generation I employees were influenced to stay overall

more by extrinsic individual factors (such as pay and career opportunities) than intrinsic

factors. This is a new finding in the literature, as previous studies have not included

Generation I in their studies although a study by Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, and

Lance (2010) did find that Generation Y employees were more influenced by extrinsic

rewards than intrinsic rewards. This is of relevance because the date ranges used by

Twenge et al. (2010) crossed over to some (although not all) of those found within the

Generation I category of this study. Combining this finding with previous findings, the

results of this study seem to suggest that future retention strategies for younger workers

need to focus on extrinsic rewards such as pay and career development opportunities.

In addition to the qualitative findings, the quantitative results revealed that there were

possible differences between generations’ perceived organisational support and

perceived supervisor support, with Generations X and Y reporting higher perceived

organisational support and higher perceived supervisor support than did the Baby

Boomer Generations. Although these differences were only approaching significance,

the findings were similar to Shacklock and Brunetto (2011) who found that for

Generation X employees, the relationships they held with their supervisors and the

attachment to the work itself were their main drivers in their intentions to remain at their

job.

Similar differences were also found between the factors influencing each generations’

intentions to leave. For both Baby Boomers and Generations X and Y employees, the

work environment, career opportunities and pay were the top three dominant influences

on their short-term intentions to leave. In contrast, Generation I employees reported

career opportunities, work environment and poor job satisfaction as their top three

dominant influences on intentions to leave. For long-term intentions to leave, these

differences were more apparent within each generational group. For example, Early

Baby Boomers reported the influence that pay has on their intentions to leave as the

most dominant organisational factor followed by career opportunities and working

conditions, whereas Late Baby Boomers reported the influence that working

environment has as the most dominant factor, followed by pay, career opportunities, job

security and burnout. Both Early and Late Generations X and Y reported career

259

opportunities, work environment and pay as their most dominant factors, while Late

Generation X and Y also reported the influence that job satisfaction and burnout had on

their intentions to leave. In direct contrast to the other generations, however, Generation

I employees reported career opportunities, pay, job satisfaction and work environment

as dominant factors on their intentions to leave, which again highlights the extrinsic

rewards sought by this generation in comparison to other generations. These finding

highlight both similarities and differences in the factors affecting each generation’s

intentions to leave, supporting previous research by Wong, Gardiner, Lang and Coulin

(2008), Carver and Candella (2011), La Vasseour, Wang, Mathews and Boland (2009),

and Smola and Sutton (2002), who suggest there are differences between each

generation’s intentions to leave.

The finding that Generation I employees are influenced to stay and leave more by

extrinsic factors than by intrinsic factors is a new and particularly important finding of

this study. From a practical perspective, it highlights to the sector that in order to attract

younger workers, a stronger focus has to be put on career opportunities and pay,

especially in an industry with tight funding arrangements. This finding is also important

from a theoretical perspective as it suggests that the youngest generation of employees

may be more demanding in regards to the opportunities for growth, pay, support and

working conditions and benefits provided by organisations. However, as this study was

conducted solely on aged care employees’ intentions to leave, and the sample size of

this new generation was small, further research is needed to investigate these

differences.

7.5 Thesis conclusion

In conclusion, this study revealed an interesting story about the factors influencing aged

care employees’ retention and turnover intentions that has not been identified previously

in the literature. First, this study revealed that while there were some similarities, the

factors influencing both retention and turnover were also slightly different. While this

finding was similar to recent research by Howe et al. (2012) examining the aged care

sector, that study did not examine the same constructs. Thus, this study provided new

and important information on the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and

leave their employment.

Second, this study was the first of its kind to examine the combined influence that

demographic variables contributing to the human capital pool, employee behaviour and

260

relationship variables (perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support,

job embeddedness, and job satisfaction), and people management strategies have on

Australian aged care employees’ intentions to stay and leave. This analysis is important

as the delivery of aged care services relies on a steady workforce and the current

workforce is ageing. Therefore, research examining the factors influencing the retention

of the existing workforce was required.

Third, this study identified the similarities and differences in the retention and turnover

intentions of community care and residential care workforce. That is, community care

workers reported higher perceived supervisor support and perceived organisational

support. Additionally, community care workers reported higher intentions to stay and

lower intentions to leave in comparison to residential care workers. This finding

suggests that the community care workforce may in fact be more stable in their

intentions to stay than the residential care workforce. Additionally, the finding that

community care workers report higher perceptions of supervisor and organisational

support is interesting given the higher amounts of autonomous work performed in this

subsector compared to the residential care workforce. One possible explanation for this

finding is that the perception of support could be influenced by the virtual support

provided, which is also always immediately available in community care while those in

residential care only have access to support when their supervisor is available. Further

examination of the qualitative findings in this study revealed factors affecting the work

environment, job satisfaction, career development opportunities, job security and pay

were all common influences on both intentions to stay and leave, although the order of

influence differed between the areas of employment. Combined, these findings support

Howe et al. (2012), who argued while there are similarities between the residential and

community care workforces, both workforces should be considered separately when

developing human resource management strategies.

Finally, this study identified both similarities and differences between different

generations’ intentions to stay and leave. This revealed that most generations reported

the same variables as influencing their intentions to stay or leave, however the order of

dominance differed between generations. Perhaps one of the most interesting findings

of this analysis revealed that while Veteran Generation, Baby Boomers, and

Generations X and Y revealed similar factors as influencing their intentions to stay and

leave, Generation I (the newest generation) reported more extrinsic factors as

influencing their intentions to stay and leave. This suggests that extrinsic motivators

261

such as pay and career development opportunities may be of increasing importance in

the future as more employees of this generation enter the workforce.

In conclusion, this research has highlighted that the aged care workforce is influenced to

stay and leave by similar factors. Additionally, when developing human resource

management strategies there is a need to consider the community aged care and

residential aged care workforces separately. This research also highlighted that there is a

need to provide career development opportunities and review the pay rates provided in

the future as more of the newest generation (Generation I) enter the workforce.

7.5.1 Strengths

This study was one of the first of its kind to apply theoretical frameworks from a

management discipline to investigate the aged care workforce. In particular, it was the

first to simultaneously examine the combined influence that human capital pool,

employee behaviour, and relationship and people management strategies have on aged

care employees’ intentions to stay and leave.

Additionally, this study used a sample from four differently sized organisations (one

very large, one large, one medium, and one small organisation), from two different

states of Australia, and which provided both residential care and community care

services. In doing so, this methodology has allowed the researcher to examine the

findings not only from an overall perspective, but also to examine the similarities and

differences between the residential care and community care workforces. This has

resulted in this study being one of only a few to investigate and compare the factors

influencing both employees’ intentions to stay and leave, and the only study

investigating the similarities and differences between residential care and community

care workforces. Consequently, this has meant that not only do the findings extend both

management and health care theoretical knowledge, but the study also has strong

practical implications for aged care managers and organisations, as described later in

this chapter.

This study is also one of only a few that focuses more broadly on direct care workers in

aged care, rather than isolating one position type, such as nurses, and examining these

specifically. This has allowed this research to be more applicable to all direct-care

(front-line) aged care workers. From a methodological perspective, and in line with a

positivist approach, all measures used had been previously validated in the literature,

which added strength to the validity of the results obtained. Finally, in order to build on

262

the strengths of questionnaires and minimise the limitations of this methodology, this

study included open-ended questions in order to analyse respondents’ attitudes, beliefs,

values, and intentions in stay and leave in more detail and depth.

7.5.2 Limitations

Although this study had many strengths, it was not without its limitations. First, this

study was limited by the sample obtained. That is, while the researcher purposely

targeted four differently sized organisations across two states of Australia, the sample

used in this study was found to be younger, less experienced, employed for a shorter

period of time, and had more permanent contracts than the broader aged care employee

population. This meant that some of the hypotheses proposed may not have been

supported as a result of these sample restrictions. Additionally, this study lacked a

national sample and only collected data from not-for-profit organisations and that those

who provide direct care to clients. This meant that employees from the private and

public sectors of aged care and broader aged care employees, such as corporate service

positions, were not represented in these results. Therefore, caution should be exercised

when generalising these results to all aged care employees within Australia. Further,

this study was limited by the aged care sector context, which meant that results cannot

be generalised outside of the aged care sector.

A further limitation was the amount of missing data in this study. Respondents left large

amounts of missing data, particularly when responding to the job satisfaction scale. This

limited the analyses that could be performed examining job satisfaction alone as well as

the combined influence that job satisfaction had on employees’ intentions to stay and

leave. This missing data also affected the sample size obtained, possibly meaning that

no differences were found in the dataset to support the hypotheses.

Further, while this study obtained an adequate sample overall, there were a large

number of non-responders. This may have biased the results obtained as the sample that

did respond differed from the national census data. A further, major limitation of this

study was the cross-sectional design. This provides only a snapshot analysis of the

topic, and as such is limited by potential other factors that may have impacted upon the

responses provided at that point in time. Moreover, the use of survey methodology

meant that the data collected was shallow, inflexible and limited to the moment in time

studied. Consequently, further research is needed to gain more depth in understanding

the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave through the use of

longitudinal designs, and through the collection of further qualitative data through

263

interviews and focus groups. Additionally, while all care was taken to be rigorous and

systematic, it is recognised that researcher bias and error are still possible using the

qualitative coding technique used. Finally, it is acknowledged that self-report biases and

common method biases may have impacted upon the results obtained in this study.

7.6 Theoretical and practical contributions

This study has made theoretical and practical contributions to the literature on retention

and turnover, which are described next.

7.6.1 Theoretical contributions

This study made several significant contributions to the management and health care

discipline literatures in terms of retention and turnover.

First, this study enhanced the research on the Resource Based View of the Firm (RBV)

by extending knowledge within the aged care sector to include factors influencing

retention and turnover. Also this study has provided clarity and extensions to the

various elements of the RBV by conducting an analysis on the factors that have been

found to influence an organisation’s competitive advantage in four key areas. This study

found the personal characteristics of age, marital status, location, family influences,

tenure in role and health all influenced employees’ intentions to stay and leave. In

finding this, this research extended the factors within the human capital pool to not only

include knowledge, skills and abilities, but also the characteristics that contribute to the

development of those knowledge, skills and abilities, and which are important

characteristics that make up how employees gain and retain their knowledge skills and

abilities.

Second, this study extended the RBV framework by analysing the influence that job

embeddedness, perceived organisational support and perceived supervisor support had

on employee behaviour and relationships. While job-related variables have previously

been examined through various aspects of perceived organisational support, perceived

supervisor support and job embeddedness as a whole, no study has examined these in

the context of the RBV. Thus, this study extended the framework to include these

variables as key employee behaviours and relationships that influence employees’


Finally, this study extended the people management practices aspect of the RBV by

examining employees’ working environments from the point of view of the employee.

This was measured through open-ended questions within the questionnaire, which

264

identified that the organisational factors pay, career opportunities, work environment

and job satisfaction, were common influences on both intentions to stay and leave.

While previous studies examining people management practices have analysed the

organisations’ espoused practices through examining their documentation suite, this

study extended the literature in this area by analysing the people management practices

that influenced employees’ intentions to stay and leave from an employee’s perspective.

In doing so, this study provided an improved understanding of the people management

factors that influence both intentions to stay and leave.

Beyond contributions to the RBV, this study was one of the first of its kind to examine

the factors that influenced both employees’ intentions to stay and leave within the

Australian aged care sector. In doing so, it contributed to the theoretical literature base,

by identifying that there are both similarities and differences in these factors.

Additionally, this study was one of the first to apply intentions to stay and leave models

to the context of Australian aged care, which has previously been neglected by

researchers in this area. As such, it was able to provide new knowledge to the sector that

revealed the different explanatory power that support, embeddedness and job

satisfaction play in the factors influencing employee retention and turnover. This was

identified through the finding that perceived organisational support, perceived

supervisor support, job embeddedness, and job satisfaction explained more variance in

employees’ intentions to leave than in their intentions to stay. Therefore, this study was

able to provide different insights into the behaviours of aged care employees in an

Australian context.

This study has also contributed to the debate in the literature regarding the influence that

generational differences have on the workplace. Specifically, it identified both

similarities and differences between generational cohorts; however, the generations

were influenced differently by the various factors, thereby suggesting that an

employee’s generation does have an impact. Additionally, the finding that Generation I

employees desired more extrinsic rewards than older generations extended the

knowledge in this area, as no previous research has been conducted on this generation to

date.

This study also extends the applicability of the constructs, perceived organisational

support and perceived supervisor support, to Australia. In particular, it extends the

applicability of these factors to all employees’ intentions to stay. That is, while previous

research had only established links between these constructs and supervisors’ intentions

265

to stay and leave, this study identified significant relationships between all employees’

perceived organisational and supervisor support and their intentions to stay and leave.

Additionally, this research contributes to and extends the knowledge examining the

influence that education levels have on employees’ intentions to stay and leave. While

previous research has identified a significant relationship between education level and

employees’ intentions to stay and leave, this study did not. Instead, the findings of this

study suggest that this relationship is actually more complex, and may be influenced by

the available options and compatible roles within a sector.

Finally, this study contributed to the job embeddedness literature by questioning the

applicability of off-the-job embeddedness in an Australian context. Combined, this

research has made important contributions to the management and health care literature

bases regarding retention and turnover of aged care workers. In addition to these

theoretical contributions, this study also makes important practical contributions to

research.

7.6.2 Practical contributions

This study makes several practical contributions to the aged care sector literature. First,

the finding that there are both similarities and differences in the factors influencing

employees’ intentions to stay and leave is important to human resource professionals

within the Australian aged care sector. In particular, practical implications of this study

include that to retain staff, an emphasis should be placed on building a strong culture of

support, leadership, career progression and recognition of the work that has been

completed in addition to focusing on improving pay conditions. While this is not new

information theoretically, within an aged care sector it reinforces the important role that

engaging and supporting employees and providing career opportunities plays in

retaining employees. This is important as the aged care sector operates within tight

funding arrangements which may limit the opportunity for increases in pay. Instead, this

research highlights that by improving the working conditions, aged care employees are

in a better position to retain employees.

Furthermore, the higher levels of perceived organisational and supervisor support

reported by employees working within a community care sector suggest that the

physical presence of supervision may not be needed in order for employees to feel

supported. For residential care, this finding suggests that to maximise employees’

intentions to stay, organisations need to monitor and rethink the current supervision

266

arrangements because employees in this sector reported a greater need for supervision

support. This may be aided by the provision of training to management in the softer

skills of management in order to ensure the right messages are passed on to employees,

and support is provided as needed. The results of this study also revealed the importance

of providing good support work environments through creating a supportive culture,

with supportive management and co-workers. Moreover, the need for clear succession

planning and career development opportunities was also highlighted in this study,

particularly for younger employees.

Finally, this study revealed that non-financial rewards such as long service leave were

particularly alluring for employees’ intentions to stay. This has significant practical

implications for organisations wanting to create innovative strategies for employee

retention, where a reward could be provided for retention. While at present, aged care

employees are provided a service reward and small gift in some organisations for their

length of service, the significance of these rewards was not identified by employees in

this study as important for their intentions to stay. Instead, the financial reward of long

service leave was identified as important, suggesting that there could be other, more

creative, financial rewards that could be provided to encourage retention in the aged

care section, such as an extra week holiday or the conversion of sick leave into

recreation leave in the instance where excessive sick leave has accrued. While some of

these incentives may not be possible within the current economic climate, other rewards

and benefits may be more realistic and aid employee retention in the workforce. These

include the provision of flexible work hours, the use of a company vehicle to use when

visiting clients, childcare and elder-care provisions, and discount travel and gym

memberships. Moreover, the implementation of a recognition program aimed at creating

a supportive culture within the workplace may improve retention within the aged care

sector. Upon considering these human resource management implications in

organisational strategies, organisations may increase employee retention and create a

more stable workforce, which may contribute to the ongoing sustainability of the

organisation and sector.

7.7 Future research

While this study has found significant similarities and differences between the factors

influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave, there were also key areas found to

need further research. First, because of the limitations in this sample in comparison to

the national census data, further research is needed into the influence that human capital

267

factors of age, tenure, kinship responsibilities, perceived health of self and family, and

marital status has on employees’ intentions to stay. Additionally, due to the small

sample size, this study could not investigate the differences between private and not-for-

profit organisations in order to examine whether organisational type moderated the role

of the various factors in influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Therefore,

future research examining the differences between organisation type and employees’

intentions to stay and leave is needed.

Also, the influence of organisational size could not be investigated in the present study

but should be examined in future research as the factors affecting employees’ intentions

to stay and leave a large organisation may be different from those affecting employees

who belong to a small or medium-sized organisation.

Further research is also needed to examine the influence that tenure has on employees’

intentions to stay and leave in future studies. In particular, this finding suggests that

those with longer tenures were more likely to leave, which was contrary to what was

expected. While this may reflect employees’ demands for career progression, this needs

further research as this study was one of the first of its kind to investigate the

relationship between tenure and intentions to stay and leave. The finding that younger

generations were more influenced by career oppportunities than other generations also

needs further research as this study was the first of its kind to examine Generation I


This study identified that community care workers perceived higher amounts of

organisational support and supervisor support than residential care workers. However,

the understanding of what support means to these employees is unknown. Therefore,

future research is needed to explore what support means to both residential and

community care employees in order to further understand how each sub-sector can

maximise the support provided, in order to influence employees’ intentions to stay in

the future.

Further, this study suggested that the relationship between education level and

employee intentions to stay and leave may be more complex than previously thought

and may be influenced by the available options and compatible roles within the sector.

However, as this study was limited to the aged care sector, these findings need to be

examined in future research using different sectors.

268

Future research investigating employees’ intentions to stay and leave should also be

conducted using a longitudinal design that does not rely exclusively on self-report

measures. This would allow for a deeper analysis of the factors influencing employees’


Finally, because this study found that off-the-job embeddedness factors did not

significantly influence employees’ intentions to stay or leave, future research is

recommended in the form of a comparative study using employees from the US and

Australia (and other countries) to investigate the applicability and generalisability of

this construct and to examine the global applications of the findings from this study.

7.8 Concluding statements

In conclusion, this study has made important contributions to the theoretical

understanding, academic literature and practitioner understanding of the retention and

turnover intentions of employees within the Australian aged care sector. In doing so, a

more advanced knowledge of the factors affecting employees’ intentions to stay and

leave has been gathered. While there are still gaps in the literature that require further

research, this study has identified some of the factors that contribute to employees’

intentions to stay and leave, and how they vary by employee characteristics. Such

factors contribute to aged care organisations being more able to ensure that someone is

always available to care for older people living in Australia in the future. In doing so,

this study has found that for this sample, employees’ intentions to stay and leave are not

two sides of the same coin. Instead, there are some differences and this new knowledge

enables organisations, policy-makers and researchers to enhance their policies and plan

strategies and procedures to optimise the Australian aged care workforce.

269


270

References

AbuAlRub, R. F. (2010). Work and non-work social support and intent to stay at work

among Jordanian hospital nurses. International Nursing Review, 57(2) 195–201.

Allen, D. G. (2006). "Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer

embeddedness and turnover?" Journal of Management, 32(2), 237–256.

Allen, D.G., Bryant, P.C., & Vardaman, J.M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing

misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management

Perspectives, 24(2), 48–64.

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) (2006) The 50+ Workforce: An

AARP Wyoming survey of businesses. Washington: AARP.

Anderson, M., & Hill, P.D. (2010). Job embeddedness and nurse retention. Nurse

Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 190–200.

Apostolidis, B., & Polifroni, E.C. (2006). Nurse work satisfaction and generational

differences. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 36(11), 506–509.

Arnold, E. (2005). Managing human resources to improve employee retention. The

Health Care Manager, 24(2), 132–140.

Aubé, C., Rousseau, V., & Morin. E. M. (2007). Perceived organisational support and

organisational commitment: The moderating effect of locus of control and work

autonomy. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(5), 479–495.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). Australian social trends. Retrieved 30/6/2011 at:

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/174FDA6313BDC7DECA2

56EB40003596E/$File/41020_2004.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Population projections, Australia, 2006– 2101.

Retrieved 10/6/2010 at: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3222.0

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/174FDA6313BDC7DECA256EB40003596E/$File/41020_2004.pdf

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/174FDA6313BDC7DECA256EB40003596E/$File/41020_2004.pdf

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3222.0

271

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009a). A picture of the nation: the statistician's report

on the 2006 Census. Retrieved 24/5/2011 at:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/2070.0

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009b). Retirement and retirement intentions,

Australia, 2007. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011a). Australian social trends: Life expectancy

trends – Australia. Retrieved 3/9/11 at:

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/LookupAttach/4102.0Publicat

ion23.03.112/$File/410 20_Lifeexpectancy_Mar2011.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011b). Retirement and retirement intentions,

Australia, July 2010 to June 2011 (Catalogue 6238.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau

of Statistics.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2007). Older Australia at a glance (4th

edition. Cat. no. AGE 52). Canberra: AIHW.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2008). Nursing and midwifery labour force

2005 (National health labour force services no. 39. Cat. No. HWL 40). Canberra:

AIHW.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (AIHW). (2010). Australia’s health series

12. (Cat no Aus 122.) Canberra: AIHW.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2011). Australia’s welfare 2011

(Australia’s welfare series no. 10. Cat. no. AUS 142). Canberra: AIHW.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2012). Australia’s health 2012. Australia’s

health series no.13 (Cat. no. AUS 156.). Canberra: AIHW.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012). Long-term aged care in

Australia 2010-2011: A statistical overview (Aged care statistics series no. 36. Cat.

no. AGE 68). Canberra: AIHW

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/2070.0

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/LookupAttach/4102.0Publication23.03.112/$File/410%2020_Lifeexpectancy_Mar2011.pdf

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/LookupAttach/4102.0Publication23.03.112/$File/410%2020_Lifeexpectancy_Mar2011.pdf

272

Baernhauldt, M., & Mark, B.A. (2009). The nurse work environment, job satisfaction

turnover rates in rural and urban nursing units. Journal of Nursing Management,

17(8), 994–1001.

Barney, J. (1991). Firms resources and sustained competeitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17 (1), 99-120.

Barney, J. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management

Executive, 9(4), 49–61.

Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year

retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650.

Barney, J.B., Wright, M., & Ketchen Jr., D.J. (2001). The resource-based view of the

firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625–641.

Baruch. Y., & Holtom. B. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in

organisational research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160.

Bechtal, R. (2007). Calculating human capital: The market-based valuation of human

resources. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 21(3), 206–231.

Bishop, C. E., Weinberg, D. B., Leutz, W., Dossa. A., Pfeffere, S. G., & Zincavage R.

M. (2008). Nursing assistants’ job commitment: Effect of nursing home

organisational factors and impact on resident wellbeing. The Gerontologist, 4

(suppl 1), 36–45.

Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bowling Green State University (2011). Job descriptive index. Retrieved 8/8/11 at:

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/psych/io/jdi/index.html

Boxall, P., Macky, K., & Rasmussen, E. (2003). Labour turnover and retention in New

Zealand: The causes and consequences of leaving and staying with Employers. Asia

Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 41(2), 196–214.

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/psych/io/jdi/index.html

273

Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. (2007). The Oxford handbook of human resource

management. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bradley, G. L. (2007). Job tenure as a moderator of stressor-strain relations: A

comparison of experienced and new-start teachers, Work and Stress, 21(1), 48–64.

Brannon, D., Barry, T., Kemper, P., Schreiner, A., & Vasey, J. (2007). Job perceptions

and intent to leave among direct care workers: Evidence from the Better Jobs Better

Care demonstrations. The Gerontologist. 47(6), 820–829.

Brunnetto, Y., Far-Wharton, R., Shacklock, K.H & Robson, F. (2012). Supervisor

relationships, teamwork, role ambiguity and discretionary power: Nurses in

Australia and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Public Administration,

35(8), 532– 543.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University

Press.

Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K (2001). Qualitative marketing

research: Philosophy of research. Retrieved 20/8/11 at:

http://srmo.sagepub.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/view/qualitative- marketing-

research-carson/n1.xml?rskey=ARxYeJ&row=6

Carter, P., & Butler, D. (2008). Women’s work: The workplace and the space between,

the Industrial Geographer, 5(2), 3–18.

Carver. L., Candela. L., & Gutierrez. A.P. (2011). Survey of generational aspects of

nurse faculty organisational commitment. Nurse Outlook, 59(3), 137–148.

Cascio, W. F. (2006). The economic impact of employee behaviours on organisational

performance. California Management Review, 48(4), 41–60.

Castle, N. G., Engberg, J., Anderson, R., & Men, A. (2007). Job satisfaction of nurse

aides in nursing homes: Intent to leave and turnover. The Gerontologist, 47(2), 193–

274

204.

Chan, E-Y., & Morrison, P. (2008). Factors influencing the retention and turnover

intentions of registered nurses in a Singapore hospital. Nursing and Health Sciences,

2(2), 113–121.

Chen P & Choi Y (2008) Generational differences in work values: a study of hospitality

management, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20 (6) pp

595-615.

Cheng, E. W. L. (2001). SEM being more effective than multiple regression in

parsimonious model testing for management development research. Journal of

Management Development. 20(7), 650–667.

Cheung, J. (2004). The decision process of leaving nursing. Australian Health Review,

28(3), 340–348.

Cho, S., Johanson, M. M., & Guchait, P. (2009). Employees intent to leave: A

comparison of intent to leave versus intent to stay. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 28(3), 374–381.

Clinton, M., Knight, T.. and Guest, D. (2012). Job embeddedness: A new attitudinal

measure. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(1), 111–117.

Cohen, J.D. (2006). The aging nursing workforce: How to retain experienced nurses.

Journal of Healthcare Management, 51(4), 233–245.

Conrad, K. J., Conrad, K. M., & Parker, J. E (1985). Job satisfaction among

occupational health nurses. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 2(3), 161–173.

Coomber, B. & Barriball, L.K. (2007). Impact of job satisfaction components on intent

to leave and turnover for hospital-based nurses: A review of the research literature.

International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(2), 297–314.

275

Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research: Theory, methods and techniques. London: Sage

Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review

with implications for research. The Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 55– 70.

Coyle-Shapiro, J & Kessler, I (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract for

the employment relationship: A large scale survey. Journal of Management Studies,

37(7), 903-930.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007). Development of a

global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of

voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4) 1031-1042.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in

the research process. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Dawley, D., Houghton, J.D., & Bucklew, N.S. (2010). Perceived organisational

support and turnover intentions: The mediating effects of personal sacrifice and

job fit. Journal of Social Psychology, 150(3), 238–257.

DeConinck, J., & Johnson, J. (2009). The effects of perceived supervisor support,

perceived organizational support, and organizational justice on turnover among

salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 29(4), 333–351.

Dekker, I., & Barling, J. (1995). Workforce size and work-related role stress. Work and

Stress, 9, 45–54

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). The handbook of qualitative research (2nd

edn). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Department of Health and Ageing. (2004). Best practice approaches to minimise

functional decline in the older person across the acute, subacute and long term aged

276

care settings. Clinical Epidemiology and Health Service Evaluation Unit.

Melbourne. Retrieved 18/5/2010 at

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/acute- agedcare/functional-decline-manual.pdf

Department of Health and Ageing. (2010). A national health hospitals network: Further

investment in Australia health. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing.

Department of Health and Ageing (2011a). Help to stay at home - community care.

Retrieved 6/6/2011 at:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-commcare-

index.htm-copy3

Department of Health and Ageing (2011b). Home based care. Retrieved 6/6/11 at:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-commcare-

comcprov-eachdex.htm

Dess, G.D., & Shaw, J.D. (2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organisational

performance. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 446–56.

Dick, R.V., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C.,

Hauptmeiear, M., Hohfield, C., Moltzen, K., & Tissington, P.A (2004) Should I

Stay or Should I Go? Explaining Turnover Intentions with Organizational

Identification and Job Satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15 (4), 351-360

Dockery, A. M. (2004). Workforce experience and retention in nursing in Australia.

Australian Bulletin of Labour, 30(2), 74–101.

Dunford, B.B., Snell, S. A., & Wright, P. M. (2001). Human resources and the

resource based view of the firm. CAHRS Working Paper Series. Retrieved 18/8/11

at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/66/

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D., & Rhoades, L. (2001).

Reciprocation of perceived organisational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,

1, 42 –51.

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/acute-%20%20%20agedcare/functional-decline-manual.pdf

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-commcare-index.htm-copy3

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-commcare-index.htm-copy3

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-commcare-comcprov-eachdex.htm

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-commcare-comcprov-eachdex.htm

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/66/

277

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997) Perceived

organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812–820.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived

organisational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L., & Rhoades, L.

(2002) Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organisational

support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573.

Eisenberger, R. (2011). Perceived organisational support instrument, Retrieved 14 09

http://www.psychology.uh.edu/pos/default.asp

Ellet, A. J., Ellis, J. I., Westbrook, T. M., & Dews, D. (2007). A qualitative study of 369

child welfare professionals' perspectives about factors contributing to employee

retention and turnover. Children and Youth Services Review, 29 (2), 264-281.

Eley, R., Buikstra, E., Plank, A., Hegney, D., & Parker, V. (2007). Tenure, mobility

and retention of nurses in Queensland, Australia: 2001 and 2004. Journal of

Nursing Management, 15(3), 285–293.

Estryn-Behar, M., Van der Heijden, B., Oginska, H., Camerino, D., Le Nezet, O.,

Conway, P.M., Fry, C., Hasselhorn, H.-M., & The NEXT Study Group. (2007). The

impact of social work environment, teamwork characteristics, burnout, and

personal factors upon intent to leave among European nurses. Medical Care, 45

(10), 939–950.

Fahy, J. (2000). The resource-based view of the firm: Some stumbling blocks on the

road to understanding sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of European

Industrial Training, 24(2/3/4), 94–104.

Gambino, K.M. (2010). Motivation for entry, occupational commitment and intent to

http://www.psychology.uh.edu/pos/default.asp

http://www.sciencedirect.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/science/journal/01907409

278

remain: A survey regarding Registered Nurse retention. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 66(11), 2532–2541.

Goldman, K.D., & Schmaltz, K.J. (2006). Builders, boomers, busters, bridgers: Vive la

(generational) difference. Health Promotion Practice 7(2) pp 159–161.

Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (2004). Research methods: A process of inquiry.

Boston: Pearson Publishing..

Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?

Multivariate Behavoural Research, 26, 499-510.

Gruenberg, M. (1980). The happy worker: An analysis of educational and

occupational differences in determinants of job satisfaction. American Journal of

Sociology, 86(2), 247– 271.

Hall, L. M., & Buch, E. (2009). Skill mix decision making for nursing. Retrieved

5/8/2011 at:

http://www.ichrn.com/publications/policyresearch/Skill_Mix_EN_web.pdf

Hartel, C.J., & Fujimoto, Y. (2010). Human resource management (2nd ed). Sydney:

Pearson.

Hair, Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).

Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice

Hall.

Health Workforce Australia (2012A): Patterns and determinants of medical and

nursing workforce exits– final report. Retrieved 23 April 2012 at:

http://www.hwa.gov.au/sites/uploads/20120328_patterns_determinants_medical_nur

sing_exit_rates.pdf

Health Workforce Australia (2012B): Health Workforce 2025 – Doctors, Nurses and

Midwives – Volume 1. Retrieved 25 April 2012 at:


http://www.hwa.gov.au/sites/uploads/20120328_patterns_determinants_medical_nursing_exit_rates.pdf

http://www.hwa.gov.au/sites/uploads/20120328_patterns_determinants_medical_nursing_exit_rates.pdf

279

https://www.hwa.gov.au/sites/uploads/FinalReport_Volume1_FINAL-20120424.pdf

Herzberg, F., & Mausner, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed). New York:

Wiley.

Hill, K. S. (2011). Work satisfaction, intent to stay, desires of nurses, and financial

knowledge among bedside and advanced practice nurses. The Journal of Nursing

Administration, 41(5), 211–217.

Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R. & Lee, T. W. (2006). Increasing human and social

capital by applying job embeddedness theory. Organisational Dynamics, 35(4),

316 - 331.

Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008). Turnover and

retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture

into the future. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 231-274.

Holtom, B.C., & O’Niell, B.S. (2004). Job embeddedness: A theoretical foundation for

developing a comprehensive nurse retention program. Journal of Nursing

Administration, 34(5), 216–227.

Holtom, B.C., Tidd, S.T., & Mitchell, T.R. (2006). Less is more: Validation of a short

form of the job embeddedness measurement and theoretical extensions. Paper

presented at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management. Atlanta,

August.

Hom, P., & Griffeth, R. (1991). A structural equations modelling test of a turnover

theory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76

(3), 350–366.

Howe, A. L., King, D. S., Ellis, J.M., Wells, Y. D., Wei, Z., & Teshuva, K. A. (2012).

Stabalising the aged care workforce: An analysis of worker retention and intention.

Australian Health Review, 36(1), 83–91.

https://www.hwa.gov.au/sites/uploads/FinalReport_Volume1_FINAL-20120424.pdf

280

Howes, C. (2008). Love, money or flexibility: What motivates people to work in

consumer-direct home care? The Gerontologist, 48(1), 46–59.

Human Services. (2000). Sub-acute facilities and specialist clinics generic brief.

Retrieved 17/5/2010 at:

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/agedcare/publications/genericbriefs/gen-subacute.pdf

International Centre for Human Resources in Nursing (ICHRN) (2009). Skill mix

decision-making in nursing. Retrieved 4-6-11 at:


International

International Centre for Human Resources in Nursing (ICHRN) (2010). The impact of

turnover and the benefit of stability in the nursing workforce. Retrieved 4-6-11 at:

http://www.ichrn.com/publications/policyresearch/Turnover_EN.pdf

Jiang, K., Liu, D., McKay, P., Lee, T. & Mitchell, T. (2012). When and how is job

embeddedness predictive of turnover? A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 97(5), 1077–1096.

Johlke, M.C., Stamper, C.L., & Shoemaker, M.E. (2002). Antecedents to boundary-

spanner perceived organisational support. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17

(2), 116–128.

Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2000). Understanding management research: Positivist

Epistemology, the search for foundations. Sage Research Methods online.

Retrieved 18.8.2011 at

http://srmo.sagepub.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/view/understanding-

management- research/n2.xml?rskey=hybjDY&row=0

Johnson, R. W. and Favreault, M. M. (2001). Retiring together or retiring alone.

Chestnut Hill, MA: Centre for Retirement Research at Boston College.

Jones, C. B. & Gates, M. (2007). The cost and benefits of nurse turnover: A business

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/agedcare/publications/genericbriefs/gen-subacute.pdf


http://www.ichrn.com/publications/policyresearch/Turnover_EN.pdf

281

case for nurse retention. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 12(3).

Kash, B.A., Naufal, G. S., Cortes, L., & Johnson, C. E. (2010). Exploring factors

associated with turnover among registered nurses (RN) supervisors in nursing

homes. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 29(1), 107–127.

Kay, J. (1993). The structure of strategy. Business Strategy Review, 4, 17–37.

Kim, K., & Jogaratnam, G. (2010). Effects of individual and organisational factors on

job satisfaction and intent to stay in the hotel and restaurant industry. Journal of

Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 9(3), 318–319.

Kim, S-W., Price, J L., Mueller, C W., & Watson, T W. (1996). The determinants of

career intent among physicians at a U.S. Air Force hospital. Human Relations, 49

(7) 947–976.

Kim, S., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Working in retirement: The antecedents of bridge

employment and its consequences for quality of life in retirement. Academy of

Management Journal, 43(6), 1195–1210.

King, D., Mavromaras, K., Wei, Z., He, B., Healy, J., Macaitis, K., Moskos, M. &

Smith, L. (2012). The Aged Care Workforce, 2012. Canberra: Australian

Government Department of Health and Ageing.

King, D., Wei, Z., Howe, A. (2013). Work satisfaction and intention to leave among

direct care workers in community and residential aged care in Australia,

Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 25(4), 301–319.

Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P. (2002).

Assessing the Construct Validity of the Job Descriptive Index: A review and

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 14–32.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling (3rd

ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

282

Kottkey, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and

organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(4),

1075–1079.

Kristandl, G., & Bontis, N. (2007). Constructing a definition for intangibles using the

resource based view of the firm. Management Decision, 45(9) 1510-1524.

Kuhlen, R.G. (1963). Needs, perceived need satisfaction opportunities, and

satisfaction with occupation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7(1), 56–64.

Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Michielson, M., & Moeyaert, B. (2009). Employee retention:

Organisational and personal perspectives. Vocations and Learning, 2(3), 195–215.

Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2009). The importance of job satisfaction and

organisational commitment in shaping turnover intent: A test of a causal model.

Criminal Justice Review, 34(1), 96–18.

Larrabeen, J.H., Wu, Y., Persily, C.A., Simoni, P.S., Johnston, P.A., Marcischak,

T.L., Mott, C. L., & Gladden, S.D. (2010). Influence of stress resiliency on RN

job satisfaction and intent to stay. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 32(1),

81–102.

Lavoie-Tremblay, M., O’Brien-Pallas, L., Ge’linas, C., Desforges, N., & Marchionni,

C. (2008). Addressing the turnover issue among new nurse from a generational

Viewpoint. Journal of Nursing Management, 16(6), 724–733.

Leana, C. & Rousseau, D. M. (2000). Relational wealth: Advantages of stability in a

changing economy. New York: Oxford.

Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C. J., Burton, J. P., & Holtom, B. C. (2004).

The effects of job embeddedness on organisational citizenship, job performance,

volitional absences and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal,

283

47(5), 711–722.

Letvak, S., & Buck, R. (2008). Factors influencing work productivity and intention to

stay in nursing. Nursing Economic, 26(3), 159–165.

LeVasseur, S.A., Wang, C., Mathews, B., & Boland, M. (2009). Generational

differences in registered nurse turnover. Policy Politics Nursing Practice, 10(3),

212–223.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers.

New York: Harper & Row

Lu, H., While, A E., & Barriball L K (2005) Job satisfaction among nurses: A

literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42(2), 211–227.

Lune, H., Pumar, E. S., & Koppel, R. (2010). Perspectives in social research methods

and analysis: A reader for sociology. Los Angeles: Sage Publications..

Mallette, C. (2011). Nurses’ work patterns: Perceived organisational support and

psychological contracts. Journal of Research in Nursing, 16 (6), 518–532.

Mallol, C., Holtom, B. & Lee, T.W. (2007). Job embeddedness in a culturally diverse

Environment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(1), 35–44.

March, K. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organisations. New York: Wiley Publications.

Martin, C.A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: What managers need

to know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37 (1), 39-44.

Martin, B., & King, D. (2008). A picture of the residential and community based aged

care workforce, 2007. Retrieved 10/4/2009 at

http://nils.flinders.edu.au/assets/publications/NILS_Aged_Care_Final.pdf

Maslow, A. H. (1954). The instinctoid nature of basic needs. Journal of Personality,

22(3), 326–347.

McCarthy, G., Tyrrell, M. P., & Lehane, E. (2007). Intention to ‘leave’ or ‘stay’ in

http://nils.flinders.edu.au/assets/publications/NILS_Aged_Care_Final.pdf

284

nursing. Journal of Nursing Management, 15(3), 248–255.

Metcalf, W. (2005). Triangulation matrix within notes for 'Choosing a Research

Methodology' workshop, Griffith Graduate Research School, Griffith University,

Gold Coast, September 8, 2011

McKnight, P.E., McKnight, K.M., Sidani,S., & Figueredo, A.J (2007). Missing data:

A gentle introduction. New York: The Guilford Press.

Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource based view of the firm in two

environments: the Hollywood studios from 1936-1965. Academy of Management

Journal, 39(3), 519–543.

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why

people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. The Academy

of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102–1121.

Mittal, V., Rosen, J. & Leana C. (2009). A dual-driver model of retention and

turnover in the direct care workforce. The Gerontologist, 49(5), 623–634.

Morrell, K., Loan-Clarke, J., Arnold, J. & Wilkinson, A. (2008). Mapping the

decision to quit: A refinement and test of the unfolding model of voluntary

turnover. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(1), 128–150.

Moyle, W., Skinner, J., Rowe, G., & Gork, C (2003). Views of job satisfaction and

dissatisfaction in Australian long-term care. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12

(2), 168–176.

Namey, E., Guest,G., Thairo, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data Reduction Techniques

for Large Qualitative Data Sets. Chapter 7, in Guest G & MacQueen K M (2008)

Handbook for team based qualitative research. Portland: Book news Inc.

National Seniors Australia (2011). Response to the Productivity Commission

Draft Report - Caring for Older Australians. Retrieved 15/9/12 at:

285

http://nationalseniors.com.au/sites/default/files/110301-NationalSeniors-Caring-for-

Older-Australians-Submission.pdf

Needleman, J., Buerhaus, P., Mattke, S., Steward, M., & Zelevinsky, K. (2002).

Nurse-staffing levels and the quality of care in hospitals. New England Journal of

Medicine, 346(22), 1715–1722.

Neher, A. (1991). Maslow's theory of motivation: A critique. Journal of Humanistic

Psychology, 31(3), 89–112.

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative methods

(6th ed). Boston; Pearson.

Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (7th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Newman, A., Thanacoody, R., & Hui, W. (2012). The effects of perceived

organisational support, perceived supervisor support and intra-organisational

network resources on turnover intentions: A study of Chinese employees in

multinational enterprises. Personnel Review, 41(1), 56–72.

O’Donnell, J., & Hudson, C. (2011). Practitioner introduction healthcare reform:

Government pronouncements or managers engaging staff? Asia Pacific Journal of

Human Resources, 49(2), 138–142.

O'Loughlin, K., Humpel, N., & Kendig, H. (2010). Impact of the global financial crisis

on employed Australian baby boomers: A national survey. Australasian Journal on

Ageing, 29 (2), 88-91.

Paille, P. (2009). The relationship between support, commitment and intent to leave

team: A social exchange perspective. Team Performance Management, 15(1/2),

49-62.

Pannaccio, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2009). Perceived organisational support,

http://nationalseniors.com.au/sites/default/files/110301-NationalSeniors-Caring-for-Older-Australians-Submission.pdf

http://nationalseniors.com.au/sites/default/files/110301-NationalSeniors-Caring-for-Older-Australians-Submission.pdf

286

organisational commitment and psychological wellbeing: A longitudinal study.

Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 75(2), 224–236.

Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of

theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Review. 13 (1) 79–96.

Patrickson, M., & Ranzijn, R. (2004). Bounded choices in work and retirement in

Australia. Employee Relations, 26(4), 422–432.

Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: John Wiley

Pentaraf, M.A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource based

view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

Peltokorpi, V (2013). Job embeddedness in Japanese organisations. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 24 (8) 1551-1569.

Piper, L.D. (2008). The generation Y workforce in healthcare: The new challenge for

leadership, Health Care Manager 27 (2) 98-103.

Pocock, B., & Skinner, N. (2012). Adding insult to injury: How work life pressures

affect the participation of low-paid works in vocational education and training.

Australian Bulletin of Labour, 38(1), 48–67.

Price, J. L. (2001). Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International

Journal of Manpower, 22(7), 600–624.

Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). A causal model for turnover for nurses. Academy

of Management Journal, 24(3), 543–565.

Productivity Commission. (2005). Trends in aged care services: Some implications.

Productivity Research Report. Canberra. Retrieved on 13/2/2009 at:

http://www.pc.gov.au/research/commissionresearch/agedcare-trends

Productivity Commission. (2008). Trends in aged care services: Some implications.

Commission Research Paper, Canberra.

287

Productivity Commission. (2011). Care for older Australians. Canberra: Productivity

Commission Research Paper, Canberra.

Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative

approaches. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Mohanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, business processes

and competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests the

resource based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23–27.

Reitz, O. E., Anderson, M.A., & Hill, K. S. (2010). Job embeddedness and nurse

retention. Nursing Administration Quarterly. 34(3), 190–200.

Reitz, O. E., & Anderson, M.A. (2011). An overview of job embeddedness. Journal

of Professional Nursing, 27(5), 320–327.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organisational support: A review

of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.

Riggle, R.J., Edmondson, D.R., & Hansen, J.D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the

relationship between perceived organisational support and front-line employee

job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 1027–

1030.

Roberson, M.T., & Sundstrom, E. (1990). Questionnaire design, return rates, and

response favourableness in an employee attitude questionnaire. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 75(3), 354-357

Robbins, S., Judge, T.A., Millet, B., & Boyle, M (2011). Organisational behaviour (6th

edition). Sydney: Pearson..

Robinson, R.N. S., Kralj, A., Solnet, D.J., Goh, E., & Callan, V (2014) Thinking job

embeddedness not turnover: Towards a better understanding of frontline hotel

worker retention. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36 (2014), 101-

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S875572231100041X

288

109

Rodwell, J., & Martin, A (2013). The importance of the supervisor for the mental

health and work attitudes of Australian aged care nurses. International

Psychogeriatrics, 25(3), 382–389.

Rosen, J., Stiehl, E.M., Mittal, V. & Leana, C.R. (2011). Stayers, leavers, switchers

among certified nursing assistants in nursing homes: A longitudinal investigation

of turnover intent, staff retention and turnover. The Gerontologist, 51(5), 597–606.

Rousseau, D.M., & Shperling, Z. (2003). Pieces of the action: Ownership and the

changing employment relationship. Academy of Management Review, 12(4),

115–134.

Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2002). Edith Penrose’s contribution to the resource

based view of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 769–

780.

Russell, S. S., Spitzmüller, C., Lin, L F., Stanton, J M., Smith P. C. & Ironson, G. H.

(2004). Shorter can also be better: The abridged job in general scale. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 64(5), 878–893.

Saqib, S., & Rashid, S. (2013). Resource based view of the firm: The nature of

resources required for competitive advantage. International Journal of

Management & Organisational Studies, 2(1), 92–95.

Schofield, D. J. (2007). Replacing the projected retiring baby boomer nursing cohort

2001-2026. BMC Health Services Research, 7, 87–93.

Schofield, D. J., & Beard, J. R. (2005). Baby boomer doctors and nurses:

demographic change and transitions to retirement. Medical Journal of Australia,

183, 80–83.

Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation

289

modelling (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Psychology Press.

Segal, L., & Bolton, T. (2009). Issues facing the future health care workforce: the

importance of demand modelling. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 6,

12–20.

Sellgreen, S., Ekvell, G., & Tomson, G. (2007). Nursing staff turnover: Does

leadership matter? Leadership in Health Services, 20(3), 169–183.

Shacklock, K.H. (2006). Extended working lives? The meaning of working to older

university workers in Australia. International Journal of Human Resources

Development and Management, 6(2-4), 161–173.

Shacklock, K. H. (2008). Shall I stay? The meaning of working to older workers:

Whether and why older Australian workers might want to continue working. Why

do some want to continue and others not? Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.

Shacklock, K.H., & Brunetto, Y. (2011). A model of older workers' intentions to

continue working. Personnel Review, 40(2), 252–274.

Shacklock, K.H., Brunetto, Y., & Nelson R. (2007). The intention of Australian older

workers to continue paid work: The impact of marital differences, paper presented

to the 21st Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM)

Conference. Sydney, NSW, 4-7 December

Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported:

Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived

organisational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3),

689–695.

Shaw, S. & Fairhurst, D. (2008). Engaging a new generation of graduates. Education

and Training 50 (5) pp 366–378.

http://search.proquest.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Personnel+Review/$N/47588?accountid=14543

290

Shen, J., Cox. A., & McBride, A. (2004). Factors influencing turnover and retention

of midwives and consultants: A literature review. Health Services Management

Research, 17(4), 249.

Skinner, N., Van Dijk, P., Elton, J., & Auer, J. (2011). An in-depth study of

Australian nurses’ and midwives’ work-life interaction. Journal of Human

Resources, 49(2), 213–232.

Smola, K.W., & Sutton, C.D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting

generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organisational

Behaviour, 23(4), 363–382.

Sommers, R., & Sommers, B. (2002). A practical guide to behavioural research:

Tools and techniques. New York: Oxford University Press.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause and

consequences. California: Sage Publications.

Steel, R. P. & Lounsbury, J. W. (2009). Turnover process models: Review and

synthesis of a conceptual literature. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4),

271–282.

Stewart, N.J., D’Arcy, C., Kosteniuk, J., Andrews, M.E., Morgan, D., Forbes, D.,

MacLeod, M.L.P., Kulig, J.C., & Pitblado, J.R. (2011). Moving on? Predictors of

intent to leave among rural and remote RNs in Canada. Journal of Rural Health,

27(1), 103–113

Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1992). Generations: the history of America’s future, 1584 to

2069, Quill Publishing: New York.

Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and

291

behavioural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teng, C, Hsiao, F., & Chou, T. (2010). Nurse perceived time pressure and patient

perceived quality of care. Journal of Nursing Management, 17(3), 275–284.

Thomson, S. B. (2011). Qualitative Research: Validity. Journal of Administration and

Governance, 6 (1) 77-82.

Thornthwaite, L. (2004). Working time and work-family balance: A review of

employees’ preferences. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42(2), 166–

184.

Tresize-Brown M (2004) Employing younger workers: How well are we managing

them? Retrieved 10/4/2009 at: http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/young_workers.pdf

Turrell, G., Stanley, L., de Looper, M., & Oldenberg, B. (2006). Health inequalities in

Australia: Morbidity, health behaviors, risk factors and health service use.

Health inequalities monitoring series no 2. AIHW cat PHE 72. Canberra.

Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S.M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance,C. E. (2010). Generational

differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and

intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36 (5) 1117-1142.

University of Melbourne, Applied Psychology Research Group. (1990). Teachers stress

in Victoria: A survey of teachers’ views. The report. Melbourne: Education Shop,

Victorian Ministry of Education

Veal, A. J. (2011). Research methods for leisure and tourism. UK: Prentice Hall.

Walters, G., & Raybould, M. (2007). Burnout and perceived organisational support

among front-line hospitality employees. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism

Management, 114(2), 144–156.

Wernefelt, B. (1984). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strategic

Management Journal, 16(3), 171–174.

Weston, M. (2006). Integrating generational perspectives in nursing, Online Journal of

http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/young_workers.pdf

292

Issues in Nursing, 11 (2) Manuscript 1.

Wheatley, D. (2013). Location, vocation, location? Spatial entrapment among women

in dual career household. Gender, Work & Organisation, 20(6), 720–736.

Wickramasinghe, D., & Wickramasinghe, V. (2011). Perceived organisational

support, job involvement and turnover intention in lean production in Sri Lanka.

International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 55(5-8), 817–830.

Wiener, J. M., Squillace, M. R., Anderson, W. L., & Khatutsky, G. (2005). Why do

they stay? Job tenure among certified nursing assistants in nursing homes. The

Gerontologist, 49(2), 198–210.

Wilson, B., Squires, M., Widger, K., Cranley, L. & Tourangeau, A. (2008). Job

satisfaction among a multigenerational nursing workforce, Journal of Nursing

Management, 16(6), 716–723.

Wolf, M. G. (1970). Need gratification theory: A theoretical reformulation of job

satisfaction/dissatisfaction and job motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54

(1), 87–94.

Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational differences in

personality and motivation: Do they exist and what are the implications for the

workforce? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 878–890.

Wright, P., & Boswell, W. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of

micro and macro human resource management research. Center for Advanced

Human Resource Studies, Working Paper Series, Working Paper 020–11.

Zhang, M, Fried, D. D., Griffeth, R. W. (2012). A review of job embeddedness:

Conceptual, measurement issues, and directions for future research. Human

Resource Management Review, 22(3), 220–231.

293

294

Appendix A: Questionnaire used in the Expert panel review

study

295

Two sides of the same coin? Employees’ intentions to stay and leave

(Griffith University Logo)

Can you please complete my questionnaire and answer these questions

How long did it take you to complete the questionnaire? (Approx) ____________

Were there any spelling mistakes?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Were any questions difficult to follow?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Did it logically flow? Do you have any suggestions for improvement?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Were there any other errors that you found?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

How easy was the questionnaire to fill out (e.g. were the instructions clear)?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

What are your thoughts on the likelihood that people will complete and return the

questionnaire?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

296

Demographics

What is your position?

What is your age range?

What is your gender?

What is the highest education level you have obtained?

What is your marital status?

Do you have any primary caregiver responsibilities?

If yes, please describe these? ____________________________________________________

Yes No

Single or in a relationship but not living together

Married / De facto

Grade 10

Grade 12 TAFE

certificate III

TAFE diploma Bachelor degree Masters/Grad Cert degree Direct

Other (please list):________________________________________________________

Male Female

<16 years 17-26 years 27-37 years 38-46 years

47-56 years 57-65 years 66 years +

RN EEN/EN PCW / AIN Care Manager

DON Other: (Please specify) ___________________________________

TAFE

certificate IV

297

Please rate how you perceive your health and the health of your family in the boxes below

by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your perception.

Listed below are statements that ask about how well you perceive you fit into your

community and organisation. Please indicate on the scale below how well you agree or

disagree with the following statements by placing a tick (√) in the column that best

represents your view about the statement.

The next section asks about your links with your community and organisation. Please

place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view about the question or

statement provided or write your answer in the space provided.

Question or Statement Yes No N/A

Are you currently married?

If you are married, does your spouse work outside the home?

Do you own the home you live in (either mortgaged or outright)?

My family roots are in the community where I live

Very

Poor

Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent

How would you rate your overall

health?

How would you rate the overall

health of your family?

Item Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

I really love the place where I live

I like the family-oriented environment

of my community

This community I live in is a good

match for me

I think of the community where I live as

home

The area where I live offers the leisure

activities that I like (e.g. sports,

outdoors, cultural, arts).

My job utilizes my skills and talents

well

I feel like I am a good match for this

organisation

I feel personally valued by my

organisation

I like my work schedule (e.g. flextime,

shift)

I fit with this organisation’s culture

I like the authority and responsibility I

have at this company

298

How long have you been in your present position? _______ Years ____ Months

How long have you worked for this organisation? ________ Years ____ Months

How long have you worked in the aged care industry? ______ Years ____ Months

How many co-workers do you interact with regularly? __________

How many co-workers are highly dependent on you? ________

How many work teams are you on? _________

How many work committees are you on? ________

The next section asks about the impact you would feel within your community and

organisation if you left them. Please indicate on the scale below how well you agree or

disagree with the following statements by placing a tick (√) in the column that best

represents your view about the statement.

Item Strongly

disagree


Agree

Leaving this community would be very

hard

People respect me a lot in my

community

My neighbourhood is safe

I have a lot of freedom on this job to

decide how to pursue my goals

The perks on this job are outstanding

I feel that people at work respect me a

great deal

I would incur very few costs if I left this

organisation

I would sacrifice a lot if I left this job

My promotion opportunities are

excellent here

I am well compensated for my level of

performance

The benefits are good on this job

I believe the prospects for continuing

employment with this company are

excellent

299

Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about working

at your organisation. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each

statement by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view.

Statements Strongly

Disagree

Moderately

disagree

Slightly

disagree

Neither

agree

nor

disagree

Slightly

agree

Moderately

Agree

Strongly

agree

My organisation values my

contribution to its wellbeing

If my organisation could hire

someone to replace me at a

lower salary it would do so (R)

My organisation fails to

appreciate any extra effort

from me (R)

My organisation strongly

considers my goals and values

My organisation would ignore

any complaint from me (R)

My organisation disregards my

best interests when it makes

decisions that affect me (R)

Help is available from my

organisation when I have a

problem

My organisation really cares

about my well-being

My organisation is willing to

help me when I need a special

favour

My organisation cares about

my general satisfaction at work

If given the opportunity my

organisation would take

advantage of me (R)

My organisation shows very

little concern for me (R)

My organisation cares about

my opinions

My organisation takes pride in

my accomplishments at work

My organisation tries to make

my job as interesting as

possible

300

Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about working

at your supervisor. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each

statement by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view about your

supervisor.

Statements Strongly

Disagree

Moderately

disagree

Slightly

disagree

Neither

agree

nor

disagree

Slightly

agree

Moderately

Agree

Strongly

agree

My Supervisor values my


If my supervisor could hire


lower salary she/he would do

so (R)

My supervisor fails to

appreciate any extra effort

from me(R)

My supervisor strongly


My supervisor would ignore

any complaint from me (R)

My supervisor disregards my

best interests when she/he

makes decisions that affect me

(R)


supervisor when I have a

problem

My supervisor really cares

about my well-being

My supervisor is willing to


favour

My supervisor cares about my

general satisfaction at work


supervisor would take

advantage of me (R)

My supervisor shows very

little concern for me (R)

My supervisor cares about my

opinions

My supervisor takes pride in


My supervisor tries to make

my job as interesting as

possible

301

The following items ask about your satisfaction with various elements of your job, please

read the instructions carefully.

Work on Present Job

Think of the work you do at present. How well

does each of the following words or phrases

describe your work? In the blank beside each

word or phrase below, write

Y for “Yes” if it describes your work

N for “No” if it does not describe your work

? for “?” if you cannot decide

___ Fascinating

___ Satisfying

___ Good

___ Exciting

___ Rewarding

___ Uninteresting

Opportunities for promotion

Think of the opportunities for promotion you

have now. How well does each of the

following words or phrases describe your

work? In the blank beside each word or phrase

below, write




___ Good opportunities for promotion

___ Opportunities somewhat limited

___ Dead-end job

___ Good chance for promotion

___ Fairly good chance for promotion

___ Regular promotion

Pay

Think of the pay you get now. How well does

each of the following words or phrases

describe your work? In the blank beside each

word or phrase below, write




___ Barely live on income

___ Bad

___ Well Paid

___ Underpaid

___ Enough to live on

___ Comfortable

Supervision




work? In the blank beside each word or phrase

below, write




___ Praises good work

___ Tactful

___ Influential

___ Up to date

___ Annoying

___ Knows their job well

302

People on your present job

Think of the majority of people with whom

you work or meet in connection with your

work. How well does each of the following

words or phrases describe your work? In the

blank beside each word or phrase below, write




___ Boring

___ Slow

___ Responsible

___ Smart

___ Lazy

___ Frustrating

The job in general

Think of your job in general. All in all, what

is it like most of the time? How well does each

of the following words or phrases describe

your work? In the blank beside each word or

phrase below, write




___ Good

___ Undesirable

___ better than most

___ Disagreeable

___ Makes me content

___Excellent

___ Enjoyable

___Poor

303

Intent to Stay

Please place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view on the following

statements.

Intention to Leave

Please place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view on the following

statements.

Item Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neither

agree

nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

I plan to leave the

organisation as soon as

possible

Under no circumstances

will I voluntarily leave

the organisation

I would be reluctant to

leave the organisation

I plan to stay at the

organisation for as long

as possible

Item Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neither

agree

nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

I will likely look for

another job in the next

twelve months

I will likely look for

another job in the next

five years

304

Open Questions


months?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________


years?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

3) What factors influence your intentions to leave your organisation within the next 12

months

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

4) What factors influence your intentions to leave your organisation within the next 5

years?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your participation in this research.

305


306

Appendix B: Pilot study questionnaire

307

Two sides of the same coin? Employees’ intentions to stay and leave

Can you please complete my questionnaire and answer these questions

How long did it take you to complete the questionnaire? (Approx) ____________

Were there any spelling mistakes?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Were any questions difficult to follow?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Did it logically flow? Do you have any suggestions for improvement?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Were there any other errors that you found?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

How easy was the questionnaire to fill out (e.g. were the instructions clear)?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

308

Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about working at your

main organisation (the place where you work the most paid hours). Please indicate the degree of your

agreement or disagreement with each statement by placing a tick (√) in the column that best

represents your view.

Statements Strongly

Disagree

Moderately

disagree

Slightly

disagree

Neither

agree

nor

disagree

Slightly

agree

Moderately

Agree

Strongly

agree

If my organisation could hire


lower salary it would do so

My organisation fails to

appreciate any extra effort from

me

My organisation strongly


My organisation would ignore

any complaint from me

My organisation disregards my

best interests when it makes

decisions that affect me


organisation when I have a

problem

My organisation really cares

about my well-being

Even if I did the best job

possible my organisation would

fail to notice

My organisation is willing to


favour

My organisation cares about my

general satisfaction at work


organisation would take

advantage of me

My organisation shows very

little concern for me

My organisation cares about my

opinions

My organisation takes pride in


My organisation values my


My organisation tries to make

my job as interesting as possible

309

Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about your main

immediate supervisor. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each

statement by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view about your supervisor.

Statements Strongly

Disagre

e

Moderately

disagree

Slightly

disagree

Neither

agree

nor

disagree

Slightly

agree

Moderately

Agree

Strongly

agree

If my immediate supervisor could

hire someone to replace me at a

lower salary she/he would do so

My immediate supervisor fails to

appreciate any extra effort from

me

My immediate supervisor strongly


My immediate supervisor would

ignore any complaint from me

My immediate supervisor

disregards my best interests when

she/he makes decisions that affect

me


immediate supervisor when I have

a problem

My immediate supervisor really

cares about my well-being

Even if I did the best job possible

my supervisor would fail to notice

My immediate supervisor is

willing to help me when I need a

special favour

My immediate supervisor cares

about my general satisfaction at

work


immediate supervisor would take

advantage of me

My immediate supervisor shows

very little concern for me

My immediate supervisor cares

about my opinions

My immediate supervisor takes

pride in my accomplishments at

work

My immediate supervisor values

my contribution to the

organisation’s wellbeing

My immediate supervisor tries to

make my job as interesting as

possible

310

The following items ask about your satisfaction with various elements of your job.

‘Please read the instructions carefully and indicate whether the word describes that aspect of your job

by placing a

Y for “Yes” if it describes your work well N for “No” if it does not describe your work well

? if you cannot decide whether it describes your work well or not.

Work on Present Job

Think of the work you do at present. How well

does each of the following words or phrases

describe your work?

___ Fascinating

___ Satisfying

___ Good

___ Exciting

___ Rewarding

___ Uninteresting





opportunities for promotion?

___ Good opportunities for promotion

___ Opportunities somewhat limited

___ Dead-end job

___ Good chance for promotion

___ Fairly good chance for promotion

___ I get regular promotions

Pay

Think of the pay you get now. How well does

each of the following words or phrases

describe your pay?

___ Barely live on income

___ Bad

___ Well Paid

___ Underpaid

___ Enough to live on

___ Comfortable

Supervision

Think of the supervisor you have now. How

well does each of the following words or

phrases describe your supervisor?

___ Praises good work

___ Tactful

___ Influential

___ Up to date

___ Annoying

___ Knows their job well

311


Think of the majority of people with whom

you work or meet in connection with your

work. How well does each of the following

words or phrases describe the people on your

present job?

___ Boring

___ Slow

___ Responsible

___ Smart

___ Lazy

___ Frustrating

The job in general

Think of your job in general. All in all, what

is it like most of the time? How well does each

of the following words or phrases describe

your job in general?

___ Good

___ Undesirable

___ better than most

___ Disagreeable

___ Makes me content

___Excellent

___ Enjoyable

___Poor

312

Intent to Stay

Please place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view on your intention to remain

working in your main organisation.

What influences your intentions to stay at your organisation for the next 12 months?

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

What influences your intentions to stay at your organisation for the next 5 years?

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

Item Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neither

agree

nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

I plan to leave this

organisation as soon as

possible

Under no circumstances

will I voluntarily leave

this organisation

I would be reluctant to

leave this organisation

I plan to stay at this

organisation for as long

as possible

313

Intention to Leave

Please place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view on your intention to leave

your main organisation.

What influences your intentions to leave your organisation for the next 12 months?

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

What factors influence your intentions to leave your organisation within the next 12

months?

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

Item Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neither

agree

nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

Over the past month I have

seriously thought about leaving

my primary organisation to work

with another organisation within

the aged care industry


seriously thought about resigning

from the workforce altogether


seriously thought about resigning

from this organisation even

though I do not have another job

to go to


seriously thought about making a

real effort to enter a new or

different occupation outside the

aged care sector

314

Listed below are statements that ask about how well you perceive you fit into your community

(the place that you live) and your organisation (the place that you work). Please indicate on the

scale below how well you agree or disagree with the following statements by placing a tick (√)

in the column that best represents your view about the statement.

The next section asks about your links with your community and organisation. Please

place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view.

What is your relationship status?

Living with a partner Not living with a partner

What is your job employment status?

Permanent Full Time Permanent Part Time Fixed Term Full Time

Fixed term part time Casual

Item Strongly

disagree


Agree


I like the family-oriented environment

of my community

This community I live in is a good

match for me

I think of the community where I live as

home

The area where I live offers the leisure

activities that I like (e.g. sports,

outdoors, cultural, arts).

My job utilises my skills and talents

well

I feel like I am a good match for this

organisation

I feel personally valued by my

organisation

I like my work schedule (e.g. flexitime,

shift)


I like the authority and responsibility I

have at this company



If you are not married but living with a partner, does your partner work

outside the home?



315

Please answer the following question by filling in the spaces provided in relation to your

main job.

How long have you been in your present position? _______ Years ____ Months

How long have you worked for this organisation? ________ Years ____ Months

How long have you worked in the aged care industry? ______ Years ____ Months

How many co-workers do you interact with regularly? __________

How many co-workers are highly dependent on you? ________

How many work teams are you on? _________

How many work committees are you on? ________

How many paid hours do you work at your main job? _________________


organisation if you left them. Please indicate on the scale below the extent to which you

agree or disagree with the following statements by placing a tick (√) in the column that

best represents your view about the statement.

Item Strongly

disagree


Agree

Leaving this community would be very

hard

People respect me a lot in my

community


I have a lot of freedom on this job to

decide how to pursue my goals


I feel that people at work respect me a

great deal

I would incur very few costs if I left this

organisation


My promotion opportunities are

excellent here

I am well compensated for my level of

performance


I believe the prospects for continuing

employment with this organisation are

excellent

316

Demographics

What is your gender?

In what year were you born? __________________


What area of aged care do you primarily work in?

Home Care Residential Care other (Please specify)

_______________

What state do you work in?

QLD NSW VIC SA NT ACT TAS WA

What is the highest education level you have obtained?

Do you have any primary caregiver responsibilities?

If yes, who are these responsibilities to (e.g. your parents/children)?

______________________________________________________________________

Please rate how you perceive your health and the health of your family in the boxes below

by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your perception.

Yes No

Grade 10/less Grade 11-12 TAFE

certificate III

TAFE diploma Bachelor degree Masters/Grad Cert degree

Hospital Based training

TAFE

certificate IV

Other (Please list): ____________________________

RN EEN/EN PCW / AIN Care Manager

DON Other: (Please specify) ___________________________________

Male Female

317

Thank you for your participation in this research.

Strongly

Disagree

Moderately

disagree

Slightly

disagree

Neither

agree

nor

disagree

Slightly

agree

Moderately

Agree

Strongly

agree

My overall health is very good

The overall health of my family is

very good

318

Appendix C: Final questionnaire pack distributed to

participants

319

Two sides of the Same Coin? Employees’ intentions to stay and leave Ethics Approval Number: EHR/19/11/HREC

INFORMATION SHEET

Who is conducting the research?

Chief Investigator

Name: Dr. Kate Shacklock

School: Department of Employment

Relations and Human Resources

Phone: +61 7 55 528 543

Email: [email protected]

Student Researcher

Name: Katrina Radford

School: Department of Employment


Phone : 0403142048

Email : [email protected]

Why is the research being conducted?

This research study is being conducted as a requirement for the award of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

at Griffith University. This project is for research purposes only and is not part of the curriculum or

normal school activity of Griffith University. This research is being conducted to provide empirical

evidence on the factors that influence employee intentions to stay and leave. It will provide the aged

care sector with key information that can be used to retain employees.

What you are being asked to do

You are being asked to complete the questionnaire that was sent out to you in this package. This

questionnaire asks questions about your current attitudes towards working at your organisation. Once

completed, you are asked to return this questionnaire to the researcher in the envelope provided.

The basis by which participants will be selected or screened

All participants who are employed as a Registered Nurses (RN), Enrolled Nurse (EN), Enrolled

Endorsed Nurse (EEN), Personal Care Worker (PCW), Director of Nursing (DON) or Care Manager

(CM) at participating organisations are being invited to participate in this study. All other aged care

workers will be excluded from this study.

The expected practical benefits of the research

The findings from the research will provide aged care organisations with a better understanding of

the factors that influence employees’ intentions to leave and stay in the sector. This information can

then be used by aged care organisations to enhance attraction and retention strategies.

Department of Employment



Telephone + 61 (0)7 5552 8782

Facsimile + 61 (0)7 5552 9206

Gold Coast Campus

Griffith University QLD 4222

Australia

mailto:[email protected]


320

Risks to you

There are no risks to you in participating in this research study.

Your confidentiality

Any information gathered will be kept strictly confidential with no individual identifiable by anyone

other than the primary researcher, who will use this information only to identify the organisation to

which you belong and only for research purposes. Furthermore, access to the data collected will be

restricted to the researcher and chief investigator, with the data file containing the information

collected being stored away from the organisation and not accessible to anyone other than the

primary researcher. Moreover, no information on your participation will be provided to the

participating organisation.

Your participation is voluntary

Your participation in this research is completely voluntary, and you are free to withdraw at any point

during the study without loss or penalty of any kind.

Providing your consent to participate in this study

By completing and returning your questionnaire to the researcher, you are providing your consent to

participate in this study. This consent means that you understand the information provided in this

information sheet and agree to participate in this study. If you would like to ask any additional

questions please contact the researcher, Katrina Radford, either by phone (0403142048) or email

([email protected]).

Mechanism for distribution and return

Please return your completed questionnaire to the researcher in the envelope provided. If you

accidently lose or misplace this envelope please contact the student researcher, Katrina Radford,

either by phone (0403142048) or email ([email protected]) to obtain another envelope.

Questions / further information

If you have any questions or wish to obtain further information regarding this study please feel free

to contact Katrina Radford by phone (0403142048) or email ([email protected]).

The ethical conduct of this research

Griffith University conducts research in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct

in Research Involving Humans. If you have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of

the project please feel free to contact the Manager, Research Ethics on 3875 5585 or research-

[email protected].

Feedback to you

Each participating organisation will receive a brief report to disseminate which highlights the

findings of this research study. The final thesis will be available for review at the Griffith University

library.

Privacy statement

Please note that the conduct of this research involves the collection and analysis of data. Any

information collected is considered to be confidential and will not be disclosed to anyone else

without your expressed consent, except to meet any government, legal or regulatory authority

requirements. Your anonymity will be protected at all times. If you have any questions about this

privacy statement, you may consult the university’s privacy plan at

https://www.griffith.edu.au/about-griffith/plans-publications/griffith-university-privacy-plan or

telephone +61 7 3735 5585.






https://www.griffith.edu.au/about-griffith/plans-publications/griffith-university-privacy-plan

321

Dear Manager,

Thank you for participating in this research study.

Each participating organisation will be provided with a limited number of questionnaire packs

to distribute to direct care workers, that is, employees who are employed as Registered Nurse

(RN), Enrolled Nurse (EN), Enrolled Endorsed Nurse (EEN), Personal Care Worker (PCW),

Director of Nursing (DON) or Care Manager (CM). Please make these questionnaire packs

available to all staff who meets the criteria of being a direct care staff member over the age of

18.

In order to collect the data, two questionnaire return options have been given to all participants.

The first is to return the questionnaire in a box that is clearly marked at their place of work, and

the second is to post the questionnaire back directly to the researcher. We are asking that you

provide a box that staff can easily place their questionnaire into, as for the first return option. As

the information collected is confidential, this box should be placed in an area which is

accessible all hours so all staff are able to place their questionnaires in the box. However, the

box should also be secured so that no other staff, other than authorised persons, can access the

completed questionnaires. The only authorised person to have access to the contents of the box

is the site manager or elected person who is tasked with returning the completed questionnaires

in bulk directly to the researcher.

Please allow 2 weeks for questionnaires to be returned and return the completed questionnaires

to me by 20th June 2012. However, please try to collect the questionnaires daily if possible from

the box to maintain the security of the questionnaires returned. Once questionnaires are

collected from the box, please return the completed questionnaires (without opening their sealed

envelopes) in bulk to the researcher, using the address:

Attention: Katrina Radford

Department of Employment Relations& Human Resources,

Gold Coast campus, Griffith University, QLD 4222, Australia

If you require any additional information or would like to raise a query, question or discuss

what to do further, please contact the researcher (Katrina) on 0403142048.

Thank you for assisting in this research project. Your help and support are essential to its

success.

Kindest Regards,

The Research Team




Telephone + 61 (0)7 5552 8782

Facsimile + 61 (0)7 5552 9206

Gold Coast Campus


Australia

322

323

Dear Participant,

Thank you for choosing to participate in this research. Your contribution to this research is

highly valued and will lead to a greater understanding into the factors that influence aged care

workers’ intentions to stay and leave. If you work at more than one organisation or job, please

answer all questions asking about your organisation or job in relation to your main organisation

(that is the organisation or job that you work more hours for).

Included in this questionnaire pack is an information sheet, a blank questionnaire and a sealable

envelope. Please read the information sheet, and complete the questionnaire enclosed in this

package. The questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Once you have

completed the questionnaire please place the completed questionnaire into the envelope

provided, seal the envelope, and place the envelope (complete with questionnaire in it) into the

box provided at your organisation for return. Alternatively, if you wish to return the sealed

envelope (with the questionnaire in it) directly to the researcher by post, Please address the

envelope to:


Department of Employment Relations & Human Resources,


If you require any additional information or would like to raise a query, question or discuss

what to do further, please contact the researcher (Katrina) on 0403142048.

Kindest Regards,

The Research Team




Telephone + 61 (0)7 5552 8782

Facsimile + 61 (0)7 5552 9206

Gold Coast Campus


Australia

324

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

Why should I participate?

Answer: By participating in this questionnaire, you are contributing to the understanding of

why employees stay and leave. Employers can then use this information to better guide the

employee benefits and rewards they offer to make your working experience more

meaningful and enjoyable.

How do I return the questionnaire?

Answer: There are two ways you can return the questionnaire, either a) place in the box

provided at your workplace, or b) directly mail back your questionnaire to the researcher at

the following address


Department of Employment Relations & Human Resources,


Will someone find out what I have written?

Answer: No, your responses are kept confidential and no one will be able to identify that

you have responded. Even the researcher will not know who responded. Instead they will

just receive your anonymous answers to the questionnaire, which will then be collated and

analysed at an organisation level as well as a national level. You, as a participant, will not

be identifiable at any level of the analysis, now or later.

How do I obtain a copy of the results of the questionnaire?

Answer: If you would like a copy of the results, please email the researcher directly at

[email protected]. A summary of the results can then be sent once the results have

been analysed and reported.

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact the researcher directly by

email to discuss any concerns or queries you have. Katrina can be contacted by calling

0403142048 or emailing her at [email protected].

Thank you in advance for participating in this research study; your responses are truly

valued and appreciated.



325

Statement Strongly

Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Disagree Neither

Agree nor Disagree

Agree Moderately

Agree

Strongly

Agree

If my organisation could hire someone to replace me at a lower salary it would do so

My organisation fails to appreciate any extra effort from me

My organisation strongly considers my goals and values

My organisation would ignore any complaint from me

My organisation disregards my best interests when it makes decisions that affect me

Help is available from my organisation when I have a problem

My organisation really cares about my well-being

Even if I did the best job possible my organisation would fail to notice

My organisation is willing to help me when I need a special favour

My organisation cares about my general satisfaction at work

If given the opportunity my organisation would take advantage of me

My organisation shows very little concern for me

My organisation cares about my opinions

My organisation takes pride in my accomplishments at work

My organisation values my contribution to its wellbeing

My organisation tries to make my job as interesting as possible

TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN? EMPLOYEES’ INTENTIONS TO STAY AND

LEAVE

Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about working at

your main organisation (the place where you work the most paid hours). Please indicate the

degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by placing a tick (√) in the

column that best represents your view

326

Statement Strongly

Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree nor

Disagree

Agree Moderately

Agree

Strongly

Agree

If my immediate supervisor could hire someone to replace me at a lower salary she/he would do so

My immediate supervisor fails to appreciate any extra effort from me

My immediate supervisor strongly considers my goals and values

My immediate supervisor would ignore any complaint from me

My immediate supervisor disregards my best interests when she/he makes decisions that affect me

Help is available from my immediate supervisor when I have a problem

My immediate supervisor really cares about my well-being

Even if I did the best job possible my supervisor would fail to notice

My immediate supervisor is willing to help me when I need a special favour

My immediate supervisor cares about my general satisfaction at work

If given the opportunity my immediate supervisor would take advantage of me

My immediate supervisor shows very little concern for me

My immediate supervisor cares about my opinions

My immediate supervisor takes pride in my accomplishments at work

My immediate supervisor values my contribution to the organisation’s wellbeing

My immediate supervisor tries to make my job as interesting as possible

Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about your main

immediate supervisor. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each

statement by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view about your

supervisor

The following items ask about your satisfaction with various elements of your job. Please read the instructions

carefully and indicate whether the word describes that aspect of your job by placing a...

Y For “Yes” if it describes your work. N For “No” if it does not describe your work. ? If you cannot decide

Work on present Job

Think of the work you do at present. How well does each of the following words or phrases describe your work?

Fascinating Satisfying

Good Rewarding

Exciting Uninteresting

Super vision

Think of the supervisor you have now. How well does each of the following words or phrases describe your supervisor?

Praises good work Tactful

Influential Up to date

Annoying Knows their job well

327


Think of the opportunities for promotion you have now. How well does each of the following

words or phrases describe your opportunities for promotion

Good opportunities for promotion Fairly good chance for promotion

Dead-end job I get regular promotions=

Good chance for promotion Opportunities somewhat limited


Think of the majority of people with whom you work or meet in connection with your work.

How well does each of the following words or phrases describe the people on your present

job?

Boring Frustrating

Slow Responsible

Lazy Smart

Pay

Think of the pay you get now. How well does each of the following words or phrases

describe your pay?

Barely live on income Bad

Well Paid Underpaid

Enough to live on Comfortable

Job In General

Think of your job in general. All in all, what is it l ike most of the time? How well does each

of the following words or phrases describe your job in general?

Good Undesirable

Better than most Disagreeable

Makes me content Excellent

Enjoyable Poor

328

Item Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

I plan to leave this organisation as soon as possible

Under no circumstances will I voluntarily leave this organisation

I would be reluctant to leave this organisation

I plan to stay at this organisation for as long as possible

Item Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

Over the past month I have seriously thought about leaving my primary organisation to work with another organisation within the aged care industry

Over the past month I have seriously thought about resigning from the workforce altogether

Over the past month I have seriously thought about resigning from this organisation even though I do not have another job to go to

Over the past month I have seriously thought about making a real effort to enter a new or different occupation outside the aged care sector

Intent to stay

Please place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view on your intention to

remain working in your main Organisation

1) What influences your intentions to stay at your organisation within the next 12 months?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

2) What influences your intentions to stay at your organisation within the next 5 years?

____________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Intention to leave

Please place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view on your intention to leave

your main organisation.

1) What influences your intentions to leave your organisation within the next 12 months?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

2) What influences your intentions to leave your organisation within the next 5 years?

____________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

329

Item Strongly

Disagree


Agree


I like the family-oriented environment of my community

This community I live in is a good match for me

I think of the community where I live as home

The area where I live offers the leisure activities that I like

(e.g. sports, outdoors, cultural, arts).

My job utilises my skills and talents well

I feel like I am a good match for this organisation

I feel personally valued by my organisation

I like my work schedule (e.g. flexitime, shift)


I like the authority and responsibility I have at this company

Listed below are statements that ask about how well you perceive you fit into your

community (the place that you live) and your organisation (the place that you work).

Please indicate on the scale below how well you agree or disagree with the following

statements by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view about the

statement.

The next section asks about your links with your community and organisatio n. Please

place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view.

What is your relationship status?

Living with a partner? Not living with a partner?

What is your job employment status?

Permanent Full Time Permanent Part Time

Temporary Full Time Temporary Part Time

Casual



If you are not married but living with a partner, does your partner work outside the home?



330

Item Strongly

Disagree


Agree Leaving this community would be very hard

People respect me a lot in my community


I have a lot of freedom on this job to decide how to pursue my goals


I feel that people at work respect me a great deal

I would incur very few costs if I left this organisation


My promotion opportunities are excellent here

I am well compensated for my level of performance


I believe the prospects for continuing employment with this company are excellent

How long have you been in your present position? Year s Months

How long have you worked for this organisation? Year s Months

How long have you worked in the aged care industry? Year s Months

How many co -worker s do you interact with regularly? __________________

How many co -worker s are highly dependent on you? __________________

How many work teams are you on? __________________

How many work commit tees are you on? __________________

How many hours do you work at your main job? __________________


organisation if you left them. Please indicate on the scale below the extent to which

you agree or disagree with the following statements by placing a tick (√) in the column

that best represents your view about the statement



If you are not married but living with a partner, does your partner work outside the home?



331

DEMOGRAPHICS

What is your gender? Male Female

In what year were you born? ___________________________


RN EEN/EN PCW/CCW Care Manager DON Other _____________

What area of aged care do you work in?

Residential Care Community Care Other? ________________

Which state do you work in?

QLD NSW VIC SA NT ACT TAS WA

What is the highest level of education you have obtained?

Grade 10 / less Grade 11-12 TAFE Certificate III

TAFE Certificate IV TAFE Diploma Bachelor degree

Masters/Grad Certificate Hospital Based Training Other __________________

Do you speak a language other than English at home? Yes _(please specify)________ No

Do you have any primary caregiver responsibilities? Yes No

If yes, who are these responsibilities to (e.g. parent, children etc)?

___________________________________

Please rate how you perceive your health and the health of your family in the boxes below by placing a tick

(√) in the column that best represent s your perception

Very Poor Poor Fair

Good Very Good Excellent

My overall health is very good

The overall health of my family is very good

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS RESEARCH

Documents

Two sides of the same coin? An investigation into Two sides of the same coin? An investigation into factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave By Katrina Radford