FACTORS AFFECTING

EMPLOYEE LOYALTY

by

EDWARD H. GETCHELL

S.B.(1959) Massachusetts Instituteof Technology

M.S.(1961) Massachusetts Tnstituteof Technology

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFTLLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF

SCIENCE

at the

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY

June, 1975

Signature of Author .... .- .-v--.. ---..- . ... . .

Alfred P. Sloan School of Management,May 9, 1975

Certified by . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ..

Thesis Supervisor

Accepted by ......... .Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Students

Archives -1-

JUN 131975

FACTORS AFFECTING EMPLOYEE LOYALTY

by

Edward H. Getchell

Submitted to the Alfred P. Sloan School of Manage-ment on May 9. 1975 in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree of Master Science.

ABSTRACT

Employee turnover is an important measure of an organiza-tion's job environment and the quality of its management. Aconsiderable investment of management time and effort is de-voted to the recruitment, training, and maintenance of employ-ees. Job factors contributing to the loyalty of employees areextremely important to the health of an organization. The pur-pose of this thesis is to determine the most significant jobfactors which affect the sense of loyalty an employee has forhis organization. Data for this research was obtained inJanuary, 1975 by a survey of the readership of Design News, aprofessional engineering journal. The questionnaire containedroughly 70 questions. Approximately 1,200 cases were processed.

Definitions and measures of loyalty were developed and ap-plied to the data. The result was three major loyalty cate-gories containing the majority of the cases. They were definedas Loyal, Disloyal, and Locked-In. The loyal group was used asa reference group, and the disloyal and locked-in groups wereeach compared to the loyal group for the variables in the ques-tionnaire.

Before processing, the data was filtered to provide a hom-ogeneous subset of cases. Filtering included selection accord-ing to job title, income level, supervisory responsibilities,academic achievement, and sex. The data were also subdividedinto two age groups representing younger engineers and olderengineers.

Job factors which most significantly differentiated theloyal and disloyal groups, and the loyal and the locked-ingroups were separated by Age and rank ordered. These arethe loyalty profiles for the younger and older disloyal andlocked-in engineers.

-2-

Although many age dependencies were discovered, it wasgenerally found that the disloyal engineers, relative to theirloyal counterparts, expressed greater needs for self actuali-zation through challenging work, recognition, influence, leader-ship, opportunities for advancement, and knowledge of their or-ganization. The younger locked-in engineers were found to beessentially undifferentiated from the younger loyal engineerswhile the older locked-in engineers were found to more closelyresemble the older disloyal engineers.

The most surprising and totally unforeseen result of thisresearch was the discovery that the disloyal engineer appearsto be a more valuable, but poorly utilized resource of aggres-sive talent and leadership compared to the loyal engineer whoappears more complacent, more self oriented, and more tolerantof poor management and inefficiencies and who prefers fringebenefits and time for personal and family affairs to challeng-ing work assignments and opportunities for leadership and ad-vancement.

Thesis supervisor: Lotte Bailyn

Title: Associate Professor of OrganizationalPsychology and Management

-3-

-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is with deep gratitude that I wish to thank Professor

Lotte Bailyn for many unselfish hours of help, inspiration,

and guidance.

My appreciation is also warmly extended to Mrs. Rita

Pavlica who, in the vanishing hours before its deadline, has

typed this thesis with unfailing patience and accuracy.

-4-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

ABSTRACT ....... ...... . .................

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................

I INTRODUCTION ....................................

II BACKGROUND ......................................

Page

2

4

8

10

2.02.1

2.22.32.4

Job Related Factors AffeJob Satisfaction .......2.1.1 Employee Self Char2.1.2 Job Compatibility2.1.3 Predictability of

and Demands ......Inertial Force ........External Factors .......V sibility and ,rn.posure

'cting Loyalty ........e.e..................

racterizaton .........with Social Demands...Job Relationships.e.. ...... ...... * .....

......................

......................

TII METHOLOLOGY .........................3.1 Questionnaire !:cc:gn ............

3.2 Classification into Occupational

3.3 The Population ..................

C o..........

Categorie: ...

3.4 Some Preliminary Results .....................

TV LOYALTY: DEFINITi-ONS AND MEASUREMENTS ...........4.1 Definition of Loyalty ........................4.2 Measures of Loyalty ..........................4.3 Further Filtering of Data ....................

4.3.1 The Non-IlaInagement Engineer ............4.12.2 AdditionlI Selection Criteria ..........

4.4 AgE: ..........................................4.5 Analysis Technirque ...........................

V RESULTS AND DISCUS'-O0S ..........................5.1 Introduction .................................5.2 Loyalty Profiles: Explanation of Tables .....5.3 Climate Factor: ..............................

5.3.1 Loyal v. Disloyal Younger Engineers: ...5.3.2 Loyal v Di loyal Older Engineers ....5.`:.3 Loyal v. Locked-In Younger Engineer...

-5-

10101113

141517

18

2021232832

3737384344454854

56565658586164

Chapter

5.3.4 Loyal vs. Locked-In Older Engineers .....5.4 Hold, Push, Pull and Miscellaneous Factors.

5.4.1 Loyal vs. Disloyal .....................5.4.2 Loyal vs. Locked-In .....................

5.5 Profile Compari.son: Disloyal with Locked-In ...5.5.1 Climate Factors .........................5.5.2 Hold Factors ............................5.5.3 Push Factors ............................5.5.4 Pull Factors ............................5.5.5 Miscellaneous Factors....................

VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

B IBLIOGRAPHY .. ..............................

Appendix

A QUESTTCNNAIRE AND RESULTS ................B DETAIL LOYALTY

AGE 35 LOYALC DETAIL LOYALTY

AGE 36 LOYALD DETAIL LOYALTY

AGE 35 LOYALE DETA !L LOYALTY

AGE p 36 LOYAL

PROFILE: YOUNGER ENGINEERS.VS. DISLOYAL ..............PROFTLE: OLDER ENGINEERS,VS. DISLOYAL ..............PROFILE: YOUNGER ENGINEERS,VS. LOCKED-IN .........PROFILE: OLDER ENGINEERS,VS. LOCKED-IN ...........

......... 92

......... 106

......... 110

......... 115

......... 117

-6-

Page

68707078838384848585

87

91

Page

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3-1 Magazine Circulation Data by OccupationalFunction and Business Classification .............. 29

3-2 Geographical Distribution of Sampled Population .... 303-3 Magazine Survey Data Compared to Thesis Survey

Questionnaire Data ................................. 324-1 Cross-Tabulation of Job Satisfaction and Prob-

ability of Voluntarily Changing Employer ........... 424-2 Cross-Tabulation of Job Satisfaction and Prob-

abflity of Voluntarily Changing Employer FullyFiltered Data .................................... 49

4-3 Cross Tabulation of Job Satisfaction and Prob-ability of Voluntarily Changing Employer FullyFiltered Data, Age 35 ......................... 51

4-4 Cross Tabulation of Job Satisfaction and Prob-ability of Voluntarily Changing Employer -Fully Filtered Data, Age ;35 ....................... 52

5-1 Loyalty Profile for Climate: Loyal vs. DisloyalGroups Comparison: Younger vs. Older Non-Manage-ment Engineers .................................... 59

5-2 Loyalty Profile for Climate: Loyal vs. Locked-InGroups Comparison: Younger vs. Older Non-Manage-ment Engineers .................................... 65

5-3 Loyalty Profile Loyal vs. Disloyal GroupsComparison: Younger vs. Older Non-ManagementEngineers .......................................... 71

5-4 Loyalty Profile Loyal vs. Locked-In GroupsComparison: Younger vs. Older Non-ManagementEngineers ........................................ 79

-7-

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCT ION

One of the most valuable assets an organization can have

is a stable work force. A considerable investment of manage-

ment time and effort is devoted to the recruitment, training,

and maintenance of employees. The factors contributing to the

loyalty of this work force are extremely important to the health

of an organization. In this thesis, an attempt is made to de-

termine the most significant job factors which affect the sense

of loyalty an employee has for his organization. These loyalty

factors are further separated into characteristics which are

most important to the loyalty of younger employees and charac-

teristics influencing the loyalty of older employees. A dis-

tinction is also made between dissatisfied employees who are

motivated to voluntarily leave their present organizations, and

dissatisfied employees who, for many reasons, are "locked in"

and will not voluntarily seek new jobs.

Data for the analysis was obtained by a survey question-

naire sent to a population composed primarily of electrome-

chanical engineers. The questionnaire was designed to measure

the level of satisfaction employees felt towards numerous

"climate" factors in their present jobs. Items in the question-

naire were also desinged to isolate positive and negative aspects-8-

of the job environment which cause employees to remain at their

present jobs (holding forces) or cause them to leave their

jobs (pushing forces or, in the case of external job offers,

pulling forces).

A relatively homogeneous subset of respondents was se-

lected from the total data base and these respondents were

classified into two age groups, "younger" and "older", and in-

to three groups according to certain loyalty criteria. By

comparing the loyalty groups with each other, job factors were

isolated which differentiated the loyalty behavior of the re-

spondents. Comparisons between the loyalty profiles of the

"younger" and "older" age groups demonstrated the variation

of the loyalty related job factors with employee age.

-9-

CHAPTER II

BACKGROUND

2.0 Job Related Factors Affecting Loyalty

In order to investigate factors that influence employee

loyalty to an organization, one must first explore such ques-

tions as: Why do employees stay? Why do employees leave?

Are the reasons for leaving the direct opposite of the reasons

for staying? Of those reasons for an employee staying with an

organization, which are "good" reasons, and which are "bad"

reasons resulting in an unmotivated, turned off worker detri-

mental to overall organizational progress?

2.1 Job Satisfaction

Not surprising, the literature indicates that the primary

factor influencing loyalty is employee satisfaction with the

job as defined by him. The greater the individual's satisfac-

tion with the job, the greater is his loyalty to the organiza-

tion and the less his perceived desirability of movement. But

what are the job factors that lead an employee to feel satis-

fied? March and Simon (1958) have hypothesized three major

factors:

1) The greater the conformity of the job characteristics

to the self-characterization held by the individual, the

higher the level of satisfaction.-10-

2) The greater the compatibility of work requirements

with the requirements of other roles, the higher the

level of satisfaction.

3) The greater the predictability of job relationships

and demands, the higher the level of satisfaction.

These major factors are considered in more detail below.

2.1.1 Employee Self Characterization

There appear to be three types of individual evaluations

which are significant: estimates of one's independence, one's

worth, and one's specialized competences or interests. The

greater the consistency between supervisory practices and em-

ployee independence, the less the conflict between job charac-

teristics and individual self-image. The more authoritarian

the supervisory practices, the greater the job dissatisfaction

aroused. The long term trends over the post war years would

indicate a gradual, continuous reduction in the degree of au-

thority which is acceptable to the worker. This is also reflect-

ed in the decreased emphasis given to obedience to authority by

our primary training institutions, such as schools, churches,

family, and even the military establishment.

Each employee has a conception of what he is worth in

money and status which is to some extent related to labor mar-

ket values and environmental conditions. The larger the amount

of tangible rewards offered by the organization (in terms of-11-

money or status), the less the conflict between the job and the

individual's self-image. (March and Simon, 1958). The ability

of organizations to "buy" worker job satisfaction has decreased

gradually over the last three decades with the rising level of

wealth and the increased security provided by government social

security and unemployment programs. Also, the conflict between

an individual's self-image and the job is reduced by the degree

to which an employee participates in his job assignment. The

results of participative management, Theory Y management styles,

and other closed loop non authoritative organizational struc-

tures tend to support this. (Fox, 1971, Ritti, 1971). Employ-

ees want to be included in patterns of mutual influence while

organizations are typically characterized by tall hierarchies,

status differentials, and chains of command.

In the United States and in most industrialized societies,

employees have been achieving higher levels of education and

are bringing more abilities and skills to the work place. With

this increased level of education have come higher expectations

and an increased awareness of large scale social, moral, and

ecological problems facing both local and world societies.

There has resulted a shifting emphasis from individualism and

self achievement to a broader social commitment which has had

an impact on the perceived value of jobs in many of our govern-

mental and industrial organizations.-12-

In a similar manner, a high historical rate of promotion,

measured as the rate of change of status or income, will pro-

duce a greater disparity between the job and the individual's

self-image. A person has a tendency to base his future expec-

tations on his past record. This may partially explain some

of the discontent which is experienced by employees in our

country in their late thirties and early forties since there

is a well known decrease in the time rate of change and incre-

ment size of promotions for employees over approximately thirty

years of age. Contrast this with the straight line promotion

system based primarily on age used in Japan, where there appears

to be considerable less discontent at these specific age levels.

2.1.2 Job Compatibility with Social Demands

Job dissatisfaction and motivation for job change increase

as work and time patterns demanded by the job make it difficult

or impossible to fulfill the ordinary social expectations of

an individual. This obvious effect is clearly reflected in pay

differentials for undesirable work schedules such as night and

weekend work. However, March and Simon (1958) extend this ar-

gument to "social" groups, e.g., friendship roles, within an

organization. They hypothesize that the smaller the size of

the work group the greater the compatibility of organizational

and other roles. Where a job stimulates the development of a

number of single - purpose groups with overlapping membership,

workers can be expected to find the work less pleasant than

where a multipurpose integrated group exists. In larger or-

ganizations, a higher probability exists for an individual to

become involved in overlapping and conflicting group member-

ships. There is, however, the balancing effect in larger or-

ganizations of greater opportunities to transfer within the

organization rather than terminate. Both the transfer rate

(when requested by the employee) and the turnover rate are

characteristic of worker discontent within an organization and

should both be considered when analyzing the employment en-

vironment of an organization (Carr, 1972). Management should

be very much aware of the value, as seen by the employee, of

internal "social" groups. As a result of promotions, trans-

fers, mergers, reorganization, and other managerial actions

which disrupt internal social group structure, employees can

experience considerable psychological loss which can be re-

flected in job alienation. This problem and possible techniques

for its minimization are discussed by Levinson (1972).

2.1.3 Predictability of Job Relationships and Demands

Most individuals prefer to avoid situations of conflict,

anxiety, and uncertainty. A job environment characterized by

frequent interpersonal and inter group conflict, unclear deci-

sion mechanisms with unpredictable outcomes, poorly defined and

ambivalent reward systems or zero sum" reward systems, intense-14-

time pressure, political rivalry and numerous other factors

contributing to job uncertainty and personal anxiety will pro-

duce job dissatisfaction and the desire to seek a more predict-

able, homogeneous, and stable work environment with a new em-

ployer. This should not be extended to include a "healthy"'

amount of anxiety associated with difficult and challenging

work assignments, which most employees accept willingly as an

opportunity for self-actualization, and as a learning and grow-

ing experience. Nor should this argument be taken to the other

extreme as an endorsement for the simplification of work to

mind stifling boredom. Indeed boredom or the feeling of use-

lessness are some of man's cruelest stimulants of anxiety and

job dissatisfaction.

2.2 Inertial Forces

There are important inertial factors which strongly affect

employee loyalty, but do not necessarily correlate with job

satisfaction and high performance. In fact, they may actually

lead to "turned off' employees.

First, there is the tendency to remain at the present job

through force of habit and a reluctance to experience the an-

xiety of severing known relationships and forming new ones.

The greater the habituation to a particular job or organization,

the less the propensity to search for alternative work opportu-

nities. Thus an organization may have a large number of "loyal"-15-

employees in terms of employment continuity who are actually

very dissatisfied with their jobs, but who will not voluntarily

seek a new job because of some uncontrollable factor such as

their age or a long history of working at that organization.

Second, there is the pension benefit package which tends

to hold employees at a job, particularly older ones, through

complicated investment rules, delayed compensation schemes,

and by the sheer accumulation of value over a period of many

years. Pensions certainly serve a useful role which is not

being questioned here. But management must be aware of the

possibility of employees becoming "locked in" by a pension plan

so that their loyalty does not reflect job satisfaction and a

high degree of job motivation, but rather the desire to protect

their share of their retirement benefits (Drucker, 1968).

Corporations occasionally discover a heavy load of "dead wood"

in their upper age brackets who are unproductive and who do not

set a good example for their subordinates. Early retirement is

one solution frequently resorted to although it is somewhat of

a "cop out". It would appear more logical to discover ways in

which to motivate these individuals to their past productivity

levels to the mutual benefit of both the company and the indi-

vidual. Some imagination and careful thought will no doubt be

required here since the motivational needs of employees in the

twilight of their careers are likely to differ significantly-16-

from the needs of younger employees.

2.3 External Factors

An accurate predictor of labor turnover is the state of

the economy. The greater the number of external alternatives,

the greater the perceived ease of movement, and hence the

greater the flow of personnel across company lines. For a

particular individual, there are other qualifying factors.

For instance, the ease of movement of male workers has, until

recent years, been significantly greater than for female work-

ers. Non professional and unskilled women are rapidly approach-

ing equality to men in ease of job turnover today. For women

possessing professional skills, quite the opposite conditions

exist today and are likely to persist for another decade or

two. The situation for racial minorities is also improving,

but at a definitely slower rate than for women.

An employee's age is an important factor influencing the

ease with which he can move from job to job. In ranking job

attributes, age is a negatively valued characteristic (Loomba,

1968). This is particularly true for industries experiencing

a dependence on high technological growth, where worker obso-

lescence comes early or is often "terminal'" to that industry

(Perrucci & Gerstl, 1969). This effect was prevalent in the

aerospace industry slowdown in the United States during the

late 1960's and early 1970's. Lack of employment for periods-17-

as short as six months to a year left many highly skilled

semiconductor electronics engineers and scientests "stranded"

in the wake of the explosive technological proliferation of the

semiconductor industry.

Related to an employee's age is the frequent correlation

between length of service and job specialization. Again, there

is often a generally negative value placed upon high levels of

specialization - except by the current employer (Loomba, 1968).

We frequently find the situation, particularly at executive

levels, where an employee has become indispensable to the or-

ganization, replaceable only at prohibitive cost, and the em-

ployee can find another position only at prohibitive loss. Of

course, occasionally highly specialized individuals possess

skills which, at least temporarily, are in high demand and those

individuals may become highly mobile and disloyal to their em-

ploying organizations.

Other external forces tending to hold an employee to his

present job would include the spouse's unwillingness to move,

a desirable location, consideration of children's ages and

educational environment, to name a few.

2.4 Visibility and Exposure

Certain jobs provide the opportunity for both high visi-

bility for the individual and a wide horizon of opportunities

-18-

for the individual to scan - both conditions strongly influenc-

ing the probability of turnover.

It is worthwhile noting that a positive feedback loop is

generated by the job dissatisfaction - job search reaction,

because by the process of searching, opportunities are dis-

covered increasing the perceived dissatisfaction of the pres-

ent job and motivating the job search towards more searching

and/or a job change. There is evidently a threshold of dis-

satisfaction above which search will begin. The threshold

will be adjusted up or down thereafter, depending on the re-

sults of the search procedure. The initial threshold level is

a function of factors previously discussed - the degree of job

satisfaction, age, race, sex, etc.

-19-

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The data for this research were obtained by a survey ques-

tionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed by including it

in an engineering magazine, Design News* which is mailed twice

monthly to qualified personnel working primarily in electro

mechanical engineering fields. The survey appeared in a regular

article entitled "Design Management Forum" which is authored by

Dr. T.F. Gautschi, P.E., and which concentrates on personnel and

organizational management problems. The respondent was required

to fill out the questionnaire (mostly by checking the appropri-

ate response), tear out the questionnaire, and mail the ques-

tionnaire (respondent's envelope and stamp) to the publisher.

The data are therefore the result of a "self selection"

process i.e., only respondents sufficiently motivated, for un-

known reasons, to take the trouble to answer the questionnaire

become part of the data base. The accuracy of these data is

unknown when extrapolated to represent the entire population of

potential respondents. However, by attempting to select a

relatively homogenous body of cases from the total data base

*A publication of Cahners Publishing Co., Inc., 221 ColumbusAvenue, Boston, Massachusetts.

-20-

it is hoped that the analysis and conclusions discussed later

are accurate and representative.

With the exception of a question asking for job title, all

answers were essentially self-coding.

3.1 Questionnaire Design

Probably the most severe constraint in designing a ques-

tionnaire to be placed in a magazine is that space is very lim-

ited. As a result, numerous questions, the answers to which

may have had a very interesting bearing on the loyalty study,

had to be eliminated, and the luxury of asking several similar

or related questions to test respondents consistency was gen-

erally not possible.

The questionnaire shown in Appendix A was divided into

seven sections which were:

1) Work related background data such as company size,

salary, number of people supervised, etc. (questions

1 through 7, 10 and 11).

2) Two questions regarding the respondent's attitudes

toward his present job, one inquiring about the respon-

dent's feelings of job satisfaction (question 8) and

one inquiring as to the probability of the respondent's

voluntarily changing jobs in the next two years

(question 9).

3) A set of questions testing the importance that certain-21-

job factors would have for the respondent in coaxing

him or her from his present job to a new job. These

factors, which represent positive aspects of the re-

spondent's new job, are referred to as "Pull" factors

(question 12 A through N).

4) A set of questions attempting to determine the import-

ance that certain job factors would have in causing or

encouraging a respondent to consider seeking a new job.

These factors, which represent negative aspects of the

respondent's present job, are referred to as "Push"

factors (question 13, A through J).

5) A set of questions testing the extent to which certain

job factors would tend to hold or restrain the respon-

dent in his present job in spite of attractive outside

offers. These are referred to as "old" factors (ques-

tions 14, A through J). Unlike the Pull and Push fac-

tors referred to above, Hold factors can represent

either positive or negative aspects of a respondent's

present job. For example, if a company's location is

instrumental in restraining an employee from seeking

another job, that would be considered a positive job

factor because the employee is voluntarily making the

decision to stay. Conversily, if the reason is related

to his wife's unwillingness to move, that would be

viewed as a negative job factor.-22-

6) A set of questions relating to the satisfaction a re-

spondent feels toward a number of factors descriptive

of their present jobs, such as the amount of challenge

and enjoyment they receive from their jobs. These are

referred to as '!Climatet factors (question 15, A

through I).

7) Finally, a set of demographic questions to determine

the respondent's age, sex, marital status, etc.

(questions 16 through 21).

The demographic questions were placed last so as to mini-

mize the tendency of the respondent's perception of his demo-

graphic "status" to affect his answers to the questionnaire.

Furthermore, the questions under the Pull, Push, Hold, and

Climate categories were scrambled using a random number table

to attempt to minimize any bias inherent in the sequence of

these questions caused by the author.

3.2 Classification into Occupational Categories

All responses to the questionnaires were precoded with the

exception of Job Title. The respondent was asked to fill in his

job title on the questionnaire and these job titles were then

coded according to a set of occupational categories and decision

rules.

-23-

The framework for developing the occupational categories

was provided by Bailyn and Schein (1974). Because the popula-

tion sampled by the Design News questionnaire was heavily con-

centrated in the electro-mechanical engineering field, it was

possible to considerably reduce the number of occupational

categories compared to those used by Bailyn and Schein.

Nonetheless, the variety of job titles and descriptions

was astounding and occasionally misleading. It was therefore

necessary to review most respondent's job titles in the light

of other data on each questionnaire before coding the response.

Such a coding technique has the obvious weakness that the coder

can introduce bias. However, the criteria for the occupational

categories were selected after a sampling of about 10% of the

questionnaires had been reviewed to get a "feel" of the logical

breakdowns of occupational categories. As a result, most re-

spondents were able to be categorized with confidence into the

occupational categories selected.

The respondents were classified into the occupational cate-

gories given below.

1) Top Level General Manager (1.1%) - people who clearly

occupy top level general management positions were

placed in this category. People who said they were

-24-

self employed (question 3) were excluded from this

category. Typical job titles falling into this cate-

gory are: President, Vice President (with no function

indicated), Division Manager or Divisional Vice Presi-

dent, Vice President of Operations, Managing Director,

General Manager.

2) Functional Manager (1.3%) - people who occupy high

level functional, but non technical positions fall into

this category. Examples would include: Vice president

of Finance, Treasurer, Controller or Assistant Control-

ler, Chief Accountant, Personnel Director, Manager of

Industrial Relations, Director/Manager of Quality As-

surance/Control. *

3) Technical Manager - people who are clearly involved in

the management of a technical activity such as engineer-

ing, research, or product design and development, fall

within the category of technical manager. Furthermore,

the category of technical manager was broken down into

three sub categories:

3a) Technical Manager, Level 1 (7.9%) - these are people

who have high level responsibility and control of broad

*Only if salary, number of people supervised and other criteriaclearly suggested this category, otherwise Business Staff(Functional).

-25-

technical activities. Representative job titles in-

clude: Vice President of Engineering, Chief Engineer,

Director of Engineering, Director of R&D, Manager or

Assistant Manager of a technical area, Manufacturing

Manager.

3b) Technical Manager, Level 2 (10.3%) - these are people

who have middle level technical management functions

which entail simultaneous management of personnel,

schedules, and budgets for several projects or tasks

groups. Representative job titles include: Program

Manager, Section Head, Group Leader or Unit Chief,

Production Manager or Superintendent, Field Service

Manager, Service Manager, Principal Engineer*, Product

Manager*.

3c) Technical Manager, Level 3 (9.5%) - these people are

in the lowest level of technical management, with re-

sponsibilities limited to budget, schedules, and per-

sonnel on one or a very limited number of projects.

Typical job titles include: Project Manager, Produc-

tion Supervisor, Foreman, Supervising Engineer, Super-

visor of Product Development.

*Only if significant management responsibilities are clearly in-dicated by the number of people supervised and salary.

-26-

4) Non Management Engineer (53.1%) - by far the largest

number of respondents fell within the category of non

management engineer. Although their salaries and job

titles range over a broad spectrum, the majority claim-

ed that they supervised less than three people (who are

likely to be technicians). Job titles typically fall-

ing within this category area: Project Engineer, Pro-

cess Engineer or Product Engineer, R&D Engineer, Elec-

trical or Mechanical Engineer, Communications Engineer,

Packaging Engineer, Quality Control Engineer, various

degreed engineers, e.g., Tool Design Engineer, Indus-

trial Engineer, Field Service Engineer. People with

job titles such as Chemical Engineer, Member and Assoc-

iate Member of Technical Staff, Scientist, etc. were

usually included in this category after a careful survey

of their questionnaire.

5) Non Degreed Technologists (12.7%) - this category in-

cludes people without a college degree who are largely

providing technical support to the non management and

level 3 technical management functional managers. This

category was largely composed of respondents having the

following job titles: Associate Engineer, Engineering

Aid, Junior Engineer, Technician (all types), Mechanical

Designer, Draftsman (all types), and Technical Illustra--27-

tor.

6) Business Staff (Functional) (2.7%) - in this category

were collected all respondents performing functional

business support activities such as planning, schedul-

ing, and control. Typical job titles are: Engineering

Coordinator, Production Coordinator, Quality Control/

Quality Assurance Inspector, Production Planner, Train-

ing Supervisor, Technical Writer.

7) Other (1.2%) - originally, separate categories for pur-

chasing (purchasing agent, buyer, expeditor), marketing

(salesman), were set up in anticipation of a sizeable

number of respondents falling into these categories.

Because of the large amount of product advertisement

and information available in the Design News magazine,

the assumption was that a large percentage of responses

would come from the selling and purchasing profession.

Essentially none did. Therefore, these categories were

combined with unemployed, consultant, and all other non

classifiable respondents into the category "other'".

3.3 The Population

The magazine, Design News, has made available the follow-

ing information which provides an accurate quantitative profile

of the engineering population reached by the magazine. The

-28-

data in Table 3-1 is from the Association of Industrial Adver-

tisers (AIA) media data form for the Design News magazine.

TABLE 3-1. MAGAZINE CIRCULATION DATA BY OCCUPATIONALFUNCTION AND BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION

Total 1973 direct circulationTotal secondary circulation*Circulation by occupation, title,or function:

Management or supervision of thedesign functionPerformance of the designengineering function

Other

Circulation by business classificationOrdinance and accessoriesFabricated metal productsMachinery, except electricalElectrical equipment and suppliesTransportation equipmentInstruments & related productsMiscellaneous manufacturing ind.Independent R&D labsConsulting engineering org.Federal government

112,026unknown

(100%)

21,619 (19%)

90,037370

3,3729,79733,41133,51617,7529,7171,396844711

1 510112,026

(80%)(-)

(30'.0%)( 8.7%)(29.8%)(29.9%)(15.8%)( 8.7%)( 1.2%)( 0.8%)( 0.6%)( 1.3%)(100%)

*This refers to magazine copies passed from individual to in-dividual.

The geographical distribution of the sampled population

is presented in Table 3-2.

Additional data (unaudited) based on surveys performed by

Design News in the past are presented in Table 3-3 because they

are closely related to data obtained from the survey for this

thesis and because they help to define the population from which

the thesis sample was obtained.

-29-

It is impossible to speculate on the differences between

the results of the two surveys not knowing the circumstances

under which the surveys were carried out by Design News.

TABLE 3-2. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLEDPOPULAT ION

Area

New EnglandMaineNew HampshireVermontMassachusettsRhode IslandConnecticut

Regional Total

Middle AtlanticNew YorkNew JerseyPennsylvania

Regional Total

East No. CentralOhioIndianaIllinoisMichiganWisconsin

Regional Total

West So. CentralArkansasLouisianaOklahomaTexas

Regional Total

TotalCirculation

138664228

5,481644

3 730

10,885

10,6895,9407,66024,289

8,5513,4489,7967,8573,772

33,424

263324621

3 737

4,945

Area TotalCirculation

West No. CentralMinnesotaIowaMissouriNorth DakotaSouth DakotaNebraskaKansas

Regional Total

South AtlanticDelawareMarylandDist. of Col.VirginiaWest VirginiaNorth CarolinaSouth CarolinaGeorgiaFlorida

Regional Total

East So. CentralKentuckyTennesseeAlabamaMississippi

Regional Total

-30-

2,5081,5951,887

3456318729

7,127

1202,181

911,123117

1,119445487

2 1357,818

857920644215

2,636

TABLE 3-2. (Continued)

TotalArea Circulation

MountainMontana 9Idaho 103Wyoming 7

Colorado 1,343New Mexico 267Arizona 1,352Utah 439Nevada 52

Regional Total 3,572

PacificAlaska --Washington 1,167Oregon 442California 15,687Hawaii 12

Regional Total 17,308

U.S. Territories 22

GRAND TOTAL 112,026

Source and date of above information:BPA Publisher's Statement, December 1973Design News Circulation Department. (Audited)

-31-

TABLE 3-3. MAGAZINE SURVEY DATA COMPARED TO THESISSURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE DATA

Design NewsQuestion Survey Thesis Survey

For how many different companieshave you worked?

One companyTwo or three companiesFour or five companiesOver five companies

23 9%

41.9%22.7%11 .5%

23.2%38.0%21.1%17%

How many people do you supervise?NoneOne to threeFour to sevenEight to twelveThirteen to twentyOver twenty

What is your annual salary range?Under $7,500$7,501 to $10,000$10,001 to $15,000$15,001 to $25,000Over $25,000(Average annual salary)

What is your highest level ofacademic achievement?

High schoolTwo year college (assoc.degree)Bachelor degreeMaster degreeProfessional engineerPhD degree

28.8%27.3%21.8%9.3%5.3%5.5%

44.6%27.5%

4 to 10 18.5%11 to 20 4.2%

4.7%

0% not used3.5% not used

34.8% 21.6%55.7% 15to 24K 65.5%6.0% over 28K 5.2%

($18,358) Est. (18,863)

11.8% 2.8%25.4% 1-3 yr.coll.38.5%46.9% 10.6%15.7% 26.9%-- 19.6%0.2% 1.2%

3.4 Some Preliminary Results

The complete survey questionnaire with tabulated results

and program codes is presented in Appendix A. The total number

of questionnaires processed was 1155. The "average" respondent

was about 39 years old, married, had 2.3 children, had worked-32-

a total of about 12.5 years for a total of 2.4 companies, and

has been at his present job about 4 years.

Ages of the respondents ranged from 22 years to above 60

years with a median age of 38.5 years. The age distribution

was very broad, having a standard deviation of 9.475 years. A

large number of respondents (34.6%) had worked more than 20

years, with the median career length being approximately 13.7

years. Nearly a quarter (23.2%) had worked for only one com-

pany, while 61.2% had worked for less than three companies.

This apparent lack of mobility was reflected in the number of

years they had worked for their present company. Sixty-five

percent had been with their current employer for five or more

years, and 32.6% for 10 or more years.

Non Management Engineers were the dominant group with 53.1%

of the cases falling into this occupational category. This was

clearly reflected in the salary level where 41.0% of the respon-

dents earned between $15,000 and $20,000 per year. The median

wage for the Non Management Engineers was approximately $16,000.

The strong showing of Non Management Engineers was also reflected

in the number of people supervised by all respondents - 44.6%

claimed to supervise 0 people, and 72.4% supervised three or less

people.

Almost all respondents (93.5%) were from private industry

as opposed to public utilities or Federal, State, or Local

-33-

Government. Most respondents were men (97.7%), and most mar-

ried (88.7%). Almost all (97.2%) had received education be-

yond high school, but a surprising number (38.5%) had not com-

pleted a four year college program.

Of key interest to subsequent data analysis are the ques-

tions about job satisfaction and the probability of voluntarily

changing jobs in the next two years (question 8 and 9, Appendix

A). We find that 9.4% of the respondents were definitely dis-

satisfied with their jobs, and an additional 24.7% claimed to

be somewhat dissatisfied. Most respondents, however, claimed

to be at least somewhat satisfied with their jobs (44.8%), and

and impressive 20.5% claimed to be definitely satisfied with

their jobs. These percentages follow closely the answers re-

garding the probability of voluntarily changing jobs in the

next two years. Here we find that 27.9% claim a 0% probability

of voluntarily changing jobs within two years while only 4.3%

claim a 100% probability of a job change. Most respondents did

not rule out a job change, however, with 36.2% claiming between

a 1 and 49% chance of voluntarily seeking new employment within

two years. Interestingly, there were 19.6% fence sitters -

people claiming a 50% chance of seeking a new job within two

years.

The data did not support several widely held beliefs about

workers. For instance, the length of time an employee remained-34-

with the same employer seemed to have no strong correlation to

the degree of job satisfaction he experienced. Respondents

who had worked for their present employers for four or less

years were almost equally as satisfied on the average as work-

ers who had worked 10 or more years with their present employer;

68% of former claiming to be somewhat or definitely satisfied

with their jobs compared to 68.5% of the latter. However, 89.6%

of the new arrivals" with less than one year with their present

employer were either somewhat or definitely satisfied with their

jobs while a 'cooling off- was evident for respondents with one

to two years with their present employer. In this case only

59.2% of the respondents were either somewhat satisfied or defi-

nitely satisfied. Workers with one to two years with their cur-

rent employers also showed the greatest tendency to say they

might voluntarily change employers. While only 5.9% of employ-

ees who had spent more than 10 years with their current employer

indicated a better than 50% chance of changing employers, 16.7%

of the new arrivals" and 27.3% of the one to two year veterans

indicated a better than 50% chance of voluntarily changing em-

ployers.

The data also did not support the belief that increasing

academic level is a precursor of job satisfaction. No statisti-

cally significant trends were evident from the questionnaire

data on this point.-35-

Many people also are convinced that the variety of activ-

ities and responsibilities, and the team-like relationships

possible in a small company are likely to produce more job

satisfaction in workers. This belief appeared to be supported

by the questionnaire data since 75% of the respondents from

small companies (100 or less employees) claimed some degree of

job satisfaction, while only 64.5% of respondents from large

companies (5000 or more employees) were similarily inclined.

In the following chapters criteria and definitions are

developed to isolate '"loyal? and Wtdisloyal" cases, and tech-

niques are developed for analyzing many job factors from the

questionnaire data to determine the relative importance of these

factors in encouraging job loyalty in engineers.

-36-

CHAPTER IV

LOYALTY: DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENTS

This chapter is devoted to a discussion of the definitions

and measures of loyalty, and the criteria and methods for se-

lecting the actual subset of cases from the total data base

which are used in the detailed data analysis. The reader is

reminded that the purpose of this research, as reflected in the

loyalty definitions and data selection criteria, is not primar-

ity to learn about the statistics of a certain class of employ-

ee, but rather to attempt to obtain information useful to mana-

gers in performing their organizational design, and the develop-

ment of personnel management and the reward system.

4.1 Definition of Loyalty

For the purpose of this research, "'Loyalty' will be defined

as the tendency of an employee to continue working for the same

employer as opposed to the tendency to leave a current employer

and seek a job with a new company. Such a simple definition

includes both "good" and "bad' reasons for being loyal"' to a

company. That is, some employees remain with a company for an

extended period of time because they have genuine positive

feelings about their job, while others, although unhappy about

their jobs, continue with the same job year after year because

of external considerations such as their age or their investment-37-

in a pension plan. In the subsequent measurement and analysis,

an attempt is made to deal with both types of "loyal" employees.

4.2 Measures of Loyalty

Ideally, a loyalty measure would include the entire past

and future employment history of an employee, or at least the

total time, both past and future,that an employee was with his

present employer. Although such a longitudinal study is impos-

sible, the desired results may be approximated by analyzing re-

sponses to a questionnaire. The latter approach was taken to

obtain data for this research, although the approximation to

the ideal data sample is somewhat weaker because the respondees

were self selecting rather than a random selection.

Two questions from the questionnaire are used to measure

loyalty. One attempts to approximate an employee-'s actual be-

havior and the other tries to assess his attitude toward his

job. The first behavioral indicator is the response to question

9 "What is the probability that you will voluntarily change

employer in the next two years?" Those who answered that their

probability of changing jobs was less than 49% were considered

potentially loyal, while those claiming 51% or larger probability

of changing jobs were considered potentially disloyal. Those

respondents who claimed a 50% probability of job change were

classified as undecided. The results of this first indicator

of loyalty from the questionnaire are listed below.

-38-

Probability of Voluntary Changeof Employer in next two years

Number Percent Subtotal

Potentially 0% 322 27.9%Loyal 1 - 49% 418 36.2% 64.1%

Undecided 50% 226 19.6% 19.6%

Potentially 51 - 99% 133 11.5%Disloyal 100% 50 4.3% 15.8%

Did not respond -- 6 0.5% 0.5%Total 1155 100% 100%

The second attitudinal indicator used for the differentia-

tion of the respondents into loyalty categories was the response

to question 8 "'Are you satisfied with your present job?" Those

claiming some degree of job satisfaction were considered poten-

tially loyal, those claiming some degree of job dissatisfaction

were classified as potentially disloyal. The results of this

second indicator of loyalty from the questionnaire are listed

below.

Degree of Job-Satisfaction

Number. Percent

Potentially Definitely Satisfied 237 20.5%Loyal Somewhat Satisfied 518 44.8%

Subtotal 755 65.3%

Potentially Somewhat Dissatisfied 285 24.7%Disloyal Definitely Dissatisfied 109 9.4%

Subtotal 394 34.1%Did not respond 6 0.5%

Total 1155 100%-39-

Questions 8 and 9 have each served to subdivide the re-

spondents into two loyalty groups, potentially loyal and po-

tentially disloyal, plus an undecided group from question 9.

However, since the questions were independent, the groups so

defined will overlap, i.e., a case classified as potentially

loyal according to question 8 may be classified as potentially

disloyal according to question 9. To subdivide the cases into

unambiguous loyalty categories, certain simultaneous behavior

and attitude conditions are required. There are actually five

separate loyalty classifications possible combining questions

8 and 9. The five groups are defined as follows:

1. LOYAL: An employee who claims to be somewhat or def-

initely satisfied with his job and one who claims that his prob-

ability of voluntarily changing jobs in the next two years is

less than 50% will be classified as LOYAL. Thus an employee

must be both relatively satisfied with his job and inclined to

stay with his present employer to be classified as LOYAL.

2. DISLOYAL: An employee who claims to be somewhat dis-

satisfied or definitely dissatisfied and one whose probability

of voluntarily changing jobs in the next two years is greater

than 50% will be classified as DISLOYAL. An employee must

therefore be relatively dissatisfied with his job and be in-

clined to seek a new job to be classified as DISLOYAL.-40-

There are three additional categories into which respond-

ents may fall. They are:

3. LOCKED-IN: These are cases in which the respondents

claim job dissatisfaction, but also claim less than a 50% prob-

ability of leaving their present employer. There can be many

contributing factors holding these employees in their present

jobs including current economic conditions, investment in pen-

sion plans, or geographical or family constraints. This is an

important group, both in terms of the large percentage of the

work force in this category, and in terms of their potentially

low motivation and productivity.

4. UNDECIDED: These are cases in which the respondent

has shown no positive motivation to leave or to stay at their

present jobs by indicating a middle of the road 50% chance of

voluntarily changing jobs within two years,regardless of his

indicated degree of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

5. AMBIGUOUS: These are cases in which the respondents

indicate that they are relatively satisfied with their present

jobs, but nonetheless are planning to actively seek new employ-

ment within two years. The reasons for job changes are likely

to be external to the job environment and beyond the influence

of management.

By performing a cross-tabulation of the cases according to

question 8 and 9, Table 4-1 is obtained which provides the-41-

Z4

CA

I N

t

[

rl r

4o II

II0O1

Z

2

No

1 r-

0

0 I

II

ZO oN

o-tO

H

a) oUH

.

o r.

00

co II.

,U) Cli.

cN

Q)

u

H

.

ry4O

r

Z

4

IIZ

11b-

Z

Z

o°

·ry

*,{ 1

U

X

U

o=

*1-0L1)U

'

0>4

CN

I H

--0

r r

C,,

II II

Ha Z

-

U,

OHZ

II

I<

Z

4

-2 oO

O

UL

) 0

UQ

~ ~

~ ~

~ o

C>

N

0 o

I O

>.O

-4

H

Nt

lcl E

4-i

H-1

., CU

O

W

o ,D -4

CO

P

>

H

rl

-42-

W:

a H

H

U]

F4 W

u E

f

E-4 0E

-vl

CV

]H

n >

EE

-4

MZ

O w

CD

PO

rnF4 H

H

U]

cX H

H z

Ut F

rn a

0: 0

oH-4C4 U

]H0L

4 0

E-l

0P

OH

Z

o H

H

H

HH

¢

HO

r6 OH

Z0 ncn Z

P42

,J

Ill ll

II

IIlI

I

information necessary to classify the respondents into the

five loyalty categories defined above. The categories LOYAL,

LOCKED-IN, and DISLOYAL. have important consequences for this

study of loyalty and will be used exclusively in the following

analysis. They are important because these three categories

each contain a relatively large number of respondents, and re-

spondents falling into the categories LOCKED-IN and DISLOYAL

demonstrate certain behavior patterns opposite or contradictory

to those displayed by respondents in the category LOYAL. Re-

spondents in the category LOYAL will thus be used as a reference

in determining the relative importance to employee loyalty of

the various job factors contained in the questionnaire.

The category AMBIGUOUS will not be used in the further

analysis of loyalty in this study because of the relatively in-

significant number of respondents in this category. Furthermore,

their behavior suggests that their reasons for changing jobs

are external to their present job environment and therefore be-

yond the influence of management. Finally, the cases catego-

rized as UNDECIDED will also not be used in the subsequent anal-

ysis because their behavior is ambivalent.

4.3 Further Filtering of Data

Additional "filtering" of the data is necessary so that

the comparison of LOYAL with DISLOYAL or LOCKED-IN cases provides

meaningful results from a personnel management viewpoint. A-43-

series of selection processes was performed on the cases to

attempt to obtain a more homogeneous sample of respondents.

The goal of the selection process was to isolate a category of

respondents highly representative of one of the major employee

categories with which the personnel management process must

deal. The series of "'filters' used are described below.

4.3.1 The Non-Management Engineer

The data from the questionnaire represent respondents hav-

ing job titles covering the spectrum from president to techni-

cian and draftsman. It is argued strongly that job factors

which foster loyalty and job satisfaction for chief executives

and high level management are not necessarily similar to those

producing loyalty and job satisfaction in lower echelons such

as non-management engineers or technicians. To be most meaning-

ful, the analysis of loyalty factors in employment must be done

within a fairly homogenous job category.

The data from the questionnaire (see Appendix A) show that

the major response (53.1%) was from employees categorized as

Non-Management Engineer. No other job title category exceeded

13%. For this rather practical reason, the occupational cate-

gory Non-Management Engineer was selected for further analysis

to the exclusion of all others. It should be noted, however,

that from the point of view of management, and more specifically

-44-

personnel management, this is a highly desirable selection be-

cause 1) the non-management engineer represents one of the

largest categories of personnel in most technologically based

firms in both numbers and money terms, and 2) the non-manage-

ment engineering category represents one of the most active and

expensive recruitment, training, and maintenance activities of

the personnel management of a technologically based firm, and

3) in most engineering firms this category also represents the

largest resource of talent, experience, and productivity.

Those respondents classified as Non-Management Engineers

were found to have the following profile:

Salary: 91% had annual salaries between $10,000 and$24,000 with a median of approximately$17,680.

Age: 83.5% were between 35 and 50 years old (in-clusive) with a median of approximately35 years.

Academic 98.2% had achieved academic levels betweenAchievement: 1 to 3 years of college and a Masters degree

inclusive (45.8% had not completed college,however).

4.3.2 Additional Selection Criteria

Additional filtering of cases was performed in the areas

of academic achievement levels, salary, supervisory responsi-

bility, sex, and self-employment. Basically, an attempt was

made to eliminate the tails of the distributions in order to

develop a set of cases for careful analysis which is most highly-45--

representative of the main body of non-management engineers

and thus the main focus for management activities. (The author

believes that management, being largely humanistic, non-mechan-

ical process, tends to deal with people who are in the tails

of the job profile distribution for a given job category sepa-

rately, as individual or special cases, and would not apply

general employment policy rules to those individuals.)

The elimination processes and the reasoning behind each

are described below. In some instances the elimination of

cases was not as severe as would have been preferred because

the relatively large variance for some variables would result

in the elimination of too many cases.

1. Non-Management Engineers claiming to be self-employed

( 0.3%) were eliminated. There is a suspicion that some of

these are unemployed, and in any case they do not represent a

"typical, employee for management purposes.

2. Non-Management Engineers having salaries in excess of

$24,000 (2%) were eliminated for two reasons. First, such high

salaries are non-representative of the duties, responsibilities,

and remuleration considered normal for such a job category.

Secondly, because of the imperfect nature of the categorization

of the respondents into job classifications, and the natural

ambiguity associated with job titles, there is reason to be-

lieve that such high salaried respondents located in the category-46-

'Non-Management Engineer" are improperly categorized, and

should in reality be located in a management category.

3. Non-Management Engineers who have no college experi-

ence (1%), or who had received Ph.D. degrees (1.8%) were elimi-

nated. Actually, there was a strong temptation to eliminate or

handle separately all non-degreed respondents, i.e., those cases

indicating 1 to 3 years of college as their highest level of

academic achievement. However, 46.8% of the cases falling into

the category Non-Management Engineers" were non-degreed en-

gineers having 1 to 3 years college as their maximum academic

achievement. Apparently a large number of non-degreed technical

personnel in the electro mechanical engineering profession move

into the ranks of qualified engineers through the strength of

experience (Loomda,1960). Thus the number of cases would become

too limited for statistical analysis if engineers without de-

grees were eliminated from our analysis sample.

4. No respondents supervising more than three people

(10.2%) were included in the restricted Non-Management Engineer

sample. As in the decision to eliminate respondents having

salaries in excess of $24,000, this decision is based on the

assumption that supervision of large numbers of people, say five

or more, is rarely the responsibility of non-management engin-

eers and is therefore not typical. In this case, supervision

is interpreted to mean "be responsible for the work of" and not-47-

the overall management responsibility for work output plus

overall administrative duties including hiring, salary review,

budgeting etc.

5. Female respondents were eliminated since they repre-

sented only 1.6% of the respondents and because, at present,

and (sadly) in the foreseeable future, women will represent a

very small minority in the electromechanical engineering field.

A cross-tabulation of the probability of job change and

job satisfaction for the fully filtered data is shown in Table

4-2.

4.4 Age

The job related environmental needs of workers change as

their age and careers progress. Factors appealing to younger

engineers, such as the excitement and challenge of working on

new technology gradually are replaced by such things as time

for personal and family life as they grow older and gain more

personal responsibilities.

Therefore, in attempting to discover job factors which

have a significant influence on the perceived loyalty of an

employee to his job or company it is important to take age into

account. For this reason data were divided into two age catego-

ries, which will henceforth be called YOUNGER ENGINEERS and

OLDER ENGINEERS representing younger and older non-management

engineers respectively. The division between the two age groups-48-

0zH

0

LFr-

r4

II II

p

0.4 O

N

II0

\

0o 0040,-I

0 C

4

·. II

,. Z-r

0rO

H

r)

O .r-

H

iI. C

.I0 4i

4- 4o

4 1

oZ

Z

H04-

(00

U,

O 3 *,@

Jg

n

-- I>

~ 00

4O

Ln

c ~

C,

II I

H:D

C

LO

H

11 11

ii 0

0" O

re O

C)

kI

0 0s

(N.

£~~0 0

c4 4

o0

0 3

0O

d

r J

O

o c -3

04

PQ

4J X4

4 co )

cY

O r4

O

XP

4 >

H

.4

>4

-49-

O n

0 pc

H

nH

c H

H

E-4

C/H

Q

U]

E-4

U)n

0 p~2

HC

Incn

E-

E-4 /3

3ZoElz H

O

cn

44 00

0>40

0o

H

0

H

H

H

C)

0

>4

oz

HEv

t>PE

q H

V)

Q p

__ __

-5

-|

tz M

o.

was chosen as the median age for the non-management engineer

category, which was about 35 years old. Ideally, the two groups

would be separated further, or perhaps three age groups defined

for young, middle, and late career engineers. However, the

number of cases would dwindle to uncomfortably low levels with

the present data base if a significantly wide age band was

created between the YOUNGER and OLDER engineers.

Tables 4-3 and 4-4 show the cross tabulations of the prob-

ability of job change with job satisfaction for the two age

groups, YOUNGER ENGINEERS and OLDER ENGINEERS. Several import-

ant features are evident from a comparison of Table 4-3 and 4-4.

1) The percentage of older engineers classified as

LOCKED-IN has more than tripled compared to their

younger counterparts, from 7.0% to 21.7%.

2) The percentage of older engineers classified as

DISLOYAL has decreased by a factor of 1.66, from

17.9% to 10.8%, relative to the younger engineer.

3) The percentage of older engineers classified as LOYAL

is 46.3% compared to 40.9% for the younger engineer.

4) The total percentage of engineers classified as

UNDECIDED or AMBIGUOUS decreased from 34.5% for the

younger engineer to 21% for the older engineer.

-50-

-I

H I I ill

, -

--

H-I

I-;1Ooq4

00O

pq 0n C

Y~vl

Hw

z

Z

"r O

H

E-4

E

HC

7X

cn° gO

0 WZ

>P 4X

;E

q O

o p

O wF-4

H

w

C/3

cn cn14HC

E

4U

] W

m

CD

¢~ Hvz aH

V

a4 HzcnH44E4

E-4

a H44XcnU

Z

o~W

rII

II

u 11

11O

O'~

OI-1 II

Ii

Z

-

i!lr,4

cn Z,.3cl)

-M.ta~

k Oo 4b-.

IC

o r---

--

rc oO

f-4 cu

,4l4.O

rl

c44 r

r-4a)

o *,i

IIo

al

r4

i::l e..

~3

UcnII

,el(1)Za 4Js

( ) 4

,C

4m

IIS ·I r

, c ~

~ .eI O,J

Otr'

0; 4

90

-1- ,-I

P4

En

11 11

tn z

a°HH

III

3~ z ''-

ZD

H

Po 11

~~11

o oC

Y

Oo'%

r-4r4

Pi.~

0

Pi- V

,,0 U

~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~r

,CO

C

YI

~~~~~~~O

_I U

O

E-4

a 4i0

,-i ~

¢ 0

C

C0 rl

o a

0 4

P k ,4

r aP

>

O *,

-51-

H000

o

0o

HO

O

Z

PI

H

O

E

Et

¢

U)H

E

-4<

>

O

4ZO

o

z0 0H

,4E

-4¢ ;I

6Q Z

E

HV

cn

ON

F-4

~-4

H H

H U

)E

z cn<

HH

>4

E-O NH

3 ZH

O X

U)3

H n

ON

HA

44 rl.-

A

II H

;0I-

Lf)

C>

-' '-4

%O

0II

II1.

1 1

0 N

o,-I.4

-rl Z.- J

-H I_

i-i 4.-I II

o 4.iorH

U

U)

O

0

N

CN

n L

n

00

II II

,-4c,4-IZ

r4 Z"

4-d 0 ̂0

4-)H

0

--

o c

ii u

0iI

-3 00

r- O

O

c r-

U)

II II

HUJ

:D

00OH

11

II

N

r-4

4 0

o

a4o W 0

0I

0r Clo _

C

4 C4i 0 U

-

cU

>X

02

rl 0

0

P >

H

H

>)-52-C

--

-

!II

IIBI

III IB

IIIII

IIII

-52-

5) The total number of older engineers classifying them-

selves or either "somewhat" or "definitely dissatis-

fied" was 42.2% compared to 37.1% for the younger

engineer.

The sharp increase in the percentage of older engineers

classified as LOCKED-IN is a vivid illustration of the mobility

constraining effects of internal job related factors (e.g.

pensions, company location, established hierarchy) and external

factors (e.g. age, personal and family socialization roles).

There is also a much stronger polarization between those groups

classified as LOYAL and LOCKED-IN, and, to some extent the

DISLOYAL groups with age, while the percentage of engineers

classified as AMBIGUOUS or UNDECIDED decreased with age. The

sharp drop in the percent of older engineers classified as

AMBIGUOUS could be anticipated on the basis that they would

have already yielded to external forces that cause employees to

leave a satisfactory job (e.g. adventure, desire for another

geographical location or climate). The decrease in the percent-

age of engineers classified as UNDECIDED with increasing age

must occur if you assume that this classification is by nature

unstable; that people must eventually make up their minds and

either move in (LOYAL), fall in (LOCKED-IN) or move out (DIS-

LOYAL) of the company. The percent of engineers in the DISLOYAL-53-

classification would also be expected to decrease with increas-

ing age because this classification is also unstable. Employees

in the DISLOYAL classification are,by definition, changing jobs.

Since the probability of selecting a job leading to job dissatis-

faction would be expected to decrease with experience, the en-

gineers classified as DISLOYAL would be expected to decrease.

The cells for LOYAL, LOCKED-IN, and DISLOYAL shown in Table

4-3 and 4-4 are the cases upon which all the following analysis

is performed.

4.5 Analysis Technique

A source of difficulty in determining the importance of

various job factors in the loyalty profile of a worker is that

there is no absolute reference value which can be used as a

measure or standard of comparison. However, by comparing the

LOYAL group to the DISLOYAL group and to the LOCKED-IN group,

the determination of how satisfied or important a job factor is

on an absolute scale is avoided. By this technique it is pos-

sible to determine the relative importance or satisfaction the

DISLOYAL and LOCKED-IN workers attribute to certain job factors,

relative to the LOYAL workers.

The comparison of a DISLOYAL group with a LOYAL group re-

sults in a loyalty profile for the DISLOYAL group that is com-

posed of job factors which significantly differentiate the

LOYAL and DISLOYAL engineers. Similarly, a comparison of a

-54-

LOCKED-IN group with a LOYAL group provides a loyalty profile

for the LOCKED-IN group which is composed of job factors that

significantly differentiate the LOYAL and LOCKED-IN engineers.

Since the younger and older engineers have been shown to

have different loyalty patterns, the comparisons between the

LOYAL and the DTSLOYAL and LOCKED-IN groups are restricted to

similar age groups. For example, the young LOYAL group is com-

pared to the young DISLOYAL group and totheyoung LOCKED-IN group

only. Cross age comparisons such as the young LOYAL group com-

pared to the old DISLOYAL group are not made because they would

be meaningless. The comparisons within an age group isolate

job factors producing significant differences in the attitudes

within that age group only. The loyalty profiles for the younger

and older DISLOYAL engineers are compared to demonstrate and re-

late differences and changes in the loyalty related job factors

of importance to older vs. younger DISLOYAL engineers. A simi-

lar comparison is made between the older vs. younger LOCKED-IN

engineers.

The sequential steps in the data selection, filtering, and

analysis are shown in Figure 4.1.

-55-

Z-

UZ

E mU

z

U)

20-IrZU

)

zn()aLI-)

-IW F4-L

dIi.

I

CHAPTER V

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the loyalty profiles which were ob-

tained by comparing the LOYAL groups to the DISLOYAL and LOCKED-

IN groups for the job factors contained in the survey question-

naire. The CLIMATE factors affecting loyalty are discussed first,

then the PUSH, PULL, and HOLD factors affecting loyalty are each

considered. The main thrust of the discussions is focussed on

actions that management can take to reduce turnover and improve

employee motivation.

5.2 Loyalty Profiles: Explanation of Tables

Detailed loyalty profiles for the LOYAL vs. DISLOYAL groups

and for the LOYAL vs. LOCKED-IN groups appear in Appendices B,

C, D, and E. Appendices B and D are the loyalty profiles of the

YOUNGER engineers while Appendices C and E are the profiles of

the OLDER engineers. Only job factors with a significance level

of approximately 0.05 or less have been retained. The group

means given in Appendices B, C, D, and E are the means of the

coded values according to the codes given in Appendix A. A posi-

tive t value indicates a factor which is considered more import-

ant by the LOYAL group than by the DISLOYAL group or the LOCKED-

IN group. Conversely, a negative t value indicates a job factor-56-

that is considered more important by the DISLOYAL group or the

LOCKED-IN group than by the LOYAL group. For example, in Ap-

pendix B, PULL factor #1, "more time for personal and family

life" (t = 2.64), would have a more powerful attraction to the

LOYAL group in a job offer than to the DISLOYAL group. However,

PULL factor #7, "greater opportunity for advancement" (t = -3.45)

would exert more attraction to the DISLOYAL group in a job offer

than to the LOYAL group.

Job factors producing the greatest differentiation of be-

havior will be those factors having the largest t value in ab-

solute magnitude. Thus, in the example given in the previous

paragraph, a "greater opportunity for advancement" will differ-

entiate the LOYAL and DISLOYAL groups more than "more time for

personal and family life" as is indicated by the larger absolute

value of t (3.45 > 2.64).

The reader must be reminded at this point that a job factor

which is absent from the loyalty profiles or present but with a

low t value does not necessarily mean that the factor in ques-

tion was not perceived as being very important by either the

LOYAL, DISLOYAL, or LOCKED-IN employees. What it means is that

there was not a significant difference in the rating of that

factor by the LOYAL vs. DISLOYAL or LOCKED-IN groups. This re-

search attempts to deal only with job factors which differentiate

the LOYAL employees from the DISLOYAL or LOCKED-IN employees.-57-

Tables 5-1 through 5-4 of this chapter are condensed ver-

sions of the detailed loyalty profiles of LOYAL vs. DISLOYAL

groups and LOYAL vs. LOCKED-IN groups found in Appendices B

through E. These tables compare the loyalty profiles of YOUNG-

ER and OLDER engineers and display two features: 1) the loyalty

profiles of the YOUNGER and OLDER non management engineers, and

2) the trends in the importance of certain job factors with in-

creasing employee age. Table 5-1 through 5-4 are the basis for

the discussions of results which follow.

5.3 Climate Factors

Tables 5-1 and 5-2 present the loyalty profiles for the

climate factors of the job environment. The loyalty profile ob-

tained by comparing the LOYAL group to the DISLOYAL group is

given in Table 5-1 while Table 5-2 gives the loyalty profile of

the LOYAL group compared to the LOCKED-IN group. Each table

contains subtables showing the profiles for younger and older

non management engineers. The changes in the profiles that are

age related have been indicated by arrows.

5.3.1 Loyal vs. Disloyal Younger Engineers

Table 5-la shows that the LOYAL group experiences much

more satisfaction with nearly all the climate factors of the

questionnaire than does the DISLOYAL group. The one exception

was the amount of time for personal and family life, which was

not a significant differentiating factor for any of the loyalty-58-

4-i(du

a)00'0

4 o

X1Z

T

0

0U

-) -o)a)

0C

u

aH

O

O

0. ~0

>

-U00Z

4

U

a)x

4C

o

0.. a)

rZ

a0

P4

k

0i 0

00 v4

Cu

0H

0

00 r

#4C

uraa--:CC5.aI-C-CI-If

.CE-Er)5-4

a)rl0CPa)w'-4Cu

E-

ua)C

O r0

c4.J.Hcu 0kU

4Pco0U

PCl.

0'-4

Q) C

0

to 0

o O

a) r L

f)rq 4-i

3 0 In. r-4

o4 c

:: O

;0 05-O

C

u>

C

:U4-

0

0

a) C

o

a)a) 0

;>k

·0

:a

0 i

CQ

)4JC

) a0

O

a)

>.1 o

a

03 C

u

O

C O

:- a)

0

·

ON

ak

o(a)It

o

·-

I 4 4-

o a C

>

0

0-

U:

>u

4i*

o 4

04- r4 II

-iO

0 D

·

Cu0

C)

04i to C

-co

z

0 *0U

c04-4 -ri

C U

o r>

0 3 ·

.Oa)

0

O O

44

a) Q

)

-r4 o

0H

U0

w P

1l C

4 C

1

L( )

D

1 00

0 C

)

00a);>

11

.Ha)Q)

a) r-4

:

4Yr5 Pa)03

O

'-4

0 0

0 II

4 o

In 0.,

4* a)-0 o0o

.

0O

, 11 c

c >

C)

Ot-

-4 -

0 0 1

30 o >

C

u E

a)

0-t

0 b0 0

;>

0 E

O

%

'

X4

"O-0

), 4J )

44c

PS U

) .-

r-4 04-1 11 ) -

3 ' * 3

44 b

0 O

0

O

>

: 3

Y

*H

&

0) C

u '-4 -

-4

P C

)U>

C

Cu

: -'

,_ ~

4u

n k

o

=

0 0

r 0

o ·

U' k 5

U

43Q

S m

4 >

a

s

.jI*,44.40c.r4

U4-I

O

CO

Ua

'r O) u

.H

aiC

z 0

O

00

aH

0 0=

1 >

-Ia)

Ln 0 0

4-4 a)

a)u: O

·0

0)o

o 0

*H 0

a)

r 0)

0=

3

C14

C

t

-59-

ru

a),.

>a)30 0

0

Jr bO

4-)co U

C

CU

0C0

Z

o u0 : 1u

c C

II*r

00

a) (a)

Cu

o-

a) -CO

un ) r

00

QD44-1j

profiles for the climate questions.* The significance level of

all climate factors in Table 5-la is below 0.001.

The relatively lower level of satisfaction the DISLOYAL

group has for the challenges, enjoyment, and sense of accomplish-

ment they get from their jobs most strongly differentiates them

from the LOYAL group. Management would do well to bear in mind

that it is through being challenged by difficult work assign-

ments, and by successfully meeting those challenges that most

workers derive the greatest sense of accomplishment and enjoy-

ment from a job. (Ritti, 1971)

Another climate factor strongly differentiating the LOYAL

from the DISLOYAL group is that the Disloyal group expresses

much lower satisfaction with their knowledge of what is expected

of them and their knowledge of career paths and promotional op-

portunities. It is as if they have the ambition and desire to

advance, but are unclear as to what it takes to earn the right

to move up the hierarchy, or exactly how the hierarchy will ac-

commodate them should they get promoted. Ambiguity in personnel

review systems and in company policies and opportunities for

promotions are elements which management could easily and effec-

tively correct. Unfortunately management often overlooks these

*Time for personal and family life is not really an intrinsicclimate factor of a person's job and perhaps should not havebeen included in this section of the questionnaire.

-60-

factors, sometimes to avoid interactions with subordinates on

"sensitive issues" such as accurate, candid performance reviews

which, however are necessary for healthy employee motivation.

Tending to support this assumption are the lower satisfaction

levels of the DISLOYAL group with the recognition they receive

for the work they have accomplished, and with the amount of in-

formation they receive about what is going on in their compan-

ies.

The young DISLOYAL group was less satisfied with its oppor-

tunities to influence decisions made at higher levels than is

true of their LOYAL counterparts. Presumably these people want

more influence in the decisions which directly affect their

daily work and their long term career development. Perhaps a

more participative, less autociatic decision making

process would reduce the differentiation of this climate factor.

5.3.2 Loyal vs. Disloyal Older Engineers

The loyalty profile for job climate factors of the LOYAL vs.

DISLOYAL older engineers is shown in Table 5-lb. The climate

factors that differentiate the LOYAL and DISLOYAL groups below

a significance level of 0.05 were the same as for the younger

engineers. However, there is an interesting tendency for the

order of the climate factors for the older engineers to be the

reverse of the order for the younger engineers. The most signi-

ficant factors differentiating the satisfaction levels of the

-61-

LOYAL and DISLOYAL older engineers are their knowledge of career

paths and promotional opportunities, and recognition received

for work accomplished. These factors ranked fourth and seventh

in the loyalty profile of the younger engineers. An assumption

that can be drawn from this evidence is that the older DISLOYAL

engineers feel frustrated because they have not received credit

and recognition for their achievements which should earn for

them the right to advance in the organizational hierarchy, and

are baffled by an ambiguous or vague system of rewards and pro-

motions.

The sense of accomplishment from the job, which was the

second most important climate factor associated with loyalty for

the younger engineers, decreased to become the seventh most im-

portant climate factor for the older engineers. Evidently, as

the LOYAL and DISLOYAL workers advance in their careers, the de-

sire for the idealistic "reward" of a feeling of achievement and

accomplishment diminishes as a differentiating factor while a

desire for the ego satisfying recognition of accomplishments from

the organization and from the peer group becomes much more import-

ant. Another factor differentiating the LOYAL and DISLOYAL groups

which decreased considerably (from fifth for the younger engineers

to eighth for the older engineers) was the knowledge of what is

expected of the employee. The decrease in the differentiation

-62-

between the LOYAL and DISLOYAL groups for this climate factor

would support the assumption that employees from either group

acquire an understanding and tollerance of the "norms" of the

organizational environment, and learn to better cope with the

system with increasing age and experience. The DISLOYAL older

engineers like their younger counterparts are relatively dis-

satisfied with the challenge and the enjoyment they receive

from work. As pointed out earlier, these are likely to be linked

since there is enjoyment in accomplishing a challenging task.

A tempting conclusion is that industry is wasting valuable talent

in underutilized engineers - either engineers left behind to

'phase out" old technology, or held in "inventory" between pro-

ject cycles (Ritti, 1971).

It is interesting to formulate and compare scenarios based

on factors of the loyalty profiles of the younger and older en-

gineers which most strongly differentiate the DISLOYAL and LOYAL

groups. They might appear as follows:

Younger Disloyal Engineer: "I would like to be assigned

more challenging work; I'm sure I could do it, and it really

gives me a sense of pride and accomplishment when I complete a

tough job. That's where a lot of my enjoyment in work comes

from, and if I had the chance to prove myself more often I think

I could get ahead a lot faster in this organization - although

I don't really know what I would be promoted to, or where I would

go from there.' -63-

Older Disloyal Engineer: 'I would like to be assigned more

challenging work; I'm sure I could do it, I've done it before.

All I ask is that when I complete a tough job, I get credit for

it. That would make work a lot more enjoyable. And I guess

that would give me more opportunities to get ahead in this or-

ganization - although I don't really know what I would be pro-

moted to, or where I would go from there.T'

In both cases the key to improving the level of satisfac-

tion of the DISLOYAL group and thus reducing employee turnover

would seem to be 1) a more equitable distribution of interest-

ing and challenging work among a greater number of individuals,

and 2) a well defined system for recognizing achievement and

rewarding performance, and a commitment on the part of manage-

ment to keep employees informed of opportunities for personal

and professional growth within the organization.

5.3.3 Loyal vs. Locked-In Younger Engineers

The loyalty profile for climate factors obtained by compar-

ing the LOYAL with the LOCKED-IN younger engineers is presented

in Table 5-2a. Most climate factors appearing in Table 5-la

also appear in Table 5-2a. However, the order of the climate

factors in the loyalty profile for the LOCKED-IN group is very

different compared to the loyalty profiles of the DISLOYAL group.

All factors have a significance level below 0.001.

-64-

Q)

0

~ 0o

0X ;

0 0H

Z

.,-0Z

C

0 ..

02 0

HO

O

00 '-

,- .O

J bO

Q

A4

0O

Z

a)

E-4O

$-I

04i00

CM

I Cw

f C

)

0H

¢ Ev

U(

,-

C)a)

0.HbDCa)

-(CU)1

a)a)CaC4

E--

H

o0

a) 4

4-o a:>

4-40

u

)O

m

-D

1C

O

-

0 M

3 0 ·L

4

13. r40

O

UO C

a O

Y>'

Cd4lz

U

1

Q),-

o v4

0 U

Ua

ri a)

o s.

U

Uul

a) 4O C

o4-i

5 (I

Oa

.H00

,-40)O>a)J (D

14

W

Cw

,D

,-4,--IC

-4 C

C

Y

H0Pu9WH.4014u

0U)

-ca)t~ O r--4

a) u

0OC

b O

@

c\ to C

I it

3

O

a) 44

.II 4-

4-U

x a)

C~w

- 0 -

5-4 a) ;>.-

0 0 ' .;>

a)4 -4co

r-4

0 l

3 o

c

a -4

C

) 0C

q o

-r> C

!a

a o o

o

Ia

r4 I

0oC r4d

4-J u

bo c.~

0 ·C

U

0dCa O

0H

O

P

EqI U

:

-u

'O

r\ 00

C

4o

Ir-.

ca 4>.a

O0

IQ

'4J -H

H

.0

4 -

o U

) 4

, :

OD

O

a

O

~ '

~00

0

0.

o

C4

k ~l

au

·l ·1

·r O.

·* a0 0

u0

co U

W

U,

U

r- C

4 >

H

C

P-r4 5co U

) o

C

co 00 H

4

k36 4i U

>

11 Q

w P

Q)4-i

0 o u w

a

Q a) 0

a) ' cC

a)

>c

0 k 0

*HP n

k O

*H

a =

a

rv C

) O

C4d

UH

-:r4

30 C

I 0W

k -

u r-704

N U

0

u C

H 3

S a O O

k n

w

.o

0 0

d o

o U

4

* V 4

O l )

O

) H

U

r! >

W

S

W 0

° 0

0Cl

Cw

U

,

, ,

U)

* 0

to SW

1

a 1

a 3

It 1 0~ H

u

u X

I 11

11r- 4

o C

a p a)

* a) o H C

) 0

o a

r 0

r- C

a -H

C v-1

,- Q

O

r- W

r4

3 a )

H C

d a

k a)

O

k O

C

X

U

Z

P IC

w

O

C

r_

w

O

O

a)g4

4 JU

E-

' k

O 4-

a W

r-4

3 4 U

W

-i

CM

C

) L

' ,o

-65-

The first three factors of the loyalty profile for the

young engineers would imply that, relative to the LOYAL engin-

eers, the young LOCKED-IN engineer feels as if he doesn't know

what he should do, doesn't know where he is going in the com-

pany, and doesn't know what is going on in the company. In

short, he appears somewhat bewildered and confused. Remember-

ing that the LOCKED-IN employee does not require encouragement

to stay with his present company but is likely to lack motiva-

tion, the needs of the LOCKED-IN employee would seem to be best

satisfied by more information and by being made to feel more a

part of things, of belonging" to the organization.

The LOCKED-IN group like the DISLOYAL group, is less satis-

fied with their opportunities to influence decisions made at

higher levels. This relative dissatisfaction the LOCKED-IN group

feels towards their abilities to influence higher level decisions

may stem from a lack of communication upward in the hierar-

chy. To some extent this is also likely to be caused by the

relative dissatisfaction of this group with the amount of know-

ledge they have and the information they receive about their

organization, its expectation of employees, and its opportunities

for employees. These dissatisfactions would imply poor communi-

cation down the hierarchy. In both cases a more participatory

decision making process might tend to alievate the dissatisfaction

differential between the LOYAL and LOCKED-IN younger engineers.

-66-

The more personal and ego satisfying aspects of the job

such as the enjoyment and sense of accomplishment received from

work, and the recognition received for work accomplished were

all climate factors which were perceived as significantly less

satisfying by the LOCKED-IN relative to the LOYAL group of young-

er engineers, although these groups were not significantly dif-

ferentiated in their relative satisfaction with the challenges

provided by the job (0.130 significance level). The relative

dissatisfaction with the enjoyment and sense of accomplishment

the younger LOCKED-IN engineers get from their jobs may well be

a result of their relative dissatisfaction with the recognition

they receive for their accomplishments. Although management may

not be able to directly affect the level of enjoyment and the

sense of accomplishment an employee derives from his job, they

can go a long way towards indirectly improving the environment

for such feelings, particularly for the LOCKED-IN employees, by

directing more effort towards rapidly acknowledging and reward-

ing accomplishments. An increase in the level of satisfaction

that LOCKED-IN employees feel with respect to the enjoyment and

the sense of accomplishment they receive from their work might

also result from encouraging a more participative style of man-

agement so that employees can more easily influence decisions

made at higher levels in their organizations.

-67-

5.3.4 Loyal vs. Locked-In Older Engineers

The loyalty profile for climate factors for the LOYAL vs.

LOCKED-IN older engineers is presented in Table 5-2b. All fac-

tors are below a 0.005 significance level. As was the case for

the loyalty profiles for the LOYAL vs. DISLOYAL groups, a com-

parison of Table 5-2a with Table 5-2b indicates a tendency for

the climate factors to reverse order in the profiles of the

older engineers compared to the younger engineers.

The LOCKED-IN older engineer, relative to the LOYAL older

engineer, seems to be less satisfied with his knowledge of ca-

reer paths and promotional opportunities, the challenges and

enjoyment he gets from work, and the opportunities to influence

decisions made at higher levels. The LOCKED-IN older engineer

seems to emerge as an employee who wants more influence in his

company but does not see a clear career path in his organization

to gain that influence. He is relatively dissatisfied with his

knowledge of what is expected of him and of what is going on in

his company, both of which do not help his feelings of ambiguity

towards advancement in his organization. He feels underutilized

and, probably as a result of being unchallenged in his work, he

is relatively dissatisfied with his job. Relative to the LOYAL

older engineers, the LOCKED-IN older engineers are less satisfied

with the recognition they receive for work they have accomplished,

possibly because the tasks are not as challenging and therefore

-68-

less deserving of recognition. The feelings of lack of recog-

nition and challenge experienced by the LOCKED-IN older engin-

eers must surely explain some of their relative dissatisfaction

with the sense of accomplishment they derive from their jobs.

Scenarios based on factors which most strongly differentiate

the LOCKED-IN and LOYAL groups offer insight into the attitudes

of the engineers classified as LOCKED-IN. They might appear as

follows:

Younger LOCKED-IN Engineer: I feel confused, like I don't belong

here. I don't know what is expected of me, or how to get ahead

in this organization. I don't have any influence around here,

nobody ever recognizes my achievements. I don't even know what

is going on in this company.

Older LOCKED-IN Engineer: I wish I knew how to advance in this

organization. If I had some influence around here I might be

able to get some of the challenging work which would make work

more enjoyable and satisfying. I'm not sure what is expected of

mq.I don't get much recognition, and I don't know what is going

on in this company.

In both cases keys to improving the level of satisfaction

and motivation of the LOCKED-IN group seems to be 1) Better in-

formation and feedback about an employee's immediate task as-

signments and more information communicated better about what is

going on in the company. 2) Allowing the engineers to have more

-69-

participation and influence in the decisions which directly af-

fect their work and careers.

5.4 Hold, Push, Pull and Miscellaneous Factors

Tables 5-3 and 5-4 provide loyalty profiles based on the

HOLD, PUSH, PULL and MISCELLANEOUS job factors of the question-

naire. Table 5-3 provides the loyalty profiles for the LOYAL vs.

DISLOYAL groups while Table 5-4 provides the loyalty profiles for

the LOYAL vs. LOCKED-IN groups. Each table contains subtables

showing the profiles for younger and older non management en-

gineers separately. The changes in the profiles that are time

related have been indicated by arrows.

5.4.1 Loyal vs. Disloyal

5.4.1.1 Hold Factors

The loyalty profiles for HOLD factors obtained by comparing

the LOYAL vs. DISLOYAL groups are presented in Table 5-3.1. It

is evident that, independent of age, there are no differentiat-

ing HOLD factors which the DISLOYAL group considers more import-

ant that the LOYAL group. Also, all of the differentiating

factors are weak (small t values) for the younger engineers rel-

ative to the older engineers. And, with the exception of current

salary there are no factors controllable by management which dif-

ferentiate the younger LOYAL engineer from the younger DISLOYAL

engineer.

-70-

CO

::

o

0 ;>

*Sa .,

Q

.03~~

co C

1 -

0

v-4 I4

c 0

4~~~~~ C

Y)

·r

a 11 c

1

(U

¢

;>

4 )

P- 5

P,

* : *

-J U

C4

Cn

4.

n O

"O

Q)

co,to

E

M

O

4-

,.t\ ,U ·l

,- -I tu .l.

¢~U

4

II l:: o .uIq) C

: C

l

.) rj ,.a

r-- .h

,4 r ,--4

I> ::

W

co ;

, a

l>O

,4 ,

4J >

4 to

4U

L

C

O3

oU)

4,-

03cboI3.o.(n

r(aa-bC:::

aICC,Jr-(II

u'3C.),-...E-·rn

..Ho;bcCC33(L)

r-4co)F-

co(U(Upo M

4- r-4

>,

C43O

cu

PO >

r-4cn

coO

Z

U)

Z;

orjl

W-

rOO

zPt

1,-.-

0P

C3

OoC

3 4

4

S 2;

a,0~1 P

4 cnwU

] M

k~

O

.,

>

En,-l

>qJ

q-i-4

0

.o c

0 1,4

03z 0)31,

5 *H

6 l U

C0 C.)

O

"PcO

o aq4

'00 0

CY

Ca

¢ P

OUO

Of

*q aC

)

a;E

q

O

Chna)a)

*,40q)bO

u a, >

oq-4

q~O

-O

OO

uO

as c}

O OO

-

q tS:

4 OU

,a-C

) C

)

> o

,.- 4_1

tulr a

*rl 1

r -,oH

4 qb0cn

O

4 r.

coC

u ;>

.r-I(n

I) q)

4Ji-r U*i

poq)

(U

>

I11

), I_:Ii

,I>

C)

coc

0) ()

rj0 iliw

p *IQ

) H

cn

a ' 4( 00

3 -, o

F-4 r-

o04J q:)

U

.C

) N

Oto,

C. .

O,-4 II

C

DC

O r-c

u 43

Ct

r-A r-4

coU)

11

-a

0 II

Q) --

4

p >

.CN

I N1lt

a-H

bo< 0

2-I:4N.1rd

cN

r -

-71-

'Haa,-

·r-

CO

Cl

a)I -I4-i C

,-

u c>

W

-

C'4.

0O

,-4 ., I0 C

L4- o

cu 4

>

0

Cd .4-i

'H4

I o

a .

O

9 0 U

*

4 W

o W

H4t-4

A

' t

H

k C

Z 0 O

a a

>

.I

000 0

-HC

O O

O

O

SC

) N

1 O

U

O

OC00 5.aa'-tcr.a

cC 'CIIii-C

y,11 C

':-i'c

r-4CO

> r cC5-i

W0)'Hw00)

* *,C

cZ

C5-

0 C

dW

) ·r-

N

C

0 CI

C

0 3

O

CZ

0 C

d0

0 -

4-4 II s

II Q

I

bO 0)

4-J w

) C

dO

1 0

'H

4

Cl

Lt

r-CO

H4

.-u I

o I

C

O H

W

Qi

CO

Q

) I

N

C

u )

~

'

H

O

II C

1

C

4- 0

Uo·

cC

e cJ a)

H-r o

k C4

Q

O

*Q)

I ::P

,~l 1

C ,X

,-40

0C

O

I ( )

1 cod 44

%.O

0 :D

P 0

I1 Q

>

-

5U)

X-4C

O

W

-4I U

U

4P

C

a -a)

4 4

-5

a) >

: 3 .

CI~

k O

- -W

3 t

k :t d

11

0 O.

H

.'H

C

J 04

k )W

>4 O

4-

C

U

k *

-4O

*

O

*5- O

d44 a;

bo P

u

4 u4

ta C

Z)H

.,1 I

0 ·

0 *

O'

c.1 II

0 >

r 3 C

U

4 0

r P

.I Q

) b>

-H

-4 P

o X

m

'HQ

P

P i-

r-45k4 )

4) "4 i

W 'H

0

Cd

UW

'

W 'O

4

0) C

d Cd 4-J

P5 04 o

P

O

50 C

60. >

Q

) O

Ct

0 0

O

HO

P

W44

4 U-4 X

4- U)

rH

CN

4 C

l N

t U

L)

f -

2-44

Q%

4 U, r-,a ,

, .HC

C

N

k C

Na)

Ir4

11 X

d Q

) 11

0 :D

0 w

.1 4

P CO

r0

·1

a) ·H

0

H,-4

0) 'H W

) 'O

OrdO

W,

4,-

O H

3 f=UC

O

0H

O

O

a) C

0 C

d I

0 P

0 i0(4

4

-4 N

C

C

CYUl

I" C4

'H

C" 1

0 Q

,0t1

,3.

0 ;>

o00i

C-

O

bO

0 0

r- II

0 r-

0 ) C

0

H 0

Z

C

4-U

r)

0 4-4

I1

Cdu

-t uL

r'0 t-

-72-

Oaac'-baC

-.'H3C0Oar-O

N

0$

rl

.CNc,!LrI-.[--IC

dP

I,.-roC

lUC

Y

LA

c)300o00O

oOO

I

11rWQ

)a

k D

-i--r-4 r-4

v ;>

QP

Cd

W

0Cd

Crl

r,E-l

H~

T4U

l

C'4

C

.

-r·

i

:nD,

lf

cVo~o I

rc-4

a O

0 C

n0oO Oa)

a1)Z

PI

5-4

00P Pr

-H r-4

4 O

S

6 -Jk; .

a)

0a k W

a) r--

4 lacZ

3 4

.

*r4N

C

.

P. Z

o--IC

) II

0CO

0o-I

oC!)()

o4a) -4

Z;

4

C~

5.4 C4

: O

0 <

>-,CN

0a )44

:J'--4

31 co

cn

U)

CCZ

cor-- o

co C

I

a)4-i0z

aa).0Q)

u'4

cOa)Cu

a,co0O34-J

O-

.rqC-

-73-

V)

Pa)a)a)z--rl

0[our.0aD

r

a)1-4

100.r-I

CY

)

Ltr

H

.r-4a)rIa)0-ta)

C/I

0H0rznC

-l

0:4z0C/3

Compared to the younger engineers, there are double the

number of job factors that differentiate the LOYAL older en-

gineers from the DISLOYAL older engineers. The intensity of the

differentiation is also much greater. As might be expected, the

investment in a pension or retirement plan becomes the most im-

portant factor differentiating LOYAL and DISLOYAL older engineers.

This would strongly suggest that the LOYAL older engineer is

voluntarily locked-in by his pension while the DISLOYAL older

engineer is either prepared to leave it for the right opportun-

ity, or else has insufficient pension benefits to act as a hold-

ing force.

The fact that both the investment in a pension plan and the

opportunity to retire early were job factors which the LOYAL

older workers found more important raises a question: although

these workers are classified as LOYAL because of their job satis-

faction and lack of intention to change jobs, are they really

highly productive, task oriented people? Referring back to the

loyalty profiles for climate factors, are these people satisfied

with the challenge the job provides, or satisfied with the lack

of challenge? The PULL factors to be discussed shortly imply the

latter may be the case.

Before proceeding to the loyalty profiles for PUSH factors,

it is worth noting that the selection of a good" company loca-

tion, which might represent a one-time cost somewhat higher than-74-

a less desirable location, may well repay itself over a period

of years by attracting more desirable workers and reducing labor

turnover.

5.4.1.2 Push Factors

The loyalty profiles for PUSH factors obtained by comparing

LOYAL vs. DISLOYAL engineers are given in Table 5-3.2. Independ-

ent of age, the LOYAL employees indicated that the requirement

to move to a new city would more strongly influence them to leave

their present company when compared to the DISLOYAL employees.

Two additional factors would more strongly influence the LOYAL

employees to leave compared to the DISLOYAL employees. They are

the requirement for excessive travel and the lack of friendly

and congenial co-workers. The older LOYAL engineer appears to

be comfortably imbedded into a social structure at work and with

his family and community life that is more important to him rela-

tive to his DISLOYAL counterpart.

In addition to the above PUSH factors which act more strong-

ly to cause the LOYAL employees to leave compared to the DISLOYAL

employees, there are numerous other factors which have a stronger

"pushing'" effect on the DISLOYAL engineer. The tolerance level

for not receiving a promotion or working for a poor manager or

working in an inefficiently run organization or department was

notably lower for the DISLOYAL young engineers than for their

LOYAL counterparts. The DISLOYAL young engineers may well

-75-

consider these three job factors as interdependent. He may con-

sider that if his manager and his organization were better and

more efficient, he would advance faster.

A lack of promotions, working for a poor manager and the

lack of opportunity for creativity or originality are all differ-

entiating factors less tolerated by the DISLOYAL older engineers

than by their LOYAL counterparts. Compared to the LOYAL older

engineers, the DISLOYAL older engineers are not particularly

concerned with overall organizational efficiency as long as their

own local environment is well managed, but they are sensitive to

not receiving promotions and to work situations lacking the op-

portunity for creativity or originality. Indeed, they may see

such work situations as the route to promotions.

5.4.1.3 Pull Factors

The loyalty profiles developed for PULL factors are shown

in Table 5-3.3. As expected, most PULL factors which differen-

tiate the LOYAL from the DISLOYAL engineers are factors that are

more attractive to the DISLOYAL groups. For both age groups the

most important factor that would encourage the LOYAL engineers

to accept an employment offer compared to the DISLOYAL engineers

is more opportunity for personal and family life. This was the

only factor which had relatively more attraction to the LOYAL

group than to the DISLOYAL group for the younger engineers.

The older engineers have one additional factor which is more

-76-

attractive to the LOYAL group - the opportunity to retire early.

These hardly would be considered aggressive job oriented fac-

tors. On the other hand, those factors which attracted the DIS-

LOYAL engineers relative to the LOYAL engineers are for the most

part implicitly aggressive, job oriented factors such as the

desire for leadership, recognition, advancement, and higher earn-

ings. From the loyalty profile for climate factors, Table 5-1,

it is seen that the LOYAL employees are more satisfied with all

such job factors than are their DISLOYAL counterparts. Perhaps

the LOYAL employees are actually less aggressive and are satis-

fied with a much lower level of effort and challenge than the

DISLOYAL engineers, who feel under utilized, unchallenged, and

frustrated in their achievement of career goals.

5.4.1.4 Miscellaneous Factors

The loyalty profiles obtained for miscellaneous factors are

shown in Table 5-3. These data provide a clue to who the LOYAL

and DISLOYAL engineers are. It comes as no surprise to discover

that the LOYAL younger engineers have received more promotions

from their present employer and have a higher salary. These

were the only two factors which differentiated the LOYAL and

DISLOYAL younger engineers. The loyalty profile of the older

engineers suggests that those classified as LOYAL have worked

longer for their present company, are working for a larger com-

pany, and have changed companies less than their DISLOYAL

-77-

counterparts. This is an indication that the loyalty of

older engineers is partly due to the force of habit and routine.

5.4.2 Loyal vs. Locked-In

5.4.2.1 Hold Factors

The loyalty profiles for HOLD factors obtained by comparing

the LOYAL with the LOCKED-IN engineers are presented in Table

5-4.1. There are very few factors which significantly differen-

tiate the LOYAL engineers from the LOCKED-IN engineers and the

differentiation is weak (small t values). This implies that the

LOYAL and LOCKED-IN engineers tend to attach nearly the same

degree of importance to the HOLD factors of the questionnaire.

Relative to his LOYAL counterpart, the LOCKED-IN younger

engineer feels constrained from leaving his present job by his

age and by the opportunity to retire early. Intuitively, these

factors would be associated with the LOCKED-IN older engineers.

On the other hand, the LOYAL older engineers were differentiated

from the LOCKED-IN older engineers only by their greater reluct-

ance to change jobs again, having recently"? changed jobs.

5.4.2.2 Push Factors

The loyalty profiles for PUSH factors obtained by comparing

the LOYAL with the LOCKED-IN engineers are found in Table 5-4.2.

Again, as in the loyalty profiles for the HOLD factors, there are

only a few factors that differentiate the LOYAL engineers from

the LOCKED-IN engineers, and the intensity of differentiation is

-78-

r-

.4-I 0

II i

4W O

II

·-a

u) 4-i

CU

O r-4

a a) * -

4-ia) 0

c

·) 0 r-4 P

' -(0

a.)U

)o

o

r-4

D-, co

bO4C

oa )

O .H

.-I

IIa) I

I

C)

r co

Z

CZ

U

Io1tIoa)I -icu4-J14 q)

r C

C

-t

L)

%O

co

C.Hao(na)U)

0Cu

0z

'O u 04 o

0 Ca

o -l

.

·t.J a

0 IC

,.C

U

tO

W

u

0 C

O U

4e

o ou'

.,H

N

0 I

0 4:

a o

, .N

Uq) C

J r 4

a ) C

X

I a)4-

o O

rl C

4

UU

z 'HH

0 0 o

cz -4

0 °°

U)

)Ul

CJ0

0 ;0

H ZO

O

0n 0

J Q

C

O

4

0 .P4

P4 0

0H

F

a)O

*-

* Z

bO

N0

0

U

a0C

H

C)

0

U)

Pa0

00a)0C'4)"Orqa)

*0Cu

.MH -ia)a)r-4CE

-i

a)(1)r.a)rCCHa)r-4ricotP

coa)au

·.4

4)a)kN

t

0 r-

O

II

OW

r

cqe

C-"Iil

a)

--4Co

4)i

aC4

a)-Ha)P5-1

a) oc

-5I"

4-i'1

a) 11

W C

uu

?xW

4

--4

OE-4

Hr-4

020

0H0

.nO0I0 P4

I uI ¢41-;DPL

-79-

laa,..Q

00)Or-44-00u1-1I

En

PCr-l

w0)0CPO

4co

-4InCu

Hl

.ncot

0)0*i-4 r-4

cu

04-0Cu'4-4 00

4-4

P 0

) a)

iiP

9 0

, oo

o3 cII

0 1.400

00cO 0

) U)

1 >d

c1 C,-

Ca 0

-

IIO40

0

r4

03 -

C 0

0) -4

04-J

P

Z)

w0)a

Z

0). I

CN

0)CJ

ct4ro,r44H

4-.)

uoUo)

u0)

4-a0Z

-80-

02Pa)0)0.V-4a,r.a)

'-I0IH4

r--4coE

-i

En

W:

0(n0wzIkwZEn

X-

z

J\

I

weak. Relative to their LOYAL counterparts, the LOCKED-IN

younger engineers would be more likely to leave an employer who

required them to travel excessively. The LOCKED-IN older en-

gineers, on the other hand, were more likely to leave because

they did not receive a promotion or because their organization

or department was inefficient. The LOYAL engineer, who was

shown to have much greater satisfaction with the overall climate

of his job (Table 5-2) presumably has much more tolerance for

inconvenience such as excessive travel, organizational ineffi-

ciences, or even the lack of a promotion.

5.4.2.3 Pull Factors

The loyalty profiles for PULL factors obtained by comparing

the LOYAL with the LOCKED-IN engineers are presented in Table

5-4.3. There are no factors in a job offer which significantly

differentiate the LOYAL from the LOCKED-IN young engineers. In

other words the degree of importance which the LOYAL and the

LOCKED-IN younger engineers associate with each PULL factor does

not differ widely. A possible conclusion is that a given job

offer to younger engineers is just as likely to cause LOYAL em-

ployees to leave (or come) as LOCKED-IN employees. What is not

known is whether the threshold required to cause a LOYAL employ-

ee to change jobs equals the threshold required to motivate a

LOCKED-IN employee to change jobs. The scarcity and weakness

of HOLD and PUSH factors suggests that the thresholds may be

nearly equal. -81-

The contrast between the PULL factor loyalty profile for

the younger and older engineers is quite dramatic. More dra-

matic yet is the sharp difference in the characteristics of a

job offer which appeal to the LOYAL older engineers compared

to the LOCKED-IN older engineers and vice versa. For the older

engineers the differentiating factors in a job offer which have

greater appeal to the LOYAL group compared to their LOCKED-IN

counterparts are better fringe benefits, more time for personal

and family life, and the opportunity to retire early. These

factors are all focused on the more self oriented needs of the

employee such as leisure time and security. However, more op-

portunity to exercise leadership and to advance, and more chal-

lenging work are factors of a job offer that appeal more strongly

to the LOCKED-IN older engineer. These factors, like the climate

profile in Table 5-2b, imply that the LOCKED-IN older engineers

are frustrated by unchallenging work and a need for self actuali-

zation. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the LOCKED-IN

older engineers are under utilized and represent a wasted re-

source of talent. Management should be able to more successfully

motivate this resource through more flexible and more equitable

work assignments. This would not only allow more individuals to

demonstrate their creativity and capabilities, but the overall

competence level of the engineering force would improve as well.

-82-

The loyalty profiles derived from the miscellaneous factors

are shown in Table 5-4.4. The data show that the longer an em-

ployee works for a company, the more likely he is to fall into

the category of LOCKED-IN. This tendency is reinforced for

older engineers, where the LOCKED-TN group has worked for less

companies during their careers than the LOYAL engineers. Also,

the longer a younger engineer has been working full time the

more likely he is to be classified as LOCKED-IN. Being "locked-

in" would appear to be partly caused by the force of habit and

routine.

5.5 Profile Comparison: Disloyal with Locked-In

5.5.1 Climate Factors

A comparison of the loyalty profiles of the DISLOYAL younger

engineers, Table 5-la, with the LOCKED-IN younger engineers,

Table 5-2a, shows essentially no similarity in the order of im-

portance of the climate factors in the two profiles. The

LOCKED-IN younger group also shows considerably weaker differen-

tiation (smaller t values) than does the DTSLOYAL older group

with respect to the LOYAL group.

Quite the opposite effect appears from a comparison of the

DISLOYAL older engineer with the LOCKED-IN older engineers. Here

the loyalty profiles are very similar. Three of the first four

climate factors of the two profiles are identical and have the

same rank order. The order of all factors and the strength of

-83-

the differentiations are nearly equal with the exception of

recognition received for work accomplished which is a much less

important differentiating factor for the LOCKED-IN older engin-

eers than for their DISLOYAL counterparts. These data would

suggest that the needs of the DISLOYAL and the LOCKED-TN engin-

eers are somewhat divergent during the first half of their ca-

reers but become more nearly alike during the second half of

their careers. If management can reduce the turnover of DIS-

LOYAL older engineers by improving certain climate factors in-

herent in their jobs, they will simultaneously motivate the

LOCKED-IN older engineers.

5.5.2 Hold Factors

In comparing the loyalty profiles of the DISLOYAL and the

LOCKED-IN groups for HOLD factors (Tables 5-3 and 5-4), the most

notable difference is that the LOCKED-IN engineers have only a

few weak factors which differentiate them from their LOYAL

counterparts. On the other hand, a large number of job factors

would have relatively little influence in holding the DISLOYAL

older engineers in a job compared to the LOYAL engineer. These

data tend to support intuition which would conclude that holding

factors have much less influence on the DISLOYAL employees.

5.5.3 Push Factors

A comparison of the loyalty profiles developed for PUSH

factors for the DISLOYAL and the LOCKED-IN engineers (Table 5-3.2

-84-

and Table 5-4.2) shows that these groups are differentiated for

PUSH factors in much the same way as for the HOLD factors pre-

viously discussed. Again it comes as no surprise to discover

that the DISLOYAL groups demonstrate a much lower threshold of

tolerance for a disagreeable employment environment than do the

LOYAL or LOCKED-IN employees.

5.5.4 Pull Factors

A comparison of Tables 5-3.3 and 5-4.3 dramatically shows

the expected difference in response of the DISLOYAL groups

towards attractive features of a new job offers expecially the

younger engineers who presumably are more mobile and less rooted

to their communities and work routines. The LOCKED-IN older

engineers on the other hand, show a remarkable similarity to

the DISLOYAL older engineers, both in the type and rank order

of the differentiating job factors, and also the strength of the

differentiation.

5.5.5 Miscellaneous Factors

Comparing the loyalty profiles of the DISLOYAL and the

LOCKED-IN groups (Tables 5-3.4 and 5-4.4) shows an interesting

difference in the profiles of the younger engineers. The pro-

files for the DISLOYAL young engineers are based on job factors,

e.g., the number of promotions and the annual salary level. The

profile for the LOCKED-IN young engineers was composed only of

demographic factors, e.g., the number of years working and the

-85-

number of years with the present employer. In contrast the

profiles for the DISLOYAL and LOCKED-IN older engineers were

both based on demographic factors.

-86-

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

One object for management is to reduce employee turnover

and to improve employee motivation and job satisfaction. The

object of this research was to determine which job factors

management could change in order to provide a working environ-

ment that will minimize the loss of employees from the organiza-

tion while simultaneously causing employees classified as dis-

loyal, undecided, and locked-in to move towards the loyal clas-

sification. Data from this research provide some indications

as to which job factors are most likely to produce such a change

in employee attitudes.

The most important factors differentiating both DISLOYAL

and LOCKED-TN engineers of all ages from their LOYAL counter-

parts are the desire for more challenging work, recognition for

work accomplished, and the desire to exercise more influence on

decisions made at higher levels. The DISLOYAL and LOCKED-IN

engineers are also differentiated from their LOYAL counterparts

by their lack of knowledge of career paths and promotional opportunities

within their organizations, and with the lack of knowledge of

what is expected of them. Dissatisfaction with opportunities

to exercise leadership and to advance in the organizations are

-87-

also job factors which strongly differentiated the DISLOYAL

and LOCKED-IN engineers from the LOYAL engineers.

The DISLOYAL group is differentiated from the LOYAL group

by more job factors than the LOCKED-IN group, and the differ-

entiation is generally stronger. This indicates that relative

to their LOCKED-IN counterparts, the DISLOYAL engineers would

be more affected by management's efforts to improve their job

environment. The LOCKED-IN younger engineers were more weakly

differentiated from the LOYAL younger engineers implying that

this group of employees would be a less fruitful area for man-

agement to expand their efforts.

The feelings of frustration and underutilization expressed

by the DISLOYAL and LOCKED-IN engineers could be converted into

a highly productive engineering resource. To generate feelings

of job satisfaction, enjoyment, and accomplishment in the dis-

loyal engineers, and to provide greater motivation for the

locked-in engineers, management must assign these workers more

challenging tasks with greater opportunities and freedom for

creativity, resourcefulness, and responsible leadership roles.

The organizational hierarchy should provide a more broadly based

and loosely structured social format which encourages active,

open two way communication. This will permit the non management

-88-

engineering levels greater opportunities to influence their

working environments, and the feedback systems for appraisal,

recognition, and rewards will act faster and be better under-

stood.

Perhaps the most interesting and totally unexpected re-

sults to emerge from this research is that the engineers clas-

sified as "disloyal" appear to be much more dynamic, aggressive,

and self actualizing than do those engineers classified as

1"loyal' or "locked-in". The disloyal engineers are seeking

more challenging work, promotions, and greater leadership roles

and influence. They want opportunities to prove their abilities,

they want recognition for their achievements, and they have low

tolerance levels for poor managers and inefficient organizations.

Compare these traits with the loyal engineers who emerge as

being content with their job environment and more tolerant of

poor management and organizational inefficiencies. They are

locked into their present jobs by their pensions, adequate sal-

aries, their age, early retirement prospects, and their spouse's

reluctance to relocate. They do not seek more challenging

work, more opportunities for advancement, leadership roles, or

recognition. Instead, they want more time for personal and

family life and the opportunity to retire early.

-89-

These results must of course be substantiated by more

broadly based and more thorough research, but if the loyal and

disloyal engineers are characterizable as these data suggest,

then the implications are enormous. Traditionally, the goal

of organizations, and a measure of the quality of personnel

management has been to minimize turnover by building a stable

organization of loyal employees. However, this research sug-

gests that if organizations would attract and fully utilize the

capabilities and talents of the so called disloyal employees,

these organizations would become more creative, aggressive, and

productive companies, which would be better prepared to accept

the challenges and risks of a dynamic business climate.

The challenge for management is to recognize and utilize

this resource of engineering talent by developing flexible or-

ganizational structures and reward systems more attuned to the

entrepreneurial spirit of the disloyal engineer. Management

must search out strategies for organizational change and take

the risks involved in attempting to develop new forms of job -

employee relationships. They must keep pace with the needs of

employees for more opportunities for self actualization in the

form of leadership roles under conditions which challenge their

competence, creativity, resourcefulness, and leadership quali-

ties.

-90-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bailyn, Lotte and Schein, Edgar H., A taxonomy of tech-nically based careers, Working Paper WP 754-74, Alfred P.Sloan, School of Management, November, 1974.

2. Carr, Clay B., Jr. "Total Turnover", Personnel Journal,July, 1972.

3. Drucker, Peter F., The Age of Discontinuity, Harper & Rowe,N.Y. 1968.

4. Fox, Allan, A Sociology of Work in Industry, Collier -MacMillan, London, 1971.

5. Levinson, Harry. "Easing the Pain of Personal Loss",Harvard Business Review, Sept. - Oct. 1972, V.50.

6. Loomba, R.P., An Examination of the Engineering ProfessionManpower Research Groups, Center for InterdisciplinaryStudies, San Jose State College, San Jose, California, 1968.

7. March, James C., Simon, Herbert A. Organizations, Chapter4, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1958.

8. Perrucci, R., Gerstl, J. The Engineer and the Social Sys-tems Wiley, N.Y., 1969.

9. Ritti, Richard R., The Engineer In the Industrial Corpora-tion, Columbia University Press, N.Y., 1971.

-91-

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS

The questionnaire and results are presented below. There

were 1155 cases processed.

1) What is the total number of years you have been working

full time? (exclude military service)

Range Number Percent Code

0-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

21 or more years

missing

113

227

229

186

400

O

9.8

19.7

19.8

16.1

34.6

O

1

2

3

4

5

0

2) During that time, for how many companies have you worked

including your present job?

Range Number Percent Code

1 company

2-3 companies

4-5 companies

6-7 companies

8 or morecompanies

missing

268

439

244

122

82

O

23.2

38.0

21.1

10.6

7.1

O

1

2

3

4

5

O

-92-

3) In what type of industry are you currently working?

Range

Public sector (e.g., Utilities,non profit organizations, etc)

City, State or federal govern-ment

Private Sector

Self employed

Missing

Number Percent Code

36

32

1080

4

3

3.1

2.8

93.5

0.3

0.3

1

2

3

4

0

4) How many years have you worked for your present

Range Number Percent

employer?

Code

Less than 1 year

1-2 years

3-4 years

5-9 years

10 or more years

Missing

48

176

180

374

377

0

4.2

15.2

15.6

32.4

32.6

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

5) What is the size of the company you work for?

Range

Less than 100 employees

100-499 employees

500-999 employees

1000-4999 employees

5000 or more employees

Missing

Number Percent Code

73

252

160

234

434

2

-93-

6.3

30.5

13.9

20.3

37.6

0.2

1

2

3

4

5

0

-

- I I

6) What is your annual salary from your company?

Range Number Percent Code

6a) Check here if you have substantial

Checked N= 37 3.2%

other income.

code=2

7) How many people do

Range

O people

1-3 people

4-10 people

11-10 people

21 or more people

Missing

you supervise?

Number Percent

515

318

214

49

54

5

44.6

27.5

18.5

4.2

4.7

0.4

-94-

Code

1

2

3

4

5

0

__ __

8) Are you satisfied with your present job?

Range Number Percent

definitely satisfied

somewhat satisfied

somewhat dissatisfied

definitely dissatisfied

missing

237

518

285

109

6

20.5

44.8

24.7

9.4

0.5

9) What is the probability that you wi

employers in the next two years?

Range Number Percent

0o%

1-49%

50%

51-99%

100%

missing

322

418

226

133

50

6

27.9

36.2

19.6

11.5

4.3

0.5

11 voluntarily change

Code

1

2

3

4

5

0

-95-

Code

1

2

3

4

O

10) What is your job title?*

Range Number Percent Code

Top Level General Manager

Functional Manager,Non Technical

Top Level Technical Manager

Level 2 Technical Manager

Level 3 Technical Manager

Non Management Engineer

Non Degreed Technologists

Business Staff (Functional)

Other

Missin2

11) Have you received a promotion(s)

present employer?

Range Number

while working for your

Percent Code

1

0

or missing

*Coded according to rules described in Chapter III.

-96-

13

15

90

117

108

602

144

31

14

21

1.1

1.3

7.9

10.3

9.5

53.1

12.7

2.7

1.2

1.8

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

O

I II

......

lla) If so how many?

*Range Number

missing or

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 or greater

441

272

185

112

65

26

20

8

5

2

19

Percent Code

38.2

23.5

16.0

9.7

5.6

2.3

1.7

0.7

0.4

0.2

1.6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

llb) Give dates of your last two promotions.

NOTE: Dates given by respondents were calendar dates, eg.2/74 for February, 1974, or occasionally just 75 or1975 for 1975. 2/74 would be keypunched as 274 and1974 or 74 would be keypunched as 74. Unprocesseddata would therefore be too extensive and complex topresent here.

WThere are discrepancies between the answers to question 11 andlla. This is likely due to a combination of errors by respond-ents and errors in keypunching. The observations were recodedbut no attempt-was made to make the data match.

-97-

J J l ---

u r

n f

\D

u

0000C 00

\D 00 O

N0)

v -0

-

0 '- , , ~ r

'

C4

r

uf 00

t 00 r

r

43 -n

1 cP

J- M

-

r-

U-

C)

o C

o 0

o ~

~ cs

~ X

@

H

Y

') C

C

4 %

C ' 4

cs

0 % r 04-I

0 01

00 v

o %

O 00

-It 00

0 C

10 (

0 ( C

~3 r-

* *

** 0

* .

-o-i0) r4

4 CY

i)r00 r

LrN

C

14 cy

) O

r-4 c )

C

00 -

r1 C

Y)

%

--,

r-4 -

-,

a 0

C~

r4 C

CC

4

O

o' o

O

0. 4

*- H

C)

C)C

U

a )4 -a)

N

tU

a cU

co k

hO k

a0 ;>

0W

J a

P )O

a) a)

3a) co -r

( o

uri

p 0) p

C 3 -l

0 0

0 -4

a) a -4

O

k Q

Q

S ' 4 0

w O

D

O

*Hl rl

=C

*,i *n )

60 i

=

O

O o

O o

O P

-*H

( a

kX

*rn

Z

0 m

m

0

-98-

O.bo0'"40"--I0aU4icoQ

)

a)

.rl

.Ca)

*4a)oUCa00

0C;

0'-44-1mC;

'0-gI-N0\IN

O1-1

Ia0004-i

U)

4-4-IC)

a,

-(U)

C)

r-4 a) z

0

t4 4

-r-4 C

Z

a 04-J

o z

cU

U-

3 kC

.C 0

03 a

O-4 C

U

) U

C;

el

a0O4

04430c)a)

4-i

U0*c0 a)a)

U)

0

P4

Ca)U

)C

I0

a -0cO

* Cco

co o

0 ,-I0

4- 0

0 C

O

4-i

3 00

0a ra

0 a44

O

LnC

r) 4

I' 00

Nt

r--.

00c4

00 cN

00 i0V

C4

PN

I

v

v.-

44-1

--4U)

0aae,

a) 0

-rri

-

a)4-44-I0a)4C

)oo0000

U)

0-o0"0

UC

U)co

C)0

O

Ua)

pa) --4

.-i0rrp

0o4--

U)

a)C)

p 'Q)

(1

b

C

*,1 U

) SO

U)U) v-

C

Z

:>

., C

o B

-i

i4-)

0 uBCJ

4-i

-0c

Erj

r--

O-4 C

o

)4.3::

) b0 aO

C

X

CU

a'

o C

L

U

'

C0U)

-rj

r- c

U)

~oj~~ ~ C

O

!U

)

0 C

N

k4

CoU)

U)

un rC

\

r-4 o

co,- -4

-t

0 n

co

0)

4.3 0

U.)

rJ::

,-4

4i 0

0' 0

4 -g.-I

a) 4

v -C

) 4

OC

o

H

.H

P44

4 z

OX

0o rJ -4

_ a

3 z-

E

0U

) *,O

o r-

0

O

Co

0

U)

0

o 0

3 ro o

CZ

3

Or

U

U)

CT

4J

Co

4O3Co

o 0U

U

O '~

C13

0

OU)

O

co r-O

4 4CO

OO

.r'.0,

CV

'4

-.tV.-

ur C r)

C)

(

VV

V

LO

O

aO

C

4N

N

C N

t r

a' N

) ,

- 4r-.

.L

n)

00 )

o,

C')

'.0 ,

--0

N.

Cm

C

-i C

Ya'

o ro

CN

t c

CY

) L

)-

-

.0 c

Co

O

a' 0I,-I

.O

O

O

,-(

' ,--

C-.a)P'-I3()--4Q

)o4U)

a.Hco04-)

qc- r

-.t L

' 0

C4

C%

00 'D

N

Nt

N

CCY

)

0oo N

O

4t,--

oo-.tVt

o ==~

I

U)

0 0

,-4

4- r

O

4i P

q)

C)4J

)

~

O

~>

4 >

o) ' U

) 0

U

4-4

0r 4J

4-

o Q

0-H

P

0*H

bo P

P 0H

U

)

O

C

O

k O q

rp!4

CO

o 0

0 C

o 4

3i0a

0 Q

) C

SHi

co 5-Iw

-

U) 0

U N

CO

)

4-j U

O 0

~ '-r.. 4-J

3. *-I ~

0

-C

oC

H

-4 -4 H

0

*4 3

rI'-

v t-4

0 14

Co 14

O

f C

F~~ *S

H

Q

z 1,

* r000

q)U

) Q

)

O

>

O4-i

-99-

r- cn U

) -4

r-4 C

Z

>C

.cO~

*H

4i c4

O

a) z

CUC

Z

u4-a

Ov~0.

o z

a0) 0

0

o0

10

4

o) C

OO

O

-0I

tn

' 4

4 C

C

0 00

4 C

Y)

.-

Nt

cq C4

CO

4

0~

r- e'3 J.04

O

LO

cN

0

*f

C

r-.

4

CO

C

O

C)

4 C

N

00 -4

'0 00

C" 00

CO

4 04

r- C

(N

r

LO

00

CO

@

.

, _

04C4

0Doo

-t

C4v

000

40 r

O

U)

bo

O

oQ)co0

0"t~ -,-)

*,t'0

0w-C

Z

ap~

04-44-i 1-4

-4 4

4Ji

U))as0.r4

04U)

0co0~'~

O\

'0C O)

O

.-

.O3O

rOU

O

OO

Q

o c~

5-4 ra a)

t 4 0

0. O

-

P a

<0,

r4

r4

1 -U

) (M

O

10 C

eY-c) O

00

0 00

04

4 r00 r

CU

4 4

CY

)

ON

r-4

00 C

Lr)

-t

00' .4

CY

C

) C

-4 -4 -Cq u

* .

O

.C

Y)

'0 00

O

4 r-44

e

'.0 O

'i 000

,-4 N

"C

N

CO

04

r- 4L

f

C

r-4 L

O O

C"4

r-I C

"J

00 r-

N

.O*

* *

e~C1

c_

o

Ca-i

p.,

P, 0oU

C

0) O

0

0 O

CO

.

-0

>4 4E

-4 ~-

04.2

cocna)3U)

aU)

poL:j

0Q

-%

-%

0%

#%

44

0 r:

H

r-4-100-

Cn

Co

0nC4

CO00v~

u'

(NC4-44

r-'-4O44N

a)00U)

Cr4

UO,o.4-U)C

(4-

UH

O0O

OOQ

)4QO4-i

oP

0Oo0)4

4 a

0 0n

-K

-I

O0

00 C

* 0\%

o CY

)u~ v

0o00

CN

00*-

OO

C

1

N

C

O0 4

CN

u'

.-%

CN

O%

O0

C

,

r- 00

00 r* r

O- C

Oq0C

r-4

-4 C00C

N

CN

'

-, C

00 -

c4 c4

un C

Y) C)

-4CC1N

r-N

.rl

o o

cbC

)O

l in

Lr) r-

r- C

)

*H

04,30

040U

*H4)

O

0UasI

0

*H

4-i

5 C

0

N

-r 0

Ca 4.)4-

aOC

4 0) :: 0

C

Okr O

z

t o

O~

U4

k

cn D

>

:j :

*H

c) C

O 4.

4-i

4$4 0 00)

4-i 0 0

C

44-io

o>> 0 0

cr O

o a PI·-

C4

-

oC..04i0U

O

0rl4

00O04.1O4-J

0C)

4J

c'0

U)

-'U)

x 'H

Ev

c)O(I k

#- 1-.

-A

%

U-)

4 4 4

-I

-C¥

O

O

O

0V

*_ -

0 i-

CY

1-4 r- 4

C"J

(N

r-A

N

0 -4

r- 4

(N

CN

C

,-4

l

N

~

V

V

r-4 00

CY

) 0

r

c0 C

r

0 ,-%

oO o ,

-c(

r-4 L

0

c,n

O

-4 C

o)

-'

-4 e

O

uL)

c) C

00

r-~

0' "0

C"

((N

) C4

C4

C4

CY

)

C4

0C

O

(r

r'-

00 (N

L

f) r-

Lr)

(N

00 -

a -

(4 -I

r,-4

O

o N

N

o

"0 0

CY

r-

00V

V

Vl

rV

CV

,I

00)4J0

c0O0 P

$U

440,1.4 rU0

0 C

0 34 rO a

00u

"0

4) 0 0-Q

0) X

4

oq 0 0

0 i

>

u 0

4.u =

* C

$4) -4) U

0 Q

$ H

Q

)Q

0 00'U

rl

~ oW

0' r

UC

0 O

n0

O ,

~ rl

.

4a) 0 00

0r

3 0)

0 U

)P4

O a

a o

0)0 0 L

-00

Q

4 O

H fi

4-ed

3 >

O

E

b0

r -

-101-

cu

·J a

*H u co

', 0

E nZ

cU3C

O4-i

c k

3 Q

D

O

UZ

vl -'-'

4-J

>- cU

r4 CZ

44J

'H

O0) )

z

) 0

u 0)

0)

C'0

C)

00)

cn0I4-4

0UU44000C

4 -)

C

0

c0 0a0 v0

$L C

0 )0·

4 4

U) k4

0)o

bo0

Ucp

an a)

O

,--) 4.3

$ 4

!

b8q)

-

4 0c0 'l

" '

a >

4JC0

.40 O

U) z

4i40coCto

C)

a, )0

o Z

u

C

C

C

a) 0)o

Z

40 C

J 5

r4 0

1010

0)

o -o

0

O

-o

cO

r C

N

CN

rb

4 C

Y)

-·

r 0

C 1' 00

C~0

r- 40

C14

mT

n

e- 00

CY

) f%

4 .o 4

~~~~~ C

'- )

00 ¢'

4 0

C

C%

4 C

4

o

o

o r-0 a

0

t>

0f

0 4

o k

O

o

~ 0)

4

C)

C o a

.o0 0

r- ii

0) co

)

0) 'H

4 a

C) 0

0 )

0 O

r

0)

=

o 44

oH

a

Fz

c =

r

-, u

? .4

I V-4

O)

r-

N

r-

D

000

00.e

%-

00)o

a)4-

:j r4

OE O

~oC

oO

k 0

o a

11-

a)ICa00)

403U)

-4cUF

)

0i)

o.0cuo0)4-

Q)

cnC

oC

)

4-4o*-lC

) OaC

a) ,-

w 0

0)p a

4-4P

(ao

0) 40 0

a p

4-4

-102-

16) Age*

Range

22-25

26-30

31-35

36-40

41-45

46-50

51-55

56-50

61 and older

missing

Sex

Range

male

female

missing

Number Percent

1129

19

7

97.7

1.6

0.6

Code

1

2

0

*Respondents answered with exact age to the year. These datahave been condensed into 5 year intervals for simplicity.

-103-

Code

actual

age

was

code

used

Number

29

185

239

209

146

165

119

42

16

5

Percent

2.5

16.0

20.7

18.1

12.6

14.3

10.3

3.6

1.3

0.4

16a)

- - - - | -

I I

17) Highest Academic Achievement

Range Number Percent Code

High School degree

1-3 years college

bachelor's degree

masters degree

professional engineer

doctorate's degree

missing

32

445

122

311

226

14

5

2.8

38.5

10.6

26.9

19.6

1.2

0.4

1

2

3

4

5

6

O

18) Marital Status

Range Number Percent Code

Single

Married

Divorced

Widowed

Missing

85

1025

39

1

5

7.4

88.7

3.4

0.1

0.4

1

2

3

4

O

-104-

19) Number of children

Range

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 or more

Number

189

140

379

234

129

48

16

12

2

6

20) Spouse working with financial renumeration

Range

full time

part time

not at all

missing

Number

212

227

621

92

21) Check here if spouse earns a substantial contribution to

family income

Checked N = 129, % = 18, Code = 2.

-105-

CodePercent

16.4

12.1

32.8

20.3

11.2

4.2

1.4

1.0

0.2

0.5

Percent

18.4

19.7

53.8

8

Code

1

2

3

0

g l l - S

03

00

s4

c c0

> U

)

0O

r co

v 0

3

(

e-

0¢

4-

cn c

9 Z

k

0-4 0

'-4 z

4

0O

I-- 0)

O

0O

P

(

H

04Do,

O

i-I 00as-0)s-0,

4ir-4 .r

r r-4

E-0ce

0 c0U)Cs-I

=1

r-4 ;>

M co

O

O

0 0

0 O

0

0O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

C3

CO

O

0 00

CC

) O

N

C

O

1 0

1-

00 -.

0

'

n n

c

Oqo u

0o0)·r'0)0)0

P0P0H0X-

u

O*rnCw

00C N

C--

oC

~ O

CN

Ln

C( 00

0 0

410 .o

Q)

UO

0

co 0

0C

)0C

t5 -Q

03

0

a 0)

-1

4- >4

c' O

) r-

r4

C

CN

c\ r-4

41

Q)

00u

c4-

4 0

a0

bW O

3o rB

G

C

Ln

~10C

Q 00

a *'

0) C

)

X)

)0)

) 0

xI C

4 C

04J 4J

'ri03

0

0

o 0

0 0 U

)

00 'O

0440).-

4r

o 4,

0or4

04 3

a0 o

O

C0

0)0J 00

3 C

H

C

o. 4,.

> 1 rO

r- C

C

Y)

-t n

o r-

00o

-106-

O

r C

1

O

0 0

OO

O

O

O

Lf)

N

C

m0

-4 00

C4

C

lll rl

m

no-

011'1

ec,\J

O

O

mO

*U r.-(

Lr

C

eJc14

P000mU)

'4-*a0a)

a C

P-

r).i-4

) U

4 0Q

) 0)

a) )PP

Q -r4

au P

:>

4v¢

:j r.

Q)

-C4

c-q0E

-C

C

C

n

-17:DP4

-107-

O

L0

0 0

O

O

o o

O

O

o O

00

Io

r-4

O

o o

0 oC

7) rl

CN

J C

\I a)

I I

U)

C.

a)

O

C)

00

Co

o C4

soa)00ooa)00u4.a)

P

u

r- c14

Cr *o

*Y) -

4 -o

C

Cr

C

4cNo~

000

c

o o

.4a,

*H

N4-b U

u

c0

OO

O

IQ

)

o -4 a )

:3 .l

HO

1-4 C

V4

C)

N

wo) X

r4 r4

-a)

oU

)oCO

wa

*

oOo·H

v-I~C

-Ir4

.qH

P

o r0

C

roC

O Qa)

r4 ?

Q)

4Jr-4

30o4r)

a)0o C

0

CQ

t

,

co;cl

·l

co

a):-r4-i00z6-4HP-4P4

r-5ct.r.ct

0o40r400u

P0E-4

u00

O

00 ,4

C

en r

4 4t

-I C

O

O

O

0 0

0 0

O

O

-t r4

00 1r

M

00 L

0 0

0 r

L)

00 t

C q

Ci

C

C4

C'

CC

I I

I I

I I

0.t

*,4

"-4

&J0

3 =

C aa-,

i 0o 1

o P4

(n ooC

0

n C

o

0C0*rC0

00 o

C

'

a)C

-00

-t 'Ocn

Cn

ooN 4

c,, ,,.

* -4

U

00

*0 C0

0

O

rs

·04

cn D

a)cf

r 0

k 4 U

a)U

c

a) O

kC

Zr4

C p

w

z u C

li

1- C

I N

r) 1t

o

-108-

.-

,l. r-

0 C

3

r-Q;

4-Ct

r a

a)I-

0 cr-

*rt

t Ot r-4Y

)

a)

4JC0zZ4

P4

a)-or4,-

44C

O.0

:>

a)C.)

.tJ04-i

0 a)C

a)Z

r-4

CU)

a)04a

s-I*,l

U JH

a,-4

0C

sq

44

74 rl

o 0 43 0

E- X0d)

O

m.~

X

,-4co

>-

r: a0

(n9Q

.4

3 3

co.

e rqP4co

O

jO

O

O

OC)~~~~~~~v

OOLr)

,-I

c c~

rlO

O.co

-r4C0

coN

N<

o ~~4

.) .1C

Y)

4,-A

n r

co "..,

.rrOr- ;

In t

·,0

C

IQ

) 4 rl

ri

;>0

~ ~

'~~~~b4

"Au

4-~~~~J

0 0

4 k

A.ns

r-j 0

0 u

.. ..

a

-W

P.,P 0

z 0o a

k H

a bD

ua

a

1--i

(n0wzI-;wu.,ME

qz

b >..-

0

4 j

cP

-P

-H r-I

k.4 k co

P. o

0

_ w

a)

k-

Q

k w

c

nt D

D H

C

Z 3

¢C3

.( c\

P

SO

-

O

0

co C

0.H

$4

FX

4 4 r4 :

O

4 ,-

C1

Co

U), rl

CS

a-JOZZ

-109-

02-bO

0 0

O

o4J

HC0

0

O O,

W

Cl

u

o k

^Ow

0

Z

4H

a

o o3-4Q

a

¢ 0o-

4J

-4 .H

*H r-4C

ZO 40ola

: 4E

-PI

(dC

CO

ca

o C

z P

C0

O 0

.. r4-o

>q -

0 (n1.4 r-

v-

o o

0 0

0 0

0 0

o o

o o

o O

o

oC

C

) C

) C

) C

) C

O

C

00PioskoCa

0r-4I'D

C

N

C

0 C

Y)0o'T

r

h.-

a)a)a1)

ulr t'

I'DL

f)N

H

)C

14r o

0U

4-I0)C

u :H

) 4-JP

P

co,C 0U0

0O

-o a) 'H-4U

OC;

0HE-)

H01.4

u

a OkP!:I 100

zO

3·

e~t

00o C

N

-

o03'04-4

a)a)

O

3

-H

U)

0U

US

u u

ao)14C

o

* i*

) LfCM

cq)

O Lr)

0 00

C

--Ir

o

u r-

U

0 a)

:B

o

Qa)

O

:r

0 Q

) a

(D

b D

{

0 o

4-

U)

ua)

3 a

cO

0 H

cflC

u p-

*,' 0

00

Hl

C

C

't L

r)

-'0N

*n

o:,C

>rI

a) .

Q) u

O0 b0C

0 o4-4C

0 H

OH

00 C

N

O

cNO

C'e)

o 4't

*Y

-

ms '

cl- C

4ia0oH0,.ia)o Oo .r-4

0 0

0 44

a04iUa),

4

0oa)3Or-:3

'. I"

00

0o.)l

O4-)u0)(na)

.1l4-J

O O

cua)

-oa)

r-

z a

Id Q

)

o 4UO

c 4

,.a)k

Ha) -)

k -4O

a)

'- P-4

-110-

0 0

0 0

0O

O

O

o

CY

)O

0

0 0

O0

0 0

0 0

r C

00

t C

0U

N

I n

C

r- "L

r)o

00·r

0Cco0)4

4. 4

co0 0

0) H

0 )-4

k

00 00r

rC

C

a)

C)

C)

C4

-r-o

C

C

0a,

0U)

U)

o0

O

1-C

l):

0

o

O0

3u

W,

U

0

0 co

O

04

r 4-Ja)

C

IC

U

-4

0) 0)

4M ~

U

4 c

CY

) 4

Lr)

-111-

4.,r-I --4

0 .3

04Q4)

r-.ICco0C

)co z

1)-

z C

-r-

0 r

n0Q(

0H Z.a4·ri00uXE

-Il

PIP4

P4

00C

'r

e

C4,40coQ)0)(:L

0o

Q(M.ct.r

0u4

0>

I :n:

Co

0 ,

00 O

0 O

0 o

o o

r-O

O

O

O

OC

C

N

C4

e4 C

O

00 C

)00 00 Lr

c4JcN

a10)

a)a sH

r '4-44 30

0) Q0cO0)

0) 3

0X

O

0P

CO

(ri k;> Q

) cE

, P

D

u I

0x

0 0

w

uO

o U

)00

r),l *~

-

in r-T

h

4-3

0 c

C

00 0O

O

O o

i -r

kO

D

w

00

3 Z

o

H ~

C4

C-

.f \

-112-

ri .rI

o 4

3 0P.-r4

4IJ

OO

C

YC

cC

OH

04 O

j P

41-30a)C

:.rl0HuurPW

0oo C

T

00C-)

.IJ0*Hl

43uQ)

r40)

r-CCt

CT

w

V2

0E4

X(nPL

4

o 0 0

0 0

0

C\I

CV

N

C

VH

I I

I I

IO

O

0 C

O O

O

O

Lc

-t O

t O

O

-oC

O

- .L

U

4n 4

o4 C

4 o

C

C

C

CC

) C

N C

C

� V

C

4

C

C

co U

0 a

O'

Xa)

0 0

0 4

"~

0 4-i

0 0 -

b~ g

a)P

0 4C

O0

a)Z

kO

d

I o

Cu

CN

co

ccn0

0 044

'0C

OD

a) U

' 0 -P

a h

a, a

.r0 0

a)O

=d

X

Ca)E

5

r-4 c1

( -I

L1 N

0 r-

113-

4-i~

Cu

rl ·rl

*P 4

co *

0O

3 0E

q ka)co4i0CO

a)0C:

C

0

0 cu

Pao V

,; *,cu·rr-4

'0a"000COxzPpI

4-i

cu a)

a) z

O

S0

kD

a)

a )o

0U4)

ha)H

H

r4

0u 3 o

0 ct

P

Z 4-

O

-.-

P0E41

'-4p-

C

C'

4

O

( ~O

OoV

03

0\ a)

.Cr)~~~~~ .~~r

C)

XOPC.r

oDoa

O r"

oO' a

4 .

C

C

C

c C

4

abOC

aC

I:: 0

.H4-)O

U

)O

~~ ~

~ ~~~~

rb~~~ k

W

Q~)

Q.

50 k0

A

.7- 3

t5 O

£

T4!

C4

ru

IJ U

)k 5.4

Co

U)

0 ° I

01 1

fZ

P.-

D

O

,- .

-c

o E

.- -

o

o

o

.H

, 4iC

O

k

U) )

a)

Z

U)

Z*)

N

0 -40 O

4 i-c r:I

o

a -4

04-i

Z

-114-

C tP9

30E

- k

.IO

r4

z.

P4

'r-.h

00E-)

0Eq

Ozcn0wzIWC,

uEn

z

CJ

O..Q

EH

r-E

-4 4rt093

0Pk

Eq a)

:>

r-CZ

J0at)

ooF

P

O

,- 0C.)

,--

:)

:>

.r4PCT

J

O

CY

O

O

C

O

O

OC

) 0

0)O

O

O

CT

oo

CY

0

0C

0e It

r--

4j~ C

r) C

r

C'4 C

) -

_ C

Y) M

0

I'D

00 0

O

% 00

C0 %

D

~ C

0

C

0 0

C4 0

00 L

) ;f

ro

r

r-

Cl

O

O

O

OO

O

O

O

C

o o

C;

r- C

IN

00 O

N00

" \1 C

Y

CC

C1

C

C

O

O

00 00 O

o0o C

ON0

)

1 0 L

4 'IOL

r) o 04

om C

4 C

r)

C1

C1

CY

C

14 C

4 C

14 C

Y

C1

u)0PoZ

O0

UI

a0

0

:4

>CZ0 0l

~J

VI

QL

a

O

Q)

Q)

II oo

Z ~~~~~~-

.~

* J.~1

O

0tuo

vlw

a

V

0C

tr ~C

tX

^

4H

U

l

0W

W

a

P

H

Q)

O

o.. a,0

W

JJ¢

Q)

O

o

¢ r

Eq

OaE

- a_ E

U r-4

Q)

·rl Q

)

-r4 Q

)·r [

.H

C4 i-H

a)

0 U

P. 0

4-J

a)00oOQJ

Au~ o 0o

C.rl-o o

0 0

co) -k

or .-

10Q)

xQ)

ria 03rl

o3

3zOC

4-4a4 0

1 ,

C

CZ

4i04H0

a) 4

Q)

PP0

3 P

O 00

44w 0

0 0

r, Po4P

o4J0CO

4 O

~o> 0U0

a) >

PC

:30OH

3

:I

c0 i

P..ca44

O

EO

4 0

1.. 3U

0

Q C

~>.H

10

*H r-

O0 P

.C

-) o0)O

QU

0O O

43

0o440*,4a,(1)O0)

P

3O

*:10C:

OP

-r- :J

0 0

w

.-

OPEH

I4

-t L

f 10

rr-

cq C

Y)-115-

o C

0O

O

0I

r-4 C

1NI

I

00 1

Q\

Lr)

--4PcoaQ)

a),-44-ia)kOii

.r44-U

oooo

C

L)

ou'lC

a a)

0 o'0

0 b0

0O

<

E

-40C

.

p4 0L

f)

OO

,-4-I

cd r-

0 3 0P4a0)

1-44Ji

r-4

LnOC)

000r.-

CZ

aaaLr)

00a4Cx0oa

00oo O

ru)

CN

C

N

cu

O

O

O

0

C

CH

0 O

0

ul o

Lr)

)

rC,4C

e

a):j00p41Z

0i%00

r- 00

00 r

r- C

4

00 C

4 Lr

*- N-

cs cs~~~~~~~~~~C)~

4-i

a)a)

4J

4-)I

ar--,0.rIco

X.Ha):r4a,0r

U)oa)a)ro00u3

'0a).-

Ia)0)r-IaU

i)E

A

u.4JC)U-H*H04IU

)a)

*Hs-i03a)3U

)Sk

I03U)

o-4

ka)490HE-

0.,-I0I4 0

04-.'

LH

a

*H

Nr*3

:E; r

C4

En

P4

OE0

H--

CY

) L

(n AZ

Z0

0 I

.O

0404-.r4

4.J

03C

r-C

t

O ,-

0U Z

Pv ac*

U)

r-

0Z

a)Uxw

04H0F-4

Ecn

U0wzHuEn

0t[-

0=o

b4-UCIOZ

En

00p4

cNJ

c

-116-

II

O

O

OO

O

O

O

O

OO

O

O

0 0

0 0

0O

O

O

O

C

O

O

O

O

O

0Cr

0 o'

001.

*ll) -.tI

0 O'r)

oL

~ h

n0

=a

C4

OO

H0

bfl 0

Q) 4-j

Wa-

H O0

3 rO

O

0 P

4 P

.

0 00

H

C4

CY

) C

EO4a)HQ

)

O4

: O0 O 0O

'N

CZ

0O

C

N

r- C

C

Y

) .1

1; 1;

c ~

c a'

Hn

m

oa)·rla)xa)

O

O

Lt

C)

CN

I Q

)

.H,

4-O

C

4-i)

*rl -4

a)

H

O

O

a,4.) 0 O

a)

O: ::H

:>. {

,-.

r- r-

00 r--1

C

C

00o -

OO

4e C

r C

N

a) Q

0 o

.)

Q-I

o o3

V

U)

c

0

05-I0

g0 3

0o

0 0

G

OI)

CU

O

a) a)

Hb 9

4 9 W

4.

!2C

O

0 0 0

-a) 44

-4O

bo

3

H -4-

m

3P.,

0c U

rU

O

0

PO

0 Q{

{

Q{ O

U

> E

Un W

b O

p 441

4..O..

CU

0

0 a)o0o04o c

o0 4

H

3

'4 L r -

0 0

04rJ(1oCU

)(1)

a)

4JC4oa)

4-4

0O

Hw

P

qz$4

va

P 00O

0

o O

U 4.)

CU

aQ)

0

HP i4-i

k a)

O

3e

-117-

0.-IOo00P,4

o4-I

04u00.-I

40.I0

zHf:U41

3 0

:x

Z¢

H

P4 <

Hul

o H

3 0

E-

kCU

a4-i

{0 :

o O

0Cf-4-oCU*1-

CU

a)

W

4

1;l bO

H

a)

P4

0P

I 4J

E-4

zC)

E

0a)

MEqi0PH'4WP--:

O

0 0

0 0

0 0

0C

o C

C

; C

; 0

C 0

0 0

0C

N

tl O

t

l t O

O

O

o o

o o

O

O

O

CN

I C

I

C

CN

C

I

I I

I I

-tn '

n C

-4eC

jeJ

Co '4

*D

r00

C14

C4

C7

0)

0

.(

a0

a

0) 0)

4 k

P*S

04-i

4-Ik )

:-i 0

)

I) r-C

1 L

)

enen7

r4 r-O

ne*D -I

0

O

>3

u

0 :

3 O

o o

0) 4-

4-i)o

co

0 P

iz

k00CZ

CN

n

-. In

'D

rcoO

HO

Jco

rl

0)

30

_,-4

CN

J

"0)

,O

0

1-t --4

r-4 r-400 rloo .e)

a0-ir.0UC;

HzP4P-C

1 k

a 0)cutIU

0

4 i

00)4C0)C

O

4-O

U

4- r4

'I 0)4i

0) ) Q

C)

-40))0)P

*H

b

)In O

CY

CS

4

00C).H0a) -4

0 co

-400.

c,--

oO

.1-4

a)OQ)

0)bo0·r4

4-4P01

44-iQ

)

--

0.r000C.)

0)a0

Q)

--4t0).1-4

Ps-

0N'r4000H k

HO

P0H

0) ca0

z>4

C

t.1.r-1::l

UPZ

4

0M

U,

0HUp-4u:zgc

0PI4

~_

C

C4

-118-

0 4

O

CN

O

O0

0

Cl

Cl

O

oo.

o0..1-

a00

00 a)

a0 Q

H

0)0 0

·n oo

1 4~

a ~

aoo

5 oo4

IA

3u

¢U

r-4

a

Ct

i O

a)

h I

Li 5

O

4 O

u

o *H

C

o i-

Ci

P

>

"IC

0 to

P-

Co

r4 :

0 44 0

P- 5H

0 )

4i-l

k )

0) a)

0)

* C

lI0

PZ

3

z 0.

rc C

)v-4 0

I 0

k a,

aO

P

Q

lU

0 ca 4:

0 '- 0

00

H)) u

C

Q

I 4

0

r-4 C

I C

Y)

J) H C

l a)4-)0z

-119-

cp3 0

.u

CIO

0 a)O

,O

0

X

u

z:4

0E-4

u)VD

0wHIZuMX-4

z