The effects of induction and training programmes on organisational commitment and staff turnoverJoanne GuebertHonours in Business Science, Human Resource Management

Motivation for the study done…

Motivation of the study• Review of the literature

• Casual staff for busy season, high staff turnover (Johnson. 1981)• Easy entry• Culture of “excessive turnover” (Deery, 1997)• Ongoing Recruitment – ‘cat chasing it’s tail’ (Paulston, 2008)• Impact on

• Costs• Service delivery• Psychological impact of the remaining employees

• Training important for growth and development, which is a determining factor of sustainability within Greek tourism industry (Zopiatis, Constanti & Theocharous, 2014) - Induction and training to be effective and efficient

• NZ study, training was poor but employees held accountable for poor performance (Paulston, 2008)

• Influence of solely induction on the effects on organisational commitment and staff turnover is rarely found (Kumar & Govindarajo, 2014)

• Influences of training had more of a dominant occurrence.• These relationships were greatly discussed in countries such as Greece, India,

USA, New Zealand but were lacking in the South African context (Zopiatis, Constanti & Theocharous, 2014) (Dhar, 2015)

Objectives• Whether induction programs affect organisational commitment and in

turn the staff turnover• Whether training programs affect the organisational commitment and

in turn the staff turnover• Which moderating factors such as gross income, length of service and

department will influence these factors and how• To provide guidance to understand the importance of induction and

training in• Retaining staff• Enhancing guest experience• Decrease hiring costs• Build a team and culture

Research Question

• What effect do induction programs and training programs have on organisational commitment of the employees and in turn the turnover of staff within the Gauteng hotel industry?

Hypotheses

H1: Induction programs will positively affect organizational commitmentHa: Induction programs will not positively affect organizational commitment H2: Training programs will positively affect organizational commitmentHa: Training programs will not positively affect organizational commitment H3: Organizational commitment of the employees will negatively affect staff turnoverHa: Organizational commitment of the employees will not negatively affect staff turnover H4: Induction program will negatively affect staff turnoverHa: Induction program will not negatively affect staff turnover

H4: Training programs will negatively affect staff turnoverHa: Training programs will not not negatively affect staff turnover

 

Model of the study

Research Methodology• Deductive positivist approach• Past literature investigated and hypotheses being formed• A social study done by applying the methods of natural science (Bryman & Bell, 2011)

• Research design• Quantitative study, using a survey research instrument ie: questionnaire, to be issued to 300 employees to gather primary data showing the perceptions of the respondents of the various relationships, which will be statistically analysed

MethodologyPopulation

• Hotel employees within the Gauteng hospitality industry.

• PWC website• 71% of total

accommodation revenue in 2013• Increase to 73% by 2018• Increase in hotel rooms

of 30 000 by 2018 due to new hotels being built

Sample• Employees from either 3

star, 4 star or 5 star hotels within the Johannesburg and Centurion area

• Eight hotels had agreed to take part in this study, and approximately 300 hotel employees were to receive a questionnaire to complete.

• Received 91 questionnaires back and only 74 were useable.

MethodologySampling procedure• Two hotel groups, 3* to

5* status• Convenient and random

sampling to approach groups

• Changed to snowball sampling

• Actual employees done by means of random sampling – designated person

Research instrument• Cover letter and consent letter• Section 1 = Demographics• Section 2 = Induction, training

and performance reviews• Categorical data• (Kaiser, 2006)

• Section 3 = Affective Commitment – emotional attachment• 5 point Likert Scale – Continuous

data• (Jun, Cai & Shin, 2006) (Allen &

Meyer, 1990)

MethodologyData Collection

• GM and designated person

• Hand delivered and collected over a 2 week period

• 74 useable responses

Data Analysis• Microsoft Excel• SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1

• Descriptive stats on the demographics

• Construct variable of Organisational commitment

• Cross tabulation and correlation of categorical data.• Chi-Square test• Fisher Exact test

• Linear Regression• Normality of ‘staff turnover’

variable• Multiple Regression

MethodologyEthics

• Research proposal to Ethics Committee

• Cover letter and consent• Pilot study

• Effectiveness of questionnaire• Likert Scale questions had

obtained an acceptable Cronbach Alpha score of 0.792 in previous study indicating reliability of the measure (Jun, Cai & Shin, 2006)

Results – Sample demographics

Response rate• 300 questionnaires• 50 of these were

returned not completed

• 91 completed• 74 useable

= 31.8%

Gender

Results – Sample demographics

Which department do you work in?

How long have you worked in this hotel?

Results – Sample demographicsWhat is you highest level of

education obtained?What is your gross monthly

income

Results – using cross tabulation and correlation analysis – H1

Variable Chi-Sq Test

Fisher Exact Test

Result

Formality of induction program 0.0506(75%)

0.0801 Significant at 10% l.o.s

Introduction to mission and goals of company

0.0097(50%)

0.0079 Significant at 5% l.o.s

• Attendance of induction program (N=65)• Formal induction (N=46)

Results – using cross tabulation and correlation analysis – H4

Variable Chi-Sq Test

Fisher Exact Test

Result

Attendance of induction program 0.1035 0.0854 Significant at 10% l.o.s

Safety procedure – topic of induction

0.0686(40%)

0.0857 Significant at 10% l.o.s

• Attendance of induction program• Answered N=74• Attended N=65• Not attended N=9 (12%)

Results – using cross tabulation and correlation analysisGross income, performance review with staff turnover

Variable Chi-Sq Test

Fisher Exact Test

Result

Gross Monthly Income 0.0239(80%)

0.0811 Significant at 10% l.o.s

Attendance of performance review

0.0705(30%)

0.0708 Significant at 10% l.o.s

Frequency of the performance review

0.2961 0.0743 Significant at 10% l.o.s

Participation in the performance review

0.4659 0.0744 Significant at 10% l.o.s

Results – using cross tabulation and correlation analysisGross income, department, education with organisational commitment

Variable Chi-Sq Test

Fisher Exact Test

Result

Gross Monthly Income 0.0506(75%)

0.0801 Significant at 10% l.o.s

Education level 0.0948(75%)

0.0100 Significant at 5% l.o.s

Department 0.0042(79%)

0.0029 Significant at 5% l.o.s

Results – Linear regression• H1 – Org commitment = β0+β1induction

• H2 – Org Commitment = β0+β1training

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean

Square F Value Pr > F Model 1 0.31298 0.31298 0.46 0.5008

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean

Square F Value Pr > F Model 1 0.01617 0.01617 0.02 0.8785 Error 72 49.51896 0.68776 Corrected Total 73 49.53514

Results – Linear regression• H3, H4 and H5 – Staff

turnover• T-test was done to determine

whether this categorical variable followed a normal distribution or not, the result was an significant result indicating that it was not normally distributed. This can also be seen on the box and whisker plot

Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic p Value Student's t t 14.34935 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 37 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1387.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001

Results – Multiple regression• Organisational Commitment = β0 + β1Induction + β2Department + β3Length of

Service + β4Income

• Organisational Commitment = β0 + β1Income• Organisational Commitment = 1.78411 -0.18544 Income.

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean

Square F Value Pr > F Model 4 6.78425 1.69606 2.73 0.0361 Error 68 42.26561 0.62155 Corrected Total 72 49.04986

Root MSE 0.78839 R-Square 0.1383 Dependent Mean 1.70137 Adj R-Sq 0.0876 Coeff Var 46.33833

Parameter Estimates

Variable DF Parameter

Estimate Standard

Error t Value Pr > |t| Intercept 1 1.78411 0.45704 3.90 0.0002 Induction 1 0.08994 0.28804 0.31 0.7558 Income 1 -0.18544 0.06480 -2.86 0.0056 Service_period 1 0.02660 0.09960 0.27 0.7903 Department 1 0.09340 0.05757 1.62 0.1093

Results – Multiple regression• Organisational Commitment = β0 + β1Training + β2Department + β3Length of

Service + β4Income

• Organisational Commitment = β0 + β1Income• Organisational Commitment = 1.64634 -0.19275 Income.

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean

Square F Value Pr > F Model 4 7.01016 1.75254 2.83 0.0309 Error 68 42.03971 0.61823 Corrected Total 72 49.04986

Root MSE 0.78628 R-Square 0.1429 Dependent Mean 1.70137 Adj R-Sq 0.0925 Coeff Var 46.21433

Parameter Estimates

Variable DF Parameter

Estimate Standard

Error t Value Pr > |t| Intercept 1 1.64634 0.49342 3.34 0.0014 Income 1 -0.19275 0.06509 -2.96 0.0042 TR_Prog 1 0.17838 0.26203 0.68 0.4983 Service_period 1 0.03971 0.09801 0.41 0.6866 Department 1 0.09952 0.05735 1.74 0.0872

Things to remember…• Induction programs have a relationship to organisational

commitment and staff turnover (H1 & H4) • Gross income positively influences Organisational commitment• Further study:

• What is the glass ceiling of the relationship of gross income earned to the organisation commitment in hospitality industry/

• How does induction and training programs influence type of termination (voluntary or involuntary)?

• Suggested:• Hoteliers pay attention to attitudes and manner in which managed

and rewarded• First impressions last & initial interaction in important• The ability to retain employees allows for the wealth of knowledge to

be retained and for the competitive advantage to be enhanced

Things to remember…• “The end of the first day and the end of

the first week is just as important as the beginning. Let your employees feel you want them to come back the next day and the next…” (Brown, 2007, p. 5)

References• Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research

Methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Johnson, K. (1981). Towards an understanding of Labour Turnover. Service Industries Journal, 1(1), 4-17.

• Kumar, D. M., & Govindarajo, N. S. (2014). Instrument Development "Intention to Stay Instrument" (ISI). Asian Social Science, 10(12), 149-169.

• Zopiatis, A., Constanti, P., & Theocharous, A. L. (2014). Job involvement, commitment, satisfaction and turnover: Evidence from hotel employees in Cyprus. Tourism Management, 41, 129-140.