Radford 2014 02thesis PDF

Two sides of the same coin?
An investigation into
factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay
and leave
By
Katrina Radford
BPsych (Hons), MHRM, CAPM
Griffith Business School
Department of Employment Relations and Human Resources
Griffith University
Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
December 2013
i
*Page intentionally left blank*
ii
Abstract
This study investigated Australian aged care employees’ intentions to stay and leave.
Much research has been conducted on why people leave; however, an emerging body of
research is also examining why people stay. While a few studies have investigated the
factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave, only one study (Howe,
King, Ellis, Wells, Wei, & Teshuva, 2012) has investigated the factors influencing
Australian aged care employees’ intentions to stay and leave. No study, however, has
investigated the combined influence of personal factors (age, education status, marital
status, tenure, perceived health of self and family, employment status, and area of
employment) and organisational factors (perceived organisational support, perceived
supervisor support, job embeddedness, and job satisfaction) on employees’ intentions to
stay and leave. Additionally, there has been no study that has investigated these factors
using the “Resource-Based View of the Firm”, which is the theoretical framework for
this study. Therefore, this study makes original contributions to the literature.
Examining employees’ intentions to stay and leave is particularly important within the
Australian aged care sector, which is characterised by high turnover, an ageing
workforce, and the impact of the global shortages of nurses (King et al., 2012).
Consequently, research that investigates the factors affecting the sustainability of this
sector, such as employee retention and turnover, is needed. Only one study has
investigated the similarities and differences in the factors influencing both community
care and residential care (i.e., long-term care institutions) employees’ intentions to stay
and leave (Howe et al., 2012). However, that study was limited in the data collected by
the national census of aged care employees and as such did not study the same variables
as the present study. Therefore, the present study makes valuable contributions to
understanding the Australian aged care sector by investigating further similarities and
differences among the factors influencing intentions in these two groups of employees,
as well as providing additional knowledge to the sector regarding the general factors
influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave.
This study investigated five research questions:
1. What factors influence employees’ intentions to stay?

2. What factors influence employees’ intentions to leave?
3. What are the similarities and differences between the factors influencing
employees’ intentions to stay and leave?
iii
4. Do these factors differ between residential aged care and community aged care
settings?
5. Do the factors differ by the generation of the employee?
Using a positivist approach, this study administered a cross-sectional questionnaire to

2118 employees from four differently sized organisations (one very large >4000
employees, one large <900 employees, one medium <300 employees and one small <80
employees) across two states of Australia. The questionnaire comprised both closed and
open questions to examine the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and
leave, and achieved a response rate of 19.8% (420 responses).
Overall, this study found many similarities and differences between employees’
intentions to stay and leave. Intentions to stay and leave were both influenced by
age/generation, health, location of workplace in relation to employees’ home, family
responsibilities, perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support, on-the-
job embeddedness, job satisfaction, career opportunities provided, financial
considerations, and the work environment. Employees’ intentions to leave were
influenced by tenure in position, and burnout, whereas intentions to stay were also
influenced by study commitments, and job security.
Surprisingly, this study failed to support the notion that off-the-job embeddedness
factors play an important unique contribution to employees’ intentions to stay,
suggesting that the influence of factors, which are related to where they live and their
community, may be contextual only to the United States of America, where most
research has been conducted. However, further research is needed to examine these
context differences further by, for example, conducting a comparison study of
employees from other countries and Australia or by examining different industries
and/or occupational groups. Additionally, further research is needed to examine the
broader results in more detail, to take into account differences between private and not-
for-profit organisations, as well as to further examine age differences.
Keywords: Resource-Based View of the Firm (RBV), Retention, Turnover, Job

Embeddedness, Perceived Organisational Support, Perceived Supervisor Support, Job
Satisfaction, Aged Care
iv
Statement of originality
I, Katrina Radford, declare that the PhD thesis entitled Two sides of the same coin? An
investigation into factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave is no more
than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, figures, appendices, references and
footnotes.
This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis
itself.
Signed by Katrina Radford …………………………………………………………
Date: …………………………………………………………………….................
Witnessed by: ………………………………………………………………………
Date: ……………………………………………………………………...................
Witnessed by: …………………………………………….........................................
Date: ……………………………………………………………………...................
v
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................. iii

Statement of originality ........................................................................................... v
List of figures .......................................................................................................... x
List of tables ........................................................................................................... xi
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... xiii
Statement of contribution to co-authored published papers ................................. xv
Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Research aims, justification, problem and questions .......................................................... 5
1.3 Nature of the study .............................................................................................................. 9
1.4 Glossary of terms and list of acronyms used ....................................................................... 9
1.5 Research limitations and de-limiters ................................................................................. 12
1.6 Chapter overview .............................................................................................................. 13
1.7 Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 2: Literature review of theoretical constructs ......................................... 15

2.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 16
2.1 Resource-Based View of the Firm .................................................................................... 16
2.1.1 Development of the Resource-Based View of the Firm ............................................. 16
2.1.2 How the resource-based view of the firm guides this research .................................. 21
2.2 Employee retention ........................................................................................................... 22
2.3 Employee turnover ............................................................................................................ 23
2.4 Personal factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave .............................. 26
2.4.1 Age and generation..................................................................................................... 27
2.4.2 Education level ........................................................................................................... 30
2.4.3 Marital status .............................................................................................................. 30
2.4.4 Tenure ........................................................................................................................ 31
2.4.5 Kinship responsibilities .............................................................................................. 31
2.4.6 Employee and family health ....................................................................................... 32
2.4.7 Employment status ..................................................................................................... 33
2.4.8 Area of employment ................................................................................................... 33
2.5 Organisational factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave .................... 34
2.5.1 Job satisfaction and working conditions .................................................................... 35
vi
2.5.2 Perceived organisational Support ............................................................................... 39
2.5.3 Perceived supervisor support...................................................................................... 41
2.5.4 Job embeddedness ...................................................................................................... 42
2.6 Factors influencing both intention to stay and intention to leave ...................................... 46
2.7 Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 47
Chapter 3: Literature review of the aged care sector ............................................ 49

3.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 50
3.1 The Australian health and aged care sector ....................................................................... 50
3.2 The ageing population ....................................................................................................... 51
3.3 The Australian aged care sector ........................................................................................ 53
3.3.1 Residential aged care services .................................................................................... 53
3.3.2 Community aged care services ................................................................................... 54
3.4 The Australian health and aged care workforce demands ................................................. 57
3.5 The Australian aged care workforce ................................................................................. 61
3.6 Workforce profile of aged care employees ..................................................................... 64
3.6.1 Age ............................................................................................................................. 64
3.6.2 Gender ........................................................................................................................ 65
3.6.3 Tenure ........................................................................................................................ 65
3.6.4 Perceived health ......................................................................................................... 67
3.6.5 Country of origin ........................................................................................................ 67
3.6.6 Employment status ..................................................................................................... 68
3.7 Summary of hypotheses and model proposed ................................................................... 69
3.8 Proposed models ............................................................................................................... 71
3.9 Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 74
Chapter 4: Methodology and methods .................................................................. 75

4.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 76
4.1 Philosophical foundation ................................................................................................... 77
4.1.1 Ontology ..................................................................................................................... 77
4.1.2 Epistemology.............................................................................................................. 78
4.2 Method .............................................................................................................................. 79
4.2.1 Research design and justification ............................................................................... 79
4.2.2 Method comparison and justification ......................................................................... 80
4.2.3 Development of the survey instrument ...................................................................... 83
4.3 Respondents of main study ............................................................................................... 96
4.3.1 Main study respondents .............................................................................................. 96
vii
4.3.2 Sample justification .................................................................................................... 97
4.4 Measures ........................................................................................................................... 98
4.5 Validity and reliability considerations .............................................................................. 99
4.5.1 Construct validity ....................................................................................................... 99
4.5.2 External validity ......................................................................................................... 99
4.5.3 Measurement reliability.............................................................................................. 99
4.6 Data triangulation ............................................................................................................ 102
4.7 Procedure for the main study .......................................................................................... 103
4.8 Ethical issues ................................................................................................................... 104
4.9 Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 104
Chapter 5: Quantitative results ........................................................................... 107

5.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 108
5.1 Data preparation and screening ....................................................................................... 108
5.1.1 Sample characteristics .............................................................................................. 108
5.1.2 Development of final dataset for analysis ................................................................ 112
5.1.3 Missing data ............................................................................................................. 117
5.2 Data analysis results ........................................................................................................ 121
5.2.1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations ....................................................... 121
5.2.2 Analysis of Group Differences ................................................................................. 127
5.2.3 Hierarchical regression ............................................................................................. 134
5.2.4 Structural equation modelling .................................................................................. 143
5.3 Chapter summary and conclusion ................................................................................... 157
Chapter 6: Results of the analysis of the open-ended questions .......................... 167

6.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 168
6.1 Sample size and analysis technique ................................................................................ 168
6.2 Overall analysis of employees’ intentions to stay and leave ........................................... 169
6.2.1 Intentions to stay: short-term.................................................................................... 171
6.2.2 Intentions to stay: long-term..................................................................................... 173
6.2.3 Intentions to leave: short-term.................................................................................. 176
6.2.4 Intentions to leave: long-term................................................................................... 178
6.2.5 Similarities and differences ...................................................................................... 179
6.3 Generational differences analysis.................................................................................... 181
6.3.1 Short-term intentions to stay by generation ............................................................. 181
6.3.2 Long-term intentions to stay by generation .............................................................. 186
6.3.3 Short-term intentions to leave, by generation .......................................................... 191
viii
6.3.4 Long-Term Intentions to Leave ................................................................................ 196
6.3.5 Similarities and differences by generation ............................................................... 201
6.4 Area of employment analysis .......................................................................................... 212
6.4.1 Short-term intentions to stay by area of employment .............................................. 212
6.4.2 Long-term intentions to stay, by area of employment .............................................. 215
6.4.3 Short-term intentions to leave by area of employment ............................................ 218
6.4.4 Long-term intentions to leave by area of employment ............................................. 220
6.4.5 Similarities and difference identified in area of employment .................................. 222
6.5 Overall summary of findings........................................................................................... 227
6.6 Chapter summary and conclusion ................................................................................... 230
Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................ 233

7.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 234
7.1 Research question 1: discussion of findings.................................................................... 235
7.5 Thesis conclusion ............................................................................................................ 259
7.5.1 Strengths ................................................................................................................... 261
7.5.2 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 262
7.6 Theoretical and practical contributions ........................................................................... 263
7.6.1 Theoretical contributions.......................................................................................... 263
7.6.2 Practical contributions .............................................................................................. 265
7.7 Future research ................................................................................................................ 266
7.8 Concluding statements .................................................................................................... 268
References ........................................................................................................... 270

Appendix A: Questionnaire used in the Expert panel review study .................... 294
Appendix B: Pilot study questionnaire ................................................................ 306
Appendix C: Final questionnaire pack distributed to participants ..................... 318
ix
List of figures
Figure 1.1 The structure of this thesis.............................................................................. 13

Figure 2.1 Components of competitive advantage of human resources......................... 20
Figure 3.1 Australian health and aged care system......................................................... 51
Figure 3.2 Number of recipients of community aged care packages within Australia 56
2006-2007........................................................................................................................
Figure 3.3 RAC skill shortages by location...................................................................... 59
Figure 3.4 CAC skill shortages by location...................................................................... 59
Figure 3.5 Age distribution of the RAC and CAC workforce.......................................... 65
Figure 3.6 Tenure within the Australian aged care system.............................................. 66
Figure 3.7 Employment status of the Australian aged care workforce............................ 69
Figure 3.8 Proposed model of intention to stay.............................................................. 72
Figure 3.9 Proposed model of intention to leave............................................................. 73
Figure 4.1 The deductive approach to research............................................................... 77
Figure 4.2 The research design of this study.................................................................... 83
Figure 5.1 Structural equation model 1: Examination of the direct effects of the
organisational variables on employees’ intentions to stay and leave (with personal
variables and job satisfaction excluded, N = 359)............................................................ 146
Figure 5.2 Structural equation model 2: Examination of the direct effects of the
organisational variables on employees’ intentions to stay and leave (with the personal
variables, but not job satisfaction, included, N = 359)..................................................... 146
Figure 5.3 Structural equation model 3: Examination of the direct effects of all the
organisational variables, and the indirect effect of PSS, on employees’ intentions to stay
and leave (with the personal variables and job satisfaction, excluded, N =
359).................................................................................................................................. 147
Figure 5.4 Structural equation model 4: Examination of the direct effects of all the
organisational variables, and the indirect effect of PSS, on employees’ intentions to stay
and leave (with the personal variables, but not job satisfaction, included, N =
359)................................................................................................................................... 148
Figure 5.5 Outcome of tested model of intention to stay, quantitative results only......... 159
Figure 5.6 Outcome of tested model of intention to leave, quantitative results only......... 160
Figure 6.1 Summary of employees’ intentions to stay, qualitative results ........................ 230
Figure 6.2 Summary of employees’ intentions to leave, qualitative results........................ 231
Figure 7.1 Final model of intention to stay......................................................................... 244
Figure 7.2 Final model of intention to leave....................................................................... 253
x
List of tables
Table 2.1 Definitions of job satisfaction........................................................................... 37

Table 3.1 Aged care community packages........................................................................ 55
Table 3.2 Median age of direct care workforce in RAC and CAC settings, 57
Australia.........
Table 3.3 The core workforce of Australian aged care services....................................... 62
Table 3.4 Country of birth of RAC and CAC employees.................................................... 68
Table 4.1 Comparison of method characteristics............................................................. 80
Table 4.2 Further methodological considerations examined........................................... 81
Table 4.3 Breakdown of respondents by generation........................................................ 98
Table 4.4 Data collection and analysis challenges and strategies embedded in study to
minimise or mitigate these challenges............................................................................. 100
Table 4.5 Data triangulation............................................................................................. 102
Table 5.1 Residential care workforce sampling characteristics........................................ 109
Table 5.2 Community care workforce sampling characteristics....................................... 110
Table 5.3 Chi square statistical test for differences between the sample and census data 111
Table 5.4 Exploratory factor analysis: Intentions to stay and leave.................................. 115
Table 5.5 Confirmatory factor analysis of intentions to leave scale................................. 117
Table 5.6 Number of mean substitutions per scale............................................................ 118
Table 5.7 Chi square analysis of differences between groups who did and did not
respond to the job satisfaction item................................................................................... 119
Table 5.8 Independent group t-test analysis of differences between groups who did and
did not respond to the job satisfaction item...................................................................... 120
Table 5.9 Descriptive statistic and correlation between demographic and employment
related variables (N=359)................................................................................................ 122
Table 5.10 Descriptive statistics and correlation between demographic and employment
related variables (N=227)............................................................................ 123
Table 5.11 Descriptive statistics and correlation between tenure and intentions to stay
and leave............................................................................................................................ 127
Table 5.12 Generational differences ANOVA results...................................................... 128
Table 5.13 T-test analysis results and descriptive statistics............................................. 131
Table 5.14 Differences between community and residential care employees’ job
satisfaction....................................................................................................................... 132
Table 5.15 Tolerance and variance inflation factor analysis............................................ 136
Table 5.16 Summary of hierarchical regression predicting intentions to stay and leave
(N=359)............................................................................................................................ 137
xi
Table 5.17 Summary of hierarchical regression predicting intentions to stay and leave
(N=227)............................................................................................................................ 140
Table 5.18 Acceptable level and interpretation of selected fit criteria............................ 145
Table 5.19 Fit statistics pertaining to structural models 1-4 in series 1 (N=359)............. 149
Table 5.20 Direct, indirect and total effects of variables on intentions to stay (N=359)... 150
Table 5.21 Direct, indirect and total effects of variables on intentions to leave (N=359). 150
Table 5.22 Fit statistics pertaining to structural models 1-4 in series 2 (N=227)............. 152
Table 5.23 Direct, indirect and total effects of variables on intentions to stay (N=227).. 153
Table 5.24 Direct, indirect and total effects of variables on intentions to leave (N=227) 154
Table 5.25 Summary of the results in relation to the hypothesis proposed.................... 157
Table 6.1 Factors influencing short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave.... 170
Table 6.2 Short-term intentions to stay by generation.................................................... 182
Table 6.3 Long-term intentions to stay by generation..................................................... 188
Table 6.4 Short-term intentions to leave by generation.................................................. 193
Table 6.5 Long-term intentions to leave by generation................................................... 198
Table 6.6 Short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave by generation........... 202
Table 6.7 Short-term intentions to stay influences by area of employment.................... 213
Table 6.8 Long term intentions to stay influences by area of employment..................... 216
Table 6.9 Short-term intentions to leave influences by area of employment.................. 218
Table 6.10 Long-term intentions to leave influences by area of employment................. 221
Table 6.11 Short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave by area of employment 223
xii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to all those who contributed to the
successful completion of my thesis.
To my primary supervisor, Associate Professor Kate Shacklock, thank you for being not
only a great supervisor but also a fantastic and reliable, confidant and friend. You
always seemed to have faith in me, even when my faith was tested at times. Your
feedback, attention to detail and continual support and encouragement were greatly
appreciated throughout this whole journey and without you I could not have become the
person I am today.
To my associate supervisor, Associate Professor Graham Bradley, while our journey has
been short together, my learning curve under your guidance has certainly been steep and
I truly appreciate your support, encouragement and feedback throughout this process.
To Associate Professor Janis Bailey, with whom I started this journey, your continued
support and guidance has been a treasure and one that I will not forget. It was a pleasure
working with you at the start of this journey and the friendship we have developed is
one I will treasure.
To the organisations who participated in this research, without your support, this would
not have been possible, so thank you.
To Professor Anneke Fitzgerald, Associate Professor John Rice, Dr. Geoff Carter, and
Dr. Rod Gapp, your continued support, encouragement and guidance has not been
forgotten and is truly appreciated. I have learnt so much from each of you throughout
this process that I would not be the person and researcher that I am without your help,
so thank you.
To Professor Lorraine Venturato, you were the ignition to this dream and without your
friendship, support, encouragement, words of wisdom, and belief I would not have
begun or even completed this journey, for this, I am truly thankful and appreciative.
To Beni Halvorson, Ellen Meissner, Susan Gallagher and Sharon Monahan, thank you
for the advice, guidance, laughter and support throughout this experience. I could not
have done this without you.
xiii
To Dr. William Hatherall, thank you for providing your editing expertise on this thesis.
Your contributions and guidance were greatly appreciated.
To my family, many of whom still do not know what it is that I have been doing but
who have nonetheless provided support, love and encouragement in their own way, this
is what I have been doing for all those hours at university. To my beautiful nephew and
nieces, your love and continued smiles and laughter have brought me so much joy and
happiness throughout this process, especially when I needed them the most.
To my “hub mates”, thank you for your support and encouragement throughout this
process. The ability to run ideas and gain feedback with like-minded peers has been an
honour and a privilege that I will always treasure. Again, I would not be the researcher I
am today without your guidance.
Last, but not least, to my friends, thank you for your continued laughter,
encouragement, support and the grounding you have all provided me over the past three
years. It has been full of ups, downs and inside outs, but you have all been there for me
in your own way and I truly am appreciative of your love and support.
Together, you have all been a treasure and a rock to me throughout everything that has
happened in your own way. I am truly grateful and appreciative of you all and the role
you have played in my life, so from the bottom of my heart, thank you.
xiv
Statement of contribution to co-authored published papers
The bibliographic details of the co-authored papers and presentations, including all
authors are:
Journal articles
Radford, K., Shacklock, K., Bradley, G. (2013). Personal care workers’ intention to
stay and leave. Journal of Nursing Management. Accepted for publication August
2013. DOI: 10.1111/jonm.12172
Peer reviewed Conference Papers
Radford, K., Shacklock, K., & Bradley, G. (2012). Battle of the decades: Generational
differences in the retention of Australian aged care employees. Accepted (3 October
2012), Emerging Researchers in Ageing, Brisbane, 19-20 November.
Radford, K., & Shacklock, K. (2012). Generational differences in retention motives: A
review of the literature and implications for practice. Accepted (2 August 2012)
Australian New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) conference, Perth, 6-
8 December.
Conferences
Invited Presentation
Radford, K., & Shacklock, K. (August 2013). Working together in the future: Retaining
a multi-generational workforce. Building a Stronger Aged Care Workforce 2013.
Sydney: Australia, 21-22 August 2013.
Radford, K. (August 2012). Employees’ intentions to stay in and leave the aged care
sector. Presented to the Australian Association of Gerontology Annual General
Meeting. Brisbane: Australia, 30 August 2012.
Oral Presentations
Radford, K., & Shacklock, K. (December 2013). The impact of perceived organizational
support and perceived supervisor support on retention and turnover predictors in
Australian aged care employees. Presented at the Australian New Zealand
Academy of Management Conference. Hobart: Australia.
Radford, K., & Shacklock, K. (December 2012). Generational differences in retention
motives: A review of the literature and implications for practice. Presented at the
Australian New Zealand Academy of Management Conference. Perth: Australia.
Radford, K. (December 2012). Two sides of the same coin? Employees’ intentions to
stay in and leave the Australian aged care sector. Presented at the Australian New
Zealand Academy of Management Doctoral Workshop. Perth: Australia.
Radford, K, Shacklock, K., & Bradley, G. (November 2012). Battle of the decades:
Generational differences in the retention of Australian aged care employees.
Presented at the Emerging Researchers in Ageing Conference 2012. Brisbane:
Australia
xv
Radford, K., Shacklock, K, & Bradley, G. (November 2012). Employees’ intentions to
stay in and leave aged care. Presented at the Australian Association of Gerontology
National conference. Brisbane: Australia.
Radford, K. (October 2011). Generational differences: Implications for recruitment and

retention. Presented at the Gerontology and Geriatrics Conference. Melbourne:
Australia. 23-27 October 2011.
Radford, K. (August 2010). The Future of the Australian aged care workforce.
Presented at the Building and Aged Care Workforce 2010 Conference. Sydney:
Australia. 24-25 August 2010.
Posters
Radford, K. (2012). Who will care for you when you need it the most? Employees’
intentions to stay in and leave the aged care sector. Poster presented to the Griffith
Higher Degree Researchers Poster Competition. Gold Coast: Australia. (WINNER
of poster competition.)
Other Presentations
Radford, K. (2012). Who will care for you when you need it the most? Presentation for
the three-minute thesis competition. Griffith University, Gold Coast: Australia.
Summary of my contributions to the papers and presentations:
Conducting the literature review, collecting the data, assisting in the design of the
methodology, writing up the methodology, conducting and writing up the analyses,
developing the discussion then preparing the papers and presentations for publication.
(Signed) _________________________________ (Date)______________

Katrina Radford
(Countersigned) ___________________________ (Date)______________

Associate Professor Kate Shacklock

Associate Professor Graham Bradley

Supervisor: Associate Professor Kate Shacklock
xvi
Chapter 1: Introduction
1
1.0 Introduction
The increased dependence on skilled staff by organisations today has resulted in a change of
power from the organisation to the employees (Leana & Rousseau, 2000). This change has
resulted in an increase in worker mobility, the “opportunity and willingness of an employee
to seek employment elsewhere” (Rousseau & Shperling, 2003, p.559) and added significant
pressure on organisations to develop appropriate people management strategies to retain
quality employees. Effective use of these people management strategies requires an
understanding of how they influence employees’ intentions to stay and leave.
These issues are of particular importance in the aged care sector, as the ageing population
puts an increased demand on the services required now and into the future. Without an
effective workforce, the Australian health and aged care system is not sustainable. While
much research has investigated the acute care workforce, only an emerging body of research
has investigated the aged care workforce. As the population ages, research investigating the
retention and turnover of the aged care workforce is urgently needed. This study therefore
focuses on employees’ intention to stay in and to leave the Australian aged care sector, with a
view to filling a number of gaps in the academic literature, and providing information that
will improve the sector’s employee retention strategies.
This chapter provides an introduction to the study by first presenting the background on the
need for this research, before discussing the research problem, research questions and the
justification for this research. Following this, a glossary of terms and acronyms is provided.
This chapter then describes the limitations and de-limitations that underpin this study, before
presenting an overview of the chapter in this thesis.
1.1 Background
Australia boasts the second longest life expectancy in the world, namely (for those born in
2010-2011), 83 years for males and 86 years for females (Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare (AIHW), 2008; Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2011a). Longer life
expectancy can be attributed to decreased fertility rates, decreased death rates and improved
health conditions (AIHW, 2008; ABS, 2004, 2008; Turrell et al., 2006). With improved
health conditions and technological changes, by 2056 Australia’s life expectancy is projected
to increase to 93.9 years for males and 96.1 years for females, and 20% of the population will
be aged over 70 (ABS, 2008). While an ageing population can be viewed as a positive
2
consequence of improved living conditions and successful ageing, it also brings with it
challenges such as the changing patterns of diseases and an increased complexity of health
conditions (Productivity Commission, 2005). Thus, the ageing population increases the need
for quality aged care services in the future.
As well as increasing the need for quality aged care services, an ageing population also
results in an ageing workforce. This results in a more experienced nursing workforce in
general (Schofield & Beard, 2005), but also requires effective workforce planning strategies
to overcome future projected workforce shortages. One strategy to begin to address the
shortages is to focus research on the retention and turnover of the current workforce in order
to inform future human resource management policies. Understanding employee turnover and
retention motivators is critical to the short-term and long-term sustainability of the
organisation (Kyndt, Dochy, Micielson, & Moeyaert, 2009). However, most research has
examined retention or turnover intentions individually (Morrell, Loan-Clarke, Arnold, &
Wilkinson, 2006), with only a few studies investigating both motivators at the same time (e.g.
Chan & Morrison, 2008; Mittal et al., 2009). Recent evidence, however, suggests the factors
influencing employees’ intentions to stay are different from those that influence employees’
intentions to leave (Howe et al., 2012). Therefore, this study examines the similarities and
differences between the factors influencing both employees’ intentions to stay and their
intentions to leave.
To examine these factors, this study uses the Resource-Based View of the Firm (RBV) as the
theoretical framework (Barney, 2001). The RBV is a commonly used strategic human
resource management framework, which posits that an organisation’s competitive advantage
lies in its human resources. There are three components that are central to the competitive
advantage of an organisation. The first is the “human capital pool”, which consists of the
knowledge, skills and abilities of the human resources available within the organisation.
These attributes are important as they are rare (limited in supply), inimitable (cannot be
copied by other organisations), valuable (in the outputs produced) and non-substitutable
(unique to that individual and cannot be replaced). Together, the human capital pool
influences, and is influenced by the “employee behaviour and relationships” and “people
management practices” that organisations implement, which are the second and third
components to the competitive advantage of human resources (Barney, 2001).
3
According to Dunford, Snell & Wright (2001), “employee behaviour and relationships” are
the actions or inactions that employees undertake that have an influence on the role they play
in an organisation’s competitive advantage. For example, on one hand, job satisfaction
influences the level of motivation employees have to produce valuable outputs for an
organisation. “People management practices”, on the other hand, are the policies that
enhance employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities and influence employee behaviours and
relationships within the organisation, such as training opportunities provided by an
organisation (Dunford et al., 2001). Proponents of the RBV argue that understanding how an
organisation’s human capital pool, employee behaviours and relationships and people
management strategies interact is essential to unlocking an organisation’s competitive
advantage within their marketplace (Dunford et al., 2001). Similarly, in order to maintain
competitive advantage, understanding how to retain an organisation’s human resources is
essential. This is particularly important within the Australian aged care sector, which is
growing rapidly as a result of an ageing population, and therefore research that focuses
specifically on this sector is vital.
The aged care sector provides both long-term care services within Residential Aged Care
(RAC) and Community Aged Care (CAC) settings, and short-term care services (respite)
within a RAC environment (AIHW, 2010). RAC settings provide permanent and temporary
accommodation to older people living in Australia. Permanent care is provided for those who
are unable to live independently in their own home. Temporary care (respite) is provided as
short-term relief to carers (of older people) who may themselves have health conditions and
require additional short-term support to alleviate carer strain (AIHW, 2010). Within RAC
service settings, both low-level and high-level care services are provided. Low-level care
services include everyday living services (meals, laundry, cleaning) and some personal care
services. High-level care services provide these services plus more complex care services
such as palliative care (end of life care), medication management, falls management, nursing
care, and other therapy services (Productivity Commission, 2011).
CAC services are provided for older people to prolong their ability to live independently in
their own homes (Department of Health and Ageing, 2011a). A range of low- and high-care
services is provided. Low-care services include domestic assistance and some personal care
services; high-care services include more complex care options such as registered nursing
care, allied health care, personal care, social support, home help, and highly technical
4
services such as assistance with oxygen and/or enteral feeding (feeding a client through a
tube) (Department of Health and Ageing, 2011b; Productivity Commission, 2011).
As the population ages, the significance and scope of the Australian aged care sector grows,
thus increasing the demand for a highly skilled workforce to support the sector. The current
aged care workforce consists of a direct care workforce and a non-direct care workforce. The
direct care workforce consists of occupations that exist only within the health care sector,
including personal carers and assistants in nursing, enrolled nurses, enrolled endorsed nurses,
registered nurses, allied health workers, directors of nursing, and other care staff workers
(including those who provide support services such as cooking, cleaning, administration and
maintenance services) (Department of Health and Ageing, 2010; Productivity Commission,
2011). The non-direct care workforce consists of occupations that are not health specific,
including engineers, project managers, researchers, architects, marketing professionals,
human resource managers, information systems personnel, accountants, finance officers, and
project officers. This study focuses predominately on the direct care workforce, as without
these workers no care could be provided in an aged care setting, and therefore these workers
are central to the sustainability of the aged care sector.
Without the direct care workforce, there would be an increase in the number of older people
occupying beds in the acute and sub-acute care sectors, reducing these sectors’ ability to
respond to the immediate care needs of the wider Australian population. This would then
likely result in a higher mortality rate and an increase in demand for acute and sub-acute care
sector services. Therefore, research that examines the retention of the direct care aged care
workforce, such as that proposed in this study, will potentially contribute to the sustainability
of the aged care sector.
1.2 Research aims, justification, problem and questions
It has been projected that by 2025 the growth in the aged population will result in a 40%
increase in demand for hospital bed days, while in the same period the population aged less
than 30 years (by which age nursing students have typically commenced study) is projected
to grow by only eight per cent (Schofield, 2007). It is expected that these developments will
compound current shortfalls in registered nurse numbers and contribute to an on-going skills
shortage.
5
A recent census of Australian aged care organisations revealed that over 75% of these
organisations reported a skill shortage in at least one direct care role in an RAC environment
(King et al., 2012). Of these organisations, 62% reported Registered Nurse (RN) shortages,
49% reported Personal Care Worker (PCW) shortages, 33% reported Enrolled Nurse (EN)
shortages, and 19.4% reported Allied Health (AH) shortages. Within a CAC environment, the
situation was less severe with 49% of organisations reporting a shortage. Of these
organisations, 16% reported RN shortages, 37% reported Community Care Worker (CCW)
shortages, 6% reported EN shortages and 10% reported AH shortages. The severity of these
staffing shortages is compelling the redesign of the nursing workforce and nursing work by
health service providers and planners. This redesign has seen a rise in the number of
unregulated care workers with varying levels of training and skill, thus altering the skill mix
available within each service.
Indeed, while registered nurse and enrolled nurses numbers in Australia rose by 13% and
29.6% respectively between the years 2000 and 2005, the number of unregulated care
workers increased by 89.5% (Segal & Bolton, 2007). More recent figures suggest that skill
mix ratios have been further altered by a reduction in the number of RNs in the period 2003-
2012 (-6.1%) and ongoing increases in the number of PCWs (+10.1%) employed in RAC
(King et al., 2012). Within the CAC environment, the number of RNs has decreased by 2%
while the number of CCWs remained at a similar level between 2007 and 2012. It should be
noted though that there is no data available on the CAC workforce prior to 2007 and therefore
comparisons should be made with caution.
The reduction in RN numbers and the associated increase in unregulated care workers in the
sector have altered the health care milieu and affected the overall quality of care
(International Centre for Human Resources in Nursing (ICHRN), 2009, 2010; Hall & Buch,
2009). Research on the impact of nursing shortages on quality of care and health outcomes
for clients demonstrates linkages between poor staffing levels and the following
developments: 1) lower levels of patient satisfaction with care; 2) an increase in clinical
complications such as urinary tract infections, pneumonia, upper gastrointestinal bleeding,
and shock; and 3) higher rates of “failure to rescue” (Eley, Buikstra, Plank, Hegney, &
Parker, 2007; Hall & Buch, 2009; ICHRN, 2009, 2010; Needleman, Buerhaus, Mattke,
Steward, & Zelevinsky, 2007; Sellgreen, Ekvell & Tomson, 2007; Teng, Hsiao & Chou,
2010). Given that the aged care industry provides services to an increasing number of frail
6
and vulnerable clients, developing and maintaining an adequate workforce to support and
deliver these services is of central concern (Skinner, Van Dijk, Elton, & Auer, 2011).
In addition to the changing health care milieu and skill mix, the aged care sector is also
experiencing an ageing workforce, which has resulted in up to six generations working
together. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, these generations are the Late
Veteran Generation, Early and Late Baby Boomer Generation, Early and Late Generation X
and Y, and Early Generation I (ABS, 2009a). Research examining generational differences
has established mixed results, where some research has identified differences between the
generations (Chen & Chio, 2008; Goldman & Schmalz, 2006), others have questioned the
utility and validity of generational differences (Parry & Urwin, 2011).
Proponents of generational differences argue that people born in different generations hold
differing values, attitudes, frames of references and traits that may lead to differences
between generations in their reactions to life events. As a result, people who belong to a
generation tend to develop similar work and life values that shape their attitudes and beliefs,
and guide their behaviour (Chen & Chio, 2008; Strauss & Howe, 1992; Tresize-Brown,
2004). However, these values can often conflict with other generations’ values causing
organisational conflict and attraction and retention difficulties (Tresize-Brown, 2004). In a
sector characterised by an ageing and diverse workforce, research investigating generational
differences in retention and turnover intentions is important yet has mostly been overlooked
to date.
Models of turnover have existed in the human resource literature for decades (Steel &
Launsbury, 2009). These models identify both personal and organisational factors that have
been found to influence employees’ intentions to stay or leave. However, only a few studies
have compared the differences between the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay
and to leave. Therefore, this study extends the literature by comparing the role that both
personal factors (age/generation, education level, marital status, tenure, kinship
responsibilities, perceived health of the employee and their family, ethnicity, job employment
status and area of employment) and organisational factors (perceived organisational support,
perceived supervisor support, job embeddedness, and job satisfaction) have on employees’
intentions to stay and leave. Chapter 2 presents a rationale for the selection of each of these
variables in this study.
7
Research examining employees’ intentions to leave is important in order to provide insights
into the factors that motivate employees to leave; such research will contribute to knowledge
on employee turnover intentions. At the same time, research examining employees’
intentions to stay is important in order to provide information on the factors that impact upon
employee retention intentions. While research in general on intention to leave and intention to
stay provides valuable information on how organisations can better retain productive
employees, research on the aged care workforce has mostly focused on employees’ intentions
to leave, with only limited research specifically on employees’ intentions to stay.
Only one study (Howe et al., 2012) has examined the differences in factors affecting
employees’ intentions to stay in and to leave the aged care sector. However, that study
examined secondary data from the 2007 census of Australian aged care workers, which was
administered to aged care workers before the global financial crisis. Since then, the global
financial crisis has affected employees’ intentions to stay and leave by changing the financial
situation of many Australians. Research by O'Loughlin, Humpel and Kendig (2010) found
that 36.5% of Australian workers aged 50-64 had postponed their intentions to retire as a
result of the global financial crisis. Additionally, 50.6% of Australian workers reported being
worse off financially after the global financial crisis, resulting in some people being forced
into returning to work, either full-time or part-time. Consequently, an updated picture of aged
care employees’ intentions to stay and leave is needed. Further, Howe et al. (2012) examined
employees’ intentions to stay and leave from only a short-term perspective (within the next
12 months). In contrast, the present study examines both short-term (within the next 12
months) and long-term (within the next five years) intentions to stay and leave through the
collection of primary data using both closed and open-ended questions, offering a deeper
understanding of factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Therefore, this
study begins to fill these literature gaps, and add to the current body of knowledge on factors
affecting employees’ intentions to stay in and leave the aged care sector. Specifically, this
study investigates the following research questions:
3. What are the similarities and differences between the factors influencing employees’
intentions to stay and leave?
4. Do these factors differ between residential and community aged care settings?
8
1.3 Nature of the study
To investigate aged care employees’ intentions to stay and leave, a quantitative method was
employed using a positivist ontology with a realist epistemology. This method consisted of
sending out a questionnaire to 2118 aged care employees, across four organisations (one very
large >4000 employees, one large <900 employees, one medium <300 employees and one
small <80 employees), which spanned two states of Australia. Both closed and open
questions were used in this survey to gather information from respondents. The closed
questions examined personal and organisational variables using established, validated and
reliable scales. The open questions gathered information on the people management,
employee behaviours and human capital pool factors influencing employees’ short-term
(within the next 12 months) and long-term (within the next five years) intentions to stay and
leave, as one way of triangulating the data collected.
1.4 Glossary of terms and list of acronyms used
The following definitions are used throughout this thesis.
Community Aged Care Services: Aged care services provided within a community setting
(Department of Health and Ageing, 2011a).
Director of Nursing: This position oversees and manages the entire Residential Aged Care
Facility.
Epistemology: What researchers consider to be acceptable knowledge within a discipline.
Endorsed Enrolled Nurse: This position administers drugs and medication to older people
receiving care in addition to the role scope of enrolled nurses.
Enrolled Nurse: This position monitors client care, maintains regular communication with
the registered nurse, provides support and comfort for clients, and assists in daily living of
clients.
Generation: Refers to an identifiable group of people who share the same birth years,
locations, and significant life events at critical developmental stages during their lives
(Kupperschmidt, 2000; Smola & Sutton, 2002).
9
Job Embeddedness: The connections and relationships employees develop over a period of
time with their employers (Allen, Bryant & Vardamen, 2010; Mitchell, Holtom, Lee,
Sablyrski & Ernez, 2001).
Job Satisfaction: An “attitudinal variable that represents the extent to which people like
(satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs” (Spector, 1997, p. 2).
Nurse Manager (also known as Care Manager or Community Program Manager): The
role responsible for managing the overall care provided in a particular area within a broader
organisational context (e.g. one area within a community care region/Residential Aged Care
Facility).
Ontology: Refers to the nature of social entities or social realities that an individual
experiences (Bryman, 2004).
Perceived Organisational Support: Refers to an employee’s perception that the

organisation by which they are employed cares about their overall wellbeing and values the
contribution they make to the organisation (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
Perceived Supervisor Support: Refers to employees’ perceptions of “the degree to which

their supervisors value their contributions and care about their wellbeing” (Eisenberger,
Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski & Rhoades, 2002, p. 565).
Personal Care Worker: This position provides daily living support to clients under the
direction of the nursing team.
Positivism: An “organised method for combining deductive logic with precise observations
of individual behaviour in order to discover and confirm a set of probabilistic causal laws that
can be used to predict general patterns of human activity” (Neuman, 2011, p. 95).
Quantitative Methodology: An approach to research which uses numbers to generate

answers to hypotheses tested and produce conclusions based on research findings (Veal,
2011).
Survey: Consists of a series of questions aimed at gathering information on individuals’

attitudes, beliefs, values, interests and behaviours (Sommers & Sommers, 2002).
Realist ontology: Argues the world exists independently of an individual and that individuals
are able to experience reality through a process of enquiry (Neuman, 2011).
10
Registered Nurse: A fully qualified nurse who is responsible for case managing clients.
Reliability: Refers to the ability to find similar results when replicated (Veal, 2011).
Residential Aged Care Facility: Aged care services provided within permanent or
temporary accommodation settings (Department of Health and Ageing, 2011a).
Resource-Based View of the Firm: The argument that all organisational resources have
value-creating properties and therefore organisations should examine their internal
environment for competitive advantage (Boxall, Purcell & Wright, 2007).
Validity: The extent to which the information collected truly reflects the construct being
investigated (Thompson, 2003; Veal, 2011).
Voluntary Turnover: An employee’s decision to voluntarily leave an organisation (Allen,

Bryant & Vardoman, 2010).
Workforce Shortage (also termed skills shortage): Occurs “when there is either a
reduction in the availability of skilled labour, an increased demand for skilled labour, or
both” (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009a, p. 151).
In addition to these terms, the following acronyms are used.
ABS – Australian Bureau of Statistics
AIHW – Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing
CAC – Community Aged Care
DON – Director of Nursing
DVA – Department of Veteran Affairs
EEN – Endorsed Enrolled Nurse
EN – Enrolled Nurse
JIG – Job in General
NM – Nurse Manager
PCW – Personal Care Worker
11
POS – Perceived Organisational Support
PSS – Perceived Supervisor Support
RAC – Residential Aged Care
RACF – Residential Aged Care Facilities
RBV – Resource Based View of the Firm
RN – Registered Nurse
SPSS – Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
1.5 Research limitations and de-limiters
First, this study was limited by the sample obtained. That is, while the researcher purposely
targeted four differently sized organisations across two states of Australia, the sample used in
this study was found to be younger, less experienced, employed for a shorter period of time,
and had more permanent contracts than did the aged care workforce as a whole. Additionally,
this study lacked a national sample as it only collected data from not-for-profit organisations
and those who provided direct care to clients. Employees from the private and public sectors
of aged care and broader aged care employees, such as corporate service positions, were not
represented in the study. Therefore, caution should be made when generalising from the
results of this study to all aged care employees within Australia. Further, this study was
confined to the aged care sector, which means the results cannot be generalised outside this
sector.
A further limitation was the amount of missing data in this study. Respondents left large
amounts of missing data, particularly when responding to the job satisfaction scale. This
limited the ability of the study to analyse job satisfaction in isolation as well as the influence
that job satisfaction had on employees’ intentions to stay and leave. This missing data also
affected the sample size obtained, which resulted in non-significant findings from some of the
analyses, meaning that no differences were found in the dataset to support the hypotheses.
Further, while this study obtained an adequate sample overall, there were a large number of
non-responders in this study. This may have biased the results obtained as the sample who
did respond was different from the national census data.
Methodological limitations were also apparent in this research. In particular, the use of a
survey methodology meant that the data collected was shallow, inflexible and limited to the
12
moment in time studied. Additionally, while all care was taken to be rigorous and systematic,
it is recognized that researcher bias and error are still possible when using the qualitative
coding technique chosen. Consequently, further research is needed to gain more depth in
understanding the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave through the use
of interviews and focus groups.
1.6 Chapter overview
This thesis is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter provides an introduction to the
thesis and describes the rationale and overview of the research. The next two chapters
(chapters 2 and 3) provide a review of the literature and context for this research. Chapter 4
then describes the methodology used to examine the research questions. Following this,
chapters 5 and 6 present the results of the study, which are then discussed in chapter 7.
Additionally, chapter 7 brings the findings and theoretical and practical implications for this
research together. The structure of this thesis is illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Introduction Chapter 1: Introduction
Literature Chapter 2: Literature Review of Theoretical Constructs

Review Chapter 3: Literature Review of the Aged Care Sector
Methodology Chapter 4: Methodology and Methods

and Methods
Results Chapter 5: Quantitative Results

Chapter 6: Results of the Open-Ended Questions
Discussion Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion

and
Conclusion
Figure 1.1 The structure of this thesis
13
1.7 Conclusion
This chapter has provided an overview of the aged care sector and a rationale for research
that examines the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay in and leave the aged care
sector. It began with a description of the aged care sector as a whole, and then discussed the
impact that both the ageing population and composition of the current aged care workforce
will have on the future need for aged care in Australia. Finally, the chapter presented the
research questions and overview of the thesis. The next chapter will present a literature
review on the factors that have been found to affect employees’ intentions to leave and stay.
It will also provide a description of the theoretical framework underpinning this research.
14
Chapter 2: Literature review of theoretical
constructs
15
2.0 Introduction
Chapter 1 provided an overview of this study and emphasised that employee retention and
turnover is of critical importance within organisations today as organisations fight in the war
for talent. This is especially the case for organisations that struggle to attract and retain
suitably qualified employees in industries such as the aged care sector, which is the context
for this research.
To begin this chapter, an explanation of and rationale for the Resource-Based View of the
Firm (RBV) is provided, which is the theoretical framework that underpins this research.
Following this, the chapter reviews the literature on employee retention and turnover in two
parts. The first part concerns those variables that comprise the “personal factors” that
contribute to the “human capital pool” element of the RBV model. The second section
examines the literature around the “organisational factors” that affect employee retention and
turnover and which contribute to the “employee relationships and behaviours” and the
“people management practices” of the RBV model. Chapter 3 then further contextualises the
selection of the constructs within the Australian aged care sector and provides the proposed
models of retention and turnover for this research.
2.1 Resource-Based View of the Firm
The Resource-Based View of the Firm (RBV) is a strategic management framework designed
to understand how organisations gain competitive advantage through their resources (Boxall
Purcell, & Wright, 2007). It was influenced by the early works of Edith Penrose in 1959,
however, it was not until the early 1990s and developments since then that the RBV became
the assumed paradigm in strategic management research (Barney, 1991; Boxall et al., 2007;
Wright & Boswell, 2003). This section provides an overview of the RBV to orient readers to
the theoretical framework that underpins this research. To do this, a history of the
development of the RBV is provided, followed by a discussion of how it was used in this
research.
2.1.1 Development of the Resource-Based View of the Firm

The development of the RBV has been mostly disjointed, spanning many authors over 20
years of research in the fields of economics, strategic management, human resource
management and organisational development (Saqib & Rashid, 2013). The key influences on
this framework include the Ricardian economic perspective (Petaraf, 1993), Edith Penrose
16
(1959), Wernefelt (1984), Barney (1995), and Barney, Wright and Ketchen (2001). This
section will outline how each of these influences has shaped the development of the RBV
framework over the past 20 years.
The Ricardian economic perspective originated in the early nineteenth century and proposed
that organisations gain high rents and returns from other organisations if they own superior
resources that were valuable, rare and unique to the industry (Petaraf, 1993). This perspective
influenced the RBV framework significantly as it suggested that organisations gain
competitive advantage from the resources they own. In fact, this perspective was
acknowledged as having such an influence on the development of the RBV that Barney
(1995, p. 645) argued, “the Resource Based View is a simple extension of Ricardian
economics but with the assertion that many more factors besides land are inelastic in supply”.
A further influence on the RBV framework was Edith Penrose’s early work on the Theory of
the Growth of the Firm (1959), which argued that organisations could increase their value
creation through the effective management of the combined resources they use to create the
products and services they offer (Penrose, 1959). In this theory, the major emphasis is on the
application of an organisation’s resources, as well as on the way the organisation uses the
resources to create revenue (Penrose, 1959). An organisation’s resources were defined as
including any feature of an organisation resulting in the growth of that organisation (Penrose,
1959). The growth theory influenced the RBV by showing how resources could be used
strategically by an organisation to proactively generate competitive advantage.
In 1984, Wernefelt proposed the term “Resource-Based View of the Firm” for the first time
by drawing on existing knowledge to describe the competitive advantage organisations have
over each other through the appropriate use of their resources. Wernefelt (1984) argued that
an organisation’s resources could be used as a form of competitive advantage over similar
organisations by creating outputs that are valued by their customers and that cannot be
replicated or mimicked by other competitors (Wernefelt, 1984; Rugman & Verbeke, 2002).
Resources were defined by Wernefelt (1984, p. 171) as “anything that might be thought of as
a strength or weakness of a firm” such as “tangible and intangible assets, which are tied semi-
permanently to a firm”. Competitive advantage refers to the advantage one organisation has
over another in a given market, strategic group or industry (Kay, 1993). The RBV further
argued that it was a manager’s responsibility to ensure the correct identification,
development, protection and deployment of the developed resources to produce a competitive
17
advantage for the organisation (Wernefelt, 1984). Accordingly, sustainable competitive
advantage was achieved by an organisation through the economic returns it received when its
resources were managed effectively (Fahy, 2000; Kay, 1993; Ray, Barney & Mohanna,
2004).
In 1991, the RBV theory was further developed by Barney, who argued that sustainable
competitive advantage could only occur through an organisation’s resources when four key
conditions were met: that the resources were rare (limited in supply and not easily obtained
by competitors), valuable (produced quality outputs), inimitable (cannot be easily replicated
or mimicked by another competitor), and non-substitutable (could not be replaced by another
resource) in the marketplace (Barney, 1991). In this way, Barney (1991) argued that if these
conditions were met then the resource could be seen as a competitive advantage for an
organisation in the market. However, in developing the RBV, Barney (1991) relied on two
core assumptions. The first was the assumption of organisation resource heterogeneity, which
states that different organisations within an industry control different resources and that this
difference is the basis for the superior performance of some organisations over others
(Bechtal, 2007; Barney, 1991). The second assumption was that the resources possessed are
stable across time and could not be easily traded in the marketplace, so that heterogeneity
endured (Bechtal, 2007; Barney, 1991). If both of the assumptions were met, Barney (1991)
argued that an organisation’s resources were the key to the competitive advantage they held
within the industry.
For Barney (1991) resources were defined as “all financial, physical, human and
organisational assets used by a firm to develop manufacture, and deliver products and
services to its customers” (p. 50). However, in addition to these conditions, Kristandl and
Bontis (2007) later argued that to form a source of competitive advantage to an organisation,
resources also needed to earn rents that exceeded their cost, and that these resources must be
appropriable and immobile in the marketplace. Additionally, Kristandl and Bontis (2007)
argued that resources included all assets, capabilities, organisational processes, organisation
attributes and knowledge that a company may employ to produce an outcome. This extension
to the definition focused on when a resource could be considered a competitive advantage for
an organisation.
Barney (1991) distinguished between two specific types of internal resources that could be
considered a competitive advantage to an organisation. The first type is property-based
18
resources, which are those resources that tie up specific and well-defined assets that an
organisation possesses. The second type is knowledge-based resources, which are those that
cannot be imitated as they are subtle and hard to replicate between organisations. In
distinguishing between these types of resources, Miller and Shamsie (1996) argued that
knowledge-based resources were more flexible and less specific than property-based.
Consequently, in order to generate utility in a stable predictable market, property-based
resources were the source of competitive advantage, whereas when the market is unstable and
unpredictable due to its constant change, then knowledge-based resources become the
essential elements of competitive advantage for an organisation. In an environment that
constantly changes, knowledge-based resources become a primary and well-competed-for
source of competitive advantage. This is especially the case for the Australian aged care
sector, which is constantly changing to keep up with the demand for its services (Productivity
Commission, 2011).
One area of strategic management that has been influenced significantly by the development
of the RBV is strategic human resource management. Scholars in strategic human resource
management have argued that organisations can attain competitive advantage in their sector
and industry if they possess knowledge-based resources (Dunford, Snell & Wright, 2001).
Therefore, research in this area has focused on how competitive advantage could be attained
by organisations through their human resources and has identified three key components that
are important to achieving this competitive advantage: the human capital pool, employee
behaviours and relationships, and people management practices. Figure 2.1 presents a visual
illustration of these components.
19
Human Capital Pool Employee Behaviours and
Relationships
Knowledge
Job satisfaction
Skills
Perceived Organisational
Abilities Support
Job Embeddedness
People Management Practices

Staffing Training Rewards Appraisal
Work Design Participation Recognition Communication
Figure 2.1 Components of competitive advantage of human resources (adapted from

Dunford, Snell & Wright, 2001)
As illustrated in Figure 2.1, the human capital pool consists of the knowledge, skills and
abilities of each employee. These are the unique attributes that each employee possesses that
form part of the competitive advantage organisations hold. This is important as the
knowledge, skills and abilities of each employee are usually rare (limited in supply to
organisations), inimitable (cannot be copied by other organisations), valuable (in the outputs
produced) and non-substitutable (unique to that individual and cannot be replaced by another
entirely) in a marketplace. Moreover, the human capital pool plays a central role in
influencing both employee behaviours and relationships within the organisation and the
effectiveness of the people management practices that are put in place to support and improve
employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities within organisations (Dunford et al., 2001).
Further, employee behaviours and relationships are considered to be the actions or inactions
that employees undertake, which have an influence on the role they play in an organisation’s
competitive advantage (Dunford et al., 2001). Examples of these behaviours include, job
satisfaction, perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support, and job
embeddedness. While independently these constructs are not specific behaviours as such, the
support, embeddedness and job satisfaction felt by an employee influences the behaviours
20
they enact within an organisation. Consequently, all of these variables play a role in how
productive resources are within an organisation and thus how they contribute to the
competitive advantage of the organisation.
The behaviours and relationships enacted by employees are influenced by the people
management practices that support employees to perform their roles (Dunford et al., 2001).
These “people management practices” consist of policies that enhance employees’
knowledge, skills and abilities, and influence employee behaviours and relationships within
an organisation in order to create competitive advantage (Dunford et al., 2001). As outlined
in Figure 2.1, some of these practices include the training provided by organisations, the
work environment within the organisation, the rewards and recognition given to motivate
employees, and the performance appraisals implemented to monitor, motivate and reward
employees. By ensuring appropriate human resource policies and people management
practices are implemented, Dunford et al. (2001) argued that organisations are better able to
maximise their capabilities to retain employees, and consequently enhance their competitive
advantage within the marketplace.
2.1.2 How the resource-based view of the firm guides this research
According to the RBV, employees play a crucial role in the competitive advantage
organisations have in their marketplace. Specifically, researchers have argued that
organisations should ensure appropriate human resource management policies and practices
are implemented in order to maximise the retention of talented employees (Dunford et al.,
2001). Consequently, it is important to determine what employee behaviour and relationships
and people management practices affect retention and turnover, as well as how they both
contribute to retention and turnover from an employee’s perspective. Therefore, the current
research study examines the influence that employee behaviour and relationship variables,
and people management practices, have on employees’ intentions to stay and leave.
Another important consideration is the human capital pool. Each employee contributes a
varied amount of competitive advantage to an organisation depending on the knowledge,
skills and abilities they possess. However, the development of the knowledge, skills and
abilities of each employee is dependent on a number of factors such as their ethnicity,
education level, age, gender, and health status. Therefore, it becomes necessary to also
examine the influence that personal characteristics have on employees’ intentions to stay and
leave, as well as the combined influence that the human capital pool, employee behaviours
21
and relationships and people management practices have on employees’ intentions to stay and
leave. The next two sections will provide a review of what retention and turnover is and why
it is important to address these issues in the workplace. Following this, a discussion of the
factors influencing intentions to stay and leave will be provided.
2.2 Employee retention
Employee retention refers to the ability of an organisation to keep valued employees from
leaving their organisation. This is done through implementing a variety of people
management strategies and ensuring the employee behaviours and relationships exhibited
within the organisation are conducive to effectively enticing employees to stay longer within
their organisation. Such strategies include career development opportunities, reward and
recognition programs, ensuring employees have supportive supervision, monitoring and/or
enhancing job satisfaction, and creating a pleasant work environment. Implementing
appropriate retention strategies is important because employees are critical resources in
ensuring the short-term and long-term viability and sustainability of an organisation (Kyndt,
Dochy, Michielson, & Moeyaert 2009).
Research examining the benefits of employee retention has found that employees are more
productive and focused on their roles when there is a stable workforce around them (Arnold,
2005). Such stability leads to improved quality of work, improved organisational memory,
competitive advantage through retaining a more experienced workforce and reductions in
training, advertisement and recruitment costs (Jones & Gates, 2007). In health care
organisations particularly, additional benefits of employee retention are decreased patient
care errors, increased client quality of care, increased job satisfaction and increased
organisational trust (Jones & Gates, 2007). Therefore, retaining employees is critical for
maximising employee productivity and the overall competitive advantage of an organisation.
While retaining employees is essential for the competitive advantage of the organisation as
well as the benefits mentioned previously, it is not without its costs. The costs of retention
can include ongoing salary increases, employee and team bonuses, reward and recognition
events and activities, ongoing training and development opportunities and ongoing career
management of staff members, including promotions and the provision of career
advancement opportunities (Jones & Gates, 2007). However, and importantly, the benefits of
retaining key staff members typically outweigh the costs (Jones & Gates, 2007). Thus,
understanding the factors affecting employee retention is critical to maintain and support a
22
stable workforce. In addition to understanding these key retention factors, it is also important
to understand the factors affecting employee turnover. This is because the factors influencing
employees’ intentions to leave an organisation are not always the same as the factors
influencing their intentions to stay (Chan & Morrison, 2008; Mittal et al., 2009).
2.3 Employee turnover
Employee turnover is a complex phenomenon that is broadly defined as the decision for an
employee to discontinue their role with their organisation (Hartel & Fujimoto, 2010). This
decision may be voluntary or involuntary on the part of the employee. Voluntary turnover
occurs when the employee decides to leave an organisation, and comes in the form of
resignations or retirements. In contrast, involuntary turnover occurs when an organisation
decides that that employee needs to leave an organisation, through redundancies or
terminations, due to unacceptable behaviour, poor performance or organisational reasons
such as financial considerations (Allen, Bryant & Vardaman, 2010; Cascio, 2006; Price,
2001). Regardless of the decision, the impact of employee turnover can be either functional
or dysfunctional to an organisation (Allen et al., 2010).
Functional turnover occurs when poor performers leave an organisation, or when easily
replaceable employees leave an organisation. This type of turnover, while disruptive in the
short term, does not harm the organisation in the long term (Allen et al., 2010; Cascio, 2006).
Instead, it provides benefits to the organisation by eliminating poor performers and
improving the morale of the remaining employees. Additionally, functional turnover
maximises the cost savings to the organisation as a result of unpaid bonuses to outgoing
employees, and the introduction of new employees to replace outgoing employees results in
the introduction of new ideas, creativity and innovation into the organisation through the new
employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities (Cascio, 2006; Jones & Gates, 2007). However,
not all turnover is positive, in some cases turnover can be dysfunctional and harmful to an
organisation.
Dysfunctional turnover occurs when high performers and hard-to-replace employees leave an
organisation (Allen et al., 2010). This type of employee turnover causes severe disruptions to
the organisation. Some of these disruptions include a loss of productivity, loss of morale in
the remaining employees due to the increased responsibilities, compromised quality of work
produced by the departing employee, and loss in competitive advantage for the organisation
within the marketplace (Dess & Shaw, 2001; Jones & Gates, 2007; Lambert & Hogan, 2009).
23
Additionally, employee turnover may decrease the remaining employees’ job satisfaction and
perpetuate and/or accelerate the cycle of turnover and impact of turnover to the organisation
(Coomber & Barriball, 2004). While dysfunctional turnover has the most negative
consequences on organisations, both functional and dysfunctional turnover are costly to an
organisation either directly or indirectly.
Direct turnover costs are considered to be those costs that can be attributed to an activity
directly relating to replacing the employee, such as recruitment and selection activity costs,
separation costs, and replacement costs (Dess & Shaw, 2011; Jones & Gates, 2007; Lambert
& Hogan, 2009). Some examples of activities related to recruitment and selection costs
include the management and administrative time used to organise and place recruitment
advertisements, the cost of the advertisements, and the time taken out of management and
administrative roles to select an appropriate replacement employee (Dess & Shaw, 2011;
Jones & Gates, 2007; Lambert & Hogan, 2009). Examples of separation costs include
severance pay paid to the departing employee, time taken to conduct exit interviews, and time
taken to remove employees from the payroll and human resource management system.
Examples of replacement costs include the training costs of up-skilling the new employee in
the organisation’s systems and role, as well as the decreased productivity of other employees
and time taken to answer questions and assist the new employee where needed (Dess &
Shaw, 2011; Jones & Gates, 2007; Lambert & Hogan, 2009). In addition to these direct
costs, organisations also experience indirect costs relating to employee turnover.
Indirect employee turnover costs are considered to be those costs that cannot be assigned
directly to an activity but result from the action of an employee leaving an organisation.
Examples of these costs include the time taken by the new employee to adjust to their role
and to understand the organisation’s culture and protocols, the cost of decreased morale,
increased stress and pressure on the remaining employees to fill the role, losses in the
organisation’s memory and social capital, as well as losses in the competitive advantage of
the firm when its human resources join competitor organisations (Dess & Shaw, 2001; Jones
& Gates, 2007; Lambert & Hogan, 2009). Combined, these costs weigh heavily on the
bottom line of an organisation and much research has examined the factors that affect
employee turnover (Morrell, Loan-Clarke, Arnold, & Wilkinson, 2006), resulting in the many
models of turnover proposed during the past century (Steel & Laundsbury, 2009).
24
From these models, researchers have suggested that a variety of personal and organisational
factors combined influence employees’ intentions to leave and stay. However, only a few
researchers have considered the similarities and differences between the factors affecting
employees’ intentions to stay and leave (e.g. Chan & Morrison 2008; Mittal et al., 2009), and
no research has examined the combination of influence that the human capital pool, employee
behaviour and relationships, and people management practices have on both intentions to
stay and leave. Additionally, of the research conducted examining both intentions to stay and
leave, mixed results have been found. Chan and Morrison (2008) examined nurses in a
Singapore hospital and found the drivers for intentions to stay and leave to be similar.
However, Mittal et al. (2009) examined American direct aged care employees and found that
different drivers influence employees’ intentions to stay and to leave. Similarly, different
drivers of intentions to stay and leave have been found to influence Australian aged care
employees (Howe et al., 2012). However, that research examined the influence that
organisational structural characteristics, such as type of organisation (private and public) and
individual demographic characteristics (such as age and gender) have on employees’
intentions to stay and leave. Also, Howe et al. (2012) did not examine the combined influence
of the human capital pool, employee behaviour and relationships, and people management
practices on employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Additionally, the differences between
residential and community care employees’ intentions to stay and leave has been largely
ignored in the literature. Moreover, limited research has examined generational differences in
factors affecting their intentions to stay and leave within an Australian aged care setting.
Therefore, in order to address these gaps in the literature, this study investigates the following
research questions:

3. What are the similarities and differences between employees’ intentions to stay and
leave?
4. Do these factors differ across residential care and community care settings?
In order to understand the competitive advantage organisations have over each other, it is
important to examine the human capital pool, employee behaviours and relationships, and
people management strategies implemented within an organisation. Therefore, this study
investigates the human capital pool by examining the demographic characteristics that affect
25
the knowledge, skills and abilities of employees. These demographic characteristics are age
and generation, education level, marital status, tenure, kinship responsibilities, employee and
family health, employment status and area of employment. In order to investigate the
employee behaviour and relationships related to retention and turnover, this study analyses
the influence of employees’ job satisfaction, job embeddedness, perceived supervisor support
and perceived organisational support on their intentions to stay. Finally, in order to
investigate the effectiveness of the people management practices that are implemented within
the organisation, this study uses open-ended questions to identify those practices that are
important to employees’ short-term (12 months or less) and long-term (five years or more)
retention and turnover. These factors were all chosen to be investigated, as existing research
has established mixed results in the relationships between these factors and employees’
intentions to stay and leave. Additionally, research has not yet investigated the combined
influence of these factors on employees’ intentions to stay and leave. In contrast, the
influence that financial status has on employees’ intentions to stay and leave has been well
established in the literature (Shacklock & Brunetto, 2011) and as such this study did not focus
on this variable. Instead, this study begins to address the other gaps identified in the literature.
In the current study, factors affecting the knowledge, skills and abilities were considered as
“personal factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave”, whereas factors
affecting employee behaviour and relationships as well as people management practices were
addressed as “organisational factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave”.
2.4 Personal factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave
As described in section 2.1.2, the human capital pool plays a central role in influencing both
employee behaviours and relationships within the organisation and the effectiveness of the
people management practices used to support and improve employees’ knowledge, skills and
abilities within organisations (Dunford et al., 2001). The development of the human capital
pool is influenced by the personal characteristics of each employee and, therefore, it becomes
important to consider these characteristics when examining employee retention and turnover.
Much research has investigated the influence that personal factors have on employees’
intentions to stay and leave (Boxall, Macky, & Rasmussen, 2003; Rosen, Stielh, Mittal, &
Leana, 2011; Shacklock & Brunetto, 2011). Some of the characteristics examined in previous
studies researching employees’ intentions to stay or leave include age/generation, education
level, marital status, tenure, kinship responsibilities, perceived health of the employee and
26
their family, employment status and area of employment. While previous studies have found
that personal characteristics such as gender and financial circumstances are important
influences on employees’ intentions to stay and/or leave (Boxall, Macky, & Rasmussen,
2003; Shacklock & Brunetto, 2011), this study chose not to examine these characteristics as
they have been well established in the literature. Additionally, aged care is a female-
dominated sector, with males representing less than 7% of employees in the sector (AIHW,
2011). Therefore, examining the influence that gender has on aged care employees’ intentions
to stay and leave is difficult. Instead, the characteristics chosen – age and generation,
education level, marital status, tenure, kinship responsibilities, employee and family health,
employment status, and area of employment – are those that have not been extensively
discussed in the literature. The next section provides a review of the literature on the
influence of each of these characteristics on employees’ intentions to stay and leave. At the
end of chapter 3, a workforce profile is provided of the current Australian aged care sector,
which further contextualises the rationale as to why these factors were included in this study.
2.4.1 Age and generation

Research has found that age is a significant variable in employees’ intentions to stay and
leave an organisation (Boxall, Macky & Rasmussen, 2003; Cheung, 2004; Gambino, 2010;
Lavoie-Tremblay et al., 2011; Rosen et al., 2011). In particular, research has identified that
older workers (aged >45 years) are more likely to stay in an organisation than younger
workers (aged < 45 years) (Anderson & Hill, 2010; Larabeen et al., 2010; Letvuk & Buck,
2008). Conversely, younger workers were found to leave more frequently than older workers
(Apostolidis & Polifroni, 2006; Cheung, 2004; Boxall, Macky, & Rasmussen, 2003;
Gambino, 2010; Lavoi-Tremblay et al., 2011; Rosen et al., 2011; Wiener, Squillace,
Anderson & Khatutsky, 2005; Wilson, Squires, Widger, Cranley, & Tourangeau, 2008).
While these findings were mostly conducted using samples within the United States of
America and the United Kingdom, research investigating the significance of age on
employees’ intentions to stay and leave within the Australian health care sector highlights
contradictory findings. Two studies examining acute care nurses in Australia found that older
workers (aged >60 years) were more likely to leave than younger workers due to retirement
intentions (Dockery, 2004; Health Workforce Australia, 2012a), a finding which contrasts
with that of the US and UK research. However, within the Australian aged care sector, this
relationship does not appear to be replicated. That is, Howe et al. (2012) identified that older
aged care workers were more committed and had higher intentions to stay than younger
27
workers did, which was in line with similar research conducted in the US and the UK (e.g.
Larabeen et al., 2010; Letvuck & Buck, 2008).
One explanation of these contrasting results could be the use of different ages to define an
“older worker”. Howe et al. (2012) did not specify what an “older worker” was in their
analysis. While the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011b) argues that an older Australian
worker is aged over 45 years, others studies use the minimum of 50 years (Larabeen et al.,
2010) with some even using 60 years and older as a minimum age for an older worker
(Dockery, 2004; Health Workforce Australia, 2012b). Consequently, these minimum age
differences may explain the contrasting results within the literature. As the current study is
conducted in an Australian aged care setting, an “older worker” is defined as aged 45 years
and over, consistent with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011b) definition. The study
hypothesises that:
H1a: In comparison to older workers, younger workers will report lower intentions to stay
and higher intentions to leave.
To further examine age differences, much research has investigated generational differences
in the workforce, especially within a nursing context. The literature on generational
differences has yet to agree on a formal acceptable definition of what a generation is;
however, the most widely cited definition and the one which was broadly adopted in this
research was Kupperschmidt (2000) who defined a generation as, “an identifiable group that
shares the same birth years, age locations and significant life events at critical development
stages” (p. 364). As a result of this definition, there can be no global agreed upon date range
for each generation, as people from different countries experience different significant life
events at different times. Even within Australia, an agreed date range has not been reached
for each generation, especially for Generation Y. Therefore this research will use the dates
provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009a), and examine six generations: Late
Veteran Generation (1926-1945), Early Baby Boomers (1946-1955), Late Baby Boomers
(1956-1965), Early Generation X and Y (1966-1976), Late Generation X and Y (1977-1986),
and Early Generation I (1987-1996).
Research examining generational differences has identified similarities and differences

between generations in their attitudes to employment. For example, a study of the American
nursing workforce found Generation X and Y employees possessed less permanent
relationships with their employers and demanded success in a shorter period of time in
28
comparison with older generations (Weston, 2006). Additionally, research has found
differences between each generation’s satisfaction with different aspects of their jobs. For
example, Apostolidis and Polifroni (2006) identified that Generation X nurses working in the
US were more satisfied with the professional status given to them and less satisfied with the
pay in comparison to Baby Boomer nurses. Using the same context, Wilson et al. (2008)
found that Baby Boomers were more satisfied on the whole with the professional
opportunities available, the amount of praise, control, recognition and respect they received
and the extrinsic rewards offered to them by their organisation than Generation X or Y
nurses, although no differences in overall satisfaction were found between the generations.
These results indicate that generational differences may be found between the extrinsic and
intrinsic motivators provided by people management practices employed within
organisations.
Supporting these findings within an Australian acute care context, Shacklock and Brunetto
(2011) found that for Generation X employees, the relationships they held with their
supervisors and the attachment to the work itself were their main drivers in their intentions to
remain at their job. This trend has also been identified globally across different contexts by
Wong, Gardiner, Lang, and Coulin (2008), Carver and Candella (2011), LeVasseur, Wang,
Mathews, and Boland (2009), and Smola and Sutton (2002). In line with these findings, and
because this study examines the employee behaviours and relationships, perceived
organisational support, perceived supervisor support, job embeddedness, job satisfaction, as
well as people management strategies broadly in addition to intentions to stay and leave, this
study hypothesises that:
H1b: There will be generational differences in the employee behaviours and relationships
and people management strategies, as well as overall intentions to stay and intentions to
leave
In summary, much research identifies differences between age groups in the people
management strategies that are reported as important to their intentions to stay and leave.
However, while research has identified differences between age, retention and turnover
motivators in multiple settings, research is still needed to clarify which people management
strategies are important to which age group in the workforce. This is especially important in
an aged care environment where the retention of the workforce has significant implications
29
for the quality of care provided to the older population of Australia both now and into the
future.
2.4.2 Education level

The influence that an employee’s education status has on the factors influencing their
intentions to stay and leave has been the subject of contradictory findings. Boxall et al.
(2003) examined a sample of New Zealand workers and found no significant differences in
employees’ intentions to leave based on their education level. This was a general population
study of New Zealand workers across multiple industries. However, studies investigating US
nurses have found a positive correlation between education status and intentions to leave and
a negative correlation with intentions to stay. That is, the more highly educated employees
were, the more likely they were to leave and the less likely to stay (Kash, Naufal, Cortes &
Johnson, 2010; Larabeen et al., 2010).
These studies were conducted overseas, and only a limited number of studies have
investigated the influence that education level has on intentions to stay and leave in an
Australian aged care context. This is of interest, because unlike other health services in
Australia, the aged care sector does not require any qualifications to begin working in the
sector as a care worker (King et al., 2012). Therefore, investigating the relationship between
education level and intentions to stay or leave is particularly important in this setting.
Research examining this relationship using an aged care context is still emerging. One
Australian study found a similar pattern to that identified in the US research. That is,
employees who reported lower education levels were more likely to stay than those who
reported higher education levels across both residential care and community aged care
settings (Howe et al., 2012). The present study seeks to extend these findings and investigate
the influence that education status has on Australian aged care employees’ intentions to stay
and leave by proposing the hypothesis:
H2: Employees with lower education levels will report higher intentions to stay and lower
2.4.3 Marital status

Spouses play a significant role in employees’ intentions to stay or leave (Cotton & Tuttle,
1986) as retirement, relocation and financial decisions are often made together (Johnson &
Favreault, 2001; Kim & Feldman, 2000). This is supported by the Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS) (2009b), which reported that 13% of older females leave the workforce to
30
spend more time with their families and partners. Similarly, in older public service sector
workers in Australia, employees’ spouses had the strongest influence on their intentions to
retire (Shacklock, Brunetto & Nelson, 2007). However, while previous research established
the connection between marital status and turnover in the US and in an Australian public
sector organisation, no study has investigated the influence of marital status on employees’
intentions to stay or leave in an Australian aged care setting. Additionally, little information
is available on the marital status of aged care employees. Therefore, this study adds to the
research knowledge on the role that marital status plays on employees’ intentions to stay and
leave by hypothesising that:
H3: Employees who are married or in a de-facto relationship will report lower intentions to
stay and higher intentions to leave than those who are single.
2.4.4 Tenure
Few studies have examined the influence that employees’ role tenure has on intentions to stay
and leave. One study of nurses in the US examined the influence of organisational tenure on
nurses’ intentions to stay and found that tenure had a positive relationship with intentions to
stay. That is, the longer an employee had worked for an organisation, the higher their
intentions to stay were (Gambino, 2010). No research has been conducted to examine the
influence of employee tenure on employees’ intentions to leave, although it has been found
that older workers tend to have longer tenure and are less likely to leave, suggesting a
relationship between tenure and intentions to leave, although the relationship between tenure
and intentions to leave was not examined in this study (Gambino, 2010). Therefore the
current study extends the research into this area by exploring the role that tenure in their role,
job and sector plays in employees’ intentions to stay and leave by hypothesising that:
H4: Employees with longer tenure will report higher intentions to stay and lower intentions
to leave.
2.4.5 Kinship responsibilities

Research has found mixed results in identifying relationships between kinship responsibility
and employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Research in both the US and Jordan has
identified that nursing employees who had no kinship responsibilities were more likely to
leave, and less likely to stay, than those with kinship responsibilities (AbuAlRub, 2010;
Estryn-Behar et al., 2007; McCarthy, Tyrell & Lehane, 2007; Stewart et al., 2011).
31
The impact that kinship responsibilities have on employees’ intentions to stay and leave
becomes even more salient within an Australian context as the population is ageing, leaving
some employees to care for both their older parents as well as dependent children (Shacklock
& Brunetto, 2011). Indeed a literature review examining factors affecting midwifes and
consultant retention in the UK revealed that the provision of appropriate family care was
significant in midwife retention (Shen, Cox, & McBride, 2004). Moreover, a recent study by
Howe et al. (2012) examining the Australian aged care workforce revealed that having
financially dependent children resulted in employees’ reporting higher intentions to stay and
lower intentions to leave. However, as research on this variable’s influence on employees’
intentions to stay and leave in an aged care context is limited to a single study, further
research is required to investigate the relationship between kinship responsibility and
organisational factors on employee retention and turnover. Therefore this study proposes that:
H5: Employees with kinship responsibilities will report higher intentions to stay and lower
intentions to leave than those with no kinship responsibilities.
2.4.6 Employee and family health

In addition to the influence that other personal factors have on employees’ intentions to stay
and leave, the influence that the health of employees and their families on employees’
intentions to stay and leave is particularly salient in the context of an ageing workforce. For
example, Shacklock (2006), American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) (2006) and
Patrickson and Ranzijn (2004) all found that the health of employees and their families had a
significant influence on employees’ intentions to stay in their job. Similarly, employees who
reported poor health had higher intentions of leaving than those who reported better health in
both Australian acute care and aged care settings (Shacklock & Brunetto, 2011; Howe et al.,
2012). No relationship was found, however, between employees’ perceived health and
intentions to stay in aged care (Howe et al., 2012). As Howe et al. (2012) only investigated
employees’ perceived health, no study has investigated the additional influence that the
health of an employee’s family has on Australian aged care employees’ intentions to stay.
Therefore, this study extends research in this area to aged care employees by examining the
following hypotheses:
H6a: Employees who report better perceived health of self will report higher intentions to
stay and lower intentions to leave.
32
H6b: Employees who report better perceived health of family will report higher intentions to
2.4.7 Employment status

Research examining the role that employment status plays in employees’ intentions to stay
and leave is limited. However, employment status – whether employees are employed
permanently or temporarily, and on a full-time, part-time, or casual basis – is a particularly
important factor when examining the aged care workforce as this workforce is highly
casualised (King et al., 2012). Further, it is already known that Australian nurses who are on
casual and temporary contracts are more likely to leave than those on permanent contracts
(Health Workforce Australia, 2012a; Howe et al., 2012). This study therefore contributes to
this knowledge base by investigating the role that employment status has on employees’
intentions to stay and leave by hypothesising that:
H7: Employees who are on casual contracts will have higher intentions to leave and lower
intentions to stay than those who are employed permanently in part-time or full-time roles.
2.4.8 Area of employment

The final personal factor explored in this study is area of employment (the type of aged care
that an employee works within). This factor is particularly important in an examination of
aged care employees, as care is provided in two primary settings, Residential Aged Care
(RAC) and Community Aged Care (CAC) settings. A detailed overview of each setting is
provided in Chapter 3.
The Australian aged care workforce consists of qualified nursing staff, titled Registered
Nurses, Enrolled Nurses, Enrolled Endorsed Nurses, and Unregulated Care Workers, such as
Assistants in Nursing and Personal Care Workers (King et al., 2012). These nursing and care
workers are employed across both RAC and CAC settings. While the scope of professional
practice for each of the roles is clearly defined by regulatory and industry bodies and is
similar across the two settings, the culture, team environment and support differ. That is, in a
RAC environment, a team of carers manages a client’s care at any one time within close
proximity to each other, while in a CAC environment, the team is “virtual”, with team
members providing individual care to clients in their homes (Productivity Commission,
2011). Additionally, the internal structure and support processes for both residential and
community aged care employees differ. That is, community aged care employees work
33
autonomously within the community whereas residential aged care employees work more
closely in a team environment within a particular building. Thus, while community aged care
employees are encouraged to call their office if they need anything during their shift, they
have less tangible support than residential aged care employees, who work within a particular
building. In addition to these differences, the size of the workforce supporting a client differs
between the two settings: in a RAC setting there could be 10 or more different workers in one
day seeing a client, while in a CAC setting there could be only one worker a week, depending
on the level of support required (King et al., 2012). These differences have a significant
impact on the type of worker employed in both settings. Given the different physical and
organisational environments in which they work, it is reasonable to expect that CAC and
RAC carers will have different drivers of retention and turnover intentions. However, no
study has investigated the similarities and differences between the two settings in the factors
influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Therefore, this study begins to fill the
gap in the literature by investigating these relationships further by proposing the following
hypothesis:
H8: There will be differences in the employee behaviour and relationships, people
management strategies and intentions to stay and leave reported by residential aged care and
community aged care employees
2.5 Organisational factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave
In addition to the influence that personal factors have on employee behaviours and
relationships, people management strategies and employees’ intentions to stay and leave,
both employee behaviours and relationships and people management strategies have direct
influences on each other as well as on employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Research has
long established direct relationships between each of organisational commitment,
psychological contracts, and discretionary behaviours, and employees’ intentions to stay and
leave (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, & Eberly, 2008; Shen, Cox, &
McBride, 2004). However, the combined influence of factors influencing employee
behaviour and relationships (job satisfaction, perceived supervisor support, perceived
organisational support and job embeddedness) and people management strategies on
employees’ intentions to stay or leave has not been addressed in the literature to date. Instead,
research has focused on the relationship between one or two of these constructs and other
constructs. Therefore, these variables were selected for inclusion in this study.
34
2.5.1 Job satisfaction and working conditions
Job satisfaction as a research construct originated from early motivational theories of
employee behaviour within the disciplines of organisational behaviour and psychology.
These theories focused on the positive or negative feelings an individual has about their job
in general (Lu, While, & Barriball, 2005). Building from the early theories, Maslow argued
that there was a hierarchy of needs that individuals need to progress through in order to
achieve a sense of self-actualisation (Maslow, 1954).
Specifically, Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs theory argues that there are five levels of
human needs and that each level must be satisfied before an individual can progress to the
next level. The first level consists of satisfying an individual’s basic physiological needs,
such as an individual’s need for food, water and shelter. The second level incorporates
individual’s safety needs. To be fulfilled at this level, individuals must feel secure in their
body, employment, resources, morality, family, health and property. The third level is the
need for love and belonging. This need argues that individuals must be satisfied in their need
for family, friendship and sexual intimacy in order to progress to the fourth level of the
hierarchy, which is the need for esteem. This level includes the fulfilment of self-esteem,
confidence, achievement, respect by others, and respect of others. Finally, after attaining this
level, Maslow argued that an individual progresses to the final level, which is called “self-
actualisation”, at which point the individual seeks to obtain morality, creativity, lack of
prejudices, problem solving abilities, spontaneity and acceptance of facts (Maslow, 1954).
Maslow argued that the first four needs are deficiency needs because these are the needs that
individuals feel they are missing in their overall satisfaction in life (Maslow, 1954). In
contrast, the fifth level, self-actualisation, is considered to be a being need because it sustains
an individual’s interest to acquire something that is not driven by the lack of the need, or
deprivation (Neher, 1991). While having a seminal influence on the employee motivational
literature to describe employee behaviour, this theory has been criticised extensively
throughout the years (Spector, 1997), resulting in other theories of job satisfaction being
proposed. In relation to this research and according to Maslow, employees’ would report the
deficiency needs as important to their overall sense of job satisfaction. In contrast to Maslow,
Herzberg and Mausner proposed a two factor theory of job satisfaction.
Herzberg and Mausner’s (1959) two-factor theory of job satisfaction proposed that
satisfaction and dissatisfaction were two distinct constructs that were not always related. In
35
this theory, the two factors were termed “motivators” and “hygiene factors” to explain the
influence that intrinsic and extrinsic factors have on an employees’ overall job satisfaction.
Motivators were considered to be those factors that provide intrinsic satisfaction to
individuals, such as achievement, recognition, the work itself and responsibility. In contrast,
“hygiene factors” were considered to be job “dissatisfiers”, including extrinsic motivators
such as company policy, administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations and
working conditions (Herzberg & Mausner, 1959; Lu et al., 2005). While both factors could
contribute to employees’ job satisfaction, Herzberg and Mausner (1959) argued that one
could be more influential than another on overall job satisfaction, depending on an
individual’s primary motivators. This theory could also be used to gain an insight into the
factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave, where factors affecting
employees’ intentions to stay may be more aligned with “motivators” and factors affecting
employees’ intentions to leave may be more aligned with “hygiene” factors in Herzberg and
Mausner’s theory.
While Maslow (1954) and Herzberg and Mausner (1959) proposed two distinct theories of
job satisfaction in general, the influence of job satisfaction on employees’ intentions to stay
and leave has been extensively investigated and has resulted in many theories specific to this
aspect of job satisfaction. These theories have been categorised as either content or process
theories of motivation (Robbins, Judge, Millet & Boyle, 2011). A few researchers have also
focused on the attitudinal process of job satisfaction in their definitions in order to describe
the affective orientation employees have to their job or the work in general. This research has
resulted in multiple definitions of job satisfaction being cited in the literature, as summarised
in Table 2.1.
36
Table 2.1 Definitions of job satisfaction
Definition Reference Related Theory
An individual’s perception of how Coomber & Bariball Herzberg and Mausner’s
well a job fulfils an employees’ (2007) motivation-hygiene
value and how well that job theory
contributes to the emotional state of
satisfaction or dissatisfaction
experienced
A match between what individuals Conrad, Conrad, &
perceive they need and what rewards Parker (1985)
they perceive they receive from their
job
A function of satisfaction with the Herzberg & Mausner
various element of the job (1959)
Need fulfilment, that is, whether or Worf (1970)
not the job meets the employee’s
physical or psychological needs for
the things within the work situation
The individual matching of personal Kuhlen (1963) Maslow’s human needs
needs to the perceived potential of theory
the occupation for satisfying those
needs
All the feelings that an individual Gruenberg (1980) Focus on affective
has about his or her job orientation or feelings
The affective orientation that an Price (2001)
employee has towards his or her
work
“An attitudinal variable that Spector (1997, p. 2).
represents the extent to which people
like (satisfaction) or dislike
(dissatisfaction) their jobs”
Adapted and modified from Lu et al. (2005).
As illustrated in Table 2.1, definitions of job satisfaction vary slightly depending on the
theoretical framework used. For this research, the definition provided by Spector (1997, p.2)
was adopted. This definition focuses on the attitude that employees have with their jobs, and
as such can be used to examine multiple aspects of each job. This is important as much
research has been conducted examining the influence that job satisfaction has on employees’
intentions to stay and leave.
37
Job satisfaction was first identified in the late 1990s as playing a significant role in
employees’ intentions to stay and leave (Castle, Engberg, Anderson & Men, 2007; Larabeen
et al., 2010; McCarthey, Tyrell & Lehane, 2007). Since this identification, job satisfaction
has been one of the most common variables cited in explaining employees’ intentions to stay
or leave an organisation (Castle et al., 2007; Larabeen et al., 2010; McCarthey et al., 2007).
Specifically, research has consistently found a negative relationship between job satisfaction
and intentions to leave, and a positive relationship with intentions to stay. That is, when
employees’ job satisfaction decreases, their intentions to leave their organisation increase
(Castle et al., 2007). Conversely, when employees’ job satisfaction increases, their intentions
to stay at their organisation decreases.
To examine the influence that job satisfaction has on employees’ intentions to stay and leave
in this study, two types of job satisfaction measures were used, global and facet measures
(Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriescheim, & Carson, 2002). Global measures of job satisfaction
examine employees’ satisfaction with their jobs in general, while facet measures of job
satisfaction examine different aspects of a job that have the ability to affect an employee’s
job satisfaction such as pay, promotion, supervision, work on the present job and co-workers
(Coomber & Barriball, 2007; Kinicki et al., 2002). Both global and facet measures have been
identified as important measures of employees’ job satisfaction and the influence that this
satisfaction has on employee turnover and retention. Global measures are used when
researchers are interested in employees’ overall attitude towards their job satisfaction, and
facet measures are used when researchers are interested in finding out which parts of the job
are affecting employees’ job satisfaction (Spector, 1997).
Factors influencing the job satisfaction of health care workers include both global and facet
measures of job satisfaction. In particular, a positive relationship was identified between
global job satisfaction and employees’ intentions to stay and a negative relationship was
found between global job satisfaction and employees’ intentions to leave (Castle et al., 2007;
Hill, 2011; Rosen et al., 2011). As this finding is well established in the literature, researchers
have more recently focused on examining the relationship between facet measures of job
satisfaction and employee retention and turnover. These studies have identified a variety of
people management strategies as important to employees’ job satisfaction and intentions to
stay and leave. For example, research investigating health care workers’ satisfaction with
working conditions has identified that the following factors result in an increased likelihood
of employees to report their intentions to leave: poor staff-patient ratios (Cheung, 2004);
38
work overload (Brannan et al., 2007); poor job design (Brannan et al., 2007; Kim &
Jorgaratnam, 2010); poor recognition, lack of autonomy in decision making, and lack of
challenges and responsibilities (Boxall et al., 2003; Brannan et al., 2007; McCarthy, Tyrell &
Lehane, 2007). Additionally, poor role clarity (Allen et al., 2010), increased workloads
(Baernhauldt & Mark, 2009), unsupportive work environments, and a lack of work life
balance (Pocock & Skinner, 2012) were all facet measures of job satisfaction that were found
to increase employee turnover in the health care sector globally.
Research examining working conditions more broadly has identified that satisfaction with the
following factors were all significant in employees’ intentions to stay: wages and benefits
(Bishop et al., 2008; Kash et al., 2010; Lavoie-Tremblay et al., 2008; O’Donnell & Hudson,
2011); flexible rosters (Skinner et al., 2011; Thornwaite, 2004); organisational support
(O’Donnell & Hudson, 2011); support from supervisors (Hill, 2011; O’Donnell & Hudson,
2011): perceptions of personal autonomy in the role (Shacklock, 2006): and positive work
environments (Shacklock, 2006). Moreover, work schedules, career development, and
promotion and recognition were all found to be important to nurses’ and midwives’ intentions
to stay and leave in the UK (Shen, Cox & McBride, 2004). Interestingly, however, a study of
direct care workers in the US found that pay was not a significant predictor of turnover
(Rosen et al., 2011). Similarly, Howes (2008) found that only a small percentage of aged care
workers in the US reported wage as important in their intentions to stay. Within an Australian
aged care context, Moyle, Skinner, Rowe and Gork (2003) found job satisfaction related to
work flexibility, residents, working within a team environment, and client care. However that
study was qualitative in nature and examined what job satisfaction meant to aged care
workers rather than its relationship with employees’ intentions to leave. The present study
adds to this knowledge by investigating the role that both global and facet job satisfaction
plays on employees’ intentions to stay or leave by hypothesising that:
H9: Employees who report high job satisfaction will have higher intentions to stay and lower
intentions to leave than those who report low job satisfaction
2.5.2 Perceived organisational Support

Perceived Organisational Support (POS) is defined as employees’ “global beliefs concerning
the extent to which the organisation values their contribution and cares about their wellbeing”
(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986, p. 501). This construct draws on Social
Exchange Theory, which argues that employees are motivated to perform and stay at an
39
organisation in return for recognition, social rewards and material benefits (Johlke, Stamper,
& Shoemaker, 2000; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). In particular, a social exchange is
referred to as “the voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are
expected to bring and typically do in fact, bring from others” (Blau, 1964, p. 91).
Consequently, if a positive social exchange, or reciprocity, is perceived, employees develop a
high level of perceived organisational support and are more committed to stay in an
organisation, whereas if employees have a low perception of organisational support, they
become less committed to stay in an organisation (Eisenberger, Cumming, Armeli, & Lynch,
1997; Johlke et al., 2000).
Since the concept was introduced in the late 1980s, POS has become widely used in the
human resource management literature and the relationship between POS and employee
retention and turnover has been well investigated within a US context (Paille, 2009). Riggle,
Edmonson, and Hansen (2009) identified 152 studies that examined the relationship between
POS and organisational outcomes. In particular, POS has been investigated in relation to the
effect it has on employees’ organisational commitment, job satisfaction, career satisfaction,
intentions to stay and intentions to leave. This research is detailed below.
Research examining the relationship between employees’ perceived organisational support

and their organisational commitment is extensive, with most research finding that as an
employee’s perceived organisational support increases, so does their commitment to the
organisation, resulting in employee behaviours that benefit the organisation (Aube, Rousseau
& Morin, 2007). Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades (2001) argued that this
relationship is explained by the organisation creating a felt obligation to the employee to care
about the organisation and meet its objectives because of the perceived support the
organisation provides to that person. This argument has since been supported by Newman,
Thanacoody & Hui (2012) and Pannaccio and Vandenberghe (2001).
A recent meta-analysis of 152 articles identified a negative relationship between POS and
intentions to leave (Riggle et al., 2009). This finding was further supported by individual
studies of workers in multiple sectors and industries within the US (Cho, Johanson &
Guchait, 2009; Dawley, Houghton, & Bucklew, 2010). Moreover, perceived organisational
support was found to explain 25% of the variance in intentions to leave (Riggle et al., 2009).
Conversely, a strong positive correlation has consistently been found between POS and
intentions to stay. That is, as employees’ POS increases, so too do their intentions to stay
40
with an organisation (Cho et al., 2009; Eisenberger et al., 1997; Rhoades & Eisenberger,
2002).
Most of the research on the relationships between POS and intentions to leave and stay has
been conducted in a US or UK context, with limited research being conducted within an
Australian aged care context. Consequently this present study aims to begin to fill this gap.
This is important to research because the support provided in an Australian context might be
different from that provided in a US or UK context where legislation, regulations and norms
differ. Within the aged care sector, this construct is even more important to examine as the
funding available to provide organisational support to employees is tightening (Productivity
Commission, 2011). Therefore this study hypothesises that:
H10: There will be a negative relationship between employees’ perceptions of organisational

support and employees’ intentions to leave, and a positive relationship between employees’
perceptions of organisational support and employees’ intentions to stay.
2.5.3 Perceived supervisor support

Research has also examined the influence that perceived supervisor support (PSS) has on
employees’ intentions to leave and to stay. PSS refers to the perceptions employees have
about how much their supervisor cares about their wellbeing and values their contribution to
the organisation (Eisenberger et al., 2002). Originating from Organisational Support Theory,
PSS argues that the support received from employees’ supervisors increases their POS,
resulting in an increased need for an employee to feel a sense of obligation to their supervisor
and as a result an increase an employee’s intentions to stay with an organisation (Eisenberger
et al., 2002).
Research examining this construct is still emerging. One Australian study found employees’
satisfaction with their manager plays a role in turnover behaviour (O’Donnell & Hudson,
2011), although most studies have found no direct relationship between PSS and employees’
turnover intentions (Allen et al., 2010; Brannon et al., 2002; Coomber & Barriball, 2007).
Instead, POS was found to mediate the relationship between PSS and intentions to leave (Cho
et al., 2009). Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) argued that this relationship develops as
supervisors serve as representatives to their organisations, meaning that how a supervisor
treats his/her employees will affect how an employee generally feels about how much their
41
organisation cares about their wellbeing and values the contributions they make to the
organisation.
Research investigating this construct, however, has mostly been tested within a US context,
with limited research using an Australian aged care context, and therefore the present study
aims to extend the research on this construct. Context differences are important to examine as
supervisors might play a different role in influencing employee behaviour in different
countries and in different sectors. Consequently this study hypothesises that:
H11: The relationship between perceived supervisor support and employees’ intentions to
stay and leave will be mediated by perceived organisational support.
2.5.4 Job embeddedness

First introduced to the literature by Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez (2001), job
embeddedness refers to the connection and relationships that employees develop over a
period of time with their employer and aims to capture a more comprehensive view of the
employee-employer relationship than other models of turnover and retention (Anderson &
Hill, 2010; Holtom & O’Neil, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001). The development of this construct
was influenced largely by Lewin’s (1951) Field Theory, which argues that an individual’s life
is connected and that each aspect of life is interlinked; meaning a decision to change one
aspect of their life will have an influence on another. Consequently, Mitchell et al. (2001)
argued that a broad set of influences affect employees’ intentions to stay in their job, ranging
from factors within an organisation to factors within the broader community where
employees live, which have psychological, social and financial implications to employees
(Reitz & Anderson, 2011; Zhang, Fried, & Griffeth, 2012). While these influences can vary
in strength and size for each employee, overall they influence employees’ intentions to stay
(Clinton, Knight, & Guest, 2012). Consequently, job embeddedness examines all of these
components.
The strength of connectedness between employees’ organisation and community is proposed

to be a function of three components. First, the extent to which an individual perceives
himself or herself similar to, or to ‘fit’ with, their organisation and community; second, the
“links” an individual has to other people and activities within their organisation and
community; and third, the ease with which these links could be broken, also known as the
42
“sacrifices” employees are willing to make (Anderson & Hill, 2010; Mitchell et al., 2001;
Reitz & Anderson, 2011). While this study examined on-the-job embeddedness and off-the-
job embeddedness as broad constructs, it is also important to understand the three
components of job embeddedness. Therefore an overview of these components are provided
first, followed by a review of the literature on job embeddedness.
Fit
The first component of job embeddedness focuses on the perceived compatibility or comfort
that an individual perceives that they have with their organisation and broader community
(Holtom, Mitchell, & Lee, 2006). An individual’s organisational fit refers to the compatibility
an individual perceives they have with their organisation (Clinton, Knight, & Guest, 2012).
This includes their perceived compatibility with future career development opportunities, job
demands, knowledge, skills and abilities, as well as their personal and organisational values
alignment, and any alignment or fit with any community service activities sponsored by the
organisation (Holtom et al., 2006; Reitz & Anderson, 2011). An individual’s community fit
refers to an individual’s perception of how well they fit into and suit the broader community
where they live (Clinton et al., 2012). Factors influencing this perception include the weather
conditions, location, community amenities, political and religious climate, and entertainment
activities available to them in their local community that align to their personal and family
commitments (Holtom, Tidd & Mitchell, 2006; Reitz & Anderson, 2011). For both
organisational and community fit, job embeddedness posits that the stronger the fit, the more
likely employees will remain at their organisation.
Links
The second component of job embeddedness focuses on the formal and informal discernible
connections that individuals have with others within their organisation and their broader
community (Clinton et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2001). Specifically, the construct argues that
the more links or threads an employee has within their organisation and broader community,
the harder it will be for an employee to disentangle these links in order to leave their job.
Therefore, they will have higher intentions to stay at their job. Additionally, research
investigating these links has found that employees who have a longer tenure at an
organisation will have stronger links with their organisation and community and therefore
will be less likely to leave (Holtom, Tidd, & Mitchell, 2006).
43
Sacrifice
The third and final component of job embeddedness focuses on the sacrifices employees
make to their organisation and community if they break free of the links they have made there
(Clinton et al., 2012; Reitz & Anderson, 2011). This element of the job embeddedness
framework was heavily influenced by the earlier turnover theory proposed by March and
Simon (1958), which argued that an employee’s intentions to leave an organisation is a
function of their perceived desirability and ease of movement from one organisation to
another. In job embeddedness terms, sacrifice is represented as the cost versus benefits of the
lost links they have made within their organisation and broader community in comparison
with the gains they will make or benefits, if they left. Such losses include the loss of key
networks, relationships, friends, projects and benefits they receive from their organisation
(Holtom et al., 2006; Reitz & Anderson, 2011). In other words, the more an employee will
lose by leaving, the more likely they will stay at their job. Mitchell et al. (2001) did
acknowledge that community sacrifices, as well as community links and fit, are more likely
to play a significant role in an employee’s intentions to leave if they have to relocate as a
consequence of their new job. Therefore, it becomes necessary to examine job embeddedness
in this study using the broader on-the-job (organisational) and off-the-job (community)
characteristics separately.
Research on job embeddedness

As the job embeddedness construct is relatively new, research is still emerging. Findings to
date indicate that job embeddedness plays an influential role in employees’ intentions to stay
and leave (Jiang, Liu, McKay, Lee, & Mitchell, 2012; Holtom & O’Neil, 2004; Reitz,
Anderson, & Hill, 2010). Specifically, a negative relationship between job embeddedness and
employees’ intentions to leave has been identified (Anderson & Hill, 2010; Holtom &
O’Neil, 2004). However, in reporting a relationship between job embeddedness and
intentions to leave, Holtom and O’Neil (2004) identified that the community aspect of the job
embeddedness model was more important for nurses than other professions in a study of 150
nurses and other workers in the US. Similarly, Mitchell et al. (2001) found that while all three
community embeddedness dimensions (fit, links and sacrifices) were negatively related to
turnover in hospital workers, only community links were significantly related to turnover in a
study of grocery workers in the US. This difference between health and non-health workers
was further supported by Allen (2006), Crossley, Bennett, Jex and Burnfield (2007) and
Mallol, Holtom and Lee (2007) who found no relationship between community links, fit and
44
sacrifice and turnover in research outside of health worker contexts. Together, these findings
indicate that the community aspect (off-the-job embeddedness) may not be important for all
workers. The findings also support the need to examine on-the-job and off-the-job
embeddedness separately.
Overall, research examining on-the-job embeddedness has found that employees who have
longer organisational tenures have stronger organisational links and therefore will be less
likely to leave (Holtom et al., 2006). Additionally, the more an employee will lose by leaving,
the more likely they will stay (Reitz et al., 2011).
While research establishing this construct has been predominately contextualized within a
health discipline; a significant proportion of the research conducted has been limited to a US
context. Of the research that has been conducted outside the US, some research (e.g.
Peltokorpi, 2013) questions the applicability of the validated scale used to measure the
construct to a Japanese context, although through a qualitative enquiry they found the
construct broadly applies to a Japanese context. In contrast, Mallol and Holtom (2007) found
the scale to be a robust predictor of employee retention across diverse populations within the
US. Additionally, a meta-analysis by Jiang et al (2012) found support for the construct
across cultures and even more so within female dominant sectors.
As research examining the influence that off-the-job embeddedness has on employees’

intentions to stay and leave is mixed, further clarification is needed. Extending this research
to other settings is important because while in other countries, the community where
employees live has been found to have a significant impact upon employees’ intentions to
stay or leave, in Australia, this may not be the case due to the geographical differences as
well as differences in policies, legislation and norms. While some recent Australian research
examining job embeddedness has found a significant negative relationship between
community-links and intentions to leave using a hospitality sample (Robinson, Kralj, Solnet,
Goh, & Callan, 2013). Limited research exists examining the broader on-the-job and off-the-
job embeddedness constructs within an Australian aged care sample. Therefore this research
investigates this relationship further by hypothesising that:
H12: Employees who report high on-the-job and high off-the-job embeddedness will report
higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave.
45
Moreover, while Mitchell et al., (2001) argue that job embeddedness has added new
dimensions to the turnover literature and complements studies on job satisfaction and
organisational commitment, no research has examined their combined influence of job
embeddedness, perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support and job
satisfaction on employees’ intentions to stay or leave. The present study will extend the
literature examining intentions to stay and leave by investigating the combined influence of
organisational factors on employees’ intentions to stay and leave their jobs. To examine this,
and also to examine the similarities and differences between employees’ intentions to stay
and leave, this research proposes the hypotheses that:
H13: Combined, the personal factors and organisational factors examined will explain a
higher percentage of variance in employees’ intentions to stay and leave than the individual
factors alone.
2.6 Factors influencing both intention to stay and intention to leave
Research reporting the findings of employees’ intentions to stay and leave is still emerging.
Most studies find more similarities than differences overall, however some studies report
differences. For example, a quantitative analysis of nurses working in Ireland using self-
report questionnaires found job satisfaction predicted both intention to stay and leave
however, kinship responsibilities only predicted intention to leave (McCarthy, Tyrrell,
Lehane, 2007). The influence of job satisfaction on both intentions to stay and leave was also
found in a study of bank employees within Germany (Dick et al. 2004).
In contrast, Mittal, Rosen and Leana (2009) found differences in the factors influencing
retention and turnover of direct care workers in the US. That is, in a qualitative study of
direct care workers in the US, Mittal et al. (2009) found that a lack of respect, inadequate
management, work/family conflict, difficulty of the work itself and job openings were
influences to employees’ intentions to leave. However, being “called” to service, patient
advocacy, personal relationships with residents, religion/spirituality, haven from home
problems and flexibility were important to direct care employees intentions to stay.
Similarly, Ellet, Ellis, Westbrook, & Dews (2007) found differences between the factors
influencing retention and turnover intentions of child welfare workers. In particular that study
found work/family conflict, organisational culture, inadequate pay and resources, broader
46
systematic issues, poor communication and leadership, excess paperwork and lack of
adequate training and development resulting in inadequate knowledge, skills and abilities to
perform the role influenced child welfare workers intentions to leave. In contrast, flexibility,
the nature of the job itself, passion and commitment to the job, having a supportive
atmosphere and having appropriate knowledge skills and abilities to perform the role were
influential to employees’ intentions to stay (Ellet et al., 2007).
Within an Australian aged care setting, Howe et al (2012) found those employees’ who
reported higher intentions to stay were older, had less family responsibilities and therefore
were more free to work, however had financially dependents, and had lower education levels
than leavers. Additionally, employees who reported higher intentions to stay were employed
on a more permanent basis, and wanted to work more hours. Limited research however has
examined the similarities and differences between the employee behavior and relationship
variables (perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support, job satisfaction and
job embeddedness) and people management strategies on Australian aged care employees’
intentions to stay and leave. Therefore this study extends research in this area by
investigating the hypothesis:
H14: There will be a difference in the factors that influence employees’ intentions to stay and
leave.
2.7 Conclusion
In conclusion, this chapter has provided an explanation of and rationale for the Resource-
Based View of the Firm (RBV), which is the theoretical framework that underpins this
research. Following this, a review of the employee retention and turnover literature was
provided in two parts. The first part concerned those variables that comprise the “personal
factors” that contribute to the “human capital pool” element of the Resource-Based View of
the Firm model. The second section examined the literature around the “organisational
factors” that affect employee retention and turnover, and which contribute to the “employee
relationships and behaviours” and the “people management practices” of the Resource-Based
View of the Firm model. The next chapter will provide further context and rationale for the
selection of the constructs within the Australian aged care sector. At the completion of
chapter 3, the proposed model and hypotheses are provided.
47
48
Chapter 3: Literature review of the aged
care sector
49
3.0 Introduction
This research examines workforce retention and turnover in the Australian aged care
sector. Chapter 1 provided an overview of the research problem as well as a brief
overview of the context within which this research situates itself. Chapter 2 then
described the theoretical framework and literature review of employee retention and
turnover as it related to this study. This chapter, Chapter 3, will now provide an in-depth
overview of the Australian health and aged care sector, which is the context within
which this research positions itself. Understanding this context is critical to
understanding the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave within the
Australian aged care sector. To understand the Australian aged care sector, however, an
understanding of the broader health and aged care sector is required. Therefore, this
chapter first presents an overview of the broader Australian health and aged care sector,
before reviewing the aged care sector and then presenting an overview of the current
workforce that underpins this sector.
3.1 The Australian health and aged care sector
Australia’s health and aged care system is complex, large, and divided into three sectors
in order to effectively and efficiently provide healthcare services to the general
population of Australia (Department of Health and Ageing, 2004; Human Services,
2000) : the Acute Care Sector, which provides immediate short-term treatment for those
in need through services such as hospitals and dental clinics; the Sub-Acute Sector,
which provides medium-term care services for those in need in the form of
rehabilitation units, step-down facilities and transition or interim care units; and the
Aged Care Sector, which provides short-, medium- and long-term care services targeted
at those aged over 65 years, in the form of Residential Aged Care (RAC), Community
Aged Care (CAC) and Respite Services (RS) (Department of Health and Ageing, 2004;
Human Services, 2000).
Within each of these sectors, a number of private, not-for-profit and government

organisations deliver care services to the broader Australian community (Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), 2010a). However, not all services that are
classified under the broad banner of Australia’s health and aged care system can be
segmented into these three sectors because some provide support services to all sectors.
For example, the pharmaceutical industry provides services to all sectors. Additionally,
research and administrative services, which are considered to be an integral part of the
50
Australian health and aged care system, provide general services across the sectors
rather than specific services in one sector. Thus, the Australian health and aged care
system can be depicted with two layers, as indicated in Figure 3.1. The first layer
comprises specific health services delivered specifically within each sector, and the
second layer includes support services that assist across all the sectors to provide their
health services.
Acute Care Sub-Acute Care Aged Care
- Public Hospitals - Public - Residential

- Private Hospitals Rehabilitation Aged Care
- General Medical Centres Facilities
Services - Private - Community
- Dental Services Rehabilitation Care Programs
- Community and Centres and Packages
Public Health - Community and - Respite
- Ambulances Public Health Services
- Royal Flying
Doctor Services
General services provided across sectors

- Pharmaceutical industry
- Research and administrative services
Figure 3.1 Australian health and aged care system
One of the current strains on services provided within the Australian health and aged
care system is the ageing population. The ageing population has had, and continues to
have, a significant impact on the services provided within the Australian health and
aged care system. Therefore, an overview of the ageing population and the demands it
places on the system is provided in the following section.
3.2 The ageing population
Australia boasts the second longest life expectancy of any country in the world, namely
83 years for males and 86 years for females born in 2010-2011 (AIHW, 2008; ABS,
2011a). This high life expectancy can be attributed to increased fertility, decreased
51
death rates and improved health conditions globally as well as nationally (AIHW, 2008;
ABS, 2004, 2008; Turrell et al., 2006). Consequently, with improved health conditions
and advances in technology, Australia’s life expectancy is projected to increase to 93.9
years for males and 96.1 years for females born in 2056 (ABS, 2008). By this time, 20%
of the Australian population is expected to be aged over 70. Hence, while an ageing
population can be viewed as a positive consequence of improved living conditions and
successful ageing, it also brings with it greater demands from a larger number of older
people, such as the changing pattern of diseases and an increased complexity of health
conditions that are presented within the Australian community (Productivity
Commission, 2005).
Research conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing (AIHW) (2008)
on the self-reported health of older Australians found that while the majority of
Australians aged over 65 considered themselves to be in excellent, very good or good
health, 32% considered themselves to be in very poor health. Additionally, 57% of
respondents over the age of 65 were found to be experiencing a disability of some sort,
with 22.5% of these people experiencing a severe or profound disability (AIHW, 2008).
Of those experiencing a severe or profound disability:
 85.3% required assistance with mobility;

 73.3% required assistance with transport;
 71.6% required assistance with property maintenance;
 70.4% required assistance with health care;
 51.1% required assistance with self-care;
 36.1% required assistance with meal preparation;
 26.3% required assistance with cognition or emotions; and,
 8.8% required assistance with communication.
(AIHW, 2008).
That research also investigated older Australians’ perceptions about whether their core
and other activities needs were met in the current system, where core activities were
defined as those activities that are essential for everyday living such as property
maintenance (AIHW, 2008). This study found that 55% of older people requiring
assistance felt they had their needs met completely. However, 43% felt they had their
needs met only partially and the remaining 2% felt they did not have their needs met at
all. These results indicate that aged care services were not meeting the needs of all older
52
Australians in 2008. While a follow-up study to the 2008 study has not been completed,
an investigation by the Productivity Commission (2008) into the need for aged care
services amongst older Australians confirmed that as people age, the need for aged care
services increases. This investigation revealed that while 32% of older Australians aged
65-74 years reported that they required assistance with personal care and everyday
activities, this figure rose to 86% in those aged over 85 years or more.
Coupling these findings with the knowledge of Australia’s ageing population, the
changing burden of disease as a result of an ageing population, and an increase in
people from a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) population requiring more
specialised care, it is clear that the need for quality aged care services is increasing
exponentially (Productivity Commission, 2005; 2008). However, in order to ensure that
an adequate workforce exists in the future to meet the expected demands, research is
needed to address the retention and turnover of the aged care workforce, which is the
focus of this research. As a prelude to this research, a detailed overview of the aged care
sector is provided in the next section of this chapter.
3.3 The Australian aged care sector
The Australian aged care sector is different from both the Australian acute care and sub-
acute care sectors as the aged care sector provides short- and medium-term options in
the form of respite, as well as long-term care options in the form of Residential Aged
Care (RAC) and Community Aged Care (CAC) services. Additionally, the aged care
sector provides care to a defined target population of Australia, namely older people
aged over 65 years living in Australia (Department of Health and Ageing, 2004; Human
Services, 2000). The relevant service settings will be described in this section.
3.3.1 Residential aged care services

RAC services provide permanent and temporary accommodation to older people living
in Australia in the form of Residential Aged Care Facilities (RACFs). Permanent care is
provided for those who are unable to live independently in their own home. Temporary
care (respite) is provided as short-term relief to carers (of older people) who may
themselves have health conditions and require additional short-term support to alleviate
carer strain (AIHW, 2010; AIHW, 2012). Within RAC service settings, both low-level
and high-level care services are provided. Low-level care services include everyday
living services (e.g. assistance with meals, laundry, and cleaning), some personal care
services (e.g. bathing and toileting assistance), and nursing care as required (Department
53
of Health and Ageing, 2011a). High-level care services provide these services plus
more complex care services such as palliative care (end-of-life care), medication
management, falls management, nursing care, and allied health services such as
recreational therapy, podiatry, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy (King et al.,
2012; Productivity Commission, 2011).
In 2010, there were 2,772 RACFs across Australia; of these 59% were owned and
operated by not-for-profit organisations, 35% were owned and operated by private, for-
profit organisations, and 6% were owned and operated by local and state governments
(Productivity Commission, 2011). By 2011, there were 2,760 RACFs operating across
Australia, 60% owned and operated by not-for-profit organisations, 30% by private, for-
profit organisations, 10% by local and state governments (AIHW, 2012). This shift
represented a 5% decrease in private organisations ownership of RACFs and a 4%
increase in the government and 1% increase not for profit ownership of RACFs. In total,
these organisations provided care services to 165,032 older people living in Australia in
2012, with 76.3% of these people receiving high-care services and 23.7% receiving
low-care services (Productivity Commission, 2011). By comparison, in 1998, 58% of
older people living in RACFs received high-care services and 42% received low-care
services (Productivity Commission, 2011). Comparing the 2011 figures with the
clientele who accessed services in 1998, it is clearly evident there has been a change in
the demographic composition of older Australians accessing RAC services and that
there has been a dramatic increase in the number of dependent and frail people, who
require high-care services, entering RACFs over the preceding 12 years.
3.3.2 Community aged care services

Community aged care services (CACS) are provided for older people living in
Australia, in order to enable them to live independently in their own homes for longer
(Department of Health and Ageing, 2011a). These services include both low-care and
high-care services to the general older population living in Australia. Low-care services
include domestic assistance and some personal care services; high care services include
more complex care options such as registered nursing care, allied health care, personal
care, social support, home help, and highly technical services such as assistance with
oxygen and/or enteral feeding (feeding a client through a tube) (Department of Health
and Ageing, 2011b; Productivity Commission, 2011). These services are provided by
the Australian government through community aged care packages and programs,
which are delivered to the wider community through approved providers (Department
54
of Health and Ageing, 2011a). The community aged care packages available are listed
and described in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Aged care community packages

Programs Description of Package
Home and Community Care (HACC) Provides basic maintenance and support services for
those wanting to live at home independently,
including meal services, nursing, transport, allied
health, home maintenance, personal care, nursing
aids and equipment.
Veterans Home Care (VHC) Provides services similar to the Home and
Community Care package specifically to war
veterans (people who have served in the military and
had direct exposure to military combat).
Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) Provides veterans and war widow/ers with nursing
Community Nursing support services in addition to the services provided
under the Home and Community Care package.
Community Aged Care Packages Provides planned and managed packages of
(CACP) community care for complex low-level care needs,
including assistance with personal care activities
such as bathing and dressing, domestic care support
such as housework and shopping, and some social
activities such as outings.
Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH) Provides services up to 23 hours of high-care
including Extended Aged Care at Home support services per week to assist older people
Dementia (EACHD) living in Australia, who have complex care needs, to
stay at home as long as possible.
EACHD includes high-care services targeting older
Australians diagnosed with dementia who have
complex cognitive, emotional or behavioural needs.
National Respite for Carers program Provides short-term relief (respite) for carers of
(NRCP) older people.
55
Programs Description of Package
Day care centres Provide physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech

therapy, podiatry and other therapy services to
clients living in the community
(Productivity Commission, 2008)
Since community-based aged care packages were introduced in 2002, there has been a
substantial growth in their use. By 2007, a total of 827,554 people living in Australia
were receiving community packages (Productivity Commission, 2008). The breakdown
of the use of each of these packages is shown in Figure 3.2 (Productivity Commission,
2008).
Home and Community Care

Services (77%)
Veterans Home Care Services
(8.7%)
DVA Community Nursing Services
(4%)
Community Aged Care Packages
(4%)
EACH and EACHD Packages (0.4%)
Figure 3.2 Number of recipients of community aged care packages within Australia
2006-2007 (Productivity Commission, 2008)
As illustrated in Figure 3.2, in 2007 the majority (77%) of older people using
community aged care packages accessed Home and Community Care Services
(Productivity Commission, 2008). This figure indicates 642,650 older people living in
Australia are receiving assistance to maintain their independence through basic home
support services. With more than 827,554 people accessing these services within five
years of their introduction, and with the knowledge that at present more than 55.5% of
people aged over 65 years have some type of disability, it is clear that the need for these
services, as well as RAC services, will continue to grow in the future. More recent
56
figures have reported a further 1% increase on the uptake of the CACS as of 30 June
2009, which provides further evidence of the ongoing and future needs for these
services (AIHW, 2010). Note this is the last available data found capturing client uptake
of community care packages in Australia. The changing nature of clients accessing both
RAC and CAC services places a significant demand on the workforce that supports this
sector. To understand this workforce demand further, the next section will provide an
overview of the factors that influence the future demand for the health care workforce.
3.4 The Australian health and aged care workforce demands

The Australian health and aged care sector one of the fastest growing employment
sectors in Australia, with statistics indicating that between 2001 and 2006, the health
care sector experienced a 23% growth in its workforce, which was twice that of all other
sectors (AIHW, 2008). This growth was also evident during and after the global
financial crisis: by 2012, the RAC workforce employed 202,344 people and the CAC
workforce employed 49,801 people (King et al., 2012). However, as the population ages
so does the workforce; this is particularly felt within the aged care workforce, where, in
2010, the average age of a nurse was 58.8 years, which was 4 years older than nurses in
an acute care setting (AIHW, 2011). More recent findings by King et al. (2012) found
that 27% of the aged care workforce was aged over 55 years, an increase from 17% in
2003 and 23% in 2007. A breakdown of current workforce age statistics of the direct
care workforce within a RAC and CAC setting is provided in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Median age (years) of direct care workforce in RAC and CAC settings,
Australia
RAC CAC
Registered Nurse 51 50
Enrolled Nurse 49 49
Personal Care Worker / Community Care Worker 47 50
Allied health 50 48
All occupations 48 50
(King et al., 2012).
As illustrated in Table 3.2 and from the statistics previously presented, the threat of
workforce turnover due to retirement is significant within the aged care sector. This was
clearly highlighted by the AIHW (2008) study, which found the main reason health care
workers were leaving the sector was to retire.
57
Adding to the workforce demand strain further is the impact of the ageing population
and the shortage of nurses. By 2025, the ageing population has been projected to result
in an increased demand for hospital bed days of about 40%, at the same time as the
population aged less than 30 (the age when nursing students typically commence study)
is only projected to grow by 8% (Schofield, 2007). Thus, this increase in demand is
expected to further compound current shortfalls in Registered Nurse (RN) numbers and
contribute to an ongoing skills shortage.
While most regions in Australia are currently experiencing nursing shortages,

Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory are experiencing higher than
average levels of skill shortages (Martin & King, 2008). Moreover, Health Workforce
Australia (2012b) reported that the shortage of workers is expected to be most
pronounced in the nursing workforce in the period up to the year 2025. Consequently,
the severity of these staffing shortages is compelling the redesign of the nursing
workforce and nursing work by health service providers and planners. This redesign has
seen a rise in the number of unregulated care workers with varying levels of training
and skill, thus altering the skill mix available within each service. Indeed, while
registered nurse and enrolled nurses numbers rose by 13% and 29.6% respectively
between the years 2000 and 2005, the number of unregulated care workers increased by
89.5% (AIHW, 2007). Additionally, Martin and King (2008) found the skill mix ratios
have been further altered by a reduction in the number of registered nurses in the period
2003-2007 (-3.97%) and ongoing increases in the number of Personal Care Workers
(unregulated workers) (+5.52%) employed in the aged care sector. Figures 3.3 and 3.4
provide a breakdown of the current RAC and CAC skill shortages by location as
reported by organisations by King et al. (2012). Note as multiple selections were
allowed, these numbers do not add up to 100 (reported in percentage terms).
58
RACF Skill Shortage Locations
All
Very Remote
Remote
Regional (outer) rural
Regional (inner)
Major Cities
0 50 100 150 200 250
Registered Nurse Enrolled Nurse Personal Care Worker Allied Health
Figure 3.3 RAC skill shortages (%) by location

Note: multiple selections were allowed and therefore these items do not add up to 100.
(Adapted from King et al., 2012)
CAC Skill Shortage Locations

All facilities
Remote
Rural
Regional
Major Cities
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Registered Nurse Enrolled Nurse Community Care Worker Allied Health
Figure 3.4 CAC skill shortages by location

Note: multiple selections were allowed and therefore these items do not add up to 100.
(Adapted from King et al., 2012)
Figures 3.3 and 3.4 clearly highlight the skill shortages that exist in each area of
Australia. In particular, Figure 3.3 illustrates that remote areas of Australia have the
59
highest demand for RNs in RAC services and Figure 3.4 illustrates that remote areas of
Australia also have the highest demand for Community Aged Care Workers in CAC
services. Overall, these shortages have resulted in a reduction in RN numbers and an
increase in the number of unregulated care workers employed within the sector, which
has altered the health care milieu and impacted on overall quality of care (International
Centre for Human Resources in Nursing (ICHRN), 2009, 2010; Hall & Buch, 2009).
Research conducted to examine the impact that a nursing shortage has on quality of care
and health outcomes for clients demonstrated linkages between poor staffing levels and
1) lower levels of patient satisfaction with care; 2) an increase in clinical complications
such as urinary tract infections, pneumonia, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and shock;
and 3) higher rates of “failure to rescue” (Eley, et al., 2007; ICHRN, 2009, 2010; Hall &
Buch, 2009; Needleman, Buerhaus, Mattke, Steward, & Zelevinsky, 2002; Sellgreen,
Ekvell, & Tomson, 2007; Teng, Hsiao, & Chou, 2010). Given that the aged care
industry provides services to an increasing number of frail and vulnerable clients,
developing and maintaining an adequate workforce to support and deliver these services
is of central concern (Skinner, Van Dijk, Elton, & Aurer, 2011).
Given these skill shortages, it is important to address health human resource planning to
ensure the future sustainability of the health care workforce (Cohen, 2006; ICHRN,
2009, 2010). However, this planning is further challenged by the context differences
between RAC and CAC settings, as employees in each setting are required to work
under different working conditions (King et al., 2012). For example, the internal
structure and support processes for a community care worker, who works autonomously
within the community, are different from these available to a residential aged care
worker who works as part of a team within a particular building. Other differences
include the size of the workforce supporting a particular client: in a RAC setting there
could be 10 or more different workers in one day seeing a client, while in a CAC setting
there could be only one worker a week, depending on the level of support required
(King et al., 2012). These differences have significant impacts on the type of worker
employed in both settings. Consequently, understanding the type of workers who are
employed in each service setting is an important part of human resource planning.
60
3.5 The Australian aged care workforce
The current aged care workforce consists of a direct care workforce and a non-direct
care workforce. The direct care workforce consists of occupations that exist only within
the health care sector, including personal carers and assistants in nursing, enrolled
nurses, enrolled endorsed nurses, registered nurses, allied health workers, directors of
nursing, and other workers (including those that provide support services such as
cooking, cleaning, administration and maintenance services) (Department of Health and
Ageing, 2010; Productivity Commission, 2011). The non-direct care workforce consists
of occupations that are not health-specific, including engineering, project management,
researcher, architecture, marketing, human resource management, information systems,
accountancy and finance. This research will focus predominately on the direct care
workforce within the broader aged care workforce. To begin to understand this
workforce, it is important to understand the roles, scopes of practice and minimum
education required to perform each role. These roles are summarised in Table 3.3.
61
Table 3.3 The direct care workforce of Australian aged care services
Position Scope Minimum Qualification

Required
Personal Care Provides personal care services and Nil, although many
Workers/Nurse’s Aid/ routine tasks under the direction of organisations prefer
Assistants in Nursing nursing staff. employees to have a
minimum of a Certificate
III in Aged Care Services,
obtained through a TAFE
institution or a Registered
Training Organisation.
Advanced Personal Care Administers medication in addition Medication management
Workers to personal care worker role scope. competency, obtained
through a TAFE institution
or a Registered Training
Organisation.
Enrolled Nurses Monitors the impact of nursing care. Diploma in Nursing,
Maintains communication with obtained through a TAFE
registered nurses. institution or Registered
Provides support and comfort for Training Organisation.
clients.
Assists with daily living and
provides for emotional needs of
clients.
Enrolled endorsed nurses Administers drugs and medication Diploma in Nursing +
to older people receiving care in Medication Management
addition to the role scope of Competency, obtained
Enrolled Nurses. through a TAFE institution
or a Registered Training
Organisation.
62
Registered Nurse Assesses, plans, implements and Bachelor Degree or
evaluates nursing care in Hospital-Trained
collaboration with the nursing team. Competency, obtained
through a university or a
hospital training program.
Advanced Registered Manages the care of individuals and Bachelor Degree/Nursing
Nurse groups. competency and a Master
degree in Nursing, obtained
Manages the use of staff and through a university or a
physical resources. hospital training program.
Nurse Managers Manages the overall activities in a Bachelor Degree or
particular area. Hospital-Trained
Competency, obtained
through a university or a
hospital training program.
Directors of Nursing Oversees and manages the entire Bachelor Degree or
RACF. Hospital-Trained
Competency, obtained
through a university or
through a hospital training
program.
Allied Health Workers Provides a range of allied health Certificate, Diplomas and
services to support older people Bachelor degrees
receiving care. Examples of dependent on the role,
positions employed include obtained through a TAFE,
podiatrists, exercise therapists and Registered Training
diversional therapists. Organisation, or University.
Adapted from Martin and King (2008) and King et al. (2012).
As evidenced in Table 3.3, the roles found in this workforce have varying levels of
responsibility and minimum required qualifications. Indeed one of the factors
differentiating between the aged care workforce and the acute/sub-acute workforce is
the minimum entry level qualification required. While in the acute and sub-acute care
workforces, all employees must hold at minimum a Certificate III, in the aged care
sector while preference is given to those holding these qualification, no formal
63
qualifications are mandated for an entry level Personal Care Worker or Community
Care Worker. A recent census of Australian aged care workers revealed that in 2012,
15.9% of Personal Care Workers, and 9.6% of Allied health workers, did not have a
formal qualification from a TAFE/university provider above a year 12 certificate (King
et al., 2012). While these figures represent an improvement since 2010 (when 23.7% of
Personal Care Workers and 23.9% of Community Care Workers did not have a
qualification above year 12 (Martin & King, 2010), there is still a proportion of workers
who are unqualified and working within the aged care sector. Therefore, the inclusion
of education level as a personal variable is important when examining employees from
an Australian aged care context. The other important statistics about employees that
require attention when examining the aged care workforce include age, gender, tenure
within the organisation and sector, health, country of origin and employment status.
A complete breakdown and trending of the aged care workforce demographics across
the years is difficult to obtain as the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) does not
clearly distinguish the aged care workforce from the broader health and community care
workforces, resulting in community-based aged care workers being incorporated into
the statistics under the broader classification “non-residential care service workers not
elsewhere classified” (ABS, 2004). Further, regular surveys on the aged care workforce
have only just been commissioned every four years since 2008, with the most recent
being conducted in 2012. Consequently, trending across the years is difficult to
complete. Therefore, the next section will provide a workforce profile of Australian
aged care employees using the information from the 2012 Census of Aged Care
Workers conducted by King et al. (2012), providing comparisons with previous research
by the AIHW (2011), Martin and King (2008) and the ABS where possible.
3.6 Workforce profile of aged care employees
3.6.1 Age
Aged care workers are, on average, four years older than public and private sector
health care workers (AIHW, 2011). In 2010, the average age for aged care workers was
48.5 years in comparison to 44.5 years for the public and private acute and subacute
care sectors (AIHW, 2011). In total, 69.9% of the CAC and 60.1% of the RAC
workforce were aged over 45 years in 2010 (Martin & King, 2008). By 2012, the
median age of an aged care worker had risen to 47 in RAC and 50 in CAC services.
Additionally, the proportion of the workforce over the age of 45 had decreased to 59.9%
64
in RAC but had increased to 70% in CAC services (King et al., 2012). Figure 3.5
illustrates the median age distribution between RAC and CAC workforces.
Median Age Distribution

52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
RN EN PCA/CCW Allied health All occupations
RAC CAC
Figure 3.5 Age distribution of the RAC and CAC workforce (King et al., 2012)
As shown in Figure 3.5 and the statistics provided earlier, while both workforces are
ageing, the CAC workforce is older than the RAC workforce, even though the CAC
workforce has the greater demand for workers in the future as noted in section 3.3.2.
3.6.2 Gender
The Australian aged care workforce is highly feminised, with females representing
92.6% of registered nurse aged care workers in Queensland (AIHW, 2011). When
examining the entire Australian aged care workforce, Elley et al. (2007) found that
82.6% of the workforce was female.
3.6.3 Tenure
3.6.3.1 Tenure within their organisation

In 2006, the aged care workforce was quite mobile, with 90% of Queensland aged care
employees reporting having worked with their current employer for less than five years
(Elley et al., 2007). A national census by Martin and King (2008) found that 71.1% of
RAC and 74.3% of CAC employees had been employed for under five years in their
current job. By 2012, King et al. (2012) identified that the workforce had become more
stable, with only 48% of the RAC workforce and 50.1% of the CAC workforce
65
employed with their current employer for less than five years. These findings suggest
that more employees chose to stay with their current employer between 2008 and 2012
than had previously done so. This could reflect the global financial crisis, where jobs
were scarce globally during this period. Further research is required to investigate these
issues. Another important aspect of employee tenure, however, is tenure within the
aged care sector more broadly.
3.6.3.2 Tenure within the aged care sector

When investigating the number of years worked in aged care, King et al. (2012) found
that registered and enrolled nurses employed in both RAC and CAC tended to have
been working in the aged care sector for more than 20 years, whereas personal care
workers and community care workers tended to have been working in the sector for 10
years or less. This pattern is illustrated in Figure 3.6.
Tenure in aged care industry

RAC nurse
50
CAC Allied Health 40 CAC Nurse
30 1 year or less
20 2-4 years
10
RAC Personal Care 5-9 years
RAC Allied Health 0
Worker 10-14 years
15-19 years
20 years +
CAC Community
CAC Enrolled Nurse
Care Worker
RAC Enrolled Nurse
Figure 3.6 Tenure within the Australian aged care sector (by percentage of workers)
In other words, based on these statistics, it can be asserted that while the aged care
workforce is mobile between organisations within the aged care sector, the majority of
employees who leave an individual organisation stay within the aged care sector as a
whole. This assertion also accords with anecdotal evidence accepted within the aged
care industry.
66
3.6.4 Perceived health
An employee’s perceived health is an important determinant of employee retention in
relation to older workers as research has found that employees in good health tend to
continue working for longer periods of time (Shacklock, 2008). As the majority of aged
care workers are aged over 45 years, this is an important factor in this study.
A study of the aged care workforce in 2008 found that 66.2% of the CAC workforce
and 63.2% of the RAC workforce self-reported their health as either very good or
excellent (Martin & King, 2009). However, by 2012 the corresponding statistics had
decreased to 60% of RAC workforce and 60% of the CAC workforce (King et al.,
2012). These findings may reflect an ageing workforce, and also may have severe
implications for the number of employees who intend to retire within the next five years
due to poor health.
3.6.5 Country of origin

While the majority of employees in both RAC and CAC settings were born in Australia,
32.5% of RAC and 26.6% of CAC employees in 2008 were born elsewhere (Martin &
King, 2008). By 2012, these figures had increased to 34.6% of RAC and 27.8% of
CAC employees born outside of Australia. This is noteworthy because of the possible
consequences for qualifications and training levels, language barriers and cultural
differences. Table 3.4 shows the country of birth for RAC and CAC employees.
67
Table 3.4 Country of birth of RAC and CAC employees
% RAC workforce % CAC Workforce
Country 2008 2012 2008 2012
Australia 67.4 65.4 73.3 72.2
New Zealand 3.5 3.0 3.4 2.6
UK, Ireland, South Africa 9.2 7.5 8.5 8.1
Italy, Greece, Germany, Netherlands 1.9 1.8 3.1 2.5
Vietnam, HK, China, Philippines 5.2 7.4 2.3 3.1

Poland 0.3 0.0 1.1 1.4
Fiji 1.6 1.4 0.3 0.3
India 1.3 2.7 0.4 0.3
Other 9.6 10.7 7.7 9.4
(Martin & King, 2008; King et al., 2012)
Table 3.4 shows that the country of origin of employees working in the Australian aged
care workforce is diverse and has changed between 2008 and 2012. Specifically, there
was an increase in the number of employees born in eastern or unidentified countries
and a decrease in the number of employees born in western countries.
3.6.6 Employment status

Research examining the employment status of the Australian aged care workforce has
found that while positions across RAC and CAC service settings are similar in the skills
and scope of practice, they differ significantly in their employment status (King et al.,
2012). Specifically, the CAC setting employs a higher percentage of full-time
employees than does the RAC setting, as evidenced in Figure 3.7. This difference may
be attributed to the working arrangements in RAC and CAC settings. While both
provide care to clients 24 hours a day, 7 day a week, the CAC setting appears to provide
the majority of its services from Monday to Friday within normal business hours, and
only a small percentage of its services on the weekends, whereas RACFs are staffed 7
68
days a week for 24 hours a day. Figure 3.7 illustrates that the CAC workforce employs
more casual employees than does RAC. One possible reason for this is the regularity of
work within this sector, while there are always clients within a RAC setting to provide
services to, client needs change on a more fluctuating basis in CAC setting and there is
thus a need for a high pool of casual workers to account for these changes (King et al.,
2012).
Employment status
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
RAC CAC
RAC CAC RAC CAC RAC CAC
Personal Commun
Registere Registere Enrolled Enrolled Allied Allied
Care ity Care
d Nurse d Nurse Nurse Nurse Health Health
Worker Worker
Casual/Contract 19.4 14.2 19.5 30.4 14.8 15.8 15.1 12.5
PPT 61.3 53.3 73.6 62.9 74.7 67.2 72.9 60.0
PFT 19.3 32.6 6.9 6.7 10.5 17.0 12.0 27.4
Figure 3.7 Employment status (percentage) of the Australian aged care workforce
(King et al., 2012)
3.7 Summary of hypotheses and model proposed
Chapters 2 and 3 have provided the background literature and contextual rationale for
the selection of variables within this study. From this review, the following hypotheses
are proposed to examine the research questions this study seeks to examine.
H1a: In comparison to older workers, younger workers will report lower intentions to
stay and higher intentions to leave
H1b: There will be generational differences in the employee behaviours and

relationships and people management strategies, as well as overall intentions to stay and
intentions to leave
69
H2: Employees with lower education levels will report higher intentions to stay and
lower intentions to leave
H3: Employees who are married or in a de-facto relationship will report lower
intentions to stay and higher intentions to leave than those who are single
H4: Employees with longer tenure will report higher intentions to stay and lower
intentions to leave
H5: Employees with kinship responsibilities will report higher intentions to stay and
lower intentions to leave than those with no responsibilities
H6a: Employees who report better perceived health of self will report higher intentions
to stay and lower intentions to leave
H6b: Employees who report better perceived health of family will report higher
intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave
H7: Employees who are on casual contracts will have higher intentions to leave and
lower intentions to stay than those who are employed permanently in part-time or full-
time roles
management strategies and intentions to stay and leave reported by residential aged care
and community aged care employees
H9: Employees who report high job satisfaction will have higher intentions to stay and
lower intentions to leave than those who report low job satisfaction
H10: There will be a negative relationship between employees’ perceptions of

organisational support and employees’ intentions to leave, and a positive relationship
between employees’ perceptions of organisational support and employees’ intentions to
stay
H11: The relationship between perceived supervisor support and employees’ intentions
to stay and leave will be mediated by perceived organisational support
H12: Employees who report high on-the-job and high off-the-job embeddedness will
report higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave
70
higher percentage of variance in employees’ intentions to stay and leave than the
individual factors alone
H14: There will be a difference in the factors that influence employees’ intentions to
stay and leave.
3.8 Proposed models
Research examining employee retention and turnover has often investigated the
personal and organisational variables proposed separately, but research to date has not
examined their combined influence on explaining employees’ intentions to stay and
leave. There are two models presented in this study. The first examines the influence of
personal factors (age, education status, marital status, tenure, kinship responsibilities,
employee and family perceived health, job employment status and area of employment)
and organisational factors (job satisfaction, perceived organisational support, perceived
supervisor support, job embeddedness) on employee retention. The second examines the
influence of the same two sets of factors on employee turnover. While the same two sets
of factors are tested in both models, the literature provides evidence suggesting that
these factors will impact differently upon employees’ intentions to stay and leave. These
models are illustrated in Figures 3.8 and 3.9.
71
PERSONAL FACTORS ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS OUTCOME
H1: Age/Generation
H9: Job Satisfaction

H2: Education Level
+
H3: Marital Status
H10: Perceived
Organisational Support +
H4: Tenure
Intention to Stay
+
H5: Kinship H11: Perceived Supervisor
Responsibilities Support
H6: Perceived Health +

(Employee & Family)
H12: Job Embeddedness
H7: Job Employment
Status
Key
H8: Area of Employment Direct

Relationship
Indirect
Relationship
Figure 3.8 Proposed Model of Intention to Stay
72
H1: Age/Generation

H2: Education Level
-
H3: Marital Status

H10: Perceived -
Organisational Support
H4: Tenure
Intention to Leave
-
H5: Kinship H11: Perceived Supervisor
Responsibilities Support
H6: Perceived Health

-
(Employee & Family)
H7: Job Employment
Status
Key
H8: Area of Employment Relationship
Indirect
Relationship
Figure 3.9 Proposed Model of Intention to Leave
73
3.9 Conclusion
Understanding the aged care workforce and the context of this research is important in order
to contextualise factors influencing the retention and turnover of this workforce. This chapter
therefore began with an overview of the Australian aged care sector before providing a
description of the workforce demand found in this sector. Following this, the chapter
presented an a current workforce profile of the aged care sector to explain the nuances within
this sector that make it different from other sectors within the Australian health and aged care
system. Finally, the proposed model and hypotheses were presented.
Coupling this chapter with the literature review presented in Chapter 2, it is evident that
understanding both the personal and organisational factors affecting employee retention and
turnover is critical in order for an organisation to create and sustain competitive advantage
over other organisations. Therefore, this research investigates the aged care workforce
looking specifically at both personal and organisational factors influencing employee
retention and turnover. The next chapter, Chapter 4, will present the methodology and
methods used in this study to examine these factors further.
74
Chapter 4: Methodology and methods
75
4.0 Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that affect employees’ intentions
to stay and leave their employment. Chapter 1 began by presenting an overview of the
research problem. Chapter 2 then provided a discussion of the factors known to
influence employee retention and turnover in the management and nursing literature to
date, as well as a description of the theoretical framework that underpins this study.
Following this, Chapter 3 contextualised this research within the complexities of the
Australian aged care sector and its workforce. This chapter, Chapter 4, describes the
methodology and methods used to investigate the research problem.
This chapter begins by outlining the philosophical foundation upon which the
methodology is based. A description of the methods used in this research then follows.
This description begins by rationalising the choice of methods used to collect data, and
includes a detailed discussion of how the survey tool was developed. Following this,
details of the respondents, measures, procedure and data analysis are provided,
including a discussion of the validity and reliability of the data as well as an overview
of how data was triangulated in this research study. This chapter then concludes with a
discussion of the ethical issues identified and how these were addressed in this research.
76
4.1 Philosophical foundation
This study was methodologically driven by the research approach of positivism.
Positivism is one of the oldest and most frequently used approaches (Neuman, 2011)
and is “[an] organised method for combining deductive logic with precise empirical
observations of individual behaviour in order to discover and confirm a set of
probabilistic causal laws that can be used to predict general patterns of human activity”
(Neuman, 2011, p. 95). Positivist approaches emphasise that there is one direction of
research enquiry (deductive logic) and that by using this, combined with empirical
observations, researchers can strive to explain human behaviour (Johnston & Duberly,
2000; Neuman, 2011). Figure 4.1 illustrates the process of deductive logic.
Theory
Hypothesis development
Data collection
Results/findings
Hypotheses confirmed or rejected
Revision of theory
Figure 4.1 The deductive approach to research (Adapted from Bryman, 2004).
A positivist approach was chosen in preference to other methodological approaches as

this study is descriptive in nature and provides clues for explaining the factors
influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave. That is, this study focuses on
examining the “what” questions in order to examine the existing patterns of employee
behaviour in terms of employees’ intentions to stay and leave, rather than exploring new
fields of research or interpreting behaviours. The next section will discuss the ontology
and epistemological approaches that underpin positivism, and indeed, this research.
4.1.1 Ontology
Positivism research lends itself to realist ontology. Proponents of a realist ontology
argue that what we see, observe, touch and experience allows us to objectively
experience the world in which we live (Carson, Gilmore, Perry, & Gronhaug, 2001;
77
Neuman, 2011). In other words, realist ontology is predicated on the assumption that,
through a process of deductive enquiry, using carefully selected research questions,
researchers can examine human behaviour in a logical manner. This allows researchers
to formulate an objective view of the world and ensures that no value judgments are
placed on respondents (Neuman, 2011).
Through using this process, researchers can remain distant and detached in order to be
emotionally neutral and interpret the research findings in an objective non-judgmental
manner (Neuman, 2011). While some researchers argue that no research is value free
(Creswell & Clark, 2007), positivist researchers assert that through using a deductive
enquiry with carefully selected research questions, the research remains objective with
minimal to no value judgments placed on the research by the researcher (Neuman,
2011). This also means that researchers are able to study separate parts of reality at one
point in time, then combine them to form the whole picture of what is happening at that
point in time (Neuman, 2011). This process is particularly relevant to this study, as a
key tenet of this research is to investigate the factors that influence employees’
intentions to stay and leave. However, without an understanding of the context within
which this research positions itself, an appropriate reflection of the results cannot be
made. Therefore, a key aspect of this research is not only in the administration of the
survey itself, but also in the understanding of the research context, in order to
appropriately understand the reality observed in this research. Consequently, in
discussing the results of this research, a reflection of the appropriateness and practical
implications of these research findings is also presented. In addition to adopting a realist
ontology, this research accepts an objectivist epistemology, which is discussed in the
next section.
4.1.2 Epistemology
A researcher’s epistemological view underpins how they research the social world that
surrounds them, in terms of the principles, procedures and ethos on which they base
their research (Bryman, 2004). Epistemology refers to the question of what researchers
consider to be acceptable knowledge within a discipline (Bryman, 2004), and how a
researcher understands and makes claims to the truth about the world around them
(Neuman, 2011). As positivist researchers adopt a realist ontology, knowledge and the
truth of reality is gained through conducting careful observations of a situation
(Neuman, 2011). In this research, careful observations of a situation are gained with a
cross-sectional survey. The findings of this survey are then discussed in the context of
78
previous research to identify similarities and differences in factors influencing
employee retention and turnover.
Additionally, research that is grounded in realist ontology focuses on the generalisation

and objective nature of the research findings (Carson et al., 2001). In particular,
positivist research is grounded in the attempt to explain what is happening, and
therefore adopts a descriptive and explanatory approach, which builds on previous
exploratory and descriptive research to examine why things occur. This type of research
aims to test theories, link topics or issues to a general principle or determine which, of
several explanations, is best in order to explain human behaviour (Neuman, 2011). This
is particularly the case for this research, where the aim is to test established theories and
extend the research in these areas. In having this aim, the researcher’s role is as a
detached external observer who aims to discover the external reality of respondents,
using a rational, consistent, verbal, logical approach in the methodology (Carson et al.
2001). The next section will further explore how the philosophical foundations
underpinning this research have influenced the methods used to examine the research
questions.
4.2 Method
4.2.1 Research design and justification

Positivist research prefers quantitative methodology (Neuman, 2011) as this
methodology is relatively free from values (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000), is standardised
(Punch, 2005; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003), allows for systematic examination of
variables (Lune, Pumar & Koppel, 2010; Punch, 2005), and emphasises the
measurement and analysis of causal relationships between variables (Denzin & Lincoln,
2000; Punch, 2005; Tashakkoir & Teddlie, 2003). All of these closely align with the
positivist philosophy. Therefore, this study adopts a quantitative approach, using a
survey to examine the research questions posed. While survey methodology can
produce only correlational evidence to answer the research questions as opposed to
causation (Tashakkoir & Teddlie, 2003), findings based on inferential statistics can be
compared to those obtained in previous studies and can add to evidence gained
previously to advance the knowledge in the area. Additionally, much previous research
on employees’ intentions to stay and leave has been conducted using a survey
methodology or quantitative approach. Moreover, this research examines and measures
relationships between multiple variables and is concerned with what aged care
79
employees’ perceptions are and how strong they are, rather than why they might have
those perceptions. Therefore, a quantitative approach was identified as being more
suited to this research than a qualitative or interpretist approach.
4.2.2 Method comparison and justification

In addition to the previous considerations noted, when choosing the method for this
study, the advantages and disadvantages of various standard research methods were
considered. Table 4.1 provides a comparison of different research methods according to
selected characteristics considered when choosing the methods for this study as well as
the extent to which the characteristic is evident in that method. In other words, the word
‘high’ shown in the table below illustrates that that methodology allows for a high level
of the characteristic listed in the left hand column.
Table 4.1 Comparison of method characteristics
Characteristic under In-depth Questionnaire Documentation Literature

Consideration Interview based Survey analysis Review
Realism High Low Low Low
Access to respondents High Moderate Low Low
Detail Moderate Low Moderate Moderate
Measurement Moderate Moderate Moderate Low
precision
Control Low Moderate Low Low
Conclusion validity Low High Low Low
Generalisability Low Moderate High High
(Source: Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003)
As shown in Table 4.1, the survey methodology allows for the strongest validity with its
conclusions and moderate generalisability in its findings. Additionally the researcher
has greater control and moderate access to respondents when using this method. While
using surveys allows for a lower amount of detail and realism than other methods, as
this study is a descriptive in nature, these limitations were not deemed significant for
this study. In addition to the above considerations, the characteristics of the different
methods available as outlined in Table 4.2 were considered when choosing the current
methodology (Metcalf, 2005).
80
Table 4.2 Further methodological considerations examined (Metcalf, 2005).
Parameter Time period Intensive/ Intrusive Theory Quantifiability Cross-cultural Replicability Depth of Causality Threat to
Method Extensive Flexibility applicability understanding researcher
Social survey Once Extensive Modestly Inflexible High Slight High Shallow Very low Low
(snapshot) intrusive
Longitudinal Across time in Extensive Fairly Inflexible Very high Slight Limited Fairly shallow Moderate Low
survey future intrusive
Participant Across time in Intensive Very Very Very low Very high Low Very shallow Very low Very high
observation future intrusive flexible
Secondary data Across, Very extensive Non- Marginally Very high Possible but with Very high Very shallow Fairly low Nil
analysis historical intrusive flexible problems
Semi-structured Once Intensive Very Fairly Low Fairly high Very low Fairly deep Fairly low High
interviews intrusive flexible
Focus groups Once Intensive- Fairly Fairly Fairly low Limited Moderately Fairly deep Very low High
extensive intrusive flexible high
Archival/ Across Intensive- Non- Very Generally low Possible Moderate Very deep Moderate High
historical historical extensive intrusive flexible
Oral history/ Across Very intensive Very Very Nil Slight Very low Very deep Moderate High
biography historical intrusive flexible
Case study Across Intensive Can be Flexible Usually low Slight Moderate Thick Moderate Generally
historical and intrusive low
future
Social Once Intensive Very Inflexible High Very slight Very high Fairly shallow Very high Moderate
experiment intrusive
Content analysis Across Extensive Non- Fairly High Slight Very high Very shallow Very low Nil
historical intrusive inflexible
81
Table 4.2 illustrates that snapshot surveys are limited by the time period in which the
data are gathered, and are shallow and inflexible. This methodology was also found to
be replicable, with low threats to the researcher, and only moderately intrusive to the
respondents. Coupling this knowledge with the moderate generalisability and high
statistical validity of conclusions along with considerations to the purpose of the
research, it was decided that this study would adopt a cross-sectional questionnaire
based survey method to examine the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay
and to leave. Thus, while this methodology was limited in terms of depth of responses
provided by respondents, a large number of respondents could be examined from all
over the country, thus increasing generalisability. Furthermore, a cross sectional survey
was selected rather than a longitudinal survey due to the limited time nature of this
study, and competing priorities in the aged care environment at the time of the study
such as changes to legislation. These priorities included other research projects and the
National Aged Care Workforce Census, which might have impacted on the quality of
responses gathered as well as the pool of respondents who chose to participate in a
longitudinal design.
A survey consists of a series of questions about a range of variables (Sommers &

Sommers, 2002). It is used to gather systematic information about respondents’
attitudes, beliefs, values, intentions and behaviours (Sommers & Sommers, 2002).
While surveys are time, energy and cost efficient, they allow only for a superficial
analysis of participants’ attitudes, beliefs, values, intentions and behaviours (Sommers
& Sommers, 2002). Moreover, this methodology is ineffective when examining very
young people or very old people (Sommers & Sommers, 2002). As these latter
conditions do not apply to this study, the use of surveys is appropriate to investigate the
research questions posed. To build on the strengths of surveys and minimise the
limitations of this methodology, this study included open-ended questions in order to
analyse respondents’ attitudes, beliefs, values, and intentions in stay and leave
employment in more detail and depth.
To summarise the methods and methodology chosen for this research, this study
adopted the research design outlined in Figure 4.2 below, adapted from Crotty (1998).
82
Methods
Ontology Epistemology Philosophy Methodology Cross-Sectional
Realism Objectivism survey
Positivism Cross-Sectional
Survey research (using both open
and closed
questions)
Figure 4.2 The research design of this study (Adapted from Crotty, 1998)
The next section of this chapter will describe the development of the survey instrument
for this research.
4.2.3 Development of the survey instrument

Cross-sectional surveys are limited in that the researcher is only able to access
respondents on one occasion to collect data (Neuman, 2011). Therefore, it is essential
that the questions asked in the survey are thoroughly piloted and developed in order to
maximise response rates and minimise errors and missing data, as well as to collect as
much detail as possible on that one occasion without causing survey fatigue. For this
study, the researcher spent a considerable amount of time piloting the survey instrument
and gathering expert feedback to develop the survey instrument. This section outlines
the steps involved in creating the survey instrument for this research, which included
conducting an expert panel review, consulting survey design and statistical experts, and
then conducting a pilot study prior to the final instrument being developed for use.
4.2.3.1 Expert Panel Review
Aim of the study

The expert panel review was designed to test the readability of the questionnaire,
perceived likelihood that respondents would complete the questionnaire, time taken to
complete the questionnaire, and any suggestions for improvements or errors found
83
within the questionnaire by the panel respondents. Additionally, this expert panel
review set out to examine any items or scales chosen that might have excessive missing
data or were identified as unclear through the feedback provided.
Sample for the expert panel review

Ten respondents who were currently working within the aged care sector were invited to
participate in this expert panel review. Of these 10 respondents, seven returned the
questionnaire, representing a response rate of 70%. The sample consisted mostly of
female workers (71.4%), aged between 27 and 65 years, and who had no primary
caregiver responsibilities (100%). Respondents had worked in the aged care sector for,
on average, 11.42 years (Min: 0 year, Max: 24 years) and at their current organisation
for, on average, 7.07 years (Min: 0 years, Max: 21 years). Additionally, they had
worked in their current role at their organisation on average for 2.6 years (Min: 0 years,
Max: 5 years).
Measures
The following measures were used in this expert panel review study in the order that
follows. See Appendix A for a complete copy of the questionnaire used in the expert
review panel.
Focused questions
In order to examine the aims of the expert panel review and receive feedback from the
panel, the first page of the questionnaire booklet asked six open-ended questions.
Time taken to complete the questionnaire
Respondents were asked to provide detail on the length of time it took them to complete
the questionnaire. To gather this information, respondents were asked a third open-
ended question, “How long did it take you to complete the questionnaire?”
Suggestions for improvements and errors found
To canvas any suggestions for improvements and errors found within the questionnaire,
respondents were asked three open-ended questions: “Do you have any suggestions to
improve the order or questions in the questionnaire?”; “Did you find any errors?”; and
“Do you have any other comments you would like to make about this questionnaire?”
84
Readability of questionnaire
Respondents were asked, “How easy it was to fill the questionnaire out?” A prompt
example of “were the instructions clear?” was also provided in order to assist
respondents answer this question.
Perceived likelihood of respondents completing the questionnaire
Respondents were asked one open-ended question, “What are your thoughts on the
likelihood that people will complete and return the questionnaire?”
Demographic data
Current position within the organisation
This questionnaire captured information on respondents’ current positions by asking

“What is your position?” and provided respondents with six options for their response.
These options were Registered Nurse (RN), Enrolled Endorsed Nurse (EEN) / Enrolled
Nurse (EN), Personal Care Worker (PCW) / Assistant in Nursing (AIN), Care Manager,
Director of Nursing (DON), or Other, please specify___.
Age range
Respondents were asked to provide information on their age by answering the question
“What is your age range” by selecting one of seven options for their response. These
options were: <16 years, 17-26 years, 27-37 years, 38-46 years, 47-56 years, 57-65
years, or 66 years or older (+).
Gender
Respondents were asked to provide information on their gender by answering the

question “What is your gender” by selecting either “Male” or “Female” for their
response.
Education level
This study examined respondents’ education level by asking “What is the highest
education level you have obtained?” and providing eight options: high school grade 10,
high school grade 12, TAFE Certificate III, TAFE Certificate IV, TAFE Diploma,
Bachelor degree, Masters/Grad Cert Degree, or other.
85
Primary caregiver responsibilities
This study asked respondents about their primary caregiver responsibilities by asking a
binary question, “Do you have any primary caregiver responsibilities?”, with possible
responses being Yes or No. If respondents reported caregiver responsibilities, they were
then asked, “If yes, please describe these”, in order to examine further these
responsibilities.
Perceived health of employee and family
This study asked respondents about their and their family’s perceived health by asking
two questions, “How would you rate your overall health?” and “How would you rate the
overall health of your family?” on a six-point scale (very poor, poor, fair, good, very
good, excellent).
Job embeddedness
Job embeddedness was measured using Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton & Holtom’s
(2004) measure of job embeddedness. While this scale is available in both a long and a
short form, previous research using both scales has identified that the long version of
the scale is a valid and reliable measure of job performance and turnover, while the
short version is a valid and reliable measure of job performance alone (Holtom, Tidd, &
Mitchell, 2006). As this study examines this factor’s relationship to employees’ intent to
leave and intent to stay, a valid and reliable measure of turnover is needed. Therefore,
the long version of this scale was chosen for this study. This scale consists of 34
questions relating to the fit, links and sacrifices employees perceive with their broader
community and with their organisation (Lee et al., 2004). Employees were asked to
respond to all items, except those listed under organisational and community links, on a
five-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Employees were
asked to respond to the items under community and organisational links as either yes,
no or not applicable. Upon creating composite scores by averaging items in on-the-job
and off-the-job embeddedness, the scale reported a high reliability, α .84 and .82,
respectively (Lee et al., 2004).
Perceived organisational support

Perceived Organisational Support (POS) refers to supervisors’ perceptions of the
support that the organisation provides to them (Walters & Raybould, 2007). POS was
examined in this study by using the shortened perceived organisational support (SPOS)
scale. This version of the scale was developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986) to provide a
86
unidimensional scale measuring supervisors’ perceptions of organisational support. The
shortened version of the scale has been found to result in high reliability, α=.83-.95 in
previous studies (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; Mallette, 2011), and is used in the
many past studies conducted to examine POS (Eisenberger, 2011; Wickramasinghe &
Wickramasinghe, 2011). Research to date on this construct has mostly involved the role
of supervisors as respondents, except for Brunetto, Far-Wharton, Shacklock and Robson
(2012) who examined public and private acute care nurses. However, this study will use
this construct to measure employees’ perceptions of organisational support and any
influence this has on all aged care employees’ intentions to stay and to leave. This scale
consists of 16 statements that represent opinions employees may have about their
organisation, rated on a seven-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree (7).
Perceived supervisor support
To measure Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS), this study adapted the shortened
version of the SPOS by replacing the words “Your organisation” with “Your
supervisor” in line with previous research examining PSS such as Kottkey and
Sharafinski (1988), and Eisenberger et al. (2002). Like the POS scale, this scale
consists of 16 statements that represent opinions employees may have about their
supervisor, rated on a seven-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree (7). The measure has been found to be a reliable (α=.93) and valid measure of
PSS in previous studies (Eisenberger et al., 2002; DeConinck & Johnson, 2009;
Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006).
Job satisfaction
Research has identified two types of scale that measure job satisfaction: those that
measure facet satisfaction, and those that measure global satisfaction (Kinicki et al.,
2002). Facet satisfaction examines specific aspects of job satisfaction, whereas global
satisfaction examines satisfaction with the job in general. This study investigated both
satisfaction measures using the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Job in General (JIG)
Scale (Bowling Green State University, 2011). The JDI measures respondents’
satisfaction with five working conditions – their pay, promotion, supervision, work on
present job and co-workers – using a series of words or short phrases. Employees are
required to answer Yes (Y), No (N) or unsure (?) to the short phrases and words
presented describing satisfaction with the particular facet being measured. This measure
87
is widely used within the literature and its reliability is well-established (α=.83 for the
shortened version of the scale, and α=.87, .88, .86, .88 and .89 for satisfaction with Pay,
Promotion, Co-workers, Work, and Supervision sub-scales, respectively) (Kinicki et al.,
2002; Russell et al., 2004).
Additionally, the measure has good convergent and discriminant validity (Kinniki et al.,
2002). The abridged versions of these scales were used in this study to reduce the length
of the questionnaire. The abridged version measures the same dimensions, but with
fewer short phrases or words under each facet (six statements as opposed to 12
statements in the long version). The shortened versions of both scales have also been
established as reliable and valid measures, with Russell et al. (2004) concluding that “as
a result of condensing the JIG scale by more than 50%, the abridged JIG scale offers
both practitioners and researchers a way to efficiently and accurately measure workers’
overall evaluations of their jobs” (p. 891). Moreover, both scales were found to uphold
the psychometric properties of the longer versions, while reducing the time and space
required to assess the constructs (Russell et al., 2004).
Intention to stay
Intention to stay is the “extent to which an employee plans to continue membership with
his/her employer” (Kim, Price, Mueller and Watson, 1996, p. 951). This study
measured employees’ intentions to stay using four items developed by Kim, Price,
Mueller and Watson (1996). Respondents respond to each item using a five-point Likert
scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Intention to leave
This study measured intention to leave using two items developed by Hom and Griffeth
(1991): “I will likely look for another job in the next twelve months” and “I will likely
look for another job in the next five years”. These items have demonstrated reliability of
α=0.93, when measuring the likelihood to look for another job within the next five years
(Dawley, Houghton & Bucklew, 2010). They were measured on a five-point scale, the
same as that used to measure employees’ intention to stay, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). These items were chosen as they have been measured in
other studies such as Mitchell et al. (2001) and Dawley, Houghton, and Bucklew
(2010).
88
Open-ended questions
In order to provide more detailed understanding of any other factors influencing
employees’ intentions to stay and to leave, four open-ended questions were asked:
1) What factors influence your intentions to stay at your organisation for the next
12 months?
2) What factors influence your intentions to stay at your organisation for the next 5
years?
3) What factors influence your intentions to leave your organisation within the next
12 months
4) What factors influence your intentions to leave your organisation within the next
5 years?
Procedure
Respondents were initially asked if they would like to participate in the expert panel
review and told they would have two weeks to complete the questionnaire. Once
approval from respondents had been provided, the questionnaire booklets were provided
to respondents. Respondents were given two weeks to complete the questionnaire and
return the completed questionnaire to the researcher. Once the questionnaires had been
returned, the researcher entered the data into SPSS version 21.0 and Microsoft Excel
1997.
Results
This expert panel review set out to test to readability, perceived likelihood of
respondents to complete the questionnaire, time taken to complete the questionnaire,
and any suggestions for improvements or errors found within the questionnaire.
Additionally, any items or scales that had excessive missing data or comments from
respondents for improvement were examined.
Most respondents (71.4%) reported that the questionnaire was easy to read and
understand. The remaining two respondents (28.6%) felt the introduction to each section
could be improved to aid readability, giving clear feedback on the questionnaire to
indicate these improvements. In addition to this feedback, respondents also noted minor
spelling errors and inconsistencies within the questionnaire document, which they
highlighted to the researcher through circling the error or hand writing a suggestion for
improvement on the questionnaire. These changes predominately centred on the
89
introductions provided for each scale in order to improve respondents’ understanding of
the scale.
Additionally, when enquiring into the respondents’ perceived likelihood of other aged
care employees completing the questionnaire, all respondents indicated that they felt
that it was “fairly likely”, “depending on what is happening at the time” as “it is not
overly long or onerous” to complete. Investigations into the time taken to complete the
questionnaire revealed that respondents took, on average, 15 minutes to complete the
questionnaire (with a range of five to 30 minutes). However, two respondents did not
report on the time taken.
Upon investigating any items or scales that had missing data or excessive comments,
most scales had no excessive missing data, although two respondents (28.6%) failed to
answer the job satisfaction subscales about their supervisor and the negative questions
in the job in general job satisfaction scale. Upon further physical inspection of their
completed questionnaires, the reason for this missing data was found to be due to an
incorrectly worded paragraph describing the scale. No other scale or item had
significant comments for improvements from respondents.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the expert panel review study suggested some changes were needed to
the questionnaire to aid readability and improve the likelihood for respondents to
complete the questionnaire. In general, it was found that while the questionnaire was
appropriate for the study sample and the likelihood for respondents to complete was
fair, the researcher felt that some additional considerations about the questionnaire
design and feedback from statistical experts and graphic designers were required prior
to conducting a pilot study.
4.2.3.2 Survey design and statistical experts considerations

Three survey design and statistical experts were consulted between the expert panel
review and the pilot study. These consultations focused on examining the survey tool in
more detail to improve the layout and readability to respondents. Each expert reviewed
the questionnaire prior to the interview and was asked to suggest any changes needed to
increase readability and maximise response rates. The interviews lasted 10-20 minutes
each, and resulted in four changes to the questionnaire.
The first change made was to the location of the demographic data in the questionnaire.
In version one, the demographic data was located at the front of the questionnaire on
90
page one. However, survey experts advised to move the demographic data collection to
the end of the questionnaire. After further consideration using the literature (e.g.
Roberson & Sundstrom, 1990), it was found that the benefits of collecting demographic
data at the end of the survey included maximising the available time on accurate and
fresh perspectives, leaving the factual and “automatic” responses for the end of any time
spent completing the survey.
The second suggested change was to the wording of the question on respondents’ age.
Specifically, version one of the questionnaire asked respondents a forced choice
question between age ranges. However, after consultation with statistical and survey
experts, the question asking respondents’ age was changed from a forced choice option
to an open-ended, “In what year were you born?” question. It was advised that through
changing the question to an open-ended format, the researcher would have better control
of the statistical analyses performed on this more detailed data. However, as previous
questionnaires on the aged care workforce had only collected data in the form of forced
choice options, the researcher was hesitant about asking an open question in this format.
However, after further consideration of this suggested change, the researcher decided to
pilot the question to determine the impact of this before making a final decision on this
suggested change.
The third suggested change was the addition of two demographic data questions as a
result of expert feedback: “What is your job employment status?” and “How many
hours of work do you work at your main job?” It was advised that by capturing data on
these items, the researcher would gain a better understanding of respondents and that
these characteristics could have an influence on their behaviour. Consequently, the
researcher decided to add these items to the next draft for the pilot.
Finally, the fourth suggested change related to the scale measuring intention to leave.
This was advised because, while the scale had been previously validated, the experts
consulted advised that when comparing two constructs, such as intention to stay and
intention to leave, it is better to have the same or similar number of items measuring the
different constructs. Therefore, the scale was changed from a two-item intention to
leave scale to a four-item intention to leave scale in version two of the questionnaire.
Graphic design considerations

To enhance readability and maximise response rates, the researcher opted to have the
layout of the questionnaire professionally designed. Therefore, once the questionnaire
91
was finalised, the questionnaire was sent to a graphic design company for formatting.
An initial face-to-face consultation was conducted to communicate the intent of the
questionnaire, anticipated participant characteristics and background of the
questionnaire development. The questionnaire was then emailed to the graphic
designers for consideration and drafting an initial design. Follow-up phone interviews
and emails were then sent back and forth to finalise the first draft of the questionnaire
design. These discussions resulted in slight changes to the wording of the introductions,
font style and size, and the layout of the scales themselves within the context of the
whole document. The final draft of the design was then emailed to the researcher for use
in the pilot study. A copy of this design is included in Appendix B.
4.2.3.2 Pilot Study
Aim
This pilot study aimed to examine the impact of the changes in readability, time taken
and any errors identified in the revised questionnaire. To test this, the researcher
targeted a sample of university lecturers, tutors, students and general workers from
outside the aged care sector in order to gain a broader range of participants in this pilot
that mimicked the range of education qualifications of aged care employees targeted in
the main study. This sample was targeted in order to capture any additional
improvements that could be made to the questionnaire design and to identify any further
errors that had not previously been identified. In order to reflect this, the focus questions
were changed to be more specific about the feedback desired on this questionnaire from
these experts.
Sample size
A total of 25 respondents were invited to participate in the second pilot of this
questionnaire. Of these 25, 14 respondents returned their completed questionnaire to the
researcher, representing a response rate of 56%. These respondents were female (50%),
lived in Queensland, Australia, and were aged 18-45 years (M=26 years, SD = 10.56).
Measures
The pilot study used similar measures as in the expert panel review study with the
exception of those discussed above. Therefore, this section describes only those
measures that were changed significantly between the expert panel review study and the
pilot study. It should be noted that the new order of the questionnaire scale items in pilot
study was Perceived Organisational Support, Perceived Supervisor Support, Job
92
Satisfaction, Intention to Stay, Intention to Leave, Job Embeddedness, and
Demographic data. A copy of this questionnaire is included in Appendix B.
Focus questions on readability, time taken and errors

The first page of the questionnaire asked six open-ended questions focusing on two
specific areas, time taken to complete the questionnaire and the readability/suggestions
for improvement.
Time taken
Respondents were asked to record the approximate time taken to complete the
questionnaire through the open-ended question, “How long did it take you to complete
the questionnaire?”
Readability of questionnaire and suggestions for improvements
To examine the readability of the questionnaire as well as to gain feedback on areas for
improvement, five open-ended questions were asked:
1. “Were there any spelling mistakes?”

2. “Were any questions difficult to follow?”
3. “Did it logically flow? Do you have any suggestions for improvement?”
4. “Were there any other errors that you found?” and,
5. “How easy it was to fill the questionnaire out?” with a prompt example of “Were the
instructions clear?”
Additional job embeddedness question

Hours worked
In order to further contextualise the employee’s work status, the open-ended question
“How many hours of work do you work at your main job” was added in the job
embeddedness section. While this item was not included as a measure of job
embeddedness, it was added to this section due to readability and flow considerations.
Intention to leave
The statistical and survey design experts consulted advised that when comparing two
constructs, such as intention to leave and intention to stay, it is better to have the same
or similar number of items measuring the different constructs. Therefore, the scale was
changed from a two-item intention to leave scale to a four-item intention to leave scale
in version two of the questionnaire.
93
In version two of the questionnaire, intention to leave was measured using three items
adapted from University of Melbourne (1990) and Bradley (2007):
1. “Over the past month, I have seriously thought about leaving my primary
organisation to work with another organisation within the aged care industry.”
2. “Over the past month, I have seriously thought about resigning from this
organisation even though I do not have another job to go to.”
3. “Over the past month, I have seriously thought about making a real effort to
enter a new or different occupation outside the aged care sector.”
An additional item was added to examine intentions to resign: “Over the past month, I
have seriously thought about resigning from the workforce altogether.” Bradley (2007)
found the original 3-item scale to have adequate reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .79) and
concurrent validity in the form of moderate to high correlations with job demands and
job stress. These items were measured on a five-point scale, the same as that used to
measure employees’ intention to stay, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree), to gain an overall understanding of employees’ intentions to leave.
Demographic questions
Following a more thorough review of the literature, as well as considering advice
provided by experts in the field as discussed in the previous section, some changes were
made to the demographic data collected in the pilot study.
Age
Respondents were asked to provide information on their age by answering the open
question, “In what year were you born”, in the space provided.
Job status
Respondents were asked to provide information relating to their job status by answering
the question, “What is your job employment status?”, with one of five options provided,
which were Permanent Full Time, Permanent Part Time, Temporary Full Time,
Temporary Part Time or Casual.
Location
Respondents were asked to provide information relating to the location of their work by
answering the question, “What state or territory do you work in?”, with one of the
options provided: QLD (Queensland), NSW (New South Wales), VIC (Victoria), SA
94
(South Australia), NT (Northern Territory), ACT (Australian Capital Territory), TAS
(Tasmania), or WA (Western Australia).
Area of aged care
Respondents were asked to provide information categorising the area of aged care they
work in by answering the question, “What area of aged care do you primarily work in?”,
with one of three options provided: Home Care, Residential Care, or Other.
Procedure
Respondents were invited to participate in the pilot study of the questionnaire and told
that they had two weeks to complete and return the questionnaire. Once approval from
respondents had been provided, the questionnaire booklets were provided to them. Once
the completed questionnaire had been returned, the researcher entered the data into
SPSS version 21.0 and Microsoft Excel 1997. Data was then analysed by examining
descriptive and frequency statistics to determine the number of responses to each
question.
Results
The aim of this pilot study was to measure the time taken to complete the questionnaire,
and to test for improvements in readability as well as to further identify any errors found
within the questionnaire after changes were made. Upon examining the open-ended
questions enquiring into the readability of the questionnaire, it was found that all
respondents commented that the questionnaire was logically structured, flowed well and
contained only minor grammatical errors. Additionally, respondents also reported that
the questionnaire was “very easy” to complete. Examination of the time taken to
complete the questionnaire revealed that with the changes made, the average time taken
to complete remained at 15 minutes (range 10-20 minutes).
However, further investigation of the completed questionnaires revealed that three items
had more than 15% missing data. The first of these was the revised question capturing
participant age, where 50% of respondents failed to answer this question. Further
reflection on this item with statistical experts resulted in the researcher deciding to keep
the item as it was written in this version. The second and third item that had more than
15% missing data was the question about the location and area of aged care in which the
respondent works, which was not answered by 40% of respondents. However, because
most pilot study participants did not work in aged care and they all resided in
Queensland, the missing data on the questions were not considered a problem by the
95
researcher. No other questions had more than 15% missing data. Instead, the rest of the
missing data within the responses resulted from the fact that one participant chose not to
complete most of the questionnaire and instead focused on identifying detailed
grammatical errors within the questionnaire. No other scale or item within a scale was
identified as problematic in this pilot study.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this pilot test investigated the improvements in readability, time taken
and overall integrity of the final questionnaire using a representative sample. This pilot
test revealed that the changes made improved readability and the overall integrity of the
questionnaire, and the researcher was comfortable to progress with data collection.
4.2.3.3 Structure of the final questionnaire

The final questionnaire consisted of four A4 pages and measured the constructs in the
following order:
 Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support

 Job Satisfaction
 Intention to Stay closed and open-ended questions
 Intention to Leave closed and open-ended questions
 Job Embeddedness
 Demographic Data.
A copy of the final questionnaire can be found in Appendix C.
4.2.3.4 Cover Page, information Sheet, and frequently asked questions

Following the finalisation of the questionnaire, the cover page, description of study,
information sheet and frequently asked questions were developed to include in the final
package that was sent to respondents. Copies of these documents are included in
Appendix C.
4.3 Respondents of main study
4.3.1 Main study respondents
Sample size
Invitations to participate in this study were sent to 2118 direct care workers from four
organisations. Respondents were employed at not-for-profit or private Australian aged
care organisations that ranged in size from small (less than 50 employees), medium
96
(less than 300 employees), large (less than 900 employees) to very large organisations
(more than 4000 employees) across two states of Australia. Two of these organisations
offered both residential aged care and community aged care services, one offered
residential aged care only, and the fourth offered only community aged care services to
people living in Australia. Of the invited respondents, 420 returned the questionnaire to
the researcher. This represents a 19.83% response rate. It is recognised that this is not in
line with previous research, which identifies that research using a questionnaire
methodology should expect between a 27-35% response rate (Baruch & Holtom, 2008;
King et al., 2012). One possible reason for this lower than usual response rate could be
to the fact that reply-paid envelopes were not made available to respondents in this
study due to budget constraints, which may have influenced respondents’ perceptions of
confidentiality or ease of return. Another possible reason could be the confounding
impacts of the National Census of Australian Aged Care Workforce questionnaire being
administered a month prior to the release of this study’s questionnaire. Nonetheless,
while the sample size is acknowledged as a limitation to this research, a 19.83%
response rate is considered adequate for this study.
4.3.2 Sample justification

Sampling appropriate respondents is a key tenet of quality research (Sommers &
Sommers, 2002). When determining sample sizes, researchers need to consider the size
of the population, the available resources and time constraints, the strength of the effect
desired, the number of analyses to be performed on the data, and the expected return
rate (Sommers & Sommers, 2002). In direct terms, a sample is considered to be of
appropriate size if it represents the larger population being studied (Lune et al., 2010).
Gpower 3 computer software was used to determine the sample size required (URL:
http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3/). Power was set at .80 using
a medium effect size of .25, in line with previous research in this area (Holtom &
O’Neil, 2004; Reitz, Anderson, & Hill, 2010). The software highlighted that a minimum
of 180 employees was required for statistical power in this study. This was based on a
power study, using a one-way ANOVA, to determine whether there was a difference
between employees in each generation and their responses to the quantitative measures
proposed. This analysis was chosen because it involved more subgroups (6) than any
other analysis. Thus, providing the most stringent test of the sample size required. This
study draws upon six subgroups within the generations examined. Thus, a minimum of
97
30 employees in each generation examined is required to achieve statistical power in
this study. The generations examined in this study were late Veteran Generation (1926-
1945), early Baby Boomers (1946-1955), late Baby Boomers (1956-1965), early
Generation X and Y (1966-1976), late Generation X and Y (1977-1986), and early
Generation I (1987-1996) (ABS, 2009a). Table 4.3 illustrates how this study achieved
adequate power for the analyses performed.
Table 4.3 Breakdown of respondents per generation (N=420)
Generation Number of Adequate Power

respondents for inclusion (Y/N)
Late Veteran Generation 6 N
Early Baby Boomers 91 Y
Late Baby Boomers 151 Y
Early Generation X and Y 54 Y
Late Generation X and Y 37 Y
Early Generation I 20 N
Missing data 61 -
Total Respondents 420 -
*Y = minimum of 30 respondents to have adequate power for analysis
As evident from Table 4.3, four groups were identified as having meeting the minimum
requirement for achieving appropriate statistical power in this study. Therefore, any
analyses that are performed examining differences between the generations will need to
exclude respondents from the Late Veteran Generation and Early Generation I.
In order to examine differences between the size of the organisation and participant
responses in the study, a minimum sample size of 720 respondents (30 employees per
generation group x 6 groups x 4 organisations) was required for statistical power. As
this study did not achieve this sample size, the researcher was unable to examine any
differences that may be due to the size of the organisation that the respondents worked
in.
4.4 Measures
The measures used in the final questionnaire were the same as those used in pilot study
(see 4.2.3.2 Pilot study - measures). Therefore they will not be presented again here. See
Appendix C for a copy of this questionnaire.
98
4.5 Validity and reliability considerations
The methods chosen to collect the data and analyse the results have known challenges
associated with them. As positivist researchers are concerned with the generalisability
of the research findings, reliability and validity are of utmost concern to the researcher
(Johnston & Duberly, 2000). Validity and reliability issues of concern for the study, and
actions taken to address these concerns, where feasible, are therefore discussed below.
4.5.1 Construct validity

Construct validity has been defined as “a type of measurement validity that uses
multiple indicators and has two subtypes: how well indicators of one construct
converge, or how well indicators of different constructs diverge” (Neuman, 2006, p.
194). This was addressed in the present study by ensuring that all scale measurements
were previously evidenced of validity and reliability.
4.5.2 External validity

External validity has been defined as the ability of the research to be generalised outside
the sample investigated (Neuman, 2006). This was addressed in this study by gathering
data from four differently sized organisations. In addition, the findings from this study
have been compared to findings of related studies from the broader health care sector in
order to determine whether these findings are relevant to the aged care sector alone or
whether they might be generalised to the health care sector more broadly. It is noted,
however, that a limitation of this study was the lack of a national sample.
4.5.3 Measurement reliability

Measurement reliability has been defined as “the dependability or consistency of the
measure of the variable” (Neuman, 2006, p. 189). To ensure measurement reliability
was upheld in this study, only measures that previous research had demonstrated to be
reliable were used. Reliability tests were also completed to verify these results in the
context of this study. Additionally, the data entered were screened for human error prior
to any analyses being completed. The results of these tests can be found in Chapter 5.
Table 4.4 provides more detail about the challenges identified in data collection and
analysis and the strategies put in place to minimise or mitigate these challenges.
99
Table 4.4 Data collection and analysis challenges and strategies embedded in the study
to minimise or mitigate the challenge
Challenge Identified Strategy embedded in design of study

Data Collection Phase
Introduction of bias through data This study used only validated tools to
collection examine the variables of interest.
Threats to internal validity: Testing This study examined employees’
(Changes occurring as a result of the intentions to stay and leave using a single
study) questionnaire methodology and therefore
this threat was minimised.
Threats to internal validity: Pre and post testing was not completed as
Instrumentation (Something changes the part of this study’s design. Therefore, this
way respondents measure pre and post was not a threat to the current study.
testing)
Threats to internal validity: Mortality This threat was minimised by ensuring the
(respondents dropping out) mail-out exceeded that required for the
stated power and effect sizes.
Additionally, as this research involved a
single questionnaire data collection
methodology, this threat was minimised.
Threats to internal validity: Selection All care employees working at
(respondents chosen are not participating organisations were invited to
representative of population) participate in this study. As only not-for-
profit organisations participated in this
study, the scope of this study are
acknowledged as limitations of this
research.
Threats to internal validity: Ambiguity This study investigated the correlation
about causal direction between variables using a deductive
approach. While causal direction was not
able to be determined, correlational
direction was assessed.
100
Threats to external validity: Selection All direct care employees working at both
(findings specific to the group studied) not-for-profit organisations were invited to
participate. Thus, this threat was
minimised as the participation should be
representative across organisations.
However, the scope of this study is an
acknowledged delimitater of the study.
Additionally, the results of this study were
compared to other national surveys to help
assess and control for this threat
Threats to external validity: Setting Results from this study were compared to
(findings specific to context studied) results found in both acute care and aged
care settings. These comparisons are
discussed in Chapter 7: Discussion and
Conclusions.
Threats to external validity: Construct This study was grounded in research and
effects (Constructs examined specific to used only validated constructs found to be
group studied) appropriate to employees’ intentions to
stay and leave factors.
Threat to reliability: Subject error All care was taken to explain the questions
clearly to minimise the possibility of this
error. Additionally, an expert review panel
study and pilot study were undertaken.
Finally, data were screened prior to any
analysis being undertaken, and erroneous
responses were deleted.
Threat to reliability: Observer error This threat was not applicable to this study
as a survey methodology was used.
Threat to reliability: Observer bias This threat was not applicable to this study
as a survey methodology was used.
Data Analysis Phase
Not addressing validity issues Chapter 7 includes a dedicated discussion
on validity issues to appropriately address
these issues.
Graziano and Raulin (2004); Neuman (2011).
101
4.6 Data triangulation
The triangulation of data is critical to rigorous research studies, as it allows the

researcher to look at the research problem from multiple angles in order to improve the
accuracy of the findings established (Neuman, 2006). There are many methods of
ensuring data triangulation occurs in research. These are described in Table 4.5 below.
Table 4.5 Data triangulation methods
Data triangulation method Description

This is the most common method
employed, and involves the researcher
Triangulation of measures examining the same research construct
with multiple measures: for example,
asking both open ended and closed
questions on a questionnaire to measure a
construct.
This occurs when multiple observers
Triangulation of observers measure one phenomenon in order to
reduce the limitation of researcher bias
impacting the study’s findings.
This type of triangulation occurs when a
Triangulation of theory researcher uses multiple theories to plan or
interpret the data obtained.
This type of triangulation occurs when the
researcher mixes qualitative and
Triangulation of method quantitative research methods in order to
maximise the benefits of both types of
research methods.
(Neuman, 2006)
This study collects and analyses data through the use of triangulation of measures.
Specifically, in order to examine the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay in
and leave their employment, this study employs the use of valid and reliable scales as
well as open-ended (qualitative) questions within the questionnaire. It is argued that
through using this methodology, the researcher is able to examine the factors that affect
employees’ intentions to stay and leave that are similar to the constructs examined as
102
well as additional information about the factors that respondents see as important to
their intention to stay or leave. By using this methodology, the researcher was able to
look at the problem from multiple angles and examine the results critically.
4.7 Procedure for the main study

Formal ethics approval for this study was obtained from Griffith University’s Human
Research Ethics Committee prior to commencing data collection (EHR/19/11/HREC).
Upon approval, the researcher approached four large aged care organisations to
participate in this study (two not-for-profit and two for-profit organisations). Further
ethics approval was then gained by another university’s ethics committee as per the
requirement of one of the approached organisations. Unfortunately, due to reasons
beyond the researcher’s control, both the for-profit and one of the not-for-profit
organisations were unable to participate in the study after ethics approval was gained.
Therefore, the researcher re-commenced the recruitment process to find more
participating organisations by contacting 27 organisations around Australia using the
“contact me” email on their website. This approach resulted in the recruitment of three
additional organisations, ranging from small to large, to join the very large organisation
already recruited for this research project. The result was that the data were collected in
four not-for-profit organisations.
Upon the granting of approval to conduct research at these participating organisations,

the researcher requested each organisation to provide the number of direct care workers
employed at each organisation, in order to inform questionnaire distribution. The total
number of questionnaires distributed to each organisation differed according to size.
The first not-for-profit organisation employed over 4000 eligible staff members across
residential and community care services meaning it was not viable or necessary to
survey all eligible employees. Instead, 1000 questionnaires were distributed to the
organisation. This equated to 25% of the total number of eligible employees. A total of
1118 questionnaires were then distributed to the remaining three organisations.
Questionnaires were distributed in bulk to each site by the researcher, matching the total
number of direct care workers employed at each site provided by each organisation.
Questionnaire packs were placed in staff rooms or common rooms as allocated by site
management, to be filled in by as many voluntary respondents as were willing. No
information was gathered on who participated in the survey; instead, each questionnaire
103
pack included a sealable envelope into which respondents placed their completed
questionnaire and either directly posted it to the researcher personally or placed it in the
box provided by the site. Two weeks after distribution, a reminder email was sent to all
participating organisations through their research coordinator or nominated personnel as
determined through the approval stage.
Each participating organisation received a final summary report of the study at the
conclusion of the research, as well as a copy of any publication that arose from the
research, to inform their practices. The reports were also sent to any respondent who
contacted the researcher in order to obtain a copy of the results.
Once the completed questionnaires had been received, the researcher then entered the
quantitative data into SPSS Version 21.0 and the qualitative data into Microsoft Excel
2007 as the first step in the data analysis process.
4.8 Ethical issues
This study identified five key ethical issues that could affect this research study, and put
in place strategies to address them: informed consent; confidentiality; feedback of
results; negative impact on employability; and security of data (Graziano & Raulin,
2004; Neuman, 2006; 2011). Informed consent was provided by respondents in this
study through the return of their completed questionnaires to the researcher as explained
in the cover sheet provided to the respondent in their questionnaire pack. Confidentiality
was maintained and upheld by the researcher in three ways. First, by securing the
returned questionnaires in a location external to the participating organisation; second,
by using aggregated results in any published work; and, third, through the de-
identification of each questionnaire participant. Feedback of results to respondents was
achieved through the provision of a research summary highlighting key findings to each
participating organisation, which was then encouraged to distribute the findings to their
employees. Negative impact on employability was protected through upholding
confidentiality of responses. Finally, security of data was upheld by storing all
responses in a locked filing cabinet at Griffith University.
4.9 Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that affect employees’ intentions
to stay in and leave. This chapter described the methodology and methods used to
undertake this research. It began by outlining the philosophical foundation upon which
104
the methodology is based. A description of the methods used in this research then
followed, which included a rationalisation of the methods chosen as well as a
description of the process undertaken for developing the survey tool that was used in
this research, using an expert panel review and pilot study to develop the final survey
instrument. A description of the questionnaire package and the process for collecting the
data was then presented. Following this, a description of data triangulation, validity and
reliability was provided. This chapter then concluded with a discussion of the ethical
issues identified and the strategies put in place to minimise them. The next chapter,
Chapter 5, presents the results of the quantitative analysis of the data collected using
these methods and will address the research questions posed. Chapter 6 then provides
the results of the analysis of the open-ended questions.
105
106
Chapter 5: Quantitative results
107
5.0 Introduction
This study investigated employees’ intentions to stay and leave. This chapter presents
the results of the quantitative data in the context of the research questions and
hypotheses. It first describes the data preparation and screening conducted prior to the
analyses performed. Then the results are presented from the analysis of quantitative data
using several data analysis techniques including descriptive statistics, bivariate
correlations, t-tests, Analysis of Variances (ANOVAs), Multivariate Analysis of
Variance (MANOVAs), hierarchical regression analyses, and structural equation
modelling analyses. Chapter 6 then presents the results of the qualitative data from the
open-ended questionnaire questions.
5.1 Data preparation and screening
Data preparation and screening is a critical pre-requisite to any analysis performed to

ensure that the assumptions underlying statistical tests are satisfied and thus the results
identified are free from bias and accurately reflect the sample examined. Key aspects of
this stage include describing the sample characteristics in relation to the workforce
characteristics of the broader population, identifying and responding to missing data,
and preparing the dataset to be ready for analysis. These aspects are discussed in this
section.
5.1.1 Sample characteristics

Understanding the sample within this study is critical so that any differences between
the sample and the broader aged care workforce can be detected. The present sample
cannot be compared to the national population on all demographic variables. Instead, a
comparison was made by position type and area of employment because this was the
way the publically available data was presented. Therefore, Tables 5.1 and 5.2 present
those demographic statistics for the current sample and for the corresponding national
population for Residential Aged Care (RAC) and Community Aged Care (CAC)
workers by position type.
108
Table 5.1 Residential Care Workforce Sample Characteristics (Total Sample N=175)
Registered Nurses Enrolled nurses Personal Care Workers Managementa Administrativea
Sample Census Sample Census Sample Census Sample Sample
N=17 Data N=22 Data N=106 Data N=20 N=10
Age (Median) 43 51 52 49 50 47 44 48.5
Job Employment Status (%)
Full time 11.8 19.3 27.3 10.5 7.5 6.9 85.0 40.0
Part Time 70.6 61.3 59.1 74.7 86.8 73.6 15.0 60.0
Casual 11.8 19.4 13.6 14.8 5.7 19.5 0.0 0.0
Unknown 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Number of hours worked a week (%)
1-15 11.8 3.6 4.5 3.9 4.7 3.9 0.0 10.0
16-34 76.5 33.5 59.1 42.7 74.5 56.4 5.0 40.0
35-40 11.8 34.2 36.4 36.0 19.8 32.1 75.0 50.0
>40 0.0 28.6 0.0 17.4 0.9 7.6 20.0 0.0
Tenure in aged care industry (%)
1 year or less 11.8 4.8 4.5 1.8 21.7 9.8 0.0 30.0
2-4 years 23.5 2.1 13.6 1.3 24.5 4.7 30.0 20.0
5-9 years 29.4 21.3 27.3 22.0 24.5 35.4 20.0 20.0
10-14 years 11.8 20.8 18.2 22.6 10.4 22.8 5.0 10.0
15-19 years 0.0 15.0 13.6 11.7 8.5 10.6 20.0 10.0
20 years + 23.5 36.0 22.7 40.5 10.4 16.7 25.0 10.0
Tenure in current job (%)
1 year or less 47.1 21.5 36.4 13.3 41.5 15.1 65.0 60.0
2-4 years 41.2 31.9 13.6 23.5 37.7 34.1 25.0 20.0
5-9 years 5.9 21.0 27.3 25.9 11.3 30.7 5.0 20.0
10+ years 5.9 25.5 22.7 37.3 9.4 20.1 5.0 0.0
*Note census data reported in this table is based on the Residential Care Workforce for the 2012 census was based on 8,568 employees nationally (King et al., 2012)
a
Census data was not available for these positions
109
Table 5.2 Community Care Workforce Sample Characteristics (Total Sample N=176)
Registered Nurses Enrolled nurses Community Care Workers Managementa Administrativea
Sample Census Sample Census Sample Census Sample Sample
N=11 Data N=9 Data N=104 Data N=38 N=14
Age (Median) 46.0 50.0 53.0 49.0 51.0 50.0 44.0 51.0
Job employment status (%)
Full time 11.8 32.6 22.2 17.0 11.5 6.7 92.1 40.0
Part Time 70.6 53.3 77.8 67.2 79.8 62.9 7.9 60.0
Casual 11.8 14.2 0.0 15.8 7.7 30.4 0.0 0.0
Unknown 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Number of hours worked a week (%)
1-15 18.2 2.3 0.0 4.7 22.1 18.5 0.0 14.3
16-34 36.4 41.1 44.4 39.1 70.2 56.4 7.9 7.1
35-40 45.5 38.0 55.6 39.1 7.7 20.2 86.8 71.4
>40 0.0 19.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 4.9 5.3 14.3
Tenure in aged care industry (%)
1 year or less 45.5 5.7 0.0 7.4 28.8 11.6 15.8 7.1
2-4 years 0.0 3.7 22.2 0.7 17.3 5.7 18.4 42.9
5-9 years 18.2 23.3 11.1 16.1 35.6 39.3 26.3 0.9
10-14 years 18.2 19.3 22.2 22.1 5.8 20.8 5.3 14.3
15-19 years 9.1 13.2 11.1 14.8 7.7 9.9 21.1 14.3
20 years + 9.1 34.5 33.3 38.9 4.8 12.6 13.2 7.1
Tenure in current job (%)
1 year or less 72.7 23.8 44.4 13.3 51.0 15.4 55.3 71.4
2-4 years 9.1 29.6 55.6 23.5 22.1 34.6 3.6 14.3
5-9 years 0.0 24.3 0.0 25.9 24.0 31.2 10.5 14.3
10+ years 18.2 22.3 0.0 37.3 2.9 18.8 2.6 0.0
* Note census data reported in this table is based on the Community Care Workforce for the 2012 census was based on 3,128 employees nationally (King et al., 2012)
a
Census data was not available for these positions
110
Tables 5.1 and 5.2 illustrate both similarities and differences between the sample in this
study and the national workforce census data. The median age for Personal Care
Workers (PCW, 50 and 51 years) and Enrolled Nurses (EN, 52 and 53 years) in this
study is older than the census data for Personal Care Workers (47 and 50 years) and
Enrolled Nurses (49 and 49 years) in both RAC and CAC workforces. In contrast to
this, however, Registered Nurses (RN) examined in this study was younger than the
census data across both RAC (43 compared to 51 years) and CAC samples (46
compared to 50 years). Additionally, the sample in this study reported lower tenure
within their current role and in the industry compared to the national averages. Due to
the small sample size for each comparison group in this study, statistical differences
could be examined on only four variables (job status, number of hours worked, tenure in
aged care, and tenure in role) and only for personal care workers and community care
workers. Note tenure in role refers to the length of time they have spent in their current
position. Table 5.3 presents the results of these analyses.
Table 5.3 Chi square statistic tests for differences between sample and census data
N df Chi Square
Job employment status
Community care worker (CAC) 103 2 26.24**
Personal care worker (RAC) 106 2 12.98***
Number of hours worked
Community care worker (CAC) 104 3 17.39**
Personal care worker (RAC) 106 3 17.53**
Tenure – aged care sector
Community care worker (CAC) 104 5 68.37***
Tenure – role
Community care worker (CAC) 104 3 105.81***
** p < .01 *** p < .001
Table 5.3 illustrates that there are statistically significant differences between the
sample and the national census data on all four variables, for two types of employees.
When compared to data from the national census, those who participated in this study
(a) had not been employed as long within either their current role or the sector, (b)
111
worked significantly fewer hours per week, and (c) often held had more permanent jobs
than did the broader aged care population sample.
Most (92.8%) of the present sample was female, and 77.9% of all respondents reported
having an educational qualification higher than a year 12 certificate. This is similar to
previous research which suggests that the aged care workforce is highly feminised and
that a percentage of the workforce still does not have a qualification above year 12
(AIHW, 2011; Elley et al., 2010; King et al., 2012).
Together these statistics reveal that, while there are some similarities, there are also
some significant differences between the sample in this study and the broader national
aged care workforce. As the census data was collected one month prior to the
distribution and collection of this questionnaire, one possible reason for the differences
found could be that the sample that responded to the present questionnaire might not
have responded to the census questionnaire, and thus might have different employee
characteristics and values to those who completed the census questionnaire.
Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, as the census data is based on all aged care
organisations within Australia, and this study samples only four organisations from two
states of Australia, the workforce profile of these organisations may be different from
the national average. However, as the exact reasons for these differences are unknown,
caution should be exercised when generalising these results to the broader population of
aged care workers.
5.1.2 Development of final dataset for analysis

To prepare the dataset for final analysis it was necessary to convert raw scores to the
scale requirements in order to reflect the final scales ready for analysis. This conversion
included both reverse coding and constructing summed scales for each organisational
construct.
Perceived organisational support and perceived supervisor support

Both Perceived Organisational Support (POS) and Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS)
scales were treated the same way. Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 were reverse-coded in
line with previous research by Eisenberger (2011). Averaging the responses to all items
then created the final composite score for each scale, such that higher scores mean
higher levels of POS and PSS, respectively.
112
Job embeddedness
Item 33 of this scale was reverse-coded in line with previous research (Lee et al., 2004).
Additional modifications were made from the original scale to two of the links-
community items to fit an Australian context. First, in the original scale, the item asking
“If you are married, does your spouse work outside the home” was replaced by the item
“If you are married or living with your partner, does your spouse work outside the
home?”, because de-facto relationships often have the same legal rights and recognition
as married couples in Australia. Second, the original item, “Are you currently married?”
with the response options yes and no, was changed to, “What is your relationship
status?” with the options living with a partner or not living with a partner. The
community and organisational links items were then recoded on a scale from zero to
five, as the original scale was open-ended and all other items on this construct were
measured using a zero to five scale. To do this, the raw scores were divided by the
maximum value provided by respondents and then multiplied by five in order to covert
the item to a zero to five scale. In line with past research by (Lee et al., 2004) separate
fit, links and sacrifices sub-scale scores were not computed. Instead, two composite
scales for were created by averaging responses to the items on both the community scale
(off-the-job embeddedness) and organisational scale (on-the-job embeddedness), such
that higher scores meant higher levels of embeddedness within their broader community
or organisation.
Job satisfaction
The job descriptive index and job in general scales were treated as individual subscales.
Job descriptive index
For the work on the present job subscale, item 6 was reverse coded; for the
opportunities for promotion subscale, items 2 and 3 were reverse coded; for the people
on present job subscale, items 1, 3, 4 and 6 were reverse coded; for the satisfaction with
pay subscale, items 1, 4 and 5 were reverse coded; and for the satisfaction with
supervision subscale, item 3 was reverse coded. Scores on each subscale were then
averaged to form composite scales, where higher scores indicated higher satisfaction
with that aspect of their job. This was done in line with instructions provided by the
scale developers (Bowling Green University, 2011).
113
Job in general scale
For the job in general scale, items 5, 6 and 8 were reverse coded as per instructions
provided by Bowling Green State University (2011). Responses to the items were then
averaged to create a composite score ready for analysis, with higher scores indicating
higher levels of general job satisfaction.
Intention to stay and leave

A critical component of investigating two similar constructs as dependent variables is to
ensure all the items measured what they were supposed to measure. Therefore, an
exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring with oblique rotation) was
conducted to ensure the items intended to measure the two dependent variables loaded
onto two distinct scales. Table 5.4 presents the results of this analysis.
114
Table 5.4 Exploratory factor analysis: Intention to leave vs. intention to stay (N=359)
Item Factor 1 (Intent to Leave) Factor 2 (Intent to Stay)
Over the past month I have seriously .909 .141
thought about resigning from this
organisation even though I do not
have another job to go to
Over the past month I have seriously .824 .098

thought about resigning from the
workforce altogether
Over the past month I have seriously .614 -.150

thought about making a real effort to
enter a new or different occupation
outside the aged care sector
Over the past month I have seriously .577 -.141

thought about leaving my primary
organisation to work with another
organisation within the aged care
industry
Under no circumstances will I .031 .608

voluntarily leave this organisation
I would be reluctant to leave this -.060 .756

organisation
I plan to stay at this organisation for -.016 .808

as long as possible
I plan to leave this organisation as .429 -.340

a
soon as possible
a
This item cross-loaded and was not used in subsequent analyses.
Two clear factors with eigenvalues greater than one were found to be measured in the
intention to stay and intention to leave questionnaire data. The intention to stay data was
found to explain 14.99% of variance and had an eigenvalue of 1.05. The intention to
115
leave data explained 51.9% of the variance and had an eigenvalue of 3.63. One reverse-
coded item of the intention to stay scale, however, did not clearly load onto factor two
and was subsequently removed from further analysis. This resulted in three items
measuring employees’ intentions to stay and four items measuring employees’
intentions to leave. Responses to these items were then averaged to create composite
scores for both intentions to stay and leave. No reverse codes were performed on the
remaining items.
To confirm the validity of the intention to stay and leave scale, two confirmatory factor
analyses were performed using AMOS (version 21). One assumption of confirmatory
factor analysis is that all variables must be measured on a continuous scale (Kline,
2011). This assumption was met for both scales. The first confirmatory factor analysis
performed examined the convergent validity of the intention to stay scale and the
second examined the convergent validity of the intention to leave scale.
The chi square value for the intention to stay model was not significant, χ2 (1) = .116, p
< .733, thus indicating a good model fit. Further examination of other fit statistics
confirmed a good model fit with the three-item intention to stay scale, Comparative Fit
Index (CFI) = .98, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 1.00, Root Mean Square Residual
(RMR) = .01, and Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) = .00). A
description of the cut-off points for each of these “fit statistics” is provided later in this
chapter.
To confirm the validity of the inclusion of an additional item to the intention to leave
scale (retirement intentions, explained in Chapter 4), two confirmatory factor analyses
were conducted, one on the four intentions to leave scale items (model 1) and one using
just the original three-item scale (model 2). Table 5.5 shows the fit statistics for both.
Upon removing the extra item (retirement intentions), the fit improved dramatically, as
illustrated by an increase to the CFI and TFI values, and decrease in the RMR and the
RMSEA statistics. Therefore, the researcher conducted all analyses using the original
three-item intention to leave scale, and the three-item intention to stay scale.
116
Table 5.5 Confirmatory factor analysis of intention to leave scale
Model Fit statistics

Number
χ2 df CMIN RMSEA (90%CI) CFI TLI RMR
(χ2/df)
1 25.18 2 12.59 0.18 (0.12-0.25) 0.959 0.88 0.06
2 0.38 1 0.38 0.00 (0.00-0.12) 1.00 1.01 0.02
After completing these modifications, the two final data sets were established, ready for
analysis.
5.1.3 Missing data

Analysing missing data is an important part of the data screening process. This can
ensure that the responses gathered represent the views of all respondents, and are not
biased towards only those who answered. To examine the missing data in the sample for
this study, a missing data analysis and subsequent non-response bias tests were
conducted.
A missing data analysis was performed to identify any patterns in the missing data that
may affect the results obtained. As described later, a substantial amount of participants
did not complete the job satisfaction scale correctly. Leaving this aside, the analysis
revealed that the missing data was missing completely at random with no systematic
issues identified using the Little MCAR technique (χ2 = 20508, df = 20473, p = .429).
Therefore, the researcher was confident in proceeding with the treatment of this missing
data using a two-step procedure involving mean substitution and listwise deletion, both
of which have been recognised as acceptable treatments of missing data (McKnight,
McKnight, Sidani, & Figueredo, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
At step 1, mean value substitution was performed for all missing responses to items that
formed part of a scale where less than 10% of data was missing for that particular
participant on that scale. In practice, this meant that 45 responses were replaced with the
sample mean. No data imputation was performed on variables that were measured using
a single item. Table 5.6 summarises the changes made to participants’ responses to each
scale.
117
Table 5.6 Number of mean substitutions per scale
Scale Number of Cases Changed

Perceived organisational support 9
Perceived supervisor support 5
Job satisfaction: Work on present job 2
Job satisfaction: Satisfaction with supervision 6
Job satisfaction: Opportunities for promotion 0
Job satisfaction: People on the present job 4
Job satisfaction: Pay 0
Job satisfaction: Job in general 1
Intention to stay 4
Intention to leave 2
On-the-job embeddedness 4
Off-the-job embeddedness 8
Total mean substitutions made 45
At step two, if more than 10% of a respondent’s data was missing from a particular
scale, all of that participant’s responses were deleted from the dataset using listwise
deletion. Using this two-stage approach for the variables, perceived organisational
support, perceived supervisor support, job embeddedness, intention to leave and
intention to stay scales, a total of 359 useable responses were identified. However, when
performing the same analysis with the inclusion of the job satisfaction scale, a total of
only 227 useable responses were identified. Therefore, two (overlapping) datasets were
prepared for analysis in this study. The first dataset included all variables except the job
satisfaction items (N=359), and the second included the job satisfaction items plus all
other items (N=227). The large difference between the datasets was due to the job
satisfaction scale, where respondents were asked to answer Yes (Y), No (N), or
Unknown (?) to a series of statements that applied to them. While this scale has been
widely validated in the literature (Kinicki et al., 2002; Russell et al., 2004), in this study
respondents failed to provide a response to each statement. Instead, many respondents
to the questionnaire tended to provide a Yes for one or more items in the scale, leaving
the remaining unanswered statements blank. As the researcher could not validly
ascertain if the blank responses meant respondents disagreed (N) or were unsure (?)
118
with their answer, this was recorded as missing data. Thus, because only 227
respondents completed this scale correctly, two datasets were created in order to
maximise the data available for analysis using the other scales.
To examine the differences between the two datasets, and thereby to determine if there
were any differences between the responders and non-responders to the job satisfaction
item, non-response bias tests were conducted using chi-square and t-test analyses on the
personal and organisational factors. The results are presented in Tables 5.7 and 5.8.
Table 5.7 Chi Square analysis of differences between groups who did and did not
respond to the job satisfaction items
Group 1 Frequencya Group 2 Frequencyb χ2

Education status
Grade 10 21 20
Grade 11-12 24 13
TAFE Cert III 60 35 .697
TAFE Cert IV 30 17
TAFE Diploma 33 15
Bachelor 32 7
Masters 9 7
Hospital 17 6
Kinship responsibilities
Yes 82 145
No 37 95 .131
Area of aged care
Community 112 61
Residential 107 68 .630
Both 8 3
a
Group 1 represents those employees who responded to all items on the questionnaire
(N = 359) .
b
Group 2 represents those employees who did not respond to the Job Satisfaction scale
items (N = 227)
119
Table 5.8 Independent group T-test analyses of differences between groups who did and
did not respond to the job satisfaction items
Variablesc Group 1a Group 2b T Value

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Age (years) 47 (11.34) 51 (11.87) 3.08**
Overall health of self 5.41 (1.25) 5.52 (1.01) -0.84
Overall health of family 5.34 (1.36) 5.44 (1.15) -0.68
Tenure – present job (years) .55 (.69) .71 (.71) -2.07*
Tenure – organisation (years) .64 (.69) .87 (.83) -2.78**
Tenure – sector (years) 1.09 (1.05) 1.38 (1.09) -2.50*
Perceived organisational support 4.63 (1.15) 4.71 (.96) -0.64
Perceived supervisor support 5.09 (1.17) 4.91 (1.02) 1.45
Off-the-job embeddedness 2.99 (.46) 3.08 (.36) -1.67
On-the-job embeddedness 2.40 (.41) 2.54 (.38) -3.09**
Intention to stay 3.38 (1.01) 3.46 (.88) -0.72
Intention to leave 2.15 (1.07) 2.06 (.94) 0.80
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
a
Group 1 represents those employees who responded to all items on the questionnaire
(N=359)
b
Group 2 represents those employees who did not respond to the job satisfaction scale
items (N=227)
c
Age, tenure-job, tenure-organisation and tenure-sector were open-ended questions; Health of
Self and Family were measured on a scale of 1 = strongly disagree, to 6 = strongly agree.
Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured on a seven-
point Likert scale. Off-the-Job and On-the-Job Embeddedness were measured using both open
and five-point scales. Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave scales were measured using a
five-point Likert scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
As shown in Table 5.7, there were no differences between the two datasets on the
categorical items examined. However, as demonstrated in Table 5.8, the two sub-
samples differed in age, tenure and on-the-job embeddedness. That is, the smaller data
set consisted of older, more experienced and more embedded (on the job) workers than
did the larger data set. One possible reason for these differences could be that the older,
120
more experienced and more embedded employees are more used to completing
questionnaires at their workplace. Therefore, they took their time to read the instructions
carefully. Alternatively, perhaps they were more interested in these items, and their
answers reflected this interest. Regardless, as the exact reasons for these differences are
unknown, care should be made when interpreting analyses involving these items in the
smaller dataset. Importantly, no differences between the datasets were found on
employees’ intentions to stay and leave or any other predictor variable. Therefore the
researcher was comfortable to proceed with caution to conduct further analyses. The
next section reports on the analyses performed using these two datasets (N=359 and
N=227).
5.2 Data analysis results
This study investigated five primary research questions:

3. What are the similarities and differences between the factors influencing
employees’ intentions to stay in and leave?
4. Do these factors differ across residential and community aged care settings?
To investigate these questions and the hypotheses proposed in chapter 3, descriptive

statistics, bivariate correlations, t-tests, Analysis of Variances (ANOVAs), Multivariate
Analysis of Variance (MANOVAs), hierarchical regression analyses and structural
equation modelling analyses were performed. This section begins by providing an
overview of the descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations before discussing the
assumptions underlying the multivariate analyses.
5.2.1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations

Tables 5.9 and 5.10 present the descriptive statistics and correlations between the study
variables for both the larger (Table 5.9) and smaller (Table 5.10) datasets.
121
Table 5.9 Descriptive statistics and correlations between the demographic and employment-related variables (N=359)
Variable a M SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Age 48.20 11.68 - -
2. Education level 5.00 2.04 - .13* -
3. Hours worked 30.24 8.94 - .04 .24*** -
4. Primary caregiver responsibility 0.33 0.47 - .17** .02 -.15** -
5. Overall health – self 5.46 1.17 - .01 .13* .04 -.09 -
6. Overall health – family 5.38 1.29 - -.03 .13* .01 -.02 .63*** -
7. Off-the-job embeddedness 3.16 0.48 .78 -.01 -.07 -.07 .07 .28*** .26*** -
8. On-the-job embeddedness 2.82 0.51 .86 .03 .06 .13* -.05 .13* .07 .40*** -
9. Perceived organisational support 4.66 1.09 .94 .14** -.01 -.09 .09 .07 .02 .21*** .68*** -
10. Perceived supervisor support 5.03 1.11 .95 .11* .06 .01 .04 .03 .02 .20*** .54*** .69*** -
11. Intention to stay 3.41 0.97 .85 -.12* -.10 .01 .09 .06 .02 .26*** .49*** .41*** .34*** -
12. Intention to leave 2.12 1.02 .78 -.03 .02 -.04 -.09 -.04 -.06 -.22*** -.53*** -.52*** -.40*** -.50***
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
a
Age and Hours worked were open-ended questions; Education level was coded 1 (grade 10) -7 (Masters/ Graduate Certificate); Health of Self and Family
were measured on a scale of 1 = strongly disagree, to 6 = strongly agree. Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured
on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Off-the-Job and On-the-Job Embeddedness was measured using both
open and five-point scales. Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave scales were measured using a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) – 5
(strongly agree).
122
Table 5.10 Descriptive statistics and correlations for the demographic and employment-related variables (N=227)
Variable a Mean SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Age 48.00 11.37 - -
2. Education level 5.03 1.96 - .15* -
3. Hours worked 30.54 8.81 - .03 .16* -
4. Primary caregiver responsibility 0.37 0.49 - .15* -.05 -.20** -
5. Overall health – self 5.41 1.23 - -.02 .12 .06 -.07 -
6. Overall health – family 5.34 1.36 - -.11 .15* .40 -.05 .69*** -
7. Off-the-job embeddedness 2.96 0.47 .81 -.11 -.02 -.09 .09 .23*** .20***
8. On-the-job embeddedness 2.42 0.42 .86 -.08 .05 .13* -.02 .12 .11
9. Perceived organisational support 4.63 1.16 .95 .16* .03 -.08 .12 .12 .08
10. Perceived supervisor support 5.11 1.17 .96 .09 .09 .02 .03 .07 .09
11. Satisfaction with work on present job 2.09 0.68 .69 .04 -.12 .01 .08 .01 .01
12. Satisfaction with supervisor 2.31 0.83 .80 .08 -.03 -.09 .11 -.01 .05
13. Satisfaction with opportunities for
1.18 0.89 .82 .14* .01 .18** .03 .03 .01
promotion
14. Satisfaction with people on job 2.23 0.85 .80 .09 .04 .00 .14* .12* .13 *
15. Satisfaction with pay 1.37 1.01 .84 .18** .11 .25*** -.09 .06 -.04
16. Satisfaction with job in general 2.33 0.71 .80 -.04 -.11 .05 .08 .07 .04
17. Intention to stay 3.42 1.00 .81 -.01 -.12 .02 .09 .07 -.01
18. Intention to leave 2.13 1.07 .81 -.02 -.06 -.08 -.17* -.03 -.08
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

a
Age and Hours worked were open ended questions; Education level was coded 1 (grade 10) – 7 (Masters/ Graduate Certificate); Health of Self and Family
were measured on a scale of 1= strongly disagree, to 6 = strongly agree. Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured
open and five-point scales. Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave scales were measured using a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree).
123
Table 5.10 Descriptive statistics and correlations for the demographic and employment-related variables (N = 227) continued
Variablea 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. Age
2. Education level
3. Hours worked
4. Primary caregiver responsibility
5. Overall health- self
6. Overall health – family
7. Off-the-job embeddedness -
8. On-the-job embeddedness .41*** -
9. Perceived organisational support .22*** .62*** -
10. Perceived supervisor support .15* .49*** .64*** -
11. Satisfaction with work on present job .23*** .50*** .46*** .31*** -
12. Satisfaction with supervisor .12 .37*** .46*** .68*** .33*** -
13. Satisfaction with opportunities for
.00 .48*** .51*** .39*** .40*** .33*** -
promotion
14. Satisfaction with people on job .29*** .40*** .45*** .30*** .41*** .34*** .28*** -
15. Satisfaction with pay .04 .43*** .31*** .18*** .20*** .20*** .26*** .26*** -
16. Satisfaction with job in general .24*** .60*** .58*** .44*** .64*** .41*** .45*** .44*** .35*** -
17. Intention to stay .30*** .51*** .42*** .33*** .37*** .32*** .33*** .26*** .22** .50*** -
18. Intention to leave -.22*** -.52*** -.53*** -.41*** -.35*** -.32*** -.39*** -.41*** -.32*** -.54*** -.54***
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

a
Age and Hours worked were open ended questions; Education level was coded 1 (grade 10) – 7 (Masters/ Graduate Certificate); Health of Self and Family
were measured on a scale of 1= strongly disagree, to 6 = strongly agree. Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured
open and five-point scales. Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave scales were measured using a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree).
124
As demonstrated in Table 5.9, both the predictors and dependent variables displayed
good reliability (α = >.78). Respondents reported moderately low intentions to leave as
indicated by the mean of intention to stay that was above the scale mid-point and a
mean of intention to leave that was below the scale mid-point. The two dependent
variables were moderately negatively correlated (r = -.50) and the four main predictors
(perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support, on-the-job
embeddedness, and off-the-job embeddedness) were significantly correlated, in the
expected directions, with both intention to stay and intention to leave. Contrary to
expectations, each of education level, hours worked, primary caregiver responsibility,
overall health of self and of family were all unrelated to the dependent variables (DVs),
intention to stay and leave. Instead, the only personal variable found to be related was
age and even that was related to the DVs in the larger data set only.
Interestingly and unexpectedly, Table 5.9 shows significant positive relationships

between overall health of self and off-the-job embeddedness (r = .26), overall health of
family and off-the-job embeddedness (r = .23), overall health of self and on-the-job
embeddedness (r = .11), and hours worked and on-the-job embeddedness (r = .14).
Moreover, significant positive relationships were found between age and both perceived
organisational support (r = .14) and perceived supervisor support (r = .13).
Additionally, the correlations between on-the-job and off-the-job embeddedness and
intention to leave are in line with previous research by Jiang et al. (2012). That is, in
this study, on-the-job (r = -.52) and off-the job (r = -.22) embeddedness were
moderately correlated with intention to leave, and in the meta-analysis conducted by
Jiang et al. (2012) moderate correlations between on-the-job (r = -.44) and off-the-job
(r = -.21) embeddedness and intentions to leave were reported.
Using the smaller dataset, with the addition of job satisfaction, Table 5.10 demonstrates
all measures report good overall reliabilities (α >.80). Additionally, respondents
reported low intentions to leave in respondents. Similarly to Table 5.9, in this dataset
there was a moderate negative correlation between the two dependent variables (r = -
.54) and significant correlations, in the expected directions, of the main predictors with
the dependent variables. In this dataset, the personal variable, primary caregiver
responsibilities, had a significant relationship with the intention to leave. Therefore, to
control for the possible influence of this variable, primary caregiver responsibility was
included in the regression analyses performed.
125
Table 5.10 also highlighted some unpredicted relationships between the variables. First,
a positive relationship was found between education level and overall health of family
(r = .15). Additionally, positive relationships were found between primary caregiver
responsibilities and satisfaction with opportunities for promotion (r = .17), and overall
health of family and satisfaction with people on the Job (r = .13). Interestingly, a
significant positive relationship was identified between age and on-the-job
embeddedness (r = .15), satisfaction with opportunities for promotion (r = .16), and
satisfaction with pay (r = .14). A significant negative relationship was found between
primary caregiver responsibilities and opportunities for promotion (r = -.14). Finally, all
of the organisational predictors were significantly correlated with each other, with the
exception of off-the job embeddedness and each of satisfaction with supervisor,
satisfaction with opportunities for promotion, and satisfaction with pay.
Together, these findings provide partial support for hypothesis 5, which proposed that
employees with kinship responsibilities (primary caregiver responsibilities) will report
higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave. That is, a relationship between
kinship responsibilities and intention to leave was found in the smaller data set.
Additionally, bivariate correlation analyses provided no support for the expected
relationships between any of the four predictor variables (education levels - H2,
perceived health of self - H6a, perceived health of family - H6b, and number of hours
worked - H7b) and either of the dependent variables, intention to stay or intention to
leave.
Tenure
To investigate the relationship between years of employee tenure and intentions to stay
and leave, bivariate correlation analyses were performed. Tenure was not included in
the original bivariate analyses as job embeddedness included tenure as a factor in the
calculation of an employees’ on-the-job embeddedness. Therefore, a separate bivariate
analysis was performed to examine the relationship between tenure and employees’
intentions to stay and leave. Table 5.11 presents the correlations and descriptive
statistics for this analysis (N=359).
126
Table 5.11 Descriptive statistics and correlations for tenure and intentions to stay and
leave (N= 359)
Variablea M SD α 1 2 3 4
1. Tenure in position (years) 3.65 4.21 -
2. Tenure in organisation (years) 4.47 4.64 .81*** -
3. Tenure in industry (years) 9.60 8.59 .43*** .53*** -
4. Intention to stay (years) 3.41 0.97 .85 .00 .04 .03 -
5. Intention to leave (years) 2.12 1.03 .78 .11* .07 .01 -.50***
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
a
Tenure in position, organisation and industry were measured using open-ended questions. Intention
to stay and leave was measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree)
As evident in Table 5.11, tenure at an organisation and within the aged care sector was
not significantly correlated with intentions to stay or intentions to leave. However,
tenure within position was significantly positively correlated with intention to leave.
This finding was contrary to our expected result as hypotheses 4 proposed that
employees with longer tenure will have higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to
leave. Instead, this finding suggests those with longer tenures are more likely to leave.
To further examine the relationships between age, marital status, area of employment
and job employment status on employees’ intentions to stay and leave, group level
analyses were performed. These are described in the next section.
5.2.2 Analysis of Group Differences
5.2.2.1 Age differences

Age differences were examined in two ways. First, differences between younger and
older workers were examined, then differences between generations were further
explored.
To examine the differences between younger and older workers’ intentions to leave and
stay (H1a), a cut-off value of 45 years was used as the Australian Bureau of Statistics
(2011) defines older workers as those aged 45 years or above. To examine any
differences between these two groups, an independent samples t-test was performed.
This analysis revealed no significant differences between older (M = 3.44, SD = 0.94)
and younger (M = 3.35, SD = 1.05) workers’ intentions to stay. Similarly, no significant
127
differences were found between older (M = 2.13, SD = 1.05) and younger (M = 2.11,
SD = 0.96) employees’ intentions to leave. Therefore, no support was provided for
hypothesis 1a, which proposed that younger workers would report lower intentions to
stay and higher intentions to leave than older workers.
Table 5.12 Generation differences ANOVA results
Early Baby Late Baby Early Gen Late Gen X

Boomer Boomer X&Y &Y
Variablea F
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Perceived organisational
4.56 (1.03) 4.52 (1.13) 4.95 (1.10) 5.00 (0.96) 3.63*
support
Perceived supervisor support 4.84 (1.03) 4.94 (1.22) 5.32 (1.05) 5.38 (0.86) 3.70*
On-the-job embeddedness 2.83 (0.51) 2.78 (0.52) 2.94 (0.49) 2.92 (0.52) 0.42
Off-the-job embeddedness 3.17 (0.39) 3.19 (0.49) 3.11 (0.60) 3.13 (0.52) 0.45
Intention to stay 3.60 (0.98) 3.37 (0.91) 3.62 (1.08) 3.15 (0.90) 2.86*
Intention to leave 2.16 (1.04) 2.11 (1.07) 2.01 (0.98) 2.16 (0.87) 0.26
* p < .05.
a
Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured on a seven-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Off-the-Job and On-the-Job
Embeddedness was measured using both open and five-point Likert scales scales ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave scales were measured
using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Hypothesis 1b proposed that there will be generational differences in the employee

behaviours and relationships and people management strategies, as well as overall
intentions to stay and intentions to leave. Given the small numbers within the Veteran
and I-generation groups, this study investigated differences between four groups only:
late Baby Boomer (N = 140), early Baby Boomer (N = 91), early Generation X and Y
(N = 54) and late Generation X and Y (N = 37). To examine these differences, one-way
between groups analyses of variances (ANOVAs) were performed. Differences between
each generation’s job satisfaction could not be performed due to inadequate sample
sizes.
Visual inspections of histograms, box-plots and normal probability plots (Q-Q plots) to
examine the skewness and kurtosis of each variable, as well as inspections of the
128
Shapiro-Wilk statistic for each variable, demonstrated the normality assumption was
met for all six variables. Similarly, the levene’s statistic was non-significant for
perceived organisational support (F (3,329) = .12, p = .95), perceived supervisor
support (F (3,329) = 1.66, p = .18), on-the-job embeddedness (F (3,329) = .12, p = .95),
intention to stay (F (3,329) = .55, p = .65) and intention to leave (F (3,329) = 1.25 p =
.29), meaning that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not violated.
However, this assumption was violated for off-the-job embeddedness, as indicated by a
significant Levene’s statistic (F (3,329) = 3.19, p < .05). Therefore, a Welch F-test was
used to examining off-the-job embeddedness.
To examine differences between the levels of perceived organisational support in each

generation, a one-way between-groups ANOVA was performed. Table 5.12 presents the
results of this analysis, which revealed a statistically significant difference between the
generations on their perceived organisational support, F (3,332) = 3.63, p < .05. Further
examination of these differences using Tukey’s HSD (α = .05) revealed no statistically
significant differences between the groups, although the difference between early Baby
Boomers and Early Generation X and Y was approaching significance (p = .05). The
omnibus effect size for this comparison was η2 = .032, indicating that 3.2% of the
variability in perceived organisational support can be attributed to generational
differences, representing a small effect size.
To examine generational differences in perceived supervisor support, another one-way

between-groups ANOVA was performed. Similar to perceived organisational support
and as shown in Table 5.12, a significant difference was identified between generations
on their reported perceived supervisor support, F (3,332) = 3.70, p < .05. Examination
of Tukey’s HSD (using an α of .05) highlighted no significant differences between the
generations; however, the difference between early Baby Boomers and early Generation
X and Y was approaching significance (p = .06) as was the difference between early
Baby Boomers and late Generation X and Y (p = .06). These findings suggest that early
Baby Boomers reported slightly lower levels of perceived supervisor support than did
early and late Generation X and Y, although these differences were not significant at the
0.05 level. For this comparison, the omnibus effect size was η2 = .033, indicating that
3.3% of the variability in perceived supervisor support can be attributed to generational
differences, representing a small effect size.
129
The third ANOVA examined generational differences in on-the-job embeddedness;
these findings are also displayed in Table 5.12. No significant differences were found
between the generations in their on-the-job embeddedness, F (3,332) = .419, p = .74.
For this comparison, a very small omnibus effect size was found η2 = .004.
To examine generational differences in off-the-job embeddedness, a between-groups

ANOVA was also performed. However, because the assumption of homogeneity of
variance was violated for this analysis, the Welch F statistic was used to examine
generational differences. This analysis revealed no significant differences between the
generations’ off-the-job embeddedness, F (3, 113) = .45, p = .72. Similar to on-the-job
embeddedness, a very small omnibus effect size was found η2 = .003.
The fifth ANOVA performed investigated generational differences in employees’

intentions to stay. This analysis found significant differences between the generations
on their intentions to stay, F (3,332) = 2.86, p < .05 as shown in Table 5.12. Further
examination of Tukey’s HSD statistic (α = .05) revealed no statistically significant
differences between the groups. The omnibus effect size for this comparison was η2 =
.025, indicating that 2.5% of the variability in intentions to stay can be attributed to
generational differences, representing a small effect size.
The final ANOVA performed to examine generational differences in intentions to leave

revealed no significant differences, F (3,332) = .26, p =.86, η2 = .002 in this analysis,
which is characterised as a very small effect size. Table 5.12 displays the results of this
analysis.
In summary, these analyses revealed significant overall generational differences in

perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support and intentions to stay.
However, post-hoc analyses revealed that all differences between pairs of generational
groups were not significant. Although, there was a trend in the data for the Generation
X and Y respondents to report higher levels of perceived organisational support and
perceived supervisor support than did the Baby Boomers. This meant that partial
support was found for hypothesis 1b, which proposed there will be generational
differences in the employee behaviours and relationships and people management
strategies, as well as overall intentions to stay and intentions to leave. Further
examination of these differences in the qualitative data received through the open-ended
questionnaire questions will be presented in Chapter 6.
130
5.2.2.2 Residential care vs. community care workers
Hypothesis eight proposed that there will be differences in the employee behaviour and
relationships, people management strategies and intentions to stay and leave reported by
residential aged care and community aged care employees. Six independent samples t-
tests were performed to examine differences between area of employment and
employees’ perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support, on-the-job
embeddedness, off-the-job embeddedness, intention to stay and intention to leave. The
results of this analysis are found in Table 5.13
Table 5.13 Independent group t-test analysis results and descriptive statistics
Community Residential Care

Variable Care Workers Workers t
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Perceived Organisational Support 4.97 (0.98) 4.33 (1.12) 5.74***
Perceived Supervisor Support 5.31 (0.99) 4.73 (1.18) 5.02***
On-the-job embeddedness 2.85 (0.47) 2.78 (0.54) 1.51
Off-the-job embeddedness 3.20 (0.45) 3.11 (.50) 1.75
Intention to Stay 3.50 (0.99) 3.29 (0.93) 2.03*
Intention to Leave 1.98 (0.97) 2.28 (1.06) -2.75**
* p < .05. ** p <.01. *** p < .001.
a
Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured on a seven-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Off-the-Job and On-the-Job
Embeddedness was measured using both open and five-point Likert scales scales ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave scales were measured using a
five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were met in these analyses.
Significant differences between residential care and community care workers were
identified in perceived organisational support (t (349) = 5.75, p < .001), perceived
supervisor support (t (349) = 5.02, p < .001), intention to stay (t (349) = 2.03, p < .05),
and intention to leave (t (349) = -2.75, p < .01). Inspection of the group means revealed
that community care workers reported higher levels of perceived organisational support
(M = 4.97. SD = 0.98), perceived supervisor support (M = 5.13. SD = 0.99), higher
intentions to stay (M = 3.50. SD = 0.99), and lower intentions to leave (M = 1.98. SD =
0.97), than did residential care workers.
131
Further examination of differences between residential care and community care
workers’ job satisfaction using the smaller dataset also highlighted significant
differences between the groups, as shown in Table 5.14. Assumptions of normality and
homogeneity of variances were also met in this set of analyses.
Table 5.14 Differences between community and residential care employees’ job
satisfaction
Community Care Workers Residential Care Workers

Variablea Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t
Satisfaction with work on 2.25 (0.60) 1.90 (0.73) 3.85***
present job
Satisfaction with supervision 2.56 (0.60) 2.06 (0.96) 4.70***
Satisfaction with 1.28 (0.88) 1.12 (0.92) 1.39
opportunities for promotion
Satisfaction with people on 2.52 (0.62) 1.91 (0.96) 5.58***
present job
Satisfaction with pay 1.52 (1.01) 1.23 (.98) 2.17*
Satisfaction with job in 2.50 (0.55) 2.11 (0.92) 4.21***
general
* p < .05 *** p < .001
a
All variables were measured by answering Yes (3), No (0), or ? (1).
As shown in Table 5.14, significant differences were identified between community

care and residential care workers’ job satisfaction. Further examination of these
differences revealed that community care workers reported significantly higher levels of
satisfaction with the work on present job (t (317) = 3.85, p < .001), supervision (t (317)
= 4.70, p < .001), people on present job (t (317) = 5.58, p < .001), pay (t (317) = 2.17, p
< .05), and job in general (t (317) = 4.21, p < .001). No differences were identified
between satisfaction with opportunities for promotion between the two groups.
Combined, these findings in the majority support hypothesis 8, which proposed that
there would be differences in the employee behaviour and relationships, people
management strategies, intentions to stay and intentions to leave reported by residential
aged care and community aged care employees. Further assessment of any differences
132
between the factors influencing residential and community care employees’ short-term
and long-term intentions to stay and leave is provided in Chapter 6.
5.2.2.3 Employment status

To investigate any differences between employee employment status (Full-Time, Part-
Time and Casual) and their intentions to stay and leave, two one-way Analyses of
Variance (ANOVAs) were performed. Assumptions of normality were met for
variables, and the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met for intentions to
leave (F (2,356) = 1.38, p = .25) but not intention to stay (F (2, 356) = 6.69, p < .01),
therefore Welch’s F statistic was used to compare the groups on intentions to stay.
Analysis of differences between full-time (M = 3.41, SD = 1.13) part-time (M = 3.39,

SD = 0.87) or casual (M = 3.71, SD = 1.13) employees and their intentions to stay
revealed no significant differences between groups, F (2, 356) = 1.14, p = .32). This
analysis represented a very small effect size, as indicated by η2 = 0.006. Additionally, no
differences were found between full-time (M = 2.08, SD = 0.98) part-time (M = 2.18,
SD = 1.05) or casual (M = 1.73, SD = 0.92) employees and their intention to leave (F
(2, 356) = 1.13, p = .12). Similar to the analysis of intentions to stay, this analysis
revealed a small effect size, η2 = .012.
These findings are contrary to hypotheses 7A, which predicts that employees who are
on casual contracts will have higher intentions to leave and lower intentions to stay than
those who are employed more permanently in part-time or full-time roles. Instead, in
this study, there was a trend for more permanent employees to have higher intentions to
To examine the combined influence that personal variables (age and primary caregiver
responsibilities) and organisational variables (perceived organisational support,
perceived supervisor support, job embeddedness and job satisfaction) have on
employees’ intentions to stay and leave, hierarchical regression analyses were
performed. Prior to performing these analyses, considerations as to the sample size and
assumptions underpinning this analytic technique are discussed.
133
5.2.3 Hierarchical regression
5.2.3.1 Sample size

In order to perform regression analyses, there is a need to ensure that the data set is an
appropriate size. However, the literature offers different views about an appropriate
sample size. Green (1991) proposed that a minimum of 103 responses are needed for
regression analyses to detect a medium effect size, with seven predictors. On the
contrary, Tabachnick & Fiddell (2013) proposed that is required when
examining relationships between variables, using a medium effect size, where m is
equal to the number of predictors. Adopting this formula for this study, the minimum
sample size for this study would be 106 respondents. As this study uses a minimum of
227 and a maximum sample size of 359 to conduct the analyses, the sample sizes were
considered to be satisfactory for performing the current hierarchical regression analyses.
5.2.3.2 Assumptions for regression analyses

Three core assumptions of hierarchical regression analyses are addressed in this section
(Hair et al., 2008).
1. Linear relationships between the independent and dependent variables.
The use of regression analyses requires there to be a linear relationship between the
independent variables and the dependent variables. To test this, the researcher inspected
the residual plots of each predictor variable to the dependent variable and found this
relationship to be linear.
2. Constant variance of the error terms
The second assumption required to be met is the presence of equal variance in the
residuals across all values predicted. Visual inspection of residual plots found this
assumption met in the current study.
3. Normality of the error term distribution
To investigate the normality of error terms, visual inspection of a residual histogram

was initially performed to detect any non-normality. Normal probability plots were then
inspected to compare the standardised residuals to the normal distribution. This revealed
the residual line was close to the diagonal line (normal line) and therefore error terms
were determined as meeting this criterion.
134
In addition to these assumptions, some other considerations were investigated. First, the
variables need to be measured reliably. This is indicated by Chronbach’s a > .70
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). In this study, as discussed previously, all measures
reported were reliable, Chronbach’s a > .69. The second additional consideration is the
absence of outliers among the predictor variables on the dependent variable. This was
examined using visual inspection of boxplots, and residual plots, as well as
investigating Mahalanobis distance scores for multivariate outliers. Any Mahalanobis
distance score above 24.3 (seven predictors at p < .001) was considered to be an outlier.
Inspection of these scores revealed no outliers on any variable within this study.
The final consideration needing examination prior to conducting regression analyses

was the absence of multicollinearity and singularity. To examine the absence of
multicollinearity and singularity, tolerance statistic and variance inflation factor (VIF)
scores were calculated after performing the hierarchical regression analysis as these
statistics require knowledge of R2.
Tolerance examines the amount of variability of IVs not explained by other variables,
and is calculated using the formula 1 - R2. The variance inflation factor examines the
degree to which the standard error has been increased due to multicollinearity, and is
measured by the formula 1√R2 (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 2013). This analysis revealed no
multicollinearity in the data set as evident in Table 5.15.
135
Table 5.15 Tolerance and variance inflation factor analyses
Variablea Tolerance Variance Inflation Factor

Age 0.94 1.07
Primary caregiver responsibility 0.99 1.01
Perceived organisational support 0.37 2.68
Perceived supervisor support 0.49 2.04
Off-the-job embeddedness 0.82 1.21
On-the-job embeddedness 0.47 2.13
Job In general* 0.56 1.78
*This variable was measured using the smaller database (N=227). All other variables were measured
using the larger database (N=359)
a
Age was an open-ended questions; Primary caregiver responsibility was measured as a dichotomous
variables (yes, no); Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured
on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Off-the-Job and
On-the-Job Embeddedness was measured using both open and five-point scales. Job in General was
measured by answering Yes (3), No (0), or ? (1).
Upon examination of the assumptions, the researcher was comfortable to move onto
performing the hierarchical regression analyses.
5.2.3.3 Hierarchical regression analyses results

To examine the relationship that the personal variables, age and primary caregiver
responsibility, and the core theoretical variables, perceived supervisor support,
perceived organisational support, on-the-job embeddedness, and off-the-job
embeddedness had with employees’ intentions to stay and leave, two hierarchical
regressions were performed. Predictors were entered in three steps: 1. Age and primary
caregiver responsibility; 2. Perceived supervisor support, On-the-job embeddedness and
Off-the-job embeddedness; and 3. Perceived organisational support. Age and primary
caregiver responsibilities were entered first in order to control for the effects that these
variables have on the relationship between the core theoretical variables and the
dependent variables. Additionally, hypothesis 12 predicts that perceived organisational
support mediates the relationship between perceived supervisor support and intention to
leave and stay; therefore perceived organisational support was added at step 3 in the
analysis. Table 5.16 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analyses.
136
Table 5.16 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses predicting intentions to stay and leave (N=359)
Step Predictor Variablea Intention to Stay Intention to Leave

B SE β R2 R 2
B SE B Β R2 R2
B (Adj.R2) Chang (Adj.R2) Change
e
1 Age -.01 .00 -.14** .00 .01 .05
Primary caregiver responsibility -.23 .11 -.11* .03 (.02)** .03** -.22 .12 -.10 .01 (.01) .01
2 Age -.01 .00 -.16** .01 .00 .08

Primary caregiver responsibility .17 .10 .10* -.17 .10 -.08
Perceived supervisor support .11 .05 .12* -.16 .05 -.17**
Off-the-job embeddedness .12 .10 .06 .00 .10 .00
On-the-job embeddedness .77 .11 .40*** .28 (.27)*** .26*** -.88 .11 -.44*** .31 (.30)*** .30***
3 Age -.01 .00 -.17*** .01 .00 .10*

Primary caregiver responsibility -.16 .09 -.08 -.14 .10 -.07
Perceived supervisor support .05 .06 .05 -.04 .06 -.04
Off-the-job embeddedness .13 .10 .07 -.03 .10 -.02
On-the-job embeddedness .64 .13 .34*** -.62 .13 -.31***
Perceived organisational support .13 .06 .15* .29 (.28)*** .01* -.27 .07 -.29*** .34 (.33)*** .04***
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
a
Age was an open-ended question; Primary caregiver responsibility was measured as a dichotomous variables (1 = yes, 0 = no); Perceived Organisational Support and
Perceived Supervisor Support were measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Off-the-Job and On-the-Job
Embeddedness were measured using five-point scales ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Intention to Stay and Intention to Leave variables were
measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
137
As shown in Table 5.16, the model predicting intentions to stay explained 29% of the
variance, p < .001. At step 1, age and primary caregiver responsibilities were
significant, explaining 3% of the variance, p < .01. At step 2, entry of the core
predictors accounted for an additional 26% of the variance in the criterion (p < .001),
with perceived supervisor support, on-the-job embeddedness, primary caregiver
responsibilities and age all found to be significant individual predictors of intentions to
stay. However, off-the-job embeddedness was not significant. At step 3, the influence of
perceived organisational support was examined, and was found to explain a further 1%
of the variance in employees’ intentions to stay. The introduction of this variable meant
that the direct relationship between perceived supervisor support and intention to stay
became non-significant. These changes suggest that perceived organisational support
may be mediating the relationship between perceived supervisor support and intention
to stay. In summary, this analysis found that the variables age, primary caregiver
responsibilities, on-the-job embeddedness and perceived organisational support were
significant individual predictors of employees’ intentions to stay.
In contrast, the model predicting employees’ intentions to leave explained 34% of the
variance in this criterion, p < .001. At step 1, age and primary caregiver responsibilities
were found to explain 1% of the variance in employees’ intentions to leave. At step 2,
entry of three core predictors accounted for an additional 30% of the variance (p <
.001). At this step, perceived supervisor support and On-the-job embeddedness were
significant (p < .01), whereas age, primary caregiver responsibility and Off-the-job
embeddedness were not. At step 3, perceived organisational support was added to the
model to examine the additional influence this variable plays in explaining employees’
intentions to leave. This variable explained an additional 4% of the variance in
employees’ intentions to leave (p < .001). After adding this variable, age, On-the-job
embeddedness and perceived organisational support were significant individual
predictors of employees’ intentions to leave; however, perceived supervisor support,
Off-the-job embeddedness and primary caregiver responsibilities were not. These
findings provide initial support for hypotheses 12, which argues that the relationship
between perceived supervisor support and intention to leave is mediated by perceived
organisational support. Similar to the intention to stay model, age, on-the-job
embeddedness and perceived organisational support were all significant individual
predictors in the intention to stay model. However, primary caregiver responsibilities
were not. Thus, while similar relationships were found in the organisational predictors’
138
relationship to the dependent variables, personal factors influenced employees’ intention
to stay more so than they predicted their intention to leave. Additionally, the findings
provide some support for hypothesis 13, which proposed that, combined, the personal
factors and organisational factors explain a higher percentage of variance in employees’
intention to stay and leave than the individual factors alone.
To examine the additional variance that job satisfaction explains in employees’

intentions to stay and leave, two further hierarchical regression analyses were performed
on the smaller dataset, using the same variables in the analysis, with the exception of the
addition of the job satisfaction variable. Predictors were entered in four steps: 1. Age
and primary caregiver responsibility; 2. Perceived supervisor support, on-the-job
embeddedness, and off-the-job embeddedness; 3. Perceived organisational support; and
4. Job satisfaction in general. Table 5.17 presents the results of the hierarchical
regression equation. As evident in this table, the introduction of the job satisfaction in
general variable resulted in a significant amount of extra variance explained in both the
intention to stay and intention to leave models, even with a reduced sample size.
139
Table 5.17 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses predicting intentions to stay and leave (N = 227)
Step Predictor Variable Intention to Stay Intention to Leave

B SE B β R2 R 2
B SE B Β R2 R2
(Adj.R2) Change (Adj.R2) Change
1 Age -.01 .01 -.11 .00 .01 .05
Primary Caregiver Responsibility .22 .14 .11 .02 (.01) .02 -.39 .15 -.18** .03 (.02)* .03*
2 Age -.01 .01 -.08 .00 .01 .03
Primary Caregiver Responsibility .20 .12 .10 -.39 .12 -.18**
Perceived Supervisor Support .11 .06 .13 -.18 .06 -.20**
On-the-job embeddedness .95 .17 .40** .29 (.28)*** .27*** -1.06 .18 -.42*** .33 (.31)*** .30***
3 Age -.01 .01 -.10 .01 .01 .07
Primary Caregiver Responsibility .17 .12 .08 -.32 .12 -.15**
Perceived Supervisor Support .05 .06 .06 -.07 .06 -.08
On-the-job embeddedness .78 .19 .33*** -.72 .20 -.28***
Perceived Organisational Support .14 .08 .16* .30 (.28)*** .01 -.28 .08 -.30*** .37 (.35)*** .04***
4 Age -.01 .01 -.08 .01 .01 .05
Primary Caregiver Responsibility .13 .12 .06 -.29 .12 -.13*
Perceived Supervisor Support .04 .06 .04 -.05 .06 -.06
On-the-job embeddedness .55 .20 .23** -.46 .20 -.18*
Perceived Organisational Support .06 .08 .07 -.20 .08 -.21*
Job Satisfaction – Job in General .38 .10 .27*** .34 (.32)*** .04*** -.43 .10 -.29*** .42 (.40)*** .05***
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
a
Age was an open-ended questions; Primary Caregiver Responsibility was measured as a dichotomous variables (1 = yes, 0 = no); Perceived Organisational
Support and Perceived Supervisor Support were measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Off-the-Job and
On-the-Job Embeddedness were measured using five-point scales ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Intention to Stay and Intention to
Leave variables were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree; Job Satisfaction (Job in General) was
measured using 0 = No, 1 = ? and 3 = Yes.
140
Table 5.17 demonstrates that the addition of the job satisfaction variable to the intention
to stay model increased the variance explained overall to 34%, p < .001 (from 29% in
the larger dataset). At step 1, age, and primary caregiver responsibility accounted for
2% of the variance in intention to stay. An additional 27% of the variance was then
explained with the introduction of the perceived supervisor support, on-the-job
embeddedness, and off-the-job embeddedness variables. At this step, on-the-job
embeddedness was the only significant unique predictor of intention to stay. The
addition of perceived organisational support at step 3 accounted for an additional 1% of
variance to be explained, and at this step both perceived organisational support and on-
the-job embeddedness were found to be unique predictors of intentions to stay. The
addition of job satisfaction in general, however, explained an additional 4% of the
variance in the model and account for a unique predictor of intentions to stay. However,
with the introduction of job satisfaction, perceived organisational support was no longer
a significant predictor in the model.
In contrast, the model predicting employees’ intentions to leave explained 42% of the
variance in this criterion, p < .001 (compared to 34% in the larger data set that did not
include job satisfaction). At step 1, the variables, age and primary caregiver
responsibility were found to explain 3% of the variance in intention to leave. At this
step, primary caregiver responsibility was the only predictor of intention to leave. At
step 2, the effects of perceived supervisor support, on-the-job embeddedness, and off-
the-job embeddedness accounted for an additional 30% of the variance. In doing so,
perceived supervisor support, on-the-job embeddedness, and primary caregiver
responsibility were individual predictors of intention to leave. At step 3, the entry of
perceived organisational support explained an additional 4% of variance. Upon adding
perceived organisational support to the model, the relationship between perceived
supervisor support and intention to leave became non-significant, suggesting a possible
mediation effect, again consistent with hypotheses 12. With the addition of perceived
organisational support in the model, the remaining individual predictors of intention to
leave were primary caregiver responsibility, on-the-job embeddedness, job satisfaction,
and perceived organisational support. The addition of job satisfaction in general at step
4 increased the variance explained by 5%.
141
Job satisfaction and intention to stay and leave
To examine the relationships between the different facets of job satisfaction and
employees’ intentions to stay and leave, bivariate correlations were examined. These
correlations are shown in Table 5.10. This analysis revealed that employees’ satisfaction
with their work itself, supervision, opportunities for promotion, people on present job
and pay were all significantly correlated in the expected direction with employees’
intentions to stay (positively correlated) and leave (negatively correlated), p <.001.
To further identify the role these facets play in employees’ intentions to stay and leave,
two multiple regression analyses were performed. The first examined employees’
intentions to stay and the second examined employees’ intentions to leave. In both
analyses, the predictors were the five specific job satisfaction variables (satisfaction
with the work itself, supervisor, opportunities for promotion, people on present job and
pay).
The first model explained 28.8% (p <.001) of the total variance in employees’ intentions
to stay. Examination of the individual facets, however, revealed that no individual facet
of satisfaction was significant in explaining employees’ intentions to stay, although
satisfaction with supervisor approached significance (p = .07). The second model
explained 37.2% (p <.001) of the total variance of employees’ intentions to leave. This
analysis revealed, satisfaction with promotion opportunities and satisfaction with people
on present job were individual predictors of intentions to leave (p < .05).
5.2.3.4 Summary of findings from hierarchical regression analyses

The hierarchical regression analyses illustrated some similarities and differences in the
variables that play a role in employees’ intentions to stay and leave. First, the analyses
revealed that on-the-job embeddedness and perceived organisational support were
important individual predictors of employees’ intentions both to stay and leave. The
analyses also suggested that the effect of perceived supervisor support on both
intentions to stay and leave was mediated through the variable perceived organisational
support. Therefore, further examination of this relationship is warranted.
In contrast, when adding the variable job satisfaction to the equation, using a smaller
dataset, a more distinct difference was found between the predictors of intention to stay
and leave. That is, primary caregiver responsibility, perceived organisational support,
job satisfaction and on-the-job embeddedness were all significant individual predictors
of intention to leave, while job satisfaction and on-the-job embeddedness were the only
142
significant predictors of intention to stay. Moreover, in this dataset, the predictors
examined explained a higher percentage of variance in intention to leave (42%) than
intention to stay (35%). Similarly, the addition of the job satisfaction variable increased
the percentage of variance explained in both intention to stay (from 29% to 34%) and
intention to leave (34% to 42%), indicating that job satisfaction plays a significant role
in employees’ intentions both to stay and leave.
Interestingly, when examining the relationship between facet satisfaction and
employees’ intentions to stay and leave, differences between the dependent variables
were found. That is, while no individual facet was significant in explaining employees’
intentions to stay, satisfaction with the promotion opportunities available to employees
and satisfaction with the people on present job both played significant independent roles
in predicting employees’ intentions to leave.
While these findings reveal significant relationships, regression analyses are limited to
assessing effects on a single dependent variable. Structural equation models are better
equipped at finding the best fitting model than other multivariate analyses (Cheng,
2011). Consequently, to simultaneously assess the effects of the independent variables
on both dependent variables, and to obtain indices of the overall fit of these predictive
models, structural equation modelling is the most efficient and appropriate technique to
use (Hair et al., 2006).
5.2.4 Structural equation modelling

Two series of structural equation models were specified and tested using AMOS version
21. The first series of analyses used the larger database (N = 359) and examined the
direct and indirect paths between age, primary caregiver responsibility, on-the-job and
off-the-job embeddedness, perceived organisational support and perceived supervisor
support and employees’ intentions to stay and leave. The second series of analyses used
the smaller database (N = 227) and examined the influence that additional pathways
from job satisfaction played in employees’ intention to stay and leave. The maximum
likelihood estimation technique was used, as the data were was free from missing data
and followed a normal distribution (as described previously in section 5.3.3.2). In all
models, the path between the disturbances in the two dependent variables, intentions to
stay and leave, was permitted to co-vary as illustrated in Figures 5.1 to 5.4. These
dependent variables were measured as latent variables. However, due to sample size
considerations, all exogenous variables were measured as observed variables.
143
In each series, four different models were tested. The first examined the direct
relationship between the organisational variables and the dependent variables, intention
to stay and leave. The second examined the additional influence of the personal factors,
age and primary caregiver responsibilities, on the DVs. Only these two personal factors
were included as they were the only variables found to have a significant correlation
with the dependent variables. The third model was the same as model 1, except that it
included the mediation (indirect) pathways from perceived supervisor support to each of
intention to stay and intention to leave, through perceived organisational support. The
last model then examined the additional influence that age and primary caregiver
responsibility played in model 3 that included both the direct and indirect relationships.
There is significant debate in the literature about what constitutes an “adequate” sample
size required for conducting structural equation modelling. Hair et al. (2006) argues that
when the model contains five or fewer constructs, a sample of between 100 and 150 is
adequate; however, when the model contains six or more variables, a sample of 500 or
more may be needed. In contrast, Kline (2011) reports that, as a rule of thumb, a sample
size of more than 200 is required when using maximum likelihood estimation. As this
study used a minimum sample size of 227 and a maximum sample size of 359, the use
of structural equation modelling to analyse the results was considered appropriate.
Several indices – Chi Square, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI),
Normed Chi Square (CMIN), Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) and Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) – were used to evaluate the fit of each model.
Table 5.18 presents the acceptable limits and interpretation for each of these fit criteria.
144
Table 5.18 Acceptable level and interpretation of selected fit criteria
Model Fit Criterion Acceptable level Interpretation
Chi square Tabled χ2 value Compares obtained value with
tabled value for given df
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0 (no fit) – 1 (perfect fit) Value close to (or more
than) .95 reflects a good fit
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 0 (no fit) – 1 (perfect fit) Value close to (or more
than) .95 reflects a good fit
Normed Chi Square (CMIN) 1.0-5.0 Less than 1.0 is a poor model
fit. More than 5.0 reflects a
need for improvement.
Root Mean Square Residual Researcher defines limit Indicates the closeness of Σ to
(RMR) Ѕ Matrix
Root Mean Square Error of <.05 Value less than .05 indicates
Approximation (RMSEA) good fit
(Adapted from Schumacker & Lomax, 2004, p.82)
Figures 5.1 to 5.4 present the findings from the structural equation modelling. As this
study collected data on a single occasion, the causal nature of these relationships is
speculative. Observed variables are presented as rectangles and ellipses are used to
represent latent variables, with error terms represented by squares. Standardised
estimates are provided on the lines between each parameter and curved lines illustrate
co-varied terms.
145
Figure 5.1 Series 1 structural equation model 1: Examination of the direct effects
of the organisational variables on employees’ intentions to stay and leave (with
personal variables and job satisfaction excluded, N = 359).
of the organisational variables on employees’ intentions to stay and leave (with the
personal variables, but not job satisfaction, included, N = 359).
146
Figure 5.3 Series 1 structural equation model 3: Examination of the direct effects of all
the organisational variables, and the indirect effect of PSS, on employees’ intentions to
stay and leave (with the personal variables and job satisfaction, excluded, N = 359).
147
of all the organisational variables, and the indirect effect of PSS, on employees’
intentions to stay and leave (with the personal variables, but not job satisfaction,
included, N = 359).
148
Series 1, Model 1 presents the model with no personal factors or mediation paths.
Model 2 examines the fit with the addition of the personal variables but does not include
the mediation path. Model 3 examines the fit of the model when the mediation path is
included without the effects of personal variables added. Lastly, model 4 examines the
additional influence that personal factors have on the pathways when the mediation path
is included. Table 5.19 provides the fit statistics for these four models and Tables 5.20
and 5.21 present the direct, indirect and total effects on intention to leave and intention
to stay.
Table 5.19 Fit Statistics Pertaining to Structural Models 1-4 in Series 1 (N = 359)
Mediation Personal Fit statistics
Model Path factors CMIN

Number included? included? χ2 df (χ2/df) RMSEA (90%CI) CFI TLI RMR
1 N N 23.62 24 0.98 .00 (.00 - .04) 1.00 1.00 0.02
2 N Y 35.34 32 1.10 .02 (.00 - .04) 1.00 1.00 0.16
3 Y N 127.17 26 4.89 .10 (.09 - .12) 0.93 0.88 0.06
4 Y Y 144.69 36 4.02 .09 (.08 - .11) 0.93 0.86 0.19
149
Table 5.20 Direct, indirect, and total effects of variables on intention to stay (N=359)
Predictors of Intention to stay

Series 1 Mediation Personal JE- Caregiver
Model Path factors ONa JE-OFFa POSa PSSa Age Resa
Number included? included? Dira Dir Dir Dir Inda Tota Dir Dir R2
1 No No .40*** .11 .15* .05 - .05 - - .35
2 No Yes .39*** .09 .17* .07 - .07 -.20*** .10 .39
3 Yes No .40*** .12* .15* .05 .11* .16* - - .33
4 Yes Yes .39*** .09 .18* .07 .12* .19* -.21*** .10 .37
* p < .05 ** p <.01 *** p < .001
a
JE-On = On-the-job Embeddedness, JE-off = Off-the-job Embeddedness, POS = Perceived Organisational Support, PSS = Perceived
Supervisor Support, Caregiver Res = Primary Caregiver Responsibility, Dir = Direct Effect, Ind = Indirect Effect, Tot = Total Effect
Table 5.21 Direct, indirect, and total effects of variables on intention to leave (N=359)
Predictors of Intention to leave

Series 1 Mediation Personal JE- Caregiver
Model Path factors JE-ONa OFFa POSa PSSa Age Resa
R2
Number included? included? Dir Dir Dir Dir Ind Tot Dir Dir
1 No No -.34*** -.03 -.33*** -.04 - .04 - - .42
2 No Yes -.34*** -.02 -.33*** .05 - .05 .10* .07 .43
3 Yes No -.36*** -.03 -.34*** -.04 -.23*** -.27*** - - .38
4 Yes Yes -.35*** -.02 -.34*** -.05 -.24*** -.29*** .11* -.07 .39
* p < .05 ** p <.01 *** p < .001
a
JE-On = On-the-job Embeddedness, JE-off = Off-the-job Embeddedness, POS = Perceived Organisational Support, PSS = Perceived
Supervisor Support, Caregiver Res = Primary Caregiver Responsibility, Dir = Direct Effect, Ind = Indirect Effect, Tot = Total Effect
150
Table 5.19 presents the goodness of fit indices for the hypothesised models. These
indices demonstrate that while most models have a very good fit to the data, when the
mediation path was included a poorer fit was evident (CMIN value of 0.98 in model 1
versus 4.89 in model 3). A similar pattern was also found when the personal variables
were added to the model, with a CMIN value of 1.10 (model 2) versus 4.02 in model 4.
To examine these differences further, a chi square difference test was conducted on both
pairs of models. This analysis revealed that model 1 provided a significantly better fit
than model 3 (χ2difference = 103.55, dfdiff = 2, p = <.001). Similarly, model 2 presented a
significantly better fit than model 4 (χ2difference =109.35, dfdiff = 4, p = <.001).
Table 5.20 presents the direct, indirect, and total effects of the pathways on the
dependent variable, intention to stay. Model 2 explained the greatest amount of variance
in the dependent variable, intention to stay (R2 = .39). This analysis revealed that
perceived organisational support, on-the-job embeddedness and age had significant
direct effects on intention to stay. These relationships did not change with the
introduction of personal variables to the model, or with the introduction of the
mediation effect. Instead, both models testing the mediation effect found significant
indirect effects (p <.05), which confirmed that the mediating relationship existed, even
though the model was not the best fitting overall.
Similar results were also found when examining the pathways to the dependent variable,
intention to leave, where model 2 explained a greater amount of variance (R2 = .43) than
other models. Additionally, the mediation paths were significant in both models 3 and 4;
however, in comparison with model 2 they did not explain as much variance nor did
they fit the data as well. In conclusion, the best fitting model was model 2 for both
intentions to stay and leave, where personal data but no mediation effects were tested.
In series 2, the observed variable job satisfaction was added to the model, using the
smaller dataset for analysis. Table 5.22 presents the fit statistics for this set of analyses.
Tables 5.23 and 5.24 present the direct, indirect and total effects for these models.
151
Table 5.22 Fit statistics pertaining to structural models 1-4 in series 2 (N=227)
Personal Fit statistics

Mediation factors CMIN
Model Path included (χ2/
Number included? ? χ2 df df) RMSEA (90%CI) CFI TLI RMR
1 No No 38.16 28 1.36 .040 (.000-.069) .991 .982 .028
2 No Yes 45.25 36 1.26 .034 (.000-.061) .992 .982 .190
3 Yes No 108.91 31 3.51 .105 (.084-.127) .929 .873 .082
4 Yes Yes 132.50 41 3.23 .099 (.081-.119) .918 .845 .247
152
Table 5.23 Direct, indirect, and total effects of variables on intention to stay (N=227)
Predictors of intention to stay

Mediation Personal Caregiver
Model Path factors JE-ONa JE-OFFa POSa PSSa JSa Age Resa
Number included? included? Dir Dir Dir Dir Ind Tot Dir Dir Dir R2
1 N N .27** .13* .03 .05 - .05 .36*** - - .45
2 N Y .27** .11* .05 .06 - .06 .34*** .11 .09 .47
3 Y N .27** .14* .03 .04 .02 .06 .36*** - - .44
4 Y Y .27** .12* .05 .06 .03 .09 .34*** .11 .09 .45
* p < .05 ** p <.01
a
JE-On = On-the-job Embeddedness, JE-off = Off-the-job Embeddedness, POS = Perceived Organisational Support, PSS = Perceived Supervisor
Support, Caregiver Res = Primary Caregiver Responsibility, D = Direct Effect, I = Indirect Effect, T = Total Effect
153
Table 5.24 Direct, indirect, and total effects of variables on intention to leave (N=227)
Predictors of intention to leave
Mediation Personal JE- Caregiver
a a a a a
Model Path factors JE-ON OFF POS PSS JS Age Resa
Number included? included? Dir Dir Dir Dir Ind Tot Dir Dir Dir R2
1 N N -.18 -.03 -.26* -.05 - -.05 -.34** - - .51
2 N Y -.21* -.01 -.24* -.06 - -.06 -.33** .06 .15* .53
3 Y N -.19* -.04 -.27* -.05 -.17* -0.22 -.36** - - .47
4 Y Y -.22* -.01 -.25* -.06 -.16* -.22 -.34** .06 .15* .49
* p < .05 ** p <.01
a
JE-On = On-the-job Embeddedness, JE-off = Off-the-job Embeddedness, POS = Perceived Organisational Support, PSS = Perceived Supervisor
Support, Caregiver Res = Primary Caregiver Responsibility, Dir = Direct Effect, Ind = Indirect Effect, Tot = Total
154
Table 5.22 demonstrates that when including the mediating relationship, the model
presents a poorer fit as illustrated through an increase in the CMIN value from 1.36 in
model 1 to 3.51 in model 3. A similar pattern was also found when the personal
variables were included in the model, with the CMIN value increasing from 1.26 (model
2) to 3.23 in model 4. To examine these differences further, chi square difference tests
were conducted on both model comparisons. This revealed that model 3 was a
significantly poorer fit than model 1 (χ2difference = 70.75, dfdiff = 3, p <.001). Similarly,
when examining the differences between models 2 and 4 using the chi-square difference
test, model 4 provided a poorer fit to the data than model 2 (χ2difference =87.25, dfdifference
= 5, p <.001). Consequently, the models without the mediation path were found to
provide a better fit.
Table 5.23 shows that model 2 explained the greatest percentage of variance in
employees’ intentions to stay, with 47% of the variance accounted for. Additionally,
intention to stay was influenced significantly by age, on-the-job embeddedness, off-the-
job embeddedness and job satisfaction. These findings are similar to those obtained in
the larger dataset; however, a significant mediating relationship between perceived
supervisor support and intention to stay through perceived organisational support was
not observed in the same analysis using the smaller dataset. Additionally, a significant
direct effect of perceived organisational support on intention to stay was not found
using the smaller data set. One possible reason for this could be the sample size, where
the addition of more variables may have increased the probability of making a type II
error (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 2013).
Similarly, Table 2.24 demonstrates that model 2 explains the greatest percentage of
variance in employees’ intentions to leave (R2 = .53). Direct effects were found between
each of on-the-job embeddedness, perceived organisational support, job satisfaction and
primary caregiver responsibility on intention to leave. A significant indirect relationship
between perceived supervisor support and intention to leave through perceived
organisational support was also identified, confirming a mediation effect between these
variables and supporting hypothesis 11.
Further comparisons of the CFI values in the non-nested models 1 and 2 between series
1 and 2 revealed that while series 1 (both models 1 and 2) provided a better fit to the
data overall (.997 and .998 compared to .991 and .992), model 2 in series 2 explained a
greater percentage of variance and had a greater number of significant direct pathways
155
than model 1 in series 1. Therefore, the model with the addition of the job satisfaction
variable and personal data (no mediation) provided the best overall predictions of
intention to stay and intention to leave in this study.
5.3.4.1 Summary of Structural Equation Modelling

In summary, both series of structural equation models found the model that predicted
intentions to stay and leave was the one with personal data but no mediation effect.
Further analyses revealed significant positive direct pathways from each of on-the-job
embeddedness and perceived organisational support on employees’ intentions to stay.
These findings indicate that when employees’ report higher on-the-job, and higher
perceived organisational support, they are more likely to report an intention to stay. On
the other hand, significant negative direct pathways were between, on-the-job
embeddedness, off-the-job embeddedness, and perceived organisational support on
employees’ intentions to leave. These findings indicate that when employees report
lower on-the-job and off-the-job embeddedness, and lower perceived organisational
support, they are more likely to report an intention to leave. Furthermore, a significant
mediation effect was identified, supporting the mediating hypothesis proposed.
The second series of models examined the additional influence of job satisfaction and
found the model without the mediation pathways but with personal data provided a
better fit to employees’ intentions to stay and leave with 53% of the variance accounted
for. Further examination revealed the variables age, on-the-job embeddedness, off-the-
job embeddedness and job satisfaction had significant positive direct pathways to
employees’ intentions to stay. In contrast, employees’ intentions to leave were
negatively influenced directly by on-the-job embeddedness, perceived organisational
support, job satisfaction and primary caregiver responsibility. This model explained
53% of the variance in employees’ intentions to leave. Additionally, an indirect
relationship between perceived supervisor support and intention to leave through
perceived organisational support was identified.
Upon comparing all the models proposed between series 1 and 2, the model with the
addition of the job satisfaction variable and personal data with no mediation was found
be the model that best fitted the data (series 2, model 2).
156
5.3 Chapter summary and conclusion
This chapter presented the results for the quantitative analyses of the study. In doing so,
similarities and differences were found between the predictors of intention to stay and
intention to leave. Specifically, the following conclusions were made from these
analyses in relation to the hypotheses. These results are also displayed visually in Table
5.25 and in Figures 5.5 and 5.6.
Table 5.25 Summary of the results in relation to the hypotheses proposed

Hypothesis Supported?
H1a: In comparison to older workers, younger workers will report lower No
intentions to stay and higher intentions to leave
H1b: There will be generational differences in the employee behaviours Partial
and relationships and people management strategies, as well as overall
intentions to stay and intentions to leave
H2: Employees with lower education levels will report higher intentions No
to stay and lower intentions to leave
H3: Employees who are married or in a de-facto relationship will report No
higher intentions to leave than those who are single
H4: Employees with longer tenure will report higher intentions to stay and No
lower intentions to leave
H5: Employees with kinship responsibilities will report higher intentions No
to stay and lower intentions to leave than those with no responsibilities.
H6a: Employees who report better perceived health of self will report No
higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave
H6b: Employees who report better perceived health of family will report No
higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave
H7: Employees who are on casual contracts will have higher intentions to No
leave and lower intentions to stay than those who are employed
permanently in part time or full time roles
H8: There will be differences in the employee behaviour and Yes

relationships, people management strategies and intentions to stay and
leave reported by residential aged care and community aged care
employees
157
Table 5.5 Summary of the results in relation to the hypotheses proposed continued
Hypothesis Supported?
H9: Employees who report high job satisfaction will have higher Yes
intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave than those who report
low job satisfaction
H10: There will be a negative relationship between employees’ Yes

perceptions of organisational support and employees’ intentions to
leave, and a positive relationship between employees’ perceptions of
organisational support and employees’ intentions to stay
H11: The relationship between perceived supervisor support and Yes

employees’ intentions to stay and leave will be mediated by perceived
organisational support
H12: Employees who report high on-the-job and high off-the-job Partial
embeddedness will report higher intentions to stay and lower
H13: Combined, the personal factors and organisational factors Yes

examined will explain a higher percentage of variance in employees’
intentions to stay and leave than the individual factors alone.
H14: There will be a difference in the factors that influence Yes

employees’ intentions to stay and leave.
158
Personal Factors Organisational Factors Outcome
H1: Age/Generation
(Partially supported)
H2: Education Level (supported)
(Not supported) +
H3: Marital Status

(Not supported) H10: Perceived
+
Organisational Support
H4: Tenure (Not (Supported)
Intention to stay
supported)
+
H5: Kinship responsibilities H11: Perceived Supervisor
(Not supported) Support (Supported)
H6: Employee and Family +

health (Not supported)
H7: Job Employment
Status (Not supported)
Key
H8: Area of Employment KeyDirect
Relationship
(Supported)
Indirect
Relationship
Figure 5.5 Outcome of tested model of intention to stay from quantitative results
159
H1: Age/Generation
H2: Education Level (Supported)
(Not supported) -
H3: Marital Status

H10: Perceived
(Not supported)
Organisational Support -
H4: Tenure (Supported)
(Partially supported) Intention to Leave
-
H5: Kinship
H11: Perceived Supervisor
Responsibilities (Not
Support
supported)
(Supported)
H6: Perceived Health -
(Employee & Family)
(Not supported)
H7: Job Employment (Partially supported)
Status
(Not supported) Key
H8: Area of Employment Direct

Relationship
(Supported) Indirect
Relationship
Figure 5.6 Outcome of tested model of intention to leave from quantitative results
160
H1a: In comparison to older workers, younger workers will report lower intentions to
stay and higher intentions to leave.
This study found no statistical differences between younger and older workers intentions to
stay and leave. Additionally, age did not correlate significantly with either dependent
variable. Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported.
H1b: There will be generational differences in the employee behaviours and

relationships and people management strategies, as well as overall intentions to stay and
intentions to leave
This analysis revealed significant generational differences on perceived organisational

support, perceived supervisor support, intention to stay and intention to leave for the four
generations tested. Further investigation of these differences revealed no significant
differences between each group upon analysis of Tukey HSD post hoc tests. Although, there
was a trend in the data for the Generation X and Y respondents to report higher levels of
perceived organisational support and perceived supervisor support than did the Baby
Boomers. Therefore, only partial support was found from this analysis for hypothesis 1b.
Further examination of these differences in the qualitative data received through the open-
ended questionnaire questions will be presented in Chapter 6.
H2: Employees with lower education levels will report higher intentions to stay and
lower intentions to leave.
This study found no support for this hypothesis, in that education levels was unrelated to
higher intentions to stay or lower intentions to leave in this study.
H3: Employees who are married or in a de-facto relationship will report lower
intentions to stay and higher intentions to leave than those who are single.
Marital status was not found to be a significant influence of employees’ intentions to stay or
leave. Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported.
H4: Employees with longer tenure will report higher intentions to stay and lower
Tenure at an organisation and tenure within the aged care sector were not significantly
correlated with intentions to stay or intentions to leave. However, tenure within current
position was significantly positively correlated with intention to leave. This finding is in
161
contrast with the expected direction of hypotheses 4, which proposed employees with longer
tenure are more likely to stay. Therefore this hypothesis was rejected.
H5: Employees with kinship responsibilities will report higher intentions to stay and
lower intentions to leave than those with no responsibilities.
A significant negative relationship was found between kinship responsibility (primary

caregiver responsibilities) and employees’ intentions to leave using the smaller dataset;
however, no relationship was found between these variables in the larger dataset. One
possible reason for this could be the fact that the respondents in this study were on average
older than the national census and as such may not have as many kinship responsibilities as
the average aged care employee and as such, no support is provided for this hypothesis.
Additionally, no relationship was found between kinship responsibilities and employees’
intentions to stay in either database.
H6a: Employees who report better perceived health of self will report higher intentions
to stay and lower intentions to leave.
No relationship was found between employees’ perceived health of self and their intentions
to stay and leave, therefore this hypothesis was not supported.
H6b: Employees who report better perceived health of family will report higher
intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave.
Employees’ perceived health of family did not significantly influence their intentions to stay
and leave, therefore no support was found for this hypothesis.
H7: Employees who are on casual contracts will have higher intentions to leave and
lower intentions to stay than those who are employed permanently in part time or full
time roles.
No significant relationship was found between employees’ job status and their intentions to
stay and leave, instead there was a trend for this to occur in the opposite direction. Therefore
this hypothesis was not supported.
162
management strategies and intentions to stay and leave reported by residential aged
care and community aged care employees
This study found differences between the factors that influence residential and community
aged care employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Specifically, community care workers
perceived higher levels of organisational and supervisory support, and higher intentions to
stay and lower intentions to leave than residential care workers. Moreover, community care
workers were more satisfied with their work on present job, supervision arrangements, people
on present job, pay, and their job in general compared to residential care workers. Chapter 6
investigates these differences further in the qualitative data gathered from the open-ended
questions.
H9: Employees who report high job satisfaction will have higher intentions to stay and
lower intentions to leave than those who report low job satisfaction.
This study found satisfaction with pay, supervision, work on the present job, co-workers and
promotion opportunities available to employees had significant positive and negative
relationships with the dependent variables, intentions to stay and intentions to leave,
respectfully. No facet was found to be a significant unique predictor of intentions to stay;
however, satisfaction with opportunities available and with co-workers (people on the present
job) did uniquely predict intentions to leave. Therefore partial support is provided for this
hypothesis.
H10: There will be a negative relationship between employees’ perceptions of

organisational support and employees’ intentions to leave, and a positive relationship
between employees’ perceptions of organisational support and employees’ intentions to
stay.
A positive relationship between perceived organisational support and intentions to stay was
identified in this study. Similarly, a negative relationship between perceived organisational
support and intentions to leave was found. Regression and SEM analysis supported this
relationship for both the smaller and larger datasets. Therefore, this hypothesis was
supported.
163
H11: The relationship between perceived supervisor support and employees’ intentions
to stay and leave will be mediated by perceived organisational support.
Hierarchical regression analyses and structural equation modelling provided support for the
mediated role of perceived organisational support on the relationship between perceived
supervisor support and employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Therefore, this hypothesis
was supported.
H12: Employees who report high on-the-job and high off-the-job embeddedness will
report higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave.
This hypothesis was partially supported, as employees who reported high on-the-job
embeddedness had significantly higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave.
However, while a significant correlation was found between off-the-job embeddedness and
intention to leave, further investigation revealed no unique contribution was made to models
when examining employees’ intentions to stay and leave.
higher percentage of variance in employees’ intentions to stay and leave than the
individual factors alone.
This study found that the best fitting model was the one that included both personal (age,
primary caregiver responsibilities) and organisational variables (perceived organisational
support, perceived supervisor support, job embeddedness and job satisfaction), which
explained 47% of the variance in employees’ intentions to stay and 53% of the variance in
intention to leave. A similar finding was also identified through hierarchical regression
analyses where the addition of job satisfaction to the variable significantly improved the
amount of variance explained. Therefore, these results confirm that the personal and
organisational factors when combined explain a higher percentage of variance in employees’
intention to stay and leave than when examined individually. Therefore this hypothesis is
supported.
H14: There will be a difference in the factors that influence employees’ intentions to
stay and leave
This study found that there were slight differences in the factors that influence employees’
intentions to stay and leave. Job satisfaction, perceived organisational support and on-the-job
164
embeddedness were significant unique predictors of both intentions to stay and leave.
However, primary caregiver responsibilities was a unique predictor of employees’ intentions
to leave. Additionally, the variables explained a greater percentage of variance in employees’
intentions to leave than stay, suggesting that there are other variables influencing employees’
intentions to stay. Therefore this hypothesis is supported. The next chapter will further
explore the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave, as well as the
similarities and differences found between these factors, by presenting the results of the
qualitative analysis of open-ended questionnaire questions.
165
*Page Intentionally Left Blank*
Katrina Radford
166
Chapter 6: Results of the analysis of the
open-ended questions
167
6.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the qualitative data analysis of and findings from the open-ended
questions embedded within the questionnaire. These questions asked participants about
their short-term (12 months) and long-term (five years) intentions to stay and leave their
organisation. The chapter begins with a description of the overall analysis of the data for
all participants, and then presents the analyses by generation and area of employment.
These secondary analyses are provided in order to better answer the hypotheses
proposed, which argued that each generation and employees from different areas of
employment will report different factors as influences upon their intentions to stay and
leave.
6.1 Sample size and analysis technique

A total of 420 questionnaires were received back from participants (19.83% response
rate). This section reports on the analysis of the qualitative data from these
questionnaires. Thematic analysis was used to identify common patterns of data that
emerged from the data set in a systematic objective way (Creswell, 2007). To do so, the
dominant and less dominant themes that emerged from analysis of each question were
listed and then compared with each other to identify similarities and differences.
Participants’ answers were first coded into themes according to the words used and the
meanings provided. For example, if a participant answered, “I need money to live”, that
response was coded as the “financial need to stay”. Each answer provided by
participants was coded, that is, if a participant provided multiple influences, all of these
responses were coded as equally dominant as the question asked about what factors
(plural) influenced employees’ intentions to stay and leave. This process resulted in
more responses being coded than participants, therefore each section presents the
number of responses and the number of participants at the beginning of the section to
highlight these differences. Following this coding process, the researcher used the
number of responses (or frequency of responses) in each theme as a basis for
determining the most and least dominant theme arising from this analysis.
While this technique has the potential to be biased through interpretation differences,
and subjectivity, this bias is minimised by reducing these themes into dominant and less
dominant categories (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Namey, Guest, Thairo, & Johnson,
2007). To further ensure the data analysis was as rigorous and systematic as possible, in
line with a positivist approach, NVivo version 10.0 was used to assist to analyse the
168
data, adding to the reliability and trustworthiness of the analyses overall (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2000).
6.2 Overall analysis of employees’ intentions to stay and leave

This section presents the results from the analysis of four open-ended questions
concerning the short-term and long-term intentions of employees to stay and leave.
These results are also summarised in Table 6.1.
169
Table 6.1 Factors influencing short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave (all employees)
Short-Termb Intentions to %a Long-Termb Intentions to %a Short-Termb Intentions to Leave %a Long-Termb Intentions to Leave %a
Stay (N=385) Stay (N=309) (N=188) (N=175)
Personal Factors
Location 3.8 Age 4.5 Family 8.0 Age 8.6
Family 2.7 Location 4.5 Health 2.7 Family 8.6
Age 2.5 Family 2.9 Study 2.1 Health 6.3
Study 1.5 Health 1.3 Relocation 2.1 Study 3.4
Age 1.6 Relocation 2.9
Subtotal 10.5 Subtotal 13.2 Subtotal 16.5 Subtotal 29.8
Organisational factors
Job Satisfaction 39.5 Job Satisfaction 27.1 Work environment (management, 44.1 Work environment (management, 29.1
workload, work hours, working workload, co-workers, burnout,
conditions, and unfriendly co- hours, organisation itself, and
workers) working conditions)
Work environment (culture, 24.0 Work environment (working for 23.2 Pay 17.1 Career opportunities 19.4
co-workers and the organisation, culture,
management) flexibility, management, and
people)
Pay 13.0 Pay 15.8 Career opportunities 16.4 Pay 17.7
Career opportunities 7.5 Career opportunities 13.6 Job Satisfaction 5.9 Job satisfaction 4.0
Job Security 5.5 Job Security 7.1
TOTAL 100.0 TOTAL 100.0 TOTAL 100.0 TOTAL 100.0

a % = percentage of total responses in descending order of frequency
b
Short-term intentions refer to the factors reported to influence employees’ intentions to stay or leave within the next 12 months; Long-term intentions refer to the
factors reported to influence employees’ intentions to stay or leave within the next five years.
170
The overall results of the analysis are presented in Table 6.1 in two sections, the top of
the table illustrates the personal factors reported as influencing employees’ intentions to
stay or leave and the bottom of the table presents the organisational factors reported as
influencing employees’ intentions to stay or leave. The table also presents factors by the
four types of intentions across the table, plus the percentage rate of the frequency of that
factor’s occurrence within the data. All factors are listed in descending order of
frequency and all responses fitted into one of these broad categories. Each category was
kept broad to allow for all responses to be categorized into one of these themes. The
remainder of this section presents the results and analysis from each of the four
intentions types – short-term intentions to stay (12 months), long-term intentions to stay
(five years), short-term intentions to leave (12 months) and long-term intentions to leave
(five years).
6.2.1 Intentions to stay: short-term

To examine the factors that influence employees’ short-term intentions to stay at their
organisation, an open-ended question, “What influences your intentions to stay at your
organisation for the next 12 months?”, was asked. This question resulted in 422
responses (from 385 participants) reporting the dominance of both personal and
organisational factors when considering their short-term intentions to stay motives. This
response rate was representative of 76.19% of those who responded to the
questionnaire. Four personal variables (location, family, study and age) and five
organisational variables (job satisfaction, work environment, pay, career opportunities
and job security) were reported as influences on employees’ short-term intentions to
stay. Each of these is elaborated below.
Personal Factors Influencing Short-Term Intentions to stay
Four personal factors (representing 10.5% of total responses) were reported as

influences on employees’ short-term intentions to stay: location, family, study and age.
The most dominant personal factor influencing short-term intentions to stay was the
location of work in relation to home. This factor was dominant for 3.8% of participants,
who reported the “convenience to my dwelling” as a factor influencing their intentions
to stay within the next 12 months. The second most dominant personal influence cited
by participants was family commitments, where 2.7% of participants reported this as an
influence on their intentions to stay. Examples of responses in this theme included
statements that the job “fits in well with family” and “home/family commitments”. The
171
third most dominant personal factor influencing employees’ short-term intentions to
stay was age, with 2.5% of participants citing “nearing retirement” or “difficulty in
getting employment because of my age” as key factors influencing their intentions to
stay. Finally, study commitments were reported as dominant for 1.5% of participants’
short-term intentions to stay. Together, personal factors accounted for 10.5% of the
influences on short-term intentions to stay in this study, with the majority of
participants’ responses focusing on organisational factors (89.5%)
Organisational Factors Influencing Short-Term Intentions to Stay

An overwhelming majority of participants reported organisational factors as influencing
their short-term intentions to stay (89.5%). In total, five themes were identified as
dominant for employees’ intentions to stay: job satisfaction, work environment, pay,
career opportunities, and job security.
The most dominant organisational theme cited by 39.5% of participants, was job
satisfaction. In particular, satisfaction with the job itself, satisfaction with clients, and an
overall satisfaction with working in the sector or organisation were reported as central
to employees’ intentions to stay for 12 months. For example, one participant
commented, “I really enjoy my work as it is so rewarding”, whereas another participant
commented that it was a “huge satisfaction to be able to help our residents”, while
“providing a needed community service”. Together, these findings illustrate the
influence of different types of job satisfaction on employees’ short-term intentions to
stay.
The second dominant theme emerging from the data was the influence of participants’
working environment. This was an influence for 24% of participants’ responses, who
reported that culture (10%), co-workers (8%) and management (6%) within their place
of work influenced their intentions to stay. For example, “Good work environment,
company ethics, and great management team” were influential for one employee.
Additionally, being employed in a “caring organisation” was influential for another
participant. The dominance of good co-workers was reinforced through comments such
as “the people I work with and for”, “the great people I work immediately with”, and
“my direct supervisor and team of fellow workers”. Finally, the influence of good
management was reinforced through comments such as “management look after their
staff well”, “immediate supervisor is the best I have ever worked with”, and “I feel
172
appreciated, challenged and supported.”
The third most dominant theme was pay, with 13% of participants reporting pay as
influencing their short-term intentions to stay. Responses to this theme centred on the
financial need to work in order to pay bills, with participants reporting the “need [for]
money for everyday expenses” as dominant. These findings highlight the financial need
for a job as an influence on employees’ short term intentions to stay.
Career opportunities also emerged as a factor in 7.5% of participants’ responses. That

is, participants reported the allure of possible career progression as a factor influencing
their intentions to stay. This was represented through responses such as “the chance of
promotion” and the “ability to further my career”.
The final dominant theme emerging from the data was job security, with 5.5% of
responses indicating that short-term intentions to stay were influenced by “lack of a
better job to go to in this industry, for this town”. Additionally, the influence of having
security of working hours was reported by for one participant who wrote, “I’m
permanent part time and do not want to go back to being casual”.
Together these findings highlight that while 10.5% of participants’ responses reported
personal factors as influencing their intentions to stay, these factors were not reported as
frequently as the factors that could be influenced by management and organisational
policies, which accounted for 89.5% of responses. The next section highlights the
factors influencing employees’ long-term intentions to stay (for the next five years).
6.2.2 Intentions to stay: long-term

To examine intentions to stay in the long-term, participants were asked an open-ended
question, “What influences your intentions to stay at your organisation for the next 5
years?” A total of 309 participants provided a response to this question, representing
72.4% of those who returned the questionnaire. Similar to the influences on employees’
intentions to stay in the short-term, both personal and organisational factors were found
to influence long-term intentions to stay. In particular, 13.2% of the responses were
personal factors (age, location, family and health) with the remaining 86.8% of
responses citing organisational influences (job satisfaction, work environment, pay,
career opportunities and job security) on their intentions to stay. See Table 6.1 for a
summary of the responses.
173
Personal factors influencing long-term intentions to stay
Four key personal factors were found to be dominant in employees’ intentions to stay
long-term: employees’ age, location of work in relation to their home, family and
health. Two factors were found to be equally dominant to employees’ long-term
intentions to stay and these were the age of the employee (4.5%) and the location of
their work in relation to their home (4.5%). Employees reported their concern with
being able to find alternative work options because of their age as an influence on their
intentions to continue working, with one participant reporting, “my age (at 53 years old)
may not be viewed as employable somewhere else”. These comments were also made
by other participants who reported “age” as a factor to remaining employed, and that
they were “too old for new job” or at “61 years of age, I would not get another job”.
Equally dominant to employees’ long-term intentions to stay were the location of their
work in relation to their home. One registered nurse reported that she would stay for the
next five years with her current employer “if I get more local work”. Another registered
nurse reported that because she works “about a five-minute drive from home” she
would stay with her employer. Thus, employee’s residential location in relation to their
work has an influence on their intentions to stay.
The third dominant theme arising from the data was the influence that family had in
employees’ intentions to stay with their organisation in the long term. In particular,
2.9% of participants reported that they were dependent on “whether husband transfers
with his job or not” and “family commitments”, but added that they would stay if they
were “able to work around family commitments”. These findings suggest that flexible
work practices are influential in retaining employees in the long term.
The final personal factor influencing employees’ long-term intentions to stay was the
health of the respondent, with 1.3% of participants reporting that they would stay “as
long as my health permits me to work”.
Combined, personal factors accounted for 13.2% of participants’ reported long-term
intentions to stay. This indicates that organisational factors still play a dominant role in
influencing employees’ intentions to stay long term. The next section will outline the
organisational themes arising from this analysis.
Organisational factors influencing long-term intentions to stay

Similar to short-term intentions to stay, five key themes emerged from the data relating
to organisational factors. Interestingly, the five themes were the same and in the same
174
order as the factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to stay: job
satisfaction, work environment, pay, career opportunities and job security.
The most dominant theme was job satisfaction with 27.1% participants reporting
satisfaction with work itself and their overall job satisfaction as dominant to their long-
term intentions to stay. Unlike short-term intentions to stay, satisfaction with working in
the aged care sector was not mentioned as dominant in their long-term intentions to
stay. Instead, the influence of the job itself was dominant. That is, participants reported,
“it’s a fantastic job, love the client and love the work” and “like my position, love
interaction with residents” as their focus for long-term intentions to stay.
Satisfaction with the working environment was the second most dominant theme with
23.2% of responses reporting that working for the organisation itself (8.6%), the
organisational culture (6.8%), flexible work practices (3.4%), management (2.2%) and
people (2.2%) were influential factors to stay with their organisation in the long term.
Examples of responses included in this theme included the following: “the company has
always looked after me”, “I want to stay because this place is better than other
companies”, “great support and encouragement provided”, “flexible hours” and “good
management”.
The third dominant theme identified was pay, with 15.8% of participants reporting pay
as an influence for staying in the long term. While the financial need to continue
working was evidenced in responses such as “I am undertaking further studies and need
employment”, participants also focused on the pay conditions they were working under
as motivators, such as “super fund and public holidays plus Sunday shift”, suggesting
that the pay conditions available are influential on participants’ long-term intentions to
stay in addition to the financial need to stay.
The next dominant factor influencing long-term intentions to stay was career
opportunities, with 13.6% of participants stating this as an influence. For example, one
participant reported that she “can see there are lots of opportunities in this
organisation”, while another participant reported that “promotion opportunities” were
influential to her long-term intentions to stay. These findings suggest that providing
clear career opportunities are one way of influencing employees’ long-term intentions to
stay.
Finally, 7.1% participants reported the influence of job security to their long-term
intentions to stay. One care manager reported that she was “at an age and am female
175
that I need job security” as an influence for her to stay for 5 years. Additionally, a
personal care worker reported that “I feel my job is secured”, and as such intended to
stay in the long term.
The next section highlights the short-term and long-term influences of employees’
6.2.3 Intentions to leave: short-term

To investigate employees’ intentions to leave in the short term, an open-ended question,
“What influences your intentions to leave your organisation in the next 12 months?”,
was posed. In total, 188 responses were provided from 153 participants responding to
this question, a response rate of 36.4% of all participants who completed the
questionnaire. The remaining participants reported that “nothing would influence their
intentions to leave” within the next 12 months (6.5%) or left this question blank in their
returned questionnaire (57.1%). This section reports on only those participants who
reported influences on their intentions to leave. The analysis of the responses to this
data revealed that both personal and organisational factors influenced employees’ short-
term intentions to leave. See Table 6.1 for a summary of these results.
Personal factors influencing short-term intentions to leave
Five dominant themes relating to personal factors emerged from the dataset: family
commitments, health, relocation, study commitments and age. Of these, the most
dominant theme emerging related to family considerations with 8.0% of participants
reporting “husbands’ work commitments”, “family commitments” and “family growth”
as key influences on their intentions to leave their organisation within the next 12
months. The second most dominant factor for short-term intentions to leave was
participants’ health with 2.7% of participants reporting that “getting backaches,
repetitive work” and “injury – incapacitated” would prompt them to leave. Third, study
commitments were reported by 2.1% of participants, who reported they “might decrease
hours to further education/qualification” or they will leave if it “clashes with university
study”. Similarly, 2.1% of participants reported relocation as a result of “leaving town”
or “moving out of area” as a dominant influence in their short-term intentions to leave.
The final factor mentioned by 1.6% of participants was age, where participants reported,
“I am getting older” and having “many things to do at home”. Together, personal
factors accounted for 16.5% of the responses given as influences on participants’
intentions to leave within the next 12 months.
176
Organisational factors influencing short-term intentions to leave
Four broad themes were identified in the responses regarding the influences on short-
term intentions to leave: dissatisfaction with the work environment, career
opportunities, pay and job satisfaction.
Dissatisfaction with the work environment was reported by 44.1% of participants and
referred to dissatisfaction with management, unfair workload, poor work hours, poor
working conditions, difficult co-workers and broader workplace environment
dissatisfaction. In particular, 11.1% of participants reported dissatisfaction with
management as central in their short-term intentions to leave, as evidenced through
statements such as “management not doing its job” and “management not playing fair”.
Following dissatisfaction with management, 10.6% of participants reported unfair
workloads as an influence on their intentions to leave within the next 12 months. This
was evidenced by statements such as “frustration at not being able to complete work in
allocated time”, “poor staff imbalances”, “staff ratios”, and the “stress of workload”.
“Not enough hours” was also cited as an influence for leaving by 6.5% of participants.
Finally, participants reported dissatisfaction with their broader workplace environment
(6.3%), working conditions (4.8%), or their co-workers (4.8%) as influences on their
intentions to leave. In particular, participants reported “feeling frustrated at not being
able to contribute”, “poor conditions”, and “other staff/conflicts” as factors influencing
their intentions to leave.
The second dominant theme emerging from responses was dissatisfaction with pay,
with 17.1% of participants reporting, “If things like pay and conditions do not improve”
they intended to leave. Additionally, participants reported that they would leave if they
“get a better paying job” or there were “better financial opportunities” elsewhere.
The third theme that emerged from the responses was the influence of career
opportunities within the organisation and the allure of better career opportunities
elsewhere, with a total of 16.4% of participants reporting one of these as a factor for
their intentions to leave. In particular, 13.9% of participants would leave for a better
offer or “more experiences, challenges, learning new skills” and 2.5% would leave “if
not given a chance for career progression”.
The final theme identified as dominant in participants’ intentions to leave their

organisation was job satisfaction, with 5.9% of participants reporting that they would
leave if “(they) become unhappy” or become “dissatisfied in the workplace”.
177
Together these findings reveal that personal factors were found to account for 16.5% of
participants’ responses to the factors influencing their short-term intentions to leave.
The remaining 83.5% of responses related specifically to factors that could be
influenced by organisations and management.
6.2.4 Intentions to leave: long-term

To examine employees’ intentions to stay in the long term, an open-ended question,
“What influences your intentions to leave your organisation within the next 5 years?”,
was posed. In total, 175 responses were provided from 162 participants, representing a
response rate of 41.7% of all participants who completed the questionnaire. The
remaining participants reported either that “nothing” would influence their intentions to
leave within the next five years (7.9%) or left this question blank in their returned
questionnaire (50.4%). This section therefore reports the response of those participants
who reported factors that influence their long-term intentions to leave.
Personal factors influencing long-term intentions to leave
Personal factors were included in 29.8% of participants’ responses as influences on their

intentions to leave within the next five years. These factors included age, family, health,
relocation and study. The most dominant personal theme was age, where 8.6% of
participants reported their intentions to retire within the next five years. Equally
dominant were family considerations, where 8.6% of participants reported their “family
situation” as a factor influencing their intentions to leave within the next five years.
Health was also a concern for 6.3% of participants, either their own “poor health” or an
“illness in own family”. Next, 3.4% of participants reported that they intend to leave to
pursue alternative careers “related to my university studies”. Lastly, 2.9% of responses
reported that they would leave if they “move from the city” or “work overseas”.
Organisational factors influencing long-term intentions to leave
Similar to short-term intentions to leave, four predominant themes were identified as

influencing employees’ long-term intentions to leave: the work environment, career
opportunities, pay and job satisfaction.
The most dominant theme influencing employees’ intentions to leave was their work
environment, which was reported by 29.1% of participants, including dissatisfaction
with management (9.7%), unfair workloads (4.0%), conflict with co-workers (3.4%),
burnout (3.4%), lack of available hours of work (3.4%), the organisation itself (2.9%)
178
and poor working conditions (2.3%). Dissatisfaction with management was the most
influential sub-theme where “no appreciation from management” or participants
“feeling unvalued and unsupported in my career” were cited as reasons for intending to
leave the organisation. “Low staff ratio to residents”, “unreasonable expectations”,
“lack of camaraderie”, “not enough hours”, “early burnout”, “organisations’ attitudes”
and “all the bullying and harassment” were also reported as work environment factors
influencing long-term intentions to leave.
The second dominant theme arising from the data was career opportunities, with 19.4%
of participants reporting lack of career opportunities within the organisation and better
opportunities outside the organisation as influences on their intentions to leave. In
particular, participants reported wanting career progression within their own
organisation (11.6%), with one participant wanting “to work as an enrolled nurse after I
graduate”, whereas other participants wanted to leave the aged care sector and work in
the acute care sector after they graduate (7.8%). This was evidenced through statements
such as “when study is completed I want experience in a hospital” or to simply “change
industries” and “try other workforces”.
The third theme arising from the data was pay. A total of 17.7% of participants’
responses reported “poor pay” or “no increase in pay” as factors influencing their
intentions to leave. Thus, long-term intentions to leave were influenced by the pay
conditions provided by organisations.
Finally, the influence of job satisfaction was reported in 4.0% participants’ responses,
who suggested that they would leave their organisation within the next five years if they
become “not happy”.
Combined, these results suggest that the influences of personal factors are stronger in
affecting employees’ long-term intentions to stay, where 29.8% of participants reported
personal factors as influences. However, the large majority (70.2%) of participants still
report organisational factors as influencing their long-term intentions to stay at their
organisation.
6.2.5 Similarities and differences

This chapter has provided an overview of the factors influencing employees’ short-term
and long-term intentions to stay and leave, and as such some similarities and differences
179
become apparent, which are discussed in this section to provide a deeper insight into the
factors that influence employees’ intentions to stay and leave.
In terms of the personal factors that influenced participants’ intentions, while age was a
consistent influence across both intentions to stay and intentions to leave, it was the
least dominant factor in both short-term intentions to stay and leave but the most
dominant factor influencing long-term intentions to stay and leave. Similarly, while
location and family were dominant influences on both intentions to stay and intentions
to leave, they differed in influence, because location was more influential than family
on intentions to stay, but family was more influential than location in intentions to
leave. Finally, employees’ health was reported as a dominant factor for long-term
intentions to stay and intentions to leave, but was not reported as a theme in short-term
intentions to stay, suggesting that it plays a stronger role in influencing intentions to
leave than intentions to stay, or that participants’ health is not yet a concern, but may
become an influence over the next few years.
Upon examining similarities and differences in the organisational factors reported as

dominant to intentions to stay and leave, some noteworthy themes were identified. First,
job satisfaction was the strongest factor influencing employees’ intentions to stay but
was the least dominant factor influencing employees’ intentions to leave. For short-term
intentions to stay, participants reported the influence of working for the aged care sector
as well as the job itself. However, for long-term intentions to stay, satisfaction with the
job itself was the primary influence. In comparison, for both employees’ intentions to
leave in the short and long term, job satisfaction was broadly cited as a factor as was
being unhappy in their job.
Second, while work environment was consistently reported as influential across

employees’ intentions to stay and leave, the type of work environment conditions that
affected employees’ intentions to stay and leave varied. For example, management and
co-workers were consistent influences on both intentions to stay and intentions to leave.
However, working for a particular organisation was influential for long-term intentions
to stay only.
Another noteworthy finding was the influence that providing flexibility had on both
intentions to stay and intentions to leave. That is, the provision of flexible work
practices was dominant for long-term intentions to stay, but it was not noted as
dominant for intentions to leave or short-term-intentions to stay. Instead, the influence
180
of work-life balance desires on employees’ intentions to leave was reported through
family commitments, where participants reported they would leave if they could no
longer work around family commitments. Additionally, participants reported that a lack
of hours or poor hours influenced their intentions to leave. These findings suggest that
work-life balance is influential to intentions to stay and leave.
Similarly, pay was consistently reported as an influence on both intentions to stay and
intentions to leave, although the focus differed. That is, for short-term intentions to stay
participants who reported pay referred to the financial need to work. However, for long-
term intentions to stay, and both short-term and long-term intentions to leave, the
meaning of pay reported included both the financial need to work as well as the
influence that the pay conditions and benefits offered by organisations had on
Together, these findings provide further support for similarities and differences between
the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave. The next section
examines generational differences in employees’ intentions stay or leave.
6.3 Generational differences analysis

This study investigated generational differences in employee behaviours and
relationships as well as differences in people management strategies that influenced
employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Chapter 5 presented the results of the
quantitative differences between generations, and this chapter presents the qualitative
differences between the responses to the four open-ended questions by each generation.
6.3.1 Short-term intentions to stay by generation

In total, 422 responses were received from 385 participants, representing a sample
across six generations answering the question, “What factors influence your intentions
to stay over the next 12 months?” Specifically, responses were received from the
Veteran generation (6 responses), Early Baby Boomer generation (89 participants), Late
Baby Boomer generation (152 participants), Early Generation X and Y (53
participants), Late Generation X and Y (34 participants) and Generation I (17
participants). Table 6.2 illustrates these findings according to the two types of factors –
personal and organisational and for all generations, in descending order of frequency.
181
Table 6.2 Short-term intentions to stay by generation (in descending order of frequency)
Veteran Early Baby Early Generation X Late Generation X

Generation Boomers Late Baby Boomers and Y and Y Early Generation I
(1926-1946) (1946-1955) (1956-1965) (1966-1976) (1977-1986) (1987-1996)
N=6 %a N=89 % N=152 % N=53 % N=34 % N=17 %
Personal Factors
Age 4.9 Age 6.6 Location 3.2 Location 4.2 Location 3.7
Location 3.3 Family 3.2 Family 4.2
Family 0.8 Location 3.2
Health 0.8 Health 0.8
Subtotal 0.0 Subtotal 9.8 Subtotal 13.8 Subtotal 3.2 Subtotal 8.4 Subtotal 3.7
Organisational Factors
Work environment Work environment
(conditions, people (conditions, people,
Job satisfaction 50.0 Job satisfaction 59.3 Job satisfaction 26.6 hours) 39.7 flexibility) 37.5 Pay 33.3
Work Work environment
environment (hours, working
Work (atmosphere, conditions, long
environment support, service leave, Working environment
(people, hours) 33.3 workload) 10.6 people at work) 22.5 Job Satisfaction 31.7 Career opportunities 20.8 (people, workload) 18.5
Pay 16.7 Pay 8.1 Pay 21.0 Job Security 11.1 Job Satisfaction 18.7 Career Opportunities 18.5
Career
Job Security 8.1 Opportunities 11.3 Pay 9.5 Pay 10.4 Job Satisfaction 18.5
Career
Opportunities 4.1 Job Security 4.8 Career opportunities 4.8 Job Security 4.2 Job Security 7.5
subtotal 100.0 Subtotal 90.2 Subtotal 86.2 Subtotal 96.8 Subtotal 91.6 Subtotal 96.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
a
% = percentage of total responses in descending order of frequency
182
As evident in Table 6.2, the generations had both similarities and differences between
them across both personal and organisational factors.
Personal factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to stay
The percentage of participants who reported the influence of personal factors on their
intentions to stay within the next 12 months ranged from 0% to 13.8%. Veteran
employees reported no personal factors to be dominant in their intentions to remain
within the next 12 months, whereas Early Baby Boomers reported the influence that
age, location, family, and health have on their short-term intentions to stay. For Early
Baby Boomers, age was the most dominant influence with 4.9% of participants
reporting age, for example “being between 56 and 65 (years)”, as an influential factor in
their intentions to stay. The location of work in relation to their home was next most
dominant factor for this group, with 3.3% of participants reporting that they intended to
stay because of how close their workplace was to their home. Finally, participants
reported the influence that family (0.8%) and health (0.8%) have on their intentions to
stay within the next 12 months, specifically citing “family commitments” and “health”
as dominant influences.
Similarly, Late Baby Boomers reported the influence that age, family, location, and
health have on their decision to stay for the next 12 months. Similar to Early Baby
Boomers, age was the most dominant factor reported with 6.6% of responses reporting
“difficulty at getting a job because of my age”. Following age, “family commitments”
(3.1%) and location (3.1%) were the next most dominant influences cited for staying,
followed by health (0.8%).
In contrast, Early and Late Generations X and Y, along with Generation I, did not report
their age or health as influences in their intentions to stay. Instead, 3.2% of Early
Generation X and Y responses, 4.2% of Late Generations X and Y responses and 3.7%
of Generation I responses reported the influence that the location of work in relation to
their home has on their intentions to stay. Interestingly, for Early Generations X and Y,
and Generation I, this was the only personal factor influencing their intentions; however
for Late Generations X and Y, family was equally dominant with 4.2% of responses.
Organisational factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to stay
The overwhelming majority of factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to

stay were those that could be influenced by organisations (>86% across all generations).
183
Job satisfaction, factors relating to the working environment and the financial need to
stay (or pay) were common influences across all groups’ intentions to stay; however
there were also differences.
For the Veteran Generation, job satisfaction was the most dominant factor for staying
over the next 12 months, with 50% of responses highlighting this theme as dominant.
Specifically, participants reported that “providing a needed community service” and the
fact that “clients appreciate what I do” influenced their intentions to stay for the next 12
months. Working environment was the next most dominant factor with 33.3% of
responses reporting the influence of work hours (“shifts and hours”) and people on the
present job (“people I look after”) on their intentions to stay. Finally, pay was the least
dominant factor, with 16.7% of participants’ responses arguing that the “financial need”
was keeping them employed.
Similar to the Veteran Generation, 59.3% of responses from the Early Baby Boomer
Generation reported job satisfaction as the most salient factor influencing their short-
term intentions to stay. This was evidenced through comments such as the “nature of
my job” and “enjoy doing the work and the one-on-one basis of my work” as factors
influencing their job satisfaction and intentions to stay. Work environment factors were
the second most dominant factor with 10.6% of participants reporting the influence that
the general work environment (4.6%), support provided (3.8%) and workload (2.2%)
has on their short-term intentions to stay. Pay (8.1%) and job security (8.1%) were
ranked as equal third influences on their short-term intentions to stay where participants
reported “an increase in wages” and “job security” as key to their intentions to stay. The
final influence on this generation’s short-term intentions to stay was career
opportunities, with 4.1% of participants reporting that “training and promotions” were
central to their intentions.
Job satisfaction was also the most dominant factor for the Late Baby Boomer
generation, with 26.6% of responses reporting that they were “happy and content with
(their) role and position” and that they “enjoy the work and contact with clients and the
team in the office”. Following job satisfaction, factors relating to the work environment
were the next most dominant theme, with 22.5% of responses reporting work conditions
(8.6%), hours (6.3%), long service leave (4.2%), and people on the job (3.4%) as
influential. This was evidenced by statements such as “the people I work with”, “the
clients”, “great management and support”, “long service leave” and working for a
184
“caring organisation”. The third most salient factor influencing Late Baby Boomer’s
short-term intentions to stay was pay, with 21% of participant’s responses indicating
they intended to stay because of “financial need”. The fourth most dominant factor that
emerged from the data was the influence of career opportunities on this generation
where 11.3% of participants reported that the “chance of promotion” and “education
and training” were motivating them to stay. Finally, job security was reported as
influential by 4.8% of responses from this generation.
In contrast to Baby Boomers and Veteran Generation employees, the most influential
factor influencing Early Generation X and Y employees was work environment, cited
by 39.7% of responses, including mention of work conditions (15.7%), people (12.4%)
and hours (11.1%) as influences on their intentions to stay. Following work
environment, job satisfaction was the second most dominant theme with 31.7% of
participants reporting that “the job in general makes me content” and the “communities
that we influence” as influential on their intentions to stay. Next, the influence that job
security had on participants was reported, with 11.1% of participants indicating they
were intending to stay because there was “no other work available”. The fourth
motivator for this generation was pay, with 9.5% of responses reporting the financial
need to work as influential on their intentions to stay. Finally, career opportunities were
highlighted as influential by 4.8% of participants.
Similar to Early Generation X and Y employees, 37.5% of Late Generation X and Y

employees reported the influence of the work environment, with working conditions
(20.8%), flexibility (2.1%), and people on the job (14.6%) all reported as factors
influencing short-term intentions to stay. Interestingly, Late Generation X and Y
employees reported career opportunities (20.8%) as the second most influential factor
on their intentions to stay for the next 12 months, with one participant reporting that
their workplace provided a “good opportunity to learn and gain skills as a newly
graduated registered nurse”. Job satisfaction was the third most dominant factor for
18.7% of participants, with responses including “I am happy with my job at present and
am content” and that they had “interesting client work and fantastic work colleagues”.
The fourth theme identified as dominant was pay, with 10.4% of participants reporting
that this influenced their intentions to stay, followed by job security (4.2%).
Interestingly, for Generation I, pay was the most salient factor influencing intentions to
stay, accounting for 33.3% of responses. Other factors listed were job satisfaction
185
(18.5%), factors relating to the work environment (people on the job and workload)
(18.5%), and career opportunities (18.5%). Finally, job security was reported by 7.4%
of participants’ responses as influencing their short-term intentions to stay.
Together these findings suggest similarities and differences between generations’ short-
term intentions to stay. The Veteran and Baby Boomer generations all reported job
satisfaction as the most dominant factor influencing their short-term intentions to stay.
However, Generation X and Y reported work environmental factors as influential and
Generation I reported pay as the most dominant influence on their intentions to stay.
These results suggest that there are differences between the generations, although some
similarities were apparent within generations.
Early and Late Baby Boomers reported similar rankings in the influences of their short-
term intentions to stay, with the exception of job security which was reported as more
dominant by Early Baby Boomers than Late Baby Boomers, who in return reported
career opportunities as more dominant in their intentions to stay than Early Baby
Boomers. Early and Late Generation X and Y shared similar influences on their
intentions to stay. In particular, both Early and Late Generation X and Y reported
location as a common personal factor influencing their intentions to stay, although Late
Generation X and Y also noted the influence of family considerations on their intentions
to stay. Additionally, both generations reported work environment as the most dominant
influence to their intentions to stay. In doing so, conditions, people and hours were
reported as of similar importance although Early Generation X and Y employees were
more influenced by the availability of hours while Late Generation X and Y employees
were more concerned about the flexibility of those hours. Additionally, Early and Late
Generation X and Y employees reported similar organisational factors as influences on
their intentions to stay within the next 12 months. Unlike Early Generation X and Y
employees, however, these findings highlight that the younger generation (Late
Generation X and Y) was influenced more by career opportunities than was the older
generation (Early Generation X and Y) who in turn reported being influenced more by
job security.
6.3.2 Long-term intentions to stay by generation

Similar to short-term intentions to stay, 318 responses were gained from six generations
to the question, “What factors influence your intentions to stay at your organisation for
the next five years?” Specifically, six responses were received from Veteran generation
186
employees, 74 Early Baby Boomer employees, 129 Late Baby Boomer employees, 48
Early Generation X and Y employees, 32 Late Generation X and Y employees, and 19
Early Generation I employees. Responses revealed both similarities and differences
between the generations. Table 6.3 presents the factors that are dominant for each
generation’s long-term intentions to stay by rank of frequency of responses, and in
descending order.
187
Table 6.3 Long-term intentions to stay by generation (in descending order of frequency)
Veteran Early Baby Early Generation X Late Generation X
Generation Boomers (1946- Late Baby Boomers and Y and Y Early Generation I
(1926-1946) 1955) (1956-1965) (1966-1976) (1977-1986) (1987-1996)
N=6 % N=74 % N=129 % N=48 % N=32 % N=19 %
Personal Factors
Age 50 Age 12.2 Age 7.8 Location 5.2 Location 8.6
Health 6.8 Family 3.1 Family 5.2
Location 4.0 Location 3.1

Family 1.4 Health 0.8
Subtotal 50 Subtotal 24.4 Subtotal 14.8 Subtotal 10.4 Subtotal 8.6 Subtotal 0
Work environment (conditions, Work environment Work environment
Job Career
33.3 Job satisfaction 36.4 pay, flexibility, hours, people at 30.2 (conditions, people, 41.4 (Conditions, 37.1
Satisfaction Opportunities
work) hours, flexibility) people) 47.4
19.0 Career
Pay 16.7 Job security 13.4 Job satisfaction 22.5 Career opportunities 31.4 Pay
. opportunities 15.8
Work environment
(conditions, long 12.2 Pay 17.1 Pay 12.1 Job satisfaction 14.3 Job satisfaction
service leave, people) 15.8
Pay 12.2 Career opportunities 12.3 Job satisfaction 10.2 Pay 8.6 Job security 10.5
Career Opportunities 1.4 Job security 3.1 Job security 6.9 Working 10.5
environment
(People, workload)
Subtotal 50 Subtotal 75.6 Subtotal 85.2 Subtotal 89.6 Subtotal 91.4 Subtotal 100
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100

a
188
As shown in Table 6.3, both personal and organisational factors were found to influence
employees’ long-term intentions to stay.
Personal factors impacting employees’ long-term intentions to stay
Across all generations, except for the Veteran Generation and Generation I, the location
of an organisational workplace close to an employee’s home was a motivator to long-
term intentions to stay although the influence of this factor varied. Location was
dominant for 4.1% of Early Baby Boomers, 4.0% of Late Baby Boomers, 5.2% of Early
Generation X and Y, and 8.6% of Late Generation X and Y. However, while it was the
dominant theme for both Early Generation X and Y and Late Generation X and Y, it
was the third and second dominant personal factor for Early Baby Boomers and Late
Baby Boomers, respectively. This finding suggests that location of home in relation to
their workplace may be more influential for younger workers than for older workers,
although this may also be due to sample size differences within this study. Additionally,
age was dominant for 50% of the Veteran Generation, and 12.2% and 7.8% of Early and
Late Baby Boomers respectively. In contrast, family was dominant for 1.4% of Early
and 3.1% of Late Baby Boomers as well as 5.2% of Early Generation X and Y,
suggesting that retirement intentions and the inability to get another job was critical for
influencing older workers’ intentions to stay. However, this was not a factor influencing
the younger employees.
Organisational factors impacting employees’ long-term intentions to stay
Similar to short-term intentions to stay, job satisfaction and pay were common
influences across all generations, although of varying influence. For Veteran Generation
employees, job satisfaction was the most dominant factor influencing their intentions to
stay over the next five years, with 33.3% of responses reporting similar comments to “it
is so good to be able to help people in need”. Pay was then reported by 16.6% of
employees as second most dominant factor in their long-term intentions to stay in the
form of the “financial” need to stay.
For Early Baby Boomer employees, job satisfaction was the most dominant factor
influencing their long-term intentions to stay for 36.4% of employees, with participants
reporting they “enjoy what I do most of the time”. The second most dominant influencer
was job security with 13.4% of responses. Following this was the influence of work
environment (12.2%), where working conditions such as management (“my boss and
higher up the chain”), “long service leave”, and “people on the present job” were
189
reported as dominant factors by 8.1%, 2.7%, 1.4% of participants, respectively. Equal
third was pay, with 12.2% of responses arguing the “need to work” as the dominant
influence on their long-term intentions to stay. Following pay, career opportunities were
dominant influences for 1.4% of employees, with one participant reporting they were
“hoping for extra training”.
For Late Baby Boomers, work environment was the most dominant theme (30.2%),
comprising working conditions (17.8%), people (7%), hours (4.6%), and flexibility
(0.8%). Following work environment, job satisfaction was the next dominant factor for
22.5% of participants, with one participant reporting they would stay “if I continue to
enjoy my job”. The third most dominant influence on employees’ intentions to stay
long-term was pay, with 17.1% of participants indicating they “need to earn a living” or
“to continue to pay house off”. The fourth most dominant theme was the desire for
career opportunities (12.3%); in particular, participants were influenced by “promotion
opportunities” and their desire “to build my career within this organisation”. Finally, job
security was a dominant factor for 3.1% of participants as the allure of an “ongoing
contract” and “long-term position” motivated them to stay long-term.
Similar to Late Baby Boomers, work environment was the most dominant theme for
Early Generation X and Y employees, with 41.4% reporting either working conditions
such as “other organisations supply a car” (27.7%), hours (6.9%), flexibility (3.4%) or
people (3.4%) as influences on their long-term intentions to stay. The second most
dominant theme accounting for 19% of Early Generation X and Y responses was career
opportunities with one participant arguing that the “opportunity to grow professionally
and the opportunities for promotion” influenced them. Pay was then reported as the
third most dominant theme by 12.1% of participants, followed by job satisfaction
(10.2%) and job security (6.9%).
For Late Generation X and Y employees, work environment was the most dominant
theme with 37.1% of responses. For these employees, work environment included work
conditions (31.5%), and people on the job (5.6%). The second most dominant theme for
Late Generation X and Y employees was the allure of career opportunities (31.4%)
where one participant reported the perceived “room for movement” influenced her to
stay. Job satisfaction was the next most dominant theme with 14.3% of participant’s
responses reporting the influence that “rewarding roles” had on their intentions to stay.
190
Finally, the influence that pay had was evident in 8.6% of participants’ responses
through statements highlighting the “financial need to stay”.
In contrast, for Generation I employees, the most dominant factor emerging from the
data was career opportunities, with 47.4% of responses reporting the opportunities to
gain “experience” and “opportunities for promotion” would influence their intentions to
stay. Equal second most dominant factors for Generation I were job satisfaction (15.8%)
and pay (15.8%). For example, participants reported that “it’s a fantastic job, love the
clients, love the work” and the “need (for) money” as influential to their long-term
intentions to stay. Job security (10.5%) and the work environment (10.5%) were
reported as equal third dominant influences on Generation I employees’ long-term
intentions to stay, where factors affecting the work environment for this generation were
the people (5.3%) which includes “people on the job”, “the staff” and “the residents”
and the hours of work (5.3%).
Together these findings suggest both similarities and differences between the
generations. In particular, job satisfaction was found to be the most dominant influence
on intentions to stay for both the Veteran Generation as well as the older Baby Boomers
(Early Baby Boomer). However, work environment factors were more influential to
Late Baby Boomers, Early Generation X and Y and Late Generation X and Y. In
contrast to other generations, however, Early Generation I employees reported career
opportunities as the most dominant factor influencing their intentions to stay long-term
and work environment factors as the least dominant. Additionally, pay was reported as
second dominant for Early Generation I employees while pay was ranked second for
Veteran and Early Baby Boomers (along with work environment), third for Late Baby
Boomers, and fourth for Late Generation X and Y. Combining these findings with the
factors influencing short-term intentions to stay, the results seem to suggest that more
individualist characteristics such as pay and career opportunities influence Generation I
more than other variables such as the work environment and job satisfaction in
comparison to other generations.
The next section presents the results of the analysis of the factors influencing short-term
intentions to leave by generation.
6.3.3 Short-term intentions to leave, by generation

This study received a total of 279 responses to the short-term intentions to leave
question from two Veteran Generation participants, 31 Early Baby Boomers
191
participants, 71 Late Baby Boomers participants, 23 Early Generation X and Y
participants, 21 Late Generation X and Y participants and 14 Generation I participants.
Examination of the responses revealed both similarities and differences among
generations in the factors influencing their short-term intentions to leave. Table 6.4 lists
the dominant themes influencing the various generations’ short-term intentions to leave
(within the next 12 months).
192
Table 6.4 Short-term intentions to leave by generation
Veteran Early Baby Early Generation X Late Generation Early
Late Baby Boomers
Generation Boomers and Y (1966- X and Y Generation I
(1926-1946) % (1946-1955) % (1956-1965) %a 1976) %a (1977-1986) %a (1987-1996) %a
N=71
N=2 N=31 N=23 N=21 N=14
Personal Factors
Age 50.0 Family 12.9 Family 9.9 Family 8.7 Location 3.6 1. Location 8.7
Age 9.7 Health 2.8 2. Health 4.2
Health 3.3 Location 1.4 Travel 4.2
Work Work environment

Direction of environment (conditions, Career
50.0 41.9 47.9 (management, 47.8 (hours, workload, 35.8
aged care (conditions, management, opportunities
workload, hours) people)
hours) workload, hours) 38.5
Career Work
Pay 16.1 Pay 18.3 Career opportunities 26.1 21.4
opportunities environment 31.6
(conditions,
Career Career
16.1 12.7 Pay 17.4 Pay 21.4 workload,
opportunities opportunities
people, hours)
Poor job Poor job

7.0 10.7 Poor job
satisfaction satisfaction
satisfaction 8.6
Poor job security 7.1 Pay 4.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

a
193
As illustrated in Table 6.4, there was a less diverse range of factors influencing
employees’ intentions to leave within the next 12 months compared to intention to stay.
Across all generations, except for the Veteran Generation, work environment, career
opportunities and pay were common themes, although with varying influence. Similar
to intentions to stay, both personal and organisational factors played a role in
influencing employees’ intentions to leave within the next 12 months, as further detailed
below.
Personal factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to leave
One of the two (50%) Veteran Generation employees who responded to the short-term
intentions to leave question reported that they would leave within the next 12 months
due to retirement intentions. Similarly, age was a dominant factor for Early Baby
Boomers where 9.7% of participants reported retirement intentions as the influencing
factor, although age was the second most dominant theme for these Early Baby
Boomers. The most dominant theme for Early Baby Boomers was family commitments
(12.9%). The third and final influence on short-term intentions to leave among Early
Baby Boomers was health factors where 3.3% of participants indicated they intended to
leave if “health reasons” made them do so.
For Late Baby Boomers, family was the most dominant influence on intentions to leave
(9.9%), followed by health (2.8%), then location (1.8%). In particular, participants
reported that they would leave if the “family situation” required them to. Similarly,
family was the most dominant factor (8.7%) for Early Generation X and Y employees’
short-term intentions to leave. For Late Generation X and Y employees, the location of
the workplace in relation to their home was an influential factor for 1.4% of responses.
Interestingly, for Generation I employees also, location was dominant (8.7%) followed
by health (4.2%) and travel intentions (4.2%).
Organisational factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to leave
As with intentions to stay motivators, the majority of participants reported factors that
could be managed by organisations as dominant influences to their short-term intentions
to leave. Specifically, for one Veteran Generation employee (50%), “the (negative)
direction aged care was heading” was influential to their short-term intentions to leave
intentions. In contrast, for Early Baby Boomers, work environment was the most
194
dominant factor, with working conditions (38.7%) and hours (3.2%) reported as central
influences. Equal second most dominant were pay (16.1%) and career opportunities
(16.1%), with employees reporting that “more money each week” and “the opportunity
of a change for a new job” would influence them to leave.
For Late Baby Boomers, the work environment was also the most dominant factor with
47.8% of responses. This included the broader work environment, such as “conditions”
(12.9%), management (12.8%), workload (12.4%), and the provision of desirable hours
(9.7%) with participants citing “management not playing fair”, “unfair workload” and
the opportunity for “less hours” as central to their decision to leave. The second most
dominant factor for Late Baby Boomers was pay, with 18.3% of responses indicating
that “finances” and “dissatisfaction with pay” were influences for them to leave.
Following pay, a lack of career opportunities within the organisation and the desire to
“further my career” elsewhere were factors (12.7%) influencing employees’ short-term
intentions to leave. Finally, a lack of job satisfaction was reported by 7% of participants,
who argued that they would leave when they had to perform “boring, uninteresting
work”.
Early Generation X and Y employees reported three dominant organisational factors

that impacted their short-term intentions to leave. The first was work environment,
which was evident in 47.8% of participants’ responses. Specifically, the work
environment meant the influence of management (30.4%) such as “management style”
workload (13.0%) and desirable hours (4.4%) on employees’ intentions to leave.
Following work environment factors, this generation was influenced by a lack of career
opportunities (26.1%) within the organisation as well as attracted to career opportunities
outside their organisation. The third theme identified was pay, with 17.4% of responses
citing this as an influence.
Work environment was the most dominant influence (35.7%) on Late Generation X and
Y employees’ short-term intentions to leave, and included management (18%),
workload (10.7%), and hours (7.1%). In particular, responses included the influence of
“poor management”, the perception that “(there is) more responsibility (in aged care)
than acute care (for lower pay)”, and a “lack of flexible hours” on employees’ intentions
to leave. The lack of career opportunities (21.4%) within their organisations as well as
pay rates (21.4%) were equal second most dominant factor for this group of employees,
with participants arguing that “financial need” and the lack of “learning opportunities”
195
were motivating them to leave. Following this, poor job satisfaction was noted as an
influence with 10.7% of responses. Finally, lack of job security was an influence in
7.1% of participants’ responses.
Interestingly, Generation I employees reported a lack of career opportunities as the most

dominant factor (38.5%) influencing intentions to leave, with one participant stating that
“promotional and personal growth opportunities” would entice them elsewhere. The
second most dominant influencer for this generation was the work environment, with
29.2% of responses arguing that the high workload (8.3%), poor working conditions
(8.3%), disrespectful people on the job (including management, co-workers and
residents) (8.3%) as well as a lack of hours (4.2%) would all influence Generation I
employees’ intentions to leave. Poor job satisfaction was then noted as an influence by
8.3% of responses followed by poor pay rates (4.3%).
In summary, this analysis found that Early Baby Boomers and Late Baby Boomers were
influenced by similar factors (work environment, pay and career opportunities),
although Late Baby Boomers also intended to leave if they had poor job satisfaction. A
similar pattern was also found with Early and Late Generation X and Y employees
where a poor work environment, lack of career opportunities and poor pay or better pay
elsewhere would influence their intentions to leave within the next 12 months. In
addition to this, however, Late Generation X and Y employees also reported that poor
pay, poor job satisfaction and poor job security would influence them to leave (in
addition to poor work environment, career opportunities and pay). Generation I
employees reported the lack of career opportunities as the most dominant influence on
their intentions to leave, followed by work environment, poor job satisfaction and pay.
Together these findings suggest both similarities and differences between the
generations.
The next section presents the results of the analysis by generations of factors
influencing long-term intentions to leave.
6.3.4 Long-Term Intentions to Leave

In response to the question, “What factors influence your intentions to leave within the
next five years?”, this study received responses from six Veteran Generation employees,
41 Early Baby Boomer employees, 82 Late Baby Boomer employees, 25 Early
Generation X and Y employees, 27 Late Generation X and Y employees, and 12
Generation I employees. A variety of personal and organisational factors were reported
196
as dominant to their long-term intentions to leave, as listed in Table 6.5 in descending
order of frequency.
197
Table 6.5 Long-term intentions to leave by generation
Veteran
Generation Early Baby Boomers Late Baby Boomers (1956- Early Generation X Late Generation X and Y Early Generation I
(1926-1946) (1946-1955) 1965) and Y (1966-1976) (1977-1986) (1987-1996)
N=2 %a N=41 %a N=82 %a N=25 %a N=27 %a N=12 %a
Personal Factors
Age 100.0 Age 24.4 Health 8.5 Family 8.0 Location 9.1
Health 19.5 Family 7.3
Relocation 4.9 Age 4.9
Family 4.9 Relocation 3.7
Subtotal 100.0 Subtotal 53.7 Subtotal 24.4 Subtotal 8.0 Subtotal 0 Subtotal 9.1
Work environment
Career
Pay 19.5 (conditions, management, 35.0 Career opportunities 36.0 Career opportunities 37.0
opportunities 54.5
flexibility, hours, workload)

Career opportunities 14.6 Pay 24.8 (management, 32.0 (culture, work environment, 25.9 Pay 13.6
workload, hours) workload)
Working conditions 12.2 Career opportunities 12.2 Pay 24.0 Pay 18.5 Job Satisfaction 13.6
(conditions, Working 9.2

Job Security 2.4 Job Satisfaction 11.1
management) conditions
Burnout 1.2 Burnout 7.5
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

a
198
Personal factors influencing employees’ long-term intentions to leave
Table 6.5 highlights that there were no common personal factors across all generation
groups. Instead, age was a significant influence on the Veteran Generation (100%), and
both Early (24.4%) and Late Baby Boomers (4.9%) – the predominant influencer on
Veteran and Early Baby Boomers employees, but only the third most dominant
influencer for Late Baby Boomers. For Early Baby Boomers, in addition to age, the
influence of their own health was noted by 19.5% of participants’ responses, followed
by relocation of partners/self (4.9%) and family commitments (4.9%).
For late Baby Boomers, health was the most dominant influence with 8.5% of
responses, followed by family demands (7.3%), age (4.9%), and relocation (3.7%). In
contrast, for Early Generation X and Y, family commitments (8%) were the only
personal factor influencing their intentions to leave within the next five years and
location was the only personal influence for Early Generation I (9.1%). Interestingly,
personal factors were more dominant overall in older generations (100% for Veterans,
53.7% for Early Baby Boomers, and 24.4% for Late Baby Boomers) than younger
generations (8% for Early Generation X and Y, 0% for Late Generation X and Y, and
9.1% for Early Generation I), although factors relating to the organisation were also
influential to all but the Veteran Generation.
Organisational factors influencing employees’ long-term intentions to leave
While all veteran employees were intending to leave within the next five years, across
all other groups, insufficient pay, poor working environment and the need for career
opportunities were common influences on employees’ intentions to leave. Interestingly,
pay was the most dominant factor for 19.5% of Early Baby Boomers in their intentions
to leave long-term, with one participant reporting, for example, that the “terrible pay
with no increase in the past and none in the future” was influencing their intentions to
leave. The need for career opportunities was the second most important factor, evident
in 14.6% of participants’ responses, including statements that they would leave to
“work as an Enrolled Nurse after I graduate” or “to look for a new career”. Finally,
work conditions were reported in 12.2% of responses as a factor influencing Early Baby
Boomers’ long-term intentions to leave. These conditions included having a “car, other
organisations supply car and phone” (Conditions, 8.6%) and the “(negative) approaches
and mannerisms of higher authority” (Management, 3.6%).
199
For Late Baby Boomers, the work environment was the most dominant factor (35.0%)
influencing their intentions to leave, with high workload (7.3%), lack of hours (4.9%),
poor work environment (19.5%) and a lack of flexibility (3.3%) noted as influential by
these employees. The second dominant factor in their long-term intentions to leave was
pay (24.8%) followed by a lack of career opportunities within the organisation (12.2%).
Specifically, one participant said they would leave “to further my career”. Finally, job
security (2.4%) and burnout (1.2%) were also reported as influences, with responses
indicating that “if burnout should occur” then they would leave.
For Early Generation X and Y, career opportunities were the most dominant factor
(36% of responses) influencing their intentions to leave in the next five years, with
participants reporting that they would leave “to pursue nursing career” and to pursue
“further work experience”. The second dominant factor was their work environment
where poor management (24%), poor hours (4%) and workload (4%) were influences in
their intentions. Finally, pay was reported as an influence with 24% of participant’s
responses indicating they would leave due to the “poor pay” provided within the sector.
Similarly, a lack of career opportunities available at their organisation motivated Late

Generation X and Y employees (37%), where participants reported they would leave for
a “better chance and opportunity to cultivate my nursing skills and knowledge
clinically”. Next in importance, factors influencing the working environment (25.9%)
were noted as influencing intentions to leave, including a negative workplace
environment (11.1%), poor culture (7.4%), and a lack of desired hours (7.4%). In
particular, participants reported that “lack of investment in aged care systems”, “poor
leadership” and “poor hours” were influential to their intention to leave their
organisation. Pay was the next dominant factor for 18.5% of responses, followed by a
lack of job satisfaction (11.1%) and the possibility of burnout (7.4%).
For Generation I employees, the lack of career opportunities within their organisation
influenced 54.5% of employees’ intentions to leave long-term. In particular, participants
reported that opportunities for “promotions and personal growth”, “to work overseas”,
“to work in a hospital”, “to find a job related to my uni studies” and “to work in
government” were influences of their long-term intentions to leave. These findings
suggest that this generation saw working in aged care as a transition to other career
choices. However, not all employees felt this way, as responses indicated that poor pay
(13.6%) and a lack of job satisfaction (13.6%) were also influential to their intentions to
200
leave. Finally, negative working conditions from “the lack of respect or appreciation”
and “the bitchiness of my co-workers” were reported as motivating factors by 9.2% of
participants.
In summary, this analysis found both similarities and differences between the
generations. In particular, age was a consistent influence across the older generations,
and personal factors were more dominant overall in the older generation (100% for
Veterans, 53.7% for Early Baby Boomers, and 24.4% for Late Baby Boomers) than
younger generations (8% Early Generation X and Y, 0% for Late Generation X and Y,
and 9.1% for Early Generation I). Interestingly, career opportunities were most
dominant in these younger generations, where Early Generation X and Y, Late
Generation X and Y and Early Generation I all reported the lack of career opportunities
as an influence to their long-term intentions to leave. Pay, career opportunities and the
work environment were all consistent factors across all generations except for the
Veteran Generation, who were intending to retire in the next five years. The next
section highlights the similarities and differences in intentions to stay and leave within
each generation.
6.3.5 Similarities and differences by generation

To summarise, this section has provided an overview of the results of the data analysis
concerning the differences between the six generations in both their short-term and
long-term intentions to stay and leave. In addition, a description has been provided of
the results in terms of the similarities and differences in the factors influencing
employees’ intentions to stay and leave between the generations. This section of the
chapter now analyses, by generation, the similarities and differences in the factors
influencing employees’ intentions to stay and/or leave. Table 6.6 provides a summary of
the factors influencing each generation’s short-term and long-term intentions to stay and
intentions to leave, by personal and organisational factors, in descending order.
201
Table 6.6 Short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave by generation
Generation Short-Term Intentions to %a Long-Term Intentions %a Short-Term Intentions %a Long-Term Intentions %a

Stay to Stay to Leave to Leave
(N=6) (N=6) (N=2) (N=2)
Personal Factors
Age 50.0 Age 50.0 Age 100
Subtotal 0.0 Subtotal 0.0 Subtotal 50.0 Subtotal 100
Veteran Organisational Factors
Generation
Job Satisfaction 50.0 Job satisfaction 33.3 Direction aged care is 50.0
(1926-1946) heading
Work environment 33.3 Pay 16.7
(people & hours of work)
Pay 16.7
TOTAL 100 100 100 100
a
202
Table 6.6 Short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave by generation (continued)
Generation Short-Term Intentions to Stay Long-Term Intentions to Stay Short-Term Intentions to Long-Term
Leave Intentions to Leave
N=89 %a N=74 %a %a %a
N=31 N=41
Personal Factors
Early Baby Age 4.9 Age 12.2 Family 12.9 Age 24.4
Boomer
Location 3.3 Health 6.8 Age 9.7 Health 19.5
(1946-1955)
Family 0.8 Location 4.0 Health 3.3 Re-location 4.9
Health 0.8 Family 1.4 Family 4.9
Job satisfaction 59.3 Job satisfaction 36.4 Work environment 41.9 Pay 19.5
(conditions, hours)
Work environment (support, 10.6 Job security 13.4 Pay 16.1 Career Opportunities 14.6
workload, culture)
Pay 8.1 Work environment (people, 12.2 Career Opportunities 16.1 Working conditions 12.2
conditions, long service leave)
(benefits, hours)
Job security 8.1 Pay 12.2
Career opportunities 4.1 Career opportunities 1.4
TOTAL 100 100 100 100

a
203
Short-Term Intentions Long-Term Intentions to Short-Term Intentions Long-Term Intentions to
to Stay Stay to Leave Leave
Generation %a %a %a %a
N=152 N=129 N=71 N=82
Personal Factors
Late Baby Age 6.6 Age 7.8 Family 9.9 Health 8.5
Boomer Location 3.2 Family 3.1 Health 2.8 Family 7.3
(1956-1965) Family 3.2 Location 3.1 Location 1.4 Age 4.9
Health 0.8 Health 0.8 Relocation 3.7
Job satisfaction 26.6 Work environment (work 30.2 Work environment (work 47.9 Work environment (work 35.0
conditions, pay, flexibility, conditions, workload, conditions, flexibility,
hours, people at work) hours) hours, workload)
Working environment 22.5 Job satisfaction 22.5 Pay 18.3 Pay 24.8
(hours, conditions, long
service leave, people)
Pay 21.0 Pay 17.1 Career opportunities 12.7 Career opportunities 12.2
Career opportunities 11.3 Career opportunities 12.3 Poor job satisfaction 7.0 Job security 2.4
Job security 4.8 Job security 3.1 Burnout 1.2
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

a
204
Short-Term %a
Short-Term Intentions Long-Term Intentions Long-Term Intentions
Intentions to
Generation to Stay %a to Stay %a %a to Leave
Leave
N=53 N=48 N=25
N=23
Personal Factors
Location 3.2 Location 5.2 Family 8.7 Family 8.0
Family 5.2
Early Work environment Work environment Work environment

Generation X (conditions, people, 39.7 (conditions, people, 41.4 (management, 47.8 Career Opportunities 36.0
and Y hours) hours, flexibility) workload, hours)
(1966-1976) Work Environment
Job satisfaction 31.7 Career opportunities 19.0 Career opportunities 26.1 (management, workload, 32.0
hours)
Job security 11.1 Pay 12.1 Pay 17.4 Pay 24.0

Pay 9.5 Job satisfaction 10.2
Career opportunities 4.8 Job security 6.9
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

a
205
Short-Term Intentions to Long-Term Intentions to Short-Term Intentions to Long-Term Intentions
Generation Stay % a Stay % a Leave % a to Leave
N=34 N=32 N=21 N=27 %a
Personal Factors
Location 4.2 Location 8.6 Location 3.6
Family 4.2
Work environment Work environment (hours,

Work environment
(conditions, people, 37.5 37.1 workload, people, 35.7 Career opportunities 37
Late (conditions, people)
flexibility) management)
Generation X
and Y Work environment
(1977-1986) Career opportunities 20.8 Career opportunities 31.4 Career opportunities 21.4 (culture, work 25.9
environment, workload)
Job satisfaction 18.7 Job satisfaction 14.3 Pay 21.4 Pay 18.5
Pay 10.4 Pay 8.6 Poor job satisfaction 10.7 Job satisfaction 11.1
Job security 4.2 Poor job security 7.1 Burnout 7.5
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

a
206
Short-Term Intentions to Long-Term Intentions to Short-Term Intentions to Long-Term Intentions
Generation Stay % Stay % Leave % to Leave
N= 17 N= 19 N= 14 N= 12 %
Personal Factors
Location 3.7 Location 8.7 Location 9.1
Health 4.2
Travel 4.2
Early Pay 33.3 Career opportunities 47.4 Career opportunities 38.5 Career opportunities 54.5
Generation I
Work environment (people, 18.5 Pay 15.8 Work environment 31.6 Pay 13.6
workload) (conditions, workload,
people, hours)
(1987-1996)
Career opportunities 18.5 Job satisfaction 15.8 Job satisfaction 13.6
Job satisfaction 18.5 Job security 10.5 Poor job satisfaction 8.6 Working conditions 9.2
Job security 7.5 Work environment 10.5 Pay 4.2
(people, workload)
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

a
207
Veteran Generation
Job satisfaction was a key influencer of Veteran employees’ short-term (50%) and long-
term (33.3%) intentions to stay, but it was not a factor in Veteran employees’ short or
long-term intentions to leave. Instead, age and the intentions to retire were the dominant
influences. However, the work environment (33.3%) and pay (16.7%) were also
influences on the Veteran generation’s short-term intentions to stay but not their
intentions to leave. Together these findings suggest that Veteran Generation
employees’ intentions to stay are influenced by job satisfaction, pay and the work
environment. On the other hand, their intentions to retire and dissatisfaction with the
direction aged care are the main influences on their intentions to leave both now and
into the future. Although it should be noted that the sample size for this group was small
(N=6) and therefore these results may not be a true reflection of all veteran generation
employees working within these organisations.
Baby Boomer Generations
Both Early and Late Baby Boomer employees were influenced by both personal and
organisational factors. This section will compare personal factors first, followed by
organisational factors.
Age, health and family were consistent personal factors found to influence employees’
intentions to stay and leave. In particular, age was found to be a primary factor
influencing their intentions to stay and long-term intentions to leave, including their
intentions to retire and perceived inability to get another job. Additionally, health was
the second most dominant influencer across long-term intentions to stay and leave.
Interestingly, personal factors influenced short-term and long-term intentions to leave
(25.9% and 53.7%) more than their short-term and long-term intentions to stay (9.8%
and 24.5%).
Similarly, for Late Baby Boomers, family, location, age and health were dominant
factors influencing employees’ short-term and long-term intentions to stay, although the
order of influence among these factors differed from the Early Baby Boomers.
Interestingly, age was the most dominant factor affecting intentions to stay, where
participants reported the inability to get another job as key to their intentions to stay.
However, family and health were reported as the most dominant factors influencing
both short- and long-term intentions to leave, and age was not a factor in Late Baby
Boomers’ short-term intentions to leave. Unlike Early Baby Boomers, there was no
208
obvious difference between the influence that personal factors had on employees’
intentions to stay and leave, although personal factors had a stronger influence on long-
term intentions to leave (24.4%) than short-term intentions to leave (14.1%), and short-
(13.8%) and long-term (14.8%) intentions to stay. In addition to these personal factors,
organisational factors were also found to influence Baby Boomers’ intentions to stay
and leave.
Interestingly, job satisfaction was the most dominant factor influencing early Baby
Boomers’ short-term and long-term intentions to stay but not their intentions to leave,
indicating that job satisfaction could be considered more of an enticing factor
influencing employees’ intentions to stay, rather than attracting them to other
employment options. In contrast, the work environment, pay (financial need to stay and
pay conditions) as well as career opportunities were all common influences on Early
Baby Boomers’ intentions to stay and leave, although they differed in influence.
Factors related to the work environment were more dominant for short-term intentions
to stay and leave as well as long-term intentions to stay for the early Baby Boomers.
However, they were less dominant than pay and career opportunities in long-term
intentions to leave. Similarly, pay was more dominant than career opportunities for both
early Baby Boomers’ intentions to stay and leave. Additionally, job security was a
dominant influence for Early Baby Boomers’ intentions to stay but not their intentions
to leave.
Together these findings reveal that for the early Baby Boomer Generation, the intrinsic
satisfaction of the job itself is a primary motivator for Early Baby Boomers’ intentions
to stay, followed by work conditions associated with the job, job security and
appropriate pay. In contrast, work environment, pay and career opportunities influenced
employees’ intentions to leave.
For late Baby Boomers, work environment conditions were the most dominant
influence on employees’ long-term intentions to stay as well as short-term and long-
term intentions to leave. In particular, the workloads, hours, and conditions of work
were noted as environmental factors that influenced both intentions to stay and leave. In
addition to work environment conditions, job satisfaction, career opportunities and pay
were common factors influencing both intentions to stay and leave for Late Baby
Boomers. This finding was similar to the factors influencing Early Baby Boomers,
suggesting some similarities between the two groups. Unlike Early Baby Boomers,
209
however, intentions to leave for Late Baby Boomers were also influenced by burnout as
well as poor job satisfaction and job security. This finding suggests that while there are
similarities between the groups, there are also differences, which may be attributed to
the working circumstances that each may be experiencing.
In summary, both Early and Late Baby Boomers were influenced by the personal
factors, age, health, location and family, although personal factors influenced their
short-term and long-term intentions to leave more so than their short-term and long-
term intentions to stay for Early Baby Boomers only. Additionally, the organisational
factors of job satisfaction, work environment, job security, pay and career opportunities
were common influences of both Early and Late Baby Boomers, although with varying
degrees of dominance. Pay was ranked at equal or more influential than career
satisfaction across both generations, while work environment was ranked as more
influential for Late Baby Boomers than Early Baby Boomers in terms of intentions to
stay and leave. In contrast, job satisfaction was ranked more influential for Early Baby
Boomers. Together these findings highlight that while all factors were influential to
employees’ intentions to stay, some were more influential than others dependent on the
generation.
Generations X and Y
Unlike the Veteran and Baby Boomer Generations, Generation X and Y employees
were motivated primarily by organisational factors, although location and family were
noted as personal influences. In particular, location was influential for employees’
intentions to stay for both Early and Late Generation X and Y employees, whereas
family influences were dominant for intentions to leave in Early Generation X and Y
only. In contrast, Late Generation X and Y employees were influenced by location for
short-term intentions to leave, with no personal factors cited as influential in their
intentions to leave long-term.
Early and Late Generation X and Y employees were influenced to stay and leave by the
organisational factors, job satisfaction, work environment, pay, and career
opportunities, although with varying degrees of influence. Work environment was the
most dominant factor influencing both Early and Late Generation X and Y employees’
short-term intentions to stay and leave as well as their long-term intentions to stay, and
career opportunities influenced their long-term intentions to leave. Additionally, career
opportunities were the second most dominant factor for both generations’ long-term
210
intentions to stay and short-term intentions to leave. Interestingly, however, job
satisfaction and job security were dominant factors in Early Generation X and Y
employees’ intentions to stay but did not influence their intentions to leave. Instead,
career opportunities and pay were influential for intentions to leave. In contrast, job
satisfaction, job security and burnout were influences on Late Generation X and Y
employees’ intentions to leave. Thus, while there are slight differences in the emphasis
placed on organisational factors, there are mostly similarities between the factors
influencing the Generation X and Y employees’ intentions to stay and leave.
In summary, Early and Late Generation X and Y employees were influenced primarily
by organisational factors, although location and family were noted as personal
influences. Unlike the Baby Boomer Generations, the factors influencing Early and Late
Generations X and Y employees’ intentions to stay were more similar than different,
with the only difference noted being the ranking of dominance. Differences were found
between the generations in terms of the factors influencing employees’ intentions to
leave. However, while the work environment, career opportunities and pay were found
to be dominant factors in intentions to leave for Early Generation X and Y, job
satisfaction, security and burnout were also reported as influences on late Generation X
and Y employees’ intentions to leave.
Early Generation I
Comparable to the situation with Generations X and Y, the most dominant influence for
Generation I employees were related to organisational factors, although location was
noted as a common influence for short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave.
Interestingly, though, the desire to travel and work overseas as well as their own health
were noted as influences on short-term intentions to leave, but not mentioned as
influences on short-term or long-term intentions to stay or long-term intentions to leave.
Unlike Baby Boomers and Generations X and Y, factors related to Generation I

employees’ work environment were not the dominant influence of their intentions to
stay and leave. Instead, pay was the primary motivator of short-term intentions to stay,
and career opportunities were the most dominant influence on long-term intentions to
stay and both short and long-term intentions to leave. Similar to Baby Boomers and
Generations X and Y, pay, job satisfaction and working conditions were dominant
influences on both intentions to stay and intentions to leave. Additionally, factors
related to the work environment were the second most dominant factor influencing
211
short-term intentions to stay and leave, whereas pay and job satisfaction were equal
second dominant factors influencing long-term intentions to stay and leave. This finding
provides further evidence of both slight differences and similarities between each
generation.
6.4 Area of employment analysis

To examine whether there were any similarities and differences between the area of
employment in relation to employees’ intentions to stay and leave, the responses to
open-ended questions were re-analysed. The two areas of employment were residential
care and community care. This section provides the results of this analysis, using the
same methods as previously reported in this chapter.
6.4.1 Short-term intentions to stay by area of employment

In total, 169 responses from employees in residential care and 183 responses from
employees in community care were provided about the influences on their intentions to
stay within the next 12 months. This section describes the results of the analysis of the
data and then analyses both the personal and organisational factors that were reported as
influential to their intentions to stay. Table 6.7 presents a list of the dominant themes
reported by both residential and community care employees, in two sections – personal
and organisational factors –where the factors are listed in descending order of
frequency.
212
Table 6.7 Short-term intentions to stay influences by area of employment
Residential Care (N=169) %a Community Care (N=183) %a
Personal Factors
Location 5.3 Family 2.7
Age 2.4 Location 1.1
Family 2.4 Age 1.1
Health 0.6
Subtotal 10.7 4.9
Work environment 30.0 Job satisfaction 35.6
(management, co-workers, work
Work environment
conditions, hours, workload) 26.5
(work conditions, team,

Job satisfaction 25.2
management, flexibility, hours)
Pay 22.3 Pay 13.3

Career opportunities 7.1 Career opportunities 10.1
Job security 4.7 Job security 6.9
Sense of being “stuck” 2.7
Subtotal 89.3 95.3
TOTAL 100.0 100.0

a
As Table 6.7 illustrates, there are both similarities and differences between the personal
and organisational factors influencing both residential care and community care
employees’ short-term intentions to stay. For residential care employees, the location of
their work in relation to their home was the most dominant influence in their intentions
to stay with 5.3% of responses, followed by their age (2.4%) and family commitments
(2.4%). Notably, health concerns were reported by 0.6% of residential care workers as a
factor influencing short-term intentions to stay, whereas community care workers did
not report this factor as influential.
Community care workers reported the influence of family (2.7%), age (1.1%) and
location of work in relation to their home (1.1%) as the only personal factors
influencing their intentions to stay for the next 12 months. These findings suggest that
213
residential care workers (10.7%) are more influenced by personal factors in comparison
to community care workers (4.9%).
Both similarities and differences between the two areas of employment were also noted
in the organisational factors influencing short-term intentions to stay. Residential care
workers reported work environment (30%) as a critical factor influencing their
intentions, with responses suggesting it was “the best place in the work industry for
now”. Job satisfaction (25.2%) and pay (22.3%) were ranked as the second and third
most dominant influences. The influence of career opportunities was then noted by
7.1% of participants, where responses included “the lack of other opportunities” as well
as “opportunities for promotion”. Finally, the need for job security was noted by 4.7%
of responses.
In contrast, the most dominant factor influencing community care employees’ intentions
to stay for the next 12 months was job satisfaction, with 35.6% of participant responses
reporting that the “job is rewarding”. Following this, factors related to the work
environment were reported by 26.5% of responses. These factors were positive work
conditions (8.5%), friendly and supportive co-workers (10.4%), supportive management
(4.4%), availability of flexibility (1.6%) and desired hours (1.6%). This was in contrast
to the factors reported as dominant for residential care workers, which included
supportive management (17.6%), good work conditions (5.3%), available hours (4.2%)
and having a manageable workload (2.9%).
These results suggest that for residential care employees, management seemed to have a
greater influence on their intentions to stay than in a community care environment,
where the work conditions itself and friendly and supportive colleagues were reported
as more influential. This was evidenced in statements by residential care respondents
such as “reasonable working conditions”, “attitude of corporate office”, “caring
organisation, good to work for” and the “appreciation, value, support and
encouragement” they received. Following work environment, and in the same pattern of
influence as residential care workers, the influence of pay (13.3%), career opportunities
(10.1%) and job security (6.9%) were reported as factors influencing community care
employees’ short-term intentions to stay. In particular, these community care
participants reported that the “good pay”, the “ability to further career” and the need for
a “steady job” influenced their intentions to stay. Interestingly, however, 2.7% of
214
community care responses included a sense of “stuckness” in their job where, for
example, a “lack of other options in the area” influenced one participant to stay.
In summary, both residential and community care employees were influenced by

personal and organisational factors. Job satisfaction was more dominant for community
care workers while the work environment was reported as the most dominant influencer
for residential care workers, although work environment was reported as second
dominant for community care workers. Within this finding, management was more
influential in residential care employees’ intentions to stay whereas supportive
colleagues and work conditions themselves were more dominant in community care
employees’ intentions to stay.
6.4.2 Long-term intentions to stay, by area of employment

Similar to short-term intentions to stay responses, 127 Residential Care and 152
Community Care employees provided 136 and 188 responses respectively to the
questions regarding the factors that influence their intentions to stay at their
organisation over the next five years. Table 6.8 illustrates the results of the analysis of
this data, by the two types of factors – personal and organisational – by area of
employment. The factors are listed in descending order of frequency.
215
Table 6.8 Long-term intentions to stay influences by area of employment
Personal Factors
Age 10.3 Age 6.6
Location 7.4 Location 0.7
Family 2.2
subtotal 19.9 7.3
Work environment 22.8 Job satisfaction 32.1
(work environment and Work environment (work
culture, management, environment, flexibility, 27.4
workload) management, people on the job)
Job satisfaction 21.2 Career opportunities 22.6
Pay 19.9 Job security 6.5

Career opportunities 8.1 Pay 4.1
Job security 8.1
subtotal 80.1 92.7
TOTAL 100.0 100.0

a
Table 6.8 illustrates that both personal and organisational factors influence employees’
long-term intentions to stay. In contrast to short-term intentions to stay, more
participants reported personal factors influencing their long-term intentions to stay. That
is, for residential care employees, 10.3% of participants reported the influence of age on
their intentions to stay for the next five years. Location of employment was mentioned
by 7.4% of residential care participants as influencing their intentions to stay long-term.
Finally, 2.2% reported family commitments as dominant to their intentions to stay. In
contrast, for community care employees, 6.6% of participants reported age as
influential, whereas only 0.7% of participants reported location of work in relation to
their home as an influence. Interestingly, family commitments were not reported as
influences to community care employees. While exact reasons for this are unknown,
this may be a reflection of the community care work situation itself where the work is
mostly conducted during standard business hours, Monday to Friday, or it may be
reflective of the employees who work within community care settings. Additionally,
216
these results show similarities with both residential and community care employees’
short-term intentions to stay, where residential care employees reported more personal
factors (19.9%) influencing their intentions to stay than did community care employees
(7.3%).
Influences of the work environment were reported by 22.8% of residential care

employees and were the most dominant influence on their intentions to stay long-term.
These work environment factors comprised culture and environment (12.5%),
management (9.6%) and workload (0.7%), with responses indicating that the
“conditions” of being in a “very nice place to work” as well as working with an
organisation that has “work harmony and practice” were dominant factors influencing
long-term intentions to stay. The second dominant influence for residential care
employees was job satisfaction, with 21.2% of participants reporting that they “love
(their) job”. The influences that poor pay conditions and the financial need to stay
(19.9%) had on their long-term intentions to stay were then reported as dominant. In
particular, participants cited the “need (for) a job to earn a living” as well as the “pay
rate” influenced their intentions to stay. The equal fourth most dominant themes
identified were career opportunities (8.1%) and job security (8.1%).
In contrast, for community care employees, job satisfaction was the most dominant
influence, with 32.1% of responses reporting that “nature of the job”, “the job and
clients” and the “type of work” as dominant in influencing their intentions to stay long-
term. The second most dominant factor was the work environment (27.4%), where the
broader work environment itself, such as “reasonable working conditions and pay rates”
(12.5%), management (5.3%) flexibility (5.3%), and people (4.3%) influenced
employees’ long-term intentions to stay. These factors followed the same order as the
short-term intentions to stay influences.
Career opportunities were reported as the third most dominant factor, where 22.6% of
responses reported the allure of a “great organisation to work for”, “good team work”,
and “reasonable working conditions” as influential to their intentions to stay. The fourth
influence identified in 6.5% of responses was job security. In particular, participants
reported that the allure of an “ongoing contract”, “steady employment” and “stability”
influenced their intentions to stay. Finally, the influence of pay was noted by 4.1% of
participants with “the need for extra income in my family” and “money” reported as
influences on participants’ long-term intentions to stay.
217
Together, these findings suggest that while age, location, work environment, job
satisfaction, career opportunities, job security and pay were all common factors to both
areas of employment, they each played a different role in terms of influences for
residential and community care employees’ long-term intentions to stay.
6.4.3 Short-term intentions to leave by area of employment

In contrast to the larger volume of responses provided to intentions to stay questions,
only 77 residential care and 82 community care employees provided responses to the
factors influencing their intentions to leave their organisation within the next 12
months. The results of this analysis are provided in Table 6.9, in descending order of
frequency.
Table 6.9 Short-term intentions to leave influences by area of employment

Personal Factors
Family 5.2 Age 3.7
Relocation 1.3 Relocation 3.7
Subtotal 13.0 18.4
Work environment 35.8 Career opportunities 27.2
(workload, work conditions,
management, hours)
Work environment (management,
Career opportunities 22.8
job focus change, workload) 26.4
Pay 18.2 Pay 19.5
Job satisfaction 10.2 Job satisfaction 8.5
Subtotal 87.0 81.6
TOTAL 100.0 100.0

a
Table 6.9 illustrates that similar and different factors influencing residential and
community care workers’ intentions to leave within the next 12 months. In particular,
6.5% of residential aged care employees cited health concerns as influencing their
intentions to leave, whereas this was not cited as a factor for community care
218
employees. Instead, family (11.0), age (3.7%) and relocation (3.7%) were reported as
personal factors influencing community care employees’ intentions to leave. Family
(5.2%) and relocation (1.3%) were also cited by residential care employees as factors
influencing their intentions to leave in the short term, although in smaller frequency.
Age was also reported as a short-term intention to leave influencer by 3.7% of
community care employees; however it was not reported as an influence for residential
aged care employees.
In terms of organisational factors, the work environment of residential care employees

was noted as the most dominant influence on short-term intentions to leave. For
residential care employees, work environment was noted in 35.8% of responses with
workload concerns (12.7%), poor work conditions (8.8%), unsupportive management
(7.8%), and unavailability of desired hours of work (6.5%) reported as factors
influencing short-term intentions to leave. In particular, residential care participants
argued that “all the bullying and harassment”, “lack of camaraderie” and being “not
happy with management” influenced their intentions to leave.
In contrast, community care participants cited a lack of career opportunities or better

career opportunities elsewhere as the most dominant influence (27.2%) in their short-
term intentions to leave. In particular, participants reported “different career paths”, “no
change in current position” and “professional development opportunities” as influences
to their intentions to leave.
The second most dominant factor affecting short-term intentions to leave for residential
employees was career opportunities (22.8%). In particular, participants reported that
their desire “to look for another job” as well as for “more experiences” would influence
their intentions to leave the residential care sector. In contrast, the second most
dominant influence for community care employees was the work environment, where
26.4% of community care participants cited unsupportive management (15.4%), job
focus changes (9.8%) and excessive workload (1.2%) as influences on their intentions
to leave, with responses indicating the “change of the nature of my present job”, “poor
leadership” and the “pressure of the role”.
Pay was the third most dominant factor for both residential and community aged care
employees, mentioned by 18.2% and 19.5% of responses respectively. Both residential
and community care responses were focused on “if they pay better somewhere else” and
a “lack of wages” as influencing their intentions to leave. The loss of job satisfaction
219
was then reported as the fourth and final influence for both residential care (10.2%) and
community care (8.5%) employees, with responses indicating that “boring,
uninteresting work” would motivate them to leave within the next 12 months.
In summary, there are both similarities and differences between factors influencing
residential and community care employees’ intentions to leave within the next 12
months. In particular, these findings suggest that management and workload are
common and dominant influences on intentions to leave across both the residential and
community care workforce. However, residential care employees were influenced more
by broader working conditions and hours of work, whereas community care employees
were more influenced by potential changes in roles and career opportunities. Small
numbers of both residential and community care workers reported pay and a lack of job
satisfaction as influencing their intentions to leave within the next 12 months.
6.4.4 Long-term intentions to leave by area of employment

There were fewer responses to the question about employees’ intentions to leave long-
term than to the intentions to stay questions. A total of 96 residential care and 86
community care responses were obtained. Table 6.10 presents the dominant factors
influencing these employees’ intentions to leave, in descending order of frequency.
220
Table 6.10 Long-term intentions to leave influences by area of employment
Personal Factors
Age 10.4 Age 10.5
Family 6.3 Health 4.7
Relocation 1.0 Relocation 3.5
Subtotal 25.0 25.7
Work environment 32.6 Career opportunities 30.6
(management, work Work Environment (job 23.8
conditions, workload, focus change, management,
hours/shifts allocated) workload)
Career opportunities 27.8 Pay 14.0
Pay 12.5 Poor job satisfaction 3.5

Poor job satisfaction 2.1 Burnout 2.4
Subtotal 75.0 74.3
TOTAL 100.0 100.0

a
In contrast to short-term intentions to leave, Table 6.10 illustrates that there are some
differences in the frequency of factors influencing both residential care and community
care workers intentions to leave long-term (within the next five years).
For both residential and community care workers, age was the primary influencer for
leaving, with 10.4% of residential care and 10.5% of community care workers reporting
age as a factor. Residential care employees reported health concerns as the second most
dominant factor influencing their intentions to leave, with 7.3% of responses. For
example, one participant reported “injury – incapacitated” would prevent them from
continuing at their workplace. In contrast, only 4.7% of community care employees
reported health as a factor. Instead, 7.0% of community care employees indicated that
family commitments were a factor in their long-term intentions to leave compared to
6.3% of residential care employees. Relocation was the fourth most dominant factor
influencing 3.5% of community care employees, but present in only 1.0% of responses
from residential care employees.
221
Interestingly, factors affecting the work environment were stronger influences on long-
term intentions to leave for residential care (32.6%) than community care employees
(23.8%). For residential care employees, work environment factors included poor
management (14.5%) such as “team leader picking on me”, poor work conditions
(9.3%), excessive and unmanageable workloads (6.7%), and undesired hours/shifts
allocated (2.1%) as dominant influences on their intentions to leave. However, for
community care employees, job focus changes (9.1%), unsupportive management
(7.4%) and excessive workload (7.3%) were the only factors reported through responses
such as “work availability”, the “change of nature of my present job” and “management
style”. This suggests that for both residential care and community care employees,
management and workload were common influences on their intentions to leave;
however, the work conditions and hours allocated were influences for residential care
employees and the job role itself was an influence for community care employees.
Both, residential and community care employees reported pay (12.5% and 14.0%
respectively) and a lack of job satisfaction (2.1% and 3.5%) as the third and fourth most
dominant factors affecting their intentions to leave long-term. Specifically, employees
reported that it was “terrible pay, no increases in the past and future” (community care),
as well as the lack of “job satisfaction” as influences on their intentions to leave. In
contrast to residential care employees, 2.4% of community care employees reported
burnout as a factor in their intentions to leave long-term.
6.4.5 Similarities and difference identified in area of employment

Both similarities and differences were identified in the factors influencing residential
care and community care employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Table 6.11 illustrates
these similarities and differences, providing the percentages of frequency of responses
by the two types of factors – personal and organisational – and by area of employment.
222
Table 6.11 Similarities and Differences in Short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave by area of employment
Long-Term Intentions to Short-Term Intentions to Long-Term Intentions to
Area of Short-Term Intentions to Stay
% a Stay % a Leave % a Leave
Employment %a
(N=169)
(N=136) (N=77) (N=96)
Personal Factors
Residential Care Location 5.3 Age 10.3 Health 6.5 Age 10.4
Age 2.4 Location 7.4 Family 5.2 Health 7.3
Family 2.4 Family 2.2 Relocation 1.3 Family 6.3
Health 0.6 Relocation 1.0
Work environment 30.0 Work environment 22.8 Work environment 35.8 Work environment 32.6
(work environment and (management, work

(management, work conditions (workload, work conditions,
culture, management, conditions, workload,
and culture, hours, workload) management, hours)
workload) hours/shifts allocated)
Job satisfaction 25.2 Job satisfaction 21.2 Career opportunities 22.8 Career opportunities 27.8
Pay 22.3 Pay 19.9 Pay 18.2 Pay 12.5
Career opportunities 7.1 Career opportunities 8.1 Job satisfaction 10.2 Poor job satisfaction 2.1
Job security 4.7 Job security 8.1
TOTAL 100 100 100 100

a
223
Table 6.11 Similarities and Differences in Short-term and long-term intentions to stay and leave by area of employment
Short-Term Intentions to Short-Term Intentions to

Area of Long-Term Intentions to Stay Long-Term Intentions
Stay a a Leave a
% % % a
Employment (N=188) to Leave (N=86) %
(N=183) (N=82)
Personal Factors
Family 2.7 Age 6.6 Family 11.0 Age 10.5

Community
Care Location 1.1 Location 0.7 Age 3.7 Family 7.0
Age 1.1 Relocation 3.7 Health 4.7
Relocation 3.2
Job satisfaction 35.6 Job satisfaction 32.1 Career opportunities 27.2 Career opportunities 30.6
Work environment (work

Work environment (work Work environment Work environment
conditions and culture,
26.5 environment, flexibility, 27.4 (management, job focus change, 26.4 (job focus change,
team, management,
management, people on the job) workload) management, workload)
flexibility, hours) 23.3
14.0
Pay 13.3 Career opportunities 22.6 Pay 19.5 Pay
Career opportunities 10.1 Job security 6.5 Job satisfaction 8.5 Poor job satisfaction 3.5
Job security 6.9 Pay 4.1 Burnout 2.4
TOTAL 100 100 100 100

a
224
For residential care employees, age was the primary personal motivator for both long-
term intentions to stay (10.3%) and to leave (10.4%). Factors affecting the workplace
were also dominant across both short-term and long-term intentions to stay (30% and
22.8% respectively) and leave (35.8% and 32.6% respectively), with management,
working conditions and environment, and workload being common factors influencing
both intentions to stay and leave. In contrast, the availability and desirability of working
hours influenced short-term intentions to stay as well as short and long-term intentions
to leave, although they were not reported as influences for long-term intentions to leave.
Job satisfaction was the second most dominant factor influencing both short- (25.2%)
and long-term (21.2%) intentions to stay; however, it was the least dominant factor
influencing both short- (10.2%) and long-term (2.1%) intentions to leave. Thus, while
job satisfaction was not as influential to intentions to leave, it still had an influence. Pay
was the third most dominant organisational factor reported for all short-term and long-
term intentions to stay (22.3% and 19.9%, respectively) and leave (18.2% and 12.5%,
respectively), while career opportunities was a more dominant influence on both short-
term and long-term intentions to leave (22.8% and 27.8%, respectively) than intentions
to stay (7.1% and 8.1%, respectively). Job security was the only factor influencing
residential care employees’ intentions to stay, with 4.7% of participants responses
reporting it as an influence on their short-term intentions to stay and 8.1% reporting job
security as an influence to their long-term intentions to stay.
For community care workers, family commitments was the most dominant personal
factor influencing both short-term intentions to stay (2.7%) and leave (11.0%), and age
was the most dominant influence of long-term intentions to stay (6.6%) and leave
(10.5%). Location and the possibility of relocation were also common influences for
both short-term and long-term intentions to stay (1.1% and 0.7%, respectively) and
leave (3.7% and 3.2%, respectively). Interestingly, and in contrast with residential care,
factors affecting the work environment were the second most dominant organisational
factor influencing community care workers’ short-term and long-term intentions to stay
(26.5% and 27.4%, respectively) and leave (26.4% and 23.8%, respectively), with poor
management and negative work conditions reported as common factors influencing both
short- and long-term intentions to stay and leave. Workload was also a factor for short-
term intentions to stay as well as short- and long-term intentions to leave for community
care employees. This finding suggests that ensuring employees receive a manageable
workload is influential for employees’ intentions to stay, where excessive workloads
225
influence intentions to leave and having a manageable workload was reported as a
factor in staying. Flexibility, desirable hours and people on the job were unique factors
influencing intentions to stay, whereas job focus changes was a unique influencer on
intentions to leave. Career opportunities were more dominant for short- and long-term
intentions to leave (27.2% and 30.6%, respectively) than short- and long-term intentions
to stay (10.1% and 22.6%, respectively), indicating the influence of providing clear
career opportunities within organisations. Finally, pay was dominant for both short-term
and long-term intentions to stay (13.3 and 4.1, respectively) and leave (19.5 and 14.0,
respectively).
Together these findings illustrate that both similar and different personal and
organisational factors influence the intentions to stay and leave of residential and
community care workers in the Australian aged care sector. Additionally, these findings
illustrate that while work environment, job satisfaction, pay, and career opportunities
were dominant for both residential and community care employees in this study, the
influence of each of these factors on employees’ intentions to stay and leave differed.
226
6.5 Overall summary of findings
Overall findings
In summary, both personal and organisational factors were found to influence

employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Personal factors were more influential for long-
term intentions to leave (29.8%) than short-term intentions to leave (16.5%), short-term
intentions to stay (10.5%) and long-term intentions to stay (13.2%). Age and family
considerations were consistent influences across intentions to stay and leave, although
both age and family considerations were more influential in intentions to leave than
intentions to stay.
However, while personal factors had an influence on employees’ intentions to stay and
leave, organisational factors were more influential, with over 70% of reported factors
influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave relating to organisations. In
particular, job satisfaction, work environment, pay and career opportunities were
consistent factors that affected both intentions to stay and leave. Although job
satisfaction was the most dominant influence of intentions to stay, it was the least
dominant factor influencing intentions to leave. Instead work environment was the most
dominant influence on intentions to leave.
Interestingly, pay and career opportunities were consistently reported as the third and
fourth most dominant factors influencing intentions to stay and leave, with career
opportunities reported as more dominant than pay. The need for job security was
highlighted as a unique factor contributing to intentions to stay. No unique factors
predicted intentions to leave. Combined these factors suggest that while there are factors
influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave that organisations cannot control,
most of those factors relate to the workplace and are within the control of management
and the broader organisation.
Generational differences
Veteran Generation employees’ intentions to stay are influenced by job satisfaction, pay
and the work environment. However, their intentions to retire and dissatisfaction with
the direction aged care is heading influenced their intentions to leave both now and into
the future. Early and Late Baby Boomers were influenced by the personal factors, age,
health, location and family, although personal factors influenced their short-term and
long-term intentions to leave more so than their short-term and long-term intentions to
227
stay for Early Baby Boomers only. Additionally, the organisational factors of job
satisfaction, work environment, job security, pay and career opportunities were common
influences of both Early and Late Baby Boomers, although with varying degrees of
dominance. Pay was ranked at equal or more influential than career satisfaction across
both generations, although work environment was ranked as more influential for Late
Baby Boomers than Early Baby Boomers in their intentions to stay and leave. In
contrast, job satisfaction was ranked more influential for Early Baby Boomers.
Unlike the Veteran and Baby Boomer Generations, Generation X and Y employees
were influenced primarily by organisational factors, although location and family were
noted as personal influences. The factors influencing Early and Late Generations X and
Y employees’ intentions to stay were more similar than different, with the only
difference noted being the ranking of dominance. Differences were found between the
generations in the factors influencing employees’ intentions to leave. Where the work
environment, career opportunities and pay were found to be dominant factors in Early
Generation X and Y’s intentions to leave, job satisfaction, security and burnout were
also reported as influences on late Generation X and Y employees’ intentions to leave.
Generation I employees were similar to Generation X and Y employees in that they

were influenced more by organisational factors than personal factors. However, unlike
Baby Boomers and Generation X and Y, factors related to their work environment were
not the most dominant influence on their intentions to stay and leave. Instead, pay was
the primary motivator of short-term intentions to stay, and career opportunities were the
most dominant influence on long-term intentions to stay and both short- and long-term
intentions to leave. However, work environment, job security, job satisfaction and
working conditions were dominant influences to intentions to stay and intentions to
leave. This finding suggests that extrinsic factors (such as pay and career opportunities)
influenced Generation I employees’ intentions to stay more than intrinsic factors such as
job satisfaction. In contrast, career opportunities were the most dominant influence for
Generation I employees’ short-term intentions to leave, followed by work environment,
poor job satisfaction and pay. For long-term intentions to leave, Generation I reported
career opportunities, pay, job satisfaction and work environment, again highlighting the
extrinsic rewards sought by this generation in comparison to other generations.
Together, these findings highlight that there are both similarities and differences
between the generations on their short term and long term intentions to stay and leave.
228
Early and Late Baby Boomer Generation and Generation X and Y employees shared
more similarities than differences, however Generation I tended to reveal more
differences than similarities compared to other generations. This suggests and provides
partial support for hypothesis 1b, which proposes that each generation will report
different factors as influential to their intentions to stay and leave.
Area of employment
This study also identified similarities and differences between residential care and
community care employees’ intentions to stay and leave. For short-term intentions to
stay, job satisfaction was more dominant as a factor than work environment for
community care employees; however, the reverse was the case for residential care
employees. Interestingly, pay, career opportunities and job security were reported with
the same order of dominance, influencing both residential and community care
employees’ short-term intentions to stay.
For long-term intentions to stay, overall personal factors were more influential for
residential care employees (19.9%) compared to community care employees (7.3%).
Across both areas of employment, however, age and location were common personal
influences although residential care employees also reported the influence that family
has on their intentions to stay. Unlike short-term intentions to stay, the order of
influence of organisational factors was different for long-term intentions to stay. In
particular, residential care employees reported work environment characteristics as most
dominant and job security as least dominant influence on their intentions to stay long-
term. In contrast, community care employees reported job satisfaction as most dominant
and pay as least dominant influences on their long-term intentions to stay.
Consequently, the factors influencing employees’ short-term intentions to stay were
more similar than those that influenced employees’ intentions to leave.
Upon examining the factors influencing employees’ intentions to leave by area of

employment, community care employees reported more personal factors overall than
residential care employees. This was in direct contrast to intention to stay, where the
opposite occurred. Across both residential care and community care employees, the
organisational factors work environment, career opportunities, pay and job satisfaction
were reported as common influences to their short-term intentions to leave, although the
degree of influence varied. That is, residential care employees reported the work
environment as most dominant, and career opportunities as second most dominant,
229
whereas community care employees reported the opposite. Similarly, pay and job
satisfaction factors were ranked as third and fourth most dominant across both
residential and community care employees. These findings suggest that residential care
employees were influenced more by broader working conditions and hours of work,
whereas community care employees were more influenced by potential changes in roles
and opportunities for career opportunities. A similar pattern also occurred when
examining the factors affecting residential and community care workers’ long-term
intentions to leave, where age, family health and relocation opportunities were
consistently reported personal factors. Additionally, the same ranked influences were
reported by both residential and community care employees’ long-term intentions to
leave as their short-term intentions to leave, with the only exception being the influence
of burnout on community care employees’ intentions to leave within the next five years.
Overall these findings reveal both similarities and differences in employees’ intentions
to stay and leave. Work environment, job satisfaction, pay and career opportunities were
common influences on both intentions to stay and leave. Job security was found to be a
unique factor influencing employees’ intentions to stay, whereas burnout was a unique
factor influencing community care employees’ long-term intentions to leave. These
findings revealed mixed support for hypothesis 8, which proposes that there will be
differences between the factors influencing residential aged care and community aged
care employees’ intentions to stay and leave.
6.6 Chapter summary and conclusion
This chapter has presented the results of the open-ended questions, offering an analysis
of the results overall, by generation and by area of employment in order to provide
further guidance on the factors that influence employees intentions to stay and leave.
From analysing these results, it can be concluded that there are more similarities than
differences between employees’ intentions to stay and leave and that these similarities
and differences vary by generation and area of employment. A summary of the
qualitative findings of this study is presented in Figures 6.1 and 6.2. The next chapter
discusses these findings and presents the overall conclusions of this study.
230
Age/Generation Job satisfaction
Organisational support
Family commitments
Perceived health Supervisor support

Intention to stay
Location of work Pay
Area of employment Career opportunities
Study commitments Job security
Working conditions
(flexibility, workload)
Figure 6.1 Summary of Employees’ Intentions to Stay, qualitative data only
231
Age/Generation Organisational Support
Health Supervisor Support
Study commitments Working conditions

(burnout, flexibility,
workload) Intention to Leave
Family commitments
Career opportunities
Relocation
Pay
Area of Employment
Job satisfaction
Figure 6.2 Summary of Employees’ Intentions to Leave, qualitative data only
232
Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion
233
7.0 Introduction
The aim of this study was to examine the factors influencing employees’ intentions to
stay in and leave the Australian aged care sector. To do this, this research employed a
questionnaire methodology examining current employees of the Australian aged care
sector from four organisations across two states of Australia using both open-ended and
closed questions to triangulate the data. The theoretical framework underpinning this
study was the Resource Based View of the Firm (RBV).
According to the Resource Based View of the Firm (RBV), organisations can gain
competitive advantage in their marketplace through the acquisition of rare, valuable,
inimitable, and non-substitutable human resources (Barney, 1991). This theory argues
that it is the human capital pool, employee behaviour and relationships, and people
management strategies employed within an organisation that determine the extent of
competitive advantage each employee provides to an organisation (Barney, 1991).
Consequently, it is important to determine what human capital pool, employee
behaviours and relationships, and people management practices affect employees’
intentions to stay and leave so that organisations can implement effective strategies to
maximise retention (Dunford et al., 2001). This study, therefore, investigated which
factors influenced employees’ intentions to stay and leave using this theoretical
framework.
The structure of the thesis has been as follows. Chapter 1 provided an outline of the
research problem and contextualised the retention and turnover difficulties facing the
Australian aged care sector. Chapter 2 then explored the retention and turnover
literature further and provided a description of the theoretical framework that
underpinned this research, the Resource Based View of the Firm. Following this,
Chapter 3 contextualised this research by providing a review of the Australian aged care
sector and demonstrated the complexities of the characteristics of this workforce.
Through doing so, that chapter highlighted the need for research examining aged care
workforce retention and turnover strategies in order to ensure the sustainability of the
sector. The two models that this research set out to examine were then presented at the
conclusion of that chapter. Chapter 4 then oriented readers to the methodology and
methods that were used to test the models and research questions proposed. After this,
Chapter 5 and 6 described the results of this study in the context of the research
questions.
234
The aim of this final chapter is to integrate these findings, and discuss their application
to the Australian aged care sector in the context of the five research questions posed.
The chapter will also provide comparisons with the literature in the field to identify
support (or otherwise) for the results from this study. Importantly, the contributions of
both theory and practice will be described, as well as the implications for aged care
organisations and their management. The strengths and limitations of this study will
then be highlighted, as will a discussion of the future research needed to examine
employee retention and turnover in the Australian aged care sector as well as in the
management research field. Finally, this chapter will present the overall conclusions of
this research.
7.1 Research question 1: discussion of findings

The first research question enquired into the factors that influence employees’ intentions
to stay. To examine this question, the researcher investigated factors affecting the
human capital pool (age/generation, education level, marital status, tenure, kinship
responsibilities, perceived health of self and family, job employment status and area of
employment), employee behaviours and relationships (perceived organisational support,
perceived supervisor support, job satisfaction and job embeddedness), and people
management strategies (as determined by open-ended questions) and their influence on
employees’ intentions to stay. This section will discuss the findings of this question and
link these findings to relevant literature in the area.
Human capital pool
The relationship between age and employees’ intentions to stay was complex. That is,
while statistically there were no relationships identified between age and employees’
intentions to stay, upon examining the qualitative feedback, age or the “intention to
retire” was important to employees’ short-term and long-term intentions to stay. This
qualitative finding was similar to research conducted on Australian nurses by Shacklock
(2006) and, Shacklock and Brunetto (2011), where their qualitative data suggested that
the intention to retire or the employee’s age was important to older nurses’ intentions to
stay. Together these quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that while statistically
age was not important to all employees in this study, to a certain group age had an
influence on their intentions to stay.
This trend was further identified when the data were analysed for generational
differences, where no statistical relationship was found between generations and their
235
intentions to stay although age (including comments about employees’ intention to
retire or their “inability to get another job”) was important to older generations’
(Veteran and Baby Boomer) short-term and long-term intentions to stay but not to the
intentions of younger generations (Generation X and Y, and Generation I). This finding
may reflect the older workforce, which is providing challenges for the aged care sector
more broadly and suggests that the effect of age on perceived ability to get another job
plays a dominant role in employees’ planning to remain or not, supporting previous
research by Shacklock (2006). It also highlights a significant and possibly long-term
deficit in the ability of the aged care sector to provide sufficient care for the ageing
population in the future. This finding reinforces the importance of attracting and
retaining younger employees to and within the sector. However, the lack of a statistical
relationship between age and employees’ intentions to stay was in contrast to the
findings of Howe et al. (2012), who examined Australian aged care employees using the
data provided by the 2007 national census of aged care employees. The fact that the
sample in the present study was found to be statistically younger than the most recent
2012 aged care workforce census may explain the differences found between these two
studies.
Contrary to expectations, however, no statistically significant relationship was identified

between employees’ intentions to stay and their education level (H2). This is in contrast
to previous research by Kash et al. (2010) and Howe et al. (2012), which found that the
more educated health care employees were, the less likely they were to stay, across both
a US acute care setting and Australian aged care settings. One possible explanation for
these differences could be the sample examined. That is, while the samples could not be
compared on education level differences, it is possible that the sample in the current
study was not as educated as the broader population of Australian aged care workers on
which Howe et al. (2012) based their study. Therefore, research is needed to further
examine these differences. Interestingly, however, study commitments were reported as
influential for a small percentage of employees’ short-term intentions to stay, although
for these employees it was the expectation of staying until they had completed their
study that influenced their intentions to stay. Study commitments were not reported as
influential for long-term intentions to stay, which may suggest that the need to work
during study keeps employees at their organisation but their intention to remain at their
organisation post-study commitments are influenced by other factors relating to the
organisation.
236
Marital status did not have a statistically significant influence on employees’ intentions
to stay. However, the influence that partners had on employees’ intentions to stay were
reported through the general theme “family commitments” in the qualitative findings,
although this influence was important only for a small percentage of employees and was
the third most dominant personal factor identified. This is an important finding as
previous research by Johnson and Favreault (2001) and Kim and Feldman (2000) has
only found a relationship between marital status and employees’ intentions to leave, and
no research has investigated the relationship between marital status and employees’
intentions to stay. This finding suggests that while spouses and partners play a small
role in employees’ intentions to stay, other factors are more influential.
The fourth human capital variable investigated in this study was the influence that
kinship (or dependent) responsibilities had on employees’ intentions to stay. In contrast
to previous research by AbuAlRub (2010), Estryn-Behar et al. (2007), Howe et al.
(2012), McCarthy, Tyrell, and Lehone (2007) and Stewart et al. (2011), this study found
no significant differences between employees with and without kinship responsibilities
in terms of their intentions to stay, although family commitments were reported in the
qualitative data as important for a small percentage of employees’ short-term and long-
term intentions to stay. This finding suggests that while for some employees, family
commitments are important, for others they are not a factor. However, they are still
important to consider when developing retention strategies. This is particularly
important in the context of an ageing population where some employees need to care for
both their older parents as well as dependent children (Shacklock & Brunetto, 2011).
Within the US, some organisations already provide elder-care and child-care
arrangements for their employees, but the significance and need for both of these
provisions within an Australian aged care setting remain under-researched. Therefore,
further research is needed to examine the extent of care that employees provide to their
families and how this care can be supported by organisations to encourage retention.
The fifth human capital pool factor investigated was the influence that tenure played in
employees’ intentions to stay. Limited research has investigated the influence that
tenure plays in employees’ intentions to stay, with one study identifying positive
relationships between tenure and intentions to stay (Gambino, 2010), that is, the longer
an employee had worked for an organisation, the higher their intentions to stay. In
contrast, Howe et al. (2012) examined the Australian aged care workforce and found the
opposite, that is, the longer employees had worked in their role, the less likely they were
237
to stay. However, no study has investigated the relationships between tenure in role at
an organisation within the aged care sector on employees’ intentions to stay. Upon
investigating this relationship in the present study, no significant relationships between
any form of tenure and intentions to stay were found. Additionally, tenure was not
identified specifically as an influence on employees’ intentions to stay in the qualitative
findings, although a few employees reported the importance of long service leave as a
factor influencing their intentions to stay. One possible explanation of this could be the
sample collected, as in this study employees were less experienced than those of the
national census. It is possible there may be an interaction effect with age on this
relationship, however further research is warranted to explore this relationship further.
This finding has significant practical implications, which are discussed later in this
chapter.
An unexpected finding of this study was the influence that location of work in relation
to home had on employees’ intentions to stay. That is, the qualitative data revealed that
the location of an employee’s workplace in relation to their home was the most
dominant personal factor influencing employees’ short-term intentions to stay and
second most dominant personal factor influencing employees’ long-term intentions to
stay across all generations, except for the Veteran Generation. Previous research
examining the importance of location of work to employees’ intentions to stay has
found that this factor is particularly important for females (Wheatley, 2013). One
possible explanation of this finding was put forward by Carter and Butler (2008) who
argued that the role females play in their home life, such as a mother, partner and
homemaker, influence their desire and ability to travel far for work. Accordingly, the
location of work in relation to their home played a stronger role in female employees’
intentions to stay. In this study, differences between the genders could not be examined
because the majority of the participants in this study were female (92.8%). However,
because the Australian aged care workforce is highly feminised (AIHW, 2011), this
finding is of particular relevance and is an important new finding for the sector.
The final two human capital pool factors investigated in this study were perceived
health of self and perceived health of family. This study found no statistical support for
a relationship between perceived health of self and intentions to stay. However, the
importance of health was reported in the qualitative data to be a factor affecting a small
percentage of employees’ long-term intentions to stay. In particular, these comments
centred on the employees’ desires to continue working as long as their health holds out.
238
This was particularly the case for Baby Boomer generations, providing support for
previous research by Shacklock (2006), AARP (2006), and Patrickson and Ranzijn
(2004) who all found that the health of older employees (aged 50+) and their families
had a significant influence on employees’ intentions to stay. The lack of a statistical
relationship, however, also supports research by Howe et al. (2012) who investigated
the Australian aged care workforce and found no statistical support for the relationship
between perceived health of self and employees’ intentions to stay. Combined, these
findings suggest that health is an influential personal factor for intentions to stay for a
small proportion of older generation employees but, for the majority of aged care
employees, health did not play a role in their intentions to stay.
In summary, this study found generational differences in employees’ intentions to stay

as well as relationships between family commitments, location of work in relation to
their home and the health of older employees and employees’ intentions to stay. This
finding provides valuable new knowledge to the aged care sector, because the factors
influencing employees’ intentions to stay continues to be an under-researched area. In
particular, these findings highlight to aged care management the importance of
considering these factors when developing human resource management strategies in
order to enhance the retention of valued employees. In addition to these factors, the
influence of employee behaviour and relationships and people management strategies
were also investigated in this study. Findings pertaining to these factors are discussed
next.
Employee behaviour and relationships
This study found a significant positive relationship between perceived organisational

support and employees’ intentions to stay, supporting and extending previous work by
Eisenberger et al. (2011), Johlke et al. (2000), and Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) to
an Australian aged care context. This finding suggests that employees’ intentions to stay
is influenced by the amount of support that an organisation is perceived to provide.
This extension to an Australian setting was important as previous research in this area
had been conducted using samples from within the US or Asia (Cho et al., 2009;
Eisenberger, 2011), with no research examining the importance of this construct on
Australian aged care workers’ intentions to stay.
This finding is particularly important in the aged care sector, as the funding available to
provide this support to employees is tightening (Productivity Commission, 2011).
239
Therefore, reinforcing the importance of organisational support in influencing
employees’ intentions to stay is an important finding for the sector, with important
practical implications as more tangible connections with the support available from the
broader organisation may be needed to influence employees’ intentions to stay in the
future. However, capacity to provide this support may be greater in smaller
organisations than larger organisations because of the physical proximity and close
connections between employees and management that smaller organisations allow. This
may result in employees working within smaller organisations having higher perceived
organisational support, and subsequently higher intentions to stay, than those working in
larger organisations. While organisational support may be attainable in larger
organisations through teams (Dekker and Barling, 1995) and at each individual site and
service, organisations need to first consider how support is perceived in their
organisations and how they can provide more tangible evidence of support in order to
influence the intentions to stay of valued employees. Therefore, further research
investigating this relationship is needed.
This study found that the relationship between perceived supervisor support and
employees’ intentions to stay was mediated by perceived organisational support. This
finding is in line with previous research by Allen et al. (2010), Brannon et al. (2002),
Coomber and Barriball (2007), and Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002). Rhoades and
Eisenberger (2002) argued that this relationship develops as supervisors serve as
representatives to their organisations and as such how a supervisor treats his/her
employees will affect how an employee generally feels about how much their
organisation cares about their wellbeing and values their contributions. Within both
residential and community aged care, supervisors play a significant role in employees’
perceptions of the organisation, as the work performed is done so through rotating
shifts, meaning that not all staff have the opportunity to interact with the broader
organisation. This is because visits from corporate office, anecdotally, are conducted
mostly between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday. Instead, the support provided to
employees from an organisation is perceived through their supervisors. Therefore,
training supervisors in how to support the staff they supervise may lead to higher
perceptions of supervisor support and higher perceptions of organisational support,
which in turn is likely to lead to higher intentions to stay.
The influence that management, culture and supervision have on employees’ intentions
to stay was further reinforced through the qualitative findings of this study. In
240
particular, the work environment factor (working for the organisation, culture,
management and people) was the second most dominant factor influencing employees’
long-term intentions to stay while the work environment factor (culture, management
and co-workers) was the second most dominant factor influencing employees’ short-
term intentions to stay. This finding is in line with previous research by Shacklock
(2006) who reported that positive work environments were important to nurses’
intentions to stay.
The third employee behaviour and relationship factor examined in this study was job
embeddedness. Job embeddedness encompasses the links, fit and sacrifices employees
have and make within their community (off-the-job embeddedness) and organisation
(on-the-job embeddedness). Interestingly however, only partial support was provided
for the proposed relationship between job embeddedness and employees’ intentions to
stay. While previous research found relationships between both on- and off-the-job
embeddedness and employees’ intentions to stay (Jiang, Liu, McKay, Lee, & Mitchell,
2012; Holtom & O’Neil, 2004; Reitz, Anderson & Hill, 2010), this study only identified
significant correlations between on- and off- the-job embeddedness and employees’
intentions to stay. Further investigation of this relationship revealed a significant unique
relationship between employees’ intentions to stay and on-the-job embeddedness.
Thus, employees who were more embedded within their organisation were more likely
to stay, but the same could not be said for off-the-job embeddedness as no significant
independent relationship with employees’ intentions to stay was identified.
This was an important and new finding in the area of job embeddedness, where research
has previously only been conducted using organisations predominately within the US.
One possible explanation for these differences is that the community where people live
in Australia may not be as important to employees as it is in a US context, thus
questioning the applicability of this construct globally. However, as this study is part of
an emerging body of research, future research is needed to further investigate these
findings using a comparison sample of US and Australian plus testing within and
between other country settings.
Additionally and as expected, a significant positive relationship was identified between

employees’ intentions to stay and their satisfaction with pay, supervision, work on
present job, co-workers and opportunities for promotion, as well as satisfaction with the
work in general. This finding supports previous research by Bishop et al. (2008), Castle
241
et al. (2007), Hill (2011), Kash et al. (2010), Lavoi-Tremlay et al. (2008), O’Donnell
and Hudson (2011) Rosen et al. (2011) and Shacklock, (2006) who found satisfaction in
general as well as satisfaction with pay, supervision, and the work environment
important to employees’ intentions to stay in studies conducted within the US, UK and
Australia.
Further support for the influence that job satisfaction in general as well as the influence
that pay, the work itself, friendly co-workers and good opportunities for promotion, has
on employees’ short-term and long-term intentions to stay was provided in the findings
from the open-ended questions. Interestingly, although the financial need to stay was
noted as important, it was less important to employees’ short-term and long-term
intentions to stay than were other factors such as the work environment. One possible
explanation for this could be that because aged care employees are the lowest paid
health care workers in Australia (National Seniors Australia, 2011), so the satisfaction
gained by the job itself and other facets become more important to employees within
this sector. This is an important finding and has significant practical implications for
management within this sector, as it demonstrates that while pay is still an influential
factor, employees’ intentions to stay are influenced more by other organisational factors
such as career opportunities, job security and work conditions. This may be of particular
relevance to aged care organisations as the funding within this sector tightens
(Productivity Commission, 2011).
People management strategies
The qualitative findings of this study identified that job security and work environment
factors such as management, work conditions, culture, workload, and good rosters/hours
were dominant factors influencing both short-term and long-term intentions to stay.
This finding has significant practical implications for management as it identifies that,
for aged care employees, having a good workplace to go to, with friendly and
supportive colleagues, management, good conditions of work and available hours and
flexible working hours as well as plenty of career development opportunities were key
influences on intentions to stay. These findings support previous research by Howes
(2008), Rosen et al. (2011), and Shen, Cox, and McBride (2004) who found working
conditions as a key influence on employees’ intentions to stay. Additionally, this study
supports previous research that found satisfaction with wages and benefits (Bishop et
al., 2008; Kash et al., 2010; Lavoi-Tremblay et al., 2008), flexible rosters (Skinner et
242
al., 2011; Thornthwaite, 2004); and positive work environments (Shacklock, 2006) all
influenced employees’ intentions to stay.
Summary of Intentions to Stay Findings
In summary, the combined quantitative and qualitative data revealed that the personal
factors age, health, location of the job in relation to home, study commitments, family
and area of employment were influential to employees’ intentions to stay. Additionally,
the organisational factors of perceived organisational support (including work
conditions and culture), perceived supervisor support (including management), on-the-
job embeddedness, job satisfaction, career opportunities, job security, pay, workload,
allocated shifts were all influential to employees’ intentions to stay. These results are
displayed visually in Figure 7.1.
243
Age/Generation Job Satisfaction
Perceived Organisational
Health
Support
Location of home in
relation to work Perceived Supervisor
Support Intention to Stay
Study commitments
Job Embeddedness
Kinship responsibilities Pay
Job Security
Area of employment
Career Opportunities Key
Direct
Relationship
Working conditions Indirect
(flexibility, workload) Relationship
Figure 7.1 Final model of intention to stay
244
The second research question asked, “What factors influence employees’ intentions to
leave?” Similar to research question one, factors related to the human capital pool,
employee behaviours and relationships and people management strategies were
investigated.
Human capital pool
As was the case with the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay, no statistical
relationship was identified between age and employees’ intentions to leave. This is in
contrast to previous research from the US, UK and Australian health care sectors
(including the aged care sector) reporting that older workers were more likely to stay
and younger workers more likely to leave (Anderson & Hill, 2010; Dockery, 2004;
Health Workforce Australia, 2012; Howe et al., 2012; Larabeen et al., 2010; Letvuk &
Buck, 2008). One possible reason for this finding could be the differences in sample
between this study and the national census, where the study sample was found to be
statistically younger in age than the national aged care workforce. Interestingly, the
qualitative findings revealed that age was the least dominant personal influence on
employees’ short-term intentions to leave, but the most dominant personal influence on
employees’ long-term intentions to leave. This suggests that while only a small
percentage of employees intended to leave due to retirement in the next 12 months, a
larger percentage of employees intended to leave due to retirement within the next five
years. While this finding is unsurprising given the ageing workforce that is challenging
the aged care sector, it also highlights the need to successfully attract and retain younger
workers in the sector. To gain a deeper understanding of generational differences in
intentions to leave, the qualitative and quantitative data was analysed further for
generational differences.
The second human capital variable investigated in this study was the influence that level
of education has on employees’ intentions to leave. No statistical relationship was
identified between education level and intentions to leave, which supported previous
research by Boxall et al. (2003) based on a national questionnaire of employees across
different contexts in New Zealand. One possible reason for this could be the fact that
entry into the sector as a personal or community care worker, who make up more than
60% of the aged care workforce, does not require a degree or certificate (King et al.,
2012). In this study, care workers made up 59% of the community care workforce and
245
60% of the residential care workforce, of which 21.3% did not have a qualification past
year 12. This is an important theoretical finding as previous research conducted has
argued that employees who have higher qualifications are more likely to leave (Kash,
Naufal, Cortes, & Johnson, 2010; Larabeen et al., 2010). This study suggests that this
relationship is actually more complex, and may be influenced by the available options
and compatible roles within the sector. However, as this study is limited to the aged
care sector, this relationship needs to be further examined in future research.
No statistical relationship was found between either marital status or kinship

responsibilities and intentions to leave. However, the qualitative findings suggested that
spouses have an influence more generally through the broader theme “family” for Early
and Late Baby Boomers as well as for Early Generation X and Y employees. However,
family was not an influence for Late Generation X and Y or Generation I employees.
This finding may be reflective of age differences, as previous research by Johnson and
Favreault (2001), Kim and Feldman (2000), and Shacklock, Brunetto, and Nelson
(2007) found retirement, relocation and financial decisions are often made with spouses.
Additionally, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2009) reported that 13% of
older females leave the workforce to spend more time with their family and partners.
This is an important finding as it suggests that younger workers (Late Generation X and
Y and Generation I) are not influenced by family/spouses, but older workers (Early and
Late Baby Boomers and Early Generation X and Y) were, which is a new finding in the
aged care workforce literature. This finding provides important practical implications
for management, showing that flexible work practices and family friendly policies are
needed to retain older workers.
This study also examined the relationship between tenure and employees’ intentions to
leave, and unexpectedly found that tenure within a position was significantly positively
correlated with intention to leave. That is, employees who have been in their position
longer are more likely to leave than those who have been in their position for a shorter
period of time. This may reflect an increasing demand from employees on their
organisation for career progression. Interestingly, the qualitative findings of this
research also identified that a lack of career opportunities was a dominant factor
influencing employees’ intentions to leave. This may reflect the changing nature of the
workforce as described earlier when discussing generational differences. However, it is
an important contribution of this study as no previous research has examined the
relationship between tenure within a position and employees’ intentions to leave. This is
246
even more interesting as the sample in this study had been working in the sector for a
shorter period of time than the national census. While this is a limitation to this research
and could perhaps be an influence on this result, the finding is still interesting and
important theoretically because little research has investigated this research prior to this
study using an aged care sample.
As was the case with intentions to stay, this study found that relocation had an influence
on employees’ intentions to leave. That is, employees reported they would leave if they
relocated from where they currently live to work overseas or somewhere else in
Australia. This was an important influence for most generations, except for Early
Generation X and Y and Veteran Generation. This finding was complemented by the
influence that travel has on Generation I employees’ intentions to leave, suggesting that
the desire to travel and/or relocate was considered as possible by some employees either
within the next 12 months or within the next five years.
The final two human capital pool variables investigated in this study were the
relationships between perceived health of self and perceived health of family with
employees’ intentions to leave. Previous research has identified that employees who
reported poorer health had higher intentions of leaving than those who reported better
health in both Australian acute care and aged care settings (Shacklock & Brunetto,
2011; Howe et al., 2012). This study, however, did not support this hypothesis, with one
possible reason being the demographic make-up of the sample where only 6.7% of
employees reported their own health as poor or very poor, whereas 7.8% of employees
rated their family health as poor or very poor. Additionally, 87.7% reported their health
and 85% reported their family’s health as good or better. Thus, the good health of
employees and their families in this study may explain the lack of support for this
hypothesis. Further examination of the open-ended question responses revealed that
health was reported as the second most dominant factor influencing a small percentage
of employees’ short-term and long-term intentions to leave. Further examination of this
data by generation revealed that only the Baby Boomers employees reported health as
influential to their intentions to leave.
In summary, this section has highlighted that generation, location, health, tenure within
a position, and family are dominant influences on employees’ intentions to leave both
soon and into the future. These findings have important management implications for
the sector and suggest that these factors should be considered when designing retention
247
policies for the aged care sector. The next section discusses the employee behaviours
and relationships that influence employees’ intentions to leave.
Employee behaviours and relationships
This study examined the relationship between four employee behaviour and relationship
variables and employees’ intentions to leave. These variables were perceived
organisational support, perceived supervisor support, job embeddedness and job
satisfaction.
A significant negative relationship between perceived organisation support and

intentions to leave was found in this study, which suggests that that when employees
feel supported by their organisations their intention to leave decreases. This finding
supports and extends previous research by Cho et al. (2009), Dawley et al. (2010) and
Riggle et al. (2009) to an Australian aged care context. This is important as research
investigating the aged care workforce has not previously considered the role which
employees’ perceptions of organisational support play in employees’ intentions to leave.
The influence of organisational support on employees’ intentions to leave was also
highlighted in the qualitative findings of this research. In particular, management, co-
workers and working conditions were reported as key working environment factors that
affected both short-term and long-term intentions to leave. This supports previous
research by Pocock and Skinner (2012), who also found unsupportive working
environments a key influencer in employees’ intentions to leave.
In addition to the support provided by organisations, this study found that perceived
organisational support played a mediating role between perceived supervisor support
and employees’ intentions to stay and leave. This was in line with previous research
conducted in the US and UK by Allen et al. (2010), Brannon et al. (2002), Cho et al.
(2009), Coomber and Barriball (2007), and Eisenberger (2002). As most previous
research has investigated this construct overseas and only a limited amount of studies
have examined the construct in an Australian setting, this study provides further support
for the applicability of these constructs globally. Further, the findings of this study
highlight the important role that supervisors play in influencing employees’ intentions
to leave, as how a supervisor treats its employee’s influences how an employee
generally feels about how much their organisation cares about their wellbeing and
values the contributions they make to the organisation. These findings also support
248
research more generally on the importance of support from supervisors on employees’
intentions to leave by Hill (2011) and O’Donnell and Hudson (2011).
The significant relationship between perceived organisational support and perceived

supervisor support in influencing employees’ intentions to leave further highlights the
need to provide tangible evidence of support to employees directly as well as through
the management team. This is an important practical contribution of this research and
suggests that training in the softer skills of management is needed in order to ensure the
right messages are passed on to employees, especially when for some employees the
only contact they have with the wider organisation is through their direct supervisor.
This is especially the case within a community care environment where most work is
performed autonomously in the field.
In addition to the influence perceived organisational and supervisor support has on

employees’ intentions to leave, this study also investigated the role that job
embeddedness plays in employees’ intentions to leave. In doing so, a significant
relationship between on-the-job embeddedness and employees’ intentions to leave was
found. That is, the more employees were embedded within their organisation through
the perceived fit they felt with the values of the organisation, the more links they had
established within the organisation and the higher the sacrifice would be if they left, the
less likely they were to stay. However, no unique relationship was found between off-
the-job embeddedness and their intentions to leave, indicating the same links, fit and
sacrifice criteria for where they live did not impact their intentions to leave.
These findings about job embeddedness were significant as previous studies

investigating this relationship within a US context found that off-the-job embeddedness
was just as influential as on-the-job embeddedness within a health care context
(Anderson & Hill, 2010; Holtom & O’Neil, 2004). One possible reason for the
differences between the findings of this research and previous research could be the
country of study, as Australian employees may not have a strong need to work close to
where they live, or alternatively they may not be as connected with their communities as
people are in the US. Additionally, the loss of a job within an Australian aged care
context does not necessarily mean re-locating or a loss of community. As research is
still emerging on this construct, the current study makes a significant theoretical
contribution to the literature by finding that off-the-job embeddedness does not play a
role in employees’ intentions to leave within an Australian aged care context.
249
The final employee behaviour and relationship examined was the importance of job
satisfaction in employees’ intentions to leave. This was examined using both global and
facet measures of job satisfaction. In doing so, a significant negative relationship was
found between job in general, satisfaction with pay, supervision, work on the present
job, people on the present job, opportunities for promotion, and employees’ intentions
to leave. Moreover, people on the present job and satisfaction with the opportunities for
promotion available were found to be significant unique predictors of intentions to
leave, indicating that these particular facets of job satisfaction were important to
employees’ intentions to leave. The importance of job satisfaction was further identified
in the open-ended question responses where job satisfaction was the fourth most
dominant organisational factor influencing intentions to leave in the short term and long
term. However, good colleagues, work environment, opportunities for promotion, pay,
and good management were also reported as influential, while dissatisfaction with
management, unfair workload, unfriendly co-workers, burnout, undesirable hours, lack
of support from the organisation itself, and poor working conditions were reported as
influential factors in participants’ short- and long-term intentions to leave.
Taken together, these findings support previous research conducted on health workers
in the US and UK (Boxall et al., 2003; Brannan et al., 2007; Kim & Jorgaratnam, 2010;
McCarthy, Tyrell and Lehare, 2007; and Pocock & Skinner, 2012) who found that poor
job design, poor recognition, lack of autonomy in decision making, lack of challenges
and responsibilities and unsupportive work environments were all factors influencing
employees’ intentions to leave. Additionally, this study supports previous findings by
Moyle, Skinner, Rowe, and Gork (2003) who found job satisfaction related to work
flexibility, residents, working within a team environment and client care in aged care
influence intentions to leave. The finding that both global and facet measures of
satisfaction were significant to employees’ intentions to leave extends the literature on
job satisfaction to an Australian aged care sector context. This is important, as the
factors influencing aged care employees’ intentions to leave may be different from those
influencing acute care or sub-acute care employees’ intentions to leave because of
context differences between the sectors. Additionally, previous research examining aged
care employees’ intentions to leave has mostly focused on job satisfaction globally,
rather than examining the specific components of how job satisfaction influences
intentions to leave (Rodwell & Martin, 2013).
250
These finding have important practical implications as they provide aged care managers
and human resource professionals with greater insight into the factors that influence
employees’ intentions to leave and may be used to generate appropriate human resource
management strategies designed to retain employees within the sector.
People management strategies
Investigations into people management strategies further reinforced the important roles
that pay, career development opportunities, burnout, and the work environment factors
management, flexibility, workload, and availability of work hours have on employees’
intentions to leave. These findings supported previous research by Allen, Bryant and
Vardoman (2010), Boxall et al. (2003), Brannon et al. (2007), Moyle, Skinner, Rowe
and Gork (2003), and Shen, Cox and McBride (2004) who found hectic work schedules,
and a lack of career development and promotion opportunities influenced employees’
intentions to leave. The qualitative findings of this study also revealed that while pay
was influential (third most dominant factor) in employees’ intentions to leave, work
environment and career development opportunities were more dominant factors. This
suggests that while improvements to pay are needed in the future, good performance
management, clear succession planning, promotion opportunities, good supportive
working environment with manageable workloads, flexibility and a choice of hours may
influence employees’ intentions to stay in the meantime. This is an important practical
finding of this research and provides practitioners with specific factors that influence
intentions to leave that they can use when developing human resource strategies in the
future.
Summary
In summary, the findings of both the qualitative and quantitative results revealed that
employees’ intentions to leave were influenced by both personal factors
(age/generation, health, location of workplace in relation to employees’ homes, tenure
in position, and family commitments), and organisational factors (perceived
organisational support, perceived supervisor support, on-the-job embeddedness, job
satisfaction, pay, career opportunities, burnout, and the work environment (including
flexibility, workload, and the availability of work hours)). These findings are visually
represented in Figure 7.2.
251
Age/Generation Perceived Organisational

Support
Health
Perceived Supervisor
Support
Location of work in
relation to employees’
home Job Embeddedness Intention to Leave
Tenure in role
Job Satisfaction
Family Responsibilities Pay
Career Opportunities
Key
Area of Employment Direct

Working conditions Relationship
(flexibility, hours, Indirect
workload) Relationship
Figure 7.2: Final model of intentions to leave
252
The third research question examined by this study questioned the similarities and
differences in the factors influencing employee retention and turnover. This study found
that age, family commitments (primary caregiver responsibilities), perceived
organisational support, perceived supervisor support, on-the-job embeddedness, job
satisfaction, pay, career opportunities, and the work environment factors, management,
allocated roster, and providing a fair workload were common influences on both
employees’ intentions to stay and leave. The influence of pay on both intentions to stay
and leave was previously identified in a qualitative study of direct care workers
conducted in the US (Mittal et al., 2009). However, that study did not find any other
overlapping constructs between intentions to stay and leave. In contrast, Howe et al.
(2012) found that family commitments, being employed as a casual or part-time
employee, and the desire for more hours, were common factors influencing Australian
aged care employees’ intentions to stay and leave.
In addition to commonalities, this study also found differences between the factors
influencing intentions to stay and leave. In particular, the unique factors influencing
employees’ intentions to stay were study commitments, location of the job in relation to
home, job security, the financial need to stay and the desire to receive long service
leave. Unique influences on employees’ intentions to leave were tenure in position,
burnout, the organisation itself and the allure of better benefits and conditions of work
elsewhere (including better pay). These similarities and differences could reflect
different satisfiers to employees according to the two factor theory of job satisfaction. In
particular, Herzberg and Mausner (1959) suggested that “motivators” were those factors
that provide intrinsic satisfaction to individuals, such as achievement, recognition, work
itself and responsibility and “hygiene” factors were those factors that dissatisfied
employees such as company policies, administration, supervision, salary, working
conditions and interpersonal relationships. Extending that theory to explain employees’
intentions to stay and leave, these distinctions seem to apply generally, where the
motivators related to factors influencing intentions to stay (e.g. study commitments and
job security) and the hygiene factors aligned with those factors influencing intentions to
leave (e.g. organisation itself and the allure of better benefits and conditions elsewhere).
However, no previous studies have found these differences between intentions to stay
and leave and while this study advances theoretical knowledge in this area, further
research is also warranted to investigate these differences further.
253
In summary, as predicted, factors influencing the human capital pool, employee
behaviours and relationships and people management strategies all contributed to
employees’ intentions to stay and leave. These findings further support Howe et al.
(2012) who found that the drivers of intentions to stay are different from the drivers of
intentions to leave, and suggest that aged care management needs to start seeing the two
sets of drivers differently in order to aid the development human resource management
strategies that promote the retention of aged care workers.

The fourth research question examined differences between the factors influencing
residential care and community care employees’ intentions to stay and leave. To answer
this research question, the relationship between area of employment and organisational
factors was investigated. No previous research examining differences between the
residential care and community care workforce as a whole has been conducted, and as
such this study makes a significant contribution to academic and practitioner knowledge
bases.
The quantitative analysis found that community care workers reported significantly
higher intentions to stay and lower intentions to leave. This trend was also found when
investigating specifically personal care workers and community care workers in the
Australian aged care workforce (King, Wei & Howe, 2013). Additionally, this study
found that community care workers perceived significantly higher levels of
organisational and supervisor support than residential care workers. This was an
unexpected finding as the community care workforce works within a semi-virtual team
environment, where they check their rosters with management and administration daily
before conducting their daily tasks autonomously. One possible explanation for this
finding is that the perception of support could be influenced by the virtual support
provided, where support is available for employees immediately via telephones. This
finding also suggests greater support and satisfaction with supervision, which supports
the findings of King et al. (2012) who found community aged care workers were more
satisfied than residential aged care workers with their current job conditions.
Similarities and differences were also found within the qualitative findings of this study.
For short-term intentions to stay, job satisfaction was a more dominant influence than
work environment in community care employees’ but the reverse applied for residential
254
care employees. Additionally, work environment and job satisfaction combined were
slightly more influential in residential care employees (62.1% of responses) than
community care employees (59.5% of responses). This suggests that residential care
employees were marginally influenced more by these factors than community care
employees. One possible reason for this could be that the work conditions, culture,
management and hours are more stable and predictable within a residential care
environment than a community care environment and as such become more of an
influence for residential care employees. Previous research investigating relationships
between community care and residential care intentions to stay and leave have found a
similar result for personal care workers, where job conditions and dissatisfaction with
the work itself were more influential for residential care employees than community
care employees (King et al., 2013). Interestingly pay, career opportunities and job
security were reported as similar factors with the same order of dominance in
influencing both residential and community care employees’ short-term intentions to
stay. No previous research has examined the differences between these factors and area
of employment so this finding is significant for management as it suggests that there are
both similarities and differences between the factors influencing short-term intentions to
stay by area of employment. Consequently, human resource managers should consider
different policies for the retention of aged care employees for the different workforces.
For long-term intentions to stay, overall personal factors were more influential for
residential care employees (19.9%) compared to community care employees (7.3%),
where age and location were common personal factors influencing intentions to stay;
however, family played a unique role in influencing residential care employees’
intentions to stay. This was surprising as both workforces had similar family
commitments. One possible explanation for this could be the shift time differences, as
residential care employees provide care for clients around the clock, whereas the
majority of care provided to clients in community care is within normal business hours
(Productivity Commission, 2011) meaning that community work can be arranged more
easily around family commitments. Both workforces, however, reported the influence of
organisational factors – job satisfaction, work environment, pay, career opportunities
and job security – although the order of influence differed. In particular, residential care
employees reported work environment characteristics as most dominant and job security
as least dominant influences on their intentions to stay long-term. In contrast,
community care employees reported job satisfaction as most dominant and pay as least
255
dominant influences to their long-term intentions to stay. No previous research has
examined these similarities and differences, and as such this study makes an important
contribution to the literature as it reinforces the differences identified between the two
workforces. This finding also makes a significant practical contribution by reinforcing
the importance of flexibility in human resource strategies across both workforces.
A similar pattern of similarities with slight differences emerged when examining the
influences of short-term and long-term intentions to leave. Both family and the
possibility of relocating were reported as similar personal factors influencing
community care and residential care employees’ intentions to leave within the next 12
months. In addition to this, however, age was a dominant influence in community care
employees’ short-term intentions to leave, and health was important to residential care
employees’ intentions to leave within the next 12 months. In contrast to short-term
intentions to leave, both community care and residential care employees reported the
influence that age, health, family and relocation have on their long-term intentions to
leave.
Interestingly, for both short-term and long-term intentions to leave, both community
care and residential care employees reported the influence that work environment
factors (management, hours, workload and work conditions/benefits), career
opportunities, pay, and job satisfaction have on their intentions to leave. These factors
were also found to be important influences on employees’ intentions to stay, indicating
that there are more similarities than differences between the two areas of employment.
Although career opportunities were reported as the dominant influence on community
care employees’ long-term intentions to leave, residential care employees reported this
as second most dominant factor in their long-term intentions to leave. Additionally,
changes to the job itself influenced community care employees’ short-term and long-
term intentions to leave, whereas hours and work conditions/benefits offered were
unique influences to residential care employees’ intentions to leave.
Taken together, these findings illustrate that both similar and different factors influence
the intentions to stay and leave of residential and community care employees within the
Australian aged care sector and support the argument of Howe et al. (2012) that
residential and community care workforces should be considered separately when
developing human resource management strategies to retain employees within these
workforces.
256
The final research question investigated the differences between the factors influencing
intentions to stay and leave by the generation of the employee.
Overall, there were differences in the factors influencing each generation’s intentions to
stay. Veteran Generation employees were influenced to stay by job satisfaction, pay and
the work environment. In comparison, Early and Late Baby Boomers were influenced
by the personal factors: age, health, location and family and the organisational factors:
work environment, career opportunities, pay, job satisfaction and job security.
However, Early Baby Boomers were influenced to stay long-term more by job
satisfaction than the work environment, whereas the opposite was the case for Late
Baby Boomers. A similar situation applies to Generations X and Y, where Late
Generation X and Y were influenced more by job satisfaction than work environment
and Early Generation X and Y were influenced more by work environment than job
satisfaction. Across both Early and Late Baby Boomer generations, pay was ranked at
equal or more influential than career opportunities. In contrast, career opportunities
were found to be more influential than pay for both Early and Late Generation X and Y.
These findings may reflect differences in priorities between generations, which have
been identified in previous research by Martin (2005), Piper (2008), Shaw and Fairhust
(2008), Smola and Sutton (2002) and Weston (2006), who all found that Generation X
and Y employees expected success in a shorter period of time than other generations
and, as such, were more demanding of professional development opportunities in the
workplace than other generations. Research by Wilson, Squires, Widger, Cranley and
Tourangeau (2008) also found that Baby Boomers were more satisfied with the
professional opportunities available to them than other generations, which may explain
the stronger influence that pay has on intentions to stay found in this research.
Alternatively, the Baby Boomer generation may be at an age where financial security is
more important to them than career opportunities. However, as this research collected
only very brief statements about the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay,
further research is needed to explore these differences in more depth.
Generation I also reported career opportunities as the dominant influence on their long-
term intentions to stay, suggesting the need for career development may reflect a trend
for younger workers within the workforce. However, as little is known about this
generation from the literature to date, further research is needed. Regardless, it is clear
257
that career development opportunities play a stronger role in the factors influencing
younger generations’ intentions to stay compared to older generations.
In contrast to other generations, Generation I employees were influenced to stay overall

more by extrinsic individual factors (such as pay and career opportunities) than intrinsic
factors. This is a new finding in the literature, as previous studies have not included
Generation I in their studies although a study by Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, and
Lance (2010) did find that Generation Y employees were more influenced by extrinsic
rewards than intrinsic rewards. This is of relevance because the date ranges used by
Twenge et al. (2010) crossed over to some (although not all) of those found within the
Generation I category of this study. Combining this finding with previous findings, the
results of this study seem to suggest that future retention strategies for younger workers
need to focus on extrinsic rewards such as pay and career development opportunities.
In addition to the qualitative findings, the quantitative results revealed that there were
possible differences between generations’ perceived organisational support and
perceived supervisor support, with Generations X and Y reporting higher perceived
organisational support and higher perceived supervisor support than did the Baby
Boomer Generations. Although these differences were only approaching significance,
the findings were similar to Shacklock and Brunetto (2011) who found that for
Generation X employees, the relationships they held with their supervisors and the
attachment to the work itself were their main drivers in their intentions to remain at their
job.
Similar differences were also found between the factors influencing each generations’
intentions to leave. For both Baby Boomers and Generations X and Y employees, the
work environment, career opportunities and pay were the top three dominant influences
on their short-term intentions to leave. In contrast, Generation I employees reported
career opportunities, work environment and poor job satisfaction as their top three
dominant influences on intentions to leave. For long-term intentions to leave, these
differences were more apparent within each generational group. For example, Early
Baby Boomers reported the influence that pay has on their intentions to leave as the
most dominant organisational factor followed by career opportunities and working
conditions, whereas Late Baby Boomers reported the influence that working
environment has as the most dominant factor, followed by pay, career opportunities, job
security and burnout. Both Early and Late Generations X and Y reported career
258
opportunities, work environment and pay as their most dominant factors, while Late
Generation X and Y also reported the influence that job satisfaction and burnout had on
their intentions to leave. In direct contrast to the other generations, however, Generation
I employees reported career opportunities, pay, job satisfaction and work environment
as dominant factors on their intentions to leave, which again highlights the extrinsic
rewards sought by this generation in comparison to other generations. These finding
highlight both similarities and differences in the factors affecting each generation’s
intentions to leave, supporting previous research by Wong, Gardiner, Lang and Coulin
(2008), Carver and Candella (2011), La Vasseour, Wang, Mathews and Boland (2009),
and Smola and Sutton (2002), who suggest there are differences between each
generation’s intentions to leave.
The finding that Generation I employees are influenced to stay and leave more by
extrinsic factors than by intrinsic factors is a new and particularly important finding of
this study. From a practical perspective, it highlights to the sector that in order to attract
younger workers, a stronger focus has to be put on career opportunities and pay,
especially in an industry with tight funding arrangements. This finding is also important
from a theoretical perspective as it suggests that the youngest generation of employees
may be more demanding in regards to the opportunities for growth, pay, support and
working conditions and benefits provided by organisations. However, as this study was
conducted solely on aged care employees’ intentions to leave, and the sample size of
this new generation was small, further research is needed to investigate these
differences.
7.5 Thesis conclusion

In conclusion, this study revealed an interesting story about the factors influencing aged
care employees’ retention and turnover intentions that has not been identified previously
in the literature. First, this study revealed that while there were some similarities, the
factors influencing both retention and turnover were also slightly different. While this
finding was similar to recent research by Howe et al. (2012) examining the aged care
sector, that study did not examine the same constructs. Thus, this study provided new
and important information on the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and
leave their employment.
Second, this study was the first of its kind to examine the combined influence that
demographic variables contributing to the human capital pool, employee behaviour and
259
relationship variables (perceived organisational support, perceived supervisor support,
job embeddedness, and job satisfaction), and people management strategies have on
Australian aged care employees’ intentions to stay and leave. This analysis is important
as the delivery of aged care services relies on a steady workforce and the current
workforce is ageing. Therefore, research examining the factors influencing the retention
of the existing workforce was required.
Third, this study identified the similarities and differences in the retention and turnover
intentions of community care and residential care workforce. That is, community care
workers reported higher perceived supervisor support and perceived organisational
support. Additionally, community care workers reported higher intentions to stay and
lower intentions to leave in comparison to residential care workers. This finding
suggests that the community care workforce may in fact be more stable in their
intentions to stay than the residential care workforce. Additionally, the finding that
community care workers report higher perceptions of supervisor and organisational
support is interesting given the higher amounts of autonomous work performed in this
subsector compared to the residential care workforce. One possible explanation for this
finding is that the perception of support could be influenced by the virtual support
provided, which is also always immediately available in community care while those in
residential care only have access to support when their supervisor is available. Further
examination of the qualitative findings in this study revealed factors affecting the work
environment, job satisfaction, career development opportunities, job security and pay
were all common influences on both intentions to stay and leave, although the order of
influence differed between the areas of employment. Combined, these findings support
Howe et al. (2012), who argued while there are similarities between the residential and
community care workforces, both workforces should be considered separately when
developing human resource management strategies.
Finally, this study identified both similarities and differences between different
generations’ intentions to stay and leave. This revealed that most generations reported
the same variables as influencing their intentions to stay or leave, however the order of
dominance differed between generations. Perhaps one of the most interesting findings
of this analysis revealed that while Veteran Generation, Baby Boomers, and
Generations X and Y revealed similar factors as influencing their intentions to stay and
leave, Generation I (the newest generation) reported more extrinsic factors as
influencing their intentions to stay and leave. This suggests that extrinsic motivators
260
such as pay and career development opportunities may be of increasing importance in
the future as more employees of this generation enter the workforce.
In conclusion, this research has highlighted that the aged care workforce is influenced to
stay and leave by similar factors. Additionally, when developing human resource
management strategies there is a need to consider the community aged care and
residential aged care workforces separately. This research also highlighted that there is a
need to provide career development opportunities and review the pay rates provided in
the future as more of the newest generation (Generation I) enter the workforce.
7.5.1 Strengths
This study was one of the first of its kind to apply theoretical frameworks from a
management discipline to investigate the aged care workforce. In particular, it was the
first to simultaneously examine the combined influence that human capital pool,
employee behaviour, and relationship and people management strategies have on aged
care employees’ intentions to stay and leave.
Additionally, this study used a sample from four differently sized organisations (one
very large, one large, one medium, and one small organisation), from two different
states of Australia, and which provided both residential care and community care
services. In doing so, this methodology has allowed the researcher to examine the
findings not only from an overall perspective, but also to examine the similarities and
differences between the residential care and community care workforces. This has
resulted in this study being one of only a few to investigate and compare the factors
influencing both employees’ intentions to stay and leave, and the only study
investigating the similarities and differences between residential care and community
care workforces. Consequently, this has meant that not only do the findings extend both
management and health care theoretical knowledge, but the study also has strong
practical implications for aged care managers and organisations, as described later in
this chapter.
This study is also one of only a few that focuses more broadly on direct care workers in
aged care, rather than isolating one position type, such as nurses, and examining these
specifically. This has allowed this research to be more applicable to all direct-care
(front-line) aged care workers. From a methodological perspective, and in line with a
positivist approach, all measures used had been previously validated in the literature,
which added strength to the validity of the results obtained. Finally, in order to build on
261
the strengths of questionnaires and minimise the limitations of this methodology, this
study included open-ended questions in order to analyse respondents’ attitudes, beliefs,
values, and intentions in stay and leave in more detail and depth.
7.5.2 Limitations
Although this study had many strengths, it was not without its limitations. First, this
study was limited by the sample obtained. That is, while the researcher purposely
targeted four differently sized organisations across two states of Australia, the sample
used in this study was found to be younger, less experienced, employed for a shorter
period of time, and had more permanent contracts than the broader aged care employee
population. This meant that some of the hypotheses proposed may not have been
supported as a result of these sample restrictions. Additionally, this study lacked a
national sample and only collected data from not-for-profit organisations and that those
who provide direct care to clients. This meant that employees from the private and
public sectors of aged care and broader aged care employees, such as corporate service
positions, were not represented in these results. Therefore, caution should be exercised
when generalising these results to all aged care employees within Australia. Further,
this study was limited by the aged care sector context, which meant that results cannot
be generalised outside of the aged care sector.
A further limitation was the amount of missing data in this study. Respondents left large
amounts of missing data, particularly when responding to the job satisfaction scale. This
limited the analyses that could be performed examining job satisfaction alone as well as
the combined influence that job satisfaction had on employees’ intentions to stay and
leave. This missing data also affected the sample size obtained, possibly meaning that
no differences were found in the dataset to support the hypotheses.
Further, while this study obtained an adequate sample overall, there were a large
number of non-responders. This may have biased the results obtained as the sample that
did respond differed from the national census data. A further, major limitation of this
study was the cross-sectional design. This provides only a snapshot analysis of the
topic, and as such is limited by potential other factors that may have impacted upon the
responses provided at that point in time. Moreover, the use of survey methodology
meant that the data collected was shallow, inflexible and limited to the moment in time
studied. Consequently, further research is needed to gain more depth in understanding
the factors influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave through the use of
longitudinal designs, and through the collection of further qualitative data through
262
interviews and focus groups. Additionally, while all care was taken to be rigorous and
systematic, it is recognised that researcher bias and error are still possible using the
qualitative coding technique used. Finally, it is acknowledged that self-report biases and
common method biases may have impacted upon the results obtained in this study.
7.6 Theoretical and practical contributions

This study has made theoretical and practical contributions to the literature on retention
and turnover, which are described next.
7.6.1 Theoretical contributions

This study made several significant contributions to the management and health care
discipline literatures in terms of retention and turnover.
First, this study enhanced the research on the Resource Based View of the Firm (RBV)
by extending knowledge within the aged care sector to include factors influencing
retention and turnover. Also this study has provided clarity and extensions to the
various elements of the RBV by conducting an analysis on the factors that have been
found to influence an organisation’s competitive advantage in four key areas. This study
found the personal characteristics of age, marital status, location, family influences,
tenure in role and health all influenced employees’ intentions to stay and leave. In
finding this, this research extended the factors within the human capital pool to not only
include knowledge, skills and abilities, but also the characteristics that contribute to the
development of those knowledge, skills and abilities, and which are important
characteristics that make up how employees gain and retain their knowledge skills and
abilities.
Second, this study extended the RBV framework by analysing the influence that job
embeddedness, perceived organisational support and perceived supervisor support had
on employee behaviour and relationships. While job-related variables have previously
been examined through various aspects of perceived organisational support, perceived
supervisor support and job embeddedness as a whole, no study has examined these in
the context of the RBV. Thus, this study extended the framework to include these
variables as key employee behaviours and relationships that influence employees’
Finally, this study extended the people management practices aspect of the RBV by
examining employees’ working environments from the point of view of the employee.
This was measured through open-ended questions within the questionnaire, which
263
identified that the organisational factors pay, career opportunities, work environment
and job satisfaction, were common influences on both intentions to stay and leave.
While previous studies examining people management practices have analysed the
organisations’ espoused practices through examining their documentation suite, this
study extended the literature in this area by analysing the people management practices
that influenced employees’ intentions to stay and leave from an employee’s perspective.
In doing so, this study provided an improved understanding of the people management
factors that influence both intentions to stay and leave.
Beyond contributions to the RBV, this study was one of the first of its kind to examine
the factors that influenced both employees’ intentions to stay and leave within the
Australian aged care sector. In doing so, it contributed to the theoretical literature base,
by identifying that there are both similarities and differences in these factors.
Additionally, this study was one of the first to apply intentions to stay and leave models
to the context of Australian aged care, which has previously been neglected by
researchers in this area. As such, it was able to provide new knowledge to the sector that
revealed the different explanatory power that support, embeddedness and job
satisfaction play in the factors influencing employee retention and turnover. This was
identified through the finding that perceived organisational support, perceived
supervisor support, job embeddedness, and job satisfaction explained more variance in
employees’ intentions to leave than in their intentions to stay. Therefore, this study was
able to provide different insights into the behaviours of aged care employees in an
Australian context.
This study has also contributed to the debate in the literature regarding the influence that
generational differences have on the workplace. Specifically, it identified both
similarities and differences between generational cohorts; however, the generations
were influenced differently by the various factors, thereby suggesting that an
employee’s generation does have an impact. Additionally, the finding that Generation I
employees desired more extrinsic rewards than older generations extended the
knowledge in this area, as no previous research has been conducted on this generation to
date.
This study also extends the applicability of the constructs, perceived organisational
support and perceived supervisor support, to Australia. In particular, it extends the
applicability of these factors to all employees’ intentions to stay. That is, while previous
research had only established links between these constructs and supervisors’ intentions
264
to stay and leave, this study identified significant relationships between all employees’
perceived organisational and supervisor support and their intentions to stay and leave.
Additionally, this research contributes to and extends the knowledge examining the
influence that education levels have on employees’ intentions to stay and leave. While
previous research has identified a significant relationship between education level and
employees’ intentions to stay and leave, this study did not. Instead, the findings of this
study suggest that this relationship is actually more complex, and may be influenced by
the available options and compatible roles within a sector.
Finally, this study contributed to the job embeddedness literature by questioning the
applicability of off-the-job embeddedness in an Australian context. Combined, this
research has made important contributions to the management and health care literature
bases regarding retention and turnover of aged care workers. In addition to these
theoretical contributions, this study also makes important practical contributions to
research.
7.6.2 Practical contributions

This study makes several practical contributions to the aged care sector literature. First,
the finding that there are both similarities and differences in the factors influencing
employees’ intentions to stay and leave is important to human resource professionals
within the Australian aged care sector. In particular, practical implications of this study
include that to retain staff, an emphasis should be placed on building a strong culture of
support, leadership, career progression and recognition of the work that has been
completed in addition to focusing on improving pay conditions. While this is not new
information theoretically, within an aged care sector it reinforces the important role that
engaging and supporting employees and providing career opportunities plays in
retaining employees. This is important as the aged care sector operates within tight
funding arrangements which may limit the opportunity for increases in pay. Instead, this
research highlights that by improving the working conditions, aged care employees are
in a better position to retain employees.
Furthermore, the higher levels of perceived organisational and supervisor support

reported by employees working within a community care sector suggest that the
physical presence of supervision may not be needed in order for employees to feel
supported. For residential care, this finding suggests that to maximise employees’
intentions to stay, organisations need to monitor and rethink the current supervision
265
arrangements because employees in this sector reported a greater need for supervision
support. This may be aided by the provision of training to management in the softer
skills of management in order to ensure the right messages are passed on to employees,
and support is provided as needed. The results of this study also revealed the importance
of providing good support work environments through creating a supportive culture,
with supportive management and co-workers. Moreover, the need for clear succession
planning and career development opportunities was also highlighted in this study,
particularly for younger employees.
Finally, this study revealed that non-financial rewards such as long service leave were
particularly alluring for employees’ intentions to stay. This has significant practical
implications for organisations wanting to create innovative strategies for employee
retention, where a reward could be provided for retention. While at present, aged care
employees are provided a service reward and small gift in some organisations for their
length of service, the significance of these rewards was not identified by employees in
this study as important for their intentions to stay. Instead, the financial reward of long
service leave was identified as important, suggesting that there could be other, more
creative, financial rewards that could be provided to encourage retention in the aged
care section, such as an extra week holiday or the conversion of sick leave into
recreation leave in the instance where excessive sick leave has accrued. While some of
these incentives may not be possible within the current economic climate, other rewards
and benefits may be more realistic and aid employee retention in the workforce. These
include the provision of flexible work hours, the use of a company vehicle to use when
visiting clients, childcare and elder-care provisions, and discount travel and gym
memberships. Moreover, the implementation of a recognition program aimed at creating
a supportive culture within the workplace may improve retention within the aged care
sector. Upon considering these human resource management implications in
organisational strategies, organisations may increase employee retention and create a
more stable workforce, which may contribute to the ongoing sustainability of the
organisation and sector.
7.7 Future research

While this study has found significant similarities and differences between the factors
influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave, there were also key areas found to
need further research. First, because of the limitations in this sample in comparison to
the national census data, further research is needed into the influence that human capital
266
factors of age, tenure, kinship responsibilities, perceived health of self and family, and
marital status has on employees’ intentions to stay. Additionally, due to the small
sample size, this study could not investigate the differences between private and not-for-
profit organisations in order to examine whether organisational type moderated the role
of the various factors in influencing employees’ intentions to stay and leave. Therefore,
future research examining the differences between organisation type and employees’
intentions to stay and leave is needed.
Also, the influence of organisational size could not be investigated in the present study
but should be examined in future research as the factors affecting employees’ intentions
to stay and leave a large organisation may be different from those affecting employees
who belong to a small or medium-sized organisation.
Further research is also needed to examine the influence that tenure has on employees’
intentions to stay and leave in future studies. In particular, this finding suggests that
those with longer tenures were more likely to leave, which was contrary to what was
expected. While this may reflect employees’ demands for career progression, this needs
further research as this study was one of the first of its kind to investigate the
relationship between tenure and intentions to stay and leave. The finding that younger
generations were more influenced by career oppportunities than other generations also
needs further research as this study was the first of its kind to examine Generation I
This study identified that community care workers perceived higher amounts of
organisational support and supervisor support than residential care workers. However,
the understanding of what support means to these employees is unknown. Therefore,
future research is needed to explore what support means to both residential and
community care employees in order to further understand how each sub-sector can
maximise the support provided, in order to influence employees’ intentions to stay in
the future.
Further, this study suggested that the relationship between education level and
employee intentions to stay and leave may be more complex than previously thought
and may be influenced by the available options and compatible roles within the sector.
However, as this study was limited to the aged care sector, these findings need to be
examined in future research using different sectors.
267
Future research investigating employees’ intentions to stay and leave should also be
conducted using a longitudinal design that does not rely exclusively on self-report
measures. This would allow for a deeper analysis of the factors influencing employees’
Finally, because this study found that off-the-job embeddedness factors did not
significantly influence employees’ intentions to stay or leave, future research is
recommended in the form of a comparative study using employees from the US and
Australia (and other countries) to investigate the applicability and generalisability of
this construct and to examine the global applications of the findings from this study.
7.8 Concluding statements

In conclusion, this study has made important contributions to the theoretical
understanding, academic literature and practitioner understanding of the retention and
turnover intentions of employees within the Australian aged care sector. In doing so, a
more advanced knowledge of the factors affecting employees’ intentions to stay and
leave has been gathered. While there are still gaps in the literature that require further
research, this study has identified some of the factors that contribute to employees’
intentions to stay and leave, and how they vary by employee characteristics. Such
factors contribute to aged care organisations being more able to ensure that someone is
always available to care for older people living in Australia in the future. In doing so,
this study has found that for this sample, employees’ intentions to stay and leave are not
two sides of the same coin. Instead, there are some differences and this new knowledge
enables organisations, policy-makers and researchers to enhance their policies and plan
strategies and procedures to optimise the Australian aged care workforce.
268
269
References
AbuAlRub, R. F. (2010). Work and non-work social support and intent to stay at work
among Jordanian hospital nurses. International Nursing Review, 57(2) 195–201.
Allen, D. G. (2006). "Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer
embeddedness and turnover?" Journal of Management, 32(2), 237–256.
Allen, D.G., Bryant, P.C., & Vardaman, J.M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing
misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 24(2), 48–64.
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) (2006) The 50+ Workforce: An
AARP Wyoming survey of businesses. Washington: AARP.
Anderson, M., & Hill, P.D. (2010). Job embeddedness and nurse retention. Nurse
Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 190–200.
Apostolidis, B., & Polifroni, E.C. (2006). Nurse work satisfaction and generational
differences. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 36(11), 506–509.
Arnold, E. (2005). Managing human resources to improve employee retention. The
Health Care Manager, 24(2), 132–140.
Aubé, C., Rousseau, V., & Morin. E. M. (2007). Perceived organisational support and
organisational commitment: The moderating effect of locus of control and work
autonomy. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(5), 479–495.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). Australian social trends. Retrieved 30/6/2011 at:
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/174FDA6313BDC7DECA2
56EB40003596E/$File/41020_2004.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Population projections, Australia, 2006– 2101.
Retrieved 10/6/2010 at: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3222.0
270
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009a). A picture of the nation: the statistician's report
on the 2006 Census. Retrieved 24/5/2011 at:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2070.0
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009b). Retirement and retirement intentions,
Australia, 2007. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011a). Australian social trends: Life expectancy

trends – Australia. Retrieved 3/9/11 at:
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/LookupAttach/4102.0Publicat
ion23.03.112/$File/410 20_Lifeexpectancy_Mar2011.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011b). Retirement and retirement intentions,
Australia, July 2010 to June 2011 (Catalogue 6238.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau
of Statistics.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2007). Older Australia at a glance (4th
edition. Cat. no. AGE 52). Canberra: AIHW.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2008). Nursing and midwifery labour force
2005 (National health labour force services no. 39. Cat. No. HWL 40). Canberra:
AIHW.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (AIHW). (2010). Australia’s health series
12. (Cat no Aus 122.) Canberra: AIHW.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2011). Australia’s welfare 2011
(Australia’s welfare series no. 10. Cat. no. AUS 142). Canberra: AIHW.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2012). Australia’s health 2012. Australia’s
health series no.13 (Cat. no. AUS 156.). Canberra: AIHW.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012). Long-term aged care in
Australia 2010-2011: A statistical overview (Aged care statistics series no. 36. Cat.
no. AGE 68). Canberra: AIHW

271
Baernhauldt, M., & Mark, B.A. (2009). The nurse work environment, job satisfaction
turnover rates in rural and urban nursing units. Journal of Nursing Management,
17(8), 994–1001.
Barney, J. (1991). Firms resources and sustained competeitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17 (1), 99-120.
Barney, J. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management
Executive, 9(4), 49–61.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year
retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650.
Barney, J.B., Wright, M., & Ketchen Jr., D.J. (2001). The resource-based view of the
firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625–641.
Baruch. Y., & Holtom. B. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in
organisational research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160.
Bechtal, R. (2007). Calculating human capital: The market-based valuation of human
resources. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 21(3), 206–231.
Bishop, C. E., Weinberg, D. B., Leutz, W., Dossa. A., Pfeffere, S. G., & Zincavage R.
M. (2008). Nursing assistants’ job commitment: Effect of nursing home
organisational factors and impact on resident wellbeing. The Gerontologist, 4
(suppl 1), 36–45.
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bowling Green State University (2011). Job descriptive index. Retrieved 8/8/11 at:
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/psych/io/jdi/index.html
Boxall, P., Macky, K., & Rasmussen, E. (2003). Labour turnover and retention in New
Zealand: The causes and consequences of leaving and staying with Employers. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 41(2), 196–214.
272
Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. (2007). The Oxford handbook of human resource
management. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bradley, G. L. (2007). Job tenure as a moderator of stressor-strain relations: A
comparison of experienced and new-start teachers, Work and Stress, 21(1), 48–64.
Brannon, D., Barry, T., Kemper, P., Schreiner, A., & Vasey, J. (2007). Job perceptions
and intent to leave among direct care workers: Evidence from the Better Jobs Better
Care demonstrations. The Gerontologist. 47(6), 820–829.
Brunnetto, Y., Far-Wharton, R., Shacklock, K.H & Robson, F. (2012). Supervisor
relationships, teamwork, role ambiguity and discretionary power: Nurses in
Australia and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Public Administration,
35(8), 532– 543.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K (2001). Qualitative marketing
research: Philosophy of research. Retrieved 20/8/11 at:
http://srmo.sagepub.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/view/qualitative- marketing-
research-carson/n1.xml?rskey=ARxYeJ&row=6
Carter, P., & Butler, D. (2008). Women’s work: The workplace and the space between,
the Industrial Geographer, 5(2), 3–18.
Carver. L., Candela. L., & Gutierrez. A.P. (2011). Survey of generational aspects of
nurse faculty organisational commitment. Nurse Outlook, 59(3), 137–148.
Cascio, W. F. (2006). The economic impact of employee behaviours on organisational
performance. California Management Review, 48(4), 41–60.
Castle, N. G., Engberg, J., Anderson, R., & Men, A. (2007). Job satisfaction of nurse
aides in nursing homes: Intent to leave and turnover. The Gerontologist, 47(2), 193–
273
204.
Chan, E-Y., & Morrison, P. (2008). Factors influencing the retention and turnover
intentions of registered nurses in a Singapore hospital. Nursing and Health Sciences,
2(2), 113–121.
Chen P & Choi Y (2008) Generational differences in work values: a study of hospitality
management, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20 (6) pp
595-615.
Cheng, E. W. L. (2001). SEM being more effective than multiple regression in
parsimonious model testing for management development research. Journal of
Management Development. 20(7), 650–667.
Cheung, J. (2004). The decision process of leaving nursing. Australian Health Review,
28(3), 340–348.
Cho, S., Johanson, M. M., & Guchait, P. (2009). Employees intent to leave: A
comparison of intent to leave versus intent to stay. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 28(3), 374–381.
Clinton, M., Knight, T.. and Guest, D. (2012). Job embeddedness: A new attitudinal
measure. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(1), 111–117.
Cohen, J.D. (2006). The aging nursing workforce: How to retain experienced nurses.
Journal of Healthcare Management, 51(4), 233–245.
Conrad, K. J., Conrad, K. M., & Parker, J. E (1985). Job satisfaction among
occupational health nurses. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 2(3), 161–173.
Coomber, B. & Barriball, L.K. (2007). Impact of job satisfaction components on intent
to leave and turnover for hospital-based nurses: A review of the research literature.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(2), 297–314.
274
Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research: Theory, methods and techniques. London: Sage
Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review
with implications for research. The Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 55– 70.
Coyle-Shapiro, J & Kessler, I (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract for
the employment relationship: A large scale survey. Journal of Management Studies,
37(7), 903-930.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007). Development of a
global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of
voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4) 1031-1042.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in
the research process. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Dawley, D., Houghton, J.D., & Bucklew, N.S. (2010). Perceived organisational
support and turnover intentions: The mediating effects of personal sacrifice and
job fit. Journal of Social Psychology, 150(3), 238–257.
DeConinck, J., & Johnson, J. (2009). The effects of perceived supervisor support,
perceived organizational support, and organizational justice on turnover among
salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 29(4), 333–351.
Dekker, I., & Barling, J. (1995). Workforce size and work-related role stress. Work and
Stress, 9, 45–54
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). The handbook of qualitative research (2nd
edn). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Department of Health and Ageing. (2004). Best practice approaches to minimise
functional decline in the older person across the acute, subacute and long term aged
275
care settings. Clinical Epidemiology and Health Service Evaluation Unit.
Melbourne. Retrieved 18/5/2010 at
http://www.health.vic.gov.au/acute- agedcare/functional-decline-manual.pdf
Department of Health and Ageing. (2010). A national health hospitals network: Further
investment in Australia health. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing.
Department of Health and Ageing (2011a). Help to stay at home - community care.
Retrieved 6/6/2011 at:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-commcare-
index.htm-copy3
Department of Health and Ageing (2011b). Home based care. Retrieved 6/6/11 at:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-commcare-
comcprov-eachdex.htm
Dess, G.D., & Shaw, J.D. (2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organisational
performance. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 446–56.
Dick, R.V., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C.,
Hauptmeiear, M., Hohfield, C., Moltzen, K., & Tissington, P.A (2004) Should I
Stay or Should I Go? Explaining Turnover Intentions with Organizational
Identiﬁcation and Job Satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15 (4), 351-360
Dockery, A. M. (2004). Workforce experience and retention in nursing in Australia.
Australian Bulletin of Labour, 30(2), 74–101.
Dunford, B.B., Snell, S. A., & Wright, P. M. (2001). Human resources and the
resource based view of the firm. CAHRS Working Paper Series. Retrieved 18/8/11
at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/66/
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D., & Rhoades, L. (2001).
Reciprocation of perceived organisational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1, 42 –51.
276
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997) Perceived
organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812–820.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organisational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L., & Rhoades, L.
(2002) Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organisational
support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573.
Eisenberger, R. (2011). Perceived organisational support instrument, Retrieved 14 09
http://www.psychology.uh.edu/pos/default.asp
Ellet, A. J., Ellis, J. I., Westbrook, T. M., & Dews, D. (2007). A qualitative study of 369
child welfare professionals' perspectives about factors contributing to employee
retention and turnover. Children and Youth Services Review, 29 (2), 264-281.
Eley, R., Buikstra, E., Plank, A., Hegney, D., & Parker, V. (2007). Tenure, mobility
and retention of nurses in Queensland, Australia: 2001 and 2004. Journal of
Nursing Management, 15(3), 285–293.
Estryn-Behar, M., Van der Heijden, B., Oginska, H., Camerino, D., Le Nezet, O.,
Conway, P.M., Fry, C., Hasselhorn, H.-M., & The NEXT Study Group. (2007). The
impact of social work environment, teamwork characteristics, burnout, and
personal factors upon intent to leave among European nurses. Medical Care, 45
(10), 939–950.
Fahy, J. (2000). The resource-based view of the firm: Some stumbling blocks on the
road to understanding sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 24(2/3/4), 94–104.
Gambino, K.M. (2010). Motivation for entry, occupational commitment and intent to
277
remain: A survey regarding Registered Nurse retention. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 66(11), 2532–2541.
Goldman, K.D., & Schmaltz, K.J. (2006). Builders, boomers, busters, bridgers: Vive la
(generational) difference. Health Promotion Practice 7(2) pp 159–161.
Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (2004). Research methods: A process of inquiry.
Boston: Pearson Publishing..
Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?
Multivariate Behavoural Research, 26, 499-510.
Gruenberg, M. (1980). The happy worker: An analysis of educational and
occupational differences in determinants of job satisfaction. American Journal of
Sociology, 86(2), 247– 271.
Hall, L. M., & Buch, E. (2009). Skill mix decision making for nursing. Retrieved
5/8/2011 at:
http://www.ichrn.com/publications/policyresearch/Skill_Mix_EN_web.pdf
Hartel, C.J., & Fujimoto, Y. (2010). Human resource management (2nd ed). Sydney:
Pearson.
Hair, Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).
Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Health Workforce Australia (2012A): Patterns and determinants of medical and
nursing workforce exits– final report. Retrieved 23 April 2012 at:
http://www.hwa.gov.au/sites/uploads/20120328_patterns_determinants_medical_nur
sing_exit_rates.pdf
Health Workforce Australia (2012B): Health Workforce 2025 – Doctors, Nurses and
Midwives – Volume 1. Retrieved 25 April 2012 at:

278
https://www.hwa.gov.au/sites/uploads/FinalReport_Volume1_FINAL-20120424.pdf
Herzberg, F., & Mausner, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed). New York:
Wiley.
Hill, K. S. (2011). Work satisfaction, intent to stay, desires of nurses, and financial
knowledge among bedside and advanced practice nurses. The Journal of Nursing
Administration, 41(5), 211–217.
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R. & Lee, T. W. (2006). Increasing human and social
capital by applying job embeddedness theory. Organisational Dynamics, 35(4),
316 - 331.
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008). Turnover and
retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture
into the future. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 231-274.
Holtom, B.C., & O’Niell, B.S. (2004). Job embeddedness: A theoretical foundation for
developing a comprehensive nurse retention program. Journal of Nursing
Administration, 34(5), 216–227.
Holtom, B.C., Tidd, S.T., & Mitchell, T.R. (2006). Less is more: Validation of a short
form of the job embeddedness measurement and theoretical extensions. Paper
presented at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management. Atlanta,
August.
Hom, P., & Griffeth, R. (1991). A structural equations modelling test of a turnover
theory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76
(3), 350–366.
Howe, A. L., King, D. S., Ellis, J.M., Wells, Y. D., Wei, Z., & Teshuva, K. A. (2012).
Stabalising the aged care workforce: An analysis of worker retention and intention.
Australian Health Review, 36(1), 83–91.
279
Howes, C. (2008). Love, money or flexibility: What motivates people to work in
consumer-direct home care? The Gerontologist, 48(1), 46–59.
Human Services. (2000). Sub-acute facilities and specialist clinics generic brief.
Retrieved 17/5/2010 at:

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/agedcare/publications/genericbriefs/gen-subacute.pdf
International Centre for Human Resources in Nursing (ICHRN) (2009). Skill mix
decision-making in nursing. Retrieved 4-6-11 at:
http://www.ichrn.com/publications/policyresearch/Skill_Mix_EN_web.pdf
International
International Centre for Human Resources in Nursing (ICHRN) (2010). The impact of
turnover and the benefit of stability in the nursing workforce. Retrieved 4-6-11 at:
http://www.ichrn.com/publications/policyresearch/Turnover_EN.pdf
Jiang, K., Liu, D., McKay, P., Lee, T. & Mitchell, T. (2012). When and how is job
embeddedness predictive of turnover? A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97(5), 1077–1096.
Johlke, M.C., Stamper, C.L., & Shoemaker, M.E. (2002). Antecedents to boundary-
spanner perceived organisational support. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17
(2), 116–128.
Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2000). Understanding management research: Positivist
Epistemology, the search for foundations. Sage Research Methods online.
Retrieved 18.8.2011 at
http://srmo.sagepub.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/view/understanding-
management- research/n2.xml?rskey=hybjDY&row=0
Johnson, R. W. and Favreault, M. M. (2001). Retiring together or retiring alone.
Chestnut Hill, MA: Centre for Retirement Research at Boston College.
Jones, C. B. & Gates, M. (2007). The cost and benefits of nurse turnover: A business
280
case for nurse retention. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 12(3).
Kash, B.A., Naufal, G. S., Cortes, L., & Johnson, C. E. (2010). Exploring factors
associated with turnover among registered nurses (RN) supervisors in nursing
homes. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 29(1), 107–127.
Kay, J. (1993). The structure of strategy. Business Strategy Review, 4, 17–37.
Kim, K., & Jogaratnam, G. (2010). Effects of individual and organisational factors on
job satisfaction and intent to stay in the hotel and restaurant industry. Journal of
Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 9(3), 318–319.
Kim, S-W., Price, J L., Mueller, C W., & Watson, T W. (1996). The determinants of
career intent among physicians at a U.S. Air Force hospital. Human Relations, 49
(7) 947–976.
Kim, S., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Working in retirement: The antecedents of bridge
employment and its consequences for quality of life in retirement. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(6), 1195–1210.
King, D., Mavromaras, K., Wei, Z., He, B., Healy, J., Macaitis, K., Moskos, M. &
Smith, L. (2012). The Aged Care Workforce, 2012. Canberra: Australian
Government Department of Health and Ageing.
King, D., Wei, Z., Howe, A. (2013). Work satisfaction and intention to leave among
direct care workers in community and residential aged care in Australia,
Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 25(4), 301–319.
Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P. (2002).
Assessing the Construct Validity of the Job Descriptive Index: A review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 14–32.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling (3rd
ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
281
Kottkey, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and
organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(4),
1075–1079.
Kristandl, G., & Bontis, N. (2007). Constructing a definition for intangibles using the
resource based view of the firm. Management Decision, 45(9) 1510-1524.
Kuhlen, R.G. (1963). Needs, perceived need satisfaction opportunities, and
satisfaction with occupation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7(1), 56–64.
Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Michielson, M., & Moeyaert, B. (2009). Employee retention:
Organisational and personal perspectives. Vocations and Learning, 2(3), 195–215.
Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2009). The importance of job satisfaction and
organisational commitment in shaping turnover intent: A test of a causal model.
Criminal Justice Review, 34(1), 96–18.
Larrabeen, J.H., Wu, Y., Persily, C.A., Simoni, P.S., Johnston, P.A., Marcischak,
T.L., Mott, C. L., & Gladden, S.D. (2010). Influence of stress resiliency on RN
job satisfaction and intent to stay. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 32(1),
81–102.
Lavoie-Tremblay, M., O’Brien-Pallas, L., Ge’linas, C., Desforges, N., & Marchionni,
C. (2008). Addressing the turnover issue among new nurse from a generational
Viewpoint. Journal of Nursing Management, 16(6), 724–733.
Leana, C. & Rousseau, D. M. (2000). Relational wealth: Advantages of stability in a
changing economy. New York: Oxford.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C. J., Burton, J. P., & Holtom, B. C. (2004).
The effects of job embeddedness on organisational citizenship, job performance,
volitional absences and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal,
282
47(5), 711–722.
Letvak, S., & Buck, R. (2008). Factors influencing work productivity and intention to
stay in nursing. Nursing Economic, 26(3), 159–165.
LeVasseur, S.A., Wang, C., Mathews, B., & Boland, M. (2009). Generational
differences in registered nurse turnover. Policy Politics Nursing Practice, 10(3),
212–223.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers.
New York: Harper & Row
Lu, H., While, A E., & Barriball L K (2005) Job satisfaction among nurses: A
literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42(2), 211–227.
Lune, H., Pumar, E. S., & Koppel, R. (2010). Perspectives in social research methods
and analysis: A reader for sociology. Los Angeles: Sage Publications..
Mallette, C. (2011). Nurses’ work patterns: Perceived organisational support and
psychological contracts. Journal of Research in Nursing, 16 (6), 518–532.
Mallol, C., Holtom, B. & Lee, T.W. (2007). Job embeddedness in a culturally diverse
Environment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(1), 35–44.
March, K. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organisations. New York: Wiley Publications.
Martin, C.A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: What managers need
to know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37 (1), 39-44.
Martin, B., & King, D. (2008). A picture of the residential and community based aged
care workforce, 2007. Retrieved 10/4/2009 at
http://nils.flinders.edu.au/assets/publications/NILS_Aged_Care_Final.pdf
Maslow, A. H. (1954). The instinctoid nature of basic needs. Journal of Personality,
22(3), 326–347.
McCarthy, G., Tyrrell, M. P., & Lehane, E. (2007). Intention to ‘leave’ or ‘stay’ in
283
nursing. Journal of Nursing Management, 15(3), 248–255.
Metcalf, W. (2005). Triangulation matrix within notes for 'Choosing a Research
Methodology' workshop, Griffith Graduate Research School, Griffith University,
Gold Coast, September 8, 2011
McKnight, P.E., McKnight, K.M., Sidani,S., & Figueredo, A.J (2007). Missing data:
A gentle introduction. New York: The Guilford Press.
Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource based view of the firm in two
environments: the Hollywood studios from 1936-1965. Academy of Management
Journal, 39(3), 519–543.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why
people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. The Academy
of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102–1121.
Mittal, V., Rosen, J. & Leana C. (2009). A dual-driver model of retention and
turnover in the direct care workforce. The Gerontologist, 49(5), 623–634.
Morrell, K., Loan-Clarke, J., Arnold, J. & Wilkinson, A. (2008). Mapping the
decision to quit: A refinement and test of the unfolding model of voluntary
turnover. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(1), 128–150.
Moyle, W., Skinner, J., Rowe, G., & Gork, C (2003). Views of job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction in Australian long-term care. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12
(2), 168–176.
Namey, E., Guest,G., Thairo, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data Reduction Techniques
for Large Qualitative Data Sets. Chapter 7, in Guest G & MacQueen K M (2008)
Handbook for team based qualitative research. Portland: Book news Inc.
National Seniors Australia (2011). Response to the Productivity Commission
Draft Report - Caring for Older Australians. Retrieved 15/9/12 at:
284
http://nationalseniors.com.au/sites/default/files/110301-NationalSeniors-Caring-for-
Older-Australians-Submission.pdf
Needleman, J., Buerhaus, P., Mattke, S., Steward, M., & Zelevinsky, K. (2002).
Nurse-staffing levels and the quality of care in hospitals. New England Journal of
Medicine, 346(22), 1715–1722.
Neher, A. (1991). Maslow's theory of motivation: A critique. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 31(3), 89–112.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative methods
(6th ed). Boston; Pearson.
Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches (7th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Newman, A., Thanacoody, R., & Hui, W. (2012). The effects of perceived
organisational support, perceived supervisor support and intra-organisational
network resources on turnover intentions: A study of Chinese employees in
multinational enterprises. Personnel Review, 41(1), 56–72.
O’Donnell, J., & Hudson, C. (2011). Practitioner introduction healthcare reform:
Government pronouncements or managers engaging staff? Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, 49(2), 138–142.
O'Loughlin, K., Humpel, N., & Kendig, H. (2010). Impact of the global financial crisis
on employed Australian baby boomers: A national survey. Australasian Journal on
Ageing, 29 (2), 88-91.
Paille, P. (2009). The relationship between support, commitment and intent to leave
team: A social exchange perspective. Team Performance Management, 15(1/2),
49-62.
Pannaccio, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2009). Perceived organisational support,
285
organisational commitment and psychological wellbeing: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 75(2), 224–236.
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of
theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Review. 13 (1) 79–96.
Patrickson, M., & Ranzijn, R. (2004). Bounded choices in work and retirement in
Australia. Employee Relations, 26(4), 422–432.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: John Wiley
Pentaraf, M.A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource based
view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.
Peltokorpi, V (2013). Job embeddedness in Japanese organisations. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 24 (8) 1551-1569.
Piper, L.D. (2008). The generation Y workforce in healthcare: The new challenge for
leadership, Health Care Manager 27 (2) 98-103.
Pocock, B., & Skinner, N. (2012). Adding insult to injury: How work life pressures
affect the participation of low-paid works in vocational education and training.
Australian Bulletin of Labour, 38(1), 48–67.
Price, J. L. (2001). Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International
Journal of Manpower, 22(7), 600–624.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). A causal model for turnover for nurses. Academy
of Management Journal, 24(3), 543–565.
Productivity Commission. (2005). Trends in aged care services: Some implications.
Productivity Research Report. Canberra. Retrieved on 13/2/2009 at:
http://www.pc.gov.au/research/commissionresearch/agedcare-trends
Productivity Commission. (2008). Trends in aged care services: Some implications.
Commission Research Paper, Canberra.
286
Productivity Commission. (2011). Care for older Australians. Canberra: Productivity
Commission Research Paper, Canberra.
Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.
Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Mohanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, business processes
and competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests the
resource based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23–27.
Reitz, O. E., Anderson, M.A., & Hill, K. S. (2010). Job embeddedness and nurse
retention. Nursing Administration Quarterly. 34(3), 190–200.
Reitz, O. E., & Anderson, M.A. (2011). An overview of job embeddedness. Journal
of Professional Nursing, 27(5), 320–327.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organisational support: A review
of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.
Riggle, R.J., Edmondson, D.R., & Hansen, J.D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the
relationship between perceived organisational support and front-line employee
job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 1027–
1030.
Roberson, M.T., & Sundstrom, E. (1990). Questionnaire design, return rates, and
response favourableness in an employee attitude questionnaire. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75(3), 354-357
Robbins, S., Judge, T.A., Millet, B., & Boyle, M (2011). Organisational behaviour (6th
edition). Sydney: Pearson..
Robinson, R.N. S., Kralj, A., Solnet, D.J., Goh, E., & Callan, V (2014) Thinking job
embeddedness not turnover: Towards a better understanding of frontline hotel
worker retention. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36 (2014), 101-
287
109
Rodwell, J., & Martin, A (2013). The importance of the supervisor for the mental
health and work attitudes of Australian aged care nurses. International
Psychogeriatrics, 25(3), 382–389.
Rosen, J., Stiehl, E.M., Mittal, V. & Leana, C.R. (2011). Stayers, leavers, switchers
among certified nursing assistants in nursing homes: A longitudinal investigation
of turnover intent, staff retention and turnover. The Gerontologist, 51(5), 597–606.
Rousseau, D.M., & Shperling, Z. (2003). Pieces of the action: Ownership and the
changing employment relationship. Academy of Management Review, 12(4),
115–134.
Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2002). Edith Penrose’s contribution to the resource
based view of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 769–
780.
Russell, S. S., Spitzmüller, C., Lin, L F., Stanton, J M., Smith P. C. & Ironson, G. H.
(2004). Shorter can also be better: The abridged job in general scale. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 64(5), 878–893.
Saqib, S., & Rashid, S. (2013). Resource based view of the firm: The nature of
resources required for competitive advantage. International Journal of
Management & Organisational Studies, 2(1), 92–95.
Schofield, D. J. (2007). Replacing the projected retiring baby boomer nursing cohort
2001-2026. BMC Health Services Research, 7, 87–93.
Schofield, D. J., & Beard, J. R. (2005). Baby boomer doctors and nurses:
demographic change and transitions to retirement. Medical Journal of Australia,
183, 80–83.
Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation
288
modelling (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Psychology Press.
Segal, L., & Bolton, T. (2009). Issues facing the future health care workforce: the
importance of demand modelling. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 6,
12–20.
Sellgreen, S., Ekvell, G., & Tomson, G. (2007). Nursing staff turnover: Does
leadership matter? Leadership in Health Services, 20(3), 169–183.
Shacklock, K.H. (2006). Extended working lives? The meaning of working to older
university workers in Australia. International Journal of Human Resources
Development and Management, 6(2-4), 161–173.
Shacklock, K. H. (2008). Shall I stay? The meaning of working to older workers:
Whether and why older Australian workers might want to continue working. Why
do some want to continue and others not? Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.
Shacklock, K.H., & Brunetto, Y. (2011). A model of older workers' intentions to
continue working. Personnel Review, 40(2), 252–274.
Shacklock, K.H., Brunetto, Y., & Nelson R. (2007). The intention of Australian older
workers to continue paid work: The impact of marital differences, paper presented
to the 21st Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM)
Conference. Sydney, NSW, 4-7 December
Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported:
Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived
organisational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3),
689–695.
Shaw, S. & Fairhurst, D. (2008). Engaging a new generation of graduates. Education
and Training 50 (5) pp 366–378.
289
Shen, J., Cox. A., & McBride, A. (2004). Factors influencing turnover and retention
of midwives and consultants: A literature review. Health Services Management
Research, 17(4), 249.
Skinner, N., Van Dijk, P., Elton, J., & Auer, J. (2011). An in-depth study of
Australian nurses’ and midwives’ work-life interaction. Journal of Human
Resources, 49(2), 213–232.
Smola, K.W., & Sutton, C.D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting
generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organisational
Behaviour, 23(4), 363–382.
Sommers, R., & Sommers, B. (2002). A practical guide to behavioural research:
Tools and techniques. New York: Oxford University Press.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause and
consequences. California: Sage Publications.
Steel, R. P. & Lounsbury, J. W. (2009). Turnover process models: Review and
synthesis of a conceptual literature. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4),
271–282.
Stewart, N.J., D’Arcy, C., Kosteniuk, J., Andrews, M.E., Morgan, D., Forbes, D.,
MacLeod, M.L.P., Kulig, J.C., & Pitblado, J.R. (2011). Moving on? Predictors of
intent to leave among rural and remote RNs in Canada. Journal of Rural Health,
27(1), 103–113
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1992). Generations: the history of America’s future, 1584 to
2069, Quill Publishing: New York.
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and
290
behavioural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teng, C, Hsiao, F., & Chou, T. (2010). Nurse perceived time pressure and patient
perceived quality of care. Journal of Nursing Management, 17(3), 275–284.
Thomson, S. B. (2011). Qualitative Research: Validity. Journal of Administration and
Governance, 6 (1) 77-82.
Thornthwaite, L. (2004). Working time and work-family balance: A review of
employees’ preferences. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42(2), 166–
184.
Tresize-Brown M (2004) Employing younger workers: How well are we managing

them? Retrieved 10/4/2009 at: http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/young_workers.pdf
Turrell, G., Stanley, L., de Looper, M., & Oldenberg, B. (2006). Health inequalities in
Australia: Morbidity, health behaviors, risk factors and health service use.
Health inequalities monitoring series no 2. AIHW cat PHE 72. Canberra.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S.M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance,C. E. (2010). Generational
differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and
intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36 (5) 1117-1142.
University of Melbourne, Applied Psychology Research Group. (1990). Teachers stress
in Victoria: A survey of teachers’ views. The report. Melbourne: Education Shop,
Victorian Ministry of Education
Veal, A. J. (2011). Research methods for leisure and tourism. UK: Prentice Hall.
Walters, G., & Raybould, M. (2007). Burnout and perceived organisational support
among front-line hospitality employees. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 114(2), 144–156.
Wernefelt, B. (1984). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strategic
Management Journal, 16(3), 171–174.
Weston, M. (2006). Integrating generational perspectives in nursing, Online Journal of

291
Issues in Nursing, 11 (2) Manuscript 1.
Wheatley, D. (2013). Location, vocation, location? Spatial entrapment among women
in dual career household. Gender, Work & Organisation, 20(6), 720–736.
Wickramasinghe, D., & Wickramasinghe, V. (2011). Perceived organisational
support, job involvement and turnover intention in lean production in Sri Lanka.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 55(5-8), 817–830.
Wiener, J. M., Squillace, M. R., Anderson, W. L., & Khatutsky, G. (2005). Why do
they stay? Job tenure among certified nursing assistants in nursing homes. The
Gerontologist, 49(2), 198–210.
Wilson, B., Squires, M., Widger, K., Cranley, L. & Tourangeau, A. (2008). Job
satisfaction among a multigenerational nursing workforce, Journal of Nursing
Management, 16(6), 716–723.
Wolf, M. G. (1970). Need gratification theory: A theoretical reformulation of job
satisfaction/dissatisfaction and job motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54
(1), 87–94.
Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational differences in
personality and motivation: Do they exist and what are the implications for the
workforce? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 878–890.
Wright, P., & Boswell, W. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of
micro and macro human resource management research. Center for Advanced
Human Resource Studies, Working Paper Series, Working Paper 020–11.
Zhang, M, Fried, D. D., Griffeth, R. W. (2012). A review of job embeddedness:
Conceptual, measurement issues, and directions for future research. Human
Resource Management Review, 22(3), 220–231.
292
293
Appendix A: Questionnaire used in the Expert panel review
study
294
Two sides of the same coin? Employees’ intentions to stay and leave
(Griffith University Logo)
Can you please complete my questionnaire and answer these questions
How long did it take you to complete the questionnaire? (Approx) ____________
Were there any spelling mistakes?

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Were any questions difficult to follow?

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Did it logically flow? Do you have any suggestions for improvement?

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Were there any other errors that you found?

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
How easy was the questionnaire to fill out (e.g. were the instructions clear)?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
What are your thoughts on the likelihood that people will complete and return the
questionnaire?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
295
Demographics
What is your position?
RN EEN/EN PCW / AIN Care Manager
DON Other: (Please specify) ___________________________________
What is your age range?
<16 years 17-26 years 27-37 years 38-46 years
47-56 years 57-65 years 66 years +
What is your gender?
Male Female
What is the highest education level you have obtained?
TAFE TAFE
Grade 10 Grade 12 certificate III certificate IV
TAFE diploma Bachelor degree Masters/Grad Cert degree Direct
Other (please list):________________________________________________________
What is your marital status?
Single or in a relationship but not living together Married / De facto
Do you have any primary caregiver responsibilities?
Yes No
If yes, please describe these? ____________________________________________________
296
Please rate how you perceive your health and the health of your family in the boxes below
by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your perception.
Very Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent

Poor
How would you rate your overall
health?
How would you rate the overall

health of your family?
Listed below are statements that ask about how well you perceive you fit into your
community and organisation. Please indicate on the scale below how well you agree or
disagree with the following statements by placing a tick (√) in the column that best
represents your view about the statement.
Item Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

disagree Agree
I really love the place where I live
I like the family-oriented environment
of my community
This community I live in is a good
match for me
I think of the community where I live as
home
The area where I live offers the leisure
activities that I like (e.g. sports,
outdoors, cultural, arts).
My job utilizes my skills and talents
well
I feel like I am a good match for this
organisation
I feel personally valued by my
organisation
I like my work schedule (e.g. flextime,
shift)
I fit with this organisation’s culture
I like the authority and responsibility I
have at this company
The next section asks about your links with your community and organisation. Please
place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view about the question or
statement provided or write your answer in the space provided.
Question or Statement Yes No N/A

Are you currently married?
If you are married, does your spouse work outside the home?
Do you own the home you live in (either mortgaged or outright)?
My family roots are in the community where I live
297
How long have you been in your present position? _______ Years ____ Months
How long have you worked for this organisation? ________ Years ____ Months
How long have you worked in the aged care industry? ______ Years ____ Months
How many co-workers do you interact with regularly? __________
How many co-workers are highly dependent on you? ________
How many work teams are you on? _________
How many work committees are you on? ________
The next section asks about the impact you would feel within your community and
organisation if you left them. Please indicate on the scale below how well you agree or
disagree with the following statements by placing a tick (√) in the column that best
represents your view about the statement.

disagree Agree
Leaving this community would be very
hard
People respect me a lot in my
community
My neighbourhood is safe
I have a lot of freedom on this job to
decide how to pursue my goals
The perks on this job are outstanding
I feel that people at work respect me a
great deal
I would incur very few costs if I left this
organisation
I would sacrifice a lot if I left this job
My promotion opportunities are
excellent here
I am well compensated for my level of
performance
The benefits are good on this job
I believe the prospects for continuing
employment with this company are
excellent
298
Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about working
at your organisation. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each
statement by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view.
Statements Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree disagree disagree agree agree Agree agree
nor
disagree
My organisation values my
contribution to its wellbeing
If my organisation could hire
someone to replace me at a
lower salary it would do so (R)
My organisation fails to
appreciate any extra effort
from me (R)
My organisation strongly
considers my goals and values
My organisation would ignore
any complaint from me (R)
My organisation disregards my
best interests when it makes
decisions that affect me (R)
Help is available from my
organisation when I have a
problem
My organisation really cares
about my well-being
My organisation is willing to
help me when I need a special
favour
My organisation cares about
my general satisfaction at work
If given the opportunity my
organisation would take
advantage of me (R)
My organisation shows very
little concern for me (R)
My organisation cares about
my opinions
My organisation takes pride in
my accomplishments at work
My organisation tries to make
my job as interesting as
possible
299
Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about working
at your supervisor. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each
statement by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view about your
supervisor.

nor
disagree
My Supervisor values my
If my supervisor could hire
lower salary she/he would do
so (R)
My supervisor fails to
appreciate any extra effort
from me(R)
My supervisor strongly
My supervisor would ignore
any complaint from me (R)
My supervisor disregards my
best interests when she/he
makes decisions that affect me
(R)
supervisor when I have a
problem
My supervisor really cares
about my well-being
My supervisor is willing to
favour
My supervisor cares about my
general satisfaction at work
supervisor would take
advantage of me (R)
My supervisor shows very
little concern for me (R)
My supervisor cares about my
opinions
My supervisor takes pride in
My supervisor tries to make
my job as interesting as
possible
300
The following items ask about your satisfaction with various elements of your job, please
read the instructions carefully.
Work on Present Job Pay
Think of the work you do at present. How well Think of the pay you get now. How well does
does each of the following words or phrases each of the following words or phrases
describe your work? In the blank beside each describe your work? In the blank beside each
word or phrase below, write word or phrase below, write
Y for “Yes” if it describes your work Y for “Yes” if it describes your work
N for “No” if it does not describe your work N for “No” if it does not describe your work
? for “?” if you cannot decide ? for “?” if you cannot decide
___ Fascinating ___ Barely live on income
___ Satisfying ___ Bad
___ Good ___ Well Paid
___ Exciting ___ Underpaid
___ Rewarding ___ Enough to live on
___ Uninteresting ___ Comfortable
Opportunities for promotion Supervision

Think of the opportunities for promotion you Think of the opportunities for promotion you
have now. How well does each of the have now. How well does each of the
following words or phrases describe your following words or phrases describe your
work? In the blank beside each word or phrase work? In the blank beside each word or phrase
below, write below, write
___ Good opportunities for promotion ___ Praises good work
___ Opportunities somewhat limited ___ Tactful
___ Dead-end job ___ Influential
___ Good chance for promotion ___ Up to date
___ Fairly good chance for promotion ___ Annoying
___ Regular promotion ___ Knows their job well
301
People on your present job The job in general
Think of the majority of people with whom Think of your job in general. All in all, what
you work or meet in connection with your is it like most of the time? How well does each
work. How well does each of the following of the following words or phrases describe
words or phrases describe your work? In the your work? In the blank beside each word or
blank beside each word or phrase below, write phrase below, write
___ Boring ___ Good

___ Slow ___ Undesirable
___ Responsible ___ better than most
___ Smart ___ Disagreeable
___ Lazy ___ Makes me content
___ Frustrating ___Excellent
___ Enjoyable
___Poor
302
Intent to Stay
Please place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view on the following
statements.
Item Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

disagree agree agree
nor
disagree
I plan to leave the
organisation as soon as
possible
Under no circumstances
will I voluntarily leave
the organisation
I would be reluctant to
leave the organisation
I plan to stay at the

organisation for as long
as possible
Intention to Leave
Please place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view on the following
statements.

nor
disagree
I will likely look for
another job in the next
twelve months
I will likely look for
another job in the next
five years
303
Open Questions
months?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
years?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3) What factors influence your intentions to leave your organisation within the next 12
months
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4) What factors influence your intentions to leave your organisation within the next 5
years?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your participation in this research.
304
305
Appendix B: Pilot study questionnaire
306
Two sides of the same coin? Employees’ intentions to stay and leave
Can you please complete my questionnaire and answer these questions
How long did it take you to complete the questionnaire? (Approx) ____________
Were there any spelling mistakes?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Were any questions difficult to follow?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Did it logically flow? Do you have any suggestions for improvement?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Were there any other errors that you found?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
How easy was the questionnaire to fill out (e.g. were the instructions clear)?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
307
Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about working at your
main organisation (the place where you work the most paid hours). Please indicate the degree of your
agreement or disagreement with each statement by placing a tick (√) in the column that best
represents your view.

nor
disagree
If my organisation could hire
lower salary it would do so
My organisation fails to
appreciate any extra effort from
me
My organisation strongly
My organisation would ignore
any complaint from me
My organisation disregards my
best interests when it makes
decisions that affect me
organisation when I have a
problem
My organisation really cares
about my well-being
Even if I did the best job
possible my organisation would
fail to notice
My organisation is willing to
favour
My organisation cares about my
general satisfaction at work
organisation would take
advantage of me
My organisation shows very
little concern for me
My organisation cares about my
opinions
My organisation takes pride in
My organisation values my
My organisation tries to make
my job as interesting as possible
308
Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about your main
immediate supervisor. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each
statement by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view about your supervisor.
Disagre disagree disagree agree agree Agree agree
e nor
disagree
If my immediate supervisor could
hire someone to replace me at a
lower salary she/he would do so
My immediate supervisor fails to
appreciate any extra effort from
me
My immediate supervisor strongly
My immediate supervisor would
ignore any complaint from me
My immediate supervisor
disregards my best interests when
she/he makes decisions that affect
me
immediate supervisor when I have
a problem
My immediate supervisor really
cares about my well-being
Even if I did the best job possible
my supervisor would fail to notice
My immediate supervisor is
willing to help me when I need a
special favour
My immediate supervisor cares
about my general satisfaction at
work
immediate supervisor would take
advantage of me
My immediate supervisor shows
very little concern for me
My immediate supervisor cares
about my opinions
My immediate supervisor takes
pride in my accomplishments at
work
My immediate supervisor values
my contribution to the
organisation’s wellbeing
My immediate supervisor tries to
make my job as interesting as
possible
309
The following items ask about your satisfaction with various elements of your job.
‘Please read the instructions carefully and indicate whether the word describes that aspect of your job
by placing a
Y for “Yes” if it describes your work well N for “No” if it does not describe your work well
? if you cannot decide whether it describes your work well or not.
Work on Present Job Pay

Think of the work you do at present. How well Think of the pay you get now. How well does
does each of the following words or phrases each of the following words or phrases
describe your work? describe your pay?
___ Fascinating ___ Barely live on income
___ Satisfying ___ Bad
___ Good ___ Well Paid
___ Exciting ___ Underpaid
___ Rewarding ___ Enough to live on
___ Uninteresting ___ Comfortable
Opportunities for promotion

Think of the opportunities for promotion you
have now. How well does each of the
following words or phrases describe your Supervision
opportunities for promotion? Think of the supervisor you have now. How
well does each of the following words or
___ Good opportunities for promotion
phrases describe your supervisor?
___ Opportunities somewhat limited
___ Praises good work
___ Dead-end job
___ Tactful
___ Good chance for promotion
___ Influential
___ Fairly good chance for promotion
___ Up to date
___ I get regular promotions
___ Annoying
___ Knows their job well
310
People on your present job The job in general
Think of the majority of people with whom Think of your job in general. All in all, what
you work or meet in connection with your is it like most of the time? How well does each
work. How well does each of the following of the following words or phrases describe
words or phrases describe the people on your your job in general?
present job?
___ Good
___ Boring
___ Undesirable
___ Slow
___ better than most
___ Responsible
___ Disagreeable
___ Smart
___ Makes me content
___ Lazy
___Excellent
___ Frustrating
___ Enjoyable
___Poor
311
Intent to Stay
Please place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view on your intention to remain
working in your main organisation.

nor
disagree
I plan to leave this
organisation as soon as
possible
Under no circumstances
will I voluntarily leave
this organisation
I would be reluctant to
leave this organisation
I plan to stay at this

organisation for as long
as possible
What influences your intentions to stay at your organisation for the next 12 months?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
What influences your intentions to stay at your organisation for the next 5 years?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
312
Intention to Leave
Please place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view on your intention to leave
your main organisation.

nor
disagree
Over the past month I have
seriously thought about leaving
my primary organisation to work
with another organisation within
the aged care industry
seriously thought about resigning
from the workforce altogether
seriously thought about resigning
from this organisation even
though I do not have another job
to go to
seriously thought about making a
real effort to enter a new or
different occupation outside the
aged care sector
What influences your intentions to leave your organisation for the next 12 months?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
What factors influence your intentions to leave your organisation within the next 12
months?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
313
Listed below are statements that ask about how well you perceive you fit into your community
(the place that you live) and your organisation (the place that you work). Please indicate on the
scale below how well you agree or disagree with the following statements by placing a tick (√)
in the column that best represents your view about the statement.

disagree Agree
I like the family-oriented environment
of my community
This community I live in is a good
match for me
I think of the community where I live as
home
The area where I live offers the leisure
activities that I like (e.g. sports,
outdoors, cultural, arts).
My job utilises my skills and talents
well
I feel like I am a good match for this
organisation
I feel personally valued by my
organisation
I like my work schedule (e.g. flexitime,
shift)
I like the authority and responsibility I
have at this company
The next section asks about your links with your community and organisation. Please
place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view.
What is your relationship status?
Living with a partner Not living with a partner
What is your job employment status?
Permanent Full Time Permanent Part Time Fixed Term Full Time
Fixed term part time Casual

If you are not married but living with a partner, does your partner work
outside the home?
314
Please answer the following question by filling in the spaces provided in relation to your
main job.
How long have you been in your present position? _______ Years ____ Months
How long have you worked for this organisation? ________ Years ____ Months
How long have you worked in the aged care industry? ______ Years ____ Months
How many co-workers do you interact with regularly? __________
How many co-workers are highly dependent on you? ________
How many work teams are you on? _________
How many work committees are you on? ________
How many paid hours do you work at your main job? _________________
organisation if you left them. Please indicate on the scale below the extent to which you
agree or disagree with the following statements by placing a tick (√) in the column that
best represents your view about the statement.

disagree Agree
Leaving this community would be very
hard
People respect me a lot in my
community
I have a lot of freedom on this job to
decide how to pursue my goals
I feel that people at work respect me a
great deal
I would incur very few costs if I left this
organisation
My promotion opportunities are
excellent here
I am well compensated for my level of
performance
I believe the prospects for continuing
employment with this organisation are
excellent
315
Demographics
What is your gender?
Male Female
In what year were you born? __________________

RN EEN/EN PCW / AIN Care Manager
DON Other: (Please specify) ___________________________________
What area of aged care do you primarily work in?

Home Care Residential Care other (Please specify)
_______________
What state do you work in?
QLD NSW VIC SA NT ACT TAS WA
What is the highest education level you have obtained?
TAFE TAFE
Grade 10/less Grade 11-12
certificate III certificate IV
TAFE diploma Bachelor degree Masters/Grad Cert degree
Hospital Based training Other (Please list): ____________________________
Do you have any primary caregiver responsibilities?
Yes No
If yes, who are these responsibilities to (e.g. your parents/children)?

______________________________________________________________________
Please rate how you perceive your health and the health of your family in the boxes below
by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your perception.
316
Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly
nor
disagree
My overall health is very good
The overall health of my family is
very good
Thank you for your participation in this research.
317
Appendix C: Final questionnaire pack distributed to
participants
318
Department of Employment
Relations and Human Resources
Telephone + 61 (0)7 5552 8782
Facsimile + 61 (0)7 5552 9206
Two sides of the Same Coin? Employees’ intentions to stay and leave
Ethics Approval Number: EHR/19/11/HREC Gold Coast Campus
INFORMATION SHEET Griffith University QLD 4222
Australia
Who is conducting the research?
Chief Investigator Student Researcher
Name: Dr. Kate Shacklock Name: Katrina Radford

School: Department of Employment School: Department of Employment
Relations and Human Resources Relations and Human Resources
Phone: +61 7 55 528 543 Phone : 0403142048
Email: k.shacklock@griffith.edu.au Email : k.radford@griffith.edu.au
Why is the research being conducted?

This research study is being conducted as a requirement for the award of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
at Griffith University. This project is for research purposes only and is not part of the curriculum or
normal school activity of Griffith University. This research is being conducted to provide empirical
evidence on the factors that influence employee intentions to stay and leave. It will provide the aged
care sector with key information that can be used to retain employees.
What you are being asked to do

You are being asked to complete the questionnaire that was sent out to you in this package. This
questionnaire asks questions about your current attitudes towards working at your organisation. Once
completed, you are asked to return this questionnaire to the researcher in the envelope provided.
The basis by which participants will be selected or screened

All participants who are employed as a Registered Nurses (RN), Enrolled Nurse (EN), Enrolled
Endorsed Nurse (EEN), Personal Care Worker (PCW), Director of Nursing (DON) or Care Manager
(CM) at participating organisations are being invited to participate in this study. All other aged care
workers will be excluded from this study.
The expected practical benefits of the research

The findings from the research will provide aged care organisations with a better understanding of
the factors that influence employees’ intentions to leave and stay in the sector. This information can
then be used by aged care organisations to enhance attraction and retention strategies.
319
Risks to you
There are no risks to you in participating in this research study.
Your confidentiality
Any information gathered will be kept strictly confidential with no individual identifiable by anyone
other than the primary researcher, who will use this information only to identify the organisation to
which you belong and only for research purposes. Furthermore, access to the data collected will be
restricted to the researcher and chief investigator, with the data file containing the information
collected being stored away from the organisation and not accessible to anyone other than the
primary researcher. Moreover, no information on your participation will be provided to the
participating organisation.
Your participation is voluntary

Your participation in this research is completely voluntary, and you are free to withdraw at any point
during the study without loss or penalty of any kind.
Providing your consent to participate in this study

By completing and returning your questionnaire to the researcher, you are providing your consent to
participate in this study. This consent means that you understand the information provided in this
information sheet and agree to participate in this study. If you would like to ask any additional
questions please contact the researcher, Katrina Radford, either by phone (0403142048) or email
(k.radford@griffith.edu.au).
Mechanism for distribution and return

Please return your completed questionnaire to the researcher in the envelope provided. If you
accidently lose or misplace this envelope please contact the student researcher, Katrina Radford,
either by phone (0403142048) or email (k.radford@griffith.edu.au) to obtain another envelope.
Questions / further information

If you have any questions or wish to obtain further information regarding this study please feel free
to contact Katrina Radford by phone (0403142048) or email (k.radford@griffith.edu.au).
The ethical conduct of this research

Griffith University conducts research in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct
in Research Involving Humans. If you have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of
the project please feel free to contact the Manager, Research Ethics on 3875 5585 or research-
ethics@griffith.edu.au.
Feedback to you
Each participating organisation will receive a brief report to disseminate which highlights the
findings of this research study. The final thesis will be available for review at the Griffith University
library.
Privacy statement
Please note that the conduct of this research involves the collection and analysis of data. Any
information collected is considered to be confidential and will not be disclosed to anyone else
without your expressed consent, except to meet any government, legal or regulatory authority
requirements. Your anonymity will be protected at all times. If you have any questions about this
privacy statement, you may consult the university’s privacy plan at
https://www.griffith.edu.au/about-griffith/plans-publications/griffith-university-privacy-plan or
telephone +61 7 3735 5585.
320
Telephone + 61 (0)7 5552 8782
Facsimile + 61 (0)7 5552 9206
Dear Manager,
Gold Coast Campus
Griffith University QLD 4222
Thank you for participating in this research study. Australia
Each participating organisation will be provided with a limited number of questionnaire packs
to distribute to direct care workers, that is, employees who are employed as Registered Nurse
(RN), Enrolled Nurse (EN), Enrolled Endorsed Nurse (EEN), Personal Care Worker (PCW),
Director of Nursing (DON) or Care Manager (CM). Please make these questionnaire packs
available to all staff who meets the criteria of being a direct care staff member over the age of
18.
In order to collect the data, two questionnaire return options have been given to all participants.
The first is to return the questionnaire in a box that is clearly marked at their place of work, and
the second is to post the questionnaire back directly to the researcher. We are asking that you
provide a box that staff can easily place their questionnaire into, as for the first return option. As
the information collected is confidential, this box should be placed in an area which is
accessible all hours so all staff are able to place their questionnaires in the box. However, the
box should also be secured so that no other staff, other than authorised persons, can access the
completed questionnaires. The only authorised person to have access to the contents of the box
is the site manager or elected person who is tasked with returning the completed questionnaires
in bulk directly to the researcher.
Please allow 2 weeks for questionnaires to be returned and return the completed questionnaires
to me by 20th June 2012. However, please try to collect the questionnaires daily if possible from
the box to maintain the security of the questionnaires returned. Once questionnaires are
collected from the box, please return the completed questionnaires (without opening their sealed
envelopes) in bulk to the researcher, using the address:
Attention: Katrina Radford
Department of Employment Relations& Human Resources,
Gold Coast campus, Griffith University, QLD 4222, Australia
If you require any additional information or would like to raise a query, question or discuss
what to do further, please contact the researcher (Katrina) on 0403142048.
Thank you for assisting in this research project. Your help and support are essential to its
success.
Kindest Regards,
The Research Team
321
322
Telephone + 61 (0)7 5552 8782
Facsimile + 61 (0)7 5552 9206
Dear Participant,
Gold Coast Campus
Griffith University QLD 4222

Thank you for choosing to participate in this research. Your contribution to this research is
highly valued and will lead to a greater understanding into the factorsAustralia
that influence aged care
workers’ intentions to stay and leave. If you work at more than one organisation or job, please
answer all questions asking about your organisation or job in relation to your main organisation
(that is the organisation or job that you work more hours for).
Included in this questionnaire pack is an information sheet, a blank questionnaire and a sealable
envelope. Please read the information sheet, and complete the questionnaire enclosed in this
package. The questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Once you have
completed the questionnaire please place the completed questionnaire into the envelope
provided, seal the envelope, and place the envelope (complete with questionnaire in it) into the
box provided at your organisation for return. Alternatively, if you wish to return the sealed
envelope (with the questionnaire in it) directly to the researcher by post, Please address the
envelope to:

Department of Employment Relations & Human Resources,
If you require any additional information or would like to raise a query, question or discuss
what to do further, please contact the researcher (Katrina) on 0403142048.
Kindest Regards,
The Research Team
323
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers
Why should I participate?

Answer: By participating in this questionnaire, you are contributing to the understanding of
why employees stay and leave. Employers can then use this information to better guide the
employee benefits and rewards they offer to make your working experience more
meaningful and enjoyable.
How do I return the questionnaire?

Answer: There are two ways you can return the questionnaire, either a) place in the box
provided at your workplace, or b) directly mail back your questionnaire to the researcher at
the following address
Department of Employment Relations & Human Resources,
Will someone find out what I have written?

Answer: No, your responses are kept confidential and no one will be able to identify that
you have responded. Even the researcher will not know who responded. Instead they will
just receive your anonymous answers to the questionnaire, which will then be collated and
analysed at an organisation level as well as a national level. You, as a participant, will not
be identifiable at any level of the analysis, now or later.
How do I obtain a copy of the results of the questionnaire?

Answer: If you would like a copy of the results, please email the researcher directly at
k.radford@griffith.edu.au. A summary of the results can then be sent once the results have
been analysed and reported.
If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact the researcher directly by
email to discuss any concerns or queries you have. Katrina can be contacted by calling
0403142048 or emailing her at k.radford@griffith.edu.au.
Thank you in advance for participating in this research study; your responses are truly
valued and appreciated.
324
TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN? EMPLOYEES’ INTENTIONS TO STAY AND
LEAVE
Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about working at
your main organisation (the place where you work the most paid hours). Please indicate the
degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by placing a tick (√) in the
column that best represents your view
Statement Strongly Moderately Disagree Neither Agree Moderately Strongly

Agree nor
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
If my organisation could hire someone to replace me at a lower salary

it would do so
My organisation fails to appreciate any extra effort from me
My organisation strongly considers my goals and values
My organisation would ignore any complaint from me
My organisation disregards my best interests when it makes decisions
that affect me
Help is available from my organisation when I have a problem
My organisation really cares about my well-being
Even if I did the best job possible my organisation would fail to notice
My organisation is willing to help me when I need a special favour
My organisation cares about my general satisfaction at work
If given the opportunity my organisation would take advantage of me
My organisation shows very little concern for me
My organisation cares about my opinions
My organisation takes pride in my accomplishments at work
My organisation values my contribution to its wellbeing
My organisation tries to make my job as interesting as possible
325
Listed below are statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about your main
immediate supervisor. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each
statement by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view about your
supervisor
Statement Strongly Moderately Disagree Neither Agree Moderately Strongly
Agree nor
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
If my immediate supervisor could hire someone to replace me at a

lower salary she/he would do so
My immediate supervisor fails to appreciate any extra effort from me
My immediate supervisor strongly considers my goals and values
My immediate supervisor would ignore any complaint from me
My immediate supervisor disregards my best interests when she/he
makes decisions that affect me
Help is available from my immediate supervisor when I have a problem
My immediate supervisor really cares about my well-being
Even if I did the best job possible my supervisor would fail to notice
My immediate supervisor is willing to help me when I need a special
favour
My immediate supervisor cares about my general satisfaction at work
If given the opportunity my immediate supervisor would take
advantage of me
My immediate supervisor shows very little concern for me
My immediate supervisor cares about my opinions
My immediate supervisor takes pride in my accomplishments at work
My immediate supervisor values my contribution to the
organisation’s wellbeing
My immediate supervisor tries to make my job as interesting as possible
The following items ask about your satisfaction with various elements of your job. Please read the instructions
carefully and indicate whether the word describes that aspect of your job by placing a...
Y For “Yes” if it describes your work. N For “No” if it does not describe your work. ? If you cannot decide
Work on present Job
Think of the work you do at present. How well does each of the following words or phrases describe your work?
Fascinating Satisfying
Good Rewarding
Exciting Uninteresting
Super vision
Think of the supervisor you have now. How well does each of the following words or phrases describe your
supervisor?
Praises good work Tactful
Influential Up to date
Annoying Knows their job well
326
Opportunities for promotion
Think of the opportunities for promotion you have now. How well does each of the following
words or phrases describe your opportunities for promotion
Good opportunities for promotion Fairly good chance for promotion

Dead-end job I get regular promotions=
Good chance for promotion Opportunities somewhat limited
People on your present job
Think of the majority of people with whom you work or meet i n connection with your work.
How well does each of the following words or phrases describe the people on your present
job?
Boring Frustrating
Slow Responsible
Lazy Smart
Pay
Think of the pay you get now. How well does each of the following words or phrases
describe your pay?
Barely live on income Bad
Well Paid Underpaid
Enough to live on Comfortable
Job In General
Think of your job in general. All in all, what is it l ike most of the time? How well does each
of the following words or phrases describe your job in general?
Good Undesirable
Better than most Disagreeable
Makes me content Excellent
Enjoyable Poor
327
Intent to stay
Please place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view on your intention to
remain working in your main Organisation

Agree nor
Disagree Disagree Agree
I plan to leave this organisation as soon as possible
Under no circumstances will I voluntarily leave this organisation
I would be reluctant to leave this organisation
I plan to stay at this organisation for as long as possible
1) What influences your intentions to stay at your organisation within the next 12 months?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
2) What influences your intentions to stay at your organisation within the next 5 years?
____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Intention to leave
Please place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view on your intention to leave
your main organisation.

Agree nor
Disagree Disagree Agree
Over the past month I have seriously thought about leaving my
primary organisation to work with another organisation within the
aged care industry
Over the past month I have seriously thought about resigning from
the workforce altogether
Over the past month I have seriously thought about resigning from
this organisation even though I do not have another job to go to
Over the past month I have seriously thought about making a real effort to
enter a new or different occupation outside the aged care sector
1) What influences your intentions to leave your organisation within the next 12 months?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
2) What influences your intentions to leave your organisation within the next 5 years?
____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
328
Listed below are statements that ask about how well you perceive you fit into your
community (the place that you live) and your organisation (the place that you work).
Please indicate on the scale below how well you agree or disagr ee with the following
statements by placing a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view about the
statement.
Disagree Agree
I like the family-oriented environment of my community
This community I live in is a good match for me
I think of the community where I live as home
The area where I live offers the leisure activities that I like
(e.g. sports, outdoors, cultural, arts).
My job utilises my skills and talents well

I feel like I am a good match for this organisation
I feel personally valued by my organisation
I like my work schedule (e.g. flexitime, shift)
I like the authority and responsibility I have at this company
The next section asks about your links with your community and organisatio n. Please
place a tick (√) in the column that best represents your view.
What is your relationship status?
Living with a partner? Not living with a partner?

If you are not married but living with a partner, does your partner work outside the home?
What is your job employment status?
Permanent Full Time Permanent Part Time
Temporary Full Time Temporary Part Time
Casual
329
How long have you been in your present position? Year s Months
How long have you worked for this organisation? Year s Months
How long have you worked in the aged care industry? Year s Months
How many co -worker s do you interact with regularly? __________________
How many co -worker s are highly dependent on you? __________________
How many work teams are you on? __________________
How many work commit tees are you on? __________________
How many hours do you work at your main job? __________________
organisation if you left them. Please indicate on the scale below the extent to which
you agree or disagree with the following statements by placing a tick (√) in the column
that best represents your view about the statement
Disagree Agree
Leaving this community would be very hard
People respect me a lot in my community
I have a lot of freedom on this job to decide how to pursue my goals
I feel that people at work respect me a great deal
I would incur very few costs if I left this organisation
My promotion opportunities are excellent here
I am well compensated for my level of performance
I believe the prospects for continuing employment with this company are
excellent
330
DEMOGRAPHICS
What is your gender? Male Female
In what year were you born? ___________________________
RN EEN/EN PCW/CCW Care Manager DON Other _____________
What area of aged care do you work in?
Residential Care Community Care Other? ________________
Which state do you work in?
QLD NSW VIC SA NT ACT TAS WA
What is the highest level of education you have obtained?
Grade 10 / less Grade 11-12 TAFE Certificate III
TAFE Certificate IV TAFE Diploma Bachelor degree
Masters/Grad Certificate Hospital Based Training Other __________________
Do you speak a language other than English at home? Yes _(please specify)________ No
Do you have any primary caregiver responsibilities? Yes No
If yes, who are these responsibilities to (e.g. parent, children etc)?

___________________________________
Please rate how you perceive your health and the health of your family in the boxes below by placing a tick
(√) in the column that best represent s your perception
Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent
My overall health is very good

The overall health of my family is very good
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS RESEARCH
331

Radford 2014 02thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radford 2014 02thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two sides of the same coin?

Griffith Business School

Department of Employment Relations and Human Resources

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of

This study investigated five research questions:

1. What factors influence employees’ intentions to stay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of my contributions to the papers and presentations:

(Signed) _________________________________ (Date)______________

(Countersigned) ___________________________ (Date)______________

(Countersigned) ___________________________ (Date)______________

(Countersigned) ___________________________ (Date)______________

1.2 Research aims, justification, problem and questions

1.4 Glossary of terms and list of acronyms used

The following definitions are used throughout this thesis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABS – Australian Bureau of Statistics

AIHW – Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing

CAC – Community Aged Care

DON – Director of Nursing

DVA – Department of Veteran Affairs

EEN – Endorsed Enrolled Nurse

JIG – Job in General

PCW – Personal Care Worker

PSS – Perceived Supervisor Support

RAC – Residential Aged Care

RACF – Residential Aged Care Facilities

RBV – Resource Based View of the Firm

SPSS – Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

1.5 Research limitations and de-limiters

1.6 Chapter overview

Introduction Chapter 1: Introduction

Literature Chapter 2: Literature Review of Theoretical Constructs

Methodology Chapter 4: Methodology and Methods

Results Chapter 5: Quantitative Results

Discussion Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion

Figure 1.1 The structure of this thesis

2.1 Resource-Based View of the Firm

2.1.1 Development of the Resource-Based View of the Firm

People Management Practices

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

2.2 Employee retention

(Signed) ___________________ (Date)

(Countersigned) _____________ (Date)

(Countersigned) _____________ (Date)

(Countersigned) _____________ (Date)