Introduction
The properly selected instrument to collect the data for the study is often discussed by researchers as a guarantee for receiving credible and efficient findings that are supported with relevant conclusions (Gkorezis & Petridou 2012, p. 3602; Kuttappa 2013, p. 75). While conducting the quantitative survey and focusing on examining how human resource management (HRM) practices and policies can influence the employees’ job satisfaction and retention in the public sector, it is important to utilize the research instrument that is effective to reflect individuals’ perception and attitudes and be used for formulating general conclusions (Edgar & Geare 2005 p. 535; Marescaux, De Winne & Sels 2013, p. 6; Tabiu & Nura 2013, p. 247). The aim of this review of the literature is to discuss the appropriateness of using the questionnaire based on the Likert scale in order to collect the data regarding the employees’ perception of the effectiveness of such HRM practices as training and development, rewards and promotion, and performance management for influencing retention. The reason for using the Likert scale and the specific questionnaire design are discussed separately.
The Questionnaire’s Design
The Likert-scale-based questionnaire is selected as the main instrument in order to collect the primary data in the research, and the reason is that a questionnaire is useful to examine the employees’ experience (Tsai, Edwards & Sengupta 2010, p. 7). A questionnaire is a tool that is usually used by researchers to study attitudes in the field of HRM (Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget & Varone 2013, p. 133; Hong et al. 2012, p. 68; Rahman et al. 2013, p. 63). Thus, Tangthong stresses the necessity of using a questionnaire in order to explore the employees’ attitudes regarding compensation, rewards, training, and development (Tangthong 2014, p. 13). In addition, Abdullah, Ahsan, and Alam use the personal survey questionnaire in order to examine the correlation between the employees’ performance, attitude, commitment and such HRM practices as “training and development, teamwork, compensation/incentives, HR planning, performance appraisal, and employee security” (Abdullah, Ahsan, & Alam 2009, p. 67). The aspects of the employees’ attitudes are measured with the help of the 5-point Likert scale (Abdullah, Ahsan, & Alam 2009, p. 67). Furthermore, according to Hong and the group of researchers, it is important to choose the survey based on the use of a questionnaire because of “the direct response and feedback from the respondents that can be collected in a short period of time and in an easier manner” (Hong et al. 2012, p. 68). From this point, the use of a questionnaire in surveys is one of the most traditional approaches to conducting studies in HRM.
Parts of the Likert-scale Based Questionnaire
The Likert-scale-based questionnaire designed for conducting the current study is intended to measure the employees’ perception and attitudes regarding such areas as performance management in the public sector and semi-private sector organizations, visions regarding the rewards and promotion, attitudes toward training, and development, and employees’ job satisfaction and retention. In order to be able to analyze the collected information appropriately, the questionnaire is divided into five parts where statements are organized according to the area of the survey (Balatbat 2010, p. 18; Dar et al. 2014, p. 231; Sarker & Afroze 2014, p. 185). This design of the questionnaire is similar to that one proposed by Hong et al. (2012, p. 68) in their study. Thus, the researchers determined the factors important for studying and designing the Likert scale appropriate for determining statistically significant relationships (Hong et al. 2012, p. 68). In their study, Shulruf, Hattie, and Dixon (2008, p. 60) also used questionnaires developed to determine individuals’ attitudes. Following ALDamoe, Yazam, and Bin Ahmid, it is possible to note that the division of the questionnaire in parts is also important to conduct the careful analysis of the data (ALDamoe, Yazam & Bin Ahmid 2011, p. 82).
The questionnaire is efficient when it also provides the information to test such control variables as socio-demographic information concerning respondents. According to Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget, and Varone, control variables should include gender, age, and education level among others to state how the status of the respondent can influence the perception of HRM (Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget & Varone 2013, p. 135). The research conducted by Balatbat demonstrates that there is a direct relationship between the perception of HRM practices and demographic information associated with respondents (Balatbat 2010, p. 47). Thus, the final part of the used questionnaire asks respondents about their demographic information to test control variables and provide a credible analysis of the data taking into account factors that can influence the respondents’ opinions and perceptions (Dar et al. 2014, p. 232; Gkorezis & Petridou 2012, p. 3602). According to Marescaux, De Winne, and Sels, the focus on control variables is important to prevent the explanation of the observed relationships with the focus on these variables (Marescaux, De Winne & Sels 2013, p. 13).
The Data for the Questionnaire
In order to design an effective questionnaire for collecting the required data, researchers propose not only to separate parts of the questionnaire for the ease of a respondent and collector but also to select questions and options from the previously developed questionnaires to address the topic of the current research (Balatbat 2010, p. 18; Sarker & Afroze 2014, p. 185). In their research, Rasouli et al. (2013, p. 1149) prove the effectiveness of combining several approaches to designing a questionnaire while using several questionnaires previously completed by other researchers. This approach allows designing a unique questionnaire that responds to the needs of the study and produces results that are intended and expected by the researchers (Majumder 2012, p. 54; Singh et al. 2012, p. 661; Wang & Hwang 2012, p. 328).
In their turn, Dhiman and Mohanty also suggest the use of properly structured questionnaires for conducting researches in human resource management (Dhiman & Mohanty 2010, p. 75). In this context, the most effective and easiest way to design a questionnaire is to use the Likert-scale based questionnaire that allows measuring the respondents’ answers directly and quickly (Abdullah, Ahsan, & Alam 2009, p. 67; Gill & Meyer 2011, p. 13; Rasouli et al. 2013, p. 1149; Tangthong 2014, p. 14). Therefore, the questionnaire developed for the current research utilizes the Likert scale for formatting and measuring the statements that are formulated by the researcher and adapted from the previously developed questionnaires.
Types of Statements
The other important factor to guarantee that the questionnaire is easy to use by respondents is the type of proposed questions and options. The questions and statements used in Likert scales are usually closed-ended. The researchers support the idea that this type of question does not limit the respondents, but provides them with an opportunity to give answers close to their attitudes (Al-Kahtani & Khan 2014, p. 345; Onyemah, Rouzies & Panagopoulos 2010, p. 1958; Slavic, Berber & Lekovic 2014, p. 50). Hong and researchers note that closed-ended questions can be discussed as structured, and it is appropriate to use them in the research because they can “ease the process of analyzing the data from respondents” (Hong et al. 2012, p. 68). The researchers agree that the use of close-ended questions, as in the proposed questionnaire, is appropriate to make the process of collecting the data quick and properly organized (Gkorezis & Petridou 2012, p. 3602; Katou 2013, p. 680; Sanders, Dorenbosch & De Reuver 2008, p. 415). Furthermore, the process of answering questions from the Likert-scale-based questionnaire is advantageous for respondents because they have the opportunity to save their time and resources.
Although questionnaires containing open-ended questions and statements are appropriate to provide such detailed qualitative data as opinions and perceptions, they are not efficient for use in quantitative surveys where it is necessary to focus on measuring the respondents’ answers in order to receive the statistically significant results (Ansari 2011, p. 134; Kahya 2009, p. 97; Rasouli et al. 2013, p. 1149). Therefore, the design of a questionnaire can be discussed as effective for the quantitative study when it is necessary to focus on the employees’ perceptions of different HRM practices and policies. The opportunity to collect the quantitative data regarding the employees’ attitude depends on the fact that Likert-scale-based questionnaires are traditionally standardized. As a result, the proposed questionnaire is friendly to respondents who need to choose their answers from the proposed variants.
Construct Measurements
Three HRM practices were selected for the study, and to measure their influence as independent variables on job satisfaction and employee retention as dependent variables, certain questionnaire items presented in the prior studies were examined according to the purpose of the current research. The items used in the developed questionnaire are adapted from the questionnaires previously developed and used by researchers who studied the correlation between HRM practices, commitment, and retention (Appendix A).
Performance Management
The statements used to measure the respondents’ perception of performance management are adapted from the researches by Yamamoto (2013, p. 754), Kyndt et al. (2009, p. 18), Al-Kahtani and Khan (2014), Den Hartog et al. (2013), and Dhiman and Mohanty (2010). There are four items taken from the questionnaire developed by Yamamoto (2013) and measured with the help of the Likert scale. Yamamoto focused on discussing the employees’ perception regarding performance management in relation to its role for further promotion (Yamamoto 2013, p. 754). In order to measure the supervisor support, the items were adapted from Kyndt et al. (2009) and Al-Kahtani and Khan (2014). These researchers focused on measuring the aspects of performance evaluation in the organization (Al-Kahtani & Khan 2014; Kyndt et al. 2009). Two additional items were taken from Dhiman and Mohanty (2010) in order to focus on the factors of objectivity and appropriateness of feedback in the organization (Appendix A).
Rewards and Promotion
The items to measure Rewards and Promotion systems in the organizations were designed with references to the items used by Yamamoto (2013) and Dhiman and Mohanty (2010) in their studies. The formulation of some items was changed according to the claims of researchers who specialized in studying the role of promotion for employee retention (Appendix A). Such factors as the appraisal approach and compensation system were accentuated in the adapted items. The researchers obtained the responses on Rewards and Promotion using the Likert scale, and this method was also adopted for the current research (Dhiman & Mohanty 2010; Yamamoto 2013).
Training and Development
The statements presented in the Training and Development section are primarily adapted from the questionnaire used by Ul-Ameeq and Hanif in their research (Ul-Ameeq & Hanif 2013). The researchers focused on studying the relationship between training provided for employees and their development and performance. The responses to items were measured according to the five-point Likert scale. Thus, the items provided are effectively adapted to the designed questionnaire (Ul-Ameeq & Hanif 2013, p. 81). In their research, Den Hartog et al. (2013) also assessed the employees’ perception of HRM practices regarding training and development in the organization, and it was possible to adapt three items regarding the skills and knowledge development (Appendix A). Two additional items measuring the time and effectiveness of the training and development sessions for employees were adapted from the questionnaire used by Yamamoto (2013) in his study.
Job Satisfaction
To find out the satisfaction of employees related to the aspects of their job, the questionnaire was mainly adopted from Yamamoto’s research (Yamamoto 2013, p. 756). Yamamoto paid much attention to measuring job satisfaction in his study, and the Likert-scale based items were adopted because of their effective formulation starting with “I am satisfied with…”, and the main factors accentuated by the author were income, career progress, and promotion (Yamamoto 2013, p. 756). The other approach to refer to job satisfaction was used by Jaros (2007) and Kyndt et al. (2009) who directly related job satisfaction with commitment, feeling the part of the organization, and job retention. The items from these researchers’ questionnaires were adapted to measure the possible relationship between job satisfaction and retention (Appendix A).
Employee Retention
The scale for measuring employee retention was adapted from the questionnaires used in the researches by Kyndt et al. (2009), Ibrahim and Al-Falasi (2014), and Jaros (2007). Kyndt and the group of researchers measured employee retention with a focus on the factors of motivation, stimulation, and empowerment. Thus, more than 10 items were adapted from the questionnaire and reformulated to address the needs of present research (Kyndt et al. 2009, p. 18). Such factors as loyalty, turnover intention and commitment were added to the questionnaire on employee retention with references to the items used in the research by Ibrahim and Al-Falasi (2014) and measured with the help of the five-point Likert scale. The factors of loyalty and turnover intention were also measured with references to the items taken from the questionnaire developed by Jaros in the study (Jaros 2007, p. 23). Six items referred to commitment were adapted to measure loyalty and the employees’ turnover intention as the parameter to demonstrate the overall level of employee retention in the organization (Appendix A).
The Relevance of Using the Likert Scale
The Likert scale is one of the most actively used instruments in social studies and management researches (Ensslin et al. 2013; Kehoe & Wright 2013, p. 376). This specific scale is named after Rensis Likert, the American educator, and psychologist, who developed the scale for measuring different qualitative phenomena (Murray 2013, p. 259). As a result, the Likert scale became actively used for measuring the qualitative information that is directly related to the attributes or attitudes of individuals. Thus, using the scale, researchers ask respondents to agree or disagree with the provided options or set of questions, and their answers demonstrate the level of agreement in the situation when a certain value was assigned to the options (Dittrich et al. 2007, p. 3; Murray 2013, p. 259). From this point, Dittrich and the group of researchers refer to the Likert scale as a “ubiquitous method of collecting attitudinal data” (Dittrich et al. 2007, p. 3). In addition, Ensslin et al. (2013, p. 741) support the effectiveness of using the Likert scale in the HRM studies while stating that the use of the scale in questionnaires is appropriate for managers to find aspects and gaps for further improvement in relation to the definite HRM policy or practice. From this point, the use of the Likert-scale-based questionnaire is suitable for studies in HRM when it is necessary to examine the individual intentions of respondents within a certain framework.
Advantages of Likert Scales
Easiness of developing the Likert-scale-based questionnaire is one of the main advantages of the method. Ensslin et al. (2013, p. 741) point out the fact that many researchers choose the use of the Likert scale because it is easy to construct the associated questionnaire and apply the scale to the conducted study. Thus, researchers in the managerial field can use both individually developed questionnaires and previously used scales (Den Hartog et al. 2013, p. 1646; Rehman 2012, p. 81). The items of the scale and the number of questions depend on the researcher’s needs, but the overall questionnaire remains to be standardized because respondents are expected to determine one option among the proposed ones (Abdullah, Ahsan, & Alam 2009; Den Hartog et al. 2013; Tangthong 2014). As a result, Hong et al. (2012, p. 68) accentuate the idea that the information collected with the help of this tool is more detailed than the information collected with the other quantitative methods, and these subjective data are easy to analyze and compare for the purpose of the research. Thus, the use of the 4-point Likert-scale-based questionnaire is an efficient choice for the current study.
Likert Scales in Quantitative Studies
While following Ensslin and the group of researchers, it is important to note that only the Likert scale “allows statistical operations, such as count, frequency, mode, and median” in the data analysis (Ensslin et al. 2013, p. 739). Thus, qualitative responses or opinions and perceptions provided by participants of the study can be interpreted and presented in measurements that are appropriate for the quantitative study (ALDamoe, Yazam & Bin Ahmid 2011, p. 82; Gill & Meyer 2011, p. 12). From this perspective, the possibility to measure the qualitative data as the quantitative information contributes to the credibility and accuracy of the findings in the current study.
Reliability and Validity
While referring to the issues of reliability and validity associated with using the Likert scale, it is important to state that the reliability of the scale is measured in Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, and many researchers note that questions and statements associated with such areas of HRM as training and development, rewards and promotion, and performance management are recommended to have the level of reliability that is higher than 0.70 (Abdullah, Ahsan, & Alam 2009, p. 67; Gill & Meyer 2011, p. 13; Rasouli et al. 2013, p. 1149; Tangthong 2014, p. 14). In this case, the reliability of the conducted study can be considered as high when Cronbach’s alpha is tested before the survey is started with such programs as SPSS v15; and the statements that are measured lower than 0.60 are replaced with the appropriate points and retested (Gill & Meyer 2011, p. 13). The possibility to check reliability is one more reason to state that the selected tool is appropriate for collecting the data in the study.
Conclusion
The review of the literature on HRM studies and surveys has allowed concluding about the suitability of using a standardized questionnaire based on the Likert scale in a quantitative study that aims to find the relationships between the employees’ vision of HRM practices, and retention. Thus, questionnaires can be discussed as the easiest way to gather information regarding the employees’ perceptions and attitudes. Furthermore, the use of the Likert scale allows interpreting the qualitative data received from the respondents with references to the measurable points. In addition, the number of questions and points used for the Likert-scale-based questionnaire can vary depending on the purpose of the research and determining objectives.
Reference
Abdullah, Z, Ahsan, N & Alam, S 2009, ‘The effect of human resource management practices on business performance among private companies in Malaysia’, International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 65-72.
ALDamoe, F, Yazam, M & Bin Ahmid, K 2011, ‘The mediating effect of HRM outcomes (employee retention) on the relationship between HRM practices and organisational performance’, International Journal of Human Resource Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 75-88.
Al-Kahtani, N & Khan, N 2014, ‘An exploratory study of human resource development practices in Telecom industry in Saudi Arabia: a case study of private sector’, European Scientific Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 341-355.
Ansari, N 2011, ‘Employee perception of HRM practices: impact on commitment to the organisation’, South Asian Journal of Management, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 122-149.
Balatbat, L 2010, Perceived interpretation of human resources management (HRM) practices and demographic variables of employees in private higher education institutions, Web.
Bhatti, MA, Battour, MM, Sundram, VPK & Othman, AA 2013, ‘Transfer of training: Does it truly happen? An examination of support, instrumentality, retention and learner readiness on the transfer of motivation and transfer of training’, European Journal of Training and Development, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 273-297.
Campbell, D 2008, ‘Nonfinancial performance measures and promotion-based incentives’, Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 297-332.
Dar, A, Bashir, M, Ghazanfar, F & Abrar, M 2014, ‘Mediating role of employee motivation in relationship to post-selection HRM practices and organizational performance’, International Review of Management and Marketing, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 224-238.
Den Hartog, D, Boon, C, Verburg, R & Croon, M 2013, ‘HRM, communication, satisfaction, and perceived performance: a cross-level test’, Journal of Management, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1637-1665.
Dhiman, G & Mohanty, R 2010, ‘HRM practices, attitudinal outcomes and turnover intent: an empirical study in Indian oil and gas exploration and production sector’, South Asian Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 74-104.
Dittrich, R, Francis, B, Hatzinger, R & Katzenbeisser, W 2007, ‘A paired comparison approach for the analysis of sets of Likert-scale responses’, Statistical Modelling, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 3–28.
Edgar, F & Geare, A 2005, ‘HRM practice and employee attitudes: different measures – different results’, Personnel Review, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 534-622. Engagement Survey 2011, Department of Labour, London.
Ensslin, S, Ensslin, L, Back, F & Lacerda, R 2013, ‘Improved decision aiding in human resource management’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 735-757.
Giauque, D, Anderfuhren-Biget, S & Varone, F 2013, ‘HRM practices, intrinsic motivators, and organisational performance in the public sector’, Public Personnel Management, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 123-150.
Gill, C & Meyer, D 2011, ‘The role and impact of HRM policy’, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 5-28.
Gkorezis, P & Petridou, E 2012, ‘The effect of extrinsic rewards on public and private sector employees’ psychological empowerment: A comparative approach’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 23, no. 17, pp. 3596-3612.
Holtom, BC, Mitchell, TR, Lee, TW & Eberly, MB 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, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 231-274.
Hong, E, Hao, L, Kumar, R, Ramendran, C & Kadiresan, V 2012, ‘An effectiveness of human resource management practices on employee retention in institute of higher learning: a regression analysis’, International Journal of Business Research and Management, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 60-79.
Ibrahim, M & Al Falasi, S 2014, Employee loyalty and engagement in UAE public sector, Employee Relations, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 562-582.
Jaros, S 2007, ‘Meyer and Allen model of organizational commitment: measurement issues’, The Icfai Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7-25.
Kahya, E 2009, ‘The effects of job performance on effectiveness’, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 96-104.
Katou, A 2013, ‘Justice, trust and employee reactions: an empirical examination of the HRM system’, Management Research Review, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 674-699.
Kehoe, R & Wright, P 2013, ‘The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors’, Journal of Management, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 366-391.
Kuttappa, S 2013, ‘Influence of HRM factors on retention in South India’, Journal of Contemporary Research in Management, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 75-81.
Kyndt, E, Dochy, F, Michielsen, M & Moeyaert, B 2009, ‘Employee retention: organisational and personal perspectives’, Vocations and Learning, vol. 2, no. 19, 1-21.
Majumder, M 2012, ‘Human resource management practices and employees’ satisfaction towards private banking sector in Bangladesh’, International Review of Management and Marketing, vol. 2, no. 1, pp.52-58.
Marescaux, E, De Winne, S, & Sels, L 2013, ‘HR practices and HRM outcomes: the role of basic need satisfaction’, Personnel Review, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 4-27.
Murray, J 2013, ‘Likert data: what to use, parametric or non-parametric?’ International Journal of Business and Social Science, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 258-264.
Onyemah, V, Rouzies, D & Panagopoulos, N 2010, ‘How HRM control affects boundary-spanning employees’ behavioural strategies and satisfaction: The moderating impact of cultural performance orientation’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1951-1975.
Rahman, M, Akhter, R, Chowdhury, S, Islam, S & Haque, M 2013, ‘HRM practices and its impact on employee satisfaction: a case of pharmaceutical companies in Bangladesh’, International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 62-67.
Rasouli, R, Mooghali, A, Mousavi, M & Rashidi, M 2013, ‘Designing and explaining the model of knowledge workers’ retention with emphasis on HRM practices’, Management Science Letters, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1145–1154.
Rehman, S 2012, ‘A study of public sector organisations with respect to recruitment, job satisfaction and retention’, Global Business & Management Research: An International Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 76-88.
Reiche, BS 2009, ‘To quit or not to quit: Organisational determinants of voluntary turnover in MNC subsidiaries in Singapore’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1362-1380.
Sanders, K, Dorenbosch, L, & De Reuver, R 2008, ‘The impact of individual and shared employee perceptions of HRM on affective commitment: considering climate strength’, Personnel Review, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 412-425.
Sarker, M & Afroze, R 2014, ‘Can HRM practices improve job satisfaction of Ready Made Garment (RMG) workers in Bangladesh? An alternative solution to recent unrest’, International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 185-194.
Shulruf, B, Hattie, J & Dixon, R 2008, ‘Factors affecting responses to Likert type questionnaires: introduction of the ImpExp, a new comprehensive model’, Social Psychology Education, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 59–78.
Singh, S, Darwish, T, Costa, A & Anderson, N 2012, ‘Measuring HRM and organisational performance: Concepts, issues, and framework’, Management Decision, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 651-667.
Slavic, A, Berber, N & Lekovic, B 2014, ‘Performance management in international human resource management: Evidence from the CEE region’, Serbian Journal of Management, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 45-58.
Tabiu, A & Nura, A 2013, ‘Assessing the effects of human resource management (HRM) practices on employee job performance: a study of Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto’, Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 247-259.
Tangthong, S 2014, ‘The effects of human resource management practices on employee retention in Thailand’s multinational corporations’, International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 1-30.
Taplin, IM & Winterton, J 2007, ‘The importance of management style in labour retention’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 27, no. 1/2, pp. 5-18.
Tsai, C, Edwards, P & Sengupta, S 2010, ‘The associations between organisational performance, employee attitudes and human resource management practices’, Journal of General Management, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1-20.
Tymon, WG, Stumpf, SA & Smith, RR 2011, ‘Manager support predicts turnover of professionals in India’, Career Development International, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 293-312.
Ul-Ameeq, A & Hanif, F 2013, ‘Impact of Training on Employee’s Development and Performance in Hotel Industry of Lahore, Pakistan’, Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 68-82.
Wang, M & Hwang, K 2012, ‘The impact of employee perceptions of human resource management systems on job satisfaction and organizational commitment during privatization the transformations of privatization: an empirical study of telecommunications corporations in Taiwan’, Asia Pacific Management Review, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 321-342.
Yamamoto, H 2013, ‘The relationship between employee benefit management and employee retention’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 747-767.