Research purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate intention to quit amongst Generation Y academics in HEIs.

Motivation for the study: Higher education institutions are more dependent on the abilities and commitment of their staff than most other organisations. More than 4000 academics will retire and need to be replaced by 2018, providing justification for the study of intention to quit of academics.

Research design, approach and method: An ex post facto quantitative research design was followed. Academics at six HEIs in South Africa were sampled. Measurement instruments included abridged versions of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Arnold and Feldman Intention to Quit Scale, Job Descriptive Scale and Chew’s reward scale.

Main findings: Employee engagement, job satisfaction, remuneration, reward, recognition and transformational leadership were significantly related to intention to quit. In the partial model, three of these variables explained 45% of the variance in intention to quit. Partial least square path modelling revealed that employee engagement and job satisfaction have significant negative impacts on intention to quit.

Practical/managerial implications: The findings serve as input for the development of efficacious strategies to retain Generation Y academics at HEIs in South Africa.

Contribution/value-add: This study contributes to our knowledge of intention to quit amongst Generation Y academics. It provides evidence of the complexity and inter-relatedness of variables in the phenomenological network of intention to quit.

Bakos (2007) reports that South African organisations face a scenario in which the demand for highly skilled employees is far greater than the supply. This phenomenon is compounded by the fact that most organisations are in search of this scarce resource, and talent pools are rapidly becoming exhausted as globalisation increases and talented employees become more mobile (Botha, Bussin & De Swardt, 2011; Grobler & De Bruyn, 2011; Mendes & Stander, 2011; Minchington, 2010). Given the high demand for talent globally, employees with scarce skills have various career alternatives, and even in difficult economic times have a choice about where, for whom and for how long they work (Waldman & Arora, 2004). According to Hellman (1997), whilst healthy turnover in an organisation can be affirmative, stimulating and helpful in initiating innovative ideas and techniques that can move the organisation to greater levels of success, turnover amongst highly productive employees is costly. Even though employees may intend to leave willingly due to the relocation of a spouse, a redefined personal role (for example, primary caregiver for an aging parent or staying home with a child) or retirement, of particular apprehension to the employer and human resources is when highly productive employees intend to leave based on reasons often within the control of the employer (Berry, 2010). Berry emphasises that, from a practical point of view, the examination of an employee’s turnover intent provides human resource departments with the opportunity to take a proactive approach to increasing retention and delaying turnover in an organisation, as opposed to obtaining the same information from an exit interview associated with voluntary turnover.

are self-confident, outspoken, passionate, opinionated, loyal and impatient. They are easily bored and happily move on to other things and interests. They have high expectations of their parents, friends, colleagues and managers. They are ambitious, in a hurry and expect work and life to co-exist harmoniously, even though they are not sure how to make it work yet. They are in demand in the workplace and they know it. (p. 1)

Henry (2006) emphasises, moreover, that Generation Y individuals are motivated by opportunities for self-improvement and engage in training, learning and development activities. These opportunities for growth motivate Generation Y employees to work harder and achieve their goals as effectively as possible; in return, they hold high expectations of their employers in terms of benefits, flexibility and compensation. According to Lieber (2010), Generation Y employees have a unique, flexible work style that managers may find challenging. They value flexibility in the workplace and will challenge the status quo. Lieber concurs with Henry that flexibility and the opportunity to pursue personal growth are highly motivational to Generation Y employees.

A generation is defined by Strauss and Howe (1992) as a given cohort group of members born in a limited span of consecutive years – approximately 22 – and whose boundaries are fixed by peer personality. The authors further interpret peer personality as a generational persona recognised and determined by common age and location, shared beliefs and behaviour and perceived membership of a common generation. Different generations demand a different style of management and will have a definite impact on human resource policies and procedures (Horgan, 2008).

The current core workforce of HEIs in South Africa typically comprises mature and experienced academics. Statistics show that, as of 1 April 2011, the percentage of academics younger than 35 at HEIs in South Africa was approximately 30% (Boughey & Botha, 2011) of the academic workforce (refer to Table 1). Badat (2008), estimates that, based on the current retirement age of 65, 4000 academics (27% of academics) will retire and need to be replaced by 2018. For professors and associate professors, who constitute the best qualified and most experienced academics, the percentage rises to almost 50%. Academics older than 50 have increasingly come to bear the responsibility of publishing. Thus, Generation Y academics will need to be equipped to take responsibility for conducting research and publishing, so that the knowledge needs of South Africa are met effectively (Badat, 2008).

Badat (2008) adds three unique challenges for HEIs in South Africa. Firstly, the higher education sector has to compete with industry to retain young skilled academics. A second challenge is ensuring that the next generation of academics possesses the teaching and learning capabilities that are essential to produce high-quality graduates and to enhance equity of opportunity and outcomes for students (Badat, 2008; Pienaar & Bester, 2008; Simmons, 2002). Thirdly, Badat argues that the next generation of academics also has to contribute to the transformation of institutional cultures, especially at historically White institutions.

Inadequate remuneration for South African academics, relative to occupations in the public and private sector that require similar levels of qualifications and expertise, adds to the dilemma. According to various researchers, the remuneration differentials between HEIs and the public and private sectors are significant and widening (Badat, 2008; Du Plooy & Snyman, 2004; Oshagbemi & Hickson, 2003; Pienaar & Bester, 2006). Koen (as cited in Pienaar & Bester, 2006) concurs that insufficient financial remuneration is also one of the most important reasons that young, competent academics cannot be recruited or retained for higher education in South Africa.

Badat (2008) is in agreement with Naidu and Govender (2004), who predicted an increasing shortage of academic staff at South African HEIs due to the ‘brain drain’ and more attractive options in the private sector. The public and private sectors, together with emigration, yield a powerful pull for current academics as well as master’s and doctoral graduates. This situation results in a minimal flow of highly qualified graduates from the private and public sectors to HEIs, to the detriment of the institutions, the economy and society. This concurs with the recommendations of Du Plooy and Snyman (2004) and Gillespie et al. (2001).

In addition to the preceding challenges, it also is important to bear in mind that institutions have to provide quality education (Jacobsz, 2012) that is flexible and innovative enough to cater for the changes in the workforce. These changes include the advancement of globalisation, liberalisation and technological expansion (Shirley, n.d.). According to Pienaar and Bester (2006), the successful management of the careers of academic staff, amidst all the demands and changes, influences the success, functioning and sustainability of any HEI. Substantial commitment on the part of administrators and academics to foster a positive emotional or affective attachment to their job and workplace is required in order to effectively bear these added roles and responsibilities (Shirley, n.d.). Turnover rates at HEIs may be lower than in other industry segments, but the loss of a single individual can be more costly, as scientific professionals are very valuable. Unlike for-profit firms, which are profit maximisers, HEIs are prestige maximisers, competing for rank and status in the academic world (Leslie & Rhoades, 1995; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). The employees of HEIs therefore face different challenges from employees working in the corporate environment, which means that standard organisational theories that apply to the corporate sector are inadequate in describing organisational behaviour in higher education (Jo, 2008).

Higher education institutions are dependent on external funding from government and organisations; therefore, they need to exist as centres of excellence in order to broaden their national and international recognition, which will in turn attract financial assistance. Branding the institution as a centre of excellence and a knowledgeable enterprise will attract more national and international students. If HEIs continue to lose academics, their national and international image and competitive advantage, as well as their ability to generate new knowledge in a specific field, may be affected adversely (Pienaar & Bester, 2008). Therefore, it is imperative to identify and address antecedents of intention to quit amongst Generation Y academics to ensure that the quality and sustainability of HEIs are not jeopardised (Pienaar, 2005; Ssesanga & Garrett, 2005; Trotman, Bennet, Scheffler & Tulloch, 2002). De Bruin and Taylor (2005) highlight that studies focusing on this unique sector are scarce. Due to the lack of information concerning Generation Y academia in South Africa, there have been missed opportunities for growth and development. This could have affected the organisational performance and staffing in organisations and academia, particularly in the light of the forecasted shortages in higher education. The notion that an academic career is less attractive may have far-reaching consequences for higher education and society as a whole, as well as for the economy of the country. If South African HEIs want to attract, manage, retain, develop and utilise their most expensive commodity, namely human resources, whilst ensuring growth and continued existence at the same time, they should understand the career phases of academics as well as the antecedents that lead to intention to quit amongst employees – Generation Y academic employees in this instance. By increasing the understanding of employees’ intention to quit, management will be able to retain talented human capital that is committed to the goals of the institution (Shirley, n.d.). If the career obstacles of young academics are not addressed, there could be a variety of negative outcomes for HEIs in general, as well as for South Africa as a whole. The numerous challenges facing higher education in South Africa reinforce the importance of the current study to add to the body of literature on higher education in the country. The next generation of academics brings about additional challenges for HEIs to apply innovative human resources and organisational development theories and processes, based on the uniqueness of this sector in South Africa in comparison to the private and public sector.

1. To investigate the scope of antecedents that influence intention to quit and to propose a theoretical model of variables influencing intention to quit.
2. To empirically determine the relative importance of the different variables in predicting intention to quit.
3. To empirically determine the relationships between the identified variables and intention to quit.
4. To investigate how HEIs can shape their human resource policies and practices to retain employees and reduce the intention to quit amongst Generation Y academics.
5. To make recommendations to human resources and senior management at HEIs on rationally and purposefully monitoring and managing the retention of Generation Y academics.

The literature review focused on the identification of antecedents that influence intention to quit (objective 1). The identified variables are discussed in the following sections and the resulting hypotheses are stated.

a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterised by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Rather than a momentary and specific state, engagement refers to a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual or behaviour. (p. 4)

According to Jamrog (2004), organisations must create strategies in order to build a culture that retains and engages their skilled employees and relies less on traditional pay and benefits and more on the creation of a work environment that allows employees to grow and develop. Through growth and development, employees are enriched, which will enhance their satisfaction levels. Direct line managers and supervisors will be key stakeholders to ensure employee engagement through providing training and career development opportunities, feedback and communication related to the organisation’s mission and value statements.

A 2003 attitude survey of more than 10 000 employees in 14 organisations by the Institute for Employment Studies confirmed several positive reactions to engagement, namely a positive attitude towards, and pride in, the organisation, a belief in the organisation’s products and services, a perception that the organisation enables the employee to perform well, and a willingness to behave altruistically and be a good team player (Marshall, 2011). It furthermore reported that an understanding of the bigger picture and a willingness to go beyond the requirements of the job are also vital characteristics of an engaged employee. The contribution of engaged employees to organisations is undisputed. It is believed that engaged employees who experience high levels of job satisfaction are a great asset to any organisation. Therefore it is possible to formulate the first hypothesis:

• Hypothesis 1: Employee engagement has a significant positive influence on job satisfaction.

Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) argue that engaged employees are likely to have a greater attachment to their organisation and a lower tendency to leave their organisation. Furthermore, employee engagement positively affects operating income, operating margin, net profit margin, employee retention, absenteeism and quality errors, providing evidence that engaged employees can have a significant positive effect on the organisation’s success (Cook & Green, 2011). Clayton (2011) confirms that engaged employees are willing to portray a variety of behaviours that add to organisational success, namely commitment, participation, enthusiasm, initiative, honesty, advocacy and creativity. However, in return the engaged employee expects relationships with their line manager and colleagues, respect, adequate leadership, meaningful work, recognition, and feeling valued and supported. Employee engagement has been found to be positively related to organisational commitment and negatively related to intention to quit, and is believed to also be related to job performance and extra-role behaviour (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Sonnentag, 2003). The question could be posed whether employee engagement manifests differently for various age cohorts. In her book, Meet the Millennials, Leigh Buchanon wrote that ‘almost 70% of Generation Y employees stated that corporate social responsibility and being civically engaged are their highest priorities’ (as cited in Gilbert, 2011, p. 26). Therefore, it is important that organisations pay attention to employee engagement, as well as to civic engagement. According to Gilbert (2011), it can be concluded that, when it comes to employee engagement, generational differences do exist and it is important that employers adopt the belief that, in order to sustain prolonged engagement and decrease the intention to quit amongst their employees, they must understand and carefully manage the engagement drivers and threats. This gives rise to the second hypothesis:

• Hypothesis 2: Employee engagement has a significant negative influence on intention to quit.

Regardless of the population being surveyed, most researchers tend to agree that employers benefit when employees experience high levels of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has also been tied to increased productivity, creativity and commitment to the employer. It is believed that one of the primary variables that influence retention is job satisfaction. Pienaar and Bester (2008) and Oehley (2007) reiterate this relationship by reporting that there are various studies that link low levels of job satisfaction with increased labour turnover.

However, Steers (1977) argues that there is an unresolved debate as to whether job satisfaction has a direct effect on turnover intention, or whether it is moderated through organisational commitment, which might still be unresolved, as many researchers are continuously investigating the linkages. It is very likely that high levels of dissatisfaction could influence employees to consider alternative job options. Whether an employee will really leave an organisation in such a case, or should an intention be apparent, is in most cases determined by alternative opportunities in the labour market (Spector, 1997). Job dissatisfaction not only has an effect on the organisation, as it increases the intention to quit of employees, but it also reduces the contribution of the employee to the organisation, which has a direct effect on the organisation’s success (Lok & Crawford, 2003). Therefore:

• Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction has a significant negative influence on intention to quit.

Irvine (2010) reports that the recognition of success in the workplace requires a strategic initiative with actionable objectives and measurable results that integrate positively with the organisation’s culture. Irrespective of the industry, senior management should continuously explore how to best reward and recognise the achievements of employees, as employees perceive recognition as a sign of appreciation of their contribution.

A survey by Salary.com reported that 34.2% of employees felt that there was insufficient recognition or appreciation of their work, talents and capabilities, and provided this as the reason for leaving their jobs (Janas, 2009). Rosser (2004) argues that perceptions of work life, including rewards, have a direct impact on job satisfaction and intentions to leave. Giles (2004) suggests that managers should aim to understand employee motivation and the role of recognition in order to retain their key employees. When employees feel they are appreciated and a priority to their organisation, it might contribute to a positive organisational culture. In order for an organisation to implement a successful reward and recognition policy, it is important to determine from their employees what they value, and to align the policy in order to be sound, fair and competitive.

Park, Erwin and Knapp (1997) argue that, although compensation provides some recognition, non-monetary recognition is also important. Employees may express greater commitment and tend to remain with the organisation when they feel their capabilities, efforts and performance contributions are recognised and appreciated (Davies, 2001). Line managers also play an important role in the perception by employees of remuneration, reward and recognition, as Tulgan (2003) acknowledges that employees rely on their immediate line manager or supervisor to consider, recommend, advocate and convey employees’ recognition, raises, promotions and other rewards. A survey conducted at Prudential Financials confirmed that recognition is not only an important part of the employee performance equation, but is equally important in the retention equation (Parus, 2002).

Every generation wants to earn more money, although money is not always the most important part of retaining Generation Y employees (Cave, 2002; Fallon, 2009). Earning a great deal of money appears to be less of a motivator for this generation, whereas contributing to society, parenting well, and enjoying a fulfilled and balanced life appear to be more motivating (Burmeister, 2009; Fallon, 2009; Ferri-Reed, 2010). Dinnell (2007) affirms that remuneration is important to Generation Y employees, but that they also yearn for non-monetary recognition, as it feeds their self-esteem. Roy and Kreiss (2008) highlight that the next generation workforce does not believe in the old equation of time put in equals promotion, but rather looks at their individual contribution to the organisation and to the team as a metric for promotion and merit rewards. According to Tulgan (2009), the critical element in rewarding Generation Y is to communicate clearly that rewards are tied to concrete actions within their own direct control, thereby replacing the previous reward method, in which employees were paid based on the work they completed. As mentioned by Irvine (2010), strategic recognition must be frequent and timely in order to meet the needs of Generation X and Generation Y employees whilst avoiding the micro-management pitfalls. Subsequently, this study links reward and recognition to remuneration in order to recognise that remuneration alone will not be sufficient to retain and satisfy employees, and that remuneration, reward and recognition could be viewed as an antecedent of job satisfaction and intention to quit. Therefore:

• Hypothesis 4: Acceptable remuneration, reward and recognition have a significant positive influence on job satisfaction.

Idealised influence: The leader instils pride and faith in subordinates, provides a vision and a sense of mission, gains respect and trust and sets high standards for emulation. This stimulates strong emotions and identification with the leader in the subordinates.

Inspirational motivation: The leader inspires subordinates to accept challenging goals, provides meaning for engaging in shared goals and arouses team spirit through enthusiasm and optimism. The leaders effectively communicate an appealing vision, using symbols to focus subordinates’ efforts and modelling appropriate behaviours. Therefore, a transformational leader can increase intrinsic motivation by increasing the perception amongst subordinates that task objectives are consistent with their authentic interests and values.

Individualised consideration: The leader recognises individual uniqueness, links the individuals’ current needs to the organisation’s needs, and provides mentoring and growth opportunities. Individualised consideration can also include providing support, encouragement and coaching to subordinates.

Intellectual stimulation: The leader encourages subordinates to approach problems in new ways and to creatively think of new ways to carry out their daily responsibilities. Therefore, the leader increases subordinates’ awareness of problems and influences subordinates to view problems from a new perspective (Mester, Visser, Roodt & Kelle, 2003; Schlechter, 2005; Schlechter & Engelbrecht, 2006; Yukl, 2006).

Managers are responsible for driving the organisational culture, and their ability to influence the development of engagement or disengagement is immense. According to Buckingham and Coffman (1999), engagement within an organisation can thrive in environments in which employees feel cared about and valued, which translates into meaningful and safe environments. This is an integral part of a transformational leader. Therefore it can be argued that leaders can influence engagement levels by formulating an engaging vision statement that gives meaning to employees (Cook & Green, 2011).

• Hypothesis 5: The experience of positive transformational leadership has a significant positive influence on employee engagement.

Transformational leadership is known for empowering subordinates by delegating significant authority to individuals, developing subordinate skills and self-confidence, creating self-managed teams, providing direct access to sensitive information, eliminating unnecessary controls, and building a strong culture to support empowerment (Yukl, 2006). By empowering subordinates and increasing their self-confidence, managers can increase their job satisfaction. Job satisfaction in this study is seen as a multidimensional phenomenon that also places emphasis on the satisfaction that employees experience with their supervisors. Thus:

• Hypothesis 6: The experience of positive transformational leadership has a significant positive influence on job satisfaction.

Schlechter (2005) states that numerous scholars have found transformational leadership to be empirically related to a variety of organisational success and performance variables. These include employee satisfaction, organisational commitment, satisfaction levels with line managers, employee effectiveness, lower turnover intent, organisational citizenship behaviour, overall employee performance, effective leadership and trust. Thus, research has proven a distinguished relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, as well as organisational commitment. A study conducted by Larrabee et al. (2003) reports that job dissatisfaction was a major predictor of intention to quit. As noted, transformational leadership has been linked to job satisfaction (Firth, Mellor, Moore, & Loquet, 2004; Tepper, 2000) and it is believed that transformational leadership may reduce the intention to quit of employees by creating a working environment in which employees experience job satisfaction. These findings have led to the formulation of the following hypothesis:

• Hypothesis 7: The experience of positive transformational leadership has a significant negative influence on intention to quit.

These variables can be depicted in the Partial theoretical model of antecedents of intention to quit. (Refer to Figure 1.)

FIGURE 1: Partial theoretical model of antecedents of intention to quit.

Employee engagement: Section B measured employee engagement based on the shortened version of Schaufeli and Bakker’s (2003) Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). The UWES-9 consists of nine statements with three highly correlated sub-scales, namely vigour (three items), dedication (three items) and absorption (three items). Extensive previous testing (that included almost 12 000 respondents from various countries (including South Africa) of the UWES-9 by Schaufeli and Bakker produced good reliabilities for the three employee engagement sub-scales (0.79 < α < 0.89) and thus the scale was deemed appropriate for the purposes of this study.

Transformational leadership: Transformational leadership was measured in Section C by using an adapted version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5) as developed by Bass and Avolio (1994) and reported by Engelbrecht, Van Aswegen and Theron, 2005. The MLQ5 includes three sub-scales, namely transactional, transformational and laissez-faire leadership (Bass, 1997; Pillay, Williams, Low & Jung, 2003). Only items relevant to transformational leadership were chosen for the composite questionnaire employed in this study. The transformational leadership scale consists of four sub-scales that measure transformational leadership behaviours, namely idealised influence (eight items), inspirational motivation (four items), intellectual stimulation (four items) and individualised consideration (four items). Engelbrecht et al. report satisfactory internal consistency for the transformational leadership subscales with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging between 0.75 and 0.87. Schlechter and Strauss (2008) report the Cronbach’s alpha value of the sub-scale as being 0.95.

Intention to quit: The shortened version of the Arnold and Feldman (1982) scale was used to measure intention to quit (four items) in Section D of the research study. Oehley (2007) reports an alpha coefficient of 0.85 for the four-item intention to quit scale and it was therefore deemed acceptable for use in the current study.

Job satisfaction: Section E measured job satisfaction, based on Gregson’s (1990) 30-item Likert-type converted job descriptive index (JDI). Buckley, Carraher and Cote (1992) report satisfactory internal consistency for the converted JDI, with alpha coefficient values ranging between 0.65 and 0.98. This was regarded as satisfactory for the purposes of this study.

Remuneration, reward and recognition: Section F measured remuneration, reward and recognition using Chew’s (2004) synthesised five-item scale (focusing on intrinsic and extrinsic rewards). Chew reports a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.76 for the scale.

Remuneration, reward and recognition: The VE for the scale was recorded at 0.42 and did not meet the set criterion of greater than 0.5. Further analysis with this scale should also be interpreted with caution. Construct reliability was calculated as 0.77, which met the set criterion of greater than 0.7.

The VE and CR of all the other scales and sub-scales (employee engagement and transformational leadership) met the set criterion of greater than 0.5 and 0.7 respectively. This indicates that all the other scales and sub-scales did not record a higher amount of variance in the items, as captured by measurement error compared to the underlying dimension. The CR results indicate that the items provide a reliable measurement of each scale.

The goodness-of-fit (GFI) statistic assesses how closely the covariance of the implied model reproduces the observed covariance matrix. It is based on the relevant amount of variance and covariance accounted for by the model. The adjusted GFI (AGFI) measure attempts to account for the different degrees of model complexity by considering the degrees of freedom in the model. The GFI value for all the scales exceeded the cut-off value of 0.9, suggesting good model fit (Kelloway, 2008). The AGFI criterion of greater than 0.9 for all the scales was also met.

The results shown in Table 4 indicate that the model does not adequately reproduce the observed data. Only the job satisfaction scale indicated acceptable fit based on the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) measure. No items were deleted based on the CFA results as all the scales met the set criteria for the GFI and AGFI measures. Partial least squares path modelling was performed on all the total scales to confirm the CFA results (which in most cases reported norms that fell outside the set criteria) or to gain new insight into the goodness of fit of the model.

Employee engagement is positively related to job satisfaction (r = 0.56; p < 0.01), representing a large effect. This means that the more an academic is engaged in their position, the higher the level of job satisfaction. Employee engagement is also negatively related to intention to quit (r = -0.44; p < 0.01), which is a medium effect size. This therefore implies that an engaged academic would have less intention to quit their current position.

Transformational leadership is positively related to both job satisfaction (r = 0.52; p < 0.01) and employee engagement (r = 0.52; p < 0.01), and both correlations are of a medium effect size. This means that an increase in experiencing transformational leadership is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and employee engagement. Transformational leadership is also negatively related to intention to quit (r = -0.37; p < 0.01), representing a medium effect size. Thus, an increase in the experience of transformational leadership will result in a decrease in intention to quit.

Job satisfaction: is significantly negatively related to intention to quit (r = -0.68; p < 0.01), representing a large effect size. This means that the more satisfied academics are within their position, the lower their intention to quit.

Remuneration, reward and recognition: are significantly positively related to job satisfaction (r = 0.72; p < 0.01), and the coefficient represents a large effect size. This is an indication that an increase in acceptable remuneration, reward and recognition is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction. Remuneration, reward and recognition are also significantly negatively related to intention to quit (r = -0.55; p < 0.01), which represents a large effect size.

Even though Table 5 (total scores) illustrates that all the independent variables are significantly related to the dependent variable (intention to quit), their unique contribution to the explanation of intention to quit is still unclear. In order to determine whether each of the independent variables contributes significantly to the prediction (i.e. variance) of intention to quit, multiple regression analysis was performed.

The standardised beta coefficient (b*) indicates that remuneration, reward and recognition have an insignificant negative effect on intention to quit (b* = -0.07; p = 0.34). Based on the b* it is also evident that transformational leadership has an insignificant relationship with intention to quit (b* = 0.01; p = 0.83). The latter finding ties in with the previous negative relationship found by Griffith (2003) and Schlechter (2005).

Employee engagement has a negative effect on intention to quit (b* = -0.18; p = 0.01), which means that the more engaged an academic is, the less they will experience the intention to quit. Job satisfaction has a negative effect on intention to quit, (b* = -0.50; p < 0.01), therefore the higher the job satisfaction levels, the lower the intention to quit. This model is significant (p < 0.00). The latter two variables (employee engagement and job satisfaction) appear to be the strongest predictors of intention to quit. The negative relationship between employee engagement and intention to quit and the negative relationship between job satisfaction and intention to quit are supported by the correlation analysis.

When considering all the results, it is clear that there might be mediating factors within the model, considering that remuneration, reward and recognition and transformational leadership were significant as single variables, but not within the entire proposed partial model (refer to Table 2 and Table 5).

• Employee engagement and job satisfaction (accept Hypothesis 1)
• Employee engagement and intention to quit (accept Hypothesis 2)
• Job satisfaction and intention to quit (accept Hypothesis 3)
• Remuneration, reward and recognition and job satisfaction (accept Hypothesis 4)
• Transformational leadership and employee engagement (accept Hypothesis 5)
• Transformational leadership and job satisfaction (accept Hypothesis 6)

The findings of the PLS path modelling analysis are supported by the Pearson product-moment correlation findings, which reported significant relationships for all of the above paths. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients and multiple regression analysis further showed a significant relationship between transformational leadership and intention to quit, which was not corroborated by the PLS path modelling analysis (reject Hypothesis 7).

Higher education institutions should investigate the retention of Generation Y academics from a holistic perceptive, and not only on the basis of certain individual aspects. The substantial proportion of the variance explained in intention to quit by employee engagement, job satisfaction, remuneration, reward and recognition suggests that the variables included in this model have good predictive utility in understanding the intention of the current sample with respect to quitting. Therefore, HEIs should consider paying attention to all these antecedents. However, it may be neither practical nor possible to address all of these concerns at once. Nevertheless, when considering intention to quit, the management of HEIs should prioritise action plans in the short, medium and long term. Therefore, this study recommends that job satisfaction and employee engagement interventions take precedence over the short term.

Employee engagement and Generation Y academics: The management of HEIs should systematically attend to the employee engagement levels of academic staff by measuring them (for example, by conducting interviews or compiling an employee engagement questionnaire). The resultant interventions should address the most important aspects that have an impact on the employee engagement levels of Generation Y academics. Five focal areas that can be addressed in South African HEIs were identified in previous research (Barkhuizen & Rothmann, 2006; Rothmann & Jordaan, 2006). Firstly, it is important to ensure that academics have variety, learning opportunities and autonomy in their jobs. These characteristics will contribute to the meaningfulness of an academic’s work, which is an important consideration in the current management culture of HEIs. Secondly, academics must have the resources to do their work. Resources include, but are not limited to, challenging tasks and the availability of assistants. Thirdly, it should be acknowledged that academic leaders play an important role in promoting employee engagement. In addition, interventions should be implemented to ensure organisational support, including role clarity, good relationships with supervisors, clear communication of information and participation in decision-making. Lastly, advancement opportunities should be provided that include the remuneration, promotion and training of academics.

Schabracq (2003) has highlighted five ways in which transformational leaders can enhance employee engagement and, potentially, job satisfaction: (1) acknowledge and reward good performance instead of exclusively correcting sub-standard performance, (2) be fair towards individuals, (3) put problems on the agenda and discuss these in an open, constructive and problem-solving manner, (4) coach the staff by helping them with setting goals, planning their work, pointing out pitfalls, and giving advice as necessary and (5) interview staff members on a regular basis about their personal functioning, professional development and career development. On the basis of these recommendations, institutions should also focus on improving and developing line managers’ skills through careful recruitment and development processes (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman & Johnson, 2005; Maccoby, 2007).

Accountability is a robust way to build an engagement culture (Macey, Schneider, Barbera & Young, 2009). Shuck and Wollard (2010) suggest that accountability could be developed by linking performance appraisals to data-driven metric systems that include equally weighted measures of business performance and organisational culture performance. Should the institution choose to use engagement in this way, two pieces of communication take on great importance, as reported by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002):

1. It must be communicated that the intended use of performance appraisals are to be constructive, not destructive, and they should be used as one of the ways in which engagement is developed, but not the only way.

2. Managers must be provided with the resources and tools they will need to improve low-level scores, such as access to human resource development professionals, training and development or time away from day-to-day responsibilities to focus on improving performance.

On a national level, the management of HEIs should ensure that their strategic human resource plans focus on the retention of Generation Y academics throughout their career cycle. To develop an effective retention strategy for HEIs, cognisance should be taken of the central importance of communication. No strategy within human resources can effectively be executed without purposeful communication. This is even more important for Generation Y academics, as they prefer to understand clearly how they contribute to the success of the institution, what parameters they are working within, and in which direction they are working.

Job satisfaction and Generation Y academics: In this study, job satisfaction is regarded as a multidimensional construct, as it contains several factors, such as satisfaction with work itself, and with pay, the supervisor, promotional opportunities and co-workers. The management of HEIs may need to evaluate the job satisfaction of their academics in order to determine specific factors that either cause dissatisfaction or reduce satisfaction. The institution’s context may result in the identification of unique factors between faculties within the institution, or between different institutions.

From the current study it was evident that the job satisfaction of Generation Y academics could improve if attention was paid to the following managerial and job related aspects:

• Involvement in teaching modules that fall within their field of interest and expertise.
• Granting them autonomy in determining the direction of their own research.
• Providing opportunities for continued learning, which should include the availability of research leave and flexible working hours in order to complete their further studies.
• Fostering positive interpersonal relationships between colleagues by providing ample opportunity for discourse.
• Good representation of all age groups within the department, faculty and institution.
• Preserving and building the reputation and status of the HEI.

Promotional opportunities in an academic’s early career are regarded as an indication of growth and development, which could lead to an increase in job satisfaction. Therefore, focus should also be placed on performance management and promotion opportunities. Regular feedback sessions should be held with young academics regarding their performance and to determine their personal development goals. Normally, promotion and growth in the academic field are dependent on obtaining a PhD qualification, having a sound research record and actively being involved in community interaction. The attainment of these criteria is influenced by the availability of time. Most junior academics carry a large lecture load, resulting in very little time for research. Higher education institutions should caution against becoming ‘greedy’ institutions (Coser, as cited in Franzway, 2000) that place unmanageable pressure on academics to perform equally well in all three key performance areas, namely teaching, research and community interaction. It is recommended that performance contracts be developed based on the individual’s career phase and that these are reflective of realistic career goals, enabling Generation Y academics to take ownership of modules at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level, which might serve as motivation. Opportunities could be created for Generation Y academics to form academic communities, where like-minded Generation Y individuals can learn from each other, engage in discourse and form a community of practice.

As Generation Y employees strive for their work to contribute to the greater good of society (Sujansky & Ferri-Reed, 2009), HEIs should re-visit their vision, mission and values in order to attract and retain Generation Y academics. The academic profession exists in order to contribute to the body of knowledge in South Africa and internationally. Therefore, creating a vision, mission and value system that emphasises the contribution the institution makes to the greater good of society could influence the retention levels of Generation Y academics.

Due to the delineation of the study, only four variables were included in the partial model. The model did not make provision for mediating or moderating variables and non-cognitive factors that could influence intention to quit (for example the psychological capital construct, which includes hope, resilience, optimism and self-efficacy), all of which could be included in future research together with socio-economic and situational variables. In order for South African HEIs to progress in achieving continuous improvement in their quality, research should be conducted on retention mechanisms and the results should be circulated to the wider higher education community (Mammen, 2006).

Arnold, H., & Feldman, D. (1982). A multivariate analysis of the determinants of job turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 350–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.350

Badat, S. (2008, November). Producing, transforming the social composition of, and retaining a new generation of academics: The Rhodes University programme of accelerated development. Paper presented at the University Leaders Forum: Developing and retaining the next generation of academics, Accra, Ghana.

Bakos, B. (2007). Talent acquisition and retention: Issues facing companies today. Management Today, 23(4), 59–60.

Barkhuizen, N., & Rothmann, S. (2006). Work engagement of academic staff in South African HEIs. Management Dynamics, 15(1), 38–46.

Bass, B.M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.2.130

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving organisational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bergiel, E.B., Nguyen, V.Q., Clenney, B.F., & Taylor, G.S. (2009). Human resources practices, job embeddedness and intention to quit. Management Research News, 32(3), 205–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409170910943084

Berry, M.L. (2010). Predicting turnover intent: Examining the effects of employee engagement, compensation fairness, job satisfaction, and age. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States.

Boninelli, I., & Meyer, T.N.A. (2004). Building human capital: South African perspectives. Cape Town, South Africa: Knowres.

Boshoff, A.B., Van Wyk, R., Hoole, C., & Owen, J.H. (2002). The prediction of intention to quit by means of biographic variables, work commitment, role strain and psychological climate. Management Dynamics, 11(4), 14–28.

Botelho, B. (2008). The new work force of ‘Generation Y’ or ‘Millennials’ need special handling. The Journal of New England Technology, September. Available from http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2008/09/01/focus5-The-new-work-force-of-Generation-Y-or-Millenials-need-special-handling.html

Botha, A., Bussin, M., & De Swardt, L. (2011). An employer brand predictive model for talent attraction and retention. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(1), Art. #388, 12 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v9i1.388

Boughey, J., & Botha, L. (2011). Mini Sector Skills Plan (SSP). Unpublished manuscript. Public Higher Education (HE) Constituency 2011.

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: what the world’s greatest managers do differently. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Buckley, M.R., Carraher, S.M., & Cote, J.A. (1992). Measurement issues concerning the use of inventories of job satisfaction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 529–543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052003003

Burmeister, M. (2009). It’s all about me becomes a cross-generational conversation. Training and Development, 63(5), 92–93.

Cave, M. (2002). Go ahead, motivate me! BOSS Magazine. Australian Financial Review, June, 30–36.

Chew, J.C.C. (2004). The influence of human resource management practices on the retention of core employees of Australian organisations: An empirical study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Murdoch University, Perth. Australia.

Clayton, M. (2011). Resistance to engagement. Training Journal, August, 56–59.

Cook, S., & Green, M. (2011). A new approach to engagement. Training Journal, August, 23–26.

Darity, W.A. Jr. (2008). Gestalt psychology. In W.A. Darity Jr, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Vol. 3, 2nd edn.) (pp. 310–311). Gale Virtual Reference Library.

Davies, R. (2001). How to boost staff retention. People Management, 7(8), 54–56.

Davison, A.C., & Hinkley, D.V. (2003). Bootstrap methods and their application. (2nd edn.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

De Bruin, G.P., & Taylor, N. (2005). Development of the sources of work stress inventory. South African Journal of Psychology, 25(4), 748–765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/008124630503500408

Dinnell, S. (2007). Understanding Generation Y. Manufacturers’ Monthly, February, 14.

Du Plooy, M.J., & Snyman, A.H. (2004). Academic staff recruitment and retention at the Technikon Free State: Issues and recommendations. Interim: Interdisciplinary Journal, 3(2), 38–66.

Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An introduction to bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman Hall.

Engelbrecht, A.S., Van Aswegen, A.S., & Theron, C.C. (2005). The effect of ethical values on transformational leadership and ethical climate in organizations. South African Journal of Business Management, 36(22), 19–26.

Fallon, T. (2009). Retain and motivate the next generation. Supervision, May, 5–7.

Ferri-Reed, J. (2010). The keys to engaging millennials. Journal for Quality and Participation, 33(1), 31–33.

Firth, L., Mellor, D.J., Moore, K.A., & Loquet, C. (2004). How can managers reduce employee intention to quit? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(2), 170–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940410526127

Franzway, S. (2000). Women working in a greedy institution: commitment and emotional labour in the union movement. Gender, Work and Organization, 7(4), 258–268.

Gilbert, J. (2011). The Millennials: A new generation of employees, a new set of engagement policies. Ivey Business Journal, September/October. Retreived from http://iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/the-workplace/the-millennials-a-new-generation-of-employees-a-new-set-of-engagement-policies

Giles, T. (2004). Non-monetary rewards as part of the remuneration equation. New Zealand Management, 51(9), 46–48.

Gillespie, N.A., Walsh, M., Winefield, A.H., Dua, S.J., & Stough, C. (2001). Occupational stress in universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of stress. Work & Stress, 15(1), 53–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370117944, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370110062449

Glass, A. (2007). Understanding generational differences for competitive success. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(2), 98–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197850710732424

Gregson, T. (1990). The separate constructs of communication satisfaction and job satisfaction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 39–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511003

Griffith, J. (2003). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230410534667

Grobler, P.A., & De Bruyn, A.J. (2011). Flexible work practices (FWP) – an effective instrument in the retention of talent: A survey of selected JSE-listed companies. South African Journal of Business Management, 42(4), 63–78.

Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (Eds.). (2006). Multivariate data analysis. New York, NY: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., & Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268, PMid:12002955

Hellman, C.M. (1997). Job satisfaction and intent to leave. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(6), 677–689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595491

Henry, A. (2006). The Who What and Y of generation WhY? Sydney, Australia: AH Revelations Pty.Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modelling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–319.

Herbison, G., & Boseman, G. (2009). Here they come – Generation Y. Are you ready? Journal of Financial Service Professionals, May, 33–34.

Highhouse, S., Stierwalk, S.L., Bachiochi, P., Elder, A.E., & Fisher, G. (1999). Effects of advertised human resource management practices on attraction of African American applicants. European Management Journal, 52(2), 425–426.

Horgan, K.F. (2008). Creating flexible workplaces. Open Forum. Retrieved March 18, 2012, from http://openforum.com.au

Irvine, D. (2010). How to reward a multigenerational and culturally diverse workforce. Workspan, 4, 63–68.

Jacobsz, J. (2012). Stakeholders’ perceptions of an institutional quality audit: A case study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Jamrog, J. (2004). The Perfect Storm: The future of retention and engagement. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 26–33.

Janas, K.M. (2009). Keeping good people, during bad times. Workspan, 11, 67–70.

Jo, V.H. (2008). Voluntary turnover and women administrators in higher education. Higher Education, 56, 565–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9111-y

Kelloway, E.K. (2008). Using LISREL for structural equation modelling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences on individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organisation, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x

Larrabee, J.H., Janney, M.A., Ostrow, C.L., Withrow, M.L., Hobbs, G.R., & Burant, C. (2003). Predicting registered nurse job satisfaction and intent to leave. Journal of Nursing Administration, 33(5), 271–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005110-200305000-00003, PMid:12792282

Leslie, K., & Rhoades, G. (1995). Rising administration costs: Seeking explanations. Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 187–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2943911

Lieber, L.D. (2010). How HR can assist in managing the four Generations in today’s workplace. Employment Relations Today, 36(4), 85–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ert.20278

Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2003). The effect of organizational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Management Development, 23, 321–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710410529785

Maccoby, M. (2007). Leaders we need. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K.M., & Young, S.A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, MA: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444306538

Mammen, K.J. (2006). Higher education academics’ satisfaction with their terms and conditions of service and their job satisfaction: A case study. SA Journal of Higher Education, 20(4), 466–477.

Marshall, T. (2011). An open source of engagement. Training Journal, August, 18–22.

Martin, E. (1999). Changing academic work: Developing the learning university. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University.

Mendes, F., & Stander, M.W. (2011). Positive organisation: The role of leader behaviour in work engagement and retention. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), Art. #900, 13 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v37i1.900

Mester, C., Visser, D., Roodt, G., & Kellerman, R. (2003). Leadership style and its relation to employee attitudes and behaviour. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(2), 72–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v29i2.100

Minchington, B. (2010). The employer brand manager’s handbook. Torrensville, Australia: Collective Learning.

Naidu, B., & Govender, S. (2004, 21 March). Parents in for university fee shock. Sunday Times, p. 5.

Nunnally, J.G., & Bernstein, I.H. (Eds). (1994). Psychometric Theory. (3rd edn.). United States: McGraw-Hill.

Oehley, A.-M. (2007). The development and evaluation of a partial talent management competency model. Unpublished master’s thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Oshagbemi, T. (2000). How satisfied are academics with their primary tasks of teaching, research and administration and management? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1(2), 124–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1467630010371876

Oshagbemi, T., & Hickson, C. (2003). Some aspects of overall job satisfaction: A binomial logic model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(4), 357–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940310473109

Park, R., Erwin, P.J., & Knapp, K. (1997). Teams in Australia’s automotive industry: Characteristics and future challenges. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 780–796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095851997341324

Parker, O., & Wright, L. (2001). Pay and employee commitment: The missing link. Ivey Business Journal, 65(3), 70–79.

Parus, B. (2002). Recognition: A strategic tool for retaining talent. Workspan, 45(11), 14–17.

Pienaar, C., & Bester, C. (2006). Typical career dilemmas of academic staff during the early career phase within a changing South African Higher Education Institution. South African Journal of Education, 26(4), 581–594.

Pienaar, C., & Bester, C. (2008). The retention of academics in the early career phase. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(2), 32–41.

Pienaar, J.W. (2005). Career dilemmas of academics within a changing South African Higher Education Institution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

Pillay, R., Williams, E.A., Low, K.B., & Jung, D.I. (2003). Personality, transformational leadership, trust and the 2000 US presidential vote. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 161–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00008-0

Republic of South Africa. (2012). National Development Plan 2030. Retrieved September 11, 2012, from http://www.info.gov.za/issues/national-development-plan/index.html

Rosser, V. (2004). Faculty members’ intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 285–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000019591.74425.f1

Rothmann, S., & Jordaan, G.M.E. (2006). Job demands, job resources and work engagement of academic staff in South African HEIs. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 32(4), 87–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v32i4.247

Roux, S. (2010). The relationship between authentic leadership, optimism, self-efficacy and work engagement: An exploratory study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Rowley, J. (1996). Motivation and academic staff in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 4(3), 11–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889610125814

Roy, J.G., & Kreiss, S. (2008). Ten tips for retaining the next generation. Automation and Engineering T&D, 13(12), 8–11.

Salkind, N.J. (2007). Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. PMid:18179674

Schabracq, M.J. (2003). What an organisation can do about its employees’ well-being and health: An overview In M.J. Schabracq, J.A.M. Winnubst, & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of work and health psychology (2nd edn., pp. 585–600). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2003). Utrecht Work Engagement Scale Manual. Retrieved November 28, 2010, from http://www.beanmanaged.eu/pdf/articles/arnoldbakker/article_arnold_bakker_87.pd

Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.248

Schlechter, A.F. (2005). The influence of transformational leadership, emotional intelligence, trust, meaning and intention to quit on organisational citizenship behaviour. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Schlechter, A.F., & Engelbrecht, A.S. (2006). The relationship between transformational leadership, meaning and organisational citizenship behaviour. Management Dynamics: Contemporary Research, 15(4), 2–16.

Schlechter, A.F. & Straus, J.J. (2008). Leader emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, trust and team commitment: Testing a model within a team context. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 34(1), 42–52.

Shirley, C. (n.d.). The relationships between employees’ organisational commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour and perceived job performance among executives: A case study in Segi University College. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from http://www.onlinereview.segi.edu.my/chapters/vol3_sr1_art6.pdf

Shuck, B., & Wollard, K.K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484309353560

Silverthorne, C.P. (2005). Organisational psychology in cross-cultural perspectives. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Simmons, J. (2002). An expert witness perspective on performance appraisal in universities and colleges. Employee Relations, 24(1), 86–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425450210416942

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism, politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Smola, K.W., & Sutton, C.D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.147

Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.518

Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. London, UK: Sage.

Ssesanga, K., & Garrett, R.M. (2005). Job satisfaction of university academics: Perspectives from Uganda. Higher Education, 50, 33–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6346-0

Steers, R.M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organisational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 46–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2391745, PMid:10236068

Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1992). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Strickland, B. (2001). Gestalt principles of organization. Detroit, MI: Gale Virtual Reference Library.

Sujansky, J.G., & Ferri-Reed, J. (2009). Keeping the millennials: Why companies are losing billions in turnover to this generation – and what to do about it. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. PMid:19261950

Sutherland, M. (September, 2005). Rethinking the retention of knowledge workers. Retrieved March 15, 2012, from http://www.gibs.co.za/news-and-events/news-and-events_1/gibs-info-sharing/rethinking-the-retention-of-knowledge-workers.aspx

Taplin, I.M., & Winterton, J. (2007). The importance of management style in labour retention. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27(1/2), 5–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443330710722724

Tepper, B.J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556375

Trotman, C.A., Bennet, E., Scheffler, E., & Tulloch, J.C. (2002). Faculty recruitment, retention, and success in dental academia. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 122(1), 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.124996

Tulgan, B. (2003). Generational shift: What we saw at the workplace revolution. Retrieved May 21, 2011, from www.rainmakerthinking.com

Tulgan, B. (2009). Not everyone gets a trophy: How to manage generation Y. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Waldman, J.D., & Arora, S. (2004). Measuring retention rather than turnover. A different and complementary HR calculus. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 6.

Wordon, L. (2009, April). Workplace tips for Generation Y. (Press release). Johannesburg, South Africa: Professional Assignments Groups.

Yukl, G. (Ed.). (2006). Leadership in organizations. (6th edn.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.