The psychological contract in apprenticeships and traineeships: comparing the perceptions of employees and employers.
Walker, Arlene ; Smith, Erica ; Kemmis, Ros Brennan 等
OVERVIEW
This study examined the importance of the psychological contract in
apprenticeships and traineeships in Australia. Attrition has been
identified as a major concern in apprenticeships. Completion rates in
apprenticeships and traineeships are around 50%, with apprentice
completion rates slightly higher than traineeship rates (Karmel &
Misko, 2009). Also of concern is the retention of the apprentices and
trainees at the end of their contract of training in permanent jobs with
their employers. Studies in Australia by Karmel and Misko (2009), Cully
and Curtain (2001), and Callan (2000) have found that apprentices leave
their contracts of training more often for job-related than
training-related reasons.
Previous research (eg Sadler-Smith & Smith, 2004) suggests that
clearer expectations--on both sides--of what is expected in an
apprenticeship/traineeship would help to increase satisfaction and
reduce attrition. Accordingly, the issue of expectations, realisation of
those expectations, and what happens if they are not met, is a vital
one, but this issue has not previously been examined within a
theoretical framework. The psychological contract is one way of
examining the expectations between apprentices/trainees and their
employers. The psychological contract relates to the unwritten but often
powerful aspects of the employment relationship that affect the
parties' expectations and satisfaction.
Much of the research on psychological contracts has centred solely
on the employee's perspective. The merit of this one-sided approach
has been debated in the literature (eg Guest, 1998) because it is
inconsistent with the nature of exchange and contracts, which are
essentially two-sided. The primary emphasis of the research has been
employer obligations, rather than both employer and employee
obligations. While more recent work has begun to explore the
employer's perspective of the psychological contract also (eg Chen,
Tsui & Zhong, 2008; Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood & Bolino, 2002;
Tekleab & Taylor, 2003), the focus has remained on employer
obligations.
Another major area of psychological contract research has been
perceived met obligations and the individual and organisational
consequences of unmet obligations, most often referred to as
'breach'. It has been argued that measurement of met
obligations without actually assessing the extent to which the
obligations are actually perceived (ie importance) can inflate overall
estimates of breach (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000).
The focus of this paper is a quantitative comparison of the
perceptions of apprentices/trainees and employers of
apprentices/trainees in relation to the psychological contract, using
surveys of apprentices and trainees and employers of apprentices and
trainees in two States in Australia. The study examines the importance
of perceived employer, employee and training obligations and the extent
to which these obligations are fulfilled. This has enabled greater
insight into the nature of the employment relationship between
apprentices/trainees and their employers in terms of where expectations
are aligned and where discrepancies exist.
BACKGROUND
The psychological contract consists of the perceived mutual
obligations between employees and employers (Rousseau, 1990). Employees
form expectations about the employment relationship that lead them to
believe that certain actions will be reciprocated; this comprises their
psychological contract. The psychological contract is quite complex; it
involves agreement on specific contract terms (mutuality) and on the
reciprocal contributions that these terms imply (reciprocity) (Dabos
& Rousseau, 2004). The concept of the psychological contract is
based on social exchange concerning the exchange of resources for
rewards. Social exchange involves cooperation between two or more
parties for mutual benefit based on a give and take relationship
(Robinson, Kraatz & Rousseau, 1994). The individual expects that
their actions will result in some kind of commensurate return, although
the exact nature may be unspecified (Blau, 1964). Trust is a fundamental
component of the social exchange, as both parties invest in the
relationship with the risk that inputs might not be rewarded (Shore et
al., 2004).
It must also be acknowledged that the theoretical construct of the
psychological contract must be located within the context of the
differential power relationships that exist between employers and
employees. Each of the parties in this relationship has different levels
of personal 'agency' and exercise different levels of
influence over the construction of their employment. For example, the
conditions of work are often the responsibility of the employer alone
with the employee being expected to both comply and adapt to these
conditions. Power relationships do not negate the psychological contract
but they are strong and influential environmental factors that form the
backdrop to the interpretation of the psychological contract.
The extent to which the psychological contract is fulfilled is
vital to a successful employment relationship. Fulfillment can be
affected by the extent to which the parties have developed clear and
shared understandings, as well as by difficulties in indentifying who
represents the organisation and is responsible for delivering the
contributions of the organisation (Dabos & Rousseau, 2004; Guest
& Conway, 2002). An organisation as such cannot hold a psychological
contract. Rather, the organisation provides a context in which the
psychological contract develops and it is with managers as
representatives of the organisation with whom individual employees hold
a psychological contract (Rousseau, 1990).
When an employee perceives a discrepancy between what they believe
they were promised by the organisation and what they have in fact
received, the employee views this as the organisation's failure to
meet the terms of the psychological contract and a contract
'breach' occurs (Turnley & Feldman 1999). The existence of
a breach loosens the employee's ties to the organisation and can
lead to attrition or to withdrawal of goodwill.
Despite the attention in the human resource management and
organisational psychology literature on the psychological contract, it
has not been utilised in any known major research with apprentices and
trainees. Compared with other employment relationships, training is an
integral part of the employment relationship in apprenticeships and
traineeships. As such, there are additional parties to the contract,
most notably registered training organisations, apprenticeship centres
and sometimes group training organisations. Apprenticeships and
traineeships therefore provide an interesting and complex context for
investigation of the psychological contract.
Apprenticeships in Australia involve a contract of employment and
also a contract of training (Smith, 2010). Apprentices are employed for
three or four years and during that period of time they complete a
qualification, normally at Certificate III level, which is overseen by a
training provider (known as a registered training organisation). Since
the late 1980s, a new form of apprenticeship called
'traineeships' has been introduced in Australia. Traineeships
were designed to extend apprenticeship-like training to a wider group of
workers, particularly in non-trade areas, and particularly to women
(Smith & Keating, 2003). They normally last for 12-18 months.
Apprenticeships and traineeships were formerly open only to full-time
workers and to young people, but now both are available to all workers.
By December 2010, the number of apprentices and trainees in training
reached 440,700, 3.8% of the working population (National Centre for
Vocational Education Research, 2011), with about twice as many in
traineeships as in apprenticeships.
The research reported in this paper was part of a larger Australian
project investigating the psychological contract of apprentices and
trainees (Smith, Walker & Brennan Kemmis, 2011). A mixed method
approach was used to investigate the topic and included interviews with
high-level stakeholders; surveys of apprentices and trainees and
employers of apprentices and trainees; surveys of group training
organisations and their apprentices and trainees; and nine company-based
case studies involving interviews with managers, apprentices and
trainees, and registered training organisation staff. This paper reports
on the survey results and provides a comparison of the perceptions of
apprentices/trainees and employers of apprentices/trainees in relation
to the psychological contract.
METHOD
Participants and procedure
Ethics approval for the project was gained from the university
ethics committee. Data for apprentices/trainees and employers were
collected in two waves of mail surveys, using randomised entries from
the state training authority databases of two Australian States:
Victoria and Queensland. Only apprentices/trainees directly employed by
an organisation were of interest in this study; ie the Group Training
Organisation results and results from apprentices and trainees employed
by Group Training Organisations were not included. A mailing house was
utilised to ensure confidentiality; the mailing house was provided with
the randomised sample directly from the State training authorities.
Overall, there was a low response rate to the surveys for both groups of
respondents. In each wave of the apprentices/trainees data collection,
2,000 surveys were sent out. A total of 219 usable surveys were received
from apprentices/trainees, an overall response rate of 6.35%. In the
first wave of the employer survey, 2,000 surveys were sent out. To
increase responses from employers of trainees, a further 540 surveys
were sent out in a second wave. A total of 262 usable surveys were
received from the employers, an overall response rate of 10.40%. It
should be noted that apprentices/trainees and employers were not matched
and as such comparisons of employers and employees within the same
organisation were not possible.
Of the apprentices/trainees who completed the survey, 141 were
apprentices and 78 trainees. The apprentices were mostly employed in
building and construction (44%) or manufacturing (22.7%). Of the trainee
participants, 28.2% were employed in retail and hospitality and 21.8% in
administration, communication and finance. Most of the apprentices and
trainees worked full time (90.8% and 67.9% respectively), nearly half
were in the 25-44 years age group (40.3% and 45.5% respectively). The
vast majority (85%) of the apprentices were male and the majority
(60.3%) of the trainees, female.
Of the employer participant sample, 169 were employers of
apprentices and 93 employers of trainees. Employers of apprentices were
predominantly from the building and construction (40.2%) or
manufacturing industries (33.7%), while the employers of trainees were
from health, personal and community services (22%) or from retail and
hospitality (18.7%). Most of the employers of apprentices (69.2%) and
trainees (53.7%) alike were small or medium sized employers.
Measure
The survey was focused on collecting information about the
perceived obligations on both sides of the employment relationship and
how well these obligations had been met. A psychological contract scale
consisting of employer and employee obligations that was developed and
validated in an Australian context by Hutton and Cummins (1997) was
adapted for this research. Also, a purpose-constructed set of training
obligations was developed for this research based on the
apprentice/trainee literature. It should be noted that only employer
obligations in relation to training were assessed, not
apprentice/trainee obligations, and we did not specify who was
responsible for the employer-side obligations of training--ie the
obligations could be delivered by either the employer or the training
provider. Therefore any deficiencies identified could be the
'fault' of the employer, the training provider, another party
or a combination of more than one party. Demographic information and
information about the nature of the job and the workplace was also
collected. In most instances, questions on the survey were
'paralleled' for the two participant groups to allow
comparisons.
To enable maximum discrimination in the findings, an 11-point scale
was used to rate the importance of the three sets of psychological
contract items (employer obligations, employee obligations and training
obligations) and the extent to which these obligations were perceived to
have been met. The following anchors were used: 0 = not at all
important/not at all met to 10 = extremely important/completely met.
Given that 0 represented no importance or an obligation not being met,
importance and met ratings were therefore actually rated out of 10 (ie
ratings made from 1-10).
Analysis
Apprentices/trainees and employers were compared in terms of mean
overall scale scores obtained for importance and met employer, employee
and training obligations. To enable comparisons, mean scores for each
set of obligations were calculated by summing and averaging the
individual item ratings. The independent samples t-test statistic with
an alpha level set at .05 was used to test whether group differences
were significant. Group comparisons were also made in relation to
individual item ratings for each of the three sets of psychological
contract obligations.
FINDINGS
A summary of the mean ratings of apprentices/trainees and employers
in relation to overall importance and met obligations is shown in Table
1. Significant difference between the parties related to perceived
importance of employer obligations and to perceptions of all three
categories of met obligations (employer, employee and training). As
might be expected (eg Tekleab & Taylor, 2003), each group rated the
extent to which they met their own set of obligations higher than the
other group. The overall mean employer rating for met training
obligations was also significantly higher than the overall mean rating
given by employees.
Importance ratings of the individual employer and employee
obligation items are shown in Tables 2 and 3 respectively, ranked from
the most to least important obligations. On the whole, there was general
agreement between apprentices/trainees and employers about the
obligations of the employer considered the most and least important by
both parties (see Table 2). However, employers attached significantly
more importance to their obligations relating to support, rewarding
loyalty, promotion prospects and fair performance appraisals than did
apprentices/trainees.
There was also general agreement between apprentices/trainees and
employers about the most and least important obligations of the
employee, as shown in Table 3. A cluster of items relating to
employability skills (eg punctuality and working well with others) were
rated as being particularly important by both parties, 'while
working more hours' and 'being willing to accept a
transfer' were not considered important obligations.
Table 1 showed that training was viewed as the most important among
the obligations of the employer, by employers and by
apprentices/trainees alike. The training obligations scale enabled
training to be explored in more detail. Table 4 provides data about the
importance of the different training obligations of the employer. It is
notable that nearly every rating was greater than 8.0 out of 10, with
most rated more than 8.5. It is also notable that for almost every
training item, employers and employees rated the items in the same
order.
Ratings of met individual employer and employee obligation items
are shown in Tables 5 and 6 respectively, ranked from the items met best
to the items met least well. These tables show that there were
significant differences between apprentices/trainees and employers on
virtually every item relating to met individual employer and employee
obligations. Generally, as might be expected, apprentices/trainees and
employers each thought they had met their own obligations to a greater
extent than the other party did. Despite this, ratings indicated that
both parties were meeting their obligations well, with most ratings
being in excess of 7.0 out of 10. Overall, employers appeared more
satisfied with the extent to which apprentices/trainees met their
obligations (see Table 6) than vice versa (see Table 5).
As with the employment obligations, Table 7 shows that employers
thought they met the training obligations better than the
apprentices/trainees thought they did and most of the differences in
perceptions were also significant. However, the ratings also indicated
that both parties perceived that, overall, training obligations were met
well, with all ratings being in excess of 7.0 out of 10. The greatest
significant differences between apprentices/trainees and employers for
ratings of met training obligations related to: specific time for
training; apply what is learnt; different processes/experiences; range
of training methods; and opportunity to keep learning.
ANALYSIS
Similarities and differences alike were identified between the
perceptions of apprentices/trainees and employers of
apprentices/trainees regarding the importance of employer, employee and
training obligations and the extent to which these obligations had been
met. In general, both groups appeared to share perceptions about which
individual employer, employee and training obligations were the most and
least important, suggesting mutuality between the parties. These
findings support those of Dabos and Rousseau (2004) who also found
evidence of mutuality between research directors (as agents of the
employer) and staff scientists (employees) in terms of the agreement in
perceptions about the promises and commitments of each party to the
other.
The high level of agreement between apprentices/trainees and
employers regarding the most and least important obligations implies a
positive employment relationship between the two parties. When
expectations are aligned, it is also more likely that expectations will
be fulfilled, thereby promoting a positive workplace culture and
positive employment relations.
Both groups in each of the three categories of obligations examined
perceived training obligations as the most important set of obligations
overall. This is not surprising because in apprenticeships and
traineeships, training is an integral part of employment and the
apprentice/trainee commits to both a contract of employment and a
contract of training (Smith, 2010). The focus on training in
apprenticeships/traineeships, however, can also complicate the
employment relationship because of the addition of a third party
'training provider'. This adds a unique dimension to the
employment relationship of the apprentice/trainee and sets it apart from
other employment relationships.
Differences in the perceptions of apprentices/trainees and
employers mainly related to the extent to which obligations were
perceived to have been met. Not unexpectedly, and similar to previous
research (eg Tekleab & Taylor, 2003), each group rated meeting their
own set of obligations significantly higher than the comparison group.
The self-serving bias can explain this phenomenon. With the self-serving
bias, individuals tend to internally attribute successes and externally
attribute failures, thereby making it more likely that they overestimate
their contributions and underestimate the contributions of others
(Robinson et al., 1994).
Compared with apprentices/trainees, employers also rated training
obligations as being met to a significantly greater extent. While there
were significant differences between the parties regarding the overall
mean ratings of met employer, employee and training obligations, the
ratings for all three categories were actually high (mean score of 7.0
or higher). This signifies a general level of satisfaction on both sides
of the employment relationship. Despite this positive outlook, there was
a large discrepancy between apprentices/trainees and employers in
perceived met employer obligations. In fact, employers appeared to be
more generous in their ratings of the extent to which employees met
their obligations to the employer (mean rating of 7.9) than vice versa
(mean rating of 7.0). It is possible that employers are more satisfied
with the employment relationship than employees. Alternatively,
employees may simply have higher expectations about the employment
relationship than employers.
Perhaps the most interesting findings relate to the discrepancy
between the parties overall ratings of importance and met obligations,
as shown in Table 1. The discrepancy between ratings of importance and
met obligations can indicate: (1) a breach of the psychological
contract, whereby importance ratings are higher than perceptions of met
obligations; or (2) an over fulfilled contract, whereby met ratings are
higher than perceptions of importance (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler,
2000). Our findings show that in most cases, the ratings of importance
were higher than the met ratings, indicating psychological contract
breach. In the case of employer ratings, this difference was quite
small, but in the case of apprentice/trainee ratings, the difference
between importance and met ratings was substantially larger, especially
in relation to employee ratings of employer obligations. For example,
both employers and employees rated 'adequate training',
'treated the same' and 'provide resources' as being
the most important employer obligations. Employers also rated these
obligations as being met very well, with ratings in excess of 9.0.
Employees, on the other hand, rated these obligations as being met to a
lesser extent, with ratings around 7.5. This suggests that
apprentices/trainees had their psychological contract breached to a
greater extent than employers. The extent to which the perceived breach
of employer obligations actually impacted attrition in this study was
not investigated, but the findings go some way in supporting research by
Karmel and Misko (2009), Cully and Curtain (2001), and Callan (2000) who
assert that apprentices are more likely to leave their contracts of
training for job-related than training-related reasons.
CONCLUSIONS
There are some limitations that need to be noted. The overall low
response rate from participants in this study means that the data may
not be an accurate representation of the apprentice/trainee populations.
However the age, gender distribution and industry areas are roughly in
line with the general apprentice and trainee populations, although the
building and construction industry area is over-represented. Moreover,
the project did not capture data from apprentices/trainees who have
withdrawn from their employment contract and so it is possible that a
more positive view of the employment relationship is presented than
actually exists across all apprenticeships and traineeships.
Nevertheless, employers were asked to respond for apprentices/trainees
in general, therefore it could be assumed that they had in mind both
those who did and did not complete the apprenticeship/traineeship when
responding. Despite these limitations, our findings suggest that,
overall, a positive employment relationship exists between
apprentices/trainees and employers of apprentices/trainees. This is
evident in the high level of agreement between the parties in relation
to the obligations that comprise the psychological contract and in the
extent to which these obligations are perceived to be met.
Our research contributes to the psychological contract literature
in a number of ways. The inclusion of the employer's perspective
and examination of both employer and employee obligations contributes
further to the understanding of the employment relationship.
Psychological contract research has primarily focused on the
employee's perspective of the extent to which employer obligations
are perceived and fulfilled. Of the few studies that have also examined
the employer's perspective, only Tekleab and Taylor (2003) and Chen
et al., (2008) included investigation of both employer and employee
obligations. While employers and employees are necessarily in an unequal
power relationship, the nature of our survey phase (that apprentices and
trainees were not matched to their employers) means that people may be
assumed to have been answering without fearing any reprisals, and so the
study is particularly valuable. Moreover, in the current Australian
tight labour market, particularly with regards to apprentices, the power
relationship may be assumed to be more equal than in a labour market
where unemployment is high.
Another major area of psychological contract research has been
perceived met obligations and the individual and organisational
consequences of unmet obligations, most often referred to as
'breach'. Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler (2000) argued that
measurement of met obligations, without actually assessing the extent to
which the obligations were actually perceived (ie importance), could
inflate overall estimates of breach. Our study examined both the
importance of obligations and the extent to which these obligations were
fulfilled. This enabled greater insight into the nature of the
employment relationship between apprentices/trainees and employers in
terms of where expectations are aligned and where discrepancies exist.
Our comparison of apprentices/trainees and employers of
apprentices/trainees in relation to the psychological contract found a
high level of agreement overall on the obligations of the two parties in
the employment relationship. While these obligations are similar to
those in any employment relationship, there was also a greater emphasis
on training obligations on both sides. These findings have positive
implications for organisations that employ apprentices/trainees.
Agreement on the terms of the psychological contract means that both
parties are aware of what is required and expected, leading to greater
trust between the parties and ultimately more effective performance. It
is also more likely that apprentices/trainees will complete their period
of training thus reducing attrition overall. Our findings suggest that
mismatched expectations are not, in general, a major issue in
apprenticeships/traineeships and therefore may not be a factor in the
high attrition rates of around 50%. Rather, the focus needs to be on the
extent to which particular expectations are met. Future research could
consider examination of the extent to which agreement about the
psychological contract actually predicts completion rates in
apprenticeships/traineeships.
REFERENCES
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and power in social life, New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Callan, V. (2000), Accelerated apprenticeships: apprentice,
employer and teaching staff perceptions, Adelaide: NCVER.
Chen, Z. X. Tsui, A. S., & Zhong, L. (2008), 'Reactions to
psychological contract breach: A dual perspective', Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol, 29, No. 5, pp 527-548.
Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2000), 'Consequences of
the psychological contract for the employment relationship: A large
scale survey', Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37, No. 7, pp
903-930.
Cully, M., & Curtain, R. (2001), Reasons for new
apprentices' non-completions, Adelaide: NCVER.
Dabos, G. E., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004), 'Mutuality and
reciprocity in the psychological contracts of employees and
employers', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, No. 1, pp
52-72.
Guest, D. E. (1998), 'Is the psychological contract worth
taking seriously?', Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19,
No. S1, pp 649-664.
Guest, D. E., & Conway, N. (2002), 'Communicating the
psychological contract: An employer perspective', Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp 22-38.
Hutton, D., & Cummins, R. (1997), 'Development of the
psychological contract inventory (Psycon)', Australian Journal of
Career Development, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp 35-41.
Karmel, T., & Misko, J. (2009), Apprenticeships and
traineeships in the downturn, Adelaide: NCVER.
Lester, S. W. Turnley, W. H. Bloodgood, J. M. & Bolino, M. C.
(2002), 'Not seeing eye to eye: Differences in supervisor and
subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract
breach', Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol., 23, No. 1, pp
39-56.
National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER). (2011),
Apprentices and trainees: 2010 annual statistics, Adelaide: NCVER.
Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994),
'Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A
longitudinal study', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1,
pp 137-152.
Rousseau, D. M. (1990), 'New hire perceptions of their own and
their employer's obligations: A study of psychological
contracts', Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp
389-400.
Sadler-Smith, E., & Smith, P. J. (2004), 'Strategies for
accommodating individuals' styles and preferences in flexible
learning programmes', British Journal of Educational Technology,
Vol. 35, No.4, pp.395-412.
Shore, L. ,Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M.,
Liden, R. C., McLean Parks, J. et al. (2004), 'The
employee-organization relationship: A timely concept in a period of
transition', in Martocchio, J. J. (ed.), Research in personnel and
human resources management, Vol. 23, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp 291-370.
Smith, E. (2010), 'Apprenticeships', in P. Peterson, P.,
McGaw, B., & Baker, E. (eds), International Encyclopedia of
Education, 3rd edition, Vol 8, Oxford: Elsevier, pp 312-319.
Smith, E., & Keating, J. (2003), From training reform to
Training Packages, Tuggerah Lakes, NSW: Social Science Press.
Smith, E., Walker, A., & Brennan Kemmis, R. (2011),
Understanding the psychological contract in apprenticeships and
traineeships to improve retention, Adelaide: NCVER.
Tekleab, A. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2003), 'Aren't there
two parties in an employment relationship? Antecedents and consequences
or organization-employee agreement on contract obligations and
violations', Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp
585-608.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999), 'The impact of
psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty and
neglect', Human Relations, Vol. 52, No. 7, pp 895-922.
Arlene Walker
Deakin University
Erica Smith
University of Ballarat
Ros Brennan Kemmis
Charles Sturt University
Table 1--Independent samples t-test statistics examining differences
between apprentices/trainees and employers regarding mean importance
and met ratings.
Scale Employers Employees t-test (1)
Importance of obligations
1 Employer obligations 8.5 8.2 2.7 *
2 Employee obligations 8.2 8.2 0.4
3 Training obligations 8.7 8.8 -1.4
Met obligations
1 Employer obligations 8.5 7.0 7.3 *
2 Employee obligations 7.9 8.5 -4.4 *
3 Training obligations 8.4 7.7 4.1 *
Notes: (1) Group differences t-test comparing employers with
employees; * significant at p < .05;
Item response range: 0 (not at all met) to 10 (completely met).
Table 2--Independent samples t-test statistics examining differences
between apprentices/trainees and employers regarding importance of
individual employer obligation items.
Item Employers Employees t-test
(1)
Adequate training for the job 9.3 9.3 0.8
Treated the same as everyone else 9.3 9.2 0.1
Provide resources to do the job 9.1 9.0 0.7
Performance appraisal fair 9.0 8.6 2.7 *
Act in supportive way 9.0 8.4 3.4 *
Talk about matters 8.8 8.7 1.0
Help develop career 8.9 8.7 1.2
Considerate of long-serving employees 8.6 8.2 2.8 *
Help gain promotion 7.9 7.2 3.0 *
Time off for personal needs 7.8 7.8 -0.3
Support for personal problems 7.7 6.7 4.4 *
Job that I like 6.5 6.0 2.0 *
Notes: (1) Group differences t-test comparing employers with
employees; * significant at p < .05;
Item response range: 0 (not at all important) to 10
(extremely important).
Table 3--Independent samples t-test statistics examining differences
between apprentices/trainees and employers regarding importance of
individual employee obligation items.
Item Employers Employees t-test
(1)
Always be punctual 9.4 9.5 -1.3
Attend work every day 9.4 9.4 -0.7
Work well with others 9.3 9.3 -0.4
Put in a full day's work 9.2 9.4 -1.2
Become more skilled 9.1 9.3 -2.2 *
Protect reputation of company 9.2 8.8 2.7 *
Be open with supervisor/employer 9.1 8.8 2.6 *
Be loyal to company 9.0 8.7 2.0 *
Stay with present employer 8.8 8.7 0.8
Put interests of employer first 8.6 8.2 2.5 *
Do non-required tasks 8.3 8.5 -1.6
Refuse to give outsiders information 8.1 7.7 1.6
Refuse to support competitors 7.2 7.0 0.6
Spend two years with employer 6.4 6.1 1.2
Work more hours 5.2 6.3 -4.1 *
Willing to accept a transfer 5.2 5.8 -1.8
Notes: (1) Group differences t-test comparing employers with
employees; * significant at p < .05;
Item response range: 0 (not at all important) to 10
(extremely important).
Table 4--Independent samples t-test statistics examining differences
between apprentices/trainees and employers regarding importance of
individual training obligation items.
Item Employers Employees t-test
(1)
Opportunity to keep learning 9.1 9.3 -2.3 *
Apply what is learned 9.1 9.2 -1.0
Exposure to different 9.0 9.1 -0.3
processes/experiences
Range of training methods 8.8 9.1 -2.1 *
Make mistakes and learn 8.7 9.0 -2.5 *
Specific time for training 8.5 9.0 -3.3 *
Regular assessment 8.6 8.5 0.5
Assessment involving feedback 8.5 8.6 -0.8
An identified training contact 8.6 8.4 1.2
Assessment not too easy 8.5 8.3 1.3
Assessment not too hard 7.9 8.0 -0.7
Notes: (1) Group differences t-test comparing employers with
employees; * significant at p < .05;
Item response range: 0 (not at all important) to 10
(extremely important).
Table 5--Independent samples t-test statistics examining differences
between apprentices/trainees and employers regarding extent to which
individual employer obligations were met.
Item Employers Employees t-test
(1)
Treated the same as everyone else 9.2 7.6 7.7 *
Adequate training for the job 9.1 7.5 8.4 *
Provide resources for the job 9.0 7.6 7.0 *
Act in supportive way 9.0 7.4 7.5 *
Performance appraisal fair 8.9 7.3 7.9 *
Talk about matters 8.6 7.3 6.3 *
Help develop career 8.6 7.3 6.1 *
Considerate of long-serving employees 8.7 7.1 7.0 *
Time off for personal needs 8.2 7.6 2.5 *
Support for personal problems 7.8 6.7 4.6 *
Help gain promotion 7.9 6.1 6.5 *
Job that I like 7.0 6.2 3.0 *
Notes: 1 Group differences t-test comparing employers with
employees; * significant at p < .05;
Item response range: 0 (not at all met) to 10 (completely met).
Table 6--Independent samples t-test statistics examining differences
between apprentices/trainees and employers regarding extent to which
individual employee obligations were met.
Item Employers Employees t-test
(1)
Work well with others 8.7 9.5 -7.3 *
Put in a full day's work 8.2 9.5 -10.1 *
Always be punctual 8.2 9.5 -9.9 *
Attend work every day 8.1 9.6 -10.6 *
Become more skilled 8.4 9.3 -7.0 *
Protect reputation of company 8.5 9.2 -5.1 *
Stay with present employer 8.4 9.2 -4.7 *
Be loyal to company 8.1 9.1 -6.1 *
Be open with supervisor/employer 8.0 8.8 -5.0 *
Put interests of employer first 7.8 8.9 -6.8 *
Do non-required tasks 7.4 9.1 -10.0 *
Refuse to give outsiders information 7.9 8.3 -2.1 *
Refuse to support competitors 7.6 8.0 -1.3
Work more hours 6.4 8.3 -7.6 *
Willing to accept a transfer 6.2 2.0 18.0 *
Spend two years with employer (2)
Notes: (1) Group differences t-test comparing employers with employees;
(2) This item was not deemed relevant at this stage of the
apprenticeship/traineeship for met obligations and was excluded
from the employee survey; * significant at p < .05; Item response range:
0 (not at all met) to 10 (completely met).
Table 7--Independent samples t-test statistics examining differences
between apprentices/trainees and employers regarding extent to which
individual training obligations were met
Item Employers Employees t-test
(1)
An identified training contact 8.5 8.3 1.2
Exposure to different 8.8 7.9 4.7 *
processes/experiences
Apply what is learned 8.8 7.9 4.9 *
Opportunity to keep learning 8.7 7.9 4.0 *
Make mistakes and learn 8.5 8.0 2.9 *
Range of training methods 8.5 7.5 4.4 *
Assessment involving feedback 8.2 7.8 1.9
Assessment not too easy 8.2 7.7 2.2 *
Assessment not too hard 8.1 7.7 1.6
Regular assessment 8.0 7.8 1.3
Specific time for training 8.4 7.1 5.3 *
Notes: 1 Group differences t-test comparing employers with
employees;* significant at p < .05;
Item response range: 0 (not at all met) to 10 (completely met).
