(a) Employee Sample Method

Sampling

The employee sample was made up of a combination of 288 participants from two different studies that follow: Study 3 (N=134, 46.53%) and Study 4 (N= 154, 53.47%).

For Study 3, six companies representing the utility industry (10.6 %), the banking and finance sector (19.5%), the professional services sector (19.2%), manufacturing (41.3%), and the engineering/transport (9.4%) industries were approached to contribute volunteer participants. Access was given to specific divisions or departments within each company according to their convenience and participation was invited through notices in company communal areas and/or via email invitation. Participation occurred in tea or lunch breaks.

Invitations were estimated to have circulated among 435 people in total, with the resulting 134 participants representing a response rate of 30.80%. The remaining 154 participants for the employee sample, participants in Study 4, and were drawn from an electrical manufacturing company representing 23.69% out of a total workforce of 650 employees

who had participated in Part 1 of an online survey on “organizational memory and mentoring”.

Participants

For the combined employee group, of those who completed the demographic questions, there were 187 (65.4%) male and 99 (34.6%) females, with a mean age of 41.75 years (SD=11.17). Participants had been in their current job for a mean 5.03 years (SD= 5.50), their organizations for a mean 9.53 years (SD =8.78), and their industries for a mean 15.88 years (SD=11.55). With regards to organizational level, 192 (67.1%) individuals identified themselves as team members, 77 (26.9%) as team leaders/middle managers, 16 (5.6%) as team leaders/senior managers and 1 (.3%) as chief executive officer.

Materials

Participants in Study 3 completed the organizational memory scale and a number of other attitudinal scales in a pencil and paper questionnaire (see Appendix B).

Participants in Study 4 completed an online survey (see Appendix C). Part 1 consisted of the organizational memory scale, some attitudinal scales pertaining to the expected relationship between organizational memory and mentoring, along with several

demographic questions. See Study 3 and Study 4 for full details on all the measures used.

Responses to the 21 item organizational memory scale developed in Study 1 were via a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored with 1= strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. As in Study 1, items were summed to create a score for each of the organizational memory subscales, and sum scores were divided by the number of items to calculate mean item scores so that scales were on the same metric for comparison purposes.

Procedure

All participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity and gave their informed consent. No incentive was given for participation. Study 3 participants were instructed to return completed questionnaires in the freepost envelopes provided.

Participants in Study 4 had been sent email invitations to volunteer participation through the company‟s human resource management department. These participants were given three weeks to complete the online questionnaires, with two reminders issued.

Results

All confirmatory factor analyses employed version 6.0 of AMOS (Arbuckle, 2005). AMOS utilises a maximum likelihood estimation approach to missing data, which offers estimates that are claimed to exhibit the least bias of all methods (Little & Rubin, 1989; Schafer, 1997). The results of the CFA can be seen in Table 2.5. Model 1 treated the 21 items as all loading onto a single organizational memory factor. The findings showed poor fit with a significant (rather than nonsignificant) x², a CFI well below .90, and RMSEA well above .08. Model 2 consisted of five unrelated first-order factors.

Again this model exhibited poor fit although not to the extent of the first model.

Model 3 consisted of five first-order correlated factors (see Figure 2.3). While the x² value was still significant, there was an acceptable CFI and RMSEA for this model.

Model 4 consisted of the five first-order factors with one second-order factor of

organizational memory (see Figure 2.4). As with Model 3 there was an improvement in fit indices over Models 1 and 2 but not to the same degree of the benchmark Model 3. Model 4 also achieved modest fit with the CFI and RMSEA fit indices. Models 3 and 4 achieved significantly more fit than Models 2 and 3.

Table 2.5. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Fit Indices for Organizational Memory Scale (Five Factors) with Employee Sample (N=288)

x² (df ) p CFI RMSEA Lo Hi PCLOSE Comparison

x² Change

df Change

p for x² Change

Model 1

N=288 1269.78 (189) .00 .60 .14 .13 .15 .00 Models 1 & 3 880.91 10 <.001 Model 2

N=288 743.02 (189) .00 .80 .10 .09 .11 .00 Models 2 & 3 354.15 10 <.001 Model 3

N=288 388.87 (179) .00 .92 .06 .06 .07 .01 Models 3 & 4 45.63 5 <.001 Model 4

N=288 434.50 (184) .00 .91 .07 .06 .08 .00 Models 1 & 4 Models 2 & 4

835.28 308.52

5 5

<.001

<.001

Figure 2.3. Confirmatory factor analysis diagram of five correlated first-order factors of organizational memory (Model 3), for the employee sample (N=288).

Figure 2.4. Confirmatory factor analysis diagram of five first-order factors and one second-order factor of organizational memory (Model 4) for the employee sample (N=288).

Table 2.6. Study 2(a) Means, Mean Item Scores (Scales), Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alphas, and Correlation Matrix (Employee Sample, N=288)

M SD α ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10}

1. Age 41.75 11.17 1.00

2. Organizational tenure 9.53 8.78 .53*** 1.00

3. Job tenure 5.03 5.50 .39*** .59*** 1.00

4. Industry tenure 15.88 11.55 .73*** .66*** .42*** 1.00

5. Socio-political knowledge 4.83 1.08 .87 .12* .26*** .08 .13* 1.00

6. Job knowledge 5.77 0.94 .87 .20** .19** .14* .15* .44*** 1.00

7. External network 5.00 1.29 .81 .13* .21** .11 .10 .58*** .38*** 1.00

8. History 3.62 1.21 .77 .32*** .41*** .25*** .31*** .44*** .25*** .39*** 1.00

9. Industry knowledge 3.89 1.29 .78 .27*** .21*** .06 .25*** .41*** .21*** .33*** .57*** 1.00

10. Total organizational memory 4.67 0.85 .91 .26*** .35*** .17** .25*** .86*** .60*** .73*** .73*** .66*** 1.00

* p < 0.05 level; **p < 0.01 level, *** p < 0.001 level, (two-tailed).

Descriptive Statistics

The mean item scores, means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas (where appropriate), and intercorrelations of the study variables can be found in Table 2.6.

Coefficient alphas for the organizational memory subscales ranged from .77 to .89, indicating acceptable to excellent internal consistency estimates.

As in Study 1 there was interest in the correlations between the organizational memory subscales and the tenure variables which are often used as “proxy” variables for experience (see Table 2.6). Organizational tenure correlated significantly with all of the organizational memory subscales, while job tenure correlated significantly with only two, job knowledge and history. Industry tenure correlated with job knowledge, history, and industry knowledge, but surprisingly, not with external network. In this study age correlated with all of the organizational memory subscales. A further discussion of these results follows after the Study 2(b) method and results sections.

Study 2 (b) Retiree Sample