Chapter Four

Results

This chapter presents the results of the current study. First, I

The Effect of Talent Management on Organizational Excellence: A Case Study :‫ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬
summarized the demographic characteristics of the
of the Jordanian Manaseer Group sample along
industry, age, and firm size dimensions. Second, descriptive statistics
(means, standard deviations, and simple‫ﺿﺤﻰ‬ ،‫ﺳﻌﻴﺪ‬
Pearson ‫ﺑﻨﻰ‬
correlations) were:‫ﺍﻟﻤؤﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ‬
presented. Finally, hierarchical(‫ﺣﺴﺎﻣ)ﻤﺸﺮﻑ‬
regression analyses and hypotheses :‫ﻣؤﻟﻔﻴﻦ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬
،‫ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺮﻱ‬
testing were provided.
2020 :‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻼﺩﻱ‬
4.2 Sample Characteristics and Demographics
‫ﺇﺭﺑﺪ‬ :‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ‬
Table (4-1) presents the descriptive statistics of participants1 demographic
- 93 variables. :‫ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺎﺕ‬

1119399
Study respondents comprised of (143) (73%) males and (53) (27%) females indicating :MD ‫ﺭﻗﻢ‬
‫ﺭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻴﺔ‬ :‫ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﻯ‬
that most of the sample were males. Of 196 subjects, 22 (11.2%) reported themselves as
English :‫ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
under 25 years, 110 (56.1%) as 25 to less than 35 years, (45) (23%) as 35 to less than 45
‫ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ‬ :‫ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ‬
years, 17 (8.7%) as 45 to less than 55 years and 2 (1%) as 55 ‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﺮﻣﻮﻙ‬ years old and above. As :‫ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺭﻳﺔ‬
for education level, 5 (2.6%) respondents ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ‬
reported ‫ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﻭ‬
to have ‫ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ‬PH.D, 42 (21.4%)
completed :‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‬

completed master degree, 2 (1%) completed high diploma, ‫ﺍﻻﺭﺩﻥ‬122 (62.6%) completed :‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬
Dissertations :‫ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ‬
bachelor degree and 25 (12.8%) completed diploma or less degree.
‫ ﺍﻷﺭﺩﻥ‬،‫ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻤؤﺳﺴﻲ‬،‫ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻳﺔ‬،‫ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻱ‬،‫ﺍﻷﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻳﺔ‬ :‫ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ‬
In term of job title, 13 (6.6%) reported themselves as general manager, 11 (5.6%)
http://search.mandumah.com/Record/1119399 :‫ﺭﺍﺑﻂ‬
reported themselves as executive manager, 58 (29.6%) as division head, and 114

(58.2%) as employee. As for years of experience, 64 (32.7%) reported themselves as

having less than 5 years of experience, 84 (42.9%) as having 5 to less than 10 years, 28

(14.3%) as having 10 to less than 15 years and 20 (10.2%) as having 15 years or more.

Finally, and in regard for number of service years in the company, 103 (52.6%) reported

as having less than 5 years, 61 (31.1%) as having 5 to less than 8 years, 17 (8.7%) as

having 8 to less than 11 years and 15 (7.7%) as having 11 years or more.

The total profile seems to include respondents from different categories of

.‫ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻮﻕ ﻣﺤﻔﻮﻇﺔ‬.‫ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻮﻣﺔ‬2021 ©
characteristics
‫ﻃﺒﺎﻋﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ‬ entailing
‫ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻚ ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻞ ﺃﻭ‬ that the
.‫ﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ ﻣﺤﻔﻮﻇﺔ‬ ‫ﺣﻘﻮﻕ‬ assessments
‫ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ‬of the ‫ﺣﻘﻮﻕ‬
،‫ﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‬ sample capture
‫ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ‬ the ‫ﺍﻹﺗﻔﺎﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻣﻊ‬ different
‫ ﻋﻠﻰ‬views,
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ‬
‫ ﻭﻳﻤﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺦ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺃﻱ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ )ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻲ( ﺩﻭﻥ ﺗﺼﺮﻳﺢ ﺧﻄﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺩﺍﺭ‬،‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻲ ﻓﻘﻂ‬
.‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻮﻣﺔ‬
40
 Chapter Four

Results

This chapter presents the results of the current study. First, I

summarized the demographic characteristics of the sample along
industry, age, and firm size dimensions. Second, descriptive statistics
(means, standard deviations, and simple Pearson correlations) were
presented. Finally, hierarchical regression analyses and hypotheses
testing were provided.

4.2 Sample Characteristics and Demographics

Table (4-1) presents the descriptive statistics of participants demographic variables.

Study respondents comprised of (143) (73%) males and (53) (27%) females indicating

that most of the sample were males. Of 196 subjects, 22 (11.2%) reported themselves as

under 25 years, 110 (56.1%) as 25 to less than 35 years, (45) (23%) as 35 to less than 45

years, 17 (8.7%) as 45 to less than 55 years and 2 (1%) as 55 years old and above. As

for education level, 5 (2.6%) respondents reported to have completed PH.D, 42 (21.4%)

completed master degree, 2 (1%) completed high diploma, 122 (62.6%) completed

bachelor degree and 25 (12.8%) completed diploma or less degree.

In term of job title, 13 (6.6%) reported themselves as general manager, 11 (5.6%)

reported themselves as executive manager, 58 (29.6%) as division head, and 114

(58.2%) as employee. As for years of experience, 64 (32.7%) reported themselves as

having less than 5 years of experience, 84 (42.9%) as having 5 to less than 10 years, 28

(14.3%) as having 10 to less than 15 years and 20 (10.2%) as having 15 years or more.

Finally, and in regard for number of service years in the company, 103 (52.6%) reported

as having less than 5 years, 61 (31.1%) as having 5 to less than 8 years, 17 (8.7%) as

having 8 to less than 11 years and 15 (7.7%) as having 11 years or more.

The total profile seems to include respondents from different categories of

characteristics entailing that the assessments of the sample capture the different views,

40
however their were significant differences in frequencies for number of categories such

as male frequency exceeds female frequency which can be explained as private sector

demography that still have male dominance due to the Arabian culture that in general

differences were seen in age as the category that reported themselves as having 25 to

less than 35 years was the largest one, which is also indicate the decomposition of work

force in private sector in general that mainly have young graduates as they tend to seek

better jobs as having more experience, and this again was evident in reading years of

experience that reported the largest two groups were from those who reported

themselves as having less than 5 years of experience and 5 to less than 10 years of

experience, and also when viewing number of service years in the company which

reported that 103 respondents have less than 5 years.

Table (4-1): Sample characteristics (N=196)

Category Group/ Sub-Group n %

Male 143 73%
Gender Female 53 27%
Total 196 100%
Less than 25 years 22 11.2%
25 to less than 35 years 110 56.1%
Age 35 to less than 45 years 45 23%
45 to less than 55 years 17 8.7%
55 years old and above 2 1%
Total 196 100%
PhD 5 2.6%
42 21.4%
Educational High diploma 2 1%
level Bachelor 122 62.6%
Diploma and less 25 12.8%
Total 196 100%
General manger 13 6.6%
Executive manger 11 5.6%
Job title Division head 58 29.6%
Employee 114 58.2%
Total 196 100%
Less than 5 years 64 32.7%
Years of 5 to less than 10 years 84 42.9%

41
 experience 10 to less than 15 years 28 14.3%
15 years or more 20 10.2%
Total 196 100%
Less than 5 years 103 52.6%
No. of service 5 to less than 8 years 61 31.1%
years in the 8 to less than 11 years 17 8.7%
company 11 years or more 15 7.7%
Total 196 100%

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

To identify the extent of implementation of talent management in the context of current

study as reported by the participants, descriptive statistics (means and standard

deviations) were computed for all dimensions of talent management (talent attraction,

talent development, and talent retention) using the agreement scale developed by

(Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). See Table (4-2) that provides means and standard

deviations along with their value interpretations.

Table (4-2): Mean and Standard Deviation Values Interpretation

To determine the levels of talent management and organizational excellence as stated by

the sample, mean and standard deviations were calculated. Table (4-2) provides

descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations and Pearson Correlation

Coefficients).

The calculated means and standard deviations values (see Table 4-3) identified the

extent of implementation of talent management in the Jordanian Manaseer group as

42
reported by the sample which was in a high level. the total mean value for talent

management is (3.75). The three strategies of talent management were also expressed in

high levels as follows: talent attraction achieved the highest mean value of (3.79),

followed by talent development and talent retaining that achieved equally mean value of

assessments were close to the mean. On the other hand, the group has a high level of

organizational excellence, especially in culture excellence. Culture excellence achieved

the highest mean value of (3.85), whereas leadership excellence achieved a mean value

of (3.84). Followed by subordinatesexcellence, subordinates excellence achieved a

mean value of (3.82).

Then the organizational structure excellence with a mean value of (3.80). In order to

capture the initial form of the relationships between the variables, Pearson correlations

were computed (see Table 4-3) and reported significant correlations at a 2-tailed level

between all the variables of the study. The correlations between the constructs of the

independent variable recorded different values ranging between (r = .701) between

subordinatesexcellence and talent retaining to (r = .878) between talent Retaining and

subordinates excellence, it should be noted that the correlations between the constructs

regard to the correlation levels between the variables of present study, the levels of

correlations between the constructs of talent management reported significant positive

correlations that were as providing a sound for possible multicollinearity.

On the other hand, the dimensions of organizational excellence recorded significant

positive and strong correlations with talent management dimensions, which entail a

sound of a positive relationship between the dependent and independent variables in

line with the main suggestions of the current study.

43
4.3 Hypotheses Testing

This section presents the results for hypotheses testing using the hierarchical regression. To

provide the decision for accepting or rejection a hypothesis, the decisions were guided by

the coefficient of determination (R2) that identify the amount of variance in the dependent

variable that is explained by the independent variable. Beta coefficient ( ) identify among

of change that each single unit of the independent variable achieve in the dependent

variable which should be in positive values for hypothesis that suggests positive

relationship and in negative values for the relationship that suggest negative relationship

which can provide the first rule to accept or reject a hypothesis. Finally, (P) significance

coefficient at (.05) level, which provides the decision for accepting or rejecting a

hypothesis when the first condition for the relationship direction (positive/ negative) is

confirmed by the Beta coefficients (Hair et al., 2006).

The first hierarchical regression model examined the effect of overall talent management on

organizational excellence. The regression represents several blocks. The first one includes

the controlling variables (Model 1); the second one includes the direct effect of talent

management on organizational excellence (Model 2); the third one includes the moderator

variables of experience and education (Model 3), and the last one includes the interaction

effect (Model 4). Table (4-4) provides summary for the calculated results.

The first block which entered controlling variables achieved (R2 = 6.7%) of variance,

indicating that controlling variables explained (6.7%) of the variance in organizational

excellence. The second block which added the direct effect of talent management achieved

(R2 = 78.4%), indicating that talent management added (70.3%) of variance in

organizational excellence. This provides support for the first primary hypothesis (H1).

45
Table (4-4): Results of hierarchical regression analyses for the effect of Talent
management on Organizational excellence

N = 196
Variable Model Model Model Model
1 2 3 4
Intercept 3.924 3.829 3.859 3.841
(.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
Gender .464 .120 .125 .122
(.000) (.059) (.051) (.057)
Control Age -.024 .029 -.007 .005
variables (.797) (.526) (.890) (.920)
Job title -.177 -.042 -.021 -.017
(.022) (.262) (.589) (.663)
Years of service in the -.019 -.047 -.061 -.070
group (.810) (.208) (.156) (.105)
Independent Talent management .825 .822 .819
(.000) (.000) (.000)
Moderator Education .061 .068
(.026) (.015)
Experience .051 .047
(.304) (.349)
Interaction Talent management -.063
effect Education (.050)
Talent management .022
Experience (.503)
R2 .086 .789 .795 .800
Adjusted R2 .067 .784 .788 .790
F 4.502 142.449 104.449 82.533
(.002) (.000) (.000) (.000)
R2 -- .703 .006 .004
F for R2 -- 634.513 2.779 1.988
(.000) (.065) (.140)
-Significant at (.05) - Reported coefficients are the unstandardized value

The third block added the effect of experience and education to the model and achieved

variance (R2 = 78.8%), indicating very low increase in the achieved variance by (0.6%),

and only education was significant as ( ), whereas experience was not

significant ( ).Moreover, the significance for R2 recorded moderate

46
significant levels as (F R2 = 2.779, P = .065).Finally, the last block that includes the

interaction effect achieved very low variance (R 2 = 79%), indicating an increase in the

achieved variance by (0.4%), added on that the significance for R2 recorded insignificant

levels as (F R2 = 1.988, P = .140). The interaction effects recorded negative significant

effect as ( -.063, P = .050) for talent management Education and insignificant positive

effect ( ) for talent management experience. This provides support for

the moderating effect of education on the relationship, but no significant moderation effect

was found for experience. Figure (4-1) represents: Two-way interaction plot for the

moderating effect of education on talent management organizational excellence

relationship.

Figure (4-1): Two-way interaction plot for the moderating effect of Education on
Talent management Organizational excellence relationship

47
The first three sub-hypotheses predict a positive relationship between the three elements of

talent management on organizational excellence. The results of regression analysis that

relate to these three sub-hypotheses are presented in Tables (4.5, 4.6, and 4.7).

Table (4.5): Results of hierarchical regression analyses for the effect of Talent
attraction Organizational excellence

N = 196
Variable Model Model Model Model
1 2 3 4
Intercept 3.924 3.845 3.871 3.848
(.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
Gender .464 .177 .181 .183
Control (.000) (.008) (.007) (.007)
variables Age -.024 -.013 -.047 -.041
(.797) (.791) (.375) (.447)
Job title -.177 -.045 -.024 -.019
(.022) (.249) (.548) (.630)
Years of service in the -.019 -.036 -.049 -.054
group (.810) (.362) (.282) (.243)
Independent Talent attraction .808 .804 .799
(.000) (.000) (.000)
Moderator Education .062 .066
(.032) (.024)
Experience .048 .050
(.353) (.340)
Interaction Talent attraction -.034
effect Education (.299)
Talent attraction .031
Experience (.377)
R2 .086 .767 .773 .775
Adjusted R2 .067 .761 .765 .764
F 4.502 125.219 91.587 71.263
(.002) (.000) (.000) (.000)
R2 -- .681 .006 .002
F for R2 -- 555.783 2.515 .803
(.000) (.084) (.449)
-Significant at (.05) - Reported coefficients are the unstandardized value

Hypothesis H1a predicts a positive relationship between talent attraction and organizational

excellence. To test this hypothesis, the first block which entered controlling variables
48
achieved (R2= 6.7%), indicate that controlling variables explained (6.7%) of the variance in

organizational excellence. In the second block, the direct effect of talent attraction was

entered into the regression model. It achieved (R2 = 76.1%), indicating that talent attraction

added (76.1%) of variance in organizational excellence. This evidence provides support for

H1a.

The third block added the effect of experience and education to the model and achieved

variance was (R2 = 76.5%), indicating very low increase in the achieved variance by

(0.6%).Moreover, the significance for R2 recorded insignificant levels as (F R2 = 2.515,

P = .084).Only education was significant as it achieved positive effect ( .062, P = .032),

whereas experience achieved insignificant positive effect ( ).Finally, the

last block that includes the interaction effect achieved very low variance (R 2 = 76.4%),

indicating an increase in the achieved variance by (0.2%), which was insignificant(F R2 =

.803, P = .449). The interaction effect recorded negative insignificant effect as ( -.034, P

= .299) for talent attraction education and ( P = .377) for talent attraction

experience. Again, providing no support for the moderating effect. Therefore, H2a is not

supported.

Hypothesis H1b predicts a positive relationship between talent development and

organizational excellence. To test this hypothesis, the first block which entered controlling

variables achieved (R2 = 6.7%), indicating that controlling variables explained (6.7%) of

the variance in organizational excellence. The second block which added the direct effect of

talent development achieved (R2 = 71.7%), indicating that talent development added

(71.7%) of variance in organizational excellence. This evidence provides support for H1b.

49
 Table (4-6): Results of hierarchical regression analyses for the effect of Talent
development Organizational excellence

N = 196 Coefficient
Variable Model Model Model Model
1 2 3 4
Intercept 3.924 3.770 3.761 3.734
(.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
Gender .464 .150 .148 .151
Control (.000) (.039) (.043) (.038)
variables Age -.024 .029 .005 .017
(.797) (.571) (.927) (.762)
Job title -.177 -.043 -.023 -.018
(.022) (.317) (.602) (.685)
Years of service in the -.019 -.034 -.034 -.044
group (.810) (.429) (.498) (.370)
Independent Talent development .719 .716 .709
(.000) (.000) (.000)
Moderator Education .068 .083
(.030) (.009)
Experience .021 .018
(.717) (.754)
Interaction Talent development -.077
effect Education (.028)
Talent development .066
Experience (.056)
R2 .086 .725 .732 .742
Adjusted R2 .067 .717 .722 .729
F 4.502 100.032 73.193 59.300
(.002) (.000) (.000) (.000)
R2 -- .639 .007 .010
F for R2 -- 440.699 2.403 3.597
(.000) (.093) (.029)
-Significant at (.05) - Reported coefficients are the unstandardized value

The next block added the effect of experience and education to the model and achieved

variance (R2 = 72.2%), indicating very low increase in the achieved variance by

(0.7%).Moreover, the significance for R2 recorded insignificant levels as (F R2 = 2.403,

P = .093).Only education achieved significant effect as ( P = .030), whereas

50
experience was insignificant as active ( ).Finally, the last block that

includes the interaction effect achieved a variance of (R2 = 72.9%), indicating an increase

in the achieved variance by (1%). Added on that the significance for R2 recorded

significant levels as (F R2 = 3.597, P = .029). The interaction effect recorded negative

significant effect as ( -.077, P = .028) for talent development education and (

P = .056) for talent development experience. This evidence provides support for the

moderating effect for both education and experience on the relationship between talent

development and organizational excellence. Therefore, H2b is supported.

Figure (4-2): Two-way interaction plot for the moderating effect of Education on
Talent development Organizational excellence relationship

51
 Figure (4-3): Two-way interaction plot for the moderating effect of Experience on
Talent development Organizational excellence relationship

Hypothesis H1c predicts a positive relationship between talent retention and organizational

excellence. To test this hypothesis, the first block which entered controlling variables

achieved (R2 = 6.7%), indicating that controlling variables explained (6.7%) of the variance

in Organizational excellence. The second block which added the direct effect of talent

retention achieved (R2 = 69.4%), indicating that talent retention added (69.4%) of variance

in organizational excellence. This evidence provides support for H1c.

The next block added the effect of experience and education to the model and achieved

variance (R2 = 69.8%), indicating very low increase in the achieved variance by

(0.7%).Moreover, the significance for R2 recorded insignificant levels as (F R2 = 65.366,

P = .099) .Neither education nor experience were significant as ( ) and (

= .082, P = .166), respectively. Finally, the last block that includes the interaction effect

achieved very low variance (R2 = 69.8%), indicating an increase in the achieved variance

by (0.3%).Added on that the significance for R2 recorded insignificant levels as (F R2 =

52
1.030, P = .359). The interaction effect recorded negative insignificant effect as ( -.051,

P = .162) for talent retaining education and ( P = .580) for talent retaining

experience. This evidence provides no support for the moderating effect. Therefore, H2c

is not supported.

Table (4-7): Results of hierarchical regression analyses for the effect of Talent
retaining Organizational excellence
N = 196
Variable Model Model Model Model
1 2 3 4
Intercept 3.924 3.888 3.954 3.940
(.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
Gender .464 .123 .143 .140
Control (.000) (.081) (.061) (.068)
variables Age -.024 .055 .006 .016
(.797) (.307) (.917) (.795)
Job title -.177 -.069 -.045 -.041
(.022) (.119) (.325) (.368)
Years of service in the -.019 -.072 -.101 -.107
group (.810) (.108) (.053) (.040)
Independent Talent retaining .724 .722 .723
(.000) (.000) (.000)
Moderator Education .060 .066
(.067) (.048)
Experience .082 .079
(.166) (.186)
Interaction Talent retaining -.051
effect Education (.162)
Talent retaining .020
Experience (.580)
R2 .086 .702 .709 .712
Adjusted R2 .067 .694 .698 .698
F 4.502 89.317 65.366 51.085
(.002) (.000) (.000) (.000)
R2 -- .615 .007 .003
F for R2 -- 391.741 2.239 1.030
(.000) (.099) (.359)
-Significant at (.05) - Reported coefficients are the unstandardized value

53
 Summary:

Table (4-6) provides a summary of the direct and indirect influence hypotheses decision.
Results of the direct effects showed that there is a positive relationship between all talent
management structures and organizational excellence. Consequently, H1 and its sub-
hypotheses were supported. As for the second hypothesis, the results of the indirect effects
clarified that the intermediate variable (experience and qualification) had no effect on the
relationship between all talent management structures and organizational excellence. Hence,
the second hypothesis (H2) and its sub-hypotheses were rejected.

Table (4-8): Summary of Hierarchical Regression for Testing the Relationship

between Talent Management and Organizational Excellence Hypotheses along the
Moderation Effect
Hypothesis Path R2 P Decision
H1 Talent management organizational 70.3% .825 .000 Confirmed
excellence
H1a Talent attracting organizational 68.1% .808 .000 Confirmed
excellence
H1b Talent development organizational 63.9% .719 .000 Confirmed
excellence
H1c Talent retaining organizational 61.5% .724 .000 Confirmed
excellence
H2 Talent management Experience -.063 .050 Rejected
organizational excellence 0.4%
Talent management qualification .022 .503 Rejected
organizational excellence
H2a Talent attracting Experience -.034 .299 Rejected
organizational excellence 0.2%
Talent attracting qualification .031 .377 Rejected
organizational excellence
H2b Talent development Experience -.077 .028 Confirmed
organizational excellence 1%
Talent development qualification .066 .056 Confirmed
organizational excellence
H2c Talent retaining Experience -.051 .162 Rejected
organizational excellence 0.3%
Talent retaining qualification .020 .580 Rejected
organizational excellence

54

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)