Chapter Overview
In sequential order are presented the results of the hypotheses testing for the research. The empirical results provide both the descriptive and inferential statistics. The descriptive statistics provided the mean measures of the variables for comparison whilst the inferential results (One-way ANOVA and Regression Analysis) measured the statistical significance of the variables under consideration.
Presented are the profiles of the respondents highlighted using descriptive statistics. This is followed by a descriptive statistics of the motivational factors and discussions of the five factors with the highest and lowest mean measures. The analysis of results of hypothesis (H1) is followed by discussions and provided the forum for a thorough analysis of the implications from the empirical results. This sequence of presentation is followed for the remaining hypotheses (H2 - H5).
Profile of Respondents
Table 4.1. provides a summary of the original distribution of respondents for the eight (8) demographic dimensions included in the study. Each of the dimensions has at least two to five categories as appropriate to suit the requirements of the study. A category called missing values was also provided to cater for those dimensions with missing data.
Table 4. 1. Original distribution of respondents for the demographic dimensions
No. Demographic Dimensions Categories Total
Number Missing
Value 1 Registration Status of Business Sole Ownership
9(14.5%) Partnership
7 Number of employees in business 1-5 employees
9(14.5%) 6-50 employees
The first dimension, registration status of business, had five dimensions (Sole Ownership, Partnership, Limited Liability, Public Limited and Others). Responses to 4 out of the 5 categories in this dimension showed low results, below 10. Only the Limited Liability category had responses of above 40 respondents (66.1%).
The second dimension, economic sector of business, also suffered low responses with construction presenting zero responses. The category with the highest response was Services, with 28 (45.2%) responses. Each of the categories, tourism and manufacturing accounted for less than 10 of the responses.
In the third dimension, position in the business, the highest response category was the Manager with 28(45.2%) responses followed by the Managing Director with 15(24.2%) respondents. The remaining three (3) categories had 10 or less respondents.
The fourth and fifth dimensions, gender and business sector membership, had only two categories and did not experienced low responses.
Dimension six (6), years of sector body membership, suffered the worst low response rate with up to 44(71%) of no responses (missing values). The rest of the responses were spread within the three (3) categories, none of the categories accounted for more than 12% of responses.
Dimension seven (7), number of employees in business, has three (3) categories. Almost 60% of the responses accounted for businesses that have employed between 6-50 employees whilst the first category (1-5 employees) accounts for only 9(14.5%) of the responses.
Dimension eight (8), years of business operation, has three (3) categories. Businesses that had operated for 11+ years accounted for nearly 60% of the responses. There were only 6(9.7%) responses for younger businesses within the age bracket of 1-5 years.
Table 4.2. below presents a revision of the distribution of the respondents for the demographic dimensions. The distribution of the respondents in Table 4.1. above showed a risk of instability for the statistics as a result of the large number of categories with low responses on most of the demographic dimensions. To minimize this risk, the researcher reduced the number of categories in all the dimensions, except for the fourth and fifth dimensions. The revision for the demographic dimensions 7 and 8 was made possible because the questionnaire items were not categorical but rather left open for the respondents to state their answers. In doing so the categories could be revised if required as in this case.
Table 4.2. Revised distribution of respondents for the demographic dimensions
No Demographic
Dimensions Categories Total Number
1 Registration status of
3 Position in business Managing Director
15(24.2%) Manager
A descriptive statistics of the motivational factors in descending order of the means measure is provided in Table 4.3 below. The item means and standard deviations were provided for each motivational factor variables. A factor mean (3.55) for the overall group is also presented in the table. Highlighted on the table are the first and last five item dimensions. The five highest and lowest items with means measures have been regarded by the respondents as the most and least influential motivational dimensions for employer contribution to the levy.
Table 4.3. Motivational factor dimensions in descending order of the means measure
Variables Item Motivational dimensions N Mean Std.
Deviation Factor Mean
6 Feedback on fund allocation 62 4.21 1.026
7 Prior consultation during levy policy development 61 4.16 1.003 8 Sector body support for levy rate reduction 62 3.89 1.103
2 Subsidizing staff training needs 62 3.84 1.148
3 Provision of properly trained workers 62 3.84 1.190
11 Levy exemption policy for training 61 3.84 1.113
5 Open decision making process 62 3.81 1.185
4 Provision of formal and non-formal training 62 3.77 1.108
15 Levy put in closed accounts 62 3.77 1.151
1 Easy access to the skills training fund 61 3.77 1.175 17 NTA board mgt.- majority voting right for employers' 62 3.71 1.107 18 Skills training fund - majority voting right for employers 62 3.71 1.092 22 Stability for skills training and development 61 3.66 1.138 19 Greater decision making autonomy by employers on
NTA budget 62 3.63 1.044
21 Secure and sustainable means of funding skills
development 61 3.61 1.053
10 NGO's contribution to levy 62 3.60 1.032
16 Government access to levy 62 3.60 1.234
9 Public institution contribution to levy 62 3.53 1.155 20 Employers' ability to control skills training budget at
NTA 61 3.51 1.135
13 Tight levy collection process 62 3.08 1.359
23 Payroll bill fairer than levy charged on annual
turnover 61 2.90 1.375
24 Levy charged at 2% of employer payroll bill 61 2.90 1.313 12 Prefer levy contribution than conducting training 62 2.74 1.241 Motivating
Factors
14 Evasion on levy contribution 62 2.21 1.073
3.55
Motivational factors with highest means measure
Feedback on fund allocation was ranked the highest motivational factor dimension with a mean measure of 4.21. This motivational dimension was designed to inquire about the motivational factor variable – accountability and transparency of levy system. In this dimension, it was asked whether feedback on fund allocation that is well documented and understood by all stakeholders would encourage businesses to contribute to the levy. The results indicate that
accountability and transparency of the levy fund is of high priority for private sector businesses contributing to the levy.
The second and third highest ranked item means measure was designed to inquire about the motivational factor variable – employer buy-in. The first dimension asked whether prior consultation with businesses during levy policy development would have encouraged businesses to contribute to the levy. The second dimension enquired into sector body support for reduction to levy contribution. Both dimensions are employer buy-in avenues and are generally meant to ensure ownership and involvement of key stakeholders.
It has been generally argued that lack of buy-in from key stakeholders can cause serious threats to new programmes particularly during implementation stage. The results show that businesses were of the view that their involvement either through consultation or via their sector bodies could influence their willingness to contribute to the levy.
The fourth highest ranked means measure was the subsidizing of staff training needs.
Subsidizing of businesses that conduct staff training through a skills training and development fund is common practice in most SSA countries, typically Senegal with two funding strategies to support employers training initiatives. Subsidizing business training initiatives is generally regarded as perceived benefits from levy and the results indicate that this could influence businesses to contribute to the levy.
Provision of properly trained workers was the fifth highest ranked means measure. This dimension asked businesses whether a national skills training system that provides adequate supply of properly trained workers for industry would influence their contribution to the levy.
The motivational dimension was designed to assess the motivational variable dealing with confidence in the training system. The result is an indication of the need to develop a training system that is accessible and relevant to the needs of Gambian industry (demand driven training system).
The sixth highest ranked motivational dimension means measure was levy exemption policy for training. In many SSA countries with levy systems, this option is largely available to employers usually in the form of a tax rebate. Such a policy is not in existence in the Gambia.
Although it is evident that employers are in favour of such a policy, implementation is generally problematic in those countries where it exists.
Businesses have supported six (6) of the motivational factors that could have strong influence on their willingness to contribute to the levy namely: perceived benefits from the levy;
confidence in the training system; accountability and transparency of the levy system; employer buy-in and levy exemption policy. It is evident that businesses that are paying into the levy want to have control over the funds. Where possible businesses want to invest on their own staff training instead of contributing to the levy. Where they are not able to avoid contributing to the levy, they would want to receive direct benefits from those funds.
Motivational factors with lowest means measure
Evasion on levy contribution was ranked lowest amongst the motivational factor dimensions with a mean measure of 2.21. This dimension was designed to inquire about the motivational factor, levy collection regime. There is strong rejection of the notion that because some businesses are evading payment, then other businesses will avoid paying into the levy as well.
Payment to the levy seems more of a legal requirement than being motivated by the fact that other businesses are contributing.
The second lowest motivational dimension means measure pertains to business preference to contribute to the levy than conducting annual staff training programmes. From the results it is evident that businesses prefer the option of conducting staff training programmes than paying into the levy thus supporting once more the levy exemption policy motivational factor.
The low ranking of the two dimensions, levy charged at 2% of employers total payroll bill and levy charged on employer payroll bill is fairer than a levy charged on company annual turnover shows that the traditional levy system charged on payroll as in most SSA countries is not a strong motivator for businesses in the Gambia. It is clear that businesses prefer the annual turnover levy than a 2% payroll levy.
The motivational dimension with the fifth lowest mean measure, tight levy collection process, inquires on levy collection regime as a motivational factor. The results show that a tight levy collection regime does not strongly motivate businesses to contribute to the levy. Although it is reported that a tight levy collection regime would help enhance revenues collected from the levy, this processes has little motivational effect on businesses.
Analysis of Results for Hypothesis - H
1(Motivational Factors)
A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated for all the demographic dimensions against the motivational factor variables. Only significant results were presented in this section for analysis. As group results were bulky, it will be provided to interested audience on request. An Alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests and r was calculated as the effect size (Rosenthal, 1991).
Results for business registration status (Hypothesis H1-1)
Table 4.4. Significant motivational factor dimensions against registration status of business
Motivational Factors Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Easy access to the skills training fund (Perceived benefits from levy)
A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated for respondents’ ratings on easy access to the skills training fund. The analysis was significant, F(1, 58) = 4.97, *p< .05 (r = .28).
Respondents’ amongst the Limited Liability business registration status rated easy access to the skills training fund higher (M = 4.00, SD = 1.06) than those respondents’ within the Others business registration status (M = 3.30, SD = 1.30).
Table 4.5. Descriptive – significant motivational factor dimensions against registration status of business
Motivational Factors Categories N Mean Std. Deviation
Limited Liability 40 4.00 1.062
Others 20 3.30 1.302
Easy access to the skills training fund
Total 60 3.77 1.184
Provision of formal and non-formal training
Total 61 3.77 1.116
Provision of properly trained workers (Confidence in training system)
A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated on respondent ratings for provision of properly trained workers. The analysis was significant, F(1 , 59) =4.52 , *p < .05 (r
= .27 ). Respondents’ amongst the Limited Liability business status rated provision of properly trained workers higher (M = 4.07, SD = 1.06) than those respondents within the Other business status (M = 3.40, SD = 1.35).
Provision of formal and non-formal training (Confidence in training system)
A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated on respondents’ ratings for provision of formal and non-formal training. The analysis was significant, F(1 , 59) = 4.47 , *p
< .05 (r = .27 ). Respondents amongst the Limited Liability business status rated the provision of formal and non-formal training higher (M = 3.98, SD = 1.01) than those respondents within the Other business status (M = 3.35, SD = 1.23).
Feedback on fund allocation (Accountability and transparency of levy system)
A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated on respondents’ ratings for feedback on fund allocation. The analysis was significant, F(1 , 59) = 12.44 , *p < .05 (r = .17 ).
Respondents amongst the Limited Liability business status rated feedback on fund allocation higher (M = 4.51, SD = 0.64) than those respondents within the Other business status (M = 3.60, SD = 1.39).
Prior consultation during levy policy development (Employer buy-in)
A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated on respondents’ ratings for prior consultation during levy policy development. The analysis was significant, F(1 , 58) = 10.98 , *p
< .05 (r = .16 ). Respondents amongst the Limited Liability business status rated prior consultation during levy policy development higher (M = 4.44, SD = 0.71) than those respondents within the Other business status (M = 3.58, SD = 1.31).
Levy put in closed accounts (Security of levy proceeds)
A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated on respondents ratings for levy put in closed accounts. The analysis was significant, F(1 , 59) = 4.50 , *p < .05 (r = .07 ).
Respondents amongst the Limited Liability business status rated levy put in closed accounts higher (M = 4.00, SD = 0.95) than those respondents within the Other business status (M = 3.35, SD = 1.42).
Hypothesis (H1-1 ) - Business registration status
Hypothesis (H1-1) stating that registration status of business has no significant influence on motivational factors was rejected when testing against the following motivational factor variables: confidence in training system; accountability and transparency of levy system;
employer buy-in; and security of levy proceeds. The null hypothesis (H1-1) was therefore rejected for the above mentioned motivational factor variables.
The MSI Database (NTA, 2008) showed that in the Gambia manufacturing, construction and services sectors form the bulk of the Limited Liability businesses. These sectors of the economy in SSA have been mentioned in Emeji (2008) as in serious need of highly skilled workforce.
However, despite the acute shortages of highly skilled workforce in these sectors of industries in SSA, access to skills training funds has been a major challenge for businesses (Ziderman, 2001).
This lack of access to the skills training fund and the inadequate provision of properly trained workers undermines business confidence in the training system thus the significant difference between the Limited Liability and the Others business category. The Others business category are mainly dominated by Sole Ownerships and Partnerships (SME’s), engaged mainly on low technology activities and therefore require limited amount of training funds to develop their human resource capacity.
Durango (2002) emphasised that training levy funds based on levies imposed on the private sector should be dedicated to the training of employed workers and that the levy should focus on skills training and upgrading of workers to meet the specific needs of industry. It is evident in this study that accountability and transparency of levy system is a major issue for limited liability
businesses in the Gambia, which could be associated primarily as a monitoring tool on how the levy fund is allocated for skills training on businesses.
Employer buy-in during policy development can arguably be the sole determinant of a successful levy system. Ziderman (2001) recommends for employers involvement in levy policy formulation and execution. Ownership and support is established when employer’s concerns are addressed during policy formulation.
Results for economic sector of business (Hypothesis H1-2)
Hypothesis (H1-2) stating that economic sector of business has no significant difference on motivational factor variables, was no one reaching significance level. All the motivational factor dimensions when tested against the economic sector demographic dimensions showed no significant difference and therefore the null hypothesis (H1-2) was retained.
Results for respondents’ position in business (Hypothesis H1-3)
Table 4.6. Significant motivational factor dimensions against position in business
Motivational Factors Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 8.333 2 4.167 4.567 .014
Within Groups 52.000 57 .912
Prior consultation during levy policy development
Total 60.333 59
Between Groups 10.675 2 5.337 4.415 .016
Within Groups 70.112 58 1.209
Levy put in closed accounts
Total 80.787 60
*p < .05
Table 4.8. Post hoc tests of significant motivational factors against position in business Dependent Variable (I) Position in
business
(J) Position in business Mean Difference (I-J)
Table 4. 7. Descriptives – significant motivational factor dimensions against position in business
Motivational Factors Categories N Mean Std. Deviation
Managing Director 15 4.67 .617
Prior consultation during levy policy development (Employer buy-in)
A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated on respondents’ ratings on prior consultation during levy policy development. The analysis was significant, F(2 , 57) = 4.57 , *p
< .05 (r = .27 ). Respondents’ amongst the Managing Directors rated prior consultation during levy policy development higher (M = 4.67, SD = 0.62) than those respondents within the Manager position (M = 4.22, SD = 0.97) or respondents’ within the Others positions (M = 3.67, SD = 1.14). The multiple comparison on Post Hoc showed that Managing Directors motives to contribute to the levy are significantly different from the Others category. However, the Managing Director motives are not significantly different from the Managers, likewise the Others motives are not significantly different from the Managers motives.
Levy put in closed accounts (Security of levy proceeds)
A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated on respondents ratings for a levy put in closed accounts. The analysis was significant, F(2 , 58) = 4.42 , *p< .05 (r = .27 ).
Respondents’ amongst the Managing Directors rated levy put in closed accounts higher (M = 4.27, SD = 1.10) than those within the Manager position (M = 3.89, SD = 1.20) and respondents’
within the Others category (M = 3.77, SD = 1.16). The Managing Director motives are not significantly different from that of the Managers neither are the Others motives significantly different from the Managers motives.
Hypothesis (H1-3) - Position in business
Hypothesis (H1-3) stating that respondent’s position in business has no significant influence on motivational factors was rejected by two motivational factor variables when tested: employer buy-in and security of levy proceeds. The null hypothesis (H1-3) was therefore rejected by the above mentioned motivational factor variables.
As noted by (Johanson, 2001), the idea behind training authorities (training levies) is that they represent the range of relevant stakeholders especially businesses and will move control of the training system out of the hands of the bureaucracy. This novel idea could only be realised
when employers (Managing Directors) who are the decision makers within the business environment are involved early in the policy making process. Managing directors responses is significantly different with the (Others category) which shows a clear testimony of businesses’
strong view on participation and involvement at the policy making stage.
An important objective of establishing national training funds (particularly when financed by company training levies) is to provide sustained and stable funding for the training programs they support. However, it is argued that where company contribution forms a substantial or entire part of the training fund income, it might be both appropriate and politic that employers should feel they have some control on the uses to which the levies are put. It is evident that the security of levy proceeds is of paramount importance to managing directors thus the significant difference between them and Others category.
Results for gender (Hypothesis H1-4)
Table 4.9. Significant motivational factor dimensions against gender
Motivational Factors Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Evasion on levy contribution (levy collection regime)
A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated on respondents’ ratings for evasion on levy contribution. The analysis was significant, F(1 , 60) = 6.16 , p < .05 (r = .31 ).
The female respondents rated evasion on levy contribution higher (M = 2.91, SD = 1.22) than the male respondents (M = 2.06, SD = 0.99).
Secure and sustainable means of funding skills development (security and stability of funds) A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated on respondents’ ratings on a secure and sustainable means of funding skills development. The analysis was significant, F(1 , 59) = 3.99 , p < .05 (r = .25 ). The female respondents rated secure and sustainable means of funding skills development higher (M = 4.20, SD = 0.79) than the male respondents (M = 3.49, SD = 1.07).
Stability for skills training and development (security and stability of funds)
A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated on respondents’ ratings for
A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated on respondents’ ratings for