Table III. Utility of attribute levels...

Table III.

Utility of attribute levels for the sample and the two preference clusters

		Sample (n = 198)		Working hours and worktask-oriented type (n = 17) p = 0.95^a		Personal notion ofwork-oriented type (n = 181) p = 0.95^a
Attributes	Levels^b	Utility^c	Importance^d	Utility^c	Importance^d	Utility^c	Importance^d
Personal notion	1. Traditional work approach	47.04	25.8	30.26	15.3	63.53	32.7
of work	2. Employee recognition expressed by high salary	10.67		0.00		26.01
	3. Reputation and public image	0.00		14.47		0.00
	4. Balancing professional and private aspirations	61.19		33.61		83.55
Work tasks	1. Tasks specific to the company	7.89	5.6	7.07	14.9	8.09	3.2
	2. Good task/ compensation ratio	11.05		16.49		6.97
	3. Varied and widely recognized tasks	0.00		0.00		0.26
	4. Tasks manageable with reasonable effort	13.25		32.68		0.00
Working hours	1. Core working hours	28.47	26.4	52.97	31.6	10.54	24.1
	2. Paid overtime	35.73		69.51		11.27
	3. Main business hours	0.00		0.00		0.00
	4. Flexible working hours	62.68		56.84		61.64
Work-related	1. Mutual trust	56.29	23.7	46.54	21.2	58.25	22.8
relations	2. Barter system (information, know-how and working times)	28.62		36.23		21.53
	3. Skills-related reputation among colleagues	0.00		0.00		0.00
	4. Shared appreciation of health, society and environment	29.12		34.88		23.20
Career opportunities	1. Expert among colleagues	27.82	18.4	1.15	17.1	42.84	17.3
	2. Skills demanded in the job market	43.72		37.63		44.30
	3. Skills-based public reputation and recognition	0.00		0.00		0.00
	4. Job in the local region	36.45		29.69		38.02

		Sample (n = 198)		Working hours and worktask-oriented type(n = 17) p = 0.95^a		Personal notion ofwork-oriented type(n = 181)p = 0.95^a
Attributes	Levels^b	Utility^c	Importance^d	Utility^c	Importance^d	Utility^c	Importance^d
Personal notion	1. Traditional work approach	47.04	25.8	30.26	15.3	63.53	32.7
of work	2. Employee recognition expressed by high salary	10.67		0.00		26.01
	3. Reputation and public image	0.00		14.47		0.00
	4. Balancing professionaland private aspirations	61.19		33.61		83.55
Work tasks	1. Tasks specific to the company	7.89	5.6	7.07	14.9	8.09	3.2
	2. Good task/ compensation ratio	11.05		16.49		6.97
	3. Varied and widely recognized tasks	0.00		0.00		0.26
	4. Tasks manageable with reasonable effort	13.25		32.68		0.00
Working hours	1. Core working hours	28.47	26.4	52.97	31.6	10.54	24.1
	2. Paid overtime	35.73		69.51		11.27
	3. Main business hours	0.00		0.00		0.00
	4. Flexible working hours	62.68		56.84		61.64
Work-related	1. Mutual trust	56.29	23.7	46.54	21.2	58.25	22.8
relations	2. Barter system (information, know-how and working times)	28.62		36.23		21.53
	3. Skills-related reputation among colleagues	0.00		0.00		0.00
	4. Shared appreciation of health, societyand environment	29.12		34.88		23.20
Career opportunities	1. Expert among colleagues	27.82	18.4	1.15	17.1	42.84	17.3
	2. Skills demanded in the job market	43.72		37.63		44.30
	3. Skills-based public reputation and recognition	0.00		0.00		0.00
	4. Job in the local region	36.45		29.69		38.02

Notes:

p-values of 95 per cent indicate that the cluster is strongly supported by the data;

The attribute levels are based on the respective convention. The family (domestic) convention forms the first level, the market convention makes up the second level, the fame convention is depicted in the third level and the green convention is represented by the fourth attribute level;

Arithmetic mean of rescaled part-worths per cluster. The part-worth estimates are rescaled so that the sum of the part-worth values across the five attributes for each respondent equals 500. These estimates do not affect the magnitude of any part-worth, but provide a common scale across all part-worth values for comparison across attribute levels and respondents;

Arithmetic mean of importance of each attribute per cluster. The importance of each attribute reflects how much a job attribute influences the choice of a job profile. Important weights are calculated by computing the difference between the largest and the smallest part-worth for each attribute, summing the differences and normalizing to 100. Attribute importance scores sum to 100 across all five attributes for each respondent. Model fit: $R_{C h i}^{2}$ = 2,869.83, df = 15, p ≤ 0.001; $R_{M c F}^{2}$ = 0.653.

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable