Response Rate
The study targeted 97 millennial employees and the same number of questionnaires was
distributed. Out of 97 questionnaires distributed, 77 were filled and returned. The response
rate was 79.38% which is considered sufficient for data analysis and interpretation. The non-
response rate comprised of 20 respondents who were a total of 20.62% of the total sample
size.
Response Rate
Response Rate Frequency Percentage
Response 77 79.4%
Non Response 20 20.6%
Total 97 100%
Source: Study Data (2020)
Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
The first part of the questionnaire focused on the background information of the target
population which included their gender, age, level of education, level of experience in the
banking sector, marital status and the position held in the bank.
Gender of Respondents
The respondents were required to assess their gender. This is illustrated in the Pie Chart
in figure 4.2.
52
%
48
%
Male
Female
Source: Study Data (2020)
Gender of Respondents
The results on figure 4.2 shows the male respondents were 37 which is equivalent to
48.05% of the respondents. The female respondents on the other hand were 40 which is
51.95% of the respondents. According to the results there was no significant difference
in the gender distribution of the respondents hence the study cannot be biased against any
gender.
Age Composition of the Respondents
The questionnaire provided different age groups ranges for the respondents to select. The
frequency and percentage for each age group is presented in Table 4.3.
Age Composition of the Respondents
Range Frequency Percentage
20 - 25 3 3.9
26 – 30 24 31.3
31 – 35 30 38.9
36 – 40 20 25.9
Total 77 100.0
Source: Study Data (2020)
The results indicate that 3.9% are millennials between the ages of 20 to 25 years, 26 to 30
years have a percentage of 31.3%, 31 to 35 years have a percentage of 38.9% and 36 to
40 years are at 25.9%. The finding thus indicates that all of the respondents were
millennials and were above 25 years.
Respondents Highest Level of Education
The millennials were required to give information on the highest level of education they
have achieved. Figure 4.4 indicates these findings in a bar chart.
Source: Study Data (2020)
Respondents Highest Level of Education
The results in figure 4.4 indicate none of the respondents had a Diploma whereas 57 had
attained a Bachelor’s Degree which was 74.03%, those whose highest level of education
was a Master’s Degree were 20 which is 25.97% and none had attained a PhD. The
results indicate the respondents had attained a first degree which was important as the
nature and task of banking work requires a degree.
Level of Experience at Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited
The respondents were required to indicate their experience levels. Table 4.5 shows that
the obtained results.
Table Level of Experience at Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited
PhD0%
Master's Degree25.97%
Bachelor's
Degree74.03%
Diploma0%
0
%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
Range Frequency Percentage
Less than 1 year 3 3.9
1 – 5 years 29 37.7
6 – 10 years 26 33.8
11 – 15 years 18 23.3
16 – 20 years 1 1.3
Total 77 100.0
Source: Study Data (2020)
Table 4.5 indicates that 3.90% have been working in the bank for less than one year
whereas the majority is at 37.66% who are in the category of those who have worked
between 1 to 5 years. Additionally, the results show that 33.77% had worked between 6
to 10 years, 23.38% have been working between 11 to 15 years and 16 to 20 years are at
1.30%. The results show that majority of the respondents had worked with the bank for
more than five years hence they were well acquainted with the operations of the bank and
it human resource practices.
Marital Status
The study wanted to ascertain the marital status of the millennial work-force working in
Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited. Figure 4.6 illustrates this is a bar chart.
Widowed0.00%
Source: Study Data
(2020) Figure 4.6 Marital
Status
The results on figure 4.6 indicates that 41 respondents were married, that is 53%, the
single respondents were 36 which is 46.75%, and the rest of the respondents who are
divorced, separated and widowed recorded nil figures. The finding thus indicates that a
good number of the respondents were married though the difference between the single
and married respondents was not significant thus the findings could not be biased against
any marital status.
Position in the Bank
The study wanted to ascertain the position held by each millennial employees in the bank.
Table 4.7 shows the results.
Table 4.7: Position held in the Bank
Range Frequency Percentage
Entry Level 25 32.5
Mid-Level 49 63.6
Senior Level 3 3.9
Total 77 100.0
Source: Study Data (2020)
Separated0.00%
Divorced0.00%
Single 46.75%
Married 53%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS IN PERCENTAGE
MARITAL STATUS
Table 4.7 shows that 32.47% of the respondents were at the Entry level whereas the
majority is at 63.64% were in middle level while 3.9% were in senior level. The analysis
implies that most of the millennial employees at CBKL are in the middle level.
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and do not know about corporate social
responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 3(8), 932-
968.
Ali, A. M., & Yusof, H. (2012). Quality in qualitative studies: The case of validity,
reliability and generalizability. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting,
5(1/2), 25-64.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for
more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50
(1), 128- 152.
Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M., & Mayer, D.M. (2013). Trickle-down effects of
supervisor perceptions of interactional justice: A moderated mediation approach.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 678-689.
Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Measurement and
extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory. The Leadership
Quarterly, 25, 746-771.
Aruna, M., & Anitha, J. (2015). Employee retention enablers: Generation Y employees.
SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 12(3), 94-103. Retrieved from
http://www.scmsgroup.org/
Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2011). Sustainable leadership practices for enhancing
business resilience and performance. Strategy & Leadership, 39(3), 5-15.
Becton, J. B., Walker, H. J., & Jones-Farmer, A. (2014). Generational differences in
workplace behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 175-189
Becker, G. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special
reference to education (3rd Ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dee, T. (2004). “Are there civic returns to education?” Journal of Public Economics, 88,
1697-1720.
Bennett, N., Croke, B., Guariso, G., Guillaume, J. H., Hamilton, S. H., Jakeman, A. J., &
Andreassian, V. (2013). Characterizing performance of environmental models.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 40, 1-20.
Berge, J. M., Loth, K., Hanson, C., Croll-Lampert, J., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2012).
Family life cycle transitions and the onset of eating disorders: A retrospective
grounded theory approach. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(9-10), 1355-1363.
Bertalanffy, L. V. (1933). Modern theories of development. (J. H. Woodger, Trans.)
London, England: Oxford University Press.
Boardman, C., & Ponomariov, B. (2014). Management knowledge and the organization
of team science in university research centers. Journal of Technology Transfer,
39(1), 75-92.
Bolderston, A. (2012). Conducting a research interview. Journal of Medical Imaging and
Radiation Sciences, 43(1), 66-76.
Bonnett, M. (2013). Sustainable development, environmental education, and the
significance of being in place. The Curriculum Journal, 24, 250-271.
Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job
satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The
Leadership Quarterly, 21, 270-283.
Briscoea, J. P., Henagana, S. C., Murphy, J. P., & Burton, W. M. (2012). Coping with
an insecure employment environment: The differing roles of protean and
boundaryless career orientations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 308-
316.
Brunetto, Y., Farr-Wharton, R., & Shacklock, K. (2012). Communication, training,
wellbeing, and commitment across nurse generations. Nursing Outlook, 60(1),
7- 15.
Chacko, H. E., Williams, K., & Schaffer, J. (2012). A conceptual framework for
attracting Generation Y to the hotel industry using a seamless hotel
organizational structure. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &
Tourism, 11(2), 106-122.
Chan, Z. C., Fung, Y.-l., & Chien, W.-t. (2013). Bracketing in phenomenology: Only
undertaken in the data collection and analysis process. The Qualitative Report,
18(30).
Chaudhuri, S., & Ghosh, R. (2012). Reverse mentoring a social exchange tool for
keeping the Boomers engaged and Millennials committed. Human Resource
Development Review, 11(1), 55-76.
Deegan, C., & Shelly, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibilities: Alternative
perspectives about the need to legislate. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 499-526.
Dinger, M., Thatcher, J. B., Stepina, L. P., & Craig, K. (2012). The grass is always
greener on the other side: A test of present and alternative job utility on IT
professionals’
turnover. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59, 364.
Durocher, S., Bujaki, M., & Brouard, F. (2016). Attracting millennials: Legitimacy
management and bottom-up socialization processes within accounting firms.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, In Press, 1-24.
