This study explores how pay transparency influences employee job performance within commission-driven environments in the South African property industry.
How pay transparency influences employee job performance in commission-driven environments in the South African property industry.
Pay secrecy undermines motivation and discretionary effort, particularly in commission-based roles.
A qualitative, interpretivist case study design was employed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 participants comprising senior managers and property managers from three Johannesburg-based Real Estate Investment Trusts operating in the student accommodation sector. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
The findings reveal that pay transparency enhances job performance by clarifying effort–reward linkages, enabling self-regulation and reducing performance uncertainty.
Organisations should prioritise procedural clarity, transparent performance criteria and ongoing communication to leverage pay transparency as a performance management tool.
This study provides rare qualitative evidence from a Global South, commission-based industry, addressing a significant gap in pay transparency literature.
Pay transparency has emerged as a critical human resource management (HRM) practice with far-reaching implications for employee attitudes, employment relationships and organisational outcomes. Globally, it has moved to the forefront of compensation debates as employees increasingly demand fairness, accountability and clarity regarding how pay is determined and distributed (Avdul et al.,
Pay transparency has become one of the most prominent topics in contemporary HRM research and practice because of its influence on employee–employer relationships, organisational culture and performance-related outcomes (Alterman et al.,
Over the past decade, pay transparency, defined as the deliberate disclosure of pay levels, pay ranges and the criteria used to determine compensation, has gained momentum globally as a policy and organisational response to wage inequality (Bamberger,
Importantly, pay transparency is not a singular or uniform practice. It involves multiple strategic decisions regarding
Despite the expanding global literature, limited empirical attention has been given to how pay transparency shapes job performance in commission-driven industries, particularly within Global South contexts. In the South African property sector, commission-based remuneration structures are prevalent, yet compensation practices remain largely opaque. This opacity is compounded by historical wage inequalities, increasing the sensitivity surrounding pay disclosure. As a result, pay transparency may be experienced not only as a managerial practice but also as a fairness signal with significant performance implications.
Given the centrality of fairness perceptions and incentive alignment in performance-based pay systems, this study draws on Equity Theory and Agency Theory to examine how pay transparency shapes job performance in a commission-driven South African context. This study explores how pay transparency influences employee job performance within commission-driven environments in the South African property industry by examining how both employees and managers perceive pay transparency and how these perceptions shape job performance.
Equity theory provides a foundational lens for understanding how employees evaluate fairness in compensation systems and how these evaluations shape work-related attitudes and behaviours. The theory posits that employees assess fairness by comparing the ratio of their work inputs, such as effort, skills and performance, to the outcomes they receive, including pay and incentives, relative to referent others within the organisation (Adams,
Pay transparency is central to these processes because it shapes employees’ ability to evaluate fairness. By clarifying how pay is distributed and on what basis, transparency enables more informed input–outcome comparisons and reduces ambiguity surrounding compensation decisions. Transparent pay practices may therefore strengthen perceptions of fairness and trust, while opaque systems can intensify perceived inequities and undermine motivation (Gutierrez et al.,
While Equity theory explains how employees evaluate fairness through social comparison processes, Agency theory addresses why organisations require transparent systems to align interests between principals and agents. Agency theory focuses on how compensation systems are used to align employee behaviour with organisational objectives, highlighting the challenge of information asymmetry in principle–agent relationships, where employees may possess more information about their effort or performance than employers, potentially leading to inefficiencies or misalignment (Eisenhardt,
From an agency perspective, pay transparency functions as a governance mechanism by clarifying performance expectations, commission structures and reward criteria (Vetrivel et al.,
Together, these theories provide a complementary framework for understanding how pay transparency shapes job performance in commission-driven contexts. Equity theory explains how transparency influences fairness perceptions and motivation through social comparison, while Agency theory explains how transparency aligns behaviour with organisational goals by reducing information asymmetry. Notably, both theories converge on transparency’s role in addressing information problems, whether framed as ambiguity that obscures fair comparison (Equity theory) or asymmetry that enables misalignment (Agency theory). In commission-driven environments, this dual mechanism is particularly critical, as employees must both perceive their compensation as equitable and understand how their efforts translate into organisational outcomes to sustain high performance.
Pay transparency has emerged as a salient HRM practice in response to increasing demands for fairness, accountability and equity in compensation systems. Broadly defined, pay transparency refers to the extent to which organisations disclose information about pay levels, pay structures and the processes used to determine compensation (Bamberger & Belogolovsky,
Existing research highlights multiple motivations for adopting pay transparency practices. At a policy and governance level, transparency is frequently positioned as a mechanism to address persistent pay inequities, particularly those related to gender and race (Baker et al.,
Scholars increasingly recognise that pay transparency is not a binary practice but exists along a continuum, ranging from limited disclosure of pay ranges to full disclosure of individual salaries and pay-setting criteria (Fulmer & Arnold,
A growing body of empirical research has examined the relationship between pay transparency and employee outcomes such as job satisfaction, organisational commitment, trust and engagement. Studies consistently demonstrate that transparent pay practices can enhance perceptions of distributive and procedural justice, which in turn support positive work attitudes (Arnold et al.,
Despite these positive associations, findings regarding performance-related outcomes remain mixed. While some studies suggest that pay transparency can enhance productivity by clarifying reward criteria and motivating effort (Lyons & Zhang,
Importantly, much of the existing literature has focused on pay transparency in fixed-pay or executive compensation contexts, with comparatively limited attention given to commission-driven environments. In such settings, performance pressure, income volatility and competition among employees may amplify both the positive and negative effects of transparency. As a result, the relationship between pay transparency and job performance remains empirically underexplored, particularly outside of Global North contexts.
In commission-driven industries, such as property and real estate, compensation systems are inherently variable and closely tied to individual performance outcomes. While these systems are intended to incentivise effort and productivity, they often lack transparency regarding performance metrics, commission calculations and reward thresholds. Research suggests that opaque commission structures can generate confusion, mistrust and perceptions of inequity, undermining the motivational intent of performance-based pay (Mabaso & Mdluli,
Within Global South contexts, pay transparency practices are further shaped by institutional, historical and socio-economic factors. In South Africa, historical wage inequalities and persistent income disparities heighten the sensitivity surrounding pay disclosure and fairness perceptions. Limited empirical research has examined how employees and managers in such contexts experience pay transparency, particularly in sectors where commission-based remuneration is prevalent. This represents a notable gap in literature, as most existing studies are situated in developed economies with different labour market dynamics and regulatory frameworks.
Despite its potential benefits, pay transparency presents notable challenges that may undermine employee attitudes and organisational outcomes when poorly designed or communicated. One significant concern is that revealing pay disparities can generate employee dissatisfaction and workplace tension, particularly when differences are not perceived as legitimate or fair. Research indicates that transparency may expose salary gaps, leading to disengagement, reduced morale and increased turnover if employees perceive disparities as unjustified (Balkin & Werner,
Pay transparency can also disrupt perceptions of pay equity by amplifying employees’ scrutiny of how compensation decisions are made. When transparency is not accompanied by clear justification, employees may attribute pay differences to non-meritocratic factors such as favouritism or bias (Arshad,
A further challenge associated with pay transparency is the risk of misinterpreting pay differences when information is disclosed without sufficient context. Without clear explanations regarding performance criteria, experience, role complexity or market-related factors, employees may perceive legitimate pay variations as unfair or discriminatory (Dust et al.,
Collectively, these findings highlight that pay transparency is not inherently beneficial and may produce adverse outcomes if not accompanied by effective communication, credible justification and supportive organisational practices. These challenges are particularly salient in commission-driven environments, where pay dispersion is high and performance pressures are intense, reinforcing the need for context-sensitive approaches to transparency.
The reviewed literature demonstrates that pay transparency is a complex and context-dependent HRM practice with significant implications for fairness perceptions, trust and employee behaviour. While prior research has established links between pay transparency and justice-related outcomes, evidence regarding its influence on job performance, especially in commission-driven environments, remains inconclusive. Moreover, limited attention has been given to how pay transparency is experienced within Global South contexts characterised by historical inequality and high pay dispersion.
Addressing these gaps, the present study adopts a qualitative approach to explore how employees and managers in the South African property industry perceive pay transparency and how these perceptions shape job performance. By integrating insights from Equity theory and Agency theory, the study seeks to deepen understanding of the mechanisms through which pay transparency operates in commission-driven organisational settings.
The current study employed a qualitative research design grounded in an interpretivist paradigm (Saunders et al.,
The study was conducted within the South African property industry, a sector characterised by commission-based remuneration structures and high-income variability. This context is particularly relevant given the sensitivity surrounding compensation practices and the persistence of historical wage inequalities within the South African labour market. Mouton (
Participants were selected using purposive sampling (Saunders et al.,
Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, which allowed flexibility to probe participants’ experiences while ensuring consistency across interviews. Semi-structured interviews are particularly appropriate for qualitative research as they enable participants to articulate their perceptions and experiences in their own words while remaining aligned with the research objectives (Creswell & Creswell,
Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis, following a systematic process of familiarisation, coding and theme development (Braun & Clarke,
Trustworthiness was ensured in accordance with the criteria proposed by Lincoln and Guba (
Reflexivity is central to credible qualitative inquiry (Braun & Clarke,
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, University of Johannesburg Research Ethics Committee (Ref. No. IPPM-2025-934[M]).
The coding and thematic analysis revealed five interrelated themes that reflect how pay transparency influences performance, motivation and regulation within a commission-based property environment. These themes were derived from recurring patterns across employee and managerial accounts.
Coding structure.
| First-order codes (Verbatim) | Second-order category | Aggregate theme | Participant codes |
|---|---|---|---|
| ‘When the commission rules are clear, I know exactly what I need to achieve’. | Clarity of criteria | Pay transparency as a performance signal | E3, E7, E11 |
| ‘People perform better when they understand how bonuses are calculated’. | Transparency and motivation | Pay transparency as a performance signal | M2, M5 |
| ‘You start questioning effort when rewards feel hidden’. | Perceived unfairness | Performance decline under pay secrecy | E4, E9 |
| ‘Secrecy creates tension and disengagement in teams’. | Distrust and disengagement | Performance decline under pay secrecy | M1, M4 |
| ‘Clear pay rules make people manage themselves better’. | Self-monitoring | Transparency enables self-regulation | M3, M6 |
| ‘I track my performance more closely when I know how pay works’. | Self-accountability | Transparency enables self-regulation | E6, E10 |
| ‘When others earn more without explanation, it kills morale’. | Social comparison | Fairness, equity, and morale | E2, E8 |
| ‘We need transparency to manage perceptions of fairness’. | Equity management | Fairness, equity, and morale | M2, M7 |
| ‘Clear pay rules reduce arguments and disputes’. | Conflict reduction | Organisational trust and stability | M5, M6 |
| ‘Transparency lowers gossip and tension’. | Psychological safety | Organisational trust and stability | E1, E9 |
Comparison of employee and manager perspectives.
| Theme | Employee perspective | Manager perspective |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Pay transparency as a performance signal | Clarifies targets and motivates effort | Aligns performance expectations and output |
| 2. Performance decline under pay secrecy | Reduces discretionary effort and trust | Increases disengagement and conflict |
| 3. Transparency enables self-regulation | Encourages self-monitoring and accountability | Reduces need for micromanagement |
| 4. Fairness, equity and morale | Affects morale through social comparison | Essential for managing perceptions of equity |
| 5. Organisational trust and stability | Reduces anxiety and gossip | Supports consistency and stability |
Participants consistently described pay transparency as a critical signal that clarified performance expectations and directed effort within the commission-based property environment. Employees explained that transparent commission structures reduced uncertainty surrounding how performance translated into rewards, allowing them to focus their energy on achieving clearly defined targets rather than speculating about pay outcomes. One employee articulated this clarity succinctly:
‘When the targets and bonus rules are clear, you don’t second-guess yourself. You know exactly what you’re working towards.’ (Employee, E7, male, director)
For employees, transparency functioned as a motivational anchor, providing certainty about what constituted successful performance and reinforcing a sense of control over income outcomes. This clarity reduced anxiety and cognitive distraction, enabling sustained effort and goal-directed behaviour. Managers similarly emphasised pay transparency as a mechanism for aligning individual effort with organisational priorities. From their perspective, transparent commission rules provided a structured framework through which performance expectations could be communicated and reinforced:
‘People perform better when they understand how bonuses are calculated. It gives direction to their effort.’ (Manager, M2, male, regional manager)
While employees experienced transparency primarily as motivational clarity, managers framed it as a performance management tool that translated organisational objectives into measurable, incentivised behaviours. Despite these different emphases, both groups converged on the view that transparency strengthened performance focus by reducing ambiguity, aligning expectations and reinforcing the link between effort and reward.
In contrast, opaque pay systems were consistently associated with reduced discretionary effort, disengagement and frustration. Employees described pay secrecy as demotivating, particularly when they could not see how additional effort translated into tangible rewards. This uncertainty prompted questioning whether extra effort was worthwhile:
‘You start asking why you should go the extra mile when you don’t know how rewards are decided.’ (Employee, E4, female, leasing agent)
Employees interpreted secrecy as a signal that reward decisions might be arbitrary or biased, leading to withdrawal behaviours such as reduced effort or minimal compliance. These responses reflected attempts to protect oneself from perceived unfairness. Managers echoed these concerns but focused more strongly on the collective impact of secrecy on team dynamics and performance stability:
‘Secrecy creates tension. People disengage because they assume the system is unfair.’ (Manager, M1, male, regional manager)
From a managerial standpoint, secrecy erodes trust, fosters suspicion and disrupts collaboration, ultimately undermining team cohesion and consistent performance. While employees primarily experienced secrecy as personal unfairness, managers emphasised its broader organisational consequences, including lowered morale, strained relationships and instability across commission-driven teams.
Pay transparency was also described as enabling self-regulation and reducing reliance on managerial oversight. Employees reported that understanding how pay structures operated encouraged them to monitor their own performance more closely and take responsibility for outcomes. One employee explained:
‘I track my performance more closely when I know how pay works. It’s on me.’ (Employee, E10, female, property manager)
For employees, transparency promoted a sense of ownership over performance, reinforcing personal accountability and proactive behaviour. Rather than waiting for managerial feedback or intervention, employees adjusted their effort and strategies based on clear pay-performance signals. Managers reinforced this perspective, emphasising that transparency reduced the need for constant supervision and micromanagement:
‘People manage themselves better when they understand the system.’ (Manager, M3, female, COO)
Managers viewed transparency as a mechanism that shifted responsibility downward, allowing them to focus on strategic oversight rather than continuous monitoring. Employees experienced self-regulation as empowerment and accountability, whereas managers interpreted it as a practical efficiency that enhanced performance management in commission-driven environments.
Participants consistently link pay transparency to perceptions of fairness and morale, particularly through processes of social comparison. Employees expressed frustration and demoralisation when differences in earnings were not explained or justified:
‘When others earn more without explanation, it kills morale.’ (Employee, E8, female, property manager)
For employees, unexplained pay differences have triggered feelings of inequity, undermining motivation and emotional commitment to the organisation. Transparency was therefore viewed as essential for sustaining morale in competitive commission contexts. Managers acknowledged this challenge and emphasised transparency as a preventative strategy for managing equity perceptions, even where pay differentials were legitimate:
‘We need transparency to manage perceptions of fairness, even if pay differs.’ (Manager, M7, male, director)
Managers recognised that transparency did not require identical pay outcomes but a relatively clear justification for differences. Employees focused on the emotional and motivational consequences of perceived inequity. At the same time, managers framed transparency as a proactive mechanism to mitigate dissatisfaction, reduce conflict and sustain morale within competitive remuneration structures.
Finally, pay transparency was described as strengthening organisational trust, psychological safety and stability. Employees noted that transparency reduced speculation, gossip and interpersonal tension associated with unclear pay practices:
‘Transparency lowers gossip and tension because there’s less to guess about.’ (Employee, E9, female, property manager)
For employees, transparency provided emotional reassurance and reduced uncertainty, contributing to a more psychologically safe work environment. Managers highlighted the organisational benefits of transparency, particularly its role in reducing disputes and ensuring consistency in reward allocation:
‘Clear pay rules reduce arguments and create stability.’ (Manager, M6, male, property manager)
Managers viewed transparency as an organisational control mechanism that supported smoother operations, reduced conflict and reinforced consistent performance standards. While employees experienced transparency primarily as reassurance and trust building, managers interpreted it as a stabilising governance tool that supported long-term organisational effectiveness.
Across all five themes, pay transparency emerged as a multifaceted mechanism shaping motivation, effort, fairness perceptions, self-regulation and trust. Employees consistently emphasised clarity, emotional responses, and motivation, while managers focused on alignment, efficiency and stability. Together, these findings demonstrate that pay transparency plays a central role in sustaining performance and organisational functioning in commission-based environments.
The findings demonstrate that pay transparency operates as a performance lever by reducing uncertainty and enabling behavioural alignment. Extending Equity theory, the study indicates that fairness perceptions in commission-based roles are more influenced by procedural clarity than by absolute pay levels. From an Agency theory perspective, transparency reduces information asymmetry, strengthening goal alignment. This study examined how pay transparency shapes job performance within commission-driven environments in the South African property industry. Responding to calls in the literature for greater empirical clarity regarding the performance consequences of pay transparency, particularly in commission-based and Global South contexts (Bamberger & Belogolovsky,
Consistent with contemporary HRM literature, pay transparency was experienced not merely as the disclosure of pay information but as a signal communicating organisational values, expectations and fairness norms (Alterman et al.,
These findings extend existing scholarship by demonstrating that, in commission-based environments, pay transparency operates primarily as a performance signal rather than solely as a fairness intervention. Drawing on Agency theory, transparent commission rules reduced information asymmetry by clarifying how individual effort translated into financial outcomes (Eisenhardt,
In contrast, pay secrecy was consistently associated with reduced discretionary effort, disengagement and withdrawal behaviours. Employees interpreted opaque pay systems as signals that reward decisions might be arbitrary, biased or influenced by favouritism, leading them to question the value of additional effort. These reactions align closely with Equity theory, which posits that employees require sufficient information to evaluate the fairness of their input–outcome ratios relative to others (Adams,
From a managerial perspective, pay secrecy was associated with broader organisational consequences, including tension, instability and declining team cohesion. Managers emphasised that opaque pay practices disrupted collaboration and undermined consistent performance across teams, reinforcing earlier findings that secrecy weakens not only individual motivation but also collective performance and organisational effectiveness (Heisler,
A significant contribution of this study lies in demonstrating how pay transparency enables employee self-regulation in commission-driven environments. Employees reported that they monitored their own performance more closely when commission rules were clearly understood, adjusting their strategies proactively rather than relying on managerial feedback. This finding extends the pay transparency literature by highlighting self-regulation as a key behavioural mechanism linking transparency to performance. From an Agency theory perspective, transparency reduced information asymmetry and shifted responsibility for performance management downward, enabling employees to internalise performance controls (Asamani et al.,
The findings further highlight the importance of fairness perceptions in maintaining morale, particularly within a historically unequal context. Employees did not expect identical pay outcomes but rather clear justification for differences. When pay disparities were unexplained, morale declined and motivation eroded, confirming concerns raised in the literature that transparency without justification may intensify social comparison and dissatisfaction (Balkin & Werner,
Pay transparency also played a critical role in shaping organisational trust, psychological safety and stability. Employees described transparency as reducing gossip, speculation and interpersonal tension, contributing to a more predictable and psychologically safe work environment. These outcomes align with Social Exchange Theory, which emphasises that fair and transparent treatment fosters reciprocal trust and commitment (Cropanzano et al.,
Taken together, these findings directly address the theoretical ambiguity in the literature regarding the performance effects of pay transparency (Bamberger & Belogolovsky,
By focusing on a commission-driven property context within South Africa, this study addresses a significant gap in the pay transparency literature, which the Global North and fixed-pay settings have dominated. The findings demonstrate that pay transparency serves as a performance signal, a governance mechanism and a fairness cue, with its effects shaped by historical inequality and the institutional context. In doing so, the study advances a more distinct and context-sensitive understanding of pay transparency and its role in shaping job performance in commission-based environments.
The findings of this study suggest that pay transparency should be approached as a strategic performance management practice rather than a narrow compliance or disclosure exercise. Organisations operating in commission-driven environments should prioritise transparency in
Pay transparency should also be deliberately integrated into broader performance management systems. Transparent commission structures can reinforce goal clarity, support self-regulation and reduce reliance on continuous managerial oversight by embedding performance signals directly into reward mechanisms. When performance metrics and reward criteria are consistently communicated and aligned with organisational objectives, transparency functions as both a motivational anchor and a governance mechanism.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of pay transparency depends heavily on leadership capability. Organisations should equip line managers and senior leaders with the skills required to communicate pay decisions clearly, consistently and empathetically. Leaders play a critical role in explaining pay differentials, contextualising performance outcomes and legitimising reward decisions. Without credible and emotionally intelligent communication, transparency initiatives risk intensifying perceptions of inequity and undermining trust rather than enhancing performance.
Several limitations of the study should be acknowledged. Initially, the qualitative, interpretivist design and the sector-specific focus on the South African property industry limit the generalisability of the findings. While the study provides rich, contextual insight into how pay transparency is experienced in commission-driven environments, the findings may not be directly transferable to other industries or remuneration systems.
A further limitation relates to the reliance on self-reported performance data. Participants’ accounts of their performance improvements under conditions of pay transparency could not be independently verified against objective organisational records, such as commission earnings, performance appraisal ratings or sales output metrics. These accounts may therefore be subject to social desirability bias, retrospective sense-making, and self-serving attribution. Accordingly, the findings should be interpreted as evidence of perceived performance effects rather than objectively verified behavioural outcomes.
In addition, the relative homogeneity of the sample, comprising established, institutionally structured REITs within the student accommodation sector, represents a deliberate boundary condition that enhances contextual depth but limits variability. Organisational characteristics such as firm size, age, ownership structure and technological orientation may shape how pay transparency is implemented and experienced. As such, the findings may not fully capture the dynamics present in smaller, newer or more technologically driven firms, where governance structures and pay systems may differ substantially.
Future research should extend this work by employing mixed-methods or quantitative designs to test the mechanisms identified in this study, including motivational clarity, self-regulation and fairness perceptions, across larger and more diverse samples and commission-driven sectors such as financial services, sales and insurance. Longitudinal research would further strengthen understanding by examining how the effects of pay transparency evolve over time, particularly following the implementation of transparency initiatives. Expanding research into other Global South contexts would deepen understanding of how historical inequality and institutional conditions shape transparency outcomes. Additionally, future comparative studies across firm types, such as new versus established organisations, large versus small firms and manual versus technology-driven environments, would provide deeper insight into how organisational characteristics moderate the relationship between pay transparency and job performance. Incorporating objective performance indicators alongside qualitative accounts would also enhance the robustness of findings and strengthen causal inference.
This study demonstrates that pay transparency, when implemented with procedural clarity and credible communication, enhances job performance in commission-driven contexts. Rather than functioning as a neutral disclosure practice, pay transparency operates as a performance signal shaped by employees’ fairness perceptions, influencing motivation, behavioural alignment and organisational trust. Its effects, however, depend on how transparency is designed and communicated. When transparency lacks adequate justification, it may intensify social comparison processes and undermine morale. Conversely, when implemented effectively, it strengthens performance focus and organisational stability. By integrating Equity theory and Agency theory, the study shows that pay transparency simultaneously addresses fairness evaluation needs and performance alignment challenges inherent in commission-based work. These findings advance a more context-sensitive understanding of pay transparency as a strategic HRM practice, with particular relevance for Global South environments characterised by structural inequality and historically embedded wage disparities. This study makes three interrelated contributions to scholarship. Firstly, it demonstrates that pay transparency operates as a performance signal, a governance mechanism and a fairness cue, with each function carrying heightened significance in Global South contexts shaped by historical wage inequality. Secondly, by integrating Equity theory and Agency theory, it provides a unified theoretical account of how transparency simultaneously addresses information ambiguity (which obscures fair social comparison) and information asymmetry (which enables misalignment between effort and reward). Thirdly, it identifies self-regulation as a previously undertheorised behavioural mechanism linking transparent pay structures to sustained individual performance in commission-driven environments. Taken together, these contributions advance a context-sensitive, theoretically integrated understanding of pay transparency that moves decisively beyond binary assessments of its benefits or risks.
This article is based on research originally conducted as part of Vhafuniwa B. Thagwana’s Master of Commerce in Human Resource Management dissertation titled ‘The effects of pay transparency on employees’ job performance in the South African property industry’, submitted to the College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, 2026. The thesis is currently unpublished and not publicly available. The dissertation was supervised by Calvin Mabaso and Mark Bussin. The dissertation was reworked, revised and adapted into a journal article for publication. The author confirms that the content has not been previously published or disseminated and that it complies with the ethical standards for original publication.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article. The author, Calvin Mabaso, serves as an editorial board member of this journal. The peer review process for this submission was handled independently, and the author had no involvement in the editorial decision-making process for this article. The authors have no other competing interests to declare.
Calvin Mabaso: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Vhafuniwa B. Thagwana: Conceptualisation, Data curation. Mark Bussin: Supervision. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Calvin Mabaso, upon reasonable request.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.