1 / 23

The Process of Downsizing: Task Performance and Organizational Commitment as Layoff Criteria*

The Process of Downsizing: Task Performance and Organizational Commitment as Layoff Criteria*. Rick Iverson Faculty of Business Administration Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 CANADA.

kenaz
Télécharger la présentation

The Process of Downsizing: Task Performance and Organizational Commitment as Layoff Criteria*

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Process of Downsizing: Task Performance and Organizational Commitment as Layoff Criteria* Rick Iverson Faculty of Business Administration Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 CANADA *The research reported herein was supported by an Australian Research Council Grant A79331468

  2. Downsizing is Ubiquitous US: March 2008 job cuts of over 60,000 is most in past 5 years1 UK: Around 40% of companies looking to conduct layoffs (2008 survey)2 1(http://www.bls.gov/mls/) 2 http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/02/11/44360/cipdkpmg-labour-mark).

  3. Australian Banking Industry Four major banks dominate the industry, with combined profits totaling approximately $17 billion for 2006/2007. During the late 1990s the closure of more than 1150 branches nationally

  4. Motivation for Study • Theoretical: • Impacts of layoffs on survivors • Fair process, increased communication, and alternative workforce reduction strategies • Criteria to select out employees to be laid-off (and in turn select survivors) • Task performance and organizational commitment • Practical: • Legal ramifications of a wrong layoff decision are significant (can cost over $100,000 per suit to defend) (Lind, Greenberg, Scott, & Welchans, 2000).

  5. Task (focal) Performance is defined as “the proficiency with which job incumbents perform activities that are formally recognized as part of their jobs” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p.73).

  6. Task Performance • Human capital theories • Performance appraisal: • Rewards • Performance weakness • Low performers • Firing and laying off • Legal mechanism

  7. Hypothesis 1 Task performance is negatively related to the likelihood of an employee being laid-off.

  8. Organizational Commitment the degree of loyalty an individual has to an organization and includes “a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values” (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974, p. 604).

  9. Organizational Commitment • Social exchange theories Shore et al. (1995) note that the “categorization of employees by managers appears to set in motion an exchange relationship that directly influences managerial treatment of the employees” (p.1595). • Promotability • Managerial potential • Rewards

  10. Organizational Commitment • Breach of psychological contract (Brockner et al., 1992) • Emotional toll on managers • Emotional exhaustion • Managers less committed • Managers have lower performance • Reduce guilt and conflict • Extra-role behaviors • Greater control coping

  11. Hypothesis 2 Organizational commitment is negatively related to the likelihood of an employee being laid-off.

  12. Interaction • Resources allocation framework (Bergeron, 2007) • Performance appraisals- task performance • Organizational commitment

  13. Hypothesis 3 The negative relationship between organizational commitment and the likelihood of an employee being laid-off is moderated by task performance, such that the negative relationship will be stronger when task performance is low than when task performance is high.

  14. Methodology • Research setting The setting for this research is an Australian-based international banking organization. The bank has around 20,000 full-time equivalent staff across some 1600 branches and business outlets • Sample The sample comprised 3126 Australian bank employees (following listwise deletion). The staff were predominately non-managers (72%), female (63%), unionized (67%) and full-time (73%). The average tenure and education of employees were 8.76 years (s.d.=7.69) and 10.99 years (s.d.=2.88), respectively • Data collection A multiple-item survey was administered during working hours in February 1995 to a random sample of 5,978 employees) (61% response rate) from the various state bank branches and business outlets in Australia. Surveys were coded with identification numbers so as to match respondents to organizational records (i.e., layoffs and performance).

  15. Methodology • Measurement • Dependent variable • Layoffs. We measured layoffs as the duration of time before being laid-off during a five year period (from February 1, 1995 to June 1, 2000). One-hundred and fifty-six employees were laid-off during this time period, representing a layoff rate of 5.16 percent (as percentage of the final sample). • Independent variables • Task performance. Supervisory performance ratings were obtained from the banks records. A 5-point global scale ranging from (1) unsatisfactory to (5) outstanding, where the proportion of employees receiving a 1 (unsatisfactory) was 0.3 percent, a 2 (adequate) was 11.4 percent, a 3 (fully competent) was 60.5 percent, a 4 (commendable) was 27.3 percent, and a 5 (outstanding) was 0.4 percent. (M=3.16, SD=.63). • Organizational commitment. This was operationalized using the 9-item short form of Porter et al. (1974). Example items include “I am proud to tell others that I am part of the organization”, “I find that my values and the bank are very similar”, “The bank really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance”, and “I really care about the fate of the bank.” Respondents used a 5-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree) and the alpha coefficient for the 9-item measure is .87.

  16. Methodology • Control Variables • Employee attitudes • Job opportunities (Price & Mueller, 1981; 1986: 3-items: α=.88) • Job security (Oldham, Kulik, Ambrose, & Stepina, 1986: α=.81) • Job satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951: 3-items: α=.84) • Routinization (Price & Mueller, 1986:3-items: α=.76) • Demographic variables • Manager (1=manager; 0= non-manager), female (1=female, 0=male), education (years), tenure (years), full-time (1=full-time, 0= part- time or casual), and union membership (1=union member, 0=nonmember).

  17. Analysis • Event history analysis (Allison, 1984; Yamaguchi, 1991) allows researchers to view layoffs as a “time-dependent variable” that changes depending on the duration it takes for an individual to be laid-off • Event history analysis allows researchers to simultaneously predict both the occurrence of a layoff and the timing of the event. The measurement window in this study was between February 1, 1995 (when we surveyed employees) and June 1, 2000 (when we obtained employment status information) and entered them in the baseline model (Allison, 1995) • We followed the procedure as recommended by Aiken and West (1991) to the test the interaction between task performance and organizational commitment on layoffs

  18. Results T able 2 Cox Proportional Hazard Model of Layoffs Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Control variables J ob opportunities .073 .029 .026 Job security - .190 - .123 - .119 * Job satisfaction - .337 ** - .183 - .171 Rout i nization .253 .262 .267 Manager - .176 - .117 - .100 Female .305 .318 .325 Education - .007 - .009 - .011 Tenure .097 *** .097 *** .096 *** Full - time .539 .536 .555 * * * Union member .002 .028 .034 Predictor variables Task p erformance - . 304 ** * - . 268 *** Organizational commitment - . 3 33 * * - . 3 22 * * a Interaction term Task p erformance x Organizational commitment . 256 * * - 2 Log - likelihood - 1124.66*** - 1120.72*** - 1119.90*** b D .089 .095 .098 Note . N=3 126 . Predict or X Time variables entered in equations but not shown in table. a Variables were ‘centered’ prior to computing interaction term. b 2 2 2 c c Current research co nsiders that “ D is similar to the R value used regression models: D = / (n - K + ), where n = sample size and K = number of variables” (Sheridan, 1992, p. 1047). *** p <.001 . One - tailed test. * p <.05 ; ** p <.01 ;

  19. 0.6 0.4 Low 0.2 Likelihood of Performance Layoff 0 High Performance -0.2 -0.4 Low High Organization Commitment Figure 1. Moderating effect of task performance on the relationship between organizational commitment and likelihood of layoff

  20. Implications • In-role and extra-role contributions • Commitment-layoff relationship moderated by task performance • Human capital and social exchange theories

  21. Job Performance • Relational and contextual dimensions • Task performance, organizational commitment, and OCBs (Colquitt et al., 2007) • 30 percent of performance is contextual (Morman & Motowidlo, 1993)

  22. Organizational Commitment • The role of prior commitment (Brockner et al., 1992) • Fair process • LMX and halo effects • Favoritism and politics

  23. Conclusion • Task performance and organizational commitment • Trade-off between low performance and high commitment • Theoretical development

More Related