The relationship between layoff perception and survivors' work effort

  • Số trang: 96 |
  • Loại file: PDF |
  • Lượt xem: 21 |
  • Lượt tải: 0
minhtuan

Đã đăng 15929 tài liệu

Mô tả:

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business ------------------------------ MAI THI XUAN AI THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAYOFF PERCEPTION AND SURVIVORS’ WORK EFFORT MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours) Ho Chi Minh City - Year…2014… University of Economics, HCMC INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF BUSINESS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAYOFF PERCEPTION AND SURVIVORS’ WORK EFFORT By MAI THI XUAN AI Mbus 3.2 ID: 22120084 Supervisor DR. PHAM QUOC HUNG December, 2014 Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Pham Quoc Hung who has given me great supervision and advice in this process. His feedback, guidance and knowledge in the subject were very valuable throughout the whole process of this research. I feel a deep sense of gratitude to all respondents who spent their valuable time to answer my questionnaire and supply me with their knowledge and experiences in job performance and job motivation. Especially, I am moved and fired by the support of my dear friends who deliver my questionnaires to others to help me collect convenient data. I am grateful to my classmates in MBUS 3; they shared many interesting ideas and knowledge and assisted many sources for my research. Last but not the least; I am extremely thankful to my family who has given me outstanding support and understanding throughout my studies. December 08, 2014. Mai Thi Xuan Ai I Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. I Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. II List of Tables.......................................................................................................................... V List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... VI Abstract ...............................................................................................................................VII CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1 1.1 Research Background ..............................................................................................1 1.2 Research Problem .....................................................................................................3 1.4 Research Objectives .....................................................................................................4 1.5 Research question ........................................................................................................4 1.6 Research Contributions ...............................................................................................4 1.7 Research structure ........................................................................................................5 1.8 Summary........................................................................................................................5 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW, HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH MODEL ..................................................................................................................................................6 2.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................6 2.2 Literature review ..........................................................................................................6 2.2.1 Perceived threat........................................................................................................6 2.2.2 Perceived control......................................................................................................8 2.2.3 Perceived fairness ..................................................................................................10 2.2.4 Self-esteem ..............................................................................................................12 2.2.5 Economic need to work ..........................................................................................14 2.3 Research Model ...........................................................................................................16 CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...................................17 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................17 3.2 Research Process .........................................................................................................17 3.3 Construct Measurement .............................................................................................18 II 3.3.1. Measurement of Perceived threat..........................................................................18 3.3.2. Measurement of Perceived control........................................................................19 3.3.3. Measurement of Perceived Fairness .....................................................................20 3.3.4. Measurement of Self-esteem ..................................................................................20 3.3.5. Measurement of Economic Need to Work .............................................................21 3.3.6. Measurement of Work Effort .................................................................................22 3.4 Research Instruments .................................................................................................23 3.4.1 Survey Design .........................................................................................................23 3.4.2. In-depth Interview Design .....................................................................................23 3.5 Sampling Plan and Data Collection ..........................................................................25 3.6. Methods and Techniques...........................................................................................26 3.6.1. Descriptive Statistic Analysis ................................................................................26 3.6.2. Reliability Analysis - Cronbach’s Alpha ...............................................................26 3.6.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)....................................................................27 3.6.4. Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................28 3.7. Summary.....................................................................................................................28 CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ...........................................................29 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................29 4.2 Rewording....................................................................................................................29 4.3 Data analysis and result .............................................................................................30 4.3.1 Descriptive Statistic for Demographics .................................................................30 4.3.2 Descriptive Statistic for Variables .........................................................................32 4.3.3 Reliability Analysis- Cronbach’s Alpha .................................................................34 4.3.4 Confirmatory factor analysis..................................................................................36 4.3.5. Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................38 4.4. Summary of Key Findings and Discussion ..............................................................48 4.5 Summary......................................................................................................................51 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ....................52 5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................52 III 5.2. Managerial Implications ...........................................................................................52 5.3. Limitations and Suggestion for Further Researches ..............................................55 References .............................................................................................................................57 APPENDIX ...........................................................................................................................67 Appendix 1: Questionnaire ( in English version) ...........................................................67 Appendix 2: Questionnaire (In Vietnamese version) ....................................................71 Appendix 3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis ...................................................................75 Appendix 4: Multiple Regression Analysis....................................................................83 IV List of Tables Table 3.1. Scale items for Perceived Threat construct……………………......……………18 Table 3.2. Scale items for Perceived Control construct……………….…………………...19 Table 3.3. Scale items for Perceived Fairness construct ……….………………………….20 Table 3.4. Scale items for Self-esteem construct ………………………………………….21 Table 3.5. Scale items for Economic Need to Work ………………………………………22 Table 3.6. Scale items for Work Effort construct ………………………………………….22 Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistic for Demographics …….……………………...….………..29 Table 4.2. Rewording ………………………………………..…………………...………..30 Table 4.3. Descriptive Statistic for Variables ……………………………………..………32 Table 4.4. Reliability Analysis- Cronbach’s Alpha ………… …………………..……….35 Table 4.5. Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted ………………....……37 Table 4.6. Model Summary for Independent Variables ……………………...……..……..39 Table 4.7. Multiple Regression Results with Independent Variables………………..…….40 Table 4.8. Model Summary with Moderating Variable of Self-esteem………….…….….42 Table 4.9. Hierachical Regression Results with Moderating Variable of Self-esteem……45 Table 4.10. Model Summary with Moderating Variable of Economic Need to Work……46 Table 4.11. Hierachical Regression Results with Moderating Variable of Economic Need to Work……………………………………………………………………….………………47 Table 4.12. Results of Hypothesis Test……………………………………………………48 V List of Figures Figure 2.1. Research Model…………………………………………………………16 Figure 3.1. Research Process………………………………………………………..17 VI Abstract Layoff survivors' work effort is important for the successful and uninterrupted operations of the organizations that have undergone the process of restructuring in terms of work force reduction. The current study looks into the relationship of various factors relating to perceived threat, perceived control, perceived fairness, self-esteem and economic need to work associated with work effort of layoff survivors in selected organizations in Vietnam. Sample is selected on convenience basis with three hundred and nineteen participants (called survivors of layoff) from seven companies in garment industry and banking are located in Ho Chi Minh City and Binh Duong Province, which have undergone the process of downsizing .Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to measure model fit and illustrates the association between factors of layoff and work effort. The study used Multiple Regression analysis to analyze the relationship between factors of layoff and work effort, Hierarchical Multiple Regression to test the moderating effect of selfesteem and economic need to work on the relationship between perceived threat and work effort. Result indicates that perceived threat, perceived control, self-esteem has a statistically significant effect on work effort, however; perceived fairness and economic need to work are not related to work effort. Self-esteem and economic need to work in this study play role as independent variables and moderating variables. The findings of this study show that self-esteem moderates the relationship between perceived threat and work effort; perceived fairness and work effort; perceived control and work effort. Similarly, economic need to work also has the moderating effect on the relationship between perceived threat and work effort. Based on these findings, implications for managing downsizing, restructuring and layoff has been discussed. VII CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research Background The world has been globalised which has affected the structure and jobs of many organizations. Vietnam, like the countries of Asia has faced an economic crisis since 2007s which have created some hurdles for motivating the employees. There are improvements that organizations expect from implementing such restructuring strategies: decreased bureaucracy, faster decision making, increased productivity and better earnings (Arnold & Staffelbach, 2012, Introduction section). A mixture between the globalization and the economic crisis has forced many organizations to downsize and restructure to create layoff events and its impacts in job insecurity, layoff fairness among employers and employees, employees’ control in laying off situation, employees’ self-esteem and their economic need to work regarding to their work effort during and after layoff events. The present study was motivated from previous studies about layoff perception and its related issues published in many countries from Western, Eastern to Asia. A considerable amount of literature has been published on layoff perception. Surveys such as that conducted by Brockner (1992) showed that if perceived threat and control are both high, survivors should feel neither complacement nor helpless, and thus should work relatively hard. One decade later, Brockner et al., (2004) reported two cases tested which showed that the negative impact of layoffs on survivors’ organizational commitment was reduced when perceived control was relatively high. Another test showed that the tendency for survivors’ job performance to be adversely affected by high threat to their well-being was reduced when perceived control was relatively high. In other words, perceived control was more strongly related to employees’ organizational commitment in the presence than in the absence of layoffs and to survivors’ job performance when they experienced the post-layoff environment as more threatening. Several researchers pointed to some of the way when employers do not fulfill employees’ promises and obligations, the employees reciprocated by 1 altering his or her contributions to the organization (e.g. by reducing their efforts and performance). Thus, psychological contract breach was reported negatively related to employee job performance (Gouldner, 1960; Coyle-Shapiro, 2002; Turnley et al., 2003; Zhao et al., 2007; Bal et al., 2010). In 2010, Malik et al. published a paper in which they showed that organizational commitment and job satisfaction were the factors effecting productivity among layoff survivors. Moreover layoff survivors value pay and authority more as compared to work conditions. The pay and authority are the strong predictors of overall job satisfaction of layoff survivors as compared to the environment in which they work. Regarding to layoff fairness of employers or organization to employees in layoff situation, Wanberg et al. (1999) demonstrated that explanation is very important in the layoff process. Individuals who reported that they were given full explanations of why and how termination decisions were made were more likely to perceive their layoff as fair, be willing to endorse the terminating organization, and indicate they did not wish to take the past employer to court. Other discussions were on self-esteem into survivors’ work effort in layoff situation. Alternatively, self-esteem may be helpful only in some job contexts. Baumeister et al. (2003) showed that the modest correlations between self-esteem and school performance do not indicate that high self-esteem leads to good performance. Laboratory studies have generally failed to find that self-esteem causes good task performance (Baumeister et al., 2003). However, Brockner et al.(1988 & 1993) examined that” high levels of worry among low self-esteem survivors led them to work harder when the threat of future layoffs was high”, and that the worry level of low selfesteem survivors was unrelated to their work motivation when the threat of future layoffs was low. Furthermore, Brockner (1992) found that there was a moderating effect of economic need to work on the relationship between perceived threat of layoff and work effort. In conclusion, work effort in layoff situation is affected by many factors but in this scope of this study, Perceived Threat, Perceived Control, Perceived 2 Fairness, Self-esteem and Economic Need to Work will be focused to explain their relationship with Work Effort. 1.2 Research Problem Like the rest of East Asia, Vietnam suffered a sharp decline in economic growth rates in 2008 and 2009 as the region felt the impact of the global financial crisis (GFC) which spread from the United States and Europe to most countries on the globe. According to the Department of Employment (2009), Vietnam faced a number of challenges on the eve of the global financial crisis, experienced higher unemployment and other labor market problems. The topic of this thesis is about the aftermath in Vietnam companies after the economic downturn in 2008. During and after the crisis the focus has been on employees that lost their jobs and their livelihood because of the economic downturn. Unemployment rate rose considerably mainly because major investor countries such as Singapore, Japan, the US, Western Europe, etc. into Vietnam have decreased, a big number of enterprises have to narrow production, resulting in job lost and lack of work. The economic downturn created a unique research opportunity and the subject of survivors is very fitting at this time. Few years have passed since the crisis struck Vietnam and many survivors are still working for a downsized company. It will interesting to find out if survivors in Vietnam companies will experience the same reactions as can be found in other countries all over the world. 1.3 Research Scope The study focuses on layoff perception in the situations of downsizing and restructuring of organizations; it examines the effects of layoff to those who remain in the organizations during and after layoff wave. Study has a clear definition of the variables, and used the necessary statistics for the analysis process. Other relevant work on the effects of downsizing on survivors was also selected and analyzed. The correlated pairs of the following variables are presented in this research: Perceived 3 Threat, Perceived Control, Perceived Fairness, Self-esteem and Economic Need to Work. Studies are also examined for any possible relationships between those implemented in public and non-public organizations. 1.4 Research Objectives The purpose of this study is to identify the main factors of layoff affecting survivors’ work effort and how they affect to layoff survivors’ work effort in Vietnam. 1.5 Research question 1. What are the main factors of layoffs affecting survivors’ work effort in Vietnam? 2. How do these factors influencing survivors’ work effort in Vietnam? 1.6 Research Contributions Through the years, many previous researches have been conducted on survivors’ reactions to layoffs (Fisher, 1985; Brockner et al., 1987 & 1992 & 1993&1994; Bies, 1987; Konovsky & Folger, 1991; Knovsky & Brockner, 1993; Lim, 1996; Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998; Robbins, 1999). However, they mainly focused on separated phenomenon of survivors’ layoffs such as psychological contract breach and work performance (Robinson, 2000; Turnley,2003; Rust et al.,2005; Zhao et al.,2007; Bal et al.,2010), threat of future layoffs, self-esteem ( Brockner et al.,1993; Milstone,2001), perceived fairness of layoffs among individuals (Thibaut & Walker,1975; Wanberg et al., 1999), perceived control to the negative effects of layoffs on survivors’ organizational commitment and job performance (Greenberger et al., 1989; Brockner et al.,2004), social support for survivors’ layoffs( House,1981; Kirmeyer & Dougherty, 1988; Lim, 1996). Despite the large number of researches studies on layoff and behaviors of employees during and after layoff none of the study has been conducted on the complicated relationships among the effects of layoff perceived threat, perceived fairness, perceived control, self-esteem and economic need to work at the same time, especially in Vietnam context. Therefore, this study aims at filling the gap in the recent literature on the survivors’ reactions to layoffs. 4 The current study is based on the findings from the data collection to verify the literature review. In addition, it provides a fuller theoretical understanding of layoff perceptions in relation to the factors affecting survivors’ work effort such as perceived threat, perceived fairness, perceived control, self-esteem and economic need to work in reacting during and after layoff events. Meanwhile, the findings also suggest some recommendations for employers in managing human resources well; fairness in firing employees; how to communicate cleverly in layoff situation in order to keep the remaining workforce continuing with companies and motivating their work effort. 1.7 Research structure The research consists of five chapters. In the first chapter an introduction to the research is put forward and research problem is analyzed. The second chapter presents the literature review, hypotheses and research model. The third chapter covers the methodology with reliability analysis – Cronbach’s Alpha, confirmatory factor analysis and multiple regression analysis used in this thesis. In chapter four the results from the study is presented. In chapter five, discussion of findings, conclusion and recommendation for future research are discussed. 1.8 Summary Chapter one is written with research background, research problems, research question, research objectives, research contributions and research structure. It describes the context of labor market in Vietnam, especially in Ho Chi Minh City and Binh Duong Province. In which layoff events have influences on work effort of the remaining workforce in the organizations. The study suggests exploring why layoff affects on work effort of the remaining employees during and after layoff events. Besides, the findings of this study are hopefully recommended to management board to create policies to develop human resources in their companies; to consider before giving firing decisions; to set up the communicating strategies before, during and after layoff events. The next chapter provides the literature of layoff events (including 5 perceived threat, perceived control, perceived fairness, self-esteem and economic need to work), work effort, the relationship between work effort and each factor of layoff events. CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW, HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH MODEL 2.1 Introduction Chapter two provides the literature review of concepts used in this. For each concept, there is an association with the work place of office employees. After that the research model and hypotheses will checked with the background of literature. 2.2 Literature review 2.2.1 Perceived threat Throughout the economic recession of 2007–2009 organizations reduced personnel through downsizing and layoffs leading to widespread increase in job insecurity even for those who remain employed (Modrek & Cullen, 2013). By definition, Dae-seok Kang & Kim (2012) defined that perceived threat reflects the worries related to the continuation of the present job. It includes the fear of losing one's job and unemployment, or having certain roles or responsibilities being removed, or being assigned certain tasks or responsibilities that are less desirable. Perceived threat makes it difficult to react adequately due to ambiguity and this leaves the employee with “the sense of an uncontrollable situation and powerlessness” (p.316). Perceived threat itself can have a destructive impact on employees as well as on organisations (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 2010). Arnold & Staffelbach (2012) explained that, for employees, surviving a restructuring can feel threatening because they do not know how the change will affect the future continuity of their present job. During restructuring, employees do not only feel insecure about the changing priorities of the organisation and the probability of losing their job. It is not uncommon for survivors to worry about the possibility of future layoffs, which, in 6 turn, could influence their work behaviors and attitudes. When survivors believe that future layoffs are likely, they are bound to feel worry (Brockner, 1988). Milstone (2001), in discussing the workers under threat of layoff let safety measures slide, mentioned that the economy is in a downturn and along with it comes the threat of layoff and emotional stress. But that's not all. According to a new study on workplace pressures, when workers feel that their jobs are threatened, they tend to step up production, thereby easing up on safety standards and placing themselves at risk for injuries and accidents. These are the conclusions of a study on workers at a large U.S. food processing company who were experiencing threat of layoff... Psychologists Tahira Probst and Ty surveyed food processors at two different plants, one where employees had recently seen colleagues on another shift laid off under threat of plant closure, and another plant where some of the employees were required to change their working hours to the night shift or risk layoff. Workers are surveyed at the time of these stressful changes and six months later. At each of these times, workers indicate how often during a typical shift they will "ignore safety rules and regulations at work" or "take shortcuts to get the job done faster." They are also asked to indicate their level of agreement (or disagreement) with statements such as "my job is almost guaranteed" or "the future is vague." Results show that workers who experience the most stress and worry over losing their jobs tended to increase their production by easing up on safety precautions over time and, consequently, experienced more workplace injuries and accidents. Because the food processing plant work requires repetitive procedures with sharp implements, the injuries mostly involved abrasions, cuts or gashes to the wrists, hands or arms. The researchers speculate that, under threat of layoff, the workers were working harder and faster, hoping to make themselves more valuable to the company, thereby cutting corners and paying insufficient attention to safety precautions. In the study of layoff and surviving employees'- the relationship between job insecurity and work effort of Brockner et al (1994), the results indicate that moderate levels of job insecurity in the 7 face of layoffs will lead survivors to increase work effort, particularly when they are the major breadwinners in their households. The data also indicates that most respondents viewed the threat of a layoff as high and their ability or the firm's ability to minimize the consequences as low. Employees who have a high economic need to work expressed a significant amount of worry concerning the future of their jobs. These results suggest that retailers who anticipate layoffs need to handle layoffs in ways that create moderate levels of job insecurity. In doing so, employees who perceive a high likelihood of losing their jobs will also feel as if they can exert some control over the situation and will work harder. Therefore H1 is proposed: H1: Perceived threat has a positive effect on survivors’ work effort 2.2.2 Perceived control Conceptual models of control and empirical evidence suggest that one’s social context, including work, is a key source of perceived control (Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010). Experiencing job loss can be expected to shape perceived control through sizeable changes to one’s living contexts. To begin with, unemployment is a life transition that produces numerous stressors that disrupt people’s lives such as having difficulty supporting one’s family and needing to find new employment, which often impose considerable load on one’s adaptive system (Pearlin, 2010). Second, experiences at work and social interactions in the work context are often a key source of one’s sense of control. In job loss situation, opportunities for mastery experiences are constrained and access to social relationships is reduced (Heckhausen et al., 2010). Organizational psychologists have conceptualized perceived control in two related but distinct ways that are not mutually exclusive (Greenberger et al., 1989; Spector, 1986). One conception (the “self-determination” framework) suggests that people’s sense of control depends upon whether they perceive their behavior to be selfdetermined versus coerced, or to use DeCharms’ (1968) terminology, whether they 8 see themselves as “origins” who initiate behavior versus “pawns” who simply react to their environments. To the extent that survivors perceive that they have high levels of discretion over or input into their work activities, they are likely to experience a high degree of perceived control. A second conception suggests that perceived control depends upon how much people believe that important outcomes are contingent upon, rather than independent of, their behavior (Rotter, 1966). To the extent that they believe that their behavior influences important outcomes, they are likely to experience a high degree of perceived control. For example, people are likely to believe that their behavior influences important outcomes if they see themselves as having high levels of ability to perform the task at hand, or if they see themselves as being able to influence those parties who control important outcomes (Seligman, 1998). In sum, perceived control is reflected in employees’ perceptions of selfdetermination and/or impact, and will be treated as such in the present studies. Moreover, employees’ perceived control results from dispositional and/or situational factors, although it is beyond the scope of the present studies to evaluate the relative influence of dispositional and situational factors on perceived control. Some employees are dispositionally more likely to perceive control than others (e.g., Rotter’s locus of control, 1966), and some post-layoff work environments are likely to be more control-promoting than others (Mishra et al., 1998). According to Brockner (2004), layoffs handled in ways that address survivors’ need to perceive that they have control are likely to lead to more positive consequences, for both organizations and employees alike. When threat to well-being was relatively high, perceived control was significantly (and positively) related to survivors’ job performance, b = .25, p < .01. However, when threat to well-being was relatively low, perceived control was not significantly related to survivors’ job performance. Threat to well-being and perceived control (both assessed six months earlier) interacted to influence survivors’ job performance. 9 Perceived control was more positively related to survivors’ work effort when threat to well-being was relatively high (Brockner, 2004). Therefore, H2 is proposed: H2: Perceived control has a positive effect on survivors’ work effort 2.2.3 Perceived fairness Fairness conception has been shown in researches as diverse as personnel selection and staffing, performance appraisal, compensation and benefits, resource allocation, conflict resolution, layoffs, and other human resource functions (David, 2011, para.2). Most previous studies on the determinants of survivors’ reactions have examinated the role of perceived fairness. Research has shown that when layoff survivors (individuals who are not laid off) view layoff procedures at their organization to be unfair, they are likely to exhibit decreased morale, self-esteem, organizational commitment, trust, and productivity (Brockner, Grover, Reed, DeWitt, & O Mailey, 1987; Brockner, Wiesenfeld, & Martin, 1995; Konovsky & Brockner, 1993). In a similar manner, layoff victims' (individuals who were laid off) perceptions of their past organization having poor procedures for making layoff decisions have been associated with a desire for regulation of layoffs and an unwillingness to recommend the past employer to others (Konovsky & Folger, 1991). Literature suggests that there are three main forms of organizational justice; distributive, procedural and interactional (Brockner & Greenberg, 1990; David, 2011). Distributive justice (Homans, 1961) or 'outcome fairness' is the extent to which the procedures used in making an allocation decision are legitimate and appropriate (Daly & Geyer, 1994). For example, the fairness of the selection criteria used in a redundancy situation to decide which employees are to remain and who are to leave. Survivors who believe that the outcomes associated with the layoff are unfair are more likely to react adversely to the layoff. For example, the fewer 10 survivors believe an organization offered concrete benefits to a layoff’s victims, the more likely they are to perceive the layoff as distributively unfair (Brockner, 1992). Over the past three decades, research has clearly indicated that people are concerned not only about the fairness of outcomes, but also the fairness of the process (called procedural justice) that determines or leads to these outcomes (David, 2011). Procedural justice (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) is the extent to which the procedures used in making the allocation decision are seen as fair (e.g., the way in which management conveyed the news of the redundancy). Survivors who believe the procedure used to implement a layoff were unfair are likely to react unfavorably to it (Brockner, 1992). Recent studies have also highlighted an important form of the third fairness known as interactional fairness (or interactional justice).It is related to the interpersonal treatment an individual has received, interactional justice (Bies, 1987). For example, whether the organization or management explained to the individual the reasons underlying the decisions that were made, this view is supported by Astrachan (1995) who suggests that anxiety is stimulated by the mere announcement that people in the organization are leaving. Wanberg et al. (1999) inserted that explanation is very important in the layoff process. Individuals who reported that they were given full explanations of why and how termination decisions were made were more likely to perceive their layoff as fair, be willing to endorse the terminating organization, and indicate they did not wish to take the past employer to court. While the vast majority of managers and leaders want to be fair and believe that they are, it is nevertheless not uncommon that employees or members of public often think and feel that they have not been treated fairly. This suggests employers should have the communication strategies. Recently, David (2011) stated in his study that interactional fairness may be further subdivided into “informational fairness and interpersonal fairness”. Informational fairness is about people's expectation that they should receive adequate information 11
- Xem thêm -