Abstract Downsizing has been a common cost-cutting activity for organisations in the last 25 years. Literature in this area has focused mainly on the effects that redundancy may have on people leaving the organisation. However, some research has investigated the effect it may have on the employees who were not made redundant, and from this the concept of ‘Survivor Syndrome’ was created.
There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay topic for only $13.90/page Tell us what you need to have done now!
It has been established that redundancy processes result in negative emotions being felt by survivors, such as less job satisfaction, mistrust in the organisation, less pride in the organisation and they feel that the organisation is not supporting them as much. These are just a few of the symptoms that have been associated with the syndrome. However, some research has suggested that Survivor syndrome is a myth, or can be prevented. This study presents the findings of a company-based study, in which employees opinions and emotions were investigated prior to and post-redundancies.
It argues that symptoms of survivor syndrome are present in employees after the downsizing process has occurred, and that it is more prominent in non-managerial employees than in managers within the organisation. The study suggests that the way in which the organisation rolls out the process of redundancies, and the way in which employees are treated, both those remaining within the company and those leaving, can result in these negative emotions being felt.
This suggests that effective management of employees during the process and after can decrease the likelihood that survivor syndrome will be present within the organisation, and Corus and other organisations going through similar situations should utilise methods that are recommended in order to help avoid the syndrome occurring. 1 1. Introduction There has been an increasing amount of research in recent years examining the effect of downsizing and redundancies on those employees who remain within the organisations after redundancies have taken place.
Downsizing is defined as ‘a deliberate organisational decision to reduce the workforce size and to change working practices, in order to improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the organisation’ (Freeman & Cameron, 1993), and has been described as ‘probably the most pervasive yet understudied phenomenon in the business world’ (Cameron, 1994). This is a particularly relevant subject due to the current economic climate, and the large number of organisations that have had to partake in downsizing due to the recession. The number of organisations and jobs affected by redundancy in Britain is staggering’ according to Campbell, Worrall and Cooper (2000), and this figure will have only increased since the start of the recession, as evidenced by the 22 million people in Europe who were unemployed in July 2009, 5 million more than the year before ‘and it is highly likely that the full force of the recession has yet to fully impact on the labour market’ (Hurley et al, 2009).
The statistics that are available are behind the situation slightly, due to the time it takes to collect the data, and the fact that the situation is constantly changing. A Quality of Working Life Survey conducted by UMIST and the Institute of Management measured the extent of organisational change occurring in the UK over three years, and it found that there had been a 8% increase in organisational change, and a 3% rise in redundancy because of this (Campbell, Worrall and Cooper, 2000).
An increase in redundancies can also be due to the constant technological advances (Rifkin, 1999). Britain was found to suffer more job losses than any other country in the EU in 2008, according to Eurofound (Hurley et al, 2009). In a study of 1000 human resource and finance professionals conducted by Mercer in 2008, it was found that 35% of the organisations were expecting to make large-scale cuts in their workforce (Pitcher, 2008).
Pitcher (2008) found evidence showing that the production and manufacturing sector were the hardest hit by downsizing, with 48% of the organisations who said they would be making 2 redundancies being in that sector. The Labour Force Survey (2001) found that the rate of redundancies per 1000 employees was highest in the manufacturing sector (16 per 1000 employees). A study conducted by Eurostat intimates that employment in the metal industry went from 2. 8% between 2007 and 2008 to -4. 2% between 2008 and 2009 in the UK.
A pattern that has been identified is that the majority of those people being made redundant are skilled, semi-skilled and low skilled manual workers. Possibly because of this, there have been a much higher number of men identified as being made redundant compared to women in this recession (Eurostat, 2009, as cited in Hurley et al, 2009). Wolfsmith et al (cited in Farias & Johnson, 2000) estimate that the success rate of large-scale change interventions average 50%, suggesting that downsizing may not have the positive effects for an organisation like they may have hoped.
A large amount of research has found redundancy causes a number of negative effects for the organisation, such as loss of skills, and it can result in victims of redundancy feeling emotions such as anger and frustration (Sahdev, 2003; Reynolds-Fisher & White, 2000). However, there has not been as much of a focus aimed at the ‘survivors’ of redundancy, those employees who remain at an organisation after downsizing has occurred. This may be because people make an assumption that the survivors of redundancy feel relief, happiness and security.
Literature that has looked at this topic has resulted in some interesting findings that put into question the above. Since the theory of the ‘Survivor Syndrome’ was founded, the amount of research into this topic has grown, and researchers have attempted to investigate the affect that organisational downsizing has had on survivors in terms of their emotions and their performance using a range of methodologies. The term ‘Survivor Syndrome’ in general describes a ‘set of shared reactions and behaviours of people who have survived an adverse event’ (Baruch & Hind, 2000).
This term has then been borrowed by Brockner (1992) and put in to a management context, in order to give a picture of the impact of redundancies on ‘survivors’, which are those who remain within an organisation after significant downsizing of the workforce. The theory of ‘survivor syndrome’ within organisations that have undergone downsizing occurred over 20 years ago. Schweiger & Ivancevich (1985) discovered that the way redundancies are conducted affect the wellbeing and health of survivors. Similarly Sutton et al (1986) found that in a computer game manufacturing company 3 here large scale redundancies were poorly executed, many of the survivors quit a short time after the downsizing occurred. However, there has also been studies conducted that have found that survivor syndrome has not occurred within a recently downsized organisation (Baruch & Hind, 2000; Latack & Dozier, 1986). The debate about whether survivor syndrome actually exists is still ongoing, and there are results to support both sides of the argument. In a way to explain the difference of opinion, some researchers believe that redundancies have different effects on survivors, depending on a number of demographics.
For instance, the age of the employee can affect their response (Baruch & Hind, 2000). In the last two decades, since these results were founded the amount of research exploring the idea of survivor syndrome, and examination of the emotions and attitudes of employees remaining at organisations once redundancies have taken place has increased dramatically, and it has become a key focal point in redundancy research. This is especially true in the current economic climate, where downsizing is more prominent.
Conducting a study to examine if survivor syndrome is existent within an organisation that has had to partake in large scale downsizing in the past is an extremely topical and interesting subject at any time, but even more so due to the current recession and the fact that the redundancies have occurred fairly recently, within the last two to three years. This piece of writing aims to identify the presence of Survivor Syndrome within a large manufacturing company, by identifying specific symptoms, in order to give some insight into the argument of whether survivor syndrome exists, or of it is a myth.
If the syndrome is found to be in existence, then the study will be extended to discover which employees tend to be more affected by the syndrome, and explanations for this. Whether the analysis shows that Survivor Syndrome is or is not present within the organisation, this study will look in-depth at the methods used by the manufacturing company when conducting the downsizing programme, in order to see if the programme put in place is the reason for the presence / lack of presence of survivor syndrome in employees remaining with the company post-downsizing. 2. Literature Review Research into the effects of downsizing has increased in prominence since the increase in redundancies in the last two decades. As previously mentioned, the research has focused on the people who have been made redundant, and the outcomes for them. However, early research has mentioned briefly the effects that downsizing has on employees remaining within the company. Astrachan (1995) state that ’employees remaining within an organisation experience adverse effects of change as profoundly as those ho have left the company’, and there has been growing popularity in research looking at this theory of ‘survivor syndrome’, dating back to the 1980’s. This literature review will look at redundancies in the UK, redundancies specifically within the manufacturing industry, why survivor syndrome occurs, and then look more in depth at specific symptoms that have been identified and investigated. 2. 1 Redundancies Since the mid-1990’s ‘the number of people being made redundant has remained at a low and fairly stable level.
But with the economy experiencing what is at best expected to be the sharpest economic downturn since the recession of the 1990’s, redundancy is again on the rise’ (CIPD, 2009). The table below shows the pattern of redundancies prior to and straight after the beginning of the recession, according to the Labour Force Survey from the Office of National Statistics (2008). As can be seen from figure 1 above, the redundancy figures were low from 2005 to quarter 3 in 2008. However, the number of redundancies more than doubled between quarter 2 and quarter 4 in 2008, going from 126,000 people to 263,000 people in less than 6 months.
This coincided with the announcement of the UK recession in October 2008. The table shows that redundancy figures have reduced towards the end of 2009 and during 2010, but between quarter 4 of 2008 and quarter 3 of 2009, redundancy figures were very high. 2. 1. 1 Overview of redundancies within the Steel Industry With regards to the manufacturing industry, the ONS Labour Force Survey shows that it suffered from the highest percentage of redundancies in 2008 and 2009, 5 although this has decreased slightly.
In 2008, quarter 4, 22. 1% of redundancies were accounted for by the manufacturing industry. Figure 1. Table showing Redundancy levels and rates Year 2005 Quarter Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Level of People (000s) 131 132 163 145 138 140 144 133 141 121 136 110 106 126 164 263 284 272 213 168 161 155 Rate of people 5. 3 5. 3 6. 5 5. 8 5. 5 5. 6 5. 7 5. 3 5. 6 4. 8 5. 4 4. 3 4. 2 5. 0 6. 4 10. 3 11. 2 10. 8 8. 6 6. 8 6. 5 6. 3 2006 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2007 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2008 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2009 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2010 Q1 Q2
Source: ONS Labour Force Survey According to Stuart (2005), this sector has been ‘subject to ongoing periods of restructuring over the last 30 years, due to the forces of increased competition and technological advancement’. During this time period, the number of people employed within this sector has declined significantly, and it is thought this pattern will continue to be seen in future years (Stuart, 2005). 6 2. 1. 2 Corus The organisation that is being investigated in this study is Corus Distribution UK & Ireland.
Corus, as a whole, are the second largest steel producer in Europe, and became a subsidiary of Tata Steel Group, one of the world’s top 10 steel producers, in April 2007. Previous to this acquisition, the origins of Corus began in 1999, when British Steel and Dutch based company Koninklijke Hoogovens merged, creating a much larger company, operating all over Europe, and employing about 37,000 people. When announcing the merger, Corus stated that the ‘basis for the merger is to provide a platform for growth, not retrenchment’ and that the hope was to minimise job losses (Corus, 1999).
However, this merger was the start of a number of redundancy programmes run by Corus. The area of the company being looked at in this study, Corus Distribution UK & I, announced a downsizing programme in November 2008, which involved a number of redundancies throughout the organisation. Further redundancies were then announced in January 2009, as the organisation had taken the decision to close a number of sites, and reduce the number of employees at nearly all other sites as well.
The time period where these redundancies occurred coincide with the period of time in figure 1 that had the largest amount of redundancies. Within Corus Distribution UK & Ireland, 400 employees were expected to be made redundant. However, by the end of the downsizing process, this figure had been reduced to 380 redundancies being made in total. The redundancies were announced a few months prior to the actual job cuts, and were announced via the local manager or director of that area of the business, depending on how many redundancies were being made within that business area.
The communication during the process was both verbal and via formal letters, and this was the same when telling the employees that they were being made redundant. Corus offered support to those employees being made redundant, including redeployment support and help and advice from outside organisations such as Job Centre and PACE. However, there was no formal programme put into place to aide those employees who were not being made redundant. Instead, the Employee Assistance Programme was advertised as a helpline, and communication between managers and employees was encouraged y senior management. 7 2. 2 Survivor Syndrome an overview – Schweiger & Ivancevich (1985) discovered that the way redundancies are conducted affect the wellbeing and health of survivors. This may have been the basis of further research into this topic, along with research conducted by Sutton et al (1986) that investigated the large scale downsizing of a computer game manufacturer, and found that it was poorly executed, resulting in many of the survivors leaving the company only a short while later.
Brockner leads the way in research on ‘survivor syndrome’. In one early experiment, students participated in a layoff simulation, and were then asked to fill in a questionnaire. The experiment found survivors to feel increased remorse and negative attitudes to their co-workers (Brockner, 1985). These results helped to encourage the theory of survivor syndrome, but the responses were immediate, and so it was questioned if this experiment actually represented real feelings when facing job loss, and what the long-term effects were.
In order to respond to these criticisms, Brockner (1986) followed up this research with a field study, where the results served to emphasise his earlier findings, and found common emotions suffered by survivors were anger, anxiety, guilt and relief. In further research conducted by Brockner (1988), he went on to discover that stress results in changes in survivors work attitudes and behaviours, for example less commitment to the organisation they work for, decreased job satisfaction and a higher turnover at the organisation.
Noer (1993) also conducted research into emotions common amongst those employees remaining within an organisation after downsizing has occurred. He found symptoms of ‘survivor sickness’ prominent in his subjects, including fear, anxiety, guilt, depression, anger, risk aversive and defensive. He found that these symptoms were influenced by the level of injustice perceived in the redundancy process, and the extent to which the survivors’ psychological contracts are changing. Noer (1993) created the Emotional Clusters of Redundancy Survivors, shown in figure 2. 8
From figure 2, the common negative emotions felt by survivors of redundancy can be identified, and this has been supported by research conducted in the more recent past (Doherty, Bank & Vinnicombe, 1996; Bordia et al, 2004). Another reaction that has been identified is that employees tend to become more loyal to their own careers than to the organisation (Reilly, Brett & Stroh, 1993). It has also been shown that survivors who have not experienced redundancy before exhibit more negative reactions than those who have been a part of the process previously (Armstongstassen, 1993).
When analysing previous research looking at the effects of redundancy on survivors, similar symptoms have been noted. Tait (2010) investigated a plethora of research and found the most common symptoms of the syndrome include lower motivation and morale, reduced loyalty to the organisation, higher stress levels, lower trust, increased scepticism about the organisation, feelings of guilt about surviving the cutbacks and sometimes even jealousy of those who have been made redundant, perhaps because of the redundancy packages they have received.
Campbell, Worrall & Cooper (2000) conducted research that involved in-depth, semi-structured interviews, and supported this by following up with a questionnaire, looking at variables including loyalty, commitment and stress. The most frequent emotions identified from the interviews included unfairness, mistrust, shock, low morale, worry, stress, and feeling overworked and unmotivated amongst others. The questionnaire included 15 different emotions measuring the levels of threat, challenge, harm and benefit, with responses measured on a likert scale.
The results of the questionnaire supported the findings from the interviews, finding the most popular feelings were tiredness, stress, anger, worry and disappointment. These results are evidence that Survivor syndrome is in existence. Organisations need to be aware of these symptoms, and should attempt to avoid, or reduce the prevalence of symptoms of survivor syndrome, as it can have detrimental effects on the organisation in question. A firm’s post-layoff success is contingent upon the reactions of the people in its surviving workforce’ (Shah, 2000) and so it is crucial that survivors are looked after, in order for an organisation to perform successfully in the aftermath of the downsizing programme. 9 Figure 2: Noer’s (1993) Emotional Clusters of Redundancy Survivors Job Insecurity Depression, Stress & Fatigue Unfairness Risk aversion and reduced motivation Survivor Syndrome Emotions / Concerns Lack of management credibility Distrust and betrayal Lack of Strategic Direction
Dissatisfaction with planning and communication Lack of reciprocal commitment Anger over redundancy progress If this ‘sickness’ is present within an organisation, lower productivity, higher absenteeism and higher turnover can be observed (Clarke, 2010). Travaglione & Cross (2006) state that ‘the emotional after-effects of fear, anger, frustration, anxiety and mistrust pose a real threat to performance and productivity’ and this is thought to be in part down to the increase in workload that employees will face due to there being a smaller workforce, according to Mirabel & De Young (2005).
A general outlook on this subject states; ‘It is commonly asserted that so-called ‘survivor syndrome’ has a negative effect on workplace productivity and thus increases the cost to employers of redundancy. A reduction in employee engagement might also result in a higher rate of voluntary labour turnover’ (CIPD, 2009). 10 This basic explanation clarifies that organisations will suffer from lower productivity if survivor syndrome is present within the company. Therefore it is crucial to understand why some employees may feel these negative emotions, and how this can be avoided. . 3 Theories offering explanations for the existence of Survivor Syndrome Theories have been developed to explain different reactions, for instance Side-bet theory (Becker, 1960) and Identity theory (Burke, 1991). These theories offer different explanations for why employees may feel some negative emotions subsequent to the redundancy process. 2. 3. 1 Side-bet theory Side-bet theory was created by Becker (1960) and is a calculative approach, focusing on structural relationships.
It is where over time, the cost of leaving increases, and becomes more than the cost of moving to another organisation, and this is thought to result in negative job attitudes. If Side-bet theory is to be relied upon, middle aged survivors feel more severe negative effects, and see the downsizing in general as a violation of their psychological contract. Younger employees are better equipped to struggle through the restructuring, as they have a new psychological contract. . 3. 2 Identity Theory Identity theory is more of a moral approach and is focused on role identity in an organisation for self-identification (Burke, 1991). The more important the job role is to a person’s self-identification, the stronger the impact of job stressors on the employee’s wellbeing and job attitudes will be. Based on this theory, the most affected by the downsizing are older employees, who feel that they have invested time and effort and are being betrayed.
The least affected, according to identity theory, are middle aged employees, as they believe that because they have survived, they are recognised as a contributor (Baruch & Hind, 2000), and therefore they have better attitudes and enhanced performance once downsizing has occurred. In terms of younger workers, they will not have formed organisational commitment or an 11 identity and therefore their involvement with the organisation will decrease significantly due to the threat they perceive. 2. 3. 3 Equity Theory Equity theory, created by Adams (1963) can be used to explore survivors’ guilt.
The general overview of the theory suggests that a fair balance must be reached between an employee’s inputs, such as enthusiasm and hard work, and an employee’s outputs, for example pay and benefits, and how these compare to the colleagues around them (Fowler, 2006). If an employee believes that a colleague has worked equally as hard as them, and yet that colleague has been made redundant, then the employee is likely to feel negative emotions associated with survivor syndrome, including guilt. 2. 3. Justice Theory Brockner & Greenberg (1990) developed the Organisation Justice Theory, which is the theory that some feelings will only be present in survivors if the redundancy programme is not a fair process. For instance, if random lay-offs occur, then survivors are more likely to feel guilty than if the redundancies are merit-based. If survivors have remained within the organisation based on their performance, they are less likely to feel guilt towards the people made redundant as they will understand that they have performed better than those who are leaving the organisation.
This can also result in survivors feeling more confident. Another outcome of merit-based redundancies is that productivity increases (Brockner et al, 1985). The level of compensation, and the presence of clear explanations as to why redundancies are occurring, and why some people are being laid off and others are not will result in less damaging effects for survivors, according to the justice theory. Campbell (1999) conducted research to look at how organisational justice theory is a ‘means to understand the potential effects on survivors of redundancy’ (Campbell, 1999). 12 2. Differences in Survivors reactions to Redundancy Research into ‘survivor syndrome’ has exhibited similar results in general, finding similar symptoms being expressed by the employees within organisations that have had to make redundancies. It has also been found that redundancies and downsizing affect different people in different ways. For example, for some people, they observe the fact that they are still within the company as the start of enhanced career development (Latack & Dozier, 1986) whereas for others it results in stress and they view it as a crisis (Cooper & Payne, 1990).
Some research has shown that the negative emotions that have been identified in previous research could be mainly felt by the managerial staff, as they may realise once the redundancies have occurred that the best staff have been let go, and organisational performance is poor (Mirvis, 1997). However, little research into this specific topic has been conducted, and so this study intends to investigate this very theory, and identify if managers feel more negative emotions than other employees remaining within he organisation. The Survivor Syndrome is not a universal concept, and does not necessarily affect all ‘business situations or industry sectors’ (Wolfe, 2004). The negative effects associated with survivors of redundancy can be in part attributed to the ‘mafia model’ of downsizing (Stebbins, 1989), which is defined as ‘the desire to have done with the redundancy quickly and then forget about it, which generally leads to ignoring even the most basic human resources practices (Fay and Luhrmann, 2004). 2. Avoiding Survivor Syndrome Baruch & Hind (2000) conducted research that concluded that ‘survivor syndrome’ may not actually exist, or that there may be a ‘personality-driven predisposition to survivor syndrome’. The study involved analysis of employee opinion surveys over 3 years, during which large scale redundancies took place. The results of the analysis were expected to show deterioration in the scores of feelings of satisfaction, trust and morale for instance. However, this was not what was observed, rather the opposite was discovered.
Employees’ perceptions of the company’s openness, job satisfaction and morale all improved over the years. The theoretical models of identity theory and side-bet theory ‘do not provide a clear 13 rationalisation for the finding’ (Baruch & Hind, 2000). Further investigation was done in order to explain the lack of survivor syndrome, by conducting in-depth interviews, and then a questionnaire, asking open questions about their feelings following the redundancy programme.
The results of the interviews showed that the company was conscious of preventing fear and anxiety, and so ensured that there was open communication with both employees and their representatives, such as trade unions, and a fair selection process, which was conducted quickly and as openly as possible. Managers had also received training on how to deliver the news, to make them more able to cope with the situation. The organisation also offered support to leavers in finding a new job.
The way in which the company conducted the redundancy programme has been shown to be one of the main explanations for the non-existence of survivor syndrome within this organisation. These findings are supported by previous research that shows that how fair the redundancy process is effects the survivors’ emotions (Brockner, Wiesenfeld & Martin, 1995; Brockner et al, 1993). The theory that the way in which a redundancy process takes place can affect mployees’ feelings may be extremely relevant in the case of Corus, and the methods used by Corus to implement the redundancies should be looked at in-depth in order to understand the emotions that will have been found to be present in Corus employees. Another explanation suggested by Baruch & Hind (2000) is that throughout the 1990’s, people became more accepting of redundancy, compared to in the 1980’s when it was a new phenomenon, and people felt betrayed by the organisation.
In more recent years, people view it as ‘the new way of working life’. This could be especially true of Corus employees, as it is a company that has gone through a number of downsizing processes. It is also suggested that survivors see themselves as ‘the chosen ones’, and felt appreciated, which helped create a positive attitude (Baruch & Hind, 2000).
The general conclusion to take from this study and from other studies that have found similar results (Brockner et al, 1992) is that if downsizing is managed effectively, and through using good practice, negative effects on survivors can be controlled and minimised, avoiding the existence of survivor syndrome, and therefore it cannot be assumed that survivors of redundancy within an organisation will suffer from 14 survivor syndrome. Cross & Travaglione (2004) found that downsizing can be successful if the least valuable employees leave the organisation.
In a study conducted by Sahdev (2003), a manufacturing company, similar to that of Corus was investigated. The company has a history of downsizing but maybe surprisingly the survivor issues found were positive overall, having a sense of pride, drive to enhance the company’s profitability, job security, and trust in the organisation. This could be because the reasons for downsizing were proactive, in order to maintain their competitive edge, and that the survivors gained from the restructuring via training enhancing their skills levels.
There wasn’t evidence of survivor syndrome because of the methods the manufacturing company used during the downsizing. The process was seen as fair and open, and so survivors did not feel negative emotions after. In the same experiment, Sahdev also looked at Barclaycard and Bedfordshire City Council. The study showed employees from both Barclaycard and BCC suffered the effects of survivor syndrome, feeling emotions such as low morale, a lack of trust, decreased commitment to the company and job insecurity. Barclaycard had not had a downsizing exercise prior to this, and although
BCC had been downsizing for a decade prior to this, this had not been via redundancies only. BCC were downsizing as a reaction to the government agenda, but at a high frequency, which is thought to result in increased cynicism and low trust (Sahdev, 2003), whereas Barclaycard were downsizing to be proactive in enhancing competitiveness, but this was a rare occurrence, and so it is expected that there will be a mixture of emotions, such as anger at the violation of the psychological contract, and excitement at the opportunities to develop that will occur due to the downsizing.
Therefore this evidences that the reasons for redundancies and history of downsizing within the specific organisation are other factors affecting the outbreak of survivor syndrome. Other research conducted looking into this subject has found that interactional justice is crucial for survivor syndrome to be prevented. According to Campbell (1999), survivors’ reactions depend on the amount of interpersonal communication between the employee and the line manager, as this can effect organisational commitment, job satisfaction and job insecurity.
The study also found that the work environment and work colleagues can affect survivors’ emotions, and if 15 the atmosphere at work is negative, or colleagues are negative, this can result in surviving employees’ suffering from negative emotions. Leana & Feldman (1994) discovered that if an organisation made their employees aware that redundancies would be taking place early, there would be no / limited negative outcomes for the organisation.
This is thought to be related to the level of trust in the organisation, due to being well-advised. Evidence in support of this also comes from Applebaum & Donia (2001), who have found that the main factors affecting survivors’ responses to downsizing include the knowledge and understanding the employees have about the situation occurring, the fairness of the decision making process, the fair treatment of the employees being made redundant, and feeling that the managers are aware of the problems that may arise due to the redundancies.
Some organisations create ‘help groups’ which tend to lower the prevalence of survivor syndrome, as does the involvement of trade unions, as this reemphasises the fair treatment of employees and the fairness of the process. Continued communication between the management team and survivors helps avoid negative emotions, as does consideration from management to employees for the changes in their day-to-day jobs, such as increased workload.
If management show appreciation towards the survivors for their commitment and effort throughout the difficult periods, this will help the employees feel more valued and respected, and so they will feel less negative emotions associated with survivor syndrome. The final factor that is thought to lead to the presence of survivor syndrome is if a company uses redundancies as a first resort in difficult times, rather than attempting other methods of cost reduction or to improve productivity (CIPD, 2010).
Some organisations attempt to save money by introducing flexible working, such as only working 4 day weeks, and taking the equivalent pay cut, or banning overtime. By introducing one of these methods first, an organisation may find that they could even avoid redundancies, but if not, employees will be able to see that the company tried other methods first, before having to resort to redundancies. By observing the attempt to avoid redundancies, employees will feel more positive towards the organisation.
These findings suggest that survivor syndrome is avoidable within an organisation conducting large scale redundancies, and the incidence of survivor 16 syndrome is dependent on the actions of the organisation in how they conduct the redundancies, how they treat the employees leaving the organisation and how they treat the survivors remaining within the organisation. Therefore, for an organisation to have the desired outcomes from making redundancies, such as increased productivity and effort, an organisation must put into place a realistic downsizing preview (Applebaum & Donia, 2001), that includes some of the methods mentioned above. . 6 Reasons for conducting research into Survivor Syndrome Research into this topic is beneficial for organisations undertaking similar downsizing programmes, as finding symptoms of survivor syndrome in employees, and discussing why these negative emotions may be present will aide future redundancy programmes, as organisations will be able to avoid certain behaviours and prevent survivor syndrome occurring within their workplace.
By preventing this syndrome becoming a pandemic within the organisation, the organisation will find that the levels of productivity and performance are affected less negatively, as employees will be feeling more positive towards the company, and so will not let their work-ethic become less emphatic. Research investigating Survivor Syndrome is also crucial in order to identify what the symptoms, if there are any symptoms, of survivor syndrome actually are. 2. 7 Hypotheses After in-depth research into previous research, and considering the information and resources available, two hypotheses have been developed.
Hypothesis 1: A decrease in pride in the organisation, trust in the organisation, perceived organisational support and job satisfaction will occur for those employees that remain in the organisation after downsizing. Hypothesis 2: A lower amount of pride in the organisation, trust in the organisation, perceived organisational support and job satisfaction will be identified in managerial survivors of redundancy than non -managerial survivors. The aim of this study is to investigate and attempt to prove or disprove these hypotheses, by conducting analysis of case-specific data, and making generalisations from the results of this analysis. 7 3. Methodology 3. 1 Organisation Setting As the main focus of the research was to investigate the prevalence of Survivor syndrome, a case-based study seemed to be the most appropriate method. Corus, a major private sector manufacturing organisation was chosen for this study. This organisation produces steel for a range of different sectors, and is a large, decentralised organisation that has undergone organisational restructuring a number of times throughout its relatively short history, mainly because of the volatile industry it belongs to.
It is important to note that a number of the employees taking part in this study were part of the organisation throughout the previous redundancy programmes, as well as the most recent downsizing that occurred. 3. 2 Procedure Corus conduct Employee Opinion Surveys annually, in order to analyse the attitudes of employees to a range of aspects of the business. This study will analyse the results of the employee opinion surveys completed in 2007, prior to the redundancy programme, and the employee opinion survey results from 2009, conducted a few months after the redundancies took place.
The surveys were designed by two different companies, and so are not identical, although they are very similar, and the majority of the questions are repeated and worded the same. Some of the questions in the surveys are not relevant to the subject matter being discussed in this report and so only certain questions from the surveys will be analysed. The decision for which of the questions in the two surveys should be analysed was based on how relevant they were to certain emotions associated with Survivor Syndrome.
For instance, in both surveys there was the statement ‘I feel proud to work for Corus’. This is strongly associated with pride, which has been shown to be affected in survivors after largescale redundancies, and so will be included in the analysis. The statement ‘Overall, I am satisfied with my job’ is directly related to job satisfaction, which again has been shown to negatively affect survivors after redundancies, and so that statement will also be included in the analysis.
There are some questions within the surveys that are not as obviously linked to an emotion related to Survivor Syndrome, and so the decision to include or exclude questions from the survey for analysis included looking at other research focusing on these specific emotions, for example, emotion 18 specific questionnaires were analysed to see if any of the questions were similar to those within the Corus employee opinion surveys, and if so, they could be included in the analysis.
For example, a number of the items in the employee opinion surveys were similar to or the same as the questions used on a survey conducted by Bordia et al (2004), such as ‘I am satisfied with my job’ and ‘My business keeps me informed’. Some of the items in the surveys were included on a purely subjective basis, as they seemed to be associated to a specific Survivor Syndrome emotion. An example of this is ‘My immediate supervisor helps me do my work well’ which seems to relate to Perceived Organisational Support as a measure. 3. 3 Participants The Corus Employee Opinion Survey is sent out to all employees in the UK.
However, not everyone responds. The survey from 2007 had 1580 responses, and the 2009 survey had 1075 responses. The employee opinion surveys do not include demographic variables, and so there is little information on the age or gender of the participants. Because the respondents from the two employee opinion surveys are employees at Corus, although the participants may not be exactly the same, as there is a larger sample size in 2007 than 2009, this study is a within groups analysis. 3. 4 Questionnaire Measures The survey contained scales measuring specific variables seen as important to Corus. However, as explained above, some easures are ‘hidden’ within the questions, and so have been found subjectively or via other research, in order to identify whether certain negative emotions associated with Survivor Syndrome are present within employees who completed the employee opinion surveys. The measures being investigated in this study have been decided upon through analysis of previous research. By identifying the key emotions that have been recognized in other survivor syndrome research, and conducting thorough examination of the employee opinion surveys to see what emotions the questions relate to, a list of measures has 9 been decided upon. Below are the measures being analysed from the employee opinion surveys: Job Satisfaction- the Employee Opinion Survey asks specific questions relating to job satisfaction, including ‘Overall, I am satisfied with my current job’, ‘Considering my responsibilities and the work I do, I am paid well’, ‘I believe I am rewarded well for my work compared with others outside our organisation’ and ‘I am sufficiently trained to do my job well’.
There are also some items within the questionnaire that are less obviously specific to job satisfaction, but are linked to this measure. For instance ‘I have opportunities to achieve my potential’, ‘There is cooperation within my team’ and ‘I am involved in decisions related to my business’. Overall there are 11 items focusing on job satisfaction. Organisational Pride- There are 2 items measuring employees pride at working for the organisation, and these are ‘I feel proud to work for Corus’ and ‘I would recommend CDUK & Ireland as an employer’.
Perceived Organisational Support- This measure is represented by a number of items on the employee opinion survey, including ‘I receive timely thanks for work well done’, ‘My immediate supervisor gives me enough attention’, ‘My immediate supervisor helps me to do my work well’ and ‘I often find the pressure of work too much’. The items being used to analyse this measure are spread over a number of the different sections in the employee opinion survey. These sections are Work environment, Quality of Leadership, Learning and Growth and Reward and Recognition. This measure is represented by 13 items in the employee opinion surveys.
Trust within the organisation This is a measure that has been prominent in – previous research, and so it was important to ensure that it was included in this study. From the employee opinion survey, 2 items can be used to measure employees’ trust in the organisation and their colleagues, including ‘I have faith in the managers in my business’ and ‘I have faith in the management team of CDUK & Ireland’. All of the items on the questionnaire were measured using a 5-point likert scale, except for the first question, ‘Do you hold a management position’, which is a 20 es / no question. This item will be used after the first analysis has been done, in order to investigate the data and identify any differences in the emotions of managers and non-managers. This is in order to see if survivor syndrome is more prominent in those with a managerial position, who are more involved in conducting the redundancies, or more prominent in employees who have a non-managerial position, such as the factory workers, who see members of their team leaving the organisation during downsizing.
The first statistical analysis will compare 2007 survey results and 2009 survey results, to see if the emotions have changed significantly between preredundancies and post-redundancies. 21 4. Analysis 4. 1 Analysis of data Before redundancies vs After redundancies – Table 1 provides the means and standard deviations, computed from both the 2009 employee opinion survey results and the 2007 employee opinion survey results, for all of the items representing each variable being measured.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations for 2007 / 2009 Employee surveys Employee opinion survey question 2009 Survey Mean 1. 37 1. 48 1. 55 0. 97 1. 23 1. 64 1. 37 1. 99 1. 85 1. 88 1. 87 2. 49 2. 31 2. 03 1. 13 1. 41 1. 47 1. 77 1. 85 2. 07 1. 78 1. 58 1. 45 1. 56 1. 67 1. 4 1. 5 1. 13 1. 41 Std Deviation 0. 847 0. 912 1. 063 0. 664 0. 916 1. 035 0. 821 1. 201 1. 188 1. 166 1. 064 1. 028 1. 011 1. 014 0. 858 0. 991 0. 994 1. 071 1. 079 1. 147 1. 06 1. 049 0. 966 1. 07 0. 57 0. 995 1. 003 0. 912 0. 863 2007 Survey Mean 1. 17 1. 38 1. 37 0. 95 1. 25 1. 53 1. 35 1. 86 1. 83 1. 98 1. 71 2. 41 2. 39 1. 56 1. 1 1. 53 1. 34 1. 3 1. 24 1. 5 1. 65 1. 46 1. 36 1. 48 1. 47 1. 41 1. 16 1. 31 1. 29 Std Deviation 0. 886 0. 912 1. 049 0. 75 1 0. 944 1. 039 0. 826 1. 193 1. 013 1. 061 0. 973 1. 057 1. 068 0. 661 0. 867 1. 045 0. 929 0. 971 0. 889 1. 054 1. 029 0. 953 0. 877 0. 979 0. 974 0. 95 0. 83 0. 881 0. 99 Do you feel proud to work for Corus?
I am satisfied with my current job The surroundings in which I carry out my work are pleasant I know what is expected from me at work My work gives me an opportunity to use my skills and training At work my opinion is taken seriously My colleagues value me In the last 6 months I have had training to help me do my job I have sufficient development opportunities within my business There is sufficient attention for my personal development There are opportunities for me to achieve my potential Considering my responsibilities and the work I do, I am paid well I believe I am rewarded well for my work compared with others outside our organisation I often find the pressure of work too much I am sufficiently trained to do my job well I am involved in decisions relating to my work My supervisor gives me enough attention My supervisor is a good leader My supervisor tells me how I am performing I receive timely thanks for work well done My supervisor organises sufficient job appraisals and assessments for me My immediate supervisor helps me to do my work well My business keeps me adequately informed of key issues I have faith in the managers in my area I have faith in the managment team of CDUK & I I feel involved in my business What the company wants to achieve with the has been communicated to me There is cooperation within my team I would recommend my organisation as an employer 22 As can be seen from the table, the mean for each question is higher in 2009 than in 2007 for the majority of items.
The responses included in the employee opinion survey were strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree/don’t know, disagree and strongly disagree. For the analysis, these responses were converted into numbers e. g. 0 = strongly agree up to 4 = strongly disagree. The standard deviation, representing the spread of the results around the mean, is quite low for all items, showing that the majority of the results are close to the mean. The means for 2009 are generally slightly higher than 2007, which denotes that more people disagreed and strongly disagreed with items in the surveys in 2009 than in 2007. For instance, when analysing the results for the variable Pride, the item ‘Do you feel proud to work for Corus’ has a mean of 1. 7 (SD = 0. 886) in the 2007 survey, showing that most people agree with the statement. In 2009, the mean increased to 1. 37 (SD = 0. 847), and although this still means the average answer was ‘agree’, it also means that more people responded with ‘neither’, ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ than in 2007, showing that employees’ opinions of how proud they are to work for Corus have changed between the two surveys being conducted. The same pattern has been found with the other item representing Pride, ‘I would recommend my organisation to others’. The mean answer in 2007 was 1. 29 (SD = 0. 99), and in 2009 it was found to have increased to 1. 41 (SD = 0. 63), again showing that in 2009 more people gave the responses ‘neither’, ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’. This pattern is persistent in most of the items. For the variable Job Satisfaction, the first item to be investigated was ‘I am satisfied with my current job’. The mean answer increased by 0. 1 between 2007 (m = 1. 38, SD = 0. 912) and 2009 (m = 1. 48, SD = 0. 9 12), which signifies that more people gave negative responses in 2009 than they did in 2007. Another item representing the job satisfaction variable is ‘Considering my responsibilities and the work I do, I am paid well’, and a similar difference in means for 2007 (m = 2. 41, SD = 1. 057) and 2009 (m = 2. 49, SD = 1. 028) was found for this.
Perceived organisational support in the organisation is a variable being analysed through a number of items in the employee opinion survey. The item ‘My supervisor is a good leader’ shows a disparity of 0. 47 between 2007 (m = 1. 3, SD = 0. 971) and 2009 (m = 1. 77, SD = 1. 071). Another large difference between means was found for the item ‘I receive timely thanks for work well done’, as in 2007 the mean answer was 1. 5 (SD = 1. 054), and in 2009 it increased to 2. 07 (SD = 1. 147). 23 There were some anomalies, where the difference in means between years diverged away from this pattern. The items ‘My work gives me an opportunity to use my skills and training’, ‘There is sufficient attention for my personal development’, ‘I believe I am rewarded well for my work compared to ther organisations’, ‘I am involved in decisions relating to my work’, ‘I feel involved in my business’, and ‘There is cooperation within my team’ all have means that are higher in 2007 than in 2009, which indicates more positive responses were recorded in 2009. In order to identify if the differences between means are significant, a statistical test called the Mann-Whitney U test has been conducted, to investigate if the null hypothesis for each question i. e. the item is the same across both years of the employee opinion survey. Table 2 shows the results of this statistical analysis. From Table 2 below, it can be seen which of the items had significantly different responses between 2007 and 2009. The items have been split into the different measures they represent.
By rejecting the null hypothesis, this means that the distribution of responses for a specific item in 2007 is significantly different to the distribution of answers for the same item in the 2009 survey results. For instance, ‘Considering my responsibilities and the work I do, I am paid well’ was shown to have a significance level of 0. 000, and therefore it can be said that the difference between the responses in 2007 and 2009 are significant (p < 0. 05). When looking at the means for the two years for this item, it can be seen that in 2007 the mean was 2. 41, and in 2009 the mean was 2. 49, this means more people responded with a negative answer such as disagree or strongly disagree, and the increase in these negative responses was significant.
This means that in 2009 significantly more people felt that they were not paid well for the work that they did. Another example of this is for the item ‘My immediate supervisor helps me do my work well’. The significance value for this item is 0. 003 (p < 0. 05) and therefore it can be said that there is a significant difference in the distribution of answers to this item between 2007 and 2009. The null hypothesis is therefore Table 2. Mann-Whitney U results for Hypotheses relating to year of survey Null Hypothesis PRIDE Sig. Decision 24 The distribution of *I feel proud to work for Corus is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *I would recommend CDUK & Ireland as an employer is the same for all categories of *year of EOS
SATISFACTION The distribution of *I am satisfied with CD UK & Ireland as a place of work is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *Considering responsibilities & the work, I am paid well is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *I am rewarded well compared to Employment packages from other organisations is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *I feel involved with my business is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *I am involved in two-way communication with my manager is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *I am sufficiently trained to do my job well is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *My current job gives me the opportunity to use my skills & training is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *There are opportunities for me to achieve my potential is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *My colleagues value me is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *There is co-operation & teamwork in my area is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *I am involved in decisions relating to my area of work is the same for all categories of *year of EOS PERCEIVED ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT The distribution of *At work my opinion is taken seriously is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *My business keeps me adequately informed about key issues is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *CDUK& Ireland’s Vision has been clearly communicated is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *In last 6 months I have had training that helped me to do my job better is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *There is someone at work who encourages my development is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *The surroundings in which I work are pleasant is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *I often find the pressure of work too much is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *I know what is expected of me at work is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *My immediate supervisor gives me enough attention is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *My immediate supervisor helps me do my work well is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *Supervisor organises sufficient appraisal & assessments is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *Supervisor regularly tells me how they believe I am performing is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *I receive timely thanks for work well done is the same for all categories of *year of EOS TRUST The distribution of *I have faith in the managers in my area is the same for all categories of *year of EOS The distribution of *I have faith in the management team of CDUK & Ireland is the same for all categories of *year of EOS .000 . 000
Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Accept Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Accept Null Hypothesis Accept Null Hypothesis Accept Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Accept Null Hypothesis Accept Null Hypothesis Accept Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Accept Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Reject Null Hypothesis Accept Null Hypothesis .000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 003 . 757 . 007 . 070 . 053 . 221 . 008 .124 . 901 . 411 . 005 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 003 . 035 . 073 . 000 .000 . 639 rejected.
The mean answer in 2007 was 1. 46, and in 2009 it was 1. 58, and therefore the Mann-Whitney U analysis indicates that there is a significant increase in the amount of employees giving more negative responses in 2009 from 2007, in relation 25 to the sample size. This therefore connotes that significantly more people are not of the opinion that their supervisor helps them to work well after redundancies in 2009, than before the redundancy programme took place, in the 2007 survey. From Table 2 above, it can be seen which of the items had significantly different responses between 2007 and 2009. The items have been split into the different measures they represent.
By rejecting the null hypothesis, this means that the distribution of responses for a specific item in 2007 is significantly different to the distribution of answers for the same item in the 2009 survey results. For instance, ‘Considering my responsibilities and the work I do, I am paid well’ was shown to have a significance level of 0. 000, and therefore it can be said that the difference between the responses in 2007 and 2009 are significant (p ; 0. 05). When looking at the means for the two years for this item, it can be seen that in 2007 the mean was 2. 41, and in 2009 the mean was 2. 49, this means more people responded with a negative answer such as disagree or strongly disagree, and the increase in these negative responses was significant.
This means that in 2009 significantly more people felt that they were not paid well for the work that they did. Another example of this is for the item ‘My immediate supervisor helps me do my work well’. The significance value for this item is 0. 003 (p ; 0. 05) and therefore it can be said that there is a significant difference in the distribution of answers to this item between 2007 and 2009. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. The mean answer in 2007 was 1. 46, and in 2009 it was 1. 58, and therefore the Mann-Whitney U analysis indicates that there is a significant increase in the amount of employees giving more negative responses in 2009 from 2007, in relation to the sample size.
This therefore connotes that significantly more people are not of the opinion that their supervisor helps them to work well after redundancies in 2009, than before the redundancy programme took place, in the 2007 survey. It can also be seen from the table that some of the null hypotheses can be accepted. This means that even if a difference in the means has been found, it has not been shown to be a significant difference, and therefore the distribution of answers for an item can be taken to be the same over both 2007 and 2009. The nine items on 26 the survey that are shown to not be significant and the null hypotheses accepted are represented on Table 2 with lilac shading. Taking each measure eparately, the results of the items can be investigated in order to find evidence that that particular measure has been found to have been affected since redundancies have taken place. For Pride, the two items, ‘Do you feel proud to work for Corus’ and ‘I would recommend CDUK & Ireland as an employer’, were both found to have significant differences between the responses from 2007 and the responses from 2009. The mean answers for both items were higher for 2009 than 2007, and so this means significantly more respondents answered these items negatively. Therefore it can be said that employees of Corus were less proud of the organisation in 2009 than in 2007. Job Satisfaction has been measured through 11 items on the survey. From Table 2, it can be observed that the null hypotheses of seven of the items were rejected.
Six of these items were shown to have higher mean responses in 2009 than in 2007, which signifies that the responses became significantly more negative after redundancies took place. However, there is one item where the opposite has been detected. When analysing the item ‘I believe I am rewarded well compared to employment packages from other organisations’ the significance value computed via the Mann Whitney U test was 0. 000 (p ; 0. 05). However, the mean response for 2009 was 2. 31, and in 2007 it was 2. 39. This means that in 2009 there were more positive responses (e. g. agree / strongly agree) in relation to sample size than in 2007. From these results it can be denoted that employees were more satisfied with their employment package in 2009 than in 2007.
The responses for four of the items under the Job Satisfaction measure were not significant in terms of the dispersion of the answers in 2009 and 2007. This means that the responses for all four items have not varied between before the redundancy programme took place in 2007, and after it took place, in 2009. When looking at the overall results from the analysis for Job satisfaction, it is difficult to say whether or not employees are less satisfied with their job and the organisation since redundancies took place, as there are mixed results. What can be deducted from the results is that from the general, and possibly most representative of the satisfaction measure, item ‘I am satisfied with CD UK & Ireland as a place of work’ it 27 an be seen that levels of satisfaction have decreased between 2007, before redundancies, (m = 1. 38, SD = 0. 912) and 2009, after redundancies, (m = 1. 48, SD = 0. 9 12), as the significance value is . 000 (p ; 0. 05). Nine of the items measuring Perceived Organisational Support were shown to have significant differences in the survey responses from both years. Again, the general pattern was shown to be that employees responses were found to be more negative in 2009 than in 2007. There were four items where the responses were not found to be significantly different. For example, the item ‘There is cooperation and teamwork in my area’ has a Mann-Whitney U significance value of 0. 221 (p ; 0. 5) and so it cannot be said that there is a significant difference between the two surveys, but rather the responses were more or less the same. The mean for 2007 was actually higher than 2009 (1. 31 and 1. 13 respectively), which would indicate that responses became more positive in 2009. This result would have been unexpected, but since it has not been found to have been a significant difference, it is irrelevant. The majority of the items indicate that employees opinions of perceived organisational support are more negative in 2009 than in 2007. The final measure was trust, and the statistical analysis found that of the two items measuring employees trust in the organisation, only one was found to have changed significantly since the 2007 survey.
The item ‘I have faith in the managers in my area’ had statistical significance of . 000 (p ; 0. 05). The mean response had become more negative in 2009, and therefore this means that a larger proportion of the employees disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement in 2009. Interestingly, the responses to the statement ‘I have faith in the management team of CD UK & Ireland’ did not change significantly between the two surveys. 4. 2 Analysis of data Managers vs Non-managers in 2009 – Table 3 provides information of the means and standard deviations for managers and non-managers who responded to the 2009 employee opinion survey, after the downsizing programme had taken place.
This analysis was conducted in order to see if there was a significant difference in the emotions felt by managers and the emotions felt by non-managerial employees, such as factory workers. Table 4 contains the Mann-Whitney U results, that identify if any differences in the mean 28 answers are significant. Table 4 is split into the different measures being investigated. The tables below show that that for all items except two, there was a significant difference between the responses given by managers and the responses given by non-managers. In all cases except three, the mean response from the nonmanagers was higher that then mean response from managers, which insinuates that employees with a non-managerial position have more negative opinions than managers. This is because of the scale the answers are given on (e. g. = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree), and so the higher the number representing the response, the more strongly the statement is being disagreed with. For instance, under the Trust heading in table 4 is the item ‘I have faith in the management team of CDUK & Ireland’, which is shown to have a significance value of . 000 (p ; 0. 05). The mean answer for non-managers can be seen from Table 3 to be 2. 67 (SD = 9. 448) and the mean answer for managers was 1. 8 (SD = 6. 947). The mean for the non-managers is significantly higher than the mean response from managers and so this means that that non-managers had significantly more negative responses in relation to the sample size.
For the Pride measure, both items can be seen to have higher mean scores for nonmanagers than managers. This means that managers gave more positive responses to the items than non-managers did. For the item ‘I am proud to work for Corus’ the mean for non managers was 2. 01 (SD = 7. 188) and the mean for managers was 1. 43 (SD = 6. 962), and the Mann Whitney U test showed this to be a significant difference (p ; 0. 05). A similar difference in means was observed for the item ‘I would recommend Corus as an employer’ and this also had the same signif