Creative Education
2013. Vol.4, No.9, 563-571
Published Online September 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.49082
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 563
Kindergarten Layoff Decisions, Competitiveness and
Effectiveness: Ability Decisions, Care Decisions, Public Good
Decisions, In-Group Favoritism
Yi-Gean Chen1, Jao-Nan Cheng2
1Department of Early Childhood Education, National University of Tainan, Tainan, Taiwan
2Department of Education, National Taitung University, Taitung, Taiwan
Email: chen1013@seed.net.tw
Received June 29th, 2013; revised July 29th, 2013; accepted August 7th, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Yi-Gean Chen, Jao-Nan Cheng. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Many kindergartens have been affected by declining birthrates, and it has become difficult for them to re-
cruit students. Due to the consideration of costs and benefits, some have had to lay off teachers to main-
tain operational benefits. This study focused on the types of layoff decisions made by kindergarten opera-
tors, as well as which types of layoff decisions would better benefit kindergarten competitiveness and ef-
fectiveness. Using the decision model by Husted and Allen (2008) as the foundation, this study divided
layoff decisions into the ability approach, the public good approach, and the care approach, as well as
in-group favoritism decisions, based on a literature review. On one hand, it analyzed the differences be-
tween various types of kindergartens in making layoff decisions, and on the other hand it explored the ef-
fect of different layoff decisions on kindergarten competitiveness and effectiveness. This study extracted
205 managers of kindergartens from the 23 cities and counties of Taiwan for questionnaire surveys. The
research results showed that the layoff decisions of kindergarten principals in Taiwan were generally in-
clined toward the ability approach and public good decisions, while in-group favoritism decisions were
less often used. Different types of kindergartens also showed differences in terms of layoff decisions;
in-group favoritism decision was used more often in privately operated kindergartens than in religious/
charitable kindergartens. In addition, kindergartens established by religious/charitable organizations were
more likely to use care approach decisions, while kindergartens affiliated with schools were more likely
to use ability approach decisions; however, the post-hoc comparisons were not significant. In addition,
in-group favoritism decisions also had a negative effect on the kindergarten competitiveness and man-
agement effectiveness, but ability approach decisions had a positive effect on both of them. Care approach
decisions could benefit management effectiveness but they had no significant effect on elevating competi-
tiveness.
Keywords: Layoff Decision; Justice Approach Decision; Care Approach Decision; In-Group Favoritism
Introduction
Many private kindergartens have been affected by declining
birthrates, and they have had to gradually cut the number of
classes, the number of teachers, or even end operations. Ac-
cording to data from the Ministry of Education’s Department of
Statistics (2012), from 2007 to 2011, a total of 840 classes was
cut, and the number of teachers decreased by 2859. In addition,
109 private kindergartens closed during 2010-2011. The data
highlight that private kindergartens are facing serious chal-
lenges, and that it is necessary to lay off teachers in order to
decrease the human resource costs. This problem has also oc-
curred in other countries. The American school system has
faced it over the last 20 years, and American schools have also
laid off teachers (Guthrie & Datta, 2008). Thus, researchers are
concerned with how managers should decide when it is neces-
sary to lay off teachers.
According to the decision model by Husted and Allen (2008),
when individuals face dilemmas, they may make ethical deci-
sions and non-ethical decisions. The former refers to using
justice principles to make decisions, or to using caring ap-
proaches to make decisions. The latter refers to not using ethics
to make decisions, for instance, using personal preferences to
make decisions. Kindergarten layoffs are a dilemma. Should the
principals be concerned about the future of the organization and
lay off teachers who have worse abilities and performances in
order to maintain organizational benefits (New Teacher Project,
2010), or should they be concerned with caring for their teach-
ers and keep the ones who have a greater financial need for
their teaching salaries (Sisco & Yu, 2010)? Principals could use
personal preferences and make decisions based on in-group
favoritism; keeping in-group members while laying off the
out-group (Varma & DeNisi, 1996). Husted and Allen’s (2008)
ethical decision-making model includes justice ethics (includ-
ing the ability approach and the public good approach), care
ethics (the care approach), and consideration of personal factors
(in-group favoritism approach), and as such, it was suitable to
Y.-G. CHEN, J.-N. CHENG
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
564
be used as the theoretical framework of this study. This study
divided layoff decisions into the four types of the ability ap-
proach, the public good approach, the care approach, and
in-group favoritism, in order to explore the layoff decisions
made by kindergarten principals.
One of the main purposes of this study was to understand
which types of layoff decisions were more often used by kin-
dergarten principals. There are many types of private kinder-
gartens. Some are established by religious or charitable groups,
some are privately operated, some are franchised, and others
are affiliated with schools. These kindergartens, with their dif-
ferent characteristics, may differ when they make layoff deci-
sions. For instance, kindergartens established by religious or
charitable groups are guided by religious ideals, and may
therefore be inclined to use the care approach to make decisions
and keep the teachers who need the salary to help their families,
while privately-operated kindergartens may be inclined to make
decisions based on in-group favoritism to keep the in-group
members (Sidanius, Pratto, & Rabinowitz, 1994). Thus, the
second primary objective of this study was to explore whether
layoff decisions would differ based on the different types of
kindergartens. In addition, even though past studies have shown
that layoffs or restructuring may have negative effects on or-
ganizational competitiveness and performance (Guthrie, & Dat-
ta, 2008), and many studies have pointed out that layoffs may
affect employee work effectiveness (Manela, 2010), since lay-
offs are still used by many corporations and kindergartens to
cope with a shrinking market, it is necessary to research layoff
decisions. This study further explored which types of layoff
decisions had a positive effect on kindergarten effectiveness
and competitiveness, as well as which types had a negative
effect, in order to provide a reference to kindergarten operators.
A national survey sample was employed in this study, in order
to achieve these research goals.
Literature Review
Theoretical Foundations in Layoff Decisions
Recently, many researchers have become concerned about
whether corporate or school administrative decisions conform
to moral ethics (Groves, Vance, & Paik, 2008; Payne & Joyner,
2006; Schweitzer & Gibson, 2008). Relevant studies have
shown that when people feel administrative decisions are fair
and conform to ethical norms, they will feel psychologically
satisfied (Hegtvedt & Killian, 1999; Ordonez, Connolly, &
Coughlan, 2000). However, when they feel the decisions vio-
late fairness and ethics, they will be angry, sad, and desire re-
venge (Schweitzer & Gibson, 2008), and this will to an increase
in truancy, theft, and the intentional destruction of public prop-
erty (Schweitzer & Gibson, 2008). In companies, organizational
competitiveness and effectiveness will be damaged if layoffs
cause employee dissatisfaction or a desire to want revenge, en-
gage in truancy, or damage public property.
Ethical decision-making refers to the need for guidance by
standards or principles as a basis for decisions when faced with
a conflict of interest, so that an individual’s rights can reach a
reasonable state (Rest, 1986). In Japan, people see employee
guarantees as the most important ethics concept in a corpora-
tion (Nyaw & Ng, 1994); therefore, when corporations need to
make layoffs, it has to be carried out in an ethical way.
The study by Husted and Allen (2008) highlighted how L. K.
Trevino’s use of Kohlberg’s ethical cognitive development
theory to construct an ethical decision making model; however,
it cannot cover all situations, because this model does not con-
sider the relationship between individuals and in-group mem-
bers. Kohlberg only focused on using justice to determine
moral development, which is a narrow perspective. The addi-
tion of Gilligan’s ethical cognition development, using rela-
tionship as the basis, would make ethical decisions more com-
plete.
In the model by Husted and Allen (2008), the first step is to
make a determination; if it is an ethical dilemma, there should
be an ethical determination. This ethical determination includes
the assertion by Kohlberg (justice ethics based on rational de-
termination) and the assertion by Gilligan (care ethics based on
relationships). During the ethical determination process, per-
sonal factors and contextual factors will also influence the deci-
sion makers, who will then use their ethical determinations to
decide on their actions, which may be ethical or unethical. Re-
gardless of using justice ethics or care ethics as the main con-
sideration for decision-making, both are ethical. However, if
personal likes (such as in-group favoritism) rather than ethical
norms are the primary consideration, then the decision-making
may not be ethical.
The above decision-making models are primarily used to ex-
plain ethical decision-making behavior in organizations and
behaviors that are not ethical decision-making. In the explora-
tion of the kinds of layoff decisions made by principals and
those in charge of kindergartens, this study considered that the
decision model by Husted and Allen (2008) could cover both
Kohlberg’s justice ethics and Gilligan’s care ethics, and that it
could provide a more comprehensive theoretical framework for
study. Thus, the research design used Husted and Allen’s (2008)
decision model to serve as the theoretical basis for this study
and to develop the research framework.
Justice Approach and Care Approach in Layoff
Decisions
Kohlberg’s justice ethics and Gilligan’s care ethics use dif-
ferent angles to express ethical perspectives and consciousness
(Brabeck, 1993). Kohlberg’s justice ethics emphasizes the
abiding principle of justice without bias (Brabeck, 1993). How-
ever, Gilligan’s care ethics is concerned with relationships and
emotions, emphasizing care and not causing harm to others as
the highest principle. She believed that ethical dilemmas are
inherently based on the destruction of harmony and interper-
sonal relationships, while the obligation of ethical decision-
making needs to respect the dignity and value of each person in
the development of sympathy (Brabeck, 1993).
In terms of the current managerial problems faced by the
early education workplace, when kindergartens need to main-
tain operational benefits, the principal or director will lay off
teachers. Based on the view of justice ethics, teachers with less
ability should be laid off (the ability approach), and unsuited
teachers should be the first to be laid off for the public good
(the public good approach), while teachers who are most help-
ful for organizational development should be kept; this layoff
decision better conforms to justice ethics. However, on the care
level, if it is known that laying off a teacher would result in
difficulties for his whole family, or would make it difficult for
him to live, the person responsible may consider the situations
of individual teachers and choose to lay off someone who will
be less affected by unemployment. This conforms to a care
Y.-G. CHEN, J.-N. CHENG
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 565
ethics decision (the care approach). Thus, in general, layoffs are
conducted with greater concern for public good and abilities, or
with the care approach. Past studies have shown that Chinese
companies are more concerned with care approach layoffs,
while American companies are more concerned with public
good and abilities (Sisco & Yu, 2010).
Basically, most organizations can use performance and abil-
ity as the basis for layoffs, in either the ability approach or pub-
lic good approach. However, American school organizations
also have the potential rule of last-haired first-fired (New
Teacher Project, 2010), which means if someone has worked
longer in an organization they will have better relationships.
New employees will be laid off first, while senior employees
with good relationships will be less likely to be fired. This type
of layoff decision falls in the care approach category.
In-Group Favoritism in Layoff Decisions
According to past studies, the assumption that leaders will
treat employees fairly rarely stands up to challenges in real
organizations; when directors evaluate the performance of sub-
ordinates, many are influenced by the effect of interpersonal
affect, leading to different scores for the in-group and out-group
(Varma & DeNisi, 1996). Subordinates who are closer to the
leaders (the in-group members) will have higher scores, which
shows that when leaders evaluate the performance of their sub-
ordinates there will be disparate treatment or in-group favorit-
ism.
In organizations, leaders will divide employees into in-
groups and out-groups. The categorization standards for these
groups are not only based on familial relationships, but also
include compatibility, competence, and loyalty (Graen & Cash-
man, 1975; Graen, 1976). Past studies have shown that indi-
viduals will give special benefits to in-group members, includ-
ing special care and protection, leading to unfairness (Sidanius,
Pratto, & Rabinowitz, 1994). Based on the effect of in-group
favoritism, this study suggested that when kindergarten princi-
pals make layoff decisions, they might favor in-group members,
especially in privately operated kindergartens, where emotional
factors are more likely to cause in-group favoritism.
Institutional Factors That Affect Layoff Decisions
Past studies have shown that different types of institutions
will also affect ethical decision-making (Sisco & Yu, 2010).
Some Taiwanese private kindergartens have been established
by religious or charitable groups, some by private families,
some are affiliated with school institutions, and others are large
franchise kindergartens. Even though institutional characteris-
tics will also affect ethical decision-making, currently there is
no empirical data to show what kinds of layoff decisions these
kindergartens are inclined toward; this study hoped to further
explore this area. Thus, H1 is proposed as follows:
H1: Different types of kindergartens show significant dif-
ferences in layoff decisions.
Correlations among Layoff Decisions, Effectiveness,
and Competitiveness
During cost-benefit analyses, many managers choose to lay
off employees to decrease human resources costs, in the hope
that layoffs will allow the organization to survive or continue
development. However, after employees are laid off, their work
psychology may be affected, resulting in lowered effectiveness
(Manela, 2010), which in turn adversely impacts the overall
effectiveness of the organization. For instance, Guthrie & Datta
(2008) pointed out that cutting labor or laying off employees
has a negative correlation to organizational profitability or the
elevation of organizational assets (r = .29), and that organiza-
tional profitability or the elevation of organizational assets re-
flects organizational effectiveness and competitiveness. Thus,
this study argued that layoff decisions could affect organiza-
tional effectiveness or competitiveness.
At the same time, the choice of layoff decisions also impli-
cates the ethical issue of how to lay off employees; should sen-
ior employees or young and capable employees be kept? Even
though the study by Donald, Hamilton, Susanna, & James
(2011) pointed out that layoff decisions must consider teacher
effectiveness to construct fair and just layoff decisions, when
many American schools face layoffs, they still use the method
of last-hired first-fired, which may cause younger teachers with
better effectiveness to be laid off (New Teacher Project, 2010).
Thus, decisions based on the relationship approach may harm
effectiveness or competitiveness. The principle of last-hired
first-fired implicitly contains a relationship approach decision;
the longer one works in an organization, the better the relation-
ship. Their rights will receive more attention and it will be less
likely for them to be laid off. This may also accentuate how
decisions based on the relationship approach may affect school
effectiveness or competitiveness. In other words, different lay-
off decisions may affect kindergarten effectiveness and com-
petitiveness in different ways. This study also focused on ex-
ploring which types of layoff decisions benefit effectiveness
and competitiveness. Thus, H2 is proposed as follows:
H2: Different layoff decisions have different influences on
kindergarten competitiveness and effectiveness.
Research Method
Research Structure
This study was based on the decision model of Husted and
Allen (2008). Layoff decisions were divided into four types: the
ability approach, the public good approach, the care approach,
and in-group favoritism, in order to explore kindergarten prin-
cipals’ layoff decisions. In addition, this study analyzed whe-
ther there were significant differences between institutions of
different types (privately operated, established by religious or
charitable groups, large franchises, affiliated with schools) in
making layoff decisions. The research framework is shown in
Figure 1. H1 explored and analyzed whether there were sig-
nificant differences in layoff decisions for different types of
kindergartens, and H2 explored and analyzed the influences of
different layoff decisions on kindergarten competitiveness and
effectiveness (as shown in Figure 1).
Research Subjects and Sampling
The subjects of this study were directors of private kinder-
gartens in Taiwan. According to statistical data, there were a
total of 1755 private kindergartens in Taiwan (Ministry of
Education Department of Statistics, 2008b). This study used the
1:3 ratio for sampling, with a target sample number of 300. In
order to make the research sample representative, stratified
random sampling was conducted. First, the cities and counties
of Taiwan were divided into north/central/south/east, and then
Y.-G. CHEN, J.-N. CHENG
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
566
H2
H2
H1
Public good
approach layoffs
Care approach
layoffs
Ability approach
layoffs
In-group
favoritism layoffs
Type of kindergarten
1. Privately operated
2. Established by religious
or charitable groups
3. Large franchise
4. Affiliated with schools
Kindergarten
effectivene ss
Kindergarten
competitiveness
Figure 1.
Research framework.
the number of kindergartens in each region was used to deter-
mine the number of samples to be extracted. After extracting
the kindergartens, they were contacted by phone to understand
who had hiring and firing power. Usually this was the person in
charge or the principal. These individuals were then contacted
and mailed questionnaires for testing after receiving consent. A
total of 205 valid questionnaires were retrieved, including 66
from the north (32.3%), 36 from the central region (17.5%), 82
from the south (39.9%), and 21 from the east (10.2%).
Research Tool and Measurement
The research tool used was the Questionnaire on Layoff De-
cisions in Private Kindergartens in Taiwan. The compilation
process first underwent expert content validity analysis by four
kindergarten principals and two university principals, who pro-
vided suggestions for improvement to establish expert validity.
1) Layoff decision questionnaire
This questionnaire referred to items in the Elementary School
Principals’ Ethical Decision Making Questionnaire compiled by
Su (2007), which was revised in accordance to the purposes of
this study. It included decisions based on the ability approach,
the public good approach, and the care approach. The section
on in-group favoritism decisions referred to items from the
In-Group Relationship Questionnaire compiled by Lin (1999)
that related to giving special privileges for design. There were
two to five items for each of these four approaches, for a total
of 14 items. Each question was measured using a Likert 5-point
scale. Principal component factoring was used to extract the
common factors, and only factors with an eigenvalue (λ) greater
than 1 were chosen (Joseph, Rolph, & Ronald, 1987). Oblique
rotations were used to derive the four factors, which had reli-
ability coefficients of .64 - .96 and construct validity of .53 - .95,
indicating that the questionnaire had reliability and validity (as
shown in Table 1).
2) Kindergarten effectiveness questionnaire
There were a total of 12 items in this questionnaire, the con-
tent of which was based on items from the study by Jiang
(2000). Each question was measured using a Likert 5-point
scale. Principal component factoring was used to extract com-
mon factors from the 12 items, and only factors with an eigen
value (λ) greater than 1 were chosen (Joseph et al., 1987). Ob-
lique rotations were used to derive three factors, which included
instructional quality, group morale, and goal achievement,
which had reliability coefficients of .78 - .86 and construct
validity of .53 - .92, indicating that the questionnaire had reli-
ability and validity (as shown in Table 2).
3) Kindergarten competitiveness questionnaire
The kindergarten competitiveness questionnaire referred to
the conceptual definitions in the studies by Garg and Jain
(2008), Patten and Ricks (2000), Porter (1980), and West et al.
(2004), and there were a total of 19 items. Factor analysis re-
sulted in five factors, including the perception of competitive-
ness, the quality of flexible service, evaluation performance,
student performance, and a low rate of problem students, which
had reliability coefficients of .73 - .87 and construct validity
of .53 - .93; thus, the questionnaire had good reliability and
validity (as shown in Table 3).
Data Analysis
Data analysis in this study was primarily based on variance
analysis and OLS regression analysis. Variance analysis was
used to examine whether different types of kindergartens dif-
fered in their layoff decisions. Post-hoc comparisons were con-
ducted. Regression analysis was used to explore the influence
of different layoff decisions on kindergarten competitiveness
and effectiveness.
Research Results and Discussions
This study first examined the main approaches used in kin-
dergarten layoff decisions, as well as differences in the layoff
decisions at different types of kindergartens. Seen from the
means of individual items on layoff decisions, the mean for
in-group favoritism was 1.52 points, that for the ability ap-
proach was 4.15 points, that for the care approach was 3.38
points, and that for the public good was 4.25 points. This indi-
cated that kindergarten principals in Taiwan believed their lay-
off decisions were still mostly based on the ability approach or
the public good approach. The means for the items on these two
approaches were over four points (as shown in Table 4), indi-
cating that each answer either conformed or highly conformed.
As for whether layoff decisions used the care approach or were
based on concern for the individual conditions of teachers, the
answers from the principals showed a medium degree of care
approach, with scores ranging between three and four points,
which indicated that the answers were between partially con-
forming and conforming. This result showed slight differences
from the research results by Sisco & Yu (2010), who pointed
Y.-G. CHEN, J.-N. CHENG
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 567
Table 1.
Summary of factor analysis and reliability analysis of layoff decisions.
Question
In-group
favoritism
Ability Approach
decision
Care approach
decision
Public good
decision
Commonality
E17 When distributing work, as much as possible I will arrange easier work for trusted people who are
closer to me. .950 .015 .058 .013.899
E18 I will not focus too much on work mistakes made by trusted people who are closer to me and I will
protect them as much as possible. .943 .018 .013 .024.911
E19 I treat trusted people who are closer to me better, and it is impossible to treat them the same as other
teachers. .940 .048 .003 .002.869
E16 In work, I will make things convenient for trusted people who are closer to me as much as possible. .914 .017 .010 .052 .821
E20 Regardless of the situation, I will not lay off trusted people who are closer to me. .903 .008 .021 .040.842
E4 When making layoff decisions, I will first lay off teachers who are unqualified. .020 .841 .120 .204.716
E5 When making layoff decisions, I will first lay off teachers with poor abilities. .013 .838 .078 .197 .794
E3 When making layoff decisions, I will first lay off teachers with poor work performance. .138 .638 .120 .340 .688
E9 When making layoff decisions, I will respect the personal intentions of the teachers. .003 .104 .809 .089 .636
E7 When making layoff decisions, I will place special concern on the needs of the minorities. .074 .116 .700 .110 .526
E10 When making layoff decisions, I will first listen to the opinions of the teachers then make decisions..028 .075 .696 .056 .475
E8 When making layoff decisions, I will first lay off teachers who can better bear the impact of being
laid off. .080.139 .534 .324.435
E1 When making layoff decisions, I will not have preset ideas, and I will try to be fair in my treatment. .079.025 .086 .879 .826
E2 When making layoff decisions, I will make public good for the kindergarten the priority. .058.117 .098 .861 .834
Eigen value λ 5.030 2.149 1.922 1.171 -
Ratio of total variance 35.931 15.351 13.725 8.366 -
Accumulated ratio 35.931 51.282 65.007 73.373-
Reliability .96 .71 .64 .88
Table 2.
Summary of factor analysis and reliability analysis of kindergarten effectiveness.
Question/factor
Instructional
quality
Group morale
Goal
achievement
Commonality
C40 Teachers at this kindergarten are highly confident in their own instructional abilities. .917 .010 .023 .816
C41 Teachers at this kindergarten devote their efforts to preparing for instructional activities. .812 .009 .106.752
C39 Children at this kindergarten see learning as a happy thing and enjoy coming to school. .714 .003 .172.647
C38 Parents think that the instructional quality of this kindergarten is very good. .589 .187 .143.591
C16 Teachers at this kindergarten spend a lot of time discussing educational issues. .179 .779 .115 .670
C15 The Principal of this kindergarten will praise the teachers for their performance. .070 .758 .028.646
C14 The Principal of this kindergarten spends a lot of time on educational affairs. .264 .754 .305.701
C17 The administrative team of this kindergarten has high morale. .387 .530 .036 .573
C10 This kindergarten has set some goals to work toward in terms of the children’s achievement and performance. .001 .077 .864 .693
C11 This kindergarten has designed some inspiring educational activities for the learning or future development of
children after their graduation. .139 .074 .768.648
C12 This kindergarten regularly reports to the parents on the children’s achievements and performance. .040 .153 .658 .577
C13 Children at this kindergarten have serious learning attitudes toward various activities. .129 .197 .591.596
Eigen value 5.61 1.23 1.07 -
Explained variance % 46.76 10.23 8.94 -
α reliability coefficient .86 .78 .79 -
Y.-G. CHEN, J.-N. CHENG
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
568
Table 3.
Summary of factor analysis and reliability analysis of kindergarten competitiveness.
Question/factor
Perception of
competitiveness
Low rate of
problem student
Student
performance
Quality of
flexible service
Evaluation per-
formance
Commonality
B15 Teachers at this kindergarten are very concerned about whether it can outperform other
kindergartens and be more competitive .874 .028 .030 .051 .033 .782
B16 Teachers at this kindergarten work very hard in hopes of elevating or maintaining the
competitiveness of this kindergarten. .832 .021 .015 .001 .142 .773
B17 Teachers at this kindergarten are willing to devote themselves to the sustainable devel-
opment of this kindergarten. .805 .047 .033 .110 .017 .681
B14 Teachers at this kindergarten understand very well the intense competition in the market
of private kindergartens. .633 .058 .126 .053 .09 .437
B82 This kindergarten has many children with behavioral problems. .090 .925 .039 .027 .069 .850
B81 This kindergarten has many children with learning problems. .009 .916 .069 .038 .044 .832
B83 This kindergarten has many children who are difficult to manage and are troubling to
teachers. .066 .819 .042 .112 .041 .686
B80 This kindergarten has many children who are unable to adapt to school life. .149 .733 .082 .095 .14 .607
B70 Children at this kindergarten perform well in terms of interpersonal interactions. .076 .035 .930 .043 .02 .834
B69 Children at this kindergarten have good life adaptation. .067.033 .920 .046 .053 .843
B68 Children at this kindergarten have good performance in intelligence and learning. .022 .023 .789 .085 .03 .655
B71 On the whole, children at this kindergarten have good learning performance. .109 .039 .737 .148 .01 .591
B26 This kindergarten provides flexible service times and items to convenience parents. .016.022 .045 .909 .11 .786
B27 The administrative operations of this kindergarten are flexible, and the top principle is to
take care of the needs of each parent. .020.006 .044 .877 .003 .780
B24 Many services and measures of this kindergarten make the children enjoy coming here. .221 .034.085 .531 .178 .512
B33 This kindergarten has high administrative efficiency. .137 .094 .044 .047 .831 .747
B32 This kindergarten has received outstanding evaluations in many categories. .202 .050 .027 .004 .822 .616
B34 Teachers at this kindergarten are highly efficient. .332 .009.130 .041 .588 .647
B35 Many educational measures promoted by this kindergarten are very effective. .195 .002 .154 .145 .570 .590
Eigen value 5.3242.934 1.86 1.713 1.42 -
Explained variance % 28.0215.449.79 9.02 7.47 -
α reliability coefficient .83 .87 .85 .73 .74 -
out that Taiwan and Mainland China both have Chinese socie-
ties, and that Chinese companies are more concerned with care
approach layoffs. However, this study, using Taiwanese kin-
dergarten principals as the subjects, found that there were
greater inclinations toward using the ability approach and the
public good approach in making layoff decisions. There were
two possible reasons for this. The first was that kindergartens
are already facing operational crises, and only ability approach-
based layoffs can promote kindergarten survival. The second rea-
son was that there are a number of differences between Chinese
and Taiwanese social culture; Taiwan is more democratic and
modern, while Chinese rural villages have not fully transformed
and still have significant effects from interpersonal relationships.
In addition, the mean of the items about in-group favoritism
was 1.52 points, indicating that each question fell between not
conforming and not conforming at all (as shown in Table 4),
which showed that kindergarten principals considered decisions
based on in-group favoritism less frequently. This research
result differed from many past research findings, such as Si-
danius, Pratto, & Rabinowitz (1994), who pointed out that im-
portant individuals in organizations will give special privileges
to in-group members and special care, resulting in bias. How-
ever, kindergarten principals rarely apply this kind of in-group
favoritism on layoff decisions; perhaps because they believe
that only keeping able teachers can achieve the goal of contin-
ued organizational survival.
Variance analysis of the data in this study showed that dif-
ferent types of kindergartens exhibited some differences in their
layoff decisions. This result further supported the finding by
Sisco & Yu (2010), who stated that institutional characteristics
will affect ethical decision-making. The results of variance
analysis showed that differences in layoff decisions at different
kindergartens were primarily based on the three decision types
of in-group favoritism, the ability approach, and the care ap-
proach, and that the public good approach did not show sig-
nificant differences (F = 1.380, p > .05). In terms of decisions
based on in-group favoritism layoff, privately operated kinder-
gartens had the highest means, and religious and charitable
kindergartens had the lowest means. The post-hoc comparison
showed a significant difference (p < .05), indicating that pri-
Y.-G. CHEN, J.-N. CHENG
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 569
Table 4.
Summary of the mean difference F test of kindergarten types on layoff decisions.
Dimension Kindergarten type
Total means of di-
mensions
Standard
deviation
Number
F test
Eta
Mean of single
items in dimensions
(Standard
deviation)
Post Hoc
1. Privately operated 8.0809 3.048 136 3.94* .24
2. Religious and charitable 6.3571 2.422 28
3. Large franchise 6.7619 2.234 21
In-group
favoritism decision
4. Affiliated with schools 6.7273 2.760 11
1.52 (.633) 1 > 2*
1. Privately operated 12.2394 1.701 142 3.01* .21
2. Religious and charitable 12.8929 1.707 28
3. Large franchise 12.6818 2.338 22
Ability approach
decision
4. Affiliated with schools 13.6364 1.629 11
4.15 (.740) n.s.
1. Privately operated 13.4676 2.529 139 2.73* .20
2. Religious and charitable 14.6667 2.370 27
3. Large franchise 12.6190 3.090 21
Care approach
decision
4. Affiliated with schools 13.1818 2.523 11
3.38 (.944) n.s.
1. Privately operated 8.3944 1.179 142 1.38 .14
2. Religious and charitable 8.6429 1.723 28
3. Large franchise 8.9545 1.214 22
Public good
decision
4. Affiliated with schools 8.6364 1.567 11
4.25 (.685) -
*p < .05.
vately operated kindergartens were more biased toward the
teachers who were close to and trusted by the principals than
were religious and charitable kindergartens (religious and
charitable kindergartens were less biased). In terms of decisions
based on the ability approach, kindergartens affiliated with
schools had the highest means, and privately operated kinder-
gartens have the lowest means, and there were significant dif-
ferences (p < .05). Although the post-hoc comparison did not
show a significant difference among different types of kinder-
gartens, this information showed that kindergartens affiliated
with schools were more concerned with layoff decisions based
on the ability approach than were other types of kindergartens.
In other words, when laying off teachers, they would consider
the teachers’ abilities, qualifications, and performance. In deci-
sions based on the care approach, kindergartens established by
religious and charitable groups had the highest mean, and large
franchise kindergartens had the lowest mean, and the difference
was significant (p < .05). Although the post-hoc comparison did
not show significant differences among the different types of
kindergartens, this data indicated that religious and charitable
kindergartens placed greater emphasis on layoff decisions
based on the care approach than other kindergartens, which
showed that they were more concerned with caring about the
special situations of teachers (as shown in Table 4).
The other point of exploration in this study was how differ-
ent layoff decisions would affect kindergarten competitiveness
and effectiveness. Even though the past study by Guthrie &
Datta (2008) pointed out that there are negative correlations
between labor cuts or layoffs and organizational profitability
and an increase in organizational assets (r = .29), and other
studies have pointed out that layoffs may affect employee ef-
fectiveness (Manela, 2010), these studies have not been able to
further explain which layoff decisions harm competitiveness
and effectiveness. Regression analysis of the data in this study
showed that having more decisions based on in-group favorit-
ism would be harmful for kindergarten competitiveness (Beta =
.20, p < .05) and kindergarten effectiveness (Beta = .20, p
< .05), and that having more decisions based on the ability ap-
proach would have a greater benefit for kindergarten competi-
tiveness (Beta = .19, p < .05) and kindergarten effectiveness
(Beta = .15, p < .05). However, decisions based on the care
approach would benefit kindergarten effectiveness (Beta = .21,
p < .05) but not kindergarten competitiveness. As for layoff
decisions based on the public good approach, the kindergartens
did not show major differences and there were no significant
effects (as in Table 5). Thus, results of this study more con-
cretely pointed out the value of making decisions using the
ability approach in kindergarten competitiveness and effective-
ness. At the same time, it explained that decisions based on
in-group favoritism would harm kindergarten competitiveness
and effectiveness.
Conclusions and Suggestions
This study was concerned with the necessity for human re-
sources to be restructured or laid off in kindergartens for cost
considerations, in the face of falling birth rates and fewer stu-
dents. This study hoped to explore which layoff decisions could
benefit kindergarten effectiveness and competitiveness, as well
Y.-G. CHEN, J.-N. CHENG
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
570
Table 5.
Summary of the regression analysis of layoff decisions, competitive-
ness, and effectiveness.
Kindergarten
competitiveness
Kindergarten
effectiveness
Criterion
Variable
Predictor variable B Beta B Beta
In-group favoritism decision 1.08*.20 .34* .20
Care approach decision .98 .15 .39* .21
Ability approach decision 1.66* .19 .41* .15
Public good decision .70 .06 .52 .14
Constant 170.01- 37.93*-
Sample number 148 - 191 -
F value 5.19* - 11.13*-
R² .13 - .19 -
*p < .05.
as which decisions would negatively effect on effectiveness and
competitiveness, when kindergartens were forced to make lay-
off decisions. At the same time, this study hoped to explore
whether there were differences between the layoff decisions in
different types of schools. It was found that when Taiwanese
kindergarten principals made layoff decisions, they would be
inclined toward using the ability approach and public good
decisions, and that they would less often use in-group favorit-
ism decisions. They made decisions based on the care approach
to a medium degree. However, there were still some differences
when comparing different types of kindergartens. In terms of
decisions based on in-group favoritism, privately-operated kin-
dergartens had more such considerations than other kindergar-
tens. Decisions based on the care approach received more em-
phasis at kindergartens established by religious/charitable or-
ganizations than at other kindergartens, and decisions based on
the ability approach were more often used by kindergartens
affiliated with schools than by other kindergartens. In addition,
this study investigated which layoff decisions would benefit
kindergarten effectiveness and competitiveness. The research
results showed that decisions based on in-group favoritism
harmed kindergarten competitiveness and operational effec-
tiveness, while decisions using the ability approach positively
affected competitiveness and effectiveness. Although care ap-
proach decisions could benefit operational effectiveness, they
did not significantly enhance competitiveness.
Past studies have warned that layoffs may have negative in-
fluences on employee effectiveness. When it is necessary to lay
off employees, this study more concretely pointed out the im-
portance of using the ability approach to maintain kindergarten
competitiveness and effectiveness. At the same time, it ex-
plained that decisions based on in-group favoritism were not
good for kindergarten competitiveness and effectiveness. As for
the decisions based on the care approach, which are emphasized
by Chinese society and organizations, this study found that they
could benefit operational effectiveness, but that they did not
have a significant effect on elevating competitiveness. This
highlighted that if kindergartens wish to emphasize the eleva-
tion of competitiveness so that they can continue to exist in an
environment of intense competition, kindergarten layoffs should
use the ability approach as the highest guiding principle. In-
group favoritism should not be used at all, as it will have a
negative influence on elevating competitiveness; even decisions
based on the care approach should not be used, because these
do not benefit competitiveness. However, if the goal of a kin-
dergarten is only to enhance effectiveness, then decisions based
on the ability approach and the care approach can be used. Fi-
nally, this study suggested that privately-operated kindergartens
should be concerned with the problem of higher levels of
in-group favoritism. Even though both privately-operated kin-
dergartens and religious and charitable kindergartens have low
instances of decisions based on in-group favoritism, both types
are private kindergartens, and in the intensely competitive early
education market, any tiny difference may result in serious
problems. Privately-operated kindergartens are prone to a great-
er number of decisions based on in-group favoritism, and they
need to be careful with this issue.
In future research, it is suggested that the teachers’ perspec-
tive can be used to consider kindergarten layoff decisions; per-
haps this will lead to different results. Further, this study found
that decisions based on the public good had no significant effect
on kindergarten competitiveness and effectiveness. It is possi-
ble that all of the kindergartens had high average scores for
decisions based on the public good and that they were therefore
unable to demonstrate a difference. The other possibility is that
there were relatively fewer items about public good decisions,
which may have affected the influence on competitiveness and
effectiveness. Subsequent research and development can make
modifications on this point. This study looks forward to re-
search results from other countries on this issue, as well as in-
ternational comparative studies, which could be used to under-
stand differences in national cultures in regards to kindergarten
layoff decisions.
REFERENCES
Brabeck, M. (1993). Moral judgment: Theory and research on differ-
ences between males and females. In M. J. Larrabee (Ed.), An ethic
of care (pp. 33-48). New York: Routledge.
Department of Statistics, Ministry of Education (2012). Numbers of
schools, teachers, staff, classes, students and graduates (1950-2011
academic years).
http://ebas1.ebas.gov.tw/pxweb/Dialog/statfile9L.asp
Department of Statistics, Ministry of Education (2008b). Numbers of
full-time teachers at schools.
http://ebas1.ebas.gov.tw/pxweb/Dialog/statfile9L.asp
Donald, B., Hamilton, L., Susanna, L., & James, W. (2011). Teacher
layoffs: An empirical illustration of seniority versus measures of ef-
fectiveness. Education Finance and Policy, 6, 439-454.
doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00041
Garg, R. K., & Jain, S. (2008). Impact of change management on com-
petitiveness: A study of small scale industry in Punjab. Global Jour-
nal of Flexible Systems Management, 9, 55-60.
Graen, G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations.
In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook in industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago: Rand Mcnally.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role making model of leadership in
formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt, & L.
L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers. Kent, Ohio: Kent State Uni-
versity Press.
Groves, K., Vance, C., & Paik, Y. (2008). Linking linear/nonlinear
thinking style balance and managerial ethical decision-making.
Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 305-325.
doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9422-4
Guthrie, J. P., & Datta, D. K. (2008). Dumb and dumber: The impact of
downsizing on firm performance as moderated by industry condi-
tions. Organization Science, 19, 108-123.
Y.-G. CHEN, J.-N. CHENG
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 571
doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0298
Hegtvedt, K. A., & Killian, C. (1999). Fairness and emotions: Reac-
tions to process and outcomes of negotiations. Social Forces, 78,
269-303.
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2008). Toward model of cross-cultural
business ethics: The impact of individualism and collectivism on the
ethical decision-making process. Journal of Business Ethics, 82,
293-305. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9888-8
Joseph, F. H., Rolph, E. A., & Ronald, L. T. (1987). Multivariate data
and analysis with reading. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.
Lin, H. M. (1999). Establishment of close subordinate relationships.
Journal of Education and Psychology, 22, 323-354.
Manela, P. K. (2010). Responses of school social workers to job transi-
tions: Transfers, layoffs, job loss, and retirement. Children & Schools
32, 187-189. doi:10.1093/cs/32.3.187
New Teacher Project (2010). A smarter teacher layoff system: How
quality-based layoffs can help schools keep great teachers in tough
economic times.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/870282759?accountid=12699
Nyaw, M. K., & Ng, I. (1994). A comparative analysis of ethical beliefs:
A four country study. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 543-555.
doi:10.1007/BF00881299
Ordonez, L., Connolly, T., & Coughlan, R. (2000). Multiple reference
points in satisfaction and fairness assessment. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 13, 329-344.
doi:10.1002/1099-0771(200007/09)13:3<329::AID-BDM356>3.0.C
O;2-Q
Patten, P., Ricks, O., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early
Childhood Education, C. L. (2000). Child care quality: An overview
for parents. ERIC Digest.
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&sid=be77b8e3-c00f-4c
96-8baf-524d5e4c9f25%40sessionmgr10&hid=117&bdata=Jmxhbm
c9emgtdHcmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#db=eric&AN=ED447969
Payne, D., & Joyner, B. E. (2006). Successful US entrepreneurs: Iden-
tifying ethical decision-making and social responsibility behaviors.
Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 203-217.
doi:10.1007/s10551-005-4674-3
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and the-
ory. Westpert, CT: Praeger.
Schweitzer, M. E., & Gibson, D. E. (2008). Fairness, feelings, and ethi-
cal decision-making: Consequences of violating community standards of
fairness. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 287-301.
doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9350-3
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Rabinowitz, I. L. (1994). Ingroup identifica-
tion, social dominance, orientation, and differential intergroup social
allocation. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 151-167.
doi:10.1080/00224545.1994.9711378
Sisco, L. A., & Yu, N. (2010). The rhetoric of Chinese layoff memos.
Business Communication Quarterly, 73, 326-330.
doi:10.1177/1080569910377276
Su, Q. H. (2007). Correlations between elementary school principal
decision-making styles and ethical decision making. Master’s Thesis,
Tainan: Graduate Institute of Educational Entrepreneurship and Man-
agement, National Tainan University.
Varma, A., & DeNisi, A. S. (1996). Interpersonal affect and perform-
ance appraisal: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 49, 341-360.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01803.x
West, R. P. (2004). Indicators of school quality: School characteristics
that predict success in raising academic achievement. Salt Lake City:
Utah Special Education Consortium.