Kindergarten Layoff Decisions, Competitiveness and Effectiveness: Ability Decisions, Care Decisions, Public Good Decisions, In-Group Favoritism


Many kindergartens have been affected by declining birthrates, and it has become difficult for them to recruit students. Due to the consideration of costs and benefits, some have had to lay off teachers to maintain operational benefits. This study focused on the types of layoff decisions made by kindergarten operators, as well as which types of layoff decisions would better benefit kindergarten competitiveness and effectiveness. 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 between various types of kindergartens in making layoff decisions, and on the other hand it explored the effect 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 inclined 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 management 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 competitiveness.

Share and Cite:

Chen, Y. & Cheng, J. (2013). Kindergarten Layoff Decisions, Competitiveness and Effectiveness: Ability Decisions, Care Decisions, Public Good Decisions, In-Group Favoritism. Creative Education, 4, 563-571. doi: 10.4236/ce.2013.49082.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] 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.
[2] Department of Statistics, Ministry of Education (2012). Numbers of schools, teachers, staff, classes, students and graduates (1950-2011 academic years).
[3] Department of Statistics, Ministry of Education (2008b). Numbers of full-time teachers at schools.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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
[9] 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.
[10] Hegtvedt, K. A., & Killian, C. (1999). Fairness and emotions: Reac tions to process and outcomes of negotiations. Social Forces, 78, 269-303.
[11] 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
[12] Joseph, F. H., Rolph, E. A., & Ronald, L. T. (1987). Multivariate data and analysis with reading. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.
[13] Lin, H. M. (1999). Establishment of close subordinate relationships. Journal of Education and Psychology, 22, 323-354.
[14] 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
[15] New Teacher Project (2010). A smarter teacher layoff system: How quality-based layoffs can help schools keep great teachers in tough economic times.
[16] 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
[17] Ordonez, L., Connolly, T., & Coughlan, R. (2000). Multiple reference points in satisfaction and fairness assessment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 329-344.
[18] Patten, P., Ricks, O., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, C. L. (2000). Child care quality: An overview for parents. ERIC Digest.
[19] 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
[20] Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.
[21] Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and the ory. Westpert, CT: Praeger.
[22] 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
[23] 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
[24] Sisco, L. A., & Yu, N. (2010). The rhetoric of Chinese layoff memos. Business Communication Quarterly, 73, 326-330. doi:10.1177/1080569910377276
[25] 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.
[26] 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
[27] West, R. P. (2004). Indicators of school quality: School characteristics that predict success in raising academic achievement. Salt Lake City: Utah Special Education Consortium.

Copyright © 2021 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.