Affiliations: ^* Associate Professor, Department of Business Administration, School of Business and Economics, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411. ^** Professor, Department of Economics and Transportation/Logistics, School of Business and Economics, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411.

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is distributed under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Research Institute Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.

                                                                                                                                              Technical Report Documentation Page

Many public transit systems have undergone organizational changes and restructuring in an effort to improve operation efficiency and competitiveness since the 1980s. A notable change is increased level of contracting which has affected employee organizational commitment and perceptions of job insecurity because of job losses, changes in job features, and the feeling of powerlessness among lay off survivors.

This study assesses how to manage the effects or outcomes of organizational change of job security and employee commitment in transit systems using trust-building, empowerment, employee reassurance, and job redesign strategies. The major findings are that organizational restructuring, downsizing and lay offs have contributed to erosion of employees’ trust in management, organizational commitment, and feelings of powerlessness among employees of public transit organizations.

These general conclusions suggest the need for management to take conscious steps to build employees’ trust by focusing on maintaining behavior consistency and integrity especially on issues and decisions that affect employees’ welfare and self determination. When management is perceived by employees as showing concern for their welfare, it could result in improved morale, increased job satisfaction, and improved productivity. Job redesign, employee empowerment, and reassurance are among the additional strategies the study recommends to manage the possible negative organizational consequences of restructuring and downsizing such as reduced levels of organizational commitment, trust, and perceptions of job insecurity.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

______________________________________________________________________________

Since the early 1980s outsourcing or the practice of contracting some parts of an organization’s functions to another organization, has been a widely used strategy to reduce cost, improve internal efficiency and organizational competitiveness. Often, an outsourcing is followed by downsizing, internal structure alignment and workforce reduction that in turn produce unpleasant organizational realities for employees who are laid-off and those who survive and remain with the organization.

The obvious reality for those laid-off is the economic hardship and psychological tremors that are often associated with the loss of jobs. Others are the erosion of trust, morale and heightened feelings of job insecurity, breach of psychological contracts that produce intents to quit, reduced organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Ashford, Lee and Bobko 1989, Fisher 1991). Cascio (1993), reported increased job stress and burnout in more than 50 percent of layoff survivors. In other cases, downsizing has caused survivors to increase their work efforts to take advantage of career growth opportunities (Isabella 1989; Henkoff 1994). This was particularly true in organizations where survivors perceived the layoff process to be fair, just, and equitable (Brockner, Grover & Blonder, 1988; Greenberg, 1987, 1990). Additionally, Brockner, Grover, Reed and Dewitt (1992) found evidence of an inverted-U relationship between layoff-induced job insecurity and survivors’ work efforts. This finding suggests that a certain level of job insecurity (high enough to overcome complacency) leads to increased level of survivors’ work efforts. Especially, this is true among those who have high economic need to work and would want to increase their chances of surviving future layoffs.

Mishra and Spreitzer (1998) grouped layoff survivors’ behavior into two broad categories, constructive and destructive. Constructive survivors’ behavior include obliging responses of feeling calm, relief, commitment and loyalty. A second category of constructive response is the feeling and expression of hope, excitement, optimism, and willingness to solve problems and take initiatives. Destructive responses are feelings and expressions of fear, anxiety, helplessness, withdrawal and procrastination. Others include cynicism, anger, disgust, retaliation and the tendency to badmouth the organization. Mishra and Spreitzer (1998) argued that "trust and justice . . . reduce the extent to which organizational downsizing (layoffs) is evaluated as a threat." Furthermore, they argued that empowerment and work redesign influence survivors’ assessment of their capacity to cope with the threat.

Considerable research efforts have been devoted to the identification and analyses of personal and organizational consequences of outsourcing, downsizing and similar organizational change interventions. However, few studies have addressed the issue of how to restore layoff survivors’ trust, organizational commitment and the sense of job security, though various theoretical frameworks have been offered on them in human resource and performance management literature. Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the level of employee organizational commitment, perceptions of job insecurity and trust in transit systems that are contracting peripheral and core functions and suggest strategies for improving employee commitment, organizational trust and job security. Additionally, the study assesses the perceptions of employees regarding trust-building, job redesign, employee assurance, and employee empowerment strategies that can be used to restore trust, job security, and organizational commitment. The study is questionnaire-based and targets supervisors and middle-level managers in selected transit systems.

The study is organized as follows. The next section deals with literature review and it is followed by management trust building. After them job redesign, reassurance, and employee empowerment and the relationships between them are discussed in that order. Next, the impacts of organizational change on job security and commitment are examined respectively to be followed by a discussion of how to choose strategies to manage the unfavorable outcomes of an outsourcing or contracting. The last section deals with the conclusion.

Organizational commitment has been and continues to be of great interest to researchers of organizational behavior and management practitioners. Primarily this is because of its association with such desirable work behaviors as increased productivity, personnel stability, lower absenteeism rate, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship (Porter et al., 1974, 1976; Morris & Koch, 1979; Wiener & Vardi, 1980; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin & Jackson, 1989; O'Reily & Chatman, 1986; Shore & Wayne, 1993). Consequently, much of the earlier research focused on definition, identification of antecedents, measurement and development of organizational processes that enhance organizational commitment among employees (Buchanan, 1974; Hall & Schneider, 1972; Mowday et al., 1979, Batement & Strasser, 1984). Among antecedents of organizational commitment are such personal factors as gender, marital status, age, work values, and employment tenure (Hrebiniak & Alluto, 1972; Brown, 1969; Dubin, Champous & Porter, 1975; Kidron, 1978). Beyond personal factors, reward systems, opportunity for employment, perceived organizational support, opportunity for career advancement, job security, values and goals are found to induce organizational commitment (Buchanan, 1974; Jamal, 1974; Shore & Wayne, 1993).

A review of organizational commitment research literature by Meyer and Allen (1991), and corroborated by Dunham, Gruba and Castaneda (1994) identified three types of organizational commitment: affective, continuance and normative. Allen and Meyer (1990), found, that these three classifications of commitment are conceptually and empirically separable. Though there may be some overlap between affective and normative commitment, both were relatively independent of continuance commitment.

Affective commitment is employee emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization and its goals. It results from an agreement between individual and organizational values so it becomes natural for one to become emotionally attached to, and enjoy membership in the organization (March & Simon, 1958; Hall et al., 1970; O'Reily & Chatman, 1986, Meyer & Allen, 1984).

Continuance commitment is willingness to remain in an organization because of personal investment in nontransferable investments. These investments include close working relationships with coworkers, retirement, career, and skills that are unique to a particular organization. They also include years of employment in a particular organization, involvement in the community in which the employer is, and other benefits that make it too costly for one to leave and seek employment elsewhere.

Normative commitment is that which is induced by a feeling of obligation to remain with an organization. Such a feeling often results from what Wiener (1982) characterized as "generalized value of loyalty and duty." This is an almost natural predisposition to be loyal and committed to institutions such as family, marriage, country, religion and employment organization because of socialization in cultures that place premium on loyalty and devotion to institutions. This view of commitment holds that an individual shows commitment behavior solely because she or he believes it is moral and right. They identified personal norms as the factor responsible for what Wiener called "internalized normative pressure" which makes organizational commitment a moral obligation because the individual feels he or she ought to do so. According to Wiener and Verdi (1980), this feeling of moral obligation is measured by the extent to which a person feels loyal to an organization, makes personal sacrifice to help it out, and not criticize the organization.

Common to the three types of commitment, according to Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993), "is the view that commitment is a psychological state that (a) characterizes the employee's relationship with the organization, and (b) has implication for the decision to continue or stop membership in the organization. Employees with a strong affective commitment remain with an organization because they want to, those with a strong continuance commitment remain because they have to, and those with a strong normative commitment remain because they feel they ought to (stay)."

Over the years, two basic approaches have been used to study organizational commitment: Commitment-related attitudes and commitment-related behaviors. Each approach offers a different definition of organizational commitment. The commitment-related attitude approach defines organizational commitment as a partisan, affective attachment to the goals and values, and to the organization for its own sake, apart from purely instrumental worth (Buchanan, 1974, p. 533). Porter, Crampton and Smith (1976), define it as the willingness of an employee to exert high level of effort for the organization, a strong desire for the organization, and an acceptance of its major goals and values. According to Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979, p. 225), attitudinal commitment represents a state in which an individual identifies with a particular organization and its goals and wishes to maintain membership to facilitate these goals.

Normative commitment-related behavior deals with a pattern guided by internalized normative pressures to act in ways that meet organizational goals and interests (Wiener, 1982). Wiener and Gechman (1977) argued that the pattern of behavior resulting from commitment should possess the following characteristics: (1) it should reflect personal sacrifices made for the

sake of the organization; (2) it should show persistence - that is, the behaviors should not depend primarily on environmental controls such as reinforcements or punishment, and (3) it should show a personal preoccupation with the organization; such as devoting a great deal of personal time to organization related actions and thoughts. In this sense, organizational commitment is viewed as: (1) a willingness of individuals to identify with and the desire not to leave an organization for selfish interests or marginal gains; (2) willingness to work selflessly and contribute to the effectiveness of an organization; (3) willingness to make personal sacrifice, perform beyond normal expectations and endure difficult times with an organization - a low propensity to "bailout" in difficult times; (4) acceptance of organization's values and goals - the internalization factor.

Feelings of job insecurity occur along the two dimensions suggested by Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984). The first is the feeling of threats to one’s total job, i.e., threats to a total job. For example, one may be moved into a lower position within the organization, be moved to another job at the same level within the organization, or be laid-off temporarily. At the other extreme, the job loss may be permanent or one may be fired, or be forced into early retirement. The organizational change also may make the future of an entire division or a department uncertain in which case job losses may be imminent.

The second way in which job insecurity is manifested is in feelings of threats to job features, i.e., when some aspects of one’s job (features), are threatened. For example, the organizational change may make it difficult to get ahead in the organization, maintain your current salary or pay increase. It may even affect your position in the company, freedom to schedule work, the variety of tasks performed, and the significance of jobs. Threats to job features may also take the form of difficulty in having access to resources that were previously readily available. Lastly, job insecurity may take the form of employees’ feelings of lack of power or inability to control events that they oppose in their work environment, i.e., feelings of powerlessness.

When employees feel powerless, or feel that the features of their jobs or entire jobs are threatened we argue that it is a sign of feelings of job insecurity. It follows that some but not all job threats, threats to job features, and powerlessness must occur for there to be job insecurity. Brockner, Grover, Reed and Dewitt (1992) theorized that layoff survivors’ level of job insecurity should be: (1) highest when perceived threats to job or job features are high and perceived power and control is low, (2) lowest when the perceived threat is low and perceived power and control is high, and (3) moderate when both threat and control are high or both threat and control are low.

Many studies have established relationships between job security on one hand and organizational commitment and job satisfaction on the other. Rosenblatt and Ayalla (1996) studied the impact of job security on attitudes toward work. They found that job insecurity adversely affected organizational commitment, perceived organizational support, intention to quit, and resistance to change. The importance of employees’ affective commitment to an organization was underscored by Meyer, Paunonen, Gallatly, Richard, and Jackson (1989). In their study they found a positive relationship between affective commitment and different measures of

employees’ job performance, and a negative relationship between continuance commitment and employees’ job performance. This negative relationship led Meyer et al to conclude that examining the policies they implement to increase commitment and the type of commitment they try to encourage is important to organizations. Specifically they discouraged the use of rapid promotion, non vested pension plans, organization-specific skills training et cetera to bind employees to the organization because they may not instill the desire to contribute to organizational effectiveness. Instead, they suggested that fostering affective commitment in employees may be prudent for companies than continuance commitment. In contrast studies suggest that the cancellation of benefits (which bind employees to an organization) have negative impacts on employee commitment. Also, Ting (1996), and Romzek (1990) suggest that organizations should try to increase employees’ investment to reinforce employees’ psychological ties or organizational commitment.

Luthans and Sommer (1999), Mone (1994), Tomasko (1990), and Esty (1984) examined the relationship between downsizing, organizational commitment, and job distress (job security) in organizations. Peripheral researches on outsourcing include recent works of Deavers (1997), Perry (1997), Sharpe (1997), and Abraham and Taylor (1996). These works address a wide range of issues from the effect of outsourcing on wages, union power, and organizational competitiveness, to reasons for outsourcing. They found that downsizing reduces organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job security. Additionally, organizations that downsized had less satisfied and more depressed employees.

Angle and Perry (1981) studied the relationship between organizational commitment, i.e., affective commitment of lower-level employees of organizations offering bus services, and organizational adaptability, turnover, tardiness, absenteeism and operating costs. They found a mixed perception of the relationship between organizational commitment and organizational adaptability. While lower-level employees perceived the association between organizational commitment and organizational adaptability as positive, managers did not. They also found organizational commitment to be associated with turnover, and tardiness but not with absenteeism and operating costs.

Begley and Czajka (1993) examined the moderating effects of organizational commitment on job satisfaction and intent to quit during organizational turmoil. Their findings show that organizational commitment buffered the relationship between stress and job displeasure interpreted to be job dissatisfaction. Kobasa, (1982) argued that commitment shields or protects employees from the adverse effects of stress such as caused by organizational hardship (layoffs), because it enables them to attach direction and meaning to their work. In their view, committed employees are better prepared to confront organizational problems that have employment-related implications, insecurity, and the threat to belonging. Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) found that organizational commitment gives employees a feeling of stability and belonging.

The role and importance of trust in employee and employer relationship have been recognized in employee and labor relations management literature. Muchinsky (1977) and Early (1986), found trust to have significant association with the effectiveness and quality of organizational communication. Employee citizenship and cooperative behaviors have also been significantly associated with trust (Mcallister, 1995; Axelrod, 1984). Mayer et al. (1995), Morris and Moberg

(1994) recognized the importance and usefulness of trust in such organizational variables as leadership effectiveness, team work, performance appraisal and labor relations.

Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard and Werner (1998) provide a three-facet definition of trust: First, trust in another person or party reflects an expectation or belief that the other person or party will act benevolently. Second, trust involves willingness to be vulnerable; it assumes the risk that the other person or party may not fulfill that expectation. Third, trust involves some level of dependency on the other person or party so that the outcomes of one individual are influenced by the actions of another. Robinson (1996) considers trust as an attitude held by one person or party (trustor) toward another person or party (trustee). In Whitener et al. (1998), this attitude is derived from the trustor’s perceptions, beliefs, and attributions about the trustee, based on the trustor’s observation of the trustee’s behavior. Essential preconditions of trust according to Butler (1991), are trustors’ beliefs about and perceptions of trustees’ competence, integrity and benevolence. Whitener et al (1998) argue that these preconditions or antecedents of trust suggest that managers can have considerable impact on trust building and that managers’ actions and behaviors provide the foundation for trust. Furthermore, it is the manager’s responsibility to make the first move toward building relationships of trust. They therefore propose a conceptual framework of initiating managerial trustworthy behavior that includes, behavioral consistency, behavioral integrity, sharing and delegation of control, communication and demonstration of concern.

Behavior Consistency : One definition of trust Whitener et al (1998) provide is the extent to which a trustor is willing to be vulnerable to the actions of a trustee and the willingness to take the risk that the action of the trustee will meet or fulfill the trustor’s expectation. The willingness to be vulnerable to an action of another, and the risk that the action will meet ones expectations, are greatly enhanced by the degree to which a trustor (employee) perceives the behavior of a trustee (manager) to be predictable and reliable. Therefore the extent to which an employee trusts a manager depends on an employee’s perception of the reliability and predictability of the manager’s behavior. Green and Uhl-Bien (1995) found that both positive and predictable behaviors reinforce trust.

Behavioral Integrity : Employees’ attribution about management’s integrity according to Dasgupta (1998) is predicated on the belief that management tells the truth and keeps its promises to employees. Whitener et al. (1998) argue that while behavior consistency and behavior integrity are similar in that both reflect a consistency that reduces employees’ perceived risk of trusting management, they are distinct dimensions. While behavior consistency reflects the predictability and reliability of management’s actions, behavior integrity refers to the consistency between what management says and what it does. Many studies have lent support to the notion that employees’ trust in management is influenced by their attributions about management’s behavior integrity and consistency (Butler, 1991; Ring & Van de Ven, 1992; Meyer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995).

Sharing and Delegation of Control : Sharing and delegation of decision-making authority is often seen by employees as an expression of the confidence, trust, and respect which management has in employees (Rosen and Jerdee 1977). Tyler and Lind (1992) found, that employees seem to attach value to their involvement and being a part of organizational decision-making process because it signifies how the organization values their contributions. The degree to which employees’ are involved and participate in organizational decision-making process varies from not being involved or having input at all, to full participation as equal partners in all aspects of the decision making process. However, according to Driscoll (1978), employees’ trust in management is greater when they are content with the degree to which they are involved and participate in organizational decision-making processes and in the determination of their work roles. When managers involve employees in decision-making, it protects employees from management actions that may adversely affect them and increase the likelihood of decisions that have favorable outcomes for employees (Whitener et al. 1998).

Communication : Researches in organizational communication have identified accuracy of information, explanation of decisions and openness as three key attributes of employees’ trust in management. In crises, especially, employees very often turn to grapevine sources for information when a formal source of organizational information is not considered credible. O’Reilly, (1977), O’Reilly and Robert (1974), research in organizational communication found a strong association between employees’ perception of managers’ or supervisors’ trustworthiness and accuracy of information that come from the manager or supervisor to employees. Spapienza and Konovsky (1996), Konovsky and Cropanzano (1991) found that higher levels of employees’ trust in management explain decisions and facilitate feedback to employees. Also, open and a free-flow of organizational information improve employees’ trust (Butler, 1991). Organizational communication, therefore, should emphasize sharing and exchanging of ideas. This implies a two-directional instead of a top-down flow of information and emphasizes equity of information exchange.

Demonstration of Concern : Early studies of leadership found "employee-centered" or "consideration" leadership style with emphasis on friendly, trusting, respectful relationship with employee, and employee participation in decision to be associated with higher employee satisfaction and lower turnover rates (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973). Benevolence, another dimension of leadership behavior, is showing consideration and sensitivity for employees’ needs and welfare. It also involves acting in a way that protects employees’ interest, and refraining from exploiting others for one’s own interest. Benevolence has been associated with trust building (Mishra,1996; McAllister, 1995; Mayer et al., 1995). Other studies on employee trust building emphasize showing concern for employees’ needs and interest, respecting the rights of others and apologizing to others for unpleasant consequences (Greenberg, 1993 Lind, 1997; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). To show concern for employees managers should resist the temptation of taking advantage of employees’ vulnerability and other opportunistic behaviors such as taking credit for employees’ work, ideas, use employees’ personal information to the advantage of the organization or personal gains (Petitt, 1995; Bromily and Cummings, 1995; Kramer, Brewer and Hanna, 1996).

A notable concern of many survivors of organizational restructuring, downsizing and layoff is inability to absorb and cope with increased work loads. Survivors’ ability to cope with increase work loads that result from restructuring is not often given serious attention because for the most part, management attention is on how to survive the transitional period (Cameron et al. 1993). Meanwhile, survivors’ level of intrinsic job satisfaction suffers. It is therefore argued by Brockner, Grover, Reed and Dewitt (1992), that job redesign that enhances the intrinsic job quality is necessary to help survivors cope with increase job scope and depth. Mishra and Spreitzer (1998) suggested that the extent to which survivors’ job has been changed as earlier noted by Brockner and Wiesenfeld (1993) will influence their response to downsizing. They further theorized that survivors who lack the ability and resources to do their newly assigned duties or jobs effectively are more likely to respond negatively to restructuring and downsizing. The objective of any job redesign following restructuring and downsizing is to return intrinsic job quality to its original level or increase it. In this way, as Brockner, Wiesenfeld, Reed, Grover and Martin (1993) argued, survivors’ attention can be focused on coping with the demands of their increased job scopes that often require a variety of skills because of downsizing or restructuring instead of being distracted, consumed and often frustrated by it.

For more than three decades, much of the research on job design and redesign has been based on the work of Hackman and Oldham (1976, 1980). They argued that the intrinsic value and motivating potential of a job are based on certain task dimensions: Task variety, autonomy, identity, significance feedback and skills’ variety. It is generally assumed that jobs that are high on these dimensions or attributes have higher motivating potentials than a job that is not. Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) added the role of individual differences but for the most part, Hackman and Oldham’s task dimensions or attributes remain the focus of research on job design or redesign (Griffin, Welsh and Moorhead, 1981).

Mishra and Spreitzer (1998), identified job variety and autonomy as two attributes of the Hackman and Oldham task dimensions relevant to intrinsic job quality in restructuring and downsizing. They reasoned that because of restructuring and downsizing, survivors are asked to assume some duties and responsibilities of those who are laid-off. Therefore, survivors may need additional skills and resources to cope with the increased variety of their job. These new skills and resources may in turn reduce their sense of job insecurity. Secondly, they argued that job autonomy becomes more important if survivors are expected to assume more decision-making roles as more decisions are driven down when the organizational structure is "delayered" because of restructuring and downsizing. They reasoned that if survivors have more autonomy in decision-making and have more choices in doing their jobs, they are likely to feel more in control and are better able to manage.

One of the most frequently referenced definitions of empowerment is that offered by Conger and Kanungo (1988). They define empowerment as "a process of enhancing the feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness, and through their removal by both formal organizational practices and informal techniques of proving efficacy information." This definition implies strengthening the effort-to-performance expectancy or increasing employee feeling of self-efficacy. According to Conger and Kanungo the effect of empowerment is "initiation and persistence of behavior by empowered employees to accomplish task objectives." These definitions are derived from the management theory of power and authority delegation that gives an employee the right to control and use organizational resources to bring desired organizational outcomes.

Thomas and Velthouse (1990) however, argued that the concept of empowerment is much more complex and could not be fully explained with unidimensional constructs such as self-efficacy. They therefore define it "as intrinsic task motivation that manifests itself in four cognitions reflecting an individual’s orientation to his or her work roles." By intrinsic task motivation they mean "positively valued experiences that an individual derives directly from a task that produces motivation and satisfaction." The four cognitions they identified are meaningfulness, competence, impact, and choice or self-determination. Meaningfulness is the value of the task goal or purpose in relation to the individual’s own ideals or standards, and competence is the degree to which a person can perform task activities skillfully. Impact on the other hand is the degree to which behavior is seen as making a difference in terms of accomplishing the purpose of the task, while choice or self-determination is the causal responsibility for a person’s actions. It reflects independence in the initiation and continuation of work behavior and processes (Deci, Connell, and Ryan, 1989).

A practical and process oriented definition of empowerment was offered by Bowen and Lawler (1992). They defined it "as sharing with front-line employees information about an organization’s performance, information about rewards based on the organization’s performance, knowledge that enables employees to understand and contribute to organizational performance, and giving employees the power to make decisions that influence organizational direction and performance." According to Zemke and Schaaf (1989), employee empowerment means turning the "front-line" loose, and encouraging and rewarding employees to exercise initiative and imagination.

In practice, employee empowerment centers on strategies or interventions that strengthen employees’ self-efficacy or confidence in accomplishing task objectives. The management literature on employee empowerment identifies contextual factors and strategies that promote and support empowerment. For example, Burke (1986) suggests that a way to empower employees is to express confidence in them and by establishing realistic high performance expectations for them. Block (1987) adds the creation of opportunities for employees to participate in decision making, and giving employees autonomy from bureaucratic constraints as empowerment strategies. Comparatively, Benis and Nanus (1985) suggest the strategy of setting performance objectives for employees that are challenging and inspiring. Also, Oldham (1976), Kanter (1979), Strauss (1979), Hackman and Oldham (1975) suggest performance-based reward systems and enriched jobs that provide autonomy and control, task identity, opportunities for career advancement and task meaningfulness as ways to empower employees. At the organizational level, however, McClelland (1975) and House (1988) suggest that empowerment could be achieved through employee selection and training programs designed to provide required technical skills and cultures that encourage self-determination and collaboration instead of competition.

Thus, in organizations, employee empowerment is achieved by encouraging employees to respond to work-related problems and giving them the resources and authority to do so. Also, employees are delegated authority and allocated resources to improve decision-making in their jobs. To Colzon (1987) the empowerment strategy is to free employees from the rigorous control by instruction, policies, and orders and giving them the freedom to take responsibility for their ideas, decisions and actions, and releasing hidden resources to them.

The literature search assessed the current state of knowledge on the impacts of an outsourcing on organizational commitment and job security. It brought together the discourses and agreements in these areas. From it we can develop scales for the strategies (empowerment, management-employee relations, job redesign, reassurance, and communication) that management could use to address the outcomes (job security and organizational commitment) of an outsourcing. Whatever scale that is developed must be applied to data to understand employees’ feelings about the consequences of restructuring that involves, i.e., job security, organizational commitment, and the strategies that can be used to manage them.

Since the early 1980s publicly transit systems have been required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to contract out portions of their operation to private sector companies. The rationale for this requirement is the recognition that transit systems must focus on their core competencies which are providing fixed route services. Following this recognition, transit systems now contract out peripheral services such as information support systems and demand responsive services to private sector companies. Statistics from Section 15 sources show that ever more transit services were purchased in 1996 through contracting than in 1984. In fact in 1996 three times as many transit systems reported purchased services (contracting) compared with 1984. Initially, contracted services involved the core areas of transit system operations, particularly line haul operations. Today, it includes such areas as maintenance, and management information systems and involves layoffs and transfers of some employees to positions they may deem less visible, i.e., change their job features. Thus, the potentials for job losses and threats to job features may raise issues of job security and organizational commitment in public transit systems. We analyze these issues by developing a questionnaire instrument to survey employees in selected US public transit systems.

Five transit systems were randomly selected based upon size and used in this study. Two of the transit systems were very small, one was medium size, and the other two were among the largest in the country. All were selected to typify US public transit systems. However, the major decision influencing criterion was our ability to agree with management for us to distribute the questionnaire, or the availability of an employee directory to us. There was resistance from some transit management so we were not able to include many agencies in the study.

Trust building : For trust building, i.e., management and employee relations, the measures are derived from Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard and Werner (1998). These authors identified the following five measures of employee and employer relations: Behavior consistency which deals with the predictability of management actions, behavior integrity which is being believable, demonstration of concern, delegation of authority, and communication. Each is analyzed using a three-item scale and respondents were to express their levels of agreements or disagreements with these statements using a five-point Likert scale: Strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither agree nor disagree (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5).

Jobs redesign: Oldham (1976, 1980) identifies task variety, skills’ variety, task identity, task autonomy, feedback, and a category called others as measures of job redesign. Except task autonomy and the category of others, each measure is identified by a one-item statement. Task variety is assessed by the opportunity to do a variety of tasks. Skill variety is the opportunity to use a variety of skills on a job, task identity by an opportunity to complete an entire task an employee can call his own, and feedback by a job in which an employee can tell how well he is doing. The two statements regarding task autonomy are the freedom management gives employees to do their jobs in ways they see fit, and freedom to schedule own work. The other item statements in job design are opportunity to work with cooperative employees, and additional training and technology to handle the demands of a job. Thus, in all job redesign uses a seven-item statement scale.

Employee reassurance : Reassurance is assessed as the importance of information to employees about the future directions of their organizations, their involvement in determining the future direction of the organization, knowing how their jobs contribute to the survival of the organizations, and knowing that they are a part of the future of the organizations. The responses for reassurance and job redesign were based upon a five-point Likert scale, i.e., 1 - very unimportant, 2 - unimportant, 3 - neither unimportant nor important, 4 - important, 5 - very important.

Employee empowerment : Following Conger and Kanungo (1988), Mishra and Spreitzer (1998) we use four measures of empowerment. The first, meaning, is the value of a work objective compared with one’s ideals or standards. The second, competence, is an individual’s conviction or confidence in his or her ability or effectiveness in accomplishing the performance requirements of a task. Self-determination is the third measure and it reflects independence in the initiation and continuation of work behavior and processes (Deci, Connell, and Ryan, 1989). Fourthly, impact refers to the degree to which an individual can influence outcomes. Each measure of empowerment is assessed by a three-item statement giving twelve statements together. Respondents were to show their levels of agreement to statements about empowerment using a five-point Likert scale. The scale is as follows: 1 - strongly disagree, 2 - disagree, 3 - neither agree nor disagree, 4 - agree, and 5 - strongly agree.

Job security : Often, organizational change that involves downsizing, restructuring and layoffs cause feelings of job insecurity among employees. We used three measures of job insecurity in this study to assess the existence of feelings of job insecurity. Our use of multiple item measures of job security is, of course, different from the global measures often found in the management literature. For example, Hackman and Oldham’s (1974) Job Diagnostic Survey, uses a one-item statement to measure job insecurity. Multiple measures of job security are superior to a single-item measure because they can capture the many different aspects of job security. Thus, we can analyze separately the different measures of job security and identify those demographic variables that may be related to each of them. For threats to the total job we use an eight-item scale that asks employees to show how likely certain events might occur to them in their jobs. Threats to job features are measured with a twelve-item scale. Responses to both the threats to the total job and job features were based upon the following Likert scale: 1 - very unlikely, 2 - unlikely, 3 - neither likely nor unlikely, 4 - likely, and 5 - very likely. Powerlessness was measured using a three-item scale with respondents showing their agreements or disagreements with statements about their abilities to change events that may affect them and their jobs in their organizations. If employees disagree with the statements, it shows powerlessness. The Likert scale for powerlessness is, 1 - strongly disagree, 2 - disagree, 3 - neither agree nor disagree, 4 - agree, and 5 - strongly agree.

Organizational commitment : Meyer, Paunonen, Gallatly, Richard and Jackson (1989) identify three types of commitment: Continuance, normative, and affective. Continuance commitment deals with staying in an organization because one has to do so. It is a reflection of lack of choices that an individual may face because of some circumstances. Normative commitment comes from tradition, culture, and socialization process that require individuals to be loyal to organizations. Affective commitment comes from the love of and identification with an organization. The item statements for these measures of commitment come from these same authors. Survey respondents were to show their levels of agreement to statements about affective, continuance, and normative commitment using a five-point Likert scale. This scale is of the form, 1 - strongly disagree, 2 - disagree, 3 - neither agree nor disagree, 4 - agree, 5 - strongly agree.

We developed a questionnaire addressed to middle and upper level management to assess their agreements to the item statements about their perceptions of certain aspects of job security, organizational commitment and strategies that deal with trust-building, empowerment, job redesign and employee reassurance. The questionnaire included requests for socioeconomic data from the respondents and was mailed with postage-paid return envelopes to employees whose systems agreed to the survey. Where employee directories were available, they were used in the direct mailing. Otherwise, an employee selected by management distributed the questionnaires for us. The employees returned the completed questionnaires in envelopes with prepaid postage. Overall we distributed 700 questionnaires and the employees returned 289 in usable form giving an effective response rate of 41.29%.

The statistical methods used in the analyses are factor analyses to test the validity of the measures, Pearson correlation to assess the relationships between the scale items, Cronbach’s alphas to test for the reliability of the scales, and step-wise regression equations to link the organizational consequences, (i.e., commitment and job security), to the organizational strategies and demographic variables. The equations are important to isolate the strategies that can be used together to manage job security and organizational commitment. In the step-wise regression the strategies and outcomes are the composite means of the measures. That is, the scores of the items in each measure are summed and the mean calculated as the composite mean. The dependent variables in these equations are the organizational consequences discussed earlier.

_________________________________________________________

An organization experiencing an erosion of employees’ trust in management because of an organizational change such as layoffs, downsizing and outsourcing may rebuild that trust relationship by engaging in five trust-building behaviors: Behavior consistency, behavior integrity, sharing and delegation of authority, communication, and demonstration of concern. Behavior consistency deals with employees’ ability to predict future actions of management based on management’s past behavior. A consistent pattern of management behavior enables employees to predict, with little doubt, what management will do in the future. This is particularly important at a time when management is contemplating or carrying out an organizational change perceived as a threat to the foundation of employees’ organizational commitment, trust and feelings of job security. If the behavior of management in times of change is predictable, it helps to alleviate employees’ fear of the unknown. If, however, management’s pattern of past behavior is inconsistent, employees’ reactions to any form of organizational change may be irrational and based on fears and cynicism that may be counter productive.

An inconsistent pattern of management behavior raises questions about management’s integrity, and whether it can be trusted at all. To maintain integrity with employees therefore, management must be believed and trusted to do what it says it will do always. Behavior integrity means that management can be believed and trusted to keep its promises to employees always. It also means that employees are not disappointed when they rely on what management promises to do. Integrity builds trust, and a relationship of trust between management and employees can have positive impact on employees’ work behaviors. For example, an employer with a reputation of trustworthiness is likely to be attractive to employees who will be committed to the goals of an organization and be willing to work to meet or exceed those goals.

To build trust, management may seek to improve employee relations by establishing credible organization-wide communication systems continuously to share information, particularly about change and how it will affect employees and the future of the organization. Also, information that justifies the change should by readily available to all employees so that the needed change is fully understood. However, merely providing information to employees is not enough to build trust; the information must be accurate, timely and complete.

Another management trust building strategy is demonstration of concern for employee welfare. In general employees may not want to work for an employer who does not show concern for, or is indifferent toward their welfare. Management’s lack of appreciation or an understanding of issues that affect employee welfare could fester discontent and even loss of goodwill. We assess the extent to which management shows concern through questions to employees about the priority management gives to employees’ welfare, the extra steps management takes in protecting the interests of employees, and the sensitivity it shows toward the interests of employees when making critical decisions that affect them. Another way is to delegate some decision-making authority to employees. Yet another is seeking employee inputs in decisions that affect them, or involving employees in the organizational decision-making process. The results of the analyses are discussed below and shown in Table 1.

The probabilities are in the parentheses.

Behavior Consistency : As the table shows, respondents perceived management patterns of behavior to be inconsistent in the three areas. While most employees are indifferent about their abilities to predict future actions of management, a general feeling is that employees cannot always rely on word of management. Similarly, the responses regarding the overall measure of consistency (mean = 2.7529), show a tendency for employees to feel management behavior is inconsistent. The low standard errors emphasize the consistency in responses; a point well illustrated by the high alpha values of more than 0.57. For behavior integrity as a whole, the alpha value of 0.7410 shows that similar results will be obtained by responses drawn from other populations. Therefore, the results will be generally applicable to other transit system employees. A notable result in Table 1 is the highly significant correlation among the three items. Employees who rated one item lower did so for the other items. Since the three items measure the same thing, consistency, the result is expected.

Behavior Integrity : The behavior integrity scale measures the extent to which management is perceived to tell the truth to employees, keeps its promises, and is reliable in all situations. Table 1 shows the results obtained from the respondents. Again, as with behavior consistency, the mean values are less that 3.0 for each item showing that overall transit system employees do not feel that management behavior is consistent. Most of them appear disappointed whenever they rely on what management says (mean = 2.1529), do not feel that management keeps its promises (mean = 2.3529), and disagree that management tells the truth in all situations (mean = 2.2471). The low standard errors and high alphas suggest a pattern of consistency in responses. In fact, the high correlations between the responses also suggests that those who feel disappointed when they rely on what management says are those who disagree that management tells the truth or keeps its promises to employees.

Sharing and Delegation of Authority : The results of management trust-building behaviors about sharing and delegating authority are provided in Table 1. Here too, a three-item scale was used to measure the extent to which management shares and delegates authority by seeking the inputs of employees in decision-making, making a great deal of effort to involve employees in all aspects of the decision-making process, and delegating decision-making authority to employees. The results show consistency in responses (" = 0.8278) and, except in one case, low standard deviations for the items. The standard deviation for the item that asks if management seeks the inputs of employees in decision-making is high and suggests disparities in responses. Overall, those who strongly agree (disagree) with one statement also agree (disagree) with the others as revealed by the correlation between the items.

Examining the mean values of the items, again, there is a general disagreement among respondents that management shares or delegates authority to transit system employees regardless the item used in the assessment. The mean values seem to show that most respondents at least disagree with the statements. For example, the mean value of the statement asking if management seeks the inputs of employees when making decisions that affect employees is 2.5238, which is almost the same as that regarding management delegation of decision-making authority (mean = 2.5647).

Probabilities are in parentheses. Only the statistically significant coefficients are shown in the table.

Demonstration of Concern : Another aspect of employee trust building for which we sought answers is the extent to which management showed concern for employees. Again, a three-item scale was used to measure demonstration of concern, and as before, the responses were based upon a five-point Likert scale. The first item asked employees to show their levels of agreement to the statement, "the management of this organization is always sensitive to the interests of employees when making critical decisions." The second statement is "in this organization management takes the extra step to protect the interests of employees," while the third is "in this organization, management gives employees’ welfare high priority."

The results in Table 1 show a general disagreement that management shows concern. Again, the standard deviations are quite low and show similar responses. Similarly, the consistency in responses is shown by the high alpha values both for the items (" = 0.5656 to " = 0.9078) and the scale (" = 0.9185). The correlation coefficients are positive and highly significant showing that those who disagree with one item also disagree with the others. The mean values of the items, however, seem to suggest that on the average the responses of the study participants border on being indifferent. That is, it appears that most respondents were close to neither agreeing nor disagreeing with these statements.

Communication: Our final measure of trust building behavior was communication. As in the others, a three-item scale was used. The items deal with the extent to which management provides employees accurate information about the affairs of the organization and try always to explain major organizational decisions to employees, and freely sharing ideas with employees. Table 1 shows the results of the communication measure. Clearly, there is far stronger evidence here, compared with the previous measures, that the respondents are indifferent in their answers since the mean values are very close to three (3). Specifically, the respondents are almost equally split between at least agreeing and at least disagreeing with the statements. Both the first two items in this scale have the same mean values (2.9176) and the last item has a mean of 2.5647. As before, the alphas are quite high and are consistent with what one should obtain for an established scale. The positive and strong statistically significant correlations between the items suggest that they measure the same aspect of management and employee relations. Specifically, a high agreement with one item of the communication measure is associated with high levels of agreement with the other measures.

Relationships Between the Measures of Management Trust Building Behaviors: While the above results show that there is no aspect of employee trust building which transit system employees at least agree is good, a possibility exists that perhaps there is a trade off between the measures. If so, then one should expect that management may be focusing in some areas and neglecting others and that might be contributing to the low values reported above. To see if indeed such tradeoffs exist, we calculated an average score for each measure. This average is the sum of the ratings of the scale items for each measure divided by the corresponding number of items and is the same procedure used by Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) to obtain composite scores across items. Then, using correlation analysis, we found out the relationships among the measures of management trust building behaviors.

Table 2 shows the results of the correlation analysis and other data used for understanding management trust building behaviors. In particular we have included in this table associations between the five measures and demographic variables. As evident from the table the areas that fare poorly are communication and behavior integrity. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the table that employees perceive management as focusing on some areas of trust building while neglecting others. The correlations among the measures are positive and statistically significant and support the feelings that transit management does not perform well in terms of employees’ trust building and employees’ responses are uniform across all of the measures. These suggest the need for management to focus on improving all aspects of employees’ trust building.

Relationships with Demographic Variables : We also tested for the distinctiveness of the five measures of management behavior using confirmatory factor analysis. We used factor analysis to replicate the five measures and to see if the items in the scales can be regrouped using the factor analysis procedure. Our results do not give a strong support for five measures, that is, for a five-factor solution since only one item loaded heavily on one factor. Sharing and delegation of authority and demonstration of concern loaded heavily on factor one, behavior integrity on factor two, communication on factor three, behavior consistency on factor four, and one item of sharing and delegation on factor five. This item deals with management delegating decision-making authority to employees. These results suggest that we could actually combine sharing and delegation of authority, and demonstration of concern to obtain one measure and eliminate factor five. They also suggest that combining all the measures to obtain a single measure of management trust building behavior will be inappropriate. Since we have shown that these measures are distinct, except in one case, we can now relate them to the demographic variables.

We use two approaches in establishing these relationships. In the first, we calculate the mean score for each measure and for each respondent based upon our initial five measures. Then we relate the scores to the demographic variables of the respondents. The second approach is the same but we use the measures based upon factors one and five to provide additional results about the correlations. With respect to the first approach, the statistically significant associations are shown in the table. Most of these associations are quite strong indeed. Only a few demographic variables have weak associations (p> 0.05) with the measures of management and employee relations. Age has a statistically significant relationship with employee relations. This relationship is negative and shows that older employees may not perceive employee relations in transit systems favorably. Similarly, years in a position and years in an organization are inversely related to how employees perceive employee relations. Educational level affects only the measure that deals with management showing concern for employees. Though, here, the relationship is weak statistically (p> 0.0616), its negative sign suggests that the well-educated public transit employees may not perceive employee relations favorably, particularly in terms of management showing concern for employees. Similarly, transit system employees who work long hours may not perceive management and employee relations favorably. Only, the employees who have many dependents rate the consistency of management behavior highly. Here too, a cautionary note is appropriate. The significance level is 0.0547 which may be considered weak or outside the normally accepted range (p > 0.05) for hypothesis testing.

The second approach gave additional interesting results. The total measure of sharing, delegation, and demonstration of concern have negative and statistically significant associations with age, years in the organization and years in position. The correlations are respectively -0.3151 (p > 0.0033), -0.2691 (p > 0.0139), -0.2160 (p > 0.0484) between the total measures and age, years in an organization, and years in a position where the probabilities are in parentheses. Thus, older employees and those with long tenure in positions or in organizations, tend to disagree strongly that management seeks inputs from employees, involves them in decision-making, or shows concern for employees. Another important finding is that age, education and years in an organization are negatively related to factor five which is a single item measure dealing with management delegation of authority to employees. The correlations are respectively -0.4126 (p > 0.001), -0.2164 (p > 0.0454), and -0.2304 (p > 0.0350) for age, level of education, and hours required to work. Finally, management delegation of authority is positively associated with the hours required to work with a correlation of 0.2502 and a probability of 0.0202 implying that those working long hours tend to feel management delegates decision-making authorities to them.

As previous studies have established, organizational changes that involve downsizing, restructuring and layoffs create feelings of job insecurity among employees. These feelings are particularly strong when employees feel they lack the ability to cope with increased demands of newly restructured jobs. A strategy that management can adopt to assure employees about job security is redesigning jobs to increase their motivational potential by increasing their intrinsic quality and to fit into the new organizational environment. Job redesign involves changing some tasks and elements of jobs to facilitate increased performance and productivity, and making employees take ownerships of their jobs, i.e., develop a sense of autonomy and control over jobs. We studied job redesign by asking employees to show the importance to them of changing certain attributes of their jobs.

Table 3 shows the results obtained for job redesign. The terms in the parentheses are the probabilities. Evident from the table are the high scores showing that if given the opportunity employees who participated in this study expressed the desire to change some of their job features. The feature employees consider most importantly to change is skills’ variety (mean = 4.3256). This is followed closely by task autonomy in terms of freedom to perform their jobs in some manner they see fit (mean = 4.2558), and a job with self-assessment feedback built into it (mean = 4.1977). Next is an opportunity to experience a sense of community by working with cooperative workers (mean = 4.1628), and additional training and technology to handle the demands of their jobs (mean = 4.1628). Task autonomy in terms freedoms to schedule own work (mean = 4.0223 ), and task identity (mean = 3.9844), are also important to employees in terms of job redesign. Again, as in the discussion under management trust building behaviors, the low standard deviations show that there is not a wide variation in the responses, and that the results are nearly consistent across employees. Consistency of results across observations drawn from various populations is shown by the high Cronbach’s alphas in the table. Overall, our measure of job redesign has an alpha value of 0.6574 that is also within the acceptable range for established scales.

Beside the mean, standard deviations and the alphas, the table shows the correlations between the items in the scale and the significance levels of the correlations in parentheses. While most of the correlations are statistically significant at the 0.05 level, a sizeable number is not. In particular, the responses regarding opportunity to experience a sense of community by working with cooperative employees, has no statistically significant relationship with any of the other items in the scale except feedback. Also, feedback is not statistically related in a significant way to most of the other items in the scale. The exception is the relationship between feedback and skills’ variety. Therefore, it appears from these results that at least in transit systems, one cannot generalize about the relationships between the responses regarding feedback and an opportunity to work with cooperative employees on one hand, and the remaining scale items on the other. These responses are unrelated so a strategy to improve one will not be associated with the other. However, for the scale items whose responses are significantly correlated, a strategy to improve one will be associated with a positive outcome in the other.

An issue in job redesign is to decide which groups of jobs and workers would most likely benefit from it. The notion that all jobs can be redesigned and that all employees can benefit from job redesign does not always hold true because certain jobs may not be amenable to redesign. For

Correlations