ࡱ> q` RJbjbjqPqP8::"'^^^^^^^r8\rI&:`"6 vIxIxIxIxIxIxI$KhMI^I^^I^^vIvI# ^^& U%:2&D#I0I%:Nx8Nt&N^&0&db.IIXIrrrvDrrrvrrr^^^^^^  Changes in Employment Relationship after a Layoff: A Longitudinal Study in Korea Min Soo Kim Ewha Womans University Assistant Professor College of Business Administration 11-1 Daehyun-Dong, Seodaemun-Gu Seoul, 120-750, Korea Tel: (82-2) 3277-4072 Fax: (82-2) 3277-2835 e-mail:  HYPERLINK "mailto:kimmin@ewha.ac.kr" kimmin@ewha.ac.kr Changes in Employment Relationship after a Layoff: A Longitudinal Study in Korea ABSTRACT Layoff is often regarded by the affected employee as a serious violation of his or her psychological contracts, which is an unwritten agreement that individuals form based on their beliefs concerning the terms of an exchange agreement with their employer. The violation may trigger a reevaluation of the obligations that make up the contract, resulting in a change in the focus and scope of those obligations. Based on longitudinal data in Korea, I examined the changes in the psychological contract with their future employers after the layoffs from the layoff victims viewpoint. While previous research showed that layoff survivors showed decreased commitment after layoffs (Brockner, 1988), the results indicate that, in building a new psychological contract with future employer, layoff victims increase their expectations of responsibilities from their subsequent employers in exchange for the higher commitment to them. Keywords: Employment Relationship, Psychological Contract, Layoffs Changes in Employment Relationship after a Layoff: A Longitudinal study of Psychological Contract in Korea This study explores the effect of layoffs on layoff victims psychological contracts in Korea. The psychological contract is an unwritten agreement that an individual forms based on his or her beliefs concerning the terms of an exchange agreement with the employer. Layoffs are often regarded by affected employees, especially by layoff victims, as a serious violation of their contract. The violation may trigger a reevaluation of the obligations that make up the contract, resulting in a change in the focus and scope of those obligations in the subsequent contract. While there has been growing academic interest in psychological contracts in recent years, there are still relatively few empirical studies to support theoretical discussions of the topic, particularly when it comes to the specific effects of downsizing and layoffs on psychological contracts. Psychological contracts are individually held beliefs about the mutual obligations of employers and employees (Rousseau, 1989). Research has shown that these highly subjective perceptions of employer-employee obligations do change over time (Robinson, et al., 1994; Rousseau & Mclean Parks, 1993). Guzzo et al. (1994) have described "triggers that can lead to breaches in the psychological contract. Based on their discussion of triggers (usually a downturn in the firms performance), a layoff is certainly a trigger that can affect psychological contracts. Much has been written about survivor syndrome and the effects of layoffs on survivors (Brockner, 1988; Brockner, et al., 1994). However, the effects of broken psychological contracts on victims should not be overlooked. The individuals who have lost their jobs do not simply disappear. They remain in the work force and most will find jobs with other companies. In fact, many victims may be coveted by small- to middle-sized entrepreneurial ventures and niche firms because of their skills, expertise, and contracts gained while working at larger (downsizing) firms. This study is designed to answer the question: Following a layoff, is there any change in a victims psychological contract with their future employers? BACKGROUND Situation in Korea Korea received emergency loans from the IMF and IBRD to save off bankruptcy in 1997. Even though the jobless rate reached 1.66 million or 7.9% in 1999, the highest since July 1982 when Korea started to record statistics, analysts said that it would rise further in the first half of the year to around 2 million (Kim, 1999). With the average period of joblessness in 1999 expected to be double 1998s, the Ministry of Finance and Economy and the Ministry of Labor agreed to expedite the establishment of social infrastructures for long-term unemployment. While the average jobless period in 1998 was four months long, it was expected to increase to 8 months in 1999. This trend was heightened as the government was attempting to expedite the restructuring of the five major (Hyundai, Samsung, Daewoo, LG and SK) conglomerates through their creditor banks. (Kim, 1999). In this rapidly changing workplace, the traditional idea of a lifelong job in Korea has been destroyed. Kim and Min (1999) suggested that the concept of loyalty and commitment will change from the sense of long-term behavioral attachment to the firm to a more short-term attachment to work projects and goals. Similarly, some of the changes that have occurred in Japanese HRM practices are also likely to threaten the basis of trust between Japanese employers and employees. According to Morishima (1996), Japanese companies are faced with slow growth and fierce domestic and international competition. They are trying to modify their employment practices: One of the HRM practices new to Japanese companies is the pay-for-performance scheme. Some of the recent changes occurring in Japanese HRM practices are likely to threaten the basis of trust between Japanese employers and employees. The recent changes in Korea provide an unusual opportunity to explore the changes in the psychological contract after victims experience layoff. Designing research in Korea and collecting data from Korean employees will help to capture the current changes in the concept of the employment relationship in Korea. Negative Effects of a Layoff Layoffs are usually a traumatic experience that may result in a number of different psychological responses from those involved. For example, commitment to organizations is reduced as both victims and survivors feel a sense of betrayal and mistrust (Yate, 1993); and managers who must cut staff often complain of guilt (Kirk, 1995) and burnout (Smith, 1997). Other resulting reactions from layoffs include increased anxiety and stress, concerns about the future, and in more severe cases, intense feelings of loss, grief, and depression (Clark & Koonce, 1995). All of these negative effects of layoffs have been a part of the destruction of existing psychological contracts between workers and their employers (Rousseau, 1989). The psychological states of employees are important factors in determining their behavior and responses at work, and it is at least in part through the management of these states that organizational effectiveness can be achieved. Highly committed employees usually work harder and better than frustrated ones (Meyer, et al., 1989). An organization that alienates workers through its practices and develops a reputation as a company that doesnt care may be less effective and less efficient. It is also likely that a potentially traumatic experience such as layoff will change the way a person thinks and feels about his/her next job, and the expectations of employer responsibilities. Further, the psychological effects of experiencing a layoff can increase stress, lower organizational commitment to future employers, and may have a lasting effect on individual work effort and performance. Layoff survivors who had previously felt high commitment toward the organization may react much more negatively to a layoff than less committed employees. It has been shown that layoff survivors who had previously felt high commitment toward an institution, but subsequently perceived themselves as having been treated unfairly by the organization, exhibited more negative reactions (lower organizational commitment, decreased work effort, higher turnover intention) than those with lower levels of prior commitment (Brockner, 1988; Brockner, et al., 1992; Brockner, et al., 1994). Singh (1998) found that layoff victims show less trust in people in general (Burack & Singh, 1995; Singh, 1998). He argues that layoff victims are in a situation analogous to being dumped by a boyfriend or girlfriend (Singh, 1998). In each situation, the resulting effect may well go beyond the former relationship to affect future relationships and behaviors within those future relationships. Thus, it would be reasonable to expect the victim in each scenario to be more cautious and less likely to become highly committed to a future relationship. Because layoff victims have experienced the trauma of being released in the past, they may lack trust in others and will be less likely to fully commit to their new companies. Since layoff victims will reduce their commitment to their future employment relationship, they may also expect less from their future employers in return. Thus, their expectation for both the employees and employers obligations should decrease after experiencing layoff. Involuntary job loss shakes the foundation of psychological contracts and causes distrust and skepticism about any organizations commitment to fulfill its obligations. Thus, Hypothesis 1: After getting laid off, layoff victims will decrease their expectations for the employees obligations in a subsequent employment relationship. Hypothesis 2: After getting laid off, layoff victims will decrease their expectations for the employers obligations in a subsequent employment relationship. Pilot Study: Items of Psychological Contract in Korea Subjects in the pilot study to develop psychological contract items in Korea were participants in an institutionalized vocational training program offered by the Korean Labor Department. A total of 32 subjects agreed to participate in semi-structured interviews conducted from June 28 to July 14, 2000. Since only those who applied for the unemployment insurance pay offered by the Korean government were eligible to participate in the vocational training program, all the subjects in this study had been laid off and were still searching for a new job. Eleven of the participants (34.4 percent) were female. The average age of the sample was 44.9 (SD = 4.4). Participants in the sample had been employed by their former organizations for an average of 4.7 years (SD = 1.5). The average unemployment period in this sample was 14.7 months (SD = 7.0). Major industries of their former jobs were manufacturing (50 percent), wholesale/retail (18.8 percent), constructing (12.5 percent), transportation (9.4 percent), and others (9.3 percent). I contacted each potential participant on the site in the vocational training program. I introduced myself, briefly described the study, and asked if the individual would be willing to participate in an interview. At the beginning of the interview, I read a statement that assured participants that their contributions were entirely confidential, and that only summary or paraphrased responses would be reported in the study. The interview was semi-structured, and all questions were open-ended in order to allow respondents the opportunity to speak about the issues that were most salient to them. Throughout the course of each interview, I took notes on participants responses. At the close of the interview, I asked if the participants had any additional comments and then thanked the participants for their help. All interviews were transcribed and coded within 24 hours in order to capture the respondents intended meaning. The responses to What are the obligations or promises the former company offered to you? and What are the obligations you had to do for the former company? were analyzed to develop the psychological contract items. With the help of four graduate students in Seoul National University majoring in Organizational Psychology, 13 items for employer obligations and 15 items for employee obligations were selected (Table 1). These items were selected after all four research assistants agreed on whether each item was an employee or employer obligation when Korean workers try to build a relationship with their employer. --------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here --------------------------------------------------------- Employer obligations, like fair treatment, fair evaluation based not on age, education, sex, or seniority, and opportunity to express individual opinion, were not found with American samples. With regard to employee obligations, there were also obligations which havent been found with American samples, like self improvement, being prompt, and obeying your superior. These employer and employee obligations which were found only with Korean samples might reflect the effect of Korean collectivistic national culture on the process of contracting. STUDY 1 Samples and Data Collection A questionnaire was developed with psychological contract items elicited from the pilot study. This questionnaire was completed by 888 Korean subjects who had lost their jobs through downsizing. The questionnaire contained questions regarding their job and the layoff experience, obligations in their previous contract, and their expectation for their future job. The questionnaire was also completed by 100 Korean workers who have been employed in their current job since 1998 and who have had no layoff experience. 1) Workers on unemployment lists. Three unemployment lists (N = 7,264) were used (See Table 2). First were those who applied for the Job Searching Program in Korean Employment Security Centers within Seoul and Gyeong-Gi area in May 1998 (N = 3,150). Applicants for the Unemployment Insurance Pay offered by Korean Government were those who applied for the Unemployment Insurance offered by Korean Labor Department within Seoul and Kyung-Gi in Aug. 1998 (N = 3,320). Finally, applicants for the vocational training program provided by a Korean University were those who completed one of the vocational training programs for the highly educated (above college-educated) unemployed provided by the University in Seoul from 1998 to 1999 (N = 794). Workers on these lists had all experienced layoffs, although some of them were already reemployed at the time they were contacted for participation in this study. Two types of questionnaires, one for unemployed workers and other for reemployed workers, were mailed and collected from Aug. 7 to Aug. 28, 2000. Potential subjects on the lists were first contacted by phone. The interviewer introduced himself or herself, briefly described the study, and asked if the individual would be willing to participate in the survey study. At the beginning of the phone interview, the interviewer read a statement that assured subjects that their contributions were entirely confidential, and that only summary or paraphrased responses would be reported in the study. After getting the subjects approval, the job status of each subject was checked as unemployed or as reemployed, and an ID number was assigned. Among 7,264 workers on the lists, 5,666 workers were available and contacted by phone. 1,125 of them agreed to participate in the survey study. Among those who agreed to participate, 582 workers were still unemployed and 543 workers were already reemployed when they were contacted by a researcher. One week after mailing the questionnaire, a follow-up call to each subject was made to raise the response rate of the survey. The response rate of the mailed questionnaires was 33.3 percent (N = 567, Table 2). Among 567 who mailed back, 62 were deleted, because of missing data, insincerity in answering, not qualified as sample, etc. The final sample size based on the unemployment lists was therefore 505. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 2 about here ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Participants in vocational training programs. Three institutes that were offering vocational training programs to unemployed workers approved data collection from these participant: (1) YWCA: Those who are attending one of the vocational training programs (computer programmer, cookery, and Korean attire) for unemployed females provided by the Korean YWCA in Seoul (N = 172), (2) Korea Future Management Institute: Those who are attending one of the vocational training programs (AICPA and English) for the highly-educated (above college-educated) unemployed provided by Korea Future Management Institute in Seoul (N = 290), and (3) Seong-Gyul University: Those who are attending a vocational training program (computer programmer) for the unemployed provided by Seong-Gyul University in Kyung-Gi (N = 93). In all, 383 unemployed workers who participated in one of three vocational programs completed the questionnaires from Aug. 7 to Aug. 28, 2000 (Table 3). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 3 about here ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The questionnaires were distributed to this sample on the site of each training class. Before distributing the questionnaires, the purpose of the survey was briefly described, and subjects were assured that their contributions were entirely confidential, and that only summary or paraphrased responses would be reported in the study. 555 questionnaires were distributed and 383 questionnaires were collected. The response rate was 69 percent (Table 3). ID numbers were assigned to those who completed the questionnaires and those who were willing to participate in the follow-up study were asked to write their contact information on the questionnaire. 3) Employees of no layoff experience (Control group). As a control group, 100 employed workers in the Seoul district area, who had been employed in their current job since 1998 and who had no layoff experience, completed the questionnaires. The year of 1998 was selected for two reasons. The unemployment lists used in this study were made in 1998, and 1998 is the year when the Korean government received emergency loans from the IMF and IBRD to save off bankruptcy. A series of massive layoffs had been occurring for at least two years since then. Workers were randomly contacted on the streets by four research assistants (from Hankook Research Inc.) in the Gang-Nam and Myung-Dong areas in Seoul, Korea. These two areas were selected since these are the most office-concentrated areas in Seoul. All of five Korean Conglomerates have at least one office in either of two areas. The workers were first asked whether they currently had a job or not and whether they had experienced a layoff since 1998. Only those who currently had a job and had no layoff experience were asked to participate in the survey, and after getting their approval, they were asked to fill out the questionnaire. ID numbers were assigned to those who completed the questionnaires and those who were willing to participate in a follow-up study were also asked to write their contact information on the questionnaire. The interviews on the street were continued until data had been obtained from 100 employed workers with no layoff experience since 1998 (Aug. 10 24, 2000). In sum, completed questionnaires were received from 988 subjects (Table 4). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 4 about here ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of the 988 subjects, 44 percent (N = 436) were female. The mean age was 34.31 (SD = 8.94). The average tenure with their last job for those who had layoff experience was 4.43 years (SD = 6.00, N = 888), and the average tenure for those who had no layoff experience was 7.89 years (SD = 5.37, N = 100). The average of the unemployed period was 15.10 months (SD = 15.64). The subjects were classified into one of three groups, according to their current job status and layoff experience (Table 5). --------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 5 about here --------------------------------------------------------- The first group (N = 100) is Employed, those who have had no layoff experience since 1998. The second group (N = 244) is Reemployed, those who had been laid off from their previous jobs, but found their current jobs. The third group (N = 644) is Unemployed, those who had been laid off and were still looking for a new job. In this study, hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested by a series of group comparisons between Employed and Reemployed on the obligations at their current jobs. The Employed group was used as a control group in this group comparison. Both the Employed group and the Reemployed group had their current jobs, but only the Reemployed group had layoff experience. Measures and Procedure The obligation items developed in the Pilot Study (Table 1) were used to measure the contents of the psychological contract. Employer obligations were assessed by asking subjects to what extent they believed that the particular employer was obligated to provide them with the 13 obligation items. A seven-point (1 = completely not obligated to 7 = completely obligated) scale accompanied these items. Subjects were asked to rate each of the 13 items on the seven-point scale. Employee obligations were assessed using the same 1 to 7 scale . Subjects indicated the extent to which they believed that they were obligated to provide the particular employer with 15 obligation items. Overall obligation scales were created by taking average scores on the items: Overall employer obligation (13 items, Cronbachs ( = .95) and Overall employee obligation (15 items, Cronbachs ( = .87). According to the subjects current job status, three types of obligations were measured: (1) Obligations in the previous job, (2) Obligations in the current job, and (3) Expectation of obligations in a future job. For example, the expectation of obligations in a future job was measured by asking the subjects to indicate the extent to which they believed that the future employer of their next job would be obligated to provide them with the 13 obligation employer items, and the extent to which they believed that they would be obligated to provide their future employer with the 15 employee obligation items. In addition to the obligation measures, subjects were asked to supply information about their gender, age, education level, industry of previous and current job, occupation of previous and current job, unionization, tenure of previous and current job, and income of previous and current job. Rousseau (1995) proposed that to cope with the breach of a psychological contract, individuals need remedial satisfaction of losses to the contract through the substitution of outcomes. However, the perception of this substitution may differ among individuals, and therefore responses to a layoff may reveal widely contrasting individual tendencies. Gender, age, and educational level are included in the data analysis processes, since these control variables could control out the possible effects of individual differences. Environment shapes social contracts, constraining their terms and coloring their interpretation (Rousseau, 1995). Industries and occupation have their own cultural beliefs and values that shape employment relations within particular sectors. Information on industry, occupation, and unionization is included to control the environmental effects on individual psychological contracts. Psychological contracts are also affected by previous job experience (Robinson & Morrison, 2000; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Rousseau, 1990). Robinson and Rousseau(1994) found that 55 percent of their sample of managers perceived that their organizations had failed to fulfilled one or more promised obligations in the first two years of the employment relationship and that they changed the contents of their psychological contracts. Therefore, previous psychological contract, tenure and income are included to control for previous job experience. Results Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested by group comparisons between the reemployed group (N = 244) and the control group (N = 100). Hypotheses 1 and 2 pertain to the effects of layoffs, whether a layoff experience would decrease or increase expectations in an employment relationship in terms of employers obligations as well as their own. The measures of obligations in ones current job from both reemployed and control groups were used to test these hypotheses. Comparing the obligations in current psychological contracts between the two groups might exhibit differences due to the layoff experience. Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were computed for both employee and employer obligations in ones current job, comparing the reemployed group with the control group (Table 6 and Table 7). The control variables, such as sex, age in 2000, education, industry (manufacturing, construction, banking, and others), occupation (office worker and others), union, tenure, and income1 were included in ANCOVAs as covariates.2 --------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 6 and Table 7 about here --------------------------------------------------------- Hypothesis 1 proposed that, after getting laid off, layoff victims would decrease their expectations for their own obligations on subsequent jobs. Support for this hypothesis would occur if there were a significant difference between the reemployed group and the control group and if the means of obligation measures for the reemployed group are lower than those for the control group. The results of analyses of covariance are displayed in Table 6. There were significant differences between the two groups on overall obligation perception. The overall employee obligation showed a significant difference between the reemployed group (M = 5.33) and the control group (M = 4.86) (F = 21.69, df = 1, 294, p < .01) (see Table 6). There were also significant differences on most of the individual items of employer obligation. Only two individual items failed to reach the statistical significance (3. Confidential, F = 2.21, df = 1,304, p < .14, and 10. Improvement, F = 3.1, df = 1,304, p < .08). However, each of the significant differences was in the opposite direction from that predicted by hypothesis 1. Those who experienced a layoff perceived greater employee obligations than those of the control group. Hypothesis 2 proposed that, after getting laid off, layoff victims would decrease their expectations for employers obligations on their subsequent jobs. Support for this hypothesis would occur if there were significant differences between the reemployed group and the control group and if the means of obligation measures for the reemployed group are lower than those for the control group. As shown in Table 7, the results showed that there were no significant differences between the two groups on overall obligation perception, nor most individual items of employer obligation. The overall employer obligation showed no significant difference between the reemployed group (M = 4.16) and the control group (M = 4.19) (F = .01, p = n.s.) (see Table 7). This test implies that a layoff experience made no difference in perceived obligations to a subsequent employer, compared to those who had no layoff experience. Therefore, hypothesis 2 was not supported by the results. There was, however, a significant difference with one employer obligation item. Compared to the control group (M = 4.44), the reemployed group had lower expectation for average salary (salary similar if not better than market average) from the employer (M = 3.94). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insert Figure 1 about here ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although the results of analyses of covariance for employer and employee obligations did not support hypotheses 1 and 2, the results were nonetheless intriguing. As Figure 1 illustrates, the results indicate that layoff victims increased expectations of their own obligations in subsequent psychological contracts, while the expectation of employer obligations showed no differences from those with no layoff experience. Hypothesis 1 predicted that layoff victims would be hesitant to fully commit to new employers and have difficulty trusting subsequent employers in future psychological contracts. They would try to find a new job with lower obligations and responsibilities. However, the results showed the opposite to be true. Layoff victims actually increased their expectations of their own obligations in their subsequent contracts. STUDY 2 Study 1 could well be limited by its retrospective measures. Respondents were asked to describe their psychological contracts at a time before they got their current jobs. Perceptions of their prior contracts might therefore have been biased by their experience with their current jobs (see Howard (1980) for discussion of response style bias and memory distortion). Since downsizing and subsequent job loss is often perceived as a difficult and highly emotional experience (Leana & Feldman, 1995), it is possible that respondents memory was distorted in an effort to avoid thinking about a negative or painful experience after getting a new job. Since several years had passed since their job losses, it may have been difficult for respondents to accurately recall the nature of their pervious contracts, especially as they have become socialized into their current jobs. Study 2 was designed as a longitudinal study by tracking the same sample as Study 1. With this longitudinal data set, any changes which occurred in victims psychological contracts after a layoff could be examined statistically. Samples and Data Collection I administrated a second survey four months later to capture the changes that had occurred in the psychological contract after the subjects had experienced a layoff. The four-month period was set up based on the recommendation from three replacement specialists, two in Korean Job Security and one in Vocational Training Program by a Korean university. The four-month period was recommended because many the unemployed workers could not be followed and could be lost with a long interval and also because at least four months could be needed to get a sufficient number of subjects who were unemployed in the first survey, but who found a new job by the time of the second survey. Among the 988 subjects in Study 1, 473 subjects were available four months later for contact with the phone numbers in the lists or the numbers that they left in Study 1. 292 completed the questionnaire in Study 2 for a 61.7 percent return rate (see Table 8). After getting approval from the subjects, the job status of each was checked as unemployed or as employed. The same ID numbers assigned in Study 1 were assigned again to each subject. After finding out their current job status (unemployed or employed), the correct type of questionnaire was mailed to them according to their current job status. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 8 about here ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Among 473 subjects contacted by phone, 292 subjects completed and returned the questionnaires (response rate = 32.9 percent). Among 292 subjects, 110 subjects reported a change in their job status during the 4-month period from the first survey to the follow-up (i.e. from unemployed to employed, N= 107, and from reemployed to unemployed, N= 3). Among the reemployed layoff victims in Study 1 (N = 68), 3 subjects had already lost their jobs by the time of Study 2. 84 subjects of the unemployed group in Study 1 (N = 191) were still searching for a new job (See Table 9). Thus, the subjects in Study 2 were classified into one of four groups, according to their job status in Study 1 and in Study 2: (1) Reemployed Employed group, (2) Reemployed Unemployed group, (3) Unemployed Employed group, and (4) Unemployed Unemployed group. Of the 292 subjects, 43 percent (N = 122) were female and 30 percent (N = 87) were unemployed when they completed the follow-up questionnaire. The mean age was 36.20 (SD = 9.46). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 9 about here ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Measures and Procedure Obligation measures were included in the questionnaire according to the subjects job experience (see Table 10). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 10 about here ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The contract changes experienced by an individual layoff victim can be explored by examining the difference in obligation perceptions between ones current and previous job. A series of paired sample t tests were conducted. Expectations for a future job were also included in the data analysis to describe changes in ones psychological contract before getting a new job. The Reemployed Employed group and the Unemployed Employed group reported their obligation perceptions both for their previous jobs (in the first survey) and for their current jobs (in the follow-up survey) (see Table 10). In the data analysis, the Unemployed Employed group (N = 107) was used, since the changes which had occurred during the unemployment period before getting a new job could be examined by analyzing the expectations of obligations for a future job. Results For the longitudinal data analyses, the Unemployed Employed group (N = 107) was used. A series of paired-sample t-tests were conducted between obligation perceptions for the previous job, the future job, and the current job (Table 11 and Table 12).4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 11 and Table 12 about here ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results showed that subjects expectations and perceptions of employee obligations followed a pattern very similar to that of employer obligations. Expectations of their own obligations in a future job were increased after a layoff (from M = 5.14, SD = .87 to M =5.71, SD = .56). And, once again, this high expectation for the future contract was decreased after getting a new job (M = 5.25, SD = .78). However, the perception of employee obligations showed no significant difference, compared to the perception of employee obligations in the previous job (t = -.99, p = n.s.) (see Table 12 for reported mean and standard deviation scores). With regard to employer obligations, subjects actually expected greater obligations (M = 5.84, SD = .77) after a layoff than in their previous contracts (M = 3.33, SD = 1.09). After getting a new job, their expectations of employer obligations decreased (M = 3.67, SD = .97), yet the perception of these obligations was still higher than that for their previous contract (t = -2.04, p < .05). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insert Figure 2 about here ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The increase in obligations after experiencing a layoff and the decrease after getting a new job can be illustrated in Figure 2. This pattern was in the opposite direction from that predicted in hypotheses 1 and 2. Whereas hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted a decrease in expectations for both employee and employer obligations after getting laid off, expectations actually increased after a layoff experience. Although the expectations were decreased after getting a new job, the expectations of employer obligations were still higher than those for the previous job. DISCUSSION Changes in psychological contract after a layoff Hypotheses 1 and 2 proposed that since people likely consider layoffs to be a traumatic, trust-shaking experience, they would try to find a new job with lower obligations and responsibilities. However, the results in Study 1 and Study 2 showed that the opposite was true. In Study 1, the results of group comparisons indicated that layoff victims actually showed higher expectations for their own obligations in subsequent contracts, compared to a control group. In Study 2, the results also showed that, after a layoff, the victims actually increased their expectations for both their future employers obligations and their own obligations in their future jobs. These increased expectations were reduced after the victims got a new job, but the employer obligations in the subsequent job were still higher than the employer obligations in the previous job. The pattern of changes in the dimensions found in Study 1 and Study 2 should be contrasted with the results of Robinson et al (1994). They found that employees perceived obligations to their employers declined over time, while the obligations they attributed to their employers increased. Their explanation was that self-serving biases often lead individuals to overestimate their own contributions and underestimate the costs incurred by exchange partners. Therefore, employees believe that they owe less while their employer owes more, in order to maintain equity between contributions and rewards. However, their explanation seems to be true only in an employees relationship with one organization (i.e. psychological contract change within one organization). Layoff victims who need to build new relationships with subsequent organizations show a distinctly different pattern of change over time. Increased expectations after layoff: While job loss is typically viewed as having only negative effects, some have argued that job loss can be framed in such a way as to have positive effects for individuals in certain situations. Layoff victims may view job loss as an opportunity and a chance to change career and life (Latack & Dozier, 1986). Although job loss may be associated with stress and disruption, stressful life events like a layoff can lead to growth because they push people to consider new alternatives, to develop new competencies, and to restructure their lives in positive directions. Layoff victims dont only react to their layoff experiences negatively with anger and outrage, but can also try to get on with it and search for a better job. Although they consider their layoff experiences as traumatic, they try to prepare themselves for another job and expect better treatment from their next employer. During the interviews in my pilot study, the participants commonly mentioned, this is the first time I considered myself and my career. Now I know what I can do or not do. Id like to find a new job that could provide me with some opportunities to display my abilities fully, regardless of the salary. It should be noted that after a layoff, expectations for a future employers obligations were increased along with the expectations for ones own obligations. This fact implies that layoff victims do not only focus on finding a new job by showing their own increased commitment to future employment relationships, but are also trying to find a job that will treat them better than their previous job. In studies that have examined the subsequent careers of layoff victims, there is substantial evidence of underemployment (Kaufman, 1982; Newman, 1988). There are sizable numbers of layoff victims who find new jobs, but in positions that pay considerably less and require much less in the way of education and skill. In contrast, the results in Study 1 and Study 2 showed that, although expectations for employer and employee obligations were decreased after getting a new job, they were still higher than in their previous job. In Study 1, compared to the control group, the reemployed group showed higher employee obligations in the subsequent job, and in Study 2, the employer obligations in the subsequent job were still higher than those in the previous job. Therefore, perhaps as Jahoda (1982) suggested, even jobs that do not provide adequate financial compensation to meet individuals existence needs still fulfill important relatedness and growth needs that cannot be fulfilled in other ways. Decreased expectations after getting a new job: As Wanous (1992) suggested, excess expectations can be a common problem when anticipating a new job. These expectations can be quickly dashed once the employee starts employment. My data on employer expectations fit this pattern. Thus, just like the literature on realistic job previews, it may be necessary for employees to have a good understanding of the job prior to hire so as to bridge the gap between expectations and reality. Comparison between employer and employee obligations in the subsequent job: The results in Study 2 indicated that employee obligations were higher than the employer obligations in the psychological contracts for their subsequent jobs (as illustrated in Figure 2). This fact suggests, as Blau (1962) argued, that layoff victims attempt to create a positive imbalance in their exchange relationships in order to avoid becoming overly indebted to their new employers. Contributions and Future Study This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge about the creation, development, and violation of psychological contracts. Previous studies have utilized samples of graduate students and alumni with relatively short tenure and whose perceptions of contract violation have been based on recruitment promises and their experiences on the job (Robinson et al., 1994; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). This study used an extensive variety of professionals and managers who have experienced involuntary job loss, considered by many as the ultimate contract violation. It expands on previous research and presents an opportunity to compare the results with studies that involved a lower degree of violation and a narrower range of subjects. In particular, this study followed the layoff victims after they experienced layoffs. Compared to research on the survivors of layoff (Brockner et al., 1992), layoff victims have been examined by few studies, mainly because the data is relatively difficult to collect from such a sample. Prior research found that layoff survivors exhibited negative reactions such as lower organizational commitment, decreased work effort, higher turnover intention (Brockner, 1988; Brockner, et al., 1992; Brockner, et al., 1994). Victims of layoffs have different attitudes and expectations because of their experience. In this study, victims showed an increased expectation for their future jobs after layoff, as well as higher expectations in their subsequent jobs, compared to expectations for their previous jobs. This study with its longitudinal design proved helpful in understanding the type and extent of changes that may occur in a psychological contract throughout ones career. Most of the research on psychological contract has dealt with employees psychological expectation with one organization or one employer (Rousseau, 1990; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Robinson et al., 1994; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Robinson & Morrison, 2000). As Wanous (1992) suggested, newcomers previous experience before getting a job can be an important characteristics that differentiates newcomers and determine their adjustment in the organization. As boundaryless careers become a reality, it is important to understand how psychological contracts change as individuals move in and out of different types of companies, industries and employment arrangements. One limitation of this study was the fact that obligations of the previous job were measured after the subjects were laid off. It is possible that respondents memory was distorted in an effort to avoid thinking about a negative or painful experience like a layoff. The low obligation scores for the previous job may have reflected this memory distortion after the victims left their previous job. Therefore, data collection on the psychological contract before any layoff has occurred is needed to describe and explore more fully the changes in psychological contracts over time. Most of the research on job loss has taken reemployment as its end point. When layoff victims get new jobs, they typically cease to be the focus of further research. Little research addresses the quality of reemployment. Studies on the subsequent careers of layoff victims have reported substantial evidence of underemployment (Kaufman, 1982; Newman, 1988). However, the psychological effect of moving to a new job that is perceived as inferior in wages, benefits and skill utilization after a layoff has received only anecdotal attention (Leana & Feldman, 1995). Further investigation should examine the role of changes in the psychological contract on the subsequent job after a layoff. Shore and Tetrick (1994) assert that the development of an employees psychological contract is a result of the interaction of the employee and his or her organizations environment. It may thus be useful to explore the interaction of increased expectations for a future job (found by this study) with underemployment conditions found in a subsequent job. At least some of the work should concentrate on the employees psychological adjustment as well as work performance in the new employment setting. A major question is whether the results of this study with a Korean sample can be generalized to other nations and cultures. This study was not a cross-cultural comparison. Comparison groups from other cultures need to demonstrate that the results of this study can be generalized. These results may only reflect recent social phenomena associated with the Korean economic crisis. In Korea, layoff victims increased expectations for their future jobs may reflect the efforts that Korean society has made to overcome the national economic crisis. Massive layoffs going on in Korean society may have led an individuals to perceive his or her layoff experience not as an individualistic issue, but as a social problem that Korean society has to overcome together. Psychological contracts are changing not only in the United States (McLean Parks & Kidder, 1994) but also in Korea and other countries (Sparrow, 1998). Employment contracts in Korea have had many of the important characteristics of relational contracts: Commitment and loyalty to organizations has been emphasized; socializing with colleagues has been considered to be a required part of work; the most common types of employment contracts have been those that do not specify contract length; contract specifics have rarely been spelled out. These characteristics may have given rise to the now famous Korean (similar with Japanese) work style in which employees are highly committed to their work and organization, flexible to accept any changes, and continuously striving for improvement. However, the circumstances that helped create formal arrangements for managing core workers in large Korean companies have changed recently. Companies, faced with slow growth, fierce domestic and international competition, bloated bureaucracies and high costs of human and capital investment, have resorted to a number of cost-cutting measures. An extremely strong won and the bursting of the so called bubble economy of the 1990s have also exacerbated Korean employers attacks on existing management practice. As employment strategies change in order to adapt to future economic needs of organizations, it is important for research on psychological contracts to also investigate changes in contract terms. If these changes are not managed properly, Korean companies will be in danger of losing the psychological contract that has enabled them to develop and maintain a workforce that is highly committed both to existing organizational goals and to new challenges. ENDNOTES Industry, occupation, union, tenure, and income at the previous job were included for the reemployed workers. Industry, occupation, union, tenure, and income at the current job were included for the control group. Since SPSS (10.0 for Window) has a limit on the number of covariates in ANCOVAs as 10, three industry variables out of 18 and one occupation variable out of 11 were included based on the sample size. Perception of previous obligations and expectations of obligations in future job were measured by the same survey questionnaire in Phase 1. Perceptions for expected future job can be different from the actual future job in this analysis. However, the expectations for a future job were included on an exploratory base in order to describe changes before getting a new job. In a sense, this analysis is a semi-longitudinal test. Pair 3 in Table 9 is a real comparison between the previous and current job. Paired sample test showed a significant difference between overall employer obligation (M =3.67, SD = .97) and overall employee obligation (M = 5.25, SD = .78) in the subsequent job (t = -14.25, p < .01). REFERENCES Blau, P. M. 1962. Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Brockner, J. 1988. The effects of work layoffs on survivors. In L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, (pp. 668-699). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc. Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., and others. 1994. Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negative on victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 395-409. Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R., & Cooper-Schneider, R. 1992. The Influence of Prior Commitment to an Institution on Reactions to Perceived Unfairness: The Higher They Are, the Harder They Fall. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), 241-261. Burack, Elmer H & Singh, R. P. 1995. The new employment relations compact. Human Resource Planning, 18(1), 12-19. Clark, J. & Koonce, R. 1995. Engagingw organizational survivors. Training & Development, Aug., 23-30. Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E. 1994. Expatriate managers and the psychological contract. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 617-626. Howard, G. S. 1980. Response-shift bias a problem in evaluating interventions with pre/post self-reports. Evaluation Reviews, 4, 93-106. Jahoda, M. 1982. Employment and Unemployment: A Social Psychological Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, H. G. 1982. Professionals in Search of Work. New York: Wiley. Kim, K. 1999, Jan. 11. Jobless period to double this year. Chosun Ilbo. Kim, M. U. & Min, H. G. 1999. Psychological contract: Its contents and negative effects on organizational commitment, intention to turn over and perceived fairness. Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12(1), 155-180. Kirk, M. O. 1995, June 20. When surviving just isnt enough. New York Times, F11. Latack, J. C. & Dozier, J. B. 1986. After the ax falls: Job loss as a career transition. Academy of Management Review, 11, 375-392. Leana, C. R. & Feldman, D. C. 1995. Finding new jobs after a plant closing: Antecedents and outcomes of the occurrence and quality of reemployment. Human Relations, 48, 1381-1401. McLean Parks, J. & Kidder, D. L. 1994. Till death us do part . . . Changing work relationships in the 1990s. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1, 111-136. Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: Its the nature of commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152-156. Morishima, M. 1996. Renegotiating psychological contracts: Japanese style. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in Organizational Behavior, vol3. New York: John Wiley. Morrison, E. W. & Robinson, S. L. 1997. When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226-256. Newman, K. 1988. Falling from Grace: The Experience of downward Mobility in the American Middle Class. New York: Vintage Books. Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 137-152. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 2000. The development of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 525-546. Robinson, S. L. & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259. Rousseau, D. M. 1989. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121-139. Rousseau, D. M. 1990. New hire perceptions of their own and their employers obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389-400. Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreement, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rousseau, D. M. & McLean Parks, J. 1993. The contracts of individuals and organizations. In L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, (pp. 1-47). CT: JAI Press, Inc. Shore, L. M. & Tetrick, L. E. 1994. The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1, 91-109. Singh, R. 1998. Redefining psychological contracts with the U.S. work force: A critical task for strategic human resource management planners in the 1990s. Human Resource Management, 37(1), 61-69. Smith, D. 1997, May. Job insecurity and other myths: The employment climate. Management Today, 38-41. Sparrow, P. R. 1998. Reappraising psychological contracting. International Studies of Management and Organization, 28(1), 30-63. Wanous, J. P. 1992. Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection, Orientation and Socialization of Newcomers. Readings, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Yate, R. E. 1993, Nov. 21. Downsizings better pill. Chicago Tribune Magazine, 12-24. Table 1. Employer and Employee Obligations in Psychological Contracts of Koreans Employer ObligationsEmployee Obligations1. Salary similar if not better than market average 2. Salary according to performance/ability 3. Promotion according to performance/ability 4. Various educational/training programs 5. Opportunity for individual career development 6. Long-term job security 7. Benefits/perquisites (Children scholarship, housing, medical insurance, etc.) 8. Proper workload with clear responsibility 9. Discretionary power at the job 10. Fair treatment / Respect 11. Clear cut working hours with vacation time or personal day off 12. Fair evaluation based not on age, education, sex, or seniority 13. Opportunity to express individual opinion/ideas1. Working extra hours if necessary 2. Advance notice before taking a job elsewhere 3. Protecting company secrets/information 4. Loyalty to the company 5. Not helping out companys competitors 6. Working for the company for the minimum term 7. Keeping good relationship with your superior/coworker 8. Helping out new coworker (i.e. your successor, education and training of entry level person, etc.) 9. Completing your duties and responsibilities 10. Self improvement (i.e. learning new foreign language, computer training, etc.) 11. Being prompt / keeping normal business hours 12. Cooperating with new company policies/procedures 13. Participating in activities not related to your job and responsibility (i.e. irregular meeting, etc.) 14. Provide new/creative ideas to improve current business 15. Obeying your superior Table 2. Results of Data Collection from Workers on Unemployment Lists List of Applicants for the Job Searching Program in Korean Job Security Center (1998.8)List of Applicants for the Unemployment Insurance Pay offered by Korean Government (1998.5)List of Applicants for the Vocational Training Program provided by Yeonsei University (1998-1999)TotalTotal in List 315033207947264Called by Phone 238527735085666Unable to contact among Called by Phone 188717163593962Available49810571491704Refusal 21432243579Approval to participate 2847351061125Completion 12737169567 aResponse rate (Completion/Available)26.5%35.1%46.3%33.3% a Among 567 who mailed back, delete 62 because of lots of missing data, insincerity in answering, not qualified as sample, etc.. Final sample size is 505. Table 3. Results of Data Collection from Participants in Vocational Programs YWCAKorea Future Management InstituteSeong-Gyul UniversityTotalDistributed 17229093555Collected 11019182383Response Rate64%66%88%69% Table 4. Sample Description Data SourceJob Status TotalSexAgeTenure (years)Job searching period (months)Income (Won*1,000 per month)MFPrevious JobCurrent JobPrevious JobCurrent JobUnemployment listsUnemployed26113212936.07 (9.83) N=261 5.24 (6.62) N=212 19.84 (15.01) N=216 152.92 (97.93) N=212 Re-employed2441747033.75 (9.21) N=244 3.41 (5.72) N=227 .86 (.86) N=24110.65 (12.63) N=226 147.00 (103.59) N=229 137.88 (67.27) N=240 Total50530619934.95 (9.60) N=505 5.1 (7.4) N=439 .86 (.86) N=24115.14 (14.57) N=442 149.85 (100.84) N=441 137.88 (67.27) N=240 Participants in vocational training program Unemployed38316621733.19 (8.34) N=377 4.64 (5.67) N=287 15.05 (17.17) N=288 145.43 (86.57) N=299 Employees of no layoff experience100782235.30 (7.16) N=1007.89 (5.37) N=98198.63 (77.06) N=100Total 98855043834.31 (8.94) N=982 4.43 (5.99) N=726 2.86 (4.32) N=339 15.10 (15.64) N=730 148.06 (95.29) N=740 155.75 (75.45) N=340 Note: Numbers in parentheses represent Standard Deviation. Table 5. Sample Classification and Job Experience Sample SourceTotalCurrent Job StatusJob ExperiencePrevious JobLayoffCurrent JobEmployees with no layoff experience100EmployedNoNoYesWorkers on unemployment listsReemployed244ReemployedYesYesYesUnemployed261UnemployedYesYesNoParticipants in vocational training program Unemployed383Total988 Table 6. ANCOVA for Employee Obligations by Reemployed vs. Control Group a VariablesNMeanSD F pOverall employee obligationReemployed group2095.33.8421.69.00Control group974.86.89Employee Obligation Items 1. Extra hourReemployed group2195.241.5416.30.00Control group984.381.372. Advanced noticeReemployed group2185.541.2712.61.00Control group984.911.363. ConfidentialReemployed group2185.641.332.21.14Control group985.361.224. LoyaltyReemployed group2195.221.236.98.01Control group984.891.285. CompetitorReemployed group2134.841.496.18.01Control group984.431.336. Min. termReemployed group2175.281.367.60.01Control group984.741.417. RelationshipReemployed group2185.821.0615.28.00Control group985.341.118. HelpingReemployed group2185.501.165.65.02Control group975.231.179. DutiesReemployed group2195.96.9711.49.00Control group985.491.1910. ImprovementReemployed group2184.791.703.1008Control group984.621.5611. PromptReemployed group2195.501.555.70.02Control group985.081.2812. Coop. policyReemployed group2185.391.297.73.01Control group985.001.2413. ParticipationReemployed group2194.961.4612.19.00Control group984.401.3514. IdeaReemployed group2185.061.3210.83.00Control group984.601.3215. ObeyReemployed group2195.141.2013.43.00Control group984.651.32a: Covariates Sex, age (2000), education, industry (manufacturing, construction, banking, and others), occupation (office worker and others), union, tenure, and income. Covariates entered first. Table 7. ANCOVA for Employer Obligations by Reemployed vs. Control Group a VariablesNMeanSD F pOverall employer obligationReemployed group2204.161.25.01.93Control group974.191.051. Average salaryReemployed group2213.941.755.43.02Control group984.441.44Employer Obligation items2. Performance-basedReemployed group2213.991.80.57.45 salaryControl group984.091.473. PromotionReemployed group2213.951.73.35.55Control group984.141.364. TrainingReemployed group2213.571.88.32.58Control group983.541.715. Career developmentReemployed group2204.061.702.28.13Control group983.781.526. Job securityReemployed group2214.381.74.01.92Control group984.301.617. PerquisiteReemployed group2213.541.931.52.22Control group984.031.708. WorkloadReemployed group2214.141.74.19.66Control group984.101.409. DiscretionReemployed group2204.481.632.78.10Control group984.211.3410.RespectReemployed group2214.811.493.32.07Control group984.471.2011. Working hourReemployed group2214.111.891.73.19Control group984.501.5512. EvaluationReemployed group2214.421.72.07.79Control group984.431.3113. ParticipationReemployed group2214.701.543.59.06Control group984.331.24a: Covariates Sex, age (2000), education, industry (manufacturing, construction, banking, and others), occupation (office worker and others), union, tenure, and income. Covariates entered first. Table 8. Results of Data Collection in Study 2 Data Source In Phase1Job Status In Study 1Total In Study 1Job Status In Study 1Total In Study 1ContactJob Status In Study 2ResponseResponse Rates aWorkers on Unemployment ListReemployed244 Reemployed244126Employed6527.9%Unemployed3Total68Unemployed261Unemployed644247Employed10729.7%Unemployed84Participants in vocational training programUnemployed383Total191Employees of no layoff experienceEmployed100Employed100100Employed3333%Total98847329232.9%a: Total in Phase 1 / Response Table 9. Sample Description in Study 2 Job Status In Study 1Job Status In Study 2Group SizeSexAgeMaleFemaleControl GroupEmployed3327635.39 (6.85)ReemployedEmployed65452034.00 (9.37)Unemployed31232.33 (7.51)UnemployedEmployed107644336.33 (9.48)Unemployed84335138.23 (10.16)Total29217012236.20 (9.46)Note: Numbers in parentheses represent Standard Deviation. Table 10. Measurement Design for Obligation Variables Job status in Phase 1Survey in Phase 1Job status in Phase 2Follow-up Survey in Phase 2Obligations In Previous JobObligations in Current JobObligations in Future JobObligations in Current JobObligations in Future JobReemployedXXEmployedXUnemployedXUnemployedXXEmployedXUnemployedXNote: X means included in the questionnaire Table 11. Results of paired-sample tests Paired DifferencesOverall Employee ObligationOverall Employer Obligation  Pair 1. Previous Job (First survey) Vs. Future Job (First survey)Mean a-0.57-2.51Std. Deviation0.631.37t-8.03-16.63df7881Sig. (2-tailed)0.000.00 Pair 2. Future Job (First survey) Vs. Current Job (Follow-up survey)Mean b0.452.16Std. Deviation0.851.22t4.9817.70df7881Sig. (2-tailed)0.000.00 Pair 3. Previous Job (First survey) Vs. Current Job (Follow-up survey)Mean c-0.12-0.35Std. Deviation1.051.53t-0.99-2.04df7881Sig. (2-tailed)0.320.04Bold: p< .05, N= 107 a: Mean of difference (Previous Job Future Job) b: Mean of difference (Future Job Current Job) c: Mean of difference (Previous Job Current job) Table 12. Means and Standard Deviations of Overall Employee and Employer Obligations Previous JobFuture JobCurrent JobOverall Employee ObligationMean5.145.715.25SD.87.56.78Overall Employer ObligationMean3.335.843.67SD1.09.77.97 Figure 1. Employer and Employee Obligation by Reemployed vs. Control Group  EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s  Figure 2. Change in Psychological Contract after Layoff EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s      PAGE  PAGE 15 SUwx  - > @ A B S T U V Q R S [ $+/9^dw~IK  +,D`hPJnHtHhPJnHo(tHh5\aJo(h5\aJ h5o( ho(h h5 h`0Jo(jh`Ujh`Uh`aJnHo(tH h`o(h` h`5 h`5o(65STUax U Q R d`ddhgd` $dha$gd` $d`a$$d`a$gd`"IR S <cn! %S'T'U'/*++,-- 0d^`0`dd`d` $d`a$d`bnNq(lq}^_`|A B !!""## % %C'I'R'T' ( (((~((((Z)`)i)o)~)))))/***++++,+8+A++++++,3,W,X,,, h>*o( h5 h< ho( h5o(hhPJnHo(tHS,,,,,,--c-q-r-s-y-~--////Q0W0s1111111122P2Y2l2m23333444"4;4<44455(5q5v5566777 99!9&9'9-9F:N:j:s<<<<<<<<B=F===z>>>>>>#?&?E? h>*h5PJnH tH h h>*o( ho( h5V--c-s157778F:N:j:p<@EEFbFI(J{JJJ$dha$ $d`a$d $ 8!da$d`  8!d`  8!dE?G?`???? @*@@@@@@@@@5A:AiAjArA{AhBjBCD%D2DDDDDDdFfFFFGGoGyGGGGGGGLHPHHHHHHHIIIIII#J$J(JJLLSM^MvMwMzMMMNNOIOeOfOpOyOOOOP hCJo( h>*CJ hCJ h>*o( h>* ho(hUJwMOSS'TATTVVVVWYYW]_brdffhj  8!d`d` $ 8!dha$$dha$dd`d`P PP*o( hH*h ho(Yjjj4kostu6uu/wxx*}F}M  8!d`d` $d`a$d$da$$dha$d` $dh`a$ $ 8!dha$.w/wcwkwxxxxxxxxxxxxxy#y'y@yNyVyWyyyyyyyyyy;zb{g{v{y{{{{{{{{{||-|/|*}F}M ݃ׄ܄ ;Iaf…Dž˅ͅυЅۅ܅hPJnH tH h5PJnH tH  h5 ho(hW #$-.:<>?JKVWfi9:[pxbcertvC`alq|N_fX_Ԕ۔DO.'/ڗۗ{|uv) h5o( hH*hPJnH tH h ho(X fӇ[ɈpxvɍDƐODO$da$d`$a$dd $d`a$$dha$d`Oܘd=Тpqvw&к˽UU$ & F ddd`d`d)drs~Ԟ՞֞۞%)56DEJTUV9:ȡɡJQry56KLWc7:ީoph5nHtH h5 h5o(h5>*o(hnHo(tHh h>*o( ho(O-.ͬάo9AٮfluwŰư589:Ckl "#9;XY޳3~ŵQ^¶ʶӶ۶ķ~̹عwxϺк׺hPJnHo(tHhnHo(tH h5o( h<h ho(T .0MQXZ}~Ȼʻ 5:;Mef "&˽ "*˿Ͽ׿ܿ,-BCdm(^`|Upt~ hCJo( hCJhPJnHtHh ho(hPJnHo(tHT!"TU#&2De#D%13byUryz"`  ?@JZ^`hnHo(tH h6o( ho( h6h h5 hCJ hCJo(R$%&2CD%& 0^`0dhd^h _`=>gh AB 8! 0^`0 yz{ /23=>Vr6ZhW278ABXhPJnH o(tH hPJnH tH h6nHo(tH h6hnHo(tHh ho( h6o(LXNVWz~>AB _qxyk()67JKuv+,\]vw湳 hCJ hCJo(h5OJo( h5o( h5hPJnH tH  h6o( ho(hPJnH o(tH h h6FBKLxyK`u $$If`a$ $d`a$  8!d 0^`0 8!uv,]w4w $If^ `lkd$$If0'"MM04 a34vwABkl}~01ef %&()*01>?CD^_q]e349:RS}~hCJH*o( h5h ho( hCJo( hCJWBl~1f % $If^ `%&'()qr&|yyyyyyyy $$Ifa$d`qkdq$$If40'"MM04 af4 VMMMMMM $$Ifa$kd)$$Ifl   r$ h!   D D D  t0  4 laVMMMMMM $$Ifa$kd%$$Ifl   r$ h!  D D D   t0  4 la VMMMMMMM $$Ifa$kd!$$Ifl   r$ h! DDD t0  4 la!%*.3VMMMMM $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl   r$ h! DDD t0  4 la3456789VMMMMM $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl   r$ h! DDD t0  4 la9:BCGKNRVMMMMMM $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl   r$ h! DDD t0  4 laRSklptx}VMMMMMM $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl   r$ h! DDD t0  4 la}~VMMMMMM $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl   r$ h! DDD t0  4 laVMMMMMM $$Ifa$kd $$Ifl   r$ h! DDD t0  4 lavz ()CDbcdeklu/MNf @GHTijklnohCJnHo(tH hCJ hCJo(hCJH*nHo(tH h5o( h5hCJH*o( ho(h hCJo( hCJEvwxyVLDDD?$a$$da$  ^ `kd $$Ifl   r$ h!   DDD t0  4 la !$(w~kd $$Iflr "Cd4 la $$Ifa$ ()348<?Cwwwwww $$Ifa$~kdT $$Iflr "Cd4 laCDRVZ^btkkkk $$Ifa$ $d$Ifa$~kd $$Iflr "Cd4 labcdwoffUf$vG$If]v^Ga$ $$Ifa$$da$d`~kd $$Iflr "Cd4 la $$Ifa$$V$If]^Va$$Ifkd$$Ifl4ִ' ) h9&EJ?H`)V0     4 laf4 #/0CNRVZgmnszFf $$Ifa$$If #)$IfFf $$Ifa$)*19?@ABHLPTZaghlrxy} dh$If$IfFf $$Ifa$ $%1789GMNU]c$IfFf| $$Ifa$%08Fdef\]^()QZdeop"#$%&,-prվվh5H*o( h5o( h5CJ ho(h h5 hCJhCJnHo(tH hCJ hCJo( hCJo(HcdefFf$$IfFf'! $$Ifa$ "*018@FGNV\]^d`$a$Ff+( $$Ifa$\kd9*$$Ifl4R\@ ^  04 laf4 $$Ifa$ ()MQ82$IfkdN+$$Ifl4Qֈ@ 4^ 04 laf4 $$Ifa$QZ]`de4kd,$$Ifl4ֈ@ 4^ 04 laf4 $$Ifa$$Ife$If $$Ifa$ $d$Ifa$$If0*! d$If$Ifkd-$$Ifl4֞J@ 4^04 laf4$If $$Ifa$ 0**$Ifkd.$$Ifl4֞J@ 4^04 laf4 $If $$Ifa$0$ $d$Ifa$kd0$$Ifl4֞J@ 4^04 laf4 !"#:kdY1$$Ifl4ֈ@ 4^ 04 laf4 $$Ifa$#$%r|}~ $dh$Ifa$ dh$If$da$dh r{ .?HMWYZhp (MV[du} $,V_dn (0Zchp  19ehPJnH tH h hCJ hCJo(ZI@:11 $$Ifa$$If dh$Ifkd2$$Ifִ !$i      aD;5$If dh$Ifkd3$$If4֞ !$?   af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$Dkd4$$If4֞ !$ ?   af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ .?CHMSW $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If dP$If dh$IfWXYZhF=4.$If dP$If dh$Ifkd6$$If4ִ !$i      af4hkpuvw $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$wxyF=71$If$If dh$Ifkdl7$$If4ִ !$ i      af4 $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$F=77. $$Ifa$$If dh$Ifkd8$$If4ִ !$ i      af41kd :$$If4ִ !$ i      af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$  $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If dP$If dh$If F=4.$If dP$If dh$IfkdY;$$If4ִ !$ i      af4 #(-./ $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$/01<MF=4.$If dP$If dh$Ifkd<$$If4ִ !$ i      af4MQV[`d $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$defguF=4.$If dP$If dh$Ifkd=$$If4ִ !$ i      af4ux} $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$F=4.$If dP$If dh$IfkdF?$$If4ִ !$ i      af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$F=4.$If dP$If dh$Ifkd@$$If4ִ !$ i      af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$F=4.$If dP$If dh$IfkdA$$If4ִ !$ i      af4  $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$F=4.$If dP$If dh$Ifkd3C$$If4ִ !$ i      af4$',123 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$345EVF=4.$If dP$If dh$IfkdD$$If4ִ !$ i      af4VZ_djn $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$nopqF=4.$If dP$If dh$IfkdE$$If4ִ !$ i      af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$F=77. $$Ifa$$If dh$Ifkd.G$$If4ִ !$ i        af41kdH$$If4ִ !$i      af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If dh$IfF=77. $$Ifa$$If dh$IfkdI$$If4ִ !$ i      af4 1kd K$$If4ִ !$ i      af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$(+0567 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If dh$If789IZ^F=77. $$Ifa$$If dh$IfkdNL$$If4ִ !$ i      af4^chmpq1kdM$$If4ִ !$ i      af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$qrs $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If dh$IfF=77. $$Ifa$$If dh$IfkdN$$If4ִ !$ i      af41kdP$$If4ִ !$ i      af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If dh$If F=77. $$Ifa$$If dh$Ifkd`Q$$If4ִ !$ i      af4  !4kdR$$If4ִ !$`h      af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$!"#149>?@ $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If dh$If@ABTeiI@::1 $$Ifa$$If dh$IfkdS$$If4ִ !$ h      af4insy}~4kd#U$$If4ִ !$ h      af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ens} %6>FGTU []fs%'(6>[_`u+<EJRckthh5H*o( h5o( h5 hH*o( hCJ hCJo(S~ $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If dh$IfI@::1 $$Ifa$$If dh$IfkddV$$If4ִ !$ h      af44kdW$$If4ִ !$ h      af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If dh$If I@::1 $$Ifa$$If dh$IfkdX$$If4ִ !$ h        af4!%&4kdZ$$If4ִ !$ h      af4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$&'(69>CDE $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If dh$IfEF IGGB==dhdkdT[$$If4ִ !$ h        af4]ghikps} $dh$Ifa$ dh$If$dha$dh I@@44 $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkd\$$Ifִ  !$h :    ahA88 dh$Ifkd]$$If4֞ !$C  :ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$Akd^$$If4֞ !$ C  :ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$!% $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ dh$If%&'(6F=4= dh$If dh$Ifkd_$$If4ִ  !$h :    ahf469>CDE $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$EFZ`uF==== dh$Ifkd.a$$If4ִ  !$ h :    ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$F===1 $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkdob$$If4ִ  !$`h :    ahf4.kdc$$If4ִ  !$ h :    ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ dh$IfF===1 $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkdd$$If4ִ  !$ h :    ahf4.kd$f$$If4ִ  !$h :    ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$+<@EJNR $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ dh$If$IfRSTUcfF===1 $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkd`g$$If4ִ !$e *    ahf4fkpqrs.kdh$$If4ִ !$e *    ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$st $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ dh$If $-;LUZct|!)2=NW\ev~ )1:L]fkt[\bcpquv hCJ ho( h5 hH*o(h hCJ hCJo(TF==4 dh$If dh$Ifkdi$$If4ִ !$e *    ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$F===1 $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkdk$$If4ִ !$e *    ahf4 .kd4l$$If4ִ !$e *    ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ $)*+ $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ dh$If+,-;LPF===1 $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkdpm$$If4ִ !$e *    ahf4PUZ_cd.kdn$$If4ִ !$`e *    ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$deftw| $dh$Ifa$ dh$IfF===1 $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkdo$$If4ִ !$ e   *    ahf4.kd(q$$If4ִ !$e *    ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ dh$IfF===1 $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkdor$$If4ִ !$ e *    ahf4 .kds$$If4ִ !$ e *    ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$!$)./0 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ dh$If012=NRF===1 $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkdt$$If4ִ !$ e *    ahf4RW\aef.kd$v$$If4ִ !$`e *    ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$fghvy~ $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ dh$IfF=44 dh$If dh$Ifkdew$$If4ִ !$ e *    ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$I@@@4 $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkdx$$If4ִh !$n     ahf41kdz$$If4ִh !$ n     ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$  $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ dh$If),I@@@4 $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkdf{$$If4ִh !$ n     ahf4,167891kd|$$If4ִh !$ n     ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$9:L]afkpt $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ dh$IftuvwI@@@4 $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkd~$$If4ִh !$ n     ahf41kdo$$If4ִh !$ n     ahf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$[) $$If^a$ $$Ifa$dh!')*GQWabfhvz|}~+9:-.>?kl hCJo( h5o( h5 hCJ hCJH* ho( hCJH* hCJ hCJo(N)*GRV4+++ $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl I P!%C6$$$$4 laVWbfjsv| $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$|}~1((( $$Ifa$kdˁ$$Ifl4 I P!%C6$$$$4 laf4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$/&&& $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl4Y I P!%C6$$$$4 laf4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$/&&& $$Ifa$kdW$$Ifl4Y I P!%C6$$$$4 laf4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$1((( $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl4 I P!%C6$$$$4 laf4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$'+/&&& $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl4Y I P!%C6$$$$4 laf4+,-.489 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$9:\ei/&&& $$Ifa$kdG$$Ifl4Y I P!%C6$$$$4 laf4irvz $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$/## $dh$Ifa$kd$$Ifl4Y I P!%C6$$$$4 laf4 $dh$Ifa$D;3* $$Ifa$$dha$d`kd݊$$Ifl4ִ P!% 6    4 laf4%)-.?kdڋ$$Ifl4Yr0 Z$OM* 04 laf4 $dh$Ifa$ $$Ifa$./016=> $dh$Ifa$>?MVYA8,, $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkd$$Ifl4Yֈ0 Z~$ O M *$ 04 laf4Y\^klw:1 dh$Ifkd$$Iflֈ0 Z~$OM*$04 la $dh$Ifa$w7kd$$Ifl4ֈ0 Z~$OM*$04 laf4 $dh$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$ dh$IfC:... $dh$Ifa$ dh$IfkdQ$$Ifl4ֈ0 Z~$OM*$04 laf47. dh$Ifkd$$Ifl4ֈ0 Z~$OM*$04 laf4 $dh$Ifa$&'abchnp=PXkt4>? h5CJhCJH*o(h ho( h5o( h5hPJnH tH  hCJ hCJo( hCJo( hCJH 7kd$$Ifl4ֈ0 Z~$OM*$04 laf4 $dh$Ifa$ &'bcJH?  8!dkd$$Ifl4r0 Z~$ *$04 laf4 $dh$Ifa$cdefg|nkd$$Ifl4\."(F 4 laf4 $dh$Ifa$$dha$3MNiu $dh$Ifa$WNBBBNB $dh$Ifa$ dh$Ifkd$$Ifl4֞v ."(_4 laf4KBB dh$Ifkdږ$$Ifl4֞v ."`(_4 laf4 $dh$Ifa$KB dh$Ifkd$$Ifl4֞v ." (_4 laf4 $dh$Ifa$Bkd$$Ifl4֞v ."`(_4 laf4 $dh$Ifa$ dh$IfB=dkd$$Ifl4֞v ." (_4 laf4 dh$If $dh$Ifa$=Pl$IfWkd$$If4F!    af4 $$Ifa$d $If $$Ifa$jkd$$If4\0 !? af4 $If $$Ifa$jkdC$$If4\0 !? af4"$If $$Ifa$jkdܜ$$If4\0 !? af4"#$49>$If $$Ifa$jkdu$$If4\0 !? af4>?Lj $$Ifa$$Ifjkd$$If4\0 !? af4$If $$Ifa$jkd$$If4\0 !? af4$If $$Ifa$jkd\$$If4\0 !? af4$If $$Ifa$jkd$$If4\0 !? af4<EGKLNSTYZ%&IJZ[aceIJ[\^޵ޣhPJnH tH j hU,j(B hCJPJUVaJnHo(tHjhU h5 ho(hhCJH*o( h5CJ hCJ hCJo(@$If $$Ifa$jkd$$If4\0 !? af4 GNTZ $$Ifa$$Ifjkd'$$If4\0 !? af4Z[\kpu $$Ifa$$IfjkdΡ$$If4\0 !? af4uvwy $$Ifa$$Ifjkdu$$If4\0 ! ? af4 $$Ifa$$Ifjkd$$If4\0 ! ? af4 $$Ifa$$Ifjkd$$If4\0 ! ? af4%XYZyyyy $$Ifa$$Ifd 8!jkd.$$If4\0 ! ? af4 ztkbkb $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$IfkdϤ$$IfTl;r j VB."D 4 laT  wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdp$$IfTl4;r j VB."D 4 laf4T5:?DIwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IfTl4;r j VB."D 4 laf4TIJKNSW[wqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdȦ$$IfTl4;r j VB."D 4 laf4T[\]wupuuug^ d$If  8!d$a$kdt$$IfTl4;r j VB." D 4 laf4T !"#%&()+,./5679:@ACDEFHIJ h^`0Jo(h^`0JmHnHuh^` h^`0Jjh^`0JUhgFjhgFUhPJnH tH  hCJo(jɰhUjFY@ hCJUVjhU ho(h# !"$%E<::  8!dYkd$$Iflg##04 la$IfYkd?$$Iflg##04 la%'(*+-.789EFGHIJ  8!dh&`#$]hgd` &`#$gdh]hgd` &`#$gd`6 001hP/ =!"#$% DyK kimmin@ewha.ac.kryK 2mailto:kimmin@ewha.ac.kr$$If!vh5M5M#vM:V 0,5M/  44 a$$If!vh5M5M#vM:V 405M/  / 44 af4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D5#v #vD#v:V l t0  ,5 5D5/  / / / 4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D5#v #vD#v:V l t0  ,5 5D5/ / / / 4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D5#v #vD#v:V l t0  ,5 5D5/ / / 4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D5#v #vD#v:V l t0  ,5 5D5/ / / 4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D5#v #vD#v:V l t0  ,5 5D5/ / / 4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D5#v #vD#v:V l t0  ,5 5D5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D5#v #vD#v:V l t0  ,5 5D5/ / / 4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D5#v #vD#v:V l t0  ,5 5D5/ / / 4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D5#v #vD#v:V l t0  ,5 5D5/ / / 4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D5#v #vD#v:V l t0  ,5 5D5/ /  / / 4$$If!vh5C555d5#vC#v#v#vd#v:V l,5C555d5/ / 4$$If!vh5C555d5#vC#v#v#vd#v:V l,5C555d5/ / 4$$If!vh5C555d5#vC#v#v#vd#v:V l,5C555d5/ / 4$$If!vh5C555d5#vC#v#v#vd#v:V l,5C555d5/ / 4l$$If!vh5E5J55?5H5`5)5V#vE#vJ#v#v?#vH#v`#v)#vV:V l40 ++++,5E5J55?5H5`5)5V/ / /  4af4$$If!v h5E5J555=5H555 )5 5 #vE#vJ#v#v=#vH#v#v#v )#v #v :V l40++++,, 5E5J55=5H555 )5 5 /  / / 4af46kd $$Ifl4 ' ) +h9#& E J=H)0,,,,4 laf4$$If!v h5E5J555=5H555 )5 5 #vE#vJ#v#v=#vH#v#v#v )#v #v :V l40+,, 5E5J55=5H555 )5 5 / / /  / / / 4af42kd$$Ifl4 ' ) +h9#&EJ=H)0,,,,4 laf4$$If!v h5E5J555=5H555 )5 5 #vE#vJ#v#v=#vH#v#v#v )#v #v :V l40+,, 5E5J55=5H555 )5 5 / / /  / / 4af42kd$$Ifl4 ' ) +h9#&EJ=H)0,,,,4 laf4$$If!v h5E5J555=5H555 )5 5 #vE#vJ#v#v=#vH#v#v#v )#v #v :V l40+,, 5E5J55=5H555 )5 5 /  / / /  / / /  4af42kd$$Ifl4 ' ) +h9#&EJ=H)0,,,,4 laf4u$$If!v h5E5J555=5H555 )5 5 #vE#vJ#v#v=#vH#v#v#v )#v #v :V l40, 5E5J55=5H555 )5 5 / / 4af42kd$$Ifl4 ' ) +h9#&EJ=H)0,,,,4 laf4_$$If!v h5 555=5H555)5 5 #v #v#v=#vH#v#v#v)#v #v :V l40, 5 55=5H555)5 5 / / 4af4 kd[#$$Ifl4 ' ) +h9#& =H)0((((4 laf4_$$If!v h5 555=5H555)5 5 #v #v#v=#vH#v#v#v)#v #v :V l40, 5 55=5H555)5 5 / / 4af4 kd&$$Ifl4 ' ) +h9#& =H)0((((4 laf4$$If!vh5 555 #v #v#v#v :V l4R0+++,5 555 / / / /  4f41$$If!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l4Q0+++,5 5555/  / / /  4f4$$If!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l40,5 5555/ /  4f49$$If!vh5555555#v#v#v#v#v#v:V l40+,555555/ / / /  4f4M$$If!vh5555555#v#v#v#v#v#v:V l40+++++,555555/ / / /  4f4H$$If!vh5555555#v#v#v#v#v#v:V l40++++,555555/ / /  / 4f4H$$If!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l40,5 5555/ /  / / / / /  4f4$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V ,5i55555 5 5/  / / 4a/$$If!vh5? 5555 5 5#v? #v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,,5? 5555 5 5/ / / / 4af4)$$If!vh5? 5555 5 5#v? #v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5? 5555 5 5/  / / / 4af4S$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,,5i55555 5 5/ / / / /  4af4M$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i55555 5 5/ /  / / /  4af4M$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i55555 5 5/ / / / /  4af4M$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i55555 5 5/ /  / / /  4af4M$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i55555 5 5/ / / / /  4af4M$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i55555 5 5/ /  / / /  4af4M$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i55555 5 5/ / / / /  4af4M$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i55555 5 5/ /  / / /  4af4M$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i55555 5 5/ / / / /  4af4M$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i55555 5 5/ /  / / /  4af4M$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i55555 5 5/ / / / /  4af4[$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i55555 5 5/ /  / / /  / 4af4M$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i55555 5 5/ / / / /  4af4U$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,5i55555 5 5/ /  / / /  / 4af4E$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,,5i5555 5 5/ / / / /  4af4?$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i5555 5 5/ /  / / /  4af4?$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i5555 5 5/ / / / /  4af4?$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i5555 5 5/ /  / / /  4af4?$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i5555 5 5/ / / / /  4af4M$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i5555 5 5/ /  / / /  / 4af4?$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i5555 5 5/ / / / /  4af4M$$If!vh5i55555 5 5#vi#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5i5555 5 5/ /  / / /  / 4af4?$$If!vh5h55555 5 5#vh#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5h5555 5 5/ / / / /  4af41$$If!vh5h55555 5 5#vh#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5h5555 5 5/  / / /  4af4?$$If!vh5h55555 5 5#vh#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5h5555 5 5/ / / / /  4af41$$If!vh5h55555 5 5#vh#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5h5555 5 5/  / / /  4af4?$$If!vh5h55555 5 5#vh#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5h5555 5 5/ / / / /  4af49$$If!vh5h55555 5 5#vh#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,5h5555 5 5/  / / /  / 4af4?$$If!vh5h55555 5 5#vh#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,,5h5555 5 5/ / / / /  4af49$$If!vh5h55555 5 5#vh#v#v#v#v #v #v:V 4+++,5h5555 5 5/  / / /  / 4af4$$If!vh5h555 5555#vh#v#v#v #v#v#v:V :,5h555 555/  / / 4ah!$$If!vh5C 55 5555#vC #v#v #v#v#v:V 4:+++,,,5C 55 555/ / / / 4ahf4)$$If!vh5C 55 5555#vC #v#v #v#v#v:V 4:+++,,5C 55 555/  / / / / 4ahf4E$$If!vh5h555 5555#vh#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4:+++,,,5h555 555/ / / / /  4ahf4?$$If!vh5h555 5555#vh#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4:+++,,5h555 555/ /  / / /  4ahf4?$$If!vh5h555 5555#vh#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4:+++,,5h555 555/ / / / /  4ahf41$$If!vh5h555 5555#vh#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4:+++,,5h555 555/  / / /  4ahf4?$$If!vh5h555 5555#vh#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4:+++,,5h555 555/ / / / /  4ahf4:$$If!vh5h555 5555#vh#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4:++,,5h555 555/  / / /  / 4ahf4:$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*++,,5e555 555/ / / / /  4ahf4,$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*++,,5e555 555/  / / /  4ahf4:$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*++,,5e555 555/ / / / /  4ahf4,$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*++,,5e555 555/  / / /  4ahf4:$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*++,,5e555 555/ / / / /  4ahf4:$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*++,,5e555 555/  / / /  / 4ahf4?$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*+++,,5e555 555/ / / / /  4ahf49$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*+++,5e555 555/  / / /  / 4ahf4E$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*+++,,,5e555 555/ / / / /  4ahf41$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*+++,,5e555 555/  / / /  4ahf4?$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*+++,,5e555 555/ / / / /  4ahf4?$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*+++,,5e555 555/  / / /  / 4ahf4?$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*+++,,5e555 555/ / / / /  4ahf4M$$If!vh5e555 5555#ve#v#v#v #v#v#v:V 4*+++,,5e555 555/ /  / / /  / 4ahf4a$$Ifh!vh5n55555 55#vn#v#v#v#v#v #v#v:V 4+++,,,5n55555 55/ / / / / /  4ahf4M$$Ifh!vh5n55555 55#vn#v#v#v#v#v #v#v:V 4+++,,5n55555 55/ /  / / /  4ahf4[$$Ifh!vh5n55555 55#vn#v#v#v#v#v #v#v:V 4+++,,5n55555 55/ / / / / /  4ahf4M$$Ifh!vh5n55555 55#vn#v#v#v#v#v #v#v:V 4+++,,5n55555 55/  / / /  / 4ahf4[$$Ifh!vh5n55555 55#vn#v#v#v#v#v #v#v:V 4+++,,5n55555 55/ / / / / /  4ahf4M$$Ifh!vh5n55555 55#vn#v#v#v#v#v #v#v:V 4+++,,5n55555 55/  / / /  / 4ahf4 $$If!v h55C5555555 6#v#vC#v#v#v#v#v#v#v 6:V l, 55C5555555 6/ 4P$$If!v h55C5555555 6#v#vC#v#v#v#v#v#v#v 6:V l4+++++++, 55C5555555 6/ / /  4f48$$If!v h55C5555555 6#v#vC#v#v#v#v#v#v#v 6:V l4Y+++++++, 55C5555555 6/ 4f4T$$If!v h55C5555555 6#v#vC#v#v#v#v#v#v#v 6:V l4Y+++++++, 55C5555555 6/ / /  4f4P$$If!v h55C5555555 6#v#vC#v#v#v#v#v#v#v 6:V l4+++++++, 55C5555555 6/ / /  4f4F$$If!v h55C5555555 6#v#vC#v#v#v#v#v#v#v 6:V l4Y+++++++, 55C5555555 6/ / 4f4S$$If!v h55C5555555 6#v#vC#v#v#v#v#v#v#v 6:V l4Y++++, 55C5555555 6/ / / /  4f4?$$If!v h55C5555555 6#v#vC#v#v#v#v#v#v#v 6:V l4Y, 55C5555555 6/ / / /  4f4$$If!vh5 55555556#v #v#v#v#v#v#v#v6:V l4,5 55555556/ 4f4$$If!vh5O5M5*5 5#vO#vM#v*#v #v:V l4Y0++++,5O5M5*5 5/ /  4f4"$$If!vh5O5M5*5$55#vO#vM#v*#v$#v#v:V l4Y0++++5O5M5*5$55/ /  4f4 $$If!vh5O5M5*5$55#vO#vM#v*#v$#v#v:V l0,5O5M5*5$55/ /  41$$If!vh5O5M5*5$55#vO#vM#v*#v$#v#v:V l40+,5O5M5*5$55/ / / /  4f41$$If!vh5O5M5*5$55#vO#vM#v*#v$#v#v:V l40+,5O5M5*5$55/  / / /  4f41$$If!vh5O5M5*5$55#vO#vM#v*#v$#v#v:V l40+,5O5M5*5$55/ / / /  4f41$$If!vh5O5M5*5$55#vO#vM#v*#v$#v#v:V l40+,5O5M5*5$55/  / / /  4f4$$If!vh5 5*5$55#v #v*#v$#v#v:V l40,5 5*5$55/ /  4f4$$If!vh555(5F #v#v#v(#vF :V l4++,555(5F / / / / 4f4$$If!vh55555(55_#v#v#v#v#v(#v#v_:V l4++,55555(55_/ / / / 4f4 $$If!vh55555(55_#v#v#v#v#v(#v#v_:V l4++++,,55555(55_/ / 4f4 $$If!vh55555(55_#v#v#v#v#v(#v#v_:V l4++++,,55555(55_/ / 4f4 $$If!vh55555(55_#v#v#v#v#v(#v#v_:V l4++++,,55555(55_/ / 4f4 $$If!vh55555(55_#v#v#v#v#v(#v#v_:V l4++++,,55555(55_/ / 4f4$$If!vh555#v#v:V 4,55/ 4af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,,5? 55/ 4af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,,5? 554af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,,5? 554af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,,5? 554af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,,5? 55/ 4af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,,5? 55/ 4af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,,5? 554af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,,5? 554af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,,5? 554af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,,5? 55/ 4af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,,5? 55/ 4af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,5? 554af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,5? 554af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,5? 554af4$$If!vh5? 555#v? #v#v:V 4+,5? 55/ 4af4$$If!vh5D 5555#vD #v#v:V l;,5D 55/ 4T$$If!vh5D 5555#vD #v#v:V l4;+,5D 55/ 4f4T$$If!vh5D 5555#vD #v#v:V l4;+,5D 55/ 4f4T$$If!vh5D 5555#vD #v#v:V l4;+,5D 55/ 4f4T$$If!vh5D 5555#vD #v#v:V l4;+,5D 55/ 4f4TDd % \  c $A? ?#" `"ot2{t99Kd\@=Ct2{t99*g?.^-4xmlTEpA{kƔT CAR CH@ AcFPILФ&_yonn{h+%};;;3;;)؆0fSuK[`0 8-z,(@%=cNβڴ( V)XBPUҴF4OY0q w  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghjklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~)(Root Entry FU Data iWordDocument8ObjectPool [UU_1121098792 !F [U [UOle CompObjaObjInfo  !"$%&'()*+- !FMicrosoft Excel ƮBiff8Excel.Chart.89q Oh+'0@H`x  Min Soo Kimx Min Soo KimxMicrosoft Excel@C݁V@VWorkbook SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8<_1079592655 !F [UU F\p Min Soo Kim Ba=D#= &3<X@"1˳1˳1˳1˳1˳1˳1˳1˳1˳1˳"\"#,##0;\-"\"#,##0"\"#,##0;[Red]\-"\"#,##0"\"#,##0.00;\-"\"#,##0.00#"\"#,##0.00;[Red]\-"\"#,##0.005*0_-"\"* #,##0_-;\-"\"* #,##0_-;_-"\"* "-"_-;_-@_-,)'_-* #,##0_-;\-* #,##0_-;_-* "-"_-;_-@_-=,8_-"\"* #,##0.00_-;\-"\"* #,##0.00_-;_-"\"* "-"??_-;_-@_-4+/_-* #,##0.00_-;\-* #,##0.00_-;_-* "-"??_-;_-@_-\$#,##0_);\(\$#,##0\)\$#,##0_);[Red]\(\$#,##0\) \$#,##0.00_);\(\$#,##0.00\)% \$#,##0.00_);[Red]\(\$#,##0.00\)                  + ) , * `Chart1tSheet1Sheet2Sheet3RRTbZ 3 A@@  Control 7 Reemployed 7Employer Obligation 7Employee Obligation 7   F"`plFigat??3`  `  PH 0(  ? 3d23 M NM4 3Q: ControlQ ;Q ;Q3_ O  fu # i@zaB]"I<9k_( 5%"B` MM< 4E4 3Q:  ReemployedQ ;Q ;Q3_ O   MM< 4E4D $% M 3O& Q4$% M 3O& Q4FA 3O?s? 3 b43*! M4523 M  43"  \3O \% M3OQ443_ M NM  MM< 4444e/Employer Obligation/Employer Obligation/Employee Obligation/Employee ObligationeQ@p= ף@q= ףp@= ףp=@e> = ף F  dMbP?_*+%"??U     z@z@ `~@@ (&$(  j  0NMM?9]`  F"??3` ` ?3d23 M NM4 3Q: ControlQ ;Q ;Q3_4E4 3Q:  ReemployedQ ;Q ;Q3_4E4D $% M 3O&Q4$% M 3O&Q4FA &+ 3Ok# 3 b43*! M4523  O43"  q/3O % M3OQ443_ M NM  MM< 4444eee >@7 F  dMbP?_*+%"??U>@7 F  dMbP?_*+%"??U>@7 ՜.+,0  PXx  Ewha Womans UniversityA Sheet1Sheet2Sheet3Chart1  ũƮƮ !FMicrosoft Excel ChartBiff8Excel.Chart.89qOle  PRINT CompObjbObjInfo=: D 7    ''  Times New Romanwgw   -"System  -'-  --  r!!---'---  -- $zd d z zd----'---  `zi _ z  eze z 1z1 z z dzd ---'---  i _-dz d   zdz---'---  -dz  z g  g egeg1g1ggdgd z  z z   {  {   ---'---  r!!---'---  Oe---'---  Oe-333-^ u;u;1 --D?;?; -^333-333- $IssI---'---  Oeu;  $;`P&;`---'---  Oe1   $  F F ---'---  OeD-- $/DYD/---'---  Oe?; $;*P?;T&?;*---'---  Oe  $     ---'---  Oe---'---  Oe---'---  ---'---  -----'--- j  2 ?5.14!!!----'---  -----'--- 2e  2 Vn5.71!!!----'---  -----'--- tk    2  5.25!!!----'---  -----'--- j  2 %3.33!!!----'---  -----'--- e  2 n5.84!!!----'---  -----'--- k u   2  3.67!!!----'---  ---'---    2 y *0! 2 *1! 2 F*2! 2 *3! 2 *4! 2 x*5! 2 *6! 2 E*7!---'---  ---'---   02 VPrevious job (First survey)%!!!!!%!!!-2 Future Job (First survey)%!!!!%!!!42  Current Job (Follow-up survey),!!!!%!!0!!!!!---'---  -- j _---'--- h `---'--- h `333-. v . . 333- $ A A  72  ' Overall Employee Obligation Mean0!)4!!!0!!!!;!---'--- h `---'--- h `-.  . . ^-$^ q. ^A K. ^ 72   Overall Employer Obligation Mean0!)4!!!0!!!!;!---'--- h `---'---  ---'---  --  r!!--'   '  'Oh+'0@H\p  Min Soo Kim Min Soo KimMicrosoft Excel@9b@̍l|՜.+,0 PX|  UCB Haas Business School  Workbook}SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8D1Table0 O      !"#$%&'*+,-./123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrtuvwxyz{|}~ @\p Min Soo Kim Ba=  !=##<X@"1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman11. Times New Roman1.$Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)\$#,##0_);\(\$#,##0\)\$#,##0_);[Red]\(\$#,##0\) \$#,##0.00_);\(\$#,##0.00\)% \$#,##0.00_);[Red]\(\$#,##0.00\) 0.0000 0.0000.0 0.00000                + ) , *         `tChart9'Sheet1S;Sheet2VSheet3`iZR3  @@  JPaired Samples TestPaired DifferencestdfSig. (2-tailed)MeanStd. DeviationPair 1[Employer obligation previous job first survey - Employer obligation future job first surveyPair 2OEmployer obligation future job first survey - Employer obligation second surveyPair 3QEmployer obligation previous job first survey - Employer obligation second surveyPair 4[Employee obligation previous job first survey - Employee obligation future job first surveyPair 5OEmployee obligation future job first survey - Employee obligation second surveyPair 6QEmployee obligation previous job first survey - Employee obligation second surveyPair 7uQuantifiable employer obligation previous job first survey - Quantifiable employer obligation future job first surveyPair 8iQuantifiable employer obligation future job first survey - Quantifiable employer obligation second surveyPair 9kQuantifiable employer obligation previous job first survey - Quantifiable employer obligation second surveyPair 10}Not quantifiable employer obligation previous job first survey - Not quantifiable employer obligation future job first surveyPair 11qNot quantifiable employer obligation future job first survey - Not quantifiable employer obligation second surveyPair 12sNot quantifiable employer obligation previous job first survey - Not quantifiable employer obligation second surveyPair 13sJob-related employer obligation previous job first survey - Job-related employer obligation future job first surveyPair 14gJob-related employer obligation future job first survey - Job-related employer obligation second surveyPair 15iJob-related employer obligation previous job first survey - Job-related employer obligation second surveyPair 16{Not job-related employer obligation previous job first survey - Not job-related employer obligation future job first surveyPair 17oNot job-related employer obligation future job first survey - Not job-related employer obligation second surveyPair 18qNot job-related employer obligation previous job first survey - Not job-related employer obligation second surveyPair 19mIn-role employee obligation previous job first survey - In-role employee obligation future job first surveyPair 20`In-role employee obligation future job first survey - In-role employee obligation second surveyPair 21bIn-role employee obligation previous job first survey - In-role employee obligation second surveyPair 22qExtra-role employee obligation previous job first survey - Extra-role employee obligation future job first surveyPair 23eExtra-role employee obligation future job first survey - Extra-role employee obligation second surveyPair 24gExtra-role employee obligation previous job first survey - Extra-role employee obligation second surveyPair 25Individual-focused employee obligation previous job first survey - Individual-focused employee obligation future job first surveyPair 26uIndividual-focused employee obligation future job first survey - Individual-focused employee obligation second surveyPair 27wIndividual-focused employee obligation previous job first survey - Individual-focused employee obligation second surveyPair 28Organizational-focused employee obligation previous job first survey - Organizational-focused employee obligation future job first surveyPair 29}Organizational-focused employee obligation future job first survey - Organizational-focused employee obligation second surveyPair 30Organizational-focused employee obligation previous job first survey - Organizational-focused employee obligation second survey[Employer obligation previous job first survey - Employer obligation future job first survey 7Previous job (First survey) 7Future Job (First survey) 7Current Job (Follow-up survey) 7Mean 7Employer obligation Average 7Employee obligation Average 7R s  z \M w   @MN\\CMPSRV1\Management and OrganipsXLetter 96''''"d??3` h ! ` h ! 3dz23 M NM4 3Q D Overall Employee Obligation MeanQ ;Q ;Q3_ 333? NM  333333??d 4E4 3Q @Overall Employee Obligation SDQ ;Q ;Q3_ M NM  ##d4EC4 3Q D Overall Employer Obligation MeanQ ;Q ;Q3_4E4 3Q @Overall Employer Obligation SDQ ;Q ;Q3_ M NM  !!d4EC4D$% MP+3O& Q4$% MP+3O& Q4FAmH 3O3 b43*! M4523  NM43" s 3Os% Mp73OQ443_ M NM  MM< 444% M ?3OQ'4% M ?3OQ'4% M ?3OQ'4% M ?3OQ'44e?Previous job (First survey)?Previous job (First survey)?Previous job (First survey)?Previous job (First survey);Future Job (First survey);Future Job (First survey);Future Job (First survey);Future Job (First survey)ECurrent Job (Follow-up survey)ECurrent Job (Follow-up survey)ECurrent Job (Follow-up survey)ECurrent Job (Follow-up survey)e(\@p= ף @ףp= @\(\@@\(\ @e> \ @  dMbP?_*+%"??U} Y*     !"#$%&' &                            C y" Km? sl}0~ @T@ EI< R}"@ j┎? e21@~ Z@ þ;P ,< 蟧ֿ TƠ,? UU~ @T@ H?   $    $  X2RD!?J@9 ~ S@HG=  33? `wc? aW0@~  @Y@ ['A>@ ｿX ?ãJ~ S@ДY?      Z?dQ׿g+~ U@E<  h8yh@ ֒?Eܑ0@~ Z@þ;P ,<  !K?A׿~ U@9q?  %ixc?!A1~ T@ޫOv+G<  #VG&@c?-=-0@~ Z@þ;P ,<  ps?f?d$L~ T@-O:j?   [pb?.K0~ T@ޫOv+G< ! "]F?D5$L?N2G_0@~ Z@þ;P ,< # $x-EܿgZ5g?]{~ T@2Հ? % &'$$$$$k9e?풊ur.~ U@E< ' (R@o?{Y#1@~ Z@þ;P ,< ) *Pÿ|WD?Y+G~ U@j? + ,Mٿ97?q͹~ U@o> - .0_/k ?̈́7.?9dْ}@~ Z@;紭r.? / 0 N 'Yۉ1? հRݿ~ U@ q ? !1 !2!0\(!!S ?!ppk ~ !S@!h p= "3 "4"p??????"ބ?"D\.@~ "@Y@"DS8ک> #5 #6#Q# >=X0?#K4 ~ #S@#qS§c? $7 $8$FS$.+?$OU~ $T@$Jx%= %9 %:%hiZ?%h/O?%J @~ %@Z@%Jtg> &; &<&?&9uEX?&Cj?~ &T@&y? '= '>''ȆU>?'rCv7\~ '@T@'N0">BX8DD00rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr() (? (@(?(mOy*?(|R@ @~ (Y@(2n-W? )A )B)?o¿)E3a?)j~ )T@)؍j3? r>@7 @  dMbP?_*+%"??U}  }  }  }  } } * } } } * }  }  } * }  }  } * }  }  }  }  }  }  }  }  } } !!  G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG F !                    ! # % ' ) + - / 1 3 5 7 9 ; =  ? !A                     " $ & ( * , . 0 2 4 6 8 : < >  @ !B y" X2⿾    h8yh@  %#VG&@ps?[p]F?x-Eܿ'$$$$$R@PÿMٿ0_/k ?N0\(p??????QFShiZ?? ?!?o¿P"F Km? RD!?   Z?  ֒? !K? ixc?c?f?b?D5$L?gZ5g?k9e?o?|WD?97?̈́7.?'Yۉ1?!S ?ބ? >=X0?.+?h/O?9uEX?ȆU>? mOy*?!E3a?P"F sl}0 J@9   dQ׿g+ Eܑ0@ A׿ !A1-=-0@d$L.K0N2G_0@]{풊ur.{Y#1@Y+Gq͹9dْ}@հRݿppk D\.@K4 OUJ @Cj?rCv7\ |R@ @!jP"F ~ @T@ ~ S@   U@Z@U@T@Z@T@T@Z@T@U@Z@U@U@Z@U@S@@Y@S@T@@Z@T@@T@Y@T@!P"F EI< HG=   E< þ;P ,< 9q? ޫOv+G<þ;P ,<-O:j?ޫOv+G<þ;P ,<2Հ?E<þ;P ,<j?o>;紭r.?q ?h p=DS8ک>qS§c?Jx%=Jtg>y?N0"> 2n-W?!؍j3?P"F M}"@  33?F j┎? `wc?F e21@ aW0@F ~ Z@ ~ @Y@F þ;P ,< ['A>F 蟧ֿ @ ｿF TƠ,? X ?F UU ãJ￾F ~ @T@ ~ S@F H? ДY?F(TX\\\>\>@ 7 @  dMbP?_*+%MHanFAX Driver (HNC)@f@MSUDHanFAX Driver (HNC)d"d??U} U0}   H I G G D~ t@~ @ E~ @@~ ؁@ F~ v@~ @`P0044(  p  6NMM?G /]`E  @"??3` h ! ` h ! 3d23 M NM4 3Q ; D Employer obligation Average MeanQ ;Q ;Q3_4E4 3Q ; D Employer obligation Average MeanQ ;Q ;Q3_ M NM  !!d4E4 3Q ; D Employee obligation Average MeanQ ;Q ;Q3_4E4 3Q ; D Employee obligation Average MeanQ ;Q ;Q3_ M NM  ##d4E4D$% MP+3O& Q4$% MP+3O& Q4FAGw r 3OY3 b43*! M4523  O43" 3_ M NM  MM< 444c 3 ?3O% Mp73OQ423 M NM444% M ?3OQ'4% M ?3OQ'4% M ?3OQ'4% M ?3OQ'44e?Previous job (First survey)?Previous job (First survey)?Previous job (First survey)?Previous job (First survey);Future Job (First survey);Future Job (First survey);Future Job (First survey);Future Job (First survey)ECurrent Job (Follow-up survey)ECurrent Job (Follow-up survey)ECurrent Job (Follow-up survey)ECurrent Job (Follow-up survey)ep= ף @(\@\(\@ףp= @\(\ @@e >@7 FStd. Deviationj┎? `wc?F te21@ aW0@F df~ Z@ ~ @Y@FSig. (2-tailed)þ;P ,< ['A>F Mean蟧ֿ @ ｿFStd. DeviationTƠ,? X ?F tUU ãJ￾F df~ @T@ ~ S@FSig. (2-tailed)H? ДY?F(%Tj_O_i\?j>@ 7 A@  dMbP?_*+%" ??U} U0}  4Employer obligation Average 74Employee obligation Average 7Mean 7SD 7Mean 7SD 74Previous job (First survey) 7t@@[@@U@2Future Job (First survey) 7@@@S@؁@L@7Current Job (Follow-up survey) 7v@@X@@S@PZX(  p  6NMM? "i]`6  A@"6??3` h ! ` h ! 3d23 M NM4 3Q ; D Employer obligation Average MeanQ ;Q ;Q3_4E4 3Q ; @Employer obligation Average SDQ ;Q ;Q3_ M MM  !!d4E4 3Q ; D Employee obligation Average MeanQ ;Q ;Q3_4E4 3Q ; @Employee obligation Average SDQ ;Q ;Q3_ M MM  ##d4E4D$% M 3O& Q4$% M 3O& Q4FAGw r 3OY3 b43*! M4523  O43" 3_ M MM  MM< 444c 3 ?3O% M,3OQ423 M NM444% M#3OQ'4% M#3OQ'4% M#3OQ'4% M#3OQ'44eee >@7 Sheet1Sheet2Sheet3Chart9  WorksheetsChartsOh+'0  4@ ` l x 4Changes in Employment Relationship after a Layoff:TĦk٭"+y4(ԧs}hh~;\]rB!w>r9=oCƶ:P' w/0>!Ms{e61mG,C' tnK~//9E=G]Bb^>A6jlVκ&!hV *RV.~ױlԿ\7h\NVF^$q j ]E-WiK7-Wιm95m9nU9q j "^YQ,;5'S?5d. 7mhV=6l'^[<+xV&hV6*(CGnQxvN;L{س>%?%A%5·iە8 }= a7gz>ї+WV_ǡos{51+b9H_u?"g@dM}~"Oxš=O;ym {!{.<җٳ/s~rųtGű`hוЙ<&m?$nEI[$n9}9}Wb<%Sr[I PPgN^tE0HJ㔏|*7h*YBS9Džf?7NF9ׅyʅ44|KZK\B34]h\h|"| D>:Rx ܉7-h]u6cy N,;3uTc"?E\x=&&_Q׸poO$ѹ0㻩eFXz}R ށg^NO0^㻱OU:r7VytrQy52vtXb"w { ;ȝ|{U`&Jbg ,?5ƕy|N&v~6;u0tX꽫ұ#̩r*w.ĦNM}iL;vtr5X~bG'h}V.{Gގb#7ҮnqZ>,!21eb3D.;_!@v<9M뗰:ž};P0$$If!vh5##v#:V l05#/ 48Dd " J  C A? "2%M:O 姵{v \`!n%M:O 姵{ U2 VQ<xYkEfnFM%"H\^,"V h{J0(\p ]sKPTO# *~ɇBMXŨJgޞ\v74%-}w3ufwf4VbkFbZJai3>1/jվH6ۜJ=2G[#t$RR^zkPY #j>~:b .[H2K#ȣlq߃s1: c\DKSW?]d<'{hAx]1-a1FLm(N`k`UV %,E^kpv8 _5keӷ(8:)myf՗|:vKjfS3dSGz鷼l}qo4[#S+q>EJc &$5h1*ae ",ET7 %]#a+`Ju>ULʌ|/8795qW#pwQz ^-Fߴkf2'jf0QBΝ%Xgڝtz`Yێso&ocV̓Jx0TLbi"&~e lBKFҹ "#X3V`<6!U"QV3[ `c2/0$B*TyZ|X B pO&C'ANTM`5^`ELl#"eWVņoe`~q0nu} W"\kw%flHᾁ8WKvYL"ރ~a((|OaCGapF], =#2}aG8#3͈p[3⎞& IzhUȪFjdF2 "F !IRW!BL[)VO͔Ji[tA՝Ӓ3.:uqׁ^;<ҩJRj1=>yH3_e(Z)BYSbo弡Oȑiǵ'Fg%}Kr/3ݛ' O5?xWt{uveQ 7(A1^&䰷`eŨ'gFWfK>=Εg^R+ѤTx*~7$e;ɢjj3n'Y c|D^8 ziwYwzVGٸ*lJ+_iaߡ6N-qǠu1cpߘ/8Hs$$If!vh5##v#:V l05#/ 48@8 \CJ_HaJmH sH tH <@< ȩ 1$$d@&a$5\6@6 ȩ 2$d@&5\<@< ȩ 4$dh@&`aJ<@< ȩ 6$$d@&a$5\(A@( 0 } 4Fi@F \ \ :V 44 la $k$] L @R@@ 8 0 2hdh`haJLC@L 8 0dh`PJaJ nHtHu> @>   8!PJnHtHu@@"@  MѤ¸CJPJaJnHtHu&&1&  8pH*$)@A$ t 80@R0 8G$ 8!.U@a. `Xt|l >*B*phf3f@Or@ `Centered$da$PJaJJ5STUaxUQRS< cn STU/"##$-%c%s)-///0F2N2j2p48==>b>A(B{BBBwEGKK'LALLNNNNOQQWUWZr\^^`bbb4cgklm6mm/opp*uFuwMzzz {f[ɀpxvɅDƈODOܐd=Кpqvw&в˵UU$%&2CD%& _`=>gh ABKLxyK`uv,]w4wBl~1f %&'()qr&| !%*.3456789:BCGKNRSklptx}~vwxy !$()348<?CDRVZ^bcd #/0CNRVZgmnsz #)*19?@ABHLPTZaghlrxy} $%1789GMNU]cdef "*018@FGNV\]^()MQZ]`de  !"#$%r|}~ .?CHMSWXYZhkpuvwxy  #(-./01<MQV[`defgux} $',12345EVZ_djnopq (+056789IZ^chmpqrs  !"#149>?@ABTeinsy}~ !%&'(69>CDEF ]ghikps}!%&'(69>CDEFZ`u+<@EJNRSTUcfkpqrst $)*+,-;LPUZ_cdeftw| !$)./012=NRW\aefghvy~ ),16789:L]afkptuvw[)*GRVWbfjsv|}~'+,-.489:\eirvz%)-./016=>?MVY\^klw &'bcdefg3MNiu=Pl "#$49>?Lj GNTZ[\kpuvwy%XYZ 5:?DIJKNSW[\] !"$%'(*+-.789EFGHK00000000000000000000000000000X00c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c00c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c00000000K0K0K0K0K0K0K0K0K0K00000000000K0K0K0K0K0K0K0K0K00 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000 000000000000000 0 00000 00 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0000 0 000 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0000 000 000 0000 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0000 000 0000 0000 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 000 0 000 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0Ё 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 00 000 00 000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0y00I00y00I00y00I00y00I00y00y00y00@0@0@0y00I00axUK{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00 &&&)`,E?PF\th.w)XreJ+EXeR --Jj O$ Bu%39R}(Cb)cQe #Whw /Mdu$3Vn7^q !@i~&E%6ERfs +Pd0Rf,9t)V|+9i.>Yw c">ZuI[%J      !"#$%&'()*,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYZ[\]^_`abcdfgIASJX:: !)!! _1121098792 _1059293129K@@KpTDpLTjl$ t!> 44DTdD<|!!?A@BCDFEGHIJKLMONPQRTSUWVXYZ[\]_^`abcdhefgikjlnmoRRelwwoo__99{{ b%b%%%".+.6.6.66:7:7EE3H:H:HHHUU ==oo-11iti]kksww:p{{K  "#!$%&'()*,+-./012345678:9;=<>?A@BCDFEGHIJKLMONPQRTSUWVXYZ[\]_^`abcdfgheikjlnmo9o*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplaceBp*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region=n*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=k*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType8g*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity98*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState  .pononkkongpoopopopopopopoppopopoponnknkogogogpogoppopopo8og8okngonko8oknnokoo8okno8oknog8nokopog8ogooonnnkonkonkX`  !)9AB5K5%6'6@@aAkAAAGGHHU UBULUaabbeeffggjjrr¡4<DL\dIOBGԽ۽26DLRZv|&. `fLT]ent(IMip""$$%%'(*+-.HKFFST ]]eeffggjjoo+9D&^; !T 8(I z>3kmU<!V0IPy*2zem&.FG\dhq%&[d^g""$$%%'(*+-.HK33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333UUBUMUeeffffggjjlmƈKv )&|ijklnoppf^)M%rF]:\'=?G]""$$%%'(*+-.HK""$$%%'(*+-.HK [L+u BkB!<#7.λ$D2*K,Eq2n|7(aR4<_L7b >:L08D?:ED_vILLhT=&O4L/mP2rSF.Pb:Uj— V^AD$5` tk cx;` wcgK ;LjT+odps*| tJDuv^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.o 1o ^o `1o()pp^p`.@ L@ ^@ `L.^`.^`.L^`L.^`.PP^P`. L ^ `L.1^`1o()^`. L ^ `L.  ^ `.xx^x`.HLH^H`L.^`.^`.L^`L.88^8`o()^`. L ^ `L.  ^ `.xx^x`.HLH^H`L.^`.^`.L^`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8#CompObj,mNormal ȭ5Microsoft Office Word@ԭ@3/W@z]@&εU%[՜.+,D՜.+,\ hp|   3Changes in Employment Relationship after a Layoff:  8@ _PID_HLINKSAl fmailto:kimmin@ewha.ac.kr  FMicrosoft Office Word MSWordDocWord.Document.89q.PLP^P`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.88^8`o(.^`. L ^ `L.  ^ `.xx^x`.HLH^H`L.^`.^`.L^`L.^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.88^8`o()^`. L ^ `L.  ^ `.xx^x`.HLH^H`L.^`.^`.L^`L.^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(HH^H`o()^`.L^`L.  ^ `.^`.XLX^X`L.((^(`.^`.L^`L.^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L./mPu >:Pb:U8D?rS#7.kB!k cvILLED7wc+o(aR4D$5` ;LjDuv V tpsT=&Og,Eq2 $D2^``OpgF5a&в˵K`uv%&()qr& !%*.3456789:CGKNRSlptx}~\xy !$()48<?CDRVZ^bcd #/0CNRVZn*@ABHLPThy %89Ndef 1G]^()MQZ]`de  !"#$%r|}~ .?CHMSWXYZhkpuvwxy  #(-./01<MQV[`defgux} $',12345EVZ_djnopq (+056789IZ^chmpqrs  !"#149>?@ABTeinsy}~ !%&'(69>CDEF ]ghikps}!%&'(69>CDEF`u+<@EJNRSTUcfkpqrst $)*+,-;LPUZ_cdeftw| !$)./012=NRW\aefghvy~ ),16789:L]afkptuvw[)*GRWbfjsv|}~'+,-.489:\eirvz%)-./016=>?MVY\^klw &'fg3MNi=Pl "#$49>?GNTZ[\kpuvwy 5:?DIJKNSW[\ !KMiQ@ggggJP@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial;|i0Batang/ |i0д?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1h;F Zfw%[%[!42qHP?`22Changes in Employment Relationship after a Layoff:@tTt                     Root Entry FpU Data iWordDocument8ObjectPool [UU      !"#$%&'*+,-./123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrtuvwxyz{|}~)(Normal ȭ5Microsoft Office Word@ԭ@3/W@z]@&εU%[՜.+,D՜.+,\ hp|   3Changes in Employment Relationship after a Layoff:  8@ _PID_HLINKSAl fmailto:kimmin@ewha.ac.kr  FMicrosoft Office Word MSWordDocWord.Document.89q