Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into the practice of demotion. This study aims to do so in two ways: first, by investigating Belgian HR professionals’ key motives for practicing and not practicing demotion and second, by examining the reasons why HR professionals choose for these specific motives.

The explanatory mixed methods design is used: survey data are analyzed through cluster analysis resulting in insights into the motives for practicing demotion. Follow-up qualitative focus group interviews provide an explanatory understanding of the motives for practicing and not practicing demotion.

Low employee performance, optimization of the organization, employer branding and career possibilities are motives for practicing demotion. Demotivation, salary issues, a taboo and a lack of vacancies are motives for not practicing demotion. A cultural change, walk the talk, carefully selected vocabulary and transparent communication could possibly counter the motives for not practicing demotion.

The use of terminology such as “downward career twist” instead of “demotion” in some questions of the survey might have influenced the answers of the Belgian HR professionals. In a focus group, no matter how small, participants sometimes tend to give socially desirable answers under group pressure, and this could influence the accuracy. Moreover, the HR professionals often expressed their own opinions, which they clearly dissociate from the views of the organization.

Organizations need to explore alternatives to motivate their employees in general and in particular in case of a demotion. This can be emphasized through a demotion policy. However, these alternative ways to motivate are important as extrinsic motivators such as salary are not the only way to motivate employees.

Motives for practicing and not practicing demotion are to the authors’ best knowledge never studied from a recent, Belgian HR perspective. These motives are contextualized in organizational justice theory. This study contributes to the demotion literature by elaborating the list of motives for practicing and not practicing demotion.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the occurrence of job level, salary and job authority demotions in the workplace through the analysis of Belgian Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (SILC)-data of 2007-2011.

Three hypotheses are tested: H1: there is a gender inequality in job authority demotions. H2: the level of education and the probability of being subject to a job level, salary or job authority demotion are negatively correlated. H3: age is negatively correlated with job level, salary or job authority demotion probabilities. The cross-sectional data of the SILC cover a specific time period with data on inter alia living conditions. The longitudinal data give information on inter alia income and non-monetary variables over a period of four years. The authors estimate multivariate regression models for binary demotion variables. These analyses allow the authors to estimate the odds of being demoted. The authors discuss the demotion rates, the bivariate correlations and the regression analysis.

The data analysis result in the fact that base salary demotions are not commonly applied as literature and the Belgian law on salary protection endorses. Fringe benefits demotions, as for instance the abolition of a company car or a bonus are, however, more frequent. There is a gender gap with regard to job authority demotion. Highly educated respondents are less confronted with job authority demotions. Age is negatively correlated with base salary/fringe benefits or job authority demotion probabilities, but not with job-level demotions. H1 is thus confirmed. H2 and H3 only partly confirmed.

Several analyses were restricted because the EU-SILC did not question all dimensions of demotion in detail.

This study contributes to the scarce literature on demotion and to empirical studies on demotions regarding job level, salary and job authority.