a process model for understanding victim responses to worksite/function closure

Human Resource Management Review 16 (2006) 12–28www.elsevier.com/locate/hrmr

A process model for understanding victim responsesto worksite/function closure

Gary Blau ⁎

Temple University, Human Resource Management Department, 384 Speakman Hall (006-00), 1810 N. 13th St.,Philadelphia, PA 19122, United States

Abstract

A review of the downsizing literature suggests that, compared to general downsizing situations, there has been little theoreticalwork on the collective emotional processes and responses of worksite/function closure victims. A model is described for studyingthe collective employees' emotional process for grieving the closure, using Kubler-Ross's [Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death anddying. Macmillan, New York.] stages of dying. The model also discusses two different types of victim responses during the closureprocess, and responses after closure. Formal model propositions are given. Boundary conditions of the proposed model andmethodological issues are briefly discussed, to help stimulate future testing of this model.© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Organizational downsizing; Victim responses; Worksite/function closure; Emotional grieving process

Organizational downsizing, a strategy which regards employees as costs to be cut, continues to be used as a globalmethod to reduce operating costs and increase earnings and stock prices (Cascio, 1993, 2002). Furthermore, suchdownsizing shows no signs of letting up (Chadwick, Hunter, & Walston, 2004), despite the conflicting researchsupporting the anticipated cost savings or productivity increases (Cascio, 2002; De Meuse, Bergmann, Vanderheiden,& Roraff 2004; Goodman & Rousseau, 2004). McKinley, Zhao, and Rust (2000) have presented a sociocognitivemodel suggesting that downsizing has become institutionalized by management as “effective and necessary”, sup-porting its continuance. This is not just in the United States, but also across other industrialized countries, includingthose in Europe and Asia (Cascio, 2002). In a study of publicly listed companies in Japan from 1990 to 1997, Ahmdjianand Robinson (2001) found that downsizings increased among Japanese firms previously resistant to downsizing, dueto a “safety in numbers effect”, i.e., as downsizings became more prominent, the actions of any single firm were lesslikely to be criticized. In presenting a conceptual framework on why organizations continue to downsize, Budros(1999) suggests that there are two dimensions (each with two components), social context (organizational, extra-organizational) and basis of organizational action (rational, arational), with rational organization and organizationalfactors (e.g., size, structure, business cycles, deregulation) being more heavily theorized and studied versus arationalorganization and extraorganizational factors (e.g., emotions, culture, leader traits, institutionalization, social networks).

The objective of this paper is to better understand the collective employee grieving process and their responses toworksite/function closure. The literature on downsizing is quite extensive, and a review suggests the following five

⁎ Tel.: +1 215 204 6906.E-mail address: [email protected].

1053-4822/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.02.003

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.02.003

13G. Blau / Human Resource Management Review 16 (2006) 12–28

“themes”: how to downsize (e.g., Gilliland & Schepers, 2003; Mishra, Spreitzer, & Mishra, 1998); organizationaloutcomes from downsizing (e.g., Cascio & Young, 2003; Chadwick et al., 2004); downsized “victim-related” studies(e.g., Devine, Reay, Stainton, & Collins-Nakai, 2003; Wanberg, Bunce, & Gavin, 1999); downsized “survivor-related”studies (e.g., Brockner, Wiesenfeld, & Martin, 1995; Spreitzer & Mishra, 2002); and studies of employees during theprocess of downsizing (e.g., Armstrong-Stassen, 2002; Koeber, 2002). This proposed study will advance ourknowledge of this fifth theme. While there has been much insight gained about downsizing based on prior work, little isknown about the emotional process that affected employees go through during a worksite/function closure. A modelwill be proposed to help researchers better understand the closure process, so that closure “victims” will respond aspositively as possible, during and after closure. Specific model propositions will be stated. Before discussing themodel, relevant downsizing literature will be summarized, including, distinguishing worksite/function closure fromother types of downsizing, and findings from prior worksite/function closure research.

1. Summary of the downsizing literature

1.1. Distinguishing worksite/function closure from other types of downsizing

General downsizing is defined as the “planned elimination of jobs or positions, and does not include the discharge ofindividuals for cause, such as poor performance” (Cascio, 1993, p.96). In a general employee downsizing situation, anumber of employees at a particular organizational site or in a function have their jobs or positions eliminated, i.e.,there are layoff “victims” or “displaced workers”, but there are also “survivors” of the downsizing at that site orfunction, i.e., those who remain employed (Leana & Feldman, 1992; Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998; Noer, 1993). It ispossible for an organization to go through repeated general downsizings (Cascio, 1993), for example as a result of amerger (Mirvis & Marks, 2003). If this repeated downsizing occurs in a unionized setting, a ‘bumping” process, whereless senior employees are the first to go, may be used (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2001). Across downsizingstudies, economics' and sociology researchers tend to use the term “displaced worker”, while psychologists andmanagement researchers use “victim”. This “victim” or “displaced worker” versus “survivor” terminology is con-sistently used in the research cited.

In a worksite/function closure, all the employees at a particular worksite (e.g., manufacturing plant), or within anorganizational function/unit (e.g., food service) are downsized at a designated time (Cappelli, 1992; Freeman, 1999),i.e., there are no survivors. However, if the organization has other worksites or functions, there may be organizational“survivors”, i.e., those employees who transfer to another site or function within the organization, either during theclosure process or after. Another form of downsizing involves a single unit business closing, in which all employeeslose their jobs and there is no “transfer-to-another-part-of-the-organization” possibility. Five of the eight cases of“organizational death” studied by Harris and Sutton (1986) represented examples of worksite closures, while the otherthree cases were examples of a single unit business closing.

In their study of the perceived fairness of layoffs among victims, Wanberg et al. (1999) excluded a smaller sample,containing victims of a single-unit business closing, from a larger laid-off sample across organizations where therewere survivors (the business was not closed). Wanberg et al. (1999) found that business closing victims perceivedhigher levels of explanation, lower levels of received severance, and higher perceived fairness of the layoff, versus themore generally downsized, non-business closing victims. Furthermore, Wanberg et al. (1999) found differences in howother study variables were interpreted between the two groups (e.g., chance to appeal the termination, or to requestmodification of the procedures by which the termination decision would be made). Thus, there seem to be three formsof downsizing (Cascio, 1993, 2002; De Meuse et al., 2004; Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998; Wanberg et al., 1999): general(has organizational survivors); single-unit business closing (no survivors); or worksite/function closure (survivors ifcan transfer to another part of the organization).

Usually when a worksite/function is closed other worksites or business units within the overall organization survive(Cappelli, 1992; Cascio, 2002). Cameron, Freeman and Mishra (1991) noted that downsizing can occur by reducingwork, not just personnel, through eliminating functions or units within an organization. For example, as an organization“outsources” a function (e.g., security, food service) this can lead to another type of worksite/function closure, where allthe internal security or food service employees are laid off (Lewin & Johnston, 2000). In her model of restructuringchanges, Freeman (1999, p.1515) suggested that when an organization is decreasing the number of parallel units(e.g., closing a plant in a multi-plant operation or a bank branch in a multi-branch bank, eliminating a shift), this

14 G. Blau / Human Resource Management Review 16 (2006) 12–28

represents more of a “downsizing driving redesign” strategy. However, when the organization is divesting or dissolvingorganizational units (e.g., selling a subsidiary, closing a particular business, outsourcing a function), this represents a“redesign driving downsizing” strategy. Despite this strategy distinction, it has been difficult to isolate worksite/function closure research.

DeWitt (1998) has argued for measuring three different downsizing approaches: retrenchment (e.g., elimination ofredundant company resources), downscaling (e.g., resource reductions to lower a firm's output without decreasingmarket/scope), and downscoping (e.g., product pruning, andmarket withdrawal). However, as operationalized in DeWitt's (1998)study, each of these downsizing approaches included worksite/function closure (e.g., shutting down a plant, eliminating abusiness function/unit). The healthcare industry has engaged in downsizing for a number of years, including worksite/function closures, such as obstetrics or surgical units within a hospital, or a particular hospital site within an umbrellahospital organization (Davis & Savage, 2003). However, the research designs involved have used composite restructuringmeasures, e.g., adding together items such as “budget cuts”, “staff layoffs”, as well as “units closed” (Burke &Greenglass,2001; Greenglass, Burke, & Moore, 2003). Such a composite measure does not allow for isolating worksite/functionclosure. Most empirical research isolating worksite/function closure has focused on plant closures. Previous plantclosure research, distinguishing between studies done in the United States (US) versus non-US will be reviewed.

1.2. Previous US plant closure research

Most US plant closure research comes from the economics literature and has focused on factors affectingreemployment of those displaced workers. Stern, Root, and Hills (1974) found that displaced US workers from anArmour plant in Nebraska who chose to be retrained did not increase their post-plant shutdown earnings relative todisplaced workers who entered the local labor market without being retrained, even after controlling for demographics,personality (e.g., sociability), and use of the State Employment Service. This research followed up on an earlier studyby Stern (1972) of displaced Armour workers from a plant in Kansas with a similar finding, without the additionalcontrols noted above. Stern (1972) also found that workers who transferred to another plant within the company, i.e.,organizational survivors, earned substantially more than they would if they had chosen to be retrained for jobs withother employers in the local labor market, or found such jobs without retraining. Other research has shown thatdisplaced employees who stay in the local area after a plant closing often suffer a loss of pay and status in theirsubsequent reemployment with a different employer (Bluestone & Harrison, 1982). Research on plant closings in theUnited States has found that in companies with multi-plant firms, the plant closure rate declined with increased size anddecreased age of the plant (Davis, Haltiwanger, & Schuh, 1996; Dunne, Roberts, & Samuelson, 1989).

In 1988, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) was passed, and this stimulatedadditional plant closure research. WARN requires a 60-day notification for a plant closing resulting in employment lossfor at least 50 employees at a single site, or to a layoff over a period of less than 30 days, which involves 50 or moreemployees. However, the law does not apply if less than one-third of the workforce at the employment site is laid off,unless the number of employees is 500 or more. Also, the law applies only to employers with 100 or more full-timeemployees. Addison and Blackburn (1994) found that WARN had no impact on the provision of advance notice amongworkers displaced using the 1990 Displaced Worker Survey. However, Ruhm (1994) found that three to five years afterjob displacement due to plant closing, workers receiving the advanced notice mandated by law earned approximately10% more than their non-notified counterparts. Ruhm (1994) cautioned that it was not clear that such advanced noticehad a causal effect, since the notification pay differential may have occurred because advance notice is frequentlyprovided by employers offering other kinds of adjustment assistance such as job counseling, skill retraining and otheroutplacement assistance. Nord and Ting (1993) found that displaced male blue-collar workers who were given advancenotification of 60 days or more before their layoffs had significantly higher reemployment earnings.

Perrucci and Perrucci (1997) studied gender differences in the economic, psychological and social effects on menand women workers displaced from jobs in 1989 by three different plant closings in Indiana. Findings on economiceffects indicated no gender difference in reemployment twelve months after the closings. When reemployed, both menand women suffered wage loss, but women lost less proportionately due to their lower absolute wages prior toclosings. No gender differences were found in psychological effects or family relationships. Charles and Stephens(2004) found that the divorce hazard rises after a spouse's job displacement, but did not change after a spousaldisability. Furthermore, the increase in divorce was found only for individual layoffs (being fired) and not for plantclosings.


There has been some non-economic research on other issues besides factors affecting reemployment of displacedworkers. This includes studying how to manage the business risks of plant closings (Carr, 1990; LaRusso, 1999),including a three-phase process: preliminary planning (e.g., identify key constituencies affected and what messagesto give); the announcement (e.g., confidentiality until the announcement, having a closing timetable); and follow-up(e.g., dealing with various constituencies' reactions. One of the two job loss samples gathered by Leana and Feldman(1990), and a follow-up study by Leana and Feldman (1995) was based on a steel-plant closing.

Leana and Feldman (1990) compared data gathered from two samples, industrial workers who lost their job througha steel-plant closing in Pittsburgh and a more diverse group of Florida employees who lost their jobs, in a generaldownsizing, after the space-shuttle Challenger disaster. In comparing the two groups, the Pittsburgh sample: was older,had a higher percentage of males, had more children, had longer company tenure, had a higher amount of time spentunemployed, and felt greater intensity and less reversibility of the job loss. Across both samples, financial distress andattachment to the previous job were the strongest predictors of negative reactions (emotional, physiological) to job loss.For the Pittsburgh sample, perceptions of high intensity and reversibility of job loss were associated with more job-search behavior, and reversibility was also a significant predictor of retraining. Leana and Feldman (1995) found thatthere were significant adjustment differences among the unemployed, satisfactorily reemployed and unsatisfactorilyreemployed, with the unsatisfactorily reemployed experiencing the lowest life satisfaction.

Tang and Crofford (1999) examined the feelings and reactions of employees shortly after announcement of a plantclosing. Results showed that the majority of employees had been involved in job-search activities during the six-monthadvance notice period, and some had already been offered jobs with new employers. Many to-be-laid-off employeeshad feelings of resignation and sadness. Tang and Crofford (1999) also discussed the financial and positive imageaspects of a company sponsored outplacement program, including the money saved on unemployment benefits forsuccessful outplacements. Finally, two field studies were found where worksites had been closed, i.e., individual retail-stores within a larger chain (Brockner, Grover, Reed, DeWitt, & O'Malley, 1987; Brockner, Wiesenfeld, Reed, Grover,& Martin, 1993), but the common focus of these studies was on survivors' reactions (e.g., continued organizationalcommitment) to the layoffs.

1.3. Previous non-US plant closure research

In several qualitative studies examining plant closures in multi-plant manufacturing firms (food, textile, timber,paper, chemicals, metal) across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, interviews with managers suggestedthat key factors in selecting a plant for closure included: small size, limited range of site activities, site-difficulties withexpansion, labor problems, old age of capital equipment, and longer-distance from the home office (Kirkham, Rixhbell,& Watts, 1998; Kirkham & Watts, 1998). Comparing plant closures in the United Kingdom (UK) in the early 1980sversus later-half of the 1980s, Kirkham, Richbell, and Watts (1999) noted that “manpower” characteristics (e.g., laboravailability, labor relations, unionization) more strongly affected plant closures in the early versus latter 1980s. In astudy of plant closings in Britain during the 1990s, Addison, Heywood, and Wei (2003) found a strong positiveassociation between unionism and plant-closings for multi-plant businesses, but not for single-plant enterprises. In aqualitative study broadened to include plant-closures in France as well as the UK (Richbell & Watts, 2000), smaller-plant size emerged as a factor, as well as variations in labor costs and labor flexibility.

In a more recent study of 21 plant closures in Ontario, Canada, Mazerole and Singh (2004) found that the subsequentreemployment of 247 displaced or laid-off workers was positively affected by economic need (responsibility fordependents) and social network (employer referral), and negatively affected by discrimination (harder for older andfemale workers). Friesen (1997) studied the impact of mandatory notice and jobless duration of displaced workers due toplant closures in Canada. She found that group-notice laws, which apply to large-scale layoffs, reduced the joblessduration of plant-closure victims.

2. A proposed model of victim worksite/function closure

2.1. Absence of a systematic model-guided focus on employee feelings in prior research

A review of the downsizing literature indicates that much more empirical research attention in the appliedpsychology and management literature has been given to studying general employee downsizing versus worksite/


function closure, or single-unit business closing. The typical research design involves sampling layoff victims (e.g.,Devine et al., 2003) or survivors within (e.g., Brockner et al., 1995) or across (e.g., Brennan & Skarlicki, 2004)organization(s), and measures antecedents (e.g., organizational justice variables, fairness) and outcomes or reactions(e.g., reemployment, work effort, commitment, performance, intent to quit).

Some of general downsizing research has looked at either victim or survivor feelings associated with generaldownsizing. For example, Bennett, Martin, Bies, and Brockner (1995) measured anger and found that victims whowere angrier were more likely to engage in job-search activities, and to ask family and friends for financial assistance.Early survivor research focused on survivor feelings of guilt for not being laid off (Brockner & Greenberg, 1990).Brennan and Skarlicki (2004) found that the relationship of survivors' interactional justice to organizationalcommitment and intent to quit was significant only when survivors had lower anger. Greenglass et al (2003) found thatsurvivors' higher workload directly contributed to their depression, as well as this higher workload–depressionrelationship being partially mediated by feeling of anger and cynicism.. Tourish, Paulsen, Hobman, and Bordia (2004)found that over a two-year period, downsizing had a similar negative impact on the amount of trust that survivors andvictims had for management. However, victims reported lower trust feelings towards their colleagues (i.e., peers)compared to survivors. Over a three-year period, Armstrong-Stassen (2002) found downsizing to have a long-termnegative impact on trust and morale for all study participants.

In their study of organizational “death” or closing, Harris and Sutton (1986, p.11) acknowledged that: “because ofthis loss, a closing is emotionally charged; it causes mourning, anger, depression, sorrow, and fear of the unknown, thefuture and the ambiguous present”. Noer (1993, p.13) described “layoff survivor sickness” as the “set of attitudes,

Constructive Victim Responses

Personal Factors

P1b Response After

P6b ClosureP3b

Stages of Grieving During Worksite Closure Process P6bP1a (Constructive Grieving Stages)

Exploration --> Acceptance Denial --> Anger - -> Bargaining --> Depression

(Destructive Grieving Stages) P6a

Destructive Victim Responses

P2a P3aSituational Factors P6a

P2b

P5a P5b

P4a

P4b

Intrinsic Motivation

Core Self-Evaluation

Personal Downsizing History

Contract Violation

Advance Notification

Legitimacy of Cause for Closure

Distributive Justice

Procedural Justice

Positive Worksite/function Culture

aModel Propositions indicated in bold, i.e., P1a, P1b, P2a, P2b, P3a, P3b, P4a, P4b, P5a, P5b, P6a, P6b

Decreased Strain Decreased Work Incivility Decreased Interpersonal Deviance Decreased Organizational Deviance Stable Transactional & Relational Obligations

Increased Strain Increased Work Incivility Increased Interpersonal Deviance Increased Organizational Deviance Decreased Transactional & Relational Obligations

Voluntary Exits

Perceived Job Alternatives

Intent to Sue Employer

Employer Endorsement

Fig. 1. A process model of victim worksite/function closure. Model propositions indicated in bold, i.e., P1a, P1b, P2a, P2b, P3a, P3b, P4a, P4b,P5a, P5b, P6a, P6b.


feelings and perceptions that occur in employees who remain in organizational systems following involuntaryemployee reductions”. Feelings commonly associated with layoff survivor sickness include: anger, depression, fear,distrust and guilt (Noer, 1993). Noer (1993) found in interviews of survivors, five years after the initial downsizing, thatfeelings of depression, anger and distrust remained.

In a qualitative study of how middle managers respond to the demands of downsizing, O'Neill and Lenn (1995)found the following middle managers' emotions: anger, anxiety, cynicism, resentment, resignation, desire for retri-bution and hope. Amundson, Borgen, Jordan, and Erlebach (2004) used a critical incident technique in interviewingthirty-one survivors to find out about incidents that either helped or hindered their transition through downsizing. Someof issues raised included: grieving for co-worker victims, anxiety about present job security, increased workload,demands for new training and coping with new colleagues.

However, across the above-cited empirical and qualitative research, a formal model was not found for describingthe emotional process for victims during worksite/function closure, and linking victims' feelings to their work-relatedresponses. A model is proposed below for describing victims' collective emotions and linking these emotions toresponses during and after a worksite/function closure situation.

2.2. Central role of grieving stages during the closure process

The proposed model of victim worksite/function closure is presented in Fig. 1.Central to this Figure are the grieving stages of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, exploration and acceptance.

For vocational counseling, both Finley and Lee (1981) and Amundson and Borgen (1982, p.563) have qualitativelyapplied the grieving process to an individual's job loss, beginning with the termination notice. They have described thegrieving stages of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance, modeled after Kubler-Ross's (1969) stages ofdying. Successfully moving through this grieving process mobilizes the individual to then job search, hopefullyresulting in successful reemployment. If the job search is not successful, extended unemployment has been cited asbeing very detrimental to an individual's psychological and physiological health (Latack, Kinicki, & Prussia, 1995).

Other qualitative job loss management research (e.g., Kaufman, 1982; Latack & Dozier, 1986; Latack & Kaufman,1982) has cited these grieving stages as being necessary for a victim to “go through” to some degree in order totransition onto the next job. Bridges (1991) talked about work transitions, including job loss, as being a three-partpsychological process, i.e., getting employees to: (1) let go of the old; (2) go through the neutral zone between the oldand the new; and (3) make a new beginning. He noted that such transitions can not be planned or managed by rationalformulae. During this first phase, i.e., getting employees to let go, Bridges (1991) talked about the importance ofmanagers expecting and accepting these grieving stages, as a necessary component for moving into the next phase.Tang and Crofford (1999, p.48) noted such grieving stages being relevant to their plant closing study, but never testedthis. Thus while there has been much discussion on the applicability of grieving stages to downsizing, no research hasformally theorized about (or tested) the role of the grieving process within a general model of worksite/functionclosure. Describing the grieving stages in the model will now be done.

Denial is the first emotion experienced, as a result of the “shock” from hearing of the worksite/function closure. AsKubler-Ross (1969, p.39) noted, denial acts as a “buffer” after unexpected news (“I can't believe….), allowing theperson to mobilize other defenses. Anger is the next emotion, probably resulting from a feeling of betrayal. Theemployee held up their end of the “job”, i.e., showing up, working hard, but the employer did not. Bargaining can be anattempt to try to reverse the termination process, i.e., being able to make some type of “deal” to avoid being laid off.Perhaps in a more general downsizing situation a person can be transferred laterally or even demoted to stay with theorganization (Finley & Lee, 1981). Bridges (1991, p.25) pointed out that an individual could make a desperateargument, e.g. “keep me and I'll double my productivity…However, in worksite/function closure this is not possible,since all affected employees are losing their jobs. Bargaining tends to be a shorter duration phase (Finley & Lee, 1981).After bargaining comes depression, i.e., feelings of sadness, and perhaps withdrawal, due to a loss of control.Bridges (1991, p.25) argues that people have to go “through it, not around it”. Denial, anger, bargaining and depressionare collectively labeled as “destructive grieving stages” in the model, since they represent different levels of victims“fighting” their involuntary leaving.

With time, the employee can reach a stage of peace, i.e., they are not as angry or depressed about their layoff. Basedon Kubler-Ross (1969), victims will have mourned their impending job loss and the job loss of so many meaningfulpeople in their to-be-terminated job environment. Now they can begin to look at the termination with some degree of


quiet expectation. There is a willingness to explore, i.e., through exploration there is hope for the future, i.e., that sometype of positive opportunity will come. Such exploration can precede acceptance (Bridges, 1991). This willingness iscritical to move from destructive to constructive grieving. From a willingness to explore comes acceptance, which isnot happiness (Noer, 1993), but becoming okay with what has happened, “breaking free” (Noer, 1997), and preparingfor what's next, including staying longer, or perhaps leaving. Exploration and acceptance are labeled “constructivegrieving” in the model.

No one can predict how quickly a person will move through the grieving stages in any traumatic situation (Kubler-Ross, 1969). Prior qualitative job loss work (e.g., Amundson et al., 2004; Bridges, 1991; Kaufman, 1982; Latack &Dozier, 1986; Latack & Kaufman, 1982) is supportive of the above-mentioned sequential-grieving-stage-movement formost victims, but some can remain “stuck” in negative grieving. The proposed model will try to answer the followingquestions: Why do employees move from destructive to constructive grieving during the closure process?; How doesgeneral grieving stage affect victims' response during the closure process?; How do perceived job alternatives affectgrieving stage and voluntary exits during the closure process?; What factors moderate the impact of voluntary exitingon victim responses?; and How does general grieving stage and victim responses during closure affect victimresponses after closure? Relevant literature will be reviewed and propositions proposed for subsequent testing. For thefirst question: why do employees move from destructive to constructive grieving during the closure process?, it issuggested below that there are personal and situational factors which are relevant to discuss.

2.3. Personal factors affecting the grieving process

Two personal factors are expected to facilitate closure victims' movement from destructive to constructive grieving,intrinsic motivation, and core self-evaluation. Intrinsic motivation is defined as the “degree to which a job holder ismotivated to perform well because of some subjective rewards or feelings one expects to receive or experience as aresult of performing well” (Lawler & Hall, 1970, p. 308). Core self-evaluation is defined as by Judge, Erez, Bono, andThoresen (2003, p.303–304) as a “broad, latent, higher-order trait indicated by four well-established traits in thepersonality literature: self-esteem (overall value that one places on oneself as a person); generalized self-efficacy(an evaluation of how well one can perform across a variety of situations); neuroticism (the tendency to havenegativistic cognitive/explanatory style and to focus on negative aspects of the self); and locus of control (beliefs aboutthe causes of events in one's life, locus is internal when individuals see events as resulting from their own behavior)”.

Core self-evaluation is defined as a trait variable, while intrinsic motivation is expected to be more of a “state”variable. Using a “state” approach, personality variables are not considered to be as fixed or stable across situations(House, Shane, & Herold, 1996). It is the connection of internally feeling good about how well one is currentlyperforming that helps to illustrate that intrinsic motivation is a “state” personality variable. Therefore, it is necessary tomeasure intrinsic motivation more frequently, to test for its impact on grieving stages in the model. Core self-evaluationis expected to be a trait personality variable, i.e., more fixed and stable across situations. (House et al.,1996). Core self-evaluation seems to be a more “focused and efficient” way to measure trait impact on grieving than other approaches,such as the Big 5 personality structure (Wiggins & Pincus, 1992).

A separate personal factor, depending on the sample, may be an individual's “personal downsizing history”, i.e.,have they been downsized before? If so, how many times and how long were they out of work each time? Did they finda good job alternative? Individuals who have had a long previous job search and settled for a lower quality alternativemay be more demoralized by the present job loss (Kaufman, 1982), and may remain “trapped” in negative grieving bythe present closure. Part of this “history” should also consider how long the victim has worked for the presentorganization, since a layoff is generally more traumatic for a longer-tenure, older employee (Noer, 1997). Pugh,Skarlicki, and Passell (2003) examined the relationship between a layoff victim's psychological contract violation bythe victim's former employer, and his/her attitudes toward a new employer. Higher violation was negatively related totrust in the new employer and positively related to employee cynicism.

Leana and Feldman (1995) noted that a person's feelings of efficacy and control should be relevant for influencing thatperson's reemployment efforts after job loss. It is argued that such feelings, represented in core self-evaluation, should alsobe relevant for helping a victim move through the grieving process. Similarly higher intrinsic motivation, i.e., feelinggood when one performs well, allows that person to retain a greater sense of personal control over one's performance.Perceived control is important to survivors' feeling okay about observed downsizing (Brockner et al., 2004). Suchcontrol may also be important to victims. Victims with higher intrinsic motivation feel stronger about the value of their


good work (Lawler & Hall, 1970). This “pride in my work”may enable victims to feel more in control and remain morefocused, despite the stress of worksite closure, and thus help to facilitate their movement through the grieving process.Cumulatively, this suggests the following two related propositions will be true during the closure process:

P1a. Victims' intrinsic motivation and core self-evaluation will be negatively related to the destructive grieving stages,while personal downsizing history will be positively related.

P1b. Victims' intrinsic motivation and core self-evaluation will be positively related to the constructive grieving stages,while personal downsizing history will be negatively related.

2.4. Situational factors affecting the grieving process

In a worksite/function closure situation, with employees losing their jobs, there is a higher likelihood of perceivedpsychological contract violation (Lester, Kickul, Bergmann, & De Meuse, 2003; Turnley & Feldman, 1998), since theemployer is “reneging” on its obligation to provide continuous employment. Research has found perceived contractviolation in non-downsizing situations to be related to higher anger, lower perceived fairness, higher injustice anddistrust, lower job satisfaction, and higher intent to leave the organization (Cavanuagh & Noe, 1999; Raja, Johns, &Ntalianis, 2004; Robinson & Morrison, 2000; Sutton & Griffin, 2004). The study by Pugh et al. (2003) cited earlierfound that higher prior-employer psychological contract violation was negatively related to trusting the new employerand positively related to employee cynicism.

However, worksite/function closure may not be perceived as a psychological contract violation by all affectedemployees. Edwards, Rust, McKinley, and Moon (2003) found that employees' higher self-reliance reduced the degreeto which they perceived layoffs to be a breach of their psychological contracts. Cappelli (2000) suggested that someemployees may be more likely to accept the tradeoff of job security for enhanced skills and increased training that canallow them to be more marketable. One organizational tool to help employees identify their weaknesses to then remedyand enhance their marketability is 360 degree feedback (Tornow & London, 1998). If worksite/function closureemployees perceive lower contract violation, they should move more readily from destructive to constructive grieving.

Worksite/function closure, assuming that the organization is decreasing the number of parallel units, is arestructuring activity (Freeman, 1999). As noted by Gilliland and Schepers (2003) layoffs associated with organ-izational change activities (e.g., restructuring) are associated with more advance notice and greater information sharingthan layoffs resulting from economic hardships (e.g., market downturn). More advance notification of job loss givesthe victim more time to go through the grieving stages (Noer, 1993, 1997). Legitimacy of cause for closure deals withthe perceived credibility of the explanation from the company, as well as the credibility of the communicator,concerning the reason for closure (Bies, 1987). If a victim believes in the legitimacy of cause, i.e., that it was notdeliberately intended towards the victim, it should lessen the perception of moral outrage surrounding the violation,i.e., worksite/function closure. One factor that should increase perceived legitimacy for closure cause, as well as reducepsychological contract violation, would be repeated layoffs occurring prior to closure. In a related finding, Gillilandand Schepers (2003) found that as the number of layoffs at a site became more numerous, employees became moreinterested in the size of the benefit package and less so in the reason for the layoff. Although not tested in priorworksite/function closure research, it would be expected that increased perceived legitimacy of cause for closure wouldreduce feelings of outrage (Wanberg et al., 1999), and thus lead to more constructive grieving. Distributive justicefocuses on the distribution of outcomes, while procedural justice looks at the decision-making process that determineshow the outcomes are distributed (Brockner & Greenberg, 1990).

Survivors' perceptions of the fairness of the procedures (criteria used to determine who will be laid off), and thedistribution of outcomes (severance, benefits, outplacement), as well as the downsizing explanations used byorganizations, collectively affect their reactions (Allen, Freeman, Russell, Reizenstein, & Rentz, 2001; Brockner &Greenberg, 1990; Brockner, Grover, & Blonder, 1988; Brockner et al., 1987; Brockner et al., 1994; Brockner et al.,2004; Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992; Brockner et al., 1993; Brockner et al., 1995; Davy, Kinicki, &Scheck, 1991; Mansour-Cole & Scott, 1998; Rousseau & Aquino, 1993; Wanberg et al., 1999). This same logic isbeing applied to the grieving of worksite/function closure victims, i.e., procedural justice, distributive justice, andlegitimacy of cause for closure, will help victims to move through the grieving process. Applied to worksite closure,procedural justice means asking about the perceived fairness of the procedures used to close the facility, anddistributive justice asks about anticipated outcomes (severance, benefits) for being downsized. Constantly


communicating to affected employees via different media, such as live meetings, e-mail, newsletters, etc., shouldenhance employees' perceptions of legitimacy of cause and justice (Sheer & Chen, 2004).

Treating layoff victims with dignity and respect also involves a supervisor being as kind as possible to the victimwhen breaking the news, i.e., interactional justice (Brockner & Greenberg, 1990). Lind, Greenberg, Scott, andWelchans (2000) found that people's decisions to sue for wrongful termination depended to a large extent on howinteractionally fairly they were treated when first being told about losing their jobs. In a worksite/function closureeveryone at the site or function is losing their job, even the typical “bad-news deliverers”, i.e., site supervisors or topmanagement (Brockner & Greenberg, 1990; Lind et al., 2000). Therefore, interactional justice should be more of a“constant” across all the affected employees. If off-site management delivers the bad news, then interactional justiceshould be more relevant. However, plant closure research suggests that to help keep the affected worksite'sorganizational culture as strong as possible up to closure (to promote productivity), site management should be trainedto deliver the closure news (Sommer, 2003). This is assumed for the model presented in Fig. 1.

Organizational culture can be defined as the key values, beliefs and norms shared by organizational members, andone way that it can be measured is by looking at three variables (Martin, 1992), consensus (are these beliefs widelyaccepted?); consistency (are employee behaviors consistent with organizational policies?); and clarity (do employeesknow what to expect?). In a worksite/function closure, the affected site is the “organization”, and all the employees arein the “same boat”, there are no survivors. This is also true of a work function (e.g., closing a business unit within alarger organization), i.e., there are no survivors. To the extent that the worksite or work function can foster a positiveculture, through consensus, consistency and clarity, a more positive worksite/function culture should help keep affectedemployees informed and facilitate their moving through the grieving process.

In a study cutting across several model-relevant situational factors, Chadwick et al. (2004) found that considerationfor employees' morale and welfare during downsizing, across a sample of recently downsized hospitals, was positivelyrelated to perceived success of downsizing and to financial performance (e.g., cash margin) following layoffs.Consideration for employees' morale and welfare was measured by a composite scale including HR managers'assessments of the degree to which organizations attempted to: increase survivors' job security, increase survivors'marketability, preserve the dignity of downsized victims, carefully explain the reasons behind downsizing decisions,communicate more extensively with all employees, and counsel survivors. Advance notice of layoffs was positivelyrelated to financial performance, but the provision of extended insurance to laid-off employees was negatively related.Cumulatively, this suggests that the following two related propositions will be true during the closure process:

P2a. Victims' perceived advance notification, legitimacy of cause for closure, distributive justice, and proceduraljustice and more positive worksite/function culture will be negatively related to destructive grieving stages, whilecontract violation will be positively related.

P2b. Victims' perceived advance notification, legitimacy of cause for closure, distributive justice, and proceduraljustice and more positive worksite/function culture will be positively related to constructive grieving stages, whilecontract violation will be negatively related.

2.5. Victim responses during the closure process

As the model depicts, there can be either constructive or destructive victim responses during the closure process.The assumption is that in a worksite/function closure, there is often some type of “stay” incentive, i.e., the parentorganization provides some monetary award percentage of salary for victims' remaining with the worksite/function,until the organization says that they can leave, with a specified departure date (LaRusso, 1999). Of course if employeesare at-will, as is common in the United States, then they can leave whenever they want (LaRusso, 1999). The responsesbeing measured in this model, i.e., strain, work incivility, interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, andtransactional and relational obligations, are meant to reflect measures of how well the victims “hold up” during theclosure process. To the author's knowledge, these variables have not been either modeled or tested while studying theprocess of worksite/function closure. Strain deals with health symptoms, such as hypertension, trouble sleeping, upsetstomach, nervousness, and prior research has found job loss to result in increased strain (Latack et al., 1995). Job lossand its accompanying unemployment have been linked to depression (Winefield & Tiggemann, 1990). As the modelsuggests, victims who remain stuck in the destructive grieving stages will be more likely to exhibit increased strain,while those who move to constructive grieving will be more likely to exhibit decreased strain.


Work incivility is defined as “low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation ofworkplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude, discourteous, and displaying a lackof respect for others” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457). Workplace incivility is thus embedded within the largerconstruct of workplace deviant behavior, defined by Robinson and Bennett (1995, p.556) as “voluntary behavior thatviolates significant organizational norms, and in doing so threatens the well-being of the organization or its members orboth”. Robinson and Bennett (1995) explain further that one manifestation of workplace deviance is interpersonaldeviance, behavior that directly harms individuals within the organization, e.g., deliberately making fun of someone atwork. Blau and Andersson (2005) found that instigated work incivility could be distinguished from interpersonaldeviance.

Bennett and Robinson (2000) developed a broad, heterogeneous measure of workplace deviant behavior, fromwhich 2 factors emerged, organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance. Organizational deviance involvesbehaviors that harm the organization, from more intense, lower frequency behaviors such as stealing, to less intense,higher frequency behaviors such as taking longer-than-allowed work breaks. While there has been some qualitativework on downsizing leading to employee deviant behaviors, e.g., employees going through the motions of working,resisting restructuring plans (Buono, 2003, p.319), to the author's knowledge, this has not been either formallymodeled or empirically tested. Human resource managers with more layoff experience had greater concern aboutdownsized-employee sabotage (Gilliland & Schepers, 2003). Leana and Feldman (1992) argued that layoff victimswhose initial reactions are not as negative (e.g., not as angry or resentful) should be more likely to have a positiveresponse, i.e., use problem-focused coping strategies.

Two types of employee obligations are distinguished in a psychological contract, relational and transactional(Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1995). Relational obligations are characterized by being socio-emotional,open-ended, and with a willingness to engage in extra-role behaviors, while transactional obligations are characterizedby being economic, specific and with a focus on specific, in-role behaviors. To the author's knowledge, changes inobligations during a worksite/function closure have not been previously studied. If victims of the worksite/functionclosure are unable to emotionally deal with the closure and remain stuck in destructive grieving, this will continuallyerode their perceived transactional and relational obligations. However, victims who move to the constructive grievingstages will exhibit more stable transactional and relational obligations. Cumulatively, this suggests that the followingtwo related propositions will be true during the closure process:

P3a. There will be positive relationships between victims' destructive grieving stages and their destructive responses,i.e., increased strain, work incivility, interpersonal and organizational deviance, and decreased transactional andrelational obligations.

P3b. There will be positive relationships between victims' constructive grieving stages and their constructiveresponses, i.e., decreased strain, work incivility, interpersonal and organizational deviance, and stable transactionaland relational obligations.

2.6. Perceived job alternatives

As soon as the worksite/function closure is announced, some affected employees will immediately begin to assesstheir perceived job alternatives for prior voluntary exit before the designated closure date, despite any stay incentive.Whether their actual exit will be to a different part of the organization (i.e., transfer) or involve leaving theorganization, for a proximate or distal geographical location, partially depends on the possibility and desirability ofsuch intra-organizational transfer (March & Simon, 1958; Stern, 1972). If this model is applied to a single-unitbusiness closing situation, then intra-organizational transfers will not be possible and victims must leave theirorganization.

Prior research (e.g., Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Mitchell, Holton, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001) suggests this caninclude not only an assessment of benefits (e.g., pension, seniority) and costs (e.g., job insecurity) of staying with theorganization, but also community attachments (e.g., family, friends). Perceived job alternatives depend on such factorsas: transferability of skills, age, relevant labor market, and personal network of connections (Hom & Griffeth, 1995). Itwould also be expected that victims with higher perceived job alternatives who do stay will move more quickly fromdestructive to constructive grieving, since they do perceive there is a brighter hope for the future (Kubler-Ross, 1969).Stress theory (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), using job alternatives as a coping strategy to deal with job stress (i.e.,


worksite/function closure), would also support this logic. Cumulatively, this suggests that the following two relatedpropositions will be true during the closure process:

P4a. Victims' perceived job alternatives will be negatively related to destructive grieving stages and positively relatedto constructive grieving stages.

P4b. Victims' perceived job alternatives will be positively related to voluntary exits from the worksite/function.

What about the impact of such voluntary exits on “victims who remain”? These victims will have to reconcile theirstay-until-closure decision with the knowledge that others are voluntarily leaving, precipitated by the closure. Whywould employees stay until the end? As noted earlier, there may be a stay incentive for employees (LaRusso, 1999),and community attachments may be a factor (Mitchell et al., 2001). Another partial explanation is a false consensusbias (Ross, 1977), i.e., applied here meaning victims' view their stay feelings as appropriate and shared by othervictims. How will victims respond as they watch others leave? To the author's knowledge, no empirical or theoreticalwork on downsizing has formally addressed this issue.

As some employees voluntarily exit before worksite/function closure, it is probably safe to assume that theworkloads of the “stayers” will increase (Cascio, 1993). Even if the organization replaces these “voluntary exits”with new employees, in many cases these new hires will not be able to immediately perform as effectively as thosewho just left (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2001). Prior survivor research has shown that higher workloads can lead tonegative feelings such as depression (Greenglass et al., 2003). It was argued earlier, that higher core self-evaluationand intrinsic motivation, as well as lower personal downsizing history, should help a victim move through thegrieving process. General grieving research suggests that people who do not feel good about themselves may have aharder time coping with loss (Clinebell, 1984). Cumulatively, this suggests that the following two related pro-positions for how personal factors will moderate the relationships of voluntary exits to victim responses during theclosure process:

P5a. There will be stronger positive relationships between voluntary exits and destructive victim responses for victimswith lower intrinsic motivation and core self-evaluation and higher personal downsizing history.

P5b. There will be stronger positive relationships between voluntary exits and constructive victim responses forvictims with higher intrinsic motivation and core self-evaluation and lower personal downsizing history.

2.7. Immediate victim response after closure

Downsizing research has examined the impact of quality of employment on reemployed managers who had beenpreviously laid off. For example, Feldman, Leana, and Bolino (2002) found that laid-off executives who werereemployed in jobs which paid less, were at lower levels in organizational hierarchies, and which did not fully utilizetheir skills had lower job attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and trust). General grieving lossresearch supports the relationship between someone moving to more constructive grieving (e.g., acceptance) andreinvesting one's energy in rebuilding one's life (Clinebell, 1984).

There has been some empirical general downsizing research examining the fairness of layoffs on immediate victimresponses. As noted earlier, Lind et al. (2000) found that victims' decisions to sue for wrongful termination largelydepended on how fairly they were treated when first being told about losing their jobs. Konovsky and Folger (1991)found that victims' perceived procedural fairness (e.g., employer was honest in dealing with you, followed consistentstandards, treated you with kindness) was positively related to victims' willingness to recruit for the former employer,and negatively related to desire for government regulation of layoffs. In a study mentioned earlier, Wanberg et al.(1999) found that explanation of how and why layoffs were conducted was associated with victims': higher perceivedfairness of the layoff, higher willingness to endorse the terminating organization, and less desire to sue the organization,even after reemployment.

A victim's willingness to endorse their previous employer, and recommend such an employer to job seeking friendsor relatives could be considered the opposite of a “focused bitterness towards that employer”. Such bitterness could beshown by a victim's actively discouraging others from working at their previous employer. Feldman and Leana (1989)found that laid-off employees who resented their termination treatment generated ill will in their communities towardstheir former employers. Such ill will can damage an organization's future recruitment efforts since former employees


can be an important recruiting source (Gannon, 1971). Victims who have moved to constructive grieving stages andexhibit constructive responses during the closure process will be more likely to have positive immediate responses afterclosure. Cumulatively, this suggests that the following two related propositions will be true after worksite/functionclosure:

P6a. Victims' destructive grieving stages and destructive responses will be positively related to intent to sue theemployer and negatively related to employer endorsement.

P6b. Victims' constructive grieving stages and constructive responses will be negatively related to intent to sue theemployer and positively related to employer endorsement.

In order to stimulate testing of this model, boundary conditions and methodological issues will be briefly discussedbelow. Then a final summary will be given.

2.8. Boundary conditions of the proposed model

The model was developed to look at worksite/function closure situations, where all the employees are in the “sameboat”, there are no survivors. This allows for certain assumptions to be made and makes certain variables specificallyrelevant in the model. Such model description covers the “what”, “how” and “why” pieces (Whetten, 1989). However,boundary conditions for a model, affecting its “context” (e.g., “who”, “when” and “where”) should also be discussed toenhance subsequent model testing (Whetten, 1989). The following boundary conditions will be briefly discussedbelow: (1) initial model focus on worksite/function closure, and not general layoff situations; (2) prior consideration ofother workforce reduction or employee cost reduction strategies before worksite/function closure; (3) presence of aunion in negotiating a worksite/function closure; and (4) challenges for testing the model outside of the United States(US).

Looking at the situational factors within the model, a more positive worksite/function culture can help keep all theemployees informed and facilitate their moving through the grieving process. Also perceived legitimacy of cause forclosure is expected to affect collective employee grieving. In addition, since all employees are affected, it was arguedearlier that interactional justice, i.e., treating specific layoff victims with dignity and respect, should not be as much of afactor. If this model was to be applied to a more general downsizing situation, where there are victims versus survivors(Leana & Feldman, 1992), this would change these three situational factors for the model. For example, theorganizational culture would need to be measured, as well as the perceived legitimacy of cause for the layoff. Inaddition, interactional justice would need to be incorporated as a situational factor (Lind et al., 2000).

If the model were extended to general downsizing situations, it would be necessary to try to incorporate survivorresponses, such as guilt, work effort, commitment, performance, and intent to quit (e.g., Allen et al., 2001; Brockner &Greenberg, 1990; Brockner et al., 1992; Brockner et al., 1993; Brockner et al., 1995). Such an extended model wouldalso be required to discuss the linkages of victim responses to survivor responses. For example, would constructivevictim responses be likely to promote constructive survivor responses? Given the existing complexity of the model as itstands, it is recommended that the model and initial research testing the model focus on worksite/function closure andnot general layoff situations. Successful testing of this model may then lead to future revision so as to also incorporatemore general downsizing situations.

Another boundary condition to consider is “have other workforce reduction or employee cost reduction strategiesbeen considered prior to worksite/function closure”? Gomez-Mejia et al. (2001, p.209) provide a comprehensivetaxonomy of layoff alternatives including: employment policies (e.g., reduction through attrition, hiring freeze, earlyretirement, voluntary time off); changes in job design (e.g., job sharing, transfers); and changes in working conditions(e.g., pay freeze or cuts, reducing overtime, increased retraining or cross-training). In addition, has the affected site hadrepeated layoffs before making the closure decision?

A site's history of prior workforce reduction strategies can affect many model variables, such as perceived contractviolation, justice and legitimacy of cause for closure, as well as victim responses after closure. Prior workforcereduction strategy is better suited as a boundary condition, and not as a situational factor within the model. Suchreduction strategy information would help in understanding the context within which ultimate plant closure occurs.However, the model presented here focuses on understanding the grieving process, factors affecting this grieving, andvictim responses, after the closure decision has been announced.


Certainly the presence of a union in negotiating a worksite/function closure can be an important issue, affecting theuse of layoffs, timing of the closure, and the severance packages to be given to victims (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2001).Looking at how permanent work force reductions affect employers and unions, both groups indicated that reductionshad a significant impact on overall employee satisfaction and labor climate (Wagar, 2001). In addition, union responsesrevealed that reduction of bargaining unit members was also associated with higher grievance and absence rates, andpoorer supervisor–union member relations. However, in a worksite/function closure, since all site employees will beterminated at a particular time, union versus non-union employee status (e.g., affecting the use of a bumping process)should not matter.

Given the predominance of downsizing research done in the United States (US) versus other countries, the proposedmodel may be more applicable to worksite/function closure in the US. For example, the US assumption ofemployment-at-will, i.e., an employer being able to more easily terminate employment relationships, is not as acceptedin other parts of the world, including the European Union, Canada, Australia and Japan. Such countries have plantclosure or redundancy government legislation which can include requiring that employers: (1) show the market orstructural conditions making such employment layoffs unavoidable; (2) “publicly air” contemplated site closures toaffected constituencies (e.g., employees, community) and follow-up on counterproposals by such constituencies; and(3) use specified formulae, such as two weeks pay for each year of service, to compensate redundant (laid off)employees (Dowling, Welch, & Schuler, 1999).

By increasing employer costs for plant closures, as well as lengthening the plant closure process, such governmentlegislation will make it more difficult to test the proposed model outside of the US. For example, “publicly airing”contemplated worksite closures may encourage more-systematic collective employee grieving, and/or force theemployer to find another alternative to worksite closure (Dowling et al., 1999). However, the availability ofmultinational corporations with plant sites in US versus non-US countries may also provide for unique researchopportunities to compare testing the model across same-company-plant-sites between countries.

2.9. Methodological issues in testing the model

The proposed model requires multiple data collections over time in order to test the emotional process of victims'grieving stages and responses during the worksite/function closure. Given the sensitivity of employers to not furtherupsetting affected employees via downsizing research, such data access will not be easy (Mansour-Cole & Scott, 1998).Longitudinal research also entails subject attrition, and working with a smaller complete-data sample size will reduce thepower of the statistical tests used (Bennett et al., 1995). To the extent that affected employees are exiting and newreplacement employees are being hired, during the closure process, this will further reduce complete-data sample size.

Based on the models' propositions, statistical tests to use would include: changes in victims' grieving stage means overtime; correlations of personal and situational factors to grieving stages; correlations of grieving stages to victim responses;and correlations of grieving stages and victims' responses to responses after closure. If possible, regression analyses,allowing for multiple-time variable inclusion, as well as controlling for demographics (e.g., tenure, gender, position)should also be utilized (Brockner et al, 2004; Pugh et al., 2003). There are already existing measures for many of theproposedmodel variables, although somemay need to be adapted for worksite/function closure (e.g., procedural justice).

To the author's knowledge, the Kubler-Ross (1969) grieving stages have never been formally quantified for use indownsizing or job loss survey research. However, prior reviewed qualitative job loss research findings consistentlysupport the relevance of each grieving stage for model inclusion (e.g., Finley & Lee, 1981; Latack & Kaufman, 1982).Operationalizing each grieving stage for survey use seems straight-forward, although obvious scale reliability andvalidity issues must be addressed (Hinkin, 1995), including: multiple items loading cleanly on one factor for eachgrieving stage, adequate grieving stage scale internal consistencies, and non-redundant grieving stage scale inter-correlations. Given the scope of the model and number of variables involved, “item parsimonious” of measures mustalso be considered to get a strong survey completion response rate.

2.10. Summary

This model should help researchers to better understand the process of worksite/function closure in several ways.First, the model may help by providing further insights into factors affecting the grieving stages of closure victims.Second, the model suggests how constructive grieving leads to more constructive responses, while the site is still in the


closure process. In addition, a positive closure process can help to set up positive after-closure outcomes. Research isneeded to test this model. The model is applicable not only to worksite closure (e.g., plant closing), but also to closing awork function (e.g., outsourcing a service, closing a hospital unit). In addition, the model can be immediately applied tosingle-unit business closing situations, with the additional condition that voluntary exits would not include intra-organizational transfers. As such this model should be useful for studying different types of closure situations. Asdiscussed above, successful testing of the present model may then lead to future revision so as to also incorporate moregeneral downsizing situations.

It is believed that the proposed model will also be useful to organizations. A positive worksite/function closureprocess will not only be beneficial to affected employees, but to other intra-organization (e.g., other worksites, otherfunctions) and extra-organization (e.g., affected families, communities) constituencies as well (Feldman & Leana,1989). Positive cross-constituency reactions should enhance the organization's reputation for corporate socialperformance (Zyglidopoulos, 2003).

Acknowledgement

The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful initial comments of: John Deckop, Gay Fogarty, Bob Giacalone, andJohn Naman. Subsequent revision improvements as a result of Robert Steel and two Anonymous Reviewers are alsogratefully acknowledged. Portions of this paper were written with the support of a Temple University 2005 SummerResearch Grant.

References

Addison, J., Heywood, J., & Wei, X. (2003). New evidence on unions and plant closings: Britain in the 1990s. Southern Economic Journal, 69(4),822−841.

Addison, R., & Blackburn, M. (1994). Has WARN warned? The impact of advance-notice legislation on the receipt of advance notice. Journal ofLabor Research, 15(1), 83−90.

Allen, T., Freeman, D., Russell, J., Reizenstein, R., & Rentz, J. (2001). Survivor reactions to organizational downsizing: Does time ease the pain?Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 145−164.

Ahmadjian, C., & Robinson, P. (2001). Safety in numbers: Downsizing and the deinstitutionalization of permanent employment in Japan.Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 622−654.

Amundson, N., & Borgen, W. (1982, May). The dynamics of unemployment: Job loss and job search. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 562−564.Amundson, N., Borgen, W., Jordan, S., & Erlebach, A. (2004). Survivors of downsizing: Helpful and hindering experiences. Career Development

Quarterly, 52, 256−271.Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452−471.Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2002). Designated redundant but escaping lay-off: A special group of lay-off survivors. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 1−13.Bennett, N., Martin, C., Bies, R., & Brockner, J. (1995). Coping with a layoff: A study of victims. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1025−1040.Bennett, R., & Robinson, S. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349−360.Bies, R. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L. Cummings, & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior (pp. 289−319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Blau, G., & Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78,

598−614.Bluestone, B., & Harrison, B. (1982). The deindustrialization of America. New York: Basic Books.Brennan, A., & Skarlicki, D. (2004). Personality and perceived justice as predictors of survivors' reactions following downsizing. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 34(6), 1306−1328.Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (1990). The impact of layoffs on survivors: An organizational justice perspective. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Applied

psychology in organizational settings Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Brockner, J., Grover, S., & Blonder, M. (1988). Predictors of survivors' job involvement following layoffs: A field study. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 73, 436−442.Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T., DeWitt, R., & O'Malley, M. (1987). Survivor reactions to layoffs: We get by with a little help for our friends.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 526−541.Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C., & Bies, R. (1994). Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome

negativity on victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2), 397−409.Brockner, J., Spreitzer, G., Mishra, A., Hochwarter, W., Pepper, L., & Weinberg, J. (2004). Perceived control as an antidote to the negative effects of

layoffs on survivors' organizational commitment and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 76−100.Brockner, J., Tyler, T., & 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, 241−261.


Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B., &Martin, C. (1995). Decision frame, procedural justice and survivors' reactions to job layoffs.Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 63(1), 59−68.

Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B., Reed, T., Grover, S., & Martin, C. (1993). Interactive effect of job content and context on the reactions of layoffsurvivors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 187−197.

Budros, A. (1999). A conceptual framework for analyzing why organizations downsize. Organization Science, 10(1), 69−82.Buono, A. (2003). The hidden costs and benefits of organizational resizing activities. In K. De Meuse, & M. Marks (Eds.), Resizing the organization:

Managing layoffs, divestitures and closings (pp. 306−346). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Burke, R., & Greenglass, E. (2001). Hospital restructuring and nursing staff well-being: The role of personal resources. Journal of Health and

Health Services Administration, 24(1), 3−21.Cameron, K., Freeman, S., & Mishra, A. (1991). Best practices in white-collar downsizing: Managing contradictions. Academy of Management

Executive, 5(3), 57−73.Cappelli, P. (1992). Examining managerial displacement. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 203−217.Cappelli, P. (2000). Managing without commitment. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 11−24.Carr, S. (1990). Managing the business risks of plant closings. Business Horizons, 72−74.Cascio, W. (1993). Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 95−104.Cascio, W. (2002). Strategies for responsible restructuring. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 80−91.Cascio, W., & Young, C. (2003). Financial consequences of employment change decisions in major US Corporations, 1982–2000. In K. DeMeuse, &

M. Marks (Eds.), Resizing the organization: Managing layoffs, divestitures and closings (pp. 131−156). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Cavanuagh, M., & Noe, R. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of relational components of the new psychological contract. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 20, 323−340.Chadwick, C., Hunter, L., & Walston, S. (2004). Effects of downsizing practices on the performance of hospitals. Strategic Management Journal, 25

(5), 405−427.Charles, K., & Stephens, M. (2004). Job displacement, disability and divorce. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(2), 489−522.Clinebell, H. (1984). Basic types of pastoral care and counseling. Nashville: Abingdon Press.Davis, J., & Savage, G. (2003). Organizational downsizing: A review of the literature for planning and research. Journal of Healthcare Management,

48(3), 181−199.Davis, S., Haltiwanger, J., & Schuh, S. (1996). Job creation and destruction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Davy, J., Kinicki, A., & Scheck, C. (1991). Developing and testing a model of survivor responses to layoffs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38,

302−317.DeMeuse, K., Bergmann, T., Vanderheiden, P., & Roraff, C. (2004). New evidence regarding downsizing and a firm's financial performance: A long-

term analysis. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(2), 155−177.Devine, K., Reay, T., Stainton, L., & Collins-Nakai, R. (2003). Downsizing outcomes: Better a victim than a survivor? Human Resource

Management, 42(2), 109−124.DeWitt, R. (1998). Firm choice and strategy influences on choice of downsizing approach. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 59−79.Dowling, P., Welch, D., & Schuler, R. (1999). International human resource management, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.Dunne, T., Roberts, M., & Samuelson, L. (1989). The growth and failure of US manufacturing plants. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(4),

671−698.Edwards, J., Rust, K., McKinley, W., & Moon, G. (2003). Business ideologies and perceived breach of contract during downsizing: The role of

ideology of employee self-reliance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1−23.Feldman, D., & Leana, C. (1989). Managing layoffs: Experiences at the Challenger disaster site and the Pittsburgh steel mills. Organizational

Dynamics, 18(1), 52−64.Feldman, D., Leana, C., & Bolino, M. (2002). Underemployment and relative deprivation among re-employed executives. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 453−462.Finley, M., & Lee, A. (1981). The terminated executive: It's like dying. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 59, 382−384.Friesen, J. (1997). Mandatory notice and the jobless duration of displaced workers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 50(4), 652−666.Freeman, S. (1999). The gestalt of organizational downsizing: Downsizing strategies as packages of change. Human Relations, 52(12), 1505−1541.Gannon, M. (1971). Sources of referral and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 226−228.Gilliland, S., & Schepers, D. (2003). Why we do the things we do: A discussion and analysis of determinants of just treatment in layoff

implementation decisions. Human Resource Management Review, 13(1), 59−83.Gomez-Mejia, L., Balkin, D., & Cardy, R. (2001). Managing Human Resources, 3rd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Goodman, P., & Rousseau, D. (2004). Organizational change that produces results: The linkage approach. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3),

7−21.Greenglass, E., Burke, R., & Moore, K. (2003). Reactions to increased workload: Effects on professional efficacy of nurses. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 52(4), 580−597.Harris, S., & Sutton, R. (1986). Functions of parting ceremonies in dying organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 5−30.Hinkin, T. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967−988.Hom, P., & Griffeth, R. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

House, R., Shane, S., & Herold, D. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of ManagementReview, 21(1), 203−224.

Judge, T., Erez, A., Bonon, J., & Thoresen, C. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56,303−331.

Kaufman, H. (1982). Professionals in search of work: Coping with the stress of job loss and underemployment. New York: Wiley.


Kirkham, J., Richbell, S., & Watts, D. (1999). Manpower factors and plant closures in multiplant firms. International Journal of Manpower, 20(7),456−468.

Kirkham, J., Rixhbell, S., & Watts, H. (1998). Downsizing and facility location: Plant closures in multiplant firms. Management Decision, 36(3),189−197.

Kirkham, J., & Watts, H. (1998). Multi-locational manufacturing organizations and plant closures in urban areas. Urban Studies, 35(9), 1559−1575.Koeber, C. (2002). Corporate restructuring, downsizing, and the middle class: The process and meaning of worker displacement in the new economy.

Qualitative Sociology, 25(2), 217−246.Konovsky, M., & Folger, R. (1991). The effects of procedures, social accounts and benefits levels on victims' layoff responses. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 21(8), 630−650.Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: Macmillan.LaRusso, A. (1999, July/August). Shutting it down: A test for management. Business Horizons, 32(4), 59−62.Latack, J., & Dozier, W. (1986). After the ax falls: Job loss. Academy of Management Review, 11, 375−392.Latack, J., & Kaufman, H. (1982). Termination and outplacement strategies. In M. London, & E. Mone (Eds.), Career growth and human

resource strategies (pp. 289−310). New York: Quorum.Latack, J., Kinicki, A., & Prussia, G. (1995). An integrative model of coping with job loss. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 311−342.Lawler, E., & Hall, D. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 54, 305−312.Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.Leana, C., & Feldman, D. (1990). Individual responses to job loss: Empirical findings from two field studies. Human Relations, 43(11), 1155−1181.Leana, C., & Feldman, D. (1992). Coping with job loss: How individuals, organizations and communities respond to layoffs.New York: Lexington.Leana, C., & Feldman, D. (1995). Finding new jobs after a plant closing: Antecedents and outcomes of the occurrence and quality of reemployment.

Human Relations, 48(12), 1381−1401.Lester, S., Kickul, J., Bergmann, T., & De Meuse, K. (2003). The effects of organizational resizing on the nature of the psychological contract and

employee perceptions of contract fulfillment. In K. De Meuse, & M. Marks (Eds.), Resizing the organization: Managing layoffs, divestitures andclosings (pp. 78−107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin, J., & Johnston,W. (2000). The impact of downsizing and restructuring on organizational effectiveness.Competitiveness Review, 10(1), 45−55.Lind, E., Greenberg, J., Scott, K., & Welchans, T. (2000). The winding road from employee to complainant: Situational and psychological

determinants of wrongful-termination claims. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 557−590.Martin, J. (1992). Organizational cultures: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Mansour-Cole, D., & Scott, S. (1998). Hearing it through the grapevine: The influence of source, leader relations, and legitimacy on survivors'

fairness perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 51, 25−54.March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Mazerole, M., & Singh, G. (2004). Economic and social correlates of re-employment following job displacement. American Journal of Economics

and Sociology, 63(3), 717−730.McKinley, W., Zhao, J., & Rust, K. (2000). A sociocognitive interpretation of organizational downsizing. Academy of Management Review, 25(1),

227−243.Mirvis, P., & Marks, M. (2003). Managing the merger: Making it work. New York: Beard Books.Mishra, A., & Spreitzer, G. (1998). Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing: The roles of trust, empowerment, justice and work redesign.

Academy of Management Review, 23, 567−588.Mishra, K., Spreitzer, G., & Mishra, A. (1998). Preserving employee morale during downsizing. Sloan Management Review, 83−95.Mitchell, T., Holton, B., Lee, T., Sablynski, C., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy

of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102−1121.Morrison, E., & Robinson, S. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of

Management Review, 22, 226−256.Noer, D. (1993). Healing the wounds: Overcoming the trauma of layoffs and revitalizing downsized organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Noer, D. (1997). Breaking free: A prescription for personal and organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Nord, S., & Ting, Y. (1993). The effect of advance notification of plan closings on the re-employment earnings of displaced blue-collar workers in the

United States. Applied Economics, 25, 531−540.O'Neill, H., & Lenn, D. (1995). Voices of survivors: Words that downsizing CEOs should hear. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4),

23−33.Perrucci, C., & Perrucci, R. (1997). Gender differences in the economic, psychological and social effects of plant closings in an expanding economy.

Social Science Journal, 34(2), 217−233.Pugh, S., Skarlicki, D., & Passell, B. (2003). After the fall: Layoff victims' trust and cynicism in re-employment. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 76, 201−212.Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47(30),

350−367.Richbell, S., &Watts, H. (2000). Plan closures in multiplant manufacturing firms: Adding an international perspective.Management Decision, 38(2),

80−88.Robinson, S., & Bennett, R. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management

Journal, 38, 555−572.Robinson, S., & Morrison, E. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 21, 525−546.


Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology, Vol. 10 (pp.). New York: Academic Press.

Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Rousseau, D., & Aquino, K. (1993). Fairness and implied contract obligations in job terminations: The role of remedies, social accounts, and

procedural justice. Human Performance, 6, 135−149.Ruhm, C. (1994). Advance notice, job search and postdisplacement earnings. Journal of Labor Economics, 12(1), 1−28.Sheer, V., & Chen, L. (2004). Improving media richness theory: A study of interaction goals, message valence, and task complexity in manager–

subordinate communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 76−93.Sommer, R. (2003). How to implement organizational resizing. In K. De Meuse, & M. Marks (Eds.), Resizing the organization: Managing layoffs,

divestitures and closings (pp. 246−274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Spreitzer, G., & Mishra, A. (2002). To stay or to go: Voluntary survivor turnover following an organizational downsizing. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 23, 707−729.Stern, J. (1972). Consequences of plant closure. Journal of Human Resources, 8(1), 1−25.Stern, J., Root, K., & Hills, S. (1974). The influence of social–psychological traits and job search patterns on the earnings of workers affected by a

plant closure. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 28(1), 103−121.Sutton, G., & Griffin, M. (2004). Integrating expectations, experiences and psychological contract violations: A longitudinal study of new

professionals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 493−514.Tang, T., & Crofford, A. (1999). The anticipation of plant closing: Employee reactions. Journal of Social Psychology, 139(1), 44−48.Tornow, W., & London, M. (1998). Maximizing the value of 360-degree feedback: A process for successful individual and organizational

development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Tourish, D., Paulsen, N., Hobman, E., & Bordia, P. (2004). The downsides of downsizing: Communication processes and informational needs.

Management Communication Quarterly, 17(4), 485−516.Turnley, W., & Feldman, D. (1998). Psychological contract violations during corporate restructuring. Human Resource Management, 37(1), 71−83.Wagar, T. (2001). Consequences of work force reduction: Some employer and union evidence. Journal of Labor Research, 22(4), 851−862.Wanberg, C., Bunce, L., & Gvin, M. (1999). Perceived fairness of layoffs among individuals who have been laid off: A longitudinal study. Personnel

Psychology, 52, 59−84.Whetten, D. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490−495.Wiggins, J., & Pincus, A. (1992). Personality: Structure and assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 473−504.Winefield, A., & Tiggemann, M. (1990). Employment status and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,

455−459.Zyglidopoulos, S. (2003). The impact of downsizing on the corporate reputation for social performance. Journal of Public Affairs, 49(1), 11−25.

a process model for understanding victim responses to worksite/function closure

Documents