causal attributions and emotions in downsizing 1 running...

Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing

1

1

Running head: CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS AND EMOTIONS IN DOWNSIZING

The role of causal attributions in survivors’ emotional reactions to downsizing

Shlomo Hareli

University of Haifa Faculty of Social Sciences and

Faculty of Welfare & Health Studies Graduate School of Business

Department of Human Services Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905

ISRAEL [email protected]

and

Shay S. Tzafrir

University of Haifa Faculty of Social Welfare & Health Studies

Department of Human Services Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905

ISRAEL [email protected]

Please address all correspondence to: Shlomo Hareli University of Haifa Faculty of Social Sciences and Faculty of Social Welfare & Health Studies Graduate School of Management And Department of Human Services Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905 ISRAEL [email protected]


2

2

Abstract

Weiner’s (1986) theory of attribution was used for analyzing discrete emotions

survivors of downsizing may experience as a function of perceived causes for

survival. The study considered emotions not studied in previous research (e.g., pride)

and their relation to organizational factors (e.g., OCB). Moreover, this analysis goes

beyond previous research that studied broad affective constructs such as anxiety, by

also considering positive emotions. Suggested understandings can advance research

and facilitate better personal and organizational consequences of downsizing as these

are reflected in HR and HRD policies and interventions.


3

3

The Role of Causal Attributions in Survivors’ Emotional Reactions to Downsizing

Companies experiencing low performance, financial losses or cash flow

difficulties often implement a downsizing procedure. Downsizing can best be viewed

as an organizational intervention aimed at improving organizational performance by

reducing the workforce (Kozlowski, Chao, Smith, & Hedlund, 1993). Past research

established that downsizing has a wide-ranging effect not only on the laid-off

employees, but also on those remaining in the organization, i.e., the survivors. This

research ascertained that downsizing has a strong impact on survivors’ affective lives

(Burke & Leiter, 2000; Leana & Feldman, 1992; Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998; Paterson

& Cary, 2002). The affect experienced by survivors as a consequence of downsizing

is an important factor in the organization achieving what it aimed for in the first place

when deciding to downsize (Sahdev, Vinnicombe & Tyson, 1999). Indeed, the way

survivors feel about downsizing and the organization that implemented it, determines

their attitudes toward the organization and their behavior in it following the action

(Cascio, 1993; Noer, 1993). In particular, the likelihood that survivors would behave

in ways that are conducive to the goals of the organization and engage in individual

behavior that is discretionary (OCB) and promotes the effective functioning of the

organization is to some extent dependent on the emotions that survivors experience

following their survival. Accordingly, one of the most important challenges facing

organizations that have downsized are ‘people’-oriented issues, which require HR

interventions and support designed to enhance the chances that survivors’ emotions

foster such reactions rather than discourage it (Cameron, 1994; Sahdev et al., 1999).

Parts of such intervention have to do with training and preparing managers and

employees alike to cope properly with the process of downsizing itself and the

organizational era that will follow (Franco, 2006).


4

4

Understanding the determinants of affective reactions of survivors is an

important step toward devising adequate HR and HRD interventions and policies that

enable downsizing to fulfill its goals. Accordingly, the main goal of this paper is to

offer a framework that analyzes some of the specific emotions that survivors may

experience following downsizing, the antecedents of these emotions and their likely

impact on survivors’ attitudes and behaviors. As is delineated below, research in the

past rarely addressed this issue. We believe that the framework that we offer here will

help in devising better HRM and HRD practices that can promote the effectiveness of

downsizing.

Survivors’ Affective Reactions to Downsizing – Past Research

Research in the past acknowledged the significant role that survivor’s affective

reactions have on their adaptation to the situation, and accordingly, the effect of

downsizing on the organization as a whole (Sahdev et al., 1999). Nevertheless, up to

now, most research examining survivors’ affective reactions to downsizing considered

broad affective constructs such as anxiety, stress or emotional well-being (Burke &

Leiter, 2000; Leana & Feldman, 1992; Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998; Paterson & Cary,

2002). These are emotional states that do not have a clear and focused object but

rather involve generalized feelings about the situation (Frijda, 1986). We suggest that

downsizing also leads to the experience of other more specific emotional states such

as guilt or shame. These are discrete emotional states that have a narrower, clearer and

more focused object such as oneself or one’s actions. These are emotions that arise

from judgments of particular issues that have to do with a given situation (Frijda,

1986). Moreover, unlike previous research, we claim that survivors’ emotional

reactions do not necessarily comprise only negative emotions but they may, under

certain circumstances, also experience some positive emotions.


5

5

The study of discrete emotional reactions to downsizing has been relatively

neglected (for the few existing studies, see Brockner, Davy, & Carter, 1985;

Mossholder, Setton, Armenakis & Harris, 2000; Weiss, Suckow, & Cropanzano,

1999). Additionally, the research that can be found has focused mainly on negative

emotions (e.g., Brockner et al., 1985; Brockner, Grover, O’Malley, Reed, & Glynn,

1993). This state of affairs reflects the comparative dearth of research on discrete

emotions in the organizational field as a whole (see also, Lazarus & Cohen-Charash,

2001; Weiss, 2002; as well as Brockner, Davy, & Carter, 1985; Weiss, Suckow &

Cropanzano, 1999 for valuable exceptions), and the fact that positive affect is an

insufficiently studied issue both in organizational research (Isen & Baron, 1991) and

psychology (Averil, 1980; Fredrickson, 1998). Accordingly, the scope of the present

paper is to present a theoretical framework, which offers some factors that lead to the

experience of specific positive and negative emotions in downsizing survivors of

downsizing. Most of these emotions were not discussed in previous research in this

context. We believe that this framework can advance the study and understanding of

the role that survivors’ emotions play in determining personal and organizational

consequences of downsizing and their relations to HRM and HRD policies and

interventions.

The past two decades have brought a substantial growth in the understanding

of the role that affective states such as moods and emotions play in human behavior.

As a consequence, there is a growing acknowledgment of the important relationship

among affect, cognition and motivation. This development has also had an impact on

research within the organizational context so that theories and understandings

suggested by affect researchers have been adopted and used in organizational research

(Ashkanasy, Hartal, Zerbe, 2000; Callahan, 2000; Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000; Lord,


6

6

Klimonsky & Kanfer, 2002; Spector & Fox, 2002; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996),

including in the context of downsizing (Mishra, 1996; Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998;

O'Neill & Lenn, 1995). It is our contention that the study of such issues can gain by

further adoption and application of theories and frameworks drawn from

psychological research on affect. Hence, in the present paper we adopt Weiner’s

attribution theory of motivation and emotion (Weiner, 1985; 1986), using it as a tool

in our analysis. This framework enables us to analyze potential positive and negative

emotional, and consequently, behavioral reactions of employees surviving

organizational downsizing.

Weiner’s attribution theory focused on causal attributions -- subjective

thoughts about the causes of given outcome and their link to affective and behavioral

reactions. Accordingly, the emotions that we consider in the context of downsizing

are expected to be a function of what survivors perceive to be the cause for their

survival. This analysis offers new hypotheses and research questions related to some

of the emotions likely to arise in survivors following downsizing. While some issues

analyzed in the present paper are directly derived from research and theoretical

accounts stemming from work in the context of attribution theory, for other issues

attribution theory serves only as a scaffold for generation of ideas that go beyond it.

We begin our discussion with a brief review of Weiner’s attribution theory of

motivation and emotion (Weiner, 1985; 1986) and discuss the relevance of this theory

to emotions and behaviors in the context of surviving organizational downsizing.

Following this, we offer an analysis of the potential link among different causes for

survival, emotions and behaviors of the survivors as well as of their colleagues.

Finally, we will discuss how the present framework can add to the understanding of


7

7

the affective reactions experienced by survivors of downsizing and what the important

organizational implications of these reactions are especially as these relate to HR and

HRD policies and interventions.

Emotions and Attributions in the Context of Organizational Downsizing

Emotions are reactions to significant and specific changes and events (Ben-

Ze’ev, 2000; Frijda, 1986; 1994). Downsizing involves major changes both for the

individual and the organization as a whole. Such situations are expected to lead to

emotional reactions on the part of the individuals at the nexus of these changes

(Mossholder et al., 2000). Emotions are considered by many theorists to result from

the way a given situation is appraised or evaluated by the person experiencing the

emotion (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991; Ortony, Clore & Collins, 1988; Weiner, 1985;

1986). One type of appraisal known to contribute to emotional reactions and that is

likely to play a significant role in the context of downsizing is attributional

information, i.e., information concerning the reasons underlying given outcomes.

In the context of downsizing, attributional information mainly involves the

reasons why an employee stayed in the organization or was dismissed. This

information is most likely to be spontaneously generated by employees because

significant outcomes, such as the ones considered here, tend to elicit causal thinking.

Moreover, because the likelihood for causal thinking is also increased if the situation

is unexpected, uncertain and/or negative (Weiner, 1985a; Weiner, 1985b; Wong &

Weiner, 1981), as is often the case with downsizing (Brockner, DeWitt, Grover, &

Reed, 1990), the chances for attributional thoughts in the context of downsizing also

increase. Finally, rumors related to downsizing as well as formal information


8

8

provided by managers may also include information concerning the reasons for the

decisions involved.

This attributional information is known to be an antecedent for different

emotional reactions on the part of the person who is considering this information

(Weiner, 1985; 1986). The specific emotion elicited by such attributions is partially a

function of the nature of the causal information contained in the attribution. For

example, an employee–knowing that she survived downsizing thanks to her skills–is

expected to experience pride. In contrast, survival attributed merely to luck is not

likely to elicit pride but rather fear or anxiety resulting from the perceptions of the

probability of being laid off in a possible future wave of downsizing.

According to Weiner’s attribution theory of motivation and emotion (Weiner,

1985; 1986), some of the emotions that people experience as a consequence of a given

situation or event are determined by the perceived causes of these events or situations.

This class of emotions is termed attribution-linked affect. This means that similar

outcomes can potentially evoke different emotions depending on what the person

perceives to be the cause of her outcome. In addition, some affective reactions (e.g.,

happiness and sadness) are the direct result of the outcome in question and are

independent of the inferred causes of a given outcome or event. These emotions are

termed outcome-dependent affects. In accordance with this distinction, research

suggests that positive outcomes such as success tend to lead to happiness whereas

negative outcomes such as failure tend to lead to sadness, regardless of the reasons for

these outcomes (Weiner, Russel, & Lerman, 1978). Given that in the present paper we

are interested in the emotional consequences of attributional thinking, we will

consider only attribution-linked affect related to downsizing.


9

9

In explaining the relation between causal inferences, emotions and behavior,

Weiner’s attribution theory suggests that all causes of outcomes can be characterized

according to three basic properties, labeled locus, controllability, and stability. Locus

refers to the location of a cause (internal or external to the actor); controllability refers

to the degree to which the cause is subject to volitional change (controllable versus

uncontrollable); and stability pertains to the relative endurance of a cause over time

(stable versus unstable). Thus, for example, ability as a cause of success would be

considered internal, uncontrollable, and stable, whereas bad luck as a cause of failure

tends to be construed as external to the actor, also uncontrollable, and unstable. It is

important to note that ability, in this context, refers to one’s natural aptitude which is

innate and relatively unchangeable as opposed to skill, which can be acquired or

honed with training and practice (Weiner, 1986). Although the dimensional placement

of a cause is a subjective reality, so that individuals may disagree with respect to a

causal interpretation, there is a great deal of consistency concerning the characteristics

of particular attributions (Weiner, 1986; Hareli & Weiner, 2002). Accordingly, each

of these causal dimensions has unique psychological implications. We describe the

psychological meaningfulness of causal dimensions in the following:

Causal Locus

Causal locus mainly determines whether or not a given outcome will affect

one’s self-esteem and related emotions such as pride and shame. If the cause for a

given outcome is internal to the person, then her self-esteem is expected to be affected

by that outcome. If, however, the cause for that outcome is external, self-esteem is not

expected to be affected by the outcome. Accordingly, people encountering a positive

outcome, which is due to a cause internal to them, e.g., ability or effort, rather than


10

10

external, e.g., luck or help from others, are more likely to feel pride, experience an

enhanced sense of self-esteem and think of themselves as more competent (Weiner,

Russell & Lerman, 1978, 1979). Likewise, when failure is involved, lowered self-

esteem and shame are more likely if the perceived cause for failure is internal to the

person, e.g., lack of ability, than if the failure is external, such as bad luck (Weiner,

1985).

Causal Stability

The causal dimension of stability mainly determines future expectations and

emotions related to such expectations. Given positive outcomes that are caused by

stable reasons such as ability, people are likely to experience hopefulness because

they also expect future success. Yet, if the same outcome is achieved thanks to an

unstable cause such as luck, then hopefulness is not an expected reaction because the

person will realize that similar success will not necessarily reoccur in the future.

Similarly, negative outcomes, which are the result of stable reasons such as lack of

aptitude, lead to helplessness because there is little hope for a change for the better in

the future given the reason for the outcome (Weiner, 1985).

Causal Controllability

Causal controllability is an important determinant of the judgment of

responsibility. A person whose outcome was brought about by her own actions, i.e.,

actions controlled by her, is seen as responsible for it. On the other hand, a person

whose outcome was brought about without relation to her own actions, i.e., actions

not controlled by her, is seen as not responsible for it (Weiner, 1986; 1995).

Responsibility judgments mainly determine the self-directed emotions of guilt and

shame and the other-directed emotions of pity, anger and gratitude. Thus, one’s


11

11

misfortunate outcome is more likely to result in guilt if it was brought about by one’s

own actions. Shame, on the other hand, is more likely to be the reaction to the same

outcome if the situation was the result of something that is not under one’s control,

e.g., lack of ability. That is, the mere fact that one lacks a certain ability is not

something under one’s potential control. Considering another’s negative fate, pity is

more likely to arise in an observer if the outcome is the result of circumstances not

under the victim’s control. If, however, the negative fate was caused by something

that was under one’s control, anger is a more likely reaction (Weiner, 1986; 1995). In

the context of positive outcomes, one is more likely to experience gratitude if the

achievement is the result of another’s controllable as opposed to uncontrollable

actions (McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons & Larson, 2001; Weiner, 1986).

As can be seen from the above discussion, each causal dimension has its own

psychological importance in determining the emotional reactions to given events.

Also, along with the emotions listed above as being determined by these causal

dimensions, other emotions too are determined and affected by the same causal

dimensions. In line with this assertion, recent research and discussions have suggested

a role for causal attributions in determining the emotions of envy, schadenfreude

(pleasure at another’s misfortune), happiness for, admiration, and contempt (Hareli &

Weiner, 2000; 2002). We also consider some of these emotions here in the context of

downsizing.

Recall that we are applying the framework of attribution theory to the

understanding of discrete emotional reactions to downsizing. Because emotions are

significant determinants of attitudes, motivations and behavior (Frijda, 1986; George

& Brief, 1996; Lazarus, 1991, Weiner, 1985; Weiss, 2002), emotions that arise in the


12

12

context of downsizing can affect significant work attitudes and behaviors such as

loyalty, trust, satisfaction, absenteeism, performance and OCB. Hence, the

understanding of the role that such emotions play in survivors’ reactions to

downsizing can help in devising HR and HRD procedures that will improve the

outcomes of such a process both for employees and organizations. In particular, it

should be beneficial in devising organizational policies for downsizing

implementation and information provision that can lead to better downsizing

outcomes. Also, it can suggest ways by which managers and employees can be trained

and prepared to cope better with the process of downsizing and its consequences.

Given that survival of downsizing is the result of one or many different

reasons, we restrict ourselves to considering only several defined reasons and

discussing each reason in isolation. This restriction by no means assumes that our

reasons are more important than or supersede others in their impact on emotional

reactions. Rather, confining our discussion to the reasons given below enables us to

debate the potential contribution of this framework within manageable limits. Albeit,

we believe that our analysis can also serve as a foundation for further theoretical

developments that go beyond the issues covered here.

Accordingly, in analyzing employees’ reactions to surviving downsizing as a

function of causal information, we consider four possible reasons for such an

outcome. These are: ability, effort, help from another person and luck. Prior research

considered these causes as important factors in determining workplace behavior (Hart,

Bridgett, & Karau, 2001; Struthers, Weiner & Allred, 1998). Reactions to downsizing

are considered as a function of each of these reasons. The first two causes are internal

to the individual, yet, whereas ability is stable and uncontrollable, effort is unstable

and controllable. Help from others and luck are likely to be perceived as located


13

13

externally to the individual and unstable. Help, however, is controllable by the other

while luck is uncontrollable. Thus, these four causes represent a range of causal

properties, and hence, their expected psychological consequences are expected to vary

as well. It is important to note that we refer to each cause from the survivor’s

subjective point of view and do not assume that this cause has any objective status

other than that. First, we consider the emotional and behavioral consequences of each

cause separately and then present a discussion that compares the different causes.

Although we restrict ourselves to these four causes, we manage to cover a large array

of different emotions that survivors are likely to experience in the context of their

survival. These are: pride, enhanced self-esteem, hopefulness, anger, gratitude,

admiration, resentment, guilt, hopelessness, envy, shame, feelings of indebtedness and

decreased self-esteem.

Survivors’ Emotional Reaction to Downsizing as

a Function of the Perceived Cause of Survival

Here we consider the emotional reactions of survivors as a function of their

perceived cause of their survival.

High Ability

High ability is a cause that is likely to be perceived as internal to the

individual, uncontrollable and stable. Given that high ability is an internal cause, if

survival is attributed to it, the fact of having survived is likely to have a positive

impact on one’s self-esteem. This frame of mind may, in turn, lead the employee to

believe that she is wanted by the organization, thereby further enhancing her self-

esteem. Likewise, the worker will most likely feel proud of herself. Survival due to

high ability is also expected to lead to hopefulness. This expectation is due to the fact


14

14

that ability is a stable property of the individual and hence expected to last across time

and contexts. The hopefulness is, accordingly, likely to lead to the employee believing

that her future is relatively secured within the same organization and that she is a core

employee (Osterman, 2000). Being a member of such a group often means being at

the center of the organization’s HR system’s focus. This frequently results in special

HR treatment (Leapak & Snell, 1999). Moreover, this perceived high human capital

also increases one’s employability in other organizations – which in turn is also likely

to increase one’s sense of security. Consequently, one important research question is

to determine under what circumstances a survivor, who attributes her survival to high

ability, is more likely to actively search for another job rather than remain within the

present organization that values her skills. It may be that the more that employee

trusts the organization, the less likely she would be to seek other job opportunities

(Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992; Brockner, Wiesenfeld, Reed, Grover, &

Martin, 1993; Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998). An additional way to increase the likelihood

that the employee will remain in the organization may be to invest in that employee’s

personal and professional growth (Piotrowski & Plash, 2006). Nonetheless, other

views may exist.

Proposition 1. A survivor who attributed her survival to her high ability is expected to

experience enhanced self-esteem, pride and hopefulness.

High Effort

High effort is an internal, controllable and unstable cause. Because effort, in

the same way as ability, involves an internal attribution, if given as the cause, it is

expected to boost self-esteem and elicit pride in oneself. To the extent that investment

of effort at work is perceived as a lasting feature of one’s behavior – that is, a stable


15

15

cause rather than an unstable one – the expected emotional reaction of such a worker

may also involve hopefulness, as in the case of ability. That is, effort on a short term

basis is likely to be seen as unstable, but effort invested permanently is likely to be

seen as stable.

Proposition 2. A survivor who attributes her survival to investment of considerable

efforts is expected to experience enhanced self-esteem and pride.

The assumptions in the context of pride are in line with research that

documented the link between pride and internal attributions for success (see Lewis,

1993; Roseman, Antoniou & Jose, 1996; Van Overwalle, Mervielde & Schuyter,

1995). Research on pride in the organizational context considered pride mostly in

terms of satisfaction with the fact that one is part of an organization that is considered

to have a high status (see, for e.g., Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader, 2002). However, few

researchers have considered the role of pride when it refers to a transitory emotional

state stemming from one’s achievement—the perspective of the present context. The

absence of such research in the organizational context is surprising, especially in light

of the fact that employees do report feelings of pride in the contexts of achievements

(Hodson, 1998; Seider, 1984).

The research that did examine the role of pride resulting from

accomplishments in the workplace found that pride is positively correlated with many

aspects of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Moreover, pride is a better

predictor of OCB than job satisfaction, which is typically considered a strong

predictor of OCB (Hodson, 1998). More specifically, Hodson’s (1998) research

indicated a positive relation between OCB aspects such as extra efforts and

cooperation and pride and a negative relation between pride and misbehaviors such as


16

16

absenteeism and theft. Accordingly, also in the context of survival of downsizing,

when it results from internal causes such as ability and effort, we may expect a

similar relation with OCB. That is, as pride increases so do positive aspects of OCB.

This relation may be even further strengthened by the fact that under these

circumstances the employee is likely to perceive the organization as acknowledging

her merits (her capabilities or her vigorous efforts). This latter perception can also

increase trust in the organization because under these circumstances the

organization’s decision to keep this worker is likely to be viewed as deserved and

just. Such a connection is expected from the relation between justice and trust (Aryee,

Budhwar & Chen, 2002; Brockner & Siegel, 1996; Tzafrir, Harel, Baruch & Dolan,

2004).

Proposition 3. A survivor attributing her survival to high ability or considerable

efforts, and hence feeling proud of herself, is more likely to be engaged in OCB rather

than misbehavior.

The above analysis suggests that both ability and effort are expected to elicit

pride. However, pride appears to be most experienced when success is ascribed to

effort (Nurmi, 1991), whereas ability, typically, is regarded as more internal to the

person than is effort (Weiner, 1986). This paradox raises an interesting question. Do

perceptions of control also play a role in intensifying pride? If so, this suggests that

survivors who attribute their survival mainly to their own efforts will have a greater

sense of pride than those who attribute their survival mainly to their ability.

Consequently, a higher degree of OCB is expected from survivors who attribute their

situation to their considerable efforts than those who attribute it to their high ability.

This likelihood is further strengthened by the fact that able employees may view their


17

17

situation as more stable within the organization (at least for the short term) than the

very active employees and hence feel that they need to do less for future survival.

Able employees may also perceive that they have more options outside of the

organization than do employees who have remained owing to their exertions. This is

especially true if we consider that proficient employees typically need to invest less

effort to succeed than employees with less ability (Hareli & Weiner, 2002; Weiner,

1986). Hence, survivors who remain due to their efforts may feel lees secure and fear

future dismissal and its consequences more than talented employees having high

ability. Finally, pride experienced by employees in the context of downsizing is also

expected to have a more durable positive effect by increasing job satisfaction

(Hodson, 1998).

This analysis implies that, in order for an organization to gain the most from

its survivors, survivors should feel a sense of pride from the decision to let them be

the ones to stay in the organization. The means to achieve this goal is by helping

survivors perceive the reason for their remaining as an internal one, i.e., due to their

ability or effort. The close to ideal situation from the points of view of both the

employee and the organization would be a combination of these two attributions – as

each cause has its own added value. This is certainly a plausible option given that

ability is often insufficient for positive performance because one has also to be

motivated and invest efforts when using a given ability. These ideas should certainly

be incorporated into HR policies that will foster such attributions in the relevant

employees.


18

18

Help from Other/s

When considering a survivor who remains in her job thanks to another’s help,

a few scenarios come to mind. For example, help could come from a person of high

status within the organization who decided that the employee should remain despite

there being other reasons for letting her go. Help could also come from a colleague

who is helping her accomplish her duties in the organization and hence enhancing the

employee’s effectiveness for the organization. Finally, the survival may be the result

of the organization being attentive to unique circumstances related to the employee

(e.g., recent death in the family or severe economic hardship) that lead to a decision

to let the employee remain in the organization.

In all of these cases we assume that, if not for the help given to the employee,

she would have had to leave the organization. Regardless of the question of who is

the helper and what the reason for help is, help from another is a cause that is external

to the individual, controllable by the other and unstable. In other words, in the future

help is not necessarily guaranteed. Considering such an attribution, one likely positive

emotional reaction expected on the part of the survivor is gratitude. Gratitude

represents the moral memory of mankind and is a mechanism for social cohesion

(Hareli & Weiner, 2002; McCullough et al., 2001). For the survivor to feel grateful

toward a particular person, the cause of a given positive outcome, such as survival,

must not only be external to the actor but must also be controllable by the help-giver,

with the resulting outcome intended by that helper. In addition, help giving must not

be perceived as motivated by personal benefit accruing to the helper resulting from

the help (McCullough et al., 2001; Ortony et al., 1988). For example, if a colleague

helped another because she was “forced to” by her supervisor, then the employee

receiving help is unlikely to be grateful toward the help-giver (but may feel gratitude


19

19

toward the manager; see Teigen, 1997; Tesser, Gatewood & Driver, 1968). Likewise,

gratitude is less likely to occur if the colleague offering help acted the way she did

only because she knew she is likely to be rewarded for her act.

Proposition 4. A survivor attributing her survival to help from another, who acted this

way out of her own goodwill, is expected to experience gratitude toward the helper.

Overall, gratitude is a positive emotion directed at another person, which is

expected to lead to positive attitudes and behaviors toward the helper. This prediction

is in line with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Social exchange is based on the

norm of reciprocity that dictates that we help and not harm those who help us

(Gouldner, 1960). This norm establishes the expectations that help, empowerment,

investment in human assets, and other positive actions on the part of others will be

returned. Therefore, gratitude expressed toward a certain individual can be seen as a

sign of one’s intention to cooperate and offer help in return. If the help is seen as

coming from the organization, then gratitude expressed toward the organization is

also expected to lead to OCB and increased trust and loyalty. Expressions of gratitude

tend to lead to positive moods and better physical functioning as well (Emmons &

Crumpler, 2000). These are factors that may also produce a better functioning

employee (see also Isen & Baron, 1991).

Along with gratitude, help from others may also elicit admiration toward the

helper (Ortony et al., 1988). Admiration is most likely to occur if the helper is

perceived to have a certain desirable quality such as very high ability. Moreover,

under these circumstances admiration is more likely to occur if the other is not

arrogant about her desirable quality (Hareli & Weiner, 2000; 2002). For example, if

the other person does not make explicit remarks that the help is the result of her


20

20

unique abilities. In addition, the mere fact that a certain individual took the initiative

and helped out, and thus, is seen as a positive person can also serve as an antecedent

of admiration. Admiration, like gratitude, is also expected to enhance social cohesion

and cooperation. When admiration is expressed toward a colleague, it can also lead to

imitation or adoption of desirable behaviors on the part of the helped employee and

thus both the employee and the organization can benefit. This suggests that managers

should encourage and reward help among colleagues as long as this does not mean

that one worker does another’s job.

Nevertheless, a survivor could equally well experience envy rather than

admiration toward the helper. Envy is more likely to occur if the desirable quality of

the other reflected by the act of help is a characteristic that is central to the survivor’s

definition of herself. This prediction follows the lines of Tesser’s self-evaluation

maintenance model (Tesser, 1988). This model predicts that a social comparison

resulting in an observer’s perception of herself as being disadvantaged as regards a

self-relevant dimension leads to decreased self esteem and bad feelings (Salovey &

Rodin, 1984; Tesser, Millar & Moore, 1988). Envy could increase work motivation by

motivating the employee to close the gap between herself and the other employee but

it could also lead to negative consequences. Among other things, envy could lead to

hostility (Smith, Parrot, Ozer & Moniz, 1994) and a propensity to leave the

organization (Vecchio, 2000) or hamper the work of the other as yet another way to

close the gap (Tesser, 1986). Awareness and attention to these possibilities could help

managers channel workers’ motivations toward ends that are beneficial rather than

destructive.


21

21

Proposition 5. A survivor attributing her survival to help from another and who views

that help as resulting from the other’s desirable qualities is expected to experience

either admiration toward the helper or envy depending on how relevant this quality is

to the survivor’s view of herself.

As in the case of envy, help may also lead to other negative emotions on the

part of a survivor. People occasionally see the help they receive from others in a

negative light because it poses a threat to their self-esteem. This claim is in line with

the “threat to self-esteem model” suggested by Nadler and Fisher (1986). This model

predicts that help will lead to negative reactions toward helpers if the help somehow

implies that the helped person is inferior or incapable. This may lead to anger,

resentment and even shame, which will result in negative attitudes and behaviors

toward the helper and/or the organization. Furthermore, if the fact that one was helped

becomes public and because of that the helped person is regarded by others as having

a low ability (Graham & Barker, 1990), the employee may end up feeling shamed and

humiliated and may decide to leave the organization. Finally, as mentioned earlier,

help from others tends to evoke the norm of reciprocity (McCullough et al., 2001).

This could make the survivor feel indebtedness and if she thinks she cannot

reciprocate, the result may be increased negative emotions such as guilt for accepting

the help and shame for needing the help in the first place. Guilt may also result from

comparing one’s situation to that of similar others who were not helped and hence

were dismissed. This analysis suggests that under certain circumstances help from

others can backfire and that in offering help one has to be cautious and sensitive to

these different factors.


22

22

Proposition 6. A survivor attributing her survival to help from another, who perceives

that help as a threat to the self, is expected to experience negative emotions such as

shame, anger, resentment and guilt.

Luck

Luck is typically construed as external to the individual, uncontrollable by her

and unstable. This means that luck is likely to be seen as a cause not attributable to

personal factors or to more stable situational factors (Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed,

Rest & Rosenbaum, 1971). Hence, an employee who believes that her survival was

due to luck is unlikely to experience positive emotions such as enhanced self-esteem

and pride. Given the unstable nature of luck and the fact that downsizing transmits a

message of organizational difficulties that can lead to other waves of dismissals,

employees attributing their survival to luck are likely to experience fear of future

layoffs.

Proposition 7. A survivor attributing her survival to luck is expected to experience

fear of future layoffs.

Research indicates that people tend to explain positive outcomes by referring

to luck particularly in situations in which a negative alternative outcome is perceived

to be close at hand (e.g., Teigen, 1997, 1998). Consequently, the decisive factor for

perceiving oneself as lucky is not the actual outcome itself, but rather the

counterfactual outcome – what could have happened. This research further indicates

that the worse the potential alternative outcome is perceived to be and the more

probable it is, the luckier the person sees herself to be when the opposite occurs.

Given the substantial personal implications of layoffs and the fact that downsizing

often involves high degree of uncertainty (Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998), these are two


23

23

factors that enhance survivors’ inclination to attribute their survival to luck.

Moreover, given these antecedents, they may see themselves as extremely lucky. This

may even lead to higher levels of fear and stress in survivors.

Proposition 8. High levels of uncertainty and greater personal implications of layoff

are likely to increase the chances that the survivor will view luck as the cause of her

survival.

Although luck as a cause for survival seems to lead to negative emotions that

result from worries about the future, survivors may also experience a positive emotion

of gratitude. Research on luck has noted that people who see themselves as lucky

because they barely escaped a negative fate are likely to experience gratitude (Teigen,

1997). Hence, in the present context too, it is expected that the more a survivor feels

lucky that she remained in the organization, the higher the level of gratitude she

experiences. However, given that luck is not controlled by anyone, the type of

gratitude one is likely to experience in this case is different than the gratitude

experienced toward a helper. In the present case the object of gratitude can be God,

any other superior power or a general entity such as nature etc.

Proposition 9. A survivor who thinks that her survival is the result of being lucky is

likely to experience gratitude toward a supernatural force or nature.

Overall, a survivor who feels that she was lucky to be retained by the

organization may try harder to maintain her job and hence take her work more

seriously and invest more effort. However, such a worker is also justly as likely to

show a more negative attitude and behavior toward work. After all, she was almost

laid off this time and another wave of downsizing is liable to take her with it. The

extent to which one type of attitude and behavior is more probable than the other one


24

24

depends, among other things, on the reasons why the survivor thinks that luck was the

cause for her outcome. If the employee thinks of the organization as a place where

arbitrary and unfair procedures dictate the order of things (an external cause), then she

will also think that things are not under one’s control and hence a negative attitude is

more likely. In such a case levels of trust and loyalty are expected to be low and the

likelihood for negative behaviors such as turnover and absenteeism will be high. This

idea is in line with studies and discussions suggesting a strong link between justice,

trust and survivors’ reactions to downsizing (Brockner, Tyler et al., 1992; Brockner,

Wiesenfeld et al., 1993; Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998). However, if the survivor thinks

that she was lucky and despite her low ability and/or low efforts (internal causes), the

organization decided to let her stay, then the consequences of attributing survival to

luck may be different. If the employee believes that she is able but did not invest

enough effort, then positive attitudes and behaviors are more probable. If, however,

lack of ability is apparent, then hopelessness may dominate one’s reaction and the

survivor’s functioning may be low and undesirable.

Overview and Comparative Analysis

Table 1 summarizes our main assertions concerning the emotions, attitudes

and behaviors likely to arise in surviving employees in the context of their survival as

a function of the perceived reason for survival. The table presents positive and

negative potential reactions separately; emotions are described in separate rows. This

table also serves as the basis for a comparison of the consequences of different causes

for survival.

-------------------------- Table 1 about here

--------------------------


25

25

The above analysis suggests that survivors are expected to experience a few

different emotions as a function of their perception of the causes for their survival.

Some emotions are positive (e.g., pride and admiration) and others are negative (e.g.,

envy and fear). Also, whereas some emotions have the self as their target (e.g., fear

and pride), for a few emotions another person is the target (e.g., envy and gratitude).

A closer look at Table 1 reveals that, while internal causes for survival are expected to

lead to positive emotions, external causes are associated with both types of emotions.

However, it seems that the weight of external causes for negative emotions is greater

than that of internal causes. The reason for this is that if a survivor survived due to an

external cause, then by inference she should have actually been laid off, considering

her personal attributes and behavior and their value to the organization. To elaborate,

unlike in the case of internal causes for success, the implications of external causes

for emotions, attitudes and behaviors depends on additional factors that are associated

with the circumstances of survival. Some of these factors can be seen as second order

causes for the outcome. Considering help, important information in this context is

why did this survivor need helped and why help was given to her. Likewise in the

case of luck, an important question involves why the survivor needed to be lucky in

order to survive. Accordingly, here too it seems that what determines more

specifically the emotional reaction is an internal cause that stands behind the external

one. The question becomes, for example, was one’s ability insufficient or did one not

invest enough effort? Or, alternatively, is the organization blind to one’s merits and

investments? As the analysis implies, these factors can further determine what the

personal and organizational implications of these external attributions would be.

On the whole, our analysis implies that in order for a downsizing procedure to

be effective, organizations must be sensitive to the fact that managerial decisions and


26

26

behaviors can have a bearing on the emotions, attitudes and behaviors of the

remaining employees. This suggestion is in line with several studies that indicate the

contribution of employees’ emotions and attitudes to successful downsizing. For

instance, using a sample of recently downsized hospitals, Chadwick, Hunter and

Walston (2004) found that showing consideration for employees’ morale and welfare

during downsizing was positively related to financial performance and the perceived

success of downsizing. In addition, Amundson, Borgen, Jordan and Erlebach (2004)

noted that “…the negative moods of other employees contributed to their own

negativity” (p. 262) and “…survivors who reported positive feelings had made a

conscious effort to maintain a positive attitude during the downsizing” (p. 263).

We further argue that managers must take steps to moderate the negative

influence of downsizing (Mishra, 1996) and foster as many as possible settings that

generate positive emotions. Another practical implication of our analysis is that in

order for an organization to gain the most from its survivors, it should work on

making survivors take personal pride in the decision to let them stay in the

organization. Among other ways, this can be done by helping survivors perceive the

reason for their remaining as internal, i.e., ability or effort. As already mentioned

above, it seems that the best attribution both from the point of view of the employee

and the organization would be a combination of these two attributions. Accordingly, it

is not only that hard working and capable workers are more likely to be better

workers; they are also more likely to survive the downsizing better if they understand

the real reason for their survival. Further investment, both professional and personal,

in such employees can help in convincing survivors that the organization indeed

appreciates their merits and efforts and hence it is willing to invest in them despite the

circumstances that brought about the downsizing.


27

27

In contrast, the situation for employees who remain due to help from others is

more complex. As explained above, this could lead to positive emotions such as

gratitude and admiration but also to negative ones such as envy and resentment.

Hence, organizations should carefully consider under which conditions they offer help

to survivors and how that help is offered. We believe that under conditions where the

help is deserved and given that the reason for survival is not stressed, help could work

to the benefit of the organization rather than hurt it. Here also HR policies must be

clear and well defined so that the decision to help an employee would seem fair and

justified. For example, if the decision to retain the employee comes from the

organization, the procedure that brought about this decision should be inherent to the

process of deciding who should survive and who should be laid-off. This idea fits the

general rules for procedural justice suggested by Leventhal, Karuza and Fry (1980).

This logic, on the whole, suggests that understanding and considerate

organizations are expected to profit more from downsizing than inconsiderate ones.

The former will more likely enjoy not only benefits such as decreased likelihood of

negative emotions, and increased positive emotions but also matching attitudes and

behaviors such as increased trust and loyalty and higher rates of OCB (Tzafrir et al.,

2004).

Finally, the most risky attribution from the points of view of both the

employee and the survivor is luck. Organizations should make every effort to avoid

the likelihood that their survivors will attribute their staying to luck. Luck is strongly

associated with arbitrariness, which has detrimental implications both for employees

and organizations as detailed above. The organizations that wish to benefit the most

from downsizing have to explain with sensitivity to employees why they survived


28

28

We believe that the above insights can help develop HR and HRD

interventions and policies that make a difference in a period of downsizing. If

organizations wish to benefit as much as possible from downsizing, they need to

prepare both employees and managers for the process of downsizing itself and for the

post-downsizing era. The better such preparation is, the higher the likelihood that

downsizing will fulfill its goals (see also Franco, 2006). Accordingly, an

understanding of the determinants of the emotions and accompanying behaviors of

survivors is a crucial tool in crafting adequate HR policies and appropriate

interventions aimed at preparing managers and employees alike for successful

downsizing.

Our analysis gives a few ideas as to how this can be achieved. Among other

things, management must make employees aware of how their merits and efforts

contributed to the decision to keep them in the organization. In addition, HRD efforts

should be devoted to preparing managers to help survivors cope with the situation in a

way that maximizes the likelihood that the emotions and behaviors of the latter will be

as much as possible conducive to the reorganization process. Similarly, such efforts

should be geared at preparing the managers themselves to cope with the psychological

consequences of this process. This can be achieved only if there is an understanding

of the emotional consequences of downsizing and what determines them. Our

analysis, we believe, is one example of such an understanding.

Although in our analysis we constrained ourselves by considering only a few

reasons that downsizing survivors may view as the reasons for their survival, and just

one perceived reason and one emotion at a time, we do not deny that in reality the

reaction may be more complex. Indeed, often emotional reactions combine more than


29

29

just one type of emotion simultaneously or at least in close temporal proximity. Also,

survivors may oscillate between different causes as being the reasons for their

survival or attribute it to more than just one reason. We believe that even if this is

most likely the case, the way to start to understand the phenomenon is by dissecting it

into bits that are manageable, such as in the way we did it in our analysis. Certainly,

despite this restriction, we managed to cover a relatively large set of different

potential emotions that survivors are likely to experience in the context of downsizing

(see Table 1). We also believe that the predictions stemming from this analysis must

be put to empirical tests both under controlled conditions in the lab and real-life field

research. Only after this is done, can we move further and get a more complex

understanding of the issues in questions by considering more emotions and causes at

once.

In all events, we believe, in accordance with previous analyses (e.g., Mishra &

Spreitzer, 1998), that only research that is driven by sound theoretical considerations

based on well established frameworks, such as the one we used here, can be effective

in advancing understanding of complex issues such as emotional reactions to

downsizing. Once erected, as we have done, this then can serve as a scaffold for

developing HR policies and HRD interventions geared at bettering the prospects of

downsizing succeeding—as often it fails because of the way survivors feel following

their survival (Cascio, 1993; Noer, 1993). We think that our analysis suggests that

undesirable feelings and behaviors associated with downsizing are not entirely an

unavoidable reality (see also, Morrall, 1999) and that there are ways to improve

survivors’ feelings or make them work to the benefit of all the stakeholders involved.


30

30

References

Amundson, N. E., Borgen, W. A., Jordan, S. & Erlebach, A. C. (2004). Survivors of

downsizing: Helpful and hindering experiences. The Career Development

Quarterly, 52, 256-271.

Anderson, C. A., Krull, D.S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Explanations: Processes and

consequences. In: Higgins E.T. & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.). Social psychology:

Handbook of basic principles, 271-296. New York: Guilford Press.

Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the

relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a

social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267-285.

Ashkanasy, N.M., Härtel, C.E.J., & Zerbe, W.J. (2000). Emotions in the work place:

Theory, research, and practice. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Averill, J. R. (1980). A constructivist view of emotion. In R. Plutchik and H.

Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research and experience: Vol. I. Theories

of emotion, 305-339. New York: Academic Press.

Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2000). The subtlety of emotions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley and

Sons Inc.

Brief, A. P. & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect at work. Annual

Review of Psychology, 53, 29-307.

Brockner, J., Davy, J., & Carter, C. (1985). Layoffs, self-esteem and survivor guilt:

Motivational, affective, and attitudinal consequences. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 16, 229-244.


31

31

Brockner, J., DeWitt, R. L., Grover, S., & Reed, T. (1990). When it is especially

important to explain why: Factors affecting the relationship between

managers’ explanations and survivors’ reactions to the layoff. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 389-407.

Brockner, J., Grover, S., O’Malley, M. N., Reed, T. F., & Glynn, M. (1993). Threat of

future layoffs, self-esteem, and survivors’ reactions: Evidence from the

laboratory and the field. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 153-166.

Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T., DeWitt, R., & O’Malley, M. (1987). Survivors’

reactions to layoffs: We get by with a little help for our friends. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 32, 526-542.

Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C., & Bies,

R. J. (1994). The interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome

negativity on victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management

Journal, 37, 397-409.

Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T. & Martin, C. (1997). When trust

matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administration

Science Quarterly, 42, 558-83.

Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R. & Cooper-Schneider (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. M., Reed. T. F., Grover, S. & Martin, C. (1993).

Interactive effect of job content and context on the reaction of layoff

survivors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 187-197.

Burke, R. & Leiter, M. P. (2000). Contemporary organizational realities and

professional efficacy: Downsizing, reorganization, and transition. In P. Dewe,


32

32

M. P. Leiter, & T. Cox (Eds.). Stress, coping, and health in organizations,

237-258. London: Taylor & Francis.

Emmons, R. A., & Crumpler, C.A. (2000). Gratitude as a human strength:

Appraising the evidence. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 56-

69.

Callahan, J.L. (2000). Emotion management and organizational functions: A case

study of patterns in a not-for-profit organization, Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 11, 245-267.

Cameron, K.S. (1994). Investigating organisational downsizing – fundamental issue.

Human Resource Management Journal, 33, 183-188.

Cascio, W. (1993). Downsizing, what do we know? What have we learnt? Academy of

Management Executive, 17, 95-104.

Chadwick, C., Hunter L.W., & Walston, S. M. (2004). The effects of downsizing

practices on hospital performance. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 405-

427.

Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). The emerging role of emotions in work

life: An introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 123-129.

Franco, G. (2006). Personal development and growth in a downsized banking

organization: Summary of methodology and findings. Human Resource

Development International, 9, 207-226.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General

Psychology, 2, 300–319.

Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The

effects of feelings on focus of attention and work motivation. In B. M. Staw &


33

33

L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 18, 1-53.

Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 47, 73-80.

Graham, S., & Barker, G. P. (1990). The down side of help: An attributional-

developmental analysis of helping behavior as a low-ability cue. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 82, 7-14.

Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2000). Accounts for success as determinants of perceived

arrogance and modesty. Motivation and Emotion, 17, 215-236.

Hareli, S. & Weiner, B. (2002). Social emotions and personality inferences: A

scaffold for a new research direction in the study of achievement motivation.

Educational Psychologist, 37, 183-193.

Hart, J. W., Bridgett, D. J., & Karau, S. J. (2001). Coworker ability and effort as

determinants of individual effort on a collective task. Group Dynamics:

Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 181-190.

Hodson, R. (1998). Pride in task completion and organizational citizenship behaviour:

Evidence from the ethnographic literature. Work and Stress, 12, 307-321.

Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational

behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in

organizational behavior, Vol. 13: Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T, Smith, E M & Hedlund, J. (1993). Organizational

downsizing: Strategies, interventions and research implications. In C. L.

Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, Vol 8, John Willey & Sons, New York.


34

34

Larsen, R. J., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. (2002). Emotion: Models, measures, and

individual differences. In R. Lord, R. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions

at work, 64-106. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lazarus, R. S., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2001). Discrete emotions in organizational life.

In R. L. Payne & G. L. Cooper (Eds.), Emotions at work: Theory, research

and applications for management, 45-81. Chichester, England: John Wiley &

Sons.

Leana, C. R., & Feldman. D.C. (1992). Coping with job loss: How individuals,

organizations, and communities respond to layoffs. New York: MacMillan.

Lepak, D. P., and Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a

theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management

Review, 24, 31-48.

Leventhal, G.S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W.R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of

allocation preferences. In: G. Mikula (Ed.). Justice and social interaction,

167-218. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lewis, M. 1993. Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. In

M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions, 563-573. New

York, London: Guilford.

Lewis, D., & Weigert, A.J. (1985). Trust as social reality. Social Forces, 63, 976-985.

Lord, R, G. Klimoski, R. J., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Emotions in the workplace:

Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is

gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249-266.


35

35

Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational response to crisis: The centrality of trust. In

Kramer, M. R. & Tyler, R. T (Eds.) Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory

and research: 261-287. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mishra, A. K., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1998). Explaining how survivors respond to

downsizing: The roles of trust, empowerment, justice, and work redesign.

Academy of Management Review, 23, 567-588.

Mossholder, K.W., Settoon, R. P., Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2000). Emotion

during organizational transformations: An interactive model of survivor

reactions. Group & Organization Management, 25, 220- 244.

Morrall, A. Jr. (1999). The survivor loyalty factor. Human Resource Development

Quarterly. 10, 95-99.

Nadler, A., & Fisher, J.D. (1986). The role of threat to self-esteem and perceived

control in recipient reactions to help: Theory development and empirical

validation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology,

Vol. 19, 81-122. New York: Academic Press.

Noer, D. (1993). Healing the wounds – Overcoming the trauma of layoffs and

revitalizing downsized organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nurmi, J.E. (1991). The effects of others’ influence, effort, and ability attributions on

emotions in achievement and affiliative situations. The Journal of Social

Psychology, 131, 703-715.

Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions.

New York: Cambridge University Press.


36

36

Osterman, P. (2000). Work reorganization in an era of restructuring: Trends in

diffusion and effects on employee welfare. Industrial and Labor Relations

Review, 53, 179-196.

Paterson, J. M., & Cary, J. (2002). Organizational justice, change anxiety, and

acceptance of downsizing: Preliminary tests of an AET-based model.

Motivation and Emotion, 26, 83-103.

Piotrowski, C., & Plash, S.H. (2006). Turnover and the educational consultant: An

OD intervention perspective. Organizational Development Journal, 24, 22-27.

Roseman, I. J., Antoniou, A. A., & Jose, P. E. (1996). Appraisal determinants of

emotions: Revising current theories. Cognition and Emotion, 10, 241-277.

Sahdev, K., Vinnicombe, S., Tyson, S. (1999). Downsizing and the changing role of

HR. International Journal of HRM, 10, 906-923.

Seider, M. (1984). A year in the life of a factory. San Pedro, CA: Singlejack Books.

Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of social-

comparison jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 780-

792.

Spector P.E, & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work

behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work. Human Resource

Management Review, 12, 269-292.

Struthers, C. W., Weiner, B., & Allred, K. G. (1998). Attributions and personnel

decisions: A social motivation perspective. Basic and Applied Social


Teigen, K. H. (1997). Luck, envy, and gratitude: It could have been different.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 313-323.


37

37

Teigen, K. H. (1998). Hazards mean luck: Counterfactual thinking and perceptions of

good and bad fortune in reports of dangerous situations and careless behavior.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39, 235-248.

Tesser, A. (1986). Some effects of self-evaluation maintenance on cognition and

action. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation

and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, 435–464. New York: Guilford.

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In

L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 21,

181-227. New York: Academic Press.

Tesser, A., Gatewood, R., & Driver, M. (1968). Some determinants of gratitude.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 233-36.

Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences of social

comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 49-61.

Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W. and Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative

approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in

employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1089-1121.

Tzafrir, S. S., Harel, G., Baruch, Y., and Dolan, L. S. (2004). The consequences of

emerging HRM practices for employees trust in their managers. Personnel

Review. 33, 628-647.

Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why do people help organizations?: Social identity and pro-

organizational behavior. B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research on

organizational behavior, Vol. 21, 201-246. Greenwich, CT: JAI.


38

38

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2002). Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be

better than others to feel good about ourselves? Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 89, 813-838.

Van Overwalle, F. Mervielde, I., & Schuyter, J. D. (1995). Structural modeling of the

relationship between attributional dimensions, emotions, and performance of

college freshmen. Cognition and Emotion, 9, 59-85.

Vecchio, R. P. (2000). Negative emotions in the workplace: Employee jealousy and

envy. International Journal of Stress Management, 7, 161-179.

Weiss, H. M. (2002). Conceptual foundations for the study of affect at work. In R. G.

Lord, R. Klimoski & R. Kanfer (Eds.) Emotions at work. New York: Jossey-

Bass.

Weiss, H. M. & Brief, A. P. (2001). Affect at work: An historical perspective. In R.

L. Payne and C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Working with emotions. Chichester,

England: J. Wiley and Sons.

Weiss, H. M. & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical

discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences

at work. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in

organizational behavior, Vol. 19, 1-74. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on

discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 786-794.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion, New York:

Springer-Verlag.


39

39

Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social

conduct. New York: Guilford.

Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. (1971).

Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In E. E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H.

H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution:

Perceiving the causes of behavior, 95-120. New York: General Learning

Press.

Weiner, B., Russell, D., & Lerman, D. (1979). The cognition-emotion process in

achievement-related contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

37, 1211-1220.

Weiner, B., Russell, D., & Lerman, D. (1978). Affective consequences of causal

ascriptions. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions

for attribution research, Vol. 2, 59-90. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wong, P.T.P., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask “why” questions, and the

heuristics of attributional research. Journal of Personality and Social



40

40

TABLE 1

Potential reactions to survival of organizational downsizing as a function of perceived

cause of survival

Cause for survival

Reaction Ability Internal, Stable, Uncontrollable

Effort Internal, Unstable,

Controllable

Help from others External, Unstable,

Controllable (by other)

Luck External, Stable, Uncontrollable

Positive Emotions Pride, Enhanced self-esteem, Hopefulness

Pride, Enhanced self-

esteem

Gratitude toward helper, Admiration

Gratitude toward superior power

(e.g., God)

Negative Emotions

Anger, Resentment, Guilt,

Hopelessness, Envy, Shame,

Feelings of indebtedness,

Decreased self- esteem

Fear, Hopelessness,

Stress

Positive Attitudes

and Behaviors OCB, Trust,

Loyalty, Low absenteeism,

Enhanced sense of employment security, Job satisfaction

OCB, Trust, Loyalty, Low

absenteeism, Job satisfaction

Social cohesion, cooperation, OCB,

Trust, Loyalty, Improved physical

functioning, Motivation

Increased effort

Negative Attitudes and

Behaviors

Hostility, Intention to leave,

Misbehavior

Low trust, High absenteeism, Misbehavior

causal attributions and emotions in downsizing 1 running...

Documents