causal attributions and emotions in downsizing 1 running...
Post on 28-Jun-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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 shareli@gsb.haifa.ac.il
and
Shay S. Tzafrir
University of Haifa Faculty of Social Welfare & Health Studies
Department of Human Services Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905
ISRAEL stzafrir@research.haifa.ac.il
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 shareli@gsb.haifa.ac.il
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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).
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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,
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in 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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
--------------------------
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in 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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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,
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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 &
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Psychology, 20, 155-166.
Teigen, K. H. (1997). Luck, envy, and gratitude: It could have been different.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 313-323.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
Psychology, 40, 650-663.
Causal attributions and emotions in downsizing
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
top related