Explaining How Survivors Respond To Downsizing: The Roles of Trust, Empowerment, Justice, and Work Redesign

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272581387
Explaining How Survivors Respond to

Downsizing: The Roles of Trust,
Empowerment, Justice, and Work Redesign
Article in The Academy of Management Review · July 1998

DOI: 10.2307/259295
CITATIONS READS
429 2,385
2 authors:
Aneil K Mishra Gretchen M. Spreitzer

East Carolina University University of Michigan
35 PUBLICATIONS 3,607 CITATIONS 90 PUBLICATIONS 11,470 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Restoring Trust in Higher Education: Making the Investment Worthwhile Again

View project
Trust and Leadership View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Aneil K Mishra on 05 March 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Explaining How Survivors Respond to Downsizing: The Roles of Trust, Empowerment,
Justice, and Work Redesign
Author(s): Aneil K. Mishra and Gretchen M. Spreitzer
Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Jul., 1998), pp. 567-588
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/259295 .
Accessed: 30/09/2014 14:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? Academy of Management Review
1998, Vol. 23, No. 3, 567-588.
EXPLAININGHOW SURVIVORSRESPONDTO
DOWNSIZING:THEROLESOF TRUST,
EMPOWERMENT, JUSTICE,AND WORK
REDESIGN
ANEIL K. MISHRA
Wake Forest University
Michigan State University
GRETCHEN M. SPREITZER
University of Southern California
In this article we develop a stress-based framework of survivors' responses to down-

sizing. First, we synthesize prior research findings into a topology of survivor re-
sponses delineated by two underlying dimensions: constructive/destructive and ac-
tive/passive. Drawing on Lazarus's theory of stress, we then posit that how survivors
appraise the downsizing will shape their responses to it. We argue that trust and
justice influence primary appraisal and facilitate more constructive responses be-
cause they reduce the extent to which organizational downsizing is evaluated as a
threat. Likewise, we argue that empowerment and work redesign influence secondary
appraisal and facilitate more active responses because they enhance survivors'
assessments of their capacity to cope with the threat. Finally, we discuss contribu-
tions of the framework and implications for research and practice.
During the last decade, downsizing has be- and consider downsizing to be an opportunity
come the strategy favored by many companies for personal growth (Emshoff, 1994; Henkoff,
attempting to cope with fundamental, structural 1994; Isabella, 1989). Indeed, empirical research-
changes in the world economy. The popular ers have documented a range of seemingly con-
press has suggested that downsizing does not tradictory survivor responses to downsizing. For
appear to be dissipating-60 percent of compa- example, following a downsizing announce-
nies plan to continue downsizing over the next ment, survivors have responded by working
few years (Peterson, 1996). Although laid-off harder, reducing their efforts, or not changing
workers have had to pay a high price, the effects their efforts at all (Brockner, Grover, & Blonder,
on employees who survive organizational down- 1988). Some survivors increase their good citi-
sizings have been substantial as well. Trust and zenship behaviors (Bies, Martin, & Brockner,
morale often erode as workloads increase and 1993), whereas others withdraw (Brockner, 1990).
job insecurity escalates (Fisher, 1991). More than One of our purposes in this article is to develop
one-half of survivors report increased job stress a typology of survivor responses that not only
and symptoms of burnout following downsizing synthesizes prior research but also identifies the
(Cascio, 1993). underlying dimensions of these varied re-
However, some survivors do not experience sponses.
emotional distress; instead, they are energized Our second purpose is to develop a theoretical
framework to explain the factors that influence
the different survivor responses identified in our
Both authors contributed equally to this paper; our names
appear alphabetically. We thank Dan Brass, Rocki-Lee De- typology. Thus, we draw on the Lazarus theory
Witt, Jane Dutton, Sarah Freeman, Steve Grover, Dan Ilgen, of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and its focus
Nancy Kurland, Michael Moch, Nandini Rajagopalan, on cognitive appraisal. Through primary ap-
Denise Rousseau, Maureen Scully, and three anonymous praisal, survivors evaluate the potential threat
reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of
this article. We also thank David Gabler and Lee Meiser for
of the downsizing. We posit that trust in man-
their editorial help. The article was revised while the first agement (because survivors believe that man-
author was visiting at Michigan State University. agement is competent, reliable, open, and con-
567

568 Academy of Management Review July
cerned about all stakeholders) and a perceived ence a lack of personal control and feel helpless
just implementation of the downsizing (because in the face of change.
survivors believe they will be treated fairly) will Likewise, if work is not redesigned to mini-
reduce threat assessments and, in turn, will mize overload or reductions in job autonomy
lead to more cooperative survivor responses. that typically accompany downsizing, then sur-
Through secondary appraisal, survivors evalu- vivors will see themselves as having less capac-
ate their capability for coping with the downsiz- ity to cope with the downsizing and will be more
ing. We posit that survivor empowerment (be- likely to respond passively. On the contrary,
cause of an enhanced sense of personal control) when survivors experience enhanced job variety
and the redesign of work (because of increased and autonomy, they will be more likely to take
intrinsic job quality) will increase survivors' an active role in the downsizing. Thus, because
sense that they have the capability to cope with trust, empowerment, and work redesign may
the downsizing and, in turn, will lead to more have important effects on survivor responses be-
active responses to the downsizing. yond the well-documented effects of justice, a
Many downsizing researchers have focused theoretical framework that includes these addi-
on one of these variables-justice-and its in- tional constructs should contribute to the litera-
teractions with outcome favorability (e.g., Brock- ture.
ner et al., 1994; Brockner, Wiesenfeld, & Martin, We organize the article as follows. After de-
1995), the nature of work (e.g., Brockner, Wiesen- fining downsizing, we introduce our typology of
feld, Reed, Grover, & Martin, 1993), individual survivor archetypes, which begins to synthesize
the growing body of research on survivor re-
differences of survivors (e.g., Brockner, Tyler, &
sponses to downsizing. We then provide an
Cooper-Schneider, 1992), and social ties with
overview of the Lazarus theory of stress and
victims (e.g., Brockner, Grover, Reed, DeWitt, &
discuss its relevance in explaining the wide
O'Malley, 1987). In our theoretical framework we
range of survivor responses to downsizing. We
build on this substantial body of research on
draw on the primary and secondary appraisal
justice by articulating how survivor trust, em-
processes central to the Lazarus theory to de-
powerment, and the redesign of work also may
velop our propositions, which explain how trust,
have powerful influences on survivors' re-
empowerment, justice, and work redesign affect
sponses to downsizing. With the exception of the range of survivor responses to downsizing
some recent work focusing on the relationship delineated in our typology. We conclude with a
between trust and justice (Brockner & Siegel, discussion of the potential contributions of the
1996; Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, & Martin, in framework, some directions for future research,
press), few authors have examined the effects of and some implications for practice.
these other constructs on survivors' responses.
Yet, trust, empowerment, and work redesign
may have important effects on survivors during A TYPOLOGYOF SURVIVORRESPONSES
downsizing. As we describe in our propositions, Many scholars define downsizing as a pur-
if survivors do not trust that top management is poseful reduction in the size of an organization's
concerned with the interests of all organization- workforce (Cameron, Freeman, & Mishra, 1991;
al stakeholders, is open and honest with em- Cascio, 1993). Downsizing is conceptually dis-
ployees, or is competent to lead the organization tinct from organizational decline, because its
through the downsizing, then survivors are more aim is the improvement of organizational effi-
likely to be threatened by the downsizing and to ciency, productivity, and competitiveness (Cam-
respond in destructive ways. Without trust, sur- eron et al., 1991; D'Aunno & Sutton, 1989; Kozlow-
vivors are more likely to either withdraw from ski, Chao, Smith, & Hedlund, 1993). Victims of
the organization or retaliate against manage- downsizing-that is, those who have lost their
ment and the downsizing implementation. jobs-have been studied extensively in prior re-
If survivors do not feel empowered to take an search (e.g., Latack, Kinicki, & Prussia, 1995;
active role in their work, then they will believe Leana & Ivancevich, 1987). Here, we focus on
they have less capacity to cope with the down- survivors of downsizing-that is, those who re-
sizing and will be more likely to respond pas- main employed at the organization-because
sively. Without empowerment, survivors experi- they can either facilitate or impede the out-

1998 Mishra and Spreitzer 569
comes of the downsizing (Davy, Kinicki, & survivors may work more hours without com-
Scheck, 1991). Some researchers have specu- pensation to help the organization through the
lated that intended outcomes, such as greater transition. In contrast, destructive survivors feel
productivity or profitability, do not result be- more threatened or evaluate more potential for
cause of poor survivor morale or implementa- harm from the downsizing and are less willing
tion problems (Cascio, 1993). to cooperate in implementing the downsizing.
Survivors may have a wide variety of re- For example, survivors may hoard resources
sponses to downsizing. We draw on Farrell's within their own department that could be better
(1983) exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect (EVLN) used elsewhere in the organization. This con-
framework in building our topology. Building on structive/destructive dimension is consistent
Hirschman (1970), Farrell (1983) argues that re- with the cooperative/uncooperative dimension
sponses to job dissatisfaction can be aligned in Thomas's (1976) model of conflict behavior.
along two separate dimensions: constructive/ An active survivor response reflects a belief
destructive and active/passive (see Figure 1). that the survivor can cope with the downsizing,
We apply these two dimensions to delineate the and is manifested as an assertive response. For
different survivor responses to downsizing. example, survivors may initiate efforts to iden-
Constructive survivors do not view significant tify redundancies in their unit or may offer in-
threat or harm from the downsizing and, thus, formal or formal protests to the downsizing. In
are willing to cooperate with top management contrast, passive survivors see themselves as
in implementing the downsizing. For example, having less ability to cope with the downsizing
FIGURE 1
Archetypes of Survivor Response
Constructive
Obliging responses Hopeful responses
Calm, relief Hope, excitement

Committed, loyal Optimism
Following orders, routine behavior Solving problems, taking initiative
"Faithful followers" "Active advocates"
Passive Active
Fearful responses Cynical responses
Worry, fear Anger, disgust

Anxiety, helplessness Moral outrage, cynicism
Withdrawing, procrastinating Badmouthing, retaliating
"Walking wounded" "Carping critics"
Destructive

and tend to have little personal initiative in re- the "retreat" quadrant in Robinson's (1992) typol-
sponding to the downsizing. For example, survi- ogy of responses to dissatisfaction, and the
vors may simply wait for their superiors to "avoiding" quadrant in Thomas's (1976) conflict
identify ways to reduce costs or eliminate un- framework.
necessary tasks. An active response deals with Those manifesting a fearful response might
the problem, whereas a passive response avoids be labeled the "walking wounded" of the or-
or neglects the problem (Rusbult, Farrell, Rog- ganization. Because they believe they can be
ers, & Mainous, 1988). This dimension is consis- harmed by the downsizing, fearful survivors
tent with the assertive/unassertive dimension commonly experience fright, depression, and
found in Thomas's (1976) framework of conflict worry. Typical cognitive responses associated
behavior. with this archetype might be anxiety (Astra-
The juxtaposition of these two dimensions re- chan, 1995), reduced concentration (Kets de Vries
sults in four archetypes of survivor responses to & Balazs, 1997), a sense of being out of control
downsizing: (1) fearful, (2) obliging, (3) cynical, (cf., Folkman, 1984; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984),
and (4) hopeful. The hopeful and obliging re- and helplessness (Seligman, 1975). These survi-
sponses are constructive, because they reflect vors may reduce their level of commitment to the
survivors' beliefs that they will not be unduly organization, because they identify with the loss
threatened or harmed by the downsizing. In con- of respected coworkers and friends (Brockner et
trast, the fearful and cynical responses are deal., 1987).
structive, because survivors believe there is sig- Behaviorally, these survivors tend to with-
nificant potential for threat or harm from the draw from work (Brockner, 1988) and procrasti-
downsizing. Likewise, hopeful and cynical re- nate about decision making (Kets de Vries &
sponses are active, because survivors believe Balazs, 1997). Because they believe that they
they have the capability to cope with the down- have few resources to cope with the downsizing,
sizing. In contrast, obliging and fearful re- they may attempt to escape through absentee-
sponses are passive responses to the downsiz- ism and lateness (Robinson, 1992) or by focusing
ing, because survivors do not believe they have on nonwork interests and activities (Withey &
the capability to cope with the downsizing. Cooper, 1989).
Our survivor archetypes capture the emotions,
cognitions, and behaviors that survivors use to
The Obliging Response: "Faithful Followers"
cope with the stress of downsizing (Kets de Vries
& Balazs, 1997). Similar to the EVLN typology Similar to fearful survivors, obliging survivors
(Withey & Cooper, 1989), our archetypes are af- do not believe that they have the personal re-
fective, cognitive, and behavioral composites. sources to adequately cope with the downsizing.
To help explicate the similarities and differ- However, unlike fearful survivors, obliging sur-
ences across the archetypes, we discuss the var- vivors view the downsizing as less threatening,
ious emotional, cognitive, and behavioral com- with less potential for personal harm. Fearful
ponents of each archetype below (Smith, survivors believe that the downsizing is inimi-
Haynes, Lazarus, & Pope, 1996). However, we cal to their interests and that nothing can be
note that not every survivor will experience all done about it, whereas obliging survivors be-
of the components of a specific archetype but lieve that the downsizing is basically benign
may experience different components selec- and are willing to go along with what is ex-
tively. pected of them, because doing so is not expected
to lead to harm. Consequently, obliging survi-
vors are constructive, yet passive, in their re-
The Fearful Response: "Walking Wounded"
sponses (see Figure 1).
Fearful survivors consider the downsizing as The obliging archetype is consistent with the
potentially harmful and believe that they have "accommodating" quadrant of Thomas's (1976)
few resources to cope. Consequently, these sur- typology and the "loyal" quadrant of the EVLN
vivors are destructive and passive in their re- framework (Farrell, 1983). We prefer the label
sponse to a downsizing (see Figure 1). The fear- "obliging" to "loyal," because loyalty often has
ful archetype corresponds to the "neglect" been portrayed in the management literature as
quadrant in the EVLN framework (Farrell, 1983), active or self-directed support (Withey & Cooper,

1989). We conceptualize such active loyalty as a sense of moral outrage (Bies, 1987), cynicism,
more consistent with the hopeful response, or the perception of a blatant violation of the
which we describe below. The obliging re- psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995). Be-
sponse might be more appropriately considered cause they believe that they have the personal
"blind" loyalty (Graham, 1986). resources to cope with the downsizing, cynical
Whereas fearful survivors might be labeled survivors' behavioral response is proactive-
the "walking wounded," obliging survivors more so than the fearful or obliging survivors
could be called "faithful followers." Emotion- described above.
ally, obliging survivors are not highly aroused Cynical survivors have a voice, but that voice
and are likely to feel calm, relief, or even grati- tends to be destructive; they militate against the
tude because they do not feel personally threat- downsizing process rather than support it. They
ened by the downsizing. Cognitively, these sur- may challenge or "badmouth" management dur-
vivors are likely to be committed and loyal to the ing the downsizing (Cameron, Freeman, &
organization, in spite of the problems it may be Mishra, 1993) and, at the extreme, may engage in
experiencing. Behaviorally, instead of with- acts of vandalism, retaliation, or sabotage (Kets
drawing from the organization or procrastinat- de Vries & Balazs, 1997; Robinson, 1992). In sum,
ing-as is the case for fearful survivors- the cynical response includes survivors who
obliging survivors tend to respond to a question or even interfere with the downsizing
downsizing by following orders obediently. Be- process, rather than cooperate with manage-
cause they believe they have few personal re- ment to implement the downsizing.
sources for coping with the downsizing, these
survivors are apt to wait willingly for conditions
The Hopeful Response: "Active Advocates"
to improve and to stick with the job through
good times and bad (Robinson, 1992; Rusbult et The hopeful response is the opposite of the
al., 1988). fearful response; survivors in this quadrant be-
Although they cooperate in implementing the lieve they have the resources to cope with and
downsizing, obliging survivors are largely com- do not feel threatened by the downsizing. Thus,
pliant and accommodating, accepting the goals hopeful survivors are both active and construc-
and objectives given to them by management tive (see Figure 1). The hopeful archetype shares
(Rusbult et al., 1988). These survivors do not ag- the constructive orientation of the obliging ar-
gressively seek out new courses of action but, chetype (i.e., these survivors are not particularly
instead, stick to familiar ways of doing their threatened by the potential for harm from the
work. downsizing) and the active orientation of the
cynical archetype (i.e., the survivors believe that
they can actively cope with the downsizing).
The Cynical Response: "Carping Critics"
This archetype is consistent with the "collabo-
Unlike the obliging survivors we discuss ration" quadrant of Thomas's (1976) framework
above, cynical survivors believe that they have and the "voice" quadrant of both the EVLN
the personal resources to cope with the down- framework (Farrell, 1983) and Robinson's (1992)
sizing. Like fearful survivors, cynical survivors typology of responses to dissatisfaction.
feel personally threatened that they can be An appropriate label for these survivors might
harmed by the downsizing. Thus, they are active be "active advocates." Because they do not feel
and destructive in their response (see Figure 1). particularly threatened, this archetype is mani-
The cynical response corresponds to the "com- fested emotionally in survivors by excitement
peting" quadrant in Thomas's (1976) model and about the future and hope that things will get
the "destruction" response to dissatisfaction in better with time. Cognitively, because hopeful
Robinson's typology (1992). survivors believe they have the resources to ef-
An appropriate label for these survivors might fectively cope with the downsizing, they tend to
be "carping critics." Emotionally, these survi- be optimistic about the outcome of it (Smith et
vors are highly aroused and are likely to feel al., 1996). They experience a sense of ownership
anger, disgust, and resentment, because they in helping to enhance the performance of the
see significant potential for personal harm. This organization (O'Neill & Lenn, 1995; Robinson,
survivor archetype is cognitively manifested by 1992).

Behaviorally, this quadrant reflects active and sizing. Thus, although the off-diagonal re-
constructive efforts of survivors to improve con- sponses may be less frequent, they may still
ditions by discussing problems or taking actions have important effects on organizational activi-
to solve them (Rusbult et al., 1988). Rather than ties.
just following orders, as is the case with oblig- In addition, we suggest that survivors may
ing survivors, hopeful survivors are not afraid to shift from one quadrant into another throughout
take risks or to develop novel ways to improve the downsizing process-that is, survivor re-
things. Such hopeful responses have been doc- sponses are dynamic. Employees may progress
umented in the downsizing literature as good (see Beehr & Gupta's, 1978, progression theory)
citizenship behaviors (Bies et al., 1993) and job from responses that require little cost or energy
involvement (Brockner et al., 1988). In contrast to to more costly or demanding responses (Robin-
cynical survivors, who fight against the down- son, 1992). In other words, employees progress
sizing, hopeful survivors support the organiza- from less to more intense responses as dissatis-
tion and find ways to fulfill the objectives of the faction persists (Rusbult et al., 1988).
downsizing effort. In our framework individuals who initially ex-
hibit a fearful response may become more oblig-
ing because of management's use of fair proce-
Discussion of the Archetypes
dures for selecting layoff victims. Similarly,
Although we categorize survivor responses obliging survivors may become more hopeful if
into these four archetypes, their actual re- management enriches survivors' jobs as the
sponses may fall anywhere along the two un- downsizing is being implemented. Such shifts
derlying dimensions; this means that survivors might be part of a virtuous cycle when employ-
may exhibit hybrid responses in coping with the ees become more active and constructive
downsizing mandate. For example, individuals through the downsizing.
may exemplify aspects of both the cynical and In contrast, survivors also can become more
hopeful responses by being strongly critical of passive and destructive over time, if the down-
the organization's downsizing efforts-but in a sizing is implemented differently. A destructive
constructive manner. Indeed, if the organiza- shift from a hopeful to a cynical response may
tion's efforts are misguided, a rebellious critic take place if management reneges on promises
may be just what the organization needs. These or allocates workloads inequitably. A vicious
critics are clearly constructive, for they have the cycle can take place if these cynical survivor
organization's long-term interests at heart; how- responses are met with further management ac-
ever, top management may initially view their tions deemed undesirable by survivors.
efforts as destructive to their own well-laid In the following section we draw on the Laza-
plans for implementing the downsizing. Such rus stress theory to develop a theoretical frame-
hopeful critics have enough faith in the organi- work that articulates some of the key factors that
zation to believe that their disobedient efforts may influence which survivor responses are
will lead to positive change. most likely to occur in a downsizing situation.
Although the two underlying dimensions are
conceptually distinct, we do not view them as A STRESS-BASEDFRAMEWORK OF
mutually exclusive in practice. Thus, we might
SURVIVORS'RESPONSES
expect more survivor responses to fall in the
"on-diagonal" archetypes (i.e., fearful or hope- We ground our framework in Lazarus's stress
ful) than in the "off-diagonal" archetypes. The theory,' where stress is conceptualized as a pro-
off-diagonal responses are, nevertheless, impor- cess in which environmental stressors are me-
tant areas for study. For example, the cynical diated by cognitive appraisal, which, in turn,
response may have an important effect on the leads to individual coping responses (Folkman,
organization, particularly when it is manifested Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986; Lazarus &
in such behaviors as employee violence. In con- Folkman, 1984). Cognitive appraisal is the pro-
trast, obliging survivors, who work with top
management to implement the downsizing as
mandated, may be necessary to get the organi- 1 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this helpful sug-
zation back on its feet after the tumult of down- gestion.

cess of evaluating or "categorizing an encoun- ening or harmful (i.e., primary appraisal), they
ter, and its various facets, with respect to its are likely to respond less constructively. When
significance for well-being" (Lazarus & Folk- survivors believe they can effectively cope with
man, 1984: 31). According to Lazarus, there are the downsizing (i.e., secondary appraisal), they
two types of cognitive appraisal: primary and are likely to respond more actively.
secondary. Through primary appraisal, individ- In our theoretical framework we identify what
uals evaluate the potential threat of the stressor. we believe are the key factors influencing sur-
Through secondary appraisal, individuals eval- vivors' primary and secondary appraisals of
uate their own resources and capability for cop- downsizing. We suggest that trust in manage-
ing with the stressor. Both appraisals, in turn, ment and justice in the implementation process
influence a wide range of coping responses, reduce perceptions of threat stemming from the
which refer to individuals' emotional and be- downsizing and, thus, facilitate more construc-
havioral efforts to deal with the stressful en- tive survivor responses. We also suggest that
counter (Folkman et al., 1986). In summary, empowerment and work redesign play impor-
which coping responses occur will depend on tant buffering roles, serving as antidotes to en-
how the individual appraises the environmental hance survivors' sense that they can cope with
stressor (Lazarus, 1993). the downsizing, thus facilitating more active
We utilize Lazarus's theory of stress to explain survivor responses. We illustrate the theoretical
survivor responses to downsizing for a number framework in Figure 2.
of reasons. First, downsizing reflects a poten-
tially stressful encounter for survivors (Brockner
Factors Shaping Primary Appraisal and
et al., 1988), stemming, in part, from its inherent
Survivor Responses
ambiguity (Sutton, 1987). Harm or "an irrevoca-
ble loss" (Lazarus, 1993: 5) may be one view In this section we describe two factors that
survivors have of downsizing, for they may have shape the primary appraisal process by reduc-
lost valued coworkers or been subjected to pay ing the evaluation of the threat inherent in the
cuts to preserve their own jobs. Threat or "antic- downsizing. First, trust in top management min-
ipation of harm that has not yet taken place" imizes the categorization of threat by helping
(Lazarus, 1993: 5) may be an alternative view, for survivors to understand and believe in manage-
survivors may fear that they could lose their ment's intentions and expected behavior. Sec-
own jobs in the future (Greenhalgh & Rosen- ond, the perceived justness of the downsizing
blatt, 1984), that fewer promotional opportunities implementation reduces the degree to which the
will be available as hierarchies are flattened downsizing is evaluated as threatening by re-
(Sutton & D'Aunno, 1989), or that smaller pay ducing the ambiguity of the expected outcome
raises may become the norm as cost cutting is from the encounter (cf., Folkman, 1984). Because
emphasized (Brockner, Grover, O'Malley, Reed, trust in management and a perceived just im-
& Glynn, 1993). Moreover, survivors may antici- plementation of downsizing both work to reduce
pate workload increases since fewer people are the appraised threat inherent in downsizing, we
available to do the required work (Sutton, 1990). argue that they will lead to more constructive
Challenge or "an opportunity for growth, mas- survivor responses.
tery or gain" (Folkman, 1984: 840) is another way Trust in top management. Granovetter (1985)
in which survivors may view downsizing; they and Lewis and Weigert (1985) define trust as a
may learn new skills as they take over the re- willingness to be vulnerable to others, based on
sponsibilities of the downsized victims. the prior belief that those others are trustworthy
The Lazarus theory of stress is also relevant (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Mishra, 1996;
because it posits that how individuals respond Sitkin & Roth, 1993). Being vulnerable means
to a stressful situation will depend on how they that a significant potential for loss exists for an
construe or appraise it. Thus, primary and sec- individual (Deutsch, 1973; Luhmann, 1979; Zand,
ondary appraisal processes can be used to help 1972). In a downsizing context, this willingness
predict under what conditions we might expect to be vulnerable may be manifested in high-
the different archetypes in our typology of sur- performing survivors who remain with the or-
vivor responses. According to our typology, ganization, even though they could get good
when survivors appraise downsizing as threat- jobs elsewhere. It also may be manifested by a

FIGURE 2
Theoretical Framework of Survivor Responses to Downsizing
Survivor responses
|Trust Constructive A
Obliging Hopeful
0 *, ',$
degree threat
Fearful Cynical
Justice Destructive
Passive Active
. .. .. i. .. -j.t
Empowerment Work redesign
belief in top management's assurances that appraisals, because survivors believe that top
downsizing will improve competitive advan- management is acting not only in its own in-
tage, despite initial evidence indicating the con- terests. Survivors who believe that manage-
trary. Survivors might make significant pur- ment is competent may also appraise the
chases (perhaps buying a house) after a promise downsizing as less threatening because they
that no additional layoffs will occur, only to view top management as capable of enhanc-
have those promises broken and their jobs lost ing the organization's competitive position.
(New York Times, 1996). Survivors who believe that top management is
Scholars have documented several key di- reliable may also be less threatened, because
mensions of trustworthiness, including a con- they believe that top managers will keep their
cern for others' interests, competence, open- promises. Finally, survivors who believe that
ness, and reliability (Hart & Saunders, 1997; top management is being open and honest
Mayer et al., 1995; Mishra, 1996). Each dimen- about what is happening (O'Neill & Lenn, 1995)
sion additively contributes to a party's trust- may be less threatened because uncertainty is
worthiness. We use these dimensions to ex- reduced. Nevertheless, the fact that trust may
plain the logic for why trust may lead to less be violated in each of these instances (i.e.,
threatening primary appraisals. A belief that management may be self-interested, lack the
management is concerned about the best in- skills to lead the organization through the re-
terests of survivors leads to less threatening structuring, break its promises, or withhold

important information) reflects the vulnerabil- Proposition lb. Survivors who trust top
ity of trust. management during the implementa-
Because trust facilitates less threatening ap- tion of the downsizing will be likely to
praisals of the downsizing, it is likely to foster exhibit constructive (i.e., hopeful or
more constructive survivor responses. In gen- obliging) responses.
eral, trust allows individuals to cooperate with
others because it minimizes the threat of mal- Justice. Brockner and his colleagues have pro-
feasance (Fukuyama, 1995; Golembiewski & Mc- duced a significant body of research showing
Conkie, 1975). More specifically, a belief that top that perceptions of justice or fairness have a
management is concerned about the interests of strong influence on survivors' responses to a
employees enhances constructive responses, downsizing activity (e.g., Brockner, Tyler, &
because survivors presumably are willing to Cooper-Schneider, 1992; Brockner, Wiesenfeld,
further their own interests. When top managers Reed, Grover, & Martin, 1993). Three different
are reliable in keeping promises and open in elements of justice have been identified: (1) dis-
sharing information, they reduce uncertainty tributive, (2) procedural, and (3) interactional
and ambiguity for survivors. Lower ambiguity (Brockner & Siegel, 1996). In the following para-
and uncertainty allow individuals to work to- graphs we explain how each element of justice
gether more easily to deal with a stressful en- may mitigate the threat of downsizing in the
counter (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). A belief that primary appraisal process and, in turn, facili-
top management is competent may also lead to tate more constructive survivor responses.
constructive responses, because survivors feel Distributive justice. Distributive justice re-
comfortable supporting top management's vi-
flects the fairness of the outcomes resulting from
sion of the future. For these reasons higher lev-
the downsizing (Brockner & Greenberg, 1990). In
els of trust prior to the downsizing are likely to
prior research on distributive justice, authors
lead to constructive survivor responses during
have focused on how survivors perceive the out-
the downsizing process.
comes for victims (e.g., adequacy of outplace-
ment assistance and severance pay; Brockner,
Proposition la. Survivors who trust top
DeWitt, Grover, & Reed, 1990; Brockner et al.,
management prior to downsizing will
be likely to exhibit constructive (i.e., 1994; Rousseau & Anton, 1988). Because survi-
vors identify with victims, often viewing them as
hopeful or obliging) responses.
valued friends or colleagues (Brockner et al.,
As defined previously, trust is a dynamic con- 1987; Brockner et al., 1994), perceptions of distrib-
struct reflecting an individual's beliefs about utive justice will influence the survivors' ap-
person-environment relationships. Thus, we praisal of the downsizing. If victims receive gen-
suggest that the subsequent levels of trust that erous benefits, survivors can be expected to
evolve during downsizing also will affect survi- appraise the downsizing as less threatening, be-
vor responses. For example, a survivor may cause they anticipate that they will receive sim-
forego an interview with another company and ilar benefits should they lose their own jobs.
cooperate during implementation of the down- A second element of distributive justice,
sizing following the promise of no further lay- which scholars have given less attention, is the
offs. If another layoff is announced, initial levels extent to which the burden of the downsizing is
of trust may erode, even if the survivor is not shared across levels of the organizational hier-
affected immediately. In contrast, a survivor archy. For example, in one organization execu-
who initially has low levels of trust in top man- tives received significant performance bonuses
agement may find the downsizing implemented at the same time that lower-level employees
in a way that enhances his or her trust in man- were laid off with minimal severance packages
agement (e.g., top management keeps it prom- (Dial & Murphy, 1995). We suggest that resource
ises or shares sensitive information). Thus, be- allocations favoring top management at the ex-
cause initial levels of trust may change during pense of survivors or victims will result in more
the course of the downsizing, we suggest that threatening appraisals; in such cases survivors
subsequent levels of trust also may have an are likely to believe that the allocation of scarce
influence on survivor responses. resources has been unfair and that they will

suffer disproportionately (Brockner & Green- Advance notice-another component of proce-

berg, 1990). dural justice (Brockner et al., 1994; Kozlowski et
Because distributive justice facilitates less al., 1993)-allows individuals to respond con-
threatening appraisals, we suggest that it will structively, because the probability of an unex-
lead to more constructive survivor responses. pected downsizing has been minimized. Rather
Thus, if survivors believe that the victims of the than feeling incapacitated by anxiety about fu-
downsizing receive fair outcomes, they will be ture downsizings, with assurances of advance
less likely to consider top management as ad- notice, survivors can lower their defenses be-
versarial-rather, as helpful in easing the tran- cause they will be given adequate time to pre-
sition for victims-and will respond more pare for downsizings in the future. Thus, ad-
constructively. Furthermore, if the burdens vance notice can reduce assessments of threat
shouldered by downsizing survivors are distrib- (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984: 95), thereby increas-
uted fairly (e.g., across-the-board pay cuts or ing constructive survivor responses.
budget reductions based on equality or need),
Proposition 3. Survivors who appraise
survivors will feel less need to defend scarce
the downsizing as procedurally just
resources and will be more likely to work con-
will be likely to exhibit constructive
structively with management in implementing
(i.e., hopeful and obliging) responses.
the downsizing. Sharing the burden across lev-
els of the hierarchy creates the perception that Interactional justice. Recent formulations of
everyone is "in this together," thus reducing de- interactional justice focus on at least three types
fensiveness and increasing survivors' construc- of social accounts-or verbal strategies-used
tive behavior. to minimize the apparent severity of the encoun-
ter (Bies, 1987; Brockner & Greenberg, 1990; Tyler
& Bies, 1990): (1) causal accounts that focus on
the downsizing as distributively just
credible mitigating circumstances for the down-
sizing (e.g., "We had to lay off workers because
(i.e., hopeful or obliging) responses.
of an economic recession that was beyond our
Procedural justice. Procedural justice reflects control"), (2) ideological accounts that link the
the fairness of the processes used to implement downsizing to a vision of the organization's fu-
the downsizing (Brockner & Greenberg, 1990). It ture (e.g., "Laying off workers will help improve
has typically been operationalized in terms of our company's competitive advantage in the fu-
the decision rule to determine who is laid off ture"), and (3) penitential accounts that focus on
and in terms of the amount of advance notice the interpersonal treatment of those who are
provided to victims (Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper- affected by the downsizing (e.g., "We are really
Schneider, 1992; Brockner et al., 1994). A decision sorry to have had to resort to layoffs"). Research-
rule based on merit (where poorer-performing ers have shown that offering explanations of
employees or those with less potential are laid why the unpopular events must happen amelio-
off first) contributes to perceptions of procedural rates negative reactions and promotes the belief
fairness (Brockner, 1988). In order to be perceived that the decision makers' acts were fair and the
as fair, management should ground merit-based result of good judgment (Bies, 1987).
decision rules in a well-established perfor- Regarding the first type of social account,
mance management system and should link survivors may consider the rationale for the
them to the future mission of the organization downsizing as justifiable when it addresses the
(Lind & Tyler, 1988). When the decision rule is mitigating circumstances in the external envi-
based on merit, a survivor is more likely to ap- ronment, rather than the enrichment of share-
praise the downsizing as predictable and, holders or top management (Brockner & Green-
hence, less threatening; therefore, in such cases berg, 1990; Brockner et al., 1994; Kleinfeld, 1996).
we expect survivors to respond more construc- Survivors are less likely to be threatened if they
tively. In contrast, when survivors perceive the can clearly understand how external factors ne-
decision rule to be politically based or random, cessitated the downsizing, because those exter-
they are less likely to see the implementation as nal factors may eliminate "a worst-case reading
fair and more likely to retaliate against the in- of a harmdoer's intentions" (Bies, 1987: 303).
justice of the system. Perceptions of intentionality can magnify the

perception of injustice and, thus, increase the eled in empirical tests of the theoretical frame-
assessment of threat, which, in turn, decreases work.
the probability of constructive survivor re-
sponses.
Factors Shaping Secondary Appraisal and
Regarding the second type of social account,
Survivor Responses
communicating a clear vision of how the down-
sizing will benefit all stakeholders also reduces Through secondary appraisal, individuals
the threatening nature of the downsizing, be- evaluate what, if anything, can be done to over-
cause survivors can see hope for the future. This come or prevent harm. Beliefs about the kinds of
type of social account reframes the act of down- resources available to the individual to cope
sizing by placing it in a broader context that will with the downsizing influence the secondary ap-
legitimate the action (e.g., "We have to take this praisal process and will lead to more active
drastic action now because it will help our or- survivor responses. In this section we describe
ganization to thrive in the future;" Bies, 1987). two factors-(1) personal beliefs about empow-
When survivors have hope in the future of the erment in the work role and (2) work redesign-
organization, they will be more likely to respond that we suggest will enhance survivors' evalu-
constructively because they can understand ations that they can cope with the downsizing
how the downsizing can enhance competitive and that will, in turn, lead to more active survi-
advantage. vor responses.
Regarding the third type of social account, if Empowerment. "Appraisals of personal con-
survivors are treated humanely and with dig- trol are a key part of secondary appraisal ...
nity, it is likely that they will respond construc- they refer to the person's judgment or belief
tively, because they feel valued and appreci- about the possibilities for control in a specific
ated by the organization. This type of account encounter" (Folkman, 1984: 842). Layoffs are
commonly involves an apology and a public ex- likely to threaten survivors' sense of control;
pression of remorse (Bies, 1987). In contrast, if therefore, factors that affect a sense of control
survivors are ignored or blamed for the down- before and during downsizing are likely to be
sizing, it is likely that they will be threatened by important in mitigating the helplessness often
the downsizing. Thus, they will be likely to re- experienced by survivors during downsizing
spond destructively, because they feel violated (Brockner, 1988). Empowerment reflects a per-
by the treatment of top management. sonal sense of control in the workplace as man-
ifested in four beliefs about the person-work
environment relationship: (1) meaning, (2) com-
the downsizing as interactionally just
petence, (3) self-determination, and (4) impact
(Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
(i.e., hopeful and obliging) responses.
Meaning reflects a sense of purpose or per-
Prior research suggests that trust and justice sonal connection about work. Competence indi-
may not only have independent effects but may cates that individuals believe they have the
also have joint effects on survivor responses. skills and abilities necessary to perform their
Brockner and his colleagues have found that work well. This sense of competence is consis-
procedural and interactional justice may engen- tent with Bandura's (1989) notion of efficacy ex-
der higher levels of trust over time (Brockner & pectancy (i.e., the conviction that people can
Siegel, 1996; Brockner et al., in press). In addi- successfully execute behaviors required to pro-
tion, trust may interact with different dimen- duce outcomes). Self-determination reflects a
sions of justice to stimulate even higher levels of sense of freedom about how individuals do their
constructive survivor responses. For example, own work. Impact describes a belief that indi-
researchers have shown that the degree of trust viduals can influence the system in which they
interacts with distributive justice to influence are embedded, which is consistent with Bandu-
how survivors respond to downsizing (Brockner ra's (1989) notion of outcome expectancy.
& Siegel, 1996; Brockner et al., in press). Because Unlike more popular conceptions of empower-
these joint effects have been developed in prior ment, this definition does not imply an align-
work, we do not offer specific propositions for ment with the vision of the organization. Thus, it
them, but we caution that they should be mod- is possible for empowered employees not to be

aligned with the vision of the organization and, ered, however, employees do not feel as though
instead, to work to further their self-interests. they are mere "cogs" in a machine but more
These are the "loose cannons" that organiza- active shapers of the organization (Bell & Staw,
tions fear will result from empowerment. In ad- 1989).
dition, this definition conceptualizes empower- Self-determination and impact can add cer-
ment as residing within the survivor, rather than tainty to a context of ambiguity and facilitate
in a set of management practices; thus, it re- less rigid or mechanistic survivor responses
flects a set of beliefs about personal control in (Sutton & D'Aunno, 1989; Sutton & Kahn, 1987).
the work environment. Individuals who believe that they can influence
The four dimensions we describe above help the organization will be more likely to proac-
to explain why empowerment should influence tively respond to a stressful event, because they
secondary appraisal. The more survivors be- feel a greater sense of personal control (Green-
lieve they have a sense of meaning, the more berger & Strasser, 1986; Greenberger, Strasser, &
they can rely on their own sense of purpose and Lee, 1988). Likewise, researchers using the EVLN
direction in coping with the ambiguity inherent framework have found that sufficient personal
in the downsizing. Second, the more survivors control contributes to more proactive responses
believe that they have the competence neces- to dissatisfaction (Withey & Cooper, 1989).
sary to perform well in the changing environ- The competence dimension of empowerment
ment, the more they see themselves as having should also facilitate more active survivor re-
the personal resources to cope with the changes sponses. Weick (1988) argues that individuals
in work associated with the downsizing. Third, who believe they have "capacity" ("compe-
the more survivors have a sense of self-determi- tence," in our empowerment terminology) will
nation, the more they see themselves as having
be less defensive and will see more opportuni-
choices about or control over how to cope with
ties to deal with a stressor. These competence
the downsizing. Fourth, the more survivors be-
beliefs also expand individuals' responses for
lieve that they can have an impact on the down-
dealing with stressful events (Weick, 1988). Feel-
sizing implementation, the more likely they will
ings of competence provide the self-confidence
believe they have the personal power to cope
(Bandura, 1989) required to take risks, try new
with outcomes associated with the downsizing.
things, and be innovative (Spreitzer, 1995). Com-
Thus, each of the four dimensions should en-
petence also affects individuals' willingness to
hance survivors' sense of personal control in the
secondary appraisal process. persist in the face of obstacles and adverse ex-
We suggest that such empowered survivors periences (Bandura, 1989).
will be more likely to become active partici- Finally, the meaning dimension of empower-
pants in implementing the downsizing, rather ment should also facilitate more active survivor
than passive recipients of a top management responses. Survivors who have a strong per-
mandate. "People fear and tend to avoid ... sit- sonal connection to work should want to cope
uations they believe exceed their skills whereas with the downsizing because their work is
they get involved in activities and behave as- meaningful. Such survivors will be more likely
suredly when they judge themselves capable to to take an active role in the downsizing, because
handling situations that would otherwise be in- they are guided by their own purpose and direc-
timidating" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984: 70). With- tion.
out having some sense of control over a stressful Thus, we argue that the four dimensions of
situation, individuals will withdraw into an ut- empowerment should help survivors feel more
ter state of helplessness (Greenberger & in control, should help them to cope with the
Strasser, 1986). Indeed, those who believe that demands of the downsizing, and, hence, should
they have less control over their work environ- increase their propensity to respond more ac-
ment-as measured by their influence over work tively. Given that our definition of empower-
content, deadlines, and the people they work ment does not imply an alignment with the vi-
with in accomplishing assignments-exhibit sion of the organization, these active responses
greater stress, as measured by coronary heart can be either constructive or destructive (which
disease symptoms (Marmot, Bosma, Heming- one will depend on the primary appraisal pro-
way, Brunner, & Stanfeld, 1997). When empow- cess).

Proposition 5a. Survivors who feel em- design of their work to previous levels of intrin-
powered prior to the downsizing will sic quality (Brockner, Wiesenfeld, Reed, Grover,
be likely to exhibit active (i.e., hopeful & Martin, 1993).
or cynical) responses. We focus on two elements of intrinsic job
quality relevant to a downsizing context: (1) job
Empowerment is not a personality disposition; variety and (2) job autonomy (Hackman & Old-
rather, it is a dynamic construct that reflects ham, 1980). First, as a result of the downsizing,
individual beliefs about person-environment re- survivors may be asked to take on the responsi-
lationships. Thus, we suggest that prior levels of bilities of their former coworkers, thereby in-
empowerment will influence survivor responses creasing the perceived variety of their work
and that subsequent levels of empowerment oc- (Brockner, Wiesenfeld, Reed, Grover, & Martin,
curring during the implementation of the down- 1993). Survivors may consider the use or devel-
sizing will also have an effect on survivor re- opment of these additional skills as resources
sponses. We expect a survivor's empowerment that can be used to help them cope with the
to evolve over time, as prior empowerment is downsizing. These newly developed skills and
either reinforced or eroded during the course of abilities may reduce survivors' sense of job in-
the downsizing. For example, if management security, thus facilitating assessments of coping
centralizes all decision-making authority, survi- ability. Hackman and Oldham (1980) have
vors are likely to feel less self-determination shown that more job variety can increase indi-
and impact and, thus, decreased empowerment vidual motivation about the job and, in turn,
as the downsizing is implemented. In contrast, if facilitate more flexibility and initiative-
management provides opportunities for the qualities consistent with active survivor re-
training of survivors to take over the tasks of sponses.
their former coworkers, survivors are likely to Second, a survivor's job autonomy may in-
feel more competent and, thus, more empowered crease if a concerted effort is made to drive
as the downsizing is implemented. down decision-making authority in conjunction
Proposition 5b. Survivors who feel em- with the downsizing. Some downsizings reduce
powered during the implementation the number of layers of management, resulting
of the downsizing will be likely to ex- in more decision-making discretion for survi-
hibit active (i.e., hopeful or cynical) vors. When survivors have more autonomy in
responses. decision making and more choice over how to do
their work, they are likely to feel more in control
Work redesign. The Lazarus theory of stress during the downsizing and better able to cope.
also suggests that situational factors will influ- Some limited research suggests that if efforts to
ence the secondary appraisal process because downsize go beyond layoffs to include work re-
they help individuals understand what kinds of design that grants greater authority to lower-
job-related resources are available for coping echelon employees, survivors see more poten-
with a stressful situation (Lazarus & Folkman, tial to effectively cope with the downsizing
1984). We suggest that the extent to which the (Cameron et al., 1991, 1993; Kets de Vries &
design of survivors' work has been changed in Balazs, 1997), facilitating a more active role in
conjunction with the downsizing (Brockner & the downsizing process. Thus, we suggest that
Wiesenfeld, 1993) will influence the secondary work redesign that is focused on increasing job
appraisal process and survivor responses. variety and autonomy will influence secondary
Job design changes that enhance the intrinsic appraisal by enhancing the set of personal re-
quality of the survivors' work (Brockner, Grover, sources to cope with the downsizing, in turn
Reed, & Dewitt, 1992) are likely to help survivors facilitating more active survivor responses.
to feel more able to cope with the downsizing The relationship between these two elements
and, thus, increase the likelihood of more active of work redesign and survivor responses is not
responses. If the intrinsic quality of work has unidimensional, as was the case in the earlier
increased or remained constant as a result of propositions. Work redesign changes that en-
the downsizing, survivors can focus their atten- hance job variety and autonomy may also cap-
tion on coping with the downsizing, rather than ture some elements of distributive justice, be-
being distracted with how they can return the cause they reflect the type of work survivors end

up with (i.e., an outcome). If survivors believe the design of work and reduced job autonomy
that the intrinsic quality of their jobs has de- are common in the aftermath of workforce reduc-
creased, they are likely to feel threatened by the tions (Sutton, 1990). Through reduced autonomy,
downsizing (Brockner, Wiesenfeld, Reed, survivors may see themselves as having less
Grover, & Martin, 1993) and to respond less con- discretion over how best to cope with the down-
structively. However, if survivors believe that sizing. We expect reduced job autonomy, be-
the intrinsic quality of their jobs has improved cause it reduces the discretion of survivors and
as a result of the downsizing, the inherent threat their perceptions of personal control, to lead to
of the downsizing is likely to be reduced (Brock- more passive survivor responses. When survi-
ner, Wiesenfeld, Reed, Grover, & Martin, 1993), vors believe that all decisions are being made
and, as we describe in Proposition 2, we can at higher levels of the organization, they will
expect more constructive survivor responses.2 have less initiative in responding to the down-
Thus, work redesign changes that are focused sizing, because they believe they can have lim-
on job variety and autonomy are likely to en- ited influence.
hance both active and constructive (i.e., hopeful) We believe that work redesign also may cap-
survivor responses. ture some elements of distributive justice. When
survivors feel overworked, and when their au-
Proposition 6a. Changes in the design
tonomy is reduced, they are likely to feel that the
of work during the downsizing that in-
outcomes (the content of their work) they have
crease job variety and autonomy will
received from the downsizing are unfair, as com-
increase the likelihood of hopeful sur-
pared to before the downsizing. As we describe
vivor responses.
in Proposition 2, survivors who believe that the
However, some changes in the design of work implementation of the downsizing is distribu-
(e.g., role overload and reduced job autonomy) tively unfair are likely to respond destructively,
may reduce survivor beliefs that they can cope because they feel threatened by the downsizing
with the downsizing. Survivors may experience and feel the need to protect what outcomes they
role overload as they struggle to complete the still have (Sutton, 1990). Thus, work redesign
work formerly assigned to the victims of the changes that reflect work overload and reduced
downsizing (Cameron et al., 1993; Cascio, 1993; job autonomy are likely to increase both passive
Kozlowski et al., 1993). If these new tasks require and destructive (i.e., fearful) survivor responses.
skills and competencies that survivors have not
been trained for, they may be less confident in Proposition 6b. Changes in the design
their ability to cope with the downsizing. This is of work during the downsizing that in-
not atypical, since top management rarely con- crease role overload and reduce job
ducts systemic analyses of tasks and personnel autonomy will enhance the likelihood
before downsizing (Cameron et al., 1993). To the of fearful survivor responses.
extent that work demands exceed survivors'
physical resources (e.g., stamina) or psycholog- With the exception of the work redesign prop-
ical resources (e.g., skills), survivors are likely to osition, our propositions regarding the predic-
appraise their coping resources as limited (Folk- tors of survivor responses are delineated in
man, 1984: 842). Believing that they have fewer terms of the two dimensions of our typology:
resources for coping, when they experience role (1) constructive/destructive and (2) active/
overload, survivors are likely to respond more passive. This is not to say that, for some survi-
passively because of their limited coping vors, trust and justice can also affect assess-
ability. ments of coping ability and that, for others,
In addition, as leaders seek to reduce their empowerment can also affect assessments of
own uncertainty by centralizing decision mak- threat. However, our aim is to create a parsimo-
ing, survivors may experience greater restric- nious theoretical framework, where the focus is
tions and controls over their decision making on the most dominant predictors of specific sur-
(Sutton & D'Aunno, 1989). Mechanistic shifts in vivor responses. Thus, except for work redesign,
we focus all propositions on unidimensional
relationships with the primary or secondary ap-
2 We thank a reviewer for this helpful distinction. praisal process.

In order to predict a specific archetypal re- tency of any of the quadrants (Withey & Cooper,
sponse, one must examine the combined effects 1989). One explanation for this is that voice may
of the different constructs in our framework. For be a complex category that includes several
example, we propose that trust and justice facil- components. We divide voice into two arche-
itate constructive responses and that empower- types: cynical and hopeful. Both are high on the
ment and work redesign facilitate active re- active dimensions; however, cynical survivors
sponses. Thus, we would expect the most are destructive, whereas hopeful survivors are
hopeful responses to occur with high levels of constructive. In prior work scholars assumed
trust and justice, coupled with high levels of that a voice response to dissatisfaction was
empowerment and work redesign. However, if aligned with the goals and objective of the or-
either trust or justice erodes during the downsiz- ganization, but we have distinguished construc-
ing process, survivor responses are likely to be- tive from destructive manifestations of voice.
come less constructive in nature; consequently, Thus, we believe we have provided greater con-
there may be an increase in cynical responses. ceptual clarity to the voice element of the EVLN
Similarly, if either empowerment or work rede- framework.
sign decreases during the implementation of the Our stress-based theoretical framework con-
downsizing, survivor responses are likely to be- tributes to the management literature in other
come more passive; as a result, there may be an ways. Kets de Vries and Balazs argue that cur-
increase in obliging responses. Finally, if either rent research "pays insufficient attention to the
trust or justice declines and there is a decrease cognitive and emotional effects of downsizing
in empowerment or work redesign, survivor re- on the individual ... it has not gone into suffi-
sponses are likely to be more fearful. Conse- cient depth to deconstruct the psychological dy-
quently, the joint effects of the four constructs in namics that are set in motion by the process of
our framework must be considered to predict a downsizing" (1997: 18). Although some work on
specific archetypal response. organizational stress has been embedded in
prior research on downsizing (e.g., Brockner et
al., 1987; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984), our
DISCUSSIONOF THETHEORETICAL framework is among the first to apply the exten-
FRAMEWORK sive body of research on stress by Lazarus and
his colleagues to the context of downsizing (see
Contributions
also Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1993, and Shaw &
Our typology of survivor responses to down- Barrett-Power, 1997). In our framework we sug-
sizing contributes to the management literature gest that even though prior attitudes and beliefs
in several ways. First, the four contrasting ar- shape survivor responses to downsizing, the
chetypes of survivor responses make sense of process by which the downsizing is imple-
the varied and sometimes contradictory survivor mented is also crucial. In this way our frame-
responses we find in prior research. The typol- work builds on the substantial body of research
ogy explains how survivor responses can be or- on the influence that fairness and justice have
ganized along two underlying dimensions (con- on survivor responses; it provides an initial ex-
structive/destructive and active/passive). In planation for how individual beliefs, such as
contrast to Farrell, our typology focuses on in- trust and empowerment, and situational factors,
ternal responses; it delineates the responses of such as work redesign, also shape survivor re-
survivors who choose to remain part of the or- sponses, thus providing avenues other than jus-
ganization rather those who choose to exit. Our tice for future research on survivor responses to
typology also describes how survivor responses downsizing.
may evolve during the course of downsizing. Our article contributes as well to the literature
Thus, we conceptualize survivor responses as on trust, for we have focused on the potential of
dynamic; they are shaped by the implementa- trust to explain individuals' reactions to threat-
tion process of the downsizing. ening and ambiguous change in organizations.
Our typology also contributes to the refine- Few researchers, until recently, have focused on
ment of the EVLN framework. According to pre- the role that trust plays in downsizing, despite
vious empirical work, the "voice" element of the the ubiquity of references to trust in popular
EVLN framework has the lowest internal consis- accounts of downsizing. Our framework illus-

trates how trust can buffer survivors from the to emit well-learned behaviors (cf. Staw, Sande-
threatening aspects of change inherent in down- lands, & Dutton, 1981).
sizing. Without trust, employees are likely to In contrast, an empowered survivor with little
feel threatened by downsizing, leading to resis- trust is likely to respond cynically. Because this
tance and retaliation, rather than the construc- empowered survivor has a wide response reper-
tive cooperation that is necessary to facilitate toire but lacks trust in management, he or she
deep change (Quinn, 1996). Trust is instrumental may choose to take action against the organiza-
in overcoming resistance to change, for it tion (cf., Bies & Tripp, 1996). When trust is lack-
shapes how individuals interpret the implemen- ing, employees are more likely to develop para-
tation process (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). If noid cognitions (Fenigstein & Vanable, 1992;
they have trust, survivors are willing to give Kramer, 1996) that are consistent with the cyni-
managers the benefit of the doubt that they are, cal response. The origins of such cynicism may
indeed, doing what is right for the company and be a perceived violation of the psychological
its employees. If they do not have trust, survi- contract (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Rousseau,
vors are likely to believe that management is 1995). The combination of deteriorating trust in
misguided-putting its own interests ahead of management and increased monitoring on the
those of the company and its employees. part of the survivor for further violations is a
We also contribute to the literature on trust by perfect recipe for the cynical response.
examining the joint effects of trust and empow-
erment. Trust shapes assessments of the degree Directions for Future Research
of threat inherent in downsizing, whereas em-
powerment shapes assessments of the capacity We suggest here some areas for future theo-
to cope with the inherent threat. In conjunction retical development and empirical research.
with the situational factors, an understanding of Folkman (1984) and Oakland and Ostell (1996)
emphasize the need to separate coping re-
both trust and empowerment is necessary for
sponses from assessments of coping effective-
predicting survivor responses. High levels of
ness, because different coping strategies may
trust and empowerment increase the likelihood
be effective in different situations. Therefore,
of hopeful survivors. Because they do not ap-
researchers should begin to identify the condi-
praise the downsizing as threatening, and be-
tions under which each survivor response will
cause they believe they have the capability to
be most effective and for whom.
cope, these survivors are likely to work construc-
Regarding organizational effectiveness, the
tively and actively to implement the downsizing.
hopeful response appears to be effective, be-
In contrast, low levels of both trust and empow-
cause survivors act as partners in implementing
erment increase the likelihood of fearful survi- the downsizing. However, if the organization's
vors. Because these survivors are threatened by downsizing plans are misguided, a cynical re-
the downsizing, and because they believe they sponse also may be effective. Indeed, a rebel-
will not be able to cope, they are likely to re- lious critic may be just the person to tell top
spond passively but destructively. management that its downsizing plan will dam-
But trust and empowerment may not always age competitive advantage (Wysocki, 1995). If
move in the same direction. High levels of trust top management has an established track
in top management, coupled with little empow- record in managing downsizing efforts, and if
erment, are likely to result in blind loyalty, and employees have low skills, then obliging survi-
passive accommodation may result (i.e., the vors may involve the least risk for the organiza-
obliging response). High levels of trust can tion. Thus, under different circumstances, the
create feelings of security (Golembiewski & hopeful, cynical, and obliging survivor re-
McConkie, 1975; Luhmann, 1979); if these are sponses may be effective for the organization. It
combined with low empowerment, they may re- is not clear, however, when the fearful response
duce survivor motivation. Indeed, with restricted might be effective from an organizational per-
response repertoires stemming from low em- spective.
powerment (Weick, 1988), a highly trusting but Similarly, researchers should begin to assess
disempowered survivor's reaction may be sim- the effectiveness of the different survivor re-
ply to attend to dominant cues from superiors or sponses for individuals. The hopeful response

appears to be effective from an individual ca- Whether trust is limited in its capacity or is a
reer perspective, because the survivor takes an sufficient condition for reducing uncertainty and
active and constructive role in implementing the providing constructive responses to threat (Bar-
downsizing. However, hopeful survivors who ex- ber, 1983; Luhmann, 1979) can also be tested by
ert a great deal of effort to help the organization examining the influence of trust on survivors'
may experience burnout over time and even exit responses in concert with assessments of jus-
the organization if management is not vigilant tice, empowerment, and changes in the design
in identifying signs of excessive stress. As of work. We believe that this is a potentially
Brockner, Tyler, and Cooper-Schneider (1992) fruitful area for research on trust, given its sa-
have found, individuals who are the most sup- lience in recent accounts of rapid and often-
portive can be the most damaged by a downsiz- threatening organizational change (Davidow &
ing if they are not treated fairly. Malone, 1992; Handy, 1995; Labich, 1996).
Under other circumstances, a fearful response Researchers also could address the effect that
may provide some psychological protection for personality dispositions have on survivor re-
the survivor and facilitate coping. For 60-year- sponses. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) suggest
old employees who know they have few job al- that generalized beliefs (or personality traits)
ternatives and know they will eventually be laid also affect primary and secondary appraisal.
off, a fearful response, where they can begin to We focus on specific beliefs, such as trust and
psychologically withdraw from the situation, empowerment, rather than personality traits,
may be an effective response for their mental because such beliefs are more malleable to the
health (cf. Folkman, 1984). This disassociation influence of the organization. Nevertheless, per-
can protect survivors against the pain of down- sonality traits may be important moderating
sizing (Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1997). variables for the relationships specified in our
The cynical response may have mixed effects framework. For example, Brockner, Davy, and
for survivors, for it can help survivors feel better Carter (1985) and Brockner, Grover, O'Malley,
in the short run by allowing them to let off Reed, and Glynn (1993) have found self-esteem
steam, but it may derail the survivor's career in to be an important moderator on survivor re-
the future. The obliging response may result in sponses to downsizing. Moreover, Kets de Vries
survivors passively responding to the wishes of and Balazs (1997) suggest that hardiness can
management and failing to take initiative on mitigate the stressful aspects of downsizing and
their own. Such survivor responses increase the can result in more proactive and constructive
susceptibility for conformity and groupthink. survivor responses.
Following these ideas, researchers could ex- In the future, theorists might also address the
pand the theoretical framework to address and effect of demographic variables on survivor re-
empirically examine the individual effective- sponses. Typically, these variables have been
ness outcomes of the survivor response typology. included as control variables, but they have re-
Researchers also may help to identify both the ceived limited theoretical development. For ex-
dynamics and sufficiency of trust within threat- ample, older workers may have concerns about
ening or rapidly changing organizational con- age discrimination and reduced alternative em-
texts. Scholars commonly believe that although ployment and, thus, may be more likely to re-
trust takes much time to build, it is fragile and spond fearfully. In contrast, if older workers
can be lost easily through violated obligations have the safety net of a pending early retire-
(Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Robinson, 1997). The ment package, they may respond obligingly. Or-
resiliency of trust within organizations can, ganizational tenure may also matter. The longer
however, be examined through longitudinal de- the tenure an individual has with an organiza-
signs that take place during such volatile cir- tion, the more likely he or she will have acquired
cumstances as downsizing. Downsizing pro- organization-specific training, socialization,
vides an excellent context in which to evaluate vested retirement funds, and comfortable work
whether trust must deteriorate or whether it can arrangements (such things as convenient hous-
be sustained or even enhanced during signifi- ing and commutes, friends at work, and so on;
cant organizational change; it also can be used Rusbult et al., 1988). Thus, survivors with longer
to evaluate the efficacy of organizational inter- tenures are likely to be more attached to the firm
ventions in preserving trust. and may respond constructively. Future theoret-

ical work can be used to examine the effects of implement during a downsizing that may evoke
other relevant demographic influences on our more hopeful survivor responses.
archetypal responses. First, the framework emphasizes the impor-
Our theoretical framework suggests one pri- tance of building trust and creating empower-
mary implication for the design of empirical re- ment both before and during the downsizing.
search: in order to test the specified proposi- Trust and empowerment can buffer against the
tions, longitudinal data must be collected. threat inherent in a downsizing initiative, but
Brockner (1988) has called for more longitudinal these can only be built over time through endur-
and process-oriented research on survivor re- ing and genuine interactions with management
sponses to downsizing. The Lazarus theory of (Mayer et al., 1995; Mishra, 1996). However, trust
stress is relational, in that the person and envi- and empowerment often are eroded during
ronment are viewed as being in a dynamic re- downsizing efforts (Hodgetts, 1996). Trust may
lationship over time. Researchers can best cap- erode because survivors believe that top man-
ture the dynamic nature of the downsizing agement is withholding information or is not
process through longitudinal data collection acting in the best interests of the entire organi-
methods. Data on the trust and empowerment of zation (Noer, 1993; O'Neill & Lenn, 1995). Survi-
survivors should be collected prior to the down- vors' sense of empowerment also may erode
sizing announcement. Data on survivors' per- during downsizing, as job security becomes
ceptions of justice and job redesign, as well as more tenuous and survivors come to see them-
subsequent levels of trust and empowerment, selves more as independent contractors than
should be collected as the downsizing is being valued members of the firm. Empowerment may
implemented. Finally, data on survivors' re- erode further as management takes on more
sponses (i.e., the four archetypes) should be col- control, which is typical during a crisis situation
lected following the downsizing. Optimally, (D'Aunno & Sutton, 1989; O'Neill & Lenn, 1995;
data on survivor responses should be collected Staw et al., 1981). The irony, then, is that down-
at additional points in time, as the downsizing sizing may destroy the trust and empowerment
progresses, in order for researchers to be able to that are necessary to make or keep the organi-
assess the evolution of survivor responses. zation competitive in the future.
Longitudinal designs will enable researchers Second, the framework suggests other imple-
to assess the sequence of events contributing to mentation tactics-beyond trust and empower-
downsizing outcomes. Such data are necessary ment. Facilitating perceptions of fairness is crit-
as well for assessing causality. However, col- ical for influencing the hoped for, but often
lecting longitudinal data presents a formidable elusive, outcomes of downsizing. Researchers
challenge for researchers, because it requires have shown that if the downsizing is not imple-
that they enter the firm prior to the downsizing mented fairly, employees who are more commit-
announcement. Many organizations, by neces- ted will actually respond to the downsizing in
sity, keep their strategic plans secret prior to more dysfunctional ways than employees who
announcing a downsizing, making it extremely are less committed (Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-
difficult to identify a study site before an an- Schneider, 1992). Thus, organizations may an-
nouncement is made. A further challenge is that tagonize the employees who have the most to
many organizations are cautious about allow- offer during a downsizing. In addition, enriching
ing researchers access to employees when those survivors' jobs in implementing the downsizing
employees are facing stressful or emotional mandate through work redesign also helps to
times (Sutton & Schurman, 1988). achieve more active survivor responses. Such
enrichment helps employees to believe they can
better cope with the downsizing.
Thus, our framework provides guidance to
Implications for Practice
managers who anticipate future organizational
Given the record numbers of organizations downsizing. Although the way in which the
turning to downsizing in today's business envi- downsizing is implemented does make a differ-
ronment, a framework is needed to guide man- ence, our framework highlights the importance
agerial practice. Our theoretical framework sug- of good long-term managerial relationships
gests a number of strategies for managers to with employees, beginning long before an an-

nouncement to downsize. In this way effective Brockner, J., Grover, S., O'Malley, M. N., Reed, T. F., & Glynn,
M. A. 1993. Threat of future layoffs, self-esteem, and
downsizing is not a short-term fix but, rather, a
survivors' reactions: Evidence from the laboratory and
long-term investment in the human resources of the field. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 153-166.
the organization.
Brockner, J., Grover, S. L., Reed, T. F., & DeWitt, R. L. 1992.
Layoffs, job insecurity, and survivors' work effort: Evi-
REFERENCES dence of an inverted-U relationship. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 35: 413-425.
Astrachan, J. H. 1995. Organizational departures: The impact
Brockner, J., Grover, S. L., Reed, T. F., DeWitt, R. L., &
of separation anxiety as studied in a mergers and ac-
O'Malley, M. N. 1987. Survivors' reactions to layoffs: We
quisitions simulation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sci-
get by with a little help for our friends. Administrative
ence, 31: 31-50.
Science Quarterly, 32: 526-541.
Bandura, A. 1989. Human agency in social cognitive theory.
Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R.,
American Psychologist, 40: 1175-1184.
Martin, C., & Bies, R. 1994. Interactive effects of proce-
Barber, B. 1983. The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, dural justice and outcome negativity and survivors of
NJ: Rutgers University Press. job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 397-409.
Beehr, T., & Gupta, N. 1978. A note on the structure of em- Brockner, J., & Siegel, P. A. 1996. Understanding the interac-
ployee withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Hu- tion between procedural and distributive justice: The
man Performance, 21: 73-79. role of trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in
Bell, N. E. & Staw, B. M. 1989. People as sculptors versus organizations: Frontiers of theory and research: 390-413.
sculpture. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(Eds.), Handbook of career theory: 232-251. Cambridge, Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. In
England: Cambridge University Press. press. When trust matters: The moderating effects of
Bies, R. J. 1987. The predicament of injustice: The manage- outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly.
ment of moral outrage. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R., & Cooper-Schneider, R. 1992. The
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 9: 289- influence of prior commitment to an institution on reac-
319. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. tions to perceived fairness: The higher they are, the
Bies, R., Martin, C., & Brockner, J. 1993. Just laid off, but still harder they fall. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37:
a good citizen? Only if the process is fair. Employee 241-261.
Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 6: 227-238. Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. 1993. Living on the edge (of
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. 1996. Beyond distrust: Getting even social and organizational psychology): The effects of job
and the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler layoffs on those who remain. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.),
(Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory
research: 246-260. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. and research: 119-140. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Brockner, J. 1988. The effects of work layoffs on survivors:
Research, theory, and practice. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Martin, C. L. 1995. Decision
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, frame, procedural justice, and survivors' reactions to job
vol. 10: 213-255. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. layoffs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 63: 59-68.
Brockner, J. 1990. Scope of justice in the workplace: How
survivors react to coworker layoffs. Journal of Social Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., Reed, T. F., Grover, S., &
Issues, 46: 95-106. Martin, C. 1993. Interactive effect of job content and
context on the reactions of layoff survivors. Journal of
Brockner, J., Davy, J., & Carter, C. 1985. Layoffs, self-esteem,
Personality and Social Psychology, 64: 187-197.
and survivor guilt: Motivational, affective, and attitudi-
nal consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Cameron, K. S., Freeman, S. J., & Mishra, A. K. 1991. Best
Decision Processes, 36: 229-244. practices in white-collar downsizing: Managing contra-
dictions. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3): 57-73.
Brockner, J., DeWitt, R. L., Grover, S. L., & Reed, T. F. 1990.
When it is especially important to explain why: Factors Cameron, K. S., Freeman, S. J., & Mishra, A. K. 1993. Organi-
affecting the relationship between managers' explana- zational downsizing. In G. Huber & W. Glick (Eds.), Or-
tions of a layoff and survivors' reactions to a layoff. ganizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26: 389-407. for improving performance: 19-65. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. 1990. The impact of layoffs on
survivors: An organizational justice perspective. In J. S. Cascio, W. F. 1993. Downsizing: What do we know? What
Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organiza- have we learned. Academy of Management Executive,
tional settings: 45-75. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 7(1): 95-104.
Associates. D'Aunno, T., & Sutton, R. I. 1989. The responses of drug abuse
Brockner, J., Grover, S. L., & Blonder, M. D. 1988. Predictors of treatment centers to financial adversity: A partial test of
survivors' job involvement following layoffs: A field the threat-rigidity thesis. Journal of Management, 18:
study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 436-442. 117-132.

Davidow, W. H., & Malone, M. S. 1992. The virtual corporation. in the adoption and use of electronic data exchange.
New York: Harper Collins. Organization Science, 8: 23-42.
Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. 1991. Developing and Henkoff, R. 1994. Getting beyond downsizing. Fortune, Janu-
testing a model of survivor responses to layoffs. Journal ary 10: 58-64.
of Vocational Behavior, 38: 302-317.
Hirschman, A. 0. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to
Deutsch, M. 1973. The resolution of conflict: Constructive and decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge,
destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University MA: Harvard University Press.
Press.
Hodgetts, R. M. 1996. A conversation with Warren Bennis on
Dial, J., & Murphy, K. J. 1995. Incentives, downsizing, and leadership in the midst of downsizing. Organizational
value creation at General Dynamics. Journal of Finan- Dynamics, 23(1): 72-78.
cial Economics, 38: 261-314.
Isabella, L. A. 1989. Downsizing: Survivors' assessments.
Emshoff, J. R. 1994. How to increase employee loyalty while Business Horizons, 32(3): 35-41.
you downsize. Business Horizons, 37(2): 49-57. Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Balazs, K. 1997. The downside of
Farrell, D. 1983. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses downsizing. Human Relations, 50: 11-50.
to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study.
Kleinfeld, N. R. 1996. The company as family no more. New
Academy of Management Journal, 26: 596-607. York Times, March 4: 1.
Fenigstein, A., & Vanable, P. A. 1992. Paranoia and self-
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. 1979. Choosing strategies for
consciousness. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2): 106-114.
chology, 62: 129-138.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., Smith, E. M., & Hedlund, J.
Fisher, A. B. 1991. Morale crisis. Fortune, June 6: 70-80.
1993. Organizational downsizing: Strategies, interven-
Folkman, S. 1984. Personal control and stress and coping tions, and research implications. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.
processes: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and
and Social Psychology, 46: 839-852. organizational psychology, vol. 8: 263-332. New York:
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. 1986. Wiley.
Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological Kramer, R. M. 1996. Divergent realities and convergent dis-
symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, appointments in the hierarchic relation: Trust and the
30: 571-579. intuitive auditor at work. In R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler.
Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The social virtues and the creation (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and
of prosperity. New York: Free Press. research: 216-245. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Labich, K. 1996. How to fire people and still sleep at night.
Golembiewski, R. T., & McConkie, M. 1975. The centrality of
Fortune, June 10: 64-72.
interpersonal trust in group processes. In C. L. Cooper
(Ed.), Series of group processes: 131-185. New York: Latack, J. C., Kinicki, A. J., & Prussia, G. E. 1995. An integra-
Wiley. tive model of coping with job loss. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 20: 311-342.
Graham, J. W. 1986. Principled organizational dissent: A the-
oretical essay. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Lazarus, R. S. 1993. From psychological stress to the emo-
Research in organizational behavior, vol. 8: 1-52. Green- tions: A history of changing outlooks. Annual Review
wich, CT: JAI Press. Psychology, 44: 1-21.
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and
The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of So- coping. New York: Springer.
ciology, 91: 481-510. Leana, C., & Ivancevich, J. 1987. Addressing the problem of
Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. 1986. Development and involuntary job loss: Institutional interventions and an
application of a model of personal control in organiza- agenda for research. Academy of Management Review,
tions. Academy of Management Review, 11: 164-177. 12: 301-312.
Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., & Lee, S. 1988. Personal Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. 1985. Trust as a social reality.
control as a mediator between perceptions of supervi- Social Forces, 63: 967-985.
sory behaviors and employee reactions. Academy of Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988. The social psychology of
Management Journal, 31: 405-417. procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. 1984. Job insecurity: Toward Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust and power. New York: Wiley.
conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9:
438-448. Marmot, M. G., Bosma, H., Hemingway, H., Brunner, E., &
Stanfeld, S. 1997. Contribution of job control and other
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Read- risk factors to social variations in coronary heart dis-
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley. ease incidence. The Lancet, 350: 235-239.
Handy, C. 1995. Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An inte-
Business Review, 73(3): 40-50.
grative model of organizational trust. Academy of Man-
Hart, P., & Saunders, C. 1997. Power and trust: Critical factors agement Review, 20: 709-734.

Mishra, A. K. 1996. Organizational responses to crisis: The Smith, C. A., Haynes, K. N., Lazarus, R. S., & Pope, L. K. 1996.
centrality of trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), In search of the "hot" cognitions: Attributions, apprais-
Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research: als, and their relation to emotion. Journal of Personality
261-287. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. and Social Psychology, 65: 916-929.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. 1997. When employees feel Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the
betrayed: A model of how psychological contract viola- workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.
tion develops. Academy of Management Review, 22: Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442-1465.
226-256.
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat-
New York Times. 1996. The downsizing of America. New York: rigidity effects in organizational behavior. Administra-
Random House. tive Science Quarterly, 26: 501-524.
Noer, D. M. 1993. Healing the wounds: Overcoming the Sutton, R. I. 1987. The process of organizational death: Dis-
trauma of layoffs and revitalizing downsizing organiza- banding and reconnecting. Administrative Science
tions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Quarterly, 32: 542-569.
Oakland, S., & Ostell, A. 1996. Measuring coping: A review
Sutton, R. I. 1990. Organizational decline processes: A social
and critique. Human Relations, 49(2): 133-155.
psychological perspective. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cum-
O'Neill, H. M., & Lenn, D. J. 1995. Voices of survivors: Words mings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol.
that downsizing CEOs should hear. Academy of Man- 12: 205-253. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
agement Executive, 9(4): 23-33.
Sutton, R. I., & D'Aunno, T. 1989. Decreasing organizational
Peterson, K. S. 1996. Living in fear of a layoff, boomers cope size: Untangling the effects of money and people. Acad-
with downsizing. USA Today, May 2: ID. emy of Management Review, 14: 194-212.
Quinn, R. E. 1996. Deep change: Discovering the leader Sutton, R., & Kahn, R. L. 1987. Prediction, understanding, and
within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. control as antidotes to organizational stress. In J. Lorsch
Robinson, S. L. 1992. Retreat, voice, silence, and destruction: (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 272-285.
A typology of behavioral responses to organizational Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
dissatisfaction and an examination of their contextual
Sutton, R., & Schurman, S. J. 1988. On studying emotionally
predictors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North-
hot topics: Lessons from an investigation of organiza-
western University, Evanston, IL.
tional death. In D. Berg & K. Smith (Eds.), The self in
Robinson, S. L. 1997. Trust and breach of the psychological social inquiry: Researching methods: 333-349. Beverly
contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 574-599. Hills, CA: Sage.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Violating the psy- Thomas, K. W. 1976. Conflict and conflict management. In
chological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Jour- M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organ-
nal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 245-259. izational psychology: 889-935. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological contracts in organiza- Thomas, K., & Velthouse, B. 1990. Cognitive elements of em-
tions: Understanding written and unwritten agreements.
powerment: An "interpretive" model of intrinsic task
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15: 666-
Rousseau, D. M., & Anton, R. J. 1988. Fairness and implied 681.
contract obligations in termination: A policy capturing
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. 1990. Beyond formal procedures: The
study. Human Performance, 1: 273-289.
interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. Carroll
Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. 1988. (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational set-
Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and tings: 77-98. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining ates.
job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31:
599-627. Weick, K. 1988. Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations.
Journal of Management Studies, 25: 305-317.
Seligman, M. E. P. 1975. Helplessness. San Francisco: Free-
man. Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. 1989. Predicting exit, voice,
loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly,
Shaw, J. B., & Barrett-Power, E. 1997. A conceptual framework 34: 521-539.
for assessing organization, work group, and individual
effectiveness after downsizing. Human Relations, 50: Wysocki, B., Jr. 1995. Lean and frail: Some companies cut
109-127. costs too far, suffer "corporate anorexia." Wall Street
Journal, July 5: Al.
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. 1993. Explaining the limited effec-
tiveness of legalistic "remedies" for trust/distrust. Or- Zand, D. E. 1972. Trust and managerial problem solving.
ganization Science, 4: 367-392. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 229-239.
Aneil K. Mishra is an associate professor of management at the Babcock Graduate

School of Management, Wake Forest University. He received his Ph.D. in business
administration from the University of Michigan. His current research interests include

trust within and across organizations, organizational change under adversity, and
organizational culture.
Gretchen M. Spreitzer received her Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. She is
currently an associate professor of management and organization at the Marshall
School of Business, University of Southern California. Her research interests focus on
macro-micro linkages in organizational behavior, specifically around issues of em-
powerment and leadership, within the context of strategic and organizational change.

View publication stats

Explaining How Survivors Respond To Downsizing: The Roles of Trust, Empowerment, Justice, and Work Redesign

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Explaining How Survivors Respond To Downsizing: The Roles of Trust, Empowerment, Justice, and Work Redesign

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Explaining How Survivors Respond to

Article in The Academy of Management Review · July 1998

Aneil K Mishra Gretchen M. Spreitzer

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Restoring Trust in Higher Education: Making the Investment Worthwhile Again

Trust and Leadership View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

In this article we develop a stress-based framework of survivors' responses to down-

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

Obliging responses Hopeful responses

Calm, relief Hope, excitement

"Faithful followers" "Active advocates"

Fearful responses Cynical responses

Worry, fear Anger, disgust

"Walking wounded" "Carping critics"

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

Empowerment Work redesign

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

suffer disproportionately (Brockner & Green- Advance notice-another component of proce-

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

Aneil K. Mishra is an associate professor of management at the Babcock Graduate

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

This content downloaded from 150.216.53.78 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:18:09 PM

También podría gustarte