Enhancing Survivor Attitudes and Behaviors Associated with Workforce Reduction Implementation Factors: A Systematic Review Using Realist Synthesis

Organizations in the U.S. utilize workforce reductions as a means of achieving their corporate objectives. These organizations rely on the effectiveness of their remaining employees to contribute to the organization’s overall productivity. Thus, the attitudes and behaviors of surviving employees become important drivers of success. Perceptions of how workforce reductions are implemented (i.e., interactional, procedural, & distributive implementation justice) affect these attitudes and behaviors both positively and negatively. Organizations need evidence-based insights as to how they might positively influence survivor attitudes and behaviors.Identification Screening Included Articles identified via OneSearch on UMUC library (n = 99) Combined and de-duped (n = 187) Read titles & abstracts to confirm appropriateness to study (n=309) Read full text (n=153) Removed duplicates (n=23) Removed non-relevant reports (n=156) Assess quality (n=35) Removed non-relevant reports and reports describing same study (n=118) Eligible reports (n=32) Remove low quality/relevancy scores (n=3) Included reports (n=32) Reports identified via snowballing (79) , GoogleScholar (12), hand searching & grey literature (31) (n = 122) Eligibility Articles identified in ABI/Inform database (n = 111 ) Enhancing Survivor Attitudes and Behaviors Associated with Workforce Reduction Implementation Factors: A Systematic Review Using Realist Synthesis The Problem for Managers • By altering the downsizing implementation process, management can positively affect survivor attitudes and behaviors and encourage more productive reactions, such as increases in organizational commitment and trust. • Good communications throughout the process and opportunities for participation appear to be the most influential implementation tactics: o Communications should strive to be helpful, open, accurate, timely, comprehensive, reliable, informative, current, and consistent o Opportunities for employee involvement include designing the new organization structure, realigning workload roles and responsibilities, and providing input into the selection criteria Results Organizations in the U.S. utilize workforce reductions as a means of achieving their corporate objectives. These organizations rely on the effectiveness of their remaining employees to contribute to the organization’s overall productivity. Thus, the attitudes and behaviors of surviving employees become important drivers of success. Perceptions of how workforce reductions are implemented (i.e., interactional, procedural, & distributive implementation justice) affect these attitudes and behaviors both positively and negatively. Organizations need evidence-based insights as to how they might positively influence survivor attitudes and behaviors. The purpose of this study is to inform organizations as to how implementation factors influence downsizing survivor attitudes and behaviors. Implications for Practitioners Terri J. Madden Candidate for Doctor of Management University of Maryland University College, Adelphi, MD The Evidence • Systematic Review using Realist Synthesis • Expert Panel Review Team: Academic Advisors: Dr. Mierzwa & Dr. Breckon SMEs: Dr. Denise Rousseau & Dr. Gretchen Spreitzer Management Practitioners: 2 VPs of Global HR • 35 articles from 31 journals were evaluated for quality and relevancy on generalizability, value of findings, methodology, and relevance to this study’s RQ. • 32 studies met the Q&R threshold and yielded 122 CMO relationships. Research Question How do workforce reduction implementation factors affect the attitudes and behaviors of the remaining employees? Method: The Process of Discovery • Implementation practices matter to survivors and can affect attitudes and behaviors. • Across all three implementation justices, organizational commitment was the survivor attitude most affected by changes in implementation practices. The second was trust. • Poorly perceived practices around distributive implementation justice affected survivor attitudes and behaviors more than ones perceived highly; whereas the opposite relationship was witnessed with interactional implementation justice. • Both high and low perceptions of procedural implementation justice affected survivor attitudes and behaviors with high perceptions displaying more associations. Implications for Scholars/Researchers Collective knowledge regarding the attitudes and behaviors of workforce reduction survivors would benefit from: • Examining differences across survivor demographics • Studying other potential contributing factors, including organizational culture, personal attributes, managerial reactions, and economic conditions • Using longitudinal studies with pre and post designs to establish causality • Incorporating less subjective data such as inputs from colleagues and HR • Search String: (Downsiz* OR Workforce n5 Reduc* OR Rightsiz* OR Layoff* OR Cutback*) AND (Remain* n5 Employee* OR Retained n5 Employee* OR Surviv* n5 Employee*) AND (“Implement* justice” OR “Organization* justice” OR “Distribut* justice” OR “Proce* justice” OR “Interact* justice” OR “Implement* Proc*”) • Sources: UMUC OneSearch, ABI/Inform Complete, GoogleScholar, snowballing • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: Limited to articles in English, peer-reviewed, published after1992 (based on SSCI), and Anglo cultures 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 United States Canada UK Australia Geographic Distribution 61% 24% 15% Study Type Quant Qual Mixed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Calendar Year of Publication Survivor Attitudes & Behaviors Procedural Interactional Distributive Downsizing Implementation Justice MECHANISMS OUTCOMES CONTEXT Cognitive Sensemaking & Appraising Strategic Control Coping or Escape Coping Active Constructive Responses or Destructive Responses Top 10 CMO Findings Based on Outcomes Implementation Justice Type QR Score Mechanism Relationship Outcome 1 High Procedural 190.0 Sensemaking/Appraising ↑ Org Commitment 2 High Procedural 78.5 Sensemaking/Appraising ↑ Trust 3 High Interactional 52.5 Sensemaking/Appraising ↑ Org Commitment 4 High Procedural 48.5 Sensemaking/Appraising ↑ Job Satisfaction 5 Low Procedural 44.0 Sensemaking/Appraising ↓ Org Commitment 6 High Procedural 41.0 Control Coping ↓ Intent to Quit 7 High Procedural 31.5 Sensemaking/Appraising ↓ Worry/Uncertainty 8 Low Procedural 23.0 Destructive/Passive Response ↑ Stress/Anxiety 9 High Distributive 21.5 Sensemaking/Appraising ↑ Org Commitment 10 Low Distributive 18.0 Sensemaking/Appraising ↓ Trust Conceptual Framework Key Finding