Decision Frame, Procedural Justice, and Survivors′ Reactions to Job Layoffs

Abstract

Behavioral decision theory suggests that the perceived favorability of outcomes depends on how they are framed. Recent research in the justice literature suggests that perceived outcome favorability and procedural fairness interactively combine to influence employees′ reactions to a resource allocation decision. The present study tested a hypothesis derived from the integration of these two literatures: that decision frame-by affecting perceived outcome favorability-would interact with procedural fairness to influence individuals′ reactions to the decision. All participants were layoff survivors; the primary dependent variable was their trust in and support for the organization subsequent to the layoff. Through a framing manipulation, half evaluated the criteria that the organization used to keep certain employees rather than others (Keep condition), whereas the other half judged the criteria that the organization used to dismiss certain employees rather than others (Dismiss condition). Survivors also evaluated the procedural fairness of the layoff. As predicted, decision frame and procedural fairness interacted to influence survivors′ trust in and support for the organization. When procedural fairness was low, survivors reacted more favorably in the positive frame (Keep) than in the negative frame (Dismiss) condition. When procedural fairness was high, however, decision frame had no effect on survivors′ reactions. Possible explanations of the findings, as well as their theoretical and practical implications, are discussed.