Co-workers’ perceptions of and reactions to employee’s involuntary demotion
| Published date | 03 June 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-07-2018-0192 |
| Pages | 740-757 |
| Date | 03 June 2019 |
| Author | Sophie Hennekam,Subramaniam Ananthram,Steve McKenna |
| Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
Co-workers’perceptions of and
reactions to employee’s
involuntary demotion
Sophie Hennekam
Management Department, Audencia Business School, Nantes, France, and
Subramaniam Ananthram and Steve McKenna
Curtin University, Bentley, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate how individuals perceive and react to the involuntary
demotion of a co-worker in their organisation.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors draw on 46 semi-structured in-depth interviews (23 dyads)
with co-workers of demoted individuals.
Findings –The findings suggest that an individual’s observation of the demotion of a co-worker has three
stages: their perception of fairness, their emotional reaction and their behavioural reaction. The perception of
fairness concerned issues of distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice. The emotional
responses identified were feelings of disappointment/disillusion, uncertainty, vulnerability and anger. Finally,
the behavioural reactions triggered by their emotional responses included expressions of voice, loyalty, exit
and adaptation.
Originality/value –Perceptions of (in)justice perpetrated on others stimulate emotional and behavioural
responses, which impacts organisational functioning. Managers should therefore pay attention to the way a
demotion is perceived, not only by those directly concerned, but also by co-workers as observers.
Keywords Employee behaviour, Emotions, Demotion, Co-workers, Justice perceptions
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Demotion, an employees’downward movement in the organisation’s hierarchy (Hall and
Isabella,1985) leading to a perceived or an actual lossof authority and/or responsibility,either
with or without a decrease in salary, is an understudied phenomenon (Carson and Carson,
2007). Recently, researchers have shown renewed interest in this topic (Van Dalen and
Henkens, 2018; Verheyen and Guerry, 2018).Despite this, little is known about how and why
organisations demote employees and what the consequences are for demotees, co-workers
and organisations.
Empirical studies on demotion have focused primarily on the negative consequences
for the demotee (Sargent, 2003; Josten and Schalk, 2010; Van Dalen and Henkens, 2018).
These include greater feelings of exhaustion, dissatisfaction with work, lower
identification with one’s job, perceptions o f fewer developmen tal opportunitie s after
demotion and perceptions of decreased organisational support. However, the perspective
of co-workers regarding the demotion of a colleague has not been studied. We suggest
that demotion might have broader repercussions for an organisation as a whole including
on workers who are not demoted themselves (non-demoted co-workers) but who are
affected by it indirectly.
Drawing on semi-structured in-depth interviews with 46 co-workers (two co-workers of
each of the 23 demoted employees) and using previous literature on layoffs, we build a
conceptual framew ork on co-workers’perceptions and reactions towards employeedemotion.
This study focuses on the negative perceptions, emotions and behaviours as they were
most prevalent. It should be noted, however, that three individuals reported positive
emotions and attitudes.
Employee Relations: The
International Journal
Vol. 41 No. 4, 2019
pp. 740-757
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-07-2018-0192
Received 22 July 2018
Revised 13 December 2018
Accepted 18 January 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
740
ER
41,4
We offer three main theoretical contributions. First, we contribute to justice theory by
identifying its relevance in the context of injustice perceptions of non-demoted co-workers
who witnessed demotion of their colleagues. Second, we contribute to the literature on
psychological contract as our findings indicated that injustice perceptions made the
non-demoted co-workers re-assess their relationship with the organisation, thus impacting
on their psychological contract resulting in various negative reactions. Third, we identify
that an individual’s relationship with the demotee is a critical factor that influences
justice perceptions, emotional responses and behavioural reactions to the demotion of
co-workers. Our findings have several practical implications for non-demoted co-workers,
managers and organisations.
Literature review
A distinction can be made between voluntary and involuntary demotion. With voluntary
demotions, individuals initiate the downward movement to better suit their needs (Verheyen and
Vermeir, 2011) while involuntary demotions are initiated by the organisation (Carson and
Carson, 2007) which is the focus of the present study.
While little is known about demotion and its consequences, we draw on related
management practices such as downsizing and layoffs and argue that certain issues that
hold true for these practices hold true for demotion as well. For example, the process of
demotion is likely to engender emotional and behavioural responses in non-demoted
co-workers similar to those of workers not directly affected by downsizing programs.
The main commonality among these decisions is the forced change in one’s employment
contract. However, downsizings and layoffs are different from demotions in that demoted
individuals do not face job insecurity as they remain with their organisation.
Previous studies have shown that forced changes in one’s employment contract can lead
to perceptions of psychological contract violation (Saunders and Thornhill, 2006).
Psychological contract is “a cognitive schema, or system of beliefs, representing an
individual’s perceptions of his or her own and another’s obligations, defined as the duties or
responsibilities one feels bound to perform”(Rousseau et al., 2018, p. 1). Changes in
psychological contract perceptions can lead to negative attitudes, behaviours and reactions
(Tomprou and Hansen, 2018). These include performance (Dabos and Rousseau, 2004),
job satisfaction (Turnley and Feldman, 1999), organisational citizenship behaviours
(Hui et al., 2004) and turnover intensions (Zhao et al., 2007).
Moreover, forced changes in contract can result in negativities in the workplace
(Cropanzano et al., 2007), particularly in relation to perceptions of justice. We can distinguish
between four types of justice: distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational, a
framework that offers a theoretical lens through which to study involuntary demotion.
Distributive justice reflects the fairness of the outcomes from the demotion, such as the type
of role, responsibilities or salary one has after the demotion (Phelps, 1987). The perceived
fairness of those outcomes on co-workers has been studied in a downsizing context
(Spreitzer and Mishra, 2002). Van Dalen and Henkens (2018) report that a mismatch in
salary and responsibilities in demotees vis-à-vis co-workers results in perceptions of
inequity. Procedural justice reflects the fairness of the processes used to decide who gets
demoted and how this is implemented (Brockner and Greenberg, 1990). A lack of
transparency in demotion processes and unclear demotion motives (Colquitt, 2012) could
result in perceptions of injustice. Interpersonal justice is characterised by “respectful and
socially sensitive treatment”(Bies, 2005, p. 93) by “authorities and third parties involved in
executing procedures or determining outcomes”(Colquitt et al., 2001, p. 427). Tyler and
Bies (1990) noted that the way in which the demotion is justified and communicated can
greatly minimise the impact of the demotion. Informational justice refers to fairness in
information sharing (Greenberg, 1993). Clearly, greater amount and accuracy of verifiable
741
Co-workers’
perceptions
To continue reading
Request your trial