Abstract
Drawing from a social predicament and identity management framework, we argue that procedural unfairness on the part of decision makers places messengers in a dilemma where they attempt to protect their professional image or legitimacy by engaging in refusals (e.g., curbing explanations) and exhibiting distancing behaviors (e.g., minimizing contact with victims) when delivering bad news. Such behaviors however, violate key tenets of fair interpersonal treatment. The results of two experiments supported our hypotheses in samples of experienced managers. Specifically, we found that levels of messengers’ distancing and refusals were greater when the procedures used by decision makers were unfair rather than fair. Additionally, messengers’ perceptions of a predicament (honesty versus disclosure) mediated these relationships. Implications and future research directions regarding the ethical delivery of bad news in the workplace are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Organizations differ in the extent to which they “take care of” layoff victims through severance pay for example (Brockner et al. 1987). Although this was not the focus of our research, we did attempt to manipulate the fairness of the amount of severance pay offered to victims in Study 1 because this topic may be raised when communicating layoff decisions. When this factor was included in analyses, the results reported here did not change, and this factor had no main or interactive effects on any of the variables examined here, including the procedural justice manipulation check. We also included an item in our survey to measure the amount of time messengers would spend explaining the amount of severance pay. Neither the severance pay fairness factor nor the procedural justice factor was related to this measure. Given the severe consequences for victims resulting from the layoff decision itself, messengers may have been more strongly influenced by the legitimacy of that decision and less affected by the amount of severance pay. This possibility seems consistent with research on victims’ reactions to layoffs. Specifically, Konovsky and Folger (1991) found perceptions of fairness associated with layoff decisions were related to victims’ reactions, whereas the level of organizational caretaking efforts was not. We collapsed across conditions, therefore, focusing only on the procedural justice factor.
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 469–498). Newark, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bies, R. J. (2013). The delivery of bad news in organizations: A framework for analysis. Journal of Management, 39, 136–162.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: The communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 85–112). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Bobocel, D. R., & Zdaniuk, A. (2005). How can explanations be used to foster organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 469–498). Newark, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brockner, J. (1994). Perceived fairness and survivors reactions to layoffs, or how downsizing organizations can do well by doing good. Social Justice Research, 7, 345–363.
Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T., DeWitt, R., & O’Malley, M. (1987). Survivors’ reactions to layoffs: We get by with a little help from our friends. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 241–261.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 356–400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209.
Feldman, D., & Weitz, B. (1991). From the invisible hand to the gladhand: Understanding a careerist orientation to work. Human Resource Management, 30, 237–257.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Folger, R., & Pugh, S. D. (2002). The just world and Winston Churchill: An approach/avoidance conflict about psychological distance when harming victims. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 168–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). When tough times make tough bosses: Managerial distancing as a function of layoff blame. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 79–87.
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. (2001). Fairness as a dependent variable: Why tough times can lead to bad management. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gilliland, S. W., Groth, M., Baker, R. C, I. V., Dew, A. F., Polly, L. M., & Langdon, J. C. (2001). Improving applicants’ reactions to rejection letters: An application of fairness theory. Personnel Psychology, 54, 669–704.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine.
Gonzales, M. H., Manning, D. J., & Haugen, J. A. (1992). Explaining our sins: Factors influencing offender accounts and anticipated victim reactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 958–971.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568.
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81–103.
Hodgins, H. S., Liebeskind, E., & Schwartz, W. (1996). Getting out of hot water: Facework in social predicaments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 300–314.
Jacobs, K. (1996, September 13). Brutal firings can backfire, ending in court. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1, Column 3.
Konovsky, M. A., & Folger, R. (1991). The effects of procedures, social accounts, and benefits level on victims’ reactions to layoffs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 630–650.
Landy, H. (2006, August 30). Employees learn of layoffs via e-mails. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, p. C2.
Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management, 3, 841–866.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Moss, S. E., & Martinko, M. J. (1998). The effects of performance attributions and outcome dependence on leader feedback following poor subordinate performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 259–274.
Roberts, L. M. (2005). Changing faces: Professional image construction in diverse organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 685–711.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946.
Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse?: A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 444–458.
Sitkin, S. B., & Bies, R. J. (1993). The legalistic organization: Definitions, dimensions, and dilemmas. Organization Science, 4, 345–351.
Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Reed, G. L. (1993). Prescriptions for justice: Using social accounts to legitimate the exercise of professional control. Social Justice Research, 6, 87–111.
Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. (1993). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49–77.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 555–589.
Tyler, T. R., & De Cremer, D. (2005). Process-based leadership: Fair procedures and reactions to organizational change. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 529–545.
Van den Bos, K. (2001). Fundamental research by means of laboratory experiments is essential for a better understanding of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 254–259.
Watson, G., & Sheikh, F. (2008). Normative self-interest or moral hypocrisy? The importance of context. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3), 259–269.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lavelle, J.J., Folger, R. & Manegold, J.G. Delivering Bad News: How Procedural Unfairness Affects Messengers’ Distancing and Refusals. J Bus Ethics 136, 43–55 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2500-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2500-5