Procedural Fairness in Restructuring and Layoffs Measure

Abstract

The Procedural Fairness in Restructuring and Layoffs measure, developed by Mansour-Cole and Scott (1998), is a 14-item instrument designed to evaluate employee perceptions of organizational justice during periods of company restructuring and associated layoffs. The scale specifically assesses the fairness of the procedures employed by management and the degree of respect and consideration shown to employees during the implementation of these changes. By capturing both procedural and interactive components of fairness, the measure provides a comprehensive assessment of how employees—particularly those who remain, often referred to as survivors—perceive their treatment by management.

Although the scale was initially conceptualized as having two distinct subscales (one for procedures and one for the quality of interactions), subsequent empirical testing revealed that the items were highly correlated and cross-loaded, leading the authors to combine them into a single, unified measure of procedural fairness in this specific organizational context.

Keywords

Procedural fairness, Organizational justice, Layoffs, Restructuring, Employee perceptions, Organizational commitment, Leader-Member Exchange, Personnel psychology

Authors

Mansour-Cole, D. M., Scott, S. G.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the measure is to quantify the extent to which organizational procedures implemented during large-scale changes, such as restructuring and subsequent layoffs, are perceived as fair by the remaining workforce. It serves as a tool for researchers and practitioners to understand how the manner of implementation—not just the outcome—affects employee attitudes and behaviors.

The scale focuses on two critical facets of organizational treatment: the formal procedures (e.g., consistency, information gathering) and the quality of interpersonal interactions (e.g., respect, dignity, sensitivity) demonstrated by management towards employees facing job changes or eliminations.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of Procedural Fairness within the domain of Organizational Justice, specifically applying it to the context of organizational decline or change. Procedural fairness relates to the perceived fairness of the processes used to determine outcomes, rather than the outcomes themselves. In this scale, the construct is operationalized through 14 items that capture both the formal process characteristics (e.g., adequate input, clear explanations) and the interactional quality (e.g., kindness, respect, truthfulness) experienced by the employees.

Validity

The validity of the measure was established through its correlation with several theoretically relevant organizational outcomes and perceptions. The scale demonstrated significant positive correlations with:

• Distributive Fairness: The perceived fairness of the outcomes received by the employees.
• Source of Information: Employees who reported hearing about the layoff directly from their manager (a sign of respect and transparency) reported higher levels of procedural fairness.
• Leader-Member Exchange (LMX): A stronger relationship between the employee and their direct manager was positively associated with perceptions of procedural fairness.
• Legitimacy of Account: The extent to which the management’s explanation for the layoff was viewed as legitimate.
• Organizational Commitment: Higher procedural fairness was linked to stronger commitment among surviving employees.
• Personal Benefit: Receiving personal benefit from the restructuring or layoff process.

Conversely, procedural fairness correlated negatively with an employee having a closer relationship with the layoff victims. This suggests that emotional proximity to those negatively affected by the outcomes may diminish perceptions of fair procedure, regardless of management’s actions (Mansour-Cole & Scott, 1998).

Reliability

The internal consistency of the 14-item measure was assessed using coefficient alpha. The scale demonstrated strong reliability, yielding a Coefficient Alpha of .88 (Mansour-Cole & Scott, 1998). This value indicates that the items reliably measure a consistent underlying construct of procedural fairness within the restructuring context.

Factor Analysis

During the development phase, the scale items were initially selected with the expectation of forming two distinct dimensions: one focusing on formal procedures and the other on the quality of interactions (or interactional justice). However, an exploratory factor analysis revealed significant cross-loading among several items. Furthermore, the two resulting subscales, although conceptually distinct, were highly correlated in practice. Given the high inter-correlation and factor complexity, the authors concluded that the items were best utilized as a single, unidimensional measure of procedural fairness in the context of organizational change.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire

Format: 14 items utilizing a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Employees (Organizational Survivors)

Age Group: Adult working population

Population Details: Employees remaining in an organization following major events such as restructuring or downsizing.

Test Methodology: Psychometric scale designed for assessment within organizational behavior and industrial/organizational psychology research.

Keywords

Organizational behavior, Employee morale, Downsizing, Organizational communication, Interactional justice, Survivor syndrome, Personnel Psychology

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in the source material)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in the source material)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not provided in the source material)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was published in 1998 by Mansour-Cole and Scott. The items were published in the appendix of the original article in Personnel Psychology. The authors noted that the content was reproduced with permission from the copyright holder (Copyright© 1998).

Test Year: 1998

Permissions: Users should consult the journal Personnel Psychology or the original authors for current permissions regarding research or commercial use of the instrument.

Reference’s

Mansour-Cole, D. M., & Scott, S. G. (1998). Hearing it through the grapevine: The influence of source, leader-relations, and legitimacy on survivors’ fairness perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 51(1), 25-54. Items were taken from the appendix, p. 54. Copyright© 1998. Reproduced with permission.

Items of the Procedural Fairness in Restructuring and Layoffs measure

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Responses are obtained using a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

1. When decisions are made about job reductions and reassignments, management treated me with kindness and respect
2. Management made sure that all employee concerns were heard before job changes and elimination decisions were made
3. When making decisions about job changes and eliminations, management offered explanations that made sense to me
4. When decisions are made about my job, management was sensitive to my personal needs
5. To make this decision, management collected all the necessary information
6. Management explained very clearly all the decisions made about the restructuring
7. When decisions were made about job changes and eliminations, my manager and others in management treated me with respect and dignity
8. When decisions were made about the restructuring, management dealt with me in a truthful manner
9. Management clarified decisions and provided additional information when requested by employees
10. When decisions were made about job changes and eliminations, management showed concern for my rights as an employee
11. All job decisions were applied consistently across all affected employees
12. Employees were allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by management
13. People at my job level had adequate input in to the restructuring decision process
14. Procedures were put in place to provide the employees with timely information about the restructuring and its implementation