ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS

1
Running head: ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS







Communication Processes During Organizational Exits/Disengagements
Jessica Gabl
Illinois State University
C/o Dr. Daniel Cochece Davis 100 N University St, Normal, IL 61761











ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
2

Communication Processes During Organizational Exits/Disengagements
Abstract
Organizational exits/disengagements are becoming more common in modern societies, causing
effective communication during this process to become increasingly important. Different
communication strategies are presented for three main types of organizational
exits/disengagements: planned, voluntary, and involuntary. Scholarly literature examine
primarily professional and educational organizations and focus on the varying communication
taking place between lower employees, middle management, and higher positions within the
organization. Patterns emerge through this research suggesting that the perceived levels of
control and uncertainty, the factors of social exchange theory, and differing levels of openness
from leadership positions, are all vital factors for an organization during the exit/disengagement
process. These factors are also strongly influenced by communication taking place during the
organizational exit. Although research is still limited, what has been discovered in the last 25
years paves the way for future research, as well as exposes effective communication strategies
for organizations experiencing ongoing changes.








ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
3

Review of Literature
In the United States, a time has come that workers commitment to a single organization
has shifted toward a focus on a particular career. Instead of being employed by one company for
their entire lifetime, Americans have become more mobile and tend to switch jobs much more
frequently than they did in the past (Miller, 2009). The increase in these types of transitions has
sparked a relatively new area of study: organizational socialization processes. These processes
refer to the communication taking place in an employees work experience from before his or her
entrance into the organization all the way until after his or her exit from that organization.
Another part of the process including disengagements and exits that has taken center
stage as the baby boom generation is reaching retirement ages and also as transfers (Jablin &
Kramer, 1998), downsizes (Armstrong-Stassen, 2002), and mergers are becoming more common
(Howard & Geist, 1995). Ebaugh (1988) explores this process, addressing the process of role
exit (p. 238). However, Jablin is credited for doing some of the first organizationally-focused
studies and literary reviews on all parts of what they termed as the assimilation processes
around the same time that Ebaugh wrote her book (Miller, 2009). Even though it has been about
25 years since Jablin and Ebaugh began to give this process some recognition, this area of study
still remains relatively new and untouched from a communication research perspective.
This paper proposes that there are three different types of exits/disengagements that can
be viewed as a spectrum of the amount of choice the employee seems to have. The first type is
planned exits. These types of disengagements from an organization are already predetermined
and a part of a persons knowledge the moment that he or she becomes a part of the organization.
Planned exits are best illustrated by the education system or by jobs that have a mandatory
requirement ages (Davis & Myers, 2012). The second type is voluntary exits. The employee may
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
4

not plan on or be aware of these exits when they first enter an organization, but the departure
from the organization in the end is ultimately his or her decision. This type of disengagement is
often seen with job transfers or when an employee quits. Finally, the last type of exit is the
involuntary type. In these cases, the decision is left up to the leadership positions within an
organization or someone in a position above the employee to initiate the employees
disengagement. Job losses due to mergers, layoffs caused by downsizing, and the simple
dismissals or firing of an employee are all examples of this type of exit.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the similarities and differences in communication
processes throughout these varying types of separations between an employee and an
organization. It is also important to point out that the terms exit and disengagement are used
interchangeably.
Starting at one end of the spectrum, planned exits refer to the type of disengagement that
occurs with organizations whose memberships are time-limited and predetermined before a
person enters or becomes committed to the organization (Davis & Myers, 2012). Examples of
organizations operating this way are airline pilots and police officers who have mandatory
requirement ages (Davis & Myers, 2012). However, educational organizations are also a valid
illustration of planned exits since, typically, students know ahead of time how long they will be
attending a school (Davis & Myers, 2012). For instance, most students attending high school
know long before entering the organization that they will likely be a part of it for four years.
Although durations of college fluctuate from person to person, when students enroll for a
semester of classes, they know before they start taking their classes that they will be attending
the college for those 15 weeks.
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
5

With these examples, retirement and graduation are typically described as positive
experiences of accomplishing some goal and moving on with life. To challenge this idea,
Schultz, Morton, and Weckerle (1998) researched the idea of push and pull factors. Push factors
are defined as negative considerations, like poor health or dislike of ones job, that induce older
workers to retire (p. 45). Opposite of push factors resides pull factors, which refer to the
positive considerations, such as the desire to pursue leisure interests or volunteer activities, that
attract older workers toward retirement (Schultz, Morton, & Weckerle, 1998, p. 45). Planned
organizational disengagement poses a contradiction on this theory, because mandatory retirement
or exit from the organization is not a choice. This means that, regardless of how someone feels
when he or she reaches the end of his or her membership, he or she will still have to leave the
organization at the same predetermined point. This causes a shift in the communication process
from trying to increase pull factors before retirement to wanting to celebrate a persons
remaining time with the organization in an attempt to avoid the feeling of reluctance and loss as
the date approaches (Davis & Myers, 2012).
Rites of passage and rites of separation are often used by organizations to help signify a
change in roles and relationships for the staying and leaving members of an organization by
providing a natural breakpoint for this to happen (Davis & Myers, 2012). These events can
include retirement parties or a senior week that many educational institutions set up. As these
final events begin to occur, Davis and Myers (2012) proposed a series of three chronological
phases that take place;45.
In their first phase, focus on future, members of an organization begin to experience
lasts as their specified leaving date approaches (Davis & Myers, 2012). During this stage,
employees begin to disengage from some responsibilities as other employees are assigned to take
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
6

control of them. This encourages them to begin focusing on what is ahead of them and causes
most communication between the departing employee and remaining employees to also be about
what lies ahead (Davis & Myers, 2012).
In Davis and Myers (2012) second phase, focus on present, departing members may find
themselves retreating back to the organization and trying to become more involved in the social
aspect of it because it is familiar to them and distracts them from the uncertainty of the future. In
some organizations, a rule may even be established to not communicate about the upcoming
exit(s) so the departers can further postpone the reality of their departure and cherish the
remaining time that they have left in the organizational network (Davis & Myers, 2012).
Finally, in the third and last phase of Davis and Myers (2012) proposition, focus on the
past and future, separation rites and rituals begin taking place as the final days and weeks of
organizational membership wind down. During this time, departing employees often reminisce
and share their advice to remaining coworkers for continued success of the company. If there are
multiple departures at the same time, such as a graduation, communication between the multiple
leavers consists of plans and excitement for the future (Davis & Myers, 2012). At this same
point, communication between leavers and stayers focuses on memories and attempting to create
a lasting impression to be left on the organization (Davis & Myers, 2012).
Sometimes, although planned exits seem like they should be less stressful, they can
become more difficult as a member becomes more reluctant to leave. It is crucial for members to
develop a feeling of connectivity to their organization during the end of their time with the
organization, especially for organizations such as schools that rely on alumni donations (Davis &
Myers, 2012). For this reason, some organizations develop retirement preparation programs to
help employees adjust to retirement and hopefully encourage more communication contact
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
7

during postretirement (Avery & Jablin, 1988). The programs attempt to assure employees that
retirement will not disconnect them from their former social networks and sources of
communication (Avery & Jablin, 1988). Interestingly enough, retirees that go through retirement
preparation programs werent found to contact their previous places of employment any more
often than the retirees that did not have these programs. However, they were more likely to
contact their former employers in person rather than by phone, email, or another alternative.
Avery and Jablins (1988) studies went on to also show that the biggest communication
adjustment for retirees was the loss of shop talk and the social aspects of their workplace; this
caused modifications in the way that they communicated with spouses and family members as
the amount of communication with these relationships increased.
In some ways, planned exit can be very similar to involuntary exits since often times it is
not the employees choice. That being said, voluntary exit may not always be as voluntary as it
is represented in its name. If members of an organization view one members behavior as deviant
and as an obstacle for the group to achieve the organizations goals, various communication
strategies can be used to encourage the deviant employee to quit (Cox, 1999). One strategy is to
change the quality of the information that they help to provide their deviant coworker with,
which is significantly related to an employees intent to quit. However, from a coworker
standpoint, the most common verbal strategies were to criticize them, encourage them to find
employment elsewhere, speak poorly of the deviant employees chances of moving up in the
organization, and to applaud job alternatives that the deviant employee may be considering (Cox,
1999). Of course, not all communication is verbal. Changes in communication behavior from
coworkers toward an employee that is perceived as deviant include avoiding speaking to that
employee all together, increase communication with other coworkers or supervisors, become less
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
8

approachable for help, act unfriendly or rude, and attempt to sabotage the deviant employees
work with an aim of getting them fired (Cox, 1999). Amongst all of these strategies, avoiding
communication and verbally criticizing the employee are the most popular options. Although the
discouragement is handled differently from person to person, it is important to remember that the
final decision to stay with or leave a company still lies in the deviant employees hands.
Since they hold more highly-ranked positions and are given the responsibility to handle
situations in a professional manner, managers handle deviant employees differently. Instead of
encouraging an employee to quit, which would put the burden on the manager to replace him or
her, a manager participates in a number of interactions to encourage a deviant employee to
improve. One managerial strategy is a temporary suspension to communicate to an employee that
his or her work is unacceptable and must change in order to avoid dismissal (Cox & Kramer,
1995). Other less direct strategies include providing additional training and structure, working
with the employee personally, and addressing the employees problem as a general problem at a
work meeting (Cox & Kramer, 1995). At this point, the decision is still left to the deviant
employee to make changes to his or her performance to try and stay with the organization, or to
exit voluntarily or face dismissal.
Of course, not all employees that are faced with a decision to stay or leave a company are
deviant employees. Just like coworkers have the ability to discourage an employee from being
with an organization, they can also play a vital role in encouraging them to stay. Lim (1996)
explains that different sources of social support can help someone relieve different types of
stress. Building on that, support from coworkers and managers is the most important type of
support to relieve work-related stress and increase job security (Lim, 1996). With the increased
amount of mergers and downsizing, as mentioned earlier, job security is more vulnerable to
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
9

destruction. Social support within organizations is critical to improve job satisfaction and
decrease the amount of employees actively searching for another job. Therefore, the
relationship between job insecurity and proactive job search became weaker for those who
perceived high levels of work-based support and stronger for those who perceived low levels of
work-based support (Lim, 1996, p. 186). This finding indicates that regardless of the job-
threatening situation that an organization could be facing, strong communication and social
networks between coworkers can help to encourage a worker to stick with the organization.
Lim (1996) also states that the ambiguity of organizational changes and lack of support
from management positions adds to job insecurity. She then suggests a solution to this problem
would be for organizations to maintain open and honest communication channels between the
variously-ranked members of the organization (Lim, 1996, p. 190). Finally, the content of the
information that is communicated during times of crisis and job insecurity is an important factor
to consider. Talking about non-job related issues during these times can help to alleviate stress
and build a type of genuine connection or feeling of caring (Lim, 1996).
Moving forward, now that communication tactics that can help to encourage or
discourage someone from leaving an organization have been discussed, it is time to address what
takes place once this disengagement is decided upon. Jablin (2001) established a three-step
process that disengagement evolves through. What has been mentioned so far about voluntary
exit would fall into the preannouncement phase; this is where an employee assesses cues and
creates a response or reaction based on how he or she perceives the cues. If this process does
lead to the decision to disengage, the announcement of exit and actual exit phase begins.
During this phase, public communication takes place verbally and private communication
is typically done through documents and memos (Jablin, 2001). At this point, it also becomes
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
10

appropriate for coworkers to talk about the disengagement since it has been officially decided
and announced. Communication is important between the employee leaving and the employees
staying at this time to decrease uncertainty and find out what really happened that lead to the
disengagement (Jablin, 2001). This would be the stage that would include rites and rituals as
mentioned earlier if, for example, it was a case of retirement. The length of this stage can vary
between organizations and provides leavers and stayers with an opportunity to talk about topics
that may otherwise be inappropriate. This phase also gives leavers a chance to pass down
information that they may have from their experience that could otherwise be lost with their
departure.
During Jablins (2001) final stage, postexit, the physical absence of the exited employee
is experienced by the workers who remain. Communication is especially required by the people
that remain in the organization to collaborate and pick up the slack or hire a replacement to fill
the spot. This physical absence also stimulates the remaining members of the organization to talk
about why the employee left and attempt to reduce their own uncertainty of what will happen
next. In addition, postexit is the stage where the primary communication that takes place is the
leaver learning about his or her new job or direction in life and the stayers incorporating the new
member into their social network to compensate for the lost communication connection (Jablin,
2001).
Even further after the exit from an organization, Jablin (2001) proposes that
communication shifts from being work-related topics to talking about personal issues within the
relationships that are kept with former coworkers. Depending on a number of factors such as the
geographical location of the new opportunity, communication typically diminishes over time
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
11

since the leavers and stayers from the original organizations move on to new companies or new
colleagues.
Job Transfers
Now shift focus to a particular type of voluntary exit: job transfers. Each year, some
400,000 individuals are transferred from one geographical location to another within
organizations as part of intraorganizational job transfers (Jablin & Kramer, 1998, p. 155). It is
likely that this number has only increased in the 15 years since. It is important to point out that
the particular type of job transfer being discussed is one that is within the same organization, but
changing locations. For this reason, communication becomes a larger aspect of the entry into the
organization since the transferee is already familiar with the operations and overall culture that is
provided by the organization (Jablin & Kramer, 1998). This causes them to focus on the
particular locations communication and social networks. To establish that they are not new to
the organization, these types of transferees rarely search actively for the help that they might
need, creating a communication barrier between him or her and his or her supervisor or manager.
Communication with transferees after they have exited one location and transferred to a
new location of the same organization focuses on helping them to adjust to the new location.
Unlike earlier where it was determined that support from work relationships help to increase job
satisfaction, this type of employee is already comfortable at work and needs additional support
outside of work. Two possible communication approaches can be taken by an organization to
help provide this support. One strategy is to focus more of the communication before the transfer
on providing information about the places that they will be relocating to (Jablin & Kramer,
1998). The second is carried out by fewer organizations and provides the transferee and his or
her family with connections to a family that lives in the area that they are moving to (Jablin &
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
12

Kramer, 1998). The family is then able to help with adjusting to the community and is also able
to provide social support and a base for building a new communication network upon (Jablin &
Kramer, 1998). The most important thing for the employees in this type of transfer situation to
do is to develop knowledge on how to communicate in their new environments inside and
outside of their organization.
So far, one end of the spectrum was classified as planned exits where employees have the
most notice and knowledge of their departure from the moment that they enter an organization.
Then, the middle of this spectrum discovered voluntary exits with varying amounts of advanced
notice that can result from simply choosing to leave an organization or from job transfer
opportunities. The focus is now shifted to the side of the spectrum opposite of planned exits with
the least amount of control, and typically the least amount of advance notice, given to the
employee effected: involuntary exits. The three main types of involuntary exits that will be the
center of this discussion are mergers, layoffs resulting from downsizing, and general dismissals
of a single employee.
Mergers
Mergers are a special case of organizational changes because, although they do
commonly result in some number of layoffs of employees, they cause a company or organization
of workers to disengage from one job and identity and take on a new one. This is because when
two separate organizations combine, it is usually a result of a firm acquiring ownership of
another firm, creating a particularly difficult transition period for the firm that is being acquired
(Cornett-DeVito & Friedman, 1995). This process may not be an exit/disengagement-specific
process since employees may not be as commonly laid off, but it can be seen as a change that
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
13

results in the exit/disengagement of a company as a whole, so it is still an important type of
occurrence to discuss.
It is estimated that approximately one out of three employees will experience a merger
or acquisition in the course of their working life (Marmenout, 2011, p. 783). Mergers provide a
great transition from voluntary to involuntary exits. They do cause an involuntary change from
the perspective of an employee. However, from an organizational standpoint, the communication
processes that take place reflect those that take place during an employees voluntary exit, as
discussed previously. Communication within each organization and between the merging
organizations is key to yielding the desired results (Cornett-DeVito & Friedman, 1995). Cornett-
DeVito and Friedman (1995) identified three stages of communication that organizations
participate in during a merger: around the announcement, the initial combination process, and
postmerger adjustment. These phases focus on who the communication is taking place between,
what messages are being communicated, and how those messages are taking place.
From their study of multiple firms going through mergers, the around the
announcement stage involves primarily communication between the highest managers of the
two (or more) organizations (Cornett-DeVito & Friedman, 1995, p. 52). During this stage, it is
easy to assume that equal give-and-take communication should take place between the acquiring
and the acquired organizations to be sure that the organization being acquired feels a sense of
participation and control; this would result in a better perceived quality of the communication
and better results entering the merger. However, the study found the opposite effect. This type of
participation in communication was actually more apparent in the mergers that ended up being
less successful. The more successful merging firms exhibited communication coming from the
acquiring firm to the acquired firm in a way that resembled how a manager would guide a new
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
14

employee (Cornett-DeVito & Friedman, 1995). It was more effective for the acquiring
organization to provide directive communication to the acquired organization as guidance into
the expectations and the relationship that they would try to achieve (Cornett-DeVito & Friedman,
1995). This communication takes place around the announcement as the name suggests, but
there is still little information provided about the communication that is taking place amongst
lower employees at this time. A few trends discovered about an employees perspective during
this phase, however, are that the sequence and channels of the communication varied during the
announcement of a merger. When rumors of a merger circulated before an official announcement
was made, negative reactions were more common (Cornett-DeVito & Friedman, 1995). In
addition, when the messages were communicated through memos and documents, rather than
personal visits, employees also reacted more negatively (Cornett-DeVito & Friedman, 1995).
The second stage of communication of the merging process is the initial combination
process that occurs as long as one year after the official announcement (Cornett-DeVito &
Friedman, 1995, p. 52). At this time, lower and middle management of both the acquired and
acquiring firms communicate with each other; they also communicate through a combined effort
with the employees of the firm that is being acquired (Cornett-DeVito & Friedman, 1995). The
most effective messages that can be communicated during this time is accurate information from
the acquirer. This information lead to more successful mergers when it was sooner rather than
later and when it was more realistic as opposed to being sugar coated (Cornett-DeVito &
Friedman, 1995). Much like during the around the announcement stage, employees during this
stage prefer to have personal assistance and training from acquiring management rather than
contact through phone calls and emails. This ambiguity can result in a perceived condescending
tone that would defeat the purpose of the information that was being provided (Cornett-DeVito
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
15

& Friedman, 1995). Based on the previously discussed notion of how important control is to an
employee at his or her workplace, an acquiring organization can promote a highly regarded
hero from the acquired firm into an executive position. This action can symbolically
communicate a feeling of control to the acquired organization during a time that they have such a
small amount of it (Cornett-DeVito & Friedman, 1995).
By the postmerger adjustment stage, the two organizations have gone through the
transition of becoming one, and the communication becomes more lateral between all of its
managers and employees (Cornett-DeVito, & Friedman, 1995, p. 52). By this time, the focus of
communication has moved passed the initial informative stage into a stage where supportive
communication is the most valued. As the discussion about voluntary exits demonstrated,
supportive communication and socialization within a workplace is vital for job satisfaction
amongst employees, lower stress levels, and a more successful organization.
To further stress the importance of effective up-down communication in the beginning
parts of a merger, Marmenout (2011) explains that when clear information from supervisor
positions of an organization is absent, employees turn to each other to determine how to react to
the merger. This can lead to a phenomenon that she coined as collective rumination
(Marmenout, 2011, p. 799). As it was already mentioned, directive, timely, and informative
communication is especially important during the merging process to the employees of the
organization that is being acquired. When this communication is lacking, it is likely that the
merger will be perceived as more negative by the employees that are left to remain uncertain and
out of control during this change process. Collective rumination is when the repetitive, casual
discussion about negative opinions regarding the merger takes place within a group of peers that
influences the group to have an even more negative reaction to the merger announcement
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
16

(Marmenout, 2011). To avoid collective rumination and the negative effects that it could result in
throughout a merger, it is important for managers of all ranks to acknowledge the significance of
the communication process and use it strategically and meaningfully.
Downsizing and Layoffs
The communication process during mergers is important to organizational
exits/disengagements because they can result in layoffs. However, layoffs are seen the most
often as a result of downsizing. Downsizing the number of employees in an organization is
usually done as an attempt to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization
(Tourish, Paulsen, Hobman, & Bordia, 2004). Although it is up for debate of whether or not
these strategies are actually proved to be effective, the communication that takes place during
layoffs is especially important as this discussion is shifting to what could be the most involuntary
type of exit. The communication can place blame on varying individuals, determine the
relationship with the organization and the exiting employees, and have a profound effect on the
employees who are left behind, or the stayers.
Once again, the importance of clear and complete information to communicate a sense of
control is highlighted during the process of downsizing. Although it is a high-stress time for all
employees, when they feel that they are somehow participating in the downsize, even if it is only
by a means of being fully informed, perceptions tend to be more positive than an environment
that does not communicate a sense of participation (Tourish et al., 2004). An example of this is
for an organization to help clarify the criteria that is determining the layoffs (Tourish et al.,
2004). The reason that this particular type of communication may be seen as so important is
because it helps employees to understand the events that are occurring and helps to eliminate a
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
17

feeling of uncertainty. This kind of communication can also act as a foresight for the level of
trust and integrity that the organization will show following the downsize (Tourish, et al., 2004).
Much like mergers, although downsizing causes an involuntary exit for many employees,
it is a planned change from an organizational perspective. Although it has already been said that
open communication during these difficult transitions is effective, many managers engage in a
distancing strategy to minimize face-to-face awkwardness and attempt to remove himself or
herself from a position of blame (Folger & Skarlicki, 1998). This type of closed-communication
behavior practiced by various levels of management and decision makers creates a ripe
environment for rumors to circulate (Tourish, et al., 2004). Considering that the closed-
communication strategy is usually caused by the fear of discouraging employees and causing
them to leave or become disobedient, it is important knowledge for decision makers to know that
rumors can depict an even more negative idea of the downsize and result in even greater
uncertainty and motivation to leave the organization (Tourish, et al., 2004). It seems obvious that
management would have a less negative view of the downsize since they are in more powerful
positions. However, Tourish et al. (2004) suggests that the main difference in attitudes between
managers and subordinates during a downsize is that management receives more communication
about information, with more reasoning for specific actions, and in a quicker amount of time.
From this idea, it is likely that lower and middle managers may experience downsizing in a way
similar to their subordinates if they, too, are not as promptly or as well communicated with.
So far, the communication that has been discussed for layoffs is the communication that
takes place before the actual downsize occurs. As it approaches, leavers and stayers are decided
upon and established and the actual exit and adjustment process begins. To begin with, there is
an emphasis on the managers communication with employees that will no longer be a part of the
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
18

organization as a result of the downsizing. Open communication is highlighted again; providing
necessary, accurate information and explanations, expressing remorse, and displaying
consideration can all generate a feeling of genuine sensitivity from a manager (Folger &
Skarlicki, 1998). In turn, these types of interactions can reduce negativity and resentment from a
leaver as they exit the organization. Also, once leaver and stayer roles are established, the
communication process between the announcement and the actual departure of the leaving
employees resembles planned organizational exits. Leavers long for communication regarding a
change in roles and responsibilities. Stayers seek information involving the professional changes
that they will be facing as a result of the layoffs. From this point on, the leavers experience
follows some of the same steps as planned exits such as shifting focus to the future. At the same
time, they may undergo some of the same voluntary exit scenarios that transferees faced as they
begin the shift to a new organization or location.
After the employees that were laid off finish the exiting process, the stayers, or
survivors, of an organizational downsize become the center of attention. It has already been
mentioned that layoffs that are perceived as unfair or management that seems to be
untrustworthy during layoffs can result in a more negative employee reaction, but a continuing
perceived threat that layoffs may happen again will also lead to negative behaviors exhibited by
survivors (Brockner, Spreitzer, Mishra, Hochwarter, Pepper, & Weinberg, 2004). Morale could
also be reduced if the survivors had close relationships with the employees that left. The
environment that is often left behind after layoffs occur results in the feeling of low job security
as well as low control of the present and future (Brockner et al., 2004).
Even if management and decision-makers were successful in providing as positive of
communication as possible to members of their organization during a downsize, the focus on
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
19

communication cannot stop there. There are many common mistakes that are made by managers
throughout the layoff process that can cause problems for the organization and its surviving
members. Some organizations attempt to ease the stress and perceived change in workload by
developing slogans such as work smarter, not harder or right-size, dont downsize (ONeill
& Lenn, 1995, p. 25). These types of slogans can actually anger surviving employees by being
seen as glorifying the layoff process and trying to mask the real, harsh reality of the
organizational restructuring (ONeill & Lenn, 1995). Communication also tends to decrease
between upper and middle management once downsizing is complete, leaving middle managers
to carry out new changes in processes and policies with very little information on what the new
strategies are and with little involvement or voice in creating them (ONeill & Lenn, 1995). This
lack in communication may become evident to subordinates and symbolically put the middle and
lower management on the same plane as their employees. While this isnt all bad during change,
when additional directive management is necessary, it can also create roles of managers and
employees as victims of the head managers or CEO, shifting blame to the top of the organization.
At this point, when the members leading an organizations communication is perceived as
untrustworthy or insensitive, rumors begin circulating, once again, and some employees may
lose hope that the downsizing will actually result in any type of new era (ONeill & Lenn,
1995).
Even if all up-down communication during the downsizing process is smooth and
successful, Armstrong-Stassen (2002) discovered one more factor that can influence the
survivors after disengagements have taken place. She starts by revealing that during the
downsizing process, many organizations will declare certain job positions to be redundant. While
it has been shown through multiple studies that open communication is typically more positive
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
20

while enforcing layoffs, it may not be wise to openly declare particular positions as redundant
prior to downsizing. The employees who receive this type of declaration, but then still remain in
the organization after downsizing, face higher levels of stress and are more likely to burnout
once the organization is functioning regularly again (Armstrong-Stassen, 2002). Her findings
that these employees were less proactive in seeking support suggest that they felt like they had an
extra something to prove to better secure their jobs in case of a future organizational downsize.
An additional factor to consider is the severity of a downsizing that occurs. Brockner and Grover
(1988) found that, when layoffs were perceived as mild, big predictors of survivors job
involvement were the work ethic and job ambiguity that carried over from before the layoffs
took place. When they were seen as being more severe, neither of these measurements were
accurate predictors (Brockner & Grover, 1988). This perceived level of severity can be enhanced
or softened through the organizational communication that takes place during the process. It is
likely that when survivors are left to feel that they made it through a more severe downsizing
process, their changed job performance is an effect of the same job insecurity that the redundant
job survivors felt. Although a majority of current organizational disengagement research
explores layoffs resulting from downsizing, this type of change is not believed to have long-term
effects on survivors (Armstrong-Stassen, 2002).
Dismissals
The last type of involuntary exit to be discussed is the general dismissal of a single
employee. A more common phrase for this is to fire someone. This type of disengagement may
be the most simple or straight forward and may also occur more easily and often with lower-level
or minimum wage employees. Even with its surface simplicity, the research and literature about
the communication that takes place during this type of exit from an organization is very limited.
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
21

General dismissals are typically more intimate and take place only between a manager or
supervisor and his or her subordinate. However, this does not indicate that these are the only two
members involved in the process, as it was earlier described that coworkers may relay
information to managers with the intent to make the targeted employee more encouraged to leave
or to influence the managers decision to fire the targeted employee. Inside information from
these sources is important for bringing problems to a managers attention that they may not have
seen, but other sources of information that a manager usually relies on are his or her superiors
and colleagues (Cox & Kramer, 1995). This goes to show that, although it may be more personal
and intimate of an event in comparison to mergers or layoffs, there are still many networks of
communication that play a role in the decision-making. It is important, however, to recognize the
difference between the types of information that a manager seeks from these different group
members within the organization. Other managerial colleagues or supervisors help to provide
advice on the actual dismissal decision that the manager faces, while other organizational
members, and even customers, help to provide information about the targeted employees job
performance (Cox & Kramer, 1995). Another consideration is that different organizations have
different policies about dismissals, and in some organizations, they are greatly discouraged and
employees may frequently fight for their jobs back after disengagement occurs. These
reoccurring events, along with other possible examples, create a type of culture in the
organization that communicates dismissal as being a negative process to engage in. In
organizations like this, the costs outweigh the benefits of ridding of a deviant employee, so
managers are less willing to use dismissal due to the high amount of time and risks that come
with the process (Klaas & DellOmo, 1997).
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
22

As with other types of disengagements, the dismissal process also can be broken into
basic steps. Cox and Kramer (1995) identified these steps as shifting from informal, face-to-face
communication to formal, documented communication. More specifically, the problem is
identified, casual and verbal interaction first addresses the problem, a varying number of
documented warnings are written if the problem persists, and eventually the ongoing events will
lead to termination (Cox & Kramer, 1995). They went on to assess the steps that take place
during the termination meeting with an employee that is about to be dismissed, and first assumed
that by that time, employees typically know what the meeting is about when it begins.
Regardless, a list of steps still seems to endure in most dismissal meetings. The steps are as
follow: The manger asks the employee about his or her own rating of his or her performance, the
employee responds and continues the back and forth communication, or resigns immediately
(Cox & Kramer, 1995). The manager then explains the problem at hand and reviews the formal
documentation that has lead to the meeting, again giving the employee an opportunity to respond
by agreeing or disagreeing and attempting to explain the problem (Cox & Kramer, 1995).
Finally, the manager decides on the dismissal phrase that he or she feels is appropriate (Cox &
Kramer, 1995). Due to the amount of events and cues that lead to this meeting, employees are
rarely surprised and are given an opportunity to ask any follow-up questions for personal or
professional reasons. More often in seemingly peaceful termination meetings, it will end with the
manager offering advice to the employee so he or she can avoid being terminated by his or her
next employer (Cox & Kramer, 1995).
The procedures that take place following this type of disengagement can vary from
employee to employee. Managers may need to contact coworkers in case they need to pick up a
part of a project that leaves with a dismissed employee. To illustrate sensitivity and a feeling of
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
23

caring through communication, as deemed important previously, managers may specifically
target the coworkers that were closest with the dismissed employee and attempt to provide any
type of additional support that those workers may need. In more closely-knit organizations, such
as a small retail store, most of the communication regarding a dismissal after it takes place is
completely left alone by managers. They answer simple questions that clarify the end of a
coworkers employment, but they leave the rest of the information to be communicated through
the grapevine (Cox & Kramer, 1995, p. 176). At this point, the basic communication that takes
place regarding the former employee varies depending on if remaining coworkers supported or
disagreed with the dismissal decision. Further, the former employee has the option to appeal a
dismissal, but this process isnt always available to every organization and often human
resources are only able to provide mediation since they do not have the authorization to overturn
a dismissal (Klass & DellOmo, 1997). It may be a common practice for an employee to go to
human resources following his or her exit if he or she is unhappy with the events, but does not
necessarily want his or her job back, in an attempt to badmouth or sabotage the company. This
may be a mechanism to cope with resentment and regain some feeling of control on the
employees part.
Discussion of Discovered Patterns
After comparing and contrasting between these three types of exit/disengagement on the
spectrum, it is now important to highlight patterns that have been developed. The three biggest
overlying topics are costs and benefits, control and uncertainty, and the communication strategies
from higher, or leadership, positions.
Costs and benefits are displayed most obviously in voluntary exits, but they are not
absent from planned or involuntary exits. No matter what type of organization or position an
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
24

employee is in, there is a goal or a reason that is keeping them there. For example, the financial
benefits of someone having a job that he or she hates may outweigh the emotional stress and the
potential of not being able to provide for his or her family. Gabris and Ihrke (2006) explain this
ongoing cost-benefit assessing process that is constantly taking place. They recognize that there
is a goal or destination, and when inconsistencies surface, the current strategy being used to
reach that goal must be assessed (Gabris & Douglas, 2006). If the strategy seems to be effective,
expand it; if the strategy doesnt seem to be working, reformulate it by exploring new options
(Gabris & Douglas, 2006). To illustrate this, as mentioned earlier, coworkers and managers may
attempt to encourage deviant employees to exit an organization willingly. For the deviant
employee, when these obstacles or inconsistencies with his or her original expectations occur, a
change in the goal-aimed strategy must be made. He or she may try to expand the strategy by
adding a new focus on the social aspect of the organization in attempt to become more accepted
and decrease the amount of constant pushes to leave. If he or she didnt see the benefits of that
type of expansion outweighing the costs (which in this case, would be the extra amount of
energy being spent on socialization), he or she would likely start searching for alternative
organizational opportunities. These cost/benefit analyses lead to employee turnover most often in
the employees first or second years of employment (Hvinden, 1984). Adding to this, employees
that have served the same organization for a long period of time are less likely to quit than those
that havent been there for as long (Hvinden, 1984). This is likely because the costs of leaving an
organization increase as time goes on. Years of work to become established, pensions, tenure,
seniority, and social networks are only some of the costs that would be lost if an employee
wanted to leave an organization further into her or his membership. This means that there would
have to be extraordinary benefits offered for this change to be appealing. A majority of these
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
25

costs and benefits only exist through all of the organizational communication processes that have
been mentioned that allow alternatives to seem more or less appealing.
A second topic that has been spoken of frequently in the comparing and contrasting of
disengagement is the feeling of control and the feeling of uncertainty. People are programmed to
be more comfortable with familiar things, so it is often habit to avoid unfamiliar things that cause
uncertainty. Throughout the organizational exit process, it seems that eliminating uncertainty is
essential; the decrease in uncertainty can even increase a perceived feeling of control. However,
the case of planned exits seems to challenge this pattern since having complete control over the
situation doesnt always decrease the uncertainty following the disengagement. Likewise, having
close to no uncertainty upon leaving an organization in this situation doesnt eliminate the
feeling that the mandatory exit is out of the members control. In voluntary exits, the feeling of
control may be based on if an employee feels that he or she is leaving an organization by choice,
or because other members of the organization are pushing him or her in that direction. In a case
of voluntary exits, as well, uncertainty should be relatively lower since there isnt anything that
the organization is hiding from the employee that would influence his or her job security. Of
course, control and uncertainty become the most significant topics in the case of involuntary
organizational exits. It was demonstrated earlier through numerous examples that when
employees feel that uncertainty is at a minimum due to the open communication practices
performed by the organization, they perceive that organization as being more trustworthy. This
generally causes a less negative or helpless of a feeling from the employees suffering a job loss
as well as a more positive and less insecure feeling for the survivors as they move forward with
the organization. Even after disengagement has taken place, communication outlets, such as the
exit interview, may help to increase a feeling of a lasting impact or sense of control for the
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
26

leaving employee. This type of upward communication is especially important because, not only
does it provide a leaving employee with a more satisfying feeling, but it also presents critical
information to higher organizational positions that could help to better the organizations
communication processes during exits (Gordon, 2011).
Finally, the communication style displayed by the leadership positions in an organization
creates a culture of expectations and positive or negative opinions for the employees. Gordon
(2011) said it best when he stated a pluralistic organization that permits the expression of varied
perspectives and opinions provides fertile ground for a communication climate supportive of
greater disclosure (p. 64). In short, an organization that promotes communication provides more
opportunity for ideas and discovery to take place. As it has been demonstrated in this paper, this
type of communication also dictates the ability an organization has to get through disengagement
processes efficiently. In relation to the elimination of uncertainty, leadership roles are inherently
communication-based since they are provided with an insight on information that is otherwise
not available to other members of an organization; it becomes a leader or managers
responsibility to communicate this information that helps lead an organization to its goals
(Seeger & Ulmer, 2003). From a cost and benefit standpoint, leaders have the ability to provide
an environment that employees will want to be a part of and feel satisfied staying in. From an
uncertainty perspective, management has the option to provide employees with the information
that they need in different stages of a disengagement process. From a control angle, engaging in
lateral communication may give employees a larger feeling of control and help to facilitate an
increased amount of ideas being communicated throughout an organization. For the purpose of
this paper, the terms leader and manager are used in reference to the same higher-ranked
positions within an organization. The communication displayed and carried out by these
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
27

positions seems to either tie together all other important aspects of disengagements or allow the
exiting process to become an organizations demise.
Research on organizational disengagements is still surprisingly rare for how popular of a
topic it has become. Even further, the process that immediately follows leaving an organization
is a process that is even more foreign. Ashforth (2001) has begun studying this process and
identifying obstacles that a person may face such as resources for coping, feelings of nostalgia,
and even the differences between different types of job loss that have been discussed. To no
surprise, communication plays a key role in the process immediately following organizational
exit as well (Ashforth, 2001). It would be to an organizations benefit for research to continue
expanding and improving to include some of the important underlying factors that seem to be
present in every type of disengagement. Most of the information that has been provided so far is
still either very broad, or only specific to one example or group of employees, making it difficult
to understand or extract general principles that guide the way for how communication should
take place during organizational assimilation processes.
Much like how people learn how to deal with relationships and breakups, it is also
important to learn how to become an ex of an organization (Ebaugh, 1988). Also similar to a
relationship, communication can be the glue holding an organization together through tough
times, or acts as the fuse for the bomb that can lead to an organizations destruction. As more
breakups are researched, this area has the ability to mature and set a foundation for future
successful organizations to blossom in the present and future. After planned, voluntary, and
involuntary exits have been discussed, areas have become clear that need an expansion on
information and sources, while other patterns have been recognized as being important through
numerous studies from the last 25 years. As the organizational exit process becomes more
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
28

common, it is important to focus on the wellbeing of those who take part in it. Then again,
everyone participates in this process either directly or indirectly, so further investigation on the
topic can have the potential to improve the wellbeing of the country as a whole.




















ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
29

References
Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2002). Designated redundant but escaping lay-off: A special group of
lay-off survivors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 1-13.
Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Avery, C. M., & Jablin, F. M. (1998). Retirement preparation programs and organizational
communication. Communication Education, 37, 68-80.
Brockner, J., & Grover, S. L. (1998). Predictors of survivor's job involvement following layoffs:
A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 436-442.
Brockner, J., Spreitzer, G., Mishra, A., Hochwarter, W., Pepper, L., & Weinberg, J. (2004).
Perceived control as an antidote to the negative effects of layoffs on survivors'
organizational commitment and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49,
76-100.
Cornett-DeVito, M. M., & Friedman, P. G. (1995). Communication processes and merger
success: An exploratory study of four financial institution mergers. Management
Communication Quarterly, 9(1), 46-77.
Cox, S. A. (1999). Group communication and employee turnover: How coworkers encourage
peers to voluntarily exit. Southern Communication Journal, 64, 181-192.
Cox, S. A., & Kramer, M. W. (1995). Communication during employee dismissals: Social
exchange principles and group influences on employee exit. Management
Communication Quarterly, 9, 156-190.
Davis, C. W., & Myers, K. K. (2012). Communication and member disengagement in planned
organizational exit. Western Journal of Communication, 76, 194-216.
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
30

Ebaugh, H. R. F. (1988). Becoming an ex: The process of role exit. Chicago, IL: The University
of Chicago 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(1), 79-87.
Gabris, G. T., & Ihrke, D. M. (2006). Up the Boland: A crisis of disengagement. Public
Administration Quarterly, 30, 56-81.
Gordon, M. E. (2011). The dialectics of the exit interview: A fresh look at conversations about
organizational disengagement. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 59-86.
Howard, L. A., & Geist, P. (1995). Ideological positioning in organizational change: The
dialectic of control in a merging organization. Communication Monographs, 62, 110-129.
Hvinden, B. (1984). Exits and entrances: Notes for a theory of socialization and boundary-
crossing in work organizations. Acta Sociologica, 27, 185-198.
Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F.M. Jablin
& L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances
in Theory, Research, and Methods (1st ed., pp. 732-818). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Jablin, F. M., & Kramer, M. W. (1998). Communication-related sense-making and adjustment
during job transfers. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 155-182.
Klaas, B. S., & Dell'Omo, G. G. (1997). Managerial use of dismissal: Organizational-level
determinants. Personnel Psychology, 50, 927-949.
Lim, V. K. G. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects of work-based and
nonwork-based social support. Human Relations, 49(2), 171-192.
ORGANIZATIONAL EXITS
31

Marmenout, K. (2011). Peer interaction in mergers: Evidence of collective rumination. Human
Resource Management, 50, 783-808.
Miller, K. (2009). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (5th ed., pp. 120-
135). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
O'Neill, H. M., & Lenn, D. J. (1995). Voices of survivors: Words that downsizing CEOs should
hear. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 23-33.
Schultz, K. S., Morton, K. R., & Weckerle, J. R. (1998). The influence of push and pull factors
on voluntary and involuntary early retirees' retirement decision and adjustment. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 53, 45-57.
Seeger, M. W., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Explaining Enron: Communication and responsible
leadership. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(1), 58-84.
Tourish, D., Paulsen, N., Hobman, E., & Bordia, P. (2004). The downsides of downsizing:
communication processes information needs in the aftermath of a workforce reduction
strategy. Management Communication Quarterly, 17, 485-516.