DISCUSSION

Why do people file wrongful-termination suits against their former employers? The
present study provides some insight into this question by advancing our
understanding of the antecedents of claiming against organizations. Perhaps our
most striking finding is the large effect associated with the treatment a terminated
employee had received, especially at the time of termination. Feelings of unfair,
insensitive treatment at termination had nearly twice the effect of the next most
potent factor in determining who would consider suing and who would not.

The results suggest that claiming is triggered by two sets of motives that operate in
different ways. The first set of motives are social psychological, turning on feelings of
injustice and poor treatment. These factors operate by stimulating people to think
about the possibility of suing their former employers. The second set of motives
involves feelings of financial harm and expectations of turning around these
conditions by winning a wrongful-termination award. These economic concerns
appear both to induce people to think about claiming and to increase their willingness
to take action on these thoughts, but their net effects are not as strong as the effects
of the psychological variables. Each of these motives is reflected in one of the
specialized literatures through which this research was conceptualized: the social
psychological motives are central to organizational justice, and the economic
variables are central to the economics literature.

Motives central to the third literature that speaks to the initiation of legal claims, the
sociolegal literature, received less strong support. Blame, a key issue in sociolegal
discussions of claiming, was not related to the claiming process nearly as strongly as
we had expected. Even when it did affect the claiming process, it did so for only a
subset of the respondents (those who were fired, as opposed to laid off) and only to
a modest extent. There was only modest support for the idea that certain groups are
especially likely to sue, and for the groups that did sue more--women, minorities, and
union workers--the reason lay as much in perceptions of poor treatment as in the
perceived likelihood of winning or ease of access to attorneys. But we did find
support for one sociolegal predictor of claims consciousness: highly educated
respondents were more likely to sue than less educated ones.

Although both the economic variables (i.e., expected winnings and perceptions of
financial hardship) and the treatment variables (i.e., treatment on the job and
treatment at termination) had substantial effects on claiming, the treatment variables
clearly had the stronger impact. Given these results, the present study provides a
particularly striking and powerful confirmation of the established finding that fairness
and related quality-of-treatment variables can affect organizationally relevant
attitudes and behavior (Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997; Greenberg and Lind,
2000). The most innovative aspect of our findings, however, has to do with what they
tell us about how, when, and why treatment effects have such strong effects.

Theoretical Implications

Two findings from the present research have special significance for the
development of new theory about organizational justice phenomena: the massive
consequences of poor treatment at the time of termination and the accelerating
vendetta pattern of this effect. Both demonstrate that all justice experiences are not
created equal. Instead, some justice experiences appear to have much stronger
impact than others. Relational models of organizational justice predict that the social
context and social implications of a justice-relevant experience can determine the
magnitude of the experience's effect, such that when an organizational relationship is
in flux, fairness-relevant experiences become especially potent determinants of
fairness judgments. In our study, this enhancement of justice-oriented effects is seen
in stronger effects of unfair treatment at termination than unfair treatment during the
course of employment. [14]

Our findings with respect to fairness, explanations, and dignity of treatment show that
people react not only to the outcomes they expect to receive but also to nuances of
treatment and style. Although these findings mirror those seen in other organizational
justice studies (for a review, see Greenberg and Lind, 2000), our study shows that
quality of treatment can affect people's perceptions of outcomes as severe as the
termination of employment. Even when they receive one of the most negative
outcomes an organization can give, nonetheless, fair, honest, and dignified treatment
can reduce substantially the temptation to retaliate through litigation.

We found little support for the idea from Brockner and Wiesenfeld (1996) that the
strength of organizational justice effects was enhanced by the magnitude of financial
hardship accompanying loss of one's job. Brockner and Wiesenfeld were unclear
about whether justice effects are strong whenever the outcome is the least bit
negative or whether justice effects become progressively stronger as outcomes
become worse, but our findings suggest that the effect does not occur when the
outcome dimension consists of varying degrees of a negative outcome. We found
that it is not the magnitude of negative outcomes that most noticeably enhances the
strength of fairness effects but, rather, the magnitude of unfair treatment. This is
evident in the vendetta effect seen in our data, the acceleration of claiming as unfair
treatment becomes more extreme. Relational theories of justice (e.g., Lind, 1999,
2001) predict that extreme perceptions of injustice, especially extreme injustice
occurring in situations that themselves threaten eaten self-esteem, will prompt a
vendetta in which people redefine their relationship with another (a former employer
in this case) as one of deep and continuing opposition. Although we did not measure
self-esteem, it is known that job termination threatens self-esteem (Leana and
Feldman, 1992), and we did observe this substantial vendetta effect with job
terminations. In this respect, the present findings dovetail nicely with recent writings
about justice and revenge-oriented behavior in organizations. Bies, Tripp, and
Kramer (1997) noted the potency of revenge and its link to perceived injustice, and
our findings suggest that revenge-motivated behavior, like other justice-driven
effects, is especially likely to occur when a person perceives that he or she has
suffered especially poor treatment in the course of some substantial change in the
nature of his or her relationship with the organization.

In addition, our findings relating to the importance of fairness, honesty, and dignity of
treatment provide some important clues about the aspects of the employer-employee
interaction that are most crucial to feelings of just treatment. Decisions about whether
or not to file a legal claim against one's former employer were neither strongly nor
directly related to a measure closely related to traditional exchange-based notions of
the employer-employee relationship: fairness of pay during employment (Miceli,
1993) was not a significant predictor of claiming. Instead, what mattered most were
factors more closely linked to the relational processes in organizations (Cropanzano
and Greenberg, 1997; Tyler and Lind, 1992).

One could argue that the findings of this study are among the most striking examples
of the impact of relational concerns on organizational behavior. After all, between
one in seven and one in five of those who felt they had been lied to, dismissed
without dignity, or treated unfairly ultimately filed lawsuits. Claimants, fully 80 percent
of whom were in the most extreme category with respect to perceptions of
disrespectful treatment at termination, may well have been seeking to use litigation to
force their former employers into a negative relationship so as to retrieve some of the
social identity they lost by being dismissed in a demeaning way. Presumably, the
litigation, once undertaken, will be continued until the former employees feel they
have reestablished the social identity they lost in the employment termination
experience (Lind et al., 1990).

Practical Implications

From a practical perspective, our findings have important implications for companies
concerned about their exposure to wrongful-termination litigation. The importance of
psychological factors in stimulating or suppressing consideration of claiming shows
that many wrongful-termination suits could be avoided if only effective human
relations practices were employed. A good start, our results suggest, is to treat
employees fairly throughout their employment and to foster the belief that the
organization is concerned about fair treatment (Greenberg, 1990b). Although this
advice might be easier to give than to enact, some guidance about how fairness
judgments can be created is provided by the organizational justice literature. For
example, it has been found in many studies that general impressions of fairness are
fostered by giving employees a voice in decision making, allowing them to express
their views about organizational outcomes that affect them (Greenberg and Folger,
1983; Folger and Greenberg, 1985; Lind a nd Tyler, 1988), even if the organization
does not accede to those views (Lind et al., 1990). Although it is often impractical to
adopt all employees' suggestions- or allow them to choose who will be laid off or
fired-the present findings suggest that feelings of fair treatment may be fostered by
adopting practices that take employees' needs, preferences, and values into
consideration. Providing clear, honest explanations of termination decisions and
handling the termination in a manner that treats people with dignity and respect are
especially useful in this regard (Greenberg, 1993b).

The present findings also reveal that concerns about the quality of treatment become
especially important at the time employees learn about job terminations or layoffs.
Our analyses suggest that honest accounts of the reason for the termination of
employment and practices that assure dismissal with dignity substantially reduce the
likelihood that a terminated employee will consider claiming and that he or she
actually will initiate a claim. Even if the employer is in a position to be blamed for the
termination decision, our results suggest that giving an honest account is the best
policy. Considering only respondents who felt that their employers were at fault,
fewer than 1 percent of those who felt that their former employer had been very
honest claimed, whereas greater than 17 percent of those who felt that their former
employer had not been honest claimed.

Our recommendation to fully explain the reasons for termination runs counter to that
posed by some management practitioners. In advising executives how to handle a
termination interview, one corporate recruiter has cautioned against getting "lured
into [an] explanation of your reasons," adding, "The terminee may say it would help
to have a why, but rest assured it won't. Far better for him to invent any
rationalization he likes to fill in the vacuum of your silence in the days to come"
(Wareham, 1997: 48). Although Wareham's (1997: 48) admonition is predicated on
the belief that such a discussion is likely to degenerate into one that leads to "an
assault on the terminee's self-esteem," this need not be the case. In fact, the most
constructive termination interviews routinely provide detailed information about the
dismissal decision in a highly professional and interpersonally sensitive manner
(Ambrose, 1996; Pulley, 1997). We are particularly concerned about Wareham's
(1997: 48) suggestion to stand mute while allowing employees to "fill in the vacuum."
Our results suggest that employers who do so are not only failing to take advantage
of an opportunity to neutralize harmful feelings but are also running the risk of
actually stimulating ruminations that may lead to lawsuits.

The financial implications of our recommendation are brought into sharp focus by a
simple arithmetic exercise that juxtaposes our findings with data collected by the
RAND Corporation (Dertouzos, Holland, and Ebener, 1988). By subtracting the
observed likelihood that a wrongful-termination claim will occur among respondents
who said their former employer had been "very" honest (i.e., .009) from the likelihood
among those who said their former employer had been "not at all" honest (i.e., .174)
and multiplying the resulting value (i.e., .165) by the average per-claim legal costs
reported in wrongful-termination cases in the RAND study (i.e., $80,000), we derive a
figure of $13,200, the marginal amount that could have been saved per termination
in our sample by being honest. [15]

There is a certain irony in these findings. The employers who were treating their
terminated employees in a way that deprived them of dignity at this final point in the
employment relationship were arguably motivating by their own actions the claims
that then cost them the considerable litigation expense documented in the RAND
study: the unfair process to which these employers subjected their departing
employees returned to haunt the employers in the form of expensive litigation. But
the other side of the process is equally poignant. There also were in our sample
some employers whose managers' positive actions (with respect to adequate notice,
good explanations, attention to dignity, and help in finding new employment) were
rewarded by much lower exposure to litigation and the costs associated with it.

Our findings suggest that good treatment of laid-off or fired employees should
include, but may well go beyond, the traditional steps of giving several weeks
advance warning of the termination of employment or providing help in finding new
employment (Klass and Dell'omo, 1997). Although these traditional actions appear to
contribute substantially to fair treatment at dismissal, there are undoubtedly other
ways in which dignity in dismissal can be enhanced. Relational theories of justice
(e.g., Tyler and Lind, 1992), which predict that dignity plays a substantial role in
reactions to termination, also suggest additional steps that can be taken to enhance
feelings of dignity. These theories suggest that what terminated employees need, in
addition to traditional assistance and honest accounts, is aid in maintaining a positive
self-identity when the association with the employer is removed. Steps that might
assist in this regard include providing some transitional alumni status when this is
possible, providing symbols of positive regard by the former employer, and offering
counseling to ease the psychological shock of employment termination. Preliminary
accounts suggest that such measures are successful in mitigating the damage
created by job loss (Caplan and Teese, 1997).

The findings here suggest several additional ways in which organizations might go
about limiting wrongful-termination claims. A conventional view of litigation control is
that former employees' motives to claim may be reduced by removing the expectation
of positive outcomes likely to result from filing a claim. With this in mind, organizations
have been known to lobby to make laws on wrongful termination less favorable to
plaintiffs and to hold firm against settling claims that are without legal merit so as to
lower plaintiffs' expectations (Lusky, 1998). In the long run, however, it may be
impractical for organizations to attempt to influence employees' payoffs from
termination claims (Fryer, 1997). It is arguable whether lobbying or settlement
practices can do much to keep distraught employees from knocking at their lawyers'
doors. And, once a claim has been initiated, costs begin to rise. A more practical
suggestion, in light of our findings, involves taking steps to alleviate some of the
financial hardships associated with the termination of employment. Many
organizations have experienced success in helping outgoing employees cope with
the financial crises associated with job loss by extending insurance benefits and
offering generous severance packages (Leana and Feldman, 1992). Combining an
effort to lessen financial hardship with personnel policies that soften the
psychological impact of layoffs or firings may well be the most effective approach to
avoiding lawsuits and to stop adding the insult of undignified treatment to the injury of
job loss.

Limitations of the Research

Despite the important implications of our results, a few words of caution are in order.
First, the present study is not a statistically representative survey of all fired or
laid-off people. We chose a sampling approach that seemed to us reasonable and
feasible for the goals of the study--to investigate the underlying relationships
between potential antecedents of claiming and claiming thoughts and behaviors--and
that choice has consequences for what issues the study can and cannot address. In
particular, the rate of claiming seen in our data should not be viewed as indicative of
levels of claiming among all fired or laid-off workers in general. Because we recruited
our sample outside unemployment offices, the respondents were a particular subset
of terminated employees: those who were still unemployed at some point after their
termination. Terminated employees who rapidly found new work would be less likely
to be included in our sample. It is difficult to know what effect this had on our findings.
On the one hand, because our sample included fewer people who experienced low
levels of hardship, the variance on this variable might have been attenuated and its
effect might be underestimated in our model. On the other hand, the people we
interviewed might more likely still be feeling the sting of any unfair treatment they had
experienced because they had no new job to distract them from ruminating on
whatever injustice or undignified treatment they had experienced (Kramer, 1999).
This might have made the termination-treatment variable especially potent in our
sample. It is an open question how these potential effects worked out in our sample,
a question that can be answered only by future research.

A second caution is dictated by our use of self-report measures to assess actual
claiming behaviors. It could be argued that the relatively strong association between
psychological variables and claiming actions found in this study is due to the fact that
our self-report measures of claiming were biased by the respondents' attitudes and
beliefs about their former employers and their experiences at the time of termination:
respondents with negative attitudes might have reported that they engaged in some
claiming activities, even when they had not done so, in an attempt to demonstrate
behavior consistent with their negative attitudes toward their employers. Although
there is a conceptual basis for this caveat (Marcus and Zajonc, 1985), two
characteristics of the data strengthen our confidence that the internal validity of our
self-report data was not threatened. First, when we asked respondents who said they
had claimed about the basis of their claims, they offered reasons that fit well with
actual, legal bases of wrongful-termination claims (Felstiner, Abel, and Sarat, 1981;
Kritzer, Bogart, and Vidmar, 1991). Second, our findings fit quite well with those of
Youngblood, Trevino, and Favia (1992), who used actual legal records to investigate
the bases of wrongful-termination claims. Our results and theirs are mutually
supportive, given that our more extensive survey of claiming and non claiming former
workers shows that perceived unfairness of treatment during employment and at the
time of termination differentiates those who claim from those who do not, whereas
they found that people who file claims frequently cite unfair treatment as a reason.

We conclude by pointing to what is perhaps the greatest lesson to be learned from
this study: employment involves not only an economic relationship between
employees and organizations but a psychological relationship as well. Those who
ignore the social psychological components of this relationship do so at the risk of
triggering costly litigation. As Folger and Buttram (1995) have pointed out, when
Winston Churchill was criticized for being too polite in announcing England's
declaration of war on Japan, he replied, "if you have to kill a man, it costs you nothing
to be polite" (1950: 611). Extending this statesman's wisdom to employment
termination, our study suggests that concerns about such costs are indeed
warranted and that being polite may be an effective way to manage them.

E. Allan Lind [coauthor, "The Winding Road from Employee to Complainant:
Situational and Psychological Determinants of Wrongful-Termination Claims"] is the
Thomas A. Finch, Jr. Professor of Business Administration at the Fuqua School of
Business, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 (e-mail: allan.lind@duke.edu).
Current research interests focus on procedural justice, trust in organizations, virtual
teams, and distance management. Recent publications include "The Social
Construction of Injustice: Fairness Judgments in Response to Own and Others' Unfair
Treatment by Authorities," with L. Kray and L. Thompson (Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 75: 1-22), and "When Do We Need Procedural
Fairness? The Role of Trust in Authority," with K. van den Bos and H. A. M. Wilke
(Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75: 1449-1458). He received his Ph.D.
in psychology from the University of North Carolina.

Jerald Greenberg [coauthor, "The Winding Road from Employee to Complainant:
Situational and Psychological Determinants of Wrongful-Termination Claims"] is the
Abramowitz Professor of Business Ethics at the Fisher College of Business, Ohio
State University, Columbus, OH 43210 (e-mail: greenberg.1@osu.edu). Current
research interests focus on organizational justice, deviant workplace behavior,
business ethics, and e-business. Recent publications include Advances in
Organizational Justice, with R. Cropanzano (Stanford University Press, forthcoming,
2001), and Behavior in Organizations, 7th ed., with R. A. Baron (Prentice Hall, 2000).
He received his Ph.D. in psychology from Wayne State University.

Kimberly S. Scott [coauthor, "The Winding Road from Employee to Complainant:
Situational and Psychological Determinants of Wrongful-Termination Claims"] is an
organizational effectiveness consultant at Hewitt Associates, 100 Half Day Road,
Lincolnshire, IL 60069 (e-mail: scotts@northshore.net). Current research interests
include the impact of best-employment practices on company performance, trust in
management, and antisocial organizational behavior. Recent publications include
"The Talent Solutions for Growth," with E. L. Gubman (ACA Journal, 8:60-70). She
received her Ph.D. in business administration from the Ohio State University.

Thomas D. Welchans [coauthor, "The Winding Road from Employee to Complainant:
Situational and Psychological Determinants of Wrongful-Termination Claims"] is
account director at Maritz Marketing Research, 270 Davidson Ave., Somerset, NJ
08873 (e-mail: welchatd@maritz.com). Current research interests include
measurement of customer loyalty and delivering organizational value to customers.
Recent publications include "Turning Customer Data into Action" (Proceedings of the
Fourth Annual World Customer Service Congress, 2000). He received his Ph.D. in
business administration from the Ohio State University.

(*.) This research was conducted with the support of grants SBR-9224169 and
SBR-9224086 from the National Science Foundation to Jerald Greenberg and E.
Allan Lind and with support from the American Bar Foundation. Portions of the data
reported here were used in conjunction with Kimberly S. Scott's dissertation at the
Ohio State University. Kimberly S. Scott is now affiliated with Hewitt Associates, and
Thomas D. Welchans is now affiliated with Maritz, Inc. A preliminary version of this
paper was presented at the 1998 meeting of the Academy of Management, where it
received the Best Paper Award from the Organizational Behavior Division.

                                                               footnotes next page