Why do HR-professionals demote?
Tanja Verheyen and Marie-Anne Guerry
Free University of Brussels (VUB)
Faculty of Economics
BUTO Department
15/12/2014
INTRODUCTION
According to Rosenbaum promotions and demotions have always been part of people’s
working lives. An historical tournament mobility model was developed, which conceptualizes
careers as concatenations of competitions. Each competition has winners and losers
influencing the individual’s mobility towards promotion, demotion or lateral transition
(Rosenbaum, 1979).
Demotion, a downward transition, is a very important instrument for career management
(Hall and Isabella, 1985). Moreover, it helps putting the right person in the right place within
the company (Miner and Miner, 1985), which influences career growths. Lazear and Shaw
(2007) argue within the personnel economics theories that upward and downward mobility
influences productivity. Despite the importance of demotion for careers, researchers
indicate that demotion has received little attention (Carson and Carson, 2007, Hall and
Isabella, 1985, Kohl and Stephens, 1990, More, 1962, Sargent, 2003).
A demotion follows a certain cause (in the present paper cause and reason are used as a
synonym to motive). It is important for the HR-professional to make an inventory of the
diverse causes of demotion to become more conscious of the motives for demotion and to
be able to explain this motive to his demotee. Bies (1987) has explored the acceptance of an
unfavorable decision due to a clear explanation. Social psychologists, on the basis of Bies’
research, clarify that explaining the cause can work as mitigating circumstance (Brockner et
al, 1990). That is, the understanding and the acceptance of a (transition) decision will
improve.
Employers are reticent to demote because of the negative effect demotion can have on
employees, such as demotivation and recalcitrance (Carson and Carson, 2007, Kohl and
2
Stephens, 1990). However, researchers on demotion indicate that employees are inclined to
accept a demotion if they know the employer’s reasons for the demotion (Isabella and Hall,
1984, Kohl and Stephens, 1990, Ng et al., 2007, Stephens and Kohl, 1989). This is in line with
the social psychology theories as previously mentioned.
Careers changed dramatically over time (Adamson, Doherty and Viney, 1998, Baruch, 2004,
Brousseau et al, 1996, Hall, 1996a, Powell, 2002, Sullivan, 1999, Thomas and Dunkerly, 1999).
While the macro context changes, motives for career transitions change too. For example,
the workforce evolved from a greening labour market (which means there is an high amount
of young workers) in the sixties towards an ageing labour market (which means there is an
high amount of older workers) today. As a result of this actual ageing workforce, older
employees are expected to work longer. This trend influences the motives for employees to
choose for certain career transitions, as some of these older workers, obliged to work longer,
want to evolve to less demanding work environments (Burtless and Quinn, 2002, Rappaport,
Bancroft and Okum, 2003, Remmery- et al., 2003). Among others, such a career transition is
a demotion.
Study objectives
This paper aims to provide insights into the motives HR-professionals bring forward today
for demoting their employees. Motives for demotion may relate to various stakeholders, for
example an employee can choose to demote in exchange for job security (Holmes and
Cartwright, 1994, Levinson, 1978). The employer (in the present paper in the role of the HRprofessional) can, for example, demote for employability reasons (Arthur, Khapova and
Wilderom, 2005). As the HR-professional demotes, he is a very important stakeholder in the
3
demotion process. Therefore, it is relevant to question HR-professionals on their demotion
motives.
First this paper inventories the different motives for demotion cited in literature. In addition
Belgian HR-professionals are asked through a survey under which conditions they would
demote.
Motives for demotion may be influenced by the country culture in general and by the
organizational culture in particular (Dries, Pepermans and De Kerpel, 2008, Hofstede et al,
1990, Wood, 2000). For example the Belgian culture towards work differs from the Japanese
work culture (Takahashi, 2006). Therefore, it is relevant to restrict a study on motives for
demotion to one particular country. In the present paper a Belgian study is presented.
Based on the data from this survey, the study aims to cluster HR-professionals’ motives for
demotion. These motives differ according to the stakeholder, employer or employee,
involved. This means, that an employer can demote because he wants to optimize his
company. An employee can ask for a demotion because he wants to broaden his skills at a
lower level in order to promote in the future. Each stakeholder has his own objectives to
choose for a demotion. Therefore, these clusters are situated in a company’s and an
employee’s context. We have to keep in mind that the survey explores the motives for
demotion which the HR-professional applies. That means that in “an employee’s context”
the HR-professional can demote or allow demotion to serve or protect his employee: for
example when the employee asks for a demotion (self-request) or when the employee
cannot cope with his work (Peter Principle).
4
Theoretical background
Motives for demotion
Previous studies examined the motives for demotion, which we can divide into three levels:
macro, meso and micro. The macro, or society, level refers to the motives of demotion as a
result of the economic climate. The meso level expresses the motives that drive companies,
and in particular the employers, towards demoting their employees. The micro level
represents the motives of employees for choosing demotion. Some motives for demotion
are suggested by employers as well as employees and therefore they are situated on the
meso as well as on the micro level. In what follows, as a result of the literature study, the
motives for demotion are discussed. An overview is schematically presented in Table one.
It is more and more common to demote, especially in times of slower growth and economic
downturn (Kohl and Stephens, 1990, Ng et al, 2007, Stephens and Kohl 1989). On a macro
level, economic recession is an indirect motive for demotion on a meso level. The recession
influences the decision making of employers regarding demotion. Employers demote their
employees in an economic decline to retain the employees’ experience and knowledge in
the company and to be able to promote them again when the economic situation revives
(Golembiewski, 1982). This means that promotion rates fall and demotion rates rise in
recession periods (Dohmen, Kriechel and Pfann, 2004).
On a meso level “optimization” of the company expressed by mergers, reduction in force
and reorganizations is a major motive for demotion (Carson and Carson, 2007, Hall and
Isabella, 1985, Isabella and Hall, 1984, More, 1962, Stephens and Kohl, 1989). Demotion
operates as an alternative to dismissal. Employees are willing to accept this demotion motive
5
in exchange for job security (Groot, 1997, Hall and Isabella, 1985, Ng et al, 2007). Industry
differences and organizational staffing policies can lead to a career disequilibrium, which
results into job mobility as there is demotion (Ng et al, 2007).
More (1962) enumerates 11 conditions “which increase the likelihood of demotion being
used” resulting from his observation of 50 companies in the United States in the 50s and 60s
(More, 1962: 214). His research shines a very negative light on the application of demotion
as he explains that employers expose very arbitrary behavior in using demotion to keep
control on the workforce, such as extreme paternalism, where demotion is used as a
punishment (More, 1962). Demotion for punishment reasons is still practiced (Anderson,
Milkovich and Tsui, 1981, Carson and Carson, 2007).
On a micro level employees request themselves to demote. For example, an employee can
choose to demote, as to give himself the opportunity to broaden his skills at a lower function
level, in order to put a step forward (promotion) at a later stage of his career (Hall and
Isabella, 1985, Stephens and Kohl, 1989). This shows that demotion is a valuable positive
human resources management practice. Or the employee can request to demote for health
reasons (Groot, 1997, Kohl and Stephens, 1990, Verheyen and Vermeir, 2011). A conflict
with a colleague or a hierarchically superior can lead to demotion (Verheyen and Vermeir,
2011).
Ng et al. (2007) determined individual and decisional factors which can provide motives for
demotion as “personality traits, career interests, values and attachment styles”, or
“subjective norms, desirability of mobility and readiness for change” (2007:376-377).
Superior or poor performances are motives for respectively promotion and dismissal
(Hofstede et al, 1990), but also for demotion. These motives are situated between the meso
6
and the micro level. Ineffective job performance, as a motive for demotion, is applied by the
organization as well as by the employee (Carson and Carson, 2007, Goldner, 1965). The
employer indicates that demotion is righteous when employees cannot keep their value and
expertise for the company up to date (Emans, 2011). Because of the link between seniority
and wage, some older employees have the feeling they have to over-perform to be worth
their wage. Therefore they (as employees) choose to demote. In other words demotion is
perceived as an equity instrument used by employer as well as employee to align in a
greater extent wage and performance (Emans, 2011).
An overview of the examined motives for demotion on a macro, meso and micro level is
shown in Table one:
“put table one here”
Differences in motives according to the employee’s age
Different generations are driven by different career values (Twenge et al, 2010, Wey Smola
and Sutton, 2002). In a similar way the relation between age and career values is pointed out
in previous studies on the motives for demotion. Younger employees indicate they would
choose for a demotion if they could gain new experiences, give another direction to their
career or gain more career options in the future. Opposite to older employees who rather
choose for a demotion if it guarantees they can stay in the company, if it would give them
more time for family or give them a peaceful existence (Isabella and Hall, 1984, More, 1962).
According to Schippers (1998) the reward structure is unbalanced because young employees
have a higher productivity rate and earn a lower salary than the older employees who have a
lower productivity rate and earn a higher salary. This situation has partly arisen from the
7
linkage of age with seniority. Schippers states that demotion can be a solution for this
imbalance. Lowering the function of older employees and making tasks lighter in
combination with a lowering in salary, may result in a better balance between the
productivity rate and the salary. By an age-aware personnel policy and making the tasks
lighter the career of older employees can be prolonged. The motive for demotion is not the
age of the employee as such, but the salary in combination with the productivity rate
(Schippers, 1998). That means that older employees are vulnerable for the imbalance
between salary and productivity rate.
Research question
Careers change quickly and as a result motives for career transitions change too. The
literature study reveals that employers are not intensively queried on their insights into the
topic of demotion. To our knowledge, Belgian HR-professionals were never asked about their
demotion motives before. The most recent study in which employers (in this study Dutch
employers) were queried on the topic of demotion dates from ten years ago (Remmery et al,
2003). An actualization imposes itself. This paper’s research question therefore is: What are
the current motives for demotion according to Belgian HR-professionals?
METHOD
The motives for demotion were extracted from literature. The overview of the literature
served as a basis to set up an online survey. The aim of the survey is to obtain the current
insights on the motives of demotion according to Belgian HR-professionals.
As stated, the motives for demotion serve certain objectives according to the stakeholder
involved. There are certain objectives which have to be obtained on a company level. For
8
example the company has to be reorganized and demotion is a part of the right solution to
this reorganization. Then reorganization is the motive to demote which serves the objective
of the company. In the survey this is indicated as the employer’s context. Other motives for
demotion serve the objectives of the employee, although, it is the HR-professional who
decides to demote or to allow his employee to demote. In the survey this is indicated as the
employee’s context. These two stakeholder contexts are addressed in the questions of the
survey. By clustering the HR-professionals on their motives for demotion, we expect the
cluster analysis to result in different clusters of motives within the two stakeholder’s
contexts.
Survey
The research focuses on HR-professionals from Belgian companies with at least 100
employees because in small companies demotion is not regularly applied (Josten & Schalk,
2010).
The survey was put online and the link was distributed through HR-services, executive search
companies and HR-network organizations. During a period of four months (September until
December 2012) 297 respondents logged on, 166 respondents did not answer the
questionnaire completely. Most of these respondents dropped out the survey at the stage
where quantitative data regarding the employees was asked, as for example the specific
number of white and blue collar workers. This resulted in 131 completed questionnaires
which were imported in SPSS software (IBM SPSS Statistics 20) for analysis.
The survey consists of several parts: a part focuses on the profile of the respondent and his
or her company, another part gauges to the motives of demotion. This latter part of the
survey consists of two questions regarding the motives to demote. One question on motives
9
which serve the objectives of the company and one question regarding the employee’s
context.
To the first question, namely (1) [“According to you, under what conditions can a downward
transition be executed tailored to the objectives of the organization?”], the HR-professional
was asked to rate seven items on a five point scale ranging from “can absolutely not” to “can
absolutely”.
To the second question, specifically (2) [“According to you, under what conditions can a
downward transition be applied attuned to the employee?”], the respondent had to rate ten
items on a five point scale ranging from “can absolutely not” to “can absolutely”.
In that way the HR-professional had to answer two questions on the motives for demotion,
namely one in (1) an employer’s context and another in (2) an employee’s context.
Measures
The aim is to get insights into the motives for demotion according to HR-professionals. The
literature study resulted in an inventory of motives, as presented in Table one. The motives
on a macro and a meso level expressed by the employer in literature are surveyed in
question one. The motives on micro level and the motives expressed in literature by
employer and employee, which are between the micro and meso level, are surveyed in
question two. This results in seven items in question one regarding the employer, and ten
items in question two regarding the employee.
Most of the queried items are literally related to the items in the overview in Table one,
some items are formulated in an alternative way to better align with the jargon of the HR-
10
professional. For instance the Peter Principle is not queried as such; the description “when
the employee cannot cope with his work” refers to the Peter Principle.
An overview of the specific items queried in each question is presented in Table two.
“put table two here”
Statistical analyses
In examining the data in order to find homogeneous groups of HR-professionals (also
referred to as “cases”) regarding the motives for demotion, a cluster analysis technique was
used. There are several reasons to choose for a cluster analysis. Firstly, the two questions of
the survey regarding the motives of demotion result in respectively seven and ten variables
expressed by 131 cases. Cluster analysis is a data reduction tool that enables to group the
cases into more manageable clusters (Burns & Burns, 2008). Moreover, the variables are
measured on ordinal scale, which makes cluster analysis suitable. In addition, several
researchers successfully used cluster analysis in a context of labour (Poell et al, 2006) or to
organize motives into segments (Lee, Lee and Wicks, 2004, Lee et al., Lee, 2006, Vrande,
Jong and Vanhaverbeke, 2009). In the present paper the cluster analyses result in clusters of
HR-professionals and the characterizing motives of demotion for each of the clusters.
Since we have no prior indication of the number of clusters that is appropriate, we work in
three stages: first, a hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s Method is carried out resulting
in an indication of the appropriate number of clusters. Secondly, we rerun the hierarchical
cluster analysis with the selected number of clusters. Thirdly, to verify whether the
differences between the clusters are significant we apply non-parametric methods such as, a
11
Mann-Whitney U-test (in case of two clusters) and a Kruskal-Wallis-test (in case of three
clusters) (Vrande, Jong and Vanhaverbeke, 2009: 431).
Hierarchical cluster analysis is a statistical method for clustering relatively homogeneous
cases. The cluster algorithm of Ward is applied, in which an analysis of variance approach is
used to evaluate the distances between clusters (Burns & Burns, 2008: 557). In order to
decide if a case is member of a cluster this method calculates the total sum of squared
deviations from the mean of a cluster. The case becomes a member of the cluster when it
produces the smallest increase in the error sum of squares (Burns & Burns, 2008).
Because of the different perspectives (employer versus employee) for each question the
cases are clustered separately. It is not necessary to standardize the 17 variables because
they have the same unit of measurement, namely a five point scale.
RESULTS
The HR-professionals have certain characteristics; the companies they work for have
characteristics too. These are taken into account in the further analysis.
Profile of the HR-professional
The average age of the queried HR-professional is 47 years. The youngest respondent is 26,
the eldest 65 years old. Of the HR-professionals, 8.4 % is younger than 35 years, 28.4 % is
between 35 and 44 years old and 63.6 % of the respondents is 45 years or older. Because of
the small variance in age, namely SD 8.390, age is not taken into account as a
characterization of the clusters.
12
The sample is nearly equally composed regarding gender: 49 % of the respondents are
women, 51 % are men.
Industrial sector
The NACE-code (“NACE-Bel”, 2014), was used to classify the economic activities of the
companies (of which the HR-professional is a member of) into industrial sectors. However,
some sectors had very small frequencies, the sectors were very divers and the amount of
sectors was too large to be workable. Therefore the industries were recoded to three global
sectors: services oriented, production oriented and non-profit companies. The recoded data
show that 55% of the companies are services oriented (e.g. ICT-companies), 29% are
production oriented (e.g. construction companies) and 16% are non-profit oriented (e.g.
health care institutions).
The cluster analyses result in today’s motives for demotion according to a sample of Belgian
HR-professionals. What follows is the analysis of the data of the two questions of the survey.
The analysis of the first question regarding the motives of demotion tailored to the
objectives of the company was executed on 124 valid cases (n = 124). In order to determine
the number of clusters, a hierarchical cluster analyses, according to Ward’s method, was
carried out. Table three shows a plot of the agglomeration coefficients.
Put Table three here
The column “Change” explains adequately the choice for two clusters. The figure marked in
bold, shows the biggest difference between two clusters and three clusters. The lowest
number of clusters is chosen, namely two. If we process the cluster analysis again, having
this knowledge, we can explain the characteristics of each cluster and the differences
13
between the two clusters (cluster one: n = 50, cluster two: n = 74). A Mann-Whitney U-test
verifies whether the differences between the two clusters are significant. Each of the
clusters is corresponding with specific motives for demotion tailored to the objectives of the
company.
Table four presents the means of the clustering variables for each of the two clusters and
the significance level of the Mann-Whitney-U-test. This test shows that the differences
between the clusters for all variables are significant.
The analysis states that cluster one is predominantly characterized by “when there is
reorganization”, followed by “to keep over-50s at work”, “to guarantee job security” and
“when there is a reduction in force”. “When cost efficiency is pursued” and “when there is
an economic downturn” score the lowest. Cluster two is predominantly characterized by
“when there is a reduction in force”, followed by “when there is a reorganization” and
“when there is a merger”. This cluster also has the lowest score for “when cost efficiency is
pursued” and “when there is an economic downturn”.
When we compare both clusters, we see that the mean scores differ the most between the
clusters for “when there is an economic downturn” and “when cost efficiency is pursued”.
Put Table four here
With respect to other variables, such as sector and gender, we notice the following
differences between the two clusters: In cluster one the production sector stands for 35 %,
the service sector for 57 % and the non-profit sector for 8 % of the cases. In cluster two the
production sector stands for 25.5 %, the service sector for 53.5 % and the non-profit sector
for 21 % of the cases. Cluster one consists of 59 % women and 41% men, cluster two consists
of 48 % women and 52 % men.
14
We can conclude that the HR-professionals of the first cluster demote “when there is
reorganization”, “to keep over-50s at work” and “to guarantee job security”. The cases of
cluster one, compared to the cases of cluster two, occur more in production oriented
companies. In cluster two HR-professionals demote “when there is a reduction in force”. The
cases of cluster two, compared to cluster one, occur more in the non-profit companies. The
cases in cluster one are in majority female HR-professionals and in cluster two male HRprofessionals.
The analysis of the second question considering the motives of demotion tailored to the
objectives of the employee was executed on 123 valid cases (n = 123). The methodology
applied for question one, was repeated for question two. In Appendix the agglomeration
plot, the means per cluster with the significance level of the Kruskal-Wallis-test are provided
(see Table seven and eight). The agglomeration plot (Table seven) shows clearly the choice
for three clusters. By rerunning the hierarchical cluster analysis for three clusters, we can see
the differences between the clusters (cluster one: n = 38, cluster two: n = 72, cluster three: n
= 13). A Kruskal-Wallis-test verifies whether the differences between the three clusters are
significant. Each of the clusters is corresponding with specific motives for demotion attuned
to the objectives of the employee. Table eight presents the means of the clustering variables
for each of the three clusters.
The cluster analysis shows that cluster one is predominantly characterized by “self-request
by employee”, “when the employee cannot cope with his work”, “when the employee is not
productive enough”, “when the employee performs under the expected level regarding the
job content”, “when the employee does not reach the expected level” and “as an alternative
to dismissal”. “A conflict with a colleague” or “a hierarchically superior individual” and “long-
15
term illness” score rather average. Cluster two is predominantly characterized by “selfrequest by employee” followed by “when the employee cannot cope with his work”. “When
the employee performs under the expected level regarding the job content”, “as an
alternative to dismissal”, “when the employee does not reach the expected productivity
level” and “when the employee is not productive enough” score rather average. The lowest
scores are for “a conflict with a colleague” or “a hierarchically superior individual”. The mean
scores of the third cluster are in general lower than the other clusters. This cluster is
predominantly characterized by “self-request by individual”. Average scores are for “longterm illness of the employee” and “to guarantee job security”. “When the employee
performs under the expected level regarding the job content” scores the lowest. Other low
scores are for “a conflict with a colleague” or “a hierarchically superior individual”, “when
the employee is not productive enough”, “as an alternative to dismissal” and “when the
employee does not reach the expected productivity level”.
The Kruskal-Wallis-test in Table eight shows that the differences between the clusters for all
variables are significant, except for the variable “self-request by employee”. The mean
values of cluster one and three differ the most for “when the employee performs under the
expected level regarding the job content”, this difference is the highest of all differences
between the three clusters. This is followed by “when the employee does not reach the
expected productivity level” and “as an alternative to dismissal”. Between cluster two and
three the mean values differ the most for “when the employee performs under the expected
level regarding the job content” and “when the employee does not reach the expected
productivity level”. The differences in mean values between cluster one and three are very
small. For the variables “to guarantee job security” and “long-term illness of the employee”
16
the pairwise differences in mean values, this is between cluster one and two, between
cluster one and three and between cluster two and three are the smallest (< 1).
Within the clusters different sectors are present. In cluster one the production sector
represents 29 %, the service sector 55.5 % and the non-profit 15.5 %, for cluster two that is
respectively 31 %, 49% and 20% of the cases. In cluster three the production sector
represents 23 % of the cases, the service sector 77 % and the service sector is not
represented at all (0 %). In cluster one there are 64.5 % female professionals and 35.5 %
male professionals. In cluster two that is respectively 45 % and 55 % and in cluster three
there are 38.5 % female professionals and 61.5 % male professionals.
We can conclude that three clusters of HR-professionals can be distinguished regarding the
motives for demotion attuned to the employee’s objectives. The first cluster is characterized
by motives regarding the performance of the employee, such as “when the employee cannot
cope with his work”, “when he is not productive enough”, “when he performs under the
expected level regarding the job content” or “when he does not reach the expected
productivity level”. These motives are expressed more by queried female HR-professionals.
In the second cluster demotion is used as “an alternative to dismissal”. This motive occurs
mostly in the non-profit and production sector. The non-profit sector has the highest score
of all three clusters in the second cluster. The third cluster is characterized by motives
regarding long-term illness of the employee and to guarantee job security. These motives
are expressed more by queried male HR-professionals and do not occur in the non-profit
sector at all. The service sector is well represented within this cluster.
It is notable that “self-request by employee” scores the highest in the three clusters.
However, the differences in mean values are not significant. “Conflicts with a colleague” or
17
“with a hierarchically superior individual” score the lowest in mean values in the three
clusters. Therefore we can conclude that conflicts on the work floor are not an issue
regarding motives for demotion.
DISCUSSION: the current motives for demotion
The HR-professionals were queried on their insights regarding the motives of demotion. In
dealing with the formulated research question, the analysis reveal that the first question
results in two clusters of motives and the second question results in three clusters of
motives for demotion. Moreover, the analysis reveals that some motives for demotion are
less indicative and therefore they are less valuable for the results. The motives that are
highly characterizing the clusters are listed in the overview in Table five. This overview gives
the clusters of motives for demotion in order to attain the objectives of the employer and
the employee as an answer to the paper’s research question.
Put Table five here
For the purpose of the objectives of the company (in Table five “the employer”) the HRprofessional will execute a downward transition for two major reasons. On the one hand
the HR-professional (of cluster one) demotes for reorganization and security reasons. That
means he twists careers in order to reorganize the company, he demotes in order to keep
over-50s at work and to guarantee job security to his employees. The latter is a motive for
demotion for the company in the sense that the employer offers his employee the
opportunity to keep a job within the company, even if it is on a lower function level.
Reorganization as a motive for demotion is in line with prior research (Hall and Isabella, 1985,
Isabella and Hall, 1984, More, 1962). Moreover, reorganization is also associated with
economic decline (Dohmen, Kriechel and Pfann, 2004, Golembiewski, 1982, Ng et al, 2007),
18
which is still a current treat on the labour market (Kotz, 2009). Applying demotion to
guarantee job security and to keep over-50s at work could be seen in the light of the aim of
the psychological contract as a part of the linear career, which is job security (Baruch, 2004).
Each generation is driven by different career values (Twenge et al, 2010, Wey Smola and
Sutton, 2002). Generation X grew up with the linear career type (Dries, Pepermans and De
Kerpel, 2008, Glass, 2007, Martin, 2005, Sullivan et al, 2009). The average age of the queried
HR-professionals is 47 years. This age corresponds with a member of Generation X (Dries,
Pepermans and De Kerpel, 2008, Glass, 2007, Martin, 2005, Sullivan et al, 2009). This could
be an explanation for the choice for this motive for demotion, although the age of the
queried HR-professional is not necessarily in line with the age of the employees currently
present on the work floor. That means that the HR-professional could choose in line with his
own age, or in line with the age of his employees. It has to be said that the careers have
changed from linear to multidirectional and brought along overwhelming changes in careers
and career values (Baruch, 2004, Brown, 2000). However, this is strongly downsized by
Baruch, who indicates that although careers have changed, much of career theories and
practices are still valid in Western societies (Baruch, 2006). Therefore, one could say that it is
normal that job security is a current motive for demotion.
The linear career is also perceived as successful when pay, promotion and status are high
(Arthur, Khapova and Wilderom, 2005, Arthur and Rousseau, 2001, Dries, Pepermans and De
Kerpel, 2008). When today’s HR-professionals demote their employees pay, promotion and
status are up to discussion (Verheyen and Guerry, 2014). This can lead to demotivation of
the employee. In other words today’s HR-professional should seek for new factors for
success in the employee’s career, and new ways to motivate if he wants the employees
facing demotion, belonging to Generation X, to accept their demotion. Guaranteeing job
19
security as a motive for demoting employees belonging to Generation Y will not guarantee
success: while these employees are seeking for employability instead of job security within
their psychological contract (Arthur, Khapova and Wilderom, 2005, Arthur and Rousseau,
2001).
On the other hand the HR-professional (of cluster two) demotes for optimization reasons.
For example the HR-professional twists careers in order to flatten the organizational
structure. Carson and Carson (2007) explain that a reduction in force is a motive for
demotion in the way that the HR-professional reduces the number of employees but retains
the good performers. For the latter the demotion is less embarrassing or stigmatizing as they
are not failures, but on the contrary hard workers (Carson and Carson, 2007).
Next to the motives applied by HR-professionals attuned to the objectives of the company,
the HR-professional also applies a downward transition attuned to the objectives of the
employee (in Table five “the employee”). Here we have three clusters, each with its
characteristics regarding the motives of demotion. “Self-request by employee” is a motive
for demotion that is not characterizing a specific cluster. It is the most important motive in
each cluster, but differences between the clusters regarding this item are not significant. It
seems socially desirable that the HR-professional prefers this motive. In practice however
the employee is sometimes paralyzed by the situation or is not always that self-conscious to
be able to choose this motive. Moreover, some companies have a company culture where a
self-request is not negotiable or some companies have no demotion policy. Kohl and
Stephens specify the motive “self-request by employee” more in detail in their research
(Kohl and Stephens, 1989). Self-request could be initiated by health problems, by the
opportunity to broaden the employee’s skills at a lower level, or to rebalance work and life.
20
However, our survey does not detail the self-request as a motive. It is remarkable that selfrequest is much more strongly expressed in the survey than it is present in previous scientific
research. An explanation could be found in the fact that when the employee requests
himself to demote, the consequences of the demotion will be more positive than when the
employer imposes a demotion (Verheyen and Vermeir, 2011).
The “self-request by the employee”-motive can ensure that employees who choose
themselves to demote are less obstructive in cooperating in the demotion process (Carson
and Carson, 2007, Kohl and Stephens, 1990). It could also lead to more space to talk about
the preconditions of demotion as a lowering in salary.
Next to self-request, the first cluster focuses on poor performance. Literature refers
extensively to bad performance as a motive for demotion (Anderson, Milkovich and Tsui,
1981, Goldner, 1965, Carson and Carson, 2007 and Emans, 2011). The difference in the
present paper is that these motives are indicated by the employer attuned to the employee
and not, as cited in some literature, indicated by the employee himself (Carson and Carson,
2007, Goldner, 1965). The second cluster focuses on alternatively dismissal as a motive for
demotion. Demotion as an alternative for dismissal is a motive of the employee (Hall and
Isabella, 1985, Stephens and Kohl, 1989), who is prepared to work on a lower function level
if it guarantees he can keep his job. The third cluster focuses on security as “long-term illness
of the employee” and “to guarantee job security” are characterizing motives for this cluster.
These motives were also cited by Groot (1997) and Ng et al. (2007). In literature the
difference between alternatively dismissal and guaranteeing job security is very small.
21
It is remarkable that “conflict with a colleague” or “with a hierarchically superior” are not
present as characterizing the motives of the clusters. In contrast, these motives are strongly
brought to front as motives for dismissal (Hofstede et al, 1990).
If we compare the motives for demotion found in literature (Table one) with the HRprofessionals’ current motives (Table five) as a result of the survey, the clusters indicate
more similarities than differences in motives for demotion. Careers changed as a result of
economic crises, organizational flattening and downsizing, technological progression and
globalization (Adamson, Doherty and Viney, 1998, Sargent, 2003, Sullivan, 1999, Sullivan and
Baruch, 2009). Career values have also changed (Twenge et al, 2010, Wey Smola and Sutton,
2002). Despite of these changes, career theory and practice has not changed that
dramatically (Baruch, 2006).
Relating the demotion typology with the motives for demotion
Demotion is an unambiguous concept with different meanings and several dimensions.
Verheyen and Guerry (2014) set up a typology of demotion by clustering HR-professionals’
associations of demotion dimensions with demotion. Each type of demotion is characterized
by specific dimensions of demotion. The HR-professionals associate demotion with a specific
initiator: it is or an initiative of the employer or of the employee. They associate demotion
with a change in job conditions or in job content. And the HR-professional associates
demotion with a change in personal or in work-life balance (Verheyen and Guerry, 2014).
The relation between this demotion typology and the motives for demotion is presented in
Table six. With this Table we want to examine whether an HR-professional who demotes for
a specific motive, does so because of his association with certain dimensions of demotion.
22
Put Table six here
In examining the relation between the typology of demotion and the motives for demotion
we notice some remarkable figures. An HR-professional who associates demotion with the
employer as initiator will predominantly demote for optimization motives. The HRprofessional who associates demotion with a change in job content will predominantly
demote for poor performance motives.
When an HR-professional associates demotion with a change in job content, he will demote
for reorganization, security or optimization motives. An HR-professional who associates
demotion with a change in work-life balance will not demote for security motives.
Conclusion
This survey has revealed and clustered the current motives for demotion. As a result the
number of motives is reduced, which makes it immediately apparent which core motives of
demotion current HR-professionals apply.
Verheyen and Guerry pointed out that it is very important when characterizing demotion to
indicate the context, employer or employee, in which demotion is perceived (Verheyen and
Guerry, 2014). In characterizing the motives for demotion the context also demonstrated its
important role since different contexts lead to different motives for demotion.
23
REFERENCES
Adamson, S., Doherty, N. and Viney, C. (1998), “The meanings of career revisited: implications for
theory and practice”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 9, pp. 251-259.
Anderson, J., Milkovich, G. and Tsui, A. (1981), “A model of intra-organizational mobility”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 529-538.
Appelbaum, S., Audet, L. and Miller, J. (2003), “Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A
journey through the landscape of theories”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 43-51.
Arthur, M., Khapova, S. and Wilderom, C. (2005), “Career success in a boundaryless career world”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 177-202.
Arthur, M. and Rousseau, D. (2001), The boundaryless career. A new employment principle for a new
organizational era, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Baruch, Y. (2004), “Transforming careers: from linear to multidirectional career paths. Organizational
and individual perspectives”, Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 58-73.
Baruch, Y. (2006), “Career development in organizations and beyond: Balancing traditional and
contemporary viewpoints”, Human resource management review, Vol. 16, pp. 125-138.
Bies, R. (1987), “The predicament of injustice: the management of moral outrage”, in Cummings, L.
and Staw, B. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 9, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 289-319.
Brockner, J., DeWitt, R., Grover, S. and Reed, T. (1990), “When it is especially important to explain
why: factors affecting the relationship between managers’ explanation of a layoff and survivors’
reactions to the layoff”, Journal of experimental social psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 389-407.
Brousseau, K., Driver, M., Eneroth, K. and Larsson, R. (1996), “Career pandemonium: realigning
organizations and individuals”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 52-66.
Brown, B. (2000), “Changing career patterns”, Adult career and vocational education, Vol. 219, pp. 16, available at: www.calpro-online.org/eric/docs/dig219.pdf.
Burns, R. and Burns, R. (2008), Business Research Methods and Statistics using SPSS, Sage
Publications, UK.
Burtless, G. and Quinn, J. (2002), “Is working longer the answer for an aging workforce?”, Issue in
brief, Center for retirement research, Boston College, n° II, 12 p. http://www.bc.edu/crr.
Carson, P. and Carson, K. (2007), “Demystifying demotion: a look at the psychological and economic
consequences on the demotee”, Business Horizons, Vol. 50, pp. 455-466.
Dohmen, T., Kriechel, B. and Pfann, G. (2004), “Monkey bars and ladders: The importance of lateral
and vertical job mobility in internal labor market careers”, Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 17,
pp. 193-228.
Dries, N., Pepermans, R. and De Kerpel, E. (2008), “Exploring four generations’ beliefs about career: Is
‘satisfied’ the new ‘successful’?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 907-928.
Eagly, A. and Johnson, B. (1990), “Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 233-256.
24
Emans, B. (2011), ‘Commotie over demotie’ Werkgeven 1: 18/19, available
http://www.awvn.nl/pub/internet/Werkgeven/WERKGEVEN-2011-1-GASTCOLUMN-Emans.pdf,
(accessed 21 January 2012). [Commotion over demotion]
at:
Glass, A. (2007), “Understanding generational differences for competitive success.”, Industrial and
Commercial Training, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 98-103.
Goldner, F. (1965), “Demotion in industrial management”, American Sociological Review, pp. 714-724.
Golembiewski, R. (1982), “The demotion design: an option for forward looking firms”, National
Productivity Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 63-70.
Groot, W. (1997), “Demotie demotiveert”, Economisch statistische berichten, Vol. 82 No. 4126, pp.
820. [Demotion demotivates]
Hall, D. (1996a), “Protean careers of the 21st century”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 8-16.
Hall, D. (1996b), The career is dead, long live the career. A relational approach to careers, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
Hall, D. and Isabella, L. (1985), “Downward movement and career development”, Organizational
Dynamics, pp. 5-23.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Daval Ohayv, D. and Sanders, G. (1990), “Measuring organizational cultures:
a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35
No. 2, pp. 286-316.
Holmes, T. and Cartwright, S. (1994), “Mid-career change: The ingredients for success”, Employee
Relations, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 58-72.
Isabella, L. and Hall, D. (1984), “Demotions and career growth”, Training and Development Journal,
pp. 62-64.
Josten, E. & Schalk, R. (2010), “The effects of demotion on older and younger employees”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 195-209.
Kohl, J. and Stephens, D. (1990), “Is demotion a four-letter word?”, Business Horizons, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 74-76.
Kotz, D. (2009), “The financial and economic crisis of 2008: a systemic crisis of neoliberal capitalism”,
Review of radical political economics, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 305-317.
Lazear, E. and Shaw, K. (2007), “Personnel Economics: The economists view of human resources”,
working paper 13653, National Bureau of Economic Research, Massachusetts.
Lee, C., Lee, Y., Bernhard, B. and Yoon, Y. (2006), “Segmenting casino gamblers by motivation: a
cluster analysis of Korean gamblers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 856-866.
Lee, C., Lee, Y. and Wicks, B. (2004), “Segmentation of festival motivation by nationality and
satisfaction”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25, pp. 61-70.
Levinson, D. (1978), The seasons of a man’s life, Knopf, New York.
Lima, F. and Pereira, P. (2001), “Careers and wage growth within large firms”, discussion paper series
[336], Institute for the study of labor, Leibniz, July.
25
Martin, C. (2005), “From high maintenance to high productivity. What managers need to know about
generation Y”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 39-44.
Miner, J. and Miner, M. (1985), Personnel and industrial relations: A managerial approach (4th ed.),
Macmillan, New York.
More, D. (1962), “Demotion”, Social Problems, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 213-221.
NACE-Bel. (2014), available at http://statbel.fgov.be/ (accessed 20 August 2014).
Ng, T., Sorensen, K., Eby, L. and Feldman, D. (2007), “Determinants of job mobility: a theoretical
integration and extension”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 363386.
Poell, R., Krogt, Van der F., Vermulst, A., Harris, R. and Simons, M. (2006), “Roles of informal
workplace trainers in different organizational contexts: empirical evidence from Australian
companies”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 175-198.
Powell, L. (2002), “Shedding a tier: Flattening organizational structures and employee
empowerment”, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 54-59.
Rappaport, A., Bancroft, E. and Okum, L. (2003), “The aging workforce raises new talent management
issues for employees”, Journal of Organizational Excellence, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 55-66.
Remmery, C., Henkens, K., Schippers, J. and Ekamper, P. (2003), “Managing an aging workforce and a
tight labor market: views held by Dutch employers”, Population Research and Policy Review, Vol. 22,
pp. 21-40.
Rosenbaum, J. (1979), “Tournament mobility: career patterns in a corporation”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 220-241.
Sargent, L. (2003), “Effects of a downward status transition on perceptions of career success, role
performance and job identification”, Australian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 114-120.
Schippers, J. (1998), “Demotie, belonging en productiviteit”, Sociaal Maandblad arbeid, Vol. 1 No. 53,
pp. 13-18. [Demotion, remuneration and productivity]
Stephens, D. and Kohl, J. (1989), “Demotion as a Human Resource Management Practice: An Analysis
of the Oil and Gas Industry”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 35-43.
Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P. & Rook, D. (2007), Focus Groups. Theory and Practice, Second Edition,
Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 20, Sage, London.
Sullivan, S. (1999), “The changing nature of careers: a review and research agenda”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 457-484.
Sullivan, S. and Baruch, Y. (2009), “Advances in career theory and research: a critical review and
agenda for future exploration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1542-1571.
Sullivan, S., Forret, M., Carraher, S. and Mainiero, L. (2009), “Using the kaleidoscope career model to
examine generational differences in work attitudes”, Career Development International, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 284-302.
Super, D. (1957), Psychology of careers, Harpers & Brothers, New York.
26
Takahashi, K. (2006), “Continuity of tradition. Effects of wage and promotion incentives on the
motivation of Japanese employees”, Career Development International, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 193-203.
Thomas, R. and Dunkerley, D. (1999), “Careering downwards? Middle Managers’ experiences in the
downsized organization”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 10, pp. 157-169.
Twenge, J., Campbell, S., Hoffman, D. and Lance, C. (2010), “Generational differences in work values:
leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1117-1147.
Verheyen, T. and Guerry, M.A. (2014), “Clustering downward mobility features: towards a typology
of demotion”, working paper, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium, available at:
http://research.vub.ac.be/sites/default/files/uploads/BUTO/verheyen_t._-_2014_clustering_downward_mobility_features.pdf
Verheyen, T. and Vermeir, B. (2011), Remotie, een stap terug is een stap vooruit, Kluwer, Mechelen.
[Remotion, a step back is a step forward]
Vrande, van de V., Jong, de J. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2009), “Open innovation in SMEs: Trends,
motives and management challenges”, Technovation, Vol. 29, pp. 423-437.
Wey Smola, K. and Sutton, C. (2002), “Generational differences: revisiting generational work values
for the new millennium”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 363-382.
Wood, G. (2000), “A cross cultural comparison of the contents of codes of ethics: USA, Canada,
Australia”, Journal of business ethics, Vol. 25, pp. 287-298.
27