Why downsizing has its down side
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Downsizing causes stress, disloyalty, reduced motivation and insecurity among staff who keep their jobs, according to new research on the "survivors". Staff are often angered that, as they see it, employers have broken their side of an implicit agreement to reward long service and hard work with job security and promotion.
"Although in many cases survivors' performance levels were raised as a consequence of downsizing, the other side of the coin is increased stress, insecurity and lack of trust, together with decreasing motivation," says Kusum Sahdev, who led the research for Cranfield University's School of Management. "Unless organisations manage this motivational paradox in a structured way, long-term benefits of downsizing are unlikely to emerge."
Loss of staff loyalty should be a major concern for corporations. According to responses by human resources managers, 60 per cent of staff felt a reduced sense of personal satisfaction after a programme of downsizing.
Managers who oversee staff reduction programmes suffer from divided loyalties. "Our survey showed that managers are part of the process of implementing downsizing, yet their own positions are threatened, and they receive little help," explains Ms Sahdev. "In this respect they are both executioner and victim."
Survivors have also been encouraged to review their priorities, with the effect of reducing their commitment to their employer. Many are concentrating more time and emotional energy on their family and personal lives, at the expense of their working environment. Some say they no longer volunteer for extra responsibilities.
Cranfield's report is not the first to question the impact of downsizing on efficiency. Earlier surveys in the United States and Britain pointed to financial measures-such as returns on assets, return on equity, sales on total assets, and the ratio of market to book-value equity-indicating that corporate performances actually decline as a result of downsizing.
A Harvard report three years ago invented the phrase "corporate anorexia" for the downsizing phenomenon, saying that "downsizing makes a company thinner-it does not necessarily make it healthier"
Paul Gosling
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments