and belief in the organization by proceeding with care and sensi- tivity, ensuring that all organizational members are treated with fair- ness, dignity, and respect. An underlying key is to ensure that departing employees are treated with compassion while emphasiz- ing a commitment to establishing a strong future for the company and its remaining employees. Tangible signs of such caretaking— outplacement counseling and job placement efforts, stress man- agement and coping-with-change workshops, and appropriate severance packages and financial planning workshops—provide clear messages to victims and survivors that the company values its human resources. Venting meetings that allow survivors an op- portunity to grieve, focusing on what was and what will be, also are useful in rebuilding a foundation for trust and commitment (Marks, 1994; Young & Brown, 1998). If the reasons for resizing the firm are made very clear to or- ganizational members, managers may be able to minimize many of the negative reactions associated with downsizing (Mone, 1997). For example, by explaining that the resizing strategy eliminates only jobs and functions that were rendered obsolete by relevant technological and industry and market changes, managers signal to their remaining workers that they do not need to fear becom- ing victim to another round of downsizing (Edwards, 2000). Open and honest communication can prevent or dispel rumors, and it signals to organizational members that upper management is aware of what is happening, is in control, and is concerned about the impact of its decisions on employees (Applebaum & Donia, 2000; Noer, 1995). In contrast, giving false hope to employees, rais- ing expectations that are likely to be shattered by foreseen cutbacks and retrenchment plans can have dire long-term consequences (Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1997). Involving organizational members in the decision process also can make them feel valued and supported, enhancing their com- mitment to the organization. By communicating the need to realign the organization with the competitive realities of the marketplace and asking for employee input, proposed solutions can serve to empower organizational members (Applebaum & Donia, 2000). For example, Weakland (2001) reports on a manufacturing firm that established teams of employees from all organizational levels to challenge organizational practices, policies, and procedures and THE HIDDEN COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESIZING ACTIVITIES 331 TEAMFLY Team-Fly ® 332 RESIZING THE ORGANIZATION recommend changes. Team-based suggestions included outsourc- ing key tasks, negotiating new contracts with internal and external vendors, changes in work-related processes, and a related downsiz- ing plan that was perceived as fair and accepted by organizational members. Especially in highly technical areas, the people actually performing the work often have the best insight on where to cut jobs and responsibilities (Perron & Shanley, 1999). Where staff cuts are deemed necessary, involuntary separations often can be avoided through a combination of careful planning, managed at- trition, reduction of overtime, retraining, and reassignment of or- ganizational members (Umiker, 1999). These steps are crucial, especially when a resizing organization might be faced with hiring new people with a critical skill set in the wake of terminating other organizational members. Involving key employees in the decision-making process, de- livering the bad news in person rather than using impersonal and indirect approaches (such as pink slips and memo notifications), providing clear and honest explanations, and ensuring consistency in determining where cuts will be made reflect the values of the organization. Some firms are even modifying their employee ap- praisal and compensation systems, including stock option and gain- sharing programs not previously available, to emphasize the survivors’ stake in the new organization (Freeman, 1999; Weak- land, 2001). By looking at the ramifications of resizing from both the organization and the employee perspective, the pain that de- parting employees experience can be minimized, while preparing survivors for the new responsibilities and challenges they will face. Broader Stakeholder Orientation Effective resizing strategies reflect an assessment and considera- tion of the needs of an array of stakeholders, from displaced em- ployees and organizational survivors, to customers, investors, and surrounding communities (Buono & Bowditch, 1989, 1990; De Meuse et al., 1997; Mishra et al., 1998). Indeed, since corporate downsizing can adversely affect employees and surrounding com- munities, the emphasis of resizing on long-term value creation is an important element of community development and corporate citizenship (Vidaver-Cohen & Altman, 2000). Such stakeholder ori- entations, as opposed to a sole focus on shareholders, attempt to assess and balance the competing claims that surround resizing de- cisions. This realization can help organizations to determine and articulate the reciprocal nature of these relationships and their un- derlying ramifications for strategic decisions, further facilitating the creation and maintenance of a desirable organizational image and reputation (Scott & Lane, 2000). At the Societal Level As organizations resize and technology continues to change both the focus and locus of work, workdays themselves are likely to be- come more flexible and work location less important. Some ob- servers suggest that the emerging networked economy will provide workers with more control over their lives, especially in terms of where people choose to live and how they allocate their time (Carr, 1999). As people gain greater self-control over managing their own careers (Nicholson, 1996), one outcome could be a reconnection with the larger society as people attempt to replace traditional work-related ties with those aimed at their communities and social institutions. Hall (1996, p. 10) suggested that the career path “to the top” is beginning to be replaced by the path “with a heart.” Clearly, there are numerous uncertainties that workers must face in the resized business world. Unlike previous generations where present success typically translated into future successes, what we produce at a particular point in today’s world is no guar- antee of future achievement. As we move from project to project, assignment to assignment, and organization to organization, we continually face the possibility of failure. However, as Carr (1999) points out, while this dynamic may be true, the actual penalty for failure is far lower than it has been in the past. Many dot-com en- trepreneurs, for example, wear their failed companies as badges of honor, viewing an unsuccessful venture as a platform for growth and learning. While many assessments of the repercussions from the wave of corporate downsizings experienced during the late 1980s and early 1990s point to the human toll, a significant num- ber of these individuals realized they had to take control over their own lives (Luban, 2001). The result was a burst of entrepreneurial THE HIDDEN COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESIZING ACTIVITIES 333 334 RESIZING THE ORGANIZATION energy, creating truly innovative and dynamic companies that have created many sources of new jobs and career opportunities (Lon- don, 1996; Schein, 1996). As organizational members adapt to the realities of a resized business world, people will need to take more and more control over their own careers. The focus will increasingly be placed on employability rather than employment, continuous learning rather than past accomplishments, partnering skills and collaboration rather than traditional command and compliance directives, and self-governance skills rather than an overreliance on hierarchy and organizational rules (Allred, Miles, & Snow, 1996; Hall, 1996; Nicholson, 1996). While these changes will help people become more self-reliant, organizations can also minimize the need for gut- wrenching, sporadic downsizing decisions through effective resiz- ing. Effective resizing strategies minimize the negative effects on both workers and the companies’ surrounding communities, which often are negatively affected by widespread layoffs and resulting uncertainties (Edwards, 2000). Some companies also are beginning to experiment with inno- vative ways to resize while supporting displaced workers. Cisco Systems, for example, has been cited as one of the first major cor- porations to pay downsized employees partial salaries while they work for charitable organizations (Davis, 2001). Although many of these employees earn only about one-third of their former salary during this time, they still receive company benefits and related support. These individuals have not been given any guarantees that they will be rehired, but they are considered internal candidates for new positions when they become available, and for some, their involvement in social institutions has opened new career paths. Similarly, in the wake of the economic disruption exacerbated by the September 11 tragedy, there does appear to be an awakening of attention for the need for retraining and greater social support for individuals caught up in the realities of a downsized world. As specific industries, such as the airline and hospitality industries, are resizing their operations and shifting foci as they adapt to the new realities, support networks such as the Commonwealth Cor- poration and Rapid Response are providing workers with retrain- ing and financial support ( Jordan, 2001). Although resizing decisions can be very tough on specific in- dividuals in the short term, they tend to be beneficial over the long run for a far larger number of people and organizations, creating a stronger foundation for sustainable economic and societal growth and success. By minimizing the upheaval and disruption that traditional downsizing strategies have created, restraining from using workforce reductions as a cookie cutter strategy and making only changes that truly strengthen the organization (Ed- wards, 2000), organizations can enhance their role as engaged cor- porate citizens (Marsden, 2000). Conclusion Over the long term, successful companies will be the ones that can effectively align their business goals with marketplace demands and consumer needs as well as the needs, aspirations, and commitment of their workforce. A truly strategic approach to resizing requires ongoing analysis of the organization’s direction with a focus on the future, the firm’s fit with the larger environment, and the actions and skills required to ensure that the organization accomplishes its objectives. Such continuous alignment mandates careful analy- sis and incremental processes, based on gradual and meticulous planning rather than approaching such change in a quick-fix fash- ion. Effective resizing initiatives must be part of a long-term, well- planned strategy rather than a shortsighted attempt to reduce costs and boost profits (Applebaum & Donia, 2000; Mirvis, 1997; Mrocz- kowski & Hanaoka, 1997). However, once the decision is made, it is just as important to ensure expeditious implementation with full consideration for the emotional responses of departing employees and the training and developmental needs of survivors (Apple- baum & Donia, 2000; Umiker, 1999). Keeping the prospect of on- going layoffs dangling over the heads of survivors creates a climate of fear and distrust and contributes to organizational paranoia that feeds productivity declines to the point of potential paralysis (Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1997). Clearly, there is no one set of prescriptions that is a perfect fit for all organizations. Rather, effective resizing should be thought of as a continuous rather than an episodic, discrete event (Kerber, THE HIDDEN COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESIZING ACTIVITIES 335 336 RESIZING THE ORGANIZATION 2001; Kets de Vies & Balazs, 1997; Weick & Quinn, 1999). Man- agers must not only engage in an ongoing process of reconfigur- ing the organization to function effectively in the present, they also need to prepare the organization to do so in the future as well (Hitt et al., 1994). Companies can build a solid foundation on which to build the new organization by using multiple communi- cation channels to ensure that organizational members are fully informed about the problems that contributed to the resizing de- cision and the wider plan that is linked to the firm’s long-term po- tential (Greenhalgh et al., 1986; O’Daniell, 1999). Yet the pressures to resize the organization, engaging in significant restructuring, reengineered jobs, and reengineered processes often are suffi- ciently significant that organizations often move far faster than they think, acting in much more of a reactive than proactive manner. Although there are definite benefits that can be achieved, or- ganizational resizing is a high-risk strategy, though clearly neces- sary. The alternative to thoughtful resizing efforts is a reactive, wholesale binge-and-purge mentality (Rosenwald, 2001). Hence, the key is to ensure that such decisions are informed and rational, based on long-term strategic assessments, and focused on specific business goals rather than head count reductions (Edwards, 2000; Mroczkowski & Hanaoka, 1997). Emphasis should be placed on or- ganizational redesign efforts that focus on eliminating low value- added tasks and a redeployment of existing personnel into higher value-added tasks. As this chapter has noted, key considerations are (1) employee involvement and participation in the diagnosis and planning processes, (2) full and honest disclosure of assess- ments and plans, (3) broad outplacement assistance for those being laid off, (4) increased retraining initiatives and related sup- ports for survivors, and (5) a focus on organizational renewal, re- building morale, reestablishing trust, and reformulating a basic foundation for performance enhancements and revitalization. As Feldman (1990) has suggested, open and honest information about the changes and the reasons behind them, a recommitment to survivors where they are ensured of their status with the com- pany, and ongoing support through assistance and feedback mech- anisms are crucial to successfully addressing and managing the concomitant disruption that accompanies such change. Rather than focus on a single activity or a single set of concerns, managers must take a broader, holistic view of the organizational dimensions touched by resizing strategies and prepare themselves to juggle a number of processes and activities simultaneously (Freeman, 1999). Resizing is a stressful strategy for all organizational members, managers and employees alike. Nevertheless, if it is conducted in a thoughtful, well-planned manner, greater levels of trust, commit- ment, and employee empowerment can create sources of com- petitive advantage for the organization. References Ackerman, J. (2001, February 11). Survey finds layoffs seen as quick fix. Boston Globe, p. H2. Allen, T. D., Freeman, D. M., Russell, J.E.A., Reizenstein, R. C., & Rentz, J. O. (2001). Survivor reactions to organizational downsizing: Does time ease the pain? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy- chology, 74, 145–164. Allred, B. B., Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1996). Characteristics of man- agerial careers in the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Ex- ecutive, 10(4), 17–27. Alsop, R. (2001, February 7). Survey rates companies’ reputations, and many are found wanting. Wall Street Journal, pp. B1, B6. Anderson, N. (1964). Dimensions of work: The sociology of a work culture. New York: McKay. Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 35, 604–633. Andresky Fraser, J. (2001). White-collar sweatshop: The deterioration of work and its rewards in corporate America. New York: Norton. Applebaum, S. H., & Donia, M. (2000). The realistic downsizing preview: A management intervention in the prevention of survivor syndrome (Part I). Career Development International, 5, 333–350. Applebaum, S. H., Simpson, R., & Shapiro, B. (1987). The tough test of downsizing. Organizational Dynamics, 16(2), 68–79. Bailey, J. (2001, November 6). Small businesses do what big firms have done—Cut jobs. Wall Street Journal, p. B2. Bargerstock, A. S. (2000). The HRM effectiveness audit: A tool for man- aging accountability in HRM. Public Personnel Management, 29, 517–527. Barney, J. B. (1997). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. THE HIDDEN COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESIZING ACTIVITIES 337 338 RESIZING THE ORGANIZATION Bedeian, A. G., & Armenakis, A. A. (1998). The cesspool syndrome: How dreck floats to the top of declining organizations. Academy of Man- agement Executive, 12, 58–63. Boroshok, J. (2001, September 4). Wretched times for the worker. Boston Globe, p. D2. Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Brockner, J. (1992). Managing the effects of layoffs on survivors. Califor- nia Management Review, 34(2), 9–28. Brockner, J., Grover, S., O’Malley, M. N., Reed, T. F., & Glynn, M. A. (1993). Threat of future layoffs, self-esteem, and survivors’ reactions: Evidence from the laboratory and the field. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 153–166. Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T., & DeWitt, R. (1992). Layoffs, job inse- curity and survivors’ work effort: Evidence of an inverted U rela- tionship. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 413–425. Buono, A. F. (1995). Moral corporate cultures in a downsized, restruc- tured world. In W. M. Hoffman & R. E. Frederick (Eds.), Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate morality (pp. 226–233). New York: McGraw-Hill. Buono, A. F., & Bowditch, J. L. (1989). The human side of mergers and ac- quisitions: Managing collisions between people, cultures and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Buono, A. F., & Bowditch, J. L. (1990). Ethical issues in merger and ac- quisition management: A human resource perspective. SAM Ad- vanced Management Journal, 55(4), 18–23. Buono, A. F., Bowditch, J. L., & Nurick, A. J. (1987). The hidden costs of organizational mergers. In A. Larocque, Y. Bordeleau, R. Boulard, B. Fabi, V. Larouche, & A. Rondeau (Eds.), Psychologie du travail et nouveaux milieux de travail (pp. 313–333). Quebec: University of Que- bec Press. Buono, A. F., & Nurick, A. J. (1992). Intervening in the middle: Coping strategies in mergers and acquisitions. Human Resource Planning, 15(2), 19–33. Butterfield, B. D. (2001, April 15). Layoffs blindside region. Boston Globe, pp. E1, E6. Cameron, K. S., Dutton, R. I., & Whetten, D. A. (Eds.). (1998). Readings in organizational decline. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Caplan, G., & Teese, M. (1997). Survivors: How to keep your best people on board after downsizing. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing. Carpenter, T. (1995). Corporate anorexia: Downsizing’s darker side. Busi- ness First, 12(7), 34–37. Carr, N. (1999). Being virtual: Character and the new economy. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 3–7. Carroll, A. B. (1987). In search of the moral manager. Business Horizons, 30(2), 7–15. Cartwright, S. (2000). Taking the pulse of executive health in the U.K. Academy of Management Executive, 14(2), 16–23. Cascio, W. F. (1993). Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 95–104. Cascio, W. F. (1998). Learning from outcomes: Financial experiences of 311 firms that have downsized. In M. K. Gowing, J. D. Kraft, & J. C. Quick (Eds.), The new organizational reality: Downsizing, restructuring and revitalization (pp. 323–340). Washington, DC: American Psy- chological Association. Cascio, W. F., Young, C. E., & Morris, J. R. (1997). Financial consequences of employment-change decisions in major U.S. corporations. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 40, 1175–1189. Chen, X., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational citi- zenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 922–931. Conference Board. (1998). Organizing the corporate HQ: An HR per- spective. HR Executive Review, 6, 18–22. Conner, K. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organizations economies: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Man- agement, 17, 121–141. Cooper, M. (1997, July 14). A town betrayed: Oil and greed in Lima, Ohio. Nation, pp. 7–9. Currie, J. V. (1999). Downsizing, rightsizing, resizing, . . . capsizing? Lo- gistics Management and Distribution Report, 38(5), 40. Davis, K. A. (2001, September 3). Laid-off Cisco workers give nonprofits a helping hand. Boston Globe, p. C4. DeMarco, T. (2001). Slack: Getting past burnout, busywork, and the myth of total efficiency. New York: Broadway Books. De Meuse, K. P., Bergmann, T. J., & Lester, S. W. (2001). An investigation of the relational component of the psychological contract across time, generation and employment status. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 120–118. De Meuse, K. P., Bergmann, T. J., & Vanderheiden, P. A. (1997). Corpo- rate downsizing: Separating myth from fact. Journal of Management Inquiry, 6, 168–176. De Meuse, K. P., & Tornow, W. W. (1990). The tie that binds—Has be- come very, very frayed! Human Resource Planning, 13, 203–213. De Meuse, K. P., Vanderheiden, P. A., & Bergmann, T. J. (1994). An- nounced layoffs: Their effect on corporate financial performance. Human Resource Management, 33, 509–530. THE HIDDEN COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESIZING ACTIVITIES 339 340 RESIZING THE ORGANIZATION Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). The ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Dougherty, D., & Bowman, E. H. (1995). The effects of organizational downsizing on product innovation. California Management Review, 37(4), 28–44. Dudley, K. (1994). The end of the line: Lost jobs and new lives in post-industrial America. New York: Basic Books. Dunham, K. J. (2001, March 14). Companies approach layoffs with kinder, gentler strategy. Asian Wall Street Journal, p. N7. Edwards, J. C. (2000). Technological discontinuity and workforce size: An argument for selective downsizing. International Journal of Organiza- tional Analysis, 8, 290–308. Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press. Feldman, D. C., & Leana, C. R. (1989). Managing layoffs: Experiences at the Challenger disaster site and the Pittsburgh steel mills. Organiza- tional Dynamics, 18, 52–64. Feldman, L. (1990). Duracell’s first aid for downsizing survivors. Security Management, 34, 123–124. Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Marmot, M. G., Stansfeld, S. A., & Smith, G. D. (1998). An uncertain future: The health effects of threats to em- ployment security in white-collar men and women. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1030–1036. Fisher, S. R., & White, M. (2000). Downsizing in a learning organization: Are there hidden costs? Academy of management review, 25(1), 244–251. Frazee, V. (1996). When downsizing brings your employees down. Per- sonnel Journal, 75, 126–127. Freeman, S. J. (1999). The gestalt of organizational downsizing: Down- sizing strategies as packets of change. Human Relations, 52, 1505–1541. Freeman, S. J., & Cameron, K. S. (1993). Organizational downsizing: A convergence and reorientation framework. Organization Science, 4(1), 10–28. Glassberg, A. (1978). Organizational response to municipal budget de- creases. Public Administrative Review, 38, 325–332. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment in- equity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568. Greenhalgh, L., McKersie, R. B., & Gilkey, R. W. (1986). Rebalancing the workforce at IBM: A case study of redeployment and revitalization. Organizational Dynamics, 14, 30–47. . 1997). Involving organizational members in the decision process also can make them feel valued and supported, enhancing their com- mitment to the organization. By communicating the need to realign the organization. emphasize the survivors’ stake in the new organization (Freeman, 1999; Weak- land, 2001). By looking at the ramifications of resizing from both the organization and the employee perspective, the pain. take control over their own lives (Luban, 2001). The result was a burst of entrepreneurial THE HIDDEN COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESIZING ACTIVITIES 333 334 RESIZING THE ORGANIZATION energy,