The impact of organizational change on the ...

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2004, 13 (2), 139–163

The impact of organizational change on the perceptions of UK managers Les Worrall The Management Research Centre, Wolverhampton Business School, UK

Carole Parkes Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK

Cary L. Cooper Manchester School of Management (UMIST), UK

Redundancy, delayering, downsizing, and various other forms of organizational change have become increasingly prevalent. This article focuses on the impact of different forms of organizational change on managers’ perceptions of the organizations they work within and the comparison between changes that involve redundancy and/or delayering and those that do not involve such changes. The literature has many accounts of the negative effects associated with redundancy and delayering, but are these effects unique to these types of change or are they a consequence of negative experiences of a range of organizational changes? Hypotheses were tested to assess, first, whether there are differences between different levels of management, notably between directors and nondirectors in the way they perceive organizational change, second, to assess how change has affected managers’ perceptions of their organizations and their working lives, and third, to explore if different forms of change are associated with differences in managers’ perceptions of their organizations ‘‘as a place to work’’. Hypotheses were tested with data from a cross-sectional survey with 830 managers from the UK. Organizational changes include cost reduction and culture change programmes, delayering, mergers/demergers, outsourcing, redundancy programmes, and contract/ temporary workers. The analyses reported here indicate clearly that specific Correspondence should be addressed to Carole Parkes, Work & Organizational Psychology, Aston Business School, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK. Email: [email protected] The authors wish to thank the Institute and membership of the Chartered Institute of Management (CMI) for their involvement in the research programme and Jeremy Dawson for his guidance on some aspects of the analysis. Special thanks are also due to Doris Fay and two anonymous reviewers who provided very welcome support and constructive comments. Cary L. Cooper is now at Lancaster University Management School. # 2004 Psychology Press Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/1359432X.html

DOI: 10.1080/13594320444000047

140

WORRALL, PARKES, COOPER

forms of change are associated with managers’ reports of their experiences at work; some forms of change (notably redundancy and delayering) seem to have particularly damaging implications for managers’ experiences in the workplace. The analyses also show that there is a difference in the way directors and nondirectors perceive the changes. Finally, the article considers strategies for ameliorating the effects of change including the role of HR.

Redundancy, delayering, downsizing, and various other forms of organizational change are claimed to have become more increasingly prevalent since the 1990s. Resistance and reluctance to adapt to change are common reactions of humans in an organizational environment (King & Anderson, 2002). It is not surprising then that there is a considerable literature, developed in the context of organizational change, to show that perceptions of uncertainty are detrimental to well-being (Ashford, 1988; Nelson, Cooper, & Jackson, 1995) and we believe that certain types of change are therefore more likely to be detrimental to individuals, and in turn to organizations, than other forms of change. Redundancy is probably the most evocative and fear-inducing form of organizational change and literature in this area focuses on; the impact of redundancies on organizations, on those directly affected by it and, particularly important to this study, on those who survive it (e.g., Gowing, Kraft, & CampbellQuick, 1997; Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1997; Kozlowski, Chao, Smith, & Hedlund, 1993). It has been established elsewhere that redundancy and delayering—linked to cost reduction programmes and ‘‘downsizing’’—have played a significant part in the overall process of restructuring that has affected many UK organizations (Worrall & Cooper, 1999). Although developed best in the US, many UK companies have used downsizingdriven redundancy and delayering programmes as a means of ‘‘strategic transformation’’ ostensibly to change organizations’ corporate cultures and to drive down costs. A distinctive feature of changes and in particularly change involving redundancy from this time has been its effects on whitecollar workers. Cascio (2002) asserts that the ‘‘juggernaut’’ of employee downsizing affecting white-collar workers is continuing. In many cases downsizing appears to have been a corporate euphemism for mass redundancies and the overenthusiastic stripping out layers of management (Vollmann & Brazas, 1993). What is of more concern is that many organizational change programmes have relied heavily on redundancy and delayering and we have become used to the euphemisms for what Cascio (1993) defines as ‘‘the planned elimination of positions or jobs’’ (p. 95). These include ‘‘downsizing’’ or ‘‘rightsizing’’ or ‘‘business process reengineering’’ or some other management fad of the moment (Champy, 1995; Hammer & Champy, 1993). Organizations are constantly under pressure to perform well and in particular make returns to the shareholders (Hutton, 1995). The pressure to

MANAGERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

141

downsize—delivering more for less—is reported as the norm (Drucker, 1998; Handy, 1994; ‘‘On the Battlefields’’, 1996; Sparrow, 1998). Hence, there has been an increasing use of change strategies such as downsizing or delayering that rely heavily on redundancies; this use is driven by the hope that it increases organizational performance. The evidence, however, on its beneficial effects are mixed (we report this in more detail below). There are widespread observations that downsizing initiatives did not deliver the hoped for results. This has ignited research to understand why such initiatives have not succeeded and has led to the uncovering of what is now referred to in the literature as survivor syndrome (Brockner, Greenberg, Brockner, Bortz, & Carter, 1986). Since then, we do know one of the factors that explain why downsizing exercises do not deliver what is expected of them. However, despite the widespread claims that downsizing is harmful— since it can give rise to phenomena associated with the survivor syndrome— we believe that this has not yet been fully empirically tested. Research employing the concept of a survivor syndrome explored the variables that can increase or mitigate the magnitude of the survivor syndrome (Brockner et al., 1986). Littler (2000) argues that the ‘‘survivor syndrome’’ is related to workplace morale, motivation, commitment, perceived promotion opportunities, job satisfaction, and job security. It has, to our knowledge, however, not been shown whether the negative effects associated with redundancies are actually a unique consequence of redundancy, or whether they are the result of the general organizational change aspect implied in redundancy programme. As already stated, there is a tendency for employees to experience organizational change efforts as threatening (Ashford, 1988; King & Anderson, 2002; Nelson et al., 1995); therefore, the negative reports on the effects of changes involving redundancy could also be related to this general experience. To obtain more evidence for the frequently claimed negative effect of changes involving redundancy, this study seeks to compare experiences and perceptions of managers that underwent different types of changes, i.e., cost reduction, culture change, redundancy, and outsourcing (Worrall & Cooper, 1998). It also compares their perceptions, experiences, and subsequent effects, and reports on their behaviour in the workplace. The effects of specific types of change, namely redundancy (the removal of posts and people from an organization) and delayering (the removal of management layers/posts and often but not always people) are given particular attention. The second goal of this article is to compare the perceptions of individuals located at different levels of an organization’s hierarchy. Anecdotal reports on the effectiveness of organizational change involving redundancy and delayering have been somewhat inconsistent. We suggest that the reason for the inconsistency of these reports may lie in the source of this evidence: We believe that there are differences in how these changes are

142


perceived according to level of management and that directors are more likely to view such changes as positive compared to nondirectors. Finally, we want to test the widespread claim that the incidence of organizational change has increased over recent years. We will look at this by testing whether the number of organizations that have been affected by changes over a period of 4 years has increased.

DOES IT DELIVER THE HOPED-FOR EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE? A large body of literature explores the effects redundancy and delayering have on managers’ attitudes to their organization and on aspects of business performance and operation. The conventional wisdom in many practitioneroriented management texts is that downsizing, delayering, and redundancy improve productivity, effectiveness, efficiency, and competitiveness and thus organizational performance (Cameron, 1994; Devanna & Tichy, 1990; Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1997; Shaw & Barrett-Power, 1997). There are a number of ways in which performance improvement through downsizing is alleged to be achieved: these include increased flexibility, smoother communication, and faster decision making (Fowler, 1993; Freeman & Cameron, 1993; Greenhalgh, Lawrence, & Sutton, 1988; Lewis, 1993; Turnbull & Wass, 1997). However, previous findings have called these assumptions into question. Worrall and Cooper (1998) suggest that the main consequence of redundancy on survivors is a sharpened sense of accountability, increased task overload and task fragmentation, and reduced role clarity, as redundancy and delayering seem to be far more effective in removing people from an organization than in removing the tasks that these discarded people used to do. The consequence of this has been described by Burchell, Lapido, and Wilkinson (2002) as work intensification (where role, task, information, and work volume overloading takes place) and work extensification (where the work – life balance is shifted as the barrier to the two becomes less well defined). Other negative effects of redundancy and delayering seem to be due to its destabilizing effect: skills shortages, low morale, anger, and lack of innovation have been reported (Cameron, Freeman, & Mishra, 1993) as employees become more fearful and risk averse. Organizations that are prepared to take risks, to innovate and to develop competences are often described as ‘‘learning organizations’’ in the contemporary management literature. We contend that restructuring which involves significant reductions in employee numbers can be damaging to organizations aspiring to this in two main ways: First, competencies are lost as significant ‘‘chunks’’ of organizational memory are discarded; and, second, employees become


143

less prepared to take risks and engage with innovation in case they are ‘‘next in line’’. To summarize, even though managers hope for changes involving redundancy to deliver positive effects, accumulating evidence indicates that this is not usually the case and indeed that redundancy is more likely to have a negative effect on organizational performance. The literature provides evidence of the negative effects of redundancy and delayering. However, from our perspective, this effect has not yet been fully explored since it is not clear whether the described negative effects should be attributed to unique characteristics of redundancy and delayering, or whether they are a result of negative experiences of organizational change. To our knowledge, studies have not explored comparisons between changes that do not involve redundancy and delayering and those that do. This study sets out to compare the perceived effects of different types of change on assessments of organizational performance.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT We assume that the way in which employees are affected by redundancy and delayering depends on where they are located in the organization. The view that residual tasks, following delayering or redundancy, are often cascaded down the management hierarchy is supported by Tombaugh and White (1990), who found that senior management, following redundancy, expected more junior managers to absorb increased responsibility and decision making at both the individual and work-group levels. They found that surviving managers typically were unprepared for wider spans of control both in the number of workers and in the variety of tasks they had to manage and this may be symptomatic of a failure of more senior managers to manage the change process effectively. These findings indicate that it is inappropriate to treat managers as a homogeneous group. Indeed, earlier findings (Worrall & Cooper, 1999) have indicated significant differences between managers’ perceptions at different levels of the managerial hierarchy. Managers at chief executive and director level were found to have perceptions about the impact of change radically different from senior, middle, and junior managers; this study aims to extend knowledge in this area by testing the differences in perceptions of different levels of managers and specifically between directors and nondirectors. It is our contention that directors perceive changes including those involving redundancy and delayering more positively than nondirectors because they are often party to the decisions. Constant pressures to cut costs and increase profits inevitably leads to job cutting because it is one way to make an impact on the ‘‘bottom line’’, certainly in the short term.

144


EFFECTS ON EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING Previous research has found that redundancy and delayering affects survivors’ emotions, attitudes and behaviours (Brockner, 1990; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Noer, 1993; Thornhill & Gibbons, 1995). Emotions synonymous with grieving such as shock, anger, denial, guilt, and fear have been noted alongside decreased motivation, decreased trust in management, and decreased levels of organizational commitment in subsequent jobs (Brockner et al., 1986; Kozlowski et al., 1993). As organizations adopt downsizing as a way of life, there is evidence to suggest that survivors initially work harder for reasons such as guilt and insecurity (Brockner, Davy, & Carter, 1985). However, parallel to this are reports of increased workloads and increased stress, which question whether any short-term improvement in performance is sustainable in the longer term. It is difficult to find evidence of any completely successful redundancy programme where the effects have not been injurious to both survivors and victims (Cascio, 2002). A review of the literature reveals that redundancy, downsizing, and delayering are associated with several core constructs in organizational analysis. ‘‘Survivor syndrome’’ is identified with workplace morale, motivation, commitment, perceived promotion opportunities, job satisfaction, and job security (Littler, 2000) and Organ (1997) similarly asserts that morale is strongly associated with measures such as job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Organizational commitment (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982) emerges as an important construct in the analysis of the effect of organizational change on workers. Significantly, Dunham, Grube, and Castaneda (1994) has identified that ‘‘positive experiences’’ can foster commitment and individual attachment to the organization. Robinson and Rousseau (1994) argued that employer violations of the psychological contract increase the probability of employee turnover while decreasing the satisfaction of those who remain: They also argued that a violation, such as redundancy, could reduce organizational commitment, morale, and motivation. Such violations have caused employees to reduce their sense of obligation to employers and, at the same time, to increase their feelings of what they felt they were owed by their employers (Ebadan & Winstanley, 1997). In other instances, fear of redundancy may go some way to explaining ‘‘presenteeism’’ (Handy, 1998) as managers attempt to demonstrate their indispensability by visibly working long hours (Worrall & Cooper, 2001a) and to explaining absenteeism induced by lower levels of employee commitment and loyalty (Worrall & Cooper, 2001b). A model proposed by Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) listed restructuring, mergers, and downsizing as examples of threats that act as antecedents of job insecurity. The threat to the continuation of one’s job


145

leads to adverse behaviours on the job (in terms of effort, propensity to leave, and resistance to change), which in turn leads to adverse impacts for the organization (in terms of productivity, turnover, and adaptability). Although it is accepted that the relationship between job insecurity and employees attitudes and behaviours may be moderated by some work- and nonwork-related factors, Davy, Kinicki, and Scheck (1991) found that job satisfaction and organizational commitment mediate job insecurity effects on withdrawal cognitions in a downsizing organization, while Hallier and Lyon (1996) found that threats to managers’ positions and careers resulted in decreased trust and diminished organizational commitment. This section highlights a wealth of employee well-being variables that can be affected by redundancy and delayering. As pointed out earlier, it is not clear whether the reported detrimental effects are the results of specific characteristics of redundancy or delayering. This study sets out to compare experiences of managers who work for organizations that underwent changes that did not involve redundancy and delayering with managers that did experience redundancy and delayering; it is assumed that that those involving redundancy will have more negative effects.

CONSEQUENCES OF POOR HR PRACTICES We argue that satisfaction with HR practices including those which affect rewards, careers, recognition, workload, and other related variables including satisfaction with communication are likely to be lower in organizations that undergo changes involving redundancy. The reason for this is that good HR practices—even though widely preached—are not practiced in redundancy. This is reflected for example in the fact that HRM texts have not generally addressed the wider issues involved in restructuring and downsizing (Redman & Wilkinson, 2001) despite it being the ‘‘most pervasive phenomenon in the business world’’ (Cameron, 1994, pp. 183 – 188). Our assumption is also based on the widely practised ‘‘Mafia model’’ of downsizing (Stebbins, 1989), which suggests that because it is a difficult and unpleasant process it is best hurriedly carried out and quickly forgotten. Effective communication plays a central role in any change initiative (Tizard, 2002). Cascio (2002) argues that failure to communicate ‘‘openly and honestly’’ contributes to the atmosphere of uncertainty. Studies have also shown that employees who understand the reasons behind changes see them in a more positive light and as a justified option (Gopinath & Becker, 2000). A study by Brockner, Grover, Reed, and DeWitt (1992) suggests a positive correlation between the clarity of manager’s explanations and the favourability of employee’s reactions. This is seen to be particularly true in conditions of high uncertainty for employees and high importance in terms of individuals’ needs and priorities.

146


The existence of a harassment culture can be determined by the extent to which individuals have perceptions of the organization as a source of threat and fear. This can be through observations of harassment at an individual or organizational level. In relation to this study, it should be noted that the term can be used to denote organizational practices, such as those which involve the threat of job loss. The organization presents the controls as in the interests of the employees, for example, performance management improvement plans are presented as in the interests of the employee but are perceived as forms of punishment (Liefooghe & Mackenzie Davey, 2001). This is because the outcomes of performance management processes can contribute directly to the decisions about who the victims of restructuring and downsizing will be. However, subjectivity in such systems and a lack of objective assessment can lead to a lack of trust and confidence in the system (Winstanley & Stuart-Smith, 1996). Another reason for the importance of effective management of redundancy and delayering is provided by Reilly, Brett, and Stroh (1993) who explain that, under threat of redundancy, individuals become more loyal to their own personal development than to their employing organization. This suggests that individuals tend to redefine and switch their loyalty (away from organizations and to themselves). In conclusion, the need for HR to be proactive in developing and effectively managing policies and practices to reduce the negative consequences of organizational changes and in particular those involving redundancy and delayering is paramount. However, scholars of the field have pointed out that HR is strongly neglected when organizations engage in redundancy or delayering. This implies that the variables described in the previous section should be less favourable in organizations that underwent redundancy or delayering in comparison to other organizational changes.

RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES The assertions made by authors writing about organizational change being a persistent and increasing feature of organizational life is discussed in the introduction. We believe that these assertions are mainly based on anecdotal evidence, thus the following research question was set and addressed in our analyses: Did the number of organizations affected by organizational change increase over the period 1997 to 2000? The issue of different perceptions of the effects of organizational change by management level is discussed earlier in this article, and this study compares different levels of management in the way in which they experience changes. Furthermore, we compare managers who underwent different types of changes with each other (including a group of managers that did not


147

experience change for some of the analyses) to test whether changes involving redundancy or delayering (or both) result in more negative reports than changes without either of these initiatives. The types of change reported include cost reduction and culture change programmes, delayering, mergers/demergers, outsourcing, redundancy programmes, and (with the exception of 1997) contract/temporary workers. The following hypotheses were developed: Hypothesis 1. When organizations undergo changes involving redundancy or delayering, directors perceive the effect of organizational change on organizational outcome variables (such as organizational effectiveness, organizational performance, and competences loss) and on employee wellbeing variables (such as employee loyalty and job security) more positively than nondirectors. The literature review presented earlier indicates that organizational change that involves redundancy does often not deliver the desired for results. Here we seek to test whether the negative consequences are attributable to the specific experiences involved in redundancy or whether these are simply an effect of having undergone organizational change. Hypothesis 2. We hypothesize that there are differential effects of the types of organizational changes on organizational performance and employee well-being: Managers perceive the effects of change on performance and employee well-being most positively when the changes are without redundancy or delayering; and most negatively when changes involving redundancy. Hypothesis 3. Managers’ current personal well-being depends on whether or not their organization has undergone a change that involves redundancy or delayering, as well as whether there is no change at all. The way managers feel in their organizations (in terms of their satisfaction, morale) and perceive the culture in their organization (in terms of a harassment culture) is most negative for managers from organizations that underwent redundancy or delayering; they feel more positive when their organization underwent other types of change, and feel best in organizations that did not experience change. Hypothesis 4. Managers’ reports on how their organizational attachment (in terms of reciprocal commitment to the organization and intention to quit) and work intensification has developed over the last 3 years depends on whether their organization has undergone a change or not, and if, what kind of change. We assume that managers who experienced redundancy and delayering report a more negative develop-

148


ment of their organizational attachment and a more negative development of work intensification over the last 3 years, in comparison to managers of organizations where the change did not involve redundancy or delayering and in comparison with managers from organizations that did not undergo a change.

Study and sample

METHOD

This article is based on the data of a 4-year University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) – Chartered Management Institute (CMI) research programme that was designed to explore the changing nature of managerial work in the UK and to assess the impact of different forms of organizational change on, for example, organizational effectiveness and managers’ well-being variables, such as job security, motivation, morale, and commitment to the organizations they work within. The ‘‘Quality of Working Life’’ survey was conducted annually from 1997 to 2000 using the CMI’s membership database as a sampling frame. There are no reliable, published estimates of the size, structure, and sectoral distribution of the population of UK managers. Therefore, it has not been possible to test whether the CMI is fully representative of UK management population, and to weight the survey data in case it is not representative. The panel of respondents were drawn from the CMI and the survey was sent to 5000 randomly selected individual members of the Institute. The exercise generated 1362 valid responses in 1997, 1313 responses in 1998, 1213 responses in 1999, and 1516 responses in 2000 (which represented response rates of 27%, 26%, 24%, and 30%, respectively). It is important to emphasize that the sample is representative of the structure of the membership of the Chartered Management Institute. For the purpose of this study, which is essentially an exploration of the differential impact of various types of organizational change, we decided to use a reduced data set. We excluded those managers who were not fulltime employees and those who worked in organizations employing less than 100 employees. Our rationale is that such a comparison requires an analysis of organizations where defined managerial structures and hierarchies exist and where there is a defined internal labour market. This reduced the number of participants to 817 in 1997, 801 in 1998, 724 in 1999, and 830 in 2000. Data from all four years will be used to explore our research question on the magnitude of organizational change over time. Hypotheses 1 to 4 are tested using the data of the year 2000. Different categories of management


149

level were assessed and for the purposes of this research, we distinguished between directors (chairmen, CEOs/MDs, and directors—labelled D) and compared their views against those of nondirectors (senior, middle, and junior managers—labelled ND).

Measures Effectiveness of organizational change on organizational outcomes was measured with three scales—effectiveness, outcome, and competence loss: 1. Effectiveness was measured with a scale comprising four items asking managers to what degree had organizational changes improved decision making, accountability, participation, and flexibility in their organization. The answering format was a five-point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). 2. Outcome. Changes in organizational performance were captured with two items, assessing how far productivity and profitability were enhanced as a consequence of organizational changes, using the same question and answering format as effectiveness. 3. Competence loss was measured by a single item asking to what degree organizational changes had resulted in key skills and experience being lost. Answering format was the same as for effectiveness. Two measures of employee perspectives (job security and loyalty) were also included: 4. Employee loyalty. This scale consisted of three items and asked managers to assess in how far organizational changes had affected their employee’s loyalty, morale, and motivation. The answering format recorded if the managers perceived these attitudes to have increased, remained unchanged, or decreased. 5. Employee job security was measured by a single item asking about the effects of the changes on employee’s job security. The answering format recorded if employees’ job security increased, remained unchanged, or decreased. Manager’s current well-being was assessed with three scales—satisfaction (two scales), morale and motivation, and index for harassment culture: 6. Satisfaction with communication was measured by two items and asked about satisfaction in current job with team communication and

150


feedback. Answering format was a five-point scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). 7. Satisfaction with HR policies was measured by a scale consisting of four items and asked about satisfaction in current job with career opportunities, recognition for performance, reward/remuneration, and workload, using the same answering format as satisfaction with communication. 8. Morale and motivation was measured by a scale consisting of six items concerning organizational morale, department/team morale, having fun at work, whether the organization has become a better place to work in past 12 months, and whether employees are treated as the most important asset. Answering format was the same as for the satisfaction scale. 9. Harassment culture was measured by an index of two items asking how far managers agreed that there was a blame culture in the organization and whether they had witnessed bullying in the organization. Answering format was the same as for the satisfaction scale. Three scales were used to assess manager’s perceptions of change in the last 3 years—reciprocal commitment, intention to quit, and work intensification: 10. Reciprocal commitment was measured by a scale consisting of three items, and asked how far the manager’s commitment to their work group, commitment to their organization, and the organization’s commitment to them had developed over the last 3 years. Answering format was the same as for effectiveness. 11. Intention to quit was measured by a single item and asked how far the manager’s inclination to change jobs to pursue their career had developed over the last 3 years. Answering format was the same as for effectiveness. 12. Work intensification was measured by an index of three items asking how far the nature of managerial work had changed over the past 3 years. The items were task fragmentation, volume of information, and increased organizational politics. Answering format was the same as for effectiveness. Type of organizational change was measured by asking managers to record the occurrence (or not) of seven categories of change. These categories were: cost reduction programmes, culture change programmes, delayering, mergers/demergers, outsourcing, redundancy programmes, and the replacement of full-time employees by contract and/or temporary managers (now often called interim managers).

151

3.10 3.03 3.61 1.46 2.61 3.52 3.04 2.87 2.97 3.21 3.42 3.83

1. Effectiveness 2. Outcome 3. Competence loss 4. Employee loyalty 5. Employee job insecurity 6. Satisf. communication 7. Satisf. HR policies 8. Morale & motivation 9. Harassment 10. Recipr. commitment 11. Intention to quit 12. Work intensity

0.80 0.75 1.06 0.56 0.57 0.82 0.90 0.75 0.93 0.63 0.97 0.60

SD (.80) .61** 7 .28** .54** 7 .25** .23** .26** .32** 7 .18** .21** 7 .11* .03

1

(.65) 7 .28** .41** 7 .20** .17** .26** .26** 7 .19** .22** 7 .09 .01

2

— 7 .46** .30** 7 .15** 7 .19** 7 .27** .18** 7 .16** .05 .09*

3

(.66) 7 .56** .21** .25** .37** 7 .15** .25** 7 .14** 7 .05

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

— 7 .15** (.76) 7 .21** .43** (.77) 7 .31** .49** .67** (.85) .08 7 .32** 7 .42** 7 .47** (.51) 7 .14** .28** .41** .50** 7 .28** (.74) .08* 7 .20** 7 .30** 7 .28** .19** 7 .22** — .03 7 .04 7 .18** 7 .18** .21** 7 .03 .07* (.52)

5

*p 4 .05, **p 4 .01; Row 1 – 5, n = 745; Row 6 – 12, n = 855; Satisf. = Satisfaction with; Recipr. =Reciprocal.

M

6

TABLE 1 Means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations of variables, Cronbach’s alpha on diagonal

152

WORRALL, PARKES, COOPER TABLE 2 Number of managers reporting changes and those reporting no change

No change Reported changes Total number of managers

1997

1998

1999

2000

287 (35.1%) 530 (64.9%) 817

261 (32.6%) 540 (67.4%) 801

220 (30.4%) 504 (69.6%) 724

233 (28.1%) 597 (71.9%) 830

Note: Changes reported include, cost reduction and culture change programmes, delayering, mergers/demergers, outsourcing, redundancy programmes and (with the exception of 1997) contract/temporary workers.

All scale means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and reliabilities can be found in Table 1. Internal consistencies can be considered as sufficient in most cases regarding the limited number of items.

RESULTS The research question was tested by comparing the numbers of managers who reported experiencing specific types of change over a 4 year period (1997 – 2000) to those who did not experience any of the assessed changes. Table 2 shows that over the 4 year period the proportion of managers experiencing change increased. This trend is significant with Chi-square (3, N = 830) = 10.34, p 5 .016. This result supports the commonly held perceptions that organizational changes are becoming increasingly widespread. All hypotheses were tested with multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), with management level (directors vs. nondirectors) as the first factor, and type of change as the second factor. Respondents were grouped according to the type of change their organization had undergone; four groups were distinguished: 1. There was organizational change but without the use of either redundancy or delayering, i.e., the change process involved cost reduction, culture change, mergers/demergers, the use of temporary and/or contract staff or outsourcing or a mixture of these; change without redundancy or delayering (CWRD), n = 253. 2. Redundancy was used without delayering; redundancy no delayering (RND), n = 219 – 244. 3. Delayering was used without redundancy; delayering no redundancy (DNR), n = 67 – 71. 4. Redundancy and delayering were used in parallel; redundancy and delayering (RAD), n = 201. 5. No change (NC), n = 112.


153

The first four groups are used to test Hypothesis 2 on the different effects of types of organizational changes. Hypotheses 3 – 4, which relate to current experiences in organizations and developments over the last years, also include participants who reported that their organization had not undergone changes. Hypotheses 1 and 2 are tested with one MANOVA including all dependent variables implied in these hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 compares nondirectors and directors regarding how they perceive change. The groups were compared with respect to their perceptions of organizational outcome of change (effectiveness, outcome, competence loss) and employee wellbeing (loyalty and job security). Results depicted in Tables 3 and 4 imply that directors and nondirectors differ significantly in their perceptions of change: multivariate F-test, F(5, 733) = 17.41, p 5 .001. The directors perceive change in general more positively than nondirectors: Univariate tests imply that this applies to all variables. The nonsignificant interaction TABLE 3 Significant results of MANOVAs and post hoc tests Measure

ML

Type of change

1. Effectiveness 2. Outcome 3. Competence loss

D 4 ND D 4 ND D 5 ND

CWRD 4 RAD, RND

4. Employee loyalty

D 4 ND

5. Employee job insecurity

D 5 ND

6. Satisfaction with communication 7. Satisfaction with HR policies

D 4 ND D 4 ND

8. Morale & motivation

D 4 ND

9. Harassment culture

D 5 ND

10. Reciprocal commitment 11. Intention to quit 12. Work intensity

D 4 ND D 5 ND D 4 ND

RAD 4 RND, CWRD, DNR RND 4 CWRD RAD 5 CWRD, RND, DNR RND 5 CWRD CWRD 5 DNR, RND, RAD RND 5 RAD NC 4 DNR, RND + NC 4 CWRD, RND, DNR, RAD NC 4 CWRD, RND, DNR, RAD CWRD 4 RAD, RND RND 4 RAD NC 5 CWRD, RAD, DNR, RND CWRD 5 RAD NC 4 RAD NC 5 RAD + , RND NC 5 DNR + , RAD, RND, CWRD

‘‘ 5 ’’ and ‘‘ 4 ’’ indicate a difference between groups in the post hoc test, with p 5 .05 (p 5 .10 when indicated with +); ML = managerial level, D = director, ND = nondirector; NC = no change, CWRD = change without redundancy and delayering, RAD = redundancy and delayering, DNR = delayering no redundancy, RND = redundancy no delayering.

154

WORRALL, PARKES, COOPER TABLE 4 Means and standard deviations for management level of participants Director

1. Effectiveness 2. Outcome 3. Competence loss 4. Employee loyalty 5. Employee job insecurity 6. Satisfaction with communication 7. Satisfaction with HR policies 8. Morale & motivation 9. Harassment culture 10. Reciprocal commitment 11. Intention to quit 12. Work intensity

Nondirector

M

SD

M

SD

3.50 3.40 2.95 1.84 3.40 3.79 3.41 3.27 2.64 3.41 3.18 3.92

0.81 0.73 1.04 0.66 1.08 0.70 0.84 0.68 0.91 0.58 0.92 0.61

3.04 2.98 3.70 1.41 3.01 3.49 2.99 2.81 3.02 3.19 3.45 3.82

0.79 0.74 1.03 0.53 1.13 0.83 0.84 0.75 0.93 0.63 0.98 0.59

Director = Chairs, CEOs and Directors; Nondirector = Senior Managers, Middle Managers and Junior Managers.

term of managerial level and change type, however, indicated that there was no support for our assumption that nondirectors had especially negative perceptions when affected by changes involving redundancy or delayering. Results only indicate that nondirectors give less favourable reports regardless of the type of change they were exposed to. Hypothesis 2 assumed differential effects of type of organizational change on organizational outcome variables (effectiveness, outcome, and competence loss) and employee well-being (employee loyalty and job security). Hypothesis 2 is confirmed, F(15, 2205) = 6.54, p 5 .001. Post hoc tests were run to identify between what types of changes the differences occurred (cf. Table 3). Inspections of the means (cf. Table 5) and the post hoc test support the assumption that changes that involve only redundancy (RND) or redundancy and delayering (RAD) are associated with significantly more negative reports of all tested variables in comparison to those changes which do not include redundancy or delayering. In most of the post hoc tests the group that underwent change without redundancy or delayering (CWRD) gave significantly more favourable reports that than all other groups. An exception to this is the scale outcome, where the univariate test was not significant. The last two hypotheses predict a differential impact of the type of change and whether there was no change on managers’ well-being (in terms of their satisfaction, and morale and motivation, cf. Hypothesis 3) and on the development of the organizational attachment (reciprocal commitment, intention to quit) and work intensity (Hypothesis 4). The two hypotheses were again tested with one MANOVA, testing all dependent variables

155

3.28 3.22 2.80 1.73 2.33 3.52 3.09 3.27 2.94 3.25 3.38 3.82

0.76 0.70 1.11 0.65 0.64 0.83 0.81 0.66 0.90 0.63 0.91 0.61

SD 3.04 3.07 3.60 1.47 2.64 3.48 3.00 3.03 2.97 3.23 3.50 3.90

M

RND

0.80 0.75 0.98 0.53 0.55 0.81 0.85 0.73 0.94 0.62 0.95 0.59

SD 3.35 2.95 3.30 1.29 2.64 3.35 2.99 2.82 3.03 3.17 3.32 3.84

M

DNR

0.82 0.80 1.18 0.46 0.57 0.81 0.90 0.73 0.96 0.68 1.11 0.53

SD

Type

3.02 2.95 3.92 1.52 2.81 3.56 2.89 2.77 3.21 3.09 3.51 3.89

M

RAD

0.85 0.80 0.95 0.59 0.45 0.80 0.85 0.69 0.91 0.60 1.09 0.60

SD

3.72 3.43 2.54 2.53 3.43 3.22 3.63

M

NC

0.83 0.80 0.72 0.87 0.63 0.81 0.56

SD

Note: CWRD = change without redundancy and delayering, RND = redundancy no delayering, DNR = delayering no redundancy, RAD = redundancy and delayering, NC = no change.

1. Effectiveness 2. Outcome 3. Competence loss 4. Employee loyalty 5. Employee job insecurity 6. Satisfaction with communication 7. Satisfaction with HR policies 8. Morale & motivation 9. Harassment culture 10. Reciprocal commitment 11. Intention to quit 12. Work intensity

M

CWRD

Change

TABLE 5 Means and standard deviations for type of change experienced

156


implied in the two hypotheses. The multivariate F-value for type of change indicated a significant effect of the type of change, F(28, 3384) = 4.66, p 5 .001. Post hoc tests showed for all variables implied in Hypothesis 3 that the no-change group made significantly more positive statements than any or most of the other groups (Table 3). For managers’ morale and motivation and the observation of a harassment culture, the particular negative effect of redundancy combined with delayering (RAD) appeared again: This group reported significantly lower morale and motivation and higher observation of harassment culture than the group that underwent change without redundancy or delayering. With respect to the variables implied in Hypothesis 4, the post hoc tests show that no change is perceived more positively than some of the change groups; it was, however not the case that the redundancy and delayering group stuck out. We also tested for all variables, whether there was an interaction between management level and type of change. The multivariate test of the interactions between the factor management level and type of change was not significant, F(28, 3368) = 0.96, p 4 .1.

DISCUSSION Our findings have revealed that our panel of respondents experienced significant organizational change between 1997 and 2000. The figures show that an increasing number of managers reported changes each year over this period. Changes in the global economy and increased competition provide more uncertain business conditions, which in turn lead to a more insecure work environment as organizations respond with restructurings and measures such as redundancy and delayering. According to Hutton (1997) such decisions are often brought about because of the intense pressure on private and public sector alike to improve their profitability and efficiency, the lack of labour market protection, and the weakness of the unions. The prime driver for redundancy and delayering is often cost cutting. Looking at the number of people affected by change involving redundancy and delayering in the year 2000 (individuals in groups 2 – 4 = 492) compared to those where changes did not involve redundancy and delayering (n = 253) shows that overwhelmingly, change seemed to have focused on reducing costs with a view to enhancing profitability and productivity in a business climate where improving competitiveness was increasingly seen as the key to survival. This pattern also occurred in the previous years (data not shown here). In the comparison of perceptions of change between directors and nondirectors, the views of managers within the board room differed from other managers. The perspectives of board-level managers and other


157

managers were found to be quite different on a host of measures. Directors appeared to view organizational changes in a more positive light than their more junior counterparts, i.e., nondirectors. This was only a general trend but it was not confined to changes involving redundancy and delayering but was also found in all types of changes. We believe our results are symptomatic of increased power distance in UK business organizations and contend that the experience of working life in the board room has become more distanced from the experience of working life outside the board room (Worrall & Cooper, 2001b). This has been taken up in the media and epitomized by the reporting of ‘‘fat-cat’’ pay, which is now included in assessments of FTSE 100 company profiles (Ashworth, Butler, & Buckley, 2004). We also compared different types of changes in order to test whether redundancy and delayering is more harmful than other types of change. In terms of organizational effectiveness, change that did not involve redundancy and delayering is received more positively than change that did involve such changes. While organizational change is often predicated in terms of improving organizational effectiveness and efficiency, managers showed a considerable degree of ambivalence about the effect of change on organizational performance. This supports Thornhill, Saunders, and Stead (1997) who suggested that, following a redundancy programme, individuals become indecisive and risk averse as spans of control and task overload both increase and role clarity declines. More colloquially, managers are less willing to ‘‘stick their neck out’’ following redundancies, which might explain why managers perceive decision making to have slowed down. There is evidence that the perceived impact of change is to cause the attrition of organizations’ skills and knowledge bases: This is paradoxical given the emphasis on knowledge management and ‘‘the learning organization’’ in the current management discourse. In those organizations where redundancy with delayering occurred, the loss of knowledge and skill was perceived to have been most pronounced. We suggest an explanation for this may be that the selection criteria used by organizations to pick individuals for redundancy may be more geared to taking out high cost employees than to preserving organizational knowledge. This may be accentuated by the increasing use of temporary and contract staff who do not hold company knowledge and often leave after short periods taking the knowledge they have acquired with them. The analysis showed that managers who had experienced redundancy and delayering as part of organizational change and restructuring programmes were far more likely to report negative impact on employee variables such as the employees’ loyalty, morale, motivation, and sense of job security. Furthermore, redundancy, particularly when it is used in conjunction with

158


delayering, is often a short-term action that erodes trust within an organization creating a culture of blame and harassment that is damaging to the employee – employer relationship. Our analysis revealed that it was not only employee loyalty that was affected negatively by organizational change involving redundancy. In particular, redundancy appears to have reduced managers’ perceptions of employee morale and (not surprisingly) their sense of their employee’s job security. Different types of change increase job insecurity but this was particularly pronounced in organizations where redundancy and delayering had been used in parallel. Managers showed a substantially reduced sense of job security even though they had survived. For a number of variables we found that managers only report more positive perceptions when they experience change which does not involve redundancy and/or delayering compared to those that do. Differential impacts were found of change/no change and type of change on managers perceptions of well-being variables including loyalty, morale and motivation, commitment, intention to quit, work intensification, and perceived organizational climate (satisfaction with communication, HR policies, and the extent to which a harassment culture was perceived). Significantly, no change is perceived more positively than any other group. Our study adds to the literature as we show that the people who stay suffer under redundancy and delayering; and this result is not attributable to the general negative effect of organizational changes but to the specific nature of redundancy and delayering. We have revealed that the impact of redundancy on organizations is considerable and the organizational context and culture in which the individuals work. It should be borne in mind when interpreting the results that, due to the nature of CMI membership and self-selection issues, the panel of respondents tends to overrepresent managers at more senior levels. However, the survey elicited an average of 800 responses and we believe this depicts a balanced view of change processes in organizations. It is also accepted that for a few of the measures used, the alpha coefficient for the scales is not particularly high but these are the exception and they have been included to add to the picture provided by the main scales (see Table 1). Our research has important implications for the management of change: In particular, we suggest that organizations should seek alternative methods of reducing their costs rather than immediately reducing the headcount and, to paraphrase Cascio (2002), organizations should use redundancy and downsizing as a last resort and not as the first option. Change managers also need to be aware of the structural problems that exist in many organizations where the views of the board and the views of other, more junior managers are radically different indicating the existence of different value systems and separate agendas for organizational development. It is our contention that


159

this polarization of views indicates the existence of a fundamental structural problem that militates against the more effective and sympathetic management of strategic change in many organizations. We contend that redundancy makes managers more risk averse. It can erode the skill and knowledge bases of organizations, it may reduce trust, it can be associated with the existence of a harassment culture within organizations, and it contributes to reducing individuals’ quality of working life. Each of these negative consequences has the ability to inhibit the future development of the postredundancy organization and make the management of postredundancy survivors problematic, in terms of having to rebuild their commitment, reestablish their perception that the organization has some commitment to them, redevelop their sense of job security, and rekindle their sense of identification with the perceptions and feelings, which will ultimately find form in changed managerial behaviours in the workplace. We argue that the high and persistent rate of organizational change and the use of redundancy as a mechanism for change (either singly or in conjunction with delayering) has brought about changed pressures, changed attitudes, and changed managerial behaviours in the workplace. An increase in the tensions that arise from managers having to balance work and nonwork commitments (Worrall & Cooper, 2001b) and changes in behavioural patterns indicate that managers may be becoming more mercenary as their loyalty switches from the organization to their own self-interest. HR can play a crucial role in effective management of workforce reduction particularly in ameliorating the serious negative affects of its mismanagement (Redman & Wilkinson, 2001). Cascio (2002) emphasizes the importance of the processes used in relation to those affected by changes and we propose that satisfaction with HR practices and the impact this has on organizational climate is important in the perceptions of managers when they experience organizational change. This is particularly important when changes involve redundancy and delayering compared to those that do not involve such changes. What might been seen as almost indifference towards HR policies switches to real concerns when individuals are personally affected by such decisions in terms of their career and/or livelihood. Although once decisions to instigate redundancies and/or delayering are made, they are rarely reversed, the manner in which the processes are undertaken can vitally affect the views of the ‘‘survivors’’ as well as the climate and reputation of the organization. It is a case of ‘‘it ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it’’ and certainly avoiding the Stebbins (1989) ‘‘Mafia model’’ of downsizing. It is in this respect that good HR practices can make a difference.

160


Campbell, Thornhill, and Saunders (1997) suggested that mismanaging change programmes and relying on redundancy has led organizations into a spiral of decline where more emphasis becomes focused on internal politics and on managerial positioning in new structures than on products, markets, and customers. Our concern is that much change in the UK is being driven—in the private sector—by a singular focus on maximizing shareholder value and an unwillingness to take into consideration the interests of a wider set of stakeholders. In the public sector, central government seems to be driving modernzation at a pace that many organizations cannot cope with, causing many public sector organizations to restructure, reduce costs, and to outsource services. While change is inevitable in organizations, does it usually have to be so injurious and so badly managed? If only one message is taken from this article by practitioners, it should be that those managers who had not experienced change had more positive perceptions than all other groups. Perhaps change initiatives should be awarded ‘‘a very high price tag, to be used sparingly and only with great care’’. Cascio (2002) provides a checklist of ‘‘mistakes to avoid’’ when restructuring, which includes failures in goal setting, communication, employee involvement, managing departing employees, survivors, and other stakeholders, and using downsizing as a last resort. Our findings support these assertions. Changes involving redundancy and delayering are particularly damaging but, where such changes are unavoidable, the way the processes are managed is of critical importance. In this case, it may be that it ‘‘ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it’’. Brockner and Greenberg’s (1990) framework of organizational justice in relation to layoffs is of particular importance in understanding the dilemmas and reactions to the processes and decisions involved in these changes. Cascio (2002) also asserts that, unless firms are brutally honest about the processes and outcomes of their restructuring efforts, they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Similarly, organizations need to have a clarity of the implications when managing downsizing (Herriot & Pemberton, 1997) and accept that the best way to manage process of downsizing is to learn from experience gained by other organizations (Cameron, 1994). This research has implications for managing change and the HR strategy of organizations. The pressures to increase performance and develop human potential are paramount but cannot be done using blunt instruments such as redundancy without thinking through the consequences for the future and working effectively with fewer resources should put the value of utilizing human potential at the top of the agenda. The integration of HRM with business strategy is crucial to ensure that the people factor is included in the equations of such decisions but a more proactive approach by HR to create new cultures and structures within


161

which strategy is formulated, would provide a more preferable reciprocal relationship between HR policy making and business strategy (Legge, 1995).

REFERENCES Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 24, 19 – 36. Ashworth, J., Butler, S., & Buckley, C. (2004, April 5). Powerhouses of business. The Times, p. 23. Brockner, J. (1990). Scope of justice in the workplace: How survivors react to co-worker layoffs. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 95 – 106. Brockner, J., Davy, J., & Carter, C. (1985). Layoffs, self esteem, and survivor guilt: Motivational, affective and attitudinal consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 229 – 244. Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (1990). The impact of layoffs on survivors: An organizational justice perspective. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 45 – 75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Brockner, J., Greenberg, J., Brockner, A., Bortz, J., & Carter, C. (1986). Layoffs, equity theory and work performance: Further evidence of survivor guilt. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 374 – 384. Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T., & DeWitt, R. (1992). Layoffs, job insecurity and survivors work effort: Evidence of an invented relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 413 – 425. Burchell, B., Lapido, D., & Wilkinson, F. (2002). Job insecurity and work intensification. London: Routledge. Cameron, K. S. (1994). Investigating organizational downsizing: Fundamental issues. Human Resource Management, 33, 183 – 188. Cameron, K. S., Freeman, S. J., & Mishra, A. K. (1993). Downsizing and redesigning organizations. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organization change and redesign (pp. 19 – 65). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Campbell, F. K., Thornhill, A., & Saunders, M. N. K. (1997). The development of a framework for survivors of downsizing. Paper presented at the annual conference of the British Academy of Management, London Business School. Cascio, W. F. (1993). Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? Academy of Management Executive, 7, 95 – 104. Cascio, W. F. (2002). Strategies for responsible restructuring. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 80 – 91. Champy, J. (1995). Reengineering management. London: HarperCollins. Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. W. (1991). Developing and testing a model of survivor responses to layoffs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 302 – 317. Devanna, M., & Tichy, N. (1990). Creating the competitive organization of the 21st century: The boundary less corporation. Human Resource Management, 29, 455 – 471. Drucker, P. (1998). Managing in a time of great change. New York: Truman Talley Books. Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1994). Organizational commitment: The utility of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370 – 380. Ebadan, G., & Winstanley, D. (1997). Downsizing, delayering and careers: The survivors’ perspective. Human Relations Journal, 7, 79 – 91. Fowler, A. (1993). Redundancy. London: Institute of Personnel Management. Freeman, S. J., & Cameron, K. S. (1993). Organizational downsizing: A convergence and reorientation framework. Organizational Science, 4, 10 – 28.

162


Gopinath, C., & Becker, T. E. (2000). Communication, procedural justice, and employee attitudes: Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26, 63 – 83. Gowing, M. K., Kraft, J. D., & Campbell-Quick, J. (1997). The new organizational reality: Downsizing, restructuring and revitalization. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Greenhalgh, L., Lawrence, A., & Sutton, R. (1988). Determining workforce reduction strategies in declining organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13, 241 – 254. Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9, 438 – 448. Hallier, J., & Lyon, P. (1996). Job insecurity and employee commitment: Managers’ reactions to threats and outcomes of redundancy selection. British Journal of Management, 7, 107 – 123. Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. London: Nicholas Brealey. Handy, C. (1994). The age of paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Handy, L. (1998). The Ashridge management index. Berkhamsted, UK: Ashridge Management College. Herriot, P., & Pemberton, C. (1997). Facilitating new deals. Human Resource Management Journal, 7, 45 – 55. Hutton, W. (1995). The state we’re in. London: Random House. Hutton, W. (1997). The state to come. London: Vintage. Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Balazs, K. (1997). The downside of downsizing. Human Resources, 50, 11 – 50. King, N., & Anderson, N. (2002). Managing innovation and change (2nd ed.). London: Thomson. Kozlowski, S., Chao, G., Smith, E., & Hedlund, J. (1993). Organizational downsizing: Strategies, interventions, and research implications. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 263 – 332). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Legge, K. (1995). Human resource management: Rhetoric and realities. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Lewis, P. (1993). The successful management of redundancy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Liefooghe, A. P. D., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (2001). Accounts of bullying: The role of the organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 375 – 392. Littler, C. R. (2000). Comparing downsizing experiences of three countries: A restructuring cycle? In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The organization in crisis: Downsizing, restructuring and privatisation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Nelson, A., Cooper, C. L., & Jackson, P. R. (1995). Uncertainty amidst change: The impact of privatisation on employee job satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 57 – 71. Noer, D. (1993). Healing the wounds: Overcoming the trauma of layoffs and revitalizing downsized organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. On the battlefields of business, millions of casualties. (1996, March 3). New York Times, pp. 14 – 16. Organ, D. W. (1997). Towards an explication of ‘‘moral’’: In search of the ‘‘m’’ factor. In C. L. Cooper & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organizations: A handbook for future research in organizational behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Redman, T., & Wilkinson, A. (2001). Contemporary human resource management. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.


163

Reilly, A. H., Brett, J. M., & Stroh, L. K. (1993). The impact of corporate turbulence on employee attitudes. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 167 – 179. Robinson, S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). The psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245 – 259. Shaw, J. B., & Barrett-Power, E. (1997). A conceptual framework for assessing organization, work group and individual effectiveness during and after downsizing. Human Relations, 50, 109 – 127. Sparrow, P. R. (1998). Can the psychological contract be managed? In S. J. Perkins & S. J. Sandringham (Eds.), Trust, motivation and commitment: A reader. Faringdon, UK: Oxon SRRC. Stebbins, M. W. (1989). Downsizing with ‘‘Mafia model’’ consultants. Business Forum, 45 – 47. Thornhill, A., & Gibbons, A. (1995). ‘‘Could do better’’ is verdict of research. People Management, 1, 31 – 35. Thornhill, A., Saunders, M., & Stead, J. (1997). Downsizing, delayering—but where’s the commitment? Development of a diagnostic tool to help manage survivors. Personnel Review, 26, 81 – 98. Tizard, J. (2002). Managing change. New Zealand Management, 49, 64. Tombaugh, J. R., & White, P. L. (1990). Downsizing: An empirical assessment of survivors’ perceptions in a post layoff environment. Organization Development Journal, 8, 32 – 43. Turnbull, P., & Wass, V. (1997). Job insecurity and labour market lemons: The (mis)management of redundancy in steel making, coal mining and port transport. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 27 – 51. Vollmann, T., & Brazas, M. (1993). Downsizing. European Management Journal, 11, 18 – 29. Winstanley, D., & Stuart-Smith, K. (1996). Policing performance: The ethics of performance management, Personnel Review, 25, 66 – 84. Worrall, L., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). The quality of working life: The 1998 survey of managers’ experiences [Research Rep.]. London: Institute of Management. Worrall, L., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). The quality of working life: The 1999 survey of managers’ experiences [Research Rep.]. London: Institute of Management. Worrall, L., & Cooper, C. L. (2001a). The long working hours culture. European Business Forum, 6, 48 – 53. Worrall, L., & Cooper, C. L. (2001b). The quality of working life: The 2000 survey of managers’ experiences [Research Rep.]. London: Institute of Management.