Surviving downsizing: Navigating stress, tensions, and contradictions
Vol 8, Issue 3, 2023, Article identifier:
VIEWS - 559 (Abstract) 90 (PDF)
Abstract
This study explored the intricate nuances of the tensions and dualities that underlie the stress experienced by survivors of a downsizing process, encompassing the embodied dimensions of these tensions. Data was analyzed from a large public organization located in Canada, providing empirical evidence of the various tensions experienced by individuals while responding to the changes brought about by downsizing. It was suggested that these tensions could be understood as discursive strategies employed by members to navigate the stress and uncertainty of the process. To examine these accounts more closely, communication ventriloquial approach was utilized, offering a robust framework and analytical method that proved instrumental in dissecting the responses of organizational members as they confronted the multifaceted challenges stemming from the downsizing process. This research presented a tension-centered perspective of change, challenging traditional approaches to change. This approach enabled a deeper understanding of individuals’ communicative strategies and discourses during this period. By tracking figures, and tensions, the analysis shed light on preoccupations constituting the downsizing process. The analysis revealed three main tensions during the change process: supportiveness vs. equity, effectiveness vs. authority, and accountability vs. collegiality. It has been proposed that recognizing the communicative construction of these tensions is pivotal in effectively addressing issues of change and employees’ concerns throughout this process. The current literature did not explain how employees voiced their concerns or how these preoccupations interacted with one another to create multiple tensions. The findings suggested that employees’ preoccupations and concerns provided a deeper and more global picture of their experiences during the organizational change process, offering a better understanding of the tensions that were also part of the change process.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Amundson NE, Borgen WA, Jordan S, Erlebach AC. Survivors of downsizing: Helpful and hindering experiences. The Career Development Quarterly 2004; 52(3): 256–271. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2004.tb00647.x
2. Lin ES, Lin CL, Lin HL, Hsiao YC. Is downsizing a good strategy during the downturn? Evidence from Taiwanese manufacturing firms. Japan and the World Economy 2023; 65: 101171. doi: 10.1016/j.japwor.2022.101171
3. Spreitzer GM, Mishra AK. To stay or to go: Voluntary survivor turnover following an organizational downsizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2002; 23(6): 707–729. doi: 10.1002/job.166
4. Sumathi GN, Thangaiah ISS. Relationship between downsizing and organisational performance: Serial mediation effect of employee morale and tolerance to ambiguity. International Journal of Services and Operations Management 2023; 44(1): 1–20.
5. Bujang S, Sani N. Downsizing effects on survivors. Available online: https://studylib.net/doc/8252703/downsizing-effects-on-survivors (accessed on 1 October 2023).
6. Aggerholm HK. Communicating organizational change reactions downsizing survivors’ discursive constructions of flexible identities. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 2014; 77(4): 1–26. doi: 10.1177/2329490614547757
7. Spreitzer GM, Mishra AK. An empirical examination of a stress-based framework of survivor responses to downsizing. In: Burke RJ, Cooper CL (editors). The Organization in Crisis: Downsizing, Restructuring and Privatization. Blackwell; 2000. pp. 97–118.
8. Fairhurst GT, Cooren F, Cahill DJ. Discursiveness, contradiction, and unintended consequences in successive downsizings. Management Communication Quarterly 2002; 15(4): 501–540. doi: 10.1177/0893318902154001
9. Gordon SR, Gordon JR. Organizational options for resolving the tension between IT departments and business units in the delivery of IT services. Information Technology & People 2002; 15(4): 286–305. doi: 10.1108/09593840210453098
10. Cooren F. Action and Agency in Dialogue: Passion, Incarnation and Ventriloquism. John Benjamins Publishing; 2010. p. 224.
11. Putnam LL, Fairhurst GT, Banghart S. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals 2016; 10(1): 65–171. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
12. Barge JK, Lee M, Maddux K, et al. Managing dualities in planned change initiatives. Journal of Applied Communication Research 2008; 36(4): 364–390. doi: 10.1080/00909880802129996
13. Howard LA, Geist P. Ideological positioning in organizational change: The dialectic of control in a merging organization. Communications Monographs 1995; 62(2): 110–131. doi: 10.1080/036377595093763524
14. Fairhurst GT, Putnam LL. Organizational discourse analysis. In: Putnam LL, Mumby DK (editors). The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, 3rd ed. SAGE Publications, Inc; 271–296.
15. Seo MG, Putnam LL, Bartunek JM. Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation. Oxford University Press; 2004. pp. 73–107.
16. Ullah R, Noël F. Downsizing, workload and interpersonal conflict: The moderating role of organizational restructuring. Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines 2023; 1: 51–71. doi: 10.3917/grhu.127.0051
17. Zeitlin LR. Organizational downsizing and stress-related illness. International Journal of Stress Management 1995; 2: 207–219. doi: 10.1007/BF01681850
18. Ashman I. Downsizing: Managing redundancy and restructuring. In: Saundry R, Latreille P, Ashman I (editors). Reframing Resolution: Innovation and Change in the Management of Workplace Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan London; 2016. pp. 149–167.
19. Datta DK, Guthrie JP, Basuil D, Pandey A. Causes and effects of employee downsizing: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management 2010; 36(1): 281–348. doi: 10.1177/0149206309346735
20. Cameron KS. Strategies for successful organizational downsizing. Human Resource Management 1994; 33(2): 189–211. doi: 10.1002/hrm.3930330204
21. Frone MR, Blais AR. Organizational downsizing, work conditions, and employee outcomes: Identifying targets for workplace intervention among survivors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020; 17(3): 719. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17030719
22. Alvesson M, Kärreman D. Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 2000; 36(2): 136–158. doi: 10.1177/0021886300362002
23. Grant D, Marshak RJ. Toward a discourse-centered understanding of organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 2011; 47(2): 204–235. doi: 10.1177/0021886310397612
24. Weick KE. Emergent change as universal in organizations. In: Beer M, Nohria N (editors). Breaking the Code of Change. Harvard Business School Press; 2000. pp. 223–243.
25. Tracy SJ. Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research 2004; 32(2): 119–146. doi: 10.1080/0090988042000210025
26. Trethewey GA, Ashcraft KL. Special issue introduction: Practicing disorganization: The development of applied perspectives on living with tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research 2004; 32(2): 81–88. doi: 10.1080/0090988042000210007
27. Ford JD. Organizational change as shifting conversations. Journal of Organizational Change Management 1999; 12(6): 480–501. doi: 10.1108/09534819910300855
28. Bakhtin MM. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. University of Texas Press; 1982. p. 444.
29. Cooren F. Action and Agency in Dialogue: Passion, Incarnation and Ventriloquism. John Benjamins Publishing; 2010. p. 224.
30. Boivin G, Brummans BHJM, Barker JR. The institutionalization of CCO scholarship: Trends from 2000 to 2015. Management Communication Quarterly 2017; 31(3): 331–355. doi: 10.1177/089331891668739
31. Cooren F, Caïdor P. Communication as dis/organization: How to analyze tensions from a relational perspective. In: Dis/Organization as Communication. Routledge; 2019. pp. 36–59.
32. Cooren F, Matte F, Benoit-Barné C, Brummans BHJM. Communication as ventriloquism: A grounded-in-action approach to the study of organizational tensions. Communication Monographs 2013; 80(3): 255–277. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2013.788255
33. Putnam LL, Nicotera AM. Building Theories of Organization: The Constitutive Role of Communication. Routledge; 2009. p. 240.
34. Taylor JR, Van Every EJ. The Situated Organization. Case Studies in the Pragmatics of Communication Research. Routledge; 2011.
35. Cooren F, Matte F, Benoit-Barné C, Brummans BHJM. Communication as ventriloquism: A grounded-in-action approach to the study of organizational tensions. Communication Monographs 2013; 80(3): 255–277. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2013.788255
36. Schutz A. The Researcher and Daily Life (French). Méridiens-Klincksieck; 1987.
37. Lindlof TR, Taylor BC. Qualitative Communication Research Methods, 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc; 2010. p. 400.
38. Massé P. Methods for Collecting and Analyzing Communication Data (French). Presses de l’Université du Québec; 1992.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v8i3.1660
(559 Abstract Views, 90 PDF Downloads)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2023 Pascale Caidor
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/