Abstract
The aim of this article is to study employees’ discursive construction of disparate survivor responses. The analysis reveals how employees position themselves simultaneously within different types of categories by use of discursive actions. Drawing on various discourses, the actors reject having one solid core of identity and instead signal the existence of various flexible identities. The article contributes to a greater understanding of the importance of discourse within organizational change. An increased managerial sensitivity toward employee discourse may help to understand why employees obstruct organizational changes and subsequently make it easier to preempt and handle such reactions.
A variety of studies within the field of downsizing disclose a discrepancy between the expected financial gains and the actual achieved results of downsizing strategies (e.g.,Bayardo, Reche, & De La Cabada, 2013;Gandolfi, 2013;Muñoz-Bullon & Sanchez-Bueno, 2010). These studies illustrate how downsizing not only has negative implications for the downsized but also seem to contain destructive elements for the survivors, having pervasive impact on their subsequent communication networks, perceptions, attitudes, and sensemaking in relation to the organization (Brockner, 1988;Datta, Guthrie, Basuil, & Pandey, 2010;Gandolfi, 2013;Gandolfi & Littler, 2012;Susskind, 2007;van Dierendonck & Jacobs, 2012).
Regardless of the general societal justification or critique of the use of downsizing, the article presumes that the organizational change strategy necessarily has to be legitimized within the organization by management as well as by the remaining employees in order to ensure the continuous efficiency of the company (Guild, 2002;Suchman, 1995). While there seems to be an increasing number of scholars interested in management’s attempt to warrant the use of downsizing, it is far less described how these attempts are received and interpreted by survivors, as well as which consequences their interpretations and subsequent sensemaking have on the overall organization. This article focuses on the surviving employees and their discursive sensemaking, interpretations, and understandings in relation to organizational downsizing.
The majority of downsizing literature is predominantly based on a cognitive organizational psychology, which—from a social constructivist perspective in particular—seems to give rise to a number of limitations. Cognitive organizational psychology assumes that social phenomena consisting of employees’ attitudes and behaviors need to be understood on the basis of cognitive processes, including thinking, perceiving, and reasoning. The overall aim is, therefore, to identify these universal cognitions as the cause of social action. Premised on a social constructivist perspective (Wenneberg, 2000,2004), arguing that social interaction is produced and limited by discursive conditions (Burr, 2003), this article claims that such a core or essence determining each human being does not exist. Since the world is already subject to interpretation by the individual, and as these interpretations are never unbiased or unconditional, knowledge is contingent on the specific context in which it occurs. Consequently, discourse psychology (Edwards, 1997;Edwards & Potter, 1992;Potter & Wetherell, 1987) is applied in the analysis. The method of analysis builds on a Foucauldian assumption that the individual categorization is historically and socially conditioned and therefore contingent, that is, a certain attitude does not necessarily induce a certain behavior.
Using organizational downsizing and restructuring as the underlying construct, the aim of the article is to study surviving employees’ discursive construction of disparate survivor responses with the intent of querying the cognitively based psychological idea of archetypical survivors with one fixed core or essence being hopeful, complaisant, cynical, or fearsome (Spreitzer & Mishra, 2000). Moreover, the purpose of the analysis is to reveal how the discursive actions of employees are oriented toward certain kinds of social action, and how various actors make use of different discursive strategies. The intent is to expose the discursive negotiation with regards to sensemaking and to understand the various organizational subjects. Furthermore, the analysis discloses the actors’ understanding of the organizational reality in relation to the downsizing process as well as the respective subjects’ positioning of themselves and others. By adopting a discourse psychological position, the article contributes to a greater understanding of what occurs in the interaction between members of an organization in change. Such an increased understanding can help to explain how employees and their communicative constructs may foster or obstruct organizational changes.
Defining Downsizing Within a Postmodern Organizational Perspective
Traditionally, downsizing has narrowly been formulated as “an intentional reduction in the number of people in an organization . . . accomplished via a set of managerial actions” (Freeman, 1999, p. 1507) based on a Frederick Taylor style understanding of organizations as being management’s responsibility to ensure rational planning and allocation of resources. Within this mechanistic and financially grounded conceptualization, downsizing is seen as a tool available to management with the purpose of making the organization more efficient. However, from a postmodern organizational perspective, which defines organizations as social constructs created through discursive interactions, continuous negotiations, and implicit understandings when employees subjectively relate to one another (i.e.,Barnard, 1938), this articles queries this presently dominating modernistic definition and proposes an expansion of the traditional downsizing concept, arguing for the inclusion of a postmodern, multiperspective comprehension. Within this ontological understanding, downsizing can be defined as “the planning, implementation and management of dialogical communication processes and activities in relation to various actors and stakeholders with the aim of deliberately reducing the number of employees” (Aggerholm, 2009, p. 12). A postmodern conceptualization focuses on elements of power, politics, and strategic thinking as well as the creation of new meaning during the downsizing process, reflecting the organizational culture and values. Thus, an extended conceptual definition underlines the embedded possibilities, challenges, and threats present within the downsizing strategy and perceives at the same time management and employee discourses as decisive for the creation of organizational acceptance of the restructuring strategy.
In his discussion of the “linguistic turn,”Deetz (1995, 2003) criticized modern research for applying oversimplified communication models “rather than participatory interaction processes where openly conflictual social formation can occur, producing both voice and inventive ways of living together” (Deetz, 2003, p. 426). Adhering to the constitutive communication paradigm based on a social constructivist, epistemological understanding of the object itself as constitutive for interpretation and understanding, organizational communication has a transformative influence on management’s intentions and basic conception of what it means to run a business (Deetz, 1995;Jablin & Putnam, 2001;Redding, 1972;Tompkins, 1984). Organizational communication constitutes a way to study and explain the realities of organizational members, the production of social structures, psychological states, member categories, knowledge, and power rather than the functionalistic conceptualization of communication as simply one phenomenon among others in organizations (Deetz, 2001), which is still the prevalent view among scholars of downsizing.
Within the field of downsizing, management communication is often seen as a mediating tool between management’s strategic intentions on one hand, and the execution of these on the other. This instrumental, functionalistic understanding ignores the moral elements and psychological consequences of workforce reductions, and focuses instead on the achievement of specific goals, which appear to be indisputable and value neutral (Bayardo et al., 2013;Sitlington & Marshall, 2011;Tourish, Paulsen, Hobman, & Bordia, 2004). Alternatively, from a constitutive perspective, management’s decision to downsize and its communication are seen as two inseparable entities; that is, management’s decision is construed as a communicative act in itself. However, rather than being merely passive subjects to a managerially defined understanding of workforce reductions, employees because of their ability to communicate are capable of creating their own social reality in which a mutual creation of meaning between the actors is essential (Jablin, Putnam, Roberts, & Porter, 1987). Consequently, the various organizational voices or discourses can be seen as central ways of creating and supporting the meaning of reductions.Mumby and Clair (1997)phrase it as follows: Organizations exist only in so far as their members create them through discourse. This is not to claim that organizations are ‘nothing but’ discourse, but rather that discourse is the principle means by which organization members create a coherent social reality that frames their sense of who they are. (p. 181)
Survivor Syndrome Within the Frames of Cognitive, Social Psychology
Since the future of a company is based on the survivors’ performance and results, it makes sense to ensure their commitment, motivation, and loyalty. Nevertheless, a range of empirical studies has demonstrated how surviving employees often react negatively to reductions (Brockner, 1988;Gandolfi, 2013). Some of the most significant reactions from the organizational viewpoint are stress, dissatisfaction, disloyalty, resistance to change, lack of commitment, absenteeism, intention to leave the company, and decrease in job performance (Fraher, 2013;Phelps, 2013;Spangenburg, 2012;van Dierendonck & Jacobs, 2012). Employees often become narrow-minded, self-centered, and risk averse as they lose trust in management and the corporate future (Cascio, 1993).Turnley and Feldman (1998)pointed to three potential types of survivor behavior: voice-seeking, survivor syndrome reactions, and increased attempts to exit. When faced with violations of their psychological contracts, individuals may voice their displeasure with the violation and attempt to correct the problem by entering into dialogue with management in order to salvage the employment relationship. Based on 76 survivor interviews,Caplan and Teese (1997)categorized these employees as “wait and sees” as they are still committed to the organization and focused on how the downsizing change will affect their lives. If the attempt of interaction and dialogue fails, the survivor symptoms described above become prevalent.Sparrow (2000)talked about “recession fatigue” as reductions initially result in anxiety and worries among employees, while consecutive reductions cause individuals to interpret the situation as out of his or her control sphere. As a result, the employees adopt a despondent, fatalistic attitude in which anxiety is replaced by depression.Caplan and Teese (1997)categorized this reaction as “ride it out” since these employees first and foremost are past oriented in terms of the social relations with colleagues and feel dependent on the organization. Finally, if management fails discursively to construct and mitigate the “survivor syndrome” behavior, there is also the risk that employees will opt for an exit strategy, leaving the company in frustration and anger. These employees, termed “foot out the doors” (Caplan & Teese, 1997), are generally productive and result oriented, but first and foremost loyal to their own careers and own personal interests and not to the organization (Robbins, 1999).
As indicated above, existing survivor literature is predominantly based on a cognitive, universal organizational psychology, assuming that a certain psychological state will result in a specific attitude or behavior with regard to acceptance or rejection of the downsizing strategy. Originally,Alevras and Frigeri (1987)presented a change reaction model, dividing survivors into four general archetypical quadrants: leaders, followers, avengers, and victims. Since then, many downsizing theories (e.g.,Brockner, 1988;Gandolfi, 2013;Noer, 1993;Piderit, 2000;Robbins, 1999) have built on this multidimensional understanding of resistance to change and focus mainly on the cognitive understandings, emotional interpretations, and subsequent attitudes and behaviors of the remaining employees in relation to the implemented reductions.Mishra and Spreitzer (1998)andSpreitzer and Mishra (2000), for example, have refinedAlevras and Frigeri’s (1987)model by broadening the understanding of the four archetypes to “active advocates,” “faithful followers,” “carping critics,” and “walking wounded.”
Theactive advocateis characterized by having an excess of personal resources to handle the reductions, shows optimism as to the organizational consequences of the workforce reductions (Smith, Haynes, Lazarus, & Pope, 1993), and does not feel threatened in his or her position. Subsequently, this results in the employee taking an active and constructive part in the change process (Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988). Emotionally, the active advocate appears enthusiastic as to the future of the organization, hoping that the situation will improve over time. Thus, the person is not afraid of taking risks or developing alternative ways of improving the corporate situation (Bies, Martin, & Brockner, 1993;Brockner, Grover, & Blonder, 1988).
Likewise, from a personal perspective, thefaithful followerdoes not perceive the reductions as threatening, and is therefore willing to accept the situation and to do what is expected and demanded by management. Consequently, the behavior of the faithful follower is seen as constructive but at the same time passive as the individual loyally complies with the managerially defined goals and strategies. Emotionally, the employee experiences a sense of relief at not having lost the job and is engaged and loyal to the organization despite its difficulties (Robinson, 1992;Rusbult et al., 1988).
Meanwhile, thewalking woundedinterprets the reductions as a potential threat to his or her own job situation, and as a result the employee behaves destructively and passively. Typical cognitive reactions are anxiety (Astrachan, 1995), lack of focus (Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1997), helplessness (Seligman, 1975), and lack of control (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Emotionally, the employee experiences fear, depression, and worries as a result of having lost close friends and colleagues (Brockner, Grover, Reed, DeWitt, & O’Malley, 1987). As a consequence of the lack of commitment and motivation, the employee withdraws from the organization (Brockner, 1988) and focuses instead on non-work-related interests and activities (Withey & Cooper, 1989), which leads to increased absenteeism (Robinson, 1992).
Opposed to the walking wounded, thecarping criticpossesses the requisite strength to handle the reductions but perceives at the same time the strategy as a personal threat. Thus, this archetype responds both proactively and destructively, which is whyAlevras and Frigeri (1987)in their original model term this employee type asavenging. The critic experiences a host of feelings such as anger, disgust, and acrimony as he or she feels personally threatened. Cognitively, the employee reacts with cynicism and blame (Smith et al., 1996) and interprets the reductions as a blatant breach in the psychological contract (Rousseau, 1996). Due to the personal resources of the critical employee, the person tries to combat the strategy by challenging or slandering management throughout the downsizing process (Cameron, Freeman, Mishra, 1993), and in extreme cases even turns to vandalism, reprisal, or sabotage (Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1997;Robinson, 1992).
Proposing an Alternative, Discursive Approach to the Field of Downsizing
As mentioned previously, most of the existing survivor syndrome literature is based on a cognitive management psychology, which assumes that social phenomena such as employee attitudes and behavior need to be studied on the basis of cognition, sensory perceptions, and reasoning. Consequently, this literature seeks to identify universal, cognitive processes as the reason for a certain social act (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2006). According toAlevras and Frigeri’s (1987)andMishra and Spreitzer’s (1998)models, for example, the underlying premise is that the isolated individual handles impressions and information through a series of cognitive processes in which the world is categorized in certain ways. The categorization is based on the empirical experiences of each individual.Edwards and Potter (1992)termed this processperceptualismas the individual, based on his or her isolated perception of the world, constructs a series of mental structures or representations constituting the various categories that guide our world. These mental representations or abstractions of ordinarily constructed experiences of social events are often termedschemesorscripts.
Hence, consistency theories (Festinger, 1957) are prevalent within the cognitive psychological approach to downsizing, in that it is assumed that inconsistency between two cognitions results in a psychological tension, which instigates the employee to a behavioral change in order to regain the balance or consistency. This assumption of such individual, cognitive processes underlies the prevailing understanding within the downsizing literature of the human as an isolated, autonomous agent. Scholars interested in workforce reductions first and foremost focus on disclosing how employee attitudes govern the subsequent behavior through persistent mental assessments of the world. Thus, the purpose of the research becomes the improvement of management’s abilities to change these attitudes and behaviors by the use of planned and controlled communication efforts.
This article follows in the wake of researchers such asPotter and Wetherell (1987),Edwards (1997), andFairhurst, Cooren, and Cahill (2002), proposing a focus on the function of language within social interaction. Central to this scholarly approach is the productive, functional, interactive, and context-dependent qualities characterized by all language use, focusing on the study of language practices within varying social contexts. The respondent subjects’ versions of events—consisting of recollections, descriptions and phrasings—are constructed with the intention of communicating and interacting with other subjects, such as colleagues. For example, the recollection of an incident does not just constitute an isolated, clarified remembrance but is also related to a certain communicative act and interest. Hence,Edwards and Potter (1992)pointed out that “versions of mind, of thought and error, inference and reason, are constructed and implied in order to bolster or undermine versions of events, to accuse or criticize, blame or excuse and so on” (p. 16). As a result of this, cognition and reality become subject to rhetoric focusing on how discourse seeks to attempt and wishes to become part of social practices.
From a discourse psychological perspective, the prevailing universalism seems somewhat problematic as it is assumed that a certain attitude necessarily causes a certain behavior. Opposed to understanding the employee’s attitude as an isolated entity, the discursive approach sees the individual attitude as part of a larger system of meanings constructed through social interaction with colleagues, family, friends, and acquaintances (Potter, 1996, p. 135). Consequently, contradictions encountered in employee utterances become incompatible with the assumption that attitudes solely reflect underlying cognitive processes and structures. If so, utterances would be consistent and identical. From a discourse psychological position, sensemaking and attitudes are first and foremost constituted through social activities. Thus, the purpose of the research is not to categorize actors but rather to identify the discursive practices in which categories are constructed.
By rejecting the notion that humans have one specific attitude, discourse psychology also dismisses the idea of one solid identity (cf.Mishra & Spreitzer’s, 1998four archetypes). Instead, drawing on various discourses, the actors make use of various flexible—possibly antagonistic—identities (Hall, 2000). Hence, the particular identity constructed discursively by the individual actor at a given time is an accumulation of previous discursive practices resulting in a discursive continuity (Berger & Luckmann, 1967;Wetherell & Potter, 1992). Such an accumulation yields a range of rhetorical strategies “accessible by members of the speech community for sensemaking and useable as currency to signal to one’s partner the state of affect, respect, intimacy, or power at that moment” (Fairhurst 2001, p. 387). This is also the case in connection with survivors’ understanding, acceptance, and discursive reaction to organizational reductions.
Subsequently, employee identity is constructed by use of positions within the various discourses, and the aim of discourse analysis is to expose the use of such positions through language use, interactive processes, and discursive formations by which the relations among the organizational members become the context for the communication itself. Consequently, mental processes are not seen as internal processes or essences (Wittgenstein, 1953) but as constituted through discursive activity (Edwards, 1997). Such an understanding challenges the notion propagated within much existing downsizing literature that text and talk are direct reflections of underlying cognitive representations of knowledge and reasoning—also termed themirror logic(Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000;Cooper, 1989;Deetz, 1992).
Cognitive psychology seeks to find answers as to why employees think and act as they do based on the establishment of categories on the basis of mental schemes or scripts. However, it cannot demonstrate nuances, divergence, or possible incongruence between talk and action or notion and talk. In this respect, discourse psychology can contribute by mapping the many divergent reactions and thoughts revealed through discursive constructions. Thus, the cognitivists’ “mirror logic” assumption of language being a reflection of reality would require that respondents automatically communicate emotions, thoughts, values, experiences, and observations in a way that exposes their inner world. Hence, statements are seen as reflections of these inner worlds, and it is assumed that language and language use represent more than themselves. Consequently, language is treated as a transparent medium for communicating knowledge. However, discourse psychological analysis discards this understanding as naïve, as verbal statements are interpreted as the result of a certain language use more than as a direct outcome of social reality.
In the discourse psychological frame of reference, language is in no way considered a transparent or neutral system for the transfer of information. Rather, the words used to describe simple, everyday occurrences and conditions contain strong implications for the causal explanations of these occurrences and conditions (Edwards & Potter, 1992). The approach focuses on certain instances of language use within specific social interactions in which the purpose is to study (a) how the actors make strategic use of discourses as a way to represent themselves and the world in particular, advantageous fashions within the social interaction and (b) which social consequences this representation has. Consequently, discourse psychology breaks withAlthusser’s (1971)assumption of discourse as being steered by one absolute ideology. As different discourses offer different positions to talk from, the subject cannot be categorized into only one subject position (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2006). Consequently, this ontological position queries the prevalent tendency within the field of downsizing to place employees in fixed positions, such as “walking wounded” or “carping critics.”
Data Collection and Research Design
Data generation occurred within the methodological framework of a single case study (Yin, 2003). The case study was conducted within TDC, the leading provider of communications solutions in Denmark. After being bought by NTC, an international venture capital firm, and having experienced increasingly fierce competition within the market of telecommunications, TDC went through several consecutive downsizing processes over a period of 5 years. As a result of this, the company endured a serious decrease in employee motivation and commitment as well as difficulties in employee retention.
As part of a continuous efficiency program, the company board announced immediate reductions of 5% to 7% within the landline division, equaling 465 positions and an additional 150 positions in the following 6 months. The underlying reasons for the workforce reductions articulated by management were an increased focus on the minimization of costs as well as a conscious move toward less control, more simplified processes, attention to core competencies, and a wish to induce a higher degree of responsibility among managers and employees. All redundant employees were offered the possibility of relocation to vacant positions within the organization. Those who did not match an internal position were subsequently offered coaching sessions, participation in job fairs, and qualifying courses with the intention of assisting them in finding new employment outside the company. The case study was confined to one single department within the landline division made up of 210 predominantly male, senior engineers and project consultants. The division was instructed to cut 30 positions equaling employee reductions of 15%, double the amount of 5% to 7% announced by the company board.
I conducted 13 in-depth, audio-recorded, semistructured interviews averaging approximately 1 hour. The primary interview data were supplemented with limited observations, a quantitative survey study among all organizational members, and document analysis. The interviews focused on exposing the interviewees’ understanding and perception of the different elements of the downsizing process. All the names associated with the interviewed employees are pseudonyms.
Interpretive methodologists have long questioned an exclusive reliance on interviews, holding that responses cannot be assumed to provide unmediated access to psychological states or external organizational realities and may be better understood as the product of the local context or of self-presentation concerns (Alvesson, 2003). An acceptance of this premise leads to greater skepticism and reflexivity regarding both the interview event and the interpretation of data produced therein (Kuhn, 2006). In this study, such recognition is relevant since identities and organizational realities are considered discursive constructions realized and negotiated in interaction, and the interview is one relevant forum for this. AsTompkins and Cheney (1983)argued, the discursive resources elicited by interviews are informed by, and inform, identity formation in organizational settings well beyond the interview.
The subsequent analysis was guided by four assumptions. First, it was assumed that the individual employee reflected on the downsizing experiences, and the attributions generated in relation to the reductions constituted the basis of action. These attributions were discursive constructions expressed and mediated by language. Second, it was assumed that employees’ reflections consequently resulted in downsizing experiences being described retrospectively by use of comparisons between different objects, subjects, relations, and ideas. Thirdly, it was assumed that these comparisons led to a series of dualities creating adversarial fields of tension. Since these adversarial fields were constructed by use of discursive actions, it was fourthly assumed that these are as real as buildings and office landscapes and equally represent the organizational reality.
Findings
The analysis produced various categories of responses (Table 1), and from these categories it was possible to infer certain types of discursive resources, which accounted for survivor reactions. In this section, the article presents these discursive resources and provides illustrative quotations, which allow the respondents to speak in their own words.
Description of Discursive Resources and Their Use in Survivor Responses.
Discursive Resources of Security
A number of employees felt a general sense of security of employment or were a least not afraid of losing their jobs as a result of the repeated restructurings and reductions. Analyzing the respondents’ interview statements, two types of discursive resources within this category of security emerged: a conscious deselection of anxiety and self-confidence.
Conscious Deselection of Anxiety
I love my job very much, so I’m caught in a double bind, when everyone asks how it feels to work for the company. I’m happy to be here, and everyone treats me nicely. They thank me, and that means a lot to me. But at the same time, I’m fully aware of what is happening. I’m not dissatisfied or insecure, because I have decided to say to myself, that when my time is up, I’ll weep and all that, but it’s not the end of the world. I’ve got many good friends from past times who have found new jobs and who tell me that there is a life outside these walls. (Else, secretary)
The respondent was facing a dilemma as she was genuinely content with her job but, at the same time, perceived a social pressure from others (it is not apparent whether these others are internal or external actors), who implicitly expected a destructive attitudinal or behavioral reaction from her. At the same time, her own understanding of job satisfaction ran counter to her perception of the organizational reality marked by turbulence and crisis, which she possibly felt ought to have a negative impact on her. However, Else articulated a conscious, discursive deselection of anxiety, which could be positioned as a sign of constructive, passive behavior of thefaithful follower. Drawing on her cognitive experiences with reference to former downsized colleagues who have found new employment, the respondent strived to defuse the significance of future reductions, as life goes on.
Likewise, Jette consciously rejected an emotional reaction to a possible reduction as she discursively created a self-imposed position of security: I don’t want to sit and be afraid that the reductions hit me next time. If so, they can hit me and management can chop off my head, but I refuse to be afraid, because I can’t live with that feeling. (Jette, process consultant)
She applied a rather harsh, fatalistic discourse in her account by creating a metaphorical juxtaposition of reductions and decapitation, which would evoke fear among most people. She interpreted the situation as out of her control sphere, and as a result discursively adopted a despondent, fatalistic attitude. However, instead of living a life controlled by fear of potential reductions, she left it up to management to make the decision. Drawing on the discursive resource of decapitation, the employee nevertheless insinuated a critical position of moral outrage and anger toward the downsizing strategy, placing herself within the active but destructive behavioral position of thecarping critic.
Self-Confidence
Similarly, other respondents discursively positioned themselves as secure. However, at the same time they substantiated this discursive resource of security by a self-assured, self-confident articulation of own worth and competencies and thereby applied an alternative discursive resource: I don’t have a sense of inferiority towards management. I think it’s a question of self-confidence, and I get the impression that people who have worked with the company for many years perhaps feel less confident than people like me trained outside the organization. Even though I’m at an age where it would probably be difficult to find alternative employment, I don’t feel threatened. I’m used to selling myself and tomorrow I could leap right into another job. (Philip, engineer)
By the rhetorical use of contrasts, the respondent discursively constructed a feeling of self-worth in that he placed his own discursive resource of security in opposition to his insecure colleagues. Moreover, by establishing an adversarial relationship between him and others, Philip implied the existence of a discourse of inferiority among the organizational members, which differs from his own discourse.
Another self-confident discourse applied to explain the overall feeling of security is the general acceptance of a new transactional, psychological contract, which breaks with the previously existing notion of lifelong employment.
As to job security I feel that I can apply my skills in all kinds of organizations. That is my philosophy. I’m not married to this company in particular. I have an employment contract, and that’s it. However, I feel less and less committed to the company, so if it comes to that [downsizing], there is a door, and there is a world outside. (Henry, product specialist)
The above statements substantiatedCaplan and Teese’s (1997)notion of “foot out the door” employees, who are generally productive and result-oriented but first and foremost loyal to their own careers and personal interests. The active and constructive behavior articulated by both respondents, which is characterized by optimism and loyalty, would place them withinMishra and Spreitzer’s (1998)quadrants of eitheractive advocatesorfaithful followers. However, the loyalty seemed not to be toward the company but to themselves. Moreover, their commitment was declining and both express perceptions of not owing the company anything. This implies the potential use of an exit strategy and a sense of underlying criticism and anger placing them discursively more ascarping critics.
Discursive Resources of Commitment
Task Orientation
Several respondents pointed out how the implemented workforce reductions did not necessarily have a negative impact on their job satisfaction as they have managed to maintain commitment through a conscious focus on job tasks: “It doesn’t affect me! It’s annoying and the implementation has been both weird and awkward, but in relation to my job, it doesn’t make a difference.” (Peter, project manager)
The respondent denied firmly and promptly that the process has had any impact on his performance or job satisfaction, thereby discursively placing himself as afaithful followercommitted to his tasks and routines, loyal to the company, and following orders. Some of the respondents substantiated this position by arguing that the company is a leader in its field, and the very technical, IT-oriented employees did not feel that they could be professionally challenged in any other organization. In the following statements, both Philip and Henry stated that they maintain committed due to their tasks: I’m happy with what I do. But if management tells me tomorrow that I can’t continue doing what I do, well, there is not much I can do about that, is there? (Philip, engineer) I love my job. That’s the attitude I’m taking. Fundamentally, I like what I do. That’s my daily life, and I focus on the tasks. I think about the reductions now and then, and grumble a bit about them, but it passes and we move on. (Henry, product specialist)
Both respondents discursively attached more importance to the job content itself than to the organizational problems and the turbulence caused by the reductions. They positioned themselves asfaithful followersby being calm and committed, following a daily routine. Hence, the professional challenges seemed instrumental to restraining the negative consequences of reductions on motivation and commitment. However, Philip discursively revealed a sense of helplessness and despondency by stating “there is not much I can do about that, is there?,” thereby also indicating a position aswalking wounded, which seemed in stark contrast to his previously discursive position of self-confidence.
Discursive Resources of Insecurity
Despite the above confident and positive statements, many of the same employees constructed negative, discursive positions in relation to the consequences of the reductions, and in doing so they used insecurity and lack of commitment as the main discursive resources.
Lack in Self-confidence
In the statement below, the respondent described how the reductions created an organizational deadlock, which made her doubt her own abilities. In the account, she applied a wavering discourse between a cognitive awareness of her own abilities and an emotional insecurity: I sense that this deadlock in a way makes my competencies slip away between my fingers. As a result of all this turmoil, I seem to forget what it is I’m good at. Of course, I can always look at my résumé, and I can look at the tasks I accomplish, but I feel unsure of myself. What’s the purpose of it all? (Jette, process consultant)
By referring to previous assignments and experiences, the employee on one hand articulated a cognitive awareness of having the right competencies to hold her job, but on the other hand simultaneously constructed a position of emotional insecurity by the metaphorical description of her knowledge and skills slipping away between her fingers. The organizational deadlock caused by downsizing made her question her own understanding of reality. The articulation of such vulnerability constructed a position ofwalking woundeddespite the fact that she previously discursively constructed an identity of a securecarping critic.
Philip, who previously positioned himself as safe and committed, attempted in the following statement to provide an explanation of why he and his colleagues—back office engineers—feel insecure: Back office engineers feel inferior. It feels just like running around with a yellow Star of David on the waistcoat. That’s howwefeel because we have been told that the company doesn’t want to build its future on back office engineers! So, back office engineers are nothing. It’s frustrating having no value to the company [ . . . ] and it’s not very pleasant. As I said before, it feels like running around with a Star of David on your shirt. You’re marked, right? Management shouldn’t do a thing like that. It doesn’t really promote trust within the organization. (Philip, engineer)
By using the termwe, the respondent discursively implicated himself within a position ofwalking wounded.The construction of a strong reference to the Nazi Holocaust during the Second World War juxtaposed back office engineers, including Philip, to the Jews and as a result implicitly compared management to the Nazis. This asymmetrical power relation between the two groups did not promote organizational trust as Philip put it. Moreover, the juxtaposition of future reductions and the yellow Star of David constructed a dramatized, powerful, and emotional metaphor for the employee interpretation of his own discursive position as inferior to the rest of the organization. Hence, management’s announcement was discursively constructed as discrimination and stigmatization of a specific group of employees, thereby marginalizing these as insignificant. The discursive construct above indicated an employee who positions himself aswalking wounded, since the metaphor used suggests a type of employee characterized by anxiety, fear, and helplessness. However, juxtaposing management to the Nazis and thereby creating a discursive position as the ultimate villain effectively emphasized the critical employee position ascarping criticas the responsibility for this destructive employee behavior was explicitly placed on management.
Uncertainty as to the Future of the Company
The position of insecurity did not exclusively emerge from an inner, emotional reaction but was also due to the uncertainty as to the future directions of the company. The strategic uncertainty caused the individual employee to question whether his or her competencies fit into the greater picture: Not understanding which skills the company expects you to have in order to do your job, creates uncertainty. It causes people to feel a great sense of frustration not knowing who they are and where they are heading. Clearly, these two elements come into play. (Philip, engineer)
In continuation of his discursive construction of some employees being stigmatized and at risk of future reductions, Philip pointed to the lack of understanding among the employees of which skills are important in the future. Thus, lacking a cognitive understanding of the future corporate strategy, some organizational members discursively positioned themselves as reacting emotionally with frustration and a feeling of uncertainty, characteristics of thewalking wounded: Some things in life are just out of reach. And workforce reductions are one of those things. You just have to make the best of it. I don’t mind adjustments or restructurings—on the contrary. When it’s over and it’s life as usual, you just hope that you have been handed core assignments, which enjoy management’s attention. However, I wish management would announce changes in advance. Then you would have a chance to shift your attention to the important stuff. Otherwise there is a risk that you are performing tasks which are no longer considered necessary. (Henry, product specialist)
The respondent applied a rather deterministic discourse of fate in relation to the reduction strategy, which he considered to be out of reach, and thus indicated a passive behavior toward the restructurings. However, like Philip above, he subtly constructed a critical, discursive position toward management by insinuating that they currently did not notify employees well ahead about a shift in demands of skills and competencies and thereby lacked giving employees enough time to adjust. By the use of various discursive strategies, the respondent not only moved himself from being afaithful followerto acarping critic; he also revealed a desire to behave actively and constructively in relation to the restructurings if only management would provide him with the necessary strategic knowledge, and he thereby indicated a potential position asactive advocate—all within the same statement.
Discursive Resources of Lack of Commitment
Despondency
The respondent below expressed a fundamental feeling of disillusion and despondency due to the reductions, which caused a general lack of commitment. Applying a liberalistic, Darwinian discourse, the employee discursively positioned the downsizing process as a fight to survive in which only the strongest pull through, while the rest have to give up as they do not have the strength to fight: I want so badly to succeed and I try a bit harder. You act, and you try, and you fight. But you can’t keep on fighting, because we are fighting in a sea full of pirates. And eventually there is no one to help you. The network is gone. The organization is incomprehensible. It’s tough, which means that only the strongest will survive. I appreciate if some–especially the elderly–colleagues decide not to waste more time on this organization. (Charlotte, project manager)
Initially, Charlotte tried to position herself as an active and constructive employee, that is,active advocate. She explained how she bends over backwards and fights, and thereby discursively rejected being part of the dysfunctional organization and disclaimed any responsibility for the creation of such. By the use of a pirate analogy, everyday life within the organization was articulated as a battle between management and employees juxtaposing management to hostile pirates, whom employees had to fight. However, the supremacy was too overwhelming for the individual employee as reductions eliminated organizational networks, created an incomprehensible organization, and resulted in the surge of a Darwinian organizational culture where only the strongest survive. Ascribing all these changes to management’s fault, the employee eventually discursively positioned herself as acarping criticas her rhetorical use of metaphors indicated an active, but also destructive and badmouthing behavior toward management. Having positioned management as deliberately creating obstacles for the employees, Charlotte emphasized the prevailing despondency among the organizational members, which resulted in behavior of withdrawal as they either literally or figuratively resigned from the organization.
Protection of Self
In the statement below, the respondent articulated the lack of commitment as a defense mechanism since the individual employee sought to protect himself from potential future reductions: In the long run it affects my loyalty to the company. In the beginning, I was very worried what would happen, but you have to conceal the nervousness in order to handle it. Of course, you can try to engage yourself in the job, but if nothing comes out of it you end up not caring about anything. In order to create a sense of disconnectedness, you become less engaged because if it [reductions] should happen to you one day, it doesn’t mean that much. (Henry, product specialist)
By consciously engaging less in the company, the employee emotionally emancipated from the organization with the intention of making himself less vulnerable to potential reductions. The individual felt that he had less at stake when his identity and investment of time and energy were no longer strongly linked to the organization. Consequently, the work reductions lost some of their importance.
In the following statement, the respondent articulated how many of the employees felt afraid, frustrated, and settled into resignation as they simultaneously sought to protect themselves behind a discursively created façade of indifference: Underneath the surface an atmosphere of oppression prevails. It mostly surfaces during individual conversations or at lunch. The talk is dual-layered. On one hand, you talk in a note of irony saying “yes, nothing else could be expected [but reductions]” and “they also make mistakes upstairs [referring to management].” That is, you only try to detect the negative things. On the other hand, you hide behind a façade saying “well, at the end of the day no one should ever know how I feel,” that is we pretend as if everything is okay. But there is no enthusiasm. Some are afraid, some settle into resignation, some get frustrated. (Jette, process consultant)
Hence, the respondent suggested that the number of demotivated and detached employees might actually be even greater than what might have appeared. Enthusiasm vanished. The respondent described a dual-layered employee discourse in which the organizational members on one hand were deeply frustrated and negative, while on the other hand tried to conceal this frustration by keeping up appearances and thereby trying to hide the real effects of the workforce reductions. In this way, some employees refrained from exhibiting their vulnerability and frustration and instead attempted to maintain a normal behavior. So, a behavior of commitment might have been a cover for not showing the emotional effects that the process had on some individuals. Unlike Henry’s statement above, in which lack of commitment seemed to serve as a behavior of protection, motivation, and commitment, Jette’s discursive construction functioned as a safeguard against displaying this vulnerability.
Thus, the statement illustrated how one cannot automatically assume a causal relation between talk and action as the employee, on one hand, can act positively and constructively while, on the other, discursively construct the organizational situation in a completely different and much more negative fashion. Consequently, without entering into dialogue with the surviving employees, such a discrepancy between cognition, emotions, discourse, and behavior was far from transparent to the management.
Table 1provides an analytical overview of the various categories of survivor responses as well as the discursive resources applied to generate these categories. The table clarifies how similar discursive resources generate different archetypes.
With the coding of statements rather than individuals, the analysis shows how the organizational members drew on more than one discursive resource in accounting for survivor consequences. Organizational members seemed thus to be both subject to, and progenitors of, multiple discourses in social life (Kuhn, 2006), and therefore the identity work does not seem to reflect just a single category of experience (Gergen, 1991). Instead of acting as merely passive carriers of discourses, the respondents made active use of several different discourses. Hence, the application of discourses was a reflection of the differing repertoires of interpretation available to the organizational members within the downsizing situation rather than a reflection of an actual practice or specific attitude (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). These repertoires of interpretation can be seen as semiorganized, semiconstructed resources of action consisting of vivid descriptions, clichés, idiomatic phrases, and metaphors all together used to justify, criticize, and create versions of the world, which appear solid and objective. Thus, the purpose of the discourse psychological analysis has not been to categorize the actions of the various actors but to identify the discourses in which these categories are constructed (Edwards & Potter, 1992;Potter & Wetherell, 1987).
Discussion
Employee reductions represent a radical change for not only the redundant employees but also for the surviving employees who continue their work life in the organization. This article has been focusing on the survivors and their sensemaking, interpretation, and understanding of the downsizing process. While there seems to be an increasing amount of literature with regard to management’s attempt to legitimize these downsizing actions (e.g.,Elsbach, 1994;Elsbach & Sutton, 1992;Palmer, Kabanoff, & Dunford, 1997;Vaara & Tienari, 2008), it is far less studied how these attempts are received by the surviving employees, and what the consequences of their interpretations and subsequent sensemaking are for the organization. This study indicates that the reason for the negative survivor reactions seems to lie in management’s lack of communicative effort and with it the value of interaction for the organizational members’ acceptance and recognition of the chosen strategy.
A thorough study of the existing literature within the field of downsizing indicates that organizations are aware of the importance of communicating with the surviving employees. However, this understanding of communication is predominantly functionalistic as it first and foremost is based on a dissemination of managerially controlled information with the purpose of facilitating a planned change process in the form of employee reductions and their derived organizational changes. Since management in general does not seem to enter into direct interaction and dialogue with the surviving employees, it risks being unaware of the conflicting or opposing discourses and discursive battles between management and employees with regards to the organizational reality. Moreover, management is unaware of how these discourses are used by the employee actors to position themselves in opposition to the managerially sanctioned understanding of the organizational reality.
The various discursive positions established in the analysis challenges the cognitive psychologists’ propensity to universalism and unequivocal categorization of survivors as being hopeful, complaisant, cynical, or fearsome (Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998). Several times throughout the analysis, it is shown how difficult it is to create an exact relation between, for instance, cognition and behavior or emotions and discursive actions. The findings show how organizational subjects are able to create various identities or personalities by use of their discursive constructions, narratives, and interpretations of meaning, which contrary to the cognitive trait theory makes itimpossibleto place employees in categories or archetypical boxes. As a result, the analysis of employee accounts can help to understand and explain the large variations with regard to behavioral reactions often found in relation to organizational change situations.
Thus, by showing how employees often contradict themselves and rarely subsequently seek to harmonize those contractive positions, the study challenges current research, which frequently posits the notion of cognitive consistency. Similarly, the analysis rejects the cognitively based organizational psychology idea of a certain individual core or essence; indeed, the interviewed respondents in this study discursively position themselves within several, adversarial archetypical categories. However, the application of the discursive paradigm should not be seen as an attempt to neglect or exclude the entire body of cognitive research within the field of downsizing but rather as a way to obtain two different lenses applicable to the field, each having various strengths and weaknesses. This approach is mirrored inAlbert et al.’s (1986)concept of “complementary holism,” in which the aim is to create a holistic, social theory “through intellectual frameworks specifically contoured to understanding an interconnected reality” (Albert et al., 1986, p. 15 inFairhurst, 2007). The purpose of the article has been to contribute to the creation of such “complementary holism” and, as a result, contribute to the creation of a more nuanced and multifaceted understanding of the field of downsizing.
The article advocates how a greater understanding of the organizational actors’ discursive positions can provide managers with a greater insight into the employees’ positive as well as negative reactions, which often characterize a postdownsized organization. Such an insight will ultimately help managers to retain survivors within the organization. The presented results from the discourse psychological analysis seem to support this assumption.
Implications for Business Managers and Workplace Practices
In practice, managerial change communication is often characterized by one voice, one directional communication. However, as practical as it might seem for the handling of the downsizing process, this article illustrates the difficulties in communicating and interacting with employees based on an understanding of these as one homogeneous unit. Instead, the analysis illustrates not only how employees interpret and understand the change process very differently between each other; it also shows the “interpretive discrepancies” within the individual employee, which makes it impossible for management to assume causality between talk and action. That is, the employee can, on the surface, act positively and constructively while at the same time discursively construct the situation in a completely different and negative fashion. Subsequently, dialogue and interaction between each individual manager and employee is pivotal for the disclosure of such discrepancies between cognition, emotion, discourse, and behavior. Hence, a mutual process of sensemaking and interpretation has to occur between manager and employee before, during, and after the change process in order to more feasibly create a common understanding of organizational changes.
By entering into open dialogue with individual employees and seriously considering the discursively formulated attitudes and actions of the organizational members, the manager is given an opportunity to gain insight into the employee’s cognitive and emotional understanding of the organizational reality. So, instead of viewing negative discourse as merely an expression of resistance, the individual manager is provided with the opportunity to seriously consider the hidden reasons for such a conduct and, subsequently, to target further interactions. Hence, the article points to the usefulness of creating managerial sensitivity and awareness toward employee discourse, making it easier to preempt and thus handle survivor reactions.
As the analysis indicates, the significance of interaction and mutual sensemaking and interpretation is of great importance since it is through this communicative process that management is given an opportunity to influence employee understanding and possible acceptance of the chosen downsizing strategy. This understanding may assist to create convergence between management’s official communication and the employees’ interpreted and experienced reality. The joint sensemaking between organizational members is crucial when it comes to managing a successful downsizing process. In relation to the surviving employees, the decisive factor is not necessarily the amount of transferred information from management to employees but rather the quality and focus of the communicative interaction between the parties.
From an interactional communication perspective, which understands communication as more than just verbal and textual utterances by including behavior and actions as semiotic resources and modes of expression, it becomes relevant to include the various actors’ informal and nonverbal behavior in relation to the downsizing process as these are also used as ways of expression. Since employees are rarely given the opportunity to enter into direct, verbal interaction with the organizations’ top management, the behavioral patterns, consequently, become an alternative mode of communication. However, this element is often neglected or disregarded by management. By making managers aware of the usefulness of perceiving employee behavior as a rich source of information, and not just as signs of simple change resistance, they are given the opportunity to discursively address this behavior and focus the subsequent employer-employee communication in relation to this.
Thus, the article indicates that by entering into open dialogue with each individual employee, and seriously considering the discursively formulated attitudes and actions of the organizational members, it is possible for management to gain insight into the employee’s cognitive and emotional understandings of the organizational reality. This may be true for the rare sensitive manager, but it can be questioned whether managers are commonly interested in such “discursively formulated attitudes and actions” of employees. Such demands may present complicated issues for which the workplace and the culture of the organization are often not well equipped to understand and handle. When this is the case, management often tries to avoid or suppress any stirs or anxieties in the organization by not addressing the workforce reductions sufficiently in relation to the surviving employees. Nevertheless, the analysis clearly indicates that the very lack of communication creates an organization characterized by frustration, ignorance, uncertainty, and paralysis.
Implications for Business Communication and Management Training
Many textbooks used in business communication and management courses frequently use the findings of cognitive psychology and may be given to characterize individuals by use of simple labels (e.g., “loyal followers” and “carping critics”). This article offers many cautions about the use of such labels, and educators as well as students within business communication and management training should be wary of oversimplifying people and their workplace environments by using seemingly neat categories or labels. Confining categories make a complex world easier to understand, but they can be misleading and can turn an already delicate organizational matter into an even more frustrating and critical process.
Instead, it is crucial for the handling of the downsizing process that management is sensitive to the informal and complex communications between employee groups and the specific elements that characterize the emergent communication networks between employees. Management, if it seeks to be an effective change agent, must be skillful when it comes to empathic, thoughtful, and sensitive listening, and must be capable of using feedback as a way of motivating the remaining employees. Managers need to be able to share information, make sense of the situation, handle conflicts, involve others in the decision making, accept disagreements, and, in general, be skillful in terms of interpersonal communication.
Limitations of the Study
The article only employed 13 in-depth interviews within one corporation. This is naturally far too small a sample on which to generalize results. The researcher has no way of knowing, empirically, to what extent the limited numbers of interviews are similar to or different from other interviews in similarly downsized organizations. Furthermore, because the sample is small and may be idiosyncratic, and because data are predominantly nonnumerical, there is no way to establish the probability that data are representative of some larger population.
The usefulness of qualitative, semistructured interviews as a research method can obviously be questioned. For exampleKnapp, Miller, and Fudge (1994)ask, Can people accurately recall or predict some aspects of their interpersonal communication behavior. . . ? Have we developed a body of knowledge that is limited to what people think they would do? Isn’t there a need to supplement or seek validation of self-reports with observations of actual interaction behavior? Is it enough to know attitudes, opinions, and perceptions of one interaction partner often removed from any interaction context? (p. 10)
Such questioning of the interview method calls, for example, for the use of behavioral observations in future studies. Observations would make it possible to investigate the actual communication between the actors by its focus on the real, interactive, conversational practices and speech acts.
Furthermore, it would be relevant to expand the current case study to multiple cases. This would allow for a comparison of possible differences and similarities as well as initial generalizations—something that is not possible based on this case study. Hence, a horizontal analysis across organizations would make it possible to compare different ways of handling the downsizing communication as well as to investigate whether the causes for downsizing possibly influence managers’ and employees’ discursive strategies. In addition, it could be interesting to study whether the different strategic causes for downsizing influence the subsequent employee perception, understanding, and acceptance of the reductions.
An additional limitation of the study is the fact that it was implemented with a group of employees in one company. Therefore, I encourage other researchers to replicate this study in other organizations in order to broaden the validity of the findings. Additional research could also include data collection and coding of manager responses and observation to triangulate these data with employee responses to enhance the findings beyond self-reports.
Nevertheless, the goal of the article has been to study how actors make strategic use of discourses in such a way as to represent themselves and the world as they perceive it. Despite its limitations, I believe the article accomplishes this goal. First, the interviews were useful in that they provided detailed qualitative information that generated insights for further research. More specifically, the interviews helped produce new ideas that might be tested by other methods. Second, the interviews permitted investigation of a situation (e.g., individuals who have survived layoffs) that would be impossible to be engineered in, for example, research laboratories. Third, the interviews offered a means of investigating a complex social unit, such as an organization consisting of multiple variables of potential importance in understanding the downsizing phenomenon. Anchored in real-life situations, the interviews resulted in a rich and holistic account of the downsizing and survivor reactions. These insights can be construed as tentative hypotheses that help structure future research; hence, despite their limited numbers, the interviews played an important role in advancing the knowledge base of research associated with the phenomenon of downsizing. By the use of interviews, the organization’s processes and problems were examined to bring about understanding that, in turn, can affect and perhaps even improve practice.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
This study was conducted according to generally accepted ethical standards for human subjects research; participant comments are reproduced by permission, and all their names are pseudonyms.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Biography