Corporate downsizing now affects every type of business industry - including, but not limited to, technology, education, government, transportation, and telecommunications. Downsizing has become a very controversial issue in the past few years based on the reasons that downsizing takes effect, how it is implemented by the organization, and what steps are taken to enhance the effects on the organization's performance. Some companies downsize due to technological advances, such as automation, which reduces the need in workforce numbers for production numbers to be met. Other organizations may feel that in order to compete with other organizations, the reduction in workforce will help them ...view middle of the document...
That being said, NAFTA seems to have had a large impact on the downsized workforce here in the United States. The ethical issues with this agreement are unimaginable. However, organizations are not in business specifically to provide employment to Americans. They are basically only out to make a profit. Jobs are just the result of a flourishing organization. On the other hand, if downsizing is the direct response to competition, the organizations will emerge impatient to those that must leave their jobs. Some of those employees might think that the organization has jumped the gun and cut their jobs prematurely. If the job cuts are seen as anything other than a well thought out response to the demands put on the organization, then it fails to show the employees the need for the downsizing. Downsizing can also be seen as creating victims and displacing blame for problems rather than accepting responsibility and choosing a more ethical and moral way to implement the outcome. Upper management prefers a swift cut that will protect the company's assets, yet wants to be kind and sympathetic to those that it is forced to let go. In order to be successful at both objectives, one requires substantial compromise on the second. Many companies will wait until the last day before they inform their employees of the job cuts simply because they are concerned that they will sabotage the equipment and production will have a considerable drop. They seem to think that if the wait until the last minute to give the employees the bad news that those losing their jobs will leave and the rest will get right back to work. However, this is the least favorable method of downsizing for the employees. Companies using this method are not thinking about the financial well-being of their employees or their futures. If the employee is given notice, they have time to plan for any financial problems that they might encounter, look for new employment, and make any other arrangements needed to prepare them for the time that they will be unemployed. As for those that remain employed, being a job survivor can lead to its own problems. Those that are left behind might experience anger towards the employer, guilt of still being employed, fear of losing their job next, and even depression. Employees sometimes feel threatened that their own jobs are in jeopardy and develop a strong mistrust of the company. These intense feelings could be the result of having to take on extra work and new tasks for the same, or even less money, because of the reduced workforce. The pressure can cause a lot of anxiety for the remaining employees and can make upper management seem insensitive to the reality that employees have lives and responsibilities of their own outside of the workplace. The flipside to downsizing could result in a positive experience for everyone involved. W...
