nt. Jobs are the by-product of successful organizational endeavors, not their intended output. If the decision to downsize is a response to competitive pressures, it will appear impatient or premature to those who must leave. If it is perceived as anything less than a well developed strategic response to demands on the organization, then it fails to show employees need for the criteria. Downsizing can sometimes seem to be about creating victims and displacing blame rather than accepting responsibility and choosing moral and ethical ways to implement the outcome. Management wants a quick cut that protects he company's assets, yet it wants to be gentle and compassionate to those who are let go. These two objectives are self-canceling, and to accomplish the first requires considerable compromise on the second. Many companies wait until the day of the lay-off to inform its employees. They are concerned about sabotage and productivity. They seem to think that if they retain the bad news until the last moment that the employees will leave and the rest will get back to business. However, this method of a lay-off is the least favorable for the employees. If the company gives the employees notice of the cutback in the workforce, they will have time to plan for the financial problems, look for other work, and make other necessary arrangements to prepare them for the loss. It would be in the best interest of the company to give this notice to its workers. Being a survivor of downsizing can have its own ethical issues. Those who are left after the downsizing has occurred, may share perceptions about the ethics of the decisions leading up to the dismissal of those who left. They may experience feelings such as anger, guilt, fear, and even depression. These feelings could be brought on by having to take up the slack and doing more work. They could also be asked to learn new tasks and for the same or maybe even less money than before the downsizing. A...
