With more than 39,000 mass layoffs in the United States during the Great Recession, from December 2007 to June 2009, corporate downsizing appears to be an integral practice of modern organizational life (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Downsizing refers to the deliberate reduction in the size of the workforce to improve organizational performance (Nair, 2008). Companies resort to downsizing or layoffs in hopes of reducing labor costs, increasing profitability, or gaining a greater competitive advantage (Maertz, C., Wiley J., LeRouge, C. and Campion, M., 2010). Whether downsizing is beneficial or detrimental to organizations has been debated. Proponents argue that downsizing allows companies to reduce overhead costs, decrease bureaucracy, enable faster decision making, and enable smoother communication (Cascio, 1993). Additionally, with salary costs accounting for between thirty and eighty percent of an organization's administrative costs, downsizing appears to be an effective cost reduction measure (Cascio, 1993). However, those who are skeptical of downsizing argue that downsizing comes with "hidden costs," such as the cost of losing skills and expertise when employees leave the organization and disruption that downsizing can cause for employees (Nair, 2008). Research sides with those who oppose downsizing because layoffs often make organizations more inefficient by failing to sustainably reduce costs, improve profits, or increase inventory performance (Cascio , 1993). Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an original essayIn fact, on average, unscaled companies outperform their scaled-down counterparts, with no empirical evidence supporting a relationship between increased performance financial and downsizing (Gandolfi, 2008). Although organizations occasionally notice an initial increase in productivity as survivors work more competitively to maintain their jobs, this increase is short-lived and unsustainable (Appelbaum, Delage, Labib, & Gault; 1997). There is much speculation as to why the expected benefits of downsizing are not materializing, with research pointing to lower emotional organizational commitment associated with “survivor syndrome” as an explanation (van Dick, Drzensky, & Heinz, 2016). Survivor syndrome refers to the symptoms experienced by employees who "survive" a downsizing event and remain employed in the organization, and creates a set of emotions, behaviors and attitudes that negatively affect both the employee and the organization (Mayton, 2010). These symptoms include the survivor experiencing a range of emotions that fall into four groups: fear, insecurity and uncertainty, frustration, resentment and anger, sadness, depression and guilt, and injustice, betrayal and distrust (Nathan and Neve, 2009). ). The first group: fear, insecurity, and uncertainty, refers to emotions related to loss of control as survivors deal with job instability in their jobs. The group: frustration, resentment and anger concerns the emotions that employees feel towards their organization, but which are oftenrepressed because these emotions cannot be openly displayed at work (Nathan and Neve, 2009). Feelings of sadness, depression and anger. Guilt refers to the emotions employees feel towards their former fired colleagues. The Group: Injustice, Betrayal, and Distrust concerns the emotions survivors express toward the organization when they feel the downsizing was unfair and sudden. These emotions manifest through behaviors in which the survivor exhibits a reduced sense of well-being, reduced motivation, and reduced productivity (Brenner, Andreeva, Theorell, Goldberg, Westerlund, Leinweber, Hanson, Imbernon, & Bonnaud, 2014; Gandolfi, 2008; Nair, 2008; Rumlall, Al-Sabaan and Magbool, 2014). While organizations tend to think that downsizing would lead to grateful and hardworking, surviving employees, organizations do not consider that the process can be traumatic and lead to negative effects on work (Lipton, 2016). People suffering from survivor syndrome, that is, workers left behind following a mass layoff, are likely to display a lower sense of well-being, both physically and mentally. mentally (Brenner et al., 2014; Jamal and Khan, 2013; Nair, 2008; Rumlall et al., 2014). Well-being can be defined as an individual's positive attitude towards themselves and refers to their state of physical and psychological well-being (Jamal and Khan, 2013). Following a downsizing, the remaining workforce is twice as likely to develop stress-related illnesses, such as heart disease, asthma and obesity, compared to companies that did not not carried out layoffs (Rumlall et al. , 2014). In addition to stress-related illnesses, survivors also experience other physical symptoms such as dizziness, malaise, chest or heart pain, and headaches, at a higher frequency than before the reduction in stress. (Amstrong-Stassen, 2005). Shreekumar Nair's (2008) investigation into survivors' attitudes found that the symptom of survivor syndrome, consisting of a heightened sense of uncertainty, was a leading cause of higher stress levels and problems resulting health issues. The symptom of stress is contributed by increased workload, loss of relationships and general organizational change, resulting from downsizing (Jenkins, 2012). In addition to stress-related physical health problems, survivors also experienced mental health problems, often manifesting as depressive symptoms (Brenner et al., 2014). The instability and uncertainty associated with survivor syndrome are linked to increased depressive symptoms, including melancholic mood, anhedonia, fatigue, and excessive worry (Brenner et al., 2014). Although it can be argued that survivors are the “lucky ones” when companies downsize, compared to their laid-off colleagues, both share the same increased likelihood of suffering from high levels of depressive symptoms. (Brenner et al, 2014). One possible explanation for this is that although employment outcomes are different for survivors and victims of layoff, both undergo the same negative downsizing process. Both groups perceive downsizing as a chaotic and painful event and as an experience where they lack control, both factors that contribute to feeling depressive symptoms (Brenner et al. , 2014). In addition to affecting the personal well-being of survivors, survivor syndrome affects the well-being and profitability of the organization bybecause of its influence on worker motivation and performance (Drzensky and Heinz, 2016; Jamal and Khan, 2013; Maertz, Wiley, LeRouge and Campion). , 2010; Malik, Saleem and Ahmad, 2010; Rehman and Naeem, 2011; Travaglione and Cross, 2006; Symptoms of survivor syndrome, namely feelings of insecurity and betrayal, contribute to the negative psychological impact on workers, which can lead to decreased work motivation (Waraich and Bharadwaj, 2012). Furthermore, the increased workload assumed by survivors, following downsizing, may decrease their motivation to work, as they now lack time to fulfill their social and private obligations (Malik et al. , 2010). Furthermore, while it seems logical that the fear of being laid off workers themselves would motivate survivors to work diligently and productively, survivors would instead focus on calming down their supervisors rather than completing their work. (Waraich and Bharadwaj, 2012). This thought process helps explain survivors' diminished job performance because they are not motivated to do productive work. Additionally, Drzensky and Heinz (2016) found that survivors decreased their job performance in direct response to an organization's decision to fire coworkers, particularly when the decision is viewed as a voluntary action. Symptoms of survivor syndrome, such as diminished senses of well-being, motivation, and performance, are linked to a reduction in the survivor's organizational commitment (Jamal & Khan, 2013; Travaglione & Cross, 2006 ). Organizational commitment can be defined as the extent to which an employee identifies with the organization and can be divided into three subtypes: ongoing, normative, and affective (Linton, 2017). Continuing commitment can be understood as employees' desire to stay with an organization based on personal investments made throughout their years of employment (Marques, Galende, Cruz, & Ferreira, 2014). This means that employees based their commitment to their organization on how much it would cost them to leave. Normative commitment is defined by employees' feeling of obligation towards the organization, with employees' commitment to the organization being based on the feeling of duty (Marques et al., 2014). Affective commitment refers to the employee's desire to identify with the organization and is created by the employee's involvement and attachment to the organization based on an intrinsic desire (Brands and al., 2014). Compared to other dimensions of organizational commitment, affective commitment is most associated with symptoms of survivor syndrome because it is closely related to employees' emotions toward the organization. Additionally, survivors’ affective commitment was found to decrease after layoffs (Jamal and Khan, 2013). In fact, van Dick, Drzensky, and Heinz (2016) posit that survivors' reduced organizational identification following downsizing explains why survivors suffer from survivor syndrome. This suggestion is supported by evidence that there is a decrease in the affective commitment of surviving employees following downsizing and that affective commitment has a positive correlation with well-being, motivation and performance, side effects of survivor syndrome (Jamal and Khan, 2013; Lipton, 2016). Additionally, affective commitment is also linked to other side effects consistent with survivor syndrome, including employee turnover, organizational citizenship behavior, and absenteeism (Cassell, 2014). Employees who maintain a high level of affective commitment havecontinued to feel valued as members of the organization and acted as great assets to their company, rather than experiencing the negative effects experienced by survivors who suffer from reduced emotional commitment (Lipton, 2016). Because of the integral relationship between affective commitment and survivor syndrome and its effects on organizational effectiveness, it is important for organizations to strategize how to maintain or increase affective commitment after downsizing to hopefully prevent survivor syndrome and its impact from manifesting in the organization. To do this, organizations must consider which organizational factors are associated with reduced affective commitment among survivors. Survivors' decreased affective commitment may be associated with the psychological contract breakdown that occurs during downsizing. A psychological contract is an implicit, unwritten contract that is defined as a mutual obligation and reciprocal exchange agreement between the employee and the organization (Lipton, 2016). A breach of this psychological contract refers to when the employee perceives that the organization has failed to meet one or more aspects of the obligations set out in the psychological contract and is generally associated with a feeling of injustice (Lipton, 2016) . For example, if an organization's communication to an employee during a change initiative lacked quality information or was limited in quantity, the employee would feel that the psychological contract was broken because the organization fulfilled its obligation to provide clear and open communication (Lipton, 2016). Typically, a breach of the psychological contract leads the employee to adopt negative attitudes and behaviors, including a reduced sense of commitment to the organization (Lipton, 2016). If the survivor has felt a loss of organizational support or a sense of violation of trust, because of the psychological breach of contract, the employee will disengage and lose interest in maintaining an identity with the organization (Lipton, 2016). In order to maintain balance following a psychological breach of the contract, caused by the organization's non-compliance with its obligation, the employee must develop negative behaviors and attitudes in order to compensate (Paille & Raneri, 2016 ). Related to psychological contract breach, downsizing Survivors' emotional commitment following downsizing can also be attributed to other organizational factors. Lack of organizational transparency during downsizing and lack of clear explanation of the rationale for downsizing contribute to a decrease in survivors' emotional commitment (Nair, 2008). Additionally, the perception of inadequate organizational support, both in terms of sufficiency and availability, is linked to declines in organizational identification (Travaglione & Cross, 2006). According to organizational support theory, this is because employees act reciprocally based on their perception of the organization's concern for them (Travaglione & Cross, 2006). That is, if surviving employees do not feel that the organization is providing them with adequate support during or after a downsizing, they reduce their support for the organization and their affective commitment to the organization. A reduction in survivors' affective commitment may also be linked to the perception of injustice during the downsizing process (van Dierendonck & Jacobs, 2012). If survivors viewed the downsizing process as procedurally unfair, their affective commitment is likely to decrease (van Dierendonck &Jacobs, 2012). This relationship may be explained by how survivors' views and attitudes toward the organization changed depending on how their laid-off colleagues were treated during downsizing (van Dierendonck and Jacobs , 2012). As the relationship between affective commitment and organizational factors during downsizing is evident, organizations can involve tactics to reduce the negative impact of downsizing on survivors. To attempt to reduce the negative impact of downsizing on survivors' affective commitment, organizations can focus on maintaining a positive relationship between the employee and manager (Lipton, 2016). A positive relationship between employee and manager can help mitigate the effect of downsizing on the psychological contract. To maintain this relationship with survivors, employers must develop a sense of trust, having managers express that they are responsive, competent, and responsive to survivors' needs (Paille & Raineri, 2015). This allows the survivor to maintain a positive view of the organization, thereby reducing the effect on their emotional commitment to the company (Lipton, 2016). Additionally, having managers seen as trustworthy allows survivors to come forward and discuss their individual concerns, thereby strengthening their commitment to the organization (Lipton, 2016). Along with trust, it is important for employers to demonstrate a sense of transparency to help reduce the effect of downsizing on survivors' emotional commitment. In Nair's (2008) survey of layoff survivors, the majority (89%) of survivors surveyed said they would prefer a very transparent downsizing process, wanting management to meet with employees to work together and discuss critical downsizing issues. In doing so, employees feel more connected to management and the organization, which has a positive impact on their emotional commitment. Conversely, by not being transparent in the downsizing process, employers create an environment of distrust and powerlessness, with survivors feeling a lack of control over their work lives (Nair, 2008). Managers can also use their relationship with survivors to promote employee engagement, thereby reducing the effect of downsizing on affective commitment (Lipton, 2016). Employee engagement is an important agent of affective commitment because when employees become engaged, they feel a return on the personal investment they put into the organization by finding more personal meaning in accomplishing tasks. daily work tasks (Sinha and Trivedi, 2014). Managers are able to promote employee engagement and improve employee engagement, by regularly speaking with survivors and monitoring their emotional states (Lipton, 2016). In doing so, survivors feel supported by their managers and sense that the organization cares about them both professionally and personally, which leads the survivor to reciprocally care about the organization, thereby increasing their affective commitment (Lipton , 2016). Organizations can also focus on supporting survivors. following a reduction in staff numbers with the aim of mitigating the effect on affective commitment (Lipton, 2016). Employee perceptions of organizational support have been associated with attachment and commitment to the organization (Kim, Eisenberger, & Baik, 2016). There are many ways in which a..