Marues Research

International Journal of Manpower
Surviving downsizing and innovative behaviors: a matter of organizational commitment

Tânia Marques Jesús Galende Pedro Cruz Manuel Portugal Ferreira
Article information:
To cite this document:
Tânia Marques Jesús Galende Pedro Cruz Manuel Portugal Ferreira , (2014),"Surviving downsizing and
innovative behaviors: a matter of organizational commitment", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 35 Iss
7 pp. 930 - 955
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJM-03-2012-0049
Downloaded on: 29 November 2014, At: 08:07 (PT)
Downloaded by Carleton University At 08:07 29 November 2014 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 97 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 158 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lai Wan Hooi, Kwang Sing Ngui, (2014),"Enhancing organizational performance of Malaysian SMEs: The
role of HRM and organizational learning capability", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 35 Iss 7 pp.
973-995 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2012-0059
Hee Jun Choi, Ji-Hye Park, (2014),"The relationship between learning transfer climates and innovation in
public and private organizations in Korea", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 35 Iss 7 pp. 956-972
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2012-0101
Isabel Ma Prieto, Ma Pilar Pérez-Santana, (2014),"Managing innovative work behavior: the role of human
resource practices", Personnel Review, Vol. 43 Iss 2 pp. 184-208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2012-0199
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 101358 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7720.htm
IJM
35,7
Surviving downsizing and
innovative behaviors: a matter
of organizational commitment
930 Tânia Marques
Received 13 March 2012
Department of Management and Economics,
Revised 22 October 2012 School of Technology and Management,
21 February 2013 Management for Sustainability Research Center, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria,
9 May 2013 Leiria, Portugal
Accepted 9 July 2013
Jesús Galende
Department of Administration and Business Economics,

University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
Pedro Cruz
CIGEST (ISG CIGEST), Business School, University Aveiro, Lisbon, Portugal, and
Manuel Portugal Ferreira
Department of Business and Economics,
ESTG − Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria, Portugal
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the simultaneous effects of perceived job insecurity
and organizational commitment on the innovative behavior of workers in an announced downsizing
environment.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors suggest and empirically test a model using the case
of a firm, an innovative high technology firm, in a downsizing process.
Findings – The results show an indirect effect of job insecurity on innovative behavior, through
organizational commitment.
Research limitations/implications – First, the paper only examined one firm. Although the firm is
a large multinational firm it may have a specific organizational culture and a track record that
generates some idiosyncratic feelings in face of downsizing. Second, the context of knowledge-
intensive firms limits the scope of the study, although it is reasonable to suggest that these firms are
more dependent on employees’ innovative efforts for competitive advantage.
Practical implications – This study is a contribution to the HRM practitioners in a tense and
delicate worldwide restructuring situation. The outcomes experienced by those who remain – the
survivors – are important for the future competitive capabilities of firms post-downsizing.
Social implications – Thus, it seems that organizational commitment directly and positively
determines workers’ innovative behavior and that organizational commitment is impacted by job
insecurity in an announced downsizing environment. It is, essentially, an affective commitment and
job insecurity is more affected by a perceived threat to one’s total job.
Originality/value – A downsizing strategy warrants that the full impact on firms’ ability to innovate
be assessed.
Keywords Innovation, Job insecurity, Downsizing, Organizational commitment,
Innovative behavior
Paper type Case study
International Journal of Manpower
Vol. 35 No. 7, 2014
pp. 930-955 Introduction
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7720
During the past two decades, firms worldwide have increasingly resorted to
DOI 10.1108/IJM-03-2012-0049 downsizing as a restructuring strategy. Downsizing is established as a crucial topic in
strategic management and has gained more attention as firms increasingly seem to Surviving
deploy downsizing strategies (Farrell and Mavondo, 2005; Datta et al., 2010). The
unveiled promise of downsizing relies on regained performance (Mellahi and
downsizing and
Wilkinson, 2004; Guthrie and Datta, 2008) and an improvement in financial profitability innovative
(Morris et al., 1999). It is worth noting that downsizing is not necessarily rightsizing, behaviors
and not always does downsizing truly aim at attaining the right size firms
should have, but rather at cutting costs during environmental turmoil or in face of 931
technological shifts.
Scholarly research has accompanied this trend in the upsurge of downsizing and
we now have several theoretical and empirical studies on its effects on individuals and
organizations. The extant research has often focussed on firm level effects and perhaps
more notably on the financial performance consequences (e.g. De Meuse et al., 1994;
Morrow et al., 2004; Yu and Park, 2006; Marques et al., 2011), to improve operational
efficiency and cost reductions by eliminating jobs (Chadwick et al., 2004), and the stock
market value (e.g. Worrel et al., 1991; Elayan et al., 1998; Wertheim and Robinson, 2000).
In other instances, the focus has been on how markets react to layoff announcements
(Abraham, 2006). In sum, organizational outcomes may be based on market-based
results, accounting measures, efficiency/productivity, reputation or sales growth (Datta
et al., 2010). However, the outcome of employee downsizing has many facets, such
as job insecurity, decrease in innovative efforts, lost motivation and commitment to the
organizational goals, among others (Mishra, 1996; Wagar, 1998; Reynolds-Fisher and
White, 2000; Reisel and Banai, 2002; Sahdev, 2003; Armstrong-Stassen and Schlosser,
2008; Datta et al., 2010) and these are less understood.
A downsizing is likely to influence firms’ innovation agenda. Downsizing has been
criticized for its potential negative impact on the longer term firms’ performance
(Cascio, 1993). Some scholars raised concerns on the firms’ ability to retain crucial
knowledge and competencies following downsizing (Shah, 2000; Argote et al., 2003;
Massingham, 2008; Bowersox, 2009; Schmitt et al., 2011) and the ability to maintain
quality standards and the level of productivity (Bedeian and Armenakis, 1998).
Innovation and knowledge are essential for firms’ competitiveness (Hitt et al., 2001;
Tidd et al., 2001) and is, perhaps, the most important source of firms’ competitive
advantage (March, 1991; Grant, 1996). The theme of innovation has been greatly
developed in recent years ( Johannessen et al., 2001), in particular workers’ innovative
behavior and the factors determining that behavior (Kleysen and Street, 2001; Scott
and Bruce, 1994; Jong and Kemp, 2003). Although productivity may increase in a job
insecurity environment, this same job insecurity might lead to lower creativity and
problem solving behaviors (Probst et al., 2007), which are especially crucial for
knowledge intensive firms. Despite the extant research, our understanding on how
individuals react to downsizing, and especially on their innovative ability is far from
complete. Thus, following the classification by Datta et al. (2010), our overarching
question involves understanding the interrelationship between three individual
outcomes in a downsizing context: the workers’ perceptions of job insecurity, their
commitment to the organization and workers’ innovative behavior.
In this study we use the case of a high technology firm, strongly reliant on the
innovative potential of its human capital and thus where a loss of the knowledge base
due to employees exiting the organization (Schmitt et al., 2011) may have a harsher
impact on firm’s ability to compete in the international arena. In the context of
a downsizing decision announced in May 2005, we analyzed the interrelationship
between perceived job insecurity and organizational commitment on the innovative
IJM behavior of the workers that survived the downsizing. The data comprises 88
responses to a questionnaire by workers of a Portuguese subsidiary of a multinational
35,7 corporation. The results permit us conclude that, in a downsizing environment,
employees job insecurity will be negatively related to both organizational commitment
and to innovative behavior. We thus complement existing thought that “companies
implementing a downsizing strategy aiming at increasing cost efficiency and
932 operational effectiveness may face the fact that their innovative ability is hampered”
(Richtnér and Åhlström, 2006, p. 1).
This study contributes to the extant research on survivors’ reactions to a downsizing
strategy and the non-financial consequences of downsizing. Albeit downsizing is
now a widely used practice by firms across many European countries, it is important
to fully understand its consequences beyond financial indicators, and perhaps more
notably the knowledge-based long-term effects on firms’ competitive capabilities
post-downsizing. To some extent these are the hidden effects of downsizing. In this paper
we examine the impact on the outcomes experienced by the employees that survive
downsizing, and specifically their innovative behaviors, after downsizing. We suggest
ways in which the negative effects of downsizing may be avoided, contributing
to HRM practitioners in an era where concerns over costs are leading firms to lay off
hundreds or thousands of workers. For instance, HRM managers ought to take
into account the memory and knowledge loss that may curtail the future of the
organization (Walsh and Ungson, 1991; Bowersox, 2009) when selecting which
employees to let go.
Understanding the impact of downsizing on different facets of the firms and
survivors is even more relevant for firms whose competitive advantage relies on
knowledge creation and on gestating innovations. These firms-often referred to as
knowledge intensive firms-require commitment and innovative behaviors from their
employees. The decrease in the knowledge stock, the destruction of the informal networks
connecting employees and the loss of organizational memory are all important outcomes
warranting attention (Bowersox, 2009). Our findings may thus be useful for managers
as we reveal some insights on the hidden effects of downsizing on innovative behaviors of
survivors. Job insecurity is important in influencing the worker’s innovative behavior
and organizational commitment may be a possible mediator of this influence. Moreover,
we should not look only at financial performance when assessing the reasonableness
of restructuring but also to a series of other outcomes that may have a far more enduring
outcome and for a lasting period on the firm.
Analyzing some downsizing effects

During the past two decades we have witnessed firms undergoing different types of
organizational restructuring, employing terms such as declining, retrenching, resizing
or renewing, among others, that are de facto a strategy of downsizing (Cameron, 1994).
Organizational restructuring entails significant changes to the organizational structure
of a firm, including divisional redesign, reduction in work force size and a broad
set of activities aimed at improving organizational efficiency, productivity and/or
competitiveness. Downsizing, following Cascio (1993) is a planned elimination of
positions or jobs and according to Cameron (1994) is a managerial strategy that affects
the size of the firm’s workforce, the costs, and the work processes. Datta et al. (2010,
p. 282) refer to downsizing as a “planned set of organizational policies and practices
aimed at workforce reduction with the goal of improving firm performance.”
The extant research has delved into many organizational (firm attributes, strategy, Surviving
governance and HR Policies and employee attributes) and environmental
(macroenvironmental and industry-related) factors that lead firms to downsize
downsizing and
employees, and has examined several individual and organizational outcomes of innovative
downsizing (see Datta et al., 2010, for a review). Examining the individual outcomes behaviors
post-downsizing, the employees’ attitudes and behaviors, it seems reasonable to point
out how downsizing may negatively impact groups and individuals, disrupt networks 933
and the trust binding employees and the employees to the organization (Datta et al.,
2010). Managing the downsizing process is crucial to reduce the resistance, anxiety and
possible hazardous behaviors. The majority of the extant research point out a negative
range of consequences derived from a downsizing process, especially associated with
the survivors, when firms adopt a reactive approach toward the downsizing process
(Dolan and Belout, 2000). In fact, research on downsizing strategy has highlighted that
large firms often do not take into account the hidden (Fisher and White, 2000), or
unanticipated (McKinley and Sherer, 2000) long-term costs of downsizing emerging

from the negative effects on human and social capital.
The effects of downsizings have been studied under different perspectives (see
Table I for a summary). A specific type of downsizing effect concerns the survivors,
defined by Brockner et al. (2004, p. 76) as “the employees who are not laid off.” Some
scholars refer to the “survivors syndrome” (Brockner, 1988) pointing out such
symptoms as anger, depression, fear, distrust and guilt (Devine et al., 2003, p. 110).
Several scholars have thus studied downsizing effects on survivors’ psychological
states. These effects include job insecurity (Sahdev, 2003; Ugboro, 2003; Gandolfi and
Neck, 2005), lower levels of morale (Mishra, 1996; Makawatsakul and Kleiner, 2003),
higher level of stress (Gregory, 1999; Devine et al., 2003), survivors’ attitudinal:
lower levels of satisfaction (Ashford et al., 1989; Wagar, 1998), lower commitment
(Sahdev, 2003; Ugboro, 2003), and survivors’ lowered motivation (Mishra, 1996; Fried
et al., 2003).
Job insecurity and organizational commitment

Two of the most often researched constructs affected by downsizing are job insecurity
and the level of commitment (Sahdev, 2003; Ugboro, 2003; Gandolfi and Neck, 2005) (see
Table I). Employees’ feelings of job security have been increasing as firms, including
state-owned organizations (Cimons, 1996), have undertaken a variety of actions and
strategies – e.g., mergers and acquisitions, outsourcing, and so forth. Job insecurity
is the “perceived powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job
situation” (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984, p. 438). Moreover, several associations
have been made between these two constructs. For instance, there is evidence that job
insecurity is closely related to lower organizational commitment (Ashford et al., 1989;
Hartley, 1998; Reisel and Banai, 2002). In fact, there is some evidence that downsizing
may surviving employees to lower their involvement (Brockner et al., 2004; Travaglione
and Cross, 2006), even if the impact on attachment to the organization and job
satisfaction may be short lived (Armstrong-Stassen and Schlosser, 2008).
Feeling secure at one’s job is an expectation implied in the psychological contract
(Ugboro, 2003). Psychological contracts refer to perceptions about a set of mutual
obligations that link employers and employees. They are based on expectations that
each party will fulfill its obligation in accordance with their implicit contracts.
Psychological contracts are unwritten mutual obligation between both parties – employers
IJM Author(s) Effects/contributions Sign
35,7 Sahdev (2003) Capabilities −
Learning −
Innovation −
Job insecurity +
Lack of commitment +
934 Gandolfi and Neck (2005) Decreased level of commitment −
Decreased level of security −
Mishra (1996) Motivation −
Employee morale −
Reynolds-Fisher and Innovation −
White (2000) Learning −
Gregory (1999) Stress +
Professional career opportunities −
Loyalty −
Wagar (1998) Employee satisfaction −
Relation between employee-manager −
Efficacy of the manager in recruiting
the worker
Makawatsakul and Kleiner Morale −
(2003)
Devine et al. (2003) Stress +
Job control −
Psychological reactions −
Physical results −
Professional behaviors −
Ugboro (2003) Job insecurity −
Organizational commitment −
Confidence in managers −
Hartley (1998) Association between job insecurity Not applicable
and lower organizational commitment
Ashford et al. (1989) Association between job insecurity Not applicable
and lower levels of commitment,
confidence in organization and job
satisfaction
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt Decomposition of job insecurity into Not applicable
(1984) five components
Meyer and Allen (1991) Decomposition of organizational Not applicable
commitment in three
components: affective,
normative and continuance
Table I. Reisel and Banai (2002) Association between job insecurity, Not applicable
Downsizing effects lower levels of commitment and lack of
on surviving human confidence
resources and other
related studies Notes: Not applicable, paper without empirical analysis. Theoretical paper
and employee – whereby there are expectations for both parties according to their mutual
beliefs and perceptions. Downsizing may be a violation to the implicit norms stipulating
that employees’ efforts will be rewarded with a stable job and work environment
(De Meuse et al., 2004). Violation of these contracts may lead workers to alter their
behaviors by feelings of lower trust, reduced loyalty, employ lesser effort, increased
absenteeism, and so forth, with negative consequences for firms.
Notwithstanding, Ashford et al. (1989) referred to the lack of empirical attention Surviving
given to job insecurity resulting from downsizing and how perceptions of job insecurity
negatively influence job performance (see also Cobb and Kasl, 1977; Greenhalgh, 1982).
downsizing and
The survivors’ perceptions of job insecurity include measures of perceived threats innovative
to the continuity of employment, employment characteristics and the feeling of being behaviors
unable to control and prevent these threats (Ugboro, 2003). These components are
closely related to those in Ashford et al.’s (1989) study: employment, characteristics of 935
the employment and perception of powerlessness.
Accordingly to Porter et al. (1974, p. 604), organizational commitment is “a strong
belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, a willingness to exert
considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a definite desire to maintain
organizational membership” and has been subject of considerable interest trying to
understand the intensity and stability of employee dedication to organizations
(Eisenberg et al., 1990). Hence, organizational commitment is the extent of an
individual’s commitment to the organization and may be assessed through the three-
component model of Meyer and Allen (1991): affective, continuance and normative
components (see also Ugboro, 2003).
Based on Ugboro’s (2003) study, the affective component reveals one’s desire to be
identified with a particular organization and is induced by an employee’s emotional
attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization for its own
sake, based on a value congruency and a desire to see the organization succeed.
The continuance component has to do with one’s decision to remain in the organization
because of prior personal investments one has made through years of employment
in the organization. It also results from perceived difficulty in finding a comparable
job elsewhere. The normative component refers to the employees feeling obligated to
remain with an organization despite better employment opportunities elsewhere, since
culture emphasizes loyalty to organizations. Employees are more likely to feel
motivated, or committed to their organizations when they feel some reciprocity in some
organizational rewards, under the expectancy theory (Baruch, 1998) and the social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Job security is one of the possible rewards (Whitener et al.,
1998) whereby employers reward an employee for his commitment to the organization.
Innovative behavior
Lundvall (1992) defines innovation as a search and exploration process to generate new
products, techniques, organizational forms and uncover markets. Innovation involves
the generation and implementation of ideas (Scott and Bruce, 1994). Generating and
exploiting ideas requires different actions, such as innovative behaviors, and individual
actions aimed at generating, introducing and/or applying the innovations on some level
of the organization (West and Farr, 1989). Innovative behaviors are a key factor in
generating innovation ( Jong and Kemp, 2003). According to Kleysen and Street (2001),
individual innovative behavior includes practices such as exploration of opportunities,
generation of ideas, championing, formative investigation and application (Kanter,
1968; Jong and Kemp, 2003).
Some authors, considering the impact of downsizing on several organizational
outcomes remains somewhat ambiguous, have studied the relation between downsizing
and organizational innovativeness (Mellahi and Wilkinson, 2010b). Innovative ability is a
crucial component of firms’ competitive capacity (Dougherty and Bowman, 1995). In fact,
Mellahi and Wilkinson (2010b, p. 2292) stated that “[g]iven the pivotal importance of
innovation, the widespread practice of downsizing and the potential impact the latter has
IJM on the former, there is a practical and theoretical need to examine the link between
the two.” The extant research points out a negative relationship between downsizing and
35,7 innovation. Several prior studies have pointed out reasons for this negative relationship.
The work environment is negatively influenced by downsizing, as are several measures
of job performance (Armstrong-Stassen, 1994; Brockner et al., 2004) and creativity
seems to decrease in a downsizing environment, due to the deterioration of the work
936 environment post-downsizing (Amabile and Conti, 1999). In Richtnér and Ǻhlström’s
(2006) study, downsizing was suggested as holding an overall negative effect on
innovation through the creativity of individuals, stock of knowledge and the knowledge
creation process, although they also noted that some positive effect might occur in the
knowledge creation process.
According to Amabile and Conti (1999) and Dougherty and Bowman (1995)
creativity in the organization remains depressed long beyond the end of the
downsizing, which may be explained by the erosion of the informal networks and
the skill bases. Also, survivors’ job insecurity feelings adversely effects on creativity
and associated problem solving behaviors, albeit with moderately beneficial effects on
productivity (Probst et al., 2007). The informal networks are how individuals interact
and an important factor for the acquisition of much of the information, ideas and
solutions needed for organization’s innovation (Cooper, 2005; Macdonald and Piekkari,
2005). Downsizing disrupts learning networks (Fisher and White, 2000), and creativity
is negatively impacted by the threat of lay-offs (Probst et al., 2007).
Downsizing may lead to a loss of organizational memory – the information stored
throughout the organization’s history and that may be used to make decisions (Walsh
and Ungson, 1991). A loss of memory penalizes the innovation process (Walsh and
Ungson, 1991) as individuals exit laid-off. The concern thus is on how to retain
knowledge and organization memory that could potentially be lost due to downsizing
(Argote et al., 2003; Bowersox, 2009). The knowledge retained in the employees is,
according to Grant (1996), a source of competitive advantage that had to be accumulated
through years and efforts of learning. In fact, some scholars have delved on how firms act
to retain knowledge that would otherwise be lost (Massingham, 2008; Schmitt et al., 2011)
and the consequences of losing knowledge (Massingham, 2008; Shah, 2000). As such,
Carley (1996) claimed for additional research on the negative impact of downsizing on
learning and knowledge retention.
Hypotheses
In this section, we present a set of three hypotheses on how, in a downsizing context,
the surviving employees perceived job insecurity and level of commitment, relate to, or
drive, innovative behavior. When firms downsize, employees perceive an unstable
labor situation. Downsizing has a direct effect on increasing the survivors’ perceived
job insecurity (Sahdev, 2003; Ugboro, 2003; Gandolfi and Neck, 2005). As put forth by
several scholars (e.g. Ashford et al., 1989), albeit conceptually distinct, constructs such
as downsizing, threat of lay-offs and job insecurity are highly correlated. Threat of
lay-offs and subsequent feelings of insecurity emerge, for instance, when firms
announce a downsizing. Moreover, some studies have found a tie between downsizing
and employees’ perception of job insecurity (Ashford et al., 1989; Probst, 2003).
According to Hartley (1998), following a reduction in the size of the workforce,
job insecurity is associated with lower levels of organizational commitment, and
willingness to maintain loyalty to the firm. Employees are motivated to commit their
time and effort to the firm when they feel reciprocity, namely, in terms of benefiting Surviving
from rewards (Blau, 1964; Baruch, 1998) such as a long-term contract (Whitener et al.,
1998). Motivational theories provide some conceptual rationale worth exploring.
downsizing and
For instance, expectancy theory focusses on the individuals’ mental processes that lead innovative
them to act in a particular way and seeks to explain why individuals choose to follow behaviors
certain courses of action in organizations instead of others (Vroom and Yetton, 1973).
In essence, individuals’ decision to behave, or act, in a given manner may be linked 937
to what they expect to be the result of the chosen behavior (Oliver, 1974). Applying
expectancy theory to the specific case of a downsizing environment, it seems
reasonable to suggest that when an individual expects to be laid-off in the future, living
in an insecure job environment, will diminish commitment to the organization.
In a similar vein, when employees perceive job insecurity, as is likely the case
during an announced downsizing, their commitment will be negatively affected. Some
existing research shows how selected indicators of firm performance suffer after
downsizing, but it tends to focus less on how individual performance changes (Probst
et al., 2007). Individuals are likely to perform better, namely, putting an extra effort
on engaging in innovation activities and positively contributing to the R&D efforts, when
they feel committed to the organization, which is unlikely to occur when they are insecure
about their employment prospects. Hence, we formulate the following hypothesis:
H1. The employees’ perceived job insecurity following downsizing is negatively

related to organizational commitment.
Greenhalgh (1982) and Cobb and Kasl (1977) found that perceptions of job insecurity
had a negative impact on job performance. A review by Sverke et al. (2002) noted
that job insecurity had a negative effect on employees’ attitudes. It is worth noting that
for repetitive or routine tasks it is possible that employees’ productivity increases,
as a manner to avoid being laid off, but that is less likely to occur for knowledge-based
tasks (Probst and Brubaker, 2001). Employees’ performance on the job, perhaps
more especially in a technology and innovative firm, requires behaviors that foster
innovation and the implementation of ideas (Scott and Bruce, 1994) which may be
negatively affected by perceived employment insecurity, possibly due to a sense
of powerlessness, the difficulty in accessing critical resources, additional workload or
even corporate restrictions on using resources for innovation. Employees need to be
motivated, have the competences, capabilities, knowledge successful ( Jong et al., 2001)
and motivation (Mishra, 1996) for the innovation process to be successful.
Amabile and Conti (1999) noted that innovativeness decreased after downsizing when
organizational barriers to creativity were raised. Moreover, the cost savings aimed at
were likely to hinder the required investment on innovation building capabilities.
Dougherty and Heller (1994), for instance, argued that after downsizing firms become
inert and unable to establish learning mechanisms that permit fostering future
innovations. Mellahi and Wilkinson (2010a) noted that it is likely that the surviving
employees will be assigned new roles, and additional tasks, that distract them from
innovation. In sum, even employees with a track record of high performance are likely to
lower their innovative efforts as a psychological response to downsizing (Fried et al., 2003)
and may engage in counterproductive behaviors such as absenteeism (Probst et al., 2007):
H2. The employees’ perceived job insecurity following downsizing is negatively

related to innovative behavior.
IJM Organizational commitment refers to the degree to which the employees identify
with the goals of the firm and contribute to attaining them. Contemporary competition
35,7 requires firms to develop knowledge and innovations and commercialize them
successfully. The knowledge-based view of the firm posits that a core task managers
must embrace is the resources and mechanisms for accumulating and retaining
knowledge (Grant, 1996) that contributes toward the firms’ goal of offering an
938 efficiently produced product that is valuable and difficult to imitate by competitors. It is
thus important that downsizing is managed appropriately to prevent knowledge and
the organizational memory to be lost, jeopardizing a possible competitive advantage
(see Walsh and Ungson, 1991; Freeman and Cameron, 1993; Argote et al., 2003;
Bowersox, 2009). Much of the knowledge developed in the firm relies on the employees’
networks and on the individual efforts. Collaboration among employees is likely to
facilitate knowledge transfer and accumulation, the flow of ideas and experimentation.
All these require employees to commit to exchanging knowledge and creating a
favorable atmosphere of innovation. Thus, downsizing may be counterproductive as it

is likely to destroy the social fabric and informal networks employees use to access
resources and get things done (Shah, 2000).
Alternative processes also link post-downsizing decreased organization
commitment to innovative behaviors. For instance, Cohen-Charash and Spector
(2001) referred to how survivors’ perception of justice impacted negatively
organizational commitment. Survivors may be affected by the stress and uncertainty
following downsizing (Amabile and Conti, 1999), reacting with lower organizational
commitment and involvement with their jobs and less prone to put an extra effort
(Brockner, 1988).
In firms with innovation goals, such as new products development, employees’
commitment is crucial to contribute with their specific skills, to learn, to share and
teach with others and broadly to undertake an additional effort. Hence, it seems
reasonable to suggest that when the level of organizational commitment of workers
diminishes, while facing a reduction in the employment level, their motivation to
identify themselves with the organization’s goals will decrease (Sahdev, 2003).
Innovation depends on creativity – the generation of new and useful ideas (Amabile
and Conti, 1999). If organizational commitment refers to the degree to which the
employees identify with the goals of the firm and contribute to attaining them, then
it is likely that they will be less committed with firms that downsized part of their
workforce. This behavior will probably negatively affect firms’ goal of keep being
creative and emerging with new ideas that will drive them to future long-term
success. Amabile and Conti (1999), examining a large high-technology firm before,
during, and after a major downsizing, argued that it is critical to restore the work
environment for creativity, of both individuals and teams, to assure regaining firm’s
innovative ability.
In fact, there are a number of likely responses that might be expected from
survivors (Appelbaum and Lavigne-Schmidt, 1999), including lower motivation
and productivity, anger, decreased loyalty, turnover, absenteeism and lower
organizational commitment. All these responses contribute to make it harder for the
organization to achieve its goals, including the innovative performance aimed at. In
hypothesis form:
H3. The lower employees’ organizational commitment following downsizing is

negatively related to innovative behavior.
Methods Surviving
Research context and data collection
To test empirically the hypotheses we used data collected through questionnaires to
downsizing and
employees of a large multinational computer, technology and IT consulting firm. innovative
Using a questionnaire to collect data is especially suited to capture the individuals’ behaviors
own perceptions and emotions that are not possible to access with secondary data.
We followed prior research (e.g. Ugboro, 2003) that also used questionnaires assuring 939
individuals on the anonymity of their responses. Albeit it is possible to capture
different measures of innovation outcomes with secondary sources, we could not
directly capture the innovative behaviors.
Based on the literature review and resorting to exploratory interviews with
academic and professional specialists, as well as pre-tests, the final questionnaire
was constructed using items from prior studies such Ugboro’s (2003) for job insecurity
and organizational commitment. Ugboro (2003) used multiple measures to examine job
insecurity and organizational commitment. Ugboro’s (2003) intent was to capture the
different facets of job insecurity and organizational commitment, and analyze
separately their relationship with management trust building behaviors. In our study,
we focussed on the relationship between job insecurity and organizational commitment
with innovative behaviors. The questionnaire also comprised measuring innovative
behavior, following Jong and Kemp’s (2003) study in which they assumed a one-
dimensional construct with eight items based on the work by Kleysen and Street (2001).
In fact, several scholars concluded that innovative behavior is a one-dimensional
construct (e.g. Scott and Bruce, 1994; Jong and Kemp, 2003).
The questionnaire items were responded on a five-point Likert-type scale, as in
similar studies (see Ugboro, 2003), varying from “very unlikely” to “very likely,”
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or “unusual” to “very frequent.” Finally,
the questionnaire included a final set of items to describe the demographics of the
respondents, including gender, age, educational level and marital status.
We adopted the following sampling protocol for the data collection: first, we sent the
questionnaire by e-mail to the firm requesting collaboration from all the employees.
However, due to a low response rate, we personally delivered it randomly to different
employees in several departments. Of the 101 surveys received, 88 valid surveys were
returned, for a response rate just short of 20 percent. This response rate is within
the ranges recommended by Paul and Bracken (1995), who noted that the typical rate
for surveys mailed to employees ranges from 15 to 30 percent.
The data were collected at a Portuguese subsidiary of multinational high technology
innovative corporation. The corporation had undergone two downsizing processes in
the past few years. In 2004, it reduced the number of employees by 6 percent, and in the
first semester of 2005 it announced an additional downsizing and personnel layoff.
Our data were collected in May 2005, after the company announced the new
downsizing.
The sample comprises 52 percent women and 48 percent men, relatively young –
with the majority of individuals between the ages of 26 and 35 (53 percent) –, and the
prevailing educational level was a five years university undergraduate degree
(63 percent), as in Table II.
Variables
Perceived job insecurity is the extent to employees perceive their employment as long
term or instead susceptible of sudden termination. Stolzenberg (1989) noted that the
IJM probability of job loss or layoff is the inverse of job security. We used the
conceptualization by Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) with job insecurity being a
35,7 function of two main dimensions: perceived threat to one’s total job or job features and
powerlessness. Ugboro (2003) examined the impact of downsizing on survivors’
perceptions of job insecurity, organizational commitment and managerial trust. We
used Ugboro’s (2003) scale to measure job insecurity. Employees perceive a threat to
940 their job when some or all functions of a department are outsourced. Moreover,
employees perceive threat to job features when they are reassigned to a lower level job
position. And, employees perceive powerlessness when they do not feel they hold
control over events that threaten their total job or job features. Both main dimensions of
job insecurity were measured in our study.
Data on job insecurity were collected with items v1.1 to v1.10 (see Appendix). For
instance to assess perceived threat to one’s total job and job feature we asked “Do you
believe you can lose your job and be moved to a lower level within the organization?” or
“Will you lose your job by being pressured to accept an early retirement?” (v.1.1 to
v1.8). To measure the perception of powerlessness, we included items such as “Do you
have enough power in this organization to control events that affect your job?” (v1.9
and v1.10).
Commitment to the organization is likely to have a great impact on organizational
performance and reflects the extent to which the employees not only identify with the
goals and values of the organization but also how they will be willing to go over and
beyond their job requirements. Commitment assumes the affective, the normative and
the continuance form (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Following Ugboro’s (2003) study, the
affective commitment is the outcome of employees’ emotional attachment to the
organization. The normative commitment assumes the form of obligation to remain in
the firm, given a cultural value system based on loyalty to institutions. Employees may
stay in the firm for a long period of time when they feel a normative commitment.
Employees with a continuance commitment will probably stay in the firm due to their
personal investments, such as retirement benefits. The survey included items on these
three dimensions of commitment. Affective commitment was evaluated with items v2.1
to v2.4, such as “Would you be very happy to spend the rest of your career with
this organization?” Continuance was assessed with items v2.5-v2.7, such as “Would too
much of your life be disrupted if you decided that you wanted to leave your
organization at this time?” Finally, the normative commitment was captured with items
v2.8 to v2.10, such as “Even if it were to your advantage, do you feel it would not be
right to leave your organization now?”
Innovative behaviors comprise the set of actions aimed at generating, introducing
and implementing beneficial novelty at any organizational level (West and Farr, 1989).
Innovative behavior was captured with the items v3.1 to v3.13 drawn from Kleysen and
Street (2001) and Jong and Kemp (2003), assessing diverse innovative behaviors,
Items Mean Scale
Gender 1.53 1. Male, 2. Female

Age 2.45 1. 16-25, 2. 26-35, 3. 36-45, 4. 46-55, 5. + than 56
Educational level 3.64 1. 9 yrs of school, 2. 9-12 yrs of school, 3. Short Bachelor, 4. Long
Table II. Bachelor, 5. Master, 6. PhD
Sample description Marital status 1.54 1. Single/Divorced/Widowed, 2. Married/Unmarried couple
ranging from exploration to the implementation of ideas. Appendix shows the items Surviving
used in the questionnaire.
downsizing and
innovative
Statistical procedure
The most suitable method for analyzing simultaneous relations is structural equations behaviors
modeling. This technique permits us contrast our empirical model and re-specify it
(Hair et al., 1999) to obtain the best model to describe the simultaneous relations 941
between our constructs. Since our sample size restricts the use of structural equations,
we resorted to a partial analysis of each construct. First, using SPSS, we carried out
exploratory factor analysis to assess how the items were grouped and eliminated those
least adjusted to our theoretical model. We checked the reliability of the constructs with
the Cronbach’s α. One of the most important results is the relationship between the first
and second level constructs, and we thus performed confirmatory factor analysis of
each second level construct separately, according to structural equations modeling,

using AMOS. The number of observations did not allow us to analyze the constructs in
an aggregated manner (Bentler and Chou, 1987; Stevens, 1996), and we performed tasks
by steps (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Gerbing et al., 1994), detailed as follows.
Each first- and second-order construct was assumed to be a function of two
components (Rindskopf and Rose, 1988): one that is shared with the other Factors ([Xi])
and corresponds to the higher-level construct of interest, and a unique component to
the specific factor ([C]). The first-order factors may be expressed in terms of the second-
order factors (the same reasoning can be adopted when interpreting relationships
between second order constructs): [A] ¼ [B] [Xi] +[C], where [ Xi] is a second-order
construct that is a component of [A] shared with the other first-order constructs, [C] is
the unique component of each first-order construct, and [B] is the pattern coefficient.
Bootstrap procedure was implemented to uncover whether the parameters were
stable among random samples. This procedure is especially important given our
relatively small sample.
Results
After observing the non-normal distribution of data by applying the KS test, we
conducted an exploratory factor analysis for each construct using SPSS. Principal
components analysis with varimax rotation was used. Table IV shows the results.
Items with factor loadings lower than 0.5 were excluded, which led to the elimination
of the factor continuance commitment. For each first-order construct we obtained the
orthogonal dimensions presented in Table III: insecurity is composed of perceived
threat to job feature (PJF), perceived threat to one’s total job (PTTJ) and perception
of powerlessness (PP) (following Ugboro, 2003); commitment comprises affective
component (AC) and normative component (NC) (following Reisel and Banai, 2002;
Ugboro, 2003); and innovative behavior is a one-dimensional construct (as per Scott and
Bruce, 1994; Kleysen and Street, 2001).
In our model each first-order construct was conceptualized as a one-dimensional set
of measured items/variables (PTTJ e.g. on Table III). A first-order confirmatory factor
model was estimated before proceeding to the representation of the construct at the
second-order level. Latent scores were obtained at the first-order confirmatory level and
used as “indicators” of higher-order constructs during the later step. The relationship
between observed variables (indicators, such as V1.4 on Table III) and corresponding
unobserved constructs (first-order constructs, as PTTJ) assumes a reflective scale.
IJM
35,7
942
Table III.
Exploratory
factor analyses
2nd order % Exp. Standardized regression
constructs 1st order constructs Variables Factor loadings variance Cronbach’s α coefficients
Job insecurity Perceived threats to one’s total job V1.4 0.842 66 0.78 0.733
(PTTJ) V1.5 0.813
V1.6 0.897
V1.8 0.577
Perceived threats to job features V1.1 0.866 0.76 0.671
(PTJF) V1.2 0.914
V1.7 0.673
Perception of powerlessness (PP) V1.9 0.885 0.71 0.73
V1.10 0.885
Organizational Affective component (AC) V2.1 0.793 73 0.86 0.976
commitment V2.2 0.857
V2.3 0.850
V2.4 0.856
Normative component (NC) V2.8 0.814 0.81 0.625
V2.9 0.842
V2.10 0.890
Innovative behavior Innovative behavior (IB) V3.6 0.850 71 0.93 One-dimensional
V3.8 0.854
V3.9 0.824
V3.10 0.781
V3.11 0.851
V3.12 0.843
V3.13 0.890
Second, first-order constructs’ latent scores were used as indicators in higher-order Surviving
constructs (e.g. “Job Insecurity” on Table III). The final model assumed latent scores
(from first-order constructs) as observed variables.
downsizing and
The explained variance for each factor was always higher than 66 percent, showing innovative
that this is an acceptable reduction. All factor loadings were higher than 0.7, with the behaviors
exception of variable v1.8 from factor PTTJ and v1.7 from factor PTJF, which reached
0.58 and 0.67, respectively (see Table III). To verify the reliability of the factors we used 943
Cronbach’s α, always higher than 0.7, thus showing that the analysis is adequate
(Nunnally, 1967).
The analysis of the regression-standardized coefficients revealed that insecurity
was more affected by perceived threat to one’s total job (0.733). We also found that
commitment was composed of the affective and normative components, but was
essentially an affective construct (0.976). The goodness of fit results are shown
in Table IV.
Table IV reveals that the CFI has acceptable values, higher than 0.9. The same
situation occurs with the GFI, except for innovative behavior which, however, has a
value (0.88) very close to the recommended 0.9. The χ2 test showed acceptable results
for job insecurity but only a modest value for commitment and innovative behavior,
possibly because the χ2 test is not very robust in non-normality data distributions.
The final model, shown in Figure 1 and Table V, has an acceptable fit, both
according to the CFI and the GFI. H1 and H3 are corroborated, but H2 is not.
Hence, we confirm that the job insecurity perceived by workers negatively affects
their organizational commitment and this commitment positively influences their
Constructs (2nd order) Constructs (1st order) CFI GFI χ2(p)
Job insecurity Perceived threats to one’s total job (PTTJ) 0.963 0.926 34.810
Perceived threats to job features (PTJF) (0.071)
Perception of powerlessness (PP)
Org. commitment Affective component (AC) 0.933 0.914 32.084 Table IV.
Normative component (NC) (0.004) Goodness of fit indices
Innovative behavior Innovative behavior (IB) 0.935 0.883 43.903 of confirmatory
(0.000) factor models
E1
H1 (–) Organizational H3 (+)

–0.50 commitment 0.36
(–5.37) (3.59)
Figure 1.
Final model: the
effects of job insecurity
Job Innovative
insecurity behavior
E2 and organizational
H2 (–) commitment on
–0.25 innovative behavior
(–1.85)
IJM innovative behavior. Hence, we cannot confirm a direct relation between job insecurity
and innovative behavior.
35,7 Taking into consideration that structural equations models primarily examine
simultaneous relations between two variables, and hence it might be debatable whether
organizational commitment may be considered as a mediating variable, we tested the
hypothesis. Our results, using the method, show that organizational commitment
944 (“OC”) construct plays a “complete mediator effect” since job insecurity (“JI”) has no
significant impact on innovative behavior (“IB”) after removing the mediator construct
(“OC”). Testing an isolated model, with “JI” (predictor) impacting on “IB” (criterion), the
path is significant (coefficient ¼ −0,474, CR ¼ −2,980, p ¼ 0,003), meaning that a
possible mediated effect can be drawn and analyzed (Baron and Kenny, 1986), even
though the model has a poor fit (GFI ¼ 0,892). The path turns into non-significant
as soon as we add “OC” into the equation (coefficient ¼ −0,25; CR ¼ −1,85, as shown
on Table VI). When analyzing the full model, the effect of “JI” on “IB,” controlling for
“OC,” is no sig. different from zero (see Figure 1) and thus we are facing a complete
mediation role from “OC” in “JI”-“IB” relationship in our model.
We controlled for variance in our data to verify if any factors could lead to potential
confounds in the results. Demographic variables such as gender (two groups), age
(five groups) and the level of education (six groups) were controlled to develop a richer,
more robust model. An analysis of the differences between the groups of variables from
the first and second order constructs revealed no significant differences.
Stability of parameters
The bootstrap procedure consists in re-sampling the original set a specified number of
times and thus generating several random-sized sub-samples. The final estimations
rely on direct extraction, regardless of any assumption on the distribution (Hair et al.,
1999). We used 200, 500, 1,000 and 2,000 random sub-sample sizes. By comparing the
estimated parameters from the original structural model with those from the bootstrap
procedure (using t-tests to compare means), a “weak form” of cross-validation was
performed and thus an evaluation of the solution convergence was verified. Using
the bootstrap maximum likelihood estimation (see Table VI), the parameters job
insecurity → organizational commitment and organizational commitment → innovative
behavior showed no significant differences across multiple random samples, meaning
that they are stable parameters. We may thus conclude that our estimated model is robust
regardless of the non-normality of the data. On the other hand, the parameter job
insecurity → innovative behavior revealed no stability (significant differences were
accounted among samples), although it was non-significant in our structural model.
Discussion and concluding remarks

Companies undertake a strategy of downsizing to improve their efficiency and
competitiveness. However, in downsizing, firms need to guarantee that the survivors
Table V.
Final model: Relationships in the model Regression coefficients CR CFI GFI χ2
regression
coefficients and Job insecurity → Org. commitment −0.50 −5.37 0.937 0.976 3.338 (0.068)
goodness of fit Org. commitment → Innovative behavior 0.36 3.59
indices Job insecurity → Innovative behavior −0.25 −1.85
Estimation 1,000 samples

Samples ML SE Mean SE t p Mean SE t p Mean SE t p
200 samples 500 samples

Insecurity → Commitment −0.502 0.042 −0.507 0.052 −0.702 0.48 −0.499 0.051 0.43 0.67 −0.507 0.058 −0.65 0.51
Commitment → Innov.behavior 0.363 0.102 0.368 0.105 0.320 0.75 0.361 0.099 −0.13 0.90 0.366 0.113 0.18 0.85
Insecurity → Innov.behavior −0.252 0.141 −0.298 0.124 −2.298 0.02 −0.318 0.079 −3.83 0.00 −0.249 0.088 0.17 0.87
2,000 samples Average among bootstraps
Insecurity → Commitment −0.507 0.061 −0.63 0.53 −0.505 0.056 −0.40 0.69
Commitment → Innov.behavior 0.364 0.122 0.06 0.95 0.365 0.110 0.11 0.91
Insecurity → Innov.behavior −0.299 0.094 −2.60 0.01 −0.291 0.096 −2.14 0.03
Notes: The parameters’ stability check with bootstrap was verified using random samples (200, 500, 1,000 and 2,000 sample sizes), using t student to test
difference between means (H0: no difference between estimated values among samples)
ðxi xj Þ
t ðn;cÞ ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

s2xi þ s2xj
n
behaviors
innovative
check with bootstrap

Surviving
945
Parameters’ stability
downsizing and
Table VI.
IJM maintain a high level of commitment, perceptions of job security, creativity and
motivation. The contemporary high velocity competitive environments are requiring
35,7 firms to foster employees’ innovative behaviors and ill-deployed downsizing may not
always be the best course of action. In this paper we sought to shed some light on some
individual downsizing effects, specifically how individual performance may change in
a downsizing environment, contributing to the extant research, as suggested by Probst
946 et al. (2007). We thus contribute to better understand the impact of employees’ perceived
job insecurity and organizational commitment to the organization, on innovative
behaviors. This line of inquiry is relevant because often, and arguably the dominant
perspective, downsizing is examined as a manner to overcome demand shortages,
technological or technological shifts that render a certain technology obsolete, or simply
as a manner to improve the bottom line financial indicators, disregarding both the impact
on the surviving employees and the impact that downsizing may have on the firm’s
ability to innovate, develop and grow. Our results highlight the simultaneous relationship
linking perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment and innovative behavior in a

downsizing environment.
It is notable that the extant research often posits that downsizing has a potentially
harmful effect on survivors’ professional attitudes and consequently on different types
of performance, such as innovative ability (see Datta et al., 2010 for a review). In these
instances, it is likely that managers will not be able to achieve the expected benefits of
downsizing once they start preparing the organization for the future. It is further worth
noting that to compete in a more globalized world, a major source of advantage seems
to come from innovations and the generation of new knowledge. Focussing on the
employees’ innovative behaviors was therefore the central purpose of this paper, and
the choice of the firm used to collect data captures well the milieu in an innovative
and knowledge-driven firm.
Our empirical results highlight that job insecurity has a negative impact on workers’
attitudes (Sverke et al., 2002). Our results also confirm that there is a negative
relationship between job insecurity and commitment to the firm as Hartley (1998)
suggested, but we advanced by finding that the relation between job insecurity and
innovative behavior may be mediated by commitment to the organization. That is, in a
downsizing context, higher job insecurity seems to drive, at least in part, lower
commitment to the firm – possibly owing to the exit of employees and the destruction
of the informal networks and the firm’s memory. In this regard, it is further worth
noting that the literature provides only partial understanding on the tie between
employee downsizing and organizational knowledge retention (see, for instance,
Schmitt et al., 2011). Given that the innovation process implies holding employees with
an active attitude, focussed on applying their abilities and knowledge to the exploration
and implementation of ideas, lower commitment will likely affect their innovative
efforts. In this regard, future research may examine whether decreased commitment is
a broader response not only to downsizing but to other threatening labor situations.
In sum, our results are coherent with the idea that the survivors’ perception of uncertainty
following downsizing (Amabile and Conti, 1999) leads to lower organizational
commitment, and lowered levels of involvement with their jobs (Brockner, 1988).
Our findings also indicate that commitment to the firm has an essentially affective
nature. That is, employees have a strong desire of identifying themselves with an
organization, but downsizing announcements or the actual downsizing actions
negatively influence this desire. However, the affective component of survivors is
needed for the downsizing goals to be achieved. Our finding of a significant association
between perceptions of job insecurity and organizational commitment suggests that Surviving
commitment may be influenced by the insecurity perceived in a job threatening
situation. Moreover, our results evidence that job insecurity is more impacted by
downsizing and
perceived threats on the continuity of employment and by feelings of being unable to innovative
control and prevent possible threats. behaviors
Implications 947
All over Europe firms seem to be responding to economic recession with reductions in
the workforce, or downsizing. While this has become a popular strategy, the benefits
are often assessed in terms of the short or medium term impact on financial indicators.
Our overarching argument is that future perils may emerge as firms may find themselves
unable to recover from austerity as they lose the trust, commitment and effort of their
employees. This study contributes to HRM practitioners that ought to fully assess not
only the short term but also the lasting consequences of losing employees’ innovative
behavior and probably their commitment to changes and modernization. The outcomes
experienced by those who remain – the survivors – are important for the future
competitive capabilities of firms post-downsizing. For HRM in particular, it is important
to create a sense of job security post-downsizing and prevent the type of feelings “I am
next” from developing and destroying employees’ commitment to the organization and
their effort toward future goals. That is, we suggest that HR managers clarify what is the
firm’s policy toward the survivors as a manner to reduce perception of insecurity from
growing.
For policy makers, not only the Portuguese but more broadly those from other
countries, it is important to understand the true impact of downsizing strategies as a
tool and eventually devise alternative courses of action. Many firms in Portugal are
state-owned and even these have recently engaged in employees downsizing to reduce
operating losses. In fact, in 2012 and 2013, a number of legislation came to make
employment contracts more flexible – which has been little more than making
employees easier to dismiss. Even without the actual firing of people, it is likely that a
downsizing environment may emerge. Alternative strategies may be more fruitful if
they do not destroy employees’ commitment to the organization and if they get
employees involved in defining the courses of action to mitigate the sense of job
insecurity. For researchers, we ask for additional research on the emotions that go on in
downsizing environments.
There have been other moments raising concerns over job stability. From the mid
1980s onwards, many firms started outsourcing an array of activities to other firms and
other countries with cost-cutting objectives. With the outsourcing of some operations
and activities, often to lower cost locations, workers have been laid-off and others have
seen their job features changed as their firms relocated their entire operations. What used
to be a feeling of job security, felt before the 1980s, partially ceased to exist and since then
a new perception among workers arouse around the world: job insecurity. Back in the
past employment was a lifelong compromise based on the mutual expectation of job
stability; albeit this expectation was more pronounced in the public sector (Cimons, 1996
in Ugboro, 2003) but it certainly extended to a wider variety of firms.
Limitations and future avenues of research

Our study has some limitations. First, we only examined one firm. Although it was
a large multinational firm with operations worldwide, it may have a specific
IJM organizational culture and a track record of success that generates some idiosyncratic
feelings when employees face of downsizing. Future research may extend this research
35,7 to other firms, and even seek to understand whether employees react differently to
downsizing when the firm is foreign – with the usual bias that multinational firms do
not hold loyalties to any location – and when it is domestic. Although the data collection
has revealed the effectiveness and randomness of responses (our questionnaire was
948 self-selected in the sense that employees could choose whether to participate, without any
reward or punishment), extending the empirical tests by differentiating clearly among
the groups of worker might be worthwhile. For instance, differentiating white and blue
color workers, distinguishing employees by academic qualification or age. In our study
we were largely restricted to while color workers with high education.
Second, the context of knowledge-intensive firms limits the scope of our study,
although, as we advanced, it is reasonable to suggest these firms are more dependent
on employees’ innovative efforts for competitive advantage. Nonetheless, even routine-
based firms present opportunities for the participation of workers, namely, on

suggesting manners to improve the existing procedures and in helping identify market
gaps. An extended study encapsulating several firms may be fruitful in identifying
possible differences that may arise.
A number of future research avenues may be set forth. For example, it may prove
interesting to distinguish the types of innovations. It is possible that for incremental
innovations individual employee’s efforts are a driver of those innovations, while for
more path-breaking innovations a collaborative work of a group of employees may be
required. If downsizing destroys the network of organization knowledge, innovation
activities will be far harder to accomplish in the latter case. Hence, the group dynamics
in a downsizing environment may play a significant role. Second, it would be
interesting to examine our hypotheses in industries where downsizing is a common
reality, such as automobile, components, etc. The years 2008-2012 have witnessed
copious announcements of downsizing in these and other industries, and are possible
contexts to extend upon our paper. Further research may also endeavor a longitudinal
research design to assess variations in the three constructs we tested. For instance,
noting how job insecurity feelings evolve in the pre-, during, and post-downsizing.
In a similar vein, future research may assess how innovative behaviors evolve over
time and whether the firm is able to gradually rebuild its organizational memory.
References
Abraham, S. (2006), “The market reaction to layoff announcements: a union-nonunion
comparison”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 452-466.
Amabile, T. and Conti, R. (1999), “Changes in the work environment for creativity during
downsizing”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 630-640.
Anderson, J. and Gerbin, D. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Appelbaum, H. and Lavigne-Schmidt, S. (1999), “Downsizing: measuring the costs of failure”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18 Nos 5/6, pp. 436-463.
Argote, L., McEvily, B. and Reagans, R. (2003), “Managing knowledge in organizations: an
integrative framework and review of emerging themes”, Management Science, Vol. 49
No. 4, pp. 571-582.
Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1994), “Coping with transition: A study of layoff survivors”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 597-621.
Armstrong-Stassen, M. and Schlosser, F. (2008), “Taking a positive approach to organizational Surviving
downsizing”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 93-106.
downsizing and
Ashford, S., Lee, C. and Bobko, P. (1989), “Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity: a
theory-based measure and substantive test”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 innovative
No. 4, pp. 803-829. behaviors
Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal of 949
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Baruch, Y. (1998), “The rise and fall of organizational commitment”, Human Systems
Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 35-43.
Bedeian, A. and Armenakis, A. (1998), “The cesspool syndrome: how dreck floats to the top of
declining organizations”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 58-63.
Bentler, P. and Chou, C. (1987), “Practical issues in structural modeling”, Sociological Methods and
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 78-117.

Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bowersox, N. (2009), “Downsizing and building organizational memory: a paradoxical
relationship between ‘brain drain’ and ‘brain gain’ ”, in Girard, J. (Ed.), Building
Organizational Memories: Will You Know What You Knew? IGI Global, Hershey, PA,
pp. 18-29.
Brockner, J. (1988), “The effects of work layoffs on survivors: research, theory and practice”, in
Staw, B. and Cummings, L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10 pp. 213-255.
Brockner, J., Spreitzer, G., Mishra, A., Hochwarter, W., Pepper, L. and Weinberg, J. (2004),
“Perceived control as an antidote to the negative effects of layoffs on survivors’
organizational commitment and job performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 76-100.
Cameron, K. (1994), “Strategies for successful organizational downsizing”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 189-211.
Carley, K. (1996), “Organizational learning and personnel turnover”, in Cohen, M. and Sproull, L.
(Eds), Organizational Learning, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 230-266.
Cascio, W. (1993), “Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned?”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 95-104.
Chadwick C., Hunter, L. and Walston, S. (2004), “Effects of downsizing practices on the
performance of hospitals”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 405-427.
Cimons, M. (1996), “Federal workers cope, yet remain resentful”. APA Monitor, Vol. 27 No. 3, p. 9.
Cobb, S. and Kasl, S. (1977), Termination: The Consequences of Job Loss, Pub. #77-224,
Deptartment of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute of Sciences and Health,
Washington, DC.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P. (2001), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 278-321.
Cooper, P. (2005), “A study of innovators’ experience of new product innovation in organizations”,
R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 525-533.
Datta, D., Guthrie, J., Basuil, D. and Pandey, A. (2010), “Causes and effects of employee
downsizing: a review and synthesis”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 281-348.
De Meuse, K., Bergmann, T., Vanderheiden, P. and Roraff, C. (2004), “New evidence regarding
organizational downsizing and a firm’s financial performance: a long-term analysis”,
Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 155-177.
IJM De Meuse, K., Vanderheiden, P. and Bergmann, T. (1994), “Announced layoffs: their effect on
corporate financial performance”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 33 No. 4,
35,7 pp. 509-530.
Devine, K., Reay, T., Stainton, L. and Nakai-Collins, R. (2003), “Downsizing outcomes: better a
victim than a survivor?”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 109-124.
Dolan, S. and Belout, A. (2000), “Downsizing without downgrading: learning how firms manage
950 their survivors”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 34-46.
Dougherty, D. and Bowman, E. (1995), “The effects of organizational downsizing on product
innovation”, California Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 28-43.
Dougherty, D. and Heller, T. (1994), “The illegitimacy of successful product innovation in
established firms”, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 200-218.
Eisenberg, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75
No. 1, pp. 51-59.

Elayan, F., Swales, G., Maris, B. and Scott, J. (1998), “Market reactions, characteristics, and the
effectiveness of corporate layoffs”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 329-351.
Farrell, M. and Mavondo, F. (2005), “The effect of downsizing-redesign strategies on business
performance: evidence from Australia”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 43
No. 1, pp. 98-116.
Fisher, S. and White, M. (2000), “Downsizing in a learning organization: are there hidden costs?”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 244-251.
Freeman, S.J. and Cameron, K.S. (1993), “Organizational downsizing: a convergence and
reorientation framework”, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 10-29.
Fried, Y., Slowik, L., Shperling, Z., Franz, C., Ben-David, H., Avital, N. and Yeverechyahu, U.
(2003), “The moderating effect of job insecurity on the relation between role clarity and job
performance: a longitudinal field study”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 787-805.
Gandolfi, F. and Neck, P. (2005), “Organisational downsizing revisited”, Australasian Journal of
Business and Social Inquiry, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 25-46.
Gerbing, D., Hamilton, J. and Freeman, E. (1994), “A large-scale second-order structural equation
model of the influence of management participation on organizational planning benefits”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 859-885.
Grant, R. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17, Winter, pp. 109-122.
Greenhalgh, L. (1982), “Maintaining organizational effectiveness during organizational
retrenchment”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 155-170.
Greenhalgh, L. and Rosenblatt, Z. (1984), “Job insecurity: toward conceptual clarity”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 438-448.
Gregory, J. (1999), “Encouraging organizational learning through pay after a corporate
downsizing”, Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 63-81.
Guthrie, J. and Datta, D. (2008), “Dumb and dumber: the impact of downsizing on firm performance
as moderated by industry conditions”, Organization Science, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 108-123.
Hair, J. Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W., (1999), Analisis Multivariante
5th edicin, Madrid, Prentice-Hall.
Hartley, A. (1998), “Organizational commitment and job insecurity in a changing public service
organization”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 341-354.
Hitt, M., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K. and Kochhar, R. (2001), “Direct and moderating effects of human Surviving
capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: a resource-based
perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 13-28. downsizing and
Johannessen, J.-A., Olsen, B. and Lumpkin, G. (2001), “Innovation as newness: what is new, innovative
how new, and new to whom?”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, behaviors
pp. 20-31.
Jong, J. and Kemp, R. (2003), “Determinants of co-workers innovative behaviour: an investigation 951
into knowledge intensive services”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 189-212.
Jong, J., Kemp, R. and Snel, C. (2001), “Determinants of innovative ability: an empirical test of a
causal model”, Business and Policy Research Report 0010/A, EIM, Zoetermeer.
Kanter, R. (1968), “Commitment and social organization: a study of commitment mechanisms in
utopian communities”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 499-517.
Kleysen, R. and Street, C. (2001), “Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative

behavior”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 284-296.
Lundvall, B. (1992) National Systems of Innovation, Pinter, London.
McKinley, W. and Sherer, A. (2000), “Some unanticipated consequences of organizational
restructuring”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 735-752.
Macdonald, S. and Piekkari, R. (2005), “Out of control: personal networks in European
collaboration”, R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 441-453.
Makawatsakul, N. and Kleiner, B. (2003), “The effect of downsizing on morale and attrition”,
Management Research News, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 52-62.
March, J. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
Marques, T., Gonzales, I., Cruz, P. and Ferreira, M.P. (2011), “Downsizing and profitability: an
empirical study of Portuguese firms in 1993-2005”, International Journal of Business and
Economics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 13-26.
Massingham, P. (2008), “Measuring the impact of knowledge loss: more than ripples on a pond?”,
Management Learning, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 541-560.
Mellahi, K. and Wilkinson, A. (2004), “Downsizing and innovation output: a review of literature
and research propositions”, paper presented at the British Academy of Management,
August, University of St Andrews.
Mellahi, K. and Wilkinson, A. (2010a), “A study of the association between level of slack reduction
following downsizing and innovation output”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47
No. 3, pp. 483-508.
Mellahi, K. and Wilkinson, A. (2010b), “Slash and burn or nip and tuck? Downsizing, innovation
and human resources”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21
No. 13, pp. 2291-2305.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.
Mishra, K. (1996), “Organizational responses to crises in trusting organizations”, in Kramer, R.
and Tyler, T. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage
Publications, New York, NY.
Morris, J., Cascio, W. and Young, C. (1999), “Downsizing after all these years: questions and
answers about who did it, how many did it and who benefited from it”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 78-87.
IJM Morrow, J. Jr, Johnson, R. and Busenitz, L. (2004), “The effects of cost and asset retrenchment
on firm performance: the overlooked role of a firm’s competitive environment”, Journal of
35,7 Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 189-208.
Nunnally, J. (1967), Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R. (1974), “Expectancy theory predictions of salesmen’s performance”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 11, August, pp. 243-253.
952 Paul, K. and Bracken, D. (1995), “Everything you always wanted to know about employee
surveys”, Training and Development, Vol. 49, January, pp. 45-49.
Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R. and Boulian, P. (1974), “Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians”. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 603-609.
Probst, T. (2003), “Development and validation of the job security index and the job security
satisfaction scale: a classical test theory and IRT approach”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 451-467.

Probst, T. and Brubaker, T. (2001), “The effects of job insecurity on employee safety outcomes:
cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 139-159.
Probst, T., Stewart, S., Gruys, M. and Tierney, B. (2007), “Productivity, counterproductivity
and creativity: the ups and downs of job insecurity”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 479-497.
Reisel, W. and Banai, M. (2002), “Job insecurity revisited: reformulating with affect”, Journal of
Behavioural and Applied Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 87-90.
Reynolds-Fisher, S. and White, M. (2000), “Downsizing in a learning organization: are there
hidden costs?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 244-251.
Richtnér, A. and Ahlström, P. (2006), “Organizational downsizing and innovation”, Working
Paper Series in Business Administration, No. 2006:1, SSE/EFI, Sweden.
Rindskopf, D. and Rose, T. (1988), “Some theory and applications of confirmatory second-order
factor analysis”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 23, pp. 51-67.
Sahdev, K. (2003), “Survivor’s reactions to downsizing: the importance of contextual factors”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 56-74.
Schmitt, A., Borzillo, S. and Probst, G. (2011), “Don’t let knowledge walk away: knowledge
retention during employee downsizing”, Management Learning, Vol. 43 No. 1,
pp. 53-74.
Scott, S. and Bruce, R. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behaviour: a path model of
individual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 580-607.
Shah, P. (2000), “Network destruction: the structural implications of downsizing”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 101-112.
Stevens, J. (1996), Applied Multivariate Statistics for Social Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum
Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.
Stolzenberg, R. (1989), “Job Quits in Empirical and Theoretical Perspective”, in Kalleberg, A. (Ed.)
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 99-130.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J. and Naswall, K. (2002), “No security: a review and meta-analysis of
job insecurity and its consequences”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 242-264.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2001), Managing Innovation, John Wiley and Sons Ltd,
Chichester.
Travaglione, A. and Cross, B. (2006), “Diminishing the social network in organizations: does there Surviving
need to be such a phenomenon as ‘survivor syndrome’ after downsizing?”, Strategic
Change, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-13. downsizing and
Ugboro, I. (2003), “Influence of managerial trust on survivors’ perceptions of job insecurity and innovative
organizational commitment in a post restructuring and downsizing environment”, The behaviors
Journal of Behavioural and Applied Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 230-253.
Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.W. (1973), Leadership and Decision Making, University of Pittsburgh 953
Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
Wagar, T. (1998), “Exploring the consequences of workforce reduction”, Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 300-309.
Walsh, J. and Ungson, G. (1991), “Organizational memory”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-91.
Wertheim, P. and Robinson, M. (2000), “The effect of a firm’s financial condition on the market
reaction to company layoffs”, The Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 63-72.
West, M. and Farr, J. (1989), “Innovation at work: psychological perspectives”, Social Behavior,
Vol. 4, pp. 15-30.
Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgaard, M. and Werner, J. (1998), “Managers as initiators of trust:
an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-530.
Worrel, D., Davidson, W. III and Sharma, V. (1991), “Layoff announcements and stockholder
wealth”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 662-678.
Yu, G. and Park, J. (2006), “The effect of downsizing on the financial performance and employee
productivity of Korean firms”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 230-250.
Further reading
Caballero, R. and Hammour, M. (1996), “On the timing and efficiency of creative destruction”,
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 111 No. 3, pp. 805-852.
Morrison, E. and Robinson S. (1997), “When employees feel betrayed: a model of how
psychological contract violation develops”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 226-257.
(The appendix follows overleaf.)
Corresponding author
Professor Tânia Marques can be contacted at: taniamarques@ipleiria.pt
IJM
35,7
954
Table AI.
Questionnaire items
Variable Items Scale
Perceived job insecurity

Appendix
V1.1 Do you have the possibility of moving ahead in your organization and remaining in your organization? 1-5
V1.2 Is it difficult to keep your current pay or to attain pay increases? 1-5
V1.3 Do you have current freedom to schedule your own work in a manner you see fit? 1-5
V1.4 Do you believe you can lose your job and be moved to a lower level within the organization? 1-5
V1.5 Do you think your future in this organization is uncertain? 1-5
V1.6 Do you believe you can lose your job and be fired? 1-5
V1.7 Do you think it is probable that you will remain in your organization 3 months from now? 1-5
V1.8 Will you lose your job by being pressured to accept an early retirement? 1-5
V1.9 Do you have enough power in this organization to control events that affect your job? 1-5
V1.10 In this organization, can you prevent negative things from affecting your work situation? 1-5
Organizational commitment
V2.1 Would you be very happy to spend the rest of your career with this organization? 1-5
V2.2 Do you really feel as if this organization’s problems are yours? 1-5
V2.3 Do you feel a sense of belonging to this organization? 1-5
V2.4 Do you feel emotionally attached to this organization? 1-5
V2.5 Right now, is staying in this organization a matter of necessity? 1-5
V2.6 Would too much of your life be disrupted if you decided that you wanted to leave your organization at 1-5
this time?
V2.7 Do you feel that you have too few options to consider leaving your organization? 1-5
V2.8 Do you feel an obligation to remain with your current employer? 1-5
V2.9 Even if it were to your advantage, do you feel it would not be right to leave your organization now? 1-5
V2.10 Would you not leave your organization right now because you have a sense of obligation to the 1-5
people in it?
Innovative behavior
V3.1 Do you search out new technologies, processes, techniques and/or product ideas? 1-5
V3.2 Do you generate creative ideas? 1-5
V3.3 Do you read magazines, journals, attend courses or conferences to learn of new ideas or solutions? 1-5
V3.4 Do you generate ideas or solutions to solve problems or difficult situations? 1-5
V3.5 Do you present new ideas and solutions? 1-5
V3.6 Do you present improvement initiatives? 1-5
(continued)
Variable Items Scale

V3.7 Do you try to persuade the others of the importance of a new idea or solution? 1-5
V3.8 Do you promote the ideas and solutions so they have a greater possibility of being implemented? 1-5
V3.9 Do you experiment with the new ideas or solutions? 1-5
V3.10 Are you conscientious of the bugs of new solutions 1-5
before they are applied to new products, processes, technologies or markets?
V3.11 Do you help your colleagues in their new ideas and 1-5
solutions?
V3.12 Do you like to do things in a new way? 1-5
V3.13 Do you test the new ideas or solutions? 1-5
behaviors
innovative
Surviving
955
downsizing and
Table AI.

Marues Research

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Marues Research

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International Journal of Manpower

Surviving downsizing and innovative behaviors: a matter of organizational commitment

References: this document contains references to 97 other documents.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Department of Administration and Business Economics,

Analyzing some downsizing effects

unanticipated (McKinley and Sherer, 2000) long-term costs of downsizing emerging

Job insecurity and organizational commitment

H1. The employees’ perceived job insecurity following downsizing is negatively

H2. The employees’ perceived job insecurity following downsizing is negatively

favorable atmosphere of innovation. Thus, downsizing may be counterproductive as it

H3. The lower employees’ organizational commitment following downsizing is

Items Mean Scale

Gender 1.53 1. Male, 2. Female

each second level construct separately, according to structural equations modeling,

Constructs (2nd order) Constructs (1st order) CFI GFI χ2(p)

H1 (–) Organizational H3 (+)

Discussion and concluding remarks

Estimation 1,000 samples

200 samples 500 samples

check with bootstrap

linking perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment and innovative behavior in a

Limitations and future avenues of research

based firms present opportunities for the participation of workers, namely, on

Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 78-117.

No. 1, pp. 51-59.

Kleysen, R. and Street, C. (2001), “Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative

Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 451-467.

(The appendix follows overleaf.)

Perceived job insecurity

Variable Items Scale

Вам также может понравиться