To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 11.1.0 or greater is installed.

to rethink their product line in an effort to reduce expenses for not only themselves but also for the consumer (Budros, 1999). This was most prevalent in the automotive industry where the coining of the term downsizing expressed the need to reduce the size of the automobile in response to the 1973 oil shortage. The American automotive industry began to reexamine its line of vehicles. The American vehicles of the time were made of steel and averaged over 17 feet long with a V8 engine powering the full load (Gandolfi, 2009). The desire was to be able to create smaller, family-oriented vehicles that could consume less gas, operating gas efficiently. However, as the business world continued to evolve, so did the usage of the term “downsizing.” When business continued into the 1980s, the term downsizing became synonymous with workforce reduction instead of production lines (Littler & Gandolfi, 2008). The specific nature of downsiz- ing assisted in the gradual transition from meaning rooted in the use of product to that of personnel due to the individuals seemingly affected during this time. In the 1980s, companies developed the neces- sity to implement downsizing as a direct result of a decrease in demand of products and/or services (Cameron, 1994). The practice ultimately resulted in the need to reduce job functions and thereby employees in an effort to keep the business viable. The use of the term downsizing related strictly to the cyclical nature of the business world that the company operated. This meant that employees’ rehiring would occur at the upside of the cycle (increase) of business (Cameron, 1994). In short, downsizing referenced a temporary unemploy- ment status that corresponded with a lull in sales. Although the transition of the term had taken a drastic turn from inanimate object to person, the action steps linked to the term were not seemingly avoidable and therefore did not draw a negative con- notation or cause a negative corporate reputation (Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1997). Additionally, the recessionary period that began in the 1970s assisted in this acceptance of the inevitability of downsiz- ing. At this time, downsizing was not a tool in which the organization grew but rather a self-preservation process in order to maintain its competitive nature and viability within their market (Capelli, 2000). The change in usage of the term and its finality is a direct result of change in the conducting of business and the managing of companies within the business world. The usage and defining measure of downsizing con- tinues to mirror that which began in the 1990s. The term downsizing has transformed from a temporary action meant to offset losses during a downward cycle of business to one where it is used as a per- manent solution in order to rectify a restructuring or loss of business need (Capelli, 2000). Kim (2009) suggests that downsizing has a negative impact due to the association with the permanent removal of personnel from the workplace. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM For the purpose of this research, the definition of downsizing will be “a set of activities, undertaken on the part of the management of an organization and designed to improve organizational efficiency, pro- ductivity, and/or competitiveness” (Cameron, 1994, p. 192). The dynamics of downsizing is overwhelm- ing worldwide, as no industry has escaped having to downsize employees (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). With respect to downsizing, although a leader has good intentions to downsize, the aftereffects are not always as understood. One repercussion that can result is the influence on an individual’s ability to trust and be loyal to their next employer after being downsized. This may hinge on the perceived reasons that were instrumental in their previous employer’s decision to downsize (Andreoli & Lefkowitz, 2009; Carmeli & Sheaffer, 2009; Toor & Ofori, 2009). This situation would certainly provide new dynamics within the workplace as employees who were loyal to their previous employer are perhaps hesitant to offer such unconditional loyalty again (Pink, 2001). If this is the case, the actions of these individuals will provide new challenges to management and leadership. This does not mean these individuals will intentionally create a negative environment, but it would be to the organization’s advantage to understand the dynamics and behaviors of these individuals if they do have trust or loyalty issues. Downsizing: Understanding Its Lasting Effect on the Downsized   52 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY  |  VOLUME 1, NO. 1