Worker Layoff Event
A Worker Layoff Event is a termination of employment event (of worker jobs) that is large scale.
- AKA: RiF.
- Context:
- It can be addressed by Labor Law.
- It can (typically) involve Layoff Communication,
- ...
- Example(s):
- IBM's ~1993 layoffs ~60,000.
- Citigroup's ~2008, ~50,000.
- Microsoft's ~2014, ~18,000.
- Netflix's ~2022-1H, ~450 employees (~4.5%).
- ...
- …
- Counter-Example(s):
- See: Termination of Employment, Employee, Shift Work.
References
2022
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIF#Other_uses
- Reduction in Force, a large-scale ending of employment
2022
- (Wikipedia, 2022) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layoff Retrieved:2022-6-29.
- A layoff or downsizing is the temporary suspension or permanent termination of employment of an employee or, more commonly, a group of employees (collective layoff) for business reasons, such as personnel management or downsizing (reducing the size of) an organization. Originally, layoff referred exclusively to a temporary interruption in work, or employment but this has evolved to a permanent elimination of a position in both British and US English, requiring the addition of "temporary" to specify the original meaning of the word. A layoff is not to be confused with wrongful termination. Laid off workers or displaced workers are workers who have lost or left their jobs because their employer has closed or moved, there was insufficient work for them to do, or their position or shift was abolished (Borbely, 2011). Downsizing in a company is defined to involve the reduction of employees in a workforce. Downsizing in companies became a popular practice in the 1980s and early 1990s as it was seen as a way to deliver better shareholder value as it helps to reduce the costs of employers (downsizing, 2015). Research on downsizing in the US, [1] UK, [2] and Japan [3] [4] suggests that downsizing is being regarded by management as one of the preferred routes to help declining organizations, cutting unnecessary costs, and improve organizational performance. [5] Usually a layoff occurs as a cost-cutting measure.
- ↑ Baumol, W. J., Blinder, A. S. & Wolff, E. N. (2003). Downsizing in America: Reality, Causes and Consequences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. See also the American Management Association annual surveys since 1990.
- ↑ Mason 2002; Rogers 2002
- ↑ Mroczkowski, T. and Hanaoka, M. (1997), 'Effective downsizing strategies in Japan and America: is there a convergence of employment practices?', Academy of Management Review, Vol.22, No.1, pp. 226–56.
- ↑ Ahmakjian and Robinson 2001
- ↑ Mellahi, K. and Wilkinson, A. (2004) Downsizing and Innovation Output: A Review of Literature and Research Propositions, BAM Paper 2004, British Academy of Management.
2015
- (Brockner & Greenberg, 2015) ⇒ Joel Brockner, and Jerald Greenberg. (2015). “The Impact of Layoffs on Survivors: An Organizational Justice Perspective.” In: Applied social psychology and organizational settings. Psychology Press.
- QUOTE: Job layoffs have long been a matter of great concern to organizational scholars and practitioners. Most of the theoretical, empirical, and applied work on layoffs has focused on the antecedents of layoffs (i.e., factors that make certain industries, organizations within industries, and jobs within organizations likely to be associated with layoffs, see, for example, Cornfield, 1983) or the consequences of layoffs for those people who have been laid off (e.g., Eisenberg & Lazarsfeld, 1938; Jahoda, 1982). Until recently, however, there has been relatively little exploration of an aspect of work layoffs of considerable practical and theoretical significance: their impact on the job behaviors and attitudes of the individuals who are not laid off (the "survivors"). This chapter describes some of the authors' theory and research on the effects of layoffs on those who remain.
The Importance of Layoffs
Several trends in corporate America since the 1970s have made layoffs a belt-tightening procedure to which organizations frequently resort. Increased competition from abroad, mergers, and acquisitions are merely some of the stimuli for management to attempt to "do more with less," be "mean and lean," and so on. The somewhat simple-minded rationale underlying management's reliance on layoffs is that the organization will be able to reduce its labor costs, without a proportional drop in the job-relevant behaviors (e.g., performance, turnover) of the surviving workforce; as a consequence, the overall productivity of the organization should improve.
Anecdotal evidence-reported regularly in the popular press-suggests that layoffs often have a dramatic effect on survivors' work behaviors. Interestingly enough, however, the anecdotal evidence offers apparently conflicting reports about how survivors may be affected. For example, in certain instances survivors may work harder following a layoff at other times they may become demotivated ...
- QUOTE: Job layoffs have long been a matter of great concern to organizational scholars and practitioners. Most of the theoretical, empirical, and applied work on layoffs has focused on the antecedents of layoffs (i.e., factors that make certain industries, organizations within industries, and jobs within organizations likely to be associated with layoffs, see, for example, Cornfield, 1983) or the consequences of layoffs for those people who have been laid off (e.g., Eisenberg & Lazarsfeld, 1938; Jahoda, 1982). Until recently, however, there has been relatively little exploration of an aspect of work layoffs of considerable practical and theoretical significance: their impact on the job behaviors and attitudes of the individuals who are not laid off (the "survivors"). This chapter describes some of the authors' theory and research on the effects of layoffs on those who remain.