What these authors are essentially saying is that if a pre-determined set of ethical rules or practices is used to make downsizing decisions within organizations, and/or if projected (and necessarily uncertain) information about outcomes was used to inform and help make these decisions, the organization would easily if not automatically absolve itself of true moral responsibility (Clegg et al., 2007). This is because there would be an external system truly "making the decision," rather than the organization itself (or rather, the powers-that-be within the organization) engaging in critical examination of the specific scenario and options at hand, much like the "marionette" manager tries to remove any sense of ethical duty on his part by insisting that he or she is only acting as required by his or her bosses (Clegg et al., 2007; Lamsa & Tokala, 2000). Seen in this light, empathy in the decision making process could be considered a necessary quality of ethicality, as suggested in some empirical research (Lamsa & Tokala, 2000). If it is really on the specific and un-generalizable details of the singular scenario and set of heterogeneous options that a company finds itself faced with that a decision regarding downsizing must be made, than a consideration of the human elements -- of the psychological, social, and economic costs to individuals within the organization -- must also be included (Clegg et al., 2007; Applebaum & Labib, 1993). This is the only way to approach a comprehensive assessment of the situation.

It is also important in making a downsizing decision, however, to examine the effects of not downsizing on both the organization and the individuals within it. Though this issue is not explicitly addressed by any of the researchers cited, it is...

(2007). If the psychological, social, and economic implications and effects on individuals of the decision to downsize matter, and if the specific circumstances of an isolated decision scenario must be the basis for the making of that decision, then the psychological, social, and economic effects of a specific decision to retain a full workforce must also be included in the consideration. Companies do not downsize maliciously, but because there is a perceived need to reduce costs and/or increase efficiency. Whether or not these perceptions are rooted in empirical truth or are arrived out from a larger desire to achieve what is best for the organization and the individuals involved is precisely the issue when examining the ethics of making such a decision, but if such a need is rightfully perceived then there will be clear disadvantages in these areas if the decision to downsize is not made.
Conclusion

Ultimately, Clegg et al. (2007) provide the most certain and the most general assessment of ethicality in the downsizing decision-making process. No rules or formulations can be considered permanent or generalizable, as this negates true moral responsibility. Making specific decisions and carrying them out well is ethical, period.