This paper investigates the impact of redundancy-based organizational downsizing on the employees who remain after workforce reductions — referred to as "survivors." Drawing on scholarly literature, the paper challenges the assumption that eliminating organizational redundancy improves efficiency, arguing instead that downsizing can damage morale, increase workloads, erode organizational commitment, and produce Survivor Syndrome. The paper then outlines a proposed research methodology, including a survey instrument to be distributed via SurveyMonkey to employees of organizations that have undergone redundancy-driven downsizing within the past six months to two years. Findings are intended to inform best-practice recommendations for identifying and managing redundancies in ways that protect both organizational capacity and employee well-being.
The paper demonstrates the technique of hypothesis-driven methodology design: each survey topic area is framed as an individual sub-hypothesis that feeds into an overarching thesis. This approach shows how a research instrument can be structured to test multiple related claims simultaneously, making it a useful model for students designing survey-based studies in organizational behavior or human resource management.
The paper opens with a conceptual introduction that defines the problem and identifies key constructs (Survivor Syndrome, morale, organizational commitment). A discussion section reviews and critiques existing literature on redundancy elimination. The methodology section then states the research question, lists specific objectives, describes the survey instrument and its topic areas, and outlines the data collection and analysis procedure. The paper closes by pointing toward practical recommendations for organizations managing redundancy-based downsizing.
The broad subject of this research is organizational redundancy, with a specific focus on employee morale and the experience of personnel during redundancy-driven change. Quite often, change brings with it uncertainty. It is not uncommon for change to be accompanied by downsizing, shifts in personnel, or — particularly in periods of recession — the redistribution of available funds. These conditions represent a threat to the stability of the employee experience. Even where job security is not directly at risk, the presumption or fear that it is may promote lowered morale, reduced dedication, and an overall lag in performance at precisely the time when energy and commitment are most needed.
This subtopic of employee motivation and morale centers on a number of issues, including damaged organizational commitment, Survivor Syndrome, and the imposition of undue stress. Following a brief discussion of these redundancy- and downsizing-related byproducts, this paper outlines the methodology intended to examine the issue more fully.
Addressing organizational redundancy is inherently associated with the tasks of downsizing, shifting responsibilities, and selecting which employees should be retained. These employees are referred to in this research as survivors, and it is their shared experience that attracts the attention of the proposed methodology. What follows is a brief discussion of the disconnect between arguments in favor of redundancy-based downsizing and the realities faced by those who remain.
The notion of redundancy is largely predicated on the view that greater efficiency with respect to personnel is synonymous with a smaller staff performing more functions. Therefore, the impetus to eliminate organizational redundancy carries aggressive downsizing implications. As noted in research by Streeter (1992), "the fiscal constraints and scarce resources that dominated funding of public and private social services throughout most of the 1980s further promoted the notion of eliminating redundancy as the primary means of achieving optimal efficiency" (p. 97).
However, the approach taken by many firms toward eliminating redundancy does not necessarily imply an improvement in organizational efficiency. To the contrary, the elimination of personnel may carry a number of consequences for the culture, delegation, and morale experienced by those who remain. Streeter makes this case, indicating that many organizational theorists are reconsidering the implications of redundancy-based downsizing. Accordingly, Streeter notes that many analysts are now "arguing that the great concern for eliminating duplication and overlap within and between organizations has led to disregard for the benefits that accompany redundancy. For example, W. Richard Scott notes that duplication serves as 'a repository of needed variety and heightened responsiveness, and provides an important safeguard against system component failures'" (p. 97).
What is often labeled "redundancy" during the process of justifying and executing downsizing efforts may instead be understood as a multi-layered strategy for ensuring that tasks are accomplished, timelines are met, and benchmarks are achieved. Eliminating these layers can increase the strain felt by those who remain and simultaneously produce a sense of insecurity among employees who now struggle to complete their responsibilities or fulfill expanded roles. Often, the elimination of redundancy imposes greater pressures and higher job expectations on individual employees — at the expense of both performance quality and individual confidence. By assigning fewer individuals, agencies, or task agendas to a single organizational problem, organizations frequently place greater strain on those left behind as they attempt to maintain the same standards of quality and proficiency that existed before the downsizing.
The article by Miranda and Lerner (1995) posits that the elimination of "redundancy" can sometimes produce the opposite of its intended effect. They argue that "there are good grounds for suggesting that efforts to improve public administration by eliminating duplication and overlap would, if successful, produce just the opposite effect. That so many attempts have failed should perhaps alert us to what sociologists would call the 'latent function' of this type of redundancy. This possibility alone is sufficient warrant for transforming a precept into a problem" (p. 1).
This argument contributes to the basic imperative of this research: to measure the degree to which redundancy-driven downsizing impacts organizational survivors. The research available on this subject underscores the guiding hypothesis — that redundancy-based downsizing has a negative impact on organizational efficiency even as it proposes to improve it. This reflects a conflation of efficiency with the cost of operation. The methodology outlined here is intended to illustrate that the impact of redundancy-based downsizing on survivors, and on the operational capacity of the organization as a whole, will be negative and likely to impede efficiency.
These subjects represent individual hypotheses relating to the expected impact on personnel of redundancy-based downsizing. Responses would be used to measure the degree to which each of these individual hypotheses contributes to the overarching assumption that redundancy-based downsizing surrenders certain Human Resource imperatives in favor of purely financial efficiency. The findings are ultimately intended to inform practical recommendations that help organizations balance operational needs with the well-being and commitment of the employees who remain.
Miranda, R., & Lerner, A. (1995). Bureaucracy, organizational redundancy and the privatization of public services. Public Administration Review, 55.
Streeter, C. L. (1992). Redundancy in organizational systems. Social Service Review, 66(1), 97–111.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.