Search results

Using data from a retail chain of 193 bakery shops that underwent downsizing, we study the effects of two types of downsizing announcements – closure or sale to another operator – on sales in the affected shops, and how these effects are moderated by job security perceptions. On average, sales in the affected shops go down by 26% after a closure announcement and by 7% after a sale announcement. Sales decline more sharply in shops where employees had higher job security perceptions before the announcement. Our findings are consistent with psychological contract theory: a breach of an implicit contract promising job security in exchange for work effort results in a reciprocal effort withdrawal. We rule out several alternative explanations to our findings.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the type of explanation (excuses, justifications, apologies and denials) provided for downsizing and the source of the announcement (CEO vs other organizational members) influences shareholders’ market reactions to downsizing announcements.

In total, 388 media-based downsizing announcements from 2006–2015 were coded for explanation type and source of message. Cumulative average return was used to assess the impact of downsizing on market reactions the day after the announcement.

As predicted, and consistent with predictions drawn from fairness theory, excuses triggered positive market reactions, whereas justifications, apologies and denials triggered negative reactions. Additionally, shareholders reacted more negatively to excuses and apologies when the announcement came from CEOs vs other organizational members.

The current research bridges the literature on market reactions to downsizing with the organizational psychology literature to advance a novel theoretical framework for predicting shareholders’ reactions to downsizing announcements. In doing so, the authors provide a more refined understanding of why different types of explanations may differentially influence shareholders’ reactions. The current research also sheds light on when the presence of the CEO in downsizing announcements may have potentially negative consequences for organizations.

The findings contribute to the sparse literature examining variations in the content of downsizing announcements on shareholders’ reactions. The present research is also the first to examine whether shareholders would react less negatively if downsizing explanations came from top organizational leaders (e.g. CEOs).

Our study examines CEO compensation for firms that announce layoffs during the 1993–2001 period. We find that overall there is a large increase in CEO equity-based compensation in the year prior to and the year of the downsizing. Our sample of downsizing firms has small improvements in operating performance following the announcement. However, these performance improvements manifest themselves in the low but not the high equity-based compensation firms. We find that the announcement period returns are higher for downsizing firms that are larger, hire a new CEO in the year prior to the downsizing, have higher leverage, and better operating performance.

In this study, I explore the link between workforce downsizing and the predominance of a corporate governance model that espouses a shareholder value maximization principle. Specifically, I examine how top managers’ shareholder value orientation affects the adoption of a downsizing strategy among large, publicly traded corporations in the United States. An analysis of CEOs’ letters to shareholders indicates that firms with CEOs who use language that espouses the shareholder value principle tend to have a higher rate of layoffs, after controlling for various indicators of the firm’s adherence to the shareholder value principle. The finding suggests that corporate governance models, particularly those advocated by powerful organizational elites, have a significant impact on workers by shaping corporate strategies toward the workforce. The key actors in this process were top managers who embraced the new management ideology and implemented corporate strategy to pursue shareholder value maximization.

The objective of this paper is to analyze whether the way that downsizing is implemented has any impact on the firm's performance.

The sample under investigation consists of a set of Spanish companies, which downsized between 1995 and 2001. The paper includes downsizing announcements and combines information from two different datasets (BARATZ and SABI). The focus is placed on the size of downsizing and the use of disengagement incentives.

A negative relationship between the size of downsizing and post‐downsizing corporate performance is found. In particular, firms which announced severe downsizing experience relatively lower performance in the year following the announcement.

The analysis advances organizational research by reinforcing the concept that firm performance is not only contingent on strategies, but also influenced by the means through which these strategies are implemented.

Much has been written in both the management and finance literatures about the impact of downsizing on the financial health and market valuation of companies. However, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the frequency of downsizing and the impact of frequent downsizings. The purpose of this paper is to look at trends in downsizing, asking the question are companies that downsize once more likely to downsize again. The paper also looks at the impact of frequent downsizing, asking the question are frequent downsizers differentially impacted compared to less frequent downsizers.

Companies that appeared on the Fortune 500 in 2014 and were also on the list in 2008 were assessed for the impact of repeat downsizings on financial measures (profitability, efficiency, debt, and revenue) and market valuation. A trend analysis was conducted to assess the trend in downsizing and repeated downsizing from 2008 through 2014. A series of univariate analysis of variances were conducted to assess the impact of repeated downsizings on the financial and market valuation indicators.

Findings indicate that companies that downsize between 2008 and 2009 were more likely to downsize again in future years. And this repeat downsizing happened at a higher rate than would be expected by the percentage of companies that initially downsized. Findings also indicate that multiple downsizings had a significantly negative impact on the company’s financial performance as measured by two profitability ratios (return on assets and return on investment) and a borderline significant negative impact on the company’s market valuation as measured by stock equity, regardless of industry or initial financial health of the company.

Two competing theories were considered and the evidence found here support both. However, the “band-aid solution” theory, that downsizing may function as a band-aid addressing the symptoms that lead to the downsizing but not the underlying disorder or cause may be a more parsimonious explanation for the results here. It is hoped that these findings will inform both scholars and practitioners, giving both a clearer picture of the impact of multiple downsizings on corporate performance.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the link between downsizing cues and market performance prior to and after a major crisis. We use a recent exogenous shock – the COVID-19 pandemic – to test hypotheses on the nature of the relationship between downsizing cues and market performance within two distinct groups: pre and post-crisis. We purport that the sudden increase in uncertainty brought about by a major crisis widens information asymmetry between firms and their shareholders, and that top managers sending downsizing cues to the market with high levels of authenticity may be more likely to trigger positive market reactions.

The authors rely on computer-assisted text analysis (CATA) methodology, event-study methodology and a data set of 952 pre- and post-crisis earnings conference calls held by 476 S&P 500 firms to test the hypotheses in this study.

The authors find that downsizing cues have no effect on market performance in the pre-crisis group, but are negatively related to market performance in the post-crisis group. The authors also find that authenticity cues positively mitigate the relationship between downsizing cues and market performance relationship in the post-crisis group.

This empirical study extends our knowledge of the influence of a major crisis on the relationship between downsizing and market performance by leveraging the revelatory power of an exogenous environmental shock. The authors also explore the role played by managerial authenticity and find that the market is more inclined to accept post-crisis downsizing efforts when top managers are perceived as authentic.

Based on the theory of basic human values, this study aims to examine the impact of CEO conservation (i.e. security, conformity and tradition) and openness to change (i.e. self-direction, stimulation and hedonism) values on one of the most conflictual decisions inside a firm: workforce downsizing.

The hypothesis testing was done in the context of all workforce downsizing decisions made by German companies (and their CEOs) listed on the German Prime-Index between 2005 and 2019. A software-based psycholinguistic assessment of various sources of CEO communications was conducted to tap into their underlying values.

Tobit regression analysis confirms that CEO conservation and openness-to-change values impact the severity of workforce downsizing. Namely, the higher the CEO conservation values, the lower the downsizing severity (i.e. employees dismissed in relation to overall workforce). In contrast, the higher the CEO openness to change values, the higher the downsizing severity.

Against prior research that has centered around political ideology as a proxy to understand the mechanisms through which values impact strategic decisions, the present study employs advanced measurement approaches to assess the general impact of CEO values on critical firm decisions. As such, the study contributes to upper echelons research by offering a new perspective on how CEO values impact critical firms' decisions.

This research empirically tests the rationale of corporate downsizing of employees as a cost reduction strategy on the long‐run profitability of a corporation. The sample for this study consisted of 185 large publicly‐held US‐based corporations which announced their intentions to downsize during the period 1990‐1992. Over the subsequent ten‐year period (1992‐2001) their returns on investment were obtained and the empirical relationship between downsizing and long‐run profitability was determined. Whether organizations that undergo this type of change appear to be better off than they were before they implemented the process was the focus of this study. The study ascertained that downsizing does not appear to be in the best long‐term interest of the corporation, its employees, or its shareholders, and that the massive job cuts did not lead to strong sustained gains in the price of the stock. Many organizational benefits fail to develop as expected and the benefits are elusive. The findings of this study suggest downsizing does not engender a long‐run productivity gain and it fails as a method to boost shareholder value.

How does downsizing affect long‐ and short‐term organizational performance? The present study aims to address this important question and attempts to extend previous research by examining the effect of both personnel and assets reduction on long‐ and short‐term firm performance.

The paper uses data collected through secondary sources on 196 firms traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) between 1992 and 2001.

Econometric analyses indicate the positive impact of a combination of downsizing strategies on short‐term performance, and the negative effect of this combination on long‐term performance and high‐tech industry performance is negatively related to assets and personnel cutbacks. Whereas downsizing affects the short‐term performance of larger and established companies positively, it generally affects long‐term performance inversely.

This study offers a first examination of the effects of simultaneous cutbacks in personnel and assets. This combined strategy goes further than dismissing employees, since layoffs are linked to the sale of such tangible assets as product lines or manufacturing facilities. By so doing, firms downscale their activities commensurate with the reduction in workforce and are less likely to generate excess workload on the remaining employees.