Designated redundant but escaping lay‐off: A special group of lay‐off survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 3‐year longitudinal panel study compared employees who had been declared redundant ( N =49) in the initial downsizing stage, but who remained in the organization, and employees who had not been designated redundant ( N =118). During the downsizing period, those who were declared redundant reported a significant decline in organizational trust and commitment compared with those who were not designated redundant. However, in the post‐downsizing period those who had been designated redundant reported a significant increase in their job satisfaction, trust in the organization and organizational commitment, reporting higher levels on these factors than survivors who had not been designated redundant. There were no significant differences between the two groups for self‐reported job performance, perceived job security and perceived organizational morale but there were significant time effects. Perceived job security showed a dramatic increase at Time 3 following the involuntary departure phase of the downsizing and continued to increase significantly, so that perceived job security in the post‐downsizing period was significantly higher than during any of the three downsizing phases. Survivors reported a significant decline in job performance in the early phases of the downsizing and in the post‐downsizing period 3 years later job performance remained slightly below the initial level. Although there was a significant increase in perceived organizational morale in the post‐downsizing period, the level of perceived morale continued to be below the mid‐point of the scale. The level of organizational trust showed a similar trend indicating that downsizing has a long‐term negative effect on these two variables.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".