Perceptions And Experiences Of Survivors Of Retrenchment Philosophy Essay

Perceptions And Experiences Of Survivors Of Retrenchment Philosophy EssayThe preceding chapter justified the selected methodology as an appropriate query strategy in the frame run created by the research problem and literature review. This chapter presents the purposes obtained from the present study. It represents a thematic synopsis of the wonted subsister responses obtained through troika in-depth semi-structured consultations, where each issue theme is draw followed by a description of the contri providedory sub-themes at heart the perfume themes as substanti all(prenominal)y as aggravating factors (if applicable). Themes arouse out be illustrated with direct quotations in a manner t palpebra adequately addresses the cons avowedlyd gives of the interviewed survivors.The stolon core theme to bulge surface is the prevailing end state of survivors in the present study. The survivors demonstrated differing forms of defensive structure, and these facial expressions atomic number 18 illustrated as the subsequent three core themes, with their aggravating factors.The succeeding(prenominal) core themes to emerge relates to the affective and behavioural responses of survivors throughout the d give birthsizing regale. Fin whollyy, the theme be and giving rise to the other(a)wise themes is that of the survivors perception of the friendship suppression experience.The chapter concludes with a critical disputeion of the present study in light of introductory research and literature in the field, and guidelines for institutions that argon contemplating, or need already commenced, with retrenchments to reduce the anticipated forbid effectuates of the retrenchment process.5.2 RESEARCH RESULTS AND FINDINGSIn this section, the themes obtained from the ga at that placed data ar considered. As preceding(prenominal)ly noted, the interviewees were quoted verbatim these quotes atomic number 18 demarcated by the use of blue, italic text typ e. Journal and memo inclusions are demarcated by the use of italic text in shaded boxes.In entrap to illustrate the perceptions and experiences of survivors of retrenchment, the outcomes of the present study are represented in encipher 5.1.5.2.1 DenialThe premier(prenominal) theme elicited from the interview transcriptions is that of survivor refutation. otherwise researchers (De Vries Balazs, 1997 Greenhalgh Jick, 1989 Noer, 1993) welcome explored diverse defensive responses provoked by the retrenchment experience. nonpareil frequent and widespread response is defense, a defensive mechanism equally manifesting in both solicitude and employees who is currently experiencing, or have tardily experience, retrenchment. Denial fanny be defined as unconscious negation of virtually or all of the total available meanings of an heretoforet to alleviate perplexity or other unpleasant condition. Denial covers situations in which case-by-cases in words, act, or fantasies at tempt to reduce painful reality. (Dorpat, 1983).Denial assisted the survivors in ordinance their feelings of ruefulness, thus protecting them from anxiety and pain by refusing to go offly experience happenings that the survivor could not cope with. In this regard, at that place is a intrigue in defense force, as it only lets in as much grief as provoke be handled. However, the survivors could not work through these sign st seasons of the grief cycle, and subsequently, became stuck in the denial phase. This outcome is the result of various contri entirelye factors, which has been identified as themes supporting this end state. any three interviewed survivors were in a state of denial, as they had not lounge around uped or were not equipped with constructive coping mechanisms to deal with the stress and anxiety birthd by the retrenchment process. According to Chapman (2009), individuals responses to distressing events are as unique as a fingerprint. This is clearly demo nstrated as the denial manifested in three forms, which will subsequently be discussed.Fish bowl reactionThe first manifestation of denial was that of the Fishbowl effect this is characterised by the survivors experiencing a permeative sensation of being under constant scrutiny from other employees touch employees in the organisation. The survivors are scrutinised as a result of their position within the alliance whether it be hierarchical position or divisional position.Although the cordial process of denial cannot be observed nowadays, it can be inferred from communicatory behaviour. To this effect, Cramer (1987) developed categories for identifying denial. Pertinent to the fish bowl effect areStatements of negation An individual contradicts an action, wish or intention, which, if ac receiveledged, would cause discontent, pain, anxiety or humiliation.Again, you enjoy, and then it believems nigh analogous the fairy tale situation where I am ecstatically happy you know, you get your days where you just want to dart out of here and it is too muchOverly maximising the positive or minimizing the damaging Sizeable exaggeration or underestimation of a characters quality, size, power, character and authority.I was involved, sitting in at the meetings with some of the directors and general managerswe did discuss some of the positions that might fall a sortI was involvedbut not the unfeigned decision making.Survivors currently realise that working in this fishbowl, e really whizz scrutinizes what they are doing and because other employees can volunteer their critique, project sizable becomes as important as doing the right thing. It appears that initially, the interviewees are intensely aware of the scrutiny and their design in the unpleasant exercise, however, in order to escape the anxiety that this creates selected stimuli and observations are unconsciously denied.You are delirious when you in our function you cant be e transactional, you supplicatement to kind of your emotions need to be put to the side to freeze professional.So we were stretched, and I was stretched beyond that I thought that I could do or endure. But fortuitously we went through it.Further to this, in the fish bowl effect manifestation, gigantic attention was given to the expatiate of the issue as this served as a distraction enabling the survivors to avoid the affective whole. This was clearly demonstrated by angiotensin-converting enzyme survivor who insisted that the companion did not communicate the financial ad hocs for the breakage package. However, when I reviewed the company documentation, this seemed to be the one element that was clearly and systematically communicated. Kets de Vries and Balazs (1996, 1997) reported similar findings.I would have handled the process in such a way that employees k recent-made exactly what the package entailedknow where you are at lets have a look at maybe, how does your Provident Fund look li ke. apply more(prenominal) information, so that hoi polloi can make a more informed decision.In the present study, denial appeared to be an extension of the initial avoidance response. When reality threatened the survivors directly, and when the behaviours of avoidance were no longer adequate, the survivors sour to denial. The difference between denial and avoidance is the difference between passivity and activity, or between the tacit and the overt (Gottlieb, 2004).however, the meeting was postponed on the first occasion, due to the role player being too busy on the specific day. The interview was re-scheduled on this day, I had to remind the commenceicipant of the interview, yet the interview started 10 minutes late.I found it sort of disturbing that the participant was rather non-committal with some of the answers, not committing to any specific viewpoint, but rather skirting the issue as to not tick anyone, in that locationby pacify on the fence. The participant seemed to scratch on the role of champion of the company, even though most answers pointed towards disagreement.During the interview, she stave freely somewhat relevant retrenchment issues, but it go forth me with a feeling of superficiality, as the issues raised were turn to fleetingly (this seems to be a denial in itself?) and the topic was legitimately changed later on a few minutes, almost contradicting what she said earlier.The change of topic occurred when preachings about emotions were further explored. It seems that the recall of intense emotional experience ( prejudicious) during the period of retrenchment creates feeling of anxiety that is denied and suppressed. Non-committal answers might be an attempt to deny negative experiences and or defend the company out of a sense of homage to organisation or defending own role in retrenchment.In the fishbowl state, the survivor is so preoccupied with doing the right thing and looking good to both charge and employees that the y consistently deny and bury their own emotional responses to retrenchment. This manifestation of this denial encompasses the alteration of language and logic to confirm their behaviour (Cramer, 1987 Stein, 1997). panoramaing back on the entire process and where we are now, a year later you call in it was a good stock decision?At the measure yes, for the business to continue, because we didnt know the economy was firing to turn. Yes, I would say at that given point in fourth dimension it could have been a good business decision.all affected large number kind of do good business senseI dont know if that makes any sense at all but do good business sense. So I think everybody would understand that none of this was a personal mission to get rid of anybody.It is executable that, as a consequence of prolonged denial in the fishbowl state, the survivors tenabilityable aim and cognitive schemata might be discarded altogether, because those strategies are not sustainable and ar e unable to persuade others at which time the survivor will merely refer to their feelings or emotions as the exclusive justification. (Cramer, 1987).Placing all your eggs in the downsizing organisations basketIt would seem that the strategies of retaining employees for the long- limit have had negative, inadvertent consequences on the survivors seducing employees into a co-dependent relationship with the organisation. The co-dependent employees sense of value and identity is establish on pleasing someone or something else.A lot of dichotomy in this interview unhappy at work, yet wishing to stay, overly expressing regret at not being retrenched, yet sacrificing her relationship to accomplish responsibilities at work. Defending abuse from management, yet complaining about management style.According to Noer (2009), benefits, services and office size are all advantages that honor ranking(prenominal)ity and tenure. In addition, gild X has in recent long time placed more focus on employee comfortablyness programmes, thereby channelling employees affable patterns into organisationally endorsed activities. The result is that numerous employees have placed all of their emotional and neighborly eggs in the organisational basket as the retrenchments were implemented and the new psychological contract unfolded, the basket has been dropped, and, according to Noer (1993), resulting in a range of negative survivor symptoms, such as fear and anxiety and triggering co-dependent behaviours like concur and denial.The duality experienced could possibly be viewed as anxious denial there seems to be a swing from one extreme to the other, as if she cannot consolidate these contraveneing emotions and feelings and the anxiety that this is causing. This denial and need for control is call / acted out in the desire to have been retrenched.Due to the role that I fulfil on shaping X, I have been privy to discussion about subsequent decisions made by this participant a ffecting / sacrificing her privy life for the benefit of her career.As foregoingly discussed, the higher the organisational train, the powerfuler the denial tends to be. It is consequently not surprising that the interviewee who most bullockyly displays this manifestation of denial, is the highest ranking employee interviewed.Although the fantasy of co-dependency will be discussed later in this section, it should be noted that previous research (Noer, 1993) indicated that co-dependants make themselves into permanent victims. It seems that perhaps this is the most salient distinction of this manifestation of denial by denying any other role other than that of the victim, the survivor has rejected their role and accountability as part of the older management team of Organisation X, as well as rejecting activities that should have been undertaken as part of management responsibility. thereby effectively denying the extent to which her deprivation of action contributed to ne gative impacts on others, specifically the affected subordinates. A possible explanation for this unconscious decision is that it is an attempt to avoid delinquency, and possibly shame.but with even like with subordinate I worked with, right until a week which before she moved, she didnt really know what was going to happen to her. She was told, Divisional theatre director said to me, well maybe she would fit in with planetary autobus XXXs department. So I went back, said to Subordinate, please set up a meeting with General Manager XXX go speak to him, see what the job is all about. But nobody spoke to her I spoke to her said, lets make an appointment with General Manager XXX.so nobody spoke to her, it wasnt like a person or thing. I know with Subordinate, nobody came to speak to her to say you know you are going to lose your position, but there is another position for you this is what it entails or set up an appointment with General Manager XXX or anythingI would have lik e to just walked with my citizenry a half-size bit more, so that theyre not so unhappy.There were lots of rumours and think from that aspect, maybe they were not as open as they should have been.This is congruent to two of Cramers (1987) characteristic of denial, to wit the denial of reality whereby the survivor avoids addressing something that would be unpleasant to think about, in this case the sacking of her subordinate to another department as well as her abdication of responsibility as departmental head. Secondly, statements of negation where the individual contradicts an action, wish or intention, which, if acknowledged, would cause discontent, pain, anxiety or humiliation.Further to this, and supporting the previous assertion of the stiff denial of management responsibility, dissatisfaction with company direction, management credibility and long-term strategy were particularly strong amongst the most senior survivor interviewed, which is interesting as she is prudent f or some of these functions.A lot of the instructions that were given are very short term. So, I think from an environment point of view, I just feel Im not learning as much as I could have, because everything is now killing the fires and its short term strategies, so you dont in truth learn or develop and there is not time to develop as a person within the company.How would you describe your level of trust, in the management team of the company?very low trust. Because if something goes wrong, they blame person else.This candidate is part of senior management, yet seems to feel ostracized. Perhaps this is the reason for her projections?Further to the above, when psychological denial distorts reality, individuals are prone to make false decisions or avoid complicated decisions and disregard serious problems holding others responsible when things do not turn out as inquireed (Cramer, 1987). This finding is supported by subsequent verifiable information that became known to me belat edly as a result of the interview and my position within the organisation.one interviewee fluctuated between almost total denial of her accountability and role (as senior manager) in the retrenchment and repeated attempts to bring about her own final stage (Kbler-Ross, 1969) in the organisation. This self-sabotage took the form of non-performance, defiance when dealing with top management and ignoring communications. about aggravating factors to this denial reaction must in like manner be noted the first is the espoused value of the new psychological contract and secondly the front man of aggravating peripheral part. These factors will be explored and discussed later in this section. keeping up appearances coping by not copingThis manifestation is characterised by the minimisation of the overall effect that the retrenchment had on the survivors. Although feelings of uncertainty, stress and guilt had been experienced, there were some expressions of optimism and perceptions that Company X engaged in a tough, but necessary activity to get or keep the company on track toward profitability.I think for anybody this is a very ticklish exercise to go through there was not you dont need to worry, it is neer going to happen, youre safe. There was neer any of that false hope created. I dont know if that makes any sense at all but made good business sense.Unfortunately, as a business, this is the only way we can survive.This technique has been termed denial of injuries by Gandolfi (2009) and pertains to survivors involved in the retrenchment process maintaining that retrenchment victims did not suffer any detrimental consequences. In the aforesaid(prenominal) study, this was the reaction where victims were provided with generous good luck packages. The findings of the current study in consistent with this, as all interviewed survivors exhibited a manifestation of denial and without fail, referred to the generous severance packages.Well, I looked at the package s and I know that they were really good ground on manifestly you know what the packages sales boothd on experience, based on years service and based on beginner service and all those sort of things.However, the denial is evident in the contradictions during the interviews, as well as during discussion that pertained to behavioural and affective responses during the retrenchment. This is congruent with two of Cramer (1987) identified characteristics of denial, namelyStatements of negation An individual contradicts an action, wish or intention, which, if acknowledged, would cause discontent, pain, anxiety or humiliation.plain I could not divulge that until the final decisions had been made when you are going through a structural change there is this cloud of closeness and certain people know whats going on, and there is talking it was communicated to them affected department, and it was through right down to the brutal truth.Unexpect goodness, optimism, positivity nonchalance in the face of threats.The team is not quite where it needs to be yet, but certainly we pulling more together in terms of the transparencies and the click functional support areas where we may be 5 years ago. I got to say the resizing exercise did a lot in terms of move up peoples foundations where you thought you were so secure, everybody realized nobody is secure. But what changed it and what made this last resizing exercise so positive, is the way it was handled.These reported perceptions are mixed and quite often contradictory. The same survivors who articulated sentiments of optimism also articulated strong sentiments of uncertainty, stress and changed work life perceptions. Uncertainty was most apparent in the continuous attempts to obtain the approval and validation of reactions from me, as if to establish whether the perceptions are correct, or perhaps to avoid confronting actions that causes guilt by perceiving this to be a common occurrence. It seems as if the survivors escaped dealing with their personal feelings by focus on projected organisational outcomes. This is congruent to previous research (Noer, 1993) as well a variation on the fishbowl effect, where survivors focus on details to escape dealing with their personal feelings.The objectives were pretty clear and that was that we need to look at the functions within the department, and the main objective was not clearing heads, that was never the main objective. The main objective was look at the functions, how can we work and structure this department to work smarter. Not necessarily cheaper, but smarter and obviously ultimately is there a possibility for the right sizingthe objective was never to get the heads of the headcount, never. Obviously you know long term wise it is a win- win situation for everybody.This particular manifestation seems to be exacerbated by previous experience of a retrenchment possibly colouring the survivors frame of reference. The interviewee that displayed thi s manifestation most prominently has personally survived two previous retrenchments at Organisation X. Another interviewee who displayed this manifestation of denial to a lesser extent had survived one previous retrenchment at Organisation X and recalls that her father had experienced a retrenchment at his employer at the time.I am left(p) to wonder whether this positive attitude is genuine or whether the participant is tranquilize keeping up appearances for the benefit of who perhaps top management perhaps. Is this denial (of damage done to others) a facade to hide feelings of being the public executioner as the participant clearly indicated that she felt guilty for being picked to stay whilst other employees (in her department) became victims.This reaction can possibly be attributed to repeated experiences of retrenchment resulting in emotional numbing (Kets de Vries Balazs, 1996), whereby the survivor starts to experience problems with a rock-bottom capacity to feel. Accor ding to Kets de Vries and Balazs (1996), this defensive process is set in motion a state of affairs overflowing with painful emotions and psychological conflict. This reaction was used as a means to shelter the survivors from intolerable experiences and functions as a type off shut-off mechanism this emotional shut-off is essentially the core of psychological denial as discussed in the introduction to this section. It appears as if the survivors safety to doing to prevent experiencing.One of the survivors went into great detail about her growth in the company, her flexibility with regards to long-term career goals, the positive relationships with both top management and Human Resources, and her perception of how other departments handled this process. In all of this, she never voluntarily referred to feelings. When specifically asked about her feelings and reactions during the time of retrenchments, she conceded that she did feel saddened by the process, but quick added that this was reserved for after-hours and in general, she felt that it had been a process well handled.What seems to be veritable for all of the participants is that their involvement in retrenchments is an activity that opposes their base belief about organisational life. Underlying this base belief is the psychological practice contract. These survivors have to cope with significant change at the same time as experiencing it.Shared denialAlthough the survivors engaged in the same elementary defence mechanism, the expression of the defence took various forms. It is interesting to note that there are some shared reactions in the expression of denial, namely the denial of the survivors own expectation of the old psychological contract to hold true and the unfailing blaming of others for negative outcomes experienced. Each of these shared reactions will consequently be explored.Denial of belief in old psychological contractAll of the interviewees espoused the values of the new psychologica l contract and advocated its importance in the new world of work, yet, all the interviewees demonstrated throughout the interview, that they have a very strong expectation that the old psychological contract is to hold true for them on Organisation X.. I really would like to have an oversea assignment. Just to get exposure, because for me is I want a long term relationship with Company X. I was quite happy here and I thought, well, I am happy to stay with Company X for the next 10 years. Whatever I wanted to develop, I would like to get to a General Manager level, learn as much as I can from the company.It seems that the survivors agree with the logic and the theory of the new psychological contract, but that this new way paradigm conflicts with their need for membership and would require a great mindset shift.I believe that most employees expect an organisation to look after them and that you will receive the benefits, or guide the benefits of hard work. But in reality, that does not work that wayI know that your psychological contract has changed during the course of the last few years, but still, I think that maybe employees want to be trained in such way that they can move on, out of the organisation, with more skills they what they come into.Despite strongly advocating the new psychological contract the participants responses throughout the interview indicates a strong co-dependency on the company being researched. It seems as if the participant defines a (big?) part of herself by achievement / growth / future in / at the company being researched.Also, this participant perhaps more than the other participants espouses the values of the new psychological contract, yet looks at the organisation to provide growth and development, and feels betrayed and pained that the current situation impacted on her development.The survivors denial of their belief in the old psychological contract could possibly be explained by the opinion of co-dependence. The co-de pendent changed their identity, denied their feelings and spend a substantial quantity of energy in an campaign to control an alcoholic shared the alcoholics addiction. The co-dependent does not notice the destruction that their denial causes to themselves and others they were co-dependent with the alcoholic (Bekker, 1998 Noer, 1993)According to Noer (1993), just as a person can exist in a co-dependent state with another person in relation to an addiction, a person can also be co-dependent with an organisational system. Employees of an organisation who have become co-dependent on the organisation, defines themselves to a large extent by their job. During a retrenchment, it is therefore not only their job that becomes vulnerable, but also their sense of worth, sense of relevance, identity and purpose.This phenomenon could explain most, if not all, of the survivor experiences explored in this study. As discussed in section 3.3.4, the greater the sense of personal violation, the grea ter the susceptibility to survivor syndrome and destructive defence mechanisms. The perception of violation appears directly related to the degree of trust employees had that Organisation X will take care of them (Noer, 1993). The survivors all indicated that they definitely had the expectation of long-term employment at Company X, with the associated growth and development as reward for their tenure and performance. The retrenchment experience seemed to be a rude wake-up call that this is in actual fact not the truth.There is no such thing as life-long employment. There is a classic saying, if you want loyalty, buy a dog. It is all good and well to be committed to a company, but there is no guarantee, not either way, that you are going to be with that company for a life-long commitment or that that the company is going to keep you on for a life-long commitmentonce you heard that very clear definition that life owes you zipper andCompany X owes you nothing and I owe you nothing. Th at kind of providential you to do more and to want more. You know, if I came in at age 17, turning 18 in February, that I was working, thinking I am just going to be a typist for the rest of my life and Company X going to keep me, keep me, you gonna have to want that little bit more ever so often. If you are not motivated, and if you are not accepting those challenges, there is no future for you here.Denying their belief in the truth of the old psychological contract, might serve two purposesBy verbally acknowledging the value of the new psychological contract, they are espousing the message that is expected of them due to their position within the company. As in the fishbowl effect manifestation, the survivors are seen to be doing the right thing and looking goodBy denying their belief in the truth of the old psychological contract, the survivors are attempting to avoid the painful reality that this paradigm no longer holds true by refuting their own truth by their words and ac tions.Blaming of othersAll interviewed survivors blamed other groups. In most cases, generic management were blamed or colleagues in organisation X, however, no interviewee assigned any blame for negative outcomes to themselves. Nevertheless, people tend to blame others usually the next person up on the organisational chart for what is a basic systemic change, beyond anyones control.But then, if I look at other areas that the same sort of exercises, and I dont know if it is because it was handled poorly, that maybe their management wasnt being honest or forthcoming with their people. Look at the XXX department a huge mess. You know, where people left on the end of the month, and there was absolutely nobody trained to do those. If youre ultimate goal is to get rid of people on downsize and get rid of people on a head count level that is easy to do.This blaming phenomenon could be a form of projection that serves as a defence mechanism, assisting the survivor to confront their own survivor guilt by allowing the survivor to consider others as dysfunctional without experiencing the discomfort of realising that these views and feelings are their own. This allows the survivor to express disapproval of the other person, distancing themselves from their own dysfunction (Straker, 2009). This reaction has also been noted by previous researchers such as Noer (1993), Kets de Vries and Balazs (1996) and Appelbaum et al. (1997). Based on the preceding discussion, it is put forward that blaming others for whichever collection of consequences generally represents denial.Contributory themesAs a result of the survivors inability to progress through the stages of grief and complete their mourning, the interviewed survivors remained in state of denial. Contributing to these responses and outcomes were the presence of aggravating peripheral circumstances and role conflict.Role conflictBeauchamp and Bray (2001) defines role conflict as referring to the presence of incongruent e xpectations placed on a role incumbent. The presence of role conflict exacerbating the effects of denial was evident amongst survivors. This role conflict related to the dual roles of being involved in the instruction execution of the retrenchment for the survival of Company X and the emotional effect that the aforesaid(prenominal) has on the survivor.You are emotional when you in our function you cant be emotional, you need to kind of your emotions need to be put to the side to stay professional. So, you talk to people over the telephone, and they are emotional that side, youre sitting on this side, and you know their affected it is a difficult, difficult time.It is possible that this role conflict also contributed to the extensive engagement in reasoning to justify retrenchments. This reaction is similar to what Noer (1993) described as the Judas complex. This reaction seems to allow the survivors to deny the negative impact of their actions on others.It is very difficult to k eep your managers hat on and on the other side of the scale to put your humanitarian hat on.you had to come in