This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (10) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Littler, C. R. Articles by Innes, P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Paradox of Managerial Downsizing

St Andrews University, Scotland, UK

Peter Innes

University of Queensland, Australia

Delayering and the flattening of organizational hierarchies was a widespread trend through the 1990s. Peters (1992) in the USA promoted .attening as an organizational strategy and Keuning and Opheij (1994) promoted the prescriptions in Europe. Despite these strategies and apparent structural changes, the number and ratio of managers appears to have grown. This paradox of managerial downsizing has not been adequately probed in the literature. The predominant explanation, that there has been a ‘myth of managerial downsizing’, is associated with Gordon (1996). However, this debate has been shaped by the US experience and data. There is a need to reassess the dynamics of the 1990s in relation to other economies. This article focuses on a semi-peripheral economy, that of Australia. A study of the population of firms over time is necessary in order to resolve the issues. The article utilizes a comprehensive range of data, including several national surveys and a longitudinal database of all larger private-sector firms in Australia during the 1990s. The results indicate that the ‘myth of managerial downsizing’ must be rejected. There were dramatic effects on managers through the course of the 1990s in larger Australian firms. The dynamics of the process are analysed, tracking 4,153 firms across the decade and the paradox explained. The theoretical implications are discussed.

Key Words: organizational downsizing • delayering • careers • administrative intensity • middle managers

Organization Studies, Vol. 25, No. 7, 1159-1184 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0170840604046314


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Morris, J. Hassard, and L. McCann The resilience of `institutionalized capitalism': Managing managers under `shareholder capitalism' and `managerial capitalism' Human Relations, May 1, 2008; 61(5): 687 - 710. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. D. Vicente-Lorente and I. Suarez-Gonzalez Ownership Traits and Downsizing Behaviour: Evidence for the Largest Spanish Firms, 1990 1998 Organization Studies, November 1, 2007; 28(11): 1613 - 1638. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Tyler and A. Wilkinson The tyranny of corporate slenderness: `corporate anorexia' as a metaphor for our age Work Employment Society, September 1, 2007; 21(3): 537 - 549. [PDF]

				J. Morris, J. Hassard, and L. McCann New Organizational Forms, Human Resource Management and Structural Convergence? A Study of Japanese Organizations Organization Studies, October 1, 2006; 27(10): 1485 - 1511. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Sundgren and A. Styhre Leadership as De-paradoxification: Leading New Drug Development Work at Three Pharmaceutical Companies Leadership, February 1, 2006; 2(1): 31 - 52. [Abstract] [PDF]