รวมถึงความเชื่อที่ว่า การเพิ่มผลผลิ

รวมถึงความเชื่อที่ว่า การเพิ่มผลผลิตสามารถเกิดขึ้นได้โดยการระบุเป็นหน้าที่ ) การปรับปรุงการผลิตเหล่านี้จะขึ้นอยู่กับความเชื่อที่น้อยกว่าระดับของผลการจัดการในการเพิ่มความรู้สึกของความเป็นเจ้าของในการบรรลุเป้าหมายขององค์กรThese productivity improvements are based upon the belief that fewer levels of management result in an increase in feelings of ownership in achieving organizational goals (Gandolfi,
2008)กับความเชื่อที่ว่าการเพิ่มประสิทธิภาพของผลผลิตสามารถเกิดขึ้นได้โดยการระบุเป็นหน้าที่ และระดับของการจัดการน้อยทำให้เพิ่มความรู้สึกถึงการเป็นเจ้าของร่วมในการที่จะช่วยทำให้องค์กรบรรลุเป้าหมายในการทำงาน(Gandolfi 2008)

There are a number of advantages. The major reported benefit is to cut costs during times of decreased business income. Other advantages include the belief that an increase in productivity can occur by eliminating functions identifies as redundant. These productivity improvements are based upon the belief that fewer levels of management result in an increase in feelings of ownership in achieving organizational goals (Gandolfi,
2008). A related advantage is that communication improves with fewer layers in the organization (Roth,
1993). By eliminating employees, it is believed that expenses decrease, resulting in permanent reductions in
fixed costs (Gandolfi, 2008; Gilson et al., 2004; Cascio, 2002). Some firms have experienced other
advantages such as altering the skill mix to implement new business strategies (Cascio, 2002). Another
advantage is to reduce costs by replacing full time, permanent with temporary or contract workers (Cascio,
2002). Dating back to 1993, there have been notable failures of many downsizing initiatives to deliver these
benefits (Cascio, 2002)




Why downsizing? Environmental forces constantly affect society and organizations alike. On the
one hand, organizations can create a cycle whereby they can influence or control the circumstances in which they operate through the changes they make and the way in which they make them(IJAM)
negative effects than the survivors. In light of that,
the following conclusions can be made:
ï Downsizing produces considerable human
consequences, the so-called side or
aftereffects of downsizing;
ï Downsizing impacts the entire workforce,
survivors, victims, and executors, in a most
profound manner;
ï Survivors generally find themselves with
increased workloads and job responsibilities
while frequently receiving few or no
resources, training, and support;
ï Victims commonly obtain outplacement
services and financial packages when exiting
the downsized firms;
ï Survivors suffer from a range of sicknesses
during the process of downsizing;
ï Executors suffer from similar effects as
victims and survivors.(Gandolfi 2008)
The primary advantages associated with debureaucratization downsizing is that organizations are purportedly freed from the stifling "iron shackles" that restrain organizational creativity, communication, and flexibility (Donnellon and Scully, 1994). Ivancevich and Donnelly (1975), for example, found that flatter organizations were associated with less stress, greater employee satisfaction, and increased employee performance.

While these arguments represent potential advantages of downsizing for the organization, there are also arguments for potential employee-level advantages of downsizing. Related to debureaucratization, for example, it has been asserted that individuals in delayered organizations are freer to be creative, experience more personal responsibility and satisfaction from their enriched work, and are able better to understand the workings of the entire organization (Pinchot and Pinchot, 1994).

Additionally, communication is thought to be faster and more direct in this sort of environment thereby encouraging intraorganizational communication processes and outcomes. Also, because an important feature of bureaucratization is to eliminate "meritocracies" (Donnellon and Scully, 1995), it has been suggested that employees are freer to work in teams concentrating on essential organizational functions. In such environments, it is argued, because employees are not held accountable for short-term, individual performance, they may likely contribute toward long-term organizational goals (DOnnellon and Scully, 1995).

There are also arguments that organizational downsizing can be liberating and empowering for employees. While it is clear that downsizing comes at a risk, some promote the idea that employees stand to gain considerably as organizations downsize. The remaining work will be more rewarding, more responsibilities will be shared, and the opportunities for personal growth and development will be increased. Additionally, workers in such environments may be encouraged to acquire new skills to perform different tasks, containing possibilities for increased educational and career advancements. Thus, the underlying idea advanced here is that, although there may be fewer workers following a downsizing, the work remaining represents more opportunity for the remaining employees and these employees have a greater chance of controlling their own destiny.

Results (English) 1:

These include the belief that increasing productivity can occur by specifying a duty) to improve these production is based on the belief that less than the level of management to increase the sense of ownership of These organizations in achieving productivity improvements are based upon the belief that fewer levels of management result in an increase in feelings of ownership in achieving organizational goals (Gandolfi,2008) with the belief that enhancement of productivity can occur by specifying the role and level of management is less to make more sense to share ownership in order to help to achieve in work (Gandolfi 2008)There are a number of advantages. The major reported benefit is to cut costs during times of decreased business income. Other advantages include the belief that an increase in productivity can occur by eliminating functions identifies as redundant. These productivity improvements are based upon the belief that fewer levels of management result in an increase in feelings of ownership in achieving organizational goals (Gandolfi,2008). A related advantage is that communication improves with fewer layers in the organization (Roth,1993). By eliminating employees, it is believed that expenses decrease, resulting in permanent reductions infixed costs (Gandolfi, 2008; Gilson et al., 2004; Cascio, 2002). Some firms have experienced otheradvantages such as altering the skill mix to implement new business strategies (Cascio, 2002). Anotheradvantage is to reduce costs by replacing full time, permanent with temporary or contract workers (Cascio,2002). Dating back to 1993, there have been notable failures of many downsizing initiatives to deliver thesebenefits (Cascio, 2002)Why downsizing? Environmental forces constantly affect society and organizations alike. On theone hand, organizations can create a cycle whereby they can influence or control the circumstances in which they operate through the changes they make and the way in which they make them(IJAM)negative effects than the survivors. In light of that,the following conclusions can be made:ï Downsizing produces considerable humanconsequences, the so-called side oraftereffects of downsizing;ï Downsizing impacts the entire workforce,survivors, victims, and executors, in a mostprofound manner;ï Survivors generally find themselves withincreased workloads and job responsibilitieswhile frequently receiving few or noresources, training, and support;ï Victims commonly obtain outplacementservices and financial packages when exitingthe downsized firms;ï Survivors suffer from a range of sicknessesduring the process of downsizing;ï Executors suffer from similar effects asvictims and survivors.(Gandolfi 2008)The primary advantages associated with debureaucratization downsizing is that organizations are purportedly freed from the stifling "iron shackles" that restrain organizational creativity, communication, and flexibility (Donnellon and Scully, 1994). Ivancevich and Donnelly (1975), for example, found that flatter organizations were associated with less stress, greater employee satisfaction, and increased employee performance.While these arguments represent potential advantages of downsizing for the organization, there are also arguments for potential employee-level advantages of downsizing. Related to debureaucratization, for example, it has been asserted that individuals in delayered organizations are freer to be creative, experience more personal responsibility and satisfaction from their enriched work, and are able better to understand the workings of the entire organization (Pinchot and Pinchot, 1994).Additionally, communication is thought to be faster and more direct in this sort of environment thereby encouraging intraorganizational communication processes and outcomes. Also, because an important feature of bureaucratization is to eliminate "meritocracies" (Donnellon and Scully, 1995), it has been suggested that employees are freer to work in teams concentrating on essential organizational functions. In such environments, it is argued, because employees are not held accountable for short-term, individual performance, they may likely contribute toward long-term organizational goals (DOnnellon and Scully, 1995).There are also arguments that organizational downsizing can be liberating and empowering for employees. While it is clear that downsizing comes at a risk, some promote the idea that employees stand to gain considerably as organizations downsize. The remaining work will be more rewarding, more responsibilities will be shared, and the opportunities for personal growth and development will be increased. Additionally, workers in such environments may be encouraged to acquire new skills to perform different tasks, containing possibilities for increased educational and career advancements. Thus, the underlying idea advanced here is that, although there may be fewer workers following a downsizing, the work remaining represents more opportunity for the remaining employees and these employees have a greater chance of controlling their own destiny.

Results (English) 2:

Including the belief that Increasing productivity can be achieved by identifying a function) to improve the production of these is based on the belief that fewer levels of management to increase the sense of ownership of the goals of the organization These productivity. Improvements are based upon the belief that fewer levels of Management Result in an increase in Feelings of Ownership in achieving organizational goals (Gandolfi,
the 2,008th) with the belief that the enhancement of productivity can be achieved by specifying a function. And the level of management at increasing the sense of joint ownership in order to help the organization achieve its goal of work (Gandolfi 2008) There are a Number of advantages. The Major reported Benefit is to Cut costs during times of Decreased. business income. Other advantages include the belief that an increase in productivity can occur by eliminating functions identifies as redundant. These productivity improvements are based upon the belief that fewer levels of management result in an increase in feelings of ownership in achieving organizational goals (Gandolfi,. 2008). A related Advantage is that Communication improves with fewer layers in the Organization (Roth, 1993). By eliminating employees, it is believed that Expenses decrease, resulting in Permanent reductions in fixed costs (Gandolfi, 2008; Gilson et al.,. 2,004; Cascio, 2002). Some firms have experienced Other advantages such as altering the Skill Mix to IMPLEMENT New business Strategies (Cascio, the 2,002th). Another Advantage is to Reduce costs by replacing full time, Permanent with temporary or Contract Workers (Cascio,. 2002). Dating Back to 1993, there have been notable failures of many downsizing initiatives to deliver these Benefits (Cascio, 2002) Why downsizing? Environmental Forces constantly affect Society and organizations Alike. On the one Hand, organizations Can create a Cycle whereby they. Can influence or Control the circumstances in which they operate Through the changes they Make and the Way in which they Make them (IJAM) negative effects than the survivors. In Light of that, the following Conclusions Can be Made: ï Downsizing produces considerable Human Consequences. , the so-Called Side or AfterEffects of downsizing; ï Downsizing impacts the entire WorkForce, survivors, victims, and executors, in a Most Profound Manner; ï Survivors generally Find themselves with Increased workloads and job responsibilities while Frequently receiving few or no Resources,. Training, and Support; ï Victims commonly obtain outplacement Services and Financial Packages when exiting the downsized firms; ï Survivors suffer from a Range of sicknesses during the Process of downsizing; ï Executors suffer from similar effects as victims and survivors. (Gandolfi the 2008th) The. primary advantages associated with debureaucratization downsizing is that organizations are purportedly freed from the stifling "iron shackles" that restrain organizational creativity, communication, and flexibility (Donnellon and Scully, 1994). Ivancevich and Donnelly (1975), for example, found that flatter organizations. were associated with less stress, Greater employee satisfaction, and Increased employee Performance. While these arguments represent potential advantages of downsizing for the Organization, there are also arguments for potential employee-level advantages of downsizing. Related to Debureaucratization, for example, it has been. asserted that individuals in Delayered organizations are Freer to be Creative, Experience more Personal Responsibility and satisfaction from their enriched Work, and are Able better to Understand the workings of the entire Organization (Pinchot and Pinchot, one thousand nine hundred ninety-four). Additionally, Communication is thought to be. faster and more direct in this sort of environment thereby encouraging intraorganizational communication processes and outcomes. Also, because an important feature of bureaucratization is to eliminate "meritocracies" (Donnellon and Scully, 1995), it has been suggested that employees are freer to work in. Teams concentrating on Essential organizational functions. In such environments, it is argued, because employees are not held Accountable for short-term, individual Performance, they May likely Contribute toward long-term organizational goals (DOnnellon and Scully, 1,995). There are also. arguments that organizational downsizing can be liberating and empowering for employees. While it is clear that downsizing comes at a risk, some promote the idea that employees stand to gain considerably as organizations downsize. The remaining work will be more rewarding, more responsibilities will be shared. , and the opportunities for personal growth and development will be increased. Additionally, workers in such environments may be encouraged to acquire new skills to perform different tasks, containing possibilities for increased educational and career advancements. Thus, the underlying idea advanced here is that,. although there may be fewer workers following a downsizing, the work remaining represents more opportunity for the remaining employees and these employees have a greater chance of controlling their own destiny.

Results (English) 3:

Include the belief that Productivity can occur by identifying a function).Productivity improvements are based upon the belief that fewer levels of management result in an increase in feelings of. Ownership in achieving organizational, goals (Gandolfi
.2008) with the belief that the enhancement of productivity can be achieved by specifying a function.2008)
.
There are a number of advantages. The major reported benefit is to cut costs during times of decreased business, income. Other advantages include the belief that an increase in productivity can occur by eliminating functions identifies as redundant.These productivity improvements are based upon the belief that fewer levels of management result in an increase in feelings. Of ownership in achieving organizational, goals (Gandolfi
2008). A related advantage is that communication improves with. Fewer layers in the, organization (Roth
1993). By, eliminating employees it is believed that, expenses decrease resulting. In permanent reductions in
.Fixed costs (Gandolfi 2008; Gilson, et al, 2004; Cascio 2002). Some, firms have experienced other
advantages such as altering. The skill mix to implement new business, strategies (Cascio 2002). Another
advantage is to reduce costs by replacing full. Time permanent with, temporary or contract workers (Cascio
2002, Dating back, to 1993).There have been notable failures of many downsizing initiatives to deliver these
benefits, (Cascio 2002)




Why downsizing?? Environmental forces constantly affect society and organizations alike. On the
one hand organizations can, create a cycle. Whereby they can influence or control the circumstances in which they operate through the changes they make and the way. In which they make them (IJAM)
.Negative effects than the survivors. In light, of that
the following conclusions can be made:
ï Downsizing produces considerable. Human
consequences the so-called, side or
aftereffects of downsizing;
ï Downsizing impacts the entire workforce
survivors,,, ,, victims and executors in a most
profound manner;
ï Survivors generally find themselves with
increased workloads and job. Responsibilities
.While frequently receiving few or no
resources training and,, support;
ï Victims commonly obtain outplacement
services. And financial packages when exiting
the downsized firms;
ï Survivors suffer from a range of sicknesses
during the process. Of downsizing;
ï Executors suffer from similar effects as
victims and survivors. (Gandolfi 2008)
.The primary advantages associated with debureaucratization downsizing is that organizations are purportedly freed from. The stifling "iron shackles" that restrain organizational creativity communication and flexibility (,,, Donnellon and Scully. 1994). Ivancevich and Donnelly (1975), for example found that, flatter organizations were associated with, less stress greater. Employee, satisfactionAnd increased employee performance.

While these arguments represent potential advantages of downsizing for, the organization. There are also arguments for potential employee-level advantages of downsizing. Related to debureaucratization for example,,, It has been asserted that individuals in delayered organizations are freer to, be creativeExperience more personal responsibility and satisfaction from their, enriched work and are able better to understand the. Workings of the entire organization (Pinchot, and Pinchot 1994).

, Additionally communication is thought to be faster and. More direct in this sort of environment thereby encouraging intraorganizational communication processes and, Also outcomes.Because an important feature of bureaucratization is to eliminate "meritocracies" (Donnellon, and Scully 1995), it has. Been suggested that employees are freer to work in teams concentrating on essential organizational functions. In, such environments. It, is argued because employees are not held accountable for short-term individual performance,,They may likely contribute toward long-term organizational goals (DOnnellon, and Scully 1995).

There are also arguments. That organizational downsizing can be liberating and empowering for employees. While it is clear that downsizing comes at. A risk some promote, the idea that employees stand to gain considerably as organizations downsize. The remaining work will. Be, more rewardingMore responsibilities will, be shared and the opportunities for personal growth and development will be increased, Additionally,. Workers in such environments may be encouraged to acquire new skills to perform different tasks containing possibilities,, For increased educational and career advancements. Thus the underlying, idea advanced here, is thatAlthough there may be fewer workers following a downsizing the work, remaining represents more opportunity for the remaining. Employees and these employees have a greater chance of controlling their own destiny.