ILPC 2027

Research on victims/targets of layoffs focuses primarily on outcomes, with the limited literature on process being largely prescriptive (Clark, 2007; Wood & Karau, 2009). An attempt to empirically explore victim/target experiences of the processual dimensions of layoffs was made during the 2008-2009 financial recession. A phenomenological study, following van Manen (1998), of laid-off employees in India’s IT (information technology) sector highlighted the core theme of ‘paying the price’ as capturing participants’ lived experience. While prior abusive relationships with superiors served as the determining factor in selecting employees for lay-offs, manipulation of performance data provided an ‘objective’ basis for the choice. Moreover, the lay-off process itself entailed harassment. The absence of redressal opportunities within and outside the employer organization (including collectivisation endeavours) left employees helpless in the face of abuse and injustice. Demonstrating the interplay of interpersonal and institutionalized bullying (Hoel & Beale, 2006), the core theme underscored how recession unveiled the utilitarian instrumentalism of the hard HRM (human resource management) model which was heretofore camouflaged within the developmental humanism of the soft HRM model (Legge, 2006), aided by inclusivist and exclusivist HRM strategies (Peetz, 2002). The significance of the cultural context at the workplace (Sinha, 2008) also emerged clearly. The relevance of ingratiating superiors and emphasizing self, rather than organizational, interest were cited by participants as important learning outcomes.

 

Apart from addressing gaps in the literatures on layoffs and on workplace emotional abuse where the study of organizational change is nascent (Skogstad & Einarsen, 2007), the findings raise the issue of power at the workplace. While interpersonal emotional abuse entails the illegitimate use of power (Liefooghe & Mackenzie-Davey, 2001), institutionalized bullying is seen as stemming from power considered to be legitimate and tightly related to the labour process and managerial prerogative to manage (Hoel & Salin 2003). That this latter perspective has grave implications in industries such as the Indian IT sector where unitarist HRM operates as one-sided managerialism and eschews discursive and pluralist ideologies cannot be denied. The heightened emphasis on organizational control as a means to organizational effectiveness and competitive advantage in the current global economy limits employee opportunities to challenge managerial actions, thereby not only reinforcing and legitimizing institutionalized bullying (Ironside & Seifert, 2003) but also subverting the redressal and justice process in instances of interpersonal emotional abuse (Lewis & Rayner, 2003). State support for the globalisation project as is evident in the Indian IT sector furthers this difficult situation (Noronha & D’Cruz, 2009), compounding the power deficit of employees.