Open Journal of Leadership
2012. Vol.1, No.4, 17-21
Published Online December 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojl) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojl.2012.14004
Survivors’ Perspectives of Organizational Downsizing on
Knowledge Sharing in a Downsized Environment
Patricia Michelle Hall
School of Business, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, USA
Received October 15th, 2012; revised November 18th, 2012; accepted November 26th, 2012
Organizational workforce reductions can negatively affect a company’s ability to preserve its knowledge
base. The problem researched in this study was the perceived effect of downsizing on knowledge sharing
among surviving employees. The purpose of this study was to determine the perceived effect of downsiz-
ing on knowledge sharing. Survivors’ knowledge sharing behavior was examined in relation to 1) survi-
vor syndrome, 2) attitude towards knowledge sharing, and 3) perceived loss of knowledge power. A quan-
titative correlation research design was used to investigate the relationship between downsizing and
knowledge sharing. A web-based survey was used to collect data. The convenience sample consisted of
37 management employees in the Texas region of a management consultant organization. Three sets of
variables were examined: 1) survivor syndrome and actual knowledge sharing behavior, 2) survivors’ at-
titudes toward knowledge sharing and actual knowledge sharing behavior, and 3) perceived loss of
knowledge power and actual knowledge sharing behavior. Findings from a Spearman rank order correla-
tion revealed a statistically significant positive correlation between perceived loss of knowledge power
and actual knowledge sharing behavior. Understanding survivors’ reactions can assist with planning for
future reductions, and lead to the development of training programs to counter the challenges.
Keywords: Organizational Change; Knowledge Management; Organizational Behavior; Downsizing,
Survivor Syndrome
Introduction
Numerous organizations across a variety of sectors continue
to announce organizational downsizing initiatives, resulting in
millions of American workers being laid off annually (Linn,
2012). Henkoff (1994) indicated that “more often than not, one
round of downsizing merely leads to another [as] two-thirds of
corporations that thin their ranks one year, follow-up with an-
other purge the next” (p. 58). Overcoming the challenges asso-
ciated with downsizing requires an ideal balancing act. Henkoff
(1994) indicated that challenges stem from trying to drive pro-
ductivity, while operating within the realms of lower gross
margins and headcount.
Platt indicated that “there is only so much cutting you can do
and still maintain the character and strength of your company”
(as cited in Henkoff, 1994: p. 62). As a result, organizational
leaders should not “expect a payoff unless [they] do so with a
well-thought-out strategy that enables [them] to support [their]
survivors” (as cited in Henkoff, 1994: p. 64). Gone are the days
of the psychological contract of lifetime employment.
Change continues at the same time that workforces are
shrinking. As a result, knowledge management initiatives have
become an area of focus to assist with maintaining a competi-
tive advantage. Lesser and Prusak (2001) indicated that initia-
tives range from “identifying and sharing relevant practices,
locating and highlighting expertise, fostering communities of
practice and installing collaborative technologies” (p. 101). The
challenge; however, stems from the fact that workforce reduc-
tions and/or downsizing, can negatively affect an organizations
ability to preserve this knowledge base. As a result, “remaining
workers faced with new duties may be frustrated and unproduc-
tive” (Lesser & Prusak, 2001: p. 101).
As such, greater emphasis is needed on establishing a solidi-
fied knowledge transfer process. Gaining the full buy-in and
support of senior leaders will be needed in an effort to foster
this type of environment. Appelbaum, Close, and Kasa (1999)
indicated that trust erodes, and the credibility of senior manage-
rs typically drops by an estimated 35% after restructuring oc-
curs. As a result, employees who are concerned about their
current jobs, or who are faced with uncertainty, anxiety, or
doubts regarding how they will fit in and/or be perceived within
the newly restructured organization, may actually steer the
organizational culture towards becoming a culture of knowl-
edge hoarding in lieu of knowledge sharing (Davenport & Pru-
sak, 2000).
Rubenstein and Geisler (2003) indicated that a common
mindset that surfaces within restructured organizations, seems
to be a culture that embraces an ideal that knowledge is power.
As a result, unless specifically asked, information is typically
not freely or willingly shared. Working within an environment
where information is hoarded or where one feels that every
source of information is privileged, or can only be obtained on
a need-to-know basis can obstruct knowledge transfer (Ruben-
stein & Geisler, 2003). Organizational leaders need to pur-
posely strive to foster a knowledge-sharing culture as a result of
these types of counter-productive obstacles. Bartlett and Wozny
(2002) indicated that it is important to convey the need to em-
brace the sharing of knowledge and expertise which incorpo-
rates the transferring of best practices, if organizational leaders
expect to leverage performance and maintain a competitive
advantage.

P. M. HALL
The purpose of this study was to determine the perceived ef-
fect of downsizing on knowledge sharing. I explored surviving
employee perceptions of intra-organizational knowledge sha-
ring in a recently downsized management consultant organiza-
tion. I used survivor syndrome, as characterized by Noer (1993),
and the theory of reasoned action, as outlined by Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975) to assess the effects of leveraging knowledge
management in recently downsized organizations.
The sharing and creation of knowledge is dependent upon
social relationships (Ipe, 2003). An aspect of Fishbein and Aj-
zen’s (1975) theory of reasoned action can be instrumental in
creating an environment that promotes learning and the sharing
of knowledge. The core concept of the theory centers on an
individual’s intention to perform a specific behavior. Engaging
in the act of knowledge sharing is in turn, determined by the
attitude toward, and the subjective norm of a behavior, which
can be influenced by organizational ideals relative to fostering a
knowledge sharing culture.
The effects of survivor syndrome can result in negative be-
havioral or attitudinal issues involving feelings of anger, re-
sentment, cynicism, low morale, sabotage, conflict, and other
inefficient, non-productive dysfunctional behaviors (Baruch &
Hind, 1999). During the planning phases of many organiza-
tional restructurings, attention is given to caring for the em-
ployees who will be affected as a result of downsizing efforts
(Baruch & Hind, 1999). This can be accomplished with out-
placement vendors bought on board to ensure that the exit
process is managed as smoothly as possible. What is missing is
that same level of care and attention and/or counseling for the
employees who will be left behind to contend with survivor’s
syndrome (Baruch & Hind, 1999).
Method
A quantitative correlation research design was used to inves-
tigate three research questions:
1) What is the correlation between survivor syndrome and
actual knowledge sharing behavior?
2) What is the correlation between survivors’ attitudes to-
ward knowledge sharing and actual knowledge sharing behav-
ior?
3) What is the correlation between perceived loss of knowl-
edge power and actual knowledge sharing behavior?
In an effort to answer the three research questions, three hy-
potheses were tested to assess survivors’ perspective of the
effect of downsizing on knowledge sharing. Hypotheses were
tested using Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient. A
two-tailed significance of p < 0.01was used to conduct the sta-
tistical analyses. In an effort to support the research questions
and test the hypotheses related to this research study, a survey
was used to collect the data. A survey was developed by com-
bining questions and measures that have been validated from
previous research studies (Ford, 2004; Kankanhalli et al., 2005;
Leung & Chang, 2002; Sitlington, 2008). The survey included a
series of questions designed to measure the three sets of two
variables: 1) survivor syndrome and actual knowledge sharing
behavior, 2) survivors’ attitudes toward knowledge sharing and
actual knowledge sharing behavior, and 3) perceived loss of
knowledge power and actual knowledge sharing behavior.
The items measuring attitude toward knowledge sharing
were based on 13 attitude questions from Ford’s (2004) re-
search, where Cronbach’s alpha value was .91. The items
measuring perceived loss of knowledge power were based on
eight questions from Kankanhalli et al., (2005) research. Cron-
bach’s alpha value was .95. The items measuring survivor syn-
drome was based on nine questions from Leung and Chang’s
(2002) research. Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.94. The items
measuring knowledge sharing behaviors was based on six ques-
tions from Sitlington’s (2008) research. Cronbach’s alpha value
was 0.93. The scales that were used to measure each construct
were based on a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree
to strongly agree.
This research study was localized and only generalizable to
the management consultant company that participated in the
study. As a result, a convenience sample was conducted, con-
sisting of 30 management employees in the Texas region of the
organization. In an effort to reach the targeted number of 30
participants, oversampling was done. A total of 50 manage-
ment-level employees were invited to participate in the study;
41 participants responded. 4 participants had incomplete re-
sponses and were not included in the results. As a result the
total sample size consisted of 37 participants. Once the survey
closed, and data collection ended, data was imported into SPSS,
which was the analytical tool used to compute descriptive sta-
tistics such as means and standard deviations. Reliability and
correlation statistics were computed as well.
Results
The researcher sought answers to the following research
questions:
Research Question 1: What is the correlation between survi-
vor syndrome and actual knowledge sharing behavior?
Null Hypothesis One predicted that there is no correlation
between survivor syndrome and actual knowledge sharing be-
havior. To test this hypothesis, a Spearman correlation was per-
formed (Table 4). Data from the management consultant sur-
vivors (N = 37) for the survivor syndrome score were corre-
lated with the actual knowledge sharing behavior data. Lower
scores indicate a management consultant survivor who rarely
encountered feelings of survivor syndrome or issues with actual
knowledge sharing behavior; high scores indicate a manage-
ment consultant survivor who did encounter feelings of survi-
vor syndrome and issues with actual knowledge sharing behav-
ior. Table 1 displays the correlation results and p-value.
The correlation was not significant: rs = −.24, p = .16. As a
result, Null Hypothesis One was not rejected, as findings con-
clude that there is no correlation between survivor syndrome
and actual knowledge sharing behavior among survivors at a
management consultant organization.
Research Question 2: What is the correlation between survi-
vors’ attitudes towards knowledge sharing and actual knowl-
edge sharing behavior?
Null Hypothesis Two predicted that there is no correlation
between survivors’ attitudes toward knowledge sharing and
actual knowledge sharing behavior. To test this hypothesis, a
Spearman correlation was performed (Table 4). Data from the
Table 1.
Spearman’s rho between survivor syndrome and actual knowledge
sharing behavior.
Scale NActual knowledge sharing behaviorp-value
Survivor syndrome37−.237 .16
18

P. M. HALL
management consultant survivors (N = 37) for the attitude to-
wards knowledge sharing score were correlated with the actual
knowledge sharing behavior data. Lower scores indicate a ma-
nagement consultant survivor with a negative attitude towards
knowledge sharing behavior; high scores indicate a manage-
ment consultant survivor with a positive attitude towards know-
ledge sharing and actual knowledge sharing behavior. Table 2
displays the correlation results and p-value.
A significant correlation was found: rs = .52, p = .001. As a
result, Null Hypothesis Two was rejected, as findings conclude
that there is a positive correlation between survivors’ attitudes
towards knowledge sharing and actual knowledge sharing be-
havior among survivors at a management consultant organiza-
tion.
Research Question 3: What is the correlation between per-
ceived loss of knowledge power and actual knowledge sharing
behavior?
Null Hypothesis Three predicted that there is no correlation
between perceived loss of knowledge power and actual knowl-
edge sharing behavior. To test this hypothesis, a Spearman
correlation was performed (Table 4). Data from the manage-
ment consultant survivors (N = 37) for the perceived loss of
knowledge power score were correlated with the actual knowl-
edge sharing behavior data. Lower scores indicate a manage-
ment consultant survivor with a negative perception of loss of
knowledge power and actual knowledge sharing behavior; high
scores indicate a management consultant survivor with a posi-
tive perception of loss of knowledge power and actual knowl-
edge sharing behavior. Table 3 displays the correlation results
and p-value.
A significant correlation was found: rs = −.46, p = .005. As a
result, Null Hypothesis Three was rejected, as findings con-
clude that there is a negative correlation between perceived loss
of knowledge power and actual knowledge sharing behavior.
Table 2.
Spearman’s rho between attitude towards knowledge sharing and actual
knowledge sharing behavior.
Scale N Actual knowledge sharing behaviorp-value
Attitude towards
knowledge sharing 37 .517 .001
Table 3.
Spearman’s rho between perceived loss of knowledge power and actual
knowledge sharing behavior.
Scale N Actual knowledge sharing behaviorp-value
Perceived loss of
knowledge power 37 −.456 .005
Table 4．
Imtercorrelations among the summated scale scores (N = 37).
Sore 1 2 3 4
1. Suevivor syndrome 1.00
2. Actual knowledge sharing behavior –.24 1.00
3. Perceived loss of knowledge power .27 –.46**** 1.00
4. Atttitudes towords knowledge sharing –.31* .52**** –.58**** 1.00
Note: *p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01. ***p < .005. *****p < .001.
Discussion
Organizational downsizing can potentially threaten an or-
ganization’s performance and productivity; as a result of com-
petent employees who often leave an organization and take
years of knowledge with them. Employees in recently down-
sized organizations often have to contend with a culture in
which the mindset centers on the fact that knowledge is power,
meaning information is only shared, on a need-to-know basis.
As a result, this can lead to knowledge silos being embedded
throughout an organization (Rubenstein & Geisler, 2003).
During the planning phases of many organizational restruc-
turings, attention is given to caring for the employees who will
be affected as a result of downsizing efforts (Baruch & Hind,
1999). This can be accomplished with outplacement vendors
bought on board to ensure that the exit process is managed as
smoothly as possible. What is missing is that same level of care
and attention and/or counseling for the employees who will be
left behind to contend with survivor’s syndrome (Baruch &
Hind, 1999).
Addressing the morale of survivors is typically not factored
into the pre or post downsizing planning process. As a result,
they are typically not afforded training and/or counseling op-
portunities to assist them with managing the emotional and/or
psychological issues they may be encountering. Overlooking
the wellbeing of survivors could potentially hinder the flow of
organizational communication, and in turn, negatively affect
the overall knowledge management process (Lesser & Prusak,
2001).
Beagrie (2005) indicated that because employees who are no
longer motivated to work hard can have a toxic effect on a work
environment, key managerial skills will be required, in an effort
to re-ignite employee passion. This is a time period when or-
ganizational leaders actually expect increased involvement and
commitment, in hopes that employees will work harder and
more competitively in an effort to keep their jobs. While this
may be the case initially, it is short-lived and typically followed
by malicious behavior within the organization (Appelbaum et
al., 1999). As a result, a concerted effort to improve organiza-
tional morale must consist of an ability to recognize the symp-
toms of organizational stress: constant complaining, tense sile-
nce, angry explosions, mistakes, avoidance, and turnover (Pater,
2001).
Lu et al. (2006) indicated that “in knowledge-intensive in-
dustries, firms cannot compete if their employees guard their
insights as personal secrets” (p. 15). To counter these chal-
lenges, Lu et al. (2006) asserted that “[in] [order] to succeed in
a knowledge economy, organizations need to develop system-
atic processes to create and leverage knowledge” (p. 15). The
statistical findings of this study provided no support for a cor-
relation between survivor syndrome and actual knowledge sha-
ring behavior; however, results revealed a statistically signifi-
cant positive correlation between survivors’ attitude toward
knowledge sharing and actual knowledge sharing behavior.
Results also reflected a statistically significant positive correla-
tion between perceived loss of knowledge power and actual
knowledge sharing behavior. This research has added to the
body of knowledge as a result of the empirical evidence which
supports the relationship between downsizing and actual know-
ledge sharing behavior. Conclusion
In general, results suggested that as survivors adjust to mul-

P. M. HALL
tiple rounds of layoffs, survivor syndrome is not as prevalent;
therefore, there is no relationship between survivor syndrome
and knowledge sharing. Results also suggested that if survivors
have a positive disposition relative to their attitude towards
knowledge sharing, they will share their knowledge. Results
also revealed that the more survivors perceive that they are
losing their knowledge power, the less they are willing to share
their knowledge.
These finding are significant as a result of the potential to in-
crease awareness for survivors and organizational leaders as it
relates to the planning phases of organizational restructurings.
Findings from this study may also assist with ensuring the
proper level of attention and/or counseling is provided for the
employees who will be left behind to contend with survivor’s
syndrome. In the end, the results of this study will also provide
organizational leaders with an increased awareness of the prob-
lem of knowledge hoarding among survivors in recently down-
sized organizations.
A key recommendation for action based on this study’s find-
ings is for organizational leaders to implement training pro-
grams for organizational leaders and survivors to attend, based
on the information revealed regarding survivors’ perspectives
of the challenges often encountered as it relates to knowledge
sharing in recently downsized organizations. Training programs
should be designed to focus on acknowledging the symptoms
survivors may be currently experiencing, or have previously
experienced, and provide guidelines on how to better manage
and overcome survivor syndrome.
The work of other researchers supports this recommendation,
as other researchers have posited that in an effort to counter the
negative effects of downsizing, organizational leaders need to
take action by focusing on the development of close working
relationships, and on providing the support survivors need in
order to embrace the sharing of knowledge and expertise and
achieve organizational goals (Bartlett & Wozny, 2002; Lee &
Choi, 2003; Rubenstein & Gesiler, 2003). Similarly, Ajzen and
Fishbein (1980) posited that “an acknowledgement and aware-
ness of what employees’ value can be instrumental in rallying
employees faced with overcoming survivor’s syndrome. When
working within the realms of a downsized work environment, it
is essential that employees work together and collaborate with
other cross functional teams, so that knowledge transfer can
take place” (p. 172).
Additional recommendations include the need for managers
to also hold focus group meetings with survivors in an effort to
identify and assess the organization’s overall knowledge man-
agement needs. Additionally, if organizational leaders can iden-
tify survivors’ attitudes towards knowledge-sharing, this will
position them to implement the necessary measures needed to
assist with improving those attitudes.
This recommendation for action is supported by the findings
of this study, and is also supported by the work of other re-
searchers who have posited that “successful downsizing must
consist of conducting a knowledge audit of a company’s work
force” (Managing Successful Downsizing”, 2002: p. 21). Simi-
larly, Fisher and White (1997) asserted that “successful down-
sizing requires the identification of the formal and informal
networks operating in an organization that are essential to its
learning capacity since both organizational learning and down-
sizing can lead to a better competitive position” (p. 458).
The final recommendation for action is to encourage orga-
nizational leaders from the very top levels of management,
down to the lower levels of management, to focus on fostering
a culture that encourages knowledge sharing within newly re-
structured work environments. Conducting regularly scheduled
town hall meetings or team meetings can assist with this effort.
This recommendation for action is supported by the findings of
this study, and is also supported by the work of other research-
ers who have posited that leaders should be encouraged to focus
on the fact that a major cultural shift is needed to change sur-
vivors’ behaviors, particularly in organizations faced with hav-
ing to manage the emotional and workplace needs of survivors
whose productivity and morale have been diminished as a result
of multiple downsizings (Bhattacharyya & Chatterjee, 2005).
Baltazar (2001) indicated that the continued trend of massive
organizational layoffs has resulted in the need for organiza-
tional leaders to place more emphasis on ensuring effective
knowledge management practices are in place. Similarly, the
research conducted by Lu et al. (2006), revealed that “at the
organizational level, organizational support leads to higher
utilization of information and communication technologies, re-
sulting in more knowledge sharing” (p. 35). Additionally, Gib-
bert and Krause (2002) indicated that while organizations can-
not force employees to share knowledge; they can encourage
employees to engage in the process. Additionally, Wright (1998)
indicated the following:
As organizations continue to evolve into knowledge inten-
sive environments, organizational leaders will need to shift
their focus towards the encouragement of knowledge sharing.
Knowledge, long regarded as power, has naturally been viewed
as ripe for hoarding and in a competitively individualistic envi-
ronment, sharing it has looked abnormal. As a result, now that
organizations are discovering that sharing knowledge makes
sound business sense, changing that behavior suddenly looks
profoundly connected to their bottom-line fortunes (p. 4).
Based on this study’s findings, organizational leaders can
implement training programs based on the information revealed
regarding survivors’ perspectives of the challenges often en-
countered as it relates to knowledge sharing in recently down-
sized organizations. A three-fold training approach can be stru-
ctured, designed, and implemented as follows:
1) Introduction/Overview: Define and acknowledge the cur-
rent or past existence of survivor syndrome; provide survivors
with a brief survivor syndrome assessment test; provide guide-
lines on how to effectively manage survivor syndrome (Bartlett
& Wozny, 2002; Lee & Choi, 2003; Rubenstein & Gesiler,
2003).
2) Analysis/Reflection: Identify and assess the organization’s
overall knowledge management needs; identify survivors’ atti-
tudes toward knowledge sharing; divide the survivors into fo-
cus groups and appoint one senior leader to serve as the
spokesperson for each group; have survivors brainstorm with
their appointed senior leader regarding the overall knowledge
management needs of the business and share their personal
views regarding their attitudes towards knowledge sharing
(“Managing Successful Downsizing”, 2002).
3) Goal Setting/Action Plan: Foster a knowledge sharing
culture; bring the teams back together as one group to provide a
read-out regarding the results in item 2; provide flip charts to be
used by the appointed senior leaders to journal survivors’ ideas
of how their organization can foster a knowledge sharing cul-
ture (Lu et al., 2006).
Organizational leaders can apply the findings from this study
to assist with designing a survivor training program. The sam-
20

P. M. HALL
ple training outline above can be used as a guide to design the
program, which can be implemented to assist with countering
the challenges that survivors and leaders often contend with, as
it relates to leveraging knowledge management in recently
downsized organizations. A potential title for the training pro-
gram could be: It starts at the Top: Survivor Syndrome &
Knowledge Management Assessment Training.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predict-
ing social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Appelbaum, S. H., Close, T. G., & Klasa, S. (1999). Downsizing: An
examination of some successes and more failures. Management De-
cision, 37, 424-436. doi:10.1108/00251749910274207
Baltazar, H. (2001). Knowledge management has a human side. eWeek,
18, 74-79.
http://eweek.com/c/a/IT-Management/Knowledge-Management-Has-
a-Human-Side
Bartlett, C. A., & Wozny, M. (2002). GE’s two-decade transformation:
Jack Welch’s leadership. Allston, MA: Harvard Business School.
http://hbr.org//product/ge-s-two-decade-transformation-jack-welch-s-
leader
Baruch, Y., & Hind, P. (1999). Perpetual motion in organizations:
Effective management and the impact of the new psychological con-
tracts on “survivor syndrome”. European Journal of Work and Or-
ganizational Psychology, 8, 295-306.
doi:10.1080/135943299398375
Beagrie, S. (2005). How to manage demotivated employees. Personnel
Today, 31-32.
http://business.highbeam.com/410665/article-1G1-138757296
Bhattacharya, S., & Chatterjee, L. (2005). Organizational downsizing:
From concepts to practices. The Journal for Decision Makers, 30,
65-78.
http://vikalpa.com/pdf/articles/2005/2005_july_sep_65_78.pdf
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How or-
ganizations manage what they know (pp. 1-7). Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
http://wang.ist.psu.edu/course/05/IST597/papers/Davenport_know.p
df
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behav-
ior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addi-
son-Wesley.
Fisher, S. R., & White, M. A. (1997). Downsizing and organizational
learning: A question of compatibility. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 25, 454-458. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.1997.4989390
Ford, D. P. (2004). Knowledge sharing: Seeking to understand inten-
tions and actual sharing. (Doctoral dissertation, University at King-
ston, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts I nternational, 66, 536.
Gibbert, M., & Krause, H. (2002). Practice exchange in a best practice
marketplace. In T. H. Davenport, & G. J. B. Probst (Eds.), Knowl-
edge Management Case Book: Siemens Best Practices (pp. 89-105).
Erlangen: Publicis Corporate Publishing.
Henkoff, R. (1994). Getting beyond downsizing. Fortune, 129, 58-64.
http://money.conn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1994/01/
10/78843/index.htm
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual
framework. Human Resource D evelopment Review, 2, 337-359.
doi:10.1177/1534484303257985
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B., & Wei, K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to
electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS
Quarterly, 20, 113-143.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org
Lee, H. & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, proc-
esses, and organizational performance: An integrative view and em-
pirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20,
179-288. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org
Lesser, E. & Prusak, L. (2001). Preserving knowledge in an uncertain
world. MIT Sloan Management Revie w, 43, 101-102.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org
Leung, A. S. M., & Chang, L. M. K. (2002). Organizational downsizing:
Psychological impact on surviving managers in Hong Kong. Asia
Pacific Business Review, 8, 76-94. doi:10.1080/713999149
Linn, A. (2012). Who’s announced most job cuts: Uncle Sam? URL
(last checked 29 May 2012).
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/13/10376217-whos
-announced-most-job-cuts-uncle-sam
Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. (2006). Managerial knowledge sharing:
The role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors.
Management and Organization Review, 2, 15-41.
doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00029.x
Managing successful downsizing. (2002). Corporate Finance, 208,
21-22.
Noer, D. M. (1993). Healing the wounds: Overcoming the trauma of
layoffs and revitalizing downsized organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Josssey Bass.
Pater, R. (2001). Boosting performance in these changing and pressured
times. American Salesman, 46, 10-16.
http://allbusiness.com/human-resources/workforce-management/808
430-1.html
Rubenstein, A., & Geisler, E. (2003). Installing and managing knowl-
edge management systems. Hartford, CT: Greenwood.
Sitlington, H. (2008). Impact of downsizing, restructuring, and knowl-
edge sharing on retention of knowledge in organizations: Implica-
tions for organizational effectiveness. URL (last checked 18 January
2009). http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au
Wright, P. (1998). Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and
flexibility in strategic human resource management. Academic Man-
agement Review, 23, 756-772.