The downsides of downsizing: Communication processes and information needs in the aftermath of a workforce reduction strategy

This study explored the impact of downsizing on levels of uncertainty, coworker and management trust, and communicative effectiveness in a health care organization downsizing during a 2-year period from 660 staff to 350 staff members. Self-report data were obtained from employees who were staying (survivors), from employees were being laid off (victims), and from employees with and without managerial responsibilities. Results indicated that downsizing had a similar impact on the amount of trust that survivors and victims had for management. However, victims reported feeling lower levels of trust toward their colleagues compared with survivors. Contrary to expectations, survivors and victims reported similar perceptions of job and organizational uncertainty and similar levels of information received about changes. Employees with no management responsibilities and middle managers both reported lower scores than did senior managers on all aspects of information received. Implications for practice and the management of the communication process are discussed.

"We do it, but they don't": Multiple categorizations and work team communication

The present study adopted an intergroup approach to information sharing and ratings of work team communication in a public hospital (N = 142) undergoing large-scale restructuring. Consistent with predictions, ratings of communication followed a double ingroup serving bias: while team members reported sending about the same levels of information to double ingroup members (same work team/same occupational group) as they did to partial ingroup members (same work team/different occupational group), they reported receiving less information from partial ingroup members than from double ingroup members and rated the communication that they received from partial ingroup members as less effective. We discuss the implication of these results for the management of information sharing and organizational communication.

Transformational leadership within virtual teams: Examining the mediating influence of trust and role clarity for performance and knowledge sharing

Virtual teams differ from tradidonal, co-located teams in that they primarily communicate via informadon technolog}' such as email, video conferencing and web based coUaboradve environments rather than in a face-to-face medium. There has been a lack of empirical research into the influence that leadership has within virtual teams upon key outcomes such as performance and knowledge sharing. This paper examines antecedents of knowledge sharing and performance, namely role clarit)' and trust in a team leader. We predicted that transformadonal leadership would posidvely influence both performance and knowledge sharing within virtual teams. We also h^'pothesised that trust in a leader and role clarit)' would mediate both the associadon between transformadonal leadership and performance as well as the associadon between transformadonal leadership and knowledge sharing within virtual teams. Data was collected from a public sector organisadon using virtual teams, Pardcipants responded to a self-report quesdonnaire. Supervisor radngs of performance and knowledge sharing were also obtained. In general we found support for a posidve reladonship between transformadonal leadership and performance and knowledge sharing within virtual teams. Using mediated muldple regression, we found support for the mediadng role of trust in the leader and role clarit}' between transformadonal leadership and performance and knowledge sharing. Implicadons of the results are provided.

Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing

Two experiments investigated the extent of message processing of a persuasive communication proposed by either a numerical majority or minority. Both experiments crossed source status (majority versus minority) with message quality (strong versus weak arguments) to determine which source condition is associated with systematic processing. The first experiment showed a reliable difference between strong and weak messages, indicating systematic processing had occurred, for a minority irrespective of message direction (pro- versus counter-attitudinal), but not for a majority. The second experiment showed that message outcome moderates when a majority or a minority leads to systematic processing. When the message argued for a negative personal outcome, there was systematic processing only for the majority source; but when the message did not argue for a negative personal outcome, there was systematic processing only for the minority source. Thus one key moderator of whether a majority or minority source leads to message processing is whether the topic induces defensive processing motivated by self-interest. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.