With over 39,000 mass layoffs in America during the Great Recession, December 2007-June 2009, corporate downsizing seems like an integral practice of modern organizational life (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Downsizing refers to the deliberate reduction in the size of the workforce to improve organizational performance (Nair, 2008). Companies resort to downsizing, or layoffs, in hopes of reducing labor costs, increasing profitability, or gaining a greater competitive advantage (Maertz, C., Wiley J., LeRouge, C., & Campion, M., 2010) . The question of whether downsizing is beneficial or harmful to organizations has been debated. Proponents argue that downsizing allows companies to reduce overhead, decrease bureaucracy, enable faster decision making, and allow for smoother communication (Cascio, 1993). Furthermore, since personnel costs represent between thirty and eighty percent of an organization's administrative costs, workforce reduction appears to be an effective cost-cutting measure (Cascio, 1993). However, those who are skeptical of downsizing argue that downsizing comes with “hidden costs,” such as the cost of losing skills and expertise when employees leave the organization and the distress that the downsizing event may bring to employees ( Nair, 2008). The research sides with those who oppose downsizing, as layoffs often make organizations more ineffective by failing to sustainably reduce costs, improve profits, or increase stock performance ( Cascio, 1993 ). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Indeed, on average, non-downsized firms outperform their downsized counterparts, with no empirical evidence to support a relationship with increased financial performance and downsizing ( Gandolfi, 2008 ). Although organizations occasionally notice an initial increase in productivity, with survivors working more competitively to keep their jobs, this increase is short-lived and unsustainable (Appelbaum, Delage, Labib, & Gault; 1997). There is several speculation as to why the expected benefits of downsizing do not materialize, with research pointing to the lower affective organizational commitment associated with “survivor syndrome” as the explanation (van Dick, Drzensky, & Heinz, 2016). Survivor syndrome refers to the symptoms experienced by employees who “survive” a downsizing event and remain employed with the organization, and creates a set of emotions, behaviors, and attitudes that negatively affect both the employee and the organization (Mayton, 2010). These symptoms include the survivor experiencing a range of emotions that fall into four groups: fear, insecurity and uncertainty, frustration, resentment and anger, sadness, depression and guilt, and injustice, betrayal and distrust (Nathan & Neve, 2009) . ). The first cluster: fear, insecurity, and uncertainty, refers to emotions related to loss of control as survivors face employment instability in their jobs. The cluster: frustration, resentment and anger, refers to the emotions that employees feel towards their organization, but are often repressed because these emotions cannot be shown openly at work (Nathan & Neve, 2009). Feelings of sadness, depression and anger Guilt refers to the emotions that employees experiencetowards their former dismissed colleagues. The cluster: injustice, betrayal and distrust refers to the emotions that survivors express towards the organization when they feel that the downsizing was unfair and sudden. These emotions manifest in behaviors in which the survivor shows a lower sense of well-being, decreased motivation, and reduced productivity (Brenner, Andreeva, Theorell, Goldberg, Westerlund, Leinweber, Hanson, Imbernon, & Bonnaud, 2014; Gandolfi, 2008; Nair, 2008). ; Rumlall, Al-Sabaan and Magbool, 2014). While organizations tend to think that downsizing would lead to surviving grateful and hardworking employees, organizations fail to consider that the process can be traumatic and lead to negative effects at work (Lipton, 2016). Those suffering from survivor's syndrome, the workers who remain following a mass layoff, are likely to show a lower sense of well-being, both physically and physically. mentally (Brenner et al., 2014; Jamal & Khan, 2013; Nair, 2008; Rumlall et al., 2014). Well-being can be defined as an individual's positive attitude towards themselves and refers to their state of physical and psychological well-being (Jamal & Khan, 2013). Following downsizing, the remaining workforce is twice as likely to develop stress-related illnesses, such as heart disease, asthma, and obesity, compared to companies that have not made layoffs (Rumlall et al., 2014). In addition to stress-related illnesses, survivors also experience other physical health symptoms such as dizziness, fainting, chest or heart pain, and headaches, at a higher frequency than before downsizing (Amstrong-Stassen, 2005). Shreekumar Nair's (2008) investigation of survivors' attitudes revealed that the symptom of survivor syndrome, that is, increased feelings of uncertainty, was a major cause of higher levels of stress and resulting health problems. Increased workload, loss of relationships, and general organizational change resulting from a decrease in the workforce contribute to the symptom of stress (Jenkins, 2012). In addition to stress-related physical health problems, survivors also experienced mental health problems, often manifesting as depressive symptoms (Brenner et al., 2014). The instability and uncertainty associated with survivor syndrome are linked to increased depressive symptoms, including melancholic mood, anhedonia, fatigue, and excessive worry (Brenner et al., 2014). While it can be argued that survivors are the “lucky ones” when companies downsize, compared to their laid-off colleagues, both share the same increased likelihood of suffering from high levels of depressive symptoms. (Brenner et al, 2014). One possible explanation for this is that although employment outcomes are different for layoff survivors and layoff victims, they both go through the same negative downsizing process. Both groups perceive downsizing as a painful and chaotic event and as an experience in which they lack control, two factors that help contribute to feelings of depressive symptoms (Brenner et al., 2014). In addition to affecting the personal well-being of survivors, survivor syndrome impacts organizational well-being and profitability due to its influence on worker motivation and performance (Drzensky & Heinz, 2016; Jamal & Khan, 2013; Maertz, Wiley , LeRouge and Campion , 2010; The symptoms of survivor syndrome, i.e. feelings of insecurity and betrayal, contribute to the negative psychological impact on workers that can lead to adecreased motivation in the workplace (Waraich & Bharadwaj, 2012). Furthermore, the increased workload taken on by survivors, following downsizing, may decrease work motivation, as they now no longer have time to fulfill social and private obligations (Malik et al., 2010). Furthermore, although it seems logical that the fear of being fired themselves would motivate survivors to work diligently and productively, while survivors instead focus only on keeping their supervisors quiet rather than completing the work (Waraich & Bharadwaj, 2012) . This thought process helps explain the decreased work performance experienced by survivors, as they are not motivated to complete productive work. Furthermore, Drzensky and Heinz (2016) found that survivors decline in job performance as a direct response to an organization's decision to fire coworkers, especially when the decision is viewed as a voluntary action. Symptoms of survivor syndrome, such as a loss of sense of well-being, motivation, and performance, are linked to reduced organizational commitment of the survivor (Jamal & Khan, 2013; Travaglione & Cross, 2006). Organizational commitment can be defined as the extent to which an employee identifies with the organization and can be divided into three subtypes: continuous, normative, and affective (Linton, 2017). Continuous commitment can be understood as employees' desire to remain in an organization based on personal investments made over the years of employment (Marques, Galende, Cruz, & Ferreira, 2014). This means that employees based their commitment to their organization on the cost they would face to leave. Normative commitment is defined by employees' feelings of obligation to the organization with employee commitment to the organization based on feelings of duty (Marques et al., 2014). Affective commitment refers to the employee's desire to identify with the organization and is created by the employee's involvement and attachment to the organization based on intrinsic desire (Marques et al., 2014). Compared to other dimensions of organizational commitment, affective commitment is more associated with symptoms of survivor syndrome as it is closely related to employees' emotions towards the organization. Furthermore, survivors' affective commitment has been found to decrease following layoffs ( Jamal & Khan, 2013 ). Indeed, van Dick, Drzensky, and Heinz (2016) posit that survivors' reduced organizational identification following downsizing is the explanation for why survivors experience survivor syndrome. This suggestion is supported by evidence that there is a decrease in affective commitment of survivor employees following downsizing and that affective commitment has a positive correlation with well-being, motivation, and performance, side effects of survivor syndrome ( Jamal & Khan, 2013; Lipton, 2016). Furthermore, affective commitment also refers to other side effects consistent with survivor syndrome, including employee turnover, organizational citizen behavior, and absenteeism (Cassell, 2014). Employees who maintain a high level of affective commitment continued to feel valued as members of the organization and acted as a great asset to their company, rather than the negative effects experienced by survivors who suffer from low affective commitment (Lipton, 2016). Because of the integral relationship of affective commitment to survivor syndromeand effects on organizational effectiveness, it is important for organizations to strategize how to maintain or increase affective commitment following downsizing to hopefully prevent survivor syndrome and its impact from manifesting in the organization. To do this, organizations must consider which organizational factors are associated with a reduction in survivors' affective commitment. Survivors' decreased affective commitment may be associated with the psychological contract breakdown that occurs during downsizing. A psychological contract is an implicit, unwritten contract defined as the mutual obligation and mutual exchange agreement between the employee and the organization (Lipton, 2016). A violation of this psychological contract occurs when the employee perceives that the organization has failed to meet one or more aspects of its obligations under the psychological contract and is usually associated with feelings of injustice (Lipton, 2016). For example, if an If the organization's communication to an employee during a change initiative lacked quality information or was limited in quantity, the employee felt as if the psychological contract had been violated because the organization fulfilled the own obligation to provide clear and open communication (Lipton, 2016). Generally, a violation of the psychological contract causes the employee to experience negative attitudes and behaviors, including a reduced sense of organizational commitment (Lipton, 2016). If the survivor feels a loss of organizational support or a sense of violated trust, from the psychological breach of contract, the employee will disengage and lose interest in maintaining an identity with the organization (Lipton, 2016). To maintain balance following a psychological breach of contract, caused by the organization's failure to fulfill its obligations, the employee develops negative behaviors and attitudes in an attempt to compensate (Paille & Raneri, 2016). Concomitant with psychological contract violation, reductions in downsizing survivors' affective commitment can also be attributed to other organizational factors. Lack of organizational transparency during downsizing and lack of clear explanation of reasons for downsizing contribute to a decrease in survivors' affective commitment (Nair, 2008). Furthermore, the perception of inadequate organizational support, both in terms of sufficiency and availability, is related to the decline of organizational identification (Travaglione & Cross, 2006). According to organizational support theory, this is due to employees acting on each other based on their perception of the organization's interest in them (Travaglione & Cross, 2006). This means that if surviving employees do not feel that the organization provides adequate support during or after downsizing, they reduce their support for the organization and decrease their affective commitment to the organization. A reduction in survivors' affective commitment may also be linked to perceptions of injustice during the downsizing process (van Dierendonck & Jacobs, 2012). If survivors viewed the downsizing process as procedurally unfair, their affective commitment was likely to decrease (van Dierendonck & Jacobs, 2012). This relationship can be explained by survivors' views and attitudes toward the organization changing based on how their dismissed colleagues were treated during downsizing (van Dierendonck & Jacobs, 2012). With the relationship between affective commitment and organizational factorsduring overt downsizing, organizations may involve tactics to reduce the negative impact of downsizing on survivors. In an effort to reduce the negative impact of downsizing on survivor affective commitment, organizations can focus on maintaining a positive employee-manager relationship ( Lipton, 2016 ). A positive relationship between employee and manager can help mediate the effect of downsizing on the psychological contract. To maintain this relationship with survivors, employers should develop a sense of trust by having managers express that they are responsive, knowledgeable, and responsive to survivors' needs (Paille & Raineri, 2015). This allows survivors' view of the organization to remain positive, reducing the effect on their affective commitment to the company (Lipton, 2016). Furthermore, when managers are trusted, it allows survivors to come forward and discuss their individual concerns, strengthening their commitment to the organization (Lipton, 2016). Along with trust, it is important for employers to display a sense of transparency to help reduce the effect of downsizing on survivors' affective commitment. In Nair's (2008) survey of layoff survivors, the majority (89%) of survivors interviewed said they would prefer a very transparent downsizing process, wanting management to meet with employees to work together and discuss critical downsizing issues . In this way, employees feel more connected to management and the organization, positively impacting their emotional commitment. Conversely, by not being transparent in the downsizing process, employers create an environment of distrust and helplessness, as survivors feel a lack of control over their professional lives (Nair, 2008). Managers can also use the relationship with survivors to promote employee engagement, reducing the effect of downsizing on affective commitment (Lipton, 2016). Employee engagement is an important agent of affective commitment because when employees engage, they feel a return on the personal investment they have invested in the organization by finding more personal meaning in completing daily work tasks (Sinha & Trivedi, 2014). Managers are able to promote employee engagement and improve commitment by regularly speaking with survivors and monitoring their emotional states (Lipton, 2016). In this way, survivors feel supported by their managers and feel that the organization cares for them both professionally and personally, causing survivors to care about the organization for each other, increasing affective commitment (Lipton, 2016 ). Organizations can also focus on providing support to survivors. following downsizing in an attempt to decrease the effect on affective commitment (Lipton, 2016). Employees' perceptions of organizational support have been associated with attachment and commitment to the organization (Kim, Eisenberger, & Baik, 2016). There are many ways in which a company can provide support to layoff survivors, and training programs are one possible method (Waraich & Bhardwaj, 2012). Training programs allow survivors to feel supported while receiving helpful information (Waraich & Bhardwaj, 2012). This information may include job training and transition skills if the survivor must take on new job responsibilities to compensate for a reduction in the workforce or experiences a.