Downsizing is sometimes necessary, but it always can be done better or worse. This essay reviews evidence about some of what to avoid, as well as about what to approach, in such dour (if not tragic) exercises. Whatever that case, downsizing also always involves normative or value issues, both in the choice between alternative vehicles for adverse personnel actions as well as in the global question: Why downsize?
As a sampler, three points illustrate what is best avoided in downsizing experiences. Thus, they should strive hard to "let in the sunshine," but commonly trend toward secretive cabals at the highest levels. Moreover, cutback commonly is used as an all-purpose tool, with major costs. Relatedly, downsizing often penalizes the relatively blameless, which implies both value and ethical shortfalls.
What downsizing should emphasize gets illustrated by five exemplars. Thus, buy-in should be sought, early and late, and especially at operating levels; the range of adverse personnel actions should be enlarged; appropriate problems should be targeted, but downsizing often sets in motion counterproductive dynamics; useful infrastructures should be built, but seldom are; and downsizing hosts should be oriented toward learning from the past, in principle and especially in practice.
