Organizational Restructuring and Its Consequences: Rhetorical and Structural

Author(s): Paul M. Hirsch and Michaela De Soucey

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 32 (2006), pp. 171-189
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737736
Accessed: 07-11-2015 03:43 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006. 32:171-89

doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123146
Copyright (?) 2006 byAnnual Reviews. All rightsreserved
First published online as a Review inAdvance on April 10,2006

and Its

Restructuring

Organizational

CONSEQUENCES: Rhetorical and Structural

Paul M. Hirsch1

De

and Michaela

Soucey2

2
ofManagement,
Department
of Sociology, Northwestern
]Kellogg
Illinois 60208;
email: paulhirsch@kellogg.northwestern.edu,
Evanston,
m-desoucey @ northwestern, edu
School

Key

Words

organizations,

efficiency,

In this review, we
Abstract
a conceptual
it has
tool and how
tations of employment.
Although

the idea
to alter

used

use

labor, management

downsizing,

examine
been

discourse

as
of organizational
restructuring
societal
definitions
and interpre?

the term restructuring

of

University,

is relatively

recent,

the broad issue of changing employment conditions with which it is concerned has

a long history, going

eration of the causes
and

structural

back
and

versions.

to the industrial

consequences
In their pursuit

the demands

of increasingly
of what
is popularly

ponents

inmost

applauded

economic
the adverse

impact, including
cial disruptions
caused
These
studies provide

revolution.

Our

main

focus

is a consid?

recent
in its more
of restructuring,
of greater efficiencies,
organizations

rhetorical

adapt to
are
com?
and
these
crucial
markets,
global
adaptations
are
Such developments
referred to as the new economy.
examine
both sides of their social
theory, but sociologists
effects

and

of such

implications

externalities

as the so?

and other organizational

and corporate
by downsizing
changes.
to our knowledge
of how much,
and
important contributions
are in fact deliverable
of organizational
to
and responsive
when, promises
efficiency
those affected by them. We argue that the language
of restructuring
is regularly used to
mask,
We

and

reframe,
conclude

social outcomes.
positive
slumps as possessing
as an important component
of the current
to transnational
contexts and suggest further
ideology
in these other national
affects the culture of business
restructuring

sugarcoat

by positioning
export of managerial

American

of how

examination

economic

restructuring

contexts.

INTRODUCTION
In this review, we identifywhat is distinctive about the term "organizational re?
structuring,"

practice

that has

occurred

repeatedly

and

continuously

since

the

inception of capitalist industrialism. The term labels and signifies part of a con?
tinual historical and cross-disciplinary project. It has been variously coded as

negative,

positive,

or neutral

in its tougher

labor

policies

and

employment

prac?

tices, in which job security and performance are dominated by the inevitabil?
ityof competitive market forces and globalization. Restructuring is rhetorically

0360-0572/06/0811-0171$20.00

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

171

172

HIRSCH

? DE SOUCEY

framed both to connote a defensive organizational move against external and con?
textual pressures (from competition, political and economic power, and cultural
change), as well as to describe a process that affectsworkers at all levels of in?
dustrial and postindustrial organization (Frenkel 2003). Here, we summarize these
trends and review the differentways recently used to interpret the idea of re?
structuringas a conceptual tool. Although we note particular structural changes
that have accelerated large corporations' reductions in the size of theirwork?
force (cf. Fligstein & Shin 2004), our primary focus is the rhetorical framing
of the concept?the trends in how restructuringhas been conceived across dif?
ferent disciples, as well as communicated, interpreted,and sold in the public
arena.

Organizational restructuringhas been commonly characterized inpopular, trade,

and academic management literature as effective and efficient reorganization of
the components of corporate work.1 Typically, it involves the positive language
of reducing costs, increasing profits, improving product and service quality, in?

creasing share price, and responding quickly to new opportunities. These myriad
sources reflect importantdisciplinary differences in generating a consistent defini?
tionof restructuring,yet theyalso demonstrate noteworthy similarities in tone and
approach. The concept of restructuringwas introduced into corporate language
in the 1970s, when itwas negatively associated with economic distress. In the
1980s, the term took on a more positive and constructive connotation of providing
organizations an opportunity tomake structuralchanges to increase efficiency and

profits.As this linguistic turnentered the popular lexicon, this revised interpre?
tiveunderstanding also appeared in themore academic studies of social scientists,
including sociologists of work and occupations.
As a rhetorical tool, this framing of the discourse supports a dialogue of con?
sensus thatfocuses on restructuringas a positive force for
achieving efficiency in a
cutthroatmarketplace. It follows that the loss of jobs, or theiroutsourcing, are part
of thenaturalworkings and operation of a free and increasingly global marketplace
forjobs and careers. Restructuring has also been a topic of public discussion
during
political

campaigns,

with

competing

assertions

about

its short-run

versus

long-term

impacts, and theUnited States's business-friendly environment provides organi?

zations strong institutional support to respond readily to new demands and use
1
Three

textbooks

reflect the different normative

and descriptive emphases of their disciplines

on organization
behavior defines restructuring as "altering an
structure by such actions as eliminating
a department or reducing the number
organization's
of layers of management
to streamline
the organization's
and reduce costs"
operations
text (Cornfield et al. 2001,
(George & Jones 1999, p. 18, italics added). A more sociological
of it as "a three-dimensional
conceives
p. xiii, italics added)
transformation
of workplace
and applications.

textbook

social structure." Finally,

in their text on managing
(human resources), Gomez
personnel
et al. (1998, p. 9, italics added)
discuss
Mejia
organizational
restructuring as entailing
the "flattening of management
levels" in a process
that "requires effective management
of
human resources..
.in a 'hybrid' blending of firms with diverse histories and labor forces."

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

173

ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING

resources effectively in theirquest for continued profitability (Gowing et al. 1997,

Phan & Hill 1995, Tienda et al. 1987). Ideas about adaptation tonew environmental
demands are crucial components of successful organizational structures (Aldrich
1999, Thompson 1967) and may also help organizations appear more stable and
efficient than theymay actually be (VanMaanen 1998).
Our focus in thisreview is a consideration of rhetorical and structuraltreatments
of

the characteristics,

causes,

and

consequences

of organizational

restructuring.

We characterize rhetorical tools as linguistic persuasion devices and as distinct

from structural changes in the pattern and organization of corporate work. This
involves recognizing the conditions that precede these deliberate organizational
changes as well as the social costs thatresult fromrestructuring.Although the term
restructuringappears more frequently in the literaturesof business administration
and economics (Gaughan 2002, Gowing et al. 1997, Hoskisson & Johnson 1992,
Zajac & Kraatz 1993), the issues addressed by restructuringare integral to the
subfields of organizational, economic, and occupational sociology.
Across disciplines, agreement is widespread that organizations strive to be
flexible and adaptable to survive and compete in the contemporary marketplace.
For example, thedevelopment ofmore global markets increased competition and
promoted smaller firms' entry intomarkets, forcing large firms to become more

focused on reducing costs and increasing efficiencies (Hirsch & Shanley 1996,
Prechel 1994). Since the 1980s especially, developments in information technol?
ogy have made it increasingly possible for small firms tobe more fast-moving and
dynamic relative to larger firms (Quinn 1992). One result has been the accompa?
nying rise and acceptance of new linguistic terms (e.g., downsizing, rightsizing,

and warehousing) thatdescribe diminished job security and narrowed long-term

employment opportunities within the larger corporate sector (Arthur& Rousseau
1996, Haveman & Cohen 1994). Moreover, the definitions of the termsorganiza?
tion and career have been concurrently adjusted to allow formore virtualmodels
of organizational forms and hierarchies, as well as types and principles of employ?

ment (more temporaryand contract, rather than full-timewith benefits) (Hirsch &
Naquin 2001, Smith 1997).
Economic and organizational sociologists recognize that even though the tra?
ditional career model with more long-term employment and job security is no
as applicable,

longer

reliant

previously

structures

and

institutions

(e.g.,

employer

sponsored pensions and health insurance) are less quick to adapt (Cornfield et al.
2001; Newman 1988, 1993). What is popularly referred to as the new economy
involves

redefined

obligations,

risks,

corporate

logics,

career

paths,

networks,

and

framing strategies (Dobbin 2004) that also have social (and therefore sociologi?
cal) effects outside of organizational boundaries (Granovetter 1985, Lee 1987).
These

Maanen
vice

changes

are

also

reflected

in new

managerial

discourse

and

what

Van

(1998, p. 193) called "the penchant for fad and folderol," where "ad?

tracts

and

change

manifestos"

reflect

pressing

need

for problematizing

the

rhetoric of organizational restructuringand change within various organizational

types.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

174

HIRSCH

? DE SOUCEY

SOCIOLOGICALTREATMENTSOF RESTRUCTURING
For sociologists, an interestingand importantcorrelate of thewidespread restruc?
turingof organizations and its relationship to employment has been a restructuring
of what Bendix's (1974) classic work called the "rhetoric and ideology of man?
agement in the course of industrialization." The general managerial argument has
been that thedecrease in the size of a firm'sworkforce is an opportunity for those
remaining to take on more responsibility and therebybecome empowered (Arthur
& Rousseau 1996, Cornfield et al. 2001). Untangling the discrepancies between
(a) the negative economic connotations of dismissals (for some) (Spalter-Roth &
Deitch 1999) and (b) the positive management code for empowering the employ?
ees (Wanous et al. 1984) that remain also signals a reinvented structureof work
and organizational practices (Castillo 1997, Grunberg et al. 2000, Kanter 1989,
Smith 1997).
Balanced

against

the rhetorical

frameworks

supporting

"lean

and mean"

com?

panies (Harrison 1994) and the proliferation of strategic alliances in the global
marketplace (Fligstein 2001, Han 1994), we also note a rise in the less positive
framing of the structural ramifications and rhetorical criticisms of organizational
restructuringand their implications for society at large (Fiss & Hirsch 2005, Kentor
2001). If capitalism and a market-based society are the ideals thatAmerican-based
at all

organizations,

levels,

encapsulate

and

promote

internationally,

sociological

examinations of peripheral inequalities provide important contributions to our

knowledge of how much, and when, such promises of organizational efficiency
are in fact deliverable and responsive to those affected by them (Cascio 2002,
Cornfield et al. 2001, Kalleberg et al. 1996).
Within the realm of academic sociology, the termorganizational restructuring
is used sparingly, and itsdeterminants are conceptually undertheorized. Discourse
around the structuresof workplace social organization relies on the notion that
bureaucracy iswhat is actually being reconceived by social scientists on theglobal
level. Marxian

sociology,

would

especially,

make

a more

acerbic

statement

about

the realities of restructuringforworkers and thegeneral population. Organizational

restructuring

as

such would

have

been

too tame

a term for
conceptualizing

the so?

cial change correlated with global political-economic practices that affect large
populations of workers. Additional sociological conceptual frameworks, along?
side and preceding restructuring,include organizational decline (Grant& Wallace
1994), deindustrialization (Harrison 1994), reorganization, flexibility (Kalleberg

2001),

organizational

change,

and

reinvention.

Sociology often attempts to personalize the relationships between employees

(as factors of production) and social institutions.Organizational sociologists have
considered restructuringfrom the standpoints of both thedependent and indepen?
dent variable in a large variety of contexts. Examples include institutional
change
(Abolafia & Biggart 1991), corporate structuresand control (Ocasio & Kim 1999,
Perrow 2002), interfirm
networks (Uzzi 1997), and ideas about themeaning ofwork
and careers (Castillo 1997, Haveman & Cohen 1994, Hodson 1996,
Kalleberg

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

175

ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING

2003, Wuthnow 1990). The process of organizational change has sporadically

slowed and sped up in differentpolitical and economic conditions, but ithas not
ceased (Aldrich 1999). To some extent, the social and research outcomes of orga?
nizational restructuringdeemed negative by sociologists may signal a disciplinary
disconnect with the discourse of those who frame it as positive and beneficial

for the economy and society at large [e.g., see Zuckerman (2004) and Zajac &
Westphal's (2004) debate over economic sociology's domain and assumptions].
Large-scale

shifts

in bureaucratic

form

have

and process

demonstrated

past

capa?

bilities of social organization to adapt and benefit from such change. They suggest
a potential upside for future restructuringsfollowing additional systemic changes
on local, national, and global levels (Kentor 2001, Rubin & Smith 2001).
An alternative andmore traditional, though equally broad, view of the sociolog?

ical agenda in researching and theorizing this topic has conceived organizational
restructuringquite differentlyfrom itsnear-exclusively positive treatment inother
fields. The discipline has a long tradition of studying the adverse effects and im?
plications of social disruptions caused by organizational and corporate change,
whereas management studies habitually examine thebottom line of organizational
goals.

Sociologists

monitor

restructuring's

macro

the correlates

of

effects,

and

economists

monitor

externalities, in a wide variety of tangential arenas. These externalities include gen?

der inequalities (Kay & Hagan 1999,McCall 2000, Quadagno 1999, Skuratowicz
& Hunter 2004, Tienda et al. 1987); immigration, race, and discrimination (Hagan
2004, Massey & Dent?n 1993,McBrier & Wilson 2004, Spalter-Roth & Deitch
1999, Sunstein 1991); downsizing, unemployment, and income polarization
(Cornfield et al. 2001, DiPrete 1993, Galbraith & Berner 2001, Grunberg et al.
2000, Hodson 1996); and the impacts of globalization on career paths and or?
ganizational processes (Dobbin 2004, Fligstein 2001, Frenkel 2003, Galbraith
& Berner 2001, Quadagno 1999, Ruet 2003).
These

studies

focus

on

reduced,

rather

than

enhanced,

op?

portunities (Hirsch & Shanley 1996). Whether or not sociologists use the ex?
act term "organizational restructuring" to describe themomentum behind such
economic

and

social

changes,

"corporate

efficiency"

is used

even

more

spar?

ingly to describe the outcome of these disruptive forces.Within corporate struc?

tures, sociologists of work and organizations investigate inequalities in job mo?
bility (DiPrete 1993, DiPrete & Nonnemaker 1997, Haveman & Cohen 1994,
McBrier & Wilson 2004); trends in perceived job quality (Frost 1985, Prechel
1994, Quadagno
1999, Reger et al. 1994, Uzzi 1997,Wallace & Leicht 2004);
wage disparities (Handel 2005, Hernandez-Leon 2004) and career paths (or lack
thereof) (Arthur& Rousseau 1996,Hirsch 1986, Hirsch & Shanley 1996, Royal &
Althauser 2003); technology usage among workers (Bums 1999); and interorga?
nizational culture (Frenkel 2003, Frost 1985, Hodson 1996,Martin 2002, Wallace
& Leicht 2004).
In addition to its business firm application typically used to generate and il?
lustrate organizational theories (Hodson 1996, Kalleberg 2003, Ocasio & Kim
1999), the rhetoric of restructuringhas been extended to describe practices in law

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

? DE SOUCEY

HIRSCH

176

firms (Kay & Hagan 1999), religious orders (Bartunek 1984,Wuthnow 1990), the
federal government (Rodriguez 2004, Yamagata et al. 1997), health care organi?
zations (Leicht et al. 1995), education (Dolan 1994), and unions (Brueggemann
& Brown 2003, Kochan et al. 1986). Such variety of usage in the field begets
furthersociological inquiry into the issues thatorganizational restructuringenter?
tains and

addresses,

normative

relieving

about

presumptions

forces

economic

and

mechanisms as they influence social dynamics.

UNPACKINGRESTRUCTURING'SDISCURSIVE FRAMES
Business

and

Industry's

Linguistic

Perspective

Since the early days of large corporate organizations, discursive frames of delib?
erate change have been replete with terminology used to describe socioeconomic
processes (Perrow 2002, Roy 1997). The popular arrival of the term organiza?
tional restructuringwas accompanied by the claim among business publications
that traditional organizations had become dinosaurs in the landscape ofAmerican
corporate enterprise. In employing this term,corporations and thepublications that
serve as theirgatekeepers into thepublic arena created a prominent rhetoricof ex?
aggeration thatboth describes thecontemporary realityof thecorporate experience
and distracts firms and workers from it (Littler& Innes 2004).
As markets globalize, technologies advance, and knowledge diversifies, the
environment

outside

the corporate

organization

rapidly

transforms,

necessitating

linguistic explanations. Jacques (1996), forone, calls the language of thebusiness

world a "pidgin language, a polyglot of overlapping dialects.. .speak[ing] the ar?
tificially clarified and semantically impoverished language of hypothesis testing
alone" (Jacques 1996, p. xi). In terms of the organization's innerworkings, we
are told throughpopular business publications about thenew employee (Grunberg
et al. 2000,

Jones

et al. 2002),

"the proactive,

self-managing,

team-oriented

'knowl?

edge worker'" (Jacques 1996, p. 1). Somewhat surprisingly,or perhaps not, this
description applies to the sought-afterworker both now and decades ago. Beyond
the rhetorical tool of restructuring, theworld of corporate enterprise is replete
with the replication of themes possessing different official names or support?
ers. Examining organizational change through a historical perspective attuned
toward

discursive

frames

can

tles from actual trends.Table

ements

and

practices

help

researchers

organizational

separate

these

1 places some of themore macrosociological

surrounding

the discourse

of

restructuring

ti?

el?

in this broader

context.

The structural changes noted in Column 1 of the Table take epochal events
discussed by Fligstein & Shin (2004) and furtherelaborate on their linkages with
descriptive qualities of changes (Column 2) and the rhetorical labeling (Column 3)
associated

with

the transformed

organizational

forms

and

environmental

impacts.

Throughout this period, various shocks to the economy affected firm size and re?
lationships both within and among industries. This, in turn, influenced trends in
labor markets,

union

participation,

and

the culture

of business

environments,

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

as

TABLE

restructuring

Organizational

Structural

changes
and work3

economy

in

? Economic

crisis: high
slow growth

inflation,
?

in employment

Rhetorical

relationships

and

Impact on individual
and corporate
investments

of trucking
industries

Deregulation
and airline

by decade

perspectives
Changes

1970s ? OPEC oil shock

177

RESTRUCTURING

ORGANIZATIONAL

? Firm

size begins
shrink

descriptives

trends

enters
Restructuring
the lexicon as
strategic
reorientation

to

? Worldwide

profit

squeeze
? "Efficient Market"
theory
? Dehumanization

and

deskillingofwork
1980s

Wave

? Transfers

of recession:

permanent

closure

production

and

of
?

layoffs
workers

Increase

in income

inequality
in union
Decline
and

membership

lifted

55,000 mergers

just

under$2 trillionbetween
1981 and 1989b

employment
contract workers
? Redefinition

social
Second

wave

downsizing
sector

of recession:
of service

as
employees
partners to costs
be minimized
?

in the idea of

working

Dropping
retention

24/7

thanks

to

benefit,

plans

and

to

and
Downsizing
instead
of
layoffs

firing

pressures
from global markets
to reorganize
and

restructure

life

employee
rates

? More

flexible

labor

markets?

of temporary and
contingent workforce

advances
technological
in
health
Changes
insurance,

and cultural

from

? External

to

? Rise

Increase

pension

of core

service, risk

and
self-protectionism
a withdrawal
from

1990s

and

quality,

productivity
Worry about increased
work motivation
leading

on

of

taking, workforce
and
competence,
?

culture

workers:

customer

and

worth

acquisitions

of changing
and
management

outsourcing,

commitment

worth $297 billion

between 1981 and 1989b

Influence

downsizing,

fear of layoffs,
and reduced employee

buyouts

stakeholders'

rights

corporate

work
Heightened
loads, diminished

? Enhanced

leveraged

?
in

morale,

participation
Global
trade restrictions
2540

seen as

the 1960s and 1970s

and

wage

over

Restructuring

correcting for
overdiversification

deindustrialization,
of blue-collar

refocusing
Corporate
? Shareholder
value

to

owners
facilities,

manufacturing

of worth

from workers

employment
streamlined
?

Intensification

is
and

feeling of
efficacy at work
?
in the
Changes
greater

definition
category

and
of worker
(Continued)

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

? DE SOUCEY

HIRSCH

178

TABLE 1

(Continued)

Structural
economy

changes
and worka

Stock market

in

Rhetorical

in employment

Changes

? Question

and

boom

to

? A
delayered,
horizontal
corporate
model

Increased

Seen

to business

manufacturing
services

because

wage

autonomy

disparity
highest and lowest

between

as a competitive
for firms
advantage

firm shift from

Large-scale

of how

buildworker loyalty

collapse

2000s

descriptives

trends

and

relationships

flexibility and
give firms

Organizational
innovation and
reform

workplace
?

careers

Boundaryless

competitive

levels of firm employment

advantages
Further restructuring
of practices, products,
and processes

aHistorical eventsmentioned drawn fromFligstein& Shin (2004).

bData reportedin Johnson (1996) and Jensen (1993).

detailed in the popular press. Restructuring's rhetoric ismore variable with the
disciplinary and political frameworks at hand and, therefore,can be more ambigu?
ous. Like Abrahamson & Fairchild (1999,2001), we see a need for futureresearch
into how Column 3's corporate and social implications are publicly interpreted
and challenged.
Trends

and Effects of Restructuring's

Nonoffensive
used

to mask,

Rhetoric

language (terms such as adjustment and flexibility) is regularly

reframe,

and

sugarcoat

economic

as

slumps

positive

possessing

social outcomes. Consistent with this logic, the term restructuringprovides a

way to talk legitimately about squeezing efficiency out of the same set of as?
setswithin organizational limits.As the social and institutional logics surrounding
work have changed (Thornton& Ocasio 1999), we find five salient themes have
evolved in studies of organizational restructuring'seffects.This literatureexamines
(a) changes in types of work, (b) reduced benefits fromwork, (c) increased hours
of work, (d) perceptions about work, and (e) increased income inequality. In a
valuable treatmentof restructuring,Leicht (1998) shows how these changes de?
velop,

noting

several

supporting

structures

and

concrete

forms

change

has

taken:

extended use of subcontracting and outsourcing, the flattening of organizational

hierarchies,
the permanent

growing

use

workforce,

of consultants
and

virtual

and

contingent

communication

workers,
across

downsizing

boundaries

and

of
bor?

ders through technological advances. Organizational restructuring,then,regularly

appears in themachinery of popular business- and consultant-related managerial

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING

179

language as a necessary component of remaining competitive (Cascio 2002,

Uhlenbruck et al. 2003).
The positive impact of these changes on higher levels of productivity has not
been proven (Gordon 1996, Gowing et al. 1997, Harrison & Bluestone 1988),
although explanations asserting increasing efficiency and worker empowerment
(of thosewho remain) often appear in public and managerial discourse (Davidov
1993). Rhetorically, this resonates in theU.S. business world to rationalize down?
sizing, outsourcing, buyouts, and transformationsand shifts in theorganization of
assets (Gowing et al. 1997, Jones et al. 2002, New York Times Spec. Rep. 1996,
Newman 1993). The changes in theworkplace during the 1980s and 1990s reflect
these changes in ideas of corporate control as solutions to the economic crises of
the 1970s (Handel 2005, Harrison 1994). Restructuring's consequences for social
conditions, especially forworkers, have not been factored into these decisions
(Cornfield et al. 2001).
Especially relevant for sociological analysis, inequalities among employees in
this period intensified.Assets frequently changed hands in the course of these
restructurings,typically fromworkers to owners and investors through themech?
anism of the corporate mergers, acquisition, or takeover (Hirsch 1986, Palmer
et al. 1995, Shleifer & Vishny 1991). Executives were highly rewarded through
salaries and benefits or generous exit packages, whereas less skilled employees and
themore vulnerable workers received reduced salaries, benefits, and job security.
Fligstein & Shin (2004) call this transformation the "emergence of a 'shareholder
value' society,"where changed working conditions follow from the reorganization
of the corporate firm.
This combination of ownership and cultural changes at themacro level,with the
revised framing of the employment relation embodied by restructuring,brought
an end to what has been viewed as a golden era of economic
development and
rising wealth in theUnited States for both investors and workers. During the
years followingWorld War II, theAmerican economy excelled, with smoother
relations

labor-management

and

job

security

for the white-collar

managers

who

identified (and were so labeled by WTiyte 1956) as "organization men."

However, organizational structurecannot be held tobe constant in its interdepen?
dent relationship with economic history (Rubin & Smith 2001). Whether focusing

on actors,

processes,

or the environment,

organizational

forms

are

expected

to vary

and fluctuate in response toeconomic and environmental stimuli (Thompson 1967).

Yet, the rhetoric used to describe restructuringoften frames it as a specific (one?
time) point of change within a corporate or workplace organization (Cascio 2002,
Phan & Hill 1995,Webster & Omar 2003) rather than a constantly transformative
process.

Over

development.
only

symbolic

a normative
has followed
climate
of economic
time, restructuring
It is not singular
in its perceived
status as an event or incident,
or
of present day economic
but rather continuous,
often
circumstances,

reflected in shifts in the concentration of wealth and power (Perrow 2002).

Fluctuations in this continuum of shifting power have accelerated since the
era immediately followingWorld War II.We suggest that the
post-World War II

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

? DE SOUCEY

HIRSCH

180

period should be considered the anomaly, not the paradigm, of the history of
American organizations and capitalism (Dahrendorf 1997). The experience of
work inAmerica was tougher and more individualistic before thiswindow and, as
the wide,
some

popular

of these

use

reassuring

and

of

recognition

the term restructuring

attests, has shed
more
to a relatively
less generous,

to return

characteristics

competitive approach to employees and their labormarket.

Restructuring's Symbolic and Political Usage

the concept of restructuring is equated with, and often used in place

Colloquially,
less

of,

attractive

such

alternatives,

as firing,

or relocating.

closing,

The

term's

definition is ambiguous, enabling it to be used as a symbolic toolwith increasing

cultural

and

power

resonance.

As

for changes

symbol

in employment

contracts,

understandings, and relationships, we find the issues towhich it speaks are also
addressed under other descriptive names and titles inpopular and sociological liter?
ature.Under changing historical circumstances and differingdisciplinary agendas,
thewords used to describe the topics encompassed by the termpossess symbolic
political value in thepublic arena.
The term restructuring is used to indicate both active and passive processes
within organizations, contingent on the circumstances behind the rhetoric and the
dependent variable to be explained. A linguistic boomerang, the term's academic
capital has lost and gained support over the past several decades, even though
its occurrence

and

operation

as

an

process

organizational

never

ceased.

In

the

1970s and 1980s especially, the language of restructuringindicated broader social

processes

and

trends,

providing

a value-laden

term

to

positively

encompass

and

describe the reorganization of capital and industry (Shleifer & Vishny 1988) as
it affected social and economic conditions (Gordon 1996, Harrison & Bluestone
1988, Scott 2004). Kanter dryly calls the continual restructuringprocess inmany
companies

"corporate

fitness

regimen..

.for companies

trying to win

in the global

Olympics" (Kanter 1989, p. 58). This changing understanding of restructuring

(from a negative to a more positive framing) provides a salient indicator, helping
to explain the updating and redefinition of the social contract that had defined
theAmerican company and American industrial development since about 1945
(Fligstein 2001, Minnick & Ireland 2005, Rubin & Smith 2001).
The
value,

to restructure
need
perceived
not just to rearrange
corporate

as economic
assets

to create
necessity
in response
to takeover

greater

share

threats,

is so?

cially embedded (Granovetter 1985). Its framing is reliant on historical context

and

alternative

arena. Order
in the corporate
can be found
in markets
players
just
can be found within
firms. Bureaucratic
recur?
structures
management
the amount
of cooperation
also
rently miscalculate
they will get from employees,
as disorder

underestimating the integration costs of suchworkplace disruptions (Kanter 1989,

Reger et al. 1994). Environmental influences, particularly thosewith financial in?
terest,play a significant role in creating pressure to restructure (Bowman & Singh
1993, Johnson 1996).

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING

Restructuring's

contribution

toworkplaces'

transforming

social

structures

181

raises

questions for sociologists of work about fundamental shifts in the distribution of

power and authority in the organization, the depth of mutual commitment be?
tween employer and employee, and worker livelihoods and life chances (Hirsch
& Naquin 2001). The significance of the term's usage?the "so what"?is
that the
positive reframingof restructuringbrought it from a largely descriptive to a more
meaning-laden political term (and for some critics, codeword), masking changes
thatmay benefit owners while causing (at least) short-termharm toworkers and
society

more

broadly.

Historical Evidence and Relationships

Following from the rhetorical trends discussed above, we suggest that the term
organizational restructuring is a distinctively American construct, an important
component of the currentAmerican export of managerial ideology to transna?
tional contexts (Frenkel 2003, Poster & Prasad 2005). The assumption of restruc?
turing's legitimacy as a way to favorably achieve the pretext of efficiencywithin
global markets ismore the case in theUnited States than elsewhere in theworld
(Fligstein 2001). Predispositions of historical evidence suggest an enveloping po?
litical and economic, rather than social, climate (Fligstein 2001, Harrison 1994).
This American version of capital, in particular, supports policies thatjustify the
movement of organizational hubs around theworld, actions that in other countries
might cause more labor unrest (Galbraith& Berner 2001, Royal & Althauser 2003,
Smith 2001). It operates at a level above unions or government regulation, which
suggests an enduring cultural hostility to federal ownership or control (Starr 2004).
This version of capitalism also is distinct from capitalism elsewhere because it is
America's history and politics, as opposed to simply referencing them (Perrow
2002, Roy 1997). Outside of theUnited States's social and political context, this
positive framing of the restructuring concept within corporate agendas is unfa?
miliar and ahistorical (Jones et al. 2002).2 In Europe, among other countries, for
example, the focus of restructuring is more on macrolevel state policies, such
as labor markets (Galbraith & Berner 2001,
Haney & Pollard 2003, Wilensky
2002).
Themes of discovering the best ways tomanage employees repeat themselves
through thevarious industrial logics thathave controlled American business since
the industrial revolution. The history of American industrial organizations sug?

gests

viewing

the concept

of

efficiency,

for example,

as an
ongoing

convention

of

thought.Efficiency has been a potent factor in resolving contradictions embedded

inbusiness logics stretchingfrom the initial stages of industrialproduction to recent
Wall Street Journal announcements. In theUnited States, the institutional
logic
of organizational change (Thornton & Ocasio 1999) is
primarily one of natural

2However,

see the recent piece

American-influenced

corporate

by Ahmadjian

& Robbins

(2005)

for Japanese

adoption

changes.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of

182

HIRSCH

? DE SOUCEY

selection, following a sense of social or organizational Darwinism:

inefficientdoes not survive or prosper (Rubin & Smith 2001).
Incentives

for organizational

dynamism

and

competition

are,

thatwhich is

however,

"situ?

ated in, defined by, and structured through the production of firms, their social
relations to each other, and their relations to government" (Fligstein 2001, p. 98).
Organizational restructuringsituates corporate change within thebroader political
economy of state economic development (Grant& Wallace 1994). Corporate self
interesttypically precedes benevolence in termsof relationship building, contract?

ing, capital investitures,and workers (Dore 2001 [1983]). A range of dimensions

of states' political economies, such as state fiscal capacities, theorganizational ca?
pacity of labor, social wage policies, and state political/electoral context (Grant&
Wallace
1994), has lasting and profound effects on organizational relationships
and competitive processes in themarketplace.
Social and cultural schema also play a part in understanding organizational re?
structuringas a component of a larger,more historical project. Looking directly at
theAmerican context, Perrow notes in his writings a tendency to turnaway from
thepower of the organization as a collective entity and instead focus on individu?
als, culture, and laws (Perrow 1986, 2002). This propensitymirrors what political,
economic, and cultural sociologists recognize as American exceptionalism in the
understanding and construction of a social, not an individual, problem (Hilgartner
& Bosk 1988, Kollmeyer 2004, Poppendieck 1995, Quadagno 1999, Rao et al.

2000). Abroad, restructuringpractices and supporting policies offer differentap?

proaches to examining themeaning of work (Castillo 1997), industrial policies
(Dobbin 1994), inequalities (Galbraith & Berner 2001), labormarkets (DiPrete &
Nonnemaker 1997), and business models (Dore 2001 [1983], Jones et al. 2002).
These alternative components of organizational effectsdemonstrate the cultural
and social specificities that connect both global markets and local understand?
ings to the symbolic values of restructuring's rhetoric.Earlier in this chapter,we
mentioned managerial ideology as an American business export into the global

marketplace. Changes inglobal business practices initiate sensemaking about orga?

nizational restructuring (Jones et al. 2002). Evaluating how the diffusion of such

procedural designs is framed demonstrates that the relationship among various

business strategiesmay be premised under theAmerican exceptionalist perspec?
tive outlined above. The discourse of American exceptionalism emerges in fields
where conceptions of global business practices are framed as having the greatest
structuraleffects (Fiss & Hirsch 2005). The outcome of such framingmay ease
or hinder thewidespread acceptance of restructuringas the appropriate discourse
and practice in the global context (Hirschman 1991).

RESTRUCTURING'S

RELEVANCE TO LABOR

The studyof restructuring's impacts on labor and workers, both in theUnited States
and abroad, is clearly a sociological topic of academic, public, and policy concern

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING

183

(see, e.g., Danaher & Burbach 2000, Krugman 1994, Stiglitz 2003). Its framing
generally requires implicit legitimation and understanding of the loss of worker
power in itsmidst (Hodson 1996, Spalter-Roth & Deitch 1999). Sociological inter?
est in restructuringas corporate practice frequently tackles changing conceptions
of work, employment, and other issues related to this transformation (Arthur&
Rousseau 1996). Our interest in theU.S. wage structure and income inequality
(Galbraith & Berner 2001, Kentor 2001), the decline of union membership and
power (Kochan et al. 1986), and the political economy ofmanufacturing growth
and decline (Grant& Wallace 1994) demonstrates thepowerful influence of orga?
nizations,

corporate

especially

on

organizations,

social

life. Peeling

another

back

layer,recent themeswithin economic sociology also document a shiftfroma world

of relatively balanced and peaceful labor negotiations to one inwhich unions and
workers

lost power

have

and

become

as more

viewed

expendable.

As thesewider labormarket transformationsand societal processes unfold, the

changing structuresof organizations as both individual and collective entities have
tangible

consequences

and

for their own

implications

workers.

Waves

of reorga?

nization of both firm structureand organizational purpose (especially in the 1980s

when the term restructuringgained popularity in the business press) shifted the
boundaries of control and power to and from different roles in the corporation
(Hirsch 1987, Johnson 1996, Perrow 1986, Zajac & Kraatz 1993). Some firms
strategically restructure through specializing, cultivating their core competence,

and contracting out (or outsourcing) functions formerlyperformedwithin thefirm.

Remaining competitive in the global marketplace has been portrayed as one of the
key drivers of such organizational restructuring (Jones et al. 2002). A decrease in
mutual loyalty and commitment byworkers and theiremployer firmshas been one
result.

As collective actors, organizations develop interests and goals distinct from

those of their individualmembers, orworkers, affecting social mobility, stratifica?
tion, and growing inequalities, in both national and international contexts (Scott
2004, Sills 1958). The market optimistically values corporate announcements of re?
structuringas improving the futureoutlook of theorganization or industry (Kanter
1989), even though evidence suggests that specialization and change do not of?
ten bring about the aforementioned goals of positive returns (Johnson 1996). For
example, firms advance their share price in the short termby publicizing layoffs,
even thoughwe do not know if these changes enhance their competitiveness or
overall financial health (Fligstein & Shin 2004).
Symbolic
etc.)

reactions

demonstrate

to the globalization

the intense

emotion

of

attached

labor

processes

to the structural

(protests,

sizing and the outsourcing of jobs (Gowing et al. 1997, Greider

realities
sures

include,

of external

for example,
market

forces,

internal

labor markets

and opportunities

collapsing

for job

boycotts,

realities

of down?

1997). These

under

advancement

the pres?
or

security

declining within these contracting organizations (Royal & Althauser 2003). Schol?
ars ofmanagement studies, such as Uhlenbruck et al. (2003), call such
strategic
change "defensive downsizing." Much of thepublic discourse around restructuring

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

? DE SOUCEY

HIRSCH

184

implicitly indicates the loss of jobs, however positively the language is presented
(Kalleberg 2003). Ideas about flexibility in theworkplace (Frenkel 2003, Kalleberg
2003, Vallas 1999), for example, typically refer to the liftingof constraints onman?
agement's

to hire,

ability

transfer,

and

fire workers.

Organizational

as rhetoric and practice, illuminates the realities of corporate power.

restructuring,

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

FOR FUTURERESEARCH
Sociologists have examined a wide range of consequences of bureaucratic and
organizational restructuringon social conditions and worker livelihoods, including
on

limitations

upward

career

low wages,

mobility,

unemployment,

occupational

safety and health, and the accessibility of social insurance (Quadagno 1999). The
discipline's conceptions do not share themanagerial assumption thatviews greater
efficiency as an unquestionable good, such thatcuttingback on wages and workers
is legitimated almost automatically ifone can say it leads to greater efficiencies.
It also connects to themore frequently cited studies of organizational change
and decline, as well as to their greater flexibility and reorganization within the
discipline. In this review, we have highlighted the tension between the concept
as

of restructuring

an

autonomous

structural

or a rhetorical

trace

trend. We

its

treatmentand implications within the sociology of organizations and work as it

links corporate and social dynamics. Although we spend considerably less time
discussing questions and theories related to the causes of restructuring,we feel
this contribution is a useful one.
Furthermore, the normative discourse and framing ofwork reflects and further
influences both public and sociological interpretationsof the impact of restructur?
ing.We agree with Zajac & Westphal (2004) that sociology should veer further
into economic

to address

territory

the political-economic

trends

some

that are

of

its value-laden

the meaning-filled

and note
assumptions
causes
and the processes,

as well as the consequences, of restructuring.Our consideration of the rhetorical

frameworks used to conceptualize change within theAmerican model of bureau?
cratic organizations is evidence that sociologists need to examine furtherhow
restructuringaffects the culture of business in other national contexts.We note its
strong layers of institutional support in theAmerican context and that this support
is less assumed and legitimate in other societies. By taking a more comparative
focus, sociologists of work and organizations will be furtherable to parse out
social and cultural variables within international economic sociology (Form 2002,
Wilensky 2002). Ahmadjian & Robbins's (2005) study of Japan's changing corpo?
rate structures in the 1990s and Orru et al.'s (1991)
comparative study of cultures
and

economic

for more

such

development
comparative

in Asia
research,

provide
as well

excellent
as

for an

examples.
examination

see

We
of

a need

the influ?

ence of transnational groups and international

governing bodies such as theWorld
Trade Organization and their impacts on working conditions and labor unions and

movements.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

185

ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thankDaniel Cornfield forhelpful comments and suggestions for this
review.

The Annual Review of Sociology is online at http://soc.annualreviews.org

LITERATURECITED
1991. Competition
BiggartNW.
an institutional perspective.
In

AbolafiaMY,
and markets:

Socio-Economics:
ed. A

NY:

Armonk,
Abrahamson
ment

a New

Toward
PR

Etzioni,

Lawrence,

Synthesis,
211-31.

pp.

M.E.

Sharpe
Fairchild
G.

E,

fashion:

lifecycles,

tive learning processes.

E, Fairchild

industries

and

mensions

to Lay?
and Profitable Alternatives
Berrett-Koehler
offs. San Francisco:
of
JJ. 1997. Looking
for the meaning
Castillo
work. Work Occup.
24:413-25

G.

Cornfield

of

2001.

Knowledge
new di?

idea

entrepreneurs:
innovative products,

and

organizations.

ship

Dynamic,

In The
ed.

CB

pp.

ford Univ.

Press

services,

Entrepreneur
E

Schoonhoven,

147-77.

Romanelli,

Stanford,

CA:

Stan?

Ahmadjian CL, Robbins GE. 2005. A clash of

and corpo?
foreign shareholders
capitalisms:
rate restructuring in 1990s Japan. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 70:451-71
HE.

Aldrich

1999.

Thousand

Oaks,

Organizations
CA: Sage. 413

Rousseau

Arthur MB,

Principle
for a New
Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Bartunek

JM.

schemes

Q. 29:355-72
Bendix

R.

dustry:
Course
Univ.
Bowman

A New

eds.

1996.

The

Employment
Era.

Sage
Dahrendorf

R.

This!

in the
of Management
San Francisco:

Ideologies

of Industrialization.
Calif. Press
H.

K,

Burbach
Battle

Organization
ME:
Common
WH.

structuring: reconfiguring
J. 14:5-14
Manag.
J, Brown
Brueggemann
of industrial unionism

re?
Corporate
the firm. Strateg.

C.

2003.

The

decline

in themeatpacking

in

eds.

R,

2000.

Globalize

the World

Against

and Corporate

Trade

Rule. Monroe,

Courage
1993. The Virtual

Corporation:
the Corporation
Structuring and Revitalizing
for the 21st Century. New York: Collins
TA.
DiPrete
1993. Industrial restructuring and
the mobility
response
in the 1980s. Am.

of American

work?

Rev.

Sociol.

58:74

96
KL.

TA, Nonnemaker

and the United

1997. Labor mar?

States:

structural

labor market
and labor
turbulence,
change,
market outcomes.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 62:386

404
Dobbin

1993.

for
CA:

Revo?
1997. After 1989: Morals,
New
Mar?
York:
St.
Society.

The

kets inChina
in In?

Work?

tin's Press
Danaher

DiPrete

Authority

HJ,

in Restructured

lution, and Civil

organizational
restructuring:
of a religious order. Adm. Sei.
and

KE, McCammon

Campbell
Working

and New Directions

places:
Challenges
the Sociology
Work.
Thousand
Oaks,
of

ers

Singh

DB,
2001.

Davidov

pp.

Organizational
Press
Changing

1974. Work

EH,

Creative

interpretive

1984.

and

the example

Evolving.

eds.

DM,

Career:

Boundaryless

24:141-57
place. Ann?. Rev. Sociol.
2002. Responsible
Cascio WF.
Restructuring:

1999. Manage?
triggers, and collec?
Adm. Sei. Q. 44:708

40
Abrahamson

of labor un?
analyses
dustry: event-structure
Work Occup.
30:327-60
rest, 1946-1987.
of the work?
Burns BH.
1999. Computerization

F.

United

1994. Forging
States,

Industrial

Britain,

and

Policy: The
France
in the

York:
UK/New
Age. Cambridge,
Press.
262
Univ.
pp.
Cambridge
F. 2004. The Sociology
Dobbin
of the Economy.
Railway

New

York:

Russell

Sage

Found.

343 pp.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WP.

Dolan
MO:

cial structure:

Schools:

Kansas

City,

and the spirit

Goodwill

In The Sociology
of
capitalism.
Life, ed. R Swedberg, M Granovet
ter, pp. 425-43.
Boulder, CO: Westview
PM.
The
2005.
discourse
Fiss
PC, Hirsch
of market

Economic

of globalization:
of an emerging

and

framing

Am.

concept.

sensemaking
Rev.
Sociol.

70:29-52
Fligstein N. 2001.
kets: An Economic

The

Fligstein
Value

of Mar?

Architecture

Sociology
Societies.

Century Capitalist
Princeton Univ. Press.

of Twenty-First
Princeton, NJ:

274 pp.
The

Shin T-J. 2004.

N,

Shareholder

in
Society: A Review
of the Changes
in the
Conditions
and Inequality
Working
U.S.
New York: Russell
1976-2000.
Sage
W.

2002.

itics.

New

and

Work

Academic
NJ:

Brunswick,

Pol?

Transaction

SJ. 2003.

PJ.

1985.
Hills,

Beverly
Galbraith

The

CA:

Work

eds. 2001.
A Global

Change:

Culture.

Corporate
JM,

Restructurings.
Jones GR.

New
1999.

ing and Managing

Organizational
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
LR, Balkin

Gomez-Mejia

Human

Managing
River, NJ: Prentice
Gordon

Inequality
View. Cam?

DM.

DB,

Hall.

and

Behavior.
2nd ed.

Cardy RL.

1998.

Resources.

1996. Fat

Saddle

Upper
2nd ed.

and Mean:

Kraft

JD, Quick

Organizational

sizing,

Restructuring,
DC: Am.
Washington,
Granovetter

M.

JC, eds.
Reality:

and

World,

of Global

or Not:

Ready

New

Capitalism.

Logic
Simon & Schuster

York:

R, Greenberg
Grunberg L, Anderson-Connolly
ES. 2000. Surviving
layoffs: the effects on
and job perfor?
commitment
organizational
mance. Work Occup.
27:7-31
JM. 2004. Contextualizing
Hagan
immigrant
labor market
legal, demo?
incorporation:
and economic
dimensions.
Work
graphic,
31:407-23

Occup.
Han S-K.
effect
Handel

and its
isomorphism
Soc.
services market.

1994. Mimetic
on

the audit

73:637-64
Trends in perceived
job qual?
to 1998. Work Occup.
32:66-94
L. 2003. Families
Pollard
LA,
of a
World:
and
State
Politics,
Gender,
2005.

MJ.

Haney
New

in a Global

Development

Context. New

Age
Harrison

1994. Lean

and Mean:

of Corporate
of Flexibility. New York:

Haveman

Cor?
and
New
1997.

Down?

Revitalization.

Psychol. Assoc.
1985. Economic
action and so

B.

Bluestone

B,

Polarizing
Books

York:

300 pp.

Routledge.
Harrison B.

The Chang?
in the

Power
Basic

1988.

Books

Cohen

HA,

Great

The

Corporate
Restructuring
New
York:
of America.

and

the

Basic

LE.

1994. The ecological

the impact of organiza?
and merger on
dissolution,

of careers:

dynamics
tional founding,

Am. J. Sociol.

job mobility.
Hernandez-Leon
the source:

The

Free Press

Gowing MK,
The New

1997. One

The Manic

U-Turn:

York: Wiley
Understand?

porate
of Working Americans
Squeeze
theMyth of Managerial"Downsizing."
York:

73:33-63
W.

ing Landscape

Univ. Press
bridge, UK: Cambridge
PA. 2002. Mergers,
Gaughan
Acquisitions,
George

of

30:135

Occup.

Organizational
Sage. 419 pp.

JK, Berner M,

and Industrial

character

embedded

relations.

workplace
53
Frost

Forces
Greider

ity, 1989

Books
Frenkel

91:481-510

M.
1994. The political econ?
of
omy
manufacturing
growth and decline
across theAmerican
Soc.
States, 1970-1985.

Forces

Found.
Form

of embeddedness.

the problem

Am. J. Sociol.
Grant DS, Wallace

Syst. Organ.
2001.
(1983.).

R.

Our

1994. Restructuring
on Systemic Change.

A Primer
Dore

? DE SOUCEY

HIRSCH

186

from Mexico

R.

2004.

100:104-52

at
Restructuring
industrial migration

high-skilled
to the United

States. Work Oc?

cup. 31:424-52
1988. The rise and fall
S, Bosk CL.
Hilgartner
a public arenas model.
of social problems:
Am. J. Sociol.
94:53-78
Hirsch

PM.

1986.

From

Parachutes?corporate
stance of cultural

ambushes
takeovers

to Golden
as

an

in?

framing and institutional

91:800-37
integration. Am. J. Sociol.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

187

ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING

PM.

Hirsch
Other

Your Own

1987. Pack

to Survive

How

Corporate

Mergers,
Disasters.

and

New

York:

The changing
the reshaping of ca?
et al. 2001, pp. 427

CE.

of work

2001.

and

Cornfield

36
M.

Hirsch

PM, Shanley
of boundaryless?or,

See Arthur & Rousseau

Perversity,

Jeopardy.

bridge,MA: Blackwell
Hodson

R.

of Re?
Cam?

77m? Rhetoric

Futility,

der participative management:

freedom revisited. Am. Sociol.

alienation
Rev.

un?
and

61:719

38
Hoskisson

Johnson

RA.

1992. Corporate
the effect
restructuring and strategic change:
on diversification
inten?
strategy and R&D
RO,

J. 13:625-34

sity. Strateg. Manag.

theEmployee:
Jacques R. 1996. Manufacturing
Management
from the 19th to 21st Centuries.
London:

Sage
1993. The modern

Jensen MC.

industrial

revo?

lution, exit, and the failure of internal control

48:831-80
systems. /. Financ.
Johnson RA.
1996. Antecedents
of corporate
83

refocusing.

Jones M, Allen
RC,

Rentz

TD,

and outcomes

J. Manag.

Freeman

JO. 2002.

DM,

22:439

Reizenstein

Globalization

and or?

a strategic per?
ganizational
restructuring:
Int. Bus. Rev. 44:325
spective. Thunderbird
51
AL.
2001. The advent of the flexi?
Kalleberg
ble workplace:
for theory and
implications
et al. 2001, pp. 437
research. See Cornfield
53
Kalleberg
market

egy,Management,
York: Simon

New

2003.

When

Resource

CA:

Sage
Learn
Giants

to

the Challenges
of Strat?
in the 1990s
and Careers
&

Schuster

clients
Cultivating
in the competition
for partnership:
gender
and the organizational
restructuring of law
firms in the 1990s. Law Soc. Rev. 33:517

Kay

FM,

J. 1999.

Hagan

55
Kentor

J. 2001.

long term effects of glob?

income
inequality, population
economic
Soc.
development.

The

on

growth, and
Probl. 48:435-55

J. 1986.
RB, Chalykoff
TA, McKersie
effects of corporate
strategy and work?
on union representation.
innovations
place
Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 39:487-501

The

CJ. 2004. Corporate

interests: how
Kollmeyer
Soc.
the news media
portray the economy.
Probl.

Flexible

firms and

labor

effects of workplace
segmentation:
restructuring on jobs and workers. Work Oc

cup. 30:154-75
AL, Knoke D, Marsden
PV, Spaeth
Kalleberg
JL. 1996. Organizations
inAmerica:
Analyz

51:432-52
PR.

Krugman
nomic

1994. Peddling
and Nonsense

Eco?

Prosperity:
in the Age

of Di?
New York: Norton
Expectations.
Lee RM,
ed. 1987. Redundancy,
Layoffs, and
Their Character, Causes
Plant Closures:
and
Sense

minished

Consequences.

UK:

London,

Helm

Croom

Leicht KT. 1998.Work (ifyou can get it) and

social
(if there are any)? What
occupations
scientists can learn from predictions
of the
end of work and radical workplace
change.
Work Occup.
25:36-48
Leicht
The

Fennell ML, Witkowski

KT,

effects

of hospital

KM.

1995.
and

characteristics

organizational
change on the relative
J.Health
standing of health care professions.
Soc. Behav.
36:151-67
radical

Littler CR,
agerial
84
Martin

AL.

Oaks,

Kochan
in the workplace

1996. Dignity

1989.

Mastering

alization

1996, pp. 218-34

AO.
Hirschman
1991.
action:

rhetoric

the newly em?

into its
bought

class

powered
managerial
own marginalization.

The

1996.
how

Thousand

RM.

Kanter

and Human

Structures

ing Their
Practices.
Dance:

Addison-Wesley
Hirsch
PM, Naquin
sociology
reers. See

Parachute:

Takeovers,

ping

Innes P. 2004.
downsizing.

J. 2002.

Organizational
the Terrain. Thousand

402 pp.

Massey

paradox of man?
Stud. 25:1159

The

Organ.

DS,

Dent?n

Culture:
CA:

1993.

American

NA.

and
Apartheid:
Segregation
the Underclass.
Cambridge,
Univ.

Press.

Map?

Oaks,

Sage.

the Making
MA:

292 pp.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Harvard

of

? DE SOUCEY

HIRSCH

188

McBrier

Wilson

DB,

G.

2004.

down?

Going

and downward

Race

mobility
occupational
workers
in the 1990s. Work

for white-collar
Occup.
L.
McCall

the new

inequal?

the college/non-college
ity: explaining
gap. Am. Sociol. Rev. 65:234-55

wage

Minnick

2000.

and

Gender

Ireland

DJ,

new

RD.

for

the

surviv?

1988. Falling
of Downward

Press.

Middle

Class.

The

Grace:

in the
Mobility
New
York: Free

320 pp.

Newman

KS.

Withering
York: Basic

Books.

Dream.

New

selection

circulation

of cor?

of functional

back?

of new CEOs

grounds
ufacturing

44:532-62
Orru M,

The

257 pp.

1999. The

control:

porate

Fortunes:

in large U.S. man?

Adm. Sei. Q.
1981-1992.

firms,

Biggart

NW,

Hamilton

ganizational
isomorphism
The New Institutionalism

G.
in East

1991. Or?
In

Asia.

in Organizational

ed. WW
P DiMaggio,
Powell,
Analysis,
361-89.
Univ. Chicago
Press
Chicago:
Palmer DB, Brad M, Zhou X, Soysal Y.

pp.
1995.

60:469-99
C.

pp.
Perrow

C.

1986.
Essay.

Complex
Organizations:
New York: McGraw-Hill.

A
307

2002.

America:
Wealth,
Organizing
Power, and the Origins
of Corporate
Capi?
talism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

259 pp.

Phan

PH, Hill

structuring

CWL.
and

1995. Organizational
economic
performance

leveraged buyouts:
J. 38:704-39
Manag.

an ex post

H.

re?
S. 2005. Work-family
a
view
perspective:

1994. Economic

crisis and the cen?

of control over themanagerial

pro?
corporate restructuring and neo-Fordist

re?

study. Acad.

Am.

in

Sociol.

Rev.

59:723

a capital
J. 1999. Creating
invest?
Quadagno
ex
state: the new American
ment welfare
1998 presidential
ceptionalism:
Sociol. Rev. 64:1-11
JB.

1992.

Intelligent
and Service-Based

Knowledge

address. Am.
A

Enterprise:

Paradigm for
Industry. New York: Free Press
Rao H, Morrill C, Zald MN.
2000. Power plays:
how social movements
and collective
action
create new organizational
22:239-82

forms. Res. Organ.

Behav.

LT, Demarie
SM, Mul
Reger RK, Gustafson
lane JV. 1994. Reframing
the organization:
total quality is easier said
why implementing
than done. Acad.
N.

ployer

Rev. 19:565-84
Manag.
2004.
"Workers wanted":

recruitment

Occup.

of
friendly and predatory
acquisition
in the 1960s:
the
large U.S.
corporations
other contested
terrain. Am.
Rev.
Sociol.

Critical

Prasad

from high-tech firms in India and the United

Soc. Probl.
52:122^6

Rodriguez

The

Perrow

York:

States.

Quinn

1993. Declining
of the American

W, Kim H.

Ocasio

From

New

in transnational

decision-making.
45

356 pp.

Experience
American

Poster WR,

cess:

1996. The Down?

Spec. Rep.
New York: Times Books.
sizing of America.
KS.

11-34.

tralization

York Times

Newman

S Jeffery, pp.

Donna,

Prechel

acquisitions
downsizing,
J. Bus.
26:18
Strategy

and

Aldine de Gruyter
lations

Inside

2005.

a blueprint

organization:

ing restructuring,
and outsourcing.
25
New

Food
M

31:283-322

J. 1995. Hunger
inAmerica:
typ
In Eating Agendas:
response.
as Social Problems,
ed.
and Nutrition

Poppendieck
ification

Roy WG.

of immigrant

em?

labor. Work

31:453-73

1997. Socializing Capital: The Rise

inAmer?
of the Large Industrial Corporation
ica. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton
Univ.
Press.

338 pp.

Royal C, Althauser RP. 2003. The labor markets

of knowledge
workers:
investment bankers'
careers
restructur?
in the wake of corporate
30:214-33
ing. Work Occup.
Rubin BA, Smith BT. 2001. Reemployment
the restructured

displacement,
struction. See Cornfield

et al. 2001,

pp. 323

42
Ruet

J, ed. 2003.

nizational
Boards.

in

economy:
surviving change,
and the gales of creative de?

the Current: Orga?

Against
Restructuring
of State Electricity
New Delhi,
India: Manohar

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING

Scott R.

on a half-century of
Annu. Rev. Sociol.

Reflections

2004.

organizational
30:1-21

sociology.

tional learning perspectives.

40:257-82
B.

Shleifer A, Vishny RW. 1988. Value maximiza?

tion and the acquisition
process. J. Econ. Per

Uzzi

spect. 2:7-20
Shleifer A, Vishny RW.
1991. The
wave
of the 1980s. /. Appl. Corp.
4:49-56

Vallas

Sills D.

1958. The Volunteers:

in a National

Financ.
and Ends

Means
New

Organization.

takeover

York:

Free

Press
E, Hunter

LW.

2004. Where

do

jobs come from? Job resegregation

in an American
bank. Work Occup.
31:73?

women's

110

2001. Globalization

lems. Soc. Probl.

forms of work

Rev. Sociol.

tion. Annu.

R, Deitch

Spalter-Roth

and social prob?

48:429-34

1997. New

Smith V.

organiza?

C.

"I don't

1999.

feel

sized":
sized; I feel out-of-work
gen?
costs of
der, race, ethnicity, and the unequal
Work Occup.
26:446-82
displacement.
Starr P. 2004. The Creation
Po?
of theMedia:
litical Origins
ofModern
New York: Basic Books.

Communications.
484 pp.

Stiglitz J. 2003. Globalization

tents. New York: Norton
CR.

1991. Why

crimination.

Philos.

and

markets

Its Discon?

don't

stop dis?

8:22-37

Policy

JD. 1967. Organizations

inAction:
Thompson
Social
Science Bases
The?
of Administrative
ory. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Thornton

PH,

Ocasio

W.

logics

and

the historical

1999.

192 pp.
Institutional

of
contingency
succes?
executive

in organizations:
power
sion in the higher education
dustry,
43

1958-1990.

Am.

in?
publishing
J. Sociol.
105:801

flexibility.

Studies
CA:

of Or?
360

Sage.

pp.
M,

KT.

Leicht

2004.

wars

Culture

antecedents
of
in the workplace?
Cultural
entitlement. Work Occup.
31:3?
workers'job
37
JP, Reichers

AE, Malik

socialization

ganizational

toward an integrative
opment:
Rev. 9:670-83
Acad. Manag.
E, Omar

in post-apartheid

R.

2003. Work
South Africa.

30:194-213

H.

restructuring
Work Occup.

Economy,

Man.

New

Political

2002. Rich Democracies:

Public

devel?

perspective.

1956. The Organization

Why teWH.
York: Simon & Schuster
Wilensky

1984. Or?

SD.

and group

Policy, and Performance.

Calif. Press

Berkeley: Univ.
R. 1990. The Restructuring
Wuthnow
of Ameri?
can Religion.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press
Yamagata
1997.

H, Yeh

KS,

Stewman

S, Dodge

H.

a
and glass ceilings:
segregation
career
statics model of women's
comparative
in the federal government over
opportunities
Sex

a quarter century. Am. J. Sociol.

103:566-632
1993. A diametric forces
Zajac EJ, Kraatz MS.
of strategic change:
model
the an?
assessing
and consequences
tecedents
of restructur?
ing in the higher education
J. 14:83-102

industry. Strateg.

Manag.

Tienda

Smith SA, Ortiz V.

1987. Indus?
M,
trial restructuring, gender
and
segregation,
sex differences
in earnings. Am. Sociol. Rev.

55:195-210
Uhlenbruck

the
post-Fordism:
Sociol.

1999. Rethinking
of workplace

17:68-101
Theory
Van Maanen
J. 1998. Qualitative
Thousand
Oaks,
ganizations.

Webster

23:315-39

right

Sunstein

SP.

meaning

Wanous

Smith DA.

structure and competition

Adm. Sei. Q. 42:37

Social

1997.

in interfirm networks.

Wallace

Skuratowicz

and organiza?
Stud.
J.Manag.

resource-based

economies:

189

2003.
K, Meyer
KE, Hitt MA.
transformation
in transition

Organizational

Zajac

JD. 2004.
socio?
Should
EJ, Westphal
ter?
theories venture into "economic

logical

ritory"? Yes! Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:466-71

EW. 2004. Toward
Zuckerman
the social recon?
struction of an interdisciplinary
Rev. 69:458-65

turfwar. Am.

Sociol.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sat, 07 Nov 2015 03:43:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions