This seems like an extremely important article for the current organizational climate with excellent recommendations. However, I think the science practitioner gaps are not aided by articles that are published in HRM. I would think HR specialists and the managers that have to make these decisions are more likely to read a pop-management book than this article. Thoughts/comments? What can we do about the psychological contract that is broken with downsizing? It seems that even some of the more creative ideas organizations use to avoid downsizing could break this psychological contract. What about the CEO’s that have agreed to work for $1 (e.g., Ford motor company, Google)?
I have personal experience with Gap #2. Several individuals were laid off from a company I used to work for in two phases, and after the layoffs were completed, the company spent a significant amount of time emphasizing the gains in financial performance they had made. However, these gains were not of profit from work, but from a decrease in payroll. How can we help companies to better understand the consequences of their actions when they come to the conclusion that layoffs or downsizing is necessary? What is a good way to develop a RIF plan that meets both the company’s and employees’ needs?
I thought this article was readable and accessible. I don't understand your concerns Shane. You must know more about what these folks at the top read. From the article, it seems that more than HR managers are very involved in these decisions. it was impressive to read about the level of involvement, though they described the culture of the tech company that did not lay off as very participative.
A lot of research shows the importance of explain decisions in organizations (e.g., explaining why someone was not chosen for a promotion), however, how much of a difference do you think this makes for people who were laid off? Do you think they really care why they were laid off?
Leaders with the discipline and integrity of the Agilent and Xilinx executives that are willing and able to go against the downsizing = cost savings and improved financials zeitgeist are probably rare. How can I-Os help promote the development of leaders who understand and take into account the long term impact of the organizational climate created by hasty and ill planned personnel cuts when they are faced with falling revenues?
I don't know if companies think about the effects RIF/downsizing has on the employees who are able to stay working within the organization. Organizational/procedural justice seems applicable to the employee reactions to potential company downsizing.
The suggesting of top management taking cuts by leading as an example was enlightening to see but is not often seen. A nice recent political example is the supreme court not taking pay cuts or going into furlough while the rest of the government sector potentially would.
This seems like an extremely important article for the current organizational climate with excellent recommendations. However, I think the science practitioner gaps are not aided by articles that are published in HRM. I would think HR specialists and the managers that have to make these decisions are more likely to read a pop-management book than this article. Thoughts/comments?
ReplyDeleteWhat can we do about the psychological contract that is broken with downsizing? It seems that even some of the more creative ideas organizations use to avoid downsizing could break this psychological contract. What about the CEO’s that have agreed to work for $1 (e.g., Ford motor company, Google)?
I have personal experience with Gap #2. Several individuals were laid off from a company I used to work for in two phases, and after the layoffs were completed, the company spent a significant amount of time emphasizing the gains in financial performance they had made. However, these gains were not of profit from work, but from a decrease in payroll. How can we help companies to better understand the consequences of their actions when they come to the conclusion that layoffs or downsizing is necessary? What is a good way to develop a RIF plan that meets both the company’s and employees’ needs?
ReplyDeleteI thought this article was readable and accessible. I don't understand your concerns Shane. You must know more about what these folks at the top read. From the article, it seems that more than HR managers are very involved in these decisions. it was impressive to read about the level of involvement, though they described the culture of the tech company that did not lay off as very participative.
ReplyDeleteA lot of research shows the importance of explain decisions in organizations (e.g., explaining why someone was not chosen for a promotion), however, how much of a difference do you think this makes for people who were laid off? Do you think they really care why they were laid off?
ReplyDeleteLeaders with the discipline and integrity of the Agilent and Xilinx executives that are willing and able to go against the downsizing = cost savings and improved financials zeitgeist are probably rare. How can I-Os help promote the development of leaders who understand and take into account the long term impact of the organizational climate created by hasty and ill planned personnel cuts when they are faced with falling revenues?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if companies think about the effects RIF/downsizing has on the employees who are able to stay working within the organization. Organizational/procedural justice seems applicable to the employee reactions to potential company downsizing.
ReplyDeleteThe suggesting of top management taking cuts by leading as an example was enlightening to see but is not often seen. A nice recent political example is the supreme court not taking pay cuts or going into furlough while the rest of the government sector potentially would.
Have you heard of any other creative ways of managing downsizing?
ReplyDelete