everestdr.com

I recently read an article by Carol Hymowitz in the Wall Street Journal (January 28, 2008) about how executives are pondering layoffs and at the same time, looking for new talent with specific skills. She writes that they’ve dropped the ball on training. The same pattern seems to happen in IT organizations. An organization embarks on a new project that demands new technology and instead of looking to their existing pool of technicians, they go out on the market demanding someone with very specific product knowledge (Version, Release, etc.) and same industry experience. If they’re asking for consultants, they’ll reject anyone who doesn’t meet the exact specifications. After months of looking, they might lower the bar a bit, do another search and still not find the exact skills they think they need.

Many times, I think the skills they need are right in front of them. A good technician can learn how to use a new tool, given the time and opportunity and sometimes a little training. An old friend of mine used to call those people “IT athletes.” They might not have the skills of a wide receiver or a point guard or a world class hurdler, but given a little time and training, they could do any of it better than most. He recognized the value of putting those identified athletes in new situations. It kept them challenged and it held onto company knowledge that might have been developing over years.

When someone new comes onto a team (in keeping with the athlete theme), it takes them weeks and sometimes months, depending on the complexity of an organization, to understand the other players and know how to get things done. An existing employee (or contractor for that matter) already knows the mechanics of a job – i.e., what needs to be done and the most effective means of accomplishing it – they simply need to have the right tools at their disposal to do it.

Admittedly, sometimes it’s very productive to bring in a product expert for awhile, especially if some of the expertise is transferred to existing staff. How often does that happen though? If that is the goal, it needs to be in the person’s job description from day one. Too often, the expert rides in on a white horse, does his or her job and then takes the next best offer and is gone. Meanwhile, the existing staff is left to pick up the pieces and carry on.

How much time and money and heartache would companies save if they just invested in a little training and used the athletes they already had in place?

Organizations change and peoples’ lives are disrupted. We know that and are not surprised when we hear about it in the news. We may send out a silent ‘good luck’ to those affected and for a moment, be thankful that it wasn’t us this time but more than likely, we just go on about our business, feeling somehow insulated from the winds of change. But then, it happens to us and whether we are part of the crowd that is looking for new employment or part of the crowd saved from budget trimming, we’re going to feel the change.

I recently spent time with a man whose organization is undergoing serious change. The mission of the group has been scaled back and a whole functional segment of the organization has been disbanded. Twenty people lost their jobs. Management said it wasn’t personal – i.e., it didn’t reflect on anyone’s work or efforts; it was just a change in direction for the organization.

Organizations seem to handle this in a variety of ways but mostly I see two flavors. The first is, management calls a meeting, makes an announcement and immediately following the meeting, the no-longer-required staff is asked to pack up their personal belongings and vacate the premises. Sometimes they receive a severance package to tide them over during their job hunting period and sometimes they don’t. The second flavor is that the impending change is announced several months in advance giving the departing time to look for new jobs. The organization might even hire a placement service to help in that endeavor. Both approaches are usually handled with a crisp, business-like approach. After all, it isn’t personal. There are many variations on these themes and bad behavior can be found by both those leaving and those staying.

The aforementioned organization chose the second approach and by the last day, all of the staff had new jobs, albeit some not as satisfactory as those they were leaving. Even so, the transition was difficult for those leaving and for those staying. The ones leaving felt devalued, betrayed and abandoned. Those staying felt like they had joined the ranks of the betrayers and even though some of them felt anguish for the ones leaving, they also felt relief that it wasn’t them. They also wondered if and when it would be their turn. All this emotional angst became the pink elephant at the water cooler and there was no forum available for people to address the elephant so it would go away.

Measurements for stress include loss of job, business uncertainty and financial change in the top 20 ‘stressors’ and predict that those under the most stress will suffer serious illness within two years. When interviewing, I usually ask the person about the most difficult work experience they’ve encountered to date and then ask how they handled it and what they learned. Those who have been through a down sizing most always name that as the most difficult, no matter whether they were the down-sized or one of the ones remaining.  I’ve talked with people who have had to decide on, announce and manage staff down sizing and years later, they’re still affected by it, often wondering if they could have done it better.

Not personal to whom? Everyone touched by this had personal turmoil that lasted for weeks or months and possibly years. What was the bottom line to the organization? Productivity slowed to a crawl. Some of the most desired staff that had been retained left within a few weeks. It will take the organization a long time to recover. The bottom line to each of the individuals affected remains to be seen. Some will look back at this change as a catapult to new and better careers and some will not.

Sometimes down-sizing it is necessary and there isn’t a perfect way to manage it. Perhaps, though, management should recognize the emotional impact (even on themselves) and understand that this very human impact will show up on the bottom line. Offering a way to talk about the pink elephant in the room might be a way to lessen the impact on all parties.

After all, it really is a very personal event.

This will be a place for my ramblings about work, life and trying to maintain the balance between them. I welcome your comments.

Marge