“…that there is going to be a long-term impact on organizations due to the sometimes cavalier, frequently ham-fisted and often less-than-skillful ways that businesses have chosen to cope with the worst economic downturn in 75 years.”
Wow.
I received the press release from WW as well, but your added condemnation of business leadership was simply an ad hominem attack. I know of no one — including YOU, me, and the greatest management minds of our time — who had the perfect contingency plan in place for executing abrupt cost-cutting in a nearly-unprecedented worldwide recession.
Harvard, Stanford, Yale, all bastions of leadership thought and insight, have had to lay off hundreds of staff. The vast majority of layoffs go as well as can be expected; people are, after all, losing their jobs.
To be so cavalier yourself in attacking all manners of leadership, including general management and HR (”ham-fisted,” “less-than-skillful”) trivializes the situation and is inaccurate in the totality of the issue. Yes, firms today are going to have to deal with fallout morale issues, but they aren’t necessarily due to the mismanaging insults you tossed out above.
If only academics and media “experts” would share with us the precise way to rapidly reduce costs substantially in a “more-than-skillful” manner, we would all listen intently and then, hopefully, could reduce our apparently cavalier reliance on “ham-handedness.”
But that’s just me…
KB

FROM JOHN HOLLON: You make some good points, but I wasn’t aware that businesses and organizations across America universally handled their recession-related cuts with such extreme sensitivity and care. Some did, of course, but many others didn’t. In my view, the morale issues stem in large part from the ongoing drumbeat from all-too-many organizations that workers are simply disposable parts to be dumped as needed. Is this a tough environment to manage in? You bet, but have the vast majority of layoffs gone “as well as can be expected,” as you believe? Well like you, I think such a comment “trivializes the situation and is inaccurate in the totality of the issue.” But that’s just me …

Very interesting article, I hadn’t previously seen figures that spell out quite how bad employee morale has become during this harsh downturn. I have on the other hand been reading articles recently that lend advice to both managers and company owners, with the underlying argument pertaining to the importance of one’s employees. Of course morale is going to be at an all time low with the plethora of job cuts and cost cutting that is encompassing the business industry at the moment, however as a manager it is of extreme importance that you stay positive, your employees will respond to this and no matter how bad things get, a motivational leader that involves others will always boost morale. Therefore in my view, as bad as cost cutting can be, it doesn’t have to be the end of a positive atmosphere in the workplace.

Well, the “universally handled” and “extreme sensitivity and care” qualifiers weren’t part of the initial comments (yours or mine), so unsure how to address that. I’m neither sure that orgs use such a lofty standard, nor that one is necessarily required to be effective, relatively compassionate, and even empathetic.

Do you have specific examples of “workers are disposable parts to be dumped as needed,” or do you assume de facto that a layoff is such merely because it’s a layoff? I know of no companies that act explicitly as you describe, though I’m willing to be educated.

To be sure, layoffs are painful, in the best of circumstances and with the highest of care. In my world, though, before hanging the albatross of shame around the neck of managers, I’d want specific (vs. anecdotal) evidence that they have somehow intentionally maligned their departing workforce en masse around the country.

I believe managers, HR and otherwise, have struggled during this recession between the pull of keeping the doors open and maintaining some degree of employee engagement; it’s not been a simple effort, and frankly, I doubt there exists any way to lay off as many as have been required this past year and NOT have ill-feelings from departed and remaining employees. The numbers are just too great.

I, however, don’t necessarily view this potential fact as meaning that HR and other business managers have been exercised wide-spread “ham-handedness” and “less-than-skillful” approaches to these efforts. We charted new territory this past year — I believe the substantial majority of managers and organizations did as well as could be expected given the hand dealt.

Undoubtedly, some wish they could have a ‘do-over’ here and there. Hindsight is always 20-20, but is never at the disposal of managers — HR and other — in the field.

But that’s just me…

KB

For an example of ham fisted, my own company cut back on employee payroll by 16% for our sales teams, the last year, while projecting a 3% increase in projected revenue…and not cutting payroll at any of the regional or corporate offices except for janitorial and secretarial service. Apparently all the folk making the decisions about who should be layed off were far too important to be laid off. This is the type of thing that will kill worker morale.
When it comes off that management is clearly not in the same boat as the typical worker, they need to be particularly sensitive to hoe they go about laying poeple off, and treating their remaining employees as more then someone lucky to still have their job. Having a furlough day and then not letting employees in the day after because they’ve been laid off, and not telling them about it till they get to the office is not the way to engender good morale.