EMPLOYEE
DOWNSIZING
Case Code- HROB016
Publication Date -2002
DOWNSIZING BLUES ALL OVER THE WORLD
THE DOWNSIZING PHENOMENONWORLDWIDE
THE FIRST PHASE
THE SECOND PHASE
TACKLING THE EVILS OF DOWNSIZING
Continued form previous page
LESSONS FROM THE 'DOWNSIZING BEST PRACTICES' COMPANIES
In the late 1990s, the US government conducted a study on the downsizing
practices of firms (including major companies in the country). The study
provided many interesting insights into the practice and the associated
problems. It was found that the formulation and communication of a proper
planning and downsizing strategy, the support of senior leaders, incentive and
compensation planning and effective monitoring systems were the key factors for
successful downsizing.
In many organizations where downsizing was successfully implemented and
yielded positive results, it was found that senior leaders had been
actively involved in the downsizing process. Though the downsizing methods
used varied from organization to organization, the active involvement of
senior employees helped achieve downsizing goals and objectives with
little loss in quality or quantity of service. The presence and
accessibility of senior leaders had a positive impact on employees - those
who were downsized as well as the survivors. According to a best practice
company source, "Managers at all levels need to be held accountable for -
and need to be committed to - managing their surplus employees in a
humane, objective, and appropriate manner. While HR is perceived to have
provided outstanding service, it is the managers' behavior that will have
the most impact." In many companies, consistent and committed leadership
helped employees overcome organizational change caused by downsizing. |
|
HR managers in these companies participated actively in the overall downsizing
exercise. They developed a employee plan for downsizing, which covered issues
such as attrition management and workforce distribution in the organization. The
plan also included the identification of skills needed by employees to take new
responsibilities and the development of training and reskilling programs for
employees. Since it may be necessary to acquire other skills in the future, the
plan also addressed the issue of recruitment planning.
Communication was found to be a primary success factor of effective downsizing
programs. According to a survey conducted in major US companies, 79% of the
respondents revealed that they mostly used letters and memorandums from senior
managers to communicate information regarding restructuring or downsizing to
employees. However, only 29% of the respondents agreed that this type of
communication was effective.
The survey report suggested that face-to-face communication (such as briefings
by managers and small group meetings) was a more appropriate technique for
dealing with a subject as traumatic (to employees) as downsizing. According to
best practice companies, employees expected senior leaders to communicate openly
and honestly about the circumstances the company was facing (which led to
downsizing).
These companies also achieved a proper balance between formal and informal forms
of communication. A few common methods of communication adopted by these
companies included small meetings, face to face interaction, one-on-one
discussion, breakfast gatherings, all staff meetings, video conferencing and
informal employee dialogue sessions, use of newsletters, videos, telephone
hotlines, fax, memoranda, e-mail and bulletin boards; and brochures and guides
to educate employees about the downsizing process, employee rights and tips for
surviving the situation.
Many organizations encouraged employees to voice their ideas, concerns or
suggestions regarding the downsizing process. According to many best practice
organizations, employee inputs contributed considerably to the success of their
downsizing activities as they frequently gave valuable ideas regarding the
restructuring, increase in production, and assistance required by employees
during downsizing.
Advance planning for downsizing also contributed to the success of a downsizing
exercise. Many successful organizations planned in advance for the downsizing
exercise, clearly defining every aspect of the process. Best practice companies
involved employee union representatives in planning. These companies felt it was
necessary to involve labor representatives in the planning process to prevent
and resolve conflicts during downsizing.
According to a survey report, information that was not required by companies for
their normal day-to-day operations, became critical when downsizing. This
information had to be acquired from internal as well as external sources (the HR
department was responsible for providing it). From external sources, downsizing
companies needed to gather information regarding successful downsizing processes
of other organizations and various opportunities available for employees outside
the organization. And from internal sources, such companies need to gather
demographic data (such as rank, pay grade, years of service, age, gender and
retirement eligibility) on the entire workforce. In addition, they required
information regarding number of employees that were normally expected to resign
or be terminated, the number of employees eligible for early retirement, and the
impact of downsizing on women, minorities, disabled employees and old employees.
The best practice organizations gathered information useful for effective
downsizing from all possible sources. Some organizations developed an inventory
of employee skills to help management take informed decisions during downsizing,
restructuring or staffing. Many best practice organizations developed HR
information systems that saved management's time during downsizing or major
restructuring by giving ready access to employee information.
The major steps in the downsizing process included adopting an appropriate
method of downsizing, training managers about their role in downsizing, offering
career transition assistance to downsized employees, and providing support to
survivors. The various techniques of downsizing adopted by organizations
included attrition, voluntary retirement, leave without pay or involuntary
separation (layoffs). According to many organizations, a successful downsizing
process required the simultaneous use of different downsizing techniques. Many
companies offered assistance to downsized employees and survivors, to help them
cope with their situation.
Some techniques considered by organizations in lieu of downsizing included
overtime restrictions, union contract changes, cuts in pay, furloughs, shortened
workweeks, and job sharing. All these approaches were a part of the 'shared
pain' approach of employees, who preferred to share the pain of their co-workers
rather than see them be laid-off. Training provided to managers to help them
play their role effectively in the downsizing process mainly included formal
classroom training and written guidance (on issues that managers were expected
to deal with, when downsizing). The primary focus of these training sessions was
on dealing with violence in the workplace during downsizing.
According to best practice companies, periodic review of the implementation
process and immediate identification and rectification of any deviations from
the plan minimized the adverse effects of the downsizing process. In some
organizations, the progress was reviewed quarterly and was published in order to
help every manager monitor reductions by different categories. These categories
could be department, occupational group (clerical, administrative, secretarial,
general labor), reason (early retirement, leave without pay, attrition),
employment equity group (women, minorities, disabled class) and region. Senior
leaders were provided with key indicators (such as the effect of downsizing on
the organizational culture) for their respective divisions. Some organizations
tracked the progress and achievement of every division separately and emphasized
the application of a different strategy for every department as reaction of
employees to downsizing varied considerably from department to department.
Though the above measures helped minimize the negative effects of downsizing,
industry observers acknowledged the fact that the emotional trauma of the
concerned people could never be eliminated. The least the companies could do was
to downsize in a manner that did not injure the dignity of the discharged
employees or lower the morale of the survivors.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Explain the concept of downsizing and describe the various downsizing
techniques. Critically evaluate the reasons for the increasing use of downsizing
during the late 20th century and the early 21st century. Also discuss the
positive and negative effects of downsizing on organizations as well as
employees (downsized and remaining).
2. Why did contingent employment and flexible work arrangements become very
popular during the early 2000s? Discuss. Evaluate these concepts as alternatives
to downsizing in the context of organizational and employee welfare.
3. As part of an organization's HR team responsible for carrying it through a
downsizing exercise, discuss the measures you would adopt to ensure the
exercise's success. Given the uncertainty in the job market, what do you think
employees should do to survive the trauma caused by downsizing and prepare
themselves for it?
ADDITIONAL READING & REFERENCES
1. Making Sense of Corporate Downsizing, www.csaf.com, April 1996.
2. Downsizing and Employee Attitudes, www.ncspearson.com, September 1995.
3. Downsizing Strategies Used in Selected Organizations, www.c3i.osd.mil, 1995.
4. The Wages of Downsizing, www.mojones.com, January 1996.
5. Kirschener Elisabeth, Chemical & Engineering News, www.chemcenter.org,
October 1996.
6. Hickok Thomas, Downsizing and Organizational Culture, www.pamji.com, 1997.
7. P.Jenkins Carri, Downsizing or Dumbsizing, http://advance.byu.edu/bym, 1997.
8. L.Lester Martha and M. Hollender Lauren, Employment Law Q&A,
www.lowenstein.com, February 1997.
9. Hein Kenneth, Food for the Corporate Soul, www.martinrutte.com, May 1997.
10. GE Knows to Roll With the Changes, www.houstonchronicle.com, June 1998.
11. Jones Shannon, Job Cuts Up 53% Since 1997, www.wsws.org, October 1998.
12. Grey Barry, Boeing Announcements Brings US Job Cuts to 500,000 in 1998,
www.wsws.org, December 1998.
13. Unkindest Cuts of All - And Not Always a Payoff in the Layoff,
www.managementfirst.com, 1998.
14. Grice Corey and Junnarkar Sandeep, Silicon Valley: Still a Boomtown?
News.com.com, January 1999.
15. Shareholders Press AT&T on Wage Gap, www.ufenet.org, May 1999.
16. Baker Wayne, How to Survice Downsizing, www.humax.net, 2000.
17. Duffy Tom, Downsizing with Dignity, www.nwfusion.com, 2001.
18. Global Slowdown Bites I.T. Gaints, www.asiafeatures.com, July 2001.
19. Bowes Barbara, Downsizing Dignity, www.winnipegfreepress2.com, October 2001.
20. Freeze Executive Pay During Periods of Downsizing, www.responsiblewealth.org,
February 2002.
21. Layoff and Outsourcing Update, www.erie.net, March 2002.
22. Skaer Mark, Employee Mindset Is Different Today, www.achrnews.com, March
2002.
23. GE to Layoff 1,000, www.wspa.com, July 2002.
24. DiCarlo Lisa, US Airlines on Course with Loan Guarantee, www.forbes.com,
July 2002.
25. M.Song Kyung, Boeing Tells 600 More of Layoffs Today, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com,
August 2002.
26. Gomez Armando, The Ups and Downs of Downsizing, www.askmen.com, September
2002.
27. Carmaker Jaguar to Cut 400 Jobs, http://story.news.yahoo.com, September
2002.
28. Telecom Giant Sheds Scots Jobs, http://news.bbc.co.uk, September 2002.
29. Dresdner to Cut 3,000 Jobs, http://news.bbc.co.uk, September 2002.
30. Leicester John, Alactel to Cut 10,000 More Jobs, http://story.news.yahoo.com,
September 2002.
31. Noguchi Yuki, With Sales Down, Ciena Cuts Another Round of Workers,
www.washingtonpost.com, September 2002.
32. www.geocities.com
33. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu
34. www.greylockassociates.com
35. www.whatis.com
36. www.shrm.org
37. www.cio.com
38. www.shrm.org
39. www.forbes.com
40. www.orst.edu
41. www.humanresources.about.com
42. www.business2.com
43. www.businessweek.com
44. www.business-minds.com
45. www.themanagementor.com
46. www.bpcinc.com
47. http://members.aol.com
48. www.doleta.gov
49. www.msnbc.com
2003, ICMR (IBS Center for Management Research).All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted
in any form or by any means - electronic or mechanical, without permission.
To order copies, call +91- 8417- 236667 or write to ICMR,
Survey No. 156/157, Dontanapalli Village, Shankerpalli Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District,
Hyderabad-501504.
Andhra Pradesh, INDIA.
Mob: +91- 9640901313, Ph: +91- 8417- 236667,
Fax: +91- 8417- 236668
E-mail: info@icmrindia.org
Website: www.icmrindia.org
This case study is intended to be used as a basis for class discussion rather
than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a management
situation. This case was compiled from published sources.
|