ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, March 9, 1997 TAG: 9703070015
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: 5 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: Working it Out
SOURCE: CAMILLE WRIGHT MILLER
Q: While I should feel fortunate to have just started a new job, my feelings are better characterized as those of the "walking wounded." I was downsized from two companies before I started this job. Now there's talk of downsizing here. I've used to believe that hard work reaps rewards, but I really think now it's about taking what you can while you can and running.
A: It's hard not to take downsizing personally. You worked hard, played by the rules and still ended up without a job. Organizational decisions to downsize are made on the basis of many factors and, though many are left without a job, the decisions are almost never personal.
Companies must monitor all the variables that make it profitable and competitive. Variables range from decreased sales to increased regulations. Downsizing may have to happen to restore or increase profits.
At a broad level, companies and employees need one another for financial well-being.
Committing to working hard helps ensure the company remains profitable. If it does, employees' chances for long-term employment are improved. If, despite efforts of employees a company does downsize, employees know they personally did their best.
That you've been downsized is not your fault; however, what you do after a downsizing is your responsibility. Remaining ethical and hard working when things are going well is easy; remaining ethical and hard working during hard times is the test of ethics.
Consider working with a counselor. It's very hard not to feel personally attacked during downsizing. Talking with someone else can help you maintain your objectivity and ensure your attitude is positive - important factors in keeping a job.
Keep in mind that if we consciously give less than we're able, we consciously help reduce profit.
If downsizing occurs, we're partially responsible. While we're working for a company we must feel some ownership - our livelihoods depend on its well-being for job security.
Q: Our department is doing a self-study as part of our corporate program to create a strategic plan. We're evaluating everything - how work flows, the quality of work, qualifications and skills of employees and the quality of leadership in our department. In a draft document, we were honest in describing the weaknesses of our supervisor. He was surprised by the results, but he has tried to remedy the weaknesses we identified. Many of us think our point has been made, and the final report shouldn't carry information it now does.
A few think that it would be dishonest to delete that portion of the report; they want every negative trait identified. We can't come to any agreement.
A: What's the real purpose of the self-study? The real purpose of including weaknesses that have been brought to a supervisor's attention only through that document? What is the agenda of those who insist that negative personnel issues be made part of open company records? How does each and every part of the report work to support the success of your company's strategic plan?
Finally, how does each and every part of the report work to support improvement of the department? If identification of weaknesses and subsequent efforts to improve on those weaknesses supports the department - that's already been achieved.
It appears there are additional agendas operating beyond the self-study. Employees who wouldn't address troubling issues with the supervisor may be using the document to "get back" at the supervisor - the collective voice helps hide, as well as reinforce, their anger. They need help getting beyond individual agendas to look at the needs of the department and the organization.
Once you've more fully evaluated the guidelines and underlying issues, reconvene the group. Keep in mind that most disagreements can be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone, given the time and desire. Because in this case there is neither, you need a way to move forward.
Put the issue of leadership weaknesses to a vote with this addition: the majority will rule and the minority can submit a dissenting opinion statement to be appended to the report. Further, since no compromise appears possible, the group and each individual will agree to accept this as a fair resolution to the situation.
Failure to accept this approach or a reasonable alternative can be taken as supporting evidence that personal agendas and a desire to hide behind a collective voice are at work. If so, move forward with the report and the invitation to a dissenting opinion addendum.
|--| Camille Wright Miller,-an organizational behavior sociologist who works in Lexington, answers questions from our readers about workplace issues. Please send them to her in care of The Roanoke Times, Business News Department, P.O. Box 2491, Roanoke 24010, or call 981-3100 ext. 498. Please give your name and phone number in case she has questions.
LENGTH: Medium: 90 linesby CNB