Dave Birren replied:
>I think this idea belongs in the trash heap. In its place, I would suggest
a program that prioritizes the work and provides employees with
opportunities for development within a relatively open system. I know
David included provisions for staff development, but I suspect that would
be overpowered by the hierarchical nature of the system.
And Ginger Schafer added:
> The flaw in this approach, as I see it, is the serious potential to
completely demoralize the work force. I know you need to prioritize work
and if you're looking to RIF, you need to prioritize people. But what a
dangerous combination to set people up for failure by predetermining their
value.<
I thought that might raise some hackles. But we still haven't addressed the
problem. The problem as I see it, is that people are very good at
forecasting troubled times. They know when we are facing a slow period and
they want to know where they stand. What chances do they have to survive or
do they need to be out looking right now. They also want to know what the
criteria is for survival vs. layoff.
I see that you have two ways to deal with this issue. 1. Provide the
criteria and tell the people out right how they stand up to others
(performance, seniority, job categories, etc.) or 2. Provide incentives for
people to leave. Unfortunately this option often results in the best people
leaving and too many of them at that.
So what do you do?...........
David Reed "Uh-oh" is a state of mind.
H R Strategy Development Uh-oh people seem not only to
(206)655-3245 expect suprise, they count
dpr9989@kgv1.bems.boeing.com it. --(R.Fulghum)--
--DAVID REED <DPR9989@KGV1.bems.boeing.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>