Diana Mordock <104022.36@CompuServe.COM> in response to my concern re
consultants of downsizing, asks:
>Your message was shocking but not unexpected. What I would like to know
>is what these consultants did or did not do to cause this carnage.
These were very "reputable consultants" who have done many corporate
downsizings (a different consultant for each of the 2 situations that I
mentioned). Unfortunately, they cannot get inside the heads of the
impacted people nor do they see the subsequent suicides.
They have very little appreciation for the culture of the company. (The
parallel I would draw here is getting a veterinarian to operate on your
gall bladder. They may know all the techniques for operating but have not
relevant experience with the particular body at hand!). They give the
management a sense of confidence that is misplaced.
>..Was it the
>downsizing itself, the way it was done, the work the consultant did or
>did not do with the staff? What would you say was the worst abuse?
These consultants are "highly regarded". You would recognize their names.
They do not do any follow up (focus groups for the downsized) after a few
months to see how their process could be improved. They are not systems
thinkers. They view they engagement as a transaction. They are hired guns
that help you execute the task. They help you with the grieving that the
ones who stay will experience, but the whole approach generates a return
to the "we/they" approach of management and workers. Strictly old paradigm
school of management. And the resulting loss of trust will erode amy
progress that quality, process improvement, empowerment programs may have
generated...
>I believe your input is extremely valueable. I know it is to me as I am
>working on designing programs that heal not hurt, even when change is
>inevitable. Diana Mordock 104022.36@compuserve.com
The one fault I would ascribe to both situations is the narrow focus that
the consultants take. When I look back on what I would want from a systems
thinking consultant in a corporate downsizing, here are some of the items
I would expect:
1) Insist on a retreat for the management to immerse them in what it will
be like for them, the people who stay, the people who go in 1, 3, 6, 12
and 18 months
2) Repeated indepth management training sessions on how to handle staff
before, during and after the event
3) Involvement of staff in the process ahead of time seeking understanding
and genuinely soliciting input
4) Clear and honest communication and application of the selection
criteria for who stays and who goes (e.g. if I am let go because I had 25
years retirement benefit, or because I did not know C++, it is better for
both the individual and the company to be able to say that publicly
because the downsized person will have to contend with neighbours and
friends who have their own ideas about why I am out of work)
5) Regular focus groups for each of the three groups at the intervals
above with actions resulting from each group
This is not my area of expertise but I have some "expert experience" on
the subject. As a change consultant, I can see lots of opportunity to
improve the process. I see the task being viewed somewhat like management
having to "bite the bullet" to get it over with, rather than one of the
major change processes that most company managements will experience.
The irony is that when management (of which I was one in both cases) is
asked for the criteria for letting people go, we are very vague about what
constitutes our core competencies, and we do not follow through after the
"event" to ensure our hiring processes reflect high appitudes for such
core competencies in the future. Training is also not adjusted.
As a result of these experiences, and out of my conviction to make a
difference, I been working for the last 6 mos to launch a company that
uses a set of technologies for effective change to transfer the skills to
a client company that it needs to implement and manage a continuous change
process in an integrated way such that the company will not need external
consultants for such events in the future. The idea is that consultants
will provide the specialist skills but not the change process itself. This
is where the consultants failed in these (and many other) cases.
It is very much a work in progress, but some of the progress can be viewed
at the Goal/2000 Home Page
http://OurWorld.CompuServe.Com/HomePages/Goal2000
Hope this gives you some of what you were looking for Diana.
Cheers....Keith
--Keith Cowan <72212.51@CompuServe.COM>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>