Market circumstances, legitimate streamlining and restructuring can see situations arise whereby certain roles in an organisation may become superfluous. But in itself, this should not excuse anybody involved in the decision making for the predicament of over staffing. The need for permanent staff redundancy and early contact termination should be considered on-par with any other strategic error that costs a business money or reputation.
Yet from what I have witnessed in my 30 year career is that executives are almost never penalised, and on very very few occasions do we have the moral backbone to sit in on termination meetings unless we have to be.
I have been on both sides of the table: I have been made redundant from a full time role after less than 12 months, I have had a contract terminated early. ...and atypically, I had an executive manager that had the foresight to punish me for making two popular, but incompetent managers redundant.
I truly hope anyone with the power to hire-or-fire knows that being let go can be demoralising. Why then is it viewed as so inconsequential?
For full time workers in roles held for many years it may hurt no less. Exiting staff will experience grief from loss of relationships, shock from a significant change to their daily routine, invalidation.
For the purpose of providing some topical scope, I will draw a line shortly after shorter employment periods, as most of us will understand business conditions over periods longer than 3-5 years are forgivably difficult to predict. Could we agree that almost nothing significant can be achieved over a shorter period under normal circumstances. I believe the failure to provide reliable employment for staff indicates strategic incompetence or at worst, a narcissistic view of your workforce. After a long career providing expertise in streamlining business processes using software, I can tell you there is usually a narcissist pushing people out the door.
Now there are anomalies. I have made staff redundant when they were repeatedly under-performing or displaying disruptive behavioural issues. This was always due to the specific policies of the organisation at hand. Some organisations prefer to exit staff with a redundancy as it's seen as less controversial and embarrassing. Personally, I’d sack them. Authenticity comes in sweet and sour flavours.
Managers use rank. Leaders use influence.
Perhaps the reason executives are seemingly never punished for this (and other) strategic blunders is that their superiors are oblivious. I’ve had executives and boards unaware of key strategic points I was executing, never because of a lack of effort on my part. Anyone who has worked with me knows i'm an over-communicator if anything. The other reason executive incompetence often escapes justice is the cabal-like culture at the top of many organisations. HR departments are often described as protecting the business from the workforce. We will tell ourselves redundancies are justified because they are returning value back to the business. We will unconvincingly lament having done it.
Either way, putting another human being through such a painful ordeal has a cost. Don't think for a second you are immune to it. Ejected staff will leave with a sense that our system is mercenary and cruel. They still vote, they can join with other people who feel the same way.
I won't be suggesting legislation is the answer. As legislation increases so does the inefficiency of our governments. Government expenditure has grown with public debt. That's also your problem. The ratios to government debt, revenue, expenditure and GDP is in itself a fascinating area. The scope of this post ends on a recommendation for documentation of all proposed tactical and strategic business activity, and it's circulation internally so executives can be held accountable by all staff. Yes, all of them.
If you have the time to pitch, start-up, operate and then evaluate an entire project you have the time to document what it was you wanted to achieve.
I understand the trend to fly by the seat of your pants has become a catchcry to many who consider themselves innovators. The percentage of businesses that succeed with an undocumented strategy are few and far between. Elon Musk has, like other anomalies in the tech industry, set a terrible example for other wannabe tech-bros. Many people overlook the significant losses and the fact that his only profitable businesses make heavy use of subsidies. Operating a business on subsidies and capital investment is the definition of building a house of cards.
I’m am not advocating what might appear as a government-centric approach of documenting everything and doing little.
I typically recommend what i describe as 'documenting appropriately' for each situation. In organisations with less technical (read between the lines) leadership you might chose to produce more graphical material. Be sure it contains enough details to hang. Hold yourself (or anyone else) to account.
The only way to build a kinder world is to be kind (and to take accountability for our actions).