You should think of ways in which you can attenuate (or might unwittingly exacerbate) the emotional costs for employees and reputation costs for your organization. Indeed, you need to be considering about these things as you debate whether to downsize at all. The key here is the procedure for downsizing.
Perhaps the most crucial way to attenuate the psychological costs is implied about what we said above about the “moral from the data”: By simply tying downsizing to a broader and sensible change initiative, a good gives their workforce a smart and credible reason for why this pain must be inflicted, a vision of what sort of better future beckons after the suffering is over, and a broader purpose around which the survivors can rally.
Do not forget to read: [Salaries In Human Resources]
Your research literature, as well as assessments from practitioners that have lived through downsizing, suggest some further conditions that will help minimize the adverse results of layoffs on the attitudes and work performance of the people that stays:
– The method should be well understood by workers: Right now there should be considerable communication before, during, after.
– Because of the gigantic costs imposed by layoffs, it must be clear to employees that you have got given due concern to alternatives. This does not mean that you have to try every choice first. But downsizing, if not necessarily a previous resort, certainly shouldn’t be perceived as the very first thing you thought of and then chosen to try. And to the greatest extent possible, employees who will be afflicted by the downsizing-if it comes-should be co-opted into the process of analyzing alternatives.
– The process should be recognized as embodying distributive and procedural justice. Both communication and a willingness for management to avoid downsizing are a good start in this direction. Staff input should be solicited and incorporated into the planning process. When the layoffs come, there should be fair and obviously mentioned requirements to determine on whom the decision will affect. Those done should have the reason to appeal the decision.
– The task should be kind. Specifically, there should be maximum advance warning announcement and generous buyout, severance, and outplacement benefits. This really is more than simple benevolence; Those that stays will grieve less and be more willing to change and adapt in case their former colleagues and (perhaps still) friends are well treated. The need for this, of course, depends upon the pre-layoff culture and implicit contracts at the firm. If the organization a new dog-eat-dog, highly competitive culture, it can probably get by with less than is recommended for companies that recently had employee-welfare, clan like cultures.