DOWNSIZING - CONSIDERING THE HEALTH OF THE REMAINING STAFF

 

 

 

Downsizing - Let's not ignore those who are left behind

 

Organisational downsizing is a very stressful experience for everyone involved, the people who leave and get a replacement job seem to have better health than those who stay behind and also those who leave and do not get a replacement job. The surprising point is that the health problems of those who remain after a downsizing appear to be as problematical as those of the people who leave and cannot find a replacement job. The real winners, health wise, seem to be those who successfully leave and start afresh. One might think that those who stay behind would be relieved that they have survived a cull but research shows that their health problems accelerate with time. Why is this the case?  

 

Those who stay behind are invariably faced with greater work burdens in that they have to take on part of the jobs of people who have left which means their weekly hours and stress levels increase and the work pressures on them multiply. This leads to issues around achieving new work capacities and targets which employers need to be aware of and monitor and support staff in those new challenging areas, although in reality, the latter support is rarely the case. Very often, those who are left still standing after a restructure need increased training to cope with new responsibilities which they previously have not undertaken. This increased training should be applied, but again, in reality, frequently this is not the case as training and development budgets are often the first to be cut in a recession as they are seen as "easy" and "painless" targets. Nothing could be further from the truth and such ways forward are in reality, short sighted and short termist, though arguing these points in a stressful company setting is never easy.

 

As Paul McGee the Sumo Guy says,

 

If you had a fleet of a hundred cars but to save costs reduced them by twenty, what would you do with the remaining eighty?

Would you still service the cars and seek to maintain them?

Of course you would.

It would be both stupid and short-sighted not to do so.

But are organisations doing the same with their staff?

In times of cutbacks, austerity and lay-offs, have organisations decided to ignore the staff that remain and hope they'll get by without any support?

Research suggests that's a dangerous thing to do.

Please examine the following weblink: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023%2FA%3A1025642806557

Work done by Mika Kivimaki and colleagues measured the health of over 800 people before any rumour of downsizing took place, immediately after and then three years later.

They then looked at which group of people - stayers, re-employed leavers and unemployed leavers - fared best in terms of health and psychological well-being.

It's no surprise that the worst affected group were those who were laid off and became long-term unemployed. But here comes the surprise. The next hardest hit group were 'the stayers', particularly men, who fared significantly less well than the re-employed leavers.

So what are we doing for 'the stayers'? What support are they receiving? What help are they being given to develop emotional resilience and the skills required not just to survive change but succeed through it?

In a short term effort to cut costs, are we treating them like a car that we'll run into the ground and not bother servicing?

You may save money that way. In the short term anyway.

But what about the emotional costs involved?

And how does such behaviour affect the long term health and success of the organisation?

 

All the above points underpin the fact that those colleagues left behind after a downsizing do need extra help and support. Their work content and hours should be monitored and support in terms of re-distributing workload between existing staff and bringing in temporary support should be addressed. If this is not the case then in the medium to long term the organisation itself is much more likely to suffer from increased levels of absence due to stress and its performance will suffer as well; all because it lacked the foresight to ensure that those staff who remained after a downsizing were well enough equipped to meet the challenges they faced.

 

Let's not treat our staff like the first beat up car that we all owned -- they really do not deserve to be run into the ground to be sacrificed on the altar of short term cost gains -- If that happens, in the long run, both the organisation and its staff and society as a whole will be much the poorer for it.