HR organizations seemed to escape the major downsizings of the ‘90s relatively unscathed, at least in my area of familiarity, the federal government. After all, HR was needed in order to help employees to transition into their new jobs or to exit their employment. To my knowledge, most or all of those in HR who left during program review did so voluntarily and with a sizable financial incentive in hand.
At the time, I naively assumed that we were there to shut off the lights and lock the doors. Once the general reductions had been completed, I thought that proportionate downsizing in HR would logically follow. This proved to be a false prediction. Rather, in the years that followed, the HR program base seemed to expand in breadth and sophistication to accommodate a larger HR-to-employee ratio than had previously been the case.
Although I always believed I was making an important contribution to my department, that belief is now being shaken. Today, I find myself on the pointed end of a restructuring exercise. The HR function is not downsizing, but there are plans to dramatically change how HR services will be provided.
In the ‘90s, I assumed that I had an empathetic understanding of what redundant employees were facing during “workforce adjustments,” but I have gained a new appreciation for their plight. Indeed, I am coming to believe that all HR practitioners should be downsized or restructured at least once before being allowed to implement organizational changes.
People can adjust to change, but only when that change is perceived as having positive outcomes. What they don’t handle so well is negative change, loss of control, and the unknown.
In our arrogance or our ignorance, HR practitioners often think that where there is no job loss there should be little or no stress. We may intellectually acknowledge that people will feel unsettled until they know how they are personally affected and what they will be assigned to do in a new structure, but this is viewed as minor and transitory in nature.
I can now say with some confidence that in the mind of the employee affected by change, restructuring equates to job loss. It really isn’t much different than layoff. I know that whatever I am doing today is not what I will be doing in the new organization. It is, plainly and simply, a loss. Concerns as to whether this means that I’ve not been as effective as I should have and whether this means that my work has been meaningless are foremost in my thoughts.
The Catch-22 is this: if I assume the reason for restructuring to be other than that my work has been unsatisfactory, then I must place myself in a Dilbert-like mentality of concluding a questionable rationale for management’s decision. Clearly, this would make it difficult to have a positive attitude in my new environment. Placing the burden of blame on myself is equally problematic though, as it forces a negative evaluation of my previous performance. Given people’s tendency to want to think well of themselves, a difficult personal and professional dilemma ensues.
Maintaining confidence in my value is challenging when, whether through perception or reality, I find myself becoming marginalized. Even though the change is months away, e-mail and telephone traffic in my area has been down markedly in the few weeks since the takeover announcement was made.
My own managers, probably wisely, appear to be quietly flocking to the new service provider — at least for their future-focused HR advice. I have no doubt that I would behave similarly — it is a testimony to organizational positioning.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that the period of uncertainty between the time of announcement of a change and receiving personalized information about its impact takes an emotional toll on the affected employee. While much planning and negotiating is transpiring behind the scenes, senior management is really not at liberty to be frank about the possibilities for individual employees.
In this way however, the sense of loss of control over one’s fate becomes predominant and can be destructive to one’s sense of loyalty to the organization.
Thinking back to the learned helplessness experiments taught in undergraduate psychology, there is a clear parallel. On discovering that attempts to influence personal outcomes will have little effect, there is a tendency toward lying down to receive additional shocks if it is impossible to exit the situation.
HR, at least in my experience, has simply never needed to take a good look at the direct impacts of uncertainty on employees, having for too long handled workforce adjustment from a distance.
My own needs seem relatively easy to address. While I know that there must be a waiting period before I can be told with precision what my options will be, in the interim there are three important ways in which I could be made to feel valued by the new power-brokers.
All three solutions centre on taking an interest in individuals. First, I need someone to ask me about my education, knowledge, experience and skills so that I can be assured that informed decisions will be made about appropriate job “fits.” Second, I need someone to talk to me about my hopes and my potential contributions to the new organization, so that I will feel that my career aspirations will be taken into account. Finally and perhaps most importantly, I need, sooner rather than later, to be wooed.
Brenda G. Hebert is a civilian HR manager with the Department of National Defence in East St. Paul, Man. She has 19 years of HR experience in the federal public service, including six as a specialist in workforce adjustment.
At the time, I naively assumed that we were there to shut off the lights and lock the doors. Once the general reductions had been completed, I thought that proportionate downsizing in HR would logically follow. This proved to be a false prediction. Rather, in the years that followed, the HR program base seemed to expand in breadth and sophistication to accommodate a larger HR-to-employee ratio than had previously been the case.
Although I always believed I was making an important contribution to my department, that belief is now being shaken. Today, I find myself on the pointed end of a restructuring exercise. The HR function is not downsizing, but there are plans to dramatically change how HR services will be provided.
In the ‘90s, I assumed that I had an empathetic understanding of what redundant employees were facing during “workforce adjustments,” but I have gained a new appreciation for their plight. Indeed, I am coming to believe that all HR practitioners should be downsized or restructured at least once before being allowed to implement organizational changes.
People can adjust to change, but only when that change is perceived as having positive outcomes. What they don’t handle so well is negative change, loss of control, and the unknown.
In our arrogance or our ignorance, HR practitioners often think that where there is no job loss there should be little or no stress. We may intellectually acknowledge that people will feel unsettled until they know how they are personally affected and what they will be assigned to do in a new structure, but this is viewed as minor and transitory in nature.
I can now say with some confidence that in the mind of the employee affected by change, restructuring equates to job loss. It really isn’t much different than layoff. I know that whatever I am doing today is not what I will be doing in the new organization. It is, plainly and simply, a loss. Concerns as to whether this means that I’ve not been as effective as I should have and whether this means that my work has been meaningless are foremost in my thoughts.
The Catch-22 is this: if I assume the reason for restructuring to be other than that my work has been unsatisfactory, then I must place myself in a Dilbert-like mentality of concluding a questionable rationale for management’s decision. Clearly, this would make it difficult to have a positive attitude in my new environment. Placing the burden of blame on myself is equally problematic though, as it forces a negative evaluation of my previous performance. Given people’s tendency to want to think well of themselves, a difficult personal and professional dilemma ensues.
Maintaining confidence in my value is challenging when, whether through perception or reality, I find myself becoming marginalized. Even though the change is months away, e-mail and telephone traffic in my area has been down markedly in the few weeks since the takeover announcement was made.
My own managers, probably wisely, appear to be quietly flocking to the new service provider — at least for their future-focused HR advice. I have no doubt that I would behave similarly — it is a testimony to organizational positioning.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that the period of uncertainty between the time of announcement of a change and receiving personalized information about its impact takes an emotional toll on the affected employee. While much planning and negotiating is transpiring behind the scenes, senior management is really not at liberty to be frank about the possibilities for individual employees.
In this way however, the sense of loss of control over one’s fate becomes predominant and can be destructive to one’s sense of loyalty to the organization.
Thinking back to the learned helplessness experiments taught in undergraduate psychology, there is a clear parallel. On discovering that attempts to influence personal outcomes will have little effect, there is a tendency toward lying down to receive additional shocks if it is impossible to exit the situation.
HR, at least in my experience, has simply never needed to take a good look at the direct impacts of uncertainty on employees, having for too long handled workforce adjustment from a distance.
My own needs seem relatively easy to address. While I know that there must be a waiting period before I can be told with precision what my options will be, in the interim there are three important ways in which I could be made to feel valued by the new power-brokers.
All three solutions centre on taking an interest in individuals. First, I need someone to ask me about my education, knowledge, experience and skills so that I can be assured that informed decisions will be made about appropriate job “fits.” Second, I need someone to talk to me about my hopes and my potential contributions to the new organization, so that I will feel that my career aspirations will be taken into account. Finally and perhaps most importantly, I need, sooner rather than later, to be wooed.
Brenda G. Hebert is a civilian HR manager with the Department of National Defence in East St. Paul, Man. She has 19 years of HR experience in the federal public service, including six as a specialist in workforce adjustment.
