|
Enjoying Your Work Richard Brislin |
Underlings often
bear unpleasant task
of axing workers"It's time we made some changes that may be unpopular with some of the employees," Herb Jenkins told Julie Tagawa.
Herb was the president and chief executive officer of a company that manufactured and sold clothing for men, women and children. Julie was his vice president for administration. Herb knew that some of his proposed changes would affect jobs and could lead to layoffs. He asked Julie Tagawa to develop a staffing plan based on his ideas for changes. After two months, Julie presented the plan to Herb. Both agreed three people had to be told their services would no longer be required.
Julie talked to the three people individually and gave them the bad news. Two of the employees had already decided to leave the company because of family commitments in other states. The third pink-slipped employees made an appointment with Herb and pleaded his case. He pointed out that there were limited opportunities for jobs in his specialized field of information technology and that he would have to leave the state to find comparable employment. He continued that his two children were in high school and that he did not want to make them leave their friends and transfer to another school. Herb relented and agreed to retain the information technology specialist. Word got around the organization that Julie was the mean-spirited demon who wanted to fire people and that Herb saved the day with his intervention.
Herb has shown that he is the master of an art form. Even though both Herb and Julie agreed that the personnel changes were necessary, one of the two people emerged from the exercise with a positive reputation in the company. I have seen this technique used a number of times. An administrator wants changes, asks an assistant to put the changes into practice and then relents when there is rebellion. The person who communicated to employees that they should seek employment elsewhere is left "holding the bag."
Employers, especially in Hawaii, do not want to be seen as the origin of decisions that affect employees in a negative manner. So, consciously or unconsciously, they give this task to someone else who then becomes the target of resentment.
What are the benefits of this process for Julie and other vice presidents? Why don't they quit their jobs in disgust? For some, they feel that they are well paid and that they could not do better financially if they put themselves on the job market. For others, they view communicating negative decisions as part of their preparation for a higher position. For still others, they view this distasteful task as showing their loyalty to the company president. Many "No. 2 people" feel that they will be the chosen successor when the current president retires or moves on.
When I counsel vice presidents who are frustrated given experiences similar to Julie's, I tell them that I hope that they are 100 percent confident of their bosses' intentions. Presidents who manipulate their subordinates into holding the bag for unpopular decisions are ethically challenged. If they are willing to engage in this behavior, they might be willing to set aside promises made to a vice president concerning a career path leading to the chief executive position.
See the Columnists section for some past articles.
The purpose of this column is to increase understanding of human behavior as it has an impact on the workplace. Given the amount of time people spend at work, job satisfaction should ideally be high and it should contribute to general life happiness. Enjoyment can increase as people learn more about workplace psychology, communication, and group influences.
Richard Brislin is a professor in the College of Business Administration, University of Hawaii. He can be reached through the College Relations Office: cro@cba.hawaii.edu