They redesignate their titles, ship them to new portfolios, which are poor fits, and then hopefully they will quit slowly one by one.
And the stories that I’ve heard are that these people who (are) affected see their colleagues going through that same experience, and they kind of know that the time is up. Four of my colleagues have left, and I’m the only one left, and maybe it’s the writing on the wall and I need to leave soon.
Tiffany:
Why don’t companies just say, “Look, you can’t perform and then so therefore, please move out”? Why do they make this whole process so long drawn?
Peter:
Some organisations, the sort of activities you’ve both described, are where they’re going for a more formal process of rebadging somebody or changing their designation. And there’s no doubt that there are some of the outcomes of that, and they want to reduce the workforce, and not all of those people can be redeployed.
In those regards, that’s a more interventionalist approach.
I think we know that employees want good upfront communication. They want to know how they’re performing. The employer owes you the obligation to tell you how you’re performing, and if you’re not performing, how to close that gap. It’s this gray area where you’re not necessarily knowing how you’re performing, and you have the potential to misinterpret how you’re being treated. That’s bad for morale, it’s bad for the team.
What we know is that people like to work in organisations where they’re treated equitably, and you see the people across the organisation, no matter how you are performing, are being treated fairly as well, because everybody knows that that could be you in the future.
From: channelnewsasia
Business News
