Have companies that have laid off employees missed a trick?
Top Consultant's latest newsletter quotes the findings of a survey of 2,500 people conducted by the independent Keep Britain Working campaign, which indicates that there is more altruism in the workplace than had been previously suspected. The report indicates that, if it would help colleagues keep their jobs:
- 96% of workers would accept changes in working conditions
- 38% would accept a pay cut – 29% without reducing hours
- 53% would accept a reduction in hours
- 60% would take on extra responsibilities
- 48% would change their role entirely.
What I find surprising about this report, is the tone that suggests that these findings are unexpected. I would have expected most people to be prepared to make some sacrifices to help their colleagues. The caveat to this is, of course, the expectation of a management lead – their setting an example. Not surprisingly this was also borne out by the survey which showed less of an inclination to do so if there was no management sacrifice. Then 10% would be prepared to take direct action with 3% ready to consider strike action.
In its first month the Keep Britain Working website received more than 400 innovative and effective ideas to help employers cope with the downturn other than by simply cutting jobs.
Redundancy programmes:
- Cost the organisation in severance pay (at least in Europe);
- Mean dispensing with past investment made in people;
- Undermine the organisation's ability to snap back when the economy improves;
- Result in additional costs when people discarded do need to be replaced.
They also have a major impact on morale, and one of the main contributory reasons for that is the atmosphere of fear they create, through the secrecy with which they are conducted. This, however, may be a two-edge sword, for it means that there is an almost total disregard for the contribution that their workers could make.
400 effective solutions in a month gives a hint as to what opportunities businesses may be missing by laying off people, which, added to the long-term consequences of redundancy, makes the whole approach even more dubious.