pook

Lately our smallish company has had to make some non-staff cutbacks and ask employees to do some extras so save money. Things are generally OK, but here's my problem: Each time the boss has needed to throw extra tasks on our backs he'll sit all of us down (about 30 employees) and say, Here's what we're doing, money's tight, any questions? No one answers, we shuffle off, and then the grumbling begins. No one really has the balls (including me) to visit his office later on to offer input, so the grumbling continues for a few weeks then, finally, fades away.

My point? This seems like the worst way to deliver not-so-good news. One thought I had was that the boss should first have one-on-one meetings with some of his long-time, key employees -- the most respected workers who aren't management, but can influence others. Sit them down face-to-face (no desk in between) and say, "Look, you're one of my best people and I need your help selling this. Here's what I want to do and why..."

It seems that if he were to do this with 4 or 5 of us (again, out of 30 or so) that this stuff would be easier to swallow.

In addition, one-on-one meetings in a conversational setting could allow people to feel better about questioning what's going to happen. If an employee asks a good question the manager could say, "That's a great question. Could you bring it up in the all-staff meeting, too?"

Thoughts?

analog

Well, I think the boss may actually have about the right forumla, because I mean:

1. There's likely nothing to discuss, as doing the new job isn't a "choice".

2. The new tasks are being added to avoid staff losses... so you can all either bear down a little harder on the new work load, or people start losing jobs.

Just be glad he's being straight-forward with you. I know a lot of people who would not care enough to have a meeting to tell people face-to-face, "things are changing because money is tight, we need you to take on extra workload".

A lot of people would send out an email. I'd be thankful you're at least being told personally, and that there are no layoffs yet.

I mean, would you rather him just pick 5 people to lose their job so the remaining 25 can go back to the level of workload you had before? And even if that happened, the workload wouldn't go "back down", you would then have 5 people's worth of work to redistribute.

The_Jazz

I agree with Analog. The boss is being forthcoming and letting everyone know the problems. I have 3 people that work directly for me on my production team. The easiest way to spread any news is to get them all together. The easiest way to spread disinformation or sow the seeds for problems is to tell people individually.

If I told each of my employees the same thing separately, I can guarantee that each time would be slightly different. I tailor each message to the individual either consciously or unconciously, and people would walk away with different ideas of what was really going on. By gathering everyone together, everyone gets the same information at the same time and there are no cabals of people jockeying for position. If things are going badly, there's a definite potential of people trying to undercut one another to stay on board. As a manager, that's the last kind of distraction you want.

In other words, it's not your boss's fault that you don't have the balls to speak up and ask questions or object to the new tasks. If you don't want to show him up, object in private, but pissing and moaning behind his back that he hasn't confided in you seems a little juvenile to me, but maybe I've misinterpreted what's really going on.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Chimera

Also....I agree with analog. As a manager I would deal with this in much the same way, and hope my employees were a bit more endowed in the ballsack arena. That none of you are capable of voicing opinion in this.....says more of the inability to act as a manager, than it does about the actual manager.

JumpinJesus

I'm sure someone could ask why money is so tight and if there are any other ways to save on some money, but I have to agree that having a boss tell you up front that money is tight and some extra work is needed is actually a pretty admirable trait in a manager.

Is the grumbling being done by any of the long-time, key employees?

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

jbw97361

pook your suggestion is nice, but doing it all at once has the advantage of giving everyone the same story. If you sit ten people down in ten different private meetings, then there will be ten different versions of the situation. Consistency is the key.

__________________
JBW

absorbentishe

This is the best. It's not sooo bad news, but it's bad enough. The next meeting might be, "John was let go because money was tight", and that's an even worse meeting to leave from. I've had to do this type of thing a few times, telling a group either they weren't working, or letting someone go. That makes you sick to your stomach, and don't want to talk with anyone for while.

He's doing the right thing, it's just hard to deal with at the time.

Pip

Yeah, for big changes like that I think the method pook suggested will lead to rumors. I'd rather hear crappy news at the same time as everyone else from the boss than indirectly as a breakroom rumor.

It's been something like that at my job the last two years as well with bad news upon bad news and cuts and new management and pretty much everything. Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to gather everyone like that, (I work in a grocery store) so most of the info I get is trickled down by rumor. It sucks.

We had a big meeting once when we were bought up, management wanted to drop the news during the meeting but it leaked out a few days before so everyone knew and had thought about it, and when the meeting came a lot of us spoke up with good questions. Maybe that's one way of doing it, call a meeting and let everyone know what's going to be discussed so people can stew over it for a few days. Speaking up at a meeting is not just about having balls, it's about being prepared. Some people can think very fast on their feet but most people need some time to respond to changes like that.

thingstodo

Another view...

...when a manager brings a few select people in that have influence over the larger group, it can set things up a little better for later. When the news is dropped on a large group of people, as you said, they go off and grumble amongst themselves. Seeding with some supporters helps deal with this aspect of bad news.

So, everyone still hears the news as a group but there is a group that helps the overall group after the meeting, especially if they are in a supervisory role. I've seen this work very well if handled correctly but takes more time and finess - and there is an ROI on that time.

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

Yakk

If the money is tight, and they aren't giving you financial statements to back this up, and/or an explanation why this tight period will let up soon, or they aren't pumping out delayed financial incentives for your extra work now...

Get the fuck out of there. Get another job at a place where the money isn't tight, and you will be paid for your extra work.

It is much easier to find a new job while working than after they let you go.

And your job isn't your family. They will let you go if it is in their best interests. When it is in your best interests, you should get out of there.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Kaliena

Personally, I think they did it the best way because:

1.) they didn't get any negative feedback (directly)
2.) it's the same message all around
3.) no favoritism is displayed
4.) they got what they need with minimal resistance.

The company looks after the company. Not individuals. (unfortunately)

__________________
~Beware the waffle~

thingstodo

Bad companies make look after the company but good companies understand the importance of good people. And it's unfortunate that so many people think that no negative feedback is a good thing.

Negative feelings always exist. Statistically, only 2% of customers complain. That means when you don't solicit feedback you're missing 98% of what is out there. Companies with their employees included!

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

Sharon

This is not realistic - managers are managers because they are meant to make decisions based on the information available to them. They are not obligated to give you all the information they use to make their decision. Whether they share that information with you or not is not your decision - in fact depending on hierarchy it may also not be their decision to make.

Willravel

I'm a manager, and being such I also have to deliver bad news myself. I find that, as in any situation, it's best to fill the shoes of both sides of the conversation and the effects. I love my workers, and I know that they look to me not just for things like advie on how to do their jobs, but real leadership. I take that responsibility very, very seriously. When I have to explain that my workers need to really buckle down and do their best, I make sure 1) that they know exactly why, 2) that I'll be working just as hard as them if not harder and 3) that I will always, always have their backs.

Your manager knows that sometimes he or she has to make your life harder for the good of the whole company. It's the old, "Ask not what your company can do for you..." type thing. When they have to deliver the news, softening it can create an environment of coddling and if you are too soft with your employees, I can asssure you that you will be walked all over. My first managerial position was me being a buddy to my employees instead of a leader and I failed in a spectacular way. I was lucky that my boss sat me down and read me the riot act instead of firing me. While it may seem like a good idea to have one on one meetings and let information spread slowly, it's just not efficient. Telling everyone at once is much, much faster and it doesn't require that the manager appear to be favoring certian people.

It seems the only two mistakes your manager has made is in creating an uncomfortable environment and not being open about business. You should always feel comfortable raising questions, so long as they are appropriate. Even the quietest, most introverted person should be helped in being comfortable being a active and vocal member of the team. "Money is tight" is innapropriate. There must be an explaination. Something like, "Recently competitors have been able to undercut our prices" or "Advertising has become more expensive" would be much better. Also, it allows more people to brainstorm on how to solve the financial crisis.

Yakk

And you, as an employee, should look out for your own best interests.

"Money is tight" is not a reason why they are asking you to work more or why you shouldn't get a raise. You aren't getting a raise and they are getting you to work harder because they choose to make you work harder.

Your alternative is simple -- either accept that you will work harder and get less in the way of raises, with no expectation of compensation later, an increased likelyhood of getting fired (money is tight), or you should get a new job.

If they provide more information that actually backs up their claims, and provide some evidence that this will be temporary (beyond a vague reassurance), then you have less reason to find a new job.

No, they are not. But lacking that information, or anything in writing, you should take vague reassurances as being meaningless. Money could be tight because they decided to pay the CEO an extra few million this year, or it could be tight because you are undergoing growing pains, or it could be tight because your company is on it's way to become bankrupt.

If your company is doing poorly and they are asking you to do more work, cut back on your raises, and in general pay you less -- you should see if you can get a job where this isn't a problem.

It is their choice whether or not they share the information with you -- but you should take a lack of any hard indication that it will get better, or that you will be compensated for your harder work later as a sign that you should be looking for new work.

I'm not saying "go off and demand that they tell you why money is tight, demand delayed incentives".

I'm saying "when your company starts going south, by default get the fuck out of there. However, if you are given delayed incentives or a reason to believe it will be temporary, then you might think about staying".

There is very little to be gained working for a company going through financial problems. You can sometimes get good delayed incentives (stock options and the like) -- but lacking that, it is in your best interests to find a new job with a company that won't go belly up, lay you off at a whim, ask you to work longer hours, and can give give raises commesurate with your productivity.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.