Maria has left and after the story it’s probably a good time to look at her journey before a full post-mortem is held.

a) On arrival she alienated her team
b) She developed relationships at work that were not prepared to support her when times got difficult at work
c) She restructured her team for effect as opposed to focussing on long-term results
d) She introduced Quick wins that did not include her boss’s sought after results
e) She introduced employees that she had worked with in the past

That is not to say that everything she did was bad, it wasn’t. During her time she had some success with the introductions on a new process for hiring employees, she helped the Sales Director restructure his area and she increased productivity.

The problem was that the positive aspects of her work were not sufficiently large enough to outweigh the negatives and as a result the “perception” of her work was seen to be negative. It’s worth considering that negative aspects often have a greater impact than positives where considerations of capability at work are concerned.

So Maria’s job lasted around six months before she decided that her career would be better served by finding another position to move to. The question that we might all have is “Has she learnt from her mistakes or will they be repeated again?

Further info on job transitions can be found at:
http://assimilating-talent.com

In what is being seen as a definite demotion by the rest of the company Maria has agreed to lead a team in an administrative area. However her new team are not pleased to have been told that her appointment is to “troubleshoot” the team to increased productivity.

At the current time many companies are restructuring their teams to make savings but in the hope of increasing productivity.

The problem is that too many teams fail to achieve their anticipated outcome. In fact our research shows that only 60% of restructured teams increase productivity. The benefits have more to do with saving wages and staff costs.

A few months ago a business restructured its sales team. Territories have become larger, management reduced and incentives cut. All necessary business strategies.

However, the new team’s assimilation was poorly undertaken. Rationale for the need for the changes was poorly described to those affected, management went absent after the restructure to work on other projects, as a result morale dropped and a very popular sales manager left to work for competitors.

I was called in to help and after a series of individual and team meetings, changes to old fashioned reporting to remove some team frustrations and changing the office layout the team’s productivity has begun to rise and meet expectations.

The message here is that post assimilation of a team is as as important to the planning part of team assimilation after restructuring.

A major challenge for business leaders is to maintain organisational productivity. (Formally defined as the ratio of an organisation’s total output to total input, adjusted for inflation, for a specific period of time).

Yet is this challenge made more difficult during a downturn?

One of the inputs in the formula is the workforce but at this time when many companies are laying off their people talent. The question that should be asked is how this affects the productivity of those that remain and can improvements in productivity be sustained under such circumstances?

During the previous downturn I was involved with a company that made a series of redundancies and each time a new redundancy was announced productivity collapsed in other parts of the organisation. This wasn’t to say that people seemed to stop working, on the contrary everyone seemed very busy.

However, productivity continues to fall as people discussed the worsening situation and the company’s Directors buried themselves in their offices stating that they were busy “saving the company”.

Too often business leaders might assume that they are unable to positively affect the situation and that under the circumstances a drop in morale is inevitable. I disagree with this assumption and advise far greater “management visibility” at such times.

I was asked a few days ago what I felt were the the “mission critical strategies” that a business should employ for survival during the downturn.

The first piece of advice that I gave was not to be panicked into knee jerk reactions. Panic inevitably results in poor decision making and poor decisions inevitably leads to long term regret.

The answer was then expanded into six key areas:

1) Plan for a long downturn. It’s likely that things will be slow for between one year and five. (in Japan their last recession lasted a decade)

2) Focus on productivity.(Both individual and team delivery)

3) Retain the best talent and continue to develop it. (Historically, talent tends to leave when it believes it is not learning)

4) Encourage innovation

5) Ensure robust succession planning so that if people do leave there is continuation of productivity.

6) Reduce expenditure as far as possible on non-productive items