In a survey by the Centre for Educational Leadership
at the University of Manchester delegates at the latest CIPD Conference were asked their opinions on the importance of
various aspects of business performance. They were then asked which
aspects their organisations were currently delivering effectively. The
gaps between expectation and delivery were marked.

• Effective
  HR business partnering was identified by 65 per cent as important to
  achieve, yet only 33 per cent said they had it in place
  
• Harnessing the
  ideas of employees was cited as a priority for 69 per cent, but only 35
  per cent said they already did it well
  
• Performance management processes
  were seen as important by 62 per cent, but just 21 per cent were
  confident with what they had in place.

I do hate it when business use phrases to hide actions in order to reduce the potential impact and effects and one that I find increasingly annoying is “Rightsizing”. This is partly because it’s so often used to replace more accurate descriptions such as Redundancy.

It was used in Management Today “UBS is far from being the only bank which has announced
job cuts recently – everyone from HSBC to Credit Suisse has been busy
‘rightsizing’ their workforces…The job cuts at UBS amount to over 5% of its total workforce “.

Now, I know that “Rightsizing” has been used for some years but surely it’s poor management to have “Wrongsized” in the first place (see Tony Miller descriptions below) but I doubt that it’s the management jobs that are about to be rightsized! You can imagine the  press release from UBS HR was at pains to seem to be “normalizing” the situation but is the term “Rightsizing” the correct one.
 
Thanks to Tony Miller  for giving a reasonable explanation so that we can all make up our own mind!:

Downsizing
Is simply reducing the number of reporting layers in the business to produce a better line of communication and efficiency…Downsizing is a stressful and risky business and should not be carried out by anyone who has not experienced this technique.

Rightsizing
Involves reducing the organisation by a small percentage. By doing this you can keep the organisation trim and in better condition. It can be achieved by a number of painless means such as:
Freezing recruitment
Releasing the long-term sick
Releasing poor performers

My electricity and telephone/broadband contacts are up for renewal and in the run-up to the festive season I was receiving three or four phone calls a day from salespeople who expected to be able to “move my account” after a brief and cursory quote promising to save me money.

However, I’m a buyer who takes the attitude that if it’s going to cost less then what am I going to have to “give up”. The salesperson phoning me often seemed aghast when I asked for more details such as proof of their after-sales service claims, websites so that I could check their boasts and a confused silence on the other end of the line when asked to email me details of the contract so that I could study them at my leisure.

I’m much more used to dealing with sophisticated sales-teams selling Banking, Financial Services and large ticket products and I’ve been thinking how these salesteams are changing. The coming year is going to be hard and will result in agreement times between sales proposal and acceptance or rejection being extended by twenty percent or more. This could mean that some sales may take many more months to complete than before.

Already I’ve observed Sales Directors being instructed by their Boards to reduce “Toxic costs” even more vigorously than before. These “Toxic costs”  include travel (car costs), telephone charges, training budgets, sales offices and even admin back-up. I know of three well known companies who are gearing up their HR Departments to advise them on processes for removing future “non-fertile salespeople”. (A description that’s likley to casue confusion at some futue occasion, I think!)

It’s wrong to suggest that all people believe that the less a product costs the more attractive it is. People want to buy reliability, after care service, consistency and results as promised as part of their purchase.

If a company is really planning to grow sales it’s hard to understand why it needs to reduce product quality.   

Maria had a meeting with the CEO this morning and has been told that due to unsatisfactory performance she is being moved from HR to leading an administration team.
 
As she is within the twelve month probationary period the decision is within this time-scale, however, the CEO is reluctant to dismiss her as she is a “senior member of staff” and he wants to be seen to be as supportive as possible to his senior team.

John will take over as head of HR and Maria will start in her new role on Monday.

Maria asked what alternatives she had and was told that either she accepted the situation or was dismissed as per her contract of engagement. Maria has left to go home early.

Two members of Maria’s team have made appointments with her to say that they feel that Maria is treating her assistant, Christine, unfairly. Maria rejected their comments and told them to mind their own business. After the meeting Maria then spoke to Christine and said that she was surprised that Christine had “to get others to fight her battles for her” and accused her of having no backbone!

Maria seems to be painting herself into a corner with her team who now view her treatment of her assistant as being unfair and bullying. Her team also suspects that Maria would like to replace Christine with the Assistant HR manager from her previous company.

The morale in the HR department has fallen and work is generally done in silence whilst Maria is present and the moment she leaves the Department discussion tales place about her poor management style. 

Maria has held a departmental staff meeting and told her team that she is conscious that Christine (her assistant) is overworked and under pressure and is therefore removing some of her responsibilities. The result is that Christine will undertake fewer new staff interviews and more research. Maria will delegate staff interviews amongst the other team members as people are available. Christine sees this as a removal of a key part of her job and the scope of her work has been reduced.

This afternoon Maria has a meeting with the Sales Director and Project Manager to look at restructuring the remaining areas of the sales force. The meeting will identify those posts and branches in the north of England that The Sales Director wants to merge and reduce the headcount by three managers and five sales administration staff. Maria is being consulted to advise on retaining the people that the Sales Manager wants to retain whilst “letting go” those he sees as being less capable.

Maria is blaming her team for her recent loss of face by advising her to cancel the free lunches for part-time staff, only to have to reverse the decision once the CEO’s wife, a part-time worker, failed to give the CEO his dinner. (See previous posts).

It seems that she has targeted her wrath onto her Assistant Manager, Christine, and reduced Christine to tears as she told her that no one liked her or respected her work! Maria has left work to go home early but Christine is receiving tea and sympathy from outraged members of Maria’s HR department.

Maria has battled into work for the first time this week as a result of the inclement weather and has immediately sent an email to all staff stating that any time taken off as a result of the snow must be made up within a four week period.

As she had a difficult journey into work Maria has just left work to return home and has pointedly stated to those in her team that all this last week she has been “working from home”.

Her team have concluded that she meant that her email will not apply to her.

I am detecting that Maria’s reputation amongst her team and some other key influence centres (people) within the company is not entirely positive. Indeed Maria is considered by some to be somewhat opportunistic and self-serving. (One person has suggested that being self-serving in most departments is acceptable it’s unfortunate for someone in HR. An interesting observation!)

The first day back from the festive holidays brings a staff meeting between Maria and her team. Now that she has been in her new job for a couple of months Maria intends to implement her plans for cost savings within the HR department.

She has told the team that her intention is to exceed the Managing Director’s request that all departments make a saving on budget of 6% during 2010. To do this Maria intends to restructure the team slightly and reassign workloads so that specific people handle specific departments.

Maria has also told her team that she intends to review “search company and head-hunter contracts” when sourcing new staff and that she will renegotiate fees and payment terms. This means that “some search companies might be dropped” in favour of ones that Maria has worked with in the past and whom she trusts.

Most of Maria’s team have chosen to ignore the unfortunate opening statement Maria said when she met them as a group. (See previous blog). Perhaps it was just how it was said.

Maria has been in the job a few days and starts to arrange 1:1 meetings with her team. Her objective is to forge a relationship with each individual and to discover some of their strengths and weaknesses.

She’s delighted with the way the meetings go. Lot’s of ideas come from the team but they seem short on being able to identify weaknesses in the HR system and company in general and this concerns her.

Her team, however, think her approach to their 1:1s strange. She began by saying, “I’ve looked at your file and I must say I’m most impressed at the work you have done and would value your opinion on a few things.”

Maria continued, “What improvements do you think we can make in HR and I’m interested in knowing your thoughts on the weaknesses in the rest of the HR team and management in general?”