Recently, our company needed to downsize and I was given the responsibility to choose three staff members to be terminated in order to eliminate some positions. This was a difficult task since it involved terminating employees for reasons that were not connected to the job performance of the employee. In making a decision of the employees to terminate, I considered skills, seniority, and offices that were integral to the operation of the company.
According to Lunenburg (2010 ), the decision-making process involves assessing the problem, gathering information relevant to the decision, evaluating alternatives and evaluating the decision and its consequences. The first step in my decision-making process was to identify the decision. Considering the financial challenges facing the company, downsizing is important. Labor costs take the highest proportion in the company finances and therefore terminating some employees in order to eliminate certain posts is the way to go.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second step was to gather information relevant to the decision. In this regard, I reviewed documents such as job contract, worker’s personnel file, job policies, worker's discipline and seniority. The information gathered from these documents helped in ensuring the termination was legal and the downsized employees could not take legal action against the company. Moreover, the information helped in selecting the staffers to terminate without discrimination. I also reviewed the worker's performance, salary, and skills in order to avoid terminating a highly skilled employee and affect the company performance negatively. I also gathered information by interviewing some employees.
After reviewing the documents and carrying out interviews, I listed down a number of positions that could be eliminated and a number of employees in those positions. I considered employee's past performance, seniority, and skills to select the employees that could be terminated. Reviewing the employees past performance helped in predicting the future performance. Most employees in the top positions have invested much of their time and loyalty to the company. It is therefore fair to base a decision on seniority to avoid discrimination. Moreover, senior employees are critical for the smooth operation of the company.
I used the information to evaluate the offices that are more crucial for the company operation and those that could not have much impact on the company. I evaluated the selected employees based on the past performance, discipline, and seniority to ensure selection without bias. The evaluation favored some employees and I listed the selected employees in priority order.
After weighing all the factors, I decided on three employees to be terminated. After deciding on the employees to be terminated, I talked to them privately to make them understand that the termination was not based on their performance rather, the need to downsize the company arose due to its poor performance and financial challenges. I also encouraged the employees and assured them that they would be called upon for future opportunities and I also recommended them to potential employers. The employees were also offered a compensation fee and appreciated for their commitment.
Lastly, I evaluated the decision to determine whether or not the problem had been resolved. I also reviewed the consequences of the decision. For instance, what if the terminated employees decided to file a case against the company? Would I be able to prove the legality of the termination? The decision was both legal and ethical. Evaluation of the decision and its consequences provides an opportunity to correct any mistake that could have occurred during the decision making process.
My decision approach was ethical and legal. Communication was one of my major strengths. I communicated with the staff members all through the downsizing process. This was to reduce the negative reactions that could arise after an employee is terminated. All the employees have the right to know all the major undertakings in the company. I informed them about the financial problem facing the company, need for downsizing, timeframe, and the factors that will be considered for downsizing. A study by Iverson and Zatzick (2011) indicates that communication is an important tool for reducing the negative reactions to downsizing. Moreover, some employees may file a case claiming that they were illegally downsized, or the termination was based on prejudice. Communication, in this case, gives the employees a sense of belonging and makes the process fair. This helps in ensuring that downsized employees understand the process was fair, legal and ethical.
Communication also helped in reducing age prejudice or bias viewpoints in various ways. For a company to justify terminating some employees, it requires an honest and fair process of selecting those employees. It is important to explain to the employees the reason for downsizing and the factors considered in the process. In my decision, this helped in making the employees perceive the process as a fair one. Moreover, communication enhances the employee trust to the top management.
Another strength is the factors I considered in evaluating the employees to be terminated. Basing selection on seniority ensured fairness. Employees that are not in top positions do not expect their seniors to be terminated instead of them. Again, seniority is used to predict future performance of the company. Considering past performance is also fair to all the employees since it is used to predict the future performance of an employee.
Having proper documentation is also another strength in that in case any terminated employee decides to file a case, there will be a proof showing the considerations used to reach the decision were fair and legal. A research by Kim (2009 ) posits that documentation reduces prejudice since it demonstrates particular criteria followed to guide the process of making a decision.
One of the weaknesses faced was that the decision was prompt and did not consider other downsizing alternatives such as demoting the employees rather than terminating them. Eliminating the three employees is not a guarantee that the performance of the company will be improved while cutting down the labor cost. Demotion benefits both the employee and the company in that the labor costs are cut down and the employees are retained at work. Another weakness is that the performance of the company can be affected by other factors such as poor management, it may not be necessarily a financial problem. This implies that laying off some employees does not mean that the company will perform better. Other factors should have been considered.
I involved the employees and supervisors in my decision-making process. Employees expect to be informed whenever a company has a major undertaking. For this reason, I informed them of the poor performance of the company, the need to downsize it, the intent to terminate three workers, timeframe and the criteria that will be used to select those who will be terminated. Giving them such information prepared them psychologically and ensured that the employees' trust towards the management is not broken. Communicating with the employees also helped in reducing the negative reactions that could rise after termination. Again, communication reduced discrimination throughout the process. I also interviewed employees in order to gather relevant information in regard to the performance and behavior of employees. This information helped in making a fair decision.
The supervisors helped in providing various documentations of the employees which I used to determine the past performance of employees. I also used them to know the critical employees in various departments to ensure that I do not terminate an important personnel. The documentation also helped me understand the kind of employment contracts signed by employees to ensure that the process is legal.
The three employees I selected did not have any discipline case or performance issue. Selecting them for termination was one of the difficult tasks that led to cognitive dissonance. The employees I selected were my close friends at work and laying them off stressed me out. This psychological discomfort affected me in various ways. I withdrew from work and started being inactive, I started faking sicknesses in order to justify absenteeism, I was depressed and felt disappointed, and suffered health issues such as anxiety and fatigue. I also started helping the downsized employees get better jobs just to justify that my decision was based on position obedience.
To resolve the cognitive dissonance, I changed my ideologies and realized that laying off some workers was the best decision that would help in improving the performance of the company. Moreover, the fact that I chose my friends shows that the process was not biased. Bias could have brought more negative consequences along. I also understood that downsizing is okay and anyone could be selected as long as the right criteria were used.
After reviewing the benefits that cutting labor costs brought along to the company, my conscious became clear and I understood that I did the right thing. Another way of resolving cognitive dissonance is changing the perception of the downsizing. Assuming that anyone else was given the task, the three employees would still be chosen as long as the person followed the right and fair criteria. This helped me in rationalizing my action and cleared by conscious. I managed to refer all the workers to good employers. This also helped in resolving the dissonance in that I would see my friends doing well.
References
Iverson, R. D., & Zatzick, C. D. (2011). The effects of downsizing on labor productivity: The value of showing consideration for employees' morale and welfare in high ‐ performance work systems. Human Resource Management , 50 (1), 29-44.
Kim, H. S. (2009). Examining the role of informational justice in the wake of downsizing from an organizational relationship management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics , 88 (2), 297.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2010, September). THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. In National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal (Vol. 27, No. 4).
