Reduction in force: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
Created page with "Every one bar the CEO has a line manager. The from is organised like an inverted, multilayer family tree. The basic job of a line manager, ''qua'' line manager, is to supervis..."
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
No edit summary
 
(40 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Every one bar the CEO has a line manager. The from is organised like an inverted, multilayer family tree.
{{a|hr|{{image|Squid Games RIF|png|}}}}{{d|Reduction in force|rɪˈdʌkʃən ɪn fɔːs|n|}} (Also “'''[[RIF]]'''”)
The basic job of a line manager, ''qua'' line manager, is to supervise her direct reports. Line managers are human beings of course, and they all have other things to do them supervise their direct reports.
 
Three things change the higher up the multi level marketing scheme you go:
The permanent removal of headcount — mass [[redundancy]] — usually targeted at that sweet spot in the organisation whose own reports aren’t so ''useless'' they can’t get by without meaningful supervision, and who aren’t so ''senior'' that they get to make decisions about who should be subject to a [[RIF]].  
# executives get paid more. It is no linear progression, but something more like an exponential curve. There are many, many Belarusians on 30 grand, only ten executive board members on five million a piece.
 
# the proportion of your time spent on line management increases — we take this to be a trivial observation: the contractor at the call centre in Belarus has no direct reports, so soends no time managing; the CEO ultimately has every direct report, so does almost nothing but line managing.
Usually, therefore, it is a means of taking out a swathe of mid-ranking [[subject matter experts]]. We of the [[Morlock|guild of mid-ranking subject matter experts]] find this fact rather ''chafing'', to say the least.
# the purpose of your upward line management shifts: the Belarusian contractor who arrived from the jobcentre in Minsk in knows nothing: his interaction with his manager is almost completely substantive, functional and necessary: the chief operating officer has been at the firm forty years, knows its every idiosyncracy and foible; her interaction with her live manager is almost entirely formal: when she presents issues to her boss she should know the answers as well as her boss will
 
We have a view that an organisation which needs a periodic [[reduction in force]] is not properly managing its human resources month-by-month.
 
the JC has a view that [[system redundancy|systemic redundancy]] in a [[complex]] organisation is, at some level, quite a good thing; a [[reduction in force]] is an ''elimination'' of redundancy, and is therefore more fraught than it should be. Elimination of ''superfluous'' redundancy is one thing, but over what period should we measure superfluity? If [[Credit Suisse]] is any guide, it is [[Archegos|something like ''250 years'']].
 
{{sa}}
*[[System redundancy]]
*[[Lateral quitter]]
*[[Mediocrity drift]]
*[[Performative governance]]
*[[La Vittoria della Forma sulla Sostanza]]
{{ref}}

Latest revision as of 08:54, 1 August 2023

The Human Resources military-industrial complex
The instrument (the “telescreen”, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely.
Index: Click ᐅ to expand:
HR
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Reduction in force
rɪˈdʌkʃən ɪn fɔːs (n.)
(Also “RIF”)

The permanent removal of headcount — mass redundancy — usually targeted at that sweet spot in the organisation whose own reports aren’t so useless they can’t get by without meaningful supervision, and who aren’t so senior that they get to make decisions about who should be subject to a RIF.

Usually, therefore, it is a means of taking out a swathe of mid-ranking subject matter experts. We of the guild of mid-ranking subject matter experts find this fact rather chafing, to say the least.

We have a view that an organisation which needs a periodic reduction in force is not properly managing its human resources month-by-month.

the JC has a view that systemic redundancy in a complex organisation is, at some level, quite a good thing; a reduction in force is an elimination of redundancy, and is therefore more fraught than it should be. Elimination of superfluous redundancy is one thing, but over what period should we measure superfluity? If Credit Suisse is any guide, it is something like 250 years.

See also

References

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Reduction_in_force&oldid=77191"