Reduction in force: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(32 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|devil|
{{a|hr|{{image|Squid Games RIF|png|}}}}{{d|Reduction in force|rɪˈdʌkʃən ɪn fɔːs|n|}} (Also “'''[[RIF]]'''”)
[[File:Squid Games RIF.png|450px|frameless|center]]
}}{{d|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 supervision by [[Subject matter expert|someone who genuinely knows what is going on]], 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]].
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]].  
===Line management===
A word about [[Line manager|line management]]: a modern corporation is organised like an inverted, multilayer family tree, tracing back to great, great, great, great grandfather [[Hank]].  


Everyone, bar [[Hank]], has at least one [[line manager]].  
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.


Fortunate staff have ''only'' one line manager: ''les miserables'' also have a “[[dotted line]]” into someone else. This is a bit like having an open relationship, or an affair with a distant uncle.  
We have a view that an organisation which needs a periodic [[reduction in force]] is not properly managing its human resources month-by-month.


But we digress.
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'']].
 
The basic job of [[line manager|line management]] is to supervise direct reports. Employees all have things to do ''besides'' supervising their direct reports, though a given worker’s proportion of line management to other stuff depends on that employee’s seniority.
 
Roles change in three key ways the higher up the multi-level marketing scheme you go:
 
'''You get paid more''': The more senior you are, the more lolly you take home. This news should not rock anyone’s world. Nor that the rate of increase in lolly is not linear, but exponential. This stands to reason: There are many, many Belarusians taking home 30,000 rubles, and ten executive board members taking five million a piece.
 
'''You spend more time managing other people''': We take this to be a trivial observation: the contractor at the call-centre in Belarus has no direct reports, so spends zero time-managing; the CEO ultimately has every direct report, so spends almost all her time line-managing. the gradations between are not inevitable — every firm has those grave, grand elders who float about sprinkling their ineffable magic on things, without having any portfolio in particular or any direct reports but as a rule the further up the chain you go, the more time you spend managing.
 
'''The people you manage need less management''': It is equally trivial that the Belarusian contractor, fresh off the bus from the job-centre in Minsk, knows absolutely nothing but what he is told: his reliance upon his manager for practical guidance and the dispensation of wisdom and experience is vital; the forty-year industry veteran [[chief financial officer]], who narrowly missed out on the [[CEO]] job herself, knows exactly what is expected of her, what to do, how to react to any crisis and has almost no need of guidance and instruction from the jammy sod who ''did'' get the big job.
 
Thus note a shift that takes place in line management as we ascend into the Gods: [[The battle of substance and form|''substance'' drops off, and ''form'' takes over]]. Line management becomes progressively more about documenting that it happens, exhibiting good governance to those in the risk control universe that want to see it.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[System redundancy]]
*[[Lateral quitter]]
*[[Mediocrity drift]]
*[[Performative governance]]
*[[La Vittoria della Forma sulla Sostanza]]
*[[La Vittoria della Forma sulla Sostanza]]
{{ref}}
{{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"