Reduction in force: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(33 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.
{{sa}}
 
*[[System redundancy]]
Roles change in three key ways the higher up the multi-level marketing scheme you go:
*[[Lateral quitter]]
 
*[[Mediocrity drift]]
'''You get paid more''': The more senior you are, the more lolly you take home. This is not news that will not rock anyone’s world. Nor that the rate of increase 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.
*[[Performative governance]]
# 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.
*[[La Vittoria della Forma sulla Sostanza]]
# the purpose of your upward line management shifts: the Belarusian contractor who arrived from the job-centre 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
{{ref}}

Latest revision as of 08:54, 1 August 2023

The Human Resources military-industrial complex
Squid Games RIF.png
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

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

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"