This Is The Perfect Opportunity To Recreate Business

Jerry, Alexander, Alora, and Jeff - each of you raise truly great points.

Alora, your last paragraph is really sticking with me. I'm racking my brains and searching through my papers for the sociologist who wrote that you get the best view of a group when they're under pressure. It exposes their true natures...which I believe is exactly your point. If anything, organizations will need to be cautious about how it handles adversity; if employee engagement principles get thrown out the window now, credibility will be difficult to buy back.

Which, I think, gets to Jerry's point about paying a price in lower retention rates in the future. Do you mortgage your future to survive in the short-term? If an organization finds itself in this predicament, perhaps it does go to Jeff's point of management malpractice.

But here's something that I think we can all agree on: if you truly believe that a strong people-system where your workers are the cause of success rather than an ancillary outcome, then they will be essential to getting your business through any adversity. They wouldn't ship off the work to another country - as in Alexander's case - to sustain a bottom-line. Again, I think that's mortgaging a future...but then, does such a company deserve to survive now or in the future?

Brilliant thoughts, all...really appreciate your input here.

I realize that when "full survival mode" is instituted, caring often goes out the window. But not in all cases.

We hear stories of companies where leaders take a personal interest in the people being affected, and go the extra mile in taking care of them — even in these times when nobody can see past the next 90 days.

Pendulums have a habit of swinging back from where they came and how will workers feel toward employers that treat them as "costs" and nothing else? When times get better, will the talent remember how they were handled and bolt?

Companies that shaft workers will usually pay a stiff price in lower retention rates. Of course, I've heard managers say that this is preferable to losing everything because you don't do what's necessary to survive.

@alexanderhill has a good point. Sometimes it's just beyond anyone's control and the bottom line rules the decisions. Jeff De Cagna is also right that many organizations aren't prepared. Then again, nobody could have been prepared for the recent collapse.

Small and medium-sized employers would have an easier road to changing corporate culture and making improvements. Large organizations are very difficult to turn around.

Jerry Roberts

http://careerjolt.net

I have to agree with the other commentors on this, the economic situation has changed the rules. I'm living proof of the Peter Block quote "Workers are treated as costs, not assets."; my position along with half of my organization is being moved overseas to low cost countries (India and Brazil). I understand why it's being done, it's the same reason that drives all business decisions, the bottom line. I don't think there was a lack of caring on the part of management, they were all suitably upset about the layoffs. It comes back to the bottom line.

"Was all this talk about employee empowerment and engagement just a bunch of crap, conditional on sunny economic conditions?"

That's ironic timing: I just blogged on something very similar today.

I think that, yes, to a large extent, this is what we will continue to see as people continue to adapt to the economic turmoil that is scaring the daylights out of everyone right now. The focus will continue to be on the short-term, and so many of the niceties that don't have easily calculable ROI will get shelved. It's extremely cynical to think that putting away employee engagement practices just because things are tight is going to be good for your business in the long-run, but when all anyone is focused on is getting through the next quarter, too few people are considering the long-term implications of their actions.

I started working at a company where, during orientation, "work-life balance" and the policies in place to foster that philosophy was an hour-long topic. And by the time I left, the new leadership philosophy in my department was, "We give you a Blackberry, so that means you should be available 24/7 -- I don't care if you are in the middle of the theatre with your wife. You're on call. Like it or leave." Nothing about that was in-line with the original corporate culture that attracted us all in the first place. But times had changed, and this was regarded as an acceptable sacrifice.

The one good thing about this economic downturn is that we will get to see a lot of true colors shine through. Places that gave lip-service to trendy management practices but don't really hold them as core values will become very clear, very quickly. Adversity is usually a good lens through which to view the true character of a person. The same is true of organizations.

"Companies are in full survival mode with their focus squarely on managing through the short-term. Nothing wrong with that in principle; it would be irresponsible to not act on current business conditions."

I understand why we think this way, but I guess I'm wondering why we don't regard the failure of companies to prepare for changes in business conditions as a form of leadership malpractice. There is widespread agreement that short-term thinking is detrimental to organizational success, and yet it is precisely what we expect managers to do when things go wrong. It's all trauma and triage, and no future focus. We create low expectations and then we're surprised when managers descend to meet them.

If we're serious about (re)creating business, these are the dynamics we really need to change.