- Are we meeting the reset expectations of our investors, the analysts?
Have we lost market share?
- Can we sustain the staffing changes made and continue to meet customer demands?
Jobs/Roles & numbers of persons
Work location (remote/home, plant/office)
Skillset & skill level required
- Are remaining personnel bearing the weight of expanded responsibilities?
- Have processes been considerably slower to complete?
- Are we experiencing more sick days, unplanned days/shifts off?
- Is attrition higher than normal?
The answers to these questions, among many, will help us to identify what might have gone/or is going wrong. They also give us information as we continue to adjust. As my musings are about HR and not Finance, I’ll leave a deeper discussion of the first 2 to those pros.
As to the third and fourth questions, let’s continue to Regroup!
When making the staffing changes required (other than the closure of a portion of the business) typical organizations would have considered:
- Organization Chart (Position and/or Hierarchy)
- Job/Role and numbers of people in them
- Having chosen which to adjust, listed people reviewed by
Past performance, probably only the most recent review
Raving fan letters / Personal improvement plans
Yet do these criteria merit jurisprudence? Wouldn’t we have other important information needed to make the best decisions? Let us understand these further.
As I mentioned in the earlier article Succession Planning processes and data have weight in these decisions. However, many organizations will not have even the “universal standard” data on many of those which were or are being considered for furlough.
Universal Standard data for Succession are:
- Impact of loss
- Risk of loss
- Key/Critical role
- Potential Successor for who/which role(s)
- Possible Successors for the current role
If those data exist for Senior Staff, we argue they should exist through at least the 1st level of supervisor. Yet, on their own they leave important, potentially results altering data out of the picture.