by
Glenn Laing
Downsizing. It’s a term everyone knows, and far too many have experienced. Sometimes
it means voluntary retirements and salary freezes. Often it means layoffs, even at
profitable companies.
While loss of a job can be devastating to the individual (most stress analysis surveys rank it right up there with “loss of a loved one”), the remaining employees face equally stressful problems. Fewer workers means more work, less time, and strained interpersonal relationships.
In response to this, many companies are reorganizing their shrinking workforces into self-managing teams. However, implementing teams properly requires a commitment of time and money that not all companies are willing to make. The consequences are serious — poorly implemented teams can be worse than no teams at all.
Rick Rinehart speaks from experience about the usefulness of teams and the effects of downsizing. In June of 1993, he was laid off from his position as Senior Technical Writer for a Chicago-based manufacturer and marketer of PC-compatible computers.
The maturing small computer industry was particularly hard hit by the recent recession. In an attempt to cut expenses at a time when products were often selling below cost, and to shorten development cycles when product sales life was as little as six months, Rick’s employer implemented a team structure to replace hierarchical management at its engineering center in St. Joseph, Michigan.
The results were mixed. Under the existing hierarchical system, Rick says, the organization of the company was often obscure: “There were no printed organization charts or job descriptions. Sometimes I had to ask three people just to find the one I needed to interview.”
The initial attempt at a team-based system improved this, but it also introduced some unforeseen problems. For example, to include a representative from every interested department, some teams had more than thirty members. The building had only one meeting room large enough for such a group, and it was rarely available.
The first projects developed exclusively under this new team system took two years for completion — nearly twice as long as under the old system. “After this first bad experience,” says Rick, “It was back to the drawing board. We laid down some ground rules before forming teams again.”
The most important rule was to limit team size to ten or fewer dedicated members. Other, non-dedicated members could come and go as needed and communicated with the team through the dedicated members. The “core team” remained intact throughout the project’s life.
Rick sees his experience with team-building as a five-stage process:
Rick concedes that this circular pattern is not typical. It happened at his company because they were coping with team building and radical downsizing at the same time. If the workforce had been more stable, the transition to a team-based structure would have been more successful.
Stu Hill has had a more favorable experience with teams. As a Technical Product Engineer at Miles, Inc., Stu provides documentation, training, and customer services for his company’s extensive line of biomedical supplies and equipment.
The team system has been successful at Miles for two reasons. First, the company uses matrix management to form project teams within a fixed management structure. Each product in development has its own project team, and each team contains individuals from different departments.
Moving from a strict management hierarchy to a team structure had an immediate benefit, says Stu: “Ivory towers and empire building became a thing of the past.” Departmental managers still have the necessary authority to hire, fire, and promote. They rely on established rules and maintain responsibility for one segment of the process, such as customer service.
Team managers can cut through red tape with flexible procedures and changing roles. They lead by consensus rather than command and are responsible for project completion, which requires the cooperation of many departments.
Operating with both management styles under one roof requires a delicate balance of responsibilities and carefully documented procedures. “Neither management style works well in the other's context,” says Stu. “And neither style works well without the other.”
The second factor that contributed to successful teams was people skills. “You need to know something about people,” says Stu. Personality assessment tests, such as the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, and exercises in interpersonal skills were an essential part of the team-building training at Miles.
On a practical level, Stu strongly recommends a little office socializing. “Do lunch,” he says, “tell people what it is you do, how you do it, and what you need.” And, of course, ask others about their needs. Your mutual ignorance may surprise you.
Take time during the day for purely social visits. “People used to say ‘uh oh, here comes trouble’ when they saw me coming,” says Stu, “Because invariably I was coming to ask for something. Now, very often I’m just coming to chat.”
While people skills can smooth out the transition to teams, they can also ease the stress of downsizing. “Downsizing and the environment it creates can hurt in a lot of ways,” says Stu. “I’ve never seen a time like this.”
Downsizing is sometimes called “rightsizing,” but changing the name doesn’t change the painful reality of it. If you’re facing staff reductions, a transition to team-based management, or (like Rick) both at the same time, remember that everyone else is sweating it out, too.
Use that knowledge to bring people together and you’ll be doing the best thing for yourself and for your employer.
Return to Best of the Watermark
