Root Causes

As a hiring manager, one of my favorite questions to ask a potential candidate coming from a mass termination is "why were you specifically chosen for the RIF?". It always pushes the candidate off their prepared game a little bit and occasionally provides some good insight into their background. More often that not though, the answer is generally a rationalization of a 'numbers thing'; new executive direction, too little seniority, or even too MUCH seniority. However, there must be underlying reasons to the termination that can provide a valuable lesson in our next career step. I am not talking about "for cause" type reasons but rather POSITIONING events that place us in jeopardy at a time when the executive team decides to reduce some costs. I have given a lot of thought to that over the last 3 months and have pinpointed a few deeper level root causes for my own un-natural selection.

There is an old routine where one fellow asks his partner, "Too Slim, what is the secret to your comedy suc-". "Timing, Ranger Doug, timing" interrupts Too Slim. (yes, that does give you some insight into some of my stranger tastes in music) Root cause number one, BAD TIMING. I was moving from one position to a new organization when the axe fell. Its an easy call to cut someone who really hasnt hit the ground yet on delivering value from a new place.

The saying, "In God we trust, everyone else must bring data" is bullshit. PERCEPTION IS REALITY in a political environment and our ability to influence people's perception of our work in a positive fashion is critical. Root cause number two, I dropped that ball and chose to defend a customer service issue with data alone. Bad call on my part.

The third root cause in my case really hurts because it has to do with trust. By nature, I am both trustful and trustworthy and I expect that others are essentially the same. In hindsight, that is just too naive a position to take at a senior management level. Perhaps my single biggest thump-myself-in-the-head issue is that I chose to discount the warnings from my boss and my peers that my 'partners' in corporate were throwing me under the bus despite their assurances otherwise. Root cause number three: political denial.

My next posts will discuss each of these in more detail including my own personal plans for corrective actions in the future. Your thoughts are always welcome.

I Think This Happens Too Often

Not to get into detail on this one but I think it is the most common of all reasons:

Lack of interpersonal relationship or shared interest with decision maker

This has its own sub-list...
Does someone else play racquetball with the decision maker?
Is your golf game not strong enough for the sales foursome?
Does someone else attend the decision maker's Christmas Party and you were unable?
There are a hundred items for this one and I will not make an exhaustive list but I think that when the decision maker knows the candidates the interpersonal relationship can definitely be a factor.
Did you take the last cup of coffee from the pot as the decision maker walked into the room on the day he had to make the cuts?
When things seem random, perhaps they are not random but based on factors completely unrelated to job performance...

Hmmmmmm...

A Few Thoughts

At first blush on reading this I think there are many factors involved. Though I think numbers are often the driver of cuts, the specific cuts are something rarely considered and I think you are on to something big.

There are a couple of potential scenarios for how these choices are made.

“The Realignment”

The realignment is often obvious to many employees at multiple levels and is usually foreshadowed by a significant event such as a CEO replacement, merger, sale, etc. A strategic realignment typically takes place when a new C-level executive calls not only a new play but brings a new playbook. Often this executive brings in some trusted allies for key positions and immediate sacrifices are made to allow for their placement. If you are a company president and are passed over for the top job, your days are likely numbered if an outsider shows up unexpectedly. This does not apply to the current discussion which relates more to a layer or two of management below this position and is focused on those who have peers at their level with whom they may ‘compete’ for a lesser number of positions.

The new executive brings his playbook or develops it quickly and presents it to his trusted team. He then asks them to start a cascading realignment. In the first step of this waterfall the team evaluates their direct reports as well as those below their level who may step up request consideration. There may also be a formal interview process and non-employee job seekers may also be considered. Once the evaluations of existing talent and interviews of newcomers are completed, an alignment of those resources into the new organizational structure is completed. This ‘right-sizing’ often includes squeezing a subset of employees into fewer positions and terminating others if required.

In each subsequent step of the waterfall, the newly appointed team is assigned the members of the previous team at their level and a methodical evaluation of resources occurs to meet the new organizational objectives. Each alignment follows a new pattern to support the plans of the decision making CEO or board is implemented and this process continues until all of the needed cuts are completed.

In this manner the newly appointed team is able to choose their team as well which serves to not only allow them to structure for growth and success but eliminates excuses later that they were given a poor team. Though difficult, this is the fairest approach and allows most employees an opportunity to prepare and often interview to present their skills, accomplishments and the reasons they should remain over others in the company.

“The Purge”

The purge is a much less fair and objective approach and tends to be one more often looked upon as being strictly by the numbers. It is these purges that dictate a reduction of either a specific head count at various levels or the reduction of payroll by a specific figure. The persons tasked with making these decisions range from those who do it happily to those who loathe involvement. The reasons they make the choices they do is what this blog appears to be all about.

I do not have the answer to the question but will certainly throw my hat in the ring as one who has some ideas to be considered as possible factors in these decisions. Without elaborating I will supply a quick list of what comes to mind and we can delve into more detail later as well as add more items and potentially remove a few after I think more on the subject.

• Bad attitude
• Poor job performance
• Being perceived as in demand in the workplace
• Lack of accomplishment or growth in current role
• A salary higher than your peers
• Lack of involvement in recent key projects or initiatives
• Opinions unlike those of management
• Seen as a threat to job security by those above you
  
• Management ‘heard’ you’ve been looking for a job elsewhere
• Inability to make effective decisions
• Lack of leadership skills
• Previous insubordination or perception of disrespect
• Lack of interpersonal relationship or shared interest with decision maker
• Being seen as the first to leave the office each day or the last to arrive
• Being seen as someone who wastes time or abuses privilege
• Too often you were seen as a deliverer of problems and not solutions
• A poor appearance, bad manners, offensive hygiene
• Subordinates who do not find working for you enjoyable
• Company financial exposure based on tenure
• Your water cooler conversations have been shared
• Weakness in any key area of the company or role
• There are dozens more I could add here…

These do not take into consideration the fact that others may have some strength that you do not and may not be a known requirement for the position. For instance, someone else at your level may speak Spanish and though it is not part of the job requirements the new model may benefit from that talent and thus a decision is made. It is possible a decision is made purely on seniority level or entirely opposite of it. It is possible it is made alphabetically or randomly or any number of things but not likely. A good executive has reasons. Maybe they are not sound but there is a reason and more often than not I think the ‘gut’ is the big one, right or wrong. Learn how to reach the executive’s gut and you are safe.

In the end, the decision maker may just flat not like you, may like others better, may not like anyone, may have reasons or may not. Understanding ways to eliminate the fear of having someone evaluate you from a list like the one above and to avoid the ‘whoever has three strikes is out’ approach to cutbacks will surely improve your odds.

Maybe there is a way to do more than improve your odds…?

Non-Scientific Research

Not long after my departure from the company, I started asking others a simple question; "Why were you chosen to be let go?". The answers have ranged from the comical - "because I smoked weed in the bathroom"- to the reasoned - "it's because my chosen field tends to get cut when the belt-tightening is underway". I was surprised, however, at the great number of people who answered that they were just a number and a victim of an executive cost-cutting rampage. Sorry folks, I'm not buying it! The only way the answer can be that simple is if an entire organization was cut and even then I remain suspect. At the end of the blood-letting, if even one of your peers was left, there was a reason you were picked to be booted off the island. Understanding that reason is critical to our future ability to stay on the next island a little longer.

I have always been intrigued by the variations in people's ability to reason through and solve problems. While the more jaded of us might argue that our former CEO's success was strictly due to nepotistic luck and/or a talented tailor, the ability to think at levels beyond the simple mental knee-jerk is the single most significant determination of a manager's long-term success independant of less controllable political and environmental changes. Many years ago, Benjamin Bloom articulated levels of thinking as part of his theory of "mastery-learning". More recently, variations of this theme have made their way into Cognitive Ability and Emotional Intelligence as determinants in one's ability to succeed in a complex environment. Show me a Level 6 thinker with good teeth and polished shoes and I'll show you a future CEO.

WARNING - Quick History Lesson Here: Benjamin S. Bloom (1913-1999) was an educational psychologist who exercised considerable influence in academic educational psychology. Bloom designed a taxonomy in order to help teachers and instructional designers to classify instructional goals and objectives. . The taxonomy relies on the idea that not all learning objectives and outcomes have equal merit. For example, memorization of facts, while important, does not equate to the ability to analyze and/or evaluate. Simplfying his 6 levels considerably, they are:

Level 1: Knowledge - exhibits previously learned material by recalling facts, terms, basic concepts and answers.

Level 2: Comprehension - demonstrating understanding of facts and ideas by organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving descriptions and stating main ideas.

Level 3: Application - solving problems by applying acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and rules in a different way.

Level 4: Analysis - examining and breaking information into parts by identifying motives or causes; making inferences and finding evidence to support generalizations.

Level 5: Synthesis - compiling information together in a different way by combining elements in a new pattern or proposing alternative solutions.

Level 6: Evaluation - presenting and defending opinions by making judgments about information, validity of ideas or quality of work based on a set of criteria.

I recently had an opportunity to pursue this conversation thread a little more with an organizational development expert in New York City. Terrence Seamon www.linkedin.com/in/thseamon, describes himself ironically as "the poster child of downsizing" and offered a number of insights into the dynamics he experienced. I asked Terrence to describe the gathering stormclouds of an impending layoff. His answer: "The "storm clouds" will vary from situation to situation. In one case, there were rumors of a sale of the company. The rumors proved to be true. I was tossed out along with many others. The buyer wanted the "hard assets"only. In another case, it was a classic waterfall termination, where I was going along fine with great performance reviews until, without warning, "over the falls" I went in a sudden reversal of fortune. They eliminated my position and reorganized the function. What can a person do to counter the above and avoid the axe? Unless you are able to rise to the C-suite (or marry the CEO's daughter), there is nothing you can do to stop an axe in motion. Such forces are really outside your control. The best thing you can do, I have learned, is to be ready."

Terrence makes a good point that once the axe starts to fall, you are pretty much hosed and we will spend some more time in future posts discussing being ready. But for now, lets think about the time prior to the axe being raised. Our challenge is to advance our level of thinking to the point where we can effectively evaluate why our head was on the block and not our office-mate. Thinking objectively, I have a pretty good idea for myself and my next postings with dive into that.

What do you think?

Benjamin Bloom. (2008, January 3). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:55, January 31, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Bloom&oldid=181869574

Levels of Thinking, History of the America's. Retrieved 12:30pm, January 31, 2008, from http://staff.4j.lane.edu/~hamill/americas/levels.htm

First reactions

November 6, 2007 was 'Black Tuesday' at my company. Over the course of the day, a couple dozen VP-level employees were restructured out of the business ostensibly in the name of management streamlining and organizational simplification. It was all handled very professionally with the appropriate due diligence to show that we were not unfairly discriminated against due to race, creed, sex, age, or natural dysfunction. What was left to speculation, however, is "how the heck did I end up on this side of the desk?".

It's easy to rationalize that someone with my considerable talent, executive presense, charm, and modesty could only have been a victim of the need to cut some vp-level salaries and improve the all-important SG&A. However, since there were a number of my peers that were spared that day, there must be a reason why I was chosen and they were not. I don't mean a reason in the meta-physical 'everything happens for a reason' sense. I mean there must have been a set of circumstances that prompted some executive somewhere to specifically conclude that my seperation from the company added more value than my continued employment.

This is a painful concept to consider. On the surface, it seems inconceivable that the company is better off without mine and my former colleagues' personal contribution to its success. However, I believe there is truth in the reasoning presented to us at the termination meeting. The company really wanted to quickly improve its bottom line performance and increase its value in the shareholder community. It has decided to sacrifice a number of initiatives and consolidate management to accomplish this goal. Thats their story and their sticking to it. So be it.

That, however, still doesnt explain why I was specifically chosen to be on the list. That knowledge is important to me not only for my own peace of mind but, more importantly, to prevent this from happening again in my next position. It then occured to me in one of my less selfish moments that whatever lesson there was to be learned from my own past would only be a single instance of learning and that we could all be better off going forward if I could collect and share similar learnings from others.

So, here we are. I am going to post for all those interested my own thoughts, revelations, and other eureka moments that I plan to integrate into my own future managerial habits. I will also include the thoughts of some other insightful authors along these same lines. I invite you to read and comment with your own experiences and observations.