I'm back from the great blog break.

I took a bit of a break from journaling over the holidays. I thought I would start again with the New Year. I did, in my general journal. I’ve been avoiding journaling about my ARP though. Things have been somewhat uncomfortable at work throughout the holidays – and I think I felt as if it was OK to reflect on it in my head but I didn’t want to write anything down because that would somehow give the current climate more power. Odd, usually writing things down is cathartic, but in this case I felt like it would be more like putting fears to paper and or whining and complaining.

I’m now finally ready to write a long description of and reflection on the current situation at work.

A little over a week ago, the company I work for laid several people off. “Restructuring” some called it. Only 15 local employees were laid off, and of those the couple that I know personally actually made sense for a few reasons. The bulk of the people laid off were in another city where the company has decided to close operations. That office was product specific. In general, that office was only responsible for product development (not sales, support, etc.). It was a small office and rather autonomous when compared to there rest of the offices (which are neither product nor service type specific). The decision to close that office was months in the making and my guess is that the company had some other changes they wanted to make and decided to announce everything at once, rather than a little here and a litter there. From a purely business standpoint, I understand the decision (both the office closure and the local people who were let go). From an emotional, human point of view, it makes me uncomfortable with the corporate culture and reminds me that I sometimes feel I don't fit with this culture.

What I am most disappointed in is not the decision itself, but the way the decision or more specifically the process, was communicated. Rumors of lay-offs circulated through all the business units for several weeks leading up to the holidays. At one point the rumor was that 300 people or more would be laid off. Another rumor was that everyone who had been with the company for a certain number of years (generally in excess of 10) was being culled. Neither of these turned out to be true. Although there is still some feeling that the company wants to rid itself of the “old-timers.” It seems to me that this feeling is most prevalent among the “old-timers” themselves. The feeling is understandable, and in some cases it may even be true. The company is trying to change the culture in several ways and those that have been there a long time might be more apt to not want to participate in the changes. Or, the company may be more apt to think that it is the old-timers that are pushing back against the change, instead of recognizing that everyone is (at the moment) dubious of the authenticity behind the culture change.

The first mistake I think the company made was to not acknowledge the rumors in any way whatsoever. It is likely that there are many business and legal reasons why they didn’t acknowledge the rumors, but I still believe that not acknowledging the rumors seriously dampened morale throughout the month of December and allowed the fiction to supersede the reality. Perhaps there are some who think this sense of fear is a good thing, but I don’t think it made anyone more productive during an already stressful holiday season. The irony is that at the same time this was going on, we were being fed propaganda on the new “Peak Performance” culture that the company is trying to cultivate. Teamwork! Working together! Helping everyone be better, stronger, smarter, more efficient, etc, etc, ad nauseam. They even brought us all to a big assembly (reminded me of school pep-rallies), spoke to us in a “motivational way,” showed us the video Lessons from Geese, and then showed us the new company inspiration video. From what I observed, the message was definitely mitigated by all the rumors of lay-offs. The biggest personal irony is that I actually agree with many of the foundational ideas behind “peak performance” and the “goose video.” However, presenting it to us via a big mandatory attendance assembly, amidst the ever spreading rumors of massive lay-offs, made even me feel like we were trapped in the movie Office Space .

When the layoffs were finally announced (one week after New Years), it was far fewer people than were rumored. Of course, there was a distinct feeling that the subtext was that the people “no longer with us” had somehow not lived up to the “peak performance” model. It felt almost like a threat. We were assured by our director that these lay-offs were not for performance reasons but, rather, for “business” reasons. Unfortunately, the timing was at best unfortunate and at worst contrived to make us feel pressured to “adopt the new culture or else.” Personally, I felt torn. I like the ideas behind the “Peak Performance” (even if I don’t care for the ultra-slick presentation), but because of the climate I felt like I was being obsequious if I showed any enthusiastic or non-sarcastic support for it. I didn’t like feeling torn in that way, so I retreated into my work and tried not to participate in the rumor mill but also refrained from defending the company in any way. Looking back on it, that behavior was not very courageous. I think I missed out on some bonding opportunities both in the retreat and in the effort to not look like a naïve and/or idealistic “yes-[wo]man.” I don’t know yet if my actions were interpreted in either way by anyone else… but that’s how I feel about them.

Mistake number two: when the “restructuring” was announced, each director read to us (didn’t even bother to memorize) the official company statement about the business decisions behind “consolidating” the offices, “restructuring” some departments, etc. The directors did not tell us who was let go. We could, of course, figure out the immediate ones by whose faces (from our own departments) were not present at the mandatory “Organizational Announcement” meeting. The directors fielded questions, but for information on who was let go we were told to talk to our managers, who would be able to tell us if anyone in our department was laid off(which we had, of course, already figured out by then). When we asked our director how many people were affected company wide, she told us that even she didn’t know. According to her (and I have no reason to not believe her), each director only had access to information on changes in their own department. “Currently, only a few people know the total number of people affected.” She went on to say that “you all will probably know the total number before I do,” implying that the non-sanctioned information network works better for the plebs. So, we asked her if she could at least tell us how many local people were affected (we have several hundred working at two facilities locally). She gave us the same basic response, even she didn’t know. Within the day, rumors were that at least 100 people were laid off but no one would say if that was local, national, or international (the company employs over 6,000 world-wide). It already seemed fairly obvious that it was significantly less than 100 locally but there were those who said that this was only the start (that there would be another 50 next month). We lost one person in the department I work for (Education) and five people in the other department (Technical Publications) managed by the same director.

Today, the local paper published a story on it. 15 locals were laid off (no mention of national or international figures). According to the story, this is a simple one-time thing and not the first of many. The company is after all “investing in a new building” (to house both local facilities under one happy roof). Now, 15 doesn’t seem like that many (*unless of course you are one of the 15). It certainly doesn’t feel nearly as serious as the rumors made it seem. I’ve been through this a few times before. At the company where I used to work we did go through the “series” of “restructures” which in the course of two short years resulted in several hundreds of people being laid off (among them the team of 300 developers of which I was one). This current situation does feel quite different to me, so I tend to believe that this is not the first of several rounds of lay-offs (or at least it isn’t planned to be). Not everyone I work with has the benefit (wow, never thought I’d call it a benefit) of this prior lay-off experience. Many of the people with the company have been there for years (or with one of the acquired companies for years and then w/ this one since the acquisition in 2001). For those that have not been through it, especially the ones who were originally with a company acquired by this one, this is very frightening and demoralizing.

If we at been told right away that only 15 were affected locally, there might have been less fear and fewer rumors. Perhaps that fear was intentional. Perhaps someone thought it would make those left work harder and be better team-players. I hope not, but I have to acknowledge that it is a possibility. Whether or not that was the intention, I think the company made a serious mistake in not allowing the directors to tell us how many people were affected. It certainly gave this an air of decisions made behind closed doors and a culture of secrecy and disinformation. It is my impression, based on the current morale of many co-workers, that the company is in danger of sabotaging the entire “peak performance” culture change if they continue with this kind of communication strategy (or lack thereof) . The irony is that regardless of the “official message,” I think that with the exception of the office in the other city (that I already mentioned) many of the layoffs were at least partially performance based and that the company decided to just do everything at once rather than bit by bit (as I noted earlier). This is not to say that those individuals were performing poorly. The company is trying to move away from a product specific culture. At least one of the people who was laid off (who I know personally) only worked on projects for one product and never (in the time I’ve been there) contributed to projects for any other products. If this is the reason, then I think it would be much more productive to tell us that. Why try to convince us that this was just “general restructuring” and that those laid off were not singled out for any specific reason? By taking this stance, the company puts us all in the position of feeling like no matter what we do (or don’t do) we could be next. This hinders motivation rather than inspiring it.

Mistake number three: Recently, it was announced that several of our products (and the product support that goes along with them I believe) were acknowledged with some type of “best in industry” award. Woo woo, crit, crit! (old gaming exclamation, sorry). Our sales force has also had some big “wins” this quarter – bravo sales. So – the company wanted to celebrate and reward all our hard work. Free Cookies and Free (fancy) Coffee (from the “frou-frou” coffee vending machine in the fun room) were to be the reward – distributed on Friday afternoon. The free beverages became available starting at noon and the cookies were laid out promptly at 2pm. Ok… I’m sounding satirical here… but I think someone did feel that this was a nice gesture and, in my opinion, free fancy-coffee is always appreciated. So, where was the mistake you ask? Well, around 11am (or maybe it was 11:30) a company-wide email was sent. The subject of this email was “Cost-Containment.” The email very rationally and unequivocally explained that in the current competitive economical environment it is very important to keep a close eye on all budgetary expenses (nice business-speak… I should do this professionally). Ok, that wasn’t a quote… but close to it. It was then explained that several types of expenditures would hence-forth (ok… that’s theatrical-speak… but I like it) be subject to director approval (these are expenses that to date had required only manager approval and sometimes no specific approval at all). Another list of expenditures would now require VP approval (where before they only required director or in some cases manager approval). Simple, straight-forward (yet somewhat abstruse) bulleted lists were provided for each category. Among the things that now require director approval: unusual office supplies and some office furniture (no specifics about what “unusual” or “some” defines). Among the things that now require VP approval: all travel (other than sales related) and training (no indication as to the nature of the training… but I imagine that tuition reimbursement and any professional development expenses are included in that).

Now, neither the free celebratory goodies nor the memo constitute a mistake. Free stuff is cool, even if cookies and coffee are a bit …well… trite (I suppose free donuts are trite too, and everyone seems to love those). The memo on cost-containment is not unreasonable, although the ambiguity of some of the listed items is frustrating. No, what was the mistake, either by accident or design, was the timing. Send out an email on Thursday afternoon telling us how great we are, how great we are doing (less than two weeks after the whole lay-off scare), and that we get free goodies tomorrow to celebrate. Then, a few short hours before the big celebration, send out an email telling us that we really need to contain costs. Further, to contain the costs, some things previously viewed as standard expenses will now require a more rigorous approval process. Bah, bad timing. One hand is not keeping track of the other. Maybe I am just naïve, but I do think it is a case of poor communication. Others (some in my department) do not agree. They think this kind of thing is designed specifically to keep us a bit cautious, confused, and/or off balance. Whichever interpretation is closer to the truth, the fact is that nearly all the (30 dozen?) cookies were eaten (I didn’t have one… but that was a nutritional choice not a protest) but there was no party in the fun room (as there has been during prior similar celebrations). Instead, over the course of the afternoon people went in and grabbed a cookie and some coffee (I did partake of the free coffee) and then went back to their desk and worked (or kept their heads down anyway).

<>So, how does all this impact my ARP? Why did I write about it in this blog, rather than my other blog or my personal journal?

As I walked to and from work the last few weeks, I’ve thought a lot about what is happening at work, what the atmosphere feels like, and how this might affect my ARP approach. I still intend to make the first cycle self-centered (survey others and interview them on how I’m communicating with them and participating in a collaborative way… their perceptions of that) – but I now suspect that I need to concentrate more on the various aspects of successful, healthy teams that became the final focus of my literature review. I’m reviewing and rewriting my action plan to incorporate this. It is no longer about simply breaking down some physical walls (the cubes) – it is about figuring out what the real walls are - the non-physical ones that have become more tangible in this new somewhat uncomfortable climate.

I do think this is a better approach because once I made the decision to do this, I felt like a weight had been lifted from my shoulders and I also started to feel fully recovered from the hideous cold/throat ailment that I’ve suffered from since right after the New Year.