I perfectly agree with Bob Sutton,

In my experiences at working at various Asian Manufacturinging companies, many companies which hire the high-involvement HR practices have experieced the big obstables;encountering furious resistance of labor union, suffering psychological "Trauma" both remainers, and laid-off personnels, impossible to building up trust between management and employees and so on.

However, high-involvement system is still valuable in many asian companies for its "productivity" In the short-time based management system, high-involvement system looks not good to achieve the short-sighted goals, but in the long-run the high-involvement system can guarantee the sustainable success with self-directing team performance improvement.

So, we have to be careful to practice the "Lay-off", especially in the company who is practicing high-involvement system.

The lay-off can only terminate official contract, it need not result in loss of human touch. The company that resorts to lay-off can do well to see that the laid-off staff are properly placed in some other organization. Maybe it's asking for too much, but we can make an attempt at revoulionising our thinking pattern.

For me the discussion is very timely. I find some sense in the research findings in terms of the damage that can be done in carrying out layoffs to companies that care so much for their employees.

I am managing a Change Management process at a 3000+ company with a reputation of caring. Structures will be flattened so high-level workers will be affected not only by laying them off, but the reduced power distance between them and a shop-floor workers could usher a new spate of cultural shift. It sounds mechanically easy but emotive undercurrents could sincere affect productivity in the immediate to the mid-term future and blame could be easily leveled against the whole change management process - and the consultants involved.

Are there therefore any other practical suggestions as to how one should go about implementing retrenchment in order to minimize cost effects.

Thanks for sharing though.

Truly, lay-off should be of last resort.

Layoff has got a very negative effect due to most of the corporate in their financial statement buzzing of great operational efficiency but layoff their employees after few days or quarters later. This send a signal of negativity, letting laid off employee feel of political environment have taken toll to their jobs whereas non-laid-off employee work under pressure thinking of political environment prevailing their workplace.

Lay-off should be based on reason, a positive message of the firm's position for the unfavorable situation which not only should satisfy the psychological aspect of laid-off employee but also the same aspect of the retained employee with a positive signal to the firm's ecological system. Layoff should not distance any employee whether laid-off, retained or going to join the organization. It should result in favorable business environment for the organization. In future the laid off employee should be able to willing join the organization without any hesitation.

If the layoff is the only resort it should end with a positive note.

It's a very delicate issue. Lots care and genuine sympathy with the affected persons are needed. A personal interaction with those who are to be laid-off and a deep listening are a must. All of us are vulnerable; what happens to somebody may happen to us some other day. So if we approach issues with this attitude, no harm will be done.

I very much understand what "negative effects of layoffs in a high involvement workplace" is.

Recently some of our key officers left the system under certain circumstances. The ripple effect of that action is still reverberating within the workplace. The feeling of anxiety is palpable. Staff Morale and productivity has taken a nose dive.

Going through Bob Sutton's article, I understand that sticking to our traditional high involvement work practices will lead to a quick recovery of productivity. This definitely is a light at the end of the tunnel for us in the Management team.

dear all
I do believe it is hard to lay off either way, caring or not caring style, but I think that when the company works in a caring style of involving employees in decision making the result will be better awareness at the employees side of the nessecity or need for reform, so they should be better prepared for the change, and more understanding.
what might be a good compromise is to try to reallocate employees in another company with suitable arrangements.
thanks to all
Shadia

Hi Everyone,

In this age of layoffs in many sectors of business, I have discovered a vast array of styles utilized while in the layoff process. The worst, and by far most cruel way of implementing such practices, is to imply to the employee that they were on the bottom of the food chain. The outgoing employee, who may have many years of tenure will be devastated by the, "well its just business" mentality. The layoff is a dramatic, life-altering experience that has deep ramifications. We all agree that layoffs send a distinct message to the financial community, but how they are conducted will give the investor an insight to the organizations' compassion and corporate personality. With a non-caring approach, investors may see a side of the firm they don't like or appreciate. Positive actions, communication, and genuine caring are the key elements.

In a well-managed organization, lay-offs should not occur in the first place. Unfortunately, as organizations grow, there is invariably a tendency to have more people than are necessary. One example is the IT Enabled Services Sector. At any point of time,
5 - 7% of software specialists are "on the bench", a euphemism that they do not have any work. The argument in favor of excessive human capital is that it is a contingency if something were to come up suddenly. If this argument is to be accepted, there is no place in organizations for planning, forecasting and strategy. In many cases, the contingency rarely arises with the result the organization is forced to resort to lay-offs. In a recent study, we have found that in the organizations with the best performance on a variety of parameters, the number of people is less, not more. In other words, there is a strong case for emphasizing on productivity rather than the size of the workforce.