When layoffs lead to nasty politics

An organisation with around 200 employees working in the public sector asked us to develop a coaching program for their senior managers which would accelerate the implementation of their new strategy.

An ambitious 10 year business plan needed strong leadership to guide an underlying culture change, shifting the focus of the business from a public sector mentality to one of business and commercial awareness. The CEO had been in place for only a short time, having been promoted rapidly from company accountant to Finance Director to CEO.

We coached the CEO to develop this strategy, and this evolved into a coaching program for the senior managers, supporting them in implementing the strategy in their own areas of the business.

From the beginning, the CEO avoided key issues during coaching and inconsistencies began to show during conversations between the CEO and the Directors. During a strategy workshop, Directors closed ranks, recited rehearsed statements about the strategy and looked to the CEO for approval.

After just two months into the coaching program, it was clear that some managers’ ideas to implement the strategy were being blocked, whilst others were contradicting themselves and avoiding accountability. The CEO was continuing to avoid key issues and was making very little progress overall.

The main issue appeared to be the avoidance of accountability. Staff would avoid work that they were not interested in and their managers would take on extra work rather than make individuals accountable for their actions, so work flowed up the organisational structure rather than down and managers took on a higher workload resulting in longer working hours, greater stress, mistrust and resentment .

We called a meeting with the CEO and told her that we were closing the coaching program.

The fundamental issue was that the CEO was manipulating her managers and the board in order to support her own hidden agenda; her early exit. She knew that she did not have enough experience as a CEO to secure her next position, so the only option was a significant achievement in the form of a merger with another organisation which would give her an instant successor from outside the organisation, enabling her to block succession from within. She had already removed two Directors and had identified a third who she was setting up to fail in key performance areas. She influenced board elections to ensure support from new members and gave the impression that she was protecting her team from the board in order to control communication between them.

This complex system of control and manipulation bred mistrust, avoidance and dishonesty throughout the management team and began to create a barrier to the CEO’s own hidden agenda. The business was disintegrating faster than she could orchestrate her exit, and at some point the board would take the exit decision away from her, leaving her with neither the experience nor the achievements to move forwards yet equally unable to move backwards.

At our final meeting, we told the CEO that we had identified all of this, and that we were no longer part of the game. Although she was surprised at our withdrawal from the program, she admitted to everything that we said. She recognised the risk that she faced, and the danger that she was putting the company in. If we had said nothing and continued to coach her, the coaching would have been ineffective because of her manipulation and avoidance. By admitting to her behaviour, she had taken responsibility for it and no longer needed coaching. Either way, our feedback was more valuable than any coaching ever could be.

http://www.askrevelation.com

http://www.askrevelation.com

I’ve seen this happen numerous times at my company. They seem to have a major bloodletting every 2 years. Part of me thinks it’s a deliberate strategy to keep people at each other’s throats.

Paid for performance………….what are you kidding me or what! Upper Management(CEOs, CFOs, CIOs..etc.) have consistently been over paid for under performance. Do you know why?
Because through Machiavallian, political motivated, cut throat office maneuvering they have managed to attain positions closest to the corporate ‘cash register’.

Paid for performance………gimme a break! Save this crap for those bright new shiny faces coming out of our nations wonderful business schools.

It’s dog eat dog in the real world…
Always was……..Always will be.

Underhanded behavior has not increased in my opinion. It is always there, but usually it is transparent. Politics in business is a given no matter the state of the economy. Building relationships and making sure your contributions are understood is just good sense. Everyone in the office including the managers knows the caste system of stars, contributors, and low performers. In good times, there are more low performers than in bad times. If you don’t know where you stand in your office, you are at a big disadvantage.
The way to set yourself apart is to objectively rate who you are competing against in the office and where you are in the system. Will you win the tie when the layoff list is made up? If not, you need to improve your work and your reputation with management. Ask them what you need to do and make sure you know what they want and what priorities they have. You should work hard during the annual reviews to make sure you know where you stand and what you need to do to improve.
You aren’t competing against everyone. If there is a 10% reduction, you are competing with nine others. Make a plan on how to be in the 90% and that includes the judicious use of politics and networking.

Never divulge everything on how you do your job. Big Mistake in the TV repair business if every thing is a big secret. A technician that is not helpful in helping other techs on their repairs. Isn’t really a big asset to the business.

Corporate bullying … we were just told, literally, after a layoff of 10% — “Suck up the long hours, do what you have to do, managers are paying attention and you don’t want to be on the list.” And of course, completing work of professional quality takes second seat to saying “yes” to everything, despite whether it actually ever gets done.

I’ve mostly worked for mid-size companies (400-600 employees) and when rumors of layoffs began — more often than not, people hunkered down and worked ever harder. (I think half of the rumors were started by the Executive Suite). However, people also tended to guard their “turf” more jealously. Even as some tried to prove their worth through versatility, others saw it as trying to steal their work and make them seem expendable. It’s also at this time when shortcuts become prime secrets. Never divulge everything on how you do your job; those little tricks you’ve learned to make the task go quicker or even better. That’s been my experience when layoffs loom.