Conference 7.286::digital

   Someone has to process all of the "transitions"...
   
   q
   

    Actually, the US Personnel organization is getting much smaller.  Long
    before the recent LIVEWIRE announcement, (like 18 months ago) the
    entire US Personnel organization started the work of right-sizing.
    
    In the old organization, personnel was made up of 3 separate
    organizations with 3 vps of personnel reporting to John Sims.  There
    was a personnel vp for MEM, a personnel vp for the US field and a
    personnel vp for SRCOFL (which means Strategic Resources, Corporate
    Operations, Finance and Law).  In this structure, there were
    aproximately twenty some odd iterations of group, area and regional
    personnel managers.  Plus there were duplicates and redundancies across
    the organizations for work being done in compensation, eeo/aa,
    benefits, etc.
    
    The 'new' personnel organization is merging the 3 separate personnel
    organizations into 1 organization.  Instead of having 3 veeps of
    personnel reporting to Sims, there is now 1.  Instead of having 20 some
    odd group personnel managers for the US, there are now 8. 
    
    Because the personnel organization is being *totally* restructured, the
    positions are being posted as new positions, not replacements.  They
    can't really be 'replacement' positions because none of the old
    positions for the old organization exist anymore.  There is a new
    organization with newly defined positions.  The new organization has
    been planned with participation from all the 'old' organizations.  This
    change is very positive.  It has reduced layers of management within
    personnel, not added layers.  It is unfortunate that the LIVEWIRE
    announcement cannot convey all the hard work and planning that went
    into this major change.  Not only have layers of management been
    eliminated, the organization has been engaging in right-sizing for the
    past 18 months.  Both attrition and TFSO have contributed to the
    reduction in staff within US personnel.  The total organization has
    reviewed the work that they have been doing and have made some
    decisions about what work should continue, what work should change, and
    what work should cease.  Based on this comprehensive evaluation,
    decisions were made regarding what jobs would be consolidated or
    eliminated.
    
    Does this help to clarify things?
    
    
    

>    Does this help to clarify things?
    
    	In a word, yes. Thanks. That sounds a lot better.
    
    			Alfred

Thanks for the explanation in .2.

I thought it very ironic that in addition to the announcement of the involuntary
layoffs there were several announcements for high level management appointments.
If you look at these announcements without any background information, it's 
very easy to conclude that hiring, promotions, and empire building continues
unabated in the higher echelons while the bottom of the pyramid is getting
lopped off. 

I suspect the situation with most of these announcements is similar to the
one with Personnel, where the jobs that are being filled exist through a
consolidation in the organization, or a re-structuring to enable the 
organization to better satisfy its customers. I think it would be VERY helpful
if the LIVEWIRE announcements included some background information which
indicated why and how the new job assignment would benefit the company.

-John

    .2 Very interesting longer term view.  Just a couple questions.
    
    - With all that re-org, how did the TOTAL Personnel headcount change?
    
    - If in right-sizing the group down-sized, where did those folks go?  Did
    the majority of them take the package?
    
    - Did the other 2 VPs take a job level down, take the package or what?
    
    I guess since the layoffs apply to the total company, I'm interested in
    the total results of re-orgs, etc.

    re: .5
    
    I don't have current headcount figures, but when Personnel started the
    reorganization, we had approx. 2,500 employees worldwide.  The folks
    that I know who left the function have left the company and taken line
    jobs.  As for the number of VP's, I was only aware of 2 and one of them
    left the company.  The remaining VP is now the VP of Worldwide
    Personnel.  

    The third vp in personnel headed up SRCOFL.  So, we used to have 1 vp
    for MEM, 1 vp for US Field and 1 vp for SRCOFL.  True, one of the
    former veeps left the company, and the other sits on the new corporate
    staff of the worldwide vp.
    
    As for those in personnel in non-vp jobs, some did take line jobs, a
    lot left the company either through TFSO or normal attrition (i.e.
    finding a new job someplace else and resigning).  
    

    .6 & .7  Thanks for the feedback.  So putting it all together, when
    Personnel "right-sized" 18 mos. ago, that group's timing was such that
    internal jobs were more plentiful than today and the TSFO pkg. was the
    best one offered.  Guess they were one of the lucky groups compared to
    the majority of the company.
    
    But now I'm kind of confused.  Since it seemed inevitable that we'd
    have to reduce headcount (at least to most real inside and outside
    experts), why would we first reduce the size of the group which would
    have more work when we reduced headcount (like processing all these
    folks out, finding transitions folk's jobs, etc.)???  Somehow this
    doesn't make sense to me.

    I know of 5 personnel people that left under the second package
    in December. All of these people were in the field.Personnel
    has gone through a major reorg in the past year. Many of those
    who left did not get the first package.
    
    The point that gets me is when do the temps go?  Does anyone know?