Competitive Interviews to avoid redundancy

[InBlack]

I work for a national charity. Big profile, TV adverts, people collecting in supermarkets, etc. Last year the organisation was in the Sunday Times "Best Places to Work". Recently our local team were informed that the local commissioners were reducing our funding.

The whole team were called into a meeting to hear the new business plan together. The new plan involved cutting several roles, so those people found out they were losing their jobs in front of the whole team. (Imagine working for a company for years and hearing that you've lost your job from a distant manager, in front of colleagues so you don't even have the opportunity to compose yourself privately)

The rest of the team all have the same job title. Two of our roles have been eliminated, so we have to interview to find out who gets to stay.

(They said we all collectively agree to drop a day's work, which would invalidate the business plan. But most of the team are single mothers on Universal Credit to make ends meet already, and would be sanctioned for dropping hours.)

So it's like X Factor or Traitors meets The Office. We're all looking at colleagues and wondering who stays and who goes on the basis of how well we sell our skills to a couple of strangers who have no idea of the realities of working in our setting. While consoling the people who use our services who are afraid of what the cuts mean for them.

I can't help wondering, when you donate money to charity, is this what you picture behind closed doors?

I do understand that they have to balance the budget and that staff will have to go. I'm used to that part. It's the way they are doing it that bothers me.

I think making announcements that affect individuals are better done on an individual basis to allow the person space to process the news privately.

And doing it solely on the basis of interviews, to me isn't ideal. You can have a person who has been in post for years with peak performance and no sickness absence, but who gets very nervous in interviews. And another person who talks the talk perfectly and gives a wonderful impression, but who is lazy at work when they bother to show up. That's why I worry. I feel like there's a very real possibility that I'm going to end up in a team with the best people gone and the worst people staying.

Having been through this, I think making a general announcement first stops the rumour mill starting and avoids the situation where some people know and some don't (as it would presumably be impossible to hold all individual meetings simultaneously unless only one or two people affected).

The competitive interview process took into account people's performance (eg if they'd been on a performance improvement plan) and levels of absence too. It wasn't just a perform badly in this situation and you're out.

In our case the team isn't massive, so there were only a few posts that were eliminated during the initial announcement. So I think it would have been feasible to let those few know in private before the whole group meeting.

I have asked whether the interview process is going to take any other factors like performance into account and no one has been able to answer. A previous poster mentioned a scenario where management really knew who they were keeping and the interviews were a formality. I wonder if this is the case because they actually don't have any answers.

When I mentioned how donors might feel, I was partly thinking of the ones we know. The nature of our work means that families collect donations at funerals or leave money in their wills because of the support we've given at their time of need. Some family members go on to volunteer or run marathons, etc. I think they would be sad to see how the team is affected.

I don't work in HR but it looks like it is a required step to tell the organisation generally there's going to be a redundancy consultation before telling individuals? That would echo my experience of it (several times over!).

www.charliehr.com/blog/making-someone-redundant/amp/

Yes, ACAS has it too.

www.acas.org.uk/manage-staff-redundancies/tell-employees

Yeah, it didn't quite happen like that. I appreciate that they need to tell all staff at together that there are jobs at risk before you start consultations.

We were gathered and told that X,Y,and Z posts were eliminated. No "at risk", no consultation, it was a done deal from that moment.

At the same meeting, we were told everyone in post A was at risk and would have consultations before interviewing to retain a number of people within the post. So for those staff there is a gap between finding out they were at risk and finding out whether they were losing the job.

But for X, Y, and Z, the meeting where they found out about the risk was the same as when they were told they were losing their jobs.

X, Y and Z will usually be offered opportunities to apply for redeployment (into a role that's staying) in most processes. What was announced is not the same as telling them that they are losing their jobs.

Exactly,the whose going will be a cut and dried decision that's already been made.
Anything thereafter is a charade.

I've just been through this and it was the same for us. New business plan announced in front of the whole team, by a manager none of us had even spoken to once. Found out half the team were "safe" and half competing for a reduced number of roles. I wasn't safe.

Luckily I did secure a role, but it was just so frightening at the time and being on team meetings every week with half the team all happy and buzzy knowing they were safe and the rest of us sad, frightened and stressed every week was soul destroying.

Line manager just kept telling us to act professional and positive even though half of the team were about to lose their livelihoods!

Easy to be philosophical when your job is safe.
Line management talk shit at times.

Haven't read the whole thread yet but came here to say this!

Currently work for a good employer that does seem to 'live its values'. Not to say there will never be job cuts, but I genuinely believe they'll behave with decency if it ever comes to it.

It took me years to believe that was possible. Had been absolutely scarred by a situation like you describe being handled appallingly, OP. My confidence was ruined and it set my career back incalculably. It's them, not you.