Thread regarding AT&T Inc. layoffs

Be dedicated but not secure

After many years of service and dedication our thanks from the executives is being told our jobs are in jeopardy. As people have left I picked up more work as they weren't back filled. We are told to work hard, put in extra unpaid hours at work, be accessible after hours and promote the company. Our reward? No job security.

The executives lose BILLIONS on failed acquisitions and mergers and there reward? Taking OUR jobs away. How did they pay for their failures? Taking away our bonuses and pay raises.

They now have the new catch phrase "collaboration", bringing employees who work remote close to home back to larger offices. The short sightedness of this is astounding. Everyone I talked to who has been told this are going to work in offices where no one in their department works! How can you collaborate when you are in an office with no one to collaborate with?

Over the years as directors and above are moved it has been obvious they don't know what the people they are managing do, they don't take the time to understand the job before they make changes or put in new processes. Ultimately those decisions don't add to the job and service they just add useless additional steps and expense.

by
| 477 views | | 2 replies (last June 30, 2015) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+CfXtjl6

2 replies (most recent on top)

Time to change:

Your post contains a wealth of good information but the problem with such studies and the conclusions drawn from them fail to take several scenarios that are nearly impossible to include in their sample data. The biggest one that would change the outcome, if included, is when individuals are deemed high or low performers simply based on how much their supervisors "like" the subordinate that the rate. Time and time again i've seen people ranked high because their boss likes them and vice versa. Favoritism is hard to quantity as it is human nature to deny that they do so. AT&T is also notorious for pushing folks into undeserved promotions simply because their supervisors don't want to deal with individuals that eat up their time trying to coach them. Shoving them off to someone else, even if it means a promotion, is sometimes the best alternative. That often translates to giving false praise to the new manager that will take said troublemakers on. Other managers do the opposite as well as they wage a vendetta against star performers by issuing lower scores that they truly deserve. Some managers are uptight miserable cows that hate it when others are happy or when a direct report dismisses their manager's micromanagement style by doing their job well a different and often more efficient way. Some folks, like those quoted in the study you referenced, can getter dun to the letter all while surfing Facebook for pictures of cute pets. Some managers boil over when they see that and unfairly rate them low. AT&T Is based in Dallas and there are plenty of upper managers that despise the notion of non-white, non-men, non-Christian, and non-prefered orientations move up the ladder. Again, vice versa applies to this as well. These preferences translate to major skews in the population samples that are studied. Ratings are very subjective. Determining who stays and goes based on often invalid numbers is a sad truth. Unfortunately, AT&T is rife with this paradox. More time should be given when considering how the hammer is dropped. Pre-exit interviews by non-biased parties who have the authority to save some of the down trodden scapegoats is one approach I can think of that would help level the playing field. AT&T is very command and control so their likely to press on with their practice of relying on bad data. This is sadly ironic considering how much they emphasize the importance of data integrity. Such a shame as their business and bottom line wind up suffering as a result all while they shrug their shoulders despite that their are so many better ways.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @nfM+CfXtjl6

They may go to great lengths to avoid work, but your slacker co-workers actually love their jobs. A new study comparing job performance and satisfaction found that the least-productive workers are also the most engaged in nearly half of workplaces.

At 42 percent of more than 200 companies studied, leadership training and research firm Leadership IQ found that the people who spend the day perusing Pinterest or updating their fantasy football rosters are more engaged than middle-of-the-road and even star workers.

"We're putting numbers to things we all kind of intuitively know," said Leadership IQ CEO Mark Murphy.

Leadership IQ, which drew on its research database to survey 207 companies, also carried out a more detailed study of one representative example, a 1,000-person tech service provider on which the consulting firm had detailed data about employee engagement and performance. As The Wall Street Journal noted, these findings fly in the face of conventional wisdom that those who contribute more to their employer's success are the most engaged with their jobs.

(Read More: 10 Least Stressful Jobs)

In this study, low performers were more likely to say they give 100 percent at work, that their company is a great place to work and that everyone there does an equally good job. So, in addition to not being very good at the work itself, these workers also think they're much better at their jobs than they actually are.

"You can think you're giving 100 percent effort, but if you don't know exactly what 100 percent looks like and how that translates into performance ... that's where this asymmetry comes from," Murphy said.

A major reason your slacker co-workers like their jobs so much is because you're doing their work for them. The study found that high performers were least likely to say their company held people accountable for their work, while the lowest performers were the most likely to say they received praise for the work they do.

Managers who dole out "attaboys" and merit raises across the board bear a lot of the blame for this, Murphy said.

"It's sort of the everybody-gets-a-trophy phenomenon," he said. "What they don't realize is that by not differentiating the high performers, you really are irritating the high performers ... who are keeping you in business."

As if giving sub-par performers a pat on the back wasn't bad enough, the people who do pull their weight often get stuck cleaning up after their less-diligent colleagues. In another study, Leadership IQ found that 93 percent of employees said working with a poor performer had a negative impact on their own productivity.

Murphy said managers may be afraid of confronting people who turn in shoddy work, especially if they know their harder-working colleagues will pick up the slack.

"When there isn't sufficient accountability ... and standards of performance, it's actually not that bad a job to be a low performer," he said. "We see a lot of organizations where managers will even promote a low performer just to get them out of their department."

It's discouraging, but before you throw in the towel and spend the rest of the day looking at pictures of cats online, there are a couple of things good employees can do if they're stuck in a workplace where no poor deed goes unrewarded.

For one thing, talk to your boss, Murphy said. The idea isn't to call out the co-worker who spends all day hanging around the coffee machine, but to ask the company to implement better ways to measure performance—which will separate the go-getters from the also-rans.

If that fails, dust off your resume. Companies where hard work is rewarded realize, "There are a lot of frustrated high performers out there and they're really looking for organizations who recognize what they bring," Murphy said.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @PR5+CfXtjl6

Post a reply

: