Assignment task: Reply to at least two different classmates outside of your own initial post thread.
1) Hello, all. My post does not specifically address eliminating or adding a specific position, instead, it discusses potential pitfalls around making these decisions. I think it's relevant and correlates to the module's focus on capable champions and involved middle management.
The U.S. Navy struggles to fill positions (billets) at sea and ashore. The deficiency is caused by several factors ranging from recruiting shortfalls to retention to unexpected losses. There are entire teams devoted to managing personnel assignments worldwide; their priority is making sure deployable units are adequately manned to enable warfighting. It is common to accept risk at shore commands and let those billets go unfilled if no one is available. Some shore duty billets can go unfilled for 6-9 months, or longer.
The reality is that others must take on extra duties to cover the vacant billets. Those extra duties may not even be in their job description. This is burdensome on the unit and has the potential to decrease morale and upset the work-life balance.
Middle management recognizes this dilemma and rightfully pushes to get the billets filled. Unfortunately, some senior leaders start to question whether the billet is necessary since the unit continues to function with the billet vacant for 6-9 months. They view it as an opportunity to eliminate the position. This is usually the wrong answer. They are basing their decision on incomplete information without considering the ripple effect their decision will have on the entire organization.
Consultation with middle management would reveal that the vacant billet is still needed, and the burden on the workforce to cover the gap is causing undue stress on staff and degrading the organization's culture. Middle management must serve as a buffer between senior leaders and the realities of the workforce.
Middle management has a tremendous amount of influence over organizational change. They are capable champions that push an initiative toward success, but they must also be the voice of reason when change decisions do not make sense, especially in the case of adding or eliminating positions. Just my thoughts...
2) My "organization" is very small- we have only 3 employees and we all share various rolls. Because our organization is small, I find myself outsourcing some roles that should be done in the office, but due to the high cost, we can't afford to hire in house employees. One roll we outsource is "receptionist" or, a call answering service who answers all incoming phone calls, takes messages for us and assists in scheduling appointments for clients. I'll tell you what though, what I pay for and what I get are not completely equal.
As a small business owner, I have to weigh out organizational changes and take into consideration what is the best option for our business, how it will impact clients and how long it will take to make the change. Currently, the amount we are paying for the call service and the amount of time and energy it will take to hire and train someone is not in our time budget. Soon, I will be making some changes that will require growth or the business and the employees. This will launch us into a new season that will provide us with resources to hire new positions.
I was interested to read in our module overview that employees working at smaller sized businesses have more flexibility and a greater sphere of influence in regards to implementing change. I find this to be true in the intimacy of my small business. There is a real value in each person bringing their creative ideas to the table and having the freedom to execute them. I am interested to see moving forward, how adding team mates and divisions to our company would impact the team dynamic.