Monthly Archives: October 2015

William Bill Arganda- A View on the Workplace, Where did Job Security Go?

Bill William Arganda’s view on today’s job market and change in employee stability.

Given any industry, the private sector has made many changes over the past decade. Organizations found better savings oversees, bowed out to the online markets, or crushed by the demands of increased tax amounts and new mandated avenues of taxes required. Given any reason mentioned or not, legitimate or not, the corporate world has changed for America, and its workers.

Today’s businesses large enough to employ many have altered its means of survival, and adapted to world wide options that greatly affect our workforce, our tax revenue base, as well as our expectancy of living that a sound job once promised.

Years prior, we would see large layoffs as a result of a bad economy or a related failed financial risk that simply took a corporation down. However, in today’s markets we see the same mass exodus of jobs from organizations that are otherwise stable, sound and maintaining profit. Tenured employees are facing the unexpected challenge of starting over, after spending decades strengthening the very place that now calls on them to empty their desk and leave all their knowledge behind.

Senior employees certainly come with a higher fully burden rate of pay. They have been there long enough to receive top pay scale rates, educated and certifications that justify the highest pay, and the benefits that come with such experience. New employees fresh out of college, or perhaps starting over (from a previous layoff) come in at a newly negotiated lower pay and pay scale that may never reflect that of the previous employee. To add to the new age change, companies are routinely sending jobs oversees to low wage countries. Is there a payoff beyond profit margin with such changes? How well are organizations retaining the knowledge and experience it once relied on to grow?

We now have so much displaced knowledge and ability in entry level positions, or worse, spending more time learning how to write resumes, or spending frivolously on “re-branding” themselves. Through large scale and continues layoffs there is a workforce out there miserably failing the abilities of this job market. So much is displaced, and so many competent experts not doing what they excel in, but instead, doing what they need to survive for a fraction of what they once earned.

Companies needed change to thrive, I get it, they are for profit companies…Far too often such changes come with unforeseen problems that ultimately require additional paid services to offset the void of experienced personnel. Large organizations will spend endlessly on third party services and high pay demand consultancies only to find that need could have been avoided had they either kept the knowledge or created a secondary means to retain that knowledge.

There is only one area of government entities that seem to efficiently utilize experience, while saving money ( something they actually do right)…they creatively retained those employees with vast experience and knowledge through contractual offers separate of full time fully burdened employment. Although a senior employee would prefer to keep their career intact, a preferable alternative to unemployment and classes on resume building, is that of a contractual option of employment. Under such an offer, both the employee and employer benefit from each other in that the know how stays with the company, and that company retains that experience to maintain progress, as well as cultivate new personnel. The employee keeps a realistic rate of pay with the company and in the field they have known for so long. It makes sense, and develops a lot more than company profit.

I dear friend worked decades in the machining & tool industry, spending years developing rapport with clients, gaining vast knowledge in a unique expert field, only to find he and others like him were getting let go so younger lower paying blood can come in. While awaiting his departure, he was asked to train the very same new blood taking his place. He and many others chose to leave, and understandably so. However, we talked and soon developed an idea that got him to suddenly start his own one man shop consultancy that trains new employees in that field. The company that once threw him to the curb happily contracted with his “company” and he made a good profit teaching others what he knew so well. Not to mention competitors were eager to contract his services as well. Both company and former employee benefited and now his services are in demand…there are no resume building classes for him.¬†Companies need to see the benefit in contractual retention worker programs, and let the idea work for them, as it does for the former employee, as well as the process.

So before companies jump ship, they need to look at who they are letting go, what they have to offer, and offer a realistic alternative that aids everyone involved. It’s no longer corporate America as we once knew it, but such innovative thinking yields the very same creativity that once started it.

William Bill Arganda; View on Upward Communication

William Bill Arganda’s view on Upward Organizational Communication

In both private and public sector organizations, well established channels of communication are a must for operational survival. Executives and managers are quick to implement matters through proper channels of downward communication. The direction, policy and tone of an organization is made through certain communication that efficiently relays the information downward, from the top, to line level personnel. Everyone knows what is intended and expected because duties and direction are made through policy,  announcement, training, verbal instruction and example. However it gets communicated, it comes from the top down. This is a standard and efficient means to operate no matter the industry.

Sadly what is not as standard or efficient is the way in which executive and managerial staff receive communications from the bottom up….upward communication. Although there is protocol in how to communicate information to a boss, how accurately and prioritized is that information communicated upward? How well do organizations ensure important information makes it way to the necessary levels upward? Certainly safeguards are needed to avoid unnecessary bombardments of information coming from line personnel, but is that structure of filtering also hindering proper information from making its way where needed best, simply because one becomes the bad guy or gal when the boss is told something negative they won’t want to hear? Inherently we label the messenger with the bad news, and because of that, our process of communication runs the risk of avoidance.

When we initiate an upward correspondent, the content is usually concerning, negative or can initially seem vulnerable. However, providing the minimally bad news reaches its proper levels immediately, minor adjustments can quickly be implemented, rather than mass change due to a failure of proper communication. No one ever wants to be the bearer of bad tidings. No boss likes hearing bad news, and certainly no one wants to be stuck with that job of messenger.

A real organizational leader (president, CEO, Chief, sheriff, Mayor, etc) will take great strides to implement certain and safe upward communication policy that allows not only for necessary information to channel well, but a policy that expects all levels of supervisors and managers to avoid avoiding, and properly relay information with certainty and positive approaches. Often we can’t help what has happened negatively, but we can definitely communicate the news with a proactive solution attached to the inevitable problem.