A few years ago there was considerable surprise at research findings which appeared to show people would rather have a more impressive job title than a pay rise. The research confirmed just how much importance people attached to status in the workplace. So imagine how you would feel if your boss told you they were changing your job title from Director to” Head of” and just to confirm your reduced status you are informed that your presence would no longer be required at Senior Management team meetings. If they were feeling particularly spiteful they could say you will have to give up your office for a smaller one. I think most people would feel demoted, demoralised and demotivated.
So why would an employer do this? It could be part of a management restructuring, it could be part of reducing the number of Director level posts, it could be an issue of competence but it isn’t. It is in fact a rather clumsy HR solution to the problem of how to get rid of a Director who simple doesn’t fit in with the rest of SMT but is a Director on merit. The aim is simply to make the individual feel undervalued and unwanted in the hope they will be so pissed off they will leave. The organisation doesn’t want an unfair or constructive dismissal case and it doesn’t want to offer the individual money to go. That’s why despite their change in job title their salary remains the same.
Unless is the chief executive them self is ousted in the mean time then the individual will go, all that remains to play for is whether the departure will be sweetened with an exit package.
This is not an unusual scenario at this level but it is more common in the private and not for profit sector where they are less sensitive to bad publicity and less constrained in making a payoff. Whilst this is a painful experience for the individual it doesn’t have to be terminal for their career.
Blair McPherson author of People management in a harsh financial climate and Equipping managers for an uncertain future both published by Russell House www.russellhouse.co.uk
