| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Why do you have to reapply for your job?
Doug Pizac, Photographer
 |
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 11:44 AM on 02.15.11 |
->> Over the past couple years some papers have been making their staffs reapply for their jobs. There was a posting yesterday about the employees at three Gannett papers in NJ reapplying. Some 45 people weren’t hired back.
I would like to pose this question to anyone who has had to undergo this: What was the reason given you for having to reapply?
This may seem like a strange question, but logically the process doesn't make sense. If the aim of the paper is to reduce staff, then choose those you no longer want and pay them severance. That's very simple. So why put everyone through the turmoil of having to reapply?
If reapplying means everyone is fired and you have to reapply to get your job back, then logic would dictate that everyone gets a severance check -- even those who reapply and stay on get paid. But that doesn't make sense either. If everyone is technically fired, then everyone deserves the payments regardless.
Or does having to reapply mean those who choose to not to essentially declare they have left the company on their own accord and therefore are not eligible for severance, thereby saving the company the departure money? That would be like instead of letting someone go and paying them severance, you change their job duties and working hours around so much that they become so miserable they quit. I’ve seen that tactic used, and it is despicable.
Again, I would like to limit the responses to only those who have gone through this or have direct knowledge of the reasoning. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 12:35 PM on 02.15.11 |
| ->> For the moment set aside labor agreements (if there is some type of labor contract that comes in to play). The company I work for did this about 16 years ago. From the employer side there are a couple benefits: First it allows them to redefine jobs and responsibilities so your old job may no longer exist. It then allows them to pick/choose who they want for the new positions (which may have different pay structures than people are used to today). It also then helps them create the paper trail to deal with lawsuits. Any time you have a force reduction someone is going to be tempted to sue. This application process allows them to create a new trail vs. having to rely on an old trail if they want to get rid of someone. Someone else will have to chime in but I think there are financial benefits to doing reorganizations this way - but I'm not a corporate finance guy so I'll let others chime in. But quite a bit is often about avoiding lawsuits. A company a friend works for went through a reduction a couple years back. They basically came up with the list of people that were going to be cut and then had to adjust the list so as to add keep more minorities and women and some older workers just to protect against discrimination suits. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 7:02 PM on 02.15.11 |
->> Consider this. The group that is making the cuts likely does not know each of the individuals involved - especially when there is consultant involved or a merger (whether it is two companies, two locations or just two divisions.) This "reapply" process provides the individual employee an opportunity to speak for themselves in this process - whether it is simply through a resume or through an application/review process. Absent such a process, you are left with just your immediate supervisor advocating (hopefully) for you, and perhaps a couple of others that may know you - or just know your reputation (which can be good or bad).
The stars and the non-performers are not the target of a process such as this. Rather it is the large mass in the middle where differentiating and quantifying talents is much more difficult.
The process makes perfect sense. It is a much more equitable approach (to both employer and employee) than one that relies solely upon the advocacy of direct supervision or seniority.
In these situations, everyone is not "technically fired". There is no "hiring back" in the true sense of the phrase. They remain employees until such time that their status changes to discharged. Not having certainty of your future status, while quite disconcerting, does not equate to termination. Companies occasionally use a "pool" approach where displaced employees are placed in a pool for a given period of time and afforded the opportunity to compete for positions which may become available prior to severance.
The "reapply" process also is not a tactic for avoiding the payment of severance.
It is simply a tool to help those in charge of the reorganization evaluate their talent to determine what labor resources should be retained. As John notes above, many times the jobs that remain after a reorganization are notably different than those that existed before. They frequently combine tasks performed by others, and may require a new combination of skills. While not in any way endorsing the practice, consider an organization which now expects its writers to provide visual content. Do you keep the writer who has no demonstrable skills in the visual arts and hope they can shoot? - or do you keep the visual artist, who through this process has revealed strong oral and written communication skills, in addition to bringing previous experience writing to light. Without this process, how would this ever become known? Unfortunately, a likely outcome would be the visual artist, once severed, bemoaning the fact that they could have performed this newly created position if only given the chance to show they had that skill and experience. This process is that chance.
I'm certainly not a Pollyanna on this topic. I've been through enough layoffs, downsizings, rightsizings, reengineerings or whatever the program is that the consultants are cashing in on at the time over the past 20+ years to know the significant mental distress that these cause. I've survived a round where 100 of 140 positions were eliminated from the department I worked in. However, I also know that in none of these cases has anyone below the most senior levels been told that their job was secure. Accordingly, I fail to see where being provided an opportunity to sell yourself to the decision makers results in any more angst than simply being told that the company is reducing the workforce and you'll be told later if you have a job.
That's just my take on it - as overly verbose as it is. |
|
Jeff Frings, Photographer
|
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 9:47 PM on 02.15.11 |
| ->> Having everyone reapply for jobs also could reduce benefit costs for the employer. Since everyone is a new employee, they all might have to start with 2 weeks vacation instead of the 4 or 5 weeks that a veteran worker might have. Also many times health benefits don't start until you've been employed for a certain period of time, so perhaps they would save money on those benefits as well. This is just based on what I've heard from others who've been through this before. |
|
David Minton, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Denton | TX | USA | Posted: 11:30 PM on 02.15.11 |
->> It eliminates velvet coffins at a lot of places. Make someone who has been coasting by, waiting till retirement and hasn't really done anything of any effort in 10 years re-apply for their job. I guess it's like a hard-core version of a yearly evaluation, except you can't bullshit your way through it. A lot (most) of us on Sports Shooter are here because we give a damn and work hard and try everyday to do a better job than we did the day before, but there are just as many who are the complete opposite.
For a publisher or HR department it makes perfect sense. A reporter who has been there for 40 years and only does one or two stories or columns here or there is a huge expense in their eyes. Their experience and expertise doesn't mean a damn thing compared to the fact that they are not as productive and therefore useful as someone else.
Then again I saw first hand where a paper went through layoffs and pretty much the only ones who were left were the velvet coffins. Whether they were afraid of age discrimination lawsuits or what I don't know. But it wasn't pretty. |
|
Doug Pizac, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 12:12 AM on 02.16.11 |
->> Thanks to all. Now it makes sense, unfortunately. It's the money and an easier way to deal with people when it comes to legalities.
Second question: Have there been situations where the editors and upper management have had to reapply for their jobs instead of the regular employees?
I have seen many over the years who had little knowledge or any clue about some of the jobs people did who are under them and/or the technology they are in charge of. How can one administer when you can't do the job yourself or don't understand the technology? When you're not qualified, it's impossible to make sound decisions. |
|
Robert Seale, Photographer
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 9:00 AM on 02.16.11 |
->> "How can one administer when you can't do the job yourself or don't understand the technology? When you're not qualified, it's impossible to make sound decisions."
I think virtually every CEO and senior manager, and most managers in general, in the world would summarily dismiss the notion that they aren't qualified simply on the basis of not being able to perform every job in their organizations. I would agree with them.
The ability to effectively administer an organization at any level, is enabled by ensuring that the organization is staffed by competent, qualified employees who are able to communicate their needs and limitations. Yes, highly technical functions require more than a cursory knowledge of the task at hand by line managers, not necessarily so by levels above them. The administrator's role is to provide guidance and direction, coordinate the work flow, complete all the mundane administrative tasks (budgeting, HR, requisition, etc.), to communicate (most importantly listen) and to learn.
Are there bad administrators? Yes. Some are those who intimately knew how to do the job of their direct reports - but fail miserably in supervising the work and all that it encompasses. The truly fatal combination is when one is just generally a poor administrator AND has no real knowledge (experience or gained through learning and observation) of the work of their subordinates.
Just as a conductor does not have to know how to play each and every instrument in the orchestra, administrators do not need to be able to step in and perform each job under their control. However, just as the conductor must know what each instrument is supposed to contribute and be able to identify when something is out of whack, so must an administrator be able to identify that within their work force. The administrator must know what the employee or work group is supposed to accomplish, not necessarily each detail of how it is accomplished.
And I think its fair to say that it is quite common to see shakeups in management without simultaneously rearranging the workforce below them - particularly at upper levels. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 10:28 AM on 02.16.11 |
| ->> Excellent post Mark and spot on. It's amusing that no matter what the industry is, there are people at the bottom that insist the person or people above them "don't have a clue" - and some don't. But, in many cases it is also the person "below" that doesn't have a clue about what the job of the person above them entails. It's like people that don't shoot sports think: How difficult is that? Anyone can point a camera and push a button. But you provide a great insight into the level of understanding a supervisor/manager/editor must have regarding the details of the job(s) of the people who report to them are. In actuality some of the worst failures at supervision/management are people that have to much depth at one type of thing - too technical if you will. |
|
Bradley Leeb, Photographer
|
Champaign | IL | USA | Posted: 11:04 AM on 02.16.11 |
->> Mark,
I'll respectfully disagree with your conductor analogy though. To be a good conductor at the middle school or high school level, (and even collegiate sometimes) it is IMPERATIVE to know how to play each and every instrument. In that situation, it's not good enough to know something is out of whack, you need to be able to tell your "workers" how exactly to fix the problem. As a music education major, I had to take eight weeks to semester long classes on each and every band instrument so that I could play each with some level of proficiency. When I'm on the podium, it's not enough for me to say, "Clarinets, you're not playing that right." Oftentimes I have to look at the music and say, "Clarinets, you are having trouble with that passage because you need to use such and such alternate fingering to play that correctly." At that point then, I even must pick up a clarinet and physically show the technique to use. Each and every instrument has specialized techniques and procedures.
Especially at the elementary or middle school levels, I must actually play various instruments to model the proper sound and techniques to be used.
Yes, if I was the conductor of the Chicago Symphony, then I don't need to know as much about each and every instrument, but even the great conductors will tell you that to be great, then they do. A story I read about the great Arturo Toscanini was that a bassoon player approach before rehearsal saying he could not rehearse that day because a certain key on his instrument was broken. Toscanini thought for a second and replied, "That is ok, that note does not appear in your music today." |
|
Doug Pizac, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 4:13 PM on 02.16.11 |
->> Mark...
I no way intended to mean all/most managers aren't qualified. Each level of the heirarchy has its own needs and qualifications. I said I've run across many out of thousands, and those many were usually one step above the employees and technology they were in charge of.
For example, a photo chief did a lot of research looking for the best video camera vs. price combo which also fulfilled other needs such as frame grabs. A 1080p model was chosen. Instead, the manager picked a 1080i camera because it was cheaper without any consultation with those who did the research. He based his decision on what the salesman said who wanted to sell more units. The camera turned out to be a waste of money. At another place, a new fax machine was needed and a person was put in charge of researching models. A laserjet model was advised, whereupon the manager picked an inkjet instead because it was considerably cheaper. Within six months the costs of the ink cartridges depleted the budget -- something the manager hadn't considered, but the employee had and reported. A laserjet type machine was then purchased and has been economical ever since.
And there was a case I know of where a manager assigned two assignments to two photographers without checking where each other lived. It didn't matter which photographer did which because they were both equally qualified. The differences were where the assignments were in relation to where the photographers lived. The shooter who lived in the north part of the county was assigned to do the job in the southern section; and the other photographer vice versa. To execute the assignments, each photographer had to start early on OT and passed each other going in opposite directions on the freeway. Both put in for 3-4 times the mileage costs that occured versus if they had done the games that were near their homes. Is that good management?
By your rationale of not needing to know how to shoot or knowing the technology involved, that would be like a staff needing Canon Mark III or other pro cameras and being satisfied with Rebel XT bodies instead because the boss didn't know the differences between the two, and they were easier on the budget.
And just as a company needs competent, qualified employees as you said, shouldn't it also be staffed by competent, qualifed managers? And that's my point. Yes, manager duties include budgets, HR and other things, but they also need to have a grasp on what they are in charge of to make sure their budgets and employees' jobs are properly untilized to manage effectively. And I'm not talking about CEOs and the like, but about immediate supervisors one step above the work force.
Plus, just as job descriptions change thereby having the need to have staff reapply, so will the job descriptions and duties of the managers. What they managed in the past will certainly change with the reorganization.
Just as an employee may be marvelous in one role, he/she may not be able to cut the mustard in a new one. Granted. But if that's the justfication for making people reapply, then the same logic holds true for the managers too.
Thus my secondary question. Is what's good for the goose also good for the gander? If staff needs to reapply, why not the managers? |
|
Robert Seale, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 5:26 PM on 02.16.11 |
| ->> My link earlier was a video snippet from Office Space, where one of the employees is trying to justify his job description during a re-interview session with "the two Bobs". It now appears to be a dead link. I was trying to keep it light and meant no disrespect to the thread author. My apologies. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 5:48 PM on 02.16.11 |
->> Bradley
This demonstrates that when the workforce is less competent/trained/qualified that supervision needs a grater awareness of the work at hand. At that point they are less admistrator and more coach. They either need to know it themselves or have a training staff that does which permits them to increase their employees' qualifications. On that point I agree. That is why having succession planning and training staff (even if it is just a mentor) is critical.
The more trained and professional the work force the less detail is required of administration.
Doug
I think you have provided excellent examples of admistrators who failed because they didn't listen to or value the input of their direct reports. In none of your examples did the administrator need o know the intimate details of their employees work. They just needed to trust that they had qualified employees who knew their jobs well and what it took to succeed. The administrator must balanced the needs of the staff with certain realities...including budget constraints. They must be able to present the case for improved equipment to senior managementhfor example (hopefully including the research of their subject matter experts) andhif told no be able to communicate the reality of the situation back to staff so that they have an understanding of the bigger picture. If the work that the staff is being asked to do requires a particular piece of gear then it must be justified up the line...including the consequences of using alternatives. If the response from above is that budget does not exist for this then it must be clearly communicated that a change in expectations is likely in order.
But again that does not require the administrator to know every nuance of your job. It does require them to listen to and respect you. If that doesn't happen its simply a failure on their part. That failure can similarly happen with people that know the job well. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 5:58 PM on 02.16.11 |
->> Doug
One other point. Having a concept of what the job entails does not require that one be able to perform it themselves. Those concepts can be and must be learned. You can bring excellent leaders into organizations where they have zero experience and have them lead effectively. These leaders will learn about the nature of the work performed in their organization. Again that will require solid communication skills. My objection is to the notion that one is not qualified to supervise a function that they have not or cannot perform themselves. There are many tools which let managers gauge the effectiveness of their work groups.
When communication and respect are absent from an organization there are much bigger problems at hand. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 6:01 PM on 02.16.11 |
->> Robert
Office Space is an absolute masterpiece. I would say parody...if it wasn't so tragically true. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
David Minton, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 7:56 PM on 02.16.11 |
->> Some of the best managers of photographers that I've known have not been photographers themselves.
--Mark |
|
Doug Pizac, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 8:27 PM on 02.16.11 |
->> First Mark: I agree that managers don't need to know every nuance of what they are in charge of. But they should have to at least have some knowledge. I ran across one editor who openingly admitted she knew nothing about how photographers did their jobs, yet she was in charge. And there was another editor who didn't have the forethought to look at a map to see how long it would take his shooters to get from one assignment to another. It wasn't his responsibility; it was the photographers' to get there on time. Both were very frustrating to their staffs.
Second Mark: I absolutely agree that good managers don't necessarily have to be former photographers. In 30+ years at AP my best boss was a former newsman. While he was a word person at heart and background, he knew how to manage people, mentor, guide, trust the staff and took the time to learn what it took for his staff to do their jobs. On the opposite side, one of the worst managers I've ever had did have a photo background. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:35 PM on 02.16.11 |
->> Doug -
We aren't really that far apart as it may appear. Your example from AP is a great example of how things should work. |
|
Bradley Leeb, Photographer
|
Champaign | IL | USA | Posted: 9:00 PM on 02.16.11 |
->> Doug,
I agree very much that managers don't need to know every nuance, but they must understand that they DON'T understand. As a high school teacher, the administrators I respect the most are the ones who have been in the classroom themselves for a considerable amount of time, but who are smart enough to know that they are not experts in my curricular area. I once had a principal who told me, "You're the expert in your area, so you do whatever it is you need to do." I always appreciated his insights on teaching in general, and the fact that he felt like he had hired the best person for the job and trusted in me to do that job well. |
|
Doug Pizac, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 9:41 PM on 02.16.11 |
->> Bradley...
Exactly. I have one client who's VP brings me in to an event, tells me what he needs, and then gives me free reign to not just shoot, but also produce and direct whatever needs to be done. Why? Because as he told my photo students two weeks ago when I had him as a speaker, Doug is the expert and I pay him accordingly.
Then on the other hand I've had bosses and seen the same at other places that when they are presented with a situation or an equipment request he/she doesn't understand, the standard answer is no. And if you try to explain why, then that is interpreted as being smarter and you're in hot water for trying to show up the boss. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|