Hewlett-Packard is a company for whom my admiration lingers despite a decade and a half of strategic stumbling, communication bumbling and utter executive foolishiness.
I can't stop hoping the company's roots will save it. Bill Hewlett. Dave Packard. The HP Way—one of the first and most enduring declarations of corporate culture.
The recruiting section of HP's Web site still sings beautifully: "HP’s focus on people underlies everything we do. Being known as a great place to work makes it easier to attract top talent. For us, being a great place to work is good business. HP people live for the big idea. The next great discovery. The new way of being. ..."
The new way of being! Sweet Jesus, sign me up!
But every time I dare to hope that this company is ready to regain its onetime status as a proud and special culture ... well, something like this happens:
Last week someone in HP sent me an e-mail that went out Friday to about 170,000 U.S. employees.
***
2007 U.S. WFR Severance Changes
All Employee Communication
To: U.S. Employees
From: Marcela Perez de Alonso
Subject: U.S. Severance Program Changes
As part of HP’s ongoing review of Total Rewards programs, we are announcing several changes to the Workforce Reduction Plan for U.S. employees. These changes are designed to more closely align our program with current market practice, while continuing to provide employees with significant transition support to a new career or other opportunities outside of HP. Although the changes are not intended to coincide with any specific WFR/layoff activity, we want to be sure all U.S. employees are aware of the changes.
Changes to U.S. Severance Program
The U.S. severance program has not changed in many years, and currently exceeds what is provided by most of our industry peers and other large employers. As a result, we are making the following changes for employees notified of WFR on or after September 1, 2007.
Cash severance payments will be reduced from two weeks’ pay per year of service to one week’s pay per year of service. Payments will continue to be subject to a minimum of three months’ pay, but the maximum payout will be nine months’ pay (reduced from 12 months).
The minimum period before an employee can rejoin HP as a contingent worker will be extended to 12 months (from six months), and future opportunities to be rehired at HP into regular employment will subject to approval by a member of the HP Executive Council.
Most other features of the U.S. WFR program are not changing, including the opportunity to seek redeployment to other HP positions, the 9-week job search/salary continuation period that applies prior to termination of employment, and career transition counseling services. Vesting and exercise periods for outstanding stock awards also are not changing at this time, but will be subject to future changes.
For additional information
As mentioned above, the new Workforce Reduction Plan for U.S. employees will be more closely aligned with market practice while continuing to provide affected employees with significant transition support.
If you have any questions or need additional information regarding these changes, please see the U.S. WFR Severance Changes ... or go to Contact HR ... to submit your question.
***
So, HP: When you're recruiting peope, it's to a "great place to work." When you're shitcanning them—in a constant flow of downsizing diarrhea—it's to "market practice" standards.
The HPer who sent me the e-mail asked me whether I thought this announcement was particularly cold, whether this need for "aligment" with current market practice was a good enough reason. I replied:
"I think this e-mail is crap—I’d hope for a more detailed explanation of the financial hardship to the company and the need to reduce these severance benefits—but that said, it’s not much worse than I’d expect."
Readers, what do you think?
Comments (9)
Do lower profits = hardship?
How do you think those who get the axe (and who probably helped build the organization) feel about that bubbly recruitment copy?
Posted by Diane | August 27, 2007 11:34 AM
Posted on August 27, 2007 11:34
"Current market practice" = "we know we can cut your benefits and get away with it"
Frankly, I'm shocked that they included what the previously policies. It seems like companies usualy just announce whatever the new policy is and expect employees to figure out the difference - I suspect the hope is that employees won't remember what the old policy was. (Would most of HP's 170,000 employees know the details of the previous "workforce reduction" policy? Unlikely.)
The exception, of course, in the rare instance that a benefit is increased - then you can be sure they'll highlight the specific change to make sure they get credit for it.
Posted by Andrea S-R | August 27, 2007 1:45 PM
Posted on August 27, 2007 13:45
My impression is that they do a lot more for their employees than similar companies do, needed to cut back to save money, and ATTEMPTED to put out a fairly open memo to employees to explain it all. So far, so good--but they botched it in the execution. What an unwieldy bucket o' bad news this email is! It could hardly be worse. See, here's where writers can mean life or death to morale and goodwill.
Posted by Jane Greer | August 27, 2007 2:44 PM
Posted on August 27, 2007 14:44
Andrea, I think you're right—this does show a rare willingness to be clear about what is being taken away.
Jane, not to give you a writing exercise, but how might you write this, given the same information. Or would you frame the whole thing differently, within a broader context, in a larger announcement sharing more broadly thought-out "workforce reduction policy" for the 21st century ......
If the HR peeps who clearly crafted this asked you for your input, what would you tell 'em?
Posted by David Murray | August 27, 2007 2:48 PM
Posted on August 27, 2007 14:48
Oh, there would be lots of different ways to do it.
One way might have been to just make it a handout-style notice (it could still be an email, but maybe a .pdf) listing, in two columns, what HP offers and what the norm is for all the varieties of services. HP would look pretty damn good.
The changes that seem to be the point of this email should be near but not at the bottom, and could could be asterisked, or in red---just something to catch employees' eyes without making the changes the whole point of the memo.
Then at the bottom, a short explanation of WHY the benefits were cut--something better than "because it's current market practice." Maybe cutting the severance packages will help HP avoid layoffs. Whatever--just say it.
And don't be talkin' all HR to me when you're talkin' about (a) firing me and (b) paying me less when you do it.
Posted by Jane Greer | August 27, 2007 4:26 PM
Posted on August 27, 2007 16:26
I'm with Jane on this. It looks to me like someone gave the whole "transparency" thing a shot, but didn't QUITE make it off the ground. Don't BS us with "market practice" tell us the truth even if it sucks, i.e. we can't afford to lose as much on severance as we have been and stay profitable, so we're reducing what we were giving, but it is still above what our industry/sector, or whatever is doing.
I also like Jane's suggestion of actually SHOWING what "our peers" are giving so it is crystal clear we ARE in fact still above the norm. Taking something away, especially while you're losing your job will never be positively received, but just a bit more specific info about the why's and wherefores would have at least been less "PR-speakish" and more human, at a time when humanity would be very much appreciated. I know this from personal experience.
Posted by Kristen | August 27, 2007 4:48 PM
Posted on August 27, 2007 16:48
Amen, sistah!
Posted by Jane Greer | August 27, 2007 5:24 PM
Posted on August 27, 2007 17:24
I'd make a few other changes.
• I'd divorce the severance package from the "Total Rewards" program.
• I'd explain why we're extending minimum period after which the employee can return as a contingency worker.
• I'd also explain why the "HP Executive Council" has to now review all rehires.
But yes, I'm coming to see that this wasn't a particularly bureaucratic e-mail, but rather a particularly clear one with a few execeptions.
I suppose we can only hope—here we go again—that HP's Workforce Reduction Program (WRP) results in a healthier HP.
By the way, the person who sent me this e-mail said she was in the office the afternoon it was received and "didn't hear a single peep about it—not even a hallway whisper session."
Posted by David Murray | August 28, 2007 7:26 AM
Posted on August 28, 2007 07:26
• I'd also explain why the "HP Executive Council" has to now review all rehires.
Seems like they should have better things to do.
Posted by Diane | August 28, 2007 11:41 AM
Posted on August 28, 2007 11:41