雇主裁員“新三十六計(jì)”

James Evans enjoyed his job as head of human resources at a UK property company. But when that company was taken over in 2015, things changed.

詹姆斯•埃文思(James Evans)很享受自己在一家英國房地產(chǎn)公司的人力資源總監(jiān)工作。但是當(dāng)公司在2015年被收購之后，情況發(fā)生了變化。

Mr Evans (not his real name) says his new managers gave his private office to a colleague, removed his company car and excluded him from meetings.

埃文思(化名)表示，新老板們將他的私人辦公室給了一位同事，收走了公司派給他的車，還不讓他參加高管會議。

The 41-year-old, who eventually signed a confidentiality agreement with a pay-off to leave the company, believes his new managers did this to free his role for one of their own top executives. Because of the agreement, he does not want to give his real name.

這位41歲的人力資源總監(jiān)認(rèn)為這是新老板想把他趕走，從而將職位留給他們的“自己人”。埃文思最終簽署了保密協(xié)議，拿了一次性補(bǔ)償離開了這家公司。他由于簽署了保密協(xié)議而不便透露真實(shí)姓名。

“The aim was to make me feel so undervalued and humiliated” that he would go of his own accord, he says. “It was hard to take.”

他說，“目的是讓我覺得受到輕視和羞辱，從而讓我自己主動離職。這讓人難以接受。”

Mr Evans was likely to have been “managed out”, a process that companies sometimes turn to as an alternative to redundancy programmes and as a way of selecting those employees they would like to lose. In the UK and the US, where the process is sometimes known as “counselling out”, it involves persuading an employee that it would be in their interests to leave, often with a reasonable financial settlement thrown in.

埃文思很可能被“管理出門”(managed out)了，企業(yè)有時將其當(dāng)作裁員計(jì)劃的替代選擇，或是讓他們不想要的員工走人的一種方式。在英國和美國(美國有時稱這個過程為“輔導(dǎo)離職”(counselling out))，它涉及說服一名雇員相信離職將符合他們的利益，往往伴隨一份合理的財(cái)務(wù)補(bǔ)償協(xié)議。

Employment law varies from country to country, but in England, for example, employees have a legal right not to be dismissed unfairly. Yet there are ways for employers to get rid of staff and stay within the law.

各國就業(yè)法有所不同，但在英格蘭，雇員擁有不被不公平裁員的法律權(quán)利。然而，雇主有辦法在不違法的前提下趕走員工。

Many business leaders believe it is a good time for organisations to become leaner, given the uncertainty companies face from political forces, such as the UK’s vote to leave the EU. A quarter of British companies said they had plans to freeze recruitment as their clients put projects on hold, according to a 2016 poll by the Institute of Directors in the UK. Just 5 per cent planned to cut jobs. In the US, some companies are scrutinising staffing levels in the face of increased healthcare insurance costs, according to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

許多企業(yè)老板認(rèn)為，鑒于英國退歐公投等政治因素所帶來的不確定性，現(xiàn)在是企業(yè)瘦身的好時機(jī)。英國董事學(xué)會(Institute of Directors)在2016年的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查中發(fā)現(xiàn)，四分之一的英國公司表示，它們計(jì)劃凍結(jié)招聘，因?yàn)樗鼈兊目蛻粼跀R置項(xiàng)目。只有5%的公司計(jì)劃裁員。紐約聯(lián)邦儲備銀行(Federal Reserve Bank of New York)的一份報(bào)告顯示，在美國，一些公司因面臨醫(yī)保成本上升而從嚴(yán)把握雇員編制水平。

“I am always looking for people I can manage out,” says a vice-president at the UK headquarters of a US multinational financial services company, who did not give her name because she is not authorised to speak to journalists.

美國一家跨國金融服務(wù)公司英國總部的一位副總裁表示：“我總是尋找我能管理出門的人。”她由于沒有獲得與記者交談的授權(quán)而不愿透露自己的姓名。

“Redundancies are a huge hassle and we did so much of this after the financial crisis that we are not doing these big programmes any more. But profits are not great . . . If I can get my team of 300 down to 250, my boss will love me.”

“裁員非常麻煩，我們在金融危機(jī)后裁掉了很多人，因此我們不再想大規(guī)模裁員了。但利潤實(shí)在不怎么樣……如果我能讓自己300人的團(tuán)隊(duì)縮減至250人，我的上司會喜歡我的。”

How can you tell if you are being managed out? Here is a guide to some of the methods employers may use.

如何分辨出自己正被“管理出門”?這里是雇主們可能使用的一些方法。

Performance improvement plans

業(yè)績改善計(jì)劃

If an employee is underperforming, managers and human resources departments often put them on improvement plans. But in a managing-out scheme designed to encourage an employee to leave, some companies use PIPs to ensure the unwanted person has little chance of redeeming themselves.

如果一個雇員業(yè)績欠佳，經(jīng)理和人力資源部門往往會把他們納入改善計(jì)劃。但在一個旨在鼓勵雇員離職的管理出門計(jì)謀中，一些公司使用業(yè)績改善計(jì)劃來確保他們不想要的人沒機(jī)會挽救自己。

Cynthia Shapiro, a US-based human resources director turned career coach, says this approach is common in the US.

職業(yè)發(fā)展顧問辛西婭•夏皮羅(Cynthia Shapiro)表示，這種做法在美國很普遍。夏皮羅曾經(jīng)是一名常駐美國的人力資源總監(jiān)。

“They’ll give you huge deadlines that you couldn’t possibly achieve then they’ll write in a file that you’re not hitting your targets, and make it look like you’re not doing your job.”

“他們會給你分配你根本不可能在規(guī)定期限內(nèi)完成的工作，隨后他們會在檔案中說你沒有完成目標(biāo)，并且說得好像你沒有干工作似的。”

Mike Phipps, of London consultancy Politics at Work, says similar tactics can occur in the UK. “I hear about [companies] setting unreasonable objectives they know the employee will never reach, so that it [the performance management process] has built-in failure.”

倫敦咨詢公司Politics at Work的邁克•菲普斯(Mike Phipps)表示，英國公司也會使出類似手段。“我聽說(有公司)制定了不合理的目標(biāo)，他們知道雇員永遠(yuǎn)不可能實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)，也就是說(業(yè)績管理過程)內(nèi)置了失敗。”

He adds that employees sometimes cry foul at such processes and threaten legal action, which in turn often prompts their employers to offer financial settlements.

他補(bǔ)充稱，雇員有時抗議此類過程純屬刁難，并威脅采取法律行動，這往往促使雇主提供財(cái)務(wù)補(bǔ)償。

Peter Davis (not his real name), a UK further education lecturer, recalls being managed out in this way. He says his bosses told him: “There were two situations — either I’d leave with a pay-off and a reference, or they would put me through [a performance management process], which I would fail.”

英國繼續(xù)教育講師彼得•戴維斯(Peter Davis)(化名)回憶起自己曾被這種方式管理出門。他說，上司告訴他，有兩條出路，一是讓他拿上一次性補(bǔ)償和推薦信走人，二是把他納入一個肯定過不了關(guān)的業(yè)績管理過程。

The big chill

寒心

This method involves making someone unhappy at work. It can be “the most psychologically damaging” of all ways of persuading someone to leave, says Ms Shapiro. “They do a celebratory dinner but you’re not invited, [or] you’re not invited to meetings.” The freeze can be subtle and difficult for the employee to discuss without seeming paranoid.

這種方法涉及讓人們在工作中不開心。夏皮羅表示，在所有讓人離職的方式中，這可能是“最讓人心理受傷的”。“他們舉行了慶祝晚宴，但你沒有收到邀請，(或者)你也沒有被邀請參加會議。”這種冷落是可能細(xì)微的，雇員要拿到臺面上討論的話，很難不被視為偏執(zhí)。

Examples may include giving someone’s office rival a high-profile assignment or customer account that they would have expected to handle themselves. Karen Seward, employment partner at Allen & Overy, a law firm, says employers hope the unwanted employee will “get the message and they’ll get another job”.

比如說，給某人的辦公室競爭對手分配搶眼的任務(wù)，或他們原本希望處理的客戶賬戶。安理國際律師事務(wù)所(Allen & Overy)的就業(yè)事務(wù)合伙人卡連•蘇厄德(Karen Seward)表示，雇主們希望他們不想要的雇員將會“接到信息，進(jìn)而另謀高就。”

The approach can backfire if the employee threatens legal action. As in Mr Evans’s case, a financial settlement is sometimes offered in return for keeping quiet about what happened.

如果雇員威脅采取法律行動，這種做法可能產(chǎn)生反效果。就像埃文斯的遭遇一樣，雇主有時會提供財(cái)務(wù)補(bǔ)償以息事寧人。

The ‘headhunt’

“獵頭”

This is possibly the most sophisticated and humane solution. Some managers ask trusted headhunters to approach an unwanted executive for a more suitable role. “It’s very flattering for the individual, but the bait could have been set by their manager,” says Mr Phipps.

這可能是最世故且有人情味的解決方案。一些經(jīng)理讓他們信任的獵頭為其不想要的高管安排更適合的職位。菲普斯表示：“這讓相關(guān)個人非常得意，但其實(shí)可能是他們的經(jīng)理設(shè)下的誘餌。”

The ‘redundancy’

“裁員”

A conventional redundancy process involves removing roles that a company cannot keep. For the employee, “it is a no-fault process”, says Ms Seward.

傳統(tǒng)的裁員過程包括消除公司無法保留的職位。蘇厄德表示，對雇員來說，“這是一個無過失過程”。

Yet some employers may use the language of redundancy — such as a role being “no longer required” — to get rid of a person rather than a position. An employer may not recruit another person to that vacancy immediately, but may do so eventually, perhaps giving it a different title.

然而，一些雇主可能會使用裁員的語言——比如“不再需要”某個職位——來解雇某人，而不是取消職位。雇主可能不會立即招聘另一人填補(bǔ)空缺，但最終會招人，或者給這個職位起個新名。

Employees who believe they were made redundant in this way may not find legal recourse easy.

認(rèn)為自己被以這種方式解雇的雇員發(fā)現(xiàn)，訴諸法律并不容易。

William Dawson, head of the senior executive practice at Farrer & Co, a UK law firm, says a British employee would need a “smoking gun” to prove that the company’s decision was unfair, such as an email stating the redundancy was designed to remove them, not their role.

英國律所Farrer & Co的高管事務(wù)主管威廉•道森(William Dawson)表示，英國雇員將需要“確鑿證據(jù)”證明公司的決定是不公平的，比如一份電子郵件宣告裁員的目的是趕走他們，而非取消他們的職位。

The protected conversation

受保護(hù)的談話

In the UK since 2013, employment legislation has allowed managers to hold “protected conversations” with staff that can lead to departures without a risk of a claim for unfair dismissal.

在英國，自2013年以來，就業(yè)法律允許經(jīng)理們與員工舉行“受保護(hù)的談話”，這可以讓公司在不用擔(dān)心遭受不公平指控的情況下裁員。

“Those conversations are increasingly used as a convenient and informal mechanism of managing people out,” Ms Seward says. “Managers will say things like, ‘We could adopt a formal process, but we’d rather treat you with a bit more respect.’”

蘇厄德表示：“那些談話日益被用作管理人們出門的便利和非正式機(jī)制。經(jīng)理們會說這樣的話，‘我們可以走一個正式的過程，但我們寧愿對你更尊重一些。’”

The employee does not have to agree, Ms Seward says. But they tend to receive a payout. Unfair as this may be, it is hard to stay where you are not welcome.

蘇厄德說，雇員并不是非要同意。但他們往往得到補(bǔ)償。盡管這可能不公平，但你很難繼續(xù)呆在不受歡迎的地方。