d59KNYm

158 SNAKES IN SUITS
staff just to maintain their financial position. A larger number of
people were put out of work than in previous times. While many seasoned
businesses downsize, knowing that the human impact is often
dramatic and the business decision is sometimes precarious, others
do so out of fear, placing the human impact lower on the list of issues
to be managed. A few companies merge simply for short-term financial
gain with little understanding of, or concern for, the fact that
their decisions dramatically affect the people who work for them and
the long-term viability of their companies.
Clearly, major changes can be successfully implemented if they
take place over a reasonable amount of time and the frustrations they
create are effectively managed. They can breathe new life into a stagnant
situation, reenergize everyone to work toward a new vision of
the future, and create opportunities where none existed before. But
during the unstable period of the 1980s and 1990s, too many things
changed, seemingly all at once, with little time to build supporting
policies, procedures, and systems before the next changes came
about. In contrast to old-style bureaucratic organizations that were
built on stability, consistency, and predictability, the new transitional
organizations were forced to give up these “luxuries,” having to become
more fluid in the face of an unstable, inconsistent, and unpredictable
future. In order to survive, many management processes had
to be dismantled because they were no longer effective (or efficient),
and supporting them with time and energy could no longer be justified.
Organizations got “flatter” as middle management positions
were eliminated in an effort to streamline decision making. Support
services were outsourced or moved entirely out of the region to save
time and money and reduce the number of headaches. This degree
of change did not allow leaders to maintain the same commitments
to long-term employment as their predecessors. A dwindling workforce
was being asked to do more with less, or else join their colleagues
who lost their jobs. At some point along the way, the concept
of the “psychological contract” was challenged, and it eventually
gave way to a world where the employee-employer relationship was