downsizing in the irish local government sector. lessons learned or forgotten
TRANSCRIPT
Downsizing in the Irish local government sector
Lessons learned or forgotten
________________
Ruaidhri McLoughlin
Msc. Strategy, Innovation and People Management
Department of Management
National University of Ireland, Galway
2013
Downsizing in the Irish local government sector
Lessons learned or forgotten.
Ruaidhri McLoughlin
09621814
MSc in Strategy, Innovation and People Management
National University of Ireland, Galway. Faculty of Commerce
Department of Management
July 2013
Head of Department: Dr. Tony Dundon
Research Supervisor: Dr. Alma McCarthy
I hereby certify that this material, which I now submit for assessment on the
programme of study leading to the award of Master of Business Studies (Strategy,
Innovation and People Management) is entirely my own work and has not been taken
from the work of others save to the extent that such work has been cited and
acknowledged within the text of my work.
Word Count: 12,324
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following for their assistance with my research for this
dissertation.
The HR Division of the Department of the Environment, Community and
Local Government for making available data on employee numbers across the
sector.
The Local Government Management Association (LGMA) and the Office of
Local Authority Management (OLAM) for making data available on age
profiles across the local authorities sector.
The Local Government HR officers network for participating in the
questionnaires survey.
The CCMA through OLAM for making available copies of its progress reports
to the Minister of the Environment, Community and Local Government on the
Implementation of the Local Government Efficiency Review Report 2010
My Family and College Colleagues for the continuous support throughout the
academic year.
All the academic staff with whom I worked with during my time in NUIG.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements III
List of Tables, Figures and Appendices VI
Abstract 1
Chapter 1: Background & Research Objectives 2
Chapter 2: Literature Review 7
2.1 Downsizing defined 7
2.2 Financial Outcomes 7
2.3 Human Consequences 8
2.4 Organisational Capacity 10
2.5 Distribution of impacts 12
2.6 Preparing for downsizing 13
2.7 Communication 14
2.8 Leadership 15
Chapter 3: Research Methods 17
Chapter 4: Research Findings 20
Quantitative Research Findings 20
4.1 Sectoral Workforce Reductions 20
4.2 Distribution of Workforce Reductions 21
iv
4.3 CCMA - LGER Progress Report 22
4.4 National Service Indicator Reports 24
4.5 OLAM Report on workforce demographics 25
Qualitative Research Findings 28
Chapter 5: Discussion of Findings 40
5.1 Overview 40
5.2 Positive Outcomes 40
5.3 Uneven distribution of impacts 40
5.4 Capacity considerations 41
5.5 Workforce Planning 42
5.6 Staff Morale and related impacts 42
5.7 Doing more with less 42
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations 44
Bibliography 46
v
List of Tables, Figures & Appendices
Table 1 - Sectoral Reductions 2008-2012 20
Table 2 – Staff reductions by County 21
Table 3 - Payroll Expenditure 2008 to 2012 22
Table 4 - Local Authority Staffing Reduction Efficiencies 2010 to 2011 23
Table 5: Service Indicators 2008- 2012 24
Table 6: % of all staff by Age Category 25
Table 7: Outdoor Staff Profile 26
Table 8: Clerical/Admin Staff Profile 26
Table 9: Professional/Technical Staff Profile 27
Table 10: Age Profile of All Staff Categories 27
Figure 1: Growth in Public Sector Numbers 2
Figure 2: Percentage reduction in staff 2008-2012 by Public Sector function 5
Figure 3: Sectoral Breakdown of Total Public Service Numbers 5
Figure 4: % of all staff by Age Category 25
Figure 5: Outdoor Staff Profile 26
Figure 6: Clerical/Admin Staff Profile 26
Figure 7: Professional/Technical Staff Profile 27
Appendix A: HR Officers Network Survey 49
Appendix B: County by County Reduction by Discipline 54
Appendix C: Personal Learning Reflection 59
vi
Downsizing in the Irish local government sector
Lessons learned or forgotten.
Abstract
One of the principle responses of the Irish government to the economic crisis in the post 2008 period was a programme of downsizing and pay reductions across the public sector.
In this context, the local government sector, which represents 10% of the overall public sector, reduced its workforce by 24% in the period 2008- 2012. This reduction of 9,000 staff is the most significant of any sector proportionally. It has undoubtedly given rise to substantial pay savings which have been widely reported but little, if any, commentary has been made regarding the collateral consequences. A literature review of downsizing outcomes across the public and private sectors, while far from conclusive, suggests potential negative outcomes. Loss of institutional memory, poor morale and motivation among remaining employees, reduced service quality, the uneven distribution of job losses, resultant workforce demographics and associated capacity issues are among the unintended consequences cited. This analysis seeks to establish if such consequences have arisen in the local government sector resulting from the downsizing, if there is an awareness of the issues and looks at potential elements of a strategy which should be considered within the sector or across the public sector generally to counteract these difficulties.
1
Chapter 1: Background & Research Objectives
The background to this study is the Irish economic crisis dating from early 2008, at
which time the domestic economy experienced an annual GDP decline of 15% from
its peak in 2007. At that time, the initial response of the Irish Government was
principally in the area of expenditure reduction and revenue raising measures
primarily through a corrective budget in October 2008, further reductions in February
2009 and a supplementary budget in April 2009. Notwithstanding these measures,
gross current spending reached €62 billion in 2009, an increase of €5 billion or 8.9%
over 2008. The gap between spending and revenue in 2009 was €20 billion. (Mc
Carthy, 2009)
In addition to its budgetary response, the Minister for Finance established the ‘Special
Group of Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes’, chaired by Colm
McCarthy, which published its report in July 2009. The group, in keeping with its
mandate, focused in particular on the Public Sector pay bill which stood at €19.8
billion or 35% of overall expenditure. Public service numbers in the period 1998-2009
had increased 95,947 or 43%, while in the same period, the Local Government sector
increased by 8,507 or 32%. (See Figure 1 Source: Ireland: Department of Finance)
Figure 1: Growth in Public Sector Numbers
2
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
26,500 26,900 27,400 29,090 32,062 34,175 33,845 33,394 34,067 34,681 34,987 35,007
222,013 226,307 233,078247,343
269,799279,274 279,609 284,787 292,129
304,512 312,131 317,960
Local Authorities Public Service
In an effort to reduce public sector numbers, the Government had already introduced a
number of initiatives, including:
A moratorium on the filling of vacancies by recruitment or promotion. In the
Local Government sector, this was directed through circular letter LG (P)
14/97 on the 27th of March 2009. The moratorium had limited exceptions for
staff working in the areas of health and safety, emergency services or staff
requirements arising from a court decision.
An Incentivised Early Retirement Scheme (ISER) was introduced to facilitate
the early exit of staff between 50 and 60 years of age, with no actuarial
reduction of their pension entitlements. Circular EL 5/09 on the 13th of May
2009 deals with this initiative.
A special incentivised career break scheme was also introduced to facilitate
public servants taking a career break for up to three years.
In addition to the foregoing initiatives, the McCarthy report (2009, p.13)
recommended initial reductions in public service numbers of 17,300 which were to be
achieved through ‘a commitment to the non-replacement of staff and the down-sizing
of the public service’. The report projected estimated savings of €5.3 billion.
In the context of the 2010 budget, the Government announced its intention to
commission an efficiency review of the Local Government sector. The Efficiency
Review Group issued its report in July 2010, setting out a series of recommendations
aimed at reducing staff numbers with projected savings of €94 million annually, if
fully implemented. The proposed measures included a reduction of between 15 and 30
per cent among middle and senior managers, with further reductions of 10% in such
areas as corporate services, planning and outdoor staff.
These proposed staff reductions and the associated restructuring and rationalisation
needed for their implementation required industrial peace and staff cooperation. The
Public Service Pay Agreement 2010-2014, otherwise known as ‘The Croke Park
Agreement’, was negotiated between the government and public sector unions as a
means of safeguarding the jobs of those not wishing to retire in return for pay
reductions and changes in work practices. The agreement saw public servants accept a
3
pay decrease and pension levy, averaging 14%, in return for security of tenure, i.e. no
statutory redundancies. These pay reductions were subsequently implemented with
the passing of the emergency measures in the Public Interest Act 2009. The agreement
also introduced a redeployment mechanism, whereby surplus staff could be
redeployed across the public sector within a radius of 45 kilometres.
In November 2010, Ireland availed of a programme of support from the EU
Commission and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in conjunction with the
European Central Bank, subject to significant commitments with regard to financial
constraint.
By the time the Government published the National Recovery Plan 2011-2014, it was
able to confirm the public service pay bill had been reduced by over €1.4 billion in
2010 over 2009 and public service staff reductions of over 12,000 since the end of
2008. Notwithstanding this progress, the Government increased its target of public
sector number reductions to 24,750 up to the end of 2014. In order to achieve this, the
government established an employment control framework within which each sector
was given year-on-year targets for staff reductions. In the case of Local Authorities,
the targeted reduction between 2008 and 2014 was 5,000.
The foregoing is the context for the public sector downsizing in the period since 2008.
Hereafter the focus of this study is on the Local Government sector which, in the
period June 2008 to December 2012, reduced its workforce by 8,937 or 24.2%
(CCMA, p.25), which greatly exceeds the employment control framework target
referred to earlier of 5,000 to 2014.
In addition to greatly exceeding its target, department of Public Expenditure and
Reform figures confirm that the Local Government sector has incurred the highest
proportionate staffing reduction of any one sector in the public service. Figure 2
(CCMA p.22) shows the range of staff reductions across the public sector. Taken in
conjunction with Figure 3 (DPER, 2013) which shows the sectoral breakdown of total
public service numbers, the disproportionate burden absorbed by local authorities is
clearly visible. In effect the sector achieved double what might be considered
proportionate relative to its size.
4
Education Sector Civil Service Health Sector Defence Sector Justice Sector NCSA Local Authorities-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
-4.548-7.588 -8.574
-11.41-14.91
-18.18 -19.14
Figure 2: Percentage reduction in staff 2008-2012 by Public Sector function
Figure 3: Sectoral Breakdown of Total Public Service Numbers
5
10.18%
34.68%
31.22%
12.30%
8.01% 3.61%
Sectoral Breakdown of Total Public Service Numbers Including Local Authorities 2012
Local AuthoritiesHealthEducationCivil ServiceSecurityNon-Comm. State Bodies
The fundamental objective of this study is to identify the sectoral and organisational
impacts of this significant downsizing of the Local Government sector, which clearly
exceeded initial targets set as part of the employment control framework. The analysis
which follows seeks to examine these impacts in the context of information published
from experience elsewhere, across the public and private sectors. This learning is
supplemented by the contempory views of practising HR professionals from within
the local government sector. Thereafter, the lessons learned, or not, are used to
inform recommendations for further research and workforce planning in the Local
Government sector into the future.
6
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Downsizing defined
The definitions, drivers and perceived outcomes of downsizing vary substantially
depending on context, but are primarily associated with job reductions, reducing costs
and increasing competitiveness. Cascio (1993) as cited in Gandolfi (2008, p.4) defines
downsizing as ‘the planned eliminations of positions or jobs’ while Farrell &
Movondo (2004) as cited in Gandolfi (2008, p.5) suggest that downsizing is primarily
focused on ‘increased levels of efficiency, productivity, profitability and
competitiveness’. This is a view shared by Freeman & Cameron (1993) as cited by
Sahdev and Vinnicombe (1998) which suggests that downsizing is not just about
employees but may also relate to the shrinking of assets and capital. Drew (1994) as
cited in Gandolfi (2009) identified drivers of downsizing programmes as being related
to specific macroeconomic, industry or company situations. In this latter regard, some
researchers have associated employee downsizing with deliberate management
intentions at increasing organisational efficiency and productivity, with the sole
purpose of increasing profitability (Schmitt, Borzillo & Probst, 2011). Ryan and
Macky (1998) as cited in Gandolfi (2008, p.4) explain downsizing as ‘a reactive
response to organisational bankruptcy or recession’, which may be closer to the
context of this particular study.
2.2 Financial Outcomes
Notwithstanding the clear intention of improved performance, financial or otherwise,
results have not always been favourable. Gandolfi (2008, p.5) is blunt in his
assessment that ‘unequivocally, the overall picture of the reported financial effects of
downsizing is bleak’. Burke and Greenglass (2000) as cited in Gandolfi (2009, p.418)
indicate that ‘downsizing efforts have shown to produce financial results that are
dismal and economic consequences that are devastating’. Cameron, Freeman, Mishra
(1991); Knox (1992) as cited by Sahdev & Vinnicombe (1998, p.2) confirm that
studies aimed at proving the relationship between downsizing and financial
7
improvement have consistently confirmed that ‘the envisaged bottom line
improvements do not translate into a reality’. The National Performance Review
(1997, p.4) refers to a research project involving 531 large companies conducted in
1993 which revealed that, although over half the companies surveyed ‘achieved their
goal of reducing costs and expenses, less than half achieved their goals of increased
profitability’.
In summary, the prevailing message from the literature review is that downsizing
exercises aimed at financial improvements have not always had the desired effect.
2.3 Human Consequences
A significant amount of literature has been devoted to the human impacts and
consequences of organisational downsizing. Hamel & Prahland (1994) as cited in
Sahdev and Vinnicombe (1998, p.3) have identified these consequences as being
directly related to the additional responsibilities taken on by employees who do not
have ‘any formal training or practical experience’. They indicate that staff are
expected to take on a range of additional tasks involving increased workload and the
need for increased flexibility at a time when there is ‘increased job insecurity’. The
OECD (2010a) as cited in OECD (2011, p.81) refers to the serious detrimental effects
on the ‘public service in terms of morale, capacity and trust which can almost never
be implemented smoothly’. References are made to three categories of employees
directly impacted by downsizing. Managers who carry out the downsizing are
sometimes referred to as the executioner (Downs, 1995), while the victim is the
person who is downsized (Kettley, 1995) and the person who remains on in the firm is
termed a survivor (Littler, 1998) all cited in Gandolfi (2009).
Of these three categories, the most attention in literature is reserved for the ‘survivor
syndrome’. Kinnie, Hutchinson & Purcell (1998) identified survivor symptoms,
including increased levels of stress, absenteeism, and distrust, as well as decreased
levels of work quality, morale and productivity. Cascio (1993) argues that the
survivor syndrome is characterised by decreased levels of morale, employee
involvement, work productivity, and trust towards management. Lecky (1998) reports
8
that the survivor syndrome manifests itself in negative morale, decreased employee
commitment, and increased concern about job security, all cited in Gandolfi (2008).
Downsizing studies have indicated the existence of a range of emotions, behaviours
and attitudes among survivors which have become known as ‘sicknesses’ (Gandolfi
2009, p.419). Brockner (1988) as cited in Gandolfi (2009, p.419) claims that
downsizing creates a ‘variety of psychological states in survivors, namely, guilt,
positive inequity, anger, relief and job insecurity’.
Greenglass & Burke (2001) as cited in Gandolfi (2008) indicate strong evidence of
adverse psychological effects among those who lose their jobs including: ill health,
family problems, reduced self-esteem, depression, anxiety and feelings of social
isolation.
Many of these human aspects have been associated with both equity and justice
theory. Robinson (1995) as cited in Armstrong-Stassen (1998, p.311) found that when
employees expectations around equity are not met, they felt that their employer ‘had
violated their psychological contract’, resulting in a breach of trust. Datta et al. (2009,
p.308) referred to the importance of procedural and distributive justice in maintaining
the trust of employees noting that breaches of trust will give rise to ‘perceptions of
procedural injustice and unfairness likely to magnify negative reactions and be
manifested in reduced employee commitment and undesired behaviour and
outcomes’. Hunter, O’Neill and Wallen (1986, p.3) agrees that initial plans for
increased productivity go awry as employees are asked to work harder, but get caught
up in a ‘blame game’ resulting in a drop in quality ‘which in turn means more rework
and discouragement for the frontline workers’.
The behaviour and attitude of surviving employees is critical to the future success of
the organisation. In this context, where morale is severely affected and employee’s
feel that trust is broken down, there is a distinct possibility that this ‘could reduce the
employees’ willingness to apply their retained knowledge to present decisions’
(Schmitt, Borzillo & Probst, 2011, p.58). Hopkins & Weathington (2006) as cited in
Schmitt, Borzillo & Probst (2011) agree that breach of trust may destroy employees’
commitment while Cohen & Bacdayan (1994) and Dougherty & Bowman (1995) as
cited in Schmitt, Borzillo & Probst (2011, p.66) refer to affected employee behaviour
9
as ‘destroying access to individual or collective memory’ which can give rise to
inefficiencies as well as reduced collaboration and creativity.
While the immediate consequences of staff morale and mistrust with management
may be felt in the context of reduced productivity, there are also implications for the
organisation in terms of ‘its reputation as an employer and its ability to attract good
people’ (OECD, 2011, p.104).
2.4 Organisational Capacity
Organisation capacity, in this instance, refers to the capacity of employees remaining
post-downsizing to continue to support the organisation in maintaining productivity,
market share, and product innovation or public service delivery. The OECD (2011)
refers to the loss of institutional memory, which occurs as a result of downsizing, and
this normally manifests itself in increased work backlogs. The National Performance
Review (1997, p.12) highlighted, among the principle lessons learned, the falloff in
productivity and quality as ‘the same workload is redistributed among the survivors
rather than rethought and reconfigured’. The same study also highlighted occurrences
where substantial downsizing gave rise to subsequent cost increases in the context of
overtime, contracting for employee replacement and the use of temporary staff.
The Benchmarking study also makes the interesting note that the knowledge and
experience, which departing employees take with them, has an impact beyond the
organisation in terms of the valuable contacts these employees would have made in
the business world. Schmitt, Borzillo & Probst (2011, p.59) take up this point in
making reference to the loss of valuable knowledge gained through the social
networking of individuals. They cite a study by Massingham (2008) which made the
distinction between loss of ‘organisational knowledge through human experience,
social knowledge created through social networks and relational capital acquired
through organisations outside collaborations’. It is suggested that the combined effect
of these considerations where substantial downsizing occurs is to ‘profoundly disrupt
established procedures, routines and organisational culture’ (Schmitt, Borzillo &
Probst, 2011, p59). They also refer to the importance of retained knowledge in terms
of the influence on the interpretation of newly acquired information. The essence of
10
this point is that the more important the employees’ were to the centrality of the
organisations operational behaviour and culture, the greater the potential of the impact
in terms of future culture and external relationships.
In the same vein, Fisher & White (2000) as cited in Schmitt, Borzillo and Probst
(2011) point out that organisations must be viewed as a collection of individuals but
that individual knowledge may not be shared collectively. Information and knowledge
is shared through collaboration and multiple inter-relationships created through social
interactions. The loss of individuals that are fundamental to these collaborative
processes effectively breaks up these inter-relationships with detrimental
consequences for the flow of information within and between organisations.
Voluntary downsizing tends to give rise to losing the wrong people when they are
most needed. Scott-Douglas (2009, p.6) is critical of the generosity of departure
packages which encouraged highly trained technical staff to leave rather than being
transferred to other areas where they were needed. He also points out that ‘too many
young professionals left, compounding the systemic problem of the ageing of the
workforce’.
Rama (1999) notes a similar problem with what he calls ‘voluntary separation
programmes’. He points out that, in the public sector particularly, the best workers
with the best prospects are first to leave with obvious consequences for productivity.
This is referred to by Benest (2005) as the classic ‘productivity paradox’. He suggests
that during downsizing processes, organisations need a boost in employee
productivity to overcome fewer resources but, in many cases, productivity simply
takes a nosedive.
In the context of the downsizing process being examined as part of this study, a
general recruitment freeze was one of the principal instruments used. The OECD
(2011, p.80) notes that recruitment freezes of this nature ‘tend to create problems with
the structure, allocation and skills base that can take a long time to repair’. It also
noted that recruitment freezes ‘restrict the injection of new skills into the workforce
and so creates skills gaps that will effects elsewhere unless remedial action is taken’.
All of the foregoing is neatly summarised by Horstein (2009, p.1) who states that
‘downsizing risks handicapping and damaging the learning capacity of organisations.
11
Further given that downsizing is associated with cutting costs; downsizing firms may
provide less training for their employees, recruit less externally and reduce the
research and development budget. Consequently, downsizing could hallow out the
firms skills capacity’. In this context, it is little wonder that in some cases, downsizing
has been referred to as ‘dumbsizing’ (Bedeian & Armenakis, 1998 as cited by
Schmitt, Borzillo & Probst, 2011).
2.5 Distribution of impacts
The nature and range of potential impacts on organisational capacity as outlined
clearly indicates the unintended nature of these consequences which, if
predetermined, would surely have not been allowed to happen. Scott-Douglas (2009)
refers to the significant contractual support which followed downsizing and remained
unmonitored to the extent that it partly camouflaged the impacts of the departure of
highly trained technical staff. This point is also echoed by the National Performance
Review (1997) which pointed to the need for contractors and temporary employees to
cover for gaps due to the uneven distribution of job cuts.
Under the title ‘Downsizing is Rough’, Olson, Seymour & Weaver (2004, p.11) point
out that ‘attrition doesn’t necessarily occur in the departments or positions that you
want it to’. They point to a common mistake whereby organisations, on the basis of
poorly informed principles of equity, impose staff reductions equally across all
departments. This pursuit of fairness is erroneous because workloads and job
assignments were already uneven prior to the downsizing process.
The OECD (2011, p.80), in dealing with the issue of recruitment freezes, points out
that ‘the nature of attrition and non-replacement of departing staff is such that
organisations cannot control which post will be left vacant and which organisations
will be most affected. That depends largely on the organisations age structure and
previous recruitment patterns’.
The distributional impacts of downsizing are sometimes covered up by rehiring as
referred to earlier. Schmitt, Borzillo & Probst (2011) give a number of examples such
as the Charles Schwab Corp. which, in the aftermath of the ‘dot-com’ crisis, offered a
$7,500 bonus for any previously downsizing employee rehired within eighteen
months of the layoffs. They also refer to a study by the American Management
12
Association which revealed that one third of companies, engaged in downsizing,
subsequently rehire the same employees as contractors because of a continuing need
for their skills set.
2.6 Preparing for downsizing
With the benefit of hindsight, many of the studies refer to a lack of basic preparation,
workforce planning and inadequate training and support as contributing significantly
to the detrimental impacts of downsizing programmes. In the same way as companies
do not do enough to assist survivors, Amundson, et al. (2004, p.256) state that most
companies ‘do little to prepare their employees for reductions in their numbers’. The
National Performance Review (1997, p.11) places a heavy emphasis on the need for
advanced strategic planning, pointing out that ‘implementing downsizing without
reviewing the fundamental mission processes, services and products of the
organisation can result in fewer people available to do the same amount of work’.
The lack of preparation, including the absence of adequate policies, programmes and
HR plans, is also raised by authors such as Lee (1992), Cascio (1993) and Gandolfi
(2001) as cited Gandolfi (2008). Cameron (1994) as cited in Gandolfi (2008, p.12)
gave the example of a successful downsizing programme carried out by an American
firm, where a new HR plan had been prepared and embraced by all employees, one
year prior to the announcement of downsizing. Gandolfi (2008, p.12) takes up this
point and notes that ‘Australian banks were ill-prepared for downsizing and failed to
provide adequate training, support and assistance to survivors’. He considers this to be
‘remarkable, given the empirical findings that survivors commonly face new and
increased job responsibilities (Mitchell, 1998), experience increased overall
workloads (Dolan, et al., 2000) and are driven to work harder after downsizing’
Gandolfi (2008, p.12).
OECD (2011, p.11, p.105) contends that workforce reduction measures ‘be carried
out within a sound framework of strategic workforce planning’ noting that it is ‘an
essential tool for anticipating future possible developments and maintaining a well-
structured workforce of an appropriate size, which is able to meet the changing needs
of the public service in a cost efficient manner’. Scott-Douglas (2009, p.7) while
13
noting that workforce planning must precede downsizing programmes, adds the
caveat that organisation requirements may be ‘known only after reforms are
implemented’. This is a point that appears to be accepted by Robinson (2010, p.2)
who admits that ‘doing workforce planning in practice is much harder than it sounds.
Priorities shift, managers get distracted by short-term crises, politicians change
direction, and the economy does unexpected things’.
Roche, et al. (2011, p.177) makes reference to the public sector unions on-going
concern to the additional workload being taking on by their members. The unions
‘were dissatisfied with what they saw as the public service’s unplanned approach to
early retirement and redundancy selection and the lack of consideration of the
consequences regarding loss of skills and distribution of work among the remaining
staff’. Benest (2005, p.15) talks at length about preparing the environment for change,
including: building political support, demonstrating care and support for employees,
developing a strategy which is understood by the organisation and making every
effort to retain talent. In particular he points to the importance of investing and
learning to build capacity so that ‘as the downsizing organisation is reshaped,
employee competencies must begin to match new roles and responsibilities.’ He notes
the importance of opportunities for on-the-job learning including: acting positions, job
rotation, special assignments, on-the-job mentoring and project teams.
Many of the problems already highlighted are referred to as the negative attributes
associated with organisational decline and branded the ‘Dirty Dozen’ (Rondeau &
Wagar, 2002, p.163). The negative attributes listed are: centralised decision making,
neglect of long range planning, low tolerance for risk, employee resistance, low
morale, organisational conflict, highly vocal groups, non-prioritised cutbacks, low
credibility of the administrators, bad news not passed on, and employee resistance to
teams and top administrators scapegoated.
2.7 Communication
Communication is highlighted by many authors as a critical success factor and also
critical to dealing with issues such as staff morale, fairness and potential loss of trust
that arises during a downsizing exercise. Amundson, et al. (2004, p.261) suggests that
14
managers are perceived to be untrustworthy if they are considered to be withholding
information and that ‘timely communication could allay fears and convey respect for
employees. Inadequate, contradictory, or vague communication increased confusion,
anxiety, mistrust and speculation’. This view is shared by Schmitt, Borzillo & Probst
(2011, p.69) who contend that organisations can create ‘a climate of fear, intimidation
and hostility by incorrectly communicating the rationale for and scope of
organisational downsizing’. The National Performance Review (1997, p. 10) suggests
that ‘over-communication is impossible during organisational change’.
Roach, et al. (2011, p.50, p.126) stressed that organisations that are more engaged, are
better placed to secure employee buy-in to organisational change. They point out that
successful organisations ‘go beyond creating open, comprehensive communication
systems and actively involve employees and their representatives in the formulation
and implementation of organisational restructuring plans’. In their work with HR
managers concerning good human resource managing practice, they note that
‘participants consistently stress that, in their eyes, intensive communications with
employees and unions were a critical aspect of managing pay and headcount
reductions effectively in recessionary conditions’. Equally, the importance of open
dialogue and clear communications with unions was highlighted as critical to the
success of union management relations during any reform process.
2.8 Leadership
In tandem with the emphasis on open communications, commentators have stressed
the importance of communication from the top-down. The National Performance
Review (1997, p.8) found that ‘successful downsizing resulted when senior leadership
became involved early on in the process and continued to participate actively, remain
visible and accessible, and perceived by employees to be their source of
communication’.
Benest (2005, p.16) discusses the importance of senior management creating the
vision of the new organisation post-downsizing. Apart from showing optimism and
giving encouragement, management must understand and deal with the psychological
impacts of downsizing and in so doing ‘spend a lot of ‘face time’ with employees
15
expressing visible, confident and optimistic leadership and engaging employees
envisioning a new story. They must then create organisational capacity through
subtraction efforts, the management of expectations, employee learning initiatives and
other strategic investments’.
Rondeau & Wagar (2002, p.167) talks about management involvement in progressive
workforce reduction practices, which involve employees from the outset, provide
advanced notification and extensive communication, treat victims and survivors with
dignity and address the emotional needs of employees.
The fundamental message is that without the proactive involvement of management
from the earliest stages of the downsizing exercises, a vacuum can be created that will
be filled by mistrust and hostility arising from employee disenchantment.
16
Chapter 3: Research Methods
The extensive literature review carried out as part of this study has established a
degree of coincidence and/or uniformity across a range of consequences and impacts
resulting from organisation downsizing. The key purpose of this research element is
to establish what correlation, if any, can be made between the literature review
findings and the workforce downsizing outcomes in the Local Government sector. In
order to assess these outcomes, two broad areas of research were undertaken to
provide both quantitative and qualitative elements to the research.
The quantitative research stems, for the most part, from published data released as
part of the implementation and governance framework associated with the various
Government initiatives aimed at workforce reduction and financial savings, in the
Local Government sector. To a lesser extent, unpublished data was made available by
the various Local Government agencies outlined below. These data sets were used
because of their reliability both in terms of the source and the fact that the figures
used have been published in a range of complimentary reports. The reporting
framework from within which local authorities report is made up of the government
departments and the various support agencies as set out hereunder.
The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is the parent
department for all local authorities with which they have a central funding
dependency and an associated reporting relationship. Throughout the economic crisis,
its personal department had the responsibility for communicating decisions of Local
Government on issues such as the employment control framework, incentivised early
retirement schemes, revised funding targets and ensuring that progress was achieved
sectorally. It also dealt with all requests from local authorities for special sanction for
emergency staff recruitment. Statistics made available from this department, both
published and unpublished are crucial to understanding the impacts of downsizing
across local authorities and across the various disciplines within the local authorities
including clerical, professional and management.
17
The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform was established in July 2011 as
part of the Governments response to the financial crisis. It inherited from the
Department of Finance the key portfolio of public expenditure management together
with overall responsibility for driving public sector reform. It has overall
responsibility for the delivery of the downsizing programme across the public sector
and achieving the cost savings committed to as part of the E.U. programme of fiscal
consolidation. As part of this programme, it maintains a substantial Databank of
public sector statistics (www.per.gov.ie/reports ) which are key to understanding
trends in public sector numbers and payroll during the period under review.
As part of the Croke Park Agreement, the Government established, in July 2010, a
national implementation body responsible for ‘overseeing, driving and verifying
progress on the implementation of the public sector agreement’
(www.implementationbody.gov.ie). The body reports directly into the Department of
Public Expenditure and Reform and its published implementation reports contain
useful data on sectoral costs savings and workforce reductions.
The Local Government of Management Agency (LGMA) is a state agency which
provides a range of shared services to the Local Government sector, particularly in the
areas of ICT, HR and IR advisory services. The Office of Local Authority
Management (OLAM) is a research division of the LGMA which acts principally as a
support to the City and County Managers Association (CCMA). Some of this
research, relevant to this subject matter, particularly in the area of workforce
demographics, has kindly been made available. Further crucial elements of research
are the local authority service indicators collated on an annual basis by the LGMA.
The indicators are reported to, and published by, the Department of the Environment,
Community and Local Government and are used for comparative analysis of service
delivery standards over the period 2008-2011.
In recognition of the importance of the implementation of the Local Government
Efficiency Review Report (LGER), the Department of the Environment, Community
and Local Government and the CCMA established a project management office
(PMO) to collate and report progress on implementation issues directly to the Minister
of the Environment. Their sector specific reports provide an invaluable, internal
perspective in both quantitative and qualitative terms on progress being made by the
18
Local Government sector on the reform agenda. The reports which are made to an
implementation body for this purpose are ultimately published by the minister for the
environment on www.environ.ie
All of the quantitative data available from the aforementioned sources, while
authoritative and comprehensive, require objective analysis. In order to enhance the
research, it was felt that the study would benefit from the addition of the subjective
thinking of practitioners from within the sector. In this context, it was considered that
HR officers, directly involved in the implementation of the downsizing exercise, were
best positioned to participate in an appropriate survey. Access to the HR officers’
network was facilitated through the offices of the LGMA.
A detailed questionnaire comprising nineteen questions (See Appendix A) were
circulated to thirty one HR officers, whose prior approval to participate, had been
sought and attained. The questionnaire, as designed, requires a combination of
answers to direct propositions and subjective comment. The primary purpose of each
of the questions is to establish if there is any relationship between the downsizing
outcomes highlighted in the literature review, the trends presented by the quantitative
analysis and the outcomes as experienced by practitioners on the ground.
The research method as outlined is justified on the basis of the authoritative nature of
the sources and the fact that both quantitative and qualitative elements have been
introduced to provide a broad basis for analysis of results in comparison with the
literature review. The pivotal overarching role of the HR officers in the downsizing
process justifies their selection for participation in the survey. The 75% participation
rate in the survey, on first call, is a clear indication of their willingness to participate
and bodes well for the sincerity of the response and the degree of understanding of the
issues as presented.
19
Chapter 4: Research Findings
The summary findings of the research are set out in two sections based on quantitative
and qualitative information and data available. Research results and issues arising are
discussed briefly and analysed further in chapter 5.
Quantitative Research Findings
4.1 Sectoral Workforce Reductions
Sector 2008 2012 Change
Qtr4 Qtr4 No. %
Civil Service 39,313 36,330 -2,983 -7.60%
Defence Sector 11,265 9,979 -1,286 -11.40%
Education Sector 95,024 90,702 -4,322 -4.50%
Health Sector 111,025 101,506 -9,520 -8.60%
Justice Sector 15,692 13,352 -2,340 -14.90%
Local Authorities 35,008 28,306 -6,701 -19.10%
Non-Comm. State
Agencies
13,060 10,686 -2,374 -18.20%
Total 320,387 290,862 -29,525 -9.20%
Table 1 - Sectoral Reductions 2008-2012
Table 1 above sets out the sector workforce reductions in the period 2008-2012. It is
clear that the Local Government sector endured a disproportionate contraction in
staffing levels relative to its size. The figures used in this table, as noted in the LGER
report, are as reported by DPER. It does not include for temporary staff which, when
taken into account, brings the total reduction to 8,937 or 24% (CCMA, 2013, p.25).
20
Table 2 below shows the variation reductions across counties ranging from 15.73% in
Louth to 34.07% in Galway. Further variations across staff disciplines including
Managerial, Technical, Clerical and Outdoor are set out in Appendix B. The key issue
arising is the blunt nature of untargeted downsizing and its potential impacts.
4.2 Distribution of Workforce Reductions
21
Table
2 – Staff
reductions by County
Note: No figures were available for Limerick; hence it has been shown as no change.
22
LOCAL
AUTHORIT
Y
Total June 08 Total March 13 Difference % Difference
Carlow 386 274.34 -112 -29.02
Cavan 492 376.9 -115 -23.37
Clare 909 751.93 -157 -17.27
Cork 2964 2084.74 -879 -29.66
Donegal 1344 904.31 -440 -32.74
Dun Laoghaire 1397 1030.2 -367 -26.27
Fingal 1696.15 1325.47 -371 -21.88
Galway 1171.14 772.13 -399 -34.07
Kerry 1423 1116.74 -306 -21.5
Kildare 1227.5 837.02 -391 -31.84
Kilkenny 707 512.01 -195 -27.58
Laois 441.1 345.32 -96 -21.79
Leitrim 365.5 262.95 -103 -28.14
Limerick 863 863 0 0
Longford 391.6 290.05 -102 -26.02
Louth 762.61 642.97 -120 -15.73
Mayo 1227.3 997.03 -230 -18.74
Meath 852.52 613.95 -239 -28.02
Monaghan 480.53 385.65 -95 -19.75
Offaly 538 384.7 -153 -28.44
Roscommon 582.5 431.23 -152 -26.07
Sligo 615.9 452.73 -163 -26.46
South Dublin 1480.55 1167.95 -313 -21.13
North
Tipperary
658 464.55 -193 -29.33
South
Tipperary
721 598.36 -123 -17.06
Waterford 605.5 445.06 -161 -26.57
Westmeath 598.97 444.66 -154 -25.71
Wexford 909.52 738.16 -172 -18.9
Wicklow 921.65 716.65 -205 -22.23
COUNTY
TOTAL
26732.54 20230.76 -6502 -24.32
4.3 CCMA - LGER Progress Report
Table 3 -
Payroll Expenditure 2008 to 2012
Table 3 above is taken from the CCMA report to the Minister for the Environment,
Community and Local Government on the 28th of March 2013. It shows payroll
savings of €300 million (14%). This is a substantial element of the overall gross
savings of €839 million reported.
Table 4 below indicates that the Local Authorities sector achieved €82.7 million of
the LGER target of €94 million for staffing related efficiencies (CCMA, 2013, p.17).
This points to the financial success of the downsizing process. The report states that
‘local authorities are doing more with less by delivering quality services in new and
23
Payroll
Expenditure
Type
2008
Actual
2009
Actual
2011
Actual
2012
Actual
2008-12
Actual
Change
€m €m €m €m €m
Revenue
Wages &
Salaries
1,741 1,659 1,505 1,444 -297
Pensions 179 189 225 219 40
Gratuity\
Lump Sums
42 98 73 84 42
Revenue
Payroll
1,962 1,946 1,803 1,747 -215
Capital
Wages &
Salaries,
Other
168 138 100 83 -85
Capital
Payroll
168 138 100 83 300
Total Payroll 2,130 2,084 1,903 1,830
Period on
Period Change
-46 -181 -73
innovative ways’ while admitting that ‘a contracting workforce and recruitment
embargo, posed significant challenges for the sector’ (CCMA, 2013, p.23). The issue
arising in this context is that, while the downsizing and the associated reform
programme has given rise to key success indicators, in financial terms, it did put a
significant strain on the sector and despite the CCMA claiming that Local Authorities
are doing more with less, it admits in the same report ‘that Local Authorities are
straining to deliver service and, as evidenced by reduced services in libraries,
recycling centres, non-essential outdoor work etc., savings are having to be made
through the rationalisation of non-essential services’ (CCMA, 2013, p.45).
Item
LGER
Target
€m
Efficiency
Saving Achieved
€m
Efficiency
Saving
Achieved%
1) Reduce no. of county/city managers
and directors through joint admin. areas
2 - -
2) Establish 10 Joint admin. Areas to
pool corporate services
7 - -
3) Reduce no. of directors 4 4 100
4) Reduce no. of corporate services staff
in other LA
2 0.6 30
5) Reduce no. of senior & middle
managers (administration)
15 30.2 201
6) Reduce no. of senior & middle
managers (professional/technical)
10 12.4 124
7) Reduce no. of planning of staff by
10%
7 7 100
8) Reduce no. of staffing Dublin & Cork
Cities by 15% (achieved 9.6%)
47 28.5 61
24
Total 94 82.7 88
Table 4 - Local Authority Staffing Reduction Efficiencies 2010 to 2011
4.4 National Service Indicator Reports
Indicator 2008 2011 Indicator 2008 2011
Annual expenditure on library
stock per head of population
3.3 1.79 Number of applications decided
New Developments
3997 649
% Working Days Lost to
Absenteeism
4.02 4.44 Average time taken (in weeks)
to process applications under
the Mobility Aids Grant
Scheme, including any
necessary inspection(s), from
the date of receipt of a valid
application to the date of
decision on the application
8 10.8
Expenditure on Training and
Development as a percentage of
total payroll costs
5.2 4.14 Number of applications
decided(Individual
Houses) (Country Total)
22957 6268
Number of prosecution cases
taken because of non-payment of
on-the-spot fines
20 14 Other: Not Requiring EIA:
Number of applications
decided
34951 16885
Number of Applications for Fire
Safety Certificates Received
210.76 93 Total number of cases subject to
complaints that were investigated
12709 8390
Number of kilometres of local
and regional roads improved and
maintained under the Restoration
Programme per annum
194.3 134.6 Buildings inspected as a
percentage of new buildings
notified to the local authority
29.7 19.36
25
The average time taken (in
weeks) from the date of vacation
of dwelling to the date when all
necessary repairs are carried out
which are deemed necessary to
re-let the dwelling
13.49 20.7 % of postal Motor Tax
applications dealt with on same
day.
86.3 85.8
Number of repairs completed as
a percentage of the number of
valid repair requests received
92.72 90.65 Percentage of overall driving
Licence applications which are
dealt with on the same day as
receipt of the application
50.21 27.2
Table 5: Service Indicators 2008- 2012 (Published by LGMA)
In keeping with the apparent contradiction in the CCMA report, further analysis of the
‘doing more with less’ argument can be achieved from an examination and a
comparison of the Local Government service indicator reports for the years 2008 and
2011.
Table 4 above illustrates quite clearly reductions in service levels and service quality
in key areas such as training, library book spend, buildings inspected, time taken to
decide grant applications and time taken to re-let dwellings.
These indicators do little to sustain the ‘doing more with less’ argument.
4.5 OLAM Report on workforce demographics
The office of Local Authority Management, on behalf of the CCMA, produced an age
profile of the Local Authority sector in September 2012. It gives a valuable insight in
the profile of Local Authority staff following the downsizing process. Table 6 below
shows the effect of the moratorium with only 6% of staff under thirty and, equally
worrying for the sector, 20% i.e. 6,585 staff are due to retire in the next ten years.
Age
Category
Total %Total
<20 75 0%
21-25 378 1%
26-30 1593 5%
26
<20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 Over 65
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Total
31-35 4139 12%
36-40 5023 15%
41-45 4905 15%
46-50 5269 16%
51-55 5493 16%
56-60 4298 13%
61-65 2005 6%
Over 65 282 1%
Total 33459 100%
Table 6: % of all staff by Age Category Figure 4: % of all staff by Age Category
Table 7 below shows that 4% of outdoor staff are under thirty; while 32% are due to
retire in the next ten years.
Age
Category
Outdoor
Staff %
<20 0
21-25 1
26-30 3
31-35 5
36-40 9
41-45 13
46-50 17
51-55 21
56-60 19
61-65 11
27
<20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 Over 65
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Total
<20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 Over 650
13
5
9
13
17
2119
11
2
Outdoor Staff %Outdoor Staff %
Over 65 2
Table 7: Outdoor Staff Profile Figure 5: Outdoor Staff Profile
In relation to Clerical and Administration staff, the impact of the moratorium is
illustrated in table 8, which shows that there are no staff under 25 and only 6% of staff
under 30.
Table 8: Clerical/Admin Staff Profile Figure 6: Clerical/Admin Staff Profile
Table 9 shows a similar position with regard to technical and professional staff but yet
again only 3% of staff are under 30 and 25% are due to retire within the next ten
years.
28
<20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 Over 650 0
6
17
19
15 15 15
10
3
0
Clerical/ Admin StaffClerical/ Admin Staff
Age
Category
Clerical/
Admin
Staff %
<20 0
21-25 0
26-30 6
31-35 17
36-40 19
41-45 15
46-50 15
51-55 15
56-60 10
61-65 3
Over 65 0
Table 9: Professional/Technical Staff Profile Figure 7: Professional/Technical Staff Profile
Table 10 shows the overall position, including that of managers; where only 3% are
under 40 and crucially, 36% are due to retire in the next ten years.
The issues arising here include: the absence of new blood, potential high levels of
retirements and the consequent impact on organisational capacity both now and in the
future.
Age Category <20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 65+
Managers 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 9% 25% 28% 30% 6% 0%
Professional/
Technical
0% 1% 3% 11% 14% 14% 15% 18% 17% 8% 0%
29
<20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 Over 650
44
200
715
910 871950
1129 1104
517
19
Total Professional/Technical StaffAge
Category
Total
Professional/
Technical Staff
<20 0
21-25 44
26-30 200
31-35 715
36-40 910
41-45 871
46-50 950
51-55 1,129
56-60 1,104
61-65 517
Over 65 19
Outdoor 0% 1% 3% 6% 9% 13% 18% 22% 19% 12% 2%
Total Clerical/
Admin
0% 0% 6% 17% 19% 16% 16% 16% 10% 3% 0%
Retained FF 0% 2% 10% 16% 16% 20% 19% 13% 4% 1% 0%
Full Time FF 0% 0% 8% 16% 24% 25% 16% 12% 1% 1% 4%
Total Staff 0% 1% 5% 13% 15% 15% 16% 17% 13% 6% 1%
Table 10: Age Profile of All Staff Categories
Qualitative Research Findings
The qualitative research findings are based on 23 survey results from local authority
HR officers. This is 75% of those surveyed. For each question, the overall results are
shown graphically and, where opinions where sought, 5 of the 23 answers are
included. The five chosen are the most illustrative of the prevailing view. As in the
case of the quantitative analysis a brief commentary is contained in this section on
each of the results, while more detail analysis will follow in the Research Findings
chapter.
Q.1) Did your organisation do any workforce, succession or organisational
planning in advance of the downsizing which commenced in 2009?
‘Some succession planning was carried out in late 2008 and early 2009 in respect of upper, middle and
senior management positions only. Largely the others were not known.’
‘Informal workforce planning was an on-going feature of the operation, having regard to the work
programme, any changes arising, retirements and recruitments.’
30
48%52% Yes - 11
No -12
‘Initial work done out of necessity as far back as 2007 due to financial constraints - not a detailed
workforce plan’
‘The Council completed a comprehensive reorganisation of functions and structural reconfiguration to
deal with staff resource allocation.’
‘We continually assess our workforce arrangements but did not carry out a specific exercise at that
point in time.’
Despite 48% of respondents indicating that workforce planning was undertaken, the
responses are somewhat unconvincing in their language, which when taken with the
fact that over half of respondents said that no workplace was undertaken suggests this
to be a significant issue.
Q.2) Since the Downsizing commenced, has your organisation had to Rehire any
Retiree in a temporary capacity or take on Consultants to cover work previously
undertaken by staff?
‘4 specialist technical posts to ensure continuity of service including. 1 safety related position.’
‘We have not re-hired any staff member who retired, but have outsourced work throughout the
organisation, for example, housing maintenance, valuations, legal services, road maintenance, forward
planning and environmental assessment, flood assessment, operation of certain water services
facilities.’
‘We only had 2 rehirees - in a specialist area of 'work study officers'- Roads area. They were rehired
for a few months while the workload was being re-distributed among existing employees.’
“Housing and engineering outsourced”
“Some retirees have had to return for court appearances relating to cases they were involved in”
It is clear from the replies that rehiring was not a significant issue and that, in some
cases, resulting gaps in capacity were dealt with throughout sourcing.
31
17%
83%
Yes - 4No - 19
3) The Downsizing exercise has impacted negatively on staff morale.
4) The downsizing exercise has had a negative impact on staff
motivation/commitment and levels of engagement.
5) The downsizing exercise has impacted negatively on the psychological well-
being of staff.
6) What, in your view, have been the most obvious manifestations of negative impacts on Staff Morale, Commitment, Well-being and Levels of Engagement?
32
Strongly Agree - 2 Agree - 12 Neutral - 7 Disagree - 2 Strongly Disagree - 0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
9%
52%
30%
9%0%
Strongly Agree - 0 Agree - 11 Neutral - 3 Disagree - 9 Strongly Disagree - 0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0%
48%
13%
39%
0%
Strongly Agree - 1 Agree - 7 Neutral - 12 Disagree - 3 Strongly Disagree - 0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
4%
30%
52%
13%
0%
‘Increased stress levels due to lack of capacity to meet customer and political expectations around service delivery.’
‘The manner in which the downsizing was controlled and planned did not create a negative impact on staff morale. While levels of commitment and engagement were broadly neutral, the main impact arose when salary levels reduced. In many cases staff were unable to balance their financial resources and their commitments sufficiently quickly.’
‘Less loyalty to organisation, more clock watching by some, increased use of family friendly schemes but on employees terms, staff become more insular, looking after their own patch not caring about other areas in their department which may be experiencing pressures.’
‘Increased sick leave absences related to stress related illness. It is difficult to maintain morale particularly where there is no end in sight to the moratorium on recruitment - particularly where this means there are no promotional opportunities available to staff to work towards.’‘There is evidence that there is an increased level of certified sick leave on grounds of mental / psychological problems. It is necessary to continually reinforce positive messaging about staff performance to counter negative political and media commentary generally about public service.’
The results of questions 3-6 deal with morale, commitment, psychological impact and employee well-being. 61% indicate that downsizing impacted negatively on staff morale which, when taken with the 30% of those neutral, is a clear indication that morale is a big issue. Only 39% disagreed that the downsizing exercise had a negative impact on staff motivation, while with regard to psychological well-being, the most striking feature is the 52% who have are neutral, which may suggest a lack of understanding of the question. The responses to question 6 are indicative of negative impacts with stress, illness and morale being the most common issues arising.
7) Prior to or during the Downsizing Process, did your organization have or put
in place a Knowledge Management system or policy?
‘To a limited extent but, where feasible, did so in key areas where knowledge was held by individuals
rather than within systems.’
33
43%
57%Yes - 10No - 13
‘Two parallel systems were utilised. Firstly those key staff members who were leaving had a shadow
placed with them for the remaining period of the service to "download" as much of the knowledge that
they possessed as possible. Also certain IT arrangements were made to capture as much of the data as
possible. A mentoring programme was commenced to also assist with the knowledge transfer both for
those leaving and especially for those who had to step into their shoes.’
‘We are developing procedures manuals per sections to ensure continuity of knowledge.’
‘Knowledge Management was seized on as an early requirement as soon as significant staff loss was
anticipated, especially prior to Feb 2012 when incentives for retirement kicked in.’
‘There have been attempts to share and capture, corporate knowledge through teamwork, mentoring,
exit interviews, newsletters etc. But a formalised and sustained organisation -wide strategy has not
been introduced.
Issues related to knowledge management and capacity are raised in questions 7 and 8.
It is significant that 57% of respondents admitted that there was no knowledge
management system in place which must be viewed in the context of 70% of
organisations indicating that they have a capacity or competency deficit arising from
the downsizing process.
This issue is explored further as part of the main findings.
8) Did the Downsizing Result in your organization having Capacity or
Competency deficits?
34
70%
30%
Yes - 16No - 7
‘Literally across each area of activity - loss of experience & expertise at senior level. Deficiency at
Exec level professional grades’
‘Engineering, planning, financial management, general administration, revenue collection,
maintenance services.’
‘Moratorium constrains hiring of staff with new skills required e.g. project management,
organizational change & development’
‘Outdoor staff structure has reached low levels -leading to difficulties in delivering services while
adhering to adequate health & safety guidelines.’
‘The loss of staff has resulted in the loss of experience and knowledge. Both have an impact on the
competencies and capacity of the remaining staff. It has also allowed decisions on the type of
competencies required for the future which traditionally may not have been required.’
9) Has the Downsizing in your organization had a negative impact on Service
Delivery/Quality?
‘Arguably there has been some reductions in service in some areas but substantially quality has held.
There are many instances of discontinued service, for instance branch library closures.’
‘Longer waiting times for services e.g. housing maintenance, slower processing of housing grants due
to lack of staff to inspect/assess. Waiting times for pre-planning meetings increased. Increased interval
between road maintenance leading to deterioration in road quality. Delays in bringing forward new
projects due to restricted staffing levels. Lack of structured change management approach leading to
reactionary 'muddling through’. Reduction in litter control and dealing with illegal dumping, some
services have been substantially abandoned e.g. follow up on derelict sites. Any involvement is now
reactionary.’
‘Reduced turnaround times in relation to housing services’
35
48%52% Yes - 11
No - 12
‘‘Even with a downsized organisation, we managed to increase public opening hours in our main
offices by 1 hour per day, Monday - Thursday, 0.75 hours Friday. In % terms an increase of 13.57%.’
‘Requirement to end some services (close fire stations, landfill, and libraries); reduce opening hours,
delayed administration / responses to queries / service delivery, deadlines for surveys/returns /etc.
missed.’
Despite the fact that views on the impact of downsizing on service delivery are
relatively evenly split, it is noteworthy that only two of the answers given give
indications of service improvement. This links to the issue of ‘doing more with less’
discussed elsewhere in the findings.
Q.10) Other than the foregoing, has the downsizing had any other negative
impacts on your organisation? Please Specify:
‘The downsizing did not permit retention of skill sets proportionate to demand arising. In other words
downsizing was not targeted at areas of potential surplus and assumed that retraining and
redeployment would suffice.’
‘Age profile has increased dramatically with all that goes with that’
‘Loss of corporate knowledge lower staff morale, lack of promotional opportunities”
‘Most negatively the lack of recruitment has resulted in very few staff under 30 years of age - not good
for the organisation or for future resilience.’
‘Loss of experience, higher stress levels for remaining staff than previously, etc.’
‘Not in my view. In fact it has been positive in so far as we have become smarter in doing our business
and cost savings have been passed on to the business sector.’
Despite the fact that question 10 asked the question regarding negative impacts in a
different way, the same issues arise, most notably age profile, skills deficit, corporate
knowledge, morale and stress.
11) The Downsizing process has enabled my organization to achieve
''more with less''
36
Strongly Agree - 6 Agree - 10 Neutral - 4 Disagree - 3 Strongly Disagree - 0
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
26%
43%
18%13%
0%
‘Procurement etc. is being looked at more efficiently and cost effectively through the national
procurement tendering process etc. - this is achieving savings.’
‘More co-operation among staff in assuming additional duties when staff are absent for example on
maternity leave etc.’
‘This has been achieved as a consequence of clear communications with unions and staff which
encouraged the proactive engagement of all staff focused around a clear cause.’
‘The economic constraints enabled brokering of more productive work practices with unions where
previously this would not have been broached. Croke Park I was most productive in this regard with
the mechanism to propose an action, limited time for negotiation and the mandate to implement change
within set time.’
‘Significantly less staff. At the very least, it can be evidentially stated that we are doing the same with
less which is an accepted metric for efficiency. We are achieving more with less in some areas due to
up skilling initiatives.’
A very substantial 69% agree that the downsizing process has enabled the sector to do
more with less which again would appear to contradict the evidence put forward
elsewhere in this study. The issue which arises in this case is the interpretation. It may
be the respondents are confusing maintaining services with fewer people and
providing fewer services less often.
12) Has the downsizing forced you to Reappraise your organization design and
make organizational changes?
37
Strongly Agree - 6 Agree - 10 Neutral - 4 Disagree - 3 Strongly Disagree - 0
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
26%
43%
18%13%
0%
100%
Yes - 100No - 0
The overwhelming positive response to questions 12 and 13 strongly suggests that the
principle positive outcome of the downsizing process was it forced organizations to
reexamine organization structure which has led to a strong belief that operational
efficiencies have been achieved. This is again related to the 100% agreement
expressed in response to question 14 that workforce has taken on additional
responsibilities. This in turn feeds into respondents’ belief that additional
responsibilities and greater efficiencies are interrelated as indicated in the response to
question 15.
13) If yes, has this led to enhanced efficiency?
‘There have been extended spans of control for all line management which has in itself led to
efficiencies.’
‘Changed organisational structure only in reporting terms as consequence of non-filling of senior
positions moratorium on recruitment.’
‘The number of management posts has been reduced significantly, reducing the overhead. A number of
area offices have been closed, leading to savings. However these changes have undoubtedly led to
38
100%
Yes - 100No - 0
96%
4%
Yes - 22No - 1
reduced service coverage. Many more junior staff have 'stepped up to the plate' and shown great
flexibility in taking on new roles. However, there are a number of areas where the lack of staff at an
appropriate level and experience is a cause of concern, in terms of meeting statutory responsibilities.’
‘As outlined we are doing more with less while continuing to innovate. Peer recognition remains at a
high level and recognition for the actions taken has continued to be achieved. A "best in class"
approach has endured.’
‘Yes - structures have in some instances been streamlined and staff have taken on additional
responsibilities and appropriate decision making has been delegated down the line.’
14) Has the retained workforce taken on additional roles and responsibilities?
15) Has this led to greater efficiency?
‘Library service has been reorganised to fit reduced workforce while maintaining public service in a
new format.’
39
100%
Yes - 23
No - 0
96%
4%
Yes - 22No - 1
‘In our environmental services area, work allocation has altered, with a greater responsibility being
taken my more junior staff due to the loss of senior staff.’
‘As outlined new services are being delivered; alternative sources of income have been targeted and
delivered; efficiencies have reduced the cost of doing business etc.’
‘Amalgamation of work areas less administrative overheads and corporate support requirements’
‘We have more multi-skilled staff available as a result of cross-skilling thus reducing the number of
staff to be deployed to jobs.’
16) Did you have a specific retaining programme for staff who took on more?
It is interesting to note that 87% of organizations responding provided no retraining for staff taken on additional responsibilities despite 96% believing it gave rise to greater efficiencies. This is a contradiction that requires further examination.
17) Has the Downsizing resulted in improved financial performance? E.g. Has the balance on your annual accounts improved or worsened over this period?
40
13%
87%
Yes - 3No - 20
65%
35%
Yes/Improved - 15No/Worsened - 8
Once again there is a contradiction in 100% of respondents claiming greater efficiency through work sharing and 35% agreeing that their financial performance has worsened. This might suggest more complex financial difficulties which downsizing alone was unable to improve.
Q.18) What has been the over-riding benefits of the Downsizing exercise - if any?
‘Greater analysis of what we are doing, why we are doing it and could it be done better. There was greater awareness of financial management imperatives. Many staff willing to take on more responsibility, showing great loyalty to the organisation and the public we serve.’
‘Better focus on assessing and prioritizing needs and deploying resources to meet them. There was a greater emphasis on efficiency. Better co-operation and shared service between Las.’
‘Forced the organisation to look at itself in terms of structure and methods’
‘While we are still assessing each and every area of our operations, the downsizing has prioritised the need to continually review performance; to improve the forward planning aspects of workforce planning and to position the organisation for any opportunities that arise.’
‘Reform of work practices. Restructuring of operations on the ground. Streamlining of procurement across the organisation - through the use of national tendering processes. More efficient of internal professional staff in lieu of use of outside consultants.’
Despite significant reservations regarding staff morale, stress, loss of corporate knowledge and mixed views on service delivery and ‘doing more with less’, the general tone of responses to question 18 regarding over-riding benefits is positive. Respondents have viewed improved financial management, greater prioritisation and better organizational focus as the principal benefits.
Q.19) In Hindsight, What one thing would you have done differently, if you had the opportunity, in terms of the Downsizing Process?‘The downsizing programme should have been plan led and should have been preceeded by some direction from our parent department as to what our future role might be. This would have helped us to decide what human resource we might need.’
‘The approach to down-sizing was largely based on letting contract staff go and the non-replacement of retirees. This was a very blunt instrument. The imperative to save money was the over-riding issue. I would have controlled the exodus better, if financial resources allowed as we lost many experienced and competent individuals in close succession leaving us vulnerable on many fronts.’
41
‘I would like to have been a position to be more responsive/proactive in reshaping the organization in a planned way, rather than reactive to severe, sudden and persistent decline in income.’
‘Put in place a more comprehensive workforce plan and knowledge management / transfer policy’
‘HR to take on a more strategic role in relation to Workforce planning and to have arranged a plan including a full training needs analysis.’
‘Conduct a workforce plan in advance & ensure knowledge management exercise conducted. Conduct some succession planning.’
‘We have failed as managers to get the message across to staff that there is a future in local government when this economic crisis ends. Downsizing is a correction that charts the way to a stronger organisation and a better career future. It may now be too late to promote this message to the current crop of relatively young staff.’
‘Workforce planning from the beginning along with business reprocessing.’
The clear implication from the vast majority of answers is that the absence of workforce planning in advance of the downsizing was the overwhelming negative.
Chapter 5: Discussion of Findings
5.1 Overview
An overview of findings briefly outlined in chapter 4 allows one to draw reasonable conclusions under a number of headings including: financial outcomes, organisational benefits, service delivery impacts, disproportionate downsizing cuts, staff morale and sectoral capacity.
5.2 Positive Outcomes
From the point of view of sectoral downsizing being an exercise in cost reduction, it can certainly claim to have been successful. The CCMA reported payroll savings of €300 million is testimony to this. In this context, 65% of organisations surveyed report improved financial performance.
The very positive response to the question of enhanced efficiency is also a favourable consideration arising from the downsizing exercise. 100% of respondents confirmed that the process forced reappraisal of organisation design which, in 96% of the cases, has led to reported enhanced efficiencies. Staff took on additional workload while terms such as centralisation, integration, consolidation and innovation figure largely in the responses on this issue. The fact that downsizing appears to have been a catalyst for organisational restructuring can also be linked to the reported €839 million gross savings and efficiencies reported in the efficiency review report (CCMA, 2013 p.3). This report, apart from dealing with staff savings details savings and efficiencies in such areas as procurement, shared services, treasury management, advertising, ICT and water conservation. Further analysis is required as to the direct correlation between forced downsizing and the aforementioned savings, although it is safe to
42
assume that they are linked. Finally, the positive reply from respondents to question 18 on the overriding benefits of downsizing deserves mention. Predominantly answers referred to prioritisation, improved financial management, organisational focus and continuous review.
5.3 Uneven distribution of impacts
Notwithstanding the clear financial benefits, there have also been significant downsides which are clearly illustrated by analysis of the available data and survey answers.
In the first place, it is clear that an untargeted downsizing process of this nature is a blunt instrument and gives rise to disproportionate reductions in staff across organisations and disciplines. It has already been noted that the Local Authority sector experienced a 24% reduction, despite representing only 10% of the public service. An examination of the impact on the various staff disciplines across counties shows an equally disproportionate outcome. In terms of staff generally, Louth have the lowest reduction at 15.73%, while Galway have the highest at 34.07%. Carlow have 0% management reductions, while Dun Laoghaire has 41.67%. Management grades suffered the highest reduction at 23.63% which can be linked to the issue of institutional memory referred to later. It is assumed that the seniority of managers and their ability to avail of incentivised early retirement is a related factor. The converse of this is that younger staff in clerical grades could not afford to avail of this scheme, resulting in this discipline only been reduced by 6.3% on average. It is interesting to note that the technical/professional grades were only reduced by 3.7%. Extreme reductions such as that of Mayo (32.88%) may account for responses indicating capacity issues among technical grades.
5.4 Capacity considerations
The issue of sectoral capacity post-downsizing is very significant. The examination of age profiles carried out by OLAM shows existing and emerging capacity deficits which require serious attention. In the first instance, the moratorium on recruitment has resulted in only 6% of all staff being under the age of 30. This is of continuing relevance in the context of the need for new skills relevant to the current environment. There is also the prospect of an inter-generational gap emerging between new recruits and existing employees if this situation is allowed to persist.
The fact the 31% of outdoor workers are aged 56 or over must be a concern for Local Authorities. Outdoor staff provides a range of frontline services most visible to the public which suggests that an extended moratorium will lead to a reduction in these services. Alternatively, as referred to by some respondents, outsourcing may be on the increase. Over the next ten years, at least 25% of professional/technical staff are due
43
to retire. The technical nature of many of the Local Authority services suggest the emergence of a significant capacity issue, notwithstanding the fact that the sector is not building as many roads etc. as they were previously.
There are no senior managers under the age of 35, 36% are due to retire in the next ten years and only 34% are in the 40-50 age bracket. At face value, it would appear that there is a substantial capacity issue within the sector in terms succession planning at this level. Managers may of course be recruited from elsewhere. These issues of capacity are clear and 70% of respondents to question 8 refer to the loss of staff and inability to recruit as giving rise to capacity deficits in such areas as engineering, financial management, ICT, human resources and outdoor staff. The CCMA update report on LGER implementation refers to ‘the ageing workforce profile and potential skill shortage within the sector. The CCMA would caution against continued rationalisation of staffing without addressing these issues’ (CCMA, 2013, p.23).
5.5 Workforce Planning
Clearly related to the issue of capacity, is the confused response of the sector with regard to the existence and/or need for workforce planning. In response to question 1, 48% suggest workforce planning was in place, although the response was unconvincing with words such as ‘informal’, ‘initial’ and ‘some’ being used. Given the opportunity in question 18 to identify one thing which might have been done differently, the vast majority of respondents referred to the need for a plan-led approach with the term ‘workforce planning’ featuring in over half of the responses.
5.6 Staff Morale and related impacts
Another negative outcome, of which there can be little doubt, relates to the issue of staff morale and associated issues of motivation and staff engagement. The responses to questions 3-6 indicate a very clear pattern of negative impacts. In this context 91% agree or are neutral on the issue of downsizing and the negative impact on morale while 86% agree or are neutral on the issue of psychological impact. The high level of neutral respondents on this latter issue (52%) suggests that stress related impacts are harder to detect but that HR officers are conscious of their existence. It is interesting to note that when respondents were asked about the negative impacts of downsizing generally in question 10, staff morale and stress again feature prominently. In some cases, this was associated with lack of recruitment, lack of promotional opportunities and increased workload.
On the issue of increased workload, 100% of respondents indicated that staff took on additional work but that in 87% of cases, no specific retraining was given to these staff. The service indicator reports for the same period show a reduction in training spend from 5.2% to 4.14%. The same reports show an increase in the percentage of
44
sick leave days taken from 4.02% to 4.44%. It is worth considering whether a lack of organisational support in the form of appropriate training contributed to negative impacts on morale and well-being. This issue can also be linked to that of knowledge management, where remaining staff were without the support and corporate knowledge of recently retired colleagues. In response to question 7 on this issue , 57% of respondents indicated that there was no knowledge management system in place while, in response to question 10 on negative impacts generally, loss of corporate knowledge and age profile figured among the responses.
5.7 Doing more with less
The most difficult area on which to offer a conclusive finding relates to the principle of ‘doing more with less’. The term features in the survey responses, in the CCMA reporting to the Minister and in the general conversation around public sector downsizing. All sides seem to be ‘on message’ in this regard as if this is the key measurement of success. On closer examination, it is far from clear if this is the case. The CCMA, while making this claim (CCMA, 2013, p.23); openly admit to reduce services in libraries, recycling centres and non-essential outdoor work. The service indicator reports for the years 2008-2011 show clear reductions in expenditure and turnaround times in a number of key service delivery areas such as: libraries, housing and staff training. 48% of respondents to question 9 admit to downsizing having a negative impact on service delivery, while in a clear contradiction to this point, 69% of respondents claim to be ‘doing more with less’ in response to question 11. Examples given of ‘doing more with less’ include: procurement, working smarter, covering for staff absences, upskilling and new work practices. It would appear that, at best, the sector is maintaining services with somewhat diminished quality, which is a significant achievement in the face of a 24% staff reduction and substantial reductions in funding from central government. Exchequers report funding for the sector reduced from €2.192 billion in 2008 to €1.572 billion in 2012 (CCMA, 2013, p.11).
45
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations
In conclusion, it is clear that many of the impacts and consequences outlined from the research have a direct similarity with those examined in the literature review. In particular, parallels can be drawn in the areas of staff morale, financial outcomes, organisational capacity, institutional memory and a lack of advance preparation, inadequate training and the uneven distribution of consequences. It is also clear that many of the lessons from previous experiences were misunderstood or forgotten if indeed they were ever considered. The urgency of the downsizing may well have contributed to an absence of consideration of these matters. The recommendations that follow seek to address the opportunity to develop a better understanding of these issues from recent lessons learned. While some of the recommendations may appear to a little late, public sector retrenchment is not yet complete and is likely to be an on-going issue.
While workforce planning should take place prior to the downsizing process, and has clearly been identified as a critical success factor, there remains compelling reasons to engage in extensive workforce planning across the Local Government sector. It is clear from the answers to the survey, as outlined in the research findings, that workforce planning within the sector is at best patchy. Indeed the OECD (2011, p.230) found workforce planning in Ireland, generally, to be ‘ad-hoc and in the same league as Chile, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece and Israel’. The demographic profiles produced by OLAM have highlighted significant capacity issues, both at entry level, technical and management cohorts. Capacity is likely to be further significantly diminished through natural attrition unless appropriately addressed. A
46
comprehensive workforce planning exercise led by senior management and involving all remaining staff would help to envision the organisation of the future and establish the skills and competencies it would require, in addition to the basic staff numbers. In its absence, the sector may well be faced with a crisis in capacity terms and credibility in terms of its attractiveness as an employer.
In association with the workforce planning exercise, the sector needs to critically evaluate the need for training and retraining programme to address current and future skills needs. It is highly likely that retraining is an issue, given that 87% of survey respondents admitted that staff who took on additional workloads received no retraining. Parallel admissions to staff morale problems may well be linked to this retraining deficit, if the lessons learned from the literature review are accepted. While this will deal with the current situation, the training programme needs to take cognisance of the skills sets and knowledge base of employees likely to retire in the short to medium term. In this way, training and retraining will become an essential part of the organisations knowledge management strategy. While it will not be possible to replace all employees who retire by simply retraining ‘the survivors’, it will assist with the handling of additional workloads and the transfer of knowledge to new replacement employees. The training programme should have an organisational and sectoral element to identify skills gaps across the sector.
One of the most striking comments by any of the respondents, where in response to the opportunity to do one thing differently, s(he) commented ‘we have failed as managers to get the message across to staff that there is a future in local government when this economic crisis ends. Downsizing is a correction that charts the way to a stronger organisation and a better career future. It may not be too late to promote this message to the current crop of relatively young staff’. In this context, and given the prominence given by all commentators on the need for strong communications, it is recommended that the Local Government sector and each of its constituent authorities develop a comprehensive communications strategy which facilitates employee engagement on current issues of concern, future expectations and the facilitation of workforce planning mentioned earlier.
In order to facilitate these recommendations, it is suggested that the sector examines the role of its HR departments in the management of downsizing and reform programmes generally. Roche, et al. (2011) provides extensive commentary on how HR departments during the boom years moved to the fringes of organisations dealing with soft issues. He also strongly suggested that HR, now more than ever, needs to be central to business strategy and taking a pivotal role to ensuring the smooth implementation of reform. While this is not the advice of the author, it is advice with which I concur.
Research in this area is extensive and on-going. While there appears to be widespread acceptance regarding the relationship between poorly managed downsizing programmes and staff morale and well-being, I believe there is an opportunity to
47
examine it further in a contemporary setting. Given the unequivocal nature of the responses contained in the survey regarding this issue, it may well be appropriate for the sector to carry out occupational health screening to further explore this issue and put in place measures to counteract problems which are likely to exist.
Bibliography
1. Amundson, N. et al. (2004) ‘Survivors of Downsizing: Helpful and Hindering
Experiences’, Career Development Quarterly, 52, (3), pp.256-271
2. Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1998) ‘Downsizing the Federal Government: A
Longitudinal Study of Managers’ Reactions’, Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 15, (4), pp. 310-321.
3. Benest, F. (2005) ‘Creating a New Future for a Downsizing Organisation’,
Public Management, 87, (9), pp.10-16.
4. CCMA - LGER Report, (2013), Report to the Minister of Environment,
Community and Local Government. Ireland: Department of Environment
5. Datta, D. et al. (2010) ‘Causes and Effects of Employee Downsizing: A
Review and Synthesis’, Journal of Management, 36, (281), pp. 282-343.
6. Gandolfi, F. (2008) ‘Learning from the Past – Downsizing Lessons for
Managers’, Journal of Management Research, 8, (1), pp.3-17.
48
7. Gandolfi, F. (2009) ‘Unravelling Downsizing – What do we know about the
Phenomenon?’, Review of International Comparative Management, 10, (3),
pp.414-426.
8. Government Efficiency Review Group, (2010), Report of the Local
Government Efficiency Review Group, Ireland: Department of Environment,
Community and Local Government.
9. Horstein, H., (2009), Downsizing isn’t what it’s cracked up to be, Available at:
http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/strategy/downsizing-isn
%E2%80%99t-what-it%E2%80%99s-cracked-up-to-be#.UdhATzusiSo,
Accessed: March 2013.
10. Hunter, W., O’Neill, J. & Wallen, C. (1986) Doing More with Less in the
Public Sector: A Progress Report from Madison, Wisconsin. University Of
Wisconsin. CQPI Report No. 13.
11. LGMA Service Indicator Reports 2008 and 2011. Available at: www.lgma.ie
12. Mc Carthy, C. (2009) Report of the Special group on Public Service Numbers
and Expenditure Programmes, Dublin: Government Publications Office.
13. National Performance Review, (1997), Serving the American public: Best
practices in downsizing, Available at:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/papers/benchmrk/downsize.html,
Accessed: March 2013.
14. OECD, (2011), Public Servants as Partners for Growth, Paris: OECD.
49
15. Olson, R., Seymour, A. & Weaver, R. (2004) ‘Downsizing Is Rough’, Public
Management, 86, (11), pp.10-15.
16. Rama, M. (1999) ‘Public Sector Downsizing: An Introduction’, The World
Bank Economic Review, 13, (1), pp.1-22.
17. Robinson, D. (2010) Workforce Planning during bleak times – A public sector
view, Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.
18. Roche, W et al., (2011), ‘Human Resources in recession: Managing and
representing people at work in Ireland.’
19. Rondeau, K. & Wagar, T. (2002) ‘Managing the Workforce Reduction:
Hospital CEO Perception of Organisational Dysfunction’, Journal of
Healthcare Management, 47, (3), pp.161-176.
20. Sahdev, K. & Vinnicombe, S. (1998) Downsizing and Survivor Syndrome: A
Study of HR’s Perception of Survivors’ Responses, Cranfield: Cranfield
School of Management.
21. Schmitt, A., Borzillo, S. & Probst, G. (2011) ‘Don’t let knowledge walk away:
Knowledge retention during employee downsizing’, Management Learning,
43, (1), pp.53-74.
22. Scott-Douglas, R., (2009), Managing downsizing in the public service:
Lessons learned from the programme review of the government of Canada,
Available at: http://www.oecd.org/mena/governance/43380925.pdf, Accessed:
March 2013.
50
23. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, (2013), Available at:
www.per.gov.ie/reports. Ireland: Department of Public Expenditure and
Reform
24. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government,
(2013), Available at: http://www.environ.ie/en/ . Ireland: Department of the
Environment, Community and Local Government
25. The Public Service Agreement National Implementation Body, (2013),
Implementation Body Website, Available at: www.implementationbody.gov.ie
51
Appendix A: HR Officers Network Survey
49
50
51
52
53
Appendix B: County by County Reduction by Discipline
54
LOCAL
AUTHORITY
Managerial
Staff June 08
Managerial
Staff March
13
Difference in
Managerial
Staff:
%
Difference
Carlow 6 6 0 0
Cavan 6 5 -1 -16.66
Clare 6 5 -1 -16.66
Cork 17 12.9 -4 -23.53
Donegal 7 6 -1 -14.29
Dun Laoghaire 12 7 -5 -41.67
Fingal 12 8 -4 -33.33
Galway 8 6 -2 -25
Kerry 8 6 -2 -25
Kildare 8 6 -2 -25
Kilkenny 6 5 -1 -16.66
Laois 6 4 -2 -33.33
Leitrim 6 5 -1 -16.66
Limerick 7 7 0 0
Longford 6 4 -2 -33.33
Louth 7 5 -2 -28.57
Mayo 8 6 -2 -25
Meath 7 5 -2 -28.57
Monaghan 6 4 -2 -33.33
Offaly 6 5 -1 -16.66
Roscommon 6 5 -1 -16.66
Sligo 5 4 -1 -20
South Dublin 9 6 -3 -33.33
North
Tipperary
5 5 0 0
South
Tipperary
7 5 -2 -28.57
Waterford 6 5 -1 -16.66
Westmeath 6 4 -2 -33.33
Wexford 6 4 -2 -33.33
Wicklow 9 8 -1 -11.11
COUNTY
TOTAL
214 163.9 -50 -23.36
55
Table 11 – Managerial Reductions by County
56
LOCAL
AUTHORIT
Y
Clerical/
Admin Staff
June 08
Clerical/
Admin Staff
March 13
Difference
in Clerical/
Admin Staff:
%
Difference
Carlow 121 106.34 -15 -12.4
Cavan 170 151.6 -18 -10.59
Clare 283 284.03 1 0.35
Cork 739 720.19 -19 -2.57
Donegal 354 329.94 -24 -6.78
Dun Laoghaire 482 440.2 -42 -8.71
Fingal 577.6 502.55 -75 -12.98
Galway 324.63 293.06 -32 -9.85
Kerry 436.5 424.48 -13 -2.97
Kildare 369.5 325.22 -45 -12.16
Kilkenny 171 154.65 -16 -9.36
Laois 166.9 152.23 -15 -8.98
Leitrim 120.5 101 -20 -16.53
Limerick 259 259 0 0
Longford 148.9 125.9 -23 -15.44
Louth 247.82 234.22 -14 -5.65
Mayo 303.7 320.98 -17 5.59
Meath 268.79 268.17 -1 -0.37
Monaghan 175.33 168.66 -6 -3.43
Offaly 157 150.2 -7 -4.46
Roscommon 172 143.15 -29 -16.86
Sligo 203.5 182.89 -21 -10.29
South Dublin 624.55 600.1 -25 -4
North
Tipperary
161 180.69 20 12.42
South
Tipperary
214 201.5 -12 -5.61
Waterford 167 134.8 -32 -19.16
Westmeath 179.72 161.53 -18 -10
Wexford 312 291.51 -20 -6.41
Wicklow 262.75 241.15 -22 -8.37
COUNTY
TOTAL
8172.69 7649.94 -523 -6.39
Table 12 – Clerical/Admin reductions by County
57
LOCAL
AUTHORITY
Professional/
Technical Staff
June 08
Professional/
Technical
Staff March
13
Difference in
Professional/
Technical
Staff
%
Difference
Carlow 49 41.6 -7 -14.29
Cavan 74 64.4 -10 -13.51
Clare 110 121.5 12 10.91
Cork 427 345.4 -82 -19.2
Donegal 147 174 27 18.37
Dun Laoghaire 216 185.3 -31 -14.35
Fingal 317.5 282.4 -36 -11.32
Galway 120.3 115.4 -5 -4.17
Kerry 169.5 179.3 9 5.29
Kildare 150.5 149.4 -2 -1.32
Kilkenny 84 77.4 -7 -8.33
Laois 66 65.5 0 0
Leitrim 56 50.6 -5 -8.93
Limerick 126 126 0 0
Longford 50 48 -2 -4
Louth 113.4 111.8 -1 -0.88
Mayo 146 194 48 32.88
Meath 109 131 22 20.18
Monaghan 66.4 62.4 -4 -6.06
Offaly 65 66.1 1 1.54
Roscommon 72.5 72.5 0 0
Sligo 93.8 87.4 -7 -7.45
South Dublin 133.1 131.7 -1 -0.75
North
Tipperary
62 52 -10 -16.13
South
Tipperary
100 79.6 -20 -20
Waterford 65 59 -6 -9.23
Westmeath 73.8 69.8 -4 -5.41
Wexford 83.5 76 -8 -9.52
Wicklow 109 106.8 -2 -1.83
COUNTY
TOTAL
3455.3 3326.3 -129 3.7
Table 13 – Professional/Technical Reductions by County
58
LOCAL
AUTHORITYOutdoor Staff
June 08
Outdoor
Staff March
13
Difference
in Outdoor
Staff:
%
Difference
Carlow 142 106 -36 -25.35
Cavan 202 142 -60 -29.7
Clare 364 319 -45 -12.36
Cork 1155 939 -216 -17.7
Donegal 460 350 -110 -23.91
Dun Laoghaire 467 350 -117 -25.05
Fingal 620.05 517 -103 -16.61
Galway 416.01 309 -107 -25.72
Kerry 523.78 464 -60 -11.45
Kildare 346.5 293.4 -54 -15.56
Kilkenny 293 254.36 -39 -13.31
Laois 141.5 114.39 -28 -19.72
Leitrim 127 97.68 -29 -22.83
Limerick 361 361 0 0
Longford 123.7 99.54 -24 -19.35
Louth 327.29 284 -43 -13.15
Mayo 632.6 473 -160 -25.27
Meath 239.09 196 -43 -17.99
Monaghan 183.8 147 -37 -20.11
Offaly 201.5 140 -62 -30.69
Roscommon 263 182 -81 -30.8
Sligo 223.03 169 -54 -24.22
South Dublin 510.85 405.4 -106 -20.74
North
Tipperary
273 176.34 -97 -35.53
South
Tipperary
351 294.26 -57 -16.24
Waterford 287.5 227.26 -61 -21.18
Westmeath 213.73 193.62 -20 -9.35
Wexford 378.3 308 -70 -18.52
Wicklow 371.9 313 -59 -15.86
COUNTY
TOTAL
10199.13 8226 1973 -19.34
Table 14 - Outdoor Reductions by County
Appendix C: Personal Learning Reflection
59
I found the overall experience of preparing this dissertation challenging but enjoyable. Because of the wealth of material on the whole issue of downsizing and retrenchment across the private and public sectors I found it extremely challenging to narrow down the most appropriate references and to marry them together in a manner which conveyed the essential messages. In the end, I feel I have achieved this.
The study has broadened my understanding of public sector issues, particularly with regard to people management issues and the broader implications of organisation downsizing. I now feel I have a particular insight into the challenges facing the Local Government sector, but I am inclined to suggest that these may be equally relevant across the public sector generally. If I achieve my ultimate objective of working with people in a management capacity in the future, I hope my learning from this experience will inform my thinking in a positive way.
Finally, I need to again record my appreciation for the openness in which individuals and organisations dealt with my requests for assistance. This was hugely positive and made the whole exercise achievable and worthwhile.
60