“What about Me?” © Andrew Porter 2011 – All rights reserved Combating survivor syndrome post redundancy An article by Nada Williams posted in Personnel Today, (based on a survey in IRS Employment Review), shows that employees who have been through redundancy programmes were adversely affected in a number of ways. This included lower morale, reduced motivation, higher rates of sickness absence (65% of employers reported increased stress levels amongst remaining employees) and retention problems. Uncertainty and ambiguity concerning job security is a fact that is likely to remain with us for the foreseeable future. Working as a career coach over the last two years, I have seen a growing realisation, particularly in the public sector that the concept of jobs for life no longer exists. Even in organisations and departments that are not directly effected by redundancies, the climate of recession, cutbacks and constant uncertainty is starting to impact on the well being of employees. We have seen a significant investment to ensure that individuals exiting organisations are given as much support and opportunity as possible. For those who are in the fortunate position of not having to make cuts, I wonder what level of priority is given to protecting one of the most valuable assets within the business – the people. Is there a prorata level of investment into those individuals who remain within the organisation? In a previous role as an HR Director I commissioned a project to review the work life balance in the organisation. This was premobile phone legislation and we faced a constant battle between the needs of the business to communicate with the regional operations team and implementing sufficient protocols to ensure their safety. Working a full day and then driving two or three hours to the next region was considered part of the job, being accessible to talk on the phone whilst en route was mandatory. I was fortunate enough to launch a number of initiatives including safe driving courses, yoga classes in the evening and a massage service (using the first aid room as a base). The constant struggle was to demonstrate an effective business case for these types of investments. Using the analogy of the level of investment made yearly in IT systems, maintenance of the buildings etc as a percentage of the asset value seemed a straightforward approach. Comparing the annual spend on payroll and the level of investment in employee support systems and development versus the annual spend on IT and the level of investment in software and hardware seems an entirely appropriate and logical comparison. Yet we always seem to struggle in validating investment into what are perceived as the softer issues, especially in the current climate. One of the challenges is to demonstrate cause and effect an investment of X yields a benefit of Y. Some of