Measure your level of experience with other people, without placing yourself above them.
Unfortunately, no one escapes of problems. No matter, how much they get involved in work, in their personal development, in everything they aim to achieve, people will face many difficulties. Especially, the employers. In the times of crisis, the corporate profits fall, which leads inevitably to reduced investment and fewer employees. Obviously, the biggest desire of an employer is to maintain the employees, especially the good ones.
Even so, what if a company recorded an accelerated decrease of the number of customers and its profits are starting to decrease from day to day? Firstly, the employer may try to reduce labor costs without reducing the number of employees. However, if this option does not cover losses, and by this is not achieved quickly a balance, then he is forced to dismantle several posts. That is a big problem.
A few months ago, a Human Resources manager in a big enough company, fired more than 30% of employees, without establishing any criteria for selection, which leads to the hypothesis that the redundant employees, even those loyal and efficient, were not found among his "winner's numbers." As if he decided by throwing the dice the fate of every employee, with the risk of losing his own job.
Recently, I found out that the respective HR manager just got off the banks of the faculty, and did not have the necessary experience to fill the position. It would be easy to imagine a scenario, of how he managed to be appointed to such a high function as a recent graduate. But that is another story.
Leadership: Do you raise your consciousness to the level at which people can accept you without blaming you, starting from the effect of an ultra-fast rise on the features that your image reflects?
In order to dismantle the positions, the employer must make an analysis of the positions that are redundant (i.e. that are extra or dispensable). The next step, the most important, is to establish some criteria based on which to make these redundancies. For example: to dismiss those employees who have more jobs or that are not the only supporters of their families, and to offer them some monetary compensation.
And then to reduce the number of those who received more sanctions, and those who scored badly on professional evaluation, etc. Or, in extreme cases, if the company it is facing a serious crisis, to appeal to a collective dismissal. However, as I said, the most important thing is to set certain criteria based on which to make the dismissals.
It is risky to assume the responsibility as an employer to lay-off or fire employees without establishing objective criteria. By giving with the dice in this situation means to be a weak manager, for you let the "luck" to decide the fate of your employees, they being the ones underlying your institution or company. An effective leader sets out well-established criteria on the basis of which he makes redundancies.
In order to avoid making such absurd decisions, you, as manager of human resources must comply with legislation or rules of the company where it is stated on what criteria shall be made the redundancies, as well as the compensation that would benefit those who remained without a job.
Are the features that your image reflects the most important properties of an ascension that is done primarily on value criteria and not on old criteria or good relationships with bosses?
These features, depending on what defines you as a professional, are given by the value of your previous achievements, the logical consequence of the facts you assume and the nature of the obligations you set for partners or employees.
A free conscience of guilt is conditioned by briefly presenting the image your connection allows with the possibility of a fulminating ascension through your spheres of activity. The latter fosters a harmonious development of the experience of image, relationship and understanding in the guidelines you are addressing.
The Single Throw Of The Dice is associated with giving the chance to make decisions alone, with the presentation of the related advantages and disadvantages, from which the moral reason for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of alternative solutions to solving certain problems. This single throw is misleading because it is not always the winning combination to better substantiate decisions as well as for more efficient team-level planning.