Work redesign and
performance management
in times of downsizing
A.S. Evangelista
Participant, Manager Leadership Program, Home Depot,
Shreveport, Louisiana (AirForce96@aol.com)
Lisa A. Burke
Associate Professor of Management and Marketing,
Louisiana State University–Shreveport
(lburke@pilot.lsus.edu)
Reductions in force can have
a serious impact on employee
workloads, as well as a troubling
ripple effect on the integrity of
performance management systems.
Organizations and managers who are
operating “in extremis”—doing as much or
more as before but with fewer people—need help
with reconceptualizing tasks and managing
performance during downscalings. Coupled with
specific illustrations, this proposed operational
framework can help them reconfigure work duties
and establish a fair performance management
process for those employees who remain.
T he decade of the 1990s yielded a false sense of
security among management and employees that
the economy was boundless. However, the topic
in many copy rooms, cubicles, and break areas today is
downsizing, or the inevitability of more corporate blood-
letting. Executives are rallying back to the lines to re-
engage, where they sense little time for streamlining,
reevaluating, or reallocating business processes, tasks, and
activities. The reality of the present corporate situation is
that many downsizing firms face the immediate challenge
of keeping operations going with a minimum number of
staff, at least for a short term until the outlook becomes
more stable. With layoffs occurring across many indus-
tries—the tech sector, retailing, entertainment, manufac-
turing, and air travel, to name a few—the situation pres-
ents an opportunity to address associated issues of down-
sizing for sensible recovery.
Although management literature has focused on certain
aspects of downsizing, such as communication strategies,
employee cynicism, stress, potential litigation, morale,
retention, and survivor support, one area remains essen-
tially untouched: the effect of reductions in force on
employee workloads and the troubling ripple effect on
the integrity of performance management systems. Even
though the topics of downsizing and performance man-
agement each boasts an established practitioner literature
base, research at the intersection of these topics remains
scant.
Thus, it is our purpose here to help organizations and
managers who are operating “in extremis”—doing as
much or more but with fewer people—reconfigure work
duties and establish a fair performance management
process for surviving employees. The framework proposed
here is targeted for solution-hungry managers caught in
the throes of downsizing organizations who need a solid
recipe for work redesign.
71
Productivity in downsizing
A
recent article in HR Focus that summarized data
gathered by the Families and Work Institute
(“Focus resources now…” 2001) reported that
corporate downsizings often mean extended hours and a
heavier workload for surviving employees. The effects of
the resulting stress vary from making more errors to feel-
ing bitter toward coworkers to simply leaving the job alto-
gether. Assuming that companies keep their best em-
ployees and managers during downsizing, organizations
should theoretically be in a position to perform better.
But case studies have shown that productivity often de-
clines. In The People Side, by Richard Koonce (1991), Dr.
Jackie Greaner refers to the productivity paradox as a
source of regression:
Let’s say a corporation decides, for financial rea-
sons, to undertake a downsizing or restructuring to
improve its bottom-line profitability and productiv-
ity. If it doesn’t deal with the “people factors” asso-
ciated with change—that is, effectively manage the
human resources issues that are part of any corpo-
rate reorganization—its productivity and profitabil-
ity will suffer anyway. This is the so-called “produc-
tivity paradox.” It’s quite common in organizations
going through transition today.
Such an observation highlights the inadequate attention
paid to the “people aspects” of previous organizational
restructurings. Clearly, one goal of these types of corpo-
rate change must be to provide indubitable improvement
in productivity and profitability so that surviving employ-
ees remain viable stakeholders in corporate progress. But
as Slavin (1994) suggests, “If you eliminate people, the
ones who remain will make choices about how to react.
The best often leave the company—the brain drain. The
rest either work longer or harder, or they just don’t do cer-
tain tasks.”
Many more authors also point out that in corporate
downsizings the survivors end up working longer and are
heavily taxed with a bigger workload. As a result, morale
often goes into the proverbial dumpster. Place the per-
formance management process against this backdrop and
it is easy to discern potential problems.
Downsizing and performance
management dilemmas
Consider the following: Caroline has escaped a recent vol-
ley of layoffs at her manufacturing firm. The company’s
dreary situation will likely continue into the foreseeable
future and she is concerned about her job security. She has
been a superior performer who takes pride in being able to
complete all assigned duties well and on time. When the
latest cuts trimmed several people from her department
and management divided up the work among those who
72
were left, Caroline took over much of the workload of one
of the terminated employees. The stress of the current
work environment is taking a toll on her and her peers
and is beginning to affect her work. Caroline knows that
her annual performance appraisal is around the corner
and that she has not performed up to her usual potential,
although she has tried. There is just too much to do and
too little time to get it all done; some tasks never get
touched and others are only half-heartedly completed.
This once exemplary employee now actually feels she is
average, and she is distressed about it. She fears not only
that she will be appraised unfairly because she has been
asked to do so much more and has done all that she
could, but that others might actually get away with task
avoidance, something she does not feel comfortable doing.
Michael, Caroline’s supervisor, is also under a great deal
of stress. Not only is he responsible for his own perform-
ance but that of the Quality Assurance Department as well.
The department has consistently produced above average
performance. But lately Michael has noticed that several
of his key employees—employees that he urged be saved
from the corporate chopping block—are performing mar-
ginally. Several work assignments that absolutely must be
done are either late or inadequate. Even employees he
relies on the most, such as Caroline, are turning in weaker
performances. He also senses they are on the verge of a
morale slump as a result of the burgeoning workloads.
Performance appraisals are due in six months and
Michael prides himself on being fair and accurate. Given
that the departmental workload has increased, however,
he feels there will be several challenges to confront.
This scenario illustrates some of the complexities sur-
rounding the fallout from corporate downsizing, espe-
cially concerning employee workloads and performance
management. Before the company cut heads, Caroline
was working at or near her effective capacity—she had the
time, opportunity, ability, and energy to be a superior per-
former. She completed all of her duties and did so in an
outstanding manner; plus, she enjoyed her work. Michael
regards Caroline as one of his best employees. But left
with additional duties to distribute among his remaining
employees after the layoffs, he effectively gave her the
work of at least two people. He sees her performance fal-
tering, sees her turning in relatively lackluster work and
even failing to complete a couple of tasks.
Michael realizes he must now get his group focused ap-
propriately (and quickly) on their new work reality if he
is to maintain the unit’s performance. He also wants to
deliver fair and accurate performance appraisals in the
post-downsizing environment. Stepping back, he realizes
he needs to first review departmental tasks in this envi-
ronment to maximize his unit’s productivity; then he will
be in a better position to evaluate employee performance
fairly. Our framework can help him do just that.
Business Horizons / March-April 2003
Work redesign Figure 1

I
n downsizing situations, it is vital for Work redesign process
managers to assess business unit obli-
gations and internal tasks to effectively
and fairly manage and balance workloads Reformulated company strategy
among remaining employees. Typical
problems they may face during employee
reductions are: (1) the failure or inability Identify company-wide objectives
to identify and categorize duties and that pertain to specified business unit
assignments, (2) the failure to identify
when they have over-tasked an employee,
and (3) the failure to see when a business Identify all projects and tasks to be retained or eliminated
unit’s demands exceed its capacity.
When a firm enters the downsizing mode, Retained Eliminated
the top managers need to redefine their
goals for the restructured company in
order to meet the demands of their busi- Categorize remaining tasks as:* Eliminated tasks/processes
ness environment. According to Slavin, Critical, sub-critical, should be documented
minor, or unnecessary and eliminated in a
this process also involves examining and deliberate fashion.
identifying the more essential operational
tasks. Maintaining that certain tasks are
more strategically important than others Critical, sub-
Unnecessary
critical, minor
is consistent with Wright, McMahan,
McCormick, and Sherman (1998), who
demonstrated that a focus on the most Identify complementary tasks in each
strategically important tasks in a perform- category, which can create positive
ance management system will enhance synergy when grouped together *Task categories:
company performance. As such, we pro- Critical – Must be completed
at an above average quality
pose a process for this important task cate- standard.
Ensure retained tasks do
gorization duty, as shown in Figure 1. not exceed unit capacity Sub-critical – Must be done,
but an average quality
To proceed in this new corporate direc- standard will suffice
tion, managers need to identify and cate- Minor – Should be done
Assign tasks to employees only when time permits;
gorize all projects and tasks to determine average quality standard
which activities are to be retained and will suffice
which are to be eliminated. Critical tasks Monitor and evaluate Unnecessary – Eliminate
are those that enable a company to
accomplish its primary organizational
objectives; they are essential to maintain- bones approach to completion is taken. One example in
ing the firm’s strategic intent, and must be performed to Michael’s department that fits this category is a specific
completion at the highest quality standard. One example quality monthly report. Prior to the downsizing the report
from Michael’s department is the task of quality control, a was a work of art. The responsible team member had the
vital function that is performed on incoming parts to the opportunity to produce a visually stimulating presenta-
department and that requires certain sample inspections tion reporting certain quality assurance data. The data
to ensure that those parts meet or exceed standards. There could have been presented just as accurately in a straight-
is no wiggle room in this function—failure to identify forward, “no-frills” report and still would have met the
problems could lead to catastrophic results. needs of the recipients while taking less than half the
A sub-critical task is one that needs to be performed, but time. Another sub-critical example could be maintenance
an average standard of quality will suffice. An example on a piece of test equipment that is not used at current
might be a job that is perceived as critical in the near production levels but is likely to become critical when
future once the company restabilizes, thus requiring that production rebounds.
it be maintained to ensure proficiency when reinstated. A minor task is one that adds value to the firm but will not
All sub-critical duties contribute to the achievement of hinder operations or organizational goals if left undone.
organizational goals but are just as effective when a bare- An example would be maintaining workplace tidiness. And

Work redesign and performance management in times of downsizing 73

an unnecessary task is one that can be
discarded because it most likely Figure 2
drains needed resources away from Performance management in task overload situations
the critical or sub-critical tasks—for
example, quality inspections of prod-
ucts that have been temporarily Tasking Assessment Template
ceased until demand picks up again.
Critical task #1: ___/5
Denoting such tasks is particularly rel- Critical task #2: ___/5
evant in a restructured firm, as busi- Critical task #3: ___/5
ness goals may have changed. Taking
Normal Sub-critical task #1: ___/3
the time to document discarded tasks workload Sub-critical task #2: ___/3
and the lessons learned may prevent tasks: Sub-critical task #3: ___/3
future mistakes and yield valuable
information if the company decides Minor task #1: ___/1
to resurrect similar projects. Minor task #2: ___/1
Minor task #3: ___/1
In most cases, an employee does not
need to stop performing critical or Overload limit: -------------------------------------
sub-critical tasks to advance workplace
Critical Task #4: ___/+
aesthetics. Because the opportunity to
do each task will vary daily, regardless Overload Sub-critical task #4: ___+
of category, time management skills tasks: Sub-critical task #5: ___+
Performance categories:
will be ever-important. Some tasks
Excellent 85–100% Minor task #4: ___+
complement each other and may be Good 70–85%
more effective when assigned together. Satisfactory 50–70%
27*
Total points earned: ___ /____
This may seem intuitive, but synergy Poor 30–50%
can lead to greater efficiency and pro- Unacceptable 0–30%
Percentage of points earned: ___ %
ductivity. Examples are tasks that re-
quire close coordination with another
department or specific areas within RATING SCALES
another department. If Michael’s unit
has a critical task and some sub-criti- Performance on Performance on Performance on
critical tasks: sub-critical tasks: minor tasks:
cal and minor ones that all require
coordination with the marketing Excellent 5 Excellent 3 Complete: 1
Good 3 Good 2 Not complete: 0
department, then these tasks should Satisfactory 1 Satisfactory 1
be assigned together. Poor 0 Poor 0
Unacceptable –3 Unacceptable –2
After formulating the work redesign
process outlined in Figure 1, we
modified our model in response to *Note: The workload denominator will likely vary across employees because it is task- and job-specific.
an interview with Steven Finch, a
supervisor at Philips Broadband Net-
works of Manlius, New York. Mr. Finch said that when his Reconceptualizing
company began to downsize, he knew his department
would need to do a task assessment in order to pare down performance management
the workload into “necessary” and “unnecessary” compo-

nents. He requested that each member of his department
brainstorm and produce a task list, including all steps
necessary to accomplish assigned duties. Then he com-
pared their lists with departmental functions, as conceived
in the company’s new focus. If certain functions were no
longer necessary, he removed them and their correspon-
ding tasks. Finally, he allocated the downsized employees’
duties to remaining members to ensure that necessary
functions were completed. This approach to task catego-
rization is consistent with Figure 1 and provides some
semblance of face validity verification.
A
s Figure 1 shows, then, redesigning work around
critical, sub-critical, and minor tasks while elimi-
nating unnecessary ones forms the foundation for
performance appraisal content. Using this framework,
managers can assess the completion of each type of task,
as well as the specified level of quality for each. The out-
put from the work categorization process must be shared
with all employees so they have a list of the critical, sub-
critical, and minor tasks they are accountable for. These
same tasks are then used to drive the performance man-
agement process. Employee communication and under-

74 Business Horizons / March-April 2003

standing will be vital to the success of this effort because a high performance rating when an employee is over-
the manager will formally evaluate the three types of loaded; however, based on our approach, the rating
duties as performed by that group of employees. would depend on the employee’s performance and not
simply on emotional appeal. In addition, downsizing
The manager must evaluate the level of work that was
firms can more closely tie any merit bonuses to deserving
assigned to employees and then assess whether they are
performances in order to keep a “pay for performance”
performing those duties at the appropriate levels. Because
mentality foremost in employees’ minds and ensure cor-
each task has been categorized, the manager can ensure
porate dollars are wisely distributed.
that critical tasks are all being performed to the highest
standards, sub-critical tasks to adequate levels for func- To illustrate our point, we apply our task assessment
tional requirements to be met, and minor tasks only framework to Caroline’s situation. As shown in Figure 3,
when possible or as needed. Each employee is then in a Caroline has made a concerted attempt over the last four
much better position to receive a fair and accurate per- or five months to complete work assigned in Michael’s
formance appraisal, further removed from problems that task categorization system. Even though she is only pro-
occur due to ineffective task assignment after downsizing. ducing mostly “good” results, she is performing consis-
tently across assigned tasks, both old and new. Adding up
Figure 2 outlines a proposed method for effectively and
her task scores, we see that she has produced a value of
fairly dealing with employee overload in the performance
22, resulting in an 81 percent of points earned and a good
management process. A generic example of translating re-
rating. As such, her performance appraisal reflects her
engineered workloads for performance management pur-
results across the various tasks.
poses is illustrated, with the goal of assigning each newly
sorted task a proper weight. It is essentially a weighted Caroline’s normal workload was broken down by task
evaluation system, in which managers translate each type to encourage appropriate focus—all complete with
member’s workload into numerical values so that they clear performance standards. Michael assigned what he
can evaluate each task and obtain an overall percentage determined to be a fair workload in the employees’ re-
for each employee. More specifically, the manager creates structured work reality and a fair division of departmental
a task assessment, including both normal workload and work responsibilities. But performance appraisal results
overload tasks. Various tasks of all types exist, both above
and below the “overload limit line,” each with a different
rating scale because of varying importance. For example,
while critical tasks are rated on a scale of 5 (excellent) to Figure 3
–3 (unacceptable), sub-critical tasks are on a 3 to –2 scale, Example of performance management in task
and minor tasks are either complete (1) or incomplete overload situation
(0). These varying endpoints communicate to employees
the relative importance across the task types in the thrust Caroline’s Tasking Assessment
of their daily efforts.
Critical task #1: ___/5
3
The “total points earned” ratio comprises a numerator Critical task #2: ___/5
3
(the employee’s total earned points across all tasks) and a Critical task #3: ___/5
3
denominator (the manager’s determination of a fair work-
load). Note that this workload denominator, being task- Normal Sub-critical task #1: ___/3
2
and job-specific, will likely vary across employees and workload Sub-critical task #2: ___/3
1
tasks: Sub-critical task #3: ___/3
2
organizations. Regardless, an employee’s total earned
points divided by his workload denominator gives a per- 0
Minor task #1: ___/1
centage of points earned and places his performance in a 1
Minor task #2: ___/1
category of excellent, good, satisfactory, poor, or unaccept- Minor task #3: ___/1
1
able. Of course, firms can tailor these ratings and cate-
Overload limit: -------------------------------------
gories for their particular needs.
Critical Task #4: ___/+
1
Our suggested process requires managers to acknowledge
when employees are overloaded, while subordinates must Overload 1
Sub-critical task #4: ___+
acknowledge that the manager values the completion of tasks: Sub-critical task #5: ___+
2
various tasks differently. Examining employee overload
based on the importance of tasks, and then explaining to Minor task #4: ___+
0
the employees what level of performance is expected on
the various tasks and how the appraisal process will work, 22 /____
Total points earned: ___ 27*
allows a manager to more fairly administer periodic for- 81 %
Percentage of points earned: ___
mal evaluations. For example, it may be tempting to give

Work redesign and performance management in times of downsizing 75

are based on the types of tasks that were assigned and,
more important, on the level at which those tasks were
performed. Caroline is not an average performer, as she
has lately felt; instead, she has exhibited quite good per-
formance over the last several months. Michael gives her
clear direction on which tasks are valued the most, and
with continued coaching and experience, Caroline will
likely make it to the excellent category soon. Ultimately,
Michael is confident that his department’s task load has
been fairly and accurately distributed and that employees
will become more comfortable and proficient with the
new system over time.
P
erhaps organizations other than downsized firms
could benefit from considering our outlined
approach as well. When a firm becomes mature
and duties become routine, this method could be useful
in revitalizing it—to do some housecleaning by identify-
ing critical, sub-critical, and minor tasks and eliminating
unnecessary ones. Nevertheless, it is crucial in a down-
sized environment for managers and supervisors to reex-
amine workloads, prioritize duties, and communicate
how the task hierarchy will be reflected during the per-
formance appraisal process. The effort must be made to
ensure that employees who are retained are being used
effectively, treated fairly, and rewarded appropriately for
their contribution to the organization. ❍
76
View publication stats
References and selected bibliography
Appelbaum, Steven H. 1991. How to slim successfully and ethi-
cally: Two case studies of “downsizing.” Leadership & Organiza-
tion Development Journal 12: 11-17.
Beam, Henry H. 1997. Survivors: How to keep your best people
on board after downsizing. Academy of Management Executive
11: 92–94.
Feldman, Daniel C., and Carrie R. Leana. 1994. Better practices
in managing layoffs. Human Resource Management 33 (Sum-
mer): 239-261.
Finch, Steven. 2001. Supervisor, Philips Broadband Networks,
Manlius, New York, phone interview (17 November).
Focus resources now on retained employees. 2001. HR Focus
78/10: 11-16.
Gutknecht, John E., and J. Bernard Keys. 1993. Mergers, acquisi-
tions and takeovers: Maintaining morale of survivors and pro-
tecting employees. Academy of Management Executive 7/3: 26-37.
Koonce, Richard. 1991. The “people side” of organizational
change. Credit Magazine 17/6: 22-25.
The negative effects of overwork and related stress. 2001. HR
Focus 78/11 (November): 9+.
Siriginidi, Subba Rao. 2000. Enterprise resource planning in
reengineering business. Business Process Management Journal 6:
376.
Slavin, Roy H. 1994. Re-engineering: A productivity paradox.
Quality 33/6 (June): 18.
Wright, Patrick M., Gary C. McMahan, B. McCormick, and W.S.
Sherman. 1998. Strategy, core competence, and HR involve-
ment as determinants of HR effectiveness and refinery per-
formance. Human Resource Management 37/1 (Spring): 17-29.
Business Horizons / March-April 2003