Management Problem 2: The Management Problem Is Job Security ✓ Solved

MANAGEMENT PROBLEM 2: The management problem is job security

MANAGEMENT PROBLEM 2: The management problem is job security stress on performance. The performance of an organization may be affected when employees feel insecure after workforce reductions. This problem is not easily identifiable but can be observed in production levels and the quality of products or services.

Root causes include management decisions to fire underperforming staff, which creates uncertainty and reduces focus on production. Desired performance is high-quality products for clients; current performance is not meeting this standard. The problem is organization-wide, affecting both employees and managers under stakeholder pressure.

Key contributing factors include insufficient communication during change, deadlines that pressure output, and gaps in job design. Training is adequate and can support the desired outcome, but the organization may not have applied job design principles to improve motivation and performance.

Measurement approaches include 360-degree evaluations and performance measures focused on work quality; however, current criteria may overemphasize deadlines rather than quality. The issue relates to job design, measurement, and organizational culture.

Recommended actions: improve change communication; redesign jobs to enhance autonomy and meaningful work; align performance metrics with quality and customer outcomes; provide fair, transparent criteria and retention strategies; strengthen leadership support; implement team-based quality initiatives; and provide ongoing training linked to high-quality production.

Implementation considerations: involve employees in the change process; clarify expectations; establish realistic deadlines; monitor morale and stress; and adjust HR practices accordingly.

References to measurement and change management include: 360-degree feedback, performance appraisals, and quality indicators.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction and problem framing. The management problem identified is job security stress on performance—an issue that emerges when employees experience insecurity during and after workforce reductions. When large-scale layoffs or selective terminations occur, remaining staff often experience anticipatory anxiety, uncertainty about the future, and diminished trust in leadership. This combination can depress morale, erode engagement, and impair productivity, even if direct outputs like defect rates or on-time delivery are superficially maintained. The situation is not simply about fear; it reflects how organizational changes interact with daily work routines, expectations, and perceived fairness. The core question for managers is how to protect and improve performance in the face of legitimate concerns about job security while sustaining a humane, motivating work environment (De Witte, 1999; Hackman & Oldham, 1976).

Root causes and scope. The root cause often lies in the organization’s change logic—firing underperforming staff without parallel investments in communication, role clarity, and redesign of work processes. When frontline teams observe selective firing, they may interpret leadership as unpredictable or unfair, which can undermine commitment and willingness to take initiative. Performance shortfalls may arise not solely from the loss of personnel, but from a misalignment between job design, performance expectations, and the capacity of remaining workers to deliver high-quality products or services. This problem is organization-wide and interacts with stakeholder expectations from owners, customers, and regulators (Kotter, 1996; De Witte, 1999).

Theoretical underpinnings. The issue can be analyzed through established work-design and motivation theories. Hackman and Oldham’s job design model emphasizes core job characteristics—autonomy, task significance, skill variety, task identity, and feedback—that shape intrinsic motivation and performance. When job design is neglected during downsizing, workers may experience monotony, reduced purpose, or a sense that quality is secondary to expediency, hindering high-quality output (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model further explains how job demands (e.g., threat of job loss, nonstandard deadlines) can deplete energy and erode performance unless buffered by resources (support, autonomy, learning opportunities) (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Psychological safety, the belief that one can speak up and risk failure without fear of punishment, is another critical factor; without it, teams struggle to learn from errors and improve quality (Edmondson, 1999). Self-determination theory suggests that supporting employee autonomy, competence, and relatedness fosters motivation and persistence in demanding environments (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Together, these theories illuminate why job insecurity can erode performance and how design choices can restore it (Locke & Latham, 2002).

Implications for mission, vision, and performance. The organization’s mission—delivering high-quality products that exceed client expectations—depends on engaged, capable employees who understand how their work contributes to value. When job security is threatened, employees may shift attention from process improvement and customer value to self-preservation, which contradicts the mission. The misalignment between immediate staffing actions and long-term quality goals creates a tension where short-term cost containment undermines long-term performance and customer satisfaction. Leaders must recognize that reducing uncertainty and aligning daily work with quality outcomes are prerequisites for realizing the mission (Spreitzer, 1995; Locke & Latham, 2002).

Measurement and evaluation. The current approach includes 360-degree evaluations and standard performance metrics tied to work quality, with some emphasis on meeting deadlines. Yet, if metrics privilege speed over quality or fail to capture true job performance in a downsized environment, the signal–noise ratio deteriorates. The JD-R framework suggests monitoring both demands and resources; metrics should reflect quality outcomes, customer impact, and process improvements, not only target achievement. Additionally, ensuring fair assessment criteria and reducing bias during performance reviews are essential to maintaining trust and engagement (Ilies, Dimot, & Judge, 2007; Spector, 1997).

Recommended interventions. A multi-pronged strategy can address both symptoms and root causes. First, strengthen change communication: articulate the rationale for downsizing, clarify role expectations, and provide consistent updates about future staffing, careers, and opportunities for growth. Transparent communication reduces uncertainty and protects morale, which in turn supports performance (Kotter, 1996). Second, redesign jobs to enhance autonomy, meaning, and skill variety. Applying Hackman and Oldham’s design principles can restore intrinsic motivation and elevate output quality; in practice, this may involve redefining tasks, increasing decision latitude, and ensuring feedback loops that highlight quality improvements (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Third, align performance metrics with quality and customer outcomes. Move beyond deadline-centric metrics to include defect rates, process compliance, and customer-reported quality, while maintaining fairness and objectivity in reviews (Locke & Latham, 2002). Fourth, invest in training that supports high-quality production and cross-functional capabilities, while offering targeted learning that enhances job competencies and resilience amid change. Fifth, strengthen leadership support and foster psychological safety so employees can raise concerns, report problems, and propose solutions without fear of retaliation (Edmondson, 1999). Sixth, implement retention strategies and career development plans to demonstrate commitment to employees, reducing attrition risk and promoting long-term performance (Spreitzer, 1995). Finally, adopt a team-based quality initiative approach that distributes responsibility for quality improvement across units and rewards collaborative problem solving (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).

Implementation plan. A phased approach can manage risk and maximize adoption. Phase 1—diagnosis and communication: map the affected processes, gather feedback from frontline staff, and communicate the change rationale and timeline. Phase 2—job design and workload balancing: apply the Job Characteristics Model to redesign roles, increase autonomy and task significance, and ensure feedback channels. Phase 3—measurement realignment and capability building: revise performance metrics to emphasize quality and customer impact; deliver targeted training aligned with these metrics; and establish ongoing coaching. Phase 4—sustainment and learning: monitor morale and stress indicators, celebrate quick wins in quality, and institutionalize psychological safety practices across teams. Across phases, leadership behavior should model openness, accountability, and consistency to restore trust and drive performance (Kotter, 1996; Edmondson, 1999).

Conclusion. Job security concerns pose a legitimate threat to organizational performance and the achievement of the mission for high-quality products. By combining evidence-based job design, fair and meaningful measurement, strong change communication, targeted training, and supportive leadership, managers can reduce insecurity’s negative effects and restore focus on quality and customer value. The integration of theoretical insights from the Job Design Model, JD-R framework, and self-determination theory provides a robust blueprint for sustaining performance in the face of workforce reductions. The ultimate goal is to align human motivation, job design, and organizational processes so that employees are empowered to contribute to high-quality outcomes even during times of organizational change.

References

• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
• De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity: Review of the literature. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 389-412.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279.
• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
• Ilies, R., Dimotakis, N., & Judge, T. A. (2007). The dynamic nature of positive work events and their impact on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 960-971.
• Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
• Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analysis based on meta-analytic findings. Journal of Management, 19(1), 53-70.