Taylor tried to calm their concerns by presenting the

Taylor tried to calm their concerns by presenting the cuts as a moment of rebirth
for the SPACENET program, which had long been plagued by problems. She
also pointed out a fact that had been occupying her mind a lot over the weekend:
staffing the program division had been a struggle from the very start, and there
were still a lot of ruffled feathers about the reorganization in 2010. This, Taylor
proposed, might be a golden opportunity to rehire some of the employees that
the other divisions were being forced to let go. This, of course, would entail that
SPACENET actually exceed their quota of eighteen people for termination, but
Taylor firmly believed that, painful though that thought was, it was a strategy that
would be well worth it.
What followed was a lively discussion in which the words “performance,”
“potential,” and “fairness” were uttered often. Attempts to apply some rules for
the discussion were often derailed when a person’s favorite employee came
under consideration. Voices were raised and a heated discussion often ended
with the loudest person getting in the last word.
A central topic throughout the discussion was what would be the best source for
data on individual employees. To that end, the group relied heavily on a report
that Nilasha Ghosh had sent to Julia Taylor the previous evening on the PAS
(Exhibit C).
The New Flat Panel
After a long discussion of the performance appraisal measures, Taylor, Ghosh,
Sosland, Dobbs and Nuri decided that because PAS had been used by only 29%
of the company, little weight could be given to it. They relied more heavily on the
personnel audits and any other information on file in the employee HR files. They
also called in Nathan Kim to take part in the meetings and to help interpret the
personnel audits wherever they were unclear.
The committee decided on roughly a four-step process to make their decisions:
1) reorganization, 2) staffing of new organization, 3) a second review of
personnel, and 4) an upgrading review. This process, they felt, would allow them
to staff the restructured organization with the best possible people.
Before the group broke for lunch, Felicity Sosland pointed out that George
McTavish, the technical manager being replaced by Ghosh, had been at the
company longer than any of them and probably had valuable insights. After a

Page 7
brief phone call with Chase Greggson, Taylor met with McTavish. She explained
the predicament of the personnel cuts, but said that Greggson had promised to
rehire him in the engineering division, albeit in a lower position. To Taylor’s
shock, McTavish expressed relief. He considered himself a technician through
and through and had long felt burdened by being pushed into management.
From that point forward, he took part in the meetings about the personnel
reductions.