Restructuring and Reduction in Force (RIF) Community Meeting Notes

Overview of Organizational Reorganization and Community Impact

• Timeline and Context: The meeting occurred slightly less than $2$ weeks after the formal announcement of the organizational restructuring and the notification of a Reduction in Force (RIF).
• Total Human Impact: The reduction in force involved letting go of $8$ full-time employees.
• Meeting Objectives:
  • To acknowledge the processing time required for staff to discuss changes with colleagues and supervisors.
  • To foster a sense of community by speaking as a full group.
  • To address outstanding concerns, including approximately $20$ anonymous questions submitted via a digital form.
• Range of Reactions: Management acknowledges a spectrum of emotions among staff, ranging from excitement regarding the organization's new direction to significant distress over the loss of colleagues. The executive director explicitly emphasized that the community should not "pretend nothing happened," as the restructuring has significant human and operational implications.

Leadership Commitments and Trust-Building

• The Four Pillars of Management Responsibility: The executive director identifies four core commitments to the staff:
  1. Establishing the correct goals and priorities.
  2. Defining the functional roles needed to meet those priorities.
  3. Placing the right people within those specific roles.
  4. Providing the necessary supports for staff to thrive.
• Philosophy on Trust: Trust is earned through three consistent principles established since the director's first day:
  1. Honesty.
  2. Fairness.
  3. Keeping promises.

Data-Driven Rationale for Structural Change

• Systemic Issues Identified by Staff: Feedback from one-on-one sessions and the "Great Place to Work" survey indicated structural failings rather than individual performance issues.
• Quantitative Survey Results (Reflecting existing skepticism/confusion):
  • Only $35\%$ of staff felt management made expectations clear.
  • Only $35\%$ believed management had a clear view of the organization’s trajectory and the path to get there.
  • Only $35\%$ felt it was easy to identify who to approach for specific needs across teams.
  • Only $44\%$ believed management successfully assigned and coordinated personnel.
  • Less than half of the staff ($50\%$) felt there was clear communication between individual teams and the rest of the organization.

Strategic Priorities and New Functional Capacities

• Four Strategic Priorities (Established December Retreat):
  1. Relationships: Maintaining excellent ties with city partners.
  2. Technical Assistance: Delivering consistent, high-quality support to cities.
  3. Research: Building capacity grounded in SGPE (School of Government and Policy Excellence) and the legitimacy of the organization's practice.
  4. Performance: Creating a high-performing organization where employees do the best work of their careers.
• Newly Introduced Roles and Teams: To fill capacity gaps, several new positions were created over the last $6$ months:
  • A single senior leader for city-facing programs.
  • A leader dedicated to research and the strategic positioning at JHU (Johns Hopkins University) and SGP.
  • A senior leader for enterprise-wide project management and organizational coordination.
  • Functional managers for coaching and field-facing analytics.
  • A dedicated AI team.
  • A civic research branch for field insights and feedback loops.
  • An academic engagement position for student/faculty integration.
  • New "CDOs in Residence" to incorporate expert practitioner voices.

Redundant Functions and Role Terminations

• Sunsetted Divisions: Certain areas were identified as no longer strategically necessary or better served by external entities:
  • Public Sector Skills Training: Management decided other players in the ecosystem currently fill this gap.
  • GovX Academy: Sunsetting as a distinct function because skills like instructional design and curriculum development were not easily transferable to the new priority-based roles.
  • Centralized Professional Development: In a matrix organization with functional managers and project management, this role became redundant.
  • Customer Service Representatives: No longer required under the new structure.

Procedures and Logistics of the Reduction in Force (RIF)

• Review and Approval: Decisions were made in coordination with Letricia and Mark, and subsequently reviewed and approved by the Dean, JHU HR, and General Counsel. Final approval occurred in late April.
• Timing of the RIF: Notifications were issued shortly after the "What Works Cities" sprint to fulfill contractual obligations with Results for America.
• Immediate Relief from Work: Employees were relieved of duties immediately rather than being asked to work until July $6$. Rationale included:
  • Pay Maximization: Provides employees more paid time without work requirements.
  • Productivity: Recognition that productivity drops significantly once a termination date is known.
  • Security: Standard JHU policy for "organizational security" involves removing access to internal drives and communication channels (e.g., Slack), though email remains active for official communication.
• Severance Packages: Standard packages include a minimum of $4$ weeks of pay or $1$ week for every year of tenure, plus the $60$-day notification period pay.

Operational Continuity and Transition Plans

• Event Coordination ("Run of Show"): Gabe and Mary have developed a transition plan for upcoming events (e.g., CDA meetings, CDAI connect sessions, VHCLI sessions):
  • Initial Setup: Gabe will handle registration-based meeting setups.
  • Technical Production: Two external vendors are being engaged for technical meeting support.
  • Asset Production: Steven in Communications will continue to edit and polish meeting recordings for distribution.
• Knowledge Base and Civic Research: This work will be overseen by the Director of Civic Research (currently being interviewed). Chris Markowitz has been rehired as a Research Plan Analyst starting June $1$.

Future Culture and Accountability

• Monitoring Morale: Management will conduct pulse check surveys at $30$, $60$, and $90$ days.
• Communication: Monthly all-hands meetings (increased from bimonthly) and an open anonymous question bank.
• The Org Chart: The chart shared recently is the definitive target structure. Management is committed to a "high bar for excellence" for all roles and is moving toward a culture of continuous learning.
• Defining Success: Success by November will be measured by improved scores on the "Great Place to Work" survey, particularly regarding strategic direction.

Questions & Discussion

• Question: Why not find other roles for the affected Academy staff?
• Response: Because the Academy roles were specialized (instructional design), they were not easily reassignable. However, affected employees are encouraged to apply for new open roles (as Chris Markowitz did), and they leave in good standing with access to JHU support and references.
• Question: How does it look to be hiring while letting people go?
• Response: The director explained this is not a budget-driven crisis but a strategic shift. They are hiring for needed capacities (AI, Research) while removing capacities (Academy, Training) that no longer align with the mission.
• Question: Who is handling translation and run-of-show now?
• Response: Mary and Gabe have mapped out a plan using a mix of internal staff (Gabe, Steven) and external technical vendors to ensure no interruption in services for upcoming meetings and events.
• Question: Can we meet with the Executive Director directly?
• Response: Yes, the director encouraged staff to ping Tanya to schedule $15$ to $30$ minute meetings to discuss any individual concerns.