Kicking them while they're down - Northern Rock's crazy bonus decision
I've resisted commenting on the Northern Rock saga since my early posts on the subject, but one recent development has sent such a negative message to staff that I feel compelled to join the chorus of disapproval...
I'm talking about the board's decision to pay fat bonuses to around 80 'key players' - top executives in the troubled business who they want to keep hold of. The story which was scooped by the Mail on Sunday at the weekend and has been covered heavily since.
Now I can understand them wanting to retain key people during this period of great instability, but surely there was a better way to do it than this?
Paying a fairly large but minority group of managers a quarterly cash bonus equivalent to 25% of their gross annual salary was always going to be a sure-fire way to alienate the rest of Northern Rock's beleaguered staff. Talk about kicking people when they're down.
What makes the move even worse is that it was done in such a cloak and dagger way. In his letter to the lucky bonus recipients, CEO Andy Kuipers said the scheme "must remain absolutely confidential and not be discussed with others", otherwise the recipient would forfeit the entitlement. So much for transparency.
The board obviously recognised what a monster it had created and wanted to keep it under wraps. This nervousness is not surprising when you consider that many middle managers and sales staff - the very people who the bank will rely on if it is to stand any chance of bouncing back - had their bonuses cut just before Christmas (nice timing too).
Of course this latest move has gone down like a lead balloon with front line staff, who have already seen their shareholdings evaporate and had to come to terms with the constant threat of redundancy.
Many of them feel that the bosses are simply lining their pockets with silver before the ship sinks. Trust in leadership has nose-dived and, quite rightly, some once loyal staff (or rather those who have other options) are now rethinking their careers.
From my perspective this was quite simply a bad business decision. As a piece of employee relations it sucks. It has signalled to the majority of employees that they are little more than expendable resource and that their immense loyalty and support while the bank has been under siege has counted for absolutely nothing. It also means that, in the future, any communication that emanates from the top will be treated with the scepticism it deserves.
That's no way to secure the future of a once thriving business.

Recent Comments