So we're coming up to the mid-year review at PA. Have any of the PAers out there heard if there are likely to be any redundancies?

Think it will be down to individual practices...in particular I wouldn't like to be a Partner or MC not hitting my numbers right now

Not sure there will be redundancies but poor performers will get managed out more assertively than usual.Most of the PA people I've worked with have been extremely capable, so under performers are the exception rather that the rule. Managing them out is good for them and PA - it shouldn't be seen as a bad thing to confront and address poor performance, and if necessary make the individual recognise that consulting either isn't for them, or could be holding them back from a role that better fits their talents.

I hope no one is suggesting that the bell curve will be tampered with to deliver something other than the normal, objective, ethical, wholly performance-related scores we usually get.

Such a horrid thing to say about our robust and transparent recognition and reward system.I have sat in the BOP read across many times, and have listened to one of our partners consistently argue strongly for cute girls who, by a happy co-incidence, happen to look well in short dresses. Is it his fault that all the men in BOP happen to be weak performers?

I know nothing about PA, but as a side note, I once visited one consultancy practice where you could have run a strip club with the same staff. It was the kind of place where your success in the company seemed to be directly correlated to your physical attractiveness. So much of this seems to go on these days, it's unreal - appearance over substance.

Strippers ain't losing no memory stick. Lanyards could be used creatively also.

I've just had it confirmed that "a small number of selective redundancies will be made"

not many people have been managed out successfully and increasing even further the percentage of people on a 1 score is being considered

I heard yesterday that a number of consultants are being put on PIPs in the IT practices due to low utilisation. Not sure why they are putting consultants on PIPs when it's up to the MCs and Partners to bring the work in.

Yip - BOP policy is that if your utilisation is below 60%, you go straight to a PIP and a written warning.The irony is that none of our lazy partners can sell enough work to keep us busy, even in the public sector, so us poor fools again take it in the face.

Interesting. Surely the implication of this is that some people will be fired on performance grounds for having low utilisation, when in fact their utilisation is beyond their control, and if not enough work is being sold by those who are responsible for selling the work then actually it's a redundancy situation for the consultant concerned and not a performance based layoff?

Another way of looking at it is as a redundancy with candidates selected based on lack of demand in their markets. Seems a lot fairer than many redundancy selections.

So... in what we're agreeing is a redundancy-type situation, is the other poster suggesting that people are put on a PIP? That would seem grossly unfair. It seems reaonable that redundancy candidates are selected on the basis of low utilisation, but in this case they should be made redundant.... not put on a PIP and, as I understand it, told that they need to 'improve their performance' otherwise they will be given the sack (as in fired rather than made redundant).I'm very interested in finding out more about what actually happens and whether these situations are treated as redundancies or if they are handled as performance based layoffs.

PA do not do redundancies unless they absolutely have to. They did a few in the early noughties, but it was barely above the statutory minimum. It must really be a crisis if the same thing is being considered nowAs reported here earlier in the year, and as denied by our lazy partners in BOP, there is a very real rise in the number of staff getting a 1.PA (and BOP in particular) did not grow during the boom times, so you can expect it to decrease massively in size over the next six months just as everyone else is gearing up for growth.Stilll, at least our partners seem to be doing well which is nice for them

The partners are responsible for bringing in external customers. You are responsible for selling yourself to internal customers.This is as fair as anything else in life. One person born in Nigeria, one in England; One in Surrey, one in Liverpool; one with private education, one in a sink school; one with legs, one in a wheelchair.At least on the PIP you may have the opportunity to improve. And this is business not personal. The business wins either way with a PIP; whereas the business loses a person with a redundancy.

"You are responsible for selling yourself to internal customers. "Very true jj.It helps to sell yourself to one of the BOP partners though if you have a short skirt and a nice smile. Males need not apply.I don't think we will see many of the cute girlies in BOP on a PIP this year, irrespective of business aptitude.

There is a major difference between a redundancy and a performance-based layoff (i.e a sacking).If there is not enough work to go around, then there should be redundancies if they need to get rid of people. Giving out performance based layoffs in that situation would, I imagine, open them to all sorts of claims in an employment tribunal??

PA have a major reliance on the ID cards scheme which is looking very dodgy right now. I don't see how they can keep all their consultants utilised over the medium term.

PA is an ethical company. No one at the top would dream about putting people on PIPs to get rid of people on the cheap. If there was genuine overcapacity, I'm sure voluntary redundancies would be the approach taken. You wouldn't throw good people on the scrapheap for short-term cost savings. After all, didn't we all get pay freezes so we could mutually help each other and people wouldn't get the boot. No way, I won't hear of it. It's all lies I tells ya.