Directors want to pick RIF names by attitude. What should HR's layoff strategy require before names are final?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Attitude is a Rorschach test, not a layoff criterion. You need job-related factors written down and a look at who gets hit. Otherwise the city is buying a discrimination case with a budget cut.
Full Explanation
Directors who want to pick RIF names by attitude need a layoff strategy that requires documented, job-related criteria plus an adverse-impact analysis before names are final. Attitude is a Rorschach test, not a criterion. Civic reductions funded by public budgets cannot buy discrimination risk with a hallway poll.
Attitude scores from a peer hallway poll fail by concept: subjective popularity is not job-related selection. Ranking by who complained to council most recently fails as retaliation-shaped criteria. Locking each director's preferred names if they fit the budget target fails by skipping consistent criteria and impact analysis.
Exam caveat: job-related criteria (performance documentation, seniority where required, skills for remaining work) must match civil-service and CBA rules; adverse-impact review informs risk, not illegal quotas. Operational check: publish criteria, score candidates, run impact analysis, adjust only through lawful means, then finalize names. Public employers should record the chosen control and rejected options in the talent or labor file so future leaders understand how the decision protects continuity of resident services. Re-validate the same control after the next operating cycle against current staffing, budget, and bargaining constraints.