|
Skodel Newsletter · October 2026
What NAB's 2,500-role restructure shows about managing change safely
In this newsletter
| 1 | Skodel Case Analysis: NAB's restructure |
| 2 | Hazards At Play |
| 3 | How To Use This In Your Workplace |
| 4 | Example Controls |
| 5 | Monitoring Control Effectiveness |
|
| |
|
Key Figures
|
2,500 roles
Up to 6% of NAB's workforce, cut by mid-2027. Around 1,500 before the end of this year.
|
$300m
Pre-tax restructuring charge NAB expects to book in FY27.
|
|
| |
| 1 · Skodel Case Analysis |
NAB's 2,500-Role Restructure |
- On 20 October 2026, NAB told the ASX it would cut up to 2,500 roles by mid-2027, with around 1,500 gone before Christmas.
- In at least one technology team, NAB is reportedly running a "spill and fill" process: existing roles declared vacant, staff competing for fewer positions, a two-week consultation window, and final working days as early as 2 and 17 December.
- CEO Andrew Irvine said the bank would "treat every person with dignity and respect."
- The Finance Sector Union's Nicole McPherson called the announcement "corporate spin" and said remaining staff would absorb extra workload.
- NAB's statement didn't mention AI directly, citing "rapid technological change" instead. It hasn't confirmed union claims that roughly 180 roles will move to India and Vietnam.
- The headline figure is the 2,500 number, but the spill-and-fill method is the detail that stretches job insecurity across an entire team for the duration of the process, rather than confining it to a known list of affected roles from day one.
Source: ABC News, 22 October 2026 · Full analysis: skodel.com/blog/nab-restructure-job-insecurity-change-management
Let's look at some potential controls for a hazard like this
Job insecurity
- Give affected staff as much notice and clarity as possible about timelines and decisions.
- Involve staff and their representatives early, rather than after the fact.
Poor organisational change management
- Consult staff before changes are finalised, not just inform them afterward.
- Give a clear channel for people to ask questions as the process runs.
|
| |
|
2 · Hazards At Play
| Job insecurity Every affected role in the team is vacant and re-contested for the length of the process. |
High |
| Poor organisational change management A two-week consultation window for a restructure of this scale, with detail reportedly reaching staff via leaks before official channels. |
High |
| Poor organisational justice A gap between the official announcement and reported detail (offshoring figures NAB hasn't confirmed) leaves staff uncertain what to trust. |
Mod-High |
|
| |
|
3 · How To Use This In Your Workplace
- Before announcing any change, map out how long the uncertainty will run for affected staff. Look for ways to shorten it. The length of exposure matters as much as the outcome.
- Build a single, official source of truth for change communications. Get information to staff before it reaches them second-hand.
- Check in specifically with the people who stay, not only the people who leave. Workload redistribution is a predictable second wave of risk.
|
| |
|
4 · Example Controls
Starting points, not a checklist. The right control depends on what your own people are telling you.
Poor organisational change management
- Consult staff before changes are finalised, and communicate the reasons behind a change clearly, not just the outcome.
- Give adequate notice and transition time, with a documented channel for staff to ask questions and raise concerns as the change unfolds.
All 17 hazard categories, with practical controls for each.
|
| |
|
5 · Monitoring Control Effectiveness
Putting a control in place is the first step, not the last one. The data to check whether it's actually working usually already sits inside a regular check-in or survey cycle:
- Score job insecurity and organisational change management before the restructure starts, so there's a baseline to compare against.
- Re-survey partway through a long process rather than waiting until it's over. A multi-month restructure gives enough time for a control to show up, or fail to, before the outcome is locked in.
- Read the hazard score alongside the qualitative feedback, not on its own. A dropping score next to comments like "we still don't know the timeline" means the control hasn't changed what staff are actually experiencing.
- Watch adjacent hazards too. A restructure that drags on tends to show up later in job demands or poor support, as remaining staff absorb extra workload.
|
| |
|
Upcoming
Talk to us about managing change and job security risk
We don't have a confirmed public webinar landing with enough notice this fortnight to feature here. If you'd like to talk through how Skodel can help you monitor psychosocial risk through a restructure, get in touch directly.
|
| |
|
Skodel · Psychosocial risk assessment for Australian workplaces · skodel.com
|
|
