Good read.
Why Layoffs Should be Avoided | Blogs | ITBusinessEdge.com
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A place for me to babble on about random topics of interest, including my family, hobbies, whatever. This site also provides a semi-direct interface from my nuclear family to friends and family members near and far.
3 comments:
While there is some wisdom to those words, it is a gross generalization of the scenario in which we find ourselves. For example, in a high profit margin company you'd expect more extreme cost reductions than actual profit reductions. That isn't the case with our personal experience, where a 5% and then 9% cost reduction accompanied a 20% revenue reduction.
And going to the heart of the problem, which is typically poor revenue performance, that is really difficult.
True. But we can also run into a problem of tracking expenditures strictly to revenue - which is what I think is happening to us.
I don't have as much insight into how and why these decisions are made in our case.
I do understand the need to reduce costs to keep revenue up, but for how many cycles will this be the solution until the remaining staff feels they could be next?
How do you retain good people with that sort of approach?
Some of this is obviously a function of the current economic conditions, but this has even occurred in better times if memory serves me well.
I am fascinated about how these decisions are made and what it means for the future of this industry and the specific skills I am going to need to remain a part of it.
I think the fundamental lesson for a US employee, including management, is that we have to be competitive. We are essentially competing for scarce resources, our jobs, with other workers around the world. If we're not competitive in some compelling way, then we are out of a job.
Bad luck can throw us to the streets as well.
On top of that, the US worker is at a significant competitive disadvantage because of cost. So we must be competitive enough to overcome that handicap. (As an aside, universal health care could help fix that problem.)
In a publicly traded company, its all about projected revenue for us because it can rarely be about cost. We have to be associated directly with revenue and are primarily judged by how much revenue we can bring in.
for how many cycles will this be the solution until the remaining staff feels they could be next?
Isn't that already the case? It seems that way to me and my reports.
How do you retain good people with that sort of approach?
That's a hard question. We can reward good people really well; but, that's not what motivates everyone. And there is no sense of loyalty or tenure. Look at your durability, 13 years. And still...
Some of this is obviously a function of the current economic conditions, but this has even occurred in better times if memory serves me well.
Although this is only conjecture on my part, my take on it is that macro-economics was the determining factor in the degree of the cut.
I am fascinated about how these decisions are made and what it means for the future of this industry and the specific skills I am going to need to remain a part of it.
Yeah, this is where I get hooked and energized. We really do have to compete. We have to be best at what we do. That includes constantly changing what we do so that its the best thing to do at the time. Isn't that an exhilarating challenge? The stakes are high, which is my biggest worry.
I've travelled extensively to India, Germany and China offices. I've managed teams in all locations. The people at every site are top-notch, quality Adobe employees. I find partnering with them also exciting. The people are really fun, too. So I have no axe to grind against those overseas who are at an advantage.
Post a Comment