Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Do you think the strategies on this list provide effective ways to circumvent the need for layoffs? Have you seen firsthand how the failure to make these kinds of careful business decisions has led to downsizing?
Most companies don't have a problem finding good talent. Rather they have a problem acquiring good talent, because they thing that everyone is (or should be) fishing in the same small pond.
If the same position only pays $50,000 where your company is at, and $80,000 in Las Vegas, don't cry the blues that you can't find good talent if all you are willing to pay is the lower local rate.
If the same position only pays $50,000 where your company is at, and $80,000 in Las Vegas, don't cry the blues that you can't find good talent if all you are willing to pay is the lower local rate.
Many companies also have a problem identifying good talent. I don't know how many problematic hires I've seen that had less to do with access to good talent than with hiring processes that were unable to differentiate the good talent from the not-so-good.
Nobody ever got fired buying ibm - used to be the catch phrase - now it seems to be "Nobody ever got fired buying Oracle". One of the largest expenses in IT budgets today is Oracle licensing.
Move on to Open Source Databases like EnterpriseDB, which has migration tools and other things to ease the migration - and best of all your oracle staff already know how to use it!
Move on to Open Source Databases like EnterpriseDB, which has migration tools and other things to ease the migration - and best of all your oracle staff already know how to use it!
Open office works as well, for Zippo!
MS just plain is a disease. OOOPS! I mean a virus. OOPs I mean is prone to viri.
MS just plain is a disease. OOOPS! I mean a virus. OOPs I mean is prone to viri.
There is a very noticeable item missing in this list that almost every company fails to do today - develop your people so that they continue to be useful and productive. Companies throw away extreme amounts of experience when they simply layoff ("fire") existing people without the current tool(s) and hire new inexperienced people. They should continue to update these people who built their company.
I know of many cases where an employee left a company to start a business, and became quite successful at it, while still servicing the company they left.
So, why not have a directive to encourage this process?
So, why not have a directive to encourage this process?
I like your list and I do believe they are all on target. However, it is really tough to do them in practice and most of them are not "manager" level issues.
Most of the items in the list are aimed at the top of the chain -- the CEO and CFO. If the CEO and the CFO do not really understand how technology works, they can actually implement policies that make doing anything else on the list impossible.
Some corporate policies that make it impossible to move are:
1. Dictating the headcount and the budget at the same time.
2. Creating "replacement" policies that punish waiting for the "right" person to come along. For example, cancelling open positions after 90 days because that "proves" that you did not really need the position in the first place.
3. Creating personnel policies that make it impossible to eliminate the marginal employee. Things like "we only have 'great' employees here, so if you ever give someone a less than stellar performance evaluation, you must correct the problem or fire the employee within 90 day." How about allowing that some people need improvement in one or two areas and give them a chance to grow into it. It would not hurt to allow people to go 6 months to see if they can adequately overcome some deficiency.
4. A policy of "no downgrades". There are some people who get promoted into too high of a responsible position (usually into management). They don't do well, but there is no way to downgrade someone -- you are therefore forced to eliminate someone who most likely was a stellar performer at their previous position.
Most of the items in the list are aimed at the top of the chain -- the CEO and CFO. If the CEO and the CFO do not really understand how technology works, they can actually implement policies that make doing anything else on the list impossible.
Some corporate policies that make it impossible to move are:
1. Dictating the headcount and the budget at the same time.
2. Creating "replacement" policies that punish waiting for the "right" person to come along. For example, cancelling open positions after 90 days because that "proves" that you did not really need the position in the first place.
3. Creating personnel policies that make it impossible to eliminate the marginal employee. Things like "we only have 'great' employees here, so if you ever give someone a less than stellar performance evaluation, you must correct the problem or fire the employee within 90 day." How about allowing that some people need improvement in one or two areas and give them a chance to grow into it. It would not hurt to allow people to go 6 months to see if they can adequately overcome some deficiency.
4. A policy of "no downgrades". There are some people who get promoted into too high of a responsible position (usually into management). They don't do well, but there is no way to downgrade someone -- you are therefore forced to eliminate someone who most likely was a stellar performer at their previous position.
20 things C?? can do to avoid layoffs would be a better title.
I got my current job because the firm I work for isn't dumb enough to go for policy 2.
Avoid specialisation is one I would add. By definition, it means you are assumed to be crap at anything else, so if that gets squeezed for whatever reason....
I got my current job because the firm I work for isn't dumb enough to go for policy 2.
Avoid specialisation is one I would add. By definition, it means you are assumed to be crap at anything else, so if that gets squeezed for whatever reason....
The porblem is most companies do not want their employees to know there will be a layoff. Most of the time I have seen, people being laid off are being told that you are 'fired' and immediately accompanied by the security officer while packing all the belongings. It sounds like that they are instantly turned into a suspect once the layoff announcement is given. If you can't remove everything in one go, too bad, it is going to be tedious to get back into the office again, and you are better go with leaving your things with your friends in the office and ask them to bring back to you. Further discussion on how to assist you is not their businesses, and they are not interested at all.
At least it means they are intelligent enough to figure out that putting you on welfare might cause you to react in a negative manner.
The way some of them talk, you should be happy about the new opportunity they've carefully crafted for you.
Solution for dealing with disgruntled employees, stop disgruntling them is a possibility.
The way some of them talk, you should be happy about the new opportunity they've carefully crafted for you.
Solution for dealing with disgruntled employees, stop disgruntling them is a possibility.
"Solution for dealing with disgruntled employees, stop disgruntling them is a possibility."
Tony, you have hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, management thinks it is cheaper to just keep pi**ing people off.
I'm convinced if there was ever a managment off-site, and the topic of "not disgruleing" employees came up, the participants would be seen running from the room with their fingers in their ears while loudly singing "la la la la happy place, happy place, happy place, happy place ..."
Tony, you have hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, management thinks it is cheaper to just keep pi**ing people off.
I'm convinced if there was ever a managment off-site, and the topic of "not disgruleing" employees came up, the participants would be seen running from the room with their fingers in their ears while loudly singing "la la la la happy place, happy place, happy place, happy place ..."
Going to steal that one for my next chat with management about team morale. Should be soon, as another of the guys' has said 'f*** this for a game of soldiers' and gone to pastures new. I know I'll miss him, so will the team, management who knows.
I'm afraid that staff skills and capabilities have no affect on layoffs. The first level management and middle management can do nothing to prevent layoffs; layoffs are due to decisions made by the CxO level and board of directors.
My experience has been that layoffs are due to corporate acquisitions and mergers, closing of entire facilities, or directives to reduce head count by x%. In the first case, entire categories of workers are laid off. Accounting and purchasing are most likely to be elimiated or severely reduced. In the second case, aside from advicing staff to live in the right city, there is nothing to be done. The last case is the most brutal for first line supervisors and managers as often they are forced to cut a certain number of positions and there is no true objective criteria to determine who should be let go.
While I agree that the items in the list are good things to do, I find it naive to believe that they have any affect on layoffs.
My experience has been that layoffs are due to corporate acquisitions and mergers, closing of entire facilities, or directives to reduce head count by x%. In the first case, entire categories of workers are laid off. Accounting and purchasing are most likely to be elimiated or severely reduced. In the second case, aside from advicing staff to live in the right city, there is nothing to be done. The last case is the most brutal for first line supervisors and managers as often they are forced to cut a certain number of positions and there is no true objective criteria to determine who should be let go.
While I agree that the items in the list are good things to do, I find it naive to believe that they have any affect on layoffs.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
