I heard this line from a manager I've known for many years. He was describing how painful layoffs had been for him at his company, and how that was his gut reaction to being asked who should be let go. He believed layoffs were necessary for "feeding everyone else," but it reminded me how tough these times are on everyone. Even the most compassionate and caring companies are feeling compelled to cut people — including the top rated companies on Fortune's Best Place to Work survey: both Google (top in 2008) and NetApp (top in 2009) have done layoffs in recent months.
Which One of My Children Should I Stop Feeding?
Comments
12 responses to “Which One of My Children Should I Stop Feeding?”
-
Bob, some the decisions leaders are being forced to make are killing leaders from the inside out. It’s one thing to release an underperformer. It’s another to release an achiever that has been faithful and a trooper through the thick and the thin. The fallout. Some leaders are losing the passion to lead, which is a looming silent problem for many organizations.
-
Bob, some the decisions leaders are being forced to make are killing leaders from the inside out. It’s one thing to release an underperformer. It’s another to release an achiever that has been faithful and a trooper through the thick and the thin. The fallout. Some leaders are losing the passion to lead, which is a looming silent problem for many organizations.
-
Hi Professor Sutton,
Its very heart-warming to hear about the sympathy of this manager. But managers, directors, and VPs are being cut too. Although I think it is kind of this manager to think of their staff as their children, they just aren’t. Your actually children don’t serve an economic purpose, but employees do. When the economic purpose disappears (perhaps out of no one individual’s fault), systems have to cope with the changes for sustainability. Where the line should be drawn between corporations and government on looking out for the basic welfare of citizens is an interesting and legitimate debate – hopefully we don’t manage to obfuscate ourselves to a point that no one is looking out for people’s welfare.
BTW, just a personal observation: I think the Fortune Best Place to Work survey is total garbage. Having worked at some of the places that Fortune rates highly and observing behaviors that were far from “compassionate and caring,” I’d argue that behaviors and leadership decisions reflect far more on the individual personalities of managers than they do on anything systematic about an organization, particularly in companies that are absent of any sort of cross-functional cultural values framework and real consequences for violating those values. In the absence of tangible monitoring of values, the very notion of ranking a 5000+ employee company with one number is a highly unproductive exercise. -
Hi Professor Sutton,
Its very heart-warming to hear about the sympathy of this manager. But managers, directors, and VPs are being cut too. Although I think it is kind of this manager to think of their staff as their children, they just aren’t. Your actually children don’t serve an economic purpose, but employees do. When the economic purpose disappears (perhaps out of no one individual’s fault), systems have to cope with the changes for sustainability. Where the line should be drawn between corporations and government on looking out for the basic welfare of citizens is an interesting and legitimate debate – hopefully we don’t manage to obfuscate ourselves to a point that no one is looking out for people’s welfare.
BTW, just a personal observation: I think the Fortune Best Place to Work survey is total garbage. Having worked at some of the places that Fortune rates highly and observing behaviors that were far from “compassionate and caring,” I’d argue that behaviors and leadership decisions reflect far more on the individual personalities of managers than they do on anything systematic about an organization, particularly in companies that are absent of any sort of cross-functional cultural values framework and real consequences for violating those values. In the absence of tangible monitoring of values, the very notion of ranking a 5000+ employee company with one number is a highly unproductive exercise. -
Murthy,
Great points. I know that thinking of your staff as children is a bit odd, but this guy really was hurting. It sounds weird, but at least he saw them as people. As for those rankings, I agree completely. Certainly, some companies are better than others, but as you imply, the better research –such as the Gallup surveys — show that it is the actions of immediate supervisors that really explain variation in people’s well-being, engagement, productivity and so on. -
Murthy,
Great points. I know that thinking of your staff as children is a bit odd, but this guy really was hurting. It sounds weird, but at least he saw them as people. As for those rankings, I agree completely. Certainly, some companies are better than others, but as you imply, the better research –such as the Gallup surveys — show that it is the actions of immediate supervisors that really explain variation in people’s well-being, engagement, productivity and so on. -
Living thru IBM’s downsizing in the early ’90s (we went from 400K+ to ~ 200K in about a year) was quite an intro to traumatism. Sharing the speaker’s row with one exec it didn’t take us long to get to the 1500 he’d had to let go, most of whom tore at him. In a good outfit they may not be your children but they are family. Your employment is not just a pure economic transaction, it’s also a large part of what defines your life as your tribe did in years past. When the War Chief gets a bunch of the young warriors killed he should feel remorse. Much MORE importantly he should not do it again. Or you should be replaced by someone better. There’s nothing about this current unpleasantness that was foreseen and foreseeable but too many companies and execs ignored the warnings signs, are still in denial and not making rational choices. We don’t pay someone to be a leader when it’s easy – we pay them to be a leader when it’s hard. So earn your pay.
-
Living thru IBM’s downsizing in the early ’90s (we went from 400K+ to ~ 200K in about a year) was quite an intro to traumatism. Sharing the speaker’s row with one exec it didn’t take us long to get to the 1500 he’d had to let go, most of whom tore at him. In a good outfit they may not be your children but they are family. Your employment is not just a pure economic transaction, it’s also a large part of what defines your life as your tribe did in years past. When the War Chief gets a bunch of the young warriors killed he should feel remorse. Much MORE importantly he should not do it again. Or you should be replaced by someone better. There’s nothing about this current unpleasantness that was foreseen and foreseeable but too many companies and execs ignored the warnings signs, are still in denial and not making rational choices. We don’t pay someone to be a leader when it’s easy – we pay them to be a leader when it’s hard. So earn your pay.
-
Given the pain that layoffs cause to the managers who make the layoff decisions and to the managers who must deliver the layoff news, (not to mention the pain that layoffs cause to survivors and victims), it’s amazing that more CEOs don’t pursue alternatives to layoffs, or pursue these aggressively.
I just wrote about a study by Work+Life Fit, documenting that 94% of employees would accept some kind of flexible downsizing to prevent layoffs at their firms. (see http://www.AuthenticOrganizations.com)
Despite employees’ willingness to sacrifice a bit individually to save the jobs of others, CEOs continue to plan layoffs (between 12% and 27% expect layoffs in Q1 & Q2 2009). Why don’t more CEOs consider alternatives to layoffs for cutting labor costs? -
Given the pain that layoffs cause to the managers who make the layoff decisions and to the managers who must deliver the layoff news, (not to mention the pain that layoffs cause to survivors and victims), it’s amazing that more CEOs don’t pursue alternatives to layoffs, or pursue these aggressively.
I just wrote about a study by Work+Life Fit, documenting that 94% of employees would accept some kind of flexible downsizing to prevent layoffs at their firms. (see http://www.AuthenticOrganizations.com)
Despite employees’ willingness to sacrifice a bit individually to save the jobs of others, CEOs continue to plan layoffs (between 12% and 27% expect layoffs in Q1 & Q2 2009). Why don’t more CEOs consider alternatives to layoffs for cutting labor costs? -
Let me sing in chorus with CV Harquil. It is amazing that so few companies pursue so few alternatives to layoffs. It is amazing that so few involve everyone in helping to find solutions.
And, after years of rhetoric about teams and engagement and the importance of people, it is absolutely amazing that there is so little shared sacrifice. -
Let me sing in chorus with CV Harquil. It is amazing that so few companies pursue so few alternatives to layoffs. It is amazing that so few involve everyone in helping to find solutions.
And, after years of rhetoric about teams and engagement and the importance of people, it is absolutely amazing that there is so little shared sacrifice.
Leave a Reply