The smart companies still hire even when they're firing; still fire even when they're hiring. Boeing cut 3000 jobs in the first four months of 2009 but added over 100 employees in its defense unit, and at the same time had more than 1500 current and anticipated job openings.
When the economy, your markets, the acceptance of your products, and your overall strategy change, the size and make-up of your work-force also has to change.
The cartoon show cutting and filling. It's not easy for a CEO to add positions and hire new people while layoffs are being enacted. It's also not easy to do pruning even when the company is doing well and growing. But the American economy has always shown robust growth basically because this type of practice is embraced, even if too-infrequently practiced. It is in your company's best interests, and in the long term also in your employees' best interests to cut and fill
Tom;
I would feel much more comfortable if I knew that those in Washington read this post. The concepts, while at first glance seemingly 'simple', are powerful.
The US economy certainly needs the type of pruning you describe in order to succeed in new economic conditions. I wonder if the same might apply to our government--is our system of government adaptable, such that with fine tuning it may be possible to respond to crises more effectively? If so, what type of systemic changes (e.g., pruning) are warranted? How might this concept apply to the California state budget "crisis"? (Has traditional government become less relevant?). These are a few of the thoughts inspired by your post.
Posted by: Nicholas Vakkur | June 02, 2009 at 01:16 AM