Downsizing Digest Friday, 28 June 1996 Volume 01 : Number 003
In this issue:
Re: Downsizing reasons
Loss of jobs due to industry changes
Re: Loss of jobs due to industry changes
Loss of jobs due to industry changes
Re: Downsizing information
Re: Loss of jobs due to industry changes
Re: Downsizing information
Re: Downsizing information
How downsizing starts
Service disruptions
Service disruptions
Shamrock
Book review
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ray Martin
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 21:35:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Downsizing reasons
wradford@midland.co.nz wrote:
>
> In Ray Martins post he asks:"
>
> < * Increased international competition
> < * Decreased trade restrictions
> < * Increased taxes and government spending
> < * Decreased management layers in US industry
> < * Increased government regulation
> < * Increased need for knowledge over manual work
>
>
> I would add two more:
> * Change of Government regulation (as opposed to increase)
> * Compensation for poor management performance.
>
> Bill Radford
> wradford@midland.co.nz
Bill, other Downsizing colleagues:
Bill: * Change of Government regulation (as opposed to increase)
Ray: Bill, I was thinking more so of private firms--private sector
downsizing. Example: Virtually all recognized economists, who are not
politically motivated, acknowledge that an increase in the US minimum
wage will result in reduced employment, e.g., downsizing. Certainly for
marginal workers--those who need a job the most. (Hot political topic in
the USA right now.)
The opposite is also true, I believe: deregulation leads to upsizing.
While is rare to get rid of a government program or bureaucracy, at
least in the USA, it happens. Government deregulation of US air
carriers led to upsizing for example.
See what you mean though from your other post though: a government
decision led to government downsizing. Certainly agree there! We have
both downsizing and upsizing inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway USA
whenever an administration changes. Difficult to tell on political
decisions!
Bill: * Compensation for poor management performance.
Ray: Bill, not sure exactly what you mean on this one? Agree that it
happens though.
Ray Martin, Ph.D.
Management Consultant
165 Palisades Drive, No. 936
Universal City, Texas 78148
210-659-8377 (tel/fax)
210-212-0783 (alphanumeric pager)
RMartin@texas.net
------------------------------
From: jmalsbury@pppl.gov (Judy Malsbury)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 08:05:56 -0500
Subject: Loss of jobs due to industry changes
On public radio this morning, there was a piece on a major tobacco company.
Employees of the company were interviewed who are extremely anxious and, in
turn, angry with the job losses in their industry they believe are due to
the negative publicity that tobacco is receiving. Comments were made such
as:
* I believed I had a job for life.
* I am only trying to make a good living for my family - to live the
American dream.
* Why can't the media leave us alone? Why are they out to get us?
While I can identify with the concerns of the employees, the physical
health of the country would benefit with a smaller tobacco industry. So my
questions are: What is the responsibility of government, if any, when an
industry goes into a necessary decline? What if government is a major
planner in this decline? What is the responsibility of individuals and
organized groups, if any, who push for no smoking in public places, no
advertising to teens, etc.? Would the push for reduced smoking be more
effective if we could work with these potentially displaced individuals to
assure their future? What could/should be done to encourage the tobacco
industry to branch out so that their employees are secure even if tobacco
use does decline?
Tobacco is an example of an industry, but these questions are broad as the
needs for a particular industry decrease or productivity increases so fewer
people are needed.
- --
Judy Malsbury
jmalsbury@pppl.gov
------------------------------
From: DDHARTMA@itt.com (Ab uno disce omnes)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Loss of jobs due to industry changes
On June 24, Judy Malsbury asked the following questions:
>What is the responsibility of government, if any, when an industry goes
>into a necessary decline? What if government is a major planner in this
>decline? What is the responsibility of individuals and organized
>groups, if any, who push for no smoking in public places, no advertising
>to teens, etc.? Would the push for reduced smoking be more effective if
>we could work with these potentially displaced individuals to assure
>their future? What could/should be done to encourage the tobacco
>industry to branch out so that their employees are secure even if
>tobacco use does decline?
>Tobacco is an example of an industry, but these questions are broad as the
>needs for a particular industry decrease or productivity increases so fewer
>people are needed.
- -------------------------Reply Separator---------------------------
Judy,
I found your questions stimulating. This is an aspect of the tobacco
industry (and downsizing in general) that I had not considered. But, I'm
afraid that I can only respond to your questions with a few of my own.
Since discussions and interest in banning the use of tobacco have been
with us since the 1960s, what responsibilities does the tobacco industry
have towards their employees?
My thoughts are that (at least in this case) the hand-writing has been
very prominent on the wall for many years, why hasn't the tobacco
industry (an industry which has been very profitable for many years)
expended finances towards research for "other" uses for their products?
Uses that could maintain them (and their employees) well beyond the
banning of tobacco as it is used today.
Could it be used for fuel, live-stock feed, insulation, stock
for paper (in lieu of trees), ect?
We the people, have no responsibility for maintaining antiquated,
useless, dangerous, un-changing, non-customer oriented, dying (for what
ever reason) businesses!
The business, carries ALL of the responsibility for its health. And we
as mere employees are responsibile for "bailing out" of businesses that
are not being managed in a healthy fashion, or affecting change that
could correct management's short sightedness.
I am responsibile for my welfare, not my employer, not the government,
not even my Mom and Dad.
David D. Hartman
Quality Systems Auditor
ITT Aerospace/Communications Div.
Ft. Wayne, IN
Phone: (219) 487-6092
Email: ddhartma@ITT.com
************************************************************************
* All opinions noted above are my own, and not necessarily those *
* of my employer. It is also recognized by the writer that these *
* opinions may, in-fact, be wrong. Therefore, all comments and *
* corrections are welcomed. *
************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: jmalsbury@pppl.gov (Judy Malsbury)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 08:49:12 -0500
Subject: Loss of jobs due to industry changes
On public radio this morning, there was a piece on a major tobacco company.
Employees of the company were interviewed who are extremely anxious and, in
turn, angry with the job losses in their industry they believe are due to
the negative publicity that tobacco is receiving. Comments were made such
as:
* I believed I had a job for life.
* I am only trying to make a good living for my family - to live the
American dream.
* Why can't the media leave us alone? Why are they out to get us?
While I can identify with the concerns of the employees, the physical
health of the country would benefit with a smaller tobacco industry. So my
questions are: What is the responsibility of government, if any, when an
industry goes into a necessary decline? What if government is a major
planner in this decline? What is the responsibility of individuals and
organized groups, if any, who push for no smoking in public places, no
advertising to teens, etc.? Would the push for reduced smoking be more
effective if we could work with these potentially displaced individuals to
assure their future? What could/should be done to encourage the tobacco
industry to branch out so that their employees are secure even if tobacco
use does decline?
Tobacco is an example of an industry, but these questions are broad as the
needs for a particular industry decrease or productivity increases so fewer
people are needed.
- --
Judy Malsbury
jmalsbury@pppl.gov
------------------------------
From:
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 15:13:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Downsizing information
In response to Bill's list of issues, I will start with #1, how downsizing
starts.
In my opinion and experience from being on the inside of several downsizings
in the private sector and watching it in the public sector and private sector
as a consultant, the need to downsize is a result of the decision that
cutting out heads is the most efficient way to cut expenses. Why do they
need to be cut so drastically? Because of poor decisions made in the past.
I challenge companies and organizations to take a different approach.
How about being honest with all employees about how critical the situation
is (as if they don't already feel it in their guts) and asking them all to
participate in saving the organization? Why do top managers continue to bear
the full burden of coming up with the one answer? Won't the vast numbers of
employees in the organization, knowing their own futures are at risk be
motivated to identify creative solutions to save money/expenses and increase
efficiencies? Of course, this approach takes a lot of planning and
organization, but it is amazing how fast things can move when everyone is
moving in the same direction - towards survival. I am convinced that a lot
of the anger downsized employees feel is a result of their feelings of
helplessness having "had it done to them". Give people a shot and if it
doesn't work, then go the voluntary separation, retrain, etc. routes.
What do you think, folks? Too crazy?
Catherine Brooks
Brooks Ramsey Associates
1623 Stowe Road
Reston, VA 22094 brookscc@aol.com 703-742-6160
------------------------------
From:
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 15:14:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Loss of jobs due to industry changes
I find David's response to the issue of who is responsible for dying
industries very heartening. I agree that it is an organization's job to be
future and long-term oriented. Even non-profits are having to learn to pay
attention to their customers, ie, their market and realize that their funding
can change at any moment. As with any business, one must spread out the
sources of income and not become complacent and reliant on a few , key
customers. Certainly companies and agencies dependent on the defense
industry have discovered this recently and are retooling to fit new markets.
On an individual level, people/employees must also learn to be accountable
for their work and responsible for their own futures. Organizations can
assist them with tools and training to keep them motivated, constantly
learning, and therefore, marketable. I am seeing more of the X generation
accepting this as a way of life. Entitlement is a thing of the past and the
sooner folks realize that and move beyond their fears, the faster they will
recover.
Catherine Brooks
Brooks Ramsey Associates 1623 Stowe Road, Reston, VA USA
brookscc@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Platt.Charles"
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 16:16:28 EST
Subject: Re: Downsizing information
Bill & Fellow list members,
I am still here. I am leaving the list because I need to work on
not getting downsized. I am involved in our reengineering effort
and I do not have the time. I am glad that a digest version is
now available.
See ya,
Charles
platt.charles@mail.mccg.org
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Downsizing information
Author: at Internet
Date: 6/21/96 6:07 PM
Fellow list members,
I recently asked if there were any positive examples of downsizing
and there have been somegood instances quoted which is heartening.
(Sorry Joe for missing your previous post)
I also see Charles Platt about to depart the list seemingly in
frustration in not seeing any constructive dialogue about issues -
Did I get it right if you are still there Charles?
Bill Radford
wradford@midland.co.nz
------------------------------
From: Delores Hemphill
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 21:54:40 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Downsizing information
On Mon, 24 Jun 1996 BROOKSCC@aol.com wrote:
the decision that
> cutting out heads is the most efficient way to cut expenses. Why do they
> need to be cut so drastically? Because of poor decisions made in the past.
Based on the whys of my layoff as well as several others in 1993, I
certianly believe the continuation of bad decisions at the top led to
heads being placed on the chopping block at the facility where I was employed.
> I challenge companies and organizations to take a different approach.
> How about being honest with all employees about how critical the situation
> is (as if they don't already feel it in their guts) and asking them all to
> participate in saving the organization?
Prior to the layoffs, employees and managers WERE working
together in how savings and working more efficiently could occur. It was
exciting to see everyone working together and coming up with ideas that
were very cost effective.
Why do top managers continue to bear the full burden of coming up with
the one answer?
In our particular case, I have no sympathy for the top managers
at this facility bearing the full burden. It was to save their own hides
with the parent company. The cost effective ideas of the middle managers
and employees were tossed to the wind.
Of course, this approach takes a lot of planning and organization,
Our organization's top management did not have the "smarts" for planning and
organization even with the attempt at implementing the total quality
management process long before the layoffs occurred.
Does one ever forget the devastating feelings of layoff? No! I was
interested to see what the downsizing list members would contribute. I
am curious how many of the list have experienced what it is like to be on
the layoff list?
As the alarm continues to ring at 6:00 am, I now realize there is life
after layoff. In fact, it is quite good being my own boss in a
consulting business with office in my home.
Just my 2 cents from the other side of downsizing. Delores Hemphill
> Catherine Brooks
> Brooks Ramsey Associates
> 1623 Stowe Road
> Reston, VA 22094 brookscc@aol.com 703-742-6160
>
------------------------------
From: Wilson K Maj 12AF/QI
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 96 08:52:00 PDT
Subject: How downsizing starts
Catherine Brooks wrote: "I challenge companies and organizations to take a
different approach. How about being honest with all employees about how
critical the situation is (as if they don't already feel it in their guts)
and asking them all to participate in saving the organization? Why do top
managers continue to bear the full burden of coming up with the one answer?
Won't the vast numbers of employees in the organization, knowing their own
futures are at risk be motivated to identify creative solutions to save
money/expenses and increase efficiencies? Of course, this approach takes a
lot of planning and organization, but it is amazing how fast things can move
when everyone is moving in the same direction - towards survival. I am
convinced that a lot of the anger downsized employees feel is a result of
their feelings of helplessness having "had it done to them". Give people a
shot and if it doesn't work, then go the voluntary separation, retrain,
etc. routes."
I have to agree with Catherine. Following is an example of getting those
affected involved in the change.
One of the organizations that belongs to the headquarters where I work is
being split up and moved to two separate locations. This is a major
restructuring and downsizing for this organization which has been around for
a long time. This organization is basically "one of a kind" and has been
used to being left alone. A working group was formed to make
recommendations on what positions and skills should be moved to which
location as well as what positions should be deleted or possibly added.
Many of the people working in this group are individuals that will be
affected by this restructuring. The others are from my headquarters.
Initially there was a lack of direction and the team was having problems
determining who their major customers were. I was asked to facilitate a
session where the team would identify their "key" Customers, Outputs,
Processes, Inputs, and Suppliers (this is what the Air Force calls a COPIS).
After working with the group they were able to eliminate the "fluff",
identify "key" areas, and reach consensus on their decisions. These actions
allowed them to better identify the positions that were needed and where
they were needed. The whole organization is more or less involved with the
working group and the recommendations coming out of the group.
What does all this rambling mean? The team included many of the individuals
that would be affected by this restructuring. By being able to actively
analyze and make recommendations the frustration and anger has been kept to
a minimum. The recommendations are just about to be implemented with many
people moving or ending up without a job. The overall feeling is that the
positions are going to locations that make sense and the major functions
will not be eliminated, just incorporated in different locations. The final
decisions are being made by very senior leaders, however, the
recommendations and most of the work has been done by those affected.
Bottom line: Give those people affected by the change a chance to be
involved and most of them will truly produce great results!
Kim Wilson, Major, USAF
Chief, Quality Implementation
wilsonk@hq12af.dm.af.mil
------------------------------
From: "David Casti"
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 18:00:13 -0400
Subject: Service disruptions
Hi folks,
Due to several changes in the configuration of the Casti Estate over the next
four weeks (including elements of buying a house, changing jobs, etc.) there
will be service outages of various lengths.
Obviously we have a vested interest in keeping these outages to the shortest
period possible, and will work aggressively to that end. However, you may
experience interruptions in mail, web, ftp, or other services in the many
domains that we host. If you find service has been disrupted, please be
patient with us and try again later.
Thank you for your support,
David Casti
------------------------------
From: "David Casti"
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 18:00:13 -0400
Subject: Service disruptions
Hi folks,
Due to several changes in the configuration of the Casti Estate over the next
four weeks (including elements of buying a house, changing jobs, etc.) there
will be service outages of various lengths.
Obviously we have a vested interest in keeping these outages to the shortest
period possible, and will work aggressively to that end. However, you may
experience interruptions in mail, web, ftp, or other services in the many
domains that we host. If you find service has been disrupted, please be
patient with us and try again later.
Thank you for your support,
David Casti
------------------------------
From:
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 07:28:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Shamrock
I read an article recently by a downsizing "expert".
It said that business of the future will be formed on the shamrock
principle; that is, divided into three categories like the three leaves of a
shamrock.
These tree are the core, the contract group and the flexible group.
The core represents positions that are critical to the organization.
It's the managers and technicians. You don't want a high turnover in this group.
The contract group is also important but not at the heart of what's being done.
For example, at Kimberly Clark, packaging is important but the secret to the
company's success is making tissues.
The flexible group floats in and out.
These people are seasonal, part time, temporary. A company might need 50
people for 2 days or 2 months.
I'd be interested in what you other "experts" think about this.
Neil Steeman
President, Change Management Solutions, Inc.
We prevent tomorrow's problems.
CMSolver@scescape.net
------------------------------
From: Wilson K Maj 12AF/QI
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 96 09:45:00 PDT
Subject: Book review
This might not be appropriate on the lists, but I am going to ask anyway. I
have three books that I would like to know if anyone out there has read and
what you think about them (are they good for an organization or in a private
library). The three books are currently being promoted by ASQC and are:
A History of Managing for Quality: The Evolution, Trends, and Future
Directions of Managing for Quality,
J. M. Juran, Editor-In-chief
Quality Quotes, by Helio Gomes
Mapping Work Processes, by Dianne Galloway
I am considering these for our unit resource library, or even for my own
library. Your reviews are appreciated.
Kim Wilson
Headquarters Twelfth Air Force
Quality Improvement Office
wilsonk@hq12af.dm.af.mil
------------------------------
End of Downsizing Digest V1 #3
******************************