Downsizing Digest Friday, 17 January 1997 Volume 01 : Number 009
In this issue:
Re: The downsizing list
BOUNCE downsizing@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Deborah Dunn ] (fwd)
Re: The downsizing list
Re: The downsizing list
Re: The downsizing list
Re: The downsizing list
[none]
Re: The downsizing list
BOUNCE downsizing@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Perry & Bonnie Lazer ] (fwd)
Re: The downsizing list
Re: The downsizing list
Re: The downsizing list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ray Martin
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:34:07 -0600
Subject: Re: The downsizing list
From: Ray Martin
Neil, other Downsizing colleagues:
ISO 9000 sounds overspecialized for my purposes. It also suggests a
solution. But a fine forum I am sure for specialists and those with
specific interests. TQM in . . . does not suggest a solution. Just a
process, even an objective. What, not too specific on how. That's why
I like TQM but couldn't help much with ISO 9000.
Neil, you may want to start at http://www.casti.com/qc/ You can get the
gist of the TQM in Services and Manufacturing list there. Also, Bill
Casti, moderator, provides subscribe and unsubscribe instructions
periodically.
Buggy whips. Strategic planning means looking at the future to see
where to go. Looks like you might be in that business Neil? Buggy whip
demise was fairly easy to forecast. Surviving in it required action and
systematic abandonment of the outdated. Many firms fail on this latter
point. Government almost always does. Many firms grow through a
transition from, say, buggy whips to tires, upsizing all the way.
Requires vision and some of the other things discussed recently on the
TQM list. (By the way, Neil, recent discussions are available at the
Casti site above. For lurkers-only, it's a good way to stay informed on
the topic without subscribing.)
Re: "Ah, but it still concentrates on downsizing the rights of the
individual and "redistributing" from the gains made by the energetic to
the "needs" of the lazy." Not sure I understand?
Ray Martin
rmartin@texas.net
- --- edited
Neil Steeman wrote:
>
> From: Neil Steeman
> Ray Martin wrote:
> >
> > From: Ray Martin
> > Azif, other Downsizing colleagues:
> >
> > Downsizing as a separate topic was, I believe, doomed on two counts.
>
> What was it called when the horse carriage and buggywhip industry was
> re-tooling?
>
> Ah, but it still concentrates on downsizing the rights of the individual
> and "redistributing" from the gains made by the energetic to the "needs"
> of the lazy.
> >
> Neil Steeman
> President, Change Management Solutions, Inc.
> We prevent tomorrow's problems.
> CMSolver@scescape.net
> http://www2.scescape.com/home-index/cmsolutions.html
- ---- end editing
------------------------------
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (Moderator)"
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:15:54 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: BOUNCE downsizing@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Deborah Dunn ] (fwd)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (Moderator)"
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see below) and to the list's
posting address, OR as directed in the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thanks.
Bill
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:01:26 -0500
From: Deborah Dunn
To: downsizing@quality.org
Subject: Re: BOUNCE downsizing@quality.org: Non-member submission from [hhassin@ferret.slip.net (Harold Hassin)] (fwd)
> Probably, as was said during the period of high activity, there was a lot
> of griping but no real original ideas about alternatives, just stories
> about consequences.
I am still here and quite interested in the "stories" about consequences.
I think the personal perspective is quite important -- and I am collecting
"downsizing" narratives. If you want/need to tell your story -- please
send them to me! I guarantee confidentiality/anonymity.
Happy New Year.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Deborah Dunn
Researcher, University of Southern California, PAL Grant
Adjunct Professor, Pepperdine University, Communication Division
ddunn@rcf.usc.edu http://www-scf.usc.edu/~ddunn/
------------------------------
From: Neil Steeman
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:37:51 -0800
Subject: Re: The downsizing list
From: Neil Steeman
Ray Martin wrote:
> Neil, you may want to start at http://www.casti.com/qc/ You can get the
> gist of the TQM in Services and Manufacturing list there. Also, Bill
> Casti, moderator, provides subscribe and unsubscribe instructions
> periodically.
>
(By the way, Neil, recent discussions are available at the
> Casti site above. For lurkers-only, it's a good way to stay informed on> the topic without subscribing.)
Ray,
I looked around on the Casti site. There's a lot of info there but I
didn't see anyplace to lurk for discussions. Can you specify how to do
that?
> Re: "Ah, but it still concentrates on downsizing the rights of the
> individual and "redistributing" from the gains made by the energetic to
> the "needs" of the lazy." Not sure I understand?
Well, in my opinion the "government" is continually trying to find ways
to (1)stifle innovation with its various administrative bodies such as
EPA, OSHA, FDA and the regulations that ensue and (2) take more and more
money from those who manage to overcome the roadblocks and give it to
those who would rather take a handout than work for it.
Neil Steeman
President, Change Management Solutions, Inc.
We prevent tomorrow's problems.
CMSolver@scescape.net
http://www2.scescape.com/home-index/cmsolutions.html
------------------------------
From: Ray Martin
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 22:11:01 -0600
Subject: Re: The downsizing list
From: Ray Martin
Neil, other Downsizing colleagues:
The discussion list going back to 1 May 96 is at:
http://stat1.cc.ukans.edu/~liu/quality/maillist.html
Neil, I (only) partially agree with you. Government intentions are
almost always good. Results, however, are almost always poor--at least
relative to alternatives and relative to cost-effectiveness. Government
doesn't try to find ways to stifle innovation, but it clearly stifles
innovation.
Yes, there is an enormous redistribution of money centered inside the
Washington Beltway. People, good people, respond to the incentives
presented them. But that is normal. Present them a better choice and
they will respond to it instead.
Yes, government takes a lot of our income. About half. About 43
percent directly. Another seven percent in regulation and spending
beyond inflows.
The system needs fixing. Downsizing would help. Upsizing while calling
it downsizing doesn't help a bit.
Ray Martin
rmartin@texas.net
Neil Steeman wrote:
>
> From: Neil Steeman
> Ray Martin wrote:
> > Neil, you may want to start at http://www.casti.com/qc/ You can get the
> > gist of the TQM in Services and Manufacturing list there. Also, Bill
> > Casti, moderator, provides subscribe and unsubscribe instructions
> > periodically.
> >
> (By the way, Neil, recent discussions are available at the
> > Casti site above. For lurkers-only, it's a good way to stay informed on> the topic without subscribing.)
>
> Ray,
>
> I looked around on the Casti site. There's a lot of info there but I
> didn't see anyplace to lurk for discussions. Can you specify how to do
> that?
>
> > Re: "Ah, but it still concentrates on downsizing the rights of the
> > individual and "redistributing" from the gains made by the energetic to
> > the "needs" of the lazy." Not sure I understand?
>
> Well, in my opinion the "government" is continually trying to find ways
> to (1)stifle innovation with its various administrative bodies such as
> EPA, OSHA, FDA and the regulations that ensue and (2) take more and more
> money from those who manage to overcome the roadblocks and give it to
> those who would rather take a handout than work for it.
>
> Neil Steeman
> President, Change Management Solutions, Inc.
> We prevent tomorrow's problems.
> CMSolver@scescape.net
> http://www2.scescape.com/home-index/cmsolutions.html
------------------------------
From:
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:24:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: The downsizing list
From:
In a message dated 97-01-14 23:22:54 EST, Ray Martin writes:
> Neil, I (only) partially agree with you. Government intentions are
> almost always good. Results, however, are almost always poor--at least
> relative to alternatives and relative to cost-effectiveness. Government
> doesn't try to find ways to stifle innovation, but it clearly stifles
> innovation.
>
Ray,
Unfortunately, the unintentional stifling of innovation is not unique to
government. Up until about a year and a half ago I worked for a Firtune 500
Food company. The company thought that it would be useful to make a
definitive statement about its value system. They wanted to indicate that
they they valued innovation and risk taking, but also felt compelled to put a
qualifier on the work risk -- out of fear that folks would go off half
cocked!! The statement they came up with was:
"....values successful risk taking."
In all fairness, that never got widely publicized, but many of us thought
that it was a very accurate statement of the company's real value system!
Joe McBride
TBS Concepts
JoeMcBride@aol.com
(630)904-2690
Visit TBS Concepts On-Line at:
http://members.aol.com/TBSConcep/homepage.htm
- -------------------------------------------------------
"Wisdom is the experiences you gain throughout life that you can share with
others"
Robert Fulghum
- -------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Ray Martin
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:33:52 -0600
Subject: Re: The downsizing list
From: Ray Martin
Joe, other Downsizing colleagues:
Joe, you are right without doubt. However, the difference is that
private sector stiflers have pressures that should lead to change or
failure and demise. In the private sector we don't have to finance the
stiflers ineptness.
These pressures are lacking in the public sector. Often the outcome is
perverse--e.g., didn't get the desired result by stifling. Therefore
nore stifling and a bigger budget is needed. Since our intentions are
good--we just need to work at it harder, longer, more expensively.
We finance public stiflers ineptness big time. Really big time.
Thanks!
Ray Martin
rmartin@texas.net
JoeMcBride@aol.com wrote:
>
> From:
> In a message dated 97-01-14 23:22:54 EST, Ray Martin writes:
>
> > Neil, I (only) partially agree with you. Government intentions are
> > almost always good. Results, however, are almost always poor--at least
> > relative to alternatives and relative to cost-effectiveness. Government
> > doesn't try to find ways to stifle innovation, but it clearly stifles
> > innovation.
> >
> Ray,
>
> Unfortunately, the unintentional stifling of innovation is not unique to
> government. Up until about a year and a half ago I worked for a Firtune 500
> Food company. The company thought that it would be useful to make a
> definitive statement about its value system. They wanted to indicate that
> they they valued innovation and risk taking, but also felt compelled to put a
> qualifier on the work risk -- out of fear that folks would go off half
> cocked!! The statement they came up with was:
>
> "....values successful risk taking."
>
> In all fairness, that never got widely publicized, but many of us thought
> that it was a very accurate statement of the company's real value system!
>
> Joe McBride
> TBS Concepts
> JoeMcBride@aol.com
> (630)904-2690
> Visit TBS Concepts On-Line at:
> http://members.aol.com/TBSConcep/homepage.htm
> -------------------------------------------------------
> "Wisdom is the experiences you gain throughout life that you can share with
> others"
> Robert Fulghum
> -------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Latinoamericana de Envases
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:11:17 -0500
Subject: [none]
From: Latinoamericana de Envases
------------------------------
From: "Ing. Luis Lacambra"
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 18:55:19 -0800
Subject: Re: The downsizing list
From: "Ing. Luis Lacambra"
Ray Martin wrote:
>
> From: Ray Martin
> Azif, other Downsizing colleagues:
>
> Downsizing as a separate topic was, I believe, doomed on two counts.
> First, it is negative. People like to deal with positive things. The
> TQM list is attractive because it accommodates positive things. It
> provides a forum for Quality technicians and for the more general
> Quality-concerned (me). Difficult to be positive about downsizing.
>
> The second reason is that downsizing suggests an answer, a
> conclusion--e.g., downsize. In the private sector, downsizing is (or at
> least should be) an admission of failure. No firm of which I am aware
> has retrenchment (a.k.a., downsizing) in its strategic planning.
> Downsizing admits past failures, at least in the private sector.
>
> Still, the topic intrigued me. It still does. One reason is that many
> apparently believed when the Downsizing list started that government (in
> the United States) was downsizing, when it was in fact upsizing. And
> rather significantly. The data were (in round numbers):
>
> (1) Federal executive: about 2M, down about 2.5 percent per year for
> three years, half normal turnover (retirements, other departures), most
> out of defense (where most of the people were/are).
>
> (2) U.S. Postal Service: almost 1M, up in the 1990s.
>
> (3) Federal, state and local government: At about 17M, up considerably.
> Well more than offsetting the marginal decreases in the federal
> executive. Mostly "federally financed." Big growth is in "education"
> and "the environment." Difficult to track funding at state levels.
> But if several thousand years of history is an indicator, most of the
> increase is in the "infrastructure (bureaucracy)" needed to spend the
> money. Be assured colleagues, the money will be spent.
>
> The bottom line is that government in the US has continued to grow at
> approximately the same rate it has previously. That is upsizing, not
> downsizing.
>
> Anyone open for an upsizing list?
>
> Ray Martin
> rmartin@texas.net
Very interesting data. Maybe the list name should change to rightsizing
as someone proposed.
I do not know if getting bigger or smaller is good or bad, but if the
organization is getting smaller it takes a lot of effort to undertake TQM
or CI.
Downsizing and TQM do not seem to work well together. Itīs like sweeping
the deck on the Titanic.
Luis Lacambra
------------------------------
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (Moderator)"
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:30:20 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: BOUNCE downsizing@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Perry & Bonnie Lazer ] (fwd)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (Moderator)"
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see below) and to the list's
posting address, OR as directed in the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thanks.
Bill
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 20:39:47 -0500
To: downsizing@quality.org
From: Perry & Bonnie Lazer
Subject: Re: The downsizing list
No, all the downsizing is not over. I can vouch for that. Our company was
recently purchased and the new owner says, "become profitable immediately
or...." Easiest way to begin is to get rid of the dead wood. First piece of
wood was relieved of his duties on Monday. I think I'm secure but one never
knows and to complicate the situation even more, my husband works for the
same company and he's not one of "the good old boys" and is lowest on the
seniority list. We're just slighty nervous, but I 'm confident they would
not dispose of us in the category of "dead wood". :) :)
At 07:32 AM 1/11/97 -0800, you wrote:
>From: Neil Steeman
>Asif,
>I guess it's still operational, because I got your message. It is the
>first I've seen in a long while.
>Maybe all the downsizing has taken place and there's nothing more to
>gripe about.
>
>
>Asif Raza wrote:
>>
>> From: Asif Raza
>> Hi Bill,
>> I haven't gotten any posts from the downsizing list for quite a
>> while now (a few months). Am I somehow unsubscribed from the list or is no
>> one posting?
>>
>> I would appreciate a reply.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Asif Raza
>> Loyola University Chicago
>
>--
>Neil Steeman
>President, Change Management Solutions, Inc.
>We prevent tomorrow's problems.
>CMSolver@scescape.net
>http://www2.scescape.com/home-index/cmsolutions.html
>Please acknowledge receipt by clicking "reply" and then "send".
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D."
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 08:04:07 -0500
Subject: Re: The downsizing list
From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D."
Ing. Luis Lacambra wrote:
[snip] =
> Downsizing and TQM do not seem to work well together. It=B4s like sweep=
ing
> the deck on the Titanic.
Isn't it rather more like giving half the engineering staff on the =
Titanic pink-slips? TQM would have instead replaced the *Captain* of
the Titanic
before the ship left port (and let's not forget the Captain of the
Lusitania, either, while we're at it).
Let's not scare the passengers (stockholders), even thought there are
icebergs or u-boats about. Let's make our arrival time (this quarter's
bottom line objectives).... =
The stupidity of one officer always costs more than keeping lots of
"deadwood" on the lower ranks of the payroll.
[snip]
- -- =
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Bradford McCormick, Ed.D.
bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788
27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
- ----------------------------------------------
Visit my website =3D=3D> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc
------------------------------
From: "Ing. Luis Lacambra"
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:45:01 -0800
Subject: Re: The downsizing list
From: "Ing. Luis Lacambra"
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
>
> From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D."
> Ing. Luis Lacambra wrote:
> [snip]
> > Downsizing and TQM do not seem to work well together. Itīs like sweeping
> > the deck on the Titanic.
>
> Isn't it rather more like giving half the engineering staff on the
> Titanic pink-slips? TQM would have instead replaced the *Captain* of
> the Titanic
> before the ship left port (and let's not forget the Captain of the
> Lusitania, either, while we're at it).
>
> Let's not scare the passengers (stockholders), even thought there are
> icebergs or u-boats about. Let's make our arrival time (this quarter's
> bottom line objectives)....
>
> The stupidity of one officer always costs more than keeping lots of
> "deadwood" on the lower ranks of the payroll.
> [snip]
>
> --
> Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
> Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
>
> Bradford McCormick, Ed.D.
> bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788
> 27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
> ----------------------------------------------
> Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc
Thanks Brad for the divergent thinking. I should finish the sentence
about the Titanic and TQM correctly.
"Downsizing and TQM do not seem to get along properly. Itīs like sweeping
the deck on the Titanic, after striking ice."
Some business events will never be predicted even by the best management.
Why blame the captain. Maybe the midshipman on duty that night did not do
his work properly. Perhaps even if he did his work, could he stop the
event that followed.?
TQM cannot provide all the answers. In most of the cases downsizing is
pushed by stockholders, not management. They want to try desperately to
save the ship.
Any activity carries an ammount of risk and loss recovery. Ask
stockholders...
Luis Lacambra
------------------------------
From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D."
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:05:48 -0500
Subject: Re: The downsizing list
From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D."
Ing. Luis Lacambra wrote:
> =
> From: "Ing. Luis Lacambra"
> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
> >
> > From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D."
> > Ing. Luis Lacambra wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Downsizing and TQM do not seem to work well together. It=B4s like s=
weeping
> > > the deck on the Titanic.
> >
> > Isn't it rather more like giving half the engineering staff on the
> > Titanic pink-slips? TQM would have instead replaced the *Captain* of=
> > the Titanic
> > before the ship left port (and let's not forget the Captain of the
> > Lusitania, either, while we're at it).
> >
> > Let's not scare the passengers (stockholders), even thought there are=
> > icebergs or u-boats about. Let's make our arrival time (this quarter=
's
> > bottom line objectives)....
> >
> > The stupidity of one officer always costs more than keeping lots of
> > "deadwood" on the lower ranks of the payroll.
> > [snip]
[snip]
> Thanks Brad for the divergent thinking. I should finish the sentence
> about the Titanic and TQM correctly.
Thank you for your response.
> =
> "Downsizing and TQM do not seem to get along properly. It=B4s like swee=
ping
> the deck on the Titanic, after striking ice."
And I meant handing out the pink slips after striking ice, too. Come to
think of it, the whole crew should have been "downsized" as soon as it
was clear the ship would sink, since any pay they might receive would
be for nought.
> =
> Some business events will never be predicted even by the best managemen=
t.
That's true. That's why I think we should "bulletproof" all our =
social systems as best we can, and set up the best early warning
systems we can, and make everything as fail-safe and fail-soft as
we can, etc.
> Why blame the captain. =
If the Captain is not going to take the responsibility, then take =
away his pay-differential, too. In reality, it does appear that the
Captains of both the Titanic and the Lusitania acted irresponsibly.
> Maybe the midshipman on duty that night did not do
> his work properly. =
That reminds me of Pearl Harbor, where the radar operators did their
duty and were ignored, and, once again, it appears the HigherUps
either were delinquent in their vigilance or maybe they even
intentionally did not keep on alert, in order to let something
like Pearl Harbor happen, for PR reasons. In the latter case,
they would be not simply incompetent, but, arguably, have betrayed
the trust upon which their commands were based.
> Perhaps even if he did his work, could he stop the
> event that followed.?
Again, the Titanic and the Lusitania, and possibly "Pear",
are not instances.
> =
> TQM cannot provide all the answers. In most of the cases downsizing is
> pushed by stockholders, not management. They want to try desperately to=
> save the ship.
It is possible for a person to stand up for principle. Many "little
people" do it with nothing to fall back on. God bless them (surely they
need it!)! A CEO, equipped with a golden parachute (and more than
enough other assets to live better than most of us for the rest of his
life without ever earning another cent) should have far less
disincentive to
take a high moral stance, since his fiscal well-being is assured no
matter what
happens. It should be possible for a CEO to say: "No!"
> =
> Any activity carries an ammount of risk and loss recovery. Ask
> stockholders...
Many workers would probably be willing to exchange the uncertainty
of risk for the certainty of loss which is their more accustomed
portion. What about a society in which *one* of the goals of
teachers and employers is to help all persons who come into their
purview become financially independent? That would qualify these
persons as "trustees" as well as "wieilders of power".
> =
> Luis Lacambra
Just some thoughts....
- -- =
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Bradford McCormick, Ed.D.
bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788
27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
- ----------------------------------------------
Visit my website =3D=3D> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc
------------------------------
End of Downsizing Digest V1 #9
******************************