Downsizing thoughts

Anonymous

Guest
Thousands upon thousands of articles in the mainstream business press characterize CEOs as “courageous” because they instituted a downsizing. Apparently, the decision to fire people is so difficult, that the CEO who takes that path must be a brave and lonely soul. He’s putting the interests of the investors ahead of his own kindhearted inclinations, and making the difficult decisions that will allow the company to remain profitable.
But, wait a minute, Chester! How, exactly, did the company get into a situation where it needed to fire people in order to remain competitive? Sure, markets change like crazy in today’s world and business conditions become challenging. But isn’t it the job of the CEO and the management team to predict those changes, and to staff the company appropriately, and retrain people, so that those challenges can be addressed?
Here’s the truth. Downsizing is a sign of failure. It means that management has failed and rather than doing the right thing — which is to quit without severance — they’re passing along the penalty for that failure to the people who, in good faith, tried to execute the flawed strategy that top management pursued.
That’s why top managers (and the kiss-butt journalists in the mainstream business press) love the word “downsizing.” It makes the results of failure sound like a strategy, rather than a desperate way to remain profitable after top management has made a complete pig’s breakfast of things.
So, as we go forward, let’s stop calling it downsizing. Let’s call it what it is: firing productive workers because top management was a bunch of overpaid pinhead losers who shouldn’t be allowed to run a company again.
 

<















Thousands upon thousands of articles in the mainstream business press characterize CEOs as “courageous” because they instituted a downsizing. Apparently, the decision to fire people is so difficult, that the CEO who takes that path must be a brave and lonely soul. He’s putting the interests of the investors ahead of his own kindhearted inclinations, and making the difficult decisions that will allow the company to remain profitable.
But, wait a minute, Chester! How, exactly, did the company get into a situation where it needed to fire people in order to remain competitive? Sure, markets change like crazy in today’s world and business conditions become challenging. But isn’t it the job of the CEO and the management team to predict those changes, and to staff the company appropriately, and retrain people, so that those challenges can be addressed?
Here’s the truth. Downsizing is a sign of failure. It means that management has failed and rather than doing the right thing — which is to quit without severance — they’re passing along the penalty for that failure to the people who, in good faith, tried to execute the flawed strategy that top management pursued.
That’s why top managers (and the kiss-butt journalists in the mainstream business press) love the word “downsizing.” It makes the results of failure sound like a strategy, rather than a desperate way to remain profitable after top management has made a complete pig’s breakfast of things.
So, as we go forward, let’s stop calling it downsizing. Let’s call it what it is: firing productive workers because top management was a bunch of overpaid pinhead losers who shouldn’t be allowed to run a company again.

In the case of Bio/Pharma, the failure is mainly hiring way too many reps. For example, I spoke to a former Novartis rep who said that on average, there are 6-7 Novartis reps calling on a single oncologists. Think long and hard about that number; how many Roche reps call on a single oncologist? How may drug companies out there have "pods" with a minimum of four reps calling on the exact same doctors? The bottomline is that regardless of any other strategic decisions that have been made, the biggest problem in pharma sales is that 70-80% of the people should never have been hired in the first place. The ken and Barbie arms race brought mutual assured destruction.
 




What you say is correct. Unfortunately, Roche Paid too much for Genentech & unfortunately the pipeline severin thought would carry roc he through did not. The cuts were not made from a position of strength, but a position of weakness due to failed expectations. If they cut him, they could have saved the rest just on his salary & benefits alone. However, self preservation is the hallmark of today's top executives.




Thousands upon thousands of articles in the mainstream business press characterize CEOs as “courageous” because they instituted a downsizing. Apparently, the decision to fire people is so difficult, that the CEO who takes that path must be a brave and lonely soul. He’s putting the interests of the investors ahead of his own kindhearted inclinations, and making the difficult decisions that will allow the company to remain profitable.
But, wait a minute, Chester! How, exactly, did the company get into a situation where it needed to fire people in order to remain competitive? Sure, markets change like crazy in today’s world and business conditions become challenging. But isn’t it the job of the CEO and the management team to predict those changes, and to staff the company appropriately, and retrain people, so that those challenges can be addressed?
Here’s the truth. Downsizing is a sign of failure. It means that management has failed and rather than doing the right thing — which is to quit without severance — they’re passing along the penalty for that failure to the people who, in good faith, tried to execute the flawed strategy that top management pursued.
That’s why top managers (and the kiss-butt journalists in the mainstream business press) love the word “downsizing.” It makes the results of failure sound like a strategy, rather than a desperate way to remain profitable after top management has made a complete pig’s breakfast of things.
So, as we go forward, let’s stop calling it downsizing. Let’s call it what it is: firing productive workers because top management was a bunch of overpaid pinhead losers who shouldn’t be allowed to run a company again.
 




What you say is correct. Unfortunately, Roche Paid too much for Genentech & unfortunately the pipeline severin thought would carry roc he through did not. The cuts were not made from a position of strength, but a position of weakness due to failed expectations. If they cut him, they could have saved the rest just on his salary & benefits alone. However, self preservation is the hallmark of today's top executives.

If they cut Severin, they would have to replace him with another CEO; this no money saved. Unless, you are suggesting that a 50 billion company would have no CEO.
 








If they cut Severin, they would have to replace him with another CEO; this no money saved. Unless, you are suggesting that a 50 billion company would have no CEO.

How much overlap is there in Basel? Besides severin has made bad decisions and thus, they could replace him cheaper or do operation excellence to see if someone else in Basel could take the helm instead. We need to think on a grander level here.
 












Re: Downsizing thoughts, what to do now

I too just left Genetech as part of the downsizing, I had been working in fiancial services part time for the last few years and have now gone full time, there are many financial questions facing laid off employees and their families, feel free to give me a call to answer any questions you may have about what some options may be for, rolling over 401ks (why that benefits you and your family), investing some of your severence and maintaining emergency savings. I was an MCR in NJ, Gary 609-351-5033 I'll be happy to help, no pressure just conversation.
 












A great number of the smart ones have left the company both on their own and due to "operational efficiencies". Good old days are gone and the only ones left in senior managerment are the ones who can kiss ass the best.
Good luck.
 




Thousands upon thousands of articles in the mainstream business press characterize CEOs as “courageous” because they instituted a downsizing. Apparently, the decision to fire people is so difficult, that the CEO who takes that path must be a brave and lonely soul. He’s putting the interests of the investors ahead of his own kindhearted inclinations, and making the difficult decisions that will allow the company to remain profitable.
But, wait a minute, Chester! How, exactly, did the company get into a situation where it needed to fire people in order to remain competitive? Sure, markets change like crazy in today’s world and business conditions become challenging. But isn’t it the job of the CEO and the management team to predict those changes, and to staff the company appropriately, and retrain people, so that those challenges can be addressed?
Here’s the truth. Downsizing is a sign of failure. It means that management has failed and rather than doing the right thing — which is to quit without severance — they’re passing along the penalty for that failure to the people who, in good faith, tried to execute the flawed strategy that top management pursued.
That’s why top managers (and the kiss-butt journalists in the mainstream business press) love the word “downsizing.” It makes the results of failure sound like a strategy, rather than a desperate way to remain profitable after top management has made a complete pig’s breakfast of things.
So, as we go forward, let’s stop calling it downsizing. Let’s call it what it is: firing productive workers because top management was a bunch of overpaid pinhead losers who shouldn’t be allowed to run a company again.



Stand by.
 




Similar threads