3 ms·
>Counterpoint is that there is nothing wrong with a round number and it is perfectly compatible with setting appropriate resource targets for corporate goals.
by cmh89 3y ago
>Counterpoint is that there is nothing wrong with a round number and it is perfectly compatible with setting appropriate resource targets for corporate goals.
Yes, in this case the corporate goal is to fire 500 people as a sacrifice to the finance gods.
If the goal was 'refocus strategy', you'd probably want to actually assess your business and determine who is no longer necessary, and you would doubtfully end up at a nice round number
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI think you are still trying to treat it as an engineering analysis. The question isn't "who is no longer necessary". The question is "do we think we can cut 500 roles (Y/N)" The 2nd question is a reasonable and useful business assessment. The first question is not relevant and has no real answer.
- soared 3y ago1st is optimizing your org, 2nd is a financial decision.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoyeah, and even for the 1st, it isn't a matter of calculation. Every employee in the org will have a different answer to the question and opinion.
- esafak 3y agoThat can't be right. If you think you can cut 500 roles you then have to answer the first question.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoIt isn't a driver of the decision. Who gets fired is a detail that gets worked out after the fact. Leadership, based on their understanding and information make the decision to cut 500 and create a mandate to make it so. Then management is forced to decide who gets the axe. It would basically be impossible to drive the decision the other way. You can't asses every individual for necessity. What would the threshold even be? The threshold depends on the number of people you want to fire. There is no super computer that can calculate the outcome from firing \ 499 workers vs 500