3 ms·
That’s one interpretation. Another is that that 10% of work is distributed to the remaining 90%, who now work harder and are more stressed, but well aware that
by brookst 3y ago
That’s one interpretation.
Another is that that 10% of work is distributed to the remaining 90%, who now work harder and are more stressed, but well aware that they were lucky to keep their jobs and therefore willing to absorb an extra hour a day.
Which, free market and all that, may just be smart business. But I don’t think it’s necessarily good management in the long term.
- droopyEyelids 3y agoThis is an interesting thought experiment, because in that situation the company should cut another 10%, and so on, until they get some sort of message they can't cut anymore.
- brookst 3y agoI think that’s what’s going on in some places. And the message that it can’t go on is that highly committed people who were willing to take on 10% or 20% more work just quit when it gets to 30% or 40%, leaving behind those who can’t find another job. It takes a while for that to show up on income statements though, and the quarterly results look great in the meantime, so it is by definition good management (by Wall Street standards).