4 ms·

Old trick. This is taught as a way to get people to leave by themselves. Often followed by contracts not being renewed, and people moved into hours they don't

by illumen 13y ago

Old trick. This is taught as a way to get people to leave by themselves. Often followed by contracts not being renewed, and people moved into hours they don't like or into roles they don't like. Those people leave by themselves, then the firings happen... and stock goes up, targets are met... BONUSES ALL ROUND! Woo! (Or merger/new investment/whatever needs a up+right graph).

drharris 13y ago
Cynical, but true. Once the company reaches a certain stage, this is a valid (albeit evil) path to travel down. Upper management gets rich, everyone else gets the shaft.
- Deestan 13y ago
  > Cynical, but true. More insane than cynical, I think. Cynicism is seeing things clearly without any romantic or emphatic filters. Insanity is making sure the most able part of the workforce finds other employment.
davidw 13y ago
Actually it's not true that it's a good sign for the company: once things start going downhill, the best people look for somewhere better to work. I recall at one company, they fired a bunch of people, many of whom really were not top performers. Immediately after, the best people started trickling out. A few years later, the company was acquired and a few years after that, the whole thing fell apart.
DanBC 13y ago
Good staff can get new jobs. So they leave first. You're left with people who are duffers, and possibly doing harm to the company. Or with people who have many years with the company and who will be expensive to layoff with redundancy payments.
- kefka 13y ago
  No, you have it all wrong. Firstly, I'm sure the work policy you signed off has tons of rules. Most of them are never enforced. Now, you enforce them stringently. Awwww.. People you didn't like now have cause for you to fire them.
michaelochurch 13y ago
This is a horrific strategy. Not only is it dishonest attrition, but it's the wrong kind. You should cut complexity/failed projects and then cut people. If you cut people but don't cut workload/complexity, then the survivors just have to work harder. That's not sustainable, and with the underlying problems of the company (complexity overload) unfixed, it only becomes a worse operation. Sure, complexity-reductions need to happen and often those involve cutting jobs-- either through a layoff or attrition dynamics-- but just cutting jobs is a short-term remedy and won't work if the company itself isn't truly streamlined.

by illumen 13y ago

drharris 13y ago

Cynical, but true. Once the company reaches a certain stage, this is a valid (albeit evil) path to travel down. Upper management gets rich, everyone else gets the shaft.

Deestan 13y ago
> Cynical, but true. More insane than cynical, I think. Cynicism is seeing things clearly without any romantic or emphatic filters. Insanity is making sure the most able part of the workforce finds other employment.

davidw 13y ago

Actually it's not true that it's a good sign for the company: once things start going downhill, the best people look for somewhere better to work. I recall at one company, they fired a bunch of people, many of whom really were not top performers. Immediately after, the best people started trickling out. A few years later, the company was acquired and a few years after that, the whole thing fell apart.

DanBC 13y ago

Good staff can get new jobs. So they leave first. You're left with people who are duffers, and possibly doing harm to the company. Or with people who have many years with the company and who will be expensive to layoff with redundancy payments.

kefka 13y ago
No, you have it all wrong. Firstly, I'm sure the work policy you signed off has tons of rules. Most of them are never enforced. Now, you enforce them stringently. Awwww.. People you didn't like now have cause for you to fire them.

michaelochurch 13y ago

This is a horrific strategy. Not only is it dishonest attrition, but it's the wrong kind. You should cut complexity/failed projects and then cut people. If you cut people but don't cut workload/complexity, then the survivors just have to work harder. That's not sustainable, and with the underlying problems of the company (complexity overload) unfixed, it only becomes a worse operation. Sure, complexity-reductions need to happen and often those involve cutting jobs-- either through a layoff or attrition dynamics-- but just cutting jobs is a short-term remedy and won't work if the company itself isn't truly streamlined.