Graeme's recent post in the forum topic Fear has triggered another.

Organizational closures and layoffs are an increasing epidemic. Many CEOs release press statements that the Economy is to blame.

What are your feelings on the responsibilities of the "Powers that Be" regarding them both? Do you feel the Economy is to blame? Or, is it the lack of vision and long-range planning?

Anyone?

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin: Yet another great subject – to ponder.

I believe
Organizational closures/layoffs are all too often built into “Long Range Planning”.

IE: Objective ONE – reduce or eliminate labor expenses – increase shareholder profits
Objective Two – Increase Market shares – eliminate competition

High level CEO’s making literally millions in personal salaries and stock options – are the same people telling us Labor and materials costs are excessive.

CEO’s use many “word masks” for the issue – Poor economy – high union (or non-union) labor costs – and the key buzzword for the 1980’s “must remain competitive”.. bottom line is the company made x dollars but wants more – If we can’t show 20-40% profit above any expense - every quarter – we have no obligation to either those who purchased our product or to those who labor for us to achieve what we did make!!

This will not change until/unless we as a culture redefine the OBLIGATIONS and “Responsibilities” of all of our industries and the executives that adopt the plans. If the first “Goal” was an obligation to maintain the business products AND operations long term for our customers and those who labor for us.. and the secondary goal was that of profit to stockholders.. then we open the door to Organizational closures/layoffs being the exception – not the rule.

Another great topic, Kevin - and one of my biggest pet peeves.

The company where I used to work (book manufacturing) was a cyclical business - balls-to-the-wall busy in the spring and fall, working 24/7, sometimes 12 hour shifts to squeeze every ounce of productivity out the the plant in order to meet production quotas. In the summer and winter, demand was about half of what it was in spring/fall. The very first place management went to reduce expenses was, of course, employee overhead. "Get the labor dollars out" was the mantra at the weekly staff meetings. All I could do was shake my head and mumble, "ya just don't get it".

And they didn't get it... these "managers" used to wonder why they had no committment from the employees -- when the plant was scheduled to work the weekend and mandatory overtime -- and the employees complained, or called in sick or some just simply walked off the job after being burned out from 4 weeks straight without a day off. Sure, production was up - but not the the extent that it could have been. Quality suffered, ship dates suffered, maintenance suffered, etc. In the Summer & Winter, manpower was practically cut in half. People who could afford to live off Unemployement Insurance didn't care, but those who couldn't - those that had a family to support, they suffered. The ugliest part about the whole thing was the lay-offs were for a week here and a week there. No time for employees to find another job. Again, production suffered, quality suffered, shipping dates suffered..... And management had the audacity to ask "why". And it wasn't as if management didn't know. I tried to convince them that what they were doing was wrong. They didn't want to hear it. They refused to face the concept that no committment from management to the employees leads to no committment from the employees to management. Who can blame the employees -- they aren't stupid and they definitely can tell when management is talking out of both sides of their mouth. Why would employees want to go the extra mile for management? What had management ever done for them?

Now - the company I currently work for is completely the opposite. When this current recession was getting in high gear, the CEO, the President & the Exec. VP called a plant-wide meeting. They told everyone here, there will be no lay-offs. Things will be tight and there will be no overtime either, but no lay-offs for anyone. The management used this time to retool some machines that needed it, make plant repairs that were put off for a short while, and you could practically eat off the floor, it was so clean around here. However, there were no lay-offs. Business is starting to pick-up and strategically, we are ready to take advantage of any upswing in the market when it finally does come about. The employees? They are motivated, there are very few complaints (oh, you have the usual grousing here and there), and they have a committment to the continued success of this business. Why? Because the management has a committment to the employees and to their well being.

So, have we suffered financially these past several months? Yep... sure have. Would there have been more money in the coffers for the annual bonuses had there been a reduction in manpower? Absolutely. However, as we start to pull out of the economic slump and production ramps up, those people who get the product out the door are committed to this company and we are able to meet demand without any mad scramble to find people to meet the increases. There is no training curve, there is no lag in shipping dates.

Are lay-offs endemic to a slumping economy? Nope. Lack of long-range goals and planning? Oh yeah.

Cheers!!!

Group:

In a weird twist of fate, the day after starting this thread, we had ourselves a meeting to discuss a two-week furlough. Timing is everything I suppose, and Mike’s post is relatively accurate minus the repeating effect at explaining our situation. Let’s hope that it stands at that as well.

In speaking with the many folks who got the time off, they confirm the obvious: distrust, resentment, and confusion of and with management. If this thing drags on further than they were told, I fear that it will worsen the existing feeling and make managements work harder.

The question here and in another thread is this: What is Senior Management’s job? And more importantly, do they know it? How much accountability does this position hold, in theory and in practice?

How do you create the organization that will stand the test of time? Marc, where is that magic wand?

Lots of questions, folks. Pick one or all, but what do you think?

Kevin

To the Group

from Kevin's post

What is Senior Management’s job? Most would say...Make More Money

Corporations cut the workforce to increase profits. But when this becomes the trend (as it is presently), who will these corporations sell their product to? If the average consumer has been downsized or layed-off, or even a threat of loosing one's job...the last thing would be to spend money on items such as new cars, appliances. If consumers aren't working, they aren't buying and the corporations still won't make any money.

'round and 'round it goes.

CarolX

Kevin,

Personally, I have been through gut wrenching, long lay off periods. One was for 10 ½ months and 10 months. Both were at a time where the employment picture was bleak. The people that remained behind were politically savvy and had located and bonded quire strongly with their stepfathers. As a young man, the first time, I didn’t understand the reasons other than time in service. Later, approx. 10 years ago, I had learned the game. But, I refused to play it. I witnessed the most despicable examples of hand licking, as- kissing, groveling and other sub human traits. The fact is they remained while I was sent on my merry way. Today, we call it “Team Player”. Nice word. Senior Management loves the power and expects the underlings to behave shamelessly. After all, besides handsome paychecks, they deligate projects and tasks and present them as part of their management style. It will never change. As to the formula for companies that will stand the test of time, they practice the exact, and to me, detestable methods that we question. You always see the phase “from the top down in our company”. That will never change. Hey, it works right now. They are the ones on the inside looking out. They aren’t scrambling to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads and clothes on the kids.
You will notice the “customized signature” below my user name. That’s what nobody practices and that’s why it there. And intellect is in the eye of the beholder. Like “Mirror, mirror on the wall”. Good discussions, Kevin.:smokin:

Hi all...

Kevin writes:

"The question here and in another thread is this: What is Senior Management’s job? And more importantly, do they know it? How much accountability does this position hold, in theory and in practice?"

and Carol replies:

"If the average consumer has been downsized or layed-off, or even a threat of loosing one's job...the last thing would be to spend money on items such as new cars, appliances. If consumers aren't working, they aren't buying and the corporations still won't make any money."

Yessssss.... :biglaugh: Carol hit the nail right on the head! Peter Senge identified this trend as an "Escalation" System Archtype. In simple terms, look at the US and the former Soviet Union. Both had nuclear arms, both were afraid of the other getting the upper hand, so both kept producing more nuclear arms. The same thing applies to the economy. How can someone who is layed off buy anything and how can companies sell things when people aren't buying, so they have to lay people off... etc, etc, etc. A downward spiral that has no end unless direct and significant actions are taken to stop it.

So, on to Kevin's question...

What is Senior Management's job??? To make money? To satisfy "stakeholder" needs? (Will making money do that?) Stakeholder needs appear to be diametrically opposed to each other - how does management handle that? For example: Investors want an increase in their ROI, stock price, etc., Employees want increased job security, increased compensation, etc., and the Community wants its people employed, increase in the tax base, etc. These are at odds with each other. Management needs to know how to balance these. :eek:

However, I don't believe stakeholder needs are necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, recession hits, orders are off, yet Investors are screaming for increased returns. This is unreasonable. Management needs to moderate their expectations. If Management succums to Investor pressures and starts to lay off employees to show paper profits - the end game will ultimately be decreased profits due to poor employee moral and quality of products - even fewer orders from more dissatisfied customers, etc. Downward spiral. Investors need to have enough faith in Management to lead the company through economic uncertainty. If Management says "no layoffs", that shows a long-term view where more than just the bottom line plays into business decisions.

Wow... I could go on for chapters on this.... :smokin:

Cheers!!!

Great discussion!!

I agree with Jim.

I think layoffs, downsizings, rightsizings, restructuring, etc are part of corporates long range strategic planning. I come from a manufacturing background and that sector really seems to see a lot of ups and downs. The current trend in manufacturing is sourcing off-shore regardless of what their customers think about it. For the last couple of years I spent a great deal of time traveling throughout China helping the company reduce cost and become more profitable. After realizing a 40% reduction in operating cost, and a significant loss of our customer base, I was laid off. Now I work for a small privately owned company that has no interest in moving manufacturing off-shore.

I think as this country loses more of its manufacturing experience, our national defense will suffer. Its going to be harder to build up that strong manufacturing base as quickly as it may be needed. Not having good paying manufacturing jobs is also being reflected in the weak economy.

Best Regards,
Hank

Much of this can be summarized by looking at the ratio of incomes and its changes over the last 50 years: Line worker vs. supervisor vs. manager vs. etc. vs. CEO.

The words Greed and Me are important here. Oh, well. I guess I'm just jealous of rich people... Let me see... The airlines get the bail out and the workers get... Time to think! Time to Spend Money! Time to Party! NOT!

I remember being out of work for about 9 months some years back and my ex - who had (and still has) a rather nice job - couldn't understand why I was so depressed. She said "Heck, it's like you're on vacation every day! What have you got to complain about?" It wasn't that long after that that we parted ways.

Marc,

That was the worst thing about the lay off. I swore that I would never get attached to a job like that again. Ever. The degree of hurt in store for you when you feel like part of a family and are discarded, can only be described to those that have gone through it. My "time off" took me through Thanksgiving, Christmas and other holidays. No one could understand why I seemed so out of sorts. Did my Management family ever think about me? Call me to see how I was doing? You think? Huh? :biglaugh: :smokin:

"As to the formula for companies that will stand the test of time, they practice the exact, and to me, detestable methods that we question. "

Just for the record, not all of the companies that stand the test of time practice detestable methods. I think part of the reason our corporation is still making money while most of our competition is in chapter 11 is because our execs respect and understand that employees are the most valuable assest a company has.

We still want to make money, and we may cut our hours if we need to, but all in all through the years when recessionary times hit we just tighten our belts, dig in and do it. I thank heaven every day to work for a company that does not believe in laying people off. I cannot even begin to imagine the pressure that some people live under in times like these.

Think good thoughts, it can't stay bad forever - that's why they call it cyclical downturn. (hope that's spelled right)

Marc & Energy....

Been there too.... :( Ultimately resorted to selling cars to keep the wolves away from the door. Not only was I depressed (and feeling like a failure) at not having my old job... I was working so many hours trying to hustle steel (I've never been able to look at a car the same way since... well maybe a Shelby Cobra...;) ) to make that almighty commission that I didn't have time to do a good job search. Luckily (??), I was already divorced so I didn't have that worry.

Gotta agree with SteelMaiden - 'tis nice to now work for a company that doesn't believe in the "L" word.

Cheers!

Steel Maiden,

For the record, my existing company is operating at a loss and has not let anybody go either, yet. Yes, there are companies that place a deeper value on the workers. However, by comparison, they are few.:smokin:

energy,

I think you mentioned that you are in a startup? Most of the time those lose money before they make it. We (current division) are also in startup and losing money - lots and lots. Luckily, we are taking market share away from the old boys, so we know that when we get through startup and the economy comes back up, we will be in good position to make our move.

I am glad your current company takes the more compassionate stand, and also it appears that there are some others out there too. In the long run, those will be the companies that survive because their employees will work harder in tight times to make sure the company does not fold.

Best of luck, keep the faith

Wow!! I feel I have uncorked the bottle!! Thanks for the quick and plentiful responses.

Carol X: Your comments are unfortunately – true. People play close to the vest. They must do so or risk a lot. Short-term decision making to maximize a single event (i.e. end of the Quarter) by cutting jobs creates great havoc. Some organizations, like my wife’s, let go and rehire the following quarter. People are not yo-yos.

Energy: “Team Player” – absolutely right on this. In the tread dealing with Policy 4.2, the post was in regard the Top Managements admonition that they are not behind the program of establishing policy. Team players work together to sustain and grow the organization. How do you do this while cutting jobs and creating unwarranted competition in the form of a popularity contest? The simple fact is that they are not team players. They are cut-throats.

Mike: Great response! Continuing from the Policy 4.2 thread, management’s job is to establish the organizational focus consistent with the AIM of the System. The AIM of the System in my mind is this – Value. Since the Customer is the primary component in the System, we must fulfill this Value need first, all others come there after. Sometimes, one component value need, say the need of the community will take precedence over the value need of the supplier, or the organization. One must keep in mind that at any given point, any component may operate for a loss for the benefit of the System in fulfillment of the AIM. Without the Customer, you are not in business and neither are any of the other components. Management must look for ways to satisfy each of the Value needs of the components, but the components themselves must work in cooperation to sustain and grow the system. They must acknowledge that on occasion, they must be the component that operates for a loss. In these times, no other component has suffered as much as this component – the Environment. Think about it: who speaks up for the streams, air, and wildlife during a meeting? We could both go on for chapters here!!

Hank: Thank you for the evidence that the Environment is often the most abused component in a System. Who would drink from the Yangtze or Yellow Rivers? Not me. What is worse in the case of China, the component The Community is also largely abused. This occurs elsewhere in the world, so by no means is China exclusive. What are Business Ethics? Who establishes these as well? Or should I say, who does not?

Our manufacturing engineering and manufacturing bases are weak areas. The SME is seriously concerned about the reduction of numbers in both camps. While Profit and Dividends, Value needs of the Organization and Investor get all the attention, jobs will be sourced off shore to maximize them both. Components such as the Customer, Community, and Environment will suffer as will long-term relationships with Domestic Suppliers who cannot compete in a Zero Sum game. It is just horrible!

Marc: Dr. Deming asked this question to start his 4-day seminars, “Why are we here? To have fun, To learn the Transformation, and To preserve and nurture the yearning for learning that anybody is born with.” I would say that your ex did not know the answer to this question quite as well as you did.

Greed is a serious problem. Just how much Value do we need? How about Organizations? Communities? How about the Environment? Nobody need ask the stockholder: Wall Street speaks for everyone!! “Me” wreaks of a “Win-Lose” scenario. Just plain ugly. Mike hit on it with Senge’s comments regarding diametrically opposed Aims. If we realize that “we are all in this thing together”, Components will begin to realize that their needs and values are the concern of everyone in the System. Win-Win scenarios will reign supreme. Win-win doesn’t necessarily mean that each event will result in all components “getting something out of it”. It means that were ever practical, these solutions will be sought out. Overall, all components will benefit on the plus side over the long-term. Some will do better than others, an unavoidable fact. But if we realize our needs are being met, then what more do we want? Leads us back to greed I’m afraid.

SteelMaiden: Unfortunately, hard work will not do it. We need a good plan, inclusive of the Future, perhaps the second most overlooked Component in a System. I am happy to hear that you are secure with your current organization. But don’t confuse coincidence with planned results. Be sure that your management is as good as you suspect of else the fall ahead (God forbid) will be even harder. I would be happier if you were working and happy yourself!!

Cyclical events are predictable, and although not all are avoidable, one can plan to them. Harry S. Dent in his book, The Great Boom Ahead showed that the Great Depression was a predictable event, as is our next. He suggests that as the Baby Boomers move from the Spending Wave (up to around 46.5 years of age) to the Power Wave (hoarding money for retirement), we will be at the year 2009. Since we are at the top of the wave, Economic Growth begins to slow. Compound that with a Socially Irresponsible news media, we create panic and an artificial recession that appears to be becoming a reality. Nevertheless, we know the Boom is cyclic and a predictable event Senior Managers must toil with: no excuses! Personally, that’s why I believe those in the Airlines, Motorola, and GE blaming the slow on a Structural Change such as this past 9/11 saw are full of crap! It was only an accelerant to an already slowing Economy. Excuses like that only make me angry, so Welch: bite me!! For more on this Boom, I recommend two other books he wrote, The Great Jobs Ahead (which might be appropriate for the times) and The Roaring 2000s.


Thanks everyone for your terrific responses thus far!!

Kevin

My minor in college was anthropology. History was an interest. If you follow the evolution of man there are many common threads in everything from trade to politics to religion. There are always hierarchies of power which will never prefectly balance.

Some compies are good and some are not. That's why I'm so heavy saying the "...companies have personalities..." in many of my posts. We look at the aggregate and make generalized deductions and conclusions - but like everything else - we describe what we believe is 'the condition'.

The evolution of trade is interesting. Finding shell beads in an archeological dig which came from thousands of miles away and thinking - WoW! That 'man' was buying and selling stuff tens of thousands of years ago gives one pause when we look at the world today. I experienced that thrill when I worked at the Marshal, MO site.

Follow that up to today and only the complexity has changed. But - that complexity increasingly required specialization of labour (leading to guilds, etc. - by the middle ages there were many) as is evidenced in all recorded history. Man has always worked long and hard if you were in the lower echelons. From gold miners to fur trappers in our early history - it was trade. Business. The smart one set up shops to service these people. The Romans had trade centers everythere. Byzantium (sp) was a trade center for how long.

Now - fast forward to today. Civilizations evolved slowly but that rate of evolution has increased. I don't think all companies are bad. Some are, some aren't, some are mid-way. When I complain it's because I'm a liberal and want the balance shifted towards those less well off. A laid off CEO is one who many go through personal internal trials, but is often doing it with a few million bucks in their pockets.

As to stuff like 'team work' - yeah - all the analytical stuff this discussion carries - come on... there's as much common sense as anything else here. What is management's job? Depends upon the company. And it's personality.

Don't get me wrong. I love the philosophy which comes out in discussions such as these because they reveal the 'innards' of different companies and how they work... Their priorities and their methods. But more than that, it reveals much about each of us personally as representatives of the population and our views. One person says we send whatever we can outside the border if it's cheaper. Another says this is a long term problem for America's defense. All the while, there are Mexican's risking death to enter the US illegally to take jobs that few Americans would take at the wages involved. Company personalities and people in them.

After my 9 months of 'vacation', I never again kept a credit card balance (my ex always had US$5K to US$10K on her cards). I stopped buying what I couldn't pay for with cash. I recognized companies as what they are - and better understood my roll in the scheme. Direct employment is definitely different than contract and consulting. Digging ditches or chopping wood is different than being a quality engineer. I have been lucky enough to have been able to compromise some while maintaining a reasonable income average.

I think for the most part I agree with kevin's statements - but that's because he's more of what I consider 'realistic' and even. To wit:

> Hank: Thank you for the evidence that the Environment is
> often the most abused component in a System. Who would
> drink from the Yangtze or Yellow Rivers? Not me. What is
> worse in the case of China, the component The Community is
> also largely abused. This occurs elsewhere in the world,
> so by no means is China exclusive. What are Business
> Ethics? Who establishes these as well? Or should I say,
> who does not?

Yup - valid questions. I admit I think that's what governments are for. To balance the interests of business with the needs of the people. Government should be the ultimate 'union'. When business and government get together there is no control (see the dictionary definition is Fascism and http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5224/facism.html) - no power within the population to demand, for example, that a company stop polluting the rivers and lakes. Unions arose out of the revolts (yup - right here in the USA) of workers where government did not - would not - control the abuse of its labour force. There were riots at Ford and in the coal industry just to name 2 instances. Carnegie and his steel industry underwent bitter strikes which were close to, if not, anarchy - revolt. The government wouldn't help so they took it upon themselves to build their own power base to counter big business. I believe the US Constitution was founded on the principle of controlling the abuse of power - including abuses of big business. But as we all know - money and governments - well, some sacrifices have to be made, right?

No matter how you cut it - *most* big businesses (and most small businesses) operate on the idea of profit. Period. No matter what they have to do. How far will they go? Read through http://www.onlinejournal.com/Media/Binion100201/binion100201.html Power entities will stop at nothing. What ever it takes. From the link above:

> Ramsey Clark says the Gulf War was "planned in Washington
> long before the first soldier invaded Kuwait."

Excuse me if I'm pessimistic and suspicious (as always). :thedeal: I'm just an old 1960's hippie looking at a pretty interesting point in the history of man kind. I'm not much of a consiracy person, but often times when the facts add up they add up. No more can be said except to 'spin' the facts. Notice how gas prices went down right after the forced release of the internal documents from several oil companies proving they were conspiring (per the dictionary definition) to reduce production levels so they could increase prices as long ago as 1996? Was that in the interest of the 'Customer'? Can those companies register to ISO 9001?

Did GM really destroy the electric transportation systems in the US and what has been the long term effects? (See http://www.tompaine.com/print.php3?id=2376)

Kevin, where you say:

> Cyclical events are predictable, and although not all are
> avoidable, one can plan to them. Harry S. Dent in his
> book, The Great Boom Ahead showed that the Great
> Depression was a predictable event, as is our next. He
> suggests that as the Baby Boomers move from the Spending
> Wave (up to around 46.5 years of age) to the Power Wave
> (hoarding money for retirement), we will be at the year
> 2009. Since we are at the top of the wave, Economic Growth
> begins to slow. Compound that with a Socially
> Irresponsible news media, we create panic and an
> artificial recession that appears to be becoming a
> reality. Nevertheless, we know the Boom is cyclic and a
> predictable event Senior Managers must toil with: no
> excuses! Personally, that's why I believe those in the
> Airlines, Motorola, and GE blaming the slow on a
> Structural Change such as this past 9/11 saw are full of
> crap! It was only an accelerant to an already slowing
> Economy. Excuses like that only make me angry, so Welch:
> bite me!! For more on this Boom, I recommend two other
> books he wrote, The Great Jobs Ahead (which might be
> appropriate for the times) and The Roaring 2000s

(Note: Bold is MY emphasis... Marc)

You are 100% correct. I love your ability to come right to the facts - to the point - to rise above the rhetoric - to read and investigate. I'll get real poetic here and say you "...seek the TRVTH..."

I was lucky and got a chance to invest some money a few years back in a restaurant a friend was starting. I knew him well. His business has a good personality. He bonds with employees and while he bitches from time to time about employees and the things involved in running the business - he chose to own a business and that's part of the game. I invested because I know his personality revealed its self in each previous restaurant he built. Employees like him and he has true feelings for them. When he stops by once a month with my check we usually spend a couple hours talking. When an employee has a problem he always knows about it if only from other employees telling him. He'll sit here and talk and it is evident he is truely concerned with their problems - including their personal problems. He'll go out of his way to help. On the other hand he's also a hardass business person. He wants to see the numbers. He could probably register to ISO - he runs a good business balanced with bonding with the employees making it more of a family than just a job. His business personality is my ideal. There are 'good' businesses out there. But there are a lot more bad ones than good ones, I fear.

To each of us - we do what we individually perceive to be right and bearable. We also bear the brunt of our own ignorance (see Kevin's comments herein about the current news media). The internet is a god send for 'truth' and facts. Neither big business nor government can control it - yet. I do believe some day in the not so far off future they will, however. If you think about it - that's one reason you folks come here and read and post. There's a lot more truth here than hype and spin. You folks tell what you actually experienced and believe and why you believe what you believe.

I don't condemn big business. But we must all know the real purpose - the bottom line - and it is not nefarious - it is what business is about - Profit. No profit - no business. How they get there - as to whether they do it in a way we agree with or not - is our personal opinion.

Just some thoughts. I apologise in advance for associating some political views in the post.

Marc,

Your post was terrific and thought provoking. I recommend the links to those following this thread.

Marc wrote: “I don't condemn big business. But we must all know the real purpose - the bottom line - and it is not nefarious - it is what business is about - Profit. No profit - no business. How they get there - as to whether they do it in a way we agree with or not - is our personal opinion.”

For the organization, Profit is the Value need. But the other System components, for the most part, do not value profit. They might value reliability, low impact to the environmental resources, dividends, availability, etc. Profit it possibly the Primary Organizational Aim, but for me, it is not the Primary System Aim. It is too specific.

Last week we revisited the Homer Sarasohn thread. In it, I posted Sarasohn’s comment, “Sometimes we build ships for a profit, sometimes for a loss, but we will always build good ships!” I think about this comment a lot. For me, it sums up what an Organizations view of the System Aim might look like in consideration of Organizational aims. It also implies that in tough times, the Organization may operate at a loss for the benefit of every other Component might survive and the Customer might even prosper. For me, it is a terrific statement in support of Systems Thinking. However, do CEOs today recognize this when planning the future, if indeed they are?

Profit is truly important. Goldratt considers it the Goal in his books. However, the specificity of the label makes it an impractical System Aim and as Dr. Deming said, “Without an AIM, there is not System.” He meant that the System must serve a purpose. This I think he may have learned from CI Lewis’s work, although it is my own speculation.

I want to take this moment to thank everyone following this thread and for those who are not but have allowed me to freely express my points of view on several topics. I always fear of being too overbearing, but in all honesty, many posts here stir my mind in such a positive way that I feel compelled to state what is on my mind. I hope that I don’t offend anyone along the way. Development of Personal Theory is an extremely important activity in my life, but not hurting others.

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin said:

> I hope that I don't offend anyone along the way.
> Development of Personal Theory is an extremely important
> activity in my life, but not hurting others.

I echo the same - which is how I got into and onto the tangent I did. As I read through all the posts and think of things I try to understand things including how people feel about things. We went from stuff like:

> The company where I used to work (book manufacturing) was
> a cyclical business - balls-to-the-wall busy in the spring
> and fall, working 24/7, sometimes 12 hour shifts to
> squeeze every ounce of productivity out the the plant in
> order to meet production quotas. In the summer and winter,
> demand was about half of what it was in spring/fall. The
> very first place management went to reduce expenses was,
> of course, employee overhead. "Get the labor dollars out"
> was the mantra at the weekly staff meetings. All I could
> do was shake my head and mumble, "ya just don't get it".

To talking about our personal experiences when out of work. When I think about these things I tend to go up a level or two. I temporalize as do we all. To me somewhat, maybe because I'm an old geezer, I look at the situations and analyze them in a larger context and I look at the evolutionary aspects.

The other night after I wrote the post above - which earned me a couple of 'darts' - I got a couple of unexpected but interesting responses to my post offline - I lay awake in bed remembering some companies I had worked with / at. One I thought of was Grimes Aviation in Urbana, Ohio. It was started out by a Mr. Grimes. While I was there I spoke with some of the few folks left from the days when Mr. Grimes owned the place. I think it had been sold 3 times between his ownership and my time there. When I was there it was FL Aerospace. You'd talk to some of these old folks and they reminisced about when Mr. Grimes owned the place. It was like a large family to hear them tell it. Mr. Grimes gave everyone a turkey at Christmas and a bonus of some amount. He arranged for and paid for the Christmas Party. Talking to them, I felt they really believed Mr. Grimes was interested in them and they really liked him. The would recount incidents where he would help in personal problems. They would comment about him like Rick's (from earlier post) employees talk about him. Talking with them, however, as I listened it was a lament for the past.

For an understanding of how heavily these conversations hit home with me, I was there 4 weeks into a 1 year contract when the company was sold! All the contract personnel were called in the next week (including, of course, your's truely) and told all contract were cancelled by the new owners. It came down to "...this is your last week..." The 'old timers' looked at each sale as a new round of personnel cuts, effiency experts, lower or more expensive benefits, and lower raises. For starters...

I never did get a personal history of Mr. Grimes. I have no idea why he sold, what he did then or anything like that. Obviously his employees liked him to the extent that one came away with a Norman Rockwell picture of those days when Mr. Grimes ran the company etched in your mind.

Stolle Corporation in Sidney, Ohio was started by one Ralph Stolle. My father knew Ralph a bit so I did get some personal history on him. My father and Mr. Stolle palyed golf together few times. Not close friends - more acquaintances. Mr. Stolle diversified and there are still Stolle companies each doing different things here and there but the plant in Sidney by the expressway was sold some years ago and has gone through the same type of multiple sales and transitions as it moved through sales. I'm not sure who owns the plant now. The employees I met and spoke with there spoke of Ralph Stolle like the folks at Grimes did of Mr. Grimes. My dad said Ralph was a bit agressive, but a comfortable, quite well to do fella who "...has a heart..."

With anecdotal stories like this I look at them in context of of the larger view. In my last post I may have taken the thread to the extremes, but that wasn't my intent. A couple of folks didn't like one or more of the links I posted and let me know it. To everyone I say I see this as mostly a philosophical thread. Once you're into philosophy there are going to be differing opinions. Dem's de breaks. Differing opinions are to be expected but they're not meant to be personal. If differing opinions were grounds for inter-personal animosity, most marriages would fall apart before they began... ;)

As you can see I also like to look at the much longer term evolution including aspects which have stayed the same (or nearly so) for centuries. Do you ever wonder about 'companies' in Egyptian times? Were the pyramids really built by paid workers or were they built by slaves? Were there 'middle class' worker groups, and if so what were they like? This line of thinking was why I said businesses are there to make a profit - and they are. Always have been. Yup - I do watch the History Channel from time to time.

Questions like motivation of people also comes into play. Lots of neat 'stuff' to think about. I read a book probably 15 years ago called "Soul of a New Machine". I can't remember who wrote it but it was a gal. It was for the most part the inside story - as in living at work with the engineers - of (as I understood it to be) Digital Equipment Corporation in its startup to early days. She followed throught the design through the debug and eventual sale of 'the machine' - what is now often referred to as Big Iron. It was an excellent study of motivation through the intimacy - from descriptions of the communications to the passions of each individual. These were people on a mission. Intense. The book was riviting. At the same time, the life to death story of Digital Equipment Corporation is in and of its self an interesting story. I visited the Digital facility in Maynard Mass (the 'Mill Stream' home of Digital) back in the early 1980's and it was a really neat place.

Well, I hope I didn't kill this thread. I was hoping for at least 60 to 70 posts! :thedeal: Sorry if I got too serious or whatever in my last post.

Marc,

I rather enjoy the occasional tangents we all go off on, from time to time. It's hard to shut off the thoughts as you address a topic. Let your fingers and mind do the walking.
As I listen to the younger workers today, and I have a few years on you, their concerns are the same ones I have been listening to for almost three generations. I will attempt to assuage their concerns by recalling some related event that occurred in my past. Most times, it is greeted with "What do you know Old Man?". On the other hand, you also get "You're a great sounding board, let me try this on you". Either way, they listen. I tend to get long winded every now and then, particularly if I have a real passion for the topic. Can't "hep mysef". Let it fly!!:smokin:

Or should I use the buzzword contingency?

Long but a good read as to how a good business plans and operates!

--------------------------------------------------------------
By DAVID KOENIG, AP Business Writer
DALLAS (AP) - In the hours after terrorists seized four jetliners, key officials of Southwest Airlines holed up in the company boardroom and tracked about 260 Southwest jets still in the air.

Federal officials had ordered all planes grounded. When the last Southwest jet landed safely at Dallas Love Field, the 20 or so employees, including chairman Herb Kelleher and chief executive James Parker, broke into cheers.

Then they turned to the realization that air travel wouldn't be the same after Sept. 11, that passengers would be skittish about getting back on a plane.



"We were worried about, what cash do we have? Where is it? Can we get it?" chief financial officer Gary Kelly says. "We had $1 billion in cash on Sept. 11. I was worried it would go to zero."

By the next morning, Southwest had tapped a $475 million line of credit with banks and had called Boeing Co. to postpone taking 11 more 737s, worth about $30 million apiece - including one that had been scheduled for delivery Sept. 11.

Analysts say this slavish devotion to cash and financial fundamentals helps explain why Southwest avoided layoffs and maintained investor confidence during a crisis while its rivals were battered.

"By far they had the strongest balance sheet in the industry," said Ray Neidl, an analyst with ABN Amro. "They might have been the only carrier that could have survived without government assistance."

In an industry where heavy borrowing to buy expensive aircraft is common, Southwest had a net debt-to-capital ratio of 33 percent compared to 59 percent at American Airlines' parent company, 66 percent at United's parent and 88 percent at Continental, according to Salomon Smith Barney.

In the first few days of trading after the attacks, investors hammered airline stocks, some of which lost two-thirds of their value and only regained ground after it became clear that Congress would approve a $15 billion bailout.

Through Thursday, shares in Houston-based Continental had fallen 55 percent since Sept. 11, and stock in Fort Worth-based American, United, Delta and Northwest had lost 25 to 40 percent.

Dallas-based Southwest, with the largest stock-market value in the industry, saw its shares fall less than 8 percent.

With the credit it drew upon, plus $144 million in federal aid, Southwest now has $1.5 billion in cash to cushion $120 million in losses since Sept. 11, Kelly said.

Kelly said the burn rate has slowed to less than $3 million a day and ridership climbed to 53 percent last week, compared to 66 percent a year ago.

The break-even point, he said, is between 55 percent and 60 percent.

Southwest had clung to its daily schedule of 2,800 flights, despite 20 percent cuts at the other major carriers.

The other carriers have also announced 100,000 layoffs, but Southwest has avoided job cuts and made a $180 million contribution to its employee retirement plan on schedule on Sept. 14.

"We're very far away from considering layoffs," Kelly said, while adding that Southwest will "keep all options open. We're not out of the woods yet, and we're not sure we're going to know when we are out of the woods."

The president of the union representing Southwest's 6,700 fight attendants said the absence of layoffs - a promise made early on by Parker and other top executives - would pay off in better labor relations.

"They made it clear that their first priority was to protect the jobs of people that were already here," said Thom McDaniel, president of Local 556 of the Transport Workers Union. "They immediately took a cautious approach, cutting anything nonessential that they could."

Southwest says it will actually hire more flight attendants this fall. The airline had 400 unfilled positions before the attacks, preferring to pay overtime rather than hire more employees who would be eligible for benefits.

The airline has made a profit every year since 1973, even during the early 1990s, when the industry lost about $6 billion in two years.

In the first half of this year, only Continental and Southwest earned money, and analysts now expect Continental to fall into the red for the full year. But they still look for Southwest to earn 53 cents per share, or about $400 million, according to a survey by Thomson Financial/First Call.

Some analysts have questioned whether tougher security rules at airports will delay Southwest's quick turnaround times and add to costs.

Southwest operates mostly short-haul flights to smaller secondary airports and eschews the hub-and-spoke system of connecting flights used by other carriers.

Some analysts think Southwest is more vulnerable if travelers decide driving is safer than flying.

"The airlines that are going to hold up the best in our opinion are those with big hubs located in large cities," said Brian Harris, an analyst with Salomon Smith Barney, who believes Southwest will lose 8 cents per share in the fourth quarter. "It's much easier to recapture traffic in those hubs."

Southwest has put some of its expansion plans on hold. It says it will begin service in Norfolk, Va., as planned this fall but only by taking planes off other routes.

It continues to cut costs, including a reduction in travel agent commissions that it figures will save $40 million. Kelly said Southwest will make any changes necessary to survive in the new, post-Sept. 11 airline world.

"Were not static," he said. "We can innovate."

Al D,

"In the first few days of trading after the attacks, investors hammered airline stocks, some of which lost two-thirds of their value and only regained ground after it became clear that Congress would approve a $15 billion bailout."

That shows exactly where the investor's belief in this country lays. A pox on them all!
:smokin:

Al: What's the definition of 'eschews'? :thedeal:

Marc,

Shun
Avoid
Go against the grain
Does the word paradigm come to mind?

Is this a test?

Did I pass the audition?


Just wanted to show that there was at least one, and probably many companies that are structured to weather the storm. Please don't think this is a gig against the other airlines on my part. This situation is something new and will probably have to be deal with in the future.

I do believe that the airlines need help at this time, they are essential to the well being of this country!:bigwave:

This AM, all employees were called into the cafeteria for a very important announcement. The last time I attended one of these, in a former job, it was to announce the plant was closing and we had three months to find new employment. As much as I tried, I couldn't get the knot out of my stomach.:vfunny: But, it was a different kind of announcement. We will have a new company GM, with a very strong background in business systems. The current GM has been promoted to President of one of our other Business Units. That means I will have a new boss. Actually, I'm quite excited to be able to present our ISO effort status to him. Currently, I'm getting nowhere with the existing management. They're too set in their ways. Everything is based around Sell, Sell and Sell. Can't say that I blame them. But, I have a mission assigned to me by the owner without the authority to implement it. If I can corral the new GM and explain where the roadblocks are, I may get lucky. My major roadblock is my current boss (GM). Well, he's moving on and I get new blood to work with. I'm optimistic that I can persuade him to exercise his authority in something worth while as he is learning the ropes in the Water Treatment Business. He may even have experience in ISO. That may be too much to hope for, but I like the possible breath of fresh air. In a month, or so, we'll see. Gotta love change!:bonk: :ko: :smokin:

Energy,
Wish you the best of luck with the new boss. It reminds me of a story I heard years ago.

It seems that this individual came into a job with a fairly young and set management team. It was immediately apparent that it would take a quite a while to move up.
Surprisingly, after about a year his boss left for a better job and he took over. In another 2 years his boss left again and he moved into that position. It happened again just 2 years later. Someone finally remarked that it was intersting that his bosses were leaving when there was so little turnover.
He just smiled, because he knew the secret.

After some time in a position, and getting to know the boss, he would submit his boss's name to a headhunter as a good prospect. The Headhunter would call the boss saying he had heard good things about him, and would he submit a resume. Eventually the boss would get a better offer and move on.
In the meantime the young fellow was positioning himself to move into the boss's job. And if he didn't get it this time, he'd do the same thing all over again until he did get the job.

That's thinking outside the box.

James

James,

Pretty good idea. Maybe you gave someone ideas. For me, it's a little late to broaden my horizons. Actually, I wouldn't want to be in that position. My background is sorely lacking in obtaining and holding that type of job. You have to be able to survive in a field of "scoundrels". They only teach that in the higher institutions of learning. :biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

James,

Thanks for the idea. I'll have to remember it when I'm in a position where the next step up doesn't require being a member of the family. :(

Ahhh, the joys of nepotism and a family run business.


Energy,

Good luck with your new boss!! I sure hope it works out for you and you can edumacate him all proper-like. :biglaugh: :smokin:


Cheers!!!

That was pretty clever! I'll keep this one to myself, but thanks for sharing it with us!!:biglaugh:

Kevin

Just wondering, three years since this thread was started, if anyone has any current thoughts on Constancy of Purpose...

Marc,
I didn't realize there was such a thread......

One of the most interesting documentaries i have seen is Michael Moore's
The BIG ONE. Current politics aside it is one of his least publicized but best films on the state of corporate affairs on tody's economy and I believe it's almost 10 yrs. old now.

It really brings home the fact that even though a company or division is profitable, HOW PROFITABLE is their main focus and forget about the employees affected.
From my own personal experience:

Moore Business Forms was bought by an investment group and 200 MM was slashed out of the company. The same group then bought Wallace Computer Systems. More plant closings and repetetive management layoffs. Now they have been bought by RR Donnelly and the cycle continues. Thousands of people have and will lose their jobs as a result. The culture created in every remaining facility is one of distrust because some of the plants that were closed were profitable and no real reason was given except that it wasn't your fault and it was a business decision.

Whatever the result of this corporate Darwinism is I hope it doesn't ruin the work ethic of this country.
If companies are only making money due to downsizing and not on pure profitability due to manufacruring of goods then we might as well open up the welfare ranks to every blue collar worker in this country. :mad:

One of the most interesting documentaries i have seen is Michael Moore's
The BIG ONE. Current politics aside it is one of his least publicized but best films on the state of corporate affairs on tody's economy and I believe it's almost 10 yrs. old now.

It really brings home the fact that even though a company or division is profitable, HOW PROFITABLE is their main focus and forget about the employees affected.
From my own personal experience:

Moore Business Forms was bought by an investment group and 200 MM was slashed out of the company. The same group then bought Wallace Computer Systems. More plant closings and repetetive management layoffs. Now they have been bought by RR Donnelly and the cycle continues. Thousands of people have and will lose their jobs as a result. The culture created in every remaining facility is one of distrust because some of the plants that were closed were profitable and no real reason was given except that it wasn't your fault and it was a business decision.

Whatever the result of this corporate Darwinism is I hope it doesn't ruin the work ethic of this country.
If companies are only making money due to downsizing and not on pure profitability due to manufacruring of goods then we might as well open up the welfare ranks to every blue collar worker in this country. :agree:Probably the most frustrating part of these buyouts and subsequent "rightsizing" for the affected employees is how the architects of the acquisitions, mergers, and shrinkages are so richly rewarded.

Welcome to the Cove, NAOTB! :bigwave: This forum can help you keep your sanity after being through a wringer like the Moore and Wallace folks. RRD went through its own "rightsizing" before going on an acquisition binge. That, too, left a slew of unhappy folk in its wake.

The downsizing at RRD is still ongoing as the continuous gutting of both remnants of Moore and Wallace also continues. The cove has been a welcome place as knowledge is openly shared and debated. Go to any message board in a company that is "realigning itself" like RRD and cringe at the fear and misinformation that prevails there.It is a venomous pit of fear and frustration. It is the antithesis of the kind of knowledge shared here.
Probably the most frustrating part of these buyouts and subsequent "rightsizing" for the affected employees is how the architects of the acquisitions, mergers, and shrinkages are so richly rewarded.

Welcome to the Cove, NAOTB! :agree1: This forum can help you keep your sanity after being through a wringer like the Moore and Wallace folks. RRD went through its own "rightsizing" before going on an acquisition binge. That, too, left a slew of unhappy folk in its wake. :agree1:

Marc,
I didn't realize there was such a thread......
There are a lot of interesting threads here. Too many to read every one, but I'm trying... I've been taking a lot of time trying to 'clean up' the database and sometimes I come across some of these 'Oldies but Goodies' - or Blasts from the Past - and try to resurrect some of them for current thoughts.

My daughter is uploading some films and music and the computer is very slow ...Anyway..It seems, reading the above posts, after all as with everything else constancy of purpose can be used to inflict a negative effect on the resources that fostered it, how ironic. Can it be that the drivers (powers that be) of constancy of purpose stand to gain aslo from all this. I truly wonder how the Quality of life equates in all of this.Also I wonder if today's trends in benchmarking excercises are more inclined to take only in consideration the cheapest labour forces as examples, noting the recent trend of manufacture to asian and eastern european countries. Rightfully so for the time being but what is to happen as the labour costs increase, where will the next economic miracle nation arise from, will there every be an end to this cycle.
Or could it be ( on a positive note ) that we are living in a time were the global constancy of purpose is to share the wealth and knowledge among nations as equally as it is possible thereby curbing unjust geographic, religous and social "stigmas". If this is the case definately countries with a high standard of living due to their high productivity are finding it extremely tough to compete with these emerging nations.
As for distribution about knowledge on quality matters, any easy guide would be the "Cove" I just wonder about the rest.