Google AdSense

Google Adsense

Custom Search

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Downsizing- The Crystal Ball of Global Competition


Downsizing-The Crystal Ball of Global Competition

Daniel J. Stone

Ohio Dominican University

Abstract.

     It is debated that downsizing is good or bad for today’s workforce.  Positive aspects of downsizing are a valuable managerial weapon since it reduces organizational costs fast and effectively, businesses are allowed to reallocate resources, and streamline productivity.  On the other hand, negative aspects of downsizing are psychological toll on those that were eliminated and by those that survived, increase in stress, and a sullied reputation in the eyes of those in labor and stock market.

      A mere four years ago, people throughout the world experienced a financial meltdown of epidemic proportions which triggered the “Great Recession.”  The events that took place in 2008 did not discriminate as Baby Boomers on the verge of retirement had their 401K savings evaporate overnight; Gen-Xers on the verge of starting families had to put their dreams on hold.  It was as if someone either lost a job or knew of someone firsthand who lost their job around that time. 
     Downsizing was the answer to the financial meltdown of 2008 and can be traced as far back as the 1950s.  In the 1980s, American businesses were forced into the practice of downsizing due to accelerated growing from international competitors and the growing complexity of the global economy.  Those in favor of downsizing view it as a valuable managerial weapon since it reduces organizational costs fast and effectively.  Also, downsizing allowed businesses to reallocate resources and streamlines productivity which otherwise was impeded due to a lack of competition and complacency.  On the other hand, those against downsizing view the practice as a violation of the psychological contract and break the trust between the employer and employee.  Survivors of a downsizing have increased stress and anxiety levels.  Also, a corporation that has masses of employees laid off end up with a sullied reputation in the eyes of those in labor and stock market (Street and Street, 2010).

     In the early 1980s, the American market became more competitive due to an increase of goods and services being readily available from international competitors.  Japanese auto manufacturers such as Toyota and Honda, for example, began producing products for the American market within the US around that time.  In doing so, Americans were exposed to products that were fashionable, could be relied upon, and were durable.  In comparing the “Big Three” American automakers, to Japanese automakers, the American automakers have been slow to bring new vehicles to the market, while the Japanese are also considered the leader at producing smaller, fuel-efficient cars.  All of this is being done with a non-unionized workforce largely found in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas.  As a result, the Japanese automakers continue to enjoy a cost advantage over the Big Three (CBC News, 2009).
     Downsizing has been the legitimate and strategic solution to the increase in competition and complexity of the global economy.  When an organization is in decline, costs need to be cut, performance needs to be improved, and downsizing has been the legitimate and strategic solution to this problem.  Payroll is by far the biggest cost to an employer and by reducing this cost with downsizing, a declining organization and correct and align itself with the situation and those that survive the layoff are put in a situation to produce and the highest level (Mellahi, K. and Wilkinson, A. 2004).
     An organization that has been downsized takes on a persona of a new organization.  Positions are merged, resources are more regarded and buy in to the organization’s plan is evaluated and reemerged with renowned spirit.  Downsizing with a well conceived strategy ensures that resources are reallocated and productivity is streamlined.  This could be done by the head of an organization also doubling as in another administrative position, multiple levels usually taught individually being taught together to keep hours to a minimum.  Another example of this is to centralize equipment and machinery so that only supplies are being used when it is absolutely necessary (Street and Street, 2010).
     On the other hand, downsizing takes a psychological toll on those that were eliminated and by those that survived.  To have an employer break that trust can be psychologically overwhelming.  After all, an employee spends more time at the workplace with co-workers than they do in their homes with their family.  Staying committed to make their employer the best that it can be takes total buy-in and dedication (Street and Street, 2010).
     Survivors of a reduced workforce experience an increase in stress.  Positions were initially created with job descriptions to occupy a regular work week yet positions are merged with the expectation that goods and services will be produced and provided in the same way.  Leaders of downsized organizations fail to realize that just because the workforce is reduced doesn’t mean that the work left with the eliminated workforce.  Those that stay behind end up doing the work of two people and are expected to continue to put their best foot forward with one of their legs tied behind their back (Street and Street, 2010).
     The traditional manufacturing state such as South Carolina has had an unemployment rate that has exceeded the national average since 2001.  It was around that time that manufacturing plants operating in the state began to downsize operations by shipping jobs overseas, mainly to China (Wenger, 2008).  The backlash throughout the US towards Chinese products sold in the US was intense and as a result, American manufacturers began labeling their products with “China-free” labels.  Resentment from unemployed workers towards competitive products from China to be sullied as a result of downsizing (Douaud, 2007).
     In conclusion, downsizing is a trend that is here to stay due to global competition, cost reduction and performance improvements, and providing a new start to an organization due to the conceived strategy ensures that resources are reallocated and productivity is streamlined.  The downfall of downsizing is psychological repercussions, increased stress from those that survived a downsizing, and negative publicity from the labor and stock markets towards the corporation that has jettisoned a large number of employees.  Downsizing is good in maximizing profits but bad in various humanitarian aspects such as psychological tolls, extra stress and anxiety. 
     In reflecting the consideration the ethical implications of downsizing I have been a casualty and a survivor of downsizing.  As a casualty, my initial feeling was one of anger and betrayal.  Furthermore, I was embarrassed because I then had my close group of family and friends worried how I was going to make ends meet.  As a person who possesses intropunitive characteristics which is to blame myself too harshly when I fail, I found the decision to being downsized personal rather than strategic.  For example, I questioned what I did to deserve a lay off, how I could have better protected myself, in comparison to one of my colleagues who survived.  As time went on, I later found the layoff as a blessing as it gave me the chance to pursue what my calling and passion really is.  Two years later, I was living in a different state leading an organization in a start up branch office.  In this situation, I experienced the survivor side of downsizing since I was expected to do so much with so little manpower.  Not being one to complain, I bought into the company’s philosophy and gave it my all.  In doing so, my shortcomings which everybody has were exposed.  On the other hand, other than the psychological issues that came with being baptized by fire by being thrown into the deep end and have found a way to carry on, my spirit was renewed as one of being totally committed to the cause.  The issue is dealing with those that do not share the same commitment as I do and how I can process their lack of dedication in a way that doesn’t cause friction. 
     My personal belief of downsizing is that the trend of letting good people go is inevitable.  I do not agree that downsizing is the way forward since more careful considerations need to be made when a job is created, a company expands their services, and adds extra branches.  When given a person the work of two people, that person will manage to carry on for the short term but in the end, the person will feel cheated, and no longer put up with the situation and move on.  Therefore, downsizing needs to be done away with and solid business practices that minimize the hard feelings, in particular the feeling of being cheated, where humanitarian aspects are the focal point are the norm.  People are the most important part of an organization and when they are not treated well, companies that downsize may have to downsize all the way to the point of going out of business.
     To substantiate my perspective with facts and research, Southwest Airlines has a positive reputation in the eyes of its employees.  This is because Southwest Airlines hires someone based on their attitude and then trains them for the skills needed to do their job.  Not only are they trained, they are also empowered.  This combination of attitude, training, and empowerment is Southwest Airline’s blueprint to building a confident worker who makes the right decisions (Campbell, 2010). 
     This approach illustrates the unwritten psychological contract between employer and employee.  In the aftermath of 9/11 Southwest Airlines emerged as the only American airline company that remained in the black every quarter and didn’t furlough a single employee.  Because of Southwest Airline’s solid business practices there was no need to downsize when nearly all of the other American airline companies were laying off people in droves, filing for bankruptcy, or going out of business.  Southwest Airlines has continued to carry on as a leader in domestic air travel in the markets that it serves (Serwer, 2004). 


References.

Campbell, S. (2010).  How Southwest Airlines Became a Model for Customer Loyalty. 



Dattner, B. & Hogan, R. (2011).  Harvard Business Review, April 2011, Vol. 89 Issue 4, p117-

121.

Douaud, C. (2007).  China Free’ Labels Stokes Import Debate.  Retrieved from:


Mellahi, K. and Wilkinson, A. (2004) Downsizing and Innovation Output: A Review of

Literature and Research Propositions, BAM Paper 2004, British Academy of Management.

Richards, T. (2009).  The used-to-be Big Three:  U.S. automakers struggling with sliding sales,


Serwer, A. (2004).  Southwest Airlines: The Hottest Thing in the Sky Through change at the top,   through 9/11, in a lousy industry, it keeps winning Most Admired kudos. How?  Retrieved from CNN.  http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/03/08/363700/index.htm

 Street, M and Street, V. (2010).  Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Management, Third Edition.

 Wenger, Y. (2008).  Why is S.C. unemployment rate so high?  Retrieved from: The Post



http://daniel-j-stone.blogspot.com (C) 2009-12

Thursday, April 12, 2012

CEO’s Compensation- Too much with little to show for it

CEO’s Compensation- Too much with little to show for it

Daniel J. Stone

Ohio Dominican University


Abstract.

It is debated that the compensation that a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) makes is excessive.  Those in favor of the excessive salaries justify this due to a weak pool of qualified CEOs to choose from.  The knowledge and leadership talent that a CEO possesses is retained due to the hefty salaries.  Also, the high salaries are driven by competition between private equity firms and publicly traded companies.  With this being said, there are several indicators that would suggest that CEOs in corporate America are overcompensated and while they are making in a day what the average American worker makes in a year, corporations are cutting staff and those corporations are underperforming. 

Keywords:  Chief Executive Officers, average American worker, excessive salaries, weak pool of CEOs, knowledge and leadership talent, driven by competition, staff reduction, underperformance. 

            A Chief Executive Officer (CEO) bears great responsibility, risk, and blame for a company’s successes and failures.  By law, the President of the US earns the highest salary in the federal government.  CEOs in corporate America are the highest paid individuals in the world.  Advocates for the CEOs high salaries justify this due to a weak pool of qualified CEOs to choose from.  On the other hand, CEOs in corporate America are overcompensated since they can make as much in one day than the average worker at the firm makes the entire year (Street and Street, 2010). 

Statistics show that CEOs are overcompensated in the US.  In comparing the 20 highest paid European managers to the 20-highest paid American managers; the European managers only make 33% of what the American manager makes.  In Japan, a CEO makes approximately 15 times what the lowest worker makes.  The same can be said about CEOs in corporate America versus the CEOs of non-business sectors.  In taking the top earners of the federal government’s executive and legislative branches, military leaders, and non-profit CEOs earn only 3.4% of what the top earners in corporate America.  (Street and Street, 2010). 

            On the other hand, the excessive salaries for CEOs are justified.  Currently, the market for solid CEOs is competitive and wage-increasing bidding wars are the norm.  Therefore, in making a case for the current CEO pay scales is two-fold.  First, CEOs are paid the salaries that they are paid so that the knowledge and leadership talent that a CEO possesses is retained.  Second, there is strong competition between private equity firms and publicly traded companies.  Attracting and retaining the employees who generate value for the shareholders is worth the return on investment for the pay that the CEO earns (Street and Street, 2010). 

            Having said this, the current compensation for CEOs is very excessive.  CEOs of major US companies earned as much money from one day’s worth of work as the average worker made over the course of an entire year.  If the average American worker earns approximately $30,000 per year and the average ratio of a CEO’s salary when compared to the average worker is 364:1, the CEO is making $10.8 million per year (Street and Street, 2010). 

            Furthermore, there is a lot of skepticism of CEO pay after the corporate scandals such as the HealthSouth corporate accounting scandal.  Also, the CEOs salary is not linked to performance.  In the middle of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, failing CEOs walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars (Weiss, 2009). 

            Excessive salaries for CEOs can be said about local government CEOs.  Ed Driggers is the City Administrator of a municipal government in the rural state of South Carolina.  It was reported in 2011 that Mr. Driggers was making $153,724 annually.  (Staff Reports 2011).  Three years prior, at the start of the Great Recession, Driggers collected a salary $127,548.  During the same year, Driggers laid off three employees that were each earning approximately $30,000 per year (McGranahan 2008).  Two of the three positions could have been kept if funds were shifted from Driggers’ salary.  The period when families have earners either unemployed or underemployed and not meeting their full earning potential, Mr. Driggers saw a pay increase of $26,000 which is nearly the equivalent of one average American’s salary.  Having grown up in South Carolina, an annual salary of $67,000 is more than enough to live off as the breadwinner of a family of four.  Regardless of the economies of scale, the current compensation of a CEO in the private or public sectors is excessive when compared to the workers of his or her organization.  (Street and Street, 2010). 

            In conclusion, CEOs are overcompensated in corporate America.  For example, a top earning CEO in Germany only earns a third of what a top earning CEO in the US makes.  However, CEOs are short in supply and their hefty salaries are justified to retain the leadership talent.  Having said this, the current compensation for a CEO is very excessive.  However, it is debated that failing CEOs are allowed to walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars in the middle of the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

In reflecting on the reading, in 1982, Mr. S. Truett Cathy, CEO of the fast food chicken restaurant chain, Chick-Fil-A did not take a salary when his company fell on hard times.  Mr. Cathy looked at raising prices as the last resort during that year.  Chick-fil-A has restaurants in 38 of the 50 states and is not publicly traded.  With most restaurants making 20% of their revenue on Sundays, Chick-fil-A has remained closed on that day (Cathy, 2002). 

CEOs are getting paid millions of dollars while the firm is reducing its workforce via layoffs, downsizing, and outsourcing at the same time.  (Street and Street, 2010).  Back around the time that Mr. Cathy was not taking a salary, big-time corporate CEOs took over 40 times the pay of the average worker.  Now, a CEO makes 365 times the pay of the average worker.  Therefore, it is in my opinion that not only are CEOs in corporate America overcompensated, they are disconnected from the realities that many Americans face. 

 References

Cathy, S.T. (2002).  Eat Mor Chikin:  Inspire More People.  Crisis and Purpose.  118-126.

McGranahan, H. (2008).  City cuts staff, facing shortfall.  Retrieved from the Greer Citizen:


 Staff Reports (2011).  Upstate government salaries online.  Retrieved from the Spartanburg Herald: 


 Street, M and Street, V. (2010).  Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Management, Third Edition.

Shackleford, L. (2009).  Several area leaders are not under contract.  Retrieved from the   
           p=3&tc=pg

Weiss, J. (2009).  Business Ethics:  A Stakeholder & Issues Management Approach.  Fifth Edition. 

http://daniel-j-stone.blogspot.com (C) 2009-12

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Attention to Details

Van Halen, 2007 Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame inductees, are notorious for their bombatious performances on and off the stage and leading the way for arena rock of the late 1970s and 1980s.  In 1980, the band embarked on their "The World Invasion Tour".  This saw the birth of the legendary brown M&M contract rider. The band demanded M&M candies backstage with all of the brown ones removed. Only one documented case exists where the rider wasn't adhered to, a show at the University of Colorado in Pueblo, CO. The university paid dearly for their error. The band demolished their backstage dressing room causing thousands of dollars of damage. 


The rider itself was genius. Its sole purpose was to ensure that venue and promoter personnel read the entire contract before each performance, and brown M&Ms backstage was an instant indicator they hadn't. If the venue couldn't perform a task as simple as removing a specified color of M&Ms, how could they be trusted to fulfill lighting, sound, and other technical requirements?

Are you committed to doing everything that you are responsible for?  What indicators are you sending to indicate that you are adhering to the plan?  As a service provider, the last thing that your customers can experience is a lack of commitment.  Don't make the organization pay dearly due to your lack of commitment.  Pay attention to the details so that you are "Committed to Excellence".

http://daniel-j-stone.blogspot.com (C) 2009-12