1/3/2024 0 Comments Poughkeepsie journal layoffsAs a result, headcount as a ratio to output/production was used as the primary metric of performance, in order to fulfill the “more with less” maxim. The underlying philosophy was that for companies to be able to survive and become globally competitive, they needed to be efficient, productive, and profitable. Such tactics, it was claimed, made it feasible for firms to increase the production of goods and services with fewer resources. Japanese management conceptsīeginning in the 1980s, Western-oriented firms began to adopt Japanese management tactics, including lean manufacturing, total quality management (TQM), just-in-time (JIT), and team working. Over the same time period, there was considerable interest in the lean firm, a concept derived from the notion of lean production (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990). Redundancies, also called mass layoffs and collective dismissals, led to the fundamental breach of the employment relationship, the old psychological contract (Fineman, 1999). Such programs and the ensuing mass layoffs of employees earned large corporations a reputation for meanness, a reputation shaped by individuals’ perceptions of the necessity and fairness of RIF being carried out. Prominent firms who made deep employee cuts included AT&T, British Telecom, General Electric, General Motors, and IBM (Kinnie, Hutchinson, & Purcell, 1998). In the 1980s and 1990s, large-scale redundancy programs were in vogue with many large-sized firms, who saw these programs as solutions to their problems. The discussion below reviews some of the strategies that have been adopted by corporations over the past 30 years. While some approaches and tactics have produced promising results, others have failed to yield any benefits. Reductions in force (RIF) – typologyĪ multitude of RIF strategies and techniques has surfaced over the last three decades. This article will discuss these practices. Given the high levels of RIF now occurring in the financial services industry, a discussion of the commonly utilized corporate restructuring practices seems especially timely. As a direct consequence, new management theories and concepts, sometimes cynically referred to as management fads, regularly emerge and are frequently, and at times desperately, adopted by firms trying to gain a leading edge. In the wake of the corporate mantras of profit maximization and shareholder value, firms are continually trying to improve their performance in terms of their efficiency, productivity, profitability, and competitiveness (Cravotta & Kleiner, 2001). Some of these changes have been revolutionary and given rise to the emergence of a new globally interconnected economy (Macky, 2004). Some of the most noteworthy and profound changes include technological developments and breakthroughs, the deregulation and privatization of entire industries, as well as industry- and firm-specific changes. Thus, there has been a distinct de-coupling of RIF strategies from economic cycles (Littler & Gandolfi, 2008).Īdmittedly, over the past three decades, the world of business has experienced a tremendous amount of major change. Today, it is recognized that the utilization of RIF is not confined to a particular phase of firm’s business cycle, but that such practices can be used even if the economy is thriving. Since the mid-1980s, the layoffs that have occurred have been strategic (Littler, 1998). While RIF practices were particularly prevalent among blue-collar and semi-skilled employees until the 1980s, they were largely reactive. Historically, businesses have always been under pressure to adjust their workforce levels to anticipated or actual changes in labour demand. While scholars and HR professionals have long been debating the technical differences among the various concepts, it is obvious that, from an employee’s perspective, they all share at least one thing in common: the final outcome is a layoff.Įmployee layoffs are not a new phenomenon. These include downsizing, job separation, re-engineering, rightsizing, and workforce imbalance correction (Gandolfi, 2006). It should come as no surprise that different terms for the concept of Reductions in Force (RIF) have appeared in the managerial lexicon over the past few decades. What events have contributed to this development and what types of Reductions In Force (RIF) have corporations adopted? This article discusses the common corporate restructuring practices corporations have used and are using around the world. After nearly three decades of corporate restructurings and reorganizations, the contemporary firm can’t avoid the “mean and lean” stigma.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |