| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Character & Contribution Values, integrity, finding your purpose, living your purpose, serving the greater good, making a difference, changing the world, charity, polarity, lightworkers, darkworkers |
|
Welcome to the Personal Development for Smart People Forums, the place for lively, intelligent discussion of all personal growth issues -- physical, mental, financial, social, emotional, spiritual, and more. You're currently viewing as a guest, which gives you limited read-only access. By joining our free community, you'll be able to post your own messages, access many members-only features, see the new messages posted since your last visit, and of course remove this header message. Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please join today. If you arrived here from a search engine, you may want to explore the main site first, which includes hundreds of deep and insightful articles on a variety of personal development topics. |
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-10-2007, 06:10 PM
| |||
| |||
 How far would you go to succeed financially… ??? Here is a hypothetical scenario: You work for a privately owned company and discover a way that the same amount of production can be done with half the manpower. You talk about this to the owner and he tells you that if you implement your technology… he will make you a full partner… which means a huge financial reward for you. However, if you do it, you know that half of your friends and co-workers will lose their job and that since most of these people have been there for over twenty years… it will be next to impossible for them to relocate at a the same salary… resulting in a huge financial loss for them… What do you do…??? Forge ahead and reap the reward… or squelch your project… and save your friends and co-workers… (No other option is available) PS. This question is very pertinent as similar situations are frequently seen in small and large businesses... .      |
|
06-10-2007, 06:25 PM
| |||
| |||
| Well you see I would never be in that situation. But honestly...I would take the Job as Partner. if they wern't smart enoguh to think of the idea...well its tough. You'll make new, better friends as an influencial, successful person anyway.
__________________ Wonder at the stars, love of the wilderness, enjoyment of the arts, are a human birthright. - Simon Blackburn (Prof. of Philosophy at Cambridge Uni) |
|
06-10-2007, 06:34 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
 However, after seeing your pic... that comes as no surprise...  . |
|
06-10-2007, 06:43 PM
| |||
| |||
| Thanks Shamou!
__________________ Wonder at the stars, love of the wilderness, enjoyment of the arts, are a human birthright. - Simon Blackburn (Prof. of Philosophy at Cambridge Uni) |
|
06-10-2007, 10:05 PM
| |||
| |||
| You guys are funny. Thanks. As to your question, Shamou, I think I would let the staff know the problem I was facing. I'd keep them and tell them that we have to become the best darned staff possible. Recreate their jobs so that they're no longer doing the same thing. Maybe have them go off and start other versions of the company elsewhere, using the new insight. Tell the others that leaving the company might just jump start their own careers, but not force it on them. I don't believe the only option would be to cut them off completely. That said, I've never been in this situation. Interesting question. |
|
06-10-2007, 10:22 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
The scenario says that the employees won't be able to relocate at the same salary if they are let go. I don't see why the employees wouldn't have been updating their skills and preparing for technological change, and if they hadn't, why would I want them in my company anyway? With that said, I would go with Love's idea and inform the staff of the situation and ask for their input. They might even come up with a third option that was better than the initial two choices. I read a management book (sorry I can't remember which one) that talked about this exact same situation. The employees at a factory that was facing imminent closure due to technological obsolescence were informed of the problem and given opportunities for retraining and outplacement as well as being kept appraised of the situation. At the end, there was a barbeque where employees and management came together and celebrated the time they had spent together. It sounds cheesy, and I'm sure there were more details, but that was the gist of what happened. |
|
06-10-2007, 10:26 PM
| |||
| |||
| Go with the new technology. If you don't then those that would loose their jobs will loose them anyway when a competitor takes up the technology, undercuts your company and steals your market share. When the technology is implemented, if it is as good as all that it will result in a cost/price reduction. With the increased volume and a round of voluntary redundancies there should not be a need for anyone to be forced unwillingly out of work. |
|
06-10-2007, 10:37 PM
| |||
| |||
| I would definitely go with the new technology. I don't think I'd have a choice, because eventually that technology would be utilized throughout the field and those employees would lose their jobs down the road anyway. Having said that, initially I would dedicate the dollars saved to assisting the employees who were losing their jobs with refresher courses on preparing resumes, conducting themselves in job interviews, etc. I would also try to use any contacts or networking abilities I had to help them find other employment. Additionally, I would contact the local technical schools to see if there were avenues available to them for retraining and re-employment through such facilities. Perhaps if there is a manageable, small number of employees who are very near to retirement, the company could fund an early retirement program to bridge the gap until they reach full retirement age. In other words, I would forge ahead with the new technology, but I would use my influence as a new partner to make the company as employee-friendly as possible, even when having to let those employees go. |
|
06-10-2007, 11:36 PM
| |||
| |||
| Hehehehe! Not a shark here. I LOVE companies that take care of their employees. Honestly, Shamou, do you think it matters if the CEO of XYZ Company makes 5 zillion dollars of total compensation or 4 zillion dollars of total compensation, and maybe dedicate that difference of 1 zillion to keeping the folks happy? Happy folks make good employees. Good employees make great companies. But they probably don't teach that at Harvard. |
|
06-11-2007, 12:03 AM
| |||
| |||
| If your company can get the same amount of work done with half the people, you owe it to your stockholders to make cuts. However, there is flip side here. Human beings are usually a company's most important and most expensive resource. The cost of replacement is very high. And the cost of low morale among those who avoid the lay-off could also be quite high. A massive lay-off is expensive in the long run -- just look at the consequences that companies had to pay in terms of employee loyalty after the massive downsizing lay-offs of the 80's. Long story short: See if there is any productive way to continue using those employees, and offer GENEROUS severance packages.
__________________ 11 Causes of Procrastination and Their Cures Resolve Arguments like a Pro with 7 Proven Techniques Are You an American Zombie? How I OverCame a Crippling Anxiety Disorder |
|
06-11-2007, 12:10 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
 However, I certainly agree with you that, "Happy folks make good employees. Good employees make great companies." And, as far as what they teach at Harvard... you don't wanna know... . |
|
06-11-2007, 01:52 AM
| |||
| |||
| I just had this thought, Shamou. You have to factor in the unemployment benefits you have to pay those employees who have been laid off and who do not find other employment. I'm not sure of the amount or the duration of those benefits, but I imagine it's pretty costly. And you are right, I probably don't want to know what they teach at Harvard. I'm sure it's depressing as hell. And we wonder why Corporate American is in the state it's in. |
|
06-11-2007, 03:01 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
 You better kiss that MBA dream good-by...  . |
|
06-11-2007, 03:14 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
I'm working on my CPA qualification and a masters of commerce next. |
|
06-11-2007, 03:26 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
And, I guess that MBAs are like any other professions... you find the genius... and the duds... however, I can tell you this... find me a Harvard MBA who is lousy... and I'll pay for all the beer that you can drink for a whole year... PS. A very good portion of Harvard MBA students are astronauts awaiting for active duty... not a bad bunch...  . |
|
06-11-2007, 03:59 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
We don't really have any elite universities here, it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. |
|
06-11-2007, 05:44 AM
| |||
| |||
| omg, is that straight out of uni? Is there a level of experience required for this kind of rates? I think things there must be very different than they are here. |
|
06-11-2007, 12:39 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
|
|
06-11-2007, 02:29 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
. |
|
06-11-2007, 02:34 PM
| |||
| |||
| I am not really following the conversation, but I am going for a PhD in psychology
__________________ Wonder at the stars, love of the wilderness, enjoyment of the arts, are a human birthright. - Simon Blackburn (Prof. of Philosophy at Cambridge Uni) |