Managing in a downturn: Mistakes CEOs make- Headcount

Lets start with one of the most common actions taken by CEOs when faced with a downturn or with unfavourable market conditions or with a need to simply cut costs: slashing headcount.

It is probably one of the easiest measures to take, with a considerable impact on the bottomline (apart from slashing marketing budgets, which I will dwell on shortly). Alas, it is also a step that can have far reaching consequences, if not managed properly.

Let me explain what I mean. There are two methodologies that can be used to reduce headcount. The first is by examining processes and functions to determine which ones have excess headcount, thereby identifying redundancies which can be eliminated. So far, so good.

The danger arises when the decision to eliminate jobs is taken on the basis of numbers rather than talent or skills. If a certain function is determined to be redundant, the easy decision is to remove that function or a position/s within the function, thereby eliminating one or several jobs. The impact on the bottomline is immediate, significant and measurable.

But the gain may be short term. What if some of the best and brightest talent of the the organisation is lost in this process? Diehard supporters of this method of headcount reduction will argue that if the function is not required, neither is the talent.

Quite true. But that is true only in the short term. The mid term and long term are more difficult to predict both, from a business environment as well as from a resource requirement point of view. By getting rid of talent in the short term, is it not possible that the organisation ends up compromising its opportunities in the long term, when that talent may actually help in boosting the bottomline?

This kind of short term thinking with a disregard for consequences that are seen to have a minimal probability of occurring is one of the key reasons for the financial crisis that has dragged down global economic growth over the last few months. And it is this thinking that can put brakes on an organisation's growth as well.

Let's not forget; "talent" is an anagram of "latent". Not all talent shines all the time. Talent and skills are need and opportunity based. They need to be employed when the time is right for best results.

So, what is the option?

The second method of reducing headcount. Not by numbers, but by talent management and assessment. It is relatively easy, given the tools available to HR managers today, to identify talent that needs to be retained, as well as tag employees whose contribution to the organisation is either sub optimal or minimal. Organisations need to have in place processes that continually identify, tabulate and rank employees on the basis of their positive contributions. If this process is followed meticulously and consistently, then, when the organisation needs to reduce headcount, it has a ready reckoner which enables it to quickly identify employees at the bottom of the barrel. By making these employees redundant, it is obvious that the performance of the organisation will not be affected either way; however, their elimination will have a significant impact on the bottomline.

And, it will ensure that the right talent is retained for the long term, to exploit the relevant opportunities for growth, as and when they arise. More on talent management and retention in a later blog.

Managing in a downturn: Mistakes CEOs make

I've never understood this. Whenever there is an economic downturn, organisations go into "survival mode". They begin slashing costs, retrenching employees, restructuring the organisation, cutting marketing budgets...in sum, a host of "priorities" take over. I can't help comparing it to a kind of preparation for hibernation, where the metabolism begins to slow, the body tries to conserve energy and in general, the organism becomes sluggish and sleepy.

Does this analogy extend to the world of business? In today's competitive scenario, I believe it does. The impact of all these strategies for survival is to stifle opportunities which the organisation would have otherwise aggressively pursued in its endeavour to grow profitably. It reduces the inclination to be innovative and experiment with new business strategies, especially those that are the most innovative and, therefore, appear to carry the greatest risk. The net result of these measures may well turn out to be the equivalent of commercial hibernation; stagnation or even reduction of revenues and profits, and it may be difficult to recover in the long term.

While I do not for a minute believe that organisations should not attempt to protect their bottomlines when the market for their products or services is shrinking--and I would not like to generalise, since there are organisations who have genuine cashflow problems which can only be tackled through drastic measures--I would like to argue that organisations should not adopt a blinkered approach or ignore opportunities for growth.

The purpose for the existence of any firm is to grow through acquisition of new customers, increasing the business, profitably, from existing customers and retaining their existing customer base. I believe that organisations would be better served if their managements were to focus on these three key areas in a downturn; strategies to achieve these objectives would be more effective in at least maintaining revenues and profits in a downturn, as well as ensure that the organisation is well prepared for the upturn when it happens.

The next few blogs will dwell on some of the issues I have outlined in this blog, and explain:
a) how an organisation in survival mode can harm its long term prospects and weaken itself when the upturn arrives
b) what are the strategies organisations can and should adopt in order to protect themselves from the downturn, without any adverse side effects
c) how these strategies will benefit organisations during the downturn and when the upturn finally arrives