[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by arunramaswamy

What happens after mass layoffs at these firms? Would people want to join such companies who have scant regards for employees and their families?

What choice do people have? They need to make a living and the small minority of people-over-profits employers out there couldn't possibly hire everyone.

So people tell themselves 'It won't happen to me!' and jump in. 'How could it happen to me?!' eventually follows, but that's a bridge for another day.

[m8002?]

Originally Posted by arunramaswamy

What happens after mass layoffs at these firms? Would people want to join such companies who have scant regards for employees and their families?

Here are the list of companies that let go of people in tens of 1000s ( both recent hires and loyal long timers )
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, SAP, Intel, Meta, SalesForce, Swiggy, SnapChat, etc, etc.

Assuming you are not in one of those, if a recruiter from any of these companies calls you for an opportunity with a 60-100% pay hike, what would you do?

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by arunramaswamy

Would people want to join such companies who have scant regards for employees and their families?

Because of high pay. And great rewards come with great risk. If you don't want risk, you can always join the IT department of a non-IT company, where the pay will be low, but job security is high.

Wanting both high pay and job security is unrealistic.

[padmrajravi]

Originally Posted by m8002?

Here are the list of companies that let go of people in tens of 1000s ( both recent hires and loyal long timers )
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, SAP, Intel, Meta, SalesForce, Swiggy, SnapChat, etc, etc.

Assuming you are not in one of those, if a recruiter from any of these companies calls you for an opportunity with a 60-100% pay hike, what would you do?

Not everything on your list is tempting, but there are a couple of them in that list that I would love to work with. If I get one of my preferred ones, I will definitely take it. The value these companies add to one's CV is very high. I can make hay for some time and if at all, I get laid off, I can always go back to a smaller company with job security and be higher in the food chain there. That said, none of these companies will give me an offer in my hometown, so this is just a hypothetical scenario for me.

But I won't take an offer from a start-up that depends on investor money to pay salary even if it is at 200%. That is the riskiest move. The FAANG companies are a much safer bet. Even after all these layoffs, I will only advise people to take those offers if there are no other personal constraints.

[volkman10]

Latest update on twitter:

[SnS_12]

Google India has reportedly sacked 453 employees across various departments. The employees were informed of their termination through mail. The sackings were said to have taken place late at night on Thursday.

https://www.businesstoday.in/amp/tec...553-2023-02-17

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Exactly. As I said in my earlier post, 1:1 is what I feel should be the top limit. But when it goes beyond that, then the customer is getting a raw deal.

This statement by me last month was not appreciated much in this thread. After working in very small companies for decades, I have an extremely customer focused viewpoint, because I can see the direct impact on the revenues and prospect of the company, when customers are ignored. So I am never impressed with processes designed to ignore/harass the customers. I never buy any justifications for it.

A startup founder whose company was acquired by Google, recently quit Google and posted his reasons in a blog. As a startup founder, he thinks exactly like me. Again, many of you won't agree with him. Still, I think it is worth reading his opinion about the internal workings of Google.

https://medium.com/@pravse/the-maze-...e-980c57cfd61a

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Samurai

This statement by me last month was not appreciated much in this thread...

Lean staffing isn't a magic wand solution. If that were true, all small organizations with good ideas would succeed. They don't, do they?

The problem with Google, stripped of all the mumbo-jumbo terminology in the article, is not dissimilar to what ails most large organizations.

They get too big, they feel the need to put processes in place to control their vast span (good idea), but put in too many one-size-fits-all standardized processes (not a good idea) that eventually get in the way more than getting hurdles out of the way.

The answer isn't to remove processes; the answer is to tailor processes to serve their intended purpose, not make the purpose fit the process.

If a part doesn't fit, you dump it and make a new one that fits. Large corporations, all too often, reengineer the entire product to fit the misfit part instead ('product' & 'part' not to be taken literally here), because it creates nice numbers for the QBR

[condor]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

They get too big, they feel the need to put processes in place to control their vast span (good idea), but put in too many one-size-fits-all standardized processes (not a good idea) that eventually get in the way more than getting hurdles out of the way.

There is this concept/philosophy called "Centre of Excellence". Could this have been implemented in each area of a company's functions to build an org that is a synergy of effectively co-functioning units ? What could be the challenges in such an approach ?

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by condor

There is this concept/philosophy called "Centre of Excellence". Could this have been implemented in each area of a company's functions to build an org that is a synergy of effectively co-functioning units ? What could be the challenges in such an approach ?

Personal opinion only, and I'm not a multi-millionaire CEO so pinch of salt is recommended, but segregating products/functions/teams into 'independent' units where the day-to-day functional & operational decision-making, including governance processes, rests with the immediate leadership overseeing these teams, would be far more effective. It works, it just needs a mindset shift.

Centralising large, existential decisions is a good thing. You can't do anything if you cease to exist, but micro-managing the whole pyramid from the top is often counter-productive.

Knowing what & when to (and when not to) centralise is a fine balance, and the essence of good leadership. Unfortunately, 'what numbers can you deliver next quarter?' has become the dominant measuring stick, because that's what shareholders want even at the expense of long-term existential threats to the business.

Primary challenge has always been the human element. We want control, even if it comes at the expense of progress (esp. true if the progress might make us obsolete). When threatened by obsolescence, our instinctive reaction is resistance, not adaptation. It's no different when applied to a corporation, it's still run by people like you & I.

There are secondary resource & logistical challenges, but nothing that can't be solved with intent, time and well-considered design & implementation.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

.. but segregating products/functions/teams into 'independent' units where the day-to-day functional & operational decision-making, including governance processes, rests with the immediate leadership overseeing these teams,

Isnt that the situation present today ? Finance, Sales, Delivery .. each function is led by someone who is already responsible for his/her area ?

.. but micro-managing the whole pyramid from the top is often counter-productive.

I dont think that much of micro-management happens in large organizations. There will be some teams that are micro-managed, but this wont be at the level where an entire unit is being micro-managed.

However, what is more likely and far more prevalent is the kind of function in the article that Samurai shared - so much of processes being put in that there is no agility in the working, nothing new comes out, and the people are just trying not to stick out lest they be cut to size or uprooted. The managers often have blinkers on, and will do what is needed to meet immediate objectives - whether it is delivery commitments, or some target that he is given. And his team follows him/his instructions.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Lean staffing isn't a magic wand solution. If that were true, all small organizations with good ideas would succeed. They don't, do they?

I am no expert, but it is well-known that 90% of startups fail. None of that has to do with processes or staffing.

https://explodingtopics.com/blog/startup-failure-stats

Primary reasons:

• 34% of small businesses that fail lack the proper product-market fit.
• 22% of startups that fail don’t have a sound marketing strategy.
• Approximately 30% of startups with venture backing end up failing.

Plenty of companies do grow large while being dysfunctional. That is usually because of product-market fit and great marketing. I know it is strange, but it is true. Customers often hate working with vendors who are market leaders. I certainly do. High capital investment and high entry barrier keeps such companies at the top for a long time. They usually have high customer churn, but they have enough brand name to attract new customers.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

The problem with Google, stripped of all the mumbo-jumbo terminology in the article, is not dissimilar to what ails most large organizations.

I didn't see any mumbo jumbo in the article. In fact, it was totally lacking it. It is one the main reasons I liked it. He has real clarity of thought. I could read it like a thriller novel in one go, and didn't have to scratch my head to understand it.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

They get too big, they feel the need to put processes in place to control their vast span

It is not that they feel the need, but it is a must. Even I have implemented numerous processes in my past/current tiny companies. However, the processes must be customer centric. It must be designed towards making customer happier and not un-happier. At my company we win new customers because they are very unhappy with their existing vendors. If my large competitors kept their customers happy, I would be bankrupt.

BTW, Zoho is an example of a company that is highly customer centric. They treat their customers really well. Fortunately, they are not a competitor.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

The answer isn't to remove processes;

I am curious, did anybody suggest that?

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by condor

Isnt that the situation present today ? Finance, Sales, Delivery .. each function is led by someone who is already responsible for his/her area?

Responsible for output, but how many of these function heads are allowed to make independent decisions about things that directly impact their function's output, without the say-so of other function heads and the C-Suite?

If an org-wide hiring freeze is put in place by Finance, how many Delivery heads have independent authority to supersede that even for genuine needs (e.g. new contract without enough headcount/skillset to go-live), even if they have the money in their AOP budget?

...The managers often have blinkers on, and will do what is needed to meet immediate objectives - whether it is delivery commitments, or some target that he is given. And his team follows him/his instructions.

All traceable back to all decisions being beholden to short-term financial considerations, and the mindset is driven from the top. Necessary, because the C-Suite is not immune to being replaced if they don't prioritise $$$ above all else. Shareholders/investors being put on a pedestal higher than everyone else is the root cause of a lot that ails modern economic systems, but again, add salt to taste.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Customers often hate working with vendors who are market leaders.

.I didn't see any mumbo jumbo in the article.

Not his mumbo-jumbo, Google's, that he was highlighting and criticizing. I agree it's clear and well-written, the comment was aimed at Google and what ails them.

...did anybody suggest that?

I don't disagree with you, I just thought I'd try to shed light on how the situation often unfolds, as I've often had a front-row seat when it did, and I often find myself disagreeing like you do.

When I create a process, my primary consideration is whether it's fit for purpose. How I implement it (human & other resources) is a secondary, logistical consideration.

If I create a process unfit for purpose, or borrow one someone else is using for a 'similar' outcome, then how many resources I throw at it won't solve my primary issue that the process itself is unfit for purpose.

What happens often in large corporations, and you'd know as someone dealing with them as a vendor, is they suffer from sunk cost fallacy (created a bad but expensive process) and/or laziness (borrowed a bad but expensive process from elsewhere). The human aspect takes over, and instead of pausing and reevaluating their premise (does the process fit its purpose?), they double down.

the processes must be customer centric. It must be designed towards making customer happier and not un-happier.

You'd think it's common sense, and I'd agree whole heartedly, but what do they say about common sense?

An example we can all identify with: 'Customer Service' organisations using 'ticket closure' stats as a performance metric. 'Closing tickets' becomes the primary purpose, 'resolving the issue' takes a back seat. More tickets mean more business for the CS org, so they actively and aggressively close tickets and create new ones for each customer interaction.

When customer satisfaction scores (CSAT) predictably take a beating (closed tickets != resolved issues), more resources are thrown in to bring them up, but it doesn't work because the process itself is geared towards closing tickets ASAP, not resolving issues and maintaining/increasing CSAT, so additional resources won't help CSAT because you can't make pancakes with talcum powder by swapping out your skillet.

[AltoLXI]

Originally Posted by Samurai

That is usually because of product-market fit and great marketing. I know it is strange, but it is true. Customers often hate working with vendors who are market leaders. I certainly do. High capital investment and high entry barrier keeps such companies at the top for a long time. They usually have high customer churn, but they have enough brand name to attract new customers.

I am reading Geoffrey Moore's "Crossing the Chasm" where he writes:



This he writes in context of crossing the chasm from early adapters to early majority which seemed logical to me. He also mentions,



I suppose he mentions this in the context of a new entrant to the market but what you mention is relevant to established vendors?