EX Social capitalism needed ? This is an example of the first step

 

Massive unemployement is the biggest tread for economy and global peace...please read Social capitalism, on this blog and read this as an example of the first step, ...

Fired: 7 large lay-offs by tech companies

http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/278763/fired-7-large-lay-offs-tech-companies


May 27, 2012, 7:26 AM — Hewlett-Packard's announcement that it would be laying-off 27,000 of its employees in a massive restructuring plan, marks a new low for the beleaguered company that recently posted a significant 31% drop in profits. However, HP is not the first tech company (and perhaps won't be the last either) that took a hack-and-slash approach to its workforce when facing economic uncertainty.
Here are seven major instances in the tech industry of employees facing the brunt for their employer's misfortunes.
1. IBM (1993): 60,000 jobs

Yes, you read that right. In July 1993, IBM announced that it would lay off about 60,000 of its employees, a number of jobs that most companies won't be able to create in their entire lives. Out of that number, 35,000 were laid-off directly while 25,000 were offered early retirement, a move, the company claimed, cut annual costs by $4 billion.
The decision was made by Louis Gerstner, IBM's then Chairman who had been brought in to revive the fortunes of the company that had just posted quarterly losses of $40 million ($64 million by today's standards). To his credit, he did manage that and is widely acknowledged to have saved IBM from failing as a company.
2. AT&T (1996): 40,000 jobs
The American telecom behemoth announced in January 1996 that it would let go off 40,000 employees over the course of three years. The lay-offs were part of a restructuring plan that also saw AT&T spin off Lucent and NCR into independent companies.
AT&T was widely criticized by both American politicians and the media since its then CEO Robert Allen was being paid a whopping $3.6 million salary that was also linked to the performance of the company's shares, the value of which jumped by 10% following the announcement of the job cuts.
3. HP (2008): 24,600 jobs
Yes, HP has done it before. For a company that's often touted as one of the best employers to work for, HP sure does fire people a lot. In 2008, after acquiring EDS, HP announced that it would lay-off 24,600 employees, over three years, in an effort to "streamline" the company.
Then HP CEO, Mark Hurd, who later resigned under controversy in 2010, said that the process would save the company $1.8 billion annually. In retrospect, and in context of the recent announcement of lay-offs by CEO Meg Whitman, it certainly doesn't appear to have done the job (no pun intended).
4. Sony (2012): 10,000 jobss
Sony has definitely seen better days. The consumer electronics giant had always been a profitable concern, posting a profit of $3.84 billion as recently as 2008, but is now being hit hard by, among other things, a television manufacturing division that has seen losses for eight years.
After announcing a projected loss of $6.4 billion for the fiscal year, Kazuo Hirai, the new CEO revealed the "One Sony" reorganization plan that would see 10,000 employees lose their jobs over two years. After four straight years of losses, Sony hopes to see an operating profit next year.
5. Nokia-Siemens (2011): 17,000 jobs
When Nokia announced its tie-up with Siemens Communications in 2006, the outlook for the new enterprise was optimistic. However, after facing stiff competition globally in the network infrastructure segment, Nokia-Siemens has struggled to become profitable, posting a loss of about $380 million in 2011.

Link : manufacturing and consumption

Interviewing Joe Justice from Team Wikispeed on the Future of Manufacturing (and Consumption)

Economy is consumption, ecology will force rethinking both

An idea of the enviromental AND THUS economical challanges, uninevidable realities,  ...

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/

PV Polarization, alienation and "CHANGE"

Polarization, alienation and “change”

My own “fractal-association”-theory in mind, “organizations” ( any group of people working or interact together, so companies, as well as governments, communities etc. )  are prey to polarizations.

Polarizations that divide the mass basically into two groups,  A and B .

 I’m deliberately not calling them good or bad , black or white , poor or rich , dumb or smart , manager or executor , woman or man , parent or child , academic or scientist , or any other kind of labeling  ...

So when a “leader” wants his “vision” to be followed or his “plan” to be executed he is considered to get his “team” to do it, swift, efficient, effective, cheap and without too many problems…. So tell me why we need  “CHANGE” , LEAN, Six Sigma, ERP,  AI , BPR ,  “Softskilling” ( or manipulate , lie and cheat, which are the old words for it)  …

There are definitely “things “going wrong I would say. Those “things” are exactly the reasons that people alienate.

When it becomes obvious to “the mass” that  the way their organization ( if you see it as a organic, living entity)  works, takes decisions, makes up rules, provides help to the employers to execute their tasks, or generally treat “the mass” in a whole, is going the wrong way , than you get alienation!

If working in a group becomes a joke solely because people see “managers” following their own agenda, and not caring about the good of the company, they’ll go to that “minimum sufficient”-state of contributing .

I took position here and made a bold statement. The workforce (value adding part of an organization) puts the company first, and “managers” put themselves on the #1 position.

Could this be true ? Of course , because those value adding - employers  (these could also be managers by the way)  who just have the ambition of keeping their job, unconsciously know that the company should do well for them to keep them working. “Managers” on the other side , who have a personal, egoistic gold digging- attitude , couldn’t care less about what the company does, just what the company can do for him/her and get them that 7 figure remuneration....  (in both cases  there are graduations  of course but I’m not getting into this right now ) .

So when AN employer gets disillusioned, frustrated or nervous about decisions being taken or company policy being  twisted into strange structures with a lot of “waste”  (some studies say up to 50% of non-value adding processes ! ) , he  will care a little less about the good of the organization an capitulate or “adapt” to that new ( worse) situation.

With each of those downturns these employers “alienate”, don’t care too much  about rules anymore, and give up trying to contribute to “better & efficient” processes, and will participate a little less, work a little less, think a little less, until they finally get to the “minimum sufficient” state of working.

And  than,in the end, when the “tipping point” is reached, we turn to “change” and all those “tools”  to attack “issues”  but forgetting to think about what actually provoked these “problems” in the first place.

We  get overpaid  consultants to come and do an easy job, coach “leaders” to teach  them to get  his message spread and his “management team” united , but still keep decision taking in a “dark - age version” , so alienation is what we should attack by taking another look at company policy, decision taking and participation by crowd sourcing for more involvement of all layers of the organization especially the value adding workforce,– So the effectiveness of decision taking in accordance to the company’s  core business  will increase the effectiveness of individuals , when individuals see  and feel  that they are useful and do useful work and feel part of a team AND feel important (by having their individual logical responsibility) .

It will not be a surprise that I have a different look on how an organizational structure should look like, it isn’t a “pyramid” anymore, it’s a “Christmas tree” , with balls, lights and a garland ,..how that works is for another article J .

Link : Wijsheid van de massa...

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wijsheid_van_de_massa

Link : Opportunity makes the thief ...

   http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/957/Binnenland/article/detail/1442886/2012/05/23/Dertigtal-militairen-en-ondernemers-veroordeeld-voor-fraude-in-leger.dhtml#

PV : Oligarchy , the big scary wolf !?

Oligarchy, what it says on Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

The "iron law of oligarchy" states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations. ...

And also :

...“But with a powerful out faction ready to expose profligacy, no leaders dared take overly generous personal remuneration.”...

Forgive me that I ‘m the one NOT sharing  these thoughts and conclusions .

For me Oligarchy is :

“ The perception that  a small elite group is taking decisions for their own  benefit, but is actually the result of taking decisions with the wrong kind of parameters and mindset, due to different standards, moral values and operational experience and a focus-inversion on what result and cause is. “                  ( more explanation on request … of course)

Let me present you an alternative view.      

A modest company NUMBER ONE , managed by the owner, let’s say with about 20 collaborators is doing quite well, the boss controlling everything and with great revenue and profit , decides that the time is ripe for growth and expansion.  The owner makes 4 new units, with of course some value adding workers and some management. Thus getting more layers of  management, as we know it now, where even the flattest of hierarchy has maybe three, four or up to 8 management levels. And of course ,  each “level” is ought to earn a bit more than the one just below with the initial owner of course the highest pay.

Now, we have a structure that provokes pay scales , levels  and a certain salary-augmentation-steps with each level as it is linked to power, responsibility and hierarchical level or function. (and even with sort of work and other , but that’s beside the point now) .

Than government comes into the picture, with extra taxes, getting all the wages up, and eventually augmenting all the salaries.

The boss dies (or sells the company) having a need for a new CEO , the company starts headhunting, knowing it needs a great CEO , they buy one off another, similar company  NUMBER TWO( take an exact copy of number one) . How? By paying him more that he is earning now ! Do this for all “management functions, and what do you get Right, exorbitant but understandable ( AND LUDICRACE ) wages and remunerations . ( so #1 YES we need to reconsider this way of rewarding )

                Second , and this is an important one ,companies, because of their sheer vastness end up with poor decision taking (explanation on request but consider :  info-filtering,alienation, nepotism, fraud ,etc.)  on operations, investments etc.( examples are legio !! , JP Morgan Chase, Olympia, … and actually ALL COMPANIES which feel the need for “CHANGE” or suffer exuberant losses due to this …)

This will leave them with the need for MORE MANAGEMENT … creating maybe a temporally better situation but doing worse in the long run . (explanation again:  alienation, nepotism, fraud ,etc.)

(so #2 YES we need te re-engineer management in companies in function, structure, schooling etc) .

To get to that “Oligarchy”- thing…apart from some rules  and laws that surely are built for less morally accepted purposes ( I mean fit for one) I will give you a simple example.

Buy a new car. …

I’m sure you just had  a couple of potential cars in your head popping up. And probably from those few you ended up with one or two.

Is it a Porsche ? Ferrari ? Audi? Or maybe a Truck? Or an Ambulance ? or a SUV ? Firetruck ? what I do know is that not many of you will have exactly  the same car in mind as anyone else .

Why I gave you this exercise is simple, you all will have different ways of filtering your ideas and requirements. AND THAT IS JUST THE REASON THAT DECISIONS GET CORUMPTED AND POOR .

If I would tell you : get me a sports car,two seat, reliable , red, with engine in the back, a good chance I’ll end up with that Porsche !

But I could also end up with a Yugo...

The #3 to keep in mind is that PEOPLE will filter out the information that THEY want, and will be based on THEIR personal subjective opinion.

Ask the same question at the company ONE and TWO ‘ s  less paid workers , they’ll probably end up with a solid family car as for the top management they will end up with a top ranked BMW or Mercedes or whatever. So why would it be different in company or society decision taking ?

And this is what , for me ,oligarchy is.

“It is the perception that  a small elite group is taking decisions for their own  benefit, but is actually the result of taking decisions with the wrong kind of parameters and mindset, due to different standards, moral values and operational experience and a focus-inversion on what result and cause is. ( more explanation on request … of course)