Reply to post: Re: Only 3%?

A real shot in the Arm: 3% of global workforce surplus to requirements

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: Only 3%?

>I have noted that when a headcount reduction is applied, usually to increase bonuses for the C-Level and Boards, the PowerPoint/meeting crowd are often spared (Perhaps because they "look busy"?) whereas the essential customer-facing and technical staff are disproportionately hit.

That is only natural. After all middle management is closer to the decision makers than the customer-facing and technical staff. So the former is spared and the latter get the axe.

I went through one of these exercises some time ago and the pattern was super clear. Spent too much time in your office to get things done? You were invisible to management and got the axe. I was informed my job was no longer required and "let go". That is until a few days later when they discovered an issue and I had to remain on job another month.

The key to understanding then is that decision makers do not see the people. Instead they are fed "information" from middle management. And that is always skewed in order to preserve the same middle management.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021