>>So how does a company survive the boom and bust cycles of the market
>>without laying off ? Thinking long-term, by making enough money in good
>>times to carry you through the bad times, by creating market strategies
>>and products with different cycles and realigning your companies
>>capabilities to thrive in these different markets. It's not simple and it
>>places more responsibility on management's shoulders to plan ahead (verses
>>taking the approach of laying people off) and to segment the market and
>>create a dominant competitive edge.
Some of this sounds like leadership who actually value people more than
machinery.
>>There are some questions in my mind though. If the strategy is to seek a
>>dominant competitive edge, that means others are losers. Is it only the
>>winners that avoid the downsizings ?
Not necessarily. A company with a unique new product, rapidly reducing
prices as though there were competitors around, will have the market to
themselves for some period of time. Not ripping off the customer with
bloated pricing and a fanatical approach to waste elimination while
bringing unique new offerings on line should maintain a distance from
anyone wanting to compete. I believe companies practicing all three -
modest pricing on new products, fanatical waste elimination, and
concurrent innovation are rare. Add in the fourth factor - tough hide to
see it through the slack economic times, and the companies I read about
maintaining a this focus falls to a very few.
>>As long as the strategy includes the word "competitive", we will always
>>have winners and losers (and therefore we will always have downsizings).
The definition I infer is that "competitive" means having a competitor.
What if competitive means, price too low, quality too high to invite
another person into the market? And, price continuing to fall??
Complacency still sets in these days and the owners and employees sit on
their butts instead of working them off to get prices down and quality up,
even in existing TQM organizations with very unique products. Deming said
improve continuously and forever.
>>Doesn't the word "collaborative" have some use in this strategy ? Or is
>>that wishful thinking ?
Sure but not with our laws in the US. We get to go to jail and not pass
go or collect $200. We've got to find a way to collaborate without
colluding and setting prices. I'm quite sure business failures will exist
for a long time. But that is different than today's downsizing which is
driven by Wall Street, stock prices and not scientific evidence. From all
I can read, down- sizing does little to create success. It only satisfies
the analysts. Most evidence says 75 per cent of companies see no or
negative results. Without systemic and process improvement, costs stay.
Collaboration will not help. Downsizing will not help. A fanatical 100%
involved effort is needed just to stay in the game. Most are still not
seeing this picture.
--- Dave Buffenbarger Organizational Improvement Coach Dow Chemical Company dwbuff@pop3.cris.com 517-638-708(For my past acquaintances, note my new address please.)