BlogU

  • 5 Reasons Why the Yahoo Layoffs Are a Bad Move

    By Joshua Kim December 15, 2010 9:15 pm EST

    This week Yahoo announced that it is laying off 600 employees, about 4% of its total global workforce.

    In some cases, significant layoffs are unavoidable - specifically in cases of structural deficits where the revenues have no way of meeting expenses. These layoffs, however, are usually much larger in scope than what is going on at Yahoo, and are accompanied by large-scale restructuring and changes of leadership. From what I'm reading, the Yahoo layoffs will only punish the people losing their jobs, while providing little benefit to the company (or shareholders).

    5 Reasons Why the Yahoo Layoffs Are a Bad Move:

    1. The Talent Myth: Companies use layoffs as a blunt tool to reduce costs rather than achieving these savings by cutting the highest salaries. The rationale is that reducing salaries of the top performers will be a disincentive, and the best employees will choose to leave the organization rather than accept a pay cut. This sort of reasoning puts way too much emphasis on "top performers," and not on the culture, organization and structure of the company. The most successful organizations create environments where everyone can succeed, and it is a myth to believe that a few talented individuals can drive company success. Yes, leadership matters, but true leaders are in their jobs for much more than their paychecks (and top earners make so much more than average employees that they can afford to give back some). If Yahoo had cut 10 percent of the salaries for the top 10 percent of the highest compensated employees would they have been able to avoid these layoffs?

    2. Kills Risk Taking: Anyone who has lived through layoffs understands that people will start doing everything possible to keep their heads down. They begin to actively work to avoid risk taking, as failure is the fastest route to a layoff. In the technology world, however, risk taking is the only way that a company can advance. Companies need to fail fast and fail often if they are going to find the few products or services that will break through and offer high returns on investment. Does anyone expect Yahoo to take some big risks when the employees are preoccupied with layoffs?

    3. Destroys Morale: Technology is a creative business. People can't be creative when they are worried about losing their jobs.

    4. Erodes Loyalty: If layoffs are not viewed as truly a last resort the result will be a significant loss of employee loyalty for those who stay behind.

    5. Poorly Targeted: Layoffs are most corrosive when they are across the board. If the headcount is too high, the best thing to do is to eliminate the areas of the company that are not performing. People understand when a company needs to focus resources on parts of the organization that have the highest potential. Getting a company to the correct size with the correct focus can ensure that the long-term prospects of the company are good. Closing a non-performing or low-growth division or product is painful, but this move at least demonstrates that management has the guts to make hard decisions.

    I don't own any Yahoo stock, but if I did I'd be be selling.

Advertisement

Comments on 5 Reasons Why the Yahoo Layoffs Are a Bad Move

  • Twisted logic
  • Posted by TLJ , Assoc. Prof at Elmira College on December 16, 2010 at 8:00am EST
  • It's unfortunate (?) that the author doesn't have any Yahoo stock, because contrary to arm-chair quarterback logic, stock prices generally go UP after announced layoffs. The reduction in labor costs goes to improve the bottom line, thereby making the company financials look appealing to investors who could care less about people losing their jobs. That's the American way ... when you can't make a better product, or sell an existing product, just cut costs and you look profitable. Corporate officers get their annual bonus, investors make a profit, everyone is happy - except those who lost their jobs.
  • Posted by Christine , Mr. Kim... on December 16, 2010 at 9:15am EST
  • with your Ph.D. in sociology, I'm wondering how many publicly-held corporations you've been an executive with. You raise some interesting points, but are you qualified to give advice? So typically academic.
  • Posted by Christine , These are new types of corporations to value. on December 16, 2010 at 9:30am EST
  • TLJ you're right, but part of the problem with .com companies like Yahoo, eBay, and Facebook, is that they have no product, and few hard assets. They seem to be valued by how many people have an account with them. They produce revenue through advertising, not through selling a product or service. Therefore, what is an innovative product - a cooler website look? What ratios are used to analyze them - rate of account turnover? Overvaluing companies like this is a large part of what is wrong with our "new economy."
  • Posted by jltusc on December 16, 2010 at 2:45pm EST
  • Christine, really? Unless you are someone who believes that anecdotes and personal experience are the way we come to know actual facts about things (from the dense nature of your comments, this wouldn't surprise me) you would understand that a person who studies large quantities of aggregate information is always in the better position to provide more insight than a single executive.

    Perhaps you haven't spent much time as an executive or around them or you would know that good ones often consult the data and insights gathered and published by academics in many fields.

    You = so typically small minded.