Earlier this week, the Walt Disney Company’s new CEO announced in an email to employees that the entertainment giant would slash 1,000 jobs. This follows an even larger round of layoffs for the prestigious company just a few years ago.
The message in the email could be any organization’s current explanation for a reduction in workforce: “Given the fast-moving pace of our industries, this requires us to constantly assess how to foster a more agile and technologically enabled workforce to meet tomorrow’s needs. As a result, we will be eliminating roles in some parts of the company.”
In many cases, organizations have little choice but to eliminate jobs to keep the enterprise healthy.
Despite the devastation of such messages and actions on team member morale and top talent retention, leaders often conclude that to keep the organization sound or save it from demise, reducing the workforce is the only viable option.
But sometimes leaders do indeed have a different choice. And a different message.
Reallocating resources from one area to another may still involve reductions in staff, but it sends an entirely different message.
In reality, to remain healthy and opportunistic, most organizations must constantly reshuffle assets and investments, including human resources.
To take full advantage of marketplace opportunities, organizations must focus their resources on areas that offer the greatest benefits.
For example, there are few organizations of any size that aren’t allocating more resources and assets to artificial intelligence simply to keep pace with workplace changes. Most team members understand this need.
They also understand that the resources must come from somewhere, so shifting assets from one area to another seems like a strategic imperative aimed at success, not survival.
Reallocating resources is about strengthening the organization, not reducing the size of the team.
This isn’t just a leadership spin.
When possible, the best organizations invest heavily in new areas and in those parts of the enterprise with the most opportunity.
Reallocating resources doesn’t mean that cuts will be equal to the investment, but it does suggest that any reduction is secondary to a refocus on where the organization can thrive.
Reallocation of resources isn’t always possible or prudent, but when it is, the message helps to build morale, not destroy it.
In far too many cases, leaders have a choice about which path to follow. They may choose the workforce reduction approach for a host of sound reasons. But just because everyone else follows this game plan doesn’t mean it is always the best decision.
Morale in organizations has as many long-term consequences as overhead expenses. Leaders who want to excel must manage both wisely.
