Hacker News Reader

Comment by wpietri | Hacker News Reader

Another question I'd ask is: why can't the find something useful to do with these people in the meantime? Downturns are definitionally temporary. Can managers really find no way to prepare for the coming good times? Or is there no way to use those staff to gain ground while everybody else is retreating?

Workers are getting blamed by many for (claimed) low productivity. But why isn't that seen as a managerial failure? Isn't it better to have the same number of people and use them much better than a smaller number of people that are just as poorly used?

View on HN

>Isn't it better to have the same number of people and use them much better than a smaller number of people that are just as poorly used?

Of course! But that is much easier said than done. If it was as simple as just telling managers find a use that will make money, everyone would do that instead.

Alas, probably not.

A great example here is the NUMMI plant. In brief, Totota was kicking the collective asses of US carmakers. The techniques were not a trade secret; indeed, Toyota was happy to teach anybody. As part of that, they did a joint venture with GM called NUMMI, so they could show how they implemented core principles like "respect for people" and "continuous improvement". And it worked! Using the same building and most of the same people, it went from being one of the worst GM plants to one of the best.

Did GM learn anything? Hell no. Because GM executives valued other things more than productivity and quality and worker happiness.

For the curious, this American Life did a great radio story about it: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015

Thanks for the recommendation.

This GM/automotive documentary was also interesting: "American Factory"

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9351980/

(Don't be put off by the dramatized trailer)

Good movie but very different take away message, at least for me

I think managers will do that (keep popel around just in case), but businessmen (or CEO's) will optimize for what's best for the business. No? A lower-level manager who actually sees the nitty-gritty of getting something done will not really have as much of a say in the broader business.

> businessmen (or CEO's) will optimize for what's best for the business. No?

Really? I feel most optimize for their short term bonuses. Which makes them take too great risks since they won't owe the shareholders anything if they fail. Like all these overhiring sprees.

Yeah, CEO's likely optimize for their bonuses...depressing to think about it; but most likely the CEO's compensation is aligned to what the company wants to be the outcome financially.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com