Are there hidden motives behind the multitude of job cuts resulting from the global economic distress? And regardless of our motives, what can we do to improve the process?

The first question implies that employers are using the troubled economy as cover for their real motive to get rid of "dead weight" and increase profits, instead of strictly surviving. We suppose they've also taken this opportunity to rid themselves of their higher-paid workers, eliminate marginal products or services or other such agenda.

I have no doubt that some of that is occurring, just as it has in past recessions and under increased global competitive pressures, but not in most cases. It's my belief instead that a genuine reaction to fiscal and funding pressures, not some nefarious design to "thin the herd," has been driving such high unemployment rates both globally and in Western New York.

The second question compels us to take a focused look more at the dynamics of downsizing: how employers made their cuts, who they selected and how they plan to eventually rebuild their workforces. These may reveal a far greater sin: short-term thinking.

A closer look at job cuts

In my more than 35 years' experience as a human-resources executive, teacher and consultant, I've lived through myriad economic cycles affecting all elements of the business spectrum. Manufacturing, at one end of that spectrum, usually reacts very quickly to variances in the marketplace. Shifts, crew sizes and total workforce levels are often impacted by even the slightest change in product demand, whether transitional or permanent in nature. The nonprofit world, at the other end, faces the conundrum of rising demand for its services at the same time its funding resources, necessary to support required staffing, are reduced.

This makes for a situation similar to the "make bricks without straw" job order by the pharaoh that led to the exodus — another workforce reduction.

Cutting employees and their hours remains the common denominator in all downturns I've experienced. Payroll and employee benefits represent the biggest and most visible part of any budget, and they're usually the easiest to cut. Overhead costs such as inven-tory, capital equipment and property taxes can't be trimmed as quickly or to a degree equal to the impact of a reduction of hours and/or personnel.

Laying off direct labor, however, is not a dollar-for-dollar savings. The long-range impact on unemployment-insurance rates, costs of severance packages or early-retirement windows, and continuing health-care coverages or pension liabilities offset much of the anticipated savings.

Long-term vs. short-term views

Taking a short-term perspective during downsizing does not necessarily equate to "rightsizing." Consider that the very existence of what many refer to as "dead weight" reveals the probability that staffing should have been smaller in the first place or that under-performers were tolerated during better economic times.

Economic stresses reveal and highlight existing staff inefficiencies. Contingency plans are seldom in place to cut labor costs as a staged response in tune with economic and market realities.

Productivity improvements can be a short-term illusion. When workers are faced with the possibility of job losses, their productivity will naturally improve — for a while. Greater individual and team effort, more initiatives, new efficiencies and just plain fear are the drivers behind this improvement.

A short-term context supports employer arguments that they can do with fewer workers or get by without hiring more. It can't last; people get burned out.

Effective long-term planning could have resulted in the reduction of fewer positions during a downturn by not over-inflating the workforce or carrying workers performing at unacceptable levels — that dead weight. Better job design, employee training and effective performance-assessment programs may have offset staffing inefficiencies.

A strategic plan to scale back labor costs in relation to revenue or market changes could mitigate some of the long-term impacts of panic-driven job cutting: dilution of skills and loss of institutional memory. Reduced employee morale and security can sow the seeds for increased turnover when opportunities arise elsewhere. This planning should be done when times are better, not during a crisis.

Onward and upward

Any lessons we can now apply to force reductions may be largely irrelevant. We can hope we've put the worse of the massive job losses behind us. Planning for the upturn, however, can set our focus on rightsizing the organization and thereby minimize many of the problems and trauma of future workforce adjustments.

Restoration of the workforce to the same roles and levels as before may only compound the problem. Downsized organizations need to rethink the path they took to cut their workforces during the economic turbulence.

They should rebuild for sustainable capabilities, not just climb back in the same footsteps they made coming down. They likely downsized in haste; rightsizing needs to be considered with greater foresight. Just as inefficiencies are often hidden in good times, ways to do jobs better and with more efficient staffing become more apparent in bad.

When you rebuild your organization's workforce, you may no longer be able to staff with only an internal workforce. Consider new ways to view workforce composition, such as the following approaches:

• Look to the use of casual, temporary or part-time workers until you can predict a more constant demand for their skills and time.

• Identify functions that can be outsourced and allow in-house staff to better focus on core responsibilities.

• Increase worker flexibility through better job design and cross-training.

Panic requires short-term thinking; a blazing fire an immediate response. The trick is to avoid the panic with more attention to fire prevention or, in this case, a longer-term approach to staff development.

The economic crisis largely created the panicked response, but how we approach the recovery can in many ways avoid the next panic. "Downsizing" will always be part of the response to hard times, but "rightsizing" will minimize its negative consequences.

Human-resources consultant Peter Loomis is principal of Loomis Associates in Buffalo. He can be reached at pcloomis@roadrunner.com.