In the third year of the company, the boss met with cash flow difficulties and decided to lay off employees.

After gritting his teeth and going through the most difficult stage, his company attracted another investment and finally came back to life.

At the end of last year, he said:

"The most wrong decision I made in recent years was to cut the management together when layoffs were made."

At that time, he gave up a business line, that is, he laid off an entire department of the company, including supervisors and employees.

When the supervisor resigned, he made a scene with him and asked for a large severance payment, and things calmed down.

But after the supervisor left, reflexive is a SAO operation:

He contacted other colleagues in the whole department who were laid off at the same time, that is, his own employees, gathered them together and took them to a rival company.

That rival company is just in the expansion period, and it is in urgent need of manpower. The laid-off director is also slightly famous in the industry. The rival company is very welcome to see that he is willing to come. I heard that he can also bring his former employees, but he readily promised:

A dozen veterans who can work directly came in at once, even saving training!

And the employees who were laid off at the same time there are also eager to find jobs. There is such an opportunity that I can continue to work with people I used to know, and the salary is higher than before. I haven't even changed my immediate supervisor, which means that I don't have to adapt to anything, and I have a tacit understanding to continue my previous cooperation experience. Most of them have followed him to report to the new company.

So, on the other hand, the boss of the startup company who laid off employees in the whole department felt particularly passive at that time.

It is equivalent to handing over the whole department and the whole mature business line to competitors.

He was annoyed for a long time. However, it was also a helpless choice for him who was short of funds at that time.

In the wave of layoffs last year, many people believed in one sentence:

What are you afraid of? As long as you climb to the management level, you won't be laid off.

Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with this. Just like the above example, it is indeed unwise and very dangerous for the company to lay off a large number of employees, including management.

But there is a so-called management, which is harmful if it is not cut.

This kind of management, according to their characteristics in work, can be called PPT manager.

Their most important job at ordinary times is to integrate all kinds of PPT submitted by subordinates into a big PPT, and then give a demonstration to the superior leaders and bosses at the management meeting.

In addition, their middle managers may be the most scolded group on the Internet:

"The leader has no ability, especially to take my credit."

"Leaders only take credit in front of the big boss, and the real work is usually done by me."

"I don't think I did anything wrong, but the leader always suppressed me."

Is this complaint familiar?

Many people will think that everyone has their own reasons and reasons for sitting in his position, but this is only a particularly ideal situation.

I still remember my first job. In the first week of training in a Fortune 500 foreign company, the human resources supervisor said to our new employees:

"Everyone here, to be able to work in a good company, naturally has his own merits. But remember, even so, it doesn't mean that people who don't get the job will definitely fail. "

What do you mean?

I think it might be like this:

The bigger the company, the more redundant the staff, and the bloated organizational structure. In a huge crowd, there must be people who are overstaffed, or there may be people who are really unworthy of virtue.

Recently, the topic of personnel changes in JD.COM has caused a heated discussion on the Internet.

First, 10% executives were finally eliminated, and then high-profile announced the expansion of 15000 ordinary employees.

Many people can't understand this operation.

Didn't you say that if you lay off more employees, you won't lay off executives? Isn't the worst thing in the wave of layoffs the junior staff at the grass-roots level?

To tell the truth, it is impossible for a company to say that every employee in his company can play a role that matches his salary.

As we all know, in a small company with dozens or even dozens of people, the boss is crowded with employees every day, and it is clear at a glance who works and who doesn't, and who is diligent and catches fish.

Moreover, under the transparent and flat organizational structure, it is difficult for people with fishing ideas to survive in this environment. After all, people should be proud anyway;

However, this is not the case for big companies. The huge organizational structure gives fishermen a good cover. In some loosely managed companies, those who are used to fishing can almost be blatantly lazy as long as they find the skills.

In a large company where I used to work, some middle-level leaders didn't come to work until 12 every day when the executives were on business trips, and they also gave their badges to their subordinates in advance to help punch in.

Usually, when having lunch at noon, the subordinates of small staff go back to the station at most 12: 30 after lunch, while those middle-level people, as soon as they are happy to take a taxi, go to the nearby shopping mall, eat and drink, and come back to be reimbursed in the name of entertainment expenses. According to their management level, there are at least 8,000 to 10,000 car and meal supplements every year. )

This kind of people, they not only touch the fish, but also touch the experience and the law. They know when to pretend to be busy and when to be bold and lazy.

I have met a young middle-level person who can show off most. He is a man in his thirties, with an average diploma and average technical ability. It can be said that he knows nothing about other important abilities except flattery. When telling him something about technology, he yawned after listening for a while.

I didn't see him busy with anything useful when the project he was in charge of was the most tense. When everyone was working overtime, he went to the printing factory outside and printed a banner that read "100 days" and hung it at the door of the senior leadership office.

Then at the end of the project, he emphasized at the leadership meeting that "at the critical stage of the project, he stayed up late with his brothers to work overtime, and his family didn't come back." In order to improve efficiency, he rented a short-term rental house near the company to facilitate overtime "and got a rental receipt. . .

I have worked for more than six years, so far, I really haven't seen anyone with better acting skills. His subordinates gave him a nickname: the film emperor.

If you are the boss and master these situations when the business is in difficulties, who can you lay off if you don't lay off this parasitic middle layer?

According to my observation, many middle-level cadres in such large companies are actually very smart, I mean, smart. They are the typical "incompetent leaders" who are scolded the most on the Internet. They do nothing, but they have certain decision-making power.

When the grass-roots staff finished their work, he intervened in the middle, either because he was afraid that his subordinates were too good to surpass themselves and turned to outsourcing, or he took the credit to himself.

Their survival wisdom is:

Don't work, let subordinates work, then suppress and grab credit, please superiors, and get long-term asylum.

And these people are generally not in a hurry to get promoted. In the final analysis, because they have no real skills, if they really rise to the top, they will report directly to the big boss. Do they dare?

Big bosses will be swept out of the house the next year when they see that they have no real skills, so this kind of executive compensation is one-off, and there is no next year this year, which is not good for their survival philosophy.

So, if you look at the middle and junior managers of some big companies, they haven't moved in that position year after year. Maybe people are happy, maybe that state is exactly what he wants.

What can people like them do? It is not objective to say that it has no effect at all.

Their role is, like the supervisor in the past, when the following people are not working, he will supervise them to step up their work and monitor them every day; When the following people are working, he can drink tea and read newspapers as usual.

But this so-called management, to put it bluntly, is not like a moth to a fire?

They are in the middle position between the boss and ordinary employees, and should play the most important role in connecting the preceding with the following. But deceives his superiors and deceives his subordinates, so that such people will not be laid off for the New Year?

Finally, say something positive:

I believe that most young people have a hard heart when they just step into society and their own workplace, hoping that they can make a difference with their own abilities.

And "doing something" in the general sense is actually nothing more than the most realistic "promotion and salary increase".

In order to achieve this goal, everyone chooses different methods and roads.

No matter how big the company is, I am afraid it will always lack management-strictly speaking, it lacks excellent management that understands technology, has the ability, has high emotional intelligence, is proficient in business and can lead troops to fight. Management is the existence that can determine the success or failure of an enterprise.

Therefore, no matter how gloomy and suspicious the outside world is, just keep your heart, keep your feet on the ground and move on.

Whether it is drought or flood, truly capable people can eat everywhere.