Tag Archives: Employment

Is Offshoring threatened by a return to Onshoring?

CHICAGO - JUNE 16:  A demonstrator protests ag...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

One of the potential side-effects of the global economic slowdown that could have far-reaching financial and political consequences is the question of whether offshore jobs should be brought back onshore.

After all, since the Offshoring model really started to take off in the 90s, a number of economies have become dependent on the revenues generated by their ability to provide such facilities for the historically more costly Western countries. For example, India’s business and technology services companies are estimated to have had revenues of some $58 Billion in 2008, up from just $4 Billion ten years earlier, with that sector’s export earnings (largely Offshoring) reaching an estimated $46 Billion in 2008 – offsetting some three quarters of the country’s oil imports.

The rationale for Offshoring was simple:

  • Consumers were ever-more price conscious, and companies were equally ever more cost conscious.
  • Developing economies had much lower labour rates and so could provide manufacturing and many services at significant lower cost, to the benefit of the consumer and the company.

The effects on local labour were not a serious consideration as it was widely believed that they would find alternate employment – perhaps even at a higher skills level which would earn them more money.

Of course, Offshoring was not without its challenges – issues over the quality/consistency of goods and services supplied, of cultural/language differences (especially in the services sector), of corporate governance (data and information leaks, etc.) and of differing expectations of both parties raised their heads. But these could be overcome while economies remained strong and consumers kept buying.

However, the persistence of the economic slowdown, coupled with the likelihood that unemployment in the Western democracies will remain high for the foreseeable future and the growing public debt are forcing a re-evaluation of the Offshoring model:

  • What impact will weaker Western currencies have on the production cost?
  • Will a move to new models of outsourcing – using a managed-services model with guarantees of performance/quality, as opposed to the classic “staff augmentation” model – enable total delivered cost to be lower Onshore?
  • For manufacturing, to what extent will lower transport costs of finished goods offset the higher manufacture cost of Onshore products?
  • What is the premium that can be attached to national pride (e.g. goods/services from that Onshore country)?

And then there are political considerations for the Onshore country: politicians that are seen to encourage job growth are more likely to be re-elected. What’s more, perhaps this could be done in a way that benefits that country’s fiscus, while being seen to be friendly to business and to the workforce as a whole. To what extent would tax breaks for companies bringing jobs back Onshore be offset by the additional income taxes it would gain from the newly employed, the decrease in unemployment benefits and the additional sales tax/VAT it would gain from the spending of these people?

Although a return to Onshoring may not be suitable for everything – large scale manufacturing of small, relatively low-cost items, for example – it seems to me that the benefits to a country, and to that country’s employers, of adopting a greater Onshoring model could be significant. And, if this trend took hold, the impact on Emerging markets that had come to rely on providing Offshoring could be even more significant. What do you think?

Update:
Great blog article by Derek Singleton: “5 Strategies for Growing as a Domestic Manufacturer

Advertisements

Are Layoffs Bad For Business?

View of Wall Street, Manhattan.
Image via Wikipedia

“Downsizing is killing workers, the economy – and even the bottom line.”

This direct quote from an article in Newsweek of 15th February entitled “Layoff the Layoffs” rather forcefully makes the point that contrary to conventional business wisdom, the constant cycle of cutting headcount as a primary means of cutting costs is tantamount to long-term economic suicide – not to mention the effects on the health of people.

According to the article, research clearly shows a link between layoffs and lower stock prices, with the negative impact on the stock prices worsening with the size and permanence of these layoffs – in spite of the widely-held view that layoffs will boost stock prices through showing effective cost management.

Another debunked issue is that of productivity – in fact productivity per employee does not rise, no doubt due to morale issues – while a study of companies in the S&P 500 showed clearly that companies that downsize remain less profitable than those that don’t.

Adding to the profitability falls, of course, are the costs of laying off staff – both direct (severance pay, etc.) and indirect (morale, rehiring costs when things pick up, and so on). These are always woefully underestimated, as is the extent to which companies embarking on wholesale layoff programs have to rehire – at inflated cost – key staff who elected to “take the package.”

In fact, McKinsey studies over the years have shown that company executives believe that less than 40% of corporate transformations in their businesses are “mostly” or “completely” successful.
Conversely, companies that choose to find ways to weather the periodic storms are the first to recover, and do so far more strongly that those that have made significant across-the-board cuts.

Of course, there will always be times when cutting staff is unavoidable in a business – it may even be the thing that will save it from total collapse. But when this time does come, all the experts agree that it should be done in a transparent, open manner, with cuts being made in defined areas, rather than simply across the board – the all-too-frequent approach of an uninvolved management team. Getting everybody from the CEO down personally involved will get the best results, as happened with the well documented case of Malaysia Airlines a few years ago.

Hopefully this message of transparency, involvement and engagement will start to get through to company leaders as well as to the stock market and investment analysts that so many company leaders are guided by. As I mentioned in my blog post, “Leadership for the New Business World,” a new set of skills are necessary for the successful business of the future – skills that will rebuild the faith of communities in their leaders. In fact, it’s interesting to see how many of the top-rated companies in Fortune’s “Top 100 Companies to Work For” list this year have weathered the storm without across the board layoffs, with many showing positive growth in staff and even in their businesses, too.

Certainly, companies that retain their staff, and take the opportunity to hire key new ones, retain all the critical “institutional intelligence” and are best positioned for the economic upswing, as I mentioned in my blog post, “Will your business survive the upswing?

There’s no doubt – Layoffs are bad for your business, especially when handled without due care, attention and precision. Conversely, a covenant with your staff to be open, fair and honest with them at all times will go a long way to securing the long-term, profitable future of your business.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Leadership for the New Business World

The worst economic recession for generations has caused a re-evaluation of business practices in many areas, and a call for greater corporate governance and oversight. Now that we’re officially reaching the end of the recession with many countries in Asia and the whole of the Eurozone, amongst others, officially out of it, it’s also time to look closely at leadership practices in business.

One thing’s certain – many changes need to be made, and recent surveys showing a significant majority of employees are planning to change jobs as soon as hiring picks up make this an urgent necessity if companies are to avoid the upheaval and cost increases associated with high staff turnover.

There are many reasons for this level of unhappiness, among them:

  • Severe stress at work – as companies cut costs and staff, those that remained found their workloads growing, often to a point of near-unsustainability;
  • Severe stress at home – really an extension of the added stress at work, compounded by longer working hours, and often less pay;
  • Lack of appreciation – many, if not most, companies overlooked the stress factors and showed no appreciation for the additional efforts of their staff, a situation worsened by cost-cutting which impacted the staff “welfare” programmes already in place;
  • Do as I say, not as I do – as the recession bit ever deeper, many executives seemed oblivious, continuing with executive perks, parties and benefits even as they were making deep cuts in employment and other areas (look at the scandals surrounding many of the bailed-out businesses for example);
  • Lack of direction – as companies cut, often in several waves, many seemed to have lost their direction. Although, as I pointed out in an earlier article, 93% of companies had updated their strategies and priorities to address the slowdown, the fact is that much of this work was done well into the recession and they were floundering for a good time (only half have a strategy in place for the upturn!).

As a result of these and other issues many have lost faith in their business leadership and this is the reason for the potential dramatic increase in staff turnover.

A recent survey by McKinsey, “Leadership through the crisis and after” points to the way forward. What’s interesting is that the top criteria for leadership during the crisis are the same as those for after it, with only minor changes to relative importance. In essence, leaders are expected to be:

  • Inspiring, creating a vision for all to see and aim for, and doing so convincingly and clearly;
  • Unambiguous, defining expectations and rewarding people appropriately for this;
  • Challenging, through encouraging people to challenge assumptions and take risks;
  • Participative, involving others in the decision-making process;
  • Above Reproach, acting as a role model, mentoring and teaching;

These are very much in line with what’s being said elsewhere and with what executives perceive as the most important criteria for organisations going forward: Leadership, Innovation, Clear Direction and an External (Customer, Supplier, etc.,) Orientation being seen as the top success factors.

It may not be too late. Employment typically lags an upturn by several months, so leaders still have a little time to restore the faith of their workforce. However, they cannot afford to delay any longer to address these issues of concern and need to clearly demonstrate that they understand the way forward for success. Failure to do so will almost certainly cost companies dearly.

———————

Postscript: Was pointed to an excellent presentation by Dr Tommy Weir on CEO Shift demonstrating how leaders will need to shift their thinking in 5 key areas related to talent. Well worth watching! See it at http://tommyweir.com/Video.aspx

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]