On 22 Jul 96 at 10:25, Ben Compton wrote:
> The psychological impact of people not being able to move up the
> corporate ladder was that many professionals began to experience a
> strong sense of failure. This in turn may have lowered their
> efficiency. Corporations responded by hiring more people.
I think this is kinda a stretch. I don't think that hiring people was
a result of career plateauing, or possible lowered efficiency.
Clearly highering more people would create more plateauing, and
highering more people to do the same work would lower efficiency
(amount of input in relation to output).
I think perhaps we are over-complicating things. I think the answer is
simple. You have companies (without significant competition) who are
succeeding. In business success is almost inevitably followed by
expansion, and the ability to hire. Couple that with hubris, and when
the economies contract, you have a situation where growth stops or
there is decline.
Look at Microsoft or better yet, Apple. With success comes expansion
into new markets/products. And higher employment. When contraction
occured with Apple, the solution was to downsize. Microsoft is an
open book....but we see the movement to expansion to other services.
If, for some reason, Microsoft sales go Megasoft, what will happen?
> We see
> this in the incredible growth of large companies such as IBM, AT&T,
> Xerox, and others. This approach really accommodated nicely the
> emerging baby boomers in the job market.
Yes, but that was a by-product of expansion into other areas, product
Robert Bacal, CEO, Institute For Cooperative Communication
firstname.lastname@example.org, Located in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
"Robert Bacal" <email@example.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <firstname.lastname@example.org> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>