So I’m just thinking today, (always dangerous!) about all of the layoffs that are about to occur. Lockheed Martin, AMEX, UBS, Disney, Morgan Stanley, Time Warner, Dow Chemical, 3M, Boeing –El Paso, United Airlines, Bank of America, Verizon, AT&T, and IBM to just name a few. If I remember correctly the fairy-tale goes, “…in order to become more competitive and adjust to the economic climate/business environment… regrettably after serious consideration”. Not trying to deny the need for business to adjust to the economy, but a little light bulb seems to be flickering somewhere in the recesses of my brain. Oh yeah, this is not the first time that I’ve heard of layoffs from these companies. So having an analytical mind I started tracing the logic that naturally follows from this course of action.

It’s hard to get past the deep human suffering that a layoff causes, affecting the well-being, health and stability of a human being, a family, a community and beyond. Having personally been through a layoff, I have empathy for anyone facing it. But I am not focused on that this morning.

I am thinking about the obligation any company issuing layoffs has to the employees that remain. You see, there is always a promise that the reduction in force will make the company more competitive and better able to generate the revenue and profit demanded by the shareholders. There are employee responsibilities required after a layoff, including an effort to learn and apply the critical skills, and to contribute to the mental mindset needed to compete. And there are management responsibilities too. They have the responsibility to identify what skills are needed and ensure they are integrated into the work environment, and to help change the culture to perpetuate growth and improvement.

And what about the obligation that the executives have, and the board of directors when they use layoffs to make the company more competitive? Does it not require that they contribute to make the company more competitive? For employees that keep their jobs there is an unwritten agreement that if they take on additional work and help reduce costs, increase revenues, increase productivity and improve quality that no one should have to worry about a job or suffer another layoff. I am not advocating a guarantee of employment or entitlement.

I am advocating accountability for all levels of a company. A competitive company isn’t just one that makes the most money or dominates the market. A competitive company is one in which its employees have an opportunity to contribute their full efforts to a shared vision with a culture of trust.

That trust includes leadership, and should require that there is an aggressive business development effort to expand customer markets, adjacent markets and services. That trust requires that a company spend a significant amount of effort on proactive workforce development that prepares the workforce for the future. As much as it is avoided it should also prepare people for retirement.

As we age, hopefully we become wiser. There are limits and abilities in which we decline in later years. We need to have real conversations about that, conversations built upon preserving dignity and preserving the value of employees. It must include compensation. This culture should include knowledge management and knowledge transfer to help perpetuate the company. As we age there should be the opportunity to move into jobs with the challenges desired but perhaps with less demand, a job that may pay less. Companies need to put more effort, thought and education into addressing this problem.

This type of culture is built upon trust, and thinking through it, seeing record company profits and seeing companies sitting on cash it seems that many workers have come through on their part. So why are companies once again resorting to layoffs? It appears that there is a break in the trust and that someone in the company is not doing their part to contribute. If the company is not competitive, is surprised by the economy, not prepared for economic downturns, or is not strategically placed in the markets, then who is to blame? Maybe we need to look for who is responsible for that? It may be a problem at the top levels of the company. It may be a problem on the board of directors. Perhaps we the people who own stock, should start voting no confidence? Perhaps we should stop proxy voting through our investment companies and vote against retaining the company officers.

Most of us live in communities, buy homes and raise families. We believe in this country and our fellow citizens. We invest in the future, and need to understand there is not a sustainable way to get greedy rich. Most of the people that I know that are shareholders do not expect exorbitant amounts of return. I think it is a myth that the shareholders are demanding such a high rate of return. That comes from Wall-Street, and the way the people of Wall-Street are so intertwined, shuffle in and out of government and shuffle in and out of board rooms is dizzying. I think it’s time that we start demanding a different culture, a culture that remembers its country and its citizens; a culture that truly invests in its countries future.