不要轻率裁员

    经济前景不确定时，大规模裁员看起来是难以抗拒的选择——承担一笔遣散费之后，节省成本的效果立竿见影。上次经济危机的时候随处可见超级大裁员，如今它们又再次流行了起来。看看银行业的情况吧：汇丰银行（HSBC）将裁员30,000人，美国银行计划裁掉3,500-1,0000人，瑞银集团（UBS）裁3,500人，荷兰银行（ABN Amro）2,350人。

    有时候裁员确实是无法避免的，但是勇敢的领导人深知裁员的长期后果，以及在困难时期与员工同舟共济的长远效益，这些效应的影响往往远超过裁员在短期内带来的成本节约。

    经理人们再次喊冤，称华尔街逼迫他们通过裁员来大幅降低开支，这同样并非事实。贝恩咨询公司（Bain & Co.）的研究显示，如果某公司最近进行了收购，为整合而炒掉一批冗员，那投资者或许会表示赞许。可如果纯粹把裁员当成降低成本的手段，正如眼下许多公司的做法，那华尔街只会认为这暗示公司陷入了麻烦，结果导致股价走低。

大举行动

    面临危险时，怯懦的领导人往往无所事事，他们担心任何行动都有风险，因此宁愿什么都不做，但这么做并不见得更安全。动荡时期的赢家都是英勇之士，而输家往往是谨小慎微的骑墙派。

    或许你正致力于继续在创造价值的项目上进行投资，哪怕会影响近期利润——这很好；或许世道艰难促使你警醒，发现公司虚耗了太多费用，准备借此机会深度削减成本，并优化整个组织——那也很不错。麦肯锡（McKinsey）的研究表明，在以往的衰退中，采纳上述两种策略的公司表现都很好，而表现最糟糕的正是那些怯懦的中间派——那些只敢因形势所迫而削减一些开支，而没有远大战略的公司。这给我们的启发是：判断自己的公司现在到底需要什么，然后鼓起勇气大举行动。

    亚里斯多德曾把勇气称为第一种美德，塞缪尔•约翰逊则称之为最伟大的德行。他们的理由如出一辙：勇气使其他所有德行成为可能。勇气意味着承担风险，这一点在宏观环境本身的风险急剧增加时变得困难得多，眼下正是这样的时刻。正因为此，目前的时局才使赢家和输家之间的差距如此明显。

    眼下，承担风险令人恐惧。不过，正如乔布斯、巴菲特和其他商界精英不断向我们揭示的那样，甘冒风险是目前唯一的希望所在。

    译 小宇

Rethinking layoffs

    Mass firings seem irresistible in uncertain times -- after the company takes a charge for severance costs, the savings are immediate. Huge layoffs were everywhere in the last recession, and they're definitely in fashion again. Look at banking: HSBC (HBC) will lay off 30,000, Bank of America 3,500 to 10,000, UBS (UBS) 3,500, ABN Amro 2,350.

    Sometimes layoffs are truly unavoidable. But brave leaders know that the long-term costs of layoffs, and the long-term benefits of keeping employees through tough times, are often far greater than any near-term savings from firing workers.

    Here again, managers claim Wall Street forces them to whack expenses through layoffs, and again it isn't true. Investors might reward a firm for firing people as it combines with a recently bought company, says Bain & Co. research. But if you're laying off employees strictly as a cost-cutting measure, like many companies today, Wall Street will likely see it as a sign of trouble and send your stock down.

Going big

    What fearful leaders often do in perilous times is nothing. Worried that any action is risky, they sit still. But they aren't safe. The winners in uncertain times are the bold, and the losers are often the cautious hedgers.

    Maybe you're committed to continuing to spend on value creating projects, even if reported profits take a hit -- that's great. Or maybe the tough times have awakened you to your company's insanely bloated spending, and you're seizing this opportunity to slash costs deeply and rationalize the whole organization -- that's great too. McKinsey research shows that in past recessions, companies that followed either path did best. It was the timid middle -- those that cut just enough to get by without forming a larger strategy -- that did worst. The lesson: Decide what your business needs now, and be brave enough to go big.

    Aristotle called courage the first virtue, and Samuel Johnson called it the greatest. Their reasoning was the same: It makes all the other virtues possible. Courage means taking risks, and that becomes much more difficult when the environment itself becomes dramatically riskier, as it is now. That's why times like these so violently separate winners from losers.

    Taking risks now is frightening. But as Jobs, Buffett, and other business champions keep showing us, it's your only hope.