I was in discussion with a group of youngsters who had gathered for a training programme. As expected discussion moved towards the difficult economic scenario in India and how to cope up with all this.
The steps (as suggested by various members of the group) that they will take are:
- will not go to cinemas
- no parties
- no flying (on holiday and otherwise)
- only window shopping
- less eating out
and then they could not go further.
This is the reality of today's youth who are likley to be facing difficulty for the first time. This, in my opinion, is true for urban middle/upper middle class offsprings.
Back to dinner last night where in more mature (in age if not otherwise) people were talking of cost cutting steps initiated:
- cut communication cost, use internet as a replacement
- replace travel with video conferencing
- if must, travel by train
- no entertainment
- no more "strategic" investments (that do not generate cash immediately)
- minimise cash burn
- stop/minimise AC in offices
- no recruitment
- cut people (ranged from not replacing to actively cutting down)
One organisation talking about 25% reduction another saying 15%.
Non performers to go first.
A question to whch no logical answer was found.
On what pretext I can retain a "good" person whose performance is low?
Is the question logical in itself or laden with a bias/emotion?
The steps (as suggested by various members of the group) that they will take are:
- will not go to cinemas
- no parties
- no flying (on holiday and otherwise)
- only window shopping
- less eating out
and then they could not go further.
This is the reality of today's youth who are likley to be facing difficulty for the first time. This, in my opinion, is true for urban middle/upper middle class offsprings.
Back to dinner last night where in more mature (in age if not otherwise) people were talking of cost cutting steps initiated:
- cut communication cost, use internet as a replacement
- replace travel with video conferencing
- if must, travel by train
- no entertainment
- no more "strategic" investments (that do not generate cash immediately)
- minimise cash burn
- stop/minimise AC in offices
- no recruitment
- cut people (ranged from not replacing to actively cutting down)
One organisation talking about 25% reduction another saying 15%.
Non performers to go first.
A question to whch no logical answer was found.
On what pretext I can retain a "good" person whose performance is low?
Is the question logical in itself or laden with a bias/emotion?
Comments
Post a Comment