When Head Count Becomes The Goal Of Insecure Managers

Being in a company that interacts B2B with hundreds of other companies provides a position of persepective that is unparallelled. I have sat across the table from Fortune 500 CEOs and I have met with interns. The insights derived from these experiences have been very illuminating to human character, human excellence and often to human folly. Recently, I bore witness to a company success metric sheet that included "head count" as one of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). I have seen that a few times in my time in business and I have had the safe position, sitting from afar, watching the outcome of such an objective - it has NEVER been pretty.

There is something perverse about making team-size a goal... something that reminds me of Nietsche's "Will to Power" (i.e. power over others) that feels revoltingly ugly to me. Usually born from deep feelings of insecurity, one will find low-level and mid-level managers whose only raison d'etre, whose only personal measure of achievement, is that they dominate a large (and increasing) group of people.

I have made many errors of judgement in my work life, but a pursuit of power over others is one mistake I have never made. Heck, I find it challening enough to have power over myself!! It's not just personal preference either. The companies run by toxic personalities who seek to be "head of this" or "head of that" are companies whose ultimate outcome will either be outright failure or the more subtle: "failure to reach potential", with the latter being the saddest.

Paraphrasing the wise words of Rand's fictional architect character, Howard Roark: "gentlemen, I don't build in order to have clients - I have clients in order to build!". The parallel sentiment applies for business: One should not run a business in order to have staff - one should should have staff in order to run the business.

Elevating someone very young and/or very immature, to a position of management is almost always a mistake. They get full of themselves. They start to feel like they must actually wield their power in highly visible ways resulting in angst and animosity in the company. With few exceptions, good management requires the type of deep wisdom that only living can bring - live longer - live wiser.

Having dozens or hundreds or even thousands of employees should only be a 'trailing indicator' of the company's success - it should never be viewed as a bellwether or leading indicator. If you see this happening or if you are responsible for this happening, give it a hard look and speak up. At the very least, be aware that someone with a thirst for power over others is probably at the seat of the issue. THAT is a person who oozes toxicity in one of the most insidious ways. When you see 5 people doing the work of 1 competent contributor, that should be a warning sign. Cash burn can become very real very fast. Runways that should have been a mile long for the company get reduced to a football field length. The horizon of failure gets closer.

Earnings per share (i.e. company profitability) is truly the only real goal of wise managers. If they can achieve that with 100 people instead of 101 people or with 101 people instead of 201 people, then reduction of head count should be immediately embraced. Does anyone really believe that having someone on the payroll who is really just there to increase headcount is good for THAT person either? Those who know they are just seat-warmers will suffer self-esteem. Those who do the actual work while others site idle will suffer burnout and resentment. You see, the very morale of the team depends on wise management. The focus on providing value depends on it. The very life of the company depends on it.

Do you need a company of experts who strive to excellence and always act with virtue? Get in touch.

Do you like our philosophical approach to business? Drop us a line. We look forward to working with like-minded people and companies.