So my question is whether or not there is movement possible at the executive level between ULA and both parent companies. Can Mr. Bruno draw from a larger talent pool to build the new team and can an ULA executive who is not suited for the future ULA move to a position at Boeing or Lockheed Martin?
Not much past the CEO, COO and CFO. There are few people left at the parent companies with the experience needed. Some of ULA operations positions are filled with people from outside LM or Boeing.
Why does it suggest a second round? Or that it is low hanging fruit?
It would be highly unusual that the excess employees that they laid off were exactly the excess employees that they needed to lose.
At most what can be inferred is that they were able to shed employees that had the most time with the company, or were the closest to retirement.
I think this was just round one...
Why does it suggest a second round? Or that it is low hanging fruit?
It would be highly unusual that the excess employees that they laid off were exactly the excess employees that they needed to lose.
At most what can be inferred is that they were able to shed employees that had the most time with the company, or were the closest to retirement.
I think this was just round one...
Agreed. Especially if it was merely a 30% reduction.
ULA likely needs two things: In my view, they
will need more than 30% smaller executive ranks to successfully move from a space-industrial-complex mentality to a private-capital-funded technology-entrepreneur-based company.
Moreover, they likely will need a considerably
different mix of execs in the remaining 70% than they have today in order to pull off
entrepreneurial competition when the government is not their
monopsonistic customer.
It should go without saying that to be a successful market-based tech company, they will need to reduce staff across the board. But a major focus ought to be execs because, for good tech companies, they'll need a lower executive-to-worker ratio overall as well.
Why does it suggest a second round? Or that it is low hanging fruit?
It would be highly unusual that the excess employees that they laid off were exactly the excess employees that they needed to lose.
At most what can be inferred is that they were able to shed employees that had the most time with the company, or were the closest to retirement.
I think this was just round one...
looked to me like ULA just took out one whole layer of management. Sure ULA lost some good people, but don't believe the company will fall apart because of it.
looked to me like ULA just took out one whole layer of management. Sure ULA lost some good people, but don't believe the company will fall apart because of it.
No, ULA didn't just take out a whole layer of management. These were all volunteers, most of them near retirement. All of these would have left soon anyway, but took the offer of an early severance. Could there be more; non-volunteers? I believe so, based on seeing this kind of downsizing many times, but there is no indication of it as of yet. Never assume based on pure opinion alone. Sometimes you're right but most of the time you're wrong.
The thread title should drop the "Mother's Day Massacre" bit. It certainly was nothing of the kind.