It was only 2003 when Ed Zander joined Motorola as its new CEO.  In the midst of lost market share and declining revenue, analysts were calling for massive layoffs.  But, Mr. Zander layed off no one.  Instead, he eliminated the executive dining room, focused all executives on customers (even staff positions) and emphasized new product releases.  It wasn't long before Motorola spit out the RAZR, a product tied up in product release, and a revitalized Motorola started growing again.

The easiest thing Mr. Zander could have done was increase the already extensive layoffs.  Analysts and investors were all calling for more reductions.  Instead, he Disrupted long-held lock-ins at Motorola that kept products from making it to market.  And Mr. Zander was rapidly named "CEO of the Year."  Yes, the RAZR predated him, and he was not a new product genius.  But he did unleash new products on the marketplace that created new growth and pushed Motorola back into the forefront of wireless competitors.  And his push for White Space created joint product development projects with Apple, and new design centers from Brazil to Bangalore. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Zander did not stick to his Diruption and White Space programs.  When an outsider bought up company stock and attacked Motorola for continuing its investment in new products, Mr. Zander was cowed.  He retrenched.  And quickly – very quickly – Motorola found itself without exciting new product introductions.  The RAZR was not replaced with additional new products.  And innovations remained stuck in R&D and product development instead of making it to market.  As the old joint project with Apple allowed the iPhone to hit the market, Mr. Zander found results down and himself on the market as well.

Now, Motorola is cutting heads again.  Despite decades of leadership in product development in markets from two-way land mobile radios (like police radios) to television DVR boxes to mobile infrastructure towers to mobile handlhelds you would now think there are no longer any new ideas coming out of Schaumburg, IL.  The replacement leadership is taking the easy road.  After laying off some 3,000 employees recently Motorola has announced it intends to lay off 4,000 more (read article here).  You would think there are no new product ideas at Motorola, as company leadership does what's easy — cutting costs with layoffs.  Introducing new products, especially now that Apple has lost its iconic leader Steve Jobs, might produce better results.  But since analysts expect layoffs, why not simply do what's easy?

Similarly, Google has announced it is laying off 100 workers (read article here).  Google is the fastest growing large company in America; and possibly on the globe.  Google has continued hiring new workers, expanding into cell phones and other new markets as competitors have made highly qualified employees readily available.  But The Wall Street Journal has been calling for Google to stop hiring and launching new products, pointing out the economy is in a recession.  Like Google is un-American for trying to continue growing when other companies are stalled.  How dare they!

So now Google is laying off some of its recruiters.  On the surface, it would be easy to say this is immaterial.  100 is only .5% of the 20,000+ Google employees.  But why is Google doing this?  Does it simply feel it must?  Does it feeled compelled to lay off workers just because it can?  Or because other large companies are doing so?  Is this "hey, as the new kid on the block maybe we're missing something and need to play follow-the-leader"?  It makes little sense why Google would want to jeapardize its future when it has an incredible opportunity to continue muscle-building its organization with some of the best and brightest folks available – only because old employers (like Motorola) aren't smart enough to take advantage of the talent.

Growth is necessary for all profit-making companies.  Without growth, the business stalls and really bad things happen.  When competitors start to retrench, it opens opportunities for successful companies to push forward with new growth projects.  As long as the population grows, demand for products and services grows as well.  Even in recessions, successful businesses grow.  Layoffs are never a good thing for any company.  Layoffs indicate you can't grow, and if you can't grow you simply aren't worth much.  Why should you have a P/E (price/earnings multiple) of 45, or 30, or 20, or 15, or even 8 if you can't grow?

It's incredily easy to lay people off.  In America, there are precious few laws preventing it.  And almost no longer is there any social stigma.  If you have a bad quarter, or even just a bad product launch, you can lay-off some people claiming its for the good of the business.  Leaders regularly hide their bad decisions behind layoffs claiming "market conditions" are to blame for weak results.  But what investors, employees, vendors and customers want from leaders isn't layoffs. They want new products, new services, new markets, new innovations that spur increased demand from added value.  They want growth.  Growth may not be easy, but it's necessary.

Instead of laying off 100 workers, why isn't Google deploying them into new business opportunities?  Are there simply no new growth areas that could use the talent of these people Google hired out of the thousands of applicants that sought these jobs? And the same is true at Motorola.  The new mobile devices CEO was hired from Qualcomm at millions of dollars expense – why isn't he putting all these engineers and product development experts to work?  Why isn't he launching new products that increase the capabilities of wireless services so consumers do more calling, texting, emailing and application sharing?  The easiest thing he can do is fire 3,000, 4,000 or 7,000 employees.  Anyone can do that.  But is it going to help Motorola grow?  If not, why isn't he doing what will take the company to better competitiveness and an improved market position versus competitors?  Is he simply doing what's easy, instead of what's necessary?