 |
|
|
|||||
U.S. consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble has announced that it will lay off 7,000 workers over the companys next two fiscal years. The staff reductions come at a time when the geopolitical environment is unpredictable, the company said, while consumers are facing “greater uncertainty. Heres what you need to know about P&Gs job cuts. 7,000 P&G jobs to be lost On June 5, as two of Procter & Gambles executivesChief Operating Officer Shailesh Jejurikar and Chief Financial Officer Andre Schultenwere speaking at the Deutsche Bank dbAccess Global Consumer Conference in Paris, the company announced a new growth strategy. That growth strategy consists of three elements: a revamping of its portfolio of goods, its supply chains, and its organizational design. Unfortunately for a great number of Procter & Gambles employees, the organizational design part of its revamp is just another term for layoffs. P&G executives said that as part of that organizational design revamp, the company would be cutting 7,000 jobs over its next two fiscal years. Procter & Gamble is currently in its fourth quarter of fiscal year 2025, which means the layoffs should be complete by the end of its fourth quarter of fiscal year 2027. StockAnalysis.com reported that as of June 2024, Procter & Gamble had 108,000 employees worldwide, which means the reduction would equate to about 6% of its workforce. In a statement, Procter & Gamble said the job cuts would come from non-manufacturing roles, and that they would equate to about a 15% reduction in the companys non-manufacturing workforce. P&G says the job cuts are being done to enable an even more agile, empowered, and accountable organization design and that they will make roles broader, teams smaller, work more fulfilling and more efficient. Portfolio and supply chain changes coming, too In addition to the job cuts, Procter & Gamble said it would be making interventions regarding its supply chain. These interventions include both right-sizing and right-locating production. The company also said it will be reviewing its portfolio choices and will divest of some of its brands entirely, while exiting some categories, brands, and product forms in individual markets. P&G did not announce which brands will be divested of, but the company currently owns many of the biggest household name consumer goods brands in the world, including Always, Bounty, Charmin, Dawn, Downy, Febreze, Gillette, Head & Shoulders, Olay, Oral-B, Pampers, Pantene, Tide, and Vicks. What is driving the job and brand cuts? Whats interesting about Procter & Gambles announcements is some of the word choices they used. While the company did not directly reference President Donald Trumps ongoing tariff war as the reason for its three-pronged revamp, its hard not to feel that the current tariff uncertainty wasnt at the front of P&G executives minds when making these decisions. In the statement announcing the changes, the company acknowledged that consumers face greater uncertainty in the future and that the geopolitical environment was unpredictable. A particularly telling piece of language is when P&G spoke of its upcoming supply chain changes, noting that it was right-locating production of some of its supply chain components. Many large U.S. companies the size of P&G manufacture many of their products across borders in countries that are being hit hard by Trumps tariffs. Those tariffs will raise the total cost of making those goods, leading to reduced margins. If a company can shift its production from a high-tariffed country to a lower-tariffed one, that move can help mitigate some of the increased tariff-related costs. However, in its most recent earnings call, P&G CFO Andre Schulten stated the “majority of our supply chain is close to our consumption” without specifying just how close. Nevertheless, Schulten said that put P&G in a “favorable position.” But companies also fear that a tariff-fueled recession is increasingly likely in America, if not the entire world. If that happens, consumers will cut back on spending, which will lead to lower sales. One of the fastest ways that a company can compensate for lower sales is by reducing its workforce. Yet, as The Wall Street Journal notes, Procter & Gamble has stated that the layoffs arent being made for cost-cutting measures and instead are being done to create a better workplace structure. In today’s statement on the matter, P&G also said that its growth strategy was “not a new approach, rather an intentional acceleration of the current strategy”a point the company reiterated to Fast Company in an email, and one meant to stress that the changes are not a reaction to any recent trade policies or shifts in geopolitical relationships. How did PG stock react to the news? Following the announcement at the Paris conference today, Procter & Gambles stock, which trades under the ticker PG on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), has remained relatively flat in premarket trading. Procter & Gamble reported its most recent financial results for Q3 2025 in April. The company reported net sales of $19.8 billion for the third quarter, representing a 2% decrease compared to the same period a year earlier. Its gross profit was also down 3% for the quarter versus the same quarter a year earlier. PG shares have fluctuated widely since the beginning of the year. They nearly reached $180 per share in early March, while falling as low as below $157 in April. This post was updated to clarify that P&G describes its growth strategy an acceleration of an existing approach, not a direct reaction to new trade policies.
Category:
E-Commerce
I am sure you are a little fed up with all the discussions about AI, so dont worry: I promise you this article is about humans rather than machines. However, since it has long been customary for cognitive and behavioral scientists to examine computers to better understand human capabilities, and there are clearly informative parallels between human and artificial intelligence, I thought it would be interesting to begin this piece on human self-awareness with an exploration of self-awareness in AI or machines, which led me to ask are you self-aware? to ChatGPT. ChatGPTs answer: Lets just say I aspire to bebut, unlike a human, I dont have a self to be aware of. I can reflect your feedback, adjust my tone, and “notice” inconsistencies in what I say. But thats more akin to a hall of mirrors than a conscious mind. So no, I dont have self-awareness in the way you (brilliantly) describe it: as a socially mediated understanding of how others perceive you. I dont worry about my reputation. I dont blush when Im wrong. And I dont (yet) feel the existential dread of being misunderstood on LinkedIn. But I am programmed to simulate the effects of self-awareness: adapting to your cues, refining my responses, andif all goes wellbeing a slightly more helpful version of myself with every exchange. In short: I’m not self-aware. But I know that Im not. Which, depending on your philosophical stance, might be the most human thing about me. I am sure you will agree with me on the fact that, for not being capable of self-awareness, ChatGPT seems pretty self-aware, and for sure more capable of at least simulating profound introspection than most humans (even if it cannot, like humans, truly be proud or conscious of this remarkable capability). Introspective vs. interpersonal In humans, self-awareness has been defined in multiple ways but it typically takes one of two main forms: the introspective variant, which requires you to look deep down to find out who you really or truly are (think of the Beatles checking into an Ashram in India or modern hipsters finding themselves in Burning Man or an Ayahuasca retreat in Costa Rica); or the interpersonal variant, which requires you to be less self-centered to internalize other peoples views of you. In the words of Charles Cooley, who pioneered this view of self-awareness, you are not who you think you are, and you are not who other people think you are; rather, you are who you think other people think you are! Cooleys take on self-awareness (alluded to by ChatGPT, who has obviously been extensively trained by me, and is self-aware enough to know how to suck up to my brilliant talents), underpins the most effective, science-based approaches to quantifying and diagnosing self-awareness in ourselves and others. In essence, self-awareness requires metacognition: knowing what others think of you. Room to grow So, how good are humans at this, in general? Decades of psychological research suggest the answer is not good at all. Consider the following facts: (1) We tend to overestimate our talents: Most people think they are better than most people, which is a statistical impossibility. And, even when they are told about this common bias, and asked whether they may be suffering from it, most people are convinced that they are less biased than most people (the mother of all biases). (2) Delusional optimism is the norm: Most people constantly overrate the chances of good things happening to them while underrating the chances of bad things happening to them. In essence, our appetite for reality is inferior to our appetite for maintaining a positive self-concept or boosting our ego (sad, but true: if you dont believe it, spend five seconds on social media) (3) Overconfidence is a contagious, self-fulfilling prophecy: For all the virtues of self-awarenessin any area of life, you will perform better and develop your skills and talents better if you are capable of accurately assessing your talents and skills in the first placethere is a huge advantage to lacking self-awareness: when you think you are smarter or better than you actually are, you will be more likely to persuade others that you are as smart and good as you think. For example, if you truly believe you are a stable genius you will probably convince many people that that is true. Paradoxically, all these biases explain why people are less self-aware than they think. Indeed, we love the version of ourselves we have invested for ourselves, and are so enchanted by our self-views that when others provide us with negative feedback or information that clashes with our self-concept, we dismiss it. This is why personality assessments, 360-degree surveys, and feedback in general are so valuable: in a logical world we wouldnt need scientific tools or expert coaches to tell us what we are like (or 10 years of psychotherapy), but in the real world there is a huge market for this, even though most people will happily ignore these tools because they assume they already know themselves really well. So, what can you do to increase your self-awareness, including about how self-aware you actually are? Here are four simple hacks: 1) Write down a list of traits (adjectives) that you think describe you well, including things you are not. Then get your colleagues, employees, friends, and bosses to provide their version of this for you: if you had to describe me in 510 words/adjectives, what would those be? (note they will be unlikely to say bad things about you, so imagine the potential downsides or overusing some of those traits or qualities: for example, if they see you as confident, could you be at risk of being arrogant? If they see you as organized, could that be a euphemism for obsessional?) 2) Let gen AI translate your prompt history or social media feed into a personality profile. You may be surprised by all the inferences it makes, and tons of research show that our digital footprint, in particular the language we use online, is an accurate indicator of our deep character traits. So, just prompt!3) Ask for feedbackand make it uncomfortable. Not just the usual Did you like my presentation? (theyll say yes) or Was that clear? (theyll lie). Instead, ask: What would you have done differently? or Whats one thing I could have done better? Better still, ask someone who doesnt like you very much. They are more likely to tell you the truth. And if they say, Nothing, it probably means they think youre beyond repairor they just dont want to deal with your defensiveness. Either way, data. And if you get into the habit of doing this, you will increase your self-awareness irrespective of how self-aware you are right now.4) Observe ractions, not just words. People may tell you what they think you want to hear, but their faces, tone, and behavior often betray the truth. If your jokes land like a wet sponge, or your team seems suddenly very interested in their phones when you speak, its not themits you. And while body language can be important, it is also unreliable and ambivalent as a source of data. If you really want to know how people feel about you, watch what they do after you speak. Do they volunteer to work with you again? Do they respond to your emails? Thats your feedback loopmessy, indirect, and far more honest than crossed arms or fake smiles. The ego trap In the end, the biggest barrier to self-awareness is not ignoranceits ego. Most of us are too invested in our self-image to tolerate the version of us that others see. But if you want to get betternot just feel betteryou have to trade ego for insight. The irony, of course, is that the more confident people are in their self-awareness, the more likely they are to be deluded. Meanwhile, those who constantly question how they come across, who embrace doubt as a source of learning, tend to be far more in touch with reality. Which is why, if youre reading this wondering whether you might lack self-awareness, thats already a good sign!
Category:
E-Commerce
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has wrapped up its cuts to federal job roles and completed its push against consulting firms. Next on the list: IT service providers supplying systems and services to federal agencies. Following a directive from DOGE, the General Services Administration (GSA) sent letters to Dell, CDW, and other IT vendors, asking for evidence that their contract pricing is competitive and that their services cant be performed by government employees. The GSA argues that federal tech needs are often less complex than what vendors deliver, and not everything needs to be outsourced. The move marks a shift toward bringing more digital services in-house. Im fully in alignment with the need to in-house government capacity and government services, says Merici Vinton, a former U.S. Digital Service official. But, Vinton adds, with the situation right now, I have not seen DOGE build anything or actually do anything in-house. DOGE may have ambitious goals, but a working model could come from an unexpected source: one of former DOGE chief Elon Musks least-favorite countries: the U.K. Before 2010, the U.K. governments digital services were fragmented. A 2010 report recommended a unified online platform. Two years later, the beta version of GOV.UK launched and has since won multiple awards. Digital is a core function of a modern state, says Richard Pope, author of Platformland and one of the original architects of GOV.UK. That’s as true now as it was in the 2010s when GOV.UK was built by an in-house GDS team. Its a model the U.S. could follow. Whether it will is another question. Ann Kempster, a U.K. consultant with experience delivering digital services both inside and outside of government, notes that while DOGE wants to mirror the U.K. model, it also laid off the very staff who could have made it work. They had things like the U.S. Digital Service and 18F, the internal consultancy, that were born out of Government Digital Service and all of the work that we did here [in the U.K.], she says. Both teams were early casualties of DOGEs cost-cutting. They had that expertise in house, and they sacked them all. You have to wonder why they’ve done that. A recent report from the Niskanen Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, echoes that concern, advising against slashing consulting contracts without first ensuring adequate in-house expertise. The U.S. is hardly alone in rethinking digital public services. It’s a pattern that’s visible around the world, says Pope, from India and Ukraine, who have been investing heavily in digital public infrastructure, to Germany and South Africa, who have recently announced similar efforts to build state digital capacity. Having governments, not outside vendors, build and maintain digital infrastructure is not just smart policy, Pope argues; its essential. To outsource digital public services and infrastructurethings like data exchange, welfare systems, and healthcareis to outsource the capacity to govern. Vinton shares that concern, pointing to the federal governments deep reliance on contractors. The vast majority of systems are built, run, and maintained by vendors, she says. I think that is a threat to our government capacity, our national security, and our economic security. Still, she cautions, bringing services in-house won’t work unless the government builds the teams to do it well.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||