In light of the current economic climate, much has been said about layoffs and how to handle them. Maybe we should, instead, take a closer look at what it takes to avoid them altogether. A company's first response to signs of trouble does not have to be pink and in slip form. Unfortunately, i4cp's own Pulse Survey Findings: Cost-Cutting Measures earlier this year found that layoffs were third in terms of getting serious consideration on a list of ways to cut costs, below reducing discretionary spending (duh) and outsourcing.

Avoiding layoffs goes far beyond keeping a good public image. There are real costs associated with downsizing that are not always calculated. Sometimes business leaders see how much they can save through reduced headcount and just start salivating. What they may be forgetting is that downsizing can often result in the loss of key talent, which can be expensive to replace. Also, the amount of work rarely gets downsized, so survivors are put under a lot of stress during and after a layoff. The loss of creativity, decline in morale, costs of training and even a potential loss of sales have a real effect on the bottom line.

So, what are some of the ways to avoid layoffs? Unfortunately, one of the best strategies is one that should be implemented during good economic times – strategic workforce planning. But, it's never too late to start, right? Having a lean staff that can readily adapt to new challenges and changes is essential for weathering economic ups and downs. Employees who are cross-trained can jump into other areas as different parts of the business pick up or slow down. New permanent hires should be a last resort to handle fluctuating workloads. Instead, using strategies like overtime or contract work are usually better short-term solutions to upswings.

Once an organization has its optimal workforce (it could happen), it's time to look at other strategies to avoid layoffs. The first would be to freeze hiring altogether and let natural attrition take its course. This is obviously not an immediate solution, but it is relatively painless. Just be sure that key talent is not walking out the door without being replaced. Also, a pay and benefits freeze works as well. Most employees can understand not getting a raise when it means not having a round of layoffs, as long as the business reason is clearly communicated. In extreme cases, a reduction in pay and benefits can also be considered.

OK, remember how we talked about using overtime during boom times to manage the workload? Once things get tough, it's time to turn off the tap. Eliminating overtime can greatly reduce costs and also makes it possible to spread the available work around more evenly. Also, the contingent workers who were brought in to help during the busy times can be let go now that things have slowed down. That's the whole point of contingent workers – their employment is contingent on the company needing them.

Let's say, though, that the previous cost-cutting solutions weren't enough and now it's really penny-pinching time. When faced with imminent layoffs, it's worth it to ask employees to take unpaid vacations or voluntary leaves of absence. Many times this is preferable to losing a job altogether. Also, companies can offer buyouts for voluntary termination (e.g., General Motors) and encourage older workers to take early retirement. Early retirement can mean increased benefits over a longer period and a lump-sum payment for the worker but still equates to immediate savings in operational costs for the company in salary and taxes.

While many companies consider outsourcing when facing financial trouble (as evidenced by our cost-cutting survey), it might actually be a better time to bring outsourced work home. If it's at all possible to perform a function with the currently available workforce, it may be worth considering canceling an outsourcing contract. It can be done. Starbucks canceled a massive HR outsourcing contract eight months into the deal because of the financial slowdown the company was facing.

Some of these methods can work for some companies, and some are simply impossible at others. The point is that there are many places to look for hidden savings before counting heads. Let's face it, the biggest operational cost most companies has is its workforce, but without it, what is it you're trying to save?

For more on this and other topics, look to i4cp's Corporate Restructuring Knowledge Center.

Talent Management, Integrated Talent Management and Strategic Talent Management … what does it all mean? Heck, do you capitalize the terms or not? As the Talent Pillar Director for i4cp, these are some of the questions I struggle with on a daily basis. But the use of this terminology is not just an issue of tomato vs. tomahto. Well-defined terminology is becoming a make-or-break issue for many HR professionals as senior leaders lament that HR needs to fix Talent Management. The definition that becomes important is what the senior leaders understand Talent Management to mean.

The term "Talent Management" was coined by our friends at McKinsey & Company in a 1998 study. In the 10 years since its introduction, the term has expanded from three activities – (1) development of an employee value proposition, (2) identification of sources of talent and (3) systematic removal of underperformers – to 20 different activities identified in a recent i4cp survey conducted for the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD).

A well-respected Australian training and performance management consultant, Derek Stokley, defines Talent Management as "a conscious, deliberate approach undertaken to attract, develop and retain people with the aptitude and abilities to meet current and future organizational needs. Talent management involves individual and organizational development in response to a changing and complex operating environment. It includes the creation and maintenance of a supportive, people oriented organization culture." With all due respect – to both Mr. Stokley and managers – this definition is too long and convoluted for management to understand, let alone embrace. I do not mean to pick on Stokley, as I see new Talent Management definitions daily that are just as lengthy.

My personal fear is that, in the minds of executives, Talent Management is just another way to say Human Resources. As you may know, we practitioners were once termed "Personnel" before rebranding ourselves as "Human Resources" because it was sexier. It's kind of like the way Destiny Hope Cyrus became Hannah Montana, until she wanted to be called Miley Cyrus because she's all grown up and in Vanity Fair now.

The "MAD" (Mary Ann Downey) definition of Talent Management is the processes/programs – or whatever other "p" word your organization uses, like "policy" or "project" – a company implements to maximize its human capital. This is different from the MAD definition of Human Resources, which is the function responsible for creating the infrastructure to manage employees. (A note to unenlightened managers who may be reading this blog, HR is not responsible for managing your employees. HR is responsible for ensuring you have the tools to effectively manage your employees – hence the reason your title has the word "manager".) Some organizations choose to make HR a competitive advantage (e.g., Strategic HR). While this is not a requirement for the HR function, these are the forward-thinking firms where HR professionals strive to work.

As a final note, I do not disagree with Stokley's definition of Talent Management; nor do I disagree with many of the others I have read or have had described to me by members. They are all valid definitions. My belief is that, as practitioners, if we use clear and concise (ten words or less) definitions, we will gain buy-in and respect from our management partners.

Are many of today's top leaders and HR management professionals really as inept in regard to workforce planning as I hear?

Yesterday I had two different conversations, one with an esteemed business futurist and another with a workforce-planning-loving HR practitioner type. He's the bold, blunt sort who tends to oversimplify to make a point. She's the detail-loving, circumspect quant type, who loves to delve into the details. Both are bright and can be considered experts in HR and specifically, workforce planning.

He says that companies are too busy gazing at their navels, preoccupied with internal issues that distract from the real drivers of workforce planning issues: that is, the all-important social, demographic and political stuff that ultimately determines most labor market issues. She agrees that companies are internally focused but thinks this is the most realistic way to go; internally is where you need to look first and foremost because it's the only way to get buy-in from leadership in regard to planning.

But here's the thing: Despite their differences, both agree that most companies just plain stink at workforce planning, which leaves me wondering why.

He thinks they're mostly just "clueless" about how to do it, but she leans toward the idea that the laggards are lacking in motivation and basically impatient. She says sophisticated workforce planning is hard work that takes more time and labor than some are willing to put forth.

My take on the he said/she said opining? I think both make excellent points but that it's all much messier than either describes. I suspect a lot of companies are engaged in the oxymoron of ad hoc, self-organized planning that serves their needs well enough. In one department, maybe they're looking a few months into the future, trying to figure out how they're going to find or train the staff they need to help operate a new IT app. In another department, they're just trying to push some people out the door, thinking they can probably upgrade in a few high-skill areas. Meanwhile, in a separate business unit, they're already wooing high school kids enrolled in local magnet schools so they'll have enough fresh engineers through the year 2020. Much of it hinges on local needs, specific labor pools, internal politics, idiosyncratic leaders and annual budgets.

Yeah, there's probably some cluelessness out there, but it usually works out okay because companies can move fast when they really want (and can afford) to. They don't have to plan well; they can just react when the obvious workforce needs hit them right between the eyes.

Having said that, however, I think that workforce planning can probably deliver some real competitive advantages. Organizations that anticipate workforce needs (well before the obvious whacks them in the forehead) can save themselves plenty of pain and scrambling, not to mention resources. But it doesn't start with either internal or external labor conditions. It starts with strategic planning (a point both my experts made in their different ways). Think about the car company that anticipates high oil prices, or the computer company that anticipates mobile computing, or the medical device company that anticipates new noninvasive scanning techniques. If they can anticipate trends well enough, then they can also do the workforce planning they need to get ahead of the curve faster, getting a serious jump on the competition (and, in fact, driving change in their industries).

So, make sure solid business thinking comes first. This thinking, if it's shared and envisioned well enough, will then influence workforce planning. You'll be better able to tell where you are, where you want to go, and what other possible destinations look like. Then start building that proverbial bridge (or bridges) into the future. It'll wind up faster than those messy, ad hoc detours so many organizations seem to be relying on today.

With the nation's economic woes making it incumbent upon employers and employees alike to find more effective, fuel-saving, cost-saving ways to work, the use of technology to conduct business is expected to grow. Conferences, client meetings and internal team interactions that would have taken place face-to-face in even the not-too-distant past are going online as quickly as corporate travel budgets are drying up. We're certainly ready for the convenience and affordability of virtual work environments, but are our organizational leaders equipped with the know-how to manage effectively in the electronic workplace?

A resounding "maybe" is the answer to that, according to research conducted earlier this year by i4cp. March's Pulse Survey on virtual leadership gained the input of 543 respondents, finding about half satisfied with their leaders' capabilities when it comes to managing from a distance. Not bad, but that still left the other half admitting dissatisfaction or significant room for improvement in virtual leadership. Even at that point during this year of financial volatility, more than 40% of the survey respondents said that at least half of the work they do is virtual. It's likely that both percentages have risen during the intervening months.

The survey points out both a concern and an opportunity for leadership development programming. The concern is that only 33% of respondents said their leaders recover to a high or very high extent in the event that glitches occur and interrupt the flow of virtual work. That's surprising since nearly one in four of the participating firms admitted that they offer absolutely no training or development options designed to help leaders learn to master the online work world. The opportunity lies in the fact that three-quarters of respondents acknowledged that such training is important.

Leaders still need conventional management skills, but "developing top-notch virtual leaders often requires good planning as well as developmental support and practice," explains an excerpt from i4cp's Leadership Knowledge Center. "Organizations should ensure that leadership development programs include segments on how any given leadership skill or practice can be applied virtually. The training should also include how to recover when distance-related miscommunications or issues occur." Don't forget to include in leadership training some nuts-and-bolts guidance on the use of a full range of technologies. Capable virtual leaders must be ready to interact via e-mail, Webinars, videoconferences, online chats, instant messaging and more.

We have only to drive past the neighborhood gas station or grocery store to see the writing on the wall. No matter how much we dislike it or rail against it, our world is changing. So it's our mandate to change what we're doing in the business world. If we're shifting to a world where telecommuting and online management must become more common, then our leaders must be ready to manage that electronic workplace effectively. Organizations that act now to align their leadership development content with the realities of the new work world will be much more likely to achieve optimum productivity – and competitive advantage – across cyberspace.