The Uniform 10% Cut
A 900-employee precision-parts manufacturer operates three plants. Revenue has been flat at $180 million for two years while EBITDA margin slipped from 11% to 6.5%. Overtime now equals 9% of all hours worked, voluntary turnover among machinists is 22%, time-to-fill for skilled trades averages 68 days, and 31% of tool-and-die staff will be retirement-eligible within three years. The HRIS holds headcount, pay and absence data but no skills inventory. Last quarter two large orders shipped late because of staffing gaps. The CEO has told the board that a 10% headcount reduction will restore margin, and the board meets in six weeks. The CHRO asks you to prepare the workforce analysis that will frame HR's position.
1. Build the argument HR should put in front of the board. Which two data points most directly contradict a uniform 10% cut, and what is the reasoning chain that connects them to margin?
Read the worked answer
The two data points.
- Overtime at 9% of hours. The company is already buying capacity at a premium because it does not have enough of the right people in the right places. A uniform cut does not remove the demand for those hours; it converts straight-time salary into premium hours, or into late orders. The two missed shipments are the leading indicator that this conversion has already begun.
- 31% of tool-and-die staff retirement-eligible within three years, against 68-day time-to-fill and 22% machinist turnover. In bottleneck trades, headcount is not the lever - supply is. Every avoided hire costs roughly 68 days of coverage and carries a 22% chance the search has to be run again.
The reasoning chain. A percentage cut is a cost target expressed as a headcount rule. The margin decline from 11% to 6.5% is evidence of a cost problem, not evidence that the workforce is uniformly bloated. Applying one rate across three plants and every job family removes capacity where it is scarcest and leaves surplus where it is not. Before any target is set, the board needs role-level surplus/gap analysis, not a headcount number.
Reframe, do not refuse. Accept the 10% as a cost target and cost three routes to it on the same basis: (a) uniform 10% headcount - highest delivery risk; (b) targeted reduction of indirect/administrative roles plus overtime reduction and redeployment in operations; (c) attrition-based shrinkage with no layoff. Attach the overtime premium and the value of at-risk orders to each.
2. You have six weeks. Set out the sequence of workforce planning work you can realistically complete, and state explicitly what you will declare out of scope.
Read the worked answer
Weeks 1–2 - supply baseline. Headcount by role, plant, tenure and age; overtime by role; retirement eligibility by role; turnover and time-to-fill; fully loaded cost per role. Build a minimum viable critical-role list (roughly the 12 roles where a vacancy stops a line), not an enterprise skills inventory - the HRIS cannot support one in six weeks and pretending otherwise destroys credibility.
Weeks 3–4 - demand and projection. Pull the order book and the 24-month forecast by plant and product line; convert to labour demand by critical role. Project three-year supply using retirement eligibility and observed turnover. Build the three scenarios with costed outcomes.
Week 5 - draft and stress-test. Circulate to plant managers to challenge assumptions; reconcile HR's numbers to Finance's cost model so the board sees one set of figures, not two.
Week 6 - socialize with the CEO and CFO before the board pack is finalized, so the board meeting is a decision, not a surprise.
Declare out of scope, in writing: a full competency framework, an enterprise skills taxonomy, and any HRIS upgrade. Naming the limits protects the credibility of what you do deliver; silence about them invites the assumption that HR simply failed to produce them.
3. The CEO reads your pushback as HR protecting headcount. How do you frame the conversation so the decision remains the CEO's but the delivery risk is on the record?
Read the worked answer
Change the subject from people to cost. Open by accepting the target: "I'm not asking you to spend more; I'm asking which $X of cost comes out, because the routes have very different delivery risk." That removes the protective reflex from the conversation.
Speak in the CEO's metrics. Translate: the overtime premium is a known dollar figure; the two late orders carry a quantified penalty and a relationship cost; a 68-day vacancy in a bottleneck role is a known revenue delay. Present a single page: three routes, same cost outcome, different risk and speed.
Ask the diagnostic question. Is this a permanent margin reset or a liquidity bridge for two to four quarters? The answer changes the tool - headcount, overtime control, hiring freeze, or shift restructuring.
Make a recommendation, do not just present options. A judgement call is expected of you; presenting three scenarios with no view is a way of avoiding accountability.
Then document. A short memo recording the assumptions, the options presented, and the decision taken protects the CEO as much as HR - if delivery slips, the board learns the risk was identified and priced, not missed. That is governance, not insubordination.