Organizations and their leadership usually and rightly so focus on the bottom line, the profit and loss, and quarterly returns. Because if an organization is not profitable, it will soon not exist. However, I’d like to make the argument for a more balanced approach going forward. I recognize there are organizations that are considered a Great Place to Work that do have a focus on their workforce. But unfortunately, more companies than necessary focus more on the bottom line with not enough of a focus on their workforce. Even students going through MBA programs learn more about the financial success through profit and loss than the importance of the bottom line of the workforce.

I believe organizations need to consider organizational culture and leader effectiveness that usually lead to a better workplace experience. This has been written about many times over the years. Interestingly, even in this growing era of AI, in the book Empire AI, Sam Altman, one of the leaders in this space, was concerned that if his organization scaled up too quickly it might negatively impact the organization’s culture and mission alignment.  Peter Drucker, considered by many as the Father of Management, has been credited with saying that organizational culture eats strategy for lunch.  In other words, irrespective of what strategy an organization adopts, if the culture is not healthy, it will not succeed. 

A historical perspective

The following highlights those organizations that have pursued the bottom line focus.

1. Sears, perhaps the grandfather of Amazon. At one time, Sears had over 3500 stores nationwide; today they stand at 5 and soon to be 4. They were at one time one of the biggest organizations on the planet and responsible for 1% of US GDP. They are now a shadow of the organization they once were.

2. Blockbuster, which seemed to have a video store on every corner and had over 9000 stores nationwide, today has one in Oregon, which I guess serves as a museum. This business was the precursor to Netflix. As the story goes, there was talk of Blockbuster purchasing Netflix, but that was not deemed as plausible or smart. So they passed on it, and as the saying goes, the rest is history.

3. In the early 2000s, there was a book that hit the shelves titled “Good to Great”. This book highlighted, backed by research, the best companies in the world that others should consider modeling after. The research consisted of reviewing over 1400 companies and their performance over 40 years. The eleven selected were considered by the author and researchers to be the ones to watch. One of those companies was Circuit City. The present state of Circuit City is that it declared bankruptcy and no longer exists. Two of the other companies on the list, Fannie Mae and Pitney Bowes, have been in serious decline for some time.

4. Last is General Electric, or GE. Jack Welch was a popular CEO at the time, and numerous books were written on him with the context and background of great leadership. Back then, GE was known to be one of the largest in the world with a very positive reputation. However, like everything, not all is what it seems. 

Jack Welch was also labeled “Neutron Jack” because he’d go into small towns where there were underperforming GE manufacturing facilities and shut them down. In turn, many workers’ and their families’ lives were turned upside down and impacted by unemployment. In addition, Jack Welch and GE were credited with Rank and Stack. In other words, managers would assess their workers and rank them from top to worst performer and push the bottom 10% of their workers out the door. Not exactly a model citizen for creating a psychologically safe environment, healthy organizational culture, or great leadership. 

These organizations and its leadership were primarily focused on the bottom line, at what some might say at the expense of its workforce. Most of them are now in the cemetery of great organizations of the past or soon to be. You would think organizations and their leaders would learn from the past. But perhaps not, as you’ll see below.

History Repeats Itself

• In 2013, Microsoft did away with Rank and Stack and seemed to be glad that it did. Now, in 2025, under the guise of Performance Management, they seemed to be adapting it again. If you listen to their CEO, it is all about raising the bar and performance. Yet some of its critics claim it is in the new version of Rank and Stack. 
• Amazon’s founder and former CEO seems to believe that long-term employment leads to mediocrity. Hence, Amazon prefers to force workers out of the organization every three years. This sort of contradicts what I have read: the replacement rate of a worker is 150% of their salary and can go up to 400% depending on the level and experience of the employee. There are articles and videos highlighting Amazon’s push for voluntary turnover enabled by creating a high-pressure and stressful work environment.  The exact opposite of what today’s workforce is looking for.  
• In addition, today’s increasing skills shortage and constant push for new workers seem to be catching up with Amazon. An internal memo seems to highlight that there are concerns as to where to get a replacement workforce, especially in large distribution centers once they’ve pushed so many out over time.  You might say that Amazon is gaining a negative reputation as a workplace, the opposite of what many strive for today, to be known as a Great Place to Work. 
• Meta is another one that is busy making changes. Recently, Zuckerberg told employees that he was raising the bar on performance management (sound familiar). Meta laid off 3600 employees for poor performance after many had previously received positive reviews in their “year of efficiency”.  Since 2020, they have cut 35,000 employees. This leads to lower morale, increased disengagement, and reduced psychological safety. 

These actions remind me of the terms of the past and, unfortunately, still today, that include downsizing, rightsizing, re-engineering, and outsourcing, which are usually not good for the workforce. This also does not include those organizations that are leaning into AI again at the expense of their workforce. For example, IBM laid off 8000 employees because of its focus on AI, only to have to rehire 8000 employees because of AI. 

The Business Case for Humans in Organizations

It has been highlighted in numerous books, writings, research, and examples that when organizations, through their leadership and organizational culture, create a healthy workplace, it pays off.  Just consider the following:

1. Today’s workforce is looking for autonomy, doesn’t want to be micromanaged, purpose, to do something bigger than a paycheck, and mastery, to continue to learn. They are looking for happiness at work, to be appreciated; a simple thank you, which is free, ranked higher than pay in a study of 200,000 workers worldwide.

2. Disengagement is costing companies $7 trillion in lost productivity. It produces higher absenteeism, lower productivity, lower profitability, and higher turnover. Turnover alone can cost over 150% to 400% of an employee’s salary. In addition, you have 70% of leaders experience significant stress, and for 70% of the workforce, their manager is their biggest stressor.

3. On the other side, in high-trust organizations, people are less stressed, more productive, more engaged, and are prone to less burnout. A happy employee tends to be less sick, less absent, more loyal, and more creative. This tends to be seen in Great Place to Work organizations, where employees tend to achieve over 8 times more revenue than those not in these types of organizations.

What organizations and their leaders need to consider is if their employees are engaged, disengaged, or just don’t care. Because this has implications for the bottom line and makes the business case for emphasizing humans in the workplace. I believe what organizations need is to focus on their leaders and on the human side of the business. When it comes to leadership, I define it in the following manner.