I, along with some seniors from Standard Chartered Bank, went to meet the-then finance minister SAMS Kibria in late 2000 to share our decision to acquire ANZ Grindlays Bank.

Kibria, while consenting, also reminded us: "Jobs are very precious. Please make sure people don't lose their jobs."

Sadly, we were not able to retain all officials from both banks as we had to show signs of synergy from the merger.

Rationalisation of headcount was one of the major synergies identified.

However, we did conduct a core and non-core analysis and offered redundancy to a few of senior and middle managers.

Our human resources division organised training and counseling sessions so that those colleagues didn't feel abandoned and found suitable jobs.

A telecom company CEO, who had previously led the country's largest cell phone company, found himself in deep trouble after joining another similar company. It had too many people, more than it required. Since it was a growth company, nobody bothered to do any sort of "wallet-sizing" or any analysis on "return on people."

The company was rumored to have become almost a white elephant. Underperformers and super-performers were rated and recognised in the same way. Officers were being paid overtime, and not all promotions or upgrades were justified.

In this situation, what could he do to successfully transfer and drive the company forward? Especially when the second position was being challenged by a merger?

Any management book would have told him to review the business model and product offering, bring in efficiency, and ensure cost synergy. Their balance sheet had been in the red, their products were not much talked about, and yet they were carrying a large pool of "passengers."

Most of their lieutenants had lost the ability to drive anything forward. The new CEO decided to do the same thing that successful companies all over the world have been doing: Reduce cost and optimize operations.

While successful companies globally believe in the principle of "taking care of the best and being fair to the rest," there is no reason not to go for wallet-sizing or optimum capacity modeling. CEOs should always know: Be it a client or employee, who is offering what to me? Which product is my value creator, and which one is the value eroder?

Most of the time, it is like a jaw -- the space between the upper and lower ones is the net profit. In order to maintain the net spread, or even increase it, one has to push the upper one up or force the lower one down.

This is exactly why, during a bumpy ride, companies mostly focus on cost reduction.

It wouldn't be an overstatement to say that most of our local companies are over-staffed, and that we have yet to foster a "performance culture".

A few years ago, I remember telling the CEO of an electronic media company that they were heavily over-staffed. He wasn't exactly pleased to hear that.

He was jubilant that he had created so many jobs, but nobody was paid a good salary there.

On the contrary, when I asked the owner of a consumer electronics and pharmaceuticals company why he was not paying well the staff at a newspaper company he also owned, he said, "I see everything as a business. If they make money, I reward them accordingly."

As we move forward with our economic and corporate successes, the government and all relevant regulatory institutions must allow and encourage companies to be profitable through performance improvement and cost reduction.

Yes, the job is precious, but more important is creating an environment where companies can do business and share their success.

The author is an economic analyst having worked with several global companies in senior roles.