Introduction
Layoffs are an inevitable part of a cyclical economy. During this downturn many employers have reduced their workforce because of shrinking profits. Since the early 1990s, this is the first time that such large-scale layoffs are expected to be implemented. Part of Georgia governor Sonny Perdue's budget proposal for the fiscal year was to rid the state government of more than 4,700 jobs during fiscal 2004 and2005 out of about 100,000 positions, according to the Office of Planning and Budget. Aside from this, in June 2004, employers took 1,379 mass layoff actions, according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. In each such action, at least 50 persons were involved from one establishment, and the total number of workers involved was 134,588 (Salzer, 2004).

Downsizing has spread like the plague and it has been said that if the spending cuts continued at the same pace, they would wreak immeasurable havoc on the education system as well. On April 8, 2004, the University of Georgia informed 47 of its employees that they were laid off effective June 30 as a result of ongoing state budget reductions and the consequential change in departmental missions. The number of applicant students is massive, but the resources are simply not there and the result is that a lot of students will not be able to go to school simply because the system can not afford to pay the teachers. The reality of downsizing has to be faced; rather, it has to be prepared for. Human resource professionals must realize that downsizing often becomes the need of the hour, and when there are no two ways about it, it is better to plan for such changes and ‘right-size’ appropriately (Jackson, 2004; Salzer, 2004).

HR Planning:
Layoffs are simply a change process and must be dealt with the delicacy required to handle and implement any other change. If layoffs become essential, HR managers should just not say that headcount needs to be reduced. Rather, a number of factors should be taken into consideration like how can the goals of reduction (lower operating costs, increased efficiency and effectiveness of services, streamlined hierarchy) be achieved, given the company's culture, heritage, and business cycle, and the talent it needs to go forward. But even then, it is recommended that these factors are considered before layoffs become a desperate necessity.

When E. F. Schumacher published his denunciation of large bureaucratic organizations, ‘Small is Beautiful’, HR professionals all around the country started advocating rightsizing and the merits of a small, lean organization, sans all the hierarchical layers. Rightsizing by design also became a much-touted mantra: organizations started looking at the prospects of planning a right-sized organization for greater efficiency rather than having to face the grim reality of downsizing when conditions proclaimed it necessary (Perry, unknown).

Corporate fat and muscle are two different concepts, and if an organization wants to rightsize by design, it has to ensure that the organizational structure never accumulates corporate fat – which might have to be disposed off in difficult times. What the HR department can do is to analyze the objectives of the company and then determine the level of resources needed to meet these. The skills and the expertise that the company needs should be identified, also those areas should be identified where technology has a higher profitability rate than humans, and in these areas humans should be replaced by technology. In an organization, there are often some jobs which can be performed by people with mediocre talent, while others need people with outstanding skill, hence both these areas should be identified and positions filled in accordingly. Unnecessary positions should be eliminated altogether. Hence, the above are some ways in which the HR department can plan the rightsizing process, and effectively design the organization’s employee structure in such a way so that the organization is capable of optimal performance (Perry, unknown).

When rightsizing is done by design rather than reaction, it makes this process more planned and predictable, rather than a blind leap into the unknown. For example, the business necessity of Limited or Per Diem positions should be carefully assessed because in the absence of compelling business reasons, these positions are the first to be eliminated when lack of funds or lack of work necessitates a decrease in staffing levels. Layoffs, downsizing or rightsizing, whatever the moniker may be, these processes can often fail and lead to a company’s fight for survival. But there are ways of doing it right. Rightsizing by workforce design can help the company and its employees in a remarkable way. For example, the employers will not have to worry about a dearth of talent when they need it most in difficult times, and employees will not have to suffer the psychological aftermath of painful layoffs in the company, such as the survivor syndrome (Becker, 2001).