Even though they were trying to do more online; even though they had skills that no one else in the building had.”

And I’m sure the people in the ad department were thinking: They need to cut in the newsroom before they cut in advertising. After all, we’re the ones sellings ads to keep the paper afloat. The people in production are thinking: They can’t cut us because we actually make sure the paper gets printed correctly. The delivery guys are thinking: Without us, nobody gets their papers …

The point is, everybody can come up with a litany of reasons why one group should stay while another should be laid off. Such things are matters of perspective. And whether a layoff plan has any hint of logic is completely subjective.

To your point about your personal relationships in the newsroom not having any bearing when it comes to doing your job, I beg to differ. Workplace relationships have everything to do with getting the job done — it’s true in newspapers just as in any other profession. If you present me with a plan that I’m skeptical about, and you’ve always come off as an uncaring a-hole, especially one who seemingly had no sympathy for my recently laid-off colleagues, I have little reason to give your plan a second thought. If you come off something better, people might think twice; even though they may be hesitant about what you’re proposing, they would still be more likely to give it a shot.

As for the “working hard isn’t enough, you have to get it” argument, I’ll extend the “team” metaphor that you’ve used. A basketball coach decides the best thing for his team would be for one of his stars to be more of a rebounder than a scorer. The guy isn’t happy about it, but he does it anyway, plays his butt off, and cleans up on the boards. He isn’t happy about his role but he still plays it well. Yet, despite the player putting forth effort in his role, the scheme doesn’t work, and the finger gets pointed at the player, blaming him for the scheme’s failure because he wasn’t happy about his role (although he took it on and played hard nonetheless). As I said, many journalists may be skeptical about particular plans, but when push comes to shove, they all do what they’ve been asked, and most of them approach it with the same effort they’ve always given. If a plan is sound, then you just need people to fill their individual roles for the plan to achieve its goal. If the plan fails, perhaps it’s the plan itself, not the people who carried it out as they were asked to do, that should be re-examined.

Oh, and BTW, what part of being a team player involves alienating your teammates by slapping them with stereotypical labels without trying to reach out and understand their perspective? Perhaps veterans would not seem so defensive if the message wasn’t delivered with such abrasiveness. You can talk about how the industry is dying and thus this isn’t the time to worry about people’s feelings, but in a real office environment, people’s feelings are extremely important if you actually want to gain cooperation.

John is right that Jessica didn’t think about hurting anyone’s feelings. No one taught me that was part of my job description as a journalist. Did I miss a day of class somewhere?

I’m compassionate and diplomatic and understanding by nature, and that’s part of why I’m good at getting people to talk to me, but when it’s time to get things done, my personal relationships with the people in the newsroom shouldn’t be a factor.

Friends of mine were layed off [ha] in Santa Cruz, and the part about it that pissed me off the most was that they were chosen, supposedly, because they were young and could find other jobs.

Even though they were trying to do more online; even though they had skills that no one else in the building had.

The higher-ups chose to keep on a set of older reporters and editors that I was sure would be let go. They were closer to retirement, to pensions, to social security, and so they needed the job more.

A compassionate choice, but not one with any sort of goal (say, measurable success) in mind.

So forgive me if I’m a bit harsh myself when it comes to layoffs.

Major metros have had bloated staff for years based on outdated assumptions about what readers need, want, or expect from their local paper.

If your paper hasn’t made adjustments yet, they will.

The only question — and the one you should be asking your editors and publisher before the blood-letting begins, is whether they have a plan.

Any plan will do, frankly. Anything with a hint of logic, leadership and direction is better than sad-sack hand-wringing shoe-gazing.

That’s just a waste of time. Mine and yours.

It isn’t about just working hard, as you say later; it’s about getting it.

And getting it involves thinking creatively, figuring things out on your own, learning new things on your own … all of which is hard to do without a positive attitude.

If it were all about hard work, then circulation wouldn’t be declining, revenue wouldn’t be falling, and readers wouldn’t be telling us in droves that we’re not meeting their needs (I have survey data, if you would like to see it).

There are thousands of hard working journalists in this country (and some lazy ones, too). This isn’t about hard work. It is, as Steve, says, about being a team player. When you’re on a team, you play to win. It isn’t even a matter of not complaining or not whining, because if you’re approaching this with the right mindset, the complaints and whines never even cross your mind.