Rebooting Your Workforce — Managing Employee Obsolescence at Wendy’s

Everyone knows what it means to reboot your computer, but what does it mean when you reboot your entire workforce?

It’s no secret that the speed of change in business is incredibly fast. And as a result products, operational processes, customer expectations, and even business models are constantly changing. Every time one of these business factors is upgraded, it simultaneously requires the raising of the needed skills and the expected performance levels of the employees. Whenever skill requirements and performance levels are raised, the normal practice is to expect your current workforce to adapt and to meet those higher expectations through additional training.

But what would you do in a business situation where instead of the occasional need for incremental change, you were faced with a business environment that demanded both continuous and rapid change. You could call it chaotic change: a situation where products, customers, competitors, operational processes, and performance expectations needed to be constantly improved to the point where even with training, most of your current employees simply couldn’t handle it. When corporate leadership insists that in order to be successful “everything must change,” should “everything” include changing or “rebooting” the entire workforce?

What Does Rebooting Your Workforce Mean?

There are two categories of rebooting the workforce. The first is a situation where the current workforce has simply failed in its performance.

For example, this month, the school superintendent removed and then replaced the entire 150-person teaching and administrative staff at the Miramonte School in LA because of their failure to effectively handle student abuse issues. Similar rebooting has occurred within failed sports teams and at Cabela’s sporting-goods. The second category of rebooting may also involve performance issues, but the primary driver is the fact that the organization is faced with a completely new business environment. And in order to succeed, it needs a level of performance and skills that most of the current workforce simply cannot provide.

The Case of Wendy’s Rebooting its Workforce

The Wendy’s fast food restaurant chain is a bottom performer in its industry. It has more than 64,000 employees and its revenue per employee is $45,590 (compared to 400,000 employees and a markedly higher revenue per employee of $65,900 at McDonald’s). The industry itself is facing dramatic challenges from previously unheard of areas including new competitors for ready-prepared foods like Starbucks, Fresh & Easy, and even Costco. Customer expectations for food have also expanded dramatically to the point where the range of products as expanded to a wide range including breakfast, luxury products, healthy and sustainable products, and high-end coffee products. In order to be competitive, stores must be dramatically remodeled and marketing has to be improved and expanded so it goes beyond traditional advertising outlets (including social media).

Article Continues Below

In late January, the CEO, Emil Brolick announced a plan that requires literally everything to improve dramatically. All employees must be capable of providing dramatically increased levels of customer service, they must be able to continually learn new processes, and how to handle and sell completely new products. As a result, the CEO has declared that only “five-star athletes” are capable of handling these complex and ever-changing set of new requirements. To meet the changing needs, a key part of his plan is “rebooting” the workforce. Which to him means it will be necessary to re-interview every employee and manager and then only retaining those few individuals who meet the new “five-star athletes” standard.

15 Reasons Why Rebooting Your Workforce May Be Necessary and Beneficial

Cleaning house and starting fresh is certainly not a new concept. It is, however, certainly unusual to “clean out” your entire workforce. Some of the reasons that support this dramatic move include:

Reasons You May Need Completely Different Workers

  1. As competitors change, the type of employees need to change also — if your organization is now competing against completely new competitors or even firms in different industries, it will require employees with a broader range of skills and the ability to compete. Hiring employees away from these competitors may be a more effective approach than trying to retrain your current employees.
  2. An increased need for innovators — if your organization’s new goal is to dominate your industry like Apple does, you will need to dramatically ramp up your innovation rates. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that you have innovators in your current workforce (they simply weren’t needed) and developing innovators is problematic. As a result, external recruiting may be the only option for dramatically increasing the percentage of innovators in your workforce.
  3. New technology, products, and processes may require agile employees — an environment that includes constantly changing technology, processes, and a continual stream of new products may require a different kind of employee: one who is agile. Some individuals are just fast learners with the agility and speed to rapidly accept and perform after major changes, while other employees simply can’t handle a fast paced environment. Because the previous business model didn’t require agility, it is unlikely that many of your current workers will have the new required agility level.
  4. Current employee burnout may not be fixable — in some jobs (i.e. french fry cook), job burnout or extreme boredom may be unavoidable. As a result, many of your long-term employees may be burned out. Once they reach that stage, they may not be fixable and under the new expectations, you have no choice but to replace them. Fortunately, the fast pace of change in the new work environment may help to reduce burn out.

Reasons You May Need Completely Different Skill Sets, Attitudes, and Performance Levels

  1. Current employees may not be able to meet your expected performance levels — if you expect a significant (i.e. 20% or more) improvement in organizational performance, improving employee performance by at least that amount must be part of the plan. If your previous hiring and retention practices resulted in a workforce comprised of average performers (three star performers), it may be too expensive and time consuming to raise their performance level. And there is another possibility, and that is that these average performers have no interest in ramping up their performance. Or even worse, the individual simply might not be capable of dramatically raising their performance. For example if no one on your basketball team is taller than six feet but new competition requires that you have seven-foot players, no amount of training, incentives, or coaching will turn a six-foot player into a seven-foot one. Your only real option is recruiting a group of seven-foot players.
  2. Current employees may be unable to ramp up their skill levels — the continuous introduction of new products, processes, and technology will require completely different and often higher levels of skills. Current employees might not have the capacity to raise their skills to the needed levels.
  3. Retraining may not work — although retraining is a traditional solution to upgrading your workforce, raising the skills of current employees may be expensive compared to hiring during a time when there is an abundance of highly skilled talent in the workforce due to the weak economy. Retraining is also time-consuming and it may not meet the timetable set for the overall corporate transformation. One final problem is that the retraining might not work, so you will end up hiring replacements anyway.
  4. Employees may be unable to change their attitudes — employee attitudes will also have to improve dramatically. After years of being allowed to work “with a bit of an attitude,” your current employees may be unwilling or unable to change their work attitude and commitment.

HR-related Reasons Why You May Need to Reboot Your Workforce

  1. A superior workforce is hard copy — part of your overall corporate improvement plan would include gaining a competitive advantage in every area. In the case of restaurants and pre-prepared food providers, buildings, products, marketing, and equipment can be easily copied but a fast-learning agile top-performing workforce is hard to duplicate. This competitive “people advantage” is hard to duplicate even when other firms know how your HR operates. For example, even though books have been written on their people management practices, no competitor has been able to duplicate the innovative and productive workforces at Apple, Google, or Facebook.
  2. Your employer branding may require a dramatic shock — after years of hiring average people, your employer brand image could be rock-bottom and as a result, recruiting top performers may not be possible. This is especially true in retail, where potential applicants have numerous chances to interact directly with your current workforce. Given this negative image, it may take a dramatic and public move like “rebooting your entire workforce” to send a message to top performers that things have changed and that if you work here, you will be working alongside the best.
  3. With tenure, employee ROI may flatline — although it’s not true in every case, research has shown that it’s not uncommon for employee performance to level off after a few years of tenure in the job. This may be especially true for dull, routine, and low-paying jobs. With periodic raises over time, longer-tenured employees become more expensive, so you need to make sure that their performance and skill matches their higher pay level. With high unemployment rates, the ROI may be higher and it may be easy to increase employee productivity (i.e. costs versus the value of their output) by externally recruiting replacements with the appropriate skills, attitudes, and performance levels. Incidentally, even the “top graded” new-hires may reach this costs/output plateau, so the recruiting process will also have to be upgraded.
  4. High-performers may not cost any more — in the quick service restaurant industry, paying the minimum wage is common. As a result, there may be little or no pay differential between average and top performers. If top performers cost no more, it makes economic sense to hire and retain only top performers.
  5. Job security may be part of the problem — if you want continual improvement, offering too much job security may actually cause people to reduce their performance because there are no negative consequences from “staying the same.” If rebooting the workforce is a continuous process, this threat may increase the likelihood that your employees will maintain a high level of performance.
  6. Homer Simpson may work here — under the old environment, there were certainly an absence of a performance culture. As a result, it was unlikely that poor performers were identified and released. Under the new performance culture, improved performance management processes may help you find slackers and individuals who are good at hiding their weak performance and their inappropriate skill set.
  7. Keeping ahead of the competition when rebooting becomes common — although Wendy’s is currently taking the lead in rebooting its workforce, if it is successful, other firms will surely follow. If you expect to stay ahead of your competitors, now might be the appropriate time to begin planning at least a partial “reboot” of your workforce.

Final Thoughts

Historically, the typical HR response during a business downturn was to protect jobs and to “place people first.” Because we are all people, that may be a natural response. There is of course some logic in retaining the employees who you have invested so heavily in. However, if the issue was instead equipment like computers, it would not be unusual for executives to order the complete replacement of all obsolete computers.

So the question arises, “has the economic and business environment changed so dramatically that the time has come where rebooting the entire workforce should become a standard practice?” I have included the many negatives related to this practice in this article but it is clear to me that a trend has begun. If the practice’s proliferates, the remaining question is, “Are you bold enough and then do you have the courage and the ‘cojones’ to even raise the topic with your executives?”

Dr. John Sullivan, professor, author, corporate speaker, and advisor, is an internationally known HR thought-leader from the Silicon Valley who specializes in providing bold and high-business-impact talent management solutions.

He’s a prolific author with over 900 articles and 10 books covering all areas of talent management. He has written over a dozen white papers, conducted over 50 webinars, dozens of workshops, and he has been featured in over 35 videos. He is an engaging corporate speaker who has excited audiences at over 300 corporations/ organizations in 30 countries on all six continents. His ideas have appeared in every major business source including the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, BusinessWeek, Fast Company, CFO, Inc., NY Times, SmartMoney, USA Today, HBR, and the Financial Times. In addition, he writes for the WSJ Experts column. He has been interviewed on CNN and the CBS and ABC nightly news, NPR, as well many local TV and radio outlets. Fast Company called him the "Michael Jordan of Hiring," called him “the father of HR metrics,” and SHRM called him “One of the industry's most respected strategists." He was selected among HR’s “Top 10 Leading Thinkers” and he was ranked No. 8 among the top 25 online influencers in talent management. He served as the Chief Talent Officer of Agilent Technologies, the HP spinoff with 43,000 employees, and he was the CEO of the Business Development Center, a minority business consulting firm in Bakersfield, California. He is currently a Professor of Management at San Francisco State (1982 – present). His articles can be found all over the Internet and on his popular website and on He lives in Pacifica, California.



11 Comments on “Rebooting Your Workforce — Managing Employee Obsolescence at Wendy’s

  1. Hi John, I always learn from your articles and appreciate your insights. A lot of companies talk a big game about their people being the big advantage but few are willing to make the hard decisions.

    I had not heard about the Wendy’s case but applaud the CEO for stepping up the same way the school superintendent did.

    I say to business owners all the time “save your business; learn to make the hard decisions, pull the band aid off and move forward.”

  2. Absolutely excellent piece, John! Thank you for taking the time to be so thorough. I too applaud leaders who take drastic steps when needed. However, I most applaud the leaders who make continuous improvement so ingrained in the culture that a step this drastic is rarely needed.

  3. Thanks, Dr. Sullivan…
    The Wendy’s CEO wants “five-star athletes” to work in a mind-numbing, practically dead-end job for minimum wage or scarcely above ( Good luck with that…
    Instead of trying to imitate McD’s, he should consider some of his other competitors like In’ N’ Out Burger with better pay, benefits and opportunities for their employees (,6.htm)…



  4. John I have no disagreement with your article but before you can reboot your workforce you better follow some of the other advice you have given and rebooted your recruiting, hiring and retention systems.

    Simple statement. If you can’t sell it on the inside how are you going to sell it on the outside.

    Take a lesson from Gordon Bethune from Continental. He did not change the planes and he did not change the people. He changed the way he treated and worked with his people. They went from worst to best.

    As a note now I am watching those same people sink from Best to Worst again. Continental/United sink again to the lowest common denominator.

  5. The problem with this article is that it is very “American” in it’s outlook towards people. Why should a new employee, especially a minimum wage one, care about their employer when that employer has just proven once and for all that they treat their employees in the same way that they would treat a stapler or sharpie pen?

    An example is that I got made redundant from a large Telco in the Uk, as a result I will NEVER even consider their services for any other firm that I work for. As I continue in my career and I turn down thier services for places that I consult or work in, a simple, badly handled redundancy will cost them multiples of what my wages would have been.

    It has been shown time and time again that paying your staff more, treating them better has MUCH better returns than ALL the management rubbish you learn in business school.

    An example: The John Lewis Group in the UK. This is a retailer that owns department stores and a premium food retailer. As other retailers were losing market share and showed falling profits during the recession, John Lewis consistently showed growth. Even though it’s food stores are considered premium, thought of as more expensive and generally “middle class”, they still showed growth while other retails showed falls in profit.

    The difference? John Lewis is owned by it’s staff. The CEO is paid less than 1/2 the equivalent of what other CEO’s in his industry are paid. He doesn’t get share options, he doesn’t get 400 times multiples on his salary compared to the rest of his staff. Infact, written in the manifesto of the company, he is only allowed to earn a certain multiple of the average wage of his staff. Even the yearly bonuses are exactly the same percentage for everyone. So last year, I think it was 12%. EVERYONE from the shelf stackers to the CEO got 12% bonuses.

    The shopping experience here is EXCELLENT. There is NO OTHER retailer anywhere that gives anything like the levels of service or quality of this firm. Even the shelf stackers, both men and women, are IMMACULATEY dressed. The stores are clean and you can tell that every employee is actually HAPPY to be serving you because THEY OWN the company.

    The article above encourages firms to use their staff and to dispose of staff in the same way that I throw away biro pens. This is the WRONG way to encourage present and future staff to care about and work harder for the company. I know that I personally would hand my notice in there and then if I was expected to re-interview for my job and even being called a “5* athlete” would be enough for me to just walk, as it shows that management theory is more important to the management of the company than the welfare of the staff or even the company itself.

  6. Though the rationale behind rebooting workforces sounds logical & rational, what this management theory seems to completely miss is the ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE that this approach creates. High performing organisations have ingrained cultures that foster superior morale and performance from it’s employees. An organisation with a renowed ‘dog eat dog’ culture will not attract good employees or retain them. Fostering a high performance culture is the higher objective of each senior management team. Rebooting workforces is a very costly exercise that often does not yield the results that are sought. This is a fact. An organisation with higher staff turnover compared to its competitors is often the least well performing. The strategy of rebooting workforces can only be successful in very specific unique business scenarios. As a general strategy, it can only fail to deliver what it promises.

  7. @ Bree: Also well-said. At the same time, as long as you can meet the numbers, there’s job security for a recruiter in a “burn and churn” environment. (It just wouldn’t be very pleasant in all probability…)


  8. @Keith Halperin: Agree about the potential benefits to high volume contingency recruiters. However in practice, candidates will not choose a company that is considered a ‘bad employer’. If there has been phenomenal instability in a company & acrimonious employee relations, jobseekers will not flock to them (unless they’re desperate, naive or ignorant). When a candidate does not work out, both the client and candidate will end up blaming you for their woes. It’s irrational, but that’s how it works.

  9. @ Bree. Thank you. With respect: with a high rate of un/deremployment, (except for “the Fabulous 5%”) the vast majority of job seekers will take what they can get, and be glad for it, because there are *many others waiting who would be glad for it if they’re not. Furthermore, we live in a time of decreasing job tenure and increasing percentages of non-permanent workers even at non-“burn and churn” companies. This all leads to the **”YBG, IBG, TBG, LHT” “You’ll be gone, I’ll be gone, they’ll be gone, let’s hire them!” work culture. Is this beneficial to most workers and employers? No. Do I recommend/like it? No. Is it a trend/reality? Yes….

    Happy Friday,

    Keith “Not Gone Yet” Halperin

    *A major exception being the dirty, dangerous, and dull work performed by many immigrant workers, particularly illegal ones.
    **This is countered by the reluctance of many hiring managers to make what may not be a “perfect” hire for fear of the consequences, as you mentioned.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *