Mikhail Zborovskiy: Corporate values as an illusion that is destroyed by the first crisis

The true priorities of the company cannot be seen in stable times, they are revealed only when comfort ends and the business enters a crisis. Mikhail Zborovskiy expert in the development of iGaming products, claims that the crisis does not destroy corporate values, it tests them, and in the vast majority of cases shows the gap between public rhetoric about people as the main value and real management decisions.

Below, an analysis of his arguments about why reducing the team has become a universal anti-crisis reflex of business, and why this decision is more expensive than it seems at first glance.

Crisis as an X-ray for corporate culture

The expert's main thesis is as follows:

"In management, the true priorities of the company become visible not in stability," notes Mikhail Zborovskiy.

In the usual mode, the corporate rhetoric of most businesses looks perfectly correct: “we are a family,” “people are the main value,” “the team is an asset.” These formulations work well as declarations as long as the company moves in a predictable environment. But as soon as conditions change, it becomes clear who is who.

“A crisis does not destroy values, it tests them,” emphasizes Zborovsky.

According to his observations accumulated over the years of his professional career, companies' reactions to the crisis are structurally similar, and not because managers do not analyze the situation, but because under pressure, the majority chooses the fastest and most obvious scenario.

Typical scenario

Mikhail Zborovskiy describes this scenario as a sequence of three steps that are repeated with surprising regularity:

• Instead of reviewing the scaling strategy, the company goes into standby mode, hoping to survive the crisis without changing course;
• Stabilization of indicators is achieved by reducing the team and increasing the load on those who remain;
• At the same time, budgets and areas that do not provide an immediate financial effect are being cut.

It is important that Mikhail Zborovskiy consciously avoids moralizing about this pattern. His argument:

“Human resources are the easiest way to reduce costs,” admits Mikhail Zborovskiy.

In the short term, this approach really provides the necessary financial effect, and that is why it remains the most popular tool for anti-crisis balancing.

Arithmetic instead of values

One of the most acute arguments of the expert is that staff reductions are mostly not a question of values ​​in the literal sense. Publicly, business continues to talk about “care” and “support,” but internally, the main tool for adapting to the crisis remains people, not infrastructure, not marketing budgets, not the comfort level of senior management.

According to him, it is more a question of arithmetic, where people act as a short-term lever of savings, rather than a long-term asset of the company. And it is at the moment of such a choice, and not in HR communication or public materials, that the real test of the declared corporate values ​​takes place.

Japanese approach

The key alternative proposed by Mikhail Zborovskiy is a pragmatic management model. He openly calls it inspired by the Japanese approach to management:

“A crisis acts like an X-ray. It simply shows who acts according to their words and who does not,” says Mikhail Zborovskiy.

In this model, in a crisis, the first to be reviewed are not people, but management approaches, cost structures and the level of comfort of the management itself. The leader does not solve the problem at the expense of the team, but takes responsibility for the decisions that brought the business to a crisis point, and begins the correction from the top level.

Mikhail Zborovskiy directly admits that team reduction works and gives a predictable financial result in the short term. It is more difficult to maintain a team that is able to quickly restructure and implement new directions without a long acceleration. But this is precisely what, according to his argument, distinguishes businesses that emerge from the crisis faster.

Conclusion

Mikhail Zborovskiy main argument can be formulated as follows. The crisis does not create new values ​​for the company, it only exposes those that already existed. Businesses that have talked for years about people as the main asset, in a moment of pressure most often confirm that it was a short-term lever, not a long-term priority.

The alternative offered by the expert is about cold strategic calculation: a company that retains expertise instead of cutting it first, emerges from turbulence faster and cheaper than one that chose the most obvious path to savings. This is consistent with a classic study that found that only 9% of companies emerge stronger from a crisis, and the key difference lies in whether the business relied on mass layoffs or operational improvements.

Questions and Answers

Why, according to Zborovsky, does the crisis “act like an X-ray” for corporate culture?

Because in stable times, any declaration of values ​​sounds convincing, but only under the pressure of a crisis does it become clear whether the company is really acting in accordance with the stated principles, or whether these were elements of the employer’s external brand communication.

Why, according to the expert’s argument, do technology companies take the greatest risks?

Because in a crisis, they are often the first to lay off engineers, researchers, and R&D teams, that is, people who create the product itself and the future value of the business, which then slows down recovery after the crisis.

What is the essence of the “Japanese approach” to crisis management described by Mikhail Zborovskiy?

The fact that correction during a crisis begins with management approaches, cost structures, and the level of comfort of management, and not with massive team reductions in order to preserve the expertise necessary for a quick business recovery.