sed Wall Street. But those of us on the softer side of the executive table-in Human Resources and Public Relations-were more than a little uneasy. A downsizing of this size was unprecedented even for AT&T, which had developed a reputation as the incredible shrinking company ever since divesting its telephone company subsidiaries twelve years before. Much of the previous downsizing had been accomplished through voluntary programs, but, although AT&T's separation benefits were among the best in industry, fewer people were raising their hands to be let go. An early retirement offer several months earlier had at- tracted only 3.6 percent of eligible managers. Furthermore, while in prior downsizings as many as 30 percent of the people whose jobs were eliminated were able to find other positions within the company, this time Human Resources estimated that a far smaller percentage would find such a safe haven. The current estimate was that as many as 30,000 people would be let go. We took pains to ensure that the news release and the accompany- ing internal communications were as straightforward as possible. We made a clear distinction between the positions being eliminated and the number of people who were likely to be affected. We spelled out the reasons for the downsizing as best we could, division by division. And we detailed the separation benefits being given to everyone af- fected in an effort to demonstrate how compassionately it was all being done. The first day's news coverage was relatively straightforward and neutral, although most newspapers led with the 40,000 figure. The New York Times's headline was typical: "Job Cuts at AT&T Will Total 40,000, 13% of Its Staff." And as if taking its cue from our own CFO, the story's opening lines continued, "The AT&T Corporation an- nounced the biggest single job cut in the history of the telephone busi- ness yesterday, and one of the largest corporate work-force reductions ever."2 If AT&T's bean counters were cheered by the prominence given the raw numbers on the downs