+++
title = "A kind view of business"
publishDate = 2024-01-25T00:00:00+01:00
lastmod = 2024-09-27T21:05:39+02:00
tags = ["mindset", "rant"]
categories = ["business"]
draft = false
meta = true
type = "list"
[menu]
  [menu.posts]
    weight = 3002
    identifier = "a-kind-view-of-business"
+++

Scrolling LinkedIn today, I saw a post talking about the entitled attitude of
business owners when hiring{{<sidenote>}}Sorry for not linking to it, I can't morally support that platform.{{</sidenote>}}.

<!--more-->

The post's point was that most businesses are not providing sufficient
compensation for the skills and effort they are asking for when hiring.

And... I can't help but agree. But I would also like to voice a bit of my
thoughts about the matter, because I feel like it needs a little bit more
context and explanation.

A business has one goal: to make money.

To maximize the amount of money a business or enterprise can bring in, a
business has to... stay in business.

What follows from that is that the business has to be structured in a way that's
resilient to adversity, but also allows for increasing its potential in several
ways:

1.  Sales/ Marketing
2.  Production/ Services
3.  Logistics/ Infrastructure
4.  HR/ Legal

The important part about these is, they're all departments that are run by
**humans**.

Hiring an employee is no different from signing a service agreement. Your
employee agrees to perform certain actions for a certain amount of compensation.

It is an adverse relationship, because while the owner of the business wants to
get the most out of the employee for the given price, the employee wants to get
the most compensation for the least amount of work.

And this is an important point. Fundamentally, an employer is on equal grounds
with the employee at every point - the business can lay them off, and the
employee can quit.

But... the employer can _actually_ put themselves at a severe disadvantage, if
they neglect the real value skilled people can bring to their business.

1.  Institutional knowledge{{<sidenote>}}I.e. all the things about your business that only   they know, such as the way your systems interact with each-other,   side-effects certain actions may have, etc.{{</sidenote>}}
2.  A practical understanding of the systems and processes in place{{<sidenote>}}The ability to rapidly solve issues as they appear, while keeping the big   picture in mind, so as not to break anything.{{</sidenote>}}.
3.  The mood and culture in the company that facilitates teamwork and collaboration{{<sidenote>}}Seeing people leave makes their friends sad, and that decreases their trust and emotional investment in the workplace{{</sidenote>}}.

If the business doesn't understand just how valuable these contributions are,
and doesn't compensate employees for their real contributions... churn starts.

Employees start realizing that their presence isn't appreciated, and that their
contributions will be valued more highly elsewhere.

In my experience, it's rare that an employee quits because of a specific event
at work. In most cases, it's the culture, attitude and mindset enforced top-down
by the business owner/ CEO/ management.

And fundamentally, this is an incentives problem. People work better when they
see that their efforts are being rewarded.

> _"Why should I work hard, performing duties and tasks that would easily warrant
> $40+/h,<br />
> when I'm only being paid $12/h?"_

So then when employees are leaving, or being fired for bringing up issues{{<sidenote>}}Yes, there is a juicy story there, and the company in question isn't in my resumé because of that.{{</sidenote>}}, this not only creates an exodus (because employees
start questioning the value and stability of their employment), but also strips
the businses of established, knowledgable, skilled talent.

Which means new employees must be trained and brought up to speed. This is a
significant expense to the business, often far outweighing the cost of
compromising with existing employees, and giving them better working conditions.

If you're a micro-small business owner, you don't have the leverage, the power
to compensate talent that bigger businesses have. You're not in a position to
ask for a laundry list of skills that would put your applicants in the top 10%.

As an applicant{{<sidenote>}}I am actively searching for a job as of this writing.{{</sidenote>}}, when I see a
laundry list of very in-demand and valued skills for a position, such
as{{<sidenote>}}This is pulled from the jobs page of a company I worked for.{{</sidenote>}}...

> -   Be a top-rated CRM specialist
> -   Responsible for:
>     -   managing customer data
>     -   automating marketing campaigns
>     -   creating effective sales funnels
>     -   streamlining the CRM management process
>     -   ensure seamless automations
>     -   optimizing funnels
>     -   designing engaging landing pages
>     -   automating personalized email campaigns
>
> [Follows a list of very undescriptive and vague "benefits", such as
>   'opportunities for rate increases', 'rates based on project requirements',
>   'we're here to support you' and such.]

Give me a guess... how much do you think this company is willing to pay for this
kind of skill-set?

For reference, Glassdoor gives a bracket of $59k to $100k. That translates to
about $28/h.

The real pay for this position is about $10-11/h, not accounting for the 'other
duties as assigned' trick that American companies try to get away with.

So this person may end up not only managing the CRM, but also working on
documentation, unrelated automations, project management, and a number of other
things that are outside of their skillset.

Of course, the position is paid hourly under the pretense of the employee (by
IRS standards) being a contractor. And so the business doesn't offer any
insurance, worker's comp, PTO, or anything of the sort, because it's preying on
international hires being 'invisible' in the system, and for whom these
conditions are better than what they can get locally.

Many of them are amazing people. Kind, skilled, enthusiastic and very willing to
learn, because as it turns out - life is hard when you're broke, so you do what
you have to do.

And the same applies to American workers, too. Ironically, they have much fewer
protections than the rest of the world has, and so they're getting exploited and
manipulated by their condition to settle for less than their labor is truly
worth.

With the rising wave of awareness about these topics (as we see on Reddit, BlueSky,
Mastodon), businesses that want to find a point of stability from which they can
grow have to start accounting for the human element.

Most of us are not happy with human-on-human violence, or violence in general.
And violence isn't limited to fists, knives or guns. It's also the lack of
respect for each-other as members of the same species.

The work an employee performs is what's on sale. Trying to get a better price is
okay in my mind, but there are limits one shouldn't cross, such as compensation
not meeting the needs of the employee.

Google can afford to take their employees all the way
through <span class="underline">[the stages of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Stages)</span>

Small businesses often can't, but they should still strive to, because not doing
so automatically undermines workplace stability, and increases costs.

It's not rare to see one skilled, established employee be let go, only to be
replaced by two or three new hires, who not only cost more, but don't have the
_institutional knowledge_ necessary for them to be effective and efficient at the
job.

So then, what can a small business do?

Focus on maintaining few highly skilled employees who are _happy_ and _fulfilled_
working for you. You can hire cheap and help newbies grow, but even then,
compensation has to follow the market, if you want to keep them long-term.

Because if you don't, all those skills and knowledge go to your competition.

If you're a CEO/owner, and you're looking for help to get the daily stuff out of
the way (communication, scheduling, task management, team coordination), get a
good assistant. They're pricy, but you really get what you pay for.{{<sidenote>}}An
assistant with some technical skills can often handle the entire back-end of your business on their own (fulfillment and deliverables excluded), and as your business grows, they'll be the perfect person to step into the COO position.{{</sidenote>}}.

TL;DR: Be kind, and think a little bit about what each of your employees _needs_.
Creating internal tension in your business, between management and employees is
the perfect way to ruin long-term prospects, both for the business, and the
people it consists of.

Thanks for reading my venty rant.

<span class="underline">[Join the FSF!](https://www.fsf.org/)</span>