182 lines
8.7 KiB
Markdown
182 lines
8.7 KiB
Markdown
+++
|
|
title = "A kind view of business"
|
|
publishDate = 2024-01-25T00:00:00+01:00
|
|
lastmod = 2024-12-08T03:47:32+01:00
|
|
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>
|