Paul Wolfe wrote:The problem I have with the "it's business, not personal" mentality is that the moment you hire someone to work for you it becomes personal because you are now helping that person secure the future of their family. Many - not all - business owners don't care about their employees and do sell out to make a bigger profit. These same employers bitch when the employees are working for a paycheck as opposed to the betterment of the company.
Anything that anyone does which has an effect on someone else's life is personal, to claim otherwise is simply a cop out so you don't haave to feel guilty for screwing people.
I appreciate what you're saying Paul, as everyone (even the owners/CE's/bosses et al) are human beings with private finances that are dependent on their trade. The issue here is the differentiation between what a business "is" and the
perceived boundaries of personal interaction and reward.
A business really is nothing personal; simply put, it is
input-throughput-output, nothing more. Anyone within that cycle is a "number" who has a job to do. In turn, there is reward, in payment for that service. No personal relationship exists at that level. "Working for a paycheck" is not an issue, is quite correct and, if the company is structured correctly, will not present a problem. It is the staff who take sick when they are not ill, drag their feet, complain incessantly, affect morale and so on, who really deserve to be sacked. These type of people illustrate a one-way (the staff member attacking the business), "personal" interaction which is not the companies right to resolve; it is the individuals right to control.
A company "owner" has every right to do whatever they want with their business (as you say), without contemplating the knock-on effect to staff as (pretty much) any job is transient by nature, as is personal security. If a member of staff does not perform, or has not secured their own future by taking out insurance, expanding the scope of their experience/knowledge etc. that is their problem, not the companies.
Most businesses do tend towards the individual and accomodate their staff (it doesn't sound like it, but I do..!). However, there is the perfect right to view the business as a seperate entity which, in most cases could be automated and depersonalised, negating any effect presented by personality.
An analogy: Your home is your home and not for anyone to adversly affect. You can sell it, destroy it, rebuild it, move it, paint it, rename it etc..... At the end of the day it is yours, irrespective of who you have residing there. There are rules which must be followed and legislation that defines the way you treat those inside. As long as you meet the law, you can do what you please. What right does anyone living there for free have to affect your decisions? The only way that you would change your mind, is at your discretion. However, if you were offered something in return (rent, painting, cleaning etc.), you would have to consider the proposal. Yet, should they just choose to complain, offer an unreasonable argument, cause trouble and add to your overheads (e.g. by leaving lights on, wasting water etc.) and present you with nothing beyond what you can secure elsewhere for less hassle, what would you do.......Evict them, sell up and move; or just swallow the problems and pay up??
This thread is an excellent read and a very good insight into business views from a variety of sources.
Peace....Take it easy.
Pete