General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTreat your employees well and profits will follow
Renowned business builders carefully watch over their employees, like a shepherd over a beloved flock. They are kind, respectful, encouraging and highly supportive. They value their team and have learned that happy employees are the key to a first- rate business. This attribute is one of the powerful characteristics of award-winning entrepreneurs.
I am pleased to share with you a powerful business model called the Service Profit Chain, authored by three Harvard professors. Its premise is that if leaders honor employees, profits will be the ultimate result. It is the opposite approach from leaders who have money as his or her number one goal and for whom people are dispensable.
The model focuses first and foremost, on providing high-quality service to employees as well as to customers, with financial reward as a byproduct. It's a model used by many of the world's top companies. The points and sequential steps are as follows:
Conversely, consider a poor leader who hires the wrong people, promotes a vile culture, continually criticizes employees and they, in turn, mistreat customers who never return to shop and tell their friends to do likewise.
http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/04/03/treat-your-employees-well-and-profits-will-follow
Too too many business try to cut expenses to profitability rather than make a profit on what they sell or take care of their most valuable asset, their employees. Sadly most of us work for dolts who could give a shit about our lives, our families, our health.
liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)Our employees are our most important asset...
Those signs have all been replaced with some bullshit propaganda about returns to the investor. Prior to that change, you had to really screw up to get fired and there was never a layoff in the history of the company with the exception of a couple of facilities that were obsolete and the product no longer made sense. Now we have layoffs and firings all the time as cost cutting measures to make sure the return is there for the investor.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)And by "wrecked" I mean "destroyed employee loyalty, fostered a culture of fear and reprisal, and redefined profitability as a quarterly goal, not a lifetime goal."
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)or perhaps, rather the tyranny of the CEO bonus?
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)short-sighted business decisions.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)People doing bad things rationalize their actions to excuse what they know is inexcusable. That's not so much an indictment of "value to shareholders" as it is a commentary on people. Social justice and equality are things this world sorely lacks but given enough time, opportunity and means and even those will be used as cover to perpetrate injustice and inequality. That doesn't invalidate social justice and equality; that just calls us to be more vigilant.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)for wanting their retirement fund to grow. The fact that they aren't stuffing their money into a mattress but are using it to captialize a venture that allows people to get jobs as they provide goods and services to the rest of us is no sin either.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)right, next thing is the rationalization that hostile takeovers are good for morale.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)If a union invests its pension fund that's to be condemned for no reason other than it sounds too trickle-downish? That union investment in no way benefits the employees of the company being invested in?
What would you have people do with their retirement funds while they're still working?
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Why would you even use a Union pension fund as an example?
Investors RARELY created jobs, investor capitol for new ventures is almost impossible to obtain. Investors create profit for themselves, not to the benefit of the employees of the corporations they hold stock in.
Whatever made you think investors are a benevolent lot?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)So, yeah, I favor one-half to two-thirds of the American people without fear of embarrassment.
That money isn't sitting idle. It's going into places that employ people who in turn work for the economy as a whole, not just mowing lawns for the 1%. And, yes, a big chunk of that is from unions investing the retirement funds of members. They aren't burying it in coffee cans behind the house and where they do put their money it's being invested/loaned. It doesn't matter where the money is put: banks, bonds, munies, annuities, etc. that money is going somewhere else to do something.
stagnant money = stagnant economy
"Investors RARELY created jobs...Whatever made you think investors are a benevolent lot?"
I dunno. Why is Obama investing in green tech jobs? Oh wait! He wants to put people to work in industries that are profitable and thus, self-sustaining because it grows the economy and leads to higher revenues for the government.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)The money isn't being used to benefit the workers, period. If you think the 1% give a shit about anyone other than themselves, just look at Mitt Romney.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The president himself said he was investing in green tech jobs to benefit workers, the economy and America in general. Additionally, the companies he is investing in are expected to return a profit so they won't have to be subsidized forever and actually return revenue to the government.
Your contention is that investments do not create jobs.
If your contention is true then the President is wasting money on a pointless venture.
Perhaps this won't sit well with you but -- I think the president and his small legion of experts and advisors probably have a better grasp of this than you do and I think their stated objective are reasonable and sound. I also think the unions that invest members' funds are smart. I also think the half to two-thirds of Americans that have investments are capable of acting in their own best interest.
I'm not interested in debating wsws headlines. Facts and real-world observations are far more useful.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)So you have a better grasp than me?
You made a funny!
well, being smug and on the side of the 1% is a minority opinion here. And if you choose to hold that, wonderful, I'm going to check my mattress and dial $ for savings.
Buh Bye.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Presumably, better business might lead to things like higher profits which in turn might lead to more jobs, better wages and benefits for workers -- because I hate workers or something. I guess I only have myself to blame for daring to agree with the premise of the OP. My sins were compounded by foolishly citing the President's own policy.
Using Obama, the unions and average Americans as a sign of economic success?
On democraticunderground?
The audacity! The outrageousness!
Instead of actually addressing any points I made you post snark, smilies and baseless equivalencies before running away. I suppose the next trick out of the bag will be to say, "Well, if you can't understand it, there's no point in my explaining it to you." That's my all time favorite dodge on a *discussion* board. I'm sorry I didn't march in lockstep with your uncriticial, juvenile caricature of every household earning $150,001 or more -- except I'm not.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)The OP was about how much better employees react to decent treatment, it had NOTHING TO FUCKING DO with investments by stockholders or the President, the investment class, or any other side road you wanted to go down. YOU chose to go down that road, and therefore you only have yourself to blame if you are disappointed.
Maybe next time, start a thread that we can debate the role of the investor class in today's economy and we'll have fun.
Snark (you asked for it)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Better treatment for employees = better business. As shocking as it may be to consider, better-run businesses are probably more profitable as well. Ergo, anyone looking for a good business prospect is encouraged to treat their employees fairly and with good benefits and wages.
I honestly don't know why you are so hostile to using your own correct, positive and proven arguments to appeal to people who might not otherwise be exposed to it. If your motive is to actually make life better for workers then it makes sense to encourage those who employ those workers to treat them better. Who cares if that relies to an appeal of self-interest? At the end of the day the employee is better treated.
What's equally inexplicable is your hostility to investment. Apparently there's no explanation, just evasive emotional reactions. If you expecct me to hate investors because they're investors I'll say flat-out, "No. That's absurd and pointless." Have I sinned? I dunno. All I get emotional evasions -- which pretty much tells me all there is to know about that.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I simply posted an article for everyone to ponder. Why you expect more from me is beyond my understanding. I have no need (nor was it ever my intention) to do anything But post the article. One last time, you took a detour and crashed. I chose the highway.
Last time, Buh bye. If you feel you absolutely must have the last word, have at it.
Oh and SNARK
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"Our people are our most valuable asset". Someone familiar with the actual corporate culture edited the poster with a sharpie, replacing "valuable" with "renewable".
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)is that short term profits go directly to those running the company (so win!) and if it causes long term losses those can be covered by demanding a bailout from the feds.
So there really is no incentive to develop and maintain talent.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Put another way (credit to my boss) "Once the company gets large enough, each employee will rise to the level of their incompetence." Meaning, everything is so massive there is no way to accurately and immediately take stock of a person's performance. If your company is small the effects of an employee can be seen and dealt with immediately but once things go mega-corp employee review becomes a semi-annual rating of 1 to 5 or some such nonsense. In the mania to make everything "objective" there's no "personal." That's because the supervisor has already risen to their level of incompetence.
People like Dimon endure because, like the companies they run, they've developed an inertia. They're too big to turn aside and react. Sure, they can handle large transactions others can't but in the end they will be their own worse enemy because they lack the ability to react nimbly to changing cirmcumstances and have to constantly move forward simply for the sake of movement -- looming icebergs be damned.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)and is unfortunately way too accurate today. And many behemoths fail for exactly this reason.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Everything is a balance. Extremes should be avoided. I'm a pro-balance extremist.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)He manufactures very, very expensive high-end home audio speakers - prices start at $12,000/pair and go up to $200,000/pair. His speakers are widely considered to be the finest in the world and he is wildly successful in that particular worldwide boutique market. I've met the man on numerous occasions and talked to him at great length. He even let me drive one of his Ferraris when I visited his factory for a tour.
The turnover at his company is virtually zero, both boom and slow times - however there are almost never slow times - are rewarded proportionately throughout the company. Wages and benefits are high/excellent respectively. Consequently employee loyalty to him and his loyalty to his employees is extremely high.
As this fellow once told me, "Without them I would be nothing. I would still be building speakers one pair at a time in my garage."
I would work for him in a heartbeat, and the sort of double-weird thing is that he's a Mormon, where I am a democratic socialist and an atheist. I have as much respect for him as any person I have ever known in my 50+ years. He does things the right way, and it shows in every facet of his business.
chickypea
(30 posts)CEOs of large and small companies report to Wall Street if they are traded publically. They only care about the bottom line- profits, profits profits.
There are some companies that are enlightened- happy employees make productive employees. However more and more we see companies reverting back to the early 1900s in business practices- emulating those Victorian sweatshops (think Charles Dickens works) instead of progressive mode. Funnily, it is those companies that are indeed progressive that are thriving, and those that prescribe to the Victorian era ideal of "bleeding the workers dry"
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)that current business practices are entirely focused on the short term profits even at the expense of long term growth and stability.
So treating people horribly, extracting as much work as possible from them, then firing them in a month is good . . . for this months profit. It means lower productivity and more expense due to the turnover in the long run but by then the CEO may very well be gone, sold off his stock options and is now at a new company showing them the same profits he was able to achieve at the last place.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Response to DainBramaged (Original post)
DainBramaged This message was self-deleted by its author.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)(which acquired the company I used to work for) handed us all sorts of propaganda about how well they treated their employees and what a great place it was to work, and it was going to be a whole glorious world of kittens and butterflies and unicorns and we totally respect our employees and blah blah blah... Except for the hundreds of employees they laid off and the hundreds more whose jobs suddenly were located in another part of the country after they promised us up and down that wouldn't happen. As a corporate serf these days, you're just a piece of office furniture.