Any time you have to deal with a company, you'll find dysfunctional performance. This isn't the company's fault particularly; they have to hire people because no other species is as capable. I think that everyone has had the experience of seeing people show through the corporate veil. People are, frankly, unreliable at best. This causes corporations to perform poorly.
What would happen if a corporation took into account the whole person they were hiring? What if they considered each person as a whole person, with good points and bad points? What if they tried to make the person, not a better worker, but a better person? First, they would end up with happier workers. Frankly, you can pay happier workers less, so the company would save money there. They would also end up with people who were better, more capable workers. If a person's flaws get in the way of the job task, and the company can heal those flaws, then the person's labor would be more valuable to the company. The company would end up paying less for more.
I have never heard of a company that tries to care for its workers in this manner. A company is considered enlightened if it buys health insurance for its workers. But what if the company helped its workers towards enlightenment?It seems to me like companies are leaving money lying on the table. Rather than search and search to find a person whose flaws impinge the least on the job function, mightn't a company do better to fix the flaws in the workers they have? If they can help their workers to become better workers, better people, and better spouses, they'll create huge efficiencies in their business process.
posted at: 22:32 | path: /economics | permanent link to this entry