The Strategic Imperative Not to Hire Anybody
blogs.hbr.org
The Strategic Imperative Not to Hire Anybody
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: The Strategic Imperative Not to Hire Anybody
#2Since 1975, the upper class has done a great job of making sure the proceeds of economic growth and progress go mainly to them. Increased productivity is good only when the benefits are shared.
Re: The Strategic Imperative Not to Hire Anybody
#3Very similar to the arguments of the Luddites: The power loom is putting workers out of a job!
Some attempt to do something which gets the unemployed back to work could be good, but trying to create make-work by using more people than a job requires is not.
Re: The Strategic Imperative Not to Hire Anybody
#4>My clients were amazed by how much productivity they could squeeze out of their people in the downturn.
Overworking only works for a few months, after which people's health will start to suffer. All these managers are deluding themselves if they think this is going to keep on indefinitely. OTOH, if some people were underworked and they are just starting to pull their weight, that's another matter.
Re: The Strategic Imperative Not to Hire Anybody
#5We have a situation of 'haves' and 'have nots'. A corporation of 100 employees has every reason to prefer that those employees work at 120% (50 hrs/wk).
Our society would benefit if instead the corporation hired 20 additional employees, and everyone worked at 100%.
Re: The Strategic Imperative Not to Hire Anybody
#6Very similar to the arguments of the Luddites: The power loom is putting workers out of a job! Some attempt to do something which gets the unemployed back to work could be good, but trying to create make-work by using more people than a job requires is not.
The article is not about trying to "create make-work by using more people than a job requires". It's about cutting costs by not hiring all the people a job requires as full-time employees. Full-time employees are entitled to better treatment and benefits than temps and contractors. Also, offshore full-time employees cost a fraction of US employees. That's what the article is about.
Personally, I think the article is refreshing because of its no-nonsense and no-bullshit approach. I've been in too many corporations that keep telling us employees how much they love us while creating an increasingly hostile environment at the same time.
Re: The Strategic Imperative Not to Hire Anybody
#7We you can't fight them join them. I guess the best option is to own a company instead of working for one. I'm pretty much preaching to the choir here but it's worth mentioning
Re: The Strategic Imperative Not to Hire Anybody
#8Very similar to the arguments of the Luddites: The power loom is putting workers out of a job! Some attempt to do something which gets the unemployed back to work could be good, but trying to create make-work by using more people than a job requires is not.
I'm definitely not in favor of creating needless jobs, and companies that can be creative and do more with less in a sustainable fashion (without creating a poor quality of life for those doing it) should be rewarded. That being said, overworking people and pushing them aside when they fall out of fashion is short sighted and will create long term problems for society as a whole.
Re: The Strategic Imperative Not to Hire Anybody
#9Very similar to the arguments of the Luddites: The power loom is putting workers out of a job! Some attempt to do something which gets the unemployed back to work could be good, but trying to create make-work by using more people than a job requires is not.
Make work is useless, that's for sure, but a part of the arguments of the luddites stands, as it was against the upheaval of social structures, not technological structures. Unfortunately, these two are closely tied, and technological progress will lead to social upheaval, mainly what we call today structural unemployment.
Sure, you automate the factory, so you fire the workers, but they're not machines or work animals that can just be put out of their misery. The capitalist approach is that their working wage is large enough for them to save money to tide them over. Well, look how well that works in practice. What's the average household debt in the US ?
Re: The Strategic Imperative Not to Hire Anybody
#10Very similar to the arguments of the Luddites: The power loom is putting workers out of a job! Some attempt to do something which gets the unemployed back to work could be good, but trying to create make-work by using more people than a job requires is not.
Indeed; I've been reading this same spiel as long as I can remember reading the business press and the like, back to sometime in the '70s.