June 16th, 2008
There are over six billion humans wandering
around this vast world of ours. With so many people out there, does
that mean we should be sloppy with the handling of people we recruit
into our organizations?
With the depth of people of there,
there seems to be some mental pattern amongst businesses that lets them
have the right to treat them like products you can pick off the shelf.
In other words, people have become
a commodity just like the bread, eggs, fuel and oil we purchase on a
daily basis. If the product doesn't taste as good, breaks down or fails
to reach performance expectations, it is discarded for something newer.
The way we treat people is almost identical to the way we treat products.
This pattern believes that with all
the people out there vying for jobs, it's not worth to invest money
in existing people, deciding to terminate instead of rehabilitate. There's
always another person willing to take the same position and probably
for lower pay, so why bother?
Maybe there should be a stock market
for people.
Looking at it further, that's pretty
much what the entire concept of talent scouting is all about: a display
of products (people) highlighting their "value" (skills, experience
and achievements and their dollar equivalent) to potential "buyers"
(companies), who sift through the products, offering to "buy"
(employ) these people in return for their "taste" or output
(what their talents produce).
Yet what's funny is the announcements
that there's a "dire talent shortage looming" and companies
are going to be scrambling to keep up with demand." But if they
keep treating people like commodities and constantly tossing potentially
spectacular "products," it will not do anything to offset
this supposed talent shortage that is self-imposed.
Companies tend to think that if one
person has even one issue (such as a minor vacation, an active lifestyle
or some past mishap), that person is too active or in tune with their
lives to dedicate their life to the business, and they'll move on to
the next candidate who doesn't have as much ambition or problems.
For example: this one accountant has
a family and spends more time catering to that than she would her job.
Then there's this other accountant who has no life, no family and little
friends. They'll be able to do and accommodate whatever it is the company
tells them to do.
Which would you rather employ?
If you were a capitalist organization
who values money and profits over people, you'd most likely take the
second person.
But if the company had any facet of
the human factor in its structural blood and actually showed compassion
for each and every one of its people, you'd take the first one. There's
no way to distinguish the level of performance due to having a family
or an active lifestyle.
In fact, you can probably bet that
the more active person would be more productive and active on the job
than the one who has no external life outside of work.
So, you see, judging people and treating
them like products at face value does nothing to help bolster the image
nor availability of talent that every organization so "direly needs."
Instead of picking through people like
we do with apples or vegetables at the supermarket, let's take the time
to polish off that bruised apple and give it a chance to let its true
colours shine through.
For even the shiniest apple on the
surface may have a worm inside. But you never know unless you dig deeper...
Home
| About | Return
to Anecdote-A-Day Main Page | Revive
the Human Factor with HR 3.0
