Recently, the talk about the reduction of foreign workforce is the rage and many are saying that they are unable to hire the correct people to work for them. One morning, it suddenly occurred to me if people did try to stop and take a step back. Think about the problem. Is the problem really about the difficulty of hiring people to do the work, or that the work that needs to be done needs to be re-designed.
If you look at it in the broader perspective. It's not true that people do not wish to work in jobs that require hard work. Drawing an analogy. Why people like to live in district 8,9, 10, 11? Is the house there any different from the houses in other district? No. In fact in many cases they are smaller. So why are people willing to stay there?
Let's link my above analogy back to jobs. Why do people shun certain types of jobs? Let's take the example of a boss of a garbage disposal company. Will you do the job of the garbage disposal man? Well, as a boss, you might do it because you have a stake in the company. Now, how about doing the job of the garbage disposal man with the actual wage that they are being paid? Will you do it now?
All the great leaders of the world always walk the talk. They are willing to go down to the ground and do the work that makes the organisation tick. If you yourself are not willing to work at that wage, doing that kind of work, what makes you think others will do it?
In Singapore, it seems that many organisations believe that
they must pay top money to people who can strategise. Is strategising
really that important? What's the use of strategy if the strategy cannot
be implemented? Do a lot of organisations pay top money to people who
can implement well? In actual fact, whether its the strategist or the
implementer, both should be paid as well. They are both important.
However, this is not what's happening in organisations here.
If people are not working in the jobs that do the implementation, why are people not blaming the people at the top that designed the jobs that no one wants to work in? Food for thought.
2 comments:
I couldn't read more than the first paragraph. While I cannot say that there is never an instance where work can be redesigned, usually it is not possible or cannot be done timely enough.
I can sense from this article that you have never been in the shoes of a businessman. When wages of the deliveryman lorry driver or the cleaner increases, are the consumers pleased with baring the brunt of the wage increment or will they give to other places? Can there be an oligarchy of eating establishments such that you either eat at their "partners" or pack your own food?
I am idealistic enough to like your point and realistic enough to find that some of the things I like as a consumer will mean that someone is doing a job they don't like, are not paid enough for or both.
I believe that's the point in organisations in Singapore. In other countries, it is common that owners of the companies are not the best paid individuals in the organisations because they believe that the true unique advantage that they have is in the people who're executing and implementing the strategies. Therefore, these implementers are paid better than the owners.
In Singapore, it's always the top people that get all the credit. I believe it's a mindset change. Will owners of companies be willing to lower their pay to pay more to their workers? Will the owners be willing to forgo their pay in order to pay their workers?
Believing in their workers. Training their workers. Investing in their workers. This is something that is not common except for those companies that are wildly successful.
Post a Comment