There is a conflicting interest between two modern enterprise needs, both considered essential for good management. On the one hand is required, particularly in personnel management, flexibility to adapt quickly to changing global market. On the other continues to be vital, as before, maintaining a lasting relationship with employees that make up the basic structure of the company.
The flexibility in the management of personal concerns to an extent certainly not negligible employees. As you know, the sort of labor laws in Italy is the leading cause of stiffness. When you need to carry out layoffs or reductions in force, the significant time and cost which inevitably undergoes factors are inconsistent with the maintenance of modern competitive conditions that today the market demands. The need to innovate products, processes, organization and selling strategies that are more constrained by lack of capital investment by the rapid obsolescence of staff, who can not always be retrained to meet new requirements. And, more often, during critical periods of temporary economic crises, the inevitability of reducing the staff to reduce costs quickly collides with the real possibilities of implementation and can strongly affect the recovery, often resulting in the closure of the company.
Hence the continuous and repeated requests from the business of being freed from the constraints on labor relations. It is not only the higher cost of labor that takes away the competitiveness of our industries. If we compare with European countries, which is correct as a reference on the international market, we find that labor costs in Italy is not much higher than the other, rather than some is even lower. Are the difficulties of being able to move quickly in personnel policies that make a difference and that inhibit, suppress, and sometimes actually prevent the emergence of new business initiatives.
face of these undeniable requirements, we know that there are others that appear in the opposite direction. In every company there are employees who, contradicting a basic principle of personnel management, are virtually irreplaceable or otherwise occupy key positions in which the exchange takes place with considerable difficulties and significant costs. Their sudden and unexpected release from organic, if it happens, it causes serious damage to the company. For these employees entrepreneurs would exactly the opposite of the much-vaunted flexibility, or at least want a unilateral flexibility, that is to them to decide the time of termination of employment.
is a clear contradiction. Entrepreneurs can not expect more flexible relationship with the employees who no longer interest the company and at the same time, with the support of appropriate legislation, to stiffen it against those who prefer to continue to maintain their addictions. The company loyalty is built on time, with clear actions, not misleading, to be offered exclusively to those who want to keep entered, regardless of fully by the terms of flexibility.
Entrepreneurs must first acknowledge that corporate interests do not always coincide with the interests of employees. E 'false to assert, as they happen often, that the interests always coincide simply not true. On this issue should dictate the market always invoked, and not only when it suits them. The relationship between company and employee is correct when the constraints that hinder the change, that is, to break the contract are equal and bilateral. First, it is of interest both to have alternatives available, so you can treat the same conditions on which to report.
experience in personnel management shows that there are very different situations between the various business positions. The positions affecting the core businesses of the company, the more related to its specific know-how, based on the experience accumulated over many years of work, are more difficult to replace. For them it is not easy to find outside options. But the situation is symmetrical: in these cases, employees are more difficult to identify companies that can take advantage of highly specialized experience. Use the competition can often be counterproductive: it can trigger reactions, not entirely predictable. But if we take into examination generic activities (administration, logistics, IT, ...), which is not the "core business", the ability to put an end to mutual ratio increases considerably, sometimes to the point that they can enrich manages mutually beneficial experiences. As a result, projects that are divided loyalty must be designed and implemented just for the top positions, the most related to the know-how.
The mechanisms that favor the continuity of the relationship can be many: contracts that continue over time and with prizes for loyalty bestowed report, contracts with non-competition agreement, compensation plans with strong incentives on the results, etc ..., all aimed at ensuring as much as possible, even on an ethical level, loyalty of the employee.
model far more effective, and which we expect will be widespread in the future remains in our view, the involvement of employees in company management and their direct economic interest, which is obtained by making them shareholders, making them share in that ' company.
This is a subject of at least a century old. In the past, and still is periodically revived, notably by the union of Catholic inspiration, but regularly put back in the attic. The truth is that nobody has an interest in realize: I do not have unions because it sees the danger that its members are transformed, even if only partially, entrepreneurs, business associations have not, but that they would enjoy the greatest benefits, because employers are afraid of losing control ' company. He prefers to focus on results-based bonuses or other forms of participation. The experiences in reality there were. In Germany in particular the participation of workers (Mitbestimmung) has been operating for decades, apparently with good results. The same can not say about the stock options offered to executives of American companies, but it was a wrong formula. Although the experiences in Italy, for the most positive side, there are more than you think. The argument is no longer taboo, as in the past. The larger companies have more or less all programs offered to employees of stock subscriptions in some way constrained. But even medium-sized companies: we want to mention among the many
The recommendation that comes from us, which has the privilege of having proposed and supported shareholding in the company's capital by employees since the sixties, is that the offer is free, without constraints to maintain possession of the shares over time, and absolutely no facilities or privileges of purchase. It should not be a sharing of series B, issued for the master's benevolence, but complete, with the same title with that of other shareholders. Any employee who adheres to the proposal, and decides to give up a part of their salaries, must be fully aware of the investment that has decided to make, and act accordingly. Too often, however, has the feeling of having accepted gifts from half in which he works. Only with full participation can be achieve the objectives of a loyalty based on concrete interests in the full and equal respect for the dignity of man and worker.
is added, finally, through direct equity participation, the location of the most important collaborators becomes very close to that of a self-employed with full benefits in the behavior and how to interpret the work that this entails.
These conditions are without doubt the best guarantee for continuity and loyalty in the relationship with the company.
