The well-known phrase "the peoples have the governments they deserve" is attributed to the Greeks, an expression that places on the people the responsibility of electing their rulers, and that is true. Such wise words can be extrapolated almost without alterations to the labor field, affirming, then, that "companies have the employees they deserve". A Utopia?
When you have had the opportunity to observe human behavior in different types of companies, or when you have been able to exchange knowledge with people who have done it, it is feasible to conclude that " companies have the employees they deserve."
In organizations where the value of people, respect, recognition, innovation and a sense of belonging are unalterable values and completely modeled from the highest to the most basic levels, employees are so identified with the policies and with the organizational culture that usually refer to them at all times, making similarities with the work situations they experience and any other that occurs in their personal or professional field.
They are active, dynamic and entrepreneurial people who add value to their work and always put everything that benefits the organization at the forefront, since they know that by doing so the benefit will be general.
In these types of companies there is a work environment that promotes quality in the services and products that are produced in them, employees are always willing to give more and, even when obviously nothing is perfect, a responsible and customer-oriented behavior predominates. achievement that minimizes the presence of errors in processes or complaints about deficiencies in services.
How can you feel discomfort where the staff is considered the main customer?
But this is not always the case, in other organizations where personnel policies are scarce or invented at the time when it is required to point out a fault or dispense with a person without just cause, where employees are viewed with a certain distance and are classified as diverse ways to minimize their importance or quality, where their academic degrees, experience, knowledge and skills are despised, as well as their needs and expectations are ignored, minimizing the benefits that may be granted to them or, simply, they are presented as gifts resulting from decisions taken by the members of the board as a sign of their benevolence towards those most in need, firms where the physical environment is neglected and work is done in precarious situations… what can be expected of its people?
As it is logical to imagine the people who work in these companies do so more out of necessity than out of a genuine identification with them, they feel uncomfortable with their jobs and tend to avoid making references to them, but they are not individuals oriented to generate improvements or to introduce changes, those who had this characteristic probably lasted very little in their jobs and left the responsibility of handling these repetitive and monotonous processes to people without aspirations, demotivated and conformists.
And this makes sense, it is obvious to assume that in depressed and hostile scenarios, it is difficult for enterprising individuals with high expectations of growth and development to remain in them.
So do companies have the employees they deserve? The answer is yes.
Organizations hire according to their ability to compensate for work and the quantity and quality of their benefits; Those who offer more are highly demanding in the profile of those who work in them, they try to hire the best profiles but are fully aware of the price-value relationship that this means and that, once captured, they will not only have to maintain an environment of constant challenge, but conditions must be favorable enough to guarantee the permanence of talent.
Now, those who know that they cannot offer much or do not want to do so have to settle for "the opportunities" offered by the market, individuals whose professional profile does not necessarily meet high standards or who for economic reasons, job stability or personal needs would be willing to work in conditions of low value, little compensation or oriented to avoid personal or professional growth.
These companies also tend to attract good profiles at times where the employment situation presents high unemployment rates and talent sees them as an option to overcome the absence of better offers, but in most cases they end up hiring people who will dedicate themselves to performing Strictly the work for which they were hired and even to find a way not to do it, employees who will be constantly complaining about the mistreatment and deficiencies that the organization presents and who will make all the necessary efforts to create a union or belong to the existing one, this with the intention of guaranteeing income and the longed-for job stability, the latter understood as almost unlimited permanence in the job.
There is no doubt, you cannot have quality if you do not offer quality, you cannot have identified employees if you do not offer them elements that allow it and, therefore, companies are responsible for the behavior, orientation and responsibility that show your employees.
Although at all times reference has been made to companies and organizations in the old concept that characterized them, observing them as alien to their staff, it should be noted that when talking about them, it is actually intended to identify those who direct them and have decision-making power, since they bear most of the responsibility for the treatment and assessment that is offered to the staff that make them up.
It is not strange to hear from companies that complain about the people who work in them, disqualifying their quality and response capacity, unlike others where the value that the staff gives them stands out.
This should lead to deep reflection, to an organizational examination of conscience, where one of the conclusions that will be reached, sooner or later, is that you cannot demand what is not given.
