Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh
I'd say the purpose of a company is to serve the interests of its stakeholders. The customers are stakeholders, certainly, but so are the employees. And the shareholders.
|
Disagree. A company cannot exist without customers. A company exists to perform a function, and that function is defined by the customers that the company serves.
If customers no longer desire the company's services, it may as well not exist.
If a company does not serve the interests of the stakeholders you refer to, the company can still go on (although it may be weakened), but if it ignores the customer it's doomed. So the purpose of shell is to serve it's customers (pretty much everyone) by providing them with oil quickly, cheaply and efficiently. The purpose of your local restaurant is to provide it's patrons with an excellent dining experience. The purpose of the restaurant is not to satisfy the waiter's desire to wait tables, or the cook's desire to cook.
As for what the company
is, the company is the employees, and whatever equipment and capital it has accrued. Depending on the nature of the business, the balance of company ownership will fall more towards shareholders (who own the "capital") and employees (who operate it). A fast food chain would lean more towards the shareholders, as the worker's labour is of less value then the equipment. An IT company, on the other hand, would have almost all value held by employees. The equipment is of little value compared to value of the worker's skills.
Quote:
|
The different interests are sometimes in contradiction with each other, so it's a balancing act. And I don't put much stock in the concept of "fairness". Too subjective. Too top down, too. (Someone somewhere deciding the specifics of what is "fair".) I prefer more peer-to-peer concepts such as "contracts" and "acceptable".
|
Fairness is
very important in terms of personnel management, and it is inherently subjective, and judged by every single individual worker. If a worker doesn't feel his work place is fair, he will contribute less work, and will feel aggrieved. If a worker feels like the company has been generous towards him (and he respects the company), he will do his best too repay that debt out of gratitude.
You cannot define fairness is a simple manner. A new immigrant from the Philippines will find work conditions fair that an Irishman or American would find exploitative. However so long as any degree of inequality exists within a company, eventually the worker will inevitably find his conditions unfair. It is in manager's interests to ensure that his worker's always feel that they're being treated fairly (and if you want to be manipulative, even through deception).
Personally, I don't feel "fairness" is "top-down" I view it as "bottom-up". It's not managers that decide whether arrangements are fair, it's individual workers.