This post from the Pondemonium blog at Inc.com explains the rationale behind hiring from a corporate and employee perspective. What is interesting is that the blogger is the decision maker who had to let people go last week.
I thought these graphs cut right to the core of employment:
I don’t know about other companies, but every time I’ve ever hired someone to work here, it was because I fully believed I’d be able to make more money with them than without them. In other words, if I pay someone $1 to do something, I expect to make $2 from their efforts or services. It’s really that simple! Unfortunately my crystal ball is sometimes blurry, the economy doesn’t always cooperate, and I’ve even been known to invest in ideas expecting future business that somehow doesn’t materialize according to my expectations.
For an employee, this same principle holds true in reverse. An employee needs to find a job that pays enough to meet basic needs and also leaves money for discretionary spending. Individuals call this “extra” money, while business owners call it “profit.” The employer and employee enter into a relationship for an identical economic need, which is to acquire “extra” money after all the basic needs have been met. No employer starts out intending to just break even, and job hunters always try to find a job that pays more than they need to survive.
What all of this means to employees and owners alike is employment should be viewed as a means to a common end. I will help you realize your dreams and goals associated with employment, such as salary, raises, job satisfaction, security, and benefits, if you will help me realize my dreams and goals, too. If I fail to do my part and am forced to let someone go, then we both lose. Likewise, we also both lose if an employee fails to do his or her part.