I'll let you know...!
Friday 4 May 2007
Staffing - Permanent v Contractors v Associates?
Associate employees.... I've an instinct that this approach to resourcing could be ideal. People can work flexibly, build their own profile and value, and I as employer get flexible resources levels and low HR overheads - and avoid the headaches and risks in permanent employees. It's different to contractors as I'll go back to the same people, we'll get to know each other, I'll invest in training and knowledge exchange, and care for my best associates so they come back. Does that all work or am I idealistic? Perhaps they won't be quite as loyal or committed to my business growth as permanent staff?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
there are some irrefutable rules again on this..
sole trader=does what it says on the tin. easiest. cheapest. but not great for the ego. so try the rest out, lose the ego, then go back to it. you just have to maximise your day-rate and reputation.
2-6 employees/associates=ok, but boy do you have to trust the associates. they represent you and your personal brand. and you can't fire them, or demand compensation if they screw up. for employees-see below.
small company= 6 employees is the optimum. Any more, and it is a larger company, and you become a manager (or need to have one). Any smaller, and it isn't particularly viable as you have to both manage and contribute/fee earn.
contractors=fine, but same rules apply to span of control.
so the thing that will always constrict expansion from 2-6 and beyond, is who brings the new business in?
if one expects people to be 100% fee-earners, then why wouldn't they do it for themselves as a sole trader?
and loyalty-people will always buy (and work for) people they like and trust.
fwiiw.
all the best,
wise confused bloke.
Post a Comment