PAYING THE RIGHT SALARY – FOUNDER’S PEAK IN USING HUMAN
Founders don’t need to know everything, just know the right assessment to bring people back to deploy for your system.
In fact, the greatest art in employing people is the ability to pay them according to their qualifications, not ‘overpay’ or ‘underpay’.
We can’t say he looks ‘competent’, all feelings will be at the expense of…feelings.
Because both pay methods have their pros and cons, as it’s not perfect from a CFO’s Headcount forecast & Resources Utilization point of view when leading both the admin and human resources departments – that’s suboptimal human’s effectiveness.
Paying “For the sake of money” salary.
|
|
Pros:– Easy to gather qualified and qualified people for the company. Cons:– Attracting talented personnel, equivalent to their talent, is the ‘incompatibility’ with the organization. – Poor harmony, so they have the following manifestations: Overcoming the boss and leader, poor compliance with policies, preferring to promote with what they know but lack of information (lack of perspective, experience, expertise) to help others make business decisions (sales, costs, profits) |
Example:
CCO has a very good business proposal but the company does not have enough working capital to run it.
When running with the mindset that sales exceed the ability to raise working capital, it will:
* Recruitment exceeds salary bracket
* Expectation of salary and bonus from ordered goods but not enough money to buy goods to meet sales plan (because money has not returned to pocket yet), where do you get the money to pay salaries and bonuses?
* Goods burn through the production process, QC to achieve quality and delivery schedule
* Customers receive goods but are not happy, sales and profits are bad
* Warehousing is not enough to meet the normal excess of goods
…
– Because they stay for the money, it’s easy to leave… for the money.
– When leaving, they tend to dump a pile of garbage, or in other words influence the faction and entice people who are working at the company.
– Depending on one person, the CEO’s negotiating attitude will always have to follow/follow them.
– Not actively controlling the business plan according to their own initiative, leading to inaccurate financial and monetary decisions and sometimes risking loss/deficit of the company’s capital; For example, we can borrow from a bank to follow the company’s business plan but the internal resources are not strong enough, for example.
– Do not hold resources and competitive advantages:
* Financial and accounting cannot keep up to evaluate the effectiveness of each management CV
* Internal and external customers are not connected enough and do not recognize the brand of the organization
* High degree of non-compliance with the process
* The perception of working for the organization for ‘near’ or ‘high salary’ reasons does not create enough confidence for the Board of Directors about the sustainability of the system.
Negotiating salary ‘below wages’ they really deserve.
Pros:– Save a little short-term budget. Cons:– Human resources are accepted into the company but are not satisfied because leaders do not evaluate or have the ability to properly evaluate their capacity. This does not need to be worked out to see the nature of when receiving an inviting email to work, the leader can point out strengths and weaknesses, the reasons why the company needs you and we think you are suitable for us will also demonstrate the leader’s stature and their seriousness towards this upper/middle position. – Because they are not properly recognized, they will tend to be narcissistic, quit and join another company that has a better vision of their abilities. – Looking at each other doing but not giving their best, because they are not properly appreciated or lower the experience and value they bring. Values cost a lot of money, but the owner has not experienced it, so he has not felt it, or feels it is not completely necessary for him. – Word of mouth about leadership, so few people want to join the company, leading to a company full of people working for money, for convenience, or for proximity; rarely about other competing values such as ‘inspirational’, ‘vision’, ‘mission’ or ‘well-trained’ has a clear path from thinking – management – leadership – expert ‘. |
 |