As a writer myself, I understand the difficulties of creating “attention-grabbing”
headlines and titles. And this week I was struck by the headline, ‘Why the rise
in non-permanent labour is fast becoming a C-Level issue.’ Three things aroused my curiousity,
possibly more as a result of my own thought processes than the writer’s
intentions.
- What was the definition of “non-permanent labour?”
(With my own research identifying a world-leading company having reduced
headcount by 110,000 over the past 10 years it seems clear that no job
is permanent.) - Is it rising and why? (How can business leaders expect
to build brands if they do not have engaged employees who share the
organisation’s purpose?) - Why is it becoming a C-level issue? (Surely all
staffing is a C-level issue, and so what makes this unique?)
It was thus with some misgiving that I read that the writer was talking specifically
about “a contingent, non-permanent
workforce” and the fact that a contingent workforce “allows businesses to scale their staffing requirements in line with
business performance and changing needs.” In other words, people
that you can employ or not employ as the situation demands.
Now, I can readily think of instances where this makes perfect sense. Supply
teaching, for instance, where a qualified teacher is called in at very short
notice to replace another who is unavailable or indisposed. Furthermore, as an
accountant, I can understand and even appreciate the logic. Actually
the article itself spells it out – the fact that “labour is one of the biggest costs for any organisation.” This is historic,
sound commercial thinking. Yet, it is
also the root of my concern, because:-
- Sound commercial thinking is all very well from
a micro-economic perspective but not necessarily as good from a macro-economic
point of view. - It perpetuates the dichotomy between calling people
assets and treating them solely as a cost, and as such risks failing to
consider their personal needs, aspirations and potential. - It creates a divide between “permanent” and “non-permanent”
employees, which may adversely affect behaviours and create conflict. - It diminishes the sense of “belonging” and thus
reduces the chances of creating shared purpose and strategic integrity that are
essential to employee engagement.
For those reasons, I very much hope that the author is correct and that the
subject is one that is at the forefront of your thinking. It seems to me, that
you would do far better to regard your people as assets and to treat, manage
and account for them as such. Then you will be more likely to win the employee
engagement you need to ensure success, even with some form of contingency arrangement.
Paradoxically, if you have this you may likely find fewer occasions when you need to
invoke it.