It appears to me that the public discussion, at least coming out of politicians and the press in Washington, DC, seems to be missing several key points in the encouragement of businesses to create jobs.
For 25 years, I have, among other things, helped companies and government entities to improve productivity and operational and financial performance. For decades, companies have pursued improved productivity, leaner operations, and more efficient processes, with less waste, less rework, and less labor content. Consultants like me have helped government entities and companies in most, if not all, industries tie staffing levels to demand for products and services. I’ve helped insurance companies align staffing with sales activity, policies in force, and claims caseload. I’ve helped an accounts payable department in a government entity tie staffing to incoming bills to be paid. I’ve helped startups understand the timing of when to add staff, add executives, expand offices, and open new offices, all tied to workload.
Of course, I have done many other things but the point is that the mindset of people in the US economy is geared to connecting hiring to increased workload and demand for products and services. For fifty or sixty or more years, companies have been trained to avoid speculative hiring and to not add staff until existing staff is “fully” utilized with an acceptable level of overtime.
After 25 years of speaking with companies about the work associated with positions and about improving the productivity and other metrics associated with those positions, I continue to be intrigued by the on-going conversation about the number of “jobs created or saved” by various economic stimulus initiatives in the United States. I continue to hold the position that people in Washington DC either have no idea what they mean by the phrase “jobs created or saved” or they mean something entirely different than most people I talk to in the private sector.
A job is the work somebody does to earn money. On the surface getting people jobs appears to be a good thing. Get people to work. Get them paid for doing work. Get the money into the economy to pay for other goods and services. In the short run, creating work for people to get paid for doing may be necessary and appropriate. Longer term, however, job creation may not be sufficient.
One challenge with job, or work, creation by the federal government is that the sustainability of the work may rely on the continuation of funding by the federal government unless the work created has its basis in the underlying economy. Ideally, for a federal government job creation program to be sustainable and, in the long run, a good thing, the created jobs should fill sustained needs within the respective communities. Jobs associated with a stimulus-funded construction project may be a good thing short term, especially for the individuals hired by the firm, but when the project is complete what work fills the new void for those individuals?
At the risk of stating the obvious, if a person wants to become a leader, and, consequently, wants others to follow her or him, the would-be leader must provide the would-be followers with a reason to follow her or him. Some people label that reason “vision,” a term that has become controversial perhaps through overuse or misunderstanding. Some might be more comfortable with the term “direction” rather than vision; if you want to lead somebody somewhere, most people might consider it reasonable to know where you want to go with them. So, if you want somebody to follow you, having someplace to go is a good starting point.
Having someplace to go is necessary but not entirely sufficient to becoming a leader. The would-be followers eventually need to decide that your chosen destination is interesting, if not desirable, to them. Some leaders need to convince the followers to head in the chosen direction; other leaders may have followers who are more willing. A former pastor of mine was fond of observing that when a crowd is determined to run you out of town get in front and make it look like you are leading a parade! While that is cute, if not humorous, in such a scenario I would argue that the person in front is not the leader but the led. The direction or vision apparently needs to be compelling, if not clear.
