Maybe self-interest is the answer

In going over the answers many people proposed for defining the employer-employee relationship for the last two weeks, self-interest seems to be the clear winner in how people approach the situation. Surprisingly, some people who overtly rejected self-interest later proposed what could best be termed a “closet” adherence to the idea.

Some people embraced it outright. We should behave in a way, they said, that maximizes our opportunities, both within the company and in light of future employment. Others embraced self-interest in a quasi-altruistic vein. If we work hard and productively, then our employer will prosper and we will prosper also.

I view the latter proposal with suspicion because even some companies in a good financial position lay people off, and sometimes even the hard-working and productive employees get the axe, while slackers are kept on. So, it seems that while a rising tide may lift all boats, some of them are capsized in the process, or end up against the rocks.

Some, however, eschewed self-interest, but said they adhered to a code that somehow made them feel good about themselves. I hesitate to point out that this is self-interest, and just a little bit hedonistic. Hedonism is basing our ethical decisions on what gives us pleasure, however we measure pleasure. So, if behaving in a certain way causes us to feel good, then we are being hedonistic and indulging in self-interest.

Others brought up the Golden Rule. That’s been so ingrained in most of us that it’s hard to refute. But implicit at its core is the hope — no matter how vain — that others will adhere to the same rule. We will treat others the way we (and presumably they) would like to be treated, and we entertain the notion that if they just do the same, the world will be a better place. And even though we want the world to be a better place, we do so because we prefer it that way. Self-interest once more.

And finally, we come to those who base their ethic on religious reasons. Again, always a worthy motivation — unless, of course, your religion motivates you to do something we don’t care for. But that’s another column. If you ask most people why they pay such close attention to what their religion demands, they’ll usually admit that it’s because they want to go to heaven, or some acceptable analog. Now, we’re talking about the ultimate self-interest: eternal happiness.

But while I — and most other people — were focusing on the mutual relations between employer and employee, one e-mail really got me thinking. The writer suggested that rather than a mutual relationship, it was a three-way relationship: employer, employee, and customer. And that seems to make a lot of sense.

In most business, each of these three parties is essential to the equation and has some responsibilities to the other people involved — if only, in the case of the customer, to be reasonable. You can’t take any one of these three out of the equation or neglect them for very long. Maybe there won’t be much difference over the short-term, but in the long run, trouble will start brewing.

A little over a year ago, a friend was applying for a job with a giant telecommunications carrier. It was a job that involved customers and he stressed to the interviewer his long background of successful customer relations experience. The interviewer responded: “We used to care about customer service, but now we’re focused mostly on increasing revenue.” At least she was honest. He didn’t pursue the job. We know where telecommunications companies are headed now.

It should be obvious that the operation just won’t succeed without the employer’s capital, skill, marketing, and production. I think for most people that is a given. If only it were more obvious to employers that employees are a valuable link. Have you walked out of a big-box store recently because you couldn’t find what you wanted and couldn’t find anyone to help you? I have, and more often than I care to think about.

The theory behind these stores is that customers know what they want and if the merchandise is laid out properly, they can help themselves and save money. But not everybody knows exactly what they want and the layout often makes little sense to anyone but the person who laid it out. As the stores cut staff to increase profits, those of us who have questions eventually wander out dissatisfied.

Call centers can be even more frustrating. Many times, the person on the other end of the phone seems to know less about the product than you do and is obviously reading from a hastily prepared — and poorly written — “cheat sheet.” Too often employers treat employees as so much excess baggage to be thrown overboard when things start getting rough.

And life would be so much better if employees realized that both the employer and the customer are important parts of the relationship. Savvy employees know that and strive to keep both parties happy. A satisfied employer has a direct effect on your self-interest through raises, promotions, or continued employment — at least in theory.

Satisfied customers mean continued viability of the operation — also at least in theory — and, we can only hope, a satisfied employer. Sometimes there are other factors beyond the control of individuals in the relationship, but if the enterprise fails at either of those two levels — employer or employee — the other factors may become irrelevant.

So, I’m not sure there are any clear and immutable rules of the employer-employee relationship. However, I think a clear understanding of the interdependence among employer, employee, and customer will give anyone a head start in adapting some workable rules of thumb for their particular situation. That should serve everyone’s self-interest.

Write to Carlton Vogt at [email protected]. To discuss any of these issues, you can go to the Ethics Matters forum at www.infoworld.com/forums/ethics .

Source: www.infoworld.com