Replying to LO24315 --
>I am asking this question "Why employ a person?" because the answer is not
>so obvious to me any more.
Risking an over simplified answer, people are employed because the founder
cannot do all the work, of any kind (reference to Gavin's good question).
An organization needs to control itself, so some level of inner cohesion
is necessary. At the onset, this control is easier to achieve with
employed people. Over time however, the benefits are less clear. When
control transforms into a mission other than money, something akin to an
LO can emerge.
I would guess there is nothing intrinsic in the employment/agency
relationship that affects performance. If an LO emerges however, then
intangibles, not [easily] achievable with an alliance or virtual
arrangement (referring for example to an organization which has the
requirement for 500 people doing work (by any definition) none of whom are
employed by the organization) can have a favorable impact on performance.
Shared vision would seem to be significantly more difficult without people
whose sole focus is doing the organization's work, all with the same set
of stakeholders in mind. (I'm not implying that shared vision is
guaranteed by having employed people, only contrasting it to not having
them as employees.)
The Health Systems Group
Physician Leadership Training
Simulation Modeling for Healthcare
Bill Braun <email@example.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.