Business >
Advertising
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedAre employee-owned companies more successful than traditional businesses?
Results so far:
| Yes | 52% | 12 votes | Total: 23 votes | |
| No | 48% | 11 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesEmployee owned businesses are coming up all over the place, but that raises a question, are they better than a traditional business? I believe so, but it isn't enough for me just to say it. I'll have to give you reasons as well as my point of view on the situation. Employee owned businesses are better than traditional because, the employee has spent time in the business already, learning the ins and outs of the trade. A traditional business is started by a single person that doesn't know what is right or wrong about the thing they're marketing. It is a better decision to work under someone that knows what their doing, then start your own business when you're ready.
Employee owned businesses are getting started because of the economy failing, and people are trying to earn their own income. Although they want to start their own business, it takes a lot of money to start it up, and if you have a stable financial background, such as a business, you'll be more likely to succeed. Not only will you have a steady base of start-up cash, but you'll have the knowledge and know how to be much more successful than if you start up your own business yourself with no back-up. A new business is one of the biggest investments you'll have. It takes years of planning, but there is nothing better to use as planning than experience.
Traditional businesses are started by individuals that have no experience or very little in the field-they learn along the way. Not only do they have little experience, but they invest their own money into the business, meaning failure loses all of their money. If they started with an employer before, branching off afterwards, it would allow them to keep their own money out of the equation, relying on the money from an investor. Also the investor is someone trusted and known for many years, the investor for a traditional business is usually a random association formed from a friend or colleague. If they fail they have to pay all the money back to the original investor, lest they suffer a horrendous legal battle.
I suppose the lesson to this is, starting your own business, no matter if traditional or of a former employment, is all about finding the thing that suits you the best. People try everyday to start a business, but it takes experience and devotion, starting a financially stable business.
Learn more about this author, Clint Daniel.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Are employee-owned companies more successful than traditional businesses is probably more of a debate than a question which has a write or wrong answer. There is a great deal of theory which will argue in favour of both concepts but in reality, we are likely to find many examples to "prove" both theories.
The reason why it may at first appear that employee-owned companies will be more successful than traditional businesses is founded on nothing more than greed and the natural human desires to better oneself and earn more money. This would of course support the argument that if the employees own a share of the business and hence will profit directly from the level of its success, they will be more inclined to be more dedicated, to work harder - and perhaps even for longer hours - and to essentially pour all their heart and soul in to improving the business in the certain knowledge that this will be to their direct benefit. This theory is sound and can not be disputed but the practicalities of the issue can cause certain problems in the long term.
The argument in favour of traditional businesses being more successful than employee-owned ones centres around the old adage of too many chiefs and not enough Indians, or even too many cooks spoiling the broth. Where companies are employee-owned, if the company is not very carefully structured to prevent same, there is a very real inherent danger that disputes will arise as to where the company should be heading and the methods which should be employed in getting there. In-fighting in this respect can lead to not only a bad atmosphere in the workplace but a definite lowering of the company's performance, a significant reduction in profits, and in extreme circumstances, the actual failure of the company.
The bottom line therefore is that although it is definitely desirable to grant employees every incentive to work harder in order that they may earn more, the process by which this is attempted should be very carefully deliberated prior to being implemented. It is very likely that a middle ground of what is essentially profit sharing would be the most productive and secure answer. This has the dual benefits of ensuring that an effective management structure is maintained at all times but still affords the employees the opportunity to earn more from their greater endeavours.
Like so many questions of this nature, it is likely that either extreme has its significant positives and negatives but that if one or the other is implemented at face value, the negatives will very soon be seen to outweigh the positives, to the detriment of all parties concerned.
Learn more about this author, Gordon Hamilton.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Advertising
- Should American business ethics change when dealing at the global level?
- Has the prevalence of false ads led people to become jaded?
- Will online storefronts wipe out brick-and-mortar businesses?
- Are business ethics or profits more important?
- Should tobacco advertising be permitted?
- Can ethics overcome greed in the 21st century?
