Rap,
If employees are an asset, why don't we look at the value that they create? Management is very good at looking at the direct costs of labour - but not the indirect costs of labour (and indirect costs within the business itself).
It is going off thread, but I used to bash my head against a wall to describe the situation here during the mining boom, where we had well educated but practically useless (academically brilliant, but practically useless) people hired into roles that they were nowhere near competent to fill. The example goes like this;
There is a big difference between Education, Training and Competence. Most formal trainers will tell you that they are all one and the same thing, however I disagree and I think you will see my point soon. If you have teenage kids - you will probably not have a major issue with the school they attend providing sex eduation to them. However, if the school was to also offer sex training and promise to make your children fully competent at sex, you would probably not be very happy at all.
Education is the instilling of new ideas and concepts. Training is the formative application of those new ideas and concepts into the practical world (normally in some form of safe or controlled environment), competency means that you can apply those new ideas and concepts yourself practically. All of these however, do not get you to mastery where you kow the concepts and ideas and how they are applied and how to influence the outcomes of usung them versus other alternative ideas and concepts in a given situation. We do not value competency or mastery.
I have been doing a major organisation change/systems and efficiency program for one of the world's major mining houses. I keep referring to the statement - "the level of thinking that got you into this problem is normally not sufficient to get you out of it". We have endemic problems that people have accepted for the last 10 years that now we somehow think by osmosis that everyone will recognise and simply change their ways. These are well trained people - who simply follow, they have never reached a point of mastery or wisdom on "why" they do the things that they do. THis normally takes some level of grey hair.
Look at other cultures - age provides normally some form of wisdom (i.e. we have tried and failed and learnt through the process). A lot of the current generation have never been through a downturn - it is scary to them and they cannot cope.
So, if you can hire someone who can do 100% plus of a role, or someone who can do 60% and you have to train them, etc - which would you choose?
Do sporting teams hire and then play cheap players who only make 60% of the grade and expect to win?
This is a failing of Management to recognise and reward those that truely create value to the business (versus the fat cats in the top of the tree of monkeys).
This is starting to change over here - and not soon enough. We need to reward people who create value - not those who simply cost less - you cannto cost cut your way to success.