What about the twisted HR paradigms when it comes to hire entrepreneurial typologies or former entrepreneurs?


@ The curse of thinking without shading

One of my visions from the nearest future is that HR departments will disappear in few years or they’ll change into something else. Something better and more pragmatic, let’s hope!

From one angle, entrepreneurs are seen as the hope for solving our world’s crisis and problems.

In this direction, educational institutions believe that entrepreneurship can be taught. So teachers who have never been entrepreneurs or who have never started-up and run their own small boutique are trying to train young people and to teach them about “how to become an entrepreneur?” in a more or less academic way. Even grants and NGO funding is available here and there.

Well, I don’t know what to say about that. It probably may be taught, but in any case not by academics but from others who knows what it’s all about. Otherwise, it’s just a shift of non-functional paradigms and old mindsets from one place to another and it won’t have serious impact in the real world problem solving on the long run.

From another angle, corporate businesses come and say in those big never ending conferences about our world problems: What the hell are we doing? If we keep pushing people to become entrepreneurs and if by chance they start to be successful, then in few years these unemployed people fired by us and transformed into a new breed of artificial entrepreneurs will become our main competitors. Is this good for business?

Then glorious politicians come and say: Oh..ah..hmm..shit! We have no idea how to solve our problems, let’s “empower” entrepreneurs and women to do it and let’s mind our own old business, meantime. Still, let’s also try to control the process a little. Ahh…wait a second guys, but there are not enough entrepreneurs, what are we going to do? Ahh..let’s empower some teachers and trainers to create new ones.

This is how appeared the new wave of entrepreneurship & start-ups incubators and accelerators all over, especially in Europe: a mix of corporate action (new investments and business angels) with political support.

They are all about messages full of intentions and aspirations but the methods, mindsets and paradigms are still unchanged and the availability to change is minuscule.

That’s scary for entrepreneurship! Entrepreneurship is all about courage, attitude, action and reaction, change.

Many fellows from the new breed of artificial entrepreneurs grown in incubators are in fact the former escaped corporate employees who in fact go back in the “slavery” system by taking another way. Of course, in the end there’s nothing wrong with it as long as all sides are happy, working places are created and so on.

***

There are times in people’s lives when they loose their job or more and when they have to take a new job in order to rebuild their lives and start over.

It happens also for entrepreneurs when they are between past and future or when they failed or when they are down and have to start over. Their chances to be hired are almost zero; to start over with no money is almost impossible; there are no hooks, safety nets, no fiscal and financial programs to empower them, no grants or banking products – so what are they suppose to do? How are they supposed to recover, to start over?

There is almost nothing available when one is down, no matter from what reasons is down and no matter from where he/she is coming.

Entrepreneurial typologies might have more strength than ordinary people when it comes to rough endurance and surviving struggle, but what is most scary is there are not so many second chances existing. And if there aren’t for them – people able to generate value, working places, social change, problem solving then what happens with other professionals coming from the growing unemployment wave and “trend”?

Let’s point out the main HR paradigms when it comes to hiring a former entrepreneur or an entrepreneurial typology :

 1. Entrepreneurial typologies are unemployable

Triple wrong:

  • Entrepreneurs are trained to do at their best and to the highest standards possible all tasks, especially the ones towards they feel no motivation or passion.
  •  From cost – benefits perspectives they are golden mines: little or no investment needed for their training and almost none directions in order for them to deliver best results.
  • Entrepreneurs are also able to function very well and get things done even if over their head is the poorest manager ever.

2.  Entrepreneurial typologies don’t have long term motivation

I say that in the case of entrepreneurial typologies, long term motivation has nothing to do with generating short, medium and long term performance and efficiency.

When the companies they represent may not see tomorrow, face bankruptcy, low margins and so on – how paradoxical and anti-economic is that thinking?

3.  Entrepreneurs aren’t satisfied with a salary because they are used to gain much more on their own

Wrong again. They are hard working people and if down – they are hard working people in need. Work is work, salary is salary, and life goes on. As long as a work offer is made and they accept it – that’s a deal. Why should we lose in virtual details?

In entrepreneurs’ working lives, especially the small and medium ones, there are many times when they hardly pay their employees and also times when they gain less than independent professionals, executive employees or even specialists. It seems HRs have little understanding of the realities of entrepreneurship and read too much VIP magazines.

 4. Entrepreneurs are well known for having very small or none tolerance to lack of efficiency

True and very true! But what is wrong with that? Isn’t it supposed for business to be this way?

To conclude, in my views entrepreneurial typologies are the most employable people. What makes them unemployable is HR.

I pointed out entrepreneurs just to make my point on the background of today high skill unemployment, unsolved problems and many other challenges we face today.

What is scary is that HR plays a huge part in making employable people unemployable. Shouldn’t they play strategic roles?