Estudios previos de acupuntura versus férula de descarga nocturna tipo Michigan.

Among the non-owner-managers however, it is notable however that, while all of them expressed some reluctance to employ, only one, Robert Dougall, had explicitly expressed his personal perception of the trustworthiness of employees. This was based on previous experiences of employment, both in an earlier small firm he had co-owned and as a manager of a branch of national bank.

Following his experiences in both large and small firms, Robert Dougall had a realistic and unsentimentally practical view of the role of employees within a company. He stated that ‘there’s certainly some value in them but… my experience with employees, they get complacent, they’re a different animal completely’ (RD254). Robert expressed very strong views on the reliability and the amount of trust that could be placed in employees. He stated:

you give them a van, and you give them a petrol card, and you’re going to give them this and that, you know, and by and large, over time, you’re going to get ripped off, which is very foolish from their part... these are only arguably petty things, but it is an abuse of trust, and I’ve found, that’s a small example of an abuse of trust, that employees … This can’t possibly be a generalisation, and I don’t mean it to, because I’m sure there are many, many loyal employees, but they’re hard to find in my experience, they really are. You know, they either duck and dive or they’re ill more often than not…

RD266

Robert felt that these employees would, through this ‘abuse of trust’ end up costing the company more than they were worth. Indeed, when he first entered into his earlier partnership, it was employing sixty people. While he didn’t provide a specific timescale, he stated that ‘over the years’ (RD266) he introduced a process of office rationalisation that reduced that number to five people, including himself as director.

Robert gave reasons other than the potential (and in his view, likely) abuse of trust for the difficulties of employment. He said:

They are a huge responsibility, because I feel personally responsible for someone that I employ, you know, I have a duty to them. Um, I’ve got a duty to myself and we’ve got

123 a duty to ourselves, but I’m not sure I want to be responsible for employees that are

likely to let you down anyway.

RD266

Here, the reluctance to employ was associated with his own view of ‘duty’ and responsibilities to the employees. This is very much in keeping with Mike Hart’s view. Yet Robert expressed this far more negatively in that he believed that an attitude of responsibility towards employees was unlikely to be reciprocated. It seems that the perception of the trustworthiness of employees was hugely dependent on the degree of experience that the owner-managers had as employers.

4.8 Summary

The initial findings as they emerged from the preceding discussion are summarised below:

- A clear reluctance to employ could be discerned from across the sample, with even the most experienced employers recalling that early reluctance.

- The reluctance was assuaged by a need for regular support with day to day administrative activities to free the owner-manager’s time for core business development.

- Employment, where it occurred was largely seen by the owner-managers as a necessity rather than through any innate motivation to become an employer.

- There was evidence among the non-employers of a need for socialisation and companionship which may have encouraged the desire to employ.

- Two of the owner-managers had organised their businesses to avoid employment by implementing ‘associates’ (Cathy Cole) and sub-contracting partnership (Robert Dougall) business models.

- The first employment decision was of limited salience and only one employer (Neil Jones) could recall his first employment, in his current business, with any degree of clarity.

124 - Later employment decisions appear to have been of higher salience, with the first permanent administrative employee seemingly a memorable recruitment for two of the employers (Peter Martin and John Stuart).

- In two cases, (Mike Hart and Norman Daniels), there was no ‘first’ employment. Instead, a number of employees were inherited when they acquired the firms in which they had previously worked.

- Previous experience as employees appeared to influence the behaviour of the owner- managers with regard to employment decisions. In the cases of Clive Holder and Neil Jones, this enhanced their confidence as employers. For Robert Cain, Cathy Cole and Robert Dougall, experience had the opposite effect and bolstered their reluctance to employ.

- Patterns of employment behaviour were emerging among the employers, with different owner-managers repeatedly recruiting employees of similar profile.

- The trustworthiness of employees was a key issue for non-employers and employers alike. Yet, where the employers had experienced breaches of trust, this had not caused them to significantly reduce their employee numbers.

These early findings act as the foundation for the next stage of the research. Further examination of this primary data and a more developed analysis, with reference to the key literature is undertaken in the following chapter. This will lead to the construction of a conceptual framework, which is developed throughout the next chapter and the complete framework can be found in section 5.8.

125 5. Analysis and Discussion

The purpose of this chapter is to organise the findings into a conceptual framework and to utilise extant research, examined in the literature review, to analyse the thematic outcomes of the primary research. Key concepts drawn from the literature include effectuation and trust; human and social capital; the cost of employment; and the relative formality or informality of small firm employment practices. The interpretative approach undertaken in the analysis has implications for the generalisability of the outcomes and this is discussed in depth in the concluding chapter. The following discussion is intended to present the outcomes from the perspective of the employers and non-employers recruited for this study.

The analysis begins with an exploration of the reasons for the reluctance to employ and how this reluctance may be overcome as the firm develops. It then examines how owner-managers may gain necessary support and advice, whilst avoiding employment. The limitations of this support are then posited as later reasons to employ, which may lead to the owner-managers making their early employment decisions. There are proposed motivators and de-motivators for employment, with the former classed as early ‘weak’ and later ‘strong’ motivators. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the consequences that early experiences of employment have on later employment strategies used by owner-managers.