Wow.
I've read through this thread so many times, and there are so many truths in here that it is virtually impossible for me to say that I totally agree with one, or with any other point of view. Each poster sees this issue through their own lens, and, from my point of view, each one has a valid observation.
I have learned a few things over the years that some may find useful. Or not.
The first one or two people I hired were the most difficult to find. In retrospect, I think that part of this was my fault. I was expecting that the person I chose would be able, and willing to work very hard to ensure that only the finest product went out my door.
Now I realize that finding someone who has the capability and the motivation to do so is one thing, but to have the knowledge and the education and the opportunity to to so, as well as the capability and motivation is somewhat unrealistic. Even if I were able and willing to pay 50$ an hour, finding that one person with all of those gifts was, and still is virtually impossible.
See, when I was young...(say 30-36 yrs old) and I was looking for that person, I just expected that he/she exsisted, and if that person lived, I would have paid anything to have them, because at that time I had no-one other than myself, so at that point it was not about the money, it was about survival.
But, I never did find that person. That's because, in my opinion, at that point in your career, you think that only person is yourself. And it doesn't matter how good the next one is, they are never as good as you because when you are young, and relatively new at this stuff, and you think, no you BELIEVE, that nobody will ever get it the way you do...so you're almost setting yourself up for failure, and no matter how great the first one is, they will probably not pass the test because you do not want them to be as good or better than you....
at least not right away.
So you settle for the next best thing...someone who is almost ok, someone who is pretty good, but the little nagging things drive you crazy. They aren't fast enough, they don't produce enough. They don't remember customers names. They aren't good at display, or set-up or what-ever. That is the beginning for settling for second best.
Some employers never get beyond that, for what ever reason, they feel more comfortable keeping people who are less able and less worthy than themselves. I'm not sure why...maybe they are just naturally massocists...I don't know.
In my case it took a few years before I was finally willing to admit that I needed to hire people who were better than me.
So I made a list of the things I was really great at, and a list of the things that I was not good at, and then I used that list to find my next empyloyee.
That truly marked the beginning of the success of Mill Street.
I was able to find someone who LOVED being with customers all the time, but was a crappy designer. Even when my patience would wear thin, she would be calm, and kind, and work a way to make a great sale.
Next was someone who became bored easily, but loved the challenge of keeping the shop displayed, and then going outside to maintain the flowerbeds, and then coming in to make certain that all the hard goods had been unpacked and that every penny was accounted for on the various invoices, and that every shelf was organized according to date recieved, and quantity left over. You could eat off the floor when she tidied up. But my God, you could never let her speak to a customer for fear of what she might say....
Soon came a full time book-keeper, who was a tyrant about COG and COL so I didn't have to stay late every day figuring out numbers... then a full time delivery person. Then, to make it easier on her, 2 part-time delivery people who split the hours the way they wanted, not the way I wanted....because in the end, it didn't really matter who worked when, as long as we had some one who could take care of the deliveries responisibly and efficiently....
So you see, in many ways, it was really the staff who showed me how to run a successfull shop.
OK, so I was the one who made the final decisions, but what I mean is, if we see who we have, and really evaluate the different gifts they bring to us, , and hire people instead of "positions" or "titles" then I think we are better positioned to be successfull.
I now find myself in a situation where the primary design team is running like mad to complete all the work that has been coming in lately. But just because we have more arrangements to deliver, does that automatically mean that we need another 20$ an hour designer? Maybe what we need is someone who is really good at customer sales .Or cleaning flowers. Or cleaning up at end of day.
All I know is that who ever that person turns out to be, they have to mesh well with the rest of the team, have a good work ethic, and like working in a small town which also services the elitists of the big city . After that, if I am good employer, I should be able to figure out what tasks they can fill in order to be part of a great team of workers, and if they are really as good as they think they are, they will see a raise soon enough.
I think one of the most improtant things I have learned is that no one is indispensible. NO-ONE, not even me.
And so, everyone really needs to able to do a number of jobs reasonably well.
Plus, no one gets a title. No "Designer" as opposed to a "Salesperson" as opposed to a a "Customer Service Rep".
We all design, (think European Hand-Tied Bouquets for walk in sales), serve customers, clean flowers, answer phones, and wash floors. We are all equals. Together we scrub toilets, shovel snow, weed gardens, and wrap parcels. Together, we will make this dream work or fail.
Now, of course I do departmental-ize tasks during busy times, and when things are slow, the hirer paid staffers are encouraged to go home early, take a few days off, or work in their their holidays, in order to lower COL... Together, we work out ways to keep the numbers friendly to continuing business.
Together, we decide who should be able to take a week off to be with family, or what-ever.
Twenty-five years ago, I never could have imagined that I would be able, or willing to operate a shop profitably, by encouraging staff to guide my decisions about hours, responisbilities and holidays. But with a very few exceptions, I have found that it works way better than the autocratic approach I used to employ.
Scince I have adopted this "we are all in this together frame of mind", thing have worked so much better.
I still have a couple of people whose primary function is design, and yes, they do make in the neighbourhood of 20-25 dollars an hour, as opposed to the primary sales staff who make more like 12-16$ per hour. Less that 12$ an hour are those people who are not likely to stick around long...processors, drivers, cleaners. But as each person shows more interest and ability, they get paid more. If they can bring me more customers, more orders, more work, they get paid more.
So, if the cut flower processing people suddenly start bringing in friends and family who want to order flowers, and they translate into actual customers...guess what, they get a raise.
I guess it's like profit sharing in a big corporation...bring in more business, get more money. Produce more..whether it be sales, arrangements, cut flower processing, or shop re-display, guess what.... more money.
It seems to work well for me, It is well recieved by staff, and it means that bit by bit, my responsibilities are reduced, so that I rarely work the 70 hour weeks that I used to.
Now, one caveat. I did give too much power to one staff person who ended up thinking that because she was really good at a few things, she became indispenible.
WRONG. No matter how hard, as soon as someone starts to think they are better than me, the owner , who has the last say where the money goes, then that person is out.
If they are that arrogant, then guess what...they are gone.
After all it is my shop, my investment, and like it or not, in the end, my decision.
JP