“Sharing” – a systematic prelude to acquiring more

In the world of business, the strives involved in each venture are to ensure deep market penetration, with a strong community rapport that assists in organic outreach contributing towards greater customers, which ultimately leads to revenues, incomes and cash in the bank. Amidst these strives, businesses often lose focus of who they are working for, and of those working with them in their hunt for the often-illusive “Fortunes de Financial”. Each fiscal year, businesses spend substantial amounts on outreach and marketing campaigns; however, the amount spent on building rapport as a ‘people centric’ and ‘people driven’ organization is a mere fraction, if at all that. Yes, arguably capitalism has its place and its own importance, and on the other side, humanitarians have their own value and significance. To boil it down to bare metal – ‘capitalism all is money and money is all’; whereas for humanitarians ‘all is respect, inclusion, safeguarding and facilitation, and that is all. A perfect business would then be one that hasnbsp;equalnbsp;elements from both capitalist and humanist models.nbsp;There are businesses that try to incorporate such a hybrid model by sharing a one-time reward with their employees should they recommend a new employee or source for business. However, since the reward (often termed as commission, acknowledgement, a token of appreciation, and such) is a one-time treat, this model is biased towards capitalism – hence inappropriate, in the essence that it is “capitalizing” of a human to generate more revenue for itself, without sharing the increase in revenues fairly. So then amidst this overly complex yet obliviously simple context, how can any self-respecting business incorporate a hybrid model combining capitalism and humanism? How can a business continue to grow, and remain profitable without generating a reputation of being an insensitive group of money-hungry people ready to cannibalize just for some increase in their revenues?nbsp;The answer comes in many forms; however, they all revolve around the same thing – money (AKA, revenue, profit, returns, etc). The difference between a pure capitalist and a pure humanist organization is that the former would strive to keep hold of all money available, whereas the latter would strive to distribute all the money available. An accord is struck, when this money is distributed in a manner that does not jeopardize business operations or fairness towards the employeescustomers. Confused? Consider this example:nbsp;nbsp;Organization A, has 100 employees working with 50 customers having £100,000 operating cost, just made £500,000 in a fiscal year, with the same revenue committed for the next 5 years. Owners of Organization A are very happy and distribute a one-time bonus of £100 per employee. Of course, the actual revenue numbers are a company secret and so the owners decide not to tell the employees how well Organization A did. At the end of the day, each employee of Organization A leaves with their wage + £100 (one time), whereas the owners pay the £100,000 operating cost and leave with £390,000.nbsp;Organization B, has 100 employees working with 50 customers having £100,000 operating cost, just made £500,000 in a fiscal year, with the same revenue committed for the next 5 years. Owners of Organization B are very happy and distribute a bonus of £100 per employee, per month for the next 5 years. The owners feel that without efforts of its employees this level of revenue income could not be possible. Therefore, they organize a small get together with the employees and announce Organization B’s success along with the repeating bonus. At the end of the day, each employee of Organization B leaves with their wage + £100 (every month), whereas the owners pay the £100,000 operating costs and £120,000, and leaves with £280,000.Now, compare both organizations, which one do you think made a better choice overall. You can see owners of Organization A leave with more money in the bank, but they also kept their employees in the dark about the huge revenues made. In doing so, the owners of this organization have jeopardized their rapport with their employees. Regardless of legal contracts and bindings, these employees will pass on the word among their family and friends and tell them how cruel the owners of Organization A were. Given this age, social media and all, this word spreads quite quickly. On the other side, the owners of Organization B, leave with less money in the back, but they threw a party for the employees and announced a repeating bonus, which basically is an increase in monthly wages. These employees would make social media posts and tell their family and friends how “awesome” Organization B is. Which one of the two organizations do you think won at the end of the day?This is an example of what EarnFlex.com terms a” Revenue Sharing model”. In doing so EarnFlex.com believes not only do the security officers get an opportunity to better than own quality of life, but also get a chance to facilitate others in improving theirs. This model is an attempt to share fortunes, regardless of how large or small, among the organization in a manner that reduces the distance between “haves” and “have-nots”- while doing so promoting a sense of equality. Isn’t that what families do; and wouldn’t it be nice to run a business that is united like a family? I mean, wouldn’t you prefer to make the proverbial “welcome to the family!” a reality.