Monday, November 3, 2025
Home Blog Page 1734

About wages

0

How much do you pay your workers? Do you think you pay too much? Or do you pay according to what you can afford? Do you pay what is average in your sector? Do you pay by a monthly salary or individual incentive pay scheme? Do you cut down on wages when the company is going through a difficult time? These are issues that you as the business owner or manager must take decisions on and cannot afford to delegate to others. Pay matters are very important indeed.  Today we will look into some issues related to pay, that matter to the success of your company.

Let us have a look at two similar companies, which operate in the same sector, furniture for instance. Company A has 100 workers, with a salary of Birr 5000 per month. Company B also has 100 workers and pays them 6000 Birr per month. Company B’s productivity is 25% higher than company A. Secondary benefits are the same for both companies. Which company will have higher labour costs, company A or B? It is tempting to conclude that company B’s labour costs are higher but is that really so? While company A produces 1000 chairs per month, company B produces 1250 chairs. In relation to the labour rates, the chair costs 500 Birr each for company A and 480 Birr for company B. With a selling price of 800 Birr per chair, the return for company A will be 300,000 Birr, while company B will earn 400,000 Birr. Taking away overhead and other production costs of say 200,000 Birr, the profit for company A will be 100,000 Birr and for company B it will be 200,000 Birr. In other words, with a 20% higher pay and 25% higher production, company B makes double the profit than company A. It could even afford to pay its workers still more. Paying workers less may cost the company instead.

Suppose your company is struggling and your profits are going down. You need to take measures. You decide to let your production manager go. After all he is expensive with a salary of 25,000 Birr per month, and you replace him with a younger and cheaper production manager at 10,000 Birr per month. You expect that your costs will go down, but the opposite may happen instead, because the new production manager is less experienced, slower, and less capable. The paradox is that as a result your costs have increased by cutting on salary costs! So don’t confuse wages with production costs and realise that the wages may not represent that much a portion of your total production costs, as you may think. Check your accounts and analyse your figures.

It is often thought that low wages present a competitive advantage. One reason why foreign companies invest in countries like Ethiopia, is that the labour rates are relatively low. Cutting down on wages is tempting but there are more effective ways to compete, like quality, service, delivery, and innovation. In reality, low labour rates are an ineffective way to compete.

Another misunderstanding is that individual pay schemes, based on performance are the most effective way to motivate workers to be more productive. While this is certainly so for certain jobs, individual pay schemes may negatively affect teamwork. So, where you want people to work together, such payment schemes may result in the opposite. With individual pay schemes there is also the danger of fraud with workers carrying out services that are not really necessary to boost their production figures. Salespeople may become aggressive in their approach to customers, eager to boost their sales, chasing them away instead. Individual pay schemes absorb a considerable amount of management time and resources. They certainly have their value and place, but management needs to carefully consider the purpose and kind of jobs it will be used for. Group or team-oriented pay can be effective instead, resulting in cooperation among workers and peer pressure to perform.    

In conclusion I suggest that managers who are trying to improve performance of their workers or who want to solve organizational problems by using pay as the only tool will get disappointed by the result. Not much may happen while in fact they will spend a lot of money instead.

People want more than money alone for their work. They seek an enjoyable work environment, also in Ethiopia. Workers will look for another job if that is not what they find in your company. Many business owners and managers think too much about wages, when other management tools work just as well, or even better.

Finally, be careful in recruitment. If somebody joins your company for money alone, he will also leave for money. It is therefore important to retain workers by making sure they like the work, the people, and the way the company is managed. Not the money, which every company can offer. Emphasizing pay as the primary reward encourages people to come and to stay for the wrong reasons. Make sure that workers are not stuck into working in a company where they don’t want to be simply for the money. Make sure also that the messages sent by the way you pay workers are intended. For example, talking about teamwork and cooperation and then not having a group-based component in the pay system but individual pay schemes instead is contradictory and indicates what the company believes is really important.       

Ton Haverkort

Exponential risk of financial crime

0

When digital businesses are welcomed, they have created an even greater number of uncertainties. This demands that CEOs and business leaders prioritize innovation as a top strategic priority. If they want to achieve their targets in the century’s goal and growth, they should have an open appetite to challenge cyber risks.
Today, it is easier than ever to challenge dynamic digital businesses and drive radical change without advanced risk control models.
Apart from other sectors, the financial industry is more liquid in form and exposed to disruption risks. The more the sector is digitized, the more it becomes exposed to technological risks, specifically the exponential risk of financial crime or cybercrime. Today, insurers prioritize consulting and mitigating this risk.
Most technological bankers and insurers aim to make their services invisible and seamlessly integrated into their customers’ lives, thereby managing their expectations and providing optimum satisfaction.
However, these technological-driven, digitized bankers and insurers will also face cyber-attacks and the risk of financial crime. Financial crime is becoming a major concern for all leaders, including board of directors, CEOs and other executives.
Due to a delay in implementing proper control systems, companies suffer potential damage to their liquid assets, customer information, stored data, and other intangible assets.
Cyber incidents are not only an emerging risk for bankers and insurers, but they will also impact the telecom industry.
In the Ethiopian financial and telecom industries, digital transformation has become a strategic imperative for competition and survival. For digitalized visionary leaders, nothing will challenge them more than exponential financial crime or cyber-attacks.
This risk is vicious and affects all aspects of IT and core business. Choosing the right core solutions, integrating with digital power supplies, and outsourcing some support systems require careful consideration and attention. Managing these risks is the biggest and toughest job in dealing with financial crime and cyber-attacks, and it is frequently demanded by the CEO to analyze and measure their impact on the company. Thus, the job of IT specialists requires unusual effort and daily reports from their departments provide essential strategic input to convince everyone in the company. However, the board of directors needs assurance of the business’s stability in the face of such destructive risks.
Managing technological risks will not only give confidence to the company’s leaders but will also uphold the brand value of the company for the end users who place their trust in them. Financial crime or cyber attack, if not managed, can destroy all values (extrinsic, intrinsic, and credence value).
The knowledge of cloud technology, intelligent automation, and digital labor effectiveness becomes meaningless and may be canceled from budget items due to non-willingness to suffer again.
Financial risk is exponential due to its short digital lifespan on a certain IT system.
Since companies incur huge costs, the attack will leave them without getting ROI. As they try to manage the attack, every core system at their disposal will become obsolete. Digitalized businesses are always built upon technology with a shorter lifespan and urge companies to focus on cyber-attacks and financial crimes. This case is more severe in banking, insurance, and telecom services.
Cyber attackers, using malware or social engineering, can gain access to valuable information, such as credit card numbers, customer personal identification numbers, login credentials, and government-issued identifiers. Weak patch management, legacy systems, and poor system log monitoring were cited as the main reasons why digital financial service (DFS) providers’ systems are susceptible to hacking attacks. In addition to financial losses resulting from a data breach, providers’ reputation and customers’ trust are at risk.
The fraudsters accessed sensitive customer information, such as account types and last transactions, which allowed them to pose as legitimate customers and apply for loans in the victim’s name.
To protect against data breaches, DFS providers need to regularly update their systems and software, patch their systems, use strong encryption for data at rest and in transit, and implement 24/7 system log monitoring.
So far, it has been observed in digital businesses, such as banking, insurance, and telecom, that no matter what networking they use, malicious individuals can hack past security precautions to gain access to stored information. These risks can be managed through other soft skills, like firewalls. In today’s environment, it is unrealistic to expect that defenses can prevent all cyber incidents. The financial industry should continue developing capabilities for detecting incidents when they occur, minimizing the impact on business and critical infrastructure, and tying these capabilities together in a comprehensive framework.
Threat actors are increasingly deploying a wider array of attack methods to stay one step ahead of financial services firms. For example, criminal gangs and nation-states are combining infiltration techniques in their campaigns, and they are increasingly leveraging malicious insiders. As reported in a Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL) survey of global financial services executives, many financial services companies are struggling to achieve the level of cyber-risk maturity required to counter the evolving threats.
Although 75% of global financial services firms believe that their information security program maturity is at level three or higher, only 40% of the respondents are very confident that their organization’s information assets are protected from an external attack. This is particularly true for larger, more sophisticated financial services companies.
Threat actors are increasingly deploying a wider array of attack methods to stay one step ahead of financial services firms. For example, criminal gangs and nation-states are combining infiltration techniques in their campaigns and increasingly leveraging malicious insiders. Some researchers depict global financial service executives and many financial services companies as struggling to achieve the level of cyber-risk maturity required to counter the evolving threats.
Nothing challenges the digital business more than cyber-attacks. If they occur, they can destroy a company’s endeavors.

Asseged G/Medhin is CEO AT(@t) Insurance Brokerage & Consulting Firm. You can reach him via assegedg42@gmail.com

The issue of state capitalism

0

Across the United States, Europe, and much of the rest of the developed world, the recent wave of state interventionism is meant to lessen the pain of the global recession and restore ailing economies. For the most part, the governments of developed countries do not intend to manage these economies indefinitely. However, an opposing intention lies behind similar interventions in the developing world: there the state’s heavy hand in the economy – State capitalism – is signaling a strategic rejection of free-market doctrine.

 State capitalism is not simply an economic system. It is a political invention designed to ensure that market activity and wealth serve the interests of the state and those who run it. In times of crisis, state officials will use state-run companies and investment vehicles to defend state interests even at the expense of their economic performance.

 What about the long-term viability of state capitalism in those places where they are exists? Are Russian, Chinese, or Gulf Arab state-owned enterprises becoming more competitive as part of some sort of “State Capitalism? There is no question that a growing number of these companies are competing with the world’s largest multinationals. Some of them are winning. Yet, if they are truly becoming more competitive, why do they still need the financial and political backing of their home governments? Could they compete as effectively without these advantages? If they are outgrowing the need for state support, does that not imply that this form of state capitalism is not sustainable and therefore not a viable long-term alternative?

 In fact, if state capitalism is merely a developmental stage on a company’s path towards self-sustaining dynamism, what happens when powerful officials with a direct personal stake in their success resist the push to privatize them? State-owned companies are not known as leaders in innovation. Some of them become dinosaurs. But if they still generate revenue for powerful state officials or politically connected business leaders, they are unlikely to become extinct, even when they should.

 Policymakers in the era of globalization have tended to focus on facilitating greater integration while ignoring critical vulnerabilities and risks in the global system. A noted economist, Ian Goldin, at Oxford University writes, if we do not take steps to address these weaknesses, we risk a backlash of protectionism, xenophobia and nationalism.  Globalization remains at the center of today’s debates. Yet, despite much research and commentary, vital dimensions remain poorly understood. Recent decades of globalization have created a more interconnected, interdependent and complex world than ever witnessed before.

 While global policy has focused on facilitating integration, the implications of growing interdependence have been largely ignored. The acceleration in global integration has brought many benefits, but it also has created fragility through increased vulnerability and exposure to global shocks, such as today’s financial crisis.  The biggest challenge for politicians and policy makers is the need to balance the enormous benefits that global openness and connectivity brings with national politics and priorities. It also is a major concern for citizens, who are torn between the benefits of imported goods and services, and their worries about local jobs, the dangers associated with illicit flows, and other implications of more open borders. These concerns are universal and affect all societies.

 The benefits of global integration have been associated with unprecedented leaps in human development indicators. Technological innovation has accelerated integration both virtually, through the development of fiber optics, the internet and mobile telephone, as well as physically with vast improvements in transport and infrastructure. The spread of people, ideas, trade and the inspiring education revolution has and will continue to offer enormous potential for poverty alleviation and economic opportunity.

 Yet the downside to globalization is that of increased inequality between and within countries. And the second “side effect” is that the likelihood of increasing numbers of global shocks and crises is growing, as is the people vulnerability to them. Little is understood about the risks associated with large-scale system interdependencies. Well beyond purely the financial arena, new systemic risks loom large in areas such as climate change, water and food insecurity, pandemics, resource scarcity, antibiotic resistance, bioterrorism, cyber security and supply chain vulnerability which are the few among the many.

 The fragility of the system as a result of these new vulnerabilities now challenges the very core of the benefits that globalization has produced and is a fundamental challenge to national governments, business leaders and global institutions. Unless the world can find an appropriate balance, there is a significant risk that the failure to manage globalization will lead to a backlash of protectionism, xenophobia and nationalism.

 This crisis requires an extraordinarily deep level of reflection by global leaders and by society at large. To turn our backs on globalization would severely undermine economic growth, poverty reduction and global cooperation. If the benefits of globalization are to continue to outweigh the risks that rapid integration exacerbates, understanding systemic interconnections and building multi-stakeholder responses are vital. Redesigning global risk governance mechanisms to take these interconnections into account and to enable cooperation is a major but necessary undertaking.

 The bad news is that the tidal wave of globalization has brought unprecedented and new systemic risks. The good news is that this phase of globalization has brought the means to meet the downsides by raising levels of wealth and opportunity, and vitally increasing the collective knowledge and connectivity. The opportunities for cooperative solutions have never been greater, particularly if we are to address the major challenges of the 21st century.

Yet to harness these opportunities, what is needed is an intellectual revolution, a citizens’ mobilization, and a fundamental leadership and institutional shift. Politicians and policymakers are right to worry about today’s significant economic woes. But if we ignore the bigger crisis emerging at the core of globalization, and jump from one crisis management to the next, we do so at our peril.

Name: Tirsit Shiferaw

0

Education: Master’s Degree

Company Name: Kelem Ethiopia Tourism Promotion

Title: Co-Founder and General Manager

Founded in: 2022

What it does: Promotion of tourism destinations

Headquarters: Addis Ababa

Startup Capital: 300,000 birr

Current Capital:  Growing

Number of Employees:  4

Reason for Starting the Business:  Personal growth

Biggest Perk of Ownership:  Freedom

Biggest Strengths:  Persistence and self-confidence

Biggest Challenge:  insecurity and conflicts

Plan: To be the preferred and popular event organizer

First Career:  None

Most Interested in Meeting:  Haile G/Silassie

Most Admired Person:  Eshetu Melese

Stress Reducer:  Reading the Bible

Favorite Book:  Sinksar

Favorite Pastime:  Traveling

Favorite Destination:  Greece

Favorite Automobile:  None