Efficiency First

Managerial efficiency is the quintessential component of a well-run business (assuming said business has a successful business model), and a well-run business is the hallmark of an ideal capitalist society. However, within the gloriousness of this ideal system lies a contentious issue: labor. Labor is one of the most problematic issues of business analysis because some individuals argue that the human element either is not quantifiable or transcends the profit/loss mindset. In Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman, an alleged veteran of thirty-four years is let go after gradually being demoted—he loses his salary to a commissions-only compensation package; a heartbeakingly cruel moment for some readers. But was Howard, Willy’s boss, so cruel to fire him?

Consider the following evaluation of Willy’s job performance. He has crashed his car several times while on the job, he manages to sell a paltry quantity of merchandise, and he bores his customers to death with incessant talking and irrelevant stories. When the company sends Willy on a sales trip to some location, he is the representation of their enterprise as far as the customer is concerned, and one cannot reasonably conclude that Willy is a positive representation of Howard’s business. Howard is thus in a predicament: he cannot be an efficient manager while at the same time keeping Willy on. One might ask, just as Willy does, why Willy cannot have a lower-paying job at the New York headquarters. The simple, obvious reason for why he cannot is that it would be a sheer waste of money. Howard already has his sales floor at maximum capacity, and Willy has no assets to offer. Why should Howard use company resources to keep on “dead weight” when he could hire a more skilled salesman to replace Willy? Why should Howard arbitrarily choose to maintain Willy as an employee when, as far as the reader knows, there may have been/are people in Willy’s same situation who were also let go?

An assertion counter to the above claims is that Howard should find Willy some accommodating job because it is the “right thing to do” or that he should reward Willy for his loyalty to the company or Willy still has something valuable to offer the firm. While the last contention is fundamentally false for aforementioned reasons, the first two arguments pose the problem of incredible arbitrariness. What is the right thing to do? Is it right if Howard keeps on one old-timer but not another? Is it right to keep Willy on if doing so sets a precedent of not firing anyone, causing spiraling labor costs and ultimately threatening the stability of the firm and the job security of all its employees? My utilitarian calculus tells me no. Furthermore, loyalty is a hollow notion: would Willy have remained with the firm if some other company had offered him a more lucrative job? And does not this attempt at the incorporation of loyalty into decision making contradict the aim of efficiency? Ultimately, one cannot come up with a justification for Howard maintaining Willy as an employee of the firm that does not jeopardize efficiency, make sound business sense, or is not entirely arbitrary and thus unfair.