When a company first encounters a situation where the company's cumulative profitability targets are not being met, the company should use its own resources to create a concrete action plan of corrective measures and implement it in such a way that the company will achieve the company's cumulative profitability targets within the specified timeframe. If the company is unable to achieve the company's cumulative profitability targets within the specified timeframe, the company should seek the right kind of external expertise with the right kind of agreement to remedy the situation.
In my opinion, the basis of a company's business should be that everyone in the company must do their job and fulfill their responsibilities in the company so that the company's goals are always achieved. If a person's best effort is not enough, then they must be able to do better, either on their own or with the advice of someone else. If a person's own abilities are not enough to achieve their goals, then everyone is obliged to ask for help from their superior. In turn, the superior must always be obliged to either help in the situation in question, either by helping themselves or by arranging help. It is not enough that everyone has the right to ask for help from their superior in a situation where doing their best is not enough, but everyone also has the obligation to use this right without unnecessary delay. In this case too, wasting time will not fix the problem; rather, wasting time unnecessarily multiplies the problem. In well-functioning companies, a person can always ask for help from their colleagues if necessary. The idea behind helping someone is not that the helper's job is to do the work for the person being helped. The idea is that with the help of the helper, the person being helped learns from the help they receive so that they can achieve their goals after this situation without the helper. By doing this, the latent abilities and creative ability of people to find new solutions are put to use, which has proven to be a very significant potential in my experience. In order to achieve this in a company, the company's work culture must be able to be developed to be positive and encouraging, and such that problem situations are not hidden in the company, but rather they dare to bring them up as soon as they arise.
The aim of everything a company does must be to generate monetary value for the company in accordance with its objectives. This, of course, requires that the company is able to deliver products and services to its customers at a price that the customers are willing to pay for them. Every person in the company must be able to generate monetary value for the company at least as much as the costs they cause to the company. Preferably more. When a person generates monetary value for the company as much as the costs they cause to the company, then in my opinion the amount of salary paid to the person should be equated with that, or correlated. When a person is able to generate monetary value for the company more than the costs they cause to the company, then part of this monetary value exceeding the costs caused by the person belongs to the person as an incentive. In Finland, salary discussions are too focused on the salary increase demands defined by the trade unions. Trade unions do not pay salaries to the company's employees, but companies according to what the companies can afford to pay in salaries. In my opinion, this is not the core of the problem, but rather the fact that companies in Finland do not make the kind of profit they could make. This is because the financial management of companies in Finland is not at such a level that every person in the company is genuinely and fully responsible for the profit of their company and that every person is genuinely and fully involved in both making and developing the profit of their company. There is still a long way to go in Finland to achieve this goal. Incentives and commitment opportunities paid to company employees are excellent ways to help achieve the above goal.