Masimba Kanyepi
THE value of a business is not always the value seen by its employees.
Imagine walking into a plant nursery intending to purchase palm trees. Each tree is priced at US$30, and you need 10 plants, bringing the total purchase value to US$300.
You approach a very active, knowledgeable and clever salesperson and explain that you would like to take the plants in the next two weeks when you managed to raise the required US$300. Instead of negotiating an acceptable payment arrangement within the company’s policies, the employee offers to sell you all 10 plants for US$100 and release them immediately.
When you ask why, the employee explains that they earn US$70 per month and that, at times, their salary takes two to three months to be paid.
In that moment, a transaction that initially appears to be a simple case of unauthorised discounting reveals a much deeper business leadership conundrum or quagmire.
The owner or the founder has invested resources, time and money into building this massive palm nursery business, nurturing the plants, being always there attending irrigation breakdowns fighting to create an asset that generates the much-needed commercial value. Yet the employee entrusted with selling those plants appears willing to easily surrender a significant portion of their expected selling value, partly because of their own dissatisfaction with the employment relationship.
The question is not merely why the employee is willing to sell the plants at such a discount. The more important question is this: What happens when the people entrusted with protecting a business’s value no longer feel motivated to protect it?
The owner’s investment versus the employee’s perception. (The investor’s stake vs the worker’s state)
To the business owner, each palm tree represents more than a physical plant. It represents the cost of production or acquisition, irrigation, fertilisers, labour, land, maintenance, operational overheads and the risks undertaken to bring the product to market.
The selling price is part of a commercial strategy intended to recover costs, sustain operations and generate a return on investment. When an employee unilaterally reduces that price, no consultations with the owner, the decision may undermine the very economics on which the business depends.
To the employee, however, the same transaction may be viewed through an entirely different lens. The immediate concern may be personal financial hardship, frustration with management or a declining sense of obligation towards the employer.
This creates a fundamental disconnect between the true value the owner seeks to preserve and the value the employee is motivated to protect.
It is important to recognise that the US$200 difference between the expected selling price and the proposed selling price is a massive reduction in sales value, not necessarily the company’s actual financial loss. Nevertheless, the transaction raises legitimate concerns about pricing discipline, commercial judgement and the protection of company assets.
The larger issue is that a business may have valuable assets, a marketable product portfolio and sound commercial opportunities, yet fail to realise their full potential because the people managing those resources do not share the same commitment to preserving their value.
The hidden cost of employee demotivation
Businesses frequently measure performance through revenue, profit margins, stock levels, productivity and market share. These indicators are essential, but they may not fully reveal the human factors influencing those results.
An employee who feels undervalued and suffering from psychological contract breach, may become less attentive to the interests of the business. True love for the business evaporates and is replaced by self-interest and benefits. Several secret business subsidiaries within the owner’s business empire will be born. In some circumstances, this may manifest itself through poor customer service, wastage, unauthorised discounts, weak stock control, failure to follow procedures or a lack of initiative in identifying commercial opportunities.
Such behaviour does not always arise from deliberate dishonesty. It may reflect disengagement, poor judgement, inadequate training, weak supervision or an organisational culture in which employees no longer feel connected to the company’s objectives.
Regardless of the cause, the commercial consequences can be significant.
Consider a business operating across several branches, warehouses, production facilities or distribution points. If employees independently make decisions that reduce selling prices, release stock without approval or disregard established procedures, the cumulative impact can erode margins and weaken internal controls.
What appears to be a small concession in one transaction may become a recurring source of value leakage across the organisation.
The challenge for leadership is that these losses can remain hidden for extended periods. Financial statements may reveal declining margins or unexplained variances, but they may not immediately explain the everyday decisions and workplace conditions contributing to those outcomes.
Employee motivation is therefore not merely a human resources concern; it can become a material business performance issue.
When quiet quitting meets quiet firing
Returning to the nursery example, the employee’s explanation deserves serious consideration.
An employee earning US$70 per month while experiencing salary delays of two or three months may be facing considerable financial pressure. Basic obligations do not disappear because an employer has cash-flow difficulties. Rent, food, transport, school fees and other household expenses continue to demand attention.
Under such circumstances, it is unrealistic for business leaders to assume that employee morale and commitment will remain unaffected.
Timely remuneration, fair treatment, recognition, transparent communication and opportunities for development contribute to the relationship between an employer and an employee. When these elements are persistently neglected, trust may weaken and employees may begin to disengage from organisational objectives.
However, understanding the employee’s circumstances should not be confused with excusing inappropriate conduct.
An employee’s financial hardship does not automatically confer the authority to reduce company prices, extend unauthorised credit or dispose of company assets on terms that management has not approved. The employee remains responsible for acting within the limits of their authority.
The same principle applies to employers. A company cannot indefinitely neglect its obligations to employees and assume that the consequences will remain confined to the human resources department.
The employment relationship involves responsibilities on both sides. Employers must strive to honour their obligations, while employees must exercise integrity, sound judgement and accountability in carrying out their duties.
When either side persistently fails in these responsibilities, the consequences may extend beyond the immediate relationship and affect the performance and sustainability of the business.
The leadership question: Who is responsible for the loss of value?
The natural reaction of a business owner confronted with the nursery transaction may be anger. The immediate response may be to question the employee’s loyalty, discipline or suitability for the job.
Those questions may be legitimate, particularly if the employee knowingly violated established policies.
However, effective leadership requires a broader investigation.
Why was an employee entrusted with the sale of company assets able to offer such a substantial discount without approval? Is the employee secretly propagating his own personal palm nursery trees for resale? How frequently is stocktaking conducted? Were pricing policies clearly communicated? Were credit arrangements properly controlled? Did the employee understand the cost and margin implications of the transaction? Had management created an environment in which employees understood and respected the commercial objectives of the business?
And perhaps most importantly, had the employer consistently honoured its obligations to the employee?
These questions do not remove individual accountability. Rather, they recognise that organisational performance is shaped by both individual behaviour and the systems within which people operate.
A well-managed business should not depend entirely on an employee’s personal goodwill to protect its assets. It should have clear policies, appropriate supervision, effective controls and a culture that reinforces responsible decision-making.
At the same time, no system can substitute entirely for ethical conduct and personal accountability. Even the strongest controls cannot eliminate every instance of poor judgement or deliberate misconduct.
The responsibility of leadership is therefore twofold: to create conditions that encourage responsible behaviour and to establish systems that identify and address behaviour that threatens the organisation.
Building a workforce that protects and guards’ business value Jealously (Creating a Culture of Radical Ownership)
The solution is not simply to demand greater loyalty from employees. Loyalty cannot be sustainably commanded while the underlying causes of disengagement remain unaddressed.
Business leaders must begin by treating employee welfare as an important component of organisational performance. Salaries should be paid accurately and on time, and where genuine financial difficulties arise, management should communicate transparently and work towards credible solutions.
Employees should also understand the commercial realities of the business. Training in pricing, cost management, stock control, credit management and customer relations can help them appreciate how seemingly small decisions affect profitability.
Clear authority limits are equally important. Employees should know which discounts they can approve, when management authorisation is required and under what circumstances goods may be released on credit.
Businesses should recognise and reward employees who protect margins, minimise waste, maintain accurate stock records and identify opportunities to improve performance. Recognition does not always have to be financial, although fair remuneration remains fundamental.
Finally, accountability must be consistent. Unauthorised transactions should be investigated objectively, and appropriate action should follow where misconduct is established. Equally, management should be willing to examine its own decisions and correct practices that undermine employee confidence and organisational effectiveness.
The objective is to build a workplace in which employees are fairly treated, understand the business’s commercial priorities and recognise that their individual decisions contribute to the organisation’s success or failure.
Such a culture does not eliminate every business risk, but it creates a stronger foundation for responsible conduct and sustainable performance.
Conclusion: Protecting business value begins with leadership
The palm trees in our example remain physical assets, but the transaction reveals a problem that extends far beyond the nursery. It highlights the tension between the value a business owner works hard to build and the value an employee may be willing to protect.
Business leaders must understand that assets do not protect themselves. Their value is preserved through sound systems, disciplined management and the decisions of the people entrusted with them.
Equally, employees must recognise that dissatisfaction with an employer does not justify disregarding company assets, policies or commercial obligations.
The real leadership challenge is to establish an equitable employment relationship in which fair treatment and accountability reinforce one another rather than compete with each other.
A business may spend years building its assets, reputation, customer base and market position. Yet some of that value can be undermined through seemingly ordinary decisions made every day by the people operating within it.
Ultimately, successful leadership is not only about acquiring valuable assets or growing a business. It is about building an organisation in which people understand the value they have been entrusted to protect, feel sufficiently respected to contribute meaningfully, and remain accountable for the decisions they make.
l Dr Kanyepi is a horticulture professional with nearly 20 years of experience transforming Zimbabwe smallholder farmers into profitable enterprises through superior genetics, good agronomic practices and market access. He can be contacted on kanyepi.masimba@gmail.com