There are both positive and negative effects of classifying employees as agents of a company. The impact is varied for social entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs, and intrapreneurs, especially when it comes to hiring employees. In classifying employees as agents, it implies that the principal mandates them to act on behalf of the company, entirely or to a limited extent. The fiduciary relationship that results between the employee and the company influences particular standards of interaction between the two, one that could be beneficial or could result in liability on either party. For social entrepreneurs, the hiring of employees who help in the achievement of social enterprise objectives could be easy to some extent. It is because most skills sought by such enterprises are viewed as easy to learn. For entrepreneurs, the diversity of organizations under this category increases employers' ability to get the skills they while hiring. However, given rapid changes in the business environment due to the current technological revolution, it is possible that, with time, the employees in question could be unable to act in the best interest company. Just as entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs' choice of employees might be significantly affected by fast-changing technology. Entities that fall under the two categories are hence forced to hire dynamic individuals and flexible individuals who can suit the organization's needs even when there is a drastic change in the business environment. The implication for the three categories is the possibility of not getting agents possessing skills and ethics to act on behalf of a company. Besides, a majority of torts committed by employees are likely to be a liability for the companies.
An extensive understanding of employment discrimination laws by social entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs, and intrapreneurs results in the attainment of culturally diverse organizations. It also increases employee output and reduces discrimination related cases that have adverse financial implications on organizations. The above, in turn, positively reinforces the employer-employee relationship and reduces conflict that is a detriment to the development of organizations ( Jolls, 2006) . Discrimination based on race, culture, disability, gender, or other specifications robs organizations the capability of ensuring highly productive teams. However, acting per instituted employees' discrimination laws eradicates the possibility of missing out on the asset of human resource diversity. Due to increased productivity among employees, employers are likely to be motivated to institute strategies that further ensure increased productivity. At the same time, a productive work environment increases employee's morale to be better. This is likely to reduce the possibility of conflict between employees and employers. Besides this, when employee discrimination laws are understood and observed by organizations, human resource diversity is likely to be achieved by most organizations. While in some cases this increases conflict and hence negatively influences employee-employer relationships, when well managed, it reinforces positive relations between the employer and employees. Employees in such cases believe the employer highly regards them even with their differences. It is also worth noting that failure to understand employee discrimination regulations by social entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs, and intrapreneurs often leads to potential or current employees suing the employer. This does not only taints the image of the company affected but, most importantly, results in hostility between the affected employee and the employer.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Employment agreements are indispensable in reducing the risks bared by the entrepreneurs, hence increasing their likelihood of success. Agreements act as guidelines that can be used to solve any conflict between the entrepreneur and employees. When the entrepreneur has an in-depth understanding of the agreement, it is unlikely that conflict will result in a liability that affects him or her. For employees, employment agreement acts as guidelines that dictate the interaction between them and the employer two and outlines the rights of both parties. In most cases, they influence both parties to act in a way that does not violate the terms of employment; hence, it benefits the employees because they can always refer to the agreement when their rights are infringed ( Jolls, 2006) . For social entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs, it guides the interaction between the employees and employees. Therefore, it results in the reduction of conflict between the employer and the employees. Fewer conflicts result in a productive environment and hence profits to the employer. At the same time, agreements set boundaries between employees and employers. In case the terms of the agreement are not met, social entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs benefit from fast decision making because the agreement acts as a problem-solving guideline. Such institutions, hence, are unlikely to experience adverse decision-making dilemmas when aspects outlined in the contract are to be dealt with.
By understanding law and tax issues, social entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs, and intrapreneurs create dynamic organizations in different ways. An internalization of employees' rights as established by the law, discrimination related statutes, and those that guide contracts and agent relationships ensure diverse individuals can enjoy the same rights regardless of where they work ( Countouris, 2016) . This creates a sense of safety for employees, giving them the confidence to seek employment beyond their comfort zone. When absorbed by firms beyond certain geographical regions or even those with different organizational cultures, such individuals are likely to increase corporate diversity. Tax issues also influence the creation of dynamic organizations because of how they influence firms to adopt ways that ensure flexibility under any tax-related changes. The desire for efficiency and the ability to adapt to changing tax-related laws easily forces companies to put in place dynamic infrastructure that can adapt to any change. At the same time, they are likely to search for dynamic employees, especially those who are likely to help the company to transition smoothly when necessary.
There are a variety of practical techniques that top companies are using to create dynamic organizations for their employees. Encouraging dynamic teams is one of the approaches that has been instituted in different working environments. Such teams are formed by diversifying teamwork, creating groups of individuals with different cultural and geographical backgrounds, and combining individuals with different behaviors, skills, and problem-solving capabilities. To complement dynamic teams, organizations also pursue employment recruitment techniques that ensure employees with a variety of talent density ( Dyer et al., 2003) . Furthermore, diversification after employment happens through employee empowerment and making learning a continuous cycle. In addition to this, many progressive organizations have endeavored to make diversity and inclusion part of organizational culture. Eradication of discrimination based on employees' cultural backgrounds and pursuing alternatives that reinforce employees' diversity, other than those that force them to fit in and exposing individuals to diverse working environments, are examples that ensure diversity and inclusion become part of organizational culture. To add to the above, some top companies have taken advantage of globalization to revamp their entities. Transitioning overseas and ensuring expatriates in international companies while recruiting in the host country reinforces cross-learning among employees. While the above strategies have been highly effective, most companies have further complemented them with infrastructure that encourage innovation and unique employee development ( Dyer et al., 2003) . Strategies such as rewarding employees who undertake unique projects that directly or indirectly benefit an organization, for example, have been used to encourage employees to be part of the change that is being sought.
References
Countouris, N. (2016). The changing law of the employment relationship: Comparative analyses in the European context . Routledge.
Dyer, L., & Shafer, R. A. (2003). Dynamic organizations: Achieving marketplace and organizational agility with people.
Jolls, C. (2006). Law and the labor market. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. , 2 , 359-385.
