Friday, January 04, 2008
HR Insight
After seven years of being an HR professional, the following are my views on the employment contract. Firstly i beieve that the employment relationship has mutated from a 'paternalistic' one to a very 'transactional' one. Which means that it is foolish to very attached and sentimental about one's employment. The first thing to understand is that an organisation is a 'selfish', perhaps mildly 'psychopathic'. And hence in this capitalistic world it is an agent to make profit. I think the world is confused about ascribing altruistic motives to organisation when that is not their primary purpose.
Anyway coming back to the employment relationship, i believe, that choosing to take-on or stick to a job is rather like buying a car. How so ? In buying a car we make choices and trade-offs. One cannot have everything in a car; we have to make trade-offs. We cannot have a car in our budget and also have fuel-efficiency, power, legroom, luggage space and also a premium luxury brand. We have to make trade-offs. We can have a better fuel-efficiency but compromise power, we may trade off a premium brand for one more affordable etc. I believe that taking and continuing a job is exactly like that. Making trade-offs. We make unconsious trade-offs about compensation (current or future), benefits, employability, the boss, growth opportunities, marque brands and choices related to our life-stage/mental make-up. Till such time the trade-offs make sense, people stay on in their organisations - otherwise they move on. For example an employee will trade-off higher compensation for a bad boss or will trade-off a marque employer brand on one's CV for lower compensation. They make these choices in the context of their life-stage (young adult, married, married with school-going children) and a function of their own mental make-up (ambitious, life-interest, variety-seeking, self-actualisation). Till the trade-offs are in the zone of tolerace, they stay in an organisation. Sometimes there is an inertia to change too which stops people from quitting and they just enough not to get kicked out of their jobs.
Of course, the above is only valid in a scenario where there are enough employment choices. When bereft of choices, people will do anything to earn their two square meals. Here again the trade-off of remaining hungry and doing a job they hate, hunger triumphs.
So the only thing that organisations should do is to minimise the trade-offs and work on multiple fronts. The key, i believe is to make almost uniform efforts in all directions - perhaps not be the best in any one but make efforts on all fronts specific to the employee demographic they are trying to attract:
- compensation & benefits
- boss (manager sensitivity training)
- growth (lateral growth, fast-track talent identification)
- employability (work content)
Some of the things like life-choices, self-actualisation etc. are not in the control of organisations and they should not be too worried about losing people for those reasons. Also all organisations should not worry about 'attracting the best' talent at all levels. The kind of talent required should be based on their business model. Not all models require the 'best' talent in all levels, notwithstanding Mckinsey's "war of talent". Organisations should take a considered view on which few roles are critical and manage accordingly. People will always take a 'portfolio' approach to their jobs. They will pick-and-choose those aspects that matter to them. Organisations should also do that based on their needs !
Anyway coming back to the employment relationship, i believe, that choosing to take-on or stick to a job is rather like buying a car. How so ? In buying a car we make choices and trade-offs. One cannot have everything in a car; we have to make trade-offs. We cannot have a car in our budget and also have fuel-efficiency, power, legroom, luggage space and also a premium luxury brand. We have to make trade-offs. We can have a better fuel-efficiency but compromise power, we may trade off a premium brand for one more affordable etc. I believe that taking and continuing a job is exactly like that. Making trade-offs. We make unconsious trade-offs about compensation (current or future), benefits, employability, the boss, growth opportunities, marque brands and choices related to our life-stage/mental make-up. Till such time the trade-offs make sense, people stay on in their organisations - otherwise they move on. For example an employee will trade-off higher compensation for a bad boss or will trade-off a marque employer brand on one's CV for lower compensation. They make these choices in the context of their life-stage (young adult, married, married with school-going children) and a function of their own mental make-up (ambitious, life-interest, variety-seeking, self-actualisation). Till the trade-offs are in the zone of tolerace, they stay in an organisation. Sometimes there is an inertia to change too which stops people from quitting and they just enough not to get kicked out of their jobs.
Of course, the above is only valid in a scenario where there are enough employment choices. When bereft of choices, people will do anything to earn their two square meals. Here again the trade-off of remaining hungry and doing a job they hate, hunger triumphs.
So the only thing that organisations should do is to minimise the trade-offs and work on multiple fronts. The key, i believe is to make almost uniform efforts in all directions - perhaps not be the best in any one but make efforts on all fronts specific to the employee demographic they are trying to attract:
- compensation & benefits
- boss (manager sensitivity training)
- growth (lateral growth, fast-track talent identification)
- employability (work content)
Some of the things like life-choices, self-actualisation etc. are not in the control of organisations and they should not be too worried about losing people for those reasons. Also all organisations should not worry about 'attracting the best' talent at all levels. The kind of talent required should be based on their business model. Not all models require the 'best' talent in all levels, notwithstanding Mckinsey's "war of talent". Organisations should take a considered view on which few roles are critical and manage accordingly. People will always take a 'portfolio' approach to their jobs. They will pick-and-choose those aspects that matter to them. Organisations should also do that based on their needs !
