Grappling with staff loyalty<\/p>\n
By June Bennett<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): It has been reported that some organizations
\nchoose loyalty over skills when recruiting staff. These
\norganizations should consider the ramifications this could have
\non their operations.<\/p>\n
Loyalty has several interpretations. It is obedience,
\nfaithfulness or being firm in one's belief in something.<\/p>\n
Even if employers think they know what they want in terms of
\nloyalty, how do they measure it in an interview, and likewise,
\nhow do they assess whether an individual has the aptitude to be
\ntrained to be a proficient worker?<\/p>\n
Psychometric and aptitude tests are available but they may not
\nbe reliable or suitable for your purpose. It is a well-documented
\nfact that decisions on whether we engage an individual are often
\nmade within the first few minutes of an interview, when it is
\nimpossible to have had the opportunity to fully explore an
\nindividual's abilities.<\/p>\n
Employers should engage in professional recruitment and
\nselection practices if they want an effective and efficient
\nworkforce.<\/p>\n
For organizations to be successful, Belbin suggests they
\nrequire workers who have between them a variety of personal
\ncharacteristics, including conservativeness, discipline,
\nreliability, maturity, confidence, trust, outgoingness, dynamism,
\nimagination, cleverness, unorthodox, extroversion, enthusiasm,
\ncuriosity, soberness, intelligence, objectivity, and the ability
\nto communicate.<\/p>\n
The team of workers also needs to be social, accommodating and
\nperceptive.<\/p>\n
The ramifications of this need to be considered. For example,
\na team can become more loyal to itself than to the organization.
\nEmployees who are \"company workers\" may be loyal to the
\norganization, but an organization that is mainly resourced by
\nsuch employees will not have all the ingredients to enable it to
\nmove; it will stagnate. There will be individuals who will try to
\norganize and those who use unorthodox methods to solve problems.
\nIt cannot be guaranteed then that every worker will take the
\ncompany line.<\/p>\n
Some employers say they want employees who will do as they
\nsay. They wish to control them, which is shortsighted. On the
\nother hand, employers across the world say they need people who
\nhave initiative, are creative and entrepreneurial. These
\nindividuals are not going to do as they are told. Employers have
\nto accept that they cannot have it both ways and they do need
\nthese people in today's rapidly changing work environment.<\/p>\n
These situations may feel uncomfortable or undesirable but
\nthey are a necessity if the organization wants to be successful.
\nIt is exactly these challenges to the status quo which, if
\nmanaged professionally, can help both the individual and the
\norganization to grow.<\/p>\n
What people want from work changes as economic and employment
\nsituations change. If individuals feel threatened, where will
\ntheir loyalty lie? When there is high unemployment, workers look
\nfor job security. This should not be interpreted as loyalty to
\nthe company. Individuals could be loyal to themselves and their
\nfamily. In times of full employment, workers look for
\nappreciation and recognition of work done and a feeling of being
\ninvolved. Loyalty comes way down the list.<\/p>\n
Companies must move forward and integrate new techniques and
\ntechnology if they are to be competitive in the marketplace, and
\neven more so as globalization increases. If this requires change,
\nand it is mismanaged, then people will feel insecure. Some people
\nmay lose their job or be redeployed. What price loyalty then?<\/p>\n
If loyalty comes from fear, then it is not so desirable. There
\nis a saying in the west \"the worm eventually turns\". This could
\nresult in your employees working to rule, being unhelpful,
\nwithdrawing their goodwill, taking long spells in the restroom
\nand on the company telephone, an increase in absences, poor
\nquality work, theft and sabotage, to name but a few practices.<\/p>\n
The employment of such tactics is likely to be the result of
\nsome long term grievance. The employees consider the
\npsychological contract has not been met. The consequences for
\nyour company could be dire and this is well documented. If you
\nwant employees to be loyal to you then you must be loyal to them.<\/p>\n
Employers may hope that control in the workplace will avoid
\nconflict and that employees will not challenge the way things are
\ndone. Many people cannot handle criticism but we should remember
\nit is usually specific and not personal.<\/p>\n
Conflict handled badly can lead to the negative practices
\nidentified earlier. Employers who cannot manage conflict will
\nlook upon it negatively from the beginning and will \"go for\" the
\nemployees who they think will not challenge the status quo. These
\nemployers should consider the consequences of such decisions.<\/p>\n
Employers must learn to manage conflict and criticism
\nconstructively. It must be identified as a positive force in the
\nworkplace as it is an important factor in an organization's
\ndevelopment.<\/p>\n
Employers have every right to be concerned if they invest in
\ntraining individuals who then leave and take their skills to
\nanother company. Surely, it is unethical and immoral to keep
\nsomeone \"tied\" if they are dissatisfied. To be considered, also,
\nis that the quality of their work will be poor and that training
\ngoes on all through our lives. In our rapidly changing
\nenvironment today's training could be out of date tomorrow!<\/p>\n
Retraining unsatisfactory employees, or holding on to staff
\nwhen there is no work for them, because of this \"loyalty thing\",
\ncould be about saving face. It certainly is not an effective use
\nof a resource, nor is it loyal to anyone.<\/p>\n
How does loyalty manifest itself in the workplace? I was
\nalways taught that loyalty in the workplace works two ways, both
\nup and down. It is not just about the employer being benevolent,
\npaternalistic and keeping someone in employment. It is about both
\nparties fulfilling a contract objectively set at engagement. It
\nis about the psychological contract and the fulfilling of
\npromises.<\/p>\n
Organizations that support this philosophy suggest it
\nengenders loyalty. They recruit individuals with the appropriate
\nskills, abilities, attributes and experience to enable them to
\nundertake their duties efficiently and effectively. Individuals
\nobtain job satisfaction. This, and praise, engenders loyalty. You
\nhave a team that is self motivated, productive and controls
\nitself. There is no need for control or coercion.<\/p>\n
If the psychological contract is not fulfilled employees will
\nfeel, rightly or wrongly, that the organization has been disloyal
\nto them, resulting in their energies, motivation and enthusiasm
\nbeing focused outside their place of employment.<\/p>\n
Employers should recognize the fact that loyalty is engendered
\nby the fulfillment of the psychological contract, and that
\nloyalty works both ways and is only one of many attributes being
\nsought at recruitment. If there are to be changes, inform your
\nemployees. This is being loyal. Not informing people is disloyal
\nand cowardly and is the domain of those who have not learned to
\nmanage conflict. There is a need to realize that people who ask
\nquestions are beneficial to an organization and that they should
\nnot be shut out. These individuals are actually demonstrating
\nloyalty.<\/p>\n
It should be accepted that it will not always be possible to
\nget a return on their investment in training. If employees wish
\nto leave, then a release fee could be negotiated, but, it is also
\nnecessary to identify why individuals wish to leave your
\norganization. Usually this has nothing to do with money but about
\npromises unfulfilled. Individuals may wish to leave because their
\ntalents are not being used.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, we should not employ someone just because it is
\nthought they will be loyal. We do not want an organization of
\nclones as there would be no dynamism.<\/p>\n
Organizations may not get a return to their training
\ninvestment and if an employee can be more gainfully employed
\nelsewhere, we should not stand in their way. We must avoid making
\npromises we cannot keep. We want individuals to be faithful but
\nas situations and environments change, so will the needs of the
\nworkplace. If this causes conflict, then it must be managed
\nconstructively. Organizations can benefit from strong minded
\nindividuals but they need to be managed and their energies
\nchanneled for the benefit of the organization.<\/p>\n
Organizations that make too much of this loyalty concept at
\nrecruitment stage are creating problems for themselves in the
\nfuture. A professional approach to the recruitment and selection
\nprocess is recommended.<\/p>\n
The writer is a management consultant based in Jakarta.<\/p>\n
WIndow: Loyalty in the workplace works two ways... It is about
\nboth parties fulfilling a contract objectively set at engagement.
\nIt is about the psychological contract and the fulfilling of
\npromises.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/grappling-with-staff-loyalty-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}