Regardless of which and what type of organisation, if a genuine, honest and fair poll (not the 8th February type) is taken, it would reveal that a fair percentage of their workforce are “emotionally disengaged" with the entity. The feeling is, we work from 9am-5pm, and at the end of the month, we get paid for work performed. No favours done; no favours taken, is the mantra. Work is traded against cash deposited in the account of the employee after an agreed period. The sense of belonging or attachment is ruthlessly absent. The employees (a great majority of them) live with this thought, that there is no need to think of a life long association or commitment to their place of work. If and whenever any good opportunity knocks they invariably become active takers. If there is lack of commitment in the ranks of the workforce, who should take the responsibility for the hurt caused to the company? This needs examination.
Regardless of which and what type of organisation, if a genuine, honest and fair poll (not the 8th February type) is taken, it would reveal that a fair percentage of their workforce are “emotionally disengaged" with the entity. The feeling is, we work from 9am-5pm, and at the end of the month, we get paid for work performed. No favours done; no favours taken, is the mantra. Work is traded against cash deposited in the account of the employee after an agreed period. The sense of belonging or attachment is ruthlessly absent. The employees (a great majority of them) live with this thought, that there is no need to think of a life long association or commitment to their place of work. If and whenever any good opportunity knocks they invariably become active takers. If there is lack of commitment in the ranks of the workforce, who should take the responsibility for the hurt caused to the company? This needs examination.
Staying for long in any institution can be seen by other market participants as “inability" to find alternative employment. In some cultures, like say, in the East, barring Japan and South Korean corporate culture, staying beyond three years in a job, is viewed negatively, by both, the individual employee and the prospective employer. The Hong Kong Chinese laugh on the idea of a life long commitment towards an organisation. In my several conversations with colleagues in Hong Kong, they would express resentment at the very idea of having to work for a single organisation, all their lives. (The Japanese operate on the other extreme of the spectrum of commitment towards the workplace. Most of them join institutions, with a wish to retire from the same place).
In moving between organisations, there is a general belief and to a large extent true, that the experience acquired across various organisations is far better than having spent years and decades in a single institution. The belief system in such corporate cultures is that longish stay makes the individual a ‘frog of the pond’; who forever will remain oblivious of the fact that beyond the pond there is a wide and vast ocean.
The thought pattern and its horizon gets limited due to the monotony of staying at a single institution. Everything in the environment turns predictable. There is no enrichment. There is no room for new learning.
The local corporate culture is an amalgam of people who are willing to make lifelong commitment towards the organisation and there are those who see value in short term career moves . The induction of the millennial generation into the job market has had a pronounced impact on the retention ratio of organisations. The attrition among the younger lot of coworkers is far in excess of those employees who are flirting with the mid- thirties and beyond…
It is, and should be so too, to remain open to movement of employees, who in pursuit to improve their lot, both in terms of, seeking variety in experience or for better emoluments. There is nothing wrong here. “Loyalty" as a trait is usually cited as being absent in those who move, frequently, between organisations. I disagree vehemently with such notions. Team members are not to be treated or be seen as ‘bonded slaves’. Slavery and Loyalty, unfortunately, to the owners of businesses and to the miserably short sighted managers are synonymous. Such an attitude is non-conducive to the growth and development of a positive work culture. It is behaviour like this that sets into spin a deep seated revulsion and disillusionment in the ranks. What should caution and raise red flags for the owner/manager is, when the staff decides to leave due to frustrating working conditions. In grave situations, many start to disembark from the bandwagon of disinterested management, without even a job in hand or resign to accept alternative employment at much lower packages. This phenomenon must stir distress in management. If it doesn’t, the peril is theirs to face.
Normally when organisations are producing good results, the attrition of good quality staff doesn’t rock the manager’s table. The callous arrogance of the management becomes a corporate attitude. ‘Men may come, and men may go, but I go on forever’ (borrowed from Alfred Tennyson’s, The Brook) is not applicable, because organisations aren’t divinely blessed with continuity, as against the brook or the stream. The coming and going of individuals rocks for better and for worse, the institutions.
Staff disillusionment is rampant. If disguised unemployment figures were to be accounted for and declared, possibly, the country’s ninety percent workforce would fall into the category of “Unemployed".
Recently, a former colleague called and informed, that resignation had been put in place. I asked, where exactly are you heading? The former colleague said in a very somber tone, "no where”. The individual decided to quit, because any further stay would have ruined the mental health, besides manifestation of the physical self, had started to prop… BP, stress, sugar levels, etc, all due to the toxic work environment. Despite my advice and insistence to stay, bear and carry on… the individual did otherwise.
The departure of colleagues, when treated with disdain and lack of understanding of their plight and reasons thereof, for leaving, indicate that the mind set of the manager/supervisor is twisted with an attitude of “Who cares”! The manager in the plural is the management of the organisation.
What produces toxic culture? Also, what aspects drive committed and good quality workers to leave and abandon organisations? The answers are aplenty and these are wary between institutions. Since all contributing factors that create and nurture a toxic corporate environment cannot be discussed on these pages, let me illustrate only a few significant ones.
To begin with, the manager is an important factor. There is global consensus between HR professionals that it is always a good manager, who contributes in motivating and engaging staff members. Also a given is that invariably it is the manager whom the employee leaves and not the organisation. Managers' role in productivity is huge.
To any team, what qualities in a manager are most likely to appeal, for garnering their unqualified follower-ship, to achieve business goals and objectives? Workers look up to managers who are willingly available to guide and mentor; and for seeking their inputs towards career development; and for improving productivity skills, through sharpening of technical know-how. All staff invariably expects and demands coaching from their seniors.
A manager who takes pride in delegation is admired by teammates. The element of being challenged is something that drives high productivity. The manager must supervise work assigned, the work must be undertaken by the staff. Full blown frustrations begin where the manager starts to indulge in micro managing colleagues. The lack of space to operate on their own is a major impediment in promoting culture of empowerment and individuality of performance.
In my current assignment I get to meet and interact with the young and budding professionals... working in different institutions... They are all good at what they are assigned, but they are at complete loss, about what they would want to do, three years hence or so. Rudderless. Machines operating as humans. The mist of the future is too dense for them, to be able to navigate their career; sadly the supervisor/manager takes no interest in counselling or guiding them. The primary role of a leader is to make individuals realise their unique skills and strengths, so that they can exploit the specific talent for their good and the greater good of the community. This is missing.
In this milieu of managerial confusion, there prevails lack of clarity of goals to achieve. No manager can expect good results without first setting specific goals for each team member. In being clear, candid and forthright in the communication of business objectives, the manager ensures for the constituents of the team, a sense of direction, that guides towards creativity and productivity. This achievement of a sense of direction by the staff is an assurance that enables the growth of a feeling of belongingness to the company.
Colleagues who miss deadlines for achievement or those who frequently ask for extension are a tell tale sign of decreased productivity levels. Even if a small band of workers show these signs, it is enough for a manager to realise that the malaise can spread cancerously across the company. In situations like these, one on one communication lines should be opened and established.
A ‘caring’ management attitude would involve counselling, dealing with a positive state of mind, evaluating possibilities of cross disciplinary transfers, clearing the fog of what is expected and then developing jointly with the staff members, a doable and practical game plan, with defined timelines for review and completion.
Both, a lavish praise and a no holds barred expression of anger are not good managerial skills to adopt. A fine balance must be struck where corrective action is perceived to be of help and an acknowledgment of good work performed is seen as a motivating factor.
Management or managers or by whatever nomenclature, the supervisor or leader is known in the organisation has to remain, "Involved " with the team. There is no room for ignoring less than best performance and in the same vein , no staff member should be laid aside with an attitude of, "We don’t care”. Organisations that behave arrogantly learn by disappearing from the radar of business horizons.
The writer is a senior banker and a freelance columnist.
