Note from Art: this post is the outcome of some great discussions in MBA and undergraduate class settings on the emerging U.S. and global workplace. I’ve offered blog commentary recently on the issue of the false promise of , “The Disposable Worker,” as well as the theme of self-responsibility. This post extends those discussions to the more fundamental relationship between workers and their firms. I may not win many friends here, but hope to stimulate some critical thinking.
The term and concept of “loyalty” is one that is frequently bandied about in phrases that sound much like, “there is no longer any loyalty to workers,” and “few workers admit any feelings of loyalty to their employers.” The term is also used to contrast today’s transactional workplace relationships with the supposed near utopian state of yesteryear, when our parents and grandparents started at one company early in their lives and ended up retiring from that company 40 years later.
The concept of “loyalty” in the workplace is in need of a makeover, complete with a new definition and fresh examples of what constitute reasonable and professional levels of loyalty for and from all parties.
A Prescription for a New Approach to Loyalty in the Workplace:
Let’s start by extracting the implied promise of “time of employment” as a component of the concept of workplace loyalty. Given the complexity and accelerating pace of the world of business, no one has any idea on how long any business model or business will sustain or survive. Acquisitions, disruptive global competition and the pace of technological change all guarantee that the long-term view for every firm is part mirage. Your firm may be acquired or rendered obsolete. In some cases, the firm will morph and the skills that were required yesterday are different than the skills needed right now and for the next few tomorrows.
As individuals responsible for our own careers, we should eradicate the expectation of a long-term relationship with a firm from our minds. The firm is on trial in the global marketplace every day, month, quarter and year, and as highlighted above, there are a myriad of opportunities where the jury of the marketplace may return an unfavorable verdict.
Freshly armed with a strong and clear perspective on reality, both employees and employers must rethink their responsibilities, expectations and obligations to and for each other.
Employers and Leaders:
- Owe employees a healthy workplace, free from hostility and harassment. Ideally, this workplace is grounded in clear, meaningful values and dedicated to the ethical pursuit of business.
- Owe employees clear context on ever-shifting strategic priorities. This includes the proverbial “heads up” as conditions demand that the firm change, merge or cease to exist.
- Are accountable to employees for fostering an environment that promotes the creative daily execution of core tasks…and that encourages experimentation and innovation as a normal way of conducting business and striving to improve performance.
- Are responsible for discovering, developing and deploying the talent necessary for the organization to survive, sustain and prosper.
- Are not responsible for the career planning and on going developmental support of all employees. Individuals own their careers, not the firm. Of course, the values of a firm may very well support the individual pursuit of career and skills enhancement through education assistance and training. This is a “values” call, not an implied obligation on the part of the firm.
- Are free to choose what they deem as the best choice for engaging and retaining the top talent needed to win. Some firms may consciously choose to extend more than other firms in terms of benefits, structure and even a culture of retention. This is a strategic choice that may prove beneficial for some firms. Regardless, the promise of on-going employment should not obfuscate the reality that the firm must serve customers, compete and create value to sustain. If any of those fail, people go away.
Individuals (Employees):
- Owe their firms their absolute best efforts on daily basis. Anything less is a breach of the basis for the relationship.
- Own their own careers and are wholly responsible for ensuring that their skills remain current and that they are progressing towards a goal of their choosing.
- May very well choose the leaders and firms that treat them the best and that support their efforts. Loyalty and commitment are very powerful when the relationship is based on respect, trust and a feeling of belonging.
- Operate free in the knowledge that they can come and go at their own will or the will of the organization.
The Bottom Line for Now
It’s essential that all parties are clear that their alliance is temporary ranging from days to years and that the basis for the relationship is to realize value creation for stakeholders. And yes, employees are critical stakeholders. While my prescription may sound transactional…and indeed it is in part, the beauty is that if the leaders and employees are good at running their business, their relationship stands a chance of sustaining.
Much like a professional sports team, the firm is a collection of individuals at a point in time, brought together to purse a goal. After that, the analogy breaks down, as there is no system of playoffs and a dedicated championship every year. The real world of business is much more complicated than the world of sports. The rules are constantly being redefined on the fly and the competitors are different every day. While a recession clearly highlights the plight of individuals and challenges the approaches of firms, a realignment of expectations around loyalty is in everyone’s best interests. Be loyal to yourself, your family and to your momentary employer. Just don’t expect much from the last party in that equation and you won’t be surprised.
Another fantastic post Art!
Employee loyalty and loyalty to employees is definitely in need of a makeover. The tips you provide to the leaders and employees are spot on.
One thing I think is missing in the loyalty quotient is accountability. Accountability can be both positive (recognition, bonus, promotion) and negative (progressive disciplinary action, firing, demotion). The choice is up to the employee based on their performance in alignment with the values, mission, standards and expectations. It is also the leaders responsibility to hold people accountable. I find most leaders don’t use enough positive accountability and tend to avoid the negative until things blow up.
Accountability stems from everyday leadership and coaching activities. Most leaders are too busy managing rather than leading which makes accountability difficult to implement. Coaching and leading requires investing time in your employees and spending that time building a relationship that balances productivity and personal aspects of an employees life. The more you invest in your employees the more they will invest in your company and loyalty will increase.
Thanks for thought provoking post!
Kelly
Kelly, thank you for reading and kicking off the comments on this one. It was definitely intended to be thought-provoking. I love your take on accountability…what a great add here. Thanks! -Art
Excellent article – right on target with my own observations. The only thing I would add is that sometimes employees are used as a “relief valve” for poor R&D, strategy, planning, and/or marketing. I used to read the comparisons between Boeing and Airbus in the 1980’s and early 90’s before more liberalized labor laws (for employers) were enacted in much of Europe. Airbus had to do a better job of planning and forecasting because it was an expensive, long, painful process for them to discharge workers — whereas Boeing seemed to be the king of poorly forecasting its business. Boeing was continuously laying off massive numbers of workers, or going on expensive recruiting campaigns — while Airbus remained with a fairly steady head-count. And Airbus passed Boeing in the commercial aircraft market eventually.
Richard, outstanding point. I appreciate your drawing in the Boeing/Airbus example. I am reminded of Deming’s quote that “unemployment is caused by incompetent management.” Appreciate you reading and commenting here! -Art
Art –
At a base level I agree that both employee and employer need to do what is right. That said though, what is right today changes because the rules are changing.
But we shouldn’t be operating at a base level. Both parties should be striving to provide something above and beyond that. Why, because it is good for both sides of the equation.
What separates the mediocre organization from the good organization is being able to manage those changes you mention. What differentiates the good organization from the superior or great organization is managing both the changes and the people involved.
Since the sports analogy is easy, sure you can cut a player that is not performing to the function that they were hired. A great coach though will see how to best utilize their talents to help the team. Maybe a tight-end should play linebacker or a defender should play a forward position. In doing that, the individual’s skills are better utilized and both player and team reap the rewards.
Why would you want to do that as opposed to just bringing in an existing specialist? Well, what happens when the rules change and their specialty is no longer needed? Creating a rotating door at the organization leaves the organization at the mercy of its employees and their whims. You no longer have continuity and could be left with the laggards. The A players will always have some place to jump to if given a reason.
The great organizations get this and have a culture that cultivates this environment.
Larry, nice thoughtful addition(s) to the discussion. We share a common perspective here. Our challenge is of course to create more great organizations. Nonetheless, in the context of what many of my students can expect in the workplace as they step out of academia, they may find too much of “The Disposable Worker” and not enough of the firms that get the critical strategic importance of building a culture around great employees. Thanks for reading and commenting! -Art
LOVE what you are saying here, Art. You know I am all over personal responsibility. I like to avoid the concept of loyalty, because I find it is most often used in the rhetoric of power and conformance. It’s one of those things leaders say to followers to try to get them to “sit down and shut up.” It’s a label that we use for favor those that like us and smear those that disagree or dissent.
I tell my students that the only thing deserving your loyalty is the shared purpose. If your leader aligns her behavior with the shared purpose, then you MUST get behind her. But if she wanders off the purpose, your responsibility is to try to bring her back on purpose. if she stays off purpose, you do NOT owe her personal loyalty.
This is how we create a culture of purpose and NOT a culture of personality, which is dangerous.
Thanks!
Bret
Bret, consider the “Thanks” back at you! You added some great components to a collection of comments that are quickly exceeding the value of the original post! I love your eloquent take on the term “loyalty” and it’s use for evil instead of good. I also love the “culture of purpose…not a culture of personality,” phrasing and meaning. Your thoughts are most welcomed here! -Art
I’d second Bret’s idea. I try to stay loyal to my organization’s purpose.
On the issue of career planning: I think it’s important to emphasize that if employees own their careers, then leaders are responsible to help provide growth opportunities even if it takes them outside the organization. It’s impossible to measure the value of a positive ex-employee…but trust me, there is value.
David, you raise one of the oft missed but very important issues…the value of alumni employees. Several large firms actively court and stay in touch with their alums…and you are right, this pays off in many, many ways. Thanks for sharing! -Art
Oh Art, terrific post!
Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall to hear what sounds like some rich discussions. The work environment has clearly changed, and what was cannot continue…we are evolving to deliver a new relationship paradigm.
I can appreciate David’s comments as well, about alumni employees. With creative approaches to utilizing the tribal knowledge and experience they possess, all can benefit.
Thanks!
-Kit
Thanks, Kit! They were indeed rich, and they continue here. Thanks so much for reading and commenting. -Art
Another great post Art,
I felt a bit sad after reading it because I watched my uncle go through a stressful period after working for an American Steel company for two weeks short of 30 years (In Upper management) they fired him. It appeared that they didn’t want to pay his pension. That was in the 80’s and since then most companies don’t offer traditional pensions. Recent surveys said that most employees would rather have a good working environment and security over higher pay. Unfortunately I think you are right about the approach of giving your best but don’t expect much from your employer or at least not in the long run.
Employee loyalty will occur only if the employees are treated with respect and are shown appreciation from management. If respect and appreciation for quality work is displayed by management, loyalty will follow. If workers are treated as numbers loyalty will be absent. I believe that long term relationships between workers and companies are harder to find now than ever since companies are being bought and sold more frequently. If you are not loyal to yourself or your family you will never be loyal at the workplace.
Employee loyalty dies: long live the new employee loyalty! and the longevity of the partnership depends on how well the for-profit or not-for-profit continues to meet the needs of customers and constituencies. Neither employer nor employee has a future obligation to the other. Organizations train people. Employees develop the kind of security they really need – skills, knowledge and capabilities that enhance future employability.
The partnership can be dissolved without either party considering the other a traitor. Loyalty is dead – get used to it.