Right from time immemorial, people have had the fascination to be associated with big brand names. Let it be the toothpaste that they use, the cereal that they have for breakfast, the shoes which they wear or the car that they drive around in. The name matters. The age old adage of “What’s in a name” sounds irrelevant in the present context. So why should it be any different when it comes to the company that you work for?
It’s every youngster’s dream that they work in an MNC which has either got a campus bigger than the presidential palace or owns a swanky office, bang in the heart of any metropolitan city. And this is the exact reason why small companies are facing the daunting task of acquiring and retaining young talent. But if being in a big firm was all it took to make a great career, then why do quite a lot of those ‘lucky ones’ have a problem sticking to the big firms, or for that matter, why do quite a lot of the big corporations have a problem retaining their talent? Why do small companies site their ‘small’ status as an impediment to retaining talent and why do big companies, ironically, state their ‘big’ status as a hurdle to being flexible and responding quickly to the needs of the hour?
Hundreds of researches have been done in this area and an equal number of ‘insightful’ results have been published. One of the striking facts that has come out of these researches is that the priorities considered while employees shift companies, change as they mature in their career and add years to their experience. While a major chunk of the churn happening at the lower levels is because of the salary and other monetary benefits, these factors lose importance after a few years in the industry. And this is true not only to the IT industry but every where else.
Some time back I was speaking to a very successful nephrologist. During the course of our conversation, he mentioned something which struck me as very interesting. He was telling me of the earlier years of his life. He had joined AIIMS as a junior doctor and got married. The stipend at AIIMS was peanuts. Whenever he and his wife used to stroll around the campus and spot an ice cream trolley, they would look at each other and then stifle their urge to have an ice cream because they couldn’t afford to ‘waste’ money on it. So he quit AIIMS and went in search of money and as on this day, he’s got enough money to buy an ice cream factory. And that means he should be really happy now, right? Well, not quite. Today he regrets his decision because he feels that if he had stuck on with AIIMS, he would have been the HOD or Director by now and the social status and prestige that comes along with being the HOD or Director, far surpasses the things that he can buy with his money.
The point that I am trying to drive home is that people’s priorities change with the times. And if the employee and the employer can smartly identify what it is that keeps each other going, I think that is the key to high performance and hence a great organization. As an employer, creating a workplace and a work culture where the employee feels motivated to stay and perform is of utmost importance. That does not necessarily come by doling out cash and other monetary incentives because that can only retain an employee for some more time. And after that particular ‘extension’ he is bound to finally leave because right from the beginning his needs were not what was addressed. At the same time if there is sincere effort from the employer to identify with the needs of the employee and empathize with them, then that could go a long way in building long lasting relationships and acquaintances.
But it’s not always the employer’s call when it comes to retaining talent. The employee should also spare some thought about it. Rather than considering the company as a ‘brick and mortar’ structure (or steel and glass, nowadays), if employees can consider their companies to be human beings with flesh and blood and try and build up a relationship, it would be beneficial to both the sides.
I have always felt that the decision to join a company, or, leave one, for that matter, has to be taken with as much care, sensitivity and thought as we do while choosing our life partner, because, even though this particular thought was meant in another context, I feel it is very much relevant in this context too, and it says,
“You are known by the company you keep”
It’s every youngster’s dream that they work in an MNC which has either got a campus bigger than the presidential palace or owns a swanky office, bang in the heart of any metropolitan city. And this is the exact reason why small companies are facing the daunting task of acquiring and retaining young talent. But if being in a big firm was all it took to make a great career, then why do quite a lot of those ‘lucky ones’ have a problem sticking to the big firms, or for that matter, why do quite a lot of the big corporations have a problem retaining their talent? Why do small companies site their ‘small’ status as an impediment to retaining talent and why do big companies, ironically, state their ‘big’ status as a hurdle to being flexible and responding quickly to the needs of the hour?
Hundreds of researches have been done in this area and an equal number of ‘insightful’ results have been published. One of the striking facts that has come out of these researches is that the priorities considered while employees shift companies, change as they mature in their career and add years to their experience. While a major chunk of the churn happening at the lower levels is because of the salary and other monetary benefits, these factors lose importance after a few years in the industry. And this is true not only to the IT industry but every where else.
Some time back I was speaking to a very successful nephrologist. During the course of our conversation, he mentioned something which struck me as very interesting. He was telling me of the earlier years of his life. He had joined AIIMS as a junior doctor and got married. The stipend at AIIMS was peanuts. Whenever he and his wife used to stroll around the campus and spot an ice cream trolley, they would look at each other and then stifle their urge to have an ice cream because they couldn’t afford to ‘waste’ money on it. So he quit AIIMS and went in search of money and as on this day, he’s got enough money to buy an ice cream factory. And that means he should be really happy now, right? Well, not quite. Today he regrets his decision because he feels that if he had stuck on with AIIMS, he would have been the HOD or Director by now and the social status and prestige that comes along with being the HOD or Director, far surpasses the things that he can buy with his money.
The point that I am trying to drive home is that people’s priorities change with the times. And if the employee and the employer can smartly identify what it is that keeps each other going, I think that is the key to high performance and hence a great organization. As an employer, creating a workplace and a work culture where the employee feels motivated to stay and perform is of utmost importance. That does not necessarily come by doling out cash and other monetary incentives because that can only retain an employee for some more time. And after that particular ‘extension’ he is bound to finally leave because right from the beginning his needs were not what was addressed. At the same time if there is sincere effort from the employer to identify with the needs of the employee and empathize with them, then that could go a long way in building long lasting relationships and acquaintances.
But it’s not always the employer’s call when it comes to retaining talent. The employee should also spare some thought about it. Rather than considering the company as a ‘brick and mortar’ structure (or steel and glass, nowadays), if employees can consider their companies to be human beings with flesh and blood and try and build up a relationship, it would be beneficial to both the sides.
I have always felt that the decision to join a company, or, leave one, for that matter, has to be taken with as much care, sensitivity and thought as we do while choosing our life partner, because, even though this particular thought was meant in another context, I feel it is very much relevant in this context too, and it says,
“You are known by the company you keep”
No comments:
Post a Comment