Sunday, 26 September 2010 00:00

Loyalty: The Ever Changing Company-Employee Relationship

Rate this item
(0 votes)

Loyalty. I have heard a lot about loyalty lately. It focuses on a company's loyalty to their employees. The current stormy economic condition means layoffs and employees on both sides of the pink slip are unsettled. Albeit, conditions today bare a stronger semblance to a hurricane stalled over the employment sector, while Wall Street seems to be holding its own, when the floodwaters subside both employees and employers will be on more fertile ground. As opposed to straining loyalty to its breaking point, it is only taking on a new form.

Goal Based Loyalty

The last thirty years have seen the demise of the typewriter, secretary, interoffice memorandum, mail, and pensions. This has affected the role of employees more than any other thirty-year period. Hence, even in my working career, the office space has been transformed from smoke filled conference rooms with men who had worked for the same company for their thirty years, to online meetings with avatars. The company provides me with a laptop, assumes I have an Internet connection, I manage my retirement funds, and half of my co-workers are contractors. Many would say that company loyalty is gone.

However, the other day when visiting a company where, after stepping over the rubber chicken just inside the front door, I saw piles of toddler toys and there were just as many ExerSaucers as there were employees at their desks. An hour later, when I left, a bull terrier escorted me to the door. Today employees (and contractors) can work from home, take kids to the office, and communicate in 140 characters or less at the speed of the Internet. Their goals are different. Those of their companies' are too.

The difference is that today loyalty is goal based. By definition, this makes the loyalty time dependent—goals change to meet the demands of the environment. Businesses needing to enter a new market shift their loyalty to the resources that share those goals. Employees that do not make that shift, lose out on the loyalty. Likewise, employees that develop new goals that are not inline with the company's should move on to new opportunities; the association becomes impotent. It is in the best interests of all parties so their relocation is not frowned upon.

The End Of The Thirty-Year Veteran?

Many may think this is the end of the "lifer." We all know that guy or gal that has been at the company for twenty or thirty years and has risen to an untouchable state—even as a non-performer. No one will fire them, they do not move to new assignments, and the age-old respect for tenure immunizes them against criticism. These dinosaurs are slowly dying out as younger more flexible individuals move through the organization. The lifer will still exist; however, they will be malleable, adventurous, and maintain goals in a manner that meets those of the company.

The beast headed for extinction, holds the status quo, abhors change, and hordes information to maintain their relevance. They take on many shapes and sizes. Some are prima donnas, thinking their views are the end-all and be-all; others are political monsters that twist situations to their advantage. The best action for these people is to ask them to find new positions.

The Contractor Model

Contractors by definition are the ultimate of goal-based contributors. For a contractor, or consultant, to remain viable, they must align their goals to their client's. A good statement of work (SOW) enumerates those goals to ensure alignment. Whatever their engagement, contract, or project, if they are misaligned, their company will eventually fail.

In this respect, the objectives of contractors and employees have merged. Both needs to either seek out companies with mutual goals or change their goals to match the companies. The employee has a lot to learn from the contractor—the SOW. Employees need to clearly understand their company's goals and aspire to met them or move to an internal or external situation that allows them to. This is incumbent on both the employee and the employer to achieve this. The business environment has no room for misalignment.

Loyalty Stills Exists

Loyalty still exists, but, as with so many aspects of business, it just takes a different form and it will keep changing as the world around us changes. I doubt it will reach the state where all jobs are contract based, however, the model will continue to increase. The demands of the younger generation entering the workforce will further enforce this model, as they are more goals oriented and driven by personal gain. Businesses will adapt to this model quickly as it accommodates developing a lean running organization that acquires resources on an as-needed basis. Immutable boomers entrenched in their positions will struggle. They will be the toll of the current economic storm.

Read 5537 times

Related items

  • Process Mapping

    Process is at the core of any business. It makes work predictable, repeatable, and transferable. Without it we cannot scale our businesses. However, process can be a bane to making progress. Processes that work for a $10 million company have difficulties supporting a $30 million company. Trying to scale them to a $300 million company will not only fail but not address the issues that larger companies have that were never dreamt of in a smaller organization. Processes need to be discarded, revamped, and built—all of that without creating an overburdening bureaucracy.

    Anytime you need to go someplace, you first have to know where you are. Processes are never static and your company's current state is probably far from where you think it is. Hence, the first step is mapping out you company's current state followed by defining the future state. This is more than a logical map of the process; it must also include physical maps. Whether your process is solely to provide a service (say, website development) or physical (say, manufacturing) there are logistical issues that complicate the process flow. Without fully understanding those nuances, future state processes will not reach the desired efficiencies.

    For more information about process mapping fill out the form to the left and we will get in touch with you.

  • Success vs Culture

    The other day a Latvian student contacted me for my views the connection between culture and success criteria—an important and intriguing topic. After working in Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, Japan, Israel, United States, and Canada, I wear many scars of both blatant and subtle cultural violations. I also know that within a culture one person's success is often another person's failure. So, after dispelling concerns about clicking on some random email link, I completed her survey (please feel free to take it yourself). In the process, I struck up a friendship with the student, Kristine Briežkalne, who is studying at Riga International School of Economics and Business Administration . She has some interesting views and presented me with a Venn diagram showing four frames to a project (business, client, project management, and growth perspectives) and how they intersected. As the diagram is part of her Master's thesis, I will let you ponder the how to label the overlapping areas (an eye-opening exercise).

  • Kill The White Knight

    There is a reason we do not teach classes on fixing failing projects. Many a cynic feels that we simply do not want to teach our trade, however, our reason is far nobler—we should be teaching prevention rather trying to create white knights to save the day. It is the same philosophy as building a fence at the cliff's edge rather than an emergency room at its base. Our language is replete with idioms telling us to look past the symptom and address problems at their root cause. 'An ounce of prevention versus a pound of cure' or 'a stitch in time saves nine.' Please, feel free to supply your own in the comments. Unfortunately, most of our businesses loathe this philosophy, waiting to address an issue until it is irrefutably broken.

  • The Executive-Project Manager Gap

    It was such an innocuous question, "Working on an article; what is the biggest problem you see with project governance at orgs? Can you comment?" Can I comment? Really? That is like cheese to a mouse. Where could I start—bureaucracy, draconian process, poor executive sponsorship, disengaged leaders? Plenty of fodder, because they all lead to project failure. I fired off, "Creating an over bureaucratic morass stifling innovation & implementing process instead of cultivating leaders." Then the maelstrom started and it went directly to the gap between the executives and projects managers. Naomi Caietti, Robert Kelly and I had a great conversation. Most of the thread is below.

  • Disband Your PMO

    After nearly 30 years of project work, I struggle to understand the role of a project management office (PMO). Even though, I have written of the pros and cons, and read a plethora of articles, opinions, and how-to guides little has been done to convince me that the PMO is reducing project failure. It seems to be nothing more than a tool to fill a void in leadership? Even the acronym, which is so widely thrown around, has little meaning as the "P" has no less than four meanings. It is an executive's crutch for their lack of understanding in how projects work. These, like other, unattended holes in the corporate accountability create opportunities for new and greater bureaucracies and empires that further obfuscate accountability.

Leave a comment

More Info on Project Recovery

Tell me More!

Please send me more information
on fixing a failing project.

Rescue The Problem Project

Internationally acclaimed

Image of RPP

For a signed and personalized copy in the US visit the our eCommerce website.

Amazon logo
Buy it in the United States Buy it in Canada Buy it in the United Kingdom
Buy it in Ireland Buy it in Germany Buy it in France
Buy it in Italy Buy it in the PRC
Buy it in Japan
Book sellers worldwide.

Upcoming Events

Other's References

Sitemap