“A job for life” – a “consummation devoutly to be wished” or the next closest thing to hell on earth? I guess the answer to that would depend on your culture, your personality and your experience – and not least your position at the time the question was posed.
The fact is that, even if it really ever existed anywhere outside of Japan, globalisation and increasing competition have made the concept of a job for life, an anachronism: so much so that the very idea now seems laughable. In a world of incessant change where loyalty (on either side) has been sacrificed at the altar of self-interest, the concept is incongruous.
Regardless of any culpability for this, one significant outcome has been the increase in the number of people choosing to become self-employed and offering their services on a contractual basis. But how long can this trend continue? Forces that will pull the pendulum in the other direction are:
• Downward pressure on incomes as the competition increases – especially if there is a downturn in the economy
• The difficulty of providing a superior customer experience with external resources.
This latter point is the one likely to have the greatest influence, because it is compelling management to rethink the way it regards its workforce. There is no way, particularly in an increasingly competitive market, that they can claim people are their most important asset while giving lie to this by depending on external resources.
Of course this does not mean reverting back to jobs for life, but it does mean doing more to hold on to people. The war for talent and the costs associated with employee turnover make this inevitable. Yet, as Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created it.” Clearly, a new approach is needed.
For me this begins with looking beyond the concept of ‘jobs.’ For too long we have defined people by their jobs and the competencies required to fit the job description. This belittles people and is ultimately demeaning. It is no wonder that lack of employee engagement is such a challenge. Such thinking inevitably either stimulates staff turnover, or results in uncompetitive performance detrimental to individual and organisation alike. In such an environment no manager would dream of offering a job for life while, equally, no self-respecting person would look to accept one.
Yet this tendency for human churn does not appear to be satisfying either side. There is no doubt that businesses would be better off if they could keep their people longer, while more recognition would unquestionably encourage people to stick around. I recently came across someone who turned down a new job offering a 15% increase in earnings, despite the opportunity it provided to get out of one of the worst working environments I have ever encountered. Why? There is no doubt the increased earnings would have made a huge difference to his standard of living and there were certainly things about his work that he disliked, but he felt challenged where he was and considered that he was making a difference, which would ultimately offer greater rewards in the longer-term.
It is a choice that I am sure most people would make in that situation. The known, with its apparent potential will nearly always outweigh the unknown when the individual feels satisfied with what they are doing and is being recognised for their effort. The key is satisfaction: satisfaction is essential for longevity – in any situation.
So the challenge is to stimulate satisfaction. And, you will hardly be surprised to learn, that I am convinced that a move towards accounting for people as assets offers the best way of spreading satisfaction. It will immediately engender a new attitude that, rather than focusing just on the immediately required competencies, looks at the total person and enables us to break this vicious cycle. Both individual and company will be better off – without either ever being shackled by the concept of jobs for life. Who says we “can’t get no satisfaction”?