A small company in Utah recently went through a few rounds of layoffs. I bet you can repeat along with me how they announced it to employees.
- It’s nothing personal, but . . .
- Well, in these tough times sometimes you just have to . . .
- The reality of 21st century business means we can’t be loyal for loyalty’s sake . . .
I’m sure you’ve heard it before. And I don’t want to come across as hard on them. Of course, sometimes these things are unavoidable.
But a friend of mine, between the second and third rounds of downsizing, decided he wanted to leave on his own terms. He found a great opportunity, and tendered his resignation.
Can you predict how the company reacted?
- How could you?!?!?!
- What ever happened to loyalty?!?!?!
- You have no idea how tough it will be for us to deal with this!!!!
- Is it really ethical to leave in this economic climate?!?!?
Again, so I don’t come across harsher than I intend, I’m sure they did consider my friend an invaluable asset, and were legitimately scared about what they would do without him. But yes, you read it right. When the company was the one being affected, out came the language of honor, dependability, and fidelity. When they were affecting others, the language was that of formality, neutrality, and everyone-for-themselves. It seems like a law of modern business.
But is it a law that we want to drive our economy? What is it that should drive our economy? Let me postulate that it isn’t the business need, but the human need that should be given priority. After all, weren’t the employees let go also counting on company loyalty? Won’t it be tough for them to deal with being laid off? And (dare I say it?) shouldn’t we think deeply about how ethical it is to let employees go in this economic climate?
This approach to business relations is not only evident in the employer/employee relationship. I’ve also noticed it in the field I’m most familiar with – education. Many schools, including the most prestigious universities, are starting to see themselves as little more than training institutes for big business (Businesses need well-trained employees, don’t they?). But we don’t ask about the consequences for the educational system, or ultimately the students who are being short-changed for life while they are being trained for jobs that might not exist when they graduate. I’ve even heard administrators who are reluctant to try innovative educational practices for fear of how their business partners would react (won’t it make it harder for them to select the most qualified employees?), rather than considering whether the innovation will help students develop into kinder, gentler, more compassionate people.
I want to live in a world where businesses value their employees not because of what those employees can do, but because of who those employees are. I believe that if employees trusted corporations to take care of them, they would take care of the corporation. After all, that’s what good relationships are about, aren’t they? Taking care of each other?
But I also believe there are virtues and behaviors that should be admired for their own merits, and not only when they are instrumental in achieving other, business-driven ends. Treating people right is just the right thing to do, even when it isn’t measurable by the latest Six Sigma Whatever. Aren’t we really interested in developing people who are capable of discovering and expressing the passion, wonder, and joy of the world? Shouldn’t we be?
Of course, it’s almost heresy to suggest this, isn’t it?
What do you think?
I agree that something has change as far as the business world is concerned, but that is only a reflection of a change in our society. I am a true believer in capitalism. I believe that it was what our country was founded on. It is that the individual looks out for themselves and as such will make good decisions for society, as long as they are free. I also believe that our constitution and this American Experiment was only to be done with a Christian society. I think as our morals founded in Christian values decline so has our business sense of truly taking care or our employees and they will be loyal to their employers. To reiterate, I think what you, Clint, are talking about is a sign of a much bigger problem in our society in Utah, in America, and the world.
Businesses shouldn’t treat you badly on the way out the door if you choose to leave; respect and kindness is a two-way street. I think it would be very unfortunate if I worked at a company and decided to leave and they said some of those things. I’d probably feel even more frustrated and grateful I was leaving.
I remember when I left my first job after a few years for a better opportunity and everyone was gracious and respectful. We’d talked about all the fun we’d had and everyone wished me luck. It was a real positive experience and it makes it easier to say positive things about the people of that organization.
In fact, the CIO said in some internal meetings that if anyone’s current position wasn’t the right spot for the employee and the employee wanted to do something different, he’d help them find something that would work. If it turned out that there wasn’t an opportunity within the organization and the person wanted to leave, he’d help them find something where the employee could be happy and successful.
I know a few people did leave (I ended up leaving a year later), but most everyone stayed and felt that the CIO cared about them and their career paths. I think the CIO’s kindness helped.
Great comments and ideas Jason. I just realized that there is no indication on the blog that shows how you are the author of this entry, so that is something that I will need to fix.
So, actually Paul, you are trying to reiterate what Jason is saying — my new co-blogger. 🙂
Only, there is no way you would have known that because I need to somehow activate the setting that tells who the author is. 😉
Good insights, all. Thanks for your contribution.
So what can we do? If these trends do exist, is there anything four individuals can do to reverse course in any meaningful way?
(P.S. I believe there is, so no fair answering “no”! But I am very interested in what ideas people can generate.)
You should read “Atlas Shrugged.”
Companies MUST act for their own benefit and should never complain when an individual does so as well. To say “the human need that should be given priority” is to mirror the concept of “need comes first.”
No, that will not work. Companies cannot look at the “human element” because to do so they would become unproductive and when they become unproductive, they fail.
One of the many problems people have with the capitalist system is they do not realize there is an inherent failure in any other methodology than the market value of goods and services.
You cannot arbitrarily set prices. If you want to set the price of say, bread, you would have to look at the costs involved. One cost would be the grain, which has as a component the labor of a farmer, which has as a component cost his food, including bread.
So any such attempt is circular.
If the market says a company must downsize or die, it must do so. It sounds cruel, but it is the only way the system can actually function.
When the cost of a good or service is arbitrarily set too low or too high, you have a problem. In fact, the fact that the government pushed for “more affordable home loans” is why we had the “real estate bubble.”
Yes, our current economic crisis was caused by someone trying to be too nice.
Thanks for the comment, Yevgeni.
Why, exactly, would a company become unproductive if they consider the human element? There seem to be plenty of companies that do exactly that, and are very successful.
How is anything I wrote an argument for setting prices arbitrarily?
Why are the only two choices for a company in trouble to downside or die? Accepting only those two choices seems like a significant failure of imagination.