It could be that they have never surmounted a confrontational situation, got over that hill and looked back in satisfaction. Sounds mumbo-jumbo? Believe you me it isn’t. Progressive growth rarely occurs for such people. They sell their way into better positions and better pay by jumping jobs often. It can grow into a negative facet of their personality, if they continue to hop jobs in the long run. Such runners are akin to alcoholics, never really completely cured, and in a perpetual state of recovery. But I refer to the far less jumpy kind, those who jump every couple of years or there about. And mostly just before or after appraisal time.
These individuals, it isn’t surprising, are actually far above average thinkers and doers, they just haven’t settled down long enough to actually shine in their role. There’s a trade-off for both the employer and employee. “Long service” for employee could mean lower pay, less appreciation and long waits for higher positions as against instant hike in pay and position; for the employer it means following a uniform HR policy keeping majority employees content or apply a seemingly erratic HR policy to accommodate an outstanding employee. For the employer, the employee is wanted but not at any cost; for the employee it’s too much of a struggle to get good, year on year increments and fight for a higher position. New employers can offer out of the box terms for new employees but not so for old ones; there’s so much to be considered some political and other plain, simple bad HR habits.
For such a relationship to work out something has to give.
Further complexities arise from the lack of trust displayed among seniors and their jockeying for a position as the “big boss’s” favourite. These political games are simply too much for good managers who care little for such wrangling and focus more on getting the job done. A ‘function’ manager is the fulcrum of an organisation. While he/she must be properly evaluated, every year and rewarded accordingly; there needs to be an additional method of reward that meets the EQ and material needs of performer. Am not simply referring to bonuses or financial incentives. But regular jumps in status, position and financial packages.
To some degree start-ups maybe to blame but it’s largely because of the disconnect between employers and employees. And no effort by the employee can actually alter the circumstances. I would like to state quite categorically that organisations have to move away from the straight and narrow HR policies of the 90s or even the early 2000s. It’s a dynamic world today and innovation is a must to stay ahead, I’m not advocating anarchy. I speak of a new dynamic model that which operates on a dual level. One that is firm and changes very infrequently to cover the fears of those employees who look at such HR policies as security; and another that piggy backs and is dynamic, creative enough to offer strong recourse for HR in the face of outstanding performers.
To trash this thought is to dig your own grave. Organisations have to find place in the brave new world, space that can present them in a light of fearlessness and innovation, anything short of that will spell failure and even doom (in some cases).