• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Corporate dilemma

B. S. Raghavan

THE dizzying pace of integration with global economy is making nonsense of the tradition of sticking life-long to one employer. Indeed, employees no longer take loyalty to their organisations as sacrosanct. What matters is where and how they can get the best deal. This applies to a much greater extent to ICE professionals, scientists, financial and investment experts, software programmers and knowledge workers of every description. In their case, in particular, demand far exceeds supply, forcing countries such as Germany, Japan, the UK and the US to go to the extent of relaxing their immigration laws and procedures in order to fill the gap.

Within the same country itself, corporates feel no ethical qualm about luring professionals employed elsewhere with faster promotions and higher compensation packages. Even with all these strategems, corporates find it next to impossible to retain bright and competent doers for sufficiently long periods. The disruption caused by the high turnover tells on the mindshare and marketshare of the organisation, and within a very short time, affects its profitability as well.

It also poses an agonising dilemma to corporate chieftains. Every organisation follows the practice of annual appraisal of the worth and performance of each of its employees in order to identify and remedy shortcomings by timely counselling, to attune th em to the functional requirements and to groom them for new and higher responsibilities by putting them through appropriate training and refresher courses. Nowadays, with lucrative avenues opening up on all sides and poaching at all costs rampant, profes sionals are unwilling to subject themselves to performance appraisals in the customary mode.

Many chief executives find that within a few days following the mention of a negative aspect of the performance, the professional packs up and leaves. The dilemma is whether, for this reason, superiors should keep quiet about the drawbacks noticed in the work of their junior associates, especially when this can have a cascading effect. For instance, if they put up with suboptimal performance in the case of one, they cannot pull up others when necessary without giving the impression of being unfair and d iscriminatory. Which means they have just to close their eyes to backsliding on all fronts, gnawed by the feeling that they themselves are contributing to it by their pussyfooting.

What is the way out? This is where the chief executive himself must directly take a hand by winning the confidence of the professionals in his enterprise. Dismounting from his high horse, he should meet them at frequent intervals, say, once a week, in or der that they feel emotionally integrated, and take his observations on their performance as coming from an elder interested in their self-improvement and career prospects.

More importantly, he should encourage them to consult him freely and frankly on their future plans, offering to help them get on the fast track as their friend and well-wisher. They should, in short, be made to feel that they can give vent to their views and aspirations with the assurance that the top brass will respond to them with empathy and without delay.