Job Clingers and Job Shifters (Quitters?)

HR departments of companies would love people to stick to companies as they know the difficulties in sourcing the right people in the positions. But how long would it take to call these people as ‘job clingers?

A person is employed by a company to make use of his/her skill for service/ production enhancement. After a stage, this ‘enhancement’ becomes ‘maintenance.’ And look at the employee’s side. While getting paid for the work, the employees also learn and sharpen their skills initially.

As per the theoretical models of Learning curves, an employee reaches a plateau once he/she acquires the skill in full, not ignoring the capacity to learn by the individual. Whether the learning curve takes the shape of increasing return or decreasing return or increasing and decreasing return, that is something of concern to the employers. The point highlighted here is the case when the employee uses his/ her intelligence and knowledge in workplace – where knowledge is power! And Government employees are excluded as they have the ‘pension’ factor.

It is said that three to five years is the ideal period for an employee to stay in a company. As the learning curve reaches a plateau, the employee will not have much to gain in terms of knowledge or skill. From the employer’s side, the company will only maintain the service/ production level, a limit drawn by the capacity level of the employer. Several reasons are quoted for quitting a job – like a bad boss, lack of passion in the work, feeling of disrespect or exploitation in the workplace and foreseeing a declining growth of the company.

Well, the above statements are not at all new. There would be even research works suggesting optimal periods to stay in jobs. But what makes employees who apply their knowledge/ skill, stick to jobs for years? Number of reasons could be said starting from treating the job as a livelihood, to the expected progression in career in a dynamic work environment. Unfortunately, this progression is not linked to time (service period) in many companies. Everyone will not rise to the level of leaders. But leaders need ‘(un)acknowledged’ support of the unsuccessful lots – the challengers. The leaders often behave like “bad boss”, take control over the challengers, and increase their benefits at the cost of the challengers. This could be like a research problem identified by the challenger but published by the leader with or without acknowledging the challenger.

So what?

Well, why should one stay for long in a company where he/she do not have anything more to learn, do not have anything more to offer, and do not get acknowledged? As time goes, enhance competitiveness and be ready to shift to a new company if fate in the current company is without work challenges. If anyone is continuing in an organization in a static work environment for 10 or 20 years, it is not because he/she is liked by the employer and co-workers, but because he/she is a deadwood and not wanted by another employer.

Sounds utopian. But not for all. Do not dream of retiring from the company one join. Dream of the self-transformation one could make, if at all retiring!