Moonlighting: Honeymoon Over.
Your honeymoon is over!
How many times have bosses said that to new employees? How many times did employees get a chance to reply? And if they did, guess what the employee would like to say in return?
What goes around, comes around!
The curious case for moonlighting:?it is a situation where an employee chooses to work for another organization simultaneously while being gainfully employed with one. Sounds unfair. Or is it fair? Let us examine this from both points of view, that of the employer and the employee.
First, the?employer's point of view.
So you're upset that your employee worked for another company! It's natural to be outraged. Youa re paying them to work exclusively for you. But they cheated and betrayed your trust and above all the contract. So what action do you take? You fire them. No place for traitors, no space for two-timers. The message is clear and straightforward from the employers :
If we pay, we expect absolute loyalty.
We pay for your exclusivity, not your plurality. Some roles require absolute secrecy; an organization's future depends on it. There are non-disclosure agreements and legally binding documents that explicitly prohibit any information divulging. Violating such clauses is akin to an act of treason.
And even if the role does not demand explicit confidentiality, is it not a moral obligation as an employee of the company to maintain absolute integrity? Why is it wrong for an employer to expect 100% honesty from its employees? Why should an employer retain employees unfaithful to their jobs? Will it not promote a toxic work culture and lower productivity?
Employers feel the heat when they lose good employees, given the amount of junk floating around. As a result, business continuity is derailed, company credibility is dented with customers, and all investments in employee training and enablement are wasted.
Customers will not allow future business if they learn their vendor's employees could mess with their data and information.
Generating revenue is more demanding than ever before, and you need an all-hands-on-deck approach, so when they find employees mistreating their trust and expectations, it hurts the business.
There are cases where employees threaten to leave unless given a raise. They are not loyal to any amount of investment. No-shows and abrupt MIAs all add to the chaos. So net-net, moonlighting is a clear no-go option for many corporates.
Now, hold that thought, and let's examine the?counterargument.
Employee's point of view.
Employees need help to meet the work-life balance. Workplace toxicity is one of the prime triggers for employee demotivation. Poor wages and exploitative tendencies, and opaque career paths closely follow it. Particularly in India, where the demand-supply gap is severely skewed, employers take advantage of the available volume of talent.
An enormous number of people desperately seek jobs and inadvertently become prime targets of manipulation. It needs to stop. As a result, they are fatigued more quickly than their previous generation. They are more insecure owing to ruthless layoffs and "business decisions," which are beyond their control. What do they do if they lose a job?
So who wouldn't want an insurance policy?
Question: how would you feel if your customer engaged your competition? No customers like to be vendor locked, so they work with multiple vendors offering the same service. Would you sever ties with such customers, then? Would you pledge never to work with such two-timing customers?
Give you an example. Think of one of your erstwhile demanding customers, the intense pre-close negotiations and interactions which transpired before the deal was booked; they agreed to the terms and conditions but eventually backed out. How did you feel? Did you feel offended when your customer shared your quotation with the competition to secure a better deal? Do you never work with those customers again?
The fact is, you do. You swallow pride and return to that customer asking for more business. The customer may finally appreciate the brilliance of your product, or they may do a favor by choosing your offering despite having options. Either way, you smile and take it. It pays you money. It generates income. So if an employee wants to have backup options, what's wrong?
But that's different, you argue. Paying an employee versus getting paid by a customer is different. With employees, it's the opposite. You pay them money. So you expect them to obey and follow everything you say or do. They signed up for it. So they should be happy they have a job, right?
Wrong. Depression, anxiety, and poor mental health are rampant across the corporate world's length and breadth. So could it be that you are giving employees a hard time, low wages, and improbable targets and yet expect loyalty, trust, and productivity? How did that turn out, with a 25% attrition YoY and a toxic work culture to boot?
What happens to those employees whose partners work with rival companies? How will you detect, trust, and discipline? Surely you don't expect them to separate from their partners, do you? Or will you not hire those who have friends and family working in rival companies?
Is that not discrimination? Will you now introduce a mandatory question at the interviews,"do you have anyone from your friends and family working with any of our competitors?
领英推荐
Will it become a mandatory hiring criterion? If so, how will you audit the response? And continue to monitor during the course of the tenure? Will it promote trust within the organization? Or will it lay the bedrock for conflicts? Or are you suggesting faith is not a factor as long as the employee delivers results?
If customers hate being vendor locked, can employees feel the same being employer locked? Again, we need transparency, collaboration, and commitment to play ball to solve this tricky issue.
The question is, how?
Employers perspective -
Risk:?privacy of employees is compromised.
Employee perspective -
Risk: scope for requests turning into demands, threats, and blackmails.
Conclusion:
This gridlock can only be resolved by resetting the employment culture. Resetting a cultural divide needs time. Building a trust quotient needs counseling, guidance, and mentorship. Likewise, large corporations must rethink their organizational culture and values and balance expectations. They are dealing with people, not machines.
People managers have a greater responsibility than merely seeking output. They cant become collection agents. They need to be invested objectively, equipped tactically, and mature mentally to grow their teams and increase production.
This choking crunch is a reflection of our times. We often hear, don't boil the ocean; it's time we get started with a pail of water. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
AB
Tune in to?BasTalk: a podcast about life at work.?
Here are some episodes to get you started:?
Apple :?3 ways to tackle failures
Spotify:?Moonlighting
Amazon:?Burnol: Sales Burnouts
And if you are one of those who listen to BasTalk regularly, please take a moment to review it?here.?
And (last one) please share with those who care to listen to this content.