In the last two decades I have worked for just two organizations but have met with people from various organizations. The one question I have wondered about is the emphasis on creating a standard acceptable Culture of the company.
One of the organizations that had people in some 20+ countries didn’t feel the need to focus on culture. The people associated with this company were freelancers and not on the payroll of the company. Every task, every project, and every deliverable, were defined and measurable. Compensation was clearly defined at multiple levels and on completion, payment was within a stipulated timeframe. Contrast this with all other organizations that focused a lot on culture.
The debate in my mind is less about the approach to creating culture or the time spent in pursuing this goal. The clear debate is what happens when the employee is to be terminated.
What happens to the lessons taught in creating culture?
Where do the values go when a colleague is to be let go? How come they are treated as potential criminals?
In today’s world of heightened online security multiple layers of data protection and live backups, is it important to disable access even before the person has been told of their redundancy or imminent departure?
There have been many companies, mostly American who have been laying off workers globally, but they are in the news for the way they have treated exiting employees. A set of them simply closed access to emails, offices, and asked people to meet HR. No interaction with colleagues no conversations about the future, and not even transparency on the compensation was made available to them. Where once the organization espoused the values of respect, and camaraderie, once an employee was to be exited the treatment was almost like that of getting rid of vermin.
The point to argue isn’t about the treatment but the reasons for it. Why would an organization suddenly think brand equity of the organization didn’t matter when it came to exiting employees? The evidence is clear that there is a disconnect between the culture which hopefully transcends time, and opportunistic treatment of employees – the more you like their work the more they are acceptable and thus respected. So what then is the culture of these companies?
Here are some points to ponder.
A family – over centuries businesses in the Eastern hemisphere were treated as family. There was the rise of communism and unionism simply because the original family values were forgotten. This was coupled with colonialism where it helped colonial powers spread discontent amongst subjects of independent kingdoms by falsifying how subjects were treated by kings. The result has been the systematic destruction of the concept of a family at work. This has been replaced by an aggregation of workers that are around until the mother ship needs them. They are discarded or are discardable at will with very little concern about their future.
The valuable employee made redundant – from CEOs to office sweepers, the treatment is shocking. For people who were once trusted with the keys to the establishment, at redundancy they are not even allowed to enter the same establishment. I agree CEOs can create some sort of problems, but honestly do they suddenly become unpredictable reptiles once their tenure is terminated?
The colleague you can’t talk to – it’s strange how those made redundant are suddenly shunned by those who are still in the organization. What happens to team spirit, collaborative and the whole concept of ‘friends?
The idea here is to stimulate thinking, perhaps stimulate research on what drives individuals and organizations to change their behavior almost overnight. Is this the behavior that is acceptable? If it is, then in which part of the company manual is this written or what efforts do organizations make in being transparent about this aspect of employee life?
I remain positive that by asking these questions we will stimulate the search for their answers.