Sustaining in a single work environment for more than two years is so uncommon – especially among the millennials – that it is being seen as a myth today. Fresh graduates and young professionals alike are switching jobs like it’s the end of the world regardless of the field they are in. And yet there is a small faction of loyalists who stay back. Not because they do not understand the natural requirement of frequently moving around at a young age to bump the paycheck and the title that goes below their name, but because they find something enticing in the association with their present organization. The credit goes to the organization, of course, on which always stands the onus to attract the best talent and make them stay till, if possible, retirement.
Here’s a look at the three primary reasons why people stay longer at a single work environment while being cognizant of the disadvantage they have as compared to their peers who hop on and on in their starting years.
When Workplace Stops Being a Workplace
“Do you have work-from-home facility?”
The HR replied to the potential employee in the positive, adding that the organization allowed its employees to work from home at least once a month and during emergencies. In today’s workplace fluidity and the rise of remote working and gig economy, workers don’t need a common place to be effective and efficient with what they do.
Facilities like these which also include generous maternity/paternity leaves, options to take sabbaticals, presence of workplace sickbays and cafeterias, and an overall laid-back atmosphere with or without an open-office culture are what stops a workplace being called a workplace. It is around these benefits that employees stay merrier because everyone is sharing the same elastic benefits.
Employee First, Company Second
Based on an account of yours truly after completing three years at a Publicis agency in India, employees tend to stay longer at a company based on how they are treated. It is when a company puts its employees’ interest first when they can indirectly gain in the secondary field i.e. company’s interests.
A company should regard an employee’s personal emergency over that of a client that they are currently handling. The single point of argument for this is that work for a client is never-ending and goes on breathlessly, unlike that of an individual.
It can be seen as a two-check-pointed cycle where the employer takes care of the employees and the employees give back through deliverables and targets.
Action on Feedback
So many workers share their opinions to their companies and so little is the action. Most companies base their policies on other established companies and behave like they are written on stone. It is usually regarded like a constitution of a democracy where any call for amendment is seen as an invite for more problems rather than a solution.
The good companies not only hear what their employees have to say but also action them if the feedback has any merit. The suggestion to conduct fancy dress competitions thrice a year may not be a productive thing to process but allowing employees to assume flexible timings as long as they complete the minimum work hours is. The latter, more so, because it makes sense and improves productivity.
So much can be done by today’s companies that it won’t even hit their exchequer much. But what they get in returns: their employees’ happiness and loyalty. It’s 2019 and there needs to be more dialog on this. TN.