| About InfoWorld : Advertise : Subscribe : Contact Us : Awards : Events : Store |
 |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
 |
|
|||
 |
||||
|
|
|
||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 COLUMN
What do employees owe to the companies they work for? I was raised in an environment of personal responsibility. Consequently, if I tell someone I'm going to do something, I follow through. That carries over into the workplace. I wouldn't walk off a job or quit without notice, primarily because I had said I would do the job -- and I will.
Part of the reason for my hesitation was my reluctance to use myself as some sort of universal ethical yardstick. I don't pretend to be so virtuous that I set the standard for other people's behavior. I do many things I feel are the right things to do, but I think there's some arrogance in the idea that I do them for all the right reasons -- or that they make any sense to anyone else. There's way too much of that attitude going around these days, and I don't want to add to it. At the heart of the question is the issue of employee loyalty to a company. In the old days, that idea had a lot of currency. Employees stuck with a company -- often for their whole lives -- and, in many cases, were rewarded with "cradle to grave" care from the employer. The benefits weren't necessarily excessive and, along with pay scales, could often be paternalistic, but employees were generally assured of a job until they retired. That's all changed. In many companies today, workers seem to have become little more than commodities -- hired and fired with the slightest fluctuation in the economy. You have a job in some companies only as long as the quarterly P&L statement meets the numbers the spreadsheet and the bean counters say it should. Corporations tried to mask this with euphemisms. "Personnel" became "human resources," and people become "human assets." "Employees are our most important asset," some companies bragged. But calling people resources lumps them in with steel, lumber, and scrap metal -- all resources. And calling them assets just reinforces the idea that they are commodities that can be assigned a dollar figure and put on the table for trading when things get rough. The days are long gone -- at least in publicly-traded companies -- where the owners will tighten their belts during tough times. Now, the employees -- sometimes the most able and the most loyal -- first feel the economy's pinch. So, when readers asked what to do when a better offer comes along after accepting a new job, I had to wonder what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot. What would a company do if it decided it needed to increase profits -- by cutting costs -- within a few days of taking on a new employee? The answer -- and you all know it -- is that the company would make what it called "a business decision" and cut the new employee loose. In the last few months, we've even had companies that cut the string after offering the job, but before the employee started work. Then why shouldn't employees have the same latitude to make a "business decision" in their own behalf? So what if I've told XYZ Corp. that I'll start next Monday morning? Another company has offered me 10 percent more. Shouldn't I just go with the offer that will increase my bottom line? XYZ Corp. would! Despite these changes, I don't think that employee loyalty is dead, merely that we have to redefine it. I still think companies should be able to expect that you'll do whatever you can to further their best interests while you're on the payroll. They should be able to expect you won't betray them or their company secrets. But loyalty no longer means being tied to one employer for life. It no longer means that the employer can expect you to subordinate your best interests to that of the company. You should be free to make a "business decision" without compunction, just as the company would. Some employees might, out of a heightened sense of responsibility, decide not to jump ship, but it's not clear that those who do jump have done anything ethically wrong. People are always free to exceed ethical standards. That doesn't, in itself, create a new standard that other people must now meet or be unethical. Just because you or I wouldn't do it doesn't mean that no one else should. If companies find themselves inconvenienced when employees move on quickly -- even within days or weeks -- they need to realize that this stems from a climate the companies themselves have created. Loyalty is a two-way street. When employees are seen as nothing more than expense items to be eliminated at will -- despite management's feel-good euphemisms -- then employers make themselves nothing more than revenue sources to be changed whenever a better opportunity presents itself. But maybe I'm off base here. If I am, I'm sure you'll tell me. Discuss this with other readers at www.infoworld.com/forums/ethics. You can write to me at ethics_matters@infoworld.com. Carlton Vogt is the senior editor in charge of InfoWorld's e-mail newsletters. He holds graduate degrees in philosophy and theology, and has taught ethics at the college level. He also has an extensive background in technology journalism. Discuss this article in our online forums MORE > SPONSORED WHITE PAPERS 
SPONSORED LINKS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
