Sb: Re: LO & Big Layoffs LO5221 & 5252
In, I believe, LO5165, I commented that it was paradoxical to expect
employees to be creative and committed for a company that is not committed
to the employee's long-term well-being, ie most likely, employment.
A number of people responded as Tobin Quereau did, and I will quote him as
representative of others. "While those are important to many people, I
think what I am talking about can come from being in an organization which
encourages and rewards learning, values high quality work, challenges
employees to continue growing, offers everyone a chance to "make a
difference" in what goes on,and strives for a positive interpersonal
environment with some room for fun."
I agree with that absolutely as a goal. Some professions -- notably
computer proessionals -- also practice loyalty to the profession. That's
another viable model.
I am, however, more troubled than ever by this direction of decreasing
employe loyalty because of a number of loosely threads that are coming
together for me in an unusual way.
First, as Ginger says (LO5285), if I understood correctly, that 80% of the
people are not _intrinsically_ motivated. First corollary of that is that
80% of managers (perhaps a bit less) are not _intrinsically_ motivated,
either. And the second corollary is that managers who are not
intrinsicallly motivated will not be changing the system anytime soon
because they are being motivatedif at all by another manager who, not
surprisingly, only really knows one model.
Second, referring to the thread on Maslow, as people get closer to feeling
insecure, more and more of their energy goes into heightening security at
the expense of other goals.
The third thread for me is a side conversation I have had with Ray Evans
Harrell regarding the value of community and family.
The fourth thread was Dave Birren's comment that he had not realized that
the sun was part of the system causing evolution to occur because he
imagined a different system. At that point, I realized what was troubling
me was that we have defined our system too narrowly. This is not about
WORK, it's about LIFE.
When I put this question of employer loyalty into the "LIFE" perspective,
I have a lot of questions, mostly with troubling answers. For example,
How healthy is it for kids developmentally to lose connections with home
and family as they move around while growing up?
In the absence of long term relationships, what strategies do kids use to
become quickly accepted in a new environment? Are these healthy
What are the implications regarding family stress for two-earner
households when one earner has to move?
How much investment do "nomadic" people make in a community they know they
will not stay in for long?
Does having nomadic kids help or hurt already over-challenged school
My intuitive answer to all of these questions is not favorable, but I
would love to hear from experts.
My guesses are as follows: Kids need stability at certain times of their
lives. Kids tend to resort to "cool" -- but destructive -- strategies to
gain quick acceptance in a new environment. Alcohol, drugs, cigarettes,
sex, and so forth. Family stress increases exponentially when one of the
earners has to move away to get work. Migratory people are far less
likely to invest of themselves in the community. School systems have huge
logistical and socialization problems when there is a large nomadic
What do others think?
-- Rol Fessenden LL Bean firstname.lastname@example.org