As an employee, getting fired, creates a negative perception about the individual. But hold on a minute, there is another perspective. Since there are two parties involved maybe 'fired' isnt the right word. An employee's perspective, which gets lost in the cloud of negativity surrounding the event, maybe the word is 'relieved'.
Lets detach ourself from the role of employee or employer, before we proceed ahead and use the 'and this implies?' rule to work out the simple, cause and reason. The cause is quite static in this regard, being, a relationship is broken. Now lets look at some of the reasons.
Change in organization strategy or way to do business is a very often used (to the level of being abused) as a valid reason. But what does it imply. It implies, that the individuals skills do not fit the strategy the organization wants to adopt, and the organization has decided to not invest in the particular human resource any further. In overly simple words, skills not needed, no further investment of thought or time. Remember we are wearing a third person hat here, so lets dwell a little more. Strategies do not change over night. Obviously there's a process to change in stratgey, and this process was unable to reutilize the skills of the human resource who got fired. This is not a sorry thing for the employee, but for the employer, that the employer is unable to leverage its own human resource. Remember, if the employer thought that the human resource is not needed and not a quality resource, the resource should not have been hired in the first place. So when the reason is 'change in strategy', it implies, that employer is unable to invest in the particular resource. This is not a negative reflection on the employee, but on the employer. For an employee it is better to stay away from an employer who having recruited you, now finds that it does not know how to leverage it.
Cost saving or cost cutting is considered a very taboo term for it is too true to its definition. This is a very numerical reason. Question is, does it indeed take into account all the numbers. When an employe is fired, a severence compensation needs to be put into place. It is a regulatory requirement by most and nearly all labor laws, unless of course, a resource has signed it off. The severence includes components to be assumed completed, such as, salary for the notice period as per contract and gratuity. For further calculations we shall consider percentile values. The employer looses a resource who has a place in the eco-system of the organization. The productivity of the resource fired shall be considered 100. Now a new resource(s) who come into the organization, would not execute at 100percentile from the word go. The learning curve for these new resource(s) would take the equivalent of the ideal overlap period, which is usually as thumb rule approx. half the notice period, 45 days. So from calculations, employer absorbs 45 days very low productivity. If there are n number of new resources, the percentage increase in maintenance(read salary and compensation) would also need to be considered. At this point we must understand, that there will be situations where these numbers do infact result in cost savings/cost cutting. However, more information lies in the percentage of savings of the employer. If the savings are less and yet resources are fired, the employer is financially on really thin ice. If the margin of savings are more, well then the it justifies itself. As an employee for such an employer, one should understand that this is an uncertain employer and there will always be insecurity involved, whether the employee is bottom of pyramid or top of the pyramid. It also reflects that the employer is taking decisions based on top and bottom lines. Likewise, the employee should also adopt the same and consider negotiating the severance to make the most of the opportunity.
Attitude is a very sensitive reason and very case specific. It can imply multiple things. It could reflect on the recruitment process, where in personalities aspects of the resource could not or were not correctly identified. This is a challenge for every organization. The employer pays the cost of a 'mis-recruitment'. Scratching the surface a bit more, the reasons for the attitude can also dependent on the ecosystem the employee belongs to. It is not necessary that an employee has a bad attitude because of issues with the immediate management, but it could be a result of passive hostile, restrictive or unconducive immediate work environment. The attitude then could be an attempt to break free. As an employer, the resolution should not stop by mere firing the resource. As an employee, it frees the employee and compels the employee to move ahead. The world after all is bigger than any one of us.
So, if one is an organization that makes one feel like quitting. Give it a little more thought. There is more reward in being fired than quitting. However, there is a price to be paid for it. Until the employee, is fired, the employee could remain dissatisfied and disengaged, and it will also stall the career growth of the resource, as it would equate to time lost. Just like there is no winner in a war, there is no beneficiary here. Both pay a price, probably the employer more than the employee. But is any one listening?
No comments:
Post a Comment