I often have a problem at work, because I am not strategic in any way, which means I don't consider the office politics at all. Inversely, I am the opposite - transparent and inclusive. For me, I see it as a win-win to be open with information internally, without worrying about whose toes might be stepped on. The company I work for is pretty good for this with low hierarchy, but there are still "cultural" differences depending on the person and often, where they are from.
For instance, I find that the US colleagues are more hierarchy-based and can border on the "yes man" mentality. I think this might be due to the employment culture in the US more than personality of individuals, where there is very little job security or protection, so "letting people go" (firing and kicking them out) is far easier than it is in Europe.
This has other consequences however, because that lack of job security also seems to mean that people are less likely to commit to their role, which means they don't learn as deeply and tend to move on more readily. The average tenure in the US seems to be generally shorter than Europe.
As of January 2022, the median number of years wage and salary workers had been with their current employer in the U.S. was 4.1 years, unchanged from January 2020. However, an analysis of average job tenure from 2010 to 2020 showed an increase for every consecutive age group, with employees aged 20-24 having an average median tenure of just 1.3 years and employees aged 45-54 having an average median tenure of 7.2 years. The median tenure for employees with less than a high school diploma was 4.8 years (men) and 4.1 years (women), while college graduates had a median tenure of 5.2 years (men) and 4.9 years (women).
That is quite interesting, isn't it?
I am a nerd.
Looking at the European Union, there are quite large differences across all countries.
For instance, these 5 countries...
Have the shortest average tenure.
These 5 the longest:
Eye-balling the average and not accounting for populating size, the average is somewhere around 9 years, which is over twice that of the US average. This really is a significant metric and there are many reasons for it, but I wonder what kinds of effects this has on industry and personal life. Do people who feel more secure in their job perform better or worse in the workplace? What kinds of effects does job security have on wellbeing? I also wonder what kinds of effects it has on internal business processes in terms of knowledge sharing - does a high rate of employee turnover lead to commitment issues both ways? Do companies compartmentalize more so as not to give away too much?
When it comes to my own tasks and ideas, I share freely with the people who are possible stakeholders, and I also test theories and possible process ideas with people I trust to be honest and who will be affected, as it means that I can vet the idea before developing it too far. If these people aren't going to use what I build, there is no point in building it.
I find that this isn't always the case with many people though, as a lot of people seem to keep their ideas to themselves, only including key people and building "in secret". This gives them a surprise factor of a kind, and it avoids lots of judgement, but what I find is that it rarely has the impact they hope for, often meets resistance, or goes unused. I aim more for the "minimum viable product" approach and then once people have yay'd or nay'd, adjust and flesh it out further for the next iteration.
The reason I do this is that it allows for an idea to start delivering value quickly, or being able to be scrapped quickly. However, I wonder if this approach is possible because I "know" (nothing is certain) I am going to be sticking around to be able to improve it, or have more ideas. I don't have to rely on every one being a winner. And, I might also get support because they know I am going to be sticking around longer too, so they don't feel like I am wasting their time.
I don't know.
What I do believe however, is that just like any relationship, when people aren't committed, they aren't going to last. And, if people aren't willing to learn, they aren't going to adjust for changing conditions either. It is possible to hire the perfect person for a role, but that role is ultimately going to change over time, and if that person is unable to shift with it, they are going to leave or, they are not going to do the job that is required.
For now, I am still exploring these observations and reflecting a bit on what I see, but so far, I think that lack of commitment leads to a lack of transparency, which leads to low levels of trust. And in an organization that is looking to crow, compartmentalizing information and building siloes, isn't going to lead to the type of collaboration and cooperation that is required for effective and sustainable growth. And it is the sustainability of a company that I look for in my evaluation as to whether it is worth the investment or not. Struggling to keep staff is a warning sign to look closer at their business model, because if the staff are uncommitted,
what does that do to future development?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Posted Using LeoFinance Alpha
Your data is spot on for me. I've never worked in the same job for more than 4 years and I look forward to a more committed working relationship in the future. Professional development is something that is important to me, so I would definitely prioritize a company that wants to commit to me for a longer amount of time!
Though you might not agree, having a committed relationship can have a lot of value too! :D
For sure. I'm working hard to get that one back too!
I need that skin 2 skin contact in my life, someone to go to sleep and wake up next to, someone to split bills with, someone to scratch my back!
By far, the most important. :)
Being transparent and inclusive is a strategy. I know entrepreneurs in the United States who have invested large sums of money and cannot afford to delegate critical functions within the business organisation. There is a simple saying: “what doesn't cost us, let's make it a party”, which is totally applicable in this area; of course, those who have invested nothing will not make an effort to give value to that investment, right…?
Do you mean that they hoard responsibilities?
This is something I often find on Hive too.
The eye of the master fattens the horse…
A saying that advises you to keep an eye on what you have of value, especially in a business, rather than relying on outsiders for it.
When a business gets large enough and jobs specialized enough, there has to be division of labor.
Well, its not necessary for every graduated, highly educated people to have a white collar office jobs to suit in, because then the other job sectors that open up creativity, innovations would shrink in. That wouldnt look good, to be honest.
Number two is that, in notable comparisons between European Union & America - I think its the workplace culture that varies and due to such behaviour which shapes the difference between "yes, man" attitude, the hierarchical office politics have nipped in due to that.
But, overall the components are good enough and they still help to move the world forward.
Yes, but what drives the culture? The UDS seems more cutthroat in the workplace, less collaborative. They are always in competition with each other it seems. This can be a good thing for profits, but not necessarily for employee wellbeing. Maybe this is one of the reasons that the rate of middle income America that is addicted to drugs is climbing.
this is surprising considering how good you are at splinterlands.
:D
I just bumble my way through the world. Strategy in Splinterlands is a bit different perhaps?
I think I am hierarcy based worker as well and the company I work at have several titles. Some people call seniors even master, which I don't like :)
I was in Poland and was surprised at how strictly they followed the workplace hierarchy. It made me uncomfortable at times. I joke around far too much to be in that kind of workplace and have always treated people equally, no matter rich or poor, important or relative nobody.
I think there are a lot of factors that contribute to an employee staying in a company. Good work environment and competent salary seem to be up there. From my experience, people stay when they have at least one of those, and stay longer when both are found in the company. I also agree that cooperation and collaboration are easier when employees working together are more familiar with each other. It is easier to communicate and coordinate projects, and brainstorming becomes more productive.
I guess some will also stay because they have nowhere else to go, but I think that is a minority.
after working predominantly alone for 15 years, I have liked this at the company I work for. It is good to have discussions with people and build something long-term together.
I think I frustrate a lot of people at work because I tend to worry more about getting the job done that making sure people's feelings aren't hurt. I don't think I would be good at working in management beyond my current position. I'd probably tick everyone off if I had more power!
Might be similar for me. I am on the cusp - any higher and I am going to annoy a lot of people :D
A lot of companies have less clarity too. Because that is one of the reasons they have to fire and hire on regular basis. I feel that if we start measuring the value, I would find it that could be win-win for both.
I beg to differ with you on point you say you are not organized, I feel you are very organized and strategic. Your thoughts have improved my direction of thinking. I was kind of more pessimistic and defensive in my approach few months back and ever since I read a lot of content from you I have found out that I can make lot better thought process most of the time.
For sure. This is where I think some companies will go in the future more - with open accounting practices and more information transparency internally.
This is quite a compliment! Just don't blame me in the future ;)
Office politics have become a office culture ... unless and untill you are not smart enough at it ...the career growth is nowhere .....with my personal experince, yes sir factors always rule *boss is always right.... the other colleagues is alwsys at your shoes to get over you.... infact at some office the environment is too filthy nowadays... sustaining those environment is pretty tough
Yep. I am "learning" to be better at it - or more likely, play the game of it a bit better. It isn't that I can't, I just don't like it at all.
This is what I feel about the US culture. It is very internally competitive. I'd rather compete in the marketplace as a company, not in the office.
i agree. Commitment and trust are interconnected. Sad we are not more committed as a people. It is our own selfishness that has interfered. People do not volunteer like they used to. Generally couples are not as dedicated to each other either.
It is a cycle. When community is destroyed, commitment dies with it.
I like the honest approach of not giving a s**t about office politics. They are usually just a waste of energy but still, using a little bit of them, will make you save tons of time from useless discussions and stuffs.
I am trying to find a balance. I wish it was more natural to say what people want to hear, instead of what I believe to be true.
I think it's a different mindset. In the US, people change jobs all the time because that is the best way to increase your wage. I don't really know if it's better to have people stay there for years. After all, it just depends on the benefits that the job gives you. In the US, you probably can't expect much of a wage increase if you don't shop around.
This is very poor business planning though, isn't it? A good company builds incentives to stay and add increasing amounts of value.
It is the same in many places and industries. However, eventually, the "Willy Loman" effect kicks in and the last twenty years can suck.
A lot of people are not committed to their jobs and that is why you see that some people do not last long in a company or do not do their job for a long time because they are not committed and they cannot manage it
Also, working with people who are not committed tends to drag you back
Silicon Valley companies are known for their agile approach to innovation. Firms like Google encourage employees to work on personal projects, fostering a culture of continuous idea sharing. This approach allows for rapid prototyping and iteration, ensuring that only the most viable and impactful ideas are developed further, leading to successful product launches.
Yet, Google supposedly has one of the worst employee turnover rates.
Supposedly the average for software devs is over 4 in the US. At the company I work for it is far higher than that.