Can't Let Go Talking Of The Previous Employer?

Ever wondered why does the new fellow who joined 2 weeks back keeps quoting his previous employer for every decision he has to make, or every policy he has to discuss to the point of everybody else’s irritation?

Quite natural we look around for benchmarks every time we are assigned tasks, and just in case nothing should go wrong, we like to consult with previously accomplished procedures on the same topic. Be it a friend who’s done it before, a process done by a different team, a website that portrays all the angles of technicalities involved, in-numerous blogs or plain simple – the previous employer!

However such affinities to the previous employer start irking the current ones. If all was so sunny with them, what prompted an individual to change gears; is the general reaction they invite. It’s okay to consult and do things, but getting overboard with frequent quotes and trying to implement anything and everything can be quite risky. For cultures of the two organizations may not really be similar. Problems deepen when two entirely different industrial sectors are compared, for example some methodology that brought excellent results in an IT sector may not yield desired results in a Manufacturing for the same set of problems. It may not even land close due to various demographical reasons, or may draw flak from the team and the management. Plus if one so frequently feels the need to depend on previous employers, a big question arises – that for his credibility and competency for the post and profile he holds.

So next time beware when a task is assigned, refer and research from every place one can, but stop swearing by the Bible of previous employers, for now you would be known for the path breaking work you do and ideas you come out with; instead of following the rules made by somebody else. Were it to be followed anyway, it would have borne clones of processes and operations, spelling disaster under respective cultures.

Recruit to Stagnate?

One of the major reasons why our companies face high level of attrition is because of the fact that their job profiles are not commensurate to their individual capabilities / qualifications they possess (This expression was made vocal by 994 respondents in a survey called ‘A Study On Engineering Students Expectations From Their Prospective Employers’, under the section ‘Top 5 Parameters Respondents Consider While Selecting Their Prospective Employers’). Either they join organizations at some point of time because they need a job in hand, to begin with something. Just like ‘A bird in hand is worth none’! Or they are qualified to do something else; however they are placed at completely unrelated departments with the bright promise that, one day they would surely be shifted there, under the mask of job rotation. Though one cannot fully discredit the job rotation process, since it’s a tried, tested and proved methodology of understanding each other’s business and deliverable schemes. However anything short of 2 weeks at a station spells disaster. Here comes the question in every new employee or existing employee’s mind – ‘Are we making a difference and doing meaningful roles for the organization?’ This dilemma was well defined in Gautam Ghosh’s ‘Recruit For a Cause Not a Role’.

Are recruiters just busy filling in the headcounts for a department and finishing their job, or do they bother to stop and think – does this guy belong in here? Problems are similar for both manufacturing and IT companies, each having a share of woes to such issues of an unsatisfied employer putting down the papers. People go for their 9 – 5 jobs, complete their responsibilities and by evening their CV’s are floating all over the Internet, from day 1.

There was this guy at a manufacturing organization, a fresher straight out of college whose flair for mechanics and machines made him an enthusiastic candidate. However 5 months down the line he put down his papers. The reason he cited was that he was very confident of opening a Xerox shop and handling prints, but for mechanical he would have to start all over again.

A similar example from an IT company, where one guy was particularly fond of .NET technology; however he was placed under the SAP wing. Three years down the line, he was an adept at SAP, and respected for his skills; and just then he was shifted under the .NET wing. He had to start all over and it seemed 3 years went a waste!

There are individuals waiting to master skills and contribute in the growth of an organization. They want to unleash their enthusiasm in belonging to a company and doing their bit. But are we recruiting to stagnate or do we have better career plans in our minds for our employees?