It’s time to normalize frequent job changes
We need to rethink the concept of staying with one company for the long term. It’s time to normalize frequent job changes. Maybe we looked at the work wrong. Instead of staying at one company for decades, the Great Shakeup makes it clear that people are quick to quit and change.
The pandemic has opened our eyes to the fragility of life and the impermanence of things. One day we are here on earth, then we are gone. One of the positive messages coming out of the virus outbreak is that we need to appreciate and make the most of the little time we have.
Workers don’t want to waste more than eight hours a day, five days a week, at work they don’t enjoy or feel unappreciated by their bosses. Life is too short to settle for mediocrity. People want meaning, purpose, fulfillment, and fair compensation for their efforts. If employees can’t make it where they are now, they aren’t afraid to pursue new opportunities.
The revolutionary new agreement between companies and workers
If company executives and individual workers agreed that their relationship would only last one to three years, the whole dynamic would change. Companies would not have to pretend that there will always be a career path to follow. Workers will not experience the “Groundhog Day” effect of working in the same place, day after day and year after year.
This new model would be liberating for people who feel trapped by society’s emphasis on long-term employment at one company. Job seekers are still discriminated against when they are perceived to have changed jobs too often. Investigators are grilling candidates demanding why they made every move with a high degree of skepticism. The undercurrent is that there must be something wrong with the person who made them move so often.
HR and business leaders should start thinking differently. Instead of assuming the worst when a candidate shows their resume with a number of jobs, the interviewer should think that the person is thinking about managing their career and making decisions based on how they can continue. to grow, develop and improve its earning potential.
The good old days?
It seems that the future of work will be for people who regularly change jobs and careers. In our parents’ and grandparents’ day, people would take a job, stay there for twenty to thirty plus years, and retire. At the end of their service, they received a gold watch, a farewell party and a small pension.
As life expectancy was shorter, they had about ten years to enjoy retirement. We now live longer and everything is more expensive. There is a real fear that you may outlive the money you have in your bank accounts and investments. Many people feel the pressure to pursue new opportunities as they struggle to repay their student loans. Younger generations may be the first cohort to be worse off than their parents. There are also people of all ages who do not want to stagnate. They want to accelerate their career and make something of themselves.
These bold individuals will learn, build new relationships, and move on if there is no ability to advance within the organization. While there is a chance to move up the corporate ladder, things are changing so fast that many think it makes sense to continually look for other jobs to add to their skills and stay current.
Work would be like a sprint rather than trudging
Rather than hanging around for more than thirty years in the same organization, working would be like a sprint. You learn as much as possible in a compressed time frame. Contribute, ask questions, try different things, find mentors, have proteges, and take on big scary projects without worrying about failing. If you are given a life sentence in a business, past mishaps will also come back to haunt you. In a new place, you arrive with a clean slate.
If you have a bad boss, it doesn’t matter too much because you’ll be out of there after your service period ends and it’s time to move on. Managers won’t have to worry about a bad hiring decision because the person won’t be around very long. The manager might not be there herself after about a year. It takes a lot of pressure off everyone.
The benefits are important for workers, but most are forward-looking. Young people need money now. Human resources could change their programs. Anticipate benefits, especially compensation, which people desperately need with rapidly rising inflation.
The advantages of the short-term tour of duty
There would be no shame for job hunters to change jobs, as it would be normalized. Companies will continually hire people who have a fresh perspective by working at several different companies. It’s like bringing in management consultants who have been to multiple companies, learned what works and what doesn’t, and offer that valuable insight to the company and its management.
If you took a job only to find it wasn’t right for you or overpriced, you’d feel stuck and forced to stay despite your dissatisfaction. With this new mindset of being free to move on without condemnation, you can quit politely, cut your losses, and find the right person. To socialize this concept, HR could establish short-term contracts. If the person and the company wish to continue the relationship, they can sign another agreement for a fixed period.
No more being called a job hopper and being stigmatized. Instead, the person would be perceived as forward-looking, assertive, a risk-taker who is enthusiastic about learning, contributing, taking on a new challenge, and sharing what they have learned. . This can especially help older workers who have been in the same place for decades and are unaware of some of the new developments, technologies, applications and platforms used by their competitors.
When people leave, rather than grill them on what went wrong, HR could thank them for their service, wish them well, and cement a long-term relationship by asking the departing employee to stay in touch. . Later, information can be shared, joint ventures and collaborations can develop in the future. Also, it opens the door for boomerang employees to one day return to the company for another stint.
Sports stars happily switch teams for better deals
“The time has come, in our view, for a new employer-employee pact. You can’t have a nimble company if you give employees lifetime contracts — and the best people don’t want a lifetime employer anyway,” LinkedIn founder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman wrote, as well. than Ben Casnocha and Chris Yeh in a Harvard. Company review piece.
They added that “the employer-employee relationship has already taken new forms” and that “the new pact recognizes the probable impermanence of the relationship, but still seeks to establish trust and investment. Instead of entering into strict ties of loyalty, both parties seek the mutual benefits of the alliance.”
It’s like professional sports. Star athletes are loyal to their team and do their best to win. Staying on a team for an entire career is a relic of a bygone era. If there’s a better offer on the table, they’ll happily accept it and work just as hard with the new team. They will likely have a number of moves, and some will return to join former teammates.