When there is employee silence, no culture of respect towards the employees is observed, no participative management, then how the organizations retains its potential employees and become World's No.1. Kindly suggest me based on research or experience.
Sujata -
In my experience, the best supervisors who got the most out of employees, with the best results and most pleasant work environments were the ones who were both more familiar with the work being done, and more concerned with morale. The difference in output is then very striking. Unfortunately, those supervisors were not very plentiful, and not well supported themselves by their supervisors.
Consider the problems W. Edwards Deming had last century with quality management in the US. The Japanese industrialists were more willing to listen at the time, so he was able to help there. US industry was not willing to listen, and quality suffered respectively, accordingly.
I'd say that this is a factor in retention and 'burn out,' but there are other factors that impact where an employee may find herself/himself working. Unfortunately, low employee morale is probably far too common, and to a large degree unnecessary.
Unfortunately, job security can be a very big problem.
Jim
Leaders built up the organization culture. Human Resource practices are immensely influenced by organization culture. Employees are important organizational resource for organizational growth and development. The organizations that do not understand the same, will eventually perish. Please read the Toyota Management System. The example of influence of Human Resource practice in improving organizational performance is the example of New United Motor Manufacturing Inc., a joint venture of Toyota Motor Corporation & General Motors Co, at Fremont , California where same workforce converted the sinking plant into a model manufacturing plant. Please go through the article "How to change a culture: Lessons From NUMMI By John Shook " which appeared in MIT Sloan Management Review Winter2010 Vol51 No2.page63 to 68.
Sujata -
If management were more concerned with retaining good employees, that would be a big improvement. But people too often find their way into management, perhaps especially in organizations that should be more scientifically oriented, who are not even familiar with the purpose of that organization, nor do they have the knowledge and skills necessary to make good decisions. I think the concept of the clueless supervisor, who is an impediment one must work around to get things done, is all too familiar.
This real-life obstacle is common enough everywhere that it is reflected in popular fictional literature, such as the "Brunetti" series of books by Donna Leon, and the depiction of the farcical office in the "Dilbert" comic strips. This theme is found in many movies and TV series as well. A big reason for this is that it is far too often too close to the truth. Art reflects life.
In the world today, high unemployment, caused largely by foolish/ignorant and greedy management, has made it easier for those most responsible for causing economic problems to remain those making the decisions, while many employees are working for minimum wage and trying not to join the unemployed. It is far too common that the wrong people have too much control. (This is an old theme. See Samuel L. Clemens' Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.)
Too often, the best way for employees to get into trouble is to try to do their jobs.
So assuming that an organization even wants to retain good employees assumes a great deal that is good about that organization. But office politics, as in governmental politics, often undermines any good sense, and can make employee retention a moot point. It often just is not a concern.
Jim
Employee Silence - This is cold confusion in the work place as there may be silent notions but hidden expressions. Especially the indication of employees leaving or concerns or complaints are always there - been talked from mouth to ear. A manager may have the eyes to hear those to regain the confidence of all employees or department. The no respect is mainly due to ignorance of the fact that one observe something as a disregard from other employee.
Potential Employees - The employees don't ignore work but may be at the receiving end of this scenario and if affected may reflect dis-regard.
Retaining the potential employees:
1. Walk the talk - The informal way to drill in the problem. - the WHAT
2. Discourse - the daily verbal conversation. the WHY
3. Buddy System - to join each employee as set ( two of same nature, work, attributes, culture etc.) this will help retain (realign) both employees - the HOW
4. Honor the regard - respect the employee for his contributions - recap of this may bring more stabilization to the culture - perks, benefits may be considered. - the WHERE
5. Give in and Give out - give in to the ideas of potential employees and give out the critic for betterment without any evidence. - the WHEN
Sugata
I think James makes a lot of valid points about the 'reality' of management - too much top down approaches by incompetent leaders.
I've become interested in Senge's approach of the 'Learning Organization" as a way to change an organizational culture - have others seen this in action?
Thank you Shirley Mam for providing me insight about Senge's approach.
To retain the potential employees, I agree with Mr. Shakir:
1. Walk the talk.
2. Discourse.
3. Buddy System.
4. Honor the regard.
5. Give in and Give out.
When employee silence occurs as an indicator in the culture of the Organization, this represents a bad symptom of the organization with respect to its management and administration and should mean an alert.
Those who distracted by this culture of silence there are no questions for retention, they would automatically remain in organisation because this type of employee comfortable. Retention issue arise only when silence become discomfort. Silent employees are lazy employee who want to hide. In the organisation or society where all employee wants to remain silent means they are "Kam Choor". Let them leave, start new recruitment with fresh blood and orientations.
I can only speak for my experiences in the US. Here, employees are largely free to vacate their positions and obtain employment elsewhere. Thus, conditions in the labor market have considerable influence in this matter. If we use a university as an example, a faculty member who feels he/she is forced into silence, or that his/her opinion is not valued, will likely pursue other opportunities. If other universities are hiring, that person will be gone. If not, that person will stay but will be unproductive and even a distraction. In either case, the end result is that the best people will leave with the lesser qualified faculty left behind. I have never seen, nor heard of, a scenario where an employer can sustain any kind of employee repression for a long period of time. Yet, some employers still adopt this mindset.
From experience I would agree with John that the labour market has considerable influence For example, in a country with mass unemployment and low levels of education and skill, it is very difficult to exercise free choice to move between employers. The employee will then tolerate far more.
However, the national context and the nature of the economic entity, the type of work done, and the level of the work are all also relevant. There would be considerable difference between an economy dominated by mining operations to one dominated by high tech electronics.
The national political structures also may contribute - an open democratic society compared to a patriarchal autocracy
So to answer why an employer can still adopt this narrow mindset, all these factors may contribute to providing some explanation.
I would have to agree with John. I have worked with companies in both the US and Mexico. Companies in the US where there is silence among the employees there in an underlying unrest among the employees but they are unwilling to make their voices to heard to management. If management does happen to listen to them, management is unwilling to make changes in the culture of the organization. Employees eventually move on to other organizations or remain where they are because they fear change.