“Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon where hostages express positive feelings towards captors that appear irrational in light of danger endured by them” [1]
There are cases where Stockholm syndrome has been reported where the captor strips all forms of independence from the captive and gain control of their lives. Are companies trying to infuse such a forced spirit of loyalty through employment bonds? If bonds are being signed at the time of inception of employment it clearly outlines the insecurity of the company with respect to the new recruits. The companies are probably expecting the employees to leave during the period of training or soon after that. Companies should instead try to foster loyalty by way of organisational culture and workplace environment rather than through legal instruments.
Every employee comes to an organisation with a hope of building on his/her current strengths and exploring new avenues that might come his/her way. If these avenues are curtailed through bonds during the early years of an employee’s career, effective learning and knowledge transfer would not occur, and thus contradicting the idea of ‘Knowledge Economy’. The fact that companies are levying a particular sum of money against training for a stipulated period of time should give them more of a university status which charges fees for education!
It is true that companies generally spend a lot on training and development of the employees and thus try to make sure that the employees stay loyal to the organization but this may prove otherwise when employees start quitting the organization after the bond period is over. That might just be worse when the company realises that the loyalty was not in the actual and after two years the company has lost out on not a 1-year trained employee but a 3-year seasoned employee.
Standing by Anuj’s point that an “emotional bond” may work better than a legal one, it’s important to note that talent is neither bred nor retained by force, rather than through a strong sense of commitment and dedication towards the organization bred over time through genuine efforts of the Company and this may yield true returns to the company over the tenure of the employees career with it.
Another fact worth noting may be the applicability of the bond in the light of any unacceptable occurrences during the 2-3 years bond period or ‘Constructive Discharge’. Would the bond still be validated and the employee not allowed exit in the event of a case of Sexual Harassment or made to pay a fine of 2 Lakhs? This could be a case well eligible to be fought in the Court of Law but same may not be the case for an employee who is unhappy with the work culture or his colleagues and wants to leave. Such a cause may not even be considered by the management as reasonable while the employee might be way underproductive due to the same.
Recovery of the training costs might be important to the company but employees should not be considered as a source to cover those costs. Employee attrition is a sure-shot cost to the company which should be recovered from the operations of the company by creating a provision in the Accounts, not by extracting payments from the employees. This definitely does not breed Loyalty!
No comments:
Post a Comment