IT Employment

Infographic: Are you job-monogamous?

A surprising 61 percent of employed workers are open to or are looking for a new job. Here's what it takes to make monogamy between workers and employer last.

This infographic from Jobvite takes a look at what it takes to make monogamy between employee and employer lasting and enjoyable. (A surprising 61 percent of employed workers are open to or are looking for a new job today.)

About

Toni Bowers is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and is the award-winning blogger of the Career Management blog. She has edited newsletters, books, and web sites pertaining to software, IT career, and IT management issues.

17 comments
TtFH
TtFH

Sure, I'm on my second employer now, but both have been long term relationships (16 and 20 years respectively). My affairs were brief flings with attractive organisations that offered me things that my usual employer wouldn't - work that I loved, my own hours, and extra money. Plus, they were very discreet, which is always important. Sadly, as is the way of such things, the flings didn't last, and I'm back to safe, boring, monogamy. ;^)

ManoaHI
ManoaHI

Although not many replies, but every one seems to by saying that companies are not loyal to employees. They are constantly looking for new hires that you have to train, when the new people can do your job, then you are no longer needed, i.e. the new hires are cheaper than the long term people. I was extremely lucky when that happened to me, after I trained the new people, the company had a vision to move me to a more interesting and less stressful job and more pay. But there were others that when they transfered their jobs to others, they were asked to resign or relocate to Singapore (we closed our India call center and opened a new one in Singapore - we are not a US company so please don't say we are selling out America). Many people chose the resignation route. It is not a negative view of Singapore, but pulling up roots of entire families from where they are to a different country is difficult. Some were altogether worse off when they get divorced because of one spouse getting transferred and the other doesn't want to go. It can be seen that most of the people who relocated were single with no children. Although the company pays for the relocation costs, there is no psychological/lifestyle support for them. So, why should any employee turn their lives on their head for the company?

sboverie
sboverie

Profit orientation is not a bad thing unless taken to an extreme where a company lays off a huge group of employees to make the stock price go up. The current business mind set seems to be focused on constant growth and concentrating on benefitting just the stock holders and executives. In this global economy, the corporations don't have loyalty to their home country and much less for their employees. The CEO of GM said long ago "What is good for GM is good for the country and what is good for the country is good for GM". This is the kind of thinking that business and governments were partners in making a healthy economy instead of opposing teams with opposing goals.

minstrelmike
minstrelmike

Many folks get tired of being screwed by only one employer ;-)

kwickset
kwickset

Working hard for a company is very much like peeing in your pants. It gives you a nice warm feeling and if your pants are black no one will notice.

mjpierce
mjpierce

Interesting timing, the CIO at my employer just published an article in the IT newsletter very bluntly reminding us that there is no loyalty from the company and anyone can be let go at any time for any reason (or no reason). The article was supposed to be motivating, encouraging employees to strive to be the absolute best so they wouldn't be let go. Tyranny and threats are not motivating.

sissy sue
sissy sue

I rather resent the term "monogamous" as pertaining to the employer-employee relationship. Monogamy implies a lifetime commitment made between two people who care for each other. Employers don't care for their employees, and there is no lifetime commitment. I am not bound to my employer, nor are they bound to me. Articles like this suggest that this lack of commitment and loyalty between employer and employee is something new, but it has been a workplace reality since the 70s. People who want to get ahead do not hitch their wagon to one star over the course of a lifetime unless it is an extraordinary relationship, and this is rare indeed these days. I am nearing the end of my career, and I have worked at 41 companies as an employee or as a consultant or contractor. I have attempted to better myself with each move and with each new assignment. It has been an interesting ride.

kirkbubul
kirkbubul

All during this Great Recession and its aftermath, we've read story after story about how management is putting the screws to its workforce, squeezing every last ounce of effort out of them, and being parsimonious with pay. And poll after worker poll has shown the increased resentment that this management strategy has generated. And now we're surprised to read that people are ready to move on as soon as possible? Management is merely reaping what it sowed.

stevec
stevec

Why shouldn't it be? The days of company loyalty to employees are long, long gone. Employees are a commodity; "human resources" says it all. Employees have to look out for themselves these days -- there are no more gold watches for a lifetime of service.

jkameleon
jkameleon

Not in this job market, saturated with young, eager, desperate, student loan burdened graduates, grateful for any job. From the profit point of view, the best approach is to treat employees like car tires: Observe wear indicators carefully, change as necessary.

John_LI_IT_Guy
John_LI_IT_Guy

I used to be monogamous. If the company treated me right I would do the same, I would go the extra mile. After being burned in recent years, having the rug pulled out from under me... NO MORE. Now I have to think about my well being because companies are only thinking about their well being. They created the playing field, I'm just trying to navigate it.

jkameleon
jkameleon

http://www.cio.com/article/32228/Project_Management_AT_T_Wireless_Self_Destructs?page=4&taxonomyId=3198 "[The offshoring rumors] slowed things down," says a former employee. "When stuff like that happens, people start looking for other work. I know I was looking for other work when I should have been testing." "Come in every day and expect to be fired." Intended to inspire the troops to greater effort, the talk backfired, says another former employee. "We all came away saying, ???Who is this arrogant jerk????"

jkameleon
jkameleon

Another illusion of recovery will be jobless as well, which means endless supply of workforce to be squeezed. Employee retention is a pleasant, non-existent problem. A feel good propaganda. The problems, underlying the current Great ... well... I guess we can already call it Depression, run far deeper than lousy management practices. It's the system. Even if the employer sincerely wants to treat its employees fairly, it still has to compete against those who don't.

Glenn from Iowa
Glenn from Iowa

I'm not calling it right or ethical or perhaps even desirable, but I have watched in disbelief as company after company announces layoffs with a resulting bump in their stock prices. I didn't get why until I, and some other middle-aged workers, were laid off. Then, while I was looking for work, another local company laid off 250 workers. At the same time, they had almost exactly 250 job postings listed. Then it hit me - the strategy is to lay off higher paid workers, then hire workers willing to work for less wages, perhaps younger, but it has the effect of pushing wages down for all workers. I'm not known for being cynical, but that appears to me to be the way business works these days.

rmycroft2000
rmycroft2000

That article is a killer. I started out working in the electric power industry and can literally remember thinking after becoming qualified to run boilers and turbines in the power industry that I was pretty much set and could stay with the company until I retired climbing the usual ladder of progression. Instead, 4 years into my time there, the company decided to build a new plant 180 miles away, block any of us from moving to the new plant and close the old one. Then they offered us the opportunity to move to the new plant in order to get a 25% pay reduction. I learned my lesson, never trust the management especially in larger organizations - they only bloody well care for themselves.

jkameleon
jkameleon

The purpose of business are those bumps in the stock prices, not ethics. Layoffs are often detrimental for the company on the long run (Boeing for example http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_44/b4153065919516.htm), but that is irrelevant since the average stock holding period is measured in seconds. A bad situation for those trying to market their knowledge and skills, which take years to develop.

Editor's Picks