In the UK, one in three workers stays in a job for less than two years, and a CEB (Corporate Executive Board) study carried out in 2010 in America revealed that as much as a quarter of the employer-identified, high-potential employees “… plan to leave their current companies within the year”. Some might say that we live in an era of career promiscuity.
My point is that maybe the time has come for government to seriously consider rethinking the whole concept of indefinite employment, even if current EU employment laws are based on the (outdated) premise that contracts of indefinite employment are and should be the norm. In America, the paradigm shift has arguably already occurred and employers-employees no longer talk about a “job for life” but “Tour(s) of Duty” as the new employer-employee compact. The idea in a nutshell is that lifetime employment is utopian and in any case undesirable for both parties, because companies can’t guarantee a job for life to anyone and a company’s most promising talent will never tie itself down indefinitely to one company.
I think it makes more sense for employment law to encourage tours of duty i.e., a pre-agreed or pre-determined definite term of employment, for everyone. Perhaps a term not less than two years and not more than three years is appropriate for such a tour of duty and at the end of a term the contract can be renewed or even extended indefinitely for further tours of duty, but at the end of each tour both parties – the employer or the employee – retain the right not to renew and employer-employee rights and obligations end with each tour completion.
The arguments in favour of tours of duty are compelling to a modern economy or labour market, and here are just a few.
The employer and employee think of their relationship in terms of an ‘alliance’ rather than as an exchange of time for money
1. The employer and employee think of their relationship in terms of an “alliance” rather than as an exchange of time for money, which, I suppose one could argue, is a modern, legalised system of paid part-time slavery with benefits. I am exaggerating, but hopefully you get my point. The emphasis therefore is on the parties being realistic about the duration of the relationship but also on what’s in it for each party, i.e., the employer hopes to attract to its ranks a person who can make the company more valuable and successful whereas the employee hopes that the employer will invest in his or her employability or education etc. moving forward.
2. The company will invest in an employee’s personal networks and networking potential which will be available for both the current benefit of the company and the current and future benefit of the employee. The idea here is that “… your career success depends on both your individual capabilities and your network’s ability to magnify them” (Source: The Start-up of You).
3. This new employment arrangement caters for people’s need and desire (especially for those under the age of 50) to move around and learn something new elsewhere and bring that back to their company if they wish. In fact, the working population as a whole might become more dynamic, open-minded and receptive to new ideas.
At first, undoubtedly, what I am suggesting may sound radical or overly American (i.e., it will never work in Malta), but in truth we already have local firms which unofficially or informally practise something similar. I am here thinking of the top-tier audit firms where it is not uncommon for consultants, auditors and practising accountants to leave their audit firm, work abroad or out of industry, even enter politics, and then return to their audit firm for a new tour of duty. The mutual understanding is that just because your job ends, your relationship with the firm doesn’t have to. I think the popular phrase is “lifelong affiliation”.
Looking globally, Mckinsey & Co. (an American-based global consultancy firm) has operated an alumni network since the 1960s, and today this network has more than 26,000 members in 120 countries, including more than 230 CEOs of companies with at least €1b in annual revenue (Source: Tours of Duty by Hoffman, Casnocha & Yeh as appearing in the HBR), and they are where they are today (the number one global consultancy firm) partly thanks to this alumni network which is very powerful and influential.
Ask yourself: Does your firm have an alumni network it can tap into? Do you encourage (even sponsor) your employees to build their networks in business, political and social circles? Do you encourage your best talent to have tours of duty away from your company? This is the new way of working since businesses need to be agile, entrepreneurial and dynamic and tours of duty encourage this. I suggest your company, assuming it is of a certain size and scale, considers this new approach to “employment”.
If interested to read about this topic you may wish to refer to an article titled “Tours of Duty: The New Employer-Employee Compact” by Reid Hoffman (co-founder of LinkedIn), Ben Casnocha (co-author with Hoffman of The Start-up of You) and Chris Yeh (entrepreneur, investor and blogger) which inspired this article.
www.fenci.eu