We've seen how management react when the resignation letter is tendered - some listen and say that you should decide what is in your best interest and we wish you well, but our door is open, should you wish to return; others fume at how their orders are disobeyed and their paper plans are affected (darn, must redraw the plans) and impose restrictions on what you can or cannot do outside of their sphere of control.
TODAY has a story about talent crunch ...
I FELT GUILTY, I FELT VALUED
----------------------------
The highs and lows of Singapore's biggest talent crunch since 1997
Christie Loh
SHE went over the carefully-picked words for the umpteenth time in her
head. After a deep breath and a timid knock on her boss' door, she slowly
walked in. Before she could speak, he did.
"Are you sure this is a good decision? I thought you were happy here? How
can you leave after all we've done for you?"
And so started the guilt trip that Ms Frances Lee (not her real name)
never expected her boss to pull. For the next 20 minutes, the government
scholar sat cringing in the increasingly-oppressive room, pummelled by a
lecture against her intention to quit after four good years.
In what is Singapore's biggest talent crunch in the last 10 years,
employers have been resorting to every trick in the book to draw new
talent and keep existing good ones.
With the economy humming, the scramble for A-list staff is not abating -
and both hunters and the hunted are discovering that the old rules of the
game may not work anymore.
Weekend Xtra tracked down the likes of Frances Lee - they all requested
that their real names not be used - for their real-life stories about the
good, the bad and the ugly in this war for talent.
Still in the dark
Not all companies realise that in this tight labour market, it is the
talent that has the upper hand.
Recently, the hiring manager of a large local company kept a candidate for
a senior post waiting for 45 minutes. When the tardy manager finally
showed up, he didn't offer a shred of an apology and proceeded to conduct
a "cursory" interview for the next 30 minutes. No surprise - the candidate
was rejected and via a curt email at that.
Rude? Yes. Rare? Not at all, said Mr Charles Moore, Singapore managing
partner of search firm Heidrick and Struggles, recounting the incident
told to him by the candidate concerned.
Imagine the blow to the company's name should the candidate spread the
word to his family and friends.
Other faux pas at the hiring process include a company cancelling an
interview at the last minute, wasting the candidate's time. Some are so
ungracious as to fly in candidates, invited from half way round the world
to interview for a top position, on economy class instead of business,
said Mr Moore.
Also important is the moment of receiving a resignation letter from a
valued worker. Ms Lee's boss could think of only two reactions: Guilt-trip
the 20-plus girl, then suggest that a promotion and raise will come … um …
next year.
"That's so arbitrary and promotions in my company are pre-determined
anyway," she said.
On the whole, Singapore firms are not very creative when it comes to
staff-retention methods. A recent poll of 723 employment decision-makers
in Singapore showed that 71 per cent of them use counter-offers to try
changing their employee's mind, said mid-level recruitment agency Hudson.
Unfortunately, counter-offers are also one of the least successful
strategies, said Mr Mark Ellwood, director of recruitment firm Robert
Walters International. Since the bond of trust between the worker and his
boss has been damaged, the working relationship is unlikely to last beyond
another 12 months unless non-financial remedies are in place, Mr Ellwood
said.
Some employers unwisely put their faith in guilt-tripping as a
non-financial method.
Even after Ms Lee stood by her decision to quit, the month leading up to
her last day saw her bosses continuing to remind her about honouring the
six-year commitment she made when she signed on as a scholar and how "it's
not too late to turn back now".
Recalling those days with a groan of frustration, she said: "If they had
given me confidence about their plans for developing my career in the
company, I might have reconsidered."
Enlightened employers
Now, Frances is with a multinational corporation (MNC) that is not only
paying her about a third more than the government agency, but it also paid
off her remaining bond with no new strings attached.
From the very start, her new employer showed it was "sincere".
It was the Singapore head of the MNC who approached Frances, who was not
even looking to move, with a job offer.
"Effectively, it was a stamp of approval. I didn't get that kind of
affirmation in my previous job, where it was like: 'We paid for your
education; you're indebted to us, and if you're good, you're supposed to
be'," she said.
The four months before the big move were stressful. There was a gruelling
series of written tests on her creativity and character traits, and two
formal interviews.
The MNC needed to fill the position urgently, yet they repeatedly assured
Ms Lee that if she wasn't sure about signing on, they would continue to
wait.
"I felt very valued," she said.
Many companies are realising that in this talent-short market, they need
to show a personal touch and a big heart to improve their proposition.
Both of financial analyst Bernard Low's former bosses have kept in touch
with him, even occasionally "bouncing ideas off each other", said the
30-something.
Going overboard?
Then, there is the case of Ms Shirley Tan, who stretched the patience of a
prospective employer to the hilt but still enjoyed its magnanimity.
She, like Ms Lee, was headhunted to take up a job with a foreign MNC.
Right after she tendered her resignation, the two top bosses of her
communications firm sat her down and convinced her that if she were to go,
she would be leaving the company high and dry. They needed her, they said.
Shirley then informed the MNC she would have to back out of the contract.
What did the MNC do? It deployed a handful of its managing directors to
persuade the 30-something Singaporean that the regional post they were
offering held better prospects. After a long four-hour chat, Shirley
remained set on staying with her company.
The MNC's reaction stunned her. Instead of long faces, they walked her to
the lift, kept a smile, shook her hand and said their door would always be
open.
That is "model behaviour" by the prospective employer, commented a
recruiter, whereas it is more common to see rejected firms go into "sulk
mode".
But Ms Tan, some felt, did not handle the situation well; going back on an
agreement lacks professionalism.
Recruiters are especially annoyed with candidates who "make use" of them
to receive a job offer, only to bring the contract back to the current
boss in the hope of receiving a counter-offer.
"Playing organisations off each other wastes a lot of our time," said Mr
Ellwood.
Will recruiters blacklist a fickle candidate? It depends on the
circumstances.
Recently, a woman living in Australia with her Singapore-born husband
received an offer to work with a bank here.
She accepted, went through the paperwork, and was all set to prepare for
the move when her hubby revealed a secret he had kept for a very long
time: He had left home as a young boy to avoid National Service, so he
could not return to Singapore without facing punishment.
The woman and the bank, both shocked, had to rip up the contract. As for
the global recruitment agency, it decided not to drop her from its
database.
Hiring, as Mr Moore put it, is basically about dealing with "the funniness
of people".
At this point in history, it would seem that those in demand can afford to
be "funnier", while companies in need find themselves having to think
farther "out of the box" to snag the good people.
To put it simply, said Mr Moore, "the war for talent is over. Talent has
won".
And an article about pet peeves at work ...
LOUD TALKERS ARE THE WORST
--------------------------
Gossip and shirkers are also top pet peeves at work, our survey shows
Jasmine Yin
jasmine@mediacorp.com.sg
PERSONAL assistant Lily Leow not only knows about her colleagues' weekend
plans, but is also privy to how their husbands behave at home and the
blunders made by their domestic workers.
"They would gather at someone's desk and take turns to share with each
other, like a group discussion. They talk so loudly that the whole world
knows what is going on in their personal lives. It's so distracting and
irritating, especially when you're trying to work," said Ms Leow, 30.
Ms Leow is not alone in finding such loud office chatter a major irritant.
Loud talkers topped the list of the pet peeves of office workers in
Singapore in a recent Weekend Today survey conducted by MediaCorp's Media
Research Consultants (see table).
The street poll, conducted at office hotspots Raffles Place, Suntec City
and the Orchard Road belt, netted responses from 306 people: 150 comprised
males, 113 were below 30 years old and 156 were aged 30 to 49.
Apart from loud talkers, another two top pet peeves were gossiping and
people trying to avoid work. In fourth and fifth positions were people
peering over one's shoulder to read what was on one's monitor, and public
reprimands at work, respectively.
Perhaps, the fast-paced and competitive way of life in Singapore has
caused people to be "so caught up in keeping up with work demands that
they overlook the niceties of civilised life", said Associate-Professor
Violet Ho from the Nanyang Business School's Strategy, Management and
Organisation division.
This could be why inconsiderate behaviour is seen in other settings as
well, such as driving on the roads, she added.
Among the top five most-cited pet peeves, the one about someone peering
over one's shoulder to see what is on his or her monitor took psychiatrist
Brian Yeo by surprise.
He would expect co-workers to have a certain sense of initiative and
independence in how they do things, and to balance personal and work time.
It is bad if the peering is done by a supervisor, but "even worse" if the
party turns out to be one's peer, he said.
"It's not healthy and it's something I would be concerned about because
generally people won't report on such things.
"It reflects an intrusive workplace atmosphere where the sense of trust
and cooperation are lacking," Dr Yeo added.
The loud talker also emerged tops in similar surveys done overseas.
For instance, in a Harris Interactive and Randstad poll conducted in the
United States of 2,318 people last March, 32 per cent said the office loud
talker is their biggest irritation.
One in three respondents chose an annoying mobile phone ring tone (30 per
cent), followed by speaker phones (22 per cent).
Male office workers ranked "loud and irritating ring tones" their No 4 pet
peeve in the Weekend Today survey. This did not feature in the top five
choices of the female workers.
There were differences, too, among different age brackets for the top five
annoyances: Under age 30, between 30 and 49 years old, and those 50 and
above.
Respondents in the last bracket were irritated by co-workers who left
their ringing mobile phones on their desks - a peeve not cited by the
younger ones polled.
Team members or bosses who withhold information required for work is a pet
peeve particular to those between 30 and 49 years old.
This is not surprising, as many people in this group are usually middle
managers who want to be seen to be in charge - either officially or
unofficially - on projects, Dr Yeo said.
"People would feel they needed to be on top of things. If one is quite
junior in the team, others don't expect one to have that level of
ownership of projects."
So, should such pet peeves be a cause for concern at work?
While a person's pet peeves - which are often about minor things or
behaviour - can make him or her unhappy at work, they are "typically not
so serious that they adversely affect work performance", Prof Ho said.
Mr Steven Yap, who works for a five-man web design firm, agrees. Even
though his biggest peeve is the messy pantry at his workplace - it's often
littered with rotting, forgotten days-old takeaway food - he tries to take
it in his stride.
Mr Yap said: "I think it's just negligence. You buy food and plan to eat
it later, but you get caught up with work and forget about it day after
day. But it happens when you have to use common property in the office."
An organisation's culture - its shared values and beliefs - shapes
employees' work behaviour and is reflected also in such behaviour, Prof Ho
added.
For instance, a firm with a collaborative culture is likely to have
workers who freely and openly share information with one another, compared
with others who hoard their knowledge and guard their turfs in a firm with
a more competitive culture.
She said: "The organisational culture is important not only in shaping
individual employees' behaviour, but also in determining how well the
organisation as a whole achieves its strategic goals."
--------------------------
Gossip and shirkers are also top pet peeves at work, our survey shows
Jasmine Yin
jasmine@mediacorp.com.sg
PERSONAL assistant Lily Leow not only knows about her colleagues' weekend
plans, but is also privy to how their husbands behave at home and the
blunders made by their domestic workers.
"They would gather at someone's desk and take turns to share with each
other, like a group discussion. They talk so loudly that the whole world
knows what is going on in their personal lives. It's so distracting and
irritating, especially when you're trying to work," said Ms Leow, 30.
Ms Leow is not alone in finding such loud office chatter a major irritant.
Loud talkers topped the list of the pet peeves of office workers in
Singapore in a recent Weekend Today survey conducted by MediaCorp's Media
Research Consultants (see table).
The street poll, conducted at office hotspots Raffles Place, Suntec City
and the Orchard Road belt, netted responses from 306 people: 150 comprised
males, 113 were below 30 years old and 156 were aged 30 to 49.
Apart from loud talkers, another two top pet peeves were gossiping and
people trying to avoid work. In fourth and fifth positions were people
peering over one's shoulder to read what was on one's monitor, and public
reprimands at work, respectively.
Perhaps, the fast-paced and competitive way of life in Singapore has
caused people to be "so caught up in keeping up with work demands that
they overlook the niceties of civilised life", said Associate-Professor
Violet Ho from the Nanyang Business School's Strategy, Management and
Organisation division.
This could be why inconsiderate behaviour is seen in other settings as
well, such as driving on the roads, she added.
Among the top five most-cited pet peeves, the one about someone peering
over one's shoulder to see what is on his or her monitor took psychiatrist
Brian Yeo by surprise.
He would expect co-workers to have a certain sense of initiative and
independence in how they do things, and to balance personal and work time.
It is bad if the peering is done by a supervisor, but "even worse" if the
party turns out to be one's peer, he said.
"It's not healthy and it's something I would be concerned about because
generally people won't report on such things.
"It reflects an intrusive workplace atmosphere where the sense of trust
and cooperation are lacking," Dr Yeo added.
The loud talker also emerged tops in similar surveys done overseas.
For instance, in a Harris Interactive and Randstad poll conducted in the
United States of 2,318 people last March, 32 per cent said the office loud
talker is their biggest irritation.
One in three respondents chose an annoying mobile phone ring tone (30 per
cent), followed by speaker phones (22 per cent).
Male office workers ranked "loud and irritating ring tones" their No 4 pet
peeve in the Weekend Today survey. This did not feature in the top five
choices of the female workers.
There were differences, too, among different age brackets for the top five
annoyances: Under age 30, between 30 and 49 years old, and those 50 and
above.
Respondents in the last bracket were irritated by co-workers who left
their ringing mobile phones on their desks - a peeve not cited by the
younger ones polled.
Team members or bosses who withhold information required for work is a pet
peeve particular to those between 30 and 49 years old.
This is not surprising, as many people in this group are usually middle
managers who want to be seen to be in charge - either officially or
unofficially - on projects, Dr Yeo said.
"People would feel they needed to be on top of things. If one is quite
junior in the team, others don't expect one to have that level of
ownership of projects."
So, should such pet peeves be a cause for concern at work?
While a person's pet peeves - which are often about minor things or
behaviour - can make him or her unhappy at work, they are "typically not
so serious that they adversely affect work performance", Prof Ho said.
Mr Steven Yap, who works for a five-man web design firm, agrees. Even
though his biggest peeve is the messy pantry at his workplace - it's often
littered with rotting, forgotten days-old takeaway food - he tries to take
it in his stride.
Mr Yap said: "I think it's just negligence. You buy food and plan to eat
it later, but you get caught up with work and forget about it day after
day. But it happens when you have to use common property in the office."
An organisation's culture - its shared values and beliefs - shapes
employees' work behaviour and is reflected also in such behaviour, Prof Ho
added.
For instance, a firm with a collaborative culture is likely to have
workers who freely and openly share information with one another, compared
with others who hoard their knowledge and guard their turfs in a firm with
a more competitive culture.
She said: "The organisational culture is important not only in shaping
individual employees' behaviour, but also in determining how well the
organisation as a whole achieves its strategic goals."
No comments:
Post a Comment