<div class="text-justify">

I often have a problem at work, because I am not strategic in any way, which means I don't consider the office politics at all. Inversely, I am the opposite - transparent and inclusive. For me, I see it as a win-win to be open with information internally, without worrying about whose toes might be stepped on. The company I work for is pretty good for this with low hierarchy, but there are still "cultural" differences depending on the person and often, where they are from.   

![1000043037.jpg](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/23uQtb8rmRSGA7WN41Eiuq4JcvnvjFtkET1KRBX5bX4NPVzZbJfVRka9obqKwk6CAMDsE.jpg)

For instance, I find that the US colleagues are more hierarchy-based and can border on the "yes man" mentality. I think this might be due to the employment culture in the US more than personality of individuals, where there is very little job security or protection, so "letting people go" (firing and kicking them out) is far easier than it is in Europe. 

This has other consequences however, because that lack of job security also seems to mean that people are less likely to commit to their role, which means they don't learn as deeply and tend to move on more readily. The average tenure in the US seems to be generally shorter than Europe.

>As of January 2022, the median number of years wage and salary workers had been with their current employer in the U.S. was 4.1 years, unchanged from January 2020. However, an analysis of average job tenure from 2010 to 2020 showed an increase for every consecutive age group, with employees aged 20-24 having an average median tenure of just 1.3 years and employees aged 45-54 having an average median tenure of 7.2 years. The median tenure for employees with less than a high school diploma was 4.8 years (men) and 4.1 years (women), while college graduates had a median tenure of 5.2 years (men) and 4.9 years (women).

That is quite interesting, isn't it?

*I am a nerd.*

Looking at the European Union, there are quite large differences across all countries.

For instance, these 5 countries...



![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/243MQ8etMTWd5DMQ3hjfRYq4thpDayUARjyL5Q3sz8GdTeMjjivFuK7wNTxpYeZy1SMTV.png)
[](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1209552/average-time-spent-with-one-employer-in-europe/)

Have the *shortest* average tenure.

These 5 the longest:


![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/243ztzv5k2dLJb2TrPV1WzKKqjKEHZDn5Hk9V5uufF14EkNX5pxw9E5saNAd5mKNduio7.png)
[](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1209552/average-time-spent-with-one-employer-in-europe/)

Eye-balling the average and not accounting for populating size, the average is somewhere around 9 years, which is over twice that of the US average. This really is a significant metric and there are many reasons for it, but I wonder what kinds of effects this has on industry and personal life. Do people who feel more secure in their job perform better or worse in the workplace? What kinds of effects does job security have on wellbeing? I also wonder what kinds of effects it has on internal business processes in terms of knowledge sharing - does a high rate of employee turnover lead to commitment issues both ways? Do companies compartmentalize more so as not to give away too much?

When it comes to my own tasks and ideas, I share freely with the people who are possible stakeholders, and I also test theories and possible process ideas with people I trust to be honest and who will be affected, as it means that I can vet the idea before developing it too far. If these people aren't going to use what I build, there is no point in building it. 

I find that this isn't always the case with many people though, as a lot of people seem to keep their ideas to themselves, only including key people and building "in secret". This gives them a surprise factor of a kind, and it avoids lots of judgement, but what I find is that it rarely has the impact they hope for, often meets resistance, or goes unused. I aim more for the "minimum viable product" approach and then once people have yay'd or nay'd, adjust and flesh it out further for the next iteration. 

The reason I do this is that it allows for an idea to start delivering value quickly, or being able to be scrapped quickly. However, I wonder if this approach is possible because I "know" (nothing is certain) I am going to be sticking around to be able to improve it, or have more ideas. I don't have to rely on every one being a winner. And, I might also get support because they know I am going to be sticking around longer too, so they don't feel like I am wasting their time. 

>I don't know.

What I do believe however, is that just like any relationship, when people aren't committed, they aren't going to last. And, if people aren't willing to learn, they aren't going to adjust for changing conditions either. It is possible to hire the perfect person for a role, but that role is ultimately going to change over time, and if that person is unable to shift with it, they are going to leave or, they are not going to do the job that is required. 

For now, I am still exploring these observations and reflecting a bit on what I see, but so far, I think that lack of commitment leads to a lack of transparency, which leads to low levels of trust. And in an organization that is looking to crow, compartmentalizing information and building siloes, isn't going to lead to the type of collaboration and cooperation that is required for effective and *sustainable* growth. And it is the sustainability of a company that I look for in my evaluation as to whether it is worth the investment or not. Struggling to keep staff is a warning sign to look closer at their business model, because if the staff are uncommitted, 

>what does that do to future development? 



Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]


</div>


Posted Using [LeoFinance Alpha](https://leofinance.io/@tarazkp/boxed-in)