Impact of a frustrated employee

While we have all heard of one-off extreme (and violent) reactions of a frustrated employee in office, most times things don’t reach that level and people leave. However, I have seen organizations trying to retain employees in the guise of performance even when they know that the mere presence of the frustrated employee is not good for the rest of the team. These are just some of the effects that a frustrated employee might have on others:

- Negativity – A frustrated employee is a constant cribber. He would rather see the glass half empty than half full. This becomes a habit and co-workers are fed on constant negativity and how things are bad in the organization. It takes a very mature co-worker to filter this barrage of negativity flowing round the clock.

- Going slow on work – A frustrated employee does not see value in the work he/she is doing. Hence, his/her productivity goes down and the delivery expected almost never happens on time.

- Glorifying what’s happening outside – A frustrated employee starts comparing and pointing out the perks / benefits available in other organizations vs. yours. This in turn inspires and makes other employees think that the grass is greener outside.

- Inspiring others to leave – A frustrated employee might even start helping others in their job search thereby aiming at inflicting maximum harm to the organization.

A frustrated employee aims at vitiating the atmosphere in the office. Considering the fact that we end up spending most of our awake time in office with the same set of people, is it not logical on the part of organizations to let go off such employees rather than persisting with them?

Why do we not want to retain employees?

These thoughts of mine might hold little weight in today’s times of recession when employers are demanding what they want unlike how it used to be the other way round till a few months back. However, this feeling struck me more since now is the time for employers to deal with their best talent in the best possible way and get their house in order.

How many times have we heard an employee say this?

“Why was all this not thought of when I had not resigned? Why did I have to resign to make myself heard? Why am I being offered all this now?”

We have all heard of ‘Exit’ interviews. The set of questions sometimes asked by your HR partner or your HR rep or sometimes even your line manager when you are leaving the organization. These questions are centered on the basic theme of what is wrong with the organization, the environment, the manager, and how things can be changed to set things right so that we do not end up losing any more capable individuals. But I do not understand the point of asking all those questions when a person is leaving.

Shouldn’t these questions be asked when a person is performing well in the organization? We tend to assume that an employee would be feeling good about himself if he/she is performing well. Can it not be the case that he/she is doing well INSPITE of what he is being subjected to? Should he/she not be asked that what are the things that the organization should/could start doing, stop doing or continue doing? Why employees are rarely asked what needs to be done so that they stick to the organization.

The fact of the matter is that very rarely do we see managers and senior management lending an ear to an employee when he/she comes up with issues that he/she is facing in our work environment. And when the inevitable step (of a resignation) has been taken, the management has a last trick up its sleeve. This may be a salary hike, a promotion, relocation or whatever best the high performing employee wants. While 1 in 10 employees might fall for this, most times the organization loses a high potential employee.

I have seen that the focus of most HR teams is only towards attracting the best talent possible. They do brand building exercises that get external people to feel that this is the ‘best place to work’ under the sun. However, once they have the so-called ‘right’ employees on board, why do they conveniently forget the same employee? And everything is attributed to the ‘culture’ of the place.

The point here is to understand that every time an employee resigns, the cost is not just of replacement. The employee is a brand ambassador of your firm. Everytime he speaks ill of the firm, he is dissuading everyone listening to him from joining you. So unless the reasons of leaving are purely personal, there is a huge cost you are paying when you are losing an employee. And I am not even getting into the opportunity cost of the time spent to find the replacement, cost of training the replacement, and the time taken by the replacement to come ‘up the curve’.

So let us start asking employees ‘Why would you stay?’. And this needs to be asked when employees are doing well in the organization. And NOT when they have put in their papers!!