Tenure vs Performance

306 Words2 Pages
Reflective Essay Elbert Hubbard stated that an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness (Wright & Bonnet, 2007). Hubbard’s statements on loyalty are as true today as they were when he stated them 100 years ago. With that being said, long-term tenure can be counter productive to an organization’s strategy. With the work force growing older, tenure is becoming important in today’s society. Unlike the past, the days of an employee staying with a company for a long term are a thing of the past. But, some companies still believe that tenure is directly related to performance. Confusing loyalty with tenure can severely hurt a corporation. Some companies still rate tenure higher than performance, which can cause a lack of cohesiveness in the organization. Tenure is not synonyms with loyalty, and often just represents compliance and survival (Myatt, 2011). People who have been with companies for a long period of time often stay because they are comfortable and for pension retrieval. Tenure can possibly hinder change and be counter-productive to innovation. Tenured companies seem to enable a “Did It That Way Last Year” attitude, which can lead to a lack of new ideas being accepted ( Myatt, 2011). This attitude can lead to the rejection of new ideas, and can hinder a company’s performance. Long-term employees do bring insight to the job. They have seen many things and are very knowledgeable about their work. The problem is not keeping older employees; it is when these employees do not continue to bring innovative ideas. Performance should rate higher than tenure, even though tenure is still important. Myatt stated that the only thing worse than an employee that quits and leaves, is an employee that quits and stays (2011). When new ideas are not being accepted a company will never realize their full
Open Document