Of loyalty and longevity.

Quite recently, I’d been engaged as a consultant for improving processes at a 300 bed hospital in an Asian country. The organization was struggling with problems typical of hospitals across the world: high waiting times, low asset utilization, high error rates, and low customer satisfaction, to mention a few.

This set my consultant grey cells whirring. I architected a custom-made program based on Lean Six Sigma methodology, to help the organization cut down on waste, minimize wait times, and optimize asset utilization.

The program was approved of; however, in the due course of its implementation, there was stiff resistance put up by a group of senior staff members who, incidentally, were introduced to me by the CEO as the organization‘s ‘most loyal employees’.

What is interesting is that a majority of this group, that was resistant to change were people who’d invested more than 20 years of their professional lives in the organization. They were not quite open to the new ideas or process improvements, and were skeptical of its effective adoption into everyday hospital operations. This set of members, let’s say ‘Group A’, was somehow worried about how the new would affect the tried and tested ‘ways of work’ at the hospital.

On the other hand, there were another band of employees, most of them new hires, who were highly enthusiastic about the change and process improvements. This ‘Group B’, was very receptive and supportive of the whole initiative.

When I brought up the subject with the CEO, he held the view that while Group A may appear stiff, they were devoted to the organization, and unlikely to quit. Group B, he mused, may be energetic, but that their loyalty was yet to be proved.

Intrigued, I studied both the groups and made few observations:

#1 – Group A had subconsciously aligned itself to a pattern of reluctant compliance to alterations in existing processes, consequently slowing down new implementations and/or projects. They believe that the change has to be delayed, so they may stay longer with the processes they’ve known so well, thereby extending some more years with the organization, with fixed salaries sans ambition for growth or performance linked pay.

#2 – Group B, in general, favored implementation of changes so they could learn, and evolve, with the organization, to the next level. They look forward to do more, and in doing so, earn more (performance linked pay).

#3 – The core skill of Group A is its thorough knowledge of ways of the organization, and its political undercurrent of ‘passing the buck’, very well.

On the other hand, the core skill of Group B is knowledge of process and technology, and a dynamic inclination towards continuous learning and improvement.

#4 – Group A had many people from Group B reporting to them.

#5 – While Group A believed that it was unethical to leave the organization or change jobs, Group B believed that it was unethical to get paid unless they add value to the process. They would choose to quit a job when they find that they are not adding value to it.

Meanwhile, I’m having a tough time convincing the CEO and the board of directors that longevity doesn’t necessarily mean loyalty.  

Are there any metrics to measure loyalty? Does longevity automatically translate to loyalty? The quest remains unresolved.