Carlton Vogt in the InfoWorld “Ethics Matters” column discusses job hopping. While the idea of cradle-to-grave feudal loyalty between employer and employee is long gone (and, to be honest, I’m not sure it was ever really there in the sort of Golden Age hazy way that people not paint it), he raises an interesting question.
If you’ve accepted a job with Company X, but, before you start, you hear back from Company Y that they’ll pay you 10% more if you join them … what’s the right thing to do?
Vogt vacillates a bit. Because companies (to generalize) would not hesitate to lay off workers if it was to their financial benefit, he thinks a case can be made that workers should not hesitate to similarly “lay off” their employers.
You should be free to make a “business decision” without compunction, just as the company would.
Some employees might, out of a heightened sense of responsibility, decide not to jump ship, but it’s not clear that those who do jump have done anything ethically wrong. People are always free to exceed ethical standards. That doesn’t, in itself, create a new standard that other people must now meet or be unethical. Just because you or I wouldn’t do it doesn’t mean that no one else should.
If companies find themselves inconvenienced when employees move on quickly — even within days or weeks — they need to realize that this stems from a climate the companies themselves have created. Loyalty is a two-way street. When employees are seen as nothing more than expense items to be eliminated at will — despite management’s feel-good euphemisms — then employers make themselves nothing more than revenue sources to be changed whenever a better opportunity presents itself.
To some degree, I agree with Vogt, but with a couple of provisos.
First, in the hypothetical I mentioned above with Companies X and Y, I do not think it is ethically sound to jump ship in that way. Once I’ve made the commitment, I have an ethical responsibility to keep my word. While keeping one’s word seems to be a quaint ideal these days, I think it is still important.
(And for the ultra-pragmatists, consider it this way: You never know when the job at Company Y might end and you might find yourself applying again at Company X. It might be embarrassing if you blew Company X off the last time they offered you a job.)
If I feel I can’t commit to Company X because I am still hoping for an offer from Company Y, then I have a responsibility to so qualify my acceptance to Company X. That’s a calculated gamble on my part, but that’s the way behaving ethically often plays out. I may end out losing both job opportunities. That’s the gamble. If I want a sure thing, then I should commit to Company X when they offer. If the job at Company X isn’t good enough, then I shouldn’t accept it.
Does that mean I’m tied to Company X body and soul? Of course not. It does mean I’ve committed to work for them for a reasonable time — “reason” in this case being more an emotional sense of “I’ve given it my best shot.” Depending on how horrible the experience at Company X is, that might be a month, it might be a year, it might be ten years. If it’s just a matter of money, I’d also consider that I have a responsibility to first go to my new managers and say, “Hey, by the way, I did receive another offer ….” How they take that will tell me a lot about how they value my services.
The other aspect of the hypothetical above is that it treats all companies the same. If I blow off Company X for Company Y, I have no idea if I’ve done Company X a disservice. Maybe they are trying to break the mold. Maybe they make a much greater effort to retain employees, to offer some employer loyalty, than Company Y, or than the average company. But by assuming they are as “guilty” as the rest, I disincent them from that course of action — with repercussions to other employees. I become part of the problem, by refusing to accept a possible solution.