Survey suggests Australian employees prioritising job security over pay – how can HR provide reassurances?
A new survey suggests there is a high level of apprehension about redundancies amongst workers in Australia - and a Professor of Business Management says it’s a challenging area for HR.
“HR are often caught between the dominant view in the executive team and the attitudes, expectations and fears of line managers about job security and insecurity,” University of Syndey’s Professor John Shields, told HRD.
“The difficult task is to step away from that and look at the issue as a whole. There are some things within control of the C-Suite, but some things – like global fluctuations and tariff wars – aren’t, and you just need to ride that out. The key here is you need to be decisive.”
The findings from Robert Half revealed that 39% of employees are prioritising job security ahead of pay. This is higher than the 21% putting a premium on salary over job security, but just slightly below the 40% who value both equally.
The report finds the greater prioritisation of job security comes as 68% of employees said they are concerned about redundancies occurring at their company this year.
"It's clear that there is a significant level of apprehension among workers about potential redundancies in the coming year," said Andrew Brushfield, director at Robert Half, in a statement.
The results are not surprising, Shields said.
“I suspect the reasons for it are partly to do with the uncertainty in the global economy, particularly around issues like tariffs, but also longer-term structural changes related to the greater use of artificial intelligence,” he said.
“There are cyclical factors and geopolitical factors at play for why people are apprehensive about potentially losing their job.”
Reflecting on how the fear of redundancy can be handled in an organisation, Shields noted that employers should avoid mistakes made back in the 1990s, creating ‘negative survivor syndrome’.
“If an organization feels that it has no choice but to cut costs by letting staff go, then it shouldn't do that in small instalments, because this is exactly what happened in the 1990s - you actually have death by 1,000 cuts.”
The problem is ‘negative survivor syndrome,’ he said.
“Employees who may not have lost their jobs this round are seeing a track record of repeated downsizing, and their fears will grow that they may be next in line. You have the worst of all possible worlds because you’re letting go of staff and you’ve got staff less likely to demonstrate organizational citizenship.”
Shields added that if a business is going to downsize and offer redundancies, it needs to be “done decisively.”
In situations of downsizing, it is important to make sure employees aren’t kept in the dark, are transparent and ensure staff are on the same page to reduce anxiety within the workplace, according to GRI.
“More transparency is far preferable to less transparency. I say that because if you’re serious about regarding your people as your best performance asset, you should be prepared to take them into trust and have ongoing lines of communication with them about how the business is performing,” Shields told HRD.
It’s ‘management 101,’ he said.
“If HR leaders are educating their staff about the health of the business, placing trust in employees and treating each person with the same amount of respect, issues like being scared about losing your job become a lot easier to deal with. Create narratives, communicate them, and give staff the chance to ask questions.”
Shields noted that there can be things put in place to mitigate the need for redundancies altogether.
“The best-case scenario is being prudent in your hiring and are mindful of likely future developments that might impact your staffing needs. It’s ‘HR planning 101.’ Things to consider are skills changes bought on by technological change, skill redundancies, new skills that are needed, and factoring that into current day hiring processes.”
He notes that he’s “old school” in thinking that organizations should offer a relational psychological contract, favouring long-term job stability.
“Instead of letting people go as roles change, invest in them. Provide development and reskilling opportunities so they can grow and adapt within the organization,” Shields said.
He added that it is also important that executives and HR leaders “admit they’ve made less than optimal decisions” to keep trust amongst staff.
