The BSNL Saga Individual Volition vs. Systemic Coercion in Voluntary Retirement Schemes

The case revolves around an employee’s experience with the organization’s conduct in handling the voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) process. It presents a reflection by Abhishek, a veteran surviving employee, on how the VRS process, initially introduced as a voluntary option, was turned into a forced exit strategy by the management. He observes how employees unwilling to opt for VRS were compelled to do so through various tactics, such as unreasonable transfers to remote areas and unfair performance appraisals.

Abhishek’s reflections extend beyond the VRS process and procedures to its social, psychological, economic and professional impacts. His concerns and observations are rational. From a political lens, these can be construed as a conflict of interest. When an employee is notified about transfers, lack of career advancement, benching or layoffs in the name of organizational benefit, it is natural for them to feel concerned or conflicted. Resistance towards understanding the purpose of these measures often arises when the employee’s career is jeopardized. From a rational perspective, employees tend to prioritize their self-interest over the organization’s goals. Those facing similar outcomes due to organizational changes are likely to experience collective conflicts of interest and voice their concerns to protect their interests rather than align with the organization’s needs.

For surviving employees, such as Abhishek, it is natural to experience psychological distress across dimensions such as job insecurity, perceptions of psychological contract breaches, procedural injustice and health-related stress.

JOB INSECURITY

Employees like Abhishek often desire to continue in their roles until a voluntary or natural exit occurs. Any looming threat of involuntary exit creates a sense of immobility and a perceived risk to their current job position. Abhishek’s decision to join BSNL, a public sector enterprise, may have been driven by the promise of job security and proximity to his hometown. However, given the organization’s current signals, it is natural for him to feel insecure about his job.

Abhishek observes management tactics perceived as arm-twisting methods to force employees to opt for VRS. This environment amplifies feelings of job insecurity, with threats of unemployment spreading through the grapevine and affecting the survivors’ psychological state. Abhishek may begin to perceive the involuntary exit as a critical issue, raising doubts about his future with the organization. As a surviving employee witnessing the VRS process becoming more mandatory than voluntary, Abhishek may struggle to insulate himself from the unpredictability of his own job stability. This lack of control over his future could challenge his ability to adjust to new circumstances, meet emerging expectations or perform new tasks adequately.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT

Having spent nearly two decades in the organization immediately after graduation, Abhishek’s commitment goes beyond a transactional relationship. Despite limited career growth opportunities and earning potential compared to private-sector peers, he has invested in building his technical expertise and external stakeholder management skills. Abhishek takes pride in serving the organization and perceives his relationship with it as reciprocal—a psychological contract built over years of mutual obligation.

However, witnessing the implementation of VRS using harsh methods against employees’ volition contradicts the image Abhishek held of the organization. This unexpected behaviour creates cognitive dissonance, challenging his trust and belief in the organization. The perceived breach of the psychological contract may affect Abhishek’s organizational commitment. He might reassess his relationship with the organization, experiencing reduced emotional attachment and a shift towards a more transactional outlook. His sense of withdrawal could lead him to critically evaluate his involvement and commitment to the organization.

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE

The organization’s approach to separating one-tenth of a million employees, seemingly without rational criteria such as skills, experience or performance, raises questions about fairness. Simultaneously, the organization continues recruiting, further challenging its rationale and assumptions towards employees. For Abhishek, these actions may reinforce perceptions of injustice, affecting his work performance and increasing his insecurity about being the next to leave.

Abhishek may view his organization’s VRS aperception could evoke negative emotions such as stress, anger and hostility. Feeling powerless over the situation may exacerbateproach as lacking accountability and responsibility towards long-serving employees, perceiving it as unjust and unfair. This p these emotions, leading to psychological distress. Survivors like Abhishek may find it difficult to reconcile their alignment with the organization’s goals and values, further straining their mental well-being.

WELL-BEING AND HEALTH EFFECTS

Job insecurity, procedural injustice and lack of control over outcomes can adversely affect Abhishek’s health and well-being. His experiences might lead to depressive symptoms, particularly as he reassesses his life satisfaction and quality of life. The threat to his perceived social identity and the discomfort of anticipated social adjustments could increase his psychological distress. These challenges might make Abhishek feel helpless and emotionally vulnerable.

ADDRESSING THE NEW REALITY

Reciprocity from the Organization

Organizations can rebuild employee commitment by demonstrating reciprocal care for both survivors and those listed for VRS. Transparent communication, outplacement counselling, wealth management advice and other support initiatives can positively influence survivors’ perceptions. By showing commitment to exiting employees, the organization has an opportunity to rebuild trust and positively influence survivors, reshaping its image as one that cares for its workforce.

Building Employee Empowerment through Psychological Intervention

Employees facing life-changing organizational events often experience attitudinal dissonance. Coaching and counselling interventions can help employees develop coping mechanisms, fostering resilience and ‘learned optimism’. These interventions can assist employees in regaining a sense of control over their situation, reducing perceptual distortions that undermine their capabilities. By facilitating new narratives and self-justifications, employees can defend themselves against negative consequences, ultimately fostering optimism and emotional well-being.

Career Exploration

As Abhishek approaches two decades with his organization, he may struggle with decisions about his professional future, particularly as organizational changes are beyond his control. To address this, he needs to engage in career planning to prepare for potential transitions. Proper career planning can provide him with a sense of control and direction, enabling him to respond proactively to organizational changes.

Organizations, in turn, can support employees like Abhishek by facilitating career transitions and building career adaptability. Coaching and counselling interventions can help employees reevaluate their goals, attitudes and identities, enabling them to become agents of change in their own lives. By becoming aware of their values, competencies and needs, employees can create a renewed sense of purpose and optimism.