Internal Transfer Of Employees

Hello everyone,i just wanted to know\" is internal transfer(One branch to other) of employees good or bad.
1. If it is good please support your answer
2. bad also why ?
3. Who is ultimate benficiary?
4. Who is ultimate looser

I feel this quite good when your internal transfers doesn't create a panic situation among the among people.

There is no fixed answer to the questions raised by you. It would vary depending on the circumstances. The provision of internal transfer should have been already mentioned in the appointment orders issued to the employee, or in the Standing Orders of the establishment. The Management should use the resources of internal transfer for the advantage of the organisation.
M.Venkatraghavan

Dear,
It is rightly narrated to have clause of internal transfer either in appointment letter or in standing orders. However, in addition care shall be taken while transfer that category of work should be same.
There are instances for which transfers are being made.
1. Actual work necessity. – can be used by organization on requirements, without disturbing current job or analyzing urgency of transfer job demand.
2. Maintenance of work place discipline. – can be analyzed looking to short term / long term strategy.
3. Creation of bench strength. – As a business continuity planning.
My views are that considering situation demand we may have to take risk when necessary, as right and quicker decision determine cost effectiveness of time demands.
Invite valuable feedback.
Bharat Adhia

Please may we know what prompted you to raise this question? Is it, by chance, an assignment question on a course for which you are seeking inputs?

Answer to each question will depend on various factors. It depends what are the branches dealing with. If an employee is transferred to a branch in which he has experience /qualification both employee & organization will benefit. If he is placed in to wrong branch both will loose. If organization feels the individual is fit for another branch but employee does not want to go then again both may be at loss. If an employee manipulates (hypothetically)to go to another branch but it is not good for the organization then organization will be at loss & employee will be happy. there could be many permutations/ combinations. So you have to clearly raise the question as per the situation to get the correct advise.

It can be a beneficiary to organization,
1. Organization doesn’t require to train the employee
2. Person is familiar with the policy and procedure of organization
3. We can’t define the looser or beneficiary; if public dealing is there organization may be the looser
Because after transfer employee has to create new relations with public.

In my opinion, 70 - 80 % of an employees development occurs through transfers & the balance through organized training. Transfers within the organization, including move to alternate locations, are associated with many challenge. For example, change of bosses & the reporting channels, change of subordinates & team members, change of the work-bench & the work environment, change in goals/ KRAs, change of school/ house etc if you move to a different location, and so on... Each change requires mental realignment, besides an effort to adjust and align. And this process of adjustment & adaptation is self motivated. It awaken your hidden potential & makes you creative. You become a problem solver.

I wish to point out that an armed forces officer moves after every two to three years to a different job & a different location (sometimes to non-family stations). All this exposure trains him/ her to face challenges with a smile. Every move transforms him/ her & impacts on the development of personality. It ejects out the fear of the unknown & creates a more optimistic outlook.

Basically we employ people to deliver certain results. This delivery of results depends on the competence of the individual doing the job. Competence depends a lot on the exposure and experience one gets on a job. Going by this logic, we should try to build domain experts so that we get the fullest advantage of their employment. Exposing a person to so many areas will make him master of none. His/her use to the organisation will also be lesser to that extent. But there are two exceptions to this. One is avoiding over-dependence on some person only and for that purpose developing standbys or substitutes just to step-in in case of need or contingency. This way, no expert can think that the company is entirely depending upon him and him only for the functions he /she is performing and with such thinking black-mailing the company. Developing such standbys will also ensure continuity of operations. The second exception is the deployment in sensitive areas where there is scope for corruption or misdeeds which may very adversely affect the company. In such areas persons should be rotated at periodical intervals so that the scope for indulging in corruption or misdeeds is reduced.

Hi ,

This is about internal transfer.

My views are maintained in the same order as your questions are.

A transfer is always a mixed bag of GOOD and BAD.

1.0 Come to the GOOD first. new environment , new boss( may be better boss),

new place( better weather), new subordinates ( may be better colleagues) new learnings etc.

2.0 BAD aspects.

new environment ( tougher), new boss( may be a bad boss),

new place ( language difficulty), new subordinates ( may be bad work culture), etc.

Eventually you can make this also good. It will increase your Patience, hone your

behavioural skills, provide an opportunity to learn a new language etc

3.0 Beneficiary : Management( because it wants), Employee ( since he uses the chance), Both ( possible).

4.0 Loser : Management ( the individual would get richer in experience and may move out)

Employee ( If he has been separated from his family)

Both ( When an employee cannot perform in the new environment)

So there you are.

There are many possibilities and you have to consider case by case and cannot generalize.

V.Raghunathan