If the observation of the suitability of person and position is a guiding process in organisations, then tenure becomes particularly relevant.
People, who are not dismissible, no longer need to try to gain a qualification for a position. They already have one or will always have one. The risk reduces to the danger of being given tasks which overload or do not motivate. Absolute ‘security’, and the orientation towards this, always has, from a psycho-dynamic viewpoint, depressive potential. The probability is high, that security will become a ‘secure custody’ in conditions which no longer challenge and stimulate one’s own vitality. This is a high price to pay for the respective attitude to life of those affected.
The organisation, for its part, can only, to a limited degree, nurture the necessary flexibility by means of transfers. The disadvantages are known. On the side of personnel, the tenure has the consequence that the career opportunities of the ‘young ones’ are dominated by the retirement or death of the job holder. The disadvantages of this are also well-known.
This raises the question as to what benefits tenure has? In system theory, it is always important to bear in mind that systems tend to burden their environment, and not themselves, with the unfavourable consequences of their decisions. An organisation, staffed with officials, can, without complication, shift the demotivation of members to the outside, i.e. to the citizen: (“Come again tomorrow, we are closing in five minutes!”). A works counsel (union), which is focused on re-election, does not necessarily have to ask the question as to whether the organisation is well-served by the regulations on dismissal. Therefore, tenure has the benefit of making a commitment whose costs can only be perceived indirectly by those who profit from it, motivating people who hope to calm anxiety in this way. Calming anxiety, by means of external circumstances may, in turn, be an attractor, which can be a great advantage for organisations when seeking personnel.