Recently most of you in India would have come across this article about the near zero-attrition among the senior management in companies like ITC and HUL (Zero attrition at senior management since 15 years; remuneration & reward strategy cited as main reasons - bit.ly/xTuQ1a). The article went on to enumerate the reasons for these exceptions in today's corporate environment.
Most organisations spend a huge amount of time, money and effort in reducing attrition, especially at leadership levels. High churn at these levels creates instability within the organisation, uncertainty in the ranks and ultimately below-par returns for all stake-holders of the organisation.
But is zero-attrition practical? And more importantly, is it desirable in today's context?
It definitely seems to be a desirable attribute for the organisation, but is it desirable for you and your career?
Senior leaders with relatively stable career graphs are viewed in a positive light by hiring managers or board members of companies. But what about leaders who have spent their entire career lives in a single organisation? Here are a few thoughts :
And the worst thing that can happen to a lifer is suddenly finding yourself being let go by your organisation and feeling like a deer staring at the headlights of a speeding truck on the corporate highway!
Don't let this happen to you!
 |
| Photo credit : http://bit.ly/zAbxRQ |
But is zero-attrition practical? And more importantly, is it desirable in today's context?
It definitely seems to be a desirable attribute for the organisation, but is it desirable for you and your career?
Senior leaders with relatively stable career graphs are viewed in a positive light by hiring managers or board members of companies. But what about leaders who have spent their entire career lives in a single organisation? Here are a few thoughts :
- If an organisation is able to provide growth, stability and reward to an individual, there is no reason for the person to move. (Remember our parents who spent their entire career in single organisations/government jobs and retired with all the benefits? They couldn't bring themselves to think of moving out of those jobs.)
- But in today's context, you do not come across too many organisations where you can bet your entire career on. You still have the government jobs and some rare companies like ITC & HUL, but these are exceptions.
- Professionals have far more risk-appetite today and are willing to move companies for professional growth. And, unlike in the past, there are various options available out there. And such jumps are no longer viewed negatively.
- What this trend has given rise to is an entirely different perspective of 'lifers', or people who have spent a lifetime in an organisation. (People who have spent 12-15 years or more in an organisation tend to be viewed as lifers by hiring managers!) Lifers actually get looked upon with a pinch of suspicion!!!
- Has this person stayed on in this organisation because she didn't get head-hunted by anyone else?
- Is this person too risk-averse and not willing to move out of her comfort-zone?
- Is this person too used to working in a certain environment? Will she fail if she is put into a different setting?
- This person has not demonstrated the ability to move into a new organisation and deliver in a completely new setting.
- Did this person grow in the organisation by virtue of being the only person left behind? Have all the good people left leaving behind only the average performers?
And the worst thing that can happen to a lifer is suddenly finding yourself being let go by your organisation and feeling like a deer staring at the headlights of a speeding truck on the corporate highway!
Don't let this happen to you!
Dear Guru,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I think that most organizations need new ideas, different experiences, and some fresh blood from time to time. However, too much of churn at senior levels too often can also create confusion across the organization.
Jaideep
Guru, I recognize what you state but I do not endorse the correctness of the judgements of the hiring managers. As a hiring manager, I look for the richness of experience and the changes the candidate has experienced and managed, even if that led to failure. And I appreciate it very much if the person has enriched his experience in the same company. This also indicates that the person has the capability to dig his heels in and influence his surroundings to suit his growth. So long as he finds his growth needs met and his appetite for change met, why should anyone suspect anything inferior about the person's capabilities? A pity, if the hiring manager or recruitment staff resorts to such superficial observations to judge a candidature. I wouldn't hire that recruitment manager either. Regards, Sundar
ReplyDeleteGuru, the article is very thought-provoking!
ReplyDeleteWould you consider longetivity in an organisation an asset to the C.V. of the candidate or a deal-breaker?
My take: Organisations evolve and so do people! Stagnation or growth, is the company important? Have you been in one role in several companies or several roles in a single company!Skill-sets, learning curve, adaptive instinct, teamwork are what I look for in an interview. Also, would be wary of candidates who make strong negative statements about anything. Ashish Lala (ashishlala@yahoo.com)
Guru, Agree with you. Rolling stone gathers no moss! There are far too many leaders who do not want to try new roles or complain they have not been offerred new roles in their current company.. It takes two to tango.. Those who are ready to take a challenge, would try new roles and succeed in it. Those who want to bask in the glory of past laurels, stay on without understanding that past laurels do not mean present or future credentials. It is hence in many ways advantageous to the individual and the company to have leaders who are allrounders than uni-skilled employees especially in today's ever changing business environment dymanics.
ReplyDelete