Spend Your Career ‘Capital’ Wisely

Although I’ve worked in HR and the staffing industry for a good number of years now, I never cease to be amazed whenever I encounter a candidate whose apparent lack of career success is strikingly at odds with my perception of the individual’s potential. On closer examination, my initial assessment is  usually confirmed: somehow, a very promising career seems to have gone badly astray. But, who or what might have been responsible for such an unfortunate state of affairs?  Here’s my take on just how easily such a situation can develop and what can be done to avoid having the same thing happen to you.

Picture to yourself, a young man or woman working for a well-established company or organization, perhaps even a market or industry leader. The work is generally interesting, sometimes even exciting, but the organization is very demanding and long hours and a high degree of stress are considered to be unavoidable elements of the job. Learning and growth opportunities abound although promotions seem a little slow, possibly due to the high standards of work expected and the presence of several other high potential colleagues, all  of whom  are products of the organization’s excellent talent development program or aggressive talent acquisition strategy. The pay is pretty good too, but the organization is somewhat conservative with compensation for its lower level executives and younger managers are expected to pay their dues before qualifying for the mouth-watering pay packages available to senior executives. The company’s management team is one of the best in the industry and within a relatively short time, employees can expect to be much sought after by competing organizations.

So far, so good. This scenario is probably a more or less accurate depiction of working life in the typical corporation or large organization: slow and steady career growth leading to a big pay-day a little further down the line. If all goes well,  our young executive  may well be knocking on the doors of senior management sometime within the next ten to fifteen years. Unfortunately, reality often intervenes in the form of competing organizations and the ambitions of the individuals concerned.

Fast-growing competitors and industry ‘upstarts’ often seek to accelerate their development by stealing away key personnel from market or industry leaders. Smaller or younger competitors, who do not have the financial wherewithal to entice away more senior personnel, will often target more junior personnel like our young executive. Their employee value proposition (EVP) usually involves the promise of a higher position/job title, more important role, bigger pay packet and benefits, and the chance to be part of a less complacent or bureaucratic work culture. The EVP rarely reveals the fact that by definition, everything  on offer  bar pay (e.g., work environment, learning and growth opportunities, and even benefits) is likely to be less developed. In some cases, this may even extend to the quality of organizational leadership; after all, differences between market or industry leaders and the challenging pack are usually both qualitative and quantitative.

Nevertheless, such offers are usually seen as a chance to circumvent years of climbing the ladder and marking time ,  and therefore can be quite intoxicating to younger executives. The working environment of a challenger is often more freewheeling and less stultified by formal policies and procedures, giving an initial sense of freedom that can be very heady. In fact, all would be well if not for three nagging ‘realities’ that soon become clear to our young executives.

Firstly, in their previous job or organization, talent and resource levels may well have been considerably higher than what is now available. Consequently, our young executives quickly discover that they have been transformed overnight from being what I call net takers (i.e., people who receive more from the organization than they give) into net givers. This is usually not regarded as a problem by older, more experienced executives who are often excited by the chance to pass on their accumulated knowledge and experience .  However, younger, less experienced executives often complain that their personal development came to a premature halt when they took up their new appointments and that the stress associated with being regarded as the ultimate go-to man or woman in the system placed a heavy burden on them.

Secondly, and more ominously, there is really no guarantee that a challenger will enjoy similar success to  that of the current market or industry leader. The early promise of serious competition may simply fade away and our executives may find themselves working in organizations that are increasingly falling away from  the rarefied heights enjoyed by the market or industry leaders. Talented executives are unlikely to accept this situation for too long and soon initiate efforts to move to a better job. However, this brings them into contact with a third, even more devastating reality – their new status. Now, they are no longer the much sought-after star from the market or industry leader, but simply another executive from yet another struggling organization.  It seems to be nearly impossible to get onto the shortlist of a market or industry leader at anything close to their current position or role. So, what to do? Well, they do say there’s a silver lining in every cloud (or so it seems).  If you can’t go back up, you can always go further down. Our disgruntled executives are relieved to discover that lower-tier organizations are still interested in them. They can often negotiate a ‘higher’ position and title, even if the pay is not quite as good as they might hope. If you are a follower of European football (or soccer), it’s like going from being a perpetual substitute at an English premier league club to becoming the permanent center-forward on a division one team. Nice, but not quite the same.

Okay, so what’s the point of all this you might ask? Well, it’s quite simple really.  Each career move either enhances career ‘capital’ or diminishes it. Too many people change jobs based on their perception of the immediate advantages of pay and title without seriously considering the long term career implications of  each job move. Wherever possible, people considering a job change should be encouraged to first try to evaluate  its impact on their career capital. A move to a higher rated organization generally enhances career capital, a move to a peer organization generally leaves it unchanged, and a move to a lesser rated organization will usually diminish or reduce career capital.  Are there any exceptions to my theory? Sure, plenty. For example, people who are planning to strike out as entrepreneurs will often move to jobs in lower rated organizations in order to acquire valuable new experience or simply to give themselves more time to prepare for the next phase of their lives.  These are sensible career moves given the overall objective.  However, if you are trying to manage your career a bit more strategically, then spending a few moments to consider the impact of each possible move on your career capital may save you from a lifetime of regret.

Does Talent Still Matter?

As more and more companies scramble to find a way to halt the financial hemorrhaging that is the hallmark of the current global economic crisis, it can be very tempting to abandon the discipline of constantly seeking out the best talent, sharpening that talent through sustained investment in cutting edge learning and development programs, and working hard to hold on to it with innovative reward systems and other best practices.

The effects of what amounts to a retreat from the talent management mindset are only just beginning to be assessed and may take years for us to fully comprehend.  Meanwhile, practitioners around the world are weighing in with their own opinions as to where the current situation is likely to lead . For, example, a good friend of mine who works in the UK staffing industry recently had this to say about the state of talent management in that country:

” I wonder, though, with the recession biting so hard, if employers are [still] willing to pay top dollar for talent or will second best do? With the collapse of huge organizations like Lehman Brothers, talented people who have been laid off are now willing to accept virtually any old job just to pay the bills. But then, perhaps because of what they’ve been through, the pay on offer, the fact that organizations are not willing to spend as much on staff development as they once used to,  less rewards and so forth, ‘talent’ may just become ordinary. Just a thought.”

Quite a thought, indeed. I’ve always felt comfortable with any definition of talent in the workplace that emphasizes an individual’s ability to add uncommon value to the organization or it’s customers. Clearly, my friend’s observations echoed the long-standing debate as to whether talent is innate and transferable or more the product of a development process that is essentially situational/contextual.

Personally, I tend to lean towards the latter position when it comes to talent in the workplace. I’ve come across far too many would-be ’stars’ who simply failed to shine so brightly (or to ‘deliver’ if you prefer) after leaving the job or organization where they made their reputation, suggesting that at least some or all of their prior success was down to the leadership and resources  (talented colleagues, work methods, equipments, etc) available to them earlier and not necessarily available in the new job.

In any event, I suspect the current crisis will simply cement existing assumptions and beliefs. Companies whose CEOs or management teams are convinced that talent really matters may attempt to dial back on some of the expenses related to their talent management programs, but they are unlikely to abandon them altogether. Sadly, those organizations who simply jumped on the talent management bandwagon when the going was good appear to be struggling at the moment and the present situation may well offer a convenient excuse to jump off.

Either way, it seems the debate over the importance of talent in the current economic climate isn’t going to go away anytime soon.

The Road Less Traveled: How to Succeed in Today’s Crowded Labor Market

In 1979, I graduated from the University of Ibadan with a degree in political science. In doing so, I was following in the footsteps of my father and several uncles, aunts and cousins.  Unfortunately, since graduation, I’d had little or no contact with my old alma mater and, as often is the case with such things, I had begun to feel a growing sense of guilt for not involving myself more in the numerous alumni activities that I knew were taking place every year. It was therefore with considerable pleasure that I recently accepted an invitation from the final year students of the Communication and Language Arts department to speak at their 2009 Finalists’ Forum.

Amongst other things, the Finalist’s Forum is intended to provide the university’s graduating students with an opportunity to receive counseling and advice from invited speakers on a range of subjects dealing with life after graduation.  My task would be to provide an insight into the career options open to fresh graduates and to offer some practical tips on how to get a job, or failing that, how to create one for themselves.

As I set about putting my thoughts together, I found myself searching for a title to my lecture that would immediately convey the main thrust of my advice i.e., that in a crowded labor market, flexibility and a willingness to seek one’s fortune far from “the madding crowd” were likely to be valuable assets for anyone hoping to enjoy early employment success. After much reflection, I decided to read the stirring words of Robert Frost’s beautiful poem, “The Road Less Traveled” once again. As with thousands of people around the world, Frost’s poem has been a source of personal inspiration whenever I’ve been faced with an important life choice.  Perhaps, it could also help convince a group of young people about to set out on the journey of life that they could confidently step off life’s beaten paths and still find abundant success and good fortune. Confident that I had found a suitable anchor for my address, I boldly titled my lecture “The Road Less Traveled: How to Succeed in Today’s Crowded Labor Market”and set out to marshal my points.

As I pondered the realities of today’s Nigerian labor market, the thought occurred to me that young job seekers were often their own worst enemies. Many seem driven by the somewhat idealistic belief that the “best” place to seek employment is either with the government or in a handful of dwindling large corporations popularly called “blue-chips.”  Given that most state governments and even the Federal Government itself aren’t doing much hiring these days and that the once affluent blue-chips, many of whom are local  offshoots of  huge multinational companies, are now under the same global headcount constraints as their offshore counterparts, this goal seems increasingly unrealistic.

To illustrate my point, I decided to take a look at the vacancy advertising appearing in The Guardian newspaper for the month of April, 2009. My findings were quite interesting:

• Of the 674 vacancies advertised for the month of April, only 72 or approximately 10.7 percent, were placed by so-called ‘blue-chip’ organizations.

• To make matters worse, only 2.5 percent of the vacancies available in the blue-chips were for ‘entry-level’ positions i.e. those requiring one year or less of working experience.

• Even assuming that the old rule that advertised vacancies  typically represent only one-third of the total opportunities in the market at any point in time were to remain true, this would still suggest that the total number of blue-chip jobs available to fresh graduates in the month of April 2009 were a mere drop in the ocean, bearing in mind that statistics published by the Nigerian Universities Commission suggest that somewhere between 120,000 – 140,000 graduates are produced each year by Nigerian universities.

Pretty bleak? Perhaps, but surely the good news behind these grim statistics is that there might be hundreds of thousands of more jobs  available in non-blue chip organizations? To be honest, you could have heard a pin drop when I eventually shared this data with my student audience. This certainly wasn’t what they had been hoping to hear, but to their credit, they soon turned their attention to more practical questions such as whether or not to consider creating employment for themselves by becoming entrepreneurs and what exactly they had to do to get a job, blue – chip or otherwise?

Answering the first question was relatively easy.  Throughout my career in human resources management, first as a human resources manager and now as a consultant, I’ve worked with many successful entrepreneurs. However, almost to a man, or increasingly to a woman, I’ve found that those who had some working experience – no matter how brief, tended to run organizations that performed better and were more long-lasting. My advice to my eager audience was therefore to go all out to pick up some working experience first, with the knowledge that it would help them to become better managers later on.

Answering the second question was less straightforward. In my opinion, despite the different selection methods apparently employed by various organizations, in the end they all boil down to three basic criteria: qualifications, track record and “fit.”

Qualifications are the basic credentials, academic and professional, that a candidate presents as evidence of possessing the requisite knowledge or skills required to perform a certain type of work. Fresh graduates generally present their degree results when seeking to meet the qualifications criterion for a job, so it would seem to make sense that they try to get the best results they can. For undergraduate degrees, the preferred minimum requirement is usually a second-class upper degree for UK-based educational programs or a grade point average of 3.0 for those coming out of US-based programs. It can be a harsh wake-up call to find oneself in front of a corporate or executive recruiter who is seemingly uninterested in all the other wonderful extra-curricula activities that young graduates try to proffer in lieu of good academic results. Yet, from the recruiter’s point of view this stance makes perfect sense. Academic performance is seen as an early indicator of a young graduate’s ability to set goals and meet them. These are traits that are much in demand in the results-oriented corporate world, and so fairly or unfairly, many recruiters seek to infer these capabilities from academic achievement and scholastic records. So, my advice to my audience was simple, “do your best to get good grades.”

The track record criterion asks the question – “how do we know you’ll be able to perform the work we’d like to give you?” Many recruiters try to find confirmation or otherwise in a candidate’s prior achievements. Unfortunately, never having had a job before, most fresh graduates find themselves facing a brick wall on this one. Luckily, all is not lost. Remember the vacancy statistics I quoted earlier? The data suggests there are plenty of jobs available; they just may not be the ones young graduates want or expect to take up. Again, the good news is that virtually any job can offer valuable experience, if it is approached with serious intent.

For example, take a job that many fresh graduates will almost certainly have encountered – teaching during their national youth service. As part of my own interview routine, I often ask candidates to tell me about their work experience during their national youth service and how they think it might have prepared them for their subsequent careers. Only a few of the many hundreds of people I have interviewed, considered a teaching assignment during their service year to have given them work experience of any great value. What a pity. Surely, dealing with the diversity of characters and personalities in a classroom is great preparation for dealing with the huge variety of customers that one encounters in a customer service or service management role? And what about the benefits of learning how to effectively ‘research’ one’s lectures, prepare teaching notes and deliver classroom instruction to students for future consultants or journalists? Clearly, even the most mundane work opportunities offer a chance to pick up the kind of experience that a recruiter might accept as evidence of  track record.

Finally, every selection decision comes down to whether the recruiters believe a candidate will ‘fit in’ with the hiring organization. This is usually the most subjective part of the selection process and may involve judgments about a candidate’s character, personality, and value orientation, particularly in relation to how they are seen to match the peculiar culture and organizational mindset of the organization or work unit in question. However, it’s a question that is also of equal importance to candidates themselves. I therefore reminded the students that the question of “fit” has two sides, and that they should see an interview as an opportunity to determine if a particular job opportunity was “right” for them as well.

Having delivered my address, a lively question and answer session then ensued. I was very impressed with the level of interest displayed by my young audience, and there seemed to be genuine curiosity about the career options we’d discussed and a real passion to get out into the world and to make a mark of their own.

As I journeyed back to Lagos, I couldn’t help feeling a sense of quiet confidence, that there would be at least one person who’d listened to my address that afternoon who would indeed be willing to take the road less traveled. If this does indeed turn out to be the case and my remarks prove helpful in some small way, then it would have been well worth the effort.

The Road Less Traveled by Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I –

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Getting Ahead in Your Career – 10 Rules of Success

Starting a  new job can either be a totally harrowing experience or one of the most exciting times of our lives.  Which of these situations we encounter depends to a large extent on how our new employer goes about the task of helping us to settle down, feel more at home and develop the confidence we need in order to quickly establish ourselves as valuable members of the organization.

Once we’ve become a little comfortable with our new duties and work routines, our thoughts are likely to turn to seeking an answer to the question “what does it take to get ahead around here?”  Sometimes,  we get lucky -  a caring colleague, manager or mentor takes us aside and shares his or her personal convictions about how to get ahead in the organization. This can be very helpful and reminds me of the ancient Chinese adage that “if you want to know the road ahead, ask the man on his way back.” Unfortunately, all too often we are left to try and figure out things by ourselves.

At Human Edge, after many years of observing which of our colleagues seem to enjoy a high degree of success and which ones seem to flame out quite early on in  their careers, we’ve arrived at what we call “the Rules of Success.” The “rules” are shared with new hires soon after they start work and reinforced regularly throughout their stay with the firm.  Although they probably haven’t worked for everyone, I’m convinced that over the years, they have played an important role in helping many a new employee to adjust to what can be a fairly demanding environment.

There are 10 rules. While the exact wording may change from time to time, they can be summed up as follows:

Rule #1: Be a Constant Learner

Consulting is very much a knowledge-driven business, so this first rule really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. However, it’s amazing how many people join consulting firms with attitudes that essentially shout “we already know all there is to know” and basically close themselves off to any new knowledge or insights.  So, rule #1 is all about being willing to engage in 360-degree learning from colleagues, through self-development or the formal and informal training available, and generally taking an interest in the world around us.

Rule #2: Be Humble

Closely aligned with rule #1, this rule is designed to reinforce the idea that incredible insights can come from the strangest sources…if one remains open-minded enough to see them.

Rule #3: Be Pro-Active, Take Responsibility for Your Own Growth and Development

This is my favorite rule.  In it, we ask our new hires to take personal responsibility for their progress both through the organization and life in general.  This rule also demands that people accept that if they want things to improve, they are going to have play their part in making things better. Finally, I think it urges people to strive to be the very best that they can be.  It really is a very powerful proposition in the right hands.

Rule #4. Develop a “Hardy Attitude” and Be Willing to Take as Much as You Give

We ‘borrowed’ this rule from a highly successful client of ours where “hardiness” is considered to be a virtue. Business can be tough and you need to have the stamina to survive all its rigors. At the same time, openness and frankness are valued attributes around our firm, and we value people who can learn not to take feedback personally, no matter how critical it may be. By the same token, we are impressed with people who have the confidence to offer what they consider to be useful and constructive feedback to colleagues without bothering about the political correctness involved.

Rule #5. Be Friendly but Professional.

Following or applying this rule can be a tough balancing act for many people.  Our working environment can be quite demanding and the pressure to meet performance expectations can sometimes lead people to focus exclusively on their own goals and needs; it also may result in their arriving at the conclusion that certain niceties can be dispensed with as long as the desired results are achieved . This is the social equivalent of an “end justifies the means” philosophy and can be really counter-productive in situations where very little can be achieved solely by working alone and a colleague’s insight or assistance is the key to finding a solution to a knotty problem. Clearly, being friendly is a key success factor around the firm, but what about  the “being professional” part? Well, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines being professional as “exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace.” I think this pretty much sums up how we like to behave both towards ourselves and our clients, and I believe these characteristics have been demonstrated by all the top professionals I have come across in  my own career.

Rule #6. Be Hardworking, Enthusiastic and Passionate

Everyone loves the person who brings energy and sheer “va-va-voom”  to the job. My experience is that many young people taking up their first few jobs do indeed bring considerable amounts of enthusiasm with them. However, it seems to be all too easy to allow oneself to get worn down by the routine and stress of the work-place, resulting in the tired-looking and jaded people you find dotted around every organization. This is a pity, because the men and women who are able to retain a sense of youthful enthusiasm and interest in their work almost seem to magnetize success to themselves. Managers love subordinates who are ever ready to go the proverbial ‘extra mile’ or to make a personal sacrifice occasionally, and I’m yet to see a case where such people fail to reap significant rewards for their efforts.

Books,articles and stories abound on the subject of what it takes to practice rule # 6 successfully,  but I’ve always found The Go-Getter by Peter B. Kyne and Take a Letter to Garcia in Og Mandino’s University of Success to be particularly inspiring.

Rule # 7. Recognize the Commercial Imperative

As a small firm, our new hires are very quickly introduced to the need to generate income if we are to survive. I suspect that the ability to generate income is a key success factor in most professional firms. Consequently, every effort is made to expose people to the process of business development and income generation early in their careers. But, even in larger corporations, the up and coming officer or manager with commercial acumen and an eye for the bottom line is usually much-prized; if this is combined with outstanding technical competence, rapid ascent up the corporate ladder is all but assured. Now, I’m not suggesting by any means that every person who joins the organization must be subjected to the stress and strains of financial targets often associated with certain organizations in the financial sector. Not at all. However, there are very few jobs where the opportunity to contribute to the bottom-line doesn’t exist in one form or another, and the road to the top simply seems to be that much easier for those who can identify with one of top management’s major concerns.

Rule #8. Be Exceptionally Good … at Something

Consultancies are generally knowledge-based organizations, so suggesting that people acquire an area of specialization early in their careers may seem like restating the obvious. Still, if the goal is to be able to add extra-ordinary value to the client or organization (which incidentally is our definition of ‘talent’), then there are really only two ways to go: possess extra-ordinary understanding of a particular subject or know how to apply the understanding of others in an extra-ordinary way – and either way,  make sure you deliver consistently exceptional results.

This is probably a restatement of the age-old consultant’s debate over content versus process, but I believe it’s really a false dichotomy, and many top consultants are both subject-matter specialists and process experts. This combination taken to its highest level of practice produces the ‘adviser’ whose distinct value derives equally from what he or she knows about a particular field and how well he or she is able to apply apply that knowledge profitably or productively on behalf of others . Whilst it may take many years to attain this highest level, it’s well worth striving for.

Rule # 9. Develop Good Interpersonal Skills

This could be described as an extension of rule #5 as I’m yet to meet a senior executive who doesn’t possess superior interpersonal skills.  Indeed, as one moves through the various career levels (e.g. from trainee to senior executive), the ability to work with and through others becomes increasingly important.  Like it or not, people with superior interpersonal skills often appear to enjoy accelerated advancement over their less socially skilled counterparts. Once again,  paying attention to the cultivation of these skills early on in our careers seems to yield rich dividends.

Rule #10: It’s Okay to Be Ambitious

Many people are reluctant to display their ambition in the workplace. This may be due to any number of reasons, including personal or reported experiences (of others) where the display of naked ambition has generated a backlash from superiors or peers. Fortunately, the best organizations are not afraid to hire people who have set definite goals for themselves and who are hoping to achieve those goals with the active help of their employer and colleagues.  However, I should warn you that such organizations are equally demanding of their people, so if you’re thinking of joining one or are already a member, be prepared for an exchange of value.

These “rules” have worked well for us over the years. Perhaps you, or the organization you work for, have some rules of your own.  If you’d like to share them with others, please leave a comment.

I’m Sorry, But the Deal is Off

These days, I’ve come to dread the phone call from a client or candidate letting me know that yet another job offer has been rejected or withdrawn.  Months of work can go down the drain in a moment, leaving all parties feeling frustrated, angry and bruised. Last week, the phone rang twice to announce the unsuccessful end of two major recruitment campaigns, hence my musings today on why so many recruitment assignments seem to stumble at the last hurdle – negotiating the job offer.

Although it’s always difficult to figure out why or where exactly things go wrong, I believe most of the  sticking points can be found in four key aspects of the negotiating process: the objectives and assumptions held by prospective employers and candidates, their respective levels of preparation and the actual approach taken to negotiating the job offer.  Here are a few tips on how all the parties involved can  increase the likelihood of a successful outcome.

1. Objectives

The Employer: the typical employer’s objective is to fill each vacant position with the best person that can be found, within a given time period, at the lowest cost.  How each of these requirements is defined and communicated has a significant impact on the negotiations that follow the emergence of a preferred candidate.

For example, an employer’s idea of the ‘best’ person for the job is usually described in a  set of specifications called a job profile. The profile in turn describes the responsibilities associated with the job and the type of person (i.e. in terms of qualifications, track record, and personal characteristics) most likely to be able to perform them to the desired standard. Unfortunately, even the best job profiles rarely capture everything we would like to see in a candidate and sometimes represent more of a wish list than an accurate description of what is actually needed to perform the job. Similarly, most recruitment assignments are premised on the idea that there is a finite amount of time that can be devoted to the search process. It is, of course, generally accepted that the ’successful’ candidate who emerges from this process is the best that could be found within the time allotted to the exercise, not necessarily the best there is. Finally, the prospective employer is usually working within a set of financial constraints that influence how much can be spent on the search process itself, as well as how much can be paid to the successful candidate in the form of remuneration.

b. The Candidate: the typical candidate, on the other hand, hopes to secure the best job, within a given time period, offering the best rewards.  Here, too there are likely to be significant differences from one person to another as to what constitutes the ‘best job’ or  the ‘best rewards’. However, nearly everyone who sets out on a job search has some idea of the ideal time-frame within which the new job is to be secured.

In other words, both employers and candidates arrive at the point of negotiating a job offer with distinct objectives that may be more or less clarified. The extent to which each party believes the other can satisfy their primary objective has much to do with how the negotiations are ultimately conducted.

2. Assumptions

Both employers and candidates may make certain assumptions about the others’ intentions:

a. The Employer: all too often, employers assume that prospective employees are driven by monetary considerations alone. This is the equivalent of subscribing to the view that “everyone has a price”. Perhaps, but that price is not necessarily denominated in naira or dollars. For example, many talented people are also fiercely career-oriented. Each potential job opportunity is evaluated in terms of how it is likely to contribute to the achievement of several long-term career goals, not just financial gain. Some people are very particular about the reputation of a potential employer and the mission it seeks to perform. Others may be more concerned about the learning and growth opportunities the job may offer.

The failure to understand what motivates the person sitting across the table nearly always results in a job offer that quite simply ‘pushes the wrong buttons’. This is one area that I’d like to see greater collaboration between employers and their recruitment advisers since the latter often pick up quite a bit of information about a candidate’s deepest motivations during the preliminary interview phase, something that doesn’t always surface during the formal interview process.

b. The Candidate: this is tricky because each individual brings a unique set of assumptions to the negotiating table. However, many candidates, irrespective of age or experience, display a certain degree of naivety. Such candidates often assume that a prospective employer will automatically have their best interests at heart. Now, please don’t get me wrong here. I’m not suggesting by any means that an employer deliberately sets out to harm or exploit a prospective employee during the negotiation process – not at all. However, as a candidate, it’s your responsibility to know what you want, to think about your strengths and achievements and to demonstrate their value during the negotiation process.

3. Preparation

a. The Employer: I’ve already highlighted the need to ‘profile’ a candidate in order to identify his or her core interests and key motivators. This can be immensely helpful in putting together a  personalized employee value proposition. However, it’s equally important to assemble all relevant data concerning the candidate’s current job title and responsibilities, remuneration, location preferences and so forth. I’ve witnessed  numerous job offers that were actually below a candidate’s current financial status, apparently for no other reason than someone on the employer’s staff “forgot” to check what the person was currently earning. This is sloppy work and creates a very poor impression of the employer’s organization.

Where no major hiring has taken place for some time, say six months or more, I usually recommend that an employer consider conducting a remuneration survey.  Having up to date data can help to moderate the shock employers often experience when they come face to face with the remuneration levels  now prevailing in the market. Employers  should also bear in mind that the candidate is someone they want to be an enthusiastic member of their team. Preparing a serious offer in a timely manner goes a long way to reassure a candidate that you mean business.

b. The Candidate: In addition to following the tips already given, it’s important to take the time to research a prospective employer thoroughly. What sort of organizational structure do they have? What’s the prevailing leadership style and overall culture? Where is the organization’s current remuneration positioned within the market? How much do people already performing a similar job or role earn? What sort of career progression can you expect? Virtually all companies have some sort of web-presence these days and you can also research the organization’s footprint through your local media. You have no excuse for not walking into a negotiation armed with as much information about your prospective employer as possible.

4. Approach to the Negotiation

Over time, organizations and individuals develop their own unique, hopefully effective approach to negotiating the job offer. However, even if you’re a veteran of the negotiating process, there are still a few things to be gainfully borne in mind:

• Remember, this is a negotiation, not a battle. Both parties must come out of the negotiation feeling satisfied that their fundamental objectives have been achieved. If either party feels bruised, cheated or exploited the offer may be rejected or withdrawn. If either side succeeds in ‘ramming’ its way through, the long-term prognosis for satisfaction and productivity will be poor.

• Be courteous. If there is one truism in business, it’s the fact that you never know where you are going to meet someone again or need their help. Besides, recruiting is often described as the ultimate sales process. Believe it or not, both the employer and the candidate continue to size each other up right to the point that the employment offer is accepted and even then the candidate still has to resume on the agreed date. Even if the deal eventually falls through, there’s always another day and I’ve certainly been the beneficiary of relationships developed with candidates who ultimately never took up my offer of employment.

• Be flexible. I’ve seen serious employment offers rejected or withdrawn over seemingly insignificant issues. Differing interpretations or definitions of key elements of the reward package can lead to a breakdown in the negotiating process, so it’s usually a good idea to thrash out any areas of ambiguity at the beginning of the negotiations.

• Consider discussing a tentative offer first. To avoid the sort of problems raised above, many employers prefer to first make a tentative offer in person or over the phone. I think this is a great idea. From the employer’s perspective, it allows for an early determination of the candidate’s seriousness and diminishes the risk of having an employment offer used as a bargaining chip with the candidate’s current employer. From the candidate’s point of view, it provides evidence of the employer’s interest and intent, and gives more time to consider the offer thoroughly before responding.

• Most things are negotiable. Here are a few items that either party may legitimately bring up for discussion:

o   The expected date of reply to the offer

o   The expected date of resumption of employment

o   Proposed remuneration/compensation/salary

o   Fringe benefits (including benefits-in-kind)

o   Performance targets, bonuses and commissions/incentive pay

o   Promotion and merit pay

o   Probation period/early salary review

o   Indebtedness to current employer/take-over loans

Obviously, this isn’t an exhaustive list, but I think it gives an idea of the range of issues that an employer and a candidate should be able to discuss openly once a tentative job offer has been put on the table. Failure to do so can have dire consequences. Take the last topic on the list: indebtedness to the candidate’s current employer. Most employers are willing to ‘take-over’ a new employee’s outstanding liabilities as long as the indebtedness is discussed beforehand. Surprisingly, many candidates never mention such indebtedness during the interview or negotiating process and consequently feel bitterly disappointed when their new employer refuses to take-over their outstanding loans.

Every day, thousands of employers and prospective employees  around the world negotiate their way through job offers without incident. Hopefully, the advice I’ve given here will ensure that your future job negotiations will be equally successful. If you have some tips or advice of your own that you’d like to share with others,  please leave a comment.

Please Don’t Go, We’d Like You to Stay

Several of my recent posts have focused on the issues confronting people who, having become dissatisfied with their job situations for one reason or another, find themselves facing a choice as to whether or not to stay with an organization.

In my experience, the final decision is rarely the product of an individual’s thinking alone. Most of us tend to seek out the opinions of others whose views we respect or care about.  For example, if we’re married, we will typically discuss with a spouse or grown-up children before making a major career decision. Trusted colleagues, mentors,  even religious counselors such as pastors or clerics, may all form part of an informal group of advisers who we regularly consult before finally making up our minds.

Surprisingly, very few people seem to consider it worthwhile approaching their current employers to discuss their concerns before they make up their minds as to what to do. When asked why they don’t,  it is not uncommon for them to retort “Why should I talk to them? They wouldn’t care anyway. Every day, management tells us there are thousands of people willing to work and happy to take our place. No point talking to them.”

These are strong views and if they were true, I’d be as anxious to leave that type of organization as the next person. Fortunately, most of the employers that I meet in the course of my work don’t share these views, they do care, and their executives are rarely so cavalier with their words.  In fact, quite the opposite. The effort involved in finding, recruiting and developing good people represents a major investment for these organizations. Obtaining a real return on that investment means ensuring they don’t leave too soon. Even in these tough times, most organizations continue to do their best to hold on to their top talent and would be only to glad for opportunities to engage with employees who may be disturbed or unhappy about their job situation.

Still, the sentiments expressed above are quite pervasive and raise questions as to why so many organizations still seem to get it so wrong when it comes to issues of employee turnover and retention. If it’s your job to think about such matters on behalf of your organization, here are a few things you might wish to consider:

1. The true cost of employee turnover is often higher than we think.

Many organizations simply aren’t aware of all the costs associated with high levels of employee turnover.  Such hidden costs may range all the way from expenditure on vacancy advertising and search fee expenses to the financial impact of lost customers and their lost business.  If you add the knock-on effect of lowered employee morale to all this, it soon becomes clear that the cost of losing key employees can be quite significant.

2. We don’t know the real reasons why employees chose to stay or to leave.

The” fog of war” is a term used by soldiers to describe the confusion that often reigns on the battlefield during times of intense conflict. However, I think it could be equally useful in trying to capture the situation many executives find themselves in as they struggle to understand why their highly regarded, well rewarded and clearly favored top performers often depart without a hint of prior dissatisfaction and without notice. Unfortunately, much of the pain and confusion in this case is self-imposed.

To start with, very few organizations conduct regular exit interviews with their departing employees. Even where they do, exit interviews often fail to elicit the true reasons an employee may have decided to move on. For example, although better compensation is often cited as a major reason for an employee’s voluntary departure, the real reason may be quite different. More negative reasons,  such as personal differences with a colleague or supervisor,  may not be mentioned at all for fear of  retribution. This fear can result in departing employees who are being interviewed preferring to take the ’safe route’ of emphasizing what they like about their new job rather than dwelling on the problems in their old one. Its also useful to remember that talented employees routinely receive job offers that are typically rejected in situations of high job satisfaction.  Where job satisfaction is low, however, there is a greater likelihood of such offers being given more serious consideration and eventually accepted.

3. Managers play an important, but often unrecognized role in employee turnover

How many times have you heard it said that “people don’t leave bad organizations, they leave bad managers?”  I believe this piece of conventional wisdom originated from the recognition that while many managers may publicly lament the loss of their top contributors, they are also far more willing to blame external or organizational factors than to accept any personal responsibility for such departures.  In reality, many of the factors influencing an employee’s decision to stay or to leave fall within the manager’s sphere of influence. Ironically, sometimes all that is required is to provide them with greater awareness of those factors and the skills to apply them.  Some work may also be required to ensure that managers imbibe the appropriate values and attitudes required if they are to willingly and enthusiastically take on higher levels of personal accountability for retaining top talent.

4. We try to apply the “medicine” when it’s too late.

Many managers only begin thinking seriously about retention after they have received a resignation notice from a key employee. They then kick into high gear by trying to talk the departing employee out of leaving and to convince the individual that he or she is making a mistake. Unfortunately, the vast majority of employees have little difficulty resisting such overtures to stay. Even where a manager apparently succeeds in persuading an employee to stay (or to return, as I highlighted in my recent post, A Word of Advice Before You Resign From Your Job),  the manager may only have succeeded in postponing the evil day as the person often leaves (again) within six to nine months, anyway.

So, What Can Be Done?

If you work in one of those few organizations that still refuses to accept even part responsibility for the high levels of turnover it may be experiencing, you have my sympathy. Still, all is not lost. You are going to have to find a way to raise the level of awareness about the turnover-retention conundrum with the powers-that-be in your organization. Apart from the issues discussed above, there are two more things you will need to tackle:

1. Senior executives need to be reminded regularly that the ability to attract and retain key talent is integral to business success and survival. I once asked a top marketer in one of the leading telecoms companies if he thought that his company was in the ascendancy because of superior technology. “Certainly not” he replied. “We all buy from the same vendors. We’re ahead because we have the best manpower in the industry.” Once senior executives acknowledge retention as an ongoing priority, they are much more likely to focus on taking pro-active measures to sustain long-term employee commitment.

2.  Top management may need to be weaned away from the misconception that a period of economic difficulty automatically produces an over-supply of talent. How top managers view the availability of talent has significant implications for the way they approach the talent management process internally and externally. Internally, the belief that talent is readily available can lead to the organization’s current top performers being under-valued and under-appreciated; externally, it can blind executives to the need to move quickly and aggressively to secure identified talent when they come across it.  For proof of the latter, just revisit your organization’s current recruitment program and ask the question: how long does it take to hire good people around here? I think you might be surprised at what you discover.

In conclusion, I believe that talent remains a major contributor to organizational success.  Organizations that aren’t good at talent management tend to delude themselves that talent either doesn’t matter that much or that there is currently more than enough around and so improving on their talent management capabilities is no longer a priority. The best organizations have a different view. They recognize the role talent plays in their ongoing success and do their best to constantly seek out, develop, and retain talent wherever they can. More importantly, they encourage their top people to come forward with grievances and concerns, and have no problems telling them “please don’t go, we’d like you to stay.”

What would your organization say?

What Goes Up…

I used to work for the Nigerian affiliate of a large American money-center bank. I joined the bank when it was just over a year old and spent five exciting years working in human resources and public affairs-related roles.

During this time, the bank earned itself somewhat of a reputation for being both a skilled collector-cum-nurturer of talent and a place where real effort was put into making the term ‘meritocracy’ actually mean something. Employee performance was rigorously assessed and the bank’s annual performance ranking exercise was used as the basis for identifying a so-called “bottom 10-percent” of the workforce that was then either terminated or asked to resign voluntarily. The combination of outstanding talent and strong talent management practices must have worked well because within a few years the bank was producing industry leading returns on investment on a scale hitherto unheard of.

It was also a very tough environment in which to work, and turnover levels – both voluntary and involuntary – soon soared. Still, these were the halcyon days of the late 1980s, a time when the now familiar phrase “The War for Talent” probably hadn’t even been coined.

Fast forward nearly 30 years and see how things have changed. Today, corporate executives and recruiters alike bemoan the perceived lack of talent in the market. Meanwhile, organizations as disparate as banks and consumer goods manufacturers are increasing their competitive scrambling for so-called ‘A’ players and ‘high-performers,’ all the while inadvertently encouraging the extreme job hopping much decried by exasperated human resources managers and fueling the incidence of gravity-defying leaps in compensation that characterize today’s talent markets.

So, where is it all going to end? Some market observers have begun to predict that the party is almost over. According to this point of view, the steady increase in reports of layoffs at blue-chip manufacturers, hiring freezes at investment banks and asset management companies, and substantial salary reductions for employees of a growing number of large corporations are all harbingers of the doom and gloom that is to come.

On the other hand, another group of observers is holding fast to the view that as long as talent remains as scarce as it has been for the past few years, organizations simply have no choice other than to pay what it takes to compete effectively in attracting the talent they will need more than ever to survive and prosper in such hard times.

What do you think? Are we truly witnessing a case of “what goes up must come down” or will talent continue to reign supreme?  Please share your opinions by leaving a comment.

Job Mobility: Seeking a Higher Return On Talent

A good friend and former colleague who now works for a leading telecommunications company emailed in the following comment on my last post (A Word of Advice Before You Resign From Your Job):

“Hi Folarin… I think your view appears skewed towards the baby boomers.  I’m not sure if this would be the view of Generation Y knowledge workers who are always on the move. Also, please note that their decisions can sometimes be quick as they have nothing to lose.  Their lifestyles are different and definitely with high expectations and they are forever searching for new cheese. “

Interesting. Although my original post wasn’t written with any particular ‘generation’ in mind, the contrasting strategies of younger and older employees when it comes to career management and personal advancement are certainly worth examining in greater detail. I’ve invited my friend to guest write a post on this subject and I hope she can find time out of her very busy schedule to do so.

I can’t say for sure if  its purely a generational matter or even whether or not its true that knowledge workers are in the vanguard of the movement she describes, but I do agree with her implicit submission that an increasing number of workers seem to have concluded that extreme job mobility is the best way to fast track their careers and financial fortunes. Many observers believe that the explosion of opportunity witnessed in the  Nigerian telecommunications industry has been the major catalyst for the rising incidence of such reward – oriented behavior. I’m not so sure.  After all, not so long ago similar trends could have been observed in the financial services industry, and before that in the petroleum industry.

To be honest, talented people have always been on the look out for opportunities to earn higher returns on the talent they are expected to deploy. With its growing role as the backbone of global commerce and industry, and it’s dependence on talent as the driver of that growth, it’s hardly surprising that the telecommunications industry has quickly become a talent magnet. However, perhaps the greater danger is that it may also attract large numbers of less talented people hoping to enjoy the same rewards.  Under these circumstances, superior talent management may then become a factor in determining competitive success.

I’ll come back to this subject. For now, please take a few moments to consider which industry you believe offers the greatest return on talent and why you think so. You may be surprised at your own answers.

A Word of Advice Before You Resign From Your Job

Resigning from a job, even one that we don’t like, can be quite stressful. Unless it’s done on the spur of the moment or in the heat of anger, the decision to resign is usually the result of many days of reflection and consultation.  It often stems from a sense of hopelessness that a particular job situation cannot be satisfactorily improved or resolved, hence our decision to move on and hopefully improve our lot some place else.

On the surface, there appears to be nothing wrong with this line of thought. In fact, it almost seems the logical thing to do. However, I’ve noticed a rather strange phenomenon over the past year – the rising number of people who resign from an organization, only to return within a few months,  often to the same job and on the same pay as they left. Assuming that their old employers haven’t suddenly improved their retention skills overnight, the answer to the question seems to lie more with the job seekers themselves.  In my experience, many people simply don’t consider all of the options available to them before deciding to quit.  This is unfortunate because most of us have at least six legitimate career options at any given point in time. For example, we can:

1. Stay in our current job but look for ways to become more satisfied and successful.

2. Change to a different job or assignment in the same department of the organization.

3. Change to a different job or assignment in a different department of the organization.

4. Change careers within the same organization.

5. Find a similar job in a different organization.

6. Change career outside the organization.

Let me illustrate how I tried to apply some of these options to my own career.

My first first, full-time job after completing my national youth service was as an industrial relations officer at the giant Chevron/Gulf Oil terminal at Escravos, near Warri in Nigeria’s Delta State. It involved working a seven days-on, seven days-off shift, with working hours from 6 a.m to 6 p.m daily, and regular helicopter flights in pretty murky weather to distant offshore platforms and rigs. I hated it and would surely have resigned if not for the wise counsel of a friend’s elder brother who advised me never to leave a job until at least two ‘budget cycles’ (or two years in plain language; my mentor was an ex-Wall Street executive) had been experienced. His point, of course, was that while any new endeavor can appear stressful at first, the more familiar one becomes with a job the more enjoyable it tends to get. He was right. Sometime in my second year, everything changed. I was no longer a rookie and I had developed a sense of how things worked. With increasing mastery of my role, my job satisfaction increased too.

But, what happens when we like what we do and have simply become bored with the routine involved? In my case, after a few years in the industrial relations officer’s role I felt myself ready for a change. Fortunately, I managed to persuade my supervisor that a stint in the training and development department at the head office would be beneficial to all parties concerned. Here, the solution to my growing lack of motivation and interest was to change to a different job assignment in the same department/function. In larger corporations with multiple locations, changing to a similar job or assignment in a different department or location of the organization may have the same effect.

It’s often said that people don’t leave bad organizations, they just leave bad managers. For some people, troubled relations within the workplace, be it with supervisors or colleagues, are a major inducement to seek greater job satisfaction elsewhere.  Taking a similar job elsewhere in the organization often allows people to stay with an organization they truly like while continuing to work with the competencies that have served them well up to this point.

Sometimes, its simply a case of wanting to gain work experience in a new field. For example, a human resources manager might decide that a period in Marketing or Operations would be good preparation for a move into general management.  Unfortunately, many organizations resist career changes by their most talented people more from the sheer inconvenience of finding replacements than out of any real philosophical opposition to the idea. Luckily, with perseverance top management can usually be persuaded to take a broader view of the matter. Besides, such a move can be a great idea for another reason: your current employer is more likely to be patient with you as you seek to learn the ropes in an unfamiliar role. New employers tend to be much more insistent on quick returns from their investment in high-priced, new professional hires and are generally less willing to wait for an on-the-job education at their expense.

Please don’t get me wrong, there are often genuine reasons why seeking another job or changing career outside of one’s current place of employment makes good sense. However, there are quite a few options one can try before having to make that decision. I suspect that many of the people who have made the decision to return to a previous employer would probably agree with me.

The Seasons of Our Lives

In 1992,  I came across a very interesting book called The Seasons of a Man’s Life by Daniel J. Levinson. In the book,  the author describes his research into the development of the adult personality and propounds a theory of  human development arguing that all men (and later, all women) go through a series of major developmental stages or life phases.  According to the theory, each phase consists of a period of stability, typically lasting anywhere from six to ten years, and a transitional period lasting between four and five years.

Even though Levinson’s original research had been criticized for being rather limited in terms of sample size, gender-bias and ethnicity,  I personally found the idea that people might go through a universal set of predictable experiences to be quite fascinating and of immediate value  and application to my work as a human resources manager. With a little adaptation, Levinson’s theory soon presented me with a workable classification of employee behavior:

1.  The early 20s as a period of experimentation with occupation, lifestyle and social relationships, with a transitional period somewhere between ages 28-32.

2.  The 30s as a period of some stability in each of the three critical areas, with a transitional period somewhere between 38-42 during which questions begin to be asked about earlier choices and the resulting tension often leads to a “crisis” that can end with earlier life choices and decisions being radically overturned or a somewhat resigned acceptance that this might be as good as it gets.

3.   A re-balancing phase beginning somewhere around 45 and lasting until retirement in which one learns to either enjoy the changes made or to “live with things as they are.”

Subsequent observations over the years have convinced me of the merit in this take on Levinson’s theory, and I believe there are significant implications for employers and employees alike to consider. For example, entrepreneurs and the promoters of start-up businesses often hope to ‘’save costs’ by assembling a workforce made up mostly of young people in their 20s.  But Levinson’s theory indicates that people in this demographic category are most unlikely to have figured out where their real career interests lie and are quite prepared to change jobs frequently until they find the right occupation. Similarly, should we really be surprised when our top performers enter their late 30s and simply decide “I don’t want to do this any more?” I believe all  employers can gain quite a bit from considering how the age profile of their workforce and the ’seasonality’ implied by Levinson’s theory might interact.

Employees too can gain from developing a better understanding of their own internal drives which often seem to catch them unawares. How useful would it be if we could anticipate the occupational restlessness that so often manifests in our 20s or even the virulent dissatisfaction that can set in without warning in our mid -t0- late 30s and early 40s? Haven’t most of us experienced a crazy, spur of the moment-type  career decision which with hindsight turned out to be driven by some purely internal motivation that appeared to make a lot of sense “at the ‘time” but today we struggle to explain? I’m sure most of us have.

I guess the moral of this story is that organizations really are made up of people who have real needs and desires that transcend organizational goals and objectives.  Employers can help themselves by working harder to understand the predictable developmental changes that their employees will experience over time. Many of the more negative consequences associated with these changes can be preempted by monitoring closely the age distribution pattern of the workforce at at any point in time. Employees and individuals, on the other hand, can learn to make better career choices by understanding how the particular phase of life they may be experiencing is likely to affect their decision-making.

If you’d like to explore these themes in greater detail, please read Levinson’s book. If you are more interested in the female angle to all this, you would do well to pick up a copy of the book Passages:  Predictable Crises in Adult Life by Gail Sheehy, in which the author describes the results of her attempt to explore Levinson’s theory by conducting similar research using a primarily female survey sample. Both are fascinating works.