Don't leave me... yet

Source: Exec Digital USA

Date :8/22/2008 12:21:03 AM

Is modern work too like a mariage à la mode? Perhaps we need guidance to get our star workers to stay a little longer.

Written by John O’Hanlon

We use LinkedIn a lot in our line of work: it is the best place to get the lowdown on a self-selecting sample of the English speaking world’s high achievers. The C-level men and women on there share their working history and their connections, and the CVs you read are fascinating. Every job is laid out, with dates, and in case you can’t add the software calculates the exact duration of each.

A pattern begins to emerge. You start to get the impression that if a job went on more than four years something went wrong. Their typical attention span seems to be between two and a half and four years. Great deeds are logged, then the guy moves on. If the periods of employment dropped down to a year you might conclude that person had an issue with commitment or some bad habits. Nevertheless there’s no denying we have come a long way since the days a young person went into the same company he expected to get a gold watch from 40 years later.

The benchmark changed

From the employee’s point of view there’s probably an optimum time to stay in a job. Career progression means proving yourself against continual new challenges and the best people don’t want to stay put once they have got the measure of the current one. Mike Rugg-Gunn, a talent management specialist at the top people’s recruitment agency Norman Broadbent, advises employers, though, and he sees a problem. “The benchmark has changed since the 1990s. Highly talented, high potential employees may tend to stay around three years in a job, and employers have to accept that new realism.” But any faster turnover than this might mean an unacceptable loss of talent, especially in a knowledge-type business he cautions.

Mike has found, even in the last year, that the psychometric assessment he carries out on behalf of his clients has had to start to address the specific question of retention – the clients want to know whether this person is a stayer as well as asking if they are a doer.

Supposing sound recruitment, what then causes people to leave their job? Ken Blanchard, co-author of the 12 million-selling One Minute Manager, says that chucking money at the problem won’t make a bit of difference. Blanchard names attracting and retaining key talent as one of the biggest issues facing the corporate world today: “It is no longer enough for corporations to pay good salaries - they have to be socially responsible employers as well.”

It’s not the money

Mike Rugg-Gunn puts it slightly differently: “We find that organisations that are specific about their culture and values tend to attract and retain people better – women in particular seek to align themselves with a strong corporate brand.” He adds that access to quality development programs is seen these days as a right, not a reward. Or as Beverly Kaye, president of Career Systems International of Scranton, PA, which develops retention programs for global giants like Amex, Shell, Microsoft and Intel, preaches: “Help them grow, or watch them go.”

As you might expect, Professor Cary Cooper sees the crucial aspect of development in terms of the academic programs available. As always, he is worth listening to carefully, and not just because he has just been placed fifth in HR Magazine’s top 25 thinkers in the world! He is not talking about executive MBAs that teach the nuts and bolts of management but degrees like the International Masters in Practising Management offered at his own Lancaster University School of Management. “There aren’t many courses like this, where the students, mostly experienced managers from global organisations though there are a few places for entrepreneurs, get to spend time at the world’s top schools including IIM Bangalore, McGill, INSEAD and schools in Japan and Korea as well as LUMS,” says Cooper Typically delegates are over 35 years of age, with extensive managerial experience. Over 50 leading companies and organisations from around the world have now participated in the programme. Among them are Motorola, Lufthansa, Alcan, LG, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, AstraZeneca, Fujitsu Ltd, Tata Steel, Marconi, British Telecom, Gaz de France and many others.

The brave new world

Cooper’s point is that business is just not what it used to be. It’s not static, it’s not local and the top jobs are ?no longer defined by a job description and a set of targets. It’s no accident that the Indian Institute of Management is included on this grand tour: India has had to leapfrog the west to create businesses that are global from birth. In the 21st century you’ll have to think globally or you’re dead. But I digress. Companies that expand their leaders’ minds to this extent will keep the best and attract more of them.

Perhaps people will be less inclined to move from a safe job if we are to expect a recession? Our mentors are sceptical: “The rock stars in a business can move any time: they’ll always find a job if they are so inclined,” says Cooper; “Retaining staff is becoming more difficult but companies are beginning to appreciate the need to perform in the three key areas of staff recognition, personal growth, and lastly the package,” Blanchard suggests; and according to Mike Rugg-Gunn, “From my perception talented people are still in just as much demand, so no, I don’t think the downturn has affected the global job market yet.”

It is not, as they say, rocket science. According to the UK’s City & Guilds Happiness Index published on June 4, financial rewards are not the answer to job satisfaction. Instead, having an interest in what you do for a living is the number one factor for ensuring on-the-job contentment. Happiness levels remain constant regardless of salary. It seems that LinkedIn is not so much a symptom of corporate frenzy so much as a glimpse into a world where the best brains seek each other out – and maybe it won’t matter who pays the salary anymore.