There clearly are several significant workplace trends looming in front of us that we would do well to recognize. I’ve mentioned many of them here in this blog. Additionally, other authors, consultants, and practitioners have also done a good job of trying to predict the future.
As with all pseudo-science, however, some of it is pure bunk.
For instance:
Baby-boomer retirement, and its purported “sucking sound” on available talent, is quite possibly much ado about nothing. Let’s look at it logically: The definition of a baby-boomer is someone born between 1947 and 1963 – spanning almost 2 decades. Couple that with the current trend of later retirement, and you have a group of people born over a 20-year timeframe, retiring individually 55-75 years later at various ages. At best, it’s a non-event; at worst, it’s generational in nature, and very specific to population demographics — for instance, it’s clearly more prevalent in the midwest than in either coast, or in the top 10 most populated metroplitan areas.
Organizations are realizing that generational issues are not materializing as expected. No big surprise, really. We’ve been dealing with diverse workforces for a hundred years, including race, gender, and age — “generational” differences aren’t any more significant, and merely require purposeful thought to overcome. Workers do not have to view society, the world, and the workplace equally to be productive. Frankly, I believe we’ll see more of employees just “coming to work to work,” and less senseless attention on those things that don’t directly effect their ability to be productive.
So, when futurists write columns and books, and read the tea leaves to determine where we’re headed, use your noodle and some common sense before blindly drinking the Kool-aid.
A big trend that does needs attention – there is clearly a growing dearth of leadership talent available. This isn’t as much a function of baby-boomers leaving as it is our desire for new, fresh leadership at a time when the leadership “bench strength” is at its weakest. Many hyper-performing employees don’t necessarily view management as a logical progression from their current assignment, and we haven’t done a good job of painting a favorable picture of becoming a leader (think SOX requirements, jail terms, bad publicity for poor performance, etc.). Further, many of those extended-career boomers don’t necessarily want to work that “extension” as a high-stress leader. We better start growing managers and leaders – and fast!
In short, many real trends, contrary to those consistently broadcast like chicken little’s falling sky, are as much a “movement” in the workplace as they are trends.
Interesting. In my newsletter as well as a blog posting here recently, I mention the growth and seeming acceptance of mediocrity in organizations today.
Must’ve struck a nerve.
I’ve received almost a dozen comments on that specific topic, and several emails from current or past clients who believed I was referring to their firm in my example!
This should give us some insight to the general ubiquity of mediocrity in the workplace and its acceptance as a norm, or at least a tolerable cost of doing business.
One such email, from a highly-decorated senior military officer (edited/paraphrased for length):
Okay, so your management talent musings speak directly to those of us who are forced to hire someone based on how they look on paper and then have only a matter of months before we have to make a decision about whether they can go beyond management and into leadership. Sometimes we strike gold, but only if the individual’s talents were developed before we inherited them. More often than not, we end up with someone who “just doesn’t get it” and have to spend extra time keeping/getting them out of trouble. Too bad most of our informal mentorship efforts don’t occur until late in the process.
To that I must respond:
First, corporate USA doesn’t do much better than the paper instance you describe, even with headhunters, behavior interviewing and “free choice.” In fact, I could argue that they could potentially do worse, as they pull from a pool that doesn’t have a general – albeit sometimes inconsistent – initial standard.
And if my experiences are anywhere near “normal,” the clear majority of executive hires “don’t get it,” and I can’t clearly say I know exactly why. I’m sure it’s institutional/systemic, but nailing down the precise cause is difficult.
Another…
You’ve done a good job of paraphrasing “First Break All the Rules.” I assume you’ve read the book… treating everyone the same may be conventional wisdom, but it doesn’t make an organization any more successful than fool’s gold makes you rich.
Treat your good folks like good folks and your superstars like superstars. If the slugs don’t like it, they can improve or move on. Like stratifying on performance reports, not everyone can be #1 or a “top performer.”
Well, I’m ashamed to admit I haven’t read the book, but there’s certainly nothing I can add to that last paragraph, except maybe, “Here, Here!!”
Great comments, Kev.
(No, I’m not complimenting myself — the input above came from someone with the same equally distinguished name)
If the topic of Performance Mediocrity is so charged, why aren’t we addressing it head-on??
Weathering the storm — whether climate or business — requires us to do some things purposefully:
1. Be in charge. Lead, decide. The buck stops with you.
2. Lead now, panic later. Frazzled emotions are human, frazzled behaviors are not ok.
3. Nobody wins the blame game. Get past today, throw rocks later. Or not.
Strategic Planning is dead. Long live strategic planning…
An interesting conundrum; we know that strategic planning is valuable. Intuitively. Yet, we seldom march lockstep behind that big blue binder when it’s complete.
Why is that??
I have an opinion (surprise!). During a recent strategy session, the client’s chief executive stated that he doesn’t even consider it strategic planning at all. He doesn’t even like the term.
He uses Strategic Discernment.
I hate doing this, but I visited dictionary.com for the definitive definition of discern/discernment…
1. to perceive by the sight or some other sense or by the intellect; see,
recognize, or apprehend: They discerned a sail on the horizon.
2. to distinguish mentally; recognize as distinct or different; discriminate: He is
incapable of discerning right from wrong. –verb (used without object)
3. to distinguish or discriminate.
Now this is something we can get our arms around. It’s not the strategy, stupid, it’s the planning (or in this case, the discernment). It’s the act of discriminating among choices; of choosing one path, direction, or vision over another.
It’s to recognize something distinct or different. Remember, strategy has never been simple trending of current results — that’s simply forecasting, and can be done via Excel spreadsheet.
No, real strategy is creating our future among the myriad possibilities; it’s determining in advance what we intend to be, who we intend to be, and what will matter to us. Then, making that happen.
Instead of simply watching in awe as things happen around us.
Once again, the spotlight continues to shine brightly on senior executives. Not that it shouldn’t, mind you, but some focus is deserved — some may not be.
For instance, we’ve all heard about Bob Nardelli’s $210M “severance” from Home Depot, amid falling stock prices. What you have to dig to discover, of course, is that Bob was #2 or #3 behind Welch at GE, in line for succession. When Immelt got the nod (deservedly), Nardelli and a couple of others “passed over” sought and accepted CEO jobs elsewhere. Not uncommon in the world of succession, is it??
So, to entice Nardelli to join HD, the board offered him hiring incentives — that’s right, hiring incentives — of about $180M in stock, options, deferred comp, and retirement benefits. So, $180M of this so-called “severance was, in fact, a sign-on bonus to entice Nardelli to leave an incredible opportunity and security at GE.
$20M was pure “severance,” and over $18M was in exchange for promises not to compete or poach employees/customers. Money well spent.
Get your facts straight, media.
Then, there’s Lawrence Jackson at Wal-Mart. Hired as HR chief a couple of years ago, he led global procurement and apparently didn’t quite “get it” regarding Wal-Mart’s cost reduction strategy. Jackson marks the 4th — count ’em, FOUR — senior executive to get whacked at Wal-Mart in less than a few months.
So, how about that pressure? Challenger, Gray, and Cristmas’ annual survey shows CEO departures at almost 1,500 for 2006. Almost a third has less than 3 years, and over 10% had less than a year.
Cushy job, eh??
Stay the course. The race is won by those who stay focused and don’t get caught up in things that don’t matter.
