This is a piggy back off of another thread, which you can find here: https://www.proformative.com/questions/talent-shortage-or-unwillingness-teach . One of the reasons
Is the short term career path really all bad?
Answers
Chris,
I really like your final point of "the market will decide".
I think there is a balance here:
-If everyone stays in the same job forever, the company stagnates and dies.
-If everyone transitions after a month, the company will likely lose the fundamental interconnections that make a company a going concern.
Job hopping internally is less of a problem, especially at rapid growth companies. The institutional knowledge is retained, and is re-deployed to meet the company's emerging needs.
Knowledge workers are also very fungible; you bring them in to do X. Once X is done, there may not be a need to keep them around (as long as the rest of the organization sticks around.)
High turnover overall is much more of a problem, and cannot be diagnosed from the perspective of looking at each tree. You need to look at the forest as a whole to determine if your churn rate is healthy or not.
From a personal standpoint; you want to hop to gain knowledge, skills, networks, advancement credibility, etc. With each hop, there is a startup ramp. So long as the company thinks you're going to hop, you become less valuable.
The economy kills off the weak pretty slowly...but it does work eventually. So, yes, companies that fail to get the right balance should be less competitive and should die off.
Cheers
KP
I think it's not a question of whether it's good or bad, but rather accepting that this is more and more becoming the new norm especially with Gen Y filling a larger part of the job market.
So if Gen Y has an attention span shorter than previous generations and is more of a "what have you done for me lately" kind of generation then companies are adjusting to that by slashing traditional training programs and investing less in their employees. This definitely hurts the older generations which are either forced to follow the suit of Gen Y or have a hard time fitting into the job market.
So from a company perspective it has been accepted that employees want to change jobs more often so companies need to have more opportunities lined up in order to keep the best and the brightest. In fact it might even be seen as a negative if you don't want to move on.
From an employee perspective you don't necessarily need to be able to hit the ground running, but you need to be able to hit the ground learning on the job. Also you need to be able to contribute faster. It's no longer so acceptable to wait 6 months before you can really contribute since this is now 25% of your tenure in the position.
As a leader you will now be measured on how well you prepare your employees for the next level rather than trying to keep them in your team as long as possible. Think of it as college sports. You have a constant in and out of athletes and your job is to develop them as much as you can while they are there at the same time ensuring your team performs at the highest level.
One thing comes to mind. Training is expensive. The time and resources it takes to get someone fully trained and working on their own only to have them jump ship can become exhausting on
At a prior employer, we took the approach that it was integral to the role of management to help our people develop. Setting specific development goals was part of our performance management process. We felt that as our people developed, the company gained strength; if they leave for other opportunities, the company gained connections and the chance to promote within or to attract a new perspective from outside.
Colin.
I think your response reflects a balanced view of the challenges around development vs. retention. Your Big 4
I personally struggle with viewing attrition in a "positive" light as per Chris' post, but do believe that there are ways for companies to realize value from developing its people that is both intrinsic and intangible, and extends beyond their tenure with just your company.
Times have changed. I spent a large chunk of my career with one company because I was raised with the concept that the company will take care of you. Even the decline of the steel and automotive companies didn't open enough eyes. I told my children that they needed to look at it differently. Work hard but expect to get the market rate for your efforts. If not move on. It is where the "market forces" have taken us. I don't think that it is necessarily good or bad. It is where we are. Expectaions from employer and employee need to adjust accordingly.
3
Mark, I couldn't agree with you more. I worked for a large company for 23 years b/4 I was relieved of duties on the third round of layoffs in 2009. It's a great company but the company no longer needed my services. I have no qualms about that. I only work where I am needed... otherwise you are a drag on the company.
For the most part, we are rapidly becoming a "Free Agent Nation." Read the book by Daniel Pink. I whole-heartily embrace the concept of free agency.
Keep your own skills sharp (i.e. don't expect your employer to educate you) and reach for the stars!
"An honest day's pay for an honest day's work has never applied more than it does now". We should not expect lifetime employment nor should an employer expect a lifetime commitment.
And, you're absolutely right about the need for adjustment. However, in my own experience both as a potential employee and as a hiring manager, most employer's have not come to this conclusion yet. They like to speak and act as though they hold all of the bargaining power in the give and take process of the employment relationship. IMHO, they miss a lot of good employees that way.
Chris:
I can honestly say, after more than twenty years in private industry and more than 15 years in local government employ, that long tenure is the bane of governmental agencies. It's why they are inefficient and bureaucratic. They really need to be redesigned, from the ground up. Lifetime, secure employment with ridiculous retirement packages and all of the entitlement mentality that sprouts from that needs to go!
I think "long tenure" has become a relative term. Three years? Five years? Anything longer is pretty much an anomaly today, and I doubt that is going to change in the near future.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a short-term career path (relatively speaking, most careers are just that today) as long as you are sitting in the driver's seat of your career with your NEXT logical step clearly in focus. That isn't to say you can't deviate, make adjustments, or even change direction entirely ... but the truth remains, you can't hit a target you can't see.
The challenge is that most candidates are reactive. Rather than preparing for their next move well in advance of needing a new job, they simply default to working their jobs until their jobs disappear. At that point, they are in the back seat not even paying attention to the scenery or the direction they are headed. And that is a very, very challenging place to be these days.
1
Well said Cindy.
It use to be a few industries where shortievity was the norm, now it seems to be pervasive.