- Executives around the world say the events that most profoundly affected their careers originated largely at work, not from family or personal issues
- 40 percent of respondents say they have had difficulty balancing work and home life, they also say this challenge doesn’t drive most career decisions.
- The survey uncovered few differences between the experiences of men and women. However, women are more likely to have had a mentor or role model and to have experienced discrimination.
- Respondents are satisfied with the outcome of career-shaping moments, saying that they led to more interesting and important jobs and to higher compensation.
Whatever defined the respondents’ most significant career-changing event, the most common outcome was a new job.
So are companies majorly failing to manage the change that develop from career decisions of their employees?
Career choices and career success are two different things. Most initial career choices aren't usually designed but provides an "incubation" experience for individuals to explore areas that are "natural" to them.
ReplyDeleteI would refer to one of CCL's research (very old, but still valid) on Career Success Maps (CSM). Its a unique way which combines choice of careers and being successful in them. As a summary, it highlights 5 different CSMs :
1) Free : people chosing professions that provide them the freedom to be creative and effective. Eg: Ad agencies and consultants (like me;))
2) Ahead : People seeing substantial value in hierarchical growth and regard levels as a strong motive in the choice of careers. Brand is very important for them. eg: People seeking to work in large corporates
c) High : People who love excitement, who really dont care about beurecracy, structure, growth as long as they get to do exciting stuff. They usually figure out where the action is and land up there. Eg: some research organizatons
d)Secure : People who seek security in their job. Dont really care if theres no growth, no excitement etc.
e)Balance : For these people job is just one element of their larger life. They are usually good in all their roles as an employee, spouse, friend, social contributor etc
Its possible that many of us have more than 1 dominant characteristic from above. Whats really true is somethings may really change with time, perspectives and priorities.
yixI do believe most companies find it a challenge to successfully put a proactive thumb on the pulse of their employees in order to be a trusted participant in career evaluation decisions by individuals. And therefore in good times especially, attrition soars and the organisation has to bear all those hidden costs associated with rehiring. Executives then start believing that a resignation letter is the most effective way to get noticed and slotted for internal career growth.But is there any new institutionalised way to change this? Kaushik has very well elaborated on 5 CSMs and also brought out the fact that people may switch from one to another over time. Are organisations capable presently of proactively managing or even understanding how and when mindsets are changing from within?
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether Executive coaching can play some role especially for senior and very senior employees in an organisation.
Career changing events can be diverse as we all know, ranging from being passed over for promotion to simply getting a super opportunity outside. They can also be due to frustration because of a percieved bad boss, over work etc.
Would Exec coaching,if properly used, help as a tool for steering managers in an organisation to make balanced and wise decisions including assessment of career ? An added bonus would be an impartial feedback system worked out ( keeping confidentiality and the two way trust between the coach and the employee intact) which will help the company to take proactive policy steps. Any views?
Great thoughts Ranjit. Executive coaching is probably one method. But again it depends on how effective it needs to be (the jury is always out on this)
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned by you, most organizations focus on senior people. My POV is organizations should focus on who their critical workforce segment is. Those set of people who drive a disproportionate share of organization value; who are very difficult to replace and where the talent supply is less. These are the people who need the separate treatment. Its important to manage these segments of talent differently. Understand the demographics within the segment, how many gen X/Y, what motivates them etc.
The biggest change what we need in Organizations is every leader being a HR manager and not "outsourcing" anything/everything related to people to the HR function. Thats when we build a culture of trust and personal relationships. Thats when organizations can really connect to people.