There can be little doubt that as a lowly employee your choices and real power are almost non-existent. The further you are away from the business’ strategic leaders, the less of a voice you have and the less impact you have on any meaningful strategic thinking.
I read an interesting article today which questioned forum visitors as to what they would prefer to be.
Big fish in a small pond or small fish in a big pond?
The general consensus was that when you’re starting
out, as an accountant at least, it is far better to be a big fish than a small fish.
The main reason being that your ability to make a difference and an impact is greater as a big fish.
I am not convinced either way that it makes the slightest difference. I think the whole notion of what really makes you a big or small fish is the real question.
On the back of this article I read another article where Wozniak; claimed that he was the architect of the first Apple Mac and that Jobs had almost no input into the design aspects. Yet if we look back now, do we really remember Wozniak or do we consider Jobs as the architect of the impressive Apple empire? Do we wonder at Wozniak and think wow how could Apple have ever considered losing him? The answer to me is quite simply no.
With the passage of time, things change and evolve and most organizations are bigger than individuals, early successes and failures are important but they don’t define or predict or even constrain the future. Some big fish never outgrow the pond and some small fish remain as such but become bigger fish in bigger ponds.
Culture, personality and luck play roles in the future of almost everyone.
The reason both of these articles particularly resonate for me is because of the interminable challenge of staff retention as a general topic.
Over the years I have managed a number of teams comprising a variety of skill sets, personalities and genders. These teams have spanned the globe and some of the teams have been substantial. In every instance, the risk of resignations have been a constant.
In more technically oriented teams it is particularly challenging to keep people happy, especially if the team members have valuable scarce skills but have difficulty expressing themselves or elevating their performance to anything more than ferocious worker bees.
The situation is worsened by the fact that in any sensible organization there generally is a desire for more individual contributors and fewer managers of people. Process managers are OK as long as they can add meaningful value all along the way, act as mentors, give guidance and clear obstructions.
And so I come to the current conundrum.
A situation where a resignation is looming from a team member who is frustrated that they can’t do the job that they want to do, quite simply because they don’t accept and understand that they havent yet earned their racing stripes.
They are still too junior, too misaligned with their expectations in relation to the needs of the business and to be quite frank, too pushy. Introverts don’t like overly ambitious and overly pushy colleagues.
Everyone, especially millennials seem to want to be a manager… It’s not a sustainable situation, there is still plenty of crappy work out there that someone has to do.
Perhaps you don’t want to do it but is the time right for you to say, no thanks?
Think carefully. You may get a counter offer if the business is in a bind but that’s generally an amateurish management stunt to buy time. That’s also usually a one-off offer. Not something handed out every time you rattle your shackles.
Once you have shown your cards fully, the clock is ticking.
Valued people are compensated in many ways and while financial compensation is a common one, title can also be used but generally this is applied only if the ego needs to be stroked or as an equalizer.
For the most part, recognition is granted in other more subtle ways – with tenure you recognize it, it is not always overtly obvious.
If you try and force the hand and perhaps that of others in an organization you may be surprised at the end result.
If an individual has chosen a moment of vulnerability in the organization to tender their resignation, a point in time when the business can ill afford such a departure without realizing it is an act of treachery and what one colleague referred to as a ‘rookie movie’ then the outcome is wholly unpredictable.
Many will interpret such action as a betrayal of trust and as a consequence a counter offer is not likely to be forthcoming. People don’t want to work with someone they feel that they can’t trust when the going gets tough.
My wife describes me as unforgiving, she may be right, certainly on this occasion the individual concerned may be surprised to find that they are completely dispensable.
Burn bridges only if you can really afford them.
You risk realizing that those who have some ability may be willing to pursue new paths and get in a demolition squad and destroy the very bridges you stand on, just for you, without prior consultation.
