This topic is a little bit about management and leadership, and also recruitment, retention, performance, just simply being a good citizen in the larger industry and community, and being good to your people. For me, it’s a keystone to a healthy org and industry community and to who I am as a manager and leader (which are distinct, but that’s a different post).
Those of us who choose to be in the disciplines of management and leadership have chosen to take on a role for their staff and their organization. It’s our job to hire and maintain a staff of qualified individuals to perform a certain set of work.
Some organizations and “leaders” appear to think very transactionally about this. There is a concept that when you hire a person to do a job, the paycheck is enough, that you only care if they can do *that* job, that you don’t need to invest and grow in them. Also, hiring is expensive, so getting someone up to speed who has the exact skill set you need now and keeping them there as long as possible is what’s best for the org.
This is – in my opinion (and it’s my blog) – absolutely and unequivocally the wrong way to think about it. It’s tremendously shortsighted and limits not only the person but the organization, it has a high hidden cost, and leads to mediocrity and failure.
Now, there is some research and theory – most commonly you’ll hear Dan Pink – that paying someone well enough that money is not a problem is a huge motivator. And it is. But only because money issues are a distraction from the ability to do meaningful work. Now, I’m not 100% in on Pink’s theory, but only because I think “meaningful” is a term with many meanings…that’s part of what I’m getting at here (it’ll make sense).
What do we want as employers? We want performing teams and individuals. We want them to be effective, interested, and engaged. We want them to invest in our work and organization. We want them to do work that brings the org and its clients forward. We want their best work. We want a great pool of skilled people to choose from when we hire. We want to keep valuable people in the org.
I would argue that there’s some other things we should want, but these are pretty common and non-controversial.
Let’s deconstruct a bit.
Hiring
Hiring is pretty simple, right? You have work you need done, you write a job description, maybe an ad, you post it, you call some people, you have some interviews and you pick the person who is the closest to the job description. Easy Peasy.
Nope. Not at all. Now, I’m going to have to write another whole post on hiring processes and where we fail ourselves and our candidate pools, but let me focus on one aspect…
There are a lot of pieces to this, but in my experience and observation the best candidate is not necessarily the one with exactly the skills you need now. The best candidate is often one that is in the right direction with (depending on level) applicable or translatable skills and *a proven track record of learning and adapting* (or the strong potential). A hard working, capable person with the capacity to learn and think critically or problem solve is going to grow with you and your needs. Someone with curiosity and an understanding of the conceptual foundations and the “why” of what you’re doing will be the one who moves you forward.
But here’s the thing. This person will likely be phenomenal. But without some effort on your part they aren’t staying. Because even a big paycheck (assuming you have one to offer) isn’t everything, and if you’re not paying top end of market the other pieces matter even more.
Once You Have A Talented Person
Great! You made an awesome hire. So by traditional theory we want to focus them on the work we most need done and keep them in this role as long as possible right? Again, not so much.
Earlier, we talked about what we need as managers in our employees. We want investment and people’s best work. Why is a talented professional going to give us that if we put them in a box?
So what does the employee need or want? Well, people vary but here’s a few things:
- Meaningful support from management and team members
- Respect
- Room to learn, grow and develop into the job role
- Room to develop and learn beyond the original scope of the job
- The ability to do novel things
- Agency and a voice in the direction of their work
- Support in working toward (and sometimes developing) career goals
- The ability to learn from communities and resources beyond the company
- Over time, the right to be supported in achieving the next opportunity
Does money matter? Yes. Do the tools to do the job well matter? Yes. But it’s not the be all and end all. Work that is *satisfying* (meaningful to an individual) matters.
Employees often don’t stay forever. That person was only going to stay in that role until they outgrew it anyway. Might we have put the person on a path to outgrow it sooner? That’s possible. But that’s not a bad thing. That extra six months you might keep them is not going to be worth what it could have been if you were getting the best from the beginning.
Here’s the trick.
If you put the person in a box, they are less happy, they can feel the limits, they can feel the lack of support and growth. Which means they have no reason to give their best work. If you invest in the person’s growth then every day you are there, that growth benefits your org. Now obviously this is not unlimited. If you are at a technology company and the person is a developer and what they really want to do is play soccer professionally, there’s not much the job can do to allow them to develop in that direction. But to the extent it’s possible, professional curiosity and growth will benefit your team and your goals.
(Also, these things are just good and responsible management for non-toxic environments)
What Happens If (When) They Outgrow This Role?
Oh no, *panic* — our amazing hire might want to move on!
Ok, cool. So what’s next for them? They don’t have to tell us, nor take us up on assistance and coaching. But with enough trust, they likely will.
Is there a role within the org which suits their next goals? Are they well set up for it? If not, is there an option for making that possible? If you can make this work, you allow them to grow while retaining their organizational knowledge and (hopefully) goodwill.
There isn’t room for their next step in your org and isn’t likely to be soon? Help them leave. If you have the means to help them make connections, prep their materials, be prepared for interviews….do it. If they are ready to go, keeping them is soon going to become a losing proposition. Back to the fact that frustrated, unhappy employees are never going to give their best. Now your goal is improving your professional community, keeping a positive connection, and having them leave supported. Most of our specialities aren’t that big. You are going to talk to this person again. You may exchange knowledge, or they’ll recommend a great hire to you, or an important client relationship. You are building the reputation of you/your organization being worth working for. You get to watch them go forward and do the work you know they’re capable of. A former employee outgrowing you is tremendously gratifying and should be one of our goals.
Crux
Our job is not to hire someone and keep them in the chair (role) we hired them into. We fail ourselves and our organization this way. We limit creativity, innovation, and end up with a field of mediocre performers while real talent stays engaged or moves elsewhere.
Our job is to invest in the success of the team and the org, and one of the keys to this is investing in the individuals and their career directions. It’s how you get their best work now, and how you line them up to benefit your org and your industry over time.