Speaking from the vantage point of a grant writer, one of the keys to securing any grant is proof of sustainability. Investors and grant funders want to make sure that what they are giving to is a viable and long term option.
I was recently considering how in the past 40 year the practices of business have changed. My grandfather retired from JC Penny's and he spent most of his career in this store's chains. He was given a retirement pension with the company, and its really almost sinful to shop anywhere other than Penny's in the family due to their loyalty to the store.
Today, the average job stay is just over 2 years. Something has changed.
This dynamic is cultural and multi faceted, so to determine it's roots are all entangled with only one cause would be short sighted. However, through the lens of my Leadership of Others class, I'm starting to see this shift under a different tint.
Leadership sustainability.
Company leadership has certainly shifted its focus over the last 4 decades, and it seems to me there is so much focus on the quantitative data produced from these companies that this becomes the driving factor. The bottom line shifts from service focus to expansion, product roll out, and growth... boy does everyone want growth! But to what cost? They say that the retraining of a staffer is 2/3rds the cost of their annual salary. In The First 90 Days, Executives shared that it was generally 6 months until a new hire reached the tipping point to where the company began receiving the value of their investment back out of the new hire. However, when you consider the average career stay to be just over 2 years, this means that just shy of a quarter of the time the company is losing profits. This has got to affect the quantitative data these companies seem to strive for.
My concern is more with the qualitative side of the company. Why won't people commit to their employers? What stops a career from being rooted and established in one company?
I'm really blessed, because I often see with the perspective of a Gen Y, but work mostly with individuals who are about twice my age. I love that most of them have worked in my office for 20 years or so, and in some cases, those who have been around for ONLY 9 years or so, still seem "new to the block". There is an established culture here that you cannot pay for. My work surroundings give me a greater perspective and eye for the feel of an established group. The culture and character of those I work with are strong, so I strongly believe in the work produced by these individuals. I credit the stability of our culture and climate with sustainable leadership.
While there are times that I may personally be running in front of this organization, wondering what Mountain it will take to move in order to create change, I am so very proud of the direction and history of this great group. You don't get to be 61 years old by burning the midnight oil at every quarter. I sometimes think of this type of leadership like a great glacier, and just in the case of the tortoise and the hair, the slow and methodical movement chisels a path and leaves transformative change... and at the finish line, as the fable goes, you know who will be there first, right?
We may not be in a start up or launch phase, but I think there are keys to our success that can be implemented in those stages. I believe sustainable leadership provides the opportunity to begin dialogue with colleagues about tenure and their investment into their organization. I believe sustainable leadership begins to plug the holes of rapid attrition. I believe sustainable leadership builds the group, their purpose and thus the foundation that will be needed to move business to the future.
Great post Amanda. I was just reading an article in HBR blogs this morning that you might find interesting as it relates to your post. Stakeholder vs Shareholder strategy.
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/07/implementing_a_stakeholder_str.html