Discontinuities and Corruption

- and putting the goal-post where the ball is

Often when the regime changes, specifically for a company, there is supposed to be a process of handover. If there isn't much of that, it's assumed to be a time to start with a clean slate. What is interesting is that it's also a time for the most common and the easiest kind of corruption - being insincere with your work.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying humans are corrupt when they get a chance - I'm only, for now, saying that it is a possibility. Humans are known to optimize.

When you take over a new position at a new company, you'll rely on the existing employees, juniors and peers, to give you background. Some times there are too many changes in a short while in companies. Sometimes a few exits snowball into an avalanche. It is common to assume the ship is sinking when mice are seen jumping ship. And at those rare occasions, legacy is in the custody of very few people. Those few people can change the history if they want. It gets even more complex when the previous leadership is not contactable or hostile and no longer interested in your welfare.

What that leads to is an interesting phenomenon that I have heard mentioned across companies. The goal post can move now - to where the ball ends up. If profits are down and turnovers are high, you'd be told that's exactly what we set out to do. If an irrational decision was taken, it was taken by the previous leadership. People will come to you mentioning past promises made to them of promotions and raises.

Most new leaders pass - there's so much more to be done in the initial few months that the archaeology can wait. Some dig in only to get trapped in the mud of conflicting versions and unclear evidence. No one wants to start off doubting peers and juniors. I'm still wondering what is the best thing to do, and how....

Missionaries vs. Mercenaries

We all want to establish a culture of commitment in our teams and companies. We all prefer to work in teams where people are willing to die for each other. And yet we all know that's rare to find. It would seem almost a Utopian imagination if we did not have examples of where this has happened, at least for certain lengths of time. We've heard about it in books and movies, all the way from love stories to war stories. We hear stories of people so motivated that they strap bombs and blow themselves up, and of soldiers who choose to die saving others and each-other.

The one place it seems to happen the least, if one looks at basic social connects of self, family, clan, society, nation and so on, is unfortunately work, a context where we probably spend more time than any other.

When Wharton management professor Peter Cappelli and Monika Hamori of IE Business School analyzed job search data from a leading executive search firm, they found that more than half of the high-level executives contacted by the firm — 52% — agreed to be candidates for positions outside their company. The more senior the executive, the more willing he or she is to engage in a job search. The lack of allegiance to one’s company “is symptomatic of a broader way of managing organizations in general,” Cappelli says. The two researchers found that executives with “career breadth” — including international experience — are more likely to engage in a job search, suggesting that when executives are moved around from city to city or country to country, “they don’t develop strong ties to the organization. It becomes easier for them to leave”.

The bigger facts to consider are that companies nowadays hire employees with a width of experience. They also make it clear that churn is inevitable. Any post-merger-acquisition, leadership change, or just plain hard times mean that employees will be let go off. Employees treat the company as they are treated. Such employees also create companies that behave this way. Structurally, there are very few long-term incentives at most firms.

Now, I do realize every startup is not the same, but the typical copybook garage startup starts with friends, or at least people comfortable with each other, not from hiring the best resumes. The best resumes climb corporate ladders while start-up-ers slug it out in at least some hard times. Even after a few years, these guys may not have very marketable resumes because they've done bits coding and business-dev and marketing and HR and everything else, but the corporate world is looking for functional specialists. You see? They need the startup and the startup needs them, and needs them to stay. If they stay long, they can cash out. If they don't, both have nothing.

That could be the one reason why so many people mention they find missionaries in startups and mercenaries in corporates. And while it's far from conclusive in my mind, it's definitely a thought starter.