What can businesses do better
to retain their top talent?
In early 2009 I found myself in the
company of four leaders who had a combined tenure of 71 years at
the same company. When I asked why they had stayed so long, the
EMEA COO responded, "Every time I thought about leaving they
presented me with a bigger challenge". Whilst challenge is
undoubtedly a key component in keeping A-players on-side as it
were, general opinion from paragons of resource management would
also add; continued opportunity to learn, diverse [and ideally
international] assignments, industry recognition and of course
appropriate and timely reward.
What are the emerging themes
for leaders wanting to leave?
Although there are always exceptions,
in general leaders are not losing themselves to a mid-life crisis
of conscience by volunteering for VSO (a leading development
charity that sends volunteers to work abroad with full financial
support.) or hefting a back-pack and a paintbrush to head off to
some remote Tuscan hill. In reality leaders have families,
mortgages and responsibilities they can't just walk away from. Good
people leave because they are not given a good enough reason to
stay (see above). And contrary to popular belief, the reason people
ultimately walk out the door is rarely about the money even if
eventually it ends up being all about the counter offer.
Does this mean the idea of
succession management becomes even more important?
Succession is not important. It's
imperative. If a CEO goes AWOL most organisations should know who
will step in, the question is who takes the reins two levels below
that? To quote P&G's global human resources officer Moheet
Nagrath "Today I could show you the next generation of successors
to current leaders, the generation after that, and the generation
after that," Other companies including GE and PepsiCo have also
seen their ability to build depth in talent as a competitive
advantage. Succession needs to be a part of the fabric of the
organisation, a constantly evolving conversation between the
company and the next generation of talent.
Is it sometimes positive to
allow natural churn to provide refreshment at senior
level?
Monitoring individual performance
allows businesses to take active decisions about its resource; both
replacing due to natural churn and removing under performers in
preference for fresh perspectives.
How aware do you think the
marketing communications is of this time bomb?
Are CEOs aware of the mid and long
term impact of a shortage of senior business leaders at the top
end, management becoming disenfranchised with the hours and the
work and leaving a hole in the middle, and fewer graduates of any
ability being attracted to advertising and media? Yes on the whole
marketing communications are aware but are they doing enough about
it?
How open is the sector to
encouraging lateral hires to resolve the leadership
gap?
There is still a lot of resistance to
lateral hires in the media agencies. According to many media mavens
it's technical, complicated, it has a language of mathematical
acronyms more aligned to science than art. There is an
understandable nervousness associated with sitting an account
director down with a client who doesn't know his AVB from his CRCP.
Then there is the view that a candidate from the client side won't
thrive in an environment where the focus is on chasing the money,
not sitting on it. The question however is whether a CMO really
wants to discuss the optimisation of the media mix, or the long
term business strategy that will drive sales? Hiring from a broader
church can only ultimately make an agency more attractive to work
for, and with.
What advice do you give to
leaders looking to build a strategy for retention?
Humans are pretty simple animals with
the same basic needs; ask yourself what makes you stay, or go. Ask
the same question of your leadership team, the answers are all
around you, all you need to do is listen and then act on what you
have heard.
This interview was first
published here in Campaign.
TAGS: