"Blogging innovation and marketing insights for the greater good"
Business Strategy Innovation Consultants

Blogging Innovation

Innovation Blog Favorite Blogging Innovation on Technorati Innovation Blog Subscribe to our RSS feed of innovation articles Innovation Blog Subscribe to our innovation articles by e-mail Twitter - Innovation and Conversational Marketing Topics Follow @innovate on Twitter Business Strategy Innovation
Home Services Case Studies News Book List About Us Videos Contact Us Blog

A leading innovation and marketing blog from Braden Kelley of Business Strategy Innovation

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Tenure versus Loyalty

by Mike Myatt

Are chimps running your company?If your organization confuses loyalty and tenure there is trouble on the horizon. If your business highly values tenure as a measure for employee evaluation, it is time for you to consider updating your talent management practices and procedures. So, what's wrong with tenure you ask? In principle very little; but in practice virtually everything. Think of any organization that has mediocre talent, where management has frustrated you with consistent under-performance, or where cavalier attitudes and a sense of entitlement overshadow a focus on productivity and performance, and I'll show you an organization that embraces tenure.

An old business saying that sums-up my feelings about tenure goes like this:


"The only thing worse than an employee who quits and leaves is an employee who quits and stays."


You see tenure is not synonymous with loyalty, but rather is a more often a measure of compliance and survival. Ask yourself this question: Who is more loyal - an employee who has been with the company a long time but is an under-performer, or a less tenured employee who always goes the extra mile and consistently exceeds expectations? The following are the top reasons why tenure as business practice simply constitutes flawed business logic:

1.Tenure is Outdated
  • In case you haven't checked your calendar lately it isn't 1950, it's almost 2010. Outside of government and academia (this should be more than enough proof that tenure is a bad thing) most people don't work for 30 years for the same employer.

2.Tenure Suppresses Talent
  • Just because 'Employee A' has performed a task longer than 'Employee B' doesn't necessarily mean that 'A' is more skilled than 'B'. Furthermore, just because 'A' has been with the company longer than 'B', doesn't necessarily mean that 'A' possesses more talent, upside, knowledge, or adds more value than 'B'. When an organization promotes based upon tenure, and not based upon recognition of talent, merit, performance, etc., the company is not leveraging its true talent base. Not recognizing, developing, and rewarding talent is the fastest way I know of to drive talent out of your organization and directly into the hands of your competition.

3.Tenure Breeds Obsolescence and Mediocrity
  • The sad reality is, that with very few exceptions, if you have someone on your payroll who has been with the organization in a similar role or capacity for an unusually long period of time, you likely have a mediocre employee producing mediocre work. Here's an example. Even in this day and age it is still not that uncommon to find large corporations and government agencies with IT silos built upon mainframe computing solutions. These silos are staffed with legions of 'tenured' COBOL and C++ programmers, as well as 'tenured' IT managers overseeing the operation. Walking into these organizations is often like traveling back in time 20 years. These companies have placed themselves far behind the technology curve because tenured managers hire employees with obsolete skill sets and together they create mediocre solutions.

4.Tenure Inhibits Change and Cripples Innovation
  • Organizations that favor tenure also tend to be prone to majoring in the minors. The mandates for compliance along with the accompanying maze of bureaucratic processes and procedures, will often take precedence over doing the right thing. Tenured organizations also tend to embrace comfort zones and are often built upon the "DITWLY" (Did It That Way Last Year) principle. All of these traits preclude the advancement of change initiatives and cripple innovation.

5. Tenure Kills Brands
  • As an organization expands and continues to promote mediocre talent up through the ranks, you'll notice that growth will eventually slow, quality and customer service suffer, and eventually these negative attributes will be reflected in declining brand equity. Think of any negative brand connotations you have, and you'll likely find an organization that embraces tenure. The Costco experience isn't what it used to be, US auto manufacturers continue to struggle, the Comcast brand has been hammered, the banking industry has been crippled, and government agencies (pick one - IRS, DMV, etc.) often evoke feelings of hatred at the mere mention of their name.

The bottom line is this...as an employer you need to possess an extreme bias toward performance. Reward talent, innovation, loyalty, attitude, creativity, work ethic, contribution, and leadership ability...not tenure.



Mike MyattMike Myatt, is a Top CEO Coach, author of "Leadership Matters...The CEO Survival Manual", and Managing Director of N2Growth.

Labels: , , , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed AddThis Feed Button

2 Comments:

Blogger Bob Wolfe said...

Most of what Mike says makes sense. But his comment on technology is a gross generalization. Corporations do not re-write their applications every year to take advantage of new technology for a plethora of reasons, but rarely because they lack the expertise to do so.

Applications are not re-written in new technologies because the existing ones do the job exceedingly well. If your car was running perfectly, would you take it into the shop for a tuneup because your mechanic bought a new set of wrenches?

Often, new technologies don't perform specific functions quite as well as older technologies (gasp! he speaketh blasphemy!!). For example.....COBOL is far more adept at sorting massive amounts of data than C# or VB.NET. Corporations have massive amounts of data. If your mechanic bought a brand new torque wrench, that wouldn't justify using it as a hammer to pound out a dent in the body of your car. It's referred to as "using the correct tool for the task at hand" or use the correct technology for the IT task at hand.

And about new technologies.....why does every so-called "industry expert" assume that "new means good and old means bad" in the technology arena. The only thing that you can absolutely state is that "new means unproven and old means proven" in the tech world. Would you rather fly on a 40 year old 747 or a shiny brand new experimental aircraft....I'll take the 747, thank you very much.

The final comment is on business reasons for keeping existing technology. Replacing technology for the sake of implementing new technology makes no sense at all. Aren't we speaking about businesses here? Don't businesses have to cost justify their decisions? Often older technology is maintained because it is exceedingly expensive to re-write applications and unless there is a quantifiable and definitive cost justification for re-writing an application, it should not be done....period.

So Mike, while I agree with your comments regarding tenure, please leave the technology issues for the experts who are tasked with implementing it and not for the consultants who are able to write reports but are incapable of putting large-scale systems into operation.

11:38 AM  
Blogger Fred H Schlegel said...

On the whole I agree. But I am curious. The long tenured under-performer vs short time over-performer is a relatively easy judgement call on attacking the tenure system. What about comparing the two over-performers one long tenure one short. Does the long-timer get preference because of loyalty at that point?

1:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Map Contact us to find out how we can help you.