We enter 2010.
By now GS has become a part of a larger division called P&T - Projects and Technology. Greg Lewin departed Shell some months before.
P&T lost an EVP with the coming of 2010 with the decison of Jaap Huijskes to leave Shell to join OMV. Ken Fisher also resigned recently. Good luck to both of them. I don't know of any other examples of leaders appointed to senior positions and then resigning since the start of the transition.
In Shell, this is always a particular shock as it is so rare. I suspect in most companies it is commonplace, but our retention rates are almost uniquely high. When I sit as GBLP faculty, and participants are offered a scenario based around a senior leader resigning, they are often confused since they have no relevant experience. True enough, I've seen the same this week, as teams near me try to come to terms emotionally and practically with the abrupt departure of Jaap.
When this happens, there is almost a feeling that something must be very wrong, that they knew something bad that we didn't. It also inevitably undermines to some extent the team building and belief, especially just now with the official launch of P&T next week. Then we are worried to talk about it, we pretend it hasn't happened except with our best mates at lunch. And finally we convince ourselves that the one who resigned was no good anyway.
I have heard some strange claims this week. Somehow that it was disloyal or unethical to accept a job and then resign so soon afterwards. Oh yeah? Not on planet earth it isn't. There may be circumstances where ethics can be quentioned, but we certainly can't assume that from afar.
There is a far more fatalistic approach to this which I suggest we would be better taking. It happens. We are all free agents (thank goodness). If we are smart we are weighing up internal and external options all the time. Some people will take external options and leave. It is reasonable, it is right. No one is bigger than Shell, and there are many good candidates to take over. It might even be good for us individually as the route to the top has one less obstacle now. Life goes on.
I wonder why this is so hard to do? It is not just in business that this is hard. Take football. where loyalty is almost tribal. The booing of players who "betrayed" their club is routine and vitriolic. Somehow players are supposed to be loyal no matter what (though we are allowed to boo them when they misplace a pass), and the whole edifice of morale and belief can collapse far too easily. I suppose one reason is that our belief is generally so fragile, and that we prefer to follow people rather than concepts or strategies.
As with many other things in life, we also don't help ourselves by being unable to share openly. We are hurting, but we are not allowed to say so. So we hurt for longer, and inside our brains the theories become ever more farfetched and damaging.
The other consequence of not sharing honestly is that the organisation finds it hard to learn. I believe Jaap was career Shell, but I know Ken wasn't. Why is it that our track record of retaining people is so much worse with mid career recruits? Does it matter? What does it mean? What can we do about it? For a company that wishes to make its culture more externally focused and diverse, to me these are critical questions.
Back to ourselves, how loyal should we be to our company, and how ready to move on? I've said already that we always should know our value externally. Many of us were found out during the transition process for not having that data point. But the modern notion that the smart career move is to flit between companies also feels wrong to me. There are many reasons. Firstly, the grass is not usually as green as it looks over the fence. Secondly, those with short tenures tend to struggle in hard times, simply because of a lack of network or reputation or sponsor. Third, ask someone who is about to receive a VS package after 25 years service and recognise the long term monetary value of loyalty. Finally, consider yourself as being born with an asset, call it a loyalty quotient. Every time you move companies you give away some of that asset, and it never returns. It is a bit like having lots of lovers. It is a good idea to learn what you can and to know your value and be ready to move on - but it is not cost free either especially if it becomes a habit.
So, here is an alternative storyline to consider when someone senior resigns:
- good luck to them
- great to confirm that Shell people can get good jobs outside, as then you might be able to as well
- reminder to know ones external value and options at all times
- it is probably an opportunity for the business, it is certainly not a crippling blow. Avoid thoughts that the whole business is collapsing, it isn't
- don't pin your hopes or your reputation onto just one or two senior people, they might leave and then where are you?
- talk about what has happened, and see what we can learn. Properly, honestly, not just at the surface level
- avoid the tempation to join the disparagement of the person who resigned. That way no one learns, and it is hardly decent human behaviour either
- be ready to jump companies, but not too easily or not too often
Perhaps with all these unhappy winners around, we might face a period with more of these, so we'd better be ready for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment