Survivor Island

Wednesday I introduced my colleague to Bill, a CMO-type I have known for more than 15 years.  Last year he lost his job along with the entire executive team,  made redundant by a merger.  Since that time he has been consulting,  while looking for another full-time situation.    The purpose of our meeting was to discuss how he might fit into situations where we need marketing talent.  It was a good meeting that lasted over ninety minutes.  My colleague and I agreed that we should be able to find a place for him. 

After the meeting, my colleague said; "when I was head of HR I would never have talked to him due to the number of jobs he has held in the last ten years."  My colleague did not see the irony of his comment.  At a time when everyone is aware of the tumult facing businesses, and the documented decline in average tenures, especially for C-level executives, this bias is a major disconnect with reality.  His line of thinking is hardly new to me, in fact, I hear similar comments from clients every day.  It reminds me of the Survivor Island television show.  I admit, I did watch most of the first season, but one season was my limit.  I was amazed at how closely the show reflected the reality of Corporate America.  It was not long before alliances formed and people were voted off the island because they posed a threat.   As much as we would like to believe that meritocracy rules the corporate world, political skills become more important as one progresses in responsibility.  Now, don't misunderstand, political skills are not a bad thing, quite the contrary, they are necessary to getting things done in the real world.  Political skills left unchecked, however, can have a dark side. 

In this most recent recession, many companies have restructured their Profit and Loss Statements by terminating highly-compensated senior executives, replacing them with less expensive, younger managers.  In some industry segments, the competition is so fierce that C-level tenures are lower than average.  CMOs in particular, have experienced much shorter tenures.  The need for immediate results is driving that turnover.  Revitalizing a brand or gaining a competitive advantage takes time, so much of the recent CMO turnover seem questionable. 

I have posted on the issue of acquisition related turnover.  Financial buyers usually don't engage in mass terminations of executive teams, at least not at first.  The CEO may or may not leave the acquired company, depending on the reason for the transaction. However, the CFO is usually replaced.   The CFO is in a critical position which requires the complete trust of the owners, without conflict from prior relationships.  As such the financial buyer will assign "their" CFO.  In these situations, the CFO is terminated for reasons beyond her control unrelated to performance. Why would a hiring manager hold this against her?  When a new CEO joins the acquired company, he will understandably want to build his team, creating more turnover.  In the case of a strategic buyer, the entire senior staff may be redundant.  Unless they were responsible for diminishing the value of the brand, their termination wasn't due to poor performance.  

Job seekers understand that short-tenured jobs work against them, even if those situations were beyond their control.  Everyone that comes to me looking to find a new job is looking for long-term, productive employment.  They are not looking for short-term situations, but today, all jobs carry risk.  

The reasons for short tenures is not so black and white anymore.  To discount the value of these people seems unwise.  As the labor market continues to tighten, attracting candidates who are currently employed, will become more expensive.  That should give hiring managers something to ponder when evaluating prospective new hires.  It may just require a little more background work for the hiring manager to become comfortable with these folks.