Talent Wars and Disgruntled Employees: I'm Confused

Before I start: Join Kevin Eikenberry and me at 2 p.m. ET today (it's free) by simply registering here. It's a chance not just to hear us talk about your potential and your workplace, but to ask questions as well. Hope to see you there!
_______________________

Now: Why I'm confused.

You've no doubt followed the ongoing headlines regarding the corporate "War for Talent" in recent years. Companies claim that there is a shortage of available talent.

At the same time I'm seeing posts and comments from people claiming that their "talents" aren't being used and that their workplace/boss/situation is oppressive.

My question: If you are talented and disgruntled and have made an attempt to rectify the situation without success, then what payoff are you getting by staying where you are?

I work in corporations every day and am constantly surrounded by talented people. For the life of me I can't find the shortage.

In the same places I hear those talented people complaining about unreasonable work loads and unreasonable bosses.

What I don't see is either side taking meaningful action to make anything different.

Are we living in an era of unhealthy corporate/career co-dependency? If so, why?

I have a hunch regarding at least part of the answer. I'll put it together tonight before heading off to the WorldBlu Conference. I'll be writing from there throughout the day on Thursday and Friday.

Comments

[Frode H]

I see talent around me each day, so finding new talents is not hard. If you are talented and disgruntled, you are doing it wrong, that is because you focus on where you should be, instead of what you should be. I know people at work that wants to be a team leader; they even tell me that they should be a team leader. This focus is bad, and it won’t get you anywhere but to disgruntled land. If you focus on what you should be instead, you will experience that you start to evolve into new positions. I did not get the job, as long as I focused on becoming department leader. As soon as I changed my ways, and wanted to become the best leader possible, I got the job. My philosophy is that if you focus on a position, you will learn what it takes to get to that position. If you focus on personal development, you will learn what it takes to be great, and you will be great before and after you get your deserved position. I focus on becoming the best leader possible, being a department leader is something that I love, I do not focus on the next step on the ladder, if I become good enough, and the next step will come by itself.

Your question: If you are talented and disgruntled and have made an attempt to rectify the situation without success, then what payoff are you getting by staying where you are?

- My answer would be, if you are disgruntled where you are, and focus on where you should be, you will get in the same situation in the next company that you get involved with. If you quit you have failed. Focus on your own abilities, values and skills, if your boss won’t see them, someone else will. And you should go to the one’s asking you to come. Do not go anywhere else just to be disgruntled all over again.

So my question is: What if I manager to become the best leader, my company have ever seen? Would they ignore me? Promote me? Would they be afraid of losing me to competition?

I am not disgruntled at my job, I constantly try to evolve as a leader, not to get to the next step, but because I genuine want to be good at what I am doing.

[peter vajda]

Hi, Steve

You ask:

“If you are talented and disgruntled and have made an attempt to rectify the situation without success, then what payoff are you getting by staying where you are?”

For many living life today in a work world of upheaval, many folks are just plain scared, and “survival” is their M.O.

Many of these folks are nearing, or are already experiencing, (consciously or unconsciously) states of hopelessness and helplessness…fear-based, anxiety-driven states where they feel they have to stay where they are; the alternative, for them, is the equivalent of death.

So, living from the “devil I know vs. the devil I don’t” mantra, they stay…even though they choose to stay in dysfunctional or co-dependent relationships.

IMHO, the “meaningful action” folks on both sides of the desk can take has to do with dealing with present trauma and deep-seated fears (usually from experiences they had when very young but leaking out now in times of impending "abandonment" and "rejection")…not by wholesale reactivity, not by piling it on, not by taking a “my way or the highway” reactive approach, not by reducing people to their lowest common denominator, not by seeing folks as simple robots and functions, etc…but by sitting down with each other, management and employees alike (preferably in small groups), and share their fears, their concerns, and talk about effective solutions (on every level, relating to all stakeholders) to deal with the real and perceived threats and crises. This will require inner strength, courage, allowing for transparency, sincerity, honesty and openness.

Some results, if the process is done with purpose and intentionality, can be a change in morale, a change in the trust level, and reduced stress, less “presenteeism” and some degree of increased engagement.

But, all this hinges on whether folks are willing and able to disclose, tell the truth, be personal in their sharings and approach things from a “for the good of the order” perspective.

If organizations can create a true and real “team” effort in the face of impending crises, they stand a better chance of helping folks understand why RIFs are a possibility, but also how they can avoid impending disasters, large or small, by having everyone engage as if they are “all in this together”.

The reverse is an organization where everyone is out for their own self, were “presenteeism” abounds, where folks experience ever greater degrees of stress and anxiety (and progressive measure to deal with these—food, alcohol, drugs, etc. on and off the job), paralysis, demoralization, increased demotivation and the waste of talent.

The common denominator here is creating a climate and culture of trust. Without trust, all bets are off.

[Downtowner]

It's a cycle that employers ought to consider "paying it forward".

1) You don't get disgruntled unless you care about your job.

2) You don't care about your job unless someone values what you do there.

3) No one values what you do if you are not contributing to the bottom line positively (or your manager/boss is incredible).

4) You don't try to contribute to the bottom line if you are disgruntled.

If you ask an employee to fix this by changing their attitude, it will not work because they will still run into resistance from upper management and re-enter the cycle. Employees cannot entice management to value them, but management can entice employees to contribute to the bottom line and show they are valued. The real power to change the cycle is in the management's hands.

[David Zinger]

Hi Steve:
I think it may be a problem with WAR. Why do we call it war for talent. In war we fight or duck or get wounded. If you stand out you might get shot. So I would keep my head down. I know this is a bit irreverent but I am quite bothered by the term war for talent.
David

[Jo]

I'm looking forward to hearing your analysis.

I'm also interested in what Frode said and putting his comment in the context of the other remarks. We can approach the issue at different levels.

Individual - Frode - and Frode have you heard Dr Rao speak? (There is a GoogleTalk). He makes the same argument.

Management - who has greatest influence on the system? see Peter & Downtowner

Organizational/Strategy/HRM - how are we using the talent we have? see Steve

Institutional - war on talent. As DZ says, scary language.

Clinical psychology - see Peter and Steve.

I am very interested in what you will come up with.

[Steve Roesler]

Frode,

I hope many people take your comment seriously. If one is always focused on "what's next?", it's mentally and emotionally impossible to live in the moment.

The result?

What needs to be done well "now", isn't. The very performance that would allow one to be promoted or expand one's horizons on the job is thwarted by trying to live in the future.

If you do a really outstanding job there is no guarantee that you will be rewarded. However, there probably is a guarantee that you won't be rewarded for dreaming about the future instead of delivering now.

[Steve Roesler]

Peter,

So the discussion once again wends its way back to the foundation of trusting relationships.

Your addition of the damaging coping behaviors is important. I've had talks with executives about this potential issue during times of organizational stress. At first they are often surprised, then after a moment of reflection many of them show genuine concern. They get it and are frequently open to suggestions for how to be helpful.

Now, for the more common dynamic.

Under stress we tend to "circle the wagons" and shut down our more intimate relationships, on and off the job. Fear doesn't breed trust. So as long as a critical mass of people are unable or unwilling to extend themselves and talk honestly with others about what's really going on, the very stress that they are hoping to avoid will continue.

It's at this moment that organizations often look for "incentives" to "help" people get productive again. Companies could save a lot of money by taking a big deep breath and announcing, "Hey, we're under a lot of pressure. Let's sit down and do two things: talk, and listen."

While it doesn't sound "business-like" it's the most effective way to genuinely help those responsible for running the business.

And it's a choice.

[JetJaguar]

Companies are only as good as the people who run them.

Most people aren't that good.

That's why most startups fail.

The startups that grow up big and strong have good people running them.

Good people know they need to build the company, and not just the product.

Building the company means caring about the culture and standards of the workplace. One aspect of a healthy workplace is each employee being aware of his/her contribution to the company.

I wish I could write more, but I have to run to a volunteer commitment now!

Peter

[Steve Roesler]

Downtowner,

Gotta tell you: Your sequence is one that I wish I had thought of myself.

The money line: "The real power to change the cycle is in the management's hands."

This is why I rant against the phrase "employee engagement." Nothing of consequence happens until managers engage.

Nice going.

[Steve Roesler]

David,

My experience in Western cultures is that when things get tough, someone decides to figuratively declare "war".

This verbal act is supposed to mobilize people as a result of naming a perceived common threat. Sometimes it actually works for a while. In this case, I'm not seeing anything of significance on the battlefront. The HR folks with whom I work are, in fact, working "overtime" to find certain highly-specialized professionals. When asked, none was willing to characterize the situation as "war"-like.

[Steve Roesler]

Jo,

The discussion has become so helpful and varied that I'm watching it instead of doing the darned post.

Coming soon.

[Steve Roesler]

Peter/JetJ,

I'm with you on all those points except the one that says "most people aren't good." Doesn't match my experience or the fact that everyone is good at something. However, if you were referring to the fact that most start-ups fail after a couple of years, the statistics are with you.

[JetJaguar]

OK so I was a little too poetic. What I mean is, small companies have to rely on the efforts of a small group of people, and most of the time, that group just doesn't have what it takes. Companies are at the mercy of the weaknesses of their individual managers. Larger companies are not so susceptible to the failings of individuals because the individual is diluted, and there are strong systems and programs to keep things running smoothly.

[Jo]

Eagerly awaiting your analysis.

To get an example of EeEngagement that seems to be in (or out) of senior managers hands: on the Ning network. Have look for discussion on social media: An Aus member and an NZ member finding the most disengaged people are the senior managers.

Being more managerially minded, I took advantage of the new polls on WordPress to ask people what scenario planning they have engaged in, and what they think the prospects are for their business.

So far, the results suggest a fascinatingly POSITIVE yet PASSIVE outlook. I hope to let the poll run till Monday.

[Frode H]

- To Jo. Thank you for your great tip. I have been eager for days to check out Dr. Rao, as I was interested in hearing what he got to say.
I had to make a post: http://properpants.blogspot.com/2008/10/meeting-dr-rao.html For all others who have not yet heard Dr. Rao, you'll need to do so. I just want to thank Jo for this great tip. Made my day!