Misinterpreting the War for Talent
By Craig S. Galati
I just read an article by Leigh Branham entitled “The War for Talent: Is It Really All About the Money?” I have had the privilege of meeting Leigh and attending one of his seminars, which I found to be interesting and informative. His article reminded me of the book from the late 90’s “The War for Talent” by Ed Michaels, Helen Handfield-Jones, and Beth Axelrod. This book was groundbreaking at the time, as it suggested that companies would be competing in the future to recruit the best talent in a world where there would be shortages of people to work in our businesses.
While I agree with the premises of both Leigh’s article and Michaels, Handfield-Jones and Axelrod’s book, it has brought to mind some questions for me. It appears that many companies have taken liberties with these writings and even the entire concept. They have taken it so literally that they truly have waged war on their competitors and raided them for their talent. It also seems to me that today’s businesses are more concerned with growing by numbers of people than by knowledge or margin. I attend many meetings and networking events and inevitably the first question that I get asked is “How big is your firm?” as if that is the litmus test for success. When did we quit caring about the more important questions like:
Many firms judge their success based on the number of bodies they employ. I believe that most firms view the “war” as a zero-sum game and that there are only so many employees to go around. It also appears that firm growth is judged more on numbers than on market share, fit, or alignment.
My belief regarding growing by number of staff is as follows:
Growth is unsustainable. How many times do we pick up the newspaper and read about layoffs and corporate downsizing? We also hear on the streets that firms are hiring or firms are firing — “they just let fifteen people go because they got slow.” Growing by numbers is an unsustainable practice, but too many firms’ business models are built on that growth—leveraging low dollar workers to do tasks for fees. If we hire to fulfill a short term need, there will inevitably be the day when that need is no longer there—and most firms will layoff or downsize.
Growth doesn’t always equal additional market share or profit. Many firm leaders have confided in me over the years that they wished that they hadn’t gotten bigger. They told me that growing larger hadn’t done the things that they had hoped. They are not more profitable and they aren’t able to command more market share; they just have larger expenses and need to garner more work to pay those expenses. I’ve found in my own practice that we were not more profitable when we were larger.
Growth can change your corporate culture. It’s difficult enough to get a few people working toward a common vision. Imagine how difficult it is when you are growing by leaps and bounds, then downsizing, and repeating the process. I’ve spoken with many of my colleagues who describe their firms as “having growing pains.” This constant flux of individuals makes it very difficult to settle into a true culture—unless it’s a culture of growing and contracting. I’ve found that it takes approximately one year for someone to assimilate into my firm’s culture. I imagine that this assimilation time is similar in other firms as well. Growth can change your culture. It’s not always a change for the worse, but you should at least consider what you want that change to be. Plan it before you grow.
Growth encourages you to take on engagements you might not otherwise. I know, you need to feed the fire. I’ve heard that so many times. But is that the reason to take on work? As I’ve written before, people want to work on things that have meaning for them. I don’t believe includes working for working’s sake.
As the “War for Talent” suggests, talent is very important. I believe there is something even more important: alignment. I would rather work with people that are in alignment with a purpose or cause than work with people who are just talented.
I’d like to hear from you:
Until next week …
Craig
January 10th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Recently our firm of 10 lost 2 people at first this seemed like a big hit however I now feel like we are the right size for the amount of work and projects we have. I’ve worked in larger firms of 30 or more and noticed they tend to become click-ish - that is groups of individuals tend to form within the office and these groups typically work on the same projects together. One group is doing schools and churches another is doing spec offices etc. So even though the firm was big it naturally broke down into smaller groups.
I view our success by the quality of the product we produce, meeting the client goals producung a good looking building.
Our people our talented but it sounds like we need to work on getting aligned and therein lies the challenge. Any thoughts on how to Align the office. Certainly I cant go around and ask everybody what type of project they want to work on.
We constantly take on work that isnt our first choice because we need to pay the bills. I’m in architecture because I like the profession however I have been known to do a few toilet room remodels. Are you suggesting we only do projects for clients we like? I read a book that suggested to only do work and projects for people you like and I thought that was unrealistic.
Yes we take on projects we dont want because we have to and its not always fun. Every once in a while we get a client with a project thats a lot of fun - Eb and Flo…
January 14th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I don’t think people align around projects or project types. People need alignment with something greater — purpose, values, vision. When you are aligned around these, the projects and the clients that you should take naturally become quite evident.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Your thoughts on “Misinterpreting the War for Talent” are so very true. Just this morning I was handed a survey form from a local “business publication” requesting information on our company that would be used to rank us against our competitors. However, the ranking was not based upon the competency of our work, or the client successes, or even the way we give back to the community. The ranking was based upon how many professional engineers and technical support personnel we have on staff; in other words…size. As if size has anything to do with the way we perform on a project. Needless to say, we have elected not to submit the survey. We feel that we are much better off absent from a list of this nature then to appear as number thirty six in a field of over fifty firms.
I agree with you that growth for growth sake can be very detrimental and demoralizing to a firm and its staff. I once worked for a firm that has the goal of growing in size to a ten-thousand person firm by 2010. As a result of this announcement, we began to feel that we were not recognized as contributing employees working toward the success of the firm, but merely a number. Likewise, customer service began to falter within the local office and clients were also just a means to an end that improved the bottom line in the annual stockholders report.
I now work for a small firm that has a passion for the work that we do and cares about the client’s needs. We have a couple of positions open for both professional and technical personnel but are being careful about whom we hire. The candidates must not only be technically be qualified but be compatible with our culture concern for the client as well.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Great post Craig. Thanks for stopping by and sharing.