Career Scenario number 2 - The Glacial Erratic

Before reading this post let me kindly suggest to start with the previous one “How long should you work for one company?”. The story of Glacial Erratic is the continuation.

For years I have noticed regularity when discussing basic career scenarios. I always start with a Job Hopper (described in separate article) as one of the two ends of the scale. At this point, I can already hear some resistance from my interlocutors, obviously, who felt that it somehow affected their careers. But resistance is usually moderate and smart. The term Job Hopper is widely known and intuitively understandable, so after a relatively short exchange of opinions, we agree on the predetermined advantages and disadvantages of this case. If we have time, we also discuss strategy how to deal with it if someone has become one. All issues can be solved, right?

The situation is different when I go on to the analysis of the other end of the scale and I come up with the metaphorical term of Glacial Erratic. This is my original definition (remember that, as I can bang on your door at six in the morning :-) and because of this, 99% of my interlocutors are unaware of it and hearing it... they behave like a boxer hit by a series of precise punches. First, comes a surprise, then they run for the corner to catch a breath and finally they put up a fight like it’s a matter of life and death (last round and losing by point, so must hit&kill to win...). It’s not easy, trust me, I'm the target of this combat. At the beginning, there is usually no discussion of the drawbacks, advantages and consequences of the scenario. It’s a fight for life and sometimes offence is taken and they challenge everything for the sake of challenge itself. But I like it. Not because I'm a sadist. It’s the transition of the group in state and mindset to a rational and mutual exchange of opinions that gives me great satisfaction. Because sooner or later we do get to this phase and usually it’s sooner. What's more, I'm not going to give up such a shocking opener of a conversation and I won’t change the Glacial Erratic term. The explanation is simple, I think. If someone has spent many years in one environment and didn’t think too much about the causes and consequences of it, then... he is very firmly set in the ground, even if he does not know it himself. It requires a strong emotional charge to stimulate him. A soft poke with a fork (like in the case of a Job Hopper) is not enough. You need a grenade and the above-mentioned name at the other end of the scale of career scenarios effectively plays such a role.

To sum up the introduction – roughly if you've spent 10 or more years in one company, or even in one job, you belong to the Glacial Erratic category. Sounds pejorative? If it does, you're heading for an emotional trap. The term is no less or more pejorative than a Job Hopper. What’s more, it really is not pejorative at all. If you still have doubts right now, read the final paragraph of "How long should you work for one company" once more. But why exactly 10 or more years? The first part of the answer is painfully simple - arbitrarily, but also taking into account the cycle of our professional development. Considering that we normally work a little over 40 years, 10 years is about 25%, a quarter of all professional activity... The second part of the answer is less arbitrary and you already know it. Go back several paragraphs in the same previous article where we discuss terms of office for professional positions, etc.

What are the advantages of staying in one company or, in extreme cases, in one position, for so many years? You usually have very large and very useful knowledge about products, structures and formal or informal channels of information, that is, whom to talk to and how to achieve the intended effect. This is invaluable. Historical knowledge, which is knowledge of past restructuring actions, strategy changes, cultural changes, etc., can also be invaluable. Unofficial conversations with such people have already prevented many leaders from repeating the mistakes of their predecessors. It may also introduce the stabilization element in the team such as "do not panic, do not run away, I have already experienced such changes twice, it resulted in such and such way, so let's calm down and do our jobs". It's like a military veteran, who is a point of reference for young soldiers. He survived, so let’s do what he does and we will survive too.

It is worth remembering, however, that with the passage of time that knowledge is becoming more and more useful only in this particular place and increasingly worthless in others. We all know the argument "But we have always done it this way so why change it?" or "In our company X we did it this way." Notice the interesting use of “our company” - the person has changed his job and already being in the new place he still says "our" referring to the previous one... Sounds familiar, right?

An essential element of the life of a Glacial Erratic is his sense of security. I know so much about this company, I know everyone here, they all know me and even when there’s a visit from the headquarters, they call me by first name and with respect, they pay well and always on time, send me to trainings and ask my opinion, they provide medical care and I can even go to the doctor’s during working hours, the company is 25/50/100 years old, it is an unbreakable monolith, etc. Conclusion: nothing wrong can happen. After all, it's a battleship, not a rowing boat, and battleships don’t drown. Even in times of crisis and trouble, they will give me a hug and protect me. I gave this company so many years, so much blood, sweat and tears, so many hours of work overtime. Sounds beautiful, doesn’t it? It does, but it’s not true. Battleships do drown, people die on them; sometimes a single, precise hit is enough... Moreover, every battleship sooner or later is scrapped; every single one, especially in this (increasingly) dynamic and (increasingly) fast-changing business environment. There comes a new boss and he doesn’t like us (personality mismatch), or he has a new concept of department structure, or someone else in our place, whom he trusts more (because they have already worked together before) and that’s the end of security. If it’s not the boss, it may be a takeover or a merger with another company. It may also be a simple market crisis, either in the industry, or the company starts falling like a dinosaur (Nokia, Kodak, shall I continue?). In extreme cases, they will pay you what the Labour Code requires and you have couple of months’ notice. If you are lucky, they will pay you twice as much for performance for the company, fund your outplacement training, and you will still be required to sign the declaration that you part ways on peaceful terms and you will not claim any other compensation. Can they do that? Of course, they can. Everything is legal and it’s hard to argue that. We might have done the same if we were the boss or business owner. It just works like this and it's still a long way from "bloodthirsty capitalism". There are, of course, places closer to the ideals described above, but nobody says it’s our company and that it will stay like that forever. Thus, the thesis on the safety of the Glacial Erratic is quite poor.

There is one more thing to keep in mind. Apart from the aforementioned slow and inevitable decline of creativity and flexibility of thinking and looking at the world through the same pair of glasses, our openness to change is decreasing and our risk tolerance is lowered. Let me give an extreme example that illustrates the phenomenon really well. Situation - I’m running a recruitment project. First contact with a potential Glacial Erratic candidate: Yes, I am interested, please send me the job description, and I will send my resume (if he has one, because Glacial Erratic usually don’t have resumes, and LinkedIn for them is "the same as these Facebooks and YouTubes"). I’m inviting the candidate to the meeting, his enthusiasm is growing. “Mr Dariusz, this is indeed a great opportunity for me, because I’ve been here for too long! The Glacial Erratic gets into the short-list of candidates and has a meeting with the client. After the meeting, all is still well, although my sensitive eye and the ear of an experienced consultant are already catching the first signs of doubt. The candidate starts asking more questions about secondary and tertiary issues, or those that will remain unanswered are escalated and those that were not a problem previously, start to slowly become one (oh, so business travelling is really required...?). After a few days, the candidate asks for a phone call, during which he talks at length about the above-mentioned secondary and tertiary issues. We come to the point where the client presents the job offer to the Glacial Erratic, fulfilling his financial expectations and declaring that he will wait for him, as much as he needs to. And then the following happens – it’s getting harder to contact the Glacial Erratic, he doesn’t answer the phone, e-mails are being answered late and vaguely, and finally we arrive at the foul phrase from Monty Python’s immortal sketch of about the chartered accountant (The Lion Tamer) "I will think about it". Next, comes silence and we have to keep on calling, just to hear something that I'm completely sure of by then. Well, the Glacial Erratic usually does not have the courage to say, even to himself, "I got cold feet, why did I get into it at all?" and he begins to rationalize and look for external causes. So we have the immortal "I talked to my wife/husband and... / kids attend a good school now and... / but I have to take care of my parents more now and..." and so on. All these "things" are obviously important, but they were known to him from the very beginning, they did not come out of the closet just yesterday. The most beautiful of the explanations I heard was: "Mr Dariusz, the company has bought me a ticket to a Barcelona football game and I’m flying there shortly. As you can see, they don’t treat people as bad as I described it, so I'm staying." If this had been a very young man at a specialist level, I would have understood. But I heard it from the managing director of a national branch of a large international company, who can afford to buy the ticket himself. It was one of those very few cases when I said to myself, "Do not call this gentleman ever again." I kept my promise, and... they fired him anyway (pardon, they mutually agreed to split and let him find new challenge) somehow a year later. Well, he could leave on his terms earlier...

So how is it then with this Glacial Erratic, is it good or bad? Well, in itself it’s neither, of course. If you grow into the ground and moss slowly covers you unnoticed and unaware of it, then the risks grow too. They may explode when you least expect it. Which is not too difficult, because every moment is unexpected if you have your eyes wide shut. If, while being aware of everything that we talked about here, you are making a decision to "stay", it’s nobody’s business but yours and no wise counsel has the right to discourage you. It’s your life, and he should first lead his. 

And the next article of the series, after Job Hopper and Erratic Glacial, will be Breeding. To be continued...