The Reality of (my) Severance

I have recently been watching the excellent Apple TV series Severance which, at its heart, addresses a work-life separation that is enforced by an implanted device that effectively geofences the two existences for a person.?It is a wonderfully thought-provoking and haunting show that was filmed in part at the former Bell Labs building in Holmdel NJ.?

Coincidentally, it is just past the first anniversary of my ‘severance’ from Nokia and Bell Labs, and I frequently get asked what I have been up to in the intervening time, and my plans for the future.?So, I thought that now would be an auspicious time to answer these questions and also to share some perspective that I have accumulated and distilled over this period about the nature of job/career and work/life satisfaction.

A few years ago, I recall reading a Harvard Business Review article on what factors most contribute to employee career or job satisfaction, and, as I recall, there were 3 primary factors:

1. ?That the work done by the company was meaningful or important
2. That the individual felt that they could make a significant difference or impact to this work
3. That the individual felt fairly compensated or rewarded for their contribution(s)

The article further argued that the third factor – compensation – typically only became a defining issue in terms of employee retention only if the first and second factors were unsatisfactory.?Conversely, I would argue that, if the compensation package is sufficiently attractive, then employees can be retained even if their job satisfaction and sense of corporate purpose were lacking.

Reflecting back on the 20+ years that I spent in the corporate world, and across the various different company incarnations, I would say that this is indeed an important set of factors, both for myself and for the vast majority of people I managed.?But a former colleague and work-friend, Cassidy Shield, wrote recently of another factor:

4. The need to respect and trust the people with, and for whom you work

I think this is a very important fourth factor, and in fact, it could – or should – be the primary factor, as human beings are invariably social animals who therefore attribute significant value to inter-personal relationships and interactions.?Imagine scenarios where colleagues are untrustworthy or unreliable in terms of their personal or professional support, or in the quality of their work, or their ability to judge situations and determine the right course of action; on reflection, over my career, I would say that this led to the most frustrating of experiences, and the greatest degree of dissatisfaction, particularly when it resulted in the sense of being ‘alone’ or, even worse, ‘undermined’ in taking some course of action or position on an issue.?Back to Severance, the Apple TV series, I think one could argue that Lumen (the fictitious employer at the heart of the show) meets the first three criteria, but it falls woefully short on the 4th one.?And that is why everything starts to fall apart.

Now applying the above four factors to my professional life, I would guestimate a score of 2.5 out of 4, on average, with roughly equal apportioning between the 4 factors (i.e., a 0.6 score for each), which I think is quite a fortunate position in which to find oneself over such a prolonged period.?

So why, then, did I decide to leave my role as CTO of Nokia and President of Bell Labs??Well, I think the honest answer, with the benefit of some hindsight and the opportunity for some reflection, is that there was a deterioration on multiple fronts over time, with the result that, by the end, I would have given a score of somewhat less than 2 out of 4 for my satisfaction in the role.?And, I would argue that when this score drops below the 50% mark for an extended period, and there is no obvious way in which it will recover, it is time to look for pastures new, as I did.

What were the multiple elements that caused this degradation over time??Is it just a natural process of ‘familiarity breeding contempt’ (on both sides) which increases with time? Or economic circumstance? Or personal circumstance??Or corporate culture or strategy??Or societal circumstance??Well, I think, it was combination of all of the above, and so there was no one ‘fix’ or change that would ameliorate the situation, and the change was therefore required.?

On reflection, there are 5 key elements that changed over time and led to this situation, and I think they are common to a multitude of different industries and roles:

• The challenging market dynamics: Probably the most significant factor is/was the ever-increasing challenge of the economics of the telecom industry, which is perpetually over-constrained by consumer-driven price pressure on one end and the need for continual investment in infrastructure-heavy upgrades to meet demand, on the other.?When this is paired with the financial demands of quarterly earnings, this is fundamentally at odds with the ability to deliver pioneering disruptive innovation(s) to market, or to expand company scope, instead causing an excessive focus on incremental sustaining innovations in the current product spaces.?Market consolidation would normally result in stabilization and pressure-release, but the telecom industry invariably resists such an equilibrium, with the continual arrival of new entrants and new architectures and new technologies that create sufficient perturbation and renewed competition, leading to the continuation of this economic spiral.?
• The power of incumbency: Although it is true that deep knowledge of, and expertise in, the many complex systems and constituent technologies, and strong, trusted customer relationships, result in a level of incumbency that provides a barrier to wholesale change, the (attractive) size of the market and the multiplicity of evolving technologies means that the threat of change is perpetual and drives an effective ‘perpetual motion machine’ towards lower cost and higher performance – a challenging couplet.
• The clash of cultures: The nurturing of sustaining versus disruptive innovation effectively need two different ‘operating systems’ as outlined by John Kotter, creating one key type of cultural tension or clash in large corporations.?Separately, in multinational corporations, which have invariably grown by acquisition and agglomeration of other entities in different locations and with different cultures, there is always a geo-cultural disparity that exists; in the best case, if optimally managed, this provides a diversity of perspective and skills that enriches the company; in the worst case, this results in schisms and simmering tensions that act as a brake on forward momentum.?The transition from American to American-French to American-Finnish-German multi-nationality, as Lucent became Alcatel-Lucent then Nokia was certainly challenging in this regard, with the pace of change being moderated by significant differences in the level of innate caution or conservatism, versus overt optimism, as well as the level of directness of communication that was acceptable or accommodated.?
• The continuity-futility conundrum: It is an unfortunate truth that after years or decades of struggling with the above factors, corporations can become imbued with a ‘survival mentality’ which, on one hand, leads to a confidence that one will prevail and persist through any/all travails. But, on the other hand, there is a paralyzing inability to reinvent oneself, as it is simply too long ago, and too far-removed from the corporate fabric to know how to do so - this leads to an underlying sense of futility.?I think the telecom industry, as a whole, suffers from this conundrum in spades, and has for several decades, with the condition becoming even more pronounced with the rise of the webscale players, with their accumulated war chests and market influence.
• The leadership paradox: Perhaps the only way to counter the above elements is via truly exceptional leadership, capable of optimizing the current business, and investing ‘ahead of the curve’ in a new transformative business, whilst seamlessly blending cultures and managing market expectations.?Not only is this an incredibly tall order, it is antithetical to the process by which leaders are typically selected; the reality is that senior leaders are typically promoted or recruited based on their proven track record in managing for the near-term, with little or no accountability for the longer term, which is highly likely to be beyond their (or the Board of Directors’) corporate lifetime.?Moreover, this typically pre-ordains that those with strong business or sales credentials are favored over those with strong technical or vision/strategy credentials, the dearth of which compounds the problem of trying to drive larger, disruptive transformation in companies.

In essence, all these elements conspired to the degradation of my affinity for, and one could argue, suitability for, the role I had at Nokia.?

And at some point, I think a threshold is crossed, or an epiphany occurs after which the path must fork off in another direction, probably to the betterment of all concerned.?There is also no doubt for me that the pandemic, with the attendant reduction in excess travel, and the ability to remove oneself from the day-to-day politics and ‘hamster wheel’ of work-life was catalytic, as it allowed a measure of distance and reflection to be applied that was hard to foster prior to the ‘virtualization’ of work.

So, that’s the long-ish short version of my severance story.?For the past year, I have been pursuing new vistas and opportunities that are canonically and definingly different from the above experience(s). And so far, so good!?I am advising a plethora of different entities, from new ventures to small, mid-sized and large corporations, institutions, and funds on their techno-economic and innovation strategies. ?The diversity of topics is very appealing, as is the complete freedom from any bias or agenda that must be satisfied or adhered to.?And, in general, the internal politics are largely outside this process, which is truly refreshing.

So, will I ever un-sever myself and return to the corporate life? The expression ‘once bitten, twice shy’, or the popular quotation that the ‘definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome’ (often attributed to Einstein) come to mind.?The latter quote seems particularly apropos for large corporations, which gives me pause about ever returning to that fold.?However, as an inveterate optimist, I always believe in the potential for a new, surprising and positive outcome.?

But the 4 factors outlined above are now my critical checklist for evaluating any opportunity.?I have been approached by a large number of companies or recruiters looking to fill leadership positions, but I have yet to find a role in an organization that scores sufficiently highly across all dimensions for me to jump in.?I will ‘never say never’ to the possibility of ‘un-severing’, or ‘reintegrating’ as it is called in Severance, but it would take something truly special to seduce me now.