Remaining Competitive & Relevant in Financial Services Vs Head Count
Today, I faced an interesting conundrum from a valued client, who strongly feels the need to hire into their team, in order to remain competitive and relevant in their field.
However, they feel let down by the bigger-picture leaders who seem less understanding of their daily battles and unwilling to add, or replace, to lost headcount - in order to ensure the exact same outcome they wish for: to remain competitive and relevant in a cut-throat industry.
In their drive to ensure the above, the leaders have tried outsourcing the required business skills sets to different areas of the world (where staff are most cost-effective).
Despite this, my client is even more concerned their team will continue to lose ground - and worry for their products long-term relevance if they can't remain competitive, whilst now questioning whether they are in the right role and company for themselves.
Having been on both sides of the coin myself, at various points of my career, I understand the dilemma from both perspectives.
It's always good to get a "feel of the nation" by throwing things out there, so hope to discover from my network what they feel is most needed right now: headcount control, or bold moves to remain competitive and relevant.
There's no right, nor wrong:- so please do feel free to add colour to the conundrum.
Every perspective adds insight from which we can all learn from.