'Up or Out', flipping the table

I attended a leadership training course this week (SLII). As part of the training, there are a series of videos about a made-up company that show positive and negative interactions between managers and employees. In one of the final videos, a stressed out manager has had enough and resigns. Meanwhile the cowboy executive that had planned on de-facto replacing him gets her comeuppance as the replacement decides to leave for a new project.

The video wraps up to show the ex-manager at home with his wife, getting ready to coach the soccer team that he hadn't had time for before, re-booking his vacation, taking a new (implied better) opportunity. As it finished, I almost cheered. Good had won out! Evil was punished. It was then that I realized that I had been watching the 'negative example' video. We then proceeded to watch the 'positive example' video where the executive was more collaborative, the manager got a handle on the consultant early on, and the project went smoothly. I think I was the only one who didn't feel reassured.

I reflected on why I was happier with the first ending. The second ending was where the business succeeded, but I had gravitated towards the individual's success. I've generally been a company-man throughout my career; my average tenure is over five years and I've really only left a job a couple of times. That being said, I have a conflicted view of the struggle between what's best for the company, and what's best for the employee. Growing up in the Covey 'Win/Win or No Deal' era, I now find myself aligning more and more with Gen-Z on the idea that if companies treat you as replaceable, maybe you should treat them the same.

"Up or Out " was born in the 80s hustle culture- the basic idea being that if someone isn't good enough for the next level; best thing the employer can do is let them walk and make room for someone who could be. Thankfully, this has mostly died out, and many companies I know have 'forever' job codes where they are comfortable letting someone stay as long as they are effective- no future plans required.

Over time, relationships between employees and their employers sour. We point to bad management, but there's a host of other issues. Unclear or overly ambitious goals, changes in priority, even just plain old 'changes in the market' reset the playing field. Employees think 'Hey, haven't I proven myself enough already?' and managers think 'What, do you think I'm going to give you a high-five for just doing your job?' In a best case scenario there is still a level of loyalty going both directions; at worst there is not even trust.

I'm comfortable talking about this, because as a veteran in recruiting, I'm basically the villain calling from inside his own house. I am the fixer that takes worn-out parts and replaces them with shiny new ones. We hire people with the highest of hopes, promise them honor and glory if they can deliver, and spend tens of thousands of dollars to make them feel welcome. Many times we've overestimated their value, and end up with short or long-term regret. However, there are times when they meet that expectation, and that open up new issues.

Employees can and will outpace their value. The company would be operating sub optimally if they then try to keep pace. First, the gap between the value you provide the company and your market value is a cost savings to them that allows them to stay profitable. Secondly, employees will never stand for having their salaries decreased, so employers should only increase a salary when they are confident that the employee can continue at that level. Finally, fairness across an employee population means that basically impossible to compensate individuals their true value. In recruiting, it is not uncommon for one recruiter to outpace their peers- not by 20%, but by 100-150%. Could I pay that individual double the rest of team? Compensation will say no. Hence promotions and merit increases get delayed or set on a yearly schedule, de-facto requiring long stretches of employee competence before the reward.

CNBC put out an excellent video a couple of weeks ago, 'How long should you stay at your job ?' The portion that I have pondered quite a bit was one particular employee who had turned the tables on her employers and viewed them as a way for her to grow in knowledge and experience.

I suggest you treat your own career as an "up or out". Accept a role, grow with it as much as you can, or for as long as you enjoy the role. When you hit that moment when you don't have additional growth opportunities, move on.

Am I advocating for you to quit today? Of course not. Everything should be done in an orderly manner- never leave a role unless you have the next one lined up. I am disillusioned with the idea that you need to offer loyalty beyond what is given. Companies cannot be loyal to certain employees beyond what they can provide now and in the future, because if they do, it's unfair to the other employees.

There are many good reasons to stay and be engaged. There's always a chance that you've met your Peter Principle, and no one else would consider you competent to hire you for the role you currently hold. You may be being compensated higher than frankly, you should be. This 'golden collar' is a curse that many would wish they could be struck down with and never recover. You might really enjoy the company and their culture, or even a specific boss. If those are true, your best option is to stay put for as long as you can. Be a 'meta-game thinker', where you are aware of your own value in the company and be cognizant if the underlying agreement has become unbalanced.

If you decide to look elsewhere, do not become starry-eyed. Every job, even every salary, has an upside and downside. In the end, if you do leave, don't apologize for doing what's best for you. In the end, it's 'just business'.