Why people leave their jobs?

Like I noted earlier, the trickle of friends who have left my company seems to be turning into a torrent (perhaps it just feels that way). This leads me to wonder why people leave companies in the first place.

Like any good consultant, I will present this in the form of a two x two. All you MBAs can relax and feel at home reading this note! ;-)

You'll need to click once on the attached picture to see a larger (and clearer) picture.

My hypothesis is that there is a constant tussle between net-worth and self-worth.

Honeymoon phase: So when people are doing well in a company, and the job is financially rewarding, both net worth and self worth are growing. There's no real reason to leave. Self worth continues increasing as one's capabilities are utilized and extended, and one's social network continues to expand. Companies that give stock options, of course, give a nice little kicker to net-worth too.

"Love my job, the pay sucks" phase: This happens to people who are lucky enough to be in jobs that are intellectually and socially stimulating. You're, like, "I'm lucky that they pay me to do my job". The pay/stocks are in steep decline but, hey, you're learning so much and having so much fun that you don't care. After a while, if the difference between net-worth and self-worth becomes too large, one might consider "being in the market".

Golden Handcuffs phase: The job's a dog, but the money's too good to leave. You might know this tribe as the "retired on the job" brigade. Very popular in bureaucratic companies where incompetence and demotivation can be hidden away for long years. You're not employable elsewhere, and you're too bored to want to leave anyway.

The Dog ate my Job phase: The pay's bad, the stocks are under-water, you hate your colleagues, and you haven't learnt anything in years. You're probably too demotivated to leave, and your self esteem is lower than Radiohead doing "Creep" (lyrics: "I'm a creep, I'm a loser, What the hell am I doing here, I don't belong here." See what I'm saying?!)

Here's the story in the form of a line chart for the visual thinkers.

Speed and severity...the fine art of corporate conversations

The downside of being a gentle mannered (though tall and menacing looking, etc) person is that meetings and conversations in the corporate world can happen on different time scales for different participants. Most times, it can be frustrating! Some times, it can be hilarious. Today was one such day...hence this post!

Versus: Person A (the other guy, basically) has the meeting in real-time, where he is expecting a rat-a-tat-a-tat of combative responses and engaging in a game of mind-numbing intensity. Person U (that is, you) is expecting this to be a game played over several meetings, and is therefore not interested in countering any argument in this very meeting - what's the rush, after all this isn't getting solved in a single meeting! Therefore, the meeting looks more like a sitcom situation, with one guy moving at videogame pace, and the other at an elaborate game of strategy - doing a lot of sparring in his mind (cue blurb on the screen) or after the meeting is over (cue meeting flashback and responses from Person U). Twitch speed Versus Chess. Rabbit Versus Tortoise. Twitch Game Versus Turn-based-strategy games.

Culture clash: In an aggressive - and increasingly - alpha male corporate culture, niceness is seen as sign of weakness. In other - more influence oriented - corporate cultures, niceness is celebrated as being a "measured response" and the true signs of an influential leader. Neither is right or wrong, in themselves, but the perspectives and utilities of these responses greatly differs.

Mr. Nice Guy: In my case, my preferred style is the nice-guy style, though I like to come in first! Now, I am increasingly faced with a situation where twitch speed matters more than strategy. Question is, can I fake it or, alternately, add a new personality to my repertoire?

Not just speed, also severity: The issue is not just about speed, but also the severity of response. Being a multi-player game, any response must be measured to have the desired impact on the other party. Now Mr. Nice guy would try to couch things in a way that seeks to maintain the ego of the other party, and look for a synthesis of ideas.

Mr. Twitch, on the other hand, is looking for gains on every transaction, and is therefore looking for one up on every situation. It doesn't matter if the other guy is right - just counter with a severity that the other person cannot comprehend, and is therefore forced to back off. There, another point to Mr. Twitch. Screw you, other guy!

Personality: Of course, tit-for-tat is a great strategy (and apparently the best strategy in iterated prisoners' dilemma type games), but it requires a certain type of personality - one that seems more arrogant, more selfish (or less altruistic), zero sum, and less interested in synthesis, "convergence" and "emergence".

Question is, can I fake the twitching, while keeping the nice guy interior? That's the fine art of corporate conversations that I have to master!

Spring wuz here!

Here's a few photos of spring flowers at home!