If you are of an age, say millennial or older, you are probably in a position of professional tenure with about 10 years on the job. Does this matter? Is it an asset or liability? Regrettably, the answer is, “it depends.”
When we join the workforce, we are amped, eager, willing to go the distance, put in the effort, and “change the world.” Many of us find as we add experiences and gain time in the saddle, we are relied upon time and again since we have the experience. A great feeling and perfectly logical. This ain’t your first rodeo. You become the “go-to” person.
However, often in corporate America we tend to be myopically and keenly focused on next gen, the new whatever, what’s next, change for the sake of change, go, go, go. Gotta be the “disrupter.” Admirable and certainly that’s how innovation happens, but when the “change” it is a repeat, is it new, or is it simply that enough time passed that no one on the clock who was part of iteration number one, is at the table? If you have been around your company long enough, this is probably making you smile, if not laugh. “Yup, don’t I know that.”
From a human resources and finance perspective, the longer someone is on the payroll, the more they cost and are paid (or should be – more on this later). They are being paid for their experience, loyalty, leadership, and value to the overall organization. Makes perfect sense, until company performance becomes an issue and monetary resources begin to be pressured. As any businessperson knows, payroll is one of, if not the largest line on a profit and loss statement (P&L), so, when expenses need to be trimmed, often times it is the people, the payroll line, who are impacted. Further, since the more tenured people are arguably the most expensive (total benefits), they may become the veiled target.
While it is imperative to keep team members fresh, skills up to date, and recruit new and diverse blood, it is a balancing act. Rarely does a 100% green team, or a bunch of senior people, function and perform as well as a blended team - blended with tenured members and those newer.
Over the last few decades, there has been a push, and general acceptance of moving from job to job as quickly as in a year, two at the most – all in the name of “gaining valuable career experience” or building the resume. There’s truth to both, but as I often shared with my teams over the years, you have a choice. You can know a little about a lot (generalist) or you can know a lot about a little (specialist). Depending on the position’s required expertise, knowing a little about a lot is not of much value, certainly not in times of crisis or when the proverbial sh*t hits the fan.
Being well-rounded is a necessary part of professional growth, particularly in a leadership position. Zero doubt. But the time in a given position should be long enough to actually learn both from making consequential decisions and experiencing the results. Be accountable to our own decisions lest valuable learning be absent. Ever know anyone who took a position, tore everything to shreds, grabbed an awesome annual evaluation, raise and promotion, and disappeared before the dust settled, leaving the “new guy” with the mop bucket and likely the blame? **tilted head**
Careers Tend to Progress in Three Phases...
The first phase is new hire to a few years in the job (yes, years is plural). The talent and energy are almost immediately valued, and increasingly so as the years go by. The person leads innovative change, challenges paradigms, and hopefully learns from their mistakes before moving on to another position (a challenge by itself). The second phase is where the friction is introduced. This is mid-career risk. You’ve been in the job long enough to be a huge value, you’ve seen most of the “movies,” but possibly the business isn’t performing as they should, and the “leader” begins to make personnel changes. “We need new blood” and “let’s bring in some talent from other areas.” On the surface, great idea. Shake things up. Put the payroll cruisers on their heels. It is at this phase where the value of tenure, your tenure, possibly becomes a liability. “He’s been here too long,” “She doesn’t get where we are,” “They’re too old school,” or “They are always against what we’re trying to do.” Sound familiar? Huge red flag!
So, the mood changes. Somehow, you have gone from the main accelerator to the “old guy/gal” at the table, ironically to whom all the newer people come to for advice when it hits the fan. With changes made, almost overnight, the aggregate team tenure drops precipitously, to a point where the room is full of bright-eyed, high-energy, well-paid talent with new ideas, but no experience. Think about this. Who in their right mind searches for any meaningful service and looks for the most inexperienced, or newest? Need a doctor? You look for a seasoned professional, with a proven record in the specific area of need. Probably not an intern. Getting your car serviced? You look around for a reputable, experienced mechanic/shop – never the friend who says, “I know a guy and he’s cheap.” Need an accountant or investment advisor? Again, probably isn’t going to be the guy who you feel you have to ask how old they are before you sign away your retirement nest egg (current news aside).
Now you’re in the third phase, if you haven’t been displaced, retired, or otherwise departed. Somehow, now when things go off the rails, and the executives are asking, “how the hell did this happen?” and everyone is looking at you, you know you are valued, again. Full circle. Critically, it only matters if it is recognized by senior leadership – the true value of that historical perspective and experience. Otherwise, “next slide…” (contrary to popular belief, awesome PowerPoint skills are not synonymous with actual knowledge. In fact, they are more closely aligned with the old saying, “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t”).
Recommended by LinkedIn
Another wrinkle worthy of note, are new hires being brought on at a higher salary than tenured talent? If so, when the logic is questioned, the HR line probably is, “we have to be more competitive to bring in new talent.” Just a question, how important is it to pay existing talent to keep them? This phenomenon is often labeled the “legacy pay” affliction and it is far more common than many suppose. Strangely, tenured people, with a wealth of experience and years devoted, begin to make effectively less and less, and new hires are paid more from day one. Nothing to see here.
This broadly adopted strategy is wasteful, expensive, damaging, and frankly stupid. Unfortunately, many times the tenured talent leaves and there is no safety stop to prevent repeating of past mistakes and wasting finite capital resources (unless you’re in federal service or government, this matters). What is old is new again, accompanied by repeating the same pitfalls.
The point is, yes, tenure does matter, it must be valued and compensated accordingly, and most importantly, balanced. I love seeing new talent join the ranks and reenergize an organization. Nothing beats a healthy challenge and fresh perspective. Absolutely! On the opposite side, an organization staffed exclusively with near-retirement, long-toothed talent is not likely to perform to the degree a balanced team will.
Agreeably, not every profession is the same in terms of talent needs and levels of experience. Some require very little; some require years of professional experience and effort. But for the middle of the pack, most representative of today’s modern corporate workforce, tenure is critical to culture, to organizational performance, to reputation, to mental health, to mentorship, and to talent retention, among dozens of other attributes.
If a leader has more change in their pocket than the aggregate years of their team members, there is an issue - and a major leadership fumble.
Am I now a liability?
So, when you get the 10+ year anniversary cake, certificate, and party, quietly consider the above and ask, “am I now a liability?” Or are you lucky enough to be part of a company with mature leadership who understands the value of experience, and is willing to pay for it?
“Those who do not know history, are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana ~ 1905
