You always hear about companies bringing in new executives to turnaround a company. However, Rob Cross states in "Connecting to Collaborate",
"Experienced hires at the executive level aren't that successful in most organizations. They have to prove themselves at the new organization before they're listened to...[and] that takes one to two years. Many aren't willing to invest that much time, or simply quit when they can't crack the network."To me, this claim seems rather false for most organizations when you look at the many turnarounds that have occurred throughout both the private and public sectors in America.
In cases such as the Salt Lake City Olympics, J.Crew, and even at my job at the Department of the Interior, outsiders that were brought in at the executive level where able to form the networks necessary to efficiently fulfill their jobs and became valuable assets to the companies. In my opinion, if this practice was actually hurting companies nationwide, it would not be as prevalent as it is today.
I don't want to say that I disagree with the quote completely, but I do believe if you are truly an "experienced hire," one of the skills that you must possess is the ability and the skills to invest the time in forming both informal and formal networks with your colleagues...if not, well you don't deserve the executive position in the first place.
1 comment:
I agree with you in some aspects. If your being hired as a top executive of any company you should possess those skills.. however consider how stressful it is to crack into a new company at that level. You have to fulfill a position of someone equivalent, at most times, to your level of operations and run it.. Also, the aspect of handling new politics, obtaining respect, and infiltrating new competent networks.
Ok, but should the turnover rate be so high and only within a year or two? No, thats ridiculous. However, I think it's still a horribly difficult job.. that does possess a lot of stress on "weaker candidates."
Post a Comment