It’s frustrating for those of us with a research background to challenge the status quo on a blog, especially when it’s supported by deeply-held, conventional wisdom. What my clients ask for and pay for can be a set-up for a shooting match on the web. However, when I can tag along on the coattails of Jeff Pfeffer of Stanford’s School of Business, I’m quite willing to display my moxie with readers who don’t know me.
Case in point. In a recent BNET post, Pfeffer rightly takes the banking industry to task for its notion that talent has to be rewarded outrageously, or else it’ll lose that talent. Indeed, the finance industry tells us, it also has to be able to recruit and pay phenomenal sums for the very best talent or it won’t be successful. As Pfeffer says, it’s a good story, but it’s false from the get-go. In other words, the war for talent strategy so brilliantly articulated by McKinsey authors is balderdash. Either the firms are being disingenuous or surprisingly ignorant of the real success factors.
The research on which Pfeffer builds his case is a study of more than 1,000 stock analysts who worked for 28 banks from 1988 through 1996. The research showed that when an analyst is hired away from another firm, the star’s performance falls (46% of the research analysts did poorly in the year they switched jobs and their performance remained lower even after five years), there is a decline in the performance of the group the star joins, the market value of the company hiring the star falls, and the star doesn’t stay with the new employer for very long.
What’s going on, as Pfeffer indicates, is a pervasive ignorance of the determinants of success.
Instead, the evidence shows that the quality of an organization’s processes, the technology and systems available to them, the collaborative relationships with their colleagues, and the ability of their leaders are the key factors determining success.
The implications of this data are profound. Evidence, for example, shows that research productivity depends in part on where scientists work. Ever wonder why 3M, or Harvard keep turning out new inventions? It’s the capabilities of their collaborators, the laboratory equipment, the scientific facilities, and—the organizational systems.
Why do people line up to work at Ralston Purina, General Mills, or even Honeywell? Same answer. I meet very few really brilliant people at those firms, but the quality of collaboration and systems is impeccable.
The reason 99% of the business population rejects these answers is because it has succumbed to the naïve idea that how people perform depends on each person’s inherent ability. That’s an example of conventional wisdom that just won’t hunt.
So you’re a recent college grad, or a Gen-Yer looking for work. How should you go about it? Track down the companies with the best systems and a highly collaborative work force.
Related Posts:
Malcolm Gladwell: The Talent Myth
Develop Your Intelligence--Like a Muscle