Although the notions around career change have been in flux for a number of years, there is one identifiable thread running through the rhetoric of the past 50 years: always build on your old career and its well-developed competencies.
You won’t need all of your old competencies, but a significant number must be available to support your new career. Journalists love to report on the unique people who won’t follow that rule. But the number of people who build a successful career that ignores their previous competencies is miniscule. Analyzing the past can force you to define what’s transferable and what’s not. In the long run, the distinctions between the past and the future provide focus for gaining new learnings quickly and efficiently.
This approach has two significant advantages: it is not overwhelming—and it makes you immediately valuable to your (new) organization. I always assumed this was self-evident, but experience reveals that few really understand the process initially!
One of my mentees provides a superb example for successful change. About a dozen years ago, he got into a major financial firm right out of college as a client relationship specialist. An English major, his conversational and linguistic skills were superb. Though he did not initially recognize his giftedness, he almost automatically thought first in big pictures, then created or broke out process from that macro understanding. This unusual competency sometimes goes with a humanities degree, but is usually missing in those with technical and business degrees.
His use of that expertise was spontaneous and unconscious. Early on in the financial firm, he began using technology with his relational skills, the focus of the finance position. After just a couple years, he bumped up that elementary experience into making sense out of tech strategy, assessing internal tech needs--and working with technology folk. Pretty soon, though he’d never had any technical background in software, he began to understand technology process and strategy more richly. (You don’t need to know how to code to understand process and strategy). Soon, with articulate questioning and networking, he became adept at figuring out what various programs could and could not do. As a result of his curiosity and focus, he became an expert strategic and planning thinker. That led to project management in a leading tech firm. (Still no coding expertise.) But from that experience he recognized the value of Agile, got his credentials very quickly and was soon using Agile in his project management. Next, you guessed it, he got on the Scrum bandwagon and is now a Senior Scrum consultant. I suspect there’ll be still further vocational and growth moves.
His career development model is simple and straight-forward: develop by adding strategic tools.
Sure, this sounds like overly simple process. Yet, the model is fundamental to all career change. Surprisingly, no more than five to ten percent of business folk seem to have the understanding and discipline to follow the model. Indeed, my observation of several hundred individuals attempting to develop skills without anchoring growth in the past reveals ongoing, unnecessary limitations.
Why is that?
Edgar Schein of MIT has talked and written about this macro problem for years. More recently, Herminia Ibarra has also been dealing with this same issue. They believe that when the gap between your present situation and the hoped-for new situation is too large, the more likely it'll be that you'll ignore or misunderstand the information in the new context. And the result will be—failure...
The exaggerated “gap”
A number of years ago one of my high school classmates, a factory supervisor at GM, wisely took a buy-out offer, and then decided that he wanted to go into sales. I was skeptical and told him that it would be a huge move from his job in manufacturing. He was adamant. The consequences of his decision were not pretty. He did not ask the important questions about the past or the future. If he had analyzed his past, he might have seen the many, overwhelming differences. He was not one to ask “what do you mean when you say. . .?” And then compare his use of a term to the new context’s use of common terms. So, as expected, the gap between manufacturing and sales was too large. Instead of subordinates, he had clients. Instead of being in control, he had to sell himself and his ideas. Instead of setting objectives, he had to understand and buy into the clients’ objectives. Instead of “telling,” he had to become expert in “asking.” He left the sales position in three months, a victim of an exaggerated gap—a failure to understand that context often changes the meanings of “common” language.
Key to fully understanding this “gap” is done best through what’s called the “semantic field.” Semantics is the branch of rhetoric and linguistics that emphasizes meaning. Sometimes “semantics” is used negatively. 'It's just semantics' is a common retort people use when arguing their point. What they mean is that their argument or opinion is more valid than the other person's. It’s become shorthand to insinuate that the other person is saying or arguing something trivial, unimportant, or no different than the other person. Saying someone's argument is “just semantics" can be a legit criticism, but mostly it’s just a major cop-out in a disagreement.
Semantics teaches us that words are best understood in context. Not in isolation, but in their language relationships. Specifically, semantics is the study of meanings through the relationships of words--how they are used, and how they fit the context. If I tell you I’m going to eat a piece of cake, you would interpret it literally. If instead, I told you my new project was “a piece of cake,” you would interpret that I meant it was easy.
In business, semantic field distinctions reveal that different business disciplines may have the same language—but the actual words may have very different meanings. Take the meaning of the word “client” or “customer” in an organization versus its meaning in external relations. Everyone knows about external clients or customers. They are the people who purchase your product or services and who may (or may not) have a vested interest in your organization. Internal clients or customers are the people who consume or experience your internal interactions, processes and relationships. Internal customers are owners, employees and board members and often more important than external. Although that semantic distinction is fairly clear today, twenty-five years ago, when digital technology was just coming on board, external clients used to be thought of as more important than internal. Today, that priority is often switched—and an employee can lose her job by ignoring her internal clients--but not be in threat for losing an external client.
The semantic field of any discipline or any organization can become quite complex and technical, easily misunderstood and out-of-awareness. The most basic reason my GM friend lost his job was he didn’t understand the semantic field of sales and was confusing word meanings and context. His expertise and skills were tied to the fields of manufacturing. Though the words were often the same, the meanings of the words were not. “Managing” in manufacturing means something different than “managing” in sales. The semantic gaps between manufacturing and sales were monstrous. He didn’t understand semantic differences and was unaware that he lacked many of the competencies underlying the sales language. He didn’t know how lost he was and never fully understood the expertise beneath the language. Even though the fundamental problem again and again is semantic error, I have never in all my years heard someone diagnose the problem as semantic. People just don’t think seriously about word meanings. When in doubt they draw inferences about popular psychological diagnoses—inferences which are usually wrong. And so many people lose their new job without ever fully understanding why.
The semantic fields in a given culture can also be very different and difficult. Language in Twin Cities business sounds the same as language in East Coast business—but the behaviors are very different. In the nineteen-eighties Pillsbury brought in an East Coast ethnic as VP of marketing. The VP had no semantic support and was let go in six months. He did not know how to ask “what do you mean when you say…?” Still another client, an Israeli, was brought into R&D—not only ignorant of the semantic differences but also unwilling to accept and operate on the semantic differences. He had a history of job losses until six years after my coaching (which he largely rejected). In a never forgotten conversation taking place with him in the foyer of the Minnesota Orchestra, he stopped by to thank me, telling me that after years of cultural failures, his wife suggested he pay attention to the notes from my coaching and follow my advice, paying close attention to the semantic behavior differences between Israeli and Minnesota business. Since then, he has been able to keep his job and succeed in Upper Midwestern organizations.
I’ve made a BIG DEAL out of semantic fields because people inevitably get into big trouble in their attempted career changes because of failure to understand the distinctives. And sometimes they never figure out why they get the short end of the career stick. Or like my brilliant research Israeli, take six years to figure it all out.
Why don’t managers and employees pick up on these issues? The answer: conversational skills just don’t show up on the business radar.
“Strategic” addition is the second key.
“Adding” is the basic element of growth, but “strategic” addition validates your growth and promises your future. In other words, not any kind of addition or any kind of development will make for success. Speed is key attribute of today’s world. Things move fast and they change fast. By strategic I mean carefully designed competencies that will provide you with a business advantage over the next two or possibly three years in a given context. The speed of change makes strategic thinking imperative.
Thinking strategically requires just as much work as adding competencies, so you don’t want to give strategy short shrift. Some new competencies are nothing more than “new competencies.” They provide no strategic advantage and are an investment loss from the get-go. The fact of the matter is that most personal plans have little to do with strategy, thus difficulties arise. Inherently, strategic thinking forces you to make certain your new skill is needed and valued. You may be jazzed up about learning a skill, but will managers and hiring execs seriously value your skill sets? Developing a new competency is an investment. You should know upfront what the return on that skill will be.
Surprisingly, a large number of 25-40-year-olds just don’t think strategically. Typical of that is a brief conversation I had with a thirty-year-old technician who had not the slightest thought about what would happen when his expertise became irrelevant or his skills no longer desirable. He naively rejected the conversation and the potential for obsolescence. It takes no professional futurist to understand that in the next couple or so years he’s certain to face very debilitating obsolescence.
Strategic thinking is a discipline in and of itself. Even if you’ve been around many senior managers, you’ll still be really lucky to find someone capable of coaching you strategically. You can either invent your way to success or begin by identifying change in your markets. I was unusually fortunate. My first clients, both from major firms, knew me well enough to tell me what they needed and what I could do. I had no informed model, or even an example. Prior to the internet, there were practically no animals labelling themselves “executive coach.” From my academic world, I knew what was needed to create and deliver a speech, but I didn’t know what business behaviors managers and execs really needed, nor whether there was a consensus about the necessary tools for managing. So, with extensive client help, I invented. But as time went on and others got into the coaching business, I began to pay close attention to organizational needs, creating strategies to resolve them.
The third key is the “predatory” posture toward change.
Successful job change will inevitably require the subtraction and addition of new competencies, a strategic approach one’s development--and a predatory posture. Predators are the animals that eat other animals. From the beginning of my business, I was unusually successful at invention, the ability to create and deliver the necessary, strategic expertise for potential clients. But I soon realized that no huma--or organization--has the ability to develop a business solely on the basis of invention. The demand for creativity is simply overwhelming and sometimes impossible.
As a consequence, not only must the individual and organization keep its eyes open to competencies, niches, strategies and clients that others have succeeded in accessing, but she will need to be exceptionally astute at plagiarizing and adapting the competencies of others for her own business. Though many don’t think this way, the experience of personal success is partially predatory. That’s why mature consultants and business managers typically use networks--for predatory purposes.
What is especially illuminating about the metaphor “predator” and its business use is that its semantic field comes originally not from human, but from animal behavior. A predator is an animal that naturally preys on others, as in “wolves are major predators of rodents.” Or, eagles prey on gulls who are better at catching fish. Although eagles and vultures are in the same family, the difference is in their eating habits: While eagles hunt and kill other animals for their food, vultures feed on dead animals. My point? Sometimes the competency you’re focused on may have a very short life in today’s rapidly changing environment.
In business a predator is a person or group that ruthlessly exploits others. I believe a certain amount of ruthlessness is necessary and even inevitable in business. To think otherwise is naïve. Only one client ever commented to me--after getting feedback from his subordinate--that I could be a bit ruthless. (Intriguingly, he affirmed my ruthlessness.) Ruthlessness is just one of many characteristics of the highly productive performer. A person with smarts will disguise that competency, but find it useful in many situations. One of the more intriguing facts rarely mentioned or even noticed by the overly ethical and “religious” people who take the Biblical text seriously is that deception (as in ruthlessness) is not the opposite of the Biblical truth and righteousness. Sometimes, deception and ruthlessness in the Biblical text are not only acceptable but also mandatory. (A “freebie” from my theological background.)
In still a third definition, the predator can make defensive moves to prevent business from falling into the hands of others. As in the animal kingdom, the business naïve are slowly killed off. But the predator always watches his backside and the power of others and makes moves to avoid becoming the prey.
Although this was certainly true of me in the parish and as graduate faculty, it has been especially true in business. I took a very predatory posture, asking why certain consultants and firms were continually successful and how they successfully “covered their asses.” The opportunity to observe predatory businesses was mine from the start, but I was especially fortunate in observing the inner workings of the internationally known, personally non-competitive McKinsey Consultancy, a firm that more recently has not kept its powder dry. Admittedly, many of my skills were my take on skills I observed in others.
In addition, I kept my eyes on the next frontiers—not just the coaching frontiers. What, for example, did American Express, Purina or 3M plan for the future—and where could I intercede, develop and sell new competencies to take charge of senior management development. So, I was talking to major consultancies, as well as R&D people in major firms—and then thinking backwards to figure out what clients and potential clients might need and what I could offer with a newer, sometimes cutting-edge skills. Most people were very willing to have such conversations with an outsider like me. And to complain about their firm’s failures to an outsider. In fact, there were a number of clients that essentially kept me on retainer—though the metaphor was never used--just to be able to access my insights. They paid through the nose to keep me from working with their competitors. Career success, I learned over time, depends not only on competencies, but also upon a predatory outlook.
In sum: making career change
So, it’s exceptionally important to pay attention to these three key issues for successful growth and change. Success is not going to happen when there are too many new skills and too much organizational difference. Gross differences pose fundamental difficulties. Successful changes take place in small chunks. You're after small career moves, not big ones. Furthermore, although new competencies can be learned in a month, it usually takes upwards of six months to fully integrate that competency into your personal system. So, your growth needs to be strategic and that almost always requires predatory activity.