By now, most of us have come up for air after being submerged in LeBron James fever over the past few days. I, for one, could really care less since I’m not much of a sports fan, but I love the passion of the fans in both cities and around the world. So to the two cities — both Cleveland in anguish and Miami in joy — my hat is off to both of you.
As is my wont however, I viewed this decision by LeBron through the microscope of human resources, and I came away with a totally different view.
I read the reactions in several newspapers and on more blogs than I can think of. LeBron’s decision was described as (among other things): Worst PR stunt, act of a selfish player, an ungrateful employee, an ungrateful team, and the list goes on and on.
There was a time when professional ball players started with one team and usually spent their formative years there. Sometimes some did leave, but their careers and fame was built with one team. Think Joe Namath, Joe Montana, Magic Johnson, and Jim Kelly, among others.
The employee of today is NOT the employee of yesteryear. The employee of yesteryear can in no way be measured to today’s (or tomorrow’s) worker.
Long-time job tenure is gone
Our parents generation, for the most part, worked at one job and after 25-30 years, the big day came for retirement with the accompanying dinner and (if he or she was lucky), the “gold watch.” I have attended numerous retirement parties over the past few weeks, and these new retirees had all worked in public education and, generally worked in that job since graduating from college.
Folks, that will never happen again. I can’t even imagine my daughter who finished college this year getting a job and working there anywhere close to 25 years. Those days are long gone and will never return. The LeBron James decision, depending on which way you view it, is a glimpse at the employee of the future, albeit on steroids.
According to a survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute:
- The median tenure for all wage and salary workers age 25 plus was virtually unchanged from 1983 (5.0 years) to 2006 (4.9 years). However during that period, tenure for male workers decreased from 5.9 years to 5.0 years, and tenure for females increased from 4.2 years to 4.8 years.
- The median tenure for private-sector workers held steady from 1983 to 2006 at 3.9 years. However, the median tenure for public-sector workers increased from 6.0 years to 7.0 years.
This survey was taken in 2008. If it was done today amidst the accompanying mindset resulting from the current economic turmoil, trust me, the employee of the future would not think twice about leaving if the right job offer came through.
Everyone will play the free agent game
Recently here in New York City, there was the same type departure of a prominent employee but on a somewhat lower scale. David Carey, group president at Condé Nast, was snatched away by Hearst Corporation to become president of the company’s magazine division.
In the publishing world, this was the talk of the town. Carey was the group president at Condé Nast and fully marked for the top job tomorrow, but Hearst came along and offered him the top job today. Guess what? He took it.
Article Continues Below
Is Talent Acquisition a Strategic Business Partner to Companies?
Most all of the members of this new generation of employee will play the free agent game at some time during their career. It’s a game that not only your superstars will play, but all employees will become intrigued by it and will play it at different levels and outcomes.
In every industry, key players will be courted, wined and dined, and there will be a real “war on talent.” So what is it that talent management leaders can do to reengage this talent to prevent this from happening?
Disengaged managers = departing employees
I have always counseled managers that when and if an employee walks into your office and resigns, and you find yourself in shock or it caught you by surprise, that translates into you not being engaged with this employee. The signs were there all along leading up to this, but you missed all the signals. Not only that, but the employee probably did not feel comfortable in having a conversation with you about how they were feeling.
There was a great interview in The New York Times a few weeks back with Linda Heasley, president and chief executive of The Limited, who said that managers must re-recruit their team every day. This is one of the key principles of employee engagement. If your managers are disengaged, the employees will undoubtedly mirror that reaction and also become disconnected to the company.
Yes, it is a viscous circle, but it need not be. Everyone — and I mean everyone — must be involved in engagement to make it work. From the boardroom to the mail room, the lines must be connected.
This may have not mattered in the Lebron James case, you say. Well, maybe or maybe not, but if you are in HR you should give some thought to the LeBron episode. Are your key players in place and engaged? What happens if a few of your high potentials were to accept a better offer? Have you reviewed your succession plan in a way that allows for defections? More importantly, would you be surprised if a key player were to exit?
For all my fellow HR professionals, think about the LeBron James decision and about the impact something similar would have on your company. More importantly, think about all your key players and whether they are engaged. If they do depart, their announcement will surely not make ESPN, but it will cause you and your executive team lots of sleepless nights