|

Hi-po hi-po, it’s outta here I go..

High potentials, “hi-po’s”, ‘our future [company] leaders’ in business argot.. The ones corporations ululate over, often for sound reasons. If an organisation has strong internal talent, they should recognise, challenge, motivate, and grow them, allowing such people to flex their muscles whilst building the company.

But companies often lose those they want to keep. Why does that happen, given the corporate line that ‘people are our most important asset?’ Why do strong “hi-po’s” often waltz out the door?

They’re usually paid very well, have many of the perks of corporate success and life ain’t too bad. Que pasa?

Often it’s from uncertainty, and the emotional rumbling that goes with it. People can–and do–leave because of money; but in my experience (sans i-bankers..) it’s usually grounded in anxiety or anger, two top emotions.

When companies are re-organised, split, re-shaped, M&A’d, it creates anxiety [read:emotion] about direction, stability and leadership.

Three recent meetings I had over coffee, lunch and breakfast, all high potentials, all Asia Corporate Affairs styled roles with Fortune 100 companies–and all going through corporate re-orgs.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[framed_box]
A) Joe had 3 outstanding performance reviews for 3 years running, was told he ‘could have whatever job he wanted’–and they meant it. He was not seriously considering a change, had built his team and wanted to see it through for a couple of years, minimum.

As the re-org gained momentum, his boss was moved on, and it was unclear who Joe and his peers would report to; marketing, legal, HR (yes, HR..). No one at corporate could definitively help. He started talking to a former employer about a global role, soon met their CEO directly who answered all his concerns, sold him on it, and he decided it was time to move or lose the opportunity.

Joe then told his [current] company of his decision to leave.They read him the riot act for being a turncoat after all they’d done, and told him they now did had a global role for him. Too late, he’s gone.
[/framed_box]

[framed_box]
B) Doris spent the past 12 plus months building a regional Asia Gov’t Relations team, which she was hired to do. Her company downsized the corporate office, didn’t know where to put her boss, and will move him to Asia, where he takes over a significant part of Doris’ territory. The boss will sit in the same office with her in Asia–no Asia experience but gifted half of Asia, plus the rest of his current global job. How’s she feeling about it? They tell her she’s a valuable asset to their growth. She’s looking.
[/framed_box]

[framed_box]
C) Lee has impeccable work and educational pedigree, right age and ethnicity, running an A-P public policy role. With heads recently rolling globally, he was told his team is OK, but most of his supporters at corporate are gone. No one is able to give him any guidance because they don’t know their own situation, every man for himself. He likes the company, likes the job, but now re-doing his CV and seriously looking. He’ll get snagged in a heartbeat.
[/framed_box]

I’ve distilled a lot in these sketches, and am perfectly aware that people are–at any given time–often looking.

And you may well say ‘this is how global businesses operate–why feel for any of them?’ That’s not the point. All three were/are considered high potentials, exactly the ones companies want to keep, already invested time and capital towards their future.

But their companies are unaware–or indifferent–that they might leave, and quickly. Not because they hate their job or dislike the company, but because they’re not given assurance they’re needed–through action, not talk. As big as MNCs are, when they want to move, they can dance damned fast..

The ‘war for talent’ exists, but there are also internal battles behind fortress walls. And if companies spent more time keeping top talent, the war would not be as lethal or as costly as it is.