|
|
Sudipta Dev on why working for smaller companies can give a greater satisfaction to professionals seeking exciting careers.
The power of an organisational brand is indisputable in any area of business, including attracting the right talent. It is the big boys who dominate the recruitment market and are too formidable a force to reckon with for organisations which do not have a brand name to boast of. The big companies offer a plethora of allurements in the form of a structured career path, training programmes, more job security, a corporate working environment, opportunities for going abroad, et al. Then why should anyone ever consider working for a small setup? The answer narrows down to three primary reasons—more challenges, an innovative atmosphere and creating one’s identity in the company.
In a small company you are not a lost face—one among the many thousands who work for the brand and can be easily replaceable. On the contrary in a small organisation the big boss might know you by your name and has identified you as a key partner in the company’s growth process. You are there to make a mark, and maybe change the course of destiny for your company. The sense of entrepreneurship and achievement is much greater. The IT industry has no shortage of success stories of companies which had started as startups and have become global brands today, making millionaires out of those people who have belied the beaten track by joining them initially. “Brand, nice office, good infrastructure does make sense to attract talent at the lower level or startup candidates. Individuals who are experienced and who have worked at bigger companies, do understand at the end of the day that just because they are working for a multinational, it does not make them more money and make them grow faster. In fact, joining a startup like Google a few years back or a Microsoft many years back, created more millionaires than joining them right now,” says Sai Gundavelli, Founder & CEO, Solix Technologies. He points out that however at the junior level, people want to have a recognised name and good training setup when they begin their career, they tend to join a branded company. So, it does make a lot of difference when you are attracting talent at that level.
|
 |
 |
|
"Smaller brands need to present the candidate with the 'big picture' and offer opportunities and roles that compensate
for the compromise
on brand name"
- Madan Padaki
Co-founder & Director
MeritTrac Services |
"Joining a startup like Google a few
years back or
Microsoft many years back, created more
millionaires than joining them right now"
- Sai Gundavelli
Founder & CEO
Solix Technologies |
Madan Padaki, Co-founder & Director, MeritTrac Services, India’s leading skills assessment company, acknowledges that while recruiting at the fresher level, brand names do make a great difference. “Dream companies attract larger pool of applicants apart from other privileges like a first day slot in campuses. Having said this, there is certainly a change in the attitude of freshers in choosing companies to work for,” adds Padaki. He points out that traditionally laterals and specialists have sought to leave the comforts of big brands, but now one can see an emerging trend among freshers, particularly a few b-school graduates, who seek to tread off the beaten path and take on greater challenges that only a smaller brand can offer.
|
 |
An interesting observation is that those who are willing to join small organisations have typically a different mindset. They are more excited by their job role and its challenges than obsession with the brand. Indraneel Mukherjee, Founder & CEO, iProdigy believes that those who take the initiative of joining small companies are more empowered. They come with a spirit of adventure to explore and create realities for themselves. And most importantly, they have their purposes essentially aligned to that of the organisation.
“Big brand names, as we all know does attract. However, whether they attract talent, or more appropriately relevant talent, or not, is a matter of debate. To me, a brand name is more of an identity with which prospective employees would want to associate and thereby feel more worthy.
|
|
Big brand names, as we all know, does attract. However, whether they attract talent,
or more appropriately
relevant talent, or not, is a matter of debate"
- Indraneel Mukherjee
Founder & CEO
iProdigy |
|
It does make one feel comfortable and safe to associate with a brand. From my experience also, it seems, that some big employer brands, have actually become sanctuaries for a large percentage hi-maintenance, often misfit and sub-optimally efficient employees. This population often gets hidden in the sea of a large workforce and what we get to see is perhaps the star performers as the tip of the icebergs,” asserts Mukherjee
The greatest challenge for all organisations—whether big or small—is retaining their talent. For the latter the situation is of course much tougher. So how can they retain their vital people resources? “If employees find their purpose, their calling answered in the organisations they join, they stay on. Some organisations, therefore, when they are small, consciously invest in interventions for co-creation/discovery of the organisation context and alignment/enrollment of their employees. Some of the organisations we know of and have been associated with in facilitating such interventions for, have grown and evolved. In most cases, those employees who were core and valuable for the organisations’ essence to be nurtured and developed upon, have stayed,” answers Mukherjee. He adds that the best thing that happened with most of them is that such interventions systematically weeded out the misfits, without any pain or displeasure.
Continuous opportunities to grow, learn and job satisfaction are the key factors, particularly for lateral recruits who often leave big companies for more exciting opportunities in smaller setups. Gundavelli asserts that if people understand the long-term gains, there is a good chance for retention, “All in all, it is all about employees’ perception, what they think about the company. These days with so many opportunities, if they don’t believe in the company or see bad execution, then you do have a chance of losing people.”
While big companies invest a lot of time and effort to formulate their recruitment strategy (sometimes pre-planning their workforce requirements 10 years in advance), smaller companies need to be more cautious about whom they hire as they have more at stake. “Smaller brands need to devote more time in hand-picking the right people. They need to present the candidate with the ‘big picture’ and offer opportunities and roles that compensate for the compromise on brand name. The involvement of the top management in the recruitment process can be reassuring and may lend a lot of credibility to the brand,” states Padaki.
Gundavelli advises organisations to head hunt for and find people who have a passion to join a startup—it’s a different mentality altogether. Just the lure of money is not sufficient to retain the best talent and might in fact be disastrous for the organisation.
For those who value freedom, learning and growth, a smaller organisation is probably a better place to find a more enriching career than the biggest brand names. The informal approach works best for real go-getters who want to prove themselves and then move up quickly in the organisation. |
|
|
Sudipta Dev writes why leadership development programmes are not always successful in achieving their objectives.
Leadership is one of most discussed and little understood phenomenon in the corporate world. In fact one of the oft-quoted definitions on leadership has been given by Gordon Lippit, who after years of study described it as the “worst defined, least understood personal attribute sometimes possessed by human beings.” It is not surprising that leadership development remains an enigma. Consequently, the much hyped leadership development programmes—a must inclusion in the training calendars in most organisations—are not always successful in achieving their goals. This becomes highly critical, as mediocre leadership is dangerous for the health of any organisation.
So, what exactly goes wrong with the current approaches to developing leaders? The primary reason would be the lack of understanding that leadership development is a continuous process. It cannot be just achieved by a training programme that presents ideas and can do little to change the behaviour of participants. After the training module is complete and they are back at work, it does not always make a difference in the practical day to day affairs. The culture of the organisation makes a big difference in this case. Have these people been given the freedom to take decisions? Are they encouraged to think out-of-the-box? Have they been allowed to make mistakes?
Shantanu Ghosh, Director, BindView India & Vice-president of Engineering, BindView Corp, US, believes that the following approaches to developing leaders could go wrong:
- Choice of a leader: Superstars, typically, are the favourites in getting all the attention and could be considered as the next good leaders. They may have problem working as a team, more so leading a team.
- Accountability without authority: Leaders need to be given authority to effectively exercise their accountability. At times the authorities are not well defined.
|
|
There is no one-size-fit-all solution for
all industries or organisations. Different niche areas need to
be stressed for different work assignments
Shantanu
Ghosh
Director
BindView India |
It is a series of many years of mentoring that
helps develop a leader. Leaders are born and not made. This
may sound too clichéd, but I truly believe it
Anand
Khare
Senior VP, People and Processes Kale
Consultants |
Yet another deterrent is that the higher an individual gets in an organisation, the lower is the feedback he gets on his skill gaps. (The 360-degree feedback however could be the most effective solution in this case). Then there is also the fact that many organisations cannot always differentiate between managers and leaders. “They tend to confuse between employees who have risen up the ranks over the years and tend to mistaken them as leaders. Some organisations however do have a few such employees who have risen up the ranks over a period of time and who actually have become great leaders,” says Anand Khare, Senior Vice-president, People and Processes, Kale Consultants. He points out that leadership needs to be looked holistically and it’s not just about people leadership. “Leadership is about being a visionary, being able to forecast variables which are not visible to others, being able to change course/alter the path, having true market/environment intelligence, commanding respect from followers, being able to take people with them and stand alone when required with conviction.”
|
Leadership is an
individualistic
element. Prescription may help but won't be as
effective
Indraneel Mukherjee
Founder &
Promoter
iProdigy |
Potential leaders cannot be groomed by stand-alone
training programmes. A coaching model would in fact work the best.
Khare agrees that leadership is not something that can ever be
taught in a classroom. One needs to have a certain set of qualities,
which are then fine-tuned in the classroom. “However, it is a series
of many years of mentoring that helps develop a leader. Leaders are
born and not made. This may sound too clichéd, but I truly believe
it,” he asserts.
Effective programmes are those that can teach
senior level managers to handle daily issues while also thinking
about the “big picture”. It is a strategic initiative that needs to
be imbibed in the organisation. Furthermore, the focus should be on
the goals of the organisation and not the just the competency gaps
of individuals.
Khare points out that leaders need to be
identified earlier on in the organisation. “Special attention needs
to be given to such budding leaders, it takes a great mentor to be
able to nurture leaders. There should be opportunities to experiment
and to take risks/decisions that are strategic in nature. One should
not try to enforce a leadership style on any person; leadership is
by itself a unique style. It can be fine-tuned. However, it should
not be altered drastically, else it may become disastrous.”
Effective Training
Management experts in fact root for leadership
mentoring programmes that are any time more effective. “Leadership
is an individualistic element. Prescription may help but won’t be as
effective,” states Indraneel Mukherjee, Founder & Promoter of
iProdigy, a Bangalore based consulting company. Conceding that
leadership development is a process, not just an awareness building
exercise, he points out that behavioural learning in facilitated
workshops are often not linked to the realities of the work
context.
To enable effectiveness of leadership development
programmes (in particular trainings), customisation is necessary.
“There is no one-size-fit-all solution for all industries,
organisations or even departments. Although some of the basics of
leadership qualities are common, different niche areas need to be
stressed for different types of work assignments,” reiterates Ghosh.
He adds that personalisation of the programme shows positive results
as every person has different strengths and weaknesses.
| Best strategy for leadership
development |
- A well-laid down, implementable
and measurable identification process
- Pre-learning readiness,
creation and sensing of individual preferences, potentials
and paradigms
- A combination of structured,
semi-structured and unstructured group interventions for
learning
- Sustained mentoring and
handholding to link back with work context—in groups as well
as one-on-one for at least 90 days
- Measurement of learning and
application thereof through surveys.
Source: iProdigy |
Measuring Leadership Performance
To improve leadership performance in an
organisation it is necessary to measure it. Mukherjee lists a few
criteria on which leadership performance can be measured:
- Team members’ awareness of their own
talents, their personal vision of their preferred future and its
alignment to the strategic vision of the team/organisation
- Incidence of sustained, exponential
performance by the team and not just by a few individuals
- Retention of employees
- Succession planning.
The ultimate test of leadership capability is when
it transcends an organisation, when leaders who emerge get
recognised in the industry and the community.
|
|
|
