Following is a letter sent to the Financial Times:
Sir/Madam,
Lucy Kellaway appears to have decided to take the cause of Capgemini (“Why executives on sky-high salaries owe a little loyalty” FT October 17) and, in so doing, refers to my letter of October 12, taking an opposing view. Her conclusion is that Capgemini is the only one that came out well from the incident.
I have a number of comments on Ms. Kellaway's article.
First, I agree that executives need to show dedication and loyalty to the companies they work for, however, I do not agree that this loyalty is breached by considering alternative positions that may come their way. By the way, it is most likely that Danon did not necessarily go looking for another job but responded to an unsolicited call. My opinion is that this makes it a slightly different matter, although only slightly.
An executive needs to be professional and ethical in his/her dealings with his/her employer and in doing their job, but this works both ways. An executive has to manage his/her career actively rather than just by reacting to events and, as a result, companies need to be aware that they will only be able to keep their good executives if companies ensure that their executives’ career needs are met.
Second, Ms. Kellaway, seemed to value staying around as a very important way of showing loyalty and ethics, although, in pushing for the merits of an executive showing this form of loyalty, she understood that there had to be a limit to this uni-directional loyalty. She set this limit at 3 years. Why 2 years and 11 months is bad and 3 years and 1 month is OK to leave was not explained. I think she was relying on that classic, traditional, tried and true business monitor, the gut feeling.
Third, apparently, Mr. Danon was hired by Capgemini in order to stop the continuous losses of executives that the company was experiencing and Ms. Kellaway seems to think that the primary way to do that is to announce that you are not leaving.
The only real way to keep executives is to provide them with a challenging career, compensated fairly and with as few internal political machinations as possible. Providing this was Danon´s most important function, much more important than fatuous announcements about his not leaving which don´t convince anyone.
Fourth, curiously enough, Ms. Kellaeway appears to agree with my thesis, but only if executives were in charge of their own careers, otherwise apparently not. I am not sure why this is a defining issue for her. She seems to be saying that if executives are in charge of their own careers then they are allowed to be what she would call disloyal.
Fifth, in that case, we are in agreement, given that I believe that executives are indeed (or should be) in charge of their own careers. The additional disagreement then, is whether we think that executives are or are not in charge of their own careers.
The years of lifetime employment are over and, as a result, it is essential for executives to take control of their own career. The alternative is to go through life waiting for the company to decide my professional future, promotion or not, firing or not, and then waking up to the fact that, in the final analysis, the company will do what is best for the company and if they need to let an executive go, they will do so, indeed, they should to do so.
Sixth, Ms. Kellaway seems to suggest that the only reason why an executive would leave a company is if they were not happy where they were. My own belief is that there are many reasons why someone may want to leave a company, other than not being happy with their current position. Moving to another city to be closer to parents, children, the beach, etc. are reasons, loving the job but hating the boss, and probably the one that affected Mr. Danon, loving the job but finding a position too good to refuse elsewhere.
Seventh, given the title of her article (“Why executives on sky-high salaries owe a little loyalty”), Ms. Kellaway appears to believe that the level of salary is important to the level of loyalty appropriate. Not my view.
Onésimo Alvarez-Moro
See article:Eleven days ago, Pierre Danon was an ambitious and successful French executive who had a great job and had just applied for an even greater one.
Ten days ago he was an ambitious and less successful French executive who had no job at all - sacked by his existing employer and turned down by his prospective one.
The story is an ugly one in which everyone loses a great deal. Last December Capgemini, the consulting company, hired Mr Danon as its chief operating officer. For the next 10 months he did a good job (as far as anyone can ever tell). Then one day a headhunter knocked on his door and asked him if he fancied the better position of CEO of Accor, the French hotels group. He said he did. Keep it quiet, he insisted. But it was not kept quiet. The shortlist got out, and the consultancy was so displeased that it fired him. Accor subsequently decided it didn't want him either, and hired the co-founder's nephew instead.
See full Article (paid subscription required).
Also see my letter based on my original post.
Posts
