Re-launch

In several posts late last year I started engaging with an idea that felt both confronting and yet inevitable: that we should not expect our career paths to follow an unnatural linear progression, but rather to follow the natural rise and fall that we witness in business life cycles. We should expect that the skills and experiences that brought us to our current position will eventually not be enough to continue professional growth.  Witnessing a career start to flag should not be cause for alarm or dismay; we should anticipate the necessity of this natural progression and be grateful for it.

That last statement may sound too far fetched: wouldn't it be great if you never experienced a downturn and every year you were increasingly more successful? The popular notion of what our careers should look like on a resume reinforce this idea: with every job change, a promotion with more responsibility and higher income to prove your increasing value. Well yeah - that's the popular idea. But it's a fiction: either the resume writer is skimming over the actual career challenges, or -- worse -- the writer believes that the job title confers enhanced qualities that people lower on the org chart don't have. I have learned to be grateful for feedback that signals where my current abilities are wearing thin. Without this signal, I have no incentive to acknowledge my current limitations. If I can't acknowledge them, I will still be limited, but incapable of progressing.

Sadly, the popular notion of career progression leads people to conclude that they should never make career moves that are anything but up the career ladder. In this way of thinking, lateral or backward moves are considered career killers. I think we should change this rigid mindset both in our own careers, and when evaluating others' careers. This idea is very much on my mind right now, as I read resumes for a management position for which I'm hiring. Of course I'm looking for a specific set of skills and experience that are required for basic competency in the role. But, this is a role in which I want the successful candidate to develop into a director level position, and even further, to a C-level executive over time. It won't be good enough to just be a competent manager. I am looking for someone who has gained an awareness of his or her limitations, and seeks to develop beyond those limitations.

If you're fortunate, you work for a manager who gives you honest feedback on your limitations and coaches you on your development. Those less fortunate receive superficial feedback -- insincere cheer leading, tepid performance reviews, or generic appraisals -- that leave them stranded. If you're receiving development feedback, good for you. If not, where do you start?

Here's something to try: Draw two large circles on a piece of paper. Label one of them 'S-1' and the other one "S-2." On another sheet of paper list the projects you worked on over the last year. Now, assign each of these to one of the circles, based on whether you considered the outcome successful ("S-1") or not ("S-2"). Once your outcomes are sorted, consider each one in turn: what were the common attributes when you were successful? when you were not?  Be completely honest with yourself: no one but you will see this paper, and you can destroy it later.

Once you've finished, consider that the "S-1" circle describes the sphere in which you can be successful today, with the skills and experience and knowledge you already own. The "S-2" circle describes the sphere that is just beyond the reach of your current skills, experience, and knowledge. This is a sphere you can occupy successfully, but only by extending your knowledge and gaining the practice necessary to become skilled. I don't know what's in your S-2 sphere, but I feel fairly confident that changes outside of you will not bring their success to you. Re-launching your development will, however, bring you closer to their success.