While the idea of job mobility certainly seems to have benefits for companies and employees, let’s explore some common employee experience challenges that could actually be responsible for the perceived need.
All companies need to hire as they expand or replace their workforces and entry-level positions, in particular, non-technical ones, are easier to fill than specialized roles. For example, the pool of entry-level HR positions is much wider than for aerospace data analysts. In a growing job market, the competition for these roles is especially noticeable. Companies that can transfer employees into open entry-level positions can therefore redirect sourcing efforts into finding more specialized talent. Also, during cyclical or short-term market downturns, facilitating internal transfers also serve as an alternative to performing a Reduction in Force.
For the employee, internal job mobility represents a chance to safely explore a new career path. It is said that employees ultimately find their opportunity, whether it’s at their company or somewhere else. If employers can provide a system and process to enable internal mobility, they have a better chance at retaining and growing their people investment.
But what exactly do we mean by “mobility”?
It may seem pedantic to start with definitions, but when employees leave due to a lack of “mobility”, is it the absence of an internal program, company culture, the inability to transfer, job dissatisfaction, or something else?
Company Culture
Having an internal job mobility program does not absolve companies from having it listed as a cause for separation. If a company discourages transfers, or if the program itself is cumbersome and time-consuming, it may be better not to have one. Independent of the systems and processes, employers should also be able to provide an environment where employees have the time to work and develop their personal skills. These norms should go beyond company culture and should be baked into employee policies and artifacts[1]. By codifying the allocation of time for learning and development, companies are demonstrating their commitment to investing in the professional and personal growth of each employee.
Many organizations rely on the notion of “seniority” when doling out opportunities; the more hierarchical the organization, the more prevalent this is. For career-driven top performers with leadership qualities, this is a double penalty; not only does their employer not see their potential, but if they do, they are deliberately held back to allow others through. This automatically creates a contentious relationship between the employer and the employee. Here, employees are intentionally discouraged from exploring mobility since the few opportunities available have been reserved for those with a longer tenure.
Another cultural hurdle is whether companies nurture a learning or training culture. Training is generally defined as a company’s requirement to ensure employees have been instructed; learning is about the employee’s desire to continuously increase their knowledge. Without a learning culture, great programs will not matter.
Manager Resistance
Sadly, there are companies that espouse career mobility and appear to encourage it at an enterprise level, but at the manager level, where transfers are initiated, it is met by resistance. This may or may not go unnoticed, but by not addressing this behavior, companies are implicitly making a statement on where they stand.
The most common justification managers use to limit or impede job transfers is that a staff member is deemed too valuable in their current position so the manager or the business, cannot afford this person leaving their role. Not only does this come off as disingenuous, but it could also be a poor reflection on said manager as the planning for work continuity is a manager’s responsibility.
Whether an employee wins the lottery or ultimately leaves due to a poor manager or lack of opportunities, a loss still occurs; except now the company stands to lose a top performer to a potential competitor, risk its reputation on social media and incur the cost of sourcing a new candidate. If this was a small subset of managers, perhaps it would go unnoticed, but a 2019 Deloitte survey found that 46% of managers actively resist internal mobility. “Not good” is an understatement.
Business Strategy
While the data makes it tempting to fault managers for this behavior, they may not be fully to blame; maybe it’s about business strategy. Businesses are always seeking to increase profitability; this means growing revenue and minimizing expenses and having employees is, well, an expense. But here is where it gets awkward – this expense could be classified differently on an income statement depending on the role an employee performs.
If an employee’s salary and wages is considered part of the cost to produce a good or service, it can be listed as an operating expense. If the employee is in a nonmanufacturing, support function, they are likely classified as a Sales, General & Administrative(SG&A) expense. So, from a strictly business point of view, employees that directly help generate revenue could be perceived as more valuable. This by no means discounts the critical role of support functions, after all, a business cannot produce a widget without someone ordering and paying for materials first, creating contracts, paying salaries, etc.
So, why all this back-story? Well, if business leaders are motivated to run optimally and profitably, they may be intentionally “running lean” in parts of their business and therefore make it more difficult for managers to obtain an increase in headcount, especially when it’s under SG&A.
As we unpack this further, it seems we’ve hit a conundrum of sorts when creating redundancy. First, large teams are usually able to absorb the impact of a team member leaving, all all good there, but for small teams, the idea of skillset redundancy may actually be undesirable for teams, managers and the employee. How so?
For teams and managers:
- Employees can’t easily transfer out of their role without a teammate being able to pick-up their work. But, fellow team members may also wish to transfer if opportunity is valuable or lucrative.
- Managers would need to invest in training or increase headcount to develop or acquire redundant skillsets on their teams.
- Multiple redundant skillsets on the team could make everyone a “jack of all trades, master of none” and managers may suffer from a lack of depth in expertise.
- If developing skills, team members would be required to independently develop proficiencies in each other’s skillsets while doing their regular job, even if they have no interest in doing so.
For the employee:
- Employees may be wary of having redundant skills with their peers in tough economic times. They may feel they are more “interchangeable”, not feel valued or “redundant” themselves.
- The lack of expertise depth creates productivity and customer service challenges for those that rely on said expertise. The general employee-base or customers feel this the most.
- Business leaders may feel that in building redundancy, they have essentially paid to see a decrease in productivity, service and quality.
To be fair, managers of larger teams that have several employees in the same role, should be supportive of internal transfers since there isn’t an associated business risk. If those managers are not onboard, this could be best addressed behaviorally or culturally.
Smaller “lean” teams, however, will still encounter challenges. We can all agree that denying an internal transfer is not the right thing to do. That said, since proactively creating capacity may not the answer, perhaps it’s more about leading managers of small teams through accepting their loss and supporting them and their teams throughout the transition.
General Job Dissatisfaction
Leaving due to lack of mobility could be interpreted as general job dissatisfaction. There are many factors that could lead to that; some of which are in control of the company, but many also fall within the purview of the employee. For example, does the employee feel that their values align to their company values? If not, is it up to the employer to change the company culture or should the employee adapt or consider an alternative employer that may be a better fit?
Since companies need to employ top talent to be profitable, it is reasonable to expect they will engage in meaningful efforts to keep their employees. This would include having programs that enhance the employee experience. While the quality or effectiveness of those programs are constantly being improved, if an employee is dissatisfied by their career choice, it is completely out of the employer’s hands.
Negotiation Tactic
It’s altogether possible that job mobility is used to negotiate a pay increase. This has been correlated with data on work experience tenures seen on resumes with many professionals changing employers every two to five years.
Robert Topel’s and Michael Ward’s research on job mobility found that “wage gains at job changes account for at least a third of early-career wage growth.” [2]
This behavior is aptly represented by the “career lattice” model in contrast with the traditional “career ladder.” If the general workforce is doing this externally to increase pay or position, it could be that this same model would be applied internally to move up in the organization; except that doing it internally is much less risky for the employee. If the underlying concern truly is pay related, then proactive, consistent communication around pay transparency or total rewards could help address their concern around mobility.
Although this scenario technically addresses upward mobility instead of lateral mobility, it’s very possible that employees may conflate the two and expect a salary increase, even if they are moving into a new role at a more junior level.
Individual’s Role
Lastly, even when companies are doing the right thing, many employees may still struggle with their ability to discern or grow their careers. Job mobility is nothing new; it happens every day among top performers. These self-motivated employees have already adopted a learning mindset instead a training mindset. They constantly learn and evolve, opening more doors to them, within or outside their company.
While high performers are not limited by the absence of a formalized mobility program or process, their career paths would surely be more navigable having one. Employees who are content in their current position generally do not have the desire to invest in learning beyond their current knowledge domain, regardless how well-designed or implemented a program may be. This could be due to a life-style choice or perhaps they are in a moment in life where they are unable to commit to additional learning. Regardless, employees should know that while their company may have mechanisms to support them, ultimately, their career trajectory is in their hands.
HYPOTHESIS
| The single most important factor for whether an employee desires job mobility is whether they are highly self-motivated to grow their career. |
From the above, it’s clear that the topic of job mobility could mean different things that are not necessarily related. In a sense, by looking at each symptom independently, we could arrive at different (and possibly ineffective) treatment plans since we haven’t identified the actual disease. But what if we looked at the same question from a different angle? We will explore this next.
[1] Edgar Schein’s Model of Organizational Culture
[2] Robert H. Topel, Michael P. Ward,” Job Mobility and the Careers of Young Men,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 107, Issue 2, May 1992
Twistymind 