Curt Powell

 The “failure to establish a cultural fit” is the top reason that executives fail within organizations, according to the Corporate Leadership Council’s 2004 landmark research for employee engagement, Driving Performance and Retention Through Employee Engagement, A Quantitative Analysis of Effective Engagement Strategies.Companies have tried to solve the problem of executive engagement and the resulting talent drain by designing onboarding programs that help train new managers and acclimate them to the company culture. But what if the culture and associated politics are part of the problem? Or what if some of the most visionary, innovative managers have the biggest challenges dealing with politics and culture?Because the topic is innovation, let’s switch gears completely. Think back to your high school class. Remember the smart kid who never seemed to fit in? When he or she spoke up in class, nobody—including the teacher—seemed to completely grasp what the student was saying? Within the high school culture, that person may have been labeled as the “brain” or the “nerd” or even a “loser.”Flash forward to your high school reunion. That same kid now runs an innovative software company, creates new processes for international shipping, or is a successful consultant in a brand new field that she invented. The point? Sometimes the people who are being written off by companies may be the very people who they need the most. A combination of cultural resistance to new ideas and the visionary employee’s low tolerance for politics can result in something we like to call “Employment Deficit Disorder.” It’s a tongue-in-cheek reference to a very real problem.We piloted research among a group of 55 executives, over half at director level and above. Some 80 percent of respondents had left a job involuntarily, and 45 percent had done so two or more times. The top reasons they were let go?Did not get along with the boss; 50 percent.Ran into political problem: 42 percent.There was a power play and I lost; 34 percent.Stood up for department/employees in the face of pressure; 21 percent.Only 18 percent were let go because they did not perform as expected.In that same sample, 98 percent said they had been in jobs where they needed or wanted to leave. What were the top reasons cited?Political environment was stifling; 51 percent.Management would say one thing but do another; 48 percent.Environment resisted change and new ideas; 34 percent.Only 22 percent of those surveyed were hired to replace a former employee. Most were brought on board to make changes, start a new business unit, build staff, create new products, serve the customer in new ways and increase the value of the company.Why were they unable to accomplish those objectives?Overwhelming politics and power plays; 64 percentCompany/boss wasn’t open to change/new ideas/new ways of thinking; 45 percentLack of management support; 40 percent.Only 30 percent cited lack of resources as a reason for failure to achieve what they were hired for in the first place.Does this initial research point to a much larger problem? We’d like your help in extending this pilot research to a larger population. Here’s the link to participate in the study and to pass on to others. We need your help to dig into what is spurring this disconnect between visionary employees and corporate culture.

Visionary Employees: Are Companies Losing Them for the Wrong Reasons?

Interviews Knowledge Asset Management (KAM) chairman Laurie Bassi and KAM principal Curt Plott. Views on the underinvestment in education and training; Mission statement of the company; Connection between investments in human capital and the bottom line.

Above the Bottom Line

Certificate Program

Designed for experienced L&D professionals who are ready to lead. Gain tools to shape learning strategies, develop teams, and advance the business through talent development. 

Curt Powell

About