Over the last few weeks, after a massive defeat at the UK general election, several senior staff in the Conservative Party have reportedly taken voluntary redundancy, with more staff cuts expected to follow. Perhaps not surprising, as morale is not likely to be high. But it raises an interesting and broader career development question: is it better to leave an organisation in decline or which has suffered a major downturn? Or are there benefits to staying with it?
There are four main questions when it comes to deciding our career path after our organisation has undergone a major business failure, downturn or adverse event.
1. What’s happening in leadership?
First, we need to consider: will the old leadership remain in their positions? The likelihood is that they will be replaced, so the next thing to assess is if the new leadership is likely to be more resilient and successful than the former leaders.
Authentic and engaging leaders are more effective, and tend to get the most out of their subordinates, and retain them longer within the organisation. As Lao Tzu, founder of the Taoist religion, reflected on leadership: “A leader is best when people barely know he exists. When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, people will say, ‘we did it ourselves’!”
2. Am I valued?
More important than what’s happening to the leadership is: will they be more or less likely to value my contribution and skills? That is to say, do I see greater opportunities in the medium to long term by staying rather than leaving?
This, of course, may require staying put for a while, to assess the new management and what opportunities come your way. This reflection period will help you consider your future career decisions. As Renaissance polymath Leonardo da Vinci wrote: “To remain constantly at work will diminish your judgement. Go some distance away, because work will be in perspective and a lack of harmony is more readily seen.”
3. What’s the damage?
Then you need to consider whether your “personal brand” has been damaged by being associated with the failed organisation. If you think it has, than leaving may not be the optimal solution, because it may be very difficult getting a job, particularly in the short term.
4. Is this a chance for change?
This will lead to another consideration. Is this an opportunity to do something entirely different, given your skill base, rather than continuing in this function or sector? Would it be best to do something entirely different? As US industrialist Henry Ford wrote: “If you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got.”
In making up your mind to leave the sinking ship, don’t automatically seek another job in the same role or sector. Take some time to think through a range of options.
Read more: How software developers feel about AI reshaping their work – and what this tells the rest of us
A new path
It’s a lie that people hate change. In my book, The Myths of Management, co-authored with Stefan Stern, we write: “It’s not true that ‘people hate change’. Bought new clothes recently? Or even a new car? People hate stupid, unnecessary, imposed change.” We go on to conclude: “They can and will cope with it — even enjoy it — if you give them a chance … and a say in the process.”
Taking control of a new career path means identifying your strengths and weaknesses, as you explore the various options open to you.
First, what would I ideally like to do? Second, what skill base and personality predispositions do I have to do this job or peruse this career option? Will this require training and development to make up for some deficits in my “skills portfolio”?
Third, will this job give me a sense of purpose? As John Ruskin, the social reformer, wrote in 1851: “In order that people may be happy in their work, these three things are needed: they must be fit for it, they must not do too much of it, and they must have a sense of success in it.” This still holds true today.
Cary Cooper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
