I recently had a discussion
with a friend that has had a profound impact on how I view growth. Maybe I
should have known this, but the dialogue we had made it clearer.
For those of us pursuing a career,
particularly in corporate life, we easily fall into the trap of thinking that
growth will be defined by having a position in a bureaucratic structure. Generally,
this involves being either head of something, all the way up to being the CEO
if you have such capabilities and networks, with networks being the operative
word. This is also not helped by the fact that organisations seek to reward on
the basis of these titles in a number of cases, and not on the basis of
contribution. It is only natural therefore that one may seek to get a job with
a title as an affirmation of progress. Needless to say, this also means better
income, benefits and all the things that go with it.
As we had a discussion, we
were thinking about where I am now, and where I could grow. In the discussion
we now had to confront the issue of whether I see myself being at the most
senior level in an organisation. Even though I said yes, the most striking part
of the conversation was when he asked me to explain why. The more we spoke, the
more he seemed to create confusion in my mind. This he did by getting me to
confront who I am, and what it is that people seek or value in me. His question
was whether having a responsibility in a bureaucratic structure does not take away
something that I already am contributing to the world.
We moved the conversation
from being about me to a general discussion on people’s approach to careers. In
that discussion we started to look deeply at the meaning of happiness and satisfaction
in a career. It was through that dialogue that it became re-emphasised in my
mind that having a bureaucratic title may not necessarily be the best thing for
everyone who seeks growth. In essence, my friend argued that growth is a
comprehensive process, of which organisational structure captures only a part.
Growth is also an intellectual and emotional process.
The challenge we have
generally is that, whilst it may be true that growth is not the same as getting
a title, the world we are in starts to reward only that form of growth. The onus
is on the individual to re-frame their growth story to the things that have
meaning for them. If it is about leading others, is it possible to do this
through a series of multidisciplinary projects, of high impact, that involve
people, which are valued by one’s organisation? If growth is about intellectual
recognition, is it possible to increasingly get assignments that require you to
show thought leadership, and thus be recognised on that basis.
Of course, the above growth
paths do not have to be mutually exclusive. You can lead others and show
thought leadership at the same time. The point, however, is about one being
able to define for themselves what is the meaning of growth for them and thus
to take the path that will lead to real satisfaction. Whilst this process is
harder because we always struggle to get to know ourselves very well, it is
much better than expanding energies fighting a corporate battle for a title
that may not lead to your happiness.
I have seen how, in the quest to satisfy
an ego by getting the next highest position, or trying to get someone you like
to get the next highest position, organisations have lost valuable people who
may have been better capable but were either ignored or deliberately frustrated.
This focus on titles can lead to unbelievable waste of talent and loss of focus.
Whilst my discussion
with my friend did not solve all questions about the long-term growth path, it
did illuminate for me the things I need to think about and also understand
better what the world values in me. It may be that a title might be what I need
to have, but it does not have to be. I am much wiser.
