nd that when you start paying outsiders, you are risking that hard earned reputation to outside influence, whose motives may be purely monetary. I think it also shows that we are not doing our job right and that our motives might also be purely monetary and even desperate. I am not opposed to professional relationships or strategic partnerships with others that I trust. You want to be the person that individuals and companies want to come to with leads because they respect you and see you as a profesional who they like and trust.…
oyalty is a 2 ways street.
Nate - 8 months after Nicky was promoted she also took the reigns and helped the company build a social media strategy. So the 6 month theory is sometimes right BUT if you have a string work ethic and create change you value will actually go up.
Robin - Nice moves - great strategy - reminds me of this quote "Action may not always bring happiness; but there is no happiness without action." ~Benjamin Disraeli
Derek and Bill: Your right - in some situations you need to act in your own best interests and take control - especially when buying a car! The option B for Nicky was just as good monetarily - but she didnt want to leave all she wanted was her employer to tell her the truth - and then back it up - which they did.
Stephanie - What Nicky did was not "selfish" - its was a high risk strategy for her future. Not for her employer.
Amber - Karma was on her side on this one.
Dan - The only thing on her back right now is a new fur coat which she bought when she got her raise. The CEO actually likes the fact she made an aggressive move and respects her even more now.
Again this strategy is not for everyone - If you were in those shoes what would you do? or if this was a friend of yours asking for advice woudl you tell them just to leave and not look back? Nicky built up a great reputation with her client base in her company - but not all companies have the time or even manpower to identify the future talent within. Thats why companies need to do a better job succession planning.…
d probably know about before any action is taken. It also suggests that HR and Legal, in your view, are problematic for business leaders because they tend to say “NO”. Doesn’t it occur to you that they say “no” to asinine ideas that are fraught with legal ramifications/problems they clearly see…particularly if something goes wrong? HR and Legal are in place to stop a decision and decision maker who can harm the company’s interests. Operating without their knowledge or approval will fall on you like a Hannibal elephant.
And operating like a military general of old, whose fame was won in operating and performing in a war zone—who BTW disregarded sound advice from military commanders in the field, would be folly for any business leader, much less modern day HR leaders.
While HR gets little respect for not being trusted or entrusted with a seat at the business table—it is HR who must advise against proceeding with “Aut viam inveniam aut faciam” (translated from Latin), I will either find a way, or make one,” logic simply because that logic works best in a battlefield scenario—where might makes right makes sense. However, in the business working environment there are rules of engagement such that “might makes right” would be indefensible.
Where the philosophy of “I will either find a way, or make one,” does appear is in court briefs where monetary penalties were assessed and jail sentences given to business leaders operated like “field generals”, e.g., like those from ENRON and WORLDCOM, and others who pretty much operated as if arrogance had no reins. In those cases HR and good Legal advisors were sorely missing in action. What HR can learn from Hannibal is to continue to advise Hannibal wannabees to park their elephants in a proper and secure area--because if they step on someone the penalties will be significant and the news coverage will be dramatically embarrassing.