Veterans’ Transitions: Holding Onto “Purpose”

As many of you know, I spent eleven years in the military, five in the Army and six in the Navy.  I’ve lived in Europe, Asia, Central America, and been stationed throughout much of North America.  I’ve heard the crack of bullets flying overhead and smelled the sickly sweet mix of JP-5 and hydraulic fluid.  I’ve spent holidays and anniversaries away from home, missed the birth of my youngest daughter.  And through it all, I never doubted my sense of purpose.  As I slid amongst the mangrove roots lining the Shagris River in Panama to the ten-hour flights off the Russian Far East and along the DMZ of the Korean Peninsula, what I was doing made a difference.

That pride in belonging to something so noble is easily sensed when speaking to a veteran about their experiences in uniform.  Nearly ubiquitous, it’s more than simply the military environment.  Ask them about it, and you’ll likely hear of the shared sacrifice, the bonds developed from facing danger together, and service to a “great good.”  Pretty awesome stuff, I’d say.

So then, what’s the problem?  At some point, most veterans transition from their military roles to civilian ones.  Their technical skills.  The strength of their leadership experiences.  Their work ethic and sense of discipline.  All translate well to strong contributors in nearly any work environment they choose.    But where is the sense of purpose?

Almost inevitably, veterans tend to suffer a letdown when moving from the high-level purpose culture of the military to civilian workplace cultures.  That’s not to say civilian employers don’t have a purpose.  Rather, the sense of purpose is different, and typically not as extreme as that with which veterans have become accustomed.  As a result, many flounder to stay engaged, to remain excited with the daily grind of the “normal” workplace.

I’m often asked what organizations can do to help veterans maintain their sense of purpose.  The answer is two-fold…coaching and connection.

• Coaching – One of the most effective ways organizations can affect veteran transitions is to offer transitional executive coaching to them.  A coach, particularly one with a true understanding of both military and civilian work cultures, can help reestablish expectations and transfer values from one environment to the other.  Coaching need not be a permanent engagement (in fact, no coaching ought to extend in perpetuity), but several months worth of conversations and interactions between transitioning veteran and a coach can pay dividends for the receiving organization.

• Connection – Corporations need to pay closer attention to the formal and informal veterans’ networks that already exist within their workforce.  Just as combat veterans tend to seek out other combat veterans, as the only ones who can truly understand what they’ve been through, even non-combat veterans share an experience with others who have served that should be leveraged within corporations.  Deliberate attempts to connect veterans within your organization create a healthy subset of your larger workforce culture, taps into the veteran’s on-going need for affiliation, and ultimately does more for building a “sense of purpose” that might otherwise be lacking.

Career transitions are always tenuous times for anyone.  For retiring or otherwise transitioning military veterans, these times can be one of “make it or break it.”  Organizations that understand and actively support these highly skilled technicians and seasoned veterans will have grasped a key competitive advantage over those companies who opt instead for a more “natural” transition.  So, which kind of company are you?

I’m Prejudiced…I Admit it

“Forgive my directness,” I stammered, nearly choking on my coffee.  “It doesn’t seem like your company is taking a particularly intelligent approach to downsizing.”

Roger had just finished describing how 20% of the marketing firm was to be laid off.  That wasn’t the shock.  After all, despite federal and state celebrations of a upswing in the economy, the impacts at the local level were still heading in the opposite direction.  What was  surprising was that this formerly top employer appeared more driven in the decisions of who to lay off by the goal of simply reducing payroll.  That they were summarily ejecting much of their top talent was simply shrugged off as the “price of layoffs.”

As floored I was by this approach, Roger’s next statement took my breath away.

“I know,” he smiled. “But that was a deliberate decision, to not worry about the talent.  We just need to cut payroll.”

Okay, so here’s a disclaimer.  I’m prejudiced.  I actively discriminate.  I categorize people and treat different groups differently.  Mind you, it’s not any particular race, creed, gender, religion, or someone’s sexual orientation that triggers my prejudice.  My prejudice?  It’s stupid people.  I simply can’t stand them!

You see, stupidity is unforgivable, in my opinion.  Now, we’re not talking about naïveté.  Being naive is completely understandable and, in many cases, unavoidable.  People who legitimately simply don’t know better can’t be held particularly culpable for their actions.  In fact, when faced with naïveté, I’m a firm believer in reaching out a helping hand and educating the offending person with the knowledge to make future decisions from a more informed standpoint.

No, stupidity is different.  My use of this descriptor acknowledges that the actor knows, but pays no attention to what they are doing (or the consequences of their actions).  To understand the frivolity of one’s actions, yet proceed with them is pure stupidity.

The marketing firm’s executives know better.  They know they are raping the long-term success of the firm for a short-term, relative pain-killer.  In reality, they are abdicating their given responsibility as leaders, opting for “fair” actions to avoid having to have difficult conversations about what really matters – performance.  They’ve taken the coward’s way out….embracing stupidity as the lesser of two presumed evils.

Unfortunately, the “evil” of having to overcome the loss of real talent will likely sink the organization.  Already, according to Roger, the firm has lost nearly 10% of its top clients, accounting for 14% of their previous year’s receivables.  Some clients followed the talent they respected to competitor firms.  And for other clients, simply watching the firm’s top talent walked out was handwriting enough on the wall.  They can read the tea leaves, not-so-subtly warning of a quick decline in the ability of the firm to support their ever critical business needs.

Roger is also heading out the door.  He’s not being laid off.  He was one of the “lucky” ones, he stated.  Three days after layoffs were announced, a major competitor contacted him.  In the end, he’s taking 14 years of experience somewhere that values not only his contributions, but his value as an individual.

How’s that for stupidity?  My prejudice continues……

Screen for Performance, Hire for Fit

Isn’t it ironic how so many leaders promote the idea of hiring for fit?  Yet, so many organizations continue to hire only for skills.  Why does such a disconnect exist between what we know would provide a competitive advantage and what we practice?

Sure, knowledge and skills are important.  In some jobs, they are critical.  Yet, in most areas knowledge and skills are “develop-able.”  Personality, fit with team, work ethic, and attitude are not.  You’ve either got the traits and attitude to make it on a team or in an organization, or you don’t.  Your values either fit with the organization’s, or they don’t.

Unfortunately, narrow thinking usually trumps creative staffing.

Managers have a limited hiring perspective, constrained by the letters and words on the job description.  On top of that, few companies truly test for skill competence, relying instead on self-reporting, i.e., asking candidates to “tell me about a time when…..”  In reality, such interviewing techniques may only differentiate between candidates who are good storytellers from those who are not.  Last I checked, storytelling wasn’t among the most critical job competencies in most disciplines.

In fact, large organizations are frequently bound by bureaucratic fears of anything short of complete standardization and adherence to staffing protocols.  And smaller companies too often idolize their larger brethren with an “I wanna be like Mike” envy, which causes them to similarly adopt rigid hiring practices and rules for managerial choices.  It’s a sad state of affairs, to be sure.

So, I’m not suggesting ignoring performance-based assessments of job candidates.  But ensure the methods you are using, 1) actually help you determined truth from storytelling, and 2) beef up the personality and culture “fit” assessments of candidates.  An organizational psychologist can help determine the best blend of assessment techniques to establish the most appropriate blend for your organization.  Regardless, don’t downplay the importance of attitude and personality fit in your search for the best candidates.

In the end, employees don’t leave organizations because they can’t do the job.  They leave because of personality, values, or cultural disalignment.  The organizations of the future will all realize and leverage this.  Will your organization be among them?