It's my opinion that two of the biggest milestones in a corporate career are 1) getting your first corporate job, and 2) jumping from "individual contributor" to management. Why? These milestones both seem to require "prior experience": you can't get a job without experience, and you can't get experience without a job. You can't get a management role without management experience, and you can't get management experience without a management role. You more or less have to "break in" to both, and once you're in, you can start gaining relevant experience for your next jump.
The jump to management seems to be what separates the boys from the men- promotions from FA to SFA are basically guaranteed if you stick around long enough. But that's where it stops- I see so many lifers who have spent decades as a SFA.
Some lifers have no ambition to go higher, others are obviously jaded that their decades of service haven't been rewarded with a management promotion. It's also very common to see these lifer SFA's reporting to a manager much younger than they are, even when lifer knows the business/division better than the manager. Becoming a manger seems to have less to do with years of service and more to do with something else.
What would you say is that "something else"? I have some ideas of my own, but I'm hoping to stir some discussion in the community and get a wide range of opinions. Thanks!
Good post, and i'm hoping it sparks some good discussion. I recently had a conversation with one of the more senior guys at my company and he tried to explain this skill arc/axis regarding career progression.
Imagine an axis where the y-axis is technical ability and the x-axis is leadership ability. An entry level analyst is likely going to be near the bottom left of the third quadrant. Limited technical ability and no leadership ability. A Senior Analyst is going to be in the second quadrant. Very strong technical ability, but on a spectrum of leadership ability. Those lifers you see may likely be very strong analysts who just haven't advanced beyond the technical part of the job and thus remain closer to the left side of the quadrant.
As someone begins to develop more leadership ability, they move along the spectrum into the first quadrant. As you focus more on leading, your technical ability may not be as important as it was in your Senior Analyst role. Being able to demonstrate leadership and the ability to generate new lines of business becomes more and more important versus your mastery of the technical side.
In my opinion, the demonstrated ability to lead effectively and go beyond the scope of technical mastery is essential in making it to the manager level. YMMV though, as I'm sure everyone here has experience with someone who is great at the technical side being promoted and failing miserably at managing.
I am writing this two hours before an interview for a c-suite position at a Fortune 100 company. I won't get the position, and my negativity about my prospects for the role shouldn't be interpreted as self-doubt. At a certain point, you have to be realistic.
There was a comment in this tread talking about breaking into industry and breaking into management. I think the nature of the question is interesting, but flawed. A lot of 'management' positions within industry are now filled by people who rise through the ranks of 'basic' training grounds. Let's stipulate that 'basic' in this context refers to banking and consulting. This is an absolute fucking travesty. A decade from now, people will be wondering why the last bubble happened and then burst, and 'scholars' will retrospectively say that there were too many people of the same mindset in the corporate mix. Or maybe they'll say some other nonsense about short- and long-run credit cycles and the loosening of financial regulations and the massive expansion of balance sheets at central banks. Who knows? It's hard for me to contain my rage for historians--they the biggest pussies in history, and as historians, they know it.
If they're reasonable, they'll look at the rise of private equity funds, and the creation of the 'operating partner' with a combination of experience in industry and some high-end background (like M&A or management consulting). But there is no clear reason why the heads of PE funds would be best-suited to select shadow directors of companies. Even their returns (in most cases) belie their ability to do so.
This is a bit of a digression from the question asked. Most people on this forum will break into management. It's not nearly as hard at the OP suggests. I think the OP is really asking about breaking into the C-suite. If he isn't, he's asking the wrong question. If the limits of your view take you to the edge of a junior management role, you'll always be found wanting.
My favorite quote from business literature comes from the first two paragraphs of chapter six, Machiavelli. Understand the clever archer. It's embarrassing to not aim a bit higher.