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.
From my personal experience, the ability to manage-up will get you a shot at entry level management role. That includes making your boss looks good, consistently performing at high level, and making right decisions (although opportunities may be limited).
To stay in management role for a long time, you'll also need the ability to manage-down. That includes hiring and developing talents, being a strategic leader, and motivating the team.
I notice that people who can both manage up and down typically are the ones to move on to VP/CFO level faster. I've seen those with amazing ability to manage-down but they don't get a shot at next level because they lack the manage-up skill.
I recently inherited a team of experienced managers and within 2 months, I already know who my high performers are. As a manager, I will always go to the person who I trust the most during the time of needs and I'm sure my bosses feel the same way.
Could you please give some examples of what you consider managing up? Google tells me a thousand different things. Generally, when I think of "managing up", I think of a junior employee who is running a process (e.g. diligence on a transaction) with little supervision, but does an excellent job at keeping his/her supervisor informed of the status of this project. I also think of junior employees who do not mind speaking up and disagreeing with a supervisor, but in a respectful manner.
I view "managing up" as doing the job of the next level (or at least pieces of it) while continuing to excel in your current role. Demonstrating that you not only do your current job well, but also the role above you well goes far in showing you're ready for the promotion. My current employer likes to see that you can do the job before they promote you into it. This can mean getting more involved in the decision making process, recommending specific courses of action, and having junior employees unofficially report to you. This meets the "going beyond the scope of technical mastery" point I made in my original post.
Sil ... that's more or less what my company looks for when transitioning SFAs into the Manager world...they want to see someone who can take on [what i see as] 2 characteristics of managers: running multi-function process end-to-end and challenging opinions in the room while still maintaining respect.
In my experience, the people who "manage up" well (I work at a professional services firm) is the ability to sift through all the mundane shit you do, recognize what's really important, and communicate this upward in a clear, succinct manner. The higher ups always have less time than you do, and the more useful information you can give to them in a limited timeframe, the better.
.
The ability to lead without the risk tolerance to lead for real, i.e. open their own shop. Nothing wrong with that - people have different risk tolerances - but "climbing the corporate ladder" is for a specific type of person.
i was reading this Harvard Business Review article while back: https://hbr.org/2011/03/the-new-path-to-the-c-suite One of the things it mentions like OverTheHedge commented is that to climb the ladder, technical ability is important but once you start moving into management and especially C-Suite, leadership qualities and other "qualitative" skills become even more important.
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.
My sights are definitely set higher than junior manager- For me personally, that's just my next hurdle. When I graduate my FLDP the year after next, I'm all but guaranteed a SFA role and am therefore right now trying to learn the skills necessary for the next real hurdle: management. Any advice on what qualities get you from individual contributor to management? and which qualities and skills to hone to advance through the ranks of management?
Read Rise. It's by the youngest person ever to become a GM at Hewlett Packard, who just happens to be a woman. That was a good book at answering this question, and unlike many, I never found myself getting bored after reading 5-15 pages.
Addy is starting to kick in before the interview
There is no secret sauce. The criteria that get you the nod versus your peers will vary from company to company. Some organizations practice cronyism, nepotism, etc. in which case you will likely be a bit jaded. Others promote based on need and ability. If you have unique skills you can get coveted roles even if you're a piece of shit because no one else understands/wants to do what you do. With that being said, in general, no one monkey runs the circus so don't be so unpleasant that they will pay someone twice what you make to replace you so they don't have to see your face anymore.
Repellat aut ex magnam blanditiis. Aut debitis dolorem fugit nesciunt ducimus doloribus sed. Omnis illum voluptas et nulla velit ut.
Porro deserunt dolores quia corporis quod. Dolore repellat suscipit culpa sed. Dolor et suscipit accusantium qui modi explicabo reprehenderit quia. Eius asperiores accusantium ut ut ut voluptatibus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...