Journeyman or star? In PR, it’s about talent, effort and loyalty
If you want to work for a great employer, be a great employee
In a recent interview with a job-seeker, I noticed that she had moved around a lot, with several firms on her CV within a few years. “Oh, you know PR,” she said. “A new job every two years.”
In that moment, I realized the difference between a journeyman and a star.
I don’t mean to knock journeyman practitioners; like the veteran NHL player who’s traded from team to team to team, you can build a solid, respectable career in this way.
But as I read recently in the Brendan Wood Journal, which ranked the most influential people in the global banking business, “job hoppers rarely have influence.” That’s a fundamental truth in any industry.
Most people we hire at Argyle want to be stars. They aspire to be at the peak of their profession. This means working for marquee clients, leading teams of talented colleagues, learning continuously, helping the firm grow and sharing in the rewards.
So, how do you become a star?
Three words: Talent. Effort. Loyalty.
At the entry or junior levels of PR, we’re evaluating talent and effort all the time. We look for a blend of aptitude and attitude. And we look for people with a clear long-term vision of what they want: to be part of the growth of a mid-sized, entrepreneurial Canadian public relations firm.
At the intermediate and senior levels, the CV becomes very important in creating the right impression. Here, past performance is often a predictor of future potential. We look for a track record of long-term performance. Five years is a good starting benchmark.
If I see that someone has jumped around from job to job, never staying in one place longer than two years, the candidate must be able to answer why.
There can be good reasons: the work environment is uninspiring; the employer is unreasonable; the pay is below the norm for a firm of that size, with few countervailing positives; the company is stalled or in decline.
But look at any industry’s stars. Almost invariably, you see people who figured out where they wanted to be, helped their organization grow and thrive, and built their reputation over time.
Here’s a tip: when you meet a potential employer or employee, start from the proposition that you want to work together for five to ten years. Naturally, a lot can change along the way – but surely that must be the goal.
This point of view surprises some people. After all, not long ago you often saw articles in the careers media about the death of loyalty. Don’t buy it. It’s the most short-sighted thinking imaginable.
Loyalty must go two ways. A great employer will see you as a long-term asset to the organization. He or she will treat you with respect, create a positive work environment and help you learn and grow. Would you like to work for such a person or company? Who wouldn’t?
The bottom line: If you want a great employer, be a great employee. And if you have the talent and are willing to make the effort, your loyalty should be rewarded.
Links in Technorati
Add to del.icio.us
Subscribe to PR In Canada
A very insightful piece by Daniel. Sometimes it’s easier for folks to move than to face challenges, but the personal growth from sticking and beating those challenges cannot be replaced. And the credibility that builds for individuals with tenure at a company is something that cannot be duplicated.
While I understand the perspective offered in this article, I urge employers not to automatically blame the job candidate who has moved around during his or her career, or brand them “disloyal”. Speaking as an employee who has a lot of loyalty and talent to offer, it not often enough that one finds a company where loyalty truly goes both ways. There’s many a person who has expended that effort and shown that talent and shown that loyalty only to find it doesn’t get them as far as it should. I certainly don’t like to go into an interview spouting negative comments about past employers as reasons that explain why I have moved on, nor do I think it is appropriate for potential employers to expect what could be considered ‘dirt’ on other companies from a candidate to rationalize why they left. And sometimes a move by a talented ’star’ is more about life changes or decisions that had nothing to do with the employer, or that the employer (or even the nature of the industry) was unable or unwilling to support. My bottom line: Finding out the loyalty you offer makes no difference stings and leaves behind a little job baggage. It’s not necessarily easy to trust a new employer enough to think you’re going to be there for five to ten years. If you want great employees, be a great employer.
Bill, tenure at a great company is great. Facing challenges is character building. But sticking it out when it’s not the right place for you, or when you are being taken advantage of, just to show a longer stint on your resume or “to put hair on your chest” is not worth it, in my opinion. And sometimes your own life changes mean you forego tenure at a great company, and sometimes that’s a price you decide to pay.
I suppose it’s easy to tell that I’m on the employee-who-has-moved-around-a-bit side of this. I respect the perspective of an employer who wants their employees to stick around, contribute to the company, and make good on the training and nurturing that a good company gives to its employees. I really do. On the flip side, I definitely look at a potential employer’s track record when it comes to staff turnover. Just saying that if a ’star’ has moved around a bit there are likely very good reasons for it, beyond encouraging companies to call their loyalty into question.
Real stars are loyal, but may jump around until they find the right place. I wouldn’t hold that against a candidate if they seemed to be a perfect fit for the company.
Now having an aloof “you know how it is” attitude is entirely different. But I would question if that person is really a star.
Wow, this is turning into a great thread! Good comments all. I should add some context. I think it’s easier for us “older” PR types to remain in one place, particularly if we’ve already traveled earlier in our careers and are now more settled personally with family. I know that some (much) younger “stars,” like Richelle, have moved not just companies but continents, and really made a name for themselves. I think that’s great. And I agree that loyalty is a two-way street. But where I think staff really need to push management is on the issue of career development. Help us help you move ahead. If we can do that together, everything else should fall into place.
Feb 14th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
[...] bumps. And roadblocks. And detours… Loyalty: A lot like The Amazing Race Daniel Tisch, writing for PR In Canada, discusses loyalty and journeyman-ism. His thesis is that young PRtists lack loyalty and are [...]