If You Want To Attract The Best Talent, Give Them A Cause To Champion

Wanted: Talented executive to rebuild the economy for the next 100 years.

Since the decline in our economy, a remarkable opportunity has arisen – to redefine how banking works in this country if not the world for decades to come. If you have ideas about  the ways a large US-based financial institution needs to change the way it operates to avoid another meltdown and sustain growth and lead the world into a new era, then we’d like to hear from you.  The pay is competitive and very handsome bonuses are available if sustainable success is achieved.  

Do you have what it takes?    

What kind of person do you think the above ad would attract?

Recently five executives at the AIG insurance company announced they would resign if the government restricted their pay to $500,000 per year.  Bank of America is complaining that unless they can pay whatever they want, they will not get the talent they need to right the company.

And that’s where they are completely wrong.

If money is the primary lure to get someone to join a company, then it will attract those candidates who are attracted to money as the primary incentive to show up and not for the real reason the company needs them - to change the way they do business.  Offer someone the opportunity to rebuild a company or reinvent an industry as the primary incentive and it will attract those drawn to the challenge first and the money second.  And which would you rather have running the company?  

More importantly, after an economic downturn caused in large part to a money-first mentality, who do you think we should hand the keys to now? The executive driven by the cause or the one driven by the money?

We're all so offended by how much bankers pay themselves that we've lost sight of the real issue. Money, even obscene amounts of it, is not the problem. But it should be the reward for building strong, long-term sustainable organizations and not given as the primary motivation for showing up or simply making the quarter or even the year. That's the strategy that drove Lehman Brothers into the ground and caused the mess in the first place.

There is nothing wrong with compensating someone handsomely for the work they do and the results they achieve, but not in a vacuum.  Money is a short-term result that incentivizes short-term decision making.  A cause is something that lasts and is the foundation of sustainability. 

As we’ve all had to suffer in the economic downturn, it falls to us to speak out louder and demand that the banks hire executives inspired to be a part of something bigger than themselves over those who demand something bigger  before they feel inspired.  If we don’t, start saving your pennies for the next collapse in 10 years time.  

As the would-be CEO of Bank of America, I'm pleased to hear the deal fell apart over a debate over compensation.  Though I'm disappointed to hear the executives at AIG won their argument – I hoped they would quit and find better paying jobs at less influential companies in less important industries.  That way we'd all get what we want. 

Comments

[Luciano Palma]

As always, a great point, Simon!
If someone is not able to be happy with $500,000 a year, he or she won't be able to be happy with a million or two as well (it's possibly some kind of disease).
I agree that "playing money" is the wrong path. However, the behavior is understandable - it will take some time for people who only see, breath and think money to start seeing other values in life...

[Kolyan]

Again.
It is nature of capitalism to put money up higher. There is very little other stimulation available. Bc there are a whole bunch of Masters and Ph.D’s at any given time to choose from but they all from the SAME SCHOOL.
They’ve come to these schools to make shitload of money and possibly make things right. How right? By which credentials? By which expectation, traditions, rules? They don’t care too much and they are right.

Bc they have uniformal education, so maybe later someone will grow third ball and turn something around for “good”. But it is not that hired person’s call. It calls of Tha Owner. The Owner will enforce his/her (their) policy and CEO should follow.
When several guys divided market into zones of “no interferences” they play by their expectation, sometimes giving consideration about the way their business goes but most of the time NONE.
The business should make money. That’s It. The First Law of business “Thermodynamics”.

Look how hiring process been changed. Intelligent-looking companies sending you to some “quako’s” with classical quacko’s psychology evaluation tests. Completely idiotic approach to flash out “inappropriate” candidate. Morons!!! Jesus with Rusty Shmeisser!!! Spooky 3-letter agencies use polygraphs for ages, you stupid sons of a bitches and still getting “insiders”…

45-50 minutes of everyone’s catastrophic waste, And in reality it comes to pick almost faceless attachment to their product. I wonder if those C`shmoozers for Wall Street Thievery & Robbery corporations going through the same dumb-ass tests.
““That's the strategy that drove Lehman Brothers into the ground and caused the mess in the first place.”

Nope, there was not the reason. Unconditional greed, thievery, selfishness, ignorance to their “dearly beloved” citizens are the characteristics of EVERY banking formation, regardless of nationality or origin. In Financial Sector nobody in reality gives a shit about surrounding development and life quality. They are all living in their OWN planet. We could only see them on television. They are completely SEPARATED from average Joes and Jills.

This is capitalism in its purest form. Financial rulers decided to impose another tread on their customers, got into racketeering mode, snatched their “bail-out” bag of money and continued under different names to the next stop.
We’re really deserved 2012 Doomsday or whatever heck those Mayans predicted.