What Every Professional Should Know About Mid-Career Crisis?

The career growth path in any organization is like climbing up a cone, slippery along the way and with just one top.

What that means is only one professional will get a chance to reach the top.

Many will reach the second, third and levels below to stagnate there until they get retired or fired.

One typically enters the workforce at the age of 20-25.

By the age of 35-40 one would reach the first mid-career crisis and if one is lucky to get above into the management ladder well and good otherwise would flame out there itself.

Again at 45-50, one would reach the second mid-career crisis and get a chance to move into senior management ladder and in case that doesn’t happen would flame out there itself.

The First Job

The excitement felt after landing the first job is an amazing experience for all of us.

At that point “getting a good job” means everything in the world.

Good in this context means a job with a branded company with a high salary and a seemingly exciting role.

Besides, the feeling of finally becoming financially independent of your parents is an awesome one.

For few weeks and months all seems to go well in the first job.

Very soon, however, reality strikes in an “on your face”, in a harsh way.

There might be issues one would actually experience or get to understand from a closer angle, such as:

• limited opportunities to learn and grow
• monotonous and predictable work
• unclear performance expectations and vague, infrequent feedback
• lack of alignment with the organizational culture
• friction with other team members
• low motivation caused by an intimidating supervisor
• low motivation caused by a weak manager
• loss of faith in the organization’s future caused by uninspiring leadership
• unclear, confusing directions and signals from higher ups
• brush with power plays and group dynamics intended to preserve the political structure
• deliberate exclusion by higher ups from important communications
• illogical reporting structure intended to preserve control by the top man and his club of boys
• clash with strong personalities with bloated egos in powerful positions in the hierarchy

The First and Subsequent Moves

So the thought that would eventually cross the mind is, “let’s move on”.

After moving on and settling into another job in another organization, the above cycle would get repeated in a few years time.

And so on it goes, another job in another organization, and then yet another until one reaches 10-15 years of experience and starts expecting a senior position.

At this point, mid-career crisis strikes and moving on becomes increasingly difficult for reasons listed below:

• Acquired experience would be in a specific industry like pharmaceuticals, automotive
• Acquired experience would be in a specific functional/technical area like sales, administration
• Openings available for a certain experience will be limited in terms of number of positions and companies that need that experience
• There might be mismatch between current compensation and title with what is on offer 
• Those who do the hiring look beyond functional/technical competencies into cultural/political competencies. Some examples of this are:
• A hiring manager will not hire someone with stronger qualifications and credentials
• A hiring manager will consider the political environment and group dynamics in which a candidate will have to work while assessing her suitability for a position
• A hiring manager will bring his own biases and idiosynchrasies in recommending a candidate

Mid-Career Crisis

Mid-career professionals are in a career transition mode and must remain calm and positive as they go through it.

In case they fail to progress to higher levels (and as hard as it may sound, many would fail), they should absorb the failure in a clinical and philosophical manner.

At this point in one’s career one should be highly self-aware about one’s strengths and weaknesses and in a way come to an honest admission:

• of the fact that “one simply doesn’t have what it takes to go higher”
• and the fact that “it’s perfectly fine if you stand no chance to become a CEO one fine day”.

Organizations need highly specialized, deep expertise to develop next generation products and services and will align with the market changes rapidly.

This might, however, take a toll on the professionals with highly specialized, deep expertise in an area as they will need to constantly and quickly learn something new, unlearn it and learn something else new.

Such professionals can easily ride over the first mid-career crisis but can manage the second one with extreme difficulty.

Top executives, knowing well that such professionals are a necessity for their business will cultivate such professionals and keep them motivated by titles such as Chief Engineer, Fellow and Distinguished Engineer.

Mid-career professionals who possess highly specialized, deep expertise in an area are viewed as rock stars in an organization until the time the market needs for such an expertise exist.

However, in case of a demand shift in marketplace such professionals might find themselves out of favor unless they quickly migrate to highly specialized, deep expertise in another area.

Those professionals who fail to cope will flame out from the corporate world.

Organizations need generic, wide-ranging expertise to run business operations smoothly, handle the day-to-day usual stuff. 

Business is not as simple as developing a product and selling it to customers to make money.

Any business needs to navigate through the expectations of its various stakeholders – government bodies, regulatory agencies, investors, customers, competition, employees, etc.

The demand for such professionals tapers off while moving up the organizational hierarchy.

Such professionals can easily ride over the first mid-career crisis but the second one with some difficulty.

Top executives, knowing well that they also had taken this path to the top will cultivate such professionals and keep them motivated by titles such as General Manager, Vice President, Senior VP, Executive VP.

Mid-career professionals who possess generic, wide-ranging expertise as functional and resource management are viewed as necessary evil for running the business operations smoothly.

In case of troubles in business operations such professionals might find themselves out of favor unless they are working in areas to do with legal compliance and supporting business operations in a direct way.

Such professionals will, however, be easily able to find employment in other organizations.

Those professionals who fail to cope will flame out from the corporate world.

Managing Mid-Career Crisis

Our careers are an important part of our existence.

And not moving up and getting stuck or getting fired and shown the door may seem as a personal insult and a question mark on our individuality and importance in our own eyes and others that know us.

It need not be this way, however.

Career progression depends on both individual competency, performance and how various factors play out in the career of a professional.

In all situations, however, it is a truism that all but one professional will reach the top.

It is also a truism that the professional at top can also slide down in no time.

CEO firing is not as uncommon as one would wish it to be.

Keeping in view some of the above aspects what can a mid-career professional do?

Can he really do much or anything?

Can mid-life crisis be managed?

There are some aspects which can be managed and many more which can’t be.

Knowing which ones can be managed and which ones can’t be is as important as effectively managing the ones that can be managed and hoping for the best for the ones that can’t be managed.

Worst are those mid-career professionals who are in small organizations as they may have limited opportunities to learn and grow and in case they are made redundant, they will find it very difficult to get another job.

Small organizations are generally managed by an old boys club which would be reluctant to induct a mid-career professional as part of the club.

And mid-career professionals, especially those in the midst of second mid-career crisis, will not find it easy to get into a bigger organization since they will lack the understanding of scale and complexity of business in a big organization (as compared to a small organization).

Such professionals should try to move back to a bigger organization, join the rat race to reach as high as possible.

And the moment they realize they will not be able to reach the first, second or third level and become redundant in the next organizational restructuring, put a plan to move back to another smaller organization at a level or two up at the bigger organization.

Or get into a startup or get into consulting, etc.

Slightly better are those mid-career professionals, especially those in the midst of second mid-career crisis, who work in a bigger organization as second level professionals.

They might get lucky and get a chance to move into a smaller organization and become the top man there.

Many others who move out or forced to move out can end up starting their own consulting or advisory firm.

Some others may float start-ups and designate themselves as the founder and top man.

However, most of these professionals end up realizing very soon that this movement is generally one way with a slim chance to return to a bigger organization.

Such professionals the moment they realize they will not be able to reach the first, second or third level and become redundant in the next organizational restructuring should put a plan to move back to a smaller organization at a level or two up at the bigger organization or get into a start-up or get into consulting, etc.

Far better are those mid-career professionals who are founder and owner of a small or medium sized organization whose business model has potential to grow further.

And best are those whose company becomes big by the time they enter mid-career.

Such professionals should try to ensure the survival of their organization as they will not find it easy to work for others in case their business fails for any reason.

Some of such professionals might sell their business to another organization in a life-time deal and then retire.

They will not need to work for money any longer but may pursues many ideas purely for the kick one may get from them.

However, they will need to stay focused on avoiding living on the edge as that can wipe their wealth rapidly in no time.

Some Thoughts that Traverse the Mind of Someone Who Finally Decides to Quit

It is interesting to analyze the psychology of someone who reaches to the conclusion "I think I need to move on". Here are some thoughts that traverse the mind of someone who finally decides to quit:

• There is no future growth in the role one is currently in. Due to fundamental issues in the organizational hierarchy and reporting structure further growth is not possible. One scenario is when one group head (who is not a part of the executive team) has to report into another group head (who is a part of the executive team by virtue of being part of the trusted coterie of the CEO/MD).
• There is constant intellectual difference with the CEO/MD or the executive team. The CEO/MD decides and everyone in the executive team follows suit due to the prevalence of a "Yes Sir" culture. One scenario is when one challenges the decision of the CEO/MD and is conveyed in an indirect, unprofessional manner (through another group head whom one reports into) that the decision is beyond questioning
• There is a culture of too many emails being sent with copy to CEO/MD. One scenario is when very interestingly the CEO/MD always comes back with the statement "Let's do it folks (no questions asked and none answered)". The CEO/MD also gets the message conveyed in an indirect, unprofessional manner (through another group head whom one reports into) that the suggestion is beyond questioning
• There is a culture of arrogance and self-aggrandizement where one of the group head who also happens to be a founder member carries the notion that his group (let's say A) is the the most important one. One scenario is when the company level strategic meet is called as A meet as if A only matters to the company's success.
• There is a unbalanced organizational structure where various groups are manned by people with different designations (role-wise and accountability-wise the group heads are at par but grade-wise and authority-wise some are superior and others are inferior). This is further complicated by having the inferior ones report into the superior ones. It is no wonder that the superior ones are a part of the executive team by virtue of being part of the trusted coterie of the CEO/MD.
• There is a tendency to demean and downplay the contributions made by an inferior group head and his team to the organization. The CEO/MD announces in the annual company meet about what the group helped to achieve as the biggest event of the year but there is no acknowledgement and appreciation of the group which was instrumental in the achievement.
• There is a tendency to "show the true place" to the inferior group head. One scenario is while going out for lunch the CEO/MD bluntly ignores the inferior group head and at the same time warmly invites the superior group head - "I think you should come along with us"
• There is a tendency of the CEO/MD to overrule the inferior group head. After a meeting where the inferior group head proposes a different view the CEO/MD tells the superior group head that "I heard that guy say there could be a delay, I don't care about that and want it to be done my way"

In above points many key cultural emerge as the factors at play in an organization. For the "inferior" group head stuck in such a situation there is one simple advise when one says "I think I need to move on" - You are absolutely right, you must move on and as fast as possible!

Exiting an Organization Gracefully

Exiting an organization gracefully without burning the bridges is not only important for an employee's career but also the desired and expected professional behavior as well as a sign of maturity of the exiting employee. However, there are many instances of employees not respecting the golden rule that bridges should never be burnt while exiting.

What are the typical characteristics of situations where exits are not graceful. And what are the typical behaviors demonstrated by employees whose exit is not gracefully handled by them. Following are some thoughts on exits that are not graceful.

• Exiting employee doesn't proactively prepare the transition plan and needs push from the manager to prepare and share it. In certain cases the manager has to lay down the first cut of the transition plan
• Exiting employee starts pushing activities to other team members and especially those who will take over after their exit in an unusual hurry
• Exiting employee detaches himself from the concerns of the organization and lowers productivity and contribution level (even though he or she is a part of the organization until the last working day and is being paid the full salary until then)
• Exiting employee is in a hurry to leave and not willing to serve the full notice period
• Exiting employee focuses on completing those activities that are of personal benefit to him or her like completing a certification and even though allowed to do so doesn't care about the organization's needs and concerns regarding completing the transition activities
• Exiting employee is not flexible to adjust if the transition plan is changed to ensure the transition does indeed get completed
• Exiting employee expects to be given leave (as a matter of right) for festivals and family functions but is not positive if told that the leave days will be adjusted in the notice period by extending it
• Exiting employee spoils the goodwill created until then by pressurizing other team members to facilitate his or her exit without understanding the tough situation the organization might be in and in fact putting the organization in a tight spot
• Exiting employee declines the courtesy extended to him of a farewell lunch (despite all of the above) 

What is amazing is that this happens even in cases where the employee has more than 3-5 years of experience and is expected to be mature and professional. Such exiting employees forget some basic points such as the follows.

• The exiting employee may be forced to serve the full notice period and leave, if any granted, adjusted to the notice period by extending it
• The relieving may become turbulent for the exiting employe
• The reference of the exiting employee may be adversely impacted
• The current manager and team the exiting employee is working may form an opinion about that employee being unprofessional and immature
• The attitude demonstrated by the exiting employee in such situations may be a strong indicator that the employee will not be able to go higher up in the career

What is That One Thing That will Make You Leave Your Current Job?

This is a question that encompasses the essence of all theories and concepts related to employee retention. In general, why do people join an organization and why they leave it are questions that have bothered many of us since our first job. And in particular, why we joined an organization and left it are questions that are worth exploring for us to take appropriate career decisions.

People may have many reasons to feel happy in their current job but might leave for just "that one thing" which may not be working alright. Based on my experiences here are some of the reasons that might be "that one thing" which makes people leave an organization. These are given in no particular order.

• The job becomes a drag with no recognition, no clear growth path and a sense of frustration with the prevalent organizational structure. This might be the case when one works in a department of the organization which is seen as a necessary evil and there is lack of visible and active management support to those working in that department.
• The job falls into rough weather and all growth opportunities are suddenly cut off. This might be the case when one works in a company that gets acquired by another organization and those working in a department are literally run down by those working in the same/similar department of the "acquirer".
• The job doesn't fit with the current, pressing concerns of the organization. This might be the case when one works in a company (especially an SME) that looses lot of business and some of the departments are shunted out and consequently those working in such departments are shown the door. This is an example of a person leaving involuntarily.
• The job not only doesn't carry the right designation and title but also the next role one can grow into is simply not there. This might be the case when one works in a certain sub-department of a department in a company where the sub-department is set-up to serve the "career agenda" of the person heading the department. He/she builds the sub-department to achieve some- short and medium-term career objectives and doesn't have any need of the sub-department from a long-term perspective
• The job carries a fancy title but only in papers and the reporting structure is ill-defined. This might be the case when one works in a company where one department head reports into another department head (the one reporting into the other carries equal level of accountability for meeting the departmental objectives but doesn't have adequate authority). In addition there is a glass ceiling created by the top guy to ensure that no one becomes a part of the team of trusted lieutenants he has put around himself.
• The job carries a title at par with another person in the department but has superior-subordinate relationship with the other person. This might be the case when one works in a company where organization's real growth is stunted but people still grow (by getting tenure-based promotions). Such a growth may not be for real other than the impression it can create when printed on the business card.

Does a Mid-career Full-time 1-year MBA have a Negative Financial RoI?

Everyone experiences mid-career blues in her career. And one way people (who didn't enter the corporate world with an MBA degree) think they overcome these blues is to get an MBA degree.

Mid-career MBA Dilemma

Since we are talking about a business management course here it is worth assessing whether it makes business sense to get a business degree. What is the likely RoI (return on investment) of an MBA? Does a mid-career full-time 1-year MBA have a negative financial RoI?

Case of Mrs. X - Should She Do an MBA or Not

Let's consider a certain Mrs. X entered the corporate world when she was 25 year old and plans to retire when she turns 55 (hence the career would span for 30 years). After working for 10 years Mrs. X decides to do a 1-year full-time MBA. The big question would be: Does a mid-career full-time 1-year MBA have a negative financial RoI?

Let's assume a few things:

• Mrs. X will work for 20 years post-MBA
• The cost of MBA is Rs. 2600000 (26 lacs)
• It is also assumed that Mrs. X has this readily available in cash and will not be needing an education loan. If an education loan in considered the financial RoI is negatively impacted
• If the MBA Cost is kept in a bank FD (Fixed Deposit) it can earn post-tax returns at 6% interest rate compounded annually
• It is also assumed that this money lies in the FD throughout and earns interest on compounded basis year after year
• The current salary of Mrs. X is Rs. 2400000 (24 lacs)
• Mrs. X expects to earn 8% salary hike every year
• It is also assumed the %hike will remain same before and after MBA. The reason is that an MBA can't change the inherent competencies and performance level of an individual. An MBA can help get a one-time major salary hike but the future hikes will depend on the person (and an MBA program can't change a person at a fundamental level).
•  Mrs. X expects to get a one time 50% hike

Given the above scenario what is the likely answer to the question: Does a mid-career full-time 1-year MBA have a negative financial RoI? One might think it can't be a "yes" but an insightful analysis reveals that it is actually yes. See the table below for the details of calculations.

And here's the chart showing the trend of Money W/O MBA, Money W/ MBA and Net INCOME. It clearly shows the returns over a 20 year period is always negative and in fact, keeps getting worse year on year.

So does a mid-career full-time 1-year MBA have a negative financial RoI? The answer is yes. The financial RoI of doing a mid-career full-time 1 year MBA is actually negative. Thus going by purely financial RoI perspective Mrs. X should not do an MBA.

Reasons Other than RoI for Doing or Not Doing an MBA

Though Mrs. X realizes that the financial RoI of doing a mid-career full-time 1 year MBA is actually negative there are still many other reasons she can go ahead with the MBA. Here are some reasons why MBA may have RoI in other aspects (non-financial in nature):

• Get break into an area one always wanted to work but couldn't. An MBA degree can open certain doors that were closed before
• Feel good about oneself by virtue of the esteem value generated in flaunting the MBA degree. An MBA degree is a great label to have on one's resume, any day

In the process of the benefits that might accrue to one certain things might get lost. Here are some of those:

• Technical or functional competency before MBA may count for little or nothing. Also the grass always looks greener on the other side. One might get an MBA and realize that she was comfortable and enjoyed a role with more technical content as compared to a role with more managerial content
• One would always have the disadvantage over someone who entered the corporate world with an MBA degree. An MBA degree with 10 years experience after that is not equivalent to an MBA degree with 10 years experience before that