For lack of better phraseology pigeon-holing is the process whereby incoming executives, and employees are automatically placed into skill set buckets based on what their perceived role has been in the company.
Newly hired executives quickly place personnel in functional buckets to more quickly define roles and responsibilities as they move their preferred players into roles throughout the organization. This has a two pronged effect.
First it is easy for the new executives to pigeon–hole existing employees as a time saver to move their quickly to their agenda. By tagging an employee with a “sales guy” or an “operational guy” label the employees can then be rapidly slotted into the new organization. This allows for the quickest implementation of the new model and clears the transition path for the newly hired executive employees. So all of our employees get secretly (or in some cases not so secretly) voted into pigeon-holes to allow new execs to set a foundation organizational hierarchy.
Second is the side effect is what the pigeon-hole–ee experiences. The newly created organizational role hierarchy is typically not well received as it is completed and implemented with little regard to actually looking into how to maximize existing employees’ future contributions. Because early stage start-ups require a head that fits many hats i.e. Federal Sales, Sales Management, Channel Management, OEM business, HR, Sales Operations, Marketing, Facilities Management, you get to be the happy recipient of one of these roles based, more likely than not, what roles are not filled by incoming hires. If the employee is an excellent sale manager, but the new execs have their favorite Sale Manager (one they are familiar with) you get to wear a hat that may not fit as well as another.
This is common practice. I have consulted with early stage start up companies and as growth proves out the model, additional skill sets are required. However to rationalize the pigeon-holing for expedience sake as, “He/She doesn’t do this well” or “He/She did not do that” is a short cut that causes more turmoil than it fixes when the troops who fought the initial fight are told their role is “x” and they will take it or leave it.
Bottom line; transition from survival mode to growth mode is difficult enough. It is important to keep key contributors contributing. Without all the accomplishments of everyone, there would be no opportunity for the new execs to pigeon-hole. It is neither right nor wrong, it just is.
Newly hired executives quickly place personnel in functional buckets to more quickly define roles and responsibilities as they move their preferred players into roles throughout the organization. This has a two pronged effect.
First it is easy for the new executives to pigeon–hole existing employees as a time saver to move their quickly to their agenda. By tagging an employee with a “sales guy” or an “operational guy” label the employees can then be rapidly slotted into the new organization. This allows for the quickest implementation of the new model and clears the transition path for the newly hired executive employees. So all of our employees get secretly (or in some cases not so secretly) voted into pigeon-holes to allow new execs to set a foundation organizational hierarchy.
Second is the side effect is what the pigeon-hole–ee experiences. The newly created organizational role hierarchy is typically not well received as it is completed and implemented with little regard to actually looking into how to maximize existing employees’ future contributions. Because early stage start-ups require a head that fits many hats i.e. Federal Sales, Sales Management, Channel Management, OEM business, HR, Sales Operations, Marketing, Facilities Management, you get to be the happy recipient of one of these roles based, more likely than not, what roles are not filled by incoming hires. If the employee is an excellent sale manager, but the new execs have their favorite Sale Manager (one they are familiar with) you get to wear a hat that may not fit as well as another.
This is common practice. I have consulted with early stage start up companies and as growth proves out the model, additional skill sets are required. However to rationalize the pigeon-holing for expedience sake as, “He/She doesn’t do this well” or “He/She did not do that” is a short cut that causes more turmoil than it fixes when the troops who fought the initial fight are told their role is “x” and they will take it or leave it.
Bottom line; transition from survival mode to growth mode is difficult enough. It is important to keep key contributors contributing. Without all the accomplishments of everyone, there would be no opportunity for the new execs to pigeon-hole. It is neither right nor wrong, it just is.
Comments