Exec churn is high in general, and I agree with the pp this is why many like to get to director level and chill!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That seems like a huge percentage. If these people are so vetted (multiple interviews, references, known in the industry), why is it like this?

People this driven are motivated by things a company isn’t offering. Fast increases in compensation. They leave while everyone still loves them. Rinse. Repeat. In all honesty they are the worst and don’t care anything about the company.

Companies should focus on raising and promoting their own children and not taking in these passersby.

Yeah, agreed here - our VPs or SVPs are typically gone within two years. Big pay, huge bonuses, and they know they won't hit numbers, but also are totally sure they'll land another gig that pays even more within 24 months. This is also why lots of people stop at director/senior director/executive director level and just make more money each year without the responsibility of a VP or above.

Or they hit their numbers and goals through unsustainable short term tactics and then leave before it catches up to them.

PP here, totally agree. Like sales execs who do things that are totally 100% against company goals. As a product owner, I want to punch out at least 50% of our current sales VPs/SVPs.

It's often the case that people fail to live up to expectations, and companies are intolerant of highly compensated employees who are not seen as sufficiently productive. Sometimes the "fit" isn't there, even it seemed like it would be during the interview phase - with more consistent interactions it becomes apparent that values, attitudes, personalities, etc lack sufficient alignment with existing management. In other cases, the company shifts direction/goals, and the relatively new hire's skills and capabilities are not suited for the change. Sometimes a new hire is someone's protege, and when that someone retires or leaves, the protege finds him/herself on the outs.

Anonymous wrote:This is true at my agency. Executive leadership turnover is so rapid that I've stopped bothering to learn names and connect. I rarely attend going away events/happy hours because I don't know the execs enough to care.

They treat the roles like a conquest/notch on their belts. The only thing many are remembered for is stupid and unnecessary division name changes (e.g., Records Management Division to Division of Managed Records).

So true. These major companies are so dumb kudos to those execs for taking them for all they can get and leaving. Meanwhile they crap on the middle management and senior analysts who do all the work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That seems like a huge percentage. If these people are so vetted (multiple interviews, references, known in the industry), why is it like this?

People this driven are motivated by things a company isn’t offering. Fast increases in compensation. They leave while everyone still loves them. Rinse. Repeat. In all honesty they are the worst and don’t care anything about the company.

Companies should focus on raising and promoting their own children and not taking in these passersby.

Yeah, agreed here - our VPs or SVPs are typically gone within two years. Big pay, huge bonuses, and they know they won't hit numbers, but also are totally sure they'll land another gig that pays even more within 24 months. This is also why lots of people stop at director/senior director/executive director level and just make more money each year without the responsibility of a VP or above.

Or they hit their numbers and goals through unsustainable short term tactics and then leave before it catches up to them.

But then why do companies keep hiring them over and over? What a joke.

Because board members are just like them.

This is true at my agency. Executive leadership turnover is so rapid that I've stopped bothering to learn names and connect. I rarely attend going away events/happy hours because I don't know the execs enough to care.

They treat the roles like a conquest/notch on their belts. The only thing many are remembered for is stupid and unnecessary division name changes (e.g., Records Management Division to Division of Managed Records).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That seems like a huge percentage. If these people are so vetted (multiple interviews, references, known in the industry), why is it like this?

People this driven are motivated by things a company isn’t offering. Fast increases in compensation. They leave while everyone still loves them. Rinse. Repeat. In all honesty they are the worst and don’t care anything about the company.

Companies should focus on raising and promoting their own children and not taking in these passersby.

Yeah, agreed here - our VPs or SVPs are typically gone within two years. Big pay, huge bonuses, and they know they won't hit numbers, but also are totally sure they'll land another gig that pays even more within 24 months. This is also why lots of people stop at director/senior director/executive director level and just make more money each year without the responsibility of a VP or above.

Or they hit their numbers and goals through unsustainable short term tactics and then leave before it catches up to them.

But then why do companies keep hiring them over and over? What a joke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That seems like a huge percentage. If these people are so vetted (multiple interviews, references, known in the industry), why is it like this?

People this driven are motivated by things a company isn’t offering. Fast increases in compensation. They leave while everyone still loves them. Rinse. Repeat. In all honesty they are the worst and don’t care anything about the company.

Companies should focus on raising and promoting their own children and not taking in these passersby.

Yeah, agreed here - our VPs or SVPs are typically gone within two years. Big pay, huge bonuses, and they know they won't hit numbers, but also are totally sure they'll land another gig that pays even more within 24 months. This is also why lots of people stop at director/senior director/executive director level and just make more money each year without the responsibility of a VP or above.

Or they hit their numbers and goals through unsustainable short term tactics and then leave before it catches up to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That seems like a huge percentage. If these people are so vetted (multiple interviews, references, known in the industry), why is it like this?

People this driven are motivated by things a company isn’t offering. Fast increases in compensation. They leave while everyone still loves them. Rinse. Repeat. In all honesty they are the worst and don’t care anything about the company.

Companies should focus on raising and promoting their own children and not taking in these passersby.

Yeah, agreed here - our VPs or SVPs are typically gone within two years. Big pay, huge bonuses, and they know they won't hit numbers, but also are totally sure they'll land another gig that pays even more within 24 months. This is also why lots of people stop at director/senior director/executive director level and just make more money each year without the responsibility of a VP or above.

Anonymous wrote:That seems like a huge percentage. If these people are so vetted (multiple interviews, references, known in the industry), why is it like this?

People this driven are motivated by things a company isn’t offering. Fast increases in compensation. They leave while everyone still loves them. Rinse. Repeat. In all honesty they are the worst and don’t care anything about the company.

Companies should focus on raising and promoting their own children and not taking in these passersby.

Because 99% of employers lie like rugs and smart executives leave when the see that.

That seems like a huge percentage. If these people are so vetted (multiple interviews, references, known in the industry), why is it like this?