[tag]“Jumping the shark”[/tag] is a term that identifies the time when something goes from hot to not-so-hot. I think it got started when [tag]Fonzie[/tag] in [tag]Happy Days[/tag] went waterskiing and literally jumped over a shark. [tag]Garry Marshall[/tag] said at the time that they needed to do something outlandish to stem the ratings slide. It didn’t work, as the show was cancelled shortly thereafter, so now jumping the shark has been used to denote the start of an irreversible decline.
It is pretty much a given nowadays that employees are not as loyal to “the” company as we once were. Was there a jumping the shark moment in time that before, we were all loyal, but after, we weren’t? Or, was it a series of jumping the shark cultural happenings, attitudes or events?
What do you think?
No user commented in " “Jumping The Shark” and What Happened to the Loyalty Thing "
I’m wondering if aspects of it weren’t technological. In Silicon Valley, during Sun’s early heydays in the 80′s, a lot of engineering talent was flowing from company to company, the tie binding them being that they stayed working on Sun systems. Suddenly, people were able to stay in touch much more easily and recruiting became pretty hot and heavy, locally and globally.
I’m wondering if the spread of those types of communication networks and common platforms has spurred a lot of this and that it spread regionally as well as over time.
I’ve never understood the “Jumping the Shark” phrase – thank you for explaining it to me!
I think the company-loyalty question is more a direct result of the current economic climate – both in terms of “are we in a recession” and the unemployment rate (which are closely related but not always connected).
Upon reflection, if we could pinpoint a time or company who axed employees simply because they missed a quarter, that would make a good start of the decline. In other words, when ‘our’ kids saw that being loyal was not necessarily a two way street. Or, when short term gains become more important than long term ones.
I don’t think there was any one thing. Instead, I think there were a number of things that mostly happened between the mid-seventies and the turn of the century. There was increasing emphasis on constant company growth and quarterly earnings. This meant that senior managers were likely to be rewarded for making short term decisions to lay people off without regard for the longer term implications. There were all kinds of slick financial moves including leveraged buyouts and scandals including the S & L, dot-com, and Enron debacles where it was clear that some folks at the top were intent on doing well and were willing to lie to employees in the process. Example: Ken Lay selling Enron stock while he urged employees to hold their share. And, big one, there was the re-engineering, downsizing movements. By now there are people who have worked their entire careers at companies where top management didn’t appear to care about employees lower on the food chain.
Perhaps too. us baby boomers being the ‘me’ generation saw ourselves first as computer programmers or fork lift drivers and not Company ABC’s men or women.
I like Wally’s idea, just an un intended consequence of such an earnings focus?
So, technology, generations and financial demands all combined for something..whether or not there was a clear jump the shark moment appears hazy.
Great question. I’d suggest that rampant downsizing is the culprit. That began in the late 70s as the economic boom that began after WWII came to a grinding halt.
According to a terrific NYTimes article about downsizing, “Labor Department statistics show that more than 36 million jobs were eliminated between 1979 and 1993, and an analysis by The New York Times puts the number at 43 million through 1995.”
Here’s a link to the full article: http://www.nytimes.com/specials/downsize/03down2.html#1
- Mike
http://eosmikepaton.blogspot.com/
I’m not sure loyalty is the right word to use. If the stewards of the company do their job to grow the company and keep it healthy and the employees do their job by being productive and improving their skills, loyalty doesn’t come into play…the company is a great place to work and be challenged and management has productive employees who are always “sharpening the saw” when it comes to their skills.
The loyalty “card” tends to get played by the party who isn’t contributing as much anymore and is at risk. It’s the corporate version of the word “fair” that we teach our kids about. Life isn’t fair, get used to it.
GL,
I would tend to agree with Mike’s comment, however, since as a society we love to over-simplify and put labels on things (makes them easier to remember?) if I had to pick one for the demise of the Puritan Work Ethic myth it would be the day in 1992 when IBM announced that they too were going to have layoffs for the first time in their history.
Big Blue had long been the icon of the implicit contract between employer and employee, and when they found that they could no longer sustain the fantasy of job security for loyalty it came as an epiphany to millions men in gray flannel suits.
Mike, Wally, Scott and Dave—I agree. There isn’t truly a jumping the shark moment, as all these factors played into this reality. Scott’s point is, of course, true…if both stewards and employees do their part. And, if outside influences are always planned and budgeted for.
New point: with the upcoming drain as the baby boomers leave the workforce, how will companies compete with an INCREASING level of employees who will leave for almost any reason. It is sure to get tougher, isn’t it?
GLH
Dave—were you involved with IBM back in 1992? I am wondering if they had a hard time re building executive talent after this first layoff?
GLH
GL,
I wasn’t involved with IBM in ’92 per se; I had been involved with ExecuNet since ’88 which I started after I got RIF’d from a pharma company but I certainly was a close observer since most of our members back then came as corporate refugees like myself.
Fast forwarding, at least it has become very clear over time that people actually internalized the fact that no one cares about you more than you, and you really are in charge of managing your own career.
Over the years, the way we have measured this is by the fact that the makeup of our membership has shifted dramatically to the point where 70% are currently employed, and are members because they feel it is more important that they happen to the world rather than just sitting back and letting the world happen to them.
To your question regarding recruiting going forward, recession or no recession, the dearth of executive talent coupled with the demograhics will, in my opinion, tend to keep the market more in balance than one might otherwise expect, and the data from our 2008 Executive Job Market Intelligence Report that we recently released supports that theory.
Loyalty never went away if it wasn’t there to begin with. The aberration is that we may be imagining a past that was either transitory or inflated in memory. My sense is that a lucky few had lifetime employment, but a majority of people moved between jobs frequently. What is different is that Americans now suffle not just between jobs, but between cities.
Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the labor market become more dynamic when two-earner couples became the norm? That gives a lot more financial stability (to fund one spouse who takes a risk by changing jobs), but also creates more churn inside companies as women enter and leave and re-enter, etc. I’d like to think that is a great development.
Tim,
Great points. I think you are right about the two income families providing some amount of flexibilty in the search for meaningful and happier work.
People are less willing to ‘settle’ on a job just because it is there.
stop by often.
GLH
Another JUMPING THE SHARK moment: When David Kelley, the genius behind BOSTON LEGAL went with the cross-dressing legal assistant who had a female alter-ego, followed by Jerry, the whore chasing, weirdo lawyer who carries blow up dolls in his briefcase. Other than that, William Shatner, James Spader and Candice Bergen (I can remember when she was hot) are fun to watch.
GLH