Switching jobs, Lateral Moves, McDonald’s and Passive Funds
Three pieces that stood out for me last week:
HBR had this 2015 study on switching jobs and I cannot agree more with the findings. Gone are the days when you stuck around one job, climbing the corporate ladder one position after another. The study finds that job switching every few years has become more acceptable, given that you are learning new skills. ‘The idea is that if you’re a valuable employee, the company wants to get as many years as they can out of your career — and those years may not all be in a row,’ the report states. Moreover, it’s no longer unacceptable to rehire the employees who left you in pursuit of a better option outside and now want to come back again. Perhaps not a bad idea to also discuss with your current boss that you are searching for a new job, not to drive bargaining to get a better salary, but to inspire a discussion on what’s missing in your current role that can be improved. Also, gaps in employment — if you can explain why — are gaining acceptance. The one advice that stood out for me is about lateral moves: ‘given how flat companies are today, there’s often nowhere to go in your current job or in another one. You should focus on finding interesting work rather than worrying about lateral moves’. There is a lot in this study to absorb and though it was written a few years back, I believe the findings are even more true and relevant today. What do you think?
I sometimes enjoy reading the Lunch with FT series for the casual wrapping these casual lunches and dinners put on serious business topics. This week’s, with McDonald’s Chris Kempczins, is quite interesting in many ways. It touches on McDonald’s continued success driven by its 3D strategy (Digital ordering, Drive-through and Delivery), the exit of the last CEO, and the future of the plant based meats. The setting is, of all the places, a McDonald’s joint. Kempczins claims that he eats at least two of his daily meals at McDonald’s, which sounds both unhealthy and unbelievable. In any case, the essay makes for an interesting read.
Finally, The Economist came out with a thorough report on investing in its last issue, and while all the essays make for a useful read, this one on ‘How index investing is reshaping the asset-management industry’, stands out. According to the report the beta is becoming free; the bigger the fund, the larger the revenues, which in turn keep the costs down as the cost does not rise at the same pace. It’s mostly the wages of research analysts and office space. The other significant shift is driven as a result of success of passively managed funds. ‘The virtue of passive funds is their low cost; they buy stocks in the index or whatever the quantitative screen prescribes. There is no need to think deeply about the companies behind the securities,’ the report concludes. However, ‘that virtue is also a vice. Investors increasingly care about what companies do. And many active asset managers hope to have a living from that.'
A quote that I came across:
The ability to de-escalate a tense situation into a calm one is a superpower.
— James Clear
