1 reason orgs hire experienced folks is because they have a gap to fill. The knowledge doesn’t exist internally & they need it to continue to succeed/progress. Bringing people from different backgrounds & exps is good. It stops an echo chamber forming. What isn’t good is... /1

bringing those people in & expect them to fit your way only. What you get when you hire someone externally is different ideas/environments. If they come from a different org, there'll be time for them to settle into way that works for both of you, however this works both ways /2

You cannot hire in experienced leaders & expect them to not bring that experience & knowledge of what also does/doesn't work. Yes, they must also be willing to learn but so should the org. If you hire people in & force them into your mould, they'll leave & you're back at sq 1. /3

If your org has 1) a high turnover of staff & 2) a short avg tenure of experienced hires, consider why. Are they being welcomed, respected & listened to? Or have you brought them in & disregarded them bc they are "different". Let's not forget the lens of gender, ethnicity, etc /4

This is all data. Capture it & analyse it every quarter so you can see trends. Do you have a leavers survey? Is it succinct and allow for a clear understanding of tenured vs experienced and additional lenses of gender, ethnicity, etc. If not, you're not utilising it correctly. /5

Once you have this analysis, there must be accountability. If there is a trend of senior experienced folks leaving, what will you do? You *should* discuss this making it clear what you've found out & what the main reasons for leaving are. There is potentially a culture problem /6

What will you do now you realise that the culture may not be as inclusive for some as it is for others? You can either do nothing (don't do that) or start talking about this transparently. There'll need to be discussions with tenured staff to understand their views/ideas too /7

These must be safe space discussions to share of perceptions (remember, you have the leavers analysis here too, w/ trends). And afterwards, there must be a clear understanding of how onboarding works, how communication styles work for *everyone* & what happens when they don't /8

Humans are humans & there will be times people revert back to old habits. Again, accountability is key here. What are you doing when this is raised *again* about experienced people feeling like they can't succeed or stay because of X, Y or Z reason? /9

You have to be able to have difficult conversations. As a manager/leader/etc, if you cannot deliver difficult news, then you aren't doing your job. Everything isn't sunshine & rainbows & poor behaviour will need to be called out professionally. Support mechs must be in place /10

There's balance here. Experienced & tenured should work hand in hand bc you need both! For this to work in sync, there must be clear accountability, communication & support for all - especially underrep'd hires coming in trying to be heard bc... well that's why you hired them /11

If reason for someone not being good enough is "They don't think like us" or "They don't do things our way", remember... that's why you hired them. Internally, you don't have the knowledge they have, so you need it. Yes, balance is needed on working styles etc, but be honest. /12

If you hear this & your trends in leavers backs it up, you'll see gatekeeping of who is/isn't good enough. Usually with tenure, there'll be group think as quite often, orgs do not have a diverse employee based to begin with. Therefore, tenured group may be more homogenous /13

So, knock on effect is - you hire for exp you need; they're not same as the folks who are already there; you don't like that; they feel disrespected/unwelcome; they leave; you're back at square 1.

You need both. Remember that. Use your data to spot trends & be accountable. /end

PS I am writing a book on all this fun stuff with @KoganPage, due for release in April 2021 - so if you find this & my other threads/articles useful, keep an eye out for that soon