Recently, I met a man who had headed no less than three mid-size companies, all before the ripe age of 45. He hadn't been sacked from any of these companies - his serial CEO-ship was a matter of choice.
He styled himself a "start-up" man. This meant he specialised in setting up companies and moving on.
Before he discovered this vocation, he had worked in a wide variety of companies from cement manufacturing to Internet retailing in various capacities in several countries. The experience, he said, perfectly seriously, gave him a unique perspective of business.
In today's employment market, such a variegated CV would hardly be worthy of surprise. It is, in fact, par for the course. In BPO outfits, senior executives who have been around for more than three years jokingly say they are "pensionable". Elsewhere, too, it has become standard for hard-nosed young professionals to give themselves a five-year window to gain experience and move on.
For companies, this carousel approach to jobs has inevitably become a source of constant despair. Which is why departments designated to deal with such matters are rapidly evolving. Thus, yesterday's baldly labelled 'Personnel' department has metamorphosed into today's more politically correct 'Human Resources' or 'Talent' department.
Where Personnel comfortably dealt with payroll, leave applications and such mundane matters as the annual office picnic, HR or Talent must cope with a complex environment of attrition and retention rates, among other complications.
'Personnel' was usually the place where non-performing executives were put out to grass. Today, the HR or Talent head is described as a 'strategic partner' of the CEO/business as they struggle to synchronise employee costs and productivity.
Widespread job restlessness and the concomitant evolution of the human resources function are, of course, a good sign of the times. The Manpower Employment Outlook Survey published yesterday suggests that the talent shortage is unlikely to abate anytime soon. Forty-one per cent of the 4,700-odd respondents said they would increase hiring levels in the first quarter of 2007.
You can sense the mounting HR challenges in article after earnest article commenting on the "battle for talent" today. The journals these days are full of HR experts who insist that there's more to retention than compensation. Job satisfaction, they tell you, is what it's all about.
Yet, as India's economy accelerates, compensation levels seem to relentlessly touch new heights and no retention technique seems to work for long.
One constant paradox is that any HR manager I talk to roundly insists that his company's attrition rates are below the industry average. Yet, the efforts to retain people - from Chief Fun Officers appointed in BPOs to generous loan schemes - appear to become more frenzied and almost amusing by the day.
Contrast this with the years after independence and before economic liberalisation. My father, for instance, worked nearly 40 years for the same company. He headed it for 17. During this time, he turned down many lures for similar positions from multinationals and a lucrative offer from the World Bank.
He was hardly an exception in his generation in India. In fact, chaps who jumped jobs more than once in those days were considered (often unfairly) vaguely shiftless.
Me, I think they were the lucky ones who were able to exercise a choice within India. The Chosen Ones, who graduated from premier government engineering and management institutions, usually found more challenging outlets and more lucrative markets for their talents in the UK and the US. But for many with decent university degrees, the job opportunities were extremely limited.
Those were the days of a muscular economic nationalism, of "import substitution" and FERA, where corporate activity was rationed by the MRTP and the licensing czars on Raisina Hill.
So people mostly stuck it out in one company, or perhaps two. Job frustrations were borne in a variety of ways, golf and alcohol being two favourite techniques for senior executives.
By the standards of my father's generation, I am moderately guilty. My career began with Rajiv Gandhi's clumsy attempts to partially liberalise the economy when economic journalism started to flourish as a result.
Nevertheless, I have changed jobs only twice over a 22-year career. Spending nearly two decades in one company and one profession these days is considered something of a liability. It suggests lack of marketability or ambition.
Where my father's generation would have applauded, today's young professional regards me with either shock or vague pity. Given today's job market, I suspect the young professional is probably right.
The views here are personal.
