Should you rotate your managers? A lesson from GE

When I was an MBA student in the late 1990s, Jack Welch and GE were required reading. Years later, I'm struck by how much of it still applies.

One idea in particular: the professional manager. As part of what Welch called the boundaryless organization, GE built a cadre of managers who could succeed in any division. They were picked for strategic and analytical ability, not technical skill, and rotated through the business every two to three years.

By the time they reached senior leadership, they knew every facet of the company. They could make decisions for the whole business, and avoid the traps that catch people who have only ever seen one corner of it.

Could that work in IT today? I think so. I'll use IT as the lens, but swap service desk, networking, security, and the data center for finance, marketing, and manufacturing, and the argument holds.

(The usual caveat: this is one tool for the toolbox. But if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)

A short stint focuses the mind

Rotating managers know their time is limited. It's long enough to learn how a division really works, and not so long that they get lost in the technical weeds. They stay motivated, they avoid burnout, and they want to leave a mark before they go.

Knowing they'll move on also lifts their eyes. They think about the business as a whole, not only what's best for their current team.

The cynical view is that a newcomer will make bad decisions because they don't know enough. Fair. But the fix is also the benefit: the new manager has to ask line managers and subject matter experts for input. That's collaboration you want anyway. And if someone won't listen, the damage is limited and you can coach or replace them.

What it does for the team

Some leaders expect orders to be carried out without question or explanation. That might work for a charismatic visionary. For everyone else, it fails.

A rotating manager can't lead that way. They have to listen to learn how the division works, then apply what they saw elsewhere. That leaves the staff free to focus on the work while the manager focuses on the business need.

It also builds resistance to shiny objects. How many times have you watched a salesperson sell something to an organization that had no idea how to implement it? A manager who has seen several divisions is harder to dazzle, and more likely to look at a purchase from more than one angle.

Get HR on board first

Would this survive today's hiring culture? The prevailing approach is to fill every position with someone who already has the experience. There's little patience for developing people, and plenty of fear that they'll leave once you do.

Run the numbers instead. If your people aren't easily replaced, weigh the higher engagement, better retention, and stronger leaders against what turnover costs you.

Then bring HR a specific development plan. Otherwise, as with any project that skips the requirements, you'll get what HR thinks you want.

Measure it

At the end of each rotation, score it. Use a 360-degree survey plus a few indicators such as customer satisfaction, turnover, specific accomplishments, and alignment with strategy. Pick the measures that fit your organization.

It takes care and feeding

Is there risk? Absolutely. Nothing people pursue is perfect, and anything noble can be corrupted by self-interest. (Apologies for the philosophy.)

Senior leaders have to coach and evaluate their rotating managers, and build a culture and incentives that reward the organization's success. Done well, rotation makes it harder for empire builders and ego feeders to take root.

If you try it, plan for all of it:

• Selecting candidates for fit and aptitude
• Coaching and supporting them through each rotation
• Evaluating consistently, with criteria everyone knows
• Spotting poor performers early, then coaching or removing them
• Telling the divisions what to expect
• Providing whatever training supports the move

Final thought

Today's IT managers are mostly hired to contribute technically. The demand for "working managers" suggests leadership wants more from fewer people, with quarterly results as the scoreboard.

I believe performance comes from motivation and engagement at every level. Manager rotation is one way to build both.

P.S. Consider rotating your technical experts through the business units too. What would they learn, and what would they build? Hmm, I wonder.

A longer version of this article first appeared on LinkedIn in 2017. Read the original there.