He explained that some of these people were hired growth and growth is elusive. Those hired for regular business are either hired for growth are still learning. Therefore, it is better to retain the tenured people.

The logic was perfect. But was it correct?

I told Mittal while it sounds great, have we checked the performance data? Mittal replied that I am sure that performance data was one of the inputs. I agreed with him and walked out of his office.

I met the CHRO. Let us call him Sud. I asked Sud to give me the performance data of those who have been asked to leave and those who were retained. I realised that most of the people who were going to be asked to leave were preforming better than their counterparts who were being retained.

I smiled at the data and asked Sud if he had seen the data.

Sud: No, I haven’t seen the data. We are aligned with the business and rely on their judgement.

Me: Sud, I prefer not to rely on my judgement, especially in such a large organization.

Sud: Then what do you suggest? How should we go about it? Should we disagree with the business unit head?

Me: No. We go with the facts.

Sud: But you always say that we should align with the business and support the business.

Me: I still say align with the business, not necessarily with the business head.

Sud: Should we go against business heads?

Me: No. We are not against business heads. We are working with them for a common goal of driving high performance and retaining high performers.

Sud: So, what should I do?

Me: HR should be business aligned, data driven, and transparent

Sud: What should I do?

Me: Map the performance data of those in the exit list alongside the performance data of the peer group. Suggest possible replacement of the names with low performing colleagues. Propose shifting the high performing low tenure colleagues in their place.

Send the data to the business head and the CEO. Request for a meeting and explain to them what the data is suggesting. Ask them to decide.

Sud did exactly that. Two days later he called me to tell me that the list was changed, and the high performers were replaced by dead wood in the system.

Why do we have LIFO syndrome?

-Newcomers were hired because the dead wood was not performing. There is a high chance that the newcomers are performing. They do not have enough time to build relationship.
-The dead wood was invested in building relationships and survives because of relationships.
-Managers are concerned about alignment more than performance.

To avoid LIFO, a framework for nominating people to the list should be put in place with most of the criteria quantitative and verifiable. However, we will discuss this when we talk about what companies should do to address LIFO in our next series.

This series is focussed on helping individuals build careers despite the organizational constraints, that are prevalent in many organizations. These constraints must be managed.

What should individuals do:

1. If the economy or the industry is not growing avoid changing jobs.
2. If you must change jobs and are destined join a certain company, besides performing please try to find a mentor who can protect you in case of an untoward incidence. Performance is a must. There is no compromise on performance.
3. In addition, try to build relationship with the manager if possible. It will be difficult as others may have stronger relationship already.
4. If HR is strong keep them informed about your performance and challenges. Seek their advice on how to build relationships and with whom.
5. If none of the above work, keeping looking for a job in a company that is growing. You will have to work hard. But that is better.

Have observed LIFO syndrome? How did you manage it? Please let me know in the comment box.