The summit syndrome afflicts
extreme overachievers who thrive on challenge. They can be found in abundance
in tightly wired organizations—in the premier investment banks and consulting
firms; in start-ups; in semiconductor, computer, and software development
companies; and in the elite units of multiproduct corporations. These
supercharged individuals exult in winning, mastering new skills, acquiring
knowledge, and surpassing previous benchmarks of excellence. They are addicted
to their own adrenaline. But the rush from pushing beyond their limits tends to
dissipate once the new territory has been mastered; an identity built around
the galvanizing effects of meeting and conquering daunting challenges loses its
purchase as such people near the summit of a job’s learning curve. They can’t
or find it extremely difficult to motor along on flat terrain. An S-curve aptly
describes the rapid ascent to proficiency and the gradual loss of career
momentum that occurs when such individuals master a job. It’s near the top
where the troubles begin. (George D. Parsons and Richard T. Pascale, HBR, 2007).
The problem with this syndrome is
that is hard enough to identify and manage in a ‘normal’ business environment –
so when you add a global financial crisis to the mix, you are creating a
potential environment for many high achievers to succumb to summit syndrome and
for the organisation and the individual to completely miss the signs.
George Parsons and Richard
Pascale highlight in their brilliant 2007 article that “paradoxically, disorientation
at the summit is more profound for the more proficient. Those with the
smoothest glide to success in a challenging job tend to experience the greatest
degree of confusion. Costs to the individual can go way beyond dropped balls at
work or other slips in performance. Inner turmoil can build to the point where
it hurts health and family. The search for stimulation may lead to extramarital
misadventures or other self-destructive behaviour. Distraction and confusion
can result in bad career decisions, causing people to leave the fast track and
end up drifting from one job to another. They can join the ranks of those
highly promising men and women who somehow never managed to achieve the
positions or goals that colleagues and friends always assumed they would one
day claim.”
Within the syndrome successful
overachievers can start to blame themselves for a perceived crisis their
organisations are in, when no crisis actually exists. The personal internal
struggle with their genuine perception of their business ability, proved
through past performance, starts to conflict with the reality facing them and
they can find the turmoil too much to take.
Parsons and Pascale highlight how
in a ‘normal’ business environment, “the summit syndrome unfolds in three
phases, each with its own distinct indicators. The first is approaching the
crest of a job, when a person, having mastered most of the challenges of the
role, is nearing peak proficiency. This is a time when some may push harder to
recapture the adrenaline rush of the climb. The second phase is plateauing,
when the summit has been reached and virtually all of the challenges have been
conquered. While the less ambitious person is apt to coast at this point, the
overachiever bears down even harder to produce ever more stellar results. The
third phase is descending. It is the terminal stage of the syndrome, when a
leader’s job performance begins to slip noticeably, triggering an accelerating
slide. As the person’s superstar status fades, he jumps ship, accepts a
demotion, or takes a lateral transfer.”
This process for recognizing and
treating the summit syndrome can dissipate the disorientation that often
strikes overachievers as they approach or reach the crest of a job. It can
dispel the confusion and create a new context for a balanced, challenging, and
fulfilling working life. Once they can see and accept that their condition is
not unique, that a periodic reorientation is a natural and regenerative part of
the inner work of leadership, overachievers can look ahead with far greater
discernment. Generally speaking, better mental maps foster wiser choices.
Ultimately, some may decide to seek a different context in which to grow and
excel in their current organizations. Others may reflect, and then seek greener
pastures. Summit work separates signals from noise.
Organisations need to look after
their talent and not simple take historical performance as a guarantee of
future success. Also individuals need to become aware of the signs of ‘success
syndrome’ and not be too proud and stubborn not to act on them. The natural
instincts of the over-achiever are paradoxically to assume that this couldn’t
possibly happen to them – until of course it does – and even then they might
fight the concept. It then needs a ‘good friend’ to bring them down to earth,
help them analyse their own ‘personal’ strategy, looking at where they are now;
how they got their; and where they are going in the future; then re-defining
your personal career strategy with your eyes wide open and any pride and ego
safely stored away.
As Parsons and Pascale conclude,
“all parties—senior managers, human resource departments, and high performers
themselves—must remember that a successful career is not a straight line to the
top; it is a series of S-curves, each of which begins with a major promotion or
job redefinition. Confusion and loss of bearings come with the territory, but
they do not have to derail promising careers. Anticipating the summit syndrome,
recognizing its onset, and dealing with it in its earliest stages can
revitalize careers and propel talented leaders to greater heights.”
References
Parsons, G.D. and Pascale, R.T.
(2007). Crisis at the Summit. Harvard Business Review. March.
No comments:
Post a Comment