Who do we want to be running our companies? Who is the best person to hire? These are questions often asked, yet rarely answered well. Want proof? Look at the last few years at Hewlett Packard, where directions have been radically changed at the whim of the CEO, and has then been summarily fired- two in a row and counting.
Business claims it seeks the game changers, the impact players, folks that are many times better than their peers. (By the way, how could one be better than one’s peers? One should be peerless, if they exceed the norms…) But, in reality, they are afraid to deal with these people, because they don’t know how to handle them. (Those that do- and can accommodate- reap enormous benefits. Think 3M.)
What really needs to be done is to determine the abilities we need for the position, whether that be the CEO, the VP of R&D, or the computer programmer we seek. Do we seek resilience? Tenacity? Mental agility? Serenity in the face of adversity? What about hidden talents- how can one ascertain if the individual has them- and to ferret them out? Can these be determined in a single interview- or does this need multiple introductions and discussions?
Most entrepreneurial leaders are excitable, emotional, exuberant, and brash- while their counterparts at larger firms are typically dispassionate, measured, and methodical. No, that’s not all of them- just most, for both types. Does that mean that a larger firm can’t be run by an entrepreneurial type? Consider the Virgin Group and Sir Richard Branson. But, the reason he stands out is- just that. But on the other hand, Lou Gerstner, the IBM leader who helped turn that company around (1993-2002) still managed to make major changes. He was not a computer guy or even schooled in that discipline. Yet, IBM thought about the questions listed above and, therefore, chose to hire him away from another unrelated industry and gave him the authority to run IBM. I already talked about HP- should we be sanguine or pessimistic at its choice of Meg Whitman to replace the two turkeys they already chose?
Really, the CEO reflects the business needs of the organization. A startup must be brash to break into the big leagues. But, as it grows (‘matures’), its character often changes. Becoming predictable, responsible, and unemotional. When that happens, the founder often turns over the reins (more often, against his will) to an executive more in keeping with the new corporate image. Once a company is large enough (and there are different definitions of what that is), it becomes more important to continue doing what it did before better- not to take on new projects using the “ready, fire. aim” construct.
America- and most of the world- loves entrepreneurs, because they buck the trend. When they succeed, we believe that means each of us still has a chance. When they fail (especially when they are lobbied out of existence), we each lose a piece of us.
Let’s shake the timbers a little bit. It’s time to grow all of our businesses and adapt to the changes in the world.
Brilliantly put Roy. I totally agree.
Janine Ripper recently posted..Hurdles
Thanks so much for the approbation, Janine!
Roy
Roy:
This line just hit home “the CEO reflects the business needs of the organization” It’s about being flexible as well as adjusting to the challenges and changes of today’s market. With GenY, Baby Boomers, Gen X, etc…, employees are not only inter-generational but operate on different touchstones and value based systems. Companies have to learn to adjust with the times of it’s shareholder, employees and organization as a whole. Not find people to fit the mold. It’s all about innovation, creativity, making a difference and moving toward a building a better future that will have the best companies staying in the picture.
As entrepreneurs, we can learn so much from the experiences of other corporations and companies. Thanks you for posting this.
Thanks for the your great addition to the discussion, Jane.
You brought out the issues that need to be considered as a company grows and its demand for stewardship and leadership (those are NOT the same) change.
Roy
This explains what happens at Internet start-up that go supernova. They grow so fast that the founding CEO is still at the helm – wacky and daring – when stable stewardship is what the company needs by then.
David Leonhardt recently posted..Blogging Fail – how to tell a spam blog
As I wrote to Lisbeth, this, too, is not always true. Yes, some execs are still at the helm as the company goes supernova. And, some of them can handle the situation. Think of Seth Goldman and Honest Tea, as an example.
Roy
Roy, I couldn’t help but think about Apple as I read your story. Steve Jobs was forced out, only to come back and re-energize a dying brand. Kudos to the entrepreneur in that case. I think part of the problem is that public companies have to think about the bottom line – and are beholden to stockholders who only want to see positive growth. Companies that should really step back and retool to rebuild don’t often get that chance because it would hurt whatever profits they’re currently enjoying. So the choice of who’s at the top becomes one of expediency versus a rational business decision.
Lisbeth Tanz recently posted..Perceptions
Not quite sure it’s expediency, Lisbeth. It has to do with the ability of the leader to handle the press or stock analysts, to adhere to a plan that the board has developed/been a signatory, etc.
In Steve’s case, he brought on John Sculley- which was a brilliant move. Apple WAS floundering at the time (please, no hagiography). And Sculley and Jobs disagreed on the next steps for the company- with the board in agreement. The problem was that Sculley did not progress the plan either. So, he was “exited” NeXT was acquired to have Jobs join the firm again.
This is similar to what Google did. They brought in an adult (Eric Schmidt) to provide substantiation. Eric did a great job. But, Google has been floundering, Eric became exec Chair, and they are back in charge.
By comparison, the execs at New York Air, Palm (which had several changes as it grew, and then was acquired), Norton (now part of Symantec)… their execs needed changing as the company grew.
Roy
Great article. So many important things to have in mind.
Miss Lego recently posted..Mom’s b-day rocked!
Thanks, Miss Lego!
Given the number of pieces in a lego system, I am certain you can manage to keep those important things in focus:-)…
Roy
I like to look at continuums as a way of understanding there are phases in all things. Understanding the phase, I believe, is important when it comes to defining the type of leadership needed at a particular time. Having strengths that don’t match the current needs cannot inspire appropriate leadership. Great post…leadership is such an important topic, in business and in our own lives.
Tambre Leighn/coaching by tambre recently posted..Living Your To Do List or Your Life?
Tambre:
I believe this is yet another example explaining that those that do not study history (and seek its parallels) are only doomed to repeat it…
Roy
Love the way bureaucracy is just above death on the graph. Now if you think about who is hiring maybe we need to get the HR boffins out of the way of the hires and we could get companies to grow
Roberta recently posted..Stuck with trust issues?
Actually, Roberta, I would love to place the blame on the “HR boffins”- but I fear that the problems are much closer to the summit- and the compensation committees of those same corporations…
Roy
At the time a company grows it requires different guidence. Add this to the environment changes. Some times the conditions may vary to non predicatable situations –take Terry Francona’s case. The natural qualities a CEO should have are to big to find in one individual. The alternative is a guy capable to develope those qualities on the run, while keeping people believing in him.
Gustavo | Frugal Science recently posted..Frugal cartoon: updating wordpress.
Gustavo:
You are correct that companies need different attributes in a leader as it progresses through different phases. And, the CEO either must grow and learn- or will be left behind (or cause the demise/decay of the corporation).
Roy
Well said Roy and I certainly agree with support of the entrepreneur. With the way our economy has been turning things around, it sounds like you believe that entrepreneurship will be a key factor in turning our economy around?
I also wanted to add that my brother was a top executive, many years ago, for Oracle. He had worked for the company for more than 15 years. Then out of the blue with no notice, he and a group of his peers were all told they were receiving a years severance and thank you but we are looking for ‘a different mindset’. That was the verbiage they used. And my brother at the time was at the prime of his life (only 37 yrs old). So he and a few of the other guys that were let go, got together, formed a company and are now doing very well. I guess ‘a change of pace’ is something corporations like to do?
Lynn Brown recently posted..Check Your Linked Profile for Skills and Expertise
Lynn:
So sorry to hear about your brother. Unfortunately, that is among the changes for which Oracle has been famous. (Let us not forget the recent past where they bought the highly successful Flip camera- only to dump it [not even sell it to another entity] in less than a heartbeat….) I am thrilled they banded together to bring something new to the marketplace!
It is absolutely clear that it will take new companies bringing new products to the marketplace to turn this economy around. These entities will not only increase sales- they will augment the rolls of the employed!
Thanks for the addition to the discussion.
Roy