CORPORATE LEADERS: WHAT KIND OF DIRECT SUBORDINATES DO YOU PREFER?

To complete my serial write-ups on leadership shared previously, I wish to culminate now as the ending sequel by first posing a few pondering questions for chief executives and human resource directors to reflect on. I hope to prompt them to consider thinking out of the normal box……or better still, adopt a new perception box. Like it or not, modern era management has evolved to try out new concepts that create fresh opportunities for better company results, albeit perhaps facing some possible risks. It is a matter of weighing the intensity of probable opportunities against the likelihood of risk level. The same phenomenon should apply when it comes to recruitment or selection of key officers and candidates for senior roles. Leadership of a leader starts with recruitment – to bring in the type of team members he wants to lead. In fact, it is the primary role. Without a proper team, the other leadership actions become insignificant.

   

FOR PONDER OF CHIEF EXECUTIVES:

·        # For appointment of a candidate to be your direct subordinate, would you choose an individual who is very confident but prefers to work independently without tight supervision, or one who is an average personality but subservient? Alternatively, would you prefer to recruit someone you know personally, or would you explore to engage a “stranger” with proven stronger credentials?

FOR PONDER OF HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTORS & HIRING OFFICERS:

·        # Should your company’s recruitment policy be stringently underpinned by a candidate’s technical work experience that relates wholly to the job scopes of the vacancy concerned? Or would you prefer a profile that extrapolates to other lines of experience in addition to the one linked to the main job scopes? Do you solely look at the historical job functions of a candidate, or do you also consider his/her side skills and interests in addition to the relevant specific work experiences? Alternatively put, would you look for a candidate who just fully fits the job scopes, or would you consider one who meets some of the job scopes but known to have side flairs that could be harnessed to add value?

My questions are obviously prodding ones. Indeed, I intend to prompt corporate leaders reflect whether there is a need to adopt new think boxes for future manpower appointment, particularly the vital or senior positions.  The ensuing contents present some invoking perspectives with regard to recruitment decisions. A wholesome corporate leader does not only pay attention to directing and leading subordinates; equally important, he ensures the entry of the right new recruits to support him. On the ancillary side, the recruitment policy cast in stone by his human resource department depicts the manpower “label” of the company, i.e. whether the workforce structure is along rigid parameters of work requirements, or with extended flexibility to grant related variety.

Let me touch on the top echelon first.  From my years of personal observations, many chief executive officers (CEOs) prefer to select subservient and known individuals as their direct subordinates. They still hang on to the old norm, perhaps to play safe and protect their own turf by avoiding possible disloyalty and dissent.  I neither contend their conventional view is impractical nor contending it should be phased out because of being obsolete.  It depends on two determining factors: (1) Management acumen of the CEO concerned. (2) Current demand characteristics of the business situation at hand.

Let us simulate a technically equipped CEO who is sterling in running the overall operations of his company. He is astute to steer the company according to his confidence. He dominates by being the sole decision maker on important matters pertaining to business directions, at the same time facilitating constant advices and instructions to direct subordinates. A candidate of strong personality and capability who likes to act independently will not fit in comfortably as deputy CEO. Rather, someone who can implement the directives from the topmost with utmost diligence will be better fit. The hands-on chief needs a capable implementer, not direction maker, so that there is no divergence from already paved paths laid by him. Just one caution: The all-rounder dominant - also likely domineering – playmaker will get exhausted sooner or later in the long run; his deputy may not gather sufficient clout to make sound decisions since he has all along been cultured to be a directive implementer, not direction paver. This is a classic example of the direction giving leadership style.

Look at another simulation – a chief with profound administration background requires a sales maestro as his deputy to revolutionise the business growth of the corporation, as desired by the shareholders. Since the priority now is to expand business prominently, the CEO should select a zestful personality exuding ostensible confidence in devising strategies to penetrate the market prominently. Being an administrative protagonist but not a sales guy, the chief honcho could set an understanding upfront with this sales driver to complement one another for mutual expediency. The CEO may improvise service innovations to support the team under his deputy who is fully empowered to propel sales activities. Meanwhile, the deputy can provide feedback to his boss on the service needs of the sales force and clientele for the sake of further bolstering administrative improvements to support sales. Such is the benefit of co-dependency – each focussing on what he knows to do best, yet synergising one another’s respective strengths. This is a classic example of synergy facilitating leadership style.

Some management advisers propound that chief executives should be cautious in delegating empowerment to direct subordinates, especially to their deputy. They postulate that full delegation of any vital function to a strong-willed outstanding No. 2 may equate to relegation of that authority from the No. 1. Well, on one hand, I concur with them to some extent; on the other hand, I opine this could be managed…….by stipulating upfront that the CEO has the prerogative to generally oversee (not instruct) the work activities of his deputy. To oversee means to be updated periodically on progress of initiatives launched by the subordinate and the privilege to offer inputs. For instance, the CEO may comment when the sales scores under the ambit of his deputy at the time of a periodic review is short of the to-date budget; the paramount chief should be respected to offer critique, yet leave to his deputy to re-improvise catch-up strategies. Such is a classic example of encouragement cum guidance rendering leadership style.

Now, we talk about recruitment philosophies. An emerging new manpower deployment norm promulgates the philosophy which considers the extended qualities of a person vying for a senior position - such as outstanding hobbies, dexterity type, flair, tenacity, experiences beyond the job scopes etc.  For example, a previous copywriter of an advertising firm who later reaped accolades in insurance sales may be the right candidate for chief marketing officer of a life insurance corporation. He would have the added advantage for scripting captivating life product sales collaterals, plus designing branding campaigns. In contrast, a mere marketing strategist could not handle product collaterals and branding profoundly if engaged. Another example: To handle special projects implementation, a management consultant who is also an avid trainer in team building programmes may be better tasked for driving coordination synergy cross departments compared to a backroom corporate planner. The new mind-set looks beyond the pure work experiences and academic qualifications of candidates for relevant peripheral attributes.

The corporate world in established nations has evolved into a sphere of innovative diversity. Thinking out of the existing box is beginning to phase out as old norm. Creating new think boxes is seeping in as the new norm. That is why innovative disruption strategists are in demand now. No doubt a homogenous recruitment philosophy - which prefers candidates manifesting qualities that purely match the job requirements of openings - ensures continuity of the business-as-usual mode. However, the homogenous approach may stifle the emergence of new thrusts via fresh ideas. A homogenous work culture resulted from the homogenous recruitment approach spawns mundanity into the entire manpower. And mundanity breeds slow group performance progression…….unless changes due to diversity set in.

Despite the new incoming trend, many human resource (HR) heads and hiring managers still abide the old norm of selecting a candidate rigidly based on whether he fully matches the specific job requirements. I guess they wish to play safe, to avoid the risk of hiring someone who may turn out not being able to perform competently. Perhaps, they do not want to face any tail-end issues with regard to dealing with under-performing employees later on. And I empathise with them on this sentiment to some extent. Why should they try out a new recruitment approach when the existing one assures much lesser risks? Although flexibility could cater for variety in terms of wider skill and experience spread, not necessary such guarantees securing better candidates.

I know an actual case whereby the engagement of a new customer service centre head in a leading life insurance corporation in Malaysia turned out anomalous. The key officers in charge concurred to look outside the insurance industry for a candidate having wider customer-centric interactive experiences. Someone who could instil more impactful “moments of truth” to customers was sought. They brought in a lady from a prominent telco entity, thinking that her involvement in innovating effective initiatives for greater customer satisfaction would be a positive quality. Alas, it was not so. Although she could noticeably reduce the waiting time for customers and achieved shorter attending span per customer by introucing a service speed guide for adherence by her frontline staff, yet numerous complaints emerged because many customers felt they were brushed off quickly just for the sake of speed.

Without any previous work experience in the life insurance industry, she did not realise the service genre in life insurance business was much different than services in the telco industry. The former was more complex than the latter in terms of rendering advice, especially in relation to terms and conditions contained in the legal insurance policy contract which normally required elaborations. I learned from a couple of friends (senior officers there) that two flaws prevailed in the engagement process. *The hiring side should have picked a candidate with some past work experience in an insurance company besides the telco stint if they wanted to try out the new recruitment method. The combined exposure would have been a sounder selection basis. * No familiarisation programme on the technical aspects was arranged for the new head before putting her on the job. She was not granted time to first acquire the necessary knowledge. Ultimately, she accepted a mutual separation package offered by the company because she failed to alleviate the customer complaint debacle.

The above case highlights a pre-emptive caution in respect of trying out a new norm for recruitment -  EXERCISE PROACTIVE DISCERNMENT. Any relaxation of an old norm for catering flexibility and variety as part of a new norm ought to be discerningly thought-through first before implementation. Had both the HR and hiring sides prudently pre-empted the two imminent flaws, had they pro-acted to apply at least one of the foreseeable solutions under (1) or )2) if not both, the recruitment outcome would not be an anomaly. The second pertinent point is, key officers who wish to try out any new norm - be it in manpower selection or any other jurisdiction area – must be endowed with the necessary prerequisites to do so. Caveat: Do not try out a new method if you are not yet equipped to administer assuredly. Do not try out just for the sake of wanting change unless you are already well prepared.

By now, I believe readers holding senior ranks may agree that the opening questions posed by me at the beginning of this article are quite subjective, depending on circumstances. Obviously, the responses from chief executives, HR directors and hiring managers also reflect different situations that support subjective answers from them. Thus, I expect they will not propound any firm right or wrong answers as the onus lies on what is already placed at their doors. Their answers echo their preference pertaining to homogeneity VS diversity, also considering the possible risks emanating from diversity.

Like it or not, some consultants now fervently sow recommendations for adopting diversity in manpower management.  Katie Spearitt, CEO and founder of Diversity Partners, expounds her belief for moving away from homogeneity. Interviewed by a management magazine, she remarked: “If we’re all working with people we like, what that means is that we’re not working with people who will challenge us, who will give us a different perspective, who might offer us feedback about how to do something differently.” She views these characteristics as important in today’s workplace. Lynda Clark, Director at William Buck, expressed that diversity is a central pillar of corporate innovation mind-set. She prefers to recruit people who have different subskills to the traditional skills, otherwise “we’re not doing anything different.” She then added: “The successful candidate should be not the one you like the most………..not the one who has the same background as you – it’s the best person for the role.”

Engaging the right officers for the right jobs emanates from the recruitment stage. Inevitably, attrition occurs along the way, either because of retirement or migration to other pastures. A sound recruitment approach serves as the vital tool to ensure the right candidates replace those who leave.  “Venturous” recruiters of upcoming entities going for “disruptive innovation” strategies are willing to expand the description scopes for identifying suitable candidates. In addition to essential work experiences, academic qualifications and technical knowledge, they also consider personal characteristics, side interests, special skills, flair and dexterity holistically relevant to the job concerned. No guarantee the new mind-set will not be exposed to judgement flaws, but may be minimal if discerned meticulously.

An advertised job description (JD) format determines the type of candidates drawn in to apply. Most of the “standard” JDs I have seen merely outline the assigned functions, the academic qualifications and the required experiences. Few provide a brief snapshot of some extra prerequisites like preparedness to travel (whether frequently or occasionally) or flexibility to work longer hours when needed.  Hardly do I see one that encourages applicants to depict their hobbies/side interests and achievements in that regard, for example, any awards/achievements related to the side activities? Such additional information about an applicant may assist recruitment officers form impressions on the characteristics of the candidate before being called for interview. 

Just simulate a case whereby a renowned corporation is seeking for a chief financial officer calibre who can write elaborative recommendation reports for consideration by the board of directors and shareholders. A qualified accountant merely adept in spotting relevant financial data may not suffice. A financial analyst by experience exhibiting writing flair plus analytical prowess may be good fit. If his resume cites he has written financial articles published in financial magazines – better still, he has authored at least one book – bingo! If the JD only lists out the basic requirements and functions of the role, the suitable candidate may likely not have thought of narrating his avid side interest for scripting. If I were the hirer, I would discourse with the candidate more on his writing achievements during interview with him if I knew his scripting flair.

CONCLUSION:

I do not profess new norms for manpower appointment must be the order of the day from henceforth. I only encourage key officers ponder on “alternatives” available to them. Those who prefer the “play safe” norm and not prepared to be venturous may persist to suit their work culture and disposition. However, they should then bear in mind that continuing to tread on the present home turf without venturing out usually caters for business-as-usual mode at the expense of missing positive possibilities. For any corporation to thrust forward, vibrant manpower has to be in place first – to put the best people in the right jobs, so to speak. In order to reform manpower for better proficiency, it inevitably concerns the recruitment stage. That aspect hinges very much on the CEO’s mind-set in respect of what type of senior manpower he prefers to helm – the subservient implementer (serves according to directives received ) personality who can be trusted to loyally toe the line, or the assertive driver (performs best by being empowered) personality whom he may not feel comfortable to deal with? What he has in mind will formulate the recruitment philosophy of his HR department.

Let me elaborate by using an analogy of the mainframe computer deployed by a corporation. The CEO represents the corporation. In reality, a mainframe processes data vital for the business of the organisation. It generates outputs based on the quality types of inputs fed into it. Let us also say the inputs represent the new senior recruits being fed into the senior team. Obviously, quality new senior personnel joining the fold will contribute improved results in the name of the team, just like quality inputs channelled into a real mainframe will churn out better quality processed data and information. An IT friend once told me: “When you feed in the wrong user requirements into the machine, wrong data will be churned out……garbage in, then garbage out.” In the same analogical thinking, organisations should understand the importance of feeding quality new manpower into the workforce machine……quality recruits in, quality results out.

Notwithstanding my above verbiage expressing diversified perspectives, I end with these statements for contemplation of CEOs, key officers and HR directors:  If you feel comfortable recruiting by the homogenous and “confined” approach for the sake of not rocking the conventional boat, please continue. But bear in mind you and your organisation may miss out prominent candidates to competitor organisations which are willing to extrapolate out of the normal think box for more venturous recruitment.  The choice is yours…….persist the status quo, or adapt to the new incoming trends like some other corporations have begun to do.

Reflective Quotes:

“If we’re working with people we like, what that means is that we’re not working with people who will challenge us, who will give us a different perspective, who might offer us feedback about how to do something differently.” (Dr. Katie Spearritt)

“Recruitment is marketing. If you’re a recruiter nowadays and you don’t see yourself as a marketer, you’re in the wrong profession.” (Mathew Jeffrey, Global head of sourcing and employment brand in SAP)

“We can raise the A talent bar, but you have to do something different. You can’t do what you are currently doing today.” (Lou Adler, CEO – Adler Group)

“I hire people brighter than me and then I get out of their way.” (Lee Iacocca – Ford)