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 PONDER OF HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTORS & HIRING OFFICERS:

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)

What makes a dynamic leader? Is leadership a natural or inborn talent of “special” individuals? Is it true only a person with high intelligence quotient (IQ) and emotional quotient (EQ) can be a prudent leader?

The above are normal questions in people’s mind. Many believe leadership instincts – just like charisma – are characteristically inherent. They perceive either a person naturally has it or devoid of it, and nothing else is relevant.

What do I think? Well, I opine otherwise. Although I may concur that positive genes have some slight bearing to a person’s specific  ability - in this case leadership acumen - yet one needs to undergo a structured procedure to emerge as a true leader.  Even child prodigies go through honing programmes before they mature as virtuosos in their particular potentials. Inborn traits constitute only a minor proportion of a person’s characteristics; more so, personality type can be moulded by way of life cultivation type. I promulgate leadership reverence is attained via serial cultivation and nurture of an individual over sufficient time. It is definitely not a quick fix-it transformation. The macro terminology of “grooming” entwines both activities for cultivating and nurturing leadership development.

Grooming can derive from self-driven efforts, plus opportunities accorded by the organisation which an individual is attached to. The two approaches must complement one another. First, the potential leader-candidate must be keen to learn about leadership. Second, support from the management is necessary to provide the essential logistics, such as special programmes for honing dynamism. In addition, technical skills training (granted by the management) on the specific role helps to consolidate lead positions.

  The structured grooming procedure entails four (4) sequential phases:

This is the foundation that begins to usher forth the enduring track for culminating at the pinnacle of leadership maturity. The inaugural phase focuses on receiving “wordy” information via digestion of printed materials and also verbal enlightenment from experienced seniors in the work scene.

Initiating the first step depends very much on self-desire for personal development. Self-driven efforts include the urge to conduct research, studying and inquisitiveness, i.e. relying on pertinent scripts and verbal dissemination imparted by experienced seniors and peers. The availability of logistics support from the management will serve as supplementary factors pepping up individual enthusiasm. Such supplements include managerial guidance and goading directions.

Only after being sufficiently permeated with the right inputs, both via the print and verbal forms, during the academic phase pertaining to the particular industry besides the job role, can an individual then be deemed proficient in the factual “truths”.

The individual concerned needs to know what facts to peruse for executing an assignment. For example, if the subject is on a compliance matter, he should know which specific guidelines to fall on for reference. Most industries follow a set of guidelines imposed by government regulators, in addition to the respective company’s preferred internal best practices. In short, the leader-candidate must be factually proficient in order to move on to the next phase.

To be factual is the fundament. To be able to understand fully and in holistic perspectives regarding a fact is the essence for enhanced perception.  Facts could easily be perceived at the superficial (surface) level. Real understanding delves into the interlinked factors underpinning the surficial facts, i.e. the hidden elements contributing to the prevalence of these facts.

Take for instance the scenario of a bank promoting life insurance to its existing retail customers. Despite relentless promotion campaigns, yet the overall premium scores have not multiplied noticeably over the last few years. Periodical reports clearly reveal as a surficial fact that there has been high preliminary rescission (cancellation) of sign-ups and early termination within the first two anniversaries.  Probably the apparent cause is the product is facing stiff competition against those offered by other banks.  But is that really so? Deeper investigative analysis may identify the real problem of targeting at the wrong categories of retail customers whose protection needs do not match the benefits of the recommended product, and the bank officers did not efficiently elaborate the product features, thereby prompting many customers to exit early.

Besides discovering the fact of high termination ratios (knowledge), the officer in charge of sales must be seasoned enough to understand the real underlying causes. Otherwise, he or she may implement the wrong solutions to the wrong problems. The ability to sense spot-on the “truths” stems from hands-on experience, the precursor to propensity for holistic understanding.

Only after a span of continuous hands-on experience in varied functions, protagonists manifest prudence befitting their role.  Prudence is the epitome of revered leadership. Prudent leaders discern what is right from wrong, workable from the unworkable, practical from the impractical. They dispense weighed cautiousness, astute judgement, effective actions, sound advice, right directions…….not to mention appropriate admonition (if a subordinate is negligent) or encouragement. This self-actualisation phase cannot be acclaimed without going through the long haul of hands-on grind processes. And the commitment to practise all the activities to continuously sharpen prowess level is essential to stay on the prudence summit.

There is no easy way to earning profound leadership status. The four phases incorporate as one inevitable cohesive grind process. Jumping the sequential queue will not mould leadership wholesomeness. Prudent leaders imbue into themselves the holistic mindset, which is formed with broad, encompassing views of various linked situations which have bearings to an issue at hand. An individual who is not “seasoned” enough due to lack of rounded experience will not be able to perceive holistic views, much less the capability to act holistically for the most practical solutions.

Now, let us talk about the common scenarios in the corporate world………

Not many aspiring would-be leaders hold the resilience to complete the beginning to end processes. They opine a good leader does not need to have hands-on experience on the overall functions under their purview. They feel that as long as they have a team of capable subordinates who can be delegated to handle the various tasks well, they are in good stead as their leader. But a question still begs to be answered: How can they ensure they effectively recruit and place the right people in the right jobs when they themselves have not mustered sufficient knowledge, experience and understanding of the various functions? Are they not merely relying on luck in this respect? One cannot be expected to adequately comprehend the real contributing causes to an issue until and unless having been made familiar with the technicalities regarding the specific function concerned. If they lack proper understanding regarding each job expectations, how can they be certain that employees fitting the job scopes will be emplaced?

Because of aggressive competition amongst industries enveloping the present commercial world, most corporate key officers engross themselves in delivering the best they can, with what they have, from where they are. In other words, they fire fight for results regardless whether their approach turns out efficacious or otherwise. No time allotment is given to digesting reference materials (for acquisition of required knowledge), analysing and familiarising themselves the work technicalities assigned to their team. More often than not, team performance by trial and error becomes the norm. No wonder key officers, including their CEOs, fire fight from one year to another, with the hope of catching up the shortfalls of the previous year. Readers who are key officers…….such a scenario rings a bell in your ears?

I cite a common fallacy reflected by some corporations regarding new manpower recruitment. On the notion of thinking out of the box to bring in “new blood”, some CEOs look outside to other industries for filling up key manpower positions. They feel players from different experience fields and perspectives could be instrumental to make significant positive changes. Alas, this premise seldom holds water as those of the new blood have been bred in different work cultures and technical experiences, thus not matching the new environment.

I know real cases whereby the openings for customer service segment head in two life insurance corporations were filled up by candidates recruited from customer service background of the telco industry. Work experience in that industry might be related in the sense of customer satisfaction oriented, yet the specific work details were entirely different in genre. The end result: Service levels did not make any improvement compared to the past. Without the opportunity (also allowed time span) of going through the four-phase grind mill, the migrated heads did not comprehend insurance contracts and the applicable mechanisms. As they had not undergone familiarisation on picking up the necessary knowledge, hands-on processing exposure and exercising appropriate decisions, they could not be efficient service heads.

Let me share my testimony about my past attachment to a financial institution. Prior to that, I worked as a journalist for a few years. I was perfectly fine to be assigned the task of producing an in-house magazine when I joined the institution way back in 1978. However, the other assignment requiring sales training to the sales force was new to me…….this was my worry. My direct superior assured me he would guide me all the way until I could be “seasoned” to stand firmly on my own. He acted as my moderator, chipping in to complement my presentations to the sales force. He also interjected with elaborations whenever I fell short in cascading my points succinctly. This experience of observing his support moves was my first learning curve.

Not being contented on my first role, I took the initiative to study other functions within the institution’s jurisdiction. I read manuals, made enquiries (with peers of other departments), attended talks, signed up for courses (like knowledge about investment, finance etc.), digested case studies of issues handled by the management, helped out in product campaign, and so forth.

Somehow, the management noticed my inquisitiveness. Thereon, I was granted opportunities to acquire extensive familiarisation on various hands-on functions ranging from branch operations, customer services, product development cum promotion, supporting fund managers, management support, event management etc. In view of my wide overall exposure, another institution engaged me as general consultant after my retirement. I was commissioned to render advice on reformation of various segments. My testimony is not to brag about myself, but to prove a point regarding direct involvement in relevant workflow in order to gain astuteness in any role. It was my initial desire to know more that triggered off the ensuing episode.

CONCLUSION:

To reach the coveted pinnacle of prudence, one inevitably needs to persevere through the first three phases of development which facilitate as the triune foundation. Without the keen desire to learn, pertinent knowledge will not prevail. Without relating the right knowledge to the right work activities, proper understanding of issues cum experience to handle the situations will not materialise. Without holistic understanding of the underlying factors linked to the issues, prudent discernment and directional advice to subordinates will not manifest. Such is the sequence for adherence if one wants to be a wholesome leader; there is no short cut or jumping the queue.

Let me sum up by stating that having the DESIRE for self-development is only the igniting spark. Desire will not persist if lacking another ingredient: DILIGENCE. The meaning of diligence is defined in www.dictionary.com  as …….constant in effort to accomplish something; attentive and persistent in doing anything; done or perused with persevering attention; painstaking.

By now, you comprehend why prudent leadership, not superficial leadership, comes about from persevering through the grind mill?

We end this chapter with the following quotes:

“Before you are a leader, success is all about growing yourself. When you become a leader, success is all about growing others.” (Jack Welch)

“A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way.” (John C Maxwell)