This blog posting is not about age discrimination in the executive recruiting process. Instead, it focuses on the risks organizations take in not moving swiftly on hiring candidates they want.
This scenario has happened to me often. In the course of presenting a quality slate of executive candidates, everyone participating in the candidate review meeting is happy with the slate and ready to move into the interviewing process. Smart organizations move quickly and systematically through the process, identify a primary and back-up candidate, extend an offer, and more often than not, hire the candidate they want. Other clients, unfortunately, have allowed the slate to sit idle for any number of reasons (few of them valid). The thinking in those organizations is that the slate of candidates is conveniently parked and ready to be processed at the organization's convenience. They assume that every candidate is fortunate to be in the slate and will hold their breath until the organization is ready to take the next steps. This is a problem looking for a place to happen.
From the recruiter's vantage point the slate is primed and ready to be interviewed. A key role of the recruiter is to keep all candidates interested and informed as the process moves toward a conclusion. To arrive at 3 to 5 top notch candidates, the search firm will have sourced and worked through a pool of a hundred or more potential candidates, interviewing at least twice as many as they ultimately submit for interviews. Each candidate has been sold on the attractiveness of the opportunity and the organization. By then they will have done their homework about the organization. They tend to be decisive individuals and expect the organizations they would join to be the same, especially considering that a search firm has been retained to find them. They assume there is a sense of urgency about filling the position.
There are several manifestations of organizational delays: One is that the organization stalls for weeks before scheduling interviews. Another is that the organization conducts interviews, but they are weeks apart. Yet another is that the organization has completed interviews but has not provided any meaningful feedback to the recruiter (or the candidates) and everything has stalled. In almost every case communication with the recruiter has dropped to a trickle. It becomes very difficult in these situations for the recruiter to continue to positively represent the client. Instead, communciation with candidates becomes a series of excuses. The initial enthusiasm expressed by the candidates rapidly begins to fade.
In the search process, passive candidates are targeted and the recruiter has convinced them to consider their client's opportunity. More often than not the candidate is happy in place and not looking for a new job when contacted by the recruiter. Few organizations realize that executive recruiters have two significant roles, not one. Organizations think of recruiters as primarily candidate sourcers and qualifiers. They often miss the point that the other half of the recruiter equation is selling the candidate on the opportunity, and once sold, they expect to have the hiring process move to a conclusion in a timely manner.
The biggest risk in delays--for any reason--is this: Often, the passive candidate will have kept recruiters at bay prior to having their interest piqued with a particular opportunity. They then draw this conclusion: "As long as I'm considering XYZ's opportunity I might as well keep an open mind about other opportunities as well." They begin to take every recruiter's call and start to consider other options. This portends disaster for the hiring organization. Good candidates don't get better with age. It has to be assumed that if a good candidate is considering your opportunity, other opportunities are being considered as well. It is a sad day when the hiring organization reenergizes their process only to hear from the recruiter that the candidate they were most interested in has taken another opportunity (or worse, has withdrawn from the process due to frustration with the hiring organization). When either of these situations occurs, it is hard for the recruiter to continue to source, qualify and sell candidates on a career opportunity when the hiring organization is lackadaisical about moving the process along in a timely manner.
Solutions to this problem are obvious, but one of the best that applies is to practice the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If an organization does that, then everything should work out fine for everybody. http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
Monday, January 31, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
A Process for Rapidly Integrating Newly Hired Executives
If you've worked with executive search firms you know the drill on placement guarantees. They range from one to two years, depending on the firm. This guarantee is more of a marketing device than an insurance policy. The facts are that the search firm can do everything imaginable to find and recruit the best person, but once that individual accepts a job and starts to work, the search part of the business is over. At that point most recruiters move on the the next project (they usually have several going at once) and hope that the new executive works out. Many executive recruiters, myself included, have had the misfortune of needing to honor a guarantee because the new hire either left the organization or the organization left the new hire prior to the end of the guarantee period. When that happens, the recruiter's guarantee requries that they replace that new hiree for no additional retainer fee--just expenses. Nobody wins: the new hire, the organization or the recruiter (who has to work for free to replace the individual).
The reasons executive hires don't work out are many. Often the candidate feels misled by the organization and promises are not kept, or there is an unanticipated missmatch with the boss. At other times, the new hire may have made a series of mistakes during the initial 90 or so days that are irreparable. Smart organizations don't let poor hiring decisions go on for long. The adage, "Better an end with terror than a terror without end" applies here. Unhappy executives will either cut their losses and run (in good economic times) or hang in there, miserably, for at least a year, sometimes longer. It can be like a bad marriage with no honeymoon.
From my vantage point, there is a way to improve the successful outcome of an outside executive hire. The research shows that the first 90 days often determine the ultimate success or failure of a new executive. Assimilation is expensive in many ways. Michael Watkins at the Harvard Business School, in his groundbreaking book, The First 90 Days, shows that it takes 6.2 months for an outside executive hire to reach the "breakeven point." Up to that time, the executive has for the first three months been consuming value, and later, over the next three months, starts adding value. After 6.2 months the new leader has broken even and is now adding more value than consumed. Watkins' book is designed to help newly hired managers at any level to navigate those critical 90 days through a checklist of things they can do to help themselves. The premise of the book is that most organizations have no means to do that for you. On-boarding programs generally are not intended to this level of integration. They have a different purpose altogether. Without an effective method to for a new leader to assimilate quickly, Watkins says that "...40 to 50% of senior outside hires fail to acheive desired results." That's a huge number! He reminds us that each year over a half million managers enter a new position in the Fortune 500 alone! That discounts healthcare organizations, universities, nonprofits, government, et.al.
Aside from the useful self-directed roadmap that Michael Watkins provides, what else can be done to improve the odds of success? Moreover, what can be done to ensure that the breakeven point is considerably compressed? (Who has time to wait 6.2 months when almost half the time the new leader fails anyway?) In my firm we have developed a process that has been proved valuable within corporations and in executive recruiting situations. The process significantly shortens the time it takes for a new leader to be successfully up and running. We call it New Leader Integration, "pre-boarding" for short. Here's how it works.
The process is three dimensional. It involves the boss, peers and direct reports. It begins at the end of an executive search engagement. We begin the day an offer is accepted and the process concludes on the morning of the start date. Our executive change agent (who is also the recruiter) conducts lengthy interviews with a wide swath of people who will both impact the new leader's success and be impacted by that person's success. These interviews begin immediately upon offer acceptance. The process is fast, focused, intense, thorough--and it works. The result of these interviews is a confidential report that is compiled and presented to the new leader for review. This usually occurs a week before the start date. The change agent and the new leader then spend the better part of a day reviewing everything in that document. The change agent becomes the transition coach at that point. By then every key player in the new leader's sphere of influence has been interviewed. The change agent has a solid understanding of what the new leader needs to do (and avoid doing), in what order, and under what timeline. The change agent also knows what the concerns are on the part of the new leader's team of direct reports. Another outcome of the process is a minimization of team downtime.
The morning of the start date the change agent facilitates a meeting with the new leader and the direct reports. There are several components of that meeting that are all designed to 1) build trust quickly, 2) eliminate communication barriers and 3) begin addressing the more pressing "must happens" that the new leader is facing...all during that meeting! By noon of the first day the meeting and the process ends. By the end of that first week the new leader has met one-on-one with all participants in the process, top to bottom, and has a blueprint of what to talk about during each of those individual meetings. If all goes well, the new leader is producing the right results quickly and the prospect of a successful hire is considerably improved.
If you would like to know more about this process you can email me at mburroughs@esiassoc.com and I will reach out to you for that discussion. http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
The reasons executive hires don't work out are many. Often the candidate feels misled by the organization and promises are not kept, or there is an unanticipated missmatch with the boss. At other times, the new hire may have made a series of mistakes during the initial 90 or so days that are irreparable. Smart organizations don't let poor hiring decisions go on for long. The adage, "Better an end with terror than a terror without end" applies here. Unhappy executives will either cut their losses and run (in good economic times) or hang in there, miserably, for at least a year, sometimes longer. It can be like a bad marriage with no honeymoon.
From my vantage point, there is a way to improve the successful outcome of an outside executive hire. The research shows that the first 90 days often determine the ultimate success or failure of a new executive. Assimilation is expensive in many ways. Michael Watkins at the Harvard Business School, in his groundbreaking book, The First 90 Days, shows that it takes 6.2 months for an outside executive hire to reach the "breakeven point." Up to that time, the executive has for the first three months been consuming value, and later, over the next three months, starts adding value. After 6.2 months the new leader has broken even and is now adding more value than consumed. Watkins' book is designed to help newly hired managers at any level to navigate those critical 90 days through a checklist of things they can do to help themselves. The premise of the book is that most organizations have no means to do that for you. On-boarding programs generally are not intended to this level of integration. They have a different purpose altogether. Without an effective method to for a new leader to assimilate quickly, Watkins says that "...40 to 50% of senior outside hires fail to acheive desired results." That's a huge number! He reminds us that each year over a half million managers enter a new position in the Fortune 500 alone! That discounts healthcare organizations, universities, nonprofits, government, et.al.
Aside from the useful self-directed roadmap that Michael Watkins provides, what else can be done to improve the odds of success? Moreover, what can be done to ensure that the breakeven point is considerably compressed? (Who has time to wait 6.2 months when almost half the time the new leader fails anyway?) In my firm we have developed a process that has been proved valuable within corporations and in executive recruiting situations. The process significantly shortens the time it takes for a new leader to be successfully up and running. We call it New Leader Integration, "pre-boarding" for short. Here's how it works.
The process is three dimensional. It involves the boss, peers and direct reports. It begins at the end of an executive search engagement. We begin the day an offer is accepted and the process concludes on the morning of the start date. Our executive change agent (who is also the recruiter) conducts lengthy interviews with a wide swath of people who will both impact the new leader's success and be impacted by that person's success. These interviews begin immediately upon offer acceptance. The process is fast, focused, intense, thorough--and it works. The result of these interviews is a confidential report that is compiled and presented to the new leader for review. This usually occurs a week before the start date. The change agent and the new leader then spend the better part of a day reviewing everything in that document. The change agent becomes the transition coach at that point. By then every key player in the new leader's sphere of influence has been interviewed. The change agent has a solid understanding of what the new leader needs to do (and avoid doing), in what order, and under what timeline. The change agent also knows what the concerns are on the part of the new leader's team of direct reports. Another outcome of the process is a minimization of team downtime.
The morning of the start date the change agent facilitates a meeting with the new leader and the direct reports. There are several components of that meeting that are all designed to 1) build trust quickly, 2) eliminate communication barriers and 3) begin addressing the more pressing "must happens" that the new leader is facing...all during that meeting! By noon of the first day the meeting and the process ends. By the end of that first week the new leader has met one-on-one with all participants in the process, top to bottom, and has a blueprint of what to talk about during each of those individual meetings. If all goes well, the new leader is producing the right results quickly and the prospect of a successful hire is considerably improved.
If you would like to know more about this process you can email me at mburroughs@esiassoc.com and I will reach out to you for that discussion. http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
Monday, January 24, 2011
What if You are Not the One Hired?
It can be very frustrating and disheartening to be one of the finalists in an executive search only to lose out to another candidate. Here is what you should keep in mind: Most executive searches start with a research process that can involve over 100 potential candidates, most of whom have at least one conversation with a research associate or principle. That large number is narrowed to ten or so whom the partner will interview and evaluate thoroughly against the position description. From that "long list" comes a "short list" of five to six candidates who are then presented to the client, any one of whom can ostensibly do the job well. Occasionally one or two will be dropped and a couple of more added. Client interviews then occur, usually with at least three candidates initially. More often than not, the client settles on one of those three and an offer is extended. As stated in my previous blog post, smart clients and recruiters do everything possible to ensure that all three candidates are kept informed and interested. The client extends an offer to one, and generally speaking, that individual accepts after a round of negotiations that usually also involve the recruiter who serves as a "go between." The other two...the back-up candidates...are left with nothing...or so it seems.
In these difficult economic times you may be out of work and this job is critical. If you get the job, be glad. If you did not get the job, keep in mind that almost all recruiters never forget who their finalists were. In essence, the client picked the "first among equals." It just was not your day. When the recruiter does a similar search, more often than not, you are the first to be called. It is human nature to remember the best of the best and go back to them.
If you have been the runner up on several occasions, this can be especially disheartening, I know. Keep the faith. Be sure to level with the recruiter and ask for some detailed feedback to ensure that it is not a repeatable issue that is costing you the front runner position. If you can improve some way, do so.
Just remember that you started in a huge group and got down to the very, very few. That should build your confidence rather than erode it. Stay in touch with the recruiter and let him or her know what you are up to. If you are open to another opportunity be sure they know this. If you are out of the search mode, tell them that as well, but encourage them to always keep you in mind if another viable opportunity presents itself. And always be willing to serve as a referral for other potential candidates. Recruiters really appreciate this and will not forget that you did so. Neither will your friends. http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
In these difficult economic times you may be out of work and this job is critical. If you get the job, be glad. If you did not get the job, keep in mind that almost all recruiters never forget who their finalists were. In essence, the client picked the "first among equals." It just was not your day. When the recruiter does a similar search, more often than not, you are the first to be called. It is human nature to remember the best of the best and go back to them.
If you have been the runner up on several occasions, this can be especially disheartening, I know. Keep the faith. Be sure to level with the recruiter and ask for some detailed feedback to ensure that it is not a repeatable issue that is costing you the front runner position. If you can improve some way, do so.
Just remember that you started in a huge group and got down to the very, very few. That should build your confidence rather than erode it. Stay in touch with the recruiter and let him or her know what you are up to. If you are open to another opportunity be sure they know this. If you are out of the search mode, tell them that as well, but encourage them to always keep you in mind if another viable opportunity presents itself. And always be willing to serve as a referral for other potential candidates. Recruiters really appreciate this and will not forget that you did so. Neither will your friends. http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
"Candidate-itis"
"Candidate-itis." It's a term that applies to organizations that engage a search firm (or attempt themselves) to build a slate of candidates for a given position and then focus on just one candidate.
Through my years as an executive recruiter I've occasionally encountered clients who initially are very pleased with several of the candidates on the slate and later settle on ONE to the exclusion of everyone else. For any number of reasons (often the Halo Effect) one candidate pulls way ahead of the others who were originally considered to be just fine. The others are forgotten. While it is human nature to do this, it is unwise.
So why is this a problem? Frankly, sometimes its not a problem; the ONE candidate gets an offer and accepts. Everybody is happy. It becomes a problem, however, when the client tells the recruiter to release the other candidates (and even stop searching) while the offer is negotiated. What I've seen happen is, for any number of predictable reasons, the "one" candidate and the client cannot reach agreement on the offer, or the candidate's mind changes, and the deal falls through. Other potential problems occur when during this dance the candidate receives another offer that is better and withdraws from the process. When this happens and there is no superlative back-up candidate(s) the project gets stalled and the search has to begin anew. Much time is lost, frustration is rampant, and most likely, it is an expensive mistake.
While it's the recruiter's job to continue to search while candidates are being evaluated and an offer is being extended, occasionally the client will lose interest in the process while they pursue their candidate. They don't want to see or hear about other candidates. This is the malady I call, candidate-itis.
Here is how clients can avoid candidate-itis. Ensure that throughout the search process there are at least two (and preferably three) very viable candidates. By viable, I mean that any one of them could do the job well and be a fine hire. Make certain that the recruiter keeps these viable candidates interested in the opportunity and ensures that they remain aware of everything that is going on with the search. There is no substitute for honesty and keeping an open line of communcation with all candidates, even at the risk of losing one or all of them. It is more likely, however, that if the candidates are well informed they will remain interested. This is much easier to do if the client does not become overly enamored with one candidate.
If you are a candidate, insist that the recruiter (internal or external) be forthcoming with you about the status of the search. If you are not the front runner, show continued interest and keep the line of communication open with the recruiter. Don't go around the recruiter to the hiring manager, regardless of the temptation to do so. While the front runner more often than not gets the job, I can say from experience that occasionally the back-up candidate gets a shot...and the job.
For the recruiter and the client, practice the Golden Rule and take action accordingly. If you are a candidate, do likewise. Keep the recruiter aware of your situation, especially if you are considering another offer. Regardless of the outcome, you'll be glad you did. http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
Through my years as an executive recruiter I've occasionally encountered clients who initially are very pleased with several of the candidates on the slate and later settle on ONE to the exclusion of everyone else. For any number of reasons (often the Halo Effect) one candidate pulls way ahead of the others who were originally considered to be just fine. The others are forgotten. While it is human nature to do this, it is unwise.
So why is this a problem? Frankly, sometimes its not a problem; the ONE candidate gets an offer and accepts. Everybody is happy. It becomes a problem, however, when the client tells the recruiter to release the other candidates (and even stop searching) while the offer is negotiated. What I've seen happen is, for any number of predictable reasons, the "one" candidate and the client cannot reach agreement on the offer, or the candidate's mind changes, and the deal falls through. Other potential problems occur when during this dance the candidate receives another offer that is better and withdraws from the process. When this happens and there is no superlative back-up candidate(s) the project gets stalled and the search has to begin anew. Much time is lost, frustration is rampant, and most likely, it is an expensive mistake.
While it's the recruiter's job to continue to search while candidates are being evaluated and an offer is being extended, occasionally the client will lose interest in the process while they pursue their candidate. They don't want to see or hear about other candidates. This is the malady I call, candidate-itis.
Here is how clients can avoid candidate-itis. Ensure that throughout the search process there are at least two (and preferably three) very viable candidates. By viable, I mean that any one of them could do the job well and be a fine hire. Make certain that the recruiter keeps these viable candidates interested in the opportunity and ensures that they remain aware of everything that is going on with the search. There is no substitute for honesty and keeping an open line of communcation with all candidates, even at the risk of losing one or all of them. It is more likely, however, that if the candidates are well informed they will remain interested. This is much easier to do if the client does not become overly enamored with one candidate.
If you are a candidate, insist that the recruiter (internal or external) be forthcoming with you about the status of the search. If you are not the front runner, show continued interest and keep the line of communication open with the recruiter. Don't go around the recruiter to the hiring manager, regardless of the temptation to do so. While the front runner more often than not gets the job, I can say from experience that occasionally the back-up candidate gets a shot...and the job.
For the recruiter and the client, practice the Golden Rule and take action accordingly. If you are a candidate, do likewise. Keep the recruiter aware of your situation, especially if you are considering another offer. Regardless of the outcome, you'll be glad you did. http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Never Underestimate the Halo Effect
Many years ago I was in the business of recruiting physicians. One candidate with whom I was working wanted to relocate from the one coast to the other in order to be near family. His experience and credentials made him a very attractive candidate for just about any healthcare organization. As this search firm was of the Contingency model, I had not met face-to-face with either my clients or my candidates. This was a business done entirely by phone.
I presented my candidate to a potential employer (a hospital) and worked with their internal recruiter to arrange a weekend interview. I was confident that if the candidate liked the location and hospital, he would accept an offer that he would likely receive. This hiring process usually took about two weeks.
He flew out to this hospital on Friday and interviewed on Saturday. Monday morning I called my client (the internal recruiter) to follow up on the interview. His opening remark was, "Have you met this guy?" I reminded him that I had not. He then went on to describe him to me and focused on what he wore to the interview with the hospital CEO. He had worn a blazer with a Mickey Mouse tie and watch. I groaned and then said, "Well, I guess I need to send you another candidate." He said, "Oh, no! Not at all! The CEO loved him and gave him an offer on Sunday morning. He accepted on the spot and will be joining us, soon." I was confused. He went on to say that their CEO's hobby was animation and he, too, wore a Mickey Mouse watch. They spent much of their visit comparing notes about their mutual hobby and became fast friends.
I had made the mistake of jumping to conclusions based on my own view of the world. I learned from that episode that people make hiring decisions for a wide variety of reasons. I should have known. It had happened to me, once.
When I was interviewing for a job after deciding to leave the Army after 12 years, I was in the best shape of my life. I had by then run three marathons. The first executive I interviewed, who was key to the decision, had a chronic weight problem that he was perpetually addressing. A tactic of his was the treadmill. Physical fitness was for him an unattainable goal and he put a high value on those who were fit. He spent the entire hour of our interview asking me about running marathons. His executive assistant had to interrupt our meeting to get me to my next interview. The remainder of my interviews were more predictable. I got an offer soon thereafter. One reason, though, was that the president was a WW II army veteran and put a high value on army officers. They were few and far between in this company. In my defense, I should say that I was, indeed, well qualified for the job.
I have gone on to other roles, and have spent the past decade as an executive recruiter and coach. On numerous occasions I have seen my clients zero in on a candidate for one particular attrribute that they happen to admire (i.e., the "halo effect") and make a hiring decision accordingly.
The trend in recent years to have finalist candidates go through a management assessment process is a good one in my opinion (though most recruiters do not like to see this done as it can torpedo what otherwise seems to be a quality candidate). It has been my experience that such assessments truly help organizations make better hiring decisions, and I encourage the practice. http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
I presented my candidate to a potential employer (a hospital) and worked with their internal recruiter to arrange a weekend interview. I was confident that if the candidate liked the location and hospital, he would accept an offer that he would likely receive. This hiring process usually took about two weeks.
He flew out to this hospital on Friday and interviewed on Saturday. Monday morning I called my client (the internal recruiter) to follow up on the interview. His opening remark was, "Have you met this guy?" I reminded him that I had not. He then went on to describe him to me and focused on what he wore to the interview with the hospital CEO. He had worn a blazer with a Mickey Mouse tie and watch. I groaned and then said, "Well, I guess I need to send you another candidate." He said, "Oh, no! Not at all! The CEO loved him and gave him an offer on Sunday morning. He accepted on the spot and will be joining us, soon." I was confused. He went on to say that their CEO's hobby was animation and he, too, wore a Mickey Mouse watch. They spent much of their visit comparing notes about their mutual hobby and became fast friends.
I had made the mistake of jumping to conclusions based on my own view of the world. I learned from that episode that people make hiring decisions for a wide variety of reasons. I should have known. It had happened to me, once.
When I was interviewing for a job after deciding to leave the Army after 12 years, I was in the best shape of my life. I had by then run three marathons. The first executive I interviewed, who was key to the decision, had a chronic weight problem that he was perpetually addressing. A tactic of his was the treadmill. Physical fitness was for him an unattainable goal and he put a high value on those who were fit. He spent the entire hour of our interview asking me about running marathons. His executive assistant had to interrupt our meeting to get me to my next interview. The remainder of my interviews were more predictable. I got an offer soon thereafter. One reason, though, was that the president was a WW II army veteran and put a high value on army officers. They were few and far between in this company. In my defense, I should say that I was, indeed, well qualified for the job.
I have gone on to other roles, and have spent the past decade as an executive recruiter and coach. On numerous occasions I have seen my clients zero in on a candidate for one particular attrribute that they happen to admire (i.e., the "halo effect") and make a hiring decision accordingly.
The trend in recent years to have finalist candidates go through a management assessment process is a good one in my opinion (though most recruiters do not like to see this done as it can torpedo what otherwise seems to be a quality candidate). It has been my experience that such assessments truly help organizations make better hiring decisions, and I encourage the practice. http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
Monday, January 17, 2011
Leadership Observations from an Unlikely Source
If you have read my previous posting you will note that two of the Four Pillars of Leadership are Courage and Candor. One of the individuals in history who has influenced me for decades is Generaloberst Freiherr Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord. Whew! That's a mouthful! Let me tell you a little about him. I assure you it is worth the time to read on.
Von Hammerstein-Equord was a career German Army general of no real historical distinction. He was, however, a brilliant officer. Early in his career he was identified as such and sent to the Imperial War College to become a General Staff officer. The German General Staff were the cream of the crop. The school lasted for three years and each year many washed out. The General Staff basically ran the German Army for over 100 years. Regardless of a General Staff officer's rank, he was well respected for his accomplishments and competence. It should be noted that a condition imposed on the West Germans when they asked to be able to form a new army (The Bundeswehr) in the mid 1950's, was that there would be NO German General Staff corps. They were that good.
Von Hammerstein-Equord served with minor distinction in the First World War in a General Staff officer role and remained in the army thereafter..
The Treaty of Versailles mandated that the defeated Germans could have an army, but it could not number more than 100,000 men. Keep in mind that at the end of the war, millions of German soldiers were still fighting. With a severe economic depression and political chaos awaiting all demobilized soldiers, remaining in the army was not an unattractive option for many. There were lots of experienced officers and non-commissioned officers wanting in. The Reichswehr (as it was called) was broken down into two groups: 5,000 officers and 95,000 enlisted men and NCOs. Many former officers from the war were reduced to sergeant rank in order to stay in the Army. As many Germans felt they had been sold out by their leaders when Germany surrendered, one of the purposes of the 100,000 man army was to have this group serve as a cadre for rapidly mobilizing should the need arise in the future (even then they expected another war might happen). So with that breakdown, one would assume that the 5,000 officers in the Reichswehr were top notch.
The 1920's were tumultuous years in Germany. There was runaway inflation and several political parties violently vying for power. Von Hammerstein-Equord was promoted to Chief of the German High Command in 1930. He held that position until 1934 and retired. If you know your history, he was leaving the army at about the time Hitler was rising to power (Hitler was made Chancellor of Germany in 1933). He was very outspoken regarding Hitler's rise and even told Hitler in 1932 that if he instigated a coup-de-tats that he would order his troops to shoot Hitler's men. Von Hammerstein regarded himself as a servant of the German state, not of its political parties. I tell you this to let you know that von Hammerstein-Equord had nerves of steel and was committed to his country...his competence was a given.
So, how did he describe his elite officer corps (the cream...the 5,000)?
As Chief of the Army High Command, von Hammerstein-Equord oversaw the composition of the German manual on military unit command (Truppenfuehrung) dated 17 October, 1933. He originated a special classification scheme for his officers. He wrote:
"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together. The officers who, are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Those who are stupid and lazy...can be used for routine work. The man who is clever and lazy, however, is for the very highest command (positions); he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But the officer who is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately."
The interesting thing about this story to me is that he was describing a corps of 5,000 officers who had been subjected to a vigorous selection process before being appointed as officers in the new army. I guess it also goes to show that there is somewhat of a Bell Curve in any grouping of individuals...even the best. It also reemphasizes that we simply cannot afford in any organization to retain managers who are deemed "a menace" (for whatever reason).
Courage, Candor, Competence and Commitment; the Four Pillars of Leadership, are here demonstrated in a most unlikely source. http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
Von Hammerstein-Equord was a career German Army general of no real historical distinction. He was, however, a brilliant officer. Early in his career he was identified as such and sent to the Imperial War College to become a General Staff officer. The German General Staff were the cream of the crop. The school lasted for three years and each year many washed out. The General Staff basically ran the German Army for over 100 years. Regardless of a General Staff officer's rank, he was well respected for his accomplishments and competence. It should be noted that a condition imposed on the West Germans when they asked to be able to form a new army (The Bundeswehr) in the mid 1950's, was that there would be NO German General Staff corps. They were that good.
Von Hammerstein-Equord served with minor distinction in the First World War in a General Staff officer role and remained in the army thereafter..
The Treaty of Versailles mandated that the defeated Germans could have an army, but it could not number more than 100,000 men. Keep in mind that at the end of the war, millions of German soldiers were still fighting. With a severe economic depression and political chaos awaiting all demobilized soldiers, remaining in the army was not an unattractive option for many. There were lots of experienced officers and non-commissioned officers wanting in. The Reichswehr (as it was called) was broken down into two groups: 5,000 officers and 95,000 enlisted men and NCOs. Many former officers from the war were reduced to sergeant rank in order to stay in the Army. As many Germans felt they had been sold out by their leaders when Germany surrendered, one of the purposes of the 100,000 man army was to have this group serve as a cadre for rapidly mobilizing should the need arise in the future (even then they expected another war might happen). So with that breakdown, one would assume that the 5,000 officers in the Reichswehr were top notch.
The 1920's were tumultuous years in Germany. There was runaway inflation and several political parties violently vying for power. Von Hammerstein-Equord was promoted to Chief of the German High Command in 1930. He held that position until 1934 and retired. If you know your history, he was leaving the army at about the time Hitler was rising to power (Hitler was made Chancellor of Germany in 1933). He was very outspoken regarding Hitler's rise and even told Hitler in 1932 that if he instigated a coup-de-tats that he would order his troops to shoot Hitler's men. Von Hammerstein regarded himself as a servant of the German state, not of its political parties. I tell you this to let you know that von Hammerstein-Equord had nerves of steel and was committed to his country...his competence was a given.
So, how did he describe his elite officer corps (the cream...the 5,000)?
As Chief of the Army High Command, von Hammerstein-Equord oversaw the composition of the German manual on military unit command (Truppenfuehrung) dated 17 October, 1933. He originated a special classification scheme for his officers. He wrote:
"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together. The officers who, are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Those who are stupid and lazy...can be used for routine work. The man who is clever and lazy, however, is for the very highest command (positions); he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But the officer who is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately."
The interesting thing about this story to me is that he was describing a corps of 5,000 officers who had been subjected to a vigorous selection process before being appointed as officers in the new army. I guess it also goes to show that there is somewhat of a Bell Curve in any grouping of individuals...even the best. It also reemphasizes that we simply cannot afford in any organization to retain managers who are deemed "a menace" (for whatever reason).
Courage, Candor, Competence and Commitment; the Four Pillars of Leadership, are here demonstrated in a most unlikely source. http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
The Pillars of Leadership
During the late 70's the military was still smarting from the aftermath of Vietnam. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had created a most UNmilitary culture among the career officer ranks. As a captain of industry, he was very numbers driven. There was little to no emphasis being placed on leadership development in the officer education system. The Nine Principles of War of von Clausewitz was supplanted by such things as Operations Research and Systems Analysis and Design. The people element was downplayed. Many of the military's best officers were being sent to graduate schools to get MBA's. Leadership development was an afterthought. The late 70's saw a metamorphosis where leadership was concerned. New Manuals were written. Mid-career officers were being trained to be leaders as much as managers. Ethical decision making was also emphasized far more than quantitative analysis. While both leadership and management skills were essential to a well-run military force, there was a lot of catching up to do in order to ensure that the younger officers had the basic foundations of leadership engrained.
The foundation of the Army's leadership curriculum was the concept of the Four Pillars of Leadership. They were (and are):
Linked closely to Courage was "Candor." I remember that our annual evaluations in those days (which were and still remain highly inflated) had a series of questions on the form. One of the questions read: "Is this officer a 'yes' man?" Clearly the correct answer was, "no." Sadly, there were too many "yes men" around in those days and the Army was working hard to encourage junior officers to speak up and for seniors to encourage such candor (respectfully articulated, of course). In essence, it is hard to display moral courage if one is not candid.
The pillar of Competence is certainly not peculiar to the military. Leaders in all walks of life are expected to be competent. The principle was there to encourage officers to master their profession and to strive to be prepared in advance for higher levels of service. The Army school system was especially good at assisting officers to be competent. Beginning right after commissioning, new lieutenants were sent to the Officer Basic Course. Depending upon their branch of service (e.g., Infantry, Artillery, Medical Service Corps, Engineer, etc.) these courses ranged in length from nine to sixteen weeks. They taught the basic skills expected of a platoon leader. At the five to seven year period in career progression, captains attended the Officer Advanced Course. This school prepared them to move on to staff officer and company command positions. This program lasted for about six months. The next level of formal education came after one was promoted to major. It is called the Command and General Staff College. This is a 10-month long program that prepares Army officers to serve on the general staff at division level and to command battalions and brigades. The final formal school rung on the ladder is the Army War College. Very promising lieutenant colonels and colonels are board selected to attend this year-long program. One does not make general officer without having graduated from this course. In between the Advanced Course and the Command and General Staff College, some officers are sent by the Army to get a master's degree in a relevant subject. Many are being groomed to serve a tour as a faculty member at a service academy. Subjects include such things as Political Science, Economics, International Relations. If an officer is not selected to attend graduate school at the Army's expense, it is fully expected that a master's degree will be earned on one's own time (nights and weekends). Suffice it to say that the Army puts a high premium on competence and tries not to expose its officers to assignments beyond their level of professional development.
The final pillar, Commitment, is essential. Officers lead by example. It is difficult to lead if one is not committed to the task and to the institution or organization. Army leadership is hazardous. The people officers lead depend upon them to accomplish the mission with the minimal amount of casualties (if any).
So why this review? Well, after 12 years of active duty I joined the corporate world as a junior executive in a very large corporation. I was both excited about my transition and dismayed. I saw very little courage, less candor, a generally high degree of TECHNICAL competence, and a marginal to low degree of commitment. Over the past 25 years I have not seen much improvement. The places where I do see it (and as an executive recruiter and coach I see a lot of different organizations and evaluate a lot of executive talent) the one common denominator is that the organizations are led by an executive who exudes Courage, Candor, Competence and Commitment. Good leaders are simply hard to find, and the typical professional development track for corporate executives is predominantly self-directed with little to no emphasis on leadership development. It is no surprise to me that many business schools have suddenly determined that number crunching courses, while necessary, MUST be balanced by well-developed leadership curricula.
It has been said that you lead people and manage resources. Leadership is an influencing process. Management is a control process. This is a big reason why (even though I once held the position in the Fortune 500) that I dislike the term, "Human Resources." If by human resources we mean "people" then there is a more appropriate title for the function of HR in my view.
What have your organizations done to ensure that up and coming executives are developed as leaders?
http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
The foundation of the Army's leadership curriculum was the concept of the Four Pillars of Leadership. They were (and are):
- Courage
- Candor
- Competence
- Commitment
Linked closely to Courage was "Candor." I remember that our annual evaluations in those days (which were and still remain highly inflated) had a series of questions on the form. One of the questions read: "Is this officer a 'yes' man?" Clearly the correct answer was, "no." Sadly, there were too many "yes men" around in those days and the Army was working hard to encourage junior officers to speak up and for seniors to encourage such candor (respectfully articulated, of course). In essence, it is hard to display moral courage if one is not candid.
The pillar of Competence is certainly not peculiar to the military. Leaders in all walks of life are expected to be competent. The principle was there to encourage officers to master their profession and to strive to be prepared in advance for higher levels of service. The Army school system was especially good at assisting officers to be competent. Beginning right after commissioning, new lieutenants were sent to the Officer Basic Course. Depending upon their branch of service (e.g., Infantry, Artillery, Medical Service Corps, Engineer, etc.) these courses ranged in length from nine to sixteen weeks. They taught the basic skills expected of a platoon leader. At the five to seven year period in career progression, captains attended the Officer Advanced Course. This school prepared them to move on to staff officer and company command positions. This program lasted for about six months. The next level of formal education came after one was promoted to major. It is called the Command and General Staff College. This is a 10-month long program that prepares Army officers to serve on the general staff at division level and to command battalions and brigades. The final formal school rung on the ladder is the Army War College. Very promising lieutenant colonels and colonels are board selected to attend this year-long program. One does not make general officer without having graduated from this course. In between the Advanced Course and the Command and General Staff College, some officers are sent by the Army to get a master's degree in a relevant subject. Many are being groomed to serve a tour as a faculty member at a service academy. Subjects include such things as Political Science, Economics, International Relations. If an officer is not selected to attend graduate school at the Army's expense, it is fully expected that a master's degree will be earned on one's own time (nights and weekends). Suffice it to say that the Army puts a high premium on competence and tries not to expose its officers to assignments beyond their level of professional development.
The final pillar, Commitment, is essential. Officers lead by example. It is difficult to lead if one is not committed to the task and to the institution or organization. Army leadership is hazardous. The people officers lead depend upon them to accomplish the mission with the minimal amount of casualties (if any).
So why this review? Well, after 12 years of active duty I joined the corporate world as a junior executive in a very large corporation. I was both excited about my transition and dismayed. I saw very little courage, less candor, a generally high degree of TECHNICAL competence, and a marginal to low degree of commitment. Over the past 25 years I have not seen much improvement. The places where I do see it (and as an executive recruiter and coach I see a lot of different organizations and evaluate a lot of executive talent) the one common denominator is that the organizations are led by an executive who exudes Courage, Candor, Competence and Commitment. Good leaders are simply hard to find, and the typical professional development track for corporate executives is predominantly self-directed with little to no emphasis on leadership development. It is no surprise to me that many business schools have suddenly determined that number crunching courses, while necessary, MUST be balanced by well-developed leadership curricula.
It has been said that you lead people and manage resources. Leadership is an influencing process. Management is a control process. This is a big reason why (even though I once held the position in the Fortune 500) that I dislike the term, "Human Resources." If by human resources we mean "people" then there is a more appropriate title for the function of HR in my view.
What have your organizations done to ensure that up and coming executives are developed as leaders?
http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
Friday, January 14, 2011
Welcome Mat for the New Leader
Think back to the past three jobs you have had where you led others. How was your first month on the job? How was your first DAY on the job? Were your expectations met? Did you get off to a good start? Did your organization manage those leadership changes effectively?
Here are examples of two of my job changes. The first was in the early 80's when I joined a major corporation as a new executive in one of their divisions. There were 46 people in the eight departments that I was to lead. To add to the challenge, this was my first corporate job. For the past 12 years I had been an Army officer. My first civilian job was a relatively high one, as I reported to the division president. I had no margin for error. I knew the transition would require my very best efforts and attention and I was eager to get started in my new career. The executive I replaced was anxious to move on to his next job, which was one he had waited three years to get. No one gave me any idea what to expect on my first day. The only experience I had in job changes previously had been in the Army. They tended to be somewhat well managed (at least in peacetime).
I reported for work on my first day and went to the outgoing executive's office as I had been told to do. We chatted for a few minutes and then he said, "Come with me." We wandered through the labyrinth of hallways and came to a door that was marked with just a number. He opened the door and ushered me in. Sitting and standing in that room were the 46 people I was about to lead. I knew nothing about them (nor they me) and I had no inkling that this meeting was about to happen. The outgoing director stood in front of the group and said words to the effect of, "This is your new boss. He comes to us from the Army. The floor is yours. Good luck." He then walked out and winked at me as he closed the door. I had all of 30 seconds to get a grip on things, check my attitude and body language, and launch into some sort of introductory remarks. Needless to say, this was a very important first encounter. As the old adage goes: "You only have one opportunity to make a good first impression." Well, I survived the moment and went on to enjoy a couple of successful years in that role. I had a great team.
Now to another job transition--eight years later. I was joining another Fortune 500 company as a vice president. My first day on the job my boss was out of town for a week. Her executive assistant had a detailed agenda of whom I was to meet during the first two weeks and the purpose of each meeting. Included in the process were all of the administration steps associated with joining a new company. My boss had left instructions that two days later I was to join a team from one of our three divisions that would be hiring a number of people in advance of a large contract start-up five states away. That team leader had a checklist for me of what my role would be and how to get started doing it. It was a great hands on introduction to their business that lasted for three days. At the end of my first two weeks on the job I had a good headstart into my roles and responsibilities.
These two job changes were miles apart in their approach and their effectiveness. The first put my career at risk in the first moments on the job. The second one got me off to a decent start. After two weeks, I had made the circuit through the company's three divisions. I was comfortable in what my job would entail and the people I would be assisting. I felt welcome and energized. While the second transition was considerably better than the first, I knew there was a better way to do this. In subsequent postings I will share these insights. If you would care to share a couple of your own contrasting transitions to new jobs, it would be great to hear your stories. http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
Here are examples of two of my job changes. The first was in the early 80's when I joined a major corporation as a new executive in one of their divisions. There were 46 people in the eight departments that I was to lead. To add to the challenge, this was my first corporate job. For the past 12 years I had been an Army officer. My first civilian job was a relatively high one, as I reported to the division president. I had no margin for error. I knew the transition would require my very best efforts and attention and I was eager to get started in my new career. The executive I replaced was anxious to move on to his next job, which was one he had waited three years to get. No one gave me any idea what to expect on my first day. The only experience I had in job changes previously had been in the Army. They tended to be somewhat well managed (at least in peacetime).
I reported for work on my first day and went to the outgoing executive's office as I had been told to do. We chatted for a few minutes and then he said, "Come with me." We wandered through the labyrinth of hallways and came to a door that was marked with just a number. He opened the door and ushered me in. Sitting and standing in that room were the 46 people I was about to lead. I knew nothing about them (nor they me) and I had no inkling that this meeting was about to happen. The outgoing director stood in front of the group and said words to the effect of, "This is your new boss. He comes to us from the Army. The floor is yours. Good luck." He then walked out and winked at me as he closed the door. I had all of 30 seconds to get a grip on things, check my attitude and body language, and launch into some sort of introductory remarks. Needless to say, this was a very important first encounter. As the old adage goes: "You only have one opportunity to make a good first impression." Well, I survived the moment and went on to enjoy a couple of successful years in that role. I had a great team.
Now to another job transition--eight years later. I was joining another Fortune 500 company as a vice president. My first day on the job my boss was out of town for a week. Her executive assistant had a detailed agenda of whom I was to meet during the first two weeks and the purpose of each meeting. Included in the process were all of the administration steps associated with joining a new company. My boss had left instructions that two days later I was to join a team from one of our three divisions that would be hiring a number of people in advance of a large contract start-up five states away. That team leader had a checklist for me of what my role would be and how to get started doing it. It was a great hands on introduction to their business that lasted for three days. At the end of my first two weeks on the job I had a good headstart into my roles and responsibilities.
These two job changes were miles apart in their approach and their effectiveness. The first put my career at risk in the first moments on the job. The second one got me off to a decent start. After two weeks, I had made the circuit through the company's three divisions. I was comfortable in what my job would entail and the people I would be assisting. I felt welcome and energized. While the second transition was considerably better than the first, I knew there was a better way to do this. In subsequent postings I will share these insights. If you would care to share a couple of your own contrasting transitions to new jobs, it would be great to hear your stories. http://www.esiassoc.com/ http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Welcome to Leading Edge Memo's
So what can you expect from my blog? Entries will cover a range of topics from executive recruiting to executive coaching with a heavy dose of leadership development and career change mangement intermixed. Topics are derived from my 38 years of leadership experience both as a senior officer in the military and as an executive with three Fortune 500 companies, including over a decade as an executive recruiter with a "top five" firm and as an executive coach and recruiter in private practice. I've recruited executives from CEO to director level in the US and abroad. My search and coaching clients range from the Fortune 500 to health systems and hospitals to nonprofits to universities to small companies. I've learned a lot along the way, much of which might be helpful to you. That's my intent, anyway. I encourage you to follow my blog and contribute your comments (and your own stories). Welcome aboard and thanks for spending time with me. http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/
Michael Burroughs
Michael Burroughs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)