Choosing Members of the Leadership Team; Lessons Learned

I recently had the opportunity to interview for a COO position with a food company. I truly enjoyed the Leadership Team and would have loved to be their choice. I was a very close second place, so I wanted to ensure that my comments aren't formed by disappointment or vindictiveness. So, I went back to my notes that I kept as I went thru the process, as I was hopeful to bring these observations to the CEO & his partner for future consideration. I will share 3 areas of focus, as I believe that they should apply to any selection process, especially at the executive level. They are:

    1- Choosing and preparing the selection process.

    2- The selection process.

    3- The decision process.

This company did work together with an outside resource, it appears, to put together a robust job description. It was well done and thoughtful. I believe that this step is clearly the first one to take at any level, but like so many companies, it was never referenced throughout the selection process. Who is to be involved in the process and determine their role and preparation is the next critical step. I will address this area further in the second and third phases. Should an assessment be part of the selection criteria, and if so, who is involved in shaping this critical piece? Do assessments truly improve the selection process? Finally, does the organization establish an effective and unbiased selection matrix to help it make the decision? I will answer these questions in the next two phases for this particular situation, but I am convinced that my experience is very typical with well-intended decision makers.

In this case, I was asked to present the typical materials i.e. resume, etc. My initial job was to convince the Executive Search Firm that I should be one of the candidates to be presented to the company. This is as it should be, as this is the reason a company hires an outside firm with help in these critical decisions. The search firm provides an overview of the candidates and guides the decision team along the way. In this case, the search firm principle presented two well vetted candidates to the company who turned around and added two additional candidates that they sourced on their own. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with the company sourcing its own candidates, but in this situation, these candidates were not given the same opportunity to go thru the scrutiny that an effective search firm goes thru. This decision results in a very uneven playing field for the candidates, and if not agreed upon up front, potentially unfair to the search firm, as was the case in this one. 

It should be noted that this company does not have a HR department or lead. I find this fact unfortunate but not all that unusual in smaller, emerging companies. The internal lead working with the search firm was part of the leadership team but ran another department. She was pleasant, helpful, and responsive, but she is not an expert in this area. All the more reason to use the Search Firm to its fullest. My first contact with the company was a typical phone screen which I was told would be conducted by the functional lead in charge of this process. When we got on the phone, I found out that the CEO had joined her for the call. I was very pleased with this development and felt it appropriate; however, not having this information up front started to raise a flag for me. It was an excellent conversation, but honestly, they were not very prepared and there were a number of awkward transitions between the two interviewers. 

Gratefully, I was asked to move forward with the process which meant taking an assessment which they called a "test." It's always an attention getter for me when this word is used. It is a clear sign that the leadership team doesn't understand this part of the process and that the tool being used is probably not well thought out. Minimally, it usually means that the tool will not be utilized correctly. I have had exposure to a number of different assessments throughout my career. It has become big business, and well-intentioned companies sell it to a leadership team, even if they know that it will not be used properly. I am not anti-assessment, but I find that a vast majority of companies fall into the category of misuse, often hurting the selection process. In this case, the assessment was new to me but seems to be the one in favor. I bring up this piece, as I find so many CEO's today who have emerged from a specialist vs generalist career background. And, when it comes to HR issues, especially employee selection, the CEO hires a person to get this part of the business off their back, as they usually hate it, even though they won't admit it publicly. When coupled with the fact that a growing number of CHRO's feel the same way, they, too, pass it onto their department "expert" in this area. In this scenario, there was no "expert" within the organization, and they chose not to use the external expert, the search firm, effectively. 

Again, I was pleased to be asked to participate in the final interview process, as one of the finalist for the COO position. They touted this position as a new one in the company, and technically, this description is accurate. Through my own research, I discovered that they had let the VP of Operations go early in the year. They decided to upgrade the position to a COO position playing the role of "integrator" as part of the operating platform that they were moving toward. It was a well thought out strategic move, and I was excited to be in the mix. Trying to understand the format, I learned the names and positions of the people who would participate in the f2f interview portion of the selection process. I was well prepared and had put together folders for each one of them with a couple of key items that would help describe the value that I would bring to the organization. As it turned out, all seven (7) of these people joined me in the conference room except one member who joined via a conference call. I was a bit surprised by this format but was glad that I had prepared so well. After quick introductions, the CEO "turned" it over to me. This approach was a first for me, but I took it from there, using the folder to frame questions and dialogue with the team. It actually flowed extremely well, and I saw this format to be in my favor. We talked for over 3 hours without interruption and covered a bunch of meaty topics. 

The CEO and I joined a smaller group at one of their new units for another couple of hours which turned out to be a very effective part of the process. While I really liked the format, I was told that I was the first one to go thru it. I had the distinct feeling that those in the room really didn't know what their role was to be in this interview. I make this point, as they did this process 3 more times taking a ton of leadership's time. I am not being critical of the amount of time spent but the lack of preparation to ensure the best possible decision could be made. Did the leadership team know the criteria that would be used to make the decision? During the 3 hour interview, I was told that every person on the leadership team would have a "vote" in the decision. A real indicator that the assessment was misunderstood came about half way through the conversation. The CEO's Partner who plays a prominent role shared that this was the first time that they had used this assessment tool and were still trying to figure it out. Was everyone on the team given a copy of the assessment results? Had they participated in establishing the profile? Did they know how to use the tool? There was only one question that came from this tool, and I was pleased to be able to have an opportunity to address this one. Just to reiterate, I think the right assessment used effectively should be a critical piece of the selection process; unfortunately, this experience is very typical of a vast majority of organizations using "tests" today. 

While I truly enjoyed this leadership team and the process, the last area to discuss is the decision making approach. Previously, I mentioned that the CEO had shared that every member of the Leadership Team was going to have a vote. I don't know if he was providing an equal vote structure or if he (or he and his partner) had the final say. He believes in Servant Leadership, and here is where this process gets fuzzy. There are so many different definitions of "Servant Leadership." I fashion myself as one, as well, that additionally practices Situational Leadership. I've been in his shoes on this type of decision, and I botched it royally. Much like this process, I reached out and involved key stakeholders in a major hiring decision. There was strong input on one of the candidates from one of my key constituencies, and it did not jive with the decision that I knew was best for my Region. As I tried to understand this input, I discovered that this group had positioned for this person to be one of the finalists and had a strong tie to this individual. I was in the process of bringing a very different thinking and approach to this function, and this key group had outmaneuvered me. I went with the other choice and quickly apologized to this influential group for not better defining the process and the role that this group and others would play. This situation has shaped my approach on these kinds of decisions ever since. 

Finally, I am a big fan of Deming's TQM approach. One of his critical tools is asking the question "Why" 5 times to really peel away the onion to get to the root of the issue. Taking this approach to this situation, I come to this conclusion: the company does not have an internal resource today that could advise the group on how to enrich this process and most importantly, didn't utilize the outside resource that they hired to help them find the best candidate. While I was a very close second, one of the outside candidates received the offer. This team is a quality group, so I trust that they made the right decision for them, but they missed using a key resource in this process, the search firm. Hopefully, as a value added, I am attaching a webinar presentation that I recently attended. The presenter had some extremely discouraging facts about the hiring and success rate of new executives at companies. She claims that almost 50% of these new executives exit the new company within 18 months. The implications are obvious, and she presents a very solid approach on how to improve this percentage dramatically. I really like her process, but I have always tried to be proactive in my approach to life and business. The root of this issue stems from a less than stellar selection process, which almost always seems to be an afterthought in most organizations. Today's CEO's tout the importance of selection processes (talk the talk) but rarely "walk the talk." In this case, they committed to the time but did not have the expertise to optimize this commitment. Most importantly, they chose not to use the resource at their disposal that could have helped dramatically. 

The bigger issue is the readiness and approach of many of today's CEO's. I see such a trend toward group think and following the latest fad. Selection processes are just one of many examples that I could site, but that’s a topic for another day. I encourage CEO's to get proactive and learn to ask the right questions of HR &/or an external resource and insist on 100% execution of the process from those involved in the decision. Coupled with a strong transition approach that is often missing, companies will optimize the ROI on these critical decisions. 

Dave Daniels