Sunday, December 24, 2006

Hiring The CEO

Let’s imagine. You’re on the board of directors of a multi-billion dollar company. There have been some problems recently and as a good steward of the investment you know that it is time to replace the CEO. You’re wondering about the bottom line and maybe even new directions. Is your product competitive or is technology changing faster than you can adapt? What should your new leadership be doing?

So, you have a board meeting. The directors sit around the mahogany table and discuss what they want in a candidate. What are they suggesting?

Maturity. We need someone with some grounding and the ability to detach emotion from the decision-making process. We don’t want to be wearing our heart on our sleeves when it comes to the success of the corporation do we? We need someone with, dare I say it, gravitas!

Experience. In an operation the size of ours we can’t afford an on-the-job training situation. We’ve got to find someone who has some workplace experience. Someone who knows how to define the problems and bring together a team that can assemble solutions. There’s no room for nepotism or manufactured diversity quotas. We need a leader that can lead and the management staff has to know what they are doing, not simply be square fillers or tokens.

Integrity. Sure, that goes without saying. There’s no room to hire someone who’s run afoul of the law or even someone who might be suspicious in their past. We don’t want to have to divert our resources to putting out fires regarding conduct and honor and behavior. There are problems to be solved regarding the operations here and we don’t need to waste a lot of effort discussing whether the boss wears boxers or briefs.

Well, wait a second. Isn’t it time we consider a woman for the job? I mean the position has been held for as long as we’ve been in business by a man. Isn’t it time for a woman to have a turn at the helm? Wouldn’t that be fair?

Honestly, if we can find a woman who wants the job who possesses the qualities, the values, the experience, the talent, the capability, the moral authority, the respect that we need, then certainly we should consider a woman. It is what is best for the company that should guide our decision. It’s what we owe the stock-holders. It’s what we know is necessary. But, it isn’t going to be because it’s someone’s “turn”. That would be foolish, wouldn’t it? To put someone in the job simply because of their gender rather than their qualifications?

Maybe now you’ve identified the metaphor. The company is the US of A. The board is the voters. The CEO is the president.

That is why it is so ludicrous to be watching the Barack and Hillary follies. That is why this in the New York Times is disturbing:

Applying For A Job

Can someone tell me about Barack? I know he’s the proper mix of white and black parents to somehow make him a Renaissance Man of color. But that doesn’t make him presidential.

I know he’s a Senator from Illinois. But he’s only been in the job two years. That doesn’t make him experienced.

I know he responds to the question about drug use with a throw away about actually inhaling quite a bit and doing “a bit of blow”. Sorry, but at that point he just joined my not-so-short list of disqualified. I don’t need confessed druggies, even recreational druggies, in the big chair in the front office. No. Simply NO!

But, has he ever held a job? Beyond being charming and maybe even somewhat charismatic, does he have any accomplishments of import? What has he done? Beyond being black and cute I seem to find his resume lacking. Does he have any management experience? Built a staff somewhere? Solved some crisis? Met a payroll?

Increasingly I keep returning to the conclusion that America is incapable of exercising democracy. Choosing a CEO isn’t a popularity contest. It isn’t a social engineering laboratory. It isn’t a “everybody gets a turn” fair play exercise. It is about leading the greatest country in the world to success and security for the people. How come we keep forgetting that?

No comments: