In his letter to General John Hood, General Robert E. Lee wrote, “They (the Army) will go anywhere and do anything if properly led. But there is a difficulty – (finding) proper commanders.”
In my consultant role, I often lead the search for senior leaders such as president/CEO, vice presidents, general managers, and senior staff. This year alone I have completed 10 searches. The more senior the leader, the more difficult it is to match the position with the candidate who possesses the necessary skill set for the position and the condition of the hiring company.
In assessing and questioning potential executives, one must apply diligence to the vetting, ask direct and probing questions of the candidate and references, seek the proper experience and attitudes, and look for compassion yet a toughness of soul that will render the hard decisions that are critical components of success. These decisions differ significantly from company to company.
Some might ask, “what was General Lee implying relative to the selection of commanders”? Many have defined the characteristics, methodology, demeanor, personality type, and more to explain the components of the consummate leader. What is rarely considered is which characteristics are most applicable to the needs of this company in particular?
I add to the theories by writing to say that matching senior leader to a position is one of the most complex tasks faced by boards and presidents, because the leadership characteristics of the candidates, and the demands of each position, and the condition of the hiring company vary dramatically. To make my point, I am listing the leadership characteristics and traits, some of which my readers may not have considered. The length of the list alone explains General Lee’s lament to General Hood concerning the difficulty in finding able commanders. It is no different in the search for presidents/CEOs and others.
The list below of leader characteristics is broad and deep but still not a consummate list that would help explain why the task to match positions and all their variables to seemingly qualified candidates, but who also have diverse characteristics – some that fit the position and some that do not.
Character Self-control
Passion Articulate
Motivating Caring/compassionate
Intelligent (usually better than intellectual) Persuasive
Knowledgeable Charismatic
Enthusiastic Visionary
Decisive Intentional impatience (at times)
Risk indifferent Drama capable
Courageous Indifferent to self-feelings
Inspirational Unbound by consensus
Sound judgment Analytical
Objective Non-conforming
Pragmatic (but not always predictable) Fair
Firm Demanding
Results driven Personable
Polished Time sensitive
Audacious Teacher/coach
The 34 characteristics of a senior leader can come in degrees; some exist all the time – some on occasion; most should be available to the leader dependent on the circumstances. Similar to General Lee in his letter to General Grant, we ask ourselves why is it so difficult to find the right senior leader, for the right position, and at the right time?
Lee’s dilemma is what boards and presidents face when seeking to hire a senior leader. Which of the characteristics above are needed at this time in the history and state of the company and which prospect best fits the position?
My experience with boards and search committees is that often they have not even had the discussion relative to the needs of the company and the type of leader required to move the organization forward. In fact, more times than not the favored candidate is the individual whom they are most comfortable with, which means who the consensus likes best. Likeability has some value, but it can carry so much weight with search committee members that I try to water it down to personable.
It is the consultant’s duty to lead and encourage boards, presidents, and search committees to define the needs of the company first and to steer the hiring authority to the candidate who best fits those needs with little consideration of likeability or their own personal feelings. Boards, in particular, ostensibly lean towards the candidate whom they sense will be the easiest to work with (control?), which in many cases is precisely the candidate they should not select.
In the selection of company presidents/CEOs, I have been in negotiation with search committees wherein their membership is determined by diversity in gender and race, popularity, and representative of different influential groups within the organization. As a rule, committees such as these are difficult to counsel or turn, and have a propensity for recommending a compromise candidate “liked” by the majority. This is a typical outcome among college faculty search committees. Fortunately or unfortunately, consultants are rarely employed to assist with these searches.
Each search is different and the hiring authority or search committee for senior leaders must be lead and coached before any candidate is even considered. The consultant must diplomatically steer the membership away from group think, assist them in determining the needs of the organization and the pitfalls ahead it one member with a strong personality takes over the discussion, and likeability becomes the main event in the discussion of the finalists. Otherwise, as I have observed, the committee can end up with a list of finalists who are mainly extroverts, and who enjoy interaction more than action.