I had a good conversation today about a business owner whom we assessed as a salesperson and found some varied results. The owner was strong in some areas but weak in some important aptitudes. This led to the discussion that the owner was one of the best people at actually selling this service so how could they have lower scores in these areas.

Some important points about this scenario:

• Hiring is a complex process with an almost limitless amount of variables. A successful process needs to incorporate objective data and then use it interactively with the candidate. Our approach is to pursue specific topics, in an indirect manner, once we have the assessment of the candidate. Some times companies overvalue positive assessment results.

• This business owner is strong at selling this service. Does that mean there is not a stronger salesperson out there? If the owner is strong with some lower aptitudes, how successful a “strong aptitudes” salesperson be? The trap here is that people assume (by their metrics) there isn’t a stronger salesperson in the marketplace.

• Management is often assumed as exemplary. Often, it is not. The best candidate will quickly fail in a new role if their manager is not aligned with them in the role. What I mean by that is we often see managers who have no idea how to effectively lead this new person who has joined their team. Typically, the manager manages to their own style. Any team members who do not align with this approach are removed. The manager then leads to the hiring process and fills the opening with a clone of themselves. Soon they have filled the team with employees who share the same strengths and similar weaknesses.

Comments(0)

Not the most inspiring introduction:

“I need any sedentary job that need no previous experiance, based on hourly wage…”

Comments(0)

Last week we posted on the CEO turnover problem both here and here. Today, I caught up to a lengthy CareerJournal.com article regarding How to Fire a CEO: It’s Harder to Sack the Boss. It is an interesting read about the multiple dismissals that have arisen recently. This topic hits home in that the United Healthcare imbroglio occurred in our backyard this year.

This is borders on the absurd:

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. dismissed CEO Robert J. O’Connell last year, saying that he padded a retirement account by millions of dollars, misused corporate aircraft and conducted an affair with a female executive. But a panel of arbitrators said last month that MassMutual should not have terminated Mr. O’Connell for cause. The arbitrators found that Mr. O’Connell made questionable moves to benefit the retirement account and had affairs with two other employees, but said these did not amount to “willful gross misconduct” that materially damaged the company — as his contract required. MassMutual has appealed the decision, which could force it to pay Mr. O’Connell more than $40 million.

Wow. The obvious question is what would the arbitrators consider as “willful gross misconduct?” I really don’t want to know the answer to that question.

I guess this statement provides some insight into how these issues are handled:

It’s so hard to fire a CEO for cause that many boards don’t try, even when ethical problems are involved. Some boards work out other departure arrangements that allow the CEO to leave with severance or other benefits intact.

A few years back, we were involved with a customer that ended up firing their CEO. He was a complete maverick and a definite High D. He arbitrarily hired our services for a consortium for which his company was just one of many manufacturers. We ended up meeting with the president of this consortium who was a bit confused as to our reason for meeting. He proceeded with our hiring process until he got the word out to the other companies involved in the consortium. At that point, the hiring process was terminated.

The CEO for this company was fired not long after this event.

Comments(0)