Priority One-History off Demonstrated Results Table 2.1 breaks out the relative ranking of the top five factors that showed up on clients' specifications for this sample of general management positions.
Not surprisingly, client spec sheets reflect many of the same profiles that CEOs tell us are the most important factors for general management. Leading the list is a reputation for having achieved results. The best predictor of success is past successes. Paper routes and school leadership activities predict early job success. Success in early jobs predicts success in bigger jobs. So it is not surprising that the number one priority that companies state is to find someone who has achieved results in other places. In fact, this reputation for results is the one factor that does not change in relative importance across the three stages of a search. Both the clients and the search firms understand that no interview techniques, resume, style, charisma or personal skill can be as good a predictor of success as someone who has been successful.
This is all obvious, but what is important in stages two and three is to understand that it is difficult to determine how much of a company's success is appropriately attributed to an individual candidate. Search firm partners say the one thing that they want to know is a candidate's real contributions to a success. As one of them put it, "I would like to understand exactly where his or her fingerprints were on what happened."
This is the foundation for two initial lessons: "upside" and "downside." The upside rule is work your way into circumstances where it is unambiguously clear what your contribution is, what you are responsible for and how it can be measured. For example, if you are the president of a subsidiary that is measured as a separate P&L and you had three or four years of sales and profit, then it's going to be a lot easier to find your fingerprints on the success than if you were the corporate marketing officer whose role in the volume-building of a new brand is hard to calibrate.
The downside rule is never overstated or imply as a greater link between yourself and the results of a company than is unarguably the case. This is a critical factor-one that was mentioned by every search consultant. The easiest ways to shoot yourself in the foot as a candidate is to inflate your role in past successes.
There is nothing more embarrassing to a search consultant than to put forth a candidate who is found to have overstated his or her record.
Priority Two-Ability to Think Strategically
The second most important item clients place on spec sheets is the ability to think strategically. That is what general managers are paid to do; that and to motivate people to implement the strategy. (Which is why interpersonal and communication skills are two of the next three most important factors.) But what does this mean? And how do you develop this skill to think strategically?
People in leadership roles, people who have achieved success, have in fact looked out over the horizon and pictured the world as it could be. Only then did they take the steps to communicate that vision to others and shape the organization to fit that picture. At this strategic level the stakes are the highest, the time frames longest, and the risks most substantial. Those who see the opportunities, and threats, can picture the successful path and move an organization in that direction creates the most value.
The question is, where do you get this skill and how do you recognize it in others? One of the best drills to develop strategic thinking is to study history. Great generals, great politicians and even great athletes have studied not only the most successful practitioners of their art, but all of the classic encounters. Through these studies of history they understand the kinds of options available to leaders and the interactions that occur in a competitive situation. They understand the dynamics of a "strategic challenge."
Strategic thinkers also have a broad understanding of the external forces that come to bear on a company. They are consumers not only of history, but of news. They want to understand the fundamental models of economics and politics, of production and engineering, of science and technology. Strategic thinkers always want to know, "How does it work?" Early in their careers they develop the habit of studying the strategic decisions of the companies they are in. They ask themselves, "Why did these decisions get made, how were they made, would I have done the same thing?"
How do you tell if someone has this ability? In the best case, you can isolate specific circumstances where the candidate has, in fact, been responsible for a strategic shift and its implementation. But even an experienced executive might be able to point to only one or two such clear-cut cases. As a result, search consultants develop a "sense" of how well someone thinks strategically, not by just listening to how candidates describe circumstances they were in or what they did, but by the nature of the questions they ask about the company and its circumstance. If the questions are about the competition, the environment, the alternatives, the risks and the resources, they impart a strong sense of thinking strategically. A candidate who talks about the internal procedures, mechanics of the job, reporting relationships and budgeting procedures illustrates only tactical thinking. Tactical issues are important, but the most successful individuals are those who first study a situation and assess the general competitive situation and where change can be made. Good leaders focus on the big strategic issues because that is what interests them. Those people assume that procedures and tactics be changed to complement the strategic mission.
It is not surprising that at the top of every spec sheet are two things: a reputation for results and the ability to think strategically. Equally rational is the item that shows up tied for second place, communication skills.
Priority Three-Communication Skills
Every manager knows there is only one tool to move an organization in a strategic direction-effective and convincing communication.
Communication skills are vital because they are the only link between strategy and action. It doesn't matter how smart you are or how right you are, if the rest of the people either don't understand what it is you want or think they do understand but have something different in mind, you have failed as a leader.
Managerial jobs require more and more good judgment. Hierarchies are being flattened so that one's superior does not hand out tasks minute by minute. And with companies operating around the clock and around the globe, there isn't the time to wait until it is clear everyone is doing exactly what is required. So it is vital that people understand what is expected of them.
They need to not only understand, but to accept. Today people no longer accept as a given that they should automatically do whatever it is that the company tells them to do. They have been brought up to understand that they have the right to understand why something is going to be done. They believe that they have the right to judge the rightness of a policy. They believe they have the right to question leaders, and the right to personal involvement in the decision-making process. Against this background it is no wonder that senior executives are not only judged by, but totally reliant on, communication skills to persuade, convince and lead.
There have been countless studies about productivity in organizations. It turns out that employees' feelings about management's explanations of the company's future are one of the highest predictors of productivity and worker motivation. The better "connected" they feel to management's agenda, the more positive they become.
In his book, Work and the Nature of Man, Frederick Herzberg wrote that it was not working conditions, pay, company policies and so on that determine whether people were satisfied and productive. He asserted that "intrinsic" factors, that is, the sense of challenge, the sense of participation in something useful, the sense of identification with the company and its goals, determined how satisfied (and productive) people were.
Since that book was written, time has proven him right. This makes clear just how vital communication skills are to the senior executive. They are the only weapon he or she has to engage the organization on terms that are likely to make it the most effective and productive over the long haul.
This is not to say that inarticulate, monosyllabic or "grammatically challenged" executives cannot succeed. But it makes the job more difficult and the odds against success more substantial. Just compare the last two Republican presidents. Ronald Reagan was "the great communicator," highly effective as a leader, engaging Americans in a nearly revolutionary change in government strategy that politicians with greater intellect or greater experience could not accomplish.
The contrast with George Bush was stark. He lacked Reagan's gifts for making points clearly at a level that the audience was most likely to respond to. Bush was a man with a wonderful reputation of public service. He engineered one of the most significant foreign policy victories imaginable by assembling a difficult coalition during Desert Storm. Yet he was turned out of office less than two years later because he was unable to communicate his affection for the country and his sense of priorities. He admitted he had trouble with "the vision thing." Unfortunately, "the vision thing" is a codeword for making people feel engaged and motivated. That weakness is a fatal flaw in a leader.
Is a good communicator born or trained? Of all executive skills, this talent can be developed with focus, practice and perseverance. I recommend a three-ingredient recipe to become a good communicator. First, develop a vocabulary that allows you to express a broad range of ideas with nuance. If you are limited by the same short list of verbs and adjectives, it is like being a cook who only has a handful of ingredients. The more ingredients you have in your cupboard and the fresher and stronger they are, the more variety and excitement there will be to the dishes you create.
Learning vocabulary is a function of doing a large amount of reading and in a variety of fields. Read literature to see how good writers have used words to describe, to convey setting, to convey image and to convey emotion. A diet of business books, spy novels and the sports pages won't do much for your vocabulary. (With this book being an exception.) The good communicator leavens this basic diet with good doses of the classics, novels and dramas that focus on the human condition and convey setting and background. Opinion magazines and literary/editorial journals use language to strongly argue points of view. Regardless of your own political leanings, read the opinion magazines from the other side of the aisle. Reading things that you agree with doesn't stimulate your brain as much as things that challenge your beliefs. Next down the food chain are the great newspapers and magazines, whose writing is far preferable to that of most metropolitan dailies.
The second ingredient is to be focused, brief, direct, and to engage the most human parts of the audience. Memos should be brief, with the conclusion and required or suggested action in the first paragraph. Supporting facts and rationale must be contained within two or three pages. Larger "broadcast" memos should assume that people are literate adults who do not need to be protected from clarity on subjects they may not like or agree with.
Many executives, whether it is in front of groups, in memos or in meetings, feel that they need to be ponderous and grave. They rarely use short words or talk as human beings do. They feel they need to be dry or emotionless, draining human feelings from corporate governance. All these styles inhibit effective communication. People understand that management has both the right and the obligation to take action and enforce practices that people may resist. But as long as the policies are for the good of the organization, they will go along. What people resent is being addressed as children or being manipulated by double talk. Compare the following examples and decide which is more likely to diminish the credibility of management.
MEMO ONE
To: Staff
Subject: Company Cars
As you know, we are having a very tough year financially. Except for those whose jobs involve more than 20,000 driving travel miles a year, we are eliminating company cars for everybody else. Right now this is a perk we cannot afford. We are sorry, and I am sure we all hope that we can reopen this topic at some time in the future.
MEMO TWO
To: Staff
Subject: Re-evaluation of Private Transportation Expense Alternatives
A procedure has been set-up whereby private ground transportation expenses and alternative delivery modes for all employees entitled to use company resources for ground transportation need to be re-evaluated in light of current fiscal considerations. Employees who currently have ground transportation resources or dedicated vehicles at their disposal will be expected to submit a justification of the rational for continued provision thereof. It is expected that those individuals whose current documentable utilization of company-provided transportation exceeds 5,000 miles per calendar quarter will be assumed to have an acceptable rationale for continued provision of ground transportation. All others should expect that, in the absence of extraordinary contrary factors, for the duration of the current period of financial dislocation, the company will not subsidize and/or directly provide ground transportation resources.
Ingredient three is practice, practice, practice. No one ever became a world-record long distance runner merely by wanting to and no one ever became a great communicator without taking every opportunity to practice. Practice eliminates nervousness and develops a relaxed, mature and self-confident style. Only actual presentations help someone to get comfortable with pacing, with making connection with the audience, with working with both scripts and outlines, and with handling questions.
Some firms employ communication consultants who can be excellent critical observers to help improve your skills. Use videotape to see how you look in front of an audience. Just as important is editing memos. Most should be edited several times before sending. There is nothing worse than an incomprehensible memo. It is not just a failure of communication it's an indication of the writer's executive ability. Have others look at drafts and give you back in two or three sentences what it meant. Ask readers if your drafts do what they feel they are expected to do and how it made them feel. Edit your work with emphasis on clarity rather than trying to impress them with how much work you have done.
The most common complaint from senior executives about newly minted MBAs is they cannot write well. They don't write concisely or appreciate the reader's point of view. Perhaps the most common of these new MBA communication sins is the desire to show the reader how much work they did. Business memos should not be written like murder mysteries, that is, the goal is not to keep the reader in suspense until the last paragraph and then have the reader say, "Aha, that's how it all fits together." The chairman of the board of the first company at which I worked had a great rule for all young MBAs. He insisted that any memo written to him be two pages or less in total length. Within the first two paragraphs, the action he was expected to take, the conclusion he was expected to reach, or the fact he was suppose to learn had to be expressed in one underlined sentence. And yet every year, young executives send thirty or fifty page memos to their superiors assuming they can be impressed by the total heft of the document.
Unfortunately, the widespread adoption of e-mail has worsened this problem. It is too easy to crank out junk on your computer and send it without doing any editing. Remember, the goal is not to take advantage of your time by composing something quickly. The goal is to use the time of your readers wisely; to make sure they understand what they are supposed to do. If you ask someone to read something irrelevant or unimportant, you have imposed a cost on the organization far larger than the extra ten minutes it would take you to edit your own work and to think through who should get it and why.
Priority Four-Fit with Company Culture
The first three specifications all mean the same thing for every company and executive position. A "cultural fit" means quite different things for each company, and is not something you can prepare for in a generic way. In Chapter 6 we will talk more about "fit" and how recruiters decide who "fits" with a particular company.
There is no question that "fit" is a key item. But "fit" does not mean conformity. Fit means you have the skills and style the company needs at that time. It means you have a compatible orientation toward decision making and how people work together. It means you have values that make it likely you will be able to work with others in senior management. It means you bring to the table the "missing ingredient" that a company needs to face new challenges or to move in new directions.
It's obvious that every executive will not fit every culture. Fit is not a mark of success or failure, but if the fit isn't natural, a "forced fit" never works. Clients that pretend to have a company culture different than what it is will end up seeing managers leave when they discover the truth. Similarly, candidates who pretend to be what the company wants, as opposed to what they are, will either become frustrated or disenchanted, but will certainly not be productive or contribute to the company's success. The elements of cultural fit are diverse. They include traits like degree of aggressiveness, decision-making style, and whether a company is "upward" looking, "outward" looking, tolerant of eclectic interests or insistent that people share the same values and lifestyles. Culture includes factors such as whether a company is change-oriented, or in crisis, or fast-paced, or stable.
The elements of fit are a function of the individual's own upbringing and previous experiences. For example, candidates are presumed to have adopted the culture of the places they have worked. Therefore, one important piece of advice: it helps to have spent some time at what search consultants call "academy companies," well-known firms perceived to have positive, energetic cultures, and to be aggressive, challenging and discriminating in their hiring. Household names like Motorola, McKinsey, Pepsi, Microsoft, the U.S. Marines and West Point are all examples of organizations that have a clear public cultural persona which will reflect well upon people who spend time at them.
While there is great variability in the specifics of a company's culture, an essential ingredient of cultural fit everywhere is the ability to get along with people. That is why priority number five is as high as it is.
Priority Five-Interpersonal Skills
The inclusion of interpersonal skills as one of the top five executive traits is consistent in any survey of executives. It is also one of the fuzzy criteria and one that raises the most questions among both MBA students and middle managers. They cannot understand what this means or why is it important. "If I am doing my job and I know what I am doing, what does it matter if I am a social butterfly?" A senior manager will say, "I am not running a popularity contest; my goal is for the company to be successful. I'm not going to waste a lot of time trying to charm employees or pretend that this place is some kind of democracy when it clearly isn't."
All these protestations miss the mark. People skills are not about being nice, friendly in a phony way, or pretending that the workplace is something it isn't. People skills involve understanding that people have choices and their productivity is a function of their attitude and respect for the people with whom they work. The single best predictor of peoples' attitudes toward their company is their relationship with their supervisor. If they respect that person and feel respected in return then you have the most positive kind of environment. Having people skills means inuring the understanding and instinct to treat people as you yourself would like to be treated.
People skills allow companies to adapt to today's rapid change. To be able to employ multifunctional teams, or teams between company suppliers and customers, top executives must set the example of being respectful, yet open, friendly yet professional, courteous and polite yet efficient in their use of time. Successful leaders learn to handle disagreements without having them become personal.
MBAs often ask about how to develop people skills. My advice is to spend more time with people, be open to others and allow that experience to affect you. You learn how effective groups operate when you focus on helping others. I suggest that, instead of relying on your strengths to be less dependent on people, you make yourself vulnerable to and committed to other groups, to understand what people need from leadership.
Ironically, to lead is to understand that the role of the leader is to serve. Your job is to make the people who work for you more productive, rather than having them serve you. You must learn to listen and not talk, to take criticism without defense. Good leaders don't argue, but deal with the source of the misperception. They don't blame people or accuse them for coming to the wrong conclusion. Leaders with good people skills assume good will; they pay attention to others and seek feedback. They take it as their responsibility to ensure that appropriate conclusions are reached.
People with good skills treat junior subordinates and non-managerial staff not as computers but as individuals. You learn their names and have short but polite conversations with them. Visit people on their own turf and don't assume that your exalted position in the hierarchy should make everyone come to you. Show respect for their time and interest in their activities. People want to feel good about themselves and they want other people to feel good about themselves. They want to feel trusted, respected and enthusiastic. They want to feel interested and they want to feel valued. So all you really need to do is find out from the people you work with how you make them feel.
Unlike communications skills, improving people skills does not require outside consultants. Everyone you work with has a good read on your interpersonal skills, and knows how, and where, you can improve. The trick is being open to receiving feedback. This requires you to feel capable of accepting it and others to feel trusting enough to give it without fear or concern. As you become better and better at placing yourself in other's shoes, you will learn more and more. We are all so focused on our own activities and our own feelings that it is hard to get that "outside-in" perspective. As you acquire the habit of "automatic empathy," your people skills will grow. People who hire top executives put people skills among their top five necessary traits. They know that people who don't know how to get along, or are self-centered, will ultimately fail, since no one will be following where they are trying to lead.
Priority Six-Reputation for Organizational Building
This was a very high factor in position specifications with more than 80 percent of recruiters listing it high or very high (see Table 2.2). It is similar to the reputation for results. But it refers to the ability to change and improve an organization, not just wringing results from an existing firm. Companies that are stable, not having problems, and satisfied with the status quo, are more likely to have an internal candidate. They look to someone who "grew up in the culture" to continue it on its course. But when a company is looking for a senior executive from the outside, there is a perceived need to change strategy or to deal with new challenges. Dissatisfaction with the status quo drives many searches. Therefore, the ability to "grow" the organization in the face of threats is the key.
Today, this element becomes more and more important. Every firm, including even the most traditionally strong companies, recognizes the need to build, continuously improve and face new challenges and opportunities. The most visible example of this is the recruitment of Lou Gerstner to IBM. IBM symbolized a most extraordinary shift in American industry. Its leadership came from within. The troubles they encountered made it clear anyone can get into trouble. What they needed was someone with a reputation for organizational change and leadership to challenge the established traditions that got them into trouble. Gerstner's reputation as a builder was developed at American Express and solidified with how he handled the extraordinary challenges at RJR Nabisco. He also was qualified as a strategic thinker, a good communicator, had a reputation for results and had good people skills. But the IBM board's willingness to take on someone who didn't know the industry was due to his reputation for effecting major change.
Priorities Seven through Nine-Previous Comparable Position, Previous P&L or Line Management Experience, Previous Industry Experience
Comparable positions and previous line experience were rated as very high by slightly over 60 percent of the sample. Previous industry experience was rated very high in about half. It's clear that at senior levels there is an understanding someone must have been in a comparable senior position, preferably with line responsibilities for P&L, but not necessarily in the same industry.
Specific industry experience doesn't carry nearly as much weight as P&L responsibility. It was still listed as a very important factor in half the searches, but in two-thirds of the cases the requirement is more accurately stated as having previously comparable line experience. The rare case will be the person who has achieved relatively senior positions mostly through staff jobs, yet who is still viewed as a candidate for these senior executive jobs. But "cross-functional" promotions are much more likely within a company than via a search. At senior levels, you can change from line to staff, or get promoted, but it's hard to do both in one move.
The lessons are obvious. Your track record is viewed as clearly applicable within your own industry, and is also strongly applicable in comparable kinds of positions. The ability to cross industry lines or industry segment lines is relatively easy. What is more difficult is to attract these kinds of opportunities without the reputation for results and a history of success in handling the challenges of building organizations during periods of threat and/or opportunity.
It is less important that you position yourself in a particular industry than it is to build an individual track record that you can point to as proof you "satisfy" each of these top eight or nine factors. For senior positions it is essential that you earn "check marks" in all of these top eight or nine factors. It will be only the rare case where someone will be considered without meeting all these high priority qualifications. People don't advance in this game with "voids" in their profile.
Our studies indicated that, while still relatively substantial percentages list factors ten through sixteen as being high or very high, these are also the "wish list." These are the "nice," but not necessary, aspects. These factors broaden your appeal, but are not necessarily fatal if you lack them. I would include both sales and marketing experience in the top ten and at the top of this next group. Whether these are "vital" or just "useful" skills is a function of the job and the company culture. Everyone recognizes that business leaders benefit from having experience on the customer side and in actually generating revenue. But a heavy sales career is also viewed as a bit of a two-edged sword. Sales and marketing executives are viewed as having limited abilities in strategic thinking. The caricature is that they have personalities that are too short-term oriented.
Some companies have a bias toward the financial, strategic or the operational/engineering profiles for their chief executive positions. If your career has developed primarily or exclusively on the sales and marketing side, you may be viewed as a less attractive candidate than someone with a diversity of experience. Again, each company is different, but as a general career rule it is important to demonstrate results in each of the major functions. One fundamental question executives should ask themselves is if they can do this within a single company or if they need to look for outside opportunities to create the balanced profile for a broader variety of senior management roles.
Priority group three is the list of "useful" specifications for senior management positions. These are desirable, but not absolutely required. We have already discussed sales and marketing experience as being both the bottom of the top ten and the first one that is typically on the "nice to have" section. Note that sales and marketing experience is essentially the last factor where the sum of both the very high and high ratings put it close to 80 percent.
Number 11 on the list is "charm and charisma" with 40 percent rating it very high. I was surprised by this, as were a number of the partners. They felt than since we asked about charm and charisma together, it shows up because typically a description of a desirable executive is a strong leader with charismatic qualities and good interpersonal skills. So to some degree it is a reflection of the fact that people understand that successful leaders have charisma. But both the search firms and the clients are aware of the distinction between charming yet ineffective people and those for whom that is just another attribute of results.
Physical appearance is factor 12. There is no question that, all things being equal, there is an advantage to being conventionally good-looking, well-groomed, in shape, and attractive. It is not so much that people are looking for physical attractiveness as they understand that people who take pride in their appearance and show self-discipline bring the same traits to their work. There is no automatic correlation between skill and appearance. But in our culture tall is better than short, thin is better than fat, attractive is better than homely.
Factor number 13 on the list is background in the specific technology. This is not a dominant factor in most cases. There are companies which believe individuals need some familiarity with their key technology, while others believe management skills transcend the background. All things being equal, recruiters would prefer some exposure to engineering, technology or physical science, biological science, computers, marketing technology, consumer products, or whatever is at the "core" of the company. But they interpret technology in the broadest sense. Again, the key lesson is that it is not so much the technology or the specific industry that defines your profile as an executive. It is whether you have achieved a reputation for results and can demonstrate the key skills of senior executives.
Factor 14 is having an advanced degree. As former dean of one of the country's better business schools, readers might think I find it discouraging that such a relatively low percentage feel that an MBA is necessary. Only a quarter said an advanced degree was important, and even fewer think it is important that it come from a prestigious school (18%) (Factor 16). It is not that I don't think advanced degrees and especially ones from the better schools create advantages. But factors rank low because the half-life of these advantages is short. MBAs from good schools allow people to be more competitive immediately after graduation. And there is a greater range of job opportunities presented to graduates of better schools for their first job. But by the time people are candidates for general management, it is presumed that the benefits of their education will have shown up in their work.
Factor 15 involves international experience. It came as a surprise to me that, with all of the focus on the globalization of industry, only half listed international experience as an important factor. In almost all cases, an understanding of international issues, experience and perspective is a very positive addition. But today's reality is that only a small percentage of experienced executives have that background. Clients know that to make it a "must" on the specification list will weed out many people who, all other things equal, have the necessary background. However, international experience is clearly a major advantage because there isn't an industry or company that doesn't think about international competition, "internationalization" of products and the need to operate in other cultures. Anyone who can bring that perspective into the company will be highly valued.
For the generation coming up through the ranks, international experience will move upward toward the essential zone on the list. In today's market, companies understand that if they sort for it on an exclusionary basis, they severely cut down their list of potential candidates. But the cut line is different for those now under age 40. If they are to have a shot at the most senior jobs, they will be expected to have some international experience and perspective and an understanding of operating cross-culturally.
In many ways, this is the most important chapter in the book. The "message from the market" to would-be senior managers is clear. There are ten criteria to an executive profile that transcend industry and job function. All candidates are expected to have at least eight, preferably nine, elements of this profile, and must have all top five. If you don't develop your portfolio of these skills and experiences, you will never get past the quarterfinals. Your resume will be discarded. So fill in the blanks before you expect the phone to ring.
