Oh, how many chief executives must yearn for the old days, when they were just managing directors and able to just get on with business. Sure, the upgrading of the job title and the associated hike in pay and benefits must be very welcome. But they have come with ever greater expectations — from just about every corner. As a recent article in The Economist points out, chief executives have long had to balance the needs of employees, suppliers and shareholders while staying within the bounds set by governments. But lately the twisting and stretching has become more intense as on the one hand governments, wounded by attacks on globalisation, seek to encourage business to serve their national interests and, on the other, business’s forays into social issues seem to have had limited effect and in some instances could be said to have backfired.
The Economist, unsurprisingly perhaps, recommends that CEOs stick to basics and when deciding whether to speak out on issues they should “use long-term shareholder value as their lodestar.”
But there are other ways in which CEOs are becoming overstretched, leading some to wonder whether the job is becoming too much and too complex for a single individual. In a recent article published in the SHRM Executive Network’s Strategy and People journal, Derek Robson and Tim Brown, respectively CEO and chairman of the design and innovation consultancy IDEO, allude to the growing expectation that leaders should involve themselves in “broader issues in society that historically fell outside the purview of business.” But they also suggest that the structure for leading companies is unsustainable and needs to change.
They argue that in the past the role of leaders was quite straightforward — “to keep the existing machine humming, optimizing for efficiency and profitability.” But now, in addition to delivering results, leaders are expected to drive transformation. With relentless disruption and uncertainty now facts of life, they question whether anybody can fulfil the role and call for “a mindset shift and possible reimagining of how the C-suite operates.”
A good starting point is to move from a belief that chief executives are all-knowing and have the answers to everything to a situation where they should see curiosity as a key attribute. “The ability to ask the right questions is arguably more important for the CEO than having the right answers. That’s because questions provide long-term focus for companies, whereas the right answer in one context can quickly become the wrong answer amid shifting contexts,” they write.
As Robson and Brown acknowledge, this then raises the issue of whether one person can be expected to have the knowledge, expertise and insights to ask the right questions. If, as is likely, the answer to the question is “no”, then there is the matter of who will provide such advice. In the past, such a role has been played by strategy consultants. But the authors advocate more of a “brains trust” sort of approach. This sounds appealing, but — unless a CEO is very lucky in their contacts and ability to call in favours— he or she is still going to have to pay such individuals, thereby nullifying the authors’ requirement of independence.
Perhaps more interesting are their ideas for spreading the load among other executives and giving all those at the top the time to think and contemplate rather than just execute. Both notions are challenging, though. While the CEO is the most obviously and publicly overloaded executive, others are also seeing their workloads increase. Creating future-of-work policies is inevitably leading chief human resources officers into the realm of real estate, for instance, while chief information officers are also becoming involved in human resources as a result of the importance of technology in recruitment and development. In such a context, it is not easy to see how organizations can move away from the current practice of accepting that being at the top is gruelling work for which only a few have the drive and stamina required and give individual executives the time required to regenerate.
Robson and Brown draw a distinction between being at the top in business and in other fields such as sport, music and dance. Only in business, they write, are the individuals expected to be constantly performing; in most other activities much of the individuals’ time is spent on practice. With the demands on business leaders only increasing, it is time to consider a different way of doing things. “Rather than worshipping at the altar of the CEO, organizations need a more collaborative approach as we look to the future. Ultimately, the goal would be to create more of a collective leadership body, rather than relying on one person, the CEO, or their direct reports,” they write.
Read the full article here