Developing Your Next Group of Leaders

As the frustrated mid-career manager stormed out of the Senior Vice President's office, he blurted out the question asked by ambitious people in every organization: "What does it take to get ahead around here?"
The manager felt thwarted and bewildered. Once again, he'd been passed over for a plum job. He just couldn't understand it. He'd taken the company's management development courses, and his performance appraisals had been good. He had even volunteered and been chosen for several task force assignments. Now someone else had gotten the promotion he felt he deserved. Another career move had slipped through his fingers. It seemed that when it really mattered, he had not been given the chance to prove himself.

As the manager left the VP's office, she was concerned that the company might lose a solid performer. But from her perspective, it wasn't clear that an injustice had been done. The company had done its best to develop a fair and open performance appraisal system. The competency movement that had swept through the company several years before informed employees about the experience and accomplishments senior management was going to reward, as well as the capabilities that would be valued. The criteria were out there for all to see.
Even so, the VP knew it wasn't that simple. There were only so many slots, only so many people you could take a chance on. She also knew that it took a special set of qualities to function at the top of an organization. Despite all the training, there seemed to be important intangibles--certain critical qualities that were necessary for entry into senior management. Some people had them. Some people didn't. Being ambitious wasn't enough. Nor was being competent.

Examining Critical Points of Difference
The management psychologists at RHR have long been aware of corporate problems in selecting and developing executives. We have also observed companies that have developed highly idiosyncratic tracking systems in their desire to monitor likely candidates. In the l950's, the president of one client company kept in his desk drawer the resumes of every job applicant who had been brash enough to say during the recruitment interview that his ultimate goal was to run the company. Sure enough, two decades later, one of them got the job.

Today's organizational reality demands a more open process for executive selection and development. Most organizations think that specifying competencies and performance management criteria will fill the bill. But when candidates reach the executive level, the rules often get more complicated. Issues such as "headroom" "character," and "presence" often get mentioned. Unless these are somehow spelled out, ambitious people eventually feel passed over and cheated.

In an effort to understand exactly what traits distinguish middle from upper management, RHR rated the characteristics of 200 people from both groups as part of an in-depth assessment process. In addition, the people assessed were from two large client companies. Since more than one organization was involved, we were most interested in identifying the executives' qualities that were present in both organizations; that is, the qualities and competencies that persisted across different organizational cultures.
At this stage the results can only be considered suggestive, and we intend to add to the data over time. However, the findings thus far indicate that middle managers and executives taken as groups do differ from one another in several key ways. The characteristics that determine executive potential fall into the following three groups:
1. Understanding Opportunities and Resources
Senior management is set apart from mid-level management by a strong ability to think strategically and conceptually. Furthermore, executives rarely stop at the thinking level; they develop and communicate a timetable for achieving selected strategic goals.

As a rule, senior management executives think about the future. They establish a long-term strategic plan as a "dream with a deadline." They also have a defined sense of purpose for the work at hand. They do not see their strategies as set in stone: rather they perceive their strategies as merely a means for achieving their goals. This approach gives them the flexibility to correct errors and misconceptions in order to reach their destinations.

Our study also suggests that senior executives have a significantly broader organizational awareness than middle managers. They evaluate and anticipate the impact of their intended actions upon other parts of the company, and they actively coordinate with those different interests. They constantly keep in mind a sense of balance for the sake of the larger organization.
Senior executives, for example, are quick to spot a group or department that is not keeping up with others or that is jeopardizing corporate goals. To reinstate the balance necessary for organizational performance, they engage in a variety of activities--using persuasiveness, control, and political skills to enhance the participation of the errant department. Their constant sense of totality and their belief that they must align all actions behind the organization's purpose leads senior executives, as a group, to be capable of overseeing and coordinating numerous different departments and ensuring a proper orchestration of resources. Middle managers who aspire to senior positions must develop this perspective even while they are operating in a more limited sphere.
2. Interpersonal Awareness and Confidence
Senior managers as a group have greater interpersonal skills than mid-level managers. They clearly understand that getting along with their colleagues--upwards, downwards, and sideways--is very important. In addition, they use personal persuasion more frequently than mid-level management when there is a need to get others to accept change or try new ideas.
Senior managers and mid-level managers also differ in their ability to attract and recruit talented people. One reason may be that their insight into themselves and others is better developed. Perhaps they have found ways to get and process feedback about themselves. Whatever the cause, the result is that when they select members for a top executive team, they do not merely recruit clones of themselves, they build a team from people who will round out each other's capabilities and compensate for deficiencies.
We also found that senior executives more frequently display a positive sense of humor in the workplace. In large corporations, the pleasure or displeasure expressed by senior management is extremely important to peers and subordinates. When these expressions are tempered by a sense of humor, they can serve as strong, positive motivators to the people with whom they work. Aptly used humor can inspire confidence and put setbacks in perspective. It also allows executives to defuse the stresses and anxieties brought on by their push for achievement. The sense of humor we observed in senior executives can also help clear or enrich their perspective and help them be more effective.

Although our consulting experience has shown that senior executives as a group are characterized by a stronger need for power than mid-level management, they rarely use their power in a destructive way. Senior executives tend to use subtle strategies to convince others to go along with their direction. The combination of their knowledge, self-confidence and persistence often win them the final bet.
3. Self Management
Although we know that senior executives feel that they have relatively little control over their own time, we observed that senior executives do better than they thought. As a group, they were more successful than mid-level managers at minimizing interruptions and reserving time for thinking and planning.
When these senior managers were in mid-management themselves, their ability to maintain focus no doubt contributed to their ability to deliver tangible and outstanding results. Having reached the executive level, those same working habits hold them in good stead and contribute to their ability to manage their time wisely. While management can often be described as interruptions interrupted by a series of interruptions, senior executives have learned to make time for planning rather than find time for planning.
As a corollary to their time management skills, senior-level executives also seem to avoid involvement in unnecessary details. With a clear sense of purpose in mind, they are able to prioritize and delegate their tasks, and they spend their time on the tasks most important and relevant to their goals. They are better able to separate what is relevant from what is irrelevant.
Although senior management is ultimately accountable for decisions and outcomes, the implementation of plans and projects is usually carried out by someone else. Our data revealed that, in a large corporation, successful senior executives determine policy and performance standards; they also adjust working processes if needed. However, they do not spend their time organizing someone's department, making decisions for someone's operations, or digging deep into the details of a project because it interests them. Senior executives have learned when not to act, thereby allowing others to do their jobs.

Meaningful Executive Development
Being aware of the distinctions between senior executives and middle management can contribute to an organization's effort to develop executive capability. Indeed, most of the executive qualities we have just discussed can be influenced by a carefully thought-out development program. The following are some things such a program should do:
Take stock. Program designers should objectively assess the people undergoing development. Without understanding the individual--or the executive traits most needed by the company--a personalized program is not possible.

Push candidates beyond their comfort zone. Some programs put a lot of credence on the satisfaction rating bestowed by the participants. However, satisfaction may not be the best indicator for the effectiveness of the development program. Often, personal growth occurs when an individual is pushed beyond his or her personal comfort zone--when beliefs and modes of operation are challenged. While candidates may experience discomfort in a truly challenging program, a purely comfortable experience may fail to stretch candidates enough to be meaningful.

Broaden the frame of reference. Successful middle managers must be advocates for their own functional areas while successful executives must learn to be advocates for the entire organization. If candidates are switched from line to staff or vice versa, their point of view of the company's needs can be broadened.

Test, don't groom. Programs that give participants the impression that they are getting their "tickets punched" usually do more harm than good. It is more important to challenge executive candidates with a variety of tasks, positions, and goals. Many of the most successful executives claim they were tested by experiences that put their careers on the line.

Encourage reflection. Coaching and mentoring can do a world of good if the coaches have insight into the person being coached as well as knowledge about how growth occurs. A 360-degree feedback program, coupled with thoughtful, incisive feedback and planning can also be effective.

Making a meaningful impact on executive development is not an easy job, but it does not have to be guesswork. The senior executives in our study had accomplished a substantial amount of their professional development while they were in middle management. Some of their growth may have been the result of haphazard opportunities, but armed with a knowledge of what those critical behavioral traits are, program designers can take aim at intentionally developing those traits. A program that recognizes the subtle, yet substantive, qualities that distinguish the effective executive can truly make an important difference if it promotes meaningful individual growth.

Copyright ©1998, RHR International Company - All Rights Reserved