In any organization, be it business or otherwise, there is a person at the apex of the organization hierarchical chart, referred to as Ceo, (Chief Executive Officer) or with similar meaning nomenclature. The demi-god. The invincible. This person is credited for all the success the organization’s achieves; and is also equally discredited, for all or any of its failures. And there is every likelihood, that he may not be directly responsible for either of them; success or failure. The recognition or ignominy comes with the title of Ceo.
The more egotistical of this brand of individuals aren’t satisfied with just being called, “Ceo”; they add prefixes or suffixes, as “President” or “Chairman” (although SECP now bars holding of these offices by a single individual). Yet, some still write; for appeasement the word honorary is a useful tool.
Since, the Ceo is tasked to run the day -to- day operations of a company, he is looked upon, as the man who has it all, to do, all it takes, for the organization to achieve the corporate objectives. He is a Superman. The Ceo’s position is envied upon by colleagues, for the misunderstanding, that this individual is “all powerful” and hence is also “boss-less”. But is that true?
Nay, all that glitters is not gold. Far from truth, that Ceo’s have no boss. To the contrary they have multiple bosses, unlike other positions in the hierarchy, where the reporting line is to a single individual. The Ceo is “Supervised” by a college; comprising shareholders, Board, several regulators and above all, the team that reports into his office, actually, in more than one way “Supervises”, their (Ceo).
Since the perception is that the Ceo is boss-less, he is also considered to be the most ablest and best in class. But the impelling question is, are they ? More often, they are not. The majority amongst fraternity of Ceo’s globally would remain in the realm of mediocres! So how do they make it to the top? A combination of different features. The most tilting part of the combination being good fortune and the other, the possession of the ability to surround oneself, with good and dedicated professionals.
Those Ceo’s who think and subscribe to the view that for them to be in leadership position, they must always employ and retain an assembly of a group of dumb people, as followers; and consider themselves great strategists, because they do not let their followers discover at any stage that they are themselves as much dumb as the followers or may be even worse. Such do, achieve short term recognition but a long term bad name and reputation.
The Ceo is expected to create in himself such qualities that would allow to implement the company’s business strategy. These could be broad based areas covering multi-dimensional approach and acquisition of traits relating to Governance, the market place, budgetary achievements, building teams, creating congenial culture, achieving organizational excellence and of course dexterity in handling human relations.
A competent, qualified and experienced Ceo can do so without a problem. The Ceo has to untangle himself of the impediments that his colleagues would put into his pathway to such extent that not only he is handicapped, but is cloistered with negative approaches.
What therefore must the Ceo do? He must be representative and a good model of being that person who has in his possession such proven techniques that allow for his personal intellect to be transformed into performance by all team members. Knowledge base is a pre-requisite, for the Ceo’s position. It is the practical translating ability that distinguishes one Ceo from the other. The needs of the organization have to be matched by various traits of persona and knowledge. An intelligent Ceo would recognize the perils of getting entrapped in the mire of thought, that he ‘knows it’.
A ‘know-it-all’, Ceo is a sure recipe for organizational disaster. Most Ceo’s would have as a first response to any given situation “that I know but…”. This attitude is the beginning of the end. Ceo’s of this type are essential ‘Corporate Feudal Lords’, whose mind-set is that all those working under his supervision are “Hari’s”, who need to be only rebuked, cajoled and insulted. Beneath the thin veneer of the office of the Ceo, it is not surprising to find a hidden feudal or even a die-hard bureaucrat.
I have seen many Ceo’s who perennially think that, all that was done by their predecessor is/was wrong. Hence needs correction. The corrective process can lead from human resources issues to simple re-organizations and at best a motion and method study of the tea-boy in the company!
All in-coming Ceo’s want to change – and invariably end up changing, what’s does not require change. They usually miss out of what needs to be changed. And this happens, because the old guards fence the ‘incoming Ceo’s” thinking, with their own. This thinking could very well be driven by self-interest. If that be the case, then vested interest would acquire greater prominence in the organization. The compelling issue remains the same - does the organization need change. Some of it, and done gradually, would obviously be a constant need. In my experience, I have seen many up-start Ceo’s who would want to change (the wrong change) to the most ridiculous limits of managerial imagination. As an example, he will decide to have a different brand of tea, coffee or even worse he may change “the tea-boy”; let alone his secretary and personal staff. Does a Ceo have to change everything. Tend towards undoing the predecessors work and make it look bad in the eyes of people at large. Is that really necessary? Only those afflicted with the fear of insecurities and faithlessness would indulge into such pattern of behaviour. Such Ceo’s display a demonstration of mingled idiosyncrasies and erratic behaviour.
A large population of Ceo’s hate receiving bad news. If laws would permit they would personally puncture the jugular vein of the bringer of bad tidings. The temptation to surround oneself with ‘Yes Men’, who would say only what the Ceo would like to hear is too great a pitfall to avoid. The team of ‘Yes Man’ who are essentially ‘no good’ themselves spin a web of deception, through which the Ceo gets to see, only what he wishes to see. Trust me, readers it is no less tempting than Eve’s invitation to Adam, to fall into this trap of ‘Yes Men’. You will, as Ceo be assured that everything is in order. While actually, you could be fiddling, when the Rome under your chairs, would be incessantly burning.
The Ceo’s position is sandwiched between Shareholders / Board on one side and the staff on the other. If he gets flak, he passes flak.
If he gets encouragement, he gives encouragement. The Ceo has to in this whole process remain conscious that he is not to create a mare’s nest for either the Board or the staff; or promise to achieve unassailable budgets, by being a true Munchausen. If he does so, then it is the organizations, ‘commencement de la fin’.
In the movie, 3 idiots, Aamir Khan coined a dialogue which later gets into a lilting musical, “Baba, all is well”. That’s a mantra, all Ceo’s love to hear from their merry band of yes-men. “Yes, Sir, all is well”. As Ceo, one gets quite accustomed to hearing remarks like, “you leave it to me, don’t worry”– it means leave it you do and so will I leave it too! May dust settle on the issue, would be the later supplication. Also, “Sir, these things happen, don’t take it so seriously” or even worse. “this is how we have doing for years…” Oh! Yes, I am sure, this is the only way the institution is being ruined!
The Ceo, is massaged dutifully by all colleagues. He may not like it. However, he will most likely not stop it too. Such a team leads the Ceo up the garden path – a pathway to no-where; the Ceo arrives at the cliff and standing on the precipice there he examines the choice of a re-treat that is accompanied by ignominy of failure or the deep blue inviting ocean, over the cliff.
Last night, at a dinner, I asked a high profile individual who had the distinction of working with atleast five Prime Ministers, about how intelligent Ms. Bhutto was, especially in handling internal matters of the State. He quipped, “She was good. But Kaan(ear) Ki Kachi Thi” – lent years to gossip; flimsy and futile. Later, I narrated this to a friend, who asked me, “Do people perched on the highest position are essentially susceptible to “lending ears” and are you guilty of it too”? I was puzzled. I wasn’t sure. I merely said, “all is well” is always good to hear.
The writer is a senior banker and freelance columnist
