Despite all the complaints about the short longevity, these days, of the CEO, one of the great things about being one is the unique ability to uncritically enjoy morphing across the fuzzy boundaries of putatively elevated roles such as leader, visionary, change agent, and the like. Add this to the all-too-common direct or indirect management dominance of the board, and a CEO can define the game to suit going in, during play, and even on exit.
When the CEO commands or controls the board, there is little basis for accountability in the commonly understood sense. So, such corporate titans paint expansive roles for themselves, which tend to shift with the fads presented for their selection by the coterie of consultants of various sorts constantly trailing after them. There is, obviously, little accountability in that, either.
Further, when the frivolity can be endured no longer and CEOs have to be sacked, the severance packages often pre-negotiated precisely in order to protect them from this “risk” nullify yet another aspect of accountability. Of course, we know that boards are firing more CEOs more frequently lately. But they often simply repeat the same mistakes with the new ones that they made with the old ones – a final insult to the notion of accountability.
But if you have a board of professional directors that says to hired management: “This is who we are (corporate identity), this is what we do (business model), this is what we want you to do (strategic aim), and this is how we will measure your doing of it (strategic plan),” then you have the base upon which accountability can be built.
And when you’ve done that, you’ve set the stage for the most fundamental purpose of management: execution. There is no more vital, and yet – curiously and frustratingly – possibly no more overlooked function of management. That Larry Bossidy, Ram Charan, and Charles Burck had to write their excellent book on the topic, addressing it as bluntly and painstakingly as they did, is both a service to, and a great indictment of, the profession.
The executioner – actually, of course, the executive: that’s how you, as a manager, must see yourself. It is your core strategic purpose in the corporate structure. And it doesn’t mean, by the way, that you are relegated to climbing ladders positioned by your putative betters, the so-called “leadership” class.
On the one hand, leadership is properly understood as an extra-individual characteristic of the organization itself, in which everyone participates and which managers manage. On the other hand, properly perceived and performed execution actively informs not just everything flowing from it, but also everything flowing into it – including the leadership functions of vision and planning.
But its core assignment is to take sharply defined strategic purpose and planning, and convert that into forward organizational movement. This is an endlessly fascinating, immensely challenging, and profoundly rewarding professional endeavor. There is no function within the organization superior to it.
And it’s yours.
Yesterday, we talked about some of the upstream activities that the manager as executioner influences. Tomorrow, we’ll begin to look at some of the downstream ones. See you then!
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of being able to redefine the game as suits one’s fortunes, please see this WSJ piece on how CEOs shift jargon sets according to how well things are proceeding.
—
Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.
Technorati Tags: CEO, leader, visionary, change agent, management, board, accountability, corporate, fad, consultant, severance, corporate identity, business model, strategic aim, strategic plan, execution, Larry Bossidy, Ram Charan, Charles Burck, leadership, organization, vision, planning, purpose, WSJ
Sphere: Related Content
Note:
