The Hired Gun- October 2013 Ten years ago I was introduced to Joe, a man who was hired by the company president as the organizations first Chief Operating Officer. As COO, Joe was given responsibility over virtually all of the functional areas of the company except Finance. The company was experiencing declining revenue, and after several years at the helm the president was unsure how to reverse the decline. Rather than relying on the current executive team to address and resolve the problem, Joe was hired. He had worked with the president at a former company, and he knew that Joe was really only good at one thing: breaking down an existing culture through fear and intimidation. Not wanting to communicate the real reason for his hiring, the existing leadership team was told that Joe's primary focus was to "shake things up." Joe's legacy began innocently enough as he started to randomly appear at departmental meetings, asking a question or two and then moving on to the next meeting. After about a month, Joe asked me, "When was the last time we let someone go in this department?" Confused by his question I said, "For a performance issue, probably about a year ago." "No," said Joe, "not for performance or cause, just to create some fear so they work harder." Joe's motive was clear. He was not interested in making processes more efficient or finding new and innovative ways to drive revenue. The president knew he didn't have that ability. What Joe did have was a track record of forcing his will on people to the point that they feared making a decision without his permission. Alternative opinions or ideas contrary to Joe's were dismissed and even punished. A leader who questioned Joe in a meeting or public setting was branded as incompetent and not a team player. The more I think of Joe the more I can't help but draw a comparison to what is happening today with our dysfunctional leadership in Washington. The childish and self-serving behaviors of our legislators closely mimic those of Joe and many of the ineffective leaders I have worked with over the years. Both groups share: •An hugely inflated ego •An inability to truly understand the needs of those they serve •A misguided sense of duty •A lack of humility These characteristics and behaviors create conflict, insecurity, and indecision among all who are exposed to these so-called leaders; but it's not a simple task to convince them that their beliefs and approach are wrong. In their eyes humility is perceived as weakness, and admitting you were wrong is an unspeakable failure. They believe that forcing their ideas on those around them without compromise is the mark of a true leader. In Joe's case, he was specifically hired to do exactly what he accomplished: break down a culture formed over many years at all costs. You can guess how it all turned out. The company's revenue continued its decline, key people left the organization, and those that remained felt desperate and paralyzed. Joe was eventually asked to leave the organization shortly after the president who hired him was released, but the damage was done. Even after new leadership was hired, employees who had lived through this difficult period were mistrusting and guarded. It took some time before Joe's legacy finally wore off and things began to improve. It's always a mystery to me why so many presidents and CEOs feel that "newer is better" when it comes to their executive leadership. One executive described his departure to me as "it was like after 20 years of success, one day I just woke up stupid." We all know people don't get stupid overnight, but desperate leaders are often looking for the quick fix which they believe exists in someone new. However, the ones that can best solve the problems are usually those working right down the hall. If we can help get your executive team back on track, give me a call at 610-287-1162 or email me at phil@hrsolutionsonline.com. We can't help end the government's dysfunction but we can help you with the people in your business.