An Intriguing & Bold Case Study:
External
Executive Candidate Screens Hiring CEO to
See Whether They Are a “Good Match”
More
and more organizations are using scientifically valid personality and
motivational assessment tools as an integral part of their executive selection
screening process. One of our
clients who was being considered for a new external executive position courageously turned the normal assessment and screening process on its
head.
Tom
(not his real name), a Vice President of Organizational Development (OD) of a
large retailer, was being interviewed for a global manufacturing and distributing firm with over
150,000 employees for the position of Sr. Vice President of Human
Resources. Tom decided he wasn’t going
to make the move without having the hiring manager, the CEO of the company and
would-be boss, “John,” take our battery of assessments, the CDR 3-D Suite. Tom wanted us to compare
his own results with John’s for a careful review and analysis to see if this
would be a complementary match or potentially be a nonproductive pairing. Tom asked me if I would be
willing to perform the analysis for them.
I
was amused and intrigued with his bold idea and explained to him that I had
never heard of any external candidate requesting an analysis of the hiring CEO
or the hiring executive. I couldn’t
resist this and said yes with certain process conditions. At this point, they had already completed a
number of interviews and while overall the results were positive, Tom wanted a
better idea of what he might be getting himself into.
I
spoke with the CEO, John, and my terms were that he take the assessments, have
his own confidential coaching feedback session so that he fully understood his
personal results first, then I would perform the analysis. We would then review with both of them. John, taking a leap of faith himself as he
had never been exposed to our assessments, agreed to the process.
Tom was in a secure position now as VP of OD although was frustrated by the risk aversive environment.
He was in a high command and control organization where senior
leadership tended to micro-manage the business and slow down needed changes and
innovations that Tom relentlessly pushed.
So, he was less than happy to say the least.
Tom didn’t want to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. The one positive aspect of his current job
was that he worked with people who built and fostered caring relationships – so
they all got along quite well.
Unfortunately, they just moved at the pace of risk-aversive snails as
far as Tom was concerned.
John
was looking to retire in several years and wanted to bring in a leader who had
fresh ideas and could better help position the company competitively for the
future. They were a bit old school in
their people processes, so hiring someone who could implement changes and
updates that made sense. This was
particularly important for sustained performance in an industry where the
margins were slim.
We
went forward – and John participated in his 2+ hour feedback session. The pair’s analysis was then completed. As it turned out, this match was not ideal or close to a win-win pairing. Tom, a change agent to the
extreme, a visionary maverick – was more than John or his organization could
have tolerated. While John knew he
needed an HR leader who could help transform the organization, Tom would be
more radical, intense and urgent than the organization and culture could
tolerate. Further, the rest of the
executive team was less than ready for the type of nonconformist that Tom’s
profile revealed. John’s business really
needed someone to implement reasonable changes steadily by balancing and
building trust with incremental movements rather than bold, sweeping new
designs.
After
the coaching and analysis of the two’s data, in the end, both left with a clear
understanding that the pairing was not in their own or the hiring
organization’s best interests. Yet, they
had tremendous respect for each other.
Tom had decided not to accept an offer; and, an offer was not made by
John.
A
year after the decision, both are glad they did not join forces because while
Tom has exceptional talent, it wasn’t the right time or right organization for
him to move to because he would have overwhelmed them with his vigor and need
to change.
In
fact, now -- both organizations are valued clients.
Since
the upward screening and analysis, each has made positive strides in achieving
their objectives and implementing respective changes in their
organizations. Because of numerous
competitive and regulatory changes in Tom’s business environment, his senior
executives have come to embrace and adopt many of his recommendations. In fact, his role has been expanded. John has recently performed talent capability
analysis in key leadership areas and has improved his succession and
development processes, building for the future.
President, CDR Assessment Group, Inc.
email: cdrinfo@cdrassessmentgroup.com
Image courtesy of chanpipat at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
No comments:
Post a Comment