The following commentary was inadvertently omitted from Volume 11, Issue 4, as a response to the focal article “A Critical Evaluation of the State of Assessment and Development for Senior Leaders.” SIOP regrets the error.
The focal article by Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis, and the Jeanneret Symposium Participants (Reference Reynolds, McCauley and Tsacoumis2018) covers a lot of ground and does so well—introducing the core issues of a complex topic. In our commentary, we suggest the need (and cascading implications) to reconsider the category of “senior leaders,” which includes mid-level managers all the way up to CEOs because it is too broad. The tasks, demands, and nature of leadership for mid-level managers are significantly distinct from those in senior executive C-level roles (Hiller & Beauchesne, Reference Hiller, Beauchesne and Day2014; Katz & Kahn, Reference Katz and Kahn1978; Zaccaro, Reference Zaccaro2001), and as a result, so is the assessment and development of these populations unique. We focus our attention here on only one-half of the population, senior executives, first considering the nature of senior executive leadership before considering several implications for assessment and development. Our observations are based on development and consulting work we have and are currently doing with senior executives as well as the empirical research both of us have undertaken over the last 15–20 years focused on CEOs and other senior executives. This work sits at the intersection of leadership, psychology, and strategic management.
How does the nature of what senior executives do change as they progress from being first labeled relatively “senior” to when the reach the C-suite? There are of course many similarities between leadership across levels, but C-suite executive leadership often looks uniquely like the following:
Factors external to the organization need to be understood, considered, and even altered
As senior executives enter the C-suite, they find an increased need to focus on many “environmental” factors that are not on the radar of leaders at other levels. For example, what legislation is in the works and how might we lobby or get early insights so that we can make strategic adjustments? Or, who might we attempt to acquire in order to fend off competition or gain advantage? Additionally, worrying about global trends, technology advancements, and changing talent needs are additional dimensions of their day-to-day landscape. It is not just the kinds of issues that change but the time horizon as well. C-level executives need to be thinking about these issues and strategic moves several steps ahead of what lower-level senior leaders do, often 5, 10, or even 50 years (or more) ahead (Jacobs & Jaques, Reference Jacobs and Jaques1987).
Everything is highly visible
What a C-level executive does (or does not do) and says (or does not say) is scrutinized and often emulated. A CEO of an airline we know of once asked a gate agent to swap his business class with an economy seat in order to give his seat to a frequent flyer. Word spread quickly among employees, who talked for months about this act and what it signified—making the CEOs subsequent requests for employees to give more effort on behalf of the company much more persuasive. Every action (or inaction) is noticed and scrutinized by direct and indirect observers. Another financial services CEO we know was seen taking the trash out on his way out of the building one night. Those who saw this action used it as an example of how each of them could do far more to help their teams (and the organization) succeed. In yet another example, when considering an acquisition, an energy CEO realized his mistake when he opted to say nothing to his trusted advisors until the deal was all but agreed to. Failure to communicate led to rumors and incorrect information as people filled the silence with their own interpretations.
Behavior is highly symbolic
Related closely to visibility is the symbolic nature of leadership at senior executive levels. Attending meetings as a representative of the company and its values means that an executive’s presence carries symbolic weight. Internally, what meetings a C-level executive attends, and does not attend, are taken as signals of what they value or even where the organization is headed. Giving money in private may also be a topic of significant media attention—as the CEOs of Amazon and Chick-Fil-A discovered when they privately gave personal money to various causes that became a topic of public debate and was taken as a reflection even on the entire organization. Who you hire, who you pay, and who you promote similarly speak to the values you hold.
C-level executives balance many widely divergent stakeholders
Unions, shareholders, environmental activists, clients/patients, and employees are just some of the core stakeholders to whom senior executives must attend. Often an action satisfying one group of stakeholders will bring heat from another. Gone are the days when a company’s focus is solely or primarily around shareholder wealth creation; there is a significant acknowledgment that multiple stakeholders need to be balanced carefully and that the very purpose of the firm may include (or be focused on) a careful balance of multiple stakeholders. There are internal stakeholders and political alliances to be considered as well. More than any other level, C-level executives recognize the need to balance powerful advocates and similarly powerful enemies, all while recognizing that some stakeholders may need to be held at bay or even strategically and carefully ignored. Just because something or someone is making noise does not necessarily mean it needs to be attended to.
Time is more precious than ever
Arguably, the most valuable resource of a C-suite executive is time. A senior executive’s ability to be successful depends on his/her ability to focus and maintain processing and thinking time, even while there are immediate “fires” that need or seemingly need attention. The demands on a CEO, for example, are never ending and seem to always be increasing, and carefully ensuring that time is allotted according to a strategic agenda is critical, as even the 62.5 hours per week that a CEO works is not enough if time is not carefully managed (Porter & Nohria, Reference Porter and Nohria2018). Therefore, a big part of the development experience for leaders as they become more senior and trend toward the C-suite should be on prioritizing where they spend their time and understanding what activities represent the most valuable use of their attention.
We make one brief parting note on the nature of senior executive leadership. In our discussion above, we lump all C-level leaders (CEOs, CHROs, COOs, CFOs) together in one bucket, but we also note that the CHRO or CFO roles, for example, are substantially different from the CEO role. Porter and Nohria’s (Reference Porter, Nohria, Nohria and Khurana2010) research on 135 new CEOs as part of the new CEO workshop found that many new CEOs were shocked at how significant the move from a C-level role to the CEO role actually was (and how lonely it was).
Assessment for C-level executive leadership roles
How do people get selected for C-level roles? In the case of CEOs, it is the board, which is, in our experience, highly unlikely to consider industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology–type assessments. They will look at track record of performance (which most centrally is determined by the performance of the focal firm vs. other companies in the same industry but may also include other factors such as any track record of potentially embarrassing missteps or lapses that are part of the public domain or that may be whispered as private information by individuals who know a given executive); whether they are known to the board; whether they are perceived to understand the business, industry, and organization; and a host of other factors that we know very little about in terms of research. For promotion/hiring to a C-level role other than a CEO role, having a previous working relationship with the CEO helps, as the CEO will often bring in part of his or her own team. Beyond that, we wonder how much room there really is for typical assessment to play a role. Perhaps we, as I-O psychologists, might at least do a better job.
Development in C-suite executive leadership roles
Successful development of C-level executives should largely be focused on small adjustments of behaviors. Executives are more likely interested in gaining advice and counsel than they are in unpacking themselves at this stage in their career, though we have observed significant variability between C-level executives by industry. A successful executive coaching assignment typically involves a coach who understand that his/her primary role is to be a sounding board for the executive. This means he/she must be able to provide candid feedback and observations on issues related to small adjustments or tweaks to their leadership, which includes both “people” issues but also may include strategic and business issues. Coaches who try to listen but avoid being prescriptive are not typically well-received by executives who have little time and patience. Similarly, I-O psychologists also have an opportunity to have a lasting impact on leaders and entire organizations if we are able to adjust our conversations and our lenses. We must be able to speak the language of senior executives, meaning that we must know some things about the business, industry, and environment in which they live, which typically comes from astute observation and experience in industry, rather than from I-O training. Indeed, many I-O psychologists are well-versed in business, but it takes effort.
Senior executives at the highest organizational levels are a unique category of “senior leaders,” distinct from mid-level leadership. A thorough understanding of the roles, demands, tasks, and requirements of leadership at the top will set the stage for I-O psychology and I-O psychologists to best contribute to conversations, research, and practice in the assessment and development of these leaders.
The following commentary was inadvertently omitted from Volume 11, Issue 4, as a response to the focal article “A Critical Evaluation of the State of Assessment and Development for Senior Leaders.” SIOP regrets the error.
The focal article by Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis, and the Jeanneret Symposium Participants (Reference Reynolds, McCauley and Tsacoumis2018) covers a lot of ground and does so well—introducing the core issues of a complex topic. In our commentary, we suggest the need (and cascading implications) to reconsider the category of “senior leaders,” which includes mid-level managers all the way up to CEOs because it is too broad. The tasks, demands, and nature of leadership for mid-level managers are significantly distinct from those in senior executive C-level roles (Hiller & Beauchesne, Reference Hiller, Beauchesne and Day2014; Katz & Kahn, Reference Katz and Kahn1978; Zaccaro, Reference Zaccaro2001), and as a result, so is the assessment and development of these populations unique. We focus our attention here on only one-half of the population, senior executives, first considering the nature of senior executive leadership before considering several implications for assessment and development. Our observations are based on development and consulting work we have and are currently doing with senior executives as well as the empirical research both of us have undertaken over the last 15–20 years focused on CEOs and other senior executives. This work sits at the intersection of leadership, psychology, and strategic management.
How does the nature of what senior executives do change as they progress from being first labeled relatively “senior” to when the reach the C-suite? There are of course many similarities between leadership across levels, but C-suite executive leadership often looks uniquely like the following:
Factors external to the organization need to be understood, considered, and even altered
As senior executives enter the C-suite, they find an increased need to focus on many “environmental” factors that are not on the radar of leaders at other levels. For example, what legislation is in the works and how might we lobby or get early insights so that we can make strategic adjustments? Or, who might we attempt to acquire in order to fend off competition or gain advantage? Additionally, worrying about global trends, technology advancements, and changing talent needs are additional dimensions of their day-to-day landscape. It is not just the kinds of issues that change but the time horizon as well. C-level executives need to be thinking about these issues and strategic moves several steps ahead of what lower-level senior leaders do, often 5, 10, or even 50 years (or more) ahead (Jacobs & Jaques, Reference Jacobs and Jaques1987).
Everything is highly visible
What a C-level executive does (or does not do) and says (or does not say) is scrutinized and often emulated. A CEO of an airline we know of once asked a gate agent to swap his business class with an economy seat in order to give his seat to a frequent flyer. Word spread quickly among employees, who talked for months about this act and what it signified—making the CEOs subsequent requests for employees to give more effort on behalf of the company much more persuasive. Every action (or inaction) is noticed and scrutinized by direct and indirect observers. Another financial services CEO we know was seen taking the trash out on his way out of the building one night. Those who saw this action used it as an example of how each of them could do far more to help their teams (and the organization) succeed. In yet another example, when considering an acquisition, an energy CEO realized his mistake when he opted to say nothing to his trusted advisors until the deal was all but agreed to. Failure to communicate led to rumors and incorrect information as people filled the silence with their own interpretations.
Behavior is highly symbolic
Related closely to visibility is the symbolic nature of leadership at senior executive levels. Attending meetings as a representative of the company and its values means that an executive’s presence carries symbolic weight. Internally, what meetings a C-level executive attends, and does not attend, are taken as signals of what they value or even where the organization is headed. Giving money in private may also be a topic of significant media attention—as the CEOs of Amazon and Chick-Fil-A discovered when they privately gave personal money to various causes that became a topic of public debate and was taken as a reflection even on the entire organization. Who you hire, who you pay, and who you promote similarly speak to the values you hold.
C-level executives balance many widely divergent stakeholders
Unions, shareholders, environmental activists, clients/patients, and employees are just some of the core stakeholders to whom senior executives must attend. Often an action satisfying one group of stakeholders will bring heat from another. Gone are the days when a company’s focus is solely or primarily around shareholder wealth creation; there is a significant acknowledgment that multiple stakeholders need to be balanced carefully and that the very purpose of the firm may include (or be focused on) a careful balance of multiple stakeholders. There are internal stakeholders and political alliances to be considered as well. More than any other level, C-level executives recognize the need to balance powerful advocates and similarly powerful enemies, all while recognizing that some stakeholders may need to be held at bay or even strategically and carefully ignored. Just because something or someone is making noise does not necessarily mean it needs to be attended to.
Time is more precious than ever
Arguably, the most valuable resource of a C-suite executive is time. A senior executive’s ability to be successful depends on his/her ability to focus and maintain processing and thinking time, even while there are immediate “fires” that need or seemingly need attention. The demands on a CEO, for example, are never ending and seem to always be increasing, and carefully ensuring that time is allotted according to a strategic agenda is critical, as even the 62.5 hours per week that a CEO works is not enough if time is not carefully managed (Porter & Nohria, Reference Porter and Nohria2018). Therefore, a big part of the development experience for leaders as they become more senior and trend toward the C-suite should be on prioritizing where they spend their time and understanding what activities represent the most valuable use of their attention.
We make one brief parting note on the nature of senior executive leadership. In our discussion above, we lump all C-level leaders (CEOs, CHROs, COOs, CFOs) together in one bucket, but we also note that the CHRO or CFO roles, for example, are substantially different from the CEO role. Porter and Nohria’s (Reference Porter, Nohria, Nohria and Khurana2010) research on 135 new CEOs as part of the new CEO workshop found that many new CEOs were shocked at how significant the move from a C-level role to the CEO role actually was (and how lonely it was).
Assessment for C-level executive leadership roles
How do people get selected for C-level roles? In the case of CEOs, it is the board, which is, in our experience, highly unlikely to consider industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology–type assessments. They will look at track record of performance (which most centrally is determined by the performance of the focal firm vs. other companies in the same industry but may also include other factors such as any track record of potentially embarrassing missteps or lapses that are part of the public domain or that may be whispered as private information by individuals who know a given executive); whether they are known to the board; whether they are perceived to understand the business, industry, and organization; and a host of other factors that we know very little about in terms of research. For promotion/hiring to a C-level role other than a CEO role, having a previous working relationship with the CEO helps, as the CEO will often bring in part of his or her own team. Beyond that, we wonder how much room there really is for typical assessment to play a role. Perhaps we, as I-O psychologists, might at least do a better job.
Development in C-suite executive leadership roles
Successful development of C-level executives should largely be focused on small adjustments of behaviors. Executives are more likely interested in gaining advice and counsel than they are in unpacking themselves at this stage in their career, though we have observed significant variability between C-level executives by industry. A successful executive coaching assignment typically involves a coach who understand that his/her primary role is to be a sounding board for the executive. This means he/she must be able to provide candid feedback and observations on issues related to small adjustments or tweaks to their leadership, which includes both “people” issues but also may include strategic and business issues. Coaches who try to listen but avoid being prescriptive are not typically well-received by executives who have little time and patience. Similarly, I-O psychologists also have an opportunity to have a lasting impact on leaders and entire organizations if we are able to adjust our conversations and our lenses. We must be able to speak the language of senior executives, meaning that we must know some things about the business, industry, and environment in which they live, which typically comes from astute observation and experience in industry, rather than from I-O training. Indeed, many I-O psychologists are well-versed in business, but it takes effort.
Senior executives at the highest organizational levels are a unique category of “senior leaders,” distinct from mid-level leadership. A thorough understanding of the roles, demands, tasks, and requirements of leadership at the top will set the stage for I-O psychology and I-O psychologists to best contribute to conversations, research, and practice in the assessment and development of these leaders.