Much of my work these days is in helping organisations in the selection of their managers. This has developed into a series of talks and “workshops” for those involved – or to be involved – in the selection and recruitment or promotion of managers.
The objective is of course to appoint managers who will be successful (however success is to be defined). But that “success” lies in the future and will only ever be measured in retrospect. While defining what would constitute “success” is vital, it is my contention that the selection process has to focus on the “goodness” of the manager.
I take “goodness” to be an inherent attribute of a manager whereas “success” is a value-judgement of what has been achieved – but only and always in retrospect. “Successful” cannot and should not therefore be equated with or substituted for “good”.
Success is transient. Just like profit or cash-flow – it is over once it has been recognised. The success counter is set to zero once the success is “booked”. Goodness lasts longer – it is like a balance sheet item. This financial analogy is sound. A success once booked – like profit or cash – gets transferred to the goodness in the balance sheet. It is available as a balance sheet item for future results but does not – in itself – ensure such future results. Past successes like previous profits provide a track record and an indication of things to come but do not, in themselves, ensure future success or profit. And just as a lack of profit or a shortage of cash can impair a balance sheet, a lack of success can impair a manager’s goodness.
Success and goodness are different.
The likelihood of a manager with a proven track record of success being a “good” manager is high. There is also no doubt that the probability of a “good” manager achieving the best result possible is high. From this it follows that the chance of achieving success is enhanced with a “good” manager. Success though does not just require goodness. And goodness does not ensure success. But goodness does predicate achieving the best result possible. In other words, if the goodness is inherent then the track record may follow. To continue with the financial analogy, if the balance sheet is sound then the probability that profits and cash may follow is enhanced.
Therefore it seems to me to be a much more grounded approach to focus on the goodness of a prospective manager rather than on just his track record of past successes or on trying to make a forecast of his future success.
I define nine fundamental “building blocks” which together as a package indicate the potential “goodness” of a prospective manager: (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
The k2p blog 