When you're hiring a new CEO, how do you measure their track record? Sure you can look at revenue growth, earnings per share, margin improvements, market share improvements, and all the other quantitative metrics. And they do tell a story, let's assume in this case a positive one.
Then you ask what specific things they did to achieve those results, and you will get a listing of techniques, attitudes, approaches that resulted in the achievements. Perhaps they sound right, so another test has been passed. But at this point you have done nothing to separate a truly excellent CEO from a one trick pony.
The true test is not to understand what was done but rather why under the specific conditions those tactics were chosen. What would have been done differently under other specific conditions? How would environmental conditions led to the choice of other or even contrary tactics? How could those particular tactics have backfired under different circumstances and market conditions? What would the candidate do differently in a described new set of circumstances? You want to hear "We were successful because we assessed carefully what our situation required, and applied those things that fit with that environment."
Comments