These days, we’re meant to have LinkedIn headlines like “Obsessive about leadership and what makes humans tick”. It’s so common that we barely notice it. Well most don’t, but for some annoying reason, I do. I find myself riding to work. Or taking a dump. Or speaking with someone I really don’t want to speak with. And my mind wanders to these statements. I picture myself with a gun to their head; “Tell me!! What, on God’s green earth, are you truly passionate about?” for them to say “Well as much as I love my husband, my two kids, our beautiful home, the long list of hobbies I pursue, kittens, the dream bach we’re building, history, current affairs, CNC sex, expensive wine, and Michelin starred restaurants, the one thing that makes me tick, gets me out of bed, puts a spring in my step, and moistens my gusset, is the sometimes untapped leadership potential of people I will probably never meet“. Now of course they wouldn’t say that, but I’ll think of anything to stop the screaming in my head.
My point, if I ever have one, is that I’m not particularly interested in leadership any more than my career has demanded. And that most who claim to be “obsessive” about it, aren’t really, but leadership development is a pretty sweet gig. At times a necessary one, but if you claim to be passionate about it, you’re either lying or you don’t know how to have fun. I’m passionate about many things, but LinkedIn is not where I showcase these. They’d ban me. Again.
So bearing this in mind, let’s blog about leadership.
The inspiration for this came from last week’s blog where I was late to the punch on Jason Cherrington’s retirement as CEO of the Accordant Group. Jason called me afterwards and we spoke about his successor. Jason, being a CEO, didn’t tell me much, but it got me thinking on firstly who could/would do it, and secondly, how to float a CV in à la Osborne and get a fee on it. During the call I pondered if the next CEO (if there is to be one) should be a recruiter or not. The obvious answer is “yes”, but globally, that’s not actually what we see. Many listed companies have opted for ex-CIOs, strategy consultants, and Americans who were “Vice President” of something else. We are currently undecided which of the two does it better.
It wouldn’t be a pre-election blog if I couldn’t get a political angle in of course. Similarly to recruitment, political parties have gone one of two ways. The right have often opted for those seen as “business people”. Trump, a hugely successful entrepreneur who, before becoming President, had only lost half of the money he inherited is an example of this. In New Zealand, John Key’s success in playing the international currency exchange markets made him uniquely positioned to govern the complexities of a country. Similarly, Chris Luxon who wants YOU to carry an unwanted baby, was often cited as the “man for the job” given his average performance at managing a crap airline that thinks that 8 Bloody Marys is “too many Mr Walters“. The left typically go the other way. Crumpled-suited career politicians, civil servants, and trade unionists tend to get the top job without ever knowing that parentheses on a P&L is a bad thing. To most, the idea that a strong business leader makes a strong country leader is so entrenched that it goes largely unchallenged. My perspective is slightly different (of course it is). I’d argue that a successful high school Principal is much more qualified for the job of PM than a CEO ever would be. One has a finite budget and has to deal with and include all walks of life. The other can make more money and get rid of the bottom 20% of staff. Until we start executing the unemployed, I’m not sure how a country is anything like a business. I digress.
If you ask most recruiters who they think should run a recruitment firm, they will tell you it should be a current or former recruiter. This is not unique to us – a plumber would say the same thing. Recruiters are excellent at running plumbing firms. This is an understandable perspective. Being told what to do by someone who has never done it is hugely galling. However, if we look globally, half of the time, the top job has gone to a non-recruiter. If we look at their successes, it’s mixed, but for listed businesses (where we can actually see their performance), the evidence would suggest that global recruitment firms led by non-recruiters, have ever-so-slightly outperformed those run by former recruitment folks. I’m sorry. What evidence do I have on this? Well, the global firms that seem to be doing best right now are focussing on labour supply/temps and RPO. Randstad, Adecco, and Manpower are outperforming the market and are led by people who didn’t start on the tools. Although Jonas Prising has been at Manpower for donkey’s, he’s never been a recruiter. Page and Walters, although having turned a corner, have not performed so well – and they’re run by bona fide recruiters. And if we look at Hays, there’s an argument to say the flip-flop from founder – non recruiter – recruiter – and now back to non-recruiter would suggest I’m on to something. At the very upper echelons, more faith seems to sit with those who did not spend their 20s standing up until they got a client visit.
Interestingly (for those obsessive about leadership like me), on a regional level, the opposite seems to be true. The majority of regional MDs are, and always have been, ex-recruiters. It seems that we’re small enough that even a regional MD needs to know first-hand how a buck is turned in this game. And those firms who have tried with non-recruiters, like PeopleIN and WorkPac in Aussie, have struggled. Looking across New Zealand, the appetite for non-recruiters in charge is small. We have Bruce Pilbrow at Tribe, although both Jenny and James are still active in the business. Consult now have Karly Boast who is more P&C, but has also been a recruiter. Apart from that, it’s largely blue collar agencies which spun out of subcontracting firms that have non-recruiters in charge. And so the Accordant Group, who have had a rough few years in a tough market, have a big decision to make. Are they big and ugly enough for an ex-strategy consultant to take the helm, or do they revert to type? Because in this part of the world, you ain’t getting much respect if you haven’t, as a 23 year old consultant, shat on your boss’s desk after a record quarter. Either way, expect my float.
^SW
