A few years ago, Ichak Adizes wrote “How to Solve the (Mis)management Crisis” and “Corporate Lifecycles”, two books with many excellent concepts about what made management teams effective as well as what skills were needed at different periods of time during a company’s lifespan.

Adizes identified that a key success factor for an organization was to ensure that the management team covered off four critical roles. These were the roles of Producer, Administrator, Idea Person and Integrator.

Over the years, while working with many management teams in different sized companies in a variety of industries, we’ve found that seldom if ever does the top executive have all of these traits. The best managers are usually strong in only one or two of these roles and have minor competency in the third or fourth.

For the business to really be successful, it’s necessary to have other managers who can fill the voids when the top executive can’t fulfill all the roles.

A typical example is the case where the General Manager (often the owner/founder) is the kind of person that gets things done (The Producer). He pushes production through the plant, he beats the bushes for sales when the order book is low and he ensures that the equipment is kept in excellent condition. That same person may have great ideas about new products or new marketing initiatives. However, the pressure that he puts on the organization drives people crazy and his lack of interest as to what capital spending is doing to cash flow can create problems.

If this type of manager doesn’t have someone controlling the cash, as well as putting controls on spending, the organization can get into big trouble. Similarly, if there isn’t another person who’s able to smooth relations between departments and individuals, the company can fly apart.

Filling the Vacancy or Filling the Void?

Often, when a vacancy occurs, efforts are made to find a replacement with the same skill set as the person who has just left. However, when considering skill set, the emphasis is on knowledge and experience.

Sometimes an organization recruits someone who seems to have technical skills and experience far better than the departing individual. Everyone takes praise for finding such a qualified candidate for the job.

Unfortunately, at times, after a short interval, it becomes apparent that things aren’t working well. Perhaps there are more internal confrontations than ever, or maybe the bank is asking to have a meeting because the company’s cash flow is in dire straits.

The new recruit may seem to be doing the job well. He or she has done a great job of increasing sales and is great at customer service, always pushing production to get jobs out on time. The general manager is pleased since duties are carried out in the same way as he had always done.

The bottom line is that the organization filled the vacancy – but did not address the void that the departing employee left. The departing employee had always been involved in settling disputes and calming the waters when sales and manufacturing clashed. He or she was perceived as the go-to person when someone got really ticked off with the way they were treated. The General Manager saw them as being unimaginative, always arguing against spending or new ideas. Others saw them as being the only one with sanity.

When filling a vacancy, attention needs to be paid to both the hard competencies, which most people focus on, and the role(s) that the new recruit needs to fulfill to round out the management team. Hiring a person in your own image may be the worst selection you can make.   

Fred Pamenter is managing partner of PPB&D Consulting Limited, a Toronto based Human Resource firm.
T: 416-620-5980E: ppbdconsulting@aol.com