Written by Chad Hessters, CEO of Boyden
The path to suite C today can be less predictable than it has ever been. The traditional model of succession of executives has not completely disappeared, but rather than a pipeline, it now looks like something more like a 3D grid, with more entry and connectivity points to a greater number of candidates exponentially.
The CEOs are increasingly diversified in terms of race, sex and even age – and companies harvest the advantages. A greater flexibility of thought and fewer links with standardized professional concepts, such as seniority and certification, have released new growth at executive levels. Everything, global events once in a generation of cultural changes in the way we think of leadership, rehabilitate our perceptions about what makes successful C-users, and therefore, how companies should hire and develop them as part of their succession plans.
Take the real measure of a candidate
Traditional reflection on the executive suite can be the most carried on the edges of the age category – but perhaps not the way you might imagine. Although discrimination may be absolutely a problem on the high-end of the age spectrum, historically, the group which has had limited opportunities in the C-Suite posts was younger candidates. Although cultural conditioning tells us that age and experience are leadership conditions, this professional opportunity is won by “paying their contributions”, evidence massively suggest that it is simply not true.
Especially today, with the revision of technology (in particular the AI) of the way in which companies are done and the transformation of whole industries, more and more companies plunge into the young generations of technology to fulfill executive roles. But even this example is an too simplified solution to a complex challenge. Like the Wall Street Journal The notes in “The genius who waited for their turn to CEO have passed through the CEO”, the timing can affect the opportunities for the sequence of the X generation, taking into account generational trends, can be better equipped to operate without guidance and solve problems in the midst of uncertainties surrounding AI and its future.
Does that make an ideal CEO a gen xer? Not necessarily. And that's the point: the vast trends and cliché generalizations are bad hiring and succession planning tools. Generational, regional or cultural contexts that have helped refine the charisma and the adaptation skills of a candidate may have acted very differently from those of another candidate with similar training. Instead, companies would do well to test executive candidates according to alignment with business culture, adaptability, emotional intelligence and vision – which can all be difficult to capture in a CV.
Whether it is to make C-Suite hires, choose internal candidates or identify the prospects for the succession of managers of managers, organizations should develop a framework of modern leadership competence which measures and prioritizes holistic characteristics and gentle competence rather than relying solely on traditional experience and standards of certification of the past. Among other arbitrary categories, age is only a certain number – and, in the end, does not say much to a company on the potential of a individual's leadership.
