THURSDAY THOUGHTS: LEADERSHIP

I’ve often wondered why some organizations search everywhere, except within their own staff, membership, rosters, ranks, cities, or towns, in order to fill leadership vacancies. It's interesting how swiftly decision makers would rather burn the whole thing down, than see reins turned over to the next person in line.

Is there NO ONE—no obvious, dedicated, experienced, hard-working, veteran employee—among the existing employees, who has been sufficiently mentored or trained to assume the position?

Is there no one, nearby, who understands the commitment, heart, or vision of the leader, sufficiently enough to step into a management or supervisory role at a moment’s notice?

Is it the opinion of decision makers on search committees that, among the rank and file, proximity to, and relationship with leadership, and the title of “leader”, is there, but the temperament, maturity, knowledge, people skills, and qualifications to actually lead, is not?

Was there not a single assistant, co-chair, second banana, deputy, nor inner circle member, who was laser-focused enough on the principal thing, the product, or primary services, that the organization provided? 

Was every supposed, potential leader, or titled person within the organization, only interested in the perks of the job, as opposed to service to others?

Were there cliques, among the rank and file, that hindered the unity, and mutual respect required to accept and support a peer as a leader, boss, or supervisor? 

Had a faithful few been carrying the load of the actual work, but because they knew the culture of the organization, laughed at, refused, or rejected the offer to lead his or her colleagues?

What had the leader’s absence, resignation, retirement, or death, exposed? Had no one demonstrated enough promise to be tapped, developed, nor educated to take his or her place?

Had groupthink, division, excused incompetence, mistrust, cattiness, sexism, disrespect, backbiting, racism, unnecessary competition, ageism, and/or opportunism, been such unchecked problems in the organization, in the absence of the leader, that replacing him or her with a neutral, unknown candidate is the only way forward? 

Why is it so often the case that a total stranger (to the organization, but not the industry), who had no prejudices, preferences, nor agenda—other than the continued success of the organization as a whole—the only smart solution to ensure the seamless continuation of the organization? 

The interesting part, is that the new person will often have to rely on, refer to, or even be taught, trained, and brought up to speed, by none other than longtime employees— who know all of the ins and outs of the job, but for some reason, weren’t deemed qualified to lead.