3 ms·
"What do they bring to the table? Why not promote leaders from within?" Both carry risks: the former can cataclysmically change internal culture and make a cas
by zeruch 4y ago
"What do they bring to the table? Why not promote leaders from within?"
Both carry risks: the former can cataclysmically change internal culture and make a cascade of errors rapidly (usually during the idiotic 'empire building' phase many start from), the latter can sometimes be pushed up on questionable grounds and do much the same (e.g. worked for a firm where the CRO left abruptly after 18 months and because executive search was so expensive and lengthy, opted to promote the head of a region to CRO, who proved to be at best a mediocre sales leader in terms of actual revenue, but proved perpetually toxic to everything they touched. An almost cartoonishly corpulent and caustic incompetent from central casting. When he was regional lead he was problematic but contained, but when promoted turned into a total 'Enfant terrible')
- solarmist 4y agoIf he was already problematic then why the would you give him more power? This sounds like they got what anyone should’ve expected. Anyone is not better than no one.
- zeruch 4y agoI never got a distinctly good answer on that, but the rubric was that the number one pick was not willing to relocate to corporate HQ and was content performing quite well in their lane (a rare case of astute self-awareness, but he was ultimately ousted by the new CRO because he only saw him as competition), and the number two choice was already in range and as I said, previously contained...maybe they thought he'd "grow into the role"?