|
Karl
Senior Member
USA
914 Posts |
 Posted - Mar 16 2005 : 07:44:24 AM
|
By Dennis Chung, Contributor
When I was leaving International Business Machines (IBM) for another job in 1992, my then general manager gave me one single piece of advice: "Hire the right people." He said it did not matter if they cost a little more or if they stayed for shorter periods, but the impact they make will far outweigh any mediocre person that stays for double the time. I never really understood what he meant until a few years ago, but always stuck to the philosophy. In addition to making a positive impact, the right people (team) will always make your job a whole lot easier.
There are many mangers who hire based on the fact that the person is the cheapest they can get, or they are friends or family, and when they begin having problems within the organisation, wonder why. Even after you hire the right person, it is very important that you do everything to keep that person. Valuable persons are usually the ones that will not ask for a raise or complain about the work environment, because they are usually marketable and will be able to easily get another job, but when they leave, they take with them a competitive edge.
POLITICAL LEADERS
Similarly, this is the way we need to 'hire' our political leaders. We cannot vote on the basis of what short-term benefit (curry goat politics) we get but, rather, can the leaders. We are voting to make a difference in our lives over the long term, as I am not aware of anyone who plans to live for two to five years only.
Interestingly, the race for leadership in the two major political parties [Jamaica Labour Party's race concluded] is the starting point of that 'hiring' process, as the selection of not only who leads the party, but the team behind that leader, will more than likely form the government if they are voted in. It is very important for us to not only vote for the leader, as the quality of the team will be just as influential on the country's progress.
Historically, we have always been caught up with the charismatic nature or strength of our leaders. As a people, we tend to be attracted to very superficial things, the least of which is not the qualities of our leaders. The irony of the matter is that effective leadership has more to do with the inner qualities. After all, charisma by itself cannot ensure economic success. Is it not more important that the person can deliver on the improved well-being of the citizens of the country?
QUALITY OF EFFECTIVE LEADERS
My experience is that the leaders who tend to make a lot of noise about their abilities and
achievements are not usually the ones that can make a difference. If we think of a country like the United States (do not think there is enough comparatives in Jamaican politics) the most successful presidents do not boast about their achievements. We can think back to 'Bill' Clinton and his successes, and compare him to those that think so highly of themselves that they think war is an individual decision. He was very charismatic, but never boasted of his achievements. In my book, he was one of the best leaders of that country.
Closer to home, if we think about the successful companies, there are leaders such as Douglas Orane and Marshall Hall, who have built very solid companies, and have carried them through troubling times. I don't see them going around and talking about their success, even though, in comparison to others, their success is long-term, that is, over a prolonged period. Today, share holdings in GraceKennedy and Jamaica Producers are some of the safest.
This brings me to another quality of an effective leader. This is that they put in place a structure that can keep the company or the country on a consistent path of success. In terms of the U.S., this was done very effectively by the crafters of the constitution. If one examines the American constitution, it was developed to serve the American people for a very long time. The intention was never to serve the self-interest of parliament and bring the constitution into question after a few years. In Jamaica, this is the same approach we need to take to our current economic development, that is, looking at policies that will benefit Jamaicans over a sustained period, rather than short-term benefits.
Similarly, an effective corporate leader ensures that proper people and systems are in place to ensure the continued success of the company. They will hire people who are more qualified and brighter than they are, as their commitment is always to the company and not to making themselves seem like a saviour. Effective leaders are very comfortable in their abilities and so want people around them that can easily take over from them. Probably the best measure of a company's stability and future profitability is the quality of the management team. If the company's success seems to emanate more from one or two persons, then what will happen when that person leaves or the company grows?
I am sure that many of us know of some corporate leaders, however, who do not like to employ persons who are too smart. The result is that the company suffers and when they choose to retire after 20 years of running the company they discover that the company cannot run without them. If you need to be present for the company to run efficiently then you really don't need a company.
JAMAICAN CONTROL FACTOR
An inefficient company is not the only result of a "control mentality". In addition to this the "control factor" restricts the company's growth. It just seems so logical that if you have more people having authority within a company then it can expand. If on the other hand the owner wants to sign every cheque or questions every cent (penny wise and pound foolish) then the strategic side of the company must be compromised. These companies are restricted to a ceiling of achievement and as a compromise will bring in more and more family members but guess what they are not getting the best talent. The end result is that in attempting to grow through family they end up condemning the company to death.
Because of this they will never bring in partners, e.g. through going public. Instead of sharing in 20% of $100,000 they are content with owning 100% of $1,000. This is in fact one of the reasons for the uncompetitive nature of Jamaican companies. Companies such as Capital and credit and JMMB, have illustrated where the owners, and the country, can benefit much more from owning less of the company. We are so concerned with control, and profile, that we do not combine to create efficient companies. If we look at the American experience in the 1980s, apart from the constant flow of new public listings, there were many mergers and acquisitions, which created some very large efficient companies. If Bill Gates did not have the fore sight to expand Microsoft through public participation, would the world have benefited so much from technology? Because of the American economy's strength it has managed to survive the fallout since Clinton left office.
If Jamaica does not change this culture we can never hope to compete with our global (regional) competitors. How can we hope for our small farmers to compete with those in other countries who cultivate acres of one produce with much less labour?
These are the factors we must think of when we "hiring" (voting for) our political leaders. We must not only think of the charm and rhetoric but also the ability to lead us to greater success.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: dra_chung@hotmail.com |
Karl |
|
Hiring The Right Leaders
