Like with most things, there is no generic model for CEOship's relationship with solitude and loneliness.


There are two key dimensions of CEOship: the person and the context....and both evolve over time.

We are all familiar with CEOs who are great for growth and change but are lousy with stability and consistency - and vice a versa. People bring not only their skills to a role, but also their personalities, biases, experiences and fears. Some handle solitude and loneliness well while other become depressed when alone.

Also within the one organisation, dynamics will change as will the pressures; and so will the CEO's ability to handle them. A profound left-brainer will feel comfortable managing detailed corporate issues - such as finance, logistics, manufacturing or process development. That person may, however, stress over building long term complex, creative and ambiguous futures.

A profound right-brainer will feel comfortable in abstract and creative environments but will get bored with intensive detailed work over long periods.

So it is with solitude and loneliness. Some will struggle to deal with it, while others will crave its presence which gives them "time to think".

Therefore the value of advice on how to handle a CEO's solitude and loneliness will depend on the recipient's personality and psychology and context in which the CEO finds him/her self.

Failure to deal with the issue on a personal level and dealing with it only on the role-level, will fail to provide meaningful insight.

The performance of the Queensland Premier in the face of the floods there has been outstanding.

Seems to beg the question then: where is the Victorian Premier?

The solitude and loneliness of leaders has been recognised for some time.

 

I have been providing what I have termed "Mentoring-in-Confidence" (MIC) services to senior executives for a number of years now. The MIC-type mentoring is the highest level professional mentor available in the counselling market and is an amalgam of business coach, life coach, executive coach and oracle mentor.

Access to a MIC provides senior exectives, Chairmen and directors with a practical way to overcome their solitude and obtain high-level assistance - without undermining their status in the eyes of their peers, seniors or subordinates.

The service provides senior managers and directors in large corporations with confidential advice (hence the name) and technical support in a manner that is invisible to the client’s organisation and staff but with the approval of the Board of that organisation.

This type of service provides:

• One-on-one confidential mentoring of senior managers and directors for an annual retainer-based fee;
• Relationships between the MIC and executive are strictly confidential;
• MIC and executive sessions are organised at a time, frequency and place to suit both parties;
• The MIC is always contactable by the executive for advice or discussion;
• The MIC helps the executive work through specific corporate or personal issues and challenges in a “back-room”, strategic and confidential manner;
• Any suggestions, strategies or actions that emanate from a MIC/Executive relationship are seen as the executives's "own work”;
• The MIC can introduce Subject Matter Experts (SME) as required by the executive.
• MICs can organise and facilitate intensive confidential workshops to target, solve and brainstorm specific client issues. SMEs may be invited to participate in or lead intensives.

The MIC service should be used in the following contexts:

• When a CEO or very senior manager needs a “strategic angel”;
• When a CEO or very senior manager needs a confidante;
• When an intimation of change may create distress in an organisation;
• When the CEO or senior management have certain technical skills and capabilities but not others;
• When the CEO or senior management believe that internal recommendations for initiatives and projects may be biased by self-interest;
• When it is hard to determine a “good for business” view;
• When a CEO needs independent validation or a “technical filter” from experts;
• When a CEO or senior management struggle with balancing career and family;
• “Stapled” to a new senior appointment to help in a speedy ramp-up.

 

 

 

Speculation is often represented in a company's registry through its churn. The mistake is made when one assumes that all churn is bad or undesirable.

There are two types of churn: Negative churn in the registry is caused by existing shareholders vacating the registry. This is caused when they believe that their individual objectives are not going to be satisfied by the company they have invested in; or that another company has a greater liklihood of satisfying those objectives. Their flight from the registry softens share price.

Positive churn on the other hand, occurs when external investors see value in the company's stock and pursue it (as well as existing shareholders adding to their holdings). This action tends to strengthen share price.

If the question is "Can boards develop strategies to squeeze speculation out of the financial markets" then I would suggest that you wouldn't want to do that if you are targeting "all speculation" because it will hurt shareholders. On the other hand, diminishing negative churn and encouraging positive churn is a shareholder-enhancing activity.

And the best way to damped negative churn is to know what your shareholders want (i.e. establish their shareholder metrics) and align the corporation to their delivery.

Should an IRO be on the board?

The traditional IRO's role is to communicate the company's activities to its shareholders. In other words, a one way communication.


If the IRO's role was to establish what the shareholders want against the criteria of value, benefit, growth and risk, and help the company optimise its corporate KPOs to achieve those shareholder metrics, then the IRO's position on the board would be of benefit to both shareholder and corporation - and would represent a valuable two-way communication.

My experience with IROs is that many believe that "they know all that needs to be known about their shareholders" therefore establishing shareholder metrics is a waste of time. IROs with such a view would only confirm the current criticisms against existing boards - that they ignore real shareholder objectives and substitute them for their subjective assessment of what they want to deliver to their shareholders.

The other dimension of all of this is that the board should already be aware of its shareholder metrics - which as a rule, they are not

Let’s all get a grip. Cricket is only a game and its favour ebbs and flows between the nations – otherwise it would be incredibly boring. It’s England’s turn at the moment, and they richly deserve it, so let’s not get too bitter, stressed or panicked. Our turn will come again – be patient and enjoy the resurrection.