I’ve observed for myself, and heard the same tale from many an organisation: leaders employed to do certain jobs in the top echelons of some organisations may well be brilliant at that job, but in a time of crisis, they may not be the person best equipped to act as a ‘Gold’ commander (I’ll blog on what Gold is later, but quick info here, here and here).
I don’t think this is necessarily a good or a poor reflection on any individual. If one has an amazing head for technology, or numbers, or business, or whatever and, by virtue of that talent, becomes a serious bigwig with a three letter acronym as a job title (e.g. CEO, COO, CTO, CFO, etc.) - hereafter known fondly as the TLAs – then that’s a fantastic use of one’s talents. It just doesn’t mean that I think every TLA’s mindset or skillset leads them to incorporate appropriate* resilience within their organisation, nor that they are necessarily best equipped to act as Gold during a crisis. Some are brilliant, and others are not so obvious choices for the role. However, the bottom line is that these TLAs are responsible for the organisation – or part thereof – and these responsibilities are likely to remain theirs even if it’s not a natural fit with what they consider their day-job to be.
So, basically, I’d like to identify the characteristics of people who make great strategic leaders for resilience – both in ‘peace times’ and during a crisis and see if there are methodologies to indicate them during recruitment phases and/or train them in post-recruitment. I suppose my unofficial hypothesis is that (a) ‘good Golds’ have a type of mindset and skillset that makes them more able to stand back from getting too involved and analyse strategically to decide on the way forward whilst ensuring their staff and publics are confident in their abilities, and (b) poorer Golds are less able to stand back, less able to think strategically – particularly during a time of crisis – and therefore less able to bring their staff and publics along with them.
My dissertation tutor thinks I should call the work Fish out of Water, and I can see why. I might even use it in the end (a little flattery never hurt a mark, I suspect). But for me, and for my fellow practitioners, Gold or Dust? seems to produce a wry smile and the tiniest of nods that lets me know they know exactly what I’m getting at. For, in my humble opinion, those who take up posts in Bronze and Silver structures are usually far, far, better equipped to do the jobs they are supposed to do because they are usually doing them on one level or another on a daily basis. Many at ‘Gold’, meanwhile, only step out of their day-job and into that role in the event of a major incident (a phenomenon which will be discussed later). Yet it is also usually those working at Gold level who have decided how much resilience has been built into the organisation for Bronze and Silver to utilise, and who can make or break a company during a crisis.
So I suppose I pitch the question to individuals who are, or want to work at the top of an organisation: are you Gold, or are you dust?
———————————
*appropriate resilience. Please note that ‘appropriate resilience’ means exactly what it says. Some areas require great resiliency, and some do not; some crises need to be well managed, others do not. What’s ‘appropriate’ is subjective, and being able to strategically guage the level required is is part of the skillset under discussion!
August 31st, 2011 → 9:16 pm
[...] very beginning of her journey towards her degree and in her first post in December 2010, explaining “Why Gold or Dust?”, she writesI’d like to identify the characteristics of people who make great strategic leaders [...]