Large forests have been felled for the paper to print endless volumes and numerous research papers on the all-consuming subjects of leaders and leadership, compared to the smattering of trees sacrificed for the oft overlooked Second-in-Command (2IC) position which has not garnered the attention of organizational scholars as it deservedly merits.
The heads of all manner of entities, whether international conglomerates, agriculture enterprises, generational family businesses, manufacturing concerns, political parties, service clubs, professional sports organizations, or public services, such as the military, will automatically attract the limelight, deservedly or not, by virtue of their position. Achievements or accolades accorded to their respective organizations are glowingly received with much pomp and ceremony, whilst any negative publicity is quite likely to be shunted down the chain of command.
Business writers deciphering the role of the 2IC position have had several avenues to explore. Is the position really necessary? Does the critical nature of the role create grounds for mistrust and conflict with the CEO? Is he/she the heir apparent to the CEO? Researchers have discovered that there are no constants to quantify the role which will vary according to the nature and size of the organization, but its significance should never be underrated. In many instances, goals reached and surpassed, are the result of the deft management and team building skills of the invisible right hand, the unsung hero working arduously behind the scenes on the day-to-day management of the establishment, keeping the ship on even keel, thus freeing the organizational leader to focus on the core elements of strategy and expansion.
Management consultant Steve Tobak, a former senior executive, takes it a step further, clearly stating that the Chief Operating Officer (COO) portfolio is the most important one in any large entity. Tobak argues that the appointed person plays an important role in improving the effectiveness of the organization and is well worth the difficulty entailed in finding the most suitable fit and the accompanying hefty compensation package.
Researchers have noted that highly visible successful entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos are often presented in the media as visionaries who single-handedly changed an industry, which, of course, is far from the truth. In fact, these outside-the-box thinkers fully appreciate the value of a COO, and have actively sought out persons with the strengths to complement their weaknesses. Their high emotional intelligence and real-world experience provide the ideal sounding board for CEOs to bounce off projected strategies and plans. These COOs, whose responsibility it will be to execute these ideas and dreams, are expected to deliver blunt opinions on their potential worthiness.
Is a Second-in-Command really necessary? A Harvard Business Review examination of this enigmatic question (The Misunderstood Role of the Chief Operating Officer) observed that the variability of the job made it difficult to study and concluded that there is no agreed-upon description of what the job entails or even what it is called. The article outlined several possible roles for the position based on the motives for creating the position in the first instance. The designations varied from executor (of strategies), change agent (for a turnaround or expansion), mentor (often to a young founder), foil (to complement the CEO), partner (co-managing), and heir apparent (to ward off poachers). It concluded that with companies pursuing global expansion and paying more attention to succession planning that it was surprising that the role was not more common.
Reviewing the local landscape, the failure to grasp the true value of a trusted deputy is very prevalent in all aspects of our society. This limitation is not uncommon in family enterprises, where the reluctance of the patriarch/matriarch to relinquish the reins of control, and, or, to groom or nurture a successor has seen the sudden collapse, and in some instances, the eventual death knell of receivership for a decades old entity.
The political stage is rife with this lack of foresight, especially with regard to succession. The insecurities of the leaders of our political parties manifested by the lack of trust of their colleagues’ loyalty and their inflated egos will never afford them the facility of appointing intelligent objective thinking Seconds-in-Command, since they abhor the thought of being challenged on any front. This personality foible will, in the long term, only serve to diminish the leadership strength of the parties. It will be argued that a political party is a horse of a different colour and not a business entity as such. All politicians strive to attain the seat of power, from which they then have to run the largest business in the country, the government. If a party is not properly structured and managed, then how can it effectively run a country?
It is a pity that they fail to heed the sound, free advice offered by the late advertising tycoon David Ogilvy: “Hire people who are better than you are, then leave them to get on with it . . . Look for people who will aim for the remarkable, who will not settle for the routine.” We need only glance over our left shoulders to see the quagmire that can be created when an insecure leader circumvents the critical thought process of succession, electing to bypass a suitably qualified candidate, and instead opts for a political weakling for the Second-in-Command post.
