Second in Command

Inevitably in a CEO search process a discussion emerges with a board about promoting an internal candidate or recruiting a “step-up candidate” such as a chief operating officer. Typically the internal candidate is included in the search process, enabling a comprehensive and fair consideration of his or hers capabilities and ability to lead. Likewise an external candidate, such as a current chief operating officer at a company, would be viewed as a viable candidate having understudied for “X” number of years. However, as experience shows, the gap between No. 1 and No. 2 in a company is often bigger than many realize. CEOs not only perform different tasks from their second-in-commands — who typically focus on running operations — but they have to act differently, too. That means the two roles often demand very different personality traits. CEOs have been acclimated to the limelight, while longtime chief operating officers say they are used to working behind the scenes and submerging their egos. Their jobs focuses them inward on the company’s problems, while CEOs spend much of their time convincing outsiders of the company’s strengths. The very talents that make a great chief operating officer — like finicky attention to detail — can get in the way when you are in the top seat. CEOs are supposed to strategize, not micromanage. In order to address this underwriting issue, many companies are employing sophisticated assessment tools that gauge issues such as learning agility, thinking styles, and behavioral traits that can derail a new CEO, something the CEO and the board can ill afford.

Tony LoPinto is the Global Sector Leader of Korn/Ferry International’s Real Estate Practice and founder of SelectLeaders. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.