Ryan Kovach has joined PilotLegis as Assistant Executive Director. Mr. Kovach is a seasoned leader focusing on compliance, auditing, contract negotiation, policy development, information security and training.
Learn more about Mr. Kovach here.
Amanda K. Brady, Managing Director/Chief Client Officer, conducted and completed this search.
“Do the hustle.” Three of only six total words sung repeatedly by Van McCoy and the Soul City Symphony. I wonder if this is what McCoy had in mind, this “hustle culture” that’s become so commonplace in the workforce? It’s a hot-button topic. So hot, in fact, that an anti-hustle movement has developed, appropriately dubbed the #antiwork movement
Where do you and your employees fall on the anti-work-to-hustle culture scale? To answer that, we first have to define hustle culture. We can then address the pros and cons of such a culture and highlight what some organizations are doing to find the right balance.
At its core, hustle culture—meaning ‘all about constantly working’—reflects an unrelenting push for productivity. It may not be new, but the hustle culture meaning has become more prevalent in recent years. The executive lifestyle goes beyond working hard, beyond long hours for a major deadline, and beyond moving up the corporate ladder. It’s an all-consuming obsession with productivity that impacts our quality of life and our quality of work. With hustle culture, there is no such thing as a work-life balance. A study conducted by the Harvard Business Review tracking how large companies’ CEOs spend their time found that 79% of those leaders conducted business on weekend days and up to 70% of vacation days.
We don’t realize that hustle culture is typically not demonized but celebrated. Examples of hustle culture in the workplace include shoutouts in morning huddles for the project manager who worked 30 days straight to meet a deadline or the supervisor answering emails while on vacation. What’s more, employees – myself included – are proud participants.
Hustle culture’s roots go back to the Industrial Revolution when long hours and relentless productivity were celebrated. So, as work shifted from farms to factories, society’s values around hard work began to reshape, setting the foundation for a culture that equates long hours with commitment and success. Fast forward to the 1980s and 90s, when phrases like “work hard, play hard” became popular among corporate professionals, and high-profile CEOs started glamorizing the “always on” lifestyle.
With the rise of social media, hustle culture became more prevalent as influencers, entrepreneurs, and self-help gurus championed the idea of grinding non-stop to achieve personal and professional success. Platforms like Instagram and LinkedIn are filled with images and quotes glorifying late nights and early mornings, feeding the notion that a packed schedule is a badge of honor. Today, hustle culture has permeated nearly every industry, with many professionals feeling constant pressure to be productive, even at the expense of their health and well-being.
The hustle gets you places. From a young age, we are taught that hard work and dedication are the cornerstones of success. Do you want better grades? Hit the books. Do you want to be a better athlete? Practice, practice, practice. And you know what? It pays off. You ace the test, make the team, get the job, land the promotion. The most challenging part is differentiating where the natural hustle and hard work ends, and the toxic work obsession begins.
The benefits of participating in and fostering a hustle culture can yield greater output, better sales, more clients, higher revenue – everything that can make an organization successful.
So why bother stopping the hustle? In short, wellness. The timing of this blog following our Wellness in the Workplace series is strategic. Hustle culture is another culprit that negatively impacts employee well-being. Hustle culture impacts mental health because our work addiction can trigger burnout, chronic stress, depression, and anxiety, creating a cycle of exhaustion that wears down mental resilience.
And hustle culture impacts physical health because the physical toll of constant overwork includes risks like cardiovascular disease, with Corporate Wellness Magazine telling us executives are at even higher risk due to the constant need to always be “on.” According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, an overworked and stressed employee can be up to 68% less productive despite putting in more effort and hours. Additionally, Corporate Wellness Magazine notes that executives frequently absorb the largest amount of stress, potentially leading to chronic health conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and hormone imbalances.
The easy part is done. We know what needs to change. But where do we go from here? Before we can even begin moving toward potential solutions that would squash our corporate hustle culture, we have to have buy-in from leadership as much as from individuals. Starting with a common goal is step one. Commitment to that goal is step two. Steps three and beyond will look different for everyone and remain fluid as we develop as individuals and organizations.
In a recent article for Inc., Dmitri Lepikhov, CEO of Mightcall, addresses the question, How can employers avoid creating a hustle culture in their workplace? He outlines three actionable steps to help reduce grind culture and foster a healthier work environment.
Corporate Wellness Magazine explains how some corporate boards of directors are taking matters into their own hands, and investing in their executives’ health and wellness. They go above and beyond their standard health insurance to include preventative exams, health action plans, and follow-up care. In many cases, executives remain loyal to their company because of the health benefits they receive. These highly intelligent people understand that their company is investing in them and their families by investing in their health.
Despite its evolution, the impact of hustle culture remains the same: an unrelenting pace that blurs the lines between work and personal life, affecting our health, productivity, and overall quality of life. Understanding where this culture originated and how it became ingrained in our professional lives is the first step toward reassessing its value and finding a healthier approach to success.
But what does hustle culture mean for your organization and your team? Are you promoting a balanced, sustainable approach to work, or are you caught in a cycle of constant hustle? Redefining success in your workplace starts with assessing current practices and opening conversations about work-life balance. Encourage your team to set realistic boundaries and prioritize wellness without sacrificing their professional goals.
Take the first step toward balance: speak with your leadership team, consider implementing wellness programs, and lead by example. Building a work culture that values both achievement and well-being is possible—and it’s key to creating a healthier, more effective workforce.
Explore more leadership strategies with The Alexander Group.
The Alexander Group provides insights on corporate board recruitment and how to attain a board seat. This guide will help executives take strategic steps to secure a board position, drawing on expertise from our experience in executive search and corporate governance.
One of the most frequently asked questions we get about C-level board recruitment is, “How do I get on a corporate board if I’m not already on a board?” The hardest board will be your first board.
Here is what you need to know.
A board seat is usually not a position for which you apply. It is much more like a sorority, fraternity, or even a posh club: Candidacy is by invitation only. While visiting and making contacts with search firms is helpful, it should not be your only strategy. Search firms fill only a relatively small percentage of board seats, though this number is increasing due to the need for highly specialized talents and a commitment to greater diversity.
Because someone can work and still serve on a board, it’s relatively easy for board members to recruit friends, former colleagues, or executives with whom they’ve done business. A search firm may not be as helpful to you in seeking a board position as it would be if you were looking for a C-suite role simply because board searches are not put out to search nearly as often as executive positions are.
Secondly, board positions do not have as much turnover as C-suite roles. The average tenure for directors in the larger companies of the S&P 500 Index and the broader Russell 3000 index is nearly ten years.
Lastly, it is expensive. Search firms charge anywhere from $70,000 to $200,000 to complete board searches. Many Boards inquire about their network before retaining executive board search services.
What value could you bring to a board? Determine the industry and type of company where your background would be an asset. Would you meet the requirements to serve on a company’s Audit Committee? Do you have a background in a sought-after functional area, such as compliance, data security, or executive compensation? Are you a diversity candidate? There are many functional areas or qualifications that boards seek to ensure they have a well-rounded board.
Prepare an “elevator” speech that you will use to introduce your candidacy to executive board search services and sources of referrals for board positions that articulate what you have to offer. You will also need a different resume highlighting your value to a board, your ability to represent shareholders and interactions with your own or other boards.
What would someone learn about you if they Googled your name? Does your resume reinforce the assets you would bring to a board? (Define your strengths; see number 2 above). Who are you, and how have you established yourself? What is your reputation? What enterprise challenges have you faced and successfully navigated?
It is not enough that you are good at what you do. Being selected for a board requires both an internal and external effort. This requirement is especially important if you are not currently working. One of the fastest ways to disqualify yourself from a board is not to be “current.” Today, board members must be up to date with changes in business and technology. To this end, it is critical to become versed in social media. Have a LinkedIn profile complete with a picture. Have an account with—and understand how to use—Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok (even if you don’t use it). Submit articles, blogs, or comments to industry association websites and publications. Engage in online dialog with your peers on social media. Publish an article on LinkedIn that delves into your area of expertise.
Landing a board seat is both a numbers game and a contacts game. Let your investment banking, law, bank, public accounting, and consulting firm contacts know of your interest in being on a board and the value you would bring. Use LinkedIn to identify board members of companies whom you can contact. Note if any of the directors are close to retirement. Many individuals have found board positions by contacting venture capital firms. In addition to search firms, check out top registries such as the National Association of Corporate Directors, Catalyst (for women), and various universities that have board training programs. Stanford, Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, and Dartmouth offer corporate governance programs.
Be willing to start small. Are there any not-for-profits for which you have a passion? If so, volunteer to be on their board, even locally. Are there small companies that are looking for a volunteer board? What about your church, child’s school, or trade association? Once you’re on an organization’s board, fellow board members are often senior executives from public companies with whom you can network. It may take two or three not-for-profit boards before you can join a for-profit board. We know several executives who got their start on public boards by working with emerging growth companies and rode with those companies as they went from a garage operation to a Fortune 1000 company.
Most executives agree that it is harder to land their first board position than actually to serve on a board. Look at your contacts and networking as investing in one board and future Board positions. Not surprisingly, most search firms who conduct board searches look first to those already serving on public boards.
Remember, landing a board seat takes dedication, strategic positioning, and consistent networking efforts. When you understand the intricacies of corporate board recruitment, refining your personal brand, and making yourself visible within relevant circles, you will increase your chances of attaining that coveted position. Remember, the journey to your first board seat is often the hardest, but the relationships you foster and the expertise you build along the way are invaluable assets.
The Alexander Group remains committed to guiding ambitious executives through every step of corporate board recruitment, leveraging our experience to ensure that leaders find roles where they can truly make an impact.
Additional resources:
The Executive Leadership Council: Helps provide opportunities for African American executives.The Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility: Serves as a resource for Hispanic executives vying for board service.
Anyone who has ever been involved with a not-for-profit will at some point be asked to serve on a search committee or lead a search committee’s search for a new CEO/President or senior officer. We have written previously about the responsibilities of search committee members and how candidates can prepare for a search committee interview but wanted to take a deeper look at the role of the Search Committee Chair.
We turn to Steve Taylor, a leader in the not-for-profit community for nearly 30 years who is currently serving as Executive Vice President and Chief Mission Officer of the Arthritis Foundation. Steve recently chaired the search committee for the President and CEO of the National Health Council, which has been widely viewed as a well-run search with outstanding results. Below, Steve answers the questions we are frequently asked as not-for-profit recruits using search committees.
How big should a search committee be?
I believe the ideal size is seven, including the Chairman who should also have a vote. You could possibly do nine or five, but frankly, if the Committee becomes too large, it can be hard to coordinate schedules. You have too many opinions in the discussions, and you want every voice to be heard. You’ll also want to make sure it’s an odd number; that way there is no tie.
Who should be on a search committee?
Much of it depends on the position. Ideally, one to three members of the Executive Committee should be on the Search Committee and supplement that with volunteers who represent different parts of the organization. I recommend looking at the various responsibilities of the position you are trying to fill. Which volunteers can best represent and understand these responsibilities? The key to a successful search committee is that you want members with perspective but who are not living in the past. On the other hand, you don’t want search committee members being so free-spirited they are substituting their vision for that of the Board’s.
The ideal Search Committee member understands the history of the organization as well as its future vision.
And that is what is so important when selecting volunteers to serve on a search committee: they need to be familiar [with] and embrace the Board’s vision for the organization and also represent different constituencies of the organization.
Should current employees sit on a search committee?
Many organizations wrestle with this question. Sometimes, it makes sense, especially when you have long-term employees who understand the organization. But this is not a choice without challenges.
If there are internal candidates for the position, it can be difficult to ask a colleague [to] make an unbiased choice.
Secondly, a staff member on the Committee may not have the strategic view of the organization that a high-ranking volunteer or board member will have.
Thirdly, it can be sensitive for an employee to be involved in salary discussions involving the successful candidate.
I typically recommend that one of the Search Committee members serve as a liaison to a group of employees/staff. On the search I led for the National Health Council, I personally maintained contact with the senior leadership team. While I did not discuss individual candidates, I asked the search firm to solicit their opinions on the type of leaders we were seeking, and I communicated to them on the progress of the search.
Who selects the search firm, and what should be considered?
I can’t overemphasize the importance of a strong partnership with the search firm. You want it to be a partnership, not just a firm presenting resumes. The Chair should have meaningful input on selecting the search firm because they’ll be the one working [most] closely with them. Of course, the Search Committee reviews proposals and meets with several finalists. Ultimately, the Chair of the Search Committee should have a strong voice when selecting a search firm.
For me, the search firm needed to have experience in organizing and administratively providing infrastructure to the committee so that I and the Committee could focus on the candidates.
I also believe the Chair shouldn’t rely on the Search Committee or search firm to coordinate. There will be times that the Chair needs to jump in to either facilitate meetings or deal with scheduling or personnel challenges. The search firm should be willing to do more than just conduct the search as many members of a search committee have full-time jobs.
I advise my colleagues running search committees to be very specific with what you would like the search firm to do.
Do you want them to:
-Attend search committee meetings?
-Set the agenda for search committee meetings?
-Provide interview questions?
I believe you need a search firm to do anything the Search Committee and its Chairman cannot or do not want to do because of time restraints.
It is a given that a search firm needs to have a robust Rolodex, but I’m still trying to figure out how to evaluate that. [laughing] What you can evaluate is recent searches a search firm has conducted for similar positions. As we evaluated search firms, some listed searches conducted over a decade ago! That was a lifetime ago in the not-for-profit world.
Finally, I believe you need to find a search firm that is upfront and honest with you about who the lead staff will be—and that you have the opportunity to meet with that lead staff to ensure compatibility and understanding of the process you envision—before you finalize your selection on a firm.
What allowances did you make during COVID-19 in the most recent search you chaired?
Overall, it worked out well. In certain ways, the process moved more efficiently given the Search Committee met by Zoom and the candidates were interviewed by the search firm and us for first-round interviews by Zoom. One advantage we had as a search committee is that we all knew each other—some better than others—but this familiarity allowed us to work together well virtually.
Once we narrowed the process to our finalists, we asked them to meet face to face, of course, social distancing, wearing masks, etc., with another search committee member and me. Despite adapting to video conferencing, meeting the candidate in person makes a big difference. To have a candidate willing to invest the time to travel to a meeting and meet a group of people, some in person, some virtually, was critical to the final steps of our process.
We were able to observe how they handled themselves in the middle of a pandemic, watch how they coordinated their presentation, and even how they arranged the papers on the conference table. In a virtual interview, you have no idea if the candidate has sticky notes on their computer screen providing possible hints to questions. That was important to us because that’s what the job is going to be (ultimately): face-to-face meetings working with different constituencies and being able to communicate and think on their feet. Interestingly, I believe we would have ended up with the same candidate if we had searched COVID.
As a search committee chair, how do you handle candidate withdrawals and surprises?
As a search committee chair or member, you understand that many candidates are currently in good positions, and you are hoping to attract them to your organization. You can’t get too nervous about that. It is part of the process. You reach for candidates; some attract, and some lose. And if a candidate pulls out, I believe they should do it in the search process rather than later.
As for the second part of your question, as Chair, you have to be flexible, responsive, and nimble because issues arise that need to be acted on quickly. Several times, I had to reach out to Committee members individually to keep the process moving either because an issue arose on a Friday night or there was simply not the time to call a full committee meeting. You establish that at the beginning of the search, so there is no misunderstanding. In every search, there may be small decisions made either by the chair or by a smaller group on the committee, because trying to get everyone together all the time isn’t possible, but ultimately the big decisions are made as a group.
How much time does it take to do a good job?
The time required ebbs and flows during the search. If you have a good search firm, as we did in using The Alexander Group, there’s less time initially because you allow them to do the search and trust their judgment on the candidates they’re presenting. The search committee chair is free to focus on the higher-level items most important to finding the right candidate. Once the interview process is underway, you must be available for the search committee, search firm, [and] staff as the process unfolds. There is a significant time commitment required for the Chair. The organization needs someone who can make that time commitment because you’ll never finish the search if it is not a priority.
Who should be the Chair?
Choosing the right search committee chair is critical to a successful search. The chair needs to be a leader in the organization who understands its past and its future vision. It does not have to be the current board chair. It could be a past board chair that might have more time because it’s not the current board chair. It is important the chair can lead without supervision and is trusted by the board.
After a successful 11-year run at Cubist Pharmaceuticals, former CEO Rob Perez asked himself, what next?
“While I loved (almost) every aspect of leading Cubist, my favorite part was helping to develop the unique culture that was a hallmark of the organization. And a big part of that culture was our extraordinary commitment to the community,” he said.
“There were many enticing and, frankly, flattering offers, but I found that nothing provided a greater return on happiness than giving back to others.” After much reflection and conversations with close friends and family, Perez founded Life Science Cares, an organization committed to eliminating the impact of poverty in the greater Boston area. “Being involved in the community, and helping others do so as well … gave me the greatest joy.”
Executive Directors of not-for-profit organizations report high levels of job satisfaction.
And he is not alone. A 2011 study of nonprofit executive leadership found that Executive Directors of not-for-profit organizations, like Perez, report high levels of job satisfaction. Ninety-one percent reported that they are very happy in their jobs or have more good days than bad. Sound attractive?
The opportunity to “do good” appeals to many chief executives who are looking to channel their leadership skills and good fortune more directly toward their community and causes.
But there are a few myths that must be confronted:
Myth #1: If I can lead a Fortune 500 company, I can run a nonprofit.
Much of what you have done in the private sector will be relevant, but there are some profound distinctions. Businesses have wide-ranging goals and objectives, but there is really only one focus: To make a profit. The goal of nonprofit organizations, however, is to “change lives.” That passion for the mission or the art often competes with—and sometimes trumps—business decisions. An Executive Director, and his or her board, must learn how to balance the two: develop and maintain a sustainable organization that also has the means to pursue its passion.
When a leader can’t affect performance through giving or withholding rewards, leadership style shifts from power to influence.
Another key distinction? In the business world, one enjoys a deep bench of talent. By contrast, nonprofit staffs are generally lean, paid at below-market wages and hampered by limited resources. And nonprofits often have large numbers of volunteers who aren’t getting paid.
“You can’t just pull everybody into a conference room and make them do something,” says Dean Niewolny, CEO of the Halftime Institute, a nonprofit organization that coaches and connects high-capacity leaders to serve communities. “When a leader can’t affect performance through giving or withholding rewards, leadership style shifts from power to influence.”
Jane Howze, Not-for-Profit Practice Leader at The Alexander Group, agrees: “A not-for-profit CEO does not have the power of promotions, salaries, or discipline to motivate teams. Instead, a not-for-profit CEO must rely on his or her ability to appeal to constituents by communicating the organization’s mission and vision.”
Myth #2: I’m not ready to retire; this will be an easy transitional role.
Many mistakenly believe working for a nonprofit is easier than corporate work. The work can be incredibly rewarding, but one will be expected to do the same work as before, and with fewer resources. The work takes passion and commitment.
It feels like I am just beginning and I couldn’t be more grateful.
Retired pharmaceutical executive Scott Boyer helped launch ROW Foundation in 2014 to deliver epilepsy treatments to underdeveloped countries. “All of this is happening at an age when many of my contemporaries have retired. For me, it feels like I am just beginning and I couldn’t be more grateful.”
He urges other executives considering a transition to “think about listening to that voice inside you that says you could make your ‘what if’ a reality and ignoring the voice that says you cannot.”
Myth #3: I know lots of people with deep pockets.
More important than who you know, is how you know them. A robust personal network indicates that one is adept at networking and building relationships—an important skill for nonprofit leaders. Executive Director candidates must demonstrate that they can continually seek new sources of revenue and in-kind support, whether donations, grants, corporate alliances, or partnerships with other community organizations.
Club promoter Scott Harrison used his social media influence to spread awareness of charity: water, the nonprofit he founded in 2006 to bring clean water to communities in developing countries. Harvard grad Elizabeth Scharpf engaged in a creative corporate alliance with Johnson & Johnson, the multinational consumer goods company, to lend brains, talent and equipment to Scharpf’s nonprofit organization Sustainable Health Enterprises (SHE). In exchange, SHE is sharing its innovations in producing affordable sanitary napkins in rural Africa.
A robust personal network indicates that one is adept at networking and building relationships—an important skill for nonprofit leaders.
Networking can also help attract new board members and create staff development opportunities including recruiting, education, best practice sharing.
Myth #4: I’ve served on a not-for-profit board; I can easily transition to Executive Director
Nonprofit board membership is very different from running the organization day to day. As a board member, you understand the need to balance the expectations of various stakeholders—local governments, donors, beneficiaries, employees, volunteers and the community at large—all with distinct points of view and demands. As Executive Director, however, those demands will routinely land on your desk. The buck stops with you. And balancing competing agendas takes diplomacy, tact and thick skin.
Balancing competing agendas takes diplomacy, tact and thick skin.
“Not-for-profits often have limited resources and competing demands for those resources,” says Howze. “It is up to the Executive Director/CEO, along with the board, to prioritize the resources. We see this quite often with voluntary health organizations in which some constituents’ priority is funding research in hopes of finding a cure in the future, while others are more focused on offering the best treatments, programs, and services for those presently afflicted with the disease.”
“Stakeholders with differing, and often conflicting, agendas can make a not-for-profit CEO’s job much more complex,” Howze emphasizes.
It has been a busy, exciting and productive spring and summer for The Alexander Group.
We celebrated the firm’s 40th anniversary, welcoming clients, friends, and family to The Podium at Porsche River Oaks in Houston. We’ve also welcomed industry-leading experts to The Alexander Group, expanded our reach with new locations and continued to identify world-class talent for our clients.
Tap here to read our Summer 2024 Newsletter here.
Stay connected to The Alexander Group and receive our quarterly newsletters by subscribing here.
There are many lessons to glean from the challenges that businesses faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Leaders were suddenly tasked with guiding their organization through a volatile, ever-changing environment in which decisions had to be made quickly while keeping the health of their company and their workforce a priority.
For the thousands of pre-pandemic executive searches we conducted, the traits our clients most often asked us to look for were traits associated with high-performing business leaders: financial acumen, risk assessment, persuasive negotiating tactics, etc. Now, our clients are prioritizing the mental health of their workforce, and are seeking executives that not only have an aptitude for typical business skills, but who also possess traits that have proven to be effective in promoting the emotional stewardship of a workforce. Today’s most successful leaders display adaptability, empathy, and humility in executing their responsibilities.
Adaptability is key in a fast-paced business world. Adaptive leadership is defined by its emphasis on creativity, innovation, collaboration, and mutual respect to produce long-term change. A leader with these qualities can quickly assess a situation, identify the best course of action, and implement a plan that achieves results.
According to McKinsey, “adaptability is the critical success factor during periods of transformation and systemic change.” Surviving change is not the hallmark of adaptability, rather it is the ability to endure change, and use those learned experiences to move forward with purpose.
Empathy is another important leadership characteristic. Executives who are empathetic can see things from other people’s perspectives and understand their feelings. They can then use this understanding to build trust, motivate others, and resolve conflicts. This leadership quality proved especially important during the height of the pandemic when people were experiencing considerable amounts of stress.
Moreover, empathy has been shown to reverse the strains that stress puts on a person, particularly in their job performance. According to a Catalyst study of 889 employees, empathy has some profound effects on job performance. For example, 61% of employees who responded as having empathetic leaders were able to be more innovative, 76% reported being more engaged in their work, and 50% expressed that their workplace was more inclusive.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella credited the empathy he developed while raising his severely disabled son with shaping his drive to instill an empathetic culture at work. Empathy, Nadella writes, “[is] a quality that shapes our mission of empowerment at Microsoft and our quest to meet unmet and unarticulated needs of customers. And it’s the quality that helps us as a society move forward in creating new opportunity for all.”
Daniel Lubetzky built an entire company around the idea of empathy. He founded KIND with the idea that people would not only do the “kind thing” to their body by giving it a healthier snack option, but by doing kind things for others through acts of service and kindness. He believes that empathy gives executives a distinct competitive advantage.
He explains, “When I understand people with ease, I can accomplish more in both my business and my private life. Being able to access these skills is especially valuable in those moments when you feel threatened and your fight/flight instinct kicks in. If you can ask yourself questions like, ‘where is this person coming from?’ then you’re able to get to a more productive place quicker, thereby creating value for business and society.”
Humility is another highly sought-after characteristic among organizations looking for their next executives. Many companies even go as far as to have potential candidates do some sort of personality analysis or ask probing questions during the interview process designed to get a better idea of their aptitude for humility.
For example, humility-focused questions such as “Do you appreciate teammates’ feedback at work?” or “As a leader, do you think you’re entitled to more recognition than the rest of your team?” have become ways to determine a candidate’s ability to lead with humility, which, according to studies, has led to increased employee engagement, lower turnover, and stronger teamwork.
A study conducted by the University of Singapore and Arizona State University found that humble CEOs are more likely to have better-performing management teams, leading to better overall company performance. Antonia Hock, global head of the Ritz-Carlton Leadership Center, was asked by the Society for Human Resource Management what managers could do to lead with humility. She advised to ask yourself a few questions after leading meetings or having one-on-ones with your team members:
As businesses evolve, and the world continues to throw new challenges their way, executives are looked to for steady leadership. Although there are numerous traits that successful executives must have, perhaps the most important are the ones that define their personality. Adaptive, empathetic, and humble leaders are the ones best positioned to quickly gain the confidence of their teams, which is the foundation for success.
To celebrate our firm’s 35-year history, The Alexander Group is talking to several of the outstanding executives we have recruited to ask about their lessons learned, leadership style, and the legacy they hope to leave behind.
This month, we feature Peter May who joined leading global law firm Baker McKenzie as Global Chief People Officer five years ago. Throughout the course of his 25 years in business, Peter has established a reputation as a leader and trusted advisor to executive management in top-tier professional services organizations. A native of Australia, Peter has worked in the Americas, Europe and Asia Pacific, bringing a unique global experience and perspective to his role. He spoke to us from his offices in New York.
You began your career as a chartered accountant and moved into human resources more than 20 years ago. What influenced this career path?
Peter May
There were two pivotal moments that set me on my current path: After graduating from Sydney University in Australia, I joined Price Waterhouse (PW), later PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), and became an auditor. And while I was good at that, a mentor who suggested I would do well in the learning and development department at PW.
On the back of that recommendation, I joined the technical learning department and found my calling. I was never more happy than in a classroom of adult learners. I had the opportunity to study how adults learn and the most effective way of facilitating and working with a group of people. That set me on the path to becoming a human resources professional.
I worked in learning and development for a number of years; then I heard through a connection that Deloitte Australia was interesting in a human resources director who had significant Asia Pacific experience, which I had through my role with PwC. This was the second pivotal moment in my career: Through that network connection, and with the encouragement of others, I took on an HR Director role in 2000, and I’ve been in HR generalist roles since then.
What did your mentor see in you that led him to guide you toward HR?
My joke is that clearly I wasn’t well suited to being an auditor. In truth, my mentor was always on the lookout for strengths and potential in others. He saw in me a reasonably high EQ — which every job requires but HR jobs in particular. He also saw in me an ability to lead and manage other people, to work in teams, and to have open and transparent conversations with people about their lives and their careers.
What makes you successful in your current role?
You joined Baker McKenzie from Deloitte in 2014. How was the transition?
One of my primary challenges was moving industries. I’d worked in professional services before, but I’d never worked for a law firm. There are some similarities: Baker & McKenzie is a partnership like Deloitte. Baker & McKenzie also has a broad geographical footprint like Deloitte. But I had not worked directly with lawyers in the way that lawyers like to work: Lawyers like to understand the details of the issues and manage risks around those issues.
The level of consultation around decision making is much higher than it was in my previous role. Lawyers and law firms tend to have a lower risk tolerance around decision making; the movement to action takes longer. I had to learn to adapt the way I consult to accommodate that environment.
What were the organizational challenges you faced when you assumed the role?
The firm has 77 offices in 42 countries, and many of the HR practitioners, the HR practices and the policies were very independent. I needed to weave what I call “a golden thread” between the different things happening around the organization to unite us in a meaningful way. What were we doing in common, what needed to be done globally, and what needed to be held locally?
One of the big things we did was conduct a global engagement survey in 2015. That gave us real data on what our people thought of the firm, its human resources practices, its leadership and other issues. We knew what was on people’s minds and what was important as opposed to guessing about it. On the back of that survey, I was able to develop a global human resources agenda that allowed us to establish our priorities and unite the HR teams around the world.
Looking into the future, what legacy do you hope to leave behind?
This may sound cliché, but truly what I want is a human resources team that is the best in the industry, a leading light. I want others to look to us as a point of reference for how to do human resources really, really well.
I think it’s also important that my successor, and my successor’s successor, all come from within. I strive to have strong, internal succession for all senior roles in all the functions, so that it becomes sustainable.
As a mentor and leader, what is your favorite piece of advice?
When you’re asked to do something, always say yes. And then ask, what more can I do, how can I contribute, where can I add value? Be open to possibilities. Have an openness and willingness to participate in the life of the firm in relationship with other people, and participate fully in your own career, in your own deportment. That’s so, so important.
Describe your interview style when meeting with a prospective employee?
My interview style is always to put people at ease. I think if people are anxious and nervous, then you’re not going to see their full potential. You want people to be relaxed. You want them to be open. You want them to be fully themselves. If you can help them to relax into the interview, you then get much more from the person.
Near the end of the interview process, my style shifts. After we’ve had a few conversations, they know the position description, they know about the organization. Now I’m interested in what they make of the role themselves. I’m interested in hearing them play back to me what they believe a role’s about — what might be the challenges, what are the issues, and what they would do with that?
I’m often testing the interviewee for their understanding of the role and the organization. That tells me a lot about the person, as to whether they really understand what they’re potentially stepping into.
How do you recharge? What do you do to take care of yourself?
I enjoy exercise, and I try to run, if I can, most days. Wherever I go in the world, I always pack my running shoes. I also try to read extensively, particularly about the various schools of psychology. I find that interesting and helpful for my job. And finally, living in New York, I make sure I stay engaged in the life of the city as well — music, theater, events. Because of my travel and my work schedule, I don’t always have time.
It’s a struggle to maintain that balance. That’s the truth.
Strategist. Gatekeeper. Advisor. These aren’t just buzzwords for resumes or LinkedIn profiles. They are the critical duties of a role becoming prevalent in the C-Suite.
TV shows like “West Wing” and recent turnover at the Presidential level have attracted national attention to the role of Chief of Staff. Once primarily a government or military role, Chiefs of Staff (COS, for short) are beginning to appear on the rosters of non-government organizations. The trend began in the tech industry about five years ago as many former government officials left D.C. to join Silicon Valley startups.
“I first saw the role emerge more than 10 years ago in the financial services space,” says Jane Howze, Managing Director at The Alexander Group. “Larry Green held the title at Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. for six years, working side by side with President and Founder Dan Pickering.”
Today, the role has spread into banking, arts, professional services firms, and media. Warren Buffett has a Chief of Staff, as do Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel’s COS famously went on to become Chief Technology Officer of the United States.
Demand for transparency, corporate accountability and the rise of social media mean that many chief executives are becoming more like politicians or public personalities, spending more time connecting with the public and media. Chief executives need a way to offload the work that isn’t getting done. Enter the Chief of Staff.
A springboard to the C-suite
As a researcher for an executive search firm, I often identify Chiefs of Staff as potential C-suite candidates: Chiefs of Staff learn first-hand what it takes to run and grow a business, and the experience can accelerate their careers. They have valuable operations, financial or human resources experience—or all of the above—and make excellent candidates for Chief Operations Officer, Chief Strategy Officer and many other C-Suite roles, depending on the search.
Chief of Staffs are also highly influential: This influence has helped women and people of color in the role forge their own unique career paths. “They are being positioned as the next wave of C-Suite executives themselves which is really exciting,” says Caroline Pugh, COS to President of CareJourney. “The chief of staff role could be the very role that finally evens out the gender disparity in boardrooms.”
Karen van Bergen, former CEO of Omnicom Public Relations Group, spent three years as Chief of Staff to the President of McDonald’s Europe before she advanced to the CEO role. Today, she serves as Dean of Omnicom University, the holding company’s long-standing management development program. Kathleen Lynch joined UBS Group Americas as Chief of Staff and a strategic advisor to senior management; today she serves as Chief Operating Officer.
”It’s the best leadership course you could potentially take,” said Nate Jenkins, Chief of Staff to Founder and Chief Executive of Sidewalk Labs, Daniel L. Doctoroff. “I am expanding how I both take in information and make decisions.”
What are typical responsibilities?
Beyond being the chief executive’s right hand, a COS will likely take on a specific focus while acting as a trusted partner for the chief. Sound ambiguous? “No Chief of Staff is the same,” according to Scott Amenta, another Chief of Staff profiled in a recent New York Times article. Dennis Yu, Chief of Staff at Chime, described the role as a “foil to the principal”. Like a weird kind of work twin? “Yes,” he replied.
Maggie Hsu, former Chief of Staff to the Zappos CEO, describes the variety of responsibilities a Chief of Staff may take on:
An effective Chief of Staff must be absolutely trustworthy.
Regardless of the blend of functional responsibilities, one quality trumps all others: Trust. An effective Chief of Staff serves as a trusted advisor who will represent and protect his or her executive’s reputation and serve as a trusted sounding board for politically sensitive and confidential matters. “The executive is constantly getting requests for their time, money, advice or other resources, and they need someone who can vet and respond to these requests appropriately,” says Hsu. “This requires a high degree of understanding and trust between the COS and the executive.”
Need more firepower in your C-suite?
“The main purpose of a chief of staff is to add firepower to the person he or she has been hired to support,” according to Chris Hutchins, the founder and CEO of Grove. Need that firepower in your C-suite? Hutchins suggests an organizational audit to discover what tasks are eating up too much of your chiefs’ time and what a COS could take on for her or him.
Ultimately, a Chief of Staff role will mean different things to different chief executives, and be an extension of that executive. No two are alike.
Brian Rumao, Chief of Staff to Jeff Weiner, LinkedIn’s CEO, said that while he has program management and strategic responsibilities, the role “has no boundaries or preconceived notions of how to measure success.” When discussing the details of his core responsibilities, Weiner said “The core part of the role is clearly defined. Above that, the role is ultimately what you make of it.”
Law firm governance models are central to The Alexander Group’s work, which involves assisting law firms in recruiting executives (many from outside the legal industry) to run their business operations. As law firm administrative talent has become more sophisticated, governance structures have evolved significantly. Rarely do law firms’ managing partners or chairs maintain robust legal practices today.
Moreover, the role of chair or managing partner is no longer a lifetime assignment, as it often was in the past.
Although virtually all firms on the AMLaw 100 list have an executive or management committee that functions like a corporate board of directors, some firms are taking different approaches to the top leadership position of a firm. One approach that is becoming increasingly popular is for a firm to elect two co-managing partners, or both a chair and a managing partner. This dual leadership structure is adaptable across various types of law firms, from regional practices to global powerhouses, ensuring that governance models are tailored to their operational scope.
One of the co-managing partners or the chair will focus on strategy and external issues, while the other two will ensure that their firms run well. Schulte Roth, Kramer Levin, Kobre & Kim, Sullivan & Cromwell, Mayer Brown, and K&L Gates are examples of firms adopting this leadership structure.
To explore how dual leadership structures function in practice, John Lamar, a seasoned consultant specializing in law firm strategy, sat down with Michael Caccese, Chairman of K&L Gates LLP. In this interview, they discuss the firm’s governance model, the division of responsibilities between the chairman and managing partner, and how their collaborative approach has helped navigate challenges like global growth and the COVID-19 pandemic. Their conversation provides valuable insights into the benefits and best practices of adopting this innovative leadership structure.
As a prominent firm on the AMLaw 100 list, K&L Gates LLP employs approximately 2,000 lawyers across five continents. It has grown rapidly over the last twenty years through key acquisitions and organic growth. This growth reflects the scalability of governance models across different types of law firms, showcasing the adaptability of strategic leadership.
Here is my conversation with K&L Gates Chairman Michael Caccese about how this governance structure works.
John Lamar: K&L Gates is recognized for its strong operational foundation, culture, and governance structure. You serve as the firm’s chairman, and Jim Segerdahl serves as managing partner. Both of you and your partners describe this structure as a successful and synergistic partnership between the two of you. Can you talk about how that came about?
Mike Caccese: Prior to March 2017, K&L Gates firm leadership had one person serving in both roles. The firm’s Management Committee believed for numerous reasons that because of the growth of the firm both geographically and in headcount, along with the complexities of operating a global law firm in the 21st century, the roles of chairman and global managing partner should be separated.
John Lamar: Did you both assume your role at the same time?
Mike Caccese: Jim and I started our roles in March 2017.
John Lamar: Did you have a close working relationship previously?
Mike Caccese: Jim and I had a working relationship for many years, although I worked in our Boston office, and he is based in our Pittsburgh office. We were both members of the management committee and served as the two Vice Chairmen of the firm prior to 2017, which gave us the opportunity to work closely on firm strategic issues.
John Lamar: How do you divide responsibilities today in your respective roles as chairman and global managing partner?
Mike Caccese: Jim, as the Global Managing Partner, is responsible for the day-to-day management of the law firm and implementing the firm’s strategies established by the Management Committee. My role as Chairman is to work closely with the Management Committee on strategy, ensure that they receive the resources needed to fulfill their duties to the partnership, work closely with Jim on client and industry outreach, and assist Jim in implementing firm strategy.
John Lamar: How often do you communicate?
Mike Caccese: Jim and I communicate almost daily and use each other as sounding boards for addressing firm and industry issues.
John Lamar: How has your relationship and interaction with each other changed since Covid?
Mike Caccese: Since Jim and I assumed our roles, our relationship has become very close. COVID has only made it closer, with both of us and the Management Committee addressing the Covid-related challenges facing law firms, industry, and clients, few of which are the same across the various markets and geographies in which K&L Gates operates.
John Lamar: Since you had not worked from the same office or practice group previously, what did you both do to get the relationship off to such a positive footing?
Mike Caccese: It was not difficult. We both communicated frequently, shared similar visions, and focused on basing decisions on what was best for the partnership. Communication, respect, transparency, and a common goal enable us to work together seamlessly for the benefit of the partnership.
John Lamar: We are seeing many of our other clients considering dual management roles such as the one you and Jim share. What advice would you offer them?
Mike Caccese: Do not be hesitant to separate the two roles. Running a law firm is very complex, multi-faceted, and takes a team effort. Make sure that the two leaders have excellent communication and listening skills and both operate towards the same goals. Finally, the roles should be well defined, and one of the two positions should be clearly responsible for the day-to-day running of the law firm. One decision maker, two strategists.
Since the start of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has set in motion an avalanche of both short- and long-term challenges for business leaders. Executives were faced with the short-term challenges of finding ways to keep their businesses functioning amid quarantine orders, revenue losses, and office closures. Law firm knowledge management became an indispensable tool during this period, enabling firms to maintain operational continuity by efficiently accessing and sharing critical information.
To work through the long-term implications of this global disruption, many organizations turned to their Chief Strategy Officer (CSO), a multifaceted individual tasked with developing and executing strategic initiatives. Major global companies such as Kohl’s, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Petco, Molson Coors, and global law firm Kobre & Kim have CSOs in their C-suite to help develop and execute their organization’s long-term goals.
First introduced to the C-suite in the 1990s, the CSO ensures that the organization is well-positioned to meet potential future challenges, executes the Chief Executive Officer’s (CEO) initiatives, and positions the organization for long-term success. To be effective, a CSO must build a culture of trust through institutional and industry knowledge. This trust allows them the fortitude to make difficult strategic decisions.
Similarly, the role of a Law Firm CMO (Chief Marketing Officer) has emerged as critical for shaping branding strategies, client outreach, and aligning marketing efforts with governance objectives. The job of formulating a corporate strategy traditionally has fallen on the Chief Executive Officer. Another critical aspect is law firm knowledge management, which ensures that institutional expertise is preserved, organized, and leveraged to support strategic initiatives. However, the complexities of the day-to-day operations of an organization often leave little time for chief executives to execute a long-term plan; this is where the Chief Strategy Officer steps in.
Law firm governance models are evolving to meet the demands of a rapidly changing legal landscape. From dual leadership structures to the rising prominence of Chief Strategy Officers, effective governance and executive roles are crucial for driving growth, improving operational efficiency, and adapting to global challenges. Insights from industry leaders like K&L Gates highlight the importance of communication, strategic vision, and clearly defined responsibilities in achieving leadership success.
For more insights into executive roles in law firm management, visit The Alexander Group.
