What do Walmart, Berkshire Hathaway, Dell, Comcast, Publix, and Ford have in common? All are among the nation’s largest companies and members of the Fortune 100. Each of them is “family-owned,” which is loosely defined as having two or more family members involved and a majority of ownership or control within the family. Family-owned businesses date back centuries to family farms and, in urban settings, shops, and businesses where the family lived above the premises. In both examples, all family members actively participated in producing the family’s livelihood.
Although many people think of family-owned businesses as making up only a small part of the economy, the following 2021 statistics from Family Business reveal that family-owned businesses:
Employ 23 percent of the US workforce, accounting for 32.6 million jobs; Generating 23 percent of private-sector GDP or $3.2 trillion; and Total 9.1 million businesses, representing 25 percent of all business tax returns. Pressure to Keep it in The Family—Challenges in Hiring Family Members:
The family-business owner, like all business owners, should be concerned about having the best talent in appropriate roles. This can pose a challenge when hiring family members for key positions. Are they the best qualified? It is important to establish hiring and position requirements and uniformly adhere to them when considering family. These guidelines help avoid the pressure to hire a family member only because they are a family member. Many family companies encourage the next generation of family interested in the business to work for another company for several years to gain general business knowledge and experience to be eligible to join the family business.
When family members choose to work for another company in the same industry, they gain added perspective and familiarity with accepted industry-specific best practices. Family members who work outside the family business can gain increased credibility with other family members and the board. Family businesses should communicate hiring criteria for all positions, which not only sets the standard for talent management but can avoid future misunderstandings and conflicts.
The family business owner should ensure that every employee, whether a family member or not, receives the training needed to allow them to function successfully. Placing a family member in a role for which they lack the appropriate skills without a plan to provide the needed training can cause tension, low morale, and family drama. Family member executives must be assessed on their own merits. Each position should have yearly goals so that the family member can be evaluated objectively and without favoritism.
Strategically Hiring Outside The Family:
Hiring nonfamily members, especially doing so for the first time, can be challenging. Many companies decide to hire nonfamily members when the owners want to accelerate the company’s growth. Other companies hire nonfamily members when the company needs specific skills such as legal, international, or financial expertise. The challenge then becomes ensuring that the nonfamily member is a good fit with the organization’s culture and the family itself, especially if the company is small. Marc Sharpe, Chairman of the Family Office Association, reports that individuals who are comfortable with a “servant leadership style” in which one leads by putting the needs of their team first can be an excellent personality fit for a family business.
He adds that while hiring a nonfamily manager is often done to acquire a specific skill set, it is also important to hire individuals who have the flexibility to take on a generalist role when needed. If companies are recruiting nonfamily members for a position to replace a family member, it is important to communicate the reason for the hire and have detailed position requirements. If the company’s management are not in full agreement to hire a nonfamily executive, it will be a difficult and possibly unsuccessful hire.
To avoid and resolve family conflict, it is important in the recruitment and retention of outside candidates to ensure the family business has well-defined business procedures and corporate governance. Also, making decisions informally outside the office will put the nonfamily member at a disadvantage.
Best Practices for Executives Joining a Family Business:
Individuals who work for family businesses agree that it can either be a rewarding or disappointing experience depending on a number of factors, and we recommend that any executive considering joining a family business evaluate the following:
Has the family agreed on the hire? How well has the position been defined? How many individuals have previously held the same position? Turnover, particularly in the C-suite, can be a red flag indicating that the family is not ready for a nonfamily executive; How are business decisions made? Cultural fit may be influenced by whether the business owner makes key decisions independently or in a distributed fashion; How does the team operate in terms of executing the business? A well-functioning team is empowered to operationalize projects and business imperatives timely and successfully; Understand the business owner’s goals; recognize these goals may be focused on objectives other than increasing revenue and growth, such as philanthropy or creating a legacy; Evaluate the strengths and challenges of the current team and look for signs of dysfunction among family members; Get to know family members individually, because they may have different goals and objectives; what are the family dynamics in play?
“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.
What Is Hustle Culture?
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.
When Did Hustle Culture Start?
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.
Why We Love the Hustle
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.
Why Grind Culture is Toxic
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.
How To Counteract Hustle Culture in the Workplace
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.
Agree on what a “good workday” is – A blueprint developed by managers and employees to establish not a scheduled to-do list but task progression breaks to stay fresh and generally available. A long-term vision to outline what an employee is reasonably capable of doing.
Vacation time for everyone – Whether your organization offers a set amount of vacation days or the tricky “unlimited vacation days,” employees need to be encouraged to recharge and reset without being fearful of passive repercussions.
Lead by example – Everyone’s favorite adage. Lepikov states it beautifully: “If you genuinely want staff to relax and prioritize their own well-being at work, you need to show yourself doing it first.
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.
Redefining Success: Balancing Hustle Culture with Wellness
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.
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.
How To Attain a C-Suite Board Position
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.
1) C-Level Board Placement Is Different Than Applying for a Full-Time Position
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.
2) Know Thy Strengths
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.
3) Define Your Brand
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?
4) Be Visible
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.
5) Obtaining a Board Position is All About Contacts and Networking
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.
6) Start Small and Leverage Those Successes
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.
C-Suite Board Recruitment Specialists
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.
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.
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:
“Did I ask for feedback, ideas and opinions because I was really engaged or just as a token way to close?”
“Were the concepts, ideas or processes that I presented first vetted with employees at various levels? ‘Leaders miss on this one all the time,’ Hock says. ‘No one likes to be asked to buy into directives that they had no voice in forming.’”
“Did I acknowledge the role that others played in creating, designing or driving my ideas or thoughts? ‘Great leadership does not exist in a vacuum, so actively [point out] who advised you, inspired you or contributed,’ Hock adds. ‘If you don’t have anyone in this category, that’s a problem.’”
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.
Statue of lady justice on desk of a judge or lawyer.
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.
AmLaw 100 Leadership Strategies for Evolving Governance Models
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.
Examining Law Firm Governance at K&L Gates LLP
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.
The Impact of COVID-19 on Law Firm Leadership Structures
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.
How CSOs Strengthen Law Firm Governance Models
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.
Why Law Firm Governance Models Are Key to Leadership Success in the AmLaw 100
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.
A few months ago, I reached out to an individual at a Fortune 500 company about a potential opportunity with a client. His background was unusual in that he had leaped from a domestic role into a position with substantial global responsibility. As it turns out, there was a story there.
In his prior role, he had been in close competition with a colleague for an Asia Pacific position. He had more experience than his colleague and had been working long hours in preparation for the move. When his colleague was awarded the role however, he was dumbfounded. He’d been passed over for the promotion, and his spirit was crushed.
This is not an uncommon story. Many strong performers are ambitious and enthusiastic for their next internal role. Getting passed over is disheartening. The real question is, what do you do next?
Take a deep breath… keep your cool
After taking a few days to process his emotions, this executive spoke to his managers to garner a better understanding of the situation. They reassured him that big things were in the works. They encouraged him to maintain his work ethic and get better acquainted with what the company was doing—not only in Asia, but on a global scale.
Two years later, a global position opened in the organization and, today, he manages every region across the globe. And the colleague who was promoted to the APAC position? That colleague now reports to him.
He is a perfect example of what to do when faced with professional setbacks. Disappointment, anger, and frustration are natural reactions but “in the moment, those emotions may prompt you to vent to the wrong people, snap at your manager or, worse—quit,” warns Mike Guerchon, Chief People Officer at Okta. It’s crucial to remember that “how you confront difficult situations is a reflection of your maturity and readiness to take a leadership position.” Keep your composure and maintain a professional demeanor.
Also, be sure to not let this disappointment reflect poorly on your performance. You still have a team to manage, targets to achieve and numbers to nail. “Don’t let those emotions interfere with your productivity,” writes Forbes contributor Andy Molinsky. Resilience is key. How you deal with disappointment demonstrates your EQ and readiness to take on additional leadership responsibilities.
“It’s not always possible to make things better, but it is always possible to make things worse,” advised Ben Dattner, author of The Blame Game and founder of Dattner Consulting. This is critical to remember while emotions are running high. Take a deep breath, go through the emotions once you have left the office, and collect your thoughts on how to proceed.
Talk to your manager
After the heat of the moment has passed, and your emotions have calmed, approach your manager and have a candid conversation. Listen closely, and be inquisitive.
While a combination of variables can influence internal talent decisions, here are a few common culprits that may be at play:
Background is too light. Every organization has specific needs. If the role encompasses a broad range of responsibilities, you may be missing a key component, such as international experience, change management or business development.
Too experienced. Yes, it happens! Fulfillment requires a balance between the knowledge to get the job done and the opportunity to grow. If you can do the role in your sleep, you’ll be bored in less than a year and casting your eye to the horizon.
Lack of gravitas. Do you project a polished, professional approach? Are you engaging, calm and confident? Consider how you connect with clients, colleagues and the highest levels of management.
Politics. “As much as we all wish promotions would go to the most talented, hardworking and dedicated people,” writes one Forbes contributor, “decades of office politics tell us that’s not always the case.”
Bad timing. Are you halfway through a critical project? Been in your role less than a year or two? Are organizational changes in the works that may impact your position? Timing is everything, and sometimes beyond your control.
It’s not you. Sometimes, there is simply someone better suited for the role. Maybe the person you were up against has slightly more experience or contributed to the bottom line in a way you’re not aware of. Or there could be broader, long-term factors involved.
Plan your next move
Now that you’ve gone through the emotions and have gained a clearer understanding as to why you were passed up, it’s time to transform a negative situation into a springboard for opportunity.
If you discover you are missing specific experience, talk to your manager about a career plan so you get that experience. Reinvest in your current role, and look for opportunities to innovate and expand your scope of work.
Are you missing soft skills, such as diplomacy, communication skills or emotional intelligence? Ask a mentor for honest feedback and get coaching if you need to. Take up a management training course to hone leadership qualities.
Bad timing? Short tenures and unfinished projects reflect poorly on you and disrupt your organization’s productivity. Invest more time in your current role. It will pay off in the long term.
If you suspect politics are at play, find a way to heal bad blood. Network with the people in the department or region to which you aspire. Build a base of positive support, especially among top leaders.
Know when to leave
Internal opportunities for advancement can be limited, especially as you rise to more senior levels. If, after careful assessment, you believe you’ve reached an impasse, it may be time to explore external opportunities.
While conducting a search for a Chief Marketing Officer for an Am Law 100 firm, I met a potential candidate who at the time served as a Director of Marketing. I asked her why she was considering a new opportunity. She told me that there had been turnover in the senior leadership at her firm, and most of the C-suite had turned over in the past two years. When the CMO announced his retirement, she was confident that she would be offered the position. Around the same time, however, a new Chief Operating Officer joined the firm and, rather than promoting from within, he brought the CMO from his former firm on board.
This candidate handled the situation with grace and humility, but quietly started exploring the market. She knew she was ready for the next step in her career, and without a viable near-term option at her current firm, she prepared to make her move.
Today, she is Chief Marketing Officer at a prestigious and profitable international law firm. She left her former firm on good terms and exemplifies the type of individual our clients retain us to recruit.
“Getting passed over for a promotion can feel like an impossible-to-overcome roadblock in your career path,” advises one Forbes contributor. “But by learning as much as you can from what went wrong and staying resilient, you can turn a negative into a positive that’ll help you land the next one.”
Key Points:
How is DEI changing? Many companies are moving towards more subtle, “Quiet DEI” initiatives, continuing their commitment to diversity without explicitly labeling it as DEI.
There is a continued leadership commitment to DEI. Despite reduced public enthusiasm, many C-suite leaders remain dedicated to promoting DEI values within their organizations.
Evolving DEI Strategies include a focus on organically integrating diversity efforts into broader business practices to better capture everyday workplace cultures.
Peruse the headlines, and it seems the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) movement has moved on—at least for now.
The roster of companies distancing themselves from DEI hiring and practices is a Who’s Who of familiar names—Zoom, Home Depot, DoorDash, Tractor Supply, and Lyft. Social and cultural tastemakers Meta, Tesla, and X join the mix of major corporations that cut DEI teams by 50 percent or more in 2023.
It’s a far cry and a fast fall from the surge of DEI hiring and policies established in the wake of George Floyd’s 2020 death. Whether moved by altruism, public pressure, or even economic gains, American companies prioritized racial equality, building teams dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Evolution of DEI Practices
The push for DEI rose to public consciousness in 2020, but its roots are embedded in the Civil Rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s. Affirmative action and equal employment legislation such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 were the foundation for DEI, setting the stage for future growth.
.Fast forward 65 years, and you can see how DEI is changing in practice in academia and corporations worldwide.
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision overturning affirmative action in college admissions fueled the DEI pushback, creating a domino effect throughout academia.
Shifts in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives in Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education tracks how DEI is changing through legislation and found state legislators have introduced at least 65 anti-DEI bills since 2023. Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas have passed legislation that prohibits colleges from having diversity, equity, and inclusion offices or staff and bans mandatory diversity training, among other things.
The decision also prompted executives nationwide to reexamine their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, resulting in the disbanding of programs and internal DEI hires.
Adjustments in DEI Implementation in the Corporate Sector
Most recently, Tractor Supply Co., the largest rural lifestyle retailer in the U.S., took a public step back from its robust DEI policies, citing customer feedback as the reason for eliminating its carbon emissions goals and DEI programs.
With its highly respected board and management group and legacy of community engagement, the company made the decision out of respect for its customers, who include recreational farmers, ranchers, homeowners, gardeners, and pet enthusiasts.
In a press release on June 27, 2024, Tractor Supply Co. said, “We work hard to live up to our Mission and Values every day and represent the values of the communities and customers we serve. We have heard from customers that we have disappointed them. We have taken this feedback to heart.”
The company listed five key changes in the release, including “…eliminating DEI roles and retiring our current DEI goals while still ensuring a respectful environment” and “no longer submitting data to the Human Rights Campaign.”
Tractor Supply Co. isn’t alone in its DEI shift.
Changing Trends in DEI Approaches in Workplace Settings
Washington Post reporter Taylor Telford disclosed that Zoom’s chief operating officer Aparna Bawa told employees the company would replace its internal DEI team with DEI consultants who would “champion inclusion by embedding our values…directly into our people programs rather than as a separate initiative” according to a Jan. 29 memo.
Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X, Tesla, and SpaceX, echoed the sentiments of billionaire investor Bill Ackman, who shared his thoughts about DEI on X, calling it “inherently a racist and illegal movement in its implementation even if it purports to work on behalf of the so-called oppressed.”
Musk followed Ackman’s post with his own, saying, “DEI is just another word for racism. Shame on anyone who uses it. DEI, because it discriminates on the basis of race, gender, and many other factors, is not merely immoral, it is also illegal.”
Data from the job search site Indeed further supports how DEI is changing. There is a decline of dedicated DEI policies with a 23 percent decline in job postings with “DEI” in the title or description between November 2022 and November 2023.
The Pew Research Center data shows how the political fault lines reflect the country’s thoughts about DEI. The Pew survey found that 78% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning workers say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, compared with 30% of Republican and Republican-leaning workers.
How Is DEI Changing or Expanding?
So that’s it, then? Is DEI done? After all, Musk said DEI is immoral, and data shows a reverse in hiring, so it must be true.
Well, not exactly.
Despite data and the change in hiring, many companies are pursuing Quiet DEI, reframing efforts without using acronyms.
A November 2023 survey conducted by Littler Mendelson P.C., the largest global law practice devoted to representing management in employment, employee benefits, and labor law matters, revealed that despite the gloom and doom of the headlines, the C-suite is still actively pursuing and expanding its diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies.
More than 300 C-suite executives, including Chief Executive Officers, Chief Legal Officers, and Chief Diversity Officers representing a diverse range of industries and company sizes, responded to the survey, which shed light on DEI’s future.
Highlights include the following:
More than half of U.S. executives say their organizations have expanded their diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies over the past year despite an increased backlash against broader diversity initiatives.
57% of C-suite executives in the U.S. said they had grown their diversity commitments over the past 12 months, even as 59% reported growing opposition to diversity programs in the U.S. following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to roll back affirmative-action college admissions policies in June 2023.
91% of C-suite leaders say the Supreme Court rulings have not lessened their prioritization of DEI.
“Most of the business leaders with whom I speak across the professional services and nonprofit sectors continue to support a broad definition of diversity, equity, and inclusion that rejects the echo chambers of old and capitalizes on how the differences make them stronger,” said Amanda K. Brady, Managing Director and Chief Client Officer, The Alexander Group.
Transition of DEI Programs Should Be Straightforward
There is room for improvement, or rather clarity of program execution. Thirty-five percent of the executives said their organizations need clear plans and goals relating to DEI initiatives.
The survey revealed the most popular initiatives tend to be straightforward and established. These include providing training and professional development opportunities to diverse employees and providing organization-wide DEI or “implicit bias” training and educational resources, which have already been implemented or are in the planning stages at 77% of organizations.
About three-quarters of executives (73%) also say their organizations already provide or plan to develop mentorship opportunities for diverse employees.
This data rings true for Jane Howze, Managing Director of The Alexander Group. She has experienced multiple shifts across the executive recruiting landscape throughout her career and says DEI hiring practices may currently look different, but they have taken root.
“Our firm has seen many trends over its 40-year history, and the pendulum always swings back. While there may be a pause in highlighting DEI initiatives, you must think about it in the long term, and we do,” Howze said.
How Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are Evolving To Stay In Place
Growing DEI effectively is undoubtedly an evolving process. Caroline Wanga, President and CEO of Essence Ventures, Co-Founder of WangaWoman, and former Chief Culture, Diversity, and Inclusion Officer at Target, thinks it’s time for corporate DEI efforts to take a step back and ask critical questions.
These are Wanga’s five prompts for reframing the corporate DEI discussion:
1. Do your workplace policies give individuals permission to express themselves and ask for what they need?
For the amount of time I invested in being in all the right places for DEI, none of my numbers moved because I was there. My numbers moved when people saw me come to work with dreadlocks and finally started wearing their vacation braids to work.”
2. Do your mentorship programs pair employees based on their appearance or the deeper qualities they need to succeed?
Corporate America mentorship should be aligned to the needs of the person and the best person who can give them that. What they happen to look like should not be a factor in whether they’re a good mentor.”
3. Does your workplace offer space for employees to truly listen to each other?
We were teaching everybody how to come out and say stuff that makes people uncomfortable… What we forgot to do is teach people how to listen to it.”
4. Do your DEI programs foster personal accountability and action?
The next time you use the word ‘ ’instead of saying I need DEI to do this, or I’m worried that DEI is doing this, take out the word ‘ ’and put your name and see how you feel. Because if you’re not doing it, I don’t care about DEI.”
5. Are your DEI initiatives primarily for meeting business objectives or creating a more humane workplace?
DEI is not about ‘How many of this do you have? ’DEI is not about meeting goals. DEI is about teaching people how to get in touch with what they are good at.”
Bottom line in answer to “How is DEI changing in the future?”
DEI initiatives aren’t going anywhere.
“The firms I have spoken to indicated they are doubling down on their DEI initiatives,” said John Lamar, Managing Director of The Alexander Group. “Prioritizing diversity in their workforce, leadership, and client engagements will continue, as will efforts on creating an inclusive workplace culture.”
Transformations in DEI Strategies and Progression of DEI Efforts By Executive Leadership
The evolution of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts highlights that while public enthusiasm for DEI may have declined, these initiatives are far from over. Many organizations are transitioning to a more discreet, “Quiet DEI” approach, showing continued individual leadership commitment despite broader corporate pullbacks. Leaders remain dedicated to organically embedding DEI principles into business practices, underscoring the importance of diversity as a long-term goal. As DEI strategies adapt, the focus shifts toward sustainable integration that reflects the fundamental values of leadership and employees.
Moving forward, consider how your organization can continue to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion in the evolving workplace landscape. Whether through quiet initiatives or more visible commitments, DEI should remain integral to leadership strategy. Connect with us to learn more about integrating DEI seamlessly into your business practices.
As one Chief Strategy Officer explained, “I am responsible for nothing and accountable for everything.” Because the CSO is a relatively new role, it has yet to develop a consensus definition. In a recent survey, Deloitte found that 37 percent of the CSOs they surveyed revealed that strategy has existed as a formal function for less than five years at their organization. Deloitte published a white paper describing six distinct roles of a CSO:
The Advisor, who translates the various perspectives of the organization’s senior leadership into a comprehensive corporate strategic plan.
The Sentinel, who monitors the market for changes that could impact their organization’s ability to remain competitive and have medium- and long-term scenario plans in place.
The Banker who addresses lapses in business development opportunities, drives Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A;) deals, licensing deals, and venture capital investments that support the strategic plan.
The Engineer who ensures that the organization’s various business units effectively execute the strategic plan.
The Chief of Staff, who is a liaison between the CEO, outside contractors, and consultants. They drive projects forward and communicate the strategy to internal stakeholders.
The Special ProjectsLeader, who evaluates adjacent markets and executes strategic objectives such as geographic expansion.
The Characteristics of a Successful CSO
The characteristics of a successful CSO are as varied as the role’s responsibilities. Ernst & Young surveyed numerous executives to understand what it takes to be a successful Chief Strategy Officer. Most importantly, a CSO needs to have a good relationship with their CEO. The two need to be on the same page as the organization’s overall strategy, and a CSO must challenge their CEO when their ideas do not align with the plan.
A CSO also needs to have a sound working knowledge of financial best practices to foster a good working relationship with their organization’s Chief Financial Officer. A well-developed strategy that does not have a financial foundation is ultimately an exercise in futility. A successful CSO must also be up-to-date with the latest advances in technology and collaborate with their Chief Information Officer to develop new ways to leverage technology to achieve their organization’s long-term goals.
In addition to developing and maintaining good working relationships with their fellow senior executives, an effective CSO needs their role clearly defined with a scope appropriate for their company’s size. A CSO needs to know what is and isn’t under their purview, which must also be communicated and agreed upon by the other members of the senior executive team. A consensus among the executive team will prevent any feelings of encroachment on their respective duties.
What is the career trajectory for someone in the chief strategy officer role?
Career Progression for the CSO
For many organizations, the strategy department is used as a way to identify top talent and to prepare young managers for long-term success. Concurrently, many Chief Strategy Officers are moved into Profit & Loss (P&L;) executive positions within the company, based on the knowledge they have gained by working closely with line leadership to develop strategies. According to a survey conducted by Boston Consulting Group, “although only 41 percent of CSOs sit on the executive committee or management board, they do tend to rise in the executive ranks, with 67 percent either becoming the head of a business unit or taking on another role on the executive committee.”
Deloitte’s 2020 survey of Chief Strategy Officers confirmed this natural progression. While 48 percent of CSOs surveyed said they wanted to ascend to the CEO role within five years, it is rare to be promoted directly to that position. The most well-known progression from CSO to CEO was PepsiCo’s former Chairman and CEO, Indra Nooyi, who previously served as the company’s Vice President of Strategy Development. After seven years in the role, she was promoted to Chief Financial Officer then Chief Executive Officer in 2006.
Some roadblocks for a CSO progressing to CEO are practical operational and P&L; management experience. Since the focus of the CSO role is long-term, success or failure in the role cannot be determined for many years. For these reasons, many strategy professionals move on to become line executives.
As the world works to move on from a pandemic that rocked the global economy, organizations must adapt to an ever-changing global marketplace, and the role of chief strategists has become more critical with each new challenge. The Chief Strategy Officer’s job is to predict what other challenges lay just over the horizon and how to best position their organization to remain competitive and achieve long-term success.
