Why are there so many C players in the C Suite

Are you a member of your organization’s C-suite or are you an employee looking up at the C-suite and scratching your head wondering what qualifies these clowns to be in positions of leadership?  These are common thoughts and questions.  The leadership teams of organizations tend to be held to lower standards than the rest of the organization.  The C-suites of many companies are filled with mediocre people who have paid their dues and graduated to these prestigious roles based on time served versus value created.  This is a stain on businesses and one that doesn’t get as much press as it should.

“Steve Jobs has a saying that A players hire A players; B players hire C players; and C players hire D players. It doesn't take long to get to Z players. This trickle-down effect causes bozo explosions in companies.”

This quote explains why there are so many C-players in the C-suite.  C-suite team members tend to have much higher job security than those further down in the company.  There is a collective protectionism that exists where the senior executives have each other’s backs and place blame and scrutiny on the next level down as a form of job preservation.

Years ago while working for Time Warner Cable, I spent a day in a call center working the phones along side our Chief Financial Officer.  We had arranged a day to expose senior leaders to various jobs throughout the organization.  At the conclusion of a shift y-jacked in on the phones with customer service agents, the CFO turned to me and said, “The customer service rep job is much more difficult than my job as CFO!”  That is quite an epiphany.  It has stuck with me for years.  Higher level jobs in organizations while they may carry more responsibility, tend to be easier to perform and tend to have shared accountabilities making it harder to levy blame or praise upon the individual in the leadership role.

During a Disrupt HR talk that I gave, I shared the fact that so many senior leaders are nearing senior citizenship which tends to cripple their willingness to take risks.  Companies are a reflection of their leaders.  Look at the average age of the C-suite of any publicly traded company. They don’t want to rock the boat.  No incentive to take risks.  According to a Korn Ferry study the average age of CEO in the 1,000 top us companies is 58 next oldest on the team is the CHRO at 55 and then CFO at 53.  These leaders have more reason to play it safe and make it to retirement than to throw caution to the wind and try new things.

When leaders at the top are passive and avoid taking risks it sets a negative tone for the rest of the organization.  This is why so many larger established organizations are disrupted by startups.  Making quarterly earning in the short term and focusing on stock buyback to boost the EPS is not a long term strategy. It rewards the wrong behaviors in the short term, but leaves companies without growth opportunities for the future.  I always come back to the quote “If all you play is defense the best you can do is tie at zero.”  This mindset discourages aggressive growth focused employees from joining or staying with companies that have this approach.  This begins a downward talent and engagement spiral that is almost impossible to reverse. 

Safety and comfort are the antithesis of risk and innovation.  There is a way to break this cycle, but it starts with the board of directors.  Board members must demand a long range plan from leadership, implement incentives and disincentives to drive the right behaviors and hold the entire C-suite accountable for hitting targets. 

What is your experience with the C-suite in your organization? Are there “A” players or is your C-Suite a consortium of “C” players who belong on the bench not leading the company into the future?