Years ago George Will wrote a column entitled “Hitler’s Inkwell.” He described the younger Hitler’s fascination with a particularly grotesque and distorted art form, an example of which was fashioned into one of his favorite objects, an especially hideous inkwell.
The moral: take note of early warnings, from however unlikely a quarter, of problems with one’s nature. A person’s character is a whole, and what is reflected in seemingly irrelevant corners of it will ultimately emerge in more portentous ones.
Later, Will wrote another column defending a nominee for Secretary of Defense who was being savaged during his confirmation hearings for some distinct shortcomings in his personal life. Will argued that the man’s private and professional lives were separate, and that it was inappropriate to draw conclusions about one from observations of the other.
Now, consider a recent WSJ column in which Carol Hymowitz explains how this topic is playing out in the corporate world. CEOs and senior executives are being disciplined by their boards for nominally non business-related pecadillos. In the past, a CEO’s home life – or even personal indiscretions at work – wouldn’t warrant the notice of the board or the press. But now, such misbehavior can result in a dismissal even before becoming widely known publicly.
And so, as a rule, it should be. Ill-discipline, emotional problems, a general lack of respect, problems with anger or violence – these are macro personality characteristics. They cannot be contained within one domain of a person’s life; they will ultimately surface in others – even all others.
If a CEO nominee’s – or any potential hire’s – private life gives you pause, his or her employment likely will, as well.
George Will had it right the first time: beware Hitler’s inkwell.
—
If you enjoyed this post, please take a moment to subscribe now. We’ll be glad to have you join us!
Technorati Tags: George Will, WSJ, Carol Hymowitz, CEO, senior executives, boards
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments
Hi, Jim,
This is so poignant. Am currently involved in a situation whose foundational issue is one of character. As I look at the history, there were indicators and even evidence along the way. Yet no one wanted to address “character,” as it was “too nebulous and “unconfirmable.”
Hardly. The impact of the deep character flaws have now affected the performance of others. What could have been nipped early on has now literally reached global proportions.
I had to ask myself, “What is it that stopped people from noticing these indicators at the outset?” The only answer I can come up with: They didn’t want to see them. They wanted to fill a key position with someone matching certain criteria. And they wanted to “get it done.”
Sadly, the explicit criteria were all technically behavioral and achievement-related. Matters of character were never discussed overtly. As so often happens, it was assumed that anyone with “that kind of a career-history and academic background” would certainly have “everything else.”
Instead of going to the well, they went to the inkwell.
Thanks for the post, Jim.
Hello Steve,
Isn’t that the truth, unfortunately? We ignore evidence like this, think it’s irrelevant, or even inappropriate to consider – especially, as you noted, in the face of otherwise commendable credentials.
And as you also say, when it makes its presence felt, it does so in concrete ways that harm, or can even destroy, an organization.
It’s a shame the organization you are working with is suffering from this person’s shortcomings – and from their own unwillingness to address them frankly, upon making the hiring decision or subsequently.
It’s only fortunate that you are there to help them sort it out and recover.
Thanks, as always, for your thoughts and your illuminating example.
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] Jim Stroup presents Inkwells and tea leaves posted at Managing Leadership, saying, “CEOs are being disciplined or even fired for problems that surface in their private lives. This is a new behavior by boards. Is it a good one?” [...]
Post a Comment