The Lieutenant Who Left

Part One

When a senior hire does not stick, the diagnosis goes through three layers, and most of the analysis stops at the first two.

The first layer is the hire itself. Wrong fit. Wrong timing. Wrong incentives. The hiring process is reviewed, the brief is re-written, the next search is tightened, the next senior person is brought in under cleaner conditions, and the cycle restarts. Sometimes this is enough, because sometimes the first layer is genuinely where the failure was. Often it is not enough, and the cycle restarts more than once, with different senior people, with the same outcome.

The second layer is the work. Wrong remit. Wrong constraints. The senior person was hired to run something that, on close inspection, the principal had not quite let go of. The hire was given the role on paper, but not the room. The role was a partial one, and the partial-ness was not visible at the offer stage. The senior person discovered the partial-ness over the course of months. By the time it was named, the hire was already half out of the relationship, because the gap between the named role and the actual room was the kind of gap that, for a senior person, signals something they have been around for long enough to read accurately.

The third layer is the one most rarely reached, because reaching it requires the principal to examine her relationship to authority. This is harder than examining a hiring process. It is harder than examining a role definition. The relationship to authority is structural to the principal in the way that standards are structural. It is old, it is mostly invisible to the person it is operating in, and it has been reinforced by the success the principal has had operating it the way she does.

What the relationship to authority is, in this context, is the principal's actual willingness to be disagreed with by someone equally capable. Not in theory. In practice, on a decision that matters, in the room, in front of other people. The principal can usually report her theoretical willingness with conviction. The behaviour, at the moment of disagreement, is sometimes a different story. The capable senior person, in the offer stage, takes the theoretical willingness at face value. The capable senior person, after six months, has the behavioural reading. The behavioural reading is the one with weight.

Part Two

The work that addresses this is harder than work on hiring processes because the work is on the principal, not on the system. It is also, in some sense, work the principal has been avoiding for the duration of the career, because the success of the career was built around the principal being the one whose answer prevailed. The relationship to authority that produced the career is not the relationship to authority that the next stage requires.

What the next stage requires is something more like genuine peerage at the senior layer. Not a hierarchy in which the senior hires execute the principal's already-decided direction. A working arrangement in which the senior people are doing the kind of work that materially changes the direction, and the principal is on the receiving end of that change at least some of the time, on decisions she would have made differently.

This sounds simple. It is not. It runs against the entire structure that the principal has been operating, often for decades, and the structure does not let go without something else replacing it. The something else is the principal's relationship to herself when she is not the one whose answer prevailed. If the principal experiences a decision going against her as a small loss of self, the relationship to authority cannot, structurally, change, because every concession to a senior person feels, internally, like a concession of identity.

What changes the relationship is a different reading of what the principal is in the room for. If she is in the room to produce the right outcome rather than to produce the outcome she would have produced, the equation shifts. Disagreement from a capable senior person is information about the outcome, not an attack on the principal. This re-reading sounds obvious in writing. In the body, in the actual room, on the actual decision, it takes years to install.

The signs that it has begun to install are subtle. The principal stops working as hard to convince the senior person of the original direction. The principal starts asking better questions of what the senior person is reading that she might be missing. The senior person's reasoning becomes part of how the principal reasons, rather than something she has to overcome. The team starts to see this and starts to bring more. The business starts to operate at a register the principal alone could not have produced.

None of this is fast. None of it can be implemented as a process. It is the slow re-shaping of how the principal occupies her own authority, and it has to be done in real time, on real decisions, with real consequences. The Diagnostic is a place to start naming what would need to shift. Thirty minutes, free, on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

Continue reading: The Calendar Tells the Truth →

Or if you'd rather start a conversation: Book the free 30-min Diagnostic →