CEOs, beware of “yes men”

Without equivocation, the task before Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) is enormous, especiallyconsidering the operating environment that had confronted them in the past few years, in addition to huge, usually disproportionate, expectations from their diverse stakeholders. Therefore, they may be ‘pardoned’ when they veer off the road and get distracted. It is in this context that I advise CEOs: beware of “yes men”.

These are a peculiar type of employees in the workplace. They deify the CEO; they practically worship the ground he walks. In fact, in organizations where a new CEO may have been appointed, they readily form an ‘influence camp’, maliciously “advising” him regarding who to sack, who to elevate, who to associate with or befriend, and who to “send to Siberia”, etc. On most occasions, they set booby traps for the undiscerning CEOwith a view tofeathering their own nests. Theyknowingly or inadvertently dig his surest pit for assured failure!

“Yes men” in organizations are not difficult to determine. They are members of the groveling crowd; absolute jobbers. Every day, they are the first persons to enter the CEO’s office to greet him, to know from which side of the bed he woke, to ask after his immediate family, etc, and to give the CEO their ‘gossip reports’ and terribly (and selfishly) warped dossier on their colleagues.

They know, by hook or crook, the names of all of the CEO’s children and his/her spouse and their intimate details. They are the ones who exclusively remember the CEO’s grandmother’s birthday and wedding anniversary! They dominate discussions, fill up Committees, and influence the CEO’s day-to-day decisions; after all they are “the most loyal”. They give almost-nil useful advice to the CEO (and by extension, Executive Management) because they tell the CEO only “what he wants to hear”; hence, they bring zero value to the table. At meetings and related sessions, they merely repeat the CEO’s comments, viewpoints and ideas, just to be seen as ‘conforming’. They begin virtually all their tepid submissions with sheepish statements such ‘as the CEO has emphatically said’, etc, etc.

Such persons sow the seeds of discord, mutual distrust, and despondency among employees because other staff members (especially those at the low-level, mid-level cadre) gravitate towards them on account of their special place with the CEO, hence creating a strong chain of timid acolytes and cronies, who in most instances, contribute next-to-nothing to the growth of the organization in terms of intellectual input and initiation of ideas.

Unmistakably so, they get handsomely rewarded- their promotion, although undeserved, is faster; and the ‘captured CEO’ provides platforms for them to become visible, powerful, and ‘shine’within the organization.

From the foregoing, everything considered, “yes men” are toxic to the organization’s sustainable existence. Whereas this is not an advocacy for a CEO that is rigid, overtly officious, draconian, and impersonal, any forward-looking CEO would resist ‘being captured’ by genuflecting “yes men”.

This discourse will advise the CEO on two fronts- how to avoid creating an army of “yes men”, and how to dismantle an existing “yes men camp” (for a new CEO who is an executive promoted from within the organization).

In the first category, the CEO should institute a work ethic that rewards excellent performance and that clearly indicates consequences for poor or non-performance, lethargy, and bad behavior. In doing this, there should never be “sacred cows”;because any observed partiality and preferential treatmentcould create unbridled resentment, mistrust, and irresponsible behavior, which are symptoms of a failing organization.

He should also encourage self-expression and idea initiation among employees. This not only engenders a work environment where innovation thrives, it also boosts their self-confidence, especially when they see successful implementation of their ideas and attendant positive effects on the organization. Indeed, employee recognition is one of the major non-monetary forms of reward and motivation.

The CEO should also encourage staff to make genuine mistakes when they suggest new ideas. This, however, does not mean that employees could go overboard and take irresponsible risks on account of new propositions.

Dismantling the “yes men camp”, for a new CEO promoted from within, is the easierofthe two categories of advice, since he knows the “yes men” as colleagues.He should make them understand how their actions affect employee psyche and the bottom-line; and ensure a change of attitude.

He should deploy them to functions where their skills are best utilized, and he should also entrench the ‘new order’ where merit is the watch-word; hence, any discerning “yes man” should see mutually beneficial changes in work approach.

Ultimately, “yes men” who are not ready to act as responsible employeesand adapt to the new, efficient, and merit-driven approach to work should be eased out of the organization.

No serious, performance-driven, perceptive CEO should surround himself with men (and women) who only nod their heads like the agama lizard during verbal and written engagements, meetings, etcand/or agree to everything the CEO says or wants.

A result-driven and success-demanding CEO wishes to engage his troops in issue-based discussions geared toward taking the best decisions for the growth and development of the organization.  Such CEOs thrive on useful debates with their staff, they get excited discussing strong, but ultimately beneficial, propositions and initiatives; and they do not suffer fools gladly.

If the CEO needed a robot (which asks no question, never debates issues, and is remote-controlled by him like a puppet), he surely knows where to buy one, but he should never be in cahoots with ‘human robots’ who are bereft of initiative, logical reasoning, and sound judgement;because doing otherwise is a sure path to self-perdition and organizational failure.

 

Tajudeen Ahmed