Who should be in charge?

Here in the United States, we've just finished holding an election; so now we're taking down the signs, sweeping up the confetti, and getting back to normal. I've been browsing the Internet, reading posts where people on one side of the aisle congratulate each other, while those on the other side console each other. (As a Quality nerd, I naturally wanted to write-in W. Edwards Deming for President, but unfortunately he died in 1993.) But I also started to wonder, Does the Quality profession have anything to tell us about who should lead an organization? About who should be in charge? 

In the most immediate sense of the question, No, it doesn't. The ISO 9001 standard contains requirements for what top management shall do, and its companion volume ISO 9000 contains discussion about the concept of leadership. But there are no ISO requirements anywhere that say "Name George as CEO, and not Fred." On the other hand, if you take a step back to look at management theory more generally, it's possible to find some indications.

One of the most remarkable sources of guidance that I've found (on a couple of topics, but this is one of them) is a short essay by Peter Drucker called "Managing Oneself." Drucker's basic point in the essay is that, in order to be effective, you have to know how you work. Then organize your work along those lines, so that you can produce results. And he gives historical examples of leaders or other executives who failed to heed this advice, and who thereby undercut their own achievements.

Drucker approaches this topic from a lot of different angles, and I strongly recommend that you read the article regardless what your current work happens to be. But part of his advice on understanding how you work can be adapted into advice on who should occupy certain roles. (In what follows I have modified Drucker's terminology a bit, to make my own point clearer. But I promise he says these things. 😃)  

Specifically, Drucker points out that there are people good at thinking, and there are also people good at deciding—but they are rarely the same people. People good at thinking thrive as advisors, or technical specialists. They can analyze a situation thoroughly, and map out the three approaches most likely to succeed. But when you ask them to pick one, they see too many subtleties and hidden implications, and so they get lost trying to play out multiple chess-matches in their heads. Wait, if I move here then he'll move there, and that means I have to ….

By contrast, people good at deciding may not be able to understand all the ramifications of this or that policy unaided. They definitely need the support of their advisors or technical specialists to clarify, If you choose X, then Y is sure to happen as a result. But once they have all the facts, they know exactly what course they want to take, and they are happy to bear the responsibility for choosing it. 

With this distinction in mind, Drucker is absolutely clear that "The top spot requires a decision-maker." On the surface this may sound obvious, but notice the corollary: the top spot does not require a brilliant analyst. The CEO does not have to be the smartest person in the room, and in most cases shouldn't be. Normally, it will be better if the smartest person in the room is an advisor that the CEO can trust, who maps out the options and highlights the pitfalls of each. Then the CEO picks one, and the organization moves forward.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once characterized Franklin Roosevelt as having "a second-rate intellect but a first-rate temperament." Most of the time, that's the right mix.