The difference is that Boeing, being (generally) a well run corporation, had a succession plan in place. If one of their leaders were to die unexpectedly, there is a very short list of vetted people. If you research the history up through K1ZZ, all CEOs had either worked at ARRL or had close ties with the organization. After K1ZZ, there was not a succession plan, or, giving the benefit of doubt, it somehow failed, and here we are. Institutional knowledge is the one of most valuable traits of a leader - it takes years of close ties to an org to get it. Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL *“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf* On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 7:48 PM Richard Norton via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
I expect to send this, possibly revised, to the Southwestern Division at some time. Please tell me if anything is untrue.
Other comments also welcome.
73,
Dick, N6AA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAFT - Report to Southwestern Division Members -
*Replacement of CEO by Board of Directors - Two Examples*
In January 2020, the Boards of Directors of two corporations voted to replace their CEO's. The procedures apparently employed differed widely, as did the time it took to get the new CEO aboard.
Three major components of effective CEO selection appear to be:
1) knowledge of the business or organization, 2) knowledge of the desired CEO skills and attributes, and 3) knowledge of the available talent pool.
*Case 1 - ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio*
The ARRL, run by 15 Directors, with an annual income of approximately $15-million, and somewhat fewer than 100 employees, embarked on what might be described as an interesting search program.
A CEO Search Committee was formed at the January Board meeting with the task of selecting three suitable CEO candidates, presenting them to the Board for consideration, organizing a meeting to select a candidate, and managing the negotiation process with the selected candidate. League President Roderick appointed Central Division Director Carlson as committee chairman.
Concerning items 1) and 2) of the above list, the search committee took five weeks (not an exaggeration) to come up with a CEO requirements document. The end result was exactly the same as was used for the previous search, with the addition of a requirement that the candidate have a "passion for Amateur Radio."
Concerning item 3), the committee employed a search firm to uncover candidates at a cost in five-figures. Note that the League had identified a number of candidates in its recent past search. It appears that none of the final candidates came from the search firm.
The committee allowed three additional months for prospective candidates to learn about the opening, and submit applications. The committee members used some unreported mechanism to whittle the list down to around 10, and conducted telephone interviews with the remaining 10. The committee again used some unreported mechanism to further reduce the number to 4.
At this point, the committee reported the names of the remaining four candidates to the Board, and and the candidate's resumes were made available.
The committee did not give any information on why they selected candidates, or even any summary of positive or negative attributes they found in any of them.
The committee chairman even directed (without any apparent authority to do so) Board members to not research candidates on their own, or even discuss candidates with other Board members. Board members were to come to in-person interviews with each of the candidates, and make their decisions based only on resumes and interviews.
Only two members of the search committee, one voting, one advisory, expressed any concern with the no-communication directive.
A League officer conducted telephone interviews with the references provided by the candidates, and reported on the results. As might be expected, references provided by the candidates had favorable things to say. No information on candidates was gathered from secondary references or other sources.
The ARRL Board held interviews approximately seven months after the non-renewal of the previous CEO's contract.
On the day after the interviews, the Board voted by secret ballot to select one of the candidates. There was zero group discussion between Board members about the candidates.
*Case 2 - The Boeing Corporation*
Boeing, run by 12 Directors with at least one being a licensed Radio Amateur, has annual sales of $67 to $101-billion, or about an amount equal to the yearly-ARRL-sales each hour. Their 161,000 employees is more than 1,600 times the size of the League staff. If divided somewhat equally, there are 1,600 Boeing operations with staffs equal to the size of the League, or 1,600 managerial or supervisory employees with staffs the size of the League.
With respect to evaluating the Boeing Board's knowledge of the three components of CEO selection, note that the Boeing Board's selected a replacement CEO at its January Board meeting.
*Process Summary*
The following was sent to the ARRL Board -
*Executive searches — whether for for-profit companies or not-for-profit organizations are complex, time-consuming tasks, even when conducted by a very small search committee, located in a single HQ building, and having a full-time commitment to the hiring organization and the search.*
The applicability of the paragraph appears to be directly related to familiarity of the above listed components of CEO selection.
*Question for Members*
Did the ARRL Board engage in a process that should satisfy member expectations?- _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv