CEO misbehavior is never good news for companies. We look at the seven common forms of executive misconduct and how boards can use to proactively assess a CEO's propensity to fall prey to them.
CEO misconduct, be it personal misdeeds, illegal business practices, violations of ethical norms, or something else – seems to be in the news more often these days. And when a CEO misbehaves, the entire company suffers.
The organizational consequences of CEO misconduct are significant. Researchers at Stanford University have shown that when a CEO is caught misbehaving, the stock price of his or her company drops an average of 3.1 percent over the following three days, regardless of the type or severity of
Internally, the effect can be equally damaging. Employees who consider themselves ethical may lose confidence in the organization’s leadership, and employees who are borderline unethical may feel emboldened to misbehave themselves. The reputational taint may thwart efforts to recruit new employees, and current employees may be more likely to depart the organization to protect their personal and professional reputations.
1David Larcker and Bryan Tayan, “We Studied 38 Incidents of CEO Bad Behavior and Measured Their Consequences,” Harvard Business Review, June 9, 2016. https://hbr.org/2016/06/we-studied-38-incidents-of-ceo-bad-behavior-and-measured-their-consequences
DRIVERS OF MISCONDUCT
What drives a CEO to misbehave? While there might be proximate causes, including financial or strategic pressure, misbehaving CEOs are fundamentally driven by their natural personality traits – traits that can be assessed, measured, and most importantly, flagged during the hiring process.
During Their Interview
The interview process is the first point in the hiring process in which an individual’s propensity for misconduct will reveal itself. Signs can include being inconsistent in responses to questions or being tough to pin down on details, showing intentional evasion during questioning. Individuals who are likely to misbehave may also be too quick in their comments and responses, demonstrating a lack of interest or willingness to think or reflect before they respond. Other times, they will respond at length when it is their time to speak, but completely fail to answer the question they were asked.
While we expect candidates to put their best faces forward during the hiring process, it is unrealistic to expect them to present histories that are completely devoid of mistakes and failures. Yet executives who are prone to misbehavior are more likely than others to avoid volunteering weaknesses during the interview process. At the same time, they may rationalize any problems that are mentioned, or make excuses for past behavior, rather than take responsibility for what they have done in the past.
These signs demonstrate a lack of self-awareness, a lack of self-reflection as a normal element of their behavior, or ultimately a failure to monitor and manage one’s own behavior.
The Leadership Span framework for executive assessment identifies two sets of psychometric traits: Loud (Disruptive, Risk Taking, Heroic, and Galvanizing) and quiet (Pragmatic, Reluctant, Vulnerable, and Connecting). Both sets are important for different reasons. The loud traits help push executives forward. But the quiet traits provide the restraint and reflection that stop otherwise hard-charging executives from driving themselves – and their companies – off a cliff.
Through Psychometric Assessments
Research has shown a strong connection between integrity and the presence of quiet traits in a given leader. Yet the quiet traits are often lost in the hiring
Leadership Span is not alone in measuring such qualities. Assessors can also look at specific measurement scales in tools such as the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) and Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), including:
Every hiring process should involve an element of referencing, or contacting individuals who have worked closely with the candidate in the past, and can confirm the information about the candidate along with providing additional perspective. While it’s unlikely that a reference will offer up explicit examples of past abuse or misconduct, what they say – and how they say it – will provide substantial insight.
For example, a reference might say that “John can be quite direct with the people he works with, but he usually apologizes
Beyond discussions of specific acts, reference calls also create an opportunity to gain insight into the behaviors and mindsets that can contribute to misconduct. Does the candidate listen to others, or does he charge ahead on whatever it is he wants to do? Does she follow only her own beliefs and judgments, or does she consider the broader context and the opinions of others? Reference interviewers will also want to finish the discussion with a broad, open-ended question, such as “What else haven’t we spoken about that would be useful to me in getting to know this individual in terms of their strengths, weaknesses, and areas for development?”
BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER
While each of the three parts can be illuminating on its own, it’s the totality of the information collected during the interview, assessment, and referencing that is truly enlightening. Psychometric assessments can confirm the presence of traits that interviews or references hint at, while references can either assuage doubts or fill in missing details around stories that didn’t sound quite right in the interview. The totality of the insights can give a hiring manager a complete view of a candidate, and their risk of future misconduct.
When a CEO misbehaves, the entire company suffers. But when the board acts proactively, these problems can be avoided.
Dean Stamoulis co-founded Russell Reynolds Associates’ Leadership & Succession practice and leads the firm’s Center for Leadership Insight. He is based in Atlanta.
PJ Neal manages the Center for Leadership Insight at Russell Reynolds Associates. He is based in Boston.