Transfer of Power

Monday, 9th November 2015 10:10 - by Moosh

Something to think about is the transfer of power – what happens when a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) makes a stage exit? A solid robust business should not be affected by a change of boss. What is a business – is it about the people or the tasks that need to be done, or a bit of both? In my opinion, the tasks should be the main focus of the business. Of course the right people need to be present in the first place in order for the tasks to be done, but with regards to management, I consider task management to trump people management every time.

In my experience as a locum pharmacist, I considered my role to be one of a manager of tasks. I was totally ‘hands-on’ when it came to tasks so it was normal for staff to see me doing any task in the shop that needed doing – from stacking shelves to unpacking orders and even making the tea. As far as I was concerned, I didn’t see myself as a ‘pharmacist’ but another pair of hands alongside a bunch of other people who were lumped together in a shop to complete a set of tasks by the end of the day. Obviously certain tasks could only be done by people with relevant experience/qualifications but when working as a team, I felt it important to impart the idea (through actions rather than words) that I wouldn’t ask anyone to do anything that I wouldn’t do/haven’t done myself and my experience has shown me that if staff see me doing stuff that I’m asking them to do, then they have absolutely no right at all to kick up a fuss about doing anything I ask them to do. As long as they are trained to an adequate level, then task management still remains the focus. I actually hate giving out orders – I’d like to think that I’m working with people with a reasonable amount of initiative so I often took a step back and let them get on with it. This style of management worked for me – although I probably consider it as non-management because I didn’t really feel as though I was doing any ‘managing’ in the usual meaning of the word. But then, I never used to go to work to ‘work’ as such. When I enjoyed the job and enjoyed the people I was spending the day with, it was more like going to spend a day to have some fun with the work getting done as a side-effect of the fun-having.

Anyway, back to the point – transfer of power. When my services were being requested, managers were choosing to use me because they felt that they could leave their livelihoods in my capable hands and that they would not be left with a bundle load of problems (staff/customers/patients/prescription backlog) when they returned from holiday/sickness. I felt my role was to slot in and run the place as if it was my own. Also, the type of service I wanted to provide to staff and patients was a service which I myself would want to receive and I think that is the key to a lot of things really – treat others how you would want to be treated, whether in life or in business.

If a CEO leaves, what do you do? How would you feel about it? Is the company 100% dependent on a particular CEO to carry out its vision through to its natural end or is it robust enough to navigate its way through a transfer of power? These are the types of question which I think need to be asked when it comes to investments too. In my opinion, the fundamentals of a company should be independent of the CEO running it. From my experience, I can think of many examples of where shops which have had a long term absence of an employed manager have remained stable in their business due to the continued efforts of the support staff who have been adequately trained and very capable of managing the daily task schedule even if there have been umpteen random locum pharmacists hired on a hotchpotch basis, so a transfer of power when it comes to a CEO may not actually be as big a problem as one might first imagine.

The Writer's views are their own, not a representation of London South East's. No advice is inferred or given. If you require financial advice, please seek an Independent Financial Adviser.