|
 |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
Feature When Illness Comes to the Corner Office Boards and staff colleagues are left stumbling because, incredibly, there still are no accepted approaches to executive impairment. By John Tropman, Robert Winfield, and Penny Tropman Illness in the executive suite is an important and largely unrecognized problem. In executive life, the assumption is that the executive is “healthy” or “functional.” But what if that is not the case? What if the executive is suffering from some physical or mental illness that impairs her or his functionality? How would anyone actually know this? How much impairment is “OK”? At what point does impairment require intervention by the board or senior executives (if we are talking about a member of the senior staff rather than the CEO)? Who decides, and how? This issue is a compelling one, with serious consequences for the organization if the board fails to act — which it usually does. Individual and Organizational Breakdown Let’s examine the fuller ramifications of how illness negatively impacts executive performance and generates unhealthy organizational behavior: • Physical Effects — Illness depletes executive physical energy by lowering the available energy the executive has for a demanding job. Illness steals time. Especially in a global environment, that required time might often be at odd hours. Lowered energy requires more time for rest, and treatment regimens themselves require time. Illness also steals scope/scale. Because of the issues of energy and time and their interconnections, ill executives may have trouble addressing the scope and scale of their job. • Intellectual Effects — Some illnesses (brain injury, stroke) can lower one’s cognitive ability in areas of information processing and decision making. There can be a loss of previous knowledge or an altering in the way in which an individual processes incoming information. Ill persons are often disoriented in many ways by their illness. They are themselves confused about what is happening to them and why. • Intrapersonal/Interpersonal Effects — Illness impacts self-knowledge and interaction with others in part because the ill person tends, very naturally, to focus on himself. • Office Distraction — Illness generates succession politics. As the executive’s attention wanes and her time becomes attenuated, others with an eye on the “executive prize” begin to strategize for power, influence, and possible succession. Major distractions develop as various executives and cadres strive for current influence and future power. The organization can suffer “mission attenuation,” in which employees begin to rivet their attention on who will be the ultimate “winner” rather than on the objectives of the business. • Bad Decisions — Illness diverts decision making into back channels or “non-responsible parties” (e.g., Woodrow Wilson’s wife; a boss’s support person). • Uncertainty Reigns — Colleagues (superiors, peers, subordinates) experience problems similar to those confronted by the ill person’s family. Bosses do not want to intervene too soon. Subordinates do not want to appear overreaching but also do not want to delay intervention for fear of being faulted for undue delay. Peers are not sure what their role is, or could be, or should be, especially because they might be in line for succession if the ill person cannot resume her duties. Subordinates are perhaps in the most difficult position, because they are climbing up the power grid and anything they say is suspect. Elyse Tanouye, a health and science editor at the Wall Street Journal, puts it this way: “When it becomes clear that the boss needs help, figuring out who should raise the issue can be tricky. A subordinate runs the risk of being ignored or punished for confronting the executive. Some experts say it should be a superior … or a trusted board member in the case of the CEO.” We Can Do Better Executive illness is a complex and important problem in the executive suite. The idea that one can rely on the executive to take the lead in the handling of his or her own illness is problematic for many reasons, not the least of which is that denial is characteristic of many illnesses. On the other side, “governors” — whether they be board members or staff colleagues — seem woefully ill prepared to take action. Few options have been thought through and put in place to be readily exercisable. This gap creates and supports indecision and inactivity. Hence, we are faced with inaction on more or less every side, broken only by some dramatic event that forces steps to be taken. We owe our executives, our shareholders, and our organization’s stakeholders better than such stumbling. |
||
John Tropman is a professor of nonprofit management at the University of Michigan School of Social Work and an adjunct professor of management and organizations at the university’s Ross School of Business. Robert Winfield, M.D., is head of and a practicing physician at the University of Michigan Health Service and the university’s chief medical officer. Penny Tropman is a practicing social worker, an adjunct professor in interpersonal practice at the University of Michigan School of Social Work, and a principal at Midlife Renaissance, a firm that offers wellness programs for individuals and the corporate market. A longer version of this article appeared in the Third Quarter 2008 edition of Directors & Boards. The authors can be contacted at tropman@umich.edu and rwinf@umich.edu. Copyright © 2009 Directors & Boards, P.O. Box 41966 Philadelphia, PA 19101-1966. All rights reserved. Contact the webmaster. < Privacy Notice > |
|||
