The tale of the two Tan Sri CEOs.

I could not help but notice the many glaring similarities and yet dissimilarities between two Tan Sri CEOs, even though one is no longer a CEO. The case raises governance questions not only for boards and shareholders but equally for any CEO. 

The similarities of both are:

• That are Accountants.
• They are religiously pious persons.
• There is no hint of corruption or personal scandal.
• They are morally upright persons.
• Their loyalty is not questioned.

The first Tan Sri was in the financial services industry, before being asked to go and restructure a group (probably the most indebted GLC during the 1997 financial crisis). From there he moved on to helm a communications company and later a large banking group before being asked to assume a position in the government. 

This Tan Sri is know for his long hours of work and his dedication to the organisations that he serves, in order words he leads from the front and he does not move from one organisation to another with his courtier. People that he hires he leaves behind, one would say that he adopts a professional mindset that says, "I hired A because he was the best fit and the company needs him, similarly when he introduces policies such as, air travel below certain hours must be on economy class, he too observes it". This Tan Sri CEO does not possess any negative sentiment in the market place, some say because he never destroyed value!

Then there is the other Tan Sri CEO, who was in the auditing profession, foreign banking institution and was then asked to go helm a local financial institution, a community owned plantation company and now supposedly one of our largest company. 

This Tan Sri is also know for working hard, however when he moves from organisation to organisation he has his people that follow him (I suppose these people have such unique skills that are not available else where). However this Tan Sri has his fair share of news item that suggest that he has a history of value erosion. 

So from a corporate governance perspective:

• Should the Board, without fear or favour not re-evaluate the performance of the CEO and say " sorry but we need change".

• Is there not equally a moral obligation on the part of the individual to recognise his own shortcomings and do the right thing.

Just like the stages in the product life cycle, introduction, growth, maturity and decline, we must recognise that we are only good at certain stages/things and when our sell by date comes along, we must say thank you for the memories and move along. 

The phenomenon of taking our key lieutenants along with us from organisation to organisation is a bad habit, either we want to be surrounded by Yes men or we are insecure, if anything we must strive to ensure that we have enough people that are willing to stand up to say NO, for we are not always correct and we must guard against, "the boss said, so we must do". 

As good leaders we must remember that that we were hired to lead and that includes hiring the right people and creating cultures for each organisation so that we establish successful organisation with  sustainability and longevity. 

So to all that are short of meeting their targets, maybe, just maybe we should be brave enough to do the right thing.