I was reflecting today on the increase in General Manager roles that are being advertised in various mediums (Seek website, etc); where the successful incumbent will be reporting to a CEO/ CE.
The question that enters my mind is “why” do directors see it fit/ justified to have two senior management roles sit side-by-side managing the operational delivery of the given company ?
The concern that I have is that I feel that in many cases such dual appointments are occurring as a result of it being proven that the CEO/ CE’s knowledge base/ skills fall short of the full range of skills/ knowledge required to effectively manage the operational delivery of the company’s adopted Strategic Plan. My concern is that it is conceivable that the successfully appointed General Manager may possess not only those skills that the CEO doesn’t have, but also those that the CEO does have.
GM’s who find themselves in such a situation need to be very careful about the execution of their prescribed role; ensuring that they inadvertently don’t step outside the bounds of their GM role and into the domain of the CEO. Directors must ensure that the line that divides what the GM does and what the CEO does doesn’t become blurred…plus ensure that the GM doesn’t compensate for a deficit in knowledge/ skills relating to the CEO. It is very much the responsibility of the Board of Directors to ensure that each senior manager is justly recognised and rewarded in accordance with the role scope and performance objectives that are set for each.
My parting words are that I suggest that directors think long and hard about appointing two senior managers to deliver the company’s Strategic Plan. It may be better to simply appoint a person who is capable of performing all senior management functions required competently, than attempting to reassign what really should be CEO responsibilities to a “second in charge” in the form of a General Manager.