Leadership Advisory

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Our Client was a large insurance business setting up a new entity abroad.

As they needed to select the new members of the executive team (board members), we were asked to assess the suitability of several internal candidates who had been identified as having the potential to fulfil different roles namely including for the CEO position.

CHALLENGE

Making the right choice was vital for the Client not only ensuring that they had the right leaders in place but also because they needed to impress the local regulator and fulfil their requirements.

The roles were difficult to fill due to a highly complex context.

In addition, from an internal point of view, the Client was concerned about an internal perception of favouritism towards some members of the team

SOLUTION

Coming to us would provide the Client with an external, independent, non-biased and evidence-based solution. We worked on a bespoke competency framework (skills, experience and behaviours) for each role and provided a thorough assessment using psychometric assessment validated by face-to-face behavioural competency-based interviews.

The process assessed the candidates against the framework and considered the new environment they would be facing as well as their own potential for growth as it was for most of the candidates a step up in their career.

OUTCOME

By using a quantitate method such as a personality assessment, the Client was able to identify the strengths and potential derailers of all the candidates and decisions could be made objectively.

All potential internal candidates were appointed successfully except for the CEO as the process highlighted too many reasons why the candidate would struggle and most probably fail if appointed. It was a disappointing outcome for both the Client and that particular Candidate but arguably safeguarded both sides to make a mistake they would have regretted in the longer -term.

The debrief sessions that followed helped inform the areas to be considered for further development for all the participants. As for the Client, they were able to confidently, factually and quantitatively justify the reason behind their decisions including to the local regulator

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Our Client had recently acquired a UK based group of companies. As a result, the leadership teams were in the process of being integrated and
a number of roles had duplicates. Once the senior leadership team had been selected, the next step was to select their direct reports for leadership roles in Bermuda and London.

Our Client needed an independent opinion to ensure a fair and evidence based process and therefore minimise the risk of mistakes and potential legal challenges

CHALLENGE

Some of the candidates to the newly combined roles had already shown signs of discontent with the prospect of being put through an internal selection process following the acquisition of the business.

Transparency and fairness were an absolute requirement in order to maximise the chance of candidates’ buy in of the selection decision-making process.

The task required the completion of assessmentswith minimal disruption to the integration process.

SOLUTION

We provided an independent and thorough assessment using a combination of technical and behavioural based assessments.

We used psychometric assessment for additional behavioural data and led face-to-face competency-based interviews (both technical and behavioural).

The process assessed the candidates against a competency framework which had previously been agreed with the Client on a role-by-role basis. The process also provided a better outlook onto the growth potential for each individual.

OUTCOME

For each role, our Client was able to confidently identify the best suitable candidate by ascertaining strengths and potential derailers.

The individual debrief sessions we conducted with all the candidates helped them create evidence-based development plans using the results of the assessment process.

Although one of the unsuccessful candidates tried to take our Client to court, the team was able demonstrate the fair and objective selection process and the case was dismissed.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Our client was a publicly listed Asset Manager

They had recently been several changes at the Board and Senior Exec level. They had recently completed a major acquisition that brought a further new dynamic to the Board.

The Chair recognised that they need to establish a new set of relationships across the Board and the executive to enable the broader leadership team to work
effectively together.

CHALLENGE

The project was to: Evaluate the key strengths and personality preferences of the existing Board and Executive Committee, facilitate the 2-day Board Strategy Day offsite and facilitate the two-day session which:

• Freed up the Chair to be part of the debate
• Provided some structure to the offsite to ensure ideas, actions and concerns were captured

There was a need for an independent voice in the room to raise concerns and to ensure that all voices were heard

The project had to have credibility for those that would participate.

SOLUTION

In consultation with the Chair, CEO and Head of Strategy the agenda was designed for the strategy offsite

We issued a personality assessment for each Board and Executive Committee member.

This tool had a significant 360 element which provided very detailed feedback.

Each individual was provided with one-toone feedback before the Board Strategy Offsite on the report generated by the tool.

A collective report was shared with the Chair and CEO in advance of the offsite.

OUTCOME

The Board and ExCo had never taken part in this sort of exercise. There was initial suspicion of the process however following both the one-to-one feedback and the Board Strategy Offsite the feeling was hugely positive.

The conversations at the Board Strategy Offsite were significantly different from the normal ‘turn the handle’ Board discussions and really
tapped into questions such as:

• How do we work most effective between the Board and the executive?
• How do we manage diversity of thinking on the Board and get new ideas into the mix?
• How do we work together better? Where are the points of tension between us?

Over 15 participants were evaluated across both the Board and the ExCo each given an individual reports that highlighted strengths and development areas along with personal development recommendations.

A collective view of the whole Board and ExCo was developed showing collective strengths and gaps which was fed back to the chair and CEO along with our recommendations for next steps