By Jack Cumming
Most people in business slog along from paycheck to paycheck, trying to look like they’re worth what they get paid. Some are. Some aren’t. That’s true from the floor mopper to the CEO and even into the board room. Most boards listen to management reports, ask a few questions, and approve of what is asked of them.
The Norm
Of course, boards come to life when the corporation they serve gets bad press, or bad results, or both. That’s when some on the board may ask whether a change is needed at the top. Astute boards take this kind of consideration very seriously. Simply changing leadership may miss the underlying situation.
The challenge may not rest in the C-suite. A setback may just mean that the CEO acted boldly, took a measured risk, and learned from the faulty result. After learning from the misstep, that CEO may now be exactly the right leader to bring the enterprise back to vitality. Business success often calls for crisp insights and bold action. That involves risk.
The Few
Such a visionary CEO may be one of the few who love the game of business. They are good at business because they are not afraid to innovate and take chances. The times change and top talent embraces the change. Such leaders come in not because of the rewards — compensation, control, resources — but because they love that they can see more clearly than most. They are the few.
When he’s not diverted by politics, Elon Musk has been one such doer. He’s not always right, but his vision inspires his talented team to keep an array of complex undertakings outperforming all competitors. He’s even beaten Jeff Bezos at the space game, a game which they both love. This article was written before the inauguration, so many will now see Elon Musk in a different light. Still, despite his governmental distractions, it was a SpaceX vehicle that rescued Suni and Butch from space when Boeing fell short.
What is the difference? Why can these few bold thinkers and doers accomplish so much when others just plod along, talking at trade shows and presiding over collegiality and the status quo? Let’s pause a minute to think about Bezos and Musk. Both are among my favorites as effective business leaders. Maybe they should stay out of politics, but this is about their talents for business.
Bezos and Musk
Jeff Bezos transformed how Americans shop. His successor, Andy Jassy, is less transformative, and Bezos is less visible since his divorce than he once was. Musk has no successor … yet. He has demonstrated how an engineering mind, when focused, can solve problems and unleash opportunities that otherwise seem impossible.
In short, Musk is more focused on high-risk, transformative technologies and organizational restructuring, while Bezos emphasizes customer-centric innovation, long-term growth, and a celebrity lifestyle. It’s tempting to say that Musk is more performance-oriented, while Bezos is gifted at discerning opportunity and seizing the moment.
Imagine for a moment that you are a CEO of a senior housing organization. You may actually be such a leader by position. Or, you may be a wannabe CEO. Or, more likely, you imagine how much better you could make senior living than the C-suite leaders of today. Would you follow the Musk track or the Bezos track?
Neither Musk nor Bezos took an existing business and turned it into something spectacular, though the jury is still out on what Musk has done with Twitter or the federal government. Bezos took ownership of The Washington Post, but his impact isn’t evident there other than that The Washington Post has handled the digital transformation much better than its rival, The New York Times.
Senior Living
In senior living, the big opportunity that is staring everyone in the face is to flip the authority structure from provider executives to the residents, their families, and prospective residents. The lust for control is powerful, and few, very few, are the C-suite denizens who are willing to serve rather than to be served. Not only are C-suite execs reluctant to shake the status quo, but their advisers, investment bankers, accountants, development facilitators, and more are even more reluctant.
The value of senior housing, though, is resident empowerment, not executive power. Change is coming, and it may be grassroots led. Already the village movement is expanding, and there’s much buzz around cohousing. Americans like to participate in governance. They don’t like to subordinate themselves.
Senior living residents are not subordinate employees. They are the industry’s purpose and should be central in any business or strategic plan. Moreover, the path of wisdom dictates recognizing the looming threat rather than obsessing over the hope for short-term demographic opportunity. Change is coming to senior living. Residents are becoming less docile. It’s astonishing how few senior living enterprises take advantage of the talent that select, qualified residents might bring to the business.
What About You?
If you were one of those few with clarity of vision, how would you foresee the coming decades? In positioning your firm for success, how would you act to lead the wave toward change as it emerges? Would you then have the bold courage and discerning wisdom to bring the future into being? Would you have the energy and incisiveness to work out the kinks when those pesky unintended consequences rear up?
If not, is there someone, somewhere, with the vision and the chutzpah that will bring the future to life? How will that then impact your business, or are you hoping that you will retire first? Are you so busy talking and selling the smaller vision that you fail to listen or heed the conversation about the larger opportunity? The difference between leading and administering lies in the difference between the few and the rest.
