Easy answer, maybe correct, would be all three; however, having been "toward" the top of a $7B, 20,000+ employee corporation many moons ago (as Sr. VP), I think it's a stretch, a "sounds good" answer. It was to set up a 30-minute call of mutual benefit. I can't see this being mutually beneficial for someone out of Mark's area, nor impactful for either ... just a nice political gesture. Yes, I swear I am "enlightened," but I am also a realist. I also subscribe to the notion if everyone agrees on something, it has properly been discussed. Thx Jeff. Good stuff, your conversations.
I'd say the CEO and the President for sure. Effective leaders need to be in touch with employees who are in their chain of command at any level to get the pulse of the company. The Chief Strategist is a reach for Mark since there is no direct connection, but... if the CSO is a team player and follows leadership directives, he will respond as well. Mark should feel very fortunate if all three respond.
All three should lead by example and meet with him and learn more about this level of the company. They might be missing out on great ideas. With the virtual world we live in, it should not be too time consuming.
I think contacting all is a good idea. They are often ignored to an extent at company functions. I recall years ago that at one training session for the division in which I worked, people were milling around just with their co-workers. I noticed one person all alone, so I went over and introduced himself. It turned out he was head of the department and happy to talk. He invited me to sit with him.
Given that the CEO didn't say he, the CSO, and the President were exempt from the pool of possible colleagues one could meet with, all three should meet with Mark.
All three. (I had my mind made up before I read any of the other responses.) If the intent of this exercise is to reach out to three (3) others in the company that Mark does not know but would share a "mutual benefit of knowing," then it would certainly be appropriate to meet all three individuals. They all have a vested interest in the other - their roles, contributions, and perspectives. Whether or not someone is in a particular chain of command should not matter. If each individual role represents a stone in the pyramid (from the example), there is no "tippy top" adequately and safely supported without all the stones underneath contributing to the soundness of the foundation. Additionally, if this suggestion emerged from the CEO, then the CEO needs to practice what he (or she) preaches.
All three. The CEO set the directive, likely with the input from other Chief-level leadership. They should not only set an example and honor Mark's request, but use it as a genuine opportunity to learn more about those employees much further down that pyramid.
Straightforward. The CEO defined the parameters so no one is exempt (unless, of course the CEO had said to exclude but didn't). Is Mark at risk? Likely not and in fact will be putting a bright light on his otherwise invisible position. The other consequence will be Mark being identified as a risk taker, a quality that should be welcomed by leadership. Each of the targeted people will have to be forthcoming in a 30 minute chat. Their respective comfort zones will be challenged if Mark frames the conversation (he is evidently smart and focused) to elicit high level responses. If all goes well, Mark will be advancing his career within his department. On the other hand, he might find himself wishing he had chosen less risky targets.
all three should take the meeting. The CEO set the directive and at the end of the day everyone puts their pants on the same way. The question is will they accept or artificially elevate themselves? I don't like Undercover Boss as I feel it is scripted. However, this is an opportunity not only for Mark to see the top but for these three to see the bottom. (kinda like what Undercover Boss tries to do)
The CEO. An effective leader needs to converse and listen to as many partners(employees) as possible. It’s the best way to learn what’s really going on.
Easy answer, maybe correct, would be all three; however, having been "toward" the top of a $7B, 20,000+ employee corporation many moons ago (as Sr. VP), I think it's a stretch, a "sounds good" answer. It was to set up a 30-minute call of mutual benefit. I can't see this being mutually beneficial for someone out of Mark's area, nor impactful for either ... just a nice political gesture. Yes, I swear I am "enlightened," but I am also a realist. I also subscribe to the notion if everyone agrees on something, it has properly been discussed. Thx Jeff. Good stuff, your conversations.
I'd say the CEO and the President for sure. Effective leaders need to be in touch with employees who are in their chain of command at any level to get the pulse of the company. The Chief Strategist is a reach for Mark since there is no direct connection, but... if the CSO is a team player and follows leadership directives, he will respond as well. Mark should feel very fortunate if all three respond.
All three should lead by example and meet with him and learn more about this level of the company. They might be missing out on great ideas. With the virtual world we live in, it should not be too time consuming.
I think contacting all is a good idea. They are often ignored to an extent at company functions. I recall years ago that at one training session for the division in which I worked, people were milling around just with their co-workers. I noticed one person all alone, so I went over and introduced himself. It turned out he was head of the department and happy to talk. He invited me to sit with him.
Given that the CEO didn't say he, the CSO, and the President were exempt from the pool of possible colleagues one could meet with, all three should meet with Mark.
All three seems the only answer given the CEO’s directive. Scheduling and follow through by top leadership should be a “test” in and of itself!
All three. (I had my mind made up before I read any of the other responses.) If the intent of this exercise is to reach out to three (3) others in the company that Mark does not know but would share a "mutual benefit of knowing," then it would certainly be appropriate to meet all three individuals. They all have a vested interest in the other - their roles, contributions, and perspectives. Whether or not someone is in a particular chain of command should not matter. If each individual role represents a stone in the pyramid (from the example), there is no "tippy top" adequately and safely supported without all the stones underneath contributing to the soundness of the foundation. Additionally, if this suggestion emerged from the CEO, then the CEO needs to practice what he (or she) preaches.
Definitely all three - great opportunity to re-connect the execs with the 'boots on the ground' and find out what's really going on.
All three. The CEO set the directive, likely with the input from other Chief-level leadership. They should not only set an example and honor Mark's request, but use it as a genuine opportunity to learn more about those employees much further down that pyramid.
Straightforward. The CEO defined the parameters so no one is exempt (unless, of course the CEO had said to exclude but didn't). Is Mark at risk? Likely not and in fact will be putting a bright light on his otherwise invisible position. The other consequence will be Mark being identified as a risk taker, a quality that should be welcomed by leadership. Each of the targeted people will have to be forthcoming in a 30 minute chat. Their respective comfort zones will be challenged if Mark frames the conversation (he is evidently smart and focused) to elicit high level responses. If all goes well, Mark will be advancing his career within his department. On the other hand, he might find himself wishing he had chosen less risky targets.
all three - The CEO, CSO and President should all meet with Mark.
all three should take the meeting. The CEO set the directive and at the end of the day everyone puts their pants on the same way. The question is will they accept or artificially elevate themselves? I don't like Undercover Boss as I feel it is scripted. However, this is an opportunity not only for Mark to see the top but for these three to see the bottom. (kinda like what Undercover Boss tries to do)
The CEO. An effective leader needs to converse and listen to as many partners(employees) as possible. It’s the best way to learn what’s really going on.
The CEO, he set the directive and he needs to lead by example!