Kenneth Feinberg’s name has dominated the news this week because he specializes in determining the value of things. He’s the “special master” pay czar who oversaw the Sept. 11th fund and determined the executive’s compensation following the auto industry bailout. Obama recently chose Feinbert to administer the $20 billion fund to help those in the Gulf Coast who have been hurt by the BP spill.
Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of hearing the no-nonsense former top aide to Sen. Edward Kennedy speak at the conference sponsored by Chief Executive Magazine. He was there to explain how he doled out the money for the Wall Street executives, but he ended up addressing another subject closer to home for my readers.
Mr. Feinberg mentioned that one of the arguments CEOs present when trying to justify a raise or bonus for an officer of one of the companies in question is “He’s indispensible. If we don’t give him a large bonus, he’ll leave. We can’t function without him.”
Fenberg pointed out that the cemeteries are full of people who were once indispensible.
My question: “Why would you allow your company to teeter on disaster by allowing one person to become indispensible?” “ Important”? Okay. “Invaluable?” Still okay. But indispensible? You’re putting your company at risk.
No matter the size of your company, if there’s not a clear replacement for every key position, you need to start planning your succession immediately. If you’re a small company, obviously you can’t have a number of people ready to do each job, but you can have at least one person who can cover each of someone else’s job.
For example, if your CFO were suddenly to leave or suffer an accident, who among his or her team could cover the key financial decisions? Several people might have to pool their resources to get the job done, but leaving it undone would never be an option.
We like to think we make a unique contribution—that we’re irreplaceable and indispensable. But the truth is no one should be. And while we’re on the subject, when did we start to modify “unique”? People now say “more unique.”
I’d like to propose the comparative of unique, if we are to invent one, should be “uniquer.” That way you can be more one of a kind than all others who are similarly one of a kind. But I’m afraid the graveyards will still hold some who were the uniquest of all.
