I was there to help. I was sent to interview and hire someone. But the process took time. The job had to be posted for two weeks. Interviews would take place over a month or so with multiple people. Once an offer was crafted and finally accepted, a two week notice was standard practice. The whole process might take three months.
A month in, the man I was sent to help invited me for a walk. After some small talk he expressed open exacerbation about how long the process was taking. “Why wasn’t the new person in already? Why was I taking so long? Why wasn’t I more nimble? More entrepreneurial?”
I was taken aback. The sunny skies, the warm weather, the green golf course could not have seemed more discordant. I explained how unrealistically perfect everything would have to do in order to expect someone to start in a month, from the posting, to the interviewing cycle, to the two week notice for departure. That even if all those things did somehow happen it would take six weeks in a perfect world with no delays or issues of any kind.
I learned too late that men in power do not like to be schooled on things. There is a hierarchy and ego conventions and constraints that need to be observed and adhered too. They don’t like to be corrected. They like to spout orders and demand you stress out until their commands are executed. I think I too often looked at the senior leaders as colleagues and partners in solving the businesses problems. This was a fundamental mistake in my approaches to dealing with senior leaders.
It comes back to the question of longevity or integrity. If you want longevity you may want to consider adopting an approach of sycophantry and agreeableness. Do not collaborate or at least pretend to but resign yourself to doing what they command regardless of the cost or impact to you, your team, or the business. You will fail either way but you may last longer in your role than if you try to do the right thing and the best thing for the company.