One job of the U.S. Senate is engaging in, is approving the key advisors to the President. Some aspects of this process parallel the roles played by board of directors’ search committees and executive coaches.  The tasks and the results are generally considered providing advice on and consent (affirmation/support in the case of coaches) to key executive nominations. Advice & consent is the  process that focuses on the qualifications/capabilities of the candidates for top leadership jobs. If qualified, consent should not be unnecessarily withheld.

So, what is the Senator or director or coach to do when either ethical questions arise in a job candidate’s background, or other issues make clear decisions difficult?

Nobody wants to endorse a scoundrel. Nobody wants to pillory a good person who has made only a few mistakes. Nobody wants to endorse a weak decision. Where do we draw the line?

Scoundrel decisions are easy. They don’t get the nod. Basically good people, with a pattern of questionable behavior, are more problematic. Assessing the greater good requires judgment. A pattern of poor behavior, though, is a bad sign. Prudence would normally argue for a “no” vote.

Single mistakes, or even a few isolated mistakes, don’t indicate a pattern of behavior. These instances present a different challenge to closure. It may help to ask ourselves, “How many of us would Vette perfectly?” If our experience of a job candidate is generally pristine over time, are we not required to give, and not unnecessarily withhold, consent?

The US Senate faces this challenge now, as do directors who serve on Board Nominating and Search Committees. In the coaching world, the support and counsel we provide to clients making difficult team decisions, is equally important.

Some years ago, I chaired the Board Search Committee, seeking an EVP, for a non-profit organization. We narrowed the search to 5 candidates, all meeting the job requirements as developed. One candidate, in our opinion, stood out from the rest and we urged the CEO to choose this candidate. The CEO had other ideas. He wanted the candidate the committee thought to be the weakest. As a committee, we faced a dilemma. Should we support the CEO’s choice or hold out for the candidate we felt best qualified.

To help me in doing my duty as well as my job, I called my long-time board mentor, the late Myles Mace (former editor of the Boardroom section of the Harvard Business Review and a renowned expert of governance issues) for his advice and counsel. He listened patiently to my arguments, pro and con. In the end, he simply said, “He is the CEO.” Later that evening, after speaking with my colleagues, I called the CEO and advised him we would support his choice.

In another instance, a fellow coach working with the CEO of a public company provided support when a key executive refused an assignment and the CEO had to decide how to handle it.

The notion of “advise & consent” seems simple enough on its face. In practice, it (like much else in life) gets more complicated. You don’t get to be a Senator, a Director or an Executive Coach without facing, and successfully handling, tough choices. What we, in those roles must remember, however, is that “advise & consent” is not “do.” Doing is the purview of the President, the CEO and the Client. We are there to help.