Great leadership is a risk to self on behalf of others. It’s a belief in others before they believe in themselves. When committees inquire who we (the recruiter) believe is the most suitable candidate, we respond that we are willing to assume greater risks in others than most. Achievement within any organization stems from the confidence others place in you, as well as the guidance and development they provide daily. These types of individuals ultimately become valued mentors, exemplary role models, and lifelong colleagues.
I often ask candidates, “Who are your disciples, and where are they now?” Those who can quickly answer tend to be risk-takers and developers of others. I learned about risk firsthand in 1997 when my gifted Sous Chef did not meet my mentor’s expectations, resulting in criticism of my own skills. Though my confidence wavered, I rehired the Sous Chef, who stayed with me for a decade. We never discussed that challenging year apart, understanding that people work for people, not just organizations, and that each person grows differently.
Currently, I work in a high-risk field where I match professionals with organizations. It’s remarkable how successful we are, considering the challenges of personalities. Even someone as talented as Joel Robuchon could struggle if saddled with the wrong direct leadership, company culture, or customer. Yet, most of our placements thrive because both parties are motivated and see value in the partnership, putting in the necessary support. Typically, about 40% of new placements express concern within the first year, but after a year, over 90% have overcome these initial fears. While previous references are important, present belief is the greatest endorsement for future success.
I recall feeling enthusiastic about writing professional references early in my career. As I advanced to higher positions, I was frequently asked to write letters for various organizations, individuals, and purposes. While these were honorable opportunities, having a strong reputation myself also meant sometimes facing requests for less favorable comments from others. I didn’t avoid those scenarios either; my guiding principle was always to care for the individual, following the philosophy of, “I seek your greatest good; I mean you no harm.” Some of my most respected mentors referred to this as tough love. As I have gotten older, my judgment of others is less and my optimism greater.
Subsequently, I have been approached to provide references for the CMC test. Alongside several colleagues, I have declined candidates not for lack of potential, but because they were not adequately prepared at the time of the request. Although this decision impacted some of my professional relationships, upon reflection, it was made with integrity and may be viewed similarly today. Notably, writing a reference letter for the CMC test entails a commitment to support the candidate throughout their journey. Master Chef Arnaud Betherlier, one of my references, previously worked with me for five years; I later recruited him in the same year he undertook the test as our Executive Chef.
During my time as a corporate chef, drafting references became increasingly complex from a legal perspective. Our guidelines required us to limit statements to basic employment information, removing any subjective assessment of an individual’s abilities. Even strong recommendations were discouraged to ensure compliance, consistency, and mitigate legal risk. This shift diminished the personal connections we had established in favor of legal protection. Consequently, my written references transitioned to verbal communication; however, as phone conversations began to be recorded, calls to my office were often left unanswered to avoid potential misinterpretation. Interestingly, many of these requests for references were because of the position I held, not personally what I knew of the situation or person.
Society’s current perception is very risk-averse, yet excellence is all about unwavering belief. Believing in yourself and others is how excellence is truly maximized. I have had several employees not work out for others, and vice versa. Each leader, their organization’s standards, and culture are different. Most of us were successful because of the organizations we worked for, not always because of talent. After fifteen years with Ritz-Carlton, it took me three jobs to find the right fit.
In my search position today, professional written references are still important; however, behavioral, humanities, and verbal panel interviews are conducted prior to collecting references. References can sometimes provide an incomplete perspective, as they may only convey one side of the story and are subject to the author’s control. To ensure a more balanced evaluation, we request a 360-degree approach: obtaining feedback from a supervisor, a peer, and a direct report. This method offers a comprehensive view by incorporating diverse perspectives from stakeholders with varying expectations and requirements.
Modern ratings, a reference of sorts, play a central role in our decision-making. From choosing an Uber driver with a 4- or 5-star score for safety to purchasing products on Amazon, ratings influence our choices. The Ritz-Carlton recognizes three stakeholders: employees, guests, and owners, each with unique needs, much like the references required for job candidates. Testimonials have become increasingly important; rather than full recommendation letters, concise testimonials are now often included in candidate portfolios, as most people prefer brief endorsements. Perhaps Twitter, social media headlines, and simple texting have reduced attention spans. Reference-letter reading demands time and focus, which is why quick feedback such as “likes” has grown in popularity. While our selection committees value traditional reading, future evaluations may include recorded or video references to suit a digital generation. In addition, we will see what A.I. does with the personal connection to these letters in the future.
In summary, ethics and morals are fundamental and cannot be compromised. The rationale for offering individuals a second chance is often rooted in assessments of personality, which are inherently subjective and not an exact science. Great leaders still have a strong belief in others and, at times, go with that “gut feeling,” which is not always reliable.
