Is the point of a COO just to do all the jobs I hate? Or should I be thinking bigger?

You may remember that back in January, I decided I was going to stick to work resolutions this year, since I've always broken my personal ones by March. Well, given that it's now March, and I still haven't done anything about my plan to hire a COO to free up a bit more of my time, it turns out I'm no better at work resolutions either. Maybe next year I won’t bother.

Actually, that's not completely true - I have been putting a few feelers out. I know people use that phrase when what they really mean is 'I've basically done nothing whatsoever except possibly mention it to one another person'. But I have, honestly. As well as my conversations with recruiters, I've also been catching up with a few of my entrepreneur chums who have hired for this sort of role before - both to get their views on whether it's a good idea, and also to find out what kind of person I should hire.

What was interesting was that they all seem to have a different view on what this person's role should be. One said it was all about the money - the key was to hire someone who would take a slightly obsessive approach to keeping costs down, and make sure that everyone else in the company did the same. But I didn’t buy that, largely because I think we're decent at that stuff already. Rather than hiring a COO, I could just tell my book-keeper to shout and scream at people more often.

The next guy took the view that the COO's job is to deflect as much flak from you as possible – so you should give them all the jobs you hate. Let’s call this the Mr Muscle approach, if only because it’s significantly less rude than his own admittedly memorable description – ‘the s**t storm shelter’. Now obviously this approach has a lot to be said for it, as far as I'm concerned. But I can see a couple of problems. First, will you persuade anyone good to come and do such a rubbish job (even if you avoid his job title)? And second, what’s the point of hiring someone senior and then only using them to fight fires?

So they weren’t much use. But one guy I spoke to did say something that struck a chord. 'SD', he said, 'You've got to think about this in terms of bench strength' (listen, I hate cheesy American terminology as much as the next girl, but bear with me). ‘Your COO should be someone that, at some point, will be a credible successor when you want to exit. That’s the best thing for your business, and the best thing for you. So don’t hire someone that’s a specialist in one area. They need to be a good generalist. And they need to look and sound like a leader.’

To be honest, I hadn’t really thought about it like that; I’d been thinking largely in terms of making my life easier and more productive in the short term. But I suppose he’s right that if and when the time comes for me to sell up, that will be a lot easier if there are some good people around me to take up the reins. And until then, you want someone who will make your leadership team stronger, and, ideally, help develop some of the other people in the business. So a bean-counter or a fire-fighter just won’t cut the mustard. Back to the drawing board with that job description.