There are plenty of Succession Planning Companies running Succession Planning Training Programs and helping people around the world with the Succession Planning Process. However, Research indicates many succession-planning initiatives fall short of their intent.
The first book that addressed the topic fully was "Executive Continuity" by Walter Mahler. Mahler was responsible in the 1970s for helping to shape the General Electric succession process which became the gold standard of corporate practice. Mahler, who was heavily influenced by Peter Drucker, wrote three other books on the subject of succession, all of which are out of print. His colleagues, Steve Drotter and Greg Kesler, as well as others, expanded on Mahler's work in their writings. "The Leadership Pipeline: How to Build the Leadership Powered Company," by Charan, Drotter and Noel is noteworthy.
CEO transitions are risky times for companies. When the departing chief executive officer has had a strong run, there is worry about his successor's ability to maintain the momentum. When he has performed poorly, there's anxiety about whether and how fast his successor will be able correct course.
In the current economic climate, CEO turnover can cause even greater tensions for both internal and external stakeholders--especially if some of them are blaming the existing boss for leading the company down the wrong path.
One reason it's all so difficult is because transitions historically have not been well done. When there's an internal succession, too often the outgoing CEO has had the largest--or only--influence on the process. He (or she) has too often made one of two mistakes, either choosing someone in his own likeness when what the company really needed was someone different, or choosing someone of lesser stature to preserve his own legacy. When a board has been able wrest control of the succession from the CEO, it too often has instantly gone outside to recruit someone from another company. That is often an over-correction.
Of course, having a succession plan is easy, and few companies in the era of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with its detailing of board responsibilities, would acknowledge they lack one. The challenge is to have a plan adaptable to the dynamic nature of the succession process and the shifting demands on the CEO position. And as with any other sort of plan, the hard part is actually executing it.
At the 1,000 largest American companies (by revenue) in 2008, 80 new CEOs were appointed, and only 44 of them--55%--were promoted from within. If you view a board's having to go outside to hire a CEO as a failure in succession planning, that represents a breakdown in the system. A failure rate of 45% means that far too many plans aren't working.
Why aren't they working? In my experience, board members too often fear they can't find a truly viable successor inside the company. This can result from a lack of exposure to internal candidates and a subsequent lack of true understanding of what those candidates are capable of. The board may simply be unfamiliar with anyone not close to the CEO's office. The CEO may be optimistic about a successor he's grooming while the board hasn't had the chance to develop confidence.
These observations point to a critical area where succession planning practices can and should be improved: The CEO and the board need to get and stay on the same page when it comes to the true readiness of internal succession candidates and making sure of their preparation.
Furthermore, CEOs and boards need to overcome the following myths about succession planning. Success Factors for any company depends on how well is the succession planning process is implemented.
Some of the above excerpts have been taken from Forbes and some from Wikipedia. Please let us know what do you think about this article. We look forward to your feedback and encouragements.
No comments:
Post a Comment