Managing Leadership^®

There remains a lot of concern about how poorly succession issues are planned and implemented in organizations of all sizes and types all around the world. It is one of those areas where the civilian community can learn a lot from how the military works.

There are three key things. To the extent one of them isn’t being done, the entire effort’s worth to the organization is placed at risk.

First, as we noted last year, if succession isn’t planned at every level, there is probably little value in planning it at any level. Whether or not you ultimately select successors from within or without your own organization, the stronger the candidates in your internal pipeline are, the better positioned you are for a good outcome.

The deeper and more ready for action is the talent at every level, the more eager will be executives of exceptional abilities – whether your own or outsiders – to manage your organization. So, a major key to succession planning is to have an outfit that itself attracts great potential successors.

Second, most discussion of this topic focuses not only on the replacement of the CEO, but on that person’s responsibility for the process. A widely noted topic is the tension here between personal and organizational interests.

As an individual, you may not want to cultivate obvious talent around you that, in so hyper-competitive an environment, might pounce at any stumble you make. But as the CEO, you have a duty to not just run the company, but to ensure its sustainable viability. Incentives must be designed to help this latter interest prevail over the former.

Third, the board must inescapably be identified as having the dot on this issue. A competent and conscientious CEO will certainly address it, but is not ultimately responsible for it. The directors are. It is they who must directly and overtly establish this as a priority. They also need to develop and supervise policy for it. The buck stops with the board – the rest is just talk.

Of course, this can become problematic if the board is dominated by executive directors, or certainly by a dual-hatted CEO/Chair. But that’s just more support for fully independent and professionalized  boards.

What do you think?

—

Today’s tips: Speaking of a hyper-competitive environment in the top ranks, please see this Business Week piece on how to conduct executive warfare. Lot’s of evidence here of the naturally diverging interests of owners and managers.

And speaking of shark-infested waters, please see this excellent perspective on the size of the fish and the size of the pond by Steve Roesler, at All Things Workplace.

—

If you have enjoyed this post, please do join us by using the subscription links just below or at the top right of this page. And thanks – we look forward to your being aboard!

Technorati Tags: succession, military, organization, executive, manage, planning, CEO, responsibility, competitive, director, policy, executive director, Business Week, owner, Steve Roesler, All Things Workplace