In tough times, the last thing that should be slashed from corporate budgets are the development and training programs needed to turn today’s high potentials into tomorrow’s visionary leaders. Too often, however, they’re the first to go – a clear message that future leaders will not be grown from within, though they may be replicated to replace the leaders you’ve already got.
And what’s wrong with replication? After all, it sure makes the senior team feel good when they look in the mirror!
But enough about them, let’s take a look at the characteristics of replacement planning and succession planning and see which one is better for you.
Here’s how to spot replacement planning.
That’s what happens when a critical vacancy occurs and a qualified replacement (who can do the job as well as or better than the incumbent) is ready and available to fill that vacancy. When it works smoothly, the demand for talent meets the talent available. The selection of that person is usually done by the manager who has been through the same position and is knowledgeable of the skills and attributes required for the job. Typically, such selection is made on the basis of personal connections. Not only do managers get to validate their existence and choose someone with similar backgrounds and experiences, they also get to reward or take care of someone loyal to them.
Taken organization-wide, that’s a pretty good recipe for cronyism. Imagine if you are an employee who wants that job, has taken the development path that leads to it, and doesn’t know the manager making the selection. Chances are you’re going to feel pretty frustrated with your vertical opportunities. Or how about if you are someone working for that new appointee. The old manager had plenty of faults and weaknesses and you were glad to see them go because the business really needs some new direction. Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss. Welcome to purgatory.
Strategic succession planning is a deliberate, systematic effort to ensure continued organizational performance through the identification, assessment, development and placement of organizational talent. It’s difficult, expensive and time consuming. It requires a top-down vision that takes into account organizational values, business strategy and job-based competency descriptions; not to mention sufficient management training to support the system, as well as oversight and discipline so that the process will be adhered to, and development programs in place to build and track the desired capabilities.
Flaws in succession planning arise from poor design, implementation and operation. For example, sometimes organizational values are defined but have no relevancy to real values. In other cases, the variety of performance assessment and management systems that should contribute to succession planning don’t because they are not in line with the same measures and goals. Worst of all are those occasions when senior management itself declares the succession system meaningless by promoting those who don’t demonstrate the values or strategic competencies supposedly required. Talk about your credibility problems.
The end result is effectively the same as replacement planning, except with the additional waste of resources and energy. Don’t underestimate the political and emotional pain that arises. You may not sense it if you’re in the top ranks but you can measure its impact in decreased performance and retention levels. Your best employees will ask, why bother, while the ones who need the most improvement will know that their efforts would go unrewarded, regardless.
If you believe that succession planning is essential for your organization’s long-term success, do it right. Define your values, create meaningful job profiles, integrate your people systems and hold managers accountable. Make sure that promotion is objective and that those who are promoted demonstrate the right values and have the needed skills. By this I don’t mean that potential candidates should have merely mastered the skills of their current role; rather, they should have already gone beyond those capabilities to the point where they are successful in at least three competencies for the role they want. Let those high potentials know that they are in the selection pool without promising them promotion; otherwise, you’ll both end up regretting it when they leave your organization unaware of the opportunities. All of this needs organizational support in terms of time, money, executive input and – most vitally – that sacred development budget.
Finally, make sure that your selection pool is deep enough. One way to do so is to reconsider who you think will be taking the reigns of your company in years to come. In recent years organizations have become overly focused on their Generation X and Y employees. Sure, when the job market was hot, they were quite the commodity, but now that things have settled down, it’s time for a measured look at all your resources. Those baby boomers who comprise the more silent majority of your organization have a lot to offer. They’ve been around a while. Their loyalty is high. They are steeped in your values. They know what your organization needs to do to be more successful. They have a network of relationships inside and outside of the organization, not to mention a wealth of knowledge. And best of all, they’ve got 15 to 25 more career years available before they consider retirement. That’s a smart investment in your future leadership talent.
David Cohen is president of Strategic Action Group, and author of “Inside the Box: Leading with Corporate Values to Drive Sustained Business Success”.
