In my opinion, many succession planning efforts in organizations do not work because they fail to take into account the fact that jobs at the top are simply different from other jobs. For one thing, as jobs near the top they become increasingly ambiguous. It is difficult to describe them in any way that truly captures the complexity, variability and context sensitivity of the roles. No two CEOs, CFOs, HR Heads, CIOs, CMOs or COOs necessarily operate similarly across organizations even when their content knowledge is comparable. Second, no matter how “strategic” lower level roles may be described, they are more internally focused, functionally narrow, and tactical than higher level roles. It is only at the top or next to the top level of the organization that peers are, defacto, across rather than within a function and that strategic considerations within and across expertise begin to take shape. The top level is the only place where both the external and internal factors salient to the business meet.
     A.G. Lafley, Chairman and CEO of Procter & Gamble, adroitly points out in his article published in Harvard Business Review how the top job is different from any other job in the organization (What Only the CEO Can Do, May 2009). While it is generally conceded that the best successors come from inside an organization unless there is a burning platform, it is rare that their training and development actually gives them the opportunity to practice “in vivo” for the responsibilities of higher level positions articulated by Lafley.
     Too often, executives rise within a function without the benefit of broadening their capabilities and perspectives. Very often, executives obtain titles that gain them entrée into the higher order by jumping to other companies. Both efforts can lead to mediocrity. The time is rarely taken to assess and select for the attributes and armed with the arsenal of skills and knowledge that will make them outstanding in their roles, particularly in turbulent times. How often have I seen the “Peter Principle” at work where truly outstanding professionals at one level rise to “their highest level of incompetence.” The justifications typically look like; (a) to fill a vacant space because it seemed the natural choice even where there are questions about the candidate’s potential success, (b) because the candidate is politically astute and knows how to “fit in,” even if that means lacking the ability to think independently, or (c) a candidate’s past results in a vastly different context have been taken as a sign of his or her ability to perform in the current one without further examination. The push for early and rapid decisions lay at the hands of board members, chief executives, and internal and external search functions, often with the notion that if the candidate doesn’t perform he or she can be traded out. It is no wonder that, by any standard, we see an increase in the turnover of CEOs and executives over the last 10 years. If they survive, it often is a trial by fire….necessarily risky for them, their companies and their shareholders.
     There is more written on executive and leadership selection and development than almost any other topic on organizations and we talk as if we are preparing middle or senior managers for top roles in our efforts. Better we are honest with ourselves and others and call it “Replacement Planning” rather than Succession Planning. I concur with Bower & Neilson (Directorship, April/May 2009) that, to truly be succession planning, companies need to take risks, identify those with the breadth of understanding and personal and managerial characteristics and potential required for higher level roles and intentionally and thoughtfully invest in the experiences and tutelage that will prepare them.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS