The economic rules of the road, even for non profits, have changed in the New Economy.  They demand greater emphasis on efficiencies, reporting, cash flow, and earned income. No longer is it good enough to do good.  Non profits must also do well. 

In the New Economy, non profits must think differently about how they attract and retain the kind of people who are both mission and performance driven.  They now must compete with for-profits for the kind of talent that can do both.   They must take care to retain those already there who mirror the future as they also the ones most likely to leave.   This is going to be particularly apparent as we begin to come out of the current financial crisis.

Here are seven questions, the answers to which can guide leaders in designing their talent management systems to meet the demands of the New Economy:

1. Do you have a well-articulated mission, vision and strategy on which to build a recruiting and selection program?  What does success look like?
   A well formulated and articulated mission, vision and strategy is the bedrock of any change effort.  It gives the organization a roadmap on which to build.   For this, you need to know when you are now and where you want to be.  Imagine, for example, that you want to go to Chicago.  To map the route you need to know where you are starting from.  You also need to think about alternative paths so that, should bad weather or roadblocks come in your way, you still can stay on course.  As you go along your route, having a roadmap also allows you to change your final destination should you want to.   
2. Do you have a solid plan for ongoing communications?  Have your plans been communicated clearly to the entire organization and to external stakeholders?
   You’ve heard the old adage “Communicate, communicate, communicate.”  Communications comes in many forms: what an organization says, supports, rewards, blocks.  Even organizational symbols (color, traditions, architecture, dress code) communicate.   There can never be enough communication – prior to, during and following up a transition.  Communications need to be consistent and ongoing to all stakeholders and at all times in order for them to understand and follow the desired path.   
3. Do your plans include a well articulated and desired culture and set of behaviors that will support your efforts in creating and building organizational capability? 
   Cultures are created and changed by the ebb and flow of people in an organization.  Moving to doing both well and good requires that organizations think in terms of both WHAT needs to be done and  HOW it is to be done.  Because they can be seen, behaviors can create a language about what is expected of employees if the expected behaviors are realistic and consistent with what is rewarded and supported in the organization.  They can be used to select, develop and evaluate people.  These behaviors also need to be modeled at the top if they are to be emulated throughout the organization. 
4. Are you prepared to identify, select and retain those who can make a difference in sufficient numbers to make a difference and make it stick? 
   Too often organizations try to make change by bringing in 1 or 2 new people who possess the desired attributes.  The reality is that organizations are like any living organism.  They try to reject “foreign” bodies.   Those brought in from the outside often fail because they are only “tokens.”  Organizations must be prepared to hire in sufficient numbers for their voices to be heard and be willing to support those who represent the future.
5. Are you prepared to take action on those who can keep the organization from moving forward?
   Accurate evaluation and action plans need to be in place long enough in advance to help with compassion those who won’t be part of the future. Absent a “burning platform” where rapid change is necessary, this necessitates planning in order to retain desired aspects of the culture.    Focus your forward energy on the top 60% of the performers in your organization.  They are the most likely to be able to move to where you need to be and most likely possess the critical institutional knowledge that needs to be retained for the future.  Entrenchment and inertia in the other 40% can keep you from achieving your goals. 
6. Have you identified and embraced the potential enablers to moving forward as well as the potential obstacles and organizational constraints?
   Many organizations don’t sufficiently consider the impact of the water cooler, the rumor mill, traditions and organizational practices and taboos that have kept the organization in tact during other critical junctures.  These can be used for positive change and transformation.  
7. Is the organization and its people ready for the transition?  If not, what needs to be done to prepare it and them?
   Organizational transitions are processes.  They take time.  They involve loss.  People in organizations need to grieve.  There are a number of steps that take place in any loss which should be honored at the organizational level, including those who will remain.  They include acknowledging the loss and how people are feeling (the cost to them) , articulating where people need to go and the opportunities for them, identifying what is being retained from the old that is good, what is being let go from the old that is not good.     

The answers to these questions are important.  The execution of them requires courage.   Inaction is the same as a decision to take no action.  While, in general, there is no absolute right choice for your organization, there definitely are some wrong choices.  Arriving at the best solution requires understanding the tradeoffs and implications of alternatives and a commitment to action. Start with the basics and go for the 80% rule…if your plans are even 80% there, you’re likely to be well on your way.  Whatever is done, it is important that it is done with consistency, fairness and compassion across the organization.

     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.

     Who would argue that these aren’t turbulent times? For organizations, turbulent times require innovation, flexibility and resourcefulness. Those who make it through this period and into the long term will be Darwinian – adaptive to a constantly changing environment. Continue Reading »

Family-owned businesses are simply different from other businesses. Up to 90% of a family’s net worth can be tied up there. Family businesses also have two primary and often conflicting priorities – (a) the growth and survival of the business and family assets and (b) the maintenance and survival of family relationships. These conflicts often exacerbate when the economy is tough. Continue Reading »

In many ways, executive succession is like a brokered courtship and marriage, especially when external candidates are involved. Both parties usually present their best selves, position for best advantage and look for confirming evidence of their initial positive impressions. Unlike many courtships, however, executive selection rarely includes the time or process necessary to reality test the relationship before the marriage is consummated. Continue Reading »