Who's in the Succession Planning Queue?
By Chris Cottey, Principal Consultant

Those of you who read the McDermott & Bull Newsletter regularly will probably recall an article we published last year that spoke to “The Costs of a Vacant Position.” In that article, we detailed both the immediate and tangential fallout as well as the organizational degrading that occurs the longer a position remains open. (If you would like to review this past article, please email me at Cottey@mbsearch.net for a copy.) Without question, the direct and indirect costs and impacts to a company or department that lacks a quick replacement remedy can be enormous and truly beyond empirical measure. The obvious potential remedy is to do everything possible to preclude employee, manager or executive turnover…necessary, but not a 100% guarantee even in the best run companies with outstanding worker environments. Part of retention planning, it can be argued, is succession planning. Orderly transition sends very strong retention messages to those working within an organization, not to mention the reduction of costs and impaired productivity that usually occur during a prolonged opening. In this first of two articles (see our next edition for part two), we shall examine a few of the wrong contributors to succession planning. Next edition, we shall speak to how to successfully drive succession with the right professionals.

As a twenty-seven year career executive with major corporations and having spent nearly five years consulting in executive recruiting and retention, I am often shocked at how few companies and their executives have a truly well-defined succession plan. Promotions frequently appear, to members of the organization, capricious and not based upon accurate knowledge of the job or the candidate. How many of us have heard, following the announcement of a promotion, that the “candidate is under-qualified” or “management really knows little about whom they just promoted?” Before we promote, we should ask “Does the candidate have a better than reasonable chance to excel in this more challenging assignment?” How frequently we have heard the post-promotion feedback from supervisors and/or those working with an inappropriately promoted individual that have been along the lines of “the person is not capable, does not listen to others, does not perform as instructed, does a poor job of training others, does not follow-up on expectations and performance, is a poor example setter, is a poor communicator, makes suspect decisions, has little ability (or desire) to motivate others”, or any one of a dozen other criticisms that have more than a grain of substance and truth about them.

We all believe we know that promoting someone is a complex and soul-searching process for those involved (or should be). Yet, the criteria for candidate selection and promotion is often based upon qualities that are faulty. Some of the reasons I have heard for promoting individuals include:

• The candidate has been with us for many years and deserves a chance;

• The candidate is a hard worker and has the job knowledge, at least technically;

• The candidate’s last performance review was acceptable;

• The candidate is well-liked and will get along well with those he/she is about to become engaged with;

• The candidate will leave the company if not promoted this time or will create problems if he/she stays;

• The candidate wants the new assignment;

• It is a small management responsibility so it is not a big risk if he/she does not work out;

• We can correct any of the candidate’s deficiencies once he/she is in the role;

• (And my personal favorite) The position needs to be filled immediately.

 Sure, many of these comments are things we want to assure ourselves about when we are ready to promote someone, but the reality is that these are mostly baseline job requirements to remain employed in a current position, not assets that warrant promotion.

When we promote based upon the above, and then hear the reactions similar to those listed, the real questions that come at us from our employees are “Why has this happened, or why does this company promote people that they know are incompetent or not ready for this responsibility?” We can explain the business, economic, cultural, political, and exigency reasons for a promotion until we are blue in the face. The reality is simple: if we compromise our requirements for success in a position, hire someone who does not meet the real needs, and continue as if we have just done the right thing, the business and everyone impacted by this assignment will suffer both tangibly and intangibly. And, these same employees will assert we made a mistake. So, why does it still happen in so many instances? Why do promotions occur when there are going to be already identifiable issues that will result in limited success, or even failure? While one can point to individual experiences where each of us has witnessed a promotion based upon what we believe to be truly emotional reasons, the reality is usually that a validated and strategic succession plan does not exist.

If this, or something like it, appears to be a reality within your own organization, you might ask about succession planning. If this is an area where help is needed, be sure to read next month’s conclusion to this series where we shall explore some of the pre-requirements and keys to succession planning.