NEW Professional Member Special>>> Save $20 and receive a SHRM tote bag
More companies are recognizing the importance of giving employees the time and space they need to navigate personal loss.
Save $20 on a New Professional Membership and receive a FREE Tote bag when you join SHRM today!
Virtual SHRM-CP/SHRM-SCP Certification Prep Seminars kick off September 12 and fill up fast!
Expand your influence and learn how to become an effective leader. Join us in Phoenix, AZ | OCTOBER 2 - 4, 2017
Plans waylaid by the recession must be patched and made whole.
Leaders at one in five organizations are unprepared to deal with the sudden loss of their key executives, according to a 2010 online survey of 1,098 senior managers and executives by the American Management Association’s Corporate Learning Solutions. Only 14 percent were said to be well-prepared, while 61 percent were somewhat prepared. This sad state stems in part from layoffs and other cutbacks during the recession, when succession planning moved to the back burner.Now, boards of directors and chief executive officers are facing pressure to make succession planning and talent development a priority.
Government regulators began prodding them in 2002, when the Sarbanes-Oxley Act increased scrutiny on governance. And recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission upped the ante in an advisory telling corporate boards that it intends to take succession planning seriously.
“Look for more government oversight,” says Stephen A. Miles, vice chairman of consulting firm Heidrick & Struggles in Atlanta. “We’re heading toward a mandate.”
Meanwhile, shareholders have been responding to succession lapses they suspect threaten their investments. Shareholder resolutions calling for boards to disclose succession plans are popping up; the Laborers’ International Union of North America proposed one at Apple Inc.’s annual meeting last February.
Most glaring has been news featuring companies caught in situations where executives have been asked to step down prematurely or have left unexpectedly. This has happened even at companies you would expect to have invested in succession planning. For example, in the midst of a financial meltdown, General Motors Co.’s directors had to cobble together succession plans on the fly, naming three CEOs in 18 months. “You’d have thought they would have been better prepared,” observes Raoul J. Buron, vice president and chief learning officer at Prudential Financial in Newark, N.J.
Bill Conaty, former senior vice president of HR at General Electric (GE) Co., describes what happened at Hewlett-Packard (HP) as a worst-case scenario and a wake-up call for boards and executives.
Conaty, currently a board member at consulting firm Aon Hewitt, says HP had to replace its CEO three times and “the board was ill-equipped” each time. “You would think they would have had robust options—insiders who they thought wereready,” he says. Instead, even in the most recent incident, it took board members about four months from their discovery of allegations against former CEO Mark Hurd to hire outsider Léo Apotheker.
“It cost the company financially and tarnished its standing with analysts and the public,” says Conaty, co-author with Ram Charan of The Talent Masters: Why Smart Leaders Put People Before Numbers (Crown Publishing Group, 2010). During the months of uncertainty, HP’s market value fell 18 percent.
Going Through the Motions
Even when companies have succession plans, the plans often lack rigor. Succession planning has become “a paperwork drill” resulting in “a notebook that sits on the shelf,” Buron notes. “Leaders have no confidence in it.” He estimates that succession plans are not followed more than half the time.
Leaders need to create “plans that are viable in theory and practice,” Miles says. Of course, “to do so is a lot more work.”
Conaty contrasts the HP board’s lack of preparedness with the GE approach. Today, GE leaders continue to build on the framework developed under former CEO Jack Welch. “The ultimate goal is same-day succession,” Conaty says.
The departure of senior vice president Larry Johnston—who became the CEO at Albertsons, a supermarket corporation—is a classic GE example. “One morning, Johnston came into the office and told us he was leaving,” Conaty recalls. “After spending an hour or so trying to talk him out of it and realizing we couldn’t, we accepted his resignation.”
Welch, current CEO Jeffrey R. Immelt and Conaty met to discuss their next moves. “We had candidates with two or three backups for all key positions—including the C-suite and all business units. And the board already knew who was lined up” thanks to six-month reviews, Conaty says. “They knew the names, personalities and their status. We went to our books, pulled out the candidates and filled the slots.
“Later in the day, we called a press conference. Instead of a downer for GE, we announced Johnston’s departure at the same time we named an insider as his successor and about four players down the line who were moving up.”
7 Ways to Improve Succession Plans
—Robert J. Grossman
Succession Management, the Definition
A lack of clarity exists around what succession management encompasses and who is responsible for it. Some see it as a limited function to develop and replace executives at the very top. Leaders that use best practices, such as Buron, see it as integral to comprehensive talent management. “It’s a discipline, not a process—a mind-set that has to be embedded in your culture,” he says.
It’s not something you can finish and be done with, adds Ursula Fairbairn, president and CEO of the Fairbairn Group LLC in New York City, an HR and executive management consulting firm. She calls it a “holistic circle” that includes:
Succession planning and administration can be segmented. Visualize a pyramid with the CEO at the top, key managers in the middle and lower-level high-potential employees at the bottom.
Top tier. Owned by the board, working closely with the CEO and chief human resource officer, top-tier plans focus on executive continuity. They include an emergency “what if the CEO gets hit by a bus” component. “Typically, the emergency appointee is a different person than in your long-term plan,” says Beverly Behan,consultant and founder ofBoard Adviser LLC in New York City and author of Great Companies Deserve Great Boards: A CEO’s Guide to the Boardroom (Palgrave Macmillan, anticipated June 2011). “It could be a board member, a retired executive or the CFO. In a crisis, if the board can name someone within 24 to 48 hours, it is a confidence-builder.”
Emergencies seem to occur more frequently than one might think. In the first two months of 2011, four U.S. CEOs departed because of scandal, two left for health reasons and three died, according to consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc.
The firm also reported that 1,234 CEOs from U.S.-based corporations vacated their positions in nonemergency situations in 2010. For long-term CEO succession planning, board members target, develop and monitor internal candidates who are ready now, will be ready in a year or two, or will be ready in perhaps three to five years.
Middle tier. Owned by the CEO and run by the head of HR, middle-tier plans focus on the top 10, 20 or even 300 positions. Ideally, they include emergency and long-term plans to monitor and develop select individuals. Hence, when vacancies occur, the pipeline is filled with ready-now candidates. The CEO and HR head keep directors informed, seek suggestions and arrange opportunities for them to get to know top players.
In a former job as an HR executive at American Express Co., Fairbairn spent about half her time managing the top 300 people for succession. “My CEO and I would have reviews with the board multiple times throughout the year, and we would be very specific about talent,” she recalls. “We talked about our top 50 people once a year.”
Lower tier. High-potential employees at lower levels are targeted and groomed with oversight from the head of HR, reporting to the CEO.
Commitment at the Top
Succession management only works in a culture that values developing people—and when directors are willing to invest in the initiative. Leaders have to be committed to people, talent development and succession planning, Conaty says. At GE, Welch was legendary: Some estimates had him dedicating as much as three-quarters of his time to talent management. Welch was an outlier, however; Fairbairn estimates that effective CEOs spend 25 percent to 30 percent of their time on talent topics.
You know that managers buy into succession planning when you have “the event,” the annual meeting where the CEO and business leaders meet with the head of HR to discuss talent, says Diana Newmier, executive vice president of human resources at Transfield Services/Americas inPhiladelphia. At Transfield, “The CEO and I run it. We have all the plans prepared in a binder.” Newmier spends 20 percent of her time on succession planning and 80 percent on talent management.
According to the Society for Human Resource Management’s The Post-Recession Workplace: Competitive Business Strategies for Recovery and Beyond survey report, two-thirds of 346 HR professionals said that their organizations’ post-recession business strategies will focus on succession planning “to a large degree” or “to some degree.” This suggests that CEOs and boards are ready to commit. But saying and doing are not the same.
Wanted: Board Focus and Expertise
A board’s duties cover governance, strategy and succession planning, Conaty says. However, in a 2010 survey of 140 CEOs and board directors of North American companies conducted by Stanford University’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance and Heidrick & Struggles, board members said they spend only two hours a year on CEO succession planning.
Prudential Financial makes it a priority. “We seek board members who are skilled in talent management,” Buron says.
But Prudential Financial is an exception: “Too many boards lack expertise,” Miles says. “Board members who take the lead need to have at least three succession events as an executive or board member. One of the talent pools that continue to be passed over is former and sitting heads of HR. They know how the process works.”
HR chiefs must support a process that enables the company to tap into an ongoing pool of talent at all levels. They also must make sure employees embrace the culture and execute strategic and operational plans. “As the HR leader, you need to be the facilitator and to look for every angle, every edge, to support your business leaders,” says W. Lance Wright, senior vice president of human resources and administration at USEC Inc. in Bethesda, Md., a global energy company with 3,000 employees. In a May SHRM poll, 40 percent of the 209 HR professionals responding said they were responsible for leading succession planning efforts.
Regardless of the size of your organization, succession planning and succession management must command your attention. If you have the resources, you can get a boost from consultants and purchase state-of-the-art software. But limited resources shouldn’t hold you back: “It’s whether you have the conversations about key people and whether you keep track of what you’ve decided,” Wright says.
Mostly, succession management is just “elbow grease” practiced daily instead of once a year, Buron says. “There is no magic machine that spits out the information and analysis.”
More from this issueHR Maga
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Join SHRM's exclusive peer-to-peer social network
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies