Succession Planning From the Top Down
Case Includes:
| Succession Planning | How 9 Cell Matrix Helps |
| Profiling Critical Positions | Cross-business Assignments |
Situation:
The HR Directors of a diversified global company were alarmed by their lean talent pipeline and the workforce planning data about impending retirements. Most “key candidates” were people whose career consisted of regular upward promotions within a single silo track. In recent years, listed candidates were not even placed in top openings. Too frequently costly outside search was activated because the senior leadership did not ‘like’ the internal pool of candidates; yet many of the outside hires were troublesome. The HR staff coined the phrase ‘organ rejection’ to represent this unfortunate series of problems.
They prevailed upon their line of business presidents to consider the Lominger recommendations on identification of highest potential candidates, development by tough assignments and adopting a continuity of succession management using a 9 cell matrix.
The senior leadership were receptive but remained skeptical of external consultants.
Full implementation of the Lominger competency framework plus learning agility content had been underway during the previous few years, including at a few global sites.
Action:
We constructed a presentation for the senior leaders but it went through many edits and retrofits recommended by the Chief HR Executive and the HR Directors who were exceedingly protective of their top leaders. The end result was a lean, harmless and near vanilla “talk at them” presentation.
We presented the sanctioned, lean content but slowly enough to ask for input. This worked— and to the amazement of the HR Directors observing, we ended up winging the originally proposed content. The business presidents requested personal meetings to plan their own implementation logistics to fit with their business’s cycles.
Critical positions were profiled. One on one interviews were held with the direct reports to the business president for data gathering ahead of the ‘talking talent’ session — but more importantly, to serve as a personal tutorial to help each one begin to differentiate performance over time from potential (defined by KF Lominger as evidence of learning from first time experiences, and demonstrating personal change based upon new lessons of experience).
Over the next 12+ months, each business unit held their own newly invigorated ‘talking talent’ and ‘talking development’ meetings. The HR Directors were involved at each step and felt comfortable taking over the competency development plans.
Due to little history of exchange of talent between business units, a synchronized succession meeting did not occur; the decision was made ‘somewhere’ that such a meeting would be seen as confrontational. However, the BU heads were aware of the immense value to exchange key talent to give them opportunities to learn other businesses within the corporation. They set up private, one-off meetings among themselves where they brokered exchanges of Persons A for Persons B. By hearing of these trades ‘every so often’ the CEO gradually saw the benefits.
Surprises:
The CEO was originally critical and uncooperative with accepting or trying out the new principles. He did not, however, block the BU heads from proceeding. As various of those executives met with the CEO to review the ‘new assessment’ of their best and brightest, he began to warm up to the mind-set. Ultimately he became an out-spoken advocate for various facets of the process.
Conclusion to Share:
These new and improved facets for assessing and planning development for talent are no longer risky or radical concepts. A senior leadership team need not be protected from them. They are far more likely to be receptive to, and support, practices that make so much sense and can replace their previously ‘intuitive’ process.
