I. Gail Howard wrote:
>
> TO: Fellow Management Education & Development professionals
> FROM: I. Gail Howard
>
> I am a new subscriber to this list, and eager to get your help and perspectives.
> I have been asked to make a presentation about SUCCESSION PLANNING. I
> have been asked to present what it is, what works, and what to
> avoid if it is to be effective.
>
> First, can anyone point me to a list for books and articles. There do not appear to
> be many. I will publish a summary, so please send along any suggestions of readings.
>
> I would also like to incorporate personal experiences of those
> actively working on succession. Tell me what you feel are the
> things that need to be in place to have it worth the effort:
> -What are the key components and what do those look like
> at your organization?
> -What makes it meaningful for company and individual?
> -What mistakes have you learned to avoid?
> -How often and how deep in the organization is "worth it"?
> -Who is involved in developing the information? Reviewing the
> information?
> -What automation has made it easier?
> -What other activities are tied in? Executive placement? Exec
> development? Is there an affirmative action component?
>
> Mega thanks to anyone who can share some experience and/or ideas from
> your work. Reply to list or directly to me. I will provide summary
> for the benefit of all.
>
>
ighoward@wanda.vf.pond.com
Hi from 'down under',
I've only recently joined the group and am totally overwhelmed by the
enthusiasm of everyone on board - boy, am I glad I bought a ticket for
this journey.
Specifically, the question of succession planning is a vexatious one,
particularly as nobody seems to spend enough time in an organisation
nowadays to succeed to anywhere. And the 'downsizing' or 'rightsizing'
craze of the last few years hasn't helped by making succession to the
CEO's position open to everyone in the organisation - because there are
usually only two levels left after the axe has fallen.
The work I've been involved in here and overseas over the past 5-6 years
has proven that succession planning isn't so much a matter of which
person will take over from which other on that person's retirement or
release, but which position will take over.
Let me explain.
One of the most difficult areas to handle of late is the question of
skills and knowledge needed to perform certain functions within an
organisation. Most countries, the USA included, have made the major leap
towards promoting the development and implementation of standards of
workplace performance (competency or skills standards) which describe
the skills, knowledge and sometimes attitudes and values required for
performance in each function within an organisation.
These standards are all aimed at providing the werewithall for the
organisation to move towards its goals and objectives, and are supported
by training, education, recruitment (internal and external), and ongoing
performance appraisal.
Once the standards have been developed and agreed, it is determined if
the people currently, or who will in the future be, holding those
functions actually have these skills, knowledge ...etc. Usually through
some form of competency-based assessment or recognition of current
skills and competencies. If they do possess the competencies then all is
well with the world and life can continue as before. But, most times it
is found that they don't - which is very understandable given the speed
at which the needs of the function change, especially in terms of
technology, attitudes and individual values (including those of
customers and major stakeholders).
Now, this isn't a case for mass suicide or public flogging because it
opens the way for individual and team/corporate development programs. In
other words, launching one powerful 'learning organisation'. Because the
standards are never fixed (how can they given the constantly and ever
increasing changing world we live in), the requirements of each function
are also never set in concrete. This means that people are forever
learning and therefore forever growing. The trick for the trainers and
educators, but usually more often for the organisational development
specialists, is to maintain a finger on the pulse of these changes and
be consistently feeding them into the organisational requirements.
What happens is less training occurs but more management of learning and
continuous growth. (Besides, training is usually only carried out to
correct mistakes of yesterday - growth is aimed at meeting the
challenges of tomorrow, including not making the mistakes in the first
place. Which of these is your organisation more interested in?)
Having said all of that, let me get to the answer to your question (at
last she says). I am, say, a middle level manager of a large company.
The competencies I required to effectively perform in this function have
been clearly specified and my skills and knowledge etc are constantly
growing and expanding to keep up with these requirements. (Note these
competencies belong to my position or function, not me.) The reason for
this is that if the needs of my organisation are written around what I
can do right now, what hope is there for my growth and any future
achievements of my organisation in areas that I currently know nothing
about (and may never learn)? In short, my current skills and knowledge
may be a liability to the organisation, and not an asset. However, if my
position has a list of things that I must know and do to be competent in
it then as these change (as they will) it is up to me to keep up. Ergo,
my developmental plan is to maintain my skills and knowledge at a level
where my position/function continually helps my organisation to grow and
achieve its goals and objectives.
Now, my successor might be holding down the position of my deputy (or
may even be in a position on the other side of the world). The skills
and knowledge that he/she requires to be effective in that position are
also detailed. But, they are not isolated specifics written only for
that function - they in fact written in such a way that they clearly
dovetail into the competencies required for my position which, in turn,
dovetails into the function above mine - or may even dovetail into a
number of positions above mine. The competencies for my deputy also
dovetail with one or more functions below (or perhaps even at the same
level as) his/hers creating a continuous line of competencies from the
lowest function (please, lowest is not the right word here but you know
what I mean) in the organisation to the highest - even if there are only
two or three levels.
What all of this means is that people are not successors to any position
- the position they hold is the successor. If I am not capable of
demonstrating complete competence at my position, and my position has
been earmarked as the successor to someone else in my organisation, then
my skills and knowledge are enhanced through relevant and appropriate
training and education/development. A person therefore doesn't succeed
to another position, the skills and knowledge (or competencies) he/she
possesses are what does the succeeding - the person is really only the
vessel.
Confused?
We have recently finished working on a software program that allows
people to identify the skills and knowledge they will need if they are
to succeed to any other position in their organisation, their industry
or in fact in any other vocational area. They can be assessed against
these (by professional assessors/mentors and advisors) anywhere in their
organisation, country or in fact the world and in doing so identify any
gaps in their current competence. Through this they can prepare
themselves (in terms of their skills and knowledge) for not only the
function they currently hold but for any function they wish to hold in
the future.
Hope this helps. If not give me a yell on
robnphil@ozemail.com.au and
I'll try to clear up the mess I've just created.
PHIL RUTHERFORD