Each person has a professional legacy to build, and the most visible component of the legacy is the person that steps into the role next. For some roles, like the CEO of a large firm, there are several teams of individuals working to ensure continuity in the role. In others, like a small business owner or line manager, the only person ensuring continuity is the person currently filling the role.
Succession planning is a formal process in many talent management systems, and also exists informally to some degree in every organization. No matter the size or scope of the business and role, there are 5 fundamental considerations:
- Timing
- Talent
- Turf
- Tell
- Transition
Timing
Having an understanding of when the role may need to be filled is the key to making the right decisions. There is a degree of uncertainty in even the most prepared organizations, and it's helpful to be prepared for multiple contingencies.
The incumbent, the person that’s in the role right now, could vacate the role for many reasons. She could be: hired at another firm, internally promoted to a new position, asked to step away from the role for performance reasons, motivated to leave by personal reasons, etc.
Several time horizons should be considered, and the more complex the role the greater number of time horizons to be considered. If time and expense allow, it’s helpful to assign probabilities to the different time horizons. If you’re really on a roll, drop it into a cumulative distribution (5% chance of immediate vacancy, 20% in one year, 100% in 100 years, or something like that).
Talent
With a firm understanding of when the role may become vacant, it’s time to move into talent. It seems intuitive to start with a review of the candidates, but it’s actually more effective to start by looking at the role and the incumbent.
Thinking through some specific questions around what, where, when, why, and how is extremely beneficial in understanding the role. Questions like:
- What does this role accomplish?
- Where (physically and logically) does the person in this role need to be, and when?
- Why does this role exist?
- How does this role fit in the context of the larger organization?
A series of thought-provoking questions like these can lead to sometimes unexpected conclusions. In many cases, the answers have shown that the role should be changed, or even eliminated.
Assuming we’re keeping the role, now it’s time to look at the talent. This is done in the context of the time horizons, and the list of candidates might be different for each one. A common pitfall that firms find themselves in is to seek the “perfect candidate,” someone with all the experiences to fill the role exactly like the incumbent, and put that person on every time horizon slate (group of candidates being considered) at the top of the list. Ideally the candidates will develop towards the role while reaching the horizon, and complete development while in the new role.
To keep this post short, the 2nd T (T2?) consists of understanding the role, assessing the talent, stack ranking and developing the talent for each time horizon.
Turf
Turf really has two perspectives – that of the incumbent and that of the successor candidates.
The incumbent has a defined purview – a turf, if you will. Turf can be defined as someone's responsibilities and accountabilities. The best way to create competent successors is for the incumbent to delegate parts of the turf, which is to give greater responsibility to others.
Who gets the additional responsibility? Why the candidates, of course!
The win for the incumbent is greater personal scope (time freed to think more strategically, take on additional assignments, get ready for his own next role, etc.) and the building of his legacy. For the candidates, they have challenging new components to their work, start building the needed connections to be successful in the incumbent’s role, and have a greater sense of worth to the organization.
Tell
With timing, talent, and turf under the belt, spend some time on the tell.
Wrong way: don’t tell someone they are the successor for a particular position unless the move is imminent. If the move doesn’t materialize, you’re left with a demoralized employee with high retention risk.
Right way: tell candidates they are valued, they have “runway,” that the organization/team/incumbent is interested in seeing them be successful.
The nuances of tell are interesting, and there is some pretty cool research around the engagement of associates that supports this approach.
Transition
Finally, there is the actual transition. Consider what the handoff will look like, who will need to be told what (and in what order), and what channels of communication are best.
There are times when the incumbent is the best person to convey the message to the successor, and also times when the incumbent is the last person you’d want to have that conversation. Teammates, clients, and partners also have to be considered.
Don’t forget logistics, which includes minimal operating interruption, solid communications, and a fresh start for the new person in role. It could be that a slow time of year is best for transitions, or that ample time for repainting an office is needed.The worst way to start is to put the new person in the middle of the exiting person’s clutter. It’s a bit like finishing a plate when someone’s left dinner early.
Succession planning doesn’t have to be painful, and it’s not as complicated as it might sound. The most important thing is to think it through…before it’s a crisis.
Interesting that the methodology fits so nicely into 5 Ts. I noticed something similar in an earlier post as well.After reading the post, it seems to be far more involved than those 5 considerations. Is "runway" a term you hear often? It seems a bit odd to compare an individual to an airport, would love to hear more about that.
ReplyDeleteHi Philligreed, and thanks for reading! A bit like lectures and sermons, packaging information in a digestible way often entails coming up with 3-5 points, sometimes including some alliteration and sometimes creating an acronym. In future posts you'll see a 3/30/300 model, and a few others as well.With succession planning, the high-level bases are covered in the 5 Ts, but the concepts and theory behind them can really be exploded into great depth and detail. For instance, both Tell and Transition touch on general management theory but go really deep into how to communicate messages and understanding the impact and timing of those messages. Direct reports should almost always hear about material changes from their manager or their skip level - it's part of the psychological contract that's tied to work. However, conveyance of some messages could be detrimental to work ethic, team synergy, and morale - even if they should be communicated based on that contract. During succession transitions, some time is spent on crafting the actual communications. In most cases, even more time is spent determining the appropriate timing, content, and cascade of information.
ReplyDeleteJust realized I didn't respond to your question on "runway." I think the term's a bit strange as well, but hear it all the time. The reference to a person's potential could (I guess) be similar to how large a plane can take off from a particular runway? Wish I had a better answer - let me know if you find one!
ReplyDelete