I’ve learned over the years that there are seven critical points in the CEO Succession process where the right approach can mean the difference between success and failure.  In this instance, success has three characteristics: the right person ascends to the CEO role, the incumbent CEO comfortably and confidently transitions out of the job, and the top management team rapidly coalesces around its new leader.

You’ll find the challenges described here familiar from our ongoing discussion of the process we’ll be following.  However, the key to any good process is execution, so our work with you, the Board and the CEO to successfully meet each of these challenges.

1.    Setting the scope of the process as the entire top management team.  As we’ve discussed, a frequent misstep is including only a subset of the top team in the initial executive assessment process, thinking that the process is simply for picking the right new CEO.  This misstep sets up an obvious horse race by communicating that some peers are more equal than others.  Setting the scope as the entire team is an essential foundation of a manageable process, even if some have no hope (or desire) to become CEO, because it reminds top team members in a tangible way that they have an ongoing role in the success of the leader.

2.    Communicating the purpose of assessments as individual development.  Defining the purpose clearly as focusing on individual development is the key element of initial communications.  Succession to CEO is front of mind for most participants, but framing the endeavor as development of the team of the future, rather than the elevation of one above the others makes everyone feel equally enfranchised.  In addition, it reinforces everyone’s most important role as successfully executing their day-to-day work at the company versus gathering around the water cooler to handicap the horse race.

3.    Defining the frame of reference for the assessments as the future rather than the past.  The challenge in most CEO selections is thinking outside the box that the past represents, and meaningfully envisioning the future state—environment, strategy, organization—that the next CEO and senior team must successfully negotiate.  This is often the most difficult mental task of the process, since the past is so accessible and the future so uncertain.  However, the effort pays off, and helps us craft the individual developmental challenges in real and objective terms, rather than subjective or political ones.

4.    Maintaining alignment between CEO, Board and consultant throughout the process.  The steps and stages of a succession process are dynamic, and with all the senior team involved, Board members with strong opinions about them, and individual ambitions, hopes and fears in the mix, it can frequently feel like a complex mechanism with many moving parts.  An agile communication process between CEO, Board and consultant, to communicate progress, surface issues and concerns, and manage the right levels of involvement is essential for establishing the bond of trust that the process will be successful.

5.    Addressing gaps between what you need and what the assessment process determines you have.  The conclusion of the assessments brings a critical choice point for the CEO and the Board, especially if there is a gap between what you need and what you’ve got.  The decision can be obvious if one person rises to the top—or it can be maddeningly complex if, for example, there is no clear match, the development needs are significant, and the downside risks of delaying or going outside are imposing.  It is here that insightful assessments distinguish themselves—by differentiating strengths and fit for purpose of the individuals, by clarifying in behavioral and business terms the development challenges for each, and by articulating the transition risks associated with the various internal choices.  As we’ve discussed, Boards increasingly seek in-depth views of the external talent market at this stage, to satisfy their need for objectivity, and sometimes suggest hiring top talent into the team to broaden the slate of potential successors.

6.    Managing the transition in command.  The huge sigh of relief once agreement is reached on the right choice is understandable—but premature.  There is not just one but several transitions that must occur.  The incumbent CEO needs to relinquish command and be appropriately recognized and celebrated.  For that to happen, he must have a destination—a new role that honors his personal desires and supports the success of his successor.  The new CEO is taking the full spotlight for the first time in this environment, and must transition into command in a way that builds the confidence in his many internal and external constituencies.  The top team members all have a new boss, and must transition into new relationships with him and with their own ambitions.  Managing these interdependent transitions successfully is an inherently risky proposition, but it is thankfully one where the risks can be managed by artful choices and careful planning.

7.    Coalescing the new top management team with no loss of momentum.  New leaders spend their early days gathering information, forming opinions and planting seeds within the organization that they hope will help them grow a healthy, vibrant organization; nourishing the seeds planted in the early days inevitably makes the difference between success and failure.  Leaders who fail to provide this nourishment are exposed to the wrong sort of publicity, sooner or later, and singled out for blame.  However, organizational leadership is increasingly a team sport, and a thoughtful succession planning process supports a new leader’s success by providing structural support for his or her onboarding and engagement of the new team to take charge of their important leadership role.

I hope you find these brief observations helpful.  I look forward to our next discussions, and to working with you, the Board and the CEO on developing the pathway forward.

Talking to your (new) boss about Investing in Your Success in the first 90 days

• First, a reminder of your overall frame of reference . . . from the Watkins ‘First 90 Days’ work.  His section on “negotiating success” suggests there are five topics you want to cover with your boss (over time).

1. Confirm your understanding of the business situation you face
2. Clarify and negotiate the expectations your new boss has for you
3. Understand the new boss’ management style and preferred methods of communication.
4. Get the resources you need to implement the changes in the organization you determine necessary
5. Understand how this job will contribute to your personal development.

• The part of the conversation that concerns the support you want from a coach is about 4 and 5 – the resources you need as a leader, for the first time in one of the top two spotlight roles, to ensure you develop and deliver success.  Have fun with the conversation: it’s getting you really grounded in what you need for success.

• The key thing you’re doing with this part of the conversation is to ‘normalize’ the act of getting support as a leader, especially in new situations.    You want primary ongoing support from him, as your boss.  You want secondary ‘spot’ support from outside resources with expertise and experience neither of you has—that’s what I bring to the table.  A little investment now will pay off big time later, in both increased speed to full credibility and impact, and decreased risk of losing momentum.  Don’t be shy about saying exactly this, as a capstone to the talking points down below

• Set it up in advance by telling him you have three important topics you want to be sure to cover, in addition to other topics:
  • what his expectations are going to be of you in the job – what success looks like a year from now, in his view
  • your initial view of where you’ll be spending your time in your first 90-100 days
  • your thoughts on what you need from him as your boss, in order to be successful

• When this part of the conversation gets underway, he should start it, and you should take notes of course, but be ready for him to give you both more and less than you want.  He may dwell on a topic or get into too much detail on something you would prefer less help with e.g. managing sales lead flow; and he may not cover certain areas you want to be sure he does. On the former, recognize it as an area of particular concern – all bosses have them.  Be sure you understand what success in addressing it would look like to him, and how he’d like to be kept informed of your plans and progress.  On the latter, know the areas you want him to care about and ask directly about them, if he doesn’t indicate any expectations there.

• For your first piece – the initial view of where you’ll be spending your time – there are numerous examples from the first 90 days / onboarding literature.  Here’s a strawman I like:
  • Understanding what you’ve got to work with in the organization, especially the top team you’re inheriting;
  • Building credibility day to day (to give you leverage to make necessary changes later);
  • Figuring out what to leverage and what to change to grow the business to the next level

Go through it with him so he understands how you’re thinking and gives you his reactions.

• On the topic of what you need from him, here goes:
  • Tremendously excited about this new role, appreciate his trust in you, and determined to reward that by exceeding his expectations
  • Also keenly aware that it’s a big move for you, is a scope and scale you haven’t done before, and you know you’ll be ‘learning in the spotlight’
  • You plan on taking the first 90 days to develop your game plan . . . you’ll be posting him on progress during that time, and want to sit down at the end and go through it
  • In addition to drawing on him, you want to get some close-in support during the first 90 days from a consultant you know who’ll be a sounding board on your personal leadership approach as you step up into this larger role
  • He’s already been helpful . . . I want you to meet him during the course of this
  • As you said earlier, a little investment now will pay off big time later, in both increased speed to full credibility and impact, and decreased risk of losing momentum

• Why is leadership such a complex topic? Why are there so many books on leadership? And why does every one seem to be proposing ‘the answer’ or the definitive word and yet they’re all different?  How do you make them all add up?
• What do we mean by leadership? How does one define leadership?  Where should one start in thinking about the topic?  What is the difference between a leader and a manager?  Is there a meaningful distinction to be made between a leader and leadership?  If someone leads, does that make everyone else a follower?  Is being a follower bad?  What are other roles to play besides leader and follower?
• What are the different domains of leadership? If you’re a leader, how do you break the task down into manageable chunks?  How does leadership differ from one domain to the next e.g. personal v. team v. organization; e.g. head v. heart v. hands; e.g. body v. mind v. soul; e.g. internal v. external; e.g. home v. work; e.g. marriage v. family v. community.  Are these all the same as the different domains of existence for a regular person, only if you’re a leader there’s something extra to do?
  • Does one person lead and the rest of us follow? Do we all share some responsibility for leadership, and if so, how is that adjudicated?  What successful alternatives / models are there and when / where / how does each best apply? How do you get leadership at every level?  What does this mean?  Would everyone be a hologram of the top guy?  What organization model or image is most compatible with this idea?
  • Don’t we all have to lead, at some level – you lead your life, right? What are people trying to accomplish on this planet?  Why are we here?   Are there things common to all we should set out as a baseline, onto which individuals can add something unique to / for / of themselves?

• Why do people want to be leaders? What motivates someone to lead?  What are motivations of today’s leaders?  How compare to motivations of past leaders?  What is motivating tomorrow’s leaders (or not) to want to become leaders?  How do they want to do things differently than today’s leaders or past leaders?  What do they see in today’s or past leaders that they think worth emulating?
• How do you lead a top management team? How do you get a top team hitting on all cylinders?
  • How does competition figure in to leadership? How about collaboration?  Do people naturally compete or naturally collaborate, neither or both?
  • How does authority figure into the discussion? Is authority different from leadership?  How?
  • What are the different types of authority? When and how does the nature of authority vary?
  • How do leaders make decisions?

• How do you lead an organization? How does engagement figure into leadership?  Can one reduce the leadership task to something as simple as ‘aligned engagement of all in achieving organizational goals’?

We all pay such attention to leaders, don’t we? So much of the news in the papers, on TV, on the web is about people who are leaders, people who take a leadership position in an organization or on a topic, who stand out in some distinctive way because of what they say or do.  This week – Barack Obama; Timothy Geithner; Louise Richardson, first woman President of the University of St. Andrews; John Hope Franklin.

You say something provocative, you vary from the norm, you stand out in a crowd, and you get noticed.  Our notice naturally tries to find out why you stand out . . . and asks are you a leader? Are you the leader? The mind wants to know whether you’re out in front of others on a topic, and whether it should pay special attention to what you say or do.  And that becomes a rough proxy for leadership in our minds, until proven otherwise.

[There are of course lots of ‘otherwises’ – Bernie Madoff comes to mind in these times, the Ponzi to beat all Ponzis, the mother of all Ponzis (for now . . . ).  We seem equally, perhaps more, fascinated by people who lead others astray, who are led astray by their own demons, caught in the Bitch Goddess’s parade, success serving as another sort of proxy for leadership.  Can it be called leadership if it ends up bad?  Well, Don Vito led the Corleone family, did he not?  They made three movies about his family and a lot of money for many people.

[P.T. Barnum famously said call me anything you want but be sure you spell my name correctly . . . isn’t leadership different from publicity?  My uncle said ‘call me anything you want, but don’t call me late for dinner’—that was funny but we never called it leadership!

Our searching eyes want to ferret out what’s distinctive, to know which dog is leading the pack, who’s king of the hill, who’s packing the piece, which goose is taking the lead now, as we migrate from one topic to the next. We want to form an opinion about whether we’re being well led, whether this is getting us ahead, whether we’re better off now than we were four years ago, whether we could do it better, if it came to that.

And doesn’t it often come down to that, at least in our minds? Doesn’t it usually end up as a self-referential inquiry?  Isn’t the last comment made, implied or held in reserve, before the discussion ends about a situation where someone is leading, “Even I could have done better than that”?

So: we want to find someone leading . . . and we want to justify them in that role by asking could we ourselves have done it better . . .

If we smoke that one out of the cave, we might well ask the person stumbling out into the sunlight: could you?  What tasks could you do better than others?  What organization could you lead better than its current leader?  You’re just leading a quiet life,  reading the news, making these presumptions about being able to do it better than those brave enough to take the lead . . . so then isn’t it a fair frame of reference to ask how well you’ve led your life, as a prequalification to leading the lives of others?

‘Well . . . yessssss’ [the boss says] ‘. . . but all what’s this about leading the lives of others?  I thought this job was just about leading a company.   I mean let’s talk balance sheets, strategic plans, IRR, HR policies, customer relationship management, cloud computing.  There’s all this stuff we need an opinion about and a game plan for, and so forth.  And we need to be a good place to work for sure, but leading the lives of others? That’s an HR concern, isn’t it?  Work-life balance . . . ?’

Interesting, is it? How easily we can slip on the mask of command and start ruling things in and out of our attention that make us uncomfortable.

So bottom line, a leader has to set the destination, define a course and speed to get us there, and define reality for us, or we won’t follow, but there is this wavy line at the boundary between private life and company life . . . and employee voices are rising in a way that suggests leadership has an obligation (and therefore an opportunity) to do more.