Posts belonging to Category succession planning



Paying CEOs to Find Their Replacements

successorWant to pave the way for the organization’s next leader and light a fire under your current chief executive in the process? Rewarding your CEO for helping to find and groom a successor may be one way to go.

A recent Wall Street Journal article calls this practice the “hottest corporate fad,” citing firms including Avnet Inc., Intel Corp. and Marriott International Inc. as examples of large companies offering incentives to chief executives for their efforts in ensuring a smooth transition when they eventually turn over the organization’s reins.

Motivated at least in part by “investors’ anxiety over rocky corner office transitions,” these and other companies have taken to linking CEO performance awards to succession planning, with 16 Fortune 1000 firms disclosing such links in their latest regulatory filings, the article notes.

At the Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel, for instance, now-former CEO Paul Otellini has received $4 million in stock and cash since January 2013 for his part in bringing along Brian Krzanich, who took over Otellini’s old post in May of last year, according to the Journal. Otellini, who has already gotten $1 million in cash, can sell half of his $3 million worth of shares this May.

Other organizations are taking a slightly different tack. Phoenix-headquartered electronic component distributor Avnet is basing chief executive Richard Hamada’s next annual raise partly on his succession planning prowess. Promoted to CEO in July 2011, the 56-year-old Hamada told the Journal he “hopes to run Avnet for a total of eight to 10 years,” but noted that he now gives detailed succession updates at every board meeting.

Board members at Marriott International believe that “continuity of management is critical,” David Rodriguez, the Bethesda, Md.-based hotel chain’s CHRO, told WSJ.  As such, CEO Arne Sorenson’s ability to secure the board’s approval of his CEO transition agenda factored into the amount of his bonus in 2012, according to Rodriguez. He estimated that roughly 10 percent of the nearly $1.95 million bonus bestowed upon Sorenson reflected such individual achievements.

The Journal article may describe the practice as a fad, but, as directors become more involved in grooming future leaders, this type of reward system “will be commonplace in a decade,” Dennis Carey, vice chairman at Los Angeles-based Korn/Ferry International, told the paper.

In fact, the number of companies taking this approach is poised to triple in the next five years, according to Patrick McGurn, special counsel for proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services Inc.

Time will tell if that prediction is on the money, but McGurn makes a compelling—not to mention concise—argument for tying a CEO’s pay to his or her role in succession planning efforts.

“Nothing tends to focus CEOs’ attention,” he told the Journal, “like … good, swift kicks to their incentives.”

An Eye to the Future

As I’m sure many of you are aware, HRE has published a fair share of stories on the need for HR leaders to pay closer attention to their own talent pipeline.

159252853In light of this, I’d like to once again call your attention to an initiative introduced by the National Academy of Human Resources a number of years ago aimed at raising future leaders in the profession: The NAHR Ram Charan HR Essay competition, which is now open to undergraduate and graduate students majoring in HR, industrial/labor relations or related fields.  In addition to the priceless prestige that goes with being selected a winner, award recipients also receive handsome cash prizes of $20,000, $10,000 and $5,000. The deadline for submissions is Aug. 1.

This year’s topic ….

Performance Management – A Very Real Issue for Employers and Employees.  Students are asked to identify a new way to measure and improve employee performance that is efficient, effective, and will be embraced by employees because they view it as a fair system that is helpful to them in their career.  The new process must be measurable for effectiveness, contributions to the success of the organization, and reassure management that the right people are being rewarded.”

If you know of anyone who might be interested in participating in this competition, please pass on the above link.

And if you’d like to get a sense of some of the original research and thinking that resulted from last year’s competition, check out the first, second and third place winning entries, submitted by Tiffany Scheff and Josie Trine of Cornell University’s ILR School; Joseph Redlitz of Rutgers University, and Indranil Dey of the Asian Institute of Management in the Philippines, respectively. Their topic: “How are electronic technology and social media affecting the employment relationship between employers and employees; and the roles, responsibilities and contributions of HR organizations?”

I suspect those of you who do will walk away feeling a bit better about the profession’s future.

Concerns about CEO and C-Suite Succession

We’ve written ad nauseam, it seems, on the dire importance of fixing the business community’s subpar succession-planning systems, especially CEO and C-Suite succession.

178125175 -- CEO successionJust Thursday, Editor Dave Shadovitz filed this report from the i4cp conference in Scottsdale, Ariz., on some valuable lessons learned about succession at Xerox, including the key role HR had — and has — to play. And just a few months ago, our January/February cover story, “Building a Better Pipeline,” suggested business leaders are truly starting to get the importance of planning ahead for top vacancies and are paying closer attention to the problem.

Unfortunately, at least according to two releases that came across my desk earlier this month, ”starting” to get it appears to be happening with a great big capital “S.”

This March 6 report from Stanford Graduate School of Business faculty member and researcher David Larcker finds only 46 percent of executives and directors at 20 companies polled have a formal process for developing successor candidates for key executive positions.

“The corporate leaders we interviewed all believe that succession planning is vitally important, but the majority do not think that their organizations are doing enough to prepare for eventual changes in leadership,” says Larcker, “nor are they confident that they have the right practices in place to be sure of identifying the best leaders for tomorrow.”

Then there’s this bad news released a day before from IIC Partners. According to its survey of 1,270 business leaders from around the world, 80 percent of senior executives say their company would need up to a year to replace them if they left. And this despite the fact that almost six in 10 say their company has a succession plan in place!

As Paul Dinte, chairman of IIC Partners, puts it: “It is one thing to have a written succession plan, but quite another to be prepared for the departure of a C-level executive.”

No matter the location or the industry, he says, “there remains a gap in succession planning by many organizations, [an oversight that] will likely be worsened with the continued exodus of baby boomers from the workplace.”

If there’s any good news from the latest research, perhaps it’s in this report from Challenger, Gray & Christmas indicating that CEO turnover appears to be falling. The story in the above link, which appeared in the Central Valley Business Times, says turnover among U.S.-based CEOs declined 14.5 percent in February, as 112 CEOs left their positions during the month as opposed to 131 CEO departures in January.

While the numbers aren’t earth-shattering, at least there appears to be fewer top posts opening up to provide nightmares to those employers, and their HR leaders, with inadequate succession systems in place.

Lessons from Xerox’s Succession Experience

When Ursula Burns took the reins at Xerox Corp. in 2009, succeeding then CEO Anne Mulcahy, she became the first woman in Fortune 500 history to succeed another woman as CEO. She also became the first black women to lead a Fortune 500 company.

478242399Former Xerox CHRO Pat Nazemetz shared the first informational tidbit during her compact 20-minute presentation on Xerox’ CEO-succession story during day two of the 2014 i4cp Conference in Scottsdale.

Of course, neither of these two points about the Mulcahy-Burns succession story is terribly surprising. The CEO position continues to be male-dominated at Fortune 500 companies. Hopefully, that will change someday; but for now, I suppose I’ll just tuck these two facts away in case I ever become a contestant on Jeopardy. (Don’t hold your breath.)

Nazemetz left Xerox in 2011 and went on to launch her own consulting firm – NAZ DEC LLC. Her LinkedIn profile notes that she held the top HR role at Xerox through four CEOs.

As far as Nazemetz is concerned, succession should be HR’s “core competency.” At the end of the day, she said, “it’s what HR needs to be good at.”

Nazemetz, who described the Mulcahy-Burns succession as the capstone of her HR career, went on to detail a few of the lessons she learned along the way, including:

  • Don’t leave talent to chance. “We were very lucky at Xerox. We had two women leaders who didn’t leak out of our pipeline,” she said, adding that she realizes it’s not likely to happen ever again.
  •  Make time your ally and not your adversary. CEO succession should always be in play and the best boards are always thinking about it, she said. (Nazemetz noted that HR needs to be the choreographer of the process and transition, making sure that all of the pieces come together.
  • Ensuring an effective transition takes every skill and capability HR leaders have available to them. “You need to be a trusted adviser,” she said. “You need to be a translator, communicator and mirror.” By mirror, she means HR needs to be able to hold up the mirror to both the CEO who’s leaving and the incoming CEO and let them know how the transition is impacting the organization.

Nazemetz told the audience that Xerox learned some tough and memorable lessons when it brought in an outsider to lead the organization. Recognizing its error, she said, the board eventually promoted Mulcahy, who led a dramatic transformation at the company. (Xerox, Nazemetz said, was flirting with bankruptcy at the time.)

As a result of her experiences with succession, Nazemetz said she embraced the goal of having three successors for every key position at Xerox.

Nazemetz’ talk was preceded by another 20-minute presentation on accelerated development at Shell Oil Co.

Delivered by Michael Killingsworth, vice president of learning and organizational effectiveness for Shell’s Upstream Americas business, the talk touched on a yet-to-be-publicized (yes, you’re hearing it here first) facility slated to go live in September that’s aimed at speeding the training and development of offshore workers.

According to Killingsworth, it’s a first-of-its-kind facility in the oil industry. Plans, he said, are to officially publicize the new center later this year.

Currently, Killingsworth said, it takes two years to prepare workers so they can do their jobs on these offshore platforms. But once Shell’s new facility opens at the Robert Training and Conference Center one hour north of New Orleans, the time it takes to ready these workers will be trimmed to just six months.

The initiative is known as BOOST (Basic Operations Offshore Skills Training) and will enable Shell to train workers on how to do their jobs at these offshore facilities without leaving land.

In effect, Killingsworth said, Shell will be using simulators to create an offshore platform onshore. (Sounds similar to the way astronauts are trained, right?)

“Once they’ve finished their six months,” he said, “[trainees will] have everything they need to receive certification, and all of the qualifications they’ll need to go out on the platform and begin to work.”

Trainees in the program will rotate between two weeks on the simulated platform and two weeks off.  During the last month of the training, they will go through simulated incidents that they will have to react to.

Killingsworth didn’t share what the facility will cost Shell, but I have to think the global oil giant has performed a cost-reward analysis on the initiative and concluded the time-savings make it well worth the expense.

NAHR’s 2013 Essay Contest

HR’s always talking about the importance of having a robust talent pipeline. But what about its own pipeline? Is the profession doing enough to develop the next generation of HR leader?

To that end, the National Academy of Human Resources launched its Ram Charan HR Essay Contest in 2011, aimed at recognizing thought leadership among university undergraduate and graduate students in the fields of HR, industrial/labor relations and related fields.

medallionThe contest is made possible through a generous donation by NAHR Distinguished Fellow Ram Charan to the NAHR Foundation.

For the 2013 contest—which has an Aug. 1, 2013 deadline—the students are being asked to address the topic of electronic technology and social media, and how these are affecting the employment relationship (from hiring to engagement to retention) between employers and employees; as well as the roles, responsibilities and contributions of HR organizations. Clearly a timely and relevant topic.

Prizes of $20,000, $10,000 and $5,000 will be awarded, with the winners being officially announced at the Nov. 7 NAHR Annual Dinner. (Essays will be evaluated and judged by a panel of HR professionals who are Fellow of the NAHR.)

Kudos to Charan, a respected author, speaker and business consultant, and the NAHR for providing students with this worthwhile opportunity. Details can be found on the NAHR site.

On Cancer Survival and Hiring Best Practices

Not one to peddle books on this site, but one caught my eye today that ties in enough with issues we’re currently grappling with that I thought I’d share.

Jim Roddy, president of Jameson Publishing in Erie, Pa., just wrote this book, Hire Like You Just Beat Cancer, to drive home his newfound perspective on just how crucial it is to hire the right people — gained through his own bout with colon cancer at age 32.

I was especially taken by this excerpt from the book:

Too often, we hire people whose full potential and ambition are invested in performing the jobs they’re hired for. Then, when we need more from them, they’re not able or willing to go the extra mile. Your goal should be to have at all times (or be working toward) at least one employee with the skills, personality, character, mapping, ambition, and technical competence to take over your position right away.”

So happens we’re currently putting the finishing touches on a Sept. 16 Human Resource Executive® cover story that reveals just how much work is still needed by chief human resource officers to find and develop their own replacements. One survey the writer cites shows a pretty dismal number of CHROs who were developed and hired from within their organizations last year — a pretty clear indication of how few top HR executives are actually selecting and preparing their top subordinates to take over their jobs — tomorrow, if need be.

Roddy’s book contains many of his lessons learned, as spelled out in this release: guiding principles for hiring, interview best practices (such as behavior-focused techniques), recruiting strategies for finding great performers, even emotional outcomes the interview process should achieve: “candidates feel the company is professional, their quesions are answered, candidates were happy to interview, candidates are told of the job’s difficulties,” the list goes on.

As Roddy writes in the book: “The lessons I learned when cancer knocked me down helped build me up as a hiring manager, and I apply those lessons aggressively every time I interview a potential employee.”

Whether you order a copy of his book or not, perhaps it could serve as a suggestion/reminder that your own succession plan and hiring practices might merit a second look, through the more focused and urgent lens of suddenly not being able to report to work tomorrow.

Bamboo Ceiling Shows Few Cracks in U.S. Boardrooms

This isn’t the first time I’ve come across information about the need for more Asian-Americans in top leadership posts in corporate America. But these numbers I found surprising enough to share.

In two separate reports, Los Angeles-based Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics Inc. has unveiled pretty telling evidence that, no matter how well-trained and well-educated they are, Asian-Americans are still woefully missing from America’s boardrooms.

In this study, LEAP finds 116 Asian and Pacific Islanders held 135 board seats at Fortune 500 companies in 2011, representing 2.4 percent of the total number of board seats at those companies. Worse still, a staggering 77.8 percent of those companies have no API representation on their boards.

In another study, the organization finds 75 APIs holding 78 board seats at the top 100 nonprofits in this country last year, representing 2.55 percent of the total 3,061 board seats in those nonprofits.

Contrast that with the fact that these API Americans constituted 6 percent of the U.S. total population in 2010, according to a report by the Selig Center for Economic Growth that incorporated U.S. Census figures, and its buying power was expected to grow 42 percent from $544 billion in 2010 to $775 billion in 2015.

Somethin ain’t right. This definition of bamboo ceiling from Wikipedia reveals another nuance of what certainly looks and feels like bias to me:

Bamboo ceiling – The exclusion of Asian-descendants from executive and managerial roles on the basis of subjective factors such as “lack of leadership potential” or “inferior communication ability” whereas the East Asian-descendants candidate has superior objective credentials such as education in high-prestige universities (in comparison to their white counterparts with only lower-prestige university credentials).For example, research shows that there are a decent number of partners at leading prestigious law firms in the United States who did not attend top notch law schools. However, an East Asian American partner of a leading law firm who did not attend a “Top 16 Law School” (according to the U.S. News ranking) would be seldom found.

LEAP CEO Linda Akutagawa took a good part of an hour today to talk with me about the problems of perception and cultural differences that both Asian and western employers and employees need to work on. In other words, just because Asian values include speaking only when you have something important to say, and showing respect for colleagues and – most especially – your boss by keeping quiet when they’re speaking doesn’t mean Asian-Americans don’t have leadership skills.

“Companies, and their HR executives, should really be looking at what leadership really is in their companies,” she says. “Does it mean aggressive, networker, fast on your feet, good communicator? Or does it allow for someone who does not exhibit those behaviors?”

And Asian-American workers, she says, need to better understand how their values and cultural behaviors are impacting their career-development paths. That’s something her group can help with, along with helping HR leaders design and execute better Asian and western outreach and education efforts.

“There are so many things HR executives can do to better these numbers,” Akutagawa says. And they should, when you consider the skills and talents companies are missing out on in top-leadership and board positions. ”A lot of corporations have nonprofit partnerships; HR executives could be getting more active and vocal about trying to place talented and interested Asian-Americans on their boards so they can be getting that kind of corporate-leadership experience.”

The most important focus for HR leaders, though, should be on building up their talent pipelines to include more Asian-Americans, she says. “My hope is for HR to think long-term about this,” she adds, so API top talent is able to move beyond mid-management — where most of these employees’ career ladders end — so they’re better represented in the top-management succession chain and top-of-mind instead of disregarded when board positions open up.

The good news, small though it may be, is that the Fortune 500 board-representation numbers from 2011 are at least better than 2010, when 96 APIs held 115 board seats, representing only 2.1 percent of the total 5,520 board seats at those companies. Long way to go though.

Giving Some Clarity to Succession

In his annual letter to shareholders, issued on Saturday, the legendary Warren Buffett confirmed that Berkshire Hathaway has a CEO successor in place as well as two back-ups. But he still left investors guessing the identities of those individuals.

No doubt Berkshire shareholders should be able to take some comfort in knowing that a successor has been identified. Yet I’m sure they’d sleep even better were they to know their names.

But then there would be nothing left to speculate about.

Earlier today, Buffett told CNBC that the letter’s mention of a plan wasn’t really a change—that the board has always had a preferred candidate and two backups. That, however, may not have been entirely clear to many shareholders, at least until Saturday.

I’m sure it was no accident Buffett inserted the mention near the very the beginning of his 22-page letter. The Berkshire chairman obviously didn’t want shareholders to miss the point. Though reportedly in good health, he is 81, after all.

Considering the importance of CEO succession, it never fails to amaze me how few companies actually have plans in place.  Buffett notes in this year’s letter that one of the principal roles of the board of directors is to ensure “the right people are running the business” and “that the next generation of leaders is identified and ready to take over tomorrow.” So why do we continue to read studies, like one released by Korn/Ferry, that report just 35 percent of companies have CEO succession plans in place?

Whether you personally consider it news or not, maybe Buffett’s reference—and some of the press reports it generated—will, at the very least, lead a few more boards to put it a bit higher on their agendas.

Here’s to the Winners

Say what you want about 2011, but I don’t think many of us started the year figuring it would be as much of a roller-coaster ride as it was. I personally expected a somewhat smoother journey. Just wishful thinking, I suppose.

Like most years, 2011 had its share of winners and losers. Below, I list a few of my 2011 winners. (My next post will identify some of the losers.)

Drum roll  …

Wal-Mart, following a High Court decision to reverse an earlier controversial ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Dukes v. Wal-Mart could proceed as a class-action lawsuit against the retailer.

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Leo Apotheker, who left HP with more than $25 million in severance after just 11 months on the job.

Boeing, following a National Labor Relations Board decision to drop its controversial charge against the aircraft maker for its plans to build a factory in South Carolina.

Vendors of cloud-based HR applications, some of which became takeover targets for software giants such as SAP and Salesforce.com.

San Jose, which was ranked No. 1 on CareerBliss’ top 10 “happiest cities to work” list this year.

Apple Computer—for successfully demonstrated the merits of good succession planning leading up to the passing of founder Steve Jobs.

and finally …

Inflatable rats, which, thanks to another NLRB ruling, could now be visibly displayed in front of picketed facilities.

A Lesson in Succession

When it comes to product development and marketing, Apple can do little wrong. iPod. iPhone. iPad. Well, I suppose the same could now be said of Apple’s handling of Steve Jobs’ somewhat sudden, though not entirely unexpected, announcement yesterday that he was stepping step down as CEO of the company because of his ongoing health issues. (He will continue there as chairman, however.)

CEOs step down all the time. But in the case of Jobs, who’s been such an instrumental force behind Apple’s success, his announcement yesterday became front-page news.

Previously, Apple had come under fire for not having a viable CEO succession plan in place. (Shareholder groups recently had pressured Apple to reveal its succession plan annually.) But Jobs’  recommendation to the board, in his letter of resignation to them, that it follow through on Apple’s succession plan and appoint COO Tim Cook to the CEO post, and the board’s immediate decision to name him Jobs’ successor, confirmed to the world that was hardly the case. 

I asked communications expert Merrie Spaeth earlier today what she thought of Apple’s handling of Jobs’ resignation. “Brilliant! I’d give them very high marks,” she told me, noting that the added visibility given to Cook lately helped to soften the blow for Wall Street, as well as Apple employees and enthusiasts.

She felt Cook’s subsequent letter to employees one day later (leaked to the press) was especially well crafted.

Shareholders and others certainly have good reason to worry when someone as important to a company as Steve Jobs falls ill. But as yesterday’s news demonstrated (and made undeniably clear), Apple’s board, despite criticism to the contrary, was more than ready for that day.

Wall Street seems to agree, with Apple’s stock ending the day better than the major indexes.