News last week that two ‘lions’ in our field – Patrick Johnston of The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation and Charles Pascal from Atkinson Foundation – are stepping down from their posts gave Sheherazade and me pause for thought.
First, of course, is what wonderful contributors both have been to our sector. Patrick’s national leadership is well known and pervasive, and his experience strengthened Gordon Foundation’s role in water sovereignty among other important issues Gordon addresses. Sheherazade and I are fortunate to have the Foundation as a client, so we know first-hand the reach and impact their work has had on behalf of all of us. We know that Patrick will bring the same thoughtful perspective to his next challenge of examining the role of CIDA.
What can be said about Charles? His work at Atkinson has been both broad and deep, and a whole generation of children in Canada will benefit from it. We agree with him that his next steps are bound to be interesting, and we expect to hear the drumbeats alerting us to wherever he goes.
Charles’ comment that he is ‘leaving the space for someone else’ is provocative. We all know that leadership turnover is important and healthy for individual organizations (as well as for individuals, for that matter) and for the sector as a whole, but it raises serious issues for organizations.
Most organizations know that, and that is why we are often asked about succession planning. But by that people often mean identifying and training someone(s) in the organization to succeed the CEO. Many people think it’s an essential part of human resources policy. But we almost always say the same thing: think more broadly. The issue of succession is not linear: in fact succession isn’t even the issue, but rather transition and risk management, and the management of these should be comprehensive and systemic. Developing a ‘succession plan’ that focuses on next in line is not only unfair to the person being groomed, because they often aren’t hired, but also misses the point. Leadership transition isn’t just about the leader: leaders don’t operate in a vacuum. Transition involves the whole organization, and its stakeholders, too. Transitions provide a great opportunity for an organization to rethink its assumptions and strategy – to take a new look at its place in the world. Both Gordon and Atkinson have the right idea, taking the time to think through their potential in light of current realities and future possibilities.
But getting back to the question of succession versus transition and risk management: why do we think this? There are two things at play in the transition from one leader to another. One is the strategic re-thinking process involving the board and usually stakeholders, and the other is the internal factors, the culture, systems and structures that mitigate (or exacerbate) any mission-critical fallout related to the transition. These risks include loss of knowledge and information, public confidence, continuity of programs and key relationships. These risks become more intense if the transition is sudden or unplanned.
The rethinking process may be a topic for a future blog. But here are some things that can build your organization’s internal capacity to manage a healthy leadership transition.
- A strong management team. The first line of defense is a strong management team that is aware of and involved in all key decisions and planning processes. A team that intimately knows the organization, can solve problems creatively and collectively, has the authority to make real decisions, and has a working relationship with the board can assume immediate responsibility in the event of a CEO falling under a bus or an extended period of recruitment. When I left the Trillium Foundation the management team assumed flawless control and executed a complex strategic plan that involved a four-fold increase in size. They were awesome, and they managed a seamless transition. There are endless resources for building executive teams, but a couple of things we think are particularly helpful include frequent collective decision-making, cross-training (executives able to handle each other’s jobs), blurry lines between functions/ lots of cross disciplinary cooperation, involvement with board committees and board meetings, meaningful involvement with key external stakeholders, and experience with the Acting role when the CEO is unavailable.
- A commitment to leadership development. The best thing about traditional succession planning is the concerted leadership training of those identified as potential leaders. Every organization needs leaders, but it should be broader and more institutionalized than a chosen few, and include a commitment to mentoring and coaching (see resource below) as well as experiential learning. For too many organizations staff development is something that gets tacked on to a performance review process. And really, it should be an integral part of strategic planning, based on the skills and knowledge that the organization will need to carry its vision forward.
- An informed board. There is a world of debate about where the line is between the roles of board and management. I agree that the CEO needs the authority to make management decisions, but in my experience when there is trust and respect between the CEO and the board, the line is permeable. The board knows what the issues are and understands how the organization works and can therefore provide meaningful input to the CEO and management staff – and the CEO welcomes it. In any event, with regard to transition and risk management, the board is responsible for ensuring that it really understands the organization through pertinent, accurate, timely information on a regular basis. We’ve all heard the horror stories, no need to belabour them. But if the current CEO isn’t involved in the transition process, you don’t want to be the board chair that hasn’t a clue what the organization is actually doing.
- An adaptive and nimble organizational culture: Probably the most relevant thing I learned at business school was that during times of organizational stress people will tend to do things the way they have always done them. So if you want an organization that is adaptive during a time of change, you have to make flexibility and adaptability the way they always do things. You can’t create a culture that embraces change during upheaval; it has to be there already. Early in my career I worked in a government department that went through major reorganization every year, and each year they would send the message that when this change was done that would be it. Of course it wasn’t, and so for the most part people ignored it, got terribly stressed, or left (sometimes all three). Then I went to Levi Strauss & Co. and they said, “Our business is about continual change. If you don’t like change, this isn’t the place for you.” Whew, what a relief. For staff at LS&Co, ‘normal’ was change. And it was very exciting.
- Good information systems coupled with no secrets. The thing you don’t want is for the CEO to be the repository of the corporate history and all things important. No one wants cumbersome and endless paper, and we all know the perils of information overload, but information on external involvements, strategic deliberations, analysis on environmental issues of critical importance have to be easily accessed, and not just when the CEO is gone. This point is related to a strong management team, but is a separate system as well with notes to file on critical phone calls or meetings, and debriefs with senior staff (and board if appropriate) and meaningful staff meetings. There shouldn’t be anything of substance that the CEO doesn’t share in a systematic way to a number of people.
- Good communications. And finally, a good communications strategy is essential. And not just during transition. Key internal and external stakeholders need to be identified and provided with the right information in the right time. Communication builds credibility and trust and when the organization goes through change, even if it’s a simple change in leadership (if there is such a thing), stakeholders will have confidence that the organization’s mission is being managed and that there will be no disruption of service. It is also helpful to have a crisis management plan. (I can’t tell you how many times that’s been handy. Maybe a topic for another day.)
So there you have our ten-cent’s worth on the question of succession management.
Oh, and Patrick, happy milestone birthday! Lots to celebrate going into this new decade.
Some good resources:
“Coaching, Mentoring and Succession Planning”. This is a useful guide to mentoring and coaching put out by the Cultural Human Resources Council here in Ontario.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation has an excellent series of monographs on executive transition for any foundation going through a change in leadership.
wqfi2zkmnp
0 Response to “Leadership change and risk management”