TrendWatcher 496

"Succession planning" is not just a flawed term, it's based on a flawed business paradigm. In fact, thinking of succession in terms of just "planning" is among the top reasons most organizations perform poorly in this area.

Consider this: Improving Succession Plans: Harnessing the Power of Learning and Development, a major new study published by the American Society for Training and Development in partnership with i4cp (and free to members of both organizations), shows that a mere 14% of respondents describe their organizations' succession planning efforts as effective to a high or very high extent. In other words, most think their company's efforts are mediocre or worse.

So, why are so many study participants - there were 1,247 usable responses to the survey - so cynical about the effectiveness of their succession planning programs? The answer is simple: It's because organizations are coming at the issue from the wrong direction. They too often assume succession is a planning process rather than a crucial dynamic management task that must be integrated with the rest of the talent management system.

Yes, succession management should have a planning component. After all, the study shows it's a future-looking process in which the top two goals cited by respondents are to "identify and prepare" future leaders and to "assure business continuity." But many companies focus only on the identification part of the process rather than on the preparation part.

That's reflected in the metrics companies use or, rather, fail to use. When we asked what respondents' organizations are measuring, we found two things: 1) there's a striking and worrisome absence of solid metrics in regard to succession management, and 2) the metrics that are most commonly used are very basic indeed. Among those with succession planning programs, a meager 36% even track the positions filled by succession candidates to a high or very high extent and just 31% track the number of candidates in the pipeline to that same extent.

Yet, organizations are even less likely to use true performance indicators such as senior management ratings, business outcomes, and performance appraisal scores. And they seldom hold managers accountable for succession planning, either.

That's a bad sign, of course. In the famous words of management legend Peter Drucker, "What gets measured gets managed." This lack of good metrics is, in fact, one of the reasons why Jay Jamrog, i4cp's senior vice president of research, argues in favor of the term "succession management." That term implies an overarching endeavor that embraces not only the act of planning but the full scope of processes related to succession implementation, supervision, evaluation, development and performance.

There's no doubt that many business professionals think that development, in particular, should play a much stronger role in most of today's succession programs. The ASTD/i4cp study found enormous gaps between the degree to which respondents say their organizations use certain developmental tactics and the degree to which they should use them. For example, just 30% say their organizations, to a high or very high extent, provide regular performance/development feedback to succession candidates, but a full 92% say their organizations should do so.

Perhaps some managers think succession candidates don't need feedback, believing that they're already learning enough from the school of hard knocks. But the study suggests that many employers are also neglecting experiential development. Whereas just 30% of participants say their firms provide challenging or "stretch" assignments to succession candidates (to a high or very high extent), the vast majority (85%) say their firms should do so.

Of course, such gaps wouldn't mean much if they didn't influence the effectiveness of succession programs and overall market performance. But this study indicates that there are strong correlations indeed between effective succession programs and the use of various development options. What's more, we found a significant statistical relationship between some candidate development practices and higher market performance.

In short, it often pays to approach succession from a management and development approach rather than a planning approach.

There will be plenty of opportunities for organizations to change the succession paradigm in the near future. Around half of respondents to the study said their firms would modify their succession planning programs over the next two years, and only 18% said they wouldn't, with the rest saying they weren't sure.

i4cp's 4-Part Recommendation:

1. If you don't have a formal succession program, seriously consider developing and implementing one. Companies that have formal programs score much higher on the ASTD/i4cp Succession Planning Success Index than those that do not. One participant stated it succinctly: "We are losing talent, missing developmental opportunities, and losing knowledge because we don't have a formal succession plan in place."
2. Measure effectiveness and hold managers accountable. The measurement of logistical items such as the number of positions filled by candidates or number of candidates in the pipeline is necessary, but organizations also need to track metrics that are more performance-related. For example, they can examine the business outcomes of units led by succession candidates or the results of 360 degree assessments. In addition, they should hold leaders accountable for tracking and developing succession candidates.
3. Do more to develop succession candidates. This seems to be an obvious strategy but many organizations fail to effectively accomplish this. For more information on this, see i4cp's The Five Best Practices for Developing Succession Candidates.
4. Integrate and align. That is, align leadership competencies with the organization's overall objectives and business strategies. Too often, companies rely on generic leadership competencies, failing to consider which competencies are most critical to their own unique businesses. Once the right competencies are identified, integrate succession planning into your organization-wide talent management program. If it's a stand-alone program unconnected to development and other systems, then it's unlikely to have much of an organizational impact.

Comments