Showing posts with label Succession Planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Succession Planning. Show all posts

March 3, 2014

Rejuvenate Like A Starfish


Good video on centralization vs. decentralization.

A spider is the model of a centralized organism or organization--cut of the head and the thing is dead. 

But a starfish is the epitome of one that is decentralized--if you cut off one of the arms (it doesn't have a head) of a Blue Linckia starfish, it just grows another one. And if you cut off all five arms, it grows five new starfish. 

So when it comes to organizations, do you want one like a spider, where all power, decision-making, and talent is concentrated at the top, and if you lose your senior executive(s), you've lost the innovation or operational effectiveness of the entire organization (think what happened when Apple lost Steve Jobs as an example)? 

Or do you want to be an organization that is more decentralized (less hierarchical) like the Starfish--where talent is widely dispersed and work is delegated to the many within. Here the organization's very survival is not threatened when something happens at the top or to somebody. 

In most cases, there is no perfect spider or starfish organization, but more of a hybrid model, where some functions (like HR, finance, communications) are centralized and others are decentralized (based on specific business expertise). 

To me the main point here is that an organization is made up of many individuals, and everyone in the organization is valuable; no one person can do everything and we should leverage each person according to their strengths and help them on their weaknesses. This gives each individual and the organization the best chance of rejuvenation and survival. ;-)
Share/Save/Bookmark

August 4, 2013

Will You Be Missed?

There's a question everyone always ask themselves--when they are gone from an organization will they be missed?

We all tell ourselves that we are irreplaceable--when we leave everything will fall apart, that "then they will be sorry," and maybe they will finally appreciate us.

But when calmer heads prevail, we sort of know the truth that we are all indeed replaceable--there are others just waiting in the wings to swoop in for a chance to do our job and perhaps better than we ourselves did it. 

But won't we be missed? They'll be a party, cards, well wishes, maybe even gifts, and people will say how much they will miss us, but then when we are gone--24, 48, 72 hours later--does anyone really care? 

If we left things in disarray and without a succession plan--we kept it all in our head waiting for the day to show them all--then there will be a period that may not be so pretty for the others taking on the responsibilities we are leaving behind.  

However, someone who would do that to the organization and their fellow employees, you may ask what good were they really anyway? 

For the most part, when people leave, I think there is a transition period for people to adjust to change--this is normal, and then after that people go on thinking about life afterwards.

- What new opportunities are there for them? In a crude way, some may even think that there is now one less person for them to have to climb over to advance. With someone leaving, one can say even that their power flows back and is dispersed to the others in the organization to "pick up the baton," influence and lead. 

- Some may realize that the problems the person brought to the organization (and everyone brings a mixed bag--both good and bad), have now left with them. Were they entrenched in the current ways of doing things and naysayers to any sort of change? Did they have an ego and a sense of entitlement after serving for years? Had they become stale and fallen behind the times in terms of best practices, new technologies, and so on?

- Others can look forward to new people and "fresh blood" coming in--reinvigorating the organization, bringing in new perspectives, fresh ideas, or as they say, "mix it up a little," shake the limbs, ask questions of the status quo--of course, you never really know about a new person, until the marriage equivalent of "you wake up with them in the morning"--you see how they actually perform on the job, in the culture, with the people. 

Sure, there are some special people that are practically irreplaceable, because they are such visionaries, innovators, and leaders of people--that they are truly one in ten million. Steve Jobs is one of those that come to mind. These are the exceptions, not the rule. 

For most people, we give to the organization and provide value--some people thrive for years or decades. It is individualistic and depends on many factors but especially the person to job fit and the person to organization fit. Factors that are in some ways quantifiable based on knowledge, skills, and abilities, but also depends on personality, culture, style, adaptability, motives, and many more things. 

When a person is a good or great fit--there is almost nothing better for them and the organization then a long and productive marriage of the two!

But when the fit is bad--then it is bad for the person and the organization--there can be poor productivity, negative interrelationships, and bitter feelings. 

Depending on the situation and fit...Often we wished people stayed longer and could keep giving their gift. Sometimes people know when the tea leaves are telling them to move on and the fit is no longer right. And still other times, some people overstay their visit and thereby do more harm then good. 

How will people see you when it your time to leave? You want to be missed for all the right reasons. ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Bernt Rostad)
Share/Save/Bookmark

June 21, 2013

Are They Anything Without Him?


Sometimes, one person can be so instrumental to the success of an organization that they really are, for all intensive purposes, irreplaceable.

Leadership classes and anecdotes about great leaders tell us that one of leaders primary duties is a good succession plan. 

But what happens, when a visionary place like Apple, loses their very special talent--someone that is truly their "secret sauce"--someone like a Steve Jobs--who you can't just replicate or replace (easily or maybe at all)?

While Apple still makes great products, the jury is still out on whether they can truly innovate without Job's vision, exacting attention to detail, and bigger than life persona. 

Hence, the question, are they anything without him?

Perhaps, Apple can find the next Steve Jobs--who will bring new energy and talents and keep them a great organization--or perhaps not.

This new movie about Jobs--played by Ashton Kutcher will remind us of the magic that a truly special leader can bring to an organization. 

If only there was a pill to swallow to make talented leaders--now that would be a job for Jobs. ;-)
Share/Save/Bookmark

May 9, 2010

Who Are Your High Potential Employees?

It is easy to confuse high performing employees with high potential employees (HIPOs), but they are not the same.

An article in Harvard Business Review called “How to Keep Your Top Talent” (May 2010) states that “only about 30% of today’s high performers are, in fact, high potentials. The remaining 70% may have what it takes to win now, but lack some critical component for future success.”

According to HBR, the litmus tests for discerning which high performers are also your high potential employees, are as follows:

1) Ability—High performers need to have the ability to not only do what they are doing now, but to take it to the next level to be high potentials.

2) Engagement—High performers must have “commitment to the organization to be prudent bets for long-term success.”

3) Aspiration—High performers who aspire to more senior-level roles and “choose to make the sacrifices required to attain and perform those high-level jobs” are aligned for future success.

These three traits together help to pinpoint the genuine HIPOs—those who have the ability, the engagement, and the aspiration for probable future success.

Of course, having these traits does not guarantee success, since leadership development is tested “under conditions of real stress.”

Many organizations test their HIPOs by identifying risky and challenging positions—developmental opportunities—and putting their rising starts in these positions to see who can meet the challenge.

These stretch positions are what I would call “the moment of truth” when people either sink or swim.

In some extremely competitive organizations, employee failure (contained of course in terms of organizational damage) is just as much valued as their success—because it weeds out the true stars from the runner-ups.

This can be taken to an extreme, where even strong performers are managed out of the organization simply because they didn’t win the next round.

However, rather than weeding people out and treating employees as gladiators—where one wins and another loses—organizations are better served by helping all their employees succeed—each according to their potential.

So instead of an “up or out” mentality, the organization can value each high performing employee for what they bring to the table.

Too often we only value the highest achievers among us and we forget that everyone has an important role to play.

While organizations need to differentiate their high potential employees—those who can really do more—to meet succession-planning goals—organizations will also benefit by nurturing the potential of all their high performing employees and taking them as far as they can go too.


Share/Save/Bookmark

October 7, 2007

Succession Planning and Enterprise Architecture

“Succession Planning—is the process of identifying and preparing suitable employees to replace key players within an organization. From the risk management aspect, provisions are made in case no suitable internal candidates are available to replace the loss of any key person…a careful and considered plan of action ensures the least possible disruption to the person’s responsibilities and therefore the organization’s effectiveness. A succession plan clearly sets out the factors to be taken into account and the process to be followed in relation to retaining or replacing the person.” (Adapted from Wikipedia)

How difficult can succession planning be?

The Wall Street Journal, 8-9 September, 2007, describes how difficult succession planning can be and especially for an organization such as Cirque du Soleil (where 21 performers are former Olympians and the majority has backgrounds in acrobatics or traditional circus arts): “Working with such singular talent forces Cirque to walk a tightrope. The artistic side is always looking for new acts. The business side wants to make sure they aren’t irreplaceable.”

How far will some organizations go to manage their succession planning?

Scouts [from Cirque]…travel the world, scour the internet, and vet thousands of unsolicited applications to fill 500 new roles. In their quest, they have created a database of 20,000 potential performers. Among them: 24 giants (including a Ukrainian who is 8 foot 2), 23 whistlers, 466 contortionists, 14 pickpockets, 35 skateboarders, 1,278 clowns, 8 dislocation artists, and 73 people classified simply as small.”

In User-centric EA, succession planning, although not normally part of an EA program, should be considered for future addition. Particularly, with the addition of a human capital perspective to EA, the development and maintenance of succession plans would be an excellent fit!


Share/Save/Bookmark