In addition to death and taxes, there is nothing more certain than the results of the many annual surveys that ask CEOs what keeps them up at night. Always on the list are the challenges of building bench strength to fill open spots in the C-suite and in other key positions within the organization. Insufficient talent is never more than fifth on the list. It’s usually third and sometimes even second.
Succession planning specifically, and talent management in general, uses a combination of tools and best practices and is a known science. If you want enough strength on the bench at the time you need it, with people who are more effective than the ones they are replacing, there are specific, science-based initiatives and a process to follow. Organizations that follow the principles of talent management and the best practice succession planning processes perform better than organizations that do not.
So, if this is a common concern for CEO’s, why isn’t it done properly and in more organizations?
Because the challenges of building bench strength create a lot of work, it must be done at the right time in the right way, requires resources during good and bad times, and has to be supported by top management throughout the arc of their tenures. Additionally, the organization must have a robust HR and talent management function. There must be talent management professionals capable of both earning trust and influencing the C-Suite decision makers and the board of directors.
We and others have documented and covered the best practices involved in both succession planning specifically and talent management in general. To work well, the HR and talent management staff have to know what the best practices are. The profession often heads down a dark path following bright, shiny objects and fads. Most of the time, they are trying to find simple solutions to complex people problems, pressured by top leaders.
In short, having sufficient strength on the bench to replace C-Suite positions and other key roles in the organization is a 20- to 30-year process. It starts with evaluating candidates during internships, followed by 20 to 30 years of careful preparation– advancing through key developmental jobs, exposures and experiences that build the skills required for as much of the future that can be predicted. While this is ideal, most organization are attempting to address building bench strength in a shorter time horizon.
So, if delivering the right best practices at the right time in the right way pretty much guarantees having sufficient strength on the bench, then what isn’t working?
Challenge #1: Knowledge Gaps
Professionals being fully aware of the science-based best practices in Talent Management. The HR and/or the Talent Management function does not know what the best practices are. It is, unfortunately, common when meeting with HR or talent management professionals in an organization, that they are collectively unaware of best practices and research on talent management and succession planning. They are not aware of the thought leaders in the field, and therefore, can be easily diverted into the fad of the month and the new four-colored model to describe leadership success.
Challenge #2: Leadership Buy-In
Organization leadership are unaware of best practices. The CEO over the 20- to 30-year developmental journey of the identified candidates, do not equally believe in or support the best practices. Some do and some don’t. Research over the years has shown that if the CEO and the rest of the C-Suite do not demonstrate active support for talent management and succession planning, the initiatives don’t succeed. If they are not engaged, the organization will not be engaged.
Many times consultants are called in to an engagement after the CEO complains that there’s insufficient strength on the bench for key positions. In the discussion with the current CEO, the consultant may hear that previous leaders had no interest in advanced talent planning. This is especially true during periods in which the then-CEO was absorbed with trying to save or turn the business around, or is working on a significant and material M&A initiative. This is when the development of potential candidates is likely to falter. If you skip the proper development of suspected top talent over a five- to seven-year tenure of a CEO (or two) who does not support talent and succession planning, that’s enough to result in an insufficient supply of strength on the bench later down the road, perhaps for years.
Challenge #3: Cultural Resistance
Cultural conflicts. Succession planning may be seen as an elitist activity. By definition, it posits that people are different and there are some people who are more capable than others, especially for taking on more complex and senior roles. The research is solid. Some people are, by definition, high potentials, and many more who are not. If high potentials are supported and provided the proper developmental opportunities, they will grow into the strength on the bench.
The research says that high potentials bring a combination of nature and nurture. Not to argue decimal places, it’s about a 50/50 formula. Some people are born with a set of characteristics, which when nurtured and supported, enable them to grow into legendary executives. They are born with the “right stuff” in the same way that athleticism in adulthood is a combination of both natural abilities and supportive development.
Some organizational cultures find it hard to accept that some people are destined, with best practice development, to be legendary senior managers and leaders, and that many others can’t predictably get to the same place. It has been roughly estimated that about 5% of four-year college graduates have the combination of the right stuff from birth plus a supportive and nurturing upbringing to be candidates for strength on the bench when developed intentionally.
Challenge #4: Attracting (and Keeping) Top Talent
Building an enterprise culture that attracts the best talent. It’s not a best company to work for. Although some organizations attempt to apply best practices, they are not perceived as attractive by true high potentials. High potentials are particularly sensitive to the quality of top management and the Board of Directors. They will not stay with organizations that lack good leadership, compelling strategies, and/or stimulating assignments during their developmental journey. While there are organizations that attract sufficient talent to strengthen the bench, their shortcomings mean that talent will exit well before a development journey can reap benefits for them, and the organizations bench strength.
Challenge #5: Remote Work Obscures Talent Visibility
Effectively knowing enterprise talent in a remote or hybrid work environment. A more recent challenge is the remote work trend. Some aspects of the 20-to-30-year developmental journey require substantial face-to-face interaction to learn from others. Also critical is the continuous evaluation and validation of developing candidates as to their knowledge, skills, attributes and probability of being successful executives down the road. Directly observing a potential candidate for a place on the bench, across a diverse set of activities and initiatives, is important in the evaluation process. Zoom is not enough. Three days a week is a bit of a stretch. This is a work trend for which the impact on effective talent and succession planning is not yet known.
Challenge #6: Leadership Turnover Disrupts Progress
CHRO and CEO turnover complicates the issue. To feel good about themselves, new CHROs and new CEO’s feel a strong need to change things to be in line with their styles, beliefs, and preferences. They bring in their favorite vendors, recommend their favorite books on the topic, and want to implement the programs they had in place at their prior places of employment. All of this can often be an unnecessary disturbance to any system. The best talent practices are the best talent practices. Even though there are variations to each practice depending upon the situation, the best practices are known, proven, and repeatable.
Following best practices works well, when used effectively, but unless the C-Suite garners strong support, challenges in building bench strength will persist.
The good news? There are tools and solutions available to address each of the challenges in building bench strength in today’s dynamic enterprise. Bench strength begins with appropriate behavior based hiring practices, using science-based development principles, and nurturing talent for the right place at the right time.
