Should You Tell A Star They're A Part of Your Succession Plan?

Loaded question.  Yes or No, depending on the person...

Succession planning, despite the recent emergence of contrarian views, is still a good exercise to go through.  Once you've done the analysis, completed the profiles and have your charts ready to go, the critical question remains whether you 1) tell a person he/she is part of a succession plan, and 2) what their status is (ready now, ready within two years, capable of ascending two levels, etc.), and 3) what positions you potentially have them slotted towards.

You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.  Keep it secret, and you risk losing the benefits of the mentoring that can occur as part of being included in a mentoring program, not to mention the retention factor that can present itself by ensuring an individual knows you think highly of them and have plans for them.

Of course, telling a person they're a part of the plan and what that means can work against you over time.  Take a look at companies like GE for proof, where talented executives leading billion-dollar operations left the mothership when they found out 3-4 years in advance that they were out of the "replace Jack Welch" sweepstakes.   Additionally, see the Brett Favre saga for the havoc an incumbent can have on an organization when pre-agreed on retirement timelines fall to the wayside.

With that in mind, I'm an advocate of the following communications plan with succession plans:

1. Tell them they are a part of a special group.  A pack of people you believe will emerge as leaders in the company.

2. Develop a customized development plan for them.  Tell them what knowledge, skills and abilities you are trying to grow within them, and tell them what types of broad job responsibilities you can see them moving into over time.

3. Never tell them they are "next up" for any job, or tell them they are slotted for any job.  Too much can change.  The CEO can go on an outside drive for talent.  You may need them where they are when a promotional opportunity comes up.  The incumbent may stay in the targeted slot until he/she is on their second set of dentures.   Bad stuff.

4. Never give them timeframes or capability assessments like "two level potential".  See the notes on #3 for why.  Start providing timeframes or target jobs, and you create timing expectations that may turn into retention issues.

So, tell them you love them, but say you love them generally (not for a specific position) and forever (meaning they shouldn't expect the big diamond ring at any point in the next two years).

And don't forget to take them out to lunch.  Let them order off the menu, no buffet. 

Unless you're in Vegas...

Comments

[Dan]

Kris-I would agree with you, except for organizations that don't communicate well to begin with. I am currently in a developmental position and the rumors of where I was heading got so bad I had to go to my mentor and ask some pretty pointed questions. I didn't do it to be a pain, but with multiple locations across many states and unclear expectations as to what they wanted from me, sometimes some specific conversations are worthwhile. My company is a great company struggling with trying to inject young talent into an older more mature industry and sometimes I think it surprises them that I know what I want.

[Thomas]

I agree that companies need to communicate with the stars, but most organizations fear having these conversations. I was with an organization that became so dysfunctional that there were no succession plans and every role was a beauty contest. I would argue that this process created more angst and, eventually, animosity than the fear of telling people that they were 'special'.

I have found that when people know they are special, they try harder at improving themselves and thereby improving the organization.

How often do you find organizations performing succession planning as a one-time project(subject to change annually) versus part of the DNA of the organization?

[Meg Bear]

I agree with you KD (not surprising) -- even though you have a screenshot that is not one of ours... someday....but I digress ;-).

Here are my thoughts on this http://talentedapps.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/should-you-tell-them/

[Sean Conrad]

Kris - I think there’s a lot of solid advice here, particularly #3 – employees should be told they are part of a ‘talent pool’ – and not that they are being groomed for to fill a particular spot on an org chart. Being selected for a talent pool signals to the employee that the company values them and they are being developed for greater things. Too often, organizations think of succession planning as org chart replacement planning, where they merely need to fill in vacancies. Too often this fails. Ultimately, organizations need succession plans that enable them to adjust to changing business realities. A talent pool based model enables organizations to identify talent needs and align their workforce around it. They can slot top performers into talent pools and help them develop their skills further to align with their needs. Employees can even be part of multiple pools. You can have various levels of leadership pools – and technical pools, a pool just for the CEO position if you want. This approach includes more people and helps companies avoid many of the issues you’ve outlined - it lets your stars grow and does so while maintaining your ability to retain top talent.

[dan mccarthy]

Kris –
I’ve been playing this game for a while now, and have danced at both ends of the “telling” continuum. I agree 100% with your approach and Sean’s supporting comments.
So now that we’ve figured it out, my challenge now is not being able to control what comes out of our manager’s mouths (“you told them WHAT!?”)

[KD]

Dan, Dan M and Thomas - good points about communication in an organization. Wouldn't it be great if everyone could handle it? But they can't, which is why it's easier to tell them nothing. Or to have HR handle the communication, which is totally the opposite of what should happen.

Sean - like the thoughts. The hardest thing to get orgs to adjust to is the concept of Talent overall, not talent carved to one hole in the org chart...

Meg - love the post - keep the links coming...

Thanks to all - KD

[Christine Peek-Gould]

The principle I have applied for many years in talent management and succession planning is based on the adage “actions speak louder than words”. Succession planning strategy is an extremely ‘loaded’ and a potentially destructive vehicle if it is handled incorrectly. A conclusion that in many cases results not entirely through the skill of the communicator, but interpretation or ‘spin’ placed on the message by the recipient. To test this principle, simply reflect on occasions where clearly given instructions or objectives have been misinterpreted.

My recommendation is when defining your talent and succession grid that you consider what primary development skills/objectives are required on an individual basis and then enabling opportunities to challenge, measure and develop these very attributes. This could be work, project or research based opportunities but most importantly they are structured not overtly as part of a ‘succession plan’ but as part of a continual development programme evolving from your general review process. In doing this it is essential that you ensure that progress/refinement is recorded within your talent management and succession planning grid/programme to ensure that this remains a living tool.

Equally mentoring can be captured by applying to those whose performance reviews achieve a certain level e.g.: consistently exceeding performance levels, as this will then become the measure for others to attain.

In this way you apply a culture of continual, structured and graded resource development and knowledge transfer that will fuel your talent management and succession planning objectives but without the potential de-motivational risks associated with overt succession planning.

I do hope these thoughts help