Ten years ago, I was responsible for Executive Talent Management in the BC Public Service. Our long-term strategy required us to build a stronger pipeline of people who could step into senior executive roles as the Boomer generation of experienced executives retired.
We did some good work. We learned a great deal about succession planning along the way, including how tricky it can be to get thoughtful, accurate assessments of potential successors from busy executives. It takes time to consider what someone might be capable of in a role that would be different from the one they're currently performing. Assessing someone's potential and readiness requires thoughtful input from fair-minded executives who are actually familiar with a person’s work, and able to also consider what a person’s next role would require of them. That input was sometimes hard to find in a consistent way as most executives had no previous experience in how to do that kind of assessment, so we were training them at the same time. Internal politics also played a role, and sometimes individual assessments were, frankly, weak or biased. I wasn’t willing to let those stand, and speaking up to address those situations was difficult but important.
While I enjoyed taking on this challenge overall, I remember feeling frustrated that we had the will to identify promising leaders and understand our succession risks, yet the appetite for investing in those individuals seemed much more limited. People don’t learn executive skills in a workshop. I wanted us to go further, giving people the experiences and individual development that would genuinely prepare them for bigger roles.
I still think about that experience. Why are organizations often willing to invest in identifying future leaders, yet reluctant to make the same commitment to developing them? When I think about the cost of an external executive recruitment, plus the business costs of poor leadership or an extended vacancy, the simple math makes the case. By the time most companies realize that they’ve left themselves with too few good options, it’s too late to avoid those costs. I've seen versions of this challenge in my work with executives across different sectors: organizations identify talented people, perhaps even put their names on a succession chart, and then everyone gets busy with the demands of running the business. A year or two later, the chart gets dusted off and someone asks whether those people are ready yet. Hopefully, something useful has happened in the meantime, but it’s a roll of the dice.
I've been exploring this question recently in conversations with senior university leaders about preparing people for academic leadership. Consider someone moving into a dean's role after a successful academic career; they may be accomplished researchers and teachers, well respected by their colleagues, and enthusiastic about contributing to their institution. Yet there's a great deal about leading a faculty that they may never have experienced. Much of it’s learned on the job, sometimes under unforgiving circumstances.
The same can be said of a director moving into an executive position or a technical leader taking responsibility for larger portfolio in an energy company. I've coached people who've made these transitions and discovered that the job was quite different from what they'd imagined. Some of their biggest surprises involved things they hadn't even known to ask about before accepting the role. Certain habits and strengths (like attention and involvement in solving operational problems) that were useful in their previous roles often get in the way when shifting into executive mode.
I think this is where senior executives have a particularly important responsibility. HR can help identify talent and organize development programs, but the people who can provide the most valuable learning opportunities are the most seasoned leaders themselves. They can involve someone in a difficult decision, give them an assignment that takes them outside their usual responsibilities, or help them understand what's happening behind the scenes.
Of course, this requires time and attention. I know how easily the immediate pressures of running an organization can crowd out something that may not pay off for several years. It's difficult to make a convincing case for investing in a particular person's development when nobody knows exactly when, or even whether, a suitable position will become available. Still, I wonder whether we're sometimes too willing to congratulate ourselves for having completed the succession planning exercise. Just getting the names of possible successors onto the chart can feel like quite an accomplishment, especially when it’s taken months to get everyone around the table. But I’ve seen the difference it makes when an organization takes the further step of succession planning and provides coaching, mentoring and other targeted resources that help individuals truly develop their readiness to thrive in more senior positions.
As your organization begins looking ahead to next year, this is a good time to have a conversation about developing your next wave of leaders. Forward this link to someone who cares about leadership succession, and if this is a conversation your organization needs to have, I'd be delighted to help you think through what comes next.