interims management Succession issues

Succession issues are still on top of many organisations' agendas - and if it isn't, they will be. It is not easy to effect an even and successful handover and forward planning and careful consideration are very important.

The Football Association are going to be praying that Fabio Capello will prove far more successful as England manager than his predecessor Steve McLaren, whose bungled appointment in May 2006 was considered ill-advised from the beginning.

Knee-jerk succession is often a very bad thing, but creating a 'crown prince' standing in the wings for several years is not a hassle-free situation to control, as Prince Charles and Gordon Brown canno doubt testify.

But what will eventually the Virgin 'empire' once Richard Branson arises in her proverbial balloon is anyone's guess, mindful about is not a indication of a # 2 being ready to step up towards plate.

Most succession plans amount to crisis management. The culture of short termism by which bosses are booted out because of not delivering instant results is partly accountable. The standard tenure on the chief executive within the private sector is under four years, and falling, and people hired external to the organization go forward faster as opposed to runners who rise from the ranks.

Chief executive churn is unsettling, destabilising and demoralising that will result in a spiral of decline. Also, it is costly: the sheer numbers of headline-grabbing 'rewards for failure' is mounting. So it will be not surprising that shareholders are beginning to question companies more closely about their succession plans, which are increasingly being thought to be a part of good corporate governance.

There are several who ask why we necessary to hire an Italian to regulate the England football team. Others question the increasing amount of foreigners running British companies - for the last count 28 FTSE-100 companies had a non-UK national as leader. Evidently this may reflect the increasing globalization of business, it owes at least something to companies' neglect in their talent pipeline over the past 10 years.

Furthermore many companies not cover succession, skin scant thought of the talent they've and need inside organisation. Therefore they lean towards the 'easy' choice of drafting running a business 'saviours', and if these are foreign saviours, then all the better.

The problem using this type of approach is highlighted by Jim Collins in their book Good to Great, whereby over 90% on the 'great' companies he identifies are run by chief executives who spent their childhood years in the market. You'll find top notch advantages of this, claims Collins. "You need executives who may have ambitions for your company instead of themselves, and the ones people are typically insiders as an alternative to outsiders who is able to be 'bought'.

Additionally, you have to determine who ought to be in the market along with what seats before deciding where you should drive, along with the insider includes a jump there." Furthermore, this method features a pernicious influence on the morale of other senior executives, who believe should they need to get on plants go out.

Nigel Nicholson, professor of organisational behaviour at London Business School, conducted market research that found out that people who change companies every couple of years advance faster compared to those who remain loyal on their organisation. "There is actually a horrible tendency during this country not to value insiders," he said. "Individuals are rewarded for disloyalty, and folks end up watching the only method to progress into their organisation is always to wave a career offer under their boss's nose. Invariably it is when you are getting a market value for you that the worth is recognised internally."

But there are times, needless to say, each time a new broom is just what's necessary to sweep away old cultures or signal an alteration of direction. Chris Brewster, professor of international Human Resource management at Henley Management College possibly at the University of Reading Business School, concedes: "Most organisations need a leavening of new blood in the least levels inside hierarchy. You may have not enough executive turnover."

But he believes the lowest amount of risky method this can be to usher in outsiders at more junior executive levels and grow them within the organisation to find out if they cut the mustard, in lieu of just dumping an outsider straight to the highest job.

It's really a contention held by HR guru Dave Ulrich as part of his new book Leadership Brand (understand the Business Review, issue 19), where he asserts that leadership is not as easily transferable countless people would choose to believe. "What worked in one setting may not are employed in another," he indicates.

But together headhunter says: "You can't grow talent for each and every conceivable contingency. Nothing at all is wrong with securing an outsider provided you can prove that they're demonstrably superior to any internal candidates."

To that end, it's usually important to benchmark internal talent against what's to be found in the market industry, he continues. "Armed with objective evidence companies are then capable of justify any top appointment they generate - unique internal or external - to both internal and external audiences."

If press ads for heads of 'talent management' are almost anything to pass by, not less than some companies start for taking talent management seriously again. Growing quantities of firms are assessing their executive talent and utilizing coaching companies to help them develop it.

But smooth and planned succession of chief executives is an essential area of this talent management process, as well as hardest to obtain right.

While long tenure provides improvement over rapid turnover, celebrate leaving so much much harder. Recent corporate history is littered with samples of bosses who stayed on long, like the late Anita Roddick at Repair service interims management and Sir Richard Greenbury at Marks & Spencer. The solution is to face up to the temptation to see the firm as an extension of themselves and view their role instead as custodian with the corporate assets regarding the stakeholders.