Succession Planning – It’s The Process That Matters
Pilat’s Succession PulseTM is part of the acclaimed HR Pulse® family of web based products, and offers an extensive and configurable range of options to suit even the most demanding of clients. As many organizations have discovered, it is the process that matters - much more than the software.
This multi-national client wished to enhance its process for Succession Planning. Pilat was asked to assist with process design, implementation and software. When asked, “Can you meet our demanding timelines [we want it up and running within 30 days]?” we responded with, “Yes, but you can’t”. The potential client was surprised by the response, but we explained that the preliminary discussions had revealed that they had not fully thought through their process and would, therefore, find it difficult to agree on the system. We were right. 30 days later we were close to agreeing what it should do and were able to start work!
Most organizations underestimate the amount of flexibility, lack of consistency, extent of undermining and avoidance, and lack of rigor that exists in their manual processes. Even if they have spent much time on designing a new process, the participants have probably approached the design with a similar mindset, assuming that many of the old loopholes will be there, even if in another form.
Process issues they had to address included:
- Who can nominate a person for a future position?
Their initial answer was “The person’s manager”. With relatively small spans of control, most managers knew very little about roles outside their areas and thus would have found this very difficult.
Their second answer was “The owner of the future role”. Here the problem was that they probably did not know many people other than those who worked for them already or in the past.
Eventually, a process was agreed that would work for them. It supported multiple nomination processes, including self-nomination (career aspirations), supported by periodic succession review panels, facilitated by an OD professional.
- What data can we use in our decision-making and how do we ensure that this is valid and reliable?
Traditionally Performance Appraisals had produced poor quality data. It was suspected that this was, in part, propagated by a link with pay. 360 was used but confidential (the company did not see the reports unless the recipients chose to reveal them so the data was patchy).
A process was established whereby individuals completed a self-competency assessment and the manager completed a manager competency assessment (independent from the appraisal). Additional data was drawn from the HRIS. Individuals were invited to add further data such as external achievements, mobility, languages and education. Managers also added information such as assessments of performance, potential, flight risk, vulnerability.
- How do we ensure that the decisions made are then implemented?
Succession Plans are known for often not being implemented. Agreement on this aspect took the longest. Eventually, it was agreed that any manager wishing to implement any placement other than the one planned would have to seek the approval of a reconvened succession review panel would be convened; something few would wish to invoke.
To date, the software has been configured to support the process and the process is being sustained. Time will tell, but the discussion that this forced was, in itself, of great value in exposing the underlying assumptions and weaknesses in the previous designs.
