I recently had the opportunity to work with a client on a succession planning project for the organization's executive team. The members of the this team have been with the organization for quite a long time and are nearing retirement. As a result, they are working on a five-year plan that includes both identifying and training a successor for each role. In essence, they are making their “if I get hit by or bus or just decide to play golf instead of work plan.” This conversation spurred a number of ideas and thoughts around leaving a legacy in an organization, but also about life. Basically, it got me thinking about my own “what if I get hit by a bus plan.”

Nearly a year ago, my husband and I welcomed our son, Logan, into our lives and this experience has caused me to reflect on the lessons I want to teach him, the values I hope to instill, as well as, more broadly, the mark I want to leave on the world and the legacy I hope to create. Reflecting on these personal goals brings me back to my conversations with my client because our legacy goes beyond our home life. Let’s face it, we spend most of our adult lives at work. This notion brings me back to the conversation with my client because much of what goes into identifying a successor in an organization relates to our own personal legacies in terms of the reputation or brand we’ve created and, as a result, the shoes we hope will fill it in our absence.

From an organizational perspective, the leaders create the culture and ultimately the values for the organization. It is the people at the top who define and influence the mission of the organization whether that’s done on paper or just by example. Therefore, during a succession planning process, leaders are challenged with not only thinking about filling their own shoes, but the culture they want to leave behind and create with a new leadership team.

From an assessment standpoint, leaders are challenged with thinking about the values, drivers, and behavioral characteristics that will result in the next generation of leaders doing it just as well and hopefully better than they did. That being said, succession planning should be about bringing the right people in, but also creating and allowing for opportunities for them to do it differently and better than it has been done in the past. Leaving a legacy is not only about continuing previous successes, but also transcending them.

The birth of my son made the previous statement real for me in many ways. My goal is to teach him, to provide him a framework and stable ground for success, and then to get out of his way so he can find his own path.

It was only a month ago that President Obama announced the death of America’s biggest villain and proudly proclaimed victory in the name of justice.

For most, the events that unfolded and the success of the mission were symbols of American power. But to those of us who have a passion for leadership, the more subtle story revolved around President Obama and the potential impact this success would have on perceptions of his effectiveness as a leader.

April 24, just days before he announced Bin Laden’s death, Real Clear Politics, a site that averages political polls, showed President Obama’s job approval ratings at just 45%, with 50% disapproving. Experts owed those negative poll numbers to public dissatisfaction with the economy – high gas prices, debt, and signs of inflation. Less than a month later, those perceptions had changed for the better.

The ultimate measure of senior executive selection and succession planning is how well we can identify future high performers. Even with decades of research and industry leading tools, the best we can predict is somewhere around 30% to 40% of leadership potential, and this is better than most of our competitors.

So what's going on with the other 60% to 70%? The following factors are just some of the complexities of executive performance:

Success often relies on a few key decisions.
The base rate of those critical decisions is low, making them difficult to reliably measure. How many times does a leader have the opportunity to take out Public Enemy No.1 and change his/her foreign policy reputation overnight? If you are Google, is it a good choice to buy You Tube? Skype if you are Microsoft? How much do you invest in your new product, the iPod? It only takes one decision to make or break a reputation, or a company's value.

Real impact is only visible in the long-term.
It can take years before the value of some executive decisions can be measured. Experts argue decisions made more than 40 years ago to provide covert assistance to Afghan rebels’ fight against the USSR – hailed as a US victory in the Cold War – lead to the creation of modern-day Al-Qaeda. Short-term brilliance can actually have very bad effects, and, likewise, your "dud" of a leader may just have a long-term plan in mind.

Success often means having good timing.
The US economy recently took a plunge unlike anything we could have expected. Sure, there were some leaders who were responsible for the decline (yes, I'm looking at you, Wall Street), and there were policy decisions in Washington that were equally critical (Barney Frank). There were also executives who had no control over the market’s movement. If you would have measured executive performance using a “snapshot” method during that time, you would have seen some ugly metrics: sinking revenue, poor profits, negative stock value, and low employee engagement. Now, as companies rebound, those in power reap the benefits of economic recovery without necessarily doing anything.

Success sometimes comes down to luck.
Social scientists are trained early and often on the importance of statistical significance – identifying relationships that are not due to chance alone. And whatever you call it – luck, chance, or good fortune – there is an element to executive performance which is not entirely within a leader's control. President Bush took a big hit to his reputation as an effective leader due to his response to Hurricane Katrina, even though so much of what happened – an intense hurricane hitting exactly where it did – was beyond his control.

Politics makes leadership a visible sport, but it is easy to forget some of the lessons it teaches us about measuring executive performance. You may be able to identify who has the right stuff, but judging whether someone will be truly successful is no easy task.

Finally, ask yourself about your own leaders: Do they really make good decisions? Or are they riding the coat tails of someone else's decisions, reaping the benefits of good timing, and enjoying a little luck?
 

Apple CEO and co-founder Steve Jobs recently announced that he will take yet another medical leave of absence with an unspecified return date. His announcement was followed by much discussion and debate about when and whether he will return. This news re-awakened the debate among worried stockholders and industry analysts who are sweating out the question of whether or not the Sultan of Silicon Valley can be replaced. As reported by the LA Times, Apple’s shares fell 6.45% immediately after markets opened the day following Jobs’ announcement. Consequently, stockholders are putting the pressure on the board to publicize a succession plan. Why the sudden iPanic? Many believe that Jobs’ vision and innovation is integral to the success and brand image of Apple, and that he simply cannot be replaced. Admittedly, Jobs’ uncanny ability to predict, or even create, market demand for consumer technology products has catapulted Apple to undeniable success over the years. So the question remains – can Jobs be replaced?

Jobs’ announcement got me thinking about the problems inherent to succession management, and some recent industry research that has shed some light on the issue. In a December 2010 research report published by Towers Watson, a survey of over 700 global companies indicated that the top two workforce challenges facing businesses today are (1) loss of talent in key positions and (2) lack of succession planning/management. An online survey from the American Management Association of over 1,000 senior managers and executives revealed that only 14% of respondents reported being “well-prepared” for a sudden loss of the organization’s key leaders. In addition, 61% reported being “somewhat prepared”, while one in five admitted to being completely “unprepared.”

After reflecting on the realities of this issue, the public clamoring for Apple to release a succession plan seemed misguided in a few ways. First, what the stockholders seem to actually want in reality is a successor to be named, which is far from establishing a true succession plan. Identifying a successor or even a pool of successors is only a fraction of the battle. What is more important is the need to develop the talent by exposing them to relevant experiences, training activities, or other developmental opportunities. For example, Jobs designated Apple COO Tim Cook to step up to the plate during his first medical leave of absence. Jobs remained involved in major strategic decisions, while Cook oversaw daily operations. Business seemed to go smoothly during Cook’s time in charge. This certainly qualifies as relevant experience, and the truth may be that Jobs and his team are indeed grooming several high-potentials internally at Apple in preparation for Jobs’ eventual retirement. However, a quote from Cook published in Forbes magazine reads, "Come on, replace Steve? No. He's irreplaceable."

Second, succession planning is a long-term, organization-wide initiative. It takes time, considerable planning, and an overall talent management strategy to function properly. For example, the downstream effects of each staffing event must be considered – for every promotion or transition, a well-developed talent pool should be prepared at each subsequent level. If it turns out that Cook is the apple of Job’s eye, a successor must also be prepped and ready to take over Cook’s responsibilities to ensure a smooth transition.

Third, succession planning requires defining what constitutes exceptional performance within each key leadership level, and then finding the talent that will fit the bill. For example, Jobs is celebrated for his creativity, relentless attention to detail, and keen eye for aesthetic appeal. Hogan might measure these characteristics using the Inquisitive, Prudence, and Aesthetic scales. He is also known for his charisma, mischievous business strategies, and ability to convey effective and persuasive messages. Jobs and Cook both share a passion for the Apple brand and a tendency to make extremely bold statements on record. By contrast, Cook is not known as a compelling public speaker, is not seen as a visionary, and does not wear the signature black turtleneck. He is the unflappable operations specialist with a logical mind and an engineering background, and does not spend much time on the creative side of the house. Jobs is an intense, creative mastermind whose vision and aesthetic focus guides all aspects of the product design process. The conundrum of succession planning is that plucking an operations master from his perch and placing him in the chief executive chair often means you lose a great COO and gain a mediocre CEO. Would naming Cook as the successor simply be a case of going after low-hanging fruit? Is comparing Jobs to Cook as useful as comparing apples to oranges?

But seriously folks, all pomological puns aside, the succession planning issue is a relevant one, and personality plays a key role in the ability to effectively fill the holes in the talent pipeline. Cook obviously has talent and a strong track record. However, having the right mix of skills, experiences, and innate personality characteristics provide the necessary foundations for making an effective succession decision. However ambiguous the succession planning issue, one thing is certain: whoever eventually becomes Jobs’ successor will undoubtedly have big New Balance 992’s to fill.