by: Tom Casey, Managing Principal Discussion Partner Collaborative with Sean Casey Director of Communications Military & Veteran Affairs Comcast NBC Universal
As we plan for the future, there are two demographic challenges that will have to be addressed simultaneously:
- The accelerated desire of Baby Boomers to retire, many of whom may remain in the workforce, but not as full-time employees
- The painful awareness on the part of Generation X executives that the dreaded age of 50 is imminent, prompting the likelihood that company/role changes are being contemplated “before I get too old”
Boomer Executive Transitions
Discussion Partner Collaborative began researching and providing Advisory support on Executive Transitions in 2013 primarily focused on creating a “soft landing” for both the senior leader and their company when the “Boomer” retired.
Both DPC’s research and client work, with now over 500 executives, suggest a much more generous interpretation of the word retirement is long overdue.
The reality is that most executives, while leaving full-time employment, remain engaged in myriad capacities such as interim executives, Board members, advisory endeavors, educators, and entrepreneurs.
Given the executives now feel “in control of their life and calendar,” they engage in two to three endeavors usually on a part-time basis.
Discussion Partner’s best-selling book on this topic, Executive Transitions-Plotting The Opportunity!, was reprised with a new book in 2019, Executive Transitions 2-Leveraging Experience For Future Success!
Aging Dilemma for GenX
Beginning in 2016, via our research and advisory work in the Succession Planning/Executive Transitions area, we became aware of a significant risk to enterprise sustainability and engagement.
The identified concern is the pre-supposition of most Succession Plans that the pipeline of internal candidates from the Generation X cohort, will remain robust.
DPC experience has concluded this degree of comfort is misguided.
In the strongest possible terms we suggest companies not presume longevity of Generation X executives as a given. Our validated premise is as Generation X executives spy age 50 on the horizon, there is an overt desire for change. This is not due to unhappiness with their situation; moreover, it is the concern that when they hit this mystical age, their career trajectory options diminish.
The above is more prevalent in larger, well-established companies, where the executive has been associated for approximately 10 years. However, DPC has also seen in our Advisory work the same phenomenon in sectors such as Life Sciences and Technology where tenure as a rule is short lived.
The need to reflect and plan is now being “down-aged” (late 40’s to early 50’s) to encompass long serving incumbents whom began working with their present employers at an early age.
If you put yourself in the position of one of these incumbents, a thought process encompasses the following:
- I started with this company right out of school
- I am 48 years old
- I like the company they have been good to me
- I like my role and feel I am making a contribution BUT!!!!
- I wonder what it would be like to work somewhere else AND!!!!
- I need to decide new before it is too late
For those of us in our 60’s 48 is young. However I would assert that none of us felt that way when we were 48!
The inherent problems with the above reflections are a) the employee may leave a good situation, just for the sake of leaving and b the company is at risk of a brain drain at the nexus point of identification of future leaders and sustainability.
Engagement surveys, while informative, do not drill down sufficiently beyond are “are you happy now”? In addition those whom are struggling with this dilemma are most likely reflecting privately.
Discussion Partner’s in researching our recent book Inflection Points-Risk Readiness Failure Fearless on career decision points began to become aware this phenomenon.
DPC perceived the issue to be a serious risk to our client population who have longer-serving employees. Consequently using the mantra of “it is better to be supportive than short-sighted” we have been piloting a Coaching interdiction with several companies whom fit the above profile.
The offering Trajectory Advisory Service focuses on asking and answering the question for those in their late 40’s with approximately 10 years enterprise tenure, “is this company and role sufficiently challenging and engaging that you want to stay?”
DPC began piloting this offering in mid-2016 and have worked with 90 clients to date.
The findings are 10-fold based upon the admittedly modest sample:
- 100% of those with whom we worked admitted to having given “serious thought” to making a change
- 100% of those with whom we worked although initially skeptical appreciated the proactivity of their company providing resources to assist in their decision making
- 90+% were applying loose criteria to their thought process focused more on “now” vs. “where or why”
- Approximately the same % felt the restraint on making an informed decision was due more to “what if I don’t like it” vs. the transition being a sensible career move
- 81 of the 90 clients decided to stay with their present employer
- The 9 clients with whom DPC worked on a “soft landing” whereby the company was able to secure a replacement in advance of separation and the departing member was supported in their search (search firms, references, time to interview etc.)
- For those 81 whom have chosen to remain each was provided an enterprise supported Engagement Driver as a “safety valve” to reinforce the prudence of their decision making
- The range of “Drivers” encompassed new role, new location, NGO participation, Commercial Board sponsorship, paid sabbatical, education, reconfigured work hours as well as some innovative solutions
- None of the 81 clients received additional nor special compensation for what I would invoke as the obvious reasons
The #10 Finding from the Pilot is that 65% of those with whom DPC worked indicated they would have left in large part due to curiosity and feelings of intellectual stagnation.
The overarching conclusion DPC derived from this effort to-date is that organizations that have the above profile are best served by being proactive, supportive, and sincere in working their incumbents or run the risk of being controlled by vs. controlling their Talent Readiness posture due to unanticipated and undesired departures.
The Ongoing Priority of Building The Bench
In our Leadership Effectiveness work, Discussion Partner Collaborative has concluded that any attempt to avoid the need to a) build a bench within the enterprise and/or b) manifest reluctance to self-assess incumbent aspirations, is self-defeating.
Perhaps it’s the feeling of lacking control that has made succession planning—the continuity and transitional aspects of this effort in particular—such a hot topic these days. After all, it’s human nature to want to contain the uncertainties in life while maximizing the opportunities, as contradictory as that may seem!
“Urgency” would be a fair characterization of the feeling our clients have expressed towards the holistic succession planning process.
If you accept DPC’s conclusion that your organization’s future will benefit from a deep-dive review of its Succession and Continuity planning processes taking into consideration the “age 50 paradox” we believe your Talent Readiness position will avoid unpleasant surprises.
Notwithstanding pre-existing protocols, we are suggesting this review encompass the most generous interpretation of processes concomitant with experimental and disruptive solution sets.
I. What skills sets will we need beyond domain proficiency to have a sustainable growth oriented enterprise?
II. How does our current population of Leaders and Future Leaders compare to these desired attributes?
III. How can we develop and/or hire sufficient numbers of people to address deficiencies in the above?
IV. What is the true nature of our Leadership bench in respect to Readiness?
V. What is our contingency plan to be deployed if necessary?
In 1964 The Who recorded the song My Generation, containing the famous lines “hope I die before I get old!”
Dr. Lynda Gratton of London Business School last year published The 100 Year Life, a now best-seller in Europe.
Reconciling the contradictory thematic is straightforward. Executives want challenge and a feeling of relevance in addition to longevity. While logic suggests that 50 is not in of itself a career crossroad, it is one of those ages where reflection is normal.
DPC’s suggestion is to accept the realities of aspirations of both Boomer and Generation X cohorts, and plan accordingly. It is better to channel the dialogue than be surprised by a decision.
My colleagues at Discussion Partners and I would strongly urge an elevation of, and renewed attentiveness to, Succession and Continuity planning as a priority!
Notwithstanding pre-existing protocols, we are suggesting this review encompass the most generous interpretation of processes concomitant with experimental and disruptive solution sets.
Our recommendation is driven by results of a recent completed study DPC conducted with 1800 C-Suite participants. The survey was on the topic of envisioned enterprise challenges. 91% of those surveyed indicated “the ability to attract, motivate, and retain top talent” as their #1 concern.
Discussion Partner’s has been conducting this annual Pulse survey since our founding in 2007. The intensity of the above concern, while always “on the list,” was never #1until 2018. The rationales expressed in the anecdotal justifications are compelling inclusive of envisioned shifting demographics, new worker expectations, disruption of organization models, competitive pressures, globalization, and ineffective human capital practices.
Our recommendation is further reinforced by a review of the recent literature on this topic.
- The historically low US Unemployment Rate
- The strategic imperative for talent depth to be an asset vs. liability, referenced in consolidated research on Leadership Succession/Continuity, most recently a series of articles in McKinsey Insights, HBR and Sloan Management Review
- The Point of View that has emerged from our 2018 Advisory work that 2019 represents an opportunity to use a “Disruptive Organization Model” for talent processes overall and Leadership matters in particular
As further justification for this recommendation the following foundation is provided.
- Dr. Noel Tichy in his recent book Succession asserts that without proactive planning on how to fill, and inventory of talent well in advance of leadership, and/or key role “vacancies”, the chance of success is below 50% for replacement personnel.
- Ram Charan in his book The Attackers Advantage and HBR articles offers the following (paraphrased) –Leaders (Directors, Owners, CEO’s) who excel at selection are willing to expand the lens in how they look at the capabilities of reporting levels beyond performance track record to the 2 to 3 interwoven predictive behaviors that will be necessary for success.
- The following 2018 data points are from various sources (Booz Allen, McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, Hedrick & Struggles, Korn Ferry and Saratoga Institute)
-
- Team Building and Empathy are as important as Performance for promoting enterprise success (often stated infrequently realized)
- 55% of the Fortune 500 Boards of Directors have expressed dissatisfaction with the Succession Planning processes of their enterprises including the CEO replacement approach
- A study of the 2500 largest companies on the planet indicate that inefficient Succession Planning on average results in $1.8B losses during transition
- Underperformance does not incent change 45% below peer group by sector correlates to only 5.7% probability in change of leadership
- 39% of the Fortune 1000 Boards indicate “no viable candidate” to replace the CEO compelling a similar % undertaking external hires which Charan stipulates as “highly unlikely to be successful”
-
DPC’s conclusion “Succession Planning takes years not months” leads us to recommend the following steps:
- Senior level stakeholder interviews focused on “beyond task proficiency” what are the essential differentiating qualities that will be needed for success
- Comparative Inventory of Leaders (broad based) and high potentials in relationship to these attributes
- Embed into developmental and hiring strategies the lessons learned from this exercise
- Creation of a Critical Constituency Depth Chart whereby the following is highlighted
a. Identification of 1 ready now replacement
b. Identification of 2 possible replacements
c. Identification of external Search capabilities to be deployed in emergencies and/or
lack of “ready now” sense of urgency
d. Assignment of non-senior leaders a “personal growth and development task”
similar to the GE “popcorn stand” to provide additional evaluative foundation
The New England Patriots have a mantra of “do your job,” promoted by Coach Belichick. 6 Super Bowl wins indicate the validity of this philosophy. DPC’s above suggestions represent process steps that should be presently underway and if not, a sense of urgency should exist. DPC would substitute the words “do the job you should have been doing all along!”
Additionally, we would embed the following questions:
I. What skills sets will we need beyond domain proficiency to have a sustainable growth oriented enterprise?
II. How does our current population of Leaders and Future Leaders compare to these desired attributes?
III. How can we develop and/or hire sufficient numbers of people to address deficiencies in the above?
IV. What is the true nature of our Leadership bench in respect to Readiness?
V. What is our contingency plan to be deployed if necessary?
From whatever vantage point you occupy, the future will be dynamic. As a suggestion, borrowing a title from a previous book by Dr. Tichy on the topic of leadership Control Your Destiny-Or Somebody Else Will!