When it comes to creating a succession plan, Miles and Bennett (2007), Cook (2014), and Gale (2013) all offer different approaches on how that planning process should be conducted. By comparing and contrasting their respective approaches and identifying which aligns most accurately with the course text, a better understanding of how to plan for succession can be achieved.
Miles and Bennett (2007) identify four steps that must be taken in order to produce an effective succession plan. The four steps include: 1) analysis, 2) development, 3) selection and 4) transition. The first step in the process of planning succession, according to Miles and Bennett (2007), is to analyze the “most significant challenges the company and its industry are likely to face over the next four to six years” and use this information to determine what skills and experiences are needed by the company’s next leaders to guide the firm in the face of these challenges. As an industry is always changing, it is not necessary therefore that the next CEO for example have the same skills and experience as the previous CEO, since new obstacles are likely to emerge that will require a different type of skill set. The next step is development, and that means identifying a handful of internal candidates who may be ready to work the job in the within a specific time frame. The third step—selection—should be conducted by having internal candidates pitch their vision for the company to the board of directors. If none of the internal candidates satisfies, an external candidate may be required. The final step is transition. After the next leader has been selected, an on-boarding process must be conducting: this is a process by which the new CEO develops relationships with the board members and generally is brought up to speed.
Cook (2014)’s process for planning succession focuses on four golden rules instead of steps. The rules are: 1) Have replacements ready for 9 out of every 10 critical positions—i.e., know which positions are most essential to the well-being of the company and have at least 3 potential candidates who would be ready to step in to fill that slot should it become vacant. 2) Find the needle in the haystack—i.e., locate individuals within the company who have not yet been identified as possible candidates and gauge them on education and experience to see whether they should be marked as potential successors. 3) Monitor risks—i.e., use predictive analytics to assess whether a role player is likely to leave in the foreseeable future. 4) Integrate the succession plan into the workplace—i.e., use the collected data on workers to have a ready-made planning...
the need to hire from without—which is in line with the recommendation of Miles and Bennett (2007) that a company recognize when it is opportune to promote from within and when it simply is not. The third tip of Gale (2013) is to recognize when diversity can be a boon to decision-making. This is a tip that neither Cook nor Miles and Bennett make, and Gale makes it because it is important to always have multiple perspectives when making an important decision so that there are no gaps in the decision making process. The fourth tip provided by Gale is to get support from the top. If it’s the CEO being replaced, get the board’s input. If it is a lower level leader, get the upper level’s feeback.
Gale (2013) then goes on to list the steps that should be conducted to facilitate the process: 1) create a specific model for the job with a definition of skills, experience, attitude and so on needed to do the job; 2) have a vision of where the company is heading (Miles and Bennett also recommend that incoming leaders have this and that it be approved of by the board); 3) know where potential candidates want to be/go with their careers; 4) identify potential obstacles to…
