“We find that even at the most respected companies with disciplined succession processes in place, well-suited candidates may not even make it into the shortlist of succession candidates — overshadowed by ‘safe’ or ‘chosen’ ones,” the authors — ghSMART leaders Elena Lytkina Botelho and Shoma Chatterjee Hayden — wrote.
The authors cited three reasons why this may occur: power of the apparent successor, likability holding more weight than it should and the irresistibility of a safe choice.
To avoid these three pitfalls, the authors suggested three tactics: creating a CEO scoreboard tied to business strategy, donning a “broader and deeper” lens on the leadership bench and trusting agitators.
“The succession process enhancements we recommend here may be uncomfortable and time-consuming, but they help ensure that the right candidates don’t get overshadowed by the ‘safe’ ones,” the authors wrote. “As the chair of a succession committee recently reminded his board: ‘We’ve worked very hard for the last few years to execute this process smoothly. It’s worth reminding ourselves that shareholders will judge us on the outcome — Did we pick the right person to run this company? — not on how good we felt about our discussions to get there.'”
Read the full Harvard Business Review article here.
More articles on leadership:
California physicians must verbally tell patients if they are on probation for wrongdoing
Patients less likely to recognize women as attending physicians, study finds
27% of cardiologists report burnout
