“As you look at our growth projections over time, we’re going to need more and more leaders. Leadership is the biggest single constraint to growth at Johnson & Johnson, and it is the most critical business issue we face.” | ||
| --Ralph S. Larsen, Chairman and CEO Johnson & Johnson | ||
Remember the “onion layer” analogy used to describe complex situations in which one question or discovery leads to additional questions? For first-time practitioners, implementing an Acceleration Pool system might appear to offer “onion layers” of complexity; however, experienced practitioners will verify that the process seems far more complicated than it actually is.
What is true, and what becomes evident to process stakeholders, are the rich opportunities for alignment and integration of Acceleration Pools with other key systems affecting organizational effectiveness. In fact, in many organizations introduction of Acceleration Pools represents a significant culture change initiative, offering important alignment with the business strategy, their learning culture or environment, accountability, and measurement systems, as well as a system for managing strategic talent and individualized approaches to leadership development.
Not surprising, then, is how early broad questions stimulate new thinking and, in turn, more detailed questions around the implementation. This chapter focuses on some of the broad questions (i.e., the top layer of the onion) that practitioners face in getting started with Acceleration Pools.
Note
denotes that information on this topic is available at the Grow Your Own Leaders web site (www.ddiworld.com/growyourownleaders).
When is the best time to identify people for an Acceleration Pool?
Although an Acceleration Pool is open to people at any level or age, there usually is a typical career point or organizational level at which the majority of members enter. Management faces a quandary in defining that typical entry point: It is important to identify people early enough so that they have plenty of time for development; but the longer management waits to identify people, the more accurate the prediction of growth potential will be.
So, while there is no “absolutely right” common entry point, research data indicate that evaluations are more accurate when people have been in work situations for a few years and less accurate when performed on those just entering the organization from a university or some other background.
In a classic research study done by Dr. Douglas Bray and his colleagues at AT&T (Howard & Bray, 1988), a group of college graduates were evaluated twice by an assessment center—once when they entered AT&T and then again eight years later, after most had been promoted twice. The findings from the assessment centers were not shared with the individuals or anyone in management. When the predictions of the two assessments were compared to actual promotions to senior management 10 or more years later, the second assessment proved much more predictive of success than the first. (The results also showed that the first assessment was significantly better than any system AT&T had used up to that time [Howard & Bray, 1988].)
While those results are interesting, there are some important points to bear in mind when applying them today. The study was done when AT&T was a very vertically organized company; people had to “serve their time” in various jobs—no matter how good they were. We believe that it is not so much maturity and time on the job, per se, that lead to more accurate assessments as it is meaningful job experience. Thus, we believe that in today’s increasingly flat and empowered organizations, in which people get more responsibility and authority earlier, three or four years of meaningful, diverse experience can be a solid basis for highly accurate assessments of top-level management potential.
Why allow people to enter the pool at any level?
The fact that people at any organizational level can enter an Acceleration Pool reflects an acknowledgement of real issues affecting modern business:
People mature at different speeds. Some are late bloomers whose potential will be recognized later in their careers.
Family and other situations might make pool membership impossible for some people at certain times.
People from outside the organization will likely be brought into middle-or upper-management jobs. Some might benefit from being in a pool.
To achieve desired diversity at senior levels, some companies might need to dig deeper—perhaps even below the supervisory level—into their organizational ranks to find people to develop.
Given the rapid pace of organizational change, is it realistic to try to prepare leaders for roles they would assume more than five years in the future?
The impact of rapid organizational change on succession management is the reason for developing the Acceleration Pool concept in the first place. Because pool members’ progress is not focused on individual jobs but rather on a job level defined by a range of job challenges, organizational knowledge, etc., the system is very responsive to organizational changes. The level or type of job challenges, organizational knowledge, competencies, and derailers required of each pool member can be adjusted in response to changing organizational needs and should, in fact, be reconfirmed and adjusted as necessary each year.
If someone is ready for promotion to senior management now, is it necessary to put that person in the Acceleration Pool?
As its name implies, the Acceleration Pool system focuses on people whose development needs to be speeded up. If people are completely ready for promotion to a position at the target level (e.g., general manager), they don’t need to be in an Acceleration Pool.
How quickly should an organization grow its Acceleration Pool in the first year?
We strongly advise organizations to start slowly by bringing 12–40 people into the Acceleration Pool the first year, depending on the size of the organization and its leadership needs. This will allow time to gear up systems and get accustomed to the issues that rapid acceleration of key individuals creates for the organization and for pool members.
Why have pools? Why not develop everyone?
There are several good reasons why organizations can’t develop everyone for senior management positions:
Every organization has a limited number of prime developmental positions in which a person can be given an unusual amount of freedom and authority to make decisions.
Development is expensive. It might mean giving special education opportunities, providing executive coaches, or sending people to conferences.
Developing people burns a great deal of management energy. In fact, one of the biggest succession management and retention hurdles is getting managers to focus on their development responsibilities. Having too many people to coach and mentor dilutes management’s attention; as a result, most people don’t get enough help to make a difference in their development.
If you develop everyone, there won’t be enough senior management jobs for individuals to fill. Development money and time will be wasted as frustrated individuals who do not move up leave the organization.
Not everyone will benefit from development for senior management positions.
Not everyone wants to be in an Acceleration Pool. The travel, relocation, and heavy workloads are negatives to many prospective pool members.
We believe that organizations with Acceleration Pools should offer plentiful opportunities for all associates to learn and grow. The Acceleration Pool system simply acknowledges that there are limited resources available for rapid development and that maintaining a pool that is too large can defeat the purpose by spreading resources too thinly.
Should the existence of an Acceleration Pool be broadly communicated within an organization?
This issue has been hotly debated in many organizations, which seem to be all over the map as to how they handle it. Here are the pros and cons as we see them:
Pros of Broad Communication
People will volunteer for the program. It will be an opportunity to find people who might have been overlooked.
Communication about its existence makes people in the pool feel good about themselves. They’ll be more likely to stay with the company because they feel part of an elite group.
Having a pool creates an image of a progressive company. For example, GE, Pepsi, Ford, Conoco, and Delta Airlines talk freely about their programs.
Managers will be under more pressure to nominate the best candidates.
Having a pool gives those not in the pool something to work toward. If solid, consistent, job-related selection criteria are used, then it’s to the organization’s advantage to say that if someone meets the criteria, that person will get into the pool.
An organization will have an easier time hiring people. The image presented to prospective employees is that of a modern organization—and one that cares about its people.
People will accept individuals brought into their SBU or department when they understand it is part of a larger plan.
Stock analysts will be assured that executive continuity is getting high priority.
Cons of Broad Communication
There will be great pressure to get into the program. Handling this pressure tactfully will take up significant management time and might produce extensive paperwork. Weak managers might let people into the pool because of the pressure exerted on them rather than because candidates are fully qualified.
Knowing the pool exists might make those who aren’t in the pool feel unhappy and unvalued, thus creating high turnover.
We have discovered that if the existence of an Acceleration Pool is communicated, an organization would be better off to be more, rather than less, explicit regarding the criteria for entering the pool and the focus of the pool. For example, if an organization’s pool is “focused primarily on developing individuals seen as likely officer-level candidates in five years,” articulating the role of the pool, as well as future opportunities to participate, might minimize the frustration of those who realize that they are not yet ready for the pool.
Should members of the Acceleration Pool be told that they’re in the pool?
We see no alternative but to tell people that they’re in the pool because we want to give them the option not to join and to involve them in planning each stage of their own development. Yet, just more than one-third of the companies surveyed by the Corporate Leadership Council (2000) report that they do so. There is a fear that people who know they are in the pool will tell others who, in turn, will figure out that they are not in it. The Council recommends communication but suggests that the company provide communication guidelines and scripts.
What happens to people who don’t get into the pool?
Many executives are concerned about the effect that not making the pool will have on people. Will they bolt from the company? In our experience it all depends on the other available advancement and development opportunities as well as the perceived focus, accuracy, and fairness of the selection system.
Obviously, it’s not appropriate to distribute memos detailing who is in an Acceleration Pool and who is not. However, if non-pool members ask about their status, it’s certainly appropriate to answer. Smartly run organizations make a point of telling people who are not in the pool that there will be continuing opportunities to get in, depending on their job performance and the organization’s needs. And even if people are not designated for the pool, management in these companies makes it clear to them that they have not missed all opportunities for advancement and that they certainly will be considered for future openings. There are always people from outside high-potential lists who get promoted—often because they are in the right place at the right time. So, while those in Acceleration Pools inevitably have a better chance of moving up, being out of the pool does not necessarily exclude someone from advancement—just as being in the pool does not guarantee advancement.
Of course, it is important to note that it isn’t wise to publicize lists of Acceleration Pool members. In fact, they should be kept confidential. Over time, though, it becomes obvious that certain people are getting special assignments, attending certain training or developmental activities, and being sent to Acceleration Centers or other formal assessment activities. Remember that such assignments would be made even if an Acceleration Pool were not in place; those who are not chosen would feel the same degree of disappointment or envy whether the assignments were part of a larger plan or not. A basic fact of organizational life is that some people are chosen over others for any particular opportunity.
The method of selecting people for the Acceleration Pool also might play a part in preventing unwanted turnover. The more objective and fair the methodology, the better the acceptance of the results.
It is impossible to weigh the cost of losing high-potential people who perceive that their careers are not being accelerated against the cost of losing average people who resent not getting a particular assignment. But we believe that most organizations would see a greater risk in losing the high potentials.
Can new people from outside the organization be brought directly into an Acceleration Pool?
Yes. When hiring at the middle-manager level and above, it’s very appropriate to put people in an Acceleration Pool to help them get a feel for the organization more quickly and to fill in competency gaps discovered during the selection process. One of the advantages of the Acceleration Pool is its flexibility; people can enter or leave at different points in their development.
Are there any issues associated with assimilating new members into an Acceleration Pool?
This is usually not a problem because, in most organizations, pool members rarely interact with one another relative to their career development. Some might attend an orientation together or participate in a team-based action learning event, but generally that would be the extent of their pool-related interactions. In some ways the word pool is a misnomer. It is a pool from management’s perspective but not from the pool members’. Even in organizations that encourage peer coaching and teaching among pool members, few assimilation problems exist.
How do you drop people from the pool?
Membership in an Acceleration Pool is not a career. Organizations are well advised to set expectations that membership is relatively brief—two to six years. The pool member learns that development doesn’t stop when membership ends; it just means that accelerated development stops. The most common situation is that the organization delays someone’s acceleration because of the individual’s personal needs. The second-most common situation for dropping people from the pool is when they have reached a near- or long-term development goal. At that point they have had their turn at accelerated development, and it is someone else’s turn.
If a person’s lack of performance or development requires that he or she be removed from the Acceleration Pool, this should always be done very carefully and be supported by data and documented discussions. While dropping someone from the pool is a tough decision, the individual usually knows that he or she is not performing to expectations and is rarely surprised. And being dropped from the pool does not mean the organization has given up on its commitment to an individual’s development; in an Acceleration Pool system, people can rejoin the pool should their performance or speed of development improve.
What about people who want to opt out of the pool for personal reasons?
This is a more common situation, and it’s much easier to handle than you might think. If a pool member has been filling in development gaps and performing well in his or her current job, it’s usually possible to just leave the person in that position and reduce the speed of development. Sometimes it’s appropriate to move someone to a less developmental position to clear the way for other pool members. It’s much better to slow a person’s development than to lose the individual.
Why have replacement plans for the top people in the organization?
While we suggest that people in an Acceleration Pool not be groomed for specific positions, it is still appropriate for an organization to preselect backups for the company’s very top, “business critical” positions. Decisions to fill these positions might need to be made quickly, so candidates need to be tentatively identified. The people seen as front-runners for positions such as the CEO, COO, CFO, CIO, CTO, and heads of large SBUs will often need some special development to prepare for their specific target positions. Common examples would be exposure to governance issues of a Board of Directors or opportunities to interact with high-level government representatives. Usually these candidates would be members of the organization’s Acceleration Pool.
Wouldn’t it be prudent to at least identify the likely replacements for all key executives?
In other words, isn’t a replacement strategy important for more than just a few people at the top? A few organizations might have large numbers of highly critical, unique jobs for which replacements need to be identified in advance and receive special training. However, we still believe that for most organizations the Acceleration Pool strategy is superior to the replacement-planning strategy for managers below the core senior executive team. It is fine to say that Jane is the best replacement for Jack if he wins the lottery tomorrow, but the danger is that by virtue of that designation, Jane’s development is restricted because she is seen as being developed only for Jack’s job. We feel that approaching Jane’s development from an enterprise perspective rather than from a job perspective will yield both enhanced readiness for Jane in assuming Jack’s position as well as enhanced readiness for other positions within the organization.
Should small companies have Acceleration Pools?
Succession management is more critical to the viability of a small company than to a large company because every position counts more. Although small organizations don’t always need a formal succession management system, it’s still a good idea for them to concentrate development efforts on a few people who will benefit most. Even very small organizations should develop a list of executive descriptors (job challenges, organizational knowledge, competencies, and derailers) and define a method for evaluating high potentials. Acceleration Centers are available throughout the world to evaluate individuals relative to competencies and derailers. Job rotations and development assignments are sometimes more difficult for small organizations, but their lack of size should provide the people being developed with a broader view of how the organization operates, more contacts with top management, and earlier opportunities for meaningful responsibilities and decision making.
Depending on your specific interests, we are sure you will want to peel more layers off the onion that is the Acceleration Pool concept. The rest of this book allows you to do that, depending on your particular interests.
If you don’t want or need to read the entire remainder of this book, we suggest you look at Figure 2-4 to select chapters of interest about the Acceleration Pool process and its management. If you only want to know how to start an Acceleration Pool, read Chapters 6 and 7.