Finding assignments that meet several development goals is always difficult, and it hasn’t been made any easier by the flattening of organizations, the elimination of many executive-assistant positions, and frequent changes to organization charts. Thus, executives making assignments often must be creative in their search for development opportunities. Following are some possibilities:

Acceleration Pool members should remain in assignments long enough to achieve measurable results or to learn what they need to learn, and no longer—something that’s easier said than done. The appropriate assignment length varies, based on the nature of the assignment, the competencies being developed, the learner’s ability, the support required and given, and the business results to be achieved. Assignments that are too short can keep people from experiencing the full range of responsibilities and learning opportunities. For example, prematurely removing someone from a retail-sales management position might mean that the person will miss the rich experience of the Christmas rush in a retail environment. Often the most valuable learning insights come from seeing one’s own mistakes and having to act to remedy consequences. When an assignment is too short, people might miss out on these prime learning opportunities because they move on before the consequences of their mistakes become clear. Also, the individual might not feel as accountable for results.

On the other hand, keeping people in assignments too long is a waste of time for them and the organization. When confined to one job, a pool member might miss other valuable assignments, and the company is not going to get all it can out of the individual either. In fact, being kept in assignments too long is a major source of dissatisfaction among pool members. When people feel that their learning is being limited, they start thinking about jobs outside the organization and become highly vulnerable to the lure of corporate headhunters. The remedy, then, is to have an assignment last just long enough for the person to learn whatever there is to learn and to achieve measurable results, but not so long that the job becomes routine or easy.

People often adjust their learning to fit the time available—a concept illustrated in the old story about the Pope talking with two visitors to the Vatican. One visitor says that he’ll be in Rome for a week, and the Pope responds, “That’s wonderful! You’ll get to see almost all of our beautiful city and appreciate our heritage.” The second visitor explains that he is moving to Rome for two years, and the Pope replies, “Too bad, you won’t really ever get to see all of our city.” The point: If you know you have unlimited time, you probably won’t push yourself as hard to get out and see the sights as you would with only a short window of opportunity. Similarly, if people assigned to a position for development know they are going to be there for only a limited time, and if they have clearly defined learning objectives, they will get busy and learn. They will seek out situations in which they can develop and use new skills and will be sure to observe, experience, and absorb as much as possible.

Learning tension—that is, the motivation and urge to learn—builds when people are challenged to show what they can do within a specific time. People continually cite their roles in new start-up operations or sweeping organizational changes as great learning experiences primarily because of this tension. A manager can create learning tension in any assignment by setting tight but realistic time frames and by helping the learner set measurable stretch targets.

In general, we tell executives that an assignment should typically range from a few months to two years, which represents what we believe to be a realistic “learning window.” There are exceptions, of course, but overall an assignment that exceeds two years seems to fall short of the notion of “acceleration,” and assignments of less than two or three months seem unlikely to yield meaningful results.

In placing Acceleration Pool members in jobs, a general rule of thumb is, The greater the change in responsibility, the greater the learning. Here’s another: The larger the scope of responsibility of the position, the more learning. The underlying assumption for both axioms is that the most effective assignments challenge people’s abilities and force them to use new, untested skills. However, stretching someone is a good strategy only if the person does not break—that is, if he or she doesn’t completely fail in the assignment. Thus, the question is, How much stretch is appropriate?

It’s impossible to generalize on that point. Obviously, it depends on the people, the organization’s needs, available support mechanisms, etc. Some organizations have tried to quantify the amount of risk they are prepared to take. In the 1990s, for example, Citicorp announced that it was willing to promote people who were only 60–70 percent prepared for the new position (Clark & Lyness [as cited in Ohlott, 1998]). Of course, this edict wasn’t meant to be taken literally; rather, it was merely a communication to managers about what to expect from these individuals.

To have the prepared, capable candidates they need to fill senior executive positions, most companies today have no choice but to stretch pool members considerably. This is especially evident in cases where an Acceleration Pool member is being considered for a “double jump”—a promotion two levels higher in the organization. Moving up so quickly leaves these high fliers without the support of their former peers or the guidance of their former leaders, who now, consequently, become their direct reports. Suddenly, they must learn to understand and fit into entirely new organizational and social structures.

We believe that a principal factor in determining the degree of stretch should be the pool member’s level of proficiency in the targeted executive competencies. We have seen successful double—and sometimes triple—jumps when the pool member showed outstanding proficiency in leadership and management competencies. That’s because in stretch assignments, new leaders must rely heavily on those leadership skills, but they typically won’t have sufficient technical and professional skills or perhaps even organizational knowledge. So, if an organization is thinking about moving an Acceleration Pool member to a position for which he or she lacks considerable background, we advise conducting a comprehensive competency assessment, coupled with a thorough review of the person’s background and motivations, before making the final decision.

Knowledge of an individual’s strengths and development needs points specifically to those areas in which he or she might excel or struggle, and it gives the organization a chance to do something about them. For example, at a medical diagnostics company, a vice president of a regional sales unit was planning to place a budding manager into a senior sales leadership position as part of the manager’s development plan. The assignment represented a major step up, but the Acceleration Center data showed that the manager’s business and strategic abilities could be expected to be problem areas. Essentially, the manager was well versed in the technology, completely understood the sales process, and showed outstanding leadership skills, but did not yet understand the more complex business variables or show the level of strategic insight that the vice president might have hoped. After reviewing the data the vice president acknowledged that the assignment might be too much of a stretch; however, he also recognized that if significant coaching and support (far more than originally anticipated) could be applied, the assignment could yield major long-term benefits. Ultimately, the decision was made to move forward with the assignment, and the vice president provided heavy coaching and guidance. In the end the manager proved to be highly successful in the new role, and the decision to move ahead with the assignment is seen as having been a wise long-term investment. However, both the senior manager and the vice president acknowledge that the assignment might have been a disaster without the additional coaching element.

In today’s business world almost all development must be high speed. But increasingly there are situations in which “hyperspeed” is required. This is often the case when the organization finds itself with only one backup for a high-level position, and that person is still far from being ready. The challenge then is to help the individual to accumulate the wide range of job challenges, organizational knowledge, and competencies that will lead to success at the higher level—and to do so in a matter of months. The task becomes even more difficult if the person needs development in several competencies or has a potential derailer.

Such situations call for creativity. Usually, the organization needs to look at a combination of short-term and virtual assignments. It might also be possible to assign an advisor who is familiar with the day-to-day operation of the individual’s new assignment to provide counseling as needed or even assume some responsibilities of the new position, thereby enabling the new executive to devote more time to personal development in the early days on the job.

Sometimes short-term assignments can be created to provide learning opportunities. For example, a pool member might be assigned to do a compensation survey of the people he or she eventually will be leading. This forces the pool member to delve deeply into the department before formally assuming the new position.

Assignments must be filled carefully because they are a valuable and limited resource. Creativity is needed in choosing and structuring positions so that organizations get the most “bang for their buck” (i.e., make a significant impact on job challenges and competencies). Also, senior management must be sure that Development Action Forms are completed for each assignment. The forms have the biggest payoff relative to assignments. Far too many people waste valuable development opportunities in assignments because they don’t know what they are to learn, practice, or change and because they don’t have their support lined up to help them accomplish their goals. Development Action Forms can remedy those problems.

One of the most important steps in achieving cultural change is to get an organization’s managers to believe in and adopt the new culture and direction. Well-planned job assignments can help make that happen. Here is an example of how General Motors successfully changed its manufacturing culture and improved the quality of its products.

In the early 1970s, GM executives recognized that the company needed to drastically change its approach to building cars. They also saw that to make any new methods work, they would need employees who were quality oriented, empowered, attuned to continuous improvement, and willing to work in teams. Because they did not have a plant to use as a model of their new direction, GM senior managers were forced to look elsewhere. Ironically, their search led them to a major competitor: Toyota. GM established a joint venture with Toyota in 1984, centering on an antiquated, underachieving, former GM plant outside Oakland, California. Toyota managers essentially took over the facility, which had been closed due to poor performance, and rehired many of the former employees. Almost miraculously, they transformed it into one of GM’s most productive plants, producing the highest-quality products.

Following the success in California, GM opened a greenfield joint-venture plant outside Toronto, Canada, this time with Suzuki as a partner. As in California, the Japanese managers ran the plant, bringing their values, manufacturing systems, and team organization structure. General Motors sent some of its best and brightest manufacturing executives to the Oakland and Toronto plants for two-year assignments, in which they were exposed to the new systems and the supporting culture. These managers then were assigned to significant GM operations throughout the world. The manufacturing manager of the Suzuki/GM facility in Canada, for example, moved to head up a new plant in East Germany, which soon became one of GM’s most productive, highest-quality facilities. GM assigned more managers to its second-generation plants to absorb the new culture and manufacturing methods. In turn these managers traveled to other plants to spread the word. Meanwhile, the original managers of the joint venture plants moved up in the General Motors organization, ensuring that the new approaches would get the appropriate support from top management.

New technology, new organizational structures, and better-trained employees all were key factors in the changing culture at General Motors. GM had installed new methodologies and restructured its organization before, but with little success. Clearly, using assignments to get managers to absorb and support the new vision, values, and culture made a big difference.

Managing the Acceleration Pool process for an international or global company presents a unique set of challenges. One of the most critical is establishing an infrastructure to effectively support “nondomestic” employees and their families. There are a number of special considerations. For instance, the HR planning process needs to ensure that international assignees and domestic expatriates are actively considered and brokered back into meaningful developmental assignments after their international assignments are completed. The assignment should leverage the learning that occurred while the pool member was on foreign duty and send a positive message to the organization on the value of taking an international assignment. Companies need to ensure that expatriates don’t fall prey to the “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” syndrome. Maintaining active involvement with a “back-home” sponsor will help avoid this.

In managing the Acceleration Pool process for international assignees, companies must have an overall game plan to ensure all their key markets have pool members targeted for assignment. This plan must ensure that the organization’s highest-potential people—both domestic and those from other countries—are identified and effectively rotated through assignments to leverage their development and maximize the business value to the company. Assignments should be long enough to allow pool members to transition to the foreign country and make a significant business contribution (typically two to three years), then return to the home country and apply what they have learned.

After accepting a foreign assignment, a pool member should go through a cultural orientation for the target country just before leaving. This should also include his or her spouse and older children, if there are any. We know of several professional organizations that specialize in these orientations, which are very effective in increasing the likelihood that the assignment will be a success.

Many failures of expatriate assignments are the direct result of the family’s inability to adjust. In addition to the business expense of failed assignments, the emotional and career costs to employees and their families are considerable (Brake, Walker, & Walker, 1995). Because of the impact that foreign assignments have on the entire family, many companies have had success using both individual and family-oriented self-selection instruments. These self-administered questionnaires provide a realistic framework for helping the family to evaluate the impact of an expatriate assignment. Also, many organizations arrange for returning expatriate families to meet with prospective expatriate families to share their experiences and talk about the realities of the foreign assignment.

Another issue that must be addressed in many expatriate assignments—and one that can make or break the assignment—is the dual-career family. This is not only a very real professional issue for the “trailing spouse,” but it can be a significant source of stress on the expatriate as well. Where feasible, the HR group managing the Acceleration Pool process will network to find career opportunities “in-country” for the spouse. Where this is not possible, an in-country spousal support system can help address the transition from an emotional and social perspective. Many companies with several expatriate families in the same location have established structured informal support programs for expatriate spouses and families, even where there are no dual-career issues. These programs can help facilitate adjustment to living in a foreign country. In addition to providing a social support network, they can be very effective in helping family members learn their way around in the new environment.

Ensuring that high potentials remain “connected” back home while on foreign assignment is especially critical for the success of expatriate Acceleration Pool members. Senior managers should make a point of seeking them out when visiting or traveling to the expatriate’s country. This will help them gauge the pool member’s progress and help keep the person connected to important business issues back home. Because of the unique experience that expatriates gain while on assignment, they should also be actively recruited for special projects or task forces (even while on assignment) that will take advantage of what they’ve learned and keep them committed.

Another critical element of managing the development of Acceleration Pool members on foreign assignment is having a solid, realistic plan for repatriating them. This is typically one of the toughest challenges facing most international companies with an Acceleration Pool system. The inability to effectively handle the repatriation process, both in terms of the appropriate next assignment and the emotional readjustment that people often have to make, can lead to significant retention problems. Without strong, proactive management of the repatriation process, companies risk losing their very best people and the considerable investment made in them during the course of the international assignment.