Very few managers are prepared to provide the development support we’ve just described. They don’t know what they need to do and many times don’t have the required skills or confidence. An organization needs to train managers to help them fulfill their important role in nurturing Acceleration Pool members. This task is not as daunting as it might seem—a half-day orientation program can be enough to teach the Acceleration Pool process and answer any of their questions. A three-day behavior-modeling program will provide the necessary coaching and development skills. If the goal for the organization at large is for all managers to have coaching and development skills, then groups of managers—starting with those who supervise the youngest, least experienced Acceleration Pool members—can be trained each year until the entire organization is covered.

Many successful development programs use short-term mentors, who are typically assigned to a pool member for one to three years. Short-term mentors meet with their charges to help plan development activities and help monitor progress against those plans. They suggest other sources of assistance for pool members. Often, the mentor is a role model of a competency that the pool member needs to develop.

The short-term mentor helps the pool member understand the organization’s vision, values, and culture and how those factors relate to what is happening in the organization relative to the obstacles and opportunities facing the individual. People in an Acceleration Pool must understand where the organization is going and the opportunities and obstacles it faces. They need this knowledge to guide decisions they will make in their jobs and about their careers.

Understanding the vision, values, and strategies also helps pool members understand why the target competencies, job challenges, and organizational knowledge required for their development are important. It is not unusual for an organization to simply assume that people understand the significance of such factors, but in reality strategy and other concepts often become distorted as they work their way down through an organization. For example, a company could be furloughing people in one area and hiring in another, and likely, people working in each of those areas might have widely differing views of the organization’s direction.

The short-term mentor is also charged with monitoring the relationship of the pool member and his or her immediate manager. If the learning assignment is not working, the mentor can step in and try to remedy the situation. If the situation can’t be turned around, the mentor might ask the second-level manager to intervene or suggest that the Executive Resource Board change the person’s assignment. Similarly, the mentor often is the person who lets the board know when an executive coach is needed.

We often are asked if relationships between short-term mentors and pool members should be stretched into longer periods. In practice there is no single right answer—it depends on the chemistry between them as well as the direction in which the person’s career is moving. In general, however, we believe that companies using a short-term mentoring approach should stick to it. Shifts in mentoring assignments can provide new challenges that can invigorate both the mentor and the pool member. Also, the pool member is exposed to a wider range of insights and contacts within the organization. In addition, if a pool member is moving up rapidly through the organization, it usually makes sense to provide the person with higher-level mentors along the way.

Long-term mentoring relationships generally evolve informally and can last anywhere from 2 to 10 years or beyond. Long-term mentors do everything that short-term mentors do and more. Typically, higher-level executives will take a liking to certain individuals and take them under their wing. Our experience suggests that the intrinsic motivation of informal, long-term mentors makes them more likely to provide career advice, help the pool member network, create opportunities, tout the member’s achievements to top management, and offer advice regarding the organization’s politics. Long-term mentors also are more likely to help their pool members cope with the personal challenges they encounter by providing long-term support and positive reinforcement, making suggestions for handling company or social situations, and, most of all, being a trusted colleague.

So, which is better—the short- or long-term mentoring approach? Because most organizations cannot assume spontaneous relationships will occur (this often is likened to waiting for lightning to strike), we recommend that Acceleration Pool systems start with short-term mentors who rotate every two years. That approach provides a greater degree of flexibility in adjusting mentoring assignments. In some organizations mentoring assignments are random, while other companies take great care to match education, background, goals, interests, and even personality types. They try to come as close as possible to achieving the chemistry associated with a spontaneous mentoring relationship.

Also, having an assigned, short-term mentor does not mean that individuals cannot find an additional mentor on their own—and indeed, there is no reason why a pool member can’t have two or more mentors at the same time. Such fortunate individuals are in a good position to cross-check recommendations and get additional assistance. In practice we often find that ambitious pool members are constantly seeking mentors to help them be successful.

In establishing a mentoring system, the issue of whether a mentor should be chosen from the pool member’s operating or business unit often crops up. Table 14-1 compares the two approaches.

The bottom line is that there is no right or wrong approach; it all depends on the circumstances in question.

The ideal short-term mentor is several levels above the pool member in the organization. However, this often is not possible—sometimes there just aren’t enough people higher in the organization to serve as mentors. As a result, many organizations find that the multiple-level separation of mentor and pool member is less feasible as pool members go higher in the organization.

How many pool members can a manager mentor effectively? We strongly believe the magic number is one. Because of the pressures that most mentors experience in their regular jobs, it is very difficult for them to mentor more than one Acceleration Pool member and be effective. We have seen cases in which five to seven pool members have been assigned to a single executive—and in every case the desired mentoring never came about. A few managers can mentor two or even three pool members, but they are very rare.

Such overburdening usually occurs when an organization makes an arbitrary rule about who can be a mentor (e.g., all mentors must be members of the operating committee or another high-level group). There simply are not enough of these people to go around. While top-ranking executives might be ideal, an organization is much better served using people lower in the organization, thereby getting a one-to-one ratio of pool members to mentors.

Many of the common problems that arise in mentoring programs stem from misguided expectations—on both sides. Too many pool members sit back and expect the mentor to do everything in their relationship. If they’re lucky, that might happen, but most of the time, it doesn’t. Usually, pool members must take the lead in setting up meetings and getting what they want from the relationship. Pool members who take the initiative in making the relationship work report excellent results and few problems. Mentors know their responsibility is important and usually don’t mind if a pool member takes the first step in scheduling meetings, etc. As discussed in the previous section, a major step in avoiding misconceptions about the relationships is to have both the mentor and the pool member participate in an orientation session to clarify their roles and agree on how they will confront issues.

When organizations don’t have formally appointed mentors, the immediate and second-level managers must assume the mentoring responsibilities.

There are many reasons that pool members might become frustrated with their immediate manager; yet, they often are unwilling to go over the manager’s head and vent their displeasure to higher management. If the pool member has no one to turn to in such situations, the problem grows until he or she seeks a job outside the organization. A mentor is a convenient, trusted, organizationally acceptable ally for an Acceleration Pool member who has a problem. A mentor can evaluate the situation, give advice, and intervene if necessary.

As with almost everything else, Internet/intranet and e-mail communications are having a powerful impact on mentoring relationships. Increasing numbers of mentors are interacting with pool members via e-mail—and both sides seem to like it. Using e-mail increases the frequency of contacts and allows immediate responses. Many pool members report that they feel more at ease sending a question via e-mail than asking the same question over the phone. Mentors report that pool members often copy them on job-related correspondence, which helps them to get a better understanding of their pool member’s job and development progress. Communicating via the Web is particularly effective if a mentor and pool member are in different time zones or have difficulty in face-to-face meetings.

Some organizations are experimenting with the concept of group self-mentoring. This involves having 6 to 20 high-potential individuals self-mentor as a team, with a senior manager acting as a facilitator and coach. The participants bring up personal development issues and share suggested answers, while the senior manager facilitates the meeting process and helps the group find the right answers on its own. The manager’s role is not to come up with the answers.

For an Acceleration Pool to succeed, the Executive Resource Board and the HR department must work together to meet a major challenge: getting the immediate manager and the mentor to dedicate the time and energy necessary for success.

One approach is to build the responsibility for developing the pool member into the performance plans of the manager and mentor. If they know that their assigned pool members’ progress will be discussed during performance reviews with their manager and that part of their salary increase or bonus is tied to each pool member’s success, the mentors and managers are more likely to expend the necessary effort. However, as we’ve often noted, it is much easier to add a development objective to someone’s performance review form than it is to get high-level executives to seriously consider it in appraisal discussions. Still, it does no harm to include such objectives, and doing so serves as a symbol that the organization is serious about succession management.

Another way to put pressure on managers to develop pool members is to include the manager’s manager (sometimes called “manager once removed”) as part of the team responsible for developing the pool member. The second-level manager can check on the pool member’s progress, see that Development Action Forms and other documentation are completed, and make sure that the pool member is getting the planned learning opportunities. The second-level manager can be very effective in ensuring that the Acceleration Pool member’s immediate manager does not provide too much help during a stretch assignment or, worse yet, assume responsibility for it. When this happens, the second-level manager must intervene. Also, the second-level manager usually has a broader understanding of the organization’s needs. This expanded perspective enables the second-level manager to offset any parochial views held by the immediate leader, who might be reluctant to assign much responsibility to a pool member who will soon be moved to another assignment, or to relinquish a person who is starting to make a significant contribution to the work group.

Some organizations periodically remind managers and mentors of their responsibilities and commitment. This is a tactic often used by HR departments, but it works best if the CEO or COO employs it. Other organizations require those directly involved in a pool member’s development to submit reports or attend meetings in which the individual’s progress is discussed, or both. This can be an effective tactic, especially if the CEO attends the meetings.

Encouraging managers and mentors to work together as a team and, as such, be responsible for the development of pool members is still another way to engage them more fully in their development tasks. For example, the immediate manager, the mentor, a representative of the HR department, and sometimes even the second-level manager might be formed into a team by senior management. They go through orientation and training together. The HR representative arranges team meetings and makes sure that everyone attends. The net result is that before the planned meetings team members follow through with their responsibilities because they don’t want to appear to their fellow executives as if they’re not holding up their end of the bargain. Once a year, the team reports to the CEO or the Executive Resource Board on the progress of their assigned pool member.

Another tactic for helping managers and their Acceleration Pool members to take appropriate actions is to remind them—at strategic times—about what they are required to do. Organizations, such as BASF North America, send computer-generated memos to learners and their managers to remind them of their responsibilities before, during, and after training programs. For example, about two weeks before an individual is scheduled to attend a training program, his or her manager receives an e-mail encouraging the manager to work with the person in setting learning and application objectives. More reminders are sent during and after the training.

In trying to focus people’s energy on the Acceleration Pool, it’s important to maintain perspective. Remember: Managers do see the importance of growing high-potential people and want to do their part, but competing priorities that everyone faces make it difficult to pull together the “share of minds” needed to make the system work as it should.

The acquisition of new, different skills is essential if today’s rising stars are to become tomorrow’s successful executives. In our current world of brilliant, technically gifted young stars, this equates to telling the smartest kid in the class that he or she needs to study harder. Let’s face it—the best and brightest generally know they’re good, and a common call to “leadership development” is widely perceived by them as a rite of passage and not a real opportunity to learn important new skills (despite what your pool members might be telling you). Make no mistake—the kinds of egos that flourish among the most senior executives are also generally healthy and growing among budding leaders, who typically have found success already (and in many cases wealth). But what they generally don’t realize is that the formula for success is about to change—dramatically.

Ask a professional athlete about the difference between college and the next level, and you’ll hear things like, “I never expected it to be this fast,” “The competition is so intense—everyone is great,” “I have to train harder than ever to be successful,” and so on. Ask experienced executives about their first general management-level role, and you’ll hear similar remarks. Rarely do the occupants of high posts describe how ready they were to take on their first high-profile role. To the contrary—we routinely hear stories of executives who describe the profound learning (and associated stress) they encountered in their early executive experiences.

Table 14-2 lists some common transition problems facing Acceleration Pool members. As appropriate to the job and the individual, these transition problems should be discussed with pool members when they start a new assignment. Also, an effective manager or mentor keeps an eye out for inappropriate reactions to these executive transitions.