Many
organizations from SMEs to the Fortune 500 understand the importance of a
succession plan. If common business sense and a mindfulness for the future aren’t
convincing enough, recent succession planning gaffes have likely made an
impression.

So, what
happens when a company does plan ahead, vets candidates and makes what seem to
be all the right moves in placing new leadership at the top—and it just doesn’t
work out? Recently, a headline of this nature involving PepsiCo caught my
attention. The news: Larry Thompson, PepsiCo’s general counsel from 2004-2011,
recently stepped out of retirement (and his part time position as a University
of Georgia law professor) to reenter the organization as executive vice
president of government affairs, general counsel and corporate secretary. Why? Because his replacement didn’t work out.

How
does an organization of PepsiCo’s magnitude—or any size—prevent this kind of
backpedaling in the future? It takes a holistic awareness of just how dynamic
the placing of candidates really is, and an acceptance that the entire process
has to be incredibly fluid, with multiple checkpoints along the way.

Here’s
what I mean. You know you need a succession plan, so you set it in motion. The
team moves forward choosing a handful of candidates, learning their strengths
and weaknesses, pairing them with mentors, and watching their development
closely. If, during these processes, you don’t have checkpoints in place to
evaluate a candidate’s progress and status, you may end up spending a lot of
time and resources on someone who may last a year or less (as with the case of PepsiCo).

In a
recent article, I write about the fundamentals of reality-based
talent and succession planning and identify five steps to get started. Here are
a couple ways to stay in check throughout that process:

Ÿ  Checkpoint: Once potential leaders have been
identified, involve various members of the leadership team to see what they
think of the candidate slates’ strengths and challenges, and how they feel
these candidates would fare in a particular leadership role. Hold a formal
inquiry every quarter to capture real-time insight. Capitalizing on the opinions
of vetted management is important because they can more readily assess the
needs/wants skills, personality types and industry proficiencies required to do
the job well.

Ÿ  Checkpoint: Keep track of how well the arranged
mentorships are progressing through clearly stated benchmarks and quarterly
meetings. What feedback are you getting from the mentor (current leadership)
and mentee (potential succession candidate) on the state of the relationship,
and what has each learned? An open and transparent dialogue is key here since
this is the time to really assess 1) the capabilities of the candidate, and 2)
his or her interest in pursuing this career path. There is a lot at stake for
both parties. 

Ÿ  Checkpoint: Periodically review your succession
plan to make sure it still aligns with your business plan and priorities for
future growth. Make someone specifically accountable for this role because any
shifts in the strategic outlook for the company will send the succession plan in
a different trajectory if it isn’t adjusted accordingly.

What
are your thoughts on the process? Do you agree that “checking in” on each step
of the succession planning process is a good way to prevent backpedaling, or
worse, complete reversal of an already placed leader? If you find yourself
struggling with implementing these ideas into your succession plan, it may be
time to partner with an expert who can build your company bench strength with
solidarity.