What’s the point of doing succession planning when your division might get shut down next week because the company is doing so well?

We have very different ideas about what makes a good CEO.

No, at the end of the day there is no real difference between the public and private sector, at least not at the managerial level. I understand the idea that there is a lot of “institutional memory” that can get lost if succession is not well planned but there is so much more to being a manager than just knowing how things work and where the bodies are buried (although those are really important). I could hire a guy tomorrow and train him or her for a year and teach him or her everything I know but if that person cannot get along with the crew that is being managed, or his or her superiors, it does not mean a thing.

You are also right about the fetishes that surround being manager. It is fascinating they way people (even those who should really know betyer) are impressed by the “right degree” from the “right school” and how some magic training in the “right way” to be a manager is going to make all of the difference.

Ah, well that is a very different question. There are typically three parts to a civil service exam for this sort of position, the actual application itself, an objective written portion, and an oral interview. In terms of qualifications, I have never seen a gradation, one is either qualified or not. For example, one either has a college degree in public administration or not. One either has five years experience in local government finance or not. Are the questions asked during the written or oral portions truly diagnostic of preparation to be a manager? Who knows, I sure don’t. I have seen interviewees who look great on paper and answer all of the written questions perfectly but totally crumble during the oral portion. Beyond that, so much of what makes any manager excel is about personality, do they “click” with the rest of the team. That is the really hard part, figuring out who meshes well with a given group. You cannot get that from an application or written exam, or even sometimes with the oral interview. That is why this idea of succession planning is somewhat overblown and misleading.

No, they did not. I was asked to help with the statistical analysis. The candidates with extra training were no more likely to get promoted than those without. To put it in statistical term, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between these two group and the null hypothesis was not rejected. If fact, the internal candidates, without or with training were less likely to get the managerial appointment than the external candidates.

I will tell what I think is an interesting story along these lines. I was asked to consult with someone doing a study of exactly this issue in a fairly large municipality. This individual had reviewed all of the appointments to managerial position within the civil service positions over the previous five years. What she had been asked was what were the variables that best predicted who would get those appointments. The municipality had a program of trying to prepare their employees for promotion to managerial positions (i.e. succession planing). The HR staff wanted to compare those hired from within with those hired from without and to see which elements of their succession planning program best advanced internal advancement. The results of study were that none of them did. In general outside candidates did better than internal candidates and it made no difference if those who were promoted from within had participated in the program or not. The process of evaluating candidates did not reward individuals who took part in continuing education for example. Candidates who had continued going to school while they were employed in their existing position were no more likely to be promoted to a managerial position than those who had made no effort at continuing education. The same was true for every other part of the process that was supposed prepare people for promotion. Either this program was ineffective at actually preparing these individuals to be managers or the candidate evaluation system was unable to measure that preparation or other candidates were simply better prepared despite their lack of training. This system of course is supposed to, in theory, eliminate the type of personal “grooming” that would give one candidate an “unfair” advantage.

What I suspect is that unless a single individual is explicitly designated “heir apparent”, succession planing does not really mean very much.