By Jean Lobell - In an earlier post, I outlined Three Key Issues in Succession Planning. Today’s post is a continuation of the insights I shared on the key elements of a successful succession planning process.
I would go a step further than regular discussions. I think it is important that the key elements of a succession planning process as outlined in my previous post are in place. Without those key components, systems, and tools, the discussions about succession will only go so far. The process itself need not be protracted or complex.
When performance evaluations are deemed “of little or no use at all” which to me means it was ineffective, as was the case for 68% of EDs in the national 2011 Daring to Lead report (77% of EDs in the NY sample), the likelihood of having a meaningful and successful succession planning process is low. Not only is the performance evaluation process a vehicle for Boards to get to know the ED’s job more fully, it is also predicated on having had a substantial discussion of goals and expectations. Such a discussion enables Boards to think more generatively about what the organization needs for the coming year or two and what they should expect of the ED’s leadership. This could only increase their readiness to think about succession.
Since true succession planning goes beyond the ED position, it behooves us to think about the quality and effectiveness of performance evaluations for key positions below the ED level. Does it even happen at all? We don’t have data from the 2011 Daring to Lead study that focuses specifically on the effectiveness of performance evaluations below the ED level. However, one finding is indicative that this management responsibility is challenging to say the least. Of four leadership domains, leading others was the domain that leaders assessed themselves lowest (only 35% of respondents assessed themselves as effective in this domain.) In the study, this domain referred to hiring and firing, giving and getting effective feedback, keeping a whole team aligned and high-performing. And more than challenging, they found this area of responsibility “as the most depleting and commensurately as the least energizing aspect of their work.”
The study aside, our many years of experience helping nonprofits on performance evaluation issues tell us that managing staff performance effectively continues to be an area of growth for most nonprofits in NYC. Sometimes it’s the quality of the forms and measures used to evaluate performance; sometimes it’s the manager or supervisor’s ability to conduct an effective performance discussion; sometimes it’s the lack of staff development opportunities; and sometimes it’s an organizational culture that does not support holding people accountable for results.
For true succession planning to work, a meaningful and effective performance evaluation process from top to bottom must be in place. They are two sides of the same coin.
Click here for more information about the New York City respondents and interesting facts about their Daring to Lead responses.
Links to previous posts in the Daring to Lead series:
What's An ED to Do?
What Works in Leadership Development
Three Key Issues in Succession Planning
One Size Does Not Fit All Boards
A Bone To Pick About Government Contracting
Daring To Lead: A National Study on Executive Leadership
Read the Daring to Lead main report, Brief 1: Leading Through a Recession, Brief 2: Inside the Executive Director Job and Brief 3: The Board Paradox.
Subscribe via RSS feed 
Comments
Post has no comments.