Bootstrap Leadership Blog

I want to explore (and shamelessly steal) a term that a reader coined this past week in the comments section of this column.  In case you missed it, the reader weighed in with this gem… “It’s about time we all stopped using the term "best practice" - really, it's almost impossible to say that one practice is going to be the best one across industries and organizations. I think we need to start using the term ‘effective practice’… it's our job to determine which practices and which examples are going to be the best fit for our own organizations, rather than to simply adopt practices that have worked somewhere else.”

Taken by itself, I think that’s a profound statement; one that could spark some interesting dialog for you and your colleagues.  It’s the term “effective practice” that caught my eye, though, and got me to thinking about this question: “what are your team’s most effective practices?”  In other words, what would others around the organization say your team does really well?  What is your team known for?  And more importantly, do you (and the team) know what those things are?

I’ve taken a stab at a quick “Top 10” list of macro practices that your team probably engages in (see below). 

• Coming up with innovative ideas
• Project planning
• Soliciting input from key stakeholders
• Simple, elegant design of tools or processes
• Execution & management of programs or services
• Customer or client service
• Clear communications
• Creation & tracking of meaningful metrics
• Building and maintaining relationships
• Listening to feedback and adapting tools, processes, services

Every team I ever led was better at some of these than others.  You’ve probably had the same experience.  The question is – which of these practices does your team excel at, and what does that say about your team?  At your next staff meeting, try this simple exercise: Have each member of the team rank order this list from most effective to least effective, and then compile and share the answers.  Use this list, or better yet, have the team create their own from scratch.  What do their answers reveal about how they see themselves?  Do you agree?  Is this the image you want to be projecting to the rest of the organization?  Then, ask your peers or internal clients (or even external customers) to complete the same exercise – have them rank your team according to these broad practices.  Gather 7 or 8 peer or customer rankings, and compare their aggregate list to your team’s rankings.  How do you stack up?  How does your internal opinion of your most effective practices compare to that of others who interact with the team?

It’s an interesting concept, isn’t it – “most effective practices.”  What do we really do well?   Sort of opens up all kinds of interesting roads to go down as a leader.  Begs the “why” question, for sure.  Why do we do this well?  Why don’t we do that more effectively?   If you want to bring your team up to a new level of effectiveness, try this exercise.  Find out what your team’s unique “effective practices” seem to be… and then starting thinking of ways to leverage those, while building new capability in the least effective areas. 

Watching the presidential election unfold these last few months got me thinking about the comparison between politics and business.  Usually, I think elected officials could benefit from some hard driving business methods - alignment, fiscal responsibility, good execution, a relentless focus on results, attention to customer needs, etc.  Lately though, I’m thinking that maybe business might be able to learn something from the political process.  What if senior business leaders had to campaign for their seat at the top of the organization?  What if the traditional succession planning process was turned on its head… and the employees got to pick their leaders?   

As we know, candidates for political office have to craft a strategy, package that into a message for voters, and debate their competitor in a public forum.  The followers (citizens) then vote on the candidates and those ideologies. When elected, the candidate serves for a specified time, has his or her performance measured on a regular basis (polls), and can even be “fired” (albeit under remarkable circumstances).  If the incumbent wants a longer run, he or she has to repeat the process above.  Throughout the entire process, the followers hold most of the power.

In the business world, however, a group of “party leaders” (CEO, Board of Directors) hand-pick the next leader.  Without a doubt, the successful candidate generally has a great track record, and has demonstrated some level of competence and judgment.  However, the “followers” (employees) don’t get to weigh the candidates’ ideas, they don’t witness a debate about what’s best for the company, and they certainly don’t play a direct role in the selection of the new leader.  When appointed, the new leader serves for an unspecified time, has his or her performance measured on a regular basis, and can most definitely be fired.  If the incumbent wants a long run, they need to remain productive and champion the values of the company.  The entire process is in the hands of senior leaders, who have to be really good at judging character and potential.  The followers hold almost no power.

In the end, it’s probably wise to keep the process we have in both arenas – letting a group of “senior leaders” choose our next government official doesn’t make much sense, and having employees pick their leaders might not be the best idea, for a lot of reasons.  But it does make you think, doesn’t it? Perhaps those of us in talent management should adopt some lessons from the healthy face-off of issues, styles, and ideas that plays out in the political process.  Maybe there’s something to this notion of asking senior managers to lay out their plans, share their leadership style, etc.  I can see it now – a series of debates between Bob from accounting and Sue from corporate finance to see who will be the next CFO! 

My friend Larry suggested an intriguing topic that has to do with succession planning – but not the type where organizations get thoughtful about their full slate of leadership talent.  Larry recently retired from his senior marketing executive role in a large company, and now finds himself dabbling in about eight different ventures/hobbies. 

Lately, he’s been inundated with questions from fellow “retiring boomers” who are unsure of how to handle their own personal succession planning as they conclude their current careers. What makes these folks different is that they work for themselves, or have unique jobs.  Larry tells me that, regardless of the nature of their work, their challenges and questions are very immediate and real, and they lack any informed perspective on how to best approach them. For example, there is:

 Tori - who started a non-profit organization 25 years ago.  As she considers retirement, she faces past investors who are wondering why they should continue to contribute to the cause.

Bob - who is a CPA with a client base that is loyal to him. He feels he needs to provide a two year notice to his clients and partners and then phase himself out of the business, but doesn’t know where to start.

Karen - an independent contractor who sees her business on the wane and doesn't know if it is time to stop, how to stop, whether to close her business or attempt to sell it to someone else.

Bill - who is the founder of a small but successful advertising agency who wants it to continue to succeed but hesitates to give up control.

George - the first and only pastor for a church who doesn’t think he should be involved in identifying his successor, but also realizes that his lack of involvement may risk the future of the church and its membership. 

As Larry points out, there are millions of other baby boomers starting to face similar challenges.  What should they do?  Unlike big companies, smaller organizations or self-run businesses don’t have a deep bench of talent.  How do they identify a successor?  When and how do they communicate their plans to retire?   How do they effectively transition responsibility to others to ensure long term success? 

They answers aren’t easy, and they’re probably unique for every situation.  But some lessons from large companies probably do apply.  First, they have to be honest with themselves about their situation (just as corporations have to be candid about their own leadership needs).  Second, they need to consider alternative paths to the final answer.  What are their options?  It’s probably a good idea to plot at least 2-3 scenarios and solicit feedback from trusted friends or colleagues (companies often “horse race” several candidates for the same role).  Third, they need a planful transition – an overlap with their successor (3-6 months is typical in some firms).  Fourth, because their own passion for the job or organization is usually very strong, they might also make it clear to others that they’ll be staying involved as an advisor (retirees as mentors is popular in many organizations). 

There’s no simple solution.  But if retiring boomers brainstorm a few different courses of action and gather input from a variety of sources, chances are they’ll make the right decision, for themselves and their businesses or organizations.  Larry’s right about one thing – this is something that’s going to gather steam over the next 10 years (I’m sure there are niche consultants gearing up as we speak to capture this very market).  As for Larry and I – a tip of the hat to everyone who’s been successful enough to get to this square on the game board… good for you.  Now, start applying the same smarts, guts and judgment to your succession planning that you brought to your careers.  We’re confident you can do it!