ancy Hammond reveled in the good-humored hum as her colleagues returned from a lunch break for the final session of the Economic Coordination Administration's senior staff meeting. The deputy administrator had long recognized the need for succession planning as retirement eligibility approached for a generation of senior ECA executives. But her persistent advocacy of systematic agencywide efforts to identify and develop replacements had won few converts.
Frankly, the power wielders at the national and regional levels were comfortable with their own ability to spot and nurture leadership talent.
Hammond had gambled that the fabled Professor Jackson Kanner, who had spoken at the morning session in favor of succession planning, would succeed where she and others had failed. On the surface, it looked as though Kanner had at least established a foothold. Witty and armed with extensive empirical and anecdotal material, Kanner had stimulated a constructive give-and-take discussion with the dozen bureau and regional directors. At past staff meetings, Hammond recalled, they had never gotten beyond grunting or twiddling their thumbs whenever the subject had come up.
True, some had expressed skepticism and questioned the ultimate payoff for the considerable investment of time, effort and money. But most of the questions focused on how ECA could learn from other organizations that were choosing and developing their future leaders.
At lunch, Kanner had been the center of a spontaneous and friendly continuation of the morning session. To Hammond, it was a sign that her famously analytical colleagues were being won over. If the debate was shifting from whether to do succession planning to how to do it, she would be satisfied. Now all Hammond had to do was build on Kanner's momentum.
She opened the afternoon session with some optimistic bridging remarks. Hammond then summarized her meetings with each bureau and regional director over the last year. At those meetings, the directors identified people in their organizations with the most leadership potential and positions for which they might eventually qualify.
Hammond reminded her colleagues that Larry Denapolos, the ECA human resources development chief, had attended those meetings and had taken notes. "Larry has organized that information by individual, organization and potential position," she told the group.
"It's time to review this information and share our views about these people. Then we can prepare for the administrator a consolidated picture of future executive staffing. On the basis of this morning's session with Professor Kanner, I believe most of us are ready for this."
Hammond noticed a faint stirring among her listeners, but she proceeded as planned: "Larry, let's start with the list of high-potential prospects."
"Excuse me, Nancy," Dave Tremaine, the Economic Analysis Bureau director, cut in. "I never understood that those confidential discussions would lead to a public display of my people's names. I'd like to ask my colleagues if I'm the only one who has a problem with that."
Three or four vigorous nods supported Tremaine, and none of the directors indicated they felt otherwise. Hammond searched the other faces and thought she read confusion. Or was it relief that someone else had spoken up against an intrusion into the way business was done at ECA? She had to make a stab at retrieving the earlier forward movement.
"I'm sorry if there's a misunderstanding, Dave," she began in an even tone. "I didn't consider a presentation to the administrator's 13 principal associates as a public display. And I did include in the meeting notice that we would be reviewing the results of those individual meetings, didn't I?"
"Let's be realistic, Nancy," Tremaine responded, "there would be copies of any list and it's bound to get out. I'm not casting aspersions on Larry's staff, but human nature being what it is, nothing will get around this agency faster than who is and is not on a hot-shot list," he warned. "Who's going to handle that fallout?"
Midwest Region Director John Koltmyer, rarely an ally of Tremaine's, was less concerned about confidentiality than about the group's readiness for the exercise.
"I thought discussing the results of the private meetings meant aggregate numbers and occupational and geographic distribution," Koltmyer said.
"I'm not ready to talk about individuals. Hell, I don't know more than a handful of folks outside my region and my bureau, so what's the point?" he challenged.
"That is the point," Hammond mused to herself. But she felt the cold water on her face and her post-Kanner euphoria was gone. She needed a way to avoid being driven back to square one.
How could meaningful succession planning take hold without discussing individual cases? Was Hammond's credibility, and thus her effectiveness, now in question? If so, what could she do to repair the damage?
"Let's take a break," she responded.
What would you recommend? Let us know at letters@govexec.com. Read the experts' suggestions in the left-hand column.
NEXT STORY: Hotels Offer the Comforts of Work