Give Every Senior Manager a Piece of the Action

t first blush, it appears the bureaucracy and the old boys' network are about to sink Nancy Hammond's good intentions and the great groundwork she has laid. Can this ship be saved?

Hammond is proposing a good idea, perhaps a critical one. An organization that stands to lose its top tier of leaders needs to know how to identify the pool of candidates for future leadership. More importantly, the agency needs to know what competencies will be needed in future leaders to help guide its strategic direction and then be able to assess those competencies in potential candidates. The organization also will need a robust and varied leadership development program. But despite good intentions and a good idea, Hammond needs to regroup. Good ideas simply do not sell themselves even if put forth by witty, wise academic authorities.

The issue that needs to be addressed by Hammond and the ECA is one of deep cultural change. Times are changing, the organization's future is at stake and only a new generation of leaders will be able to preserve and extend its work.

Not unlike most government organizations, the ECA likely has been somewhat successful at growing managers-people who are good at planning, organizing, directing, controlling, etc. But, chances are, current managers have not thought much about growing leaders-people who have a vision, align others around that vision, make the connection between what employees do and the overall mission, and motivate others by removing barriers and giving away power.

Recent surveys and focus groups in government and outside by the National Academy of Public Administration and others clearly show we have too few leaders and too many managers for the task at hand. This is where Hammond needs to hang her hat.

Hammond needs to create a sense of urgency among this senior group about developing the next generation of leaders-really a pool of prepared leader candidates-and not simply coming up with a slate of candidates to replace the retirees. The urgent need for a pool of prepared leaders must be tied to the survival and successful performance of the organization, not simply to installing an improved process.

Another key ingredient seems to be missing. Where is the administrator in all this? Benchmark organizations repeatedly told NAPA in interviews that the key to an effective succession effort is the support of top leadership. Hammond seems to be the smartest, most insightful executive of the bunch, but her boss is MIA.

During the break, Hammond needs to head down to the corner office and tell the administrator that this is a critical event in the history of the organization and that he is needed. The two of them should go back to the session together and change course just a bit. Review the bidding. Present the administrator's vision (hopefully it is shared) of where the organization is headed, the critical issues, and the organization's reinvention or transformation agenda. Then talk about people issues.

The administrator and deputy should recruit volunteers to work with the deputy on benchmarking succession approaches and developing a proposal for identifying, developing and selecting a leader pool. The proposal should cite competencies needed in the next generation of leaders.

This opportunity to be part of a guiding coalition should bring forward some of the silent majority, and maybe even a couple of skeptics. That's OK. Make them all part of the process. The administrator and Hammond should stress that succession planning will become part of performance requirements and rewards for each manager.

Working collaboratively across organizational boundaries will begin to break down the old cultural norms. Two other keys to culture change--consistent communication and rewards tied to agency performance--should be added.

The administrator and deputy need to be clear that potential leaders will be viewed as corporate assets, not as unit possessions. This possessive mind-set seems to be the strongest piece of the culture. The guiding coalition can help steer an important change in philosophy: that leadership succession is a corporate, strategic initiative.

Every benchmark organization in succession and leadership development has a collaborative process for assessing each candidate's potential and readiness. Ratings are formed not just by the supervisor but by the entire senior team.

The assessment process should be open, participatory and possibly contentious, but always should use a clear set of competencies, not an agenda of personal favorites. The result should be a consensus on potential leaders, the development gaps in their competencies, and the best course for eliminating those gaps.

Development opportunities across the organization will result from the assessments. Old-line managers will have a stake in mentoring and developing not just a few chosen clones, but the entire leadership cadre for the future. That will be the current managers' legacy.

Ray Blunt is a senior consultant with the National Academy of Public Administration, the Center for Human Resource Management and with Price Waterhouse LLP in Washington. He spent 35 years in public service, focusing on human resources management, leadership and managing change. He is co-author of the report, Managing Succession and Developing Leadership: Growing the Next Generation of Public Service Leaders.