20141129_WBD000_0

I was catching up with this week's Economist magazine today and an article about CEO succession caught my eye.

A CEO's self interest can get in the way of finding a suitable successor, Economist argues. In addition, boards are often careless and lazy with the task.

A large part of the blame lies with CEOs themselves. Handing over to a well-groomed successor ought to be the crowning moment of their careers. However, many are egomaniacs who crush rivals and blow hot and cold about protégés. They also have a personal interest in having no clear replacement: it keeps them in the job longer and gives them more bargaining power with their boards. This is where other directors are supposed to step in, to hold CEOs’ feet to the fire. But too many are part-timers, reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them and averse to spending more time on the job than is strictly necessary. Many of the board members who chose Mr Apotheker to run HP had not even talked to him on the phone, let alone met him.

The article suggests that CEOs and boards should get more involved with succession, and mentioned offering consolation prizes for the runner-up candidates, a goodwill gesture I'd never considered before.

When Jack Welch persuaded General Electric’s board to accept Jeff Immelt as his successor, he also ensured that two other protégés found CEO jobs elsewhere. Just as a badly handled succession can paralyse a company, a well-handled one can provide a chance to reinvigorate its upper ranks.

Here is a link to the article: Making a success of succession: Companies are generally not good at changing their chiefs

In the mining business, a headhunter we've known for 25 years and trust is Andrew Pollard, President of Mining Recruitment Group.

Learn more about Andrew here and email apollard@miningrecruitmentgroup.com and tell him Tommy sent you.