The Cosmic Banana Peel

My holiday reading included the book Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life by bestselling author Anne Lamott (pictured). It was a gift from Directors & Boards lead columnist Hoffer Kaback. Here is a passage that jumped out at me:

"Remember that whenever the world throws rose petals at you, which thrill and seduce the ego, beware. The cosmic banana peel is suddenly going to appear underfoot to make sure that you don't take it all too seriously."

Were truer words ever spoken? We are all familiar with the dynamic: At the moment, or period, of maximum accomplishment, success, recognition, the cosmic banana peel gets underfoot, resulting in disappointment, disdain, even disaster.

It is true in all fields of endeavor, from sports (Brett Favre, anyone?) to entertainment (Tom Cruise?) to, of course, business (BP, Toyota, Mark Hurd).

For board members and top management, a good two-fold resolution for the coming year will be to not get enamoured with your press clippings or glowing analyst reports and, paraphrasing the famous advice of Intel's Andy Grove (re his book Only the Paranoid Survive), be paranoid — of slipping on the cosmic banana peel.

Actually, as I heard it put by another cautious soul, it's not just a question of being paranoid but . . . are you paranoid enough?

Watch your step every step of the way as you exercise leadership and judgment in 2011. Don't let this be the year that you — and your shareholders — take a fall, courtesy of the cosmic banana peel.

Hit by a Buss

Any discussion of CEO succession planning has to take into account the 'hit by a bus' scenario — the sudden death or disability of the leader.

It is uncomfortable for the CEO and the board to face concerns about mortality. That's why a lot of boards don't do it. Last year the National Association of Corporate Directors reported that 44% of directors it surveyed at public companies said their boards have no succession plan in place for when the CEO leaves. To which leadership guru Marshall Goldsmith rightly reacted: "What kind of message does that send out? How about chaos, disorganization, and lack of preparedness?"

Crafting a succession scenario is especially hard to do when the leader is relatively youthful and full of energy and vitality. When he or she is at the peak of their potential, just getting underway with an organizational revival or, having done the heavy lifting of a turnaround and repositioning, ready to roll it out for greater gains to come, taking the board and shareholders along for a profitable ride.

But preparing for the unexpected must be done. The advice is familiar but that doesn't make it any less fundamental. Or timeless, going back to the Good Book: "We know not the time nor the hour. . . ."

We're obviously thinking of Mark Hurd with these comments. His sudden, shocking removal from office following ramifications of a relationship with a marketing rep for the company gives an electrifying twist to the 'hit by a bus' scenario.

Let's call it 'hit by a buss' — to distinguish moral hazards from mortality hazards.

Both concerns — as improbable as they are to ponder — must drive a new impetus to nail down a succession plan. That's the clear and compelling lesson for all boards coming out of the trouble at HP.

Why Does Succession Planning Produce So Few Successors?

As noted in the blog posting below, that is the question that Heidrick & Struggles Vice Chairman Stephen Miles (pictured) has wrestled with. In October 2009 he issued an advisory that identified three "common roadblocks," as he called them, that "sabotage effective leadership transitions at companies."

The Hewlett-Packard board's ouster last week of CEO Mark Hurd prompts a fresh focus on these roadblocks. Here is how Miles has described them:

• Favoring the 'exciting' external candidate over an internal option: "It appears boards often prefer the devil they don't know to the devil they do. They often find it difficult to imagine an internal candidate in a higher role after seeing them operate for a time in a lesser one. Internal candidates will hear time and time again that they are still 'one or two years away' from being ready, while they watch their external 'competition' being lauded for similar efforts."

• Demanding a 'ready now' successor: "The concept of a 'ready now' executive effectively eliminates perfectly viable candidates from true consideration. The fact is that a company would only know that someone is 'ready now' after the fact — when they see the executive moving to another company, probably a competitor, and proving himself there. The candidate might have been ready to lead all along, but the company missed its chance. This is actually a risk management decision — and the amount of risk a board can take is dependent on the requirements of the role looking forward combined with the complementarity of the top team."

• Focusing on the high-profile CEO role and not on the whole team: "The best succession planning really involves constant assembly and re-assembly of a leadership puzzle with many pieces, including not only the CEO but the CFO, COO, sales and marketing chiefs, and other C-level officers. A trend we are seeing in the best-managed companies is that boards are looking beyond the CEO and his or her direct reports. Now boards want a detailed calibration of the C+2 and C+3 executive populations to see who's 'on deck' to take the reins down the road. Again, from a risk management perspective it is important to understand the bench strength and resulting strength or risk in the 'people portfolio.' "

Miles, who oversees the Heidrick & Struggles worldwide executive assessment/succession planning activities, also made an observation in this advisory of more than nine months ago that eerily presages the precarious position that the H-P board got itself into — if indeed it must look outside the company for its new CEO:

"Boards can, and really must, direct succession planning with an honest evaluation of current talent and the development of a rich pipeline of talent that can form the future of the company. It is this kind of forward-looking, proactive leadership that can mitigate risk and maintain confidence among internal and external stakeholders."

Into the Abyss

There is so much that is distressing in the sudden forced resignation of Mark Hurd (pictured) from Hewlett-Packard.

The distress level is so high because there is no reasonable explanation for the personal tragedy that unfolded. A man living a life of accomplishment and acclaim falls in a flash into the abyss of disgrace. And those who are in the know about why and what really happened aren't telling.

Of all the reporting and analyzing that I have read since Friday's ouster, I suspect Business Insider's Henry Blodget gets pretty close to the truth with this review of the situation — but he even has to qualify that his truth seeking is "as best we can tell."

As the shock wave of the ouster subsides, here is the next reason to be distressed about this whole affair: the early line seems to indicate that the H-P board will be going outside for a new CEO. For a company with such a history of turmoil at the top (even predating Carly Fiorina's reign), the H-P board should be one of the least likely to have yet again bungled an orderly CEO succession by not ensuring there was one or more eminently qualified internal candidates.

Why does CEO succession planning produce so few successors? That is a question that Stephen Miles, vice chairman of executive search firm Heidrick & Struggles, raised last year when he looked around at Corporate America's C-suites. Then crunching 2008 data, this expert in leadership succession issues noted that of the 80 new CEOs who were appointed among Fortune 1000 companies that year, only 44 of them — 55% — were promoted from within.

"While almost all companies technically have a succession plan in place," Miles stated, "the fact that 45% of them had to go outside to hire a CEO means that many of these plans failed to hit the mark."

He has pinpointed several ways that boards trip themselves up, which I review in the follow-on posting of August 11th. Will we see clues to how H-P "failed to hit the mark"? (No wordplay intended.) Almost surely.

Now that we have witnessed a CEO falling into an almost unimaginable personal abyss, we are about to witness a board falling into the abyss of a succession nightmare — one that, maddeningly, is all too imaginable.