Case Studies
The following case studies are representative of the leadership development and succession planning work done by the Cheloha Consulting Group.In order to preserve the anonymity and confidentiality of individuals and client companies, identities are disguised and names are not used .
Case 1: Executive Assessment
Situation: A US-based financial services firm headquartered in the Northeast had invested in an executive development/training program for 50 of its high potentials to enhance leadership development, build cross-firm relationships, and reinforce alignment on the company’s strategic growth goals. The offsite leadership development program included action learning, team-based feedback, and a business simulation. The company wanted to add an individual assessment component to provide them with insights into the leadership readiness of their high potentials to move into “Band 1” positions (direct reports to the CEO) should vacancies occur. They also wanted each high potential to have an individual development plan detailing leadership strengths and weaknesses so they could improve their capabilities and readingess for promotion.
Intervention: Based on the company's senior leadership competency model, we developed a multi-method/multi-trait assessment approach drawing on individual interviews, the Hogan Challenges survey, Firo-B, group evaluation methodology, 360-survey, and bio-data history form. The assessment were completed over six weeks by a team of five psychologists with extensive data integration which yielded a lengthy developmental report on each executive. Based on pre-existing criteria for competency operating at a Band 1 level, the 50 high potentials were rank ordered into three groups: ready now; ready with some additional job experience/coaching; and ready longer term. In a talent review with the company's senior team, we reached agreement on five individuals who had the greatest bandwidth, flexibility, and general management capability if senior openings appeared.
Outcome: Due to the dynamic nature of the financial markets, several Band 1 senior personnel left over the next six months. They retired or were lured away by bigger jobs and financial packages from competitor Fortune 500 firms. The financial services company was able to act immediately by appointing Band 2 individuals to the critical positions insuring continuity of the function's activities, while saving tens of millions of dollars in external search fees and the hard to quantify productivity and morale losses. In addition, several Band 2 high potentials received intensive additional coaching which resulted in accelerating their readiness for promotion.
Case 2: Executive Coaching
Situation: The CEO of a California- based software firm contacted us to coach his new CTO. The CTO had recently been recruited from the outside to oversee the implementation of a new SAP system involving major changes to the organization structure and forcing the re-alignment of the Technology function. Both interventions resulted in a painful series of steps involving lay-offs, and resistance from the analysts, programmers, and other technical professionals. As might be expected, the CTO became a lightning rod for the changes which created friction with some of his internal customers. The CEO, a former client of CCG, contacted us to see if we could improve the situation.
Intervention: We met with the CTO and the CEO on several occasions to establish organizational context. We conducted a complete psychological assessment on the CTO. In addition, a 360-based interview process was designed to gather feedback from critical user/support groups for the CTO. The confidential information was integrated into a feedback report shared with the CTO and then with him and his boss to insure they were aligned on a “developmental contract” which specified expected changes and a timetable.
Outcome: The development plan served as a blueprint to guide our coaching of the CTO over six months. To the CTO’s credit, he was not defensive, received the feedback well, and made a number of changes in his leadership style along with working hard to re-establish relationships with several key internal customers. Subsequent interviews with the executive team confirmed that the CTO had made important changes in his style and was more open to his fellow teammates. By reaching out, he had legitimized his place on the team and his contributions. The company avoided additional silo-ing of the functions and the potential loss of a sophisticated technical manager who had the capabilities and expertise to take the company to the next level of organizational growth. This allowed the CEO to focus on their strategy of changing the company’s business mix moving away from technical research focused on software to increasing their emphasis on bundled solutions of software and consulting thereby increasing their margins by 10%.
Case 3: CEO Succession Planning
Situation: The Board Directors of a large, Arizona based manufacturing company which had established a strong brand in the automotive industry for automobile wiring harnesses was in a quandary. Their last two CEOs had left under less than ideal circumstances leaving the company in a tenuous position with no internal candidates and a Board which was not aligned around the criteria for the next CEO or whether the individual should be an insider or an outsider. A Board Member stepped in as an interim CEO, under the proviso that the search for his successor began immediately while he implemented several measures to stabilize the company by increasing “fill rate”, improving quality, and rebuilding some relationships with key customers.
Intervention: First, in collaboration with the Board and the CEO, we devised a leadership success profile which detailed the characteristics the next CEO would need to possess in order to be successful, given current demands and anticipated market changes. We then designed a protocol and interviewed each Board member to gather their perspectives on the company’s strategy, direction, brand positioning, strengths, threats, competitors, the CEO succession process, and views on the relative strengths of internal candidates vs. pursuing an external CEO. Results revealed that approximately 75% of Board members believed their only alternative was to recruit from the outside, while 25%, were leaning towards an outside candidate, but acknowledged there were capable individuals who had a chance if they were successful in turning around some troubled divisions. We then designed a process allowing the Board members to interview (in teams of 2 or 3) the internal candidates to gather first hand knowledge of their capabilities. Each internal candidate also prepared a “white paper” which explained his/her views on the company’s position in the market, what it needed to do strategically, and how they would accomplish this over the next five years. Finally, the Board hired an external search firm to produce a slate of external candidates.
Outcome: After meeting several external candidates, the Board was comfortable their internal candidates were at least as strong, and probably stronger than any external recruits they’d met. They terminated the external search, and began watching the current candidates in their current assignments more closely, visited the operating units, and asked for periodic Board updates in order to see the candidates operate "under fire." They were able to reach agreement and choose unanimously a CEO successor. The CEO-to-be received coaching from both the outgoing CEO and an external coach to prepare him for the new role. We designed a “hand off” process for the current CEO to transition responsibilities to the incoming CEO insuring no confusion about roles and to send unmistakeable signals to the organization that the succession process was being managed. The result was a mid-year announcement of an internal candidate for CEO, a smooth transition of power between the outgoing and incoming CEO, and the generation of perceptions by the market analysts that followed the company that the succession situation had been resolved. This resulted in an increase in share prices and a steady rise in the company’s market cap during a recessionary market.
Case 4: Senior Team Development
Situation: After successfully coaching the President of a $2.5 billion Division for a mid-Atlantic producer of scientific equipment with revenues approaching $4 billion, we were asked to work with their senior team which was “stuck.” There were two areas of friction: 1) Team members were criticizing each other’s leadership behind closed doors rather than confronting the issues as a group. For example, the Division President was aware that one of his direct reports was not “pulling his weight” in team meetings, and instead chose to criticize others from the sidelines, dominate the discussion, while refusing to address issues in his business unit. The President was concerned this counter-productive behavior was splitting the team into cliques of new-timers and old-timers and preventing the team from confronting any real business issues which included addressing major structural problems at the R&D lab which was not generating any new products and was not supporting the business units.
Intervention: We interviewed 12 team members (one of whom was based in Norway) about their perceptions (confidentially) of the team, the leader, team functioning, and followed up with them on a teamwork questionnaire they'd completed to provide more specifics to their answers about the team's goals, roles, processes, and interpersonal functioning. They were also asked about their own managment style, strengths, and areas for improvement. In addition, we asked them the same questions about each of their other team members. Each team member also took several psychological “tests”. By the time we had completed the interviews, we had a clear picture of each individual leader’s strengths and weaknesses, cross-referenced by his/her peers and buttressed by the test data, and also had a collective view of the team and where teamwork could be improved.
A day and a half offsite was planned. While part of the meeting was devoted to formal business reviews (the Division held quarterly business reviews), the other half of the meeting was devoted to team and individual development. The facilitator had each individual share with the group their own perceptions of their leadership, including strengths and weaknesses, and fielded follow-up comments from their peers. The facilitator kept flip-board notes on of the discussion, insured a safe and secure environment for discussion, and created an on-the-spot leadership development summary for each team member. The facilitator also shared with the team each individuals team work scores from the questionnaire (anonymously) along with "rinsed" qualitative perceptionsabout the team's goals, roles, processes, and interprsonal functioning. This generated a hearty and at times controversial discussion which allowed the team to confront and work through one major issue regarding role assignments and boundaries and reach agreement on a new method of organizing and conducting their team meetings to allow for efficiency and productivity while creating a forum for them to directly address issues (and each other).
Outcome: Group dynamics are tricky. The Division and the company were happy with the results which played out over six months. The Division President decided to retire, realizing that there was more work to be done in shaping his team than he wanted to take on. He was replaced by a more dynamic and hands-on leader. One of the business unit leaders resigned as he became increasingly aware that his peers did not support him nor would they tolerate his criticism until he addressed the problems in his own business unit. While these two departures were disruptive, the team ultimately became aligned behind the new Division President and produced a record revenue year while re-structuring the R&D lab to support individual business units rather serve as an overall Division resource.
|
|