Comment le C.A. doit-il concevoir la planification de la relève et identifier le futur président et chef de la direction (PCD = CEO) ? Quel est le rôle du PCD dans cette démarche de planification de la relève ? Comment le PCD et le C.A. (comité RH) doivent-ils agir afin de s’assurer que cette importante activité soit accomplie sans susciter de résistance de la part de la personne en charge. L’article montre que le PCD a un rôle fondamental à jouer dans la recherche du meilleur candidat à l’interne et dans sa préparation à occuper la position du premier dirigeant.
Il est également clair que c’est la responsabilité du C.A. de s’assurer que l’organisation possède un processus de planification de la relève du PCD, en tenant compte des candidatures externes potentielles. Quoiqu’il en soit, les auteurs sont conscients que c’est une opération délicate et qu’il est crucial de s’assurer de la collaboration du PCD dès le début de son mandat. Ce qui est particulièrement difficile, c’est de travailler à la succession du PCD actuel, en suscitant sa collaboration, en ménageant sa susceptibilité et cela… sans arrêter une date de transition !
L’article publié par Jack ‘Rusty’ O’Kelley III, Jeff Sanders et John Wood dans Heidrick & Struggles Governance Letter montre clairement l’importance pour le C.A. de mettre en place un processus de planification de la relève très tôt après la nomination du PCD.
The CEO’s role in succession planning
« While the board ultimately owns the succession planning process, newly appointed CEOs have an opportunity to pleasantly surprise their boards by initiating the succession planning discussion almost as soon as they take office. In fact, we coach new CEOs to introduce the subject no later than their second meeting with the full board. The further out the time horizon for the succession, the more focused the CEO should be on recruiting and developing as many successors as possible. The day to day responsibility for this talent recruitment and development falls to the CEO, but the board should ensure that they are receiving regular talent updates and interacting with the high potential succession candidates to actively monitor the succession process. In one best practice example in a large U.S. company, the board and CEO began planning seven years out from the CEO’s expected retirement in order to ensure multiple internal candidates were ready.
Given the average tenure of CEOs — 8.4 years in 2011, down from about 10 years in 2000, according to the Conference Board — the countdown to succession is getting shorter, and in many cases may be as short as five to seven years. Because even this shorter time frame appears to be so far in the future, it is easy to put off the discussion. Further, CEOs may be understandably reluctant to start talking about their exit almost as soon as they make their entrance.
The board, too, may worry that in bringing up succession almost immediately, they will risk alienating the CEO, on whom so much depends. Nevertheless, this is a conversation that should begin early, and if the CEO does not initiate the conversation, it is the board’s responsibility to do so. They should then establish succession as a regular agenda item and map out how the process will work, thus defusing any personal sensitivities going forward and avoiding any misunderstandings that could result from the board suddenly raising the subject after the CEO has been on the job for a year or two ».
Related articles
– Qualité des relations entre le Président du conseil d’administration (PCA) et le Président et chef de la direction (PCD) (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)
– Quiet Crisis (Planning for Career Succession) (careerchangecentralllc.wordpress.com)
– The Case for Growing Your Own Senior Leaders (blogs.hbr.org)
– Succession Planning: The Best Time to Start Linking your Agency to the Future is Now (dworkinassociates.wordpress.com)
– Succession planning before your senior positions become vacant (sage.co.uk)
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 