Les priorités en gouvernance en 2014 selon Harvard Law School *


Je vous propose une lecture parue dans Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, publiée par Holly J. Gregory du « Corporate Governance and Executive Compensation group » de la firme Sidley Austin LLP.

On y décrit les priorités que les conseils d’administration doivent considérer en 2014 :

Les investisseurs institutionnels

Le conseil d’administration

Les priorités

Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism...La performance de l’entreprise et l’orientation stratégique

La sélection du PCD, la rémunération, la relève

Les contrôles internes, la gestion du risque et la conformité

La préparation pour la gestion de crises

L’activisme et les relations avec le C.A.

La composition du C.A. et le leadership

Bonne lecture !

Governance Priorities for 2014

 

As the fallout from the financial crisis recedes and both institutional investors and corporate boards gain experience with expanded corporate governance regulation, the coming year holds some promise of decreased tensions in board-shareholder relations. With governance settling in to a “new normal,” influential shareholders and boards should refocus their attention on the fundamental aspects of their roles as they relate to the creation of long-term value.

Institutional investors and their beneficiaries, and society at large, have a decided interest in the long-term health of the corporation and in the effectiveness of its governing body. Corporate governance is likely to work best in supporting the creation of value when the decision rights and responsibilities of shareholders and boards set out in state corporate law are effectuated.

This article identifies and examines the key areas of focus that institutional investors and boards should prioritize in 2014.

Institutional Investors

  1. Apply a long-term value approach.
  2. Vote on a company-specific basis where possible.
  3. Focus on core issues.

The Board

Despite increased shareholder decision rights and influence, the board’s fundamental mandate remains to direct the affairs of the company. Key areas for boards to focus on include:

  1. Defining board priorities.
  2. Monitoring company performance and setting strategic direction.
  3. Selecting and compensating the CEO and planning for succession.
  4. Attending to internal controls, risk management and compliance.
  5. Preparing for a crisis.
  6. Engaging with shareholders and responding to shareholder activism.
  7. Determining board composition needs and leadership structure.

Board Priorities

Boards determine how to apportion their very limited time based on board responsibilities and the unique needs of the company. Each board must define the priorities that will shape its agenda and determine the information it needs to govern, driven by the needs of the business. Boards add value when they help management cope with the complex context in which the company operates, and when they support management in focusing on the long-term interests of the company and its shareholders.

Active board engagement in overseeing company performance, strategy and the culture of ethics should help to align the company’s approach to compensation, financial disclosure, internal controls, risk management and compliance. Therefore, in most circumstances the majority of board time should be reserved for matters related to company performance and strategy, and the ethical tone within the company.

Outside directors require considerable amounts of information as they get to know the business and the environment in which the company operates. Active involvement in prioritizing the agenda and defining information needs positions outside directors to provide objective guidance and judgment. The board should not leave decisions about the board agenda and information needs to management alone.

Company Performance and Strategic Direction

Challenges for boards include:

  1. Reserving appropriate time for review and discussion of company performance.
  2. Taking an active role in strategic planning while maintaining objectivity. (This is especially critical in enabling the board to assess the positions of activist shareholders versus management’s plans.)
  3. Supporting appropriate long-term investment and prudent risk-taking in the face of significant short-term pressures for immediate returns or other conflicts.
  4. Balancing guidance and support of management with objective assessment and constructive criticism.
  5. Holding management accountable for results in light of the agreed strategy by determining and applying performance benchmarks.
  6. Helping management anticipate and understand the potential for abrupt and long-term changes in the company’s economic, political and social environment.
  7. Testing key assumptions that underpin management’s proposed strategic plans and major transactions, including assumptions about risks.
  8. Maintaining appropriate deference to management on day-to- day operations without becoming unduly passive.

CEO Selection, Compensation and Succession

Challenges for boards include:

  1. Setting goals for the CEO (and other key executives) in line with corporate strategy, objectives and plans.
  2. Providing appropriate support, guidance and deference to the CEO while maintaining objectivity about performance.
  3. Designing compensation to attract and retain talent while aligning it with performance.
  4. Considering the CEO’s contributions in the context of the contributions of the broader team, an issue that will be highlighted with the new pay ratio disclosures.
  5. Discussing management development and succession planning on a regular basis, even regarding a new, young or high-performing CEO.
  6. Understanding and considering shareholder views about CEO compensation and succession without substituting those views for the board’s own objective judgment.
  7. Ensuring that company disclosures adequately communicate the board’s views and activities regarding compensation and succession planning.

Internal Controls, Risk Management and Compliance

Challenges for boards include:

  1. Ensuring that appropriate time is devoted to these key issues without becoming overly focused on controls and compliance.
  2. Using board committees efficiently to address these issues while keeping the entire board appropriately informed and involved.
  3. Remaining vigilant for red flags, which are often a series of yellow flags.
  4. Creating incentives for management to establish and maintain an appropriate control, risk management and compliance environment.
  5. Ensuring that the company has adopted appropriate standards of corporate social responsibility consistent with evolving societal expectations.
  6. Monitoring compliance with legal and ethical standards.

Preparing For Crisis

Shareholder Engagement and Activism

Board Composition and Leadership

________________________________

* En reprise

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sept incompréhensions à propos du processus de succession du PDG (PCD)


Voici un excellent article, publié par Heidi Schwartz* dans FacilityBlogsur un sujet très délicat mais vital pour tous les types d’organisations : Le processus de succession du PCD.

L’auteur présente les sept mythes les plus connus sur la problématique de la relève des présidents et chefs de la direction (PCD).

J’ai reproduit ci-dessous les points saillants de l’article. Bonne lecture !

The Seven Myths Of CEO Succession

 

153556214teaser

« With CEOs turning over at a rate of 10%-15% per year – from jumping to another firm to resigning due to poor health or poor performance, or just retiring – companies would be expected to be well-prepared for CEO succession. But governance experts from Stanford and The Miles Group have found a number of broad misunderstandings about CEO transitions and how ready the board is for this major change.

In their recent piece for the Stanford Closer Look Series, David Larcker and Brian Tayan of the Corporate Governance Research Initiative at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and Stephen Miles of The Miles Group name seven myths around CEO succession – myths shared by corporate boards as well as the larger business community.

“The selection of the CEO is the single most important decision a board of directors can make,” say the authors, but turmoil around these decisions at the top “have called into question the reliability of the process that companies use to identify and develop future leaders.”

« What are the seven myths around CEO succession?

Myth #1:

Companies know who the next CEO will be. “The longer the succession period from one CEO to the next, the worse the company will perform relative to its peers,” says Professor Larcker. “But, shockingly, nearly 40% of companies claim they have no viable internal candidate available to immediately fill the shoes of the CEO if he or she left tomorrow.”

Myth #2:

There is one best model for succession. “There are several different paths companies can take to naming a successor – including internal and external approaches,” says Mr. Miles. “One reason companies fall short at succession planning is that they often select the wrong model for their current situation. A company may need an external recruit to lead a turnaround, for instance, or may have the capability to groom multiple internal executives over a period of time to allow the most promising one to shine through. One size does not fit all.”

Myth #3:

The CEO should pick a successor. “Sitting CEOs have a vested interest in the current strategy of a company and its continuance, and they may have ‘favorites’ they want to see follow them,” says Professor Larcker. “Boards, however, must determine the future needs of the company, and what kind of successor will best match the direction the company is headed.”

Myth #4:

Succession is primarily a “risk management” issue. “While a failure to plan adequately certainly exposes an organization to downside risk, boards should understand that succession planning is primarily about *building* shareholder value,” says Mr. Miles. “Succession planning is as much success-oriented as it is risk-oriented.”

Myth #5:

Boards know how to evaluate CEO talent. “Our 2013 survey found that CEO performance evaluations place considerable weight on financial performance (such as accounting, operating, and stock price results) and not enough weight on the nonfinancial metrics (such as employee satisfaction, customer service, innovation, and talent development) that have proven correlation with the long-term success of organizations,” says Professor Larcker.

Myth #6:

Boards prefer internal candidates. “While, ultimately, three quarters of newly appointed CEOs are internal executives, external candidates still hold a strong appeal for boards – especially at the start of a search,” says Mr. Miles. “Often boards aren’t given enough exposure to internal candidates, and directors are often nervous about giving an ‘untested’ executive the full reins of a company. There is a still-prevalent bias against promoting the insider ‘junior executive’ to the top spot one day. So, while the ‘myth’ may end up mostly true in the end, there is often a long journey of getting the board to that decision.”

Myth #7:

Boards want a female or minority CEO. “The numbers speak for themselves,” says Professor Larcker. “‘Diversity’ ranks high on the list of attributes that board members formally look for in CEO candidates, and yet female and ethnic minorities continue to have low representation among actual CEOs. We continue to see that boards select CEOs with leadership styles they perceive to be similar to their own, and the fact is that boards today are still highly non-diverse when it comes to gender and ethnic backgrounds.”

_______________________________________

Heidi Schwartz* joined Group C Media in April 1989 as managing editor of Today’s Facility Manager (TFM) magazine (formerly Business Interiors) where she was subsequently promoted to editor/co-publisher of the monthly trade magazine for facility management professionals. In September 2012, she took over the newly created position of internet director for TFM’s parent company, Group C Media, where she is charged with developing content and creating online strategies for TFM and its sister publication, Business Facilities.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Les priorités en gouvernance en 2014 selon Harvard Law School


Je vous propose une lecture parue dans Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, publiée par Holly J. Gregory du « Corporate Governance and Executive Compensation group » de la firme Sidley Austin LLP.

On y décrit les priorités que les conseils d’administration doivent considérer en 2014 :

Les investisseurs institutionnels

Le conseil d’administration

Les priorités

Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism...La performance de l’entreprise et l’orientation stratégique

La sélection du PCD, la rémunération, la relève

Les contrôles internes, la gestion du risque et la conformité

La préparation pour la gestion de crises

L’activisme et les relations avec le C.A.

La composition du C.A. et le leadership

Bonne lecture !

Governance Priorities for 2014

As the fallout from the financial crisis recedes and both institutional investors and corporate boards gain experience with expanded corporate governance regulation, the coming year holds some promise of decreased tensions in board-shareholder relations. With governance settling in to a “new normal,” influential shareholders and boards should refocus their attention on the fundamental aspects of their roles as they relate to the creation of long-term value.

Institutional investors and their beneficiaries, and society at large, have a decided interest in the long-term health of the corporation and in the effectiveness of its governing body. Corporate governance is likely to work best in supporting the creation of value when the decision rights and responsibilities of shareholders and boards set out in state corporate law are effectuated.

This article identifies and examines the key areas of focus that institutional investors and boards should prioritize in 2014.

Institutional Investors

  1. Apply a long-term value approach.
  2. Vote on a company-specific basis where possible.
  3. Focus on core issues.

The Board

Despite increased shareholder decision rights and influence, the board’s fundamental mandate remains to direct the affairs of the company. Key areas for boards to focus on include:

  1. Defining board priorities.
  2. Monitoring company performance and setting strategic direction.
  3. Selecting and compensating the CEO and planning for succession.
  4. Attending to internal controls, risk management and compliance.
  5. Preparing for a crisis.
  6. Engaging with shareholders and responding to shareholder activism.
  7. Determining board composition needs and leadership structure.

Board Priorities

Boards determine how to apportion their very limited time based on board responsibilities and the unique needs of the company. Each board must define the priorities that will shape its agenda and determine the information it needs to govern, driven by the needs of the business. Boards add value when they help management cope with the complex context in which the company operates, and when they support management in focusing on the long-term interests of the company and its shareholders.

Active board engagement in overseeing company performance, strategy and the culture of ethics should help to align the company’s approach to compensation, financial disclosure, internal controls, risk management and compliance. Therefore, in most circumstances the majority of board time should be reserved for matters related to company performance and strategy, and the ethical tone within the company.

Outside directors require considerable amounts of information as they get to know the business and the environment in which the company operates. Active involvement in prioritizing the agenda and defining information needs positions outside directors to provide objective guidance and judgment. The board should not leave decisions about the board agenda and information needs to management alone.

Company Performance and Strategic Direction

Challenges for boards include:

  1. Reserving appropriate time for review and discussion of company performance.
  2. Taking an active role in strategic planning while maintaining objectivity. (This is especially critical in enabling the board to assess the positions of activist shareholders versus management’s plans.)
  3. Supporting appropriate long-term investment and prudent risk-taking in the face of significant short-term pressures for immediate returns or other conflicts.
  4. Balancing guidance and support of management with objective assessment and constructive criticism.
  5. Holding management accountable for results in light of the agreed strategy by determining and applying performance benchmarks.
  6. Helping management anticipate and understand the potential for abrupt and long-term changes in the company’s economic, political and social environment.
  7. Testing key assumptions that underpin management’s proposed strategic plans and major transactions, including assumptions about risks.
  8. Maintaining appropriate deference to management on day-to- day operations without becoming unduly passive.

CEO Selection, Compensation and Succession

Challenges for boards include:

  1. Setting goals for the CEO (and other key executives) in line with corporate strategy, objectives and plans.
  2. Providing appropriate support, guidance and deference to the CEO while maintaining objectivity about performance.
  3. Designing compensation to attract and retain talent while aligning it with performance.
  4. Considering the CEO’s contributions in the context of the contributions of the broader team, an issue that will be highlighted with the new pay ratio disclosures.
  5. Discussing management development and succession planning on a regular basis, even regarding a new, young or high-performing CEO.
  6. Understanding and considering shareholder views about CEO compensation and succession without substituting those views for the board’s own objective judgment.
  7. Ensuring that company disclosures adequately communicate the board’s views and activities regarding compensation and succession planning.

Internal Controls, Risk Management and Compliance

Challenges for boards include:

  1. Ensuring that appropriate time is devoted to these key issues without becoming overly focused on controls and compliance.
  2. Using board committees efficiently to address these issues while keeping the entire board appropriately informed and involved.
  3. Remaining vigilant for red flags, which are often a series of yellow flags.
  4. Creating incentives for management to establish and maintain an appropriate control, risk management and compliance environment.
  5. Ensuring that the company has adopted appropriate standards of corporate social responsibility consistent with evolving societal expectations.
  6. Monitoring compliance with legal and ethical standards.

Preparing For Crisis

Shareholder Engagement and Activism

Board Composition and Leadership

Enhanced by Zemanta

Le développement de la relève plutôt que la planification de la succession !


Voici un très bon article, publié par  Erik Sherman dans National Center for the Middle Market, sur l’une des activités les plus difficiles … et délicates en gouvernance de sociétés et en management : le développement de la relève. Voici quelques extraits. Bonne lecture.

Tomorrow's Leaders Reception
Tomorrow’s Leaders Reception (Photo credit: United Way of the Lower Mainland)

Succession planning may sound like something a large company does, hopefully before the CEO retires. But that view misses its critical strategic need in companies of any size. In fact, when you consider the full ramifications of the concept, succession planning is as important, and maybe even more so, for a middle market company poised for growth. Whether looking for talent needed to take a company forward or even ensuring business continuity during an abrupt change in management, a mid-market business should have a comprehensive succession plan.

Succession Planning: A Secret to Ensuring Growth

Too frequently, people assume that succession is about having replacements for people in management. And that is part of it. There is no guarantee that a key person might not suddenly have an accident, become ill for an extended time, become embroiled in a distracting scandal, or receive an irresistible offer to jump ship. In those terms, it is obvious that succession planning is not only about the CEO. What if your company depends on a brilliant vice president of marketing, operations expert, or other deeply experienced person? Lose him or her and the company could sustain serious damage during a search for an adequate replacement.

Success Begins With Planning (fitnesslifecoach.wordpress.com)

Succession Planning: A Secret to Growth (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Succession planning isn’t just for big companies (business.financialpost.com)

Why leaders should create their own succession plans (holykaw.alltop.com)

Succession Planning Concerns (lawprofessors.typepad.com)

Statistiques et constats sur le processus de succession des PCD (CEO)


Ce billet présente le résumé d’une étude, produite par le Conference Board et récemment publiée sur le site de Harvard Law School Forun on Corporate Governance and Financial Régulation, laquelle fait état de la planification de la relève des PCD (CEO). L’étude intitulée CEO Succession Practices (2013 Edition) analyse les cas de rotation des PCD dans les entreprises du S&P 500. Le rapport présente les résultats en quatre sections :

Les tendances en matière de planification de la relève de 2000 à 2012 ainsi que la relation entre la performance des entreprises et le départ ou l’arrivée d’un PCD;

Les pratiques en matière de succession du PCD en 2012 : les responsabilités du conseil, le rôle du PCD démissionnaire au conseil et la nature de la divulgation aux actionnaires;

Une analyse des particularités de plusieurs cas célèbres de succession de PCD en 2012;

Divers exemples montrant comment l’activisme des actionnaires a une influence grandissante sur le processus de la planification de la relève en 2012.

Vous pouvez vous procurer une copie complète de l’étude en vous adressant à matteo.tonello@conference-board.org.

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, les principaux constats dégagés par la recherche. Bonne lecture. Vos commentaires sont appréciés.

Statistics on CEO Succession in the S&P 500

Despite steady average CEO succession rates, dismissals hit a 10-year high in 2012.

In 2012, 53 CEOs in the S&P 500 left their post. The rate of CEO succession in calendar year 2012 was 10.9 percent, consistent with the average number of annual succession announcements from 2000 through 2011. The rate of CEO dismissals varies widely across the 2000–2012 period, ranging from 40.0 percent in 2002 to 13.2 percent in 2005 (on average, 24.5 percent for the period). In 2012, 31.4 percent of all successions were non-voluntary departures, the highest rate recorded since 2003.

Companies in the services industries experienced higher than average CEO succession rates.

The rate of CEO succession had significant variation across industry groups during 2012. The services industry had a succession rate of 18.0 percent in 2012, higher than its 13-year average of 16.2 percent. By contrast, the extraction industry, which includes mining, petroleum products, and natural gas companies, had a succession rate of only 5.6 percent during 2012, lower than its 13-year average of 9.5 percent.

English: Corporate Governance
English: Corporate Governance (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Companies increasingly look outside to hire their CEOs.

In 2012, 27.1 percent of S&P 500 companies that faced a CEO succession hired an outsider for the top job. While the rate confirms a trend recorded since the 1970s, it is much higher than the 19 percent reported in 2011. This finding may suggest that there is a need to continue to strengthen companies’ leadership development practices. The heated pay-for-performance debate of the last few years has induced boards of directors to increase the rigor of the CEO selection process: the growing percentage of outsiders chosen as new CEOs may show that directors don’t always like what they find within the companies’ ranks. Moreover, a number of companies that underwent a succession event in 2012 selected a director from their own board as the new CEOs. The director-turned-CEO succession model provides companies with a chief executive who is familiar with corporate strategy and key stakeholders, thereby reducing leadership transition risk.

CEO departure may offer opportunity to reconsider board leadership model.

Only 18.8 percent of successions in 2012 involved the immediate joint appointment of an individual as CEO and chairman of the board of directors. Based on succession announcements, one-third of departing CEOs remained as board chairman for at least a brief transition period, typically until the next shareholder meeting, while several departing CEOs retained significant influence with the company as board chairman. In some cases (Iron Mountain), the succession was used as an opportunity to reconsider the board leadership structure and adopt a CEO/board chairman separation model. Alternatively, the boards of Altria Group, Boston Scientific, CA Inc., and Murphy Oil retained the expertise of the departing CEO via a consulting contract rather than a position on the board.

Formal succession process is credited for the choice of new CEO, except when the CEO is hired from outside.

Perhaps surprisingly, only 22.9 percent of succession announcements among S&P 500 companies in 2012 explicitly stated that the incoming CEO was identified through the board’s succession planning process. This is noticeably lower than the 32.4 percent of successions that referred to the succession planning process in 2011. There appears to be a link between inside promotion to the CEO position and the succession planning process—31.6 percent of announcements that mention the board’s role in the succession planning process involve an insider appointment as incoming CEO, whereas no successions that involve an outside hire reference succession planning.

Mantatory CEO retirement policies remain seldom used.

Mandatory CEO retirement policies based on age are an infrequent element of CEO succession plans. Only 11.8 percent of manufacturing companies and 8 percent of nonfinancial services companies adopt an age-based mandatory retirement policy for CEOs; the number is lower in the financial industry. The highest level of policy adoption (19.4 percent) is reported by manufacturing and nonfinancial companies with annual revenue of $20 billion or greater.

Le développement de la relève pour des postes de haute direction

Le rôle du C.A. et du PCD (CEO) dans la planification de la succession du premier dirigeant

Mieux planifier la relève du PCD (CEO)  |  Une approche systématique pour en garantir le succès ?

La planification de la relève : Une activité primordiale pour tous les C.A.

Planification de la relève du PCD et gestion des talents

More Companies Looking Outside for their Next CEO (sys-con.com)

The 2012 Chief Executive Study: Time for New CEOs – Just Released (barebrilliance.wordpress.com)

Wal-Mart CEO Succession and Replacement Plan Identified (247wallst.com)

Succession Planning (lawprofessors.typepad.com)

Mieux planifier la relève du PCD (CEO) | Une approche systématique pour en garantir le succès ?


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un article paru dans la section Boards & Governance du site de Spencer Stuart portant sur un sujet très négligé dans le domaine de la gouvernance des entreprises : La planification de la relève du PCD (CEO).

Comme environ 80% des PCD du S&P 500 sont issus de l’interne, les organisations sont dans une bien meilleure position pour planifier la relève de la haute direction, notamment celle du PCD. L’article s’interroge sur la prédictibilité du succès du PCD et énumère plusieurs facteurs qui contribuent au manque de précision dans la définition des critères de réussite :

      1. « The articulated strategy is too rooted in the present and often includes status quo assumptions, rather than taking a view of where the company needs to be in five to 10 years.
      2. The criteria for the future CEO are not based on a deep, analytical review of the company’s financial performance versus industry peers; nor are they tied to the strategic, organizational and operational levers that the next CEO will need to employ.
      3. Evaluations of succession candidates often are loose and relative to the roles executives are in today rather than mapped to the future. Complicating matters, predicting the likely success of internal succession candidates is even more challenging because the CEO role is vastly more complex than their current jobs ».

How Do You Predict CEO Success? The Case for a New Succession Planning Approach

NYC: American Intl Building and Manhattan Comp...
NYC: American Intl Building and Manhattan Company Building (Photo credit: wallyg)

Les entreprises doivent se doter d’un processus systématique de recherche et de préparation d’un successeur potentiel. L’article suggère les étapes suivantes. Veuillez lire l’article pour bieux comprendre chaque actions proposée.

■ Focuses on company performance
■ Defines criteria for the next CEO based on future performance    drivers
■ Challenges traditional assumptions about succession    candidates
■ Assesses succession candidates with a forward-looking lens

« Even as they adopt a more thoughtful succession planning process, boards should remember that no one individual can meet every requirement in equal measure; tradeoffs will be necessary. Boards will be in a better position to navigate these tradeoffs, and increase the odds of a successor coming from within, if they have defined success for the company — and the CEO — through a rigorous review of the performance of the company, its strategic imperatives and the necessary capabilities for the next CEO ».

5 Tips to Get a Head Start on Succession Planning (hiscoxusa.com)

CIO succession: Promote from within vs. hire an outsider (networkworld.com)

BDC Insight: Succession plan includes value creation (business.financialpost.com)

Succession Plans for Businesses (lawprofessors.typepad.com)

Le rôle du C.A. et du PCD (CEO) dans la planification de la succession du premier dirigeant


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.

#PPwomen level the playing field = asking. Mor...
#PPwomen level the playing field = asking. More CEOs + inclusion in succession planning. Take risks! (Photo credit: .inKenzo. evonne@amoration)

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.nothıng takes placε but thε placε . .

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 ».

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)

Les actionnaires exigent plus d’information sur le processus de planification de la relève des CEO


Excellent rapport du Conference Board sur les responsabilités du conseil d’administration en matière de planification de la relève du CEO.

 

CEO Succession Planning : Current Developments

Given the importance of the CEO role within a corporation and the potential disruption that can result from an unexpected loss or change in top leadership, succession planning is considered one of a board’s most important oversight responsibilities. This report examines recent governance developments in the area of CEO succession, including shareholder activism during the 2011 and 2012 proxy seasons, and current examples of corporate disclosure and policies.

Despite the importance of leadership succession planning to a company’s continued success, companies, up until recently, rarely disclosed information about their succession planning processes to shareholders. Investors began asking for such information by filing shareholder proposals seeking annual disclosure about succession planning.